University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Exploring the reflective practices of secondary, in-service teachers of students from diverse backgrounds

(USC Thesis Other)

Exploring the reflective practices of secondary, in-service teachers of students from diverse backgrounds

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 1

EXPLORING THE REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF SECONDARY, IN-SERVICE
TEACHERS OF STUDENTS FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

by

Karen Keolani Alejado

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

May 2017

Copyright 2017 Karen Keolani Alejado
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 2
Dedication
To my God, you have shown me your lavish lovingkindness by gifting me this
extraordinarily blessed life. Thank you for believing in me as I believe in You. To my husband
Aaron, ours is a love story for the ages. You are my Darcy. I was in the middle of a fairy-tale-
love with you before I knew that it had begun. And, you are my Edward. I was fashioned by
God to live a life unconditionally and irrevocably in love with you. To my son Parker, to know
you is to love you, and to love you, is to experience genuine, deep, and abiding joy. You are my
best friend and a powerful hero, and if given a choice of millions, within the darkest of
situations, I would choose you for my team-up. Hands-down. Every. Single. Time. To my
daughter Emma, you are astonishingly captivating, and the love of my heart. I waited my whole
life to meet my best friend, and finally, I have found her in you. You are the embodiment of
tenderhearted courage, two things that together, have never failed to create a more beautiful
world. To my mom, thank you for being my blind believer, my safe-place, and my love-you-
most. You are the bravest of us all. Your courage has become my reality. To my dad, you are
my past and my future. You made a way, not only where there once was none, but where others
said, a way was impossible to forge. I am borne of the strength of your love. To my
grandparents, whose hard work and devotion to our family brought us all to a place of hope and
opportunity. Your choices welcomed our greatest triumphs. To my family: The Alejados,
whose boundaryless love culminated in my remarkable husband; The Reeves, whose loyal love
established a beautifully enduring legacy; The Parkers, whose chosen love found me; and The
Kia’ainas, whose unrivaled love puts my heart at rest—You all are my beginning and my end,
my laugh-out-loud and my cherished. Lastly, to my ancestors, my land, and my people, I hope
my words have brought life to our journey. Pupukahi i holomua. Together. Forward.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest appreciation for my dissertation chair, Professor Paula
M. Carbone. Your scholarship and genius are only exceeded by your kindness, patience, and
love for the art of teaching. Being under your guidance was one of my greatest honors; your
constant encouragement made all the difference. I am also grateful for the assistance and
guidance of Professor Jenifer Crawford and Professor Emmy Min. Your advice and invested
time throughout this writing process, demonstrated a noble passion, much like Dr. Carbone’s, to
provide the most engaging and rewarding educational experiences for all learners, but
particularly those from marginalized, minoritized backgrounds. I would also like to
acknowledge my Hawai’i cohort, specifically my sisters Dana, Kammie, Leslie, and Lokelani.
Your continuing aloha, humility, and fierce loyalty forged deep connectedness and unrivaled
excellence among and within us all.
Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the collaborative efforts, demonstrated within this
work, of the teachers and administrators from my Native Land and People. Working alongside
you these many years has been my awesome privilege. Your unflagging and passionate
commitment to championing an enduring and harmonious future for Native Hawaiians exudes
the mana of which our ancestors’ wildest dreams were made.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 4
Table of Contents

Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Table of Contents 4
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 9
Educational Attainment and Learning Opportunities of Students from Non-Dominant, High
Needs Populations 11
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 17
Research Questions 18
Methodology 19
Limitations 19
Delimitations 19
Definition of Terms 20
Chapter Two: Literature Review 21
Defining Reflective Practice 24
History of Reflection Among Practitioners in United States Public Schools 26
Current State of Reflection in Education 35
Current State of Critical Reflection Toward Equity and Access 40
Reflective Practice Framework: The What, How, and Why 44
Native Hawaiians, Education, and Reflection 46
Chapter Three: Methodology 48
Methods 49
Site and Sample Selection 50
Data Collection 51
Data Analysis 55
Biases 55
Chapter Four: Findings 55
Study Site 58
Study Participants 61
Research Question 1 63
Reflective Practice Defined as a Review for Improvement 64
Research Question 2 72
Reflective Practice Enactment is Varied and Flexible 72
Reflective Practice as a Private Practice 78
Research Question 3 83
Reflective Practice Perceived to Promote Culturally Appropriate Perspectives, Increasing
Equity Among Learners 84
Reflective Practice Perceived to Promote Culturally Appropriate Communal Learning and
Increased Equity Among Learners 102
Chapter Five: Discussion 126
Summary of Findings 128
Discussion 129
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 5
A Review for Improvement 130
Varied, Flexible, and Private Reflective Practice 134
Culturally Appropriate Perspectives 136
Implications for Practice 143
Explicit Theoretical, Contextual, and Personal, Reflective Practice Instruction 144
Honoring of Varied Cultural Perspectives 148
Crafting of a Personal, Reflective Practice Vision Tool 151
Differentiating Between Pedagogical and Reflective Practice Needs 152
Recommendations for Research 154
Conclusion 157
References 162
Appendix A: Interview #1 Protocol 179
Appendix B: Interview #2 Protocol 182
Appendix C: Informed Consent Form 185

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 6
Abstract
This study applies reflective practice theories and Native-Hawaiian understandings to identify
Native-Hawaiian practitioners’ perceptions of reflection. The purpose of this study is to
ascertain the tacit, reflective practice beliefs participants assert promote learning opportunities
and equity for Native-Hawaiian learners within high-needs populations. The research questions
involve teachers defining and enacting reflective practice within a Native-Hawaiian perspective.
This qualitative case-study includes a purposeful sampling of one school site with a high Native-
Hawaiian, high poverty population. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews of
self-identified Native-Hawaiian, secondary, public school teachers. Findings from this study
indicate practitioners initially define and enact reflection as a simple, flexible, and individual
thinking process that improves instruction. However, their definitions and enactments expand
when cultural perspectives are included, extending their descriptions to include notions of
connectedness, interdependence, and communal success. This study highlights the Native-
Hawaiian way of being, which is authentically reflective, and the subsequent misalignment
between the culture’s perspective and the prescriptive parameters of dominant ideologies.
Findings imply that practitioners who participate in culturally-relevant reflective practice,
expand their understandings, and address the contextual pressures within their classrooms
through humble and interconnected instructional stances. Conclusions suggest the need for
explicit theoretical and contextual instruction embedded in a Native-Hawaiian perspective,
which honors the tension between Native-Hawaiian and dominant perspectives, and practitioners
crafting and assuming ownership of an individual, culturally-relevant, reflective process.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
U.S. public school students from non-dominant backgrounds, within high-needs
communities, have participated in substandard educational experiences for decades (Noguera,
Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Orfield & Lee, 2005; Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004). Federal
and state governmental agencies, as well as district and building level initiatives, have focused
their efforts on counteracting diminished learning opportunities among this population.
Decreased learning opportunities were linked to low academic achievement and social
disadvantages such as lack of health care, low levels of literacy in the home, high numbers of
transient students, deficient housing, and reduced post-secondary opportunities (Aysola, Orav, &
Ayanian, 2011; Ayoub et al., 2009; Raudenbush, Jean, & Art; 2011; Neuman & Celano, 2001).
These social disadvantages were demonstrated through a disproportionate number of students in
these communities receiving remediation, minimal differentiation in classroom instruction, a
decreased familiarity with standard English, a disproportionate number of Special Education
program enrollments, and less parental push to change the status quo (Burdick-Will et al., 2010;
Noguera, 2001; Rothstein, 2015; Sampson, Sharkey, & Raudenbush, 2008). These
disadvantages persisted, resulting in a cyclical and spiraling diminishment of social and
academic opportunities for these students (Noguera, 2001).
The U.S. public school system has educated students regardless of race, social status, or
religion (Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015). Yet, the middle class white student, who was once
the mainstay of U.S. public classrooms, has been edged out by the exponentially increasing
demographic of non-White students in poverty (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004).
Scholars offered practitioners bodies of knowledge and culturally relevant approaches to meet
the learning needs of this group of students. One body of knowledge that emanated from this
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 8
theoretical research was Reflective Practice. Research correlated an increase in student learning
opportunities for students from non-dominant, high-needs populations, with practitioners’
participation in reflective practice (Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Research indicated, the more a practitioner engaged in
reflective practice, the greater the learning opportunities afforded all learners in the classroom
(Black & Plowright, 2010; Brookfield, 2010; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002;
Moje, 2007; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). This study investigated
public, secondary teachers’ perceptions of the ways in which reflective practice promoted, and
correlated with, increased learning opportunities among students from non-dominant
backgrounds within high-needs communities, in particular, those communities with a large
population of practitioners and students who identified as Native Hawaiian.
This paper addressed the historical problem of decreased learning opportunities among
Native Hawaiian secondary students (Au, 1998; Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Kana'iaupuni
& Kawai'ae'a, 2008; Kawakami, 1999; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Orfield & Lee, 2005;
Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004; Parrett & Budge, 2012). Data highlighted the low
assessment scores of students from non-dominant, high needs populations in the U.S., as well as
Native Hawaiian students who lived in poverty and attended Hawai’i public schools
(Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Kana'iaupuni & Kawai'ae'a, 2008; Rothstein, Jacobsen, &
Wilder, 2006; Ladd, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2013a; U.S. Department of Education,
2013b). Because these educational disadvantages diminished the learning opportunities for this
large population of students, they entered the workforce with limited skills to succeed in their
chosen careers, negatively impacting the global economy (Jones, Tarpley, & Blancero, 2014;
Lake & Gross, 2012; Zimmer, Gill, Booker, Lavertu, & Witte, 2011).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 9
Background of the Problem
The vast body of literature surrounding the intersectionality of poverty, education, race,
and equity affirmed the historically limited learning opportunities afforded children in schools
with large populations of students from non-dominant, high-needs populations. Inequitable
funding, lower matriculation rates, educational outcome gaps, decreased teacher quality, minimal
curricular rigor, a lack of classroom equipment, and a lesser number of advanced placement
classes, all reflected the diminished learning opportunities offered students who attended schools
within non-dominant, high-needs communities (Gorski & Landsman, 2013; Noguera, Pierce, &
Ahram, 2015; Rose, 2015; Rothstein, 2015). The deficit increased further when the data were
isolated to compare the learning opportunities offered middle class, non-Hispanic white students
and non-dominant students from high-needs communities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a,
2015b).
These resource, access, and opportunity inequities directly correlated with the de facto
segregation, promoted by government practices and policies (Orfield & Lee, 2005). A high
concentration of students from a non-dominant population within a school community directly
correlated with low academic achievement and decreased learning opportunities: the larger the
number of students from a non-dominant, high-needs population, the greater the opportunity
inequities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a, 2015b). Ten years after Orfield and Lee’s
2005 Civil Rights Project report, “Why Segregation Matters: Poverty and Educational
Inequality,” Ayscue and Orfield (2014) found racial and poverty stratification lines between
middle class, non-Hispanic White students and students from non-dominant, high needs
communities, have only intensified. These boundaries still determined whether children received
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 10
an education bursting with resources and opportunities or whether they were relegated to an
academic experience riddled with paucity and deprivation.
Since the 1960s, desegregation among U.S. schools steadily decreased, coming to a near
standstill in the early 1980s (Reardon & Owens, 2014). The 2014 U.S. Census projections
indicated a significant population shift, with a decrease from 74% to 51% in non-Hispanic white
students from 1980 to 2014. Of these non-Hispanic white students, 11% lived in poverty while
39% of African American and 30% of Hispanic students lived below the poverty threshold (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2014). According to Orfield, Kucsera, and Siegel-Hawley (2012), 80% of
Hispanic students and 74% of African American students attended public schools with students
predominantly of the same ethnicity and of these students, 59% of them attended school with
fellow students who were considered low-income (Orfield, 2009).
Similarly, in Hawai’i public schools, the larger the population of students who identified
as Native Hawaiian, the greater the learning opportunity inequities (Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi,
2003). As the most economically disadvantaged ethnic group in Hawai’i’s public school system,
Native Hawaiian students consistently scored an average of nine percentiles below all other
ethnic groups on state assessments (Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003). Schools with large Native
Hawaiian populations also held the lowest matriculation rates and the least experienced and
qualified teachers, as well as, the highest absenteeism, school-level achievement failure, juvenile
arrests, and special education representation (Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003). National data
affirmed, students from non-dominant backgrounds attending schools in economically and
racially stratified, high-needs communities, were not afforded the same learning opportunities as
students from dominant, middle class backgrounds.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 11
Educational Attainment and Learning Opportunities of Students from Non-Dominant,
High Needs Populations
The gap between the learning opportunities afforded students from non-dominant, high-
needs populations and those students from non-Hispanic, middle class communities, decreased
but persisted in national and state achievement scores. According to National Association of
Educational Progress (NAEP) longitudinal data, the reading achievement gap between 17-year-
old White and African American students closed from a 53-point difference in 1972 to a 26-point
difference in 2012 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013c). The reading gap between 17-year-
old White and Hispanic Americans diminished from a 41-point gap to a 21-point gap. Within
the same demographic, the mathematics achievement gap between 17-year old White and
African American students decreased from a 40-point difference in 1975 to a 26-point difference.
The mathematics gap between White and Hispanic 17-year-olds closed from a 33-point
difference to a 19-point difference.
Over a period of 40 years, the achievement gap declined an average of 23 points in
reading and 14 points in math. Despite the drop, the 20-point achievement gap, on average,
between White students and students from diverse backgrounds persisted. The 2015 NAEP
results revealed that approximately half of U.S. states made minimal academic gains, 13 states
showed no change, and several states regressed (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a, b).
While achievement scores varied across the U.S., high numbers of students from non-dominant
populations remained in poverty and achieved at a significantly lower benchmark than students
from middle class, dominant populations.
The NAEP further explored these gain gaps through their Hispanic-White, Black-White,
and National Indian Achievement Studies (U.S. Department of Education, 2015a, b). According
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 12
to these reports, eighth grade, non-Hispanic white students scored 31 points higher on the NAEP
assessment than their African American counterparts, resulting in a 37-point difference between
the mathematics basic proficiency achievement levels (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b).
In reading, the difference in proficiency was 26 points. Both fourth and eighth grade Hispanic
students scored approximately 25 points lower on NAEP Reading scores than white, non-
Hispanic students, and that gap persisted over the last twenty-five years (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015a). When the same group of students, over the same period of time, were
compared, mathematics’ score gaps remained at a 21-point difference (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). The gap widened for American Indian and Alaska Native fourth and eighth
grade students who scored almost thirty points lower than white students in both mathematics
and reading (National Congress of American Indians, 2011).
NAEP results also indicated eighth grade students attending schools with a higher density
of African American students, scored 10 points lower on mathematics assessments than those
students with a lower density of African American students (U.S. Department of Education,
2015b). Although, the achievement gap between African American and non-Hispanic white
students stayed constant with 26 points, on average, between the two groups, independent of
African American student density (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b). These numbers
aligned with academic attainment scores derived from communities with high-densities of Native
American and Alaska Native students. Native American and Alaska Native students in rural,
high-density communities scored almost twenty points lower than Native American and Alaska
Native students who lived in suburbs, with lower numbers of Native American and Alaska
Native students within the school community (Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 13
The learning opportunity inequities common to students from non-dominant, high-needs
populations persisted among Native Hawaiian students. According to Kana’iaupuni and
Ishibashi’s 2003 report on Hawai’i public schools, 80% of schools, where more than 50% of the
student population identified as Native Hawaiian, were considered failing, even though Native
Hawaiians made up less than 26% of the state’s student population. More than one-third of
Native Hawaiian students attended schools considered to be failing, compared to 15% of non-
Native Hawaiian students who attended failing public schools. In addition, the number of Native
Hawaiian students within a school conversely correlated with the experience and qualifications
of teachers: the larger the percentage of Hawaiians attending the school, the less experienced and
qualified the teachers. In special education, the percentage of Native Hawaiian students enrolled
was double that of non-Native Hawaiian students.
On state achievement tests, Native Hawaiians were the lowest achieving population
among all ethnic sub-groups, with the exception of other Pacific Islanders, which included, for
the most part, Samoans, Tongans, and Micronesians, however, their outcomes were relatively
similar (Hawai’i Department of Education, 2016). Of Native Hawaiian students, 36% met
English Language Arts standards, 28% met Math standards, and 28% met Science standards. Of
non-Hispanic, White students, 67% met English Language Arts standards, 54% met Math
standards, and 61% met Science standards. When Native Hawaiian and non-Hispanic, White
students’ state assessment scores were compared, the number of non-Hispanic White students
who met state standards was double that of Native Hawaiian students who met the state
standards. These percentages, however, included all Native Hawaiian public school students in
the state of Hawai’i. When the outcomes were adjusted for density of Native Hawaiian students
within the schools, the gap appeared to triple. The continued disparities between poor, students
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 14
from non-dominant populations, and middle-class, white children, resulted in fewer educational
opportunities for students from non-dominant, high-poverty populations (Chen, 2015; Hawai’i
Department of Education, 2016; Nieto, 2005; Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Kana'iaupuni &
Kawai'ae'a, 2008).
Orfield, Losen, Wald, and Swanson, in a 2004 report, noted both African American and
Native American students were half as likely to graduate from high school. In addition, more
than ten years later, a 14% difference between the graduation rates of non-Hispanic, White and
African American students remained (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics [IESNCES]; 2016). When poverty was added
into the equity equation, the gaps widened even further, suggesting a seemingly unbreakable
cycle of poverty and opportunity inequities (Orfield & Lee, 2005). Anderson and Irvine (1993)
located this cycle of inequity within literacy. The authors asserted “people are not poor because
they’re illiterate: they’re illiterate because they are poor” and the unequal social constructions
keep them from breaking this cycle (p. 82). In essence, low levels of literacy among students
from non-dominant populations did not cause poverty, de facto social and racial segregation
fostered the educational inequities and diminished learning opportunities afforded these students.
Valencia (2012) posited that society viewed learners from non-dominant, high-needs
populations, through deficit perspectives, instead of examining the systemic structures of poverty
and race stratification proliferating the lack of student achievement. The author described deficit
thinking as blaming a group of people for their lack of achievement and progress without holding
social, political, or historical systems that foster these disadvantages, accountable (Valencia,
2012). Deficit Theory also built on the premise that perceived disadvantages could be filled
through supplemental supports. This perspective directly affected the educational approaches,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 15
content, and resources employed in high-needs schools, relegating racially and economically
stratified students to a discourse that explicitly and implicitly implied their academic inferiority
(Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003).
Public policies played a significant role in perpetuating this perspective of opportunity
inequities (Anyon, 2014; Valencia, 2012). Two macro examples of policies embodying a deficit
mindset were the school segregation laws of the 1950s and 60s and the high stakes testing
movement of the 2000s (Valencia, 2012). The segregation laws pegged non-White students as
inferior, racializing education and using these laws as a basis for academic decision-making and
an explanation for lower academic achievement among students from non-dominant populations.
The second macro example of deficit perspective-based policies was the establishment of high-
stakes testing. These tests distilled a student’s identity to a single score. In addition, system
level decisions, such as class assignments and supplemental fund allocations, were made based
on these singular scores, and federal and state funding continued to be allotted according to these
outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2007). Low scores also resulted in sanctions and school closures,
predominantly within high-needs communities, further adversely affecting academic
achievement and learning opportunities among students from high-needs populations (Darling-
Hammond, 2007).
In addition to achievement gaps, research also established that students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations were subject to opportunity gaps, which hindered students
from accessing ambitious learning opportunities and culturally relevant pedagogies (Milner,
2010). The opportunity gap stems from, and contributes to, a lack of culturally relevant
curricula, pedagogy, and rapport with teachers, that is relevant to, and respectful of, the funds of
knowledge and culturally appropriate perspectives and practices of students who identify with
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 16
non-dominant perspectives (Au & Blake, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Teachers who strive to
identify with the cultural perspectives of non-dominant students often consciously assume, and
Fwork from, and asset-based mindset that values more than achievement outcomes, but also the
cultural relevance and culturally-appropriate relationships that support those outcomes (Duncan-
Andrade, 2007; Valencia, 2012). This purposeful, culturally relevant engagement, directly aligns
with the impact teachers’ efforts have on the curricula, pedagogy, and rapport they promote
within classrooms where a majority of learners are from marginalized populations (Yosso, 2005).
Statement of the Problem
This paper addressed the problem of diminished learning opportunities among Native
Hawaiian students from high-needs populations. This problem was important to address because
of the social injustices present among students from non-dominant, high-needs populations, as a
result of inequitable access to educational opportunities. While many resource and access
challenges complicated and exacerbated the poor learning environments of learners from non-
dominant, high-needs populations, which contributed to a difficulty in identifying approaches
that correlated with increased equity and student learning opportunities, reflective practice
seemed to afford practitioners the opportunity to examine and shift their teaching perspectives in
ways that elicited social action on behalf of their students (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Gay
and Kirkland, 2003; Gomez, Sherin, Griesdorn, & Finn, 2008; Howard, 2003; Jay & Johnson,
2002; Lynn & Maddox, 2007; Moje, 2007; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Rodgers, 2002a; Yost,
Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000).
Reflective practice afforded teachers’ the opportunity to slow down and examine their
personal practice through both individual and communal approaches, in order to equip them in
identifying areas where their beliefs and assumptions affected their decision making, and in turn,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 17
student learning opportunities (Dewey, 1938; Loizou, 2013; Rodgers, 2002a; Schön, 1983; Valli,
1992; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Reflective practitioners also increased the likelihood that
students might participate in a culturally relevant, educational experience that identified,
problematized, and countered social justice inequities within the cultural populations with which
they identified (Beauchamp, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2004; Moje, 2007; Sorhagen, 2013;
Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Zeichner (1994) asserted that reflection promoted instructional
awareness and pedagogical approaches more germane to students’ learning contexts and needs.
In the absence of reflective practice, scholars found teachers focused on students’ deficiencies
rather than assets, and aimed to fill perceived gaps through skill-based, one-size-fits-all
approaches to instruction. These prescriptive instructional approaches centered around the
teacher’s goals and values, not necessarily the students’ understandings and cultural
perspectives. These pedagogical mindsets appeared to stunt student learning opportunities by
ignoring the nuances and complexities involved in teaching diverse learners from varied
backgrounds and perspectives (Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
This study aimed to explore Native Hawaiian, secondary, public school practitioners’
perceptions of reflective processes, and the perceived increase in student learning opportunities
among Native Hawaiian students as a result of their reflective practice. To understand teachers’
perceptions of reflective practice, the study design sought to make explicit tacit teacher
understandings, processes, and cultural perspectives associated with reflective practice (Russell,
2005; Williams & Grudnoff, 2011). This study analyzed teachers’ perceptions of reflection
through Dewey’s (1938), Mezirow’s (1981), Schön’s (1983), Jay and Johnson’s (2000) and,
Rodgers’ (2002b) Reflective frameworks. Dewey’s (1938) posits offered a reflective foundation
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 18
based on experiential learning. Mezirow’s (1981) research established the thinking processes
embedded in reflection. Schön’s (1983) concepts of Reflect-in-Action and Reflect-on-Action
allowed practitioners to examine their practice both during and after their lessons. Jay and
Johnson’s (2000) typology offered three dimensions of reflection: descriptive, comparative, and
critical. Each dimension targeted a different reflective purpose and included guiding questions
for practitioners to explore their instructional decision making. Rodgers’ (2002b) cycle included
four domains: Presence in Experience, Description of Experience, Analysis, and
Experimentation of Experience. Rodgers’ cycle assisted practitioners with viewing their
instruction through their students’ eyes and differentiating their instruction based on students’
perspectives and needs. All these reflective frameworks encouraged practitioners to consider
multiple perspectives, theoretical underpinnings, and historical, social, and political influences in
their instruction.
Research Questions
The following questions guided my inquiry:
1. How do secondary public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 19
Methodology
The study utilized qualitative methods through semi-structured interviews. The
interviews explored practitioners’ perceptions of reflective practice and its perceived correlation
with increased student learning opportunities. The study design sought to clarify teachers’
definitions, enactment, and culturally appropriate perspectives of reflective practice within a
variety of theoretical frameworks and reflective processes. The semi-structured interviews were
conducted at a secondary, public school in Hawai’i, and were conducted individually (Merriam,
2009; Maxwell, 2012). The literature review following this chapter offers an overview of
reflective practice definitions, a general history of reflection in U.S. Public Schools, followed by
the current state of reflection in education, the current state of reflection with regard to equity
and access in education, some of the major, dominant, reflective ideologies on which this study
is based, and the Native Hawaiian cultural perspective of learning and reflection.
Limitations
A few limitations were identified within this study. These included the lack of a time
available to the researcher, the lack of access to varied participant groups, and the geographic
limitations of the researcher.
Delimitations
The first delimitation of this study concerned the number of participants. The number
was relatively small due to the qualitative nature of the study and the interviewing methodology.
This may have affected the robustness and generalizability of the study. The school site was
selected for purposeful sampling. Secondary, high-needs, public school teachers were chosen to
be interviewed, because participants taught the same lesson multiple times, which allowed for
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 20
reflection between lesson enactments and possible perceived changes in similar lessons that
followed reflective practice.
Definition of Terms
Culturally Relevant Teaching - Proven pedagogy for the purpose of addressing inequity in
power and privilege and increasing cultural competence among non-dominant populations
(Banks, 1995; Gay, 2002; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Ladson-Billings,
1995; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006).
High-Needs - High-poverty and low-fiscal capacity of an individual or group of people (Strunk
& Zeehandelaar, 2011).
Non-Dominant - An individual or group of people considered non-privileged due to social
structure, historical occurrences, or prestige (Paulston & Heidemann; 2006; Piontkowski,
Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000; Vilfan, Sandvik, Wils, & European Science Foundation,
1993).
Poverty - Living below a poverty line, which is normally defined in terms of a money indicator
(consumption, income) but could also be defined in terms of wider or subjective aspects of
deprivation (Rose & Dyer, 2008).
Reflective Practice - The behaviors and processes that provide a platform to analyze and
evaluate learning, instructional practice, assumptions, and beliefs through political, historical,
social, and cultural lenses, to develop content and pedagogical understandings that result in
cognitive shifts, and ultimately increase equity, opportunities, and social justice (Black &
Plowright, 2010; Dewey, 1938; Jay & Johnson, 2002, Moje, 2007; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b,
Schön, 1983).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 21
Student Achievement - A student’s ability to meet performance criteria (York, Gibson, &
Rankin, 2015).

