An Action Plan: Building Culturally Responsive Practice In a 21st Century School
Building Culturally Responsive
Practice
In a 21st Century School
Mary-Angela Tombs
Introduction
A new school year is about to begin and a teacher of year three and
four students at one school prepares to face her new class of students. As with
previous years, the teacher notes the increasing cultural diversity of the
students on her class list. In New Zealand, teachers are required to develop
teaching and learning programmes that allow every child to achieve success in
relation to The New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education (MOE), 2007) The
challenge is: How does this twenty-first century teacher develop successful
teaching and learning programmes that are culturally responsive when she
operates within a Eurocentric hegemony? The challenge faced by this
teacher is not dissimilar to that encountered by many primary school teachers in New Zealand.
This essay investigates how current knowledge related to cultural
responsiveness can inform and improve educational practice, and ensure a
school’s vision is acted upon. Three key questions are asked to guide this
investigation:
- What knowledge
informs practice?
- What does research
tell us about the skills twenty-first century educators need?
- What is the government’s
response?
Section 1: Theory
What Knowledge Informs Practice?
In order to explore how new knowledge can enhance programmes that
celebrate cultural diversity and support inclusiveness in the classroom, it is
useful to consider a variety of theories underpinning current educational
thinking about effective teaching and learning practices. Each of the
theoretical positions described here, in brief, explore the impact of
relationships on learning and self-belief. Theories relating to what is happening
within the individual, and the impact of environment and social interactions on
the individual will provide a backdrop for further exploration into research
based on these theories.
Psychodynamic theorists suggest that undesirable behaviour can
result from an inner turmoil going on within the individual. If this turmoil is
left un-checked, any desirable behaviours are impossible (Brigham &
Brigham, 2005). The implication of this theory within a multicultural classroom
is that being in tune with where individual students ‘are at’, is necessary.
The teacher must be flexible and responsive to the needs of students in order
to maintain behaviour conducive to learning. This theory also highlights the
importance of self-efficacy in teachers, and the need for self-reflection and
team support.
Flexibility of approach is also necessary when applying theory
proposed by Dreikurs and Pearl (1972), and Balson (1993), According to their associated
theoretical positions, belonging is
the fundamental driving force for any behaviour. The need to feel part of a
group has a significant impact on a student, resulting in them exhibiting a
range of behaviours, both positive and negative, in order to feel that they are
accepted. Therefore one might assume that creating a positive learning
environment where mutual respect and consideration of the experiences of
individuals, especially those from minority cultures, will lead to the positive
outcome of each individual feeling a sense of belonging within a social
interface. Such interface includes relationships, position, and connections
between individuals and groups.
Sociocultural Theory, as posed by Vygotsky (1978) and later by
Bruner (1996) proposes that higher order functions grow within a social
interface. This theory asserts that the social connection an individual has
with those around them, impacts on the development of that individual and their
ability to learn. Renowned Māori scholar Makareti (in Penniman, 1986) provides
a link between this theory and a Māori world view in that she describes the
social connections of an individual as being part of a whānau, and a whānau
being part of a hapū, and an iwi. In the context of a classroom or school,
according to this theory, a teacher must consider the child to be irrevocably
attached to their whānau and community in order to promote learning.
An ecological theoretical approach emphasises that, in order to
build knowledge of the way people develop and behave, it is necessary to
examine the context of interactions in several settings (Bronfenbrenner, 1979).
Advocates of ecological theory suggest the importance of considering not only
the actions of the individual, but the environment and the social interactions
within that environment. In a classroom setting, an environment that bares no
similarities to a child’s home, along with activities that require unfamiliar
interactions (for example, completing work in silence while sitting away from
other students, at a desk) most certainly will have an impact on an
individual’s ability to reach their potential for learning. A more ecological approach
would consider the child’s need to recognise familiar tangible items around
them, for example artifacts, and visual displays representing language and
culture. It would also consider how collaboration and communication with other
learners would aid learning and be more culturally responsive.
Section Two: Literature
What Skills do
Twenty-First Century Educators Need?
In accordance with New Zealand’s National Administration Guidelines
(2012b), and in support of the theory detailed previously, research tells us
that twenty-first century educators have a professional responsibility to
provide a responsive learning environment built on strong relationships (De
Jong, 2005; Glynn & Berryman, 2005; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Weinstein,
Tomlinson-Clarke & Curran, 2004). However, different international perspectives
of living up to this responsibility, and different reasons for creating such an
environment are justified, based on research from around the academic world.
