Learning routines that reflect teachers’ asset-based pedagogies: Creating breathing spaces for students

Abstract

The findings of this inquiry emerged from a research study conducted over two years in two schools investigating how teachers support learners from populations who have been historically underserved by a provincial education system in Canada. Emerging from a focus on how teachers in four rural middle school classrooms supported literacy acquisition through teaching in the content areas, this work revealed asset-based pedagogies made visible by teaching and learning routines that provided learners supportive spaces to grow. Each of these routines was developed by teacher participants to enable students to think, ask questions, make choices, assess their learning, and take risks as learners. The results of this study affirm what is known about how to support learners in culturally and economically diverse classroom contexts and afford new understanding about asset-based informed learning routines that can encourage students to take risks academically. As learning routines have not often been studied in relation to culturally relevant pedagogy, culturally sustaining pedagogy, or additive schooling theories, this study suggests a novel intersection with these asset-based pedagogies. This intersection offers fresh possibilities for understanding their enactment in classrooms.

Keywords:

• asset-based pedagogies
• culturally relevant pedagogies
• teaching and learning routines
• academic risk-taking

1. Introduction: Asset-based pedagogies inform learning routines in middle school classrooms

What makes a fire burn

is space between the logs,

a breathing space …

A fire

grows

simply because the space is there,

with openings

in which the flame

that knows just how it wants to burn

can find its way.

-Judy Sorum Brown (2012, as cited in Buckelew & Ewing, 2019, p. 105)

In this paper we describe how teachers in four rural middle school classrooms practiced learning routines based on asset-based pedagogies to support learners in their classes. The excerpt from the poem Fire that opens this paper offers the metaphor of the importance of the space between the logs, the breathing space, that is needed for a fire to burn.¹ The findings of this inquiry emerged from a research study conducted over two years in two schools in which we investigated how teachers support learners from populations who have been historically underserved by the Nova Scotia (NS) education system (Mitton & Murray-Orr, 2021, 2022; Murray-Orr & Mitton, 2021) with attention upon African Nova Scotian (ANS) and Mi’kmaq learners, and learners who experience poverty (Kakembo et al., 2014; Province of Nova Scotia, 2016). The necessity to understand how to support learners from populations made vulnerable by systematic inequities has been identified as a significant NS endeavour (Kakembo et al., 2014; Province of Nova Scotia, 2016) to be addressed through partnership. Current efforts, to this end, include the creation of the of the Inter-University Research Network (IURN) guided by a steering committee involving provincial representatives responsible for teacher education (Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2020). The main directive of this network is to create and nurture a knowledge base about the reasons, successful mediations, and results of efforts that focus on the achievement gap² in NS schools. Funded by the IURN, the overall goal of this study was to work with middle school teachers (Grades 5 to 8) who had been identified by school leadership teams³ as having a successful record of supporting learners to flourish maintaining a focus on literacy practices infused into the teaching of science and social studies. Our focus was aligned with research literature on the achievement gap alongside the contextual challenges of specific populations in NS to closely examine the pedagogical practices of Grade 5 to 8 teachers, grades in which learners are especially at risk and in need of outstanding teaching (Fang, 2006; McKenna & Robinson, 2014; Monte-Sano et al., 2014). The results of this study affirm what is known about how to enable vulnerable learners and makes visible learning routines informed by the asset-based pedagogies of teacher participants.

Viewing practices that support all students through the lens of asset-based pedagogies is necessary to confront the “deficit ideologies [that] are rampant in education” (Flint & Jaggers, 2021, p. 254). Nesting our inquiry within the work of researchers of asset-based pedagogies such as culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), made known by Ladson-Billings (1995, 2014), culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) (Paris & Alim, 2014), and Valenzuela’s (1999, 2005) conception of additive schooling within a pedagogy of care, supported us in identifying teaching and learning routines that draw upon a strengths-focused perspective to support all students in taking risks intellectually (Beghetto, 2009), a practice we conceptualize as academic risk-taking (ART). ART is teaching that promotes “amongst students a willingness to take risks as learners, moving outside their comfort zones to try new things and consider new ideas” (Authors, 2022, p. 2). To foster ART amongst learners to be eager to engage in academic risks, we found, reflects pedagogical decisions that incorporate learning routines where students have the space and time to process, try, and grow. With the research question, How do these learning routines reflect asset-based pedagogies which support culturally and economically diverse students?, this paper reports on four routines used by teacher participants to create breathing spaces for students to feel confident to be academic risk-takers, for “the flame that knows just how it wants to burn … [to] find its way” (Brown, 2012, as cited in Buckelew & Ewing, 2019, p. 105).

2. Asset-based pedagogies: A literature review

In this section we review literature on several asset-based pedagogies, identifying central tenets with a particular focus on the three principles most relevant to this paper: belonging, agency, and a sense of community. We then review works on four teaching and learning routines that are integral to the classrooms in our study in which academic risk-taking (ART) thrives: classroom circles based on a restorative approach, asset-based assessment, open-ended questions to ignite interest and engagement, and special projects.

2.1. Asset-based pedagogies offer counternarratives

Asset-based pedagogies draw upon a range of pedagogical approaches, all of which have goals of “offer[ing] counter narratives to deficit ideology outcomes” (Flint & Jaggers, 2021, p. 255). Seeing all children and youth, especially those who have been marginalized, as bringing multiple assets, or funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 2005), to school is central to each of these pedagogies. As Flint and Jaggers assert, “asset-based pedagogies place value on students’ insights, languages, and cultural practices, as well as seek to critique injustices, oppression, and other social-political issues” (p. 255). With an emphasis on Afrocentric praxis (King & Swartz, 2016), Flint and Jaggers “share insights from elementary classrooms where teachers take up culturally informed principles to foster inquiries of identity, neighborhoods, and activism” (p. 257).

