Teaching Culture in The EFL Classroom As Informed by Teachers' Approaches To Student Diversity

Research Papers in Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20
Teaching culture in the EFL classroom as informed

by teachers’ approaches to student diversity
Evgenia Lavrenteva & Lily Orland-Barak
To cite this article: Evgenia Lavrenteva & Lily Orland-Barak (2020): Teaching culture in the
EFL classroom as informed by teachers’ approaches to student diversity, Research Papers in
Education, DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2020.1864763
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1864763
View supplementary material
Published online: 28 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 151
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rred20
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1864763
Teaching culture in the EFL classroom as informed by

teachers’ approaches to student diversity
Evgenia Lavrenteva and Lily Orland-Barak
Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigated teachers’ reported practices of teaching cul Received 31 March 2020
ture in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms from the Accepted 12 December 2020
perspective of their approaches to student diversity. Specifically, it KEYWORDS
examined the relationship between teachers’ orientations towards Culture; foreign language
the cultural elements integrated in curriculum materials and their teaching; language-and-
approaches to teaching cultural content in the context of linguistic, culture-teaching; teacher
cultural, and religious diversity of Israeli schools. Interview data from practices; multicultural
three teacher groups – majority, minority and immigrant – obtained classroom
through open-ended questions, critical incidents and vignettes were
interpreted through the lens of DOPA (Diversity in Organisations:
Perceptions and Approaches) model. Thematic analysis yielded four
distinct teacher profiles as related to teachers’ approaches to student
diversity, their curriculum orientations and subsequent use of the
curriculum materials. The emergent profiles are discussed with
regard to the ways of coping with diverse student populations
developed by teachers in each group and reflected in adopted
teaching practices.
Introduction
The critical turn in language education represented by intercultural language teaching
and learning has foregrounded the need to consider the relationship between language
and culture as they function together in the creation and interpretation of meanings
(Liddicoat 2009). This ‘intercultural turn’ has led to rethinking the nature of culture as it
relates to language education shifting the focus to seeing language as a personal resource
for meaning-making that operates within a cultural context (Liddicoat 2017). In this new
paradigm, the capacity of the learner to engage actively in linguistic and cultural diversity
becomes the product of language learning (Liddicoat 2017). Mastering this skill is crucial
given that schools are a ‘pivotal place where culture is shared and developed’ (Goldenberg
2014, 115). To assist language learners in this challenging task, an effective cultural
pedagogy needs to acknowledge a variety of cultures in classroom instruction (e.g., Gay
2013; Goldenberg 2014). Specifically, students’ cultural capital can be recognised through
paying attention to the way students communicate and navigate language, their expres
sions and behaviour, and their values and cultural tastes (Goldenberg 2014).
CONTACT Evgenia Lavrenteva elavrent@campus.haifa.ac.il Faculty of Education, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
© 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 E. LAVRENTEVA AND L. ORLAND-BARAK
That said, today’s multicultural educational environments present both opportunity

and challenge, which teachers dealing with the diversity issues first-hand (Fortuin et al.
2014) often lack the knowledge, skills, and motivation to meet (Tatar and Horenczyk
2003). Specifically, student diversity factors include culture, religion, primary language,
race, socioeconomic level, ethnicity, family composition, gender, and previous experi
ence, as well as ability level (Copple 2003). Working with such a heterogeneous student
body on a daily basis is likely to exert massive impact on the teacher (e.g., Tatar and
Horenczyk 2003). Particularly, being confronted with a learner who is ‘different’ –
linguistically, socially, and culturally (de Abreu and Hale 2014) poses challenges to
mainstream teaching practices (Gorgorio and Planas 2001). As a highly plural social,
cultural, and educational context, Israel presents an interesting case for such investiga
tion. As such, it can also provide an illustrative example of the increasing cultural
diversity of contemporary Western societies in general and of schools in particular.
Given that scenario, examining teacher practices through the prism of their approaches
to classroom diversity seems a promising research direction both globally and locally.
Conducting such investigation in the EFL context seems even more promising given
the fundamental role of students’ native languages and cultures in the teaching of foreign
language and culture (e.g., Alptekin 1993; Baker 2012; Goldenberg 2014; McKay 2000,
2002; Modiano 2001; Widdowson 2003). Against this backdrop, the study explored how
teachers’ different approaches to diversity in the school context might relate to the ways
they teach culture in the EFL classroom. We framed our investigation as multiple case
studies guided by the following areas: (1) teachers’ approaches to student diversity, (2)
teachers’ orientations towards the cultural elements integrated in EFL materials and (3)
teachers’ approaches to teaching cultural content. In doing so, we aimed to understand
connections between teachers’ instructional choices and their working environments:
their coursebooks, their students, and their cultural contexts. We asked:
(1) How do teachers make sense of and manage diversity in the context of their
schools and in their daily classroom work?
(2) What is the relationship between teachers’ approaches to student diversity and
their reported practices of teaching culture?
(3) What similarities and differences can be discerned in teachers’ reported practices
of teaching culture within and across groups?
By answering these questions, we hoped to extend the debate of the why and how of
teaching culture in diverse classroom settings (e.g., Larzén-Östermark 2008; Nguyen,
Harvey, and Grant 2016; Young and Sachdev 2011) by shedding light on teachers’ orienta
tions towards and subsequent use of the coursebook’s cultural content while teaching
culture to a heterogeneous student body.
Scope of the paper and some definitions

The perspective pursued here is based on theories that approach the notion of culture in
a non-essentialist and dynamic manner viewing the interpretation of cultural representa
tions in curriculum materials as an active process, in which meaning is seen as never fixed.
Specifically, we drew on the definition of culture as a dynamic system of social values,
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION 3
cognitive codes, behavioural standards, worldviews, and beliefs used to give order and
meaning to our own lives as well as the lives of others (Delgado-Gaitan and Trueba, 1991 as
cited in Gay 2018).
We examined high school teachers’ reported practices of teaching culture in EFL
classrooms from the perspective of their approaches to diversity in the school context.
The study focused on selected dimensions of diversity in the classroom, specifically
students’ diverse linguistic, cultural and religious backgrounds as the aspects most
frequently referred to by the participating teachers in their descriptions of their student
populations. Such diversity presents teaching-learning challenges or opportunities
depending on how teachers perceive them and deal with them in the classroom (e.g.,
Gay 2013). Informed by Geneva Gay (2010a), we defined approaches to student diversity
as attitudes and beliefs of practicing teachers about students’ linguistic, cultural and
religious differences that affect teaching decisions and actions. Finally, since in relation to
teachers’ practices of teaching culture we were particularly interested in teachers’ use of
the cultural content of curriculum materials, we conceptualised such practices as the
relationship between teachers’ orientations towards the cultural elements integrated in
EFL materials and teachers’ approaches to teaching cultural content. Following Remillard
and Bryans (2004), we viewed teachers’ orientations as ‘perspectives and dispositions
about [the subject matter], teaching, learning, and curriculum that together influence
how a teacher engages and interacts with a particular set of curriculum materials’ (364).
The research context: English teaching in Israel

Immigration, cultural diversity, and inter-cultural relationships present important issues
for many countries in the world, and Israel is not an exception, with its particular
demographic landscape of a diverse student population composed of Jews and Muslims,
Christians, Druze and Bedouin, new immigrants and native Israelis. According to country
language policy both Hebrew and Arabic are official languages and English is by far the
most important foreign language in Israel.
The Israeli education system is divided into separate streams, maintaining homoge
neity in each one. As a result, for the most part, Jews study separately from Arabs, secular
Jews study apart from religious Jews and even Ultra-Orthodox Jews study separately from
religious Jews. Such sectorial approach to education in Israel causes each sector to be
familiar mainly with its own culture, and limits students’ opportunities for exposure to
other cultures (Lev Ari and Laron 2008).
According to the official curriculum, English is to be taught in the school system from
age 10 to graduation at age 18 in both the Arab and Jewish sectors for 2 to 5 hours weekly
in the elementary school, and 4 to 6 hours weekly in junior high and high school (Inbar-
Lourie 2005). Due to public demand and current ministry policy, however, teaching
usually starts earlier. The teachers of English in the Hebrew schools are either Israeli born
who acquired English as an additional language, native English speakers who came to
Israel from English-speaking countries or grew up in English-speaking homes, or non-
native English and Hebrew speakers who immigrated to Israel from other countries, most
often from the former USSR (Olshtain and Inbar-Lourie 2014). Most teachers in the
Arabic-speaking schools are native speakers of Arabic, who acquired English as a foreign
language (Olshtain and Inbar-Lourie 2014).
Although the English curriculum is uniform for both Hebrew and Arabic speakers,
achievement scores on national tests in the Arab sector are lower than those of Jewish
students. These achievement gaps are generally attributed to the following factors: (a) the
fact that English constitutes the third school language after Modern Standard Arabic and
Hebrew; (b) the limited exposure to English in the Arabic-speaking community, especially
in the more remote Arab villages; (c) the lack of trained English-speaking teachers; and (d)
the cultural unsuitability of English-language coursebooks that represent the Jewish culture
and do not cater for the needs of Arab students (Amara 2014). For Russian-speaking
immigrant students, the primary perceived difficulty resulting in comparatively low
achievement lies in their insufficient knowledge of Hebrew paired with drastic differences
(e.g., uniform curricula versus curriculum tracking) between the Russian and Israeli
educational systems (e.g., Niznik 2008). Apart from that, immigrant students’ language,
culture and traditions often become the target of teachers’ intolerance and stereotypical
views (Geiger 2012).
Literature review
With the ‘intercultural turn’ in language education (Liddicoat 2017) characterised by
a move away from the view of cultures as fixed and separate entities (Bennett, Grossberg
and Morris, 2005 as cited in Naidu 2020), intercultural language learning has become an
important focus of language instruction (Dasli and Díaz 2017; McConachy 2017). In this
regard, Holliday (2016) associated intercultural competence with moving through var
ious small cultural domains that we perform all through our lives and argues that this
process continues to be inhibited by prejudicial ‘us’-‘them’ discourses of culture, often
related to big culture concepts. Dervin (2011), too, criticised differentialist and essenti
alist approaches to culture that invite us to see cultural groups as homogeneous, and their
members’ needs and responses as determined by their cultural background.
Indeed, many teachers worldwide continue to define culture in terms of national or
ethnic background oftentimes reducing it to describing perceived difference from the self
(e.g., Naidu 2020; Watkins and Noble 2016). Such monolithic approach premised on
a view of culture as difference, shaped by assumptions about distinct, cohesive, and
unchanging ethnic communities within the larger national community, which is also
construed as cohesive and distinct (Noble, 2009 as cited in Watkins and Noble 2016) has
been continuously criticised as inadequate (e.g., Amadasi and Holliday 2017; Dervin
2011; Liddicoat 2017).
Given that the way teachers think about culture in their classes affects the way they
teach culture and the way students learn it (Liddicoat 2002) and bearing in mind that
schools are ‘key sites of socialization and cultural reproduction’ (Carter, 2005 as cited in
Goldenberg 2014, 115), it seems particularly important to interrogate how teachers
think through and subsequently act upon issues of cultural content and pedagogy, the
cultural backgrounds of their students, and the values driving their instructional
decisions.
Adhering to the study objectives, in this section we elaborate on (1) teachers’
approaches to student diversity, (2) teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials
and (3) teachers’ approaches to using the coursebooks’ content.
Teachers’ actions as informed by their approaches to student diversity

