Response paper

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education

Volume 7 | Number 1 Article 4

April 2013

Culturally Responsive Teaching For Significant Relationships Sarah Edwards University of Nebraska at Omaha, skedwards@unomaha.edu

Nancy A. Edick Ph.D. University of Nebraska at Omaha, nedick@unomaha.edu

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/jpme

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education at Digital Scholarship@UNLV. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education by an authorized editor of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact digitalscholarship@unlv.edu.

Repository Citation Edwards, Sarah and Edick, Nancy A. Ph.D. (2013) "Culturally Responsive Teaching For Significant Relationships," Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education: Vol. 7 : No. 1 , Article 4. DOI: 10.9741/2161-2978.1058 Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/jpme/vol7/iss1/4

Culturally Responsive Teaching for Significant Relationships – What Does It Look Like?

“No significant learning occurs without a significant relationship.” (James Comer)

Although Comer’s (2001) quote has inspired teachers across the country to connect with

their students, where have teachers specifically learned how to make this happen with all

students? How do we define a significant relationship? Does this relationship look the same for

a middle class child as it does for a child of poverty? In defining a significant relationship

between a teacher and a student, how are aspects such as respect, humor, communication and

comfort enacted in a classroom? Some teachers seem to have a knack for creating a welcoming

environment often referred to as a learning community but how can we help these successful

teachers know why their magic works so they can replicate it? How can other teachers learn

from these teachers who are able to form significant relationships? A key starting place is for

teacher educators to define, describe and help develop the critical elements necessary for

relationships that are essential to successful schooling. Today’s classrooms look radically

different from those of just a decade ago. As the student population becomes increasingly diverse

in terms of race, ethnicity, language, socio-economic level, teachers are challenged to meet the

academic, cultural and community needs of tomorrow’s citizen. However, the demographics of

most educator preparation programs do not reflect the diversity of the classrooms. With 84% of

our nation’s P-12 teachers coming from White backgrounds (Digest of Educational Statistics,

2011), and the percent of our nation’s students of color projected to be 39% by 2020, educator

preparation programs must consider ways to provide tools to our White teachers to adequately

meet the needs of our nation’s students. Educator preparation programs must prepare teachers to

build on student strengths and cultures to appropriately challenge and develop students who will

be competing in a rapidly changing global society. The changing dynamics of the classroom

require changes in the preparation and ongoing development of teachers. Traditionally, teacher

education programs have focused on developing teacher knowledge and skills (Brophy & Good,

1986; Daresh & Playko, 1992; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Shulman, 1986). However, research

indicates that the success of a professional educator ultimately may depend on the development

of necessary dispositions, such as caring for others, sensitivity to student differences, fairness,

and strength in making decisions and getting things done (Burden & Byrd, 2003; Cotton, 1995;

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

Grant & Gillette, 2006; Sockett, 2006; Stronge, 2002; Wildy & Louden, 2000). According to

Villegas (2007) dispositions are “tendencies for individuals to act in a particular manner under

particular circumstances, based on their beliefs” (p. 373). To develop teachers who are prepared

to meet the challenges of today’s classrooms, teachers must engage in ongoing critical reflection

and learning in order to create a productive learning environment that meets the needs of all

students.

Teacher education programs must embrace the challenge of developing programs that are

not only pedagogically responsive to the needs of the increasingly diverse students in our

nation’s classrooms, but are culturally responsive to their needs as well (Irvine, 2003). Culturally

responsive teaching provides the pathway for teachers to connect with all students for academic

success. This idea is firmly supported by scholars such as Ladson-Billings (1992; 2009) who

describes culturally relevant teaching and Gay (2010) who discusses culturally responsivelevant

teaching. Gay (2000) suggests developing the potential of diverse students by exploring both the

academic and psychosocial abilities of the students through an approach described as culturally

responsive teaching. Culturally responsive teaching ensures that educators engage students by

teaching subject matter in meaningful ways, connecting it to students’ lives (Villegas & Lucas,

