University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running
head:
LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS
1

EXAMINING THE LEARNING ENVIROMENTS OF URBAN HIGH SCHOOL
EDUCATORS WHO ARE CULTURALLY AWARE AND SERVE A MAJORITY OF
STUDENTS FROM HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED POPULATIONS

By

Brock Cohen

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Final Defense Date: July 22, 2015
Degree Conferral Date: December, 2015

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 2

Table of Contents
List of figures ................................................................................................................................. 5
List of tables ................................................................................................................................... 6
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 7
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................... 11
Background of the Problem ........................................................................................... 15
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................... 22
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 25
Importance of the Study ................................................................................................. 26
Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 28
Delimitations .................................................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................. 30
Classroom Climate .......................................................................................................... 32
Features of Classroom Climate .......................................................................... 32
Teacher-Student Interactions ............................................................................ 34
Positive Classroom Climate as a Precursor for Engagement ......................... 42
Quality of Teacher-Student Relationships .................................................................... 52
Pedagogy .......................................................................................................................... 67
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ........................................................................... 68
Enacting Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ............................................... 73
Critical Pedagogy .................................................................................... 75
Cultural Competence .............................................................................. 79
Current Conceptualizations of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ...................... 83
Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy ............................................................ 83
Popular Culture Pedagogy ..................................................................... 86
Learning Outcomes of Pedagogical Approaches ............................................. 89
Teacher-Initiated Pedagogical Approaches ...................................................... 96
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................ 109
Teacher’s and Students’ Contributions to Meaningful Learning ................ 112
Teacher Pedagogy ................................................................................. 113
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 3

Culturally Sustaining Tasks ................................................................. 114
Student Learning .................................................................................. 116
Teacher’s and Students’ Contributions to Affective Learning ..................... 121
Facilitates Thoughtful and Inclusive Classroom Discourse .............. 121
Demonstrates Social and Emotional Competency ............................. 122
Enacts Social Awareness ...................................................................... 122
Enacts Emotional Intelligence ............................................................. 123
Demonstrates Self-Awareness .............................................................. 124
Enacts Care ........................................................................................................ 126
Engages in Thoughtful and Respectful Oral Discourse ..................... 127
Learning Environment of a Culturally Aware Teacher ............................................ 129
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ....................................................................................................... 130
Research Design ............................................................................................................ 130
Sample and Population ................................................................................................. 132
Site Selection ...................................................................................................... 132
Participant Selection ......................................................................................... 134
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 136
Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................. 136
Data Analysis Procedures ................................................................................. 141
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................... 142
Internal Validity .................................................................................... 143
Reliability ............................................................................................... 146
Generalizability ..................................................................................... 146
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 149
Case Study #1: 10
th
Grade World History and Geography ...................................... 150
Teacher’s Contributions to Meaningful Learning ......................................... 154
Culturally Sustaining Tasks ................................................................. 161
Students’ Contributions to Meaningful Learning ......................................... 170
Teacher’s Contribution to Affective Learning Environment ....................... 181
Facilitates Thoughtful, Inclusive Classroom Discourse .................... 182
Demonstrates Social and Emotional Competency ............................. 187
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 4

Enacts Care ............................................................................................ 196
Students’ Contribution to Affective Learning Environment ........................ 204
Case Study #2: 12
th
Grade Expository Reading and Writing (ERWC) ................... 216
Teacher’s Contribution to Meaningful Learning .......................................... 220
Pedagogy that Scaffolds Rigor ............................................................. 221
Culturally Sustaining Tasks ................................................................. 238
Students’ Contribution to Meaningful Learning ........................................... 249
Teacher’s Contribution to Affective Learning Environment ....................... 264
Facilitates Thoughtful, Inclusive Classroom Discourse .................... 264
Demonstrates Social and Emotional Competency ............................. 271
Enacts Care ............................................................................................ 285
Students’ Contribution to Affective Learning Environment ........................ 291
Cross Case Analysis ...................................................................................................... 302
Pedagogy that Scaffolds Rigor ......................................................................... 303
Culturally Sustaining Tasks ............................................................................. 306
Learns Actively .................................................................................................. 307
Enacts Care ........................................................................................................ 310
Thoughtful and Respectful Oral Discourse .................................................... 312
CHAPTER 5 .............................................................................................................................. 315
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................... 316
Implications ................................................................................................................... 322
Practice ............................................................................................................... 322
Policy .................................................................................................................. 329
Research ............................................................................................................. 331
References .................................................................................................................................. 333

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 5

List of Figures
Figure 1: Teaching Through Interactions Three-Factor Model .................................................... 36
Figure 2: Teaching Through Interactions Two-Factor Model ...................................................... 40
Figure 3: Teaching Through Interactions One-Factor Model ....................................................... 41
Figure 4: School/Community Context Factors ............................................................................. 55
Figure 5: Conceptual Framework in Action (Revised) ............................................................... 110
Figure 6: Original Conceptual Framework in Action ................................................................. 111

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 6

List of Tables
Table 1: The Teaching Through Interactions Framework: Domains, Dimensions, and
their Description ............................................................................................................................ 38
Table 2: Most Common Instructional Strategies Observed During Authentic Instruction ........ 101
Table 3: Cross Case Overview of Findings ................................................................................ 150

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 7

Abstract
Both a caring, safe classroom climate and intellectually rigorous instruction are
essential precursors for student academic success. However, many students from
historically marginalized populations do not have access to learning environments that
adequately foster their social, emotional, and intellectual well-being. This study
examined the ways in which affective and intellectual elements, as enacted by both
culturally aware high school teachers and their students, contribute to the students’
capacity to function as intellectually active learners and as members of the classroom
community who collaborate with the teacher to create powerful learning environments.
The classrooms of two high school educators who had gained a reputation for both
creating a positive affective environment and engendering meaningful learning
experiences for large populations of high-needs and low income students served as the
units of analysis for this qualitative multi-case study. Data collection from this study
included seven and six classroom observations of each teacher’s classroom, respectively;
in-person pre- and post-observation teacher interviews; focus group interviews of
students from each classroom who represented a cross-section of academic performers
from each class; and a review of PowerPoint slides, worksheets, graphic organizers, texts,
and quizzes that were used during class time. The data yielded insights into the
pedagogical approaches of urban high school teachers, the nature of the relationships
between teachers and students, teachers’ perceptions of their practice, students’
perceptions of their teachers’ practice, and the ways in which both teachers and students
contribute both affectively and intellectually to urban high school classroom learning
environments to create powerful learning experiences. Analysis from this study revealed
that teachers and their students did not fully succeed in enacting the strategies and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 8

behaviors necessary to cultivate powerful learning environments in which students
consistently functioned as intellectually active learners. Both teachers were well-
intentioned in their approaches to building positive teacher-student relationships and the
dedication with which they practiced their profession. Moreover, one teacher was
particularly successful in jointly cultivating a positive affective learning environment
with her students. However, it should be noted that this success in establishing a positive
emotional climate of care and trust was not sufficient to produce a powerful learning
environment for students.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 9

Acknowledgements
While this dissertation process influenced the ways in which I now view teaching
practice, public education, policy, research, and data analysis, its rigor and demands
endowed me with greater emotional and intellectual clarity by forcing me to reflect on
my personal values and aspirations. This has allowed me to revisit and clarify those
things that truly matter most: loved ones, nature, internal peace, and those fleeting “throw
away” moments that we almost always take for granted but that ultimately forge their
way into our hearts and minds as lasting pieces of time. I could not have persisted
through this process without the unwavering support of the following individuals:
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Slayton: I’ll never be able to thank you enough for
your unyielding support and guidance. Your tireless work ethic and morally driven
approach to education equity have been a constant inspiration to me. Countless times you
opened my eyes to broader possibilities and new ways of thinking about learning and
teaching. Thank you for pushing me to grow and for your shockingly timely responses to
my 11pm texts.
To Dr. Marsh: Coming from a teacher’s background, I entered your class with
biases against most policy initiatives that are purported to improve the lives of students.
Your course opened my eyes to the complexities of policy instruments while also
offering me new perspectives on the potential for certain types of responsible legislation
to have an enormously positive effect on the lives of young people.
To Dr. Green: Your course had the most immediate impact on my teaching
practice and the ways in which I view teacher and school accountability. The diverse
choice of readings were both powerful and illuminating; however, they would have had
limited import if not for your instructional approach, which fostered constant inquiry and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 10

knowledge-construction among colleagues. Thank you for helping me see that
accountability isn’t a four-letter word, and thank you for the prunes.
To my wife, Katie: You deserve the biggest applause. There is simply no way I
could have persevered through this process without your unconditional love, support,
care, understanding, and sense of humor. Somehow you’ve managed to be my rock even
though you’ve been just as busy with full-time work and your graduate studies. Even
though I often had to work through birthdays, holidays, family gatherings, and
anniversaries, you constantly made the effort to create special moments for us to share
that more than made up for so many missed celebrations. Your Mole Boy loves you like
crazy.
To my family: I haven’t been the best of sons (or nephews), but just know that I
love you all more than ever. I truly appreciate all that you have done for me, and I would
not be equipped to do something of this magnitude without all of your contributions to
my well-being over the years.
To my other family (the Melechs): You’ve embraced me as part of your family. I
love and appreciate you for doing that. Thank you for all of your support, love, and
understanding these past few years. I am so fortunate to have you in my life.
To Sophie: People will undoubtedly question my sanity for including you here,
but you have been a steady and loyal companion throughout this process. May your
dreams be filled with endless meat sticks and smelsies!

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 11

CHAPTER 1: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Despite codifying the nation’s quest to narrow the achievement gap between
historically marginalized populations of K-12 students and their more affluent peers, the
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2002 has been unable to significantly improve the
academic outcomes for the populations of children that it had once marked as its highest
priority (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011). NCLB’s mandates
required states to develop and implement accountability systems that could more saliently
expose the academic outcomes of historically underperforming student populations, with
the purpose of targeting these populations for incremental improvements over time
(Center on Education Policy (CEP), 2006).
The bulk of NCLB’s theory of action hinges on federal accountability systems
that either reward or sanction districts and/or schools for student performance on
indicators that are largely comprised of standardized assessments (CEP, 2006; Kim &
Sunderman, 2005). Punitive actions have assumed different forms for underperforming
schools, including reconstitution of school staff, monetary sanctions, state or private
takeovers, and school closures (Kim & Sunderman, 2005; Ravitch, 2010; Wei, 2010).
Despite these courses of action, the achievement gap persists. Nationwide, low-income
Africa-American and Latino students trail their White and Asian counterparts in every
content area as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
(Hemphill & Vanneman, 2011; National Center for Education Statistics, 2011a; National
Center for Education Statistics, 2011b; National Center for Education Statistics, 2011c;
Vanneman, Hamilton, & Anderson, 2009). While gradual progress has been made for
some students, the gap itself remains virtually unchanged since NCLB’s advent (Weiss,
2013).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 12

In the wake of NCLB’s travails, the federal government leveraged $4.35 billion in
grant dollars to create the Race to the Top Fund of 2009 (RTTT) (U.S. Department of
Education, 2009). Originally established to spur the competitive climate that
policymakers hoped would foster innovation and the advanced accountability systems
thought to be missing from existing federal education policies, the U.S. Department of
Education’s in-earnest issuance of NCLB state waivers in 2011 positioned RTTT as the
federal government’s primary education policy initiative (CEP, 2014a).
From its inception, RTTT developed clear benchmarks for states seeking to earn a
share of the federal earmark. Consequently, each year participating states now receive
point allotments based on their respective fidelity to the criteria set forth by the U.S.
Department of Education (Boser, 2012; U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2009). These criteria call for
participating states to make significant and measurable progress in closing the nation’s
achievement gap. Specifically, they reward participating states for: a) building data
systems that link student achievement growth with teacher performance, b) adopting new
sets of rigorous learning standards across grade levels, c) making significant steps in
turning around or closing underperforming schools, d) recruiting and rewarding qualified
and effective teachers, and e) developing systems that facilitate the growth of alternative
public school models (U.S. Dept. of Ed., 2009; Weiss, 2013). Although RTTT has earned
praise for triggering innovations and efficiencies in assessment systems, school
development, and district operations (Boser, 2012), it has also raised concerns of critics,
who claim that its support for a) high-stakes standardized testing systems to measure
student growth and teacher performance, b) reconstitutions and shutdowns of designated
underperforming schools, and c) expansion of charter schools all undermine the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 13

credibility of educators, the flexibility of schools and local districts, and the voices of
underrepresented student populations (Onosko, 2011; Weiss, 2013). Furthermore, these
critics claim that RTTT further imperils the education goals of historically marginalized
student populations because it posits that children’s learning outcomes can be improved
simply by ramping up accountability measures and testing frequencies (Onosko, 2011;
Weiss, 2013). Five years removed from the advent of RTTT, the policy’s overall effects
on the learning and achievement of historically marginalized K-12 student populations in
RTTT states and districts remain unclear: While proficiencies in most core subject areas
have shown slight improvement, the achievement gap remains largely unchanged (Weiss,
2013).
California’s federal policy landscape is uniquely disjointed when compared to the
rest of the nation, though its student achievement outcomes are similar. Although the vast
majority of the state’s districts continue to operate within the parameters of NCLB’s
guidelines, a network of seven districts have been granted waivers that situate their
governance under the aegis of RTTT (CEP, 2014b). Nevertheless, historically
marginalized student populations across California–consisting primarily of special needs,
low-income, and non-Asian racial minority students–experience an even more profound
achievement gap then than their counterparts in other states, and have exceedingly higher
dropout rates than their Asian and White peers (Education Data Partnership, 2014).
These persistent disparities have led some education researchers to question the
wisdom of reforms that have sought to ameliorate the achievement gap (Darling-
Hammond, 2007; Kozol, 2005; Nichols & Berliner, 2008; Ravitch, 2010; Thompson &
Allen, 2012). Some experts claim that initiatives whose goals have targeted achievement
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 14

gaps have deviated too far away from the need to educate children. That is, these critics
warn that both federal and state policies have been too heavily driven by data that does
not necessarily reflect the high-quality learning experiences that would lay the foundation
for systemic education equity. Moreover, they question the lack of attention paid to
reforms that they believe would promote true equity for all children: rigorous and
authentic learning experiences in supportive, stable, and safe school environments
(Darling-Hammond, 2006; Kozol, 2005; Ravitch, 2010; Thompson & Allen, 2012).
Other education researchers have called for a shift in how the achievement gap is
conceptualized. Ladson-Billings (2006a), for instance, re-frames the achievement gap as
an “education debt” that pervades the nation’s economic, sociopolitical, and moral
systems. Haveman (2006) offers this analogue:
The education debt is the foregone schooling resources that we could have
(should have) been investing in (primarily) low-income kids, which deficit leads
to a variety of social problems (e.g., crime, low productivity, low wages, low
labor force participation) that require on-going public investment. This required
investment sucks away resources that could go to reducing the achievement gap.
Without the education debt we could narrow the achievement debt. (p. 5)
Much of the work conducted by similar-minded education researchers also
problematizes conventional perceptions of the achievement gap while positioning
education inequity as a conundrum that exists in substandard classroom learning
environments. These researchers offer alternative possibilities for how this trans-
generational problem can be expunged through culturally sustaining pedagogy, active
student learning, authentic teacher care, and positive teacher-student relationships
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 15

(Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Gay & Howard, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1995; 2006; Milner,
2011; Valenzuela, 1999).
I am particularly concerned about the problem of substandard learning
environments for historically marginalized populations of students. Additionally, I am
interested in the universe of features within classroom environments that promote both
positive affective and academic outcomes for historically marginalized populations of
students. My study examined what learning environments looked like in the classrooms
of urban educators with a reputation for being culturally aware teachers. For the
remainder of this chapter, I will provide background context for the problem of
substandard learning environments for historically marginalized students, discuss
approaches that have offered promise for ameliorating the problem, and briefly discuss
both the purpose and form of my study.
Background of the Problem
For the 2011-2012 school year, California’s teaching population was
66.8% White, 17.7% Latino/Hispanic, 5% Asian, 4% Black/African American, and 1.4%
Filipino. California’s student population was 52% Latino/Hispanic, 26.1% White, 8.6%
Asian, 6.5% Black/African American, and 2.5% Filipino (Education Data Partnership,
2014). These racial, ethnic, and cultural disparities can adversely affect teacher-student
relationships and impede student learning (Gay & Howard, 2000; Hawley & Nieto, 2010;
Johnson, 2002; Ready & Wright, 2011; Wayman, 2002).
There are specific reasons why many teachers are unable to bridge these racial,
ethnic, and cultural divides. One example can be found in the persistence with which
some teachers are unable or unwilling to forge authentic and effective social or emotional
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 16

connections with their students (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Ford & Kea, 2009; McHugh,
Horner, Colditz, & Wallace, 2013;). Student motivation, learning, and achievement often
falter when teachers fail to develop positive relationships with historically
disenfranchised students (Fine, Burns, Payne, & Torre, 2004; Hughes & Kwok; Jennings
& Greenberg, 2009). When students feel unimportant or ignored by their teachers, their
participation in classroom learning experiences decreases while feelings of boredom and
unhappiness spike (Fine et al., 2004; Furrer & Skinner, 2003). In addition, students who
feel alienated by conditions that either promote or perpetuate a lack of teacher
connectedness become increasingly filled with self-doubt regarding their own scholastic
success (Fine et al., 2004). Finally, students who perceive teacher-generated hostility of
or bias toward their cultural or racial identity may be more prone to dropping out
(Wayman, 2002).
Another impediment to positive teacher-student connectedness is rooted in the
discord between teacher-held perceptions of what constitutes acceptable student
classroom behavior (Hawley & Nieto, 2010; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Grounded in more
conventional pedagogical principles, these perceptions impinge upon the intellectual
flexibility and emotional acuity necessary for teachers to adapt their instructional and
affective approaches to meet the various needs of historically disenfranchised student
populations (Ford & Kea, 2009; Gay, 2010; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Since more
conventional views of acceptable classroom student behavior do not always align with
the actual behaviors enacted by students from diverse cultures, students whose classroom
behaviors clash with conventional behavioral paradigms are sometimes viewed by
teachers as either defiant or unattractive relationship partners (Davis, 2006; Ford & Kea,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 17

