Teachers Culturally Responsive Pedagogy An Analysis

Module Part II: ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY (CRP)

ONE TEACHER, ONE SCHOOL, ONE DISTRICT

FOCUS QUESTION 1: From the culturally responsive pedagogy lens, how did the teacher’s practice exemplify these CRP principles?

Analysis of Teacher’s Pedagogy: Address all questions below with content-specific examples. Use proper citations and include a bibliography page.

· After multiple visits, which CRP principles did you observe the teacher implement in his/her lessons?

· How did the teacher’s rapport with students, attention to their needs, and professional attitude contribute to their learning? Did the teacher allow wait time for responses?

· How did the teacher ensure that all students had access to the content taught, especially under-represented groups such as, ELLs, students with special needs, and students with different instructional challenges (homelessness, trauma, foster care, incarceration, medical fragile)?

· In essence, there are two culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) principles that the teacher routinely implemented in her lessons. These are student-centered instruction and utilization of problem-based learning scenarios. In deviating from teacher-centered instruction, the teacher sought to ensure that learning was not only more collaborative, but also cooperative by encouraging students engage in group activities so as to encourage exposure and experimentation with new ideas. In making use of problem-based learning scenarios, the teacher routinely presented real-world issues and concerns. Solving such problems called on students to tap into their own cultural awareness.

· In seeking to promote rapport with students, the teacher in this case strived to call students by name and routinely started the class on a light note by asking students how their day was coming along, etc. This seemed to enhance the motivation of students to learn. The teacher-student interactions remained professional – which helped foster discipline and promote order in the instructional setting. The teacher was also constantly aware of, and continuously probed, individual student facial reactions and expressions to determine whether they were absorbing instructional content or needed clarification on some issues. This had the effect of ensuring that no student was left behind and that the class moved forward as one. The teacher permitted sufficient wait time for responses. This had the effect of allowing questions to ‘sink’ as students thought about the query floated and sought to formulate appropriate answers.

· To ensure that all students had access to the content taught, the teacher encouraged collaboration by promoting discussions. This had the effect of bouncing ideas amongst students as the said students could aid each other’s learning on the basis of individual strengths and weaknesses. This way, each student’s learning resources (books, learning aids, etc.) could be shared, thus effectively promoting learning across the board. The teachers also seemed to have a ‘lecture less, interact more’ instructional approach. Active interactions between the teacher and students allowed the teacher to monitor each student’s capabilities so as to adapt the instructional methods accordingly.

Analysis of Student Personal and Academic Growth:

· Generally, how did the teacher call on students (front, middle, back of classroom)? Were students’ responses received equally? Did the teacher encouraged and provided equal opportunity for students to contribute?

· How did the teacher support students in their development of voice. How did the teacher’s instruction trigger student interest and

generate additional follow-up questions?

· How did the teacher seize opportunities to help students make home-school connections and contribute to their overall growth?

· Were there missed opportunities when the teacher could have applied CRP principles to his/her instruction? Provide an explanation.

· Generally, the teacher called on students randomly. This had the effect of ensuring that participation was uniform across the classroom – effectively providing equal opportunity for students to participate. It is, however, important to note that in some instances, the responses students gave did not receive equal responses from the teacher. For instance, responses from those who rarely participated in class were received more enthusiastically than responses from the more active learners. This the teacher could have done in an attempt to encourage continued participation from those whose active participation was inconsistent.

· The move by the teacher to offer students similar opportunities in class participation is one way through which their voice was enhanced. It is also important to note that the fact that the teacher strived to call each student by name in the course of learning and instructional undertakings, while routinely pausing to allow students to seek clarifications on areas they deemed unclear not only triggered student interest, but also encouraged follow-up queries.

· In seeking to promote home-school connections, the teacher had what could be referred to as an open door policy where students and parents/guardians alike were free to pursue the teacher even during out-of-class hours to share concerns, seek guidance, or access support. This, in essence, provided students with a sharing platform, and the teacher with an opportunity to assess familial backgrounds so as to make the relevant adaptations and follow-ups.

· The teacher could have missed a number of prime CRP opportunities. For instance, the instructional materials utilized throughout instruction were standard. The teacher ought to have made some effort to ensure that instructional materials were more culturally responsive, i.e. by ensuring that non-native speakers access cultural materials that reflect their fluency levels of English. The teacher also ought to have organized sessions where students discussed diverse cultural and social issues, with an aim of confronting and clarifying stereotypes.