2007). The three propositions of a culturally responsive teacher include conception of self and

others, social relations, and conceptions of knowledge (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Through

culturally responsive teaching students (a) “experience academic success, (b) develop and/or

maintain cultural competence, and (c) develop a critical consciousness” (Ladson-Billings, 2009,

p. 160). Further, she explains that “teachers who are prepared to help students become culturally

competent are themselves culturally competent; they know enough about students’ culture and its

role in education (teaching and learning), takees responsibility for learning about students’

culture and community, use student culture as a basis for learning, and promote a flexible use of

students’ local and global culture. Additionally the teachers exhibit sociopolitical consciousness

that involve knowledge of the larger sociopolitical context of the school, community, nation, and

world” (2001, p. 98).

Although a growing body of research discusses the need for culturally responsive

teaching, what does it look like in the classroom and how do we provide specifically examples

for implementation? Educator preparation programs are continually in search of strategies to

facilitate teachers through “the process of knowing themselves, discovering one another, and

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

constructing their own thoughts and beliefs about society” Gallavan, 2005, p. 35). However,

because of the mismatch between our culturally diverse students and our “culturally insular”

(Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996) teachers, educator preparation must consider the issues of

culturally responsive teaching for teacher candidates. In considering how culturally responsive

teachers form these significant relationships, four principles frame the process: interaction,

accommodation, ownership, and opportunity. These four principles are closely aligned with

concepts found in the literature (Ladson-Billings,2009; Nieto, 1999; Noddings, 2001; Gallavan

& Webster-Smith, 2012) that suggest educators move beyond tokenistic practices such as ethnic

festivals and foods toward a “transformative approach,” a more comprehensive, sustained

approach that occurs at the personal and institutional levels (Banks, 2009). The four principles:

interaction, accommodation, ownership and opportunity are connected in that they form a

hierarchy where each serves as a building block for the others (Edwards, 2011). The initial step

of interaction is followed by accommodation which enables ownership to occur. When

interaction, accommodation and ownership have occurred, opportunity is possible.

Interaction

Most teachers will agree that getting to know students is important for effective teaching

and learning. When a teacher knows his/her students well, he/she can go beyond the idea of

‘treating others the way you’d like to be treated’ and toward a more responsive practice of

‘treating others they way they’d like to be treated.’ Interaction requires multiple methods for

gaining knowledge from students and their families.

Get to Know Them

The first step in developing significant relationships with students is to interact with

students to get to know them both academically and personally. Interaction is key, as it provides

both a channel for the teacher to understand student motivations and a means for the teacher to

show respect for students and their worlds. As soon as a teacher begins to ask how to teach

“each student” rather than asking how to teach “students” then he/she begins to move toward a

more interactive classroom. A simple, yet often overlooked first step for teacher preparation

programs is to expect teacher candidates to learn the names of every student in the field

placement classrooms as well as a minimum of three interests, hobbies or bits of information

about each student. Expecting and measuring teacher candidate knowledge of student names

provides an indication of the teacher candidate’s interest in interacting with students. Interactions

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

start with names.

Asking questions of the students and listening to the answers without judgment is the

foundation of creating caring communities that support both learning and social development

(Noddings, 2001). Creating this type of welcoming classroom environment determines “whether

the majority of students learn anything at all” (Wilson & Corbett, 2001, p. 42). Getting to know

students enables teachers to form relationships with students, families and caregivers to discover

what “funds of knowledge” the families have to offer both the student and the classroom (Moll,

Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez, 1992). The ultimate goal of this type of communication is to allow

students and their families to become involved in collaboratively designing the educational

experience. Increased student and family participation leads to increased student achievement

(Deslandes, Royer, Turchotte, & Bertrand, 1997; Lee, 1994) and fewer disciplinary problems

(Eccles, Early, Frasier, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997; Weinstein, Curran, & Tomlinson-Clarke,

2003).

