Converging Recommendations for Culturally Responsive Literacy

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Converging Recommendations for Culturally Responsive

Literacy Practices: Students with Learning Disabilities,

English Language Learners, and Socioculturally

Diverse Learners

Susan V. Piazza

Western Michigan University

U.S.A.

Shaila Rao

Western Michigan University

U.S.A.

Maria Selena Protacio

Western Michigan University

U.S.A.

ABSTRACT: This study examines culturally responsive pedagogy across the

fields of special education, multicultural literacy education, and teaching English

language learners. A systematic review of recommendations identified culturally

responsive practices in five key areas: dialogue, collaboration, visual

representation, explicit instruction, and inquiry. Educators are encouraged to

adopt a critical and responsive stance that incorporates students’ cultural

knowledge and lived experiences when implementing these recommendations.

Creating classrooms that promote culturally responsive and effective instruction

is grounded in the definition of literacy as a social practice and leads to more

equitable learning opportunities in all areas.

KEYWORDS: multicultural education, culturally responsive literacy, multicultural

literacy, special education, English language learner

Theoretical Perspectives

Methods

Discussion of Findings

Conclusion

References

Culturally responsive literacy practices are vital for the academic

achievement of socioculturally diverse learners (Au, 2011; Gay, 2000, 2002;

Ladson-Billings, 2011; Tatum, 2005) and learners with specific learning

disabilities (LD) in inclusive settings (Gay, 2002; Klingner & Edwards, 2006), as

well as English Language Learners (ELLs) (Haynes, 2012; Villegas & Lucas,

2007). Although research exists within each of the specialized areas of special

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

education, multicultural literacy education, and ELLs, there is little published

about the convergence of instructional practices across these three fields. The

purpose of this article is to conduct a qualitative synthesis and overview of

literature from each field that analyzes for converging language and literacy

instructional practices. Three scholars from a Midwestern university collaborated

to conduct a comparative analysis of scholarly articles from the fields of

multicultural literacy education, special education, and teaching English as a

second or other language. While this is not a comprehensive review of research,

this analysis was systematic and targeted scholarly journals that inform U.S.

educators in our respective fields of education. A sociocultural theoretical

framework (Au, 2011; Luke, Woods, & Dooley, 2011; Perry, 2012) informed the

qualitative synthesis and review of articles. The convergence of instructional

recommendations indicates there is growing consensus across the fields

regarding promising instructional practices that will effectively support diverse

learners.

Theoretical Perspectives

For the purposes of this review, we offer the following parameters in

defining ELL, LD, and SDL. We define students with learning disabilities as those

with a significant difficulty in language acquisition, listening, speaking, reading

(word-recognition skills and comprehension), and writing. These difficulties are

due to a disorder in the basic psychological processes such as memory, auditory

and visual perception, oral language, and thinking (Learner & Johns, 2015). We

define ELLs as those who come from homes where English is not the primary

language spoken and are in need of English language services. We define

socioculturally diverse students as individuals who have been traditionally

marginalized because of social factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, and

poverty. In choosing a theoretical framework for this literature review, we focus

on sociocultural theory and culturally responsive literacy practices. All learners

are unique, and it is important to note that diverse learners will have overlapping

features that exist within and across each of the categories in this analysis. It is

precisely the many overlaps from which this comparative analysis of instructional

practices across the three fields emerged.

Sociocultural Theory

Sociocultural theoretical perspectives in the field of literacy (Au, 2011;

Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007; Luke, Woods, & Dooley, 2011; Vygotsky, 1978)

were used to examine the recommended practices that support responsive

pedagogy across three fields. We found Perry’s (2012) overview of sociocultural

perspectives especially relevant in this process as it provided three frames of

reference within sociocultural theory: (a) literacy as social practice, (b)

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

multiliteracies, and (c) critical literacy. First, literacy as a social practice is often

attributed to Vygotsky (1978), who posited that all human interactions are

mediated by language and symbols and are heavily influenced by social, cultural,

and historical contexts. Second, there are also multiple literacy perspectives that

take us beyond print or written text to include modes of meaning such as visual,

audio, and spatial patterns of meaning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009). A third

perspective includes critical literacy, which acknowledges individual learners’

power and sense of agency as they learn about the world through words in print,

or through multimodal communication around them (Freire, 2000). These views

contextualize literacy development as situated in various sociocultural contexts

and promise more equitable learning for diverse students. Equity is relevant to

the discussion of responsive literacy instruction because when skills are

delivered to students in a proposed context-free environment, diverse learners

become marginalized when their home literacy practices are socioculturally

different from what is considered normative.

