Valuing Students’ Cultural Knowledge and Background
Valuing and understanding students’ cultural knowledge and background is essential so that
teachers do not mistake culturally different ways of learning for intellectual deficits (Gay 2004;
Hammond, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 2009; Villegas & Lucas, 2007). A key element of Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy is that it responds to students’ needs by taking into account the cultural and
linguistic factors in their world (Gay, 2004: Villegas & Lucas, 2007). Gay (2004) emphasizes the
importance of using students’ cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of
reference, and performance styles to make learning encounters more effective and relevant.
The concept of culture has been defined in different ways by different academic disciplines,
but all concur that culture is something learned by the members of particular groups of people
(Birukou, Blanzieri, Giorgini, & Giunchiglia, 2013; Scarino, 2009). Hammond (2015) describes
culture as a spectrum, ranging from surface elements (food and language) to deeper elements
(understanding of self, norms, and prejudices). According to Hollie (2018), educators have to be
responsive to the "Rings of Culture," where each ring (age, orientation, gender, ethnic, national,
religious, and socioeconomic) is a potential source of responsiveness.
Hall (1973) introduced the Iceberg Concept of Culture. He created an analogy between the
three levels of culture and an iceberg. The iceberg is divided into three sections: surface culture,
shallow culture, and deep culture. Hall described the visible aspects of culture as the "tip of the
iceberg." Surface-level culture is comprised of elements that can be seen and that carry a low
emotional charge (Hammond, 2015). Examples of surface-level culture include styles of dress,
visual arts, music, celebrations, and cuisine. These aspects of visible culture are readily apparent
to others and can be explained and discussed easily (Hinkel, 1999).
Shallow and deep culture exist below the surface, unseen, and subconscious (Hollie, 2018).
Shallow culture consists of the unspoken rules around everyday social interactions and norms such
as the concept of time, concept of personal space, non-verbal-communication, relationship to
authority, and tempo of work (Hall, 1973; Hammond, 2015). Non-verbal communication and
certain behaviors that are interpreted as disrespectful, offensive, or hostile come out of shallow
culture (Hammond, 2015; Hollie, 2018). Shallow culture comprises the cultural rules for everyday
behavior and communication, and differences can lead to misunderstandings or disagreements
(Staehr, Fenner & Snyder, 2017). Shaules (2007) defines deep culture as "the unconscious
frameworks of meaning, values, norms, and hidden assumptions that we use to interpret our
experience" (p. 2). It includes unconscious assumptions that govern our worldview (Hammond,
2015). Unconscious rules in deep culture have an intense emotional level, such as the definition of
insanity and obscenity, the concept of self, past, and future (Hollie, 2018). Cultural aspects, at this
level, challenge our cultural values, trigger the brain's danger response, and can produce a culture
shock (Hammond, 2015). Deep cultural patterns of group decision making, preference for
competition or co-operation, and problemsolving roles can cause cultural misunderstandings
(Hollie, 2018). Shaules (2007) observes that "in many intercultural contexts, deep culture is not
noticed or understood in any profound sense because it constitutes the most fundamental challenge
of cultural learning" (p. 12). Gonzales, Moll & Tenery (1995) described funds of knowledge as
culturally and historically accumulated experience, which can be activated based on our deep
culture (Hammond, 2015). The key to understanding how culture affects learning is to focus on
deep culture, which affects a student's world view, core values, and core beliefs (Hammond, 2015).
Humans are socialized from an early age in a specific culture that shapes their minds and provides
them with a tool kit that is used to construct their worldview and their conceptions of themselves
(Bruner, 1996). Bruner further states that mental activity cannot be understood unless the cultural
setting and its resources are taken into account. Learning, remembering, imagining, and talking
are all made possible by participating in a culture (Bruner, 1996). The influence of the cultural
environment is essential for educators to understand because of the vital role it has on learning
(Bruner, 1996; Demmert, 2001; Vygotsky, 2012). Demmert (2001) further proposes that culture,
language, cognition, community, and socialization are all central to learning.
