Classroom teachers' cultural schemata become important factors
when they use them as the standard or yardstick to instruct culturally,
linguistically, and economically diverse (CLED) students. However, when
teachers' yardstick is comprised of limited cross-cultural
knowledge and experiences, they cannot gauge the true learning potential
of CLED students. This ineptness in conjunction with "inflated
power and status" results in teachers easily distorting,
discounting, disparaging, and/or devaluing CLED students' language,
cultural values, beliefs, motivation, aspirations, expectations, and/or
intellectual abilities. Examples of how teachers' monistic cultural
schemata result in negative outcomes are presented.
**********
When we encounter people from other societies or cultures, they
catch our attention because they "look" different, they speak
a language we don't understand, their actions are odd, or they
believe differently than we ordinarily do. Their religious beliefs may
not make sense to us at all and their cultural heritage and life
experiences may differ greatly from those with which we are accustomed.
Indeed, many of these cultural differences are observable, such as skin
color, dress, spoken language, customs, gestures, greeting rituals,
child rearing practices, emotional expressions, food, eating habits, and
lifestyles to name a few. Some of these differences are less obvious but
may be more "cultural shocking" than those that we see or
hear. For example, there are dramatic differences between cultural
groups' beliefs about personal space, or what they believe to be
appropriate or inappropriate patterns of touching. Attitudes, values,
beliefs that drive courtship patterns and patterns of interaction also
reveal great differences between cultural groups. Our reaction to these
culturally different phenomena is natural because their characteristics
do not match information stored in our cognitive schemata.
According to anthropologists, sociologists, and psychologists, all
individuals develop patterns of feeling, thinking, believing, speaking,
and doing things through the socialization processes of the cultural
group of which they are a member (Gollnick & Chinn, 2009). These
patterns of behavior are learned over a lifetime and are organized,
categorized, and stored as COGNITIVE SCHEMATA (Shiraev & Levy,
2001). Cognitive schemata become an individual's cultural lenses
through which the environment is viewed and evaluated (Matsumoto, 2000).
And, because these schemata are reflections of the individual's
identity, they are highly valued, protected, and defended from any
threat of change.
So, when we encounter stimuli that match information stored in our
cognitive schemata, we understand it and we decide to accept or reject
it either consciously or subconsciously. If stimuli are misunderstood or
are strikingly different than those to which we are accustomed, the
stimuli are treated as threats to our schemata and these stimuli usually
trigger defensive reactions. Defensive reactions function to preserve
and protect our cognitive schemata and the lifestyle they represent.
However, while schemata are important to support our individuality,
there is a danger that these schemata become factors in suppressing
other's beliefs, values, customs, and language.
Matsumoto and Juang (2008, p. 330) believe that "how we
understand or construe our sense of self is intimately and fundamentally
tied to how we understand the world around us and our relationships with
others in that world." Therefore, our cognitive schemata direct our
psychological and personality makeup, and we use these schemata as the
standard or yardstick to compare our beliefs, our personal attributes,
and our behaviors with those of others. These comparisons are made on
abstract (covert) phenomenon (e.g., values, attitudes, aspirations,
expectations, etiquette, beliefs) as well as (overt) behaviors we see,
hear, touch, or smell (e.g., dress, food, spoken and written language,
study habits, sports skills, how respect is displayed).
Because we create these schemata based on the narrow criteria
established by our native group, our interpretation of the world is
ethnocentric and stereotypic. That is, information comprising our
schemata is based only on our cultural group's viewpoint. In
essence, then, the cultural group to which we belong has much to say
about the type of information comprising our schemata--good or bad. For
example, if the cultural group to which we belong has a positive view of
culturally different individuals, there is a good chance that we will
have a tendency to maintain a positive view of culturally different
individuals. The opposite is also true. If the cultural group to which
we belong has a negative view of culturally different individuals, in
all likelihood, we will also have negative views toward culturally
different individuals.
