Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP):
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy (CRP) is an approach to teaching and learning that recognizes and values the diverse cultural backgrounds of students. When applied flexibly in the classroom to focus on academic vocabulary learning in a balanced approach, it can enhance students' understanding and retention of new words.
Key features of CRP that link to academic vocabulary development :
Cultural Relevance: CRP emphasizes the incorporation of culturally relevant content into the curriculum. This includes selecting academic vocabulary that is meaningful and applicable to students' cultural backgrounds, making the learning experience more engaging and relatable.
Personalization: CRP encourages educators to allow for personal connections to the material. In the context of academic vocabulary development, this means providing opportunities for students to relate new words to their own experiences, languages, and cultural contexts.
Inclusive Language Practices: CRP promotes the use of inclusive language in the classroom, acknowledging and respecting the diverse linguistic backgrounds of students. This is particularly important in academic vocabulary development, where language sensitivity can enhance understanding and inclusivity.
Multimodal Instruction: CRP advocates for varied instructional methods that cater to diverse learning styles. When teaching academic vocabulary, incorporating multimodal approaches, such as visual aids, hands-on activities, and technology, helps accommodate different ways in which students comprehend and retain new words.
Collaborative Learning: CRP encourages collaborative learning environments where students can work together and learn from one another. In the context of academic vocabulary, collaborative activities promote discussion and the sharing of diverse language perspectives, enriching students' vocabulary through peer interaction.
Scaffolded Instruction: CRP supports scaffolded instruction, breaking down complex concepts into more manageable components. When applied to academic vocabulary development, this involves introducing foundational words before progressing to more advanced terms, ensuring a gradual and comprehensive understanding.
Reflective Practices: CRP incorporates reflective practices that prompt students to think critically about language and culture. In the context of academic vocabulary, this involves discussions on the cultural nuances of certain words and reflection on how language is used in different contexts.
Cultural Sensitivity: CRP emphasizes cultural sensitivity, encouraging educators to be aware of and responsive to the cultural backgrounds of their students. In academic vocabulary development, this involves recognizing and respecting the linguistic diversity in the classroom.
Validation of Home Languages: CRP recognizes the value of students' home languages and encourages the validation of diverse linguistic backgrounds. In the context of academic vocabulary, this means acknowledging and incorporating words from various languages, making connections to students' linguistic repertoires.
Real-world Application: CRP advocates for connecting classroom learning to real-world contexts. In academic vocabulary development, this involves providing examples and applications of words in authentic cultural and professional settings, making the learning experience more relevant and practical.
Image source: Teacher Competencies that Promote Culturally Responsive Teaching, provided by New America.
Key Points from Hetty Roessingh's "Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Academic Vocabulary Teaching and Learning: An Integrated Approach in the Elementary Classroom"
CRP is based on the assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the students’ lived experiences and frames of reference, they are more personally meaningful, have higher appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly (Government of Ontario, 2013b). CRP 是基於這樣的假設:當學術知識和技能位於學生的生活經驗和框架內具有參考價值,更具有個人意義,具有更高的吸引力,學得更容易、更徹底(安大略省政府,2013b)。
New vocabulary is best learned in meaningful contexts within a broad, culturally universal theme such as family treasures, soups, naming traditions (Kapoyannis, 2019) that provides conceptual glue for incremental learning through multiple exposures (Stahl, 2003).
Methods:
Object-based learning:
Key Point: Objects serve as tangible entry points into a thematic plan, facilitating direct connections to new vocabulary.
Example: Cultural artifacts like prayer beads, personal possessions (e.g., cup, tie, patka), and cooking ingredients provide opportunities for tangible connections and collaborative discussions.
Storybook reading:
Key Point: Children’s books in multiple languages, like Gilman’s story "Something From Nothing" (1992), offer opportunities for language awareness and transfer-type teaching practices.
Example: Repeated reading of a patterned story allows for learning and modeling of story grammar. Dialogic reading, with teacher talk and inferential questions, enhances critical thinking during storybook sessions (Torr & Scott, 2006; Mercer et al., 2009; Van Kleeck, 2008).
Direct instruction:
Key Point: Direct instruction, such as using the Frayer model (Richardson, n.d.), clarifies new vocabulary properties and sets boundaries through teacher-led techniques.
Example: Techniques like "give an example," "give a non-example," "provide a description," or "generate a definition" help students understand and retain new vocabulary. Flashcards can be prepared for individual word banks.
Recycling tasks:
Key Point: Recycling tasks, like crossword puzzles or flashcard activities, reinforce new vocabulary through interactive games in pairs or with partners.
Example: Teacher-prepared crossword puzzles, flashcard exercises, and semantic clusters with visual information on the bulletin board support ongoing vocabulary use and review.
Language experience approach (LEA):
Key Point: LEA involves productive language engagement, using storytelling and writing with visual aids to lessen cognitive load, especially for young learners.
Example: Prewriting tasks such as drawing and sketching provide a touchstone and priming mechanism for vocabulary. Co-constructing LEA texts with teachers offers scaffolding and adjusts linguistic input to align with literacy learning goals (Roessingh, 2014). Generating grammatically correct texts supports language-literacy connections (Dorr, 2006).
My Lesson Plan:
Reflection:
Additional References:
References:
Dorr, R. (2006). Something old is new again: Revisiting Language Experience Approach. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 138–146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20204444
Government of Ontario. (2013b). Capacity Building Series. Culturally responsive pedagogy towards equity and inclusivity in Ontario Schools. Secretariat Special Edition #35. http://www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/CBS_ResponsivePedagogy.pdf
Kapoyannis, D. (2019). Literacy engagement in multilingual and multicultural learning spaces. TESL Canada Journal, 36(2), 1–25. https://teslcanadajournal.ca/index.php/tesl/article/ view/1329/1155
Roessingh, H. (2020). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy and Academic Vocabulary Teaching and Learning: An Integrated Approach in the Elementary Classroom. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, 37(1), 82.
Roessingh, H. (2014). Grandma’s Soup: Thematic instruction for dual language learners, K–2. Young Children, September, 2014, 86–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.69.4.86
Stahl, K. (2003). How words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator, Spring, 2003. https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/spring-2003
Torr, J., & Scott, C. (2006). Learning ‘special words’: Technical vocabulary in the talk of adults and preschoolers during shared reading. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 4(2), 153–167. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1476718X06063534
Comments