University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

(USC Thesis Other)

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 1
IMMIGRATED LATINO/A STUDENTS’ GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS’ MIND
FRAMES AND PEDAGOGY

by

Bonnie Danielle Garcia

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

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Bonnie Danielle Garcia

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 2
Acknowledgements
It would be beside me if I did not take this opportunity to thank my immigrant ancestors
for their efforts, decisions, and perseverance. It is because of your courage that I can have
dreams and the ability to achieve them. Thank you for your sacrifices. Most dearly to my heart,
though, I want to thank my mom and dad. You two are my best friends and your encouragement
and support always find a way to ground me, especially when I feel the most unbalanced. I love
you, I love you, I love you, and I am truly blessed to have you as my parents. I must have done
something right in my previous life. Stephanie and Danny, I love you to the moon and back.
Abuelita Carmen, I love you y siempre seré tu paloma. Abuelito Jesús, como te a extrañado
durante este tiempo. Abuelita Ramoncita, siempre la siento en mi corazón. Cita and P, you melt
my heart and have kept me accountable. Los quiero a todos. I also offer thanks to all of my
family and friends for their positivity and love.
Deep thanks to my committee for your guidance. Dr. Pensavalle, Dr. Gallagher, and Dr.
Baca, thank you for your sincerest interest in my growth as an educator. Your attention to detail
is most admirable. Dr. Rousseau, thank you for being my change agent. You touched my heart
and turned my life around. Dr. DeBaca, thank you for helping me navigate the system.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 5

Abstract 6

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7

Background of the Problem 8

Statement of the Problem 11

Purpose of the Study 13

Importance of the Study 14

Limitations and Delimitations 15

Definition of Terms 15

Organization of the Study 17

Chapter Two: Literature Review 19

Critical Race Theory 20

Funds of Knowledge 26

Immigrated Latino/a Students 31

Educational Outcomes 31

Educational History 32

Educational Experiences 35

High School Teachers of ILS 40

Summary 46

Chapter Three: Methodology 48

Sample and Population 51

Instrumentation 55

Figure 1. Three Phases of Study 56

Surveys 59

Interviews 60

Observations 61

Data Collection 63

Data Analysis 65

Summary 67

Chapter Four: Results 68

Research Question One 69

Vignette 70

Secondary Questionnaire 71

Interviews and Observations 79

Research Question Two 96

Teachers’ Non-FOK Instructional Choices 98

Teachers’ FOK Instructional Choices 104

Equitable Mind Framed Teachers’ FOK Instructional Choices 106

Overall Findings 109

Chapter Five: Discussion 112

Discussion of Findings 113

Finding 1: Critical Consciousness and the Unwavering Mind Frame 114

Finding 2: Critical Unconsciousness and the Ungrounded Mind Frame 116

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 4
Finding 3: Spanish-Speaking Teachers Influence a Third Space 117

Finding 4: Immigrant Experiences Influence a Third Space 118

Finding 5: Positively Intended Teachers and the Instructional Choices for All 119

Implications for Practice 120

Limitations 122

Implications for Research 123

Conclusions 123

References 125

Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire 138

Appendix B: Vignettes 139

Appendix C: Secondary Questionnaire 140

Appendix D: Pre-Observation Protocol 143

Appendix E: Instructional Observation 146

Appendix F: Post-Observation Interview Protocol 148

Appendix G: Invitation Letter 149

Appendix H: Information Sheet 150

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Methodology Overview 49
Table 2: Bensimon’s (2005) Mind Frames 58
Table 3: Gantt Chart Schedule of Data Collection and Analysis 63
Table 4: Participants’ Mind Frames: Vignettes 70
Table 5: Number of Questionnaire Items Per Mind Frame 72
Table 6: Mind Frame Items: Secondary Questionnaire 72
Table 7: Prominent Mind Frame Identification: Secondary Questionnaire 72
Table 8: Equitable Mind Frame Items 75
Table 9: Deficit Mind Frame Items 77
Table 10: Diverse Mind Frame Items 79
Table 11: Teacher Mind Frames: Interviews and Observations 79
Table 12: Interviews and Observations: Equitable Mind Frames: Five Emerging Themes 80
Table 13: Interviews and Observations: Deficit Mind Frames: One Emerging Theme 91
Table 14: Interviews and Observations: Diverse Mind Frames: One Emerging Theme 93
Table 15: Distribution of Teachers Selected 95
Table 16: Distribution of Teachers 98
Table 17: Equitable, Deficit, and Diverse Mind Frames Non-FOK Instructional Choices 99
Table 18: Equitable, Deficit, and Diverse Mind Frames FOK Instructional Choice 104
Table 19: Equitable Mind Frame FOK Instructional Choice 107

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 6
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to understand how the mind frames of secondary teachers
at a Southern California public high school influenced their instructional choices when working
with Latino/a immigrant students. Often found are educators who respect diversity but fail to be
change agents for immigrated Latino/a students, therefore perpetuating social inequities.
Teachers who are sensitive to cultural differences challenge academic disparities using diverse
students’ differences to their advantage, improving student learning, experiences, and outcomes.
Critical Race Theory and Funds of Knowledge guided the qualitative study that included five
high school general education teachers of immigrated Latino/a students. The study used a three-
phase design wherein each participant completed three surveys, two interviews, and one
observation. Coded data resulted in emerging themes that provided insight into the instructional
practices of equitable, deficit, and diverse mind framed general education teachers of immigrated
Latino/a students. Knowledge of such factors may help administrators and teacher preparation
programs better prepare and develop the mind frames and instructional practices of current and
future general education teachers of immigrated Latino/a students.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
The mind frames and instructional choices general education teachers of Latino/a
students practice have been widely studied. Acknowledging gaps in Latino/a student
achievement, educational policies and initiatives mandated that teachers be skilled in educating
diverse populations (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Swafford, 2005). Despite political
efforts, conversations related to academic inequities of marginalized students are still lacking
among educators (Bensimon & Bishop, 2012; Dunn et al., 2009; Rennert-Ariev, 2008). Studies
have found, however, that educators who recognize academic inequities stemming from cultural
differences are color conscious in an affirmative sense, understand that individual beliefs about
students’ academic achievements can influence minorities’ educational outcomes, and work to
rectify the inequities (Bensimon, 2005; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Color consciousness leads
to equitable mind frames, a cognitive frame with a critical lens that works to rectify the academic
inequities experienced by Latino/a students (Bensimon, 2005; Bensimon & Bishop, 2012;
Iverson, 2007; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Lin, Lake, & Rice, 2008).
Latin cultures’ collectivist orientation differs from Americas’ individualistic orientation.
Latin cultures tend to value interdependence, emotional attachment to families, and the
subordination of individual goals to the goals of the collective (Guiffrida, Kiyama, Waterman, &
Museus, 2012). American cultures tend to be more individualistic, valuing independence,
competition, emotional detachment from families, and individual goals over the goals of the
collective (Guiffrida et al., 2012). With consciousness of cultural differences and intent to close
achievement gaps, equity mind framed teachers provide Latino/a students’ the resources they
need to maneuver through America’s education system (Bensimon, 2005, 2013; Stanton-Salazar,
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 8
1997). This study explored how secondary teacher mind frames manifest through the
instructional choices used with immigrated Latino/a students (ILS).
Using a qualitative approach, this study focused on the mind frames of secondary general
education teachers in relation to their awareness of social inequities (Bensimon, 2005). The
study also focused on teachers’ instruction, especially in relation to their mind frames and
students’ cultures (Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). Surveys, interviews, and
observations were utilized to collect data regarding this study’s focus. The participants were
secondary general education teachers from a high school in Southern California. Surveys were
collected and interviews and observations were conducted from teachers who were found to meet
the participant criteria.
Background of the Problem
Latino/a students have historically faced academic inequities in American schools.
Twenty years prior to1954’s Brown v. Board of Education, which contested segregation in public
schools based on race, religion, or national origin, Latino/as in America fought for an equitable
education (Valencia, Menchaca, & Donato, 2002). Latino/as have fought and won various case
rulings regarding Chicano desegregation. Even though there were triumphs for those fighting
toward desegregation, the continuous battle for equality demonstrates an endless fight for
educational equity.
Today’s segregation is more oblique. Although students of color are now allowed to
attend the same schools as their White peers, students resembling the dominant group the least
continue to experience inequitable access to academic opportunities (Gonzalez, 2012; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Valenzuela, 1999). Many Latino/a students lack the social capital, such as real
estate, language, and culture needed to participate in the cultural and language discourses of the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 9
classroom (Holme, 2002; Valencia et al., 2002). With the Latino/a population rising (National
Center Educational Statistics [NCES], 2013; Rhodes, 2000), persisting social inequities are a
major concern.
In 2002, the percentage of Latino/a students in United States public schools was 18%; the
percentage increased to 24% in 2012, and is projected to be at 29% in 2024 (NCES, 2015). The
projection demonstrates a steady growth in the population of Latino/a students in the United
States (NCES, 2011). Regardless of the Latino/a population increase, disparities in academic
success persist, causing social conflicts and a loss of human resources. Inequities between the
dominant and subordinate groups over status, power, and resources are produced, maintaining
segregation (Gonzalez, 2012; Green, 2004; Valenzuela, 1999). With half of Latino/a students
dropping out of high school and only 32.5% of the Latino/a high school graduates in California
meeting all of the requirements to attend four-year universities (California Department of
Education [CDE], 2014; Garcia Bedolla, 2012), it is apparent that Latino/a students, including
Latino/a immigrant students, will continue to struggle for equity.
Teachers with a lens based on critical race theory (CRT) who intend to serve minorities,
particularly Latino/a students, know that educational policies reinforce access and privilege
based on the standard of a White middle class America (Dworkin, 2005; Holme, 2002).
Unfortunately, many teachers hold mind frames that are not conducive to the learning of Latino/a
students (Bettie, 2000; Dunn et al., 2009; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Rennert-Ariev, 2008;
Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). Bensimon (2005) asserts instructors who teach through deficit mind
frames can impair the education of marginalized students. Deficit mind frames see identities and
backgrounds of marginalized students as inadequate in American schooling (Bensimon, 2005;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997), therefore contributing to mind frames that see Latino/a students as
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 10
coming to school with deficits they are not prepared to accommodate or teach to (Bettie, 2000;
Bensimon, 2005; Dunn, Kirova, Colley, & Ogilvie, 2009; Rennert-Ariev, 2008; Quiocho &
Daoud, 2006). Teachers who perceive Latino/a students as inadequate reinforce the dominant
culture by impeding full participation in classroom discourse, preventing access to a range of
post-high school options (Olmedo, 2004, Olmedo & Harbon, 2010).
Teachers are expected to have the knowledge and ability to teach to diverse populations,
such as English language learners (Commission of Teacher Credentialing, 2009; No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001; Swafford, 2005). However, many teachers are unaware of cultural
achievement gaps, such as the gap between ILS and students of the status quo (Bettie, 2000;
Dunn et al., 2009; Quiocho & Daoud, 2006). Teachers who are aware of existing inequities
within the social constructs of schools can introduce teaching frameworks that help close the
achievement gap. Funds of knowledge (FOK) is one framework that supports a deeper
understanding of multicultural practices used to inform engaging instructional choices that
embrace students’ primary cultures (Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010).
Although mandated to implement instruction that meets the needs of all learners, many
teachers lack a clear understanding and ability to teach to multicultural populations (Rennert-
Ariev, 2008; Schick & St. Denis, 2003). To rectify the issue and meet the demands required by
legal mandates, many teacher education and professional development activities have added
multicultural education by sprinkling in one or two diversity courses in their curricula (Schick &
St. Denis, 2003). Multicultural education courses often address diversity, multiculturalism, and
anti-racism but lack inquiry around data that highlight inequities into student achievement by
demographic differences (Dunn et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2008), therefore contributing to a
teacher’s inability to effectively teach in diverse settings.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 11
A true understanding of education’s deep-rooted racial issues is missing and needs to be
developed among many teachers, especially for educators who teach ILS (Liggett & Finley,
2003; Rennert-Ariev, 2008). Research has shown that teacher education needs to challenge
individual assumptions about educational policies that contribute to racial inequities (Rennert-
Ariev, 2008; Schick & St. Denis; 2003). The lack of inquiry found in multicultural studies
reinforces society’s colorblind mind frame (Bensimon, 2005; Dunn et al., 2009); without
questioning why differences in educational outcomes exist between races, many teachers will
continue to teach with the idea that students who deviate from the status quo of culture and
language are disadvantaged (Liggett & Finley, 2009; Schick & Denis, 2003).
Statement of the Problem
This study investigated the mind frames of general education high school teachers who
instruct ILS. Teachers with diverse, deficit, and equitable mind frames were studied to
determine how their mind frames might have manifested into their instructional strategies. Each
mind frame has contrasting perceptions regarding factors contributing to students’ educational
outcomes (Bensimon, 2005; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Educators who respect diversity but
fail to see educational inequities see students through diverse mind frames. Educators who are
aware of inequities but attribute negative educational outcomes to cultural stereotypes perceive
students through deficit mind frames. Therefore, diverse and deficit mind framed teachers fail to
be change agents and perpetuate social inequities. Teachers with equitable mind frames,
however, are cognizant of inequities stemming from differences in culture that are embedded
through educational policies and institutional norms (Bensimon, 2005). Equitable mind framed
teachers challenge the disparities found within diverse students’ learning outcomes, using
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 12
students’ differences to their advantage in order to improve student experiences and outcomes
(Bensimon, 2005; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010).
Teacher education curricula have been found to affect the mind frames that general
education teachers hold of students who deviate from the dominant culture (Dunn et al., 2009;
Lin et al., 2008; Mangope, Mannathoko, and Kuyini, 2013; Pugach, 2005). Studies have shown
that, after inquiring about and closely studying schools in Mexico, teachers return to their diverse
multicultural classrooms with more positive mind frames and constructive instructional practices
(Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). The outcome of the teachers’ cultural studies is
important to consider, as educators with positive mind frames benefit student academic outcomes
(Forlin, Cedillo, Romero-Contreras, Fletcher, and Hernandez, 2010). Unfortunately, many
teachers lack such experiences and continue teaching with a fixed mindset regarding the
institutionalized inequities affecting ILS within their own society. They teach through deficit
mind frames, seeing ILS’ differences as disadvantages to their learning (Bensimon, 2005;
Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Liggett & Finley, 2009; Schick & Denis, 2003).
The large growing Latino/a population in California makes educational inequities
experienced daily by ILS a concern that could potentially affect the economy (CDE, 2014;
NCES, 2013). Schools have the task of preparing the growing population of Latino/a students
with the knowledge and skills necessary to maneuver through the social constructs of schools
where deficit mind frames and gaps in academic outcomes persist. American public schools
predominantly populated with Latino/a students continue to experience disparities in resources
and outcomes. The disparities include less experienced educators and lower academic outcomes
(Bordes-Edgar, Arredondo, Kurpius, & Rund, 2011; Nesman, Batsche, & Hernandez, 2007;
Valencia et al., 2002). Differences in Latino/a student outcomes are apparent in high school
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 13
dropout and college entrance rates. In fact, only 29% of the Latino/a high school graduate
population has met all the requirements to attend a university compared to 47% of all White high
school graduates (CDE, 2014). A gap in achievement is obvious.
Closely examined, the data also demonstrate that Latino/a students graduate high school
and attend college, although not at an equitable rate compared to White peers. Latino/a students
also demonstrate growth in academic achievement, which may be due to teachers who influence
positive educational experiences and outcomes. How teachers’ own experiences, education, and
mind frames influence the instructional choices that value the cultural differences of students
from Latino/a origins, however, remains unknown. Therefore, this study focused on the
following research questions:
1) What mind frames do secondary teachers from one Southern California high school hold
of immigrated Latino/a students?
2) How do mind frames of secondary teachers from one Southern California high school
influence the instructional choices they make for Latino/a immigrant students?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the first research question (RQ1) was to explore the mind frames of
secondary teachers who teach ILS at one Southern California high school. Teacher education
attempts to provide multicultural education, but teachers continue to demonstrate diverse and
deficit mind frames. The purpose of the second research question (RQ2) was to examine how
general education teachers’ mind frames influence the instructional choices they make
for Latino/a immigrant students. Understanding teacher mind frames can ultimately help
determine how they manifest themselves into teachers’ instructional choices (Mangope et al.,
2013; Rodriguez, 2013). Therefore, the research questions in this study looked at the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 14
instructional choices of equity, deficit, and diverse minded teachers at a high performing high
school.
Importance of the Study
Many teachers report negative mind frames and a lack of preparation in working with
students from diverse backgrounds, specifically Latino/a immigrant students (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002; Bettie, 2000; Dunn et al., 2009; Mangope et al., 2013; Quiocho & Daoud, 2006).
Negative mind frames toward ILS have been found to stem from the perceptions that the students
lack the ability to participate in the culture and language of the dominant group found in the
classroom (Holme, 2002; Valencia et al., 2002). Aversive mind frames concerning Latino/a
students were found to disregard the knowledge students acquire from their homes and
communities and bring to school with them every day (Moll, Gonzalez, & Amanti, 2005). In
fact, educators who see diversity as an asset to instruction have been more successful with ILS
(Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). Therefore, understanding the effect teachers’ mind
frames have on their instructional choices is imperative in improving instructional practice and
ILS’ learning.
Developing teachers who successfully work with ILS is imperative. As students from
Latin countries immigrate to the United States, developing equitable mind frames and using an
FOK approach to learning for marginalized students helps educators better serve them (Olmedo,
2004; Rhodes, 2000). A focus on mind frames and equitable instructional practices will improve
teacher education by including curriculum and professional development that, ultimately, better
serve ILS.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 15
Limitations and Delimitations
There are certain limitations to consider when reviewing this study. First, this study was
conducted at one school in Southern California. Further investigations with a larger sample of
teachers would be beneficial, as findings may not be generalizable. A second limitation involved
the use of interviews. Although triangulated with reviews of surveys and observations,
interviews have the potential for reactivity because participants may intentionally or
unintentionally alter information (Maxwell, 2013).
A delimitation of the study should also be considered when reviewing this study.
Purposeful sampling of participants for obtaining completed reviewing surveys, interviews, and
observations were used in this study to investigate how equity minded teachers manifest
themselves into their instruction to meet the needs of ILS. Although random sampling allows for
more generalizations, purposeful sampling was used to support the production of rich data
regarding the study’s research questions (Merriam, 2009).
Definition of Terms
Collectivism The valuing of
interdependence, emotional
attachment to families, and the
subordination of individual
goals to the goals of the
collective.
Guiffrida, Kiyama, Waterman,
& Museus (2012)
Critical Race Theory A critical interrogation of how
law reproduces, reifies, and
normalizes racism.
Lopez (2003)
Deficit mind frame Educators who respect
diversity and see inequities,
but attribute negative
educational outcomes to
cultural stereotypes perceive.
Bensimon (2005)
Diverse Differences in race, culture,
ethnicity, individuality, and
intellectuality.
Bennett (2001)
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 16
Diverse mind frame Individuals who are blind to
the fact that racial and cultural
inequities persist and that their
own personal beliefs, values
and attitudes reinforce the
dominant discourse and
perpetuate the inequities that
diverse students experience.
(Bensimon, 2005)
Dominant discourse The dominant distinctive way
of speaking, listening, writing,
and reading coupled with
distinctive ways of acting,
interacting, valuing, feeling,
dressing, thinking, believing,
with people, objects, tools,
and technologies.
Gee (2008)
Educational outcomes Obtaining a high school or
bachelor’s degree (Bensimon,
2005; Jayakumar & Museus,
2012
Bensimon (2005), Jayakumar
& Museus, 2012
Equity mind frame Educators who are color
conscious in an affirmative
sense and recognize social
inequities.
Bensimon (2005)
Funds of knowledge Historically accumulated and
culturally developed bodies of
knowledge and skills that are
essential for individual and
household functioning.
Moll, Gonzalez, & Amanti
(2005)
Individualism The valuing independence,
competition, emotional
detachment from families, and
individual goals over the goals
of the collective.
Guiffrida, Kiyama, Waterman,
& Museus (2012)
Inequities Learning conditions less
equitable than that of the
mainstream middle-income
European-Americans culture
Bennett (2001)
Latino/a immigrant student Latino/a immigrant students
classified as English language
learners.
Barajas-Lopez (2014)
Multicultural education Courses that address diversity,
multiculturalism, and anti-
racism
Dunn et al. (2009)
Social constructs Culturally determined human
perceptions and classification.
Cornell & Hartman (2007)
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 17
Organization of the Study
Chapter One includes the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the
purpose of the study, the significance of the study, the limitations and delimitations, the
definitions of terms, and an organization of the study. Chapter Two is a review of literature
related to the research questions noted in chapter one. Chapter Three is a detailed description of
the methodology used in the study including the sample population, instrumentation, data
collection and data analysis. Chapter Four reports the findings of the study in relation to the
research questions. Chapter Five presents the summary of the findings in relation to the
theoretical frameworks, implications for practice, limitations, suggestions for future research,
and overall conclusions of the study.
Two conceptual frameworks were used throughout this study. CRT was used as the
framework to explore general educators’ mind frames of ILS. CRT explicitly highlights how
racism has been reduced to broad generalizations based on individuals’ skin color (Iverson,
2007; Lopez, 2003). Broad generalizations protect the idea of a neutral society by moving the
focus away from barriers and inequities that exist in our society. Teachers with mind fames that
see past broad generalizations of racism are aware of cultural barriers and inequities and use their
instruction to eliminate those gaps (Bensimon, 2005). To organize mind frames in relation to
instructional strategies, Bensimon’ (2005) equitable, deficit, and diverse mind frames were used
under the umbrella of CRT. The three mind frames served as an analytical and operational tool
used to study participants’ mind frames, which shape and perpetuate institutional practices that
affect student outcomes.
The framework of FOK was used to evaluate the pedagogy of equity mind framed
general education teachers. FOK explored the racial and cultural relevance of teachers’
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 18
instructional practices, measuring whether or not these included students’ household knowledge
(Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 2005; Rodriguez, 2013). Teachers who use students’ cultural
differences as assets versus deficits help support minority students’ ability to succeed in school
(Bensimon, 2005; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Therefore,
FOK was used to study high school equity minded teachers’ pedagogy when working with high
school ILS.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
High school general education teachers in Southern California are often presented with
opportunities to work in multicultural settings. ILS are some of the students in multicultural
settings who are influenced by their teachers. With an increased Latino/a population in California
(CDE, 2014; NCES, 2013; Rhodes, 2000), it is crucial that teachers be prepared to implement
instruction that is conducive to the learning of their multicultural audience. Teachers are one of
the most influential factors associated to student educational experiences and outcomes
(Bensimon, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010).
Therefore, it is crucial ILS be taught by teachers with mind frames that manifest themselves into
effective and resourceful instructional practices (Bensimon, 2005; Darling-Hammond, 2010;
Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). To gain a deeper understanding of ILS’ teachers, one
purpose of this study is to explore the mind frames of secondary teachers in a Southern
California high school. Another purpose of the study was to see how general education
secondary teachers’ mind frames manifested into the pedagogy they utilized with ILS.
This chapter begins with a review of the two frameworks that shaped the study. CRT is
discussed first. CRT provides a platform to differentiate the mind frames of teachers who teach
marginalized students. FOK framework was used to compare and analyze teacher instruction in
relation to mind frame. The chapter continues with the educational history and experiences of
ILS. The discussion helps to gain a better understanding of backgrounds of ILS. The chapter
ends with a discussion on secondary general education teachers’ preparation to teach in
multicultural settings along with their mind frames and instructional choices.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 20
Critical Race Theory
Racial and cultural issues are often invisible and subtle. Critical legal studies’ failure to
address the effects of race and racism on American jurisprudence led to the origination of CRT
by activists, progressive educators, and legal scholars in the mid-1970s (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004;
Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Museus, Ravello, & Vega, 2012). CRT recognized that racially
driven inequities were often experienced by marginalized non-dominant groups (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2012; Lopez, 2003; Museus et al., 2012). Inequities were being relegated into
individual instances rather than the broader context of society’s social issues by critical legal
studies (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Lopez, 2003).
Once instance of marginalization took place in 1943. It involved a fight in New York
between a black soldier and White policeman (Lopez, 2003). The fight resulted in a public riot
and mass demonstrations by the black community. The riot was fueled by racial discrimination,
general frustration of police brutality, and the lack of equitable opportunity for Blacks in the
postwar era. Unfortunately, many individuals identified the cause of the riot as an isolated
incident between two individuals rather than a multilayered situation of inequality, racism,
oppression, frustration, and social justice. Limiting the scope of the cause of the riot to
individual and superficial manifestations like prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance
strengthens the power and privilege of the dominant group (Lopez, 2003). Equitable mind
frames, however, would have attributed the incident to the foundations of social issues that lie in
the norms constructed by economics, history, context, group- and self-interests, and also one’s
feelings and unconsciousness (Bensimon, 2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Museus et al.,
2012).
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 21
CRT exposes the origins of social inequities. For this study, three of CRT’s most
prevalent tenets illuminate the often-overlooked subtleties of race and racism embedded within
Bensimon’s (2005) teacher mind frames. The three tenets are permanence of racism (DeCuir &
Dixson, 2004), critique liberalism (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012), and
counter-storytelling (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Museus et al., 2012). Permanence of racism
suggests the governance of all political, economic, and social institutions by the middle class
dominant group (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Governance, as well as oppression from the
dominant group continues when racially driven incidences are marginalized as isolated
incidences, rather than as daily manifestations of the social inequities experienced by students of
subordinate groups. DeCuir and Dixson found a deficit mind framed principal who illustrated
permanence of racism when isolating a racially hate-driven incident consisting of racial remarks
and physical threats made on social media. The principal identified the incident as one situation
involving an angry student who offended only those who were racially identified in his slurs,
rather than the possibility that the hate-driven incident was fueled by the institutionalized racial
inequities existing within the school culture. Therefore, the principal failed to analyze from the
source of the incident. Teachers who use counter-storytelling, the third tenet of CRT discussed
below, would have investigated the meaning and intent of the threat and the school culture that
supported the isolating and hostile environment.
Critique liberalism states that acceptance or denial of socially driven inequities can be
either conscious or subconscious (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). CRT
critiques two notions that are embraced by liberal legal ideologies: colorblindness and neutrality
of the law. Both colorblindness and neutrality suggest equal opportunity for all. However, both
notions fail to recognize permanence of racism and justify ignoring and dismantling attempts to
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 22
address social inequities (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). In one study by DeCuir and Dixson (2004),
a high school made a public commitment to diversity in attempt to change remnants of a racist
southern culture and the socially driven inequities consciously accepted within their community.
In attempting to meet their commitment to diversity, however, they failed to recognize the
permanence of racism. Although the school hired one African American teacher to teach all
multicultural courses and provide all multicultural programming and professional development,
the issue was much bigger. The solution of a token teacher would not solve their community’s
deep-rooted racial issues. It became obvious to the researchers that the school would not be
experiencing any immediate changes toward mollifying racial tensions because they did not look
at and study the source of those tensions. Therefore, the study revealed that though the school
had good intentions, their efforts fell short and subconsciously perpetuated the racial tensions.
Therefore, teachers’ mind frames may result in negative academic experiences or outcomes for
marginalized students, but the intentions of instruction may have initially been just the opposite.
Counter-storytelling is a third tenet of CRT relating to mind frames. Counter-storytelling
provides a different perspective of educational inequities and allows the voices of marginalized
students to be heard (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Museus et al., 2012). DeCuir and Dixson’s (2004)
example of counter-storytelling involved two African American students who attended a school
committed to diversity. Administrators believed their efforts were making a difference. Once
given the opportunity to tell their story, however, the two African American students shared a
different perspective. They did not feel their cultural differences were being valued or celebrated.
Another study with at-risk ILS shared the marginalized students’ counter-storytelling of the
factors that contributed to their academic failures. The students’ stories told how their reluctance
to participate in school was due to their not feeling appreciated by their teachers, not because
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 23
they were incapable of academically succeeding (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Cohen, 2012; Valenzuela,
1999). The counter-stories expose the school’s attempts to meet a diversity commitment; yet,
even so, the school maintained racial and social inequities, such as the racially hate-driven
incidences they had prior to hiring the African American teacher. Similar to the functions of
Bensimon’s (2005) equitable mind frame, counter-storytelling allows for students and teachers to
discuss, analyze, and challenge the dominant stories and discourses that perpetuate the power
and privilege often found to be held by the dominant group (Museus et al., 2012).
By examining subordination of minorities through CRT, inequities in America’s social
constructs become apparent (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Iverson,
2007; Lin et al., 2008; Museus et al., 2012). CRT illuminates that non-dominant groups are
socially, politically, and economically marginalized by an inequitable political and legal system
on a daily basis (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Lopez, 2003; Museus et
al., 2012). Depending on mind frame (Bensimon, 2005; Guiffrida et al., 2012; Jayakumar &
Museus, 2012), however, teachers can teach students how to maneuver through social
institutions while also cultivating and maintaining students’ primary culture (Gee, 2001; Lopez,
2003; Sperling & Freedman, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
To understand Bensimon’s (2005) mind frames in practice, critical examination of her
cognitive frames is offered next. Cognitive frames are mental maps that represent personal
beliefs, attitudes, values and actions that govern how situations are interpreted and how
individuals design and implement their reactions (Bensimon, 2005). Understanding Bensimon’s
(2005) equitable, diverse, and deficit mind frames can aid in determining how a teacher’s racial
assumptions may transfer into their practice (Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Many teachers with
equitable mind frames acknowledge the historical context of racial inequities, work toward
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 24
diminishing gaps in academic achievement, and aim to cultivate cultural identities (Bensimon,
2005, 2013; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Shor, 1999; Souto-Mannig, 2009). Additionally,
equity minded teachers understand that their own beliefs, values, and practices influence the
reinforcement or diminishment of dominant discourse (Bensimon, 2005). Diverse and deficit
minded teachers’ practices differ.
Both diverse and deficit minded teachers acknowledge diverse demographics. However,
diverse minded individuals are blind to the fact that their own personal beliefs, values and
practices reinforce the continuation of inequities (Bensimon, 2005; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012).
For example, a diverse minded individual recognizes racial diversity among a population and
may even value diversity, but their knowledge of the adversities faced by those diverse groups
stops there. It does not concede to the inequities faced by the diverse groups. The concept that
diversity exists only in numbers brings back the tenet of critique liberalism, where acceptance or
denial of socially driven inequities is conscious or subconscious (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004;
Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Another tenet brought up is permanence of racism, where racial
inequities are marginalized into individual instances rather than systematic issues (DeCuir &
Dixson, 2004). Whether consciously or subconsciously, viewing diversity in terms of interracial
contact and human relations simply identifies diversity in terms of organizations’ differences in
demographic numbers, it does not acknowledge the inequities stemming from that interracial
contact (Bensimon, 2005; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012).
Deficit minded individuals also take demographics into consideration and may value
diversity. The difference, though, is deficit mind frames attribute negative educational outcomes
to cultural stereotypes (Bensimon, 2005; Guiffrida et al., 2012; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012).
They perceive academic failures as a natural outcome of cultural differences, consciously or
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 25
subconsciously understanding that the dominant culture and discourse of American society is
that of the White middle class group (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012;
Johnson, 2006b). Deficit minded teachers also do not question the root of disadvantaged
students’ academic failure. Schick and Denis (2003) found deficit mind framed participants
believed all individuals were capable of meeting their goals if the individual worked hard
enough. Such deficit thinking assumes no social responsibility on the academic outcomes of
underachieving minority students. It gives the impression that teachers are not responsible for
the perpetuation of inequities (Johnson, 2006a).
However, deficit mind framed teachers’ misconceptions have consequences. In one
study, teachers with deficit mind frames were found to assume that Latino/a students perform
poorly in schools because their parents are unintelligent, passive, dependent, and uninterested in
the education of their children (Monzo, 2013; Quiocho & Daoud, 2009). The misconception
blames academic failure on individuals who have historically suffered from inequitable access to
educational opportunities (Johnson, 2006a). In two other studies, ILS expressed an awareness of
their deficit minded teachers’ perceptions. The conscious understanding of in-group hierarchies
developed an inferior identity within the ILS participants. Therefore, the deficit teachers’ mind
frames led students to believe that they needed to resemble the dominant group in order to have
the same educational outcomes as their White peers (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Bettie, 2000; Cohen,
2011).
Fortunately, not all students have the same experiences. According to Bensimon (2005)
and Jayakumar and Museus (2012), each mind frames’ acknowledgement and perception of
institutionalized racism is different. Teachers with diverse mind frames are ignorant to
institutionalized inequities and how they permeate teaching. Teachers with deficit mind frames
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 26
may be aware of institutionalized inequities, but fail to hold themselves accountable for the
perpetuation of these inequities experienced by diverse students, blaming marginalized students
for their own perceived shortcoming (Bensimon, 2005; Guiffrida et al., 2012; Jayakumar &
Museus, 2012). Then, there are teachers with equitable mind frames who acknowledge and
understand institutionalized inequities and work towards diminishing them while still cultivating
students’ cultural identities (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Bensimon, 2005; Bettie, 2000; Cohen, 2011;
Guiffrida et al., 2012; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). This study will use these mind frames to
gauge how they insert themselves into pedagogies that cultivate a student’s background using a
FOK framework.
Funds of Knowledge
Students from diverse backgrounds are often seen as coming to school with deficits.
Teachers counter-story the knowledge and skills marginalized students bring with them to
school, and equity minded teachers may work to change the way students like ILS are perceived
and taught (Bensimon, 2005; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Olmedo, 2004; Rodriguez, 2013). In
conjunction with CRT, FOK can work to rectify racial inequities by drawing upon students’
household FOK to determine the most beneficial instructional choices (Rodriguez, 2013).
Discussed below are the benefits and importance of FOK and the pedagogical practices of
general education teachers. Also discussed are the concepts of third and methods gather
students’ FOK.
FOK framework cultivates students’ primary culture and uses cultural differences to
teachers’ pedagogical advantage. Unfortunately, culturally cultivating instruction is not often
experienced. Cohen (2012) found many English language learners (ELLs) in English as a Second
Language (ESL) classrooms experienced school negatively because of the instruction they were
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 27
presented. In the study, ILS perceived ESL classrooms as cognitively unchallenging. The
participants in Cohen’s study stated they were not taught the skills necessary to be part of what
they Cohen an imagined community. The imagined community they desired to belong to
consisted of mainstreamed programs where the majority of the school population received their
education. The Mexican immigrant students felt they did not have the attributes necessary to
belong to the imagined community. General education English, advanced placement classes, and
other mainstreamed courses were the programs in which the immigrated Mexican students
indicated they would like to take part. However, Cohen reported, the immigrated Mexican
students recognized they would need to alter their own actions and match the perceived required
identity of the imagined community. Therefore, they had to lose their cultural identity to the
dominant culture if they wanted to belong to the imagined community because their teachers
were not cultivating and positively using the FOK the students brought with them to the
classroom every day. Similar to students in other studies, many of the students in Cohen’s study
were unwilling to lose their cultural identity (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Gonzalez, 2012; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Valenzuela, 1999).
FOK provides a positive framework that prevents the perpetuation of institutional racism
(Rodriguez, 2013). Teachers can apply the FOK framework in an effort to engage students in
equal-access challenging curriculum. Rodriguez stresses the utilization of FOK in conjunction
with other theoretical frameworks, such as community cultural wealth informed by CRT to
counter cultural-deficit characterization. Bensimon’s (2005) definition of equitable mind frames
also functions to counter cultural-deficit characterization. Therefore, CRT is used conjointly with
FOK to identify and interpret equitable and oppressive conditions within the school
environments. Additionally, Rodriguez indicated that both frameworks provide a counter-
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 28
hegemonic response to pervasive forms of cultural-deficit thinking. FOK strengthens teachers’
ability to see how socioeconomic and cultural differences can be used to positively influence
access equitable learning opportunities and experiences (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Museus et al.,
2012).
FOK is an imperative pedagogical framework. For example, high school general
education teachers who apply CRT’s tenet of counter-storytelling allow themselves to employ
FOK and truly understand the causes of negative educational outcomes of marginalized students
(DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Museus et al., 2012). Learning more about students from diverse
backgrounds can change the pedagogy teachers’ practice, therefore benefitting the educational
experiences and outcomes of students such as ILS (Guiffrida et al., 2012; Olmedo, 2004;
Rodriguez, 2013). Teachers not only acknowledge cultural differences when applying the
framework, but they also use students’ cultural differences as assets in their instruction.
Applying the FOK framework allows teachers to consider students’ essential cultural practices,
bodies of knowledge, and information that households use to survive, get ahead, and thrive (Moll
et al., 2005; Olmedo, 2004). Research has found that utilizing the FOK framework helps teachers
plan their curriculum according the background and cultural wealth of ILS (Moll et al., 2005;
Olmedo, 2004; Rodriguez, 2013).
The FOK framework positions supportive and equity minded teachers as educators who
gain full knowledge of students’ lives and entire being. Moje, Ciechanowski, Kramer, Ellis,
Carrillo, and Collazo (2004) examined the application of FOK to content area literacy with even
more complexity. The researchers interest was to understand how marginalized students’ FOK
shaped learning in secondary schools. The researchers acknowledged that, when FOK is not
accounted for, assumed knowledge and discourse are shaped solely by formal education,
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 29
therefore finding that FOK is not independently formed outside the construct of educational
institutions. In fact, Moje et al. note three FOK spaces where knowledge and discourse are
formed. The first space is the child’s everyday world, such as their home and community. More
formal institutions, such as schools and churches, shape the second space. The third space, also
referred to as a hybrid space, is where integration of FOK and discourse, shaped within the first
and second spaces, occurs.
Moje et al. (2004) used three views of third space to guide their study. The first view
implicated that the third space bridges marginalized FOK to conventional FOK. The second
view argues that third space is a navigational tool used to help marginalized students cross and
succeed in different discourse communities. The last view asserts that third space allows for
competing FOK and discourses to be brought together in conversation, challenging and
reshaping pedagogical practices and the FOK and discourses of youths’ everyday lives. Moje et
al. found that teachers needed to acknowledge third space so marginalized students could make
connections between first and second space FOK and discourses, which is also the perspective
this study takes in relation to FOK. Moje et al. also found that teachers’ influence on student
learning would benefit from globalizing and urbanizing their knowledge about students’ cultural
backgrounds.
According to the seminal work of Moll, Amanti, Neff, and González (1992, 2005),
teachers can gather and understand students’ first space FOK by drawing upon the knowledge
and skills found in students’ households in order to provide more positive educational
experiences and outcomes to marginalized students. Households hold an array of FOK. Moll et
al. looked at the FOK found in the homes of Latino/a students, such as their social relationships,
agriculture, mining, economics, household management, material and scientific knowledge,
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 30
repair, medicine, and religion. These types of FOK are essential cultural practices and bodies of
knowledge that households use to survive, get ahead, and thrive in dominant society (Moll et al.,
2005; Olmedo, 2004; Rodriguez, 2013).
Teachers can get to know the child as a whole person by examining the intricacies of
students’ existence and experiences. Gathering information about a child’s multiple spheres of
activity, as opposed to merely knowing a student based on their performance within the context
of a classroom, allows teachers to better understand and instruct that child (Moll et al., 2005).
The multiple spheres of activities include the complex social relationships students bring with
them to class. The relationships students have with people outside of the classroom are
multifaceted and interdependent. Moje et al.’s third space theory notes that understanding these
relationships lets teachers understand that students are not passive bystanders; they are active
participants in their home like they should be at school (Moll et al., 2005).
Unfortunately, most Latino/a students are not exposed to such pedagogical approaches.
This is specifically so for ILS (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen, 2012). As noted earlier, both
Barajas-Lopez and Cohen found that students felt like they were incapable of holding the same
experiences as students from the dominant group and that they were not challenged enough by
their teachers because of their cultural differences. FOK refocuses deficit mind frames by
cultivating students’ cultural differences and providing equal access to academic experiences as
well as challenging their intellectual beings (Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010).
Therefore, teachers who apply FOK are more readily able to address inequities within their
instruction in order to rectify achievement gaps (Rodriguez, 2013). It was the purpose of this
study to examine which mind frame leads to implementation of a FOK framework in instruction
to improve ILS’ educational experiences and outcomes. To understand the importance of this
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 31
research, a contextual description of ILS’ educational outcomes, history, and experiences in
American schools is reviewed.
Immigrated Latino/a Students
ILS have historically experienced marginalization in American education. Though
educational policies aimed at closing achievement gaps have been implemented, ILS continue to
experience educational inequities (Bettie, 2000; Garcia Bedolla, 2012; Valencia, Menchaca, &
Donato, 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). A history of marginalization by both society and teachers led
to the negative educational experiences and outcomes of many ILS (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Brown
& Chu, 2012; Cohen, 2012; Guiffrida et al., 2012; Macartney, Bishaw, & Fontenot, 2013). As
Latino/a students make up the majority of the immigrant population in California (Public Policy
Institute of California [PPIC], 2015), it is imperative to explore the impact of historical
marginalization on current ILS educational outcomes. To understand the history, ILS current
educational outcomes are discussed first. ILS educational history and educational experiences
are subsequently discussed.
Educational Outcomes
The educational outcomes between ILS and students from the dominant group are
prevalent. In 2011, ILS made up 72% of all high school dropouts (Jayakumar & Museus, 2012).
The dropout rate is concerning provided that, in 2011, 53% California’s 27% immigrant
population originated from a Latin American country (PPIC, 2015). Additionally, concerning is
the disproportionate rate of immigrant students who obtaining a bachelor’s degree. Data report
that 70.9% of Latino/a students were ineligible to attend a four-year university upon high school
graduation (CDE, 2014; Vega & Martinez, 2008). Of the ILS who attend four-year universities,
only 25% attained a bachelor’s degree, compared to approximately 33% of all American-born
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 32
students who received bachelor’s degrees (PPIC, 2015). The gap in degree attainment has an
influence on the nation’s finances.
In today’s economy, a college degree is correlated with higher income (United States
Census Bureau, 2012). As the consumer price index in the United States nearly doubles (United
States Bureau of Labor Statistics [USBLS], 2011), consumers’ spending patterns and cost of
living also continue to increase. With high dropout rates and low college degree attainment
(Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; PPIC, 2015), ILS may continue to be the lowest earning
race/ethnicity in the nation (United States Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2011; USBLS, 2011).
ILS economic disparities often influences students’ ability to obtain the social capital necessary
to navigate school systems (Bettie, 2000; Gonzalez, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). To better
understand the economic disparities ILS experience, they first need to be contextualized.
Educational History
ILS have experienced a history of segregation, desegregation, and resegregation. For a
deeper understanding of the history, Valencia et al.’s (2002) study on the educational
desegregation of Latino/a students is first discussed below. Discussed next are Cohen’s (2012)
study addressing resegregation and Barajas-Lopez’s (2014) study exploring outcomes of
Proposition 227. A discussion on socially institutionalized inequities follows.
The history of schools for students of Mexican origin began in 1848 (Valencia et al.,
2002), yet it was in 1900 that California established schools for Mexican students. Government
officials argued their decision was based on students’ educational needs and attempted to justify
segregation by classifying Mexicans as Native Americans (Valencia et al., 2002; Valenzuela,
1999). Unfortunately, the officials’ decision to segregate led to inadequately resourced schools
for Mexican children, consisting of poor equipment, unfit buildings, and less-competent teachers,
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 33
manifesting into students’ poor academic achievement (Bettie, 2000; Garcia Bedolla, 2012;
Valencia et al., 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). Inequities persisted throughout the 1900s and so did
Latino/a students’ persistence toward equity.
In 2002, Valencia et al. highlighted case rulings of Chicano desegregation that began 20
years prior to Brown. They reviewed the 1930 decision in Del Rio Independent School District
v. Salvatierra, which found that segregating Mexican students was illegal. The ruling, however,
was later appealed and overturned by the Texas Court of Appeals. Districts were once again
allowed to segregate based on Latino/a students’ special language needs. Then, in 1931, the
Supreme Court case of Roberto Alvarez v. the Board of Trustees of the Lemon Grove School
District ruled against separating grammar school facilities for Latino/a students (Valencia et al.,
2002). Districts attempted to use overcrowding as a rationale for separating students, but the
court ruled separation of students was not conducive to the Americanization of Spanish-speaking
students. California’s 1946 litigation of Mendez v. Westminster thereafter concluded that
segregation of Latino/a students was illegal. According to Valencia et al., Mendez v. Westminster
aided in the termination of de jure segregation, thus ending the separation of Latino/a students in
public schools. Even with all of the litigation, officials continued to claim that Mexicans needed
a separate environment to improve their language and social skills.
The effects of the litigation found its way into ILS’ classrooms. Cohen (2012)
demonstrated the education system used ESL classrooms to resegregate students. ESL
classrooms were primarily designed to provide language instruction to ELLs, including ILS.
Cohen interviewed students, and they reported feeling socially comfortable in the ESL classes.
However, they also reported not feeling cognitively challenged. The ESL classes were
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 34
disappointing to the ILS, as they struggled to become part of imagined communities (i.e.,
mainstreamed settings that ELLs aspire to be part of once English was fully acquired).
Cohen’s (2012) study illustrates the barriers language differences create for ILS.
Students reported unequal access to the same educational opportunities as those of students from
the imagined communities as one barrier. In fact, only one the four student-participants
overcame the barriers stemming from cultural and language differences. The student tested out
of the ESL program and entered into the mainstreamed setting. She also earned a high grade
point average. When asked about her experience, the student reported noticing discrepancies in
equity between the ESL and mainstream classes. She, too, reported a lack of access to
mainstream curriculum. Even more, the student described many of her ESL teachers as deficit
minded, holding low expectations of ESL students. The educational inequities found in Cohen’s
(2012) study is consistent with Barajas-Lopez’s (2014) findings, as both researchers found ESL
placement limited academic access and contributed to negative academic experiences.
Decades later, policies fully immersed immigrant Latino/a students into the mainstream
setting (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen, 2012; Valencia et al., 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). In 1998,
California passed Proposition 227 to require that all academic instruction be provided in English
(Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Valenzuela, 1999). The law dismantled most ESL classrooms, and a
change to a Eurocentric curriculum took form (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Bennett, 2001; Valenzuela,
1999). Thus, ILS were mainstreamed and immersed into English-only classes without any
language support. In essence, the law marginalized ILS who spoke Spanish (Barajas-Lopez,
2014; Bensimon, 2005; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010).
The passing of Proposition 227 and the mainstreaming of ELLs perpetuated inequities
experienced by ILS (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen, 2012; Valencia et al., 2002; Valenzuela,
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 35
1999). Proposition 227 strengthened perceptions that marginalized any language other than
English (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Valenzuela, 1999). It told teachers and students that speaking
another language was not important. Though the intent of Proposition 227 was to integrate all
ELL levels, ILS inability to communicate with their teachers placed them at an automatic
disadvantage (Lucas, Villegas, & Gonzalez, 2008). Instructional barriers affect the academic
achievement of ILS. Although not always intentional (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado &
Stefancic, 2012), treating racial and cultural differences as deficits works to marginalize ILS
(Cohen, 2012; Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Moll et al., 1992, 2005; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon,
2010; Valenzuela, 1999). Marginalization of ILS leads to negative academic experiences, which
are discussed next.
Educational Experiences
Being fully immersed in English language classrooms was not conducive to the academic
experiences of ILS. Many ILS did not have the real estate, language, and culture necessary to
successfully navigate through the institutional norms and social constructs of American schools
(Gonzalez, 2012; Holme, 2002; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valencia et al., 2002). Although ILS
came to school with their own capital, many teachers do not cultivate that capital to help students
navigate through schools. However, teachers are the fulcrums of student achievement (Cochran-
Smith, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2010). Teachers can provide students the tools to do well in
school (Bennett, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Unfortunately, not all ILS have teachers who do
positively influence their trajectory or academic success.
Teachers who are not supportive of ILS are identified as lacking engagement and rigor in
their instruction (Cohen, 2012; Barajas-Lopez, 2014, Valenzuela, 1999). For example, the
students in Cohen’s (2012) study acknowledged the teachers who did not challenge them enough
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 36
to be part of the imagined community. The students reported they knew teachers had low
expectations of them because of the obvious difference between the ESL classroom they were in
and the mainstream classrooms their White peers were in. Students knew the difference in
classroom rigor was due to what they considered to be a language deficiency.
Barajas-Lopez (2014) had similar findings. The researcher explored the relationships
between the academic status of four at-risk Mexican immigrant students and their experiences
with American teachers. One of the four students was found to have participated in a waiver
bilingual program where the teacher instructed in both English and in Spanish. Participation in
the bilingual program afforded the student an opportunity to be part of a general education class
with a teacher and curriculum that did not make him feel isolated. In fact, the student used
equity minded traits when describing the teacher. The student claimed the teacher made a
deliberate attempt to make mathematics clear and comprehensible by communicating with him
and other Spanish speakers in their native language. The teacher acknowledged the academic
benefit of using students’ primary language to do well in math, a requirement to graduate and
possibly apply for college. Unfortunately, the student’s success in mathematics was only
temporary and lasted with only that one specific teacher. The student’s success did not transfer
to more advanced-level mathematics, mostly due to language barriers.
Like the student in Cohen’s (2012) study, speaking Spanish acted as a barrier that led to
academic tracking in less rigorous courses for students in other studies (Barajas-Lopez, 2014;
Gonzalez, 2012). Barajas and Gonzalez asserted that Latino/a students are regularly placed into
non-college bound courses with teachers who do not challenge them. Specifically, Barajas-
Lopez found that most Spanish-speaking students were placed in ESL classes because of their
language difference and not their academic ability. The ESL classes that students were placed in
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 37
restricted access to the knowledge and skills necessary for a high school diploma and a college
degree. Gonzalez also found many Latino/a students are tracked into non-college bound courses.
Students in his study were not placed in advanced placement or honors courses.
The tracking and marginalization of ILS has consequences on educational experiences.
Barajas-Lopez’s study (2014) took place after the passing of Proposition 227. During the study,
Barajas-Lopez found the school where students attended perpetuated the at-risk ELL student
population. The researcher also found that students’ negative school experiences led to attitudes
and perceptions that fell into two categories: doing school and attending school. Doing school
meant being actively involved in one’s own learning. Attending school, on the other hand,
meant students passively experienced school and assumed uniformity and neutrality while in
school. The students in the study claimed that, had their teachers instructed them in their primary
language of Spanish, they would have benefited academically. However, this was not an option
to them because of Proposition 227 and, although two of the high school students reported
experiencing success in math during their elementary years, all four student-participants
experienced teachers who had low expectations of them due to their cultural differences, also
known as deficit thinking (Bensimon, 2005).
Even when instruction in one’s primary language was an option, positive educational
experiences were sparse. Cohen’s (2012) study was conducted prior to Proposition 227.
Students in the study reported negative experiences in school related to teachers’ low
expectations. Unlike the students in Barajas-Lopez’s (2014) study, these students were separate
from the mainstream classes. Cohen’s (2012) participants not only had teachers who did not
challenge them, but they also received modified curriculum. Although they desired to transition
into mainstream programs, the participants did not feel they had the attributes needed to belong
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 38
to the imagined community of the mainstreamed program. The students knew they would have
had to alter their own identities, change their actions, and assimilate to the dominant group in
order to match the perceived required identity of the imagined community. However, not all
students were willing to adapt to the status quo merely to adopt a dominant identity that is not
their own (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Cohen, 2012; Valenzuela, 1999). The ILS in Cohen’s (2012)
study are an example, as they were unwilling to forget their ethnic identities merely to adopt the
identity of students deemed acceptable under the conditions that schools offer (Cheng & Lee,
2009; Cohen, 2012).
Unfortunately, ILS reluctance to assimilate to the dominant culture magnified academic
barriers attributed to differences in cultures. Guiffrida, Kiyamana, Waterman, and Museus
(2012) emphasize that collectivist discourses of non-Western cultures are often unrecognized and
inconsistent with Western culture’s individualistic discourses. Latino/a student culture,
collectivist, is often defined as communal, interdependent, and strongly familial. Their culture is
unlike the individualistic cultures and practices. The inconsistencies within cultures are apparent
in American schools, where competition and fast-paced institutional environment are cultivated
(Guiffrida et al., 2012). ILS’ contrast in culture leads to experiences that limited their access to
educational opportunities (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Brown & Chu, 2012; Cohen, 2012; Guiffrida et
al., 2012), therefore exacerbating barriers prohibiting ILS students from obtaining academic
success. Repeatedly experiencing inability to enter and maneuver through the constructs of
schools prevents ILS full participation in classroom discourses, which is often magnified by
deficit and diverse minded teachers. Even more hindering, inequitable experiences communicate
a message to marginalized students that they are unworthy of rich and rigorous learning
experiences (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 39
So, why do some ILS assimilate while others choose not to? Identity integration has been
related to more successful careers and better abilities to foster multiple group supports and
relationships (Cheng & Lee, 2009). Identity integration is the ability to integrate multiple
identities and perceive them as compatible. Degree of integration, though, depends on the
experiences one has had with a group (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Valenzuela, 1999). In fact, Cheng
and Lee’s (2009) 57 multi-racial student-participants showed that the degree of identity
integration depended on the context of students’ environment. The researchers found that
educational experiences, both positive and negative, determined whether identities were either
perceived as compatible or contradictory. When positive experiences were elicited, students had
higher levels of identity integration. Negative experiences elicited lower levels of integration.
The results showed that students’ experiences determined identity integration and navigation
through dominate discourse. Students less apt to assimilate, therefore, were less successful in
their careers because they did not foster the capital needed to academically prosper (Gonzalez,
2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valenzuela, 1999).
Teachers are capable of acting as capital. Gonzalez’s (2012) study explored the social
capital, institutional agents, and school structure associated with successful outcomes of Latino/a
students. Gonzalez found that institutional agents are the most imperative attributor to student
success. Institutional agents consisted of equity minded teachers who took an interest in students
by acting as change agents and breaking the social reproduction cycle of institutional racism
(Bensimon, 2005). Thus, teachers are key factors to the success of marginalized students
(Gonzalez, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Unfortunately, not all teachers have had an opportunity
to develop equitable minds due to political and teacher education influences.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 40
Latino/a students have experienced segregation, desegregation, resegregation, and so on
(Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen, 2012; Valencia et al., 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). Policy changes led
to and continued the inequitable access to educational opportunities that ILS experienced
(Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen, 2012; PPIC, 2015; Valenzuela, 1999). Many ILS have had to
negotiate their identities in order to gain access to equitable opportunities. Therefore, they had to
succumb to the implication that their inherited identity is insufficient in comparison to that of the
superior group. Such realities are imperative to note because they highlight a very important
issue contributing to negative educational experiences that lead to negative educational
outcomes: deficit minded teachers (Bensimon, 2005; Brown & Chu, 2012; Duncan-Andrade,
2007). However, as seen in the study by Barajas-Lopez (2014) and as noted by FOK (Olmedo,
2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010), teachers are able to have a positive influence on students. With
the right mind frame, a teacher can challenge students and provide them with equitable access to
educational opportunities by using cultural and linguistic differences as assets rather than deficits
(Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). To better understand what influences teacher mind
frames and instruction, an examination of high school general education teachers follows.
High School Teachers of ILS
Even with much restructuring, teacher education programs continue to graduate
inadequately prepared teachers. According to general education teachers who took multicultural
education courses in their preparation programs, there are many difficulties in working with
students from diverse backgrounds (Dunn et al., 2009; Lin et al., 2008; Schick & St. Denis,
2003). Specifically, general education teachers note that the educational theories they learned
regarding students from diverse backgrounds did not easily transfer into practice (Brouwer &
Karthagen, 2005; Pugach, 2005). Such feelings of teaching inadequacies can influence the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 41
pedagogies teachers put into practice with marginalized students (Bensimon, 2005; Brown &
Chu, 2012; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012), making it imperative do discuss teacher preparation for
multicultural settings. Therefore, discussed first is teachers’ preparation to teach multicultural
students. An examination of three teacher-types follows.
Teacher preparation is supposed to prepare teachers to teach students from diverse
backgrounds (Cochran-Smith, 2001; Darling-Hammond, 2010). Educational policies have had a
definite influence on teacher education. As discussed in the previous section, Proposition 227
mainstreamed ELLs into general education classrooms in 1998 (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen,
2012). All teachers were to provide instruction in English, yet were not held accountable to
student achievement. Achievement was left up to students, no matter how disadvantaged they
were due to language differences. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law107-110,
changed that when it enforced educational policy that required all teachers to be held accountable
for student learning and failure. No Child Left Behind was geared toward closing the
achievement gap that was apparent among many marginalized students, such as ILS. In fact, No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, per Title III section 3202, was to ensure that ELLs, including
ILS, mastered English and met the same rigorous academic standards as all children. The policy
was built as an accountability system and program that strengthened and improved professional
education for teachers of ELLs.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 used funding to implement the accountability
requirements. The federal education policy provides schools, including teacher preparation
programs, funding for academic resources. Title III funds teacher education to enhance teachers’
ability to effectively instruct immigrant students (No Child Left Behind, 2001). Accountability
takes place under the preliminary and clear credential levels of the multiple and single subject
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 42
credential requirements (Swafford, 2005). Specifically, the policy requires candidates to
complete coursework that involves methods aimed at developing ELLs’ English language skills.
Although a step forward in creating more access to equitable educational opportunities, the law
fails to address the development of equitable mind frames, mind frames that work toward
eliminating all inequities (Bensimon, 2005; Stillman, 2011; Valli & Chambliss, 2007).
A multicultural education additive approach in teacher preparation is not sufficient in
developing equitable mind frames needed to successfully support ILS. In fact, many teacher
preparation programs tend to perpetuate inequities found within the confines of school systems
because they do not provide preparation for working with that particular student population
(Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Bensimon, 2005; Clark, 2010; Cohen, 2012; Dunn et al., 2009; Rennert-
Ariev, 2008; Schick & St. Denis, 2003). Without highlighting the academic gaps between
marginalized students and their non-marginalized peers, multicultural education courses fail to
challenge individual assumptions and educational policies that maintain academic gaps and
reinforce the status quo.
Like most high school teachers, most teacher educators do not intentionally reinforce the
status quo. Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) attribute the perpetuation of the status quo to a lack
of inquiry about the marginalization of diverse students. Both researchers found that teacher
educators who foster, within diversity courses, inquiry about inequities and the effects they have
on minority students have been shown to influence teachers’ mind frames in a way that better
prepares them to teach to diverse groups. Moreover, Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) argue that
the use inquiry of stance in teacher education improves teachers’ instruction and student
learning. Inquiry of stance problematizes the roles teachers and policies have on student learning.
Problematizing prompts one to challenge assumptions and, in turn, change mind frames to
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 43
transform classroom instruction and student experiences (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999). In
fact, Bensimon (2005) noted that inquiry presents an opportunity for a mind shift. Teachers not
exposed to inquiry, therefore, are more apt uphold diverse or deficit mind frames.
One teacher education program researched by Olmedo (2004) set a good example in the
ways in which developing equitable mind frames influences more conducive teaching practices.
General education teachers from a Chicago teacher preparation program were exposed first-hand
to international curriculum. Afterwards, teachers in the study developed curricula that went
beyond the “heroes and holidays approach” (p. 224) to ethnic cultures that considered issues
such as transnationalism, illegal immigration, and racism. Avoiding an additive approach to
multicultural teacher education, student teachers had to travel to Mexico. There, the teachers
studied Mexico’s education system at Colegio de Michoacán and learned that culture is not
static. The teachers found a wealth of FOK from studying the families, communities, and
cultures of Latino/a immigrant students. Given what they learned from their trip, the teachers
used students’ FOK to create and implement engaging activities that allowed students to engage
their cultural identities as immigrated Mexican students. They discovered the effectiveness of
using FOK when working with Latino/a immigrant students. Unfortunately, not all teachers got
the experience researched by Olmedo (2004).
The impact of teacher knowledge is apparent in Duncan-Andrade’s (2007) three teacher-
types: gangsta, wanksta, and rida. The three types operationalize the difference in teachers who
know their students and those who do not. Duncan-Andrade’s teacher-types also mirror the three
mind frames (i.e., equitable, deficit, and diverse) as defined by Bensimon (2005) and Jayakumar
and Museus (2012). Therefore, gangsta, wanksta, and rida’s influences on marginalized student
populations are discussed next in comparison to Bensimon’s (2005) three mind frames.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 44
Similar to Bensimon’s (2004) deficit minded teachers, gangsta teachers are those who
perceived students, parents, and the community in which they teach negatively (Duncan-
Andrade, 2007). Gangsta teachers believed Latino/a students lacked social class, aspiration, and
good behavior (Bettie, 2000; Duncan-Andrade, 2007). In Quiocho and Daoud’s (2006) study,
teachers demonstrated deficit mind framed and gangsta teacher characteristics. The teachers in
the study were aware that Latino/a students at their school were not doing well. Asked why they
were seeing such a trend, the teachers reported that, compared to other peers, Latino/a students’
work ethic lagged behind. The findings illustrated superiority to Latino/a students and a failure to
recognize their own role in students’ academic failure (Bettie, 2000; Duncan-Andrade, 2007;
Monzo, 2013).
In fact, Duncan-Andrade (2007) found gangsta teachers would advocate for policies that
serve to perpetuate the status quo and racial inequities. The adverse actions toward diverse
students were especially concerning knowing how teacher mind frames influence student
outcomes (Brown & Chu, 2012; NCES, 2010). Brown and Chu (2012) specifically studied ILS
teacher values toward diversity. Teachers in the study completed a 15-item survey regarding
diversity, teachers’ value of curriculum associated with diverse cultures, comfort with students
from cultural diverse backgrounds, the social value of diversity, and the need for minority
students to assimilate and adopt the norms of the dominant culture. Brown and Chu found that
teachers’ attitudes were important factors in predicting immigrant students’ attitudes toward
school, ethnic identities, and academic outcomes.
Unlike gangstas, wanksta teachers entered the classroom with more positive intentions
(Duncan-Andrade, 2007). Intentions, however, are as far as wankstas went. Duncan-Andrade
found wankstas were self-protectors. Self-protection was found to occur for two reasons: lack of
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 45
preparation and misalignment between theory and practice (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005;
Duncan-Andrade, 2007). Most educators have a beginning understanding of diversity and a
desire to meet the needs of all learners. However, once their understanding is put into practice,
teachers experience “practice shock” (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005, p. 155). Practice shock refers
to the crumbling of idealistic images when confronted by realistic expectations. The shock shifts
teachers’ attitudes (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Pugach, 2005). The teachers went into self-
protection because they felt unprepared and unable to fulfill the organizational teaching
requirements, causing them frustration (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Pugach, 2005). Therefore,
wanksta teachers self-protected by abiding by organizational guidelines and trusting that they
were performing the best they could (Duncan-Andrade, 2007).
Ridas are different. Duncan-Andrade (2007) found ridas to be often portrayed as
protagonist teachers in movies who accomplish the impossible. Ridas are reliable, deeply
emotionally involved, committed to serving their students in a context larger than that of the
school, and remain at challenging schools because they find it logical to work with people they
care so deeply about. However, the researcher argues that it does not only take exceptional
teachers to have such a remarkable impact. Duncan-Andrade states that it is teachers’ process
and purpose behind their pedagogy that makes them exceptional teachers of diverse student
populations. In his study, he studied four rida teachers who worked with disadvantaged Latino/a
students. Duncan-Andrade found five similar characteristics among all four teachers. He called
these the five pillars of effective practice. The first pillar consists of teachers who effectively
practice with a critically conscious purpose, which means they want to be part of a solution to
social inequities experienced by disadvantaged youth. The second pillar is that teachers practice
with a sense of duty, which refers to a distinctive sense of responsibility to students and the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 46
community. Constant preparation of methodology including culturally relevant pedagogy is the
third pillar. The fourth pillar of effective practice is Socratic sensibility, the continuous
acknowledgement and use of feedback and reflection to keep learning and improve practice.
Last is trust. All four rida teachers in Duncan-Andrade’s study understood that simply being a
teacher is not enough. Rida teachers are aware of how institutional racism and inequities
influence students’ ability to trust their teachers. Therefore, ridas know that trust must be earned
in order for them to help solve and diminish issues of cultural inequities.
Summary
Teachers have a huge influence over students. For many ILS, their experience with their
teachers has led to recognition of racial inequities (Barajas-Lopez; 2014; Bettie, 2000; Cohen,
2012; Connor, 2009). They have been taught that they are less than students from America who
speak perfect English. Moreover, many marginalized students have been taught the need to
assimilate to the dominant group in avoidance of being completely inferior to the dominant
group (Cheng & Lee, 2009; Cohen, 2012; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). However, properly prepared
teachers have mind frames that enable them to remove the inequities found in schools (Barajas-
Lopez, 2014; Bensimon, 2005; Clark, 2010; Cohen, 2012; Dunn et al., 2009; Rennert-Ariev,
2008; Schick & St. Denis, 2003). Specifically, teachers who hold equitable mind frames and
apply an FOK approach have the capacity to change the inequities many ILS face (Bensimon,
2005; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Lopez, 2003; Olmedo, 2004;
Rodriguez, 2013). Implementing an FOK approach changes mind frames by utilizing student
differences as assets to teaching (Moll et al., 1992; 2005; Olmedo, 2004). ILS’ academic
experiences have shown improvement through the FOK approach (Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo &
Harbon, 2010). In this study, teachers from all three mind frames, diverse, deficit, and equitable,
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 47
were studied. It is hypothesized that teachers with equitable mind frames apply a FOK
framework to their instruction to meet the needs of ILS.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 48
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The focus of the present study was to understand the mind frames of general education
high school teachers who teach ILS. High school general education teachers of ILS who hold
equitable, deficit, or diverse mind frames were investigated to determine how their awareness
manifested into their instructional strategies. To understand how equitable mind frames
influence general education teachers’ ability to serve recently ILS, the following research
questions were explored:
1) What mind frames do secondary teachers from one Southern California high school hold
of immigrated Latino/a students?
2) How do mind frames of secondary teachers from one Southern California high school
influence the instructional choices they make for Latino/a immigrant students?
As research questions drive a study, qualitative research was determined to be the best
fit for this case study, as qualitative methodologies depict richer descriptions of phenomenon
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In this case, the phenomenon was to understand the
instructional practices of equity, deficit, and diverse minded general education teachers. A
demographic questionnaire, vignette, secondary questionnaire, pre-observation interview,
observation, and post-observation interview were chosen, designed, and used to collect rich data.
Table 1 represents an overview of the methodology.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 49
Table 1
Methodology Overview

