132 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies
Salehuddin Al As Anuas,  
Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri,  
and Mohd Norazmi Nordin 
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally 
Responsive Teaching for Remedial 
Education
Abstract: Incorporating cultural elements into pedagogy is perceived to enhance the language litera-
cy proficiency of underachieving students. This research aims to determine the components required 
for developing a culturally responsive teaching strategy for remedial education in primary schools. 
The study utilized a quantitative research design by employing the Fuzzy Delphi method, in which 
data were collected via questionnaires received from a cross-disciplinary panel of 30 experts The data 
analysis results indicated that the experts approved all the components based on the consensus value 
exceeding 75%, the threshold value (d) being less than or equal to 0.2, and the fuzzy score (A) being 
greater than or equal to 0.5. The experts agreed to establish a culturally responsive teaching model 
for remedial education, which consists of six central components and 27 elements. The components in-
clude teachers’ professional competence, interaction, the classroom ecosystem, teaching planning and 
implementation, assessment, and social support involvement. This study offers culturally responsive 
teaching strategies for remedial teachers to help underachieving students with inadequate language 
literacy skills.
Keywords: culturally responsive teaching, Fuzzy Delphi, language literacy, remedial education, 
teaching strategies
UDC: 37.091.3
https://doi.org/10.63384/spB52z783a
Scientific article
  
Salehuddin Al As Anuas, postgraduate researcher , Faculty of Education, National University of Malay-
sia, Selangor, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; e-mail address: salehalas1210@gmail.com; 
Nurfaradilla Mohamad Nasri, associate professor, PhD., Faculty of Education, National University of 
Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; e-mail address: nurfaradilla@ukm.edu.my; 
Mohd Norazmi Nordin, lecturer, PhD., Faculty of Education, National University of Malaysia, 43600 
Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia; e-mail address: norazmi@ukm.edu.my; 
Let./Vol. 76 (142)
Številka 2/2025
pp. 132-154

133 
Introduction
The objective of raising the global community’s language literacy level con-
tinues to receive focus. Similar goals and initiatives for literacy development have 
been implemented globally over the last few decades. According to estimations 
of the global population’s literacy rate by UNESCO (2023), 763 million individ-
uals lack proficiency in fundamental language skills or are illiterate. Despite an 
increase in high language literacy levels from 80% to 87% globally between 2000 
and 2022, reports indicate that 250 million children still lack basic language lit-
eracy skills. In Malaysia, the proportion of the local populace with high language 
literacy levels only at 87% of the total population in 2022. The ongoing discourse 
regarding the root cause of this issue has identified multiple factors, including the 
problem of poverty , the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the emergence 
of diverse learning styles, as explained by McMurry (2020). Nevertheless, an as-
pect that warrants investigation in this study is the population diversity in Malay-
sia, which renders language literacy proficiency one of the contributing factors to 
the persistence of the issue (Alburry 2021; De Weerdt 2021; Ong 2022).
Malaysia’s multicultural population has led to the preservation of a national 
language that all citizens must learn. However, teachers face challenges in en-
suring that every student can excel in the national language. These challenges 
include the use of colloquialisms in tasks, language confusion, and an overabun-
dance of local dialect influence (Komorowska 2023; Sielanko-Byford and Zielińska 
2023; Saiegh-Haddad et al. 2022). This issue arises from the diverse population 
of Malaysia, and it has the potential to impact the academic achievements of stu-
dents. Without a remedy for this scenario, the issue of literacy in the national 
language will likely escalate. Siregar (2022) stated that a nation’s population is 
closely linked to its culture, significantly impacting how well pupils learn languag-
es. Malaysia’s population comprises diverse cultures, encompassing various races, 
ethnicities, and religions, making mastering a common language challenging for 
its multicultural society. Lee et al. (2021) found that while Malaysia has an official 
national language, some individuals utilize it exclusively as a secondary language. 
This concern pertains to groups that, due to cultural influences, do not employ 
al as Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

134 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
the national language as their primary mode of daily usage. However, teachers 
can immerse themselves in their students’ cultures and daily lives to address this 
issue and help them master fundamental language literacy skills.
Employing inventive and integral teaching techniques assists educators in 
managing learning activities, enhancing student motivation, facilitating student 
understanding, and influencing student success. Incorporating cultural elements 
into instruction enhances language literacy outcomes for students facing difficul-
ties (Kruk 2023). As facilitators of student learning, teachers must acknowledge 
that each student possesses a distinct background and learning approach. Evans 
et al. (2020) and Anuas et al. (2024) suggested fostering an optimal learning envi-
ronment for underachieving pupils, whereby instructors must employ their peda-
gogical expertise to establish connections between the students’ academic course-
work and their personal experiences. Adapting teaching to student culture is an 
advantageous approach for educating struggling students (Ladson-Billings 2021).
Remedial Education in the Malaysian Context
The Special Remedial Programme introduced in Malaysia aims to assist stu-
dents in mastering the fundamental skills of literacy (reading and writing) and 
numeracy at the primary school level. Students in the programme range from 
eight years of age until they achieve proficiency in these skills. Students enrolled 
in the programme attend instructional sessions in a separate classroom from their 
peers who have achieved literacy proficiency in Malay, the official language of Ma-
laysia. The students attend remedial teaching sessions until they acquire the fun-
damental language literacy skills outlined in the remedial education curriculum. 
To accomplish this, in 2019, the Malaysian Ministry of Education (MOE) created 
an integrated curriculum that includes cross-subject activities to provide students 
with a diverse learning experience rather than focusing solely on the teacher’s in-
struction. For example, a bridging programme in remedial education allows teach-
ers to incorporate learning themes from textbooks into the remedial education 
curriculum. Achieving this objective enables these academically challenged pupils 
to maintain pace with their peers enrolled in the advanced course and to effec-
tively apply the knowledge gained to practical scenarios beyond the classroom. In 
this context, Bakešová (2022) found that teachers assume a critical responsibility 
to guarantee that their pupils acquire the knowledge that satisfies fundamental 
language literacy abilities and addresses contemporary demands. Thus, remedial 
teachers must be ready to fully understand the curriculum content and enhance 
their teaching methods and strategies. However, the current situation demon-
strates that teachers need help implementing culturally based teaching methods 
and require a different approach that is better suited to the curriculum for reme-
dial education (Anuas et al. 2023; Gillispie 2021; Neri et al. 2019).
The execution of remedial teacher instruction remains contingent on the 
curriculum structure guidelines established by the national education authori-
ty to implement school remedial programmes. Despite skill prerequisites being 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

