Beginning with the observation that the field of Education employs a wide range of labels, the project Good Teaching: A Historical Perspective on Culturally Responsive Teaching centers on asset-based pedagogy. It traces the historical development of culturally responsive teaching and critically examines how "good teaching" functions both as a label and as a sustained pedagogical practice.
This project systematically explores culturally responsive teaching—how it evolves, iterates, and endures. It highlights both the relationships and tensions within academia as we strive to continually improve learning and teaching, and it pushes forward our collective inquiry into what makes good teaching. Furthermore, I plan to examine the language used in the three asset-based pedagogical frameworks more closely to uncover the nuances shaped by their specific contexts.
Throughout the process, I have received valuable support from my librarian, who offered guidance on locating literature, refining my writing, and navigating the publishing process. I am also grateful to the U-M Library for the chance to connect with scholars and resources from across different fields.
What constitutes “good teaching”?
The question of what constitutes “good teaching” has long permeated educational discourse. Unlike many disciplines, teaching is defined by diverse labels—equitable, anti-racist, culturally responsive—each reflecting distinct priorities. This proliferation of frameworks raises critical questions: How do these labels shape our understanding of “good teaching,” and what complexities do they clarify or conceal?
Educated in a system prioritizing conformity, I once presumed uniform learner experiences. Teaching learners from distinct cultural backgrounds, however, exposed me to the gap between standardized curricula and local realities. These dual perspectives—learner and teacher—compelled me to redefine “good teaching” through the lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) bridges this gap, reaffirming my commitment to good teaching and lifelong learning. In this article, I analyze culturally responsive teaching as a case study to address two questions: How does CRT redefine “good teaching” through theory and practice over history? Furthermore, what are the affordances and constraints of such labels?
The Rationale for CRT
The origins of culturally responsive teaching can be traced back to culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), a concept introduced by Gloria Ladson-Billings in the early 1990s. Drawing from her early exposure to culturally relevant teaching and subsequent educational experiences, Ladson-Billings advocated for instructional approaches that sustain and support students' cultural and linguistic competencies within the context of evolving demographic shifts. About a decade later, African American scholar Geneva Gay coined the term “culturally responsive teaching (CRT).” Confronting the contradiction between the increasing demographic diversity in U.S. classrooms and the persistence of cultural hegemony in discipline-based schooling, Gay aimed to challenge deficit-oriented paradigms that blamed students of color for underachievement and to further bridge the long-standing achievement gaps between white students and students of color.
In her book Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice (2000), Gay defines CRT as “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames of references, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (p. 36). Different from Ladson-Billings’s focus on theory and sociopolitical empowerment, Gay emphasized pedagogical strategies in the dynamics of classroom instructions. She chose the word "responsive" to highlight the teacher's role in modifying instruction, communication, and assessment to meet students’ diverse cultural needs. With a focus on educational inequity, Gay aimed to transform pedagogy to reflect multicultural realities and combat systemic inequities. To Gay, good teaching should situate academic knowledge within students’ lived experiences and frames of reference, fostering the success of all learners.
Debates and Discussions on CRT
With explicit and practical strategies, the framework of culturally responsive teaching has been extensively researched and applied, both in academia and practice. A 2019 analysis by the think tank New America found that all states incorporate some elements of culturally responsive teaching into their professional teaching standards. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, particularly controversies and misinterpretations that may undermine its effectiveness and potentially harm students. One significant issue is the superficial application of this label, where educators with good intentions may inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes or reinforce existing biases. This occurs when cultural elements are used merely as hooks to gain student attention or as checklists for external examination rather than as integral components of the dynamic learning process. Such practices can underestimate cultural differences and reinforce systemic inequities that the framework of CRT aims to combat. Another common misinterpretation involves the lack of self-reflection and continuous learning among teachers. Without critically and continuously examining their own biases, teachers may unconsciously implement CRT strategies that can cause harm to marginalized students, leading to the reinforcement of harmful stereotypes and the perpetuation of inequitable practices.
Implications of Labels for Good Teaching
These improper interpretations and applications of culturally responsive teaching remind us to think critically about the affordances and constraints of pedagogical labels. On the one hand, labels serve as useful frameworks for defining and distinguishing good teaching practices by tackling specific educational issues. By establishing a common terminology, labels unite stakeholders around shared goals, amplifying collective voices and fostering collaborative action. They also bridge theory and practice, guiding educators to align abstract principles with tangible classroom strategies towards equitable outcomes.
On the other hand, labels also carry potential pitfalls. First, as exemplified by CRT, labels can be misinterpreted, misused, or reduced to umbrella terms that hinder deeper exploration and further growth. Sometimes, overinvestment in semantic debates can blind educators to realities or other issues. Second, debates persist over the legitimacy and superiority of different labels in defining good teaching. For instance, the label of culturally responsive teaching values students’ prior experiences, while the label of personalized learning emphasizes tailoring learning experiences to individual student needs and interests. Which label better captures the nature of good teaching? Whose interests do they serve, respectively? In my opinion, good teaching is not a binary choice between frameworks but a contextually grounded practice that demands critical interrogation in terms of which tools serve which students under what conditions. A second language learner, for instance, may require culturally responsive strategies to affirm their cultural identity and prior knowledge, as well as some personalized scaffolds. Ultimately, the true measure of a label lies in how teachers reflectively and continuously adapt it to their students’ lived realities. Good teaching is about an unwavering commitment to honoring students as capable learning agents and whole people.
In conclusion, the framework of culturally responsive teaching offers a transformative lens for “good teaching” by centering students’ cultural identities as pedagogical assets and confronting systemic inequities. Yet, like all labels, it risks reducing dynamic practices to checklists or stopping at semantic debates. Such a mix of affordances and constraints reminds us that while labels serve as catalysts for intentional change, they demand critical and continuous reflection to sustain their emancipatory potential for good teaching.
References for this blog are linked here