This article was downloaded by: [Valdosta State University], [James Martinez]On: 27 April 2015, At: 12:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Educational Psychology in Practice:theory, research and practice ineducational psychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cepp20

Culturally familiar tasks on readingperformance and self-efficacy ofculturally and linguistically diversestudentsHeather M. Kelleya, Kamau Oginga Siwatub, Jeremy R. Tosta &James Martineza

a College of Education and Human Services, Valdosta StateUniversity, Valdosta, GA, USAb College of Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USAPublished online: 27 Apr 2015.

To cite this article: Heather M. Kelley, Kamau Oginga Siwatu, Jeremy R. Tost & James Martinez(2015): Culturally familiar tasks on reading performance and self-efficacy of culturally andlinguistically diverse students, Educational Psychology in Practice: theory, research and practice ineducational psychology, DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2015.1033616

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1033616

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Culturally familiar tasks on reading performance and self-efficacyof culturally and linguistically diverse students

Heather M. Kelleya*, Kamau Oginga Siwatub, Jeremy R. Tosta and James Martineza

aCollege of Education and Human Services, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA, USA;bCollege of Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Grounded in the theoretical frameworks of constructivism and social cognitivetheory, this study examined utilising culturally responsive pedagogy through aLatino themed reading task with the intention of increasing reading achievementand reading self-efficacy beliefs for culturally and linguistically diverse students.The research was conducted in an urban middle school in the south-westernUnited States with 43 seventh grade students whose age ranged from 12 to 13years. The majority of participants in this study reported to be Hispanic ormultiracial with Hispanic origins. This study’s findings added to the existingknowledge base regarding the effectiveness of culturally responsive teachingpractices. More specifically, culturally responsive pedagogy was utilised in theform of a reading task to examine its influence on students’ recall and readingcomprehension performance. Furthermore, the findings of this study suggest thata culturally familiar reading task may increase reading self-efficacy beliefs.Implications for primary and secondary teachers, administrators, parents, andstudents pertain to the importance of utilising culturally responsive pedagogy asa teaching method to increase reading achievement and reading self-efficacy forculturally and linguistically diverse students.

Keywords: constructivism; culturally responsive teaching; reading self-efficacy;reading comprehension

Introduction

The changing cultural composition of the United States necessitates preparing teach-ers to be able to meet the needs of children from a multitude of cultures that arelikely to be unfamiliar. The US Census Bureau (2009) has indicated that the UnitedStates is changing with the White population decreasing, the African American pop-ulation remaining constant, and the Latino population increasing (Hirschman &Massey, 2008; Martinez, Unterreiner, Aragon, & Kellerman, 2014; Massey, 2008).Consequently, teachers will be asked to deliver high quality instructions to all mem-bers of this growing, diverse population. Unfortunately, culturally and linguisticallydiverse students (for example, African American and Latino students) are still lag-ging behind their White counterparts in academic performance, which continues toperpetuate the longstanding racial achievement gap (Hawley & Nieto, 2010; Hughes& North, 2012; Martinez, Tost, Wilfred, & Hilgert, 2014; National Centre forEducational Statistics, 2009; Valencia, 2010). Gay (2000, 2004) suggests that cultur-ally and linguistically diverse children are being left behind academically because

*Corresponding author: Email: hkelley@valdosta.edu

© 2015 Association of Educational Psychologists

Educational Psychology in Practice, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2015.1033616

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

too much of what is taught in the American school system reflects White middle-class norms. These White middle-class norms often have no immediate value orrelevance for culturally and linguistically diverse students, thus enhancing theachievement gap.

In response to the achievement gap, scholars have been focusing on the charac-teristics of teachers who have been successful teaching African American andLatino students (Bergeron, 2008; Brown, 2007; Chamberlain, 2005; Daunic,Correa, & Reyes-Blanes, 2004; Gay, 1997, 2002, 2004; Ladson-Billings 1994,1995; Ladson-Billings & Gomez, 2001; Martin-Paulk, Martinez, & Lambeth, 2014;Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Wenglinsky, 2004). Outcomes of previous research sug-gest that effective teachers are able to increase the academic performance of cultur-ally and linguistically diverse students by engaging in culturally responsiveteaching methods that connect the curriculum with students’ lives (Au & Jordan,1981; Bell & Clark, 1998; Ensign, 2003; Rivet & Krajcik, 2008; Ware, 2006;Williams, 2006). The core of culturally responsive teaching is utilising a pedagogythat is inclusive of the students’ culture in order to demonstrate utility of the con-tent and to improve academic success. Despite the plethora of research devoted toculturally responsive teaching and its success in increasing academic performance,little research has been devoted to explain how exposure to culturally responsiveteaching influences students’ academic self-efficacy, or the belief in their ability tosuccessfully meet the demands of a given task (Siwatu, 2009, 2011).

Hoy, Tarter, and Woolfolk Hoy (2006) believe that if a person’s cultural back-ground is infused into the curriculum, it can heavily influence academic performance.An academic setting that is responsive to a learner’s background by utilising cultur-ally responsive pedagogy can provide support for high academic goals, motivation tolearn, and gains respect from others, all of which can affect self-efficacy beliefs.Additionally, positive self-efficacy beliefs have been noted to increase the kinds ofbehaviours that promote success in academic settings (Kerpelman, Eryigit, &Stephens, 2008). For example, students are more likely to engage in productive workhabits, have positive performance expectations, and utilise more effective problemsolving strategies (Siwatu, 2009, 2011). The positive behavioural outcomes associ-ated with self-efficacy beliefs could indicate that culturally responsive teaching mayhave greater academic benefits than just increasing academic outcomes alone.

Purpose of study

The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, this study was designed to add to theexisting knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of culturally responsive teach-ing practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Prior research fromBell and Clark (1998) suggested that when a culturally familiar reading task waspresented to African American students, via pre-recorded audio tapes of stories, itincreased their reading achievement though recall and reading comprehension per-formance. Influenced by the research of Bell and Clark (1998), this study sought toinvestigate how a culturally familiar reading task would influence recall and readingperformance for Latino students.

Second, this study was designed to inform educators about the relationshipbetween culturally responsive teaching and self-efficacy beliefs. Hoy et al. (2006)suggests that the academic setting and one’s self-efficacy beliefs are “tightly woventogether and seem to reinforce each other as they positively constrain student

2 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

performance” (p. 426). The goal was to investigate Bandura’s (1997) social cogni-tive theory which suggests that self-efficacy is context specific, indicating that famil-iar tasks can increase self-efficacy beliefs more than unfamiliar tasks. To accomplishthis goal, the researchers investigated the influence a culturally familiar reading taskversus a culturally unfamiliar reading task had on students’ reading self-efficacybeliefs. The following research questions guided this study:

(1) How do a culturally familiar reading task and a culturally unfamiliar readingtask influence students’ recall and reading comprehension?

(2) How do a culturally familiar reading task and a culturally unfamiliar readingtask influence self-efficacy beliefs?

Theoretical framework

To enhance understanding of the relationship between culturally responsive teachingand self-efficacy, the authors considered extant research on: (1) culturally responsivepedagogy, (2) constructivist theory, and (3) social cognitive theory.

