Altering the Trajectory of the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Abstract

Prior research has contributed to our understanding about the ways teachers communicate their expectations to students, how students perceive differential teacher behaviors, and their effect on students’ own perceptions of ability and achievement. Despite more than half a century of this work, historically marginalized students continue to be underrepresented in a vast array of achievement outcomes. Scholars have argued that asset-based pedagogy is essential to effective teaching, but reviews of research repeatedly point to a need for empirical evidence. This article describes a study wherein asset-based practices are applied to a classroom dynamics framework to examine how teachers’ asset-based pedagogy beliefs and behaviors are associated with Latino students’ ethnic and reading achievement identity. Analyses revealed that teachers’ critical awareness moderates their expectancy, resulting in higher achievement; and teachers’ critical awareness and expectancy beliefs were found to be directly associated with teachers’ behaviors, which were in turn related to students’ ethnic and achievement identities. Implications for teacher education are discussed.

Keywords

asset-based pedagogy teacher expectancy teacher effectiveness Latino student achievement

Classroom dynamics research has added to our understanding about the ways teachers communicate their expectations to students (e.g., Brophy & Good, 1984), how students perceive differential teacher behaviors (e.g., Weinstein, Marshall, Sharp, & Botkin, 1987), and their effect on students’ own perceptions of ability and achievement (Rubie-Davies, 2006). Despite the established presence of classroom dynamics in teacher preparation programs (e.g., Barnes, 1987) and licensure standards (e.g., Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011), historically marginalized students who face particularly onerous obstacles associated with poverty and prejudice continue to be underrepresented in a vast array of achievement outcomes (e.g., National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2015).

Scholars have argued that there are unique competencies that are essential to the effective teaching of historically marginalized students (Ladson-Billings, 1999). Among these competencies is asset-based pedagogy¹ (ABP) that views students’ culture as a strength, countering the more widespread view that inordinate achievement disparities stem from deficiencies in the child and/or child’s culture. Cumulatively, ABP scholarship shares a fundamental belief that teachers who possess an understanding of the sociohistorical influences on traditional marginalized students’ trajectories (critical awareness) are better able to cultivate students’ knowledge by building on their prior knowledge (cultural knowledge) and incorporating knowledge that validates students’ experiences (cultural content integration) into their instruction. Accordingly, ABP is believed to help students develop identities that promote achievement outcomes.

Although scholarship reflecting ABP is prominent in the teacher education literature, scholars have urged researchers to address the paucity of studies that explicitly link teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors to student outcomes (Goldenberg, Rueda, & August, 2008; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Losey, 1995; Sleeter, 2004, 2012). Moreover, there is a particular need for quantitative work given that ABP research is “overwhelmingly based on case study approaches and ethnographic or other qualitative methods” (Goldenberg et al., 2008, p. 107). That is, although the ABP literature provides detailed depictions of classroom experiences for Latino students that can be overlooked by quantitative studies, quantitative studies are needed to augment existing evidence and more fully inform policy.

Researchers are attending to the need to examine the relationship between aspects of ABP and Latino students’ identity and achievement using quantitative methods (Brown & Chu, 2012; Cabrera, Milem, Jaquette, & Marx, 2014; Chun & Dickson, 2011; Rios-Aguilar, 2010); however, evidence remains limited. For example, Chun and Dickson (2011) relied on Latino students’ perceptions of teachers’ practices, excluding measures of teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors. In contrast, Brown and Chu (2012) did consider both teachers’ attitudes about diversity and Latino students’ identity and achievement in their study; however, the researchers did not include teachers’ ABP behaviors in their study. Although understanding the role of teachers’ and Latino students’ perceptions of ABP is indisputably important, this prior work has not addressed scholars’ appeals for future research to link teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors to student outcomes. To attend to this need, I apply a race-reimaged perspective (Decuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014) to a classroom dynamics framework² to examine how teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors are associated with Latino students’ identity and achievement outcomes in reading.

I now turn to a review of the extant literature that informs the conceptual framework of the study. Included is classroom dynamics literature that has contributed to our understanding of how teacher beliefs inform their expectations (teacher expectancy) and behaviors (teacher effectiveness), and how these in turn shape students’ achievement identities. The race-reimaged perspective that is applied to this framework incorporates critical awareness and ABP, as well as students’ ethnic identities. A diagram depicting the conceptual framework is represented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework of race-reimaged classroom dynamics that incorporate critical awareness, ABP, and student ethnic identity.

Conceptual Framework

Teacher Expectancy

Although “distinguishing knowledge from belief is a daunting undertaking” (Pajares, 1992, p. 309), teacher expectancies have been defined as “inferences (based on prior experiences or information) about the level of student performance that is likely to occur in the future” (Good & Nichols, 2001, p. 113). Consequently, they reflect the interplay among affect, evaluation, and knowledge.³ The potentially deleterious way in which teacher expectancies can influence students’ outcomes is often referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy, defined as “a false definition of the situation evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true” (Merton, 1948, p. 195). What began with the observation of potential contamination of interpersonal expectations in a psychology experiment evolved to be known as “Pygmalion Effects in the Classroom” (Rosenthal, 1994, p. 176). In their pivotal study, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that students had greater achievement gains when their teachers had been led to believe that the students’ scores on an assessment indicated they would show “surprising gains in intellectual competence” (Rosenthal, 1994, p. 176). Although the study was criticized for methodological flaws (Jussim & Harber, 2005) as well as for the lack of information on “the events intervening between the inducement of teacher expectations and the administration of the criterion achievement test” (Brophy & Good, 1970, p. 365), a generation of teacher expectancy research ensued.

In their review of decades of research that focused exclusively on teacher expectancy effects, Jussim and Harber (2005) concluded that although the “condemnation of teachers for their supposed role in creating injustices” (p. 131) was not warranted by the available evidence, “students who belong to a stigmatized group may be particularly vulnerable to self-fulfilling prophesies” (p. 143). At the time of their review a decade ago, however, only two studies that met their inclusion criteria had examined teacher expectancy effects among stigmatized students. Of these, only the study conducted by Jussim, Eccles, and Madon (1996) examined the role of race/ethnicity and social class in teacher expectancy effects, where the researchers found that expectancy effects for stigmatized groups were “large by any standard” (p. 143). In their examination of whether these effects could be attributed to teachers’ biases, however, the researchers concluded that no bias existed among teachers because teacher beliefs were consistent with stigmatized students’ performance. The flaw in this inference was presaged by Merton’s (1948) discussion on the role of prejudice in self-fulfilling prophecies where he explained how “Americans of good will . . . experience these beliefs, not as prejudices, not as prejudgments, but as irresistible products of their own observation” (p. 196). Indeed, despite the references to Merton’s (1948) self-fulfilling prophecy in teacher expectancy work, his discussion of the origin of differential expectancies was absent from consideration in earlier research.

Since Jussim and Harber’s (2005) review, scholars have established that teachers’ expectations are indeed often biased against students of color (McKown & Weinstein, 2002; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). For Latino youth who often have teachers with the lowest expectations compared with other marginalized groups (Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007), this translates into restricted access to rigorous curricula with cognitively demanding work (Moll, 1988, 1990). Consequently, it is necessary to consider ways to abate teachers’ biases when examining teachers’ expectations.

Critical Awareness

Critical awareness⁴ reflects essential knowledge that mitigates bias and prejudice among teachers (Banks, 1993; Darder, 2012; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995a; Valenzuela, 2016). It includes the understanding of the historical context of historically marginalized students; the discrepancy between what is typically validated as knowledge in classrooms and the challenges to those assumptions; and the ways the curriculum in schools serves to replicate the power structure in society (e.g., Apple, 2004; Banks, 1993; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Darder, 2012; Freire, 1970; Giroux, 1985; Ladson-Billings, 2004). Accordingly, whereas teacher effectiveness work has contributed to our understanding of how teachers’ expectancies influence student achievement outcomes, critical awareness allows us to consider ways to ameliorate the many ways teachers’ expectations can otherwise be confounded with students’ cultural background (e.g., McKown & Weinstein, 2002; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007).

Scholars involved in the preparation of teachers for historically marginalized students have detailed the importance of developing critical awareness with coursework (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Banks, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Gay, 2005; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Hollins & Torres-Guzman, 2005; King & Ladson-Billings, 1990; Milner, 2010; Morrison, Robbins, & Rose, 2008; Valenzuela, 2016). Most recently, Valenzuela (2016) has explained that although many universities already have an established presence of coursework that contributes to the development of critical awareness among preservice teachers, it focuses on “language, culture, difference, power, language acquisition, language learning and the like” (p. 19) and is usually accessible only to teachers seeking bilingual or English as a second language certification. The institutionalization of courses that develop critical awareness with sociopolitical content (Milner, 2010; Valenzuela, 2016) and sociopolitical analysis (Morrell & Duncan-Andrade, 2002; Romero, Arce, & Cammarota, 2009; Stovall, 2006), however, remains elusive. This is acutely problematic as a

lack of political and ideological clarity often translates into teachers uncritically accepting the status quo as “natural.” It also leads educators down an assimilationist path to learning and teaching . . . and perpetuates deficit-based views of low-SES, non-White, and linguistic-minority students. (Bartolomé, 2004, p. 100)

Despite preservice teachers’ limited access to coursework that develops critical awareness, scholars have contributed to research by creating and validating measures of beliefs that reflect critical awareness (e.g., Pohan & Aguilar, 2001), which provide researchers with ways to document that coursework for teachers designed to increase critical awareness does indeed reduce biased beliefs (e.g., Kumar & Hamer, 2013). In a synthesis of research examining teacher beliefs, however, Pajares (1992) explained, “Little will have been accomplished if research into educational beliefs fails to provide insights into the relationship between beliefs, on the one hand, and teacher practices, teacher knowledge, and student outcomes on the other” (pp. 327-328). Thus, although there is evidence that critical awareness appears to be associated with Latino students’ achievement (Brown & Chu, 2012), there is still a need to examine how particular beliefs are related to behaviors. In the sections that follow, I describe prior research that moved beyond expectancies by examining teacher behaviors and their relationship to student outcomes. This body of research is often known under the overarching theme of teacher effectiveness.

