Want to make creations as awesome as this one?

More creations to inspire you

Transcript

Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching

How to see the students and build relationships

Fulbright Distinguished Teachers Award Inquiry Project 2022Indiana University of PennsylvaniaAnu Aarnio

I believe focusing on building positive relationships in the classroom is key to culturally responsive and inclusive teaching, as a safe environment is a prerequisite to all learning. In the following pages, I will introduce some elements of a culturally and linguistically responsive classroom. Then I will share my reflections on how teachers see their students and build meaningful relationships. My work combines the elements of a personal and professional reflection journal and theoretical background based on the VABBING framework (Sharroky Hollie) and Ready for Rigor -frame (John Hammond). The key findings are presented in the format of two interactive images, designed to give teachers an easily accessible, and engaging way to learn about and reflect on the cultural and linguistic elements of their own classrooms. The format is designed to be "practice first, theory next', so as to give teachers a tool to make their own knowledge visible, to reflect on the things they are already doing to be culturally responsive and to help them refine their vision.

Introduction

Link to Executive summary (pdf)

"Every person needs a place that is furnished with hope. "

Maya Angelou

A culturally and linguistically responsive Classroom

A few steps for

Looking at Seating We know seating arrangement is crucial to both classroom management and student collaboration. But research also supports creating a space whereby students can connect individually with the teacher. Do you have that space?

References

Looking at Walls 1.) Are the posters and pictures mainstream White, Anglo-Saxon Culture? If so, make the necessary changes. 2.) Display the students' work instead of commercially published material. You are validating the students' perceptions of cultural identity and automatically making the classroom more culturally responsive. A rule of thumb: 70% of all material displayed should be student-made. (Hollie, 2017, p. 183-185)

Looking at Books We have great public libraries, but having literature available in schools and classrooms has meaning. How do you feel about Hollie's suggestion of multiple libraries? Categorize the books in your classroom library in sets of:

  • culture specific
  • multicultural
  • content specific
  • reading level (Hollie, 2017)
Consider: Have a small box with books in the student’s home language or written by people from their home countries. Involve the kids and parents in choosing the relevant books.

Looking at the Welcome Adapted from Hollie, Sharroky (2017): Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Learning Action Pause Demonstrate Care Validate Bridge A student comes into the classroom giving high-fives and loud greetings, perhaps a bit late for class. Think: My first thought will not be my last thought. “I am glad you are here.” “I appreciate how you are greeting your classmates and showing them some love.” “Now show me the school culture way of greeting your classmates.”

Looking at Goodbyes

Looking at Items When bringing items for Show and Tell, encourage the students to think about the breadth of culture: Youth, socio-economic, gender, and religious. I once had a student who wanted to bring a football as a cultural item, but their parent didn’t think it was appropriate and insisted they bring a family heirloom instead. The child didn’t identify with the item and for the show and tell, could not share anything about it. It made me realize I should have worded the task instructions differently.

Looking at Routines All teachers know that routines are crucial to classroom management. Hammond (2015) challenges us to think of them instead as "a way to make space for the important affirming and communal activities that create social bonds among the students” (p. 146). Would your morning routine look different, if you planned it around strengthening social bonds?

"

Cultural and linguistic responsiveness is not something that you do, but something that you have in all that you do.

"

Sharroky Hollie

Throughout my Fulbright grant term, I kept a journal. It is a combination of my parental experience, as my kids went to a public school in Pennsylvania with no previous knowledge of the English language, and my experience as a teacher observing elementary classrooms in Indiana and Pittsburgh, PA. This was my primary research.The questions I asked myself:

    • Where is the relationship-building happening? Where is it not happening and why?
    • How do I see teachers trying to see students? How is it put into routines?
    • How do I notice students feeling seen or families being seen?
My secondary research was looking at previous research on culturally responsive teaching, especially the work of John Hammond and Sharroky Hollie. I used the VABBING (Hollie, 2017) and Ready for Rigor -frameworks (Hammond, 2015) to analyze the classroom interactions I observed. Through the following image, you can explore my experience and takeaways.

