Romanians, Serbians, and Turks make up the largest immigrant communities in Austria (Statistik Austria, 2023). Turkish people are often represented as the least integrated immigrant community throughout Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands (Wets, 2006). Second-generation Turkish youth have the lowest academic outcomes of any major immigrant community in Western Europe, with students experiencing lower academic outcomes in Germany and Austria, compared to France, Belgium, and the Netherlands (Crul & Vermeulen, 2004). In recognition of the academic disparities, this study seeks to examine how four teachers in an Austrian vocational school (Handelsschule), with a substantial Turkish origin student population, utilized culturally responsive teaching methods to support students.

Much of the initial Turkish immigration began in the 1960s as part of bilateral labor agreements with the Turkish government to address shortages in the workforce after WWII (Wets, 2006; Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). Although the guestworker program in Austria ended in 1973, Turkish immigration increased in 1974 as guestworkers’ families arrived (Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). In 2006, Austria had the highest achievement gap between Turkish origin students and native students, with a gap of 133 points between Turkish students and native students on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), compared to gaps of 114 points in Germany and 91 points in Switzerland (Buchmann & Parrado, 2006). In both Germany and Austria, Turkish origin students were in schools with higher student-teacher ratios and less resources, compared to native students (Song, 2011). In Austria, Turkish origin students were also disproportionally enrolled in special education programs (Herzog-Punzenberger, 2003). Analysis of 2006 PISA results demonstrated that home factors (i.e. number of books at home, language spoken, and parent level of education) accounted for 55% of the test score difference between native students and Turkish origin youth in Austria (Song, 2011).

It is clear that there is a dire need for teachers to shift pedagogical strategies to ensure that immigrant-origin students, particularly Turkish-origin students, feel a sense of belonging in the classroom and are effectively supported. Our primary research questions in this study are: What culturally responsive teaching practices are being used in Austrian schools? What barriers exist for teachers in implementing culturally responsive teaching practices?

In theorizing culturally relevant pedagogies, which originated within a U.S. context, we utilized Ladson-Billings’ (1995b) model, which includes three characteristics: “an ability to develop students academically, a willingness to nurture and support cultural competence, and the development of a sociopolitical consciousness” (p. 483). Recognizing that cultures are not static, Alim and Paris (2017) also proposed the concept of culturally sustaining pedagogies, which are those that support linguistic and cultural pluralism in schools. Within both definitions, the concept of critical consciousness, which is rooted in Freire’s (1970) concept of conscientização, played a central role. Culturally responsive teaching is “a way of teaching and learning that considers the social, emotional, cognitive, political, and cultural dimensions of every student” (Powell et. al., 2016). 

Findings using the Culturally Responsive Instructional Observation Protocol (CRIOP), have demonstrated that students, who have teachers that score higher on a culturally responsive teaching scale, score higher in both Math and Reading assessments (Powell et. al., 2016). In Austria, a “pedagogy for foreigners” (Ausländerpädagogik) exists, but this has been perceived as a deficit-based model that does not effectively support integration (Seyfried, 2014). Culturally responsive pedagogical models have been proposed as one potential means of reducing the achievement gap between immigrant-origin and native students (Seyfried, 2014). We recognize that there are teachers who may be implementing these models, partially or in-full, even if they have not been provided with formal training in culturally responsive pedagogies, which led to the current research. 

We utilized the Culturally Responsive Instructional Observation Protocol (CRIOP) to identify specific culturally responsive pedagogical strategies used by teachers in one Austrian school. Interviews and school observations were conducted with four teachers in a technical school (Handelsschule). One researcher on our team was an English Language Assistant at the school during the time of research. She obtained approval from the school director, then asked teachers and administrators to provide recommendations for teachers who seemed to have more success with immigrant-origin students. She reached out to invite these teachers to participate in the study and four teachers accepted. Teachers in the study taught Geography and German Language Arts. She observed one class period for each teacher, then conducted a 30-60 minute interview with each teacher after the observation. During observations, minute-by-minute notes were typed, focusing on actions of the teacher and interactions with students. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, except in one case where the interviewee requested the interview not be recorded. In this case, notes were taken during the interview. After observations were complete, the CRIOP was used to code interviews and observation data. The CRIOP (Powell et al., 2017) is a tool that operationalizes culturally responsive pedagogy using six elements: classroom relationships, family collaborations, assessment practices, instructional practices, discourse, and critical consciousness. Within each of the six elements, are multiple indicators that focus on actions of the teacher aligned with each element. These include, for instance, “teacher incorporates culture into the conversation,” “teacher intentionally learns about students’ cultures,” “instruction is contextualized in students’ lives, experiences, and individual abilities.” Within the protocol, examples of each indicator are provided for how this might look in responsive and a non-responsive classrooms. The non-observing researcher conducted an initial round of coding, then the observing researcher conducted a second round of coding. After completing the coding, we each completed the CRIOP, scoring each participant in each indicator, as well as a final score in each element.