Teacher Effectiveness

Whereas teacher expectancy research focused on whether teacher beliefs influenced student outcomes, the teacher effectiveness research that was generated between the 1960s and early 2000s focused on how teacher behaviors were related to student outcomes (Brophy, 1986; Brophy & Good, 1984; Good, 2014). Although early research was murky because “no specific teacher behavior had been linked clearly to student achievement” (Brophy, 1986, p. 1069), researchers attended to the limitations raised (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). What followed was a vast body of work that detailed teacher behaviors such as how they provide and elicit information, the pacing of instruction, along with numerous other behaviors, and how these behaviors were associated with student achievement (Brophy & Good, 1984).

Teacher effectiveness research is particularly noteworthy because of its role in establishing that teacher behaviors are related to student outcomes, addressing pessimism that questioned whether teachers had any effect at all. This body of work also contributed to our understanding of how teachers’ beliefs were related to their behaviors and generated research using observation coding systems that operationalized behaviors (Brophy, 1986; Brophy & Good, 1970). More recent work has “replicated earlier research and illustrates that many years later, previous findings are highly similar to these new data” (Good, 2014, p. 27). To date, however, although researchers have examined the ways biases can influence teachers’ expectations, missing is any consideration of the literature on ABP. Given the evidence that general quality teaching behaviors are insufficient to meet the needs of Latino students (López, 2011), it is necessary to examine how ABP can address their needs within a classroom dynamics framework.

ABP

Early attempts to address achievement disparities for poor youth, most of whom were students of color, were rooted in deficit orientations that reflect superiority of a group’s practices, expectations, and experiences (Banks, 1993; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003; Tharp, 1989). This perspective emerged prominently in education reforms with Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty initiative, which provided the first special funding in U.S. history for compensatory programs (Title I) aimed at addressing the “culture of poverty” (Kantor, 1991, p. 65) believed to be inherent among poor youth. The belief reflected in compensatory programs was as follows: “If the environment failed to equip poor children with the cultural resources needed for success at school, many reasoned, the school had to compensate poor children for the disadvantages of being born poor by changing their culture” (p. 66).

Deficit orientations of compensatory programs were challenged as soon as they appeared (e.g., Clark, 1965), but they remain present in both practices believed to address achievement disparities and research initiatives. One contemporary intervention, for example, is focused on addressing students’ non-cognitive factors due to the assumption “that psychological processes and constructs are essentially universal, culture free, and therefore are universally applicable across populations” (Decuir-Gunby & Schutz, 2014, p. 251). Among the non-cognitive constructs is grit,⁵ described as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals . . . in challenging circumstances” (Duckworth, Quinn, & Seligman, 2009, p. 541). Grit, however, has received particularly steadfast resistance among equity scholars who assert that it “[misreads] the actual sources of both the achievement and the lack of achievement” (Thomas, 2014, para. 11). Like other non-cognitive factors that focus on individuals’ behavioral control as the gateway to meeting high expectations and ameliorating achievement disparities (e.g., Kohn, 2008), grit ignores societal demands made on historically marginalized youth, thus perpetuating deficit views of historically marginalized students.

Perspectives that challenged earlier deficit orientations evolved to be known as difference orientations that reflected the need to consider dissimilarities between the school culture and that of historically marginalized students. Among these approaches were culturally appropriate (Au & Jordan, 1981), culturally congruent (Au & Mason, 1983), culturally compatible (Erickson & Mohatt, 1982), and culturally responsive education (Cazden & Leggett, 1981). Difference orientations, however, can often reflect deficiencies as evidenced by a recent study that found “early and wide gaps in cognitive and oral language skills” between Mexican American and White children (Fuller, Bein, Kim, & Rabe-Hesketh, 2015, p. 1). The study was disseminated by numerous media outlets, including National Public Radio (Sanchez, 2015). The image on the transcript of the report⁶ depicted two mothers sharing a park bench, each sitting next to their toddler in a stroller. Whereas the Latina mother was reading a fashion magazine,⁷ ignoring her child, the White mother was holding a flower and engaging with her child by asking, “Do you know what flower this is?” The image, since removed, highlights how readily differences can be portrayed as deficiencies (for a critique, see Valenzuela, 2015).

In contrast to deficiency perspectives, Gándara (2015) suggested that “by casting Latino students as bearers of valuable assets—language and cultural knowledge—we may find that they have as much or more to offer as students who have traditionally garnered success in US schools” (p. 460). This perspective exemplifies ABP orientations that have evolved over decades. They underscore viewing students’ differences as assets, contesting the ways differences are too often reduced to deficiencies. Among the numerous ABP orientations are critical bicultural pedagogy (Darder, 1991, 2012), equity pedagogy (Banks, 1993), culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995a, 1995b), culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2000, 2010), cultural connectedness (Irizarry, 2007), culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris, 2012), and critical culturally sustaining revitalizing pedagogy (McCarty & Lee, 2014). These distinct conceptualizations have often focused on different populations of historically marginalized students, highlighting the applicability of ABP across settings. Despite the numerous conceptualizations, however, Gay (2010) asserted, “Although known by many different names . . . the ideas about why it is important to make classroom instruction more consistent with the cultural orientations of ethnically diverse students, and how this can be done, are virtually identical” (p. 31).

Although distinct conceptualizations of ABP share similarities, scholars have warned about the numerous ways ABP can be minimized to “add-ons, conceptualized as a ‘celebration of diversity’ rather than as a means of achieving social justice” (Wong et al., 2007, p. 17). Accordingly, although I provide a summary of the overarching themes of ABP scholarship, it is important to consider the sources that have provided a nuanced portrayal of “what culturally responsive pedagogy looks like” (Sleeter, 2012, p. 573) to prevent simplification of ABP as “cultural celebration, trivialization, and essentializing culture” (p. 568).

As previously mentioned, early teacher effectiveness research was considered unclear because “no specific teacher behavior had been linked clearly to student achievement” (Brophy, 1986, p. 1069). This changed with the abundance of evidence of numerous operationalized behaviors that were examined alongside student achievement (see Brophy & Good, 1984). To date, however, teacher effectiveness work has not considered the ways ABP addresses the unique needs of historically marginalized students. To that end, the operationalization of the discrete dimensions in the ABP literature can be used to examine the ways teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors are related to student outcomes, thus addressing limitations raised (e.g., Goldenberg et al., 2008; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Losey, 1995; Sleeter, 2004, 2012). Collectively, the ABP literature reflects cultural knowledge, cultural content integration, and language as necessary pedagogical practices for historically marginalized students. They are briefly described below.

Cultural knowledge

Cultural knowledge tends to be represented in constructivist views of learning, where “learners use their prior knowledge and beliefs . . . to make sense of the new input” (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p. 25). Whereas assessing students’ prior and developing knowledge is evident in the formative assessment literature (Black & Wiliam, 2009; Stiggins, 1988), ABP considers students’ cultural knowledge that is not typically validated in school settings. Accordingly, it encompasses teachers’ knowledge about how to access and validate students’ prior knowledge in genuine ways that consider students’ culture as assets (Banks, 1993; Gay 2000, 2010; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejada, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Lee, 1993, 1995, 2007; Moll & González, 2004).

ABP scholarship details numerous ways to access students’ cultural knowledge. This includes incorporating students’ home experiences into classroom instruction (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005, p. 10); “[using] student culture as a vehicle for learning” (Ladson-Billings, 1995b, p. 161); and making “connections between language use in the community and language use in a tradition of literary texts” (Lee, 1995, p. 612).

Scholars have applied these cultural knowledge frameworks to contribute to our understanding of the importance of student–teacher relationships, with an emphasis on the perspectives of youth (Antrop-González, Veléz, & Garrett, 2004, 2008; De Jesus & Antrop-González, 2006; Martin-Beltrán, 2009; Rodriguez, Jones, Pang, & Park, 2004). More recent scholarship has expanded on the seminal conceptualizations, calling for a consideration of the complexities of youth identities that reflect hybridity given “their experiences with peers of many varied identities” (Irizarry, 2007, p. 21) and reflecting the cultural pluralism and “contemporary/evolving community practices” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 85).

Cultural content integration

Whereas cultural knowledge reflects the consideration of knowledge students already possess, cultural content integration is about the provision of culture that is not typically validated in the formal curriculum. ABP arose out of the need to address disparities that are rooted in inequitable treatment based on belonging to a particular group (Banks, 1993). To counter the socially entrenched experiences among historically marginalized students, including that of a hegemonic curriculum, ABP literature requires that teachers incorporate students’ culture into the curriculum to affirm “the legitimacy of cultural heritages of different ethnic groups, both as legacies that affect students’ dispositions, attitudes, and approaches to learning and as worthy content to be taught in the formal curriculum” (Gay, 2000, p. 29). Accordingly, cultural content integration requires that teachers possess knowledge to determine “what information should be included in the curriculum, how it should be integrated into the existing curriculum, and its location within the curriculum” (Banks, 1993, p. 8).