From an American perspective, research tells us that culturally
responsive learning is appropriate due to the growing diversity of schools in
that country (Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Weinstein et al., 2004). We are told
that if cultural diversity is ignored, it leads to denigration of those from the
minority cultures and is likely to result in a breakdown in relationships,
causing conflict within the classroom. Such conflict is a barrier to learning
(Weinstein et al., 2004). Villegas and Lucas (2002) argue that while American
schools may be multicultural, the norms of the dominant culture (in this case
middle class, European Americans) promote inequity in American schools as their
systems operate within a Eurocentric paradigm. They argue also that schools
have a social responsibility to reverse societal discrimination and suggest
that the most effective starting point for this shift in attitude is with
teacher trainees and their educators.
Within a New Zealand setting, Glynn and Berryman (2005) respond to
the growing number of students who are removed from their learning environment
because of behaviour. They advocate an environment where teacher, student and
family work together in order to be more culturally responsive to one another. When
teacher and students connect by showing one another respect and understanding,
this contributes to a culturally safe environment for Māori students (Cavanagh, 2003, 2005; Macfarlane et al.,
2005). Cultural responsiveness implies cultural diversity within a class. As
identified by these authors, when a teacher is from a similar societal/cultural
background as their students and are familiar with the students’ home
backgrounds and ethnic communities, they are more able to offer responsive and
contextually appropriate learning experiences. They also assert that problematic
student behaviour results from a teacher having little understanding or
experience of that student’s family or community values. In corroboration of
this view, Cavanagh (2003, 2005) established that culturally safe classrooms
support building relationships that result in increased family involvement.
Connection with family background is also important in a Pasifika
setting. The Pasifika Schooling Improvement Research or PSIR project (Amituanai-Toloa,
McNaughton, Kuin Lai & Airini, 2009) set out to identify practices that are
effective in raising achievement of Pasifika students in New Zealand schools.
This project focused on two connected questions: what works for Pasifika
students, and what are the barriers to learning for these students? One of the
key findings of this project was that more success in outcomes is felt when
there are better home-school connections. This connectedness involved a
reciprocal sharing of knowledge and ideas about learning between school and
home. Once again, it seems, we are reminded about the importance of
relationships to learning. A Tongan researcher, living in New Zealand, concurs
with this view and recommends that New Zealand schools recognise the importance
of Tongan culture and values within school practices (Lātū, 2009). Achieving
this recognition can only be possible if family and school work together.
Tongan migrants in New Zealand have much to offer in terms of teaching and
learning for their primary-aged children, according to Lātū.
In order to better understand the cultural backgrounds of their
students, and before they can develop a meaningful relationship that will
enhance learning, Villegas and Lucas (2002) suggest that teachers must begin by
investigating their own sociocultural uniqueness. By considering the various
groups they belong to, both social and cultural, and their personal attachments
to such groups, they can consider how these connections have shaped who they
are as an individual. In developing this view, Weinstein et al. (2004) suggest
that an individual’s social and cultural perspective contours their thinking
and how they understand or make sense of unfamiliar situations they are faced
with. Self reflection on the part of the teacher allows them to consider how
their own personal biases, attitudes and assumptions impact on their approach
to, and relationship with, their students (Villegas & Lucas, 2002;
Weinstein et al., 2004).
A culturally responsive learning environment also builds
relationships by offering fair opportunities for learning to all students, so
that they are affirmed as individuals according to Weinstein et al. (2004).
This supports the earlier view held by Villegas and Lucas (2002) who found that
fairness involves affirming the views of students from diverse backgrounds in
an effort to providing a caring learning environment. They suggest that
teachers should trust that all students, not just those from the dominant
culture bring worthwhile, relevant knowledge and know-how to any learning
context.
Being fair and affirming is not sufficient however. In order to
maintain a safe learning environment students need to be guided, as with their
academic learning, to manage their own behaviour (De Jong, 2005; Glynn &
Berryman, 2005; Weinstein et al., 2004). This involves being conscious of one’s
own behaviour, and learning strategies to cope when it becomes difficult to
control that behaviour, as with learning strategies to help understand your
next academic learning step. Likewise De Jong (2005) and Glynn & Berryman (2005) also recommend that teachers should be
aware and monitor of the antecedents of behaviours so that problems can be
diffused before they arise.