Culturally responsive pedagogy

In the past few decades, there has been considerable research in the area of culturallyresponsive teaching (Bell & Clark, 1998; Ensign, 2003; Sealey-Ruiz, 2007; Ware,2006; Williams, 2006). Culturally responsive teaching is used to describe a pedagogi-cal approach to teaching and learning that is based on the “dynamic or synergisticrelationship between home/community culture and school culture” (Ladson-Billings,1995, p. 467). More specifically, Siwatu (2007) suggests that culturally responsiveteaching

(1) uses students’ cultural knowledge (for example, culturally familiar scenarios, exam-ples, and vignettes), experiences, prior knowledge, and individual learning preferencesas a conduit to facilitate the teaching-learning process, (2) incorporates the students’cultural orientations to design culturally compatible classroom environments, (3) pro-vides students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate what they have learned usinga variety of assessment techniques, and (4) provides students with the knowledge andskills needed to function in mainstream culture while simultaneously helping studentsmaintain their cultural identity, native language, and connection to their culture (cul-tural enrichment and competence). (pp. 1086–1087)

Teachers who engage in culturally responsive pedagogy take an approach to teach-ing and learning that believes the culture of a person plays a prominent role in theway information is learned (Gay, 2002; Stoicovy, 2002).

Numerous studies have indicated that culturally responsive teaching in the formof culturally familiar tasks is related to an increase in overall achievement in cultur-ally and linguistically diverse students (Au & Jordan, 1981; Bell & Clark, 1998;Ensign, 2003; Howard, 2001; Mohatt & Erickson, 1981; Rivet & Krajcik, 2008;Ware, 2006; Williams, 2006). A culturally familiar task is a task that reflects theimportance of consciously utilising culturally familiar themes pertaining to aperson’s historical and sociocultural background as conduits for teaching moreeffectively. When information is presented via familiar experiences, the taskbecomes more personally meaningful, has a higher utility value, and is learned moreeasily and thoroughly (Gay, 2000, 2002; Villegas & Lucas, 2002; Williams, 2006).

Educational Psychology in Practice 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

In a study conducted by Bell and Clark (1998), culturally familiar reading materialwas shown to be a successful, logical method of infusing cultural content into thereading curriculum. This research found that when African American children read aculturally familiar reading task depicting African American themes, the childrenwere able to process information more efficiently by incorporating their socioculturalexperiences. Bell and Clark (1998) suggest that due to culturally familiar themes, itis probable that motivation and attention is increased to perform the task, comparedto more culturally distant themes.

Constructivist theory

Additionally, culturally familiar tasks serve as an “anchor” to provide students withan opportunity to access prior knowledge, add to existing schema, and build uponcurrent cognitive frameworks (Bell & Clark, 1998; Rivet & Krajcik, 2008). The con-structivist theory posits that learners are active in creating knowledge instead ofacquiring or being solely reactive to the environment (Ertmer & Newby, 1993;Vygotsky, 1962). As learners create knowledge, they engage in building upon andreferencing their past experiences in life in an attempt to establish a currentunderstanding of the new information presented (Mayer 1999, 2004; Moshman,1982; Perkins, 1999; Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992; Vygotsky, 1962). Cooper(1993) suggests that a person’s reality is manifested by the “experiences of theknower” (p. 16) and all the prior knowledge creates a filter that influences a person’sown view of reality (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). Learning appears to be invariablyinfluenced by contextual factors because the type of environment in which learningoccurs becomes inseparable from thought (Moshman, 1982).

The more prior knowledge a student has about a topic, the easier new informa-tion about the topic becomes to understand (Pressley, Yokoi, Van Meter, Van Etten,& Freebern, 1997). The issue of students who lack prior knowledge for what theyare studying may demonstrate “profound implications for test preparation” (Pressleyet al., 1997, p. 6). This effect on testing is based on the idea that students’ newknowledge is isolated and does not connect to any prior knowledge that could helpthem engage in critical thinking or a deeper understanding. Those students whoalready have prior knowledge on a topic they are studying find the task to be lessintimidating and more familiar, easier to engage throughout the task, and experienceless difficulty when new ideas are presented within the task (Anderson & Pearson,1984; Bell & Clark, 1998; Kozma, 1991; Rivet & Krajcik, 2008).

Social cognitive theory

In determining how one reacts to a certain environment, Bandura (1997) believesthat human agency lies within a person’s self-efficacy beliefs, and “unless peoplebelieve they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive toact” (pp. 2–3). Self-efficacy is found within the framework of social cognitivetheory and is defined by Bandura (1997) as an individual’s belief in their capabilitiesto manage and accomplish elements of a task to meet given requirements. The con-text-specific nature of self-efficacy beliefs is influenced by task related variables,personal factors, and contextual factors (Bong, 1999; Zimmerman, 2000).

The central determining factor for avoiding or pursuing a task is based on anindividual’s belief in their capabilities to successfully complete a specific task, not

4 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

necessarily their actual capabilities. Bandura (1997) supports that self-efficacybeliefs are a powerful predictor of performance because it is the self-efficacy beliefsthat dictate the types of behaviour when engaging in a task.

Bandura’s (1986, 1989, 1997) theory of self-efficacy suggests that there aremany differences in behaviour between highly efficacious individuals and thosewho lack efficacy. Such behaviours displayed are predictive for academic out-comes because the behaviours either promote or reduce chances of academic suc-cess. Highly efficacious individuals who believe they have what it takes tocomplete a task are more likely to initially engage in a task; use thought patternsthat are conducive with successfully completing the task; and persist longer whenthe task becomes difficult. Students with high efficacy are more likely to seekhelp and be open to new methods of learning (Bandura, 1997; Zimmerman &Cleary, 2006). Individuals with low self-efficacy for a task believe they lack theskills for completing a task, regardless of whether they are actually capable, andwill avoid the task as means of self-protection. Individuals with low self-efficacyfor a task will often visualise failure or focus on the part of the task they cannotdo instead of the parts they can do (Siwatu, 2009, 2011; Bandura, 1997; Schunk& Pajares, 2002).

Students seeking to experience success in reading or to build self-efficacy beliefsengage in strategic approaches when reading, such as monitoring their own compre-hension, clearly understanding the demands of the reading task, and taking correc-tive measures, such as rereading, when confusion or failure is apparent (Schunk &Pajares, 2004). Readers who have a low self-efficacy may not see the value in usingreading strategies, or harbour self-doubts that leads to students giving up quickly orkeeping them from trying new strategies (Siwatu, 2009, 2011).

Methods

Research design

The current research employed a counterbalanced within-subjects design with allparticipants reading and answering recall and comprehension questions regardingboth a culturally familiar and a culturally unfamiliar passage. A paired sample t testwas used to assess differences in student recall and comprehension, comparing theirperformance having read the culturally familiar, and performance having read theculturally unfamiliar passage. Of interest is whether students had better or worserecall and comprehension comparing the two reading passages.