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 22
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This paper addressed the problem of decreased learning opportunities among secondary,
public school students from non-dominant, high-needs populations, with a particular focus on
Native Hawaiian students from high-needs communities. The National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP; U.S. Department of Education, 2015a, b), Smarter Balanced
Assessment (SBA; California Department of Education, 2015; Hawai’i Department of
Education, 2016), and Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers
(PARCC; 2014-2015 Tables of Cross-State and State-Specific PARCC Results, 2015) reported
low academic achievement among students from non-dominant, high-needs populations,
particularly when compared to non-Hispanic, White populations. According to California’s SBA
English Language Arts results, 54% of African American students and 61% of Hispanic students,
met performance standards, as compared with 72% of White, non-Hispanic students. Of students
in the Hawai’i public school system, 36% of Native Hawaiian learners met the English Language
Arts target, while 67% of non-Hispanic, White students met the target (Hawai’i Department of
Education, 2016). California’s mathematics SBA results reveal 64% of African American
students and 52% of Hispanic students met standards, while 77% of White, non-Hispanic
students met the standards (California Department of Education, 2015). Twenty-eight percent of
Native Hawaiian students met the math target, as opposed to 54% of non-Hispanic, White
students (Hawai’i Department of Education, 2016). NAEP scores reported a 26-point gap
between African American and White students reading assessment scores. The gap between
these two subpopulations increased to 37 points in math (U.S. Department of Education, 2015b).
This problem was important to address because of the increasing number of students
from non-dominant backgrounds in high-needs, public schools and the inequitable resources and
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 23
opportunities afforded this population of students (Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Orfield,
2009; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). This population of students tended to live in socially stratified
cities, where poor student achievement correlated with the concentration of students from non-
dominant populations (Orfield, 2009). Governmental policies and practices exacerbated this
injustice (Valencia, 2012). This systemic stratification and de facto segregation coupled with the
persistent gap in achievement scores between students from non-dominant, high-needs
populations and dominant, middle class populations, resulted in socially unjust, generational
poverty (Anderson and Irvine, 1993; Gorski & Landsman, 2013; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram,
2015; Rose, 2015; Rothstein, 2015).
The purpose of this study was to explore and understand practitioners’ perceptions of
reflective practice and its correlation with increased student learning opportunities, particularly
among Native Hawaiian students from high-needs communities in the Hawai’i public school
system. The following questions guided the study’s inquiry:
1. How do secondary public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?
In order to understand and theoretically frame teachers’ definitions, enactment and
perceptions of reflective practice, the significant theories and historical background underpinning
reflective practice in educational settings was elucidated.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 24
Defining Reflective Practice
Reflective practice aimed to bring about the most effective educator possible through the
combination of both theory and practice in an operationalized, purposeful, and contextual
approach (Loughran, 2006; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). The complex body of literature
surrounding the definition and processes of reflective practice led to somewhat ambiguous
understandings of reflective practice (Beauchamp, 2015; Dewey, 1938; Tannebaum, Hall &
Deaton, 2013; Williams & Grudnoff, 2011). However, theorists recognized the robust learning
opportunities available to practitioners who reflected on their practice (Dewey, 1938; Schön,
1983).
Educational theorists and practitioners worked to clarify, condense, and operationalize
the varied concepts, frameworks, and understandings within the reflective practice body of
research (Beauchamp, 2015; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Reflective practice scholars
asserted that reflection afforded practitioners tools that promoted rigorous learning opportunities,
which included identifying and solving instructional problems in innovative ways (Dewey, 1938;
Schön, 1983). Innovation and the disruption of the status quo were significant components of
early reflective practice literature (Dewey, 1938). Reflective practice research also emphasized a
practitioner’s need to slow down the instructional process, see through students’ perspectives,
and make appropriate, instructional choices, based on students’ contextual needs rather than
experience (Dewey, 1938; Rodgers, 2002a). As a result of these newly formed perspectives and
choices, learners were offered increased opportunities to engage in learning experiences
increasingly relevant to their own cultural perspectives (Dewey, 1938; Schön, 1983).
For these newly formed perspectives and decision making processes to be realized, an
operationalized understanding of reflective practice was needed, and scholars worked toward this
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 25
end. Dewey (1938), one of the early reflective practice scholars, viewed reflection as an
opportunity to inquire and challenge accepted beliefs. Schön (1983) delineated two specific
periods of reflection, during (Reflection-in-Action) and after (Reflection-on-Action) a
problematic, instructional situation. Zeichner and Liston (1996) added an ethical component
with the need for multiple lenses and perspectives. Rodgers (2002a, 2002b) designed a cycle
that prompted reflectors to view their reflective practice cyclically and from their students’
perspectives. Jay and Johnson (2002) separated reflection into dimensions that added
perspectives as it intensified. Gay and Kirkland (2003) advocated for a more critical approach to
reflection by bringing cultural relevance within a broader social, historical, and political
framework into the discussion. Brookfield (2010) called for a critical, reflective approach that
led to practitioners taking a social stance and action in light of what their reflective practice
generated. Black and Plowright (2010) pushed a similar idea by stipulating transformational
outcomes, and cognitive shifts on the part of the reflector as a necessary part of reflection. While
these scholars did not represent all of reflective practice research, they were cogent and
overlapping, and were foregrounded and backgrounded for different purposes in this paper’s
research.
For the purposes of this paper, reflective practice was examined on the basis of a Robust
Continuum. On one end of the Continuum was a simple thinking process in which practitioners
considered the value of their instruction. On the other end of the Continuum sat a robust,
reflective practice, which involved an examination of personal values and beliefs, from
theoretical, social, historical, political, and cultural perspectives (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983). The examination resulted in cognitive shifts in the practitioner’s
value system and the assumption of a social stance leading to greater learning opportunities for
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 26
students from non-dominant, high-needs populations (Black & Plowright, 2010; Brookfield,
2010; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Moje, 2007; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983;
Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
Therefore, for the purposes of this study, reflection, at its most robust, was defined as a
thoughtful, deliberate examination of instructional decision-making, assumptions, and beliefs,
especially those examinations resulting in cognitive shifts and social action (Black & Plowright,
2010; Brookfield, 2010; Dewey, 1938; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Moon, 2013). Research within
this study sought to identify practitioners’ perceptions of the thoughtful, self-monitoring,
cognitive shifts, and social action, embedded in, and resulting from, their personal reflective
practice. Practitioners’ perceptions were viewed through and seated within the aforementioned
Robust Continuum, based on the work of Dewey, (1938), Mezirow (1981), Schön (1983), Jay
and Johnson (2002), and Rodgers (2002b), in order to ascertain teachers’ overall perceptions of
the value of reflective practice among non-dominant, high-needs populations.
History of Reflection Among Practitioners in United States Public Schools
Reflection became an expectation across the field of education due to the perceived
increase in learning opportunities afforded reflective practitioners and their students
(Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2009; National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards, 2002; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). However,
multiple and varied definitions and processes within reflective research made it difficult to
identify those reflective practices with the most promise for, and relevance to, a given context
(Beauchamp, 2015; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
This difficulty in identifying effective reflective practices for a given context was longstanding,
particularly because of the U.S. educational structure, which based its instructional perspectives
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 27
on a one-size-fits-all, skill based approach, that could be considered the antithesis of reflective
practice (Dewey, 1938; Ball & Forzani, 2009; Rodgers, 2002b).
Historically, the U.S. educational system centered on the teacher and the content (Cuban,
2016). Teachers were handed a curriculum they taught in a singular way employing pedagogical
strategies that conditioned children to behave and perform for the purpose of accomplishing the
goal of a teacher-centered lesson, irrespective of the child’s background or experiences (Ladson-
Billings, 1995; Yilmaz, 2011). Content and pedagogy focused on the traditional, performance
driven learner, and scaffolding, differentiating, and constructing learning experiences for the
purposes of increasing student learning opportunities for a diverse group of learners was
unnecessary (Dewey, 1938). With the U.S. educational population shift from traditional,
dominant perspective learners to diverse, multiple perspective, learners, the need for pedagogy
relevant to a variety of perspectives became immediate (Howard, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003;
Moje, 2007; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey 2000). Skills-based, curricular driven, teacher
centered pedagogies were no longer meeting the academic needs of one of the largest
populations of students (Cuban, 2016).
The increased population of students from non-dominant backgrounds, accompanied the
expanded number of students coming from households in poverty (Cuban, 2016; Elmore, 2002;
Jensen, 2013). These households tended to be seated in urban areas where the number of
families from non-dominant backgrounds was concentrated (Elmore, 2002). Students from these
high-needs populations tended to begin school with lower levels of the types of literacy required
to matriculate, and attended schools with minimized access to higher education (Cuban, 2016;
Elmore, 2002). The decreased learning opportunities afforded these students resulted in
disproportionate numbers of students in remedial courses and an over-identification of students
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 28
from non-dominant backgrounds in Special Education (Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Rose, 2015).
Nominal differentiation in classroom instruction, high numbers of teachers with little experience,
lower matriculation rates, and fewer Advanced Placement class offerings exacerbated this
problem (Ayoub et al., 2009; Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003; Kawakami, 1999; Neuman &
Celano, 2001, Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Rothstein, 2015; Sampson,
Sharkey, & Raudenbush, 2007).
Scholars recognized the underachievement of youth in poverty and the specific
pedagogical strategies needed to promote learning opportunities and educational equity in high-
needs schools (Gorski, 2013). They asserted that reflecting practitioners could provide robust
learning opportunities and increase learning equity for students from high-needs, non-dominant
populations. Through reflective approaches such as Dewey’s (1938) theory of inquiry,
practitioners sought to engage in, and mentally reason through, disturbing moments in the
classroom, moments where a solution was not readily available or operationalized. Dewey
called practitioners and scholars to solve societal problems through inquiry and aimed to merge
the educational silos of theory and practice by connecting inquiry for new knowledge with the
application of that knowledge. He implored both scholars and practitioners to reflect on and
operationalize tacit, inner truths within themselves, to reveal concrete, novel ways of problem
solving in the classroom. He encouraged contextual, open-ended, socially supported inquiry that
resulted in action. Actions such as these, he asserted, could increase student learning and
ultimately work toward reducing society’s ills. According to Dewey, a practitioner within a
high-needs school who reflected as his theories suggested, would be more equipped to generate
new approaches to learning for a diverse group of students.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 29
Schön (1983) expanded Dewey’s (1938) foundational, reflective practice theories by
focusing his descriptions of reflective practice on the time period in which reflection occurred.
He called two of these identified reflective moments: Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-
Action. According to Schön, these reflective moments derived from two modes: discovery and
design. Schön encouraged practitioners to discover new knowledge in order to make sense of
disturbing moments of practice, and then, design a solution. Schön’s (1983) levels of reflection
started from a place of knowing that was natural, intuitive, continuous and somewhat tacit.
Reflection aided in distilling tacit understandings into explicit, step by step instructions, so
individuals were abler to acquire knowledge from one another.
The second, more delineated type of reflection Schön (1983) described was Reflection-
in-Action. Reflection-in-Action occurred during a learning event and was considered a reaction
to that event. Schön depicted Reflection-in-Action through adapting behaviors. When
confronted with a disturbing moment, one that necessitated problem solving in order to stabilize
a tenuous learning situation, a practitioner would have to make in-the-moment decisions, to
ensure students comprehended the content. Schön explained that Reflection-in-Action decisions
were usually quick and customary, which allowed the practitioner to meet the learning need and
continue on with the learning moment.
Schön also discussed Reflection-on-Action. During Reflection-on-Action, the
practitioner considered a problematic learning situation through multiple lenses. These lenses
included theoretical perspectives, along with practitioner’s feelings and beliefs associated with
the situation. Schön encouraged practitioners to move toward self-observation, and self-inquiry
of feelings and beliefs, during both Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-Action. Schön’s
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 30
conclusions aligned with Dewey’s (1938) assertions, which called the practitioner to observe,
then confront, the problematic learning situation, and resolve it by employing a novel solution.
According to reflective practice scholars such as Schön (1983), practitioners who
internalized and carried out theoretical recommendations, were more equipped to assess the
learning environment and their personal decision-making within that environment. They were
also able to recognize, to some extent, the influence their personal perceptions had on student
learning. Reflective practitioners, who participated in Deweyan (1938) and Schön-like (1983)
reflection, sought to maximize students’ learning opportunities through lesson improvement, and
at times, co-constructed knowledge alongside their students. Reflective practitioners were able
to review their instructional choices and enact changes to make tacit understandings explicit,
adapt to interruptions in practice, alter learning goals, and generate new solutions to problematic
learning situations, in order to increase learning opportunities for all students.
Mezriow (1981) affirmed Dewey’s (1938) and Schön’s (1983) expectations of reflective
practitioners. He expected educators to reflect by examining their instructional choices and
pedagogy through the lens of their personal values, experiences, and perceptions, as well as
society’s expectations. Mezirow implored educators to examine the ways these factors
influenced their classroom context and problem solving processes. He stressed an educator’s
duty to assist students with reflecting on their own values and decision-making, particularly
when they discovered conflicts between the two during reflection, and confirmed the
ineffectiveness of a one-size-fits-all approach to educating diverse learners (Gardner, 2009). He
also cautioned practitioners who considered thoughtfulness to be true reflection, by signifying
the value of a deeper reflective practice that incited increased self-awareness and cognitive shifts
in personal beliefs and assumptions.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 31
According to Mezirow’s (1981) reflective philosophy, a reflective educator stimulated a
cycle of reflection. The practitioner reflected on personal practice, which elicited reflection on
the part of the learner. Likewise, the learner’s reflective understandings resulted in increased
reflective practice within the practitioner. Mezirow asserted that practitioners who went beyond
thoughtfulness and examined their own values and assumptions, and taught their students to do
the same, opened themselves and their students to a broader understanding of the world around
them, a higher tolerance of differing belief systems, and the possibility of affecting positive
change in themselves and the world around them. High-needs schools are often comprised of a
diverse student body with differing cultural values, perceptions, and experiences. A practitioner,
such as the one Mezirow described, could offer students from diverse backgrounds, the life-
changing and society-altering tools of understanding, tolerance, and change.
In Rodgers’ (2002a, 2002b) article examining Dewey’s (1938) reflective practice
philosophies, she distilled and problematized his somewhat ambiguous ideas, into specific,
cyclical criteria. She asserted these reflective criteria could be enacted during or after a
problematic learning situation, and included meaning-making, systematic yet rigorous thinking,
collective activity, and attitudes that valued growth in self and others. Her prescriptive phases of
reflection interpreted Dewey’s (1938) most prominent ideas and clarified them. They included:
the experience or problem itself, the interpretation of the experience or problem, identification of
the perceived root of the problem, hypothesizing possible solutions to the problem, and acting on
a chosen hypothesis.
Rodgers (2002b) operationalized Dewey’s (1938) ideas into her four-part Reflective
Cycle. The four parts included: Presence in Experience, Learning to see; Description of
Experience, Learning to describe and differentiate; Experimentation, Learning to take intelligent
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 32
action; and Analysis of Experience, Learning to think from multiple perspectives and form
multiple explanations. The singular aim of Rodgers’ reflective cycle was to improve student
learning. Rodgers recommended practitioners move through the non-linear, unfixed cycle as
appropriate for their own context.
Within Presence in Experience, Rodgers (2002b) urged teachers to slow down in their
practice and stay present in their instruction, so they might differentiate between their students’
perspectives of the learning and their personal assumptions associated with that learning. Within
this phase, Rodgers expected teachers to know their students well and remain hyper-aware of the
interplay between their instructional approaches, which included their body language and tone,
and students’ learning needs. Rodgers considered this phase to be possible, only if practitioners
were passionate about their students and their students’ learning, and were familiar with their
content, which allowed them to focus on the learning rather than their delivery of the content.
In the following phase, Description, Rodgers (2002b) detailed the benefits of multiple
perspectives within reflection. In Description, practitioners described the problematic learning
event without interpretation, judgment, or alteration, in order to create an objective description
and afford the practitioner the opportunity to move beyond the limits of an individual, finite
scope. In this phase, Rodgers believed an acknowledgement, on the part of the practitioner, of
the depth and nuances within learning moments would allow the practitioner an awareness to
differentiate between what they have taught, what their students have actually learned, and
whether their pedagogical choices increased or impeded students’ learning opportunities.
In Rodgers (2002b) third phase, Analysis, practitioners decided on a course of action that
accounted for the practitioner’s learning from the prior two phases. This learning included
students’ historical, social, political, and cultural perspectives. In this phase, practitioners
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 33
supportively challenged one another to make instructional decisions void of assumptions. Lastly,
in the final phase of Experimentation, teachers made decisions to take intelligent action
motivated from careful, collaborative analysis, purposely avoiding routine decision making. The
implementation of the four-phase reflective cycle, which Rogers stated attended to the nuances,
experiences, and understandings of individual students, could be considered a valuable approach
in a school that served students coming from different understandings and cultural perspectives,
such as those from a non-dominant, high-needs population.
Rodgers (2002b) positioned teachers to explore their own teaching, while exhibiting
respect for students’ perspectives, by honoring the complexity of learning, and taking into
account the socio-political milieu in which students participated. In the complex system of a
high-needs school, practitioners who employed Rodgers’ recommendations might be abler to see
their teaching through their students’ eyes, alter their instruction based on their deep knowledge
of their students and their instructional content, and create a culture of collaboration, all of
which, Rodgers asserted, were products of reflective practice.
Jay and Johnson (2002) constructed a reflective Typology aimed at operationalizing
reflection, as Rodgers did, and maintaining the complexity inherent in reflective practice. Jay
and Johnson reviewed the reflective practice literature and suggested core practices they
considered effective. Their final Typology, while non-linear, was grouped into three dimensions
of reflection: Descriptive, Comparative, and Critical. Each dimension was intended for a
specific reflective purpose, and depended on the practitioner’s specific context.
The descriptive dimension of Jay and Johnson’s (2002) Typology introspectively probed
practitioner beliefs and decisions, which was similar to both Rodgers’ (2002b) reflective cycle
and Schön’s (1983) theories. The comparative dimension involved questioning for the purposes
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 34
of gaining a broader, multi-dimensional perspective of a problem of practice, which also aligned
with Rodgers’ (2002b) views of collaborative, multiple perspective approaches to problem
solving in the classroom. The final dimension, the Critical dimension, asked questions
surrounding the socio-political frames students and teachers experienced in the educational
system. In this dimension, practitioners evaluated the problem through varying perspectives,
including that of society’s educational expectations (Howard, 2003; Lynn & Maddox, 2007;
Yendol-Hoppey, Jacobs, & Dana, 2009).
Jay and Johnson’s (2002) Typology contained similarities to Schön’s (1983) and
Rodgers’ (2002b) prescriptive, reflective framework but their Typology also included possible
questions for the newly reflective practitioner. Jay and Johnson intended the Typology to
scaffold preservice teachers’ learning of reflective practice, in hopes that the supports provided,
encouraged them to continue in their reflective practice. In schools where practitioners were
burdened by a plethora of school, teacher, and student needs, a definitive Typology such as Jay
and Johnson’s, might minimize the perceived ambiguity in reflective practice and increase the
probability of teacher reflection (Colin & Karsenti, 2011). Novice, and even experienced
teachers, in high-needs schools could also utilize Jay and Johnson’s probing questions to build
habits in observing their own practice, and seeking out novel solutions to recurring problematic
learning situations.
While the intent of Dewey (1938), Schön (1983), Mezirow (1981), Rodgers (2002b), and
Jay and Johnson (2002), was to improve student learning, they each discussed reflective practice
and analysis of practice differently. Reflective practice offered practitioners the tools to increase
their instructional competency and meet the needs of a diverse group of learners. However,
theorists remarked on the highly contextual nature of reflective practice, and the tension between
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 35
maintaining the complexity of reflection, while providing a useful scaffold that operationalized
reflective theory (Rodgers, 2002b). Varying school cultures, values, assumptions, and socio-
political influences make each learning environment unique. Neither Dewey’s philosophies nor
Rodgers’ delineated cycle will meet all reflective learning needs within all contexts, but these
suggested practices rooted in theory, offer mechanisms through which teachers might observe
their own teaching and take actions designed to increase student learning opportunities in their
specific contexts.
Current State of Reflection in Education
The U.S. educational system considered reflective practice an integral part of preservice
and in-service teacher learning (Jay and Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b). Novice teachers were
expected to enter the classroom knowing how to reflect, experienced teachers were expected to
reflect on instruction to adapt lessons for student consumption, and teacher educators were
expected to have a strong grasp of reflective theory and practice in order to teach reflection
effectively. Novice teachers, experienced practitioners, and teacher educators engaged in
reflective practice to improve student learning. And yet, reflective practice implementation in
the public education system was varied at best and absent at worst. This lack of coherence
resulted in diminished learning opportunities for diverse learners.
Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, and Moreno (2013) conducted a study of 284 teachers, in
various schools, who implemented a math program and then reflected on the implementation
process. The researchers found discrepancies across the math implementation process that were
traced back to inconsistent reflective practices among the teachers. Those schools that promoted
reflective practices schoolwide, and embedded supports for reflection, showed more positive
outcomes than those schools where teacher reflection was absent or isolated. Teachers who were
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 36
supported at a school level engaged in deeper reflective practice, and teachers who reflected had
higher student outcomes in the math program (Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Hanson, 2011; Jones &
Jones, 2013; Rodgers, 2002b; Takahashi, 2011; Thompson & Pascal, 2012).
Clarke, James, and Kelly (1996) utilized the nursing field in the United Kingdom to
emphasize the need for deep, deliberate reflection, based on higher order thinking. They
discussed the importance of reflection in helping practitioners cope with professional difficulties,
increasing collaboration and dialogue among colleagues, deepening professional knowledge, and
illuminating novel solutions to problems in practice. The authors refrained from operationalizing
a reflective process but confirmed its value. They reviewed reflective practice literature and
found there was no good or bad reflective practice, only better and best, dependent on the context
of the reflector.
Hardy (2004), also in the United Kingdom, collected surveys and conducted a small
focus group of postgraduate education students at a University to learn about their perceptions of
the reflective process. The focus group utilized reflective journals to record their thoughts,
interpretations, and perspectives on reflection. The study’s author found that students needed
specific instruction in the implementation and rhetoric of reflection, particularly with journaling
assignments. A majority of the study participants disliked the journals but concluded they were
useful for problem solving. The journal assignments left the participants confused, due to the
lack of targeted learning outcomes and the absence of a specific scaffold to guide their
reflections. The author found that the journals were less effective with students who preferred
reflective options other than journaling. In this circumstance, a more scaffolded approach to
reflective journaling, such as Jay and Johnson’s (2002) guiding questions, could have provided
the focus, goals, and scaffolded support these practitioners needed. Varied reflective methods
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 37
could have been offered as well, to allow participants a few choices in their reflective practice
(Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
Learning to reflect and maintaining a reflective perspective on personal practice can be
difficult for most practitioners, whether novice or experienced. Jay and Johnson (2002) and
Rodgers’ (2002b) recommended scaffolding the reflective process, as appropriate, for the
practitioners’ experience and the particular context. Jay and Johnson’s three dimensions of
descriptive, comparative, and critical reflection, equipped educators to describe their practice,
include multiple perspectives in their observation, and shift their values and assumptions, in
order to increase student learning opportunities (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Loughran, 2006;
Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Practitioners were also enabled to examine their
instructional practice and cultivate an awareness of personal values and assumptions, particularly
those associated with students from non-dominant backgrounds. Through the implementation of
these recommended reflective processes, practitioners might avoid both the detrimental effects of
a one-size-fits-all perspective, and the conflicts that sometimes arise between teachers and
students from differing belief systems.
In her reflective cycle, Rodgers’ (2002b) asked practitioners to slow down and
acknowledge the nuanced complexity involved in learning to increase students’ learning
opportunities. Her cycle offered educators increased access to understanding students’ learning
through questioning, feedback, and collaboration. Both Jay and Johnson’s (2002) and Rodgers’
(2002b) cycles could have scaffolded the learning of the participants in Clarke, James, and
Kelly’s (1996) and Hardy’s (2004) studies. This might have led to increased reflective practice,
further developed higher order thinking skills, and minimized confusion surrounding ambiguous
learning outcomes.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 38
Thorsen and DeVore (2013) confirmed the need for a purpose, as well as defined
expectations, when reflecting. The authors suggested that effective, purposeful reflection
focused the educator on personal growth and positive outcomes for all students. The authors
reviewed seminal theorists’ work to design their developmental continuum of reflection-on/for-
action rubric. The rubric placed participants’ reflective practice along a continuum of
components identified by these and other seminal authors and measured the level of reflectivity
in their practice. Participants’ reflective language and cognitive processing were analyzed for
future improvement, to support the skills needed for proficient reflective practice. This
continuum could assist practitioners in high-needs schools with identifying their current capacity
for reflective practice, and assisting them in planning for future reflective growth.
Attard and Armour (2006) examined the ways one secondary teacher’s use of reflective
practice as a novice teacher impacted his professional development as an educator. The almost
three-year study employed action research, self-study, and journaling. The practitioner used a
self-designed three-level reflective process, which included reflection on personal practice,
student learning, and official professional development activities. These levels were based on
the body of literature surrounding reflective practice. At the end of reflector’s data collection, he
found that developing the habit of reflecting was difficult at first, but once the habit was
established, he found reflection to be a powerful tool for growth, both in professional and
personal aspects. He also experienced discomfort when challenging his personal assumptions
and was concerned that his reflections did not result in a change in practice. His consistent use
of reflective practice allowed the practitioner to develop an attitude of life-long learning, by
enhancing his learning experiences, and increasing his perceived success in the classroom
(Hardy, 2004). In high-needs schools, enhancing learning experiences and increasing success
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 39
through reflective practice, are critical to increasing student learning opportunities and learning
equity (Gorski, 2013; Gorski & Landsman, 2014).
Ferry and Ross-Gordon (1998) utilized a qualitative approach to analyze 18 adult
educators’ approaches to problem solving. The study began with a questionnaire sent to 52
novice and experienced teachers. From those responses, participants were chosen by their
answers. The most extreme survey answers on both the reflective and non-reflective ends, were
invited to continue in the study. The 18 chosen educators were split into novice and experienced
groups. Ferry and Ross-Gordon (1998) found reflecting teachers, even those at the novice level,
were more effective at problem solving appropriately than non-reflective teachers because of
their willingness to look at each situation differently and construct new strategies to solve a
problematic situation. Novice teachers relied more heavily on constructing decision making
perspectives while experienced teachers relied on problem-solving approaches based on prior
experiences. Ferry and Ross-Gordon asserted that problem solving responses associated with
experience, were secondary to the effectiveness associated with reflective decision making,
particularly when practitioners were solving novel problems. In high-needs schools, problems
can sometimes be difficult to solve, unique to the context, and require innovative thinking and
renewed perspectives. Dewey’s (1938), Schön’s (1983), Jay and Johnson’s (2002), and Rodgers’
(2002b) reflective processes urged practitioners to think differently, consider multiple
perspectives, and establish renewed perspectives, all of which are needed qualities among
practitioners in high-needs schools.
Scholars studied reflection to improve reflective practice and increase the robustness of
students’ learning experiences. Each theorist may have approached reflection in a different way
by establishing foundational theories, designing a reflective process, creating a measuring tool,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 40
or qualifying the value of reflection over experience, but each scholar established reflective
practice as a beneficial tool for practitioner and student growth. Scholars encouraged educators
to take ownership of their growth by reflecting on their instructional processes and personal
perspectives. In high-needs schools, where problems can be numerous and supports can be few,
harnessing the power associated with reflection can offer practitioners the needed tools to affect
change in their personal perspectives, in their students’ understandings, and in society.
Current State of Critical Reflection Toward Equity and Access
Dewey (1938) asserted that reflection led a practitioner toward caring, responsible
decision making, in light of the evidence supporting the decision. Researchers also asserted that
thoughtful instruction based on context specific needs, was important for the academic success of
all learners, but more critically, for those students from non-dominant backgrounds who lived in
communities stratified by race and poverty, and consistently experienced less robust educational
environments than their White peers (Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce, Ahram, 2015; Rodgers,
2002b; van Manen, 1991). High-needs schools within these stratified communities received
unequal funding, and held lower matriculation rates, educational outcomes, and curricular rigor
than non-high-needs populations (Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015;
Rose, 2015; Rothstein, 2015). Banks (1995) advocated for educators to guide students through
the process of constructing knowledge and supporting them in making a social stance against the
inequities. Theorists recognized reflective practice as a means through which, teachers could
develop the perspectives necessary to navigate both themselves, and their students, through the
socio-political milieu of the country’s educational system (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Moje, 2007).
If teachers were to construct and deconstruct content knowledge alongside their students,
they first had to reflect on their own cultural, social, and political perspectives (Gay & Kirkland,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 41
2003; Howard, 2003; Zeichner, 1983). A teacher’s stance was critical to students’ learning
because it directly affected the ways knowledge was attended to, presented, and constructed in a
classroom (Howard, 2003). Teachers’ reflection on their personal stance increased their
awareness of the foundational beliefs underlying their instructional decisions (Gay & Kirkland,
2003). Within high-needs schools, teachers’ and students’ stances differed, often leading to
ineffective, mismatched pedagogy (Gorski, 2013). Reflective practice provided educators the
opportunity to design appropriate instructional approaches and increase content and pedagogical
relevance for students from non-dominant backgrounds (Gorski, 2013). This increase in learning
relevancy influenced classroom equity, students’ political consciousness, and positive, self-
perceptions, particularly among students in high-needs schools (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Gorski,
2013).
Valli (1997) asserted that reflective practice promoted culturally appropriate teaching
pedagogy and curricula. She also affirmed that reflection could be promoted through a variety of
methods, and that deliberate, personal reflection extended beyond a defense of instructional
choices, to a renewal of teaching purposes. Reflective practice, through whatever method,
renewed teachers’ understandings and perspectives, contributing to the increased ability to teach
from culturally relevant perspectives. In addition, Valli confirmed that when reflective practice
was conducted collectively, and focused on culturally appropriate learning, students’ and
teachers’ participated in thoughtful decision making, increased student learning opportunities,
and minimized educational inequities.
Moje (2007) advanced this argument through her research on the need for culturally
relevant pedagogy and curriculum. Teachers who were compelled to transform themselves,
teach an emancipatory curriculum, and employ culturally appropriate pedagogy, had a much
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 42
greater chance at combating the educational inequities affecting students of a non-dominant
background (Mezirow, 1981; Moje, 2007; Valli, 1997). And yet, recognizing emancipatory,
culturally appropriate approaches, and decreasing classroom inequities, required deep, deliberate
reflection on the part of the practitioner (Howard, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Research indicated that culture shapes the learning processes and academic outcomes of
students (Gay, 2002). Teachers who developed pedagogy that was relevant to both themselves
and their students increased the learning opportunities and academic achievement of students
within high-needs schools (Howard, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Teachers’ willingness to
enter uncomfortable conversations and examine personal assumptions, prejudices, and values
often revealed deeper motivations behind decision making and the degree to which teachers
cared about their students’ success (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Howard, 2003; Yosso, 2005).
Using prescriptive frameworks such as Valli’s (1997) five types of reflection, Thorsen and
DeVore’s (2013) developmental continuum rubric, Rodgers’s (2002b) four-part reflective cycle,
and Jay and Johnson’s (2002) reflective Typology promoted practitioners’ capacity to examine
personal assumptions and assess decision making from multiple perspectives, which were critical
needs within high-needs schools.
Theorists posited, that when teachers reflected on their reflective frameworks, they were
able to identify what motivated them, what their assumptions were, and the hegemony embedded
in those assumptions (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). This type of rigorous reflection pushed
practitioners beyond observation, description, analysis, and action (Brookfield, 2010; Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Lynn & Maddox, 2007). Rigorous reflection also assessed the accuracy of
that analysis by identifying dominant ideologies inherent in those analyzed assumptions. The
practitioner was then able to take action to combat the inequity revealed by their reflection.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 43
Once practitioners were grounded in a personal stance, they were able to design dialogic
opportunities through which students could access robust learning opportunities (Howard, 2003;
Loughran, 2006; Mezirow, 1981).
Scholars encouraged reflective practitioners to translate culturally relevant theories into
practice, through reflecting on instructional choices, building relationships in the classroom
setting, and the creating of a space for frank discussions about race and inequity (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995). This reflective process was imperative in high-needs
schools where multiple perspectives, tolerance of conflicting values and cultural perspectives, as
well as acceptance of differences were needed but oftentimes lacking (Rodgers, 2002b; Snyder-
Frey, 2013). Students were invited into this reflective process through conversations, and
through their teachers’ modeling, were equipped with tools to question, identify, and dismiss
inequities and deficit thinking while constructing accurate self-perceptions through critical self-
awareness (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Freire, 1972).
When students from non-dominant backgrounds, who were situated in high-needs
communities, were able to reflect on their personal social stance and participate in reflective
discussions, they were equipped to deconstruct dominant ideology and construct positive cultural
identities. Students became empowered advocates for social justice, in the classroom, in their
education, and in society (Gay, 2010). Reflective teachers created spaces for reflective dialogue
among students, augmenting student learning of the content and the historical backdrop behind
the content (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). This resulted in cognitive shifts and social action stances
among students and practitioners, which increased culturally appropriate, student learning
opportunities, and learning equity in the classroom.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 44
Reflective Practice Framework: The What, How, and Why
Dewey (1938) directed teachers toward rigorous, systematic reflection as a means to
move society forward. Scholars and professional agencies sought to further Dewey’s
groundwork within reflective practice and attempted to define, extend, and operationalize his
ideas (California Standards for the Teaching Profession, 2009; National Board for Professional
Teaching Standards, 2002; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996). In a
1996 report, authored by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, detailing
what matters most for America’s educational future, reflection was assumed indispensable, to
some degree, for all teachers. In 2002, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards,
a national credentialing organization for educators, called for teachers to think systematically
about their practice. Within teaching standards, such as those for California educators, prompt
reflection regarding student learning was expected (California Standards for the Teaching
Profession, 2009). Teacher education programs across the nation, continued to integrate decades
of scholarly research, as well as national and state standards, into teacher credentialing, program
expectations, in hopes of graduating educators equipped to instruct in ways that promoted
inquiry, problem solving, and critical thinking (Lupinski, Jenkins, Beard, & Jones, 2012).
Because reflective practice became a common expectation across the nation’s public
school system, delineated reflective processes multiplied. Reflective processes arose for a
variety of contexts and purposes. A more progressive school might gravitate toward a Deweyan
(1938) view of reflection because of the emphasis on learning through inquiry, discovery, and
systematic introspection. A school with diverse learners might lobby for a reflective process that
aligned with Mezirow’s (1981) approach because of the historical, social, and political influences
affecting the educational experiences of their students. A school led by strong teacher leaders
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 45
might possibly advocate for Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle, because experienced teachers are
more apt to recognize the value of seeing learning through their students’ eyes. A school with a
larger number of novice teachers could find greater value in Jay and Johnson’s (2002) Typology,
because of the need for a scaffolded reflective process among new teachers.
With the multitude of reflective process choices, reflective practice became, “everything
to everybody,” and somewhat hollow (Rodgers, 2002b, p. 843). Some scholars suggested
slowing down. Others urged practitioners to examine their instruction for inherent bias.
Researchers asked teachers to honor their students’ rich perspectives and construct knowledge
aside them. Other texts highlighted reflective tools as a means to dismantle social injustices.
Some practitioners preferred journaling, while others preferred action research. One school
reflected communally, while another focused on private reflection. Scholars encouraged deep
reflection on almost everything, through various methods, in diverse reflective groups, and
reflection became a cumbersome, confused, and catered service. Practitioners valued reflection,
and most participated in some sort of reflective process, but they were limited to whatever
reflective values and understandings they were made aware (Williams & Grudnoff, 2011).
On closer examination though, scholars’ reflective practice processes and school level
reflective efforts, seemed to be aimed at the same goal. Reflective practice, regardless of the
cycle, strategy, or approach asked teachers to dig into their thoughts and instructional practice to
make correlations between their instruction and student learning. Scholars and teachers might
have utilized a different set of vocabulary, a different cycle, a different Typology, or a different
rubric, but they were all focused on one aim: increasing student learning.
Scholars sought to minimize the ambiguity encircling reflective practice by streamlining
the numerous definitions and processes. This involved uniting assumptions, meanings, theories,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 46
and actions, while developing engaging, implementable, complex, yet unfettered processes that
resulted in novel problem-solving strategies and transformational cognitive shifts (Banks, 1995;
Black & Plowright, 2010; Dewey, 1938; Danielewicz, 2001; Higgins, 2011; Jay & Johnson,
2002; Mezirow, 1981; Rodgers, 2002b). For reflective practice to empower learners,
practitioners needed to engage in a definitive yet non-restrictive process.
Teachers’ increased awareness of the array of reflective approaches and strategies,
allowed them to identify those practices most useful for their purpose and context (LaBoskey,
1993). When teachers were allowed to choose their own reflective processes, rather than
engaging in a one-size-fits-all approach to reflection, they were more likely to become life-long
reflectors (LaBoskey, 1993). Reflective processes differed from classroom to university to
governmental standards, but the intention of reflection stayed the same, to improve student
learning by developing thoughtful, ideologically aware, justice seeking practitioners (Brookfield
2010; Lynn & Maddox, 2007; Rodgers, 2002b; Yendol-Hoppey, Jacobs, & Dana, 2009).
Native Hawaiians, Education, and Reflection
Macro policies, such as those discussed above, impacted Native Hawaiian learners as
well. Native Hawaiian students in public schools underperformed all other cultural subgroups
consistently, which led to low graduation and college attendance rates, and high poverty, drug
abuse, and incarceration rates (Kana’iaupuni & Ishibashi, 2003). The tenets Native Hawaiian
culture is built on, such as interdependence and humility, appeared to hinder Native Hawaiians in
a dominant-perspective based society and school system that valued individual success and overt
forms of leadership (Kawakami, 1999). These conflicts between cultural understandings and
dominant expectations were born out of centuries of colonization and marginalization
(Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). Captain Cooke’s arrival in the Hawaiian Islands almost
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 47
250 years ago began a long history of colonization that has continued to modern day (Kawakami,
1999; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 1999). The first Native Hawaiians traveled to the
Hawaiian Islands from Tahiti 15,000 years ago, and since then, have been displaced from their
land, driven to near extinction, silenced through the outlawing of their language, and overthrown
in government, all by men who claimed to act on behalf of the betterment of Native Hawaiians
(Kawakami, 1999; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 1999). This better promise, which led to the
detriment and near annihilation of the Native Hawaiian culture, developed into a deep seated
anger and resistance on the part of Native Hawaiians toward those who associated or resembled
the colonizers (Dudoit, 1999; Luangphinith, 2005). This resistance and anger bled into the ways
in which Native Hawaiians related to non-Native Hawaiians (Dudoit, 1999; Luangphinith, 2005).
Resistance became an expected response as Hawaiians learned to protect themselves, their land,
and their culture from foreign influence (Dudoit, 1999; Luangphinith, 2005). The once
celebrated ancient, oral history, which developed into the highest literacy rates on the globe
during the 1820s, took an abysmal turn for the worst when Native Hawaiian language, in forms
of speech, dance, and song, were outlawed in 1896, following the overthrow of the Native
Hawaiian monarchy (Kawakami, 1999; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 1999). Hawaiians have
fought to recover politically, socially, and academically, since these dark ages (Kawakami, 1999;
Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 1999). The Hawaiian Renaissance of the 1970s brought back a
sense of cultural pride to Native Hawaiians, but did not resolve the angst toward outsiders, and
the struggle to succeed for Native Hawaiians (Kawakami, 1999; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith,
1999). This struggle continued for Native Hawaiian learners in public school classrooms where
Native Hawaiian perspectives continued to be marginalized through the dominant-perspective
based curriculum (Kawakami, 1999). Native Hawaiian ways of being and learning, which
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 48
included the notions of humility and interdependence participants associated with reflective
practice, were pushed out of classrooms to the detriment of Native Hawaiian learners, increasing
inequities for these learners (Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999).