Scholars have detailed ways to incorporate students’ culture into English language arts (e.g., Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Morrell & Duncan-Andrade, 2002), social studies (e.g., Stovall, 2006), mathematics (e.g., Civil & Khan, 2001), and science (e.g., Milner, 2011; for a review, see Aaronson & Laughter, 2016). Although cultural content integration “is probably the most widely implemented but least studied aspect of multicultural education” (Zirkel, 2008, p. 1150), there is evidence on its role in improving student learning and improving interethnic relations (for a review, see Zirkel, 2008). More recent attempts to document the role of cultural content integration have included studies that examine the relationship between ethnic studies curricula and the improved academic outcomes of historically marginalized students (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2014; Dee & Palmer, 2016), as well as the role of multimodal texts in expanding “sophisticated political dialogue” among immigrant and refugee youth (Park, 2016, p. 138).

Language

Within both the cultural knowledge and cultural content integration dimensions is language because of its role in students’ culture and identity. This view is evident in González’s (2001) examination of the identities of Latino children and their mothers in her seminal book, I Am My Language, where she asserts, “The ineffable link of language to emotion, to the very core of our being, is one of the ties that bind children to a sense of heritage” (p. xix).

This view is shared by Darder (2012) who stated, “It is critical that educators recognize the role language plays as one of the most powerful transmitters of culture, and as such, its central role to both intellectual formation and the survival of subordinate cultural populations” (p. 36). As a powerful transmitter of culture that is central to identity, cultivating a native or heritage language is not reserved for students who speak a language other than that of the dominant group in society.

Student Identity

The limitations raised regarding the paucity of explicit evidence on ABP are not limited to achievement outcomes. To wit, Ladson-Billings (1995a) asserted, “A next step for positing effective pedagogical practice is a theoretical model that not only addresses student achievement but also helps students to accept and affirm their cultural identity” (p. 469). In consideration of Marsh and Shavelson’s (1985) assertion that self-concept is “formed through experience with and interpretations of one’s environment” (p. 107), examining students’ cultural and achievement identities in the context of ABP is necessary.

Achievement identity

Identity, broadly speaking, is defined by the answer to the question “Who am I?” (Eccles, 2009; La Guardia, 2009; Wigfield & Karpathian, 1991). As a facet of identity, self-beliefs have been central to the examination of achievement outcomes because they reflect “the assumption that individuals’ perceptions of themselves and their capabilities are vital forces in their success or failure in achievement settings” (Schunk & Pajares, 2005, p. 85). Although there are many self-constructs that have been found to be related to student achievement (see Schunk & Pajares, 2005), they include self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986), self-concept (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985), and expectancy value (Eccles et al., 1983). These self-constructs are all believed to develop through students’ interpretation of their personal experiences, but few studies have examined the ways in which teachers’ expectations are related to students’ self-constructs. Instead, studies have focused on the extent to which students can infer teachers’ beliefs and behaviors and the directionality of the relationship (for a review, see Rubie-Davies, 2006). For example, researchers have found that students are adept at inferring teachers’ expectations (e.g., Weinstein et al., 1987), and that teachers’ expectations tend to be more influential to students’ outcomes than the reverse (e.g., Muijis & Reynolds, 2002; Rubie-Davies, 2006). Despite this evidence, few studies have focused on the interrelationship between teachers’ expectancies and students’ identity formation. The evidence that is available suggests that teachers’ beliefs (Rubie-Davies, 2006) and teachers’ behaviors (Harris, Rosenthal, & Snodgrass, 1986; Chen, Thompson, Kromrey, & Chang, 2011) markedly shape students’ academic self-concepts.

Ethnic identity

There is ample empirical evidence supporting the importance of strong ethnic identities in promoting positive academic outcomes among historically marginalized youth (Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2008; Brown & Chu, 2012; Umaña-Taylor, Wong, Gonzales, & Dumka, 2012). Researchers have also found that discrimination is associated with lower academic achievement (DeGarmo & Martinez, 2006); however, when historically marginalized youth who are aware of racism have strong ethnic identities and view achievement as consistent with the goals of their group, they have better achievement outcomes (Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006).

Although seemingly counterintuitive, awareness of racism among historically marginalized youth provides an important buffer to negative societal stereotypes (Altschul et al., 2006). For example, a historically marginalized student who is aware of racism may infer differential treatment as a product of discrimination whereas being unaware may lead to inferences of deficiencies within him or herself. This awareness is consistent with Ladson-Billings’s (1995b) assertion that “students must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the current social order” (p. 160). Researchers have also found that dual ethnic identities (a sense of belonging to both one’s cultural group and the majority group) promote resilience beyond affirmation toward one’s cultural group alone (Oyserman, Kemmelmeier, Fryberg, Brosh, & Hart-Johnson, 2003), highlighting the nuances associated with multiple facets of identity. Despite its established importance to historically marginalized students’ identity and their academic outcomes, the examination of how ethnic identity is formed in the context of schools remains pervasively understudied. To attend to this need, students’ ethnic identity is incorporated into the framework that has previously only examined students’ academic self-concepts.

Present Study

In consideration of the extant literature that has contributed to our understanding of how teacher beliefs inform their expectations and shape students’ achievement identities, the goal of this study was to apply a race-reimaged perspective that considers how teachers’ ABP beliefs are related to both their self-reported behaviors and Latino students’ identity and achievement. Accordingly, the specific research questions examined in the study are as follows:

Research Question 1: How are critical awareness and teacher expectancy related to Latino student achievement?

Research Question 2: How are critical awareness and teacher expectancy related to other teacher beliefs and behaviors?

Research Question 3: How are teacher behaviors related to Latino students’ identity and achievement?

Method

Setting and participants

The six schools that participated in the study are located in an urban district in southern Arizona where approximately 66% of students are identified as Latino. Three schools are magnet schools with a focus designed to attract families throughout the district to comply with desegregation oversight. Two of the magnet schools offer a bilingual curriculum (Spanish/English) and one emphasizes technology. Of the three non-magnet schools, two offer bilingual classes. The participating schools for the proposed project were selected because of their varying curricular approaches and the lack of substantial variation in academic achievement (i.e., none of the participating schools had been considered by the district as schools in need of remediation). In addition to an emphasis on bilingualism, the two bilingual magnet schools offer cultural extracurricular activities and self-identify as having a focus on multicultural education and social justice, whereas the two non-magnet schools with a bilingual curriculum did not. In consideration of the literature reviewed, it was anticipated that collectively, teachers in the two bilingual magnet schools would reflect high levels of ABP, teachers in the two non-magnet bilingual schools would reflect moderate levels of ABP, and teachers in the non-bilingual schools would reflect lower levels of ABP. Overall, teacher responses were consistent with these expectations (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Teachers in Low-, Moderate-, and High-ABP Schools.

	Low ABP				Mid ABP				High ABP
	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
Beliefs
Critical awareness	3.00	4.60	3.81	0.51	3.40	4.80	3.92	0.38	2.80	5.00	3.94	0.67
Teacher expectancy	4.50	5.00	4.90	0.20	2.50	5.00	4.10	0.88	2.00	5.00	3.72	0.96
Cultural knowledge	3.40	5.00	4.26	0.40	2.80	4.80	4.04	0.65	3.60	5.00	4.53	0.47
Cultural content integration	3.00	4.75	4.20	0.47	3.00	5.00	4.13	0.66	3.75	5.00	4.54	0.49
Language	4.67	5.00	4.94	0.13	3.33	4.67	4.03	0.51	3.33	5.00	4.46	0.51
Formative assessment	4.67	5.00	4.78	0.16	3.33	5.00	4.69	0.53	1.00	5.00	4.37	1.40
Behaviors
Critical awareness	1.67	3.83	2.37	0.57	1.50	4.00	2.90	0.84	1.83	4.00	2.74	0.68
Cultural knowledge	2.50	3.00	2.95	0.13	1.50	4.75	3.08	0.91	2.00	4.00	3.19	0.52
Cultural content integration	2.44	3.33	2.85	0.28	1.22	4.00	2.87	0.84	2.00	4.22	3.01	0.68
Language	2.33	4.00	2.70	0.45	3.37	4.00	3.64	0.29	0.00	4.33	3.44	1.25
Formative assessment	2.89	3.78	3.11	0.30	2.22	3.78	3.10	0.43	2.33	4.00	3.02	0.47
Teachers N	8				14				14
Students N	189				152				221

Note. ABP = asset-based pedagogy.

Participants included 568 Latino students and their teachers (N = 36) across six schools in Grades 3 through 5. Approximately 86% of the participating teachers identified as women. All participating teachers taught multiple subjects, and held either a bilingual endorsement (64%) or had received Structured English Immersion training to comply with state requirements. School-level demographic information is presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

School-Level Demographic Information.

ABP level	Magnet	% teachers Latino	% certified bilingual	Third-grade teachers n	Fourth-grade teachers n	Fifth-grade teachers n	Average years teaching	Students n
High	Yes bilingual	75	100	3	2	3	20	158
High	Yes bilingual	83	100	2	2	2	11	63
Mid	No bilingual	75	38	3	3	2	12	82
Mid	No bilingual	83	50	3	2	1	11	76
Low	Yes technology	71	43	3	2	2	12	175
Low	No	100	0	1	0	0	10	14
Total		78	64	15	11	10	13	568

Note. ABP = asset-based pedagogy.

Approximately 46% of the Latino student population in the district qualifies for free or reduced lunch, and close to 5% of Latino students are classified as English learners (ELs). Although information on participating students’ eligibility for free or reduced lunch was not provided by the schools, the district did provide school-level information on the proportions of students in each participating school that identify as Latino, meet criteria for free and reduced lunch, and are classified as ELs (see Table 2).

It should be noted that the context in which the study was carried out reflects among the most restrictive policies toward Latino youth (for detailed reviews, see Iddings, Combs, & Moll, 2012; Jiménez-Castellanos, Combs, Martínez, & Gómez, 2013; López, 2016). For example, HB 2281 (2010), which is now A.R.S. § 15-112, reads, “A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that . . . advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals” (Section 15-112). Numerous examples are available in the extant literature that illustrate the ways students’ native or heritage languages (López, 2012), as well as their representation in history courses (see Cabrera et al., 2014), have limited their access to rigorous educational experiences. Accordingly, the present study examined the interrelationships between teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors and students’ identity and achievement in a setting where these beliefs are particularly salient.