A plethora of studies conducted worldwide have concluded that teachers’ instructional
behaviours are strongly influenced by their approaches to student diversity (See Gay 2013
for overview). To this end, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about students’ racial, cultural,
and ethnic differences have been referred to in the literature as anchors of teaching
decisions and behaviours (Gay 2010a) or filters affecting how teachers perceive their
students and act on the information and experiences that are part of their teaching context
(Stooksberry, Schussler, and Bercaw 2009) to name just a few. In particular, we highlight
Kumar and Hamer (2013) investigation of the nature and strength of this relationship in
relation to actual classroom practices US teachers were likely to endorse. Overall, results
indicated that teachers who were less prejudiced about minority students, did not hold
assimilationist views, and reported less discomfort in interacting with diverse students
were, on average, more likely to promote respect and collaboration in class, and reported
feeling greater efficacy in their teaching roles (Kumar and Hamer 2013).
In response to the growing linguistic and cultural diversity among the student
population, there is a growing need for making classrooms culturally sensitive places to
learn (Porto 2010). In this respect, research stresses that teachers who are ready to handle
this demographic reality are no longer a luxury but a necessity (Menken and Antunez
2001). Geneva Gay (2010b) defined culturally responsive teaching as ‘using the cultural
knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performance styles of ethnically
diverse students to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them’
(31). Similar ideas were articulated, for instance, by Villegas and Lucas (2002) in their
curriculum initiative for preparing culturally responsive teachers and Brown-Jeffy and
Cooper (2011) research-based conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy.
Inherent in these proposals is the importance of embracing the reality of diversity
through identifying variation of cultures within the classroom and affirming this diversity
as an asset. One of the ways to do that is by including students’ diverse backgrounds into
the curriculum content and thereby publicly acknowledging the cultural and social
capital that students bring with them to school (Brown-Jeffy and Cooper 2011;
Goldenberg 2014). For instance, introducing literary works of marginalised groups can
serve a means of changing attitudes to undervalued cultural heritage (Edgerton 2014).
In reality, however, oftentimes language learners are provided with teachers who
themselves admit they are not prepared for effective instruction of culturally diverse
students (e.g., Brown 2007; Gándara, Maxwell-Jolly, and Driscoll 2005). This disturbing
trend is evident in Geiger’s (2012) study that presented students’ perspective on teachers’
attitudes to cultural and ethnic diversity in the school context. This research delved into
the experiences of Israel-born and immigrant students from the former USSR and
Ethiopia in 6th grade classrooms. Given the central role that teachers play in assisting
immigrant youth develop a positive sense of ethnic and cultural identity, students’
reports of teachers spreading stereotypes about the inferiority and backwardness of
immigrant cultures raised serious concerns. The study highlighted the dire consequences
of depreciation of students’ ethnic and cultural heritage and suggested directions for
teacher education programmes to confront negative attitudes towards cultural difference
(Geiger 2012). Such attitudes within an educational context are reflective of the society’s
perception of minority students’ cultural capital of as inferior compared to the cultural
capital of the dominant group (Carter, 2005 as cited in Goldenberg 2014). In this respect,
Goldenberg (2014) calls to rethink the role of nondominant cultural capital in the context
of teaching and learning. The literature review suggests ways how majority teachers as
members of the dominant culture can embrace students’ nondominant culture pedago
gically in the classroom to increase students’ engagement and narrow the achievement
gap (Goldenberg 2014).
Delving into factors affecting teachers’ approaches to culturally diverse students, Tatar
and Horenczyk (2003) proposed that teachers working with a heterogeneous student
body might experience a distinctive form of burnout, labelled ‘diversity-related burnout.’
This was defined as the extent to which the teacher’s personal and professional well-being
is negatively affected by daily coping with a culturally heterogeneous student population
(Tatar and Horenczyk 2003). In a more recent study Gutentag, Horenczyk, and Tatar
(2018) examined the ways in which, and the extent to which various approaches to
diversity (that is, asset, problem, challenge, or nonissue) adopted by Israeli teachers
predicted their diversity-related burnout and immigration-related self-efficacy. The find
ings indicated that the teachers’ perception of the immigrant student as an asset and not
as a problem was related to lower diversity-related burnout and to higher immigration-
related self-efficacy (Gutentag, Horenczyk, and Tatar 2018). In terms of managing
cultural diversity burnout, international research highlights the potential of experientially
based programs (e.g., Cabello and Burstein 1995; Causey, Thomas, and Armento 2000)
and strength-based models (e.g., He 2013) to help teachers build an educational envir
onment that is responsive to culturally and linguistically diverse student populations.
Against this backdrop, the present study examined how the different approaches
teachers held towards student diversity might relate to the ways they interpreted and
used the cultural content of curriculum materials.
Teachers’ approaches to teaching content as informed by their orientations

towards curriculum materials
To understand coursebook use, it is necessary to consider teachers’ views and actions and
their interplay (Barr and Sadow 1989; Freeman and Porter 1989; Sosniak and Stodolsky
1993). In the process of exploring this relationship, Remillard and Bryans (2004) intro
duced the construct of ‘orientation’ which reflects teachers’ views of curriculum materi
als, in general, as well as the particular curriculum and captures their approach to using
the curriculum. In short, teachers’ orientations towards a curriculum function as a frame
that influences how they use the materials in their teaching. For instance, maths teachers
in this study holding ‘adherent and trusting’ orientation to curriculum materials
appeared strongly inclined to follow the guide and placed faith in this particular guide,
whereas teachers with a ‘sceptical’ orientation viewed the materials as a limited resource
and never used them as a guide for the flow of the lesson (Remillard and Bryans 2004). In
a similar investigation conducted in the EFL field, Shawer (2010) explored teachers’
curriculum orientations and approaches to material use linked to each orientation. By
putting the teachers on Snyder et al.’s (1992) continuum of curriculum-transmitters
(curriculum fidelity orientation), curriculum-developers (curriculum adaptation orienta
tion) and curriculum-makers (curriculum enactment orientation), this study revealed
that each set of approaches within each curriculum orientation was mutually exclusive,
being different from those related to other orientations (Shawer 2010).
However, to describe the relationship between teachers’ orientations and practices as
straightforward would be an oversimplification. Many factors coalesce to create the
learning environment and its impact on teacher decision-making. In this vein, Borg
(2015) points to multidirectional or non-linear relationships between teachers’ orienta
tions, practices and context, which may occur in a variety of ways in an infinite possibility
of contexts and situations. In this respect, a case study conducted in the Armenian
context pointed to the influence of various contextual factors on the interplay between
EFL teacher’s cognitions and practices (Feryok 2008). The results showed how teacher’s
understanding of the work context and the perceived need to meet various school
stakeholders’ expectations impacted her pedagogical choices and may have contributed
to the divergence between teacher cognitions and actual practices (Feryok 2008). Similar
results emerged from a fairly recent study into Mexican EFL teachers’ orientations and
instructional practices. The study pointed to a significant role of contextual factors in
consolidation of teachers’ curriculum orientations and their approaches to the use and
utility of teaching materials, which in turn shaped their instructional decisions (Rivera
Cuayahuitl and Pérez Carranza 2015). Specifically, coursebook-wise, teachers highlighted
personal perceptions about the connections between the cultural content and the stu
dents’ realities and well as its coherence with the students’ cultural frames of reference as
decisive factors affecting coursebook use (Rivera Cuayahuitl and Pérez Carranza 2015).
Finally, Tomlinson (2018) suggested that freedom of choice teachers have while selecting
curriculum materials affects the efficiency of coursebooks use. Specifically, teachers who
make positive, principled selections tend to make relatively effective use of the materials
selected (Tomlinson 2018). On the contrary, reluctant selections influenced more by
what teachers think is required of them (by administrators, colleagues, students or
parents) than by what they think is best for themselves or their learners result in less
effective use of the materials (Tomlinson 2018).
Considering the above, the proposed study examined how teachers’ orientations
towards the cultural elements integrated in EFL materials might inform their approaches
to teaching cultural content in the context of increased diversity of schools and classrooms.
Teachers’ approaches to teaching the coursebook content

The interaction of the teacher with the materials determines what happens in the class
room (Powell and Anderson 2002). In his recent book chapter, Tomlinson (2018)
reported on dilemmas faced by English teachers in different teaching contexts in regard
to selecting and adapting curriculum materials. According to the study, less experienced
teachers showed tendency to adhere to the text out of fear of challenging the authority of
the book writers or missing out something which might be examined at the end of the
course (Tomlinson 2018). More experienced teachers, on the contrary, adapted or
created text to achieve a greater match with what they think facilitates language acquisi
tion and ensure the best fit to perceived needs of their students (Tomlinson 2018). An
additional technique was reported in Gray’s (2000) study into Spanish EFL teachers’ use
of curriculum materials that made them feel uncomfortable. The results showed that the
teachers censored the material containing stereotypical representations, context-specific
taboos or irrelevant, outdated, and sexist content (Gray, 2000). Other cases of ‘deviation
from the book’ described in the literature mostly included instances when the teacher
became aware of some aspects, which the course book did not cover, and added content
pertaining to the missing cultural references (e.g. Johansson 2006). But what are the
reasons underlying teachers’ decisions to skip, adapt or create content?
International research into the cultural content of curriculum materials suggests that
both internationally distributed and locally produced EFL coursebooks suffered from
various shortcomings (e.g., Shin, Eslami, and Chen 2011). Specifically, whereas global
materials were found to be dominated by American and British viewpoints (Ilieva 2000;
Ndura 2004), locally published materials for the most part adopted the local cultural
perspective (e.g., see Garcia 2005 for analysis of Spanish coursebooks; Majdzadeh 2002
for the Iranian context). In this respect, Alptekin and Alptekin (1984) warned against
letting EFL instruction either ‘turn into a tool of Anglo-American sociocultural domina
tion’ or ‘take on ethnocentric features in order to isolate itself from such domination’ (18).
Introducing English-language learners’ perspective on the cultural content of instructional
materials, Sakai and Kikuchi (2009) argued that many students did not find readily available
instructional materials culturally responsive because they failed to reflect the students’
everyday experiences and contained cultural references that were unfamiliar to English
learners in many contexts. Indeed, even at their best, larger part of instructional resources
provided incomplete portrayals of ethnic and cultural diversity, and too often their
presentations were distorted or inaccurate (Gay 2013). To illustrate, a study conducted in
the Israeli context pointed to the ideological nature of the language of locally published
coursebooks (Awayed-Bishara 2015). Similarly, a Cameroonian study drew attention to
issues of minority rights in settings where decisions about educational materials such as
curricular guides and literary texts are based upon majority cultural values (Yenika-Agbaw
2016). These critiques call for critical examination of and reflection on cultural representa
tions found in curriculum materials (e.g., Baker 2012) and empowering learners of diverse
cultural backgrounds through alternative narrative (e.g., Shin, Eslami, and Chen 2011). In
light of the above, it seems particularly important that teaching materials should be used in
such a way as to help students reflect on their own culture in relation to others; to realise the
diversity that exists within all cultures; and to critically examine the cultural content of the
text and consider various ways to approach it (McKay 2002).
In this vein, Howard and Major (2004) claimed that material adaptation and creation
on the part of the teacher could remedy the above deficiencies in material design. For one,
teachers designing their own or adapting existing materials could cater for a specific
cultural or educational context and therefore overcome the coursebook’s lack of fit. In
addition, such materials could become responsive to heterogeneity inherent in the
classroom by encompassing the learners’ first languages and cultures, as well as building
on their individual needs and experiences. Moreover, teachers could personalise materi
als by tapping into the interest and taking account of the learning styles to increase
motivation and engagement in learning. Finally, teacher-designed materials could
respond to local and international events with up-to-date, relevant and high-interest
topics and tasks (Howard and Major 2004).
Based on teachers’ approaches to using the coursebook content outlined above, the
proposed research looked at how teachers used the cultural content of instructional
materials in the context of linguistic, cultural, and religious diversity of Israeli schools.
Integrative conceptual model