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 49
Chapter Three: Methodology
This paper addressed the problem of decreased learning opportunities among students
from non-dominant backgrounds and high-needs populations. The purpose of this study was to
identify participants’ perceptions of the ways in which reflection increased student learning
opportunities and educational equity among students from non-dominant, high-needs populations
through culturally appropriate perspectives. The research questions that guided this study
include:
1. How do secondary public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?
These questions framed the study’s exploration of teachers’ reflective practice through a
continuum of simple to complex reflective practices. Placement on the Robust Continuum
paralleled the robustness of practitioners’ reflective practices and the perceived increase in
student learning opportunities.
Methods
The study’s qualitative design was based on the emergent, changing, and investigative
nature of exploring participants’ perceptions of their reflective practice understandings,
enactments, and cultural perspectives (Au, 2002; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Merriam, 2009; Rodgers,
2002b). The researcher explored the parralels participants perceived between reflection and
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 50
increased student learning opportunities (Attard & Armour, 2006; Black & Plowright, 2010; Gay
& Kirkland, 2003; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Hickson, 2011; Higgins, 2011; Maxwell, 2012;
Mentis, Annan, & Bowler, 2009; Moon, 2013; Osterman & Kottkamp, 2004; Rodgers, 2002b).
The collection of data was conducted in the participants’ natural settings and I, as the researcher,
was the sole instrument through which data were collected via interviews of secondary, public
school teachers in predominantly non-dominant, high-needs communities (Cresswell, 2014;
Glaser & Strauss, 2009; Merriam, 2009). I gathered and analyzed data to discern participants’
understandings and interpretations of their personal reflective processes from their unique,
cultural perspectives (Merriam, 2009). I also analyzed the data to construct themes and
conjectural hypotheses surrounding teachers’ perceptions of reflective practice (Corbin &
Strauss, 2007; Glaser & Strauss, 2009).
Site and Sample Selection
This study explored teachers’ perceptions of their reflective processes and how those
processes promoted increased learning opportunities for students from non-dominant
backgrounds and high-needs populations. The selected site was a public, charter, secondary
school in Hawai’i. Almost all students, staff and community members, at and around the study
site, identified with a Native Hawaiian perspective. Selection was small, logical, and purposive,
which allowed for the short amount of time spent at the site (Merriam, 2009).
Data were collected at the one school site, where three teachers were selected and
interviewed. Access to the site and participants was granted through the principal of the school.
The criteria for the site’s selection were: at least 90% of the students were from non-dominant
backgrounds due to the nature of the research questions and the study’s focus on inequity; at
least 65% of students lived below the poverty line; selected participants taught in secondary
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 51
classrooms where 90% or more of students were from non-dominant backgrounds; teachers
taught the same lesson multiple times to subsequent groups of students. Participants were
selected through referrals from the principal, which was based on willingness and availability.
Participants were selected regardless of teaching tenure (novice, experienced, or veteran) and all
had some awareness of reflective practice. Due to national credentialing requirements regarding
reflective practice processes, all teachers at the study site were assumed to have some awareness
of, or experience with, reflective practice. Teachers who self-reported as reflective practitioners
were ideal participants. However, due to the study’s focus on perceptions rather than the
observable enactment of reflection, most teachers at the site were able to contribute to the study,
although only three were selected. As a researcher and former teacher at the school site, I was
positioned to interact with participants as both an insider and an outsider. This allowed me to
explore and describe participants’ cultural perceptions from both an emic and etic perspective, as
well as establish both the ontological and epistemological understandings of the participants
(Harris, 1976).
Data Collection
As the researcher, I was the primary instrument for data collection in this qualitative
study. My collection methods were designed to answer the research questions from participants’
varied perceptions and cultural understandings of reflective practice (Maxwell, 2012). I utilized
interview methods and recorded field notes to increase the credibility of the data collected and
minimize researcher bias (Maxwell, 2012). The interviews were aimed at clarifying and aligning
participants’ reflective practice understandings, enactments, and cultural perspectives, in order to
obtain the necessary data.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 52
Interviews. I conducted semi-structured, individual interviews so I was able to prepare
interview questions ahead of time (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). The semi-structured
interview process provided a focus for the interviews, through prepared questions (Appendix A
& B). This format allowed for conversational type discussion and more comfortable
communication between the participants and me, so they were guided in their responses but free
to respond as they chose. Questions were tailored to the participants’ environment, grade level,
and experience. Two sets of interviews were conducted, one during the first few weeks of the
school year (Appendix A) and another follow-up interview a week later (Appendix B). The
initial interview was aimed at establishing comfortability and familiarity with the participant,
understanding the participant’s general perceptions of reflective practice, and entering the
participant’s perspective (Merriam, 2009). The research questions in the first interview sought to
identify participants’ perceptions of reflective practice. In order to understand the participants’
perceptions, I asked interview questions that helped me understand their thinking surrounding
reflective practice including their value of the process and how they engaged in the process, if at
all (Appendix A). Included in the interview protocol is an alignment table of the study’s
research questions, the interview questions, and the applicable literature. This interview format
was beneficial to the study because the questions were focused on gathering participants’
perceptions of their own understandings, implementations, and cultural perspectives associated
with reflective practice. The second interview session was an informal, conversational, follow-
up interview, during which, any changes that occurred in participants’ perceptions of reflective
practice, since the initial interview discussion, were discussed (Maxwell, 2012).
Reflective practice scholars explored and operationalized ideas and knowledge to improve
students’ learning opportunities through the observation of instructional practice and the
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 53
exploration of the perspectives supporting instructional choices (Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996).
Reflective practice theorists urged practitioners to slow down, ask introspective questions of
themselves, and probe their students’ understandings, to equip practitioners to take intelligent
action during and after instruction (Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983). The interview questions
sought to understand the participants’ perceptions of their reflective practice and its correlation
with increasing students’ learning opportunities.
Within the study, the reflective frameworks of Dewey (1938), Mezirow (1981), Schön
(1983), Jay and Johnson (2000), and Rodgers (2002b) were utilized. Dewey’s (1938) work
circled around experiential learning and innovative problem solving as a result of reflective
practice. Mezirow (1981) delineated the thinking processes associated with reflective practice.
Schön’s (1983) major reflective concepts of Reflect-in-Action and Reflect-on-Action
differentiated practitioners’ reflection between their examination of practice during instruction,
and their consideration of their practice after instruction, which included the lenses of scholars’
theoretical work. Jay and Johnson’s (2000) Typology of reflection offered three dimensions of
reflection, alongside guiding questions aimed at probing practitioners’ understandings and
decision-making. The Typology included descriptive, comparative, and critical dimensions of
reflection. Each dimension increased in intensity, to some degree, targeted distinct reflective
purposes, and accrued additional perspectives, as the purpose and intensity shifted. Rodgers’
(2002b) four-part Reflective Cycle included Presence in Experience, Description of Experience,
Analysis, and Experimentation of Experience. Rodgers urged practitioners to stay present in
their instruction, describe the learning objectively, examine their instruction through their
students’ eyes, and make needed changes in instruction to better meet the revealed needs of
students. All reflective frameworks discussed above turned practitioners toward the theoretical
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 54
underpinnings, and historical, social, and political influences within the learning, as well as,
within the reflection.
Practitioners’ perceptions were explored predominantly through the work of the theorists
listed above. The frameworks established by these scholars was developed into a reflective
Robust Continuum. A simple thinking process, in which practitioners reviewed their instruction,
sat on the less robust end of the continuum, and on the other, more robust end of the Continuum,
sat reflection that examined values and beliefs, from multiple perspectives. The most rigorous
and robust examination prompted cognitive shifts and social justice stances (Black & Plowright,
2010; Brookfield, 2010; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Moje, 2007; Rodgers,
2002b; Schön, 1983; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
Interviews were scheduled according to the participants’ availability and at a location of
the participants’ choice to promote comfortability. Participants’ consent was gained verbally and
digitally, and with their permission, interviews were audio recorded. Memos were taken to
capture the essence of the participants’ answers. Each interview lasted approximately one hour,
during which, I took minimal field notes of verbal responses due to the audio recording, and
more detailed notes regarding participants’ body language, facial expressions, pausing during
questioning, eye contact, vocal intonation and volume, and body movement. The audio
recordings of the interviews were transcribed into a log, and then transferred to a spreadsheet for
analysis and coding. I reviewed the logs and spreadsheets to identify salient portions, which
provided information relevant to the research questions, re-listened to those salient portions, and
examined those sections for further coding.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 55
Data Analysis
Data analysis of the transcriptions began immediately following the first interview and
continued through the entire writing of the study (Maxwell, 2012). I listened to the audio
recordings of each interview while reading through the transcriptions and added additional,
clarifying notes or memos to the report (Maxwell, 2012). I examined the memos alongside the
transcriptions for emerging patterns, assigned preliminary codes, continued to read and re-read
the transcriptions, and collapsed the codes into similar categories. Finally, I developed themes
encompassing the emerging patterns, codes, and categories (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009).
Biases
As a self-reported, reflective practitioner, my assumptions and biases may have affected
the way in which I described participants’ reflective beliefs and behaviors. My subjectivity
could have easily become judgements on what I perceived. I consciously guarded against
inflammatory or judgmental language within my descriptions of teachers’ perceptions and
practices.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 56
Chapter Four: Findings
This study addressed the problem of low student achievement among students from high-
needs, non-dominant populations (Gorski, 2013; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Noguera, 2001;
Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Orfield & Lee, 2005; Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004;
Parrett & Budge, 2012). Data highlighted the low achievement of students who live in poverty
within the U.S. (Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2006; Ladd, 2012; U.S. Department of
Education, 2013a; U.S. Department of Education, 2013b). This study investigated practitioners’
perceptions of reflective practice and the ways in which they associated reflective practice with
promoting learning opportunities for Native Hawaiian learners. The study also sought to
examine and make explicit tacit teacher understandings, processes, and cultural perspectives
affiliated with reflective practice (Au, 1998; Au, 2002; Beauchamp, 2015; Kawakami, 1999;
Russell, 2005; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Williams & Grudnoff, 2011).
In the literature review (Chapter 2), teachers’ perceptions of reflective practice were
viewed through Jay and Johnson’s (2002), Rodgers’ (2002b), and Schön’s (1983) reflective
practice framework. Jay and Johnson’s (2002) Typology of reflection offered three dimensions
of reflection with accompanying guiding questions. The three dimensions, descriptive,
comparative, and critical, serve different purposes and increase in complexity and perspectives.
Rodgers (2002b) framework asked practitioners to observe, describe, analyze, and experiment
within their instructional practice to increase students’ learning opportunities. Schön’s (1983)
primary reflective tools are his identification of Reflection-in-Action, reflection that occurs
during lesson implementation, and Reflection-on-Action, reflection that occurs after the lesson
implementation, and takes into account theoretical perspectives and the practitioner’s feelings
about the learning. These frameworks offered a simple and informal scaffold for the Robust
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 57
Continuum, which is exemplified throughout the study. The Continuum allowed for the review
and location of participants’ perceptions and enactments of reflective practice within a scope of
robustness. On one end of the Robust Continuum was a reflective approach to instructional
practice that circled around thoughtfulness, and at the other end, a more robust reflective practice
that included an examination of personal assumptions and beliefs from multiple perspectives,
including pressures in the classroom associated with theoretical, social, historical, and political
perspectives. The more robust reflective practice resulted in cognitive shifts within the
reflector’s perspective, promoted learning opportunities and learning equity in the classroom for
Native Hawaiian students, and moved the reflector toward social action (Black & Plowright,
2010; Brookfield, 2010; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Participants’
reflective practice was explored through a robust reflective lens, rather than a critical reflective
lens, because robustness seemed to more accurately capture the range of reflective practice in
which Native Hawaiian practitioners engaged. A critical reflective lens might have constrained
participants’ purposes, definitions, and enactments of reflective practice through a linear,
assigned, and prescriptive framework. This further assignment of dominant perspectives could
have impeded the study’s exploration of an authentic, Native Hawaiian way of being, learning,
and reflecting, which does not appear to readily align with dominant critical theories regarding
reflective practice.
The data below identified practitioners’ self-perceived thoughtfulness, self-monitoring,
cognitive and transformational shifts, and social action, as a result of personal reflective practice
within classrooms serving Native Hawaiian students within high-needs populations. The
following Research Questions guided the study’s inquiry:
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 58
1. How do secondary public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?
Qualitative methods were used within this study. These methods included semi-
structured, individual interviews that sought to ascertain practitioners’ tacit beliefs about
reflective practice and their perceptions of how those behaviors increased student learning
opportunities and equity within their secondary, high-needs, public school classrooms.
Study Site
The study site, Makua’ole Public Charter School (MPCS), a pseudonym, was a 13-year-
old public charter school at the time of the study and fell under the governance of the Hawai’i
Board of Education. As a charter, MPCS functioned under the same expectations as other public
schools in Hawaii, expectations that were enforced by the Department of Education. The school
was directly managed by its elected Local School Board. The Local School Board managed the
budgetary decisions of the school and oversaw the filling of the principal’s position. MPCS
opened in 2003 after obtaining a charter from the Board of Education and receiving funding from
the Hawai’i Legislature. The allocated funding was earmarked for student learning. No monies
for facilities, or facilities themselves, were offered to any of Hawai’i’s charter schools. Like
most other Public, Hawaiian-Focused Charter Schools established in the early 2000s, MPCS
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 59
used an outdoor, makeshift classroom area, or more specifically, a cordoned off, modified
chicken coop, as an instructional space.
In August of 2003, MPCS opened to 58 students in grades kindergarten through three.
The school added an additional grade at the beginning of each school year to accommodate for
student grade completion and additional, incoming students. The school site moved to various
locations to house the exponentially growing number of students. At the time of the study,
MPCS marked its thirteenth year and housed almost 700 kindergarten through eighth grade
students, with a waiting list that numbered in the hundreds. Students were admitted on a first
come, first served basis, with the exception of children of staff members, who were placed prior
to the open enrollment date. The school continued to be led by its original founder and many of
the original teachers. The once eight-member staff numbered 100 at the time of the study, with
54 teachers, 4 administrators, and 42 additional staff members. Grades kindergarten through
four were considered elementary level, and grades five through eight were considered middle
school.
MPCS was nestled within an isolated Hawai’i city composed of predominantly Native
Hawaiians. While almost all the surrounding public schools consistently performed in the
bottom 10% on state tests, MPCS scored above the district mark through school year 2013-14,
however, beginning with the implementation of the Smarter Balanced Assessment, MPCS began
to fall behind state schools (Hawai’i Department of Education, 2014; Hawai’i Department of
Education, 2015a, 2015b; Hawai’i Department of Education, 2016). MPCS maintained the
highest percentage of licensed, Native Hawaiian teachers in the district, with almost 100% of
teachers certificated (Hawai’i Department of Education, 2016). MPCS’s almost fully Native
Hawaiian staff was considered to be a mark of success among the district’s schools because of
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 60
the continual difficulty surrounding public schools experienced in maintaining a long term staff
that was licensed and culturally similar to the students they served. MPCS differed from other
schools in the district though, with lower poverty rates and a smaller number of students
reporting to be Native Hawaiian. A little less than 70% of students at MPCS lived below the
poverty line, as compared to the district average of 90-99%, and approximately 92% of MPCS
students were of Native Hawaiian descent, as opposed to 95-100% of students in surrounding
public schools (State of Hawai’i, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
At the time of the study, MPCS was situated on Native Hawaiian deeded lands, and
looked directly out to the ocean. The seven buildings and 15 portables that made up the school’s
classrooms were painted green on the bottom half, representing the earth, and yellow on the top
half, representing the sun. On the sides of the permanent buildings were five different, 200
square foot murals, hand-painted by a renowned local artist featuring scenes from ancient
Hawaiian stories. At the center of the campus, was the hula stage, which was used as the central
gathering place for all schoolwide and public events. In between the buildings, was an outdoor
classroom, a playground, and a garden of Native Hawaiian plants, which was maintained by
parents of the students and the students themselves. At the back of the school was an athletic
field, basketball courts, and a locker room. Classrooms, offices, outdoor areas, and bathrooms
were neat and clean.
Each morning, all staff and students gathered at the front of the school for Protocol.
During protocol, staff and students pledged allegiance to the flag and sang the state song, along
with other culturally significant songs to begin the day and center themselves for learning.
Students then chanted in Hawaiian to the staff to request permission to enter the school rooms.
The staff chanted back to the students allowing them to enter. While the school was considered a
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 61
Hawaiian culture-based school, all subjects including English Language Arts, Science,
Mathematics, Social Studies, Music, Technology, Media, Library Skills, and Art were taught in
English. The only exceptions were Hula and Hawaiian language classes.
An internal school level document stated that 90% of the staff were of Native Hawaiian
descent and 70% held graduate degrees. All administrators were either Native Hawaiian or
Polynesian, which included one principal, the original founder of the school, and three vice
principals, one for the lower elementary division, one for upper elementary, and one for the
middle school division. The three study participants all fell under the middle school umbrella at
MPCS. The three study participants, who identified themselves as Native Hawaiian, are referred
to within the study, through pseudonyms. The three participants were selected and asked to
participate in the study by the author, but they appeared enthusiastic about participating. As a
former affiliate with MPCS, the author was in a position to select participants she concluded
would be willing to share their reflective practice openly. All interviews were conducted in
participants’ individual classrooms at varying times and days to fit participants’ scheduling
needs. For all participants, the initial interview was conducted one week prior to the follow-up
interview. During the follow-up interview, participants were asked to elaborate on their initial
interview answers (See Interview Protocols, Appendices A and B).
Study Participants
Sara, was a female, licensed teacher in her early forties and had been a teacher for nearly
five years, all at MPCS. She taught in various departments during her tenure at MPCS and
taught middle school mathematics at the time of the study. Sara identified herself as Part-
Caucasian and Part-Native Hawaiian, and like the other two participants, attended a rigorous,
local high school dedicated to serving students of Native Hawaiian descent, for her personal
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 62
educational experience. She held an advanced degree in a science field, in which she worked for
over a decade before shifting to the education field. She completed a Native Hawaiian
culturally-based, teacher licensure program and was an instructor in the program at the time of
the study.
Crystal, like Sara, was a female, licensed teacher in her early forties and had been a
teacher for nearly five years, all at MPCS. She started her teaching tenure with middle
elementary students but was teaching middle school social studies at the time of the study.
Crystal identified herself as Part-Caucasian and Part-Native Hawaiian, and attended the same
Native Hawaiian, high school as Sara for her personal educational experience. Crystal, also like
Sara, held an advanced degree in a science field she worked within for over a decade before she
shifted to the field of education. She completed the same Native Hawaiian teacher licensure
program as Sara and at the time of the study, was instructing within the program, alongside Sara.
Sara and Crystal were acquaintances before beginning their tenures at MPCS because of their
common backgrounds.
Logan, was a male, licensed teacher in his mid-thirties and had been a teacher for over
ten years. He began teaching at MPCS in 2013, and at the time of the study, taught middle
school English Language Arts (ELA), which was the only section he taught during his tenure at
MPCS. Like Sara and Crystal, Logan identified himself as Part-Caucasian and Part-Native
Hawaiian, and attended the same high school for Native Hawaiians Crystal and Sara did.
The research within this study aimed to make explicit participants’ tacit reflective
practice definitions, enactments, and cultural perspectives. The data discussed below established
participants’ reflective practice definitions as thinking for instructional improvement, and
described their reflective practice enactment as varied, flexible, and minimally structured.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 63
Participants explained that their cultural perspective of reflective practice increased their
connectedness with their students, however, their cultural understandings also seemed to relate to
a polarization and misalignment of Native Hawaiian and dominant perspectives. When
participants’ initial definitions and enactment descriptions were viewed through the Robust
Continuum, which was grounded in a dominant perspective of theoretical research, their
reflective practice appeared simplistic. However, when their cultural perspectives were threaded
through their previous discussions, their reflective stances expanded. The prescriptive
approaches associated with dominant theories seemed to impede rather than promote
participants’ reflective practice understandings. The dominant ideologies did not appear to have
the capacity to account for cultural perspectives of reflection, effectually marginalizing them and
labeling them as deficient. If scholars continue to expect and assign prescriptive reflective
frameworks, and insist that practitioners look to dominant theories for direction, as they have, the
learning needs of Native Hawaiian students may go unmet.
Research Question 1
Research question one inquired of participants’ reflective practice definitions. All three
participants’ defined reflective practice primarily as reviewing and thinking about instruction for
future improvement. Within their definitions, they also included a commitment to reflective
thinking processes and, subsequently, providing the best possible lessons for their students.
Participants also related their continuously increasing capacity for lengthier and deeper reflective
sessions to their growth as reflective practitioners. Participants’ definitions can be located within
the study’s Robust Continuum displayed below (Figure 1). The Robust Continuum displays the
dominant perspective, reflective practice ideologies, on which this study’s framework was
founded, which included Mezirow’s (1981) ideology of thinking, Dewey’s (1938) ideas of
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 64
thinking with evidence, Schön’s (1983) divisions of reflection during and after instruction (RIA
and ROA), Jay and Johnson’s (2002) dimensions of reflection and guiding questions, and
Rodgers (2002b) encouragement to see instruction through the eyes of learners.

The Robust Continuum allowed participants’ descriptions to be located within the theoretical
body of dominant, reflective practice literature. The literature’s prescriptive approach afforded
the study definitive parameters that were utilized to frame and compare participants’ perceptions
with the literature, one another, themselves, and their identified cultures.
Reflective Practice Defined as a Review for Improvement
Within the first research question, one central theme emerged. This theme, at its most
fundamental, involved participants’ reflective definition as a review for improvement, which
expanded to include a commitment to thinking and an increased stamina to think reflectively,
which they associated with their growth as reflective practitioners. Based on their individual
perceptions, Sara, Crystal, and Logan, each described their personal reflective practice as an
opportunity to consider their instructional choices, and identify areas of strength and areas of
Robust Continuum More Robust
Thinking Social
Action
Higher
Order
Questioning
Self-
Monitoring
Construct
Knowledge
Cognitive
Shifts
Develop
Perspectives
(Theoretical,
Historical,
Political,
Social, Peers)
Take
Ownership
Challenge
Assumptions
Descriptive Comparative Critical RIA ROA
Reflective Robustness Continuum
Less Robust
Figure 1
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 65
need in their instruction. Participants’ responses were framed through the study’s Robust
Continuum.
Sara, the mathematics teacher, defined reflective practice as a positive opportunity for
growth through a review of instructional choices. This included gauging the effectiveness of her
choices, seeking ways to improve her choices, and deciding to make future changes in perceived
areas of need. Sara defined reflective practice as, “as an opportunity for me to better myself, to
look back at what I did the day before, even the week before.” Sara appeared to view reflective
practice as an instructional review that afforded her an increased ability to communicate the
lesson topic effectively. She also described her utilization of reflective self-questioning, where
she asked herself questions like, “Did it work? Did it not? What can I throw out? What can I
add?” Sara described how questions like these were useful in identifying needed lesson
adjustments for future implementation. Sara’s thoughtfulness and reported instructional
adjustment aligned with Rodgers’ (2002b) admonition for teachers to examine their instruction.
Likewise, Dewey (1938) encouraged practitioners to observe their instruction, in an effort to
prevent a reactionary jump to solutions when confronted with instructional difficulties.
Sara’s reflective definition also suggested a continuum of reflective rigor (Figure 2). On
the less robust end of Sara’s Initial Continuum, sat a teacher who resisted acknowledging needed
changes, while on the more robust side of her Initial Continuum, sat a teacher who valued and
sought after instructional change.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 66

In reference to her Initial Continuum, Sara contended she had not “arrived at anything great yet”
and stated she was unsure she ever would. She did, however, comment on her perceived growth
in her reflective stamina over the years. “From the beginning, I would only reflect up to a certain
point and then I'd stop. I think I can go longer…and I can go as deep as I want.” Sara
acknowledged her capacity to reflect at a deeper level for longer periods of time. She also
conveyed her initial tendency to cease reflecting due to discomfort or perceived time constraints.
Sara added, “Reflection is where all your change happens...you spit out an idea, you look at it,
you try and figure out how to change that, and then you...make the change...reflection has those
steps…” Sara’s reflective steps translated to her Initial Continuum, which epitomized a
practitioner’s willingness to problem-solve and change in light of instructional difficulties. Her
pursuit of change located her on the most robust end of her Initial Continuum.
When Sara’s Initial Continuum was viewed through the lens of the Robust Continuum,
her definition was located on the less robust end because while she pursued change and self-
monitored her instruction, she did not appear to include the additional perspectives, such as
historical, political, and social influences, dominant ideologies recommended. She also did not
indicate cognitive shifts as a result of challenging her feelings and assumptions (Jay & Johnson,
See
Problem,
Do
Nothing
Change Thinking,
No
Change,
Shallow
React in
Moment, No
Change
Inclusion of
Peers
Acceptance
of Need to
Change
Reflect
Until
Painful
Reflect to
Work
Through
Hurts
Examine
An Idea

Sara’s Initial Continuum
 Make things better
 Never Ending Growth
 Deeper
 Less Defensive
 Break Things Down
Figure 2
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 67
2002; Rodgers, 2002b). In addition, the study’s operationalized definition included a move
toward social action which appeared to be absent from Sara’s descriptions (Moje, 2007).
Like Sara, Crystal, the social studies teacher, defined reflection as reviewing the lesson,
for future improvement. She held herself responsible for that improvement and indicated that
she met that responsibility through reflection (Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Valli, 1997).
Crystal explained that her reflective practice definition included analysis that strengthened her
practice, and her relationships with her students. She explained,
How do you get better? How do you understand the impact you're having…on your
students]? How do you understand your kids…if you're not reflecting on your benefit to
them? You have to reflect to grow. It's not always easy and…we're harshest on
ourselves, but you have…to critique yourself, whether it's good or bad…
Crystal concluded that reflection was crucial for her growth as a practitioner, therefore, despite
the possible discomfort, she included thinking deeply about her practice within her reflective
practice definition, which she concluded afforded her a deeper understanding of her students’
perceptions and increased her benefit to them, as their teacher.
Crystal also laid out a reflective Initial Continuum (Figure 3) within her definition, which
delineated an assumptive, reactive practitioner on one end, and a calm, confident practitioner on
the other.

React and
Assume
Student
and
Teacher
Confident
Restrain
Reaction
Ask
Questions
Real Change
for Students
Understand
Impact
Understand
Content
Understand
How to
Teach
Growth

Crystal’s Initial Reflective Continuum
 Differentiation
 Calm/Patient
 See Whole Student
 Observant
 Deeper

 Shallow
 Only See Part of Students’ Picture
 Lesson-Focused
Figure 3
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 68
Crystal located her nominal, novice reflections on the less robust end of her Initial Continuum,
citing her lack of confidence, her reactive stance with her students, and her lesson plan focused
instruction. Crystal indicated that the deeper she reflected, the abler she was to restrain her
reactions and respond calmly with a long term solution in mind. Reflection afforded her the
tools to think past the immediate and consider possibly hidden, yet critical contributors, to
problematic issues. She commented,
In the beginning, I was learning to be a teacher…my material…trying to…teach it, so I
didn't reflect deep enough and…now that I have more confidence in my teaching…I…go
deeper and don't let the lesson be the focal point. As I reflect and…calm down…and
think about the…students and their…cultural practices or socioeconomic
backgrounds…that well of patience starts to fill…
Crystal’s definition also involved reflection that she suggested renewed her perspectives by
including her students’ contextual challenges, such as economic difficulties and conflicting
cultural perspectives of the learning. Crystal deduced that reflection afforded her the flexibility
to accept unexpected instructional outcomes and teach from her students’ perspectives. She
described,
What I found in [reflection], is…my flexibility…being reflective has made me like, "It's
okay that you didn't achieve what you wanted…but how are we going to get there? Take
a breath, what's happening, how can I get better, how can I change, so [the students] can
get better and can get there…can make it.
Prior to participating in reflection, Crystal considered herself inflexible. She described rushing
to an immediate reaction during problematic situations. As her reflective practice grew, she
indicated she was able to calmly acknowledge the situation and affect positive change in her
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 69
classroom. The goal of her reflection shifted to her students’ success, rather than communicating
the content, which aligned with her Initial Continuum’s rigorously reflective practitioner. And
yet, when measured against the Robust Continuum, Crystal’s definition of reflection was located
directly in the middle of the continuum due to a perceived absence of cognitive shifts and social
action.
Logan, the ELA teacher, defined reflection as thinking about his current and future
instruction to make, what he called, minor adjustments and major improvements. Logan used
this review to “discover what he did wrong” and “how he could fix it” as well as “start planning”
and “fine tune” future lessons. Reflection for Logan was a time to identify his instructional
mistakes and plan to avoid them in the future. He also added, “I think that's the goal. Just the
improvement.” Logan elaborated on this notion,
How come something didn't work as well as I thought it would, and how can I improve
it? I love improving. I'm not perfect, but I want to get there. And…that's part of my
personality, I don't like making mistakes. I want to see if there's anything I can do ahead
of time to…prevent that. The constant reflecting is trying to get me there.
Logan indicated his definition included questioning his instructional decisions, seeking to
improve his future lesson plans, and reaching his goal of perfection. His personal dislike of
mistakes continuously motivated him toward that goal.
Logan was reluctant to delineate a continuum of reflective robustness, suggesting that
doing so would imply a judgment on colleagues’ reflective practice, which he was disinclined to
do. However, Logan’s descriptions revealed a limited Initial Continuum, which primarily related
to his increased flexibility and stamina to reflect for longer periods of time (Figure 4).