My Journey of Responsiveness

Building relationships

Reclections on the Importance of

Families Being seen: The Story of My Child’s First Days at School Wearing the Paths Kid Today -badge This is how my English as a second language (i.e., “No English as a language at all”) children were accepted at the local school in Indiana, Pennsylvanina. A completely different school day already started when the busy school bus picked them up at the intersection of School Street and 11th Street. I was reminded of The Simpsons, no connection however for the kids themselves, because they are of a different generation. When the bus arrived to school, our kids were met by an English teacher who took them on a tour of the school and showed an eye for the game by taking them to breakfast, even though us parents hadn't realized we had to pay for it in advance. They got some chocolate milk, a special treat. They were then escorted to class holding hands. The class teacher had previously practiced using YouTube to say in Finnish: "Good morning!" The childdren are delighted by these two words. On the third day, our younger child refuses to go to school because it's distressing when their classmates try to help so much and they still don’t understand what they're saying.The child hangs on to a traffic sign at the intersection of School Street and 11th Street. The driver sympathetically waits for a long time, but eventually I wave the bus to continue so the other kids wont’ be late. We order an Uber because there is no footpath to the school. The retired driver resembles the child's grandfather (and Santa Claus) with his white beard. He tells us about how his own child refused to go to school 40 years ago, but is now a perfectly capable adult. When we jump out of the car, he gives us a thumbs up. The school secretary, whom I nervously called earlier, is standing at the door with a friendly smile. The child calmly follows them. In the afternoon, the child comes home elated, a sticker on their chest. In the morning, the class teacher had chosen them as "student of the day" and they were allowed to sit in front of the class as the teacher's helper. In the end, everyone had written them lovely compliments. As a parent, I let out a huge sigh of relief. Thank you school secretary, thank you Uber driver, and especially thank you teachers for seeing my child. It really does take a village.

Building a Learning Partnership and Challenging the Brain Couch & Towne (2018) call for us to re-think how we think of students, asking the question: “Who are they? What are they capable of? What can we do to help them?” These questions are also at the core of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching (Hollie, 2017, Hammond, 2015) Hammond (2015) talks about how we have to “not only care about students in a general sense but also actively care for them in a physical and emotional sense (p. 73).” The key to building what Hammond (2015) calls a learning partnership is through affirmation and validation of the students, the demonstrated care, and the belief that students will achieve and do well (Hollie, 2017, Hammond, 2015). He also argues that this is especially true when building relationships across racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic lines because implicit biases (both the student’s and the teacher’s) can get in the way (p. 73). Strengthening the student’s self-efficacy is widely recognized as being very important to learning (for example Bandura 1986), but is sometimes mistaken as being just about positive thinking and mindset. Hammond points out that our brain is built to seek out patterns and solve problems, which means that working out towards solving challenging tasks, figuring out patterns, and completing what we are trying to solve builds self-efficacy more than mere positive thinking activities (Hammond, 2015, p. 115). Because our brain has a negativity bias, the teacher needs to be the voice that points out and intentionally catches students taking steps or being independent learners and taking intellectual risks. These moments should be pointed out, matter-of-factly, especially to students showing signs of learned helplessness. The teacher who is focusing on building the student’s sense of self-efficacy will notice and point out when a student:

  • Asks an insightful question
  • Makes an effort
  • Learns from their error (Hammond, 2015, p. 118)
I have asked my students to describe to me a moment where they are confident outside of the classroom. Most can think of something, but some students can not recognise ever having felt confident. I have often wondered, whether this is how they really feel, whether they simply do not have words for the feeling or if they do not feel comfortable sharing the personal feeling with me. It can also be that for some students recognising strengths is difficult, because it will bring you closer to having to work on those strengths. No matter what the answer to my question is, I think this brings us back to the importance of building a learning partnership. Learning requires students to be vulnerable to the uncertainty of learning new things and also being confident in sharing their thinking, and the steps they are trying to take to understand, with their teacher (Hammond, 2015). In these cases, I have asked the student for permission to describe back to them a moment when I noticed them looking confident or happy with their work. I always make sure to tell them they can correct my interpretation if I am wrong because another person can never be sure of how you are feeling. They have usually always let me do this and enjoy listening to me share my observations about their triumphs. In doing this, I am trying to model and give them language to talk about themselves in a way that builds self-efficacy. Hammond (2015) argues superficial engagement strategies, such as upping up the energy level of the classroom with call and response, aren’t connected to deeper learning. We use these strategies when we see students zoning out, but Hammond argues we have it backward. Hammond (2015) says we need to address that students “believe about belonging, effort, and value of the task” because that leads to engagement and motivation (p. 110) This can be interpreted in two ways: either as a need to shift the student’s mindset or as a call for us teachers to make sure we give the students tasks that have value and challenge. When we talk about teaching a growth mindset, we should also talk about the importance of the teacher’s mindset: believing that all students are capable of learning and should be given challenging content. Hammond ( 2015) points to classroom practices that postpone challenging and exciting work until dependent learners have “learnt the basics”, thus preventing these students from practising Bloom’s taxonomy higher level skills and becoming independent learners (p.14-15). I share this fear after observing the use of math intervention programs in the classroom. The tasks are very repetitive and lack creative thinking. This is concerning because it means the students’ educational experiences do not help them build the capacity to do higher-order thinking. To be able to do this, the “brain needs to be challenged and stretched beyond its comfort zone with cognitive routines and strategy” (Hammond, 2015, p. 49). Hammond (2015) points out, however, that this does not mean only increasing the complexity of the content but also “learning the moves to do more strategic thinking and information processing”. I think he is very right in saying that this can require a culturally responsive teacher to be courageous in “interrupting teaching practices that keep certain students dependent learners” (p. 49).