Three, eight question self-efficacy scales were used to assess student self-efficacybeliefs. The three self-efficacy scales all had the same efficacy statements, thoughdiffered with respect to addressing general reading self-efficacy, culturally familiarreading self-efficacy, and culturally unfamiliar reading self-efficacy. A one-wayrepeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess differences inself-efficacy belief comparing the three types of self-efficacy belief scores. Of inter-est is whether students’ reported self-efficacy scores differed, comparing generalreading self-efficacy, culturally familiar reading self-efficacy, and culturally unfamil-iar reading self-efficacy.

Educational Psychology in Practice 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Participants

This study utilised a convenience sample from a total of 132 seventh grade studentsenrolled in a middle school located in a mid-sized city in the southwest United States.The middle school selected had a high culturally and linguistically diverse studentpopulation and was classified as a Title I School Wide Programme. The school con-sisted of 482 students ranging in grades from sixth to eighth grade. The average ageof participants was 12.84 (standard deviation [SD] = 0.53). Out of the 132 seventhgrade students, 43 students provided parental consent and agreed to participate in thestudy. Of the 43 participants, 55.8% (n = 24) were female. In regard to ethnicity,60.5% (n = 26) were Hispanic, 14% (n = 6) were African American, 4.7% (n = 2)were White, 4.7% (n = 2) other, and 16.2% (n = 7) multiracial. The majority ofrespondents indicated that English was the first language spoken at home (83.7%),followed by Spanish being the first language spoken at home (16.3%).

Measures

Demographics

A demographic questionnaire consisting of five questions addressed students’ age,gender, primary language, ethnic classification, and favourite subject.

Description of readings

The reading tasks used in this study consisted of narrative selections that were fic-tional stories with a clear progression of events. Narrative selections are recognisedas a type of reading selection choice in the Texas Assessment of Knowledge andSkills (TAKS) test score (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2009). The goal of thetasks selected for this study was that they would be as similar as possible to eachother (that is, word count, difficulty level, reading ease), except for the culturalthemes, in an attempt to exclude other factors that could change the perception ofthe task. The difficulty level of the passages was determined using the Lexile Frame-work for Reading (2009), which is a nationally accepted scale designed to measurereading comprehension and text difficulty by placing readers and text on the samescale. Lexile scales are found in thousands of books and are used in over 20 statesas tools to determine which books are appropriate for readers and grade levels. Forseventh grade, the Lexile Framework for Reading suggests that appropriate gradelevel books fall within the Lexile score range of 735 to 1065. The Lexile score forboth Sandra Cisneros’ (1991) book Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories (seeAppendix A) and Sherry Garland’s (1995) book Indio (see Appendix B) wasmeasured at 960 Lexile score. The score of 960 falls within the range for seventhgrade reading level and also means that the text difficulty and reading comprehen-sion should be the same for both books; however, the Lexile score does not factorthe context of the reading task or take into account a reader’s prior knowledge(Lexile Framework for Reading, 2009).

Other statistics used to finalise the reading selections are displayed in Table 1and included ensuring a similar number of words and a similar Flesch Reading Easescore. The word count for the culturally familiar reading task and the culturallyunfamiliar reading task were 608 and 645, respectively. These word counts alignslightly under, but close to, typical TAKS tasks that usually range from 700 to 1000

6 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

words (TEA, 2009). The Flesch Reading Ease of these tasks refers to how easy orhow difficult a reading task is to read and takes into account the total number ofwords, sentences, and syllables to determine the score. The higher the Flesch Read-ing Ease score is, the easier it is to read; a score of 90 to 100 is reported as easilyunderstandable by an 11-year-old, 60–70 as easily understandable by 13 to 15-year-olds, 0–30 best understood by university graduates. The Flesch Reading Ease for theculturally familiar reading task was 71.6 and the culturally unfamiliar reading taskwas 78.7 which were similar in difficulty level and appropriate for seventh graderswho are typically 12–13 years old. Lastly, the visual page length refers to how thereading passage appears on a standard 8½ inch × 11 inch page of paper. Visually,both passages looked very similar in nature with 1½ pages of paper with text.

The culturally familiar reading task was a Latino themed short story calledMexican Movies from Sandra Cisneros’ (1991) book Woman Hollering Creekand Other Stories (Appendix A). Such culturally familiar themes in MexicanMovies included familiar lived experiences, such as going to the movies andfamily interactions. The Mexican Movies story infused many references of Mexi-can culture and language that was familiar to students such as “sombrero”,“churro”, “torta”, and “Niño”. The culturally unfamiliar reading task was aNative American themed excerpt called Indio from the first few pages of SherryGarland’s (1995) book Indio (Appendix B). Such culturally unfamiliar themesfound in this story mostly referenced the spiritual nature of Native Americanculture, animal symbolism, and geographically unfamiliar activities, such asexploring a cave. The determination of what was deemed familiar or unfamiliarin regard to passage selection was purposefully selected based on the demo-graphics of the middle school and pilot testing with similar participants.

Recall and reading comprehension assessment

The recall and reading comprehension questions utilised the objectives and mim-icked the format of the TAKS test, which is a state mandated standardised test(TEA, 2009). Standardised tests are given to all students at the end of each gradelevel to monitor their performance in meeting the state’s learning targets. Addition-ally, the recall and reading comprehension questions were written to reflect gradeappropriate reading benchmarks according to the Texas Essential Knowledge andSkills (TEKS). Teachers use TEKS benchmarks, which is a list of skills that studentsare supposed to be able to accomplish by a particular grade level, in order to appro-priately prepare them for the standardised test, TAKS, given at the end of a schoolyear. For each of the two reading tasks, two questions were based on recall skillsand five questions were based on comprehension skills. Each question employed amultiple choice format with four options, one being correct. The recall questionswere designed to engage the reader in lower order thinking processes to answer

Table 1. Reading statistics.

Culturally familiar reading task Culturally unfamiliar reading task

Word count 608 645Lexile score 960 960Flesch reading ease 71.60 78.70Visual page length 1.50 1.50

Educational Psychology in Practice 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

questions that could be recalled directly from the text. The reading comprehensionquestions were designed to engage the reader in higher order thinking processes toanswer questions that were implied and not directly stated in the text.

Additionally, the recall and reading comprehension questions were specificallydesigned to mirror each other in the culturally familiar reading task and culturallyunfamiliar reading task. For example, a recall question for the culturally familiarreading task states, Which type of food was NOT sold at the movie theatre? (seeAppendix C for all of the culturally familiar recall and reading comprehension ques-tions). The culturally unfamiliar reading task mirrored this question by asking,Which type of animal was NOT mentioned in this story? (see Appendix D for all ofthe culturally unfamiliar recall and reading comprehension questions).

Reading self-efficacy scales

Three, eight question self-efficacy scales were used to assess student self-efficacybeliefs. The self-efficacy scales for the recall and reading comprehension questionswere derived from TAKS objectives and TEKS benchmarks, which is similar tohow the recall and reading comprehension assessment was also created. The self-efficacy scales were modelled after Bandura’s (2006) Guide for Constructing Self-efficacy Scales in regard to the wording of the self-efficacy statements, intervals ofthe scale (0–10), identifiers (sure, not sure), and formatting.