2009; Hughes & Kwok, 2007). Moreover, more traditional teachers often view
communication patterns that deviate from those of the dominant culture as rude or
inappropriate for classroom contexts (Gay, 2002).
Rifts in teacher-student connectedness also occur when teachers exhibit their care
for students in unproductive or unintentionally harmful ways (Valenzuela, 1999).
Oftentimes, a teacher turns his/her focus purely to his/her students’ quantitative academic
outcomes without attending to the social, emotional, or cultural well being of students
(Helig & Darling-Hammond, 2008). This type of caring undermines a student’s holistic
schooling experience because it is coded with disempowering implications: It defines a
young person’s values and strengths through the narrow scope of test scores (Valenzuela,
1999). This behavior can induce both apathy and low academic self-concept for already
struggling students and those students whose modes of intellectual expression are not
culturally congruent with many assessment models (Altshuler & Schmautz, 2006;
Thompson & Allen, 2012). Although young people may appreciate a teacher’s support
for their academic pursuits (Davis, 2006; Fine et al., 2004; McCugh et al., 2013), students
from historically marginalized populations typically respond more positively to a holistic
mode of “culturally responsive” teacher care that includes and transcends academic
pursuits (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Valenzuela, 1999).
Thus, teacher-student connectedness is unlikely to occur when students do not feel as
though they are valued as whole individuals (McHugh et al., 2013; Milner, 2011;
Valenzuela, 1999).
Evidence also suggests that teachers do not cultivate classroom environments that
support a broad range of student learning. A persistent hindrance to powerful learning
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 18

environments can be found in the widespread teaching practices that are at odds with
culturally responsive instruction or similar asset pedagogies that seek to foster social,
emotional, and intellectual growth by cultivating young people’s funds of knowledge,
sociocultural consciousness, and self-awareness (Ball, 2000; Duncan-Andrade, 2007;
Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2005; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim,
2014).
For the remainder of this chapter, I will refer to the approach that clashes with
asset pedagogical applications as “the pedagogy of poverty” (Haberman, 1991, p. 291).
This term derives from the preponderance of teaching practices enacted in urban
classrooms that fail to cultivate the student-centered tasks, supports, and interactions that
are integral to fostering equitable learning outcomes among historically marginalized
student populations (Gay, 2002; Ford & Kea, 2009; Hawley & Nieto, 2010; Ladson-
Billings, 1995; Valenzuela, 1999).
By no means did this study seek to infer that all urban teachers are culpable in
perpetuating the authoritarian or antiquated methodologies noted by Haberman (1991)
and others that hamper student growth; in the following section, I will identify a series of
noteworthy studies that highlight the exemplary efforts of extraordinary practitioners.
However, the problem of inadequate learning environments for historically marginalized
students should also be an indicator that teachers who employ the pedagogy of poverty
likely comprise a vast number of urban schoolteachers. For the remainder of this section,
I will elaborate on the characteristics of the pedagogy of poverty and its classroom-level
effects.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 19

Teachers who embrace the pedagogy of poverty maintain an agenda that involves
teacher-centered lessons and tasks that prioritize order, student competition, and student
performance outputs (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Haberman, 1991; Noguera, 2009). The
pedagogy of poverty also shies away from tailoring instruction that meets the needs of
historically marginalized student populations (Bartolomé, 2004; Haberman, 1991; Milner,
2011; Thompson & Allen, 2012). Thus, this view asks the student to absorb complete
responsibility for his/her achievement outcomes (Kozol, 2005). By placing the entire
onus of student failure on students, families, and cultures–while obscuring the moral
obligation to engender historically disenfranchised populations of students with agency,
social competency, and critical consciousness–the pedagogy of poverty also embraces a
deficit mindset that is at odds with positive student learning outcomes among
underserved students (Diamond, Randolph, & Spillane, 2004; Groves, 2002; Milner,
2011; Valenzuela, 1999).
Teachers who practice the pedagogy of poverty also prioritize individual success
while situating it as a product of both hard work and conformity (Duncan-Andrade, 2009;
Valenzuela, 1999). Duncan-Andrade (2009) argues that this approach embodies a
misleading and unproductive hope for historically marginalized student populations:
This hope is “hokey” because it ignores the laundry list of inequities that impact
the lives of urban youth long before they get to the under-resourced schools that
reinforce an uneven playing field. (p. 182)
Because this viewpoint is individualistic and output-oriented, it does not always mesh
with the learning modes of diverse cultures (Altshuler & Schmautz, 2006; Duncan-
Andrade, 2007; Gay, 2012; Hawley & Nieto, 2010; Valenzuela, 1999).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 20

Moreover, teachers who embrace the pedagogy of poverty structure significant
segments of instructional time around preparation for high-stakes or standardized testing
(Darling-Hammond, 2006, 2007; Kozol, 2005; Thompson & Allen, 2012). Classrooms
that allocate substantial learning time to test preparation often fail to provide the quality
of education that many education experts regard as meaningful, equitable, or necessary
for post-secondary success (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Duncan-Andrade, 2007; Groves,
2002; Lomax, West, Harmon, Viator, & Madaus, 1996). For example, test-centric
classroom environments have been found to narrow student access to a broad range of a)
content areas in which students are not normally tested and b) learning tasks that
challenge students to solve complex problems; synthesize research; engage in thoughtful,
text-driven dialogue; and apply existing knowledge to new contexts (Darling-Hammond,
2006; 2007; Kozol, 2005; Nichols & Berliner, 2008). Even in classrooms that are aligned
to subject areas that are tested, teachers often enact instruction that narrows learning
contexts to test-friendly tasks (Lomax et al., 1996). Additionally, many scholars view
standardized tests as culturally insensitive, insofar as they rarely allow for students to
either develop cultural competency or leverage existing funds of knowledge in pursuit of
a positive task outcome (Darling-Hammond, 2006; Duncan-Andrade, 2009; Kozol, 2005;
Groves, 2002; Thompson & Allen, 2012). That historically marginalized student
populations are disproportionately subject to teachers who perpetuate learning
environments that at once give academic primacy to high-stakes standardized test
outcomes and severely limit access to a high-quality curriculum is cause for additional
concern.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 21

The pedagogy of poverty causes further damage when teachers adopt perceptions
or biases that level expectations of student learning. In many cases, they link students’
racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic backgrounds to academic and learning proficiencies
(Ready & Wright, 2011; Rubie-Davies, 2010). In contrast, teachers generally
overestimate the knowledge and skills of White students, irrespective of their content
ability. Additionally, while teachers consistently underestimate the skills of African-
American and Latino students, they underestimate the academic abilities of low-income
students with the greatest frequency. The cascading effects of low-expectations
exacerbate the problem of de facto segregation already imposed on many underserved
students, who are far more likely to attend schools with exorbitantly high concentrations
of high-poverty and non-Asian racial minority students (Orfield & Fankenberg, 2014).
Some experts reason that educators who practice in settings with high concentrations of
historically marginalized students are especially prone to adopting an institutionalized
perspective that emphasizes and reinforces student deficits (Diamond, Randolph, &
Spillane, 2004). Consequently, schools with high concentrations of historically
marginalized student populations are disproportionately exposed to the enacted low-
expectations and biases that are propagated through learning environments that exhibit
low levels of academic rigor and cultural sensitivity (Rubie-Davies, 2010; Thompson &
Allen, 2012).
These stark realities reveal classroom-level approaches that have metastasized
into whole-system failure in how students with the greatest need are educated. Noting the
perilous nature of this trajectory, Haberman (1991) writes:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 22

Unfortunately, the pedagogy of poverty does not work. Youngsters achieve
neither minimum levels of life skills nor what they are capable of learning. The
classroom atmosphere created by constant teacher direction and student
compliance seethes with passive resentment that sometimes bubbles up into overt
resistance. (p. 291)
Statement of the Problem
In spite of the prevalence of classroom instructional approaches that do not
cultivate healthy, high-quality learning environments for students with the greatest need,
education researchers have identified myriad competing models that promote various
types of classroom success (e.g., Matsumura, Slater, & Crosson, 2008; Irvine &
McAllister, 2002; Phillips, 2011; Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012; Ryan,
Paige, Sizemore, & Neace; Pintrich & Midgley, 2001; Preus, 2012). Some of these
models illustrate the positive effects that whole philosophical shifts, such as the
enactment of asset pedagogies, can have in fostering student social, emotional, and
intellectual well-being (Ball, 2000; Bartolomé, 2004; Gay, 2002; Ladson-Billings, 1995;
2006b; Milner, 2011; Paris & Alim, 2014). These studies, however, rarely seek to isolate
variables that may have the greatest affect on students (e.g., Anthony, 1996; Furrer &
Skinner, 2003; Paige et al., 2013). Moreover, because they highlight shifts in teachers’
beliefs, behaviors, and practices, studies involving asset pedagogies seldom aspire to
examine how they are operationalized from the student side of the teacher-student
classroom partnership.
Other studies have narrowed their focus to discrete teacher- or student-cultivated
elements that promote successful overall outcomes in K-12 classrooms. Notable among
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 23

these elements are constructs such as pedagogy, rigor, engagement, emotional climate,
expectations, cultural competency, connectedness, motivation, and care. Although data
yielded from much of this research reveals powerful relationships between the presence
of some of these classroom elements and student intellectual and emotional growth (e.g.,
Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Hughes & Kwok, 2007; Paige et al., & Neace, 2013; Preus,
2012; Ready & Wright, 2011), few studies have examined the entire tapestry of the
classroom learning environment, or how their elements interweave and interact during
classroom instructional time. Nor have education researchers produced a rich description
of how the universe of classroom elements appears when cultivated by teachers and
students concomitantly. For instance, although a host of studies have examined the
construct of instructional rigor and its relationship with student behaviors (e.g.,
Matsumura et al., , 2008; Page et al., , 2013; Preus, 2012), few studies have sought to
thoroughly investigate a) how the rigor is cultivated from both the teacher and the student
throughout the course of a given lesson and b) the ways in which additional constructs,
(i.e., self-awareness, peer connectedness, sociocultural awareness) emerge during the
same time frame.
To date, some approximations of such a research design have emerged, though
with various limitations. In the final portion of this segment, I will discuss the two studies
that, in my estimation, come closest to actualizing this design model.
Designed as a teacher evaluation framework, the Classroom Assessment Scoring
System-Secondary (CLASS-S) attempts to assess the variety of elements associated with
classroom instructional environments (Allen, Gregory, Mikami, Lun, & Pianta, 2013).
However, since its central purpose is to assess the degree to which a teacher
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 24

operationalizes these elements, the CLASS-S does not seek a detailed account of the
intricacies inherent in student-cultivated strategies, behaviors, and moves.
In another study that seeks to examine the complexities of multiple classroom
elements during instructional time, Matsumura et al. (2008) investigate the relationship
between classroom climate and both the quality of curriculum and instruction and student
interactions. Although the authors of the study are able to draw authentic insights about
the ways in which these constructs interact, their research design reveals three salient
limitations. First, although the authors do examine levels of instructional rigor, they do
not seek to analyze the methods employed by the study’s teachers to scaffold upwards–
nor the strategies utilized by students to construct new knowledge as they adapt to higher-
order tasks. Next, the authors do not seek to examine a culturally sustaining component
related to developing students’ sociocultural consciousness, media literacy, and
understanding of social justice. Finally, while the authors do include teacher-student
respect as one of their key dimensions of classroom climate, the study does not also
include components that paint a more vivid picture of how the study’s more successful
teachers in this area cultivate these relationships.
The missing elements I have noted in each of these studies should not be
perceived as either oversights or failures of design. Rather, their omissions indicate that
space exists in education research for a study that makes a comprehensive attempt at
capturing a more comprehensive picture of what a healthy and powerful classroom
learning environment might look like. Such a study would examine the universe of
elements that comprise the affective and intellectual dimensions of a classroom, as
enacted by both teachers and students, in such a way as to draw out students as
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 25

intellectually active learners and as members of the classroom community who
collaborate with the teacher to create powerful learning environments.
Purpose of the Study
One of the purposes of this study was to step into the voids left by previous
research described above. Thus, this study gained insights into the ways in which
affective and intellectual elements, as enacted by both teachers and students, contributed
to the students’ capacity to function as intellectually active learners and as members of
the classroom community who collaborated with the teacher to create powerful learning
environments. In this pursuit, I examined the constellation of variables that emerged in
the urban high school classrooms of two culturally aware teachers during instructional
time. My guiding research question was as follows: What do the learning environments
look like in the classrooms of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and
serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations? My study’s data
consisted of classroom observations, classroom artifacts, teacher interviews, and student
focus groups. I conducted classroom observations that analyzed the ways in which both a
teacher and his/her students contributed to meaningful learning and a positive affective
environment in creating a powerful learning environment. With meaningful learning
construction in mind, I collected classroom artifacts that represented a) the beliefs,
pedagogical principles, and instructional approaches of teachers and b) the learning
construction, task values, and task proficiencies of students. I conducted pre- and post-
observation teacher interviews to gain deeper insight into each teacher’s conscious and
enacted beliefs about cultivating meaningful student learning and a positive affective
environment; and I conducted student focus groups to examine their views regarding
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 26

teacher- and student- cultivated elements of meaningful learning and their classroom’s
affective environment. My qualitative multi-case study was conducted at a Los Angeles-
area urban high school that served a majority population of historically marginalized
students. The study consisted of one English teacher and one History teacher; it examined
one class of students from each teacher’s program schedule.
Importance of the Study
This study will prove its significance to the broader education and research
communities because it will contribute to our understanding of practice. Since few
studies seek to examine the universe of elements that are cultivated by a culturally aware
teacher and his/her students to form a powerful learning environment, this study will
provide insights for stakeholders who seek to improve positive learning outcomes for
historically marginalized populations of students.
Because they are engaged in the daily interactions that can have the greatest affect
on student learning (Darling-Hammond, 2000), this study will provide especially relevant
information for teachers seeking to effect positive change for historically marginalized
students. Gaining further insights into the intricacies of classroom learning environments
can promote new ways of thinking about developing high-quality instruction and
fostering positive teacher-student relationships. Additionally, this study will provide a
functional resource for teachers who wish to learn more about the conditions in which
traditionally underserved students thrive.
For school principals, this study will offer further context and depth into the
attributes of an effective classroom practitioner. Rather than providing quantitative data
that distills what might be viewed as effective teaching into discrete causal relationships,
this study offers a more complex, nuanced view of the qualities that principals may
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 27

consider when hiring teachers. In addition, squandering potential human capital is a
misstep that most public schools cannot afford to absorb (Fullan, 2014). As such, this
study will offer principals and other key school leaders data that shed a new light on the
kinds of teachers whose exceptional classroom performance may normally remain
undervalued or completely unnoticed.
Policymakers will also benefit from a qualitative study that investigates the
holistic approach that examines high-quality teaching and learning. With decades of
school reform policies having produced uneven progress (Kim & Sunderman, 2005;
Thompson & Allen, 2012; Weiss, 2013), my study will provide federal, state, and local
legislators with alternative insights into the hearth of high-quality teaching and learning
for historically marginalized student populations.
Finally, education researchers will benefit from this study in three distinct ways.
First, this study will offer added depth and breadth to the paucity of literature that
attempts to capture a host of teacher- and student-cultivated classroom variables in
pursuit of positive learning outcomes. As stated earlier, although some studies seek to
examine relationships between select teacher-cultivated elements, very few attempt to
investigate the host of elements that both the teacher and his/her students contribute
within a common timeframe. Having access research design that attempts to collectively
examine all of these elements could spur an advancement of research in this area.
Similarly, this study’s exploration into the influence of learning environments that
emphasize the importance of social and emotional structures of a child’s classroom
learning context will provide researchers with additional ballast to extend this research
into the areas of student learning outcomes or the development of effective professional
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 28

development models. Finally, this study will provide a necessary empirical underpinning
to the existing body of research dedicated to asset-oriented approaches to classroom
instruction. Rather than employing a specific research design, much of the literature
associated with asset pedagogies elaborates on theoretical foundations (e.g., Bartolomé,
2004; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2005; Gay, 2002; Paris & Alim, 2014). My study
incorporated core components of asset pedagogies into its research design while
providing qualitative data that adds empirical context to researchers who are interested in
broadening their scope of knowledge in this area.
Limitations
As this was a qualitative case study, it was not designed to produce generalizable
findings. Nor was its design conducive to drawing universal conclusions from the
elements that I posited as core components of powerful learning environments. Rather
than attempting to determine causal relationships, the purpose of this study was to gain a
deeper insight into the learning environments of culturally aware teachers. By conducting
a deep analysis of these classrooms, and the individuals who inhabited them, I captured
data that yielded a deeper understanding of the teacher- and student-cultivated conditions
that were present within these classrooms. This study was also limited by its scope.
Because all data collection within the study was restricted to aspects of the classroom
environment, investigation of the broader school culture was excluded. Although a
school’s micropolitical context may have a demonstrable effect on the behaviors, affects,
and strategies of both students and teachers (Diamond et al., 2004; Paige et al., 2013),
this study did not seek to determine the influence of such factors. Finally, constraints on
the length of time that I was able to remain in each of the study’s classrooms likely
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 29

inhibited the depth and breadth of data collected. I detail some of the implications for
these and other limitations at greater length in Chapter 3 of this dissertation.
Delimitations
Quality of data during person-to-person teacher interviews was constrained by the
questions that were both chosen and omitted. These choices of addition and omission
were later realized during the data analysis process, during which time it became apparent
that additional data in certain areas would have provided greater context for behaviors
and tasks that emerged as items of importance. Moreover, choosing to serve as the sole
instrument of data collection during classroom observations limited the depth and breadth
of data that of myriad behaviors and interactions that materialized in real time. Finally, in
deciding to not seek consent from focus group participants’ parents to have their groups
audio recorded limited the detail of the data that was gathered from these interactions.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 30