Prominent values in US SchoolsProminent values in Finnish Schoolscompetitioncooperationfocus on high achievementfocus on affective developmentfocus on an informal atmospherefocus on an informal atmosphere The list of US values: Mercer & Mercer (2001)

Moments of Connection: The Importance of Downtime and Routines Wednesday 28.9. One student in the class seems a bit down. Not in an obvious way, but just a bit quieter. The teacher leans into their desk, getting down at their eye level and putting her arms around his desk, sheltering them. In whispers, they talk about how the student is feeling - the student is worried about their dentist appointment. The teacher acknowledges the fear, says that it is very understandable, and then reassures the student they will be fine. Wednesday 31.8. It is morning. I can hear laughter from the classroom, which is always a good sign. The students pour into class at their own pace, the calmness is striking. The teacher has time to talk privately to one student about something that happened yesterday and reminds them of the rules. After the pledge of allegiance, the reading class begins. The focus is on reading with common text interpretation tasks. The students follow all the instructions and act accordingly. They keep their school items in a box under their chair, they take out the supplies needed without delay when prompted by the teacher. The routines of this class are already clearly working, even though it's only the first day of the second week of school. The relationship between the student and the teacher is a partnership. Hammond (2015) talks about how we have to “not only care about students in a general sense but also actively care for them in a physical and emotional sense"(p. 73). The key to building what Hammond (2015) calls a learning partnership is through affirmation and validation of the students: the demonstrated care, and belief that students will achieve and do well. Hammond (2015) argues that this is key because learning requires students to be vulnerable to the uncertainty of learning new things and also being confident in sharing their thinking, and the steps they are trying to take to understand, with their teacher. Hammond (2015) says that the first step for the teacher to take is to build relationships and trust is practising a pedagogy of attentive listening, “listening with grace” (p. 78). The first journal entry above describes a moment of attentive listening between a student and their teacher. Through their body language and attention, the teacher very clearly created a safe space for this particular student. One of the observations I made is that downtime during the school day is more valuable than we sometimes give it credit for. The structure of the school day gives unanticipated chances for it. For example, the calm and informal start to the school day that I observed at Indiana School District was in part due to the simple fact of the school buses arriving at different times. Because of this, the teacher had structured the lesson so that the students had instructions for quiet independent work on the board (including important announcements for the day) and when the students arrived, they would start their work at their own pace. Some of them were having their breakfast at the same time. The atmosphere was informal, the teacher had time to connect with students individually, whether it was just greeting everyone with a warm smile or having a quiet chat. Only after would they then kick off the day together with the pledge of allegiance working as a daily signal to the students that the working day was about to start and then going through the day's schedule together. Hammond (2015) mentions how we usually talk about routines as a method of classroom management. Instead, he argues, in a culturally responsive classroom “routines are a way to make space for the important affirming/communal activities that create social bonds among the students” (p. 146). The classroom I was observing had clear and established routines, the students for example knew what they needed to pack when changing classrooms or when moving on from one task to the next, so transitions went smoothly. But the calm flow of the morning also created space for social interaction and relationship-building. Any relationship-building, including building a learning partnership, happens slowly. Whereas building relationships with friends and family happens freely, the teacher has to seize and cultivate the relationship-building moments that happen by chance. But they also have the responsibility to plan and structure for these moments to happen. As Hollie (2017) puts it: “Educators, like students, respond best when we build relationships first. Be intentional. Go slow to go fast.” (p. 7)

