Culturally responsive pedagogies in the visual and performing arts: Exemplars, missed opportunities and challenges

Culturally responsive pedagogies in the visual and performing arts: Exemplars, missed opportunities and challenges

Rawiri Hindle, Catherine Savage, Luanna H. Meyer, 

Christine E. Sleeter, Anne Hynds and Wally Penetito

Abstract

In New Zealand the majority of students attend schools that reflect the dominant mainstream context, yet these schools include indigenous Māori and learners from diverse cultural and language backgrounds. By building on contemporary cultural knowledge and students’ own experiences, the arts have the potential to enhance educational outcomes for a diverse student population. This research examines the effects of an intensive programme of teacher professional development in culturally responsive pedagogies on classroom activities and learning experiences in the arts. The results reveal varying levels of implementation, with consequent effects on the teaching and learning process for students. The implications of these findings are discussed with reference to the literature on arts integration and how the arts can build on students’ cultural knowledge and experiences.

Introduction

Attaining educational equity across the landscape of diversity is a global challenge, requiring effective and culturally responsive practices for all students. New Zealand is not monocultural, yet most students attend “mainstream” monocultural schools that often reflect the historical traditions and colonial histories of the region rather than their diverse multiethnic school populations. Penetito (2009) notes that in New Zealand, as in many other nations, this results in a context of unstated privilege for students whose background matches the dominant culture and represents a cultural mismatch for all others—especially in a hierarchical and competitive economic context (Sleeter & Grant, 2009). This mismatch is particularly problematic given Treaty of Waitangi commitments and obligations of partnership and equity for indigenous Māori and those representing the British Crown (Shields, Bishop, & Mazawi, 2005). In their comprehensive review of the international literature, Castagno and Brayboy (2008) highlight the potential of enhanced pedagogies of culturally responsive schooling for addressing such disparities of educational opportunity and improving educational outcomes for indigenous students.

Multicultural education and culturally responsive pedagogies

Multicultural education scholars such as Banks (2010), Gay (2000) and Sleeter (2005) have provided theoretical frameworks for curricula and pedagogies to reflect multicultural rather than monocultural or dominant-culture perspectives. Less information is available regarding the pedagogy of culturally responsive practices by teachers, and not much is known about how teachers mediate their pedagogy for students whose culture is not privileged in their schools. This is a crucial issue for teachers, who themselves over-represent the dominant school culture and whose background experiences and education may not have equipped them adequately with cultural knowledge and understanding beyond their own life histories. Strategies to prepare teachers for culturally responsive pedagogical practice have included immersion life experiences (Baskerville, 2009), university coursework (Hale, Snow-Gerono, & Morales, 2008), and a range of “multicultural” experiences in their initial teacher education programme or as part of teacher professional development (Sleeter, 2001).

There is, however, some research reporting aspects of culturally responsive pedagogies that may be very important for teacher professional development. Lipka et al. (2005) presented case study analyses demonstrating improvements in Native American students’ mathematical performance as the result of changes made by two teachers towards culturally responsive pedagogies. The teachers in this study used more discursive approaches with their students, including co-operative learning, extended discourse and encouragement of multiple responses and solutions to maths problems rather than having one approach. Similarly, Goldenberg and Gallimore (1989) reported enhanced outcomes for Native Hawai'ian children in the Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP), which stressed active teaching, co-operative learning and positive classroom management strategies.

In New Zealand, the Te Kotahitanga teacher professional development programme in mainstream secondary schools focuses on teacher mastery of an effective teaching profile (ETP), which comprises a set of culturally responsive teaching practices constructed from Māori student narratives (Bishop & Berryman, 2006; Bishop, Berryman, Cavanagh, & Teddy, 2009). An independent evaluation of this programme provides support for Te Kotahitanga as teacher professional development (Meyer et al., 2010; Hynds et al., in press). As part of this evaluation research, Savage et al. (2011) report the effects of different levels of implementation of the ETP in four core subjects: English, mathematics, social studies and science; Penetito, Hindle, Hynds, Savage and Kus (2011) also report how these new teaching practices affect students and their families. These results are promising, but the international evidence regarding the impact of culturally responsive pedagogies across the curriculum remains limited (Trent, Kea, & Oh, 2008).