The three self-efficacy scales all had exactly the same efficacy statements, buteach of the stems of the questions differed with respect to addressing general read-ing self-efficacy, culturally familiar reading self-efficacy, and culturally unfamiliarself-efficacy. The first scale – general reading self-efficacy – assessed student beliefsabout their general reading ability. For example, students were asked, When youread in your English Language Arts class, how sure are you that you could success-fully identify the main idea of the story? (see Appendix E). The second scale – cul-turally familiar reading self-efficacy – assessed student beliefs about their readingability as related to the culturally familiar reading. For example, students wereasked, After reading “Mexican Movies”, how sure are you that you could success-fully identify the main idea of the story? (see Appendix F). The third scale – cultur-ally unfamiliar reading self-efficacy – assessed student beliefs about their readingability as related to the culturally unfamiliar reading. For example, students wereasked, After reading “Indio”, how sure are you that you could successfully identifythe main idea of the story? (see Appendix G). Students rated their self-efficacy onspecific skills (for example, ability to use knowledge, summarise what happened inthe story, use life experiences to make sense of the story) from a scale of 0 (not sure)to 10 (really sure). Summary scores (that is, average scores) were calculated for eachparticipant for each of the three self-efficacy scales. Summary scores reported for eachself-efficacy scale ranged from 0 to 10. A measure of internal consistency (Cronbach’salpha) was constructed for each of the three self-efficacy scales (general reading;α = 0.849, culturally familiar; α = 0.903, culturally unfamiliar α = 0.877). In each casethe Cronbach’s alpha exceeded the 0.70 level of acceptability.

Procedure

The implementation of this study began with students first completing the demo-graphic and background questionnaire. All students then completed the General

8 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Reading Task Self-efficacy Scale. The order of implementation for each class wascounterbalanced with Version 1 having the culturally familiar reading as the firstreading task and Version 2 having the culturally unfamiliar reading as the first task.Depending on the order of presentation, some students read the culturally familiarreading task, completed the self-efficacy scale and then completed the accompanyingrecall and reading comprehension questions. Others read the culturally unfamiliarreading task, completed the self-efficacy scale and then completed the accompanyingrecall and reading comprehension questions. Students then read either the familiaror unfamiliar reading task (again, depending on assignment), completed theself-efficacy scale and then completed the accompanying test questions.

Throughout the implementation of this study, the researcher incorporated “stopsigns” at the bottom of selected pages to further clarity the directions of each part ofthe study for participants. Participants were given as much time as needed to com-plete each part of the study; however, implementation took approximately 20–25minutes to complete. Students were debriefed in the form of focus groups in whichthey were asked questions about their experience and provided with informationregarding the nature of the study. Prior to participation in the study, all students wereasked to sign a student consent form in addition to obtaining parental assent.Analyses from the procedures will focus on differences in recall and reading com-prehension scores and differences in self-efficacy ratings for the culturally familiarand culturally unfamiliar reading tasks.

Results

Recall and reading comprehension

The first research question sought to investigate how a culturally familiar readingtask and a culturally unfamiliar reading task influenced students’ recall and readingcomprehension. Using a within-subjects design, a paired samples t test was con-ducted comparing students’ test scores from the culturally familiar reading versustest scores from the culturally unfamiliar reading. The results indicated a significantdifference in test scores t(41) = 5.03, p < 0.001, r² = 0.38, such that scores from theculturally familiar reading task (mean [M] = 6.10, SD = 1.41) were greater thanscores from the culturally unfamiliar reading task (M = 4.90, SD = 1.56). Generally,students had higher test scores on the culturally familiar reading task than on theculturally unfamiliar reading task (see Table 2).

Self-efficacy

The second research question examined how a culturally familiar reading task and aculturally unfamiliar reading task influenced self-efficacy beliefs. Using a within-subjects design, all students provided self-efficacy beliefs scores for each of thethree self-efficacy assessments (general reading, culturally familiar, and culturally

Table 2. The effect of reading task on students’ recall and reading comprehension.

Reading task n M SD t df p r²

Culturally familiar 42 6.10 1.41 5.03 41 <.001 .38Culturally unfamiliar 42 4.90 1.56

Educational Psychology in Practice 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

unfamiliar). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA was conducted assessing differ-ences in self-efficacy scores amongst the three self-efficacy assessments. The F testrevealed a non-significant effect F(2, 84) = 2.44, p = 0.093, η² = 0.055, indicatingno significant difference amongst the three self-efficacy assessments. Using both theleast significant difference (LSD) test, which is equivalent to making no adjustmentfor an increase in Type I Error rates and the Boneferroni adjustment (a more con-servative post hoc test that does make adjustments for Type I Error rates), a series ofpairwise comparisons were conducted to more thoroughly examine any possiblepair-wise difference. Using the LSD, a significant difference was found between theculturally familiar self-efficacy scores (M = 57.23, SD = 15.54) and culturallyunfamiliar self-efficacy scores (M = 54.58, SD = 15.34), p = 0.045, though thisdifference was found to not be significant when using the Bonferroni adjustment(p = 0.134). Using the LSD test there was no significant difference in self-efficacyscores comparing the general reading (M = 54.51, SD = 14.78) to the culturallyfamiliar reading (p =0.067) nor comparing the general reading to the culturally unfa-miliar reading (p = 0.962). Generally, students had higher self-efficacy scores on theculturally familiar reading task than on the culturally unfamiliar reading task thoughstatistical significance varied depending on the post hoc test employed (see Table 3).

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate culturally responsive pedagogy as an approach toteaching and increasing achievement for culturally and linguistically diverse stu-dents. This study adds to the existing knowledge base regarding the effectiveness ofculturally responsive teaching practices. More specifically, culturally responsivepedagogy was utilised in the form of a reading task to examine its influence on stu-dents’ recall and reading comprehension performance and reading self-efficacy,informing educators about the relationship between culturally responsive pedagogyand self-efficacy beliefs. The overall findings indicate that a culturally familiar read-ing task does have significant effects on participants in regard to increasing readingperformance and increasing reading self-efficacy.

Recall and reading comprehension

The first research question sought to investigate how a culturally familiar readingtask and a culturally unfamiliar reading task influenced students’ recall and readingcomprehension. The findings revealed that participants did demonstrate a significantincrease in achievement for the culturally familiar reading task compared to theculturally unfamiliar reading task. For the culturally familiar reading task,participants were able to answer more questions correctly than the culturallyunfamiliar reading task.

Table 3. Self-efficacy scores across the three self-efficacy assessments.

