Article questions

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hedp20

Educational Psychologist

ISSN: 0046-1520 (Print) 1532-6985 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hedp20

Weaving Cultural Relevance and Achievement Motivation Into Inclusive Classroom Cultures

Revathy Kumar, Akane Zusho & Rhonda Bondie

To cite this article: Revathy Kumar, Akane Zusho & Rhonda Bondie (2018) Weaving Cultural Relevance and Achievement Motivation Into Inclusive Classroom Cultures, Educational Psychologist, 53:2, 78-96, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361

Published online: 13 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 386

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Weaving Cultural Relevance and Achievement Motivation Into Inclusive Classroom Cultures

Revathy Kumar , 1 Akane Zusho ,

2 and Rhonda Bondie

3

1 Judith Herb College of Education, University of Toledo 2 Graduate School of Education, Fordham University 3 Graduate School of Education, Harvard University

Despite shifting demographic trends, research on motivation generally remains focused on

European American, middle-class, educated samples, calling into question its utility and

overall generalizability. Thus, the overarching purpose of this article is to increase the

practical and cultural relevance of motivational research. Specifically, we review four key

principles of motivation—meaningfulness, competence, autonomy, and relatedness—and

unpack how they align with the research on culturally responsive and relevant education.

Ultimately our goal is to emphasize the importance of interdisciplinary research and to

demonstrate how the principles of culturally responsive education are instantiated in

motivationally supportive classrooms where teachers are more culturally sensitive and create

an environment where cultural differences are appreciated and valued.

Motivation is a construct that helps to explain why individu-

als choose to approach or avoid a task, and once engaged

whether they put in effort and persist or simply quit. Motiva-

tional scholars define achievement motivation as that which

influences the initiation, direction, magnitude, perseverance,

continuation, and quality of goal-directed academic behavior

(Ames, 1992; Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Weiner, 1974). Con-

temporary theories of achievement motivation are primarily

social-cognitive in nature; thus, they all assume that motiva-

tion can be assessed through students’ reports of their beliefs

and perceptions, as well as through their behaviors, including

choice of activities, level and quality of task engagement,

persistence, and performance (Maehr & Zusho, 2009). A sig-

nificant goal of the research on achievement motivation is to

build empowering and inclusive learning communities that

promote the learning of all students. This goal is evident in

the research on motivationally facilitative classrooms, which

largely demonstrates the positive impact of an autonomy-

supportive, mastery-oriented learning climate (Reeve &

Cheon, 2014; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006). The recent

wave of motivational intervention research shows how rela-

tively brief and simple interventions can enhance learning

outcomes, particularly for first-generation and/or students of

color (e.g., Harackiewicz, Canning, Tibbets, Priniski, &

Hyde, 2016).

Despite these contributions to the literature on learning,

and its general focus on promoting learning for all, the

motivational literature has come under some scrutiny. Sev-

eral scholars note that despite shifting demographic trends,

there is a relative dearth of motivational research that

focuses explicitly on the racialized experiences of students

of color (DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014; Wood & Graham,

2010; Zusho, Daddino, & Garcia, 2016). However, recent

reviews show that scholars are becoming increasingly

attentive to how culture and ethnicity impact motivational

processes, but there remains less focus on issues related to

race such as oppression and prejudice (DeCuir-Gunby &

Schutz, 2014; R. King & McInerney, 2014; Kumar &

Maehr, 2010; Zusho & Clayton, 2011).

Concurrently, research in education is advancing our

understanding of schooling experiences of racially and eth-

nically diverse youth (e.g., Banks, 1997, 2016; Darling-

Hammond, 2006; Gay, 2010, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1995,

2014; Sleeter, 2011). For example, issues related to race are

paramount to understanding the schooling experiences of

African American and Latinx students in culturally-respon-

sive and -relevant education (CRRE). Nevertheless, the

CRRE literature could be equally scrutinized for its singular

focus on students of color, as well as for ignoring the exten-

sive theoretical and empirical literatures on achievement

Correspondence should be addressed to Revathy Kumar, Judith Herb

College of Education, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft Street, MS

#921, Toledo, OH 43606-3390. E-mail: [email protected]

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 53(2), 78–96, 2018

Copyright � Division 15, American Psychological Association ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online

DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361

motivation despite many shared assumptions about learn-

ing. In comparison to the research on motivation, the empir-

ical research on CRRE is predominantly qualitative in

nature, limiting the scope of some of its claims.

Accordingly, this article proposes to bridge the litera-

ture on achievement motivation with the research on

CRRE. Specifically, by highlighting the points of intersec-

tion between these disparate yet connected streams of

research, we demonstrate how the principles of motivation

can be instantiated in classrooms where teachers are more

culturally sensitive and create an environment where cul-

tural differences are appreciated and valued. To increase

the practical relevance of our analysis and promote further

integration of motivational frameworks with one another,

we consider the motivational processes of underrepre-

sented, racially, and ethnically diverse students across the

dominant social-cognitive theories of motivation (e.g.,

expectancy-value theory, achievement goal theory, self-

determination theory, self-efficacy theory, and interest

theory). We utilize CRRE research as a road map to

inform the cultural relevance of motivation research by

dissecting areas of divergence.

Our analysis comes with a few caveats. First, the

research on CRRE focuses predominantly on the schooling

experiences of American students of color, specifically

African American and Latinx students. Thus, in comparing

the existing research on motivation with the research on

CRRE, we recognize that our analysis may be limited in

terms of its generalizability. We maintain, however, that

issues of discrimination and prejudice, which are at the

heart of the research on CRRE, are not unique to American

culture (see Ketner, Buitelaar, & Bosma, 2004; Magos,

2006; Timmermans, Kuyper, & van der Werf, 2015;

Van den Bergh, Denessen, Hornstra, Voeten, & Holland,

2010; Verkuyten, 2014). We further maintain that by juxta-

posing the CRRE with achievement motivation literatures,

we may be better positioned to advance our understanding

of how culture impacts learning. The CRRE literature is

arguably more focused on how macrolevel historical and

sociopolitical issues impact the day-to-day schooling expe-

riences of historically marginalized youth. By bridging

these literatures, it is our intent to demonstrate that culture

is not just “out there” in the macrosystem but an integral

part of the microsystems of all youth.

Second, given our goal of providing an integrative

review, it is equally important to note that what follows is

not meant to be a comprehensive review of the literatures

of achievement motivation and CRRE. As with the research

on motivation, there exist multiple frameworks of CRRE.

Our analysis, therefore, draws on the works of Ladson-Bill-

ings (1995, 2014) on culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP),

and Gay (2010) on culturally responsive teaching (CRT), as

well as the broader research on multicultural education

when necessary, including cultural sustaining pedagogy

(Paris & Alim, 2014). Accordingly, for those readers

interested in a more detailed analysis of CRRE, we recom-

mend Aronson and Laughter (2016), as well as the schol-

arly works of Ladson-Billings (1995, 2000, 2006), Gay

(2000, 2010), Cochran-Smith (2004), Darling-Hammond

(2006), Milner (2011), Villegas (2002), and Zeichner

(2014). Similarly, we direct the interested reader to other

more comprehensive reviews of achievement motivation

(e.g., Elliot, Dweck, & Yaeger, 2017; Linnenbrink-Garcia

& Patall, 2016).

Our article is organized around Table 1, which summa-

rizes our major claims. We begin by briefly operationaliz-

ing “culture” and associated constructs such as race and

ethnicity. We then provide a comparative analysis of four

main principles of motivation, namely, meaningfulness,

competence, autonomy, and relatedness. We frame our

analysis using these specific principles of motivation

because, like Turner (2014), we believe that it allows for

the identification of cross-cutting themes across frame-

works. Although the research on CRRE often implicates

motivational processes, it rarely points specifically to the

extensive theoretical literature on motivation. It is our hope

that our analysis spurs research around key motivational

constructs using a common language. We also aim to iden-

tify the shared and unshared understanding of the constructs

between CRRE and achievement motivation to illuminate

strengths and weaknesses that may prove useful in expand-

ing and improving the quality of research in both fields. We

conclude with a discussion of future directions.

CULTURE: LEARNING IN CONTEXT

Culture is a construct that is not easily defined, despite

general agreement about its importance in explaining

human behavior. The anthropologists Kroeber and Kluck-

hohn (1952) famously identified more than 160 definitions

of culture, and the number of definitions continues to grow

(Condon & LaBrack, 2015). The difficulty in defining cul-

ture can be attributed to the diversity of perspectives on the

topic, further complicated by the introduction of the term

into the vernacular (see Condon & LaBrack, 2015; Zusho

& Clayton, 2011). Is culture internal, external, or both? Is it

rooted in time and/or place, or does it change? Is it some-

thing that one can own? Is it something that is observable,

and if so, what are indicators of it?

We define culture in this article as the framework for

human life that consists of people collectively using all the

resources in their environment to achieve; is a part of all

human groups; is learned, shared, and regulated by politi-

cal, legal, and social systems; is socially transmitted; repre-

sents both external (observable behaviors) and internal

(inferred traits) aspects of an individual; and is an abstrac-

tion of people’s knowledge and beliefs about themselves,

other people, and the world. (Zusho & Clayton, 2011,

p. 240)

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 79

This definition is broad enough to be shared by scholars

of both CRRE and achievement motivation. Indeed, similar

definitions have been highlighted in motivation research

(see Zusho & Clayton, 2011) and CRRE research (see

Banks, 1997; Bullivant, 1989; J. E. King, 1997). Banks

(1997), for example, defined culture as “the unique values,

symbols, life-styles, institutions, and human-made compo-

nents that distinguish one group from another” (p. 124).

This emphasis on group membership is echoed by other

CRRE scholars who define culture as groups’ “ways of

thinking and living” (J. E. King, 1997, p. 270) and of

“surviving and adapting to the environment” (Bullivant,

1989, p. 27). Despite their similarities, the important differ-

ences in how these literatures operationalize culture war-

rants further discussion (see also Table 1).

Social-cognitive studies of achievement motivation are

commonly described as taking a person-in-context perspec-

tive (see Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Zusho & Clayton, 2011).

Therefore, contemporary motivational theories all recog-

nize how motivational processes are shaped by contextual

factors. From a Bronfenbrennian (1977) perspective, how-

ever, motivation researchers tend to define context in terms

of microlevel factors such as the nature of instruction, tasks,

and activities that take place in a classroom (Anderman &

Gray, 2017; Linnenbrink-Garcia & Patall, 2016; Urdan &

Turner, 2005), as well as the interpersonal context of the

classroom (see Wentzel, 2017; Wentzel & Muenks, 2016)

and forces related to school climate (Anderman & Gray,

2017).

Of course, motivation does consider broader, macrolevel

factors. The notion of culture as a macrolevel blueprint is

represented in the sizable and growing literature examining

cross-cultural differences in motivational processes (see

Zusho & Clayton, 2011), which largely operationalizes cul-

ture in terms of nation of origin. Guided primarily by a

postpositivistic quest to document universals in motivation,

these cross-cultural studies typically explore mean-level

differences in motivational beliefs by nation of origin, or

investigate the extent to which the same motivational pat-

terns can be found across specific countries or ethnic groups

(P. Chen & Zimmerman, 2007; Eaton & Dembo, 1997;

Klassen, 2004; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; McIner-

ney & Ali, 2006; Randhawa & Gupta, 2000; R. M. Ryan &

Deci, 2017, Salili, Chiu, & Liu, 2001).

Another prime example is modern expectancy-value the-

ory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), which recognizes cultural

milieu—defined in terms of gender role and cultural stereo-

types related to subject matter and occupational preferen-

ces—as an important, yet distal, influence on students’

expectancies for success and subjective task-values. Self-

efficacy theory also recognizes how motivational processes

are shaped by larger societal changes, including demo-

graphic composition of schools, structure of families, and

innovations in technology (e.g., Bandura, 1997).

TABLE 1

Comparison of Achievement Motivation and CRRE According to Key Principles of Motivation

Definitions and

Assumptions Achievement Motivation CRRE

Culture Defined often in terms of shared norms and values, and of

ethnicity—not in terms of race. Issues of power, inequity, and

racism are not always central to the discussion on culture.