Culturally responsive pedagogies and the arts

Leading scholars in arts education have argued that the arts can be a vehicle for social action to challenge cultural and racial disparity in the classroom (Desai, 2010; Freedman, 2010; Freedman & Congdon, 2005; Tavin, 2010). Indeed, Ballengee-Morris, Mirin and Rizzi (2000) state that “Art and culture are necessary for social reconstruction, it is impossible to have social reconstruction without the arts” (p. 109). Through the creation of contemporary cultural knowledge, the arts can contribute to an educational system that transforms the learning experience by enabling students to draw on contexts that are meaningful to them (Daniel, Stuhr, & Ballengee-Morris, 2006; Davenport & Gunn, 2009; White & Congdon, 1998). Yet even contemporary discussions of the importance of integration across the arts have not typically included reference to cultural issues as part of this process (Russell & Zembylas, 2007). Furthermore, an increase in the conceptual and theoretical literature has not been accompanied by a similar increase in research on the implementation of culturally responsive pedagogies in the arts (Gadsen, 2008). The literature in arts education primarily comprises descriptions, recommendations and guidelines rather than empirical work, resulting in a dearth of evidence regarding culturally responsive arts education practices in the classroom.

Aims of the present research

This research addresses a relative gap in the international literature by investigating the practice of culturally responsive pedagogies by secondary teachers of the visual and performing arts. The research evaluated the nature and extent of culturally responsive practices in the classroom as one measure of the effectiveness of professional development activities focused on teaching during the first 2 years of secondary school. A major emphasis is on providing a rich description of exemplary culturally responsive practices in the arts as well as examples of lost opportunities or dominant culture examples to the exclusion of others.

Method

Context

A large-scale evaluation of a teacher professional development initiative provided the opportunity to investigate culturally responsive pedagogies in the arts. Te Kotahitanga (unity) was designed by Māori for Māori to redress educational inequities and enhance educational outcomes for Māori in mainstream secondary schools. Te Kotahitanga builds on Māori cultural values and perspectives to enable teachers to develop effective teaching and learning relationships with Māori students. Its emphasis on shifting classroom pedagogy to capitalise on the cultural background and intellectual aspirations of Māori is consistent with emphasis in the arts on connecting curricula with student realities and interests (Desai, 2010; Ballengee-Morris, 2008). At the core of Te Kotahitanga is the ETP, requiring explicit rejection of deficit theorising (i.e., blaming poor outcomes on deficits within students) as a legitimate explanation for Māori student underachievement. In her work on Native American education, Powers (2006) similarly emphasises the critical need for teachers to fundamentally shift from attributing blame for poor educational outcomes onto students and instead to assume teacher agency. An agentic position requires that teachers examine aspects of their practice that might act as barriers to student achievement and change to alternative practices that support student learning in culturally responsive ways.

The programme design reflects research on effective teacher education incorporating professional development that:

•is sustained over time

•focuses on specific instructional strategies or content areas

•engages teachers collectively rather than individually

•represents a coherent model

•requires active learning (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birmann, & Yoon, 2001; Joyce & Showers, 2002).

The professional development begins with an initial induction workshop (hui) introducing culturally response pedagogies of relations (Bishop et al., 2009) followed by regularly scheduled, structured classroom observations, which are then followed by feedback sessions. Individual teachers work with a facilitator teacher with cultural and pedagogical expertise. Teacher teams working with the same group of students also participate in regular co-construction meetings to problem solve collaboratively based on observational and student outcomes data (see Bishop et al., 2009, for more information). Bishop (2011) describes the six dimensions of the ETP as follows:

•manaakitanga (caring for students as culturally located individuals)

•mana motuhake (support for the development of students’ personal and group identities)

•whakapiringatanga (creation of a secure, well-managed learning environment)

•wānanga (effective discursive teaching interactions with Māori as Māori)

•ako (use of a range of strategies to facilitate learning interactions and relationships with learners)

•kotahitanga (promoting, monitoring and reflecting on outcomes leading to enhanced educational achievement for Māori).

