The Impact Of Culturally Responsive Teaching

This study investigates the impact of Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT) on students' intercultural development in a secondary science classroom. Over Terms 2 and 3 of 2024, a series of four lessons incorporating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems were implemented to assess changes in students' cultural responsiveness. Using a reflection journal, students provided insights into their learning, which were analysed based on the Intercultural Development Continuum (IDC). Results showed a significant improvement in students' intercultural development, with a shift from destructive or blind responses to greater cultural responsiveness. The study found that hands-on, context-based lessons had a more substantial impact on students' understanding compared to theoretical lessons. Statistical analysis confirmed a significant increase in cultural competence (p-value = 0.0005). These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of CRT in enhancing students’ respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures and highlight the importance of experiential learning in promoting cultural responsiveness. The research underscores the potential of CRT to create inclusive and empathetic learning environments, contributing to a broader goal of fostering intercultural understanding in education.

Background

Defining Culturally Responsive Teaching: Culturally Responsive Teaching is a transformative educational approach that aims to meet the needs of students from diverse backgrounds. It creates an inclusive learning environment by adapting teacher attitudes, pedagogy, and classroom materials to reflect the linguistic, socioeconomic, and cultural diversity of students. CRT prioritises marginalised groups by integrating their experiences into teaching, fostering a supportive space for success (Palmieri, 2021). In science education, classrooms often neglect broader cultural perspectives, striving instead to reflect professional scientific norms (Morrison, 2019). CRT challenges this by incorporating cultural examples and alternative viewpoints to make science more accessible. For instance, teachers can use real-world examples from various cultures to explain concepts or encourage discussion through methods like talking circles. These strategies promote deeper engagement and understanding (Cross et al., 2020; Kanu, 2007). In the Australian science classroom, CRT often involves developing lessons and materials that authentically reflect the experiences of First Nations peoples. This includes incorporating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge systems, which emphasise storytelling, interdisciplinary approaches, and contextualised problem-solving. Additionally, CRT challenges dominant perspectives of scientific discovery and truth, presenting alternative viewpoints that deepen students’ understanding of science (Cross et al., 2020).

Intercultural Development Continuum and Culturally Responsive Teaching

The Intercultural Development Continuum is a framework that describes how individuals and organisations progress through stages of cultural development. It outlines a developmental pathway from an initial phase of culturally destructive behaviours to more advanced levels including cultural responsiveness. At the early stages, individuals may have limited awareness or understanding of cultural differences, often characterised by stereotypes or misconceptions. As they advance, they start to recognise and appreciate cultural diversity, developing more nuanced perspectives and strategies for effective intercultural communication. The continuum emphasises ongoing self-reflection and learning, encouraging a commitment to continually enhance one's intercultural skills and adapt practices to foster respectful and inclusive interactions. This framework supports the goal of moving beyond mere awareness to actively integrating cultural insights into everyday practices and relationships (AITSL, 2022b).

Research by Palmieri (2021) demonstrates that CRT improves students' intercultural capacities, fostering respect, open-mindedness, and sensitivity toward diverse cultures. Specifically, CRT supports educators and students in acknowledging and respecting the histories and cultures of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, thereby advancing their intercultural development (AITSL, 2020).

Introducing intercultural development education at the high school level provides an early opportunity to equip students with the skills needed to address societal disparities. This proactive approach can nurture inclusive environments, particularly in sectors like healthcare, where cultural competency is vital in reducing inequities and fostering trust (Mullins & Khawaja, 2018; Rix & Rotumah, 2020). Furthermore, universities are increasingly embedding intercultural training into their programs to combat racial biases, promote empathy, and prepare students for professional environments that value diversity (de Guzman et al., 2016). Integrating CRT into school curricula lays the foundation for a more inclusive and equitable society.

Assessing Intercultural Development Using Critical Reflection

Intercultural development can be assessed through various methods, including portfolios, observations, surveys, and paper-based tests. However, paper-based assessments often fail to capture the complexity of intercultural skills, highlighting the need for more effective alternatives (Deardorff, 2011). Critical reflection is a particularly effective method for assessing affective skills, as it allows students to engage in intentional, structured exploration of their experiences to derive deeper, contextualized meaning (Wong & Blissett, 2007). This process not only fosters meaningful insights but also generates rich qualitative and quantitative data, making it a valuable tool for evaluating students' progress on the intercultural development continuum.

