Cultural Difference paradigm: underachievement explained by mismatch between school and students' cultures¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · no claims cited

Description¶

The review traces this paradigm to Cole and Bruner (1971) building on Labov's finding that what was treated as deficit should be considered difference. It "corresponded to a shift of belief about the source of the problem, from the student and their homes to the school", recasting children as different rather than broken and asking schools and teachers to be more culturally responsive. The review judges it an improvement that nonetheless "assumed a simplistic and static conception of culture" and addressed only one source of the problem.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Teachers who see students as culturally different rather than as having an intellectual disease, and who provide environments in which children show skills they already possess before transferring them to new situations

Constraints¶

• The review states it assumes a simplistic and static conception of culture, does not recognize that competence is not easily moved from one situation to the next, and speaks only of the school as the source of the problem

Target Learners¶

• children from non-dominant cultures in US schools

Target Learning Objectives¶

• mathematics achievement; culturally responsive teaching

Claims¶

Related Theories¶

• Contextual Systems Model (CSM): child/family and school/schooling as interrelated systems
• Deficit paradigm: minority underachievement explained by deficits the child brings to school
• Holistic paradigm: underachievement as a multi-factor, multi-level phenomenon
• Reyes and Stanic's five-aspect model of differences in mathematics achievement

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Vilma Mesa. (1998). A Review of Literature on Under Achievement of Minorities in Mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED428113