Context is typically defined in terms of microlevel processes

related to the classroom or school climate.

Fundamental assumption that all learning is cultural with primary

focus on race, oppression, and prejudice, and by extension the

consequences that cultural hegemony has on minority

students’ learning and development.

Meaningfulness Defined in terms of specific values or reasons for task

engagement, such as the extent to which students find a task

or domain to be interesting, important, or useful. Expectancy-

value theory also recognizes costs associated with task-

engagement.

Defined in terms of curricular content that is culturally relevant,

and as the learning process that legitimizes students’ cultural

background and is aligned with students’ individual and

cultural modes of learning.

Competence Defined in terms of an ability to interact effectively with one’s

environment (White, 1959). Assumes that students with

higher levels of academic competence are more likely to

achieve success in school.

Defined as cultural competence, the development of a

multicultural identity that reflects on, understands, and is

sensitive to one’s own and others’ cultural identities. Students’

academic competence and teachers’ professional efficacy are

incumbent on achieving cultural competency.

Autonomy Primarily defined as the extent to which individuals perceive

that they can accept, endorse, and regulate their own goals or

actions (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Assumes that students who

perceive greater sense of autonomy are more likely to

experience intrinsic motivation

Defined as personal and collective agency achieved through

critical reflection on self and society. The emphasis is on

acquiring a sense of autonomy to have the power and

responsibility to take actions that lead to individual growth and

societal change.

Relatedness Defined in terms of forming and maintaining close and secure

relationships with others (Ryan & Deci, 2017), or in terms of

belonging, which also considers in-group and out-group

dynamics.

Emphasized as teacher–student relationships marked by cultural

sensitivity and authentic care. Culturally relevant and

responsive pedagogy counters feelings of alienation and is

essential for relationship building in school.

Note. CRRE D culturally-responsive and -relevant education.

80 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

Thus, the research on motivation primarily defines cul-

ture in terms of microlevel contextual factors related to the

classroom or school, or in terms of macrolevel factors such

as nation of origin, or even individual-level factors such as

ethnicity (a topic to which we turn shortly). Although

acknowledging the importance of culture and context,

social-cognitive approaches could be scrutinized for failure

to consider interactions across systems of development and

how culture is often instantiated in the everyday activities

and practices of the microsystem (see V�el�ez-Agosto, Soto- Crespo, Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, Vega-Molina, &

Garc�ıa Coll, 2017; cf. Nolen, Horn, & Ward, 2015). By contrast, one defining feature of the collective work

on CRRE is the unwavering conviction that learning is cul-

turally grounded. The embeddedness of learning in culture

is evident in the general assumptions of CRRE theories.

CRP, for example, proposes not only that students of color

must experience academic success but also that they must

also develop and/or maintain cultural competence and

develop critical consciousness so that they can challenge

the status quo of the current social order (Ladson-Billings,

1995). Similarly, research on culturally responsive teaching

suggests that to create a culturally responsive learning envi-

ronment that is empowering, transforming, and validating

for students of color (Gay, 2002, 2010, 2013), teachers

need to take a critical stance toward entrenched inequity in

society and their personal role in perpetuating it (Schmei-

chel, 2012).

Thus, in comparison to the motivation literature, CRRE

theory and research foregrounds culture and underscores

how it interacts with the daily schooling experiences of stu-

dents of color, particularly considering sociopolitical reali-

ties such as cultural hegemony and institutional racism

(Banks, 2006; Delpit, 2006). The sociopolitical and histori-

cal aspects of culture—specifically those related to issues

of racism, power, and inequity—are front and center in

CRRE literature (see DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014, for a

historical discussion of race in the United States). Thus

CRRE’s focus on race and ethnicity highlights another

important difference between CRRE and motivation

literatures.

Like culture, race is a construct that has eluded a single

definition, despite agreement about its significance in

explaining the schooling experiences of students of color

(DeCuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014; Helms, Jernigan, &

Mascher, 2005). It can be defined rather simplistically in

terms of skin color; however, as DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz

(2014) noted, such a definition neglects the fact that 99.9%

of our DNA is shared and that there is greater variability

within racial groups. Complicating matters is the distinction

(or lack thereof) between race and ethnicity (Kumar &

Maehr, 2010; Zusho et al., 2016). It is common to see these

terms used interchangeably in everyday language and in

scientific circles. Culture, too, is also often conflated with

ethnicity.

Markus (2008) suggested that, in some ways, it is natural

to consider race and ethnicity together, as they are both

socially constructed ideas and practices that essentially

result in the categorization of individuals into groups. How-

ever, according to Markus, race signifies notions of power

whereas ethnicity does not. More specifically, Markus

defined race as the sorting of individuals into groups based

on a classification scheme that assumes certain marginal-

ized groups to be different from (typically inferior to)

others, emerges when certain groups are perceived as a

threat, and is ultimately used to justify the continued

oppression of and prejudice against certain groups. Markus

defined ethnicity as a construct that allows an individual to

identify (or be identified) with a group of people who share

a common language, history, nation/region of origin, reli-

gion, physical appearance, and/or ancestry. These shared

characteristics can be a source of motivation and pride, ulti-

mately resulting in a sense of identity or belonging. When

following Markus’s definition of ethnicity, significant over-

lap between concepts of ethnicity and culture is evident.

DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz (2014) noted that studies of

race are noticeably absent in the cultural literature on learn-

ing, specifically studies that they define as being either race

focused or race reimaged. They define race-focused studies

as those framed explicitly around issues of race (and, by

extension, oppression and racism) that explore individuals’

experiences of being classified into a racial category. These

include studies of racial identity (e.g., Spencer, Noll,

Stoltzfus, & Harpalani, 2001; Thomas, Caldwell, Faison, &

Jackson, 2009), racial socialization (e.g., Hughes, Wither-

spoon, Rivas-Drake, & West-Bey, 2009), and stereotype

threat (e.g., K. E. Ryan & Ryan, 2005). Race-reimaged

studies (e.g., Graham, Taylor, & Hudley, 2015) seek to bet-

ter understand how traditional constructs not derived from

racial theories (e.g., constructs related to achievement moti-

vation) are affected by sociocultural factors (i.e., those

related to history, context, intersectionality/multiple

identities).

However, race-focused or race-reimaged studies of

motivation do exist. Indeed, DeCuir-Gunby and Schutz

(2014) noted that most of the studies identified in their

review (corresponding to 1.3% of studies published in top-

tier educational psychology journals) related in some way

to issues of motivation. This does not account for the

numerous studies published outside educational psychology

journals. For example, Graham (this issue) has published

extensively on African American students’ motivation—

including developing motivational interventions based on

attributional theory, which aim to increase social skills and

motivation to learn among African American boys labeled

as aggressive (Graham et al., 2015).

Similarly, a growing number of motivational studies

center on issues related to social support, teacher expecta-

tions, and factors associated with academic disengagement

among students of color (e.g., Comer & Emmons, 2006;

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 81

Juvonen, Yueyan, & Espinoza, 2010; Murdock, 1999) who

are often marginalized in both society and school. Thus, it

appears that issues of relatedness and belonging are central

to race-focused and race-reimaged studies of motivation

(see also Gray, Hope, & Matthews, this issue). For exam-

ple, Chavous et al. (2017)) pointed to the “normative expe-

riences of racial stigma” that many African American

students experience when attending predominantly White

colleges. These include feelings of invisibility or hypervisi-

bility related to their minority status, personal discrimina-

tion, and stereotyped treatment. Research on

microaggressions further suggests that ethnic minority stu-

dents are more likely to encounter racialized microaggres-

sions related to the myth of meritocracy—the notion that

students have equal chances to succeed, irrespective of

race, gender, or class (Minikel-Lacocque, 2013). It has

been hypothesized that these experiences, repeated, can

undermine students’ motivation to succeed and ultimately

compromise their desire to pursue careers related to sci-

ence, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

MEANINGFULNESS: LEARNING THAT MATTERS

Meaningfulness is an important principle of motivation.

This is reflected in the theoretical assumption—across mul-

tiple theories of motivation—that perceptions of compe-

tence are not always enough to spur action; individuals

must also want to complete the task. Multiple theories of

motivation assume that students are more likely to approach

and engage in academic tasks that have personal meaning

and significance for them. For example, expectancy-value

theory suggests that the quality of motivated behavior is

higher when students find the task and/or subject domain

important, interesting, and useful, and when opportunity

costs are minimized (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Interest

theory, building on some expectancy-value theory assump-

tions, further emphasizes the role that situational and per-

sonal interest plays in sparking and maintaining students’

engagement in the learning process (Renninger & Hidi,

2011). Achievement goal theory, specifically the work on

classroom goal structures, suggests that promoting rele-

vance is one of the keys to promoting a mastery-oriented

focus in the classroom (Maehr & Zusho, 2009). Finally,

self-determination theory argues that intrinsic motivation

flourishes in contexts where the psychological needs of

autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met (R. M.

Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Research framed according to modern expectancy-value

theory confirms that students’ task values strongly predict

choices in activity and subsequent enrollment in courses

(Durik, Vida, & Eccles, 2006). Studies have found that

when it comes to explaining why students pursue certain

career paths, values often supersede other motivational con-

structs in importance. Given declining rates of students

pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, and

mathematics, there has been renewed interest in under-

standing how values impact learning and long-term out-

comes such as career choice. Indeed, short-term, task-value

interventions that primarily target underrepresented minor-

ity or first-generation students are becoming common in the

literature (Gaspard et al., 2015; Harackiewicz et al., 2016;

Renninger, Nieswandt, & Hidi, 2015).

The recent focus in expectancy-value theory on the cost

associated with engaging in school-related tasks has led

motivational researchers to examine the toll that engaging

in specific tasks takes on students. The cost of engaging in

a task or tasks is measured in terms of inability to engage in

other activities and tasks of interest, or losing out on other

opportunities (Chiang Byrd, & Molin, 2011; Conley,

2012); excessive investment of time and effort the task

requires (Perez, Cromley, & Kaplan, 2014; Trautwein

et al., 2012); and feelings of incompetence the task engen-

ders (Luttrell et al., 2010; Perez et al., 2014).

Correspondingly, the qualification that learning ought to be

meaningful to racially and ethnically diverse students is a key

requirement of CRRE. For example, Gay describes CRT as

validating, empowering, and transforming, because it is

“meaningful, challenging, collaborative, dialogic, and

connected to students’ home and community experiences”

(McIntyre, 2015, p. 139). The research on CRRE is predicated

on the assumption that the Eurocentric perspective is universal

and normative. Therefore, the norms, values, and belief sys-

tems emphasized in the various subject curricula, and the

social thoughts and interpretations of reality reflected therein,

exclusively legitimize European American cultural knowledge

and delegitimize the cultural knowledge of minority, disen-

franchised groups (Castenell & Pinar, 1993; S. Nieto, 2000).

Consequently, schooling may not be a meaningful experience

for many students of color.

Addressing this concern, CRRE scholars suggest that

teachers make learning culturally meaningful by (a)

acknowledging the legitimacy of the cultural heritages of

different ethnic groups; (b) incorporating culturally relevant

curricular content; (c) relating academic abstractions with

students’ everyday sociocultural realities; (d) recognizing

that students’ dispositions, attitudes, and approaches are

informed by their culture; and (e) adopting instructional

strategies aligned with the discourse styles and behavioral

expectations within students’ home and community (Griner

& Stuart, 2013; Yamauchi & Tharp, 1995). Within the

CRRE framework, learning is meaningful when the curric-

ular content reflects students’ cultural diversity, the learn-

ing process is aligned with students’ individual and cultural

modes of learning, and the classroom and home sociocul-

tural contexts are in harmony.