Teacher effectiveness and student outcomes are demonstrably affected by cultural factors
(Villegas & Lucas, 2007). Teachers bring into the classroom their personal cultural background,
including their preconceptions and prejudices (Spindler, 1994), which can cause us to view other
cultures in an oversimplified manner. We may generalize every person in a cultural group as
possessing stereotypical traits (Brown, 2007).
Foreign language and culture are inseparable, and understanding the relationship between
language and culture is central to the process of learning a foreign language (Crawford-Lange &
Lange, 1987; Liddicoat & Scarino, 2013). It is essential for ESL teachers to understand how culture
is constructed (Hammond, 2015) and the impact of culture on broader social and political forces
on learning. Brown (2007) describes culture as " an integrated set of behaviors and modes of
perception" (p. 187) and an essential component in the learning of a second language. ESL
students are also influenced by their cultural backgrounds when creating perceptions of teachers,
other students, and the classroom (Spindler, 1994). The cultural fabric of American teachers is
primarily European and middle-class to the extent that it is considered the norm (Boykin, 1994).
Tyler, Boykin, and Walton (2006) studied whether teacher's perceptions of motivation and
achievement of their students were affected by the student's possession of either mainstream
American or African-American cultural learning orientations. The study showed that teacher's
perceptions of student achievement and classroom motivation are mediated by culture. The
cultures of ethnically different students and the schools are not always synchronized (Gay, 2000),
which can lead to a student's academic success being compromised. Research indicates that the
academic achievement of culturally different students can be improved when the teaching practices
build upon the cultural values and behaviors that students bring to the classroom (Chen & Yang,
2017; Dee & Penner, 2017; Tyler, Boykin & Walton, 2006).
Avruch (1998) makes clear that no population can be adequately characterized by a single
cultural descriptor. Most individuals simultaneously belong to various groups and categories of
people who each carry various layers of mental programming within themselves (Hofstede, 1984,
2011). Such groups correspond to different levels of culture on a national level according to one's
citizenship, regional, ethnic, religious and linguistic affiliations, gender, generational level, and
employment (Hofstede, 1984, 2011). These groupings can be described as various subcultures
(Avruch, 1998).
Edward T. Hall studied key cultural factors (Hall, 1973). Hall proposed that communicating
effectively with people of other cultures requires the removal of attitudinal and behavioral barriers
in communication. Without understanding the culture, communication can lead to
misunderstanding (Hall, 1990). Effective cross-cultural communication requires understanding
how one culture differs from another (Hall, 1990). Hall (1990) proposed four types of cultural
differences: 1.) contextual, 2.) social, 3.) time, and 4). special.
1. High-context versus low-context cultures
Hall contrasted cultures on a spectrum of high context or low context in order to highlight
how cultures communicate (Hall, 1990). Cultures cannot be organized strictly into high or low
context and often share characteristics of both contexts. In a high-context culture, individuals do
not rely on verbal communication to convey all of the meaning in an interaction. In a lowcontext
culture, individuals rely on the verbal message, which contains the majority of the information and
shared background knowledge is not necessary. Hall described each individual as possessing a
"selective screen" that is between himself and the outside world and which acts as a lens through
which culture is understood (Hall, 1990). In high-context cultures (Latin America, Africa, Asian,
Arab, and Mediterranean), the message is understood through context, nonverbal cues, body
language, silences and pauses, and between-the-lines interpretations of what is said. Individuals
from low-context cultures (German, North-European, and Englishspeaking) expect the message to
be precise, direct, explicit, and specific.
2. Uses of time: Monochronic Versus Polychronic
Hall (1990) suggested that different cultures have varying time orientations and preferred
ways of organizing time. Some cultures view time as a commodity that can be spent, wasted, or
saved. Monochronic cultures are used to schedules and being on time. They may be offended if
someone else is wasting their time. Hall (1990) noted that the American school system follows the
monochronic time orientation. In polychronic societies, such as in many Latin American cultures,
time is not viewed as a valuable commodity. According to Hall (1990), in polychronic cultures,
more emphasis is placed on human connection than following rigid schedules. Time is viewed as
a constant flow that cannot be contained or controlled Hall (1990).