Culturally responsive teachers use learning style inventories such as the Dunn, Dunn, and

Price Learning Style Inventory (2000) which enable teachers and students to see preferences for

learning. In addition to formal learning style inventories, interactive teachers use informal

inventories to tap into student interests. Creating lessons based on the inventories shows respect

for the students, an important element in building significant relationships. In addition to asking

students to identify their interests, cultures and goals for learning, culturally responsive teachers

ask families for input. Families are most likely to become involved in school matters when they

receive specific academic invitations (Deslandes & Bertrand, 2003). Therefore, culturally

responsive teachers regularly interact with families in completing assignments and activities.

Asking a parent to compose a story with a student or asking a parent to suggest reading materials

for his/her son/daughter honors the family’s role in the education of their student (Edwards,

2001). Sharing these types of specific examples helps teacher candidates to see what is meant by

interacting with students and families.

Interpreting and Responding to Behaviors

A second area of interaction is interpreting and responding to behaviors of the students,

both as individuals and as members of a classroom. A teacher must not assume student defines

him/herself by visible groups. Rather, the teacher is best able to learn how the student sees

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

themself by listening to the student and carefully observing behaviors. A teacher may

mistakenly assume that an Asian student is avoiding eye contact because it is his/her culture

when in fact the student may not follow that cultural rule at all. Although many teachers are

familiar with the idea of addressing the specific behavior and not addressing the person, this idea

of carefully interpreting and then responding is critical for culturally responsive teaching.

Interpreting and responding to behaviors rather than making assumptions is important for

many reasons. Cary (2000) suggests second language learning students are sometimes shy and

quiet in class as they listen to conversations to learn the language. If a teacher repeatedly calls

on a student exhibiting these behaviors the teacher may incorrectly assume the student doesn’t

know the answer or doesn’t want to participate in the class. In a different instance, a student who

speaks out loud when the teacher is speaking may be seen as disrespectful. Gay (2010) reported

the mismatch of interaction styles between some white middle-class teachers and some African

American students. Some African American students speak using a communication style that

shows agreement or takes issue with the teacher’s comments while the teacher is speaking. This

personal assertiveness is common in a call response communication pattern seen in many

African American students (Obidah and Teel, 2001). In these two instances, a teacher could

incorrectly assume one student is non-responsive and the other is rude rather than questioning,

correctly interpreting, and responding to the specific behaviors. As members of a classroom,

students look to us to model and discuss real cultural differences rather than visible physical

characteristics.

Culturally responsive teachers interpret and respond to behaviors as indicators of culture

rather than make assumptions in classroom management issues. Teacher candidates must have

multiple opportunities to see teachers responding to behaviors. Rather than asking students for

an off-hand response to a question and then dealing with the myriad of student responds, the

teacher models and teaches the expected behaviors prior to a class discussion. Teacher

candidates often want to guide classroom discussions but often only plan for what they want to

discuss- not how the discussion will be structured. For example, a teacher may bring a prop,

such as a football, as a physical reminder of the participation expectations. Students must hold

the football to have the power to participate. Students wanting to talk may hold out their hands

to catch the football. If a student is given the football he/she does not need to talk and can pass it

on to another student. The teacher does not talk without holding the football. Culturally

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

responsive teachers teach expected behaviors such as this and reinforce them as the discussion

continues. Because the rules of participation are clearly set, the teacher can then respond to

specific behaviors that do not match the rules of participation rather than assuming a quiet

student has nothing to offer and a vocal student is being rude. Teacher preparation programs

must help teacher candidates develop procedures, such as this example for a classroom

discussion, that will help them focus on interpreting and responding to behaviors rather than

making assumptions about students.

Accommodation

In addition to interaction, accommodating student needs is a crucial part of culturally

responsive teaching. After teachers get to know the students and their families, the next step in

developing a significant relationship is to meet students’ needs and create learning situations that

will take their achievement to the next level. When teachers use knowledge about their students’

and families’ social, cultural, and language background when planning and implementing

instruction, the academic achievement of students can increase (Banks et al., 2005).

See Difference

Critical to valuing individuals is seeing the differences that exist and accepting the

multiple realities of the students. If teachers do not perceive each student as a unique individual

they are likely to treat all of the students the same which discounts actual differences. The

ability to teach from the perspective that each student is unique allows the teacher to capitalize

on the knowledge, skills and beliefs that each student brings to the classroom. The result is an

enriched classroom that accommodates and celebrates individual differences.