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Education researchers have revealed that a constellation of dynamics within K-12
classrooms have a profound and lasting impact on the social, emotional, and academic
growth of young people (Anthony, 1996; Hamre, et al., 2013; Jennings & Greenberg,
2008; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Matsumura, Slater, & Crosson, 2008; Paige, Sizemore, &
Neace, 2013; Preus, 2012). These interrelationships between and among a web of
classroom-level features include the settings in which teachers and students operate, the
relational connections that teachers and students forge, the instructional approaches that
teachers enact, and the social, emotional, and academic outcomes that students produce
(Jennings & Greenberg, 2008; Matsumura et al., 2008; McHugh, Horner et al., 2013;
Pace, 2003). Classroom climates, the quality of teacher-student relationships, and teacher
pedagogy represent three classroom-level constructs that encompass these features.
Classroom climates, which comprise the levels of trust, support, connection, respect, and
care among individuals in a given classroom, are an integral factor in the development of
knowledge, skills, self-regulation, self-efficacy, and both social and emotional
competencies of students (Adelman & Taylor, 2005; Campbell, 2008; Matsumura et al.,
2008; Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, & Salovey, 2012). The quality of teacher-student
relationships, which are often brought about by a teacher’s willingness and ability to
defuse conflict; facilitate student agency; and develop empathetic, sustainable, mutually
rewarding bonds, have strong associations with levels of student motivation, emotional
regulation, and learning outcomes (Jennings & Greenberg, 2008; McHugh, Horner,
Colditz, & Wallace, 2013; Milner & Tenore, 2010). The connectedness and relational
trust produced by such developments have shown to have a more pronounced affect on
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 31

the historically marginalized student populations who will consume much of the focus of
my study. Finally, teacher pedagogy, which Murphy (1996) defines as “interactions
between teachers, students, and the learning environment and learning tasks” (1996, p.
35), is also a key determinant in the rate, depth, and durability of cognitive growth in
young people (Anthony, 1996; Paige et al., 2013). Education scholars often situate the
constructs of classroom climate, the quality of teacher-student interactions, and pedagogy
as components of classroom learning environments (McHugh et al., 2012; Matsumura et
al., 2008; Paige et al., 2013).
Because the relationships among classroom climate, teacher-student relationships,
and pedagogy are so enmeshed, I utilize the term learning environments to denote the
intersection of these three constructs. First, I review the literature related to each of these
constructs. My rationale for presenting each body of literature separately is twofold: to
tease apart the features that inhabit each construct, and to reveal the ways in which each
construct operates at the classroom level. I will tackle these concepts in order to gain
insights that enabled me to answer the following guiding research question: What do the
learning environments look like in the classrooms of urban high school educators who are
culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized
populations? Finally, I conclude this literature review with my conceptual framework,
which informed the research design and methods that I incorporated in answering my
research question.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 32

Classroom Climate
Researchers in this area have sought to investigate a host of possible outcomes
(e.g., social, emotional, and academic) that occur in response to dynamics that emerge or
exist within classroom climates. Therefore, I organize my review of the literature
associated with classroom climate into three distinct areas. I open this review with a
discussion of the features that the research most frequently associates with classroom
climate. Next, I summarize a seminal article that posits a framework for teacher-student
interactions. Finally, I conclude this section with a review of research that examined the
ways and extent to which classroom climates operate as a precondition for student
learning and engagement.
Features of Classroom Climate
In attempting to clarify the definition and role of classroom climate, Adelman and
Taylor (2005) reviewed the literature that examined its features, its relationship with both
students and teachers, and its susceptibility to external variables. They subsequently used
these literatures as a guide to inform their perspective. In light of this process, the authors
first defined the term as “a perceived quality of the setting” that “emerges in a somewhat
fluid state from the complex transaction of many immediate environmental factors (e.g.,
physical, material, organizational, operational, and social variables)” (2005, p. 89). They
then positioned classroom climate to be a function of classroom-level variables such as
student efficacy, instructional practices, and a teacher’s social and emotional state.
Moreover, the authors concluded that classroom climate was also a product of social,
political, geographic, and economic factors that occur on a more global scale. From the
authors’ point of view, these external dynamics included the following: accountability,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 33

assessment, and school funding policies; the level of support, guidance, and control that
teachers are given with respect to these policies; clarity of school-wide expectations; SES
of the school’s surrounding community; the “fit” (p. 89) between school policies and
teacher ideology; and school-level leadership approaches to student learning and
achievement.
In underscoring the role of classroom climate in influencing student outcomes,
Adelman and Taylor (2005) cited studies revealing significant relationships between
classroom climate and a host of classroom- and school-level variables. They included
“such matters as student engagement, behavior, self-efficacy, achievement, social and
emotional development, principal leadership style, teacher burnout,” and “overall quality
of school life” (2005, p. 90). The authors also noted that the majority of classroom
climate research suggested the likelihood that classroom climate may have a greater
affect on students from historically marginalized populations. They noted that much of
the literature on classroom climates, therefore, advocated for:
careful attention to enhancing the quality of life in the classroom for students and
staff; pursuing a curriculum that promotes not only academic, but also social and
emotional learning; enabling teachers to be effective with a wide range of
students; and fostering intrinsic motivation for classroom learning and teaching.
(Adelman & Taylor, 2005, p. 90)
Despite taking this position, Adelman and Taylor (2005) nevertheless noted the
inherent difficulty associated with any attempt to dispassionately and accurately measure
the classroom climate construct. They reasoned that this was primarily due to the
construct’s vulnerability to bias, insofar as “different observers may have different
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 34

perceptions of the climate in a given classroom” (p. 89). In attempting to ameliorate this
problem, the authors cited studies that advised researchers to a) integrate shared
perceptions among teachers, students, and observers when attempting to form a more
accurate assessment and b) utilize multiple methods of data collection.
Teacher-Student Interactions
Hamre et al. (2013) sought to determine the degree to which their Teaching
through Interactions model (Hamre & Pianta, 2007) of teacher performance and
effectiveness achieved consistency with previously collected observational data that
comprised a “diverse sample” (p. 462) of 4,341 preschool to elementary classrooms
across the United States. The classrooms included in the researchers’ sample were “part
of seven national and regional studies covering a broad array of student classroom
characteristics” (p. 468). The authors posited that showing consistency between their
model and large-sample classroom observational data would provide evidence of the
model’s “applicability and generalizability” (p. 468). They utilized quantitative
methodology in attempting to do so.
In addition to emphasizing the centrality of the teacher role in a child’s education,
Hamre et al. (2013) cited the following as their rationale for testing both the validity and
reliability of their model: a) the paucity of teaching models that include various levels of
student learning, b) the paucity of teaching models that offer a methodologically rigorous,
peer-reviewed framework for teacher effectiveness, c) the need for a clearer
understanding of the inputs that comprise effective teaching, and d) the need for a
common framework that accounts for “aspects of teachers’ jobs that can be reliably
observed and assessed” (p. 463). The authors maintained that the structure and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 35

composition of the Teaching through Interactions model addressed each of these
concerns. Their reasons for this claim will become evident in the following paragraph.
After first citing literature that suggested the importance of teacher-student
interactions on learning growth, Hamre et al. (2013) narrowed their approach to assessing
effective teaching to the collection of elements that comprise teacher-student interactions.
The authors narrowed the teacher-student interactions construct through “three broad
domains of classroom interactions involving teachers and students (that) are hypothesized
to be important in promoting students learning and social development–Emotional
Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support” (p. 463). Next, Hamre et al.
cited extensive research to support their selection of each of the model’s three primary
domains. Moreover, they posited that this three-domain model would more closely fit the
data observed among the study’s sample than two alternative models. The first alternative
model posited Social Supports and Instructional Supports as the two primary domains of
effective teaching; the second alternative model posited only effective teaching as the
primary domain of effective teaching. The authors explained that comparing three
different models would offer insight into how classroom interactions should be organized
for understanding “classroom effects on student outcomes” (p. 468).
To assess the interactions of the model’s elements, the authors utilized the
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008)
observational measure for classroom quality, along with its precursor, the Classroom
Observational Study (COS). The authors noted that the COS was utilized for a three-
phase longitudinal study among its seven-study sample. They also noted that the COS
had served as the guide for the subsequent development and implementation of the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 36

CLASS. I will refer exclusively to the CLASS for the remainder of this analysis because
a) both observational systems share an identical conceptual framework and scoring
protocol and b) the CLASS was the system most frequently applied to the study’s overall
sample and, thus, most frequently referenced by the authors. Beyond serving as an
observation and assessment tool, the CLASS aligned closely with the Teaching through
Interactions framework. Moreover, the CLASS explicitly identified specific dimensions
that existed within each of the three main domains of teacher-student interactions that
were found in the Teaching through Interactions framework (see Fig 1).

Figure 1. Each of the three teacher-initiated domains (also referenced by the authors as
factors) are represented by four dimensions. Adapted from “Teaching through
Interactions: Testing a Developmental Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in Over
4,000 Classrooms,” by B.K. Hamre, R.C. Pianta, J.T. Downer, J. DeCoster, A.J.
Mashburn, S.M. Jones, J.L. Brown, E. Cappella, M. Atkins, S.E. Rivers, M.A. Brackett,
and A. Hamagami, 2013, The Elementary School Journal, 113, p. 469.
In addition, the authors noted that the CLASS provided researcher-observers with a
description of each of the dimensions depicted in the Teaching through Interactions
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 37

model through what they referred to as “explicit indicators” (p. 463). For instance,
Positive Climate, one of the five dimensions of the model’s Emotional Supports domain,
was indicated on the CLASS through observations that would reveal the nature of
teacher-student “relationships, affect, respect, and communication” (Pianta & Hamre,
2009, p. 111). This same CLASS indicator was depicted on Hamre et al.’s (2013)
Teaching through Interactions framework as “the overall emotional tone of the classroom
and the connection between teachers and students” (p. 465). The authors furnished Table
1 to depict a full representation of the Teaching through Interactions model’s domains,
dimensions within each domain, and descriptions that also served as CLASS assessment
indicators for classroom observers.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 38

Table 1

The Teaching Through Interactions Framework: Domains, Dimensions and their
descriptions

Note. All elements depicted are teacher-driven. Each description applies to the specified
dimensions associated with each domain. The graphic depicted here is a screenshot
extracted from the original study. Adapted from “Teaching through Interactions: Testing
a Developmental Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in over 4,000 Classrooms,” by
B.K. Hamre, R.C. Pianta, J.T. Downer, J. DeCoster, A.J. Mashburn, S.M. Jones, J.L.
Brown, E. Cappella, M. Atkins, S.E. Rivers, M.A. Brackett, and A. Hamagami, 2013,
The Elementary School Journal, 113, p. 465.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 39

Furthermore, the authors noted that the CLASS called for observers to record
“behavioral markers” (p. 464) wherein indicators are “operationalized” (p. 463) in
classroom interactions. Examples of behavioral markers given by the authors included
“physical proximity, shared activities, peer assistance, matched affect, and social
conversation” (p. 464). Finally, Hamre et al. (2013) described the CLASS instrument’s 7-
point rating scale, which anchored descriptions of these observable teacher-student
behaviors on a continuum within each domain. This enabled observers to record
incremental levels of the quality of teacher-child interaction.
To test the proposed framework’s reliability, Hamre et al. (2013) sorted “observed
dimensions of classroom process” (p. 468) recorded from CLASS observations of 4,341
classrooms within the three primary domains of the Teaching through Interactions model.
They repeated this process with the two alternative models of teacher performance and
effectiveness described earlier in this analysis. Contrasting the researchers’ three-factor
model, the comparison models included two factors and one factor, respectively, while
retaining all of the dimensions included in the Teaching through Interactions model (see
Figs. 3 and 4). For the two-factor model, the authors combined Emotional Support and
Classroom organization into one Instructional Support domain. This left them with
domains dedicated to Social Supports, Instructional Supports and all of the dimensions
therein (see Fig. 2). For the one-factor model, the authors loaded all domains into a single
Effective Teaching factor and included all of the dimensions of classroom interactions
within this domain. (see Fig. 3). For the three-factor model, the authors included all
dimensions within the single factor Effective Teaching domain. To test each of these
models, the authors calculated the degree to which each model’s structures fit the “natural
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 40

variations” (p. 468) of observed classroom processes recorded in the CLASS. Finally, the
authors compared the fit between each proposed model of teacher effectiveness and the
observational data yielded by the CLASS instrument.

Figure 2. The first of two alternative teaching models proposed by the authors to
compare the reliability and validity of the three-factor Teaching through Interactions
model. Adapted from “Teaching through Interactions: Testing a Developmental
Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in Over 4,000 Classrooms,” by B.K. Hamre, R.C.
Pianta, J.T. Downer, J. DeCoster, A.J. Mashburn, S.M. Jones, J.L. Brown, E. Cappella, M.
Atkins, S.E. Rivers, M.A. Brackett, and A. Hamagami, 2013, The Elementary School
Journal, 113, p. 469.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 41

Figure 3. The second of two alternative teaching models proposed by the authors to
compare the reliability and validity of the three-factor Teaching through Interactions
model. Adapted from “Teaching through Interactions: Testing a Developmental
Framework of Teacher Effectiveness in Over 4,000 Classrooms,” by B.K. Hamre, R.C.
Pianta, J.T. Downer, J. DeCoster, A.J. Mashburn, S.M. Jones, J.L. Brown, E. Cappella, M.
Atkins, S.E. Rivers, M.A. Brackett, and A. Hamagami, 2013, The Elementary School
Journal, 113, p. 469.

Results from Hamre et al.’s (2013) study provided statistically significant
evidence that the three-factor Teaching through Learning model provided a better fit to
the observational data “collected across a wide range of studies” (p. 479) than either the
Social/Instruction Supports model or the Effective Teaching model. Of the three fit
statistics utilized by Hamre et al., only one revealed the Teaching through Interactions
model to provide what the authors characterized as a “good fit” (p. 476). Neither of the
two alternative models provided an “adequate” (p. 476) nor a good fit. Regarding the
computed relationships between the Teaching through Interactions’ domains and their
appropriated dimensions, the authors’ results showed that all of the model’s dimensions
were significantly related to their assigned domain. Moreover, these calculations also
revealed strong associations among the model’s three primary domains. Most notably, a
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 42

“strong effect” (p. 477) occurred between the domains of Classroom Organization and
Emotional Support. With respect to the reliability of the framework’s three main domains,
results of the author’s calculations revealed strong internal consistency of each variable.
Positive Classroom Climate as a Precondition for Learning and Engagement
Matsumura, Slater, and Crosson (2008) attempted to determine the extent to
which both classroom climate and rigorous instructional practices in predominantly low-
income, racially diverse sixth- and seventh-grade ELA and mathematics classes
contributed to both students’ respect for each other and the rate and quality of their
participation in class. Matsumura et al. (2008) defined classroom climate as “the level of
respect and regard teachers showed students in class discussions and activities, students’
opportunity to engage in collaborative work, and the presence of classroom rules for
respectful, prosocial behavior” (2008, p. 297). They defined rigorous instruction in both
subject areas as “instruction that provides students with an opportunity to participate in
classroom discussions that involve academically substantive content and that are
characterized by students and teachers building on, and extending, each others’
contributions and providing evidence for their assertions” (2008, p. 296), adding that, in
these contexts, students are required to “represent and explain their thinking in multiple
ways” (2008, p. 296). The researchers sampled 34 sixth- and seventh-grade English
language arts (ELA) and mathematics teachers from five medium-sized middle schools in
an East Coast urban school district. The study’s teachers were chosen based on their
interest in the nature and context of the study as proposed by the researchers. Matsumura
et al. formulated their study around the following research questions:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 43