Monochronic time orientation refers to concentrating on one task at a time, while
polychronic time orientation describes doing multiple things at once (Goonetilleke & Luximon,
2010). In an ESL classroom, a monochronically thinking teacher may find being late or talking in
class as unacceptable behavior, when such behavior is standard among students from a polychronic
society (Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2010). In cultures where time is perceived as a commodity,
arriving late to a class is a sign of disrespect or inadequate planning. In cultures where time is
perceived as constant, timeliness is not insisted (Goonetilleke & Luximon, 2010). Monochrons
like to concentrate on one thing at a time (Hall, 1990). Polychronicity refers to doing several tasks
at the same time or doing things in parallel (Hall, 1990).
3. Use of space: Proxemics (High territoriality/ Low territoriality)
Hall (1990) stated that people perceive space through sight, sound, smell, and touch.
Cultures vary in unspoken rules of how space should be used. Hall (1990) divided cultures between
low territoriality and high territoriality. In cultures with low territoriality, space and boundaries are
less important than in high territoriality cultures. These implicit specifications affect, for example,
acceptable uses of space for men and women. A classroom setting where the desks are placed in a
circle was perceived as unacceptable for a husband from a culture that prohibited placing a woman
(his wife) on display (Harwood, 2010). Personal space is the distance from other people that a
person requires to feel comfortable when talking to or being next to that other person (Hall, 1990).
Hall described personal space as a bubble that each of us carries around at all times. Close friends
or family members are allowed closer than strangers, and the acceptable proximity varies by
culture (Hall, 1990).
4. Information
The fourth dimension of culture is information and how it is treated in various cultures.
Cultures with a slow flow of information structure and plan information carefully (Hall, 1990). In
slow flow information cultures, only the absolutely necessary information is given. Cultures with
a fast flow of information prefer to spread information fast (Hall, 1990). Messages can be fast or
slow. A quick message that is sent to a student who is geared to a slow format may be missed.
While the content of the message may be understood, it will not be received by someone who is
accustomed to a different speed (Hall, 1990).
Culture plays a vital role in learning (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Vygotsky, 2012). A student's
culture and upbringing have a profound effect on how they process information and see the world
(Nisbett & Masuda, 2003). Cultural differences can be a barrier to communication, building
contacts in the classroom, and motivating the students (Hofstede, 1984, 2011).
Psychologist Dr. Geert Hofstede (1984, 2011) contributed to the understanding of cultural
difference by conceptualizing cultural mismatches and using different conceptual categories to
study the cultural norms of various countries (Brown, 2007). Hofstede analyzed cultures by
dividing them based on six dimensions. By using Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions model, teachers
can get a general sense of how people in a particular society might think and what classroom
expectations they hold. Hofstede cautions against confusing value differences at the individual
level. Hofstede (1984, 2011) postulates that culture can be seen as the collective programming of
the mind. It separates members of different human groups that each possess their own values.
There are other variables as well that affect the cultural traits of various nations. Cheung & Chan
(2009) pointed out that the pragmatic rules of Confucius are the guiding principles of Chinese
people's behaviors and thoughts, which makes specific cultural traits of nations challenging to
change. Hofstede (2011) labeled five cultural dimensions 1.) Power
Distance 2.) Uncertainty Avoidance 3.) Individualism versus Collectivism 4.) Masculinity versus
Femininity and 5.) Long-term versus Short-term Orientation. Hofstede (2011) positions each
country relative to other countries through a score on each dimension.
