reframing the conversation: from achievement gap to cultural dissonance
TRANSCRIPT
Reframing the Conversation:
From the Achievement Gap to Cultural Dissonance
Helaine W. Marshall, Ph.D.
LIU - Hudson
ATE Annual ConferencePhoenix, AZ
February 12-15, 2015
Students with Limited or Interrupted Formal Education – SLIFE Sub-population of English Learners
May be pre-literate or have low literacy in their home
language and/or English
At least 2 years below expected grade level
Unfamiliar with expectations of schooling
Do not share assumptions of US mainstream
classrooms
Teachers and learners assume that
(Adapted from DeCapua & Marshall, 2011; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013)
1. The goals of instruction are toa) produce an independent learnerb) prepare the learner for the
future2. The learner is ready to
a) participate and demonstrate mastery on an individual basisb) engage in literacy-based, classroom tasks
Three Underlying Cultural Differences
Oral transmission vs. written word
Informal ways of learning vs. formal education
Collectivism vs. individualism
I never care about reading until I come here In my country nothing to read but here, everywhere print, words and signs and books and you have to read.
The most importants I have learned about the United States that is a book, newspapers, or notebook and pens. These things are always let me know how to live here.
Formal Education vs. Informal Ways of Learning
Academic Ways of Thinking and Decontextualized Tasks
Definitions▪ What is a tree?
True/False▪ Washington DC is the capital of the U.S.▪ New York City is the capital of New York
State.
Classification▪ Categorize these objects
(Luria, 1976)
Sample Question WHAT IS THE GROUP?
Which ITEM does not belong in the group?
• Personal efforts praised, rewarded
• Personal interests, desires, primary
• Personal responsibility
• “Self-actualization”
Individualism
(Hofstede, 2001;Lee & Oyserman, 2008; Triandis, 2000)
• “We” rather than “I.”
• People see themselves as part of an interconnected whole
• “Web” of relationships
• Group is more important than any single individual
Collectivism
(Triandis, 1995)
Teachers and learners assume that
1. The goals of instruction are toa) produce an independent learnerb) prepare the learner for the
future2. The learner is ready to
a) participate and demonstrate mastery on an individual basis b) engage in literacy-based, classroom tasks
(Adapted from DeCapua & Marshall, 2011; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013)
• Cultural competence
• Relevant curriculum
• Supportive learning community
• Cultural congruity
• Effective classroom interaction
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Gay, 2000; 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1995)
Layers of the Instructional Context
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Societal Factors
Bedrock Layer
Hallmarks/Deal Breakers of U.S. Mainstream Classrooms
Promise of future reward from education
Individual participation – the hand raise
Display of mastery – standardized testing
me
The farther a student is from the “me” of the culture, the less credible the promise of future reward from education will be for the student.
(Crumpton & Gregory, 2011; Noguera, 2003)
The farther a student is along the continuum of individualism to collectivism, the less invested the student will be in the individual hand raise.
(Littleton & Howe, 2010)
The less comfortable a student is with mainstream processes of individual accountability and the written word, and the less familiar a student is with academic tasks, the less successful the student will be on standardized testing.
IndividualAccountability
Academic Tasks
Written Word
Standardized Testing!
(Menken, 2008; Wong Fillmore & Snow, 2000 )
MALP®
Mutually Adaptive
Learning Paradigm
Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm® - MALP®
Culturally responsive teaching model
Elements from student’s learning paradigm
Elements from Western-style education
Addresses “deal breakers” of US education
✔
✔
✔
✔
SLIFE U.S. Classrooms
CONDITIONS
PROCESSES
ACTIVITIES
Aspects of Learning
Shared Responsibility
IndividualAccountability
Pragmatic Tasks Academic Tasks
Interconnectedness
Oral Transmission
Future Relevance
Written Word
Immediate Relevance
Two Different Learning Paradigms
(DeCapua & Marshall, 2009, 2011; Marshall, 1994; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013)
Independence
Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm – MALP®
SLIFE U.S. Classrooms
Interconnectedness Independence
Shared Responsibility
IndividualAccountability
Pragmatic Tasks
Academic
Tasks
ACCEPTCONDITIO
NS
COMBINEPROCESSE
S
FOCUS on NEW
ACTIVITIES with
familiar language & content
Immediate Relevance
Oral
Transmission
Written Word
with
Future Relevance
(DeCapua & Marshall, 2009, 2011; Marshall, 1994; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013)
with
Standardized Testing!