An integrative analysis of the literature yielded our proposed conceptual model illustrated in
Figure 1. Informed by research on connections between teachers’ instructional practices and
their approaches to diversity in the school context (e.g., Cabello and Burstein 1995; Kumar
and Hamer 2013), the model integrates findings from two strands of research, applying them
to the EFL context: (1) studies on teachers’ approaches towards diversity in the educational
context in relation to their classroom practice, and (2) studies on the relationship between
teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials and teachers’ curriculum use. The model
illustrates connections between teachers’ approaches to student diversity and their practices
of teaching culture. Within these practices, teachers’ orientations towards the cultural
elements in curriculum materials also influence their approaches to teaching cultural content.
As already stated, the study examined narrated accounts of culture teaching in the EFL
classroom with a focus on the relationship between teachers’ orientations towards the
cultural elements embedded in the EFL materials and their instructional actions. We
examined this relationship through the prism of teachers’ approaches to student diversity;
hence, we opted for The Diversity in Organisations: Perceptions and Approaches model
(DOPA; Horenczyk and Tatar 2011; Tatar 2012) to guide our examination of the data. As
a model that was developed and first validated in the school context, DOPA provided
a viable lens for analysing teachers’ experiences in diverse classrooms. Specifically, it
allowed for mapping (perceived) diversity in schools and for identifying the available or
preferred ways of dealing with these types of diversity. As such, the model suggested four
approaches to diversity: (a) Asset, contributing to the school and the various players within
it, which needs to be encouraged and promoted; (b) Problem, or a difficulty, which needs to
be solved; (c) Challenge, that demands effort and resources to turn it into a positive aspect of
school functioning; and (d) Nonissue, an aspect of the school structure that does not require
special attention (Tatar 2012, 579).
Using DOPA as the interpretative lens, this study investigated how teachers’
approaches to diversity in the school context might influence their practices of teaching
culture in the EFL classroom.
Figure 1. Teachers’ practices of teaching culture and their relationship to teachers’ approaches to
student diversity.
Data collection
To explore the experiences, attitudes and challenges faced by teachers in the context of
increased cultural diversity in classrooms we interviewed 30 high school teachers (see Table 1
for details on the teacher sample and Table 2 for question categories and sample questions).
In order to obtain richer data and increase credibility of the research findings and interpreta
tions, we triangulated different data collection modes (Nowell et al. 2017). Specifically,
a critical incident, two vignettes and associated questions were incorporated into an interview
discussion guide, along with open-ended questions. The critical incident technique was
chosen to obtain emic recollections of the participants’ memorable cultural experiences.
The incidents provided accurate and rich information about events important to the respon
dents (Cunha, Cunha, and Rego 2009), which allowed for a deeper understanding of the
interplay of individual and contextual factors surrounding reported behaviours (Bott and
Tourish 2016). Specifically, the teachers were asked to recollect any unplanned and unanti
cipated event that occurred in class, outside class or during their teaching career connected to
the teaching of culture in the Israeli EFL classroom. The participants submitted critical
incident reports in advance following a special format (See Appendix A). Vignettes intro
duced an etic perspective for comparing different cultural groups’ interpretations of
a ‘uniform’ situation (Barter and Renold 1999; Goerman and Clifton 2011). Due to their
focus on a third person (Schoenberg and Ravdal 2000), vignettes complemented direct
questions in discussions around ‘sensitive’ research topics (e.g., Lee 1993). The storyline of
Table 1. Teacher demographics.

Years of experience Levels taught School location
AT1 33 Junior high, high school a large mixed city in the north
AT2 27 High school a large mixed city in the north
AT5 15 Junior high, high school an Arab town in the north
AT6 15 Junior high, high school an Arab town in the north
HT1 11 Junior high, high school a Jewish town in the central district
HT2 15 High school a large mixed city in the north
HT3 16 High school a Jewish town in the north
HT4 33 High school an immigrant city in the north
HT9 30 Junior high, high school a large mixed city in the south
HT10 30 Junior high, high school a large mixed city in the south
RT1 13 High school Tel Aviv
RT2 17 High school Tel Aviv
RT3 13 High school a city east of Tel Aviv
RT4 24 Junior high, high school a Jewish city in the central district
RT5 20 High school a Jewish city in the central district
RT6 18 High school a Jewish city in the central district
RT7 40 Junior high, high school a large mixed city in the north
RT8 15 High school a Jewish town in the north
RT9 20 Junior high, high school a large mixed city in the south
RT10 18 High school a large mixed city in the south
Table 2. Semi-structured interview question categories and sample questions.

Question category Sample questions
The teacher Could you tell me a bit about yourself? How long have you
been a teacher? Why did you choose this profession?
The school and the students Could you tell me about the school you work in, the classes you
teach and whether you can call those diverse meaning kids
from different socio-cultural backgrounds . . . anything that
you think would help me to draw a picture of your working
environment?
Teachers’ approaches to diversity in the school If we speak about the growing diversity in today’s classroom,
context do you see it as more of a challenge or opportunity? Does it
help you or does it probably interfere with the teaching
process?
Teachers’ narratives (critical incidents) How did you feel about the situation?
Why did you act like this?
Teachers’ views about culture in foreign language How do you define ‘culture’ in the EFL context?
teaching What do you think about integrating culture into EFL
classes?
Teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials How do you view curriculum materials within the framework of
your instructional plans and actions?
What role do coursebooks play in your classroom practice?
Teachers’ reported practices of teaching culture Do you discuss cultural topics in the classroom? Why? Why not?
(including approaches to using the cultural How do you use the cultural content provided by the book in
content) your classroom practice?
● Adhere to the text with minimum deviation from the book;
● Adapt the text for it to better fit the learners’ needs;
● Create text in case there are aspects/topics, which the
coursebook does not cover.
Researcher-designed vignettes What should she do? Why?
Have you ever been in a situation like this one? What
happened?
the vignettes was developed based on the themes that emerged at an earlier stage of the
project (Lavrenteva and Orland-Barak 2020a). Each vignette (see Appendix B) comprised
a scenario in the form of a paragraph. Stylistic similarities among the two vignettes as well as
adherence to other educational cases in existence were followed, including standardised
construction criteria (Seguin and Ambrosio 2002). Both the critical incident and the vignettes
were used as a complementary component during the interviews.
Since the purpose of the study was to surface shared understandings of particular groups
of teachers, in order to maximise the depth and richness of the data, the participants were
selected using purposeful sampling (Kuzel 1999). Our rationale for employing a purposive
strategy was grounded in the goal to obtain insights into the phenomenon in question
rather than generalise our findings to the specific population, which called for inclusion of
certain categories of participants that may have a unique, different or important perspective
(Mason 2017). Besides, our sample was intentionally heterogeneous to ensure the presence
of individuals from different cultures in order to compare them and search for similarities
and differences (Mason 2017). Specifically, all the participants were experienced high
school teachers working schools that could be characterised as heterogeneous in terms of
the socio-economic background of their pupils. In gathering research participants, we first
approached district coordinators who talked to teachers about the project and shared with
us contacts of those potentially willing to participate. However, due to an extensive work
load connected among other things with upcoming examinations, final response rate was
rather low (only 21 out of 50 teachers approached agreed). This prompted us to utilise
a snowball sampling technique, which allowed to recruit the 9 missing teachers.
The interviewees self-identified as either Palestinian Arabs (as well as members of

a minority group) or Jews (and majority group members). However, since within the
Jewish category we needed to differentiate between immigrant (from the former USSR)
and native Israeli teachers, in the study the participants were classified according to their
first language. We hereinafter referred to Arabic-speaking teachers as ATs, Hebrew-
speaking teachers as HTs and Russian-speaking teachers as RTs.
The interviewees were informed about the nature of the study and signed informed
consent forms prior to an interview. The interview data were collected between
October 2018 and January 2019. Teachers were mostly interviewed at schools, however,
occasionally the researcher travelled to teachers’ homes or met them in a café or another
public place. All interviews were audio-taped, and notes were additionally taken by the
researcher. To protect the interviewees’ information, recorded data were carefully
guarded and destroyed once analysis was complete.
Data analysis
Analysis of the data first involved the development of interpretive cases (Stake 2008) for
each teacher. In developing each case, we coded transcribed interviews around the
teachers’ approaches to student diversity, their ideas about culture teaching in foreign
language education, and their use of coursebook and curriculum resources while teach
ing. We used these descriptive data to gain a deeper understanding about why teachers
might use the coursebook’s cultural content in the ways they did.
In order to analyse the cases, a hybrid approach of qualitative methods of thematic analysis
described in detail in Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2006) was used, which incorporated both
the data-driven inductive approach of Boyatzis (1998) and the deductive a priori template of
codes approach outlined by Crabtree and Miller (1999). First, we developed a template of
predefined codes to help guide the analysis. Specifically, the DOPA model (Horenczyk and
Tatar 2011; Tatar 2012) laid the basis for categorising teachers’ approaches to student diversity
while Gray’s (2000) and Tomlinson’s (2018) findings informed the classification of teachers’
approaches to teaching content (see Tables 3 and 4 for details). Second, we tested the reliability
of the codes by applying the template of codes while examining an interview transcript. Third,
we summarised the transcript data and identified initial themes. Fourth, we applied the codes
from the codebook to the text with the intent of identifying meaningful units of text and
assigned inductive codes to segments of data that described a new theme observed in the text
(see Tables 5 and 6 for the data-driven codes). Specifically, emergent data-driven codes were
used to classify teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials and the rationale behind
their instructional choices. To increase credibility, researcher triangulation was used in the
process of generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes and defining and
naming themes (Nowell et al. 2017). The codes were further connected to discover themes and
patterns in the data. Finally, coded themes were closely scrutinised to ensure that the clustered
themes were representative of the initial data analysis and assigned codes.
After developing each case, we engaged in a cross-case analysis where we examined the
cases for similarities and differences. This allowed us to distinguish identifiable types of
teachers based on their approaches to student diversity, their orientations towards
instructional materials and approaches to using the coursebook’s cultural content.
Table 3. Teachers’ approaches to student diversity.

Approaches to student diversity Example of a coded text
Asset: ‘I like it [student diversity]. It’s an enrichment as far as I’m concerned
Celebrating differences and because I can ask different students in relevance to different issues:
capitalising on the unique contribution of “Did you see other things happen? Did you experience other ways of
each group dealing with this situation?” I have their reference point and they have
insights on different things. All kinds of helpful things that add up to the
classroom experience.’ (HT6)
Problem: ‘There are plenty of conflict situations the students are involved in. Some of them
Stressing the difficulties faced by the school are based on certain misunderstandings because a person comes
and its staff from a different culture, others have a personal basis, because their
personalities clash.’ (RT10)
Challenge: ‘Having many different cultures in the classroom is definitely enriching, but it
Focusing on the opportunities that might can be extremely challenging as well.’ (RT8)
be turned into advantages
Nonissue: ‘It doesn’t matter for me if they [the students] are Ethiopians, Russians or
Ignoring differences in favour of similarities Israelis, or Canadians, or whatever, Italians. But I do talk to them about
that are seen as more influential their culture and experiences back in whatever, and what’s going on
in their families.’ (RT4)
Table 4. Teachers’ approaches to teaching content.

Approaches to teaching content Example of a coded text
Adherence: ‘I prefer not to adapt or create texts myself since I don’t know what
Adhering to one main curriculum resource (text as the exactly should be in there. It’s seems easy, but it’s a different
authority); profession, I guess. You have to know what exactly to
Making few or no adaptations; change.’ (RT2)
Not seeing self as a resource
Censorship: ‘We don’t raise this topic [LGBT]. These issues are taboo here. We are
Complete abandonment of the material that is still a very closed society. Especially, the Druze. They are
considered inappropriate very conservative. So that’s why we don’t touch such issues.’
(AT5)
Elaboration: ‘It [a coursebook] gives you a framework, because the
Elaborating and extending the content with other Ministry is asking you to do certain things, and it keeps you
resources (text as a guide); within certain limits, I mean, I cannot pick up any text I like.
Seeing self as a resource So, texts are our frame which is easy to follow. But you have to
flexible enough to adapt the coursebook to the world of the
students.’ (AT3)
Creation: ‘If I feel that the coursebook does not include things I believe it needs
Examining text with a ‘critical eye’ for its potential and to include, I prepare materials by myself.’ (RT4)
limitations (text as one of many resources for
teaching);
Creating materials;
Seeing self as a knowledgeable resource
Findings
Overall, it should be mentioned that in line with previous research (e.g., Naidu 2020),
interviewees frequently equated culture with nationality, referring to ‘Jewish’, ‘Arab’ or
‘British/American’ culture. Moreover, the notion of a singular ‘Israeli’ culture surfaced in
many majority teachers’ responses, despite the highly diverse character of the local population.
When the participants explicitly discussed diversity within ‘Israeli’ culture, they were referring
to diverse ethnic groups (e.g. Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Sephardi).
The first research question addressed teachers’ approaches to diversity in the school
context. Here, the results showed that the teachers perceived student diversity as (in
descending order) an asset, a nonissue, a challenge and a problem (See Figure 2 for
details). Based on that division, we present the four teacher profiles and then relate them
Table 5. Teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials.

Teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials Example of a coded text
Adherent: ‘A coursebook is the basis. First of all, it contains vocabulary they
Being inclined to follow the guide while placing faith in need for Bagrut [matriculation exam]. It contains grammar
this particular guide and exercises, which they need to do. It’s like a plan I can make
additions to.’ (RT2)
Resistant: ‘Somehow, they [curriculum materials] tend to ignore that we have
Expressing opposition to the curriculum as conflicting our success stories . . . For instance, we have many athletes,
with one’s view of good teaching good athletes, so why all the time talk about someone who’s
Jewish? Compare it with . . . because if you don’t do it, I’ll do
it, I’ll mention it in class.’ (AT5)
Sceptical: ‘The books nowadays, I think, lack the viewpoint of the audience
Viewing curriculum materials as a limited resource and that are going to use them. By the way, I’m glad we stopped
not a guide for the flow of the lesson using this book. I loved this book, I taught it for years, but
I feel that it has become irrelevant now to the students in terms
of topics and in terms of the quality of the exercises and the
articles and so on and so forth.’ (AT3)
Adapting: ‘I add many things and I also skip things. I cannot say I go by the
Using the materials as a guide for the general structure book. I usually start in the beginning from the first chapter
and content, but modifying given suggestions and but then sometimes I see that the material is so boring
guidance to fit one’s views of what the students need that my students will not relate to it. In this case I just skip
it and go onto other things that I think they will relate to.’ (HT3)
Table 6. Teachers’ rationale behind adapting or creating materials.

Teachers’ rationale behind adapting or creating materials Example of a coded text
Contextualising materials: ‘I teach something about the ban on the veil right now in
Adjusting materials to a particular cultural or France, and it’s about religion and whatever. So, we did
educational context talk about it, and then we shifted the discussion towards
somewhere about Yom Kippur or something.’ (RT5)
Catering for students’ needs: Making materials ‘One of the projects I do in this school is that each kid
responsive to the heterogeneity inherent in the chooses a song, their favourite song that speaks to them,
classroom in terms of the learners’ first languages and and they have to presented it for the class. [. . .] in
cultures, their learning needs and experiences particular hip-hop songs about the oppression and police
brutality and things like that because these kids are of African,
Filipino, Asian origin.’ (HT1)
Personalising materials: ‘In the beginning of the year I collect notes about things they
Tapping into the interests and considering the learning want to discuss, and I try to integrate the topics that they gave
styles of the students me and to talk about them.’ (HT3)
Increasing materials’ timeliness: ‘Sometimes I bring articles from the news, just to deal with the
Responding to local and international events with up-to situation. Sometimes current events whenever something is
-date, relevant and high interest topics and tasks happening, new nationality law in Israel, for example.’ (AT4)
to the rest of the questions. Here our focus is on how the teachers in every group
interpreted and used the cultural content of curriculum materials in the context of
increased cultural diversity of schools and classrooms.
Culturally diverse classroom as an asset

An ‘asset’ approach to diversity that embraced students’ cultural backgrounds was most
frequently identified among Arab teachers. In this respect, having multicultural students
in classrooms and schools of the Arab sector was referred to as a ‘credit’, a ‘treasure’,
a ‘gift’, and an ‘enriching experience’ to name just a few. Yet, these teachers’ responses
reflected an understanding of cultural diversity in schools as primarily a function of
ethnicity: ‘We are all Arabs, but with different cultures.’ (AT1). Alternatively, religious
affiliation was used as a descriptor of students’ cultural background (e.g., Muslim,
Figure 2. Group distribution based on teachers’ approaches to student diversity.
Christian, Druze): ‘I’m dealing with different religions in class, religions of the students,
and you feel the differences despite the similarity in the nationality.’ (AT4). In their
descriptions of the school setting, Arab teachers underscored minority patriotism as
a value prioritised within school culture:
AT1: It’s a patriotic school, the emphasis is on identity as the minority. We are
Palestinian minorities, we are Israelis - we’ve got the ID, but we’ve got our own language,
our own history, we believe this is our land.
Several teachers mentioned the special pride they took in belonging to a minority
group. The following quote from an interview indicates the teacher’s conviction that
greater exposure to a variety of cultures enhances minority students’ intellectual and
academic achievement, which seems particularly important given the competitive envir
onment of the Israeli educational system:
AT1: It’s a privilege to be a minority. It forces you to know Hebrew, Arabic and English. It
forces you to know the culture, the Jewish. It’s a privilege by the way, like, we study Tanakh
[the Hebrew Bible], and we know Tanakh more or less. The more knowledge you have, the
better you are. The language, the culture. I think that we should be exposed to everything.
Others explicitly referred to multicultural learning environments’ potential to get to
know the other side. To illustrate, in the below example from an interview, the teacher
argues that school is the place to break down cultural barriers and enhance the tolerance:
AT10: The multicultural school is something that is wonderful. You see the difference.
Whenever you don’t know the other side, you’re blocked, you’re stereotyped . . . the way
you’ve been raised, and your peers, your village . . . it’s not right at all. But the minute you
know the other side, the acceptance and the peace start at schools. So, we are blessed in
Haifa because we have Arabs and Jews living here. And this school is a good place.
However, teachers reported that the main obstacle in achieving the goal of fostering
inclusion and respect for diversity in minority classrooms was the curriculum which
maintained the status quo of the dominant social narrative. For instance, one Arab
teacher referred to perceived invisibility of minority ethnic groups in locally published
curriculum materials in the following way:
AT4: Why devoting to someone while ignoring the others completely? And gam kaha
[anyway] you have racism and all kinds of hostility views; it starts from schools. And
again, I’m not saying English has to be the answer. But if I’m focusing on the idea of
teaching English as a foreign language, I’m teaching English as a foreign language, I’m
not teaching here Zionism or Jewish topics, that’s fine with me, but just be fair to others.
Ha kol beseder [everything is fine], we do live in Israel and we do deal with many Israeli
issues, and Zionism and so on and so forth . . . But deal with others! We hardly feel there’s
a mention of Christianity, Islam, it’s in really small portion.
That being the case, Arab teachers called for including in locally published materials
accurate content about and comprehensive portrayals of ethnically and racially diverse
groups and experiences, and not only the culture of the Jewish majority:
AT4: If you wanna deal with locally-published books, you either need to deal with all the
population, and deal with it fairly. This book . . . everybody studies it: Ethiopian Israelis,
Russian Israelis, who can recently come to the country, Arab Israelis who are indigenous
in this country . . . So, we are dealing with many people in this country who are willing to
study the book because we have no other option. Or choose a foreign book. But in case we
wanna deal with others, why should it be Jewish-oriented? Portray also Arabs in this
country! Ok? Portray them in a realistic way. They are either on a camel, or in their
traditional clothing, choose something else!
Connected to this point, some minority interviewees expressed their frustration at the
educational policy banning the use of home culture literary sources in English lessons
and voiced hope that one day they will not have to adapt the book to their culture:
AT1: I do hope that one day I will not have to think how to adapt the book to my own
culture. That it will be in the text, built in the text. I hope that one day I will be able to
teach Mahmoud Darwish and Tawfiq Ziad, our poets, in English. And we can’t. I do
hope. And I do hope that they [the Ministry of Education] will take into consideration,
that the text will mention minorities.
In light of Arab teachers’ negative views of local coursebooks as ‘lacking [minority]
cultural index’ (AT5), the above comments by AT1 and AT4 are reflective of their
‘obliged and reluctant selections’ of coursebooks to teach made in the educational context
imposing different constraints (Tomlinson 2018, 166). In response to these perceived
curriculum restrictions, many Arab teachers chose to skip content specific to the domi
nant culture and added minority content instead. Consider, for example, the excerpt
below where the teacher explicitly states that she is not prepared to teach cultural content
that she sees as not representative or relevant to her students’ culture:
AT2: There is a chapter in one of the books I teach for the 12th grade about cultures, and
it talks about genocide and stuff. And they stress the Holocaust in three different
passages. I skip them. To tell you the truth, I skip them because the Holocaust that
happened with the Jewish community is devastating, and nobody wants this to happen
again, but there were other similar tragedies that they do not speak about. And for me as
an Arab, genocide is happening all through the years, from the beginning of the
independence of this country till now, but there’s no mention of it. I’m living here, so
‘why?’ So, I skip it.
This, in turn, allowed time for adding information about minority cultures in order to
compensate for the missing cultural references. The following extract from a vignette
reflection illustrates the teacher’s attempt to recognise and pedagogically utilise diverse
cultures in the classroom paying special attention to the nondominant cultural capital to
enhance minority student learning:
AT3: Since the books that we use are not very much oriented to our culture, I give myself
the privilege to cut and paste. In other words, if I find an article or a story where . . . it
actually introduces other cultures to my students, I use it but straight after that
I introduce something equivalent from our own culture.
Unlike most immigrant teachers in this study who preferred to avoid discussion of local
tensions and dilemmas falling back on target culture material (see ‘challenge’ group for further
details), minority teachers tried to stay up to date on current events. Sharing their experience
of discussions of majority-minority cultural interactions, Arab teachers highlighted inner
conflicts between being a part of the minority and a citizen of the state employed by the
government:
AT4: Sometimes I bring articles from the news, just to deal with the situation. Sometimes
current events whenever something is happening, new nationality law in Israel, for
example. As citizens of Israel, how you view that, etc. you know, it’s something very
challenging, it’s not easy. So, it has to be, again, very delicate, you’re citizens in this
country, you are employed by the Ministry of Education, you’ve got to be very respective
of certain things because you can’t help it, you’re a citizen. It’s not easy, it’s very a very
delicate issue. And once it’s not included in our textbooks, it makes it even harder to
relate to it. You see what I mean? And I’m trying to do it.
Against the backdrop of these complex tensions and dilemmas, Arab teachers attached
special importance to cultural information inserts and highlighted the school’s role in
immersing students in the local culture:
AT3: I feel that our school is our last chance to introduce our culture to our students
because later they mingle in the big society and unfortunately, they slowly loose some of
the aspects that are very important. And as a teacher, as an educator, I feel they shouldn’t.
So, I try to provide extra things that really talk to our culture and show them that our
culture is also rich.
Jewish teachers in this group also referred to classroom diversity as an opportunity to
explore one’s own ideas alongside others’ perspectives:
HT5: The more you see, the more cultures you experience, I mean people from different
cultures you meet, the more you understand. That’s why I am lucky – I can talk with him,
and with her, and I accept all of them.
They, too, mentioned the importance of teaching for coexistence by encouraging
students from different socio-cultural backgrounds to examine multiple perspectives of
social content, discuss social problems, and work to bring about social change in view of
alternative ideas developed. The following quote from an interview with a majority
teacher describes a joint project where majority and minority students worked together
to challenge the dominant paradigm:
HT5: It is very important for me to have coexistence programs with people who are not
Jews. And to know and teach students at our school their narrative. I really think it’s very
important not to be so self-centred and to know only the Jewish narrative. Since as
a person, the more narratives you know, the better person you become. That’s what
I believe in. That is my aim. I have a project with a school in Nazareth, and the kids meet
in their or in our school and write a project together. It was when the Ministry decided
that students must submit a project, we used this opportunity as a board, so that Jewish
and Arab kids would meet, talk, and work together. And in that way, they get
a perspective on culture. So, they talk about Jewish traditions, about Christianity, and
it’s a different narrative.
That said, among other goals Jewish teachers explicitly mentioned helping their
students overcome ethnocentrism:
HT6: I tell them in my studies: You’re very ethnocentric. Let’s look beyond that
ethnocentricity, discover other cultures and other ways of looking at things.
Just like their minority counterparts, Jewish teachers criticised the literature programme
and highlighted the need to tailor the content to students’ learning needs and experiences:
HT6: There should be less of a focus on prescribed stories since this literature is a bit
outdated. I think they [the Ministry] should trust us and really leave it to us to teach the
stories we feel connected to.
To solve this problem, teachers mentioned creating their own materials in order to
personalise the literary content:
HT9: I often make up my own lesson plans and add from my experience and ask for their
insight. For example, instead of teaching them a story that I feel is not relevant for their
lives, like the Split Cherry Tree, I made a whole unit about the sonnets, Shakespeare’s
sonnets, 18 and 130, and I teach those instead because I feel they are more interested in
that, and it’s Shakespeare, and it’s classic and we enjoy that.
Overall, these findings signal majority teachers’ readiness to endorse in culturally
responsive teaching practices. Specifically, this was evident in their willingness to adapt
their teaching to the needs of a diverse student body and expose their students to a variety
of cultural narratives. These are of particular importance given that teachers’ cultural
awareness and sensitivity have been acknowledged as teacher qualities essential for
culturally responsive teaching (e.g., Gay 2010b; Nieto 2004).
Culturally diverse classroom as a nonissue