135 
incorporated into the design of the teaching guide, McDowall (2020) found that 
deficiencies remain when the curriculum fails to address students’ personal lives 
and backgrounds. Gałan and Malela’s (2020) study on students’ perceptions of 
teachers’ teaching for language literacy found that teachers who teach language 
literacy continue to struggle with preparing and mastering student-centred teach-
ing that meets the most recent educational standards. The study revealed that 
teachers strayed from the principles of the literacy learning approach, which pro-
motes placing importance on students’ personal lives outside of the educational 
setting. Studies conducted by Alam and Mohanty (2023) and Del Carmen Salazar 
(2019) suggested that students’ lack of interest in the academic curriculum’s sub-
ject matter may be due to a reduced emphasis on cultural and background factors 
that do not accurately reflect the students’ experiences. Consequently, students 
encounter challenges in connecting their academic knowledge with real-world sit-
uations.
Remedial teachers are encouraged to modify their instructional approaches 
in consideration of their students’ cultural and personal backgrounds in order to 
enhance their learning experiences. Perry and Vlachopoulos (2023) found that 
pupils believed that their educators were not effective at familiarizing themselves 
with pupils’ native cultures and incorporating a variety of pedagogical approach-
es. In line with contemporary learning concepts, students expect their instructors 
to use a variety of teaching approaches (Käsper et al. 2018), utilize student-friend-
ly communication (Bourgoin and Bouthillier 2021), incorporate students’ person-
al lives and cultural backgrounds into the learning process (Purcell-Gates 2020), 
engage students’ attention (Tatoj and Balches Arenas 2023), and comprehend 
their home lives (Mellom et al. 2018). Dabbagh et al. (2023) found that cultural 
themes in textbooks needed to reflect students’ home lives more accurately. Mi-
nority students perceive a diminished emphasis on their race within the formal 
curriculum framework implemented at their educational institutions, specifically 
in textbooks. Thus, remedial teachers should be provided with opportunities to 
investigate alternative teaching approaches that are more closely aligned with 
students’ daily experiences.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
This study develops a proposed teaching model using Vygotsky’s (1986) theo-
ry of sociocultural constructivism and Gay’s (2002) culturally responsive pedagogy 
model as the primary theoretical framework. By placing additional emphasis on 
the notion of remedial education, Roslan’s (2016) injection of an effective teaching 
model for remedial education further develops the model’s content. The initial 
purpose of introducing sociocultural constructivism was to predict the degree to 
which cultural beliefs and attitudes influence the execution of teaching and learn-
ing (Bergbauer and Van Staden 2018). As a variant, the culturally responsive ped-
agogy model employs learning support to facilitate the adaptation of instructional 
strategies to the contexts and cultures of students (Martinez 2022). The culturally 
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

136 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
responsive content context presented in the original theory may not accurately 
represent the role of culture when applied to a subject requiring enhancement 
or adaptability. However, it is necessary to refine the initial notion of cultural-
ly responsive pedagogy to be more precise. Focusing on specific subjects and do-
mains has resulted in neglecting potentially significant connections for teaching 
and learning (Piotrowski and Sadowska-Dobrowolska 2023). To determine the 
future research trajectory in language literacy and advance the theory, this study 
undertakes a comprehensive analysis and improvement of cultural theory to inte-
grate it into language literacy instruction. To clarify the results and promote their 
relevance to the domain of language literacy, this research focuses on aspects of 
instructional execution and assistance from sources outside the classroom. This is 
because language literacy instruction employs a methodology distinct from prima-
ry education, and students with lower proficiency levels need additional resources 
to develop foundational language literacy skills (Kruger-Marais 2024).
While it is widely acknowledged that culture has significant effects on stu-
dent learning, this research has modified three variables from the culturally re-
sponsive pedagogy framework: the professional competence of the teacher, the 
nature of the interaction, and the assessment method. By prioritizing elements 
such as teacher expertise, cross-cultural communication strategies, and culturally 
appropriate evaluation methods, the culturally responsive pedagogical framework 
is among the most influential models for developing a culturally responsive teach-
ing framework (Anderson et al. 2022; Chouinard and Cram 2020). The culturally 
responsive pedagogy model has been utilized as the foundation for this research 
to devise a culturally responsive instructional approach for remedial education 
aimed at students who cannot attain proficiency in language literacy. Prior re-
search has demonstrated that the influence of culturally responsive pedagogical 
models on the language learning performance of students is substantial (Kotluk 
and Kocakaya 2018). In addition, primary research and systematic analyses have 
shown a correlation between implementing culturally responsive pedagogical 
models and student achievement, suggesting that such models have a beneficial 
impact (Bal 2018; Duong et al. 2019).
This study introduces the classroom ecosystem variable to ensure that cul-
turally responsive teaching aligns with the needs of remedial education in Ma-
laysia. During the implementation of the remedial programme in schools, stu-
dents will engage in a specialized instructional session for literacy development, 
separate from their mainstream classmates. The concept of segregating students 
during educational activities, as expressed by Madani (2019) and Klimecká (2023), 
may lead to psychosocial consequences, anxiousness, emotional turmoil, and the 
reinforcement of stigma arising from perceived personal inadequacies. However, 
separation in the remedial programme provides a structure that focuses on un-
derperforming students through targeted, student-centred literacy interventions. 
Students in the remedial programme will participate in mainstream classroom 
instruction for supplementary subjects, including art, physical education, and 
music. Consequently, integrating classroom elements that align with students’ 
cultural backgrounds can improve their literacy skill acquisition while addressing 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

137 
social issues that may arise during periods of learning isolation (Sutrisno et al. 
2023). Therefore, this study considers that creating a culturally responsive teach-
ing strategy requires an understanding of the classroom ecosystem. 
Methodology
This study utilizes the Fuzzy Delphi method (FDM). The FDM integrates 
the traditional Delphi technique with fuzzy logic to systematically achieve expert 
consensus in decision-making or forecasting, particularly within education and 
the social sciences. The fundamental principle of this method is the incremental 
accumulation of expert opinions via questionnaires. In contrast to the tradition-
al Delphi method, the FDM employs fuzzy numbers—typically represented as a 
triangle comprising minimum, probability, and maximum values—to address un-
certainty and imprecision in human judgement. This procedure entails multiple 
iterations in which the consensus value is evaluated against a threshold value to 
guarantee that only genuinely agreed-upon items are preserved.
According to Ciptono et al. (2019), the FDM can obtain consensus among ex-
perts who serve as research participants on the issues under consideration based 
on the perspectives of those knowledgeable in a specific field of study. The advan-
tage lies in its enhanced flexibility and precision in evaluating subjective opinions, 
rendering it appropriate for intricate matters requiring expert assessment (Siraj 
et al. 2020). The experts in this study consist of a cross-disciplinary group, as the 
teaching model developed results from synergy between two major disciplines, 
including culture and education, necessitating expert opinions to make the best 
consensus for developing a culturally responsive teaching model for remedial ed-
ucation. 
When using the FDM, the number of participants can lead to various opin-
ions being discussed. Adler and Ziglio (1996) recommended that the panel of ex-
perts should consist of 10 to 15 individuals to ensure high homogeneity . This study 
engages the expertise of professionals from diverse fields. The study aligns with 
Chu and Hwang’s (2008) perspective that a group of 10 to 50 diverse experts is 
adequate, and uses a panel of 30 experts selected through purposive sampling. 
The panel of experts includes individuals with cross-disciplinary backgrounds in 
remedial education, curriculum, education administration, and the social scienc-
es, specifically the field of culture. The selection criteria for the experts were a 
minimum of a bachelor’s degree in education and 10 years of experience in their 
respective fields. The selection criteria align with the requirement that the ref-
erence experts possess substantial expertise and experience in their fields gained 
over at least five years (Abdullah and Siraj 2018). All experts should possess a 
solid academic background (Skulmoski et al. 2007). The experts’ demographic in-
formation is shown in Table 1.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

