EDP4200 ASSIGNMENT 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

EDP4200 ASSIGNMENT 2...

Description

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND

EDP4200 Assignment Two Student name: Michael Brown Student number: 0061080027 Student email: [email protected] Due: Tuesday, 3rd September, 2019

Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) aims to allow students to take control of their learning and build their cognitive capacity to improve education outcomes (Hammond, 2015). The approach challenges unconscious bias, encouraging teachers to question the relevance of the curriculum and its inclusivity to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, and to students from diverse linguistics, cultural, religious and socio-economic backgrounds. This approach has similarities to the Mindful Reflection Protocol which intends on supporting teachers to undertake deep reflection and challenging the historically deficit thinking about students from diverse backgrounds (Dray & Wisneski, 2011). Engaging in culturally relevant materials and content helps to rebuild trust and create long lasting learning partnerships between teachers and students (Maniates, 2016). By developing this rapport, students can then be pushed into their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978). When students are in their ZPD, the brain responds by developing more neurons and dendrites which effectively increases brainpower (Hammond, 2015). Importantly, although engaging in culturally relevant content is a feature of CRT, it is not necessarily the starting point as this may delay the actual shift in a teacher’s instructional practice and the change to student’s ability to undertake rigorous learning (Gonzalez, 2017). The school’s focus on challenging deficit thinking and the over-emphasis on gaps between the achievement levels of students lies within Hammond’s (2015) CRT model. CRT is about helping students who are marginalised, both culturally and linguistically, build their capacity to conduct rigorous work (Hammond, 2015). This is a shift from the tradition “closing the gap” mindset, focusing on bringing student achievements closer together, to preparing students for rigorous work, combined with feedback (Hattie, 2009) and the knowledge that the brain operates on a progressive principle, craving information as it progresses towards a learning objective (Hammond, 2015b). Some connection between the school’s approach the connection with Hammond’s (2015) CRT model are evident within the interpretation. The link towards cultural identity helps celebrate diversity and is critical to high functioning classrooms, however this does not improve the learning capacity of students. The school refers to the need to provide windows for students to gain perspective which may lead to a “small world” approach that lies beneath surface culture (Gonzalez, 2017). The focus towards cultural inclusivity does not provide the rigour required to

improve the academic achievements of students. This is seen in the school’s focus towards curriculum relevance, ensuring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander inclusivity and cultural inclusivity in terms of linguistics, religion and socio-economic backgrounds. Whilst this is a positive step towards social inclusion, it does not lend towards improving student’s capacity for rigorous learning and academic achievement as instructional methods remain the same. Choosing books with links to culture is not a representation of Hammond’s (2015) CRT model. The school tries to justify a connection between shallow culture and learning by incorporating resources and books that mirror student’s lives. This is not CRT, as at its core, CRT is instructions pedagogy that enhances learning (Gonzalez, 2017). There is no perfect scenario or simple strategies that can be incorporated into teaching to implement CRT (Hammond, 2015). CRT requires building trust in a low stress environment, showing that you are building trust with students and incorporating shallow culture – not surface culture (Hammond, 2015). The school’s approach helps facilitate the identification of learning strengths and needs of culturally diverse students by encouraging teachers to recognise, assess and reflect on materials and pedagogies, and their suitability for students. This works within the strength based approach to learning development where teachers are constantly questioning strategies to determine what is more effective and how those strategies can be developed to suit the student’s ability (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2012). The approach adopted by the school shows an understanding that race, culture and cultural diversity relates to more than just Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by focusing inclusive curriculum for all students. The school encourages teachers to consider the impact of culture, cultural identity and linguistic backgrounds by providing a lens through which students can try and make sense of the world (Hammond, 2015). An amendment to the schools interpretation to CRT is to gain more out of the “small world” approach that exists and instead of only appreciating surface culture, look at teachers learning collectivism where interdependency and appreciation of “I am because we are” – and gaining an understanding of what motivates students from collectivism cultures to reach them more effectively (Hammond, 2015). Teachers need to examine their pedagogical approach using Hammond’s (2015) Warm Demander Chart and not only provide students the opportunity for

“mirrors” but also teachers a chance to reflect on their own approach, focusing on building rapport and trust, knowing students and having high expectations with the objective to bring students into the ZPD while staying relaxed and alert (Maniates, 2016).

References: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2012). Strength-based approach. Retrieved from https://www.education.vic.gov.au/documents/childhood/professionals/learning/strengthba ppr.pdf Dray, B. J., & Wisneski, D. B. (2011). Mindful Reflection as a Process for Developing Culturally Responsive Practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400104 Hammond, Z. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hammond, Z. (2015b, July 8). Culturally Responsive Teaching: An Inverview with Zaretta Hammond [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2015/07/culturally_r esponsive_teaching_an_interview_with_zaretta_hammond.html Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/lib/usq/reader.action?docID=367685 Maniates, H. (2016). Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 118-120. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.usq.edu.au/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=5c19b1b2b5f5-4924-a7dd-c7d8ab770208%40pdc-vsessmgr05&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=116263932&db=asn

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press....