University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

(USC Thesis Other)

Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 1

Strengths-based Pedagogy for Culturally Marginalized Groups
by
Natalie Zisko

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2019

Copyright 2019 Natalie Zisko

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 2

DEDICATION
To my children, Maya and Jack. You have been by my side since the beginning of our
doctoral years. And, I mean that quite literally. Throughout our journey, I’ve celebrated your
respective births, did hundreds (well, probably thousands) of late-night feedings and diaper
changes, and spent countless hours on the computer with you sleeping next to me. I watched you
sleep in your crib as I sat in your nursery reading research. Together, with a lot of coffee, we
have burned some serious midnight oil. I did all of this so that I can provide the best example for
you. I hope that the spirit of these years will stay with you into your adulthood. Work hard and
strive for the highest. Most of all, use your leadership to make the world a more equitable place.
To my students, e mālama 'ia nā pono o ka 'āina e nā 'ōpio. The traditions of the land are
perpetuated by its youth. This dissertation has reinforced my commitment to you.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to my committee, Dr. Stowe, Dr. Datta, and Dr. Tiwana, for your guidance
and leadership. Thank you to Dr. Canny for the ongoing support.
Thank you to my classmates for two and half great years together. I am grateful for your
friendships and I look forward to our paths crossing again.
Thank you to all of the professors at University of Southern California that taught me.
Your courses showed me how to be a more reflective leader and a more diligent researcher.
Finally, thank you to my partner, Kerry, that supported our household while I was
committed to this work. We’ve done this together as a team.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication .......................................................................................................................................2
Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................................3
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................8
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................9
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................10
Introduction to the Problem of Practice ........................................................................................11
Organizational Context and Mission ............................................................................................11
Importance of Addressing the Problem ........................................................................................12
Purpose of the Project and Questions ...........................................................................................13
Organizational Performance Status ...............................................................................................14
Organizational Performance Goal .................................................................................................14
Stakeholder Group of Focus .........................................................................................................14
Definition of Terms .......................................................................................................................15
Review of the Literature ...............................................................................................................15
Marginalized Experience in Public Education ..............................................................................16
Power and Strengths Based Frameworks ......................................................................................17
Indigenous and Native Hawaiian Pupils .......................................................................................20
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ..........................................22
Knowledge Skills ..........................................................................................................................22
Teachers need to know strengths-based pedagogy............................................................23
Teachers need to know differentiation ..............................................................................24
Teachers need to understand the role of strengths-based instruction ...............................25
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 5

Teachers need to reflect on ability to use instructional practices .....................................26
Motivation Influences ...................................................................................................................27
Utility value theory ...........................................................................................................28
Self-efficacy theory ..........................................................................................................28
Teachers need to see value in providing strengths-based instruction ...............................29
Belief in knowledge of differentiation ..............................................................................30
Teachers need to value culture as a component of strengths approaches .........................30
Organization Influences ................................................................................................................31
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings ..............................................................................32
Allocation of resources to support differentiated instruction ...........................................33
Curricular system that values students’ identities .............................................................33
Allocation of time to review lesson plans and resources ..................................................34
Interactive Conceptual Framework ...............................................................................................35
Data Collection and Instruments ...................................................................................................39
Findings ........................................................................................................................................39
Declarative, Conceptual, and Metacognitive Knowledge .............................................................41
Definition of strengths-based pedagogy ...........................................................................42
Role of strengths-based instruction in student success .....................................................42
Definition of differentiated instruction .............................................................................45
Reflect on ability to use instructional practices to increase achievement .........................46
Motivation .....................................................................................................................................48
Value in providing strengths-based instruction ................................................................48
Belief in use of differentiated instruction .........................................................................48
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 6

Value culture as essential to strengths-approaches ...........................................................50
Cultural Settings Within the Organization ....................................................................................53
Organizational support for differentiated instruction .......................................................54
Curriculum that values student identities ..........................................................................54
Allocation of teacher planning time ..................................................................................55
Unrelated Emergent Theme ..........................................................................................................56
Solutions and Recommendations ..................................................................................................57
Knowledge recommendations....................................................................................................58
Motivation recommendations ...................................................................................................62
Organization recommendations ................................................................................................66
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................................70
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................71
References .....................................................................................................................................73
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria .................................................88
Appendix B: Protocols ..................................................................................................................91
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................100
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability .........................................................................................101
Appendix E: Ethics .....................................................................................................................102
Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ....................................................104
Implementation and Evaluation Framework ...................................................................104
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations ...........................................................105
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators .........................................................................106
Level 3: Behavior ............................................................................................................106
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 7

Level 2: Learning ............................................................................................................108
Level 1: Reaction ............................................................................................................110

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment...........27
Table 2 Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments ......................31

Table 3 Assumed Organizational Influences ................................................................................35
Table 4 Demographic Information of Elementary Teachers ........................................................41
Table 5 Response Distribution for Knowledge and Motivation Items .........................................49
Table 6 Deficit Discourse .............................................................................................................51
Table 7 Emergent Theme ..............................................................................................................56
Table 8 Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...........................................58
Table 9 Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ............................................63
Table 10 Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ......................................66

Table 11 Survey Items ..................................................................................................................92
Table 12 Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes .......................106
Table 13 Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation .............................107
Table 14 Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ..........................................................107
Table 15 Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .......................................110
Table 16 Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .....................................................111
Table 17 Faculty Dashboard Evaluation Data ............................................................................113

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 9

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................37
Figure 2 Survey Participant Demographic Information ................................................................89
Figure 3 Survey Results ................................................................................................................93

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 10

ABSTRACT
The study uses the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework for a needs’
assessment of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that support or impede
the development of strengths-based pedagogy at Pre-kindergarten – twelfth grade public charter
school in Hawai'i. The purpose of this study was to address the problem of deficit-based teacher
practices that disenfranchise culturally marginalized groups at the school. This study seeks to
evaluate teacher understanding and utilization of strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation in
the classroom. Using a mixed methods design, the data includes ten interviews and 28 surveys
from elementary teachers. The findings highlight areas to address in strengths-based pedagogy,
specifically in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact differentiated
instruction. Based on both the findings and a literature review, the study recommends processes
and procedures that guide the organization in increasing a strengths approach on campus.
Keywords: strengths-based, differentiation, deficit discourse, culturally-relevant pedagogy.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 11

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Underutilization of strengths-based differentiated instruction disenfranchise culturally
marginalized groups within public education. Culturally marginalized are defined as persons
having a “personal, social, cultural, and historical experience involving (a) cultural and racial
ambiguity, (b) categorization and labeling, (c) hierarchical power, and (d) limited access to
resources” (Borrero, Yeh, Cruz, & Suda, 2012, p.3). Deficit-based practices undermine
strengths-approaches as they are diagnostic and punitive instructional approaches (Kana'iaupuni,
2004). Strengths-based practices are defined by the premise of enacting social change through
empowering students, families, and communities to overcome adversity through voice, insight,
and political power (Kana'iaupuni, 2004). Teachers that demonstrate deficit practices affirm
expectations for students based on demographic stereotyping. Dabach, Suárez-Orozco,
Hernandez, and Brooks (2018) found that teachers projected a student’s academic trajectory
based on personal and family-related issues, thus indicating the need to differentiate instruction
based on students’ unique intersections of identity. Through the process of empowerment,
strengths-based teacher practices counter deficit approaches (Kana'iaupuni, 2004). The approach
presumes that a student’s greatest opportunity for development is grounded in maximizing
natural talents rather than remediating weaknesses (Passarelli, Hall, & Anderson, 2010). This
study seeks to further evaluate the role of strengths-based differentiated instruction at Aloha
Academy, a pseudonym for a public conversion charter school.
Organizational Context and Mission
Aloha Academy is a pre-kindergarten – twelfth grade charter school, serving
approximately 900 students on the island of O'ahu in Hawai'i. Aloha Academy is located within
a community that is home to socioeconomically and ethnically marginalized populations. Within
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 12

the community, 20% of families with children and 15% of individuals are identified as living
below the poverty level. At Aloha Academy, 78% of students live in economic hardship, and
58% of students primarily identify as Native Hawaiian ancestry. The school is challenged with a
student transiency rate of about 67% yearly, compounded by 14% of students identified as
homeless or residing in emergency or transitional housing. (School Profile, 2018). The mission
of Aloha Academy is to prepare resilient and self-aware learners that embody the pride of
determination and accomplishment, and demonstrate the strength of 'ohana.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
Socially-just public education is vital to the health of American democracy and counters
neoliberalism (Dewey, 1903; Labaree, 1997; Schostak, 2018; Walsh, 2008; Zimmerman, 2018).
Inclusion in an educational system that recognizes the unique strengths of students is
fundamental to the development of confidence, resilience, and academic success of culturally
marginalized groups. Effects of failure, or a wounded self-image, may negatively impact a
student’s lifelong identity (Walker, 2012). In order to achieve a more equitable outlook for
students, strengths-based practices embrace diverse perspectives and underrepresented voices
(Tzuo, Yang, & Wright, 2011). These practices redefine the historically deficit-based context in
which teachers view students. Ramifications of deficit-discourse are linked to national education
policies, including accountability and student assessment, which ignore systemic inequality
(Bertrand, Perez, & Rogers, 2015). Teacher practice directs the course of public education.
Teachers must recognize that contesting neoliberal hegemony involves acknowledging,
challenging, and reshaping collective practice. If public education is to be preserved as a public
good, teachers must work in unity with the diverse communities that they serve (Zimmerman,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 13

2018). Therefore, cultivating strengths-based differentiated instruction is necessary for equitable
access to academic achievement and a strong democratic society.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to addresses the problem of deficit-based teacher practices
that disenfranchise culturally marginalized groups at Aloha Academy. This study sought to
evaluate teacher understanding and utilization of strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation in
the classroom. The school services historically disenfranchised populations of students, which
emphasized the need for teacher pedagogical practices that align with strengths-based
approaches. The mission of Aloha Academy is to prepare resilient and self-aware learners that
embody the pride of determination and accomplishment, and demonstrate the strength of 'ohana.
This study evaluated teacher pedagogy to achieve the organizational goal of “sufficiently
differentiated” instruction to attain 42-51% of elementary students in grades three-eight scoring
proficient or above on the language arts subtest of the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
This study used the Clark and Estes (2008) conceptual framework to identify the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences impacting teacher performance. All three
categories of influences must be aligned for successful goal attainment (Clark & Estes, 2008).
As such, the following research questions guided the gap analysis that addressed the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources for the stakeholder group selected for the study:
1. What are Aloha Academy teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to achieving
differentiated and strengths-based instruction as provided by the School Wide Plan
for school years 2017-2020?
2. What are teachers’ knowledge and motivation related to strengths-based pedagogy
and academic achievement?
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 14

3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions for
Aloha Academy?
Organizational Performance Status
Aloha Academy received a renewal charter contract commencing on July 1, 2017, to
terminate on June 30, 2020. School data indicates that two-way accountability does not exist.
Darling-Hammond (2007) defines two-way accountability as the students being accountable to
the school for test performance, but the school is not being held accountable to the students for
providing adequate educational outcomes. Data demonstrates that there is an overall downward
trend among third grade students meeting grade level expectations in English Language Arts as
measured by the Smarter Balanced Assessment. In the 2016-2017 school year 6.1% of third
grade students met or exceeded proficiency on the English Language Arts Smarter Balanced
Assessment, as compared to 10.7% in 2015-2016 and 12.1% in 2014-2015. In the 2017-2018
school year, 10.7% of third graders met grade level expectations in English Language Arts as
measured by the Smarter Balanced Assessment. In the 2017-2018 school year, Aloha Academy
scored among the lowest 5% of elementary schools within the state of Hawai'i.
Organizational Performance Goal
By May 2020, 42-51% of third-eighth grade students at Aloha Academy will score
proficient on the English Language Arts component of the Smarter Balanced Assessment. In the
2017-2018 school year, 10.7% of third graders met grade level expectations in English Language
Arts as measured by the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The stakeholder group of focus is Kindergarten – sixth grade teachers at Aloha Academy.
Kindergarten – sixth grade teachers are considered the elementary teaching staff. In the 2018-
2019 school year, approximately 630 students were enrolled in the elementary grades.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 15

Elementary students represent more than half of the overall student population. The stakeholder
goal for this study is that by November 2019, elementary teachers at Aloha Academy will use
strengths-based differentiated instruction as measured by inclusion of strategies in lesson plans.
Definition of Terms
The key terms of the study are given the following operational definitions.
1. Culturally marginalized: persons having a “personal, social, cultural, and historical
experience involving (a) cultural and racial ambiguity, (b) categorization and labeling, (c)
hierarchical power, and (d) limited access to resources” (Borrero, Yeh, Cruz, & Suda,
2012, p.3).
2. Strengths-based practices: the premise of enacting social change through empowering
students, families, and communities to overcome adversity through voice, insight, and
political power; operates on the presumption that a student’s greatest opportunity for
development is grounded in maximizing natural talents rather than remediating
weaknesses (Kana'iaupuni, 2004; Passarelli, Hall, & Anderson, 2010).
3. Pedagogy: interaction between the student and learning environment; inclusive of
instructional practices implemented in the classroom (Borrero & Sanchez, 2017).
4. Deficit discourse: refers to the concept that deficits of the individual students, or
particular subgroups of students, contribute to the reasoning for those students not
attaining success in the current educational system (Clycq, Ward Nouwen, &
Vandenbroucke, 2014).
Review of the Literature
The literature review will examine possible root causes of gaps in the implementation of
a differentiated, strengths-based pedagogy at Aloha Academy. The review begins with general
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 16

research on the intersectionality of culturally marginalized groups, conceptual introduction of
strengths-based theory, and an analysis of deficit-based curricular practices. Next, an overview
of literature on strengths-based instruction for indigenous peoples, specifically Native
Hawaiians, follows. Proceeding the general research literature, the review turns to the Clark and
Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework to examine teacher knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences on a culturally-affirming literacy curriculum at Aloha Academy.
Marginalized Experience in Public Education
The public education system perpetuates cultural hegemony that disenfranchises
educational opportunities for marginalized students. Students’ intersectionality of identity is not
sufficiently valued as a strength, resulting in educational practices that reinforce cultural
hegemony. Fruja Amthor (2017) argued that recognition of students’ identity, particularly for
culturally marginalized youth, does not negate unequal power relationships that are attached to
identity. Intervention discourse often focuses on singular, rather than intersectional, challenges
limiting the academic growth of individual students. Within public education, intersectionality
challenges singular notions that attempt to justify student academic and social outcomes (Fruja
Amthor, 2017). It moves educators to view the intersectional complexity inherent in individuals’
performance through disaggregating and challenging existing power relations in schools that
privilege some, while maintaining a marginalization for others (Carey, Yee, & DeMatthews,
2018). Educators must understand the complexity of cultural intersectionality in order to achieve
equitable access to academic success.
Resources are inequitably distributed among demographic groups. For example, students
of color and students living in poverty have less access to rigorous curriculum and school
counselors as compared to white and middle-class counterparts (Adamson & Darling-Hammond,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 17

2012). They are also more likely to face school overcrowding (Adamson & Darling-Hammond,
2012; Freelon, Bertrand, & Rogers, 2012). Teachers must recognize differences in opportunities,
in which students of color lack the resources and educational system to achieve at equal or higher
levels as compared to white peers (Goldenberg, 2014). However, at present, teachers frequently
rely on student demographics to explain results of student performance. Teacher beliefs and
experiences shape how they interpret data (Bertrand & Marsh, 2015; Glock, Krolak-Schwerdt, &
Cate, 2014; Harlin, Sirota & Bailey, 2009). Thus, teachers must know how personal biases
potentially negatively affect their classroom practice for culturally marginalized students. Public
education must create equitable academic opportunities that honors the demographic diversity.
Power and Strengths-Based Frameworks
Strengths-based frameworks individuals’ assets. They are not exclusive to education, but
rather used in social services in a broader context, specifically among social work (Mirick, 2016;
Probst, 2010) and school counseling (Geltner & Leibforth, 2008; Park & Peterson, 2008;
Rawana, Franks, Brownlee, Rawana, & Neckoway, 2011). Strengths-based social work practice
arose as a theory based on the premise that a person’s strengths are critical in assisting them to
overcome psychosocial problems. Strengths perspectives advocate that inherent ability allows
individuals to cope with challenges of living (Vishal, 2017). Furthermore, strengths-frameworks
align with principles of human dignity. Young, McKenzie, Schjelderup, Omre, and Walker
(2014) offer that strengths-practices correlate with the 1990 United Nations Conventions on the
Rights of the Child.
Within education, strengths-based approaches counter deficit-thinking that undermines
the academic potential of students. Principles and practices of strengths-based education vary
among researchers. However, central themes of student engagement, differentiated instruction,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 18

and strategic social discourse emerge. Gardner and Toope (2011) define a social justice
perspective of strengths-based education as one that encompasses four intersecting educational
practices: A) recognizing students-in-context, B) critically engaging strengths and positivity, C)
nurturing democratic relations, D) enacting creative and flexible pedagogies. These interrelated
practices allow for students to more deeply engage in their learning (Gardner & Toope, 2011).
Lopes and Louis (2009) identify five principles of strengths-based education: A) measurement of
student characteristics includes strengths assessment; B) teachers personalize learning
experiences by focusing on individualism and acting upon the strengths of each student; C)
network with supporters of strengths development; D) deliberate application of strengths within
and outside the classroom that fosters integration of new behaviors correlated with positive
outcomes; E) intentional development of strengths through novel experiences and unexplored
venues. Thus, strengths-based education instructs students through a holistic lens that seeks to
concurrently promote overall well-being and active learning.
Deficit-based discourse holds longstanding history among educational practice. Deficit
discourse refers to the concept that a meritocratic educational system, one that attributes success
and power with those that achieve, is not at fault for student underperformance. Rather, deficits
of the individual students, or particular subgroups of students, contribute to the reasoning for
those students not attaining success in the system (Clycq, Ward Nouwen, & Vandenbroucke,
2014). Privilege is an underlying notion reinforcing a meritocratic educational system. The most
privileged groups have the most interest in upholding a meritocratic system, so they may
rationalize their privileged position and mask systemic inequality (Clycq et al., 2014).
Historically, deficit discourse began in the United States within colonization and slavery, citing
intellectual differences among racial groups. Within more modern history, the 1960s offered
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 19

deficit discourse based on cultural racism, or that cultural practices are fixed features that justify
racial inequality. The most recent version of discourse labels minority and low-income students
as “at-risk,” implying that familial deficits, rather than organizational conditions, promote
inequitable outcomes (Bertrand, Perez, & Rodgers, 2015). Inequitable educational opportunities
contribute to underperformance of minority and low-income students.
A strengths-based educational approach counteracts negative effects of deficit discourse
by framing education through strategic social and political lenses. Based on deficit thinking
theory, students with minority backgrounds and low socioeconomic status have internalized
negative thoughts about their living environment and family (Clycq et al., 2014). Pollack (2013)
argues that the deficit view is the most enduring and influential educational theory of recent
decades. This notion is reinforced in policy discussions that shape the landscape in which
communities educate students. Bertrand et al. (2015) interviewed 50 individuals with influence
over educational policy. Findings indicate that policy insiders use concealed strategies to
advance discourse that upholds inequities within the current status quo of education. To promote
deficit discourse, policy makers asserted that those harmed by inequity are the causes of it,
blamed teachers’ unions for inequitable distribution of teachers, or broadly normalized inequity
by contrasting subgroups of people. The aforementioned causal arguments strengthen deficit
mindsets by legitimizing the status quo (Bertrand et al., 2015). Research suggests that
marginalized students who are more critically aware of economic, historical, political, and social
forces that contribute to inequity, feel empowered to change these conditions, and take part in
social action. They are also noted have improved occupational outcomes (Diemer, 2009; Diemer
et al., 2010). A strengths-based educational framework negates effects of a historically deficit-
based system, thus creating opportunities for civic empowerment for underserved populations.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 20