Teaching Situational Appropriateness While being a co-teacher in a classroom the teacher asked me to make sure all eyes were on her, when she was teaching the students about closed syllables. She gave this instruction in front of the students so that they would also know what I’d be looking for. I positioned myself so that all the students could see me and I could see them and afterward I gave them positive encouragement for following the instruction and “showing that they were listening”. Hollie (2017) talks about the importance of being able to differentiate between culturally inappropriate and unacceptable behaviours, so that we can then teach the students to show situationally appropriate behavior (p.96). He gives an example: in a classroom setting, eye contact is often required (teachers even have common chants for this such as “one, two three, eyes on me”). In some Latin American and Asian cultures, however, avoiding eye contact with authority is a show of respect (Hollie, 2017, p. 99). Hollie (2017) argues that when these students are asked to “focus by looking at the teacher, they are given the message that their cultural norm is unacceptable” (p.99). Going back to my journal entry above, it is crucial to notice, however, that just moments before the teacher had talked to the class about why looking at the teacher is important. They explained that looking at whoever is talking, gives our brains the visual input that supports our learning: when we read the teacher's lips, it helps us remember and understand. This means that the teacher was helping the students practice situational appropriateness (Hollie, 2017, p. 103) by being explicit on what was expected (= eye contact) and why it was expected (= to help you learn). The teacher was not framing the lack of eye contact as disrespectful (as would be the mainstream cultural norm). Put in other words, being culturally responsive does not mean not asking for eye contact. There is a pedagogical reason for it: having the student look at the teacher when learning new words helps them with learning correct pronunciation. What we should be mindful of is requiring eye contact just for the sake of it. Once again, asking ourselves whether it is the school culture and our expectations that can be adjusted, or whether it is for the student to adjust, is important. I would like to broaden Hollie's example of different cultural differences in seeking eye contact by pointing out that eye contact is a demanding thing to ask from children on the autism spectrum. If there are pedagogical reasons to ask for something, then we should do our best to teach and bridge the students so they can learn these social skills. If it is a requirement that comes from social instincts on what is polite, maybe it is something that we should learn to be more lenient towards. PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports) can be used to help with teaching the students situationally appropriate behaviours, bridging their response to a situation.

School-wide relationship-building: The PBIS and Paths -programs SWPBIS stands for School-Wide Positive Behaviour Intervention and Support. PBIS is a school-wide action plan to establish a positive culture in the school community and to ensure that positive behaviour expectations and how to reach them are taught to students just like any academic content would be. I found the PBIS - system very interesting and something that would be easily adaptable in Finnish schools as well. I will share it here as a concrete example of how we can help bridge the gap between cultural behaviour and school culture by actively teaching situational appropriateness. The expectations for schools implementing the PBIS system are (Dr. Timothy Runge, presenting at a Fulbright Seminar, 19th September 2022):