Various models detailing the tenets of asset-based pedagogies have been developed, as scholars and educators call for pedagogies that value students’ cultures, languages, knowledge, and outside-of-school experiences and see them as assets. Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) developed a conceptual model of CRP using “Gay’s (1994, 2000), Ladson-Billing’s (1995) and Nieto’s (1999) principles of culturally relevant teaching … [and] incorporat[ing] CRT [critical race theory]” (p. 71). The framework developed by Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) is made up of five sets of concepts: identity and achievement; equity and excellence; developmental appropriateness; teaching the whole child; and student-teacher relationships. Valenzuela’s (1999, 2005) conceived a framework of pedagogical care which includes concepts of subtractive and additive schooling and is well-aligned with asset-based pedagogy. King and Swartz (2016) detailed seven culturally informed pedagogical principles as part of their curriculum based on Afrocentric praxis and knowledges, including locating students, culturally authentic assessment, and communal responsibility, among others.

2.2. Three central aspects of asset-based pedagogies

Flint and Jaggers (2021) explored “the impact of asset-based pedagogies in elementary classrooms” (p. 254) and found teachers’ use of three of King and Swartz’s (2016) culturally informed pedagogical principles helpful in “disrupt[ing] commonplace and pervasive assumptions about urban and diverse classroom spaces” (p. 254). Similar to Flint and Jaggers, we focus on “belonging, agency, and well-being” (p. 260) because the asset-based pedagogies of teachers in our study reflected a focus on these three principles, exemplified in the development of the learning routines they practiced.

2.2.1. Belonging

A vital factor affecting student engagement is a sense of belonging on the part of students, which Carter and Tipton (2021) define as a “closeness … an attachment to their teacher” (p. 133). The quality of teacher-student interactions, in particular emotional support through such actions as “being sensitive, responsive, warm, and aware of student interests and needs” (Martin & Rimm-Kaufman, 2015, p. 361) lead to this sense of belonging. Howard (2021) notes that “a rich body of literature highlights the importance of healthy teacher-student relationships” (p. 412) and further, that “culturally relevant teaching that has an element of relational connections and trust is important” (p. 412), as teachers getting to know students’ backgrounds is like “an investment in young people” (p. 412). The link between CRP and teacher-student relationships has been drawn by a range of scholars (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Valenzuela, 1999).

2.2.2. Agency

King and Swartz’s (2016) define agency as “hav[ing] the will and capacity to act in and on the world—not only as individuals, but as members of their cultural group” (p. 14). In their research they found that “ … the teachers we have observed … model how to create community, encourage inquiry and agency, produce academic and cultural excellence” (p. xii). Such an asset-based approach applies not only to learning but to assessment as well, and “posits learners as agentive co-creators of knowledge with the capacity to determine a diversity of ways in which assessment processes might be designed and implemented” (p. 105). As Gay (2015) described, culturally responsive teaching promotes “feelings of efficacy, agency, and empowerment” (p. 136). In all aspects of teaching and learning, promoting student agency is a vital part of an asset-based pedagogy.

2.2.3. Well-being

Moll et al. (1992) identified the concept of well-being explicitly as they described funds of knowledge as “historically accumulated and culturally-developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (p. 133). In the literature on well-being, two integrated aspects appear. First is the well-being of students, which Flint and Jaggers (2021) found is supported by “asset-based curricular engagements and interactions” (p. 261), characterized by “a humanizing approach to teaching and learning [in which] mutual trust and respect were visible when connecting home to school and drew upon community and cultural resources” (p. 261). This approach is closely connected with the second aspect of well-being, articulated by King and Swartz’s (2016) as a communal well-being based on their conceptual framework of Teaching for Freedom. Supporting students’ well-being is synonymous with supporting the well-being of the community in this framework.

2.3. Four teaching and learning routines that reflect asset-based pedagogies

Brown et al. (2019) theorize that while teachers must have a deep understanding of CRP, they must also “understand what pedagogical moves they must make to improve student learning in relation to students’ cultural and linguistic practices” (p. 782). Gay (2001) states that “pedagogical actions are as important as (if not more important than) multicultural curriculum designs in implementing culturally responsive teaching” (p. 109). In this section we focus on four pedagogical moves or actions, which we call teaching and learning routines, that reflect asset-based pedagogies and support culturally and economically diverse students.

2.3.1. Classroom circles based on restorative practices

Meeting in circles as a pedagogical strategy is a recent phenomenon in schools.⁴ Among the most common approaches used in restorative practice circles are those that address conflict or negative social behaviors nested in efforts to foster relationships (Costello et al., 2010; Lodi et al., 2021; Watchel, 2016). Gathering in circles to foster communication while proactively building relationships and a sense of belonging in community is viewed as a positive way to counteract the potential of future conflict (Watchel, 2016). School-based research on restorative practices has focused on its the influence upon student behaviors, particularly in the decrease of behaviors like disruptive student behaviors in the classroom as well as the reduction of suspensions and expulsions (Gregory et al., 2016; Lodi et al., 2021). The research also reveals the positive influence restorative practices have upon schooling contexts in the forms of social skill development, peer to peer interactions, and teacher-student relationships (Garnett et al., 2022; Ortega et al., 2016; Schumacher, 2014). While there is an emerging wealth of research related to the positive impact of restorative practice principles upon school culture and student behavior, little research has considered how restorative practice principles may inform teacher instructional decision-making and pedagogical practices.