Indigenous and Native Hawaiian Pupils
Racial disparities contribute to the underperformance of indigenous students. Systemic
curricular reform is needed in order to meet the unique needs of indigenous students. Brayboy
and Maaka (2015) concluded that indigenous students at the fourth and eighth grade level are
five times less likely to score advanced in reading as compared to White peers. Disparities in
racial demographics among teachers and students perpetuate racial dichotomies. Public
elementary teachers are approximately 82% White. However, public education students are more
racially diverse. By 2024, approximately 46% of public-school students will be White (The State
of Racial Diversity in the Educator Workforce, 2016). Teachers must know how to adjust their
instruction to mitigate negative implications of teacher whiteness in the classroom (Adair, 2014;
Lewis, 2018; Marom, 2017; Sleeter, 2017; Ulluci, 2011).
Cultural factors contribute to a disconnect among indigenous students and public
education. Indigenous cultures may not view higher education as a means to social mobility and
economic capital. In turn, this conflicts with K-12 messaging that higher education is a valuable
pursuit (Brayboy & Maaka, 2015), indicating a need to adapt curriculum to meet cultural factors.
Curricular reform may present as curricular contextualization, the process of adapting curricular
resources to meet students’ unique set of prior knowledge and experiences. Sánchez Tapia,
Krajcik, and Reiser (2018) propose that contextualization can be culturally relevant by
considering culturally based psychological patterns of reasoning that inspire student ideas and
prior knowledge. Contextualization includes the cultural traditions, practices, and societal
structures that form those ideas meaningful for students. As a result, student understanding of
challenging concepts is enriched (Sánchez Tapia et al., 2018). Using a curriculum
contextualizing approach allows educational institutions to meet the needs of indigenous students
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 21

with current curricular resources rather than beginning from scratch (Sánchez Tapia et al., 2018).
Native Hawaiian students, as a subgroup of indigenous peoples, need an educational
system that honors historical power imbalances. An education system that recognizes Native
Hawaiian identity as part of a greater social group provides socioeconomic capital in a Western
system of governance. The overthrow of Queen Lili'uokalani triggered a loss of political
sovereignty for Native Hawaiians. In turn, it generated a loss of Native Hawaiian identity and
purpose (Rothwell, 2011). Following the annexation of Hawai'i, decreases in the literacy rates of
Native Hawaiian students, relative to the achievement of students in other groups, mirror the
decline of Native Hawaiian political and economic standing (Au, 2007). Missionaries believed it
was necessary to disassemble Hawaiian cultural identity and context for a new system of
Western education. The practice of using Western standards to validate Hawaiian culture-based
education devalues the traditional Hawaiian system (Kana'iaupuni & Malone, 2006). Education,
the foundation of asset building, increases opportunities for Native Hawaiian students to pursue
productive lives. In doing so, Native Hawaiians rebuke socioeconomic restraint enforced by an
unwanted capitalistic system (Rothwell, 2011).
An education system that empowers Native Hawaiian students must recognize cultural
values. An essential characteristic of Native Hawaiian students is compassion, embedded in the
notion of aloha, that invokes a value system of collective good prevailing over individual
fortune. This notion conflicts with Western ideologies of individual advancement within a
capitalistic society (Kana'iaupuni, 2004). Native Hawaiian identity is grounded in the quality of
relationships among people, the land, and connectedness to spirituality. The use of story, or
mo'olelo, revitalizes identity and reclaims past practice (Kana'iaupuni, 2004). Within a Native
Hawaiian mindset, increased social participation may be valued more than economic outcomes
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 22

(Rothwell, 2011). Education that empowers social mobility, while concurrently valuing cultural
identities, elevates indigenous and Native Hawaiian pupils in a capitalistic educational
landscape.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences

Knowledge and Skills Influences
The facilitation of learning, and subsequent acquisition of knowledge, is a catalyst for
organizational growth. Goh, Elliot, and Quon (2012) conducted a meta-analysis on 13 empirical
studies examining the relationship between learning and organizational performance. Results
indicate a significant positive relationship between increased learning capability and
organizational performance. Outcomes of learning include increased capacity for innovation, job
satisfaction, and competitiveness (Goh et al., 2012). Learning is an integral component to
organizational success.
Strengthening employee knowledge base and skillset improves the capacity of the
organization to achieve its intended goals. Clark and Estes (2008) assert that human knowledge
is automated and unconscious. The mind automates knowledge that is used repeatedly, which
constitutes 90% of knowledge. The mind interacts consciously with 10% of human knowledge
until it is deemed accurate, and later automated. Trainers must recognize that authentic learning
is limited to thinking about few quantity of learned items at one time. When employees receive
new, targeted knowledge and skills they are able to close a gap between their current
performance and the organizational goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Four knowledge types are identified for employees to achieve organizational performance
goals: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011).
Factual knowledge pertains to domain-specific or contextual knowledge, such as terminology. A
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 23

learner must understand factual knowledge in order to participate in complex, domain-specific
problem solving (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge refers to application of factual
knowledge and demonstration of understanding, such as classification and generalization (Rueda,
2011), while procedural knowledge is defined as knowing how to do a specific task, and
knowledge of criteria in determining appropriate scenario-specific procedures (Krathwohl,
2002). Finally, metacognitive knowledge, or knowledge of cognition or self-awareness, calls for
the greatest amount of conscious thought among the four knowledge types (Krathwohl, 2002).
Metacognitive knowledge is a complex, multi-dimensional knowledge type. Pintrich
(2002) identifies three types of metacognitive knowledge: strategic knowledge, knowledge about
cognitive tasks, and self-knowledge. Strategic knowledge involves knowledge of strategies, such
as elaboration or paraphrasing to extract meaning from content. Knowledge about cognitive tasks
is an understanding of reasons to use certain learning strategies, and the discrimination of when
to use them. Self-knowledge includes an understanding of one’s strengths and weaknesses. Self-
knowledge is a belief system about one’s own motivation (Pintrich, 2002).
In review of current research, four knowledge influences of Aloha Academy’s teachers
will be discussed in the proceeding section. Subsequently, a categorization of these influences, as
compared to the four reviewed knowledge types, will be reviewed. Knowledge categorization
will assist in determining the methodology to assess knowledge gaps of Aloha Academy’s
teachers.
Teachers need to know strengths-based pedagogy.
As discussed in the review of literature, strengths-based instruction, grounded in cultural
capital and intersectionality of identity, is the act of tailoring pedagogical approaches to
capitalize on the unique academic strengths of the student. Race and culture are fundamental in
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 24

promoting outcomes for all students. To achieve an educational setting that is invitational,
cultural care and competency is a strengths-based approach that results in positive learning
outcomes (Allen & Fitzgerald, 2017; Taylor, 2010; Windham, 2017). Through strengths-based
instruction, equity of education is viewed as an essential component in advancing democratic
principles. Strengths-based teaching is centered on students’ unique learning profiles, and
maintains a strong focus on student readiness to acquire new skills (Bianco, Carothers, &
Smiley, 2009). Strengths-based approaches require the use of differentiation. Key elements of a
differentiated lesson include: content, process, product, affect, and learning environment. These
elements are interconnected, so that no element exists in isolation (Valiandes, Neophytou, &
Hajisoteriou, 2018).
Teachers need to know differentiation.
Valiandes et al. (2018) identifies five means to differentiate instruction: content, process,
product, affect, and learning environment. Differentiated content is the adoption of diverse
instructional techniques without compromising the rigor of academic standards. Differentiated
process refers to how a student develops understanding of key concepts, which may include
varied lesson planning and tailored instruction. Differentiated product is the process in which
students demonstrate concept mastery through personalized products. For example, tests,
projects, and oral reports are considered differentiated product. Differentiated affect is the
recognition of how student emotion impacts learning, and teacher acknowledgement of the
interconnectedness of emotions and learning. Finally, a differentiated learning environment may
include how the teacher uses the physical layout of the classroom and its materials to optimize
learning (Valiandes et al., 2018).
Mastery of differentiated instruction is a means to increase teacher efficacy (Goddard &
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 25

Kim, 2018), thus reinforcing the need for essential declarative knowledge. Student success
increases teacher output. Goddard and Kim (2018) conducted research among 95 high poverty
elementary schools, including 1,623 elementary teachers and 4,167 students. Results of the study
indicted a positive relationship among teacher collaboration, differentiation, and teacher efficacy.
Differentiated instruction increases productivity of both teachers and students. Among schools
with climates that support differentiated instruction, elementary students experience higher
outcomes on high-stakes math and reading assessments (Goddard, Goddard, & Kim, 2015).
Teachers need to understand the role of strengths-based instruction in student
success.
Research suggests that intercultural, differentiated instruction values student experience
as a means to overcome oppression and strive for a more socially just educational experience
(Carey, Yee, & DeMatthews, 2017; Paris & Alim, 2014; Valiandes et al., 2018). At the
foundation of differentiation is the seminal work of Vygotsky and the zone of proximal
development. Within the zone of proximal development, difficulty of skills is taught marginally
in advance of a student’s present level of performance (Subban, 2006). Differentiated instruction
is an effective method to address learner variance and avoids negative implications of generic
published curriculum.
Strengths-based teaching contributes to the overall well-being of students, concurrently
developing resilience. Passarelli, Hall, and Anderson (2010) determined that a strengths-based
approach to education resulted in students reporting greater awareness in personal strengths, as
well as enhanced levels of personal growth. The strengths-approach to instruction added value to
student experience in three critical areas: (a) focused attention on areas for personal
development, (b) enhanced personal relationships, and (c) assisting students to respond
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 26

effectively to physical challenge (Passarelli et al., 2010). Research suggests that strengths-
approaches contribute to improved school climate, student perception of fulfillment, and student
resiliency (Armstrong et al., 2012; Donaldson, Dollwet, & Rao, 2015; Tschannen-Moran &
Tschannan-Moran, 2011). Resilience is defined as having social competence, autonomy,
perseverance through problem solving, and optimism (Armstrong et al., 2012). Positive self-
concept and strong cultural identity, foundational concepts of strengths-approaches, are two
contributing factors that contribute to a child’s capacity to be resilient (Armstrong et al., 2012).
Resilience is neither an individual trait nor permanent attribute (Armstrong et al., 2012),
indicating the need to sustain strengths-instruction throughout a child’s educational career.
Teachers need to reflect on and discuss their ability to use instructional practices to
increase student achievement.
Reflection is an act of metacognition. Prytula (2012) defines metacognition as “knowing
how to reflect on thought, how to analyze that thought, and how to put thought and analysis into
the future” (p. 113). Professional Learning Communities are an effective platform for teachers to
develop and recognize their own metacognition, as participants’ metacognition influences
learning of others (Prytula, 2012). Metacognitive reflection transfers to instructional practice.
Wilson and Bai (2010) assert that individual teacher’s understanding of metacognition is related
to the instructional strengths they perceived to be effective in helping students become
metacognitive. Teacher metacognition is further developed by teacher discourse. Teachers that
discuss instruction develop stronger understandings of effective practices (Clark, Brown, &
Jandildinov, 2015; Delaney, 2011), particularly among novice teachers (Asy'ari & Ikhsan, 2019;
Yaman, 2016). Teacher discourse may indicate that novice teachers are capable of sustaining a
daily practice that is reflection-oriented more so than experienced teachers (Yaman, 2016).
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 27

Reflection, therefore, is a strength of novice teachers. Increasing reflective discourse capitalizes
on the demographic data of teachers, and is necessary for the advancement of both the
instructional program and student success.
Table 1 outlines the organizational mission and goals. It identifies the knowledge
influences outlined in the preceding sections.
Table 1
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment

Organizational Mission
The mission of Aloha Academy is to prepare resilient and self-aware learners that embody the
pride of determination and accomplishment, and demonstrate the strength of 'ohana.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2020, 42-51% of third-eighth grade students at Aloha Academy will score proficient
on the English Language Arts component of the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
Stakeholder Goal
By November 2019, elementary teachers at Aloha Academy will use strengths-based
differentiated instruction as measured by inclusion of strategies in lesson plans.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type
Teachers need to know strengths-based pedagogy. Declarative
Teachers need to know differentiation. Declarative
Teachers need to understand the role of strengths-based instruction in
student success.
Conceptual
Teachers need to reflect on and discuss their ability to use instructional
practices to increase student achievement.

Metacognitive

Motivation Influences

Clark and Estes (2008) assert that motivation is comprised of three elements: active
choice, persistence, and mental effort. The first element is active choice. Action toward a goal,
rather than delaying or avoidant behaviors, indicates that an individual is participating in active
choice. The second element, persistence, is defined as “continuing in the face of distraction”
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 81). Finally, the third element is mental effort. Mental effort is grounded
in the notion that an individual demonstrates confidence, and seeks to work intelligently on novel
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 28

or unanticipated challenges (Clark & Estes, 2008). Among various motivation theories that may
influence Aloha Academy’s elementary teachers, this literature review focuses on self-efficacy
theory and utility value theory. These motivation theories will guide the following motivational
influences: 1) teachers need to see the value in providing differentiated, strengths-based
instruction and 2) teachers need to believe that they know how to use strengths-based
differentiated instruction to improve student performance
Utility value theory
Utility value refers to how stakeholders determine if particular tasks fit within their goals
(Eccles, 2006). Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, and Harackiewicz (2010) define utility value as the
degree which a task is ‘‘useful or relevant for other tasks or aspects of an individual’s life’’ (p.
881). Wigfield and Eccles (2000) expand to include that utility value embodies the notion of
extrinsic motivation, as completion of task is to attain a desired end goal. Teachers that
demonstrate commitment to organizational goals and values demonstrate an interrelationship
between personal and organizational ambitions and are deemed motivated to achieve the
organizational mission (Thoonen et al., 2011). Through identifying and articulating school
vision, school leaders reinforce the personal and social association of stakeholders within the
school. As a result, they increase collective cohesion (Thoonen et al., 2011).
Self-efficacy theory
According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is the foundation of human motivation
(Pajares, 2006). A stakeholder’s belief about their capability influences their motivation to
accomplish a task. The premise of self-efficacy is that if stakeholders believe their actions will
not bring intended outcomes to fruition, they will have little incentive to persevere through
challenges (Pajares, 2006). Self-efficacy is categorized as individual self-efficacy and collective
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 29

efficacy (Bandura, 2000). Individual self-efficacy is at the core of individual autonomy. It is a
contributing factor that defines the amount of effort used to accomplish a goal, as well as the
willingness to endure obstacles associated with goal achievement (Bandura, 1993). Individuals
who have high self-efficacy are more likely to attribute their failure to a lack of effort. On the
contrary, individuals with low self-efficacy will attribute their failure to lack of ability (Bandura,
1993).
Teacher self-efficacy results in positive outcomes for student learning. Teachers that
demonstrate high self-efficacy display greater levels of planning and organization (Thoonen,
Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). Moreover, they are more adept to receive new ideas,
demonstrate willingness to engage in new methods, persist longer in their professional practice,
and work longer with students not meeting academic benchmarks. Teacher efficacy is positively
correlated to teacher engagement in professional learning opportunities; in turn, enhancing the
quality of classroom instruction (Thoonen et al., 2011). To remedy to the gap between current
performance and the organizational global goal, teachers need to feel efficacious in their lesson
planning efforts.
Teachers need to see the value in providing strengths-based instruction
Strengths-based instruction is essential within quality core, Tier I instruction. It must be
viewed not only as a technical challenge, but also an adaptive challenge. Adaptive challenges are
defined by change needed in values and beliefs systems (Frey & Fisher, 2017). Frey and Fisher
(2017) argue that four systems in classrooms must be strengthened to achieve quality Tier I
instruction: relationships, responsiveness, communication, and sustainability. Relationships are
at the heart of strengths-based pedagogy. Allen and FitzGerald (2017) examined teacher
perceptions of the influences of strengths-based approaches and their relationships with students
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 30

of color. Findings indicated three key results: (a) the importance of care and concern for race in
the classroom (b) recognition of culture positively influences behavior management approaches
(c) and improved learning environment and school climate. To achieve strengths-based practice,
teachers need to see value in not only its technical implementation, but also the relationships that
drive strengths-based practice.
Teachers need to believe that they know how to use differentiated instruction to
improve student performance
Increased efficacy results in higher implementation of differentiated instruction. Goddard
and Kim (2018) conducted research to examine connections between teachers’ perceptions of
their collaboration, their reported use of differentiated instruction, and teacher efficacy in high-
poverty rural schools. Data was collected from 95 elementary schools, including 1,623
elementary teachers. The schools were located in rural, high poverty areas. Results indicate
statistically significant connections between teacher collaboration and differentiated instruction,
as well as differentiated instruction and teacher efficacy. Low teacher efficacy contributes to
poor implementation of differentiated instruction. Hawkins (2009) asserts three reasons why
differentiation has failed in common practice: (a) lack of teacher confidence (b) dilution of
teacher efficacy (c) inconsistent ongoing professional development and personal perseverance.
Teacher efficacy impacts the delivery of differentiated classroom instruction.
Teachers need to value culture as an essential component of strengths-approaches
Paris (2012) shifted academic vernacular from “culturally relevant” to “culturally
sustaining” pedagogy. Culturally sustaining pedagogy seeks to perpetuate and sustain linguistic,
literate, and cultural pluralism as a function of the democratic process of schooling. By
definition, it rebukes defining education with White, middle-class norms that embody a
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 31

monolingual and monocultural society (Paris, 2012; Wandera & Farr, 2018). Culturally
sustaining pedagogy resists “classroom death,” defined as teachers who stop trying, becoming
functions of a system that has little intent on preparing students for meaningful participation in a
democratic society (Ladson-Billings, 2014). It links principles of learning with appreciation and
understanding of culture. Students are subjects, not objects, in the instructional process (Ladson-
Billings, 2014). Culturally sustaining pedagogy is not about cultural examples in prescribed
curriculum. Rather, it is pushing students to adopt critical perspectives on policies and practices
that directly impact their communities (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Waitoller & Thorius, 2016).
Table 2 outlines the organizational mission and goals. It identifies the motivational
influences outlined in the preceding sections.
Table 2

Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments

Organizational Mission
The mission of Aloha Academy is to prepare resilient and self-aware learners that embody the
pride of determination and accomplishment, and demonstrate the strength of 'ohana.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2020, 42-51% of third-eighth grade students at Aloha Academy will score proficient
on the English Language Arts component of the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
Stakeholder Goal
By November 2019, elementary teachers at Aloha Academy will use strength-based
differentiated instruction as measured by inclusion of strategies in lesson plans.
Assumed Motivational Influences
Utility Value: Teachers need to see the value in providing strengths-based instruction.
Self-Efficacy: Teachers need to believe that they know how to use differentiated instruction to
improve student performance.
Utility Value: Teachers need to value culture as an essential component of strengths
approaches.

Organizational Influences
Stakeholders with exceptional knowledge and motivation will be hindered by missing or
inadequate organizational processes and culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Over time, organizations
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 32

develop culture. Organizational culture encompasses an ongoing evolvement of core values,
beliefs, goals, processes, and emotions (Clark & Estes, 2008). While culture impacts an
organization’s ability to provide necessary resources to stakeholders, it remains difficult to
define. Rueda (2011) identifies three reasons that culture and cultural processes are difficult to
define: it is not always visible, much of what is considered cultural knowledge is automated and
not always visible, and it involves values that are relative.
Nested within organizational influences are value streams, or forms of analysis that
describe how organizational teams interact and what processes are used (Clark & Estes, 2008).
When identifying influences on the achievement of the stakeholder goal, it is necessary to
understand how other stakeholders within the organization, such as administration, contribute to
the achievement of the stakeholder goal. Clark and Estes (2008) identify six types of
organizational support needed for organizational change processes: (a) clear, measurable vision
and goals (b) align structures with goals (c) communication (d) involvement of senior
management (e) adequate knowledge, skills, and motivational support for all stakeholders (f)
caution that change is not always equal (Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational influences are both
tangible and intangible, illuminating the complexity and need for adequate processes and culture.
Cultural Models and Cultural Settings
Rueda (2011) asserts that when cultural models and settings in a classroom or school are
identifiable, it lends to fully understand the rationale of why organizational stakeholders think,
act, and respond in the specific ways that they do. Cultural models are shared understandings of
how the world works, or should work (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models
contribute to a shared environment and determine which settings should be in place. Cultural
settings are the developed social norms of two people come together over time (Gallimore &
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 33

Goldenberg, 2001). In review of current research, three organizational influences that impact
Aloha Academy’s teachers will be discussed in the proceeding section. The subsequent Table 3
identifies the cultural models and settings of these influences.
The organization needs to allocate resources to support differentiated instruction
Successful educational programs integrate differentiation with strengths-approaches.
School-wide differentiation, in conjunction with a strengths-approach to enrichment
opportunities, counters remedial paradigms and improves student engagement (Becher &
Sweeny, 2008; Renzulli & Renzulli, 2010). Staff development is essential to the success of
differentiation (Becher & Sweeny, 2008). Research suggests that students are more successful in
schools that implement high quality curriculum and instructions, consider all learners in a
classroom setting, and differentiate content, process, product, or learning environment based on
students’ unique profile (Santamaria, 2009; Song, 2018; Tomlinson, 2000). Grant and Zwier
(2011) argue that school practices that do not consider students’ intertwining identity risk
perpetuating patterns of privilege, stereotypes, and oppression. As a result, the organization fails
to support students’ learning among personal, academic and socially just outcomes (Grant and
Zwier, 2011).
The organization needs to have a curricular system that values students’ identities
Standardization, rooted in the notion of equality, is the measure by which students and
teachers are assessed. Equality, defined as all students receiving the same, is deficient in
ensuring positive outcomes for marginalized students. Research suggests that students must be
provided with instruction that is derived from a thoughtful reflection of their individual needs.
Accordingly, an equal education may be inherently unequal (Cramer, Little & McHatton, 2018;
Garcia & Gaddes, 2012; Kana'iaupani, 2008; Reyhner, 2017). A curriculum that values students’
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 34

identities places individual strengths at the forefront and elevates the level of service the students
receive. Fenton (2013) asserts that stakeholders that recognize individual strengths of children,
using solution-focused strategies, were more confident when reviewing and planning for
complex issues.
When placed at the center of instruction, student identity serves as a source of
empowerment, and can define a course of instruction that highlights students’ strengths. The
Native Hawaiian population, included as a culturally marginalized group within this study,
benefits from this approach. Native Hawaiian students’ indigenous strengths include a robust and
reasoned cultural pride that is grounded in an appreciation of their history and dislocation
(Keehne, Sarsona, Kawakami, & Au, 2018). These strengths prioritize cultural bonds, that in turn
hold the potential to empower youth and give advocacy. Teachers may differentiate their
instruction through advocacy-oriented methods of teaching that bolster giving voice, creating
equity, and diminishing the lines between majority and minority (Borrero, Yeh, Cruz & Suda,
2012).
The organization needs to allocate sufficient time for teachers to review lesson plans
and acquire differentiated resources
Effective teacher teams elevate the level of classroom instruction, lending to more
meaningful differentiation outcomes. Students’ educational backgrounds vary by their unique
past experiences. Differentiated instruction identifies student readiness to guide teachers in
delivering lessons that are receptive to students (Pham, 2012). Essential components of teacher
teams include curricular content and student success, including review of individual student
progress (Johnson, Reinhorn, & Simon, 2018). Successful teachers recognize individual and
group differences among students and adjust instruction to minimize achievement gaps (Pham,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 35

2012). Teacher teams are valued by school stakeholders as they are attributed to creating
cohesion across classrooms and shared responsibility for students. Supported teams include the
following four requisites: (a) having a worthy purpose in support of the school’s mission (b)
adequate, regular time for meetings (c) engaged administrators (d) and facilitation by trained
teacher-leaders (Johnson et al., 2018). Within instructional teams, teachers are able to strategize
to differentiate instruction. Teachers that receive sufficient time for collaborative planning are
more thoughtful and deliberate when considering individual student strengths within their
classroom.
Table 3
Assumed Organizational Influences

Organizational Mission
The mission of Aloha Academy is to prepare resilient and self-aware learners that embody the
pride of determination and accomplishment, and demonstrate the strength of 'ohana.
Organizational Global Goal
By May 2020, 42-51% of third-eighth grade students at Aloha Academy will score proficient
on the English Language Arts component of the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
Stakeholder Goal
By November 2019, elementary teachers at Aloha Academy will use strengths-based
differentiated instruction as measured by inclusion of strategies in lesson plans.
Assumed Organizational Influences
Cultural Setting Influence 1: The organization needs to allocate resources to support
differentiated instruction.
Cultural Setting Influence 2: The organization needs to have a curricular system that values
students’ identities.
Cultural Setting Influence 3: The organization needs to allocate sufficient time for teachers
to review lesson plans and acquire differentiated resources.

Interactive Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework illustrates the interactive relationship among influencing factors
within the study (Maxwell, 2013). It develops a model or theory for the interrelationship of
influencing factors to explain the data. In such, the model transcends individual categories to
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 36

explain a larger phenomenon that is occurring (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The conceptual
framework defends the research and serves as a guide for further exploration of research
questions (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework in Figure 1 illustrates the
interrelationship of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact the
achievement of the stakeholder goal at Aloha Academy.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 37

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1 is a conceptual framework that illustrates the interrelationship of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences that impact the achievement of the organization’s
stakeholder goal. The outermost circle represents the stakeholder group of teachers. Nested
within the stakeholder circle are the stakeholder influences. The double ended arrow indicates
that knowledge and organizational influences are simultaneously interacting. In turn, this results
in motivational influences, as shown by the downward arrow pointing to motivational influences.
Motivational influences are shown outside of the simultaneous interaction, indicative that they
are a function of the knowledge and organizational influences. Depicted within the conceptual
framework is the stakeholder goal. Achievement of the stakeholder goal is attained by addressing
knowledge, organization, and motivational influences listed within the framework.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 38

Over time, organizations develop culture. Organizational culture encompasses an
ongoing evolvement of core values, beliefs, goals, processes, and emotions (Clark & Estes,
2008). Nested within organizational influences are value streams. Value streams describes how
an organization’s teams interact and what methods they implement (Clark & Estes, 2008). When
identifying influences on the achievement of the stakeholder goal, it is necessary to understand
how other stakeholders within the organization, such as administration, contribute to the
achievement of the stakeholder goal.
The conceptual framework offers the theory that knowledge and organizational
influences impact teacher motivation on differentiated instruction. When knowledge and
organizational influences are addressed, teacher motivation is achieved and results in the
attainment of the stakeholder goal. Teachers that display commitment to organizational goals and
values demonstrate an interrelationship between personal and organizational ambitions, and are
deemed motivated to achieve the organizational mission. Through identifying and articulating
school vision, school leaders reinforce the personal and social association of stakeholders within
the school. As a result, they increase collective cohesion (Thoonen et al., 2011).
The offered theory illustrated by the conceptual framework is related to hierarchy of
human needs. Within the hierarchy of human needs, individuals will not experience and work on
higher needs until survival needs are met (Schein, 2017). At the top of the hierarchy is self-
actualization, or the realization of talents and potential (Schein, 2017). This conceptual
framework offers the theory that knowledge and organizational influences are essential basic
needs. Knowledge and organizational influences are foundational components that lead to the
achievement of motivation, or self-actualization. Subsequently, the stakeholder group achieves
the stakeholder goal.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 39

Data Collection and Instruments

The researcher used a mixed methods approach to conduct the study. A mixed methods
approach integrates qualitative and quantitative data in the design analysis by merging,
explaining, and embedding the data within a larger framework (Creswell, 2018). Qualitative
researchers are interested in understanding how people interpret and understand their experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Quantitative data measures attitudes or behaviors of study
participants to determine broad trends and generalization (Creswell, 2018). Triangulation of data
is collected through multiple sources. Thus, a mixed methods approach was determined as a
means to integrate qualitative and quantitative methods to mutually check the validity of the data
(Creswell, 2018).
Specifically, the researcher used an explanatory sequential design. This approach was
selected to fulfill the needs of the research questions. Under this method, quantitative data was
collected via survey to reveal teacher behaviors and motivation about strengths-based pedagogy.
Qualitative interview data collection further illuminated how teacher beliefs and organizational
culture influence their instructional practices (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The explanatory
sequential mixed methods model allowed the researcher to initially detect statistically-significant
themes across the stakeholder group. A key piece of preliminary data collection was to identify
the demographic data of the elementary teachers including years of experience, race, gender,
home state, and number of years teaching at Aloha Academy. This preliminary data further
revealed recurrent themes in data analyzation.
Findings
The study addressed the problem of deficit-based teacher practices that disenfranchise
culturally marginalized groups at Aloha Academy. The study sought to evaluate teacher
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 40

understanding and utilization of strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation. Presented in this
section is data collected regarding the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
barriers that impact the ability of elementary teachers to provide differentiated and strengths-
based pedagogy. The researcher used a mixed methods approach. Twenty-eight teachers
participated in a survey. A sample of ten elementary teachers participated in interviews.
Purposive convenient sampling yielded representation of participants with positive working
relationships whom may be best suited to answer the research questions (Maxwell, 2013).
Purposive sampling allowed the researcher to select participants with specific characteristics to
participate in the research study (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Each
participant that was asked to interview accepted the invitation. Three participants identified as
Native Hawaiian: Kiana, Makana, and Keoki (pseudonyms). Seven participants identified as
non-Native Hawaiian: Amelia, Oliver, Sally, Emily, Lindsey, Anthony, Olivia (pseudonyms). To
protect the confidentiality of the participants, no further demographic information was included
in the findings. A comprehensive presentation of participants that participated in the survey is
included in Appendix A.
Through semi-structured interviews as the primary source of data collection, the
participants described their professional experience, knowledge, opinions, and perspectives
related to the strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation. Document reviews of grade-level
Professional Learning Community notes contributed to determining the elementary teachers’
knowledge of the differentiated lesson planning and use of grade level collaboration time. Survey
results are included in Appendix B. Survey data presented significant discrepancies to interview
responses, indicating potential social desirability bias (Leite & Cooper, 2010) or limited
metacognitive awareness (Wilson & Bai, 2010). The proceeding three sections address each
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 41

research question within the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organization
influences. Table 4 depicts demographic information of elementary teachers as reported on the
collected survey.
Table 4
Demographic Information of Elementary Teachers
Survey Items Response n %N = 28

Which nationality do you most identify with?

I consider myself to be from:

How many years have you been teaching?
White
Native Hawaiian
African American
Hispanic or Latino
Other

Hawaii
U.S. mainland state
international country
none of the above

0-2
3-5
6-10
11 or more

13
7
0
2
6

13
13
2
0

9
4
8
7
46.4%
25%
0%
7.1%
21.4%

46.4%
46.4%
7.1%
0%

32.1%
14.3%
28.6%
25%

Declarative, Conceptual, and Metacognitive Knowledge

The study evaluated three knowledge influences including declarative, conceptual, and
metacognitive. Declarative knowledge is factual understanding of strengths-based approaches
and differentiation. Conceptual knowledge refers to application of factual knowledge and
demonstration of understanding, such as understanding the role of strengths approaches in
student success (Rueda, 2011). Metacognition is the process of thinking about cognitive tasks to
analyze, synthesize, and evaluate new problems (Tosun & Senocak, 2013). Teachers’ reflection
on their instructional practice is metacognitive thinking.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 42