So it would seem that current academic thought, informed by
theoretical perspectives reminds us that twenty-first century educators have a
social responsibility to be culturally responsive. We are also reminded that
learning about students’ backgrounds, connecting with their families, and
affirming individuals while teaching them to be responsible for their learning
and behaviour helps to build cultural responsiveness. All of this can only be
achieved if a teacher is open to reflecting on their own personal biases and
has a readiness to keep learning.
Section Three: Policy
What is the Government’s
Response?
New Zealand’s Ministry of Education, informed by such research, has
established several policies and plans over recent years, in an attempt to
address the needs of students from Māori and Pasifika backgrounds in New
Zealand schools. This essay offers a critical appraisal of three of such
strategies: Ka Hikitia (MOE, 2009), the Pasifika Education Plan (MOE, 2011),
and the National Standards (MOE, 2012c).
Ka Hikitia
In an effort to ‘step up’ Māori achievement in New Zealand, the
Ministry of Education developed the strategy, that was updated by the current
government in 2009, entitled Ka Hikitia – Managing for Success (MOE, 2009). The
intent of this strategy is to allow Māori to enjoy educational success as
Māori. This implies that the system must change to put the needs of the learner
at the centre, instead of the learner changing in order to succeed within the
system. This is a strategic document generated at government level, and there
is little within it to give detailed guidelines to schools in order that they
can begin improving daily practice. At a government level change has involved
shifting the emphasis from fixing the problem of Māori achievement to realising
the potential of Māori in education settings.
Part of the government’s process of change has been to impose legal
requirements for schools to consult with their Māori communities to develop
policies and procedures related to improved outcomes for Māori students, and to
report on overall achievement and progress of Māori students in relation to
national standards in Mathematics and English to a school’s Board of Trustees
(MOE, 2012b).
Mandatory reporting with regard to Māori student achievement puts
pressure on schools to raise their game in terms of supporting Māori students.
However schools that do not have strong links to support networks for making
this happen are in a difficult position. There is continuing pressure from
communities that are predominantly European for schools to improve student
access to high speed broadband; to provide varied and exciting literacy and
numeracy programmes; to be involved in all community-based sporting events; and
to maintain high academic results. Such communities however are not always as
enthusiastic about their child learning what it is to be Māori. Therefore,
while pressure goes on the principal to report to the Board of Trustees with
regard to Māori student achievement, this on its own does not necessarily
result in schools becoming more culturally responsive or responsible.
Pasifika Education Plan
Another document available to schools online is The Pasifika
Education Plan (MOE, 2011). This plan provides the Ministry of Education with a
strategic route for improving education outcomes for Pasifika peoples in New
Zealand. The plan has given the Ministry of Education direction regarding
education spending by setting a number of targets intended to lift outcomes and
participation in education at all levels from early childhood to tertiary.
While the plan points out that the term ‘Pasifika’ refers to a wide,
non-homogenous group of peoples from different Pacific nations, Lātū (2009)
claims that Tongan migrants and their language and culture have indeed been
homogenised by using this term, as being ‘Pasifika’ is recognised as being
outside the dominant cultural practices and languages of New Zealand.
There are a number of aspects to the Pasifika Education Plan plan
that, on the surface, appear to be positive. There is an emphasis on shared
responsibility and enabling a system that works for students, their families
and their communities. There has been an increase in pre-school attendance by
Pasifika peoples since 2007, following the implementation of the Pasifika Plan.
It would seem that increased attendance results from increased satisfaction
with the service in this sector. However, within the compulsory sector of
schooling, which includes students from six to sixteen years of age, there was
an increase in suspension rates between 2007 and 2009. One must question
whether the behaviour of Pasifika students, who do not feel valued because they
are being forced to fit into a system designed for a dominant culture, has
suffered as alluded to in previously detailed research (Lātū, 2009; Villegas
& Lucas, 2002; Weinstein et al., 2004).
The National Standards
Possibly the most significant recent documentation for primary
schools, readily available for each teacher in every school with no need to
download, is the documentation surrounding the implementation of the National
Standards (MOE, 2012c). Both Ka Hikitia and The Pasifika Education Plan refer
to the National Standards as being a catalyst that will raise student
achievement – including that of Māori and Pasifika students.
