Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This paper documents what culturally responsive teaching means for a teacher who is a member of a minority community of ethnic Chinese in Glodok (Chinatown), Jakarta, Indonesia. Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) in Indonesia has traditionally meant implementing an indigenous, Javanese-centered curriculum where ethic Chinese identity was disparaged. The data collected in this study illustrates how an educator must negotiate identity and instruction of CRT to students of her own ethnic group with whom she does not share a cultural identity. The broader significance of this study is understanding how educators from marginalized or minority communities are vital to the creation of dialogue within the constructs of culturally responsive teaching. This study illustrates the necessity to not make assumptions that educators from culturally and linguistically diverse communities are naturally predisposed to engage in CRT; this reinforces the urgency that all teachers need proper training in order to effectively employ culturally responsive teaching regardless of ethnicity, race, or culture.

Keywords

culturally responsive teaching identity Chinese-Indonesian ethnic communities positioning heritage

Introduction

The history, experiences, and background knowledge of the educator is fundamental to the implementation of culturally responsive teaching(CRT). The premise has persisted in education that a teacher and students who originate from the same ethnic community would naturally have an uncomplicated experience in unifying under a common cultural identity, hence a smooth access and application of CRT would ensue such as in indigenous and First Nation communities (McAlpine & Taylor, 1993). Such uncomplicated connections between teachers and students from the same ethnic community are not always present though. The research in this case study examines the history and experiences of an ethnic Chinese-Indonesian teacher who was historically prohibited from identifying with her Chinese heritage; self-examination by the educator revealed her personal barriers to bridging a shared cultural identity with her students that were eventually abrogated through the tenets of culturally responsive teaching.

Literature Review

Culturally responsive teaching (CRT) prepares educators to work with culturally, ethnically, racially, and linguistically diverse students. Teachers who utilize CRT value students’ cultural and linguistic resources and view this knowledge as capital to build upon rather than as a barrier to learning; these teachers use this capital (i.e., personal experiences and interests) as the basis for instructional connections to facilitate student learning and development (Aceves & Orozco, 2014). Educators must be knowledgeable about the students sitting in their classes; without a basic understanding of the identities, cultures, traditions, background knowledge, and linguistic repertoire of their students the intent of education is incomplete. Geneva Gay (2010:26) states about culturally responsive teaching and educators, they “teach to and through their personal and cultural strengths, their intellectual capabilities and their prior accomplishments … it [CRT] insists that educational institutions accept the legitimacy and viability of ethnic-group cultures in improving learning outcomes.”

Teachers assist their students by “embracing a wealth of diversity, identifying and nurturing students’ cultural strengths, and validating students’ lived experiences and their place in the world” (Villegas & Lucas, 2007). For many teachers discussing and deconstructing one’s own socio-cultural history, values, and sharing cultural identity can be uncomfortable and for some, viewed as unnecessary (Ebersole et al., 2016).

CRT requires the teacher to possess the following: (a) awareness of self; (b) acknowledgement of the broader context of the community with whom she or he works; (c) key attitudes, such as empathy, caring, and connectedness; and (d) specific abilities and expertise (Applin, 2007; Howard, 1999; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers’ ability to utilize tools and strategies related to CRT directly relate to their own understanding of identity, power, and place in society. Teachers must be committed to examining their own assumptions, beliefs, and values that may be different from those of the students they teach (Rudd et al., 2007).

Teachers must be aware of implicit biases towards culturally and linguistically diverse students and their families (Rudd, 2014). In essence, “when teachers are provided opportunities and spaces to be reflective, interrogate their assumptions, and investigate the realities of their biases, they are better prepared to consider how to promote equitable and inclusive classrooms and better positioned to be agents of change” (Samuels, 2018). Villegas and Lucas (2002) state that “to engage students in the construction of knowledge, teachers need to know about students’ experiences outside of school.” What students know outside of school is integral to what the student knows in school.

Students bring with them a set of values and beliefs, or their “funds of knowledge” (Moll et al., 1992) from their homes and neighborhood cultures that may complement or clash with the school culture, and may legitimate the social, economic, political, and cultural hegemonic values of the dominant society. Funds of Knowledge also refers to the identity of the students. If teachers do not appreciate the identities of students culturally responsive teaching cannot take place.