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 70

Logan’s Initial Continuum included components that indicated personal growth, as a result of his
reflective practice, which placed him on the robust end of his Initial Continuum. However, his
reflective goal of perfection, as indicated above (Figure 4), could be considered elusive and
difficult to achieve in a dynamic, changing classroom environment. Still, Logan valued his
perceived growth in fluidity and flexibility, which he concluded reflection offered him. He
explained,
[Reflection] has helped me immensely. I'm reflecting more as the years go by. I still
want to improve. At first I thought I knew what I was doing and then...it wasn't working
out as smoothly. That's when the real reflection started…Was it me? Or the kids? And
most of the time it's me. I was set in my ways. I have to be flexible to get through the
day, and make everything run smoothly. I've learned to be flexible, through reflection.
Logan valued reflection as a means to improve his lessons, particularly when he experienced
problematic situations during his instructional delivery. The improvement led him to take
responsibility for the lesson and extend his reflection time. Logan’s reflective thinking goal of
minimizing the number of “mistakes” in a lesson appeared to be his most demanding level of
reflection, which seated him at the less rigorous end of the Robust Continuum. His reflection
appeared to focus primarily on his instructional decisions, and did not exhibit cognitive shifts,
Inflexible

Logan’s Initial Reflective Continuum  Thinking
 Improving
 Rigor
 Flexible
 Questioning
 Smooth Lessons
 More Time in Reflection
 Perfection

Figure 4
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 71
due to challenges of assumptions and beliefs, or social action on behalf of his students (Moje,
2007).
All participants’ definitions of reflection included the idea of “fixing” their past
instruction for future improvement. Logan included the benefits of reflecting prior to a lesson, to
minimize errors during lesson implementation, while both Crystal and Sara included “the
freedom to make mistakes” and increased “flexibility” in their reflective definitions. Logan’s
definition claimed an end goal of perfection, while Sara’s and Crystal’s definition suggested a
more continuous, unending process. Sara’s definition appeared to focus on her own perspective,
while Crystal’s definition seemed to reside mostly within the perspective of her students, which
appeared to be fueled by her desire to connect with them.
Logan’s and Sara’s reflective practice definition could be considered less robust than
Crystal’s due to seemingly limited perspectives within their reflection, and a focus on lesson
planning improvement. Crystal detailed her inclusion of her students’ socioeconomic
background and Native Hawaiian cultural frameworks, which positioned her toward the middle
of the Robust Continuum because of her perceived increased awareness. Participants’
descriptions indicated a decision to take action after being confronted with an instructional
problem, but those actions appeared to follow a limited evaluation of the situation, and a
descriptive level of reflection (Dewey, 1938; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983). Also,
participants’ descriptions gave the impression that they were unaware of the role societal
influences played in their classrooms. This intimated, limited perspective suggested a lessened
cognizance of the historical, political, and social pressures influencing them as practitioners
(Dewey, 1936; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983). While Crystal’s definition
was located in the middle of the Robust Continuum, and Sara’s definition was situated somewhat
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 72
below Crystal’s location, Logan’s definition was located at the far point of the less rigorous end
of the Robust Continuum (Dewey, 1938; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983). Participants’
location toward the less rigorous side of the Robust Continuum is important to the study because
this indicates that their reflective perceptions do not align with the dominant ideologies that
support the Robust Continuum. However, within the findings in research question three
discussed below, which include participants’ connections with Native Hawaiian perspectives, the
initial assumption of participants’ reflective robustness discussed above, expands.
Research Question 2
Within the second research question, which inquired of participants’ perceptions of the
reflective behaviors and processes that promoted learning opportunities for Native Hawaiian
students, two themes emerged. The first theme highlighted participants’ assertions that varied
and flexible processes promoted student learning opportunities, and the second theme focused on
participants’ conclusions that private, individually selected, reflective practice promoted student
learning opportunities. The data presented below includes participants’ perceptions of reflective
processes they related to expanded learning opportunities for Native Hawaiian students.
Reflective Practice Enactment is Varied and Flexible
This first theme within the second research question, detailed participants’ perceptions
that varied, flexible reflective processes promoted student learning among Native Hawaiians.
Participants utilized a variety of different reflective processes that ensured a perceived usability
and accessibility for future lesson improvement. These processes were gauged according to the
study’s Robust Continuum.
Sara, the mathematics instructor identified reflective processes such as jotted notes,
mental pictures, and organized file systems, as reflective processes that promoted learning for
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 73
Native Hawaiian students. She preferred, what she referred to as, “simple”, reflective processes
such as jotted notes, which she recorded on lesson plans, on the board, or on a sheet of chart
paper. She stated that these processes helped capture her thoughts and observations during her
lesson enactments. She also took, what she called, mental pictures to assist in future lesson
adjustments. She described,
I'm simple so I can keep track of everything. It's nothing formal, just what I do for
myself. It's a thought process for me. I write things down so I can go back, "This is what
we did. This is what I said to change, because this worked for most students."
Sara intended her memos for personal use, which allowed for an informal process. She then
transferred her memos to a document, which she filed within a chronologically organized,
tracking system that aligned with the curriculum sequence.
While many dominant theorists suggested journaling as an effective reflective process,
Sara commented that the time-consuming, cumbersome process of journaling impeded her
thoughts, which hindered her reflective process as a thinking tool. The perceived, simple,
descriptive nature of Sara’s reflective processes located her on the less rigorous side of the
Robust Continuum (Jay & Johnson, 2002). She also did not appear to include outside theoretical
perspectives or a push toward social action, as dominant ideologies recommended (Dewey, 1938;
Jay & Johnson, 2002). Nevertheless, Sara explained that reflective practice promoted her growth
as a practitioner, because the process afforded her the opportunity to make changes in her
instructional practice.
Crystal, the social studies teacher, preferred reflective processes somewhat similar to
Sara’s. During Reflection-in-Action, Crystal stated she took mental pictures in an attempt to
internalize her students’ reaction to the content and her chosen instructional strategies.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 74
Immediately after the enacted lesson, Crystal Reflected-on-Action using the mental pictures she
held in her mind, and jotted down her thoughts regarding those mental pictures. Her notes
ranged in topic from small lesson changes to her own feelings about the lesson. She explained,
Once I internalize it, I jot things down…I have a composition book and I put my notes in
there. Every so often I open up my [notes] and I'll break it into quarters. When we're
working on curricular maps or I'm coming around to [a lesson], I look at my thoughts,
what worked and didn't work, or just my feelings...
Crystal organized her notes and chronologically arranged them, based on the curriculum
sequence, as Sara did. Prior to teaching a recurring lesson, she would retrieve her notes from the
previous year, and use them as a reference, later adding a few new memos.
Crystal recommended quiet reflection to promote learning opportunities for Native
Hawaiian students. When Crystal Reflected-on-Action, she scheduled a weekly block of
uninterrupted time (Schön, 1983). For an hour, she sat alone in her room and reviewed her week
in her mind. After a period of thinking, she jotted notes. She explained,
I look forward to that block each week. I exhale, and my mind will flash pictures of what
I want to do better. I don't answer my phone. I don't talk to anyone. I let it all soak in so
by the time [the students] come back, I'm starting notes of what I want to change.
Crystal’s descriptions differentiated her Reflection-in-Action process from her Reflecting-on-
Action process. In her Reflection-in-Action, she addressed issues in her practice, such as the
lesson plan, and curricular map, while her intentions for her weekly Reflection-on-Action, were
directed toward addressing her feelings and instructional goals. She asserted that reflection, in
whatever form or process, brought about growth in the reflector, although Crystal did comment
that she avoided journaling due to the extensive time and effort she perceived journaling
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 75
required. Still, the Robust Continuum’s expected approaches gauged Crystal’s reflective
processes as less robust, but perhaps these approaches captured only part of Crystal’s reflective
picture, or only those components that fit within the prescribed framework. Perhaps Crystal’s
definition of growth differed, which could mean her reflective parameters differed.
Logan asserted that a minimally-structured and flexible reflective process promoted
learning for Native Hawaiian students. He stated that he constantly reflected, which he
concluded necessitated a flexible process because a more prescriptive approach might leave him
concerned with whether his reflection met the structure’s expectations. He explained,
There’s no formal process I go through. I prefer the flexible approach because I do it
often and wherever I am. If I had it structured, if something didn’t go right, that would
bother me. So I’d rather have flexible where I focus at my own schedule, my own pace.
From Logan’s perspective, a formal reflective process would restrict him to a prescriptive
process, which might impede his thinking and dissuade him from reflecting in the future.
Logan asserted, as Sara and Crystal did, that reflective processes such as jotted notes, and
organized filing, promoted learning opportunities for Native Hawaiians. Logan also typed
reflections through online blogs, however, he also disliked journaling due to the perceived time
and energy required to implement them. Logan also asserted that a minimally structured
Reflection-on-Action process promoted learning for Native Hawaiian students. During this time
of Reflection-on-Action, Logan indicated he sometimes brought a list of items that “popped into
[his] head” to contemplate, and at other times, he reflected with no set goal in mind. He stated
that in these times, he thought about his instruction and the ways his thinking influenced his
decision-making. He explained that he refrained from taking notes, preferring to think first
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 76
without the distraction of writing. When he concluded he had thought through his practice, he
recorded his thoughts. Logan described his process,
Quiet time helps, half an hour or an hour. I sit and have a list of items I need to focus on.
When I reflect, I'm thinking, so I don't write anything down. And through that process,
other things pop into my mind that I can reflect on. [This] time, allowed me to think,
about how I reflect, how I think about things.
Logan indicated an effort to think about his thinking and seemed aware of a personal thinking
pattern, which indicated that he might be moving toward an examination of his beliefs. And
while he did not appear to include theoretical, historical, or political viewpoints within his
thinking, this indication of a deeper layer of thinking located Logan more toward the middle of
the Robust Continuum (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Moje, 2007; Schön, 1983).
The participants asserted similar Reflection-in-Action and Reflection-on-Action
processes for promoting learning opportunities for Native Hawaiians. These included jotted
notes and quiet thinking that fed into their lesson planning. They also excluded journaling due to
the perceived time and effort associated with that process. This exclusion might be rooted in
Native Hawaiian culture, which celebrated an oral tradition until colonization, which began in
the late 1700s (Kawakami, 1999). However, by the 1820s, Native Hawaiians had embraced the
written language so fully, they were possibly the most literate nation in the world (Dudoit, 1999).
Yet, soon after, the marginalizing of Native Hawaiian culture once again became prevalent and
Native Hawaiians died in droves, both physically, and in ways dominant ideology would
consider, educationally (Dudoit, 1999; Kawakami, 1999). Following this educational absence
among Native Hawaiians, writing then became a labor to avoid, and this struggle still persists,
which can be seen through Native Hawaiian students’ state assessment scores, and possibly in
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 77
the Native Hawaiian participants’ resistance to journaling (Hawai’i Department of Education,
2016).
The end goals of each participant’s reflective process differed. Sara’s reflective
behaviors aimed at improving the lesson directly before her. Crystal sought to renew her
perspective while deepening her understanding of her students. Logan worked to think deeply
about his past and future practice in hopes of improving his future instruction. However, all
participants directed their reflective efforts toward improving their instruction. Crystal’s
reflection appeared to be located farther along the study’s Robust Continuum than her fellow
practitioners because she involved her feelings about her instruction and seemed to look beyond
lesson adjustment (Jay & Johnson, 2002). However, as Sara and Logan did, Crystal appeared to
maintain a singular perspective through her perceived lack of awareness of theoretical, historical,
political, and social pressures influencing her reflective choices (Jay & Johnson, 2002).
Reflective scholars confirm participants’ value of reflection and assumption that the
longer practitioners engaged in reflection, the stronger their instructional practice became
(Williams & Grudnoff, 2011; Zeichner, 1994). Scholars identified specific reflective methods,
such as journaling, templates, writing prompts, and action research, as effective reflective
processes, while other researchers, such as Bengtsson (2003), Loizou (2013), and Zeichner
(1994), reported that prescriptive approaches such as these, could limit teachers’ thinking (Attard
& Armour, 2006; Jones & Jones, 2013; Valli, 1997). Clarke, James, & Kelly (1996) asserted
there was no good or bad approach to reflection, only better and best. Divergent theoretical
perspectives exist within reflection theory, but perhaps the constant call back to dominant
theories, and the assignment and expectation of prescriptive theories, may not be the answer for
students from non-dominant, high needs backgrounds (Beauchamp, 2015; Tannebaum, Hall, &
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 78
Deaton, 2013). Participants’ reflective processes aligned with one another, almost precisely, but
just as precisely, participants’ reflective processes failed to align with dominant ideological
expectations. Yet, because all participants identified, to some degree, with a non-dominant
cultural perspective, perhaps the dominant ideologies failed to quantify participants’ reflective
practice due to prescriptive limitations, rather than an assumed lack of robustness within
participants’ reflection.
Reflective Practice as a Private Practice
The second research question inquired about reflective processes participants’ perceived
as most effective in improving Native Hawaiian students’ learning opportunities. This second
theme answering this research question highlighted participants’ assertions that the most
effective reflective process was a personally preferred, and at times, private process. Participants
indicated that the reflector should maintain the power to decide what to reflect on, the tool they
used to reflect, when, where, and how long they reflected, the purpose for their reflecting, and if,
and with whom, they shared their reflection. In addition, all participants recognized the value of
reflection but refrained from recommending reflection to colleagues because they deduced this
might convey an assumptive and evaluative stance of colleagues’ reflective practice.
Participants’ unwillingness to assume a perceived authority over their colleagues might
stem from Native Hawaiian culture, which in general, assumes a stance of humility and learning
(Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999). Asserting an opinion, or hinting at authority over another, can be
considered offensive in a Native Hawaiian context. This stance might also be rooted in Native
Hawaiian history, in that, as a cultural group, Native Hawaiians have been marginalized and
silenced throughout history (Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013; Yamauchi, Ceppi, Lau-Smith,
2009). Because of the numerous historical atrocities that have plagued Native Hawaiian
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 79
advancement, Native Hawaiians tend to be either aggressively angry or humble learners, but
within both, lies distrust (Snyder-Frey, 2013; Yamauchi, Ceppi, Lau-Smith, 2009). This distrust
can sometimes lead to quiet resistance, or guarded responses, within situations that require
communal vulnerability. However, Native Hawaiian culture is also loving and interdependent,
which makes for passionate and emotional individuals (Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999). Communal
vulnerability within this type of Native Hawaiian context, almost always leads to emotional
effusiveness, which can be uncomfortable for the reflector. As an example, almost all the
interviews conducted in support of this study resulted in a participant crying because of the
emotion they experienced when discussing their students, culture, and work. These cultural
understandings might have contributed to participants’ preference of private reflection.
Sara, the mathematics teacher, contended that a beneficial reflective process was
“internal”, situational, and preferential. She also indicated that the process was “whatever
worked” for the practitioner and differed from person to person. She explained that her
preferences did not diminish another practitioner’s reflective preferences, nor did they invalidate
reflective behaviors she preferred not to utilize. Because of this, Sara confirmed she was
reluctant to recommend a reflective process to a colleague due to her perceived short tenure as a
teacher and her respect for fellow practitioners’ experience. She viewed reflection as essential to
her own learning and growth, but still resisted recommending reflection to fellow practitioners.
She explained,
I don't know if I could in all honesty. I feel like they have so many more years, they
should be teaching me...I shouldn't be teaching them, but if I had to, I probably would
start the way [my mentor] taught me...by having [a] conversation.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 80
She believed her colleagues had much to teach her, but acquiesced in her assertion of not
instructing fellow practitioners, stating that if she were in a position that required her to teach a
colleague reflective processes, she would begin as informally as possible, with a simple
conversation. This response to promoting reflective practice among her peers, along with her
seemingly singular perspective, and an absence of social action as a result of her personal
reflection, maintained the location of Sara’s reflective practice on the less rigorous side of the
Robust Continuum (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006; Moje, 2007). Sara’s less prescriptive
framework, indicated an apparent absence of cognitive shifts in her assumptions and beliefs, and
a perceived lack of identifiable social action within her described processes, which located her
on the less rigorous side of the Robust Continuum (Dewey, 1938; Schön, 1983).
Another reflective concern of Sara’s, was being evaluated. She indicated that if she
sensed judgment, she withdrew to reflect privately. Sara’s need for safety and comfortability
within her reflective practice indicated a wariness of outside perspectives of her instruction.
Dominant ideologies recommended multiple perspectives within reflection, and without those
perspectives, reflection was considered deficient and limited (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Tannebaum,
Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Valli, 1997; Zeichner, 1994). Sara’s apparent reluctance, at times, to
include outside viewpoints, might be perceived by scholars as hindering a deeper, more
diversified reflection. However, while Sara’s reflective processes might be considered simplistic
through the prescriptive lens of dominant ideology, she could have improved her practice
through processes dominant theoretical frameworks were unable to quantify (Jay & Johnson,
2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983).
Crystal, the social studies teacher, asserted that a beneficial reflective process was one in
which she could privately examine, vulnerable thoughts and feelings. Crystal concluded that
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 81
because her private reflective process could elicit difficult emotions, she should be allowed to
determine the reflective process she preferred, the reflective outcomes she shared, and with
whom she shared those outcomes. She explained,
[Reflection] is person to person. You do it internally and then you might only share [with
others] a portion...you're comfortable with, and the other parts might be so personal, so
sensitive, you might not want to share that. That's why I wouldn't dare tell somebody
else how to [reflect], but emphasize to do it. And however that looks, wherever you are
that lets you be open, then that would be right for you.
Crystal developed a personal, reflective process that met her specific needs, but was reluctant to
recommend her process to another practitioner. She asserted that the option of choosing a
personal reflective process should be allowed to every practitioner because of the vulnerability
involved. She also suggested there was no one-size-fits-all process (Tannebaum, Hall, &
Deaton, 2013). The critical issue for Crystal was if a practitioner reflected, not how a
practitioner implemented reflection. From her perspective, there was no good or bad reflective
method, just better or best (Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996).
Crystal also described the ways in which she still opened her reflective practice to
colleagues. She remained willing to risk her personal comfort, by including her colleagues’
perspectives in her reflection for the sake of her students’ learning. Rodgers (2002b) asserted
that practitioners’ nuanced understandings and keen perceptions of students’ learning is
developed solely through reflection that takes place detached from the busyness of the school
day and in collaboration with other practitioners, which paralleled much of Crystal’s articulated
reflective processes. This relation seated Crystal in the center of the Robust Continuum once
again.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 82
Logan, the ELA teacher, also asserted, that a private reflective process promoted student
learning for Native Hawaiians. Also like Sara and Crystal, he was reluctant to recommend his
process to colleagues. Logan chose a reflective process that suited his personal needs, and he
reasoned that his fellow practitioners should be afforded the same opportunity. He explained, “If
I say that, “Okay we're going to focus on reflection,” it's assuming that [my colleagues] aren’t
doing it. Or they could see it as me saying, “You're not doing it right.” And, who am I to say
they're reflecting right?” Logan resisted recommending a prescriptive reflective framework to
his colleagues, which he stated might communicate an assumption, on his part, that his
colleagues neglected to reflect, or incorrectly implemented reflective practices. He also
concluded that a reflective recommendation on his part, indicated he held greater expertise in the
subject of reflective practice, and that he was willing to coach his fellow practitioners through
their development of a personal reflective process, neither of which he was confident doing.
Logan’s modest assessment of himself as a reflective practitioner seemed to result from a
tendency to devalue himself. He explained, “I'm a little bit insecure. Like…I'm going to say
something and [the other teacher] is going to think, ‘You should've known that already.’ That's
one of my fears and maybe why I like flexible and informal reflection.” His insecurity seemed to
guide his collegial interactions and his preference for reflective processes that did not assert
prescriptive expectations. While he acknowledged the underlying fears and beliefs motivating
his reflective decision-making, his acknowledgement did not appear to exhibit significant
cognitive shifts or social stances. He also appeared to avoid including additional perspectives,
such as theoretical, historical, political and social influences, within his reflective practice.
These factors, delineated by dominant ideologies, situated him at the less rigorous end of the
Robust Continuum.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 83
All three participants were disinclined to recommend their preferred reflective practice to
fellow practitioners, even novice instructors, viewing such advocacy as a possible imposition on
fellow practitioners’ practice. In this way, all three participants assumed a modest view of
themselves as reflective practitioners and maintained a Native Hawaiian understanding of
humility. While Crystal eventually invited her colleagues into her reflective process, Sara and
Logan indicated they found it difficult to open their thoughts to fellow teachers, fearing
evaluation and judgment. And yet, whether each participant reflected privately or in a more
public manner, all three reflected through a variety of processes, to promote students’ learning
opportunities.
Research Question 3
The study’s third research question, “How do secondary, public school teachers in high-
needs schools perceive reflective practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant
populations?” was answered in two themes. The first theme answering the third research
question discussed participants’ conclusions that reflective practice promoted culturally
appropriate perspectives, thereby increasing equity among learners. The second theme
highlighted participants’ assertions that reflective practice promoted communal learning, which
aligned with Native Hawaiian cultural values, and increased equity among learners. The data
below include the three study participants’ perceptions of the ways reflective practice promoted
culturally appropriate perspectives and communal learning in the classroom. Research-based,
culturally appropriate reflection, accounts for learners’ cultural perspectives and affords them the
opportunity to absorb, consider, and process information through culturally relevant processes,
which then allows them to construct an understanding based on their cultural experiences, so as
to ground new learning within a contextually familiar framework (Gay & Kirkland, 2007: Gorski
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 84
& Landsman, 2014; Kawakami, 1999; Ladson Billings & Tate, 2006; Snyder-Frey, 2013). This
process can lead to a deeper internalization and metacognitive processing of the new learning
(Gay & Kirkland, 2007: Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Kawakami, 1999; Ladson Billings & Tate,
2006; Snyder-Frey, 2013).
Native Hawaiian cultural perspectives value interdependent, collaborative learning,
which is both encouraged and supported through reflective practice (Au & Blake, 2003; Dewey,
1938; Kawakami, 1999). At its most rigorous, reflective practice ideologies, recommended the
inclusion of multiple perspectives, such as theoretical, historical, political, and social
perspectives, within a problematic situation involving Native Hawaiian learners, as they may
affect the learning environment of students who identify with non-dominant cultural
understandings in unique ways, particularly when compared to learners from dominant
backgrounds (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b).
Culturally relevant reflective processes may afford practitioners the opportunity to approach
learning through diverse perspectives and design culturally appropriate learning opportunities
that consider the pressures students from high-needs, non-dominant backgrounds might
experience. These learning opportunities might also include perspectives from non-dominant
populations, thereby increasing learners’ access to culturally appropriate understandings, and in
turn, promote learning equity in the classroom.
Reflective Practice Perceived to Promote Culturally Appropriate Perspectives, Increasing
Equity Among Learners
The first theme answering the third research question involved understanding
participants’ perceptions of reflective practice they indicated promoted culturally appropriate
perspectives for Native Hawaiian learners. This is significant within this study because nearly
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 85
the entirety of MPCS’s school community was of Native Hawaiian descent, which included the
study’s participants. Furthermore, MPCS based the culture, curriculum, and mission of the
school on Native Hawaiian values. Because Native Hawaiian culture was apparent among
MPCS’s extended community, the study’s participants appeared cognizant of the need for
culturally appropriate perspectives of learning in their classrooms.
In her discussion, Sara, the mathematics teacher, related Native Hawaiian values to her
reflective practice. Sara identified humility, which she defined as a willingness to learn from
others, as a Native Hawaiian value vital to a practitioner’s reflective practice. Because she
asserted that humility was a core value of Native Hawaiian culture, and that the enactment of
reflection required humility, she concluded that reflection was a culturally appropriate approach
to promote Native Hawaiian learning opportunities (Dewey, 1938; Kawakami, 1999).
When Sara described Native Hawaiian culture, which she identified as part of her own
perspective, she explained, “Hawaiians in general are very humble people and they want to know
how they can do better.” She discussed her perception of Native Hawaiians as humble learners
who work toward collective success, and the ways Native Hawaiian humility afforded a
beneficial implementation of reflective practice (Dewey, 1938, Ladson-Billings, 1995, Noguera,
2001; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015). For Sara, a culturally relevant, beneficial
implementation of reflection, promoted learning opportunities for Native Hawaiian students
(Kawakami, 1999). She compared a culturally relevant reflective perspective and what she
identified as a dominant perspective of reflection when she commented, “People who don't
reflect, think they have it all together. I think Hawaiians have so much to learn and prove, they
reflect more on their behavior than people who think they've already arrived at something...they
don't reflect as much.” From Sara’s perspective, the Native Hawaiian value of humility implied
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 86
an awareness of the need to continually learn and progress. She connected her perspective of
continual progress to Native Hawaiians’ drive to demonstrate and validate their worth as non-
dominant participants within a dominant culture (Dudoit, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). Sara also
concluded that Native Hawaiians reflected more often than individuals from a dominant
background, who might not recognize the need to reflect as keenly as those from a non-dominant
perspective, due to a seemingly privileged social position in society (Gorski & Landsman, 2014;
Ladson-Billings, 1995; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015).
Sara located herself within this reflective space of humility and continual learning, and
likened her continuous learning process to her students’ experiences as learners. Sara seemed to
reason, through her discussion, that culturally relevant reflection promoted learning opportunities
for her students and through these learning opportunities, she and her students were more likely
to acquire new knowledge. She explained,
I'm just like the kids, every day I'm learning something new. So I feel like [reflection]
helps Native Hawaiians more, because it helps them see what we [teachers] want for
them. We have the same expectations, because we know they can. And then, how are
we going to get them there?
Sara articulated that the more she reflected, the more equipped she was to communicate high
expectations to all her students. She also commented that culturally relevant reflection afforded
her Native Hawaiian students the ability to recognize her higher learning expectations. Because
of her perceived increase in positive expectations and promotion of culturally relevant learning
opportunities, which Sara associated with her reflective practice, she asserted that reflection
benefitted all learners, but particularly those learners who identified with a non-dominant
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 87
perspective because of the greater need to communicate high expectations to students who come
from marginalized populations.
Sara asserted that culturally similar perspectives increased her understanding of her
students, and this similarity assisted her in developing positive perceptions of her students and
culturally appropriate perspectives of learning. She commented, “Being Hawaiian helps
me...understand the community and the population of kids I work with.” She also discussed
being “half white, too” and associated that differing perspective with an unwillingness to reflect,
which she related to an assumption of confidence rather than humility. Therefore, when she was
experiencing difficulties with understanding and connecting with her students, Sara indicated
that she returned to a culturally relevant reflective practice, which she perceived renewed her
understanding and cultural perspective (Beauchamp, 2015).
Sara identified reflection as an opportunity to better understand student behavior and
renew her perspective, which she indicated might benefit colleagues she perceived wrestled with
discontentment and inflexibility. Still, she would not obligate colleagues to reflect. She
explained,
I think that some teachers are jaded, or even numb. If they were open to...reflecting, I
think they would maybe get a different perspective on why kids do the things they do…If
they [reflected], maybe they wouldn't be so disgruntled. I wouldn't obligate anybody to
[reflect] but I think it's a good practice.
She contended that being Native Hawaiian did not equate with being a reflective practitioner, as
she was aware of Native Hawaiian colleagues who did not appear to engage in learning from a
place of reflective humility. She recommended culturally relevant reflective practice as a means
through which practitioners could both, understand students’ motivations behind their decision-
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 88
making, and disentangle their assumptions from student behavior. For Sara, reflection was a
beneficial practice for all practitioners, but particularly for those teachers who might be in need
of a less assumptive approach to learning. Still, Sara suggested non-reflective, Native Hawaiian
practitioners were an exception within the culture, which inherently valued reflective practice.
Sara offered an example of what she perceived to be a moment of culturally disparate
reflective approaches. Within her example, Sara identified the contrasting responses of Native
Hawaiian and non-Native Hawaiian practitioners participating in the same learning events. The
example occurred across a series of classes, within one semester of a teacher education course.
The course was a requirement within a free-of-cost, two-year, teacher certification program
intended to credential practitioners already teaching in classrooms where a majority of students
were of Native Hawaiian descent. The program was based on Native Hawaiian values, was held
on a Native Hawaiian charter school campus, and sought to increase the number of licensed
teachers in classrooms where most students were of Native Hawaiian descent. Nearly all the
program’s participants identified as Native Hawaiian. In her example, Sara recalled fellow
practitioners’ discussions during reflective class sessions,
When we would meet up [for our cohort], everybody would be talking and networking and
collaborating on how to get [students] to a place where we found success. …[Almost] all of
[the program participants] were Native Hawaiian...And the three people that started that
weren’t [Native Hawaiian] dropped out. They couldn't relate to us or to the population of
kids that we work with. They didn't allow themselves to be a part of our conversations.
Sara noted that almost all the practitioners who participated in these reflective conversations
appeared to be of Native Hawaiian descent, with the exception of a few. She also commented
that they all taught in classrooms where the majority of their students identified as Native
Hawaiian. Sara indicated that the three non-Native Hawaiian practitioners disassociated
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 89
themselves and resisted involvement in the reflective conversations due to seemingly conflicting
perspectives of a Native Hawaiian perspective and what could be considered a dominant
perspective. Sara appeared to relate a dominant perspective with non-Native Hawaiian
practitioners’ perceived inability to “relate” to a Native Hawaiian perspective. She also seemed
to associate the dominant perspective with a resistance to reflect when she stated that non-Native
Hawaiian practitioners “wouldn’t allow” themselves to engage in reflective discussions.
The Native Hawaiian perspective was the perspective of the majority in this reflective
situation, and seemed to become the honored and valued perspective of the group, which
appeared to result in an exclusion of those practitioners who identified with the dominant
perspective. This perceived marginalization of the dominant perspective could be perceived as
polarizing the differing perspectives (Luangphinith, 2005; Moje, 2007). Sara did not seem to
recognize the difficulty of engaging in a reflective process that culturally conflicted with her own
(Gay, 2006). She also seemed incognizant of the possible need for explicit instruction, which
might equip practitioners with the tools to participate in a reflective process predicated on a
differing, unfamiliar perspective (Au; 1998; Au, 2002; Au & Blake, 2003; Banks, 1995; Gay,
2002; Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This
explicit instruction could have allowed for an inclusion of both, seemingly disparate
perspectives, and encouraged the collaboration and honoring of both viewpoints, rather than the
valuing of one over the other. Sara’s example appeared to highlight a lack of understanding
within both perspectives. The lack of understanding from the Native Hawaiian perspective
seemed to exhibit a resistance to include the dominant perspective within their viewpoint. This
implied resistance might be assigned to Hawai’i’s embattled history of colonization and the
Native Hawaiian fight for indigenous rights, which has continued to affect the ways in which
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 90
Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians approach and interact with one another (Au, 1998;
Dudoit, 1999; Kawakami, 1999; Luangphinith, 2005; Snyder-Frey, 2013). The perceived
withdrawal of practitioners from the dominant perspective, might have resulted from a
perception of underrepresentation and a lack of connection to the culture, which is somewhat
antithetical to the dominant perspective’s usual position of power in society (Gorski &
Landsman, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Ogbu & Simons,
1998).
Sara suggested that these reflective sessions allowed her to communicate equitable
expectations for her students and afforded her a greater connection with her students (Banks,
1995; Gay, 2002; Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Ladson-
Billings, 1995; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006; Moje, 2007). She stated that she viewed these
reflective sessions, which she indicated were predicated on a Native Hawaiian understanding of
humility, as an opportunity to reflect communally and grow in her vulnerability with other
practitioners (Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008:
Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Sara engaged in reflective
practice from this perspective of humility, which she indicated afforded her the opportunity to
identify teaching strategies and expectations that aligned with culturally appropriate perspectives
unique to and valued by, Native Hawaiian culture (Gorski, 2013; Gorski & Landsman, 2014;
Steele, 1997; Valli, 1997).
Sara asserted that reflective practice afforded Native Hawaiians a means to achieve
greater communal success because of its perceived value of interdependent, collaborative
relationships (Danielewicz, 2001; Gorski & Landsman, 2014). Sara, as described earlier within
research question two’s discussion findings, preferred private reflection due to a perception of
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 91
fear associated with being evaluated. However, through her reflective processes, Sara indicated
she experienced a perspective shift, through which she realized her own need as a practitioner to
seek out reflective conversations with her peers (Gay, 2006). She stated, “I've had to come back
to a place of humility.” In Sara’s description of her reflection, she depicted a process in which,
she renewed her perspective of humility, recognized a greater need to include her colleagues’
perspectives in her teaching practice, and sought out communal reflection. Sara suggested that
her cultural position of reflective humility prompted her shift from a singular perspective to
include fellow practitioners’ perspectives, which appeared to promote communal and individual,
success (Au & Blake, 200; Gay, 2006; Zeichner, 1994).
Crystal, the social studies teacher, like Sara, affirmed that reflection was inherent within
Native Hawaiian culture, and a process in which Native Hawaiian learners had always
participated, whether that learner was a child or an elder. Because of this, Crystal asserted that
reflection was not a process that needed to be explicitly taught to Native Hawaiians. Below,
Crystal described her personal perspective of reflective practice and the ways she asserted Native
Hawaiians learned to reflect, particularly when acquiring new knowledge. She explained,
There's a cultural component to [reflection]...It wasn't something that was separated,
but...part of your learning. If you talk to…[Native Hawaiian elders] about navigation or
healing, the reflection process was a part of how they learned. So even though I didn't
know it had a name, I was already doing it because it was cultural...It’s not something we
have to verbalize. I definitely feel the reflection...is so culturally-based...it's not
something we can really teach...we can talk about reflection and why it's important but
it's already there...
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 92
Crystal indicated that culturally relevant reflection spanned across time, roles, and ages. She
also suggested that reflection was so embedded in Native Hawaiian learning, that it lacked a
label and was more of a guided realization, rather than a prescriptive, separate step, as she
implied it seemed to be in dominant reflective theories. Crystal’s comments indicated all that
was required in teaching culturally based reflection to Native Hawaiian learners was an
acknowledgement of its presence within themselves. She also asserted that this somewhat
venerated view of reflection persisted across the culture and led to a connectedness among
Native Hawaiians, allowing Native Hawaiian learners to more readily acquire and internalize
new, culturally relevant, or connected, knowledge. She concluded that this internalization
increased the equity in her classroom, because through reflection, learners were more equipped
to consider and process content through cultural perspectives and understandings, rather than
through a perspective impressed on them, particularly one with which they were unfamiliar.
While Sara’s perspective of Native Hawaiian reflective practice circled around humility,
Crystal’s discussion focused on connectedness, whether she perceived that connectedness to be
between the people and the culture, the people and the land, the people and their ancestors, or the
people with one another. Crystal asserted the connectedness that resulted from reflection
afforded her students a more direct connection between the content and their personal
perspectives, experiences, and ancestors, as well as a stronger personal, cultural identity. She
explained,
I think Native Hawaiian reflective practices always find our way back to our culture and
our land. No matter what content we're teaching, it's most beneficial when we find our
way back for our kids. And I think Western teaching, they try to find things to connect to
the kids, but they don't have that thread that runs through everyone...that thread, that
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 93
identity, it's such a huge part of us...I couldn't take a room of Western students and make
the connection that I can make with these kids to bring it home to them, to have that
deeper understanding, and for them to reflect on...the people that came before them...The
value of that in learning cannot be overstated and you can't get that other places.
Crystal’s commentary suggested that a dominant perspective would not meet the needs of
learners who identified with non-dominant perspectives due to the lack of connectedness
embedded within dominant, reflective ideologies. She observed that practitioners from a Native
Hawaiian perspective sought to draw connections from within students’ common experiences
and focused on their shared culture, while the dominant perspective seemed to draw connections
from outside learners. Crystal’s perceived, deeply rooted, connectedness within Native
Hawaiian culture, suggested ancestry, family, and place, anchored Native Hawaiian students’
learning, when she said, “that thread that runs through everyone...that thread, that identity, it's
such a huge part of us.” She indicated, that a cultural thread of identity ran through Native
Hawaiians and allowed for shared, dynamic, learning opportunities, through culturally
appropriate perspectives (Gay, 2002; Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995,
Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015).
The place Crystal referred to as “home,” where students “reflect[ed] on the people that
came before them,” was, in fact, the Native Hawaiian community in which the study site was
located, and the place she, herself, was raised. It was also the community in which her children,
mother, and grandmother grew up. The line of connection to which Crystal referred, implied a
deeper connectedness with the content, one another, among families, and within the community
at large. Crystal also suggested deep connectedness was less prominent in the dominant
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 94
perspective of learning, which she attributed to the dominant perspective’s lesser value of
ancestors’ contributions to learning.
Crystal relayed an example of the perceived disparateness of dominant and Native
Hawaiian perspectives through two presentations she viewed. The presentations were given in
the same class context Sara described above, which was a free of cost, Native Hawaiian teacher
certification program aimed at credentialing teachers who were teaching in classrooms where the
majority of students were of Native Hawaiian descent. Crystal described the first presenter as a
male teacher who did not appear to identify with the Native Hawaiian perspective, and the other
presenter as a female, who seemed to identify with a Native Hawaiian perspective. Both
practitioners presented slideshows of the same event, a reforesting community service project
they, along with their students, participated in together. The project was a program requirement
for completion of their teacher education program. Crystal recounted her perceptions of the two
slideshows,
...she [the Native Hawaiian identifying instructor] had these pictures...and the students
were there, their hands are in the dirt, and they're planting and harvesting. She had this
whole connection between the students, their families, and what she was teaching in
class...his [the non-Native Hawaiian identifying instructor] was, yeah, we planted some
trees to help our environment and it was a great day...I took a tree, I put it in the ground,
and called it a day. She sees the possibilities of the impact of these kids. They learn the
skill, planting Native plants that their families have for generations, and will benefit
future generations...he just sees the finish line. He's like, "Technically, my check list is
done" but he didn't walk away with the same values we were able to gain and exercise.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 95
During Crystal’s observations of each slideshow, she noted disparate perspectives through their
word choice, body language, and level of perceived effort in their slideshows. In her
presentation, Crystal indicated that the female, Native Hawaiian practitioner included pictures of
her students planting and harvesting during the community service event, and she also articulated
a connectedness between students, their families, the content she was teaching in class, and past
and future generations. Crystal implied that the Native Hawaiian practitioner’s presentation
included a greater awareness of the impact her students might be able to have in their future
endeavors because of the skills they learned during the community service project. She also
suggested that the Native Hawaiian practitioner’s culturally relevant perspective connected the
content to the leaners more intimately (Au, 1998; Au, 2002; Au & Blake, 2003).
Crystal concluded, from the level of effort she perceived the male, non-Native Hawaiian
practitioner made in designing and delivering his presentation, that his understanding was limited
to the day’s task, which was a small, yet positive, contribution to the environment. His goal for
the community service project seemed to be completing the teaching program’s community
service requirement. She also noted an absence of connection, within his presentation, to
himself, his students, their families, the culture, or his content. Crystal concluded that his
prescriptive, checklist perspective may have impeded a culturally relevant connectedness to the
community service project. Where Crystal perceived the Native Hawaiian practitioner
experienced a shift in her value system because of the cultural project, she suggested that the
non-Native Hawaiian practitioner simply intended to complete the program requirement.
Crystal’s descriptions affirmed that the practitioner, who appeared to identify as Native
Hawaiian, participated in a reflective practice that seemed to afford her the opportunity to
connect the content to her students’ cultural perspective and strengthen her personal value
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 96
system. Crystal also concluded that the practitioner who identified with a non-Native Hawaiian
perspective seemed to view the project as an isolated experience without appearing to reflect on
the event (Au & Blake, 2003; Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Crystal’s perception of reflective practice was rooted in her belief that reflection was
inherent in Native Hawaiian learning. She allowed her students to construct their own
understanding of the learning, as she guided them, rather than taught them explicitly, to access
the reflective nature she asserted resided within them because of their cultural perspective.
Crystal’s illustration of the value shift she observed, and also participated in, within a fellow
practitioner’s reflection on a cultural project, seemed to exemplify Crystal’s highest aspirations
for Native Hawaiian reflective practice, in that, the practitioner appeared to connect the learning,
the learners, and the culture, for a possibly deeper understanding.
Crystal’s reflective practitioner was one who focused on the learning, rather than lesson
delivery, observed her students’ motivations for decision-making, rather than reacted to them,
and grew in confidence, rather than indifference. Crystal also appeared to view the generational
and Native Hawaiian influences in her classroom as an asset (Au & Blake, 2003; Kawakami,
1999; Luangphinith, 2005; Snyder-Free, 2013; Wilson & Kamana, 2009; Yamauchi, Ceppi, Lau-
Smith, 2009). She seemed to recognize the cultural wealth present in her learning community,
partly because she identified with that perspective, and partly because of the reflective practice in
which she participated (Danielewicz, 2001; Yosso, 2005). She insisted that the focus of
reflective practice be a connected, deeper learning, which, along with her perceived value shift,
placed her toward the middle of the Robust Continuum (Banks, 1995; Black & Plowright, 2010;
Griffiths, 2000; Mezirow, 1981; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). And yet, while she detailed
cognitive shifts in her value system, these shifts did not appear to result in exhibited social
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 97
actions (Dewey, 1938; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995, Ladson-Billings & Tate,
2006; Moje, 2007; Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015).
Like Sara and Crystal, Logan, the ELA teacher, affirmed that reflection was inherent in
Native Hawaiian culture. However, Logan stated he identified with both Native Hawaiian and
dominant perspectives, where Sara and Crystal claimed greater commonalities with a Native
Hawaiian perspective. He acknowledged the relationship between Native Hawaiian learning and
the reflective process as an enduring one, but was less dissenting than both Sara and Crystal, in
his comparisons between the Native Hawaiian and dominant perspective.
Logan identified and relayed a professional development session that, from his
perspective, demonstrated an intersection of Native Hawaiian and dominant perspectives.
During the session, a presenter, who Logan perceived identified with a dominant perspective,
outlined a prescriptive, reflective process. Logan commented on the session, “I guess it's just the
different way of explaining [reflection] and a different label. But it seems like [Native
Hawaiians] have been doing it for centuries already.” The primary difference Logan appeared to
note between the presenter’s dominant perspective of reflection, and what he perceived as a
Native Hawaiian view of reflective practice, was labels, which indicated that Logan aligned the
two perspectives more closely than either Sara or Crystal.
Although Logan identified with a Native Hawaiian perspective, and attended the same
Native Hawaiian cultural school for his own education that Sara and Crystal also attended, he
stated that he identified more closely with a dominant reflective ideology. He related that his
first authentic, Native Hawaiian cultural experiences were at MPCS, and relayed that the
perceived shift in his experiences from those he associated with a dominant cultural perspective,
to those he connected to a Native Hawaiian perspective, forced him to reflect on his established
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 98
understandings of the Native Hawaiian culture. He described this reflective shift, “when I
[reflected], it was humbling for me...those stereotypes were gone. It's such a beautiful place here,
people, the land...reflection and getting to know the kids was eye-opening. It helped me receive what
was here.” Logan indicated that his upbringing was grounded in a dominant perspective, and that he
was content with that perspective. However, after increased exposure to what he perceived to be
Native Hawaiian, culturally-based experiences, he stated that his internalized, latent, and somewhat
deficit-based stereotypes were challenged by the reality of the place and the people. He asserted that
his reflective practice allowed him to recognize his assumptions and the ways those assumptions
contributed to, what he identified as, negative perceptions of Native Hawaiians. He also concluded
that his reflective practice afforded him the capacity to consider the value of, what he identified as, a
Native Hawaiian perspective.
Although, after Logan’s perspective shift, he continued to locate his reflective practice within
a dominant perspective, suggesting that while he affirmed that reflection was innate in Native
Hawaiian learning, he contended that neither practitioners who identified with a Native Hawaiian
perspective, nor practitioners who identified with a dominant perspective, were more reflective. He
also commented that Native Hawaiian students might benefit more significantly from reflecting only
if practitioners guided them toward that perspective, which he was reluctant to do. He explained,
I think all students can benefit from the reflective process. I think it's possible [for Native
Hawaiians students to benefit more from reflective practice than students who do not
identify as Native Hawaiians], if [practitioners steer [students’] reflective practice toward
something they're interested in or the Hawaiian culture...But I don't want to tell them
exactly what to think. I want them to find their way because I grew up in between
[dominant and Native Hawaiian] worlds, so it was hard for me, too.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 99
Logan asserted that Native Hawaiian learners could be guided toward a culturally relevant
reflective practice, but he preferred students forge their own path instead of being conscripted
into a particular perspective because of convenience or proximity. While Sara and Crystal
seemed to assert that reflecting from an innate, Native Hawaiian perspective of humility and
connectedness was more beneficial for Native Hawaiian learners, Logan appeared to consider
this guidance a possible imposition on learners’ discovering, designing, and establishing a
personal, reflective perspective.
Logan’s stance on reflective instruction seemed to align with his bi-cultural perspective.
Within his discussions of reflection, he indicated a resistance to promoting a Native Hawaiian,
culturally-based reflective process over a dominant, ideology based, reflective practice because
for Logan, the act of reflecting was more important than the perspective from, or process through
which, an individual reflected. Logan indicated he valued reflection, not because of the cultural
innateness of the process, but because reflection organized and improved his instructional
approaches. Logan stated there was no Hawaiian way to reflect that was more beneficial than
another culture’s form of reflection. Furthermore, Logan contended that he identified and
confuted his own stereotypes of Native Hawaiian culture through, what could possibly be
considered, an ideologically-dominant, perspective process. Practitioners who reflected to afford
themselves an increased capacity to meet students’ learning needs, and promote learning
opportunities, seemed to encapsulate Logan’s reflective assertions, regardless of their cultural
alignment (Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b).
The bi-cultural standpoint Logan asserted in his reflective instruction appeared to align
with a reluctance to recommend a specific implementation of reflective practice to colleagues.
Because Logan experienced the challenges that came through intersecting cultural viewpoints
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 100
and he concluded he was able to independently discern a reflective process that was beneficial
for him personally, he asserted, that those around him, whether practitioner or student, expert or
novice, Native Hawaiian or dominant perspective, should be allowed the same opportunity.
Logan reasoned that cultural background did not indicate an adeptness or proclivity for
reflection, and assumed that all teachers reflected, regardless of their years of experience, or
leadership level. He stated,
I would hope [Native Hawaiians’ and non-Native Hawaiians’ benefit and adeptness in
reflecting] would be about the same, because [of the] same profession. We're still
helping people learn. I would assume that everyone always reflects, no matter what level
they are or how long they've been teaching. But I know that isn't always the case...There
could be some Native Hawaiian teachers who don't reflect. They think they got it, and
maybe they do, maybe they don't need to reflect. So I would say it would be more of an
individual thing.
Logan seemed to assume that all practitioners reflected, regardless of their cultural background
or whether he had directly witnessed their enactment of reflection. However, Logan appeared to
resume a pragmatic stance, when he commented that not all practitioners reflected, either
because they chose not to engage in the practice, or because they concluded they had already
achieved perfection as a practitioner, and no longer needed to reflect. However, he also
indicated that practitioners who identified as Native Hawaiian would be among those
practitioners who chose not to reflect. Because of the plausibility of this assumption, Logan
reasserted his position that a propensity to reflect aligned with individual choice, rather than a
cultural innateness. Lastly, Logan’s comments seemed to imply that practitioners could arrive at
a point in their instructional practice where they “got it” and no longer needed to reflect, which
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 101
conflicted with Sara’s and Crystal’s reflective stance of constant learning and dynamic
instruction.
Logan’s assertions that a learner benefitted most from a self-identified, reflective process,
relevant to their specific perspective and context, aligned with scholars’ conclusions that
different contexts called for different reflective approaches (Black & Plowright, 2010; Clarke,
James, & Kelly, 1996; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Higgins, 2011; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Thorsen &
DeVore, 2013). Logan’s hesitance to identify an effective reflective process, based on cultural
perspectives concurred with some scholars’ contentions, that there was no right or wrong way to
reflect, only a good, better, or best way, depending on the situation (Clarke, James, & Kelly,
1996). This perspective of reflection seemed to require an openness to, and awareness and
understanding of, various reflective methods, rather than an unwavering commitment to a single
approach, both of which Logan appeared to be open to, but neither of which he seemed to
possess (Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996; Higgins, 2011; Jay & Johnson, 2002).
Logan’s seemingly amorphous notion of a culturally appropriate perspective of reflection
contrasted with Sara and Crystal’s assertion that culturally relevant approaches to reflection
would be more beneficial for Native Hawaiian learners. This contrast seemed to stem from each
practitioner’s purpose for reflecting. Logan’s presiding goal appeared to be improvement, which
could be achieved through both a dominant and Native Hawaiian perspective of reflection.
While Sara also reflected to improve her instructional approaches, her foremost interest seemed
to be her development as a practitioner. She appeared to conclude that her development could
best be achieved through a culturally relevant perspective with which she and her students were
familiar and, therefore, more readily able to enact. Crystal’s perceived purpose for reflecting
suggested a paralleled, and expanded view of Sara’s reflective objectives. Crystal aspired to a
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 102
connectedness within her reflection, which traversed her relationships with and among her
students, their families, the content, land, and past and future generations. From Crystal’s
viewpoint, which appeared to thrive on communal learning and shared understandings, a
culturally relevant, Native Hawaiian reflective process might be a more appropriate (Au &
Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Kawakami, 1999; Harford &
MacRuairc, 2008; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994).
Logan, as a practitioner, seemed flexible and willing to consider each practitioner’s
situation as unique, rather than imposing a reflective process based solely on culture. And, while
Logan’s openness to various reflective process could be perceived as a beneficial approach for
practitioners seeking to identify a reflective practice appropriate for their purposes, scholars
recommended practitioners choose a reflective process based on situational evidence, and a clear
articulation of the ways in which the chosen reflective processes, and decided upon actions,
would increase student learning opportunities (Dewey, 1938; Farrell, 2012; Rodgers, 2002b).
All three participants stated that they preferred specific reflective processes, which they
associated with promoting learning opportunities for Native Hawaiian students and increased
equity in their classrooms, however, participants did not appear to explicitly connect their
reflective choices to the consideration of multiple perspectives, dominant ideology-based
theoretical research, or social justice outcomes (Farrell, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Noguera,
2001; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015).
Reflective Practice Perceived to Promote Culturally Appropriate Communal Learning and
Increased Equity Among Learners
The second theme answering the third research question, highlighted participants’
perceptions of communal reflection and the ways this form of reflection promoted learning
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 103
opportunities and educational equity among Native Hawaiians (Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce,
& Ahram, 2015). In ancient Hawaiian society, interdependence and humility were foundational
tenets, and these tenets are still maintained among modern generations of Native Hawaiians (Au
& Blake, 2003; Dudoit, 1999; Kawakami, 1999; McCubbin, McCubbin, Zhang, Kehl, & Strom,
2013). Sara, the mathematics teacher, suggested that Native Hawaiians’ valuing of communal
success over individual achievement, was a direct result of these foundational Native Hawaiian
values (Au & Blake, 2003; Kawakami, 1999). She described the common Native Hawaiian
understanding of communal growth through an illustration of a canoeing crew paddling toward a
destination. Within these paddlers was a love for the land, the people, their ancestors, and the
Native Hawaiian community, which motivated them to move collectively toward their common
goal. In the canoe, everyone contributed their efforts to move the boat toward a collective aim.
Sara analogized educating Native Hawaiian learners to this canoeing image. The teacher,
the learners, their shared values, and the community, were all in the canoe together, and when the
teacher and learners in the boat moved toward an educational goal, the collective Native
Hawaiian community moved with them. Sara further exemplified this understanding of
interdependence when she stated, “I think that Hawaiians working in Hawaiian populations want
their communities to do better.” She asserted that when Native Hawaiian practitioners taught
Native Hawaiian populations, the practitioners taught from a communal perspective, with the
whole community’s advancement in mind, much like the paddling crew moved toward a
destination (Au & Blake, 2003; Kawakami, 1999; Dewey, 1938). A Native Hawaiian
practitioner stepped into the canoe with students, families, and collective Native Hawaiian
values, and worked to advance the communal canoe toward the end goal of learning and
educational equity.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 104
Because Sara valued Native Hawaiian advancement over individual success, as her
analogy demonstrated, Sara chose to participate in communal reflection, in spite of both an
apprehension to be a burden on her colleagues, and possibly placing herself in a position of
vulnerability among a large group. She stated that as she matured as a practitioner, she began to
recognize the need for her and her colleagues to paddle together in a learning canoe, along with
their students, their families, and the Native Hawaiian community as a whole, to expand their
students’ learning opportunities. She indicated that when her students’ learning opportunities
expanded, the canoe moved closer to communal success.
Sara discussed a reflective, mentoring relationship she participated in during her first year
as a teacher. Her mentor was an experienced, Native Hawaiian practitioner who, Sara stated,
valued communally reflective practice (Beauchamp, 2015; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
This mentoring relationship was designed to provide Sara with instructional coaching, as well as
an apprenticeship in reflective practice. Sara described these particular reflective moments as
conversational, encouraging, and positive, as well as “scary” and evaluative. She credited this
mentor for introducing her to instructional reflective practice (Beauchamp, 2015). Sara
described these daily reflective sessions as difficult for her at first, because of her mentor’s more
aggressive, somewhat dominant perspective based, conversational style. In these sessions,
Sara’s mentor guided her through a reflective process by asking questions, and making
statements like, “Perhaps you could have done it this way,” or “I like to start it this way.” The
questions and prompts her mentor offered were intended to be scaffolds for Sara’s future
reflective practice, which Sara confirmed they did eventually become (Harford & MacRuairc,
2008; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Jones & Jones, 2013).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 105
However, Sara initially viewed her mentor’s guidance as evaluative criticisms of her
teaching approach, when she said, “I thought she was attacking my character. After
conversations with her...I'd be like, ‘I don't even care. I don't want to know.’" Sara stated that, as
time passed, she realized the need for, and value of, these reflective sessions, which she indicated
afforded her the opportunity to grow in her instructional practice. Sara explained that eventually,
she was able to openly reflected with her mentor on a consistent basis, and indicated that as her
reflective stamina grew, she was abler to accept her mentor’s guidance from a position of
humility (Black & Plowright, 2010; Jones & Jones, 2013; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). She
described the shift, “Now...everything is growth to me and I want to learn...I’m always
looking...trying to soak up as much as possible.” Sara indicated this shift in her perception of
communal reflection was motivated by her reflective conversations with her mentor, which she
concluded allowed her to experience instructional growth as a novice, and later afforded her the
ability to reflect vulnerably within larger, communal groups. Sara pointed to her mentor’s
guiding reflective conversations as the archetype for her self-reflection later, and saw them as
critical to her longevity and development as a practitioner (Beauchamp, 2015; Collin & Karsenti,
2011; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Loughran, 2002; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Sara’s
perceived reflective growth might have been a result of this skilled mentoring-coaching-
apprenticing relationship, her maturation as a practitioner, and her self-identified Native
Hawaiian perspective (Beauchamp, 2015; Kawakami, 1999; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
Sara relayed another cyclical, reflective experience that she stated often occurred between
her and a colleague. Sara explained, “[She] and I talked after [lessons]...And she's like, "Well, I
really started thinking about this,"...It's nice to have that kind of conversation after.” Sara
affirmed that these informal, relaxed, reflective moments allowed her to problematize her
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 106
instructional decision-making, as well as learn from another practitioner’s teaching practice and
thinking process (Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Collin & Karsenti, 2011;
Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Sara maintained that her and her colleague’s
similar, cultural viewpoints of humility and collective growth, provided a conduit through which
they could connect, and subsequently promoted culturally relevant learning opportunities for
their students.
Sara also conveyed a communal reflective event she experienced with her students.
Because almost all the students in Sara’s class were of Native Hawaiian descent, Sara perceived
they shared a common understanding of reflective humility and collective success. During this
particular communally, reflective process, Sara facilitated a whole-class reflection at the end of a
math lesson. This process was familiar to her students as she allowed her students to converse
about their learning challenges and strengths at the conclusion of most lessons. Sara relayed the
interaction she witnessed among her students,
I have a [student who identified with a dominant perspective] and [she] rarely reflected…
[She’s] like, "No…I’ve done everything perfect.” [The students who identified with a
Native Hawaiian perspective] are like, "…You could have done this. Look back at your
notes. Try to check this."...They're not discouraging... at all. They prompt her, and she
tries...The kids are like, "There's some stuff [you] could work on." In this community, I
think the [Native Hawaiian students] are used to, "You should have done this," or "You
could have done that better. You have to aspire to do more."
In the situation Sara conveyed above, the class reflected on their performance within a math task.
Directly prior to this interaction, Sara explained that the Native Hawaiian learners had each
identified a few individual areas for improvement. However, when the student, who Sara
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 107
perceived did not identify as Native Hawaiian, communicated to her fellow students that she
completed the task perfectly, Sara stated that the Native Hawaiian students attempted to assist
their classmate with identifying areas of need. The students had been vulnerable with their own
weaknesses and expected their classmate to do the same. Sara noted that the non-Native
Hawaiian student made an effort to listen to her classmates, while the Native Hawaiian students
encouraged her. Sara conveyed an admiration for her students as she described watching them
guide their classmate toward a humbler reflective stance, because they directly addressed their
peer’s apparent needs and pointed her toward change. Native Hawaiian culture encourages
harmony, particularly within a larger group setting, which usually means issues are addressed by
hinting at them or prodding indirectly, rather than directly addressing the conflict (Au, 1998;
Dudoit, 1999; Kawakami, 1999). Sara stated that her students were able to directly and
explicitly, acknowledge, identify, and engage this problematic, reflective need, while
simultaneously conveying a stance of humility and encouragement, seemingly embodying both
dominant and Native Hawaiian perspectives within the same reflective interaction.
Sara also described the ways in which Native Hawaiian families are more direct with
their expectations within smaller, familial settings when she said families encouraged their
children to do “better” or “aspire to do more," because their choices, efforts, and goals, are not
theirs alone, but their families’, and the Native Hawaiian community’s as a whole (Au & Blake,
2003; Dewey, 1938; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). Sara intimated that her Native
Hawaiian students exhibited a more familial expectation of their classmate, who appeared to
identify with a non-dominant perspective, by expecting her to do “better” and “aspire to do
more," within their classroom community. This sharing of expectations could indicate the
Native Hawaiian values of interdependence and connectedness within the classroom, as students
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 108
appeared to take responsibility for another student’s learning (Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999). Sara
related her Native Hawaiian students’ ability to recognize their individual errors, strive toward
greater goals, and expand their capacity, in leading a classmate toward a perceived Native
Hawaiian reflective stance (Kawakami, 1999).
Still, Sara did not appear to exhibit dominant theoretical perspectives of reflection within
her communal reflection, however, her choices indicated a growing consideration of others’
perspectives, such as her mentor and colleague. She also appeared to create a space for her
students to communally reflect in a way that seemed to benefit students from non-dominant and
dominant perspectives. Sara’s description of her shift from an initially guarded practitioner to
one that valued communal reflecting, by way of a culturally appropriate perspective of collective
learning and success, signified expanded learning opportunities for both herself and her students
(Au & Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008;
Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Sara’s
discussion of communal reflection, coupled with her Native Hawaiian perspective of
interdependence and collective success, placed her toward the middle of the Robust Continuum
due to perceived changes within her assumptions, and cognitive shifts with regard to communal
reflecting. However, this dominant, theoretically based framework seemed to impede the
culturally unique, value-laden, and tacit reflective process common to Native Hawaiian learners.
Dominant theory seemed unable to account for culturally reflective perspectives that value
quietness, humility, and gentle action, over assertive, explicitly direct interactions. This
prescriptive framework consistently hindered the study’s Native Hawaiian participants from
reaching the most robust levels of dominant reflective ideologies, because as their culture
dictates, Native Hawaiians do not explicitly exhibit the assigned reflective processes or social
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 109
actions that dominant reflective theories prescribe in the same way practitioners, who identify
with a dominant perspective, might.
Sara’s Initial Reflective Continuum, which was presented earlier in the findings of
research question one, expanded when her culturally reflective perspective was added, which led
to a revision of her Initial Continuum (Figure 2) to include her cultural perspectives within her
Cultural Continuum (Figure 5).