The National Standards place schools in a ‘catch 22’ situation.
Schools are required to develop teaching and learning programmes that allow
every child to achieve success in relation the national curriculum. As already
described, a culturally responsive approach to teaching and learning is
necessary if any student who is not part of the dominant culture is to be
totally successful. Cultural responsiveness would involve an emphasis on caring
for one another and working together, within a reciprocal
relationship where success is measured in terms of success of the whole group,
as opposed to the individual. However, the National Standards only provide a
benchmark to measure individual
student success in (English) Reading, (English) Writing, and Mathematics – and
the failure of some to achieve. Therefore, in New Zealand a young person may be
considered successful and well prepared for the world if they, individually,
are able to communicate in English and manipulate numbers. The qualities and knowledge
that support a caring society that looks after the welfare of its people are
not required within this system of Eurocentric hegemony.
This year, the general public will be able to make comparisons
between schools in terms of National Standards results. In the eyes of the
public, a school will be seen as successful if its National Standards results
are high. In reality, there is the very real risk that schools sacrifice
cultural responsiveness in order to achieve these high results. This sacrifice may
involve the concentration on raising achievement in Māori and Pasifika students
by moulding them to fit the system – not allowing Māori to be Māori, or Tongan
to be Tongan, and so on.
Unfortunately a lack of government support to ensure that schools are
equipped to improve teaching and learning for Māori and Pasifika students,
along with pressure applied by the introduction of national standards, is
placing a considerable burden on individual schools. The current proposal by
the government to increase class sizes will place further demands on teachers
who, according to Doyle (1986) are already under significant pressure. O’Neill
expresses concern about this move by questioning the government’s commitment to
Māori and Pasifika students:
The Government cannot
claim on one hand to be committed to meeting the needs
of disadvantaged
learners, improving the achievement of Maori and Pasifika
students, raising
national standards and to providing 21st century learning and, on
the other hand, take
steps that materially undermine each and every one of those
commitments. If we follow
Treasury’s logic we might just as well go back to the
early 1800s and drill
children in classes of five hundred using sand trays and
monitors. That would be
cheaper still (O’Neill, 2012, para. 8).
It is up to individual school communities, therefore, to find their
own ways to work within the boundaries imposed by the Ministry of Education, as
well as community expectations, and their social obligation to celebrate
cultural diversity within their school. If a school’s twenty-first century
vision focuses on building a learning environment that is founded on
whakawhanaungatanga (building relationships), as XXX does, it would follow that
teaching and learning is culturally responsive, and intent on meeting the
diverse cultural needs within the whole school community of learners.
A Proposal for Change
A team approach to a shift in
systems management that results in better cultural responsiveness is necessary,
as well as strengthened relationships with the local iwi, and Pasifika
families. Change must begin with individuals reflecting on their own cultural
habits and thinking. Assumptions must be questioned about how best to
communicate with the school’s family community, as does the attitude that
teachers know more than parents about what is best for these students (Villegas
& Lucas, 2002). Most importantly, teachers must feel that they are being
supported in their role.
A
schema developed by Macfarlane (2012) can assist New Zealand teachers to
reflect on their practice, in terms of cultural responsiveness. The Hikairo
Rationale: A Reflective Practice Schema operates from a Maori worldview and
invites teachers to change their practice to become more culturally responsive
by setting goals for themselves and considering the impact of putting their
goals into practice (Macfarlane, 2012). The implication is that if the
environment recognises and responds to the culture of the learners, the
outcomes include self-efficacy and better academic results (Glynn &
Berryman, 2005; Weinstein et al., 2004).
A
proposal is made that this schema is adopted as a framework to support a
more culturally responsive learning environment, relevant to a twenty-first
century paradigm. Macfarlane’s (2012) schema can been adapted somewhat to suit
the context if it is considered that the teaching professionals would
benefit from the support of explicit guidelines for building knowledge about
cultural responsiveness (see ‘Building Culturally Responsive Practice’,
Appendix One). It is intended that these changes will empower teachers and
school leaders to develop culturally responsive pedagogies that are relevant,
but not restricted to, one school context. It is also intended that by
considering the suggested actions listed in the tool, practitioners will be
agents for changing contextual norms that perpetuate cultural discrimination
(Villegas & Lucas, 2002).