Participants

The evaluation encompassed 33 secondary schools participating in Te Kotahitanga, including all 12 schools that had participated in the project for 4 years, plus 10 of the 21 schools selected from those participating in the project for 2 years at the time of data collection (see Meyer et al., 2010, for more detail about the evaluation design, etc.). A total of 336 Years 9–10 classrooms were systematically observed at these 22 schools. The schools recruited teacher participation for observations, and each teacher signed individual voluntary consent according to ethical requirements; to our knowledge no teacher refused participation. Observations occurred across secondary subjects, including business, English, health and physical education, foreign languages, Māori language, mathematics, science, social studies, technology/IT/graphics, and the visual and performing arts.

Observation procedures and analysis

Each class was observed by a research team member using an observation data sheet developed and trialled specifically for the evaluation. This four-page data sheet covers room organisation, classroom context factors, ETP dimensions and other aspects such as a narrative of the first and final 5 minutes of the lesson, and checks of type of activity on a 10-minute schedule throughout class (e.g., individual seat work, group work, teacher presentation, etc.). Space was provided for detailed notes regarding evidence of or missed opportunities for the six different ETP dimensions.

Each observation was scored independently by two additional researchers (not involved in that observation) to identify high, moderate or low implementation levels. High implementation required evidence of at least five of the six ETP dimensions, with strong evidence of two or more: culturally responsive pedagogy; discursive teaching practices; stated learning outcomes and high expectations; positive teacher–student relationships; caring for students as culturally located; and positive classroom management. Low implementation meant no or only weak evidence of examples of ETP dimensions, and those scored as moderate implementation fell in the middle. Scoring discrepancies were resolved by a third independent coding, with discussion across coders to reach agreement.

Results

Across all schools and curricular areas, 75 percent of more than 300 teachers across participating schools were observed to be demonstrating either moderate or high implementation of the ETP. The analysis of the 35 observations in the visual and performing arts revealed proportionately higher percentages of implementation compared to other curricular areas across schools. Of the 19 teachers observed in music, dance and drama, 84 percent demonstrated either moderate or high levels of implementation. Similarly, 81 percent of the 16 visual arts teachers were observed to be either moderate or high implementers. In the next section we have selected several examples from the high and low implementers to provide a rich description of exemplars as well as evidence of missed opportunities and challenges.

Levels of implementation of the ETP in the arts

Three high and two low implementer exemplars show how teachers operating at different levels reflected dimensions of the ETP. To some extent, ETP dimensions can represent teaching quality generally, but we highlight findings regarding three dimensions that strongly reflect aspects specific to culturally responsive pedagogy: manaakitanga (caring for students as culturally located individuals); wānanga (effective discursive teaching interactions with Māori as Māori); and ako (use of a range of strategies to facilitate learning interactions and relationships with learners).

Characteristics common across high implementers

Tables 1, 2 and 3 provide examples of how all high implementers demonstrated key aspects of the ETP. They showed caring by greeting students by name, pronouncing names correctly, as a good first step in creating relationships with students. High implementers also used te reo Māori and encouraged the use of te reo in the lesson. High implementers used humour and allowed for the use of humour from students more often than low or moderate implementers. For example, a dance teacher compared dance movements in a warm-up with “Walking down to the mall with your mates … suddenly seeing a girl you like … whoops there’s your aunty driving past in the car …” while modelling different walking styles. The high implementing teachers used positive reinforcement to engage the students; one teacher encouraged students to keep continuously focused on completing the art portfolio (Table 3), stressing the importance of keeping focused in order to complete important tasks.

Table 1 An analysis of a high implementation Year 9 dance lesson

Table 2 An analysis of a high implementation Year 10 drama lesson

Table 3 An analysis of a high implementation Year 11 visual arts lesson

High implementers encouraged discursive teacher–student and student–student interactions, and teachers asked context-related, open-ended questions requiring students to expand or elaborate on answers. Yet, despite encouragement, rich examples of discursive interactions were not observed. The high implementing teachers all employed a range of relevant strategies to engage the students in the learning. In the dance lesson (Table 1), the students mostly worked as a whole class and the teacher modelled movement motifs as examples for students to create their own movement motifs. At times the students would work in pairs to create dance. In visual arts (Table 3), students mostly worked independently, with the teacher moving around the room working with the students on a one-to-one basis. In the drama lesson (Table 2), the teacher worked with students in whole-class, small-group and pair scenarios. Teachers focused students on the learning outcome by having them consider and think about the learning in which they would be engaged. This was exemplified in a drama lesson, where the teacher read out the learning intentions with the whole class and then asked the students how they would know they have achieved the learning intention by the end of the lesson. Thus, students were engaged in reflecting about and responding to possibilities throughout based on explicit learning intentions.