Self-efficacy assessment n M SD F df p η²

General reading 43 54.51 14.78 2.44 2, 84 0.093 0.06Culturally familiar 43 57.23 15.54Culturally unfamiliar 43 54.58 15.34

10 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

The current results align with previous research that academic achievement forculturally and linguistically diverse students will improve, and is learned more thor-oughly, when they are taught through their own cultural and experiential filters(Brown, 2007; Gay, 2002; Griffin, Martinez, & Martin, 2014; Ladson-Billings,1995, 2006; Ware, 2006). In the culturally familiar task, there were many referencesof Mexican culture and language that was familiar to students, which likely aidedtheir ability to decode and comprehend the story at a higher level. In comparison,the culturally unfamiliar task depicted instances of unfamiliar language, spiritualideas, and geographical settings associated with Native Americans which posedmore of a challenge for students due to the lack of prior knowledge or experiencewith these ideas. Numerous studies have successfully confirmed the enhancement oflearning when taught through one’s own cultural and experiential filters (Siwatu,2009, 2011). For example, Mohatt and Erickson (1981) modified instructional tech-niques using the home and community culture of Native Americans. Ware (2006)was successful in using culturally responsive pedagogical methods in the form of“warm demeanour pedagogy” for African American students. Lastly, Howard (2001)demonstrated that teachers who utilise language and culture that matches AfricanAmerican students can have positive benefits for student achievement.

The findings also add to the more specific knowledge base of culturally respon-sive reading pedagogy. Previous research by Bell and Clark (1998) demonstratedthat when African American children read a culturally familiar story depicting Afri-can American themes, there was evidence to conclude that students did better on therecall and reading comprehension questions for the culturally familiar reading taskcompared to the culturally unfamiliar task. In this study, similar findings wereachieved with Latino students and a culturally familiar reading task depicting Latinothemes. Although extensive prior research is lacking specifically for the effects aculturally familiar reading task has on achievement for recall and reading compre-hension questions, other studies have demonstrated that culturally familiar pedagogyfor reading instruction and reading tasks has positive effects (Au & Jordan, 1981;Bell & Clark, 1998; Griffin et al., 2014; Howard, 2001; Mohatt & Erickson, 1981;Ware, 2006).

Various studies align with the findings of this study in that culturally responsivereading pedagogy has led to an increased proficiency in reading, an increase in per-formance for various types of reading based tasks, and that reading content islearned more thoroughly (Howard, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Sealey-Ruiz, 2007;Ware, 2006). Au and Jordan (1981) transformed typical reading instruction to beresponsive to Hawaiian students which led to an increase in understanding and read-ing performance. Williams (2006) used a multiple literacies approach of reading,writing, and grammar that aligned with the culture of African American studentswhich led to improved achievement and learning for those students.

Participants performed at lower levels for the culturally unfamiliar reading taskbecause they were not able to activate their sociocultural knowledge to use as afoundation for interpreting the story. Findings revealed that most errors occurred inreading comprehension questions for a culturally unfamiliar reading task. Readingcomprehension questions require the reader to deeply internalise the story andengage in higher level thinking. A decline in performance for reading comprehen-sion questions in the culturally unfamiliar reading task suggests that informationwas difficult to process and was processed at a surface level, which becomes iso-lated and hard to recall (Ertmer & Newby, 1993). The inability to deeply interpret

Educational Psychology in Practice 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

and make connections with prior knowledge for a culturally unfamiliar reading taskled to an increased number of errors for higher level thinking questions.

Reading self-efficacy

The second research question sought to investigate how a culturally familiar readingtask and culturally unfamiliar reading task influenced students’ self-efficacy beliefs.Results indicated a statistically significant increase in self-efficacy scores for the cul-turally familiar reading task compared to the culturally unfamiliar reading task,though the significance of the finding failed to hold up under more conservativescrutiny. This limitation is worth noting and can serve as evidence that additionalresearch is needed to clarify the potential relationship between self-efficacy scoresand the reading task.

For academic tasks in the school setting, self-efficacy beliefs can be very specificin nature (that is, task and domain specific) and the varying components of a taskcan change an individual’s self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1986, 1997). This wasdemonstrated in the current research by manipulating the reading task with a primar-ily Latino sample. Prior research in self-efficacy addressing African American stu-dents found that self-efficacy beliefs for domain specific tasks and academicperformance were increased if the tasks were perceived as having a high importanceand were familiar to the students (Jonson-Reid, Davis, Saunders, Williams, &Williams, 2005). The current results aligned with the aforementioned findings in thatacademic performance and reading self-efficacy beliefs were increased in the contextof the culturally familiar reading task. This study revealed the potential relationshipbetween cultural themes depicted in a story and self-efficacy beliefs. Students tendedto indicate a higher self-efficacy for the culturally familiar reading task compared tothe culturally unfamiliar reading task. Typically, culturally familiar reading tasks arelikely to be learned more easily due to the accessibility of prior knowledge. Thismay have led students to report the highest level of self-efficacy for the familiarreading task. The ability to use pre-existing cognitive structures led students tofeeling more confident that they would be capable to identify the correct answers.Bandura (1997) notes that high levels of self-efficacy lead to positive academicbehaviours which can increase achievement, and in this study, the results of therecall and reading comprehension questions for a culturally familiar reading taskconfirms this relationship, with higher scores.

Limitations

Convenience sampling was used in this one grade level study, which reduces thepotential to make generalisations of the findings to other populations. In an attemptto minimise threats to generalisability, the researchers documented detailed charac-teristics of the population sampled which could be used in the future to determine ifthese findings may be generalisable to another population.

Reading abilities

Student reading abilities were not assessed nor controlled for in the current study.Knowledge of student reading ability would have provided useful information interms of understanding student recall and comprehension performance across the

12 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

culturally familiar and culturally unfamiliar passages and perhaps have informedalternative explanations for results. Also, baseline reading ability data may haveshed light on self-efficacy belief scores across the three types of self-efficacy (gen-eral reading, culturally familiar reading and culturally unfamiliar reading). Futureresearch may want to include baseline performance data as a means to account forability level differences. Similarly, future research may want to consider accountingfor socio-economic status, level of acculturation and other demographic variablesthat may impact both reading comprehension and associated self-efficacy beliefs.

Participant variability

The variability limitation among the participants (for example, types of culturalexperiences) acknowledges that culturally and linguistically diverse students fromthis study may not share the same cultural experiences as similar students whoreside in different parts of the state or country. Such differences in location may leadto different experiences that could affect the task’s degree of cultural relevance forthe student. This study assumes that the Latino based reading task selected as “cul-turally familiar” was familiar to all Latino students at this school, when in fact, it ispossible that some Latino students were not able to relate at all. Similarly, this studyalso assumes that the Native American reading task was “culturally unfamiliar” andparticipants were not able to relate. This limitation could lead to distorted results ofthe study, especially if a large percentage of participants did not relate to the storiesas hypothesised.

Sample size

An additional important limitation of the current research is the relatively small sam-ple size obtained. Of the 132 seventh grade student enrolled in the middle school,only 43 students provided parental consent and agreed to participate. In spite ofusing a within-subjects design, the small sample both limits generalisability and elic-its a, perhaps, underpowered test. Nonetheless, the results for both research ques-tions conform to a theoretical framework suggesting that culturally responsiveteaching can enhance performance and that self-efficacy beliefs are linked to aca-demic outcomes. At the very least, the current research offers direction and furtherhighlights a potential relationship between culturally responsive teaching practicesand self-efficacy beliefs.

