APA Education Literature Review Example: Culturally Responsive Teaching

Terminology comes before conclusions

CRP and CRT overlap but are not perfect synonyms. Ladson-Billings (1995) developed culturally relevant pedagogy around academic success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness. Gay (2010) developed culturally responsive teaching as a broader account of how teaching can use students' cultural knowledge, experiences, and perspectives. Authors sometimes use the terms interchangeably, while others distinguish their theoretical histories and emphasis.

A strong literature review states its convention. This example uses CRP when discussing Ladson-Billings's framework and CRT as the broader practice-oriented label. It does not treat either term as a checklist of celebrations, images, or isolated lesson substitutions.

Evidence map

Annotated education literature review example

Paragraph 1: Define the construct and make a bounded claim

[Terminology and thesis] Research on culturally responsive education suggests that outcomes depend on how the construct is defined and implemented, not merely on whether a program uses the label CRT. [Foundational narrative citation] Ladson-Billings (1995) framed culturally relevant pedagogy around students' academic success, cultural competence, and capacity to recognize and challenge inequity. Gay (2010) developed a related practice-oriented framework in which curriculum, communication, classroom relationships, and instruction respond to learners' cultural knowledge and experiences. [Synthesis] These frameworks position culture as part of rigorous teaching and institutional relationships, not an ornamental addition to an otherwise unchanged curriculum. [Boundary] A review should therefore avoid claiming that “CRT works” before defining which practices, outcomes, populations, and settings count as evidence.

Paragraph 2: Compare evidence types instead of inventing an effect size

[Research synthesis] Aronson and Laughter (2016) synthesized culturally relevant education research across content areas and reported a body of work containing varied designs and outcomes. Because much of the literature is qualitative, case-based, or measured with non-equivalent outcomes, the synthesis does not supply one field-wide Cohen's d. [Operational evidence] Morrison et al. (2008) organized classroom-based research around recurring features of culturally relevant pedagogy, helping readers connect theory with observable practice. [Critical extension] Castagno and Brayboy (2008) showed that culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth must be interpreted in relation to sovereignty, community, and institutional context; a generic diversity intervention cannot substitute for those conditions. [Synthesis] Together, these works support a conclusion about recurring principles and implementation patterns, but they do not justify a universal causal estimate for achievement.

Paragraph 3: Move from classroom practice to institutional conditions

[Institutional level] Khalifa et al. (2016) argued that culturally responsive school leadership includes critical self-awareness, teacher development, inclusive school environments, and engagement with students' communities. [Connection] This leadership perspective complements the classroom focus in Morrison et al. (2008): instructional change may be difficult to sustain when curriculum, evaluation, staffing, and community relationships remain unchanged. [Counterargument] Ladson-Billings (2014) warned that culturally relevant pedagogy had sometimes been reduced to superficial celebrations or generic claims about student culture. [Precise gap] A useful next study would test a clearly specified observation-and-coaching model in Grades 6–8 mathematics, define how implementation fidelity is measured, and examine both mathematical learning and student-reported belonging or critical consciousness. [Completion standard] The gap names the grade band, subject, intervention process, implementation measure, and outcomes without promising that one demographic label or instrument fits every community.

Why this page does not report a universal effect size

A numerical effect size is appropriate only when studies estimate sufficiently comparable relationships or intervention effects. This literature contains multiple constructs, settings, methods, and outcomes. Reporting a single invented d would create false precision.

Instead, the review should report:

• how many and what kinds of studies a synthesis includes;

• how CRT or CRP was defined;

• the subject area and grade level;

• the population labels used by participants or source authors;

• the outcome and measurement method;

• whether the design can support causal inference; and

• the implementation and institutional conditions.

If a later meta-analysis answers a narrower, well-defined question, report its estimate with the exact population, intervention, comparator, outcome, and uncertainty.

APA 7 citation audit

• One author: Ladson-Billings (1995) or (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

• Two authors: Aronson and Laughter (2016) narratively; (Aronson & Laughter, 2016) parenthetically.

• Three or more authors: Morrison et al. (2008) from the first in-text citation.

• Multiple sources in one parenthesis: order different works alphabetically and separate them with semicolons.

• Use a page number for a direct quotation. This example paraphrases rather than presenting unverified quotation wording.

• List up to 20 authors in an APA 7 reference entry.

• Do not add a DOI or URL to a print book when none applies.

Poor draft versus stronger synthesis

Education revision checklist

• [ ] The review defines CRT and CRP before evaluating evidence.

• [ ] Foundational, empirical, and synthesis sources are distinguished.

• [ ] Claims match what each design can establish.

• [ ] No effect size is invented to make a qualitative or mixed-method literature look experimental.

• [ ] Academic outcomes are not the only outcomes considered.

• [ ] Student identity labels follow the source, community, or institution rather than a universal editorial preference.

• [ ] Indigenous education is not generalized without attention to sovereignty and local context.

• [ ] Counterarguments and risks of superficial implementation are included.

• [ ] The final gap is specific enough to guide a study or search.

• [ ] Every citation and reference has been checked against the original source.

How Acade can support the education review workflow

Acade can help students and researchers define a review question, develop search terms, locate literature, organize source notes, create an evidence matrix, outline a thematic synthesis, and revise citation-supported academic writing. A practical workflow is:

1. Enter the grade band, subject, population language, construct definition, setting, outcomes, and assignment constraints.

2. Search CRT and CRP terms separately as well as together.

3. Label each source as conceptual, empirical, review, or policy/guidance evidence.

4. Record how the source defines the construct, who participated, what was measured, and what the design can support.

5. Organize the review by conceptual question or implementation problem rather than by author.

6. Open every source and verify quotations, page numbers, bibliographic fields, and interpretation.

Acade cannot decide which identity term a community prefers, replace contextual knowledge, guarantee citation accuracy, or assume responsibility for the submitted work.

Tell Acade your education setting, theoretical convention, population language, outcomes, and assignment requirements, then ask it to help structure the next verifiable research task.

References

Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163–206. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582066

Castagno, A. E., & Brayboy, B. M. J. (2008). Culturally responsive schooling for Indigenous youth: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 941–993. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308323036

Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

Morrison, K. A., Robbins, H. H., & Rose, D. G. (2008). Operationalizing culturally relevant pedagogy: A synthesis of classroom-based research. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(4), 433–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680802466502

Frequently asked questions

Is APA the correct format for an education literature review?

APA is widely used in education research, but it is not universal. Follow your program, instructor, institution, or journal. Some programs use Harvard, Chicago, or a house style.

Are CRT and CRP the same concept?

They overlap and are sometimes used interchangeably, but they have different intellectual histories and emphases. Define the terms using relevant scholarship and state how your review will use them.

Why is there no Cohen's d in this example?

The sources answer varied conceptual and empirical questions with non-equivalent designs and outcomes. A single pooled effect is not available for this broad question. Strong reporting describes study types and findings rather than manufacturing numerical comparability.

How should I choose demographic terminology?

Use terminology appropriate to the people, place, source, and institutional guidance. Preserve a study's participant description when reporting it, explain editorial choices when needed, and do not silently substitute labels that alter meaning.

Can I reuse this example's citations?

Only after confirming that each source is relevant to your own question and reading it yourself. Replace this model's evidence with the results of your documented search.

Related examples

• APA nursing literature review example

• APA psychology literature review example

• APA 7 literature review example

• Annotated literature review sample

Source and product information checked September 2, 2026. Verify current scholarship, institutional guidance, and Acade plan details before use.