2.3.2. Asset-based assessment practices

Assessment practices that are asset-based have not been the norm in many countries, as standardized testing makes no space for valuing students’ life experiences and the contexts of their communities and cultures. Shepard (2019), working to support teaching and learning using an asset-based approach to assessment, conceptualized an assessment model that integrates sociocultural theory of learning and brought together “separate reform efforts—those based on ‘culturally relevant pedagogy,’ standards-based instruction, technology, and assessment” (p. 185) into a coherent model that included assessment. In this model, family, community, and classroom learning culture are overlapping circles, with teaching, learning and formative assessment practices such as improvement-focused feedback and self and peer assessment, nested in all three domains.

2.3.3. Open-ended, invitational questions

A body of research in mathematics and science classrooms has focused on the value of open-ended questions as valuable in students’ acquisition of problem-solving strategies (Chambers, 2007; Intaros et al., 2014). Intaros et al. suggest that open-ended questions are integral to the success of problem-solving in mathematics, concluding that “cultural and social context[s] … influenc[e] students’ authentic experiences” (p. 4122) in supportive ways and should be the subject of further study. Similarly, Tomlinson (2015) notes that learning routines such as open-ended questions are an important way in which “the teacher builds bridges between the students’ homes and school” (p. 206), and “helps students connect content with their life experiences” (p. 207). Further, Tomlinson notes that learning routines such as open-ended questions support students’ learning by “ … effectively address[ing] students’ varied learning trajectories and accommodat [ing] complex thinking” (p. 207).

2.3.4. Special projects

There are many studies pointing to the benefits of the regular incorporation of projects in middle school classrooms (e.g., Carrabba & Farmer, 2018; DeMink-Carthew & Olofson, 2020; Newman et al., 2015), including increased motivation and engagement, as well as increased academic achievement. For example, Newman et al. (2015) studied STEM service-learning projects in 20 middle schools with student populations of at least 50% free or reduced-cost lunch, finding gains in students’ engagement, resiliency, and civic responsibility. While these studies did not name asset-based pedagogies specifically, their findings support the underlying philosophy of inviting “teachers and learners to share power” (DeMink-Carthew & Olofson, 2020, p. 1) and decision-making, and move away from traditional direct instruction approaches while at the same time providing adequate instructional scaffolding. To successfully make this shift requires a belief in the value of the assets that students bring to classrooms, effectively bringing this learning routine under the umbrella of asset-based pedagogies.

3. Theoretical framework

As our findings highlight how learning routines reflect asset-based pedagogies, we chose a theoretical framework that includes two related asset-based approaches: culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014, 2021) and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2014; Paris, 2021). Ladson-Billings (1995) theorizing of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) with its three pillars of supporting students’ academic achievement, cultural competence, and critical consciousness is foundational for us. Ladson-Billings’s (1995, 2014, 2021) theorizing of CRP changed school landscapes in remarkable ways. In recent years, Paris (2012) built upon CRP with the term culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP), with its goal “ … to perpetuate and foster – to sustain – linguistic, literature cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 88). As Borck and Borck (2020) describes, “a goal of culturally sustaining pedagogy is to empower historically and socially marginalized students … using curricular content that is connected to students’ lives and experiences outside of school” (p. 378).

Paris’s (2021) work on culturally sustaining pedagogy builds on “the beautiful legacy and ongoing work of the strength and asset-based pedagogy tradition” (p. 365). He notes that CRP, CSP and “all of the work in the strength or asset-based traditions … [are vital] to center and sustain the young people in their communities through teaching and learning … ” (p. 365). Paris and Alim (2014) focus on dynamic and shifting cultures and communities, reminding us not to focus our pedagogies solely on “heritage practices” (p. 90) but to include “community practices” (p. 90) that are constantly evolving in “complex, fluid relationships among race, culture, and language” (p. 91). The kinds of learning routines that are the focus of this paper are integral to asset-based pedagogies that make space for “students” questions and concerns” (Freidus, 2020) in relation to community practices that are important to them. We see these learning routines as part of CSPs.

Complementing these foundational theories, Valenzuela’s (1999, 2005) work on pedagogical care and theory of additive schooling provide relevant lenses through which to view our research. In her research on issues of racism and marginalization in how US-Mexican youth are schooled, Valenzuela (2005) defines two terms, subtractive and additive schooling: “Schooling involves either adding on a second culture and language or subtracting one’s original culture and language. An additive outcome would be fully vested bilingualism and biculturalism” (p. 339), and notes that the status quo in the US “in subtractive and inscribed in public policy” (p. 339). Valenzuela (2005) found that students in her research desired a learning environment in which they felt in relation with educators, and that this relationship should be based on “school adults having as their chief concern their students’ entire well-being” (p. 342). Implicit in this relational pedagogy, Valenzuela explains, should be an additive approach to schooling in which students’ languages and cultures are valued as part of a pedagogy of care. She links this pedagogy of care with teaching and learning to support students’ academic success. “ … success needs to be couched in additive, both/and terms that preserve … [students’] psychic and emotional desire to remain socially responsible members of their communities” (p. 344). We understand learning routines such as those observed in our study as examples of this additive approach to teaching and learning.

Theories of CRP, CSP, and additive schooling/a pedagogy of care allowed us to consider the value of learning routines that reflect asset-based pedagogies as about more than solely academic success, but also as inclusive of the assets that students bring to schools and supportive of students’ cultures and communities.

4. Methodology and methods

The purpose of this paper is to examine learning routines developed by teachers using asset-based pedagogies can support all students, especially those from racialized and marginalized communities, in stepping outside their comfort zone to take academic risks. Situated within a larger study of literacy practices in the teaching of science and social studies with middle school students located in culturally and economically diverse classrooms,⁵ in this paper we report on the power of the asset-based pedagogies in classrooms we observed. Using a multiple-case study design focused upon a common case (Yin, 2018), in the larger study we documented teachers’ pedagogical practices and student responses. Case study design is well aligned with research that investigates a current phenomenon and is shaped by contextual circumstances (Yin & Davis, 2007; Yin, 2018).