138 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
Level of education Frequency
Doctor of philosophy (PhD) 16
Master’s degree 11
Bachelor’s degree 3
Total 30
Years of work experience Frequency
Less than 10 2
11 to 15 5
16 to 20 15
More than 20 8
Total 30
Field of expertise Frequency
Remedial education 9
Sociology 10
Curriculum developer 6
Curriculum policymaker 5
Total 30
Table 1: Experts’ demographic information.
Fuzzy Delphi Questionnaire
Before this study, a needs analysis was conducted to gather the preliminary 
information required to develop the framework and its constituent parts and in-
dicators. Alharbi and Khalifa (2021) asserted that the formulation of the FDM 
questionnaire content can be derived from a literature review, pilot study, ob-
servational experiences, or interviews. Consequently, multiple components and 
elements were used to establish a culturally responsive teaching model for reme-
dial education, adapted from the curriculum and previous models, including the 
cultural diversity education model (Banks 2011), culturally responsive classroom 
management (Weinstein et al. 2004), the culturally responsive teaching model 
(Gay 2018), and the effective teaching model for remedial teachers (Roslan 2006). 
Readers may consult the input from the needs analysis in the study by Anuas et 
al. (2023), utilized in formulating the culturally responsive teaching model for 
remedial education questionnaire. The valuable insights from prior research com-
prise six components and 27 elements that establish the foundational framework 
of this teaching model. The components and elements were subsequently trans-
formed into multiple statements, constituting items in the questionnaire designed 
to gather the expert panel’s perspectives on the developed teaching model’s con-
tent. Each component constitutes a distinct section of the survey form to enable 
the expert panel’s evaluation based on the constructs.
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

139 
Upon completing the instrument’s content, it was initially presented to a 
five-member expert panel to assess internal validity, concentrating on the content 
dimensions of the teaching model and linguistic usage. Revisions were implement-
ed to the questionnaire based on feedback to enhance its structure and content. 
Furthermore, the questionnaire was subjected to an evaluation to determine its 
reliability. The reliability of the instrument was evaluated by computing its reli-
ability coefficients using Cronbach’s alpha formula. Table 2 summarizes the pri-
mary components, elements, and Cronbach’s alpha values necessary to deem this 
instrument reliable.
Components Elements Cronbach’s alpha
Teachers’ 
professional 
competence
Cultural knowledge; Self-awareness; Valuing 
diversity; Curriculum knowledge; Self-professionalism 
empowerment; Pedagogical method; Pedagogical 
reflection
0.821
Interaction Positive communication; Constructive relation; Cross-
cultural communication; Pedagogical language
0.911
Classroom 
ecosystem
Classroom organization; Safe setting; Transparency 0.873
Teaching 
planning and 
implementation
Lesson planning; Lesson implementation; Teaching 
materials; Cultural integration; Scaffolding
0.876
Assessment Authentic; Continuous assessment; Self-assessment; 
Peer assessment
0.926
Social support 
involvement
Collaborating and interweaving with parents; 
Collaborating and interweaving with surrounding 
community; Collaborating and interweaving with school 
community; School ethos
0.915
Table 2: The components, elements, and Cronbach’s alpha values of the teaching model components. 
Fuzzy Delphi Data Analyses
The questionnaire data were methodically analysed. The comprehensive 
analysis of the FDM process was structured based on the following steps, as put 
forward by Chang et al. (2011) and Jamil et al. (2014). 
Step 1: A 30-person expert panel was utilized to confirm that the components 
could be effectively measured using linguistic variables. A seven-point question-
naire, as shown in Table 3, was distributed to the panel experts to obtain a con-
sensus on each component to achieve the study’s objectives.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

140 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
Scale Level of Agreement Fuzzy Scale
1 Extremely Strongly Disagree (0.0, 0.0, 0.1)
2 Strongly Disagree (0.0, 0.1, 0.3)
3 Disagree (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
4 Moderately Agree (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
5 Agree (0.5, 0.7, 0.9)
6 Strongly Agree (0.7, 0.9, 1.0)
7 Extremely Strongly Agree (0.9, 1.0, 1.0)
Table 3: Seven-point fuzzy scale.
Step 2: All linguistic variable values were converted to a triangular fuzzy 
number system, as shown in Table 2. The aim was to clarify ambiguity among 
the experts by structuring the respondents’ answers. The three fuzzy values were 
categorized based on their level as the minimum value (m1), the most plausible 
value (m2), and the maximum value (m3). The higher the scale level, the more 
accurate the response analysis, as shown in Figure 2 (Cheng and Lin 2002). Each 
response from the experts was assigned one of three fuzzy values representing the 
expert’s opinion.
Figure 1: Triangular fuzzy values.
Step 3: Triangular fuzzy values were calculated for individual components 
and elements to determine compliance with calculation requirements. The tri-
angular fuzzy number has two conditions: First, the value of the threshold (d) 
must be ≤ 0.2. The threshold value is used to establish the degree of consensus 
among experts. If the threshold value is 0.2 or less, all experts are deemed to have 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