When interacting with individuals from cultural groups other than
our own, our ethnocentrism is manifested either overtly (e.g., what we
say, the tone of voice in saying things, how we treat culturally
different individuals: discrimination, proselytizing, verbal
aggressiveness) and/or covertly (e.g., attitudes of superiority,
prejudice, negative stereotypes, hostility, anger, fear, hatred,
intolerance, injustice, and/or mistrust). It can be reasoned that covert
ethnocentric behaviors aimed at culturally, linguistically, and
economically diverse (CLED) students may be more dangerous than overt
ethnocentric behaviors because covert behaviors cannot be seen, heard or
touched. Therefore, these students cannot defend against what they
cannot see, hear or touch. In any case, expressions of ethnocentricism
usually have dire consequences for all individuals, but the consequences
seem to be more profound for individuals from suppressed cultural
groups.
Consequences of Monistic Schemata in the Classroom
While classroom teachers' interpretation of culturally diverse
phenomenon may be stereotypically positive (e.g., Asian students are
smarter than other ethnic minorities, or girls typically behave better
than boys), their interpretations may also be detrimental if they are
stereotypically negative (e.g., African American students are more
disobedient than other children, or speaking Spanish is detrimental to
Mexican children's academic achievement and social advancement).
Therefore, classroom teachers who know only one culture are likely to
use information in their monistic schemata as a cultural yardstick to
measure the extent to which a students' appearance, social
behaviors, speech patterns, or academic achievement deviates from
mainstream-based expectations. The cumulative effect of teachers'
instructional and managerial decisions based on their culturally laden
cognitive schemata has historically served to deepen negative
stereotypes about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse
(CLED) students. Students who possess cultural and language attributes
that differ from those of their teachers become lighting rods for
teachers' instructional and disciplinary practices. Furthermore,
these students' cultural and language differences conveniently
serve as reasons or explanations for their low academic achievement,
lack of motivation, lags in reading and math achievement, lack of
acculturation, speech problems, etc.
Suffice it say, classroom teachers' cultural schemata can be a
crucial factor in determining whether or not CLED students succeed or
fail in acquiring important and essential academic and social skills
(King, Houston, and Middleton, 2001). The rationale for this position is
that teachers are in control. Classroom teachers understand that they,
not students, represent the school system and that they have the
"power" to manage the classroom environment according to
established guidelines--which are based on the mainstream culture.
However, for teachers who have limited cross-cultural knowledge or
experiences, the inherent "power to manage" is accentuated by
a perception that they possess superior cultural values, beliefs, and
abilities to those possessed by CLED students. This perception of
superiority creates "inflated" power and status for classroom
teachers (Plata, 2008), and when coupled with limited cross-cultural
knowledge and contributes to an inability to gauge the true learning
potential of CLED students. It should come as no surprise that teachers
have been found to rely on stereotype beliefs and biased attitudes about
culturally diverse students in their work (Causey, Thomas, &
Armento, 2000). As a consequence, CLED students' language, cultural
values, beliefs, motivation, aspirations, expectations, intellectual
abilities, and other attributes have been easily distorted, discounted,
disparaged, and/or devalued.
Reports on the achievement status of culturally, linguistically,
and economically diverse students, continue to indicate that these
students lag behind their mainstream peers in all aspects of the
educational process--academically, socially, and vocationally (Aud, Fox,
& Kewal Ramani, 2010). With forethought and in-depth study,
discrepancies between CLED and mainstream students could be linked to
teachers' application of ethnocentric cultural schemata to the
education and management of students. If this is the case, monistic
teaching methodology has had devastating consequences on CLED
students' short and long-term intellectual, social, and emotional
development.
Because the teachers' cultural schemata drive their beliefs
and level of expectation for CLED students, they have an impact on how
and what they teach (Pajares, 1992) and the extent to which they (1)
discount the negative effects of past and present discrimination on
students and their families (Bollin & Finkel, 1995), (2) perceive
cultural and language differences as deficits (Artiles & Trent,
1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995), (3) believe that culturally different
students can only become "good students" if they learn the
superior mainstream's values (Meador, 2005), (4) are willing to
understand cultural diversity (Sleeter, 2001), (5) rely on stereotype
misconceptions in their teaching (Milner, Flowers, Moore, Moore, &
Flowers, 2003), (6) respond to students' requests (Plata &
Robertson, 1988), (7) adapt the curriculum to meet student needs (Ortiz,
2002), and (8) allow their expectations for students to be guided by the
student's first/last name (Anderson-Clark, Green, & Henley,
2008).
White-Clark (2005) believes that teachers' misconceptions and
beliefs about cultural diversity lead to misunderstanding, miseducation,
and possibly the mistreatment of CLED students. Most discouraging,
however, is that many teachers do not perceive themselves part of the
problems students of color experience. They also believe that programs
to remedy racial bias are discriminatory against Whites (Su, 1997).
All things considered, classroom teachers need to be on guard about
the use of their inherent "power" to refer students to
subordinate roles based on stereotypes (Fiske, 1993) or based on
students' racial, cultural and/or language differences (Hanson,
1992), or based on student's skin color, income, or family name.
Decisions based on these attributes do not do justice to CLED
students' acculturation experiences, language proficiency, or
socioeconomic heterogeneity. Some of these students may be from low
socioeconomic circumstances, monolingual in their native language, and
are at the initial stages of acculturation. Some may be from families
with ambitions to move up in socioeconomic status, are in transition
toward becoming acculturated while retaining or losing their native
language, depending on their motivation and opportunities. Other
students may come from stable socioeconomic environments and know only
the mainstream culture and its language. Because of students'
acculturation, educational, and socioeconomic heterogeneity, there are
risks in debilitating CLED students when decisions are based on
"one size fits all" stereotypes.
Negative Outcomes Stemming from Teachers' Monistic Cultural
Schemata
There are many traits that trigger a teacher's defensive
posture toward students, including mode of dress, hairstyle, or tattoos.
For other teachers the trait to which they react may be the
student's racial or ethnic background, and for others, it may be
the student's SES background. However, it is well known that the
student's language is a lightning rod that draws attention,
especially in relation to instruction (Griego-Jones, 1994). Regardless
of the characteristic or attribute, negative attention given to these
traits has the tendency to negatively impact students' social and
academic performances.
While many of the negative outcomes listed next are not caused by
the teachers' monistic cultural schemata, they can be linked to
teachers' instruction and the evaluation of student
performance--both of which reflect teachers' cultural values,
beliefs, and attitudes. No other action impacts students as much as what
and how instruction is imparted, how students performances are
evaluated, and the disposition of evaluation results. In a system that
emphatically endorses a monolingual approach to academic learning,
"what is valued is what is assessed" (Connor & Boskin,
2001, p 26). For example, if classroom teachers believe that
Spanish-speaking students' difficulty in learning English is due to
a learning disability, even though there is evidence to the contrary,
teachers may implicitly equate speaking a foreign language (and by
extension being culturally different) and disability (Artiles &
Trent, 1994). Results of this mindset is reflected in an extensive
literature base discussing the over and under representation of
linguistically different students in special education and gifted and
talented programs (e.g., Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002;
MacMillan, Gresham, Lopez, & Bocian, 1996); Ortiz, 1997; Oswald,
Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; Taylor, 2005).
The potential negative outcomes stemming from classroom
teachers' monistic cultural schemata listed next is not exhaustive,
but it is hoped that it serves to emphasize how cultural insensitivity
impacts CLED students. By presenting examples of potential negative
consequences of monistic teaching and classroom management practices, it
is hoped that classroom teachers will become motivated to learn
appropriate skills and attitudes that aid in reversing the trend of
unacceptable achievement outcomes for cultural, linguistic, and economic
diverse students.
Classroom teachers' monistic cultural schemata has the
potential to--
1. Motivate teachers to create a superiority-inferiority continuum
for categorizing individuals.
2. Contribute to CLED students' self degradation, low
self-esteem, and high anxiety by convincing them that their cultural
heritage and cultural attributes are stigmatic and should be eliminated.
3. Perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy that CLED students do not
have the capacity to learn as do mainstream students, which leads to
inappropriate instruction and student failure that--
a. contributes to the over representation of CLED students in
"remedial" and special education classes and under
representation in gifted and talented and advanced placement classes,
b. limits CLED students' opportunities to compete for post
secondary education academic scholarships or to compete for employment
opportunities equal to those available to their mainstream peers, which
serves to perpetuate the groups' low socioeconomic status,
c. contributes to CLED students'
"self-helplessness," "hopelessness," high drop-out
rates, low aspirations, low expectations, etc.,
d. contributes to CLED students' acculturative stress,
atypical behavior, disinterest in school, which leads to truancy, and
eventually to the disengagement from all school activities, and
e. is a root factor for aggressive, destructive, and unacceptable
behaviors (e.g., joining gangs, bullying, teacher assaults, school
break-ins, defacing or destroying school property, destroying community
property, breaking societal rules and laws, and creating
antiestablishment dress codes, customs, and speech, teen pregnancy, drug
trafficking, etc).
4. Create feelings of alienation in CLED students, which are easily
converted into anger and expressed as retaliatory activities (see 3.e).
5. Lead to the use of power to control CLED students, including
sanctions, threats, scolding, coercion, suspensions, expulsions, which
result in student-teacher power struggles and increased student
alienation.
6. Increase division, conflict and mistrust between teachers and
CLED students, school and CLED students, and school and home.
7. Teach CLED students to become passive resistant adults who defy
mainstream authority, disprove of school's academic standards and
societal guidelines in general, and to shirk societal/civic
responsibilities.
8. "Force" CLED students to learn to survive through
illegitimate means, such as cheating, coercion, deceit, deception,
dishonesty, fabrication, forgery, fraud, power, pretext, threat, etc.,
which are applied in adult life.
9. Generalize stereotypes and low expectations to all CLED students
without regard to individual differences within groups.
10. Require CLED students to replace their beliefs, values,
language, etc. with the beliefs, values, language, etc. of the
mainstream group.
11. Make CLED students the focus of jokes or other activities that
renders them ineffective and perceived as less important than their
mainstream peers.
12. Provide culturally unresponsive instruction for CLED students,
which more often than not results in these students':
a. Limited motivation to study, to take pride in producing high
quality school work, possess negative attitude toward school and
learning in general, and possess negative attitude toward teachers,
peers, and staff,
b. Questioning the relevancy of education, school authority, and
school rules, which often leads to their disengagement from school
functions, activities, and classroom tasks as reflected in class
cutting, absenteeism, and dropping out of school,
c. Disrupting classroom instruction and engaging in dishonest
behavior--cheating, stealing, plagiarizing--in an attempt to avoid
failure,
d. Low academic achievement and poor performances on standardized
tests,
e. Little or no interaction with teachers and/or other school staff
due to mistrust, fear of retaliation, or apprehension about being
embarrassed in the presence of their peers,
f. Low educational and career aspirations and expectations that
typically result in unemployment and/or under-employment,
g. Being easily manipulated by peers to break school and societal
rules (playing hooky, playing pranks or bullying other students), and
h. Adults with deficiencies in language and numerical skills and
impaired adult relationships.
Closing Comment
Experiences have shown that too often individuals from mainstream
society use their cultural schemata as a yardstick to relegate
culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse individuals to a
subservient role and to treat them accordingly. In fact, it is a common
belief that to succeed in American society, CLED individuals must
replace their cultural values, beliefs, attitudes and language with
mainstream values, beliefs, attitudes, and language. This implies that
mainstream values, beliefs, attitudes, and language are superior to
those possessed by individuals from culturally, linguistically and
economically diverse groups. The schools (and by extension classroom
teachers) have played the key role in the transformation process. By
putting in place monistic policies, procedural guidelines, and
instruction to ensure that this transformation is achieved. To date,
however, these approaches have resulted in a Pyrrhic victory (Fordham,
1988), that is, CLED students who assimilate/acculturate and succeed in
school do so at a devastating personal cost--the loss of their native
language and a sense of who they are. The imposed transformation process
has also resulted in acculturative stress with corollary ramifications
as reflected in the potential negative outcomes, which are listed in
this article.
To prevent this phenomenon from recurring, educators--especially
classroom teachers--need to expand their cultural schemata so that it
allows them to play a significant role in preparing CLED students to
face challenges brought about by family obligations, employment, or by
advanced educational pursuits. The alternative is for teachers to
continue to maintain the status quo by holding on to their monistic
cultural schemata, and use students' race, ethnicity, language, and
socioeconomic status as explanations for their academic
underachievement, their atypical behavior, and their low social status.
References
Anderson-Clark, T.N., Green, R.J., & Henley, T.B. (2008). The
relationship between first names and teacher expectations for
achievement motivation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
27(1), 94-99.
Artiles, A.J., & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of
minority students in special education: A continuing debate. Journal of
Special Education, 27, 410-437.
Artiles, A.J., Harry, B., Reschly, D.J., & Chinn, P.C. (2002).
Over-identification of students of colorin special education: Acritical
overview. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(1), 3-10.
Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. (2010). Status and trends
in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010-015).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Bollin, G.G., & Finkel, J. (1995). White racial identity as a
barrier to understanding diversity: A study of perservice teachers.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 28(1), 25-30.
Causey, V.E., Thomas, C.D., & Armento, B.J. (2000). Cultural
diversity is basically a foreign term to me: The challenges of diversity
for preservice teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,
33-45.
Connor, M.H., & Boskin, J. (2001). Overrepresentation of
bilingual and poor children in special education classes: A continuing
problem. Journal of Children & Poverty, 7 (1), 23-32.
Fiske, S.T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power
on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621-628.
Fordham, S. (1988). Racelessness as a factor in Black
student's school success: Pragmatic strategy or pyrrhic victory.
Harvard Educational Review, 58, 54-84.
Gollnick, D.M., & Chinn, P.C. (2009). Multicultural education
in a pluralistic society (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Griego-Jones, T. (1994). Assessing Students' Perceptions of
Biliteracy in Two-Way Bilingual Classrooms. Journal of Educational
Issues of Language Minority Students, 13, 79-93.
Hanson, M.J. (1992). Ethnic, cultural, and language diversity in
intervention settings. In E.W. Lynch and M.J. Hanson (Eds.), Developing
cross-cultural competence (pp. 3-18). Baltimore, MD; Brookes.
King, K.L., Houston, I.S., & Middleton, R.A. (2001). An
explanation for school failure: Moving beyond black inferiority and
alienation as a policy-making agenda. British Journal of Educational
Studies, 49 (4), 428-445.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that's just good teaching! The
case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 31(3),
159-165.
MacMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., Lopez, M.F., & Bocian, K.M.
(1996). Comparison of students nominated for prereferral interventions
by ethnicity and gender. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 133-151.
Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology: People around the
world. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L (2008). Culture and psychology (4th
Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Meador, E. (2005). The making of marginality: Schooling for Mexican
immigrant girls in the rural southwest. Anthropology and Education
Quarterly, 36(2), 149-164.
Milner, H.R., Flowers, L.A., Moore, E., Moore, J.L., & Flowers,
T.A. (2003). Preservice teachers' awareness of multiculturalism and
diversity. The High School Journal, 87(1), 63-70.
Ortiz, A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly
with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30,
321-332.
Ortiz, A.A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early
intervention for English language learners. In A.J. Artiles and A.A.
Ortiz (Eds.), English language learners with special educational needs:
Identification, assessment and instruction (pp. 31-48). McHenry, IL:
Delta Systems.
Oswald, D.P., Coutinho, M.J., Best, A.M., & Singh, N.N. (1999).
Ethnic representation in special education: The influence of
school-related economic and demographic variables. The Journal of
Special Education, 32(4), 194-206.
Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational
research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research,
62, 307-332.
Plata, M. (2008). Cultural Sensitivity: The basis for culturally
relevant teaching. Teacher Education and Practice, 21(2), 181-200.
Plata, M., & Robertson, H. (1998). Cultural sensitivity: A
factor in the success for students of color. Journal of Instructional
Psychology, 25(2), 115-121.
Shiraev, E., & Levy, D. (2001). Introduction to cross-cultural
psychology: Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Sleeter, C.E. (2001 ). Preparing teachers for culturally diverse
schools: Research and the overwhelming presence of whiteness. Journal of
Teacher Education, 52(2), 94-106.
Su, Z. (1997). Teaching as a profession and as a career: Minority
candidates' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13,
325-340.
Taylor, S.V. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education:
Socio-cultural and linguistic considerations. Learning Disabilities: A
Contemporary Journal, 3(1), 34-43.
White-Clark, R. (2005). Training teachers to succeed in a
multicultural climate. Principal, 84(4), 40-44.
Maximino Plata, Ph. D., Professor Emeritus, Psychology and Special
Education, Texas A&M University-Commerce, Commerce, Texas.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr.
Maximino Plata at mpdmp1962@yahoo.com