Delpit (1995) reminds us that not seeing difference can be a dangerous approach to the

classroom as it ignores real differences between and among people. There has been a shift in

education away from thinking about how various cultures differ from the norm and toward

thinking about how “diversity and difference are central to the classroom endeavor and central to

the focus of quality teaching” (Alton-Lee, 2003, 7). Culturally responsive teachers see people as

individuals with a variety of cultural influences. Because our own cultural backgrounds “define

our ways of being, knowing, and doing” (Protheroe & Barsdate, 1991, 3), it is often difficult for

teachers to think outside of their own culture which is why it is important for teachers to seek to

accommodate students by asking their perspective. Teacher preparation programs must help

teacher candidates learn to work with individual students rather than to generalize attributes to

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

groups of students.

Provide Choice

The second area of accommodation as a means of developing significant relationships is

in providing choice for students. When the teacher knows students as individuals the teacher can

focus on student centered learning. Giving the students choice provides the opportunity for

students to select material and tasks with which they most identify. The most important

component in choice is the opportunity to acknowledge that there are multiple sources of

authority, knowledge and experience outside of the traditionally espoused ones. In other words,

the teacher is not the only acknowledged source of information. In this way students are helping

to construct their own educational experience by deciding on the validity of alternative choices.

Tomlinson (2005) suggests modifying instruction and curriculum to meet the needs of

students. Culturally responsive teachers adjust curriculum and student grouping practices

because they know that differentiation impacts student achievement of standards (Tieso, 2005).

Differentiating materials allows students to select works and activities that draw upon each

student’s strengths and culture rather than asking each student to assume a single perspective.

Using flexible grouping or tiered activities (Tomlinson, 2005) allow students to work either

alone or with students who have similar or complimentary strengths. Asking students to show

learning through a variety of products, results in formative and summative assessments that

provide meaningful and accurate data for student learning and reflective teaching practice.

One way culturally responsive teachers provide choice is through thematic or multigenre

teaching (Romano, 2000). With differentiated materials, processes and products the students can

make personally meaningful connections with the objectives and standards (Edwards, 2003).

Multigenre reading and writing bring in content through various forms such as poetry, narratives,

research reports, newspaper reports and blogs. Students are asked to process the information via

these resources and then produce their own selection of writing from a menu of formats such as

journals, prose, executive summaries or letters. While the content and standards remain the same

for everyone, how the information is processed is individualized. Critical literacy (Cadeiro-

Kaplan, 2002), such as multigenre reading and writing exercises, allow students to recognize

how language has inherent power and is not neutral and therefore should be pulled apart,

examined, and carefully constructed rather than blindly reproduced.

Ownership

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

Teachers capitalizing on interactions and accommodations are now able to move toward

the third area of using culturally responsive teaching which builds significant relationships in the

classroom: ownership. Students who feel their teacher knows them both academically and

personally are now poised to take ownership of their own learning. Teacher preparation

programs must provide teacher candidates with opportunities to reflect on how their students not

only learned because of the teacher candidate, but how the student took ownership of his/her own

learning to do so.

Learn from each other

When students take ownership of their own learning, they have more

opportunities than if they rely solely on the teacher. This approach empowers students

and reinforces the message that education is ultimately the student’s own responsibility in

the sense that the students are the ones constructing the knowledge and controlling the

environment. When students learn from each other through both formal and informal

means, they no longer view the teacher as the keeper of the knowledge, but as the

facilitator who helps the students develop their own ideas of how to live in and transform

their world, thus developing independence rather than dependence.