Culturally Responsive Literacy Pedagogy

As we identified convergence across three fields, we drew upon the

framework of culturally responsive teaching (CRT), which is defined as “using the

cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance

styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant

to and effective for them” (Gay, 2010, p. 31). It requires that students’ strengths

rather than weaknesses are a starting point for instruction. U.S. classrooms are

increasingly complex spaces in which readers become literate, comprehend

multiple kinds of texts, and adapt knowledge of the world, through the lenses of

their lived experiences (Ladson-Billings, 2011; Lankshear, 1997; Lipson &

Wixson, 2013). CRT is prevalent across all three fields and is well-documented in

the literature as being vital to students’ learning (Au, 2011; Banks & Banks, 2004;

Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Gay, 2002; Goldenberg, 2013; Klingner & Edwards,

2006; Ladson-Billings, 2011; Mercer, Mercer, & Pullen, 2011; Street, 2012). CRT

is a stance that must be adopted by teachers in order to effectively and

consistently increase student achievement through socially, culturally, and

linguistically responsive instruction. Once a CRT stance is embraced, all other

promising practices become more likely to be effective for diverse learners.

It is critical that all students be given the opportunity to connect their own

worlds of language and communication to the curriculum they encounter in

schools. An additional area of concern within CRT is the importance of multiple

teaching materials and resources that connect to students’ everyday lived

experiences (Comber, 2013; Guerra, 2012; Hall & Piazza, 2010; Medina, 2010;

Street, 2012; Tatum, 2005). It is important to note that the selection of materials

alone is never sufficient, but its importance must not be overlooked (Tatum,

2005). Formal and informal literacies, just as in-school and out-of-school

literacies, are contextualized and situated in the social and cultural practices in all

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

settings. The definition of text has expanded to include things such as websites,

videos, student writing, public speech, applications [apps], advertising, music,

and art. This expanded definition of text ensures that educators are responsive

not only to diverse learners, but also to the changing world we live in.

Methods

Cooper’s (2010) taxonomy of literature reviews guided this qualitative

synthesis of instructional practice across three fields. There are six

characteristics of literature reviews provided by Cooper, and the following is how

we address each area:

1. The focus of the review aims to identify instructional practices that are

valued and promoted across three fields of interest;

2. The goal of the review is to identify and build linguistic bridges across

three fields so that even when different terminology or practice is

promoted, we may recognize a convergence in overall approach;

3. The perspective of the review is grounded in sociocultural and critical

theories of education;

4. The coverage of literature reviewed was determined to be a

representative sample in the form of 10 articles from each field;

5. The organizational approach is considered conceptual in nature as it

targets recommended practices for specific and diverse student

populations; and

6. The audience for this review is general education scholars, policy

makers, and practitioners.

Some argue there is little evidence that documents culturally responsive

teaching for culturally, linguistically, and cognitively diverse learners (e.g., August

& Shanahan, 2006). However, there are scholarly articles that provide valuable

insights to instructional practices that support improved student outcomes when

educators attend to students’ identities, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and

out-of-school literacies (Anderson & Sadler, 2009; McIntyre & Hulan, 2013;

Piazza, 2011). The controversy is due in part to the narrow scope of studies

included in many literature reviews that limit themselves to experimental designs

and randomized trials. This descriptive review of literature will identify converging

discourses and practices within and across three fields of education, which might

then lead to such systematic reviews. For example, the National Reading Panel

(2000) shaped major policies and dialogue around effective literacy instruction

based on a limited review of studies, which was not preceded or followed by

descriptive studies such as these. As qualitative researchers, this review will

provide insights into evidence that may then support the further study of

convergence across other fields regarding culturally responsive literacy

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

instruction and diverse learners. The following sections provide the review

process employed in conducting this study of literature across three fields.

Literature Review Process

The researchers read widely and met three different times to narrow

selection criteria. The first round of reviews focused on peer reviewed literature

promoting promising practices for special education students, socioculturally

diverse learners, and English language learners. The second round of reviews

focused on targeting scholarly databases such as ERIC, Education Abstracts,

Google Scholar, JSTOR Arts and Sciences 6, ProQuest Research Library,

among others. Search terms included effective literacy instruction, responsive

pedagogy, literacy, reading, writing, reading difficulty, and literacy terms such as

vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency. For a more focused attempt, terms

related to each of the three fields were added, such as learning disability, special

education, reading disability, English-language learners, second language

learners, English as a second language, culturally responsive literacy instruction,

and culturally relevant teaching. The third round of reviews resulted in the

identification of the following criteria for selecting the representative sample of

articles to be included in this qualitative synthesis of practices:

 Articles must be published in peer reviewed scholarly journals.

 Publication dates must be 2000 or later in an effort to focus on current

trends.

 Articles must rely upon qualitative or quantitative research as a basis

for the recommended practices.

 Articles must specifically address literacy practices that are responsive

to culture or language.

 Articles must address literacy practices that have demonstrated

improved academic outcomes in reading and/or literacy processes.