• What are the relative contributions of classroom climate and the quality of
curriculum and instruction to the degree of respect that students exhibit toward
one another in the classroom?
• What are the relative contributions of classroom climate and the quality of
curriculum and instruction to the rate and quality of students’ participation in
class discussions? (2008, p. 297)
Matsumura et al. (2008) utilized a mixed-methods design for their study’s data
collection. Their first stage of data collection took the form of classroom observations.
The four-person classroom observation team, which the authors also referred to as “raters”
(p. 298), included two of the study’s authors and two graduate students. Prior to
observations, the study’s authors asked teachers to engage in a text discussion (for ELA)
or a problem solving activity (for mathematics) during scheduled observations. Team
members conducted all lesson observations over a two-week span. While in the
classroom, the raters took detailed field notes during their respective observations and did
not participate in any classroom activities. Each rater observed the same teacher’s class
period on two consecutive school days. In addition to recording a comprehensive record
of teacher and student interactions in their field notes, raters also collected all artifacts
and documents that teachers distributed throughout the class period. Immediately
following observations, the raters analyzed their field notes and artifacts “with attention
to the types of questions posed to student in class discussions, the rigor of activities,
student-to-student interactions, and the rules/expectations posted in the classroom” (2008,
p. 298). For the coding process, the raters scored a series of scaled rubrics that had
already been designed by the study’s authors in alignment with the study’s primary
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 44

variables of interest discussed earlier (classroom climate, rigor of instruction, student
interaction). Once all rubrics had been tabulated, the authors calculated descriptive
statistics for all rubric ratings, which enabled them to compute correlations between
variables. Finally, they “applied multiple regression techniques” (2008, p. 293) to assess
the predictive relationships between the study’s variables.
Matsumura et al.’s (2008) results suggested strong relationships between each of
their study’s primary variables. With respect to classroom climate, their data revealed the
respect that teachers exhibited toward their students to be strongly associated with
variables that are known throughout the literature to be key contributors to both healthy
classroom climates and positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes among
students. Specifically, the authors’ results revealed teacher respect for students to have
statistically significant correlations with opportunity for cooperative work, access to
expectations, students providing evidence for opinions and students’ respect for each
other. Their results also revealed two classroom climate-related variables to be strongly
predictive of positive student behaviors. That is, they found teacher respect for students
to be predictive of students’ respect for each other and the presence of explicit classroom
rules for respectful prosocial behavior to be predictive of the number of students who
participated in class discussions. Finally, the authors’ results revealed that the quality of
student participation was predicted only by positive exhortations from teachers for their
students to explain and support contributions. However, this result only occurred when
positive teacher exhortations were combined with rigorous teacher-generated questions.
Ultimately, the hypothesis put forth by Matsumura et al.’s study, which posited a
triangulation among classroom climate, instructional rigor, and student behavior, revealed
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 45

the likelihood that the quality of classroom climate and the rigor of student learning
experiences reinforced each other.
In a quantitative study, Campbell (2008) examined the effects that an “open
classroom climate” (p. 440) had on adolescent students’ political engagement. He defined
open classroom climate as classrooms in which “different perspectives on political issues
are discussed and debated” (p. 441). He defined political engagement as the process by
which young people gradually became “comfortable with politics, and view it as a natural
activity” (p. 441). The rationale for my inclusion of this piece in this review is due to the
author’s attempt to investigate the relationship between a specific classroom climate
approach and student outcomes. Campbell’s study was driven by the following
hypotheses:
• An open classroom climate leads to greater civic knowledge (civic knowledge
hypothesis)
• An open classroom climate fosters a disposition toward being politically engaged
(voting hypothesis)
• An open classroom climate fosters a greater appreciation for the role of conflict in
the political process (appreciation of conflict hypothesis)
• An open classroom climate has a greater impact on students with a lower SES
(compensation hypothesis). (2008, p. 441)
Campbell (2008) collected data from a randomized and “representative sample”
(p. 442) of 14-year-olds who had taken the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study (CIVED)
national school-based survey. The full CIVID sample originally included 2,811 students
in 124 U.S. public and private schools. Because some schools did not include all of the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 46

data necessary for Campbell’s study, the author limited his analysis to 105 schools. The
researcher did not, however, explicitly state the exact sample of students that his study
ultimately employed. The CIVID measured multiple dimensions of civic education and
included both school and school district data.
To assess the openness of classroom climate among the study’s sample, Campbell
(2008) extracted six questions from the CIVID survey that specifically dealt with aspects
of this variable. He then tabulated a “classroom climate index” (p. 443) by calculating the
mean responses to survey items, both at the student and classroom levels. The author then
incorporated this index into a broader system of calculations to ultimately determine the
extent to which it influenced the knowledge, appreciation of democratic conflict, and
future propensity to vote among distinct student populations. Campbell tabulated student
civic knowledge by calculating the percentage of correct responses on 49 CIVID items
that assessed “broad concepts and principles within a democratic society” (2008, p. 444).
He calculated student appreciation of conflict through an index whose inputs took the
form of multiple-choice responses regarding the degree to which three specific items
were “good or bad for democracy” (2008, p. 444). He calculated the propensity for future
voting by tabulating a mean of student responses to CIVID items that dealt intended
future voting activity. The author then attempted to assess whether an open classroom
climate disproportionately benefitted low-income students. Because of the difficulty in
measuring income level, Campbell utilized expected student education attainment as a
proxy for socioeconomic status. After extracting CIVID responses to a question that
asked students how many years of education they expected to complete, the researcher
calculated the degree to which the independent variable influenced low-income students.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 47

Campbell (2008) then identified additional variables that his calculations revealed
to have a statistically significant influence on the relationships between open classroom
climates and the elements associated with political engagement. They were: home
discussion, exposure to news media, books in the home, gender, race/ethnicity, school
location, per-pupil district expenditure, college graduates within a school district, median
income within a school district, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch
at the school level, and frequency of social studies instruction. The author used
computations to both account and control for these additional variables. His purpose in
doing so was to determine each of their influences on the effects open classroom climate
had on each of the study’s variables associated with political engagement. However, for
the purpose of this summary, I focus on Campbell’s results that addressed his initial
hypotheses, with the understanding that each of these results controlled for the additional
variables I have noted.
Campbell’s (2008) results confirmed each of his study’s hypotheses. First, he
found an open classroom climate to have a statistically significant positive relationship
with increased civic knowledge, both at the classroom and individual student levels. This
result was evidenced by an average gain of two percentage points on CIVID assessments
by students whose scores on the classroom climate index ranked one standard deviation
above the sample’s mean. Next, Campbell’s results revealed the influence of an open
classroom climate on students’ appreciation of democratic conflict to have an even
greater significance: Is impact was a twofold increase over the impact it had on civic
knowledge. His results revealed a similarly significant affect of an open classroom
climate on the likelihood for future political engagement. With respect to Campbell’s
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 48

compensation hypothesis, the author’s results showed that the affect of an open
classroom climate on students with low-SES was far greater than its affect on wealthier
students. Recalling that Campbell substituted students’ expected education attainment as
a proxy for SES, the author then pointed to results revealing that a) an open classroom
climate had little or no affect on students who expected to attend graduate school (two
standard deviations above the mean for expected education) and b) an open classroom
climate’s affect on student with expectations of dropping out of high school (two
standard deviations below the mean for expected education) was far more positive than
their more aspirational peers. Moreover, its positive affect became significantly more
pronounced as these students’ classroom climates became more open.
Examining the influence of classroom emotional climate (CEC) on both student
engagement and academic achievement, Reyes, Brackett, Rivers, White, and Salovey
(2012) studied a sample of 1,399 students across 63 fifth- and sixth- grade English-
Language Arts (ELA) classrooms within a diverse school district in the Northeastern
United States. The study’s student sample included populations that were 33%
Black/African American, 29% Hispanic, 25% White/non-Hispanic, and 12%
Asian/Pacific Islander. The schools included in the study had overall student enrollments
that were composed of 12% English Language Learners, 28% recipients of free or
reduced lunch, 73% “minority status in terms of race/ethnicity” (p. 3), and 31% with low
reading achievement.
Reyes et al. (2012) hypothesized that CEC would directly influence student
achievement, that classes with higher observed CEC would have higher student ratings of
engagement, and that the relationship between CEC and student achievement would be
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 49

mediated by student engagement. They defined classroom emotional climate as “The
quality of social and emotional interaction in the classroom–between and among students
and teachers (e.g., teacher and peer support, student autonomy)” (2012, p. 1). The authors
posited that each of the relationships between and among the study’s three variables
would attain statistical significance, even when teacher characteristics, classroom
organizational climates, and instructionally climates were held constant. To investigate
these relationships, the authors used a quantitative research design that comprised two
types of classroom-level data collection, followed by a series of operations that
incorporated these data to calculate relationships between and among the study’s
variables. I will summarize the sequence of Reyes et al.’s methods in the ensuing
paragraphs.
To assess CEC, Reyes et al. (2012) first assigned video equipment to each of the
study’s teachers and instructed them to record individual teaching lessons on three
separate days over a two-week period. They then asked teachers to center the content of
their recorded lessons on grammar, vocabulary, or literature. After the teachers had
submitted the tapes, the researchers used a uniform protocol to observe and code the
taped lessons. Lessons were coded using the elementary school version of the Classroom
Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). The research
team used the CLASS because it enabled them to arrange codes into three distinct
classroom climate domains (e.g., “emotional support, classroom organization, and
instructional support” (p. 4)) and either three or four dimensions within each domain.
Each domain and dimension was scored on a 7-point scale “based on the presence or
absence, frequency, and quality of specific observable indicators” (2012, p. 5). These
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 50

scores served as proxies for codes. Coders averaged assigned scores across dimensions
and domains to obtain three total climate scores from all three of each teacher’s lessons.
To assess student engagement, research assistants distributed and administered
student engagement surveys to pupils during the school day. The eight-item Likert-type
surveys previously developed by Furrer & Skinner (2003) were scaled to measure
“students’ perceptions of their effort, interest, and enjoyment while initiating and
sustaining learning activities” (Reyes et al., 2012, p. 5). Once completed, the authors
calculated survey responses to arrive at composite scores.
Reyes et al. (2012) used each student’s year-end report card grade in ELA as the
study’s sole indicator of academic achievement. They extracted student ELA grades from
report cards at each school site. All of the study’s teachers used the same report card
format, which averaged each student’s ELA grade across seven categories.
Reyes et al. (2012) integrated score results from each of the study’s three main
variables and their covariates through multiple mediation analytical procedures. These
operations controlled for an array of potentially confounding variables. As a result of
these procedures, the authors found CEC to have statistically significant relationships
with both student engagement and academic achievement in ELA. They found these
relationships to include both direct and indirect links between CEC and academic
achievement. For instance, after controlling for all designated covariates, the authors
found students to have a half-a-letter grade increase in grades for every one unit increase
in CEC. They also found statistically significant indirect effects of CEC on academic
achievement through the mediator variable of student engagement. Finally, although the
mediator of student engagement was found to have the strongest relationship with
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 51

academic achievement, the authors’ findings revealed CEC to have a significant effect on
student engagement.
Summary of Classroom Climate
Much of the literature reviewed in this section revealed strong relationships
between the nature of classroom climates and student behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes.
Some of these studies showed significant relationships between features associated with
classroom climate and the social or emotional responses from students. Overall, these
studies offered further evidence to the assertion that a teacher’s actions have a marked
affect on multiple elements within a classroom environment. To this point, summaries of
research in this section revealed how positive and negative teacher behaviors were
frequently reproduced in their students through their interactions toward peers and their
teacher.
In addition, research reviewed in this segment revealed robust relationships
between features associated with classroom climates and either student achievement,
learning, or engagement outcomes. One such study revealed a significant relationship
between explicit classroom rules for prosocial behavior and the volume of student
participation and discourse. Another study revealed students who attended classrooms
that exhibited frequent, substantive, and inclusive discussions about civic or social issues
to have a greater likelihood of both demonstrating higher levels of knowledge of civics
and reporting their intention to one day becoming an actively engaged citizen. Findings
from this study also suggested that these types of classroom climates could
disproportionately benefit low-income and historically marginalized student populations.
This review also revealed classroom climate, student performance, and the cognitive
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 52

rigor of activities to have positive reciprocal relationships. That is, increases in prosocial
behavior of all classroom occupants occurred concomitantly with increases in rigorous
learning activities and student performance.
Finally, this section included a summary of a proposed teacher-student
interactions framework, which sought to validate components that the authors viewed as
fundamental to assessing teacher effectiveness. The authors further proposed that
validation of such an instrument, which includes many of the core components of
classroom climates, could provide a more extensive and reliable framework for reforming
teacher training and assessment. However, this literature does not fully address this
study’s research question; therefore, I will now turn my attention to quality of teacher-
student relationships more specifically addressed in the following section.
Quality of Teacher-Student Relationships
While classroom climate refers to an established setting brought about by the
interactions and activities enacted in the classroom, the quality of teacher-student
relationships directly and significantly modulates these environments. The literature
reviewed in the following section, therefore, situates teacher-student relationships as
paramount to the social, emotional, and academic growth of students. Additionally, the
studies summarized within this body of literature position teachers as the catalyst for both
positive and negative teacher-student relationships. I will begin this section by
summarizing a theoretical model that illustrates the interdependence of classroom-level
variables that mediate the relationship of a teacher’s social and emotional competence
and student social, emotional, and academic outcomes. Next, I will discuss research that
examines the perceptions of students as they describe various aspects of their classroom-
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 53

level relationships with teachers. Finally, I will review research that focuses on teachers
whose intentionality to relationship building fosters deeper connectedness between them
and their students.
To illustrate the ways in which a teacher’s social and emotional competence
(SEC) influenced both classroom climate and students’ social, emotional, and academic
outcomes, Jennings and Greenburg (2009) proposed the “Prosocial Classroom
Mediational Model” (p. 493). The authors drew from a range of studies in the fields of
education, sociology, and psychology as the theoretical underpinnings for their model.
Though not defined in specific terms by Jennings and Greenberg for this report, Penner,
Dovidio, Pilavin, & Schroeder’s (2005) definition of the term “prosocial” would appear
to be germane to the Prosocial Classroom Mediational Model’s application. Penner et al.
defined “prosocial” as “a broad category of acts that are defined by some significant
segment of society and/or one’s social group as generally beneficial to other people”
(2005, p. 366). Jennings and Greenberg defined SEC teachers as those who:
set the tone of the classroom by developing supportive and encouraging
relationships with their students, designing lessons that build on student strengths
and abilities, establishing and implementing behavioral guidelines in ways that
promote intrinsic motivation, coaching students through conflict situations,
encouraging cooperation among students, and acting as a role model for respectful
and appropriate communication and exhibitions of prosocial behavior. (Jennings
& Greenberg, 2009, p. 492).
Further, they defined optimal classroom climate as:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 54

low levels of conflict and disruptive behavior, smooth transitions from one type
of activity to another, appropriate expressions of emotion, respectful
communication and problem solving, strong interest and focus on task, and
supportiveness and responsiveness to individual differences and students’ needs.
(Jennings & Greenberg, 2009, p. 492)
Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) theoretical model is illustrated in Figure 4. It
sought to reveal three main classroom-level processes that the authors deemed to be
supported through the literature. First, drawing from a series of studies, the authors
intended for their model to reflect the ways in which teacher SEC elicited a bi-directional
feedback loop between itself and the following variables: teacher-student relationships,
effective classroom management, successful social and emotional learning (SEL)
program implementation, a positive classroom climate, and positive student outcomes.
Next, they intended for their model to reveal the integral role of three mediating
variables—“that the quality of teacher-student relationships, student and classroom
management, and effective social and emotional learning (SEL) program implementation
all mediate” (p. 492) classroom climate and student outcomes. Third, by situating one of
the two outcome variables of healthy classroom climate directly before the other outcome
variable of student’s social, emotional, and academic outcomes, the researchers sought to
illustrate the “theoretical link” (p. 499) between classroom climate and student outcomes.
That is, the model implied that “positive developmental outcomes among students” (p.
491) must first include the presence of healthy classroom climates.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 55

Figure 4. Illustration of authors’ theoretical model that posited bi-directional
relationships between classroom-level variables, the integral role of three mediating
variables in associating teachers’ SEC with students’ outcomes, and the link between
classroom climate and student outcomes. Adapted from “The Prosocial Classroom
Mediational Model,” by P.A. Jennings & M.T. Greenberg, 2009, Review of Educational
Research, 79, p. 494.