Table 3.

District-Provided Demographic Information for Participating Schools.

ABP level	Magnet	Type	% students Latino	% free or reduced lunch	% English learners
High	Yes	Bilingual	87	55	3
High	Yes	Bilingual	73	74	2
Mid	No	Bilingual	90	73	12
Mid	No	Bilingual	94	79	17
Low	Yes	Technology	89	77	5
Low	No		50	60	3

Note. ABP = asset-based pedagogy.

Procedure

After the school district Institutional Review Board granted permission to conduct the study in eight schools identified for recruitment, principals were informed of the study, and subsequently contacted via telephone and email to request a meeting. Eight principals granted site authorization to recruit teachers and students. Once the university Institutional Review Board granted permission to conduct the study, teachers in Grades 3 to 5 (N = 65) in the eight schools were informed of the study. Seventy-five percent of the recruited teachers (N = 36) gave voluntary, informed consent; in two schools, no teachers agreed to participate.

In the participating classrooms, approximately 800 students were asked to provide parents/guardians with informed consent forms and return them to school; 64% of the students returned informed consent forms that indicated the students had permission to participate in the study (N = 568). Members of the research team, which consisted of the principal investigator and six graduate students, subsequently scheduled the administration of the surveys with teachers. The research team collected informed consent forms and asked students to complete assent forms to complete the ethnic affirmation, scholastic competence, and perceived discrimination measures. The instruments were administered during regularly scheduled classes. Research team members read directions to the students in English and/or Spanish and answered questions before children began to fill out the instruments. Research team members were available to answer questions during the administration of the instrument.

Measures

The following measures were collected for students at the beginning and end of the academic year. All student measures, with the exception of reading benchmarks, were available in Spanish and English. Measures were translated into Spanish; the Spanish translations were back-translated to English and compared with the original measures to assess equivalence. All measures were determined to be equivalent versions of the original English versions. Descriptive statistics disaggregated by grade level are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics for Latino Students.

	Grade 3 (n = 160)				Grade 4 (n = 204)				Grade 5 (n = 198)
	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
Reading fall	−3.58	92.93	51.63	21.50	9.25	104.23	53.84	15.90	−9.43	97.45	50.48	18.77
Reading spring	−14.77	94.72	53.99	24.69	−4.29	94.72	53.01	16.66	−14.77	99.59	57.81	20.90
Self-competence in reading	1.00	5.00	3.94	0.87	1.00	5.00	3.63	0.72	1.75	5.00	3.64	0.69
Ethnic in group	2.00	4.00	3.45	0.36	2.00	4.00	3.40	0.36	2.29	4.00	3.42	0.33
Ethnic in other group	1.50	4.00	3.27	0.45	1.00	4.00	3.27	0.43	1.75	4.00	3.30	0.35
Discrimination	0.00	5.00	1.89	0.94	0.00	4.20	1.96	0.86	0.00	4.30	1.66	0.79

Reading benchmarks

The participating school district uses standardized formative reading assessments that are aligned with the state’s academic standards and validated by the Assessment Technology Incorporated (ATI). The assessments are designed to reflect the knowledge students should acquire by the end of the school year. Items are generated based on the difficulty and discrimination parameters that reflect parallel assessments across administrations within each grade level (ATI, 2011). The mean marginal reliability was reported as .88. For analyses, normal curve equivalents (NCEs) with a mean of 50 and SD of 21.06 based on the distribution of scores relative to each grade’s norming population were used. The assessment is administered 4 times throughout the school year between September and May. The first benchmark scores were used to control for prior achievement.⁸

Student achievement identity

To establish students’ achievement identity, the reading domain in the Self-Description Questionnaire I (Marsh, 1992) was used. The measure was designed to capture different facets of self-concept among children between the ages of 8 and 12 and has been validated extensively (e.g., Marsh, 1990; Marsh & Gouvernet, 1989; Marsh & Holmes, 1990; Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller, & Baumert, 2006). The scale uses Likert-type items that are scored from 1 (false) to 5 (true). Internal consistency analyses resulted in α = .89 for the Reading subscale. Items include statements such as “Work in reading is easy for me” and “I am good at reading.”

Ethnic affirmation

Phinney’s (1992) Multi-Ethnic Identity Measure has been used extensively with various ethnic/racial groups and has robust construct validation evidence (see Ong, Fuller-Rowell, & Phinney, 2010; Ponterotto, Gretchen, Utsey, Stracuzzi, & Saya, 2003). Items are scored from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). To reflect the developmental stage of students, only the In-Group Ethnic Affirmation and Other-Group Ethnic Affirmation subscales were used. The In-Group Ethnic Affirmation subscale comprises seven items (α = .82) that include statements such as “I have a strong sense of belonging to my ethnic group” and “I feel good about my cultural/ethnic background.” The Other-Group Affirmation subscale comprises four items (α = .67) and includes statements such as “I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic groups other than my own.”

Perceived discrimination

Ten items from the Perceived Discrimination subscale from the Societal, Attitudinal, Familial, and Environmental Acculturative Stress Scale for Children (Chavez, Moran, Reid, & López, 1997) were used (α = 82). Items are scored from 1 (doesn’t bother me) to 5 (bothers me a lot). The scale has been validated and demonstrated to be a robust measure of perceived discrimination among children (Chavez et al., 1997). Items include statements such as “I feel bad when others make jokes about people who are Latino/Mexican” and “People think badly of me when I practice customs or I do the ‘special things’ of my group.”

Student-level control variables

Student-level control variables included students’ gender (0 = boys, 1 = girls) and EL status (0 = not EL, 1 = EL). It is important to note that EL classification does not reflect students who have been reclassified from EL to non-EL. In Arizona, ELs are assessed in English proficiency once a year (Arizona Department of Education, 2014). Approximately 80% of ELs in the participating schools are reclassified in a given year according to the participating schools’ demographic information.

Teacher-reported beliefs

Items for the teacher-reported beliefs survey were compiled from Pohan and Aguilar’s (2001) Beliefs About Diversity scales, and categorized to assess teachers’ beliefs about the role of each of the four ABP dimensions reflected in the review of the literature (critical awareness, cultural content integration, language, and cultural knowledge), as well as beliefs associated with teacher expectancy and formative assessment. Accordingly, it is included in the present study as a dimension. Teachers were asked to report the extent to which they agree (1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree) with 25 statements. The validation of the original survey (Pohan & Aguilar, 2001) suggests that the items are cogent representations of the construct of critical awareness as it relates to issues of teachers’ beliefs regarding students’ race/ethnicity, social class, and language, and are not susceptible to socially desirable bias (see Pohan & Aguilar, 2001). Examples of the items and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 5.

Table 5.

Teacher-Reported ABP Beliefs.

Dimension	No. of items	Example	α	M	SD
Critical awareness	11	Historically, education has been monocultural, reflecting only one reality and has been biased toward the dominant (White) group.	.77	3.89	0.71
Teacher expectancy	3	Latino students can close achievement gaps if teachers provide them with rigorous instruction.	.70	4.14	0.88
Cultural knowledge	3	Teachers should learn about students’ home lives and incorporate this knowledge into instruction.	.77	4.27	0.62
Cultural content integration	4	Teachers should incorporate class materials that reflect the contributions made by individuals who share their students’ cultural heritage.	.72	4.30	0.68
Language	3	Students who do not speak English are at an advantage to become bilingual.	.70	4.39	0.53

Teacher-reported behaviors

The teacher-reported behaviors survey was designed to assess the degree to which teachers report incorporating the domains reported in the beliefs survey. The survey also asks teachers to report their training background, ethnicity, years taught, and certification. The measure is a modified version of the questionnaires developed with content validity input from experts in ABP for the National Indian Education Study (NIES), the only large-scale, nationally representative study that has collected information about the degree to which teachers incorporate culture into the educational experiences of Native American students (see López, Heilig, & Schram, 2013). Examples of the Likert-type items and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 6.

Table 6.

Teacher-Reported ABP Behaviors.

Dimension	Number of items	Example	α	M	SD	Range
Formative assessment	4	To what extent do you use performance-based assessments to inform your teaching?	.81	3.14	0.44	1-4Not at all to large extent
Critical awareness	9	To what extent have you acquired knowledge, skills, and information specific to teaching Latino students from college courses with a general focus on diversity?	.86	2.79	0.71	1-5Never to every day or almost every day
Cultural knowledge	2	How often do you assign work that requires students to interview family members?	.70	3.05	0.11	1-5Never to every day or almost every day
Cultural content integration	9	To what extent do you integrate lessons and materials about current issues affecting Latino people and communities into your curriculum?	.90	2.98	0.65	1-5Never to every day or almost every day
Language	3	To what extent do you use Spanish when you teach any core subject (e.g., reading, mathematics, science, and social studies)?	.76	3.36	0.84	1-4Never to whenever it is feasible

Note. ABP = asset-based pedagogy.

Data analysis

To address the first research question, a multiple regression analysis was conducted with teacher expectancy and critical awareness as independent variables; student spring reading achievement as the dependent variable; and student fall reading achievement as a control variable. A subsequent block with an interaction term for teacher expectancy and critical awareness entered in the final model.

To address the remaining research questions, LISREL 9.1 software was used to conduct path analysis. Analyses of student measures examine change over the year or use data from the beginning of the year to control for student outcomes. Models were specified from the research questions. Model 1 investigated the direct influences of teachers’ critical awareness beliefs (BLCA) and teachers’ expectancy (BLTE) on other teacher beliefs, and the direct and indirect influences of teacher beliefs on teacher behavior. Model 2 investigated the direct and indirect influences of teacher behavior on student outcomes. Non-significant paths were pruned to arrive at final models.