Building culturally responsive practices requires teachers to construct a broad base of knowledge that shifts as with students (Banks et al., 2005). In most teacher education programs, however, teachers take a “multicultural” or “diversity” course which is an “add on” to regular teacher education programs rather than integrated within the curriculum. This can be problematic because “the very coursework that comprises teacher education fails to take up notions of culture and learning in robust and substantive ways” (Ladson-Billings, 2011:14).

For CRT to be effective, Villegas and Lucas (2007), state the importance of the expertise of community members as a way for teachers to make connections between school and home. According to Gollnick and Chinn (2017), not all students can be taught in the same way because “their cultures and experiences influence the way they learn and interact with their teachers and peers.” Because students come from all types of backgrounds, their diverse needs, skills, and experiences must be recognized and validated. It requires a teacher to be thoughtful and intentional if they are to attend to the needs of their students’ cultures, languages, and identities. Self-reflection on the part of the teacher is essential for the proper implementation of CRT. A most crucial point in CRT is the self-awareness and self-knowledge the teachers have about themselves because without this element their attempt to utilize the CRT will fail.

CRT is not “ethnic-blind and takes into account, rather than ignores, the culture and ethnicity of the students” (Bell, 2011). Ethnic blindness refers to when a teacher ignores the ethnicity of the students and relates the students to the same culture as themselves. In addition, “culturally responsive teaching involves forming relationships with students for professional caring, and a commitment that students will achieve academically” (Bell, 2011:42). The relationship that is formed between the teacher and the student is key in culturally responsive teaching (Bell, 2011; Bishop & Berryman, 2006, 2009). CRT is highly dependent upon the positive interpersonal communication and respect cultivated between teacher and students. Bell states, “culturally responsive teaching involves using the cultural and ethical knowledge, language, values and practices of the students as resources to inform teacher decision making about curriculum and pedagogy” (Bell, 2011:42).

As a final component of CRT, it directly correlates to the concept of social justice. “Culturally responsive teaching that is emancipatory, transformative and political may start with the teacher being an advocate for the students” (Villegas & Lucas, 2007 as cited in Bell, 2011:42). Social justice requires critical thinking about real-life scenarios. Social justice within the parameters of culturally responsive teaching is the teacher advocating, promoting reflective, critical thinking, and the examination of the world through a multitude of lenses. In short, CRT validates and empowers ethnically diverse learners by cultivating their cultural integrity, abilities and academic success (Laughlin & Nganga, 2009; Nganga, 2015).

Chinese-Indonesian Identity

In order to understand what culturally responsive teaching signifies in Glodok, Jakarta, it is essential to understand who are the Chinese-Indonesians in Indonesian society both historically and present-day. Jakarta is a remarkable fusion of indigenous groups from Java, Papua, Sumatra, Kalimantan, Bali (to name a few islands), former colonial Dutch, and ethnic Chinese. Situated within the capital of Jakarta is Glodok, Chinatown. Glodok existed before Indonesia was a nation; it was the sector where the Chinese laborers for the Dutch lived. It is an area where Chinese tradesmen settled before the Dutch arrived; it is where the Chinese set-up trade for spices like nutmeg, mace, and clove that were harvested in the archipelago that would be present-day Indonesia. Through slavery and indentured servitude the Chinese were continually treated as Other; the ethnic Chinese were perpetually unrecognized, mistrusted, and loathed by their non-Chinese countrymen. The ethnic Chinese make up a small percentage of the overall population in Indonesia yet their presence within the dominant society has been formidable since the 15th Century. There was a classification of Chinese Indonesians as either Peranakan (‘mixed-bloods’/Chinese and indigenous) or Totok (‘pure-bloods’/Chinese); either form of separate identification of this minority proved to distinguish them from the “local” population.