The authors defined SEL as “the process of acquiring the skills to recognize and
manage emotions, develop care and concern for others, make responsible decisions,
establish positive relationships, and handle challenging situations effectively” (p. 504).
From Jennings and Greenberg’s interpretation of their research, a teacher’s social and
emotional competency (SEC) came as the result of social and emotional learning (SEL).
Having this knowledge would, hypothetically, allow teachers to more effectively
implement a model of social and emotional learning in the classroom. In addition to
situating teacher SEC as both directly and indirectly influential of the student outcomes
shown in their model, the authors additionally noted that a teacher’s overall well-being
played a sizable role in his or her SEC. They defined well-being as a combination of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 56

one’s efficacy and affective state. The authors thus combined teacher SEC and teacher
well-being into one variable.
In the following paragraphs, I summarize the relationships that the authors’
framework established between SEC, each of the primary mediators, and student
outcomes. In addition, because it only tangentially relates to my impending study,
discussion of the School/Community Context Factors component depicted in the authors’
model will be excluded from the remainder of this summary.
Jennings and Greenberg’s (2009) theoretical model indicated a direct relationship
between SEC and teacher-student relationships. The authors explained that having strong
social and self-awareness (both SEC cornerstones) bolstered a teacher’s capacity to
assess student behaviors while better enabling these same teachers to identify their
possible causes. The authors maintained that this, in turn, helped teachers to shape their
practice in congruence with student motivational, social, and emotional needs. The model
further illustrated how acting in compassionate ways that overtly supported students’
social and emotional needs ultimately promoted mutual respect, cooperation, and
relational trust between teachers and students. Having already established SEC to be
linked with teacher well being, Jennings and Greenburg (2009) theorized that this sense
of teacher well-being arose from efficacy, which emerged from feelings of competency in
being able to a) address student social and emotional needs, b) form stronger teacher-
student relational bonds, and c) achieve greater success in promoting positive student
academic outcomes. Conversely, the authors’ model illustrated how robust teacher
efficacy promoted SEC. The authors explained that this was due to efficacy, having been
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 57

evidenced through research and theory, to curtail feelings and behaviors that may
threaten to undermine teacher-student relationships.
Elaborating on the prosocial model’s depiction of the relationship between teacher
SEC and classroom management, Jennings and Greenburg (2009) cited literature that
provided added context to how the two variables interacted in multiple ways. First, they
explained that SEC improved one’s ability to defuse classroom conflict; this was due to a
more empathetic stance toward students who exhibited misbehavior. Next, they noted
that teachers with high SEC were also better able to facilitate effective classroom
management in two additional ways: capturing student attention through verbal and
nonverbal expression and shaping instruction to meet their students’ interests and needs.
The model further reflected the research that revealed effective classroom management to
foster healthy classroom climates. The authors noted that such a process occurred due to
relational trust promoting a feeling of community and, thus, “a more prosocial orientation
(cooperative, helpful, concern for others)” (p. 508). As noted earlier, the authors further
explained that having a positive, stable classroom climate fully established improved a
teacher’s ability to facilitate positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes.
Jennings and Greenburg (2009) positioned effective SEL implementation as the
third primary mediator of the Prosocial Classroom Mediational Model. SEL
implementation involved classroom-level pedagogical approaches that promoted student
emotional well-being, self-regulation, interpersonal problem-solving, social cohesiveness,
and empathy. Implementation of this pedagogy may have come in the form of formal
programs or lessons independently composed and delivered by educators. The authors
noted that effective SEL implementation was more likely to be facilitated by teachers
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 58

with high SEC, as these individuals had a greater capacity to operate as “outstanding role
models of desired social emotional behavior” with an ability “to apply process-based
activities in everyday situations as they occur in the classroom” (p. 493). The researchers
also cited multiple sources that supported SEL implementation’s positive relationship
with both improved classroom climate and student academic achievement outcomes.
Finally, the authors drew upon literature that suggested that the potency of such programs
would be predicted by the level of teacher SEC.
In examining student perceptions of “real” and “idealized” (p. 14) student-teacher
relationships, McHugh, Horner, Colditz, and Wallace (2012) conducted focus groups
with 78 high school-age student participants across three U.S. urban sites. The authors’
study was driven by three research questions: a) What do adolescents perceive as typical
of their interactions with their teachers? b) What do adolescents believe should and
should not be typical of their interpersonal interactions with their teachers? and c) What
do adolescents report their teachers should know more about, and how do they feel that
teachers should gather this information? The study’s student-participants were drawn
from after-school and community programs. Participants self-selected into focus groups
after learning about them from program personnel affiliated with their youth organization
or school site. Participant ages ranged from 14-20 years of age and represented a diverse
racial/ethnic composition, with 39.7% self-identifying as Black or African American,
23.1% as Asian or Asian American, 19.2% as Hispanic, 16.7% as White or Euro-
American, and 5.1% as multiracial.
Digital recordings and subsequent hard-copy transcripts of focus group dialogue
comprised the authors’ qualitative data set. Focus group student response transcripts were
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 59

then coded. Emerging from the coding process was McHugh et al.’s (2012) designation
of “bridges” and “barriers” (p. 18) as features that either strengthened or hindered
teacher-student interpersonal relationships. Because bridges and barriers served to
alternately bolster and weaken student interactions, they were thus instrumental in
answering the study’s three research questions.
With respect to bridges, the authors’ findings revealed a strong desire among
students for student-teacher relationships that included positive and intentional overtures
whose purpose was to forge closer relational bonds. Such actions would entail teachers
making meaningful, appropriate connections with students while remaining vigilant of
their need for autonomy. McHugh et al. (2012) designated this type of bridge, in which a
teacher visually exhibits helpful behavior to students, as “effortful engagement” (p. 19).
One example used by the authors to exemplify effortful engagement was describing a
student who recounted an interaction in which her teacher made purposeful daily
overtures to inquire about her day and offer words of encouragement. McHugh et al.’s
findings revealed the desire by students for such teacher-initiated actions to be authentic
and relevant to student goals. In addition, the researchers identified another of the more
frequently discussed and valued bridges among students as “support” (p. 22). One
example that the authors provided of support included a student who lauded his teacher
for stirring student interest in such a way as to help students identify new or previously
unexpressed goals. Although McHugh et al.’s findings revealed such student-perceived
support to take different forms (e.g., motivational, emotional), students claimed to place
the highest value on supports that they associated with academic or learning assistance.
These types of teacher-initiated supports included open-ended, co-constructed strategies
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 60

that involved help with learning tasks, discussions about possible career options, or
assistance with locating additional academic or postgraduate support resources.
In contrast, McHugh et al. (2012) found that the barriers discussed by the study’s
students functioned as a perceived wedge that hindered student-teacher interpersonal
relationships. The researchers identified two types of barriers that emerged through
patterns of student discourse, labeling them “inattention” and “stereotyping” (p. 24),
respectively. Characterizing inattention as student responses that conveyed “more than
simply the lack of effortful engagement” (p. 24), the authors found these incidents to
provoke negative teacher-directed emotions among student respondents. Moreover, some
students noted that a teachers’ sole investment in the academic outcomes of his or her
students was an insufficient measure in forging student-teacher bonds, and, thus, was also
categorized by the authors as a form of inattention. Examples of inattention that were
coded as such by the authors revealed incidents in which students referred to teachers
who exhibited such behavior as those who “just teach,” who “never ask us about our
background,” and who “just…give us the work” (p. 24). Characterizing stereotyping as
student responses that described the act of teachers making broad presumptions about
certain categories of students, the researchers found that some of the study’s students
were both sensitive and “deeply affected by teachers’ negative assumptions” (p. 26) of
teacher-generated stereotypes. They additionally found that students whom they
identified as victims of perceived stereotypical attitudes had been adversely impacted
academically “in a direct manner, but also in an indirect manner by prohibiting the
satiation of the need for relatedness and connection between the student and teacher” (p.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 61

26). Despite the sizable harm that perceived stereotyping seemed to elicit, the authors did
not specify the number of the study’s students who were affected.
In a two-year multiple case study, Milner and Tenore (2010) examined the
classroom management approaches of two teachers in an urban, racially diverse middle
school. The researchers’ rationale for the study was driven by the claim that “Classroom
management continues to be a serious concern for teachers and especially in urban and
diverse learning environments” (p. 560). The school’s student demographics were
composed of the following populations: 59.8% African American, 31.6% White, 5.6%
Hispanic American, 2.9% Asian American, and .03% Native American. In addition, 79%
of the student population was eligible for free or reduced lunch. The researchers
conducted their study through the conceptual lens of culturally responsive classroom
management originally put forth by Weinstein, Tomlinson-Clarke, and Curran (2004).
Milner and Tenore situated their interpretation of culturally responsive classroom
management as being grounded in the following principles: “recognition of teachers’ own
ethnocentrism, knowledge of students’ cultures; understanding of the broader social,
economic, and political systems in education; appropriate management strategies; and
development of caring classrooms” (p. 570). These principles guided the authors toward
ultimately identifying the extent to which their study’s teachers faithfully enacted
culturally responsible classroom management. Milner and Tenore (2010) used the
following research questions to guide their study:
• What was the nature of the teachers’ culturally responsive classroom management
practices?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 62

• What were the teachers’ conceptions of their students and their thinking about
managing the learning opportunities available in the classroom?
• How were the teachers able to understand the complexities of their students and to
develop classroom management ideologies and practices that met the needs of all
their students? (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 45)
The study’s authors assigned pseudonyms for each of the study’s two participants.
An African American mathematics teacher, who had been teaching for 10 years, was
given the alias of Mr. Jackson; a White science teacher, who had been teaching for 3
years, was given the alias of Mr. Hall. Together, the study’s teachers represented a
breadth of teaching experience and racial diversity that the authors deemed valuable for a
study designed to examine classroom management in racially and ethnically diverse
contexts. Another criterion utilized by the authors to select their participants was their
nomination by the school’s principal, whose endorsement was mainly a product their
respective reputations for developing positive teacher-student relationships.
To learn about each of their participants’ classroom management behaviors,
Milner and Tenore (2010) utilized multiple approaches to data collection over the course
of two academic years. They conducted “context observations” (p. 573) of each teacher’s
classroom and “school-related activities” (p. 573). Classroom observations occurred one
to two times per week over the course of the entire school year and were mostly
performed in a non-participatory format. These observations were mostly conducted by
individual observers, though classes were occasionally observed with both researchers
present. The researchers recorded notes in field notebooks during all observations.
Although the authors did not detail their methods of observing school functions, they did
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 63

note that the purpose behind school-level observations was to establish a more complete
understanding of the context in which their study’s participants operated. The researchers
also conducted two to three structured teacher interviews throughout the entire duration
of the study and “countless” (p. 573) informal teacher interviews during which data was
recorded in field notebooks. In addition, they collected and analyzed relevant documents
and artifacts that were a product of lessons, activities, and teacher preparation materials.
Following data collection, the authors analyzed and then organized recurring patterns into
thematic categories. From this data, Milner and Tenore (2010) found their subjects to
consistently practice the following six principles through their respective teaching
practices:
• Understanding of equity and equality,
• Understanding power structures among students,
• Immersion into students’ life worlds,
• Understanding the Self in relation to Others,
• Granting students entry into their worlds
• Conceiving school as a community with family members. (2010, p. 591)
These six teacher-enacted principles acted to “extend the notions of classroom
management considering the ethnic background of the teachers and students and the
context of the study” (Milner & Tenore, 2010, p. 591). Milner and Tenore (2010)
additionally found that, despite taking different approaches, both teachers’ actions
revealed an awareness that classroom management must be contingent on the collective
needs of students and should, therefore, be seen as a flexible and evolving construct.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 64

For example, although the authors found both teachers to embrace the concept of
equity (the first principle listed above), each teacher enacted it in different a different way.
They observed Mr. Hall (the science teacher) to exhibit equity by honoring each student’s
individual circumstances in attempting to facilitate his or her academic growth. Mr.
Jackson (the math teacher), on the other hand, operationalized his interpretation of equity
by employing classroom practices that he perceived as “fair, firm, and consistent” (p.
593), and that attempted to avert any hint of favoritism or privilege toward certain
students.
The culturally responsive classroom management principle of immersion into
students’ life worlds was acted upon by both teachers but also with contrasting
approaches. The authors found that Mr. Hall actively sought to share students’ interests
(such as playing basketball) when appropriate. They found that this attempt was made to
aid communication, connectedness, and, ultimately, instructional management within the
classroom. Mr. Jackson sought to reach similar ends while attempting to understand
students’ perspectives through knowledge and classroom discourse over elements of
youth popular culture.
In terms of understanding the self in relation to others, the authors presented Mr.
Hall’s adoption of this principle as a gradual growth process in which he was challenged
by his students to truly get to “know” (p. 595) them. They found that Mr. Hall responded
to this challenge by reflecting on his own similarities and differences with his students
and then adjusting the content and style of his communication accordingly. They found
Mr. Jackson to engage in self-reflection in this area as well; however, Mr. Jackson
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 65

primarily drew from his challenges and successes in raising his own children to better
understand his role in the classroom among his similar-aged students.
In granting students entry into teachers’ worlds, Mr. Hall actively facilitated
classroom discourse over pertinent details from his own personal life. The authors found
that his rationale for doing so was to cultivate deeper teacher-student familiarity and to
share experiences that students might see as points of commonality. Mr. Jackson enacted
this principle through purposeful interactions, such as first sharing and then engaging in
discourse over various musical artists and songs that were unfamiliar or intriguing to
students.
In conceiving school as a community with family members, the authors found that
Mr. Hall routinely made a point of engaging in positive communication with students
who were not assigned to one of his classes. The authors noted that these interactions
were meant to foster connections across classrooms so that students could view the
school as a community and a cohesive network of caregivers. The researchers also found
that Mr. Hall frequently admonished other teachers’ misbehaving students. His role in
enacting this strategy was to further communicate his identity as a “no-nonsense” (p. 597)
adult among a community of caregivers who support both students and each other. Mr.
Jackson enacted this principle by similarly communicating with students who were not
enrolled in his classes. The authors observed this behavior mainly during passing periods,
when Mr. Jackson encouraged students to be aware of the need to reach their classes on
time.
Finally, the principle of understanding power structures among students was only
revealed through Mr. Jackson’s practices through the authors’ findings. In this area,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 66

Milner and Tenore (2010) found that Mr. Jackson was especially cognizant of these
dynamics and thus leveraged his relationships with “powerful students” (p. 594) to better
manage learning contexts for all students in the classroom. The degree to which Mr. Hall
exhibited similar practices went unmentioned.
Summary of Quality of Teacher-Student Relationships
In this segment, I summarized research that detailed both the components of
positive teacher-student relationships and the consequences that they frequently elicit for
both students and teachers within the classroom. I described an evidence-based
theoretical model that posited not only the primacy of a teacher’s social and emotional
competency in establishing positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes, but also
their interdependence with other classroom-level variables—such as social and emotional
learning, classroom management, and healthy teacher-student relationships—In fostering
positive developmental outcomes for students. The research summarized here also
revealed that teachers with high levels of social and emotional competence to more
effectively model (and thus implement) features of prosocial behavior; additionally, those
who developed authentic, equitable relationships with students—those who practiced
culturally responsive classroom management—succeeded in offsetting tensions that may
have otherwise arisen due to teacher-student generational or cultural schisms. Moreover,
students who perceived their teachers to make purposeful efforts to support their
academic or emotional well-being reported deeper levels of trust and relatedness.
However, students who reported a lack of caring from their teachers, or who felt as
though their teachers were solely invested in attending to the academic aspect of teacher-
student interactions, were less likely to engage in classroom activities. Although this
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 67

body of literature provides important elements that speak to the ways in which teachers
cultivate a positive affective environment through forging authentic teacher-student
social and emotional connections, it does not fully address this study’s research question
that also includes a teacher’s instructional approach as a key factor in creating powerful
learning environments. Thus, I will next shift my attention to pedagogy.
Pedagogy
Because my study seeks to examine the constellation of interactions, behaviors,
and activities that emerge within classroom learning environments, the following review
of the research associated with pedagogy will focus on the following areas: a) the
dynamics that emerge as a consequence of the teacher’s ability to first embrace and then
incorporate the cultural, spiritual, and socioeconomic contexts of their students into their
instructional approaches and b) teacher instructional strategies and approaches that
promote positive student learning or achievement outcomes. I will first discuss the body
of literature that examines the theory of culturally relevant pedagogy, including its
application to the classroom and its subsequent iterations since its inception. Next, I will
review literature associated with influences that specific pedagogical approaches might
have on student learning and achievement outcomes. The implication for this second
discussion is that a) some instructional approaches are more effective when tailored to
specific student populations and b) instructional approaches generally accepted to be
effective in most classroom contexts can be misused or misapplied to produce
substandard outcomes for students. Finally, I summarize research that examines
pedagogical choices exhibited by teachers. The purpose of this section is to a) review the
approaches adopted by different teachers in their instructional delivery and b) review
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 68

findings that reveal the influence that these approaches have on classroom-level
dynamics.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Ladson-Billings (1995) utilized data from one of her previous empirical studies as
the foundation for the emerging theory of “culturally relevant pedagogy” (p. 469). The
author analyzed findings that had originally sought to identify pedagogical practices of
eight teachers of primarily African American students over a 2-year span. This study had
incorporated a process of community nomination to identify a sample of eight teachers
who were perceived to have attained “teaching excellence” (p. 471) in a low-income,
predominantly African American school district. The study’s methodology had
incorporated a four-phase design that included ethnographic interviews, classroom
observations, videotaping of instructional activities, and an interactive component
wherein practitioners openly viewed and analyzed segments of each other’s videotapes.
The ways in which the study’s teachers were able to merge classroom teaching
practices with the learning needs of their predominantly African American pupils
facilitated the emergence of both the core elements and the “theoretical underpinnings” (p.
477) of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995). To provide further clarity
of culturally relevant pedagogy, I will discuss each of these elements in the following
sections.
Ladson-Billings (1995) noted how culturally relevant teachers from her earlier
study had consistently cultivated three elements in their classroom instructional activities:
student achievement, cultural competence, and cultural critique. In implementing each of
these elements at the classroom level, teachers had been successful at facilitating a
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 69

harmonious convergence between students’ home cultures and classroom culture. These
elements will be further elucidated in the following paragraphs.
While Ladson-Billings (1995) did not define student achievement in concrete
terms, she did concede that it would ultimately be represented by a combination of
mandated standardized tests and more complex measures of assessment. Although
students in the study’s classrooms performed “at higher levels than their district
counterparts” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 475) on standardized tests, their scores remained
lower than their peers in more affluent communities. Nevertheless, Ladson-Billings
asserted that student performance in these classes was not limited to standardized
assessments, noting that “Classroom observations revealed a variety of demonstrated
student achievements too numerous to list here” (p. 475). In addition to demonstrating
“an ability to read, write, speak, compute, and pose and solve problems at sophisticated
levels” (p. 475), the author further noted that students in these classes demonstrated a
spectrum of cognitive abilities. These teacher-guided activities called for students to
engage in a range of higher-order cognitive tasks. These tasks included drawing
inferences from various source of information, complex problem solving, and application
of existing knowledge into new and novel contexts. Additionally, teachers in the study
had articulated an obligation for ensuring their students’ academic success.
Despite possessing different instructional styles, the study’s teachers had all
prioritized the necessity for students to maintain their own cultural competence while
thriving academically (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Teachers had accomplished this by
encouraging students to incorporate their social and cultural mores into academic tasks.
Moreover, by embracing and affirming their African American students’ choices of dress,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 70