The ‘nonissue’ approach was identified among majority and immigrant teachers. That
said, in their descriptions of the cultural composition of classrooms and schools some
teachers minimised the importance of cultural differences:
HT3: I don’t see them [the students] as a different culture, for me it’s like the same culture. In
the past there were those who were born in Israel and those who came from their home
countries, now with everybody being born here they are almost the same.
Alternatively, cultural differences were disregarded altogether in favour of other

aspects of students’ backgrounds that were considered to be of more importance:
RT4: For me it actually depends on a kind of family a person comes from, a kind of education
he gets at home, and a kind of person he or she is, and not a culture they belong to.
Even the ethnic divide between the students and teachers described as very conspic
uous by a number of teachers was not perceived as a challenge:
HT1: This disparity is never really talked about very much. It’s a kind of in everyone’s
awareness but never discussed. And I don’t think anyone feels uncomfortable with it, it’s
just a given.
These statements, however, point to teachers’ conceptions of culture essentializing
their students’ nationality or ethnicity.
In describing their role, many teachers in this group emphasised acting as accultura
tion agents. The following quote from an interview with a Jewish teacher reflects his
position as a member of the dominant school culture whose role is to help immigrant
students assimilate into the culture of majority:
HT1: . . . we like to think, the teachers in our school, even if we might not articulate it in
this way, of ourselves as agents of acculturation. Al least to get these kids to be productive
citizens, to do the army, which . . . not that I see my role is getting kids to the army, but if
we can instil in them the idea that doing the army is something important, and everyone
should do something for the country, even if it’s not the army, some kind of shoot or
mere something that would be . . . that’s to me more culture than talking about, you
know, the city of Paris or the city of New York.
Regarding the teachers’ orientations towards instructional materials, unlike their minority
counterparts, this group placed trust in the quality of the cultural content of the locally
produced teaching materials considering the coursebooks ‘culturally sensitive’ and ‘culturally
appropriate’ (HT10). Even more so, teachers stressed local coursebooks’ potential for reducing
ethnic stereotyping among students. The following reflection from a vignette illustrates this
point:
HT1: I find the textbooks are an important socializer into Israeli society for our kids.
Even if it’s very subtle and even if they don’t often get this. The very fact that Arabic is
alongside Hebrew, you know, in a school where our kids, I mean the kids who are a little
bit more intelligent, a little bit more political, they are like racists. For them to be exposed
to books that have Arabic and references to Arabic all the time, I think, you know, the
publishers are doing an important service.
This reflection also indicates that the teacher operates from his own cultural way of
knowing, i.e. as a member of the majority group. Indeed, the idea that translations to Arab
ic and passing mentions of Arabs and their culture are enough for social inclusion of the
minority within school serves to reaffirm the dominant school structure and societal narrative.
As for teachers’ approaches to teaching cultural content, again, their actions lied mostly in
the sphere of material adaptation. Specifically, teachers stressed materials’ potential for
discussing the topics within the context of students’ experiences and cultural frames of
reference with a bit of adjustment:
RT4: I think that the books are pretty good, and you can pick up a topic from what you
have in the book, and you have a lot, and the topics are good. And, you know, you can
develop anything from anything. Last year I taught ‘All my sons’ and they talked about
PTSD as one topic and how it is relevant to us as Israelis because many of us suffer from
it. So, you can. You just have to think.
Connected to this point, teachers referred to the promising potential of a diverse student
body to present multiple viewpoints and perspectives on the coursebook’s cultural content:
RT4: . . . whenever I have a chance to discuss something controversial, I discuss it. ‘Ok, so
go ahead and present how you see it. The book presents it in a certain way, how do you as
one who comes from this background see it? And let’s see the differences.
Contrary to minority teachers, Jewish teachers’ decisions to skip content were based
on the perceived pedagogical relevance of the topics or their connection to teen life:
RT4: If I think that the topic is boring, if I think that err some activities would not be clear or
don’t bring with them anything useful for the kids, if I think that this is just a waste of time,
a lot of things . . . if I see something not useful for them and I see it could be unclear and I see
they won’t remember anything from it, won’t serve them in any way, why would I teach it?!
Other teachers admitted ignoring tasks and activities that in their perception lack
authenticity:
RT5: I mostly skip activities like ‘decide in a group,’ ‘talk to each other’ and project-wise
‘do this research or that’ because some of them I find too artificial to be a real situation.
It’s worth mentioning that the English literature program was received with great scepti
cism by many teachers in this group. Some criticised its approach to teaching the target
culture:
HT1: There’s a literature program . . . To me it’s the opposite of culture, it’s the
trivialization and the manipulation of culture in order to satisfy certain institutional,
you know, requirements, or considerations. [. . .] But I would protest any claim that sifrut
is an honest serious approach to the culture of English speakers, because it isn’t.
Others pointed to students’ detachment and difficulty to identify themselves with the
events described and stressed the need to bolster lesson content by drawing connections
with real-world issues, asking students to use opinions and existing knowledge to address
them. In the following interview extract HT8 describes an introductory activity designed
to help her students explore an unfamiliar cultural domain. Specifically, the teacher used
an example from a local conflict in order to make a foreign literary piece more mean
ingful and relevant for the students:
HT8: I’m teaching them at the moment Paul Beck’s story ‘The Enemy’. Excellent story.
So, what did I do? I’ll give you an example culture-wise. I began the lesson with a lead-in
activity, in which I showed them two or three clips from the Israeli news about Tzahal’s
[The Israel Defence Forces] hospital in the North at the border and how we treat soldiers
and Arabs from Syria. And then we discussed them, and why Israel is doing that, and how
you feel about it, and whether the country is doing right, the reasons and so on and so
forth, and then I got to the story.
Connected to this point, just like their Arab counterparts, some Jewish teachers
admitted that introducing local writers in translation into the literature program would
be a perfect way to contextualise materials and increase their timeliness:
HT7: These stories have nothing that is taken out of our culture. [. . .] But if I use Israeli
writers in the translation, I have a win-win situation: because first it’s their home
culture and it’s easier for them to identify with it, and second they will read it in
English.
The teacher’s use of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ might, however, hint at her rather essentialist
ideas about culture. Furthermore, her stated preference for using culturally familiar
literature might also limit access to opportunities for her students to engage with ‘the
culturally strange’ allowing for interrogating one’s ingrained ideas and relations with
others (Holliday 2016).
Overall, unlike Arab teachers’ ‘emotional reactions to contextual circumstances’
(Tomlinson 2018, 166), this groups’ decisions regarding material selection and adapta
tion were largely based on cognitive conviction of their potential value for the target
student population. It’s worth mentioning, however, that these teachers’ readiness to
disregard cultural differences and discuss a variety of controversial issues could be
explained by the fact that they rarely had minority students in their foreign language
classrooms, which allowed them to maintain the dominant paradigm.
Culturally diverse classroom as a challenge

The ‘challenge’ group was solely comprised of immigrant teachers. One of the teachers
related to the positive challenge brought about the cultural composition of her school and
the classrooms she teachers in the following manner:
RT7: Our school is Kibbutz Galuyot.1 We have Jewish students, Arab students, some
times Druze students, we have a lot of families from the former USSR, and now and then
we have English speakers. And of course, it’s very demanding, I would say, and very
challenging, but if you like your profession, and if you like kids, things take care of
themselves.
Another teacher referred to a difficult task of teaching classrooms comprised solely of
students with a migrant background:
RT6: It’s definitely a challenge because students come from different backgrounds and
some of them have a better knowledge of English, others have great gaps and they have
difficulty in acquiring the language, and on top of that dealing with Hebrew and different
subjects in Hebrew. Sometimes there can be a nice touch when students talk about their
festivals, things they like to eat for different festivals, whatever.
However, the teacher’s interpretation of students’ cultural identities in terms of foods
and festivals reflects her approach to culture as a national attribute, which may reduce
human interaction to an exchange of cultural facts or ‘encounters of cultures’ rather than
individuals (Dervin 2011, 38).
This group’s orientations towards the cultural representations in locally produced
instructional materials ranged from trust to scepticism. Regardless of the stance they
adopted, many teachers in this group expressed evident satisfaction with the fact that
certain coursebooks were predominantly target-culture oriented. The following vignette
reflection clearly demonstrates an immigrant teacher’s preference for cultural elements of
the target society as a way to avoid discussing deep tensions and divisions that exist in
Israel:
RT5: I think that in difference to Arab colleagues I don’t mind that so much, the fact that
it’s not about their own community. I even a kind . . . a sort of take joy in the fact that it
isn’t. The Israeli society is so self-focused on “me me me” and “we we we” and, you know
what, so I don’t mind it [a coursebook] being about the American culture or the British
culture or whatever else that doesn’t have to do immediately with what is going on here.
The teacher’s choice not to discuss local conflicts within a context of ‘de-politicised’
Israeli school is not surprising given that such debates may politicise the curriculum and
aggravate stereotypes and negative attitudes towards ‘the other’ (Levy 2014). On the other
hand, however, as Gay (2018) suggests, such efforts to avoid and redirect uncomfortable
or controversial conversation can be a sign of resistance to culturally responsive teaching
strategies.
As for the approaches to using the instructional resources, those teachers who
perceived local coursebooks as ‘socially-minded’, reported being faithful to the book
and elaborating upon the coursebook lessons only in ways that they thought would
make the lessons more meaningful and interesting for her students. This approach can be
seen in the following comment made by an immigrant teacher who admitted implement
ing most of the material in her classrooms more or less as a given:
RT7: I try to follow the book because when I choose the book, I pay attention to the
writer, being a lot of time in the profession I know the names of the best, and I rely on
them. I think a person who invested a lot of time into creating a book meant good. So,
I try to follow as much as I can, and I usually read the teacher’s guide to see how the
author expected the material to be presented to the students. That being said, I add stuff.
For example, I use media. I show short videos from YouTube, which is a great valuable
resource, it really lightens up the lesson and motivates the students.
This quote illustrates how the authority of the book writers plays a key role in material
selection.
Others pointed to lack of coherence of the values, norms and lifestyle of the local
context with the values promoted by the materials. The statement that follows supports
the idea that local culture must be part of English language classrooms:
RT6: Certain coursebooks promote values that I don’t find very Israeli, so I add stuff.
I feel that I need to balance up things that are built inside the book.
Apart from that, teachers expressed doubts regarding the age-appropriacy of certain
issues and mentioned skipping potentially hazardous topics. The following vignette
reflection clearly shows how one of the participant teachers excuses her resistance to
controversial topics on students’ developmental maturity. Thus, while coverage of con
troversial issues may have conceptual allure for the teacher, concerns about harming
children or inciting social controversies urges her to drop what she considers inappropri
ate coursebook material:
RT6: There’s a text about gender roles, in which they go into a discussion of whether we
are born with gender roles or whether it’s something that society teaches us along the
way. And for high school children it’s sometimes not a good topic to bring up because
some of them may have doubts about their sex identity or they may have certain inquiries
that they are making about gender surgeries or changing sex, whatever. And you know
some people in class may react as bigots. People have prejudices against that. And this
might hurt the student who felt he was in an environment secure enough for him to share
certain issues that relate to his core identity of being either a boy or a girl. And even
though it’s a great topic, I wouldn’t bring this up in my class.
As the above quotes illustrate, these teachers’ perception of a diverse classroom as
a challenge might have translated in their orientations to curriculum materials main
taining the dominant cultural narrative mostly as a relief. Such attitudes, however,
resulted in teachers’ preference for those texts and activities which they considered
culturally safe and acceptable (e.g. Gray 2000, 2010), thus often missing opportunities
for potentially useful exchanges of experiences and views. When local culture was
integrated, the materials generally represented the culture of the majority.
Culturally diverse classroom as a problem