Definition of Strengths-Based Pedagogy
A knowledge influence was teachers need to know strengths-based pedagogy. To
understand strengths-based pedagogy, it is necessary to recite a correct definition. Among
interviewed participants, five teachers reported not knowing what strengths-based pedagogy is.
Five teachers offered a definition. For example, Makana defined strengths-based pedagogy as
“providing multiple opportunities to learn for differentiated learners.” Kiana defined strengths-
based pedagogy as “it’s like what we [teachers] can do, what we’re good at. And, like, growing
us from there.” Two of the five responses were accurate definitions. Qualitative data indicates
that 80% of elementary teachers did not correctly recite a definition for strengths-based
pedagogy. Survey data indicates that 54% of participants strongly agree or agree to the prompt: I
know what strengths-based instruction is. Data shows that 46% of participants marked neutral or
disagree to the aforementioned prompt. No participants marked strongly disagree. A discrepancy
of approximately 34% between correct interview responses and survey data substantiates the
claim that survey data presents significant discrepancies from interview responses. In sum,
qualitative data revealed that teachers lack a working knowledge of strengths-based pedagogy.
However, survey data indicated that more than half of elementary teachers may be efficacious in
their knowledge of strengths instruction. The finding answers the research question regarding
teachers’ knowledge of strengths-based instruction.
Role of Strengths-based Instruction in Student Success
A conceptual knowledge influence was teachers need to understand the role of strengths-
based instruction in student success. Findings indicate that strengths of the student are not a
factor when determining an intervention program. Among interviewed participants, 80% of
participants reported that they are unsure how students’ strengths are identified in the
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 43

intervention process or indicated that they were unable to answer. For example, Olivia said, “I
don’t have a lot of, um, experience in the intervention process here.” Amelia provided an
unrelated answer. She commented, “You know, all the kids in my classroom like to help me. I
have a really good group of students that all want to help me and do things. And, they pick up
trash.” Makana and Keoki discussed the complexity of the question. Makana asked, “What do
you mean by that? ... I guess it’s part assessments, part observation.” Keoki identified the
question as “interesting” and labeled it as “kind of tough.” Survey data revealed inconsistent
responses to the prompt: Our school has an intervention system that values students’ complex
lives outside of school. Responses to the aforementioned prompt include 11% strongly agree,
29% agree, 36% neutral, 21% disagree, and 3% strongly disagree. The data revealed an
approximate 19% discrepancy between qualitative and survey responses among teachers that
indicate students’ strengths are valued.
While teachers were generally unable to articulate specifically how students’ strengths
are identified and maximized in an instructional program, they frequently commented about
value in teacher-student relationships. The emphasis on dyadic relationship building affirms that
teachers are cognizant of knowing each student individually, a foundational mindset of strengths
approaches. Relationship building was consistently cited as a means to identify the strengths of
the student. Among interviewed participants, 100% of teachers discussed the value of
relationships in understanding a student’s unique strengths. Among Native Hawaiian teachers,
100% reported engaging with the family as a means for relationship building, whereas among
non-Native Hawaiian teachers, 0% reported engaging with the student’s family as a means to
relationship building. Non-Native Hawaiian teachers reported building independent
relationships. For example, Sally, a non-Native Hawaiian teacher, discussed intentionality of
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 44

relationships. She reported, “I feel like our teachers are really trying to make a point to build a
relationship with all students. I feel like they really get to know their interest… what their family
and home life is like.” Keoki, identified as Native Hawaiian, discussed open communication with
parents. He stated, “If you show them that you’re willing to support, and if you get a call to mom
to get that communication going so that we’re all on the same page... then, definitely every
student can learn.” Kiana, also identified as Native Hawaiian, reinforced that engaging the family
is about understanding the student outside the context of school. She reported, “checking in with
the 'ohana has been helpful in knowing where the kid is, even, like, emotionally how they
respond to things.” Native Hawaiian teachers articulate value of understanding the student within
the context of their family. According to Clark and Estes (2008), gap analysis reveals differing
perceptions among stakeholders with the same goal. The findings supported a gap in the
organization among interpersonal practices of Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian
teachers.
Nine interviewed participants cited classroom management as an area of difficulty for
themselves or other teachers, and subsequently discussed classroom management as a barrier to
relationship building. Teachers that self-identified as experienced teachers noted differences in
classroom management practices among experienced and inexperienced teachers. Oliver, an
experienced teacher, reported, “Classrooms are defined by the teachers in them. I have very
much recognized at [Aloha Academy] that the teacher is the absolute cornerstone of how the
classroom is run, for the good or the bad.” Among participants with two or less years of teaching
experience, 100% reported managing student behavior as a challenge. Kiana attributed classroom
management to cultural relationships among Native Hawaiian teachers:
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 45

It’s like makua and keiki. Like, [Native Hawaiian teachers] train, guide, and teach those
kids like they’re own... Others, maybe not because they’re brand new to this. Being
thrown into this, being thrown into the sharks, for the first-year teachers, first year
Hawai'i kind of people. I think it’s hard for them to have those solid relationships with
the kids… In classrooms that might be chaotic and feel unsafe, or, feel even, like, unfair,
I can understand how students have a difficult space of learning.
Kiana affirmed teacher-student relationship building as an essential component of
classroom management. Classrooms with high quality emotional climates mitigate risks of
aggression for students with poor quality relationships with teachers. However, emotional
support in the classroom does not supplant negative effects of low-quality dyadic relationships.
Thus, teachers need to establish and maintain positive dyadic relationships with each student
(Rucinski, Brown, & Downer, 2018). The finding answers the research question regarding
knowledge of strengths-based pedagogy and academic achievement.
Definition of Differentiated Instruction
A declarative knowledge influence was teachers need to know differentiated instruction.
Axial coding of qualitative data revealed a misunderstanding of the role of differentiation in
classroom instruction as primarily used for Special Education students. The role of differentiated
instruction to meet the needs of students that currently have or may need Individualized
Education Plans was discussed by 60% of participants. For example, Anthony explained, “And, I
try to be very generous with my grading with people that I have to differentiate a lot… choke
students with special education services. Students who are learning disabled.” Data signaled that
teachers perceive differentiation as means of student segregation or labeling. Amelia describes
her response to underachieving students, “And, then, my low students. I’m really afraid of
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 46

having them go to fourth grade. So, I’m getting them tested. And, um, I have my high kids with
my low kids.” Data shows a lack of consistent understanding that differentiated instruction is
defined by taking multiple approaches to content, process, product, affect, and learning
environment. A lack of understanding is indicated by 50% of interviewed participants attributing
varying student ability levels as a challenge in differentiating instruction. It is also implies of a
lack of understanding that differentiation is not solely used for students with outlier academic
abilities (Wu, 2013). The finding answers the research question regarding teachers’ knowledge
of differentiation.
Survey data suggests a differing perspective from interview responses. When responding
to the prompt: I know how to differentiate the learning environment in my classroom, 92% of
respondents selected strongly agree or agree. Eight percent selected neutral as a response, and no
respondents selected strongly disagree. When responding to the prompt: I know how to adapt my
curriculum to empower students to overcome adversity, 72% of respondents selected strongly
agree or agree, 25% selected neutral as a response, and 3% selected disagree. Survey responses
indicated high efficacy. Among interviewed participants, 80% discussed “multiple intelligences,
“multiple ways of learning,” or “learning styles” in their responses. Elementary teachers
generally lack knowledge of current research that concludes insufficient evidence to support
learning styles as a means to differentiate instruction (Cuevas, 2015; Landrum & McDuffie,
2010).
Reflect on Ability to Use Instructional Practices to Increase Achievement
A metacognitive knowledge influence was teachers need to reflect on and discuss their
ability to use instructional practices to increase student achievement. Aloha Academy reserves
grade-level Professional Learning Community time for this work. Professional Learning
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 47

Community time is not focused on data and lesson planning. A review of Professional Learning
Community school documents and notes from the 2018-2019 school year indicates that 27% of
grade level collaboration time was spent on lesson planning and data analysis. Findings suggest
that there is inconsistent understanding of the role of Professional Learning Communities. An
inconsistent understanding is revealed by the range of survey responses to the question: Our
school allocates (blank) amount of hours monthly toward faculty lesson planning for
differentiated instruction. The range of the data is 0-25 hours. The median of the data is 7 hours.
Three responses indicated unknown. For example, a participant replied “??” Eight interview
participants responded that Professional Learning Community time is used for team activities
other than data analyzation and lesson planning. Lindsey reported, “We spend part of our PLCs
talking about grade level business, whether that’s scheduling field trips, etc. It’s kind of a time
for us to make sure we’re all on the same page.” Anthony discussed that Professional Learning
Community time is not consistently directed by teacher leadership. He stated, “Sometimes I feel
like I have zero input. But, if my input is not always needed, sometimes I just need to learn,
listen, or take top down communication... Include nodding your head to say I
understand.” Findings affirm that teachers do not consistently reflect on their ability to use
instructional practices to increase achievement, as evidenced by inconsistent understanding of
the role of Professional Learning Communities.
In sum, data reveals limited understanding of strengths approaches and differentiated
instruction. Native Hawaiian teachers utilize culture for relational trust building more so than
non-Native Hawaiian teachers. Lastly, a lack of reflective practices in Professional Learning
Communities suggests shallow and non-systemic pedagogical reflection.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 48

Motivation
Motivation and engagement are frequently determined by an individual’s contribution
toward an identified goal (Mayer, 2011). This study evaluated two types of motivation, including
utility value and self-efficacy. Significant differences among qualitative and quantitative data do
not provide strong reliability to measure utility value. Further research is needed to provide an
acceptable level of reliability and to uncover differences among Native Hawaiian and non-Native
Hawaiian teachers. The findings below answer the research question pertaining to teacher
motivation related to strengths-based pedagogy and academic achievement.
Teachers need to see the value in providing strengths-based instruction
A motivational influence was that teachers need to see the value in providing strengths-
based instruction. Findings are inconclusive to determine if teachers value providing strengths-
based instruction. Qualitative data indicated that 20% of elementary teachers were able to
correctly recite a definition for strengths-based pedagogy. However, 67% of participants marked
strongly agree or agree to understanding the importance of strengths-based instruction. An
approximate 47% gap among qualitative and quantitative data indicates inconclusive results.
Findings conclude poor reliability within the data; thus, no conclusions may be drawn.
Teachers need to believe that they know how to use differentiated instruction to
improve student performance
A motivational influence was that teachers need to believe that they know how to use
differentiated instruction to improve student performance. Findings indicated high teacher
efficacy. Survey results showed that 74% of participants strongly agreeing or agree that they are
certain in their ability to provide students with differentiated instruction. Only one participant
disagreed that she was certain in her ability to provide students with differentiated instruction. In
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 49

responding to the prompt: I know how to differentiate the learning environment in my classroom,
92% of participants marked strongly agree or agree. No participants marked disagree or strongly
disagree. In responding to the prompt: I know how to adapt my curriculum to empower students
to overcome adversity, 70% of participants marked strongly agree or agree. One participant
marked disagree. The researcher is unable to determine the role of potential social desirability
bias (Leite & Cooper, 2010) or limited metacognitive awareness (Wilson & Bai, 2010) within
these responses. Table 5 outlines distribution of participant responses to knowledge and
motivational items.
Table 5
Response Distribution for Knowledge and Motivational Items

Survey Items Response n %N = 28

I know how to differentiate the learning
environment in my classroom.
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
0
0
2
15
11
0%
0%
7.1%
53.6%
39.3%

I know how to teach to meet my students’
unique set of prior knowledge and
experiences.

I know how to adapt my curriculum to
empower students to overcome adversity.

I know how deficit discourse affects the
experience of culturally marginalized groups
in public education.

I am certain in my ability to provide my
students with differentiated instruction.

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
0
1
3
20
4

0
1
7
17
3

2
5
11
7
3

0
1
6
13
8
0%
3.6%
10.7%
71.4%
14.3%

0%
3.6%
25%
60.7%
10.7%

7.1%
17.9%
39.3%
25%
10.7%

0%
3.6%
21.4%
46.4%
28.6%
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 50

I understand the importance of strengths-
based instruction.

Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree

1
2
6
15
4

3.6%
7.1%
21.4%
53.6%
14.3%

Teachers need to value culture as an essential component of strengths-approaches

A motivational influence was teachers need to value culture as an essential component of
strengths-approaches. Participants inconsistently valued using culture as a strength, with notable
differences in responses among Native Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian teachers. Native
Hawaiian teachers reported the value of culture-based education as one that reaffirms the
potential of students, whereas non-Native Hawaiian teachers reported recognizing culture at a
more surface-level in school culture-based routines. For example, Emily discussed cultural
affirming practices in the school’s morning protocol, “We try to incorporate it. Well, we do
incorporate it during piko. We see our culture through piko in the morning... Um, and [our grade
level] does oli in the morning.” Native Hawaiian teachers reflect on culture as a transformational
agent, one that drives the strengths of the students to the forefront of their learning.
Kiana described the value of Hawaiian culture-based education:
It’s obvious that Hawaiian culture is a positive avenue for educating kids. And, even if
they’re not Hawaiian, it’s like these things are real. Like, these mountains have names.
These winds have stories. And, these places have songs. So, for me, it’s been important in
sharing that with our kids... I know the [students] that are always in the office just
because I see them. And, I saw [the students] that day... You are not punching anyone or
screaming. You are absolutely capable of being the best person that you can be... And,
it was, like, a justifying moment....this is good for our keiki.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 51

Kiana explained how the cultural significance of geographical features may be used to
illicit the strengths of students. The instructional approach offers deeper student engagement than
activating prior knowledge through geographical features, such as teaching content through
familiar landmarks. Socioeconomic factors contributed to teacher perceptions about culture,
particularly the local culture of the community. Findings from this study indicated that 70% of
interview participants used deficit discourse when describing students. Overall, approximately
18% of interview transcripts were identified as deficit discourse. Deficit statements are indicative
that participants do not consistently speak from a strengths-perspective. The statements also
revealed that participants projected a student’s academic trajectory based on demographic
information. Table 6 provides on overview of the statements identified by the researcher as
deficit discourse.
Table 6
Deficit Discourse

Participant Deficit-based Statement
Anthony I’m aware of FERPA violations and privacy. And, I can’t really say, “You know,
you’re smarter than them.” Or, that you can do more work than that person can. I
don’t want that. I shouldn’t say that. So, it’s a challenge.
Anthony Not all these kids can do everything. Do your best with what you’ve got.
Anthony Really bright students are not motivated and don’t want to do the work.
Amelia I don’t know what kind of childhood that these kids, you know, have. Like, my
brother and I have the mom and dad, the middle-class family, the sidewalk down
the front. And, these kids, you know, they live in tents, or they’re homeless, or,
you know, I don’t know if they have like their 5:00 meals like I did.
Amelia If they go out of their way, and they write more sentences, or color really nice,
I’ll give them an [Aloha] card because they love going to the store. Because
they’re poor and they like getting things.
Kiana I think, um, my special education teacher does a really good job at identifying
strengths for the kids because her job requires her to focus on what kids can’t do.
She finds it (pause) she tries to balance it with what the kids can do. I think my
my SpEd teacher can do that, but it’s not often done... we don’t identify
strengths.
Kiana And, it might have just been the conversation that our administrators would have
with us often. Like, this is where we’re at. Like, our kids are so pua ting. So sad.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 52

We’re in the lowest (pause) And so, for me, I think (pause) we were focused on
our problems. What we didn’t have. What we can’t do.
Olivia I feel like they’re lower than they should be in the grade levels. And, so, I feel
that for this curriculum it doesn’t really match their culture, the, um, progress of
where they need to be. There’s not a lot of things that come hand-in-hand with
understanding where we are in this region. Um, a little clashing… Yeah, [the
curriculum is] too rigorous [for the culture].
Lindsey I’ve definitely worked at schools before where kids have lots of opportunities,
and lots of extra money, and lots of parent support. And, that’s a different feeling
than schools where those things are lacking. And, it really does make you feel
like you might be the most important person in the child’s life.
Lindsey So, if they don’t have any strengths in what we need to know, we’re just going
have to start from scratch.
Oliver The cynic in me, as a man of a certain age, and teacher of a certain age, and with
twelve years of experience under my belt, is that I don’t foresee much of a change
as far as academics is concerned. I don’t see far much of the change as far as the
academic success of the students is concerned because I don’t believe that [Aloha
Academy] has enough momentum to change the area that the school finds itself
in.
Makana He’s a perfect example of (pause) of what we view as a bad child.

Use of local dialect and Hawaiian language differed among non-Native Hawaiian and
Native Hawaiian teachers. Amelia discussed the use of Pidgin dialect as “slang language.” She
commented, “Like, when they use their slang language, I don’t like that. So, I have to correct
them on that. And, when they talk to me, I like manners. Manners are a big thing.” In this
statement, Amelia identifies that using Pidgin English is rude, as defined by a Western
interpretation of appropriate manners. Kiana rebuked Amelia, connecting language to
relationship building. She stated, “Even the language that the kids use. Like, kids speak Pidgin
all the time, and sometimes if you’re funny kine and you don’t speak that, like the kids aren’t
going to respond to that.” Kiana reinforced that a lack of understanding of Pidgin English marks
a teacher as an outsider.
The role of Hawaiian language on campus is not consistently valued among non-Native
Hawaiian teachers. For example, Oliver identified that the use of Hawaiian language on campus
excludes the cultural inclusion of other demographic groups represented within the student body,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 53

and subsequently the exclusion of their respective languages. Anthony interpreted the acquisition
of Hawaiian language on campus, as it pertains to the practice of cultural tradition, is learned at a
detriment to the mastery of grade level English language arts standards. He stated:
I wonder with all the chants... how long did they take to learn it? And, at what price? Did
they take it out of their ELA block? I don’t know... I know it must have taken a long time
doing these chants... But, very few of them are going to grow up to use the language...
You know, modern day times, you have to be functionally literate.
Anthony associated higher value to the mastery of English language by identifying English as a
“functional” language. He equated the acquisition of Hawaiian language as a lesser valued skill
in “modern day,” implying that the relevance of Hawaiian language is in historical contexts.
English-first education for indigenous students diminishes identity, contributes to cultural
disintegration, and impeded assimilation into the foremost culture (Reyhner, 2017; Villegas-
Torres & Mora-Pablo, 2018; Yokota, 2008).
In sum, data suggests that elementary teachers are efficacious in their instructional
practices. However, there is limited understanding of cultural strengths, particularly as they
apply to instructional practices. Limited understanding of cultural strengths is evidenced by
deficit discourse that was identified within the interviews. Limited understanding is also presnet
in the dichotomy of responses regarding the role of Hawaiian language. The researcher is unable
to determine findings regarding the utility value of strengths approaches due to significant
discrepancies among qualitative and quantitative data.
Cultural Settings Within the Organization
Bolman and Deal (2013) assert that an organization is comprised of developed beliefs,
customs, and values. Three organizational influences for this study include support, curriculum,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 54

and allocation of resources. Effective organizations allocate needed resources to meet
organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Cultural settings addressed within the proceeding
section discuss patterns of behaviors and beliefs that shape organizational support for strengths-
based pedagogy. As referenced within Figure 1, Conceptual Framework, cultural models and
settings influence teacher knowledge and motivation related to strengths-based pedagogy. The
proceeding section responds to the second research question: What are teachers’ knowledge and
motivation related to strengths-based pedagogy and academic achievement?
Organizational Support for Differentiated Instruction
An organizational influence was that the organization needs to allocate resources to
support differentiated instruction. Findings indicated that Aloha Academy has an overall lack of
support for differentiated instruction. Seventy percent of interview participants cited little to no
organizational support for differentiated instruction, with 50% of those participants identifying
instructional coaches as the sole means of support. Oliver discussed differentiation as being
“more mouthed than it has been explicitly taught.” An analysis of Professional Learning
Community notes indicate that the terms differentiate or differentiation occurred in 0% of
meeting notes. Findings justified that differentiated instruction is not an acted upon
organizational priority. However, it was cited a root cause for student underachievement in the
2017-2020 School Wide Plan.
Curriculum that Values Student Identities
An organizational influence was the organization needs to have a curricular system that
values students’ identities. Findings revealed that the reading curriculum is not culturally
relevant. Surface level connections are made with geographical connections to Hawai'i. Among
interviewed participants, 100% of respondents reported that the language arts curriculum does
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 55

not interact with the students’ culture. Participants claimed that teachers occasionally supplement
the curriculum with culture, and that students have limited prior knowledge to connect with
predominant Spanish language focus within the curriculum. Sally reported that the curriculum is
very “Western-based” and “not connected to our students’ culture here.” Non-Native Hawaiian
teachers reported cultural integration as activation of prior knowledge. Emily identified cultural
connections as geographical. She stated, “And, then for their actual culture, we really don’t hit
on it very much in any of the curriculum, except for science we have some stuff that relates to
them and O'ahu and the different islands.” Lindsey said, “there are a lot of animal focuses in our
Reading Street curriculum. But, unfortunately, there isn’t sea creatures or anything.” Results
conclusively suggest that the language arts curriculum does not interact with the students’
culture. Data also indicates that non-Native Hawaiian teachers have a limited understanding of
cultural integration in curricular programming.
Allocation of Teacher Planning Time
An organizational influence was the organization needs to allocate sufficient time for
teachers to review lesson plans and acquire differentiated resources. In the 2018-2019 academic
year, grade-level Professional Learning Community meetings were directed by teacher leaders
identified as Grade Level Chairs. Elementary grade level teams were given 75 minutes of
Professional Learning Community time at a frequency of twice per week. As discussed above,
there is inconsistent understanding of the purpose for the time. An inconsistent understanding is
revealed by the range of survey responses to the question: Our school allocates (blank) number
of hours monthly toward faculty lesson planning for differentiated instruction. The range of the
data is 0-25 hours. The median of the data is 7 hours. Scheduled grade level Professional
Learning Community is approximately 10 hours per month.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 56