Data Collection
Method
Method of
Analysis
Rational Function Implementation
RQ1
Survey:
Demographic
Questionnaire
Descriptive
qualitative
analysis

Data
triangulation

Qualitative

Background
information
To identify
teacher
demographics
All general
education
teachers who
teach ILS and
who volunteer
to participate in
study

Phase one
RQ1
Survey:
Vignette
Descriptive
qualitative
analysis
Data
Triangulation

Qualitative

Examination of
mind frame
To identify
teacher mind
frames toward
ILS (Bensimon,
2005)
General
education
teachers who
teach ILS and
who
volunteered to
participate in
the study

Phase one
RQ1
Survey:
Secondary
Questionnaire
Descriptive
qualitative
analysis
Data
Triangulation

Qualitative

Examination of
mind frame
To identify
teacher mind
frames toward
ILS (Bensimon,
2005)

Purposeful
selection

Selected
participants will
complete the
questionnaire
prior to pre-
observation
interview

Phase two

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 50
Table 1, continued
RQ1 and RQ2
Pre-
Observation
Interview

Responses
transcribed and
coding is done
according to
emerging themes
and patterns
Data
triangulation

Qualitative

Examination of
mind frame and
instructional
practices
To identify
teacher mind
frames toward
ILS (Bensimon,
2005)

To identify the
goals and
instructional
practices that
observed during
an instructional
lesson
Purposeful
selection

One-on-one
interviews of
selected general
education high
teachers of ILS

Interview will
last 30 minutes

Phase three
RQ1 and RQ2
Observations Field notes
Coding according
to a priori codes
and emerging
themes
Data
triangulation

Qualitative data
from natural
classroom
settings

Examination of
mind frame and
instructional
practices
Data collection
in a true setting

To identify
instructional
choices that
general
education
teachers make
when
instructing ILS

To identify
teacher mind
frames toward
immigrated
Latino students
(Bensimon,
2005)

Meaning
induced
“grounded
theory”
(Merriam, p.
29)

Individual
classroom
observations of
selected
participants

Observation
will last one to
two hours

Phase three

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 51
Table 1, continued
RQ1 and RQ2
Post-
Observation
Interview
Responses
transcribed and
coding is done
according to
emerging themes
and patterns
Data
triangulation

In-depth
comprehensive
data collection

Qualitative

Examination of
mind frame and
instructional
practices

Translations of
the practices
teachers
reported and
were observed
to use to meet
the needs of
ILS.

To identify
teacher mind
frames toward
immigrated
Latino students
(Bensimon,
2005)

Purposeful
selection

One-on-one
interviews of
selected general
education high
teachers of ILS

Interview will
last one hour

Phase three

Sample and Population
For this study, equitable, diverse, and deficit mind frames of general education teachers
who teach ILS were sought. To achieve an understanding of desired perspectives, the criterion
was Southern California high school general education teachers who currently instructed ILS.
Participants needed to have obtained a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university and a
single subject teaching credential. Purposive sampling was employed as the school and
participants were selected based on what participants could contribute to the study (Merriam,
2009). The five teachers who volunteered met the criteria in phase one, discussed later in this
chapter. The participants included Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, Ms. Sanchez, and Mr.
Percer. To best contextualize the data with the findings, a brief biographical sketch will be
provided for each participant followed by a description of the high school.
Ms. Hernandez is a 57-year-old Spanish-speaking Latina with 35 years in the classroom.
She teaches history at the high school level. Ms. Hernandez originates from Mexico and
migrated to America at the age of seven with her six sisters, mother, and father. Both of her
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 52
parents worked as laborers. Ms. Hernandez’s deep connection to her ILS population and
preference to teach to this population is due to her own immigrant and ESL experience. The
eldest in her family, Ms. Hernandez was the first to graduate high school, and earned her
bachelor’s degree in Chicano Studies with a minor in English at a four-year California State
University campus. She also received her social science teaching credential at an accredited
institution as well as her Teaching English as a Second Language certificate. In addition to her
current teaching responsibilities, Ms. Hernandez is a club advisor, college meeting coordinator,
Latino theatre advisor, and Ballet Folklorico advisor.
Mr. Percer is a 40 year-old non-Spanish-speaking Caucasian history teacher with 18
years of experience. He teaches history at the high school level. He was born and raised in the
school’s city, lived one block away from where he graduated high school and worked during the
time of the study. He attended the high school and grew up in the same community where he
teaches. Mr. Percer earned his bachelor’s degree in social science, obtained his social science
teaching credential, and received his master of arts degree in educational leadership from four-
year universities. Mr. Percer coaches in addition to his teaching responsibilities.
Mr. Aguirre is 37 years old and has been teaching at the same district and school for 13
years. He teaches science at the high school level. He is an immigrated Spanish-speaking Latino
from Mexico who came to America with his father, mother, and younger brother when he was
around seven years old. Both parents were professional educators in Mexico, but changed careers
upon their arrival in America. Mr. Aguirre’s experience as an immigrant and ESL student helped
him understand the learning needs of his ILS population. Upon graduating from high school, Mr.
Aguirre pursued and earned his bachelor’s degree in biological sciences, a science teaching
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 53
credential, and a master’s degree in educational leadership. Mr. Aguirre used to coach and holds
after-school tutoring hours when needed in addition to his teaching responsibilities.
Ms. Baca is 38 years old with 10 years of teaching experience. She is an English teacher
at the secondary level. She is a Spanish-speaking Latina from Mexico who migrated to America
at the age of five with her father, mother, and sister. Ms. Baca’s understanding and connection to
her ILS come from her personal experience as a Latina immigrant and ESL student. Similar to
Ms. Hernandez and Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca was the eldest in her family and the first to graduate
high school and earn her college degree. She earned her bachelor’s degree in English and her
English teaching credential from four-year universities. On top of her teaching responsibilities,
Ms. Baca used to be the ELL course lead, college and career center coordinator, and AVID
(Advancement Via Individual Determination) teacher.
Ms. Sanchez is 31 years old and has taught for eight years, giving her the least amount of
teaching experience. She is a Spanish-speaking Latina and teaches math at the secondary level.
Born in California to two Latino parents, she was the older of two children. Although she did not
have to work, Ms. Sanchez started working at the age of 14 and took a number of honors and
advanced placement courses in high school in aims of attending a four-year college. Like Mr.
Percer, Ms. Sanchez was raised in the community in which she works. She also began and
continues to teach in the same high school from which she graduated. Similar to Ms. Hernandez,
Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca, Ms. Sanchez was the first female in her family to obtain her college
degree. She earned a bachelor’s degree in sociology, a math teaching credential, a master’s
degree in education, and an administrative credential from four-year universities. Ms. Sanchez
was an AVID teacher, after-school supervisor, and ESL math tutor in addition to her role as a
math teacher at South High School.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 54
Southwestern Union High School District and South High School, where these teachers
work, is located in Southern California. The district is composed of five comprehensive high
schools, one continuation school, one alternative studies program, and one adult school located
within 41.65 square miles (Southwestern Union High School District, 2015). In the 2015-2016
school year, the district’s students were 87% Latino/a, 8% White, 1% Asian, 1% Filipino, and
less than 1% African American (CDE, 2016a). Therefore, the district is located within a
predominantly Latino/a community. The majority of the community is of low socioeconomic
status, as 68.8% of the district’s student population received free or reduced-price meals (CDE,
2016a). Lastly, of Southwestern Union High School District’s student population, 10% was
ELL.
South High School is one of two schools within Southwestern Union High School
District’s comprehensive high schools meant to serve the ELL population. In the 2014-2015
school year, of the 2,497 students enrolled, 90.7% were Latino/a or Latino, 5.4% were White,
.8% were Asian, .9% were Filipino, and 1.6% were African American (CDE, 2016d). Therefore,
Latino/a students predominantly populated the school, which is a proportion comparable to that
of the district. Similar to the district, the majority of the student population comes from low
socioeconomic status, as 73.1% of the student population receives free or reduced-price meals
(CDE, 2016b). Furthermore, South High School’s student population consists of 8.5% ELLs,
which includes ILS. Lastly, of the ELL tenth graders, 76% scored proficient on the California
High School Exit Exam’s English language arts section and 62% scored proficient on the math
section (CDE, 2016b). Considering that the same data showed that 71% of South High School’s
2013’s ELL high school seniors graduated, which is 9% higher than in the entire district and
18% higher than in the entire state of California, this school was selected to study general
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 55
education teachers’ mind frames toward ILS and the instructional practices they choose when
working with them.
South High School, therefore, makes for a case study of one of two comprehensive
schools within Southwestern Union High School District designed to best meet ELL’s needs. Of
the 93 teachers at South High School, all, at the time of the study, were compliant with the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, as all were highly qualified to teach ELLs (CDE, 2016c, 2016d).
Furthermore, 29 teachers were Latino/a, 5 were Asian, 2 were Filipino, 55 were White, and 2 did
not indicate their ethnicity (CDE, 2016c). Based on the research questions, mind frames and
pedagogies of general education teachers who teach ILS were sought. Gaining permission to
access the school and participants was the first step in fieldwork (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007a).
Instrumentation
For this study, the instructional strategies chosen to teach ILS according to teacher mind
frames were of interest. Six separate instruments were used to collect findings: three surveys
(Appendices A, B, and C), one pre-observation interview protocol (Appendix D), one
observation protocol (Appendix E), and one post-observation interview protocol (Appendix F).
Prior to describing the instruments, the process for gaining access to the participants is explained.
The researcher gained access to the participants and school through an overt process. To
start, the principal of South High School was contacted. Not only was being overt imperative for
ethical reasons, but it also supported good rapport between the researcher and the participants
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007a). The researcher met with the principal and explained the purpose of
the study in order to gain the principal’s support. The researcher explained that three surveys
(demographic questionnaire, vignette, and secondary questionnaire), one observation, and two
interviews would be used to collect data. The principal was also informed that participants’
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 56
identities would not be revealed and, instead, each would be given a pseudonym. At the end of
the meeting, the researcher answered all questions the principal had concerning the study. The
researcher emailed the general recruitment letter and information sheet, which asked for teacher
participation and explained the study, to the principal after the meeting. For anonymity reasons,
the principal emailed the letter and sheet to all teachers meeting the participant criteria and later
contacted the researcher to notify her of the teachers who chose to participate.
The general recruitment letter and information sheet the principal sent out to all teachers
described the purpose of the study and explained that participation would consist of three
surveys, two interviews, and one observation of instruction. The letter and sheet described that
participants would be involved in three data collection phases (Figure 1). The first two phases
involved three surveys that allowed the researcher to learn more about the participants and their
mind frames, a less intrusive method for uncovering valuable data about teacher mind frames
(Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 2009).

Figure 1. Three Phases of Study
• Research

Question
One

• Instruments

• Demographic

Questionnaire

• Vignette

Phase
One

• Research

Question
One

• Instruments

• Secondary

Questionniare

Phase
Two

• Research
Question

One
and
Two

• Instruments

• Pre-‐Observation

Interview

• Observation

• Post-‐
Observation

Interview

Phase
Three

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 57
In the first phase, the demographic questionnaire collected data regarding teachers’
background information (Appendix A). Participants also completed a vignette wherein three
teachers were depicted and respondents had to identify with the teacher with whom they could
most relate (Appendix B). Using purposive sampling, respondents were selected based on what
they could contribute to the study (Merriam, 2009). Based on the responses found in phase one,
five subject general education teachers who met the criterion, demonstrated having either
diverse, deficit, or equitable mind frames, instructed ILS in core subject areas (i.e., math,
English, science, or history), earned a bachelor’s degree, and held a single subject teaching
credential were selected as participants. The criteria of all three of the mind frames are listed in
Table 2.
The second phase involved participants completing the secondary questionnaire. The
survey gathered information about teachers’ mind frames. Participants filled out the secondary
questionnaire, which was comprised of 30 statements (Appendix C). All 30 statements pertained
to mind frames; specifically, 12 related to equitable mind frames, 10 related to deficit mind
frames, and eight related to diverse mind frames. The survey asked participants about their data
regarding their practices and beliefs, collecting data about the behaviors, opinions, feelings and
knowledge. Participants were asked to strongly agree, moderately agree, strongly disagree or
moderately disagree with the 30 statements. Based on the highest frequencies of responses to the
vignette and secondary questionnaire surveys from phases one and two, participants were placed
into three groups: teachers who are equitable minded, teachers who are deficit minded, and
teachers who are diverse minded.
Phase three consisted of three separate meetings. Two were interviews (i.e., pre-
observation and post-observation) that were audio recorded with participants’ permission. The
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 58
pre-observation interview was designed to gain information about participants’ mind frame, to
discuss the instructional teaching lesson that would be observed, and to ask clarifying questions.
The post-observation interview was designed to gain information about the participants’ mind
frames, instructional choices observed during the lesson, and ask follow-up questions. The
observation was the third meeting and it provided a first-hand encounter with the phenomenon
being studied (Merriam, 2009). The observation was of one instructional lesson designed to
gather data relating participants’ instructional choices. The observation in this study came
between interviews one and two, helping to further triangulate data regarding teacher mind
frames regarding ILS and instructional practices used with ILS. Figure 1 provides an overview of
the phases as they relate to the two research questions and instruments used in this study.
Descriptions of the instruments follow.
Table 2
Bensimon’s (2005) Mind Frames
Diverse Deficit Equitable
• Attuned to demographic
differences
• Blind to diverse students’
inequitable educational
outcomes
• Cognizant of diverse
student population and
racial disparities in
educational outcomes
• Attributes the negative
educational outcomes of
marginalized students to
racial and cultural
stereotypes
• Impervious to their own
attribution in creating or
solving diverse students’
inequitable educational
outcomes
• Intentionally focused on
diverse students’
inequitable educational
outcomes
• View inequities in the
context of a history of
exclusion and
discrimination
• Understand that individual
beliefs, expectations, and
actions influence diverse
students’ educational
outcomes

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 59
Surveys
Surveys are a more direct way of collecting and triangulating data (Creswell, 2014; Fink,
2013). Surveys consist of questionnaires used to describe, compare, or explain individual and
societal knowledge, feelings, values, preferences, and behavior (Fink, 2013). The instruments’
purpose was to analyze teacher mind frames by asking questions about personal experience,
behaviors, values, opinions, feelings, knowledge, and demographics. Surveys evaluate the
effectiveness of programs as a means of changing people’s knowledge, attitudes, health or
welfare (Fink, 2013). Therefore, the use of the surveys in this study meet the demands of
Research Question One regarding teacher mind frames. The surveys also aided in triangulating
data with the interviews and observations. The surveys used in phase one and two provided a
snapshot into respondents’ background, mind frames, and opinions that would have otherwise
remained unknown to an evaluator (Merriam, 2009). All three surveys were adapted from a
study by Arredondo (2011), who measured the beliefs and use of a constructivist instruction and
learning approaches among 10 elementary school math teachers from two urban elementary
schools in Southern California. Arredondo’s three instruments are valid and reliable, as they
measured both mind frames and instructional practice and provide results with internal
consistency.
The first survey was a demographic questionnaire developed by Arredondo (2011). The
second survey, the vignette, was also adapted from Arredondo’s study, but the content was based
upon Bensimon’s (2005) working definitions of deficit, diverse, and equitable mind frames.
Although subjective, the purpose of surveys one and two was to gather information and beliefs of
the participants (Merriam, 2009). The third survey was the secondary questionnaire used to
gather additional information about teacher’s mind frames. The content used to develop the third
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 60
survey was based on Bensimon’s (2005) working definition of the three mind frames and Moll et
al.’s (1992, 2005) research and working definition of FOK.
The surveys were included as a means of gathering data that may have been otherwise
timelier to gather and a method that did not intrude or alter any settings (Fink, 2013; Merriam,
2009). Data gathered from all three surveys assisted in gathering information that may have
otherwise been unseen or unheard in interviews and observations (Merriam, 2009).
Interviews
Interviews were used to gather descriptive data and provide insights into the way
participants interpreted their own teaching experiences (Patton, 2002). Understanding how
general education teachers described what they believed attributed to their instructional choices,
as well as gaining additional data on participants’ mind frames, was critical to this study,
specifically because equitable mind frames and FOK have been shown to benefit the learning of
diverse students (Bensimon, 2005; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon, 2010). Therefore,
interviews were a necessary tool in understanding the unobservable feelings and perspectives of
general education teachers (Merriam, 2009).
Pre- and post-observation interviews were conducted in this study using protocols. The
first interview (i.e., pre-observation interview) gathered information about the lessons and
instruction that would be used during the observations. Following the observations, a second
interview (i.e., post-observation interview) was held for each participant in order to gather
additional information regarding mind frames and instructional practices. The interview
protocols were semi-structured with close- and open-ended questions. The protocols began with
a brief introduction, which included a description about the purpose of the study. The
introductions asked participants for their permission to record the interviews, aiding in building
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 61
rapport with participants by being overt about the purpose of the study and open about audio
recording of the interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007a; Patton, 2002). Gaining permission to
audiotape an interview also allowed for a richer focus on the participants’ verbal responses
(Patton, 2002).
Interview questions were adapted from Bensimon’s (2005, 2013) work on mind frames
and her document analysis protocol to gather information regarding mind frames. For
information regarding FOK pedagogy, interview questions were derived from Moll et al.’s
(1992, 2005) FOK research. The translation of these works paid careful attention to factors of
reliability and validity of the protocol. Furthermore, comments and reactions are not easily
captured by a tape recorder (Merriam, 2009). The interviewer, therefore, allowed space under
each question to note how particular comments made connections to other interviews and
observations. An area for expanded notes section was also included to help process the data and
to begin analysis, as post-interview notes are recommended for a richer data analysis (Merriam,
2007). Observations were conducted in addition to interviews to triangulate data from the
interviews.
Observations
Observations allowed for drawing inferences that could not be obtained solely through
interview data (Maxwell, 2013). For this study, there was one observation per participant in an
effort to gather information regarding the instructional decisions of general education teachers.
The observations allowed the researcher to affirm or deny the claims teacher participants made
on the surveys and during their interviews. In fact, Merriam (2009) states that observations aid
in triangulating data, confirming and/or denying data collected through other measures.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 62
Observations also allowed the participants’ mind frames and instructional practices to be
evaluated in their teaching settings (Merriam, 2009).
For this study, the observer assumed the role of complete observer while discerning the
class instruction, behaviors, interactions, and instructional strategies employed by the general
education teacher participants as they worked with ILS. The observations allowed for a first-
hand encounter with the instructional practices manifested through teacher mind frames and
added knowledge about the context of problem (Merriam, 2009). To assist in the collection
process, an observation protocol was developed using the guidelines of Bogdan and Biklen
(2007b) and Merriam (2009). The protocol was used to record and organize notes and data. The
researcher began the notes with headings for basic information (i.e., date, time, names of
participants, duration of observation, and setting). Specific content assessed by the researcher
was directed and adapted from Bensimon’s (2013) document analysis protocol on equity minded
practices, Bensimon’s (2005) working definition of the three mind frames, and Moll et al.’s
(1992, 2005) working definition of FOK. The research questions were also noted after the
headings to help the researcher look for and observe particular practices, behaviors, and
interactions pertaining to the research questions (Merriam, 2009). Visuals and portraits of
settings were useful for descriptive purposes and support analysis and drawing of inferences
from data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b).
The protocol was set up with two columns. One column was for observation information
and the other for observer comments. There was space under the columns for extensive notes,
which were taken right after each observation. Notes consisted of information regarding
practices, resources, activities, conversations, and observed interactions. This structure allowed
for more room to record observation information and observer comments that noted the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 63
researcher’s reflections of analysis, methods, problems, frame of mind, and points that needed
further clarification (Bogdan and Biklen, 2007b; 2007c). This structure also allowed for
extensive field notes, which were imperative after the observations took place and were
descriptive in order to fill in any gaps the researcher may not initially note, make analysis easier,
and provide richer description (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b; Merriam, 2009).
To further assist the researcher in easily locating specific notes, both the interview and
observation protocols’ field notes and extensive notes were typed up. Wide margins on the
protocols were allotted to allow room for coding during analysis (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b;
Merriam, 2009). Multiple data collection methods were used in this study for triangulation and
in support of the data’s validity and reliability (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Table 3
presents the organization of data collection.
Table 3
Gantt Chart Schedule of Data Collection and Analysis
Data Collection
Review
September October November
Surveys x x
Observations x x
Interviews x x

Data Collection
After permission to conduct the study was granted, an invitation and information letter to
participate in the interviews was sent out to teachers by the principal to maintain anonymity
(Appendices G and H). The teachers who accepted the invitation began with the surveys.
Specifically, phase one began and teachers were given a demographic questionnaire and vignette.
Phase two followed and participants were reminded again of the purpose of the study and given
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 64
the secondary questionnaire. All surveys were collected and examined upon completion in order
to determine the authenticity of the responses (Merriam, 2009). The researcher analyzed the
surveys alone. The surveys assisted in cataloging the data (Merriam, 2009), classifying data into
one of three mind frames: equitable, diverse, or deficit. The researcher asked participants follow-
up questions about the surveys during the pre- or post-interviews.
One-on-one interviews were audio recorded for accurate and detailed data (Patton, 2002;
Weiss, 1994). Interviews were held prior to observations to help the researcher determine the
teachers’ mind frames and to fill in gaps in the data obtained through the surveys (Merriam,
2009). The questions for the first interview collected evidence about teachers’ mind frames, the
lesson, and instruction prior to observation. The second interview was used to gather further
information about the phenomena regarding mind frames, instructional practices, and
relationship between the both. The protocol was sequenced by research questions that began
with descriptive questions and then moved to questions dealing with mind frames, emotions,
values, and opinions (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007a; Merriam, 2009). The protocol posed open-
ended questions that elicited detailed responses and encouraged discussions (Bogdan & Biklen,
2007a; Patton, 2002; Weiss, 1994). The researcher listened for markers and probed for more
detailed information regarding topics that helped answer the research question regarding
pedagogies used during instruction and mind frames of recently ILS (Weiss, 2002). Notes were
taken during and after the interview to capture data the recording could not (e.g., behaviors,
reactions, patterns), which helped facilitate later analysis and provided a back-up of data
(Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002).
Observations were conducted one per each participant in his or her general education
high school classroom where ILS were present. The researcher took field notes during
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 65
observations. Given the role of a complete observer, more comprehensible and detailed notes
were taken (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b; Merriam, 2009). Using the observation protocol, the
focus was the practices, resources, activities, conversations, and interactions the general
education teachers had with her or her students. Additionally, observation notes and observer
comments were collected to provide additional data on mind frames and instructional practices
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007b; Merriam, 2009). Following each observation, expanded notes were
written the same day to allow the researcher to monitor the process of data collection, allowing
for analysis to begin (Merriam, 2009).
Data Analysis
To answer Research Question One regarding the mind frames secondary teachers hold of
recently ILS, questionnaires, interviews, and observation were conducted. Teacher mind frames
were compared to Bensimon’s (2005) three comparative mind frames (i.e., diverse, deficit, and
equitable) in understanding that inequities are perpetuated through mind frames that are
influenced by socially constructed institutional norms. For this study, the first phase of analysis
consisted of a list of a priori codes. The codes included color consciousness, awareness of racial
patterns, diversity valued, eliminating inequities, equal expectations, and cultural inclusivity.
The codes originated from the literature review and were chosen to begin this study’s analysis, as
they helped identify segments of the data responsive to the research question (Merriam, 2009).
The second phase of the analysis consisted of finding patterns using axial coding. Open
codes gathered from the surveys, interviews, and observation were reviewed. Finding
commonalities among codes, a running list classifying recurring regularities and patterns within
the data were recorded using a codebook (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Merriam, 2009). Once
commonalities emerged, axial codes were listed in the codebook and aligned with the relative
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 66
research questions. The reoccurrence of each code was documented according to its location and
accompanied by a brief comment describing that occurrence. Reoccurring codes were considered
as emerging themes and organized to help with phase three.
The third phase involved selective coding, development of core categories and themes
(Merriam, 2009). Miles, Huberman, and Saldana (2014) advised mapping pattern codes by
visually laying them out, in a network display, to see how the codes interconnect. Therefore,
codes derived during the second phase were visually connected using a variety of strategies, but,
specifically, two mainstay strategies: asking questions and making comparisons (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). Asking questions and making comparisons of the data helped with deeper
probing of the data.
Interviews and observations were also conducted to address Research Question Two.
Instructional practices were analyzed and compared to the FOK teaching approach. For analysis
of the three surveys, the same three phases took place. Descriptive statistics were utilized to
provide information between participants of all mind frames and within participants of the same
mind frame prior to coding in phase one. Content analysis is a systematic procedure for
describing, analyzing, and interpreting data (Merriam, 2009), therefore focusing on identifying
themes and patterns across questionnaire items. The surveys in this study were assessed and
coded for commonalities in phase two. Phase three remained the same. For interviews and
observations, the same three phases listed above took place after CastingWords, a transcription
service, transcribed the audio recordings of the interviews. Notes from both the interviews and
observations were coded and supported data analysis in four ways (Patton, 2002): by formulating
new probing questions as the interview went along (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2007); by providing
a back-up in case something happened to the recording; by facilitating later analysis, including
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 67
locating important interviewee quotes; and by stimulating early insights. The researcher used the
same codebook for consistency and to add to emerging themes. Making comparisons of incidents
within the data helped uncover different properties and dimensions of a code in comparison to
the literature, surveys, interviews, and observations.
Summary
This chapter presented the methodology the study used. The research design, sample and
setting, and instrumentation were described. Three data sources are relevant to this study:
surveys, interviews, and observations. Data collection was also described in this chapter. The
interviews helped identify the mind frames of teachers as well as gather data regarding the
instructional choices they repeated using when instructing ILS. The document reviews,
interviews, and observations were all used to triangulate data, determining teacher mind frames
and instructional choices manifested through those mind frames. Moreover, this chapter
explained the data analysis procedures this study took. The goal of this study was to identify
teacher mind frames and the instructional choices they used to instruct ILS. Findings from this
study acknowledge the importance of developing teachers’ mind frames to recognize and
challenge the status quo by implementing a FOK approach to provide ILS a better education.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 68
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
In this chapter, the findings and analysis of the data collected are presented. The purpose
of this study was to analyze the mind frames of general education teachers who taught ILS, as
well as the instructional choices exhibited according each mind frame. Specifically, the mind
frames and instructional practices of five teachers from a comprehensive high school in Southern
California were analyzed in the study.
The theoretical frameworks of CRT and FOK informed the research questions. Pertinent
literature identified overarching themes that were used to analyze the collected data. Five
themes identified the data: equitable mind frames, deficit mind frames, diverse mind frames,
FOK instructional strategies, and non-FOK instructional strategies. The overarching themes are
presented respectively to the data collected in an organized manner in order to answer the study’s
two research questions.
Participants completed three surveys, partook in two interviews, and participated in one
instructional observation in three phases. Phase one consisted of the two surveys, phase two
consisted of the third survey, and phase three consisted of the interviews and observation. Phase
one included the demographic questionnaire (Appendix A). Among the prompts on the
questionnaire, there were two items that identified the teachers as general education teachers of
one of four content areas: English, math, history, or science. In phase one, participants also
completed a vignette (Appendix B). Phase one also included the vignette to identify that the
participants held a mind frame. Specifically, four teachers identified with the equitable mind
framed teacher and one identified with the diverse mind framed teacher. Based on responses to
the demographic questionnaire and vignette, all five participants were selected from the initial
phase because they all met the criteria: secondary core content teachers of ILS who identified
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 69
with at least one mind frame. The participating teachers were Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms.
Baca, Mr. Percer, and Ms. Sanchez. Ms. Hernandez teaches history, Mr. Aguirre teaches science,
Ms. Baca teaches English, Mr. Percer teaches history, and Ms. Sanchez teaches math.
Data analysis from the two surveys (i.e., demographic questionnaire and vignette) address
Researach Question One (RQ1), as well as data from the third survey (i.e., secondary
questionnaire), the two interviews, and the one observation each participant completed and
participated in. By analyzing each teacher’s mind frames, instructional trends according to
teacher mind frames were uncovered to address Research Question Two (RQ2). This qualitative
study generated descriptive data of mind frames that contributed to teaching with either a non-
FOK or a FOK approach.
To begin this chapter, data from the surveys, interviews, and observation for RQ1
regarding teacher mind frames are introduced, presented, and related to literature. Data for RQ2
regarding teachers’ instructional choices are introduced, presented, and related to literature,
thereafter. Implications of the overall findings are then addressed. A summary of the findings
concludes the chapter.
Research Question One
To address RQ1, the data are presented in the following order: vignette (Appendix B),
secondary questionnaire (Appendix C), and interviews and observation (Appendices D, E, and
F). The frequencies from the three surveys are triangulated with data from the interviews and
observation to determine teacher mind frames. Bensimon’s (2005) three mind frames were used
as categories: equitable, deficit, and diverse. Data are respectively discussed according to
methodology. The data from all collection methods provided a rich description of the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 70
participants. The description is presented, as it contextualized the data and delineated the
findings of the study to both research questions. The data for RQ1 is then related to literature.
Vignette
The vignette from phase one was used to determine teacher mind frames. Participants
read three descriptions of teachers and answered four prompts that asked them to identify with
the teacher they related to the most. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and Ms. Sanchez
identified with equitable mind frames. Mr. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca checked
“Definitely Teacher Three” on all four prompts. Ms. Sanchez, though, checked two of the four
“Definitely Teacher Three” prompts and two of the four “Tend Toward Teacher Three” prompts,
therefore demonstrating less identification to equity mindedness. Mr. Percer, on the other hand,
demonstrated the highest consistency in identification with the diverse minded teacher depicted
in the vignette and a low consistency in identification with the equity minded teacher. Mr. Percer
checked one of the four “Tend Toward Teacher Three” prompts, but showed a stronger
inclination toward diverse mindedness by checking “Tend Toward Teacher Two” on three out of
the four prompts. Therefore, all participants indicated a strong identification with one of the three
mind frames (Table 4). Teacher one demonstrated a deficit mind frame, teacher two a diverse
mind frame, and teacher three and equitable mind frame.
Table 4
Participants’ Mind Frames: Vignettes
Equitable Mind Frame Deficit Mind Frame Diverse Mind Frame
Ms. Hernandez

Mr. Percer
Mr. Aguirre

Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 71
The data show that most of the participants hold equitable mind frames. The data also
suggest that participants’ mind frames may not be mutually exclusive. Bensimon (2005) noted
participants with multiple mind frames in her study. Similar to her study, two of the participants
in this study also showed to have multiple mind frames. Although she agreed with all equitable
mind frame prompts, Ms. Sanchez’s “Tend Towards Teacher Three” response indicated a
possible inclination toward a different mind frame. Mr. Percer’s responses showed a higher
frequency toward diverse minded teachers. However, he chose “Tend Towards Teacher Two”,
indicating a possible inclination toward a different mind frame. In fact, he indicated that he
related to equitable minded teachers, but with less frequency. The inclinations toward various
mind frames may be related to CRT’s tenet of critique liberalism, which suggests that individuals
are often unaware of their mind frames (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).
Data, therefore, indicate that the two participants are not aware of their mind frames, resulting in
their inclination toward holding multiple mind frames.
Secondary Questionnaire
After the vignettes, the five participants moved to phase two. The participants completed
the secondary questionnaire that consisted of 30 items related to Bensimon’s (2005) three mind
frames: equitable, deficit, and diverse (Appendix C). Of the items, 12 were dedicated to equitable
mind frames, 10 were dedicated to deficit mind frames, and 8 were dedicated to diverse mind
frames (Table 5). The items of the secondary questionnaire were used in conjunction with the
data from the vignette to identify the mind frame of each participant. Questionnaire items were
grouped together according to the mind frame they represented. Teachers responded to the items
using a four-item Likert-scale (i.e., strongly disagree, moderately disagree, moderately agree,
and strongly agree). Participants’ responses were individually analyzed (Table 6). Participants
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 72
who agreed with at least 70% of either the equitable, deficit or diverse mind framed items were
considered to have a prominent identification to that particular mind frame (Table 7).
Table 5
Number of Questionnaire Items Per Mind Frame
Mind Frames N
Equitable 12
Deficit 10
Diverse 8

Table 6
Mind Frame Items: Secondary Questionnaire
Participant
Equitable Mind
Frame
Deficit Mind
Frame
Diverse Mind Frame
Ms. Hernandez 11 of 12 7 of 10 3 of 8

92% 70% 38%
Mr. Aguirre 12 of 12 4 of 10 6 of 8

100% 40% 75%
Ms. Baca 10 of 12 6 of 10 4 of 8

83% 60% 50%
Ms. Sanchez 12 of 12 4 of 10 7 of 8

100% 40% 88%
Mr. Percer 8 of 12 2 of 10 1 of 8

67% 20% 13%

Table 7
Prominent Mind Frame Identification: Secondary Questionnaire
Equitable Mind Frame Deficit Mind Frame Diverse Mind Frame
Ms. Hernandez Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre

Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca

Ms. Sanchez Ms. Sanchez

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 73
Consistent with the findings of the vignette, the majority of the participants identified
with equitable mind frames. Three of the five participants also showed multiple mind frames,
similar to the participants Bensimon (2005) studied. The finding also aligns with critique
liberalism’s notion that people are often unaware of their beliefs and attitudes (DeCuir & Dixson,
2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Lack of awareness regarding participants’ mind frames may,
again, be a contributing factor multiple prominent mind frames of four of the five participants.
Mr. Percer is the only participant who did not indicate a strong relationship with any of
the three mind frames on the secondary questionnaire. He did indicate some inclination toward
each mind frame; however, none resulted in a prominent mind frame. Mr. Percer’s lack of
prominent identity to any mind frame mirrors diverse mind frame’s lack of cognizance regarding
the inequities stemming from institutionalized social racism (Bensimon, 2005). His lack of
cognizance and prominent identity, therefore, showed to relate to critique liberalism’s notion of
the unconscious mind frame (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).
Furthermore, Mr. Percer’s lack of strong identification with any of the mind frames could also be
related to CRT’s tenet of permanence of racism, where institutionalized social inequities are
perpetuated by the political, economic, and social institutions governed by the dominant group
(DeCuir & Dixson, 2004), which Mr. Percer demonstrates to be unaware of. To get a better
understanding, further analysis of the items is discussed next.
Using analysis that focuses on consistent data further facilitated the identification of
participants’ mind frames. Therefore, items were evaluated within groups (i.e., equitable, deficit,
and diverse). A consensus among participants who selected “Moderately Agree” and “Strongly
Agree” within the equitable, deficit, and diverse minded groups were analyzed. Higher
consistency per statement meant a high level of consensus among the teachers about particular
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 74
teaching practices, specifically for multicultural students. High consistency also meant that those
practices were more likely to be taking place in the classroom. Focusing the analysis on
questions where responses were more consistent, helped to identify the beliefs and instructional
practices most prevalent within each mind frame. Group consensuses of 65% were considered
strong. On the contrary, items with low frequency showed that they were less likely to be seen in
the classroom.
Using the selected criteria defined by Bensimon (2005), the first group of questions
focused on equitable mind frames, referring to teachers with a strong focus on diversity,
inequities, and social justice. The same participants who demonstrated equitable mind frames on
the vignettes also demonstrated equitable mind frames on the secondary questionnaires.
Therefore, Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and Ms. Sanchez agreed to 70% of the items
dedicated to equitable mindedness. All four of their responses were then analyzed as a group.
There was a response rate of 65% or above to all 12 items dedicated to equity mindedness (Table
8). Specifically, the four participants strongly agreed that students needed connections with the
content, that connections needed to relate with students’ own life experiences, and that learning
should relate to real-world problems existing within one’s own community. They strongly
agreed about the instructional integration of students’ racial and cultural backgrounds, including
the use of bilingualism. All four participants also strongly agreed with the use of multiple
assessments as well as with supporting and monitoring the autonomy of student learning. All
four participants moderately agreed that teachers know students well enough to veer from the
scripts of mandated curriculum. Three of the four participants strongly and one moderately
agreed that teachers and students should co-construct knowledge. Three of the four participants
moderately and one strongly agreed that ELLs should participate in classroom decision-making.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 75
Two participants moderately and one strongly agreed that teachers should provide students with
assignment choices. One participant moderately and two strongly agreed that critical thinking
about racial inequities should be promoted during instruction. Lastly, one participants
moderately and two strongly agreed that teachers should provide students with assignment
choices. Thus, teachers with strong equity minded identification believed student learning
needed to value and be connected to students’ first space knowledge, skills, and strategies (Moll
et al., 1992, 2005; Rodriguez, 2013). Mr. Percer agreed with less than 70% of the items
dedicated to any of the mind frames. Therefore, his responses are not recorded, but are
mentioned as his highest identification was with equity mindedness. Mr. Percer agreed to 8 of
the 12 equity minded items.
Table 8
Equitable Mind Frame Items
Items Moderately Agreed Strongly Agreed
It is important for students to see the connection
between what they already know and new material.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Students need to connect new information and
concepts to their own life experiences.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Teachers know much more about their students;
they should not follow mandated curriculum like a
script.
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Building on students racial and cultural
backgrounds helps extend learning.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 76
Table 8, continued
Teachers need to use multiple assessments to
measure student learning.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Teachers need to value students’ bilingualism.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Learning should engage with real-world problems
that are situated in diverse communities.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Students and teachers need to co-construct
knowledge in educational settings.