Finally, we came across a few cases of a ‘problem’ attitude to classroom diversity. It’s
important to note, however, that this approach was highly selective and directed solely
towards minority students. Such attitudes were especially evident in teachers’ essentialist
statements pertaining to static representations of cultural difference. The below example
is selected from the interview in which the teacher shared her discomfort occasioned by
having to teach students from minority backgrounds:
RT10: It depends on the cultures that the students come from, and some cultures for me
are harder to deal with. For example, students who come from a more eastern culture that
is intolerant towards other cultures, who feel that they are a minority who’s been not
heard for a very long time, who have been shut down out of society, and they have this
sense of victimization, or a feeling that they are victims. And those I have a hard time
with because they tend to not really listen to other cultures, and not really accept them.
I think it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that . . . I really . . . I like them less. I feel
less connected to them. So, they are right in a sense. And then I feel they are less accepting
of other cultures.
This comment is indicative of broader ideas about multiculturalism, which clearly
reflects RT10’s orientation to the more external cultural sphere through a juxtaposition
with a cultural ‘other’, even though the justification of the teacher’s problem attitude
towards minority students may sound like a personal disagreement due to her own values
and beliefs.
Regarding orientations towards the coursebooks’ cultural content, teachers in this
group were satisfied with it stressing they didn’t mind if the materials are target-culture-
oriented:
RT2: I always say that the aim of the English course is to represent English-speaking
countries. It’s not about Israeli culture. It’s about British, American, South-African,
Australian, etc. culture. So, if, for example, Russian, or Arabic, or French is not repre
sented in a coursebook, it’s not some sort of nationalism.
As regards coursebook use, we came across a whole range of approaches from
adhering to the book to adapting or creating materials. In the following comment, the
teacher attributes her loyalty to the curriculum in the form of teaching the book with very
few asides to her perceptions of the system requirements to cover coursebook material:
RT2: Usually I don’t skip. I can cover material faster or slower, it depends on a lot of
things. For example, something happened at school, and we need to talk about it. They
want to share it, and if I see I can wait with the material, I prefer to let them speak up. Or
due to attendance issues. So, it’s not that I plan to skip something. I don’t skip. I have to
follow the instructions (smiling).
Other teachers mentioned adapting or creating materials to ensure they are responsive
to the heterogeneity inherent in the classroom notwithstanding the limitations of the
rigid curriculum or the pressure of standardised test scores. The below extract from
a vignette discussion is a representative example in this respect:
RT1: I try not to be . . . limited by books, or other people’s opinions. My purpose is to
teach English and I do it my way – creatively, using my intuition, being sensitive to the
classroom environment and the interaction that happens here-and-now. You can adapt
material, change it, and make it more interactive. And sometimes I improvise. I create
material because I have enough experience to do it.
This groups’ approach to classroom diversity (specifically, to minority students) as
a problem to be solved could partially explain the trust teachers placed in the target- or
dominant-culture-oriented coursebook enabling them to avoid controversial topics
pertaining to local realities. As a result, they could choose to follow the book without
fear of having to ‘justify conspicuous omissions’ (Tomlinson 2018) or supplement it with
culturally inoffensive materials to motivate students and energise their teaching.
Summary of the findings

The findings of this study indicate that on the surface teachers’ classroom practices of
culture teaching were loosely related to their approaches to student diversity. That said,
regardless of the group (asset, nonissue, challenge or problem) EFL teachers participat
ing in this study reported on similar approaches to using the cultural content of
instructional materials. In the Discussion section we provide explanations for such
similarities and delve deeper to uncover possible differences within and across teacher
groups.
Figure 3 presents the emergent model of connections between teachers’ practices of
teaching culture and teachers’ approaches to student diversity. Specifically, it illustrates
how teachers’ different orientations towards the cultural elements in curriculum materi
als inform their approaches to teaching cultural content. Furthermore, it exemplifies
teachers’ reported practices as related to these approaches. The above examples comprise
a representative but not exhaustive list of teacher practices and concede the possibility
that teachers in our sample exhibit additional practices in each actual teaching situation.
RESEARCH PAPERS IN EDUCATION
Figure 3. Emergent model of connections between teachers’ practices of teaching culture and teachers’ approaches to student diversity.
25
Discussion
Our goal was to explore how teachers are inclined to think through and subsequently act
upon issues of cultural content and pedagogy, the cultural backgrounds of their students,
and the values driving their instructional decisions. As we tried to understand what
might account for the similarities and differences in teachers’ approaches to teaching
culture, we were drawn to examine how they perceived the classroom context.
The encouraging results of this study point to positive approaches to diversity held by
larger part of the participants and evident in their perceptions of a heterogeneous student
body as an asset or nonissue. The driving principle for these teachers was to make all
students feel welcomed, appropriately challenged, and supported in their efforts.
However, if we look beyond the surface, we will find quite natural and less encouraging
explanation for this phenomenon. For one, it is important to recognise that an ‘asset’
group was nearly solely comprised of minority teachers, which means they were exposed
to schools and classrooms of students with the same ethnic background as theirs. This
could explain why Arab teachers unanimously referred to teaching a diverse student
body – different religions, otherwise Arabs – as a totally rewarding experience.
A ‘nonissue’ group, in its turn, was comprised of majority and immigrant teachers who
admitted they rarely had minority students in their foreign language classrooms. That
being the case, these teachers underscored freedom in raising practically any issue in class
and therefore ‘providing many opportunities to discuss global topics of interest . . . [and
encouraging] any diverse perspectives’ (Samovar et al. 2017, 354). On the contrary, those
teachers who cited having a noticeable presence of minority students in the classroom,
adopted ‘challenge’ or ‘problem’ attitudes. Echoing previous research (e.g., Amadasi and
Holliday 2017), these data pointed to the essentialist ‘us' and 'them' binary that seemed to
prevail in the participants’ conversations about the nature of culture as it relates to
language education. These teachers’ comments regarding refraining from discussing
culturally sensitive issues in front of minority students and expressed feelings of dis
comfort due to having to teach students with minority backgrounds often reflected deficit
thinking and harmful biases on their part (Gay 2013).
Notwithstanding the ambivalent approaches to student diversity, analysis revealed
that the teachers in various groups exhibited similar approaches to using the coursebook.
Perceiving it as ‘the basis’, ‘a framework’, or ‘a plan’, they felt free to elaborate or create
lessons drawing on learners’ cultures as a source and facilitator to teaching a foreign
language (Modiano 2001) as well as a relevant input for contextualising, personalising
and increasing materials’ timeliness (Howard and Major 2004). These instructional
decisions echo previous research findings pointing to the potential of home culture
input to better suit the social reality of the classroom being real for the learners and
therefore more effective in activating the learning process (Widdowson 2003). Similarly,
teachers in various groups dealt with what they considered to be inappropriate cultural
material by complete abandonment of the material. Taken together, these findings are in
line with previous research on teachers’ approaches to material use and specific purposes
behind teachers’ practices exhibited by EFL teachers in diverse contexts (e.g., Gray, 2000;
Howard and Major 2004; Johansson 2006; Rivera Cuayahuitl and Pérez Carranza 2015).
However, if we move now from the ‘how’ to the ‘why’ of teacher approaches to course
book use and discuss the rationale behind these choices, we will see how teachers’
approaches to student diversity influenced their teaching decisions. Among the four
categories of teachers, minority teachers in the ‘asset’ group seemed to have the strongest
cultural filter. For them the perceived ‘risk of having [their] own culture totally submerged
[. . .] impose[d] restrictions in educational and cultural domains to protect [their] way of
life.’ (Alptekin and Alptekin 1984, 15). To this end, minority teachers referred to education
as a ‘continuation of heritage’ (Widdowson 2003) and perceived the school as the last
chance to immerse students in the local culture before they submerse into the dominant
society and lose an important part of their identity. Hence, Arab teachers in this study
ignored majority culture input and initiated minority culture information inserts. In doing
this, these teachers were trying to compensate for the lack of attention to minority culture
in the locally published materials and make their under-represented students feel ‘validated’
(Brown-Jeffy and Cooper 2011). Such a focus on its own cultural heritage as ‘the moral
right to be heard and listened to’ (Kramsch 2006, 19) was perceived by the teachers in the
‘problem’ group as the lack of tolerance towards other cultures and became the reason for
their unwillingness to discuss culturally sensitive topics with minority students. ‘Challenge’
teachers, too, expressed similar concerns, though implicitly, through either remaining
neutral about or expressing obvious satisfaction with the fact that certain materials fail to
keep local events, and especially domestic politics, to the fore. This approach concurs with
the view of teaching English with reference to the socio-cultural norms and values of an
English-speaking country (Alptekin and Alptekin 1984). Consequently, these teachers
chose to concentrate on what is referred to by research as ‘safe’ topics about cultural
diversity such as cross-group similarities and intergroup harmony, and ethnic customs,
cuisines, costumes, and celebrations while neglecting more troubling issues (e.g., Gay 2013;
He 2013). On the contrary, ‘nonissue’ group’s filter allowed culture – both that of the
teacher and that of the students – to be explicitly present in the classroom. Specifically,
teachers in this group encouraged in-class debates in order to introduce multiple perspec
tives, engage students and liven up classroom curriculum. In their choices against certain
topics and tasks those teachers were mostly guided by their perceptions of material
authenticity, their pedagogical relevance and their connection to teen life.
That said, analysis revealed that most teachers seem to hold essentialist ideas of culture
reflected in their usage of the term to describe aspects of nationality, ethnicity, religion,
and language, which is in line with previous research on (e.g., Naidu 2020).
Conclusion
Applying the model of approaches to diversity in the school context (Horenczyk and
Tatar 2011; Tatar 2012), this study aimed to illuminate on high school EFL teachers’
reported practices related to the use of the cultural content of curriculum materials in
view of increased cultural heterogeneity of schools and classrooms.
Our analysis of the data revealed that teachers’ approaches to student diversity guided,
but not determined their instructional decisions about coursebook use. Specifically, regard
less of the group, teachers censored coursebooks for texts and tasks that they found
culturally inappropriate or potentially hazardous in terms of discipline, elaborated on the
materials or created lessons in order to contextualise or personalise content as well as to
increase its timeliness. In doing this, teachers worked to ensure they used interesting and
developmentally appropriate content, tasks, and materials to spark students’ curiosity and
set a stage for learning. Specifically, teachers took advantage of real-life resources such as
electronic media, literature, documentaries, history, and movies to consider local and global
current events through multiple lenses. Equally, they tried to create awareness through
debates about how cultural traditions can be transformed or affected by, for example, the
influence of technology, cyber-bullying, talk shows, reality shows, etc. Oftentimes learners
were encouraged to do basic ethnographic research on minority and marginalised groups.
That said, alongside the above similarities in the ways teachers approached the cultural
content of curriculum materials, analysis underscored considerable variation in the
reasons behind those pedagogical choices. We suggest that it was here that teachers’
approaches to classroom diversity came into play. Specifically, Arab teachers’ instruc
tional decisions regarding skipping ‘Jewish’ content and initiating minority culture
information inserts could be influenced by their perceptions of students with the same
ethnic background as theirs as an asset. Perceiving their culture under threat and
undervalued, these teachers were using every opportunity to reinforce the learners’
national identity. In their turn, ‘problem’ teachers’ choices to avoid discussing culturally-
sensitive topics with minority students stemmed from the latters’ perceived lack of
tolerance towards other cultures caused by minority’s focus on its own cultural heritage.
To conclude, our study supports Amadasi and Holliday (2017) contention regarding
the importance of moving away from the ‘my culture’ versus ‘your culture’ paradigm that
blocks the possibility for understanding and sharing at the point of tolerating an ‘other’
who can never be like ‘us’.
Implications
Implications from this study highlight the importance of combating ethnocentrism in the
educational setting. Indeed, significant disparities between different communities suggest
careful consideration to how we might provide a supportive environment for fighting
prejudice and promoting the idea of mutual understanding, tolerance and respect for
difference in the school setting. A good way to help teachers and learners to avoid
stereotyping, prejudice and ethnocentrism is to learn more about ‘the other’ (Samovar
et al. 2017) in order to combat essentialist cultural blocks by drawing non-essentialist
threads that enable shared meanings and act against cultural prejudice (Amadasi and
Holliday 2017). In this respect, collaboration projects among schools from different loca
tions with different ethnic composition focused on getting to know each other, building
relationships, opening new ways of knowing, being and doing and improving inter-cultural
understanding were reported successful by many participant teachers involved in similar
projects. This brings us to the importance of recognising students’ social and cultural
capital (Brown-Jeffy and Cooper 2011; Edgerton 2014; Gay 2010b; Nieto 2004) in general,
and ‘non-dominant’ cultural capital (Carter, 2005 as cited in Goldenberg 2014, 117) in
particular, through classroom instruction (Goldenberg 2014). In this study, a majority
teacher’s attempt to use students’ knowledge in hip-hop, specifically those of African,
Filipino and Asian origin, to increase engagement in English classes, can serve an example
of a teaching practice that values students’ cultural capital. Acknowledging students’ home
culture with curricular material that emphasises students’ cultural capital seems essential
for several reasons. First, considering the lack of attention given in locally published
curriculum materials to the cultural backgrounds of minority students (e.g., Awayed-
Bishara 2015). Second, in light of the participant teachers’ comments regarding refraining
from discussing culturally sensitive issues in front of minority students and expressed
feelings of discomfort due to having to teach students with minority backgrounds.
Conforming with previous research (e.g., Gay 2013; Geiger 2012), such instructional
behaviour often reflects deficit thinking and harmful biases on the part of the teachers.
Finally, given the connections between the lack of recognition of the non-dominant cultural
capital and students’ low academic achievement established by international research (e.g.,
Carter, 2005 as cited in Goldenberg 2014) and observed in the local context (Amara 2014).
Going back to the criticism levelled at locally produced curriculum materials, espe
cially by minority teachers, we concur with Geneva Gay (2013) in that
teachers and their students should critique teaching resources and strategies and
compensate for inadequacies when necessary. It would clearly be helpful to
examine multiple ethnic descriptions and interpretations of events and experiences as
well as reconstruct or replace existing presentations of issues and situations in the various
resources with their own acquired cultural knowledge and insights (Gay 2013). In
addition, introducing literary works of marginalised groups into the curriculum men
tioned by quite a few minority teachers could provide a means to change deficit attitudes.
Specifically, these literary pieces ‘can serve as a kind of counterscreen in a field of other
varieties of texts that often tend to screen (reduce and represent) societies, cultures, and
individual experience’ (Edgerton 2014, 6).
Limitations and future research