Analysis

Once the 10 articles from each field were selected, researchers conducted

a comparative thematic analysis (Creswell, 2009) to identify converging

instructional recommendations. The comparative thematic analysis included the

following steps:

1. Many instructional themes were identified in efforts to generate initial

categories for effective practices;

2. Similarities between and within those themes led to the development of

a thematic coding system;

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

3. The process became iterative through the search for themes, defining

and redefining themes, organizing them into a database, and making

final revisions to thematic categories.

These research methods resulted in an analytic framework consisting of

five instructional recommendations, which represent a review of converging

recommended instructional practices for students with learning disabilities,

students who are English-language learners, and students from diverse social

and cultural backgrounds. The 30 articles reviewed in this study converge around

the following five themes and are presented in Table 1 below: dialogue,

collaboration, visual representation, explicit instruction, and inquiry.

Table 1

Converging Recommendations for Culturally Responsive Literacy

Practices

Articles Reviewed

Dialogue

Collabo-

ration

Visual

Represen-

tation

Explicit

Instruction

Inquiry

Students with Learning Disabilities

Anderson & Corbett

(2008) [+ELL+SDL]

◊

Apthorp (2006) [+ELL]

◊

Cowden ( 2012)

◊

Coyne et al. (2010)

◊

Dorr (2006) [+ELL+SDL]

◊

Kim et al. (2006)

[+ELL+SDL]

◊

Mahdavi & Tensfeldt

(2013) [+ELL+SDL]

◊

Menzies et al. (2008)

◊

Narkon & Wells (2013)

[+ELL+SDL]

◊

Roberts et al. (2008)

◊

English Language Learners

Barr, Eslami, & Joshi

(2012)

◊

Calderon et al. (2011)

[+SDL]

◊

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Facella et al. (2005)

[+SDL]

◊

Francis et al. (2006)

◊

Genesee et al. (2005)

[+SDL]

◊

Gersten et al. (2007)

◊

Goldenberg (2013)

◊

Hansen-Thomas (2010)

[+SDL]

◊

O’Day (2009) [+SDL]

◊

Saunders et al. (2013)

◊

Socioculturally Diverse Learners

Castagno & Brayboy

(2008) [+ELL]

◊

Comber (2013) [+ELL]

◊

Greenleaf & Hinchman

(2009)

◊

Hansfield &Jiménez

(2009) [+ELL]

◊

Ivey & Broaddus (2007)

[+LD]

◊

McIntyre & Hulan (2013)

[+ELL]

◊

Medina (2010) [+ELL]

◊

Peck (2010)

◊

Tierney (2009)

◊

Wohlwend (2008)

◊

Note. Articles that address socioculturally diverse learners are coded [+SDL],

learning disability [+LD], and English language learners [+ELL].

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Discussion of Findings

In this section, each instructional approach will be operationally defined,

grounded in the research and supporting theory, and linked to implications for

use in classrooms to support diverse learners from all backgrounds.

Dialogue

The definition of dialogue can be traced back to sociocultural theories of

literacy as it provides opportunities for learners to use language as a tool to

mediate actions and interactions (Bakhtin, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). Language and

communication are rooted in the material and social worlds of diverse learners

(Gee, 2001). Recommendations for the use of dialogue were found in 22 of the

30 articles reviewed and represent critical pedagogical practices for diverse

learners due to its strong research base and theoretical underpinnings (Anderson

& Corbett, 2008; Goldenberg, 2013; McIntyre & Hulan, 2013; Medina, 2010;

Sperling, Appleman, Gilyard, & Freedman, 2011). When students engage in

dialogue, particularly around texts and life experiences, they use new language,

connect the known to unknown, and expand their worldviews (Comber, 2013;

Medina, 2010). The National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Youth and

Children prepared by August and Shanahan (2006) found that oral proficiency in

English is critical to developing ELLs’ literacy skills, but it is often not explicitly

addressed in classrooms, despite evidence of its positive effect on learning.

We divided the use of dialogue in effective and culturally responsive ways

into two approaches. The first approach addresses dialogic interactions between

teachers and students. Teachers should engage students with instructional goals

in order to encourage deep and active processing of words and meanings.

During extended talk, teachers pose cognitively challenging questions to activate

higher order thinking and prompt effective vocabulary growth and reading

comprehension (Apthorp, 2006; Ivey & Broaddus, 2007; Kim et al., 2006).

Strategies that are based on these recommendations are cited as collaborative

strategic reading (CSR) (Kim et al., 2006); instructional conversations

(Goldenberg, 2013), cognitive strategy instruction (Hansfield & Jiménez, 2009);

language experience approach (LEA) (Dorr, 2006); and direct and extended

vocabulary instruction (Coyne et al., 2010). Such practices encourage students

to process text and ideas for deeper levels of understanding, which improves

comprehension, critical thinking, and overall achievement.

The second approach addresses dialogue between peers and is an

important opportunity for ELLs, students with learning disabilities, and

socioculturally diverse learners to reflect on ideas and engage with their peers

(Apthorp, 2006; Coyne et al., 2010; Ivey & Broaddus, 2007; Medina, 2010;

Wohlwend, 2008). Recommended practices include collaborative reading

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

strategies (CSR) (Kim et al., 2006), literature circles (Medina, 2010), reciprocal

teaching (Hansfield & Jiménez, 2009), peer-tutoring, book discussions, learning

together through inquiry and questioning (Hansen-Thomas & Cavagnetto, 2010;

Ivey & Broaddus, 2007; Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013), and peer assisted learning

strategies (PALS) (Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013). Dialogue that centers on texts,

ideas, and issues provides classroom opportunities for learners to experience

others’ thoughts, which allows for deliberation and critical reflection about their

own and others’ perspectives. In these conversations students extend their

understandings of texts and mentor each other in ways that will improve

comprehension, vocabulary, and critical thinking (Anderson & Corbett, 2008;

Castagno & Brayboy, 2008; Medina, 2010; Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, &

Scammacca, 2008; Saunders, Goldenberg, & Marcelletti, 2013).

Collaboration

Literacy as a social practice emphasizes that learners construct meaning

through social interactions, which allows them to exchange ideas and learn

alongside of more knowledgeable or experienced others (Vygotsky, 1978). In

sociocultural theory, the interactions with a knowledgeable other are understood

to create a critical learning opportunity known as the zone of proximal

development (ZPD). More experienced partners, who could be adults or peers,

provide scaffolding (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2013). Gargiulo

and Metcalf (2013) viewed collaboration in educational settings as a cooperative

relationship between two or more individuals working toward a mutually agreed

upon goal. Research in the field of new literacies adds to this definition in that

there is increasing value being placed on cooperation and collaboration when

students build their understandings and create knowledge online and use

multimedia. These recommendations shift instructional emphasis to highlight

process and participation rather than traditional authorship, products, and

individual ownership (Lankshear & Knobel, 2007).

Collaboration was recommended in 23 of the 30 articles reviewed across

three fields. Evidence-based strategies for teaching reading in all three areas

highlighted grouping structures to promote collaboration. In teaching reading and

writing to students with learning disabilities (LD) and students who are English

language learners (ELLs), large group instruction, small group instruction, and

peer partners are instructional arrangements recommended to maximize learning

potential (Anderson & Corbett, 2008; Apthorp, 2006; Barr, Eslami, & Joshi, 2012;

Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011; Coyne et al., 2010; Dorr, 2006; Facella,

Rampino, & Shea, 2005; Gersten et al., 2007; Genesee, Lindholm-Leary,

Saunders, & Christian, 2005; Kim et al., 2006; Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013;

Saunders et al., 2013). These studies explored various forms of grouping

structures that enable teachers to increase instructional time and provide

students opportunities to actively respond. Additional recommendations include

peer mediated learning such as PALS and Class-wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT),

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

which are used with pairs or small groups and roles of tutee and tutor are often

changed (Mahdavi & Tensfeldt, 2013).

Collaborative learning and group discussions are often recommended

simultaneously (Apthorp, 2006; Comber, 2013; Cowden, 2012; Dorr, 2006;

Hansen-Thomas & Cavagnetto, 2010; Menzies, Mahdavi, & Lewis, 2008;

Roberts et al. 2008). Students struggling to read and comprehend due to learning

disabilities or due to their limited English proficiency benefit from working with

knowledgeable others, learning specific strategies for new vocabulary,

comprehension, and fluency. Dorr (2006) recommends the language experience

approach (LEA) as a valuable tool for accessing and developing prior knowledge

before moving on to a new topic. LEA emphasizes a connection between

context, thinking, speaking, listening, viewing, writing, and reading and provides

a balanced approach that connects all aspects of literacy instruction that will

benefit all students whether they are language learners, identified with SDL, or

socioculturally diverse.

Visual Representation

Eilam (2012) states that visual representations (VR) like charts, graphs,

maps, artworks, and photographs form an inherent part of the cognitive, cultural,

and social aspects of learning for both students and teachers. Research cautions

that in contemporary classrooms the student population is becoming increasingly

diverse and this calls for culturally responsive visual representations (Castagno &

Brayboy, 2013; Eilam, 2012). One of several recommended questions for

teachers to reflect on is, “When and how should visual representations be

generated for promoting understanding among particular students?” (Eilam,

2012, p. 9).

Treating visual forms of literacy and communication as social practices,

Street (2012) highlights the importance of multimodal literacies, or new literacies,

and reiterates that these forms of information and/or ways of communicating help

create and influence our relationships and environments. The use of visual

representation can be particularly helpful for ELLs who may have the conceptual

knowledge but not the linguistic knowledge to fully understand texts (Goldenberg,

2013; Goldenberg, Hicks, & Lit, 2013). Visual representations are helpful

resources that facilitate ELLs’ and many diverse learners’ comprehension of

content.