Research Design

Methodology and Research Tools

The intervention involved the fortnightly implementation of CRT practices in secondary science classrooms for Stage 4 students. These practices integrated culturally responsive materials, pedagogical strategies, and perspectives into science lessons to create an inclusive learning environment. A reflection journal was utilised as the primary research tool. This journal followed a scaffolded format, prompting students to reflect on their learning experiences in the science classroom. Reflection questions were provided digitally on the Canvas learning management system, encouraging students to consider what they had learned, why it mattered, and what actions they could take moving forward (What, So What, Now What).

Data Analysis

The study applied an adapted version of the Intercultural Development Continuum (AITSL, 2022b) to evaluate students' progress toward cultural responsiveness. This modified framework categorised reflections into five levels: Cultural Responsiveness, Competency, Awareness, Blindness, and Destruction. While Cultural Sustainability, the highest level of the continuum, represented systemic collaboration, it was excluded from assessment as the study focused on individual student development.

A priori coding techniques were applied for discourse analysis, examining reflections within their social and cultural contexts. Each journal entry was coded according to the framework, focusing on students' recognition of Indigenous contributions, respect for cultural diversity, and sensitivity toward intercultural relationships. These qualitative findings were quantitatively analysed to measure changes in students' intercultural development over the intervention period.

Reliability Measures

To ensure consistency, peer moderation was implemented. Initial coding was reviewed collaboratively with another science teacher to validate criteria and maintain alignment with the continuum. Periodic moderation meetings addressed discrepancies.

Findings

Pre-intervention

Before the intervention, students were asked to reflect on their learning related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture in science. A significant portion of the responses (12 out of 19) were coded as either culturally destructive or blind, indicating a dismissive or uninformed attitude toward Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge, history, and culture. These responses highlighted a lack of prior understanding, with over 60% of students showing little recognition or appreciation for Indigenous knowledge systems (Figure 1). Five students demonstrated a basic level of cultural competency, reflecting some understanding and respect for these cultures, however no responses indicated cultural responsiveness at this stage.

The cultural blindness was largely characterised by students leaving answers blank or indicating a lack of recall about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander content in previous science lessons. Destructive responses revealed a strong rejection of the significance of Indigenous contributions to science, reflecting a deeper misunderstanding and disregard for Indigenous knowledge systems. One anonymised example of a destructive response was:

"I have gained nothing as I haven't really learnt anything, and I think they didn't really do anything great that changed the course of history. I think these insights are not significant because I think Aboriginals didn’t really make anything and I think Aboriginals haven’t really accomplished anything in science."

This response dismisses Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contributions to science, reflecting harmful and disrespectful attitudes towards Indigenous cultures.

Post Intervention

Following the intervention, which included four lessons over Terms 2 and 3 of 2024, a marked improvement in student responses was observed. The intervention incorporated content related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture in science. The lessons were:

Lesson 1: Insulation materials using possum skin and cloaks. (Figure 2 & 3)

Lesson 2: Talking/yarning circles for reflecting after an assessment task. (Figure 4)

Lesson 3: Investigation of the Dharawal language and its connection to body systems. (Figure 5)

Lesson 4: Use of dance and song in Aboriginal culture to convey complex information, with students creating a dance to represent the digestive system. (Figure 6)

Post-intervention responses showed a clear shift towards cultural responsiveness. There were no longer any destructive or blind responses, and students’ reflections demonstrated increased awareness, competency, and responsiveness (Figure 7). Post-intervention responses demonstrated deeper understanding and respect for Aboriginal knowledge systems, with students recognising the significance of Indigenous contributions to science. One example of a culturally responsive reflection was:

"The insights that I gained this lesson about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are a deeper understanding of why Aboriginal people use dance to convey messages and how it can be used to understand complex ideas. This lesson also taught me that Aboriginal people knew lots of things, but they didn't write it down; it was shown in a different way. I think the insight of how Aboriginal people conveyed their learning is significant because it is a major part of the culture. They don't just dance for dance; it is to show deeper knowledge that is easier learnt through a memorable dance."