language, interaction, and music as vital and valuable characteristics of their pupils’ lives,
the study’s teachers had been better able to facilitate the academic engagement of their
African American students.
With respect to the element of “cultural critique” (p. 476), Ladson-Billings (1995)
observed the study’s teachers to a) arouse their students’ recognition of social inequities,
b) to engage in classroom activities that promote their understanding of such phenomena,
and c) to facilitate their students’ critique of these issues. To this end, the study’s teachers
had attempted to facilitate increased social consciousness among their students through
authentic learning activities that sought to combat these injustices.
This sums up Ladson-Billings’ three core elements of Socially Relevant Pedagogy.
In the following section, I will summarize what the author came to observe as the
“Theoretical Underpinnings of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy” (p. 477).
Ladson-Billings (1995) observed differing instructional strategies among the
study’s teachers. Despite these differences, she noted that the teachers’ common “beliefs”
and “ideologies” (p. 478) unified a singular teaching philosophy that informed their
approach to pedagogy in the classroom. A grounded theory of culturally relevant
pedagogy thus emerged through this uniformity of teacher beliefs and ideologies. In the
following paragraphs, I will summarize the ways in which each of the theory’s three
foundational underpinnings was represented at the classroom-level through Ladson-
Billings’ descriptions of her classroom observations.
Ladson-Billings (1995) found teachers’ positive perceptions of both themselves
and their students to infuse their pedagogical choices. She referred to this as
“Conceptions of Self and Others” (p. 478). For instance, the author observed various
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 71

strategies implemented by teachers that amounted to a refusal to let students accept
failure. In doing so, the teachers had revealed their insistence on viewing their students as
capable of academic success. In addition, the study’s teachers had routinely demonstrated
their perceptions of teaching as a highly dynamic art form. They operationalized this
conviction through flexibility, spontaneity, underscored by the constant imperative to
infuse practice with cultural relevance or the challenge of social conventions. Finally, the
study’s teachers made deliberate attempts to be part of their students’ community.
Although not all had lived in the communities in which they taught, the author found that
all of the study’s teachers made concerted efforts to engage in community activities while
infusing curricula with activities and projects that involved confronting challenges faced
by their students’ community.
Ladson-Billings (1995) found the study’s teachers to purposefully “create social
interactions to help them meet the three previously mentioned criteria of academic
success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness” (p. 480). She labeled this
theoretical underpinning as “Social Relations” (p. 480). She observed that teachers had
worked toward achieving these outcomes by consistently attempting to a) maintain fluid
student-teacher relationships, b) demonstrate a connectedness with all of the students, c)
develop a community of learners, and d) encourage students to learn collaboratively and
be responsible for another (p. 480). All teachers were observed to willingly and
consistently share leadership with their students. One common strategy in teacher-
facilitated distributed classroom leadership was for teachers to offer students frequent
opportunities to assume the role of teachers. Having linked strengths of students with
specific academic tasks, teachers chose individual students to either lead or operate as
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 72

designated peer “experts” (p. 480) during selected activities in which their counterparts
required additional support. Because teachers had mindfully selected students from a
wide range of achievement levels, Ladson-Billings (1995) observed this process to
improve efficacy and motivation among students. The author found that, by relinquishing
power in a thoughtful, purposeful way, teachers had been better able to foster a
“community of learners” (p. 480) in which interdependence was valued and individual
success did not suffer. In addition, by encouraging students to support each other’s
learning, teachers had engendered a culture of collective responsibility among their pupils.
Ladson-Billings (1995) found this “ethos of reciprocity and mutuality” (p. 481) to extend
beyond peer-to-peer supports. One teacher, for example, was observed to have fostered
student-teacher connectedness by routinely sharing her own learning of new and
challenging concepts with her pupils. As a result, her students gradually adopted the
language of pedagogy and information processing when referring to their own learning
processes.
From observing the study’s teachers, Ladson-Billings (1995) determined that their
classroom practices uniformly embraced the philosophy of learning through shared
experience. The author referred to this third theoretical underpinning as “Conceptions of
Knowledge” (p. 481). Emerging from this ideology were observed activities and
instructional practices that revealed more discrete underlying beliefs about knowledge
that were held by the study’s teachers. These beliefs included the following: a)
Knowledge was not static; it was shared, recycled, and constructed, b) Knowledge had to
be viewed critically, c) Teachers had to be passionate about knowledge and learning, d)
Teachers had to scaffold, or build bridges, to facilitate learning, and e) Assessment had to
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 73

be multifaceted, incorporating multiple forms of excellence. Teachers had routinely
provided structured forums for students to share their learned expertise on various topics
with their classmates and to conversely learn from their peers. As noted by the study’s
author, equal values were placed on knowledge of traditionally school-related topics and
knowledge of topics that might otherwise be perceived as recreational in these contexts.
Ladson-Billings (1995) additionally observed how teachers had fostered student
empowerment by facilitating activities that promoted a “critical stance” (p. 482) toward a
curriculum that was constructed around district-wide testing policies and aligned with
standardized assessments. Thus students had been encouraged to engage in thoughtful,
informed critique about the types of tasks, texts, and assessments they were consistently
being asked to complete and negotiate. Finally, teachers had managed to combat what
Ladson-Billings referred to as the “right-answer” approach to problem solving that is
often associated with standardized testing formats. In facilitating this approach, the
study’s teachers had embraced and encouraged students to craft and articulate multiple
levels of questioning that emphasized the primacy of shared inquiry in the learning
process.
Enacting culturally relevant pedagogy. In a subsequent article, Ladson-Billings
(2006b) reviewed the overarching theme of the culturally relevant pedagogical
framework while further elucidating the ways in which its three core components could
be implemented into teachers’ practice. First, Ladson-Billings responded to the desire
among teachers for applications on how to implement culturally relevant pedagogy in
one’s teaching. Ladson-Billings asserted that adopting a democratic worldview had to
precede curricular and instructional choices if practicing culturally relevant pedagogy
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 74

was the goal of educators. To this end, she proposed that teachers had to first adopt a
socially responsible framework for how they view students, social contexts, the
curriculum, and instruction.
Additionally, Ladson-Billings (2006b) presented approaches that shed light on
how the theory might appear when applied to classroom teaching practice. Although the
theory’s three core elements remained unchanged from the author’s previous work
discussed earlier, this review added more texture and context by offering specific details
that were not present in the prior analysis. For instance, Ladson-Billings’ revised piece
expands on her previous discussion of “academic achievement” (p. 34) by explaining that
culturally relevant teachers
• utilize engaging learning activities to foster student self-esteem and self-
regulation,
• routinely facilitate critiques of texts,
• share their learning goals for their students with their students,
• examine ways in which they can make challenging tasks more relevant and
engaging, and
• continually reflect on the reasoning behind their choices of texts, materials,
and instructional activities.
Next, the author returned to the element of cultural competence. Contrary to more
commonly held assumptions, the cultural competence put forth by Ladson-Billings’s
(2006) revised framework called for teachers to elevate the cultural beliefs and practices
of their students within an academic context. Teachers could achieve this by providing
frequent opportunities in which students incorporate the values, customs, and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 75

communication norms of their lives into everyday classroom activities. Such an approach
created a more equitable synergy between students’ lives and the knowledge, skills, and
attitudes valued by the “dominant culture” (p. 36); consequently, a student’s sense of
identity did not suffer at the expense of content that might otherwise have undermined it.
Finally, Ladson-Billings echoed her previous assertions that called for teachers to activate
and increase “sociopolitical consciousness” (p. 37) among their students while providing
deeper context for its classroom application. Culturally relevant teachers fostered this
awareness by first learning more about sociopolitical issues that influence their students’
lives and communities. Then, these teachers exposed students to content that revealed the
social and political realities that affect their pupils’ lives. Students engaged in this content
while culturally relevant teachers facilitated opportunities for students to formally
critique the legitimacy of laws, regulations, and attitudes that underpinned these realities.
Critical pedagogy. In a three-year multiple-case study, Ball (2000) investigated
the extent to which three female African American teachers in urban, community-based
training and enrichment programs utilized discourse patterns to promote critical
pedagogy in their predominantly African American young adult students. The author
defined discourse patterns as both the verbal and nonverbal communication patterns
(including norms and processes) that developed between and among individuals within a
given space. She defined critical pedagogy as the process by which teachers acted to
facilitate self-awareness, agency, and liberation among their students. My inclusion of my
Ball’s study within this section is due to this characterization of critical pedagogy, which
aligns closely with many of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy’s core elements.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 76

The study’s first teacher, Ms. Friedson, taught multiple classes each day in a job
training program for aspiring precision machinists. The second teacher, Ms. Gabrielle,
taught in a full-day program that focused on developing academic literacies in young
adults that were conducive to career readiness. The third teacher, Mama Olivia,
facilitated instructional activities in a mentorship program for young women of African-
American descent. Ball chose to purposefully investigate the classroom pedagogical
contexts of community-based organizations, rather than attempting to conduct such as
study within traditional high schools. She grounded this decision in the belief that such
environments offered distinctly “different types of literacy-building and overall learning
experiences for culturally diverse young adults than those available in schools and other
more traditional educational institutions” (p. 1008).
Regarding critical pedagogy, Ball (2000) stated that her study’s participants
“attempt(ed) to operationalize such a philosophy in their day-to-day teaching” (p. 1007).
However, the author did not specify if participants fully articulated whether or not their
goal was to intentionally enact such an ideology. Moreover, beyond identifying the
gender and racial characteristics of the three teachers, Ball did not specify the rationale or
process by which her candidates were selected for the study.
Ball (2000) obtained her study’s data by conducting “unobtrusive ethnographic
observations” (p. 1014), teacher interviews, and classroom participant observations over
a 3-year span. First, researchers observed, recorded, and coded the dialogue between
teachers and students. An added emphasis was placed on teacher discourse patterns,
which provided researchers with the opportunity to assess the various pedagogical and
dialogic approaches exhibited by participants. The study’s researchers then developed
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 77

transcripts for each teacher’s data set, which evolved into themes. Ultimately, these
emerging themes became the basis for three discrete vignettes. The vignettes involved
teacher-initiated verbal exchanges and “language that was either accepting, praising,
encouraging, linking to the student’s experiences, expanding, questioning, confirming of
students’ understanding, invoking symbolic solidarity, invoking critique, or invoking
action” (p. 1015).
Ball (2000) found that each teacher embedded two central concepts within their
respective pedagogies. From Ball’s standpoint, each was successful in raising the self-
awareness of students regarding the role they ostensibly played in society. In addition, the
author found each teacher to consistently underscore her students’ abilities to effect
positive change. In a similar vein, Ball found each of the study’s teachers to employ the
following three classroom discourse practices: Promoting student agency through
eliciting consciousness, fostering reflection about students’ individual life situations, and
intentionally providing opportunities for young people to challenge the status quo.
Although these practices were present in each teacher’s pedagogy, Ball found that they
were incorporated to varying degrees. In the following paragraphs, I will summarize
Ball’s analysis of this pattern among her study’s teachers.
Ms. Friedson, who taught in a machinist training program (MTP) designed for
“urban youth” (p. 1015), encouraged her students to take different approaches to
problem-solving, rather than settling on procedures that might be perceived as more
conventional. Moreover, she encouraged them to scrutinize answers to mathematical
problems that might normally be accepted as hard truths. Finally, the author observed Ms.
Friedson to incorporate and engage in “a wide range of communicative styles, including
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 78

African American vernacular English (AAVE), as mediums for incorporating the cultural
language practices of the students” (p. 1014). By incorporating humor and infusing her
instruction with various communication styles, Ball found that Ms. Friedson was able to
convey information that might otherwise disengage young people. Moreover, by enacting
these discourse practices, Ball surmised that Ms. Friedson was guiding student agency
within the parameters of course content.
Ms. Gabrielle, whose full-day UPWARD BOUND career class consisted of
individual and group learning contexts geared toward building professional work skills,
was observed to continually push her students to consider their life possibilities beyond
both the present and immediate future. Ball thus Found Ms. Gabrielle to challenge her
students to broaden their thinking in two contexts: in the class’ instructional activities and
in their individual life choices. The author noted that Ms. Gabrielle worked with her
students in developing their reading, writing, and oral language literacies. In addition, to
facilitate deeper thinking in her students, Ball observed Ms. Gabrielle to incorporate “a
wide range of discourse strategies to teach her lesson, including language that was
accepting, and filled with praise and encouragement, as well as descriptive language to
convey new information” (p. 1023). Also noted were Ms. Gabrielle’s repeated appeals to
her students to be creative in “taking action” (p. 1029), rather than accepting their
situations as unalterable. Ms. Gabrielle’s discourse practices contrasted Ms. Friedson’s
insofar as they were observed to promote agency beyond across a broader spectrum of
professional contexts. However, like Ms. Friedson, Ball observed Ms. Gabrielle to
adroitly transition among a wide-range of literacies, which included AAVE, academic
English, aphorisms, and slang.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 79

Ms. Olivia’s role as a teacher-mentor in the Ujima “rites of passage program” (p.
1026) for African American girls and young women enabled her to engage in discourse
rooted in promoting student self-awareness, self-worth, and agency through the vehicle of
African American history and culture. Ball (2000) found that Ms. Olivia routinely
matched a pedagogy that routinely centered on historical events and artifacts with
classroom discourse that reiterated the industriousness and independent spirit of African
American culture. Additionally, Ball observed Mama Olivia to build on these sentiments
by exhorting her predominantly African American students to unify as a culture and to
“challenge oppressive social formations” (p. 1031). In this way, Ball found Mama
Olivia’s fidelity to critical pedagogy to advance beyond her two counterparts discussed
earlier. Beyond simply cultivating self-worth and agency among her students, Ball’s
interpretation of the events in Mama Olivia’s practice revealed a context in which
students were emboldened to effect large-scale social change beyond the walls of the
classroom or even one’s own individual circumstances. Finally, similar to both Ms.
Friedson and Ms. Gabrielle, Ball observed Ms. Olivia’s pedagogy to consistently honor
“African American traditions of oral literacy” (p. 1028). To this end, Ms. Olivia
incorporated the reading and writing activities of more traditional academic environments
with culturally affirming language practices such as “choral repetitions of their
affirmation of sisterhood…through oratory and dramatic activities, and through the
interactive discourse and spontaneous call-and-response messages echoed while others
are speaking” (p. 1028).
Cultural competence. Milner (2011) narrowed his analysis of culturally relevant
pedagogy to the element of cultural competence. He cited Ladson-Billings’s (1995)
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 80

definition of cultural competence as the process by which teachers engaged students in
expanding knowledge of their own cultures and the ways in which their norms and values
existed within the context of other cultures. However, Milner’s study focused on a
particular teacher’s attempts to build his own cultural competence at what the author
characterizes as a “diverse, urban” (p. 72) middle school. The rationale for the shift in
focus from student to teacher was the author’s assertion that teachers serving diverse
student populations needed to develop their own cultural competence to become effective
educators.
Milner’s (2011) study was driven by two research questions: a) How was this
teacher able to build cultural competence in ways that allowed him to (more) effectively
teach his students? and b) In what ways does this teacher develop relationships with his
students inside and outside the classroom to build cultural competence? Milner assigned
the pseudonym of Mr. Hall to the study’s teacher. Mr. Hall had been teaching at the
school for 3 years and had earned the reputation among his colleagues as an exemplary
educator. He was nominated for the study by the school’s principal. The school’s student
demographics were composed of the following: 59.8% African American, 31.6% White,
5.6% Hispanic American, 2.9% Asian American, and .03% Native American. In addition,
79% of the student population was eligible for free or reduced lunch (2011, p. 74).
Milner (2011) used a qualitative research design that incorporated classroom
observations, observations of school-related functions, analysis of documents and
artifacts, and interviews of both the study’s teacher and select students. Milner did not
specify the exact number of observations or interviews that were conducted; however, the
author did note that he attended the school an average of 1-2 days each week over the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 81

study’s 2-year span. Most of the author’s observations were conducted as a non-
participant in classroom activities, and the observations were recorded into field notes.
The researcher’s 1-2 hour “semi-structured” (p. 74) teacher interviews were “tape-
recorded, transcribed, and hand-coded” (p. 74). The author also conducted an unspecified
number of informal interviews during which field notes were also recorded. The coding
process happened recursively and thematically: The author inductively developed
thematic categories from emerging patterns in interviews and observations. This process
culminated with a triangulation of data that identified common themes that were culled
from teacher interviews, analysis of artifact and documents, and classroom observations.
Through this process, Milner (2011) identified three recurrent themes that
embodied Mr. Hall’s pedagogical mindset as he sought to build his cultural competence.
Milner labeled these findings as follows:
• building relationships,
• recognizing identity while confronting race, and
• developing a culture of care and collaboration.
I will summarize Miler’s analysis of each of these three themes in the following
paragraphs.
Milner (2011) found that Mr. Hall’s attempts to build authentic relationships with
his students enabled the teacher to develop a deeper understanding of their backgrounds
and behaviors. Milner additionally found that Mr. Hall cultivated these relationships with
individual students and entire classes. Milner also found that Mr. Hall treated each
student as an individual with unique personality traits, learning needs, and personal
circumstances, rather than opting for a “‘one-size-fits all approach’ to teaching and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 82

learning” (Milner, 2011, p. 78). To this end, the author observed Mr. Hall to willingly
tolerate mistakes and misbehaviors on the part of students providing students, in turn,
made deliberate efforts to avoid repeating the same transgressions in the future. Finally,
Milner noted that student-teacher classroom conflicts were managed judiciously and
typically defused in a timely manner by the teacher.
Regarding the theme of Recognizing Identity While Confronting Race, Milner
(2011) found that Mr. Hall was successful at attempting to bridge racial and cultural
divides between he and his students. The first step that the author observed in the
teacher’s growth toward cultural competence was his awareness of cultural and racial
disconnects between he and his students. Milner discovered that Mr. Hall sought to
alleviate these disconnects by incorporating his own personal narratives into classroom
activities. This offered students a glimpse into their teacher’s life and provided students
with the opportunity to relate with Mr. Hall in ways that transcended race. Additionally,
Milner found Mr. Hall’s practice of interspersing classroom activities with his
articulation of numerous struggles and dilemmas to entire classes to foster deeper
student-teacher connectedness. Milner found that this approach enabled students to view
Mr. Hall as a whole person rather than a generic authority figure.
Milner (2011) observed Mr. Hall to purposefully impart a sense of community
among students. This approach was reflected in the author’s third theme of Communal
Commitment: A Culture of Care and Collaboration. From Milner’s perspective, Mr. Hall
enacted this approach by embracing a familial mindset in which students were
unconditionally accepted and cared for. Milner also found that Mr. Hall sought to
reinforce this sense of community by visiting colleagues’ in-session classes during his
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 83

