Tara’s Culturally Responsive Pedagogy at Forrest Primary School

Context

I have been teaching for 5 years and am currently teaching Year 6 at Forrest Primary School. We are a Government International Baccalaureate (IB) school with 533 students (484 in K-6). In my year of 83 Year 6 students, we have 41 students of an EAL/D background, with 4 at the developing stage for English and 37 consolidating. In my class alone, we have a multitude of languages spoken at home, including German, Malaysian, Mandarin, Colombian, Iranian, Cantonese, Hindi, Azerbaijani, Korean, Cambodian, South African, Sri Lankan, Vietnamese and English.

Due to the collaborative nature of the IB, and our teaching area, I not only have the opportunity to teach my class, but all of Year 6. Within my research, I was fortunate enough to use my own class and extend these teachings and learnings to that of Year 6.

Doing the action research

In my classroom, I made a deliberate effort to reflect my students’ diverse cultural backgrounds in the materials we used and the discussions we had. This was done through a gothic writing unit, which integrated ghost stories from cultures not only within our class, but across the cohort.  By integrating these elements, I helped students see themselves in the curriculum, allowing them to connect more deeply with the content while fostering a sense of belonging.

In addition to CRP, I’ve also found Peter Liljedahl’s Building Thinking Classrooms played a critical role in redefining my approach to teaching. I designed activities that allowed students to work in diverse groups, breaking down social barriers and encouraging them to draw on their cultural knowledge to solve real-world problems. By fostering this type of collaborative learning, I was able to address the issues of casual racism and social exclusion that had been prevalent, creating opportunities for students to challenge their assumptions and develop greater empathy and respect for their peers.

My research question allowed me to intentionally utilise four main teaching strategies:

1. Visibly random grouping
2. Use of vertical writing spaces
3. Predetermined social and emotional lessons
4. Behaviour driven lessons

I initially introduced the practices and concepts of CRP through gothic narratives. At the beginning of the unit, we discussed the notion of lifeworlds and looked into our own. Students completed a template that we displayed to showcase the beauty of our lifeworlds. Students looked at their lifeworlds through the lens of travel, heritage, family, interests, food and values. We then looked into different ghost stories from around the world, particularly focusing on those within our year, and drew inspiration from these legends within our own writing. As the unit progressed and behaviours arose, I was able to link the lessons that I was using related to our narrative unit, to the social and emotional lessons that were needed.

As a cohort, we looked into videos like Give Nothing to Racism and The Invisible Discriminator and had meaningful conversations about their own experiences and exposures to racism. These lessons led to a direct change in student behaviour. One student, when called out about his behaviour, actually used the CRP language I had been using in my teachings during his reflection and stated ‘I used his lifeworld against him’. 

A lesson that was really driven by the interests of my students was a graffiti lesson where students wanted to be bold in their beliefs that racism isn’t a part of who we are. One student in particular created a piece of work that reflected her beliefs on the ‘comedic value’ of casual racism and stated when I asked her ‘people think that their jokes are funny and don’t mean much to others, but if they can’t see that what they’re saying about their mates’ identities isn’t funny, then it’s really them that’s the joke.’

As my teaching progressed, I began drawing on concepts from Building a Thinking Classroom, particularly by using visibly random grouping and intentional workspace setups. Initially, when students were asked to work in pairs or small groups, they gravitated toward familiar peers, showing reluctance to work with others. To shift this dynamic, I introduced visibly random groups of three for Years 3 and above (using pairs for K-2), assigning groups with a deck of cards. I would shuffle the deck openly and distribute cards randomly, forming groups based on matching cards. This method faced some initial resistance—students even claimed I was “rigging” the shuffle.

To ease the tension, I incorporated a daily magic trick using cards for one week, inviting students to figure out the “trick.” This strategy broke the ice and brought laughter, placing everyone on a level playing field, which encouraged risk-taking and inquiry among students who hadn’t interacted before.

Once students were comfortable with random grouping, I extended this setup to maths activities. I introduced wipeable, vertical surfaces for problem-solving, with one pen per group. The pen had to be passed around, encouraging discussion and preventing any one student from “taking over.” Sometimes, I added the rule that the person holding the pen couldn’t write their own ideas. This arrangement led to rich discussions, as students pointed, nodded, and learned from each other’s work. When groups encountered challenges, they could easily glance at nearby groups for strategies instead of relying solely on me for answers.

When it comes to student behaviour, embedding culturally responsive practices has led to some powerful shifts in my classroom. Students became much more self-aware, often catching themselves in the middle of making a joke and stopping before it went too far. I noticed that they would make sure any humour that could be misinterpreted stayed within close friendship groups, rather than letting it spill over into the broader class environment. One of my students even shared with me, ‘I used to just say whatever came to mind, but now I think about who’s around before I say anything.’ This awareness didn’t just stay within the group either. Students started holding each other accountable. I’d overhear them saying things like, ‘You can’t say that,’ and calling each other out when a comment crossed a line.

The most heartening change, though, has been in how they now use each other’s real names. Where they once relied on nicknames because they thought it was easier, they’ve shifted to using their peers’ actual names, even if they’re more difficult to pronounce. One student admitted, ‘It feels more respectful, and I know it’s important to them.’

One of the moments that really struck me came when a student reflected on his behaviour using the CRP language we had introduced. After being called out for teasing a peer, he said, ‘I used his lifeworld against him.’ That level of reflection showed me that the language of culturally responsive pedagogy wasn’t just something they were hearing—it was something they were internalising. These practices have allowed them to be more thoughtful and respectful, both in their jokes and in how they treat one another’s identities.

My students have grown very comfortable with peer collaboration, even requesting that I use the cards to form random groups. In interviews, one confident student shared, “I love random grouping because I don’t have to choose, and no one’s feelings get hurt,” while a more introverted student expressed, “When you randomly assign groups, I can focus on the work without worrying about others’ opinions.” Standing to work in groups of three also reduces the anonymity of working alone, shifting students from passive listeners to active learners. They now turn to peers, not just friends, for feedback and support. This model has empowered students to rely on one another, significantly improving their engagement and outcomes on both formative and summative assessments. They still gravitate toward friends but are now much more willing to work with others who can best support their learning.