The
first adaptation is the correlation of Macfarlane’s (2012) schema to the
school’s mission, and strategic plan. This ensures that the school actively
demonstrates the significance of their community’s vision for education in
practice.
The
second alteration is the inclusion of a section that summarises key aspects of
the values adhered to by cultures within the school. The Catholic special
character is indicated by the school’s Gospel-based values. A Māori worldview
is presented through the inclusion of relevant Māori values. In an effort to
avoid homogenizing the values of the dominant Pacific nations represented in
the school, a Tongan World view and Samoan worldview are also detailed. The
exclusion of the values of other ethnic cultures represented in the school
serves to initiate dialogue that may be a catalyst for teachers investigating
the world views of other cultures represented within their class. The inclusion
(and exclusion) of different worldviews allows practitioners to reflect on the
similarities and differences between these perspectives and to be respectful of
the needs of those within the community when planning practice. It also serves
a purpose of educating those who use the tool to develop their understanding of
these perspective values.
The
third adaptation is the inclusion of explicit guidance as to how one could go
about achieving each of the goals detailed in Macfarlane’s (2012) schema. This
adaptation has been made to support teachers who are ‘set in their ways’ to be
able to reflect on small steps at a time. It is not intended to provide a
recipe for success, but a manageable plan for developing practice.
One of
the intended outcomes of the application of Macfarlane’s (2012) schema through
the implementation of the Building Culturally Responsive Practice tool is to
develop stronger, more meaningful relationships between the school and the
home. This is a key aspect of a number of successful interventions that have
resulted in improved academic and behaviour outcomes for students as previously
noted within this paper. It is suggested by Macfarlane (2007) that there needs
to be a change in practice by schools in order to develop such relationships.
An
approach to the initial contact whereby the teacher is open to being a learner,
allows whānau the opportunity to express their needs and the needs of their
child (Macfarlane, 2007). This approach opens the door to a meaningful relationship
based on Ako, reciprocity of learning and is referred to in the first section
of the tool. Relationships between teachers and parents
is commonly more aligned to a Eurocentric paradigm, where the teacher advises the parent
of their intentions and seeks a response, rather than the teacher engaging in
meaningful dialogue to inform decision-making.
Through
an enhanced relationship with the parents and whānau, another intended outcome
of this tool is the development of a strong connection between school and local
iwi, tribes. Before Building Culturally
Responsive Practice can be implemented, dialogue needs to begin between
school leaders and Māori parent advisors. This dialogue would allow the
opportunity for the school leaders to act as treaty partners by engaging in a
meaningful partnership. This may lead to further dialogue within the context of
a whānau hui (meeting) with other family representatives from the school. The
intention of the dialogue would not be to share what has been developed, but to
listen. From this, changes would be made to Building Culturally Responsive
Practice so that it can integrate a
local Māori community’s wisdom and cultural practices with the knowledge gained
through academic research.
Conclusion
The responsibility of developing teaching and learning programmes
that allow every child to achieve success in relation the national curriculum
is a challenge for teachers working within a system that is fundamentally
Eurocentric. However teachers are not alone. If they open themselves to new
learning and are prepared to allow those around them to help them they can play
their part in being an agent of change in building a culturally responsive
education setting free from discrimination.
Having a written guideline of suggested actions to follow is not
going to guarantee cultural sensitivity and responsiveness. But it is proposed
that it will support the actions of teachers who are from the dominant culture
to reflect on their own practice. This can be a starting point for a new,
improved learning environment that celebrates diversity.
New Schools have a unique opportunity and a social responsibility to
reverse societal discrimination by the dominant culture. By acting on the
suggestions within Building Culturally Responsive Practice, any school can nurture a rich, diverse, caring community of learners.
References
Amituanai-Toloa,
M., McNaughton, S., Kuin Lai, M., & Airini. (2009). Ua aoina le manogi o le
lolo: Pasifika schooling improvement research – final report. Retrieved January 24, 2012, from www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications
Balson, M. (1993). Understanding
classroom behaviour (3rd ed.). Victoria: ACER.
Bateman, D. (2008). Māori
tribes of New Zealand. Auckland: David Bateman Ltd.