Characteristics common across low implementers

Tables 4 and 5 illustrate typical scenarios for teachers rated as low implementers. Although learning intentions were posted on the whiteboard in one case, neither teacher referred to the learning intentions during their lessons. Both teachers greeted the students in a positive manner but missed the opportunity to greet them in te reo Māori or to reference Māori language, content, epistemologies or pedagogical knowledge at any time. Given that the visual arts lesson was based on tāniko (Māori weaving style), the teacher missed an opportunity to reflect on the cultural significance of the art form (see Table 4). There was little to no evidence of these two teachers caring for students as culturally located individuals. There was a missed opportunity in the music lesson (Table 5), where the students disagreed with the teacher that Coldplay was a “top group”: the teacher might have built on students’ interests and experiences by allowing students to reference their own musical preferences as part of the lesson rather than his own.

Table 4 An analysis of a low implementation Year 9 visual arts lesson

Table 5 An analysis of a low implementation Year 9 music lesson

In both these examples the teacher is framed as the source of information transmitted to students, with little or no interaction between teacher and students or students among themselves.

These examples illustrate how teachers missed opportunities to create expanded learning interactions beyond those seen as controlled by the teacher from teacher to students. As a key ETP component, manaakitanga (caring for students as culturally located individuals) assumes that teachers are interested in students’ cultural backgrounds and lived experiences. Getting to know students as culturally located implies having classrooms where there is a high degree of interaction and collaboration between teacher and students and where knowledge is co-constructed. This is similar to Ballengee-Morris’s discussion of co-constructing knowledge in art by viewing it as a dialogic tool and focusing on constructing a dialogic space for social reconstruction as well as shared and contested meaning (2010, p. 278). Low implementation of the ETP also revealed a limited range of strategies to facilitate learning interactions. Modelling can be a powerful way to engage students, but both these low implementer teachers missed the opportunity to model desired outputs in their respective arts disciplines. Their transmission teaching styles, with the teacher telling students what to do and students following instructions, did not include any opportunities to either clarify set tasks or discuss other possibilities.

Discussion

Hilberg and Tharp (2002) reported that teaching approaches found to be effective with indigenous learners were associated with enhanced achievement levels for all students. Various aspects of the ETP can be regarded simply as “good teaching”; these include discursive teaching and learning pedagogies, having high expectations with stated learning outcomes and explicit success criteria, and communicating caring for students and their learning. All students can be expected to benefit from having teachers who demonstrate such dimensions in their teaching. Other aspects of the ETP are more specific to culturally responsive pedagogies, requiring that teachers actively engage with student experiences, cultural strengths and cultural networks as contributions to the teaching and learning process. In addition, different curricular areas present different opportunities for incorporating cultural perspectives into the teaching and learning process as well as bringing students’ cultural backgrounds into the picture. Students may not have lengthy school histories of either success or failure in the arts compared to other core curricular areas such as mathematics and literacy. Hallam (2010) emphasises the unique opportunities arts teachers have if they are actively involved in their discipline and apply professional learning to their teaching to engage their students fully, ultimately improving students’ achievement and their enjoyment of school. Thus, the arts allow investigation of the extent to which the structure of secondary schools and secondary curricula can enable student engagement and learning.

We found that high implementers of culturally responsive pedagogies were more inclined than low implementers to ask questions to engage students further in the teaching and learning process. They tended to ask students to elaborate on their answers, thereby engaging the students in higher levels of thinking. Disappointingly, there were fewer examples of teachers’ co-constructing learning with the students. We show in Table 3 how a visual arts teacher categorised as a high implementer worked with her students in highly collaborative ways. The framework for student learning was based on predetermined learning outcomes/intentions, but contexts were co-constructed between the teacher and each of the students through teacher–student dialogue based on student interest (cultural, social, etc.). Freedman (2010) affirms teacher and student co-construction of knowledge, stating “without attending to students’ interest in arts education, we cannot hope to lead students to creative thought because creativity is fundamentally based on desire” (p. 11). This approach to teaching and learning acknowledges the student’s prior knowledge and lived experiences. However, low implementers generally used a transmission style of teaching, teaching from the front of the classroom and giving out necessary information with little elaboration. Another pattern evident with the high implementers was the use of humour in the classroom. These teachers used humour as part of their classroom delivery and would also allow for the use of humour from the students. This strategy was highly effective in engaging students and acknowledged students as culturally located individuals. Humour, appropriate for classroom environments, is well documented in the literature as a factor influencing students’ positive attitudes towards learning and their teachers (Hullena & Hullena, 2010).