Model fit was evaluated using absolute and relative measures. Absolute measures of fit indicate the degree to which the model approximates perfect fit. Here, the chi-square statistic (χ²) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) are reported. The chi-square statistic is difficult to use in large-scale studies because there are no standards for fit beyond non-significance and the chi-square is sensitive to sample size, with larger samples more likely to be found significant because of the increased power of the test. However, the relatively small sample in this study allows for meaningful interpretation of chi-square significance. In addition, RMSEA, the most common absolute fit index, was examined. MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) suggested that RMSEA < .05 indicates good fit, whereas RMSEA < .08 indicates acceptable but mediocre fit.

Relative fit was assessed using the non-normed fit index (NNFI, also known as the Tucker–Lewis index) and comparative fit index (CFI). Both these relative fit indicators depend on the average size of the correlations among measures in the data and are minimally affected by sample size (Dimitrov, 2010); thus, they are useful even with small samples. Models with acceptable fit result in NNFI and CFI values > .90; close fit is indicated by NNFI and CFI > .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Results

Although scholars have emphasized the importance of critical awareness among teachers (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Gay, 2005; Hollins & Torres-Guzman, 2005; Milner, 2010; Morrison et al., 2008; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001), this scholarship has not been considered within more recent work (e.g., McKown 2013; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007) that counters earlier assertions regarding the accuracy of teacher expectancy (e.g., Jussim et al., 1996). To address this need, I first examined how teachers’ expectancy and critical awareness are related to student achievement.

In the first multiple regression model, only critical awareness (p = .01, β = .09) was related to students’ spring reading achievement after controlling for fall reading achievement (p < .01, β = .71), collectively accounting for 43% of the variability in reading outcomes. Specifically, whereas students’ spring reading achievement increased by 0.71 SD for each 1 SD increase in prior reading achievement, and students’ spring reading achievement increased by only 0.09 SD for each 1 SD increase in critical awareness, teacher expectancy was not a significant predictor of student achievement. Consistent with the literature reviewed here, findings demonstrate a robust relationship between students’ prior achievement and teacher expectations (e.g., Jussim et al., 1996) that has been used to substantiate the notion that teacher expectations are accurate. As such, including students’ prior achievement in the model eliminates any additional effects that may be introduced by teacher expectancy. Prior research has also demonstrated, however, that teachers can hold biases that are detrimental to students of color (McKown, 2013; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007). To examine whether critical awareness might moderate the relationship between teachers’ expectancy and student achievement, the final model included an interaction term with teacher expectancy and critical awareness.

The final model, which accounted for 44% of the variability in student achievement, shows significant effects for the interaction between teacher expectancy and critical awareness (p < .01) that provide a noteworthy contribution to our understanding of ways to mitigate teacher biases (coefficients are presented in Table 7; see Figure 2). Namely, there is approximately a ½ SD difference in student reading achievement between teachers who have high expectancy but are on the opposite extremes of critical awareness, suggesting that critical awareness abates bias that often relies on students’ prior achievement.

Table 7.

OLS Regression.

	Model 1			Model 2
	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Intercept	.21	0.03	>.01	.14	0.04	>.01
Fall reading	.71	0.04	>.01	.71	0.03	>.01
Critical awareness	.09	0.04	.01	.07	0.04	.05
Teacher expectancy	.01	0.04	.69	.09	0.04	.03
Interaction				.16	0.05	>.01

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares.

Figure 2.

Interaction effects of teacher expectancy and critical awareness on students’ spring reading achievement after controlling for fall reading achievement.

After establishing the moderating role of critical awareness in teacher expectancy, I examined how critical awareness and teacher expectancy are related to other teacher beliefs and behaviors. In the first path model, it was hypothesized that teachers’ beliefs regarding critical awareness and expectancy predict teacher beliefs about language, cultural knowledge, cultural content integration, and formative assessment; and that belief in each of these ABP beliefs predicts its corresponding behavior. The initial model fits poorly: χ²(39, N = 39) = 73.88, p < .001, RMSEA = .147, NNFI = .72828, CFI = .802, resulting in the removal of non-significant paths. Modification indices also suggested that a relationship existed between teachers’ behaviors regarding cultural knowledge and cultural content integration; cultural knowledge and formative assessment; and language and formative assessment, resulting in the addition of these paths. The revised model fits the data: χ²(39, N = 39) = 32.39, p = .497, RMSEA = 0, NNFI = 1, CFI = 1 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Revised model with non-significant paths removed and revised pathways between teacher behavior variables.

Consistent with the hypothesized model, the final model indicates that whereas teachers’ critical awareness beliefs significantly and positively predict teacher beliefs regarding cultural content integration (β = .61), language (β = .45), cultural knowledge (β = .07), and formative assessment (β = .19), teacher expectancy predicts only formative assessment (β = .41). The relationships between beliefs and associated behaviors, however, are not as clear with only beliefs about cultural knowledge (β = .47) and formative assessment (β = .33) significantly predicting their associated behaviors. Instead, the model suggests that teachers’ reported behaviors regarding formative assessment contribute to behaviors regarding cultural knowledge (β = .21), albeit to a lesser degree than beliefs regarding cultural knowledge. Teachers’ reported behaviors regarding cultural knowledge, in turn, predict their reported behaviors regarding cultural content integration (β = .68), and their reported behaviors regarding language predict reported behaviors regarding formative assessment (β = .20).

After establishing how teachers’ beliefs were related to reported behaviors, I examined how teacher behaviors are related to student identity and achievement. In the second path model, I investigated the degree to which teacher behaviors predict change over the course of the academic year in each of the following student outcomes: achievement in reading, self-competence in reading, ethnic affirmation toward members of their cultural group (i.e., in-group ethnic identity), ethnic affirmation toward individuals who are not members of their cultural group (i.e., other-group ethnic identity), and perceptions of discrimination. The initial model fits poorly: χ²(10, N = 33) = 18.91, p = .041, RMSEA = .163, NNFI = .759, CFI = .735, resulting in the pruning of non-significant paths. In addition, modification indices suggested that in-group ethnic identity influences other-group ethnic identity, and that in turn other-group ethnic identity influences students’ reading self-concept; these paths were added. The revised model fits the data closely: χ²(28, N = 39) = 12.24, p = .996, RMSEA = 0, NNFI = 1, CFI = 1 (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Model 3: Teacher behaviors influence student outcome changes over the course of the academic year.

The revised hypothesized model explored whether teacher behaviors influence student outcome changes over the course of the academic year. Teacher behaviors associated with cultural knowledge (β = .32) and cultural content integration (β = −.66) were found to influence students’ self-competence in reading; teacher behaviors associated with cultural content integration (β = .40) were found to influence students’ other-group ethnic affirmation; and teacher behaviors associated with critical awareness (β = −.21) were found to influence students’ perceptions of discrimination. Notably, a change in students’ in-group ethnic affirmation was found to have a positive impact on change in students’ other-group ethnic affirmation (β = .24), which positively predicts change in students’ self-competence in reading (β = .45). This latter result is especially intriguing because although the direct relationship between cultural content integration and students’ self-competence in reading is negative, the indirect relationship through change in other-group ethnic affirmation is positive. Finally, reading achievement was positively associated with perceived discrimination (β = .34).

Discussion

The findings presented here extend the growing literature in support of ABP for historically marginalized students in several ways. First, they add to the evidence against claims that teacher expectancies are not biased (e.g., McKown, 2013; Tenenbaum & Ruck, 2007) and counter assertions that the effects from biases that do exist are relatively small (see Jussim & Harber, 2005). When one considers that disparities between Latino students and their White peers on the fourth grade reading National Assessment of Educational Progress is approximately 1 SD (NCES, 2015), it is particularly noteworthy that students with teachers who have high levels of both expectancy and critical awareness perform approximately ½ SD higher in student reading achievement over the course of one academic year. Given the cumulative nature of teacher expectancy effects (McKown, 2013), this effect is substantial.

The findings also provide quantitative evidence that expectancy can be moderated by critical awareness, supporting the extant literature on critical awareness (e.g., Banks, 1993; Darder, 2012; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995a; Valenzuela, 2016) while addressing limitations raised by scholars (e.g., Goldenberg et al., 2008). Specifically, the present findings underscore that it is insufficient to focus on expectancy effects; teachers must possess critical awareness to ensure that their beliefs about students’ abilities are not informed solely by students’ prior performance.

The findings also shed light on how critical awareness and teacher expectancy are related to other teacher beliefs and behaviors (see Figure 3), as well as how teacher-reported behaviors are related to student identity and achievement (Figure 4), addressing limitations in prior work reviewed here (e.g., Pajares, 1992). Namely, whereas teacher expectancy was found to be related to teachers’ beliefs and behaviors reflecting formative assessment, critical awareness was found to be related to teachers’ beliefs and behaviors about the role of students’ culture in instruction (language, cultural knowledge, and cultural content integration). Teachers’ behaviors, in turn, were related to changes in Latino students’ ethnic and achievement identities over the academic year. I elaborate on these findings below.

Teacher Expectancy and Formative Assessment

The diagram in Figure 3 shows a strong direct path between teachers’ expectancy and their beliefs about formative assessment, which in turn shows a strong direct path to teachers’ reported formative assessment behaviors. These findings are consistent with the extant literature on formative assessment, which emphasizes that all students can reach learning goals when teachers possess knowledge about formative assessment (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Stiggins, 1988). The moderately strong direct path between teachers’ beliefs and behaviors reflecting formative assessment further suggests that teachers who possess these beliefs are thus more likely to engage in behaviors that are formative in nature. Accordingly, these findings support scholars’ appeals to ensure that preservice teachers receive formative assessment training (Black & Wiliam, 1998; Stiggins, 1988).