Sara’s highest expectations on her Initial Continuum, and in her reflective definition, shifted
from an inclusion of peers’ perspectives and the enactment of change as an individual
practitioner, to an inclusion of perspectives that appeared to include her culture, school
community, ancestors, and land, as well as collective, interdependent success. In this way, the
dominant, prescriptive approach to reflective practice appeared to impede the realization,
recognition, and acknowledgment of Sara’s perceived growth as a reflective practitioner. Had
Sara looked to the dominant theories alone for a reflective framework, she might not have been
See
Problem,
Do
Nothing
Change Thinking,
No
Change,
Shallow
React in
Moment, No
Change
Inclusion of
Peers
Acceptance
of Need to
Change
Reflect
Until
Painful
Reflect to
Work
Through
Hurts
Examine
An Idea

Sara’s Continuum Comparison
 Make things better
 Never Ending Growth
 Deeper
 Less Defensive
 Break Things Down
Private, Fear,
Accountability
Focused

Collective
Success
Scaffold,
Coaching
Interdependence Cultural
Humility
Cultural
Talk Story,
Peers
Connectedness
to land, people,
ancestors
Initial Continuum
Cultural Continuum
Figure 5
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 110
able to participate in the cultural connectedness and interdependence afforded her and her
students through culturally relevant reflective practice.
Crystal, the social studies teacher, further discussed her perceptions of the ways she
perceived communal reflection promoted learning among Native Hawaiian students (Au &
Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008;
Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Crystal
suggested that the connectedness communal reflection affords increased students’ learning
opportunities, which she indicated, obligated every teacher “without a doubt” to reflect (Rodgers,
2002a, 2002b). She seemed to internalized that obligation in her reflective practice and appeared
to assume a moral obligation to reflect in ways that empowered herself and her students to cause
communal change (Dewey, 1938). She explained,
I think of myself first as a Native Hawaiian…that puts a little bit of pressure on me and
my reflections. I put it on myself...because I feel an obligation for these kids...I’ve come
from where they're coming from and I want to make sure they're getting the best I can
provide for them...in my teaching, in my relationships with them...in everything. I want
to make sure that long after they're gone, they think of this place as a safe environment
where they really grew and connected to each other.
Crystal returned to her notion of connectedness, a connectedness that appeared to emanate from
the Native Hawaiian understanding of community and relationships. Crystal identified with her
students’ cultural perspectives and experiences, which led her to assume an obligation to become
the best possible practitioner for her students. She asserted, to achieve that goal, continuous,
reflective practice, both individual and communal, was necessary (Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton,
2013).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 111
Crystal associated growth and success as a practitioner with communal reflection because
she viewed society from a communal perspective (Au & Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol,
& Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b;
Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Crystal suggested that she developed as a
practitioner when she reflected with others, whether that consisted of her mentor teachers,
colleagues, or students (Beauchamp, 2015; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford
& MacRuairc, 2008; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Thompson &
Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). She described her reflective relationships as conversational, and
gave an example of the conversational pattern that most often occurred between her and her
mentor (Collin & Karsenti, 2011). The interaction usually began with Crystal initiating a
conversation with her mentor about a problematic situation in her classroom she was unable to
solve independently. She described her mentor’s typical response,
He never would be, "This is how you do it." Never has he [done that]. He automatically
goes into that reflective [process]. "Well, what are you doing? Okay..." or "Walk me
through this lesson. Okay, right there. Why did you choose to do that? What’s the
benefit of you doing that? Is the benefit for you? Is the benefit for the child?" He's
never been, "This is how you fix it. Do it this way."
In the conversation described above, Crystal came to her own realization of how to reframe the
problem and design a plan of action because of her mentor’s reflective guidance (Beauchamp,
2015; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Much like
Sara’s mentor-coach, Crystal’s mentor scaffolded her reflective instruction by asking her
questions that led her to evaluate the thinking, underlying motivations, and assumptions
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 112
connected with her chosen behavior (Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Jones
& Jones, 2013; Loughran, 2002).
Crystal also described a mentoring group she indicated was communally reflective. In
this reflective group, as in the previous mentoring relationship discussed above, her mentors
were experienced teachers who identified with a Native Hawaiian perspective. Because the
mentor teachers in this particular group taught in Native Hawaiian, high-needs communities,
appeared to value relationships and cultural perspectives, and seemed to share culturally
appropriate understandings of learning, Crystal expressed a value of their perspectives on
instructional practice (Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b).
Crystal recollected the informal, conversational pattern that occurred during these times
of communal reflection (Au & Mason, 1981). During their reflective sessions, the mentoring
teachers would often thank her for sharing her practice and explain how her descriptions
illuminated their own teaching. Crystal viewed her mentor teachers’ responses to her reflective
sharing as a model that suggested learning never stopped, even after decades of teaching, which
she indicated led to a positive, interdependent, communally beneficial, and culturally appropriate
reflective environment (Valli, 1997; Zeichner, 1994). Crystal asserted that the culturally
appropriate environment extended her learning and increased the educational equity for the
learners participating in the reflective group (Au & Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, &
Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Kawakami, 1999; Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce,
& Ahram, 2015; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Valli, 1997; Zeichner, 1994).
Crystal also relayed her reflective interactions with her colleagues. These reflective
interactions took on a conversational dynamic, much like those Crystal described above, but she
indicated these interactions were less formal than those with her mentor teachers, much like
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 113
Sara’s descriptions above (Collin & Karsenti, 2011). When Crystal described these interactions,
she employed the term “Talk Story,” a label often used among Native Hawaiians to describe a
conversational style considered to be a culturally appropriate approach to learning for Native
Hawaiian learners (Au, 1993; Au & Mason, 1981). During these Talk Story sessions, she and
her colleagues would, “let it all out,” without filters or reflective protocols in mind (Au, 1993;
Au & Mason, 1981). Crystal used these moments to “word vomit” her most immediate problems
of practice, so she could “get it all out,” usually in the minutes between classes. Though Crystal
stated that these communally reflective sessions were less formal than those with her mentors,
she concluded that the opportunity to share her thoughts and feelings with colleagues, in the
midst of problems of practice, was equally valuable (Schön, 1983). Crystal communicated that
these Talk Story moments, where she and her colleagues talked on top of each other, expressed
their frustrations, consoled one another, and laughed, allowed them to connect with one another,
build camaraderie, “take a breath,” and return to their students, calm and ready to teach (Au,
1993; Au & Mason, 1981).
The final reflective community Crystal remarked on was that of her students. Because
Crystal asserted reflection was an inherent part of the Native Hawaiian culture, she stated that
she often set aside time during her instruction to allow her students to reflect on their learning,
much like Sara did. During these reflective times, Crystal explained the ways she guided her
students toward deeper reflection through questioning and scaffolding their understanding, much
like her mentor teacher did with her (Beauchamp, 2015; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Jones & Jones, 2013). Crystal offered an example of a reflective moment in her
classroom that exemplified this communally reflective environment,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 114
I had every single kid in front of the class sharing their reflections, saying why they felt
this way, why they felt so strongly...They were drawing pictures and…writing
words...Everyone really wanted to share how the [lesson] personally affected them. There
were tears. They were like, "Yes, you can do it. You can make changes."
Crystal’s description of her students’ reflective responses were based on a lesson that covered the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). When her students read and examined the
UDHR together, Crystal stated, they were confused as to why rights such as food, health, and
shelter had to be delineated, and collectively discussed their thoughts to gain a shared
understanding for the reasons behind the UDHR. In their time of communal reflection, Crystal
related that students shared their innermost thoughts, and recognized assumptions they held as
privileged citizens of a democratic society (Au, 1993; Au & Mason, 1981; Zeichner, 1994).
Students independently extended their communal discussion to include the homeless families
they saw outside their school, and those families’ rights to food, health, and shelter. Crystal
conveyed the ways her students communicated in a culturally appropriate manner that might
have seemed disorderly in a more controlled, dominant perspective, classroom environment.
Crystal depicted her students talking on top of each other out of excitement, sharing vulnerably,
and crying together about the state of society. They comforted each other and encouraged one
another to make changes. Crystal noted her students’ perceived depth of understanding, the
connections they made independently, the effort they exerted in breaking down their own
assumptions, the vulnerability they showed with their classmates, and the actions they intended
to take because of the lesson. She observed,
Letting [them] reflect, you get some of the most dynamic answers you could ever dream
of because the way they process information when they're not told how to process it and
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 115
how to understand it, when they're given that independence to internalize it the way they
see it, and then share that. You get a deeper understanding. You get that shared
understanding, and it's dynamic.
Because her students processed and reflected on the content in what Crystal perceived to be, a
culturally relevant format, she suggested they constructed a deeper, and more dynamic, shared
understanding than if she had maintained control of the direction, pace, and organization of the
lesson. Crystal indicated that her students experienced a greater collective growth as a result of
this communally reflective experience, which supported a culturally reflective and relevant
perspective of interdependent community and collaborative relationships (Au & Blake, 2003;
Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Harford & MacRuairc,
2008; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994).
Crystal concluded that this experience promoted learning opportunities and educational equity in
her classroom because it expanded the content to include the students’ cultural perspective,
through a reflective discussion that resembled a social dynamic familiar to most Native Hawaiian
learners (Au & Mason, 1981).
The culturally appropriate, communally reflective experiences Crystal described,
prompted her to examine her personal assumptions and beliefs (Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). She
acknowledged she held assumptions within her own perspective and that those assumptions
sometimes affected her learning relationships. Crystal commented that she made conscious
efforts to confront these assumptions when she explained,
It's a brave person that admits their assumptions because, even coming from this
community, I have assumptions. I still do, and it's something I still work through each
year with my students. You have to admit it. I don't think any of us comes without
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 116
discoloration in our lens. It's just there no matter what and reflection is a way to start to
break down those barriers, first within yourself, and then [with] someone safe to talk to.
Crystal articulated that she valued communal reflection because of the culturally appropriate,
dialogic opportunities it afforded her, in examining her perceptions (Au & Blake, 2003; Belvis,
Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Kawakami, 1999; Loughran,
2002; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Valli, 1997; Zeichner, 1994). While
she explained that she attempted to identify assumptions during private reflection, she also
sought out safe relationships, which she concluded assisted her with taking responsibility for her
perceptions and breaking down assumptions that affected her relationships. The three reflective
environments Crystal explored in her descriptions above, aligned with her reflective practice
definition, enactment, and culturally-based perspective.
Crystal’s Initial Continuum (Figure 3) expanded, as Sara’s did, when her cultural
perspectives were added into the discussion, which resulted in an adjusted Cultural Continuum
(Figure 6).