The converging recommendations for visual information were found in 15

of the 30 articles reviewed across three fields. Several studies (Anderson &

Corbett, 2008; Apthorp, 2006; Comber, 2013; Dorr, 2006; Facella et al., 2005;

Goldenberg, 2013; Goldenberg, Hicks, & Lit, 2013; Kim et al., 2006; Mahdavi &

Tensfeldt, 2013; Narkon & Wells, 2013; Vaughn & Edmonds, 2006) used Venn

diagrams, diagrams with explicit teaching of concepts, timelines, sketches,

flowcharts, story maps, sentence strips, graphic organizers, visuals, models,

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

drawings, diagrams, tables, pictures, realia, charts, and semantic and concept

maps to represent reading material visually for students with learning disabilities,

ELLs, and students from diverse cultural backgrounds to better comprehend text.

Technology enhanced concept maps can be generated using software programs

such as Kidspiration and Inspiration software. Universal design for learning or

UDL-enhanced story mapping was used to improve reading comprehension by

Narkon and Wells (2013).

In addition to accessing content through visual images, students should be

offered multiple ways to represent their understandings through images.

Examples are the use of graphic representations, models, drawings, diagrams,

tables, pictures, realia, and many of the same online visual tools mentioned

previously. For example, Wohlwend (2008) documented students’ negotiation of

their understandings of books and film through drawings, performances, and

play. Ivey and Broaddus (2007) document the effective use of think-alouds that

use visuals and gestures to support comprehension of English vocabulary.

Medina (2010) shared the powerful learning experiences of elementary

immigrant children who visually mapped their physical movements across places,

time, and cultures, which he referred to as “cultural flows” (p. 40). Most content

lends itself to authentic engagements with visual information, both during

instruction to share information and in providing students with multiple means of

representation.

Explicit Instruction

We utilize Archer and Hughes’ (2011) definition of explicit instruction as “a

structured, systematic, and effective methodology for teaching academic skills”

(p. 1). While explicit instruction may sometimes be used interchangeably with

direct instruction, we emphasize that we do not mean direct instruction. In their

recommendation for using explicit instruction with dual-language learners,

Saunders et al. (2013) make a distinction between direct instruction and explicit

instruction. Unlike direct instruction, explicit instruction can be inductive. In other

words, explicit instruction can be carried out in ways that allow students to

acquire new skills in addition to thinking deeply and participating in social

situations to think critically about issues and content (Delpit, 1995; McIntyre &

Hulan, 2013). Explicit instruction was the area which appeared most frequently

out of all five instructional practices; it was recommended in 22 of the 30 articles

reviewed in this study.

Explicit instruction can occur in several ways. For instance, teachers who

use explicit instruction provide verbal, written and/or visual instructions that are

concise and clear (e.g., Goldenberg, 2013; Roberts et al., 2008). Next, teachers

use the gradual release of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983) to

initially provide students with explicit instruction through teacher modeling (Barr

et al., 2012; Comber, 2013; Monroe & Troia, 2006; Narkon & Wells, 2013; Patel

& Laud, 2009). Overwhelmingly though, the majority of studies connected explicit

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

instruction in with vocabulary instruction (Barr et al., 2012; Calderon et al., 2011;

Coyne et al., 2010; Facella et al., 2005; Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, &

Rivera; 2006; Gersten et al., 2007; Goldenberg; 2013; Greenleaf & Hinchman,

2009; McIntyre & Hulan, 2013; Roberts et al., 2008). Effective and explicit

vocabulary instruction includes exposure to target words over several days

(through reading, writing, and speaking opportunities) with the goal being

students’ rich understanding so they can use these words in their productive

vocabulary (Gersten et al., 2007). As well, Roberts et al. (2008) emphasized the

use of explicit instruction focusing on simple definitions, examples, and non-

examples while learning new and challenging vocabulary encountered in content

related texts. In another example, Dorr (2006) described a language experience

approach lesson in science where the language goal was to use students’

background word knowledge and connect it to academic vocabulary. The lesson

involved explicit literacy instruction wherein children’s previously acquired

knowledge on the topic of fruits and vegetables were linked to facts and concepts

in their science unit on plants.

Several of the articles caution educators that even though explicit

instruction in the basics is often recommended in the research for diverse

learners, long-term reading achievement is most influenced by rich language

experiences, critical thinking skills, and making connections to texts (Anderson &

Sadler, 2009; Comber, 2013; Ivey & Broaddus, 2007). Thus, it is apt that the final

theme we identified is the importance of inquiry-based learning to promote critical

and collaborative reading and writing opportunities for diverse learners.

Inquiry

A widely held definition of inquiry in the field of literacy is a process in

which learners generate questions within an area of interest or within a specific

content area, investigate to find information, record new information, and make

sense of their learning through the use of collaboration and multiple sign systems

(Comber, 2013; Harste & Burke, 2014; Lewison, Leland & Harste, 2014; Short,

1996). Constructivist approaches to learning emphasize the social nature of

dialogue, collaboration, use of multiple media, and questioning to motivate

learners as an effective practice.