Teacher Critical Awareness and ABP

Figure 3 also shows a strong direct path between teachers’ critical awareness and their beliefs about cultural content integration and language, and to a lesser extent, cultural knowledge (as well as formative assessment). Drawing once again from the extant literature reviewed here, it is likely that high levels of critical awareness are consistent with cultural teaching practices because they reflect an understanding of the importance of leveraging students’ culture in a setting that too often tends to be devoid of historically marginalized students’ lives.

Also illustrated in Figure 3 is the mediating role of teachers’ cultural knowledge beliefs in their critical awareness beliefs and their cultural knowledge behaviors, which are strongly and directly related to teachers’ behaviors reflecting cultural content integration. Cultural knowledge behaviors—which reflect teachers’ reported use of students’ culture to access prior knowledge—are also moderately informed by formative assessment behaviors, reflecting the consistency (i.e., accessing what students know) across these two practices. Collectively, the interrelationships found here support the extant literature on both teacher expectancy and critical awareness, and the kinds of behaviors that are considered necessary—particularly for teachers of historically marginalized youth.

Teacher Behaviors and Student Outcomes

Although understanding the relationships between teachers’ beliefs and behaviors is important, it is by understanding why they are important that we can address limitations raised in prior reviews (e.g., Pajares, 1992). In Figure 4, ABP behaviors indeed appear to inform students’ cultural and achievement identities, consistent with Ladson-Billings’s (1995a) call for “a theoretical model that not only addresses student achievement but also helps students to accept and affirm their cultural identity” (p. 469). Specifically, teachers’ cultural knowledge behaviors, which are believed to be important because they validate students’ cultural prior knowledge, are strongly associated with students’ self-concept in reading. Cultural content integration is also strongly related to students’ affirmation of other groups, which is in turn also strongly associated with students’ self-concept in reading. Thus, although there is a negative direct path between cultural content integration and students’ self-concept in reading, the relationship is mediated by students’ affirmation of other groups. This contribution contradicts the argument made by policymakers in the state of Arizona who asserted that the use of cultural materials can create animus toward other groups (HB 2281, 2010). Indeed, it appears affirming that students’ culture encourages other-group appreciation (which is also directly informed by students’ ethnic affirmation) and has a strong, positive influence on reading competence,⁹ which has been shown to serve as a robust proxy on reading achievement itself (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985).

Finally, teacher-reported training (e.g., university coursework) that has been shown to increase teachers’ critical awareness (e.g., Kumar & Hamer, 2013) was directly associated with lower levels of perceptions of discrimination among students. This finding is consistent with the first analysis that found critical awareness to be a moderator of teacher expectancy, and adds to our understanding of the specific facets of student identity that are shaped by teachers’ practices. Reading achievement identity, however, is positively related to perceptions of discrimination. Although potentially counterintuitive, this finding is consistent with research that has found awareness of racism among historically marginalized youth is related to achievement outcomes when coupled with higher levels of achievement identity because it provides an important buffer to negative societal stereotypes (Altschul et al., 2006).

Taken together, the present study extends findings from prior research that has relied on students’ perceptions of teachers’ ABP beliefs (e.g., Chun & Dickson, 2011) or teachers’ ABP behaviors (e.g., Brown & Chu, 2012). By examining the ways teachers’ ABP beliefs and behaviors are related to student identity and achievement, the present study more fully addresses the appeals made by scholars (Goldenberg et al., 2008; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Losey, 1995; Sleeter, 2004, 2012). As such, the findings provide more evidence to support the institutionalization of ABP, leveraging efforts of scholars who have focused on ensuring that teachers possess critical awareness (e.g., Anderson & Stillman, 2013; Gay, 2005; Hollins & Torres-Guzman, 2005; Milner, 2010; Morrison et al., 2008; Pohan & Aguilar, 2001; Valenzuela, 2016).

Implications for Teacher Education

Scholars have long raised issues with the inability to institutionalize practices that have the potential to shape the identities of historically marginalized students (e.g., Gay, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 1999; Sleeter, 2004, 2012). The findings presented here, however, add to the accumulating evidence that supports ABP’s serious consideration among policymakers (Sleeter, 2012). Accordingly, the findings offer implications for both teacher preparation programs and licensure standards that can transform the opportunities for historically marginalized youth. Echoing Gay’s (2005) assertion that “the most viable multicultural teacher education programs combine moral convictions and courage, critical analyses, and political activism with high-quality curriculum and instruction in advocacy and in responding to opposition” (p. 224), the findings presented here suggest a necessary focus on both teachers’ critical awareness development and knowledge about the numerous ways ABP should be incorporated into their classrooms.

Nurturing Critical Awareness

Required coursework is one of the principal ways essential knowledge is provided to preservice teachers (see Darling-Hammond, 2000; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005). Although there are teacher preparation programs that require all preservice teachers to have some knowledge on the needs of linguistically diverse students, a more robust engagement with this knowledge tends to be limited to those seeking specialist certification (Valenzuela, 2016), thus limiting the extent to which all preservice teachers have opportunities to develop critical awareness. Moreover, compared with coursework focused on the needs of linguistically diverse students, “courses that offer sociopolitical content that addresses policy, politics, social movements, legislative and judicial battles, legal precedents, laws, civil rights history, critical race theory, and the like” (Valenzuela, 2015, p. 19) are even less accessible to preservice teachers despite calls to action (e.g., Milner, 2010).

The need to incorporate coursework that can provide preservice teachers with a deep understanding of sociopolitical factors that influence the lives of their students in differential ways is urgent. Scholars have offered conceptualizations of requisite knowledge that should be required of preservice teachers (e.g., Banks, 2001; Milner, 2010; Valenzuela, 2016) that can inform a revision of teacher preparation content. To enhance a link between this knowledge and practice, however, teacher educators must also engage preservice teachers in sociopolitical analysis with ABP (e.g., Bartolomé, 2004; Morrell & Duncan-Andrade, 2002; Romero et al., 2009; Stovall, 2006).

Cultural Knowledge and Cultural Content Integration

As mentioned in the review of the ABP literature, there is a tendency for ABP to be treated as a celebration of cultural differences rather than a way to enact equitable educational practices for historically marginalized youth (Sleeter, 2012; Wong et al., 2007). To avoid its marginalization in the preservice teacher curriculum and enhance preservice teachers’ ability to practice ABP in authentic ways, teacher educators must ensure that (a) ABP literature is integrated throughout coursework, (b) preservice teachers are provided with skills to enact ABP across content areas (see Aaronson & Laughter, 2016), and (c) ABP is also applied to field placement (e.g., Pohan, Ward, Kouzekanani, & Boartright, 2009).

Conclusion

Teacher educators have long argued in favor of ABP to meet the needs of historically marginalized students. As detailed here, ensuring teachers’ development of critical awareness and ABP behaviors holds promise in that together, they can promote the development of ethnic and academic identities of historically marginalized youth. Certainly, there are other facets of teacher preparation that merit serious consideration. Among them are the need to address structural inequities to ensure that more teachers of color enter the profession to “take advantage of what they offer our children” (Nieto, 2016, p. x); incorporation of Participatory Action Research in applications of ABP and teacher development (e.g., Cammarota, 2016); and incorporating knowledge on the ways historically marginalized students interact within an ABP curriculum to co-construct knowledge (Martin-Beltrán, 2009). Although not exhaustive, however, the recommendations presented here provide but a few empirically based examples of the knowledge that teacher educators must consider to more fully transform teacher education. Given the growth in scholarship establishing empirical evidence on how ABP is related to historically marginalized students’ outcomes (e.g., Brown & Chu, 2012; Cabrera et al., 2014; Chun & Dickson, 2011; Rios-Aguilar, 2010), it is time for teacher education programs to more forcefully incorporate ABP as an expectation of all teachers.

Future Work

The current knowledge about how to assess and improve teachers’ general quality of instruction is robust due to the availability of observation tools that reflect the extant literature on classroom dynamics (e.g., Kane & Staiger, 2012; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008); however, ABP is not considered in this work (see López, 2011). Given that general quality of instruction alone is insufficient to address achievement disparities (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2004; López, 2011; McKown, 2013), the incorporation of ABP into observation coding systems that can assist teacher educators in formatively assessing and improving teachers’ practices is needed. The findings presented here, along with the nuanced portrayals of ABP in the extant literature, provide ample support for this endeavor.

Limitations

It is important to note that teachers’ beliefs and behaviors are reflected by answers to a survey and as such, may be susceptible to social desirability bias (e.g., Krumpal, 2013). Although validation of the items in the teacher beliefs survey (Pohan & Aguilar, 2001) and the methods of delivering the survey suggest that social desirability may not have played a salient role in teachers’ responses¹⁰ (Krumpal, 2013), it is nevertheless necessary to consider limitations inherent in the use of surveys. To at least partially attenuate these concerns, however, it is worthwhile to point out that participating teachers did not all completely agree with items designed to assess their expectations. Namely, in examining Table 1, inspection of the minimum score for each of the categories reveals that teachers did not all respond by agreeing with what would be the ideal answer (i.e., high levels of critical awareness, expectations, and ABPs). For example, the lowest average response by teachers for expectations was 2.0 (somewhat disagree), whereas the highest was 5.0 (strongly agree). Moreover, inspection of the lowest scores for expectations is particularly intriguing. In the school with the lowest levels of teacher-reported ABPs, the lowest score for a teacher’s expectations was 4.50. This suggests that in a school where teachers do not report engaging in ABPs to the extent of other schools, teachers have a tendency to report relatively high expectations of all students. The lowest score for the mid-level ABP schools, however, was 2.5 and for the high-level ABP schools, it was even lower (2.0). This suggests that teachers who report engaging in higher levels of ABP may have an understanding about expectations that are more nuanced (or may at least prevent them from answering with the higher levels found in lower ABP schools) than teachers who report engaging in lower levels of ABP.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Charlene Bruce, Benjamin Caldera, Angela Champion, Mitzy Ocegueda González, Isabel Kelsey, Amy Olson, Veronica Romo, Ruby Vega, and Marylyn Valencia for their assistance; Augustine Romero and H. T. Sanchez for their support of this project; and the administrators, teachers, and students of the participating school district for their participation and support. She also thanks Thomas L. Good, as well as the anonymous reviewers, for their thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of the manuscript.