Implications

This study was primarily designed to provide practical implications for primaryand secondary school teachers in the United States to close the current achieve-ment gap between culturally and linguistically diverse students and their Whitepeers. This study found that a culturally responsive task can increase achievementand determined that a culturally responsive reading task may increase self-efficacybeliefs. The findings of this study may have similar implications for students inother Western cultures, and may form the basis of additional research in thesecontexts.

Along with these results come two noteworthy instructional implications: (1) thebenefits of using a culturally familiar task as a way to provide students with

Educational Psychology in Practice 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

opportunities to experience academic success, and (2) how a culturally familiar taskcan be used to enhance students’ general academic self-efficacy.

Academic success

A major benefit of utilising a culturally familiar task is that it has the ability to pro-vide students with opportunities to experience academic success. Teachers can useculturally responsive pedagogy as a springboard for students to gain confidence inreading, develop a more refined skill set, or to introduce more difficult levels of read-ing. A culturally familiar task can be used to create the opportunity for a student toexperience initial successes (that is, mastery experience). The academic success a stu-dent experiences can increase and further solidify a strong self-efficacy for the task.

Increasing self-efficacy

In addition to a culturally familiar task providing opportunities to experience aca-demic success and build self-efficacy beliefs, another implication is using a cultur-ally familiar task to potentially enhance students’ general self-efficacy across allacademic domains (Siwatu, 2009, 2011). The efficacious beliefs established for oneacademic domain are likely to influence general self-efficacy beliefs for other aca-demic domains. Because an outcome of high self-efficacy beliefs results in positiveacademic behaviours conducive with academic success, it is likely that those beha-viours will occur to some degree in other academic domains.

This study utilised culturally responsive pedagogy as an approach to teachingand learning to potentially increase reading achievement and reading self-efficacybeliefs for culturally and linguistically diverse students. Increasing self-efficacybeliefs for culturally and linguistically diverse students in reading and other aca-demic areas is crucial as increased self-efficacy leads to students engaging in posi-tive academic behaviours that sets a foundation conducive with academic success(Siwatu, 2009, 2011).

ReferencesAu, K., & Jordan, C. (1981). Teaching reading to Hawaiian children: Finding a culturally

appropriate solution. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.), Culture and the bilingualclassroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 69–86). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes inreading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York, NY: Longman.

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

Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,1175–1184.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman &Company.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan(Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–319). Greenwich, CT: InformationAge Publishing.

Bell, Y. R., & Clark, T. R. (1998). Culturally familiar reading material as related tocomprehension and recall in African American children. Journal of African AmericanPsychology, 24, 455–475.

14 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Bergeron, B. S. (2008). Enacting a culturally responsive curriculum in a novice teacher’sclassroom: Encountering disequilibrium. Urban Education, 43, 4–28.

Bong, M. (1999). Personal factors affecting the generality of academic self-efficacyjudgments: Gender, ethnicity, and relative expertise. Journal of Experimental Education,67, 315–332.

Brown, M. (2007). Educating all students: Creating culturally responsive teachers, class-rooms, and schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43, 57–62.

Chamberlain, S. P. (2005). Recognizing and responding to cultural differences in theeducation of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Intervention in School &Clinic, 40, 195–211.

Cisneros, S. (1991). Woman hollering creek and other stories. New York, NY: RandomHouse.

Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm shifts in designed instruction: From behaviourism tocognitivism to constructivism. Educational Technology, 33, 12–19.

Daunic, A. P., Correa, V. I., & Reyes-Blanes, M. E. (2004). Teacher preparation for culturallydiverse classrooms: Performance-based assessment of beginning teachers. TeacherEducation and Special Education, 27, 105–118.

Ensign, J. (2003). Including culturally familiar math in an urban school. Educational Studies,34, 414–423.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparingcritical features from an instructional design and perspective. Performance ImprovementQuarterly, 6, 50–72.

Garland, S. (1995). Indio. New York, NY: HMH Books for Young Readers.Gay, G. (1997). Multicultural infusion in teacher education: Foundations and applications.

Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 150–177.Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York,

NY: Teachers College Press.Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,

53, 106–116.Gay, G. (2004). The importance of multicultural education. Educational Leadership, 61, 30–35.Griffin, R., Martinez, J., & Martin, E. (2014). Rosetta Stone and language proficiency of

international secondary school English language learners. Engaging Cultures & Voices,the Journal of English Learning through Media, 6, 36–73.

Hawley, W. D., & Nieto, S. (2010). Another inconvenient truth: Race and ethnicity matter.Educational Leadership, 68, 66–71.

Hirschman, C., & Massey, D. (2008). Place and peoples: The new American mosaic. InD. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of Americanimmigration (pp. 1–23). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Howard, T. C. (2001). Powerful pedagogy for African American students: A case of fourteachers. Urban Education, 36(2), 179–202.

Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2006). Academic optimism of schools: Aforce for student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 425–446.

Hughes, S. A., & North, C. E. (2012). Beyond popular cultural and structural arguments:Imagining a compass to guide burgeoning urban achievement gap scholars. Educationand Urban Society, 44, 274–293.

Jonson-Reid, M., Davis, L., Saunders, J., Williams, T., & Williams, J. H. (2005). Academicself-efficacy among African American youths: Implications for school social workpractice. National Association of Social Workers, 27, 5–14.

Kerpelman, J. L., Eryigit, S., & Stephens, C. J. (2008). African American adolescents’ futureeducation orientation: Associations with self-efficacy, ethnic identity, and perceivedparental support. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 997–1008.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179–212.Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). What we can learn from multicultural education research?

Educational Leadership, 51, 22–26.Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally familiar pedagogy. American

Educational Research Journal, 32, 465–491.Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding

achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3–12.

Educational Psychology in Practice 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Ladson-Billings, G., & Gomez, M. L. (2001). Just showing up: Supporting early literacythrough teachers’ professional communities. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 675–680.

Lexile Framework for Reading. (2009). Matching readers with texts. Retrieved from http://lexile.com

Martin-Paulk, S., Martinez, J., & Lambeth, D. (2014). Effects of culturally relevant teachingon seventh grade African American students. Middle Level Education in Texas, 1, 31–60.

Martinez, J., Tost, J., Wilfred, S., & Hilgert, L. (2014). Gang risk factors and academicreadiness in a southern middle school. Georgia Education Researcher, 11, 1–45.

Martinez, J., Unterreiner, A., Aragon, A., & Kellerman, P. (2014). Demystifying mythologiesabout Latina/o students: Immigration reform and education. Multicultural Teaching andLearning, 9, 115–218.

Massey, D. (2008). Assimilation in a new geography. In D. Massey (Ed.), New Faces in NewPlaces: The Changing Geography of American Immigration (pp. 343–352). New York,NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. II(pp. 141–159). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59, 14–19.

Mohatt, G., & Erickson, F. (1981). Cultural differences in teaching styles in an Odawaschool: A sociolinguistic approach. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.), Cultureand the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 105–119). Rowley,MA: Newbury House.

Moshman, D. (1982). Exogenous, endogenous, and dialectical constructivism. DevelopmentalReview, 2, 371–384.