The empirical evidence supporting CRRE claims and

assumptions has come primarily from smaller scale studies

conducted in classrooms comprised exclusively of students

of color. Thus, very little is known about how these

82 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

principles translate to multicultural contexts. Nevertheless,

the collective research suggests positive outcomes of a cul-

turally relevant focus for students of color. Chun and Dick-

son (2011), for example, reported that Latinx students were

more engaged and felt more efficacious when their teachers

acknowledged the legitimacy of their cultural heritage and

value of Spanish during instruction. Similarly, Boykin and

his colleagues (Boykin, 2014; Hurley, Allen, & Boykin,

2009) found that when teachers infused the curriculum and

instruction with culturally valued themes such as commu-

nalism, elementary and middle school low-income African

American students achieved at higher levels in several sub-

jects including language arts, mathematics, and social sci-

ence. Likewise, Bamhardt (1982) reported that Native

American children learned better, were engaged, and were

animated in the classroom when interactional styles in the

classroom and home community were compatible.

In addition, several excellent examples demonstrate the

positive effects on minority students’ learning and engage-

ment when academic abstractions are related to their every-

day sociocultural realities. Grubis (1991) reported that

contextualizing curriculum to the community life of whal-

ing and sealing transformed the learning experiences of stu-

dents in an Eskimo village school. Recent explorations

connecting hip-hop culture to school experiences by incor-

porating rap lyrics into teaching of science (Emdin, 2010;

Emdin, Adjapong, & Levy, 2016; X. Meyer & Crawford,

2011), mathematics (Hubert, 2014; Lesser, 2014), social

studies (Stovall, 2006), language arts, and poetry (Gilrain,

2015; Morrell & Duncan-Andrade, 2002; S�anchez, 2010) also represent efforts to make school learning more mean-

ingful for urban African American students. Across these

studies, learning was made meaningful by interweaving

abstract academic concepts, scientific knowledge, and

students’ everyday experiences and preferred mode of

interactions.

Comparative Analysis

Motivation and CRRE research share the important assump-

tion that learning should be meaningful. Indeed, it is important

and heartening to note that, unlike earlier formulations, the

current conception of subjective task value recognizes the role

of students’ collective or cultural identity in shaping their val-

ues regarding the utility of, and the probability of success in,

school-related tasks. As Eccles (2009) stated, “In the past, I

conceptualized attainment value in terms of the needs and per-

sonal values that an activity/behavior or task fulfills. Today I

am conceptualizing it more in terms of personal and collective

identities” (p. 83).

However, empirical testing does not do sufficient justice

to the expectancy-value theoretical model, because many

studies continue to operationalize culture as a categorical

variable, seeing it, for example, in terms of membership to

a cultural group (e.g., Eccles, Wong, & Peck, 2006). We

need to employ more nuanced research methods if we want

to examine students’ subjective values as a function of their

cultural knowledge, valued behavioral patterns, and percep-

tions of societal attitudes toward their cultural group. At the

very least, we should develop mixed-method approaches

that include both in-depth qualitative approaches enabling

us to understand the cultural basis of students’ subjective

values and advanced quantitative approaches to test the the-

oretical model.

The research on CRRE also emphasizes the importance

of investigating cultural cost. We define cultural cost as the

psychological cost associated with the lack of cultural

meaningfulness of the task, or the cost associated with

engaging with curricular material that either distorts or ren-

ders invisible the cultures of disenfranchised students, thus

placing the school curriculum at odds with students’ valued

cultural beliefs and behaviors (Arunkumar, Midgley, &

Urdan, 1999). There is little doubt that motivational schol-

ars are committed to the importance of making learning

meaningful for all students. However, this literature could

benefit from a broader consideration of cultural cost.

Specifically, the notion that curriculum and curricular

tasks designed for students can be a cultural product,

strongly influenced by Eurocentric middle-class culture,

often remains unrecognized in the motivational literature

(cf. Anyon, 1995; Banks, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2012;

Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2015).

Consider, by way of example, the curricular areas of

math and science that are sometimes described as neutral

and value free—a position strongly contested by many

math educators (Gutstein, 2016; Martin, 2009; Tate, 2005).

A widely accepted assumption is the racial hierarchical

totem pole regarding math ability, which places Asian and

White students at the top and assigns African American,

Native American, and Latinx students to the lower rungs

(McGrady & Reynolds, 2013; McKown & Weinstein,

2008). The cultural cost of such a racial hierarchical order-

ing is the distancing of mathematical identity from minority

students’ cultural identity, thereby undermining the

meaningfulness of mathematics in these students’ lives

(Martin, 2009).

Based on a series of ethnographic and participant class-

room observation studies, Martin (2009) argued that mathe-

matics teachers need to develop awareness that teaching

practices and school policies informed by stereotypic

beliefs associating students’ cultural background and their

mathematical abilities often have irrevocable consequences

for students’ mathematical learning and literacy. Further,

Martin noted, mathematically successful African American

students merge their mathematics and cultural identity and

feel connected as “doers of mathematics” (p. 197). Corre-

spondingly, Gutstein (2016) used real-world and student-

generated projects (discrimination in housing, house pric-

ing, racial profiling, and learning to read the Mercator map

of the world) to teach mathematics from a social justice

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 83

perspective to middle school and high school African

American and Latinx students. In the language of CRRE,

meaningful mathematics teaching helped students think

critically about social issues and the power of mathematics

in addressing these issues.

Although cultural cost is an important concept for moti-

vational researchers to consider, as evidenced from the lit-

erature just reviewed, much of CRRE’s claims are based on

small-scale, albeit in-depth, qualitative studies of class-

rooms comprised of students of a particular racial or ethnic

background. Thus, questions remain about how findings

from these studies would apply to classrooms made up of

students of multiple racial and ethnic backgrounds, or if

their claims apply to all students of color. This is a chal-

lenge that CRRE researchers need to acknowledge and

address. Social realities, cultural processes, and cultural

knowledge are important considerations for making learn-

ing meaningful, capturing students’ interest in tasks, or sus-

taining their interest in the subject matter. In future

research, interdisciplinary, mixed-methods analysis may be

essential to capturing cultural learning processes.

COMPETENCE: ACADEMIC AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE PROMOTES LEARNING

Motivation research assumes that individuals are motivated

toward competence, that is, to effective interaction with

their environment (Elliot, Dweck & Yaeger, 2017; Usher,

2016; White, 1959). This important assumption can be

found in the research on expectancies, including the

research on self-efficacy beliefs, which are related to one’s

capabilities to manage and deliver a specific course of

action to accomplish a task (Bandura, 1997; Bong &

Skaalvik, 2003). They are also related to outcome expecta-

tions, or beliefs that certain actions will result in specific

outcomes (Bandura, 1997). This assumption is also

reflected in achievement goal theory (Maehr & Zusho,

2009), which distinguishes between goals focused on the

development and demonstration of competence, as well as

in self-determination theory (R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2017),

which suggests that competence is a basic and universal

psychological need. In fact, Elliot and Dweck (2005) pro-

posed that competence is the “ideal core” of achievement

motivation.

The overall empirical literature on expectancy-related

constructs generally finds that students who believe them-

selves to be more competent academically are also more

likely to put forth greater effort, persist in the face of fail-

ure, use deeper-processing cognitive and metacognitive

strategies, report positive rather than negative emotions,

and endorse mastery goals (Klassen & Usher, 2010; Usher

& Pajares, 2008; B. J. Zimmerman & Cleary, 2006). Simi-

larly, research on teacher efficacy suggests that teachers

who report a higher degree of teaching efficacy are more

likely to have higher levels of job satisfaction and lower

levels of job-related stress (Betoret, 2006). However, the

impact of teacher efficacy on student achievement and

motivation remains inconclusive (Klassen, Tze, Betts, &

Gordon, 2011). The literature on expectancy-value theory

also demonstrates that, when it comes to predicting aca-

demic achievement, expectancy constructs are one of the

strongest (if not the strongest) motivational predictor of

academic achievement (e.g., Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood,

Eccles, & Wigfield, 2002).

Competence from a CRRE perspective draws, in part,

from the research on academic competence (Chun &

Dickson, 2011; Lopez, 2016; Siwatu, 2007). However, it

also highlights the crucial interrelations between academic

and cultural competence (see Table 1). Students’ academic

competence is viewed as an outcome of CRT practices

(Lopez, 2016) and as a mediating factor in the relationship

between CRT and academic achievement (Chun &

Dickson, 2011). Important to note, the underlying assump-

tion in CRRE research is that teachers’ efficacy for teaching

and students’ academic competencies depend on their cul-

tural competence (Emdin, 2010; Gay, 2013; Ladson-Bill-

ings, 2014). As discussed earlier, academic competence

indicates outcome expectations related to one’s capabilities.

Cultural competence, on the other hand, is a relational con-

struct wherein individuals progress from an ethnocentric

understanding of other cultures to achieve an ethnorelative

comprehension and appreciation of other cultures (P. M.

King & Baxter Magolda, 2005). As a relational construct,

cultural competence is viewed as simultaneously located in

intercultural interactions and in the individuals who partici-

pate in the interaction process (Spitzburg & Changnon,

2009). The CRRE research on competence therefore

focuses on two major themes: the culturally competent

teacher and student and the relationship between academic

and cultural competence. We discuss both, in turn, next.

Culturally Competent Teachers

CRRE theory suggests that a culturally competent teacher is

one who (a) has the cultural knowledge and familiarity with

the history, values, and behavioral expectations of cultural

groups represented in the school’s student body; (b) dis-

plays cultural awareness of one’s own and others’ cultures

and demonstrates an understanding of the centrality of cul-

ture in informing individuals’ cognitions, emotions, and

behaviors; and (c) displays cultural sensitivity that reflects

openness and flexibility without placing value judgments

on differences when working with others (Adera &

Manning, 2014; Kumagai & Lypson, 2009). Aligned with

this definition of teachers’ cultural competency, Milner

(2011) asserted that translating CRP theory into practice

requires teachers to develop multicultural identities by

becoming more reflective, understanding, and appreciative

of their own and their students’ cultural identities. Ladson-

84 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

Billings (2009) further suggested that a culturally compe-

tent teacher recognizes the diversity manifested in the stu-

dent body as a strength and succeeds in creating an

inclusive classroom environment that simultaneously fos-

ters both positive cross-cultural relationships among stu-

dents and students’ sense of sociopolitical consciousness.

Not surprisingly, scholars voice concerns regarding the

dearth of culturally competent teachers in schools (Delpit,

2006; Milner, 2011; Shevalier & McKenzie, 2012), and the

difficulty that current and preservice teachers have in trans-

lating the roles and responsibilities just listed into meaning-

ful, context-specific instructional practices (Cochran-

Smith, 2004; Gay & Howard, 2000; Saint-Hilaire, 2014).

Explanations for teachers’ lack of cultural competence are

attributed primarily to differences in students’ and teachers’

cultural backgrounds (Hollins & Torres-Guzman, 2005;

Luke, 2017). Also implicated are teacher licensure pro-

grams that do not provide adequate internship opportunities

for preservice teachers to engage with minority and low

socioeconomic status students (Sleeter, 2012). Often, these

explanations unintentionally promote a static view of cul-

tural competency, one that is limited to acquiring knowl-

edge of the characteristics, practices, and beliefs of

different minority groups and to the development of skills

such as empathy (Kumagai & Lypson, 2009). However, to

develop and maintain cultural competence, as indicated ear-

lier, current and preservice teachers need to engage in hon-

est, critical self-reflection. Such reflection involves

stepping back to understand one’s own assumptions, biases,

and values, examining with an open mind how race, culture,

and social class shape their own and their students’

thoughts, values, language, communication styles, and

view of how the world operates (Kumar, Seay, & Karabe-

nick, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2014).

Relationship Between Students’ Academic and Cultural Competence

CRRE scholars argue that for students of color to feel aca-

demically efficacious and experience academic success,

they need to perceive academic success as inherent to their

cultural identity. There is some empirical evidence support-

ing this claim, although, as with research on meaningful-

ness, studies to date have been focused almost exclusively

on African American or Latinx populations, primarily of

low socioeconomic status. Thus, the relationship between

cultural and academic competence for other cultural groups

remains to be examined. However, with a few exceptions

(e.g., Chun & Dickson, 2011; Lopez, 2016), many of these

small-scale studies lack a shared understanding of what it

means to be culturally relevant and responsive (Aronson &

Laughter, 2016). Future research should better establish

the theoretical connections between CRRE and student out-

comes. At a minimum, developing a shared understanding

of the CRRE paradigm is essential—recognizing, of course,

that the CRRE paradigm is a conceptual framework and not

a prescriptive set of practices, and that its instantiation

depends on the social and cultural teaching–learning con-

text (Sleeter, 2012).

