Domain 4: Community Responsive Design

Cultural and climate responsive pedagogy does not include the validation of culture and diversity among the student population. The teacher does not recognize diversity as an integral part of a challenged-based learning environment. There is limited evidence and demonstration of empathy, fairness, integrity and dignity. Student perspectives and viewpoints are not included in the expected collaborative process. The teacher does not consistently uses both culture and diversity as an opportunity to engage students in learning and real world application.

Cultural and climate responsive pedagogy occasionally includes the validation of culture and diversity among the student population. The teacher often recognizes diversity as a an integral part of a challenged-based learning environment. It is often evidenced through explicit demonstration of empathy, fairness, integrity and dignity. Individual perspectives and viewpoints are often included in the collaborative process and the teacher most often uses both culture and diversity as an opportunity to engage students in learning and real world application.

Cultural and climate responsive pedagogy includes the affirmation and validation of culture and diversity among the student population. The teacher recognizes diversity as a an integral part of a challenged-based learning environment. It is evidenced through explicit demonstration of empathy, fairness, integrity and dignity. Individual perspectives and viewpoints are always included in the collaborative process and the teacher always uses both culture and diversity as an opportunity to engage students in learning and real world application.

The curriculum is minimally integrated with the local and/or national context, making learning less relevant and engaging. Collaboration with community stakeholders is infrequent or superficial. The curriculum is not student- centered, lacks flexibility and personalization, and does not seek or incorporate student input. There is no effective feedback loop, resulting in a curriculum that is unresponsive to changing needs and one size fits all. Educators receive little to no professional learning in community- responsive teaching practices, leaving them ill-equipped to integrate community challenges into their instruction.

The curriculum is somewhat integrated with the local and/or national context, making learning occasionally relevant and engaging. Collaboration with community stakeholders occurs but is not systematic or consistent. The curriculum is student-centered to some extent, with flexibility and personalization in certain areas, but does not always seek or incorporate student input. A feedback loop exists but may be irregular or incomplete, leading to a curriculum that is somewhat responsive to changing needs. Educators receive some professional learning in community-responsive teaching practices, but it may lack depth or frequency, limiting their ability to fully integrate community challenges into their instruction.

Deeply integrated with the local and/or national context, making learning relevant and engaging. Reflective of ongoing collaboration with community stakeholders, including families, local businesses, nonprofits, and government agencies, the curriculum is student- centered, flexible, and personalized, actively seeking and incorporating student input. Joint reciprocity is central, with challenges and learning prompts co-created with the community to ensure responsiveness to its needs. A continuous feedback loop involving community, students, and educators keeps the curriculum dynamic and adaptable. Educators receive professional learning in community- responsive teaching practices, ensuring they can integrate community challenges into their instruction effectively.

Students lack a clear structure in addressing challenges, often jumping to solutions without clearly defining the problem, and lack the tools and strategies needed for effective ideation, prototyping, and testing. They struggle to independently think creatively, even with ineffective prompting from the teacher to encourage deeper thinking. Students find it difficult to expand their skill sets or learn new technologies, and they struggle to adapt to new challenges or learning environments.

Students are guided through a structured process to address challenges, including defining user needs and iterating through ideation, prototyping, and testing, but require significant teacher guidance to engage and reflect on the design process. They exhibit curiosity and a willingness to think creatively, occasionally challenging the status quo as needed, yet often need prompting from a teacher to explore innovative ideas more deeply. While they are aware of the importance of upskilling and make efforts to learn new tools and technologies, they require substantial guidance to fully embrace novel learning opportunities.

Students approach challenges with a designer's mindset, unpacking problems, defining user needs, and engaging in iterative cycles of ideation, prototyping, and iterating to develop well-refined solutions. They embody a relentless curiosity and creative courage, disrupting the status quo and rejecting complacency with the belief that there is always an opportunity to better meet a user needs through strategic empathy. By continually expanding their skill sets and embracing new tools and technologies, students stay ahead in a rapidly changing world, adapting seamlessly to new situations.