| Summary: | The American education system has been enduring a cycle of transformational change in response to society's evolving needs and demands, however it is under scrutiny for not evolving fast enough to represent the diversifying population. The outdated educational paradigms pervasive throughout the country continue to perpetuate the oppression of marginalized populations by appealing to the dominant, White culture. This educational injustice fails to consider the increasing
culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) population, with nearly 40% of the student population comprised of CLD students. Educational leaders are striving to create more equitable education opportunities through the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) which employs students' cultural perspectives, cultural referents, lived experiences, characteristics, and espoused beliefs as conduits for learning. Districts nationwide have embedded CRP into their mission
statements in an effort to celebrate and affirm student diversity. However, teachers have expressed they feel ill equipped to engage in culturally responsive practices and are insufficiently supported with the implementation of CRP. Educators in an urban Arizona school district characterized by its CLD population assert that more professional learning is needed if teachers are to feel efficacious with CRP. This Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) employs Villegas and Lucas's
theoretical framework of culturally responsive pedagogy to answer the question: How do elementary educators understand culturally responsive pedagogy upon their experience in CRP-aligned professional development sessions in an urban school district in Arizona? Data analysis of six interview transcripts detailing educators' experiences with professional development for CRP revealed five emergent themes: redefining culturally responsive pedagogy; differentiated professional development
structures; professional development content; time; and building teacher interest and confidence with CRP. Evident in the study is the lack of depth regarding how CRP is defined by the district and subsequently perceived by teachers. Recommendations for practice include deepening the knowledge and understanding around CRP and its role in supporting students as independent thinkers and learners, as well as garnering teacher input for the design of differentiated CRP-aligned professional
development. Implications for future study include observing teachers to identify culturally responsive strategies and observe how students' receive such instruction, as well as considerations to factors that inhibit and facilitate the implementation of CRP.
|
|---|