The two schools in this study, New Learning Academy (NLA) and Highlands Middle School⁶ (HMS), are in rural areas of significant child poverty in Nova Scotia. Since 2015, Nova Scotia is the sole province with an increase in child poverty rates (Frank & Fisher, 2021; Statistics Canada, 2019). Data were gathered in NLA over nine months, from September 2016 to May 2017, and in HMS over five months, from October 2017 to February 2018. The data collection methods included: weekly observations of participants’ teaching as well as two interviews with teacher participants and two focus group interviews with student participants from grades five through eight. Interviews with teacher and student participants were conducted at the beginning and end of the data collection period in each school site. In this paper, drawing upon the data set of the larger study, we tightened our focus to the case of teachers’ asset-based pedagogies as evident in ongoing learning routines to support students in culturally and economically diverse classroom contexts.

4.1. Context of the schools and participants

New Learning Academy (NLA), where data was collected in 2016–2017, was a K-8 school of approximately 550 students in a mid-sized town in a rural area of the province. NLA’s demographics included a significant population of African Nova Scotian learners as well as learners who experience poverty. Two of the four teacher participants from this school are featured in this article, and each of them were experienced middle school teachers who were involved in, and often led, a variety of extra-curricular initiatives. Below is a brief description of each participant at the time of the study, and their teaching responsibilities:

• Foley Mackenzie: Grades 7 and 8 Science; 8 years teaching experience

• Jackie Purcell: Grade 5 all subjects; 32 years teaching experience

Highlands Middle School (HMS), where data was collected in 2017–2018, was a Grade 5–8 school of approximately 575 students in a small town situated in a rural area with a small population of African Nova Scotian students and a significant population of students who experience poverty. Below is a brief description of the two teacher participants from this school at the time of the study, and their teaching responsibilities:

• Jeremy Spencer: Grade 8 ELA, Social Studies, Health; Grade 7 and 8 Physical Education; 20 years teaching experience

• Marla Griffin: Combined Grade 5/6 all subjects; 4 years teaching experience

4.2. Methods of data collection and analysis

From the beginning of our study, we noted participants’ efforts to infuse literacy strategies into the teaching of science and social studies intersecting with tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy. From September 2016 to May 2017, data were gathered at NLA and from October 2017 to February 2018 data were gathered at HMS. As described earlier, data collection methods included weekly observations of participants’ teaching, two interviews with teacher participants, and two focus group interviews with student participants. Both sets of interviews with teacher and student participants bookended the data collection period in each school site.

4.2.1. Observations

At least one member of our research team conducted observations in teacher participants’ classrooms; typically, one day a week was spent at each school. Observations of lessons lasted approximately 60 minutes and happened during the teaching of science or social studies. To increase reliability, one co-researcher led data collection at each school. Author B led the data collection at NLA, and two research assistants (RAs) typically accompanied her. Author A led the data collection at the second school HMS and one RA accompanied her. Field notes were taken during observations. A total of 84 classroom observations were conducted (NLA: 54; HMS: 30).

4.2.2. Teacher interviews

The teacher participants at NLA were interviewed twice over the 2016–2017 school year, at the beginning (October) and end of the data collection process (April/May), to learn more about how they plan for, teach, and assess lessons that incorporate literacy practices to promote the learning of ANS students as well as learners who experience poverty. Similarly, teacher participants at HMS were interviewed twice, at the beginning (October) and at the end (February) of the data collection process. The audio-recorded interviews ran approximately 30 to 60 minutes and included questions about their understanding of literacy in the content areas and culturally relevant pedagogy. Transcription of teacher interviews happened within a week of the interview and were transcribed verbatim. The same research assistant transcribed all interviews during this two-year period.

4.2.3. Student focus group interviews

Focus groups were held with students in classrooms of each of the teacher participants at NLA in early December 2016 and February 2017 and in classrooms of teacher participants at HMS in December 2017 in one classroom and February 2018 in the other. Students were assembled according to grade (Grades 5 to 8) and groups ranged between five to eight in number. Student focus group interviews were audio recorded and were 30 to 45 minutes; questions included their experiences at NLA or HMS as well as their experiences learning science and social studies with the teacher participants. Some of the questions asked include the following:

1. What are some memorable kinds of lessons or activities you recall from your science/social studies course this year?

2. What lessons/activities did you enjoy the most so far in your science/social studies course?

3. What lessons/activities help you learn best in science/in social studies?

4. What kinds of reading activities are the most helpful for you to really understand your science/social studies lesson?

5. What kinds of writing are the most helpful for you to really understand your science/social studies lesson?

As with the teacher interviews, transcription of focus group interviews happened within a week of the interview and were transcribed verbatim. The same research assistant transcribed all interviews during this two-year period.