Interview data suggests that there are inconsistent practices among grade level
Professional Learning Community time. Olivia described the time as idea sharing. She stated,
“People you can throw ideas off of, um, get advice, get updated, it’s news… And, it’s just getting
those ideas, the spiraling… It’s take and borrow, and use what you want.” Amelia also described
a sharing process, “We go over... where we are with our lesson... Some of us go to Teachers Pay
Teachers or education.com, and we share our worksheets with each other.” Oliver was the only
participant to discuss reflection within Professional Learning Communities. He defined
Professional Learning Communities as, “a very important time for the teachers in that grade level
to get together, and to reflect upon what they’re doing.” Data found that purpose and task of
Professional Learning Communities is not consistently understood as a time to review data for
the purpose of collaboratively lesson planning. Data also yielded minimal pedagogical reflection
occurring during Professional Learning Communities.
Unrelated Emergent Theme
The researcher uncovered an emergent theme unrelated to the research questions. Five
interview participants discussed division among elementary and secondary programming as an
area of concern within the Pre-K – 12
th
grade school. Further research of this topic may be
beneficial to the organization’s overall well-being and culture. Table 7 outlines the comments
shared by participants.
Table 7
Emergent Theme

Participant Comment Pertaining to Elementary and Secondary Divide
Keoki Because we do have pretty much two different campuses… The culture is
different for elementary and secondary… I think within the secondary
program it’s still kind of right now, they’re in the process of trying to find
themselves, and that includes the students… Within the school culture,
they’re trying to fit.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 57

Anthony I see that… quite often I think I see a lot with the high school and upper
middle school. I know we have some teachers in the past who have blown a
gasket, raised their voice, and yelled.
Sally I think sometimes there’s still that disconnect between elementary and high
school.
Kiana It’s different between the secondary program and the elementary
program...When they go into secondary, and it’s a little bit different for
them. Um, we might lose them. It’s important for kids to be held
accountable to fulfilling responsibilities… I hope that, like, we’re aligned in
expectations and consistency… the great divide between the secondary and
the elementary. There’s an interesting culture in the secondary that I see
that’s different from what I hold my kids to. So, there’s like a very lax…
very, um, filthy mouth.
Amelia And we were in certain groups, and the group I was in was saying that the
secondary teachers don’t care to seem to know the elementary school
teachers. Like, everyone’s in their own little cliques… We don’t know the
secondary teachers.

Solutions and Recommendations

This section will respond to the final research question. It will address recommended
solutions for the validated knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences. Solutions will
be developed through an integrated implementation and evaluation plan. Validated influences are
aligned with principles from the literature. Finally, context-specific recommendations are made.
The recommendations will inform the development of a professional development program to
serve as a research-based solution to the problem of practice. The professional development
program addresses teacher understanding of utilization of differentiated instruction and
strengths-based approaches.
After aligning influences with recommendations, the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) will be used for an integrated implementation and evaluation
plan of the professional development program. The New World Model approaches training using
a backward design approach, beginning with level four, results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Level four articulates the leading indicators of successful accomplishment of the
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 58

organizational and stakeholder goals. Next, level three identifies critical stakeholder behaviors
for accomplishing identified goals. Level three also determines the drivers of needed behaviors
to reach the identified goals. Levels two and one address participant learning and satisfaction
from the training.
Knowledge recommendations

Table 8 outlines the knowledge influences validated in this study and the principles and
context-specific recommendations based on the principles.
Table 8
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to
understand
strengths-based
pedagogy. (D)
V Y Focusing in
mastery, individual
improvement,
learning, and
progress promotes
positive motivation
(Yough &
Anderman, 2006).
Provide teachers
information on the
characteristics of
strengths-based
instruction.
Teachers need to
understand the
role of strengths-
based
differentiation in
student success.
(P)
V Y To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide teachers worked
examples of effective
differentiation in student
success.
Teachers need to
know
differentiated
instruction. (D)
V Y Provide experiences
that help people
make sense of the
material rather than
just focus on
memorization
Provide job aid on the
steps to identify tools for
assessing the rigor of
instructional technology
integration.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 59

(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Teachers need to
reflect on and
discuss their
ability to use
instructional
practices to
increase student
achievement (M)
V N To develop mastery,
individuals must
acquire component
skills, practice
integrating them,
and know when to
apply what they
have learned
(Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Provide training with
authentic Professional
Learning Communities,
expertise-based
demonstrations, and
practice by teachers with
feedback from
experienced teachers or
coaches.

Provide declarative information to increase understanding. The results and findings
of this study indicated that approximately 80% of teachers need to understand what strengths-
based instruction is. A recommendation rooted in goal orientation has been selected to close this
declarative knowledge gap. Focusing in mastery, individual improvement, learning, and progress
promotes positive motivation (Yough & Anderman, 2006). Providing learners with progress
reports would support their learning. The recommendation is then to provide teachers
information on the characteristics of strengths-based differentiated instruction. Information
provided in graphic organizer form would illustrate the essential components of differentiated
instruction within lesson planning.
Differentiated instruction does not necessarily increase with number of years teaching
experience, nor with the level of qualifications of the teacher. Existing teachers should be
provided with sufficient knowledge about differentiation (Moosa & Shareefa, 2019). Teachers
benefit from engaging in professional development that uses heterogeneous cooperative groups
to foster peer interaction, and use individual work to convey progress (Yough &Anderman,
2006). Thus, the recommendation is to provide teachers information on the characteristics of
strengths-based differentiated instruction.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 60

Provide worked examples of effective practices. The results and findings of this study
indicated that 85% of teachers need to understand the role of differentiation in student success. A
recommendation rooted in information processing theory has been selected to close this
procedural knowledge gap. To develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006). Watching video recorded lessons would support their learning. The
recommendation is then to provide teachers worked examples of effective strengths-based
differentiation in student success.
Mastering the complexity of differentiation increases teacher efficacy and collaboration.
Goddard and Minjung (2018) conducted a study to examine the relationship between teachers'
perceptions of their collaboration, their reported use of differentiated instruction, and teacher
efficacy in high-poverty rural schools in a Midwestern state. After controlling for school and
student-level characteristics, results of the study identified a positive correlation among teacher
collaboration and teachers' reports that they differentiated instruction; and, between
differentiated instruction and teacher efficacy (Goddard & Minjung, 2018). Differentiation may
be scaffolded by teacher skill. Van Geel et al. (2018) conducted a cognitive task analysis of
differentiation skill. Results indicate six overarching categories of skill. Three skills are used
prior to instructional delivery: mastering the curriculum, identifying instructional needs, and
setting challenging goals. Two skills are used during instructional delivery: monitoring and
diagnosing student progress, and adapting instruction and activities (van Geel et al., 2018). Thus,
the recommendation is then to provide teachers worked examples of effective strengths-based
differentiation in student success.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 61

Increase teacher knowledge of differentiated instruction. The results and findings of
this study indicated that approximately 60% of teachers need more familiarity with principles of
differentiated instruction. A recommendation rooted in information processing theory can be
used to address the declarative knowledge gap. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) explain that to
develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know
when to apply what they have learned. Providing teachers with a job aid or tool would support
their mastery of this skill. The recommendation then is to provide teachers with a rubric or job
aid that would define the components of effective differentiated instruction.
Clark and Estes (2008) offer job aids as an effective method to provide employees with
self-help information to complete a work-related task. Specifically, job aids benefit post-training
employees post-training they may not need additional guided practice (Clark & Estes, 2008). Job
aids, such as rubrics, provide teachers with the tools to conduct alternative assessments (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Research finds that alternative assessments provide teachers with an opportunity to
measure students’ achievement and skills in culturally appropriate ways (Aganza, Godinez,
Smith, Gonzalez & Robinson-Zañartu, 2015; Izci & Caliskan, 2017; Montenegro & Jankowski,
2017). Alternative assessments also assert focus students’ strategies for learning, problem
solving, and ability to complete tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). Providing teachers with an
appropriate job aid allows them to be equipped to appropriately evaluate the quality of
differentiated instruction in their classroom.
Increase teacher familiarity with Professional Learning Communities. The results
and findings of this study indicated that approximately 85% of teachers need more in-depth
metacognitive knowledge about how to reflect on the ability to use instructional practices to
increase student achievement. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) found that to develop mastery,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 62

individuals must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply
what they have learned. Providing modeling, coaching, and data-informed scaffolding during
teacher collaboration meetings would help teachers develop this metacognitive
knowledge (Mayer, 2011). The recommendation then is to provide training with authentic
Professional Learning Communities, expertise-based demonstrations, and practice by teachers
with feedback from instructional coaches or experienced teachers.
Research indicates that peer mentoring increases teachers’ accountability and
pedagogical reflection for their professional practice (Davis & Higdon, 2008; Gull, Demir &
Criwell, 2018; Hudson, 2013; Smit & Du Toit, 2016). Research also shows that robust
implementation of Professional Learning Communities contributes to systemic school
improvement through transitioning from an autonomous school culture to one of shared values.
Kacker-Cam, Fulmer, and Trucano (2017) advocate that, through a dialectical process, systemic
Professional Learning Communities position teacher leaders as change agents with systemic
school reform. Therefore, providing teachers with feedback from experienced coaches or
mentors will increase their proficiency with reflecting on the effectiveness of their instructional
practices used to increase student achievement.
Motivation recommendations
Table 9 outlines the motivation influences validated in this study and the principles and
context-specific recommendations based on the principles.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 63

Table 9
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Motivation
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to see the
value in providing
strengths-based
instruction. (utility
value)
Y Y Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles,
2006).
Provide teachers
rationales about the
utility value of
differentiation
Teachers need to
believe that they know
how to use
differentiated
instruction to improve
student
performance. (self-
efficacy)
Y N High self-efficacy
can positively
influence
motivation
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide teachers
modeling, instruction,
guided practice, and
immediate targeted
feedback.
Teachers need to value
culture as an essential
component of strengths
instruction. (utility
value)
Y Y Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of the
work or learning
can help learners
develop positive
values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich,
2003)
Include rationales
about the importance
of culturally
sustaining
pedagogy.

Include rationale and provide modeling. The results and findings of this study
indicated that 80% of teachers do not find value in providing differentiated instruction for all
learners. A recommendation rooted in expectancy value theory has been selected to close this
motivational gap. Eccles (2006) found that learning and motivation are enhanced if the learner
values the task. Providing learners with information and research would increase their value of
differentiated instruction. The recommendation is to provide teachers with the importance and
utility value of differentiation. Job aids, such as synthesis of current research presented in a
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 64

collaborative faculty meeting, would assist teachers in understanding the value of differentiated
instruction.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that motivation is a function of beliefs and experiences about
self, coworkers, and our potential effectiveness. Kuehl (2018) conducted a study to determine the
role of using Professional Learning Communities as a means for learning about differentiated
instruction within writing. Utilizing online communication platforms, preservice teachers
examined student work and discussed professional literature related to differentiated instruction.
Within end of course reflection, preservice teachers noted a newfound understanding of
differentiated instruction in its relationship to student achievement, building upon students’
strengths to develop proficiency over time. (Kuehl, 2018). Results of this study support the
recommendation to provide teachers with the importance and utility value of differentiation,
particularly as it pertains to strengths-based instruction.
Provide modeling and targeted feedback. The results and findings of this study
indicated that 60% of teachers do not apply principles of differentiation. A recommendation
rooted in self-efficacy theory has been selected to close this motivational gap. Pajares (2006)
found that high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation. Providing learners with peer
coaching opportunities would increase their self-efficacy toward differentiated instruction. The
recommendation is to provide teachers modeling, instruction, guided practice, and immediate
targeted feedback. Opportunities for peer modeling, such as lab classrooms, would assist
teachers in increasing their self-efficacy of differentiated instruction.
Clark and Estes (2008) assert that motivation is an interaction between people and their
work environment. Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, and Hardin (2014) conducted a study across two
school districts of varied demographics and grade levels. Results indicated that an increased
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 65

number of professional development hours in differentiated instruction increased teacher self and
collective efficacy, with no notable difference in teachers servicing elementary, middle, or high
school. Teacher efficacy increases through workshops that allow teachers to write level or tiered
lessons together (Dixon et al., 2014). Self-efficacy also increases in classroom-level professional
development. Bruce, Esmonde, Ross, Dookie, and Beatty (2010) conducted a study among two
districts in Canada to examine the role of classroom-embedded professional development on
teacher efficacy. Results indicated that the opportunity for educators to collaborate and share
positive teaching strategies resulted in greater confidence in the teachers’ ability to support
student learning. The researchers also noted an increase in teachers contributing to discussions
about lessons and student work, willingness to co-teach, and volunteer to chair meetings (Bruce
et al., 010). Results of the studies support the recommendation to teachers modeling, instruction,
guided practice, and immediate targeted feedback.
Include a thorough understanding of how colonialism impacted indigenous peoples.
The results and findings of this study indicated that approximately 70% of teachers use deficit
discourse when describing students or the organization. A recommendation rooted in utility
value theory has been selected to close this value gap. Eccles (2006) and Pintrich (2003)
concluded that rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value of the work
or learning assist learners in developing positive values. Providing teachers with information
about how colonialism impacted indigenous peoples can improve teaching and learning. The
recommendation then is to include rationales about the importance and utility value of culturally
sustaining pedagogy during all professional development opportunities.
Korteweg and Fiddler (2018) outline the obstacles in teacher education of indigenous
youth. The obstacles include exposing legacies of colonialism, systemic racism in curriculum,
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 66

and ongoing teacher entitlement (Korteweg & Fiddler, 2018). Cherry-McDaniel (2019) argues
that a teacher who suffers from settler teacher syndrome intentionally, or unintentionally,
sustains colonialism through instructional and pedagogical decisions. For teachers of students of
color, the pedagogical decisions serve to further mark students of color as inferior. Cherry-
McDaniel (2019) notes that lack of training in cultural sustainability can produce similar results
for teachers of color as well as their White counterparts. Based on this study, the
recommendation is to explicitly communicate to teachers how colonialism impacted the
prosperity of indigenous peoples.
Organizational recommendations
Table 10 outlines the motivation influences validated in this study and the principles and
context-specific recommendations based on the principles.
Table 10
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed
Organization
Influence

Validated
as a Gap?
(Y, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization
needs to have a
curricular system
that values
students’
identities.
(cultural setting)
V Y Effective leaders
demonstrate a
commitment to
valuing diversity
through inclusive
action. They promote
equity and inclusion
and cultivate an
atmosphere where
diversity is viewed as
an asset to the
organization and its
stakeholders
(Angeline, 2011;
Prieto, Phipps & Osiri,
2009)
Create a culture of
inclusion in decision
making with relation to
an intervention system
that values students’
identities.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 67

The organization
needs to allocate
sufficient time for
teachers to review
lesson plans and
acquire
differentiated
resources.
(cultural setting)
V Y Effective
organizations insure
that
organizational
messages, rewards,
policies
and procedures that
govern the work of the
organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals
and values
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Create more space for
dialogue about
differentiated teaching
and learning, where
evidence of best
practices can be shared
and concerns can be
aired.

The organization
needs to allocate
resources to
support
differentiated
instruction.
(cultural setting)
V Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc)
needed to do their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Teachers will be
provided with regular,
self-directed, non-
instructional work time
over the course of the
school year to
collaborate and reflect
on integrating
differentiation into
instruction.