Research generally finds a positive link between aca-

demic competence and culturally relevant practices. Based

on a synthesis of research conducted within the CRP

(Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2006, 2014) and CRT (Gay, 2002,

2010) frameworks, Aronson and Laughter (2016) reported

that engagement in CRRE was associated with increases in

students’ motivation to learn, interest in curricular content,

and sense of academic competence. Several studies demon-

strate that CRRE is associated positively with an increase

in students’ engagement in and efficacy for learning and

critical thinking, and with a reduction in behavioral prob-

lems (e.g., Bui & Fegan, 2013; Garcia & Chun, 2016; Hig-

gins, Fitzgerald, & Howard, 2015;Hill & Perchauer, 2013;

Lopez, 2016; Tyler et al., 2008).

Likewise, Chun and colleagues reported that perceiving

teachers as culturally responsive was significantly related

to Latinx students’ learning outcomes and that this relation-

ship was mediated by feelings of academic self-efficacy

and sense of school belonging (Chun & Dickson, 2011;

Garcia & Chun, 2016). Using classroom observations and

group interviews, Brown and Crippen (2017) demonstrated

that students’ interest in science and motivation to learn

increased when middle school science teachers applied the

principles of CRP to build bridges between students’ home

and school, promote thoughtful interactions in class, and

give voice to students’ thoughts and concerns. Similar stud-

ies conducted with Native Hawaiian, Latinx, and Haitian

students (Civil, 2016; Dupuis & Abrams, 2017; Lodge,

2017; Nyika, 2015; Warren, Ballenger, Ogonowski, Roseb-

ery, & Hudicourt-Barnes, 2001; H. T. Zimmerman &

Weible, 2017) demonstrate that encouraging the use of

home language and cultural understandings for teaching

scientific concepts (e.g., metamorphosis, water quality, and

community health) supported students’ efforts to reason

logically and conduct scientifically rigorous analysis. As

well, Choi (2013) demonstrated that a social studies

teacher’s active incorporation of culturally relevant literacy

strategies within global history curriculum was effective

in enhancing English language learners’ interest and

engagement.

Another area of focus relates to the inherent difficulty of

interweaving cultural identity and academic competence

when stereotypes associated with the cultural group suggest

that the two are antithetical. For example, Ladson-Billings

(2009) noted that African American students need to

develop a “relevant black personality” that allows them

to “choose academic excellence yet still identify with Afri-

can American culture” (p. 20), suggesting a dissonance

between academic competence and cultural identity. This

dissonance is evident in the intervention study with African

American and Latina girls in urban Southwest school

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 85

districts conducted by Scott and colleagues (Scott, Clark, &

White, 2013). These students viewed the computer science

profession as the realm of White men and viewed facilities

with computer technology as a threat to their cultural integ-

rity. The authors reported that the intervention was success-

ful only when the participants incorporated the “computer

technologist identity” as one of the elements in their cul-

tural identity and recognized the role of technology not as

an end in itself but as a means to advance their community

(p. 636). These findings suggest that societal stereotypes

regarding the academic abilities of a cultural group can

jeopardize students’ feelings of cultural, and consequently

academic, competence. In other words, students cannot

achieve academic competence at the cost of cultural com-

petence, and teachers need to facilitate both competencies

through CRRE. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize

that in culturally responsive learning environments students

see themselves as equal participants in, contributors to, and

co-constructors of knowledge. Consequently, they feel

challenged and energized to understand and question the

sociopolitical inequities in society (Gay, 2010; Milner,

2011).

Comparative Analysis

Both motivation and CRRE researchers agree that consider-

ations of the learning context, scaffolding students’ under-

standing of specific tasks in domains such as mathematics,

stressing practical applications of the content, and provid-

ing socioemotional support are essential for promoting

students’ actual and perceived academic competence

(Emdin, 2010; Gilrain, 2015; Gutstein, 2016; Klassen &

Usher, 2010; D. K. Meyer & Turner, 2002). The primary

difference between the two streams of literature is the rela-

tive importance assigned to cultural competency as a pre-

requisite for achieving academic competence. On this

issue, CRRE scholars are unequivocal in their assertion that

achieving cultural competency precedes minority students’

academic competence—actual or perceived (Ladson-Bill-

ings, 2014; Milner, 2011). They also agree that it is an

essential aspect of teachers’ efficacy for teaching culturally

diverse students.

For example, Kanter and Konstantopoulos (2010) exam-

ined the impact of project-based science curriculum exam-

ining real-world issues on minority students’ achievement,

their perception of the value and relevance of science, and

their sense of efficacy for doing science-related tasks from

a social-constructivist perspective. Teachers participated in

professional development in science content and pedagogi-

cal content knowledge. Results indicated that although

minority students’ science achievement scores improved,

their sense of efficacy, their valuing of science, and their

interest in science in general showed a significant decline

postintervention. As the authors acknowledge, social con-

structivist pedagogical practices without considerations for

CRRE practices were ineffective in promoting minority

students’ competence in science. These findings suggest

that, particularly among minority students, developing cul-

tural competence is necessary to feel academically compe-

tent. The findings also imply that the development of

cultural competence should be an essential element of

teachers’ professional development.

We see the greatest interweaving of CRRE and motiva-

tion literatures in research on competence. Lopez’s (2016)

multilevel hierarchical linear modeling study demonstrates

that teachers’ reported CRT practices, including cultural

knowledge and cultural awareness (both components of

cultural competence), are predictive of students’ academic

competence and their reading abilities. Research presented

in this section demonstrates that there are clear advantages

to weaving the two streams of literature—CRRE and social

cognitive theories of motivation—to better understand how

we can meet the unique needs of students from different

cultural groups while recognizing the universal need of all

students to feel culturally and academically competent.

AUTONOMY: LEARNING IN AN AUTONOMOUS AND EMPOWERING ENVIRONMENT

A fundamental assumption of all social-cognitive theories

of motivation is that individuals have an inherent need for

independence, personal agency, responsibility, and control.

This notion is perhaps best illustrated in self-determination

theory, which considers autonomy—the extent to which

individuals perceive that they can accept, endorse, and reg-

ulate their own goals or actions—as a basic human need

and a fundamental motive necessary for intrinsic motiva-

tion (R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2017). Although most often asso-

ciated with self-determination theory, other motivational

frameworks also incorporate autonomy. For example, inter-

est researchers have linked the development of personal

interest to autonomy (Renninger & Hidi, 2011), whereas

goal theorists have identified autonomy support to be criti-

cal to the establishment of a mastery-oriented learning envi-

ronment (Turner, 2014).

Recent empirical research on autonomy focuses primar-

ily on autonomy support. For example, a growing body of

work examines how teachers support students’ autonomy

(Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004).

Researchers commonly describe teachers who are rated

high in autonomy support as teachers who not only provide

choice but also listen to students and allow them to manipu-

late instructional materials and ideas. These teachers con-

sider student preferences and interests in selecting and

designing tasks, provide rationales for those activities, and

give students opportunities to ask questions (Patall et al.,

2017; Reeve, Bolt, & Cai, 1999; Rogat, Witham, & Chinn,

2014). Autonomy-supportive teachers are not controlling;

86 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

they embrace student perspectives and do not pressure stu-

dent thoughts, actions, and feelings (Patall et al., 2017).

CRRE scholars describe autonomous persons as those

who can shape, and determine the course of, their own lives

(Raz, 1986). Their conception of autonomy is aligned with

empowerment, which individuals must develop to act in

accordance with their interests (Moses, 1997). Given the

political nature of multicultural education, autonomy in

CRRE literature is often discussed in the context of institu-

tional cultural hegemony. This hegemony is designed to

reproduce social inequalities by marginalizing minority stu-

dents, using practices such the disproportionate tracking of

minority students into poor quality schools and classes

where the emphasis is less on learning and more on behav-

ior management. Cultural hegemony also emerges in the

imposition of Eurocentric beliefs, values, and mores on

minority students through school curriculum and policies

that silence their voices (Banks, 2006; Delpit, 2006). Stu-

dent autonomy—developed through transformative, cultur-

ally responsive pedagogy that encourages them to own

their learning by questioning and challenging curricular

assumptions and constructing their own reality—is crucial

for combating cultural hegemony (Anyon, 1995; Cochran-

Smith, 2004; C. Nieto & Booth, 2010).

According to the CRRE scholar, Moses (1997), creating

optimal learning environments for fostering empowered,

autonomous students requires (a) a social context where

students, regardless of cultural background, are treated and

treat others with respect and (b) availability of an adequate

range of good academic options, and the independence and

ability to make choices and decisions without coercion. In

this regard, European American students are more likely

than poor and minority students to have a greater range of

options, among them opportunities to take advanced math

and science courses in high school, and participate in extra-

curricular opportunities that advance their educational and

career aspirations (Kumar & Maehr, 2010).

Moses (1997) provided a philosophical defense of an

autonomy-based approach to multicultural education, sug-

gesting that culturally responsive practices expand and

enrich students’ choices by affirming the diverse cultural

conditions from which they come. Culturally responsive

practices reflect a deliberate effort to contextualize issues

in multiple cultural perspectives, legitimize different ways

of knowing and understanding, and make the teaching–

learning process more student centered. These practices

support students in finding their own voice and making edu-

cation a shared endeavor between students and teachers

(Bonner, 2014). Therefore, a teacher who is genuinely

interested in creating an autonomy-supportive learning

environment should create a space where students

“maintain their cultural integrity while succeeding academ-

ically” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p.476). As Emdin (2010)

and Gilrain (2015) demonstrated, embedding science, art,

and literature in culturally valued practices is autonomy

supportive because it enables students to develop an inte-

grated, autonomous motivation for the subject matter.

Accordingly, in a culturally responsive and relevant

teaching framework, autonomy is understood both as a

product and a process. As a product, students who achieve

a sense of autonomy feel empowered. As a process, auton-

omy is a quality that individuals strive to cultivate by think-

ing critically about what they learn. It is a process because

minority students intentionally assert their autonomy when

they encounter racism and discrimination. CRRE enables

minority students to develop a sense of autonomy and

agency in all aspects of their lives so that they are capable

of deliberate, critical reflection on social issues such as race

and racism that stymie the positive growth and autonomy

of marginalized members of society.

Comparative Analysis

The theoretical and empirical literature in motivation and

CRRE disciplines reflect a fundamental philosophical dif-

ference. The former views autonomy as an inherent psycho-

logical need that, if satisfied, supports the growth and well-

being of the individual; the latter describes autonomy as a

quality to be fostered and developed to benefit both the

individual and society. The empirical work by motivation

researchers therefore focuses on the consequences of satis-

fying this inherent need for autonomy, recognizing that

when individuals feel compelled to behave in ways that dis-

regard personal interests and values they experience a loss

of autonomy (Koestner & Losier, 1996). However, motiva-

tion researchers seldom explicitly recognize the cultural

basis of personal interests and values. For CRRE scholars

who regard a personal sense of autonomy to be contingent

on a strong sense of cultural identity (McIntyre, 2015), the

integration and internalization of societally valued behav-

iors are not always viable options for minority or immigrant

students, especially when said behaviors require a denial or

negation of a culturally valued aspect of oneself.