Missed opportunities for both high and low implementers suggested a lack of knowledge or understandings by teachers about how to engage students in discursive interactions, particularly those based on cultural knowledge. The international literature reveals increased interest in the integration of the arts, although the issue of culture has not always been included in these discussions (see, for example, Russell & Zembylas, 2007). With respect to the lack of teacher knowledge about cultural epistemologies, attempts at teacher engagement can be viewed as adding a cultural dimension to a formal entrenched structure (e.g., process drama; see Heathcote, 1984). In the drama lesson in Table 2, three Māori students used te reo Māori and incorporated Māori song and dance into their Shakespeare scenario. Although the teacher encouraged students to work within their own cultural dimensions, the opportunity to engage students at a deeper level of cultural interpretation was missed due to the teacher’s lack of knowledge of Māori cultural dimensions. This same scenario also reveals an absence of teacher and students co-constructing learning, which occurs when the teacher is the drama expert and students contribute Māori knowledge.

Cultural opportunities for integration of the arts

Anderson (1996) argued that dividing the arts into four disciplines—art, music, dance and theatre—is “quintessentially Western in conception and structure” (p. 58). He emphasised that in many non-Western cultures the arts are not constructed as disciplines but integrated. This is certainly the case for the arts in New Zealand, where the Māori arts curriculum document is distinguished from most official curriculum documents in having been written by Māori, in the Māori language, from a Māori world view. The philosophy and methodology for Māori arts present an integrated framework across ngā toi (arts) disciplines, including toi ataata (visual arts), toi püoro (music) and ngā mahi a te rëhia (performing arts). Each of these areas is a rich blend of many arts disciplines. In contrast, the general curriculum for the arts taught in English follows the more Western tradition of separation into the separate disciplines. Within this curriculum, the system first formalises drama as one of four separate disciplines, then narrows possibilities within each discipline to Western perspectives, and finally privileges process drama even within the drama discipline.

The integration of disciplines in Māori performing arts provides a positive example of how culture contributes to teaching and learning in the arts, including storytelling, whaikörero (speech making), weapon training, games, korikori tinana (Māori movement), dances of different cultures, stilt walking and the pöwhiri ritual framed as a performing art. To illustrate, the pöwhiri (welcome ceremony) is a ritual encounter involving the tangata whenua (local people) and manuhiri (visitors). The ceremony encompasses the karanga (call), karakia (incantations), wero (challenge) and whaikörero (speeches). The ceremony is neither dance nor drama, but incorporates aspects of both. It is a performance art, in that an “audience” is a crucial part of the process. The pöwhiri requires participants to engage in acting, moving, singing, dance and drama in a public exhibition. Special occasions such as pöwhiri typify the lengthy tradition of incorporating Māori arts into everyday life, in contrast to viewing the arts as primarily a leisure or entertainment endeavour. Thus, the Māori arts curriculum is based on Māori experience and knowledge.

Experiential learning in the arts

High implementers of culturally responsive pedagogies in each of the arts also modelled desired outcomes with students, whereas low implementer teachers did not. Modelling in the arts is associated with the notion of “experiential learning” and is seen as a powerful pedagogy to engage students in the learning process. As a teaching strategy, modelling can also “open up” the possibility for discursive teacher–student and student–student interactions. Although high implementers used open-ended questioning techniques and asked students to elaborate answers, teacher encouragement of student–student discursive interactions was limited. Perhaps teachers in the arts see themselves as experts so have limited views of students’ ability to engage at a higher level. This may be an important area for future research.