own planning period. Mr. Hall’s rationale for doing so was to build rapport with students
who might ultimately become his pupils and to show students that the school is a
community in which all adults are tasked with supporting and nurturing students.
Current Conceptualizations of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Embedded within the core principles of culturally relevant pedagogy is the
necessity for teachers to move beyond simply tailoring their approach to curriculum,
instruction, and classroom interactions to fit a wide range of student cultures and
perspectives (Gay, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 2006b; Milner, 2010). To achieve true fidelity,
teachers must, in many cases, alter their personal feelings regarding equity and social
justice. However, since the initial days of culturally relevant pedagogy, some researchers
have either reconsidered or extended the initial preconditions put forth by the theory’s
founders (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1995; Milner, 2011). In this section, I will review
literature that reflects the continual evolution of culturally relevant pedagogy. My review
will summarize emerging conceptualizations that both challenge some of the theory’s
initial assumptions while pushing its earlier principles into a more contemporary social
context.
Culturally sustaining pedagogy. Paris and Alim (2014) critiqued three elements
of the “asset pedagogies” (p. 87) developed by researchers and educators who have
sought to re-conceptualize pedagogical approaches to historically marginalized students.
They defined asset pedagogies as those in which “the linguistic, literate, and cultural
practices of working-class communities–specifically poor communities of color–as
resources and assets to honor, explore, and extend” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 87). The
authors prefaced their critique of the asset pedagogy framework by underscoring its
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 84

necessity for traditionally marginalized student populations. Specifically, the authors
situated Ladson-Billings’s (1995) culturally relevant pedagogy as a seminal construct in
asset pedagogy. In detailing the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy, the authors
highlighted its groundbreaking provisions, which, in part, urged educators to honor their
students’ cultural identity while providing learning experiences that would also enable
them to critique existing power structures and to succeed across broader cultural contexts.
However, Paris and Alim’s (2014) first critique of asset pedagogies was their
suggestion that culturally relevant pedagogy and other previous conceptualizations of
asset pedagogy might not have adequately addressed the current needs of historically
marginalized students. Consequently, they positioned Paris’s (2012) culturally sustaining
pedagogy (CSP) framework as a necessary addition to asset pedagogies. Because its goal
is “to perpetuate and foster–to sustain–linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of
the democratic project of schooling and as a needed response to demographic and social
change” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 88), the authors presented CSP as a needed revision to
previous asset pedagogies that did not call for a student’s cultural identity to share
primacy with broader scholastic activities and goals. Therefore, CSP called for learning
contexts that continually promote “cultural and linguistic flexibility” (Paris & Alim, 2014
p. 89). The authors explained that the CSP rationale for embedding instruction with
cultural pluralism was twofold: it combated oppressive power structures that
disproportionately favored assimilationist and monolingual pedagogical approaches, and
it provided students with the access to learning contexts that had become increasingly
relevant in a more globalized, multicultural society.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 85

Paris and Alim’s (2014) second critique of asset pedagogies focused on what the
authors viewed as their inherently static nature. For example, they criticized the tendency
of scholars and advocates to draw oversimplified assumptions about race, ethnicity, and
language when prescribing asset-minded pedagogical approaches. Paris and Alim
asserted that, while this approach was correct in the need to preserve and uplift cultural
practices that have traditionally been associated with their respective racial and ethnic
populations, it failed to account for the fluid commingling of these cultures. From the
authors’ perspective, culturally sustaining pedagogy required educators to remain aware
of shifting identities and practices of historically marginalized students that may run
counter to those that existed in the past. In addition, Paris and Alim asserted that these
dynamic identities and practices often emerged from cross-cultural “community practices”
(p. 90) among students. Paris and Alim noted that community practices were behaviors
that elicited an exchange of more traditional “heritage practices” (p. 91) among cultures,
thus creating overlaps and “recombinations” (p. 92) among once discrete cultures.
Consequently, Paris and Alim called for classroom educators to make sustainable efforts
to cultivate student heritage while simultaneously developing awareness of cultural shifts
and overlays that may occur over time.
In their third and final critique of asset pedagogies, Paris and Alim (2014)
proposed the ongoing need to remain cautious of presuming positive outcomes from all
cultural practices that seemingly promote cultural competency. From their perspective,
avoiding the impulse to remain uncritical of cultural practices would better enable the
framework’s proponents to identify the ways in which some of these practices can cause
harm that may offset their positive properties. Using the example of hip hop as a form of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 86

“youth literacy” (p. 92), the authors noted that the genre’s historical reputation for
combating hegemonic power structures and deficit-based attitudes toward people of color
should not blind educators and scholars to aspects of the art form that promote oppressive
attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, by choosing not to practice “reflexive analyses” (p.
92) of students’ cultural beliefs and behaviors, scholars and educators alike mirror the
same bounded approaches to culture, race, and ethnicity that asset pedagogies set out to
eradicate. To neutralize the oppressions that might arise from various youth cultures,
Paris and Alim prescribed a collective approach that engages students in critique of
generally accepted cultural norms.
Popular culture pedagogy. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2005) drew upon a
wide body of research to both conceptualize and justify the implementation of popular
culture pedagogy in the field of literacy education. They defined popular culture as “a site
of ideological struggle between dominant and subordinate classes, or dominant and
subordinate cultures expressed through music, film, mass media, artifacts, language,
customs, and values” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2005, p. 288). The authors’ rationale
for this theory was driven by what they perceived as deficiencies in much of the
contemporary curricular content typically offered to disenfranchised student populations.
Andrade and Morrell (2005) argued that these curriculum deficiencies had arisen
primarily from three places: a widespread underestimation among educators and school
leaders of the academic value that “new century popular texts” (p. 298) provided; a
misunderstanding of the ways and facility with which “new century youth” consumed,
oriented, manipulated, and repackaged information; and an insistence by educators on
delivering content that was rooted in the “official knowledge” (p. 291) legitimized by the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 87

dominant culture. Elucidating this last element, the authors noted that “urban students of
color are generally less motivated by this culturally alienating curriculum and fail to
achieve at comparable levels to their peers in more affluent areas” (Andrade & Morrell,
2005, p. 285).
Building on this concern, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2005) described the
pedagogical approaches in which popular cultural pedagogy could be applied to the
classroom. One approach might have taken the form of a pathway or “bridge” (p. 295) to
portions of the curriculum normally dedicated to more traditional academic content (such
as canonical literature). In this context, popular media behaved as a hook to garner initial
student interest while simultaneously providing them with frequent opportunities to
operate in a more familiar language and literacy domain. Consequently, concepts that
were integral to history, literacy, and rhetoric could be introduced and developed through
popular music, art, films, and texts that speak to students’ lives prior to their transfer of
these skills into more unfamiliar or abstract contextual terrain. As an example, Duncan-
Andrade and Morrell elaborated on the ways in which hip-hop lyrics can be used in the
classroom to elicit student interest while opening the door to more traditional or
complicated texts that might share certain characteristics.
In addition, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2005) also urged educators to view
popular cultural pedagogy as an equal and powerful partner of traditional texts, whose
implementation had been heavily endorsed by the dominant culture. To this end, the
authors advised educators to use popular media as points of active dialogue and “critical
engagement” (p. 294). By critical engagement, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell called for
teachers to facilitate deep analysis of various aspects of these texts. This would involve
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 88

myriad opportunities for critique, interpretation, and re-interpretation of the popular text
at hand. Duncan-Andrade and Morrell regarded this approach to popular cultural
pedagogy as one that allows for students to develop reading, writing, speaking, and
analytical skills through content that relates to their world. They also asserted that it
emboldened students to see beyond the text itself so that they could comprehend the ways
in which it might signify a broader system of human actions or convictions. Finally, when
paired with more traditional content, such as canonical literature, Duncan-Andrade and
Morrell noted that students operating within this approach were better situated to identify
the themes, biases, beliefs, and actions that transcended the cultural and historical origins
of texts.
However educators choose to implement popular cultural pedagogy, Duncan-
Andrade and Morrell (2005) cautioned that popular cultural texts should be purposefully
selected so that there was a clear and meaningful academic outcome in mind. In addition
to being mindful of their role in student learning goals, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell also
suggested that the decision to use popular cultural texts should hinge on five questions:
• What are kids interested in?
• What is their reading ability?
• What motivates kids?
• What are they mature enough to handle?
• What will encourage kids to read? (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2005, p. 298)
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell reasoned that this approach would likely have an
even greater positive influence on traditionally disenfranchised children. They justified
this claim by noting that historically marginalized student populations did not share the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 89

same positive associations with traditional school-going conventions as their more
affluent peers. Drawing from their experience as researchers and practitioners, they noted
that these students’ lack of faith in the reward structures of schools had lead to greater
disinvestment from an often standardized curriculum that was either disinteresting or
culturally out-of-step. In the authors’ determination, providing access to a curriculum
purposefully infused with popular media texts, and accompanying rigorous activities,
would offset much of this damage.
Learning Outcomes of Pedagogical Approaches
To clarify the nature and consequences of both active and passive learning within
an academic context, Anthony (1996) examined data of two case studies drawn from a
previous, larger study (Anthony, 1994). This study examined data from two 6th form (16-
year old) male mathematics students who attended an urban New Zealand secondary
school in which students represented “a cross-section of interests, motivation,
achievement levels, gender and ethnicity” (Anthony, 1996, p. 352). The study’s students
were assigned the pseudonyms of Adam and Gareth. Prior to author’s study, Adam had
attained a much higher level of mathematics proficiency than Gareth. The author,
however, did not specify whether or not student proficiency was a factor in selecting her
subjects.
Anthony defined active learning as “learning activities in which students are
given considerable autonomy and control of the direction of the learning activities”
(Anthony, 1996, p. 350). From Anthony’s perspective, active learning was exemplified
by learning contexts that reflected “an attitude of active intellectual inquiry” (Anthony,
1996, p. 350). In contrast, Anthony defined passive learning as “learning activities in
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 90

which the students are passive perceivers of information” (Anthony, 1996, p. 350).
Anthony additionally noted that passive activities might have included “listening to the
teacher’s exposition, being asked a series of closed questions, and practice and
application of information already presented” (Anthony, 1996, p. 350). In differentiating
these conditions, the author also noted that active learning required mental schema that
could be incorporated into problem-solving tasks that required “strong acts of
construction” (Anthony, 1996, p. 351).
In pursuit of the study’s objective, Anthony (1996) used a qualitative research
design that tracked student classroom behavior and academic output over one full school
year. The researcher produced a “detailed description” (p. 352) of the “appropriateness
and effectiveness” (p. 352) of each student’s learning strategies and behaviors both in and
outside the classroom. In doing so, the author conducted non-participant classroom
observations, student interviews, and stimulated recall interviews. She also used student
diary entries, student work, and student questionnaires as components of the study’s
overall data collection. Observations took the form of three 2-camera video recordings
during which the cameras took concurrent footage of the classroom’s students and their
teacher, respectively. Videos were then edited into a dual-image, split-screen format that
continually depicted both the class’s students and their teacher. The researcher later asked
each of the two case study students to view the split-screen footage that depicted
simultaneous images of themselves and the teacher. The author incorporated this
stimulated interview protocol to provide the students with a visual aid that might add
context to explanations of their respective learning situations.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 91

Anthony (1996) organized codes from observations and interviews into four
“learning behaviors” (p. 353). She classified these learning behaviors as either cognitive,
metacognitive, affective, or resource management. After employing quantitative analysis
of these codes, the author determined that the study’s students were utilizing “a similar
range of learning strategies” (Anthony, 1996, p. 353). The following section represents a
summary of Anthony’s findings, which she separated into four distinct “learning episodes”
(p. 353): a) class discussion, b) seatwork, c) review of homework or seatwork, and d) and
homework and test revision.
Anthony (1996) found Adam, the student with greater math proficiency, to be a
more active learner across all learning episodes. She frequently observed Adam engaging
in self-directed, self-regulated, and metacognitive learning that enhanced his processing
and enabled him to more ably build on existing knowledge to produce new, more
complex meanings. Anthony also found that Adam’s focus on larger concepts rather than
discrete mathematical procedures enabled him to be a more anticipatory learner. For
example, the researcher found that Adam’s ability to monitor his own level of
understanding facilitated his tendency to predict future instruction by reading ahead in the
text and engaging in new learning experiences before the teacher introduced them. The
researcher also noted that Adam’s awareness of the rudimentary nature of process-
oriented calculations allowed him to selectively attended to what he perceived as more
complex processes. Thus during teacher-led worked examples, the author observed Adam
to “not just watch and wait for the final answer (a passive response)” (Anthony, 1996, p.
356). Rather, the author found that Adam routinely incorporated “self-explanation,
imagery, and questioning” (Anthony, 1996, p. 356) in arriving at an answer prior to the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 92

teacher’s doing so. Furthermore, Anthony found Adam better equipped to extend and
reproduce many of these cognitive strategies beyond the classroom. For instance,
Anthony noted that being able to manage “his task and learning environment to maximize
his understanding” (Anthony, 1996, p. 359) made his homework sessions meaningful and
productive. When at home, he planned ahead, purposefully integrated prior knowledge to
solve complex operations, and accessed assistance from more knowledgeable family
members.
Contrasting Adam’s approaches, Anthony (1996) found that Adam’s counterpart,
Gareth, focused primarily on the teacher’s guidance, approval, and sequencing of
instruction in worked examples. The author observed that this continual reliance on
teacher-directed instructional activities precluded Gareth from independently exploring
content at a more conceptual level. Gareth dedicated the majority of his time to following
procedural sequences rather than attempting to discern links and patterns among these
operations. The researcher additionally speculated that Gareth’s fixation with arriving at
the correct answer hampered his ability to discern the overarching purpose for performing
the prescribed mathematical procedures. Furthermore, instead of activating and
integrating prior knowledge to novel or challenging learning contexts, the author
observed Gareth to instead employ coping strategies. These coping strategies took the
form of guessing at correct answers and verbal class participation, both of which were
employed with the purpose of gaining favor with the teacher. Lastly, Anthony found that
Gareth’s learning struggles in mathematics often extended beyond the classroom. The
researcher found that Gareth often avoided the more challenging homework problems,
primarily because he lacked strategies that might assist him. In addition, for unmentioned
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 93

reasons, Gareth’s struggles did not lead him to accessing the assistance of family
members in his household.
Paige, Sizemore, and Neace (2013) studied the ninth grade core content
classrooms of a “persistently low achieving” (p. 110) urban high school to determine the
relationship between student engagement and cognitive rigor. The study was guided by
the hypothesis that student engagement increased with cognitive rigor. The ethnicity
distribution of the study’s students consisted of 53% African American, 44% White, and
3% that the authors designated as “others” (p. 97). Eighty-six percent of the school’s
population received free or reduced-price lunch. Teacher experience at the study’s school
averaged 9 years; however, the school has experienced high teacher turnover and was
currently staffed with a “large majority” (p. 97) of first-year educators. Paige et al.’s
study was driven by the following research questions:
• What percentage of students are engaged with instruction and does the data
suggest changes in engagement as the class progresses from the beginning to
end?
• What is the level of higher order thinking occurring inside classrooms and
does this level change across the class period, from beginning to end?
• Does cognitive rigor moderate student classroom engagement?
The researchers defined cognitive rigor as “learning activities that transform or
organize information into new and unique products, actions, or decisions that others find
useful in some way” (Paige et al., 2013, p. 107). Moreover, they contrasted rigorous
learning activities from other types by emphasizing that rigor requires a transfer of
already acquired knowledge and skills to various new situations while other learning
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 94

activities simply involve the acquisition of basic knowledge, a process the authors
alternately referred to as “recall” (p. 107). Paige et al. defined student engagement
through the term “psychological involvement,” which they characterized as “the negative
and positive affective responses that develop on the part of the student, such as boredom
or interest with classroom instruction, the sense of belonging to school, and the notion
that school learning is valuable” (Paige et al., 2013, p. 97). Due to my study’s focus on
classroom-level learning, this summary will focus primarily on the authors’ classroom-
level portion of their definition.
Paige et al. (2013) used a mixed-method design to investigate the research
questions listed above. First, unannounced classroom observations took place between
January and April of the same school year. Excluding Fridays, they were conducted
during all five class periods and on all school days. Researchers conducted a total of 648
total observations across 14 ninth grade core content classrooms, and each of the
classrooms was observed approximately 48 times over this time frame. The authors’
rationale for including data gathered from all class periods across multiple school days
was to help develop a clearer picture of the variables that might have interacted with the
study’s results. Of the 648 observations, 28.3% were conducted by the study’s
researchers and 71.7 % were conducted by a team of teachers trained in the study’s
observation protocol and utilization of the designated observation instrument. Prior to
observations, Paige et al. organized each 70-minute class period into three distinct
segments, which measured the beginning, middle, and end of the class period. These
“Classparts” (p. 111) were labeled 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Paige et al.’s rationale for
dividing each class into three discrete Classparts was to ascertain whether cognitive rigor
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 95