  • A very limited number, max 3-5 guidelines
    • Indiana School District: Respect, Compassion, Responsibility
    • At Brookline Elementary Pittsburgh: Be Responsible, Be Respectful, Be Safe
  • These guidelines are defined into expectations for each different school setting (behaviour matrix)
  • Teach how to meet these expectations just like teaching academics (usually beginning of the year and January), with booster sessions given as needed
  • Token economy to help with motivation
Social-emotional skills and behavioural expectations are of course taught in Finnish schools too and are part of our National Curriculum. There are programmes such as Huomaa hyvä, Kiva koulu, and Arvokas, which all aim to model and teach positive behaviour and social skills. What I found appealing about the PBIS system was how well it was implemented as a school-wide and even a school-district-wide -model. Having a school-wide system helps because consistency and reliability are key to changing behaviour. The whole staff must respond similarly. Every interaction with any adult at school is a learning moment. Clear expectations Pictured above are examples of behaviour matrices used at schools in Indiana and Pittsburgh. I think one way to add meaning for the students would be to use Hollie’s (2017) suggestion of a “Y Chart” to model how a responsive classroom Looks Like, Sounds Like, and Feels Like (p. 298). We often remember the first two but leave out the last. I think describing what appropriate behaviour in each setting Feels Like completes the description of the learning environment and also reinforces the idea of why a certain situational behaviour is expected. The example picture describes appropriate behaviour in different physical areas of the school, but a chart like this can also be used to describe expectations in different learning situations (such as group work, pair work, independent work, reading, etc.) To help teachers and students reflect on how situational appropriateness is being taught and how they are working to teach that goal, Hollie (2017) gives the following reflection points For the teacher:
  • How can I support the student responsively?
  • How have I taught the student the skills needed to be situationally appropriate?
For the student:
  • Do I have the knowledge and skills to be situationally appropriate?
  • If so, am I intentionally choosing not to be situationally appropriate? Why? (p.302)
Hollie (2017) writes about how the school culture behavioural expectation is “focused on the individual performance in relation to others”; working alone and independent” whereas cultural behaviour of underserved students is cooperative: “working together and sharing responsibility is seen as a positive contribution to overall performance”(p.103). This ties into the prominent value of competition in US classrooms (Mercer & Mercer 2001). Hollie (2017) talks about the importance of a teacher quickly distinguishing if the behaviour is just culturally inappropriate or unacceptable because the difference is that the other is followed by a “negative exchange and the other by positive exchange, escalation or diffusion” (p.106). I don’t agree with this entirely because I would argue that in most cases even for unacceptable behaviour the teacher’s reaction should be to diffuse, not to escalate.

The Classroom as a Learning Community: Valuing Silence and Giving Students Voice One thing that stands out to me about instruction is that the teacher always repeats the answer a student gives. I feel they do this to validate the answer, as well as help the students memorize the pronunciation of words. However, this is a habit we have been instructed to shake, because if a teacher always echoes what a student says it gives the signal the teacher needs to validate an answer and the interaction becomes less equal. It also pushes the balance of classroom interaction from collaboration to teacher-led discussion. As a teacher I know I often do this because I am unsure if the others have heard the good answer given by a student, but even in those cases, it would be better if I could restrain myself and ask the student to repeat their great answer so everyone can hear. The teacher seems to wait quite patiently and give time for kids to answer compared to what I’ve seen previously. The kids have more talking time, but turns are given one at a time, instead of having students discuss it in groups first. The teacher does not repeat the answers, which adds to the voice given to the students. One quite striking difference I have noticed in the US and Finnish classrooms is how much the teachers dominate the talking time in US classrooms. The time given for a student to answer a question also seemed very short to me, with the teacher often asking the question again very quickly while the student still appeared to me to be thinking. Stahl (1994) found that teachers pause, on average, only between 0.7 and 1.4 seconds after a question before continuing to talk or permitting a student to respond. It would be very interesting to see the statics for think-time in Finnish classrooms, as we are culturally more comfortable with silence, and silence is also considered part of communication. Hammond (2015) points out that the orderly, turn-taking way traditional classroom discourse is organised doesn’t resemble the way students engage with each other at home, especially those coming from more collective cultures (p. 148). Also, it simply places the students in a more passive position and tilts the whole classroom culture towards a setting where the teacher is the ultimate authority. Hammond (2015) suggests focusing on including both social and academic talk structures. Social talk structures

  • Rapport talk: Allow for jumping in when someone else is talking, this is called “cooperative overlapping”. It is not rude, but highly social. In a classroom setting, this works well for warming up to a lesson or unit.
  • Dyads: Each speaker has equal time to talk and space to be heard, uninterrupted.(p. 149).
As a teacher, I have noticed it helps me to make a conscious decision when using more social talk structures to allow for a higher noise level. I have also found using items etc. to facilitate these talk structures and to make expectations clear to students. Students need scaffolding with for example both respecting someone else’s turn to speak as well as encouragement to speak when it is their own turn. One way to scaffold Dyads is what I call “Pearl for thought”- you can find the instructions here. When practising for academic talk, the goal is to help students build their capacity and rigor to engage in meaningful academic dialogue (Hammond, 2015, p. 150). This means a more in-depth discussion than quick think-pair-shares. Hammond suggests:
  • Helping trios: Each student presents something they are working on and gets help from classmates. In my experience with younger students, this works best when they are working on the same topic.
  • Chalk talk: Students use markers and a large sheet of paper and in silence write responses to essential questions related. I have noticed that students need specific instruction and encouragement to build on the other ideas written, so I divide this task into two bits: First, the students write their ideas, and after the teacher gives a sign they go around and use another colour to build on the ideas of others. At the end they return to the paper they were originally working on and circle the new ideas added.
As Hammond (2015) points out, we should use routines to help us create communal activities that help strengthen social bonds (p. 146) This needs to be an important part of our selection of teaching methods. It does not help to have a classroom seating arrangement that allows for think-pair-share for example if we do not actively use think-pair-shares and scaffold more in-depth discussion. Hammond (2015) talks about how our brains are wired to maximize opportunities to connect with others in the community (p. 47). I think it is important to recognise, that there are common neuro-atypicalities that affect this wiring of our brain. For some students, the social acceptance of others has less personal meaning. But this only means we need to look for more varied ways of building social bonds in the classroom. It means finding time to play and have fun as a class, for no other purpose but to connect (Hammond, 2015, p. 85).