Student-centered learning that is cooperative, collaborative and community-

oriented allows for a socially medicated process (Vygotsky, 1978) that reminds students

that learning does not occur in a vacuum but must be interpreted by the participants in the

context of culture (Mercer, 1995). Students denied opportunities to learn from each

other’s multiple perspectives are denied the opportunity to develop as critical thinkers

and instead undergo a process of “education for stupidification” (Macedo, 1994) which

trains students to look for one accepted answer rather than to develop tools of critical

citizenship. Sheets (1999) suggests that students not included in this type of classroom

community fail to succeed in school more often than those students who feel they are

connected to each other and to the classroom. Academic achievement grows as students

take ownership of their learning and utilize other students, their life experiences, and their

diverse ideas and perspectives to practice and refine their skills in a safe, supportive

environment (Maloch, 2004).

Culturally responsive teachers encourage students to take ownership of their

learning through purposeful strategies such as cooperative learning groups (Padron,

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

Waxman, & Rivera, 2002), book clubs or literature circles (Daniels, 2002), and student-

directed discussion groups (Brisk & Harrington, 2000). O’Connor and Michaels (1993)

suggest teachers use strategies such as “revoicing” where the teacher uses a

conversational strategy to help the student participate in educational debate. Taking

student ideas and framing the ideas in an academic format shows students how to gain

access into academic discussions. This type of modeling, for example, takes a student

who is angry about a school dress code policy and teaches him/her how to express his/her

opinion in a school appropriate way. Ownership cultivates the social and academic skills

necessary for active, engaged citizenship.

Build on Family Knowledge

Essential to establishing a sense of ownership is incorporating work with families and the

communities. These partnerships model for students that their community and the world are part

of concentric circles that function interdependently. Culturally responsive teachers create

learning that is in response to student cultures which are often reflected in the family. When

learning builds upon and reflects a student’s culture, the student owns the learning. This

ownership of learning impacts student motivation, parental beliefs about the role of the school,

and student achievement.

August and Shanahan (2006) suggest teachers connect to families to make meaningful

experiences since learning is often a result of academic and home experiences. Teachers must

consider the cultural differences that may exist between the school and the families (Trumbull,

Rothstein-Fisch, Greenfield, & Quiroz, 2001) in creating meaningful experiences that build on

family knowledge. Tapping into family “funds of knowledge” results in better student

achievement (Moll, Amanti, Neff & Gonzalez, 1992). Family involvement does not need to be

characterized as either ‘parents as resources’ where families are involved in fund-raising and

chaperoning field trips or as ‘parents as empty vessels’ where families are defined by what they

can’t do, such as provide a dedicated space which includes Internet access for homework

(Lightfoot, 2004).

Epstein, Sanders, Simon, Salinas, Jansorn & VanVoorhis (2003) suggest a framework for

working with all families that includes requesting family support for both specific tasks as well

as classroom support and integrating resources from the family and community into student

learning. In addition to newsletters and school conferences, teachers can use surveys and

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

assessments to determine what the families expect from the teacher and the school. Touring

student neighborhoods and community gathering places to identify local resources helps the

teacher get a better picture of ways to incorporate ‘funds of knowledge’ into the classroom. For

example, having students research their cultural backgrounds provides cultural information for

the teacher and engages the student in learning from his/her family experience. Another way to

build on family knowledge is to have students write a family narrative where each member of the

family provides a perspective to the same story (Rees, 2000).

Opportunity

Culturally responsive teaching relies on a solid pattern of interaction, accommodation and

ownership so that students feel comfortable working together, knowing their opinions will be

valued, and expressing themselves in multiple ways. When these elements are in place, students

can challenge perceptions and reflect on their learning, thus creating opportunities that otherwise

might not be realized. When students begin to do this type of higher order thinking that asks

them to synthesize and evaluate, opportunity is created.

Trust the community

Opportunity requires trust in a classroom that builds through a history of interactions

between and among students and the teacher. For a meaningful relationship to occur, the

students must be able to see the classroom as a community where there is a need to care about

each other and to acknowledge that the members are all in a struggle together. This does not

mean everyone is operating on the same task at the same time, but that a community of learners

means that each person is working toward his/her personal best.