National Centre for Educational Statistics. (2009). Estimates of resident population by race/ethnicity: Selected years, 1980–2009. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov

Perkins, D. (1999). The many faces. Educational Leadership, 57, 6–11.Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are

constructivists!. Educational Psychology Review, 4, 3–30.Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Van Meter, P., Van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the

reasons why preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier?Educational Psychology Review, 9, 1–38.

Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2008). Contextualizing instruction: Leveraging students’ priorknowledge and experiences to foster understanding of middle school science. Journal ofResearch in Science Teaching, 45, 79–100.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2002). The development of academic self-efficacy. InA. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 15–31).New York, NY: Academic Press.

Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2004). Self-efficacy in education revisited: Empirical andapplied evidence. In D. M. McInerney & S. V. Etten (Eds.), Big theories revisited:Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning (pp. 115–138).Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2007). Wrapping the curriculum around their lives: Using a culturallyrelevant curriculum with African American adult women. Adult Education Quarterly, 58,44–60.

Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy andoutcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1086–1101.

Siwatu, K. O. (2009). Student teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding culturally responsiveteaching and their professed classroom practices. Teacher Education and Practice, 22,323–333.

Siwatu, K. O. (2011). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self efficacy formingexperiences: A mixed methods study. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 360–369.

Stoicovy, C. (2002). A case for culturally responsive pedagogy. International Research inGeographical and Environmental Education, 11, 80–84.

Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2009). Released Texas TAKS scores: Sixth grade reading.Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us

16 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

US Census Bureau. (2009). Current population reports, United States. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov

Valencia, R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking. New York, NY: Routledge.Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers: Rethinking the

curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20–32.Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Ware, F. (2006). Warm demander pedagogy: Culturally responsive teaching that supports a

culture of achievement for African American students. Urban Education, 41, 427–456.Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Closing the racial achievement gap: The role of reforming

instructional practices. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 12(64), 1–24.Williams, C. (2006). “You gotta reach ‘em”: An African American teacher’s multiple

literacies approach. Theory into Practice, 45, 346–351.Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.Zimmerman, B. J., & Cleary, T. J. (2006). Adolescents’ development of personal agency:

The role of self-efficacy beliefs and self-regulatory skill. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.),Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 45–69). Greenwich, CT: Information AgePublishing.

Appendix A. Culturally familiar reading task

Mexican Movies

(1) It’s the one with Pedro Armendariz in love with his boss’s wife, only she’s nothingbut trouble and his problem is he’s just plain dumb. Papa gives us the quarters andsends us to the lobby.

(2) In the lobby there are thick carpets, red red, which if you drag your feet will makeelectricity. And velvet curtains with yellow fringe like a general’s shoulders. And afat velvet rope across the stairs that means you can’t go up there.

(3) You can put a quarter in a machine in the ladies’ bathroom and get a plastictic-tac-toe or pink lipstick the color of sugar roses on birthday cakes. Or you can goout and spend it at the candy counter for a bag of churros, or a ham-and-cheese torta,or a box of jujubes. If you buy the jujubes, save the box because when you’refinished you can blow through it and it sounds just like a burro, which is fun to dowhen the movie’s on because maybe somebody will answer you with his jujube boxuntil Papa says quit it.

(4) I like the Pedro Infante movies best. He always sings riding a horse and wears a bigsombrero and never tears the dresses off the ladies, and the ladies throw flowers froma balcony, and usually somebody dies, but not Pedro Infante because he has to singthe happy song at the end.

(5) Because Kiki’s still little, he likes to run up and down the aisles, up and down withthe other kids, like little horses, the way I used to, but now it’s my job to make surehe doesn’t pick up the candy he finds on the floor and put it in his mouth.

(6) Sometimes somebody’s kid climbs up on the stage, and there at the bottom of thescreen’s a double silhouette, which makes everyone laugh. And sooner or later ababy starts crying so somebody else can yell ¡Que saquen a ese niño! But if it’sKiki, that means me because Papa doesn’t move when he’s watching a movie andMama sits with her legs bunched beneath her like an accordion because she’s afraidof rats.

(7) Theaters smell like popcorn. We get to buy a box with a clown tossing some up inthe air and catching it in his mouth with little bubbles saying NUTRITIOUS and DELI-

CIOUS. Me and Kiki like tossing popcorn up in the air too and laughing when itmisses and hits us on the head, or grabbing big bunches in our hands and squishingit into a tiny crumpled pile that fits inside our mouth, and listening to how it squeaksagainst our teeth, and biting the kernels at the end and spitting them out at each otherlike watermelon wars.

Educational Psychology in Practice 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

(8) We like Mexican movies. Even if it’s one with too much talking. We just roll our-selves up like a doughnut and sleep, the armrest hard against our head until Mamaputs her sweater there. But then the movie ends. The lights go on. Somebody picksus up—our shoes and legs heavy and dangling like dead people—carries us in thecold to the car that smells like ashtrays. Black and white, black and white lightsbehind our closed eyelids, until by now we’re awake but it’s nice to go on pretendingwith our eyes shut because here’s the best part. Mama and Papa lift us out of thebackseat and carry us upstairs to the third-floor front where we live, take off ourshoes and clothes, and cover us, so when we wake up, it’s Sunday already, and we’rein our beds and happy.

Appendix B. Culturally unfamiliar reading task

Indio

(1) Pale beams of dying moonlight fell upon the canyon path. Ipa-tah-chi knew the trail sowell that her yucca-fiber sandals found the hidden notches and unseen rocks withoutthe help of her eyes. But Ipa’s younger brother, Kadoh, was only five summers old andhad not climbed the path in darkness before. He stumbled, making pebbles rain to thecanyon below, where flat-roofed adobe houses squatted beside the Great River.

(2) “Come, Little Brother. The top of the canyon is near,” Ipa whispered as she helped herbrother up and brushed a layer of red sand from his bare legs.

(3) The boy’s breath came in little gasps until he reached the flat ground at the canyonrim. Ipa’s own breathing was calm as she drew in the deliciously cool predawn airheavy with the fragrance of tangy creosote bushes and sweet purple sage and dustycactus.

(4) “We are here!” Kadoh cried out. His sharp echo ricocheted off the rocky walls beneaththeir feet.

(5) “Shh!” Ipa put her hand over his broad, grinning mouth. “You will scare away thepanther.”

(6) “Is this where the panther comes to drink?”(7) “No, Brother Panther drinks from the river below. We are going to a secret place to

watch him.”(8) “Why don’t we hide in the canes beside the river?”(9) “Brother Panther is far too smart for us. The wind would carry our scent to his nose

and he would run away. Give me your hand. We still have many paces to walk.”(10) Ipa took the boy’s small, sweaty hand into her own and walked along the rim of the

canyon. To her left, beyond the space of nothingness, the far canyon wall seemed tomove in the opposite direction. Ipa felt the rush of giddiness that always came whenshe looked over the edge. She turned her face away and continued walking until theycame to broken boulders tumbled on top of one another. Kadoh broke away and rantoward the formation.