Power Distance is defined as the extent to which less powerful members of organizations
and institutions such as students at a school expect and accept that power is distributed unequally
(Hofstede, 2011). Power distance scores tend to be lower for Northern European and
Englishspeaking Western Countries. In low-power distance cultures, the gap between powerful
and ordinary people is minimized (Hofstede, 2011). As explained by Hofstede (2011), in small
power distance cultures, parents treat children as equals, and learning tends to be two-way
communication. Education is student-centered in such cultures. Subordinates expect to be
consulted and not told what to do. A high-power distance score indicates that society accepts an
unequal distribution of power. In high power-distance countries such as Latin, Asian, African, and
East European countries, parents teach children obedience, and education is teachercentered. At
schools in these cultures, the teacher is the authority, and students need and expect to be told what
to do (Hofstede, 1984, 2011).
Uncertainty Avoidance deals with a society's tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty. It
indicates how much members of a particular country will feel either comfortable or uncomfortable
in unstructured situations. It describes how well people are expected to cope with anxiety
(Hofstede, 2011). In countries that score highly for Uncertainty Avoidance, citizens attempt to
make life as controllable and predictable as possible. According to Hofstede’s model in such
societies, teachers are expected to have all the answers. Students have a strong need for clarity and
structure. Stress, emotionality, anxiety, and neuroticism is high. There is an intolerance of deviant
ideas, which are seen as dangerous. Students tend to make safe, conservative decisions. In Low
Uncertainty Avoiding countries, teachers may say that they do not know the answer. Uncertainty
is accepted in life, anxiety is low, and different opinions are accepted. Uncertainty scores tend to
be higher in East and Central European countries, Latin countries, Japan, and German-speaking
countries. Uncertainty scores are lower in Scandinavian and English-speaking countries as well as
in Chinese-culture countries (Hofstede, 2011).
Individualism versus Collectivism refers to the degree to which people in a society are
integrated into groups (Hofstede, 2011). In individualist cultures, everyone is expected to look
after themselves and their immediate family. Individualism is prevalent in Western countries, while
collectivism is common in developing countries and some Asian countries. In collectivist cultures,
individuals are integrated into strong groups, which include extended families. In individualist
cultures, personal opinions are expected. In collectivist cultures, speaking one's own mind is not
usual, and individuals are expected to maintain harmony. Feelings and emotions that may endanger
harmony are suppressed. In high individualism scoring cultures, a high value is placed on
individual accomplishments. In collectivist cultures, maintaining harmony overrides individual
opinions. In such cultures, saying "no" can cause a loss of face, and giving negative feedback in
public should be avoided. In schools, students are often reluctant to speak up without the approval
from their peer group and are restrained by embarrassment and saving face
(Hofstede, 2011).
Masculinity versus Femininity (Hofstede, 1984, 2011) refers to the roles between women
and men. In masculine societies, men are presumed to behave assertively. Emotional gender roles
are distinct, and women are more modest, tender, and concerned about the quality of life. In
Feminine societies, emotional gender roles overlap. Both women and men are expected to be
modest and tender and concerned with the quality of life (Hofstede, 1984, 2011). The roles of men
and women overlap less than in Feminine societies. In Feminine Societies such as Sweden, there
is an overlap between male and female roles. In high Masculine scoring countries such as
Japan, there is maximum emotional and social role differentiation between the genders. Masculine
countries are characterized by strong egos and importance of status, money, and achievement. In
Feminine countries, there is more focus on the quality of life. Success is likely to be achieved
through collaboration in such high feminity societies (Hofstede, 1984, 2011).
Long-Term versus Short-Term Orientation refers to the time horizon focus of people in
society. The United States has a short-term orientation. In short-term orientation countries,
shortterm gains and quick results are valued. What one says should be correct. In long-term
orientation countries, virtue is highly valued. Citizens are expected to behave in a modest way and
avoid talking too much about themselves — countries with a long-term orientation place value on
modesty, pragmatism, and thriftiness. East Asian countries, in particular, China, Taiwan, Japan,
and South Korea, are long-term oriented cultures. A medium-term orientation is found in most
European countries. A very short-term orientation is found in some Islamic and African countries
(Hofstede, 1984, 2011).