Until there is an honest consideration on the part of the teacher and the student of how

each student fits into the classroom community and the larger community, the student will have

no real ownership of his/her education (Klem and Connell, (2004) and without this vested

interest the opportunity for students to consider the ‘so what’ of a lesson is limited. The students

must know that the teacher will give challenging and meaningful learning opportunities to

maintain a standard of quality and trust. A teacher must be trusted to provide a supportive

classroom so students will engage in taking risks, both academically and socially (Ennis and

McCauley, 2002). Furrer and Skinner (2003) suggest that students who can trust the classroom

community feel a sense of belonging which supports students’ enthusiasm, interest, and a

willingness to participate in classroom activities. Raider-Roth (2005) support this idea and

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

suggest that a trusting community promotes student growth and achievement.

To create a community of trust where opportunity exists, the first thing that must be

examined is a heavy reliance on seatwork (Baker, 1999). Students must engage with the teacher

and other students to form relationships. Teachers must initiate tasks and interactions to entice

students to participate creating an environment where students tend to share the knowledge that

they believe is acceptable (Moje, 1996). Therefore, strategies such as having students check

their answers with a peer before answering to the large group may encourage students to take

risks and participate in a classroom discussion. A trusting community is also created when the

teacher works with individuals patiently and deliberately rather than quickly providing a correct

answer. Time spent with a student shows authenticity and sincerity which also helps to develop

a significant relationship.

Teach Reflection

Once students are comfortable taking risks, they must learn how to analyze and reflect

upon their own thinking. Teaching is culturally responsive when students can explain the

process of what and why they believe a certain thing to be important. The student comes to

understand there is a process for discerning what someone believes to be accurate and true. A

student who reflects honestly and frequently has practice looking for motivations, seeing

connections between circumstances, thoughts and behaviors and can therefore have a better

understanding of someone else’s perceptions and ideas. Teaching students to reflect on their

thinking creates opportunity for students to better understand both their culture and the role it

plays in society.

Opportunity is created when culturally responsive teachers use lessons to allow students

to consider questions and concepts to examine the intersect of cultures. For example, one

teacher may develop lessons around historical events such as the Civil Rights Movement to

consider the power inequities of society and through opportunity, help students develop a critical

understanding of their place as individuals in a classroom as well as in a larger social picture

(Freire, 1998). Metacognition, or the awareness a student has of his/her own learning allows the

students to think about their thinking. This process of considering one’s own thinking also

allows the student to evaluate moral and ethical issues (Niemi, 2002).

Teaching students how to engage in reflection is critical to developing problem solving

skills that are the gateway to opportunities. Encouraging students to question their perceptions

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

leads to a critical examination of facts and ideas. One model for teaching reflection is based in

the three-level process used to analyze an event (Carter, 1991). The student is first asked to

describe the event to identify and outline the specific event to be considered. The student then

analyzes the event by finding sources to identify aspects, illustrate ideas, or deconstruct the event.

After the first two steps of this process are complete the student can then use metacognitive

strategies to consider the ‘so what’ of the event in an evaluation stage. This three step process is

one of many ways students can analyze their thinking. Most importantly, in order for

opportunity to occur, culturally responsive teachers must create lessons that allow students to

reflect on their learning and to put it into a larger context.

Conclusion

Understanding culturally responsive teaching and being able to recognize and

implement the principles of interaction, accommodation, ownership and opportunity in

order to build significant relationships is essential for preparing teachers for pluralistic

schools and classrooms. As Gallavan & Webster-Smith (2012) point out, “The further

one travels on the journey of cultural competence, the more chances one has to

experience the power of momentum that increases the prospects of self-efficacy in terms

of believing that one can become increasingly culturally competent.” Culturally

responsive teaching is effective teaching, and effective teaching addresses the academic

success, cultural competence and critical consciousness of students. The goal for the

culturally responsive teacher is not to create individualized instruction for each student

for every learning task but to be aware of when a student is not able to learn because of a

cultural barrier (Delpit, 1995). As Stewart (2007) suggests, the world of today’s student

is far different from the one of just ten years ago. With an economy where currently one

in every five jobs is tied to global trade (U.S. Census Bureau, 2004) our nation’s

education system is challenged to prepare students to for an increasingly global society.