Challenging theme-based curricula results in increased motivation and

engagement for diverse learners wherein students benefit from engaged, hands-

on collaborative activities (Comber, 2013; Freedman & Carver, 2007; Greenleaf

& Hinchman, 2009; Ivey & Broaddus, 2007; Wohlwend, 2008). Research

documents that when learners of all ages and backgrounds interact with real-

world information to make connections and raise critical questions, they are

motivated to inquire and learn about important topics and social issues (Comber,

2013; Hansen-Thomas & Cavagnetto, 2010; McIntyre & Hulan, 2013; Medina,

2010; Narkon & Wells, 2013). Inquiry based learning showed up across all three

fields as a recommended practice; however, this was the area where the least

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

amount of evidence was found. Only 11 of the 30 articles reviewed for this study

talked about inquiry as evidence based practice for diverse learners. We suggest

that one possible reason for this may be deficit perspectives that position

students with learning disabilities, ELLs, and socioculturally diverse learners as

less capable of working independently or collaboratively on inquiry processes.

Another might be the overarching nature of inquiry, thematic learning, and project

based learning, which includes all four of the other instructional themes found in

this study.

Inquiry based learning requires students to generate questions and seek

out information (Comber, 2013; Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). Inquiry and

writing are central to this approach and provide a way to examine writing

movement "toward critical social thought" (Gutiérrez, 2008, p. 149). As well, this

approach links to sociocultural theory with regard to supporting critical literacy

that encourages students to question texts, dig deeper, and challenge the status

quo (Comber, 2013; Freire, 2000). This is the complementary nature of inquiry to

the use of explicit instruction. Together, these instructional approaches support

diverse learners’ skills, knowledge, and critical thinking related to issues in their

community and broader lives in order to more fully participate in democratic

societies.

Conclusion

Schools have struggled to serve students from diverse backgrounds, and

there is an ongoing achievement gap noted between students by race, class, and

gender (Au, 2011; Greenleaf & Hinchman, 2009). Black students and students

living in poverty are overrepresented in special education services (Fiedler et al.,

2008). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2011) noted that

almost half of the students in the United States are non-White, yet the majority of

teachers are White and come from middle or upper-class backgrounds.

Teachers overwhelmingly report they do not feel prepared with the knowledge or

experience to effectively address the learning needs of students from socially,

culturally, and linguistically diverse backgrounds (e.g., Gandara, Maxwell-Jolly, &

Drisoll, 2005; Hansen-Thomas & Cavagnetto, 2010; Rubinstein-Avila & Johnson,

2008). The challenge then becomes increasing the knowledge and cultural

responsiveness of educators in order to implement curriculum and instruction

that meets the specific needs of diverse learners.

This is by no means an exhaustive review of research. However, the

findings do highlight what we have systematically found to be converging

recommended instructional practices promoting equitable and culturally

responsive literacy instruction for all students. It was our intention to uncover

convergence across three fields to build bridges for shared language and

collaboration. At first glance, the instructional practices identified in this paper

seem to be simply practices of effective instruction in general. Indeed, these are

effective practices for all populations, but we caution, along with Goldenberg

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

(2013), that simply using these practices is insufficient “to promote accelerated

learning” (p. 5). Teachers cannot rely on simply using practices when attempting

to create meaningful learning experiences for diverse student populations.

Teachers will need to adopt a critical and culturally responsive stance, along with

understanding how to modify these instructional recommendations to be effective

across various student populations.

In recommending the adoption of a culturally responsive stance, we return

to Gay’s (2010) definition which explains that when students’ cultural knowledge,

prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles influence our

everyday instruction and the selection of learning materials, we are responding

more effectively to learners’ needs. The five instructional practices outlined in our

review of scholarly articles incorporate opportunities for teachers to make

adaptations for learner differences. Creating classrooms that promote dialogue

and collaboration between students is highly recommended across all three fields

as it embodies the notion of literacy as a social practice. Through collaborative

conversations, students extend their understandings of texts and mentor each

other in ways that will improve comprehension, vocabulary, and critical thinking.

The use of visual representations for delivering content as well as multimedia

representations of student understandings acknowledges different ways of

knowing and encourages students to bridge their home and community literacy

practices with school expectations. Explicit instruction provides the assurance

that diverse learners are receiving quality instruction that provides them access

to all of the necessary information, content, and skills needed to succeed in

workplaces and in schools with standard expectations. The discussion of explicit

instruction has been argued from the perspective that language and literacy skills

provide access to power; therefore, if students are not explicitly taught what is

needed to access power, they are not receiving fair and equitable educational

opportunities. Finally, inquiry-based learning is a complementary approach to

explicit instruction and provides the contextualized and content-based learning

that students find motivating and engaging.

