The terms culture and language are usually associated with the issues of diversity, bilingual education, race-focused discussions, and the so-called achievement gap. Rarely is the emphasis on culture and language strongly associated with transforming instructional practices with a powerful pedagogy to better serve all students.  Specifically, culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy or CLR has not been traditionally viewed as a method for validating and affirming the indigenous language and culture of the students with the sole purpose of building and bridging the students toward success in school and the society at large.  

What Is Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy?

Most proponents of culturally relevant teaching will point to Gloria Ladson-Billings’ The Dreamkeepers (1994) as the groundbreaking book for this topic, but the most influential research for our work is Geneva Gay’s Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (2000). In terms of adding the pedagogical piece to an already theoretically laden term, Gay hits the mark and became the leader in a second wave of books and articles that would follow Ladson-Billings’ work. Geneva Gay defines culturally responsive pedagogy as the use of cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to, and effective for, them. It teaches to and through the strengths of these students. It is culturally validating and affirming. For the work I do with educators, simply put, CLR is going to where the students are culturally and linguistically for the aim of bringing them where they need to be academically. Metaphorically, CLR is the opposite of the sink and swim approach to teaching and learning. It is jumping in the pool with the learner, guiding her with the appropriate instruction, scaffolding as necessary, and providing the independence when she is ready.

Who Benefits from Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy?

The simple answer to who benefits from culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy is all students. A more specific answer delves into who these students are most likely to be culturally, not racially, in the classroom. A survey of any recent or past-standardized data gives the answer of who is achieving and who is not achieving in our schools. In the context of academic failure and behavioral issues, CLR benefits best any student who is termed underserved as opposed to the more commonly known underachieving. Intentionally put in the broadest terms, an undeserved student is any student who is not successful academically, socially, and/or behaviorally in school because the school as an institution is not being responsive to the student. Underserved on its face value includes many students. However a closer examination of the group of underserved students is likely to uncover why CLR is really important and the complexity involved in implementing the approach. The research clearly tells us who the school is most likely to underserve. The students most likely to be underserved are students of African, Native, Latino, or Polynesian descent.  Keep in mind that the overall intention of CLR is to better serve all students, but when we look critically at who is underserved, the reality is we find that the students tend to be of color primarily.  According to Barbara Shade (1997), the benefits of CLR for all students, but especially underserved students, are as follows:

• Students are consistently affirmed in their cultural connections through instruction and environment
• Students are reinforced for academic development
• Classroom interactions stress collectivity rather than individuality
• Students see the classroom as theirs, a place of learning that is physically inviting
• Diversity in celebrated in authentic ways daily

Why is Validation and Affirmation still Necessary?

Validation is the intentional and purposeful legimatization of the indigenous culture and language of the student that has been traditionally de-legimatized by historical institutional racism, stereotypes and generalizations primarily carried forth through mainstream media. Affirmation is the intentional and purposeful making positive the negative stereotypes of non-mainstream cultures and languages, again looking at the portrayals from a historical perspective. Joel Spring (1994) calls it deculturalization.  Spring defines deculturalization as the “educational process of destroying a people’s culture and replacing it with a new culture. It is one of the most inhumane acts one can partake in.  Culture shapes a person's beliefs, values, and morals. In the United States, historically the education system deculturalized the cultures of Native Americans; African Americans, Mexican Americans; Puerto Ricans; and immigrants from Ireland, Southern and Easter Europe and Asia” (Spring 7).   Being culturally responsive requires intentional efforts to combat the long-lasting effects of deculturalization through the intentional validation and affirmation of the home language and culture.   The intended focus is on ethnic identity, culturally speaking, and on non-standard languages, linguistically speaking, but in no way is the definition exclusive to any particular group. The purpose is to undo what the institutional hegemony and mainstream does oftentimes subtly and subconsciously, but to do so through transforming instructional practices and therefore the learning experiences.

Transforming Instructional Practices with CLR

CLR impacts all facets of the teaching and learning experience. The cultural and linguistic pedagogy that many classrooms around the United States employ is based on an instructional formula that any teacher can use after a foundational understanding of the theory. The formula is in three parts: focusing on a general pedagogical category, establishing the quantity and the quality of the pedagogy in the classroom, and then infusing the CLR elements (strategies and activities) into the everyday teaching. CLR is not a curriculum. CLR does not come in a box.  CLR is not your grandfather’s multiculturalism. CLR is a way of thinking about how to instruct, how to create an instructional experience for the students that validates, affirms, illuminates, inspires, and motivates.  A sample of the descriptive elements are:

• Purposeful use of texts that affirm and validate the backgrounds, cultures, languages, and experiences of the students
• Building an understanding and awareness of the linguistic structures of Standard English as differentiated from the home language
• Having an accepting, affirmative, risk-free classroom environment

 

As with any instructional innovation, professional development is the key. CLR is no different. As recommended by the NSDC, ongoing, sustained learning by teachers makes all the difference.