In order to engage in this ever-changing world, students must be critical thinkers who can

work with others to incorporate multiple perspectives and teacher preparation programs

must take the lead in making this happen.

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

References

Alton-Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis.

Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Ministry of Education. Retrieved May 27, 2008,

from http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/downloads/best-quality-

teaching-diverse.pdf

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.) (2006, May). Developing literacy in second-language

learners: A report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and

Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Executive summary retrieved May

22, 2008, from http://www.cal.org/natl-lit-panel/index.html

Baker, J.A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior,

relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. Elementary School Journal,

100(1), 57-70.

Banks, J. A. (2009). Teaching strategies for ethnic studies (8 th

ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and

Bacon.

Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage, P., et al (2005).

Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransfords (Eds.), Preparing

teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp 232-

274). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Brisk, M. E., & Harrington, M. M. (2000). Literacy and bilingualism: A handbook for all

teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3 rd

ed.) (pp. 28-375). Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Burden, P. R., & Byrd, D. M. (2003). Methods of effective teaching. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Cadeiro-Kaplan, K. (2002). Literacy ideologies: Critically engaging the language arts curriculum.

Language Arts, 79, 372-381.

Carter, K. (1991). Preservice teachers' well-remembered events and the acquisition of

eventstructured knowledge. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational

Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Cary, S. (2000). Working with second language learners: Answers to teachers top ten questions.

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Comer, J. P. 2001. Schools that develop children. The American Prospect 12 (7): 30-35.

Cotton, K. (1995). Effective schooling practices: A research synthesis 1995 update.

Retrieved May 29, 2003, from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/esp/esp95.html

Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading groups.

Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Daresh, J. C., & Playko, M. A. (1992). What do beginning leaders need? Aspiring and

practicing principals’ perceptions of critical skills for novice administrators. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San

Francisco, California.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New

York Press.

Deslandes, R., & Bertrand, R. (2003). Raisons qui motivent les parents a participer au suivi

scolaire de leur enfant du primaire. [Reasons that motivate parents to be involved in

their child’s schooling at the elementary level]. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Turchotte, D., & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at the

secondary level: Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill

Journal of Education, 32, (3), 191-208

Digest of Educational Statistics (2011). National center for education statistics.

Dunn, R., Dunn, K., & Price, G. (2000). Learning style inventory grades 3-12. Lawrence, KS:

Price Systems.

Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of

connection, regulation, and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 12, 263-286.

Edwards, S. (2001). Bridging the gap: Connecting school and community with service learning.

English Journal, 90, (5), 39-44.

Edwards, S. (2003). Multigenre Teaching as Student Empowerment. English Leadership

Quarterly, 25, (4), 2-6.

Edwards, S. (2011). Developing diversity dispositions for white culturally responsive teachers.

Teacher Education Yearbook XX Valuing Diversity that is Honest, Natural, Authentic,

and Holistic: Cultural Competence in P-12 Classrooms, Schools and Higher Education,

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

33 (5-6), 493-508.

Ennis, C.D., & McCauley, M.T. (2002). Creating urban classroom communities worthy of trust.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34, 2, 149-172.

Epstein, J. L., Sanders, M.G., Simon, B. S., Salinas, K. C., Jansorn, N. R., & VanVoorhis, F. L.

(2003). School, family, and community partnerships (2 nd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Feiman-Nemser, S. & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In The teacher

educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New revised 20 th

Anniversary ed.). NY: Contiuum

Publishing Co.

Gallavan,, N.P. (2005). Helping teachers unpack their ‘invisible knapsacks’. Multicultural

Education, 13(1), 36-39.

Gallavan, N.P. & Webster-Smith, A. (2012). Cultural competence and the recursive nature of

conscientization. Action in Teacher Education, 34 (5-6), 401-419.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.

Grant, C. A., & Gillette, M. (2006). A candid talk to teacher educators about effectively

preparing teachers who can teach everyone’s children. Journal of Teacher Education,

57(3), 292-299.

Irvine, J.J (2003), Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York:

Teachers College Press.

Klem, A.M., & Connell, J.P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student

engagement and achievement. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-273.