Author’s Note

The author takes full responsibility for the work, and no endorsement from the supporting agency should be assumed.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by the National Academy of Education’s Spencer postdoctoral fellowship program.

Notes

Author Biography

Francesca A. López is an associate professor in the Educational Policy Studies and Practice Department of the College of Education at the University of Arizona. Her research and teaching focus on examining the ways educational contexts and policies hinder or promote achievement for Latino youth.

References

Aaronson

Laughter

(2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86, 163-206.

Altschul

Oyserman

Bybee

(2006). Racial-ethnic identity in mid-adolescence: Content and change as predictors of academic achievement. Child Development, 77, 1155-1169.

Altschul

Oyserman

Bybee

(2008). Racial-ethnic self-schemas and segmented assimilation: Identity and the academic achievement of Hispanic youth. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 302-320.

Anderson

L. M.

Stillman

J. A.

(2013). Student teaching’s contribution to preservice teacher development: A review of research focused on the preparation of teachers for urban and high-needs contexts. Review of Educational Research, 83, 3-69.

Antrop-González

Vélez

Garrett

(2004). Challenging the academic (mis)categorization of urban youth: Building a case for Puerto Rican high achievers. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners, 7, 16-32.

Antrop-González

Vélez

Garrett

(2008). Examining familial-based academic success factors in urban high school students: The case of Puerto Rican female high achievers. Marriage & Family Review, 43, 140-163.

Apple

M. W.

(2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Routledge.

Arizona Department of Education. (2014). AZELLA. Retreived from http://www.azed.gov/assessment/azella/

Arizona Revised Statutes § 15-112 (1996 through 1st Reg Sess 50th Legis).

10.

Assessment Technology Incorporated. (2011). Benchmark assessment development in the Galileo K-12 online educational management system. Retrieved from http://www.ati-online.com/pdfs/researchK12/K12TechManual.pdf

11.

Jordan

(1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally appropriate solution. In Trueba

Guthrie

(Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 69-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

12.

Mason

J. M.

(1983). Cultural congruence in classroom participation structures: Achieving a balance of rights. Discourse Processes, 6, 145-167.

13.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14.

Banks

J. A.

(1993). Multicultural education: Historical development, dimensions, and practice. Review of Research in Education, 19, 3-49.

15.

Banks

J. A.

(2001). Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for Teacher Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 52, 5-16.

16.

Barnes

C. P.

(1987). The profile of the beginning teacher. Report of the CSU Committee to study the teacher preparation curriculum. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED282863

17.

Bartolomé

L. I.

(2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31, 97-122.

18.

Black

Wiliam

(1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Educational Assessment: Principles, Policies and Practices, 5, 7-74. doi: 10.1080/0969595980050102

19.

Black

Wiliam

(2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5-31.

20.

Bowles

Gintis

(1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

21.

Brophy

J. E.

(1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069-1077.

22.

Brophy

J. E.

Good

T. L.

(1970). Teachers’ communication of differential expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365-374.

23.

Brophy

J. E.

Good

T. L.

(1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement (Occasional Paper No. 73). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED251422

24.

Brown

C. S.

Chu

(2012). Discrimination, ethnic identity, and academic outcomes of Mexican immigrant children: The importance of school context. Child Development, 83, 1477-1485.

25.

Cabrera

N. L.

Milem

J. F.

Jaquette

Marx

R. W.

(2014). Missing the (student achievement) forest for all the (political) trees: Empiricism and the Mexican American studies controversy in Tucson. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 1084-1118.

26.

Cammarota

(2016). Social justice education project (SJEP): A case example of PAR in a high school classroom. In Valenzuela

(Ed.), Growing critically conscious teachers: A social justice curriculum for educators of Latino/a youth (pp. 90-104). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

27.

Cazden

C. B.

Leggett

E. L.

(1981). Culturally responsive education: Recommendations for achieving Lau remedies. In Trueba

H. T.

Guthrie

G. P.

K. H.

(Eds.), Culture and the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 69-86). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.

28.

Chavez

D. V.

Moran

V. R.

Reid

S. L.

López

(1997). Acculturative stress in children: A modification of the SAFE scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 19, 34-44.

29.

Chen

Y. H.

Thompson

M. S.

Kromrey

J. D.

Chang

G. H.

(2011). Relations of student perceptions of teacher oral feedback with teacher expectancies and student self-concept. The Journal of Experimental Education, 79, 452-477.

30.

Chun

Dickson

(2011). A psychoecological model of academic performance among Hispanic adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1581-1594.

31.

Civil

Khan

L. H.

(2001). Mathematics instruction developed from a garden theme. Teaching Children Mathematics, 7, 400-405.

32.

Clark

(1965). Dark ghetto: Dilemmas of social power. New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks.

33.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). InTASC model core teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/documents/2011/intasc_model_core_teaching_standards_2011.pdf

34.

Darder

(1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for the education of bicultural students (1st ed.). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

35.

Darder

(2012). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for the education of bicultural students (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press.

36.

Darling-Hammond

(2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166-173.

37.

Darling-Hammond

Bransford

(Eds.). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

38.

Decuir-Gunby

Schutz

(2014). Researching race within educational psychology contexts. Educational Psychologist, 49, 244-260.

39.

Dee

Penner

(2016, January). The causal effects of cultural relevance: Evidence from an ethnic studies curriculum (NBER Working Paper No. 21865). The National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved at http://www.nber.org/papers/w21865

40.

DeGarmo

D. S.

Martinez

C. R.

(2006). A culturally informed model of academic well-being for Latino youth: The importance of discriminatory experiences and social support. Family Relations, 55, 267-278.

41.

De Jesus

Antrop-González

. (2006). Instrumental relationships and high expectations: Exploring critical care in two Latino community-based schools. Intercultural Education, 17, 281-299.

42.

Delpit

(1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-299.

43.

Dimitrov

D. M.

(2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 121-149.

44.

Duckworth

A. L.

Quinn

P. D.

Seligman

M. E. P.

(2009). Positive predictors of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 540-547.

45.

Duncan-Andrade

(2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20, 617-638.

46.

Dunkin

M. J.

Biddle

B. J.

(1974). The study of teaching. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

47.

Eccles

(2009). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and collective identities as motivators of action. Educational Psychologist, 44, 78-89.

48.

Eccles (Parsons)

Adler

T. F.

Futterman

Goff

S. B.

Kaczala

C. M.

Meece

J. L.

Midgley

. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In Spence

J. T.

(Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75-146). San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.

49.

Erickson

Mohatt

(1982). Cultural organization of participation structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In Spindler

(Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 132-174). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

50.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.

51.

Fuller

Bein

Kim

Rabe-Hesketh

(2015). Differing cognitive trajectories of Mexican American toddlers: The role of class, nativity, and maternal practices. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 37, 139-169.

52.

Gándara

(2015). With the future on the line: Why studying Latino education is so urgent. American Journal of Education, 121, 451-463.

53.

Gay

(2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (1st ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

54.

Gay

(2005). Politics of multicultural teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 221-228.

55.

Gay

(2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

56.

Gay

Kirkland

(2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 42, 181-187.

57.

Giroux

(1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education, 2, 376-379.

58.

Goldenberg

Rueda

R. S.

August

. (2008). Sociocultural contexts and literacy development. In August

Shanahan

(Eds.), Developing reading and writing in second-language learners: Lessons from the report of the national literacy panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 95-130). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

59.

González

(2001). I am my language: Discourses of women and children in the borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

60.

González

Moll

Amanti

(2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

61.

Good

(2014). What do we know about how teachers influence student performance on standardized tests: And why do we know so little about other student outcomes? Teachers College Record, 116, 1-23.

62.

Good

Nichols

(2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom: A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority students in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36, 113-126.

63.

Gorski

P. C.

(2014). Reaching and teaching students in poverty: Strategies for erasing the opportunity gap. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

64.

Gutiérrez

Baquedano-López

Tejeda

(1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6, 286-303.

65.

Gutiérrez

Rogoff

(2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32, 19-25.

66.

Harris

M. J.

Rosenthal

Snodgrass

S. E.

(1986). The effects of teacher expectations, gender, and behavior on pupil academic performance and self-concept. The Journal of Educational Research, 79, 173-179.

67.

Hollins

Torres-Guzman

M. E.

(2005). Research on preparing teachers for diverse populations. In Cochran-Smith

Zeichner

(Eds.), Studying teacher education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 477-544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

68.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

69.

Iddings

A. C. D.

Combs

M. C.

Moll

(2012). In the arid zone: Drying out educational resources for English language learners through policy and practice. Urban Education, 47, 495-514.

70.

Irizarry

J. G.

(2007). Ethnic and urban intersections in the classroom: Latino students, hybrid identities, and culturally responsive pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives, 9, 21-28.

71.

Jiménez-Castellanos

Combs

M. C.

Martínez

Gómez

(2013). English language learners: What’s at stake for Arizona? Latino Public Policy Center, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona Indicators, Arizona State University. Retrieved at http://arizonaindicators.org/sites/default/files/content/publications/ELL_stake.pdf

72.