4.2.4. Data analysis

As teacher educators of elementary and secondary literacies, our interest in learning routines, particularly as interconnected with pedagogical decision making, culturally relevant pedagogy, and content area literacies was in response to inductive analysis of data sets across both school sites. We did not begin this study foreseeing a paper about learning routines, but inductive analysis of data identified common routines as significant to teacher participants’ pedagogies as they worked to foster learning conditions that were culturally relevant to the students whom they taught, and which encouraged them to engage in academic risks. The original primary research question informing the larger study in which this paper is situated asked: in what ways, if any, are middle school teachers (Grades 5–8) integrating literacy practices that support and are relevant to racialized populations and learners experiencing poverty? With this question in mind first cycle coding (Saldaña, 2016) began at the outset of the study in response to the documentation of classroom observation field notes and recording of interviews. As data were first gathered at NLA over 2016–2017, a coding process and inventory (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) had been established and informed analysis at HMS (2017–2018). Our analysis of data gathered at HMS began first with individually reading through the data and open coding while noting frequent patterns, followed by comparing these to analysis of NLA data. Each member of the research team (Murray-Orr, Mitton, Research Assistant) reviewed the overall data from each school site followed by comparisons of both sets. The analysis of common patterns was based upon the purpose and theoretical framework of the study, specifically culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014, 2021), CSP (Paris & Alim, 2014; Paris, 2021), and Valenzuela’s (1999, 2005) conception of additive schooling within a pedagogy of care.

Review and comparison of both data sets enabled us to ascertain references to routines. Common open codes during first cycle coding included words or short phrases that characteristically assigned salient features to learning routines such as “sense of routine”, “sharing circle”, “inquiry question”, “hands on learning”, “relationships”, and “formative assessment”. In the next stage of analysis, we reviewed all open codes and were drawn to considering more closely the open codes associated with learning routines. As we independently analyzed data with these open codes, we created tentative categories looking for similarity and frequency (Saldaña, 2016), which encouraged us to add a second research question and the primary focus of this paper: How do these learning routines reflect asset-based pedagogies which support culturally and economically diverse students? Moving from an inductive approach to a deductive approach in this second cycle of coding enabled us to determine the clustering of open codes into larger categories, or axial codes, that looked and felt alike (Saldaña, 2016) in alignment with the theoretical framework of the study. For example, open codes “sense of routine”, “sharing circle”, and “relationships” were brought together to inform the theme or learning routine, “classroom circles as breathing spaces”. Repeating this process allowed us to develop categories that reflected four learning routines showing how teachers constructed learning conditions where students could anticipate regular opportunities to process, attempt, and grow. In short, to take risks.

5. Findings

Our findings suggest that the teachers in this study developed teaching and learning routines based upon asset-based pedagogies. In analysis of our data set, we noted four routines that were common across the classrooms of the four teachers who are the focus of this paper. Each of these routines, although they were enacted differently in each classroom, provided culturally relevant learning opportunities for students, giving them supportive “breathing space[s]” (Brown, 2012, as cited in Buckelew & Ewing, 2019, p. 105) to think, ask questions, make choices, take risks as learners and assess their own learning. Our findings are organized using ideas and images arising from the poem Fire (Brown, 2012, as cited in Buckelew & Ewing, 2019, p. 105).

5.1. Classroom circles as breathing spaces

The use of classroom circles had a significant impact according to the teachers who are the focus of this paper. Teachers found that the practice of regular classroom circles, as informed by restorative practice principles, afforded them with the opportunity to capitalize on a learning routine that supported student learning opportunities and enabled students to monitor and communicate their understanding of their own learning. One of the first things we observed in the classrooms of three of the four teachers was the arrangement of chairs or desks in a loosely circular fashion. The fieldnote from an initial visit to Jeremy’s Grade 8 classroom on 5 October 2017, describes the classroom set-up:

Jeremy has his room set up in [what he called] a restorative circle and explained that he had attended a workshop on restorative practices. All the desks face the perimeter of the room, and he can have students either turn their chairs to face the centre for class discussions or turn back to their desks for independent work.

All teachers in this study had attended a professional development session on the use of classroom circles. In this arrangement students could face the centre of the classroom for whole group activities and then turn their chairs to face the outside walls of the classroom when it was time for independent work. Classroom circles, by offering students these different opportunities, might be seen as learning routines that created breathing spaces for students where they could turn their chairs to the wall to have time to think, work independently or have a reprieve from the action of the classroom. The circles had several advantages according to teachers.

In the following excerpt from an interview with Marla on 30 October 2017, she describes why she set up her Grade 5–6 classroom in a restorative circle design.

I think that to collaborate and to talk, that’s really [important] … When I went to that in-service [on restorative practices], it was just a whole other - I was just like, wow. I had the desks in groups before, but when I made that switch [to the circle] … I said, “oh I’ll try it out for a couple of weeks”, but [I found] the engagement was like a 180. Nobody was fiddling in their desks, nobody was laying down, because they were all in the circle, they could see everybody. And just the dynamics too … just being on the same level as the kids in the circle really gives the kind of idea that we’re all equals here, we’re all learning … and that whole feeling that … it’s just a circle, that everybody is valued … And this class is still working on that whole idea of making sure everybody’s voice is valued.

Marla highlighted the value she places on collaboration and how integral the restorative circle in her classroom is to enable this collaboration. She went on to describe the change in the level of engagement as a 180-degree change and reflected on why this arrangement made such a difference. She found “being “on the same level as the kids,” as she sat in the circle each day, created a sense that she was a learner like them. Marla also noted her sense that the circle was a space where “everybody is valued,” another aspect of her pedagogy. Marla did not suggest this is easy, as students were still working on attending to all voices in the classroom. However, she articulated several ways in which the restorative circle aligned with her pedagogical beliefs, which gave her compelling reasons to continue the use of this approach.

The circle as part of classroom design is well aligned with asset-based pedagogies, as teachers paid careful attention to how they supported a sense of belonging in their classrooms. The circle allowed all to contribute, or pass if they wished, providing agency for students within this supportive learning community. Marla’s words about how everyone’s voice is valued reflect her understanding that the circle is meant to be empowering for all students, echoing the King and Swartz’s (2016) conception of “culturally informed principles … sustain[ing] community well-being” (p. xii).