The 20th Century, President Suharto (1966–1998) and the New Order (his regime) sought the “homogenization of Chinese cultural identities, orchestrating the erasure of intra-Chinese ethnic diversity and emphasising in its place a process of assimilation within a universal Indonesian identity” (Turner & Allen, 2017). Under the New Order Chinese Indonesians were to disconnect from their links to “Chineseness”. The Chinese language was outlawed as well as Chinese names and celebrations. Ethnic Chinese were to solely identify with being Indonesian yet due to their physical appearance it was an insurmountable task to not be viewed as part of the Chinese minority. Another factor that influenced discrimination against the Chinese was their perceived wealth by locals; Suharto was openly critical of anything Chinese but an elite echelon of Chinese-Indonesians had accumulated great wealth under his reign. In May 1998 turmoil erupted in Glodok as looting, rape and murder ensued against the ethnic Chinese. It was the ultimate culmination of disdain and discrimination against the community.

Fast-forward to the post-Suharto and New Order Regime years where there has been an identity reawakening for the Chinese Indonesian minority community. Turner and Allen (2007) state, “an important component of this ‘renegotiation of the self’ in Indonesia has been the public resurfacing of the Chinese consciousness, hitherto suppressed for more than 30 years”. It is important to understand the struggles with social acceptance and identity that the Chinese-Indonesian community continues to endure; the historical reality of the ethnic Chinese in Glodok directly correlates to CRT for this study.

Purpose of the Study

The objective of this research is to examine culturally responsive teaching as understood through the lens of a Chinese minority educator in Glodok. The second aim of the study is to expound upon the current understanding of the connection between culture and learning through the lived experiences and cultural identity of an educator from a minority community. A tertiary point of this study is understanding how the cultural identity of any teacher impacts their ability to engage in culturally responsive teaching.

Methods

Method data was collected during a training on culturally responsive teaching at a school in Glodok, Jakarta. The data was gathered from an ethnic Chinese-Indonesian; Taman 1 is a member of the Chinese-Indonesian community in Jakarta’s Chinatown called Glodok. Taman’s cultural identity was formed during the time of Suharto and the New Order where being “Chinese” was openly impugned and vilified. The participant is fifty-nine years old and female. She moved to Jakarta for university and remained there as an elementary school teacher after graduating with her teaching degree. She teaches at a school in Glodok (Widya School), the Chinatown of Jakarta.

The data collected took place during various visits to the school to discuss culturally responsive teaching with the administration and staff at Widya School. The participant, Taman, was selected based upon her interest and experiences of what CRT means within the constructs of her school with a majority ethnic Chinese population. The most crucial element for the selection of the participant was her being a member of the local ethnic Chinese-Indonesian minority as well. I utilized qualitative data collection methods and techniques. We met a total of eleven times; we had discussions about the implications of Taman does not share the same cultural identity, traditions, and values as her students for the most part. The guiding research questions served as focal points to gather and examine data points about the participant’s identity as a teacher and member of the Chinese-Indonesian community. Our sessions involved deep reflection about effective CRT practices and identity. The participant gave extensive information on the plight of the Chinese minority throughout Indonesia but focused mainly on her background and identity cultivation and how it is completely unaligned with that of her secondary school-aged Chinese minority students. The participant spoke some English but for the most part I employed a Bahasa interpreter from Jakarta Barat (West Jakarta).

Each session entailed culturally responsive teaching practices and strategies that the participant could utilize in her classroom as well as addressing the struggles of her own cultural identity and how it was disconnected from the cultural identity of her students even though all of the aforementioned are members of the ethnic Chinese community. The sessions revealed that the students of Taman wants to be “Chinese” and connect to their heritage. Taman informed me that her students want to learn Mandarin, use Chinese names, celebrate Chinese New Year and be proud of their “Chineseness”. The conversations with the participant revealed a lack of ability to connect or cultivate CRT with her students due to her strict upbringing to deny any association to a Chinese heritage. The participant expressed at the end of each session that CRT was a difficult approach for her to employ because her students needed a teacher who could feel enthusiastic about the positive regeneration and journey to seek out a connection to “Chineseness” and their Chinese heritage and she did not maintain any connection to a Chinese heritage other than her physical features.

The data collected through in-depth discussions and observations of the participant created a framework of analysis of the significance of culturally responsive teaching for a member of a minority group who did not share the same set of values. Taman, the participant, articulated throughout discussions the distinct desire to be an advocate for her students in their need to connect to their Chinese heritage yet due to the still negative local and national beliefs and stereotypes about the Chinese minority community she found it difficult to support them. The participant related through interviews that being “too Chinese” could lead to negative consequences. Some of the responses to the research questions are listed below.