Create a culture of inclusion in decision making that values students’ identities.
Approximately 100% of teachers agree that students’ cultural identities are not represented in a
curricular system. A recommendation rooted in Development Impact Bond theory has been
selected to close this organizational gap. Effective leaders demonstrate a commitment to valuing
diversity through inclusive action. They promote equity and inclusion and cultivate an
atmosphere where diversity is viewed as an asset to the organization and its stakeholders
(Angeline, 2011; Prieto, Phipps & Osiri, 2009). The theory supports the notion that teachers need
to be fully included in decisions about curriculum. The recommendation is for the organization
to create a culture of inclusion in decision making with relation to a curricular system that values
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 68

students’ identities. For example, an instructional video may be embedded in on-boarding and
annual professional development modules to illustrate personalized intervention practices.
Student identity is constructed within instructional practices. Snell and Lefstein (2018)
conducted a study using ethnographic methods to analyze three separate case studies in which
teachers sought to include student voice in classroom pedagogy. Dialogic teaching is defined as
teaching and learning processes in which (a) students and teacher address authentic problems and
play an active and agentive role in the joint construction of knowledge and negotiation of
meaning; (b) students are empowered to express their voices, resulting in the interaction of
multiple perspectives (Snell & Lefstein, 2018). Dialogic intervention enhanced the participation
and identities of “low ability” pupils (Snell & Lefstein, 2018). Oyserman and Destin (2010)
assert that identities are dynamically constructed in context. Students interpret actions in ways
that actively influence their identity. When action feels identity congruent, the difficulty suggests
that the behavior is pointless and "not for people like me" (Oyserman & Destin, 2010). Thus, the
recommendation is to create a culture of inclusion in decision making with relation to an
intervention system that values students’ identities.
Determine priorities so guidance is in place for decision making. Approximately 85%
of teachers do not have sufficient time to review lesson plans and acquire differentiated
resources. A recommendation rooted in organizational change theory has been selected to close
this organizational gap (Clark & Estes, 2008). Effective organizations insure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies and procedures that govern the work of the organization are aligned
with or are supportive of organizational goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teachers need
to understand how to prioritize lesson planning and differentiated instruction within the
collaboration time allocated by the organization. The recommendation is to create more space for
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 69

dialogue about differentiated teaching and learning, where evidence of best practices can be
shared and concerns can be aired. For example, systemic training in Professional Learning
Communities would assist teachers in allocating scheduled time to effective student data
discussions, and subsequent lesson planning.
Intentional school planning time increases differentiated instruction. De Neve and Devos
(2016) conducted a study to determine structural and cultural school conditions that foster
increased use of differentiated instruction through effective professional learning communities
(PLCs). Among three elementary schools, semi-structured open-ended interviews were
administered to the school leader, the special needs coordinator, and two to three beginning
teachers. Through comparative analysis, schools identified as medium and low level
differentiated instruction application indicated high individualism of teachers, with inconsistent
expectations of scheduled planning time (De Neve & Devos, 2016). Goal intentionality is an
essential component of collaboration. Kaplan, Chan, Farbman, and Novoryta (2015) conducted a
study across 17 schools to examine how they leverage time for student success. Within the
results, a noted to key to school success is clear, meaningful, collaborative, and goal-directed
lesson planning (Kaplan et al., 2015). Thus, the recommendation is the organization needs to
determine what the priorities are, so that when hard choices have to be made, the guidance is
already in place.
Allocate resources to support differentiated instruction. The results and findings of
this study indicated that 70% of teachers do not receive adequate support to differentiate their
instruction. A principle rooted in organizational change theory has been selected to close this
resource gap. Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 70

resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). Ensuring resources are
aligned with organizational priorities is critical to organizational change. The recommendation
then is to provide teachers with regular, self-directed, non-instructional work time over the
course of the school year to collaborate and reflect on differentiated instruction.
Stavrou and Koutselini (2016) conducted research on the process of differentiation from
the teachers’ perspective. The research utilized data from pre- and post-tests, student
interviews, classroom observations, and teachers’ diary records. Results indicated that the main
obstacles teachers endure are: (a) to define, analyze, and hierarchize reading abilities and
strategies from the simplest to the most complex (b) to clarify students’ readiness (c) to design
lessons to address students’ readiness, interests and learning style (d) flexible class
organization, and (e) to shed misconceptions about the role of the teacher in learning. The
research also reveals that teachers’ self-reflection and cooperation with other colleagues play a
critical role in change efforts and enhanced understanding of curriculum according to their
students’ needs (Stavrou & Koutselini, 2016). Based on this study, it is important to provide
teachers with regular, self-directed, non-instructional work time over the course of the school
year to collaborate and reflect on differentiated instruction. Regular, self-directed collaborative
work time indirectly addresses the unrelated emergent theme of articulation between the
elementary and secondary program.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this study generate three topics of future research at Aloha Academy:
the potential role of potential social desirability bias (Leite & Cooper, 2010) or limited
metacognitive awareness (Wilson & Bai, 2010) within survey responses, differences in
instructional attitudes among non-Native Hawaiian and Native Hawaiian teachers, and the
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 71

unrelated emergent theme of the dichotomy among the elementary and secondary program.
First, according to survey data, teachers appear to be highly efficacious in their knowledge of
strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation. Determining the cause of efficacious mindsets
will assist Aloha Academy in future professional development planning. Uncovering the cause
will also assist in further identifying instructional knowledge gaps. Second, the findings of this
study illuminated significant differences among non-Native Hawaiian and Hawaiian teachers.
The differences are predominantly prevalent within the scopes of relationship building and
approaches to cultural integration. The small sample size of ten interview participants, of which
three identify as Native Hawaiian, does not yield generalizable results for the organization.
Further qualitative research will increase generalizability of the findings for the organization.
Finally, further research is needed regarding the unrelated emergent theme of the apparent
disconnect among the elementary and secondary program. To sustain strengths approaches
within a Pre-kindergarten – twelfth grade setting, it is critical to articulate across the
instructional program.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors influencing the development of
strengths-based pedagogy at Aloha Academy. Developing a strengths-approach will counter
deficit practices that disenfranchise cultural minorities. To create a professional development
plan, it was essential to examine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational theories and
factors that support or impede the success of the plans.
The study revealed areas for growth in factual and conceptual knowledge focused on the
organizational understanding of strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation. To increase
motivation, the study makes recommendations for the development of Professional Learning
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 72

Communities. To rebuke deficit discourse, the study makes the recommendation for systemic
knowledge regarding the effects of colonization within the Hawaiian Islands. Additionally, the
study showed the need for organizational support of strengths-based pedagogy through
curriculum pathways. The recommendations provided in this study support the organization in
creating an educational system that is inclusive of the strengths of all learners.
Strengths-based instruction is based on the premise that individual differences offer
opportunities for learning, rather than barriers. Strengths approaches direct attention to cultural
knowledge, skills, and abilities held by culturally marginalized groups. In doing so, teachers
move beyond an assimilative approach to education, to transformative practices (Shan, 2015).
Teachers who demonstrate strengths practices approach students through expanded views that
recognize the resources students bring to the classroom, rather than a classification mindset that
is based on demographic data (Ascenzi-Moreno, 2017). Strengths-based pedagogy counters
deficit discourse that undercuts the strengths of the student. A deepened understanding of
cultural marginalization develops teacher self-awareness, shifting them away from monocultural,
deficit thinking to acceptance of cultural variety within the classroom (Endo, 2015).

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 73

References
Adair, J. K. (2014). Examining whiteness as an obstacle to positively approaching immigrant
families in US early childhood educational settings. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(5),
643-666.
Adamson, F., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Funding disparities and the inequitable
distribution of teachers: Evaluating sources and solutions. education policy analysis
archives, 20, 37.
Aganza, J. S., Godinez, A., Smith, D., Gonzalez, L. G., & Robinson-Zañartu, C. (2015). Using
cultural assets to enhance assessment of Latino students. Contemporary School Psychology,
19(1), 30-45.
Allen, E. J., & FitzGerald, A. M. (2017). Cultural Care and Inviting Practices: Teacher
perspectives on the influence of care and equity in an urban elementary school. Journal of
Invitational Theory & Practice, 23.
Armstrong, S., Buckley, S., Lonsdale, M., Milgate, G., Kneebone, L. B., Cook, L., & Skelton, F.
(2012). Starting school: a strengths‐based approach towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children.
Ascenzi-Moreno, L. (2017). From deficit to diversity: How teachers of recently arrived emergent
bilinguals negotiate ideological and pedagogical change. Schools, 14(2), 276-302.
Asy'ari, M., & Ikhsan, M. (2019). The Effectiveness of Inquiry Learning Model in Improving
Prospective Teachers' Metacognition Knowledge and Metacognition
Awareness. International Journal of Instruction, 12(2), 455-470.
Au, K. H. (2007). Culturally responsive instruction: Application to multiethnic
classrooms. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 2(1), 1-18.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 74

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and
functioning. Educational psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment
and differentiation: One school's story. Journal of advanced academics, 19(3), 502-530.
Bertrand, M., & Marsh, J. A. (2015). Teachers’ sensemaking of data and implications for
equity. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 861-893.
Bertrand, M., Perez, W. Y., & Rogers, J. (2015). The covert mechanisms of education policy
discourse: Unmasking policy insiders’ discourses and discursive strategies in upholding or
challenging racism and classism in education. Education policy analysis archives, 23, 93.
Bianco, M., Carothers, D. E., & Smiley, L. R. (2009). Gifted students with Asperger syndrome:
Strategies for strength-based programming. Intervention in school and clinic, 44(4), 206-215.
Borrero, N. E., Yeh, C. J., Cruz, C. I., & Suda, J. (2012). School as a context for “othering”
youth and promoting cultural assets. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1-37.
Brayboy, B. M. J., & Maaka, M. J. (2015). K–12 achievement for indigenous students. Journal

of American Indian Education, 54(1), 63-98.
Carey, R. L., Yee, L. S., & DeMatthews, D. (2018, January). Power, Penalty, and Critical Praxis:
Employing Intersectionality in Educator Practices to Achieve School Equity. In The
Educational Forum (Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 111-130). Routledge.

Cherry-McDaniel, M. (2019). Skinfolk ain’t always kinfolk: The dangers of assuming and

assigning inherent cultural responsiveness to teachers of color. Educational Studies, 55(2),
241-251.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 75

Clark, J. S., Brown, J. S., & Jandildinov, M. (2016). Enriching preservice teachers’ critical
reflection through an international videoconference discussion. Technology, Pedagogy and
Education, 25(4), 431-450.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Clycq, N., Ward Nouwen, M. A., & Vandenbroucke, A. (2014). Meritocracy, deficit thinking

and the invisibility of the system: Discourses on educational success and failure. British

Educational Research Journal, 40(5), 796-819.

Cramer, E., Little, M. E., & McHatton, P. A. (2018). Equity, Equality, and Standardization:
Expanding the Conversations. Education and Urban Society, 50(5), 483-501.

Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cuevas, J. (2015). Is learning styles-based instruction effective? A comprehensive analysis of
recent research on learning styles. Theory and Research in Education, 13(3), 308-333.
Dabach, D. B., Suárez-Orozco, C., Hernandez, S. J., & Brooks, M. D. (2018). Future perfect?:

Teachers' expectations and explanations of their Latino immigrant students' postsecondary

futures. Journal of Latinos and Education, 17(1), 38-52.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of "No

Child Left Behind." Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York: Teachers College Press.
Davis, B., & Higdon, K. (2008). The effects of mentoring/induction support on beginning
teachers' practices in early elementary classrooms (K-3). Journal of research in childhood
education, 22(3), 261-274.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 76

Delaney, D. W. (2011). Elementary general music teachers’ reflections on instruction. Update:
Applications of Research in Music Education, 29(2), 41-49.
Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The elementary school teacher, 4(4), 193-204.
Donaldson, S. I., Dollwet, M., & Rao, M. A. (2015). Happiness, excellence, and optimal human

functioning revisited: Examining the peer-reviewed literature linked to positive
psychology. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 10(3), 185-195.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Endo, R. (2015). From unconscious deficit views to affirmation of linguistic varieties in the
classroom: White preservice teachers on building critical self-awareness about linguicism's
causes and consequences. Multicultural Perspectives, 17(4), 207-214.
Fenton, A. (2013). Using a Strengths Approach to Early Childhood Teacher Preparation in Child
Protection Using Work-Integrated Education. Asia-Pacific journal of cooperative
education, 14(3), 157-169.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE. Chapter 4, pp. 79–98.
Freelon, R., Bertrand, M., & Rogers, J. (2012). Overburdened and underfunded: California
public schools amidst the Great Recession. Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational
Research, 2(2), 152- 176.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2017). Quality Core Instruction and Differentiation: Dispositions and
Effective Practices. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 43(3), 29-32.
Fruja Amthor, R. (2017). “If Only I Did Not Have That Label Attached to Me”: Foregrounding
Self-Positioning and Intersectionality in the Experiences of Immigrant and Refugee
Youth. Multicultural Perspectives, 19(4), 193-206.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 77

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1),
45-56.
García, A., & Gaddes, A. (2012). Weaving language and culture: Latina adolescent writers in an
after-school writing project. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28(2), 143-163.
Gardner, M., & Toope, D. (2011). A social justice perspective on strengths-based approaches:
Exploring educators' perspectives and practices. Canadian Journal of Education, 34(3), 86.
Geltner, J. A., & Leibforth, T. N. (2008). Advocacy in the IEP process: Strengths-based school
counseling in action. Professional School Counseling, 12(2), 162-165.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Glock, S., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Pitten Cate, I. M. (2015). Are school placement
recommendations accurate? The effect of students’ ethnicity on teachers’ judgments and
recognition memory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 30(2), 169-188.
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Kim, M. (2015). School instructional climate and student
achievement: An examination of group norms for differentiated instruction. American
Journal of Education, 122(1), 111-131.
Goddard, Y. L., & Kim, M. (2018). Examining Connections between Teacher Perceptions of
Collaboration, Differentiated Instruction, and Teacher Efficacy. Teachers College
Record, 120(1), n1.
Goh, S. C., Elliott, C., & Quon, T. K. (2012). The relationship between learning capability and
organizational performance: a meta-analytic examination. The learning organization, 19(2),
92-108.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 78

Goldenberg, B. M. (2014). White teachers in urban classrooms. Urban Education, 49(1),
111-144.
Grant, C. A., & Zwier, E. (2011). Intersectionality and student outcomes: Sharpening the
struggle against racism, sexism, classism, ableism, heterosexism, nationalism, and linguistic,
religious, and geographical discrimination in teaching and learning. Multicultural
perspectives, 13(4), 181-188.
Gul, T., Demir, K., & Criswell, B. (2019). Constructing Teacher Leadership Through Mentoring:
Functionality of Mentoring Practices in Evolving Teacher Leadership. Journal of Science
Teacher Education, 30(3), 209-228.
Harlin, R., Sirota, E., & Bailey, L. (2009). Review of research: the impact of teachers'
expectations on diverse learners' academic outcomes. Childhood Education, 85(4), 253-256.

Hawkins, V. J. (2009). Barriers to implementing differentiation: Lack of confidence, efficacy
and perseverance. New England Reading Association Journal, 44(2), 11-16.
Hudson, P. (2013). Mentoring as professional development:‘growth for both’mentor and mentee.
Professional development in education, 39(5), 771-783.
Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest
and performance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 102(4), 880.
Irwin, C. W., & Stafford E. T. (2016). Survey methods for educators: Collaborative survey
development (part 1 of 3) (REL 2016-163). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. Retrieved from:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 79

Izci, K., & Caliskan, G. (2017). Development of prospective teachers’ conceptions of assessment
and choices of assessment tasks. International Journal of Research in Education and
Science, 3(2), 464-474.
Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school
success. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 33-44.
Johnson, R.B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Johnson, S. M., Reinhorn, S. K., & Simon, N. S. (2015, October). Ending Isolation: The Payoff
of Teacher Teams in Successful High-Poverty Urban Schools. Working paper prepared for
the 2015 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Kana'iaupuni, S. M. (2004). Ka'akālai kū kanaka: A call for strengths-based approaches from a

Native Hawaiian perspective. Educational Researcher, 33(9), 26-32.
Kana'iaupuni, S. M., & Malone, N. (2006). This land is my land: The role of place in Native

Hawaiian identity. Hūlili: Multidisciplinary research on Hawaiian well-being, 3(1), 281-307.
Kana'iaupuni, S. M. (2008). He Pūko's Kani'Āina: Mapping Student Growth in Hawaiian focused
Charter Schools. Journal of American Indian Education, 31-52.
Keehne, C. N., Sarsona, M. W., Kawakami, A. J., & Au, K. H. (2018). Culturally Responsive
Instruction and Literacy Learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(2), 141-166.
Korteweg, L., & Fiddler, T. (2018). UNLEARNING COLONIAL IDENTITIES WHILE
ENGAGING IN RELATIONALITY: SETTLER TEACHERS’EDUCATION-AS-
RECONCILIATION. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l'éducation de
McGill, 53(2).

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 80

Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,

41(4), 212-218.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied
research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chapter 4, pp. 66–68.
Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational

goals. American educational research journal, 34(1), 39-81.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: aka the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-84. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014).
Landrum, T. J., & McDuffie, K. A. (2010). Learning styles in the age of differentiated
instruction. Exceptionality, 18(1), 6-17.
Leite, W. L., & Cooper, L. A. (2010). Detecting social desirability bias using factor mixture
models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(2), 271-293.
Lewis, T. E. (2018). “But I’m not a racist!” Phenomenology, racism, and the body schema in
white, pre-service teacher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(1), 118-131.
Lopez, S. J., & Louis, M. C. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education. Journal of
College and Character, 10(4).
Marom, L. (2017). “We have to be really careful with what we say”: Critical discourses across
difference in pre-service teacher education. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural
Studies, 39(2), 161-189.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Mayer, R.E. (2011). The mighty Ms: motivation and metacognition. In Applying the science of
learning (pp. 38-41). Boston MA: Pearson Education.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 81

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4
th
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mirick, R. G. (2016). Teaching a Strengths Perspective in Child Protection Work. Journal of
Baccalaureate Social Work, 21(1), 13-22.