Ms. Hernandez

Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
It is important to support and monitor student
autonomy and choice during learning experiences.

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Programs and activities need to promote critical
thinking about racial inequities and how to
dismantle them.
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Hernandez
Ms. Sanchez
It is better when the teacher provides students with
assignment choices.
Ms. Hernandez
Ms. Sanchez
Mr. Aguirre
English language learners should participate in
classroom decision-making.
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
Ms. Hernandez

Additionally, 10 items were dedicated to deficit mind frames, where teachers showed
awareness of inequitable educational outcomes, but attributed these outcomes to racial and
cultural stereotypes without realizing they perpetuate the educational inequities through
conscious or subconscious stereotypical attributions (Bensimon, 2005). Ms. Hernandez was the
only participant who had a strong identification with a deficit mind frame, agreeing to seven of
the 10 deficit minded items. Ms. Hernandez’s items were compared to the participant with the
second highest response rate to deficit mind frame items. Ms. Baca had the second highest
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 77
response rate to the items, with 60%. Therefore, both participants’ responses were analyzed for
consistency and consensus.
Analysis showed that both participants agreed with three of the 10 items dedicated deficit
minded frames (Table 9). Ms. Hernandez and Ms. Baca strongly agreed that parents of at-risk
youth needed to be more committed to their child’s education. The consensus between
participants is consistent with findings from Monzo (2013) and Quiocho and Daoud, (2009),
where teachers with deficit mind frames assume Latino/a students are academically challenged
because their parents are unintelligent, passive, dependent, and uninterested in the education of
their children. Both participants agreed at varying levels that all students should be able to utilize
the computer lab after school. Similarly, both participants agreed on varying levels that all ELLs
would struggle academically despite the efforts of their teachers. Consistent with the tendencies
to deficit mind frames to contribute failure of work completion to racial stereotypes, such as lack
of parental care and academic ability (Bensimon, 2005).
Table 9
Deficit Mind Frame Items
Items Moderately Agreed Strongly Agreed
All students should be able to type their essays
when there is a computer lab available after
school.
Ms. Baca Ms. Hernandez
At-risk students’ parents need to be more
committed to their child’s education.
Ms. Hernandez
Ms. Baca
English language learners will continue to
struggle academically, even if their teachers
value bilingualism.
Ms. Hernandez Ms. Baca

Lastly, eight items were dedicated to diverse mind frames. Diverse mind frames are
attuned to demographic differences, but are unaware of the racial inequities (Bensimon, 2005).
Of the five participants, Mr. Aguirre and Ms. Sanchez agreed to 70% or more of the items
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 78
dedicated to diverse mindedness. Analysis showed a high consistency with five out of the eight
items (Table 10). On each of the five agreed items, Mr. Aguirre answered with “Moderately
Agree” and Ms. Sanchez answered with “Strongly Agree”. This is noted, as it will later
triangulate with data from the vignettes, interviews, and observations confirming Mr. Aguirre
and Ms. Sanchez’s dominant mind frames. Nevertheless, both agreed that a racially diverse
student population meant valuing diversity and a commitment toward social justice, that hero-
holidays demonstrate valuing diversity and promote critical thinking about racial inequalities,
and that giving students multiple chances to take the same test means equity. As previously
discussed, diverse mind frames view diversity in terms of interracial contact and human
relations, but they do not concede that disadvantaged groups face inequities (Bensimon; 2005;
Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Furthermore, using a heroes and holidays teaching approach does
not constitute social justice and further marginalizes the racial inequities experienced by different
racial groups (Olmedo, 2004). Therefore, the perceptions and beliefs shown with these five
items are highly consistent with both participants and Bensimon’s (2005) definition of diverse
mind frames. This means that these perceptions and beliefs are more likely to be demonstrated
during interviews and observations.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 79
Table 10
Diverse Mind Frame Items
Items Moderately Agree Strongly Agree
Racially diverse schools demonstrate a
commitment to social justice and elimination
of discrimination.
Mr. Aguirre Ms. Sanchez
Schools that celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.
and Cesar Chavez days promote critical
thinking about racial inequities.
Mr. Aguirre Ms. Sanchez
All students have an equal opportunity to
succeed when given multiple retakes on the
same test.
Mr. Aguirre Ms. Sanchez
Schools show they value diversity if the
student population is multi-racial.
Mr. Aguirre Ms. Sanchez
Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and Cesar
Chavez day demonstrates one’s value of
diversity.
Mr. Aguirre Ms. Sanchez

Interviews and Observations
In phase three, the five teachers participated in two interviews and one instructional
teaching observation. Data from interviews and observations were used for deeper analysis and
triangulation of emerging trends. Similar with the vignettes and secondary questionnaire,
interview and observation data showed that teachers operated with multiple mind frames (Table
11). Therefore, the analysis presents emerging findings from teachers who demonstrated
equitable mind frames. Findings regarding teachers with deficit mind frames will follow and the
section ends with findings pertaining to teachers with diverse mind frames.
Table 11
Teacher Mind Frames: Interviews and Observations
Equitable Mind Frame Deficit Mind Frame Diverse Mind Frame
Ms. Hernandez Mr. Percer Mr. Percer
Mr. Aguirre Ms. Sanchez

Ms. Baca

Ms. Sanchez

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 80
Analysis of data from interviews and observation showed five emerging themes
regarding equity mind frame characteristics. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and Ms.
Sanchez demonstrated at least two of the equitable mind frame characteristics found in the five
emerging themes (Table 12). Each theme is consistent with Bensimon’s (2005) definition of
equity minded individuals. The first theme involved awareness of ILS inequities. The second
theme involved participants as change agents. The third theme that emerged involved teachers
providing social capital to ILS. The fourth theme that emerged involved teachers’ high
expectations of ILS. The fifth theme that emerged was teachers’ own immigrant experience.
Table 12
Interviews and Observations: Equitable Mind Frames: Five Emerging Themes
Theme Corresponding Participants
1. Awareness of inequities faced by
immigrated Latino students

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca

2. Acting as change agents to ILS

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca

3. Providing social capital to ILS

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
4. Holding high expectations for ILS

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez
5. Immigrant experience

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 81
Theme one involved Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca and exhibited an
awareness of the inequities faced by ILS due to students’ limited English language proficiency
among three of the four equitable minded teachers. During the observation of Ms. Hernandez’s
instruction, she focused much of her attention on language development. Questioned about her
focus, Ms. Hernandez stated,
These kids have to take the same benchmarks as the regular kids. If I mention the
guillotine in the French Revolution to the regular kids, it’s normal. But if I don’t repeat,
and repeat and have [the ILS] repeat while they’re competing with the regular vocabulary
kids, I know as an ESL teacher I have to concentrate on vocabulary.
Similarly, in response to how he prepares instruction for ILS, Mr. Aguirre replied,
I use the analogy all the time…vocabulary is like Legos. They need those Legos. Then,
that way, they can put together and build knowledge. I think most of the time, teachers
focus on building the knowledge without understanding what the pieces are to build that
knowledge… once they have the vocabulary, they acquire the language, then they won’t
stumble on those things. They can concentrate on the core idea.
Ms. Baca also reported language as a barrier. She stated ILS experienced institutional racism in
classrooms when their teachers refused to teach them in their native language or allow the
students to use any Spanish at all:
When you refuse to teach them, it’s institutional racism…There’s been instances in this
school where there is a science teacher that doesn’t allow them to speak Spanish. They’re
not talking about their drama. Sometimes they are, but who cares? They’re teenagers.
Sometimes, they’re really just helping each other out, and she doesn’t allow them, and it
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 82
pisses me off. Like, it really makes me mad. I can’t go up to her and tell her off, but I can
teach the kids their rights.
Regardless of the subject they teach or the fact that they all speak Spanish, all four teachers
demonstrated equitable mind frames through an awareness of inequities. The four teachers were
especially aware that inequities stemmed from the students’ inability to participate in academic
English discourse.
The second theme showed Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca acting as change
agents for ILS. Mr. Aguirre was not only aware of inequities stemming from deviations from the
dominant English discourse, but he also voiced his awareness to his students. Like the two other
participants who acted as change agents, Mr. Aguirre was honest with his students about the
disadvantages they faced and open about what they needed to do to successfully maneuver
through the schools. At the beginning of his lesson on photosynthesis, Mr. Aguirre told his
students how important their understanding of vocabulary and content knowledge was for their
future:
You guys know this. You guys can do anything! You can do anything in science. It’s
like unlocking the key. You’ll be in chemistry next year and be like, “That’s easy!” And
you’ll see your friends who didn’t have me, and they’ll be lost…You guys will know the
fundamentals…If I would have known all of this, maybe I would have taken the MCAT
[Medical College Admission Test]. Do any of you guys know what is the MCAT?
As previously quoted, Ms. Baca gave her students the knowledge of their rights to enable them to
fight for an equitable education. She also gave her ILS her time and resources to help them
apply to four-year colleges. Upon walking up to Ms. Baca’s class to meet her and conduct our
first interview, Ms. Baca was surrounded by students. The bell rang to go to nutrition, but the
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 83
students remained around her asking her questions in Spanish about their college applications.
Eventually, the interview began, and, during the interview, Ms. Baca reflected. She stated that
students did not feel proud of their background because of how they were treated in school for
being immigrants. Therefore, she adamantly told her students to be proud of who they were and
to use their story as their college entrance essay because that is what made them special. She
said that she used her own story to inspire her students:
When I got to junior high and high school, I knew my culture, and I was proud of it.
White kids saying things to me, I was just like, “OK, that’s your opinion.” Like, I was
always very orgullosa, very proud of being who I am. I want the kids to feel that,
especially the primary language kids. It’s harder for them. I want them to see the value in
their journey and not get stuck there because so many of them get stuck there and they
allow the other kids like the regular population of students to define them.
Ms. Baca encouraged her students to write their essays about their challenges as ILS.
Additionally, when asked why she chose a novel about Latinos illegally migrating to America,
Ms. Baca stated,
I just want them to be critical and have a consciousness. Have an awareness of what’s
going on in [their] life, in [their] community, in [their] family, in the world…To question
things, and hopefully to better their lives. To improve not only their lives but the lives of
their families. The lives of their community….We have them for so little, but we can help
transform them or like, “Here’s your path. You’re going to the wrong way. Let me tip
you over.” Then, hopefully, [they] can bring that in to [their] family, and into [their]
friends, and just analyze what’s going on…Because a lot of them, they don’t. They don’t
talk about those things. They’re not critical. They don’t demand.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 84
Thus, the participants in this study attempted to rectify injustices. They helped students become
consciously aware of social inequities and gave students tools to navigate the educational system
so they would not, as Ms. Baca stated, “get stuck” in their oppressed state of being.
The third emerging theme from interview and observation data involved Ms. Hernandez,
Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and, in this case, Ms. Sanchez. The theme was the provision of social
capital to ILS. Recognizing the negative experiences from migrating to America, Ms. Baca
notes the negative influence those experiences have on ILS’ academics. She worked to rectify
those differences by providing students with the social services to move forward and be
successful:
They have a lot of trauma coming to this new country. A lot of them are not living with
their parents. Some of them are living with family members or an uncle or aunt…some
kids that are living with family friends. Not even family...a lot of kids that are really
depressed. Tienen tristesa (they are sad); like they’re very sad. You could see it
constantly. We’re starting up like mental services. It’s like group counseling for some of
the kids that have gone through a lot of the trauma. I try to be aware of all those things
because, if that stuff isn’t fixed or addressed, there’s no way that me teaching those
sentence structure is going to sink in or paragraph, no, or whatever we’re reading because
their mind is not here. Their mind is elsewhere.
Not only does she provide academic services, but Ms. Baca also serves her students by educating
parents about strong support groups:
Learning about the educational system in the United States is very important, so that
you’d learn how to manipulate it to your advantage. And to your kid’s advantage…I
know that some of the ELAC [English Learner Advisory Committee] parents–some of
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 85
the women–have started a group for themselves…they meet every Wednesday or
Thursday at somebody’s house, and they talk about women’s issues, things that are going
on with their kids. I’m like, oh my God, that’s so powerful…the ELAC family is really
strong, demanding. They’re also very well represented at Common Core meetings.
Ms. Sanchez also provides social capital to her students through peer tutoring. During her
instruction, she provides struggling students with academic mentors. All but one of the ILS in
her class was paired with an academic mentor. The one student who was not paired with a
mentor was, actually, a mentor himself. Ms. Sanchez later stated,
I did a peer-mentoring program in class because I always felt like I can’t divide myself
into 35 pieces and help everybody…like I can count on them to help others. It’s hard for
me to try and help all of them at the same time.
Providing more social capital to ensure her ELL students’ academic success, Ms. Sanchez stated
she held after-school tutoring specifically for her ELL students, many of whom originated from
Latin America. Ms. Sanchez stated that the tutoring consisted of “three different teachers [who]
teach the class, and I teach it on Thursdays. It’s only an hour and we also have mentors in the
class.” Thus, acting as change agents, the participants offered their ILS, as well as their parents,
social networking opportunities to academically benefit students and their families.
Data from Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and Ms. Sanchez also related to this
theme. The four participants held high expectations for ILS. In an interview, Ms. Sanchez
included the following as part of her roles and responsibilities as an educator:
Every day, I always come to work to do my best and, just like I have high expectations
for my brother, I have them for my students…I tell them, “If you were my little brother, I
would not let you sleep...until you got your homework done.” I always set high
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 86
expectations for them. Their ticket out the door is to earn an A or B on their tests. If they
get Cs, my C students get upset. “But it’s passing. Why can’t I leave?” I’m like, “It’s a
privilege to leave.” I tend to set that expectation.
Ms. Sanchez went on to contribute to her students’ academic success through her high
expectations:
The last year that we did CSTs (California Standards Tests), all my students scored the
highest in the district. I got a text from my assistant principal like, “Hey, congratulations.
Your kids did really well.” I was like, “Really?” I was really surprised. Other teachers
were asking me like, “What did you do?” I’m like, “I feel like it’s just that connection
that you make with the kids.” Even though, one day, they could hate me because I’m
making them do more work, or I’m making them do something they don’t want to do or
they don’t agree. Overall, I feel peace of mind because I know that I’m trying to push
them to where they think they can’t.
During his lesson, Mr. Aguirre told his students that he was going to give them the skills
necessary to be successful in any science class. He told his students that the skills he was
teaching would prepare them for chemistry and the Medical College Assessment Test. In the
post-observation interview, Mr. Aguirre said,
Yeah. My expectation is for them to be in chemistry. Because, now, they have the tools to
at least swim and tread water in that class, whereas, before, if kids, they get a C in a
biology class or a D, usually, they don’t even make it to chemistry, but now they’re going
to have tools to swim.
Ms. Baca also expected for her ILS to excel in school, but she also expected for her students to
act as change agents for their own families:
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 87
That’s always been really, really important to me, pushing them to college, like being the
first ones to go to college is, like, really, really important to me...I was the first one to go
to college, and education changed my whole family, my whole family’s life...I remember
one colleague of mine that works at [a sister high school] once said to me that, “It only
takes one person to transform a family.”
Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and Ms. Sanchez offered students social capital. They
acknowledged ILS need for social networking and, therefore, created opportunities for access.
The fifth theme that emerged related three of the four teachers who demonstrated equity
mind framed characteristics discussed in themes one through four above. Ms. Hernandez, Mr.
Aguirre, and Ms. Baca, voluntarily reported migrating to America from Mexico as young
children and were also the first in their family to graduate college with their bachelor’s degree.
Ms. Hernandez described herself as follows:
I’m an immigrant. I came when I was seven years old. I lived in East LA. I am the oldest
of six girls. My father was a laborer. My mother was an at-home seamstress. I was the
first one to go to college. I went through all the bullying for being an immigrant and for
not speaking English. There was no real ELD (English Language Development) program,
no ESL. There was nothing. It was either sink or swim. This is 1965, ’66.
When asked about her experience as an immigrant, Ms. Hernandez recalled the challenges she
faced:
Being the oldest one, I knew not to complain and not to say anything...like, “This is it.
Don’t complain. This is what you have.” I lived in my shadow at school and took
whatever came, but how I learned was observation. I had some help…I remember they
would take me out. I was six or seven years old. They would take me out to another
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 88
classroom, and show me cards and things like that. That’s all I remember because, in my
first two years, I didn’t learn much. I just remember faces and smiling. Then, maybe in
my third year, I began to put things together, learn what was going on, and learn how to
read. Then, it just went on from there. Coming from Mexico, I was born in Guadalajara. I
went to the second grade in Guadalajara, so, coming, I knew how to do math. I knew
cursive writing. For some reason, my teachers here did not allow me to do that. They told
me, “No cursive.” That caused me to get behind on a lot of things. I thought, “OK. What
they taught me over there is not good here.” Nothing was really explained. My
experience was that nothing was explained. I relied on facial expressions. I relied on what
people moved and said, but nothing was told, like, this is lunchtime, even little things like
lunch…I remember the first two weeks seeing my sister. She was in another grade level.
My other two sisters–the younger one’s kindergarten–and they would cry, too, and we
would look at each other, literally. It was very painful…It was like, “I didn’t know where
I was” …all I knew about America was they have refrigerators and they have TVs.
In describing his experiences in working with ILS, Mr. Aguirre stated,
I’m, personally, an immigrant myself. That’s the first thing, so I had similar experiences
that they’ve had. I’ve gone through them already. Since I was born in Mexico and came
here in second grade, I know the challenges and how hard it is to adjust to a new culture,
a new language. When I’m dealing with all my students, I’m very sensitive, or
hypersensitive, to the language needs that students need to in order to master the content.
I think that’s biggest, biggest contributor or influence.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 89
Mr. Aguirre noted that he grew up in Mexico City and came to America when he was six or
seven, during his second grade year. He further described his experience when he got to
America:
I went back and forth a couple of times. Then, obviously, growing up in that culture of
Mexican-Americans. Growing up around those types of students with similar
backgrounds, you know, you have a lot of reference points now, as a teacher…How I
learned, I feel that’s how they learned. That’s also a big piece as to why I teach.
Mr. Aguirre explained his parents’ decision to stay in America:
My dad was here and my mom, she still worked, they were both professionals over there.
My mom was still working in Mexico as a chemist. We went back and forth because they
weren’t sure they wanted to stay. But, eventually, the decision was made to stay together
for the betterment of the family and us, my brother and I.
His parents did not remain educators when they migrated to America because “They didn’t know
how to and I don’t know if they had the resources to know to how to go about doing what they
did in Mexico here.” Mr. Aguirre is the oldest of two, was the first in his family to earn his
bachelor’s degree. Ms. Baca had a similar experience
I see teachers as healers, so, to me, it’s very important to share my experience as an
immigrant myself, and, then, also help them see the value in their experience…I was the
first one to go to college, and education changed my whole family, my whole family’s
life. I remember one colleague of mine that works at another high school who once said
to me that, “It only takes one person to transform a family,” and it really does. I was that
one person in my family. My five brothers and sisters all went to Berkeley, one to
Columbia, and my mom went back to school just to learn English. It totally transformed
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 90
our family. I grew up in a one-bedroom apartment like my whole entire life in Brea, a
predominantly White area. I think that’s why I’m very proud of being Latina and because
I was the other in Brea…We would have cousins that are teachers that would send us
books or like estampillas, like little posters. It would be like history for Mexico. When
we we’re younger, they would send us that, and my dad would go over it with us. When I
got to junior high and high school, I knew my culture and I was proud of it. White kids
would say things to me and I was just like, “OK, that’s your opinion.” I was always very
orgullosa, very proud of being who I am. I want the kids to feel that especially they’re
like primary language kids. It’s harder for them. I admire them a lot because I came here
when I was five. They’re coming when they’re 15, 14, and a lot of them are coming
because of the instability that’s going on in Latin America. I’m just amazed at some of
the things that they overcome.
Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca’s experience as immigrant students proved to be
significant in their careers as educators. Each claimed their experiences not only transformed
their family’s educational trajectory, but also their purpose to teach.
Analysis revealed that Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca all related to themes
regarding equity mind frames found in interview and observation data. Ms. Sanchez, however,
showed less identification with the themes. Ms. Sanchez was involved with fewer than half of
the themes (Table 12). Although she provided social capital through peer tutoring and held high
expectations of her ILS, she did not demonstrate awareness of inequities specifically experienced
by ILS, did not act as a change agent, and did not empathize with her ILS due to similar
experiences. Furthermore, triangulation of data shows Ms. Sanchez’s dominant mind frame to be
deficit, as is discussed next.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 91
Of the five participants, Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Percer displayed deficit minded
characteristics during the interviews and observation. One theme emerged from data regarding
these two participants: an attribution of ILS’ negative academic outcomes to cultural stereotypes
(Table 13). It is important to note that the attributions can be conscious or subconscious (DeCuir
& Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Analysis, however, shows that the two teachers’
attributions in this case appeared subconscious, as they expressed wanting the best for their
students and may have had additional reasons for making these attributions.
Table 13
Interviews and Observations: Deficit Mind Frames: One Emerging Theme
Theme Corresponding Participants
Attribution of ILS’ negative academic
outcomes to cultural stereotypes

Ms. Sanchez

Mr. Percer grew up in the predominantly Latino community in which he taught. In fact,
he taught at the same high school from which he graduated. However, he indicated only a recent
realization regarding Latino/a students’ work ethic:
About a few years back, a light bulb turned on with me until about the hardworking
nature of some students. These particular students were females, and they were very quiet
in class, as you would want to expect. I was really impressed by their work ethic and the
conversation I was having with them…seeing how good they were as students.
Additionally, Mr. Percer notes:
Thinking about college and opportunities...They said they have no vision, no idea then,
and no plan. The whole goal was to graduate from high school, and that was it.
Mr. Percer acknowledges that Latino/a students often have academic outcomes that deviate from
the standard norm. He fails to recognize, though, that institutional racism is a contributing factor
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 92
to ILS’ lack of aspirations or of aspirations that differed from status quo social norms. Analysis
of Ms. Sanchez’s interviews and observation also demonstrated an awareness of the inequities
faced by her students. She identified students as immigrants by the level of their English and
students’ history of enrollment:
I realized that there was four kids that didn’t speak English in the class…I’m like, “OK
how many of you do speak English and Spanish?”…out of a class of 30, 2 raised their
hand. I’m like, “Really? You guys all look Hispanic to me. Most of you look Hispanic
and only 2 of you are bilingual?”…One of them is not here anymore, she was only here
for the first couple weeks. Two of them are brothers. One of them speaks more English
than the other so they help each other out, but they’ve been coming religiously after
school. At least, I would say consistently, like three days a week.
However, similar to Mr. Percer, Ms. Sanchez attributes ILS’ low academic outcomes to cultural
stereotypes: a lack of motivation (Bettie, 2000; Valenzuela, 1999; Rodriguez, 2013):
Some kids are taking it more serious than others. The ones that are taking it more
seriously, they’re doing better. There are a few kids that don’t show up. They’re also ones
that need the help, but they’re not just showing up and it’s like, “We’re trying to help you
here. We’re not like charging you for the class. We’re not taking anything away,” but
some of them they just don’t come. They don’t show up.
Ms. Sanchez added:
One started late, and he was only here for maybe about three or four weeks at the most.
Even though he had started late, I wanted him to review the beginning, the very basics. I
kept telling him “You need to come after school” and he always made all these excuses
like, “Oh, I have to pick up my little sister”…I left a message for one once, but when I
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 93
called mom, I kept calling and it wouldn’t even get to the voicemail, it would say the
mailbox is full. Then, he told me that she had gotten a different phone, so he’d give me
another number, and it was so hard to get a hold of them. I ended up calling the uncle or
the step-dad, leaving messages with them that I needed to speak to his mom. This kid, he
stopped coming to school.
Thus, by attributing ILS outcomes students’ self-motivation rather than institutionalized
inequities, Mr. Percer and Ms. Sanchez demonstrate deficit mind frames. In triangulating the
data from Ms. Sanchez’s responses to the vignette with other data, her responses in her
interviews and actions in her observation reflect a stronger identification with a teacher who is
unconsciously deficit minded.
Of the five participants, only Mr. Percer demonstrated a diverse mind frame. One theme
emerged from the interviews and observation: lack of awareness of social inequities (Table 14).
Table 14
Interviews and Observations: Diverse Mind Frames: One Emerging Theme
Theme Corresponding Participants
Unawareness of Social Inequities