Research Question 1: How do you connect culture to learning as an educator in a predominantly Chinese minority school where you are a member of this community?

“It is difficult. My students have an interest and excitement for learning about the Chinese traditions. They want to feel proud of looking Chinese and learning about their ancestors and unfortunately I think that is dangerous. I do not share that enthusiasm for Chinese heritage; I am Indonesian.”

“I can appreciate my students wanting to connect to their Chinese heritage but we are all still Indonesian. I cannot speak Mandarin nor do I want to . I can never escape being identified as Chinese even though I am Indonesia … my eyes, my fair skin, my straight, black hair but I am Indonesian.”

“I continually connected culture to learning just through allowing my students to explore their Chinese identity that was forbidden for their parents and grandparents. I never acknowledged anything Chinese personally but I realized the CRT meant I empowered my students. I want my students to feel like I support them so if they want to celebrate Chinese holidays or learn Mandarin then I support them but I will never do that. My culture is Indonesian. I mean they are Indonesian too but they are trying to build a sense of belonging to something else.”

“My students want to celebrate the Dragon Boat Festival that occurs near the summer solstice. I support their interests about this Chinese festival but it may be frowned upon to celebrate by many Indonesians.”

Research Question 2: What does it mean to be Chinese-Indonesian?

“For me, it means to just be Indonesian. I grew up in a time when we were punished or ashamed to have Chinese heritage; I was discriminated against just because I look Chinese.”

“Being Chinese-Indonesian means to not bring attention to yourself and just be quiet in society. It means I have to be only Indonesian and don’t show interest in my ancestors from China.”

“To be Chinese-Indonesian means to struggle to belong in my own country. I am considered a foreigner even though I was born here.”

“ The younger generation of my ethnic group, I think it means to seek Chinese heritage. My students are definitely Indonesian but they are looking for something more. For example, if a person is from Bali they connect to Balinese culture.”

Data was analyzed using qualitative approaches (Mukherji & Albon, 2010; Nolan et al., 2013). Patterns were gleaned from the data and subsequently coded into themes. Data was analysed for validity and reliability regarding the participant’s responses to the open-ended research questions. All discussions and observations regarding the participant were documented for analysis which allowed for a deeper understanding.

Findings

The data was organized through a process that entailed conceptualizing, converting, and coding the field notes into manageable units of information. From the coded data, an examination of possible overarching categories emerged. The categories of Indonesian identity and Chinese identity were gleaned from the coded data. The themes of Self and Other came to light through the collection and analysis of the data. The themes of Self and Other relate to the participant in this case study in that Self is related to an Indonesian identity and Other relates to a Chinese identity. The themes reveal that although the participant is identified as “Chinese” in Jakarta due to her appearance she maintains no affinity for her Chinese heritage. “Chineseness” for the participant is viewed as Other. The theme of Self directly correlated to a dominant Javanese-centered Indonesian identity for the participant. It became apparent the identity of the participant is not a simple bifurcated line of cultural identity; it is a “positioning” within a Chinese-Indonesian identity.

The findings revealed how the identity of a teacher is critical to the application of culturally responsive teaching; a teacher is not only a guide but is also a living embodiment of their own experiences, traditions, and worldview (to name a few). The expectation of the participant to engage in culturally responsive teaching was limited due to historical and political factors that blocked her and others of her generation from connecting to their Chinese heritage. At the same time, the participant’s identity as being Indonesian was always in question by non-Chinese Indonesians. The participant also found it challenging as an educator to promote CRT to a younger generation of ethnic Chinese because she understands the stigma of being viewed as Chinese in Indonesia.

Discussion

Cultural identity is critical in the conceptualization and application of CRT. Cultural identity entails “points of similarity, there are also critical points of deep and significant difference” (Hall, 1990). Hall identifies the complex process of cultural identity. It is succinctly ascertained in the following exert:

Cultural identity, … is a matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’. It belongs to the future as much as to the past. It is not something which already exists, transcending place, time, history and culture. Cultural identities come from somewhere, have histories. But, like everything which is historical, they undergo constant transformation.