Montenegro, E., & Jankowski, N. A. (2017). Equity and Assessment: Moving towards Culturally
Responsive Assessment. Occasional Paper# 29. National Institute for Learning Outcomes
Assessment.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2008). Positive psychology and character strengths: Application to
strengths-based school counseling. Professional School Counseling, 12(2), 85-92.
Passarelli, A., Hall, E., & Anderson, M. (2010). A strengths-based approach to outdoor and
adventure education: Possibilities for personal growth. Journal of Experiential
Education, 33(2), 120-135.
Pham, H. L. (2012). Differentiated instruction and the need to integrate teaching and
practice. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 9(1), 13.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory into practice, 41(4), 219-225.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 82

Pollack, T. M. (2013). Unpacking everyday “Teacher talk” about students and families of
color. Urban Education, 48(6), 863-894.
Probst, B. (2010). Implicit and explicit use of the strengths perspective in social work
education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30(4), 468-484.
Prytula, M. P. (2012). Teacher metacognition within the professional learning
community. International Education Studies, 5(4), 112.
Rawana, J. R., Franks, J. L., Brownlee, K., Rawana, E. P., & Neckoway, R. (2011). The
Application of a Strength-Based Approach of Students' Behaviours to the Development of a
Character Education Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Schools. The Journal of
Educational Thought (JET)/Revue de la Pensée Educative, 127-144.
Renzulli, J. S., & Renzulli, S. R. (2010). The schoolwide enrichment model: A focus on student
strengths and interests. Gifted Education International, 26(2-3), 140-156.
Reyhner, J. (2017). Affirming identity: The role of language and culture in American Indian
education. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-7.
Rice, J. K. (2010). The Impact of Teacher Experience: Examining the Evidence and
Policy Implications. Brief No. 11. National center for analysis of longitudinal data in
education research.
Rothwell, D. W. (2011). The case for asset-based interventions with indigenous peoples:
Evidence from Hawai'i. International Social Work, 54(1), 35-50.
Rucinski, C. L., Brown, J. L., & Downer, J. T. (2018). Teacher–child relationships, classroom
climate, and children’s social-emotional and academic development. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 110(7), 992.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 83

Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics: Using Microsoft Excel
2016 (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sánchez Tapia, I., Krajcik, J., & Reiser, B. (2018). “We do not know what is the real story
anymore”: Curricular contextualization principles that support indigenous students in
understanding natural selection. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(3), 348-376.
Santamaria, L. J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers College Record, 111(1),
214-247.
Schein, E.H. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership, 5th

Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schostak, J. (2018). Towards a society of equals: Dewey, Lippmann, the co-operative movement
and radical democracy undermining neo-liberal forms of schooling. Power and Education,
10(2), 139-165.
Shan, H. (2015). Distributed pedagogy of difference: Reimagining immigrant training and
education. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 27(3), 1-16.
Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban
Education, 52(2), 155-169.
Smit, T., & Du Toit, P. H. (2016). Transforming beginner teacher mentoring interventions for
social reform. South African Journal of Education, 36(3).
Song, Y. I. K. (2018). Fostering Culturally Responsive Schools: Student Identity Development in
Cross-Cultural Classrooms. International Journal of Education & the Arts, 19(3).

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 84

Stavrou, T. E., & Koutselini, M. (2016). Differentiation of Teaching and Learning: The
Teachers' Perspective. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 2581-2588.
Stosich, E. L. (2017). Leading in a time of ambitious reform: Principals in high-poverty urban
elementary schools frame the challenge of the Common Core State Standards. The
Elementary School Journal, 117(4), 539-565.
Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International education
journal, 7(7), 935-947.
Taylor, R. W. (2010). The Role of Teacher Education Programs in Creating Culturally
Competent Teachers: A Moral Imperative for Ensuring the Academic Success of Diverse
Student Populations. Multicultural Education, 17(3), 24-28.
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational administration quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Differentiation of Instruction in the Elementary Grades. ERIC Digest.
Tosun, C., & Senocak, E. (2013). The effects of problem-based learning on metacognitive
awareness and attitudes toward chemistry of prospective teachers with different academic
backgrounds. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 61- 73.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Tschannen-Moran, B. (2011). Taking a strengths-based focus
improves school climate. Journal of School Leadership, 21(3), 422-448.
Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Fulmer, S. M., & Trucano, M. (2018). The
development of professional learning communities and their teacher leaders: An activity
systems analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 49-88.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 85

Tzuo, P.W., Yang, C.H. & Wright, S.K. (2011). Child-centered education: Incorporating
reconceptualism and poststructuralism. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(8), 554-559.
Ullucci, K. (2011). Learning to see: The development of race and class consciousness in White
teachers. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(4), 561-577.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policies
and Program Studies Service (2016). The State of Racial Diversity in the Educator
Workforce. Retrieved from: https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racial-
diversity/state-
racial-diversity-workforce.pdf.
Valiandes, S., Neophytou, L., & Hajisoteriou, C. (2018). Establishing a framework for blending
intercultural education with differentiated instruction. Intercultural Education, 29(3), 1-20.
Villegas-Torres, P., & Mora-Pablo, I. (2018). The role of language in the identity formation of
transnational EFL teachers. How, 25(2), 11-27.
Vishal, M. V. (2017). Strengths-Based Social Work: Proposing Protective and Engagement
Practice with Older Adults. Journal of Social Work Education and Practice, 3(3), 46-53.
Waitoller, F. R., & Thorius, K. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy
and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for
Dis/Ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366-389.
Walker, M. (2012). A capital or capabilities education narrative in a world of staggering
inequalities? International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 384-393.
Walsh, J. (2008). The critical role of discourse in education for democracy. Journal for Critical
Education Policy Studies, 6(2), 54-76.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 86

Wandera, D. B., & Farr, M. (2018). Interrupting Ideologies of Cultural Deficiency: Illustrating
Curricular Benefits of Plurilingualism in a Kenyan Classroom. Journal of Language and
Literacy Education, 14(1), n1.
Watkins-Victorino, L. M., & Summit, K. I. N. H. E. (2016). Native Hawaiian education: 2016
status of native Hawaiian students and summary of systemic strategies for ensuring greater
educational success.
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 3: Preparation for interviewing, Chapter 4: Interviewing, and
Chapter 5: Issues in interviewing. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement
motivation. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wilson, N. S., & Bai, H. (2010). The relationships and impact of teachers’ metacognitive
knowledge and pedagogical understandings of metacognition. Metacognition and
Learning, 5(3), 269-288.
Windham, S. (2017). Culture first: Boosting program strength through cultural instruction. Die
Unterrichtspraxis/Teaching German, 50(1), 79-90.
Wu, E. H. (2013). The path leading to differentiation: An interview with Carol
Tomlinson. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(2), 125-133.
Yale Center for Teaching and Learning (2018). Awareness of Implicit Biases. Retrieved
From: https://ctl.yale.edu/ImplicitBiasAwareness.
Yaman, S. (2016). Study on Reflection as a Source of Teacher Development: Pre-Service and
Experienced Teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 11(7), 437-448.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 87

Yokota, T. (2008). The "pidgin problem": Attitudes about hawai'i creole. Educational
Perspectives, 41(1-2), 22-29.
Young, S., McKenzie, M., Schjelderup, L., Omre, C., & Walker, S. (2014). What can we do to
bring the sparkle back into this child's eyes? Child rights/community development principles:
Key elements for a strengths-based child protection practice. Child Care in Practice, 20(1),
135-152.
Zimmerman, A. S. (2018, July). Democratic Teacher Education: Preserving Public Education as
a Public Good in an Era of Neoliberalism. In The Educational Forum, 82(3), 351-368.

.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 88

Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Survey and Interview

Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus was elementary teachers at Aloha Academy. The
elementary school includes Kindergarten-sixth grade. Elementary teachers at Aloha Academy
have a diverse range of experience and cultural competencies. Some teachers are working to
acquire a teaching license, and have relocated to Hawai'i for their first year of teaching. Other
teachers are raised in the community that school services and have several years of experience.
The researcher intended to select a participant group that reflects the diversity of the elementary
teaching staff in years of experience and home state. The rationale for this selection is that
implicit bias affects teachers’ assumptions about student learning and behavior (Awareness of
Implicit Biases, 2018).
Survey and Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. The first criterion was the cultural background of the teacher. Low-income
people of color have historically been seen as having little cultural capital, which may
also be defined as non-dominant cultural capital. The clash of cultures is indicative of a
structural framework that favors white, high socioeconomic status over low-income
people of color (Goldenberg, 2014). The researcher sought a heterogenous cultural
group of teachers that encompasses White and Native Hawaiian backgrounds.
Criterion 2. The second criterion was the years of teaching experience. Teacher
inexperience is systematically related to teacher productivity. There is an uneven
distribution of inexperienced teachers in high poverty schools (Rice, 2010). As
previously stated, approximately 73% of teachers at Aloha Academy have three or less
years of experience. The researcher sought to mirror the ratio of novice and experienced
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 89

teachers in selecting the interview sample, with a predominant sample of teachers with
three or less years of experience.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The researcher conducted ten individual interviews. Participants were asked to participate
in an interview based on the demographic criteria of the preceding section. The researcher
recruited teachers of varying grade level assignments across kindergarten – sixth grade. All of
the participants belong to the Hawai'i State Teachers’ Association. Participants provided
historical information that cannot be directly observed. Interviews also allowed the researcher to
control the line of questioning (Creswell, 2018).
Survey Participant Demographics

Figure 2 shows the results from the demographic questions posed in the survey. These
results illustrate the above-mentioned comments that discuss the diversity of the elementary
teaching staff.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 90

Figure 2. Survey Participant Demographic Information

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 91

Appendix B: Protocols
Survey Instrument
A sixteen-question survey was used for this study. Five questions acquired demographic
information, and eleven questions collected data specific to the research questions. Items were
connected to the conceptual framework by measuring behavioral and organizational factors that
impacted teacher motivation. Each of the 16 survey questions was a closed question for ease of
scoring, analysis, and interpretation (Fink, 2013).
Survey Procedures
The surveys were administered to elementary teachers prior to conducting interviews.
Survey data indicated current understanding and behaviors of elementary teachers. The target
population was defined as the entire group the surveyor wanted to obtain information from,
therefore it allowed the researcher to generalize from the survey results (Irwin & Stafford, 2016).
To ensure maximum response rate, the survey was distributed through Grade Level Chairs to
complete with their team. Teachers were given approximately 15-20 minutes to complete the
paper survey during a small group staff meeting time. Paper survey was selected to maintain
teacher anonymity. Teachers were notified that participating in the survey was optional, and
results were anonymous.
Survey Questions
Table 11 lists the survey items, corresponding to the research questions and knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 92

Table 11
Survey Items

Research Question/Data
Type
KMO Construct Survey Item
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A Which nationality do you most identify with? (a) White
(b) Native Hawaiian (c) African American (d) Hispanic
or Latino € Other: -----
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A Number of Years Teaching
(a) 0-2 (b) 3-5 (c) 6-10 (d) 11 or more
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A Number of Years Teaching in Hawai’i
(a) 0-2 (b) 3-5 (c) 6-10 (d) 11 or more
Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A I am: (male, female, choose not to identify)

Demographics – Sample
Description
N/A I consider myself to be from: (Hawai’€, other U.S.
mainland state, international country, none of the
above)
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Knowledge: Factual I know what strengths-based instruction is.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Knowledge: Factual I know how to differentiate the learning environment in
my classroom.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are Aloha Academy
teachers’ knowledge and
motivation related to
achieving sufficiently
differentiated and
strengths-based instruction
as defined by the School
Wide Plan for school years
2017-2020?
Knowledge: Factual I know how to teach to meet my students’ unique set of
prior knowledge and experiences.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Knowledge: Conceptual I know how to adapt my curriculum to empower
students to overcome adversity.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Knowledge: Conceptual I know how deficit-discourse affects the experience of
culturally marginalized groups in public education.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are Aloha Academy
teachers’ knowledge and
motivation related to
achieving sufficiently
differentiated and
strengths-based instruction
as defined by the School
Motivation: Self-
Efficacy
I am certain in my ability to provide my students with
differentiated instruction.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 93

Wide Plan for school years
2017-2020?
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Motivation: Utility
Value
I understand the importance of strengths-based
instruction.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Organization: Cultural
Setting
Our school has an intervention system that values
students’ complex lives outside of school.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Organization: Cultural Our school considers our students to be navigators in
their own learning.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Organization: Cultural
Model
Our school’s administration maintains a culture of
shared expectations for student achievement.
(a) strongly disagree (b) disagree (c) neutral (d) agree €
strongly agree
What are teachers’
knowledge and motivation
related to strengths-based
pedagogy and academic
achievement?
Organization: Cultural
Setting
Our school allocates ____ amount of hours monthly
toward faculty lesson planning for differentiated
instruction.

Survey Results
Figure 3 outlines the survey results to all questions, with the exclusion of demographic
information that was presented in Figure 2.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 94

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 95

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 96

Figure 3. Survey Results

Interview Protocol

Semi-structured interviews presume that individual respondents view the world in
distinctive ways (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While the researcher followed a predetermined list
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 97

of questions, participants were permitted to skip questions, or ask for clarification. The
conceptual framework of the study offered the theory that knowledge and organizational
influences impacted teacher motivation on differentiated instruction. When knowledge and
organizational influences are addressed, teacher motivation is achieved and results in the
attainment of the stakeholder goal. The questions listed below outline the type of data that was
collected to measure teacher knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
Interview Questions
1. Tell me about what motivates you to be a teacher at Aloha Academy and why.
(motivation)
Follow up probe: How long have you been serving the community on this coast?
Transition: The next six questions are about student learning.
2. How do you define a student’s ability to learn? Can you provide some examples?
(knowledge)
3. What is your definition of strengths-based teaching? (knowledge)
4. How would you describe the teacher-student interaction in classrooms on campus and
why? Can you provide some examples? (organization)
5. Hypothetical: Suppose you are teaching a class and a transfer student joins your class
midyear. Her report card from her previous school states well below for all core content
areas. How would you go about identifying that student’s strengths? (knowledge)
6. Devil’s Advocate: Some people would say some students can’t learn. How would you
respond to them? (knowledge)
7. Hypothetical: A new teacher is joining your team. They don’t have any classroom
teaching experience, and are working on acquiring a teaching license. They are eager to
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 98

learn from you and ask about grade level PLCs. How would you describe to them the
work that is done in PLCs? (knowledge)
8. Behaviors: Tell me about the successes and challenges you’ve had providing
differentiated instruction to your students. (motivation)
Follow up probe: How are students’ strengths identified in the intervention
process?
9. Describe the support has Aloha Academy given you regarding differentiated instruction?
(organization)
Transition: Thank you for sharing. I’d like to now move away from learning in the
classroom, to talking about student culture and Aloha Academy.
10. Opinion/values: What do you value in an instructional program for your students?
(motivation)
11. What is the role that students’ culture plays on campus? Please provide some examples.
(motivation)
12. How does the curriculum interact with students’ culture? (organization)
Transition: There are two questions left. Thank you for your thoughtful responses so far.
13. How would you describe Aloha Academy as a learning institution and why do you feel
that way? (organization)
14. What do you foresee learning at Aloha Academy to be like in five years? (organization)
Closing remark: Thank you for taking the time to interview with me today. I
appreciate your time and your thoughtful responses to the questions.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 99

Interview Procedures
Interviews were conducted after the two-week window of survey administration.
Documents were collected throughout the course of the data collection period. The researcher
conducted one-time individual interviews with ten participants. Interviews were intended to
solicit rich data. A reasonable expectation for interview length was approximately one and a half
to two hours (Weiss, 1994). Before beginning the interview process, the researcher
communicated the purpose of the study and ethical considerations with the interviewee. The
purpose of the study was to evaluate the role of strength-based practices at Aloha Academy.
Participants were informed that their responses were kept confidential and did not affect their
yearly evaluation. Participants were notified that they may choose not to answer any particular
question and may decline to interview further at any time. Participants were interviewed in a
secure, quiet location away from student distraction and eavesdropping. Data was captured
through note taking and a digital recording device. It was kept secure in a locked drawer and
transported off site with the researcher at the conclusion of the interview. The researcher
transferred the content to a password protected laptop computer.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 100

Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
The researcher intended to use three strategies within the design and data collection to
ensure that data is credible and represents what was heard from participants during interviews.
These three strategies include multiple methods of data collection, member checks, and
reflexivity. Multiple methods of data collection entails cross-checking interview content with
documents relevant to the topic. Member checks, or respondent validation, is the process of
taking a preliminary analysis of the data back to the participants to ensure that the intended
meaning was captured. Finally, reflexivity is how a researcher affects and is affected by the
research process (Meriam and Tisdell, 2016).
Multiple methods of data collection were selected to ensure that a thorough investigation
of the research questions was conducted. Member checking allowed the researcher to continue
relational trust with the participants and offered them another opportunity to clarify meaning.
Because of the sensitive nature of the topic, and that the results of the dissertation will be
published with the governing association, it was imperative that the participants felt their voices
were heard well. Within the process of reflexivity, the researched explained and reflected upon
her bias, dispositions, experiences, and worldview so that the reader better understood her
interpretation of the data. Qualitative research must recognize how the researcher’s values and
expectations influenced the conclusion of the study (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher was a white
female conducting research in a primarily Native Hawaiian community. The research was
focused on culturally marginalized groups. The researcher empathized with the culturally
marginalized component of the topic but did not have an enlightened knowledge of living as a
racial minority within the greater United States. This impacted her interpretation of the data from
non-white teachers.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 101

Appendix D: Validity and Reliability

Ensuring validity and reliability involves conducting the research in an ethical manner.
The connection between reliability and internal validity is based on the notion that a study is
more valid if repeated observations in the same study or replications of the same study produce
the same results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Validity is the property of the assessment that
indicates the assessment does what it has intended to achieve (Salkind, 2017). A researcher’s
careful approach assists in maintaining validity and reliability of the data. Validity and reliability
are concerns that may be addressed through careful attention to a study’s data collection. It may
occur thorough analysis and interpretation of the data, including the means which findings are
presented (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Careful attention may be executed through the
triangulation process. Triangulation, or using multiple sources of data as means to compare and
cross-check, is a powerful strategy for increasing the credibility or internal validity of the
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To maintain validity and reliability of the survey items used in this study, the researcher
asked peers to give feedback regarding the questions. She asked two peers that are school
administrators from the Organizational Change and Leadership program. The researcher also
asked two outside educational consultants for their feedback on the questions. Validity and
reliability ultimately rests on the researcher actively taking measures to reduce potential
unethical measures. An effective researcher is conscious of the ethical issues within the research
process, and understands her own philosophical stance of the research questions (Merriam and
Tisdell, 2016). The researcher worked diligently to maintain ethical considerations at the
forefront of her work.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 102