Brigham, F., & Brigham, M. (2005). An introduction to understanding behavior. Virginia, VA: University of Virginia.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The
ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. London: Harvard University Press.
Cavanagh, T. (2003). Schooling for peace: Caring for
our children in school. Experiments in
Education, 31(8), 139–49.
Cavanagh,T. (2005). Restoration practices and a culture of care in schools: A story
of alternative positive peace
efforts. Preliminary report to Raglan Area School,
Raglan, New Zealand.
De Jong, T.
(2005). A framework of principles and best practice for managing student behaviour in the Australian
educational context. School Psychology
International.
26(3), 353-370.
Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teaching (3rd ed.,pp392-431). New York: Macmillan.
Dreikers, R., & Pearl, C. (1972). Discipline without tears. New York: Hawthorn Books.
Education Review Office. (2011). XXX
School (Blenheim) 10/08/2011. Retrieved January 26, 2012, from http://www.ero.govt.nz/Early-Childhood-School-Reports/School-Reports/St-Mary-s-School-Blenheim-10-08-2011
Glynn, T., &
Berryman, M. (2005). Understanding and responding to students’ behaviour difficulties. In D. Fraser, R. Moltzen
& R. Ryba (Eds.), Learners with special needs in Aotearoa New
Zealand (3rd ed.) (pp.294-315). Melbourne: Thomson
Dunmore Press.
Jansen, G., & Malta, R. (2011). Restorative
practice in action. In V. Margrain
& A. Macfarlane (Eds.). Responsive
Pedagogy: Engaging with challenging behaviour (pp.85-109). Wellington:
NZCER Press.
Lātū, M. (2009). Talanoa: A
contribution to the teaching and learning of
Tongan primary school children in
New Zealand. Unpublished master’s thesis, Auckland University of
technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved
January 25, 2012, from http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10292/919/LatuM.pdf?sequence=1
Macfarlane, A. (2004). Kia hiwa ra! Listen to culture. Wellington: NZCER.
Macfarlane, A. (2007). Discipline, democracy, and diversity: working with students with
behaviour difficulties. Wellington: NZCER.
Macfarlane, A. (2012). The Hikairo rationale: A reflective practice schema [Lecture
notes]. 20 January, 2012.
University of Canterbury.
Macfarlane, S. (2009). Te pikinga ki runga: Raising
possibilities. Set, 2(2009), 43-50.
Macfarlane, A., Glynn, T., Cavanagh, T., &
Bateman, S. (2005, November). Creating
culturally safe schools: Culturally appropriate approaches to supporting Māori
students. Paper presented at the 7th World Indigenous Peoples
Conference on Education (WIPCE), Hamilton, New Zealand.
Macfarlane, A., Glynn, T., Grace, W., Penetito, W.,
& Bateman, S. (2008). Indigenous epistemology in a national curriculum
framework? Ethnicities, 8(2008),
102-127.
Ministry of
Education. (2007). The New Zealand
curriculum. Wellington: Author.
Ministry of Education. (2009). Ka Hikitia – Managing for success: The Māori
education strategy 2008 – 2012. Retrieved
January 25, 2012, from
Ministry of Education. (2011). Mid-term
review of the Pasifika education plan 2009-2012. Retrieved January 24,
2012, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/pasifika_education/22967/mid-term-review-of-the-pasifika-education-plan-2009-2012
Ministry of Education. (2012a). School
roll summary reports. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/2259
Ministry of Education. (2012b). The National Administration Guidelines (NAGs). Retrieved January
23, 2012, from
Ministry of Education. (2012c). National
Standards. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/National-Standards
Moorfield, J. (Ed). (2005). Te
Aka: Māori-English, English-Māori dictionary and index. Auckland: Pearson
Education New Zealand.
O’Neill, P. (2012). Class size matters to those who struggle most. Retrieved February
7, 2012, from
Penniman, T. (Ed.). (1986). Makereti: The old time Māori. Auckland: new Women’s Press.
Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand. (2012). New Zealand Peoples. Retrieved January
26, 2012, from http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/peoples
Villegas, A.,
& Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(1), 20-32.
Vygotsky, L.
(1978). Mind and society. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Weinstein, C.,
Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom
management. Journal of Teacher Education,
55(1), 25-38.
Comments
Post a Comment