Cultural identities are the points of identification, unstable points of identification or suture, which are made, within the discourses of history and culture. Not an essence but a positioning.

Hall, 1990

Cultural identity for the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia has been a “positioning” between historical abasement and a regenerated Self. For the post Suharto ethnic Chinese who have a yearning for a cultural identity connected to Chinese heritage it is an active, simultaneous restructuring of Self within the context of Other. Identity for the ethnic Chinese minority cannot be anchored in a singular sense of self or community; there is a ‘positioning’ of identity within a cultural construct (Hall, 1990).

Cultural identity for Indonesians traditionally was “positioned” within “Bhineka Yunggal Ika” (Unity in Diversity); it meant only certain diverse aspects of Indonesian society were officially approved by the government, i.e. a Javanese-centered cultural identity. Many Chinese-Indonesians have spent the past twenty five years quietly living under the umbrella of a Javanese identity that did not acknowledge their Chinese ancestry and didn’t acknowledge them as true Indonesians. In this vein, it is easy to understand *Taman’s reluctance to relate to her student’s yearning for their Chinese heritage; she has understood her identity through an absence of “Chineseness” because the public meaning of that culture within the constructs of Indonesian society was problematic. This directly correlates to the foundation of CRT because based upon the philosophy of implementation by teachers CRT is about the communication of culture in classrooms and the ability to encompass cultural differences (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

The data from this study illustrates the importance of considering a teacher’s background and experiences when employing CRT even when the teacher is from the same ethnic group as the students. Simply because a teacher is from the same ethnic group as the students does not necessarily manifest into a shared cultural identity. The research presented in this paper contributes to the academic literature on culturally responsive teaching by demonstrating the necessity to effectively train teachers to employ it.

Implications

The implications of this study on future research is three-fold: 1) culturally responsive teaching requires a culturally literate teacher to assist students in their exploration of linking their backgrounds and experiences to learning; 2) a teacher from a marginalized or minority community must take into consideration how their personal history and relationship with their ethnic community impacts their students; and 3) it is imperative that teachers are trained to reflect upon their culture and histories as part of the totality of culturally responsive teaching.

Limitations and Strengths

The limitations of this case study is that it may overgeneralize the cultural identity situation for ethnic Chinese-Indonesians. It also would be a difficult study to replicate given the enormous amount of time involved in gathering the data in the study destination. Another limitation may be the researcher’s personal bias in executing the study which may have skewed the results. A strength of the study is that it provides a detailed description of a form of qualitative research. The study also gives a unique perspective on the topic of culturally responsive teaching that may permit for more comprehensive studies.

Conclusion

In closing, the research presented in this paper acknowledges the critical voice of the educator in culturally responsive teaching. In particular it demonstrates how teachers from marginalized or non-dominant ethnic groups must grapple with the impact of their background, experiences and identity in the process of culturally responsive teaching. These teachers must promote sociocultural consciousness; it signifies examining ways of thinking, behaving, and being about race, ethnicity, social class, and language … prospective teachers must critically examine their own sociocultural identities and the inequalities between schools and society (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). The participant in this study came to accept that her students wanted to identify with their Chinese heritage even though she did not. Through a “positioning” within cultural identity the participant was flexible to her students’ yearning to explore and engage in their Chinese heritage. Culturally responsive teaching functioned in an unique manner in this study to not simply assist in connecting the students to a background and experiences they already possess rather CRT served to connect students to a cultural identity they are eager to realize.

Banks (2010) states “culturally responsive teaching supports that all students should have equal access to school learning irrespective of their gender, social class, and ethnic, racial, or cultural characteristics” (Gay, 2010). In addition, teachers who utilize culturally responsive teaching practices value students’ cultural and linguistic knowledge, previous knowledge and learning styles, and view these as a way to ease student learning rather than as a barrier to learning (Aceves & Orosco, 2014; Gay, 2002; Siwatu, 2007). This research adds to the discussion about how to prepare teachers for culturally responsive teaching; the negotiation of identity and instruction by the participant in this study is indicative of the need to effectively train teachers about culturally responsive teaching and not assume they can automatically employ it. The broader application of this research is to create dialogue about overhauling teacher training programs to prepare pre-service teachers for culturally responsive teaching practices as well as utilizing it as a central theme in professional development for veteran teachers. The less assumptions that are made about teachers’ ability to connect to students’ backgrounds and experiences the more effective culturally responsive teaching will be.