141 
reached a consensus, as per Chen (2000). Second, the entire expert group agree-
ment must reach a consensus of over 75% (Chu and Hwang 2008). Alternatively , a 
second iteration of the FDM should be carried out. The formula shown in Figure 
2 was used to calculate the threshold value:
Figure 2: Threshold for triangular fuzzy numbers.
Step 4: The alpha-cut aggregate level of fuzzy evaluation was calculated us-
ing the cumulative quantity of fuzzy numbers after obtaining expert consensus. 
The subsequent formula was utilized to determine and calculate the fuzzy values: 
Maximum available area = (4m1 + (2m2)m3).
Step 5: This step involved the defuzzification procedure. The defuzzification 
value was determined based on the variables agreed upon by the consensus of the 
respondents according to their positions. The variables with the highest defuzzi-
fication values were prioritized and considered output variables. The α-cut value 
was the median value between 0 and 1, calculated as α-cut = (0 + 1)/2 = 0.5. If 
A was less than the α-cut value of 0.5, the item was rejected, as per the experts’ 
agreement. Conversely, if A was greater than 0.5, the item was accepted based on 
the experts’ decisions (Tang and Wu 2010). There are three different formulae for 
determining the α-cut value that may be chosen, as follows:
1. A = 1/3* (m1 + m2 + m3) or
2. A = 1/4* (m1 + 2m2 + m3) or
3. A = 1/6*(m1 + 4m2 + m3). 
The participation of experts from various fields requires a balance between 
m1, m2, and m3 values. Hence, the formula of A = 1/4* (m1 + 2m2 + m3) was im-
plemented. In this regard, the average value calculated will be more conservative 
and well-balanced (Chen 2000).
Step 6: The final step included the ranking process. Saido et al. (2018) elu-
cidated the model’s ranking or subphase processes. The model elements were 
ranked based on the defuzzification value for the consensus of the experts, and 
the placement within the model established the maximum value deemed the most 
significant.
Results 
A total of six components and 27 elements were developed and tested using 
the FDM. Overall, the findings show that each component and element was ac-
cepted and agreed upon by the expert panel to be carried forward as content in 
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

142 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
culturally responsive teaching for remedial education. The analysis results for 
each component and element are outlined in the tables below.
Table 4 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the primary components of the 
teaching model developed in this study. Each component must satisfy the three 
primary criteria of FDM to be accepted by expert consensus.
Components
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts’ 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Teachers’ 
professional 
competence
0.116 93% 0.931 Accepted
Interaction 0.093 93% 0.928 Accepted
Classroom 
ecosystem
0.078 97% 0.926 Accepted
Teaching 
planning and 
implementation
0.089 93% 0.922 Accepted
Assessment 0.086 93% 0.912 Accepted
Social support 
involvement
0.075 97% 0.909 Accepted
Table 4: Analysis of expert consensus on the main components of culturally responsive teaching for 
remedial education.
All six components achieved a consensus of agreement from the experts, as 
they exceeded the acceptance value of 75%, the threshold values were below 0.2, 
and the fuzzy score (defuzzification) values were above 0.5. Thus, all six compo-
nents were accepted. The defuzzification values can also be used to determine the 
priority ranking of importance for each component. The priority order of the com-
ponents was Teachers’ professional competence (1
st
), Interaction (2
nd
), Classroom 
ecosystem (3
rd
), Teaching planning and implementation (4
th
), Assessment (5
th
), 
and Social support involvement (6
th
). 
Table 5 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the elements of the Teachers’ 
professional competence component. Each element must satisfy the three primary 
criteria of FDM to be accepted by expert consensus.
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

143 
Elements
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Cultural 
knowledge
0.115 92% 0.781 Accepted
Self-awareness 0.137 86% 0.884 Accepted
Valuing diversity 0.103 95% 0.911 Accepted
Curriculum 
knowledge
0.106 92% 0.904 Accepted
Self-
professionalism 
empowerment
0.118 90% 0.889 Accepted
Pedagogical 
method
0.094 93% 0.982 Accepted
Pedagogical 
reflection
0.114 93% 0.908 Accepted
Table 5: Analysis of expert consensus on the elements of the Teachers’ professional competence compo-
nent.
A total of seven elements achieved a consensus of agreement from the ex-
perts for the Teachers’ professional competence component, as they exceeded the 
acceptance value of 75%, the threshold values were below 0.2, and the fuzzy score 
(defuzzification) values were above 0.5. Thus, all seven elements were accepted. 
Similar to Table 4, the defuzzification values can also be used to determine the pri-
ority ranking of importance for each element. The priority order of the elements 
was Pedagogical method (1
st
), Valuing diversity (2
nd
), Pedagogical reflection (3
rd
), 
Curriculum knowledge (4
th
), Self-professionalism empowerment (5
th
), Self-aware-
ness (6
th
), and Cultural knowledge (7
th
). 
Table 6 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the elements of the Interaction 
component. Each element must satisfy the three primary criteria of FDM to be 
accepted by expert consensus.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

144 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
Elements
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Positive 
communication
0.077 98% 0.928 Accepted
Constructive 
relation
0.128 87% 0.891 Accepted
Cross-cultural 
communication
0.135 88% 0.891 Accepted
Pedagogical 
language
0.125 82% 0.896 Accepted
Table 6. Analysis of expert consensus on the elements of the Interaction component.
A total of four elements achieved a consensus of agreement from the experts 
for the Interaction component, as they exceeded the acceptance value of 75%, the 
threshold values were below 0.2, and the fuzzy score (defuzzification) values were 
above 0.5. Thus, all four elements were accepted. The defuzzification values can 
also be used to determine the priority ranking of importance for each element. 
The priority order of the elements was Positive communication (1
st
), Pedagogical 
language (2
nd
), and Cross-cultural communication and Constructive relation (joint 
3
rd
). 
Table 7 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the elements of the Classroom 
ecosystem component. Each element must satisfy the three primary criteria of 
FDM to be accepted by expert consensus.
Elements
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Classroom 
organization
0.115 89% 0.899 Accepted
Safe setting 0.075 96% 0.931 Accepted
Transparency 0.083 97% 0.924 Accepted
Table 7. Analysis of expert consensus on the elements of the Classroom ecosystem component.
A total of three elements achieved a consensus of agreement from the experts 
for the Classroom ecosystem component, as they exceeded the acceptance value 
of 75%, the threshold values were below 0.2, and the fuzzy score (defuzzification) 
values were above 0.5. Thus, all three elements were accepted. The defuzzification 
values can also be used to determine the priority ranking of importance for each 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

145 
element. The priority order of the elements was Safe setting (1
st
), Transparency 
(2
nd
), and Classroom organization (3
rd
). 
Table 8 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the elements of the Teaching 
planning and implementation component. Each element must satisfy the three 
primary criteria of FDM to be accepted by expert consensus.
Elements
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Lesson planning 0.085 96% 0.924 Accepted
Lesson 
implementation
0.102 94% 0.911 Accepted
Teaching 
materials
0.115 89% 0.904 Accepted
Cultural 
integration
0.165 77% 0.873 Accepted
Scaffolding 0.105 93% 0.911 Accepted
Table 8: Analysis of expert consensus on the elements of the Teaching planning and implementation 
component.
A total of five elements achieved a consensus of agreement from the experts 
for the Teaching planning and implementation component, as they exceeded the 
acceptance value of 75%, the threshold values were below 0.2, and the fuzzy score 
(defuzzification) values were above 0.5. Thus, all five elements were accepted. The 
defuzzification values can also be used to determine the priority ranking of impor-
tance for each element. The priority order of the elements was Lesson planning 
(1
st
), Lesson implementation and Scaffolding (joint 2
nd
), Teaching materials (4
th
), 
and Cultural integration (5
th
).
Table 9 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the elements of the Assessment 
component. Each element must satisfy the three primary criteria of FDM to be 
accepted by expert consensus.
Elements
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Authentic 0.128 88% 0.915 Accepted
Continuous 
assessment
0.098 94% 0.913 Accepted
Self-assessment 0.099 93% 0.909 Accepted
Peer assessment 0.117 90% 0.899 Accepted
Table 9: Analysis of expert consensus on the elements of the Assessment component.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