A brief introduction to VABBING and Ready for Rigor During my classroom observation I looked at classroom interaction and management using the lens of VABBing (Hollie, 2017). Validation is defined by Hollie (p.28) as intentional and purposeful interaction in which the students' home culture and language are legitimized. In Hammond’s (2015) definition validation begins when the teacher acknowledges the inequity that impacts students in and out of school (p.92). Affirmation to Hollie (P. 28) is the intentional and purposeful effort to reverse negative stereotypes and representations. Hammond frames this as not aiming to be color-bind, but as letting the students know what inequity is real (p.92). This helps restore hope, which is one of the main jobs the teacher has as an ally in the learning relationship (Hammond p. 92) The building is defined as taking the cultural and linguistic elements to account and intentionally focusing on building relationships with students (Hollie p. 28). Bridging is then getting your students ready for the world outside the classroom, giving them tools to succeed in academic and mainstream culture (Hollie p. 29). I have looked at VABBing as something that takes place in various interactions during the school day - when the students’ strengths are recognized and when their positive actions are affirmed and encouraged. VABBing is also about humanizing each student. I have focused on relationship-building in the classroom as means of creating a culturally and linguistically responsive learning environment. Still, it should be noted that Hollie’s framework also includes academic vocabulary building, academic literacy growth, and academic language focus (Hollie p.11). The other framework that I found very helpful in looking at culturally and linguistically responsive classroom interactions was Hammond’s work (2015), which links culturally responsive teaching to neuroscience. For Hammond, culturally responsive teaching is an educator’s ability to a.) recognize cultural displays of learning and b.) respond in a way that scaffolds the student’s understanding and promotes effective information processing (p.15). Like Hollie, he emphasizes the importance of a socio-emotional connection between teacher and student to create a safe space for learning. Hammond’s framework is called “The Ready For Rigor” -frame. It has four elements: awareness, learning partnerships, information processing, and community of learners and learning environment. He also calls these the four separate practice areas, to make it easier for teachers to make the change to culturally responsive teaching, which he says is at first easy as “learning to rub your head and pat your stomach at the same time” (p.18). Because the areas are all required for culturally responsive teaching but can be seen as separate, I have focused on learning partnerships and community of learners and learning environment for my inquiry project.

For the Classroom: What is Culture? Hammond (2015) talks about how teachers exasperate over having so many different cultures in their classroom, they can’t possibly learn about the customs, foods, and beliefs of all (p.24). Hammond (2015) tells us we don’t have to: it is more important to look at “deep culture” which is a worldview, core beliefs, and group values. These are broken into for example how individualistic or collective a culture is (p. 27) The other cultural archetype is the difference between oral and written traditions. Whereas all cultures now use reading and writing as tools for recording and passing information, culture guides how we process information (Hammond, 2015, p. 28, 48). This means that learning, especially for students from collectivist cultures, will be more effective when we use story, art, movement, and music. Hammond (2015) also talks about the importance of differentiating between socio-political context and culture, talking about how coping skills can be mistaken for norms and beliefs. He states that the notion of a culture of poverty can be misleading and harmful regarding education. Living in poverty for many generations can codify coping mechanisms, but it is not part of culture, as it is not something that is willingly embraced as a way of life (p. 33).