A final comment on cultural considerations

The early 1980s saw a resurgence of Māori knowledge, language and culture through alternative education movements such as köhanga reo and kura kaupapa Māori. While efforts have been made to revive Māori language and culture, there is still work to be done on rediscovering tradition and creating contemporary Māori knowledge. The arts can make a powerful contribution to contemporary Māori knowledge through social and cultural reconstruction (Ballengee-Morris et al., 2000). Te Kotahitanga is associated with effective changes in teaching practice on key components of the ETP, but the evidence suggests that teachers lack the necessary expertise in Māori epistemologies and pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning in the arts. Māori pedagogical knowledge draws on holistic perspectives that aim to engage learners at a deeper level of knowing—a knowing of the mind, body and soul. Such approaches advocate an integrated delivery of the arts in education but are at odds with the present secondary school system, where the subject areas in the arts are taught in the four distinctly separate disciplines of dance, drama, visual arts and music. Efforts need to be made to integrate the arts without sacrificing the integrity of each art form or its rich vocabulary.

Enhanced use of discursive pedagogies would also enable Māori and other students to bring their own cultural expertise into the classroom, which could in turn support the teaching and learning process as teachers acquire new skills to care for their students as culturally located individuals. This research addresses professional development through pedagogies that are intended to be culturally responsive to the indigenous population of Māori students in New Zealand. It is important for educational systems to recognise that all students have a right to expect teaching and learning that doesn’t disadvantage them by requiring them to leave their cultural identity outside the school door in order to succeed.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Contract No. 387–2904, awarded to Victoria University of Wellington by the Ministry of Education. However, any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors, and no official endorsement from the Ministry of Education should be inferred. The authors wish to thank the schools, professionals, family members, students and many others whose participation in the research made this work possible. All authors were affiliated with Victoria University of Wellington when this research was carried out.

References

Anderson, T. (1996). The national standards for arts education: A (multi)cultural assessment. Studies in Art Education, 38, 55–60.

Ballengee-Morris, C. (2008). Indigenous aesthetics: Universal circles related and connected to everything called life. Art Education, 61, 30–33.

Ballengee-Morris, C. (2010). They came, they claimed, they named, and we blame: Art education in negotiation and conflict. Studies in Art Education, 51, 275–287.

Ballengee-Morris, C., Mirin, K., & Rizzi, C. (2000). Decolonization, art education and one Guarani nation of Brazil. Studies in Art Education, 41, 100–113.

Banks, J. A. (2010). Approaches to multicultural curricular reform. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (7th ed., pp. 233–256). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Baskerville, D. (2009). Navigating the unfamiliar in a quest towards culturally responsive pedagogy in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 461–467.

Bishop, R. (2011). Te Kotahitanga: Kaupapa Māori in mainstream classrooms. In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Professional development for culturally responsive and relationship-based pedagogy (pp. 23–45). New York: Peter Lang.

Bishop, R., & Berryman, M. (2006). Culture speaks: Cultural relationships and classroom learning. Wellington: Huia.

Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Cavanagh, T., & Teddy, L. (2009). Te Kotahitanga: Addressing educational disparities facing Māori students in New Zealand. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 734–742.

Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78, 941–993.

Daniel, V. A. H., Stuhr, P. L., & Ballengee-Morris, C. (2006). Suggestions for integrating the arts into curriculum. Art Education, 59, 6–11.

Davenport, M. G., & Gunn, K. (2009). Collaboration in animation: Working together to empower indigenous youth. Art Education, 62(5), 6–12.

Desai, D. (2010). The challenge of new colorblind racism in art education. Art Education, 63(5), 22–27.

Freedman, K. (2010). Rethinking creativity: A definition to support contemporary practice. Studies in Art Education, 63(2), 8–15.

Freedman, K., & Congdon, K. (2005). What I have learned from “other” art educators. Studies in Art Education, 46(2), 138–149.

Gadsen, V. L. (2008). The arts and education: Knowledge generation, pedagogy, and the discourse of learning. Review of Research in Education, 32, 29–61.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birmann, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Teaching California’s diverse student population: The common ground between educational and cultural research. California Public Schools Forum, 3, 41–56.

Hale, A., Snow-Gerono, J., & Morales, F. (2008). Transformative education for culturally diverse learners through narrative and ethnography. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1413–1425.

Hallam, S. (2010). The power of music: Its impact on the intellectual, social and personal development of children and young people. International Journal of Music Education, 28, 267–288.

Heathcote, D. (1984). Excellence in teaching. In L. Johnson & C. O’Neill (Eds.), Dorothy Heathcote, collected writings on education and drama (pp. 18–25). London: Hutchinson.

Hilberg, R., & Tharp, R. (2002). Theoretical perspectives, research findings, and classroom implications of the learning styles of American Indian and Alaska Native students. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

Hullena, T., & Hullena, V. (2010). Student–teacher relationships: A pathway for at-risk youth. In V. Green & S. Cherrington (Eds.), Delving into diversity (pp. 9–20). New York: Science Publishers.

Hynds, A., Sleeter, C. E., Hindle, R., Savage, C., Penetito, W., & Meyer, L. H. (in press). Te Kotahitanga: A case study of a repositioning approach to teacher professional development for culturally responsive pedagogies. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Lipka, J., Hogan, M. P., Webster, J. P., Yanez, E., Adams, B., Clark, S., et al. (2005). Math in a cultural context: Two case studies of a successful culturally-based math project. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 36, 367–385.

Meyer, L. H., Penetito, W., Hynds, A., Savage, C., Hindle, R., & Sleeter, C. E. (2010). Evaluation of Te Kotahitanga: 2004–2008. Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved 4 May 2011, from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/78910

Penetito, W. (2009). The struggle to educate the Maori in New Zealand. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Rutledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 288–300). New York: Routledge.

Penetito, W., Hindle, R., Hynds, A., Savage, C., & Kus, L. (2011). The impact of culturally responsive pedagogies on students and families. In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Professional development for culturally responsive and relationship-based pedagogy (pp. 139–161). New York: Peter Lang.

Powers, K. M. (2006). An exploratory study of cultural identity and culture-based educational programs for urban American Indian students. Urban Education, 41(1), 20–49.

Russell, J., & Zembylas, M. (2007). Arts integration in the curriculum: A review of research and implications for teaching and learning. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 287–302). New York: Springer.

Savage, C., Hindle, R., Meyer, L. H., Hynds, A., Penetito, W., & Sleeter, C. E. (2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: Indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 183–198.

Shields, C., Bishop, R., & Mazawi, A. E. (2005). Pathologizing practices: The impact of deficit thinking on education. New York: Peter Lang.

Sleeter, C. E. (2001). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation for historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education, 25(1), 209–250. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Sleeter, C. E. (2005). Un-standardizing curriculum: Multicultural teaching in standards-based classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sleeter, C. E., & Grant, C. A. (2009). Making choices for multicultural education: Five approaches to race, class, and gender (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Tavin, K. M. (2010). Six acts of miscognition: Implications for art education. Studies in Art Education, 52, 55–68.

Trent, S. C., Kea, C. D., & Oh, K. (2008). Preparing preservice educators for cultural diversity: How far have we come? Exceptional Children, 74, 328–350.

White, J. H., & Congdon, K. (1998). Travel, boundaries and the movement of culture(s): Explanation for the folk/fine art quandary. Art Education, 51, 20–42.

The authors

Rawiri Hindle (Ngāti Kurï, Pohutiare) is a senior lecturer in Te Kura Māori at Victoria University. His specialist areas are the Māori arts in education as well as Māori epistemologies and pedagogies.

Email: rawiri.hindle@vuw.ac.nz

Dr Catherine Savage (Ngāi Tahu) is the Kaihautü, Chief Executive, of Te Tapuae o Rehua.

Email: Catherine.savage@tetapuae.co.nz

Luanna H. Meyer is Professor of Education (Research) and Director of the Jessie Hetherington Centre for Educational Research at Victoria University of Wellington.

Email: luanna.meyer@vuw.ac.nz

Christine E. Sleeter is Professor Emerita at California State University, Monterey Bay and President of the National Association for Multicultural Education.

Email: csleeter@gmail.com

Dr Anne Hynds is a senior lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in diversity and inclusion, research methods and social justice leadership.

Email: Anne.hynds@vuw.ac.nz

Wally Penetito (Tainui, Ngāti Hauā, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Raukawa) is Professor of Māori Education and Co-Director of He Pārekereke, Institute for Research and Development in Māori and Pacific Education at Victoria University of Wellington.

Email: wally.penetito@vuw.ac.nz