Ladson-Billings, B. (1992). Reading between the lines and beyond the pages: A culturally

relevant approach to literacy teaching. Theory Into Practice, 31, 312-320.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American

children. (2 nd

ed.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan” The journey of new teachers in diverse

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

classrooms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Lee, S. (1994). Family-school connections and students’ education: Continuity and change of

family involvement from the middle grades to high school. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.

Lightfoot, D. (2004). Some parents just don’t care: Decoding the meanings of parental

involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39, (1), 91-107.

Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of power: What Americans are not allowed to know. Boulder, CO:

Westview.

Moje, E.B. (1996). I teach students, not subjects: Teacher-student relationships as contexts for

secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(2), 172-195.

Maloch, B. (2004). On the road to literature discussion groups: Teacher scaffolding during

preparatory experiences. Reading Research and Instruction, 44, (2) 1-20.

Mercer, N. (1995). The guided construction of knowledge: Talk among teachers and learners.

Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Moll, L., Amanti, C. Neff, D. & Gonzalez, N.(1992) Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a

qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 2, 132-

141.

Niemi, H. (2002). Active learning--a cultural change needed in teacher education and schools.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 763-780.

Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Noddings, N. (2001). The caring teacher. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on

Teaching (4 th

ed.) (pp. 99-105). Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Obidah, J. E., & Manheim Teel, K. (2001). Because of the kids: Facing racial and cultural

differences in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

O’Conner, M. C. & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation status through

revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse stategy. Anthropology and Education

Quarterly, 24, 4, 318-335.

Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., & Rivera, H. H. (2002). Educating Hispanic students: Effective

instructional practices (Practitioner Brief #5). Retrieved May 27, 2008,

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4

http://www.cal.org/crede/Pubs/PracBrief5.htm

Protheroe, N., & Barsdate, K. (1991). What we know about: Culturally sensitive instruction and

student learning. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.

Raider-Roth, M.B. (2005). Trusting what you know: Negotiating the relational context of

classroom life. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 587-628Rees, S. (2000). Connecting

families through literature: A true multicultural experience. Paper presented at the 13 th

annual meeting of the LRC Graduate Student Colloquy, February 23 rd

, Tucson, AZ.

Romano, T. (2000). Blending Genre, Altering Style: Writing Multigenre Papers. Portsmouth,

NH: Boynton/Cook; Heinemann.

Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). Research on teacher performance criteria. In B.O. Smith

(Ed.), Research in teacher education: A symposium. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Sheets, R. (1999). Relating competence in an urban classroom to ethnic identity development. In

R. Sheets (Ed.), Racial and ethnic identity in school practices: Aspects of human

development. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational

Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Skinner, E.A., & Belmont, M.J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of

teacher behavior and student engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4),

571-581.

Sockett, H. (Ed.). (2006). Teacher dispositions: Building a teacher education framework of

moral standards. Washington, DC: AACTE Publications.

Stewart, V. (2007). Becoming citizens of the world. Educational Leadership, 64, 7, 8-14.

Stronge, J. H. (2002). Qualities of effective teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tieso, C. (2005). The effects of grouping practices and curricular adjustments on achievement.

Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, (1), 60-89.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2005). How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2 nd

ed).

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Trumball, E., Rothstein-Fisch, C., Greenfield, P. M. & Quiroz, B. (2001). Bridging cultures

between home and school: A guide for teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Edwards and Edick: Significant Relationships

U.S. Census Bureau. (2004). Table 2. In exports from manufacturing establishments: 2001 (p.8).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership,

64(6), 28-33.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M.

Cole, et al., eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weinstein, C., Curran, M., Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2003). Culturally responsive classroom

management: Awareness into action. Theory into Practice, 42, (4), 269-276.

Wildy, H., & Louden, W. (2000). School restructuring and the dilemmas of principals’

work. Educational Management & Administration, 28(2), 173-184.

Wilson, B. L., & Corbett, H. D. (2001). Listening to urban kids: School reform and the teachers

they want. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, Vol. 7, No. 1 [2012], Art. 4