Student
and
Teacher
Confident
React and
Assume
Restrain
Reaction
Ask
Questions
Real Change
for Students
Understand
Impact
Understand
Content
Understand
how to
Teach
Growth

Crystal’s Continuum Comparison
 Differentiation
 Calm/Patient
 See Whole Student
 Observant
 eeper
 Shallow
 Only See Part of
Students’ Picture
 Lesson-Focused
Future
Generational
Impact
Reflection
Inherent in
Cultural
Perspective
Pressure
to
Reflect
Scaffolding,
Coaching
Connectedness
to land,
people,
ancestors
Dynamic,
Shared
Understanding
Cultural
Talk Story,
Peers
Admit
Assumptions
Initial Continuum
Cultural Continuum
Figure 6
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 117
The higher points on her Initial Continuum, such as a calm and confident practitioner, were
replaced by dynamic understandings and future impact. The inclusion of her cultural perspective
seemed to expand the robustness of her reflective practice, promoting perceived culturally
relevant learning opportunities and learning equity for her students (Figure 6; Au & Blake, 2003;
Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Kawakami, 1999; Moje, 2007). In addition, her communally reflective
descriptions located her toward the higher end of the study’s Robust Continuum due to her
described examinations of hidden assumptions and beliefs, and her facilitation of a lesson that
indicated a desire in her students to take social action (Beauchamp, 2015; Moje, 2007;
Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
Logan, the English Language Arts teacher, maintained a bi-cultural view of reflective
practice when he discussed communal reflection. He stated that he held a somewhat limited
understanding of Native Hawaiian cultural understandings such as collective success,
interdependence, and communal learning, and continued to affirm the benefits of dominant-
perspective ideals such as individual success (Au & Blake, 2003; Kawakami, 1999). Logan’s
definition of reflective practice, his reflective method preferences, and examples of reflective
enactment, seemed to proceed from a drive toward perfection and individual improvement,
which aligned with a dominant perspective. However, because he was of Native Hawaiian
descent, he also concluded that he identified with a Native Hawaiian perspective. He explained
that he continued to wrestle with commending one cultural perspective over the other,
delineating the benefits he saw in both. In addition, while Sara and Crystal discussed dominant
and Native Hawaiian perspectives of reflection as disparate viewpoints, Logan saw minimal
distinction between the two cultures’ reflective approaches. He concluded that all students
benefitted from reflective practice and that all teachers should reflect but saw no reason why
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 118
teachers or learners from a non-dominant culture would be more adept at reflecting than those
from a dominant culture. For Logan, culturally relevant reflective practice was one means
through which a practitioner could improve instructional practice, but he was reluctant to
associate cultural relevancy with a more, or less, appropriate way of learning.
Nevertheless, Logan appeared to identify with the dominant perspective of reflecting
more readily than the Native Hawaiian perspective. Logan explained, “I really didn't grow up
with the Hawaiian culture, because my family pushed away from that.” He commented that his
connection with Native Hawaiian culture was minimal because of the way he was raised, and his
family’s perceived resistance to the Native Hawaiian culture. He considered himself somewhat
of a novice in Native Hawaiian knowledge, which, coupled with his goal of perfection, left him
somewhat perplexed when the Native Hawaiian perspective was emphasized. Logan articulated
that he sought to increase his knowledge of Native Hawaiian culture through his experiences at
MPCS. Logan suggested that the longer he taught at MPCS, the more familiar he became with
the Native Hawaiian perspective, and the more he identified with the culture. He affirmed, “I'm
soaking everything up when we do things here and from the students.” When he connected his
increased knowledge about Native Hawaiian culture with culturally relevant reflective practice,
he confirmed that he began to see the value of reflecting from a Native Hawaiian perspective of
connectedness. He expounded,
I am starting to look at it as, I'm not just the teacher, I'm not just myself but, I represent
where I'm from, my family, and the culture. So I want to teach the kids that they’re a
reflection of their [ancestors], their family, and even the people here.
Logan’s stated that his perspective began to shift from an individual representing solely himself,
to a communal perspective within which, he represented the area in which he grew up, his
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 119
family, his ancestors, and his culture as a Native Hawaiian. Logan affirmed that this cognitive
shift motivated him to create a space where he could pass a culturally communal perspective that
acted out of an understanding of interdependence, on to his students.
Logan recounted, what he considered to be, his initial introduction to authentic, Native
Hawaiian culture, which occurred on his first day as a teacher at MPCS. He discussed his
previous misconceptions of Native Hawaiians, and the awareness shift he experienced after
interacting with the MPCS’s community members. He recalled, “When I came to [MPCS] I had
my biases, my stereotypes. And then when I was exposed to the kids, they're so polite here
compared to some of the other schools, that it made me wonder what was different here?” Logan
pointed to this awareness shift as the spark that motivated him to reflect on his biases toward
Native Hawaiians. He stated that he began to recognize hidden assumptions and beliefs that
impeded his relationships with his students, his colleagues, and the surrounding community. He
concluded that if he failed to make significant shifts in his perceptions of Native Hawaiian
people, he would not be able to meet his students’ learning needs. Logan intimated that through
reflection, he was able to begin that shift and cultivate a more culturally appropriate perspective
of Native Hawaiians. He deduced that the more he interacted with Native Hawaiians from the
community and reflected on those experiences, the more his perspective would evolve to include
positive perceptions of culturally relevant, communal learning.
Because MPCS was a Native Hawaiian, culturally based school, the content, pedagogy,
and learning perspectives were aligned with cultural values. Reflection, as an inherent Native
Hawaiian practice, played a role in students’ formative and summative learning at MPCS. From
Logan’s perspective, when practitioners and students participated in reflective practice, the focus
usually included Native Hawaiian communal understandings, such as, the example older learners
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 120
set for younger learners and creating change in the surrounding, high-needs community, or
within the extended Native Hawaiian community. He elaborated,
Whenever [Native Hawaiians] reflect here, it's how we can use it to help the community.
Whether it be the community here at school, the [surrounding community] or just the
Hawaiian community. So it's always as a group together, how we could improve. I could
see the [dominant perspective] is just, how I can just improve myself or my [students]...
Logan affirmed that Native Hawaiian reflection involved connecting with members of the school
community, the surrounding community, and the collective group of Native Hawaiians. Prior to
his awareness shift, Logan stated he was unable to identify differences between a dominant and a
Native Hawaiian perspective, he later recognized a differing focus on individualism within the
dominant perspective, and a communal focus within the Native Hawaiian perspective (Au &
Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008;
Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Logan
indicated that as his value of the Native Hawaiian perspective increased, his awareness of
differences between the cultures became more apparent.
And yet, although he confirmed that he continued to grow in his understanding of the
Native Hawaiian perspective, he continued to avoid advocating one perspective over another,
and refrained from recommending reflection, in whatever form it took, to colleagues. Because
Logan favored a private approach to reflection, he found it difficult to pinpoint specific instances
where he participated in a communally reflective experience that was particularly valuable for
his growth as a practitioner. With the exception of occasional middle school staff meetings,
during which the staff sometimes “bounced ideas” off one another, his examples of communal
reflection were limited. He made a passing reference to the informal communal reflection that
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 121
occurred at these meetings, which included more of a Talk Story session (Au, 1993; Au &
Mason, 1981). Logan explained that during these Talk Story sessions, staff members conversed
about problems of practice, and gathered suggestions from their colleagues (Colin & Karsenti,
2011; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Loughran, 2002). Logan did not explicitly indicate that
these sessions were based on any protocol or theory, neither were they intent on a particular goal
other than perceived instructional improvement (Gorski & Landsman, 2014). Logan asserted
that these communally reflective conversations brought cohesion to the middle school staff
through the building of camaraderie and shared understandings.
Throughout Logan’s reflective practice discussion, he appeared to maintain a dualistic
view of reflective practice. On one hand, his aim seemed to be lesson improvement, which
appeared to align with a dominant perspective of reflection, and yet, he endeavored to teach his
students to reflect from a communal perspective of land, family, and ancestry. Logan stated that
he made shifts in his perspective, through his reflective practice, that allowed him to appreciate
the communal view of success inherent in Native Hawaiian culture, but he also conveyed that he
found the perspective challenging to effectuate in light of his minimal exposure to the culture.
And while he was still reluctant to recommend one cultural perspective over another, through
reflection, he asserted that his understanding of Native Hawaiian perspectives expanded.
Logan’s perspective was situated in the middle of the study’s Robust Continuum because he did
not appear to exhibit an inclusion of additional perspectives, such as theoretical, historical,
political, and social perspectives, which dominant ideology theorists associate with a limited
reflective practice (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983). He also seemed to
remain within a descriptive dimension of reflection, rather than moving toward a more, in-depth,
comparative or critical perspective, which, according to dominant ideologies, might have
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 122
impeded his and his students’ learning opportunities (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Like Sara and
Crystal though, Logan’s Initial Continuum (Figure 4) expanded when he discussed cultural
perspectives within reflection. His Initial Continuum valued thinking and improving, for the
sake of lesson fluidity, while his Cultural Continuum (Figure 7) valued connectedness, an
honoring of both Native Hawaiian and dominant perspectives, and both individual and collective
success.

Logan’s Cultural Continuum seemed to create a space for him to value both dominant and Native
Hawaiian perspectives, which may have allowed him to see his own and his students’ cultural
perspectives more clearly.
The perspective Logan perpetuated appeared to contrast with Sara’s and Crystal’s
perspectives, which seemed to more explicitly honor a culturally relevant, communally reflective
perspective based on shared understandings that promoted culturally appropriate learning
opportunities and equity for Native Hawaiian students (Au & Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda,
Inflexible

Logan’s Continuum Comparison
Initial Continuum
Instructional
Improvement
Reflection
Inherent in
Cultural
Perspectiv
e
Cultural
Talk Story,
Peers