In achievement motivation research, autonomy support

is interpreted as incorporating choice of activities (Katz &

Assor, 2007), providing explanatory rationales (Reeve,

Jang, Hardre, & Omura, 2002) and encouragement (Reeve

& Jang, 2006), and adopting noncontrolling assessment

strategies (R. M. Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983). Achieve-

ment motivation researchers have empirically demonstrated

that such autonomy supportive practices are associated with

positive learning, as well as behavioral and motivational

outcomes. Viewed from a CRRE perspective, these practi-

ces, although laudable, provide a restricted perspective of

autonomy that is specific to a classroom task, generally cir-

cumscribed within a standardized curriculum. Indeed, when

autonomy is classroom bound, divorced from the broader

societal and historical realities of people’s lives, it fails to

recognize the limited options for informed decision making

that are available to disenfranchised minority students. For

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 87

example, Steele (1997) argued that stigmatized minority

students who disidentify with school and make an unforced

and voluntary decision to drop out of school are not dis-

playing autonomous behavior. Disidentifying and dropping

out is viewed as a societally restricted decision—a conse-

quence of experiencing stereotype threat, and one that

effectively limits future opportunities and options available

for these students (Kumar & Maehr, 2010). To combat the

consequences of experiencing prejudice and stereotype

threat, CRRE scholars emphasize the importance of nurtur-

ing students’ sense of autonomy to become sociopolitically

conscious and academically competent (e.g., Ladson-Bill-

ings, 2011; Milner, 2011).

Although CRRE scholars’ interpretation of students’

autonomy from an educational equity perspective is theo-

retically comprehensive in scope and vision, it does not

lend itself as easily to empirical testing. We believe it

would be beneficial if CRRE and motivation scholars were

to jointly study creating culturally relevant, autonomy-sup-

portive learning environments for all students, examining

the long-term impact of such environments on students’

critical-thinking skills, with a focus on sociopolitical con-

sciousness. There have been some attempts to bridge the

two disciplinary perspectives to examine the effectiveness

of CRRE in fostering students’ self-determination (e.g.,

Heroux, Peters, & Randall, 2014; Wlodkowski & Ginsberg,

1995). Heroux and colleagues suggested that, if students

are to become truly autonomous and self-determined, they

should be taught goal-setting skills, self-regulation skills,

and decision-making strategies simultaneous with opportu-

nities for developing self- and other-awareness. Concur-

rently, Heroux and colleagues emphasized that it is

essential for teachers to understand students’ sociocultural

backgrounds and examine their biases related to those

social worlds. Their work is an excellent example of how to

draw on strengths of self-determination theory and CRRE

to support students’ development of self-determination

skills and to become thoughtful and discerning consumers

of knowledge.

RELATEDNESS: LEARNING IN A CARING COMMUNITY

Many motivation frameworks assume that individuals have

an inherent desire to relate to others. This may be best illus-

trated in self-determination theory, particularly relation-

ships motivation subtheory, which reasons that humans

have a need to form and maintain close and secure relation-

ships with others (R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2017). Although per-

haps not a central component, this notion is evident in other

motivation models such as achievement goal theory, which

suggests that feelings of safety and belonging are central to

establishing a mastery-oriented learning environment

(Kaplan, Sinai, & Flum, 2014; Maehr & Zusho, 2009).

Such feelings of safety can be heightened when students

feel that their teachers care for and respect them (Wentzel,

2010) and when students are encouraged to work produc-

tively and collaboratively in groups (Roseth, Johnson, &

Johnson, 2008). Interest theory, too, suggests that situa-

tional interest can often be triggered by a caring teacher or

by group work (Renninger & Hidi, 2011).

It is common to see the terms relatedness and belonging

used interchangeably in the literature (see also Gray et al.,

this issue). For example, research on the need for related-

ness (R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2017) and need for belonging

(Baumeister & Leary, 1995) both consider the literature on

attachment theory and social support as theoretical founda-

tions, and therefore pay considerable attention to teacher–

student relationships and to the relationships students have

with peers and parents (R. King, 2015; Wentzel, 2010,

2017; Wentzel & Muenks, 2016). Taken together, this liter-

ature confirms the basic tenet of relationships motivation

subtheory, namely, that secure and close relationships are

associated positively with students’ social and academic

functioning (R. King, 2015; Wentzel, 2017; Wentzel &

Muenks, 2016). In addition to the literature on relatedness,

there is, too, a burgeoning literature on belonging, specifi-

cally school belonging (Goodenow, 1991; see also Gray

et al., this issue; Osterman, 2000; Walton & Brady, 2017).

A principal finding is the protective role of sense of school

belonging on students’ psychological and academic well-

being. For example, it reduces the negative impact of peer

victimization (Wormington, Anderson, Schneider, Tomlin-

son, & Brown, 2016), discrimination, and acculturative

stress (Roche & Kuperminc, 2012) on students’ achieve-

ment motivation and educational attainment. It also enhan-

ces their long-term subjective well-being (Tian, Zhang,

Huebner, Zheng, & Liu, 2016).

Similarly, demonstrating care and building learning

communities lies at the heart of CRRE. A genuine desire

fuels this care to connect with students of all backgrounds,

and teachers demonstrate authentic care when they view

trusting, respectful, and reciprocal relationships with their

students as the cornerstone for students’ academic success

(Gay, 2010). As an advocate of authentic care, Noddings

(2013) contended that students’ personal growth is possible

only when they believe that they are cared for as individu-

als. Accordingly, teachers who make a conscientious effort

to draw on students’ cultural characteristics and experien-

ces to make learning more personally meaningful demon-

strate care and consequently enhance students’ sense of

belonging (D. Chen & Yang, 2017). Other studies have also

demonstrated that teachers’ manifestation of care is

reflected in their pedagogical practices. For example, Afri-

can American teachers’ emphasis on discipline and author-

ity was viewed by African American students in an urban

88 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

school as a marker of warm, demanding behavior (Howard,

2001; Irvine & Fraser, 1998; Ware, 2006).

Research further demonstrates that a sense of belonging

to school can be promoted by countering cultural disso-

nance (Arunkumar et al., 1999). When students perceive

that values, beliefs, and behavioral expectations at home

and at school are at odds, cultural dissonance is exacer-

bated. CRRE contends that culturally-relevant and -respon-

sive pedagogies counteract such feelings of dissonance and

a sense of alienation to school, and some limited evidence

supports this claim. Based on an in-depth study of three

community-nominated, successful mathematics teachers,

Bonner (2014) demonstrated that relationship building is

the cornerstone of culturally responsive teaching. By work-

ing closely with parents and community members to learn

about students’ home lives, language, culture, values, and

beliefs, and using this knowledge to communicate effec-

tively with students, teachers were able to create environ-

ments in which experiencing academic success was

integrated into students’ cultural identities.

Comparative Analysis

Motivation and CRRE literatures on relatedness and

belonging both recognize the importance of having individ-

uals at school and at home demonstrate authentic care (see

also Table 1). One of the clear strengths of motivation

research is its broader focus on types of relationships stu-

dents have in school and beyond. Proponents of CRRE

have, by and large, focused on the crucial role of student–

teacher relationships in promoting students’ sense of

belonging to school and identification with academic suc-

cess. However, the importance of peer relationships in cre-

ating a sense of inclusion in school and a commitment to

learning, other than in the context of promoting cooperative

and collaborative learning, is not well developed in this

literature.

By contrast, a sizable literature in motivation explores

the nature of peer relationships and their impact on aca-

demic functioning (e.g., Wentzel, 2017). The primary pur-

pose of CRRE is to ensure academic success of

underrepresented minority students by engaging in cultur-

ally-responsive and -relevant teaching; thus the focus on

student–teacher relationships may not be surprising. How-

ever, if schools are to be culturally responsive and relevant

to diverse school populations, peer-related issues are impor-

tant. Such issues include students’ self-segregating into

groups defined largely by race and ethnicity (Kim, Park, &

Koo, 2015; Kumar, Seay, & Karabenick, 2011; Villapando,

2003) and their marginalizing out-group peers due to ethno-

centrism, racial harassment (Crozier & Davies, 2008;

Kumar et al., 2015), or differences in academic values and

achievement (O’Connor, Fernandez, & Girard, 2007).

CRRE researchers have primarily examined the impor-

tance of caring student–teacher relationships for minority

students’ academic and psychological well-being in small-

scale studies conducted primarily in culturally homogenous

(e.g., a single minority group) classrooms (Sleeter, 2012).

They have yet to address important questions such as, How

does a teacher embrace the notion of a culturally responsive

“warm pedagogy” (Ware, 2006) for all students? How does

a teacher modulate authority and discipline for students

from differing backgrounds? Will this lead to essentializing

students’ cultural backgrounds? Further, will such behavior

on the teacher’s part be perceived by students as differential

teacher expectations of students from different groups,

thereby alienating them from schooling and learning?

This is where the research on belonging, particularly the

motivational studies that focus on in- and out-group dynam-

ics, can be illuminating. Answers to some of the preceding

questions may also be found in recent multilevel, multi-

group studies of motivation. For example, Kumar and Kara-

benick (2014) explored African American, Arab/Arab

American, and European American students’ perceptions

of their learning environment in conjunction with teachers’

reports of engaging in culturally responsive teaching.

Results indicated that when teachers felt responsible for

engaging in culturally relevant teaching practices, students

from all cultural groups perceived the learning context as

more mastery focused (i.e., valuing improvement, empha-

sizing effort and understanding, and recognizing mistakes

as essential to the learning process).

Results of this study indicate that when students perceive

that the curriculum is culturally infused, and when school

personnel demonstrate care for all students (e.g., providing

language translators to communicate with parents or taking

immediate action against ethnic name calling), students,

not surprisingly, experience a sense of belonging in the

school context. This study also highlights that teachers can

be culturally responsive even as they are teaching a hetero-

geneous student body, because culturally responsive teach-

ing is not teaching to specific groups of students. Rather, as

stated earlier, culturally responsive teachers create an inclu-

sive classroom environment, fostering positive cross-cul-

tural relationships among students. Further, culturally

competent teachers perceive the diversity manifested in the

student body as strength to be used in linking curriculum to

instruction and the teaching–learning process.

CONCLUSION

Literature emerging from CRRE frameworks and social

cognitive theories of motivation demonstrates a shared

interest in ensuring that students develop competence by

engaging in meaningful learning tasks in caring and auton-

omy-supportive learning environments. On the topic of

school reform, there seems to be agreement between these

two areas of inquiry. For example, Ames’s (1992) work on

classroom goal structures and Maehr and Midgley’s (1996)

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 89

work on transforming school cultures detail critical facets

of classrooms and schools that are optimal for students’

motivation to learn. For example, they both suggest that

students would be better served if teachers engage in

instructional practices that are meaningful and challenging,

actively solicit student participation in classroom decisions,

minimize social comparisons, and adopt criterion-refer-

enced rather than norm-referenced evaluation techniques

(see Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Meece, Ander-

man, & Anderman, 2006). Similarly, CRRE proponents

(Banks, 1997; Sleeter, 1992) argue that rigid time allotment

for classes, ability grouping between and within class-

rooms, inflexible curriculum structure, and bureaucratic

hierarchy within schools and classrooms are not conducive

to promoting education in multicultural classrooms.

Despite their shared commitment to enhance students’

learning experiences in school, the two streams of research

nevertheless seem to run on parallel tracks, seldom inter-

secting—likely as a result of disparate historical origins

and philosophical foundations. CRRE literature, emerging

from struggles for civil and human rights and justice,

emphasizes equity in access to education for disenfran-

chised minority students. The mantra that runs through this

literature is that culture—individual and institutional—is at

the core of every educational endeavor. Indeed, CRRE

scholars’ interpretation of meaningfulness, competence,

autonomy, and relatedness is grounded in their understand-

ing of education as culturally embedded, antiracist, and

rooted in social justice (S. Nieto, 2002).

Motivational researchers’ commitment to understanding

the causes and consequences of students’ motivations in the

academic context is driven by the desire to equip all

children—not just marginalized students of color—to

become lifelong learners. This is apparent in the increasing

number of multinational and cross-cultural studies

that have advanced our understanding of the universal moti-

vational underpinnings of students’ engagement and aca-

demic achievement (Butler, 2006; Murayama, Pekrun,

Lichtenfeld, & vom Hofe, 2013; Richardson & Watt,

2014). Motivational researchers’ use of sophisticated statis-

tical methods has advanced our understanding of the com-

plex interrelationships between individuals and their

context. Studies using multilevel and latent growth models

have made it possible to examine the impact of the charac-

teristics of micro- and exosystems such as schools, peers,

and neighborhoods on changes in motivational and learning

outcomes for students from different ethnic and racial back-

grounds (Byrd & Chavous, 2009; Gutman & Midgley,

2000). However, with few exceptions (see Graham, this

issue; Gray et al., this issue; Lopez, 2016), motivational

research is relatively silent concerning the structural inequi-

ties that exist within our educational system and broader

society.