Appendix E: Ethics
The researcher has been employed as a Vice Principal at Aloha Academy for five school
years. Within the scope of responsibilities, the researcher led a team of school stakeholders in
developing and launching Aloha Academy’s first general education Pre-Kindergarten program.
The success of the initial Pre-Kindergarten classroom allowed Aloha Academy to secure
additional funding for 2.5 more classrooms in the consecutive academic year. During her tenure
at Aloha Academy, the researcher supervised teachers and staff in Pre-Kindergarten through
sixth grade. During the school 2018-2019 school year, the researcher supervised third – sixth
grade teachers and Educational Assistants. The researcher also undertook the school’s attendance
initiatives and systemically led Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) across the
campus. Throughout her tenure as Vice Principal, the researcher became entrenched in
improving the instructional program and student support on campus. A prominent ethical
consideration in qualitative research is relationships with research participants (Glesne, 2011).
This intimate level of work with teachers and staff regarding curricular initiatives posed ethical
considerations for a study evaluating strength-based teaching at Aloha Academy.
In the data collection process, the researcher adhered to the process of informed consent,
voluntary participation, and secure data collection methods. One of the five guiding principles of
Institutional Review Board approval is that research participants must have sufficient
information to make informed decisions about participation. Informed consent contributed to this
notion and further empowered research participants (Glesne, 2011). Clarity of the researcher’s
role as data collector and informed consent minimized potential for participants to feel coerced
or pressured to participate. In qualitative studies, the researcher is the instrument of the research,
and the relationships are the means in which the research is accomplished (Maxwell, 2013). An
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 103

ethical consideration on the forefront was to distinguish the researcher from Vice Principal, or
staff member, to neutral data collector. The researcher clearly stated that all feedback was not be
used in the yearly evaluation process for teachers. Confidentiality of participants was maintained
by using pseudonyms. All data was stored and secured to the best of the researcher’s ability on a
password protected device.
Finally, a bias that the researcher accounted for as she engaged in data collection,
analysis, and reporting, is that the school is located in a community concentrated with
historically marginalized populations. As a school administrator, the researcher intentionally
sought out this type demographic to serve, stemming from a core personal belief the quality of
the public education system drives the future of national democracy. The researcher was
cognizant and aware of a bias that supports the use of strength-based pedagogy as a means to
increase social capital among disenfranchised students.

STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 104

Appendix F: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The New World Kirkpatrick model will be used for the implementation and evaluation
framework. The model provides an evaluation framework with four essential components.
Evaluation begins at level four, results. Level four is defined as the degree to which targeted
outcomes occur as a result of the learning event(s) and subsequent reinforcement (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level four is grounded in organizational purpose and mission, and must not
be limited to organizational silos or departments. Leading indicators bridge the gap between
individual efforts and organizational results. Leading indicators are short term observations and
measurements that gauge if critical behaviors are on track to achieve the organizational results
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level three is the degree to which participants apply what
they learned while they are on the job. Level three includes critical behaviors, required drivers,
and on the job training. Critical behaviors are the few, specific actions, which, if performed
consistently on the job, will have the biggest impact on the desired results (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). Required drivers are processes and systems that reinforce, monitor,
encourage and reward performance of critical behaviors on the job. Required drivers may
include, but are not limited to, job aids, coaching, and positive reinforcement (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The final component of level three is on the job learning. Kirkpatrick (2016)
attests that 70% of learning occurs on the job, and organizations must create a culture and
expectation that individuals are responsible for maintaining the knowledge and skills to enhance
their own performance.
Levels two and one evaluate the extent of the training, and the degree to which
individuals made meaning of the training. Level two, learning, includes four dimensions:
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 105

knowledge and skill, attitude, confidence, and commitment. Level one, reaction, measures
customer satisfaction, engagement, and relevance (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Levels two
and one of the New World Kirkpatrick Model provide data related to effective training. The
levels’ measurements are primarily used to measure the quality of training programs, whereas
levels four and three provide data related to training effectiveness, and subsequently
demonstrating the value of the training as it relates to achieving organizational goals.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of Aloha Academy is to prepare resilient and self-aware learners that
embody the pride of determination and accomplishment and demonstrate the strength of 'ohana.
By May 2020, 42-51% of third-eighth grade students at Aloha Academy will score proficient on
the English Language Arts component of the Smarter Balanced Assessment. In the 2017-2018
school year, 10.7% of third graders met grade level expectations in English Language Arts as
measured by the Smarter Balanced Assessment.
The stakeholder group of focus is Kindergarten – sixth grade teachers at Aloha Academy.
Kindergarten – sixth grade teachers are considered the elementary teaching staff. In the 2018-
2019 school year, about 630 students were enrolled in the elementary grades. Elementary
students represent more than half of the overall student population. The stakeholder goal for this
study is that by November 2019, elementary teachers at Aloha Academy will use strengths-based
differentiated instruction as measured by inclusion of strategies in lesson plans. Differentiated
instruction will increase student achievement, so that students are able to score proficient on the
summative assessment. While the joint efforts of all stakeholders are needed to achieve the
organizational goal, the proposed recommendations focus on the elementary teachers. Proposed
recommendations include providing teachers with information and worked examples on the
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 106

characteristics of strengths-based differentiated instruction, lesson modeling and feedback, and
prioritization of organizational time.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Leading indicators assist the organization to monitor if it is on track in reaching the
desired results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 12 shows the proposed Level 4: Results
and Leading Indicators in the form of outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and
internal outcomes for Aloha Academy. If the internal outcomes are met as expected, then the
external outcomes should also be realized.
Table 12

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased proficiency rate on the
language arts component of the
Smarter Balanced Assessment.
The percentage of students passing. Solicit data from the Hawai’i
State Charter Commission.
Reduced deficient students on
Developmental Reading
Assessment reporting.
The percentage of deficient students on
the Developmental Reading
Assessment.
Solicit data from the Epicenter
quarterly reporting system.
Internal Outcomes
Increased differentiated
instruction for all students.
Percentage of instructional time in
language arts core block that reflects
differentiated instruction.
Lesson plans produced as an
outcome of Professional Learning
Community meetings.
Increased culturally relevant and
strengths-based pedagogy.
The number of students that report
culturally relevant and strengths-based
pedagogy on mid and end of year
student perception survey.
Survey data.
Reduced deficit discourse to
rebuke marginalization.
Percentage of deficit discourse used
during Professional Learning
Community meetings.
Utilize instructional coaches to
monitor professional discourse on
Professional Learning
Community meetings.

Level 3: Behavior

Critical behaviors. The stakeholders of focus are the elementary teachers. The first
critical behavior is that elementary teacher must actively lesson plan. The second critical
behavior is that they must differentiate their instruction. The third critical behavior is that they
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 107

must actively approach student achievement data from a strengths perspective. The specific
metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors appears in Table 13.
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation

Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers actively lesson
plan.
The number of published
lesson plans.
Grade level teams shall
publish evidence of lesson
planning in PLC notes.
Monthly review
of published
PLC notes.
2. Teachers differentiate
their instruction.
Differentiation present in
language arts instruction.
Administrative classroom
walk throughs.
Weekly.
3. Teachers actively
approach student
achievement data from a
strengths perspective.
The frequency of deficit-
based discourse on Students
Focus Team meeting notes.
The number of deficit
statements in notes.
Monthly.

Required drivers. Elementary teachers require the support of their direct supervisor,
instructional coach, and the organization to reinforce what they learn in the training and to
encourage them to apply what they have learned to practice differentiated instruction. Rewards
should be established for achievement of performance goals to enhance the organizational
support of elementary teachers. Table 14 shows the recommended drivers to support critical
behaviors of elementary teachers.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors

Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Provide teachers information on the characteristics of strengths-
based differentiated instruction. Information provided in graphic
organizer form will illustrate the essential components of
differentiated instruction within lesson planning.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Provide teachers worked examples of effective strengths-based
differentiation in student success. Watching video recorded
lessons will support learning.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 108

Encouraging

Collaboration and peer modeling during team meetings.

Weekly 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from instructional coach. Bi-
Weekly
1, 2, 3
Rewarding

Public acknowledgement, such as a mention at staff meetings,
when team performance hits a benchmark
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Personal recognition from the direct supervisor when individual
performance hits a benchmark.
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Monitoring

Supervisor create opportunities at check-in meetings to receive
updates or adjustments on progress towards performance goal.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Develop dashboards that support teacher accountability in
Professional Learning Community meetings.
Bi-
Weekly
1, 2, 3

Organizational support. Organizational support is vital to achieving the stakeholder
goal. The organization will ensure accountability by creating a culture of inclusion in decision
making with relation to a curricular system that values students’ identities. The organizational
will also ensure accountability by determining organizational priorities and allocating
proportional amounts of time to prioritized needs. Supervisors and instructional coaches are
essential stakeholders in supporting teachers’ individual accountability through meetings.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions through
implementation of professional development events, the elementary teachers will be able to:
1. Accurately define differentiated instruction through content, process, products, affect,
and learning environment (Declarative knowledge).
2. Confidently develop differentiated lesson plans (Procedural knowledge).
3. Apply a strengths-perspective to instructional practices (Utility value).
4. Use data-rich work practices for Professional Learning Community meetings (Cultural
model).
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 109

5. Confidently design with colleagues best practices for culturally relevant intervention
instruction (Confidence ).
6. Value a commitment to remove deficit discourse from campus (Utility value).
Program. The professional development program tailored for elementary teachers will
support them in achieving the learning goals listed above. The program will engage the
organization in increasing an understanding of the importance of strengths-based pedagogy for
culturally marginalized groups. The organization will also develop systematic opportunities for
collaborative learning and sharing about differentiated instruction. The program will consist of
instructional videos, synchronous sessions, and quarterly half-day in-person workshops.
The professional development program will have job aids so teachers can use exemplars
of strengths-based differentiated lesson plans to understand performance expectations. The
program will be designed to give participants the opportunity to use the job aids and receive
feedback on their lesson plans. The timely feedback provided will assist in monitoring
understanding of strengths-based pedagogy. The synchronous sessions will be designed to
provide opportunities to apply what has been learned through discussions, presentations, and
peer modeling. The administrative team will discuss the value and importance of strengths-based
differentiated instruction.
Evaluation of the components of learning. For elementary teachers to develop their
skills in strengths-based differentiation, they need to feel they have the requisite declarative
knowledge to apply on the job. Thus, it is important to evaluate the extent to which the
participants have learned both declarative and procedural knowledge. Participants must also see
the value in the professional development program for their daily instruction. Table 15 outlines
the evaluation and timing methods.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 110

Table 15

Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”

Knowledge checks using check-lists for confirmation
and group discussions.
Periodically during synchronous
sessions and through videos.

Knowledge checks using presentations and group
activities.
Periodically during synchronous
sessions and in-person workshops.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”

Demonstration of each participant using job aids to
successfully implement strengths-based differentiated
instruction.
Through observation from
facilitator during in-person
workshops.
Demonstrations of each participant using the job aids to
successfully create differentiated lesson plans.
During the in-person workshops
and feedback from supervisors.
Quality of feedback from peers and instructor during
group sharing.
During the workshops.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”

Pre- and post- surveys asking participants asking
participants the value of what they are using in their
work.
Quarterly during the planning
cycle.
Surveys to grade level chair teachers asking about the
role of deficit discourse in grade level Professional
Learning Community meetings.
Quarterly during the planning
cycle.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”

Pre- and post- survey items. After the workshops.
Qualitative interviews with teacher sample to discuss
strengths and challenges.
Quarterly during the planning
cycle.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”

Embed individual action plans within instructional
coaching plans.
During individual in-person
meetings with instructional
coaches.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During the workshops and at
planning meetings.

Level 1: Reaction
Level one measures participants’ engagement, satisfaction, relevance, and reactions from
a professional development program. Level one is intended to measure the experiences of the
participants and their needs, rather than trainer-centered feedback (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Table 16 outlines the components to measure reactions to the program.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 111

Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program

Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement

Observation by instructor/facilitator during the workshops. During the workshops.
Participant attendance. During the workshops.
Course evaluation. One week after the
workshop.
Relevance

Brief pulse-check with participants via survey (online) and
discussion (ongoing).
Mid-workshop.
Course evaluation. One week after the
workshop.
Participant Satisfaction

Brief pulse-check with participants via survey (online) and
discussion (ongoing).
Mid-workshop.
Course evaluation. One week after the
workshop.

Evaluation Tools
The evaluation of the training will use methods to assist facilitators in understanding the
participant’s experience and the learning outcomes It will also inform the facilitators how to
adjust to meet the program training needs. The sections below summarize the evaluation tools
used as mid and end point data for the training program. The sections below also outline the
delayed timeline recommended in the New World Kirkpatrick Model.
Immediately following the program implementation. The facilitator will conduct pulse
checks for in-person discussions during the workshop to gather level one data on the
engagement, relevance, and participant satisfaction. Participants will be monitored and observed
to determine the degree of engagement in the program and level of activity. The instructors will
determine the overall understanding of level one components including relevance of material
covered and program quality.
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 112

To complete a level two assessment, facilitators will ask participants to share a piece of
knowledge obtained from the content presented. The participants will share their understanding
through scenarios derived from program materials. Participants will be provided opportunities to
discuss and reflect on course content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. One week after the
professional development concludes, an evaluation will be conducted. The one-week delay
allows participants time to provide thoughtful comments. A blended evaluation approach will
capture the four levels of the evaluation model: reaction (satisfaction, engagement, and
relevance), learning (confidence in knowledge acquired), behavior (application on the job), and
results (impact in the workplace) (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Data Analysis and Reporting
The implementation and evaluation plan presented will generate data. Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) offer six purposes of data collection and evaluation including: (a)
continuation of the program, (b) program improvement, (c) ensurement of regulatory
compliance, (d) maximizing training effectiveness, (e) ensurement training is aligned with
strategy, and (f) demonstrate the value of the training. Data analysis and reporting has been
designed with these purposes at the forefront. Failing to simultaneously define implementation
and evaluation plans, including failing to create tailored evaluation instruments, are common
errors of program developers. The New World Kirkpatrick Model, grounded in an integrated
implementation and evaluation plan, avoids this error (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The plan for data analysis and reporting is to create a dashboard for use by teachers and
administrators. A visual representation of level one, level two, and level three assists teachers
in understanding the required drivers by school quarter. Teachers may use the dashboard to
STRENGTHS-BASED PEDAGOGY 113

adjust their practice to implement high quality differentiated instruction. Table 17 outlines the
information that would be featured on the teacher dashboard. Data will be displayed aggregately
and identifying information will be removed so that participant identity is anonymous.
Table 17
Teacher Dashboard

Table 17
Faculty Dashboard with Kirkpatrick Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Drivers Evaluation Data
New
World
Model
Data included on the dashboard Visual presentation of the data
Level 1 -
Reactions
Four-point Likert scale data from
survey items evaluating
engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction
Pie charts that illustrate the percentage of
respondents that strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, and strongly agree for
each metric
Level 2 -
Learning
Pre and post responses on five-point
scale for items aligned to declarative
and procedural knowledge,
commitment, confidence, and
attitude
Bar charts that illustrate the means of pre-
and post- responses on each metric
Level 3 -
Drivers
Four-point Likert scale data from
survey items evaluating teacher
effectiveness of differentiated
instruction through strengths
approaches.
Bar charts that illustrate the percentage of
respondents that strongly disagree,
disagree, agree, and strongly agree from
the most recent administration of each
metric

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The study uses the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework for a needs' assessment of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that support or impede the development of strengths-based pedagogy at Pre-kindergarten – twelfth grade public charter school in Hawai'i. The purpose of this study was to address the problem of deficit-based teacher practices that disenfranchise culturally marginalized groups at the school. This study seeks to evaluate teacher understanding and utilization of strengths-based pedagogy and differentiation in the classroom. Using a mixed methods design, the data includes ten interviews and 28 surveys from elementary teachers. The findings highlight areas to address in strengths-based pedagogy, specifically in knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that impact differentiated instruction. Based on both the findings and a literature review, the study recommends processes and procedures that guide the organization in increasing a strengths approach on campus.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Influencing teacher retention: an evaluation study

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture

PDF

Affluent teens and school stress: an evaluation study

PDF

Foreign-language teachers' needs to achieve better results: the role of differentiated instruction

PDF

Sustaining faith-based organizations through leadership pipelines and programs: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Cultural proficiency to provide equity for African American and other students of color: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

Assessing the meaning and value of traditional grading systems: teacher practices and perspectives

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the gap: a formative evaluation of the productivity-based funding model’s support for academically underserved students

PDF

The moderating role of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on employee turnover: A gap analysis

PDF

Transforming hardships into hope for juvenile justice-involved youth: a promising practice case study

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

PDF

Implementing problem-based learning to develop student supply chain skills

PDF

Teacher retention influences: an evaluation study

PDF

Measuring the impact of short-term campus exchange programs: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Zisko, Natalie (author)

Core Title Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 11/18/2019

Defense Date 09/30/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag culturally-relevant pedagogy,deficit discourse,differentiation,OAI-PMH Harvest,strengths-based

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Datta, Monique (committee member), Tiwana, Ravneet (committee member)

Creator Email zisko.natalie@gmail.com,zisko@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-234570

Unique identifier UC11674779

Identifier etd-ZiskoNatal-7936.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-234570 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ZiskoNatal-7936.pdf

Dmrecord 234570

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Zisko, Natalie

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA