3.3 How might cultural mismatches be contributing to the puzzling situation?

A substantial body of research has documented that mismatches between aspects of students' home culture(s) and the school's culture(s) can contribute to "puzzlements" and can influence students' academic experiences. Research by Morris (1997), for example, showed that the meanings and consequences of being given the "learning disability" (LD) label varied among boys from three different cultural backgrounds. The Latino boys from a Salvadoran background viewed the LD label as indicating that they had a negative trait similar to retardation, which negatively influenced their self esteem. The European American boys she studied, whose views were closest to those embedded in school programs, viewed the label as indicating that they had a biologically-based neurological handicap that existed through no fault of their own. The African American boys viewed the LD label as indicating that they would receive additional academic support, which they saw as a positive benefit. Thus, the same label had very different meanings and influences on the boys Morris studied. Ignoring such differences can have detrimental influences on students.

Research has also shown that modifying aspects of the school culture so it "matches" aspects of the students' home culture(s) can improve students' academic performance (e.g., Foster, Lewis, & Onafowora, 2003; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999 ; Heath, 1983; Lee, 2001; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1993). Pedagogical approaches extending from this research have come to be called "culturally responsive pedagogy." Scholars who have written about culturally responsive teaching include Geneva Gay (2000, 2002), Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) and Christine Sleeter (2001). Delpit's (1995) award-winning book Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom presented a provocative and wide-ranging discussion related to issues of cultural mismatches in classrooms.

Three major foci of such research examine interaction patterns, curriculum content, and preferred learning approaches. These are discussed in more detail in pages linked below:

3.3.1 How might mismatches between a student's or group's interaction patterns and those of the school be contributing to the puzzling situation?

3.3.2 How might mismatches between a student's or group's home culture(s) and the school curriculum be contributing to the puzzling situation?

3.3.3 How might mismatches between a student's or a group's preferred learning approaches and classroom processes be contributing to the puzzling situation?

The remainder of this page discusses scholars' work related to why addressing cultural mismatches can aid students' success and to the implications of these ideas.

Why addressing cultural mismatches aids students

Although numerous studies have shown that addressing cultural mismatches can be positive influences on students' education (e.g., Foster, Lewis, & Onafowora, 2003; Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, Alvarez, & Chiu, 1999; Heath, 1983; Lee, 2001; Vogt, Jordan, & Tharp, 1993), why this occurs is not entirely clear. Responding to early research that focused on mismatches in interaction patterns between students and teachers, some scholars argued that cultural compatibility reduces potential misunderstandings between students and teachers resulting from different expectations for and interpretations of interaction patterns. As research broadened to include mismatches between knowledge valued and preferred learning approaches at home and school, scholars (e.g., Gutiérrez and Rogoff, 2003) argued that cultural compatibility provides a bridge between what students know and what they are expected to learn in school.

Other scholars have shifted attention toward the possible socio-emotional significance of addressing mismatches. Erickson (1993), for example, argued that cultural compatibility itself may not be necessary for students' school success, but that for some groups cultural compatibility may contribute to the development of trust, which is crucial for learning. D'Amato (1993) offered a perspective similar to that of Erickson. He argued that some students come to school with an understanding that success in school will contribute to later success in life. Students with such a "structural rationale" might do well without cultural compatibility. Other students do not bring a structural rationale to school. D'Amato argued that for these students their immediate experience of school can provide them with a "situational rationale" for succeeding in school. For these students, culturally responsive pedagogy might provide the situational rationale needed for school success.

Extending his approach to the possible socio-emotional impact of cultural mismatches, Erickson (1993) introduced the distinction between "boundaries" and "borders." He argued that cultural differences in interaction patterns could be considered "boundaries" if they are viewed as neutral differences by the participants. However, such differences can become "borders" if they are not neutral. If people in power (like teachers and other educators) respond to certain interactional patterns in a negative way, these can become "borders" and contribute to student resentment and disengagement from school (Erickson, 1993).

Phelan, Davidson and Yu (1998) used Erickson's (1993) ideas of borders and boundaries to develop the Multiple Worlds Model, a cross-cultural way of looking at adolescents' transitions among home, school and peers. They found that:

when boundaries exist (even when sociocultural components of students' worlds are different), movement between worlds can occur with relative ease--that is, social, psychological and academic costs are minimal. Alternatively, when students encounter borders, movement and adaptation are difficult because knowledge and skills or particular ways of behaving in one world are more highly valued and esteemed than those in another. Although it is possible for students to navigate borders with apparent success, these transitions can incur personal and psychic costs invisible to teachers and others. (p. 10)

Phelan, Davidson and Yu's (1998) discussed the different borders students in their study encountered, and they identified six different patterns in how students' negotiated the borders they encountered. Because a primary focus of theirs is on how students negotiate the borders they encounter, Phelan, Davidson and Yu's work is also discussed in Step 3.5.

This body of work has several implications for educators. First, it suggests that it is important to be aware of the increased potential for misunderstandings when students draw interaction patterns, knowledge, and preferred learning approaches from different cultures than you do. Second, it is important that cultural differences that do exist not become "borders" that carry negative overtones and consequences. Third, it is especially important to address cultural differences that have become borders as these may have serious negative consequences for students' educational experiences.

In examining possible cultural mismatches it is very important to remember that one goal in conducting such an investigation is to understand, not to judge. Because this CIP step most likely will involve examining perspectives and experiences that are different than your own, it is especially important to remind yourself that your goal is to understand prior to developing any interventions.

Success Stories & CIP Studies Related to Mismatches Between Cultures

Consider next question: 3.3.1
Gather information on this question:  4.3