The main limitation of the present study is a relatively small teacher sample which
yielded a limited pool of self-reported cases available for analysis. We admit that
examining how teachers not only perceive but also interact with diverse populations is
crucially important. Having said that, the self-reported nature of the data was especially
useful for shedding light on the challenges faced by teachers in the context of increased
cultural diversity in classrooms. In addition, future research should replicate this work in
other countries and cultural contexts because, as mentioned earlier, Israel is only one
example of the increasingly cultural diversity of contemporary Western societies in
general and of schools in particular.
We acknowledge that the critical incident data relied on the individual participant’s
recollection of past events, which might pose the question of the ‘accuracy’ of the
incidents in question (Nowell et al. 2017). To mitigate this potential problem, we sent
an email asking the participants in advance to think about critical incidents to discuss
approximately one week in advance – a process suggested in a number of prior studies
(Schluter et al., 2007 as cited in Nowell et al. 2017). Similarly, data collected through the
two vignettes might not accurately reflect interviewees’ actual instructional choices.
Despite this, vignettes proved to be more advantageous in eliciting teachers’ opinions
on sensitive topics as compared to open-ended questions and therefore allowed for the
greater depth and range of insights (Schoenberg and Ravdal 2000).
Finally, due to space limitations we could not pay proper attention to cases when the
participating teachers deliberately avoided opportunities to make a good use of ‘teachable
moments’ (Irvine and Armento 2001) in the multicultural classroom. These negative data
formed the basis for another paper which investigated the reasons and motives that
Israeli EFL teachers attributed to their decisions not to integrate cultural content into
their teaching practices (Lavrenteva and Orland-Barak 2020b).
Note
1. The act of gathering of the exiles in the land of Israel, which became the core idea of the
Zionist Movement and Israel’s Scroll of Independence, embodied by the idea of going up, or
Aliyah.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Evgenia Lavrenteva is a Doctor of Philosophy at the Faculty of Education at the University of
Haifa, Israel. Her interests focus on the place of culture in English as a Foreign Language curricula,
especially language curriculum development and implementation.
Lily Orland-Barak is Professor in Education, former Dean of the Faculty of Education and present
Dean of Graduate Studies at the University of Haifa, Israel. Her research focuses on professional
learning, mentoring and curriculum development in the context of teacher education. She has
published numerous articles and books on these topics, and serves on national and international
academic committees and editorial boards.
ORCID
Evgenia Lavrenteva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7889-2454
References
Alptekin, C. 1993. “Target-language Culture in EFL Materials.” ELT Journal 47 (2): 136–143.
doi:10.1093/elt/47.2.136.
Alptekin, C., and M. Alptekin. 1984. “The Question of Culture: EFL Teaching in non-English
Speaking Countries.” ELT Journal 38 (1): 14–20. doi:10.1093/elt/38.1.14.
Amadasi, S., and A. R. Holliday. 2017. “Block and Thread Intercultural Narratives and Positioning:
Conversations with Newly Arrived Postgraduate Students.” Language and Intercultural
Communication 17 (3): 254–269. doi:10.1080/14708477.2016.1276583.
Amara, M. 2014. “Policy and Teaching English to Palestinian Students in Israel: An Ecological
Perspective to Language Education Policies.” In Minority Languages and Multilingual
Education, 105–118. Springer Netherlands: Dordrecht.
Awayed-Bishara, M. 2015. “Analyzing the Cultural Content of Materials Used for Teaching
English to High School Speakers of Arabic in Israel.” Discourse & Society 26 (5): 517–542.
Baker, W. 2012. “From Cultural Awareness to Intercultural Awareness: Culture in ELT.” ELT
Journal 66 (1): 62–70. doi:10.1093/elt/ccr017.
Barr, R., & Sadow, M. W. 1989. “Influence of Basal Programs on Fourth-Grade Reading
Instruction.„ Reading Research Quarterly, 1: 44–71. doi:10.2307/748010
Barter, C., and E. Renold. 1999. “The Use of Vignettes in Qualitative Research.” Social Research
Update 25 (9): 1–6.
Borg, S. 2015. Teacher Cognition and Language Education: Research and Practice. Bloomsbury:
London.
Bott, G., and D. Tourish. 2016. “The Critical Incident Technique Reappraised Using Critical
Incidents to Illuminate Organizational Practices and Build Theory.” Qualitative Research in
Organizations and Management: An International Journal 11 (4): 276–300. doi:10.1108/QROM-
01-2016-1351.
Boyatzis, R. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code
Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brown, M. R. 2007. “Educating All Students: Creating Culturally Responsive Teachers,
Classrooms, and Schools. „ Intervention in School and Clinic 43 (1): 57–62. doi:10.1177/
10534512070430010801
Brown-Jeffy, S., and J. E. Cooper. 2011. “Toward a Conceptual Framework of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy: An Overview of the Conceptual and Theoretical Literature.” Teacher Education
Quarterly 38 (1): 65–84.
Cabello, B., and N. D. Burstein. 1995. “Examining Teachers’ Beliefs about Teaching in Culturally
Diverse Classrooms.” Journal of Teacher Education 46 (4): 285–294. doi:10.1177/
0022487195046004007.
Causey, V. E., C. D. Thomas, and B. J. Armento. 2000. “Cultural Diversity Is Basically a Foreign
Term to Me: The Challenges of Diversity for Preservice Teacher Education.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 16 (1): 33–45. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00039-6.
Copple, C. 2003. A World of Difference: Readings on Teaching Young Children in A Diverse Society.
Washington D.C.: National Association of Education for Young Children.
Crabtree, B., and W. Miller. 1999. “A Template Approach to Text Analysis: Developing and Using
Codebooks.” In Doing Qualitative Research, edited by B. Crabtree and W. Miller, 163–177.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cunha, M. P., R. C. Cunha, and A. Rego. 2009. “Exploring the Role of Leader-subordinate
Interactions in the Construction of Organizational Positivity.” Leadership 5 (1): 81–101.
doi:10.1177/1742715008098311.
Dasli, M., and A. R. Díaz, Eds.. 2017. The Critical Turn in Language and Intercultural
Communication Pedagogy: Theory, Research and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
de Abreu, G., and H. Hale. 2014. “Conceptualizing Teachers’ Understanding of the Immigrant
Learner.” International Journal of Educational Research 63: 26–37. doi:10.1016/j.
ijer.2012.09.004.
Dervin, F. 2011. “A Plea for Change in Research on Intercultural Discourses: A ‘Liquid’ Approach
to the Study of the Acculturation of Chinese Students.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6 (1):
37–52. doi:10.1080/17447143.2010.532218.
Edgerton, S. H. 2014. Translating the Curriculum: Multiculturalism into Cultural Studies.
New York: Routledge.
Fereday, J., and E. Muir-Cochrane. 2006. “Demonstrating Rigor Using Thematic Analysis:
A Hybrid Approach of Inductive and Deductive Coding and Theme Development.”
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (1): 80–92.
Feryok, A. 2008. “An Armenian English Language Teacher’s Practical Theory of Communicative
Language Teaching.” System 36 (2): 227–240. doi:10.1016/j.system.2007.09.004.
Fortuin, J., M. Van Geel, A. Ziberna, and P. Vedder. 2014. “Ethnic Preferences in Friendships and
Casual Contacts between Majority and Minority Children in the Netherlands.” International
Journal of Intercultural Relations 41: 57–65. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2014.05.005.
Freeman, D. J., and A. C. Porter. 1989. “Do Textbooks Dictate the Content of Mathematics
Instruction in Elementary Schools?” American Educational Research Journal 26 (3): 403–421.
doi:10.3102/00028312026003403.
Gándara, P., J. Maxwell-Jolly, and A. Driscoll. 2005. Listening to Teachers of English Learners. Santa
Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
García, María del Carmen Méndez. 2005. “International and Intercultural Issues in English
Teaching Textbooks: The Case of Spain. „Intercultural Education 16 (1): 57–68. doi:10.1080/
14636310500061831
Gay, G. 2010a. “Acting on Beliefs in Teacher Education for Cultural Diversity.” Journal of Teacher
Education 61 (1–2): 143–152. doi:10.1177/0022487109347320.
Gay, G. 2010b. Culturally Responsive Teaching. 2nd (Multicultural Education) ed. New York: NY:
Teachers College.
Gay, G. 2013. “Teaching to and through Cultural Diversity.” Curriculum Inquiry 43 (1): 48–70.
doi:10.1111/curi.12002.
Gay, G. 2018. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Geiger, B. 2012. “Separate but Equal: Teachers’ Intolerance for Ethnic, and Cultural Diversity as
Experienced in 6th Grade Israeli Classrooms.” Psychological Studies 57 (1): 75–85. doi:10.1007/
s12646-011-0141-7.
Goerman, P. L., and M. Clifton. 2011. “The Use of Vignettes in Cross-cultural Cognitive Testing of
Survey Instruments.” Field Methods 23 (4): 362–378. doi:10.1177/1525822X11416188.
Goldenberg, B. M. 2014. “White Teachers in Urban Classrooms: Embracing Non-white Students’
Cultural Capital for Better Teaching and Learning.” Urban Education 49 (1): 111–144.
doi:10.1177/0042085912472510.
Gorgorió, N., & Planas, N. 2001. “Teaching mathematics in multilingual classrooms. „Educational
Studies in Mathematics 47 (1): 7–33. doi:10.1023/A:1017980828943
Gray, J. 2000. “The ELT Cursebook as Cultural Artefact: How Teachers Censor and Adapt. „ELT
Journal 54(3): 274–283. doi:10.1093/elt/54.3.274
Gray, J. 2010. The construction of English: Culture, consumerism and promotion in the ELT global
coursebook. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gutentag, T., G. Horenczyk, and M. Tatar. 2018. “Teachers’ Approaches toward Cultural Diversity
Predict Diversity-related Burnout and Self-efficacy.” Journal of Teacher Education 69 (4):
408–419. doi:10.1177/0022487117714244.
He, Y. 2013. “Developing Teachers’ Cultural Competence: Application of Appreciative Inquiry in ESL
Teacher Education.” Teacher Development 17 (1): 55–71. doi:10.1080/13664530.2012.753944.
Holliday, A. R. 2016. “Revisiting Intercultural Competence: Small Culture Formation on the Go
through Threads of Experience.” International Journal of Bias, Identity and Diversities in
Education 1 (2): 1–14. doi:10.4018/IJBIDE.2016070101.
Horenczyk, G., and M. Tatar. 2011. “Schools’ Organizational Views of Diversity: Perceptions and
Approaches.” In Hyphenated Selves: Immigrant Identities within Education Contexts, edited by
S. Vandeyar, 131–148. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Unisa Press.
Howard, J., & Major, J. 2004. “Guidelines for Designing Effective English Language Teaching
Materials.„ The TESOLANZ Journal 12 (10): 50–58
Ilieva, R. 2000. “Exploring Culture in Texts Designed for Use in Adult ESL Classrooms.” TESL
Canada Journal 17 (2): 50–63. doi:10.18806/tesl.v17i2.889.
Inbar-Lourie, O. 2005. “English Language Teaching in Israel: Challenging Diversity.” In Teaching
English to the World: History, Curriculum and Practice, edited by F. Braine, 81–93. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Irvine, J. J., and B. J. Armento. 2001. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Lesson Planning for
Elementary and Middle Grades. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Johansson, M. 2006. Teaching Mathematics with Textbooks: A Classroom and Curricular
Perspective. Lulea, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology.
Kramsch, C. 2006. “Culture in Language Teaching.„ In Culture in Language Learning, edited by H.
Leth Andersen, K. Lund and K. Risager, 11–25. Aarhus, DK: Aarhus University Press..
Kumar, R., and L. Hamer. 2013. “Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs toward Student
Diversity and Proposed Instructional Practices: A Sequential Design Study.” Journal of
Teacher Education 64 (2): 162–177. doi:10.1177/0022487112466899.
Kuzel, A. 1999. “Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry.” In Doing Qualitative Research, edited by
B. F. Crabtree and W. L. Miller. 2nd ed, 33–45. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Larzén-Östermark, E. 2008. “The Intercultural Dimension in EFL-Teaching: A Study of
Conceptions Among Finland-Swedish Comprehensive School Teachers. „Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research 52 (5): 527–547. doi:10.1080/00313830802346405
Lavrenteva, E., & Orland-Barak, L. 2020a. “Conceptual-analytical framework for exploring culture
in EFL coursebooks: Analysis of curriculum materials from a multimodal perspective.„
Manuscript submitted for publication
Lavrenteva, E., & Orland-Barak, L. 2020b. “Refraining from culture-related discussions in English
as a Foreign Language classrooms: Lessons from negative cases.„ Manuscript submitted for
publication
Lee, R. M. 1993. Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.
Lev Ari, L., and D. Laron. 2008. “Educating for Multiculturalism in a Teacher’s College: Between
Theory and Practice.” Social Issues in Israel 5: 101–134.
Levy, G. 2014. “Is There a Place for Peace Education? Political Education and Citizenship Activism
in Israeli Schools.” Journal of Peace Education 11 (1): 101–119. doi:10.1080/17400201.2013.
865598.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2002. “Static and Dynamic Views of Culture and Intercultural Language
Acquisition.” New Zealand Language Teacher, no. 27: 47–58.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2009. “Communication as Culturally Contexted Practice: A View from Intercultu
ral Communication.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 29 (1): 115–133. doi:10.1080/07268600
802516400.
Liddicoat, A. J. 2017. “Interpretation and Critical Reflection in Intercultural Language Learning:
Consequences of a Critical Perspective for the Teaching and Learning of Pragmatics.” In The
Critical Turn in Language and Intercultural Communication Pedagogy: Theory, Research and
Practice, edited by M. Dasli and A. Díaz, 22–39. London & New York: Routledge.
Majdzadeh, M. 2002. Disconnection between Language and Culture: A Case Study of Iranian
English Textbooks. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 474 691.
Mason, J. 2017. Qualitative Researching. London, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
McConachy, T. 2017. Developing Intercultural Perspectives on Language Use: Exploring Pragmatics
and Culture in Foreign Language Learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
McKay, S. 2000. “Teaching English as an International Language: Implications for Cultural
Materials in the Classroom.” TESOL Journal 9 (4): 7–11.
McKay, S. L. 2002. Teaching English as an International Language: Rethinking Goals and
Approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Menken, K., and B. Antunez. 2001. An Overview of the Preparation and Certification of Teachers
Working with Limited English Proficient (LEP) Students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse
for Bilingual Education.
Modiano, M. 2001. “Linguistic Imperialism, Cultural Integrity, and EIL.” ELT Journal 55 (4):
339–347. doi:10.1093/elt/55.4.339.
Naidu, K. 2020. “Attending to ‘Culture’ in Intercultural Language Learning: A Study of Indonesian
Language Teachers in Australia.” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 41 (4):
653–665.
Ndura, E. 2004. “ESL and Cultural Bias: An Analysis of Elementary through High School
Textbooks in the Western United States of America.” Language, Culture and Curriculum 17
(2): 143–153. doi:10.1080/07908310408666689.
Nguyen, L., S. Harvey, and L. Grant. 2016. “What Teachers Say about Addressing Culture in Their
EFL Teaching Practices: The Vietnamese Context.” Intercultural Education 27 (2): 165–178.
doi:10.1080/14675986.2016.1144921.
Nieto, S. M. 2004. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education.
Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.
Niznik, M. 2008. “How to Be an Alien? Crosscultural Transition of Russian-speaking Youth in
Israeli High Schools.” Israel Studies Forum 23 (1): 66–84.
Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to
Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16 (1): 1–13.
doi:10.1177/1609406917733847.
Olshtain, E., and O. Inbar-Lourie. 2014. “Survey of the Teaching of English in Israel: 2012–2013.
Commissioned by the Clore Israel Foundation Board of Trustees.” NCJW Research Institute of
Innovation in Education. [Hebrew]. http://www.knesset.gov.il/mmm/data/pdf/m03491.pdf
Porto, M. 2010. “Culturally Responsive L2 Education: An Awareness-raising Proposal.” ELT