Mr. Percer

Mr. Percer’s expressed understanding of teachers’ involvement in ILS’ academic success
indicated colorblindness and was consistent with Bensimon’s (2005) definition of a diverse mind
frame. When asked whether teachers were responsible for an ILS’ academic success, he stated:
It’s really easy to blame one factor as a cause or one person as the responsibility. I
believe the responsibility is definitely shared. There are factors outside of the classroom,
that are going to influence whether the success and failure of a student is
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 94
amount-able…but it would be naive to blame one specific topic or person or something
along those lines.
Although he takes responsibility, Mr. Percer also equally attributes an ILS’ academic success to
the student and the parent. He demonstrates unawareness of to the institutionalized inequities
ILS face daily. As noted above, Mr. Percer contributed his ILS’ non-existent college plans to a
lack of motivation, rather than the institutional inequities hindering ILS’ ability to go to college.
Similar to students in Barajas-Lopez (2014), Bettie (2000), Cohen (2011), and Rodriguez (2013),
ILS would like to go to college and be part of the imagined community, but it is not, financially,
an option. Mr. Percer also demonstrated lack of awareness when he described language as the
only difference between ILS and other Latino/a students:
The immigrant population...What I know for sure is one is a recent arrival from
Honduras. He’s, I’ve known him for two years now. Last year was the first year that he
came here. He’s the only one that I’m sure of is a recent arrival that’s in that group. I had
one other one. He was from Mexico, but he has since withdrawn from school, and he’s
going back…there may be more that are in there, too. But it’s not 100 percent clear on, if
this is an immigrant student versus is this an English language student that’s enrolled in
the class…I don’t understand the identification as immigrant. All I know is language, and
this issue is where they go.
In the post-interview, Mr. Percer reported that there were more students in his class who had
emigrated from Mexico, but he did not remember the day of the pre-interview or the observation.
Mr. Percer showed, therefore, that he was aware of the demographic differences within his class,
but did not concede to the social inequities that significantly affected student outcomes (Cohen,
2012; DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Museus et al., 2012). The lack of attention to demographic
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 95
intricacies indicates a lack of consideration to the distribution of equity, which is a finding
consistent with the working definition of diverse mind frames (Bensimon, 2005).
Mr. Percer’s diverse mind frame, like those of the other participants, is not stagnant. Data
from the surveys, interviews and observations all yielded varying results. Triangulating data
from all measures helped find one dominant mind frame per participant (Table 15). Ms.
Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca were identified as having equitable minded
characteristics. The three consistently demonstrated equitable mind frames on the vignette,
secondary questionnaire, interviews and observation. Mr. Percer was identified as diverse mind
framed on the vignette, interviews and observation. He showed no strong identification on the
secondary questionnaire. Lastly, Ms. Sanchez was identified with a deficit mind frame through
careful analysis of the interviews and observation. The data on the vignette and secondary
interviews showed that Ms. Sanchez had inclinations toward equitable and diverse mind frames,
but her interviews and observation demonstrated she was deficit minded. Ms. Sanchez held high
expectations of students and even provided ILS with capital by offering peer tutoring. However,
consistent with Bensimon’s (2005) definition of deficit minds, interview and observation data
heavily emphasized that Ms. Sanchez also expected academic failure of ILS and attributed that
failure to cultural stereotypes.
Table 15
Distribution of Teachers Selected
Teacher Mind Frames of ILS
Equitable Mind Frame Deficit Mind Frame Diverse Mind Frame
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez Mr. M

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 96
ILS face many challenges in school, including teachers who are not prepared to teach to
recognize their needs and their strengths. However, educational policies mandated teacher
education programs make multicultural education part of their curriculum in effort to close the
achievement gap perpetuated by teachers who lack the knowledge and ability to teach to diverse
student populations (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Swafford, 2005). Teachers with
equitable mind frames, however, have been found to have the capacity to guide and support ILS
as they maneuver through the social constructs of school (Bensimon, 2005; Gonzalez, 2012;
Stanton-Salazar, 2007). At South High School, though, ILS have graduated at rates higher than
those of ILS at the other high schools within the same district. Three of the five teachers from
this study demonstrated a dominant equitable mind frame and all teachers, at some point,
identified with equitable mind framed characteristics. Participants mind frames study may have
been influenced by educational policies focused on providing marginalized students with an
equitable education. Regardless of what may have influenced mind frames, participants’
equitable mind frames may be the contributing factor to students’ academic success at South
High School. To further investigate what positively contributed to the academic success of the
ILS at South High School, RQ2 investigates the instructional choices of all teachers according to
their dominant mind frame (Table 16).
Research Question Two
In phase three, the five teachers participated in two interviews and one instructional
teaching observation to address RQ2, “What instructional choices do secondary teachers in a
Southern California school make when teaching ILS?” In an effort to compare the instructional
choices made by the participants, teachers were placed in a group according to their dominant
mind frame. Interview and observation data were then analyzed and served to determine trends
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 97
in instructional choices. Teachers who have been found to be successful with ILS have been
found to use a FOK approach in their instruction, marrying a students’ cultural background and
personal life to their academic life (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Olmedo, 2004; Olmedo & Harbon,
2010). This study explored whether the equitable, deficit, and diverse mind framed teachers at
South High School included FOK as an instructional choice. Therefore, the purpose of the
methods was to discover what instructional choices participants made according to their mind
frame. Data on teachers’ instructional choices fell into two categories: non-FOK and FOK. A
factor of analysis conducted revealed intergroup and intragroup similarities or differences
between equitable, deficit, and diverse mind framed teachers.
The results are presented according to mind frame and instructional choice, as discovered
by both interviews and observations (Table 16). Intergroup non-FOK instructional trends from
interviews and observations are presented first. Intragroup non-FOK instructional trends were
not found during data analysis; therefore, are not presented. Intergroup FOK instructional
choices from interviews and observations are presented next. Intragroup FOK instructional
trends were found during data analysis and are presented thereafter. Last is a summary of
intragroup and intergroup instructional trends.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 98
Table 16
Distribution of Teachers

Mind Frame

Equitable Deficit Diverse
Instructional Choices
FOK
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez Mr. Percer
Non-FOK
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez Mr. Percer

Teachers’ Non-FOK Instructional Choices
Responses from all participants and mind frames were analyzed to uncover themes
related to non-FOK instructional choices. Three major themes emerged from the interviews
(Table 17). Each non-FOK instructional choice is evidence-based practice shown to benefit
diverse populations of learners (Gitomer & Zisk, 2015; Mayer, 2011; Moll et al., 2005; Schiro,
2008; Soto-Hinman, 2011; Stillman et al., 2013; Tomlinson, 2009). The first theme was
scaffolding in instruction. The second theme was implementation of differentiation practices.
The third theme was inclusion of collaborative learning. The themes are discussed below
through the interweaving of interview and observation data in order to provide a rich and
extended narrative of the findings for RQ2.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 99
Table 17
Equitable, Deficit, and Diverse Mind Frames Non-FOK Instructional Choices
Instructional Choice Corresponding Participants
Scaffolding
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Mr. Percer
Ms. Sanchez

Differentiation
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Mr. Percer
Ms. Sanchez

Collaborative Learning
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Mr. Percer
Ms. Sanchez

Interviews and observations: scaffolding. Each of the five participants used scaffolding
when teaching ILS. Scaffolding serves as a guide that assimilates and connects knowledge to
guide new learning (Mayer, 2011; Moll et al., 2005). Mr. Aguirre reports scaffolding vocabulary
development as the key to students’ success:
I feel, as science teachers, we are giving them a book to read, but they don’t have the
skills to read the book. In science, I feel like the language of science is chemistry. What
I’ve done over the last three months…is demonstrate to kids what an atom is. To me,
knowing atoms and what they are is like knowing your ABCs. Once I gave them an
understanding of what an atom was, then I gave them an understanding of what a
molecule was…Now, I feel they’re going to have all the skills necessary to talk about all
the concepts in any science course, not just biology…It’s almost like teaching science
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 100
literacy through chemistry. I feel that it’s so powerful, especially even today when we’re
doing another step, and that’s scaffolding understanding chemical reactions. Kids are
finally making the conceptual understanding that two molecules of water and a molecule
of methane is becoming the products.
Ms. Baca used a template during her observation to scaffold the writing of a biographical essay
and explained the need of additional scaffolding for ILS:
What I realized is I only gave an organizer for paragraph two and three to the level one
English learners, and some other twos. I should have had that for all the paragraphs for
the level ones, especially because I have new immigrated kids that are coming. It’s just
easier for them to kind of plug things...You can see it in their writing that they don’t
know how to write…I’m always going to have to include some structure even if it’s just a
model.
Observed preparing her students for a unit test, Ms. Sanchez allowed students to refer to their
interactive notes, which broke down the unit’s concepts in steps. Thus, the five teachers included
scaffolding to make connections and support ILS meet their academic objectives.
Interviews and observations: Differentiation. Differentiation of instruction was the
second emerging theme across all mind frames and participants. Differentiation serves learners
by tailoring instruction to diverse backgrounds and with varying needs (Gitomer & Zisk, 2015;
Tomlinson, 2009). Mr. Aguirre spoke about presenting instruction in multiple ways to meet the
different student learning needs:
I would describe myself as a teacher that is very sensitive to the language needs of our
students…I’m a hard believer that students are visual learners and kinesthetic learners.
Most of my lessons revolve around visual and kinesthetic activities for input as well as
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 101
products that they may create. I try to interweave the three as much as possible. That’s
the focus when I think about the lessons I try to put forward.
Mr. Aguirre demonstrated the use of differentiation during his observation. He used
manipulatives, tech-based notes, and YouTube videos to demonstrate and explain chemical
reactions. After the lesson, Mr. Aguirre reflected on the multiple methods of presentation
provided. He noted that the different strategies he used to teach concepts improved ILS learning
and conceptual understanding.
I thought the kids started to get a good understanding of what a chemical reaction is. I
liked including the YouTube video and the hands-on demonstration to relate it back to the
conceptual part of what we were talking about...Being able to use YouTube and let them
at least see it, that helped…We were able to talk about something called “Energy.” The
kids understood that part, because of those YouTube experiences that we’re able to
provide. I really liked the lesson…taking notes through Google slides also gives me an
ability to use imagery, to relay and convey the concepts that we’re talking about in class.
Ms. Sanchez also reported differentiation as an instructional choice when teaching ILS. Her
students used interactive notebooks and watched teacher-prepared video-lessons to gain
conceptual understanding and reference when doing homework and reviewing for tests.
It gives me a starting point on how to teach them something just a little bit more
interactive...and it’s very visual, so it helps…there are short little video clips they are
exposed to...we talk about and emphasize how absolute value is the distance.
Therefore, participants of all mind frames understood the various learning needs of ILS and
elected differentiation as an instructional tool to support learning.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 102
Interviews and observations: collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is the third
theme to emerge across all mind frames and participants. Collaborative learning occurs when
students are given a task to complete and have the opportunity to learn from each other (Mayer,
2011; Schiro, 2008). Each teacher in this study reported incorporating group learning for ILS.
Mr. Percer used a specific collaborative strategy:
What I like to do, in general, is I really like the idea of think-pair-share with immigrated
students. I’m not a big fan of it, necessarily, with others, but for immigrant students or
language students, it’s very, very powerful because I have recognized that students are
very reluctant to speak, context of class discussion and whatnot. Not that they don’t know
the answers, but they’re really more afraid of mispronouncing words, so they’d rather
keep quiet. Think-Pair-Share has been really good so that they can go in and practice
together in a small group. Then, afterwards, they’ll feel a little more comfortable and it
opens up to a bigger discussion.
However, during observation, Mr. Percer did not use think-pair-share strategy. Mr. Percer later
stated:
I wanted to, but the lack of time and pacing issues were a problem…whenever time
becomes an issue, we have a tendency to leave that type of thing away to call on to
whoever is willing to answer the questions because I got to get to the content…I sit them
next to each other so they can go ahead and feel comfortable with each other speaking in
English or Spanish about what they’re working on.
Mr. Aguirre also mentioned the use of think-pair-share, “During the lesson, there should be quite
a bit of checkpoints, in which the students can talk to each other, think-pair-share, and develop
responses to check for understanding.” In contrast to Mr. Percer, Mr. Aguirre was able to
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 103
implement the collaborative strategy. During his lesson, Mr. Aguirre engaged students in a
partner walk, where students looked at a visual and posted pictures of molecular models. Mr.
Aguirre had students think-pair-share. Specifically, students thought about the meaning of the
model and shared their thoughts with their partner. Pair responses were later shared through a
class Google chat for a virtual whole group discussion. Ms. Sanchez did not use the think-pair-
share strategy for collaboration, but she did include mentoring. Her students were paired
according to math skill ability. Ms. Sanchez called the strategy peer mentoring. She selected
students who demonstrated responsibility, good work ethic, and high conceptual understanding
of the content as the mentors to students who demonstrated need for academic intervention due
to low conceptual understanding.
I did a peer-mentoring program in class because I always felt like I can’t divide myself
into 35 pieces and help everybody, so then what I do is I tell them, “I’m going to, sort of,
hire you, but instead of paying you, I’m going to reward you by excusing you from half
of the homework”…only the kids that have proven to me to be proficient, to be mature, to
be good role models, kids who I can trust to work with others -- they’re the ones that I’ll
offer them the opportunity…I’ll pair them up with students who are getting an F, or the
kids who need translation.
Ms. Sanchez later described activities she used during the observation:
If I’m doing whiteboards, they’re going to be sitting next to the student they’re going to
be helping. Instead of doing the whiteboards themselves, they’re going to be sitting next
to that person and helping them. The same thing at the end. I always try to give them a
little bit of time in class to start the homework, and so instead of starting the homework,
they’re going to be helping somebody else.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 104
Thus, regardless of mind set, collaborative learning was used to support the learning of ILS.
Similar FOK instructional choices across groups are discussed next and followed by difference
in practices among equitable, deficit, and diverse mind framed groups.
Teachers’ FOK Instructional Choices
Interview responses and observation data were analyzed to uncover any themes related to
FOK instructional choices across all groups (i.e., equitable, deficit, and diverse) and across all
participants within each group. One major theme emerged across all groups: the use of ILS’
primary language (Table 18). First space FOK involves home language, which is the knowledge
and discourse stemming from a child’s home, communities, and social networks (Moll et al.,
2005). All participants, regardless of mind frames, expressed the need to make connection to
students’ home language. The theme is discussed below through the interweaving of interview
and observation data in order to provide a rich and extended narrative of the findings for question
two.
Table 18
Equitable, Deficit, and Diverse Mind Frames FOK Instructional Choice
Instructional Choice Corresponding Participants
ILS’ Primary Language
Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Percer
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca
Ms. Sanchez

Interviews and observations: ILS’ primary language. All participants reported the
need to make connections to students’ primary language. Data confirmed that across group
analysis found all participants use ILS’ primary language as an instructional tool. Ms. Baca used
journal writing to get to know her students. She allowed students to express themselves in their
primary language:
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 105
I ask them questions. When they do journals for me, I’ll respond. I do give them
opportunities to write sometimes in Spanish, especially in their journals when it’s like a
personal thing and they need to vent…it helps them get through [work] quickly, or
understand what they need to do…As far as them speaking in Spanish, I allow it because
se están explicando (they are explaining things to each other).
Ms. Sanchez reported using ILS’ primary language to support learning. She recounted pairing
students who are bilingual with students who only spoke Spanish in order to support their
understanding of the content. She stated,
The first day of school, I assigned students their seats and then one girl raised her hand.
She was trying to get my attention because she wanted to tell me that the girl she was
sitting next to didn’t speak any English. Right away I’m like, “OK, I’ve got to sit her up
closer and sit her next to a bilingual student.”
Ms. Hernandez was observed translating key terms from her lesson on muckrakers into Spanish,
as well as discussed the words in Spanish to clarify definitions and any questions students had
regarding the vocabulary. In reflection of her instructional choice to translate key terms, Ms.
Hernandez replied:
Like some of the words I would say, “Look, this is like ‘prohibition,’” they say, “Look,
this is like Spanish, ‘prohibición.’”…The kids knew right away, “Prohibición.” Meaning
vino, you know, cerveza...Then, I say, “Es cuando vives con un borracho y esto quiebra
la sociedad. Ya no funciona los hogares igual.” (It is when you live with a drunk and
that is breaking the society. The home is not functioning the same)…Then, they start
getting up…I heard one of the guys say, “Okay, van a prohibir la cerveza, que van
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 106
hacer.” (Okay, they are going to prohibit beer, what are they going to do)…Then I said,
“Van a hacerlos ellos a escondidas” (They are going to do it illegally).
Mr. Percer used a similar strategy. Comparably observed across groups, Mr. Percer’s criteria for
pairing students according was based on language abilities. Mr. Percer explained his decision to
sit two of his immigrated Latino students together:
There’s a reason why I sit them next to each other, so they can go ahead and feel
comfortable with each other speaking either in English or Spanish about what the
questions are. I saw that they were working together and some of the other things there,
too.
Regardless of mind frame, every participant utilized Spanish to communicate learning and
express understanding with ILS. Data analysis also showed emerging FOK instructional choice
trends between each group. The FOK instructional choices that emerged from equity minded
teachers are presented next. Deficit and diverse mind framed teachers did not choose the
instruction of FOK.
Equitable Mind Framed Teachers’ FOK Instructional Choices
Interview responses and observation data also yielded intragroup themes. Interview and
observation data analysis found one emerging theme: incorporation of ILS’ cultural knowledge
in the instructional activities of equity minded participants (Table 19). The theme is discussed
below through the interweaving of interview and observation data in order to provide a rich and
extended narrative of the findings for question two.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 107
Table 19
Equitable Mind Frame FOK Instructional Choice
Instructional Choice Corresponding Participants
ILS’ Cultural Knowledge