R2: Culturally Responsive Teaching Improves Academic Performance Among Ethnically
Diverse Students
A Brief Historical Background
The multicultural education approach originated out of concerns for ethnic and racial
inequities that prevailed in the 1970s (Gay, 2000). Studies in the 1980s proposed that there is often
a cultural mismatch between student's home culture and school. Au & Jordan (1981) studied Native
Hawaiian learning styles, such as "talk story" and created the term "culturally appropriate
teaching.” Mohat & Ericson (1981) studied the native Indians in Odawa, Canada, and proposed
the need for culturally congruent teaching, where the teachers interpret the behavior of the students
based on the students' culture and not on their own culture (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Jordan
(1985) suggested a culturally compatible approach, which included a need to understand the
student's home culture and make adjustments in teaching (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Vygotsky
(2012) asserted that students bring with them prior knowledge which should be used as a basis for
their learning. Vygotsky's sociocultural theory explained how culture contributes to learning and
student behavior. Vygotsky (2012) viewed learning as a social process, and he proposed that social
interaction is fundamental in the development of cognition (Vygotsky, 2012). He suggested that
communication, interactions, and context affect learning and behavior (Taylor & Sobel, 2011).
Critical pedagogy also exerted influence on Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Paolo Freire
(1970), in his seminal book "Pedagogy of the Oppressed," criticized the "banking model of
education." In the banking model, students receive information from the teacher who deposits it
into the learners. Freire criticized the banking model of education for indoctrinating students into
a political system because they were not taught to question the information they received. He
proposed a problem-solving approach where the oppressed are educated and empowered to analyze
their situation critically and transform their status in a dialogue with the oppressor (Freire, 1970).
Freire's social justice teaching approach promoted respecting students' experiences and cultural
knowledge while addressing the injustices caused by society's inequitable structures (Taylor &
Sobel, 2011).
Banks (2004) posited that Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is an equity pedagogy with its
roots in the multicultural education movement. Multicultural education addresses the needs of
learners from non-dominant ethnic and racial backgrounds (Bennett, 2001). The multicultural
framework is based on four principles: cultural pluralism, social justice, the primacy of culture in
education, and equity and excellence for all learners (Bennett, 2001). Ladson-Billings (2009)
seminal book “The Dreamkeepers” defined Culturally Responsive Teaching as: “A pedagogy that
empowers students intellectually, socially, emotionally, and politically by using cultural and
historical referents to convey knowledge, to impart skills, and to change attitudes” (p.13) A central
assumption in Culturally Responsive Pedagogy is that learners from stigmatized minority cultures
often experience a cultural mismatch resulting from the difference in their home culture and the
dominating majority culture at the school (Lee & Sheared, 2002). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
seeks to change the teaching and avoid the deficit approaches of education, which were dominant
in the 1960s and 1970s (Paris, 2012). At the time, the United States schools were focused on
middle-class Caucasian norms (Paris, 2012). Deficit oriented teaching viewed students’ cultures
and languages as barriers to learning (Paris, 2012). The deficit approach to teaching aimed to
replace the linguistic and cultural practices of minority students with standard practices (Paris,
2012). Gay (2004) stated that an asset-based view of students’ cultures is fundamental to ensuring
student success. Students' cultures are to be respected, valued, and reflected in the content taught
in schools. Paris (2012) expanded Culturally Responsive Pedagogy into Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy. He posited that it is equally essential to help the students sustain their culture by
developing a positive cultural identity in the classroom.
Critical race theory proposes that racism exists, and it is embedded and normalized in the
policies and practices of all institutions (Ladson-Billings, 2009). This theory states that it is vital
to question what appears to be the norm to uncover racial inequalities (Harmon, 2012).
According to the tenants of critical race theory, teachers can become aware of the harmful impact
of racism by learning from the narratives of people who have experienced it. In the context of
education, it is essential to examine the curriculum through the lens of people of color (Harmon,
2012).
As the short overview demonstrates, many scholars have contributed to the development
of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, and the concept has evolved over time.