Journal 64 (1): 45–53. doi:10.1093/elt/ccp021.
Powell, J., and R. D. Anderson. 2002. “Changing Teachers’ Practice: Curriculum Materials and
Science Education Reform in the USA.” Studies in Science Education 37 (1): 107–135.
doi:10.1080/03057260208560179.
Remillard, J. T., and M. B. Bryans. 2004. “Teachers’ Orientations toward Mathematics Curriculum
Materials: Implications for Teacher Learning.” Journal of Research in Mathematics Education 35
(5): 352–388. doi:10.2307/30034820.
Rivera Cuayahuitl, E., and C. Pérez Carranza. 2015. “Influence of Contextual Factors on EFL Mexican
Teachers’ Beliefs and the Use of Textbooks.” How 22 (2): 75–90. doi:10.19183/how.22.2.152.
Sakai, H., and K. Kikuchi. 2009. “An Analysis of Demotivators in the EFL Classroom.” System 37
(1): 57–69. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.09.005.
Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter, E. R. McDaniel, and C. S. Roy. 2017. Communication between
Cultures. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education.
Schoenberg, N. E., and H. Ravdal. 2000. “Using Vignettes in Awareness and Attitudinal Research.”
International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3 (1): 63–74. doi:10.1080/136455700294932.
Seguin, A. C., and A. L. Ambrosio. 2002. “Multicultural Vignettes for Teacher Preparation.”
Multicultural Perspectives 4 (4): 10–16. doi:10.1207/S15327892MCP0404_3.
Shawer, S. 2010. “Classroom-level Teacher Professional Development and Satisfaction: Teachers
Learn in the Context of Classroom-level Curriculum Development.” Professional Development
in Education 36 (4): 597–620.
Shin, J., Z. R. Eslami, and W.-C. Chen. 2011. “Presentation of Local and International Culture in
Current International English-language Teaching Textbooks.” Language, Culture & Curriculum
24 (3): 253–268. doi:10.1080/07908318.2011.614694.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. 1992. “Curriculum Implementation,„ in Handbook of Research
on Curriculum, edited by Philip W. Jackson, 402–435, New York: Macmillan
Sosniak, L. A., and S. S. Stodolsky. 1993. “Teachers and Textbooks: Materials Use in Four
Fourth-grade Classrooms.” The Elementary School Journal 93 (3): 249–275. doi:10.1086/461725.
Stake, R. E. 2008. “Qualitative Case Studies.” In Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry, edited by
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 119–149. Los Angeles: Sage.
Stooksberry, L. M., D. L. Schussler, and L. A. Bercaw. 2009. “Conceptualizing Dispositions:
Intellectual, Cultural, and Moral Domains of Teaching.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and
Practice 15 (6): 719–736. doi:10.1080/13540600903357041.
Tatar, M. 2012. “School Counsellors Working with Immigrant Pupils: Changes in Their Approac
hes after 10 Years.” British Journal of Guidance & Counselling 40 (5): 577–592. doi:10.1080/
03069885.2012.718738.
Tatar, M., and G. Horenczyk. 2003. “Diversity-related Burnout among Teachers.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 19 (4): 397–408. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00024-6.
Tomlinson, B. 2018. “Emotional Dilemmas Faced by Teachers in ELT Materials Selection and
Adaptation: Implications for Teacher Education.” In Emotions in Second Language Teaching,
edited by Agudo, J. D. D. M. and DeDios, J., 165–181. Cham: Springer
Villegas, A. M., and T. Lucas. 2002. “Preparing Culturally Responsive Teachers: Rethinking the
Curriculum.” Journal of Teacher Education 53 (1): 20–32. doi:10.1177/0022487102053001003.
Watkins, M., and G. Noble. 2016. “Thinking beyond Recognition: Multiculturalism, Cultural
Intelligence, and the Professional Capacities of Teachers.” Review of Education, Pedagogy, and
Cultural Studies 38 (1): 42–57. doi:10.1080/10714413.2016.1119642.
Widdowson, H. 2003. Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Yenika-Agbaw, V. 2016. “Textbooks, Literacy, and Citizenship: The Case of Anglophone Camer
oon.” Research in the Teaching of English 50: 378–399.
Young, T. J., and I. Sachdev. 2011. “Intercultural Communicative Competence: Exploring English
Language Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices.” Language Awareness 20 (2): 81–98. doi:10.1080/
09658416.2010.540328.

Teaching Culture in The EFL Classroom As Informed by Teachers' Approaches To Student Diversity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching Culture in The EFL Classroom As Informed by Teachers' Approaches To Student Diversity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Papers in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rred20

Teaching culture in the EFL classroom as informed

Evgenia Lavrenteva & Lily Orland-Barak

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2020.1864763

View supplementary material

Published online: 28 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 151

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Teaching culture in the EFL classroom as informed by

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

That said, today’s multicultural educational environments present both opportunity

Scope of the paper and some definitions

The research context: English teaching in Israel

Teachers’ actions as informed by their approaches to student diversity

Teachers’ approaches to teaching content as informed by their orientations

Teachers’ approaches to teaching the coursebook content

Integrative conceptual model

Table 1. Teacher demographics.

Table 2. Semi-structured interview question categories and sample questions.

The interviewees self-identified as either Palestinian Arabs (as well as members of

Table 3. Teachers’ approaches to student diversity.

Table 4. Teachers’ approaches to teaching content.

Table 5. Teachers’ orientations towards curriculum materials.

Table 6. Teachers’ rationale behind adapting or creating materials.

Culturally diverse classroom as an asset

Figure 2. Group distribution based on teachers’ approaches to student diversity.

Culturally diverse classroom as a nonissue

Alternatively, cultural differences were disregarded altogether in favour of other

Culturally diverse classroom as a challenge

Culturally diverse classroom as a problem

Summary of the findings

Limitations and future research

Porto, M. 2010. “Culturally Responsive L2 Education: An Awareness-raising Proposal.” ELT

You might also like