Dualistic
Identity:
Dominant
and Native
Hawaiian
Conscious
of Modeling
for Younger
Learners
Connectedness
to land,
people,
ancestors
Individual
and
Collective
Success
Cultural Continuum
Figure 7
 Thinking
 Improving
 Rigor
 Flexibility
 Questioning
 Lesson Fluidity
 More Time in Reflection
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 123
Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a,
2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Logan, maintained a less communal
reflective practice than Sara and Crystal, preferring to reflect privately, in spite of his articulated
value of connectedness and communal success. This seemed to be attributed to his lack of
familiarity with the Native Hawaiian culture and his goal of perfection, which also could have
been impediments to his students’ development of culturally relevant understandings (Gay, 2002;
Gay, 2006; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006).
Both Sara and Crystal valued communal reflection for its cultural relevance to the Native
Hawaiian perspective of interdependence and cooperation (Au & Blake, 2003; Belvis, Pineda,
Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a,
2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012; Zeichner, 1994). Both practitioners reflected to bring about
communal success for Native Hawaiians, however, Sara’s descriptions focused around moving
Native Hawaiians as a whole toward more equitable circumstances, while Crystal’s descriptions
focused more on causing change within her classroom that, in turn, might cause change in the
community (Dewey, 1938; Zeichner, 1994). An additional difference between Sara and Crystal
were the differing perspectives that appeared to emanate from their personal perceptions of
relationships. Sara described mentor relationships as somewhat evaluative and also seemed to
view communal reflection as a risk in vulnerability. Crystal depicted relationships from a
perspective of connectedness and mutual benefit (Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Despite
their different associations with communal reflection, both Sara and Crystal indicated that they
engaged in communal reflection to benefit their students’ learning and were both situated toward
the more rigorous end of the Robust Continuum due to the additional perspectives they included
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 124
in their reflective practice, and their consideration of societal pressures affecting their students
(Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b).
In addition to perception conflicts between one another, participants exhibited conflicts
within their own perspectives. Sara valued the interconnectedness and communal perspective
inherent in the Native Hawaiian perspective but sometimes guarded herself against the perceived
accountability and expectations she associated with collective reflection. Crystal asserted
reflective practice was innate to Native Hawaiian culture and suggested explicit reflective
instruction was unnecessary for Native Hawaiians, but offered an example in which she
explicitly taught her students reflective behaviors. Logan was disinclined to recommend a
Native Hawaiian perspective to his students in an effort to allow them to establish their own
understandings, but also discussed his desire to assist them in reflecting from a Native Hawaiian
perspective of communal identity. The conflicts among and within the participants’ perspectives
might emanate from the theoretical, historical, political, and social complexities inherent in both
reflective practice and cultural understandings (Danielowich, 2007; Griffiths, 2000; Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Jones & Jones, 2013; Reynolds & Pope, 1991). While participants’ sought to
increase student learning opportunities and the educational equity in their classrooms through
culturally relevant reflective processes, perhaps a greater awareness of the nuances and
complexity of the dominant research surrounding culturally relevant perspectives of reflective
practice might have expanded their personal definitions, enactments, and cultural understandings
of reflection, leading to more significant cognitive shifts in assumptions and values, and
initiatives increasing social justice for Native Hawaiian students (Beauchamp, 2015; Black &
Plowright, 2010; Hardy, 2004; Hickson, 2011; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 125
Noguera, 2001; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Thompson
& Pascal, 2012).
Dominant reflective practice theory gauged practitioners’ reflective rigor through an
alignment with the explicit, prescriptive reflective approaches dominant theories recommended
(Dewey, 1938; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983). However, because cultural
perspectives often cannot be located within the dominant perspective prescriptions, a
misalignment ensued between the definitive parameters theorists demarcated and participants’
Native Hawaiian, culturally based, reflective assertions (Snyder-Frey, 2013). Because of this
misalignment, Native Hawaiian understandings appear somewhat marginalized, locating Native
Hawaiian practitioners, for the most part, toward the lower end of the Robust Continuum
(Dudoit, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). However, perhaps what dominant ideology anoints as robust
reflection, conflicts with what Native Hawaiian culture values within robust reflection (Dudoit,
1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). The etic, or dominant, philosophy does not seem to hold the capacity
to articulate or encapsulate the emic, or insider perspective, of Native Hawaiian being, learning,
and reflecting (Harris, 1976). The research within this study sought to make explicit, tacit Native
Hawaiian understandings rooted in an emic perspective that more accurately captured the range
of reflective processes in which participants engaged (Au, 1998). Native Hawaiian culture
values humble quietness, which may not result in demonstrated social action, but it may lead to
interdependent relationships and future generational impact, which might be of greater
importance to a cultural group that once feared extinction (Dudoit, 1999; Kawakami, 1999).
Perhaps multiple perspectives can be achieved through the inclusion of learners’ families, greater
connectedness to their ancestors, and their ancestral lands, rather than through the influence of
dominant ideologies (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Kawakami, 1999; Schön, 1983). Perhaps, social
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 126
justice is achieved, not so much through overt means, but through the act of reuniting a Native
Hawaiian learner with a culture that was once stripped from their ancestors (Dudoit, 1999).
Perhaps if both the Native Hawaiian and the dominant perspective story can be articulated
through a more comprehensive framework, learners will be afforded a more dynamic and
relevant learning experience (Snyder-Frey, 2013). Within their own respective Initial and
Cultural Continuums, participants’ reflective measures shifted to accommodate for more
dynamic understandings of reflective practice. Dominant literature appears to tell only part of
the story, that which aligns with the dominant perspective. Without a shift on the part of
theorists to expand the focus of dominant ideologies to include culturally relevant perspectives of
being, learning, and reflecting, the needs of Native Hawaiian learners may continue to go unmet
(Dewey, 1938; Dudoit, 1999; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983; Snyder-Frey,
2013).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 127
Chapter Five: Discussion
In theory and in practice, reflection in educational settings is associated with promoting
equitable learning opportunities for students from non-dominant, high-needs backgrounds (Au &
Blake, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Rodgers, 2002b). However, few studies have explored
Native Hawaiian teachers’ perceptions of reflective practice understandings, enactments, and
cultural perspectives, within a Native Hawaiian context. The purpose of this qualitative study
was to give insight into Native Hawaiian practitioners’ tacit, reflective practice perceptions, for
the purpose of identifying reflective practices Native Hawaiian practitioners associate with
promoting equitable learning opportunities in Native Hawaiian classrooms (Au, 1998; Au, 2002;
Beauchamp, 2015; Kawakami, 1999; Russell, 2005; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013;
Williams & Grudnoff, 2011). These reflective understandings, enactments, and perspectives
were located on a Robust Continuum supported by the theories of Dewey (1938), Mezirow
(1981), Schön (1983), Jay & Johnson (2002), and Rodgers (2002b).
This problem was important to address because of the historically low student
achievement among students from non-dominant, high-needs populations, and the learning
inequities that influence and determine the educational experiences of these students (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 1999; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Hawai’i Department of Education, 2015a,
2015b, 2016; Howard, 2003; Lynn & Maddox, 2007; Moje, 2007; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram,
2015; Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004; U.S. Department of Education, 2013a; U.S.
Department of Education, 2013b; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Affirming reflective
practices that practitioners perceived promoted learning opportunities for students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations, was important to address because of the increasing number of
students from this population, and the persistent educational inequities present among this
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 128
population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). In Hawai’i, at the time of the study, Native Hawaiians
made up the largest sub-group of learners in public school classrooms and were also the lowest
performing, and most economically disadvantaged subgroup in the state (Hawai’i Department of
Education, 2015b). With the educational success of this population at stake, identifying practices
that promoted equitable learning opportunities in classrooms was of utmost importance.
The qualitative data reviewed in this study were gathered through two rounds of semi-
structured, individual interviews of three Native Hawaiian, secondary, public school practitioners
teaching within one school site (Merriam, 2009). The site was situated within a high-needs
community that consisted of predominantly Native Hawaiian residents (U.S. Census Bureau,
2000). The study’s understandings and outcomes were framed by the reflective practice theories
of Dewey (1938), Mezirow (1981), Schön (1983), Jay and Johnson (2002), and Rodgers (2002b).
The following questions guided the study’s inquiry:
1. How do secondary, public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers, perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools, perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?
Summary of Findings
All three of the study’s research questions were answered. The first research question
sought to elucidate Native Hawaiian practitioners’ definitions of reflective practice, in order to
establish a common understanding between the researcher and the participants. Two themes
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 129
emerged within this research question, which included participants’ understandings of reflective
practice as both a review for the improvement of their instruction, and a measure of growth. The
second research question inquired about practitioners’ enactment of reflective practice, which
participants described as varied, flexible, mostly individual, and minimally structured. The third
and final research question explored practitioners’ cultural perspectives associated with reflective
practice. This theme involved participants’ perceptions that reflection encouraged culturally
appropriate perspectives in learning, as well as enhanced communal learning, which they
perceived as a culturally-based learning approach. These findings were important because
participants’ Native Hawaiian way of being and learning involved a culturally unique, value-
laden, and tacit, reflective process, that they described as promoting equitable learning
experiences for their students. The manifestation of participants’ cultural perspectives within
their reflective processes, seemed to be somewhat impeded by theoretical literature that
promoted a dominant, prescriptive, reflective approach (Au, 1998; Au & Blake, 2003; Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Gorski & Landsman, 2014; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers,
2002b).
Discussion
These findings demonstrated participants’ reflective perspectives and augmented the
research involving reflective practice and its benefits for students from non-dominant, high-
needs populations, particularly Native Hawaiian students. The findings confirmed participants’
understandings, through their articulation of personal reflective practice definitions and
enactments, within a Native Hawaiian perspective and context. In addition, these findings
helped to illuminate the ways in which participants associated student learning opportunities with
culturally relevant, reflective practices.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 130
A Review for Improvement
Three findings emerged that answered the first research question’s inquiry regarding
practitioners’ definitions of reflective practice. The first finding involved participants’ definition
of reflection as a time to think about their practice to improve their instruction (Dewey, 1938;
Mezirow, 1981). Participants displayed a commitment to thinking about their instruction
through their descriptions of the self-questioning and reviewing involved in their reflective
processes (Williams & Grudnoff, 2011). Participants’ articulated understandings were
confirmed by the theoretical assertions of Dewey (1938), Mezirow (1981), Schön (1983), and
Rodgers (2002b). These scholars asserted that practitioners should slow down their instructional
practice to allow for the time necessary to think about their instructional choices in reference to
their students’ perceived engagement with those choices. They also recommended practitioners
think about and analyze, their decision-making, for more appropriate, relevant instruction in the
future (Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Hardy (2004) asserted that a practitioner’s desire to reflect was paramount, and
participants indicated a high value of reflective practice within their articulated definitions.
However, Clarke, James, and Kelly (1996) asserted that this thinking should be a higher order,
critical process (Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Participants’ willingness to reflect and value of
reflection, led them to engage in a reflective thinking process, but their thinking appeared to
remain within the descriptive dimension, and did not seem to align with scholars’ prescriptive
emphases on critical thinking, cognitive shifts in values and assumptions, and decisions to take
social justice actions on behalf of non-dominant populations (Black & Plowright, 2010; Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Moje, 2007; Moon, 2013).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 131
Participants further defined reflective practice growth through the ability to reflect for
longer periods of time at deeper levels. This perspective aligned with Attard and Armour’s
(2006) assertion that the more practitioners reflected, the more metacognitive the process
became, growing into a powerful tool that challenged personal assumptions and affected change
in their personal practice (Attard & Armour, 2006). Participants’ reflective definitions also
aligned with Moon’s (2013) definition of reflection as a process that developed practitioners’
thinking toward more complex understandings of teaching practices. And yet, practitioners’
reflective practice growth definitions were also dissimilar from scholars’ assertions, as they did
not initially appear to include the complexities associated with challenging personal assumptions
(Black & Plowright, 2010).
The second finding within participants’ reflective practice definitions involved
participants’ limited inclusion of additional perspectives in their reflective practice definitions.
Clarke, James, and Kelly (1996) asserted that reflective practice promoted collaboration and
dialogue among practitioners (Loughran, 2006). In addition, Dewey (1938) and Rodgers (2002a,
2002b) asserted that reflection needed to occur in communities, because private, individual
reflection might not encourage uncomfortable, frank discussions about assumptions, beliefs,
race, and inequity, which are considered to be critical components of dominant perspective
frameworks (Attard & Armour, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Loizou (2013) also took up this
assertion when she affirmed that teachers who reflect privately, sometimes affirm, what could be
perceived as, inaccurate beliefs and ineffective practices (Zeichner, 1994).
And while participants initially stated that they preferred to reflect privately, they did
participate in communal reflection. In their descriptions of communally reflective sessions,
however, participants articulated a reluctance to assert a position of authority or expertise among
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 132
their colleagues, which they affirmed stemmed from their cultural understanding of
humility. They seemed to infer that such an assertion communicated judgment of their fellow
practitioners’ reflective practice, which they were unwilling to convey (Attard & Armour, 2006;
City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009; Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996; Collin & Karsenti, 2011;
Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Because of
this, participants’ engagement in frank discussions that challenged colleagues’ assumptions
appeared limited, which dominant ideologies might attribute to fear or a reluctance to experience
relational discomfort (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). In fact, participants did reference fear and
judgment in their reflective descriptions, which they related to peers’ possible judgment of their
perceived instructional failures. They also sometimes utilized reflective practice in order to
achieve, what they perceived to be, perfected lesson plans, which they indicated, could be more
easily ascertained through private reflection, where errors were not seen by peers (Clarke, James,
& Kelly, 1996; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013). Participants also described their efforts to begin their
reflective processes privately and later expand to more communal processes, an expansion they
associated with reflective growth (Dewey, 1938; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). Participants’
description of reflective practice as a tool for increased vulnerability with colleagues, aligned
with scholars’ collective reflection assertions that communal reflection resulted in frank
discussions more often than private, individual reflection (Rodgers, 2002b).
The third finding within participants’ definition of reflective practice was unexpected as
it addressed participants’ seemingly minimal inclusion of feelings, beliefs, values, and
assumptions, as well as a limited reference to historical, political, and social influences in their
classrooms. The lack of inclusion of these influences seemed to signal a possible disconnect
between dominant theory and participants’ reflective practice (Attard & Armour, 2006;
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 133
Beauchamp, 2015; Rodgers, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Participants’ perceived paucity
of theoretical, historical, political, and social perspectives, aligned with Beauchamp’s (2015) and
Thompson and Pascal’s (2012) concern over the absence of dominant, theoretical perspectives
within practitioners’ reflective practice understandings. Jay and Johnson (2002) acknowledged
the vagueness and inaccessibility sometimes associated with reflective practice, which led to the
dimensions of reflection and guiding questions within their Typology. In addition, Hardy (2004)
found that effective reflection necessitated explicit, theoretically based, dominant-perspective,
instruction in conjunction with defined, scaffolded, and targeted learning outcomes (Tannebaum,
Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Jones & Jones, 2013; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013; Williams & Grudnoff,
2011).
Dominant ideologies identified participants’ reflective descriptions as deficient due to the
prescribed reflective expectations of increasingly complex thinking, explicitly articulated and
shifted assumptions, and increased learning equities, which appeared limited in participants’
initial reflective practice descriptions (Black & Plowright, 2010; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön,
1983). Furthermore, scholars’ recommended that practitioners examine their instruction through
the theoretical, historical, political, and social lenses afforded them through dominant literature.
This examination might be problematic for Native Hawaiian practitioners, as the historical,
political, and social influences on their classrooms relate to colonization, poverty, racial and
economic marginalization, and access and opportunity gaps in Native Hawaiian communities
(Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-Smith, 2009).
Because all participants participated in, and taught, Hawaiian history, their lack of awareness of
the influence historical, political, and social factors have on Native Hawaiian learning seems
improbable. Rather, their seemingly, quiet, yet staunch resistance, to dominant perspectives,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 134
which most Native Hawaiians associate with colonization and marginalization, appears to be an
acknowledgement and assertion of its own, one that intends to maintain a cultural perspective,
even at the cost of being relegated to a less robust placement on the Robust Continuum.
However, if scholars continue to expect and assign prescriptive approaches to reflective practice,
and look to dominant theories to frame those approaches, the needs of learners who identify with
non-dominant perspectives might remain unmet. Dominant literature, while it does offer a
picture of rigorous reflective practice, may not encompass what rigorous reflection looks like in
all learning communities.
Varied, Flexible, and Private Reflective Practice
The second research question discussed participants’ perceptions of reflective processes
that promote equitable student learning opportunities. Two findings emerged within this
question. The first finding established participants’ value of varied, flexible, personally selected,
reflective practice. Participants’ value of reflective practice was confirmed first, by Williams
and Grudnoff’s (2011) assertion that most teachers viewed reflection as important, and secondly,
by Rodgers’ (2002) posit that reflection had become “everything to everybody,” due to the
varied reflective options available to practitioners (Rodgers, 2002b, p. 843). Participants’
favoring of varied, personally selected reflective processes was also confirmed by Tannebaum,
Hall, and Deaton’s (2013) assertion that no one reflective process fits all the needs of all
practitioners, as well as Clarke, James, and Kelly’s (1996) notion that there was no good or bad
reflective process, only good, better, and best.
However, scholars’ also defended the need for explicit, reflective practice instruction
because reflection had begun to take different shapes for different people and in the process, had
seemingly diluted the prescribed expectations held within reflective practice literature (Jay &
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 135
Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Williams & Grudnoff,
2011). Most scholars rejected the wide acceptance of what they perceived to be, unstructured,
non-theoretically based reflective practice, due to findings such as those found in Belvis, Pineda,
Armengol, and Moreno’s (2013) study, in which instructional discrepancies were traced back to
inconsistent reflective practice, and that sites where reflective practice was supported and
promoted displayed higher outcomes (Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Tannebaum,
Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013; Williams & Grudnoff, 2011). Participants’
value of varied, flexible, and personally selected reflective processes, particularly when those
processes were non-theoretically based, directly contrasted with most reflective scholars’
theoretical prescriptions regarding structured, scaffolded, reflective practice. This discrepancy
seated participants on the less robust end of the study’s Robust Continuum, which was supported
by a dominant perspective that valued delineated behaviors and targeted outcomes (Harford &
MacRuairc; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Williams &
Grudnoff, 2011).
The second finding within practitioners’ perceptions of effective reflective processes,
included participants’ initial, instructional experiences with reflective practice. One practitioner
could not recollect being taught to reflect, while another recalled one specific reflective practice,
professional development session, later in his career. However, none of the participants could
remember being explicitly taught, as novices, to reflect on their practice. In addition, none of
them could remember teaching another practitioner to reflect. Participants described their initial
reflective experiences, as informal, hands-on, processes. These processes were, for the most
part, based on dialogic “Talk Story” sessions, which mimicked Native Hawaiian, communal
conversational patterns (Au, 1993; Au & Mason, 1981). Participants’ instructional reflective
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 136
processes aligned with their preference for varied, flexible, and personally chosen reflective
processes, in that, the unfettered, reflective learning experience in which they participated
allowed them the freedom to reflect without prescriptive parameters, expectations, and outcomes.
While Talk Story sessions were acknowledged as culturally appropriate, this approach
did not align with dominant reflective ideologies (Au, 1993; Au & Mason, 1981; Tannebaum,
Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013). Jay and Johnson (2002) and Rodgers (2002b)
designed their reflective frameworks for the specific purpose of increasing novice teachers’
accessibility to theoretically-based, reflective practice parameters, with definitive purposes and
prescriptive expectations (Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996; Jones & Jones, 2013; Tannebaum, Hall,
& Deaton, 2013; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013). This misalignment between participants’ Native
Hawaiian, cultural perspectives, and dominant prescriptive-based, scholarly research, may be
attributed to the disparateness of Native Hawaiian understandings of learning and dominant
ideologies’ prescriptive assumptions (Danielowich, 2007; Gardner, 2009, Snyder-Frey, 2013).
This misalignment makes placing this particular finding on the Robust Continuum problematic,
due to the cultural values embedded in the finding, and the dominant perspective embedded in
the Robust Continuum (Snyder-Frey, 2013). However, acknowledging and challenging the
complex tension between explicit reflective practice instruction, and culturally appropriate
reflection, both of which are associated with equitable student learning opportunities, is
important if practitioners are to meet the needs of Native Hawaiian learners (Gay & Kirkland,
2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
Culturally Appropriate Perspectives
The third and final research question explored participants’ perceptions associated with
reflective practice and equitable learning opportunities for Native Hawaiian learners. Three
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 137
findings emerged within this question. The first finding claimed that in addition to their similar
cultural perspectives, participants’ reflective practice, based on Native Hawaiian cultural
perspectives of humility and interdependence, expanded participants’ empathy and expectations
for Native Hawaiian learners (Au & Blake, 2003; Beauchamp, 2015; Collin & Karsenti, 2011;
Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Gorski & Landsman, 2014;
Kawakami, 1999; Valli, 1997). The expanded empathy and expectations appeared to result in a
strengthened connectedness between participants and students (Au, 1998; Au, 2002; Au &
Blake, 2003; Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Gay, 2002; Gay,
2006; Kawakami, 1999; Valli, 1997).
Scholars also aligned robust reflective practices, and similar cultural perspectives, with
greater empathy, higher expectations, and deeper connectedness between practitioners and
learners (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Gay, 2002: Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Rodgers,
2002b). However, while connectedness can also be found within theoretical, reflective practice
research, the depth of connectedness participants described between themselves and their
students, their students’ families, the land they came from, their common ancestors, and their
value system, held a unique claim, regarding Native Hawaiian practitioners’ adeptness in
developing a connectedness, through reflection, that might expand students’ learning
opportunities (Au, 1998; Au, 2002; Au & Blake, 2003; Gay, 2002: Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland,
2003; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002b; Snyder-Frey, 2013). A Native Hawaiian perspective
appeared to parallel with a more robust, reflective practice for participants, which may have
expanded the educational equity in their classrooms (Au & Blake, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002;
Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002b; Schön, 1983; Snyder-Frey, 2013). The cultural perspectives
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 138
embedded in this finding, like findings discussed earlier, make placing this finding on the study’s
Robust Continuum problematic once again.
The second finding within the third research question also discussed culturally relevant,
reflective practice as a means to promote learning equity for Native Hawaiian students.
Participants frequently described Native Hawaiian and dominant perspectives of reflection as
conflicting. Because all participants identified, to some degree, as Native Hawaiian, and
historically, Native Hawaiians’ tend to maintain a resistance to dominant perspectives,
participants seemed to resist embracing practices and behaviors they associated with dominant
perspectives (Kawakami, 1999; Luangphinith, 2005). In participants’ descriptions of
communally reflective sessions, which were comprised predominantly of practitioners who also
identified as Native Hawaiian, the few non-Native Hawaiian practitioners within the group,
refrained from participating in the reflective, Talk Story, conversations, and eventually withdrew
from the cohort (Au & Mason, 1981). Participants attributed the non-Native Hawaiian
practitioners’ perceived lack of engagement and eventual withdrawal from the group, to a lack of
humility on the part of non-Native Hawaiian practitioners. In the described situations, the
historically marginalized minority held the majority (Freire, 1972; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). The
majority then appeared to marginalize the minority group of non-Native Hawaiian practitioners,
who might have needed explicit instruction in the culturally dissimilar, reflective process of Talk
Story (Au & Mason, 1981; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). At the same time,
participants appeared to overlook their perceived, personal resistance to their fellow
practitioners, who did not identify with a Native Hawaiian perspective (Dudoit, 1999;
Kawakami, 1999). This finding was unexpected because, within literature, a resistance to
accepting differing cultural views usually falls within the dominant perspective, which in this
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 139
described situation could be attributed to both the dominant and non-dominant perspectives (Au,
1998; Au, 2002; Au & Blake, 2003; Snyder-Frey, 2013; Gardner, 2009; Gay & Kirkland;
Kawakami, 2009).
The final finding within the third research question addressed the possibility of greater
learning equity due to the inclusion of multiple, cultural perspectives. One participant’s bi-
cultural perspective, integrated both Native Hawaiian and dominant perspectives of learning.
This practitioner refrained from promoting one cultural perspective over another, by identifying
components he valued in both. His efforts to value both Native Hawaiian and dominant
perspectives seemed to leave him conflicted at times (Au, 2002; Au & Blake, 2003;
Danielowich, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Luangphinith, 2005; Snyder-Frey, 2013). And yet, his
inclusion of both perspectives within his reflective practice, rather than an honoring of one and a
resistance to the other, seemed to encourage acceptance and tolerance of differing perspectives
(Banks, 1995; Gay, 2002; Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995). This
practitioner experienced cognitive shifts in his perspective by utilizing a seemingly dominant
reflective process to address his negative assumptions about Native Hawaiians. He also pointed
his students toward the benefits of both perspectives and allowed them to identify and implement
the perspective that resonated with their personal perspectives.
Sara and Crystal seemed to polarize dominant and Native Hawaiian perspectives by
promoting the value of Native Hawaiian perspectives over non-Native Hawaiian perspectives.
This polarization created conflicts, of which participants seemed unaware, that persisted
throughout the study. For example, in one instance participants asserted the need for communal,
culturally based reflective processes, but in their articulation of their enacted processes, they
discussed reflection primarily as a private process. In another instance, participants claimed a
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 140
Native Hawaiian perspective of reflection, which they appeared to equate with an attitude of
humility and interdependence, but defined and enacted reflection from a dominant perspective of
perfection and individual success (Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999). Participants’ descriptions
appeared to conflict with their assertions, at times, and these conflicts could often be attributed to
the contrasting perspectives of dominant and Native Hawaiian understandings, goals, and
practices (Danielowich, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Snyder-Frey, 2013).
Although both female participants commented on their dual ethnicities, their honoring of
a Native Hawaiian cultural perspective as their primary, perspective, coupled with their seeming
resistance to the influence of a dominant-perspective, appeared to create conflicts within their
reflective practice. These conflicts were confirmed by reflective literature that acknowledged the
common incongruence between perspectives and practice (Danielowich, 2007; Gardner, 2009;
Snyder-Frey, 2013). Scholars asserted the inclusion of multiple perspectives afforded by
dominant, theoretically based reflection, as a possible means through which these conflicts might
be resolved (Au, 1998; Au & Blake, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Gorski & Landsman, 2014).
However, participants’ resistance to dominant ideologies, seemed to negate the possibility of
utilizing theoretically based reflective frameworks to resolve culturally based conflicts.
Logan stated that he identified more closely with a dominant perspective, yet he also
expressed a reluctance to employ prescriptive, reflective frameworks due to his fear that he
might not fulfill the set expectations within the framework, which he asserted might impede his
reflection. Logan both identified with, and struggled to align his reflective processes with, a
dominant perspective, a struggle that might also have occurred among his students. Mainstream
ideologies tend to influence and overshadow non-dominant cultures’ perspectives, which
sometimes results in minoritized groups negotiating their identities and losing cherished cultural
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 141
values, or resistance, on the part of minoritized groups, to dominant influences (Freire, 1972;
Yosso, 2005). In order to accommodate for these conflicts, Logan described his desire to teach
his students to reflect through various processes, some of which identified with dominant
perspectives and others which aligned with Native Hawaiian perspectives. He did not describe
these instructional, reflective processes explicitly but they did appear to shift between a
dominant, individual focus, and communally shared understandings. For Logan, asserting a
singular, dominant reflective process would not afford him the freedom to navigate between, and
benefit from, a Native Hawaiian perspective. This need to navigate between two seemingly
disparate, cultural perspectives, can be found not only among Native Hawaiians, but among most
marginalized groups. Logan asserted the need to reflect from a bi-cultural perspective, rather
than a singular, cultural perspective, while the other two participants, for the most part, seemed
to value a singular, cultural perspective, due to their perceived resistance to dominant
perspectives, and assumed paucity of knowledge regarding historical, political, and social
influences (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983; Rodgers, 2002b).
Scholars’ insistence on prescriptive approaches implied the assumption that if a
practitioners’ reflective practice could not be located within the dominant frameworks, then
practitioners’ reflective practice must be ineffective. In addition, the absence of a definitive
notion of reflection within reflective practice literature has led to a lack of agreement among
scholars. And while agreement does happen in the reflective practice field, only part of
reflective practice theory addresses Native Hawaiian learners (Beauchamp, 2015; Tannebaum,
Hall, & Deaton, 2013). This begs the question that if disagreement within the field has persisted,
why should culturally relevant reflective practice, rooted in hundreds of years of generational
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 142
learning, be labeled as less rigorous because it is unable to be located on a continuum of
dominant ideologies that do not seem to account for culturally contrasting perspectives?
The solution seems to be: there is value to be found in both. The framework then
becomes a consideration of both perspectives, rather than an honoring of one and a resistance to
the other. However, when considering Native Hawaiian resistance to dominant perspectives, the
difficulty embedded in honoring both perspectives seems daunting. Still, the choice of one or the
other seems unnecessary. Instead of asserting a loyalty to one, perhaps an honoring of the
tension between the two might return a greater gain, just as an honoring of the tension between
“delineating specifics of reflective practice and preserving its complexity” continues to be an aim
of reflective practice research (Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 75). The tension between the two then
becomes an asset, rather than a deficit, as learners navigate through both familiar and unfamiliar,
as well as, accepted and resisted, perspectives. The goal then seems to become understanding,
rather than a competitive comparison, where culture loses and theory wins, or vice versa. In
order to honor the tension between dominant and Native Hawaiian cultural perspectives,
commonalities between the two need to be established. An establishment of commonalities
between the two might lead to a sense of mutual respect between the two perspectives.
However, differences should also be illuminated and respected. This acknowledgement and
establishment of commonalities and differences eliminates assumptions within both cultural
perspectives. Reflective practice cannot be arranged and rearranged to become a weakened and
hollowed practice, but it must account for cultural differences so practitioners within non-
dominant perspectives can better meet the needs of their students (Beauchamp, 2015; Dewey,
1938; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002b). Literature affirmed, without both, explicit,
scaffolded, theoretically based, reflective practice instruction, and frank, communal,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 143
conversations that address assumptions and inequities present in instruction, practitioners might
not move toward increasingly complex reflective practices (Black & Plowright, 2010; Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Jones & Jones; 2013; Moje, 2007; Schön, 1983; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton,
2013). However, reflective scaffolds, understandings, conversations, and complexities need not
look the same in every context.
Implications for Practice
Scholars recommend robust reflective practices in order to promote equitable learning
opportunities for students from non-dominant, high-needs populations. Practitioners who teach
within these populations seek to offer the best possible educational experience for their students,
and through reflection, are more equipped to participate in the deep thinking processes that
appear to result in beneficial cognitive shifts and social action that promotes educational equity
(Duncan-Andrade, 2007). However, the ensuing conflict between prescriptive, dominant
literature and culturally unique reflective perspectives impedes this goal of equity. In order for
practitioners’ reflective practice to grow in both complexity and cultural relevance, their
reflective practice background knowledge, cultural and contextual awareness, and personal
acknowledgement of assumptions, feelings, and beliefs, must be developed, expanded, and
strengthened. In the same way, theorists grounded in dominant perspectives must account for
students’ cultural learning needs by relenting in their insistence on prescriptive approaches.
Four main implications emerged from this study of reflective practice. These
implications are applicable to all practitioners, but specifically to those who teach within non-
dominant, high-needs populations, such as the Native Hawaiian context, and endeavor to
continuously promote equitable learning opportunities in their classrooms. Practitioners within
marginalized, majority-minority groups, negotiate and navigate between the conflicting
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 144
perspectives and identities that influence decision-making within environments that conflict
culturally with mainstream ideologies (Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999). In addition, the following
implications are generalizable across classrooms which serve students from non-dominant
populations because they seek to address these cultural conflicts. The first implication involves
explicit theoretical, contextual, and personal, reflective practice instruction. The second
implication relates to the honoring of varied cultural perspectives within reflective practice. The
third implication includes the crafting of a personal, reflective practice Vision tool. The fourth,
and final, implication assists practitioners in differentiating between pedagogical and reflective
practice needs.
Explicit Theoretical, Contextual, and Personal, Reflective Practice Instruction
Participants described their reflective practice understandings, enactments, and
perspectives, by defining and articulating their tacit reflective processes, but when their
descriptions were compared to dominant reflective practice ideologies, their descriptions seemed
to lack foundational bases, contextual awareness, and personal introspection. However, an
assumption of baseless, shallow reflection, which is implied through dominant, prescriptive
ideologies, seemed to result in a resistance, on the part of Native Hawaiian practitioners, to allow
dominant ideologies to influence their reflective processes. Both dominant and culturally
relevant reflective approaches are necessary to promote learning opportunities for students
within non-dominant, high-needs populations because of the deeply embedded, often tacit,
cultural understandings seated within a dominant educational framework (Au, 1998; Kawakami,
1999; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Orfield & Lee, 2005; Orfield, Losen, Wald, & Swanson, 2004;
Moje, 2007; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015). Practitioners should possess some knowledge of
dominant, reflective ideologies, but assuming practitioners do not have that knowledge because
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 145
their reflective perspectives and enactments cannot be located within the prescriptive parameters
of dominant frameworks, seems to polarize theory and culture, rather than honoring them both,
particularly when practitioners must be able to navigate both when they teach in marginalized,
minoritized communities.
In the first finding within the first research question, participants indicated a value of
reflection, defined reflective practice as thinking over past instruction for future improvement,
and employed a variety of independently chosen, and designed, reflective processes (Mezirow,
1981; Rodgers, 2002b; Williams & Grudnoff, 2011). However, participants’ thinking processes
were rooted in cultural understandings that were perceived as simplistic by dominant frameworks
such as those of Mezirow (1981), Schön (1983), Jay and Johnson (2002), and Rodgers (2002a,
2002b; Beauchamp, 2015; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Thompson & Pascal, 2012).
Explicit theoretical, reflective practice instruction could offer participants, and practitioners in
general, a variety of scaffolded, purpose driven, targeted frameworks, that involve higher order,
critical thinking processes, appropriate for their context, all of which are associated with
promoting equitable student learning opportunities (Au, 1998; Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996;
Hardy, 2004; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Moje, 2007; Noguera, Pierce,
& Ahram, 2015; Schön; 1983; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013: Thompson & Pascal, 2012;
Thorsen & DeVore, 2013; Williams & Grudnoff, 211). However, Native Hawaiian practitioners
might resist this theoretical influence based on the implied assumptions of baselessness and
simplicity associated with them. A possible solution to this resistance is discussed in the
implication below (Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
The second finding of the first research question discusses participants’ seeming lack of
awareness of the historical, political, and social influences within their context, when explored
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 146
through dominant, reflective practice ideologies (Au, 1998; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Kawakami, 1999; Schön, 1983; Snyder-Frey, 2013). These influences are
present in every public school classroom, but the direct acknowledgement and overt challenging
of them are critical in classrooms where students come from non-dominant, high-needs
populations (Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015; Snyder-Frey, 2013). Practitioners within these
contexts need to adapt reflective processes appropriately, and with relevancy, for students within
non-dominant populations in order to increase their awareness of contextual influences and equip
them with tools to combat those influences that lead to greater educational inequities and social
injustices (Beauchamp, 2015; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Moje, 2007; Schön, 1983; Thompson &
Pascal, 2012). Within a Native Hawaiian way of learning, these tools might look like a quiet
acknowledgment and passive resistance rather than the direct challenging, for which dominant
ideology calls. Yes, the dominant ideology is useful for practitioners, but the prescriptive
expectations can constrain the authentic, value-laden, culturally relevant reflective practices that
increase learning and equity in classrooms where students from non-dominant, high-needs
populations are served. While reflective scholars intend to challenge practitioners’ beliefs and
cause change within the educational system, they must take into account contextual factors
affecting learners from non-dominant, high-needs backgrounds, so their efforts promote, rather
than impede, students’ learning opportunities.
The second finding within the first research question also addresses participants’
perceived minimal inclusion of feelings, assumptions, and values, within their reflective
processes (Danielowich, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Schön, 1983). Reflective
practice scholars urge practitioners to participate in reflective practice that exposes,
acknowledges, and challenges, feelings and tacit assumptions (Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Gay &
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 147
Kirkland, 2003; Loizou, 2013; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Zeichner, 1994). In addition,
scholars City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009, p. 76-77) assert that educational practitioners
often live in the “Land of Nice” where they are reluctant to assume authority or communicate
judgment of colleagues’ instructional practice (Danielowich, 2007; Gardner, 2009; Loizou,
2013). This reluctance, referenced in the first finding, within the second research question, also
sometimes spills into practitioners’ reflective practice, which can be seen in participants’
descriptions of their participation in communal reflective practice in the third finding, within
research question one (Au, 1998; Au & Blake, 2003; Belvin, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno,
2013; Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson
& Pascal, 2012). According to City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009), when practitioners’
feelings, values, and assumptions, are not acknowledged or addressed, practitioners have a
tendency to avoid frank or challenging discussions (Gardner, 2009; Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
Communal reflection then becomes a time where theoretical, contextual, and personal
perspectives, are in conflict, just below the surface, yet the conflicts remain unaddressed (Au,
1998; Au & Blake, 2003; Belvin, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Collin & Karsenti, 2011;
Gardner, 2009; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b;
Schön, 1983; Snyder-Frey, 2013; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). Again, assumptions of an
emotionally disconnected reflective practice, theory-less foundation, and a reluctance to lead,
due to dominant ideologies prescriptive approaches, sets cultural reflective practice at a deficit
(Gorski, 2014; Valencia, 2012). Connectedness of feelings and beliefs within a Native Hawaiian
perspective are not necessarily gauged through challenging of issues, but through kindness and
generosity (Kawakami, 1999). Acknowledgement and challenging of historical, political, and
social influences may not be asserted through overt action, but through quiet persistence (Au,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 148
1998; Kawakami, 1999). Within Native Hawaiian culture, equitable learning opportunities are
not necessarily achieved through direct challenges to authority, but through unity and harmony.
Therefore, challenges are not explicitly asserted but implicitly addressed, through serving and
humility (Kawakami, 1999). Native Hawaiian communally reflective approaches may differ,
processes may look different, and change may take longer, but if scholarly research can
recognize that both a Native Hawaiian and dominant perspective seek the same reflective goal,
that of promoting student learning, reflective practice as a whole might be broadened, rather than
conflicted (Au & Blake, 2003; Snyder-Frey, 2013).
Honoring of Varied Cultural Perspectives
When multiple perspectives are present, conflicts often occur, and this is particularly true
when those perspectives include both dominant and non-dominant perspectives (Au & Blake,
2003; Gardner, 2009; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Snyder-Frey, 2013). In the second finding, within
the third research question, participants who identified as Native Hawaiian, tended to polarize
Native Hawaiian and dominant cultural perspectives, asserting a stance that the two perspectives
were contrary to one another, due to differing value systems and contextual factors (Au & Blake,
2003; Kawakami, 1999; Luangphinith, 2005; Snyder-Frey, 2013). Even within their individual
perspectives, participants were conflicted in their perspectives, as in the third finding of the third
research question (Snyder-Frey, 2013). One participant resisted favoring or valuing one cultural
perspective over another, by identifying the benefits of each, which contrasted with the other two
participants who aligned their stances with the Native Hawaiian cultural perspective, asserting
that Native Hawaiians practitioners were more adept at reflection than practitioners who
identified with a dominant perspective, because of inherent cultural values within Native
Hawaiian understandings (Au, 1998; Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). These contrary
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 149
perspectives led to conflicts and misalignments within participants’ reflective practice
understandings, implementations, and perspectives, as evidenced in finding three, within
research question three (Au & Blake, 2003; Gardner, 2009; Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey,
2013).
Participants who aligned their reflective processes with Native Hawaiian understandings
resisted processes they viewed as grounded in a dominant-perspective, possibly due to historical,
political, and social outcomes associated with Native Hawaiian colonization (Au & Blake, 2003;
Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). However, when dominant ideologies assume Native
Hawaiian practitioners require explicit, reflective practice instruction in order to participate in an
effective reflective process, these same practitioners tend to quietly resist the dominant influence.
This resistance might even be seen by Native Hawaiian practitioners as beneficial and noble
(Dudoit, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013).
When culturally conflicting perspectives are present during communal reflection,
reflective processes sometimes differ (Au, 1993; Au & Mason, 1981; Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-
Frey, 2013). During two such, similar, communal moments, which are referenced in finding two
within the second research question and finding three within the first research question, the
participants who identified as Native Hawaiian, appeared to isolate a minority group of
practitioners who engaged in reflection utilizing perceived, dominant reflective approaches. As
the minority group of practitioners began to withdraw, the Native Hawaiian participants
associated their withdrawal with an unwillingness to participate in the communally reflective
process, but did not recognize an absence of tools needed to assist those from the minority
perspective with engaging in the majority’s reflective perspective (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Neither did participants acknowledge the difficulty associated with engaging in unfamiliar,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 150
reflective contexts (Au & Blake, 2003; Gardner, 2009; Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013).
The participants seemed unaware of the contextual influences framing their understanding and
guiding their decision-making (Snyder-Frey, 2013: Yamauchi, Ceppi, Lau-Smith, 2009).
Explicit instruction regarding the contextual influences guiding their learning might expand
participants’ awareness of cultural conflicts and aid participants in identifying ways in which the
seemingly disparate, cultural perspectives were similar, rather than different, avoiding a
polarization of perspectives (Au & Blake, 2003; Gardner, 2009; Snyder-Frey, 2013: Yamauchi,
Ceppi, Lau-Smith, 2009). In this way, the empathy and connectedness shared among Native
Hawaiians, which is discussed in the first finding within research question three, could be
extended to cultures whose value systems may have initially seemed oppositional, but upon
closer examination and reflection, may be more similar than originally perceived (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003).
Practitioners may also benefit from explicit instruction regarding contextual perspectives
(Hardy, 2004; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013; Thorsen & DeVore, 2013). This instruction
might focus on honoring varied cultural perspectives through culturally appropriate processes
and theoretical foundations (Banks, 1995; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Harford & MacRuairc, 2008;
Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Thompson & Pascal, 2012). This honoring could be operationalized
into tools that might include explicit lessons on significant cultural values or historical events
that color a culture’s perceptions, as well as conversational tools that allow all group members to
engage in reflective conversations, regardless of cultural perspective (Au & Blake, 2003; Hardy,
2004; Kawakami, 1999; Loughran, 2006; Snyder-Frey, 2013; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013;
Thorsen & DeVore, 2013; Yamauchi, Ceppi, Lau-Smith, 2009). Tools that encourage the
honoring of multiple perspectives could lead to a greater acceptance of differing perspectives,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 151
and possibly an honoring of both, rather than an insistence on a prescriptive approach, or a
greater valuing of a culturally relevant perspective, to the detriment of others (Banks, 1995; Gay,
2002; Gay, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006).
Crafting of a Personal, Reflective Practice Vision Tool
Once practitioners establish more complete theoretical and contextual reflective practice
bases, and have possibly acknowledged and challenged their personal assumptions and beliefs
through culturally relevant processes, they may be prepared to craft a reflective practice Vision
tool (Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). The Vision tool
requires practitioners to individually design reflective practice definitions, enactment processes,
and culturally appropriate, and diverse, perspectives, such as those discussed in finding one,
within research question one. Targeted outcomes that involve cognitive shifts and social action
expectations, as well as purposes that change depending on the reflective need, are also utilized
when appropriate (Black & Plowright, 2010; Hardy, 2004; Hickson, 2011; Higgins, 2011;
Mentis, Annan, & Bowler, 2009; Moje, 2007; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). In
addition, components that address assumptions, feelings, and beliefs would be included in the
tool when necessary (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983). The Vision
tool would include practitioner-developed continuums that gauge practitioners’ instructional,
relational, personal, and cultural engagement, based on relevant, contextual perspectives (Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006; Thorsen & DeVore,
2013). Components would be theoretically based, but the Vision tool would also allow for
cultural, contextual, and perceived needs, so as not to expect or assign prescriptive approaches
that are culturally irrelevant (Au & Blake, 2003; Snyder-Frey, 2013; Yamauchi, Ceppi, & Lau-
Smith, 2009). Lastly, the Vision tool would encompass an assortment of designed reflective
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 152
processes appropriate for various levels and purposes of reflection, within private and communal
contexts, meeting participants’ requests for choices within their reflective practice, which is
discussed in the first finding within research question two (Clarke, James, & Kelly, 1996;
Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
The Vision tool crafting process is also intended to be communally shared, which allows
groups of practitioners to design common Vision tools that support large group, and school wide,
goals, purposes, and missions, which might also encourage administrative support of the tool
(Belvis, Pineda, Armengol, & Moreno, 2013; Collin & Karsenti, 2011; Harford & MacRuairc,
2008; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). The tool would scaffold frank, communal discussions regarding
practitioner growth, moving practitioners out of the “Land of Nice” when necessary, but
acknowledging cultural norms, such as the Native Hawaiian understandings of humility,
interdependence, kindness, unity, and service (Gay & Kirkland; City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel,
2009, p. 76-77; Mentis, Annan, & Bowler, 2009; Hickson, 2011; Higgins, 2011; Kawakami,
1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). An individually or communally designed process might also
minimize cultural conflicts within prescriptive, reflective practice frameworks, and allow for
context-based input, as well as outside perspectives within the reflective process (Tannebaum,
Hall, & Deaton, 2013).
Differentiating Between Pedagogical and Reflective Practice Needs
When reflective processes are vague, or practitioners do not identify with assigned
reflective frameworks, pedagogical issues can be masked, and sometimes avoided. Vague
reflective processes, coupled with the educational field’s tendency to live in the “Land of Nice”
(City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009, p. 76-77), can sometimes result in persistent pedagogical
weaknesses (Attard & Armour, 2006; Hanson, 2011; Jones & Jones, 2013; Larrivee, 2008).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 153
However, with explicit, reflective practice instruction regarding theoretical, contextual, and
personal perspectives, as discussed in finding three within research question one, alongside an
honoring of varied cultural perspectives, and a personally crafted reflective practice Vision tool,
practitioners’ pedagogical strengths and weaknesses become clearer (Attard & Armour, 2006;
Hanson, 2011; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Jones & Jones, 2013; Larrivee, 2008; Rodgers, 2002a,
2002b). Robust reflective practice examines practitioners’ feelings, assumptions, and beliefs,
from multiple, theoretical, culturally appropriate, and culturally diverse perspectives (Au &
Blake, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983; Snyder-Frey, 2013).
Reflective practice situated within a personally designed process and framed by theoretical,
contextual, and cultural influences, addresses underlying feelings and assumptions driving
decision-making (Au & Blake, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Schön, 1983). If feelings and
assumptions, perceived to negatively affect instructional practice, are acknowledged and
challenged through a culturally and theoretically-based reflective process, and a practitioner does
not seem to progress along the reflective continuum designed to gauge the practitioner’s
instructional effectiveness, prolonged reflective practice may not meet the practitioner’s
pedagogical needs (Attard & Armour, 2006; Hanson, 2011; Jones & Jones, 2013; Larrivee,
2008). In order to exhibit growth and utilize reflection as a tool for improvement, as discussed in
the first finding within the first research question, a practitioner who does not progress along
their designed continuum, may need direct coaching, rather than extended reflective practice
(Beauchamp, 2015; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). A practitioner could strongly value
reflective practice, but that value does not necessarily translate to effective instructional
practices, which is discussed in the first finding within research question two (Attard & Armour,
2006; Hanson, 2011; Jones & Jones, 2013; Larrivee, 2008; Williams & Grudnoff, 2011).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 154
These implications for reflective practice include explicit instruction on theoretical,
contextual, and personal perspectives, an honoring of varied cultural perspectives, the crafting of
a personal, reflective practice Vision tool, and differentiation between pedagogical and reflective
practice needs, which together, appear to meet the needs of unique, value-laden, culturally
relevant perspectives (Au & Blake, 2003; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Jones &
Jones, 2012; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton, 2013). Robust reflective
practices, such as those based on the above implications, appear to lead to cognitive shifts within
practitioners’ feelings, assumptions, and beliefs, and seem to result in culturally appropriate,
social justice stances in both practitioners and students (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Moje, 2007;
Schön, 1983; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Social justice stances are associated with
equitable learning experiences, particularly for those students from marginalized, minoritized
cultures (Moje, 2007; Noguera, Pierce, & Ahram, 2015).
Recommendations for Research
Findings within this study, with regard to limitations and delimitations, could be extended
through future research that included a larger pool of participants across school sites, locales, and
populations, which includes other marginalized and minoritized populations across the U.S.
public school system. These expanded study parameters could possibly evaluate congruence
across contexts. Research could also be extended by conducting a similar study within schools
that hold balanced, and diverse, dominant and non-dominant populations, to measure congruence
of findings across cultures when no one culture is the majority. In addition, a follow up study
could be conducted correlating the robustness of participants’ reflective practice with student
achievement, to obtain more definitive notions of the association between reflective practice and
expanded student learning opportunities.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 155
Also, participant-conducted video recordings of private and communal reflective
processes might also affirm participants’ perceived, reflective practice descriptions, allowing for
the data to be triangulated through substantiated data, rather than self-reported data. Lastly,
participants’ students could be surveyed as well to further triangulate data by aligning
practitioners’ reflective practice, their intended reflective outcomes, and the learning students
actually experienced. The survey could also solicit responses that might align participants’
reflective approaches with their students’ reflective processes, confirming the ways reflective
mindsets might be passed on to learners. The above efforts would enhance, improve, and extend
the study’s research by seeking congruence across populations and increasing data points, which
would further strengthen and triangulate outcomes.
With regard to the implications for practice offered in this study, further research could
be conducted to develop a reflective practice Vision tool that might be useful for practitioners in
general, but more specifically for practitioners who identify with non-dominant perspectives of
learning. This recommendation would enhance and extend this study’s research by addressing
the implications discussed in the first findings within research questions one and two, which
involve practitioners non-theoretically based assumptions about reflection, their preference for
flexible reflective processes, and the cultural conflicts and misalignments present among learners
from high-needs, non-dominant populations. Development of such a tool would allow
practitioners to take ownership of their reflective processes and personal growth by
accommodating for cultural and contextual, reflective practice needs, as well as participants’
reflective preferences, while grounding practitioners’ reflective processes in established theory
(Au & Blake, 2003; Attard & Armour, 2006; Schön, 1983). The tool would include multiple
reflective guides and methods, which would be adaptable to practitioners’ cultural needs,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 156
addressing the one-size-fits-all concern of reflective scholars (Tannebaum, Hall, & Deaton,
2013). The tool would also assist practitioners and administrators with identifying pedagogical
areas of strength and need. Practitioners’ implementation of the tool would assess the usability
and intended outcomes of such a tool. The tool would problematize practitioners’ instructional
needs, and operationalize a possible reflective solution that involves theoretical underpinnings,
cultural understandings, and practitioners’ personal needs, all of which are associated, within the
reflective practice body of literature, with promoting equitable learning opportunities for students
from non-dominant, high-needs communities.
Research aligning and differentiating between Native Hawaiian and dominant
perspectives within reflective practice, could clarify assumed truths and actual truths in regard to
perceived cultural conflicts (Luangphinith, 2005; Snyder-Frey, 2013). This research would
address Native Hawaiian practitioners’ tendencies to polarize Native Hawaiian and dominant
perspectives, which often leads to conflicts and misalignments within practitioners’ perspectives.
This clarification could unearth deeper reasons behind Native Hawaiian resistance to dominant
perspectives in order to acknowledge and challenge beliefs associated with minimized student
learning opportunities, such as singular perspectives within a learning situation (Jay & Johnson,
2002; Kawakami, 1999; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b; Schön, 1983; Snyder-Frey, 2013). An
acknowledgement of Native Hawaiian and dominant reflective commonalities, might encourage
greater cultural acceptance and a valuing of perspectives across cultures. This would allow
practitioners to teach from a position of honoring both perspectives, rather than a valuing of one
while minimizing the other, as Native Hawaiian students will need both dominant and non-
dominant perspectives to learn and reflect effectively (Attard & Armour, 2006).
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 157
Research regarding the designation of a practitioner, on every campus, who would
function as a school wide, reflective practice Source, might also be beneficial. This research
would extend this study’s research by addressing the implications that discuss practitioners’
perceived reluctance to challenge colleagues’ instructional and reflective practices. The Source
would advocate for, and offer theoretically based, reflective practice behaviors and processes,
possibly through explicit instruction, while also assisting practitioners with honoring multiple
perspectives and developing a reflective practice Vision tool. Practitioners value reflection but
the perceived disconnect between theory and practice results in cultural conflicts and
misalignments in values and theories. A practitioner designated as a reflective practice Source,
might be in a position to bridge that gap (Beauchamp, 2015; Thompson & Pascal, 2012;
Williams & Grudnoff, 2011; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Administrative support
of this initiative would be necessary. This influx of theoretically based, reflective
understandings and processes, along with a possibly augmented understanding of differing
cultural perspectives, might also promote equitable student learning opportunities.
Conclusion
Continued research into the findings, implications, and recommendations included in this
study would add to the comprehensiveness of the subject, particularly in reference to non-
dominant, high-needs populations, such as Native Hawaiians. However, while cultural
perspectives and individual contexts are important to implementing a relevant and appropriate
reflective practice, reflection does offer core practices that can be seen across Dewey’s (1938),
Mezirow’s (1981), Schön’s (1983), Jay and Johnson’s (2002), and Rodgers’ (2002a, 2002b)
frameworks. Some core practices might include, a participation in deep thinking, the inclusion
of contextual perspectives, and robust, communal reflection. While study participants articulated
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 158
a strong value of reflection, which they attributed to their cultural understandings, their cultural
perspectives became impediments at times, due to their seemingly instinctive resistance to
dominant influence. In addition, while their cultural perspective encouraged consistent
reflection, a commitment to thinking, and a desire to offer the best possible learning
opportunities for their students, their reflection sometimes resulted in conflicting cognitive
understandings regarding their feelings and assumptions, and historical, political, and social
factors within their learning context. However, their cultural perspective appeared to promote
greater connectedness, empathy, and expectations, which could be attributed to similar cultural
perspectives and culturally relevant, reflective behaviors and processes.
Whether practitioners reflect from a non-dominant or dominant perspective, the complex
work of reflection is important (Black & Plowright, 2010). The parallel between reflective
practice and expanded learning opportunities for all learners, but particularly those from non-
dominant, high-needs populations, affirms this importance (Gay & Kirkland, 2003). Culturally
relevant reflective practice should encompass a purposeful and targeted process, as well as a
space where cultural perspectives are honored and encouraged (City, Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel,
2009, p. 76-77; Dewey, 1938; Mezirow, 1981; Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). Reflective practitioners
know themselves, their students, and their contexts well, which equips them and their students to
participate in equitable learning environments that result in increased social justice (Moje, 2007;
Rodgers, 2002a, 2002b). Practitioners who capitalize on the theoretical, contextual, cultural, and
personal perspectives afforded through reflective practice are more equipped to affect change on
a global scale (Beauchamp, 2015; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Sara, Crystal, and
Logan appeared to capitalize on the culturally based theoretical, contextual, and personal,
reflective perspectives that afforded them a broader understanding of themselves, their students,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 159
and the learning. Reflective Practice also allows participants the beneficial perspective of
considering change in their practice, which all three participants appeared to embrace.
Specific gains that could be acquired through future research associated with this study’s
findings and implications, might include an increase in the robustness of reflective practice
through the reflective practice Vision tool and reflective practitioner Source, which would assist
practitioners with linking their reflective practice to a theoretical, knowledge base within a
culturally relevant perspective. Further research might also encourage the honoring of varied
cultural perspectives, through an alignment of Native Hawaiian and dominant perspectives,
allowing for greater clarity, with regard to the perceived cultural conflicts between the two. This
research might also identify commonalities between the two, often polarized, cultural
perspectives, which might result in greater cultural acceptance of those from dissimilar
backgrounds. These gains in both a theoretical, knowledge base, and cultural acceptance, might
provide the tools needed to bridge the opportunity gap between students from dominant and non-
dominant populations, which would, in turn, augment the educational equity in classrooms and
result in deeper learning, and social justice changes for students from non-dominant, high-needs
populations.
While this study focused on practitioners from non-dominant, high-needs populations,
particularly Native Hawaiian practitioners, all practitioners can benefit from robust reflective
practice, both individually and communally. This study’s implications suggest that when
practitioners participate in robust, culturally appropriate, reflective practice, both they and their
students are afforded relevant learning opportunities, strengthened relationships, and tools which
can lead to cognitive growth, all of which are associated with social justice stances aimed at
changing educational inequities. Findings in this research indicate that while foundational,
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 160
theoretical knowledge in reflective practice is valuable, an insistence on examining Native
Hawaiian practitioners’ reflective practice through dominant, prescriptive, ideologies, may not
tell the whole story in learning communities where non-dominant perspectives prevail. The
inclusion of culturally appropriate perspectives alongside theoretical bases, may better meet the
learning needs of non-dominant practitioners and their students. These implications can also be
explored across other non-dominant cultures, which includes other colonized populations such as
Native American, Native Alaskan, and other Polynesian populations. This work might also
resolve controversies such as those associated with the tensions between dominant populations
and what Ogbu and Simons (1998) labeled as involuntary minorities. Designing a framework
that might differentiate and align seemingly disparate, cultural perspectives, and crafting a
personal reflective Vision tool that challenges reflectors to take ownership of their assumptions
and beliefs, might provide opportunities through which these tensions can be acknowledged,
addressed, and honored.
Should this research be ignored, the increasing number of students from racially, and
economically, marginalized populations, who are failing to acquire those skills necessary to
matriculate, will not only persist, but increase (Orfield & Lee, 2005; Orfield, Losen, Wald, &
Swanson, 2004). In addition, racial tensions, specifically between Native Hawaiian and dominant
perspectives will continue (Gardner, 2009; Kawakami, 1999; Snyder-Frey, 2013). Lastly,
practitioners will continue to reflect, but perhaps not in culturally relevant ways that equip
students from non-dominant, high-needs populations with the necessary tools to recognize and
rectify social injustices, relegating them and generations to come to inequitable learning
opportunities in their educational careers. Extended research on this subject could assist
practitioners from a dominant perspective, who teach students from non-dominant, high-needs
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 161
populations, with acknowledging the inequities students from non-dominant perspectives face,
while instructing in ways that equip these students with the tools they need to affect change for
their population of learners, while maintaining their culturally unique, value-laden perspective.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 162
References
Anderson, G., & Irvine, P. (1993). Informing critical literacy with ethnography. Critical literacy:
Politics, praxis, and the postmodern, 81-104.
Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social
movement. London, England: Routledge.
Attard, K., & Armour, K. (2006). Reflecting on reflection: a case study of one teacher's early-
career professional learning. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 11(3), 209-229.
Au, K. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse
backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 297-319.
Au, K. (2002). Multicultural factors and the effective instruction of students of diverse
backgrounds: What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association, 393-409.
Au, K. & Blake, K. (2003). Cultural identity and learning to teach in a diverse community,
findings from a collective case study. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(3), 192-205.
Au, K., & Mason, J. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of
rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115-152.
Ayoub, C., O’Connor, E., Rappolt-Schlictmann, G., Vallotton, C., Raikes, H., & Chazan-Cohen,
R. (2009). Cognitive skill performance among young children living in poverty: Risk,
change, and the promotive effects of Early Head Start. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 24(3), 289–305. doi:10.1 016/j.ecresq.2009.04.001.
Ayscue, J., & Orfield, G. (2015). School district lines stratify educational opportunity by race
and poverty. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 5-20.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 163
Aysola, J., Orav, E., & Ayanian, J. (2011). Neighborhood characteristics associated with access
to patient-centered medical homes for children. Health Affairs, 30(11), 2080–2089.
doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0656.
Ball, D., & Forzani, F. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education.
Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511.
Banks, J. (1995). Multicultural education and curriculum transformation. The Journal of Negro
Education, 64(4), 390–400. http://doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.2307/2967262
Beauchamp, C. (2015). Reflection in teacher education: issues emerging from a review of current
literature. Reflective Practice, 16(1), 123-141.
Belvis, E., Pineda, P., Armengol, C., & Moreno, V. (2013). Evaluation of reflective practice in
teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 279-292.
Black, P., & Plowright, D. (2010). A multi ‐ dimensional model of reflective learning for
professional development. Reflective Practice, 11(2), 245-258.
Borrero, N., Yeh, C., Cruz, I., & Suda, J. (2012). School as a context for “othering” youth and
promoting cultural assets. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1-37.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215-236). New York: Springer
Burdick-Will, J., Ludwig, J., Raudenbush, S., Sampson, R., Sanbonmatsu, L., & Sharkey, P.
(2011). Converging evidence for neighborhood effects on children's test scores: An
experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational comparison. Whither Opportunity,
255-276.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 164
California Department of Education. (2015). 2015 California statewide research file, all
students, fixed width [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2015/ResearchFileList?ps=true&lstTestYear=2015&lstTestTy
pe=B&lstCounty=&lstDistrict=&lstSchool=
Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2009). California standards for the teaching profession
(CSTP) (2009) [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-
prep/standards/CSTP-2009.pdf
Chen, A. (2015). Educational inequality: An impediment to true democracy in the United States.
Sociology, 5(5), 382-390.
Clarke, B., James, C., & Kelly, J. (1996). Reflective practice: reviewing the issues and
refocusing the debate. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 32(2), 171-180.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999) Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Collin, S., & Karsenti, T. (2011). The collective dimension of reflective practice: The how and
why. Reflective Practice, 12(4), 569-581.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cuban, L. (2016). Education researchers, AERA presidents, and reforming the practice of
schooling, 1916–2016. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 134-141.
Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching selves. Identity, pedagogy, and teacher education. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 165
Danielowich, R. (2007). Negotiating the conflicts: Reexamining the structure and function of
reflection in science teacher learning. Science education, 91(4), 629-663.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No
Child Left Behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245-260.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Duncan-Andrade, J. (2007). Gangstas, wankstas, and ridas: Defining, developing, and supporting
effective teachers in urban schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 20(6), 617-638.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education [Data file]. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker
Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Farrell, T. (2012). Reflecting on reflective practice: (Re)visiting Dewey and Schön. TESOL, 3(1),
7-16.
Ferry, N., & Ross-Gordon, J. (1998). An inquiry into Schön’s epistemology of practice:
Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly,
48(2), 98-112. doi: 10.1177/074171369804800205
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY:
Herder. (Original work published 1968)
Gardner, F. (2009). Affirming values: Using critical reflection to explore meaning and
professional practice. Reflective Practice, 10(2), 179-190.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 166
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181-187.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gomez, L., Sherin, M., Griesdorn, J., & Finn, L. (2008). Creating social relationships: The role
of technology in pre-service teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2),
117-131.
Gorski, P. C. (2013). Building a pedagogy of engagement for students in poverty. Phi Delta
Kappan, 95(1), 48-52.
Gorski, P. C., & Landsman, J. (Eds.). (2014). Poverty and education reader: A call for equity in
many voices. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC. Retrieved from
http://www.ebrary.com
Griffiths, V. (2000). The reflective dimension in teacher education. International Journal of
Educational Research, 33(5), 539-555.
Hanson, K. (2011). ‘Reflect’–is this too much to ask? Reflective Practice,12(3), 293-304.
Hardy, C. (2004). The art of reflection: Reflective practice in publishing education. Art, Design
& Communication in Higher Education, 3(1), 17-32.
Harford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective
practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1884-1892.
Harris, M. (1976). History and significance of the emic/etic distinction. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 5(1), 329-350.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 167
Hawai’i Department of Education. (2014). Strive HI: Student group performance report state of
Hawaii [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/strivehi/2014/studentgroupperformance/999-
Student%20Group%20Performance%20Report.pdf
Hawai’i Department of Education. (2015a). SBA2014-2015 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/Testing/StateAssessment/Pag
es/home.aspx
Hawai’i Department of Education. (2015b). 2015 superintendent’s 26th annual report data
tables [Data file]. Retrieved
fromhttp://arch.k12.hi.us/PDFs/state/superintendent_report/2015/2015AppendixCDataTb
l.pdf
Hawai’i Department of Education. (2016). SBA2015-2016 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/TeachingAndLearning/Testing/StateAssessment/Pag
es/home.aspx
Hickson, H. (2011). Critical reflection: Reflecting on learning to be reflective. Reflective
Practice, 12(6), 829-839.
Higgins, D. (2011). Why reflect? Recognising the link between learning and reflection.
Reflective Practice, 12(5), 583-584.
Howard, T. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education,18(1), 73-85.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 168
Jensen, E. (2013). How poverty affects classroom engagement. Educational Leadership, 70(8),
24-30.
Jones, J., & Jones, K. (2013). Teaching reflective practice: Implementation in the teacher-
education setting. The Teacher Educator, 48(1), 73-85.
Jones, C., Tarpley, P., & Blancero, D. (2015). The evolution of intelligence: Implications for
educational programming and policy. In Handbook of intelligence (pp. 459-468). New
York, NY: Springer.
Kana‘iaupuni, S., & Ishibashi, K. (2003). Left behind?: The status of Hawaiian students in
Hawai‘i public schools (Policy Analysis and System Evaluation Rep. No. 02-03:13).
Honolulu, HI: Kamehameha Schools.
Kana'iaupuni, S., & Kawai'ae'a, K. (2008). E lauhoe mai na wa'a: Toward a Hawaiian indigenous
education teaching framework. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-
Being, 5, 67-90. Retrieved from http://www.ksbe.edu/spi/Hulili/vol 5.php
Kawakami, A. (1999). Sense of place, community, and identity: Bridging the gap between home
and school for Hawaiian students. Education and Urban Society, 32(1), 18-40.
LaBoskey, V. (1993). Why reflection in teacher education?. Teacher Education Quarterly, 9-12.
Ladd, H. (2012). Education and poverty: Confronting the evidence. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 31(2), 203-227.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2004). New directions in multicultural education. Handbook of Research on
Multicultural Education, 2, 50-65.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 169
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (Eds.). (2006). Education research in the public interest: Social
justice, action, and policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lake, R., & Gross, B. (2012). Hopes, fears, & reality: A balanced look at American charter
schools in 2011 [Data file]. National Charter School Resource Center: center on
reinventing public education. Retrieved from
https://www.charterschoolcenter.org/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/
1293%20Hopes%20Fears%20Reality_d8_0.pdf
Loizou, F. (2013). The limiting power of Cypriot primary school teachers' private reflections on
practice. Education 3-13, 41(5), 485-500.
Loughran, J. (2006). Being a teacher educator: A focus on pedagogy. In developing a pedagogy
of teacher education (pp. 13-29). New York, NY: Routledge.
Luangphinith, S. (2005). Your place or mine? The insider/outsider in the classroom in Hawai'i.
Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and Pedagogy, 16(1), 67-82.
Lupinski, K., Jenkins, P., Beard, A., & Jones, L. (2012). Reflective practice in teacher education
programs at a HBCU. The Journal of Educational Foundations, 26(3/4), 81-92.
Lynn, M., & Maddox, R. (2007). Pre-service teacher inquiry: Creating a space to dialogue about
becoming a social justice educator. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 94–105.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCubbin, L., McCubbin, H., Zhang, W., Kehl, L., & Strom, I. (2013). Relational well ‐ being:
An indigenous perspective and measure. Family Relations, 62(2), 354-365.
Mentis, M., Annan, J., & Bowler, J. (2009). A Matrix of perspectives as a tool for reflective
practice in inclusive education. International Journal of Learning, 16(10), 132-142.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 170
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation: Revised and
expanded from qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning in education. Adult Education Quarterly,
32, 3-24.
Milner IV, H. (2010). Start where you are, but don't stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today's classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Moje, E. (2007). Developing socially just subject-matter instruction: A review of the literature on
disciplinary literacy teaching. Review of Research in Education, 31(1), 1-44.
Moon, J. (2013). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice.
London, England: Routledge.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers should know and be
able to do [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.nbpts.org/sites/default/files/what_teachers_should_know.pdf
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most [Data file].
Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/WhatMattersMost.pdf
National Congress of American Indians. (2011). Snapshot of American Indian and Alaska Native
education [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.ncai.org/policy-research-
center/research-data/CC_Snapshot_of_Indian_Ed_for_Roundtables.pdf
Neuman, S., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle income
communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly,
36(1), 8–26. doi:10.1598/RRQ.36.1.1.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 171
Nieto, S. (2005). Schools for a new majority: The role of teacher education in hard times. The
New Educator, 1(1), 27-43.
Noguera, P. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and equity in education.
Education and Urban Society, 34(1), 18–41.
Noguera, P., Pierce, J., & Ahram, R. (2015). Race, equity, and education. New York, NY:
Springer.
Opfer, V., & Peddler, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.
Orfield, G. (2009). Reviving the goal of an integrated society: A 21st century challenge [Data
file]. The Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from:
http://eprints.cdlib.org/uc/item/2bw2s608
Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus... separation: Deepening double
segregation for more students [Data file]. The Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos
Civiles. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8g58m2v9
Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality
[Data file]. The Civil Rights Project/ Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4xr8z4wb
Orfield, G., Losen, D., Wald, J., & Swanson, C. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth
are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis [Data file]. The Civil Rights Project/
Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4x44w1qh
Osterman, K., & Kottkamp, R. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional
development to improve student learning (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 172
Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Parrett, W., & Budge, K. (2012). Turning high-poverty schools into high-performing schools.
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. (2015). 2014-2015 Tables of
cross-state and state-specific PARCC results, 2015 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.parcconline.org/images/Consortium_and_State_Tables_FINAL_3_7_16.pdf
Paulston, C., & Heidemann, K. (2006). Language policies and the education of linguistic
minorities. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method
(292-310), Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Piontkowski, U., Florack, A., Hoelker, P., & Obdrzálek, P. (2000). Predicting acculturation
attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 24(1), 1-26.
Raudenbush, S., Jean, M., & Art, E. (2011). Year-by-year and cumulative impacts of attending a
high-mobility elementary school on children’s mathematics achievement in Chicago,
1995 to 2005. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whiter opportunity: Rising
inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 359–376). New York, NY: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Reardon, S., & Owens, A. (2014). 60 Years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school
segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199-218.
Reynolds, A., & Pope, R. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring multiple oppressions.
Journal of Counseling and development, 70(1), 174-180.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 173
Rodgers, C. R. (2002a). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.
Rodgers, C. (2002b). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking.
Teachers College Record, 44, 842-866.
Rose, K. (2015). School Funding in 'Post-racial' America. Social Policy, 45(4), 32-35.
Rose, P., & Dyer, C. (2008). Chronic poverty and education: A review of the literature, working
paper, December 2008, no. 131 [Data file]. Chronic Poverty Research Centre. Retrieved
from
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=54811110608909006502209612307806802
702102506303808709109312611812500711209407300511101803712201601502602706
710710600310512210211804504703305212512211410708000307407900800801402602
407506611300708209912011410002600610006511408411912212607710311608300512
4&EXT=pdf
Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated
neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and social problems, 7(1), 21-30.
Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2006). Proficiency for all: An oxymoron. Education
Week, (26)13, 32-44.
Russell, T. (2005). Can reflective practice be taught?. Reflective Practice, 6(2), 199-204.
Sampson, R., Sharkey, P., & Raudenbush, S. (2008). Durable effects of concentrated
disadvantage on verbal ability among African American children. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 105(3), 845–852. doi:10.1073/pnas. 0710189104.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (Vol. 5126).
New York, NY: Basic books.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 174
Snyder-Frey, A. (2013). He kuleana kō kākou: Hawaiian-language learners and the construction
of (alter)native identities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14(2), 231-243.
Sorhagen, N. (2013). Early teacher expectations disproportionately affect poor children's high
school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 465-477.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational review, 67(1), 1-41.
Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American psychologist, 52(6), 613-629.
Strunk, K., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2011). Differentiated compensation: How California school
districts use economic incentives to target teachers. Journal of Education Finance, 36(3),
268-293.
Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: A “communities of practice” perspective on
teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 732-741.
Tannebaum, R., Hall, A., & Deaton, C. (2013). The development of reflective practice in
American education. American Educational History Journal, 40(2), 241-259.
Thompson, N., & Pascal, J. (2012). Developing critically reflective practice. Reflective Practice,
13(2), 311-325.
Thorsen, C., & DeVore, S. (2013). Analyzing reflection on/for action: A new approach.
Reflective Practice, 14(1), 88-103.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Profile of general demographic characteristics: 2000 census 2000
summary file 1 (SF 1) 100-percent data [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 175
U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Pop3 race and Hispanic origin composition: Percentage of U.S.
children ages 0-17 by race and Hispanic origin, 1980-2014 and projected 2015-2050
[Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/tables/pop3.asp?popup=true
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). The nation’s report card: Reading 2009, national
assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010458.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013a). The nation’s report card: Math 2013, national
assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/files/Tech_Appendix_Math.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013b). The nation’s report card: Reading 2013, national
assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/files/Tech_Appendix_Reading.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2013c). Trends in academic progress: Reading 1971-2012,
mathematics 1973-2012 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2012/pdf/2013456.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2015a). The nation’s report card: Reading 2015, national
assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8 [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/files/2015_Results_Appendix_Re
ading.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2015b). The nation’s report card: Math 2015, national
assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8 [Data file]. Retrieved from
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 176
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/files/2015_Results_Appendix_Ma
th.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2016). Public high school graduation rates [Data file]. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_coi.pdf
Ullucci, K., & Howard, T. (2015). Pathologizing the poor implications for preparing teachers to
work in high-poverty schools. Urban Education, 50(2), 170-193.
Valencia, R. (Ed.). (2012). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice.
London, England: Routledge.
Valli, L. (1992). Reflective teacher education: Cases and critiques. Albany, NY: Suny Press.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United
States. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67-88.
van Manen, M. (1991). Reflectivity and the pedagogical moment: The normativity of
pedagogical thinking and acting 1. J. Curriculum Studies, 23(6), 507-536.
Vilfan, S., Sandvik, G., Wils, L., & European Science Foundation. (1993). Ethnic groups and
language rights: Comparative studies on governments and non-dominant ethnic groups
in Europe, 1850-1940. New York, NY: Aldershot.
Williams, R., & Grudnoff, L. (2011). Making sense of reflection: A comparison of beginning and
experienced teachers’ perceptions of reflection for practice. Reflective Practice, 12(3),
281-291.
Wilson, W., & Kamana, K. (2009). Indigenous youth bilingualism from a Hawaiian activist
perspective. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(5), 369-375.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 177
Yamauchi, L., Ceppi., & Lau-Smith, J. (1999). Sociohistorical influences on the development of
Papahana Kaiapuni, the Hawaiian language. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk (JESPAR), 4(1), 27-46.
Yendol-Hoppey, D., Jacobs, J., & Dana, N. (2009). Critical concepts of mentoring in an urban
context. The New Educator, 5, 25-44.
Yilmaz, K. (2011). The cognitive perspective on learning: Its theoretical underpinnings and
implications for classroom practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(5), 204-212.
York, T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic success. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5). Retrieved from:
http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=20&n=5
Yosso, T. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.
Yost, D., Sentner, S., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of critical
reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st century. Journal
of Teacher Education, 51(1), 39-39.
Zeichner, K. (1992). Rethinking the practicum in the professional development school
partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 296-307.
Zeichner, K. (1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in
teaching and teacher education. In I. Carlgren, G. Handal, & S. Vaage, (Eds.), Teachers
minds and actions (pp. 9-27). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Reflective teaching and
the social conditions of schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 178
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2011). Charter schools: Do they cream
skim, increasing student segregation?. In M. Berends, M. Cannata, & E. Goldring (Eds.),
School Choice and School Improvement (pp. 215-232). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 179
Appendix A
Interview #1 Protocol