(11) “Ay!” Ipa called out after him. “Watch out for snakes and yucca spears.”(12) As Kadoh ignored her advice and scrambled up one of the boulders, Ipa sighed heav-

ily. She had not wanted to bring Kadoh with her, but he had heard her sneaking upthe notched tree ladder that led from their beds to the flat roof of their grandmother’shouse. His prying questions and excitement would have jeopardized waking the oldwoman if Ipa did not bring him along. Even threatening him with stories of a bogey-man who snatched away disobedient children in a shoulder basket would not makethe curious little boy change his stubborn mind.

(13) As Kadoh leaped down, he cried out softly.(14) “Ay! It is a yucca spear,” he said in disbelief, and rubbed his kneecap. “How did you

see it, Sister? Do you have the eyes of an owl that can see at night?”(15) Ipa chuckled. “Perhaps I do. Or perhaps I have been up and down this trail more

years than you have been alive, Little Beetle.” Ipa called her brother by a special

18 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

name that only she used. Rarely did anyone call him by his Sun-Name, Kadoh, whichhad been bestowed on him at his naming ceremony. Ipa remembered that dawn theirgrandmother had presented the naked baby to the Great Spirit for blessing. Even backthen, Ipa thought the precious little bundle looked like a beetle as he squirmed andkicked in his cradleboard, his large black eyes twinkling over the top of the soft rab-bit-fur lining.

(16) “I am not a beetle,” Kadoh insisted, jutting his chin out.(17) “Oh, yes you are—always crawling into places where you do not belong. I saw you

creeping down the corn rows yesterday when you were supposed to be scaring awaythe crows.”

(18) “I was stalking a rabbit. I almost caught him with my bare hands.”(19) “Your bare hands?” Ipa laughed lightly.

Appendix C. Culturally familiar recall and reading comprehension questions

“Mexican Movies”Please answer each question by circling the correct choice. You may look back in thepassage to help you answer each question.

(1) Which type of food was NOT sold at the movie theatre?(a) Churros(b) Ham-and-cheese torta(c) Box of jujubes(d) Hot dogs

(2) What day of the week did the family go see the movie?(a) Thursday(b) Friday(c) Saturday(d) Sunday

(3) In paragraph 6, “like an accordion” implies that Mama’s legs are,(a) Propped up on the seat in front of her(b) Scrunched up so her legs don’t touch the floor(c) Uncomfortable due to the rats(d) Making sounds as she tries to keep her legs from touching the floor

(4) In paragraph 8, at the end of the movie, it is best implied by the narrator that(a) He and Kiki are bored(b) Mama and Papa are annoyed to find the children asleep(c) Mama and Papa are happy to take care of the children(d) He and Kiki like to be carried by their parents

(5) Based on the narrator telling the story, how does he most likely feel about going tothe movies?(a) A boring experience where he entertains himself in the lobby(b) A loud place where good food is served(c) A dirty place where children misbehave(d) An exciting place to eat and spend time with family and friends

(6) Based on “Mexican Movies,” make the best prediction about the family(a) The family had a poor experience and will not return to the movies(b) The family got bored and fell asleep and will not return to the movies(c) The family enjoyed the time with each other and will return to the movies(d) The family will only come back for Pedro Armendariz movies

(7) The author wrote this story most likely to:(a) entertain readers about a family’s experience at the movies(b) inform readers what a Mexican movie is like(c) convince readers that Mexican movies are fun(d) compare Mexican movies with American movies

Educational Psychology in Practice 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Appendix D. Culturally unfamiliar recall and reading comprehensionquestions

“Indio”Please answer each question by circling the correct choice. You may look back in thepassage to help you answer each question.

(1) Which type of animal was NOT mentioned in this story?(a) Snake(b) Hawk(c) Owl(d) Rabbit

(2) What time of day did Ipa and Kadoh begin their trip to the canyon?(a) Morning, right after sun rise(b) Around noon(c) Evening at dusk(d) Night, with moonlight

(3) In this story, it is implied that an Indio “Sun Name” can be interpreted as(a) A nickname(b) A person’s real name(c) A name given by the Great Spirit in a naming ceremony(d) A family name passed down from prior generations

(4) What is Kadoh implying when he asks Ipa if she has eyes of an owl?(a) Ipa’s eyes resembles the shape and colour of an owl’s eyes(b) Ipa can see things quickly(c) Ipa can see in the dark(d) Ipa can see what the trail looks like from memory

(5) Which of the following best describes the main idea of how the canyon is perceivedby the author?(a) The canyon is a dangerous place that should be avoided.(b) The canyon is a mysterious place that is difficult to find.(c) The canyon is a place where the Indio Native Americans reside.(d) The canyon is a beautiful, peaceful place where many animals and plants reside

(6) Why is the main purpose of making the trip to the canyon?(a) To be able to explore the canyon and watch a panther(b) To get out of grandmothers house for a bit(c) To get exercise(d) To show Kadoh the canyon

(7) The author wrote this story most likely to:(a) Inform readers about a Native American’s experience in a canyon(b) Convince readers that small children are not suited to explore a canyon(c) Entertain readers with a brother and sister exploring the canyon(d) Compare life for Native Americans with life today

Appendix E. General reading self-efficacy scale

Put a number of 0 to 10 using the box below to answer the following questions about readingin your English Language Arts class.

When you read in your English Language Arts class, how sure are you that you couldsuccessfully …

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Not Sure A Little

SureKind ofSure

Sure Really Sure

20 Heather M. Kelley et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015

Appendix F. Culturally familiar self-efficacy scale

Put a number of 0 to 10 using the box below to answer the following questions about“Mexican Movies”.

After reading “Mexican Movies,” how sure are you that you could successfully …

Appendix G. Culturally unfamiliar self-efficacy scale

Put a number of 0 to 10 using the box below to answer the following questions about“Indio”.

After reading “Indio,” how sure are you that you could successfully …

Identify the main idea of a story. ___________________Identify the place where a story happened. ___________________Identify the main characters in a story. ___________________Summarise what happened in a story. ___________________Use what I know about reading to understand difficult words in astory.

___________________

Use my life experiences to make sense of a story. ___________________Use what I know about reading to help me answer questions abouta story.

___________________

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Not Sure A Little

SureKind ofSure

Sure Really Sure

Identify the main idea of the story ___________________Identify the place where the story happened. ___________________Identify the main characters in the story ___________________Summarise what happened in the story. ___________________Use what I know about reading to understand difficult words inthis story.

___________________

Use my life experiences to make sense of the story. ___________________Use what I know about reading to help me answer questions aboutthe story.

___________________

Answer questions at the end of the story correctly ___________________

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Not Sure Sure Really Sure

Identify the main idea of the story ___________________Identify the place where the story happened. ___________________Identify the main characters in the story ___________________Summarise what happened in the story. ___________________Use what I know about reading to understand difficult words inthis story.

___________________

Use my life experiences to make sense of the story. ___________________Use what I know about reading to help me answer questions aboutthe story.

___________________

Answer questions at the end of the story correctly ___________________

Educational Psychology in Practice 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Val

dost

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity],

[Ja

mes

Mar

tinez

] at

12:

55 2

7 A

pril

2015