5.2. Questions that spark embers

The teachers in this study both asked questions and invited students to ask questions regularly as a way to ignite their interest and engagement in topics. Underlying question routines in these classrooms was teachers’ desire to light a spark to the as-yet dormant embers in students’ minds. For example, perhaps students did not realize they would be interested in learning about the brain initially, but skillful use of questioning (by both teachers and students) fanned the embers and created sparks that grew into flames, as the next paragraph describes.

In Foley’s Grade 8 science class questions were used to spark embers of interest and excitement in students. On 14 October 2016, in a lesson to introduce a unit on the brain, Foley began with a video excerpt of the last Tragically Hip concert and questions to invite students to share their knowledge, as the following fieldnote describes.

Foley said that they would watch a few minutes of … the Tragically Hip concert from the summer and then … went on to … ask them questions about what they knew about the brain. The powerpoint on the screen said, “what do we know about the brain?” and “what technologies do we use to look at the brain?” The students were anxious to talk about the brain; several students raised their hands to provide answers. Foley [built on their answers] to talk about mental health and brain injuries such as concussions. He asked if students knew of any technologies that monitor the brain; students identified CAT scans and MRIs. Then Foley linked it back to Gord Downie of the Tragically Hip … [He] provided information about MRIs to the class and linked it to optic technologies. Foley said he would need their help to identify different optic technologies.

In this fieldnote, Foley used questions, along with the video of a relevant current event, to build engagement around his lesson topic. At the end of the fieldnote, he framed the activity for this lesson in a way that encouraged students to ask their own questions as they worked to identify several optic technologies.

In an integrated science and language arts lesson on 11 October 2017, Marla began by asking questions herself. For example, she showed a slide of the night sky and, pointing to the familiar constellation, asked students, “How do we know this is the Big Dipper?” This question and the accompanying discussion provided a supportive scaffold for Grade 5 and 6 students to develop their own questions about oral weather traditions or constellations.

Marla has students turn and talk to come up with a question. She sees some students are not quite sure, so she scaffolds by having them look at the question starters on the handout and use these to make questions. After helping students develop a question, Marla gives further instructions: “You will get a sheet where you will write down your five remember questions … Then you will get an iPad and type in the website provided on the slide. The website can be used to find answers to your questions, and you can also then go to other websites to look for more information on your questions.

As the fieldnote indicates, each student developed their own questions to research. Marla’s practice of asking questions herself to spark the embers of engagement and then to have students ask their own questions was a pattern seen regularly in this classroom.

In both Foley’s and Marla’s classrooms, questions encouraged students to draw on their background knowledge. This approach reflects a “validation of home-community cultures” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 72) as students in these classrooms were frequently asked questions that drew upon their out-of-school experiences and areas of interest. This validation is associated with a sense of belonging, deepening the relational connections between students and teacher (Borck & Borck, 2020). As well, Foley and Marla had students ask their own questions to focus their learning and invite them to make choices and decisions as they engaged in the activities of the lessons, encouraging student agency through this learning routine.

5.3. Special projects that kindle sparks

Each of the teachers planned learning opportunities that generated excitement and enthusiasm for learning and invited students to try new things and engage with new ideas. These activities provided possibilities for finding interests within subject areas that students may not previously have felt engaged or excited. The projects also supported students to “hav[e] a disposition about culture, power, and knowledge” (Dixson, 2021, p. 354), as the following examples demonstrate.

Jackie included a special project early in the school year for her Grade 5 students in which they learned about the Mi’kmaq (Indigenous) artist Alan Syliboy and his works, culminating in an art activity in which students created pieces in the style of Syliboy. This 14 October 2016 field note excerpt describes the introduction of this lesson:

The classroom had been transformed into an art room; the tables were covered with plastic tablecloths, paint palettes, and small cups of water … Jackie said today they were going to have fun and that it was important to have fun while creating work. Jackie said they were trying to replicate Mr. Syliboy’s work but they would not be able to make it look exactly like his work.

Jackie planned this art activity as part of her commitment to bringing multicultural content into the classroom regularly. A few weeks later, on 4 November 2016, Jackie brought in a guest speaker to talk about history and Mi’kmaq artifacts, continuing the integration of Mi’kmaq culture into her teaching practice.

On 24 January 2018, Jeremy’s Grade eight class was in the midst of creating podcasts as a form of response to literature with authors and characters and settings across diverse cultures. It was evident that Jeremy provided structure as well as space for creativity, something Jane also did in the special project described above.

I asked two students about the podcasts … they … [were] working on. They explained they are using Garageband to make their podcasts, which are about the books they read in their book groups. They [mentioned they] can add sound effects, etc. later … Students went to their spots [most groups are outside the classroom] to work … Jeremy headed out to the groups to check in with them. I visited several of the small groups around the school and they appeared to be quite engaged and invested in this project … students were looking for appropriate music to add as background for their podcasts. One group was working hard to try to sound convincing in their roles.

Having the small groups work on their podcasts in corners and empty rooms around the school was evidence of Jeremy’s belief that his students would act responsibly outside the classroom where he could not monitor. In speaking with Jeremy after class, he noted that:

… after providing the framework and supports, he has to “let go” at this point and trust that students who are out in the hallways and out of the classroom will work together and problem solve independently and know when to come to ask for support. (January 24, 2018 field note)

Students appeared to appreciate Jeremy’s pedagogical approach, as they were actively engaged in the classes observed in this study. This is reflected in a comment from a student focus group interview on 9 February 2018:

Penny: Yeah, like, it [the podcast activity] was fun because our LA classes are always very creative and like um, our essays, they’re also cool. … I saw people were more engaged and put effort into it.