On this issue, CRRE researchers are unrelenting and

unequivocal in their call for leveling the playing field and

providing all students, particularly vulnerable minority stu-

dents, with equitable educational opportunities for school

success. We argue that motivational research needs to

move from the perspective of equality to one of equity

when examining students’ motivation and achievement.

This requires creative and thoughtful ways of examining

macrosystems, the structural and cultural features that con-

tribute to inequity in educational options and opportunities,

using a variety of research methods.

It is important, however, to note that although the

theoretical discussions and philosophical arguments in

CRRE literature are politically attuned to societal ills,

the empirical work in this field falls short of its vision-

ary ideals. For example, CRRE research has demon-

strated, based on small-scale qualitative studies, the

successes of culturally competent teachers in educating

cultural minority students (e.g., Emdin et al., 2016; Gil-

rain, 2015; Gutstein, 2016). However, the localized

nature of these studies precludes systematic documenta-

tion and generalization of findings and translation into

meaningful policy implications for the optimal education

of all students (Sleeter, 2011).

This leads us to another issue in CRRE research: It is

explicitly designed to support the education of marginalized

student groups. Consequently, much of this research is con-

ducted in the context of classrooms comprised almost exclu-

sively of students of color. As reported earlier, contextualizing

curriculum to the community life in an Eskimo village school

(Gubris, 1991) and using rap lyrics to teach science (Emdin,

2010; Emdin et al., 2016), mathematics (Hubert, 2014; Lesser,

2014), and social studies (Stovall, 2006) to African American

students are excellent examples of making learning meaning-

ful for these students. However, we still need to ascertain if

and how this translates to meaningful learning in multicultural

environments. For instance, the instructional strategy

employed while teaching African American students may not

work as well when teaching in culturally diverse classrooms

that also includes students from other cultural groups. It may

not even work well for all African American students. Fur-

thermore, in the research previously mentioned, the teachers

adopting rap music to sustain students’ interest in various sub-

ject domains were African American. Would students have

perceived these “culturally responsive strategies” as authentic

if taught by teachers from other cultural groups? Is it impor-

tant to acknowledge the legitimacy of students’ cultural heri-

tage by incorporating culturally relevant curricular content

and instructional strategies for motivating students to learn? If

so, how does a teacher implement this in a culturally diverse

classroom context? Or is it more important for teachers and

educators to develop cultural self-awareness, including aware-

ness of prejudices regarding students from minority groups?

These questions, and many more, have yet to be answered.

We therefore call for studies that bridge the best of

these traditions—culturally sensitive and methodologically

rigorous studies (see also Urdan & Bruchmann, this issue)

90 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

that document how students’ motivational processes are

not just influenced by but are embedded in their sociocul-

tural and historical roots. Such studies could investigate

how specific macrolevel forces such as racism, prejudice,

and discrimination affect the development of students’

autonomy in the school and classroom contexts; they

might also explore the relationship between cultural and

academic competence for both teachers and students.

Thus, even as motivational researchers would do well to

embrace a broader conception of motivation advocated by

CRRE scholars in their research, so, too, can CRRE schol-

ars draw on the large body of theoretically grounded

empirical motivational research to understand how com-

mon, motivationally supportive school and classroom prac-

tices can support their goal of empowering students to

become autonomous and self-determined citizens. Then,

and only then, will all students be able to experience true

autonomy and exercise their agency to bring about needed

changes in society. The time has come to embed motiva-

tional research in culture.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We express our sincere thanks to Dr. Kathryn Wentzel, the

editor of Educational Psychologist, for her thoughtful and

constructive feedback on earlier versions of the manuscript.

It helped us think through some complex conceptual issues

we confronted while preparing the manuscript. We also

extend our gratitude to the external reviewers for their

insightful comments.

ORCID

Revathy Kumar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5175-0421

Akane Zusho http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0096-2448

REFERENCES

Adera, B., & Manning, M. L. (2014). Promoting social and cultural compe-

tence for students from diverse backgrounds with disabilities. Multicul-

tural Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 67–82.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. doi:10.1037/0022-

0663.84.3.261

Anderman, E. A., & Gray, D. L. (2017). The roles of schools and teachers

in fostering competence motivation. In A. Elliot, C. Dweck, & D.

Yaeger (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and

application (2nd ed., pp. 604–619). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class, and educational reform in an inner

city school. Teachers College Record, 97, 69–94. Retrieved from ERIC

database (EJ519127).

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The Theory and Practice of Culturally

Relevant Education. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206.

doi:10.3102/0034654315582066

Arunkumar, R., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1999). Perceiving high or low

home-school dissonance: Longitudinal effects on adolescent emotional

and academic well-being. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 4, 441–

466. doi:10.1207/s15327795jra0904_4

Bamhardt, R. (1982). Cross-Cultural Issues in Alaskan Education. Vol. II.

Fairbanks: Alaska University, Center for Cross-Cultural Studies.

Retrieved from ERIC database (ED232814).

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY:

Freeman.

Banks, J. A. (1997). Educating citizens in a multicultural society. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Banks, J. (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curricu-

lum and teaching (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for

interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Betoret, F. D. (2006). Stressors, Self�Efficacy, Coping Resources, and Burnout among Secondary School Teachers in Spain. Educational Psy-

chology, 26, 519–539. doi:10.1080/01443410500342492

Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-effi-

cacy: How different are they readily? Educational Psychology Review,

15, 1–40. doi:10.1023/A:1021302408382

Bonner, E. P. (2014). Investigating practices of highly successful mathe-

matics teachers of traditionally underserved students. Educational Stud-

ies in Mathematics, 86, 377–399. doi:10.1007/s10649-014-9533-7

Boykin, W. (2014). Human diversity, assessment in education and the

achievement of excellence and equity. The Journal of Negro Education,

83, 499–521.

Brown, J. C., & Crippen, K. J. (2017). The knowledge and practices of high

school science teachers in pursuit of cultural responsiveness. Science

Education, 101, 99–133.

Bui, Y. N., & Fagan, Y. M. (2013). The effects of an integrated reading

comprehension Strategy: A culturally responsive teaching approach for

fifth-grade students’ reading comprehension. Preventing School Failure:

Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 57, 59–69.

Bullivant, B. M. (1989). Culture: Its nature and meaning for educators. In

J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Bank (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues

and perspectives (pp. 27–45). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Butler, R. (2006). Are mastery and ability goals both adaptive? Evaluation,

initial goal construction and the quality of task engagement. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 595–611.

Byrd, C. M., & Chavous, T. M. (2009). Racial Identity and Academic

Achievement in the Neighborhood Context: A Multilevel Analysis.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 544–559.

Castenell, L. A., Jr., & Pinar, W. F. (1993). Understanding curriculum as

racial text: Representation of identity and difference in education.

Albany: State of University New York Press.

Chavous, T. M., Drotar, S., Fonseca-Bolorin, G., Leath, S., Lyons, D.,

& Mustafaa, F. (2017). Identity, motivation, and resilience: The

example of Black college students in science, technology, engineer-

ing, and mathematics. In J. Decuir-Gunby & P. Schutz (Eds.), Race

and ethnicity in the study of motivation in education (pp. 117–132).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Chen, D., & Yang, X. (2017). Improving active classroom participation of

ESL students: Applying culturally responsive teaching strategies. The-

ory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(1), 79–86.

Chen, P., & Zimmerman, B. (2007). A cross-national comparison study on

the accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs of middle-school mathematics stu-

dents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 221–244.

Chiang, E. S., Byrd, S. P., & Molin, A. J. (2011). Children’s perceived cost

for exercise: Application of an expectancy-value paradigm. Health Edu-

cation and Behavior, 39, 143–149.

Choi, Y. (2013). Teaching social studies for newcomer English language

learners: Toward culturally relevant pedagogy. Multicultural Perspec-

tives, 15(1), 12–18.

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 91

Civil, M. (2016). STEM learning research through a funds of knowledge

lens. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 41–59.

Chun, H., & Dickson, G. (2011). A psychoecological model of perfor-

mance among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 40,

1581–1594. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9640-z

Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). The problem of teacher education. Journal of

Teacher Education, 55, 295–299. doi:10.1177/0022487104268057

Comer, J. P., & Emmons, C. (2006). The research program of the Yale

Child Study Center School development program. The Journal of Negro

Education, 75, 353–372. Retrieved from ERIC database (EJ754895).

Condon, J., & LeBrack, B. (2015). Culture, definition of. In J. Bennett

(Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of intercultural competence (pp. 192–

195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conley, A. M. (2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achieve-

ment goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 104(1), 32–47. doi:10.1037/a0026042

Crozier, G., & Davies, J. (2008). ‘The trouble is they don’t mix’: Self�se- gregation or enforced exclusion? Race Ethnicity and Education, 11,

285–301. doi:10.1080/13613320802291173

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-Century Teacher Educa-

tion. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 300–314. doi:10.1177/

0022487105285962

DeCuir-Gunby, J., & Schutz, P. (2014). Researching race within educa-

tional psychology contexts. Educational Psychologist, 49, 1–17.

doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.957828

Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children. New York, NY: The New Press.

Dupuis, J., & Abrams, E. (2017). Student science achievement and the inte-

gration of Indigenous knowledge on standardized tests. Cultural Studies

of Science Education, 12, 581–604. doi:10.1007/s11422-016-9728-6

Durik, A. M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J. S. (2006). Task values and ability

beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A developmental

analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 597–610. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.99.3.597

Eaton, M. J., & Dembo, M. H. (1997). Differences in the motivational

beliefs of Asian American and non-Asian students. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 89, 433–440. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.433

Eccles, J. (2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life?

Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational

Psychologist, 44(2), 78–89. doi:10.1080/00461520902832368

Eccles, J. S., Wong, C. A., & Peck, S. C. (2006). Ethnicity as a social con-

text for the development of African American adolescents. Journal of

School Psychology, 44, 407–426. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.04.001

Elliot, A. J., & Dweck C. S. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of competence and

motivation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., Dweck, C. S., & Yaeger, D. S. (2017). Handbook of compe-

tence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Emdin, C. (2010). Affiliation and alienation: Hip�hop, rap, and urban sci- ence education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 1–25.

doi:10.1080/00220270903161118

Emdin, C., Adjapong, E., & Levy, I. (2016). Hip-hop based interventions as

pedagogy/therapy in STEM: A model from urban science education. Journal

for Multicultural Education, 10, 307–321. doi:10.1108/JME-03-2016-0023

Garcia, C., & Chun, H. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching and teacher

expectations for Latino middle school students. Journal of Latina/o Psy-

chology, 4, 173–187. doi:10.1037/lat0000061

Gaspard, H., Dicke, A., Flunger, B., Brisson, B., H€afner, I., Nagengast, B.,

& Trautwein, U. (2015). Fostering adolescents’ value beliefs for mathe-

matics with a relevance intervention in the classroom. Developmental

Psychology, 51, 1226–1350. doi:10.1037/dev0000028

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & prac-

tice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching (2001

AACTE Outstanding Writing Award Recipient). Journal of Teacher

Education, 53, 106–116. doi:10.1177/0022487102053002003

Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diver-

sity. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 143–152. doi:10.1177/

0022487109347320

Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum

Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. doi:10.1111/curi.12002

Gay, G., & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the

21st century. The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/

08878730009555246

Gilrain, J. (2015). Homer to hip-hop: Teaching writing through painting,

performance, and poetry. Language Arts, 92, 328–342. Retrieved from

http://www.ncte.org/journals/la/issues/v92-5

Goodenow, C. (1991). Classroom belonging among early adolescent stu-

dents: Relationships to motivation and achievement. Journal of Early

Adolescence, 13, 21–43. doi:10.1177/0272431693013001002

Graham, S. (this issue). Race/ethnicity and social adjustment of adoles-

cents: How (not if) school diversity matters. Educational Psychologist,

53. doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1428805

Graham, S., Taylor, A., & Hudley, C. (2015). A motivational intervention

for African American boys labeled as aggressive. Urban Education, 50,

194–224. doi:10.1177/0042085914549364

Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (this issue). Black and belong-

ing at school: A case for interpersonal, instructional, and institutional

opportunity structures. Educational Psychologist, 53. doi:10.1080/

00461520.2017.1421466

Griner, A. C., & Stewart, M. (2013). Addressing the achievement gap and

disportionality through the use of culturally responsive teaching practi-

ces. Urban Education, 48, 585–621.