146 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
A total of four elements achieved a consensus of agreement from the experts 
for the Assessment component, as they exceeded the acceptance value of 75%, the 
threshold values were below 0.2, and the fuzzy score (defuzzification) values were 
above 0.5. Thus, all four elements were accepted. The defuzzification values can 
also be used to determine the priority ranking of importance for each element. 
The priority order of the elements was Authentic (1
st
), Continuous assessment 
(2
nd
), Self-assessment (3
rd
), and Peer assessment (4
th
). 
Table 10 displays the Fuzzy Delphi analysis of the elements of the Social 
support involvement component. Each element must satisfy the three primary 
criteria of FDM to be accepted by expert consensus.
Elements
Condition of triangular fuzzy 
numbers
Condition of 
defuzzification 
process
Expert 
Consensus
Threshold 
Value, d
Experts 
Consensus (%)
Fuzzy Score (A)
Collaborating 
and interweaving 
with parents
0.103 92% 0.913 Accepted
Collaborating 
and interweaving 
with surrounding 
community
0.108 92% 0.910 Accepted
Collaborating 
and interweaving 
with school 
community
0.090 95% 0.920 Accepted
School ethos 0.106 94% 0.910 Accepted
Table 10: Analysis of expert consensus on the elements of the Social support involvement component.
The experts agreed on a total of four elements for the Social support in-
volvement component. These elements exceeded the acceptance value of 75%, the 
threshold values were below 0.2, and the fuzzy score (defuzzification) values were 
greater than 0.5. Consequently, all four elements were approved. The defuzzifica-
tion values can also be used to determine the priority ranking of importance for 
each element. The elements were prioritized as follows: Collaborating and inter-
weaving with the school community (1
st
), Collaborating and interweaving with 
parents (2
nd
), and Collaborating and interweaving with the surrounding commu-
nity and School ethos (joint 3
rd
).
Discussion
Using the Fuzzy Delphi technique, this study successfully identified com-
ponents and elements of a proposed model for culturally responsive teaching for 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

147 
remedial education that garnered consensus among a panel of experts. The ele-
ments were also arranged according to the priority given by the experts to each 
component. The study’s findings indicate that it is essential to incorporate every 
element in designing a culturally responsive teaching model for remedial educa-
tion. The expert panel identified the following elements relating to teachers’ pro-
fessional competence: cultural knowledge, self-awareness, celebrating differences, 
curriculum knowledge, strengthening self-professionalism, diversity of teaching 
techniques, and teaching reflection. As demonstrated by the introduced elements, 
the development of this instructional model should emphasize educators’ mastery 
of cultural and pedagogical knowledge. Practical teaching activities can be carried 
out more systematically when instructors possess a high level of competence in 
both pedagogical knowledge and subject matter (Firoozi et al. 2019). The result 
is that the teacher will successfully motivate and attract the attention of under-
achieving students, allowing them to fully engage with the teacher’s language 
teaching because the students feel that there is a closer relationship between the 
teacher and the student (Idrus and Sohid 2023). 
Culturally responsive teaching considers the interaction process when en-
gaging students from various cultures and backgrounds. The highlighted interac-
tion elements include positive communication, developing personal relationships, 
cross-cultural communication, and instructional communication. Cerutti et al. 
(2023) found that effective communication between teachers and underperform-
ing students can occur when elements of the students’ backgrounds are addressed. 
Meanwhile, Gist et al. (2019) advocated for a democratic approach to education, 
allowing every student to voice their opinions and engage in constructive discus-
sions regardless of their diverse backgrounds. Introducing student culture into 
learning can enhance active participation by creatively applying existing experi-
ence to language-based learning activities (Marsh et al. 2019).
Furthermore, the findings of this study in relation to the classroom ecosys-
tem components indicate that incorporating the physical environment and learn-
ing space should be a primary emphasis when developing a culturally responsive 
teaching strategy. The purpose of language learning should dictate the function 
and role of each integrated situation and space, as determined by the classroom 
structure, safe environment, and transparency elements. Bennett et al. (2017) 
found that integrating classroom design and spaces with student experiences can 
impact language learning outcomes and guarantee that students are provided 
with unambiguous information. Emphasizing the arrangement of physical space 
is crucial to minimize interruptions during the learning process, as it can impact 
the teacher’s delivery of instruction. According to Bottiani et al. (2017), students’ 
acceptance of language learning can occasionally be influenced by the language’s 
usability and simplicity, while Kowalik and Woch (2023) found that students ex-
perience happiness and enjoy learning in an environment that acknowledges and 
appreciates their culture.
The panel of experts emphasized that when creating a teaching strategy con-
sidering students’ cultures, attention should be directed towards planning, imple-
menting teaching strategies, selecting teaching materials, incorporating culture 
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

148 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
into language learning, and providing guidance. Culturally responsive teaching 
is essential for incorporating students’ cultural backgrounds into learning. The 
introduced elements were certified by the panel of experts, who stated that stu-
dents’ cultural experiences can enhance their comprehension of a topic. Martinez 
(2022) clarified  that students’ learning experiences will be more stimulating and 
fulfilling when teachers integrate students’ cultural backgrounds in the creation 
and application of teaching materials. Anderson et al. (2022) substantiated this 
finding, emphasizing the value of integrating authentic student cultures into lan-
guage learning activities to improve teachers’ instruction and promote students’ 
proficiency in language literacy skills.
The expert panel highlighted the significance of selecting the appropriate as-
sessment method for culturally responsive teaching. This study utilized authentic 
forms of assessment, continuous evaluation of student skills, self-assessment, and 
peer involvement. Assessment design should incorporate diverse methods to align 
with the emphasized cultural approach (Coombe et al. 2020). Gupta (2019) cor-
roborated the sociocultural constructivism theory that utilizes cultural context, 
prior experience and current knowledge to connect a problem to a learned skill. 
Suzuki (2023) suggested that incorporating elements of students’ backgrounds 
and cultures in assessment materials can help students connect language skills 
to real-life experiences, despite the belief that it is not a priority in evaluating 
language proficiency. The culturally responsive approach to assessment includes 
aspects such as peer involvement and student life outside of school, making it 
more comprehensive than other forms of evaluation (Ladson-Billings 2021).
The expert panel also approved the social support engagement component 
that this study developed to further reinforce the teaching model’s structure. So-
cial support groups, including parents, the community, and the school culture, 
collaborate to assist students in developing language literacy skills. This com-
ponent is consistent with Troyer et al.’s (2018) findings that extrinsic support 
can enhance students’ proficiency in language literacy. It also aligns with Kieran 
and Anderson’s (2019) study on students with literacy learning difficulties, which 
found that accepting social support can enhance students’ motivation to improve 
basic language skills. While the social support element is initially presented as a 
guide for teachers to establish external social support for student learning, the 
proposed element is the most significant socialization agent close to the students 
(Fraser et al. 2022). According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory (1943), indi-
viduals with solid motivations are more likely to satisfy a specific need, especially 
in the context of language learning.
Conclusion
Incorporating students’ cultural backgrounds into the learning process 
constitutes an approach that can be deployed to aid them in acquiring core lan-
guage literacy skills. This can be accomplished by incorporating cultural aspects 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

149 
of learning into remedial education, which can be achieved through the teach-
er’s classroom instruction. Expert consensus supports the idea that culture can 
significantly aid students in mastering language literacy skills. Culture has the 
potential to directly influence students’ learning by way of the experiences that 
students already have (Kiew and Shah 2020). In today’s advanced society , master-
ing language literacy skills is crucial. Reading and writing skills provide access to 
a knowledge base for exploring information and developing new skills. Adequate 
language literacy skills enable one to explore the world from a unique perspective 
and tap into an infinite source of creativity. Thus, the present surge of develop-
ment necessitates that teachers alter their pedagogical practices to better assist 
students in acquiring language literacy abilities. This study has combined results 
from prior studies and expert agreement to create a culturally responsive teaching 
model for remedial education.
Integrating the theories and prior studies in this study enables a preliminary 
assessment of the components’ suitability for developing a culturally responsive 
teaching strategy in remedial education. Civitillo et al. (2019) asserted that inte-
gration results offer novel insights for developing culturally responsive pedagogies 
applicable across diverse educational contexts. Our research model was further 
developed by incorporating the theory of sociocultural constructivism, the cultur-
ally responsive pedagogical model, and the teaching model of remedial education. 
The expert panel’s evaluation determined the validity of this research model for 
use in remedial education.
References
Abdullah, M. R. T. L. and Siraj, S. (2018). The Evaluation of mLearning Implementation 
of Model for English Language Learning Via Fuzzy Delphi Method. Pertanika Jour-
nal-Social Sciences y Humanities, 26, issue 3, pp. 33-54.
Alam, A. and Mohanty, A. (2023). Cultural beliefs and equity in educational institutions: 
exploring the social and philosophical notions of ability groupings in teaching and 
learning of mathematics. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 28, issue 
1, p.2270662.
Albury, N.J. (2021). Forging and negating diasporic linguistic citizenship in ethnocratic 
Malaysia. Lingua, 263, p. 102629.
Alharbi, M.G. and Khalifa, H.A.E.W . (2021). Enhanced Fuzzy Delphi Method in Forecasting 
and Decision‐Making. Advances in fuzzy systems, 2021, issue 1, p. 2459573.
Anderson, K.C., Stern, M.J., Powell, R.B., Dayer, A.A. and Archibald, T .G. (2022). A cultur-
ally responsive evaluation framework and its application in environmental education. 
Evaluation and Program Planning, 92, p. 102073.
Anuas, S.A.A., Nasri, N.M. and Alias, A. (2023). Needs analysis for developing cultural-
ly responsive teaching for remedial education: What do teachers need?. Specijalna 
edukacija i rehabilitacija, 22, issue 4, pp. 277-296.
Anuas, S.A.A., Nasri, N.M. and Alias, A. (2024). The challenges of implementing cultur-
al-based teaching in remedial education: analyses and recommendations. Internation-
al Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (Ijere), 13, issue 3, p. 1840.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

150 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
Bakešová, V . (2022). Compétences clés des futurs enseignants de FLE: l’apport des textes 
littéraires choisis. Neofilolog, 59, issue 1, pp. 19-34.
Bal, A. (2018). Culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports: A pro-
cess–oriented framework for systemic transformation. Review of Education, Pedago-
gy, and Cultural Studies, 40, issue 2, pp. 144-174.
Banks, J.A. (2015). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and teach-
ing. Routledge.
Bennett, S.V ., Gunn, A.A., Gayle-Evans, G., Barrera, E.S. and Leung, C.B. (2018). Cultur-
ally responsive literacy practices in an early childhood community. Early Childhood 
Education Journal, 46, pp.241-248.
Bergbauer, A. and van Staden, S. (2018). Social Interaction Determinants of South African 
Reading Literacy Achievement: Evidence from PrePIRLS 2011. International Jour-
nal of Instruction, 11, issue 2, pp.555-568.
Bottiani, J.H., Larson, K.E., Debnam, K.J., Bischoff, C.M. and Bradshaw, C.P . (2018). Pro-
moting educators’ use of culturally responsive practices: A systematic review of in-
service interventions. Journal of Teacher Education, 69, issue 4, pp. 367-385.
Bourgoin, R. and Le Bouthillier, J. (2021). Task-based language learning and beginning lan-
guage learners: Examining classroom-based small group learning in grade 1 French 
immersion. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24, issue 2, pp. 70-98.
Cerutti, S., Muscariello, M., Scagnelli, M. and Santulli, F . (2023). Reading metaphors: The 
role of context in comprehension and selection of meanings in written texts. Interna-
tional Journal of Language Studies, 17, issue 3, pp. 37-56. 
Chang, P .L., Hsu, C.W . and Chang, P .C. (2011). Fuzzy Delphi method for evaluating hydro-
gen production technologies. International journal of hydrogen energy, 36, issue 21, 
pp. 14172-14179.
Chen, C.T . (2000). Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy envi-
ronment. Fuzzy sets and systems, 114, issue 1, pp. 1-9.
Cheng, C.H. and Lin, Y. (2002). Evaluating the best main battle tank using fuzzy decision 
theory with linguistic criteria evaluation. European journal of operational research, 
142, issue 1, pp. 174-186.
Chouinard, J.A. and Cram, F . (2019). Culturally responsive approaches to evaluation: Em-
pirical implications for theory and practice (Vol. 4). Sage Publications.
Chu, H.C. and Hwang, G.J. (2008). A Delphi-based approach to developing expert systems 
with the cooperation of multiple experts. Expert systems with applications, 34, issue 
4, pp. 2826-2840.
Ciptono, A., Setiyono, S., Nurhidayati, F . and Vikaliana, R. (2019). Fuzzy Delphi method 
in education: A mapping. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1360, issue 1, p. 
012029. 
Civitillo, S., Juang, L.P ., Badra, M. and Schachner, M.K. (2019). The interplay between cul-
turally responsive teaching, cultural diversity beliefs, and self-reflection: A multiple 
case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, pp. 341-351.
Coombe, C., Vafadar, H. and Mohebbi, H. (2020). Language assessment literacy: What do 
we need to learn, unlearn, and relearn?. Language Testing in Asia, 10, issue 1, p. 3.
Dabbagh, A., Babaii, E. and Atai, M.R. (2023). Metacultural competence and ELT cur-
riculum: The case of Iranian undergraduate ELT program. International Journal of 
Language Studies, 17, issue 1, pp. 141-164.
De Weerdt, L. (2021). Exploring the Continuum of Malaysian English: A Comparison of 
Spoken and Written Language Use (Doctoral dissertation, MA dissertation). Ghent 
University.
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

151 
Del Carmen Salazar, M. and Lerner, J. (2019). Teacher evaluation as cultural practice: A 
framework for equity and excellence. Routledge.
Duong, M.T., Pullmann, M.D., Buntain-Ricklefs, J., Lee, K., Benjamin, K.S., Nguyen, L. 
and Cook, C.R. (2019). Brief teacher training improves student behavior and student–
teacher relationships in middle school. School Psychology, 34, issue 2, p. 212.
Evans, L.M., Turner, C.R. and Allen, K.R. (2020). “ Good Teachers” with” Good Inten-
tions”: Misappropriations of Culturally Responsive Pedagogy. Journal of Urban 
Learning, Teaching, and Research, 15, issue 1, pp. 51-73.
Firoozi, T ., Razavipour, K. and Ahmadi, A. (2019). The language assessment literacy needs 
of Iranian EFL teachers with a focus on reformed assessment policies. Language 
Testing in Asia, 9, issue 1, p. 2.
Fraser, A.M., Bryce, C.I., Cahill, K.M. and Jenkins, D.L. (2024). Social support and positive 
future expectations, hope, and achievement among Latinx students: Implications by 
gender and special education. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 41, issue 
3, pp. 543-568.
Gałan, B. and Malela, B. (2022). La dimension interculturelle des littératures francophones 
contemporaines dans l’enseignement/apprentissage du FLE. Neofilolog, 59, issue 1, 
pp. 67-82.
Gay , G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. teachers col-
lege press.
Gillispie, M. (2021). Culturally responsive language and literacy instruction with Native 
American children. Topics in Language Disorders, 41, issue 2, pp. 185-198.
Gist, C., Jackson, I., Nightengale-Lee, B. and Allen, K. (2019). Culturally responsive peda-
gogy in teacher education. In Oxford research encyclopaedia of education.
Gupta, A. (2019). Principles and Practices of Teaching English Language Learners. Inter-
national Education Studies, 12, issue 7, pp. 49-57.
Idrus, F . and Sohid, M. (2023). Teachers’ Expectations and Challenges in Using Culturally 
Responsive Teaching (CRT) Strategies in the ESL Classroom. Journal of Language 
Teaching & Research, 14, issue 3. pp. 629–635.
Jamil, M.M.R., Siraj, S., Hussin, Z., Noh, M.N. and Sapar, A.A. (2014). Basic introduction to 
Fuzzy Delphi Method in research and development. Minda Intelek.
Kasper, M., Uibu, K. and Mikk, J. (2018). Language teaching strategies’ impact on third-
grade students’ reading outcomes and reading interest. International Electronic 
Journal of Elementary Education, 10, issue 5, pp. 601-610.
Kieran, L. and Anderson, C. (2019). Connecting universal design for learning with cultur-
ally responsive teaching. Education and Urban Society, 51, issue 9, pp. 1202-1216.
Kiew, S. and Shah, P .M. (2020). Factors affecting reading comprehension among Malaysian 
ESL elementary learners. Creative Education, 11, issue 12, p. 2639.
Klimecká, E. (2024). Educational strategies leading to labeling the gifted pupil. The Curric-
ulum Journal, 35, issue 2, pp. 203-219.
Komorowska, H. (2023). Nauczyciele języków obcych: Iluzje–fakty–badania. Neofilolog, 61, 
issue 1, pp. 31-49.
Kotluk, N. and Kocakaya, S. (2018). Culturally relevant/responsive education. Journal of 
Ethnic and Cultural Studies, 5, issue 2, pp. 98-117.
Kowalik, K. and Woch, A. (2023). Rozwijanie świadomości i wrażliwości kulturowej na warsz-
tatach translatorskich z języka włoskiego na przykładzie podręcznika akademickiego 
Utile e traducibile. Esercizi di lessico settoriale e quotidiano. Neofilolog, 60, issue 1, 
pp. 187-200.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

152 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
Kruger-Marais, E. (2024). Subtitling for language acquisition: Eye tracking as predictor 
of attention allocation in education. International Journal of Language Studies, 18, 
issue 2, pp. 129-150.
Kruk, A. (2023). Problemy tłumaczenia elementów kulturowych. O podejściu interkul-
turowym w nauczaniu języka obcego przez przekład. Neofilolog, 60, issue 1, pp. 201-
212.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021). I’m here for the hard re-set: Post pandemic pedagogy to pre-
serve our culture. Equity & Excellence in Education, 54, issue 1, pp. 68-78.
Lee, H.Y ., Hamid, M.O. and Hardy , I. (2023). Language and education policies in Southeast 
Asia: reorienting towards multilingualism-as-resource. International Journal of Mul-
tilingualism, 20, issue 3, pp. 1106-1124.
Madani, R.A. (2019). Analysis of educational quality , a goal of education for all policy . High-
er Education Studies, 9, issue 1, pp. 100-109.
Marsh, D., Pérez, W .D. and Morales, M.E. (2019). Enhancing language awareness and com-
petence-building through a fusion of phenomenon-based learning and content and 
language integration. Journal of E-learning and Knowledge Society, 15, issue 1, pp. 
55-65. 
Martinez, C. (2022). Les micro-récits de Delerm pour un nourrissage culturel effectif en 
classe de FLE. Neofilolog, 59, issue 1, pp. 83-94.
Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50, issue 4, p. 
370.
McDowall, A. (2020). You are not alone: pre-service teachers’ exploration of ethics and 
responsibility in a compulsory Indigenous education subject. M/C Journal, 23, issue 
2, pp. 1-4. 
McMurry , B.L. (2020). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on ESL learners and TESOL 
practitioners in the United States. International Journal of TESOL Studies, 2, issue 
2, pp. 140-156.
Mellom, P .J., Straubhaar, R., Balderas, C., Ariail, M. and Portes, P .R. (2018). “They come 
with nothing:” How professional development in a culturally responsive pedagogy 
shapes teacher attitudes towards Latino/a English language learners. Teaching and 
Teacher Education, 71, pp. 98-107.
Neri, R.C., Lozano, M. and Gomez, L.M. (2019). (Re) framing resistance to culturally rel-
evant education as a multilevel learning problem. Review of Research in Education, 
43, issue 1, pp. 197-226.
Ong, T .W .S. (2022). Language maintenance in Malaysia. The International Journal of 
Speech, Language and the Law, 28, issue 2, pp. 273-279.
Perry , L.R. and Vlachopoulos, D. (2023). Learning Attainment in English Lessons: A Study 
of Teachers’ Perspectives on Native English Speakers and English as an Additional 
Language (EAL) Students at an International School. Education Sciences, 13, issue 
9, p.901.
Piotrowski, S. and Sadowska-Dobrowolska, K. (2023). Język i kultura w przekładzie tek-
stów specjalistycznych. Neofilolog, 60, issue 1, pp. 130-145.
Purcell-Gates, V . (2020), Cultural practices of Literacy: Case Studies of Language, Literacy, 
Social Practice, and Power. Routledge.
Roslan, C. (2016). Amalan pengajaran guru, masalah penguasaan kemahiran Bahasa dan 
strategi pembelajaran Bahasa dalam kalangan murid pemulihan (Doctoral disserta-
tion, Phd Dissertation). Universiti Utara Malaysia.
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin 

153 
Saido, G.A.M., Siraj, S., DeWitt, D. and Al-Amedy, O.S. (2018). Development of an instruc-
tional model for higher order thinking in science among secondary school students: 
a fuzzy Delphi approach. International Journal of Science Education, 40, issue 8, pp. 
847-866.
Saiegh-Haddad, E., Laks, L. and McBride, C. (2022). Handbook of literacy in diglossia and 
in dialectal contexts. Springer, 22, issue 4, pp. 135-163.
Sielanko-Byford, E. and Zielińska, J. (2024). Promowanie różnorodności językowej i kul-
turowej w kształceniu nauczycieli języków obcych–dobre praktyki i skuteczne ro-
związania. Neofilolog, 62, issue 1, pp. 139-154.
Siraj, S., Abdullah, M. R. T. L. and Rozkee, R. M. (2020), Pendekatan penyelidikan reka-
bentuk dan pembangunan: Aplikasi kepada penyelidikan pendidikan. Penerbit UPSI.
Siregar, I. (2022). Language response as a cultural element to globalization. Lakhomi Jour-
nal Scientific Journal of Culture, 3, issue 1, pp. 8-18.
Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F .T. and Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate re-
search. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 6, issue 1, pp. 1-21.
Sutrisno, D., Abbas, A. and Annury, M.N. (2024). Enhancing Writing Skills through Cultur-
al Integration: Exploring the Impact of Culturally-Responsive Writing Instruction in 
Diverse EFL Classrooms. Global Synthesis in Education Journal, 2, issue 3, pp. 1-16.
Suzuki, Y. ed. (2023). Practice and automatization in second language research: Perspec-
tives from skill acquisition theory and cognitive psychology. Taylor & Francis.
Tang, C.W . and Wu, C.T . (2010). Obtaining a picture of undergraduate education quality: a 
voice from inside the university. Higher Education, 60, issue 3, pp. 269-286.
Tatoj, C. and Balches Arenas, R.S. (2023). El profesor como mediador intercultural y su 
papel en la enseñanza de aspectos socioculturales a través de recursos lingüísticos y 
pragmáticos. Neofilolog, 60, issue 1, pp. 146-157. 
Troyer, M., Kim, J.S., Hale, E., Wantchekon, K.A. and Armstrong, C. (2019). Relations 
among intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading amount, and comprehen-
sion: a conceptual replication. Reading and Writing, 32, issue 5, pp. 1197-1218.
UNESCO. (2023). Literacy rate: Adults. Retrieved from: https://data.worldbank.org/indica-
tor/SE.ADT .LITR.ZS (accessed on 23 January 2023).
Weinstein, C.S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S. and Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of cul-
turally responsive classroom management. Journal of teacher education, 55, issue 1, 
pp. 25-38.
Experts’ Points of View on Culturally Responsive Teaching for Remedial Education

154 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of ...
Salehuddin Al As ANUAS (Fakulteta za izobraževanje, Nacionalna univerza Malezije, Malezija)
Nurfaradilla MOHAMAD NASRI (Fakulteta za izobraževanje, Nacionalna univerza Malezije, Malezija)
Mohd Norazmi NORDIN (Fakulteta za izobraževanje, Nacionalna univerza Malezije, Malezija)
STALIŠČA STROKOVNJAKOV O KULTURNO ODZIVNEM POUČEVANJU V OKVIRU DO-
POLNILNEGA POUKA 
 
Povzetek: Vključevanje elementov učenčevih kultur v učno prakso naj bi izboljšalo bralno pismenost 
učencev z nižjimi dosežki. Ta raziskava se osredotoča na opredelitev komponent, potrebnih za razvoj 
kulturno odzivnih didaktičnih strategij pri dopolnilnem pouku v osnovni šoli. V raziskavi je bil upo-
rabljen kvantitativni raziskovalni model z uporabo mehke metode Delfi. Podatki so bili zbrani prek 
vprašalnikov, ki jih je izpolnilo 30 različnih strokovnjakov. Rezultati analize podatkov so pokazali, da 
so v raziskavo vključeni strokovnjaki potrdili vse komponente, saj je konsenzualna vrednost presegla 
75 %, mejna vrednost (d) je bila manjša ali enaka 0,2, vrednosti Delfi (A) pa je bila večja ali enaka 0,5. 
Strokovnjaki so se strinjali s potrebo po uvedbi modela kulturno odzivnega poučevanja v dopolnilni 
pouk, ki obsega šest osrednjih komponent in 27 elementov. Komponente modela so strokovna usposo-
bljenost učiteljev, sodelovanje, razredni ekosistem, načrtovanje in izvajanje poučevanja, preverjanje in 
ocenjevanje znanja ter vključevanje socialne podpore. Raziskava predstavlja nekaj kulturno odzivnih 
didaktičnih strategij poučevanja za dopolnilni pouk, s katerimi lahko učitelji pomagajo učencem s niž-
jimi učnimi dosežki in manj razvitimi jezikovnimi zmožnostmi.
 
Ključne besede: kulturno odzivno poučevanje, mehka metoda Delfi, jezikovna zmožnost, dopolnilno 
izobraževanje, strategije poučevanja
Elektronski naslov: salehalas1210@gmail.com 
Al As Anuas, Mohamad Nasri, Norazmi Nordin