Interconnectedness
Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm – MALP®
SLIFE U.S. Classrooms
Independence
Pragmatic Tasks
ACCEPTCONDITIO
NS
COMBINEPROCESSE
S
FOCUS on NEW
ACTIVITIES with
familiar language & content
Future Relevance
Immediate Relevance
IndividualAccountability
Shared Responsibility
Written WordOral
Transmission Academic
Tasks
(DeCapua & Marshall, 2009, 2011; Marshall, 1994; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013)
Betty’s Class Ages:
18-61
Education:
None to 5th grade
Classes: ESL Hmong Literacy Life-skills Math Problem Posing
Origin:
Hmong from Laos
Class Survey: Crossing the Mekong
Betty’s Class Paj Ntaub
Carol’s ClassAges: 15 – 21
Education: 3rd grade to 8th grade
Classes: Self-contained English Social Studies Math Science
Countries of origin: Haiti, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala
Class Survey: Students’ Free Time
Carol’s Class
Layers of the Instructional Context
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Societal Factors
Bedrock Layer
From
The Achievement
Gap Cultu
ral
Dissonance
To
Reframing the conversation
U.S. MainstreamFormal EducationSLIFE
Informal Ways of Learning
Oral Transmission
Collectivism
Deficit View they know what to do but lack ability
Dissonance View they are starting from a different paradigm
Ways of Learning Continuum
Summary of Equity Pedagogy through Culturally Responsive Teaching with
MALP ®
Students who do not find the “promise of future reward” credible in their lives
Students who do not embrace the “individual hand raise” to compete and excel
Students who do not perform adequately on “standardized tests”
need immediate relevance
need interconnectedness
need the combination of:
shared responsibility with built-in individual accountability
oral transmission to scaffold the written word
a focus on academic tasks with familiar language and content as scaffolds
Mutually Adaptive Learning Paradigm – MALP®
Culturally Responsive Teaching ModelSLIFE U.S. Classrooms
Interconnectedness Independence
Shared Responsibility
IndividualAccountability
Pragmatic Tasks
ACCEPTCONDITION
S
COMBINEPROCESSES
FOCUS on NEW
ACTIVITIES with
familiar language & content
Immediate Relevance
Oral
Transmission
Written Word
with
Future Relevance
(DeCapua & Marshall, 2009, 2011; Marshall, 1994; Marshall & DeCapua, 2013)
Academic
Tasks
More about MALP®?Books: (University of Michigan Press)
Making the transition to classroom success: Culturally responsive teaching for struggling language learners (2013)
Breaking new ground: Teaching students with limited or interrupted formal education in U. S. secondary schools (2011)
Websites: http://malpeducation.com http://malp.pbworks.com
ReferencesBerliner, D. (2009). Poverty and potential: Out-of-school factors and school success. Boulder: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Researcher. Crumpton, H. & Gregory, A. (2011). “I'm not learning”: The role of academic relevancy for low-achieving students, The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 42 — 53DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H.W. (2011). Breaking new ground: Teaching students with or interrupted formal education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H.W. (2010). Serving ELLs with limited or interrupted education: Intervention that works. TESOL Journal, 1, 49–70.DeCapua, A., & Marshall, H.W. (2010). Students with limited or interrupted formal education in U.S. classrooms. Urban Review, 42, 159–173.Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 106-116.Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. London: Sage Publications.Ibarra, R. (2001). Beyond affirmative action: Reframing the context of higher education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.Littleton, K. & Howe, C. (2010). (Eds.). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction. New York: Routledge Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Marshall, H.W. & Marshall, H.W. & DeCapua, A. (2013). Making the transition to classroom success: Culturally responsive teaching for English language learners. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Marshall, H. W. (1994). Hmong/English bilingual adult literacy project. Final report of research conducted under the National Institute for Literacy, grant #X257A20457. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay.Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Noguera, P.A. (2003). Schools, prisons and the social implications of punishment. Theory to Practice, 42, 341–351.Oyserman, D. & Lee, S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming, individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311-342.Triandis, H. (2000). Culture and conflict. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 145-152.Triandis, H. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Wong-Fillmore, L., & Snow, C. (2005 ). What teachers need to know about language. In C. Adger, C. Snow, C., & D. Christian (Eds.). What teachers need to know about language (pp. 7-54). Washington, D.C.