Grubis, S. (1991, November). Education in indigenous communities. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Asso-

ciation, Chicago, IL.

Gutman, L. M., & Midgley, C. (2000). The role of protective factors in

supporting the academic achievement of poor African American stu-

dents during the middle school transition. Journal of Youth and Adoles-

cence, 29, 223–249. doi:10.1023/A:1005108700243

Gutstein, E. (2016). “Our issues, our people—Math as our weapon”: Criti-

cal mathematics in a Chicago neighborhood high school. Journal for

Research in Mathematics Education, 47, 454–504. doi:10.5951/

jresematheduc.47.5.0454

Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbets, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J.

S. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention:

Disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 111, 745–765. doi:10.1037/pspp0000075

Helms, J., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in psy-

chology and how to change it: A methodological perspective. American

Psychologist, 60(1), 27–36. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.27

Heroux, J. R., Peters, S. J., & Randall, M. A. (2014). Fostering self-deter-

mination through culturally responsive teaching. In D. Lawrence-Brown

& M. Sapon-Shevin (Eds.), Condition critical: Key principles for equita-

ble and inclusive education (pp. 187–203). New York, NY: Teachers

Press.

Higgins, E., Fitzgerald, J., & Howard, S. (2015). “Literacy Lift-Off”: An

experimental evaluation of a reading recovery programme on literacy

skills and reading self-concept. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31,

247–264. doi:10.1080/02667363.2015.1030592

Hill, M. L., & Petchauer, E. (2013). Schooling hip-hop: Expanding hip-hop

based education across the curriculum. New York, NY: Teachers Col-

lege Press.

Hollins, E. R., & Torres-Guzman, M. A. (2005). Research on preparing

teachers for diverse populations. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. M. Zeich-

ner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: A report of the AERA panel on

research and teacher education (pp. 477–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Howard, T. C. (2001). Telling their side of the story: African American

students’ perceptions of culturally relevant teaching. The Urban Review,

33, 131–149. doi:10.1023/A:1010393224120

92 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

Hubert, T. L. (2014). Learners of mathematics: High school students’

perspectives of culturally relevant mathematics pedagogy. Journal

of African American Studies, 18, 324–336. doi:10.1007/s12111-013-

9273-2

Hughes, D., Witherspoon, D., Rivas-Drake, D., & West-Bey, N. (2009).

Received ethnic–racial socialization messages and youths’ academic

and behavioral outcomes: Examining the mediating role of ethnic iden-

tity and self-esteem. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,

15, 112–124. doi:10.1037/a0015509

Hurley, E. A., Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (2009). Culture and the inter-

action of student ethnicity with reward structure in group learning. Cog-

nition and Instruction, 27, 121–146. doi:10.1080/07370000902797346

Irvine, J. J., & Fraser, J. W. (1998). Warm demanders. Education Week, 17,

56, 42. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1998/05/13/

35irvine.h17.html

Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A.

(2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and

domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Develop-

ment, 73, 509–527. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00421

Juvonen, J., Yueyan, W., & Espinoza, G. (2010). Bullying experiences and

compromised academic performance across middle school grades. The

Journal of Early Adolescence, 31(1), 152–173. doi:10.1177/

0272431610379415

Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project-based

science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and

careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowl-

edge and inquiry based practices. Science Education, 94, 855–887.

doi:10.1002/sce.20391

Kaplan, A., Sinai, M., & Flum, H. (2014). Design-based interventions for

promoting students’ identity exploration within the school curriculum.

In S. Karabenick & T. Urdan (Eds.), Motivational interventions, advan-

ces in motivation and achievement (vol. 18, pp. 243–291). Bingley, UK:

Emerald Group.

Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not.

Educational Psychology Review, 19, 429–442. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-

9027-y

Ketner, S. L., Buitelaar, M. W., & Bosma, H. A. (2004). Identity strategies

among adolescent girls of Moroccan descent in the Netherlands. Iden-

tity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 145–169.

doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0402_3

Kim, Y. K., Park, J. J., & Koo, K. K. (2015). Testing self-segregation: Mul-

tiple-group structural modeling of college students’ interracial friend-

ship by race. Research in Higher Education, 56(1), 57–77. doi:10.1007/

s11162-014-9337-8

King, J. E. (1997). Culture-centered knowledge: Black studies, curriculum

transformation, and social action. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Bank

(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 265–290).

New York, NY: Macmillan.

King, J. E., Hollins, E. R., & Hayman, W. C. (Eds.). (1997). Preparing

teachers for cultural diversity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

King, P. M., & Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2005). A developmental model of

intercultural maturity. Journal of college student development, 46, 571–

592. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0060

King, R. (2015). Sense of relatedness boosts engagement, achievement,

and well-being: A latent growth model study. Contemporary Educa-

tional Psychology, 42, 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002

King, R., & McInerney, D. M. (2014). Culture’s consequences on student

motivation: Capturing universality and variability through personal

investment theory. Educational Psychologist, 49, 175–198. doi:10.1080/

00461520.2014.926813

Klassen, R. M. (2004). A cross-cultural investigation of the efficacy beliefs

of South Asian immigrant and Anglo Canadian nonimmigrant early ado-

lescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 731–742. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.96.4.731

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher

efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise?

Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43. doi:10.1007/s10648-

010-9141-8

Klassen, R. M., & Usher, E. L. (2010). Self-efficacy in educational set-

tings: Recent research and emerging directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A.

Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol 16A.

The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achieve-

ment (pp. 1–33). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus reflec-

tive autonomy. Journal of Personality, 64, 465–494. doi:10.1111/

j.1467-6494.1996.tb00518.x

Kroeber, A. L., & Kluckhohn, C. (1952). Culture: A critical review of con-

cepts and definitions. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum.

Kumagai, A. K., & Lypson, M. L. (2009). Beyond cultural competence:

Critical consciousness, social justice, and multicultural education. Aca-

demic Medicine, 84, 782–787. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181a42398

Kumar, R., & Karabenick, S. (2014, April). Culturally responsive practices

and students’ perceptions of classroom motivational climate: A multi-

level analysis. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Philadelphia, PA.

Kumar, R., & Maehr, M. L. (2010). Schooling, cultural diversity and student

motivation. In J. L. Meece & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of schools, school-

ing and human development (pp. 308–323). New York, NY: Routledge.

Kumar, R., Seay, N., & Karabenick, S. A. (2011). Shades of White: Iden-

tity status, stereotypes, prejudice, and xenophobia. Educational Studies:

A Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 47, 347–

378. doi:10.1080/00131946.2011.587922

Kumar, R., Seay, N., & Karabenick, S. A. (2015). Immigrant Arab adoles-

cents in ethnic enclaves: Physical and phenomenological contexts of

identity negotiation. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,

21, 201–212. doi:10.1037/a0037748

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

gogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.

doi:10.3102/00028312032003465

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Fighting for our lives. Journal of Teacher Edu-

cation, 51, 206–214. doi:10.1177/0022487100051003008

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). It’s not the culture of poverty, it’s the poverty

of culture: The problem with teacher education. Anthropology & Educa-

tion Quarterly, 37, 104–109. doi:10.1525/aeq.2006.37.2.104

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

African American children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Is meeting the diverse needs of all students

possible? Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(1), 13–15. doi:10.1080/

00228958.2011.10516716

Ladson-Billings, G. (2012). Through a glass darkly: The persistence of

race in education research & scholarship. Educational Researcher, 41,

115–120. doi:10.3102/0013189X12440743

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the

remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi:10.17763/

haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrin-

sic motivational orientations in the classroom: Age differences and aca-

demic correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 184–196.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.2.184

Lesser, L. M. (2014). Mathematical lyrics: Noteworthy endeavours in edu-

cation. Journal of Mathematics and the Arts, 8(1–2), 46–53.

doi:10.1080/17513472.2014.950833

Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., & Patall, E. A. (2016). Motivation. In L. Corno &

E. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp.

91–103). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Lodge, W. (2017). Science learning and teaching in a Creole-speaking

environment. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12, 661–675.

doi:10.1007/s11422-016-9760-6

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 93

Lopez, F. A. (2016). Culturally responsive pedagogies in Arizona and

Latino students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1–42.

Retrieved from ERIC database (EJ1089538).

Luke, A. (2017). Commentary: On the race of teachers and students: A

reflection on experience, scientific evidence, and silence. American Edu-

cational Research Journal, 54(Suppl. 1), 102S–110S. doi:10.3102/

0002831216679503

Luttrell, V. R., Callen, B.W., Allen, C.S., Wood, M. D., Deeds, D. G., &

Richard, D. C. S. (2010). The mathematics value inventory for general

education students: Development and initial validation. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 70(1), 142–60. doi:10.1177/001316

4409344526

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boul-

der, CO: Westview, Harper Collins.

Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past,

present, and future. In K. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of

motivation in school (pp. 76–104). New York, NY: Routledge.

Magos, K. (2006). Teachers from the majority population – pupils from the

minority: Results of a research in the field of Greek minority education.

European Journal of Teacher Education, 29, 357–369. doi:10.1080/

02619760600795189

Markus, H. R. (2008). Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: Toward a unified

theory of race and ethnicity. American Psychologist, 63, 651–670.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.651

Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teach-

ers College Record, 111, 295–338.

McGrady, P. B., & Reynolds, J. R. (2013). Racial Mismatch in the Class-

room: Beyond Black-white Differences. Sociology of Education, 86(1),

3–17. doi:10.1177/0038040712444857

McInerney, D. M., & Ali, J. (2006). Multidimensional and hierarchical

assessment of school motivation: Cross�cultural validation. Educa- tional Psychology, 26, 717–734. doi:10.1080/01443410500342559

McIntyre, E. (2015). Comprehensive instruction in culturally responsive

classrooms: A review of research and practice. In S. R. Parris, K. Headley,

& L. M. Morrow (Eds.), Comprehensive instruction: Research-based best

practices (3rd ed., pp. 136–146). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom

context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46,

235–261. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.001

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom

goal structure, student motivation, and academic achievement. Annual

Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503. doi:10.1146/annurev.

psych.56.091103.070258

Meyer, D. K., & Turner, J. C. (2002). Discovering Emotion in Classroom

Motivation Research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 107–114.

doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3702_5

Meyer, X., & Crawford, B. A. (2011). Teaching science as a cultural way

of knowing: Merging authentic inquiry, nature of science, and multicul-

tural strategies. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 525–547.

doi:10.1007/s11422-011-9318-6

Milner, H. R. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban class-

room. The Urban Review, 43(1), 66–89. doi:10.1007/s11256-009-0143-0

Minikel-Lacocque, J. (2013). Racism, college, and the power of words.

American Educational Research Journal, 50, 432–465. doi:10.3102/

0002831212468048

Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2002). Promoting Academic Lit-

eracy with Urban Youth through Engaging Hip-Hop Culture. The

English Journal, 91(6), 88–92. doi:10.2307/821822

Moses, M. S. (1997). Multicultural education as fostering autonomy. Stud-

ies in Philosophy and Education, 16, 373–388. doi:10.1023/

A:1004957802575

Murayama, K., Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., & vom Hofe, R. (2013). Pre-

dicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The

unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child

Development, 84, 1475–1490. doi:10.1111/cdev.12036

Murdock, T. B. (1999). The social context of risk: Status and motivational

predictors of alienation in middle school. Journal of Educational Psy-

chology, 91(1), 62–75. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.62

Nieto, C., & Booth, Z. M. (2010). Cultural competence: Its influence on the

teaching and learning of international students. Journal of Studies in

International Education, 14, 406–425. doi:10.1177/1028315309337929

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity. The sociopolitical context of multi-

cultural education (3rd ed). New York, NY: Longman.

Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives

for a new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral

education. ProQuest: Ebook Central.

Nolen, S. B., Horn, I. S., & Ward, C. J. (2015). Situating motivation. Educa-

tional Psychologist, 50, 234–247. doi:10.1080/00461520.2015.1075399

Nyika, A. (2015). Mother tongue as the medium of instruction at develop-

ing country universities in a global context. South African Journal of

Science, 111(1), 1–5. doi:10.17159/sajs.2015/20140005

O’Connor, C., Fernandez, S. D., & Girard, B. (2007). The meaning of

“blackness”: How Black students differentially align race and achieve-

ment across time and space. In A. Fuligni (Ed.), Contesting stereotypes

and creating identities (pp. 183–208) New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school com-

munity. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367. doi:10.3102/

00346543070003323

Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain

through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward.

Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. doi:10.17763/

haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch, K. A.,

& Freeman, J. L. (2017). Daily autonomy supporting or thwarting and

students’ motivation and engagement in the high school science class-

room. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110, 269–288. doi:10.1037/

edu0000214

Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity devel-

opment, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 106(1), 315–329. doi:10.1037/a0034027

Randhawa, B. S., & Gupta, A. (2000). Cross-national gender differences in

mathematics achievement, attitude, and self-efficacy within a common

intrinsic structure. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 15, 51–66.

doi:10.1177/082957350001500205

Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. New York, NY: Oxford University

Press.

Reeve, J., Bolt, E., & Cai, Y. (1999). Autonomy supportive teachers: How

they teach and motivate students. Journal of Educational Psychology,

91, 537–548. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.3.537

Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2014). An intervention-based program of

research on teachers’ motivating styles. In. S. Karabenick & T. Urdan

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (vol. 18, pp. 293–339).

Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’

autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy, 98(1), 209–218. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale

in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during

an uninteresting activity. Motivation and emotion, 26, 183–207.

doi:10.1023/A:1021711629417

Renninger, K. A., & Hidi, S. (2011). Revisiting the conceptualization,

measurement, and generation of interest. Educational Psychologist, 46,

168–184. doi:10.1080/00461520.2011.587723

Renninger, K.A., Nieswandt, M., & Hidi, S. (Eds.). (2015). Interest in

mathematics and science learning. Washington, DC: American Educa-

tional Research Association.

Richardson, P. W., & Watt, M. G. H. (2014). Why people choose teaching

as a career: An expectancy-value approach to understanding teacher

94 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE

motivation. In P. W. Richardson, S. A., Karabenick, & M. G. H. Watt

(Eds.), Teacher motivation: Theory and practice (pp. 3–19). New York,

NY: Routledge.

Roche, C., & Kuperminc, G. P. (2012). Acculturative stress and school

belonging among Latino youth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Scien-

ces, 34(1), 61–76. doi:10.1177/0739986311430084

Rogat, T. K., Witham, S. A., & Chinn, C. A. (2014). Teachers’ autonomy

relevant practices within an inquiry-based science curricular context:

Extending the range of academically significant autonomy supportive

practices. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–46.

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early

adolescents’ achievement and peer relationships: The effects of coopera-

tive, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bul-

letin, 134, 223–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.223

Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological process underlying ste-

reotype threat and standardized math test performance. Educational Psy-

chologist, 40, 53–63. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4001_4

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psy-

chological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contin-

gency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and

test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of personality and Social

Psychology, 45, 736–750. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736

Saint-Hilaire, L. A. (2014). So, how do I teach them? Understanding multi-

cultural education and culturally relevant pedagogy. Reflective Practice,

15, 592–602. doi:10.1080/14623943.2014.900026

Salili, F., Chiu, C., & Liu, S. (2001). The influence of culture and context

on students’ motivational orientation and performance. In F. Salili, C.

Chi, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Student motivation: The culture and context of

learning (pp. 21–247). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

S�anchez, D. (2010). Hip-hop and a hybrid text in a postsecondary English

class. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 478–487.

doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.6.4

Schmeichel, M. (2012). Good teaching? An examination of culturally rele-

vant pedagogy as an equity practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44,

211–231. doi:10.1080/00220272.2011.591434

Scott, K. A., Clark, K., & White, M. A. (2013). COMPUGIRLs’ stand-

point. Urban Education, 48, 657–681. doi:10.1177/0042085913491219

Shevalier, R., & McKenzie, B. A. (2012). Culturally responsive teaching as

an ethics- and care-based approach to urban education. Urban Educa-

tion, 47, 1086–1105. doi:10.1177/0042085912441483

Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching

self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 23, 1086–1101. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.011

Sleeter, C. E. (1992). Restructuring Schools for Multicultural Education.

Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 141–148. doi:10.1177/

0022487192043002007

Sleeter, C. E. (2011). An agenda to strengthen culturally responsive peda-

gogy. English Teaching, 10(2), 7–23.

Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally respon-

sive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47, 562–584. doi:10.1177/

0042085911431472

Spencer, M. B., Noll, E., Stoltzfus, J., & Harpalani, V. (2001). Identity and

school adjustment: Revisiting the “acting White” assumption. Educa-

tional Psychologist, 36(1), 21–30. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_3

Spitzberg, B., & Changnon, G. (2009). Conceptualizing intercultural com-

petence. In D. K. Deardorff (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of intercultural

competence (pp. 2–52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual

identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613

Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004).

Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage

student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39,

97–110. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_2

Stovall, D. (2006). We can relate: Hip-hop culture, critical pedagogy, and

the secondary classroom. Urban Education, 41, 585–602. doi:10.1177/

0042085906292513

Tate, W. F. (2005). Access and opportunities to learn are not accidents:

Engineering mathematical progress in your school. Greensboro, NC:

SERVE Center.

Thomas, O. N., Caldwell, C. H., Faison, N., & Jackson, J. S. (2009). Pro-

moting academic achievement: The role of racial identity in buffering

perceptions of teacher discrimination on academic achievement among

African American and Caribbean Black adolescents. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 101, 420–431.

Tian, L., Zhang, L., Huebner, E. S., Zheng, X., & Liu, W. (2016). The lon-

gitudinal relationship between school belonging and subjective well-

being in school among elementary school students. Applied Research in

Quality of Life, 11, 1269–1285. doi:10.1007/s11482-015-9436-5

Timmermans, A. C., Kuyper, H., & van der Werf, G. (2015). Accu-

rate, inaccurate, or biased teacher expectations: Do Dutch teachers

differ in their expectations at the end of primary education? British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 459–478. doi:10.1111/

bjep.12087

Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Kohli, R., Sacramento, J., Henning, N., & Agar-

wal-Rangnath, R., Sleeter, C. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies peda-

gogy: Implications for K–12 schools from the research. The Urban

Review, 47(1), 104–125. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0280-y

Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., L€udtke, O., Nagy, G., &

Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for the multiplicative term in modern

expectancy–value theory: A latent interaction modeling study. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology, 104, 763–777. doi:10.1037/a00

27470

Turner, J. C. (2014). Theory-based interventions with middle-school teach-

ers to support student motivation and engagement. In S. Karabenick &

T. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivational

interventions (pp. 341–378). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Tyler, K. M., Dillihunt, M. L., Boykin, A. W., Coleman, S. T., Scott, D.

M., Tyler, C. M. B., & Hurley, E. A. (2008). Examining cultural sociali-

zation within African American and European American households.

Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 14, 201–204.

doi:10.1037/1099-9809.14.3.201

Urdan, T., & Bruchmann, K. (this issue). Examining the academic motiva-

tion of a diverse student population: A consideration of methodology.

Educational Psychologist, 53. doi:10.1080/00461520.2018.1440234

Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student

motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence

beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349. doi:10.1016/j.

jsp.2006.04.003

Urdan, T., & Turner, J. C. (2005). Competence motivation in the class-

room. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and

motivation (pp. 297–317). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Usher, E. L. (2016). Personal capability beliefs. In L. Corno & E. Ander-

man (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 146–

159). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning:

A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68,

443–463. doi:10.1177/0013164407308475

Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R.

(2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers: Relations to

teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educa-

tional Research Journal, 47, 497–527. doi:10.3102/0002831209353594

V�elez-Agosto, N. M., Soto-Crespo, J. G., Vizcarrondo-Oppenheimer, M.,

Vega-Molina, S., & Garc�ıa Coll, C. (2017). Bronfenbrenner’s bioecolog-

ical theory revision: Moving clture from the macro into the micro. Per-

spectives on Psychological Science, 12, 900–910.

MOTIVATION AND CRRE 95

Verkuyten, M. (2014). Identity and cultural diversity. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Villalpando, O. (2003). Self�segregation or self�preservation? A critical race theory and Latina/o critical theory analysis of a study of Chicana/o

college students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa-

tion, 16, 619–646. doi:10.1080/0951839032000142922

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teach-

ers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1),

20–32. doi:10.1177/0022487102053001003

Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In

A. Elliot, C. Dweck, & D. Yaeger (Eds.), Handbook of competence and

motivation: Theory and Application (2nd ed., pp. 272–293). New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy. Urban Education, 41, 427–

456. doi:10.1177/0042085906289710

Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, A. S., & Hudicourt-

Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of

everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38,

529–552. doi:10.1002/tea.1017

Weiner, B. (1974). Achievement motivation and attribution theory. Morris-

town, NJ: General Learning Press.

Wentzel, K. R. (2010). Students’ relationships with teachers. In J. Meece &

J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and

human development (pp. 75–91). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Wentzel, K. R. (2017). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic per-

formance at school. In A. Elliot, C. Dweck, & D. Yaeger (Eds.), Hand-

book of competence and motivation: Theory and Application (2nd ed.,

pp. 586–603). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Wentzel, K. R., & Muenks, K. (2016). Peer influence on students’ motiva-

tion, academic achievement and social behavior. In K. Wentzel & G.

Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts:

Social-emotional, motivation, and cognitive outcomes (pp. 13–30). New

York, NY: Routledge.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of compe-

tence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achieve-

ment motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015

Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally

responsive teaching. Educational Leadership, 53(1), 17–21.

Wood, D., & Graham, S. (2010). Why race matters: Social context and

achievement motivation in African American youth. In T. Urdan & S.

Karabenick (Eds.), The decade ahead: Applications and contexts of

motivation and achievement, Advances in motivation and achievement

(vol. 16B, pp. 175–209). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Wormington, S. V., Anderson, K. G., Schneider, A., Tomlinson, K. L., &

Brown, S. A. (2016). Peer victimization and adolescent adjustment:

Does school belonging matter? Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 1–21.

doi:10.1080/15388220.2014.922472

Yamauchi, L. A., & Tharp, R. G. (1995). Culturally compatible conversa-

tions in native American classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 7, 349–

367. doi:10.1016/0898-5898(95)90009-8

Zeichner, K. (2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher edu-

cation in the USA. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40, 551–568.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of

personal agency. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds), Adolescence and edu-

cation, Vol. 5: Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45–69). Green-

wich, CT: Information Age.

Zimmerman, H. T., & Weible, J. L. (2017). Learning in and about

rural places: Connections and tensions between students’ everyday

experiences and environmental quality issues in their community.

Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 7–31. doi:10.1007/

s11422-016-9757-1

Zusho, A., & Clayton, K. E. (2011). Culturalizing achievement goal theory

and research. Educational Psychologist, 46, 239–260. doi:10.1080/

00461520.2011.614526

Zusho, A., Daddino, J., & Garcia, C. (2016). Culture, race, ethnicity, and

motivation. In K. Wentzel & G. Ramani (Eds.), Handbook of social

influences in school contexts: Social-emotional, motivation, and cogni-

tive outcomes (pp. 273–292). New York, NY: Routledge.

96 KUMAR, ZUSHO, BONDIE