Ms. Hernandez
Mr. Aguirre
Ms. Baca

Interviews and observations: ILS’ cultural knowledge. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre,
and Ms. Baca were all identified as operating with dominant equitable mind frame. During her
post-observation interview, Ms. Hernandez made direct use of students’ experience as
immigrants:
“Muckrakers” mean nothing until you break it down…Like one of my foster kids…He
says, “Y si mi mamá me puso en el tren con su corazón llorando, yo no le voy a faltar.”
(If my mom put me on the train with her heart crying, I am not going to fail.) He brought
me a letter his mother sent him, it said, “Mijo, tengo tanto que no te veo. Yo le pido a
Dios que encuentres buena gente en tu camino.” (Son, it has been so long since I have
seen you. I ask God that you find good people in your path.)…In his particular case
home, he wasn’t being fed and he wasn’t acknowledged in his foster home…One of the
social workers began to dig and found out that the woman was only doing foster care for
business, so they moved him. He has a really nice foster mother, right now…He saw his
social worker as a muckraker because she came out and dug in. He was able to
understand the concept. He made that connection.
Ms. Baca used a culturally relevant novel in her English class that depicted the experiences her
ILS may have had while crossing the border. She noted the following as a reason for using the
novel:
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 108
It’s called Dying to Cross. It’s the worst immigration tragedy in American history. They
were crossing undocumented immigrants in the trailer trucks. There was supposedly
going to be only 10 people. It ended up being more than 70 people. There was no air
conditioning. Basically, people died. A little kid died, a five-year-old. It was the first time
that had happened. I read this to them, so that they can hear it, relate, understand, talk
about, and see that there’s a book written on several people’s experiences. It’s just
perfect, because that’s when the whole Donald Trump/Jorge Ramos stuff happened, so
we’re having to read this book. I chose the book specifically for that class, because I have
a lot of immigrant students in that class who have gone through that. There’s a few of
them that have been born here. They’re US citizens, but they went back to Mexico.
Mr. Aguirre used students’ knowledge of Spanish music to motivate students. While engaging
students in a partner walk (i.e., students roamed classroom while music was playing and quickly
found a partner when music stopped), Mr. Aguirre played a popular song by Selena, a popular
Spanish musical artist. Students walked around lip singing the words, bouncing their heads to the
rhythm, and smiling as they looked around the room for their next partner; he engaged his
students using music that was relevant to their first space FOK. Thus, the equity minded
participants saw the value in ILS cultural experiences and used FOK instructional tools to
support the learning of ILS, enhancing their instruction.
FOK involves home language, which is the knowledge and discourse stemming from a
child’s home, communities, and social networks (Moll et al., 2005). All participants, regardless
of mind frames, reported and were observed using students’ primary language to guide students’
learning. Previous studies have shown that schools often implement and offer professional
development to meet state and federal policy requirements (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005;
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 109
Pugach, 2005). However, educational policies do not require teachers to use students’ primary
language in their instruction. In fact, Proposition 227 mainstreams ELLs into English-only
classrooms, perpetuating inequities experienced by ILS (Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Cohen, 2012;
Valencia et al., 2002; Valenzuela, 1999). Thus, different from other findings regarding the use
of students’ primary language, all the participants from South High School cultivated ILS’
primary language to some degree. Only the equity minded teachers, though, dug deeper into
students’ FOK and incorporated ILS’ cultural knowledge in their instructional activities.
Therefore, though all participants applied FOK through the instructional choice of including
students’ primary language, it was the equity minded teachers more closely approached
instruction according to Moll et al.’s (2005) FOK framework. The findings are consistent with
Bensimon (2005), Duncan-Andrade (2007), Olmedo (2004), Olmedo and Harbon (2010) and
Rodriguez (2013), by which equity minded teachers’ consciousness of the inequities leads an
instructional approach that includes additional and more deep FOK instructional choices.
Overall Findings
Data analysis for RQ1 aimed at finding the mind frame from which each participant
operated. Consistent with the findings of participants in Bensimon’s (2005) study, triangulation
of data found that participants in this study operated from multiple mind frames and a dominant
mind frame. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca represented equity mind framed
teachers. Moreover, the three participants all shared immigrant experience with their ILS. Ms.
Sanchez represented characteristics most consistent with deficit mind framed teachers. Lastly,
Mr. Percer most represented a diverse mind framed teacher. Both Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Percer
were born and raised in the neighborhood in which they taught as well as attended the same high
school in which they taught.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 110
Data analysis revealed that, although teachers operated with a dominant mind frame,
these were often subconscious mind frames. In fact, four of the five teachers did not have
consciousness of their mind frame. CRT’s tenet of critique liberalism aligns with this finding, as
it agrees with the notion that teachers are often unaware of their mind frames (DeCuir & Dixson,
2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Lack of mind frame awareness indicated a higher possibility
of shifts in mind frames, as the mind frame of the only teacher who held a critically conscious
mind frame never wavered. Analysis showed that shifts in mind frames were dependent upon the
context of the data collection (i.e., surveys, interviews and observations). For the purposes of this
study, dominant mind frames were used to address question two.
Data pertaining to RQ2 yielded patterns of emerging instructional themes from
interviews and observations across and between participants’ dominant mind frame. Participants’
instructional choices were placed into two categories: non-FOK or FOK categories. Interview
and observation analysis across all groups resulted in three emerging non-FOK instructional
choices: scaffolding, differentiation, and collaborative learning. Therefore, all participants,
regardless of mind frame, incorporated learner-centered strategies (Schiro, 2008). Learner-
centered strategies are evidence-based practices that make learning meaningful to student,
specifically benefitting the academics of diverse learner populations (Gitomer & Zisk, 2015;
Mayer, 2011; Moll et al., 2005; Schiro, 2008; Soto-Hinman, 2011; Stillman et al., 2013;
Tomlinson, 2009). Learner-centered strategies tap into students’ interest, but do not create a third
space for learning like FOK that cultivates students’ racial and cultural backgrounds.
Further analysis of interview and observation data found that participants of all mind
frames included at least one FOK instructional strategy in their practice. Data showed that all
participants incorporated home language FOK, marrying core content with students’
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 111
backgrounds to enhance instruction and student engagement (Moll et al., 2005). The Spanish
language is knowledge ILS acquired from their home communities and brought with them to
school every day to help them navigate through the educational system. The participants used the
language to communicate academically with students. The teachers who spoke Spanish (i.e., the
equitable mind framed and deficit mind framed teachers), though, also used home language FOK
to communicate conversationally with students. Additionally, participants with equitable mind
frames included cultural FOK in their practice. Therefore, equitable mind framed teachers
incorporated a FOK approach with higher frequency than the deficit or diverse mind framed
participants.
Relationships between mind frames and instructional strategies were found in the data.
Participants with equitable mind frames were more frequently found to use FOK instructional
strategies. All participants with equitable were also found to have former immigrant experiences
like their ILS. The deficit and diverse mind framed teacher also utilized FOK, but with less
frequency. These participants were born and raised in the same neighborhoods as their students,
but did not have the same former immigrant experience as the equitable mind framed
participants. Chapter Five discusses the findings in further detail.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 112
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The outlook of Latino/a students’ educational outcomes is a concern, especially in
California, where the Latino/a population is the second highest population and the Latino/a
immigrant population is the top largest immigrant population (United States Census Bureau,
2014). Specifically, female and male immigrants under the age of 18 comprise the largest
immigrant population in California. Therefore, equity minded teachers whose instructional
practices create positive academic outcomes for ILS are imperative considering the academic
inequities that ILS have experienced (Dunn et al., 2009; Garcia Bedolla, 2012; Gonzalez, 2012;
Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Valenzuela, 1999.
This study set out to explore the instructional choices utilized by equitable, deficit, and
diverse mind framed secondary teachers of ILS by addressing the two research questions below.
The mind frames of five experienced, secondary teachers with varying levels of CRT’s critical
consciousness and the use of FOK and non-FOK instructional emerged in the form of the
practices they used as they instructed ILS.
1) What mind frames do secondary teachers from one Southern California high school hold
of immigrated Latino/a students?
2) How do mind frames of secondary teachers from one Southern California high school
influence the instructional choices they make for Latino/a immigrant students?
The two research questions of this study are imperative to the development of educational
research. By identifying the mind fames and instructional practices of secondary teachers at a
high school with an ILS graduation rate higher than that of the county and the state (CDE,
2016b), teacher education, induction programs, and professional development can help identify
and integrate the mind frames and instructional choices most beneficial to ILS. The findings of
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 113
the study, implications for practice, limitations, and implications for research are discussed
below. The chapter ends with a brief conclusion of the study’s findings.
Discussion of Findings
Analysis of the data revealed several themes from general education teachers of high
school ILS. In regards to RQ1, the vignette, secondary questionnaire, interviews and observation
identified that teachers carried multiple mind frames, but operated with a dominant mind frame,
therefore finding varying levels of three CRT tenets present among the participants’ mind
frames. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and Ms. Baca all operated with a dominant equitable mind
frame as well as shared an immigrant experience similar to that of their ILS. Mr. Percer operated
with a dominant diverse mind frame while Ms. Sanchez operated with dominant deficit mind
frame. Although Mr. Percer and Ms. Sanchez did not have share a similar immigrant experience,
both were reared and continued to live in the same neighborhoods where they taught and
graduated high school. Therefore, all participants possessed a connection with the students
whom they taught.
Analysis of interview and observation data for RQ2 found variations in instructional
strategies according to teacher mind frames. All teachers, regardless of mind frame, utilized
non-FOK instructional strategies (i.e., scaffolding, differentiation, and collaborative learning)
that different learning needs. Additionally, equitable, deficit, and diverse mind framed teachers
used the FOK of students’ home language for academic communication with ILS. Participants
with equitable mind frames, though, utilized home language FOK for academic language and
conversational language. Participants with equitable mind frames integrated additional FOK
instructional choices in comparison to teachers with other dominant mind frame by including
more culturally relevant practices. Therefore, data revealed that, while providing ILS the capital
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 114
to maneuver through America’s institutional educational system, the instructional choices of
equity minded teachers allowed ILS to maintain and value their own cultural identity. The
combination of home language and cultural FOK created conducive learning environments for
the ILS, as well as for the teachers. The findings for RQ2 are as follows:
1. Critical Consciousness and the Unwavering Mind Frame
2. Critical Unconsciousness and the Ungrounded Mind Frame
3. Spanish-Speaking Teachers Influence a Third Space
4. Teacher Immigrant Experiences Influence a Third Space
5. Positively Intended Teachers and the Instructional Choices for All
Finding 1: Critical Consciousness and the Unwavering Mind Frame
As stated in Chapter Four, a major finding for RQ1 is that Ms. Baca was the only
participant who held one mind frame throughout the entire study. Mind frames are mental maps
that govern our attitudes, beliefs, values, and actions (Bensimon, 2005). The findings of this
study are supported by CRT’s tenet of critique liberalism, which agrees with the notion that
teachers’ acceptance, denial, or unawareness of racial inequities are often unconscious (DeCuir
& Dixson, 2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Ms. Baca was the only participant to exhibit an
awareness of the inequities her ILS faced and who reported her own critical consciousness
throughout all phases of the study as well as the only participant with an unwavering mind
frame.
As stated in Chapter Four, a major finding for RQ1 was that the majority of the
participants subconsciously held multiple mind frames. The phrase “multiple mind frames”
refers to operating with two or more mind frames, as supported by similar findings in
Bensimon’s (2005) study. For example, Ms. Sanchez held a dominant deficit mind frame in
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 115
practice, but demonstrated equity minded tendencies when thinking of her practice in theory. Her
intentions to value student differences and improve education for struggling students
unconsciously did not manifest themselves into her instruction. Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, and
Mr. Percer shared similar wavering mind frames and were similarly unaware of their mind
frames. Therefore, whether a participant like Ms. Sanchez held a dominant equitable, deficit, or
diverse mind frame may or may not be in their control, as supported by Bensimon (2005),
Bensimon and Bishop (2012), DeCuir and Dixson (2004), Delgado and Stefancic (2012), and
Jayakumar and Museus (2012).
It is evident that teachers who are not conscious of their mind frame are more likely to
waver between equitable, deficit, and diverse mind frames. CRT argues that a consciousness of
the world that calls to question the status quo and the perpetuation of racial inequities is
imperative to creating change (Bensimon, 2005; Bensimon & Bishop, 2012; DeCuir & Dixson,
2004; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Iverson, 2007; Jayakumar & Museus, 2012; Lin et al., 2008).
An example of Ms. Baca’s rally for change manifested through her critical consciousness is
exhibited when she shared some of her colleagues’ inequitable practices wherein students were
not allowed using their own language. She stated that she could not change the way others
taught, but that she could create awareness among her ILS that would empower them to become
their own social advocates of justice. Ms. Baca demonstrated the influence consciousness could
have on maintaining unwavering beliefs, attitudes, values, and actions when working with ILS. It
is important to note that Ms. Baca shares the immigrant experience with her students, which may
be a strong contributing factor to her equitable mind frame and instructional practices as
discussed later in finding four.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 116
Finding 2: Critical Unconsciousness and the Ungrounded Mind Frame
Even as all participants were identified with one dominant mind frame for RQ1 and he
grew up in the neighborhood, Mr. Percer showed insensitivity to any mind frame during the
second phase of the study. On top of holding subconsciously wavering mind frames, Mr. Percer
illuminated the acceptance of permanence of racism, so much so that he demonstrated an
insensitivity, lack of understanding, and inability to contextualizing cultural differences.
Permanence of racism suggests the governance of all political, economic, and social institutions
by the White middle class dominant group (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004). Mr. Percer was the only
non-Latino/a participant of the study. Therefore, though he grew up in the community, he did
not have the same social framework from where the other Latino/a participants benefitted. He
did not have the framework to understand ILS deep-rooted inequities. For example, when asked
about ILS inequities, Mr. Percer stated that improvements were being made. He also added that
more could be done, but he could not elaborate. Mr. Percer’s colorblind nature yielded to his
acceptance to permanence of racism, as shown by literature of Bensimon (2005) and Jayakumar
and Museus (2012) regarding diverse mind frames.
It is evident that diverse mind framed individuals generalize diversity and are unaware of
the inequities to which most marginalized students are susceptible (Bensimon, 2005). Mr. Percer
operated with a diverse mind frame and an acceptance to permanence of racism, which was
partially due to a lack of familiarity with the Latino/a social framework. Professional discussion
regarding racial inequities faced specifically by ILS can create a consciousness (Bensimon,
2005). However, Mr. Percer’s lack of critical consciousness may have not lent itself to
opportunities for such conversations. Therefore, regardless of where he grew up, Mr. Percer was
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 117
not able to be sensitive or understand the Latino/a culture enough to identify strongly with any
mind frame during the second phase of the study.
Finding 3: Spanish-Speaking Teachers Influence a Third Space
As stated in Chapter Four, a major finding for RQ2 is that the majority of the participants
used Spanish to create a third space for learning. A third space for learning is where FOK
formed in first space (i.e., home and community) and in second space (i.e., school) are integrated
(Moje et al., 2004). Language consists of a discourse that stems from a child’s home,
community, and social networks (Dudley-Marling & Lucas, 2009; Moll et al., 2005). All of the
participants recognized the need create a third space that helped ILS make connections between
first space language and second space language. Mr. Percer, for example, allowed ILS to sit near
each other and other Spanish-speaking peers to translate instruction and support each other
through group activities and class lectures. Although all participants used Spanish to create a
third space, the degree of integration varied between participant mind frame and Spanish-
speaking ability.
A major finding in Chapter Four was that the equitable and deficit minded participants
spoke Spanish. Their Spanish-speaking ability influenced the level of ILS primary language
FOK integration. In fact, Ms. Hernandez, Mr. Aguirre, Ms. Baca, and Ms. Sanchez utilized
Spanish for academic and conversational purposes. Loeb, Soland, and Fox (2014) found that
Spanish-speaking teachers and teachers with a bilingual certificate have been shown to be more
effective teachers to ELLs. This study’s findings are supported by the academic outcomes of the
ILS at South High School (CDE, 2016b). It can be argued that participants’ mind frames
determined the degree to which they integrated ILS primary language FOK. However, Loeb,
Soland, and Fox (2014) would argue that it was the participants’ Spanish-speaking abilities that
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 118
made them more effective teachers, as the majority of the participants spoke Spanish. It is also
possible that speaking Spanish and incorporating FOK both formally and informally have led to
a more productive learning environment; hence, a high school that produces high graduation
rates of ILS compared to other schools in the county or state (CDE, 2016b).
Finding 4: Immigrant Experiences Influence a Third Space
Major findings in Chapter Four for RQ2 were that all the equitable mind framed teachers
integrated cultural FOK with core content to create a positive learning environment for their ILS.
Specifically, the equity minded teachers shared the immigrant experience and used that cultural
understanding to connect with their students. The immigrant experience for this study is the
experience of coming to America from a foreign Latin country illegally during the elementary
years. Educators with similar backgrounds have been shown to have a higher commitment to
multicultural teaching, social justice, and academic success for all students of color (Sleeter,
2001). The findings were supported by the equitable mind framed participants who all self-
identified as former Latino/a immigrants. The participants reported their arrival to America from
Mexico during their elementary school years and the struggles they experienced during their
attendance. Consistent with Sleeter’s (2001) research, formerly immigrated equitable mind
framed participants did demonstrate a high commitment to multicultural teaching, social justice,
and academic success.
As stated in the major findings for RQ2 in Chapter Four, participants interwove their ILS,
as well as their own, cultural immigrant experience with content knowledge and instruction,
therefore creating a third space using an assets-based approach by connecting curriculum with
ILS immigrant experience FOK (Dudley-Marling & Lucas, 2009; Moll et al., 2005). Including
an assets-based approach to instruction meant a reframing of ILS ability and a consideration of
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 119
their interests also known as counter-storytelling, a different perspective to educational inequities
that allows the voices of marginalized students to be heard (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Museus et
al., 2012). An example of integrating cultural FOK in a third space was exhibited by Ms. Baca,
as she adapted her curriculum by incorporating novels that relived the marginalizing experiences
of crossing the American border. She used counter-storytelling by allowing for discussion and
normalization of students’ often private and fearful experiences. Ms. Baca reported choosing the
novel consciously in an effort to empower her students and let their voices be heard so they
could become their own social advocates and social advocates for other Latinos.
Some would argue that it is the participants’ equitable mind frames that led to the
inclusion of cultural FOK (Bensimon, 2005; Bensimon & Bishop, 2012; Duncan-Andrade, 2007;
Jayakumar & Museus, 2012). Others would argue that it was participants’ personal immigrant
experience and fluency in their primary language that influenced such instructional choices
(Loeb, Soland, & Fox, 2014; Sleeter, 2001). Research, though, has shown that similarities and
differences in backgrounds do not necessarily guarantee a teacher’s success with students of
marginalized backgrounds (Sleeter, 2001). The findings of this study lead to the argument that
similarities do not matter, as it was a culmination of the participants’ equitable mind frames and
former immigrant experience that cultivated participants’ use of cultural FOK to engage learners
and make learning more accessible for all (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001; Swafford, 2005).
Finding 5: Positively Intended Teachers and the Instructional Choices for All
As stated in Chapter Four, a major finding for RQ2 is that all teachers used the same
three learner-centered-strategies: differentiation, scaffolding, and collaborative learning. A
learner-centered approach originates knowledge from within by making content meaningful to
learners (Schiro, 2008). Mr. Percer demonstrated the use of collaborative learning, as he allowed
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 120
students to work together on their comic strip assignments, sharing ideas and getting feedback.
He also allowed ILS to work with another Spanish-speaking peer to share notes and exchange
dialogue to ensure understanding of the content and completion of classroom tasks.
It is evident that learner-centered strategies are key instructional strategies utilized by all
teachers to meet the varying learner needs present in classrooms at South High School. Although
teachers’ mind frames wavered and instructional practices varied, ILS academic outcomes are
worth noting and investigating. The participants at this high school used three evidence-based
instructional practices that have demonstrated academic benefits for diverse populations of
learners (Gitomer & Zisk, 2015; Mayer, 2011; Moll et al., 2005; Schiro, 2008; Soto-Hinman,
2011; Stillman et al., 2013; Tomlinson, 2009). Therefore, these three strategies may be key to the
academic success of ILS at South High School.
Implications for Practice
There are several implications for practice stemming from this study. One implication is
the need for teaching programs and professional developments to identify mind frames, create a
consciousness about mind frames, and develop equitable mind frames among educators.
Although not easily understood or observed, studying general educators’ words and actions
regarding ILS can help make teacher mind frames and instructional strategies more transparent
(Maxwell, 2002; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). The transparency is imperative to ensure
preparation of educators who will break down barriers for ILS. Therefore, creating a
consciousness and developing mind frames that prepare teachers to serve marginalized students
should be the foundation of teacher preparation curriculum. Programs and professional
development facilitators could utilize the surveys to evaluate teacher mind frame. The
demographic questionnaire, vignette, and secondary questionnaire could be used to recruit
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 121
teacher candidates, measure the development of equitable mind frames over the course of a
program, and recommend teachers for credentialing. The hiring, retention, and professional
development decisions should also be based on the foundation of developing equitable mind
frames. Districts and schools could include Bensimon’s (2005) double-loop learning in their
professional developments to influence cognitive shift toward equity.
Another implication is the need for teacher programs and professional development to
emphasize teachers’ skill, knowledge, and application of learner-centered environments, foreign
language skills, and cultural FOK. Learner-centered environments existed in the majority of the
participants’ classrooms, indicating a school-wide approach. A majority of the participants also
possessed a foreign language skill. Loeb, Soland, and Fox (2014) indicated that teachers who
instruct ELLs should possess some level of students’ primary language in order to be most
effective in students’ learning. The majority of the participants at South High School, where ILS
perform academically well, possessed a second language and communicated with ILS both
academically and conversationally. Thus, the third implication of this study is that teacher
programs and professional development need to make second language acquisition a credential,
hiring, or retention requirement for teachers who instruct ILS.
A fourth implication involves the inclusion of curriculum that teaches teachers to assess,
gather, and integrate students’ cultural FOK in teacher programs and professional development.
The participants in this study who did so were all former immigrants who also all held equitable
mind frames. They all created engaging environments where ILS were seen talking and
contributing to their learning and the learning of others. Teacher programs and professional
development opportunities need to educate teachers in the practice of assessing students’ cultural
FOK knowledge, especially when a teacher’s culture is far removed from their students.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 122
Participants utilized five core instructional strategies. All participants used the non-FOK
strategies of scaffolding, differentiation, and collaborative learning, as well as the FOK strategy
of home language. However, the formerly immigrated, equitable mind framed, Latino/a teachers
also included the FOK strategy of culture, specifically in regards to the immigrant experience.
Districts and schools working toward providing an equitable education to all students, including
ILS, should make the development of equitable mind frames and the practice of FOK the
foundation of their professional developments. Additionally, they should offer professional
development that support teachers’ implementation of scaffolding, differentiation, collaborative
learning, academic and conversational language, and cultural knowledge. These strategies could
be used as the criteria for summative and formative teacher evaluations. Teachers should be
educated, coached, and evaluated on their use of these five instructional strategies to ensure they
are using strategies that are beneficial to the learning of ILS.
Limitations
It is important to consider some practical limitations that confined this research when
interpreting the findings. The first consideration is that the sample size limits the generalizability
of this research, as it was conducted in one high school located in a Southern California
neighborhood. Therefore, the findings need to be corroborated with several schools.
Additionally, the sample consisted of five general education teachers who teach ILS. It is
possible that a larger sample could benefit the study by finding additional participants with
dominant deficit and diverse mind frames to expose themes about the instructional choices
chosen those with both mind frames. A third limitation is the use of interviews because they
have the potential for reactivity, as participants may intentionally or unintentionally alter
information (Maxwell, 2013). A fourth limitation includes the deciphering of the factors that
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 123
influence teacher mind frames, such as the immigrant experience found in this study. This
research is also limited in identifying beliefs and actions of teachers with equitable, deficit, and
diverse mind frames. Such factors could be the reason for the inclusion of particular FOK and
non-FOK instructional choices. However, the causality of these beliefs and actions cannot be
determined from the data.
Implications for Research
Findings highlight recommendations for future research. Like teachers in other studies,
the teachers in this study demonstrated multiple mind frames, which may have contributed to
shifts in practice (Brouwer & Korthagen 2005; Pugach, 2005). Future research should investigate
what triggers the mind frame changes, as mind frames appear to influence instructional choices.
For example, researchers should investigate whether a teacher’s ability to speak students’
primary language influences mind frames and instructional choices. They should also explore
whether a district or a school’s instructional mandates influence mind frames and teaching
practices. Researchers should also investigate if teachers with similar immigrant experience are
more likely to hold equitable mind frames and the five instructional strategies, including home
language and cultural FOK, noted above.
Lastly, this study’s participants had at least six years of teaching experience. The content
each participant taught also varied. Therefore, future research should focus on beginning
teachers while also focusing on teachers who teach one specific subject area, as instructional
practices may vary depending on content matter.
Conclusions
With the growth of Latino/a students, ILS will continue to be part of the population
taught by high school general education teachers like the participants in this study.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 124
Unfortunately, not all teachers are as prepared to use the instructional strategies these teachers
utilized and not all ILS will be taught by equity minded teachers, formerly immigrated teachers,
or teachers who grew up in the same community. Though ILS’ academic outcomes show
growth, the gap in achievement between Latino/a students and White or Asian students persists
(Barajas-Lopez, 2014; Brown & Chu, 2012; Cohen, 2012; Guiffrida et al., 2012; Macartney et
al., 2013). Therefore, it is important that teachers be equitable minded, critically conscious, and
create a third space of learning by integrating home language and cultural FOK to enhance ILS’
learning. In this study, one teacher was critically conscious of her mind frame, therefore never
wavering from her equity mind and always working toward rectifying inequities and creating
equal access. Two other teachers with equitable mind frames were also aware of inequities, made
their students aware of them, and worked to rectify inequities faced by ILS. The teacher with the
deficit mind frame attributed ILS’ lack of academic achievement to motivation. The diverse
mind framed teacher was unaware of institutionalized inequities and, in fact, lacked the Latino/a
social framework that the other Latino/a participants in this study possessed. All participants in
this study, however, used scaffolding, differentiation, collaborative learning, and home language
FOK. Only equitable minded teachers, though, used cultural FOK that closely related to ILS’
immigrant experience. The use of cultural FOK differentiated the classroom environments
between teachers with equitable mind frames and teachers with deficit and diverse mind frames.
The sustainability of equitable mind frame teachers who are critically conscious would
eventually influence a more consistent use of instructional practices that promote the academic
achievement of all students, especially ILS.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 125
References
Arredondo, A. L. (2011). Teachers’ use of socio-constructivist practices to facilitate
mathematics learning (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses Global (Order No. 3487873).
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Barajas-López, F. (2014). Mexican immigrant students' schooling experiences and the
construction of disengagement in mathematics learning contexts. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 13(1), 14-32. doi:10.1080/15348431.2013.800818.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of Educational
Research, 71(2), 171-217. doi:10.3102/00346543071002171.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational
learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99-111.
doi:10.1002/he.190.
Bensimon, E.M. (2013). Document analysis for equity-minded and culturally inclusive practices.
Los Angeles, CA: Center for Urban Education.
Bensimon, E. M. & Bishop, R. (2012). Introduction: Why “Critical”? The need for new ways of
knowing. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 1-7.
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Leveraging promise and
expanding opportunity in higher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 126
Bettie, J. (2000). Women without class: Chicas, cholas, trash, and the Presence/Absence of class
identity. Signs, 26(1), 1-35. doi:10.1086/495566.
Blanchett, W. J., Klinger, J. K., & Harry, B. (2009). The intersection of race, culture, language,
and disability: Implications for urban education. Urban Education, 44(4), 389-409.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007a). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007b). Chapter 4: Qualitative data. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Bordes-Edgar, V., Arredondo, P., Kurpius, S. R., & Rund, J. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of
Latina/o students’ academic persistence. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(4),
358-368. doi:10.1177/1538192711423318.
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American
Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153-224. doi:10.3102/00028312042001153.
Brown, C. S., & Chu, H. (2012). Discrimination, ethnic identity, and academic outcomes of
Mexican immigrant children: The importance of school context. Child Development,
83(5), 1477-1485. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01786.x.
California Department of Education. (2014). 12
th
Grade graduates completing all courses
required for U.C. and/or C.S.U. entrance all students (State of California 2012-2013).
Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/stgradnum.asp?cChoice=StGrdEth&cYear=2012-
13&ProgramName=All&cTopic=Graduates&cLevel=State&myTimeFrame=S
California Department of Education. (2016a). Selected district level data – Southwestern union
high school district for the year 2013-2014. Retrieved from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 127
dataquest/cbeds3.asp?cYear=2014-15&FreeLunch=on&PctEL=on&PctHisp=on&Pct
Black=on&PctAm=on&PctAsian=on&PctFil=on&PctPac=on&PctWhite=on&PctTwo=o
n&PctNone=on&Grads=on&Uccsu=on&NumDrops=on&cSelect=1965128--
Southwestern Union High School District%5EUnion%5EHigh&cChoice=
DstProf1&cLevel=District&cTopic=Profile&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit
California Department of Education. (2016b). Selected school level data Southern high –
Southwestern union high school district. Retrieved from http://data1.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/Cbeds4.asp?FreeLunch=on&PctEL=on&PctHisp=on&PctBlack=on&PctAm=o
n&PctAsian=on&PctFil=on&PctPac=on&PctWhite=on&PctTwo=on&PctNone=on&Gra
ds=on&Uccsu=on&NumDrops=on&cChoice=SchProf1&cYear=2013-
14&cLevel=District&cTopic=Profile&myTimeFrame=S&submit1=Submit&cSelect=Sou
thern+High++^Southern^Union^High^--1965128-1937903
California Department of Education. (2016c). Certificated staff by ethnicity for 204-205:
Southern high Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Staff/
StaffByEth.aspx?cSelect=Southern%5E%5EHigh--Southern%5EUnion%5E--1965128-
1937903&cYear=2014-15&cChoice=SchTeach&cType=T&cGender=B&cLevel=
School&cTopic=Paif&myTimeFrame=S
California Department of Education. (2016d). Southern high school accountability report card,
2013-2014 Southern union high school district. Retrieved from http://www.wuhsd.org/
cms/lib/CA01000258/Centricity/Domain/3/ SARC_SFHS_2013-14.pdf
Cámara De Diputados Del H Congreso De La Unión. (2000). Ley General De Educación
(Última Reforma DOF 20-05-2014). Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Servicios
Parlamentarios.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 128
Cheng, C., & Lee, F. (2009). Multiracial identity integration: Perceptions of conflict and distance
among multiracial individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 51-68.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.01587.x.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Constructing outcomes in teacher education: Policy, practice and
pitfalls. The Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(11), 1-56.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
doi:10.2307/1167272.
Cohen, J. (2012). Imaginary community of the mainstream classroom: Adolescent immigrants’
perspectives. The Urban Review, 44(2), 265-280. doi:10.1007/s11256-011-0194-x
Commission of Teacher Credentialing. (2009). California standards for the teaching profession.
Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/standards/CSTP-2009.pdf
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory
(3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Cornell, S. and Hartman, D. (2007). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance
assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American
Progress.
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren't that surprised that it is
there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education.
Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26-31. doi:10.3102/0013189X033005026.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 129
Delgado, R. and Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY:
NYU Press.
Dudley-Marling, C. and Lucas, K. (2009). Pathologizing the language and culture of poor
children. National Council of Teachers in English. 86(5), 362-370.
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. doi:10.1080/09518390701630767.
Dunn, W., Kirova, A., Cooley, M., & Ogilvie, G. (2009). Fostering intercultural inquiry in
subject-area curriculum courses. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(3), 533-557.
Fink (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Forlin, C., Cedillo, I. G., Romero-Contreras, S., Fletcher, T., & Rodríguez Hernández, H. J.
(2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated teachers.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 723-739.
doi:10.1080/13603111003778569.
Garcia Bedolla, L. (2012). Latino education, civic engagement, and the public good. Review of
Research in Education, 36(1), 23-42.
Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725. doi:10.1598/JAAL.44.8.3.
Gee, J. P., (2008). Discourses and Literacies. In J. P. Gee. Social linguistics ad literacies:
Ideology in discourses (pp. 147-198). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gitomer, D. H., & Zisk, R. C. (2015). Knowing what teachers know. Review of Research in
Education, 39(1), 1-53. doi:10.3102/0091732X14557001.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 130
Gonzalez, J.J. (2012). Understanding the understanding the role of social capital and school
structure on Latino academic success. A Journal of Transdisciplinary Writing and
Research from Claremont Graduate University, 2(1), 1-16.
Green, D. O. (2004, April). Affirmative action, conflict, and the University of Michigan: An
insider’s perspective. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Guiffrida, D. A., Kiyama, J. M., Waterman, S. J., & Museus, S. D. (2012). Moving from cultures
of individualism to cultures of collectivism in support of students of color. In S. D.
Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering success among
racially diverse student populations (pp. 68-87). New York, NY: Routledge.
Holme, J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of
school quality. Harvard Education Review, 72(2), 177-205.
Iverson, S. V. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of university
diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586-611.
doi:10.1177/0013161X07307794.
Jayakumar, U. M. & Museus, S. D. (2012). Mapping the intersection of campus and equitable
outcomes among racially diverse student populations. In S. D. Museus & U. M.
Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures: Fostering success among racially diverse
student populations (pp. 1-27) New York, NY: Routledge.
Johnson, A. (2006a). Getting off the hook: Denial and resistance. In E. Barrosse, S. Pankratz, M.
Valentin & E. Ghiselli (Eds.), Privilege, power, and difference (pp. 108-124). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 131
Johnson, A. (2006b). How systems of privilege work. In E. Barrosse, S. Pankratz, M. Valentin &
E. Ghiselli (Eds.), Privilege, power, and difference (pp. 90-107). New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.
Liggett, T., & Finley, S. (2009). “Upsetting the apple cart”: Issues of diversity in preservice
teacher education. Multicultural Education, 16(4), 33-38.
Lin, M., Lake, V. E., & Rice, D. (2008). Teaching anti-bias curriculum in teacher education
programs: What and how. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 187-200.
Loeb, S., Soland, J., & Fox, L. (2014). Is a good teacher a good teacher for all? comparing value-
added of teachers with their English learners and non-English learners. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 457-475. doi:10.3102/0162373714527788 5.
López, G. R. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.
doi:10.1177/0013161X02239761
Macartney, S., Bishaw, A., & Fontenot, K. (2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and
Latino/a groups by state and place: 2007-2011. Community Survey Briefs. Retrieved
from https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acsbr11-17.pdf
Mangope, B., Mannathoko, M. C., & Kuyini, A. B. (2013). Pre-service physical education
teachers and inclusive education: Attitudes, concerns and perceived skill needs.
International Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 82-92.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles: SAGE.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 132
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña (2014). Fundamentals of qualitative data analysis. Qualitative
Data Analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. (2004).
Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds
of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.1.4
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132-
141.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In N. Gonzalez, L. C. Moll, &
C. Amanti (Eds.), Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities,
and classrooms (pp. 71-87). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Monzó, L. D. (2013). A mother’s humiliation: School organizational violence toward Latina
mothers. The School Community Journal, 23(1), 81-110.
Mukhopadhyay, S., Molosiwa, S. M. and Moswela, E. (2009). Teacher trainees’ level of
preparedness for inclusive education in Botswana schools: Need for change.
International Journal of Scientific Research in Education, 2(2), 51-58.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 133
Museus, S.D., Ravello, J.N., & Vega, B.E. (2012). The campus racial culture: A critical race
counterstory. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures:
Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 68-87). New York,
NY: Routledge.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_085.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Percentage of 15-year-old students with
immigrant background, by country: 2000 and 2009. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012007/figures/figure_10-1.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_cge.pdf
Nesman, T. M., Batsche, C., & Hernandez, M. (2007). Theory-based evaluation of a
comprehensive Latino education initiative: An interactive evaluation approach.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 30(3), 267-281.
doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.04.004
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq. (West 2003)
Ogbu, J. & Simons, H. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological
theory of school performance and some implications for education. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 29(2), 155-188.
Olmedo, I. M. (2004). Raising transnational issues in a multicultural curriculum project. Urban
Education, 39(3), 241-265. doi:10.1177/0042085904263061.
Olmedo, I., & Harbon, L. (2010). Broadening our sights: Internationalizing teacher education for
a global arena. Teaching Education, 21(1), 75-88. doi:10.1080/10476210903466992
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 134
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE.
Pugach, M.C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers to work with students
with disabilities. In M. Cochran Smith and K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying Teacher
Education: The Report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education (pp. 549-
590). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Pugach, M.C., Blanton, L.P., & Correa, V.I. (2011). A historical perspective on the role of
collaboration in the teacher education reform: Making good on the promise of teaching
all students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34(3), 183-200.
doi:10.1177/0888406411406141
Quiocho, A. M. L., & Daoud, A. M. (2006). Dispelling myths about latino parent participation in
schools. The Educational Forum, 70(3), 255-267. doi:10.1080/00131720608984901
Rennert-Ariev, P. (2008). The hidden curriculum of performance-based teacher education.
Teachers College Record, 110(1), 105-138.
Rhodes, R. L. (2000). School psychology and special education in Mexico: An introduction for
practitioners. School Psychology International, 21(3), 252-264.
doi:10.1177/0143034300213003
Rios-Aguilar, C., & Kiyama, J. M. (2012). Rios-Aguilar, C., & Kiyama, J. M. (2012). Funds of
knowledge: An approach to studying latina(o) students' transition to college. Journal of
Latinos and Education, 11(1), 2-16. doi:10.1080/15348431.2012.631430
Rodriguez, G. M. (2013). Power and agency in education: Exploring the pedagogical dimensions
of funds of knowledge. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 87-120.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 135
Sandoval, E. (2007). Educational policies and realities: Teachers initial education in Mexico. In
Pink, W. T. and Noblit, G. W. (Eds.) International handbook of urban education (pp.
705-726). Dordrecht, London: Springer.
Schick, C. and St. Denis, V. (2003). What makes anti-racist pedagogy in teacher education
difficult? three popular ideological assumptions. Alberta Journal of Educational
Research, 49(1), 55-69.
Schrio, M.S. (2008). Curriculum Theory. Boston: SAGE.
Shor, I. (1999). What is critical literacy? Journal for Pedagogy, Pluralism & Practice, 1(4), 1-
27. Retrieved from http://www.lesley.edu/journal-pedagogy-pluralism-practice/ira-
shor/critical-literacy/
Sleeter, C. E. (2000). Epistemological diversity in research on preservice teacher preparation for
historically underserved children. Review of Research in Education, 25, 209-250.
doi:10.2307/1167325
Souto-Manning, M. (2009). Negotiating culturally responsive pedagogy through multicultural
children's literature: Towards critical democratic literacy practices in a first grade
classroom. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 9(1), 50-74.
doi:10.1177/1468798408101105
Soto-Hinman, I. (2011). Increasing academic oral language development using English language
learner shadowing in classrooms. Multicultural Education, 18(2), 20-23.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability: Productive tension
and critical professional practice. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 133-180.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 136
Stillman, J., Anderson, L., Arellano, A., Lindquist Wong, P., Berta-Avila, M., Alfaro, C., &
Struthers, K. (2013). Putting PACT in context and context in PACT: Teacher educators
collaborating around program-specific and shared learning goals. Teacher Education
Quarterly, 40(4): 135-157.
Swafford, S. W. (2005). Notice to all individuals and groups interested in the activities of the
commission on teacher credentialing (CC-50-0010). Sacramento, CA: Office of the
Executive Director. Retrieved from http://www.ctc.ca.gov/notices/coded/
050010/050010.pdf
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Intersections between differentiation and literacy instruction: Shared
principles worth sharing. National English Reading Association Journal, 45(1), 28-33.
United States Census Bureau. (2012). Educational attainment. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/schools/census_for_teens/educational_attainment.html
United States Bureau of Census. (2014). Easy Stats. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
easystats/
United States Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2011). Survey of current business. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0643.pdf
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Current population survey. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0619.pdf
United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). To
assure the free appropriate public education of all children with disabilities. Twenty-
fourth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 137
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of
Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano School Failure
and Success: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 83-109). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
Albany, N.Y: State University of New York Press.
Valli, L. (2007). Creating classroom cultures: One teacher, two lessons, and a high-stakes test.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 57-75. doi:10.1525/aeq.2007.38.1.57
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: The Free Press.
Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 21(2), 117-124. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.001
Zeichner, K. (2011). Embracing complexity and community in research on multicultural teacher
education. In A.F. Ball & C. Tyson (Eds.), Studying Diversity in Teacher Education (pp.
329-338). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 138
Appendix A
Demographic Questionnaire