Findings demonstrate the importance of valuing students’ home languages, developing strong relationships with students, and connecting content to student’s lives. Similar to research conducted in the United States using the CRIOP (Powell, Cantrell, Malo-Juvera, & Corell, 2016), the highest CRIOP ratings for teachers were in the area of classroom relationships, promoting a sense of comradery in the classroom. In one classroom, the teacher allowed discussion in either German or Turkish when students worked together. In another class, the teacher encouraged student feedback and incorporated this into lessons. Also similar to the U.S. context, the lowest ratings were in the area of critical consciousness. Teachers seem to struggle to make meaningful connections to students' lives, particularly in providing opportunities to interrogate inequities that may be impacting students on a daily basis. In another class, through a lesson on population, the teacher encouraged students to make connections to different generations of their family. Limitations arose through an inability to conduct multiple observations of these particular teachers. In addition, observations were conducted approximately 2 months prior to the end of the school year, which may not always be the most representative of a teachers’ pedagogy throughout the year. Interviews provided one way to allow teachers to reflect on their overall pedagogy, mitigating some of these limitations. Implications of this study include the need for teacher education programs to highlight issues of social justice and injustice, as well as provide instruction in developing curriculum that connects to students' lives. In particular, centering critical consciousness within teacher education programs has the potential to increase the success of immigrant-origin students. We are currently in the process of developing a manuscript to further disseminate the findings from this research.

Alim, H.S. & Paris, D. (2017). What is culturally sustaining pedagogy and why does it matter? In D. Paris & H.S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for justice in a changing world (pp. 1-21). Teachers College Press. Buchmann, C., & Parrado, E. A. (2006). Educational achievement of immigrant-origin and native students: A comparative analysis informed by institutional theory. In D. Baker, & A. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory (pp. 335-366). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds. Crul, M., & Vermeulen, H. (2004). Immigration, education of the Turkish second generation in five European nations: A comparative study. Luxembourg LIS/Maxwell immigration conference, Luxembourg. Freire, P. (1970). Cultural action and conscientization. Harvard Educational Review, 40(3), 452-477. Hertzog-Punzenberger, B. (2003). Ethnic segmentation in school and labor market: 40 year legacy of Austrian guestworker policy. The International Migration Review, 37(4), 1120-1144. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491. Powell, R., Cantrell, S.C., Malo-Juvera, V. & Correll, P. (2016). Operationalizing culturally responsive instruction: Preliminary findings of CRIOP research. Teachers College Record, 118, 1-46. Powell, R., Cantrell, S.C., Correll, P. K., & Malo-Juvera, V. (2017). Culturally Responsive Instruction Observation Protocol (4th ed.). Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky College of Education. Seyfried, C. (2014). Trust-based learning and its importance in intercultural education. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 16(3), 1-6. Song, S. (2011). Second-generation Turkish youth in Europe: Explaining the academic disadvantage in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. Economics of Education Review, 30, 938-949. Statistik Austria. (2023). Mehr als ein Viertel der Bevölkerung hat Wruzeln im Ausland. [data set]. Migration and Integration Statistic Almanac 2023. https://www.statistik.at/fileadmin/announcement/2023/08/20230824MigrationIntegration2023.pdf Wets, J. (2006). The Turkish community in Austria and Belgium: The challenge of integration. Turkish Studies, 7(1), 85-100.