References

The time I have spent observing classroom interactions, teaching and school culture in the US and contrasting it with my own teaching experience in Finland, has made me reflect on our varied definitions of diversity and inclusion. Children have culture, ethnicity, language, and learning diversity. These are complimentary to each other, and they all require flexibility from both the teacher and the school as a whole. Hollie (2017) defines becoming a culturally and linguistically responsive teacher as a “journey to responsiveness” (p. 59). I interpret this as meaning that a) building relationships with and among our students is a daily practice which takes time and b) for this relationship-building to happen, we also need to work to recognize and adjust our disability lens actively. Deficit thinking is when teachers or policymakers believe culturally and linguistically diverse students fail in school because of their deficiencies or lack of value awarded to education at home, not because of social inequities, the structure of the education system, or differential treatment in the classroom (Hammond, 2015).

This same deficit thinking or disability lens applies to students with learning differences. My project has led me to wonder whether our definition of cultures in our classrooms should recognize youth culture, gender culture, ethnic culture and a culture of neuro-atypicality. Hammond (2015) talks about the need to shift the school culture to support the intellective capacity building of culturally and linguistically diverse students. I feel we also need to include in this thinking a readiness to adjust our cultural expectations for students with neuro-atypicality. This assertion does not mean lowering expectations, but rather the exact opposite. It means validating and affirming our students, meeting them where they are and teaching them the skills needed to achieve their goal. Hollie (2017) and Hammond (2015) both talk about the importance of the teacher believing that all students are capable of learning and should be given challenging content. For some of our students, the most challenging content is feeling safe enough in the classroom to learn and have the courage to build relationships. This is why as teachers, we need to go into the classroom every morning relationships first.

Reflection 1\2

One of the biggest takeaways for me personally has been to realize how grateful I am to be teaching in the Finnish education system. Whereas many of my fellow Fulbright peers hope to take their learnings and use them to educate other teachers in their home communities, I do not personally feel a pressing need to do this. Instead, this experience has reinforced my thinking that the Finnish school system, and the things we do when it comes to individualizing learning and supporting our students to become active learners, are exactly what we should be doing. In my experience, what I have written here about culturally and linguistically responsive teaching is, in my own experience, already very much implemented in classrooms around Finland every day. So to my fellow teacher-colleagues I wish to say: What you are doing is not easy, but you are doing it very well.

To our policymakers and education administrators, I wish relay the real urgency to recognise, what Couch and Towne (2018) aptly describe as the “teacher’s dilemma”. The fact remains that teachers are not given the resources necessary to meet the needs of the students, yet a very high demand is placed upon them (p. 160). Our class sizes have become too big for a teacher to be able to meet the students' individual needs and for our education to be inclusive. If we cannot individualize, we are teaching to the average, collective whole, which is the same as teaching to no one (Couch and Towne, 2018).Looking at the Finnish education system after being given the gift of distance, one strength stands out very clearly. That strength is the well-trained, relationship-building classroom teacher. This teacher spends the majority of the school day with a set group of students, every day, getting to know their strengths, culture, language and learning differences. This teacher works hard to build a classroom community based on acceptance, validation and respect, so that learning can take place. Their students deserve no less, and these teachers deserve proper resources to serve students best.

Reflection 2\2

Link to Executive summary (pdf)

One of the biggest takeaways for me personally has been to realize how grateful I am to be teaching in the Finnish education system. Whereas many of my fellow Fulbright peers hope to take their learnings and use them to educate other teachers in their home communities, I do not personally feel a pressing need to do this. Instead, this experience has reinforced my thinking that the Finnish school system, and the things we do when it comes to individualizing learning and supporting our students to become active learners, are exactly what we should be doing. In my experience, what I have written here about culturally and linguistically responsive teaching is, in my own experience, already very much implemented in classrooms around Finland every day. So to my fellow teacher-colleagues I wish to say: What you are doing is not easy, but you are doing it very well.

To our policymakers and education administrators, I wish relay the real urgency to recognise, what Couch and Towne (2018) aptly describe as the “teacher’s dilemma”. The fact remains that teachers are not given the resources necessary to meet the needs of the students, yet a very high demand is placed upon them (p. 160). Our class sizes have become too big for a teacher to be able to meet the students' individual needs and for our education to be inclusive. If we cannot individualize, we are teaching to the average, collective whole, which is the same as teaching to no one (Couch and Towne, 2018).Looking at the Finnish education system after being given the gift of distance, one strength stands out very clearly. That strength is the well-trained, relationship-building classroom teacher. This teacher spends the majority of the school day with a set group of students, every day, getting to know their strengths, culture, language and learning differences. This teacher works hard to build a classroom community based on acceptance, validation and respect, so that learning can take place. Their students deserve no less, and these teachers deserve proper resources to serve students best.

Reflection 2\2

Link to Executive summary (pdf)

Anu Aarnio

About the writer

Anu Aarnio is a class teacher from Finland. She has worked as a class teacher in bilingual education for several years and is currently working at Jätkäsaari Comprehensive School in Helsinki. The school specializes in phenomenon-based learning and developing co-teaching. Anu Aarnio holds a Master of Arts (Education) from the University of Helsinki. She is a Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching Grantee at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (2022-2023) and has previously been on the board of Dare to Learn, an international learning festival in rethinking lifelong learning.

Image of the classroom: Camille Lemiale & Arthur Krijgsman @ Pexel.com Couch J. D. & Towne J. (2018). Rewiring education: how technology can unlock every student's potential. BenBella Books. Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Y. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain : Promoting authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students.Thousand Oaks, California, Corwin, a SAGE company. Hollie, S. (2017). Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Teaching and Learning (Second Edition). Shell Education, California. Emdin, C., & EBSCOhost. (2016). For white folks who teach in the hood-- and the rest of y'all too : Reality pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press, Boston. Introduction to PBIS at Brookline Elementary, talk given by Mr. Matthew May, 9.11.2022.

References

Love, Bettina. (2020) To confront inequality you must first understand it. The International Educator. April 2020. p. 4. Mercer, C., & Mercer, Ann R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill Prentice Hall. Talk given by Professor Timothy Runge on SWPBIS at Fulbright Seminar, Indiana University of Pennsylvania Roskos, Kathleen and Neumann, Susan B. 2011. The Clasroom Environment: First, Last, and Always. The Reading Teacher 65 (2): 110-114. ​Stahl, R. J., “Using “Think-Time” and “Wait-Time” Skillfully in the Classroom,” ERIC Digest, ED370885, pp. 1-6, 1994

Go back

Go back

THANK YOU!

WHY

Hollie (2017) defines a culturally responsive learning environment as “one that conveys respect for every student, notably respect for the knowledge, experiences, and language the students bring to the classroom” (p. 182). Hammond (2015) also warns us that we “too often think of the physical setup of our classroom as being culturally 'neutral' when in reality it is often an extension of the teacher’s worldview or the dominant culture” (p. 19). Hollie (2017) gives a 3 step rule on how to make the physical space of the classroom a more culturally and linguistically inviting learning environment:1.) De-Blumenbaching: Look at the materials and pictures posted: are they mainstream White, Anglo-Saxon culture? Make the necessary changes. 2.) De-Commercialising: Where the first rule will most likely require an effort on part of the teacher, this one doesn’t. In displaying the students’ work instead of commercially produced material, you are automatically making the classroom more culturally responsive as well as validating their perceptions of cultural identity (p. 183-185).

The third step Hollie (2017) talks about is de-superficializing, which based on my observations is not as relevant of a problem in Finnish classrooms. Something quite striking to me within the physical space of Pennsylvanian classrooms has been the number of posters, motivational quotes, and general decor in the classrooms. The classrooms I have seen seem very “busy” to my eye, and it makes me wonder if it is a distraction to students’ concentration. De-cluttering and focusing on relevant pedagogical visuals, such as letters and word walls, is important as there is research to show that having these traditional markers visible make significant differences for both early readers and struggling readers (Roskos & Neumann, 2011.)

Looking at Walls

Hollie (2017) suggests incorporating greetings from both home and school cultures into movement activities during instruction (p. 109) I think this is a good idea and in the following paragraph I will share one example of how it can be done in a classroom.The beginning and the end of the day are important moments as they set the mood for learning in the morning and mark the transition from school culture to home culture/youth culture. One of my principles as a teacher has been to connect with each student at least once every day. In the hectic reality of the school day, this is surprisingly hard (it should not be, but it is). The safest way to ensure this connection happens every day is to put it into a routine. In many of my classes, students have enjoyed the tradition of choosing their way of greeting me at the end of the day. It is important to have options that include physical contact and those that do not.

Looking at Goodbyes

Building on Hollie’s idea, I added: “Teach me your own cultural greeting” on the greeting poster. You can find it here to use in your classroom.