Demographic Questionnaire
General Education Teacher Survey – Demographics Section

Years of Teaching Experience: _____ Age: _____ Gender: Female Male
Ethnic Background (Choose all that apply)
☐ African-American or
Black
☐ Pacific Island American ☐ Indian/East-Indian
☐ Filipino ☐ Latino or Hispanic ☐ Armenian
☐Asian/Asian-American ☐ Native American/Alaskan
Native
☐ Other ______________
☐Southeast Asian/Southeast
Asian-American
☐ White (Non-Hispanic)
Educational Background (Please list all degrees earned)
________________________________________________________________________

Work Background (Please indicate your prior work experience)
☐ Teaching at THIS public school was my first teaching position
☐ If you have taught at other schools, please specify the duration, teaching position,
student demographics, and reason for leaving.

School 1: ______________________________________
☐ Duration:
☐ Teaching Position:
☐ Student Demographic:
☐ Reason for Leaving:

School 2: ______________________________________
☐ Duration:
☐ Teaching Position:
☐ Student Demographic:
☐ Reason for Leaving:

School 3: ______________________________________
☐ Duration:
☐ Teaching Position:
☐ Student Demographic:
☐ Reason for Leaving:

School 4: ______________________________________
☐ Duration:
☐ Teaching Position:
☐ Student Demographic:
☐ Reason for Leaving:

Educational Roles and Responsibilities
________________________________________________________________________

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 139
Appendix B
Vignettes

Vignettes
General Education Teacher Survey – Three Case Studies
X High School is a Title I school with a population that consists of Latino, Caucasian, and African American
students. At X High School, immigrated Hispanic students comprise 25% of the population. The following three
case studies describe the manner in which three teachers from X High School conduct their classes. Answer each
question below by checking the box under the column that best answers that question.
Teacher One
Teacher one’s class consists of 25%
immigrated Latino high school students.
Although teacher one recognizes that not all
students planned to attend a four-year college
or have met the requirements to attend a four-
year college, she assigned students to write a
two-page college entrance personal statement.
When grading the essays, teacher one was
disappointed that many of the immigrated
Latino students did not turn in the assignment,
and that the papers that were turned in did not
meet her writing criteria. Teacher one
discussed her dissatisfaction with a colleague,
stating that her students lacked motivation.
Teacher one also noted students needed make
more of an effort to do better in school.
Teacher Two
Teacher two’s class consists of 25%
immigrated Latino high school students.
In recognition of Cesar Chavez day,
teacher two had students read and watch a
movie about the accomplishments Chavez
made for the Latino population, especially
agricultural workers. Teacher two tells
students to write a 2-3 typed essay about
the impact revolutionists like Cesar
Chavez, as well as Martin Luther King Jr.,
have made on equal rights. One of the
immigrated Latina students told the
teacher that she might not be able to type
the essay because she doesn’t have a
computer, but could write it. The teacher
told the students that the computer lab was
available everyday after school, so there
was no excuse.
Teacher Three
Teacher three’s class consists of 25%
immigrated Latino high school students.
The class is beginning a unit on the
Holocaust. Prior to the lesson teacher three
looked at data for her class and found
students often underperform contextually
and grammatically in the unit’s 2-page essay
assessment. She decides to introduce the
unit differently by making connections to
students’ own experiences with racism
and/or prejudice. Aware of many of her
students’ obstacles in life, including the
obstacles of immigrated Latino/a students,
teacher three decides to offer an alternative
to the essay assessment: a visual presentation
of their understanding of the Holocaust with
either a 5 minute speech or a 1-page
summary.

Definitely
Teacher One
Tend Toward
Teacher One
Definitely
Teacher Two
Tend Toward
Teacher Two
Definitely
Teacher
Three
Tend Toward
Teacher Three
Which type of class activity
are you more likely to have in
class?

Which type of activity do you
think students prefer most?

From which type of activity
do you think students gain
more knowledge?

Which response based on
colleague, student, or data
input would benefit student
learning the most?

(Arredendo, 2011; Bensimon, 2005)
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 140
Appendix C
Secondary Questionnaire

!
Secondary Questionnaire
General Education Teacher Survey – Questionnaire

Strongly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. It is important for students to see the
connection between what they already
know and new material.

2. Students need to connect new
information and concepts to their own
life experiences.

3. Teachers know much more about their
students; they should not follow
mandated curriculum like a script.

4. Building on students racial and cultural
backgrounds helps extend learning.

5. Teachers need to use multiple
assessments to measure student learning.

6. Teachers need to value students’
bilingualism.

7. Learning should engage with real-world
problems that are situated in diverse
communities.

8. Students and teachers need to co-
construct knowledge in educational
settings.

9. It is important to support and monitor
student autonomy and choice during
learning experiences.

10. Programs and activities need to promote
critical thinking about racial inequities
and how to dismantle them.

11. Students are not ready for “meaningful”
learning until they have acquired basic
reading and math skills.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 141

!
Strongly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Strongly
Agree
12. Curriculum developers take all student
differences into account when designing
instruction.

13. Even when a student primarily speaks
Spanish, instruction in English most
effectively promotes learning.

14. Racially diverse schools demonstrate a
commitment to social justice and
elimination of discrimination.

15. Schools that celebrate Martin Luther
King Jr. and Cesar Chavez days promote
critical thinking about racial inequities.

16. All students have an equal opportunity
to succeed when given multiple retakes
on the same test.

17. Schools show they value diversity if the
student population is multi-racial.

18. It is better when the teacher provides
students with assignment choices.

19. All students should be able to type their
essays when there is a computer lab
available after school.

20. Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and
Cesar Chavez day demonstrates one’s
value of diversity.

21. Students who do not take advantage of
the multiple opportunities to retake tests
they failed lack motivation.

22. Even if accommodations are made,
students who do not speak English will
not be academically successful.

23. Some students cannot be academically
successful because of their economic
disadvantages.

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 142

!
Strongly
Disagree
Moderately
Disagree
Moderately
Agree
Strongly
Agree
24. Students that do not make use of college
resource information found at the
college center lack determination.

25. At-risk students’ parents need to be
more committed to their child’s
education.

26. English language learners will continue
to struggle academically, even if their
teachers value bilingualism.

27. English language learners should
participate in classroom decision-
making.

28. Using collaborative learning with at-risk
youth will not work because they lack
motivation.

29. Academically challenged students are
unable to engage in critical thinking and
problem solving activities.

30. All assignments and instruction should
be modified for English language
learners.

(Arredendo, 2011; Bensimon, 2005)
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 143
Appendix D
Pre-Observation Protocol

Pre-Observation Interview Protocol
General Education Teacher Survey – Pre-Observation Interview

Introduction*
! The!purpose!of!this!study!to!understand!the!mind!frames!and!pedagogy!of!
instructors!who!teach!immigrated!Hispanic!students.!!In!order!to!help!ensure!I!do!
not!leave!anything!important!out,!I!would!like!to!record!the!interview!if!it!is!okay!
with!you.!!I!will!be!the!only!person!who!listens!to!the!recordings!and!it!is!solely!for!
research!purposes.!!Of!course,!this!interview!is!completely!voluntary;!if!there!is!any!
questions!you!do!not!want!to!answer!just!let!me!know.!!Also,!if!at!any!point!you!
choose!not!to!participate,!that!is!your!right.!!
!
Research*Question* Interview*Question*
Rapport!Building! Can!you!tell!me!a!little!about!where!you!grew!up!
and!what!your!high!school!educational!experience!
was!like?!
!
!
!
!
Tell!me!about!the!roles!and!responsibilities!you!
have!had!while!working!as!an!educator!
!
!
!
!
Tell!me!about!your!teaching!experience!
!
!
!
!
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 144

! Can!you!tell!me!about!where!you!attended!college!
and!the!major(s)!did!you!study?!
!
!
!
!
Do!you!have!any!questions!for!me!before!we!get!
started?!
!
!
!
1) What!mind!frames!
do!secondary!
teachers!from!
Southern!California!
high!schools!hold!of!
immigrated!
Hispanic!students?!
Tell!me!about!the!immigrant!population!you!
currently!work!with?!
!
!
How!would!you!describe!your!knowledge!of!
immigrated!Hispanic!students?!
!
!
!
Beliefs!about!immigrated!Hispanic!students?!
!
!
!
Instructional!practices!with!immigrated!Hispanic!
students?!
!
!
!
!
!
If!someone!were!to!say!that!teachers!are!
responsible!for!eliminating!educational!inequities!
experienced!by!immigrated!Hispanic!students,!
how!would!you!respond?!
!!
!
!
What!knowledge!and!experiences!do!you!believe!
immigrated!Hispanic!students!bring!with!them!to!
the!classroom?!
!
!
!
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 145

!
2) How!do!mind!
frames!affect!the!
instructional!choices!
teachers!make!for!
Hispanic!immigrant!
students?!
!
How!would!you!describe!the!instructional!
strategies!you!use!in!your!classroom?!
!
!
!
Tell!me!about!the!lesson!you!will!be!teaching!
(content,!standards,!objectives).!
!
!
What!goals!do!you!have!for!the!lesson?!
!
!
!
What!are!some!of!the!expectations!you!have!of!
your!own!students!after!this!lesson?!
!
!
!
What!are!some!of!the!things!that!you!need!to!do!to!
prepare!for!your!instruction?!
!
!
!
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 146
Appendix E
Instructional Observation

Instructional Observation
General Education Teacher Survey – Instructional Observation

Date: Time: Duration:

Setting:

Participants:

Research Questions:
1) What perceptions do secondary teachers from Southern California high schools hold of immigrated Hispanic students?
2) How do mind frames affect the instructional choices teachers make for Hispanic immigrant students?

Things to look for:
• Lesson Components
• Focus throughout teaching
• Strategies used
• Student work
• Affirmatively conscious of race
• Practices, resources, and activities that promote learning equity
o Students acting as social change agents by addressing racial inequities
o Culturally relevant pedagogies
o Cultivation of students funds of knowlege
• Awareness of embedded racial patterns in institutional policies and practices
• Interactions and conversations that maintain equitable relationships and promote social change

Sketch of classroom:

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 147

Observation,(verbal,descriptions;,quotations;,key,
words,,),
Observer,Comments,
!
!
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 148
Appendix F
Post-Observation Interview Protocol

Post-Observation Interview Protocol
General Education Teacher Survey – Post-Observation Interview

Based on instructional observation, some possible discussion starters:
I. Participant Reflection
a. What went well?

b. What might have improved the lesson?

c. Could you elaborate a little on why you…

II. Consistency of statements in pre-observation discussion and observation.
a. I noticed that during the lesson you…

b. I noticed that regarding your instruction you said you would…

c. Could you elaborate a little on why you…

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 149
Appendix G
Invitation Letter

Dear Potential Participant,

My name is Bonnie Garcia, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at
University of Southern California. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation,
which examines the mind frames and instructional practices of general education teachers of
immigrated Latino/a students. You are cordially invited to participate in the study. If you agree,
you are invited to complete three questionnaires, two interviews and one observation.

Each questionnaire is anticipated to take no more than 10-15 minutes to complete and will be
given to you to fill out individually during your school day.

The interviews are each anticipated to take no more than 30-60 minutes to complete and will be
audiotaped with your permission. The interviews will take place before and after the observation
and will be completed in your classroom during the school day (but when class is not in session).

Lastly, the observation is anticipated to take one to two hours to complete. It will take place in
your classroom during regular instructional time and will not be recorded. Hand-written notes
will be taken.

Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study.

If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at 951-205-1535.

Thank you for your participation,

Bonnie Garcia
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 150
Appendix H
Information Sheet

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
1150 S Olive St.
Los Angeles, CA 90015

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

Immigrated Latino/a Students’ General Education Teachers’ Mind Frames and Pedagogy
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Bonnie Garcia under the
supervision of Dr. Margo Pensavalle because you are a high school educator who has experience
teaching immigrated Latino/a students. 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 research study aims to explore how mind frames of secondary teachers from a Southern
California high school that works with Latino/a immigrant students may influence their
instructional choices. Understanding teacher mind frames can ultimately help administrators and
teacher preparation programs develop mind frames that best support effective instructional
choices for students from diverse backgrounds.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete three questionnaires, two
interviews and one observation.

Questionnaires: You will be asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, a questionnaire
consisting of three vignettes, and a secondary questionnaire. Each questionnaire is anticipated to
take 10-15 minutes. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to. The
questionnaires will be given to you to fill out individually during your school day.

Interviews: Additionally, you will be asked to participate in two 30-60 minute audiotaped
interviews. You do not have to answer any questions you don’t want to; if you don’t want to be
taped, handwritten notes will be taken. The interviews will take place before and after the
observation and will be completed in your classroom during the school day (but when class is not
in session).

Observation: Finally, you will be asked to allow the researcher to conduct a one to two hour
observation of your classroom instruction. It will take place in your classroom during regular
instructional time and will not be recorded. Hand-written notes will be taken.
SECONDARY TEACHERS’ MIND FRAMES 151
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will receive a $10 visa gift card for your time. You do not have to answer all of the
questions or complete all of the procedures in order to receive the card. The card will be given to
you at the commencement of the study.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
whether or not you participate in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. The
audiotapes will be destroyed once they have been transcribed. All data collected will be stored
on a password-protected computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the study has
been completed and then destroyed.

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.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Principal
Investigator Bonnie Garcia via email at bonniedg@usc.edu or phone at (951) 205-1535, or
Faculty Advisor Dr. Margo Pensavalle via email at pensaval@usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-
8845.

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.

For additional resources - http://dissertationedd.usc.edu/
DSC contact information – rsoedsc@rossier.usc.edu or (213)740-8099

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of the study was to understand how the mind frames of secondary teachers at a Southern California public high school influenced their instructional choices when working with Latino/a immigrant students. Often found are educators who respect diversity but fail to be change agents for immigrated Latino/a students, therefore perpetuating social inequities. Teachers who are sensitive to cultural differences challenge academic disparities using diverse students’ differences to their advantage, improving student learning, experiences, and outcomes. Critical Race Theory and Funds of Knowledge guided the qualitative study that included five high school general education teachers of immigrated Latino/a students. The study used a three-phase design wherein each participant completed three surveys, two interviews, and one observation. Coded data resulted in emerging themes that provided insight into the instructional practices of equitable, deficit, and diverse mind framed general education teachers of immigrated Latino/a students. Knowledge of such factors may help administrators and teacher preparation programs better prepare and develop the mind frames and instructional practices of current and future general education teachers of immigrated Latino/a students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

¿Dónde están todos los hombres latinos? A qualitative exploration of barriers to and enablers of participation in study abroad for first-generation Latino male college students

PDF

Educating students with disabilities in Kenyan primary schools: instructional strategies and teacher preparation

PDF

4th space teaching: incorporating teachers' funds of knowledge, students' funds of knowledge, and school knowledge in multi-centric teaching

PDF

The examination of the perceptions of general education teachers, special education teachers, and support personnel on the inclusion of students with special needs

PDF

Positive classroom leadership: how teachers manage meaningfully in high needs contexts

PDF

The beliefs and related practices of effective teacher leaders who support culturally and linguistically diverse learners

PDF

Deconstructing persistence in academic language among second-generation Latino language minority students: how do second-generation Latino language minority community college students alter their...

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Teachers in continuation high schools: attributes of new teachers and veteran teachers in urban continuation high schools

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Problems and solutions for school counselors supporting Black and Latinx students in the 21st century

PDF

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

Teachers' perspectives on the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders in the general education classroom: a gap analysis

PDF

Exploring how individual transition plans in a school district support special education student employment

PDF

Infusing school-wide culturally responsive teaching to increase the cultural proficiency of teachers

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

The Bridge Program and underrepresented Latino students: an evaluation study

PDF

Relationship of teacher's parenting style to instructional strategies and student achievement

Asset Metadata

Creator Garcia, Bonnie Danielle (author)

Core Title Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/22/2016

Defense Date 05/04/2016

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

Tag critical race theory,deficit mind frame,deficit thinking,diverse mind frame,equitable mind frame,equity,funds of knowledge,general education teachers,immigrant students,Latino/a,mind frame,multicultural education,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,unconscious mind frame

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Baca, Reynaldo (committee chair), Gallagher, Pat (committee chair), Pensavalle, Margo (committee chair)

Creator Email bdgarcia81@gmail.com,bonniedg@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-274398

Unique identifier UC11280294

Identifier etd-GarciaBonn-4573.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-274398 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-GarciaBonn-4573.pdf

Dmrecord 274398

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Garcia, Bonnie Danielle

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