Penny noted, and the focus group agreed, that projects like the podcast, and other writing/creating projects they have had, were “fun” and “cool.” Penny observed that her fellow students were “more engaged,” suggesting that Jeremy successfully kindled sparks of interest and created breathing spaces for students to be academic risk-takers, to “put effort into it.”

These data are examples of Jackie’s and Jeremy’s “aware[ness] of student interests and needs” (Martin & Rimm-Kaufman, 2015, p. 361), enabling students to feel that they belong. Projects such as these illustrate the teachers’ support of students to be responsible and to develop dispositions of self-reliance and collaborative problem-solving, encouraging their agency as learners. Both teachers were committed to providing multiple ways for students to show their learning, an aspect of caring for their well-being.

5.4. Assessment routines: taking care not to douse the flames

The four teachers who are the focus of this paper each used assessment routines that supported all students and provided multiple opportunities to succeed. They provided continuous support through ongoing check-ins and in-the-moment feedback that nudged students with just the right amount of challenge. The following examples from fieldnotes illustrate the ways the teachers found ways to build open spaces “in which the flame … knows just how it wants to burn” (Brown, 2012, as cited in Buckelew & Ewing, 2019, p. 105).

In Foley’s Grade 8 Science class, a number of students had gotten behind in completing a series of optics labs, so on 7 October 2016, he provided an opportunity for them to work on these in a supportive environment:

Foley said they have done four labs so far but some people have not completed their labs and he cannot give marks for incomplete work. A student said, “you could give zeroes,” and Foley replied, “I don’t want to give zeroes; I want you to do well.” Foley explained that he was giving them the opportunity to do the labs they missed and for those students who had completed all four of the labs, he had a new lab for them to do … Foley checked in with all the students; [for example] he asked Corey if he needed help. Corey said yes and Foley said, “Okay, buddy, let’s go to it” [and they worked together on the lab].

Foley was committed to ensuring all students learned, and to providing more than one opportunity to experience success, like this extra time for lab work. Because of the relationships he had cultivated with students, even though it was early in the school year there was a relaxed atmosphere in the classroom and students felt comfortable to respond openly as in the beginning of this field note: “You could give us zeros.” Foley’s response asserts that he is more interested in students learning about science topics, in this case optics, than in evaluating their learning in a one-off assessment.

In Marla’s classroom ongoing assessment was a daily practice as she supported students individually, moving about the classroom as well as meeting with them on the couch in the middle of the room. In this fieldnote from 10 January 2018, Marla’s use of formative assessment was visible in her interactions with students as they began to write poems about different notable African Nova Scotians, choosing from an extensive list that Marla had compiled.

Students get up to get the chromebooks and the books Marla pointed out [to use to gather information about the person they chose to write about]. As they transition into this activity. M. sits on the couch and helps one student get started. After that student is ready to go, Marla calls another over to get him on track. Then a student comes herself to ask a question. [After a short conversation] Marla says she will be back in five minutes to check in with this student. Students seem to feel very comfortable to come to the couch, sit with Marla, and ask for support. [15 minutes later] Marla moves off the couch to work with other students … . Marla not only goes to students who ask for help, she also checks in with others, perhaps those she knows may be in need of support. Her check-ins are brief, just a moment each, and she is able to check with a good number of students in this way.

In this poem-writing activity, Marla gave students individual and varied support, checking in with many of her students through this brief but effective approach, enabling her to keep her finger on the pulse of each student’s writing. This ongoing assessment reflects Marla’s belief, noted in the classroom circle section above, that all students’ voices should be valued. In terms of assessment, Marla appeared to use these check-ins around the room and on the couch to ensure she heard and supported all students to use their voices in their writing as well.

Both Foley and Marla used the foundation of supportive relationships, the sense of belonging they cultivated with students, to enhance their assessment practices. Foley’s use of multiple opportunities to complete the labs on optics is one way he enabled students’ agency to take charge of their learning, providing an equitable way to ensure that all students could succeed in learning about this topic. Marla’s use of ongoing informal assessment illustrates her commitment to students’ well-being through her valuing of all students (and their writing).

6. Discussion: learning routines at the center of asset-based pedagogies

The practices arising from asset-based pedagogies evident in the classrooms of the four teacher participants reveal their commitment to the principles of belonging, agency, and well-being, which were visible in the learning routines these teachers created to support students’ learning and academic risk-taking. As researchers who spent nine months in one school and five months in the other school and generated a large and comprehensive data set, we observed the impacts of these learning routines on student behaviours over time. We saw what Penny articulated in discussing the podcast activity in Jeremy’s class: “people were more engaged and put effort into it.” In this section we discuss how the findings provide windows into how theories of CRP (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014) and CSP (Paris & Alim, 2014; Paris, 2021), along with pedagogical care and additive schooling (Valenzuela, 1999, 2005) were enacted in these middle school classrooms. The value of these theories is well established, and the findings of this study align with them well. A novel feature of the study is the clarity with which a consistent set of interconnected practices (i.e., the learning routines situated in the asset-based pedagogies of the teachers) emerged as a central feature of how teachers worked successfully with culturally and economically diverse learners.

6.1. Culturally relevant pedagogies

Through classroom circles, the use of questions, special projects, and asset-based assessment routines, Foley, Marla, Jeremy and Jackie developed relational connections that supported their students’ engagement in learning. “[C]ultural relevancy and the establishment of student belonging are tools that make other aspects of teaching and learning intelligible and navigable for students” (Borck & Borck, 2020, p. 388). Jeremy’s podcast activity and Foley’s approach to assessment that supported and created a sense of belonging for all students are examples of how belonging is a core principle of an asset-based pedagogical approach.