Imagine what schools would be like if all educators had the knowledge

and experience to create challenging learning experiences and set high

expectations for every learner. Imagine if the notion of culturally responsive

pedagogy became redundant because standardized curriculum and instruction

no longer influenced practice, but instead learners’ strengths and diverse life

experiences were at the center of instructional planning and use of resources.

These recommendations offer educators the opportunity to begin truly closing

achievement gaps and working against the overrepresentation of minority and

underrepresented populations in special education, to serve English language

learners more effectively, and to support teachers in their efforts to become more

adept with culturally responsive practices.

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

References

Anderson, P. L., & Corbett, L. (2008). Literature circles for students with learning

disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(1), 25-33.

Anderson, K. A., & Sadler, C. I. (2009). The effects of school-based curricula on

reading achievement of African American males in special education. The

Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 333-46.

Apthorp, H. S. (2006). Effects of supplemental vocabulary program in third-grade

reading/ language arts. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 67-

79.

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient

teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Au, K. H. (2011). Literacy achievement and diversity: Keys to success for

students, teachers, and schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-

language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language

Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Translated by V.

McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Banks, J. A., & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of Research on

Multicultural Education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barr, S., Eslami, Z. R., & Joshi, R. M. (2012). Core strategies to support English

language learners. The Educational Forum, 76(1), 105-117.

doi:10.1080/00131725.2012.628196

Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011). Effective instruction for English

learners. The Future of Children, 21(1), 103-127.

Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for

culturally diverse students with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 74(3), 351-71.

Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B.M.J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for

indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational

Research, 78(4), 941-93.

Comber, B. (2013). Schools as meeting places: Critical and inclusive literacies in

changing local environments. Language Arts, 90(5), 361-71.

Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). Multiliteracies: New literacies, new learning.

Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4(3), 164-195.

Cowden, P. (2012). Cognitive strategies for students with mild learning

disabilities. Education, 133(1), 151-154.

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Coyne, M. D., McCoach, B.D., Loftus, S., Zipoli, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y.C.,

& Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in

kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on

Educational Effectiveness, 3(1), 93-120.

Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step-by-step

approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom.

New York, NY: The New Press.

Dorr, R. E. (2006). Something old is new again: Revisiting language experience.

The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 138-146.

Eilam, B. (2012). Teaching, learning and visual literacy: The dual role of visual

representation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Facella, M. A., Rampino, K. M., & Shea, E. K. (2005). Effective teaching

strategies for English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal,

29(1), 209-221.

Fiedler, C. R., Chiang, B., Van Haren, B., Jorgensen, J., Halberg, S. Boreson, L.

(2008). Culturally responsive practices in schools: A checklist to address

disproportionality in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children,

40(5), 52-59.

Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical

guidelines for the education of English learners: Research-based

recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Freedman, L., & Carver, C. (2007). Preservice teacher understandings of

adolescent literacy development: Naive wonder to dawning realization to

intellectual rigor. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(8), 654-665.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum

International.

Gandara, P., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of

English Language Learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges,

experiences, and professional development needs. Retrieved from

http://www.cftl.org/our_Publications.htm

Gargiulo, R. M., & Metcalf, D. (2013). Teaching in today’s inclusive classrooms:

A universal design for learning approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher

Education, 53(2), 106-116.

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice

(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective.

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(8), 714-25.

Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W., & Christian, D. (2005). English

Language Learners in U.S. schools: An overview of research findings.

Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(1), 363-385.

Gersten, R., Baker, S., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., &

Scarcella, R. (2007). Effective literacy and English language instruction for

English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide (NCEE 2007-

4011). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/

ED497258.pdf

Goldenberg, C. (2013). Unlocking the research on English learners: What we

know and don’t know yet about effective instruction. American Educator,

37(2), 4-11, 38.

Goldenberg, C., Hicks, J., & Lit, I. (2013). Dual language learners: Effective

instruction in early childhood. American Educator, 37(2), 26-29.

Greenleaf, C. L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced

adolescent readers: From struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant

to thriving. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(1), 4-13.

Guerra, S. F. (2012). Using urban fiction to engage at-risk and incarcerated

youths in literacy instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,

55(5), 385-394.

Hall, L. A. & Piazza, S. V. (2008). Critically reading texts: What students do and

how teachers can help. The Reading Teacher, 62(1), 32-41.

Hansen-Thomas, H., & Cavagnetto, A. (2010). What do mainstream middle

school teachers think about their English Language Learners? A tri-state

case study. Bilingual Research Journal 33(1), 249-266. doi:

10.1080/152358882.2010.502803

Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (2014). Researching literate lives. In B. Kabuto & P.

Martens (Eds.), Linking families, learning, and schooling: Parent-

researcher perspectives (pp. 152-68). New York, NY: Routledge.