Footnotes

1

Due to discrimination toward the Chinese by the dominant Indonesian society, the identity of the participant and her school are protected by using a pseudonym.

References

Aceves

T. C.

, & Orosco

M. J.

( 2014 ). Culturally responsive teaching (Document No. IC-2). Gainesville, FL: Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center (CEEDAR). Accessed from: https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/culturally-responsive.pdf.

Applin

J. L.

( 2007 ). The development of the culturally responsive teaching assessment instrument. Kentucky Teacher Education. Accessed from: https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/kte/4/.

Banks

J. A.

, & Banks

( 2005 ). Multicultural education: Issues and Perspectives. (2010). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In Banks

J. A.

& Banks

(Ed.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 3–30). United States of America: Wiley.

Bell

( 2011 ). Theorising teaching in secondary classrooms: Understanding our practice from a sociocultural perspective. London: Routledge.

Bishop

, & Berryman

( 2006 ). Culture speaks: Cultural relationships & classroom learning. Wellington: Huia.

Bishop

, & Berryman

( 2009 ). The Te Kotahitanga effective teaching profile. Set: Research Information for Teachers, 2, 27. Accessed from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.009.

Ebersole

, Kanahele-Mossman

& Kawakami

( 2016 ). Culturally responsive teaching: Examining teachers’ understandings and perspectives. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 4, 97–104.

Gay

( 2000 ). Multicultural Education, Purposes and Goals. Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. doi:10.4135/9781452218533.n495.

Gay

( 2010 ). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of teacher education, 53(2), 106–116.

10.

Geertz

Clifford

. ( 1973 ). The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

11.

Gollnick

D. M.

, & Chinn

P. C.

( 2017 ). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

12.

Hall

( 1990 ). Cultural identity and diaspora: Identity: Community, culture, difference. Lawrence and Wishart.

13.

Howard

G. R.

( 1999 ). We can’t teach what we don’t know: White teachers, multiracial schools. New York: Teacher’s College.

14.

Ladson-Billings

( 1995 ). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 43, 159–165.

15.

Ladson-Billings

( 2011 ). Boyz to men? Teaching to restore Black boys’ childhood Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(1), 7–15.

16.

Laughlin

& Nganga

( 2009 ). Interdisciplinary ways of knowing: A collaborative teacher education project for culturally responsive pedagogy in rural White America. Spaces for Differences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1 (2), 96–125.

17.

McAlpine

& Taylor

( 1993 ). Instructional preferences of Cree, Inuit, and Mohawk Teachers. Journal of American Indian Education, 11, 1–20.

18.

Moll

L. C.

, Amanti

, Neff

, & Gonzalez

( 1992 ). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141.

19.

Mukherji

, & Albon

( 2010 ). Research methods in early childhood: An introductory guide, London: Sage.

20.

Nganga

( 2015 ). Multicultural Curriculum in Rural Early Childhood Programs. Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 9(1), 2161–2978.

21.

Nolan

, Macfarlane

, & Cartmel

( 2013 ). Research in early childhood. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.

22.

Rudd

( 2014 ). Racial disproportionality in school discipline: Implicit bias is heavily implicated. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. Accessed from: http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/racial-disproportionalityschools-02.pdf.

23.

Samuels

A. J.

( 2018 ). Exploring culturally responsive pedagogy: teachers’ perspectives on fostering equitable and inclusive classrooms. SRATE Journal, 27(1), 22–30.

24.

Siwatu

K. O.

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

25.

Turner

, & Allen

( 2017 ). Chinese Indonesians in a rapidly changing nation: Pressures of ethnicity and identity. Accessed on 7 August 2018, from http://wp.geog.mcgill.ca/sturner/files/2014/09/Turner-and-Allen-2007-APV.pdf.

26.

Villegas

A. M.

& Lucas

( 2007 ). The culturally responsive teacher. Educational Leadership, 64(6), 28–33.

27.