Jussim

Eccles

Madon

(1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: Accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 281-388.

73.

Jussim

Harber

K. D.

(2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

74.

Kane

T. J.

Staiger

D. O.

(2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains (Research paper, MET Project). Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

75.

Kantor

(1991). Education, social reform, and the state: ESEA and federal education policy in the 1960s. American Journal of Education, 100, 47-83.

76.

King

J. E.

Ladson-Billings

(1990). The teacher education challenge in elite university settings: Developing critical perspectives for teaching in a democratic and multicultural society. The European Journal of Intercultural Studies, 1, 15-30.

77.

Kohn

(2008). Why self-discipline is overrated: The (troubling) theory and practice of control from within. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 168-176.

78.

Krumpal

(2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025-2047.

79.

Kumar

Hamer

(2013). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward student diversity and proposed instructional practices: A sequential design study. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 162-177.

80.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1994). The dreamkeepers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

81.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1995a). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34, 159-165.

82.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1995b). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 465-491.

83.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24, 211-247.

84.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2004). New directions in multicultural education: Complexities, boundaries, and critical race theory. In Banks

J. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 50-65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

85.

La Guardia

. (2009). Developing who I am: A self-determination theory approach to the establishment of healthy identities. Educational Psychologist, 44, 90-104.

86.

Lee

C. D.

(1993). Signifying as a scaffold for literary interpretation: The pedagogical implications of an African American discourse genre (Research report series). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

87.

Lee

C. D.

(1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African American high school students’ skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608-631.

88.

Lee

C. D.

(2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Taking bloom in the midst of the whirlwind. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

89.

López

(2011). The nongeneralizability of classroom dynamics as predictors of achievement for Hispanic students in upper elementary grades. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 33, 350-376.

90.

López

(2012). Moderators of language acquisition models and reading achievement for English language learners: The role of emotional warmth and instructional support. Teachers College Record, 114, 1-30.

91.

López

(2016). Teacher reports of culturally responsive teaching and Latino students’ reading achievement in Arizona. Teachers College Record, 118(5), 1-42.

92.

López

Heilig

Schram

(2013). A story within a story: Culturally responsive schooling and American Indian and Alaska Native achievement in the National Indian Education Study. American Journal of Education, 119, 513-538.

93.

Losey

K. M.

(1995). Mexican American students and classroom interaction: An overview and critique. Review of Educational Research, 65, 283-318.

94.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.

95.

Marsh

H. W.

(1990). A multidimensional, hierarchical model of self-concept: Theoretical and empirical justification. Educational Psychology Review, 2, 77-172.

96.

Marsh

H. W.

(1992). Self Description Questionnaire (SDQ) II: A theoretical and empirical basis for the measurement of multiple dimensions of adolescent self-concept: An interim test manual and a research monograph. Australia: Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney.

97.

Marsh

H. W.

Gouvernet

P. J.

(1989). Multidimensional self-concepts and perceptions of control: Construct validation of responses by children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 57-69.

98.

Marsh

H. W.

Holmes

I. W. M.

(1990). Multidimensional self-concepts: Construct validation of responses by children. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 89-117.

99.

Marsh

H. W.

Shavelson

(1985). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20, 107-123.

100.

Marsh

H. W.

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Köller

Baumert

(2006). Integration of multidimensional self-concept and core personality constructs: Construct validation and relations to well-being and achievement. Journal of Personality, 74, 403-456.

101.

Martin-Beltrán

(2009). Cultivating space for the language boomerang: The interplay of two languages as academic resources. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8, 25-53.

102.

McCarty

T. L.

Lee

T. S.

(2014). Critical culturally sustaining/revitalizing pedagogy and Indigenous education sovereignty. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 101-124.

103.

McKown

(2013). Social equity theory and racial-ethnic achievement gaps. Child Development, 84, 1120-1136.

104.

McKown

Weinstein

R. S.

(2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gender in children’s differential response to teacher expectations. Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 159-184.

105.

Merton

R. K.

(1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. The Antioch Review, 8, 193-210.

106.

Milner

H. R.

(2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 118-131.

107.

Milner

H. R.

(2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. Urban Review, 43, 66-89.

108.

Moll

L. C.

(1988). Some key issues in teaching Latino students. Language Arts, 65, 465-472.

109.

Moll

L. C.

(1990). Social and instructional issues in educating “disadvantaged” students (No. ED314549). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED314549.pdf#page=47

110.

Moll

L. C.

González

(2004). Engaging life: A funds of knowledge approach to multicultural education. In Banks

McGee Banks

(Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp. 699-715). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

111.

Morrell

Duncan-Andrade

J. M. R.

(2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91, 88-92.

112.

Morrison

K. A.

Robbins

H. H.

Rose

D. G.

(2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41, 433-452.

113.

Muijs

Reynolds

(2002). Teachers’ beliefs and behaviors: What really matters? The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 37, 3-15.

114.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). The condition of education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnb.asp

115.

Nieto

(2016). Foreword. In Valenzuela

(Ed.), Growing critically conscious teachers: A social justice curriculum for educators of Latino/a youth (pp. ix-xii). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

116.

Ong

A. D.

Fuller-Rowell

T. E.

Phinney

J. S.

(2010). Measurement of ethnic identity: Recurrent and emergent issues. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 10, 39-49.

117.

Oyserman

Kemmelmeier

Fryberg

Brosh

Hart-Johnson

(2003). Racial-ethnic self-schemas. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 333-347.

118.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

119.

Paris

(2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41, 93-97.

120.

Paris

Alim

H. S.

(2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 85-100.

121.

Park

J. Y.

(2016). Going global and getting graphic: Critical multicultural citizenship education in an afterschool program for immigrant and refugee girls. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18, 126-141.

122.

Phinney

(1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.

123.

Pianta

R. C.

La Paro

K. M.

Hamre

B. K.

(2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) manual, K-3. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

124.

Pohan

C. A.

Aguilar

T. E.

(2001). Measuring educators’ beliefs about diversity in personal and professional contexts. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 159-182.

125.

Pohan

C. A.

Ward

Kouzekanani

Boatright

(2009). The impact of field placement sites on preservice teachers’ beliefs about teaching diverse students. School-University Partnerships, 3, 43-53.

126.

Ponterotto

J. G.

Gretchen

Utsey

S. O.

Stracuzzi

Saya

(2003). The multigroup ethnic identity measure (MEIM): Psychometric review and further validity testing. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 502-515.

127.

Rios-Aguilar

(2010). Measuring funds of knowledge: Contributions to Latina/o students’ academic and non-academic outcomes. Teachers College Record, 112, 2209-2257.

128.

Rodriguez

J. L.

Jones

E. B.

Pang

V. O.

Park

C. D.

(2004). Promoting academic achievement and identity development among diverse high school students. High School Journal, 87, 44-53.

129.

Romero

Arce

Cammarota

(2009). A barrio pedagogy: Identity, intellectualism, activism, and academic achievement through the evolution of critically compassionate intellectualism. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 12, 217-233.

130.

Rosenthal

(1994). Interpersonal expectancy effects: A 30-year perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 176-179.

131.

Rosenthal

Jacobson

(1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review, 3, 16-20.

132.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

(2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 537-552.

133.

Sanchez

(2015, April 7). Mexican-American toddlers: Understanding the achievement gap. National Public Radio. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2015/04/07/397829916/mexican-american-toddlers-understanding-the-achievement-gap

134.

Schunk

D. H.

Pajares

(2005). Competence perceptions and academic functioning. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 85-104). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

135.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2004). Context-conscious portraits and context-blind policy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35, 132-136.

136.

Sleeter

C. E.

(2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47, 562-584.

137.

Stiggins

(1988). Make sure your teachers understand student assessment. Executive Educator, 10, 24-30.

138.

Stovall

(2006). We can relate: Hip-hop culture, critical pedagogy, and the secondary classroom. Urban Education, 41, 585-602.

139.

Tenenbaum

H. R.

Ruck

M. D.

(2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253-273.

140.

Tharp

R. G.

(1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects on teaching and learning in schools. American Psychologist, 44, 349-359.

141.

Thomas

(2014, January 30). The “grit” narrative, “grit” research, and codes that blind. Retrieved from https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/the-grit-narrative-grit-research-and-codes-that-blind

142.

Umaña-Taylor

A. J.

Wong

J. J.

Gonzales

N. A.

Dumka

L. E.

(2012). Ethnic identity and gender as moderators of the association between discrimination and academic adjustment among Mexican-origin adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 773-786.

143.

Valenzuela

(2005). Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

144.

Valenzuela

(2015, April 9). Mexican-American toddlers: (Mis)understanding the achievement gap [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://texasedequity.blogspot.com/2015/04/mexican-american-toddlers-understanding.html

145.

Valenzuela

(Ed.). (2016). Growing critically conscious teachers: A social justice curriculum for educators of Latino/a youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

146.

Villegas

A. M.

Lucas

(2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20-32.

147.

Weinstein

Marshall

Sharp

Botkin

(1987). Pygmalion and the student: Age and classroom differences in children’s awareness of teacher expectations. Child Development, 58, 1079-1093.

148.

Wigfield

Karpathian

(1991). Who am I and what can I do? Children’s self-concepts and motivation in achievement situations. Educational Psychologist, 26, 233-261.

149.

Winne

P. H.

Marx

R. W.

(1977). Reconceptualizing research on teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 668-678.

150.

Wong

P. L.

Murai

Bérta-Ávila

William-White

Baker

Arellano

Echandia

(2007). The M/M Center: Meeting the demand for multicultural, multilingual teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34, 9-35.

151.

Zirkel

(2008). The influence of multicultural educational practices on student outcomes and intergroup relations. Teachers College Record, 110, 1147-1181.