Research Questions:

1. How do secondary public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?

I. Interview Protocol
Statements: Gratitude, Purpose of Study, Confidentiality Statement
Requests: Participation Consent, Recording Permission
Thank you so much for taking the time to talk with me and for agreeing to this interview.
I appreciate your participation in my study. The interview questions I have should take
less than an hour.
Q: Do you have enough time or do you need to end by a certain time?
First, I wanted to describe my study to you and answer any questions you might have
about the study and your participation. I am conducting a study to help me understand
how teachers think about reflection. My purpose is to gather information, not to evaluate
or judge your teaching. I am simply seeking to understand how you think about
reflection and if you have any ideas about how it might impact your practice and
students’ learning.
Q: Do you have any questions before we begin?
Q: Can we begin the interview now?
Q: Is it okay if I record our conversation so I can go back and transcribe our interview
later for complete accuracy?

II. Introduction to the Context (Rapport, Demographics)
Q: First, can you tell me a little bit about your role as a teacher here?
1. How long have you been a teacher?
2. How long have you been at this site?
3. Where were you before coming to this site?
4. Why did you move to this site (if you did)?
5. What are you teaching?
6. Who are your students?
7. Is this typical for you?
8. What are normal things you do as a teacher?

III. Research Focused Questions
1. How would you define reflection ?
2. How often do you reflect as a teacher?
3. What do you reflect on in your teaching?
4. How do you choose what you will reflect on?
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 180
5. When do you reflect? Why then?
6. Do you see any benefits in reflecting?
7. Do you see any drawbacks in reflecting?
8. Can you describe the process you use to reflect? What does that look like?
9. Is your reflective process always the same? Why or why not?
10. Do you ever discuss reflection with colleagues? If so, do you use the reflective
process with colleagues?
11. Why did you start reflecting? What keeps you practicing reflection?
12. Do you think about how reflection might influence your instruction? Can you
explain?
13. Do you see the reflection you engage in having any influence on your students’
learning? How about the learning environment?
14. Do you ever work with your students on reflection? Do you have assignments that
might be considered reflective in nature? Can you tell me more about that? What
do you see as the effects of this?
15. Do you feel students from diverse backgrounds benefit from reflective practice?
Why or why not?
16. Do you feel they benefit from reflective practice more than students from non-
dominant backgrounds? Why or why not?

IV. Closing
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to our conversation?

V. Thank You and Follow-up
Thank you so much for taking time out of your schedule to talk with me. I really
appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts. Your comments will be helpful in my
study.
Q: If I need to contact you again to clarify a thought or ask a follow up question, would
email be okay?
Thank you again!

VII. Special Considerations and Probing
Transitions & Probes
○ Do you mind if we switch gears a bit?
○ Thank you for sharing that. I’d like to learn a little more about…
○ Really? Can you tell me a little more about…
○ I want to make sure I understand, are you saying…
○ How did you feel at that moment?
○ Can you walk me through that?

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 181

Research and Interview Questions Table
Research Question Interview Question Literature Citations
RQ1: How do secondary
public school teachers define
reflective practice?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Black & Plowright, 2010;
Brookfield, 2010;
California Standards for
the Teaching Profession,
2009; Dewey, 1936; Gay
& Kirkland, 2003; Moon,
1999; National
Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future,
1996; National Board for
Professional Teaching
Standards, 2002; Thorsen
and DeVore, 2013
RQ2: What reflective
behaviors and processes do
secondary public school
teachers at high-needs schools
identify as most effective in
improving students’
outcomes?
11, 12, 13, 14 Dewey, 1936; Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Mezirow,
1981: Rodgers, 2002;
Schön, 1983
RQ3: What do these teachers
perceive as the benefits of
engaging with reflective
practice for promoting equity?
15, 16 Gay & Kirkland, 2003;
Moon, 1999

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 182
Appendix B
Interview #2 Protocol
Research Questions:

1. How do secondary public school practitioners, teaching students from non-dominant,
high-needs populations, define reflective practice?
2. What reflective behaviors and processes do secondary, public school teachers perceive
as most effective in promoting learning opportunities among students from non-
dominant, high-needs populations?
3. How do secondary, public school teachers in high-needs schools perceive reflective
practice promotes equity among learners from non-dominant populations?

I. Final Interview Protocol
Statements: Gratitude, Purpose of Study, Confidentiality Statement
Requests: Participation Consent, Recording Permission
Thank you so much for taking the time once again to talk with me. I appreciate your
participation in my study. The interview questions I have should take less than an hour.
Q: Do you have enough time or do you need to end by a certain time?
Q: First do you have any questions about the nature of my study?
Let me reassure you, I am conducting a study to help me understand how teachers think
about reflection. My purpose is to simply gather information, not to evaluate or judge
your teaching. I am simply seeking to understand how you think about reflection and if
you have any ideas about how it might impact your practice and students’ learning.
Q: Do you have any questions before we begin?
Q: Can we begin the interview now?
Q: Is it okay if I record our conversation so I can go back and transcribe our interview
later for complete accuracy?

II. Research Focused Questions
1. Has your definition of reflection changed in any way since our previous
interview?
2. Has the process of your reflective practices changed in any way since our
previous interview?
3. Has the frequency in which you have or intend to reflect changed since our
previous interview?
4. If you have started reflecting more reflecting since our previous interview, why
have you begun?
5. What do you think will keep you practicing reflection?
6. Do you think this increased reflection might influence your instruction? Can you
explain?
7. Has the content of your reflection changed in any way since our previous
interview?
8. Have you thought of any additional benefits in reflecting since our previous
interview?
9. Have you thought of any additional drawbacks to reflecting since our previous
interview?
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 183
10. Have you discussed reflection with colleagues since our previous interview? Why
or Why not?
11. Do you see any additional ways, since our previous interview, that reflection has
any influence on your students’ learning? How about the learning environment?
12. Have you worked with your students on reflecting since our last interview? Why
or why not? Can you tell me more about that? What do you see as the effects of
this?
13. Since our previous interview, have your perceptions concerning students from
diverse backgrounds and reflective practice changed? Why or why not?
14. Since our previous interview, do you feel your perceptions have changed
concerning students from diverse backgrounds benefitting more from reflective
practice than students from non-dominant backgrounds? Why or why not?

IV. Closing
Q: Is there anything else you would like to add to our conversation?

V. Thank You and Follow-up
Thank you so much for taking time out of your schedule to talk with me. I really
appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts. Your comments will be helpful in my
study.
Q: If I need to contact you again to clarify a thought or ask a follow up question, would
email still be okay?
Thank you again!

VII. Special Considerations and Probing
Transitions & Probes
○ Do you mind if we switch gears a bit?
○ Thank you for sharing that. I’d like to learn a little more about…
○ Really? Can you tell me a little more about…
○ I want to make sure I understand, are you saying…
○ How did you feel at that moment?
○ Can you walk me through that?

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 184

Research and Interview Questions Table
Research Question Interview Question Literature Citations
RQ1: How do secondary
public school teachers define
reflective practice?
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Black & Plowright, 2010;
Brookfield, 2010;
California Standards for
the Teaching Profession,
2009; Dewey, 1936; Gay
& Kirkland, 2003; Moon,
1999; National
Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future,
1996; National Board for
Professional Teaching
Standards, 2002; Thorsen
and DeVore, 2013
RQ2: What reflective
behaviors and processes do
secondary public school
teachers at high-needs schools
identify as most effective in
improving students’
outcomes?
11, 12 Dewey, 1936; Jay &
Johnson, 2002; Mezirow,
1981: Rodgers, 2002;
Schön, 1983
RQ3: What do these teachers
perceive as the benefits of
engaging with reflective
practice for promoting equity?
13, 14 Gay & Kirkland, 2003;
Moon, 1999

REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 185
Appendix C
Informed Consent Form
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

EXPLORING THE REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF SECONDARY IN-SERVICE
TEACHERS OF STUDENTS FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by K. Keolani Alejado under the
supervision of Dr. Paula Carbone at the University of Southern California because you are a
public, secondary teacher of students from diverse backgrounds. Research studies include
only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this
study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study aims to understand what you, as a public school teacher of students from non-
dominant backgrounds in a high-needs secondary school, perceive to be effective reflective
processes to promote student achievement. The study also seeks to understand why you view
those reflective processes as effective. Lastly, the study aims to identify instructional practices
promoted by critical reflection that you may perceive address achievement gaps between
students from dominant and non-dominant populations.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, I will interview you twice. The first interview will be
approximately one hour and the second will be a follow-up interview the following week and
will last approximately 30 minutes. The interviews will be audio-recorded to allow for
transcribing. You may decline audio-recording and still participate in the study but handwritten
notes will be taken. Questions for the interview will explore your perceptions about teacher
reflection and your personal, instructional practice. You do not need to answer any questions you
do not want to.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your interview will be audio-recorded, unless you choose not to be. Notes will be taken during
the interview. All recordings will be transcribed and data will be extracted using a pseudonym
instead of your real name to protect your anonymity. Your responses will be coded with a
pseudonym and maintained separately. Recordings will be erased as soon as they are transcribed.
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your name,
address or other identifiable information will not be collected. I will also change minor details in
the study regarding your identity due to the intimacy of the setting. Neither recordings nor
transcriptions will be released to any other organization or individual. The data will be kept for
three years after the completion of the study. At the completion of the study, direct identifiers
REFLECTIVE PRACTICES OF TEACHERS 186
will be destroyed. The de-identified data will be stored on a password protected computer.
Results of this research may be made public and quoted in professional journals, but no
identifiable information will be included.
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact myself, Karen
Keolani Alejado, the Principal Investigator, or Dr. Paula Carbone, the Faculty Sponsor.

Karen Keolani Alejado
(808)368-2469
kalejado@gmail.com

Dr. Paula Carbone
paula.carbone@rossier.usc.edu
Rossier School of Education, USC
1150 S. Olive Street, #2100
Los Angeles, CA 90015
213-740-0152

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Ma ka hana ka ike perpetuating excellence in Native Hawaiian education: Native Hawaiian Education Council members' approaches to supporting the needs of Native Hawaiians

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

An exploration of reflective practice amongst marriage and family therapy candidates

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

Reflective journeys: African American community college STEM students' perceptions on equity and access

PDF

The role of teachers in academic discussion

PDF

Administrator reflective practice to support Latino youth in Orange County public schools

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

Reflective practice and the Master of Public Administration degree

PDF

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

PDF

Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment

PDF

Reflective practice: the administrator behind the process

PDF

The perception of innovation in the delivery of services for Hawaiian students

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

A case study about the implied and perceived messages sent by one teacher through instruction for academic and behavioral expectations of students

Asset Metadata

Creator Alejado, Karen Keolani Parker (author)

Core Title Exploring the reflective practices of secondary, in-service teachers of students from diverse backgrounds

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publication Date 03/01/2017

Defense Date 02/14/2017

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

Tag cultural reflection,cultural relevance,dominant perspectives,indigenous,Native Hawaiian learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,reflection,reflective practice,reflective process

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Min, Emmy (committee member)

Creator Email alejado@usc.edu,kalejado@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-343824

Unique identifier UC11258229

Identifier etd-AlejadoKar-5103.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-343824 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlejadoKar-5103.pdf

Dmrecord 343824

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Alejado, Karen Keolani Parker

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