Descriptive Characteristics
Although the pedagogy has been called with many names such as Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2009), Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2000), and Culturally
Congruent Teaching (Mohat & Erickson, 1981), the core concept to make instruction more
consistent with the cultures of the ethnically diverse students, is virtually identical in each version
(Gay, 2000). All strands emphasize social justice and the classroom as a place for social change
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016). Teaching culturally and linguistically diverse students successfully
involves more than applying specialized teaching techniques (Ladson-Billings, 1995 b; Hollie,
2018). It commands a new way of looking at teaching that is grounded in an understanding of how
culture and language play a role in learning (Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
Gay (2000) concluded that Culturally Responsive Teaching is based on six dimensions: validation,
empowerment, comprehensiveness, transformative, emancipatory, and liberating. Culturally
responsive teaching is validating (Gay, 2000). Validation is the intentional legitimatization of the
students’ home culture and language (Hollie, 2018). Gay (2000) proposes that teachers should
validate every students’ cultural background, prior experiences, ethnic identities, and culture and
bridge the gap between the school and community through multicultural curricula. Culturally
responsive teaching is socially and academically empowering. Teachers expect excellence from
every student and set the expectations high (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Culturally
Responsive teachers seek to educate the whole student and are emotionally, politically, and socially
comprehensive (Gay, 2000). Culturally responsive teachers are transformative of schools and
societies and emancipatory and liberating from oppressive educational practices and ideologies.
The validation that the students receive and the pride of accomplishment is psychologically
liberating (Gay, 2000). Culturally Responsive
Teaching allows the students to realize that no single version of “truth” is permanent or should be
allowed to exist without critical questioning and contesting (Gay, 2000). Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy transforms the schools by using students’ positive strengths to propel and
steer instruction, assessment, and curriculum design. Culturally Responsive Teaching is
multidimensional because it taps into a wide range of cultural knowledge, experience,
contributions, and perspectives Gay (2000).
Ethnically diverse students do not find school inviting because they often feel insignificant,
alienated, and unwelcome (Gay, 2004). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy acknowledges the
importance of the student's cultural heritages as legacies that affect their learning outcomes and as
good content to be taught in the curriculum (Gay, 2000). It builds a bridge between the school,
home, and community (Ladson-Billings, 2009). Teaching is most effective when it has personal
meaning for students (Gay, 2009). Gay (2004) defines Culturally Responsive Teaching as using
cultural knowledge to make learning more relevant and effective for students by including prior
experiences, community settings, cultural backgrounds, and ethnic identities of both the students
and the teacher in its implementation (Gay, 2000).
Culturally Responsive Teaching uses a wide variety of instructional strategies that encompass
various learning styles (Gay, 2004). It teaches the students to appreciate their and others' cultural
heritage (Gay, 2000; Hammond, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1994). It acknowledges that the cultural
heritage of various ethnic groups has an impact on learning and student attitudes Gay, 2004).
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy incorporates multicultural resources and materials in the
curriculum (Gay, 2004). This is crucial because, according to Gay (2004), significant changes are
needed in how students of various cultures are taught in order to improve their learning. In addition
to increasing academic outcomes, culturally responsive teachers are committed to helping the
students to maintain connections with their ethnic groups and communities. (Gay,
2000; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Hollie (2018) defines “pedagogy as the “how” and “why” of
teaching, the strategic use of methods, and the rationale behind why instructional decisions are
made” (p.25). Hollie (2018) alleges that in addition to the culturally responsive theory, it is
important to focus on culturally responsive learning methods and applications.
Gay’s seminal book Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (2000) is
the second most important work on Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (Hollie, 2018). Gay (2000)
estimated that much intellectual ability and many other forms of intelligence are untapped in
culturally diverse students. Recognizing these talents and using them in teaching would
significantly improve student outcomes (Gay, 2000). Gay (2000) proposed five essential elements
of Culturally Responsive Teaching: 1.) developing a cultural diversity knowledge base, 2.)
including ethnic and culturally diverse content in the curriculum, 3.) demonstrating caring and
building learning communities 4.) understanding cross-cultural communication and
5.) responding to ethnic diversity in classroom instruction.