King and Swartz’s (2016) explain that supporting students’ agency is linked with academic excellence, as they note the importance of drawing on students’ heritage knowledge and cultural knowledge in promoting agency. As in Jackie’s special project based on the works of Mi’kmaq artist Alan Syliboy and Marla’s African Nova Scotian poetry-writing activity, supporting agency must include the valuing and inclusion of heritage and cultural knowledge of students. CRP, as Ladson-Billings makes clear, is not about teaching particular strategies, instead it is about supporting students to “internaliz[e] and hav[e] a disposition about culture, power, and knowledge” (Dixson, 2021, p. 354). This internalizing of dispositions is particularly applicable to the focus of this paper on learning routines that “draw upon teachers’ integrity, creativity, and desire to stimulate the intellectual curiosity of students” (Ladson-Billings, 2021, p. 354) and enable them to make choices that affirm their identities and deepen their learning.

6.2. Culturally sustaining pedagogies

Freidus (2020) described how care for students’ well-being must be tied to students’ academic learning and to the “emancipatory pedagogies” (p. xii) detailed by King and Swartz’s (2016). Without this connection, students’ academic success may be jeopardized. In the Findings we have detailed how these four teachers consciously and skillfully developed learning routines to combine their caring for students with academics, understanding that it is not enough to develop caring relationships without supporting students’ learning and agency through CSP (Paris, 2021). For example, Foley encouraged students to ask their own questions, drawing on their own experiences, during the optics unit in his science class, urging learners to make use of optics concepts in relation to their own lives. Similarly, Jeremy talked about letting go and trusting students to complete their podcasts in small groups without his direct supervision, building their self-reliance and confidence as academic risk-takers. Having responsibility for making decisions about their learning in this way empowered students to be academic risk-takers, “moving outside their comfort zones to try new things and consider new ideas” (Authors, 2022, p. 2).

6.3. Additive schooling and pedagogical care

The findings are replete with moments that illustrate the pedagogical care (Valenzuela, 1999, 2005) the teachers in this study embodied not only developing caring relationships with students but also furthering and “preserv[ing students’] psychic and emotional desire to remain socially responsible members of their communities” (2005, p. 344). Examples include Marla’s use of classroom circles to ensure that “everybody’s voice is valued” (30 October 2017), a philosophy she hoped students would carry beyond the classroom into their communities. Valenzuela (2005) notes that in an additive approach to schooling, students’ languages and cultures are valued as part of a pedagogy of care. Jackie’s special project on Mi’kmaq (Indigenous) artist Alan Syliboy and his works reflects this additive approach, providing students opportunities to see the Mi’kmaq community valued, not only for its historical traditions but also for present-day contributions and innovations.

7. Conclusion: new ways of understanding how CRP, CSP, and additive schooling are enacted

The four learning routines visible in our data from each of the teacher participants’ classrooms are classroom circles, opportunities for students to be routinely involved in assessing their own learning, the use of open-ended, invitational questions, and regular inclusion of special projects. Each of these are examples of the ways teachers in this research infused learning routines into daily classroom life to support the learning of culturally and economically diverse learners. As learning routines have not often been studied in relation to CRP, CSP or additive schooling theories, this study suggests a novel intersection with the field of asset-based pedagogies.

The value of a research design that included spending significant time in each classroom is evident in the rich data gathered from the nearly year-long sets of observations and interviews in each of these classrooms, which allowed us to see how teachers infused the learning routines throughout the year. The data also illustrates how using these learning routines made visible teachers’ asset-based pedagogies. We acknowledge that a possible limitation of this study is the relatively small number of classrooms in which observations were conducted. To address this limitation, more long-term classroom-based studies research into learning routines used by teachers with asset-based pedagogies would advance knowledge in this field. Further studies may highlight other learning routines that support culturally and economically diverse learners.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Inter-University Research Network, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Province of Nova Scotia, Canada

Notes on contributors

Anne Murray-Orr

Anne Murray-Orr is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at St. Francis Xavier University, teaching pre-service teacher education courses in language and literacy, and graduate courses in early childhood pedagogies and literacies. Her current research areas include middle school teachers’ use of culturally relevant literacy practices in content areas, parent and family engagement in early grades during the pandemic, preservice teachers’ experiences of an alternate practicum during the pandemic, and preservice teachers’ multiliterate identities.

Jennifer Mitton

Jennifer Mitton is a Professor in the Faculty of Education at St. Francis Xavier University teaching preservice teacher education courses in secondary literacy and graduate courses in qualitative research methodologies. Prior to university teaching, she taught in secondary schools in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Turkey. Her research interests include adolescent literacies, classroom assessment, and pedagogical practices that foster academic risk taking.

Notes

1. Drawing upon this metaphor Sorum Brown’s poem, Buckelew and Ewing (2019) in their text Action research for English language arts teachers: Invitation to inquiry pose an exercise in which they encourage readers to consider their own classroom-based research practices and the space needed for the growth of ideas.

2. The achievement gap is viewed as a social construct in how race, poverty, and historical injustices have intersected to create imbalance and contemporary situations where certain groups are categorized as underperforming.

3. In consultation with school principals, we invited teachers who focused on the following in their teaching: communicating high academic expectations to cultivate learning, fostering cultural competence through relevant curriculum planning, and raising critical consciousness through the doing of authentic tasks (Ladson-Billings, 2014).

4. We acknowledge that assembling in circles for the purposes of building relationships and deliberating upon issues pertinent to communities is an ancient practice and way of knowing among Indigenous communities and peoples (Graveline, 1998; Peltier, 2017; Pete, 2004).

5. The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

6. Ethics approval was granted by the Research Ethics Board, St. Francis Xavier University, approval number 22,702. All names (schools and teachers) are pseudonyms.