Haynes, M. (2012). The role of language and literacy in college-and career-

readiness standards: Rethinking policy and practice in support of English

language learners. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2007). A formative experiment investigating literacy

engagement among adolescent Latina/o students just beginning to read,

write, and speak English. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(4), 512-545.

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., Woodruff, A. L., Reutebuch, C., &

Kouekanani, K. (2006). Improving the reading comprehension of middle

school students with disabilities through computer-assisted collaborative

strategic reading. Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 235-249.

Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response-

to-Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108-118.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2011). Is meeting the diverse needs of all students possible?

Kappa Delta Pi Record, (Fall), 13-15.

Lankshear, C. (1997). Changing literacies. Philadelphia, PA: Open University

Press.

Learner, J. W., & Johns, B.H. (2015). Learning disabilities and related mild

disabilities: Strategies for success (13th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage

Learning.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007). Sampling the “new” in new literacies. In M.

Knobel & C. Lankshear (Eds.), A new literacies sampler (pp. 1-24). New

York, NY: Peter Lang.

Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural research on

literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lewison, M., Leland, C., & Harste, J. C. (2014). Creating critical classrooms:

Reading and writing with an edge. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2013). Assessment of reading and writing

difficulties: An interactive approach (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Luke, A., Woods, A., & Dooley, K. (2011). Comprehension as social and

intellectual practice: Rebuilding curriculum in low socioeconomic and

cultural minority schools. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 157-164.

Mahdavi, J. N., & Tensfeldt, L. (2013). Untangling reading comprehension

strategy instruction: Assisting struggling readers in the primary grades.

Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 77-92.

McIntyre, E., & Hulan, N. (2013). Research-based, culturally responsive reading

practice in elementary classrooms: A yearlong study. Literacy Research

and Instruction, 52(1), 28-51.

Medina, C. (2010). “Reading across communities” in biliteracy practices:

Examining translocal discourses and cultural flows in literature

discussions. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 40-60.

Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in

reading. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.

Mercer, C. D., Mercer, A., & Pullen, P. C. (2011). Teaching students with learning

problems (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Monroe, B., & Troia, G. (2006). Teaching writing strategies to middle-school

students with disabilities. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1),

21-33.

Narkon, D. E., & Wells, J. C. (2013). Improving reading comprehension for

elementary students with learning disabilities: UDL enhanced story

mapping. Preventing School Failure, 57(4), 231-39.

National Center for Education Statistics (2011). The Nation's Report Card:

Reading 2011. (NCES 2012-457). Washington, DC: Institute of Education

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence based

assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its

implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).

Retrieved from: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications /nrp/smallbook.htm

O’Day, J. (2009). Good instruction is good for everyone--or is it? English

language learners in a balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education

for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 97-119. doi: 10.1080/

10824660802715502

Patel, P., & Laud, L. (2009). Helping students to add detail and flair to their

stories. Preventing School Failure, 54(1), 2-10.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading

comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(1), 317-344.

Perry, K. (2012). What is Literacy? A critical overview of sociocultural

perspectives. Journal of Language and Literacy Education [Online], 8(1),

50-71. Retrieved from http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/

06/What-is-Literacy_KPerry.pdf

Piazza, S. V. (2011). It’s not black and white: Stories of lived experience,

reading, and assessments. In Malu, K. F. (ed.), Voices in the middle:

Narrative inquiry by, for, and about the middle level community (pp. 55-

81). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N., (2008).

Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(2),

63-69.

Rubinstein-Avila, E., & Johnson, J. (2008). Meaningful content for middle school

students for whom English is an additional language. In K. A. Hinchman &

H. K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy

instruction (pp. 20-38). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Saunders, W., Goldenberg, C., & Marcelletti, D. (2013). English language

development: Guidelines for instruction. American Educator, 37(1), 13-25,

38.

Vol. 17, No. 3 International Journal of Multicultural Education 2015

Short, K. G. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Sperling, M, Appleman, D., Gilyard, K., & Freedman, S. (2011). Voice in the

context of literacy studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(1), 70-84.

Street, B. (2012): Society reschooling. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(2), 216-

227.

Tatum, A. (2005). Teaching reading to black adolescent males: Closing the

achievement gap. Portland, MN: Stenhouse Publishers.

Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R, Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2013). Exceptional

lives: Special education in today’s schools (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Vaughn, S., & Edmonds, M. (2006). Reading comprehension for older readers.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 131-137.

Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2007). The culturally responsive teacher.

Educational Leadership, 64(6), 28-33.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wohlwend, K. (2008). Kindergarten as nexus of practice: A mediated discourse

analysis of reading, writing, play, and design in an early literacy

apprenticeship. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(4), 332-334.

Author Contact

Susan V. Piazza: [email protected]

Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI, 49008

Shaila Rao: [email protected]

Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI, 49008

Maria Selena Protacio: [email protected]

Western Michigan University, 1903 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI, 49008