This response highlights an appreciation for Aboriginal knowledge and its application in modern scientific practices, reflecting a significant shift from the pre-intervention responses.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis confirmed a significant improvement in students' intercultural development following the intervention. The null hypothesis (H₀), which stated that there was no difference in average intercultural development before and after the intervention, was rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis (H₁), which stated that there was a significant difference. The p-value of 0.0005 strongly indicated that the intervention led to a statistically significant increase in intercultural development.

Effectiveness of the Intervention

The effectiveness of the intervention varied depending on the type of lesson delivered. Hands-on, practical lessons had a more substantial impact on students' intercultural development compared to abstract lessons. Lesson 4, which involved students creating a dance to represent the digestive system, led to the most significant improvements, as it provided a direct, experiential connection to Aboriginal cultural practices.

In contrast, Lesson 3, which focused on the Dharawal language, did not produce the same level of improvement. This suggests that practical, context-based lessons are more effective in promoting cultural competence compared to lessons that focus on theoretical knowledge.

These findings support educational literature that emphasises the importance of experiential learning and real-world applications in engaging students and deepening their cultural understanding (Kanu, 2007).

Conclusion

This study supports the effectiveness of CRT in improving students' intercultural development. The intervention successfully increased students' engagement with and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, demonstrating the potential of CRT to create more inclusive and empathetic learning environments. The observed shift towards cultural responsiveness aligns with broader educational goals of fostering open-mindedness and respect for cultural diversity. These findings underscore the value of integrating Aboriginal perspectives into science education and highlight the benefits of hands-on, context-based learning in promoting cultural competence.

References:

• Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2022b). Capability Framework Building a culturally responsive Australian teaching workforce https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/comms/cultural-competency/aitsl_capability_framework_final.pdf?sfvrsn=e2eaa93c_4.pdf
• Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership. (2020). Indigenous cultural competency in the Australian teaching workforce. https://www.aitsl.edu.au/docs/default-source/comms/cultural-competency/aitsl_indigenous-cultural-competency_discussion-paper_2020.pdf
• Cross, R., Bone, E., Ampt, P., Bell, T., Quinnell, R., & Gongora, J. (2020). Embedding Cultural Competence in Science Curricula. Cultural Competence and the Higher Education Sector, 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5362-2_14
• De Guzman, M. R. T., Durden, T. R., Taylor, S. A., Guzman, J. M., & Potthoff, K. L. (2016). Cultural competence: An important skill set for the 21st century. University of Nebraska Lincoln Extension.
• Deardorff, D. K. (2011). Assessing intercultural competence. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2011(149), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.381
• Kanu, Y. (2007). Increasing School Success Among Aboriginal Students: Culturally Responsive Curriculum or Macrostructural Variables Affecting Schooling? Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 1(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595690709336599
• Morrison, A., Rigney, L.-I., Hattam, R., & Diplock, A. (2019). Toward an Australian culturally responsive pedagogy: a narrative review of the literature. University Of South Australia.
• Mullins, C., & Khawaja, N. G. (2018). Non-Indigenous Psychologists Working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People: Towards Clinical and Cultural Competence. Australian Psychologist, 53(5), 394–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12338
• Palmieri, M. deKam. (2021). The Impact of Cultural Competency on the School Improvement The Impact of Cultural Competency on the School Improvement Process: A Phenomenological Study Process: A Phenomenological Study.
• Rix, L., & Rotumah, D. (2020). Healing Mainstream Health: Building Understanding and Respect for Indigenous Knowledges. In J.Frawley, G.Russell & J. Sherwood (Eds.), Cultural Competence and the Higher Education Sector, (pp 175–195) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5362-2_10
• Wong, C. K., & Blissett, S. (2007). Assessing Performance in the Area of Cultural Competence: An Analysis of Reflective Writing. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 21(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-200701000-00006