and student engagement differed over the course of whole class periods. As such,
following a given observation, each classpart was coded apart from the two others.
Paige et al. (2013) developed and utilized the Student Engagement and Rigor
Scale for the Classroom (SER-C) to measure the study’s independent and dependent
variables.
To assess cognitive rigor, observers interpreted the level of thinking in which
students were engaged. To this end, observers recorded the level of knowledge from
Webb’s (1997, 1999) Depth of Knowledge (DOK) scale with the observed level of
thinking taking place among students within distinct Classparts. Webb’s DOK taxonomy
established four orders of learning complexity. They are a) recall, b) basic application of
skill/concept, c) strategic thinking, and d) extended thinking. The researchers
corresponded these levels with numbers on an ascending scale of 1-4. Thus, for each
observed Classpart, the study’s researchers coded the observed DOK level as either 1, 2,
3, or 4. Observers coded a 0 for any Classparts in which no discernable student learning
took place. These learning codes were recorded along with their corresponding Classparts.
Beginning, middle, and ends of Classparts were assigned with the numbers 1, 2, and 3,
respectively. To assess student engagement, researchers calculated the percentage of
students within each Classpart whose attention was directed at “external instruction” (p.
111). Lastly, the authors incorporated a series of statistical formulas to calculate the
relationship between these variables and degree to which they fluctuated across
Classparts.
The results of Paige et al.’s (2013) study revealed a significant link between
cognitive rigor and student engagement. Their results revealed a significant main effect
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 96

between Depth of Knowledge and engagement, with student engagement rising with each
uptick in observed levels of student learning. In addition, while the authors did not
ultimately incorporate observed levels of DOK in their final results, observed Level 4
DOK produced the highest level of observed student engagement. The researchers results
also revealed student engagement to dip significantly during the last Classpart of
observations, though it did not differ significantly between the first two Classparts.
However, Paige et al.’s results revealed that deeper DOK was able to sustain student
engagement over Classparts, whereas lower levels of DOK was not.
Teacher-Initiated Pedagogical Approaches
Preus (2012) used a qualitative research design to determine how teachers
promoted authentic instruction with their students. She studied six teachers in five junior
high school classrooms. The classrooms were situated in a Mid-western public school in
a “low socioeconomic area” (p. 62) in which 41% of the total student population received
free or reduced lunch and 13.8% were diagnosed with disabilities. The study’s school
was located in a school district wherein authentic, inclusive, and differentiated instruction
had been intentionally promoted and supported since 1998. Preus arrived at her decision
to examine her subjects in the study’s chosen school after having “conducted a national
search for a racially and economically diverse public secondary school that had
successfully implemented authentic instruction” (p. 61). An additional criterion sought by
the author was a school in which students with disabilities were given full access to the
same learning experiences as their non-disabled peers. Subject selection was targeted to
recruit teachers of English Language Arts. Participating teachers volunteered and were
narrowed to a group of four general education teachers of grades 7-9. Because a science
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 97

teacher “team-taught” (p. 62) with one of the study’s English teachers, she was also
included as part of the study’s group of four general education teachers. Each of the
study’s teachers had special education students in his/her classroom, and the special
education population within these classes ranged between 11% and 50% of the classroom
total.
The author’s study was guided by the following research questions: a) What
strategies do teachers use, what tasks and assessments do they assign, and what
dispositions are evident in their teaching? b) How much of the teachers’ instruction and
assessment actually promotes higher order thinking? c) To what extent and in what ways
do students’ work and participation in these inclusive classrooms demonstrate higher
order thinking? and d) What contextual factors appear to interact and foster authentic
learning? (Preus, 2012, p. 63 ). The author defined authentic instruction as “teaching that
promotes constructing knowledge, disciplined inquiry, and assignments of immediate
value beyond school…(and that) seeks to academically challenge students and engage
them in issues that have personal or social significance” (p. 60). She defined higher order
thinking as the teacher-facilitated instructional approaches that spurred students to
“manipulate information” (p. 63) by engaging in cognitive tasks that covered a range of
complexity and that ultimately lead them toward “arriving at conclusions that produce
new meaning and understanding for them” (p. 63). Finally, Preus identified inclusive
classrooms through the Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform’s (RISER)
criteria for inclusive instructional practices. The author summarized these practices as
those in which students with disabilities were given the same access to authentic
instructional tasks as their non-disabled peers.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 98

Preus (2012) conducted her research for full school days over 5 weeks. The author
did not specify, however, whether her research was conducted over consecutive weeks.
The study’s data consisted of 47 classroom observations, 10 teacher interviews, 5 student
focus groups, 2 individual student interviews, one formal principal interview, informal
observations at multiple site locations, and “numerous informal conversations with
participating teachers and the principal” (p. 63). Additionally, each of the study’s
teachers provided Preus with 11 completed student work samples for her analysis of the
levels of cognitive rigor revealed by students to complete tasks, the totality of which
consisted of a combination of assessments and “daily tasks” (p. 63). During
observations, the researcher recorded the dialogue and behavior of both teachers and
students.
The author conducted numerous additional informal observations and interviews
in a variety of settings with faculty, district personnel, and outside consultants will not be
further discussed, as they do not pertain to my study’s research question. Similarly, for
the remainder of this summary, I will focus primarily on the segments of this report that
relate directly to the instructional tasks and activities that were enacted by the study’s
teachers during classroom observations. Preus’s (2012) coding of classroom instruction
corresponded to a hierarchy of authentic instructional standards originally put forth by
Newman, Secada, and Wehlage (1995). Encompassed within this order are the following
standards:
• Standard 1: Higher order thinking
• Standard 2: Deep knowledge
• Standard 3: Substantive Conversation
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 99

• Standard 4: Connections to the World Beyond the Classroom (1995).
Instruction that appeared to correspond to one of these standards was coded at that
standard. Instructional tasks that appeared to encompass multiple standards were coded at
more than one standard. As Preus observed emerging “teaching strategies, actions of
students, and contextual factors” (p. 64), she established new codes in accordance with
these actions. Preus also evaluated the degree to which students applied principles of
authentic learning to specific tasks. She did so by scoring one “major task from each of
the five classes observed, using the assessment task rubric developed by the RISER group
specifically for writing and for science” (p. 64). Finally, the author teamed with a
practitioner from another school site to score “daily work samples and transcribed class
discussions” (p. 64) in accordance with Bloom’s revised taxonomy (Anderson &
Krathwol, 2001).
Preus (2012) organized her study’s findings around a) how the principal fostered
authentic and inclusive instruction, b) the kind of instruction observed, c) the tasks and
work samples reviewed, and d) the interaction of school culture and authentic instruction.
This section will only focus on the author’s classroom-level findings of b and c, as they
are the categories that align to my research question.
With respect to teacher-enacted instructional strategies, Preus (2012) found that a
significant portion of the observed teachers incorporated higher order thinking (67%) and
substantive conversation (63%) into their classroom practice. Fostering deep knowledge
(43.6%) and connections to the real world (54.2%) were also found to exist in
pedagogical practices within these classes, though at lower frequencies. Preus found that
the highest frequencies of each of the four categories of authentic instruction to have been
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 100

employed in the classrooms of eighth grade English and Science. The lowest frequencies
were found in the fourth hour of seventh grade writing. Taught by the same teacher, these
findings contrasted the findings of the first hour of 7
th
grade writing, which ranked
second highest in terms of frequency of authentic instruction. Preus did not discuss the
possible causes for this disparity beyond noting earlier in her report that the 4
th
hour
section of seventh grade writing was populated by more than twice the number of
students. Preus did note an intentional approach to differentiated instruction enacted by
the study’s teachers. She observed teachers to maintain the same task-oriented
expectations for their special education students while concurrently implementing
strategies that offered scaffolded instruction for all levels of students. Additional
differentiation strategies observed by the author included flexible (heterogeneous)
grouping, “building on students’ interests, monitoring student progress closely, and
reminding students of prior learning” (p. 67). Preus did not, however, indicate the exact
frequency with which teachers enacted these modifications to suit the needs of all
students. Preus also categorized her findings in a “matrix query” (p. 67) to determine how
teachers were employing authentic instruction. Findings recorded in the author’s
instrument are shown in Table 2.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 101

Table 2.
Most Common Instructional Strategies Observed During Authentic Instruction (Preus,
2012)

Note. Adapted from “Authentic Instruction for 21
st
Century Learning: Higher Order
Thinking in an Inclusive School,” by B. Preus, 2012, American Secondary Education, 40,
p. 67.

Using this data as her guide, the author concluded that the study’s teachers “used
intentional strategies to foster higher order thinking skills…” (p. 67). Omitted from this
inference was further discussion of disparities in the frequencies of specific strategies
over others (i.e., Open-ended questions vis-à-vis Critical pedagogy) and whether these
discrepancies indicated might have significant implications for student learning.
Overall, Preus’s findings revealed that greater authenticity in teacher-generated
tasks coincided with higher levels of student elaboration in writing, more thoughtful
classroom dialogue, and deeper levels of analysis. Preus’s (2012) findings from analysis
of the teacher-generated tasks from each of the study’s five classes revealed high scores
on the authentic tasks rubric originally developed by RISER (Schroeder et al., 2001).
Through these assigned tasks, students were consistently challenged to “interpret, analyze,
synthesize, or evaluate information, rather than merely to reproduce information” (p. 71).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 102

Additionally, the author noted that these tasks made intentional connections to students’
lives, promoted deep analysis of content, and elicited classroom dialogue. Using the same
rubric as the one applied to teacher-generated tasks, Preus also found that the student-
generated work samples yielded from these tasks revealed high overall levels of
substantive conversation, written elaboration, and critical thinking. Moreover, she found
that student work exhibited its highest ratings in these domains when teachers assigned
what the author referred to as “highly authentic tasks” (p. 75). Ratings on English-related
tasks were higher than for science. However, the author noted the inconclusiveness of
this disparity, as only one major science assignment was available to assess for this study.
In addition, though noting that, as a group, special education students rated lower than
their peers on average, Preus also found that they were a) engaged in the same tasks and
b) occasionally scored higher than their peers without disabilities.
Finally, Preus (2012) found that the school’s systemic focus on authentic
instruction and high expectations for students elicited greater student engagement and
respect between students and teachers. Noting that she had coded for “behaviors that
demonstrated teacher dispositions” (p. 76), Preus discovered the following:
Every teacher participant exhibited deep respect for students and for each other;
genuine caring for students; a positive outlook on students, the work, and the ides;
passion and enthusiasm for the subject and the big ideas; focus on empowerment
of students; persistence in working with students until they got the concept;
delight in the students and their ideas, but at the same time, high expectations for
students to support those ideas; and flexibility in thinking. (2012)
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 103

To explore the extent to which the elements of teacher-student rapport and
enactment of curriculum each related to student effort and interest in a content area, Pace
(2003) sought to study the instructional approaches of teachers whose classes were
situated in a “well-regarded” (p. 83), “metropolitan, multi-ethnic high school” (p. 85).
Pace’s subjects were chosen by following a process in which the author sought out
teachers who a) taught various class levels and b) were identified by principals and their
department chairs as having success at promoting student engagement in learning.
While Pace’s (2003) initial intent was to spotlight four of the school’s teachers,
the author ultimately narrowed her focus to one 11
th
-grade U.S. History teacher, whose
approach she found to be particularly confounding. Although U.S. History was a core
component of the school’s college preparatory program, the class highlighted in this
study “had low academic status within (the school’s) tracking system” (p. 85), in addition
to a wide range of “sociocultural” (p. 86) and academic diversity. Pace’s subject, Mr.
Clark, was new to the school. Much like the rest of the school’s student population, his
students were ethnically and culturally diverse.
The author employed a qualitative research design, and all data were collected
over the school’s spring semester. Pace’s (2003) data set included 30 classroom
observations; four hour-long, semi-structured teacher interviews; frequent “informal
conversations” (p. 85), and six student interviews (four of whom were interviewed a
second time) comprised the bulk of the author’s data. Supplementary data included
informal interviews with school administrators and Mr. Clark’s teacher colleagues;
participant observations at various locations on the school’s campus; and “classroom-,
school-, and district-related documents” (p. 85). Although the author expressed that field
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 104

notes were recorded during class lessons, she did not detail any coding process that may
have taken place. Moreover, Pace did not specify her approach to organizing and
incorporating supplementary data analysis.
Pace (2003) found Mr. Clark’s approach to fostering compliance and student
engagement in classroom activities to be at once successful and problematic. While
characterizing Mr. Clark’s communication style as cordial, energetic, democratic, and
informal, Pace also observed pedagogical episodes to be scattered with mixed messages,
disjointedness, questionable cognitive rigor, and low expectations. I will summarize these
observations and findings originally detailed by the author in the following paragraphs.
The author found that Mr. Clark purposefully attempted to leverage his vivacity,
congeniality, and “showmanship” (p. 92) to induce student compliance in classroom
activities. Pace (2003) reported Mr. Clark’s intention to consistently employ a “big bang”
approach to trigger initial student interest in classroom activities. She then noted that this
ideology manifested itself through pedagogy that embraced provocation in classroom
discourse, ambiguity of outcomes, and irreverent treatment of serious topics. By
observing his teaching practices, Pace also surmised that Mr. Clark was highly intentional
about cultivating rapport with students. From the author’s perspective, Mr. Clark
achieved success in employing this strategy by “talking with students about their interests,
joking with them, showing concern about their well-being, and sharing his own personal
life with them” (p. 95). However, Pace also noted that Mr. Clark avoided relinquishing
control to students by never revealing his true vulnerabilities to students. Thus, Pace
conjectured that Mr. Clark’s adoption of the role of “buddy” (p. 94) was implemented
specifically for “gaining control” (p. 96).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 105

Pace noted that the mixed messages visible in Mr. Clark’s class took a variety of
forms. The author observed Mr. Clark to hue closely to many teacher duties that might be
characterized as conventional. These included tasks such as taking daily attendance and
consistently assigning homework, quizzes, and essays. Nevertheless, Pace also noted that
he did so while fomenting a lenient classroom atmosphere that tolerated chronic tardiness,
unfinished assignments, off-task side-conversations, occasional swearing, and a climate
in which “investment in learning was voluntary” (p. 86). As such, Pace found overall
student investment in learning, motivation, and achievement in Mr. Clark’s class to be
uneven, and for this disparity to be largely accepted by Mr. Clark himself. Moreover,
with respect to specific lessons and tasks, Pace found Mr. Clark to waffle between
advocating for their completion and trivializing their importance. For instance, on some
occasions, Mr. Clark admonished his students for skipped or unfinished assignments;
other times he minimized or mocked the utility of assigned tasks, “inviting students to
join him in seeing it as a game” (p. 96). Pace summarized these disjointed classroom
dynamics thusly:
I was confused by the simultaneous enthusiasm for and dismissal of knowledge,
jovial yet cynical relations between teacher and students, confrontation mixed
with trivialization of provocative topics, and a charged yet flippant tone. At the
same time, the teacher and his students seemed generally quite satisfied with their
modus operandi. (Pace, 2003)
Regarding the teacher’s academic expectations for his students, Pace noted Mr.
Clark’s resignation to some students’ lagging motivation on several occasions. This
sentiment was exemplified by the author’s portrayal of Mr. Clark’s view that the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 106

preponderance of his students had self-selected away from academic rigor by virtue of
their enrollment in “standard” (p. 87) classes. From the author’s perspective, this view
directly informed Mr. Clark’s instructional approaches. For example, Pace noted that
teacher-led activities and interactions that garnered student commitment generally
occurred through lessons that emphasized engagement and entertainment at the expense
of skills development and intellectual rigor. Instructional content were delivered through
what Pace characterized as a “transmission model” (p. 90), an approach in which teachers
are expected to deliver content that students, in turn, are expected to process and absorb.
This process was captured by Pace’s observation of Mr. Clark’s lesson on writing a four-
paragraph essay. During this lesson, the teacher countered student resistance to a
perceived mechanical task by offering that they would need to learn how to do
“busywork” (p. 97) to succeed in college. In most cases, Pace found that, rather than
gradually and mindfully building toward deeper understandings, eliciting thoughtful
inquiry, and fostering student-driven insights, Mr. Clark instead focused on capturing
student interest by facilitating “charged” (p. 94) discourse in what he perceived as high-
interest topics. These discourses often lacked cohesion and intentionality beyond
activating student engagement. Pace observed Mr. Clark to find frequent success in
employing this strategy to achieve student engagement; however, from the researcher’s
perspective, these exchanges rarely moved beyond the fleeting banter of select classroom
voices. Thus, Pace found the teacher’s talk to establish control by resorting to “emotional
arousal” while “discouraging critical thinking” (p. 94).

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 107

Summary of Pedagogy
For this section, I first identified and then organized the literature into the
following five areas of pedagogy: Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Enacting Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy, Current Conceptualizations of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,
Learning Outcomes of Pedagogical Approaches, and Teacher-Initiated Pedagogical
Approaches. The studies related to Culturally Relevant Pedagogy underscored the
importance of honoring and interweaving aspects of students’ cultures, experiences, and
identities into the fabric of everyday classroom instruction. Collectively, the studies that I
chose to situate within this theory positioned their own variations on Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy as a necessary precursor for positive student outcomes in classrooms with
historically marginalized student populations. However, to give the reader a clearer
understanding of the theoretical genesis for the asset pedagogies summarized in this
section, I began my review of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy with Ladson-Billings’s
(1994) seminal discourse. This was followed by a review of the literature that focused on
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy’s application to classroom instruction. I ensured that these
literatures were also framed by Ladson-Billings’s (2006b) view on how the theory should
be incorporated into one’s instructional practices. To significant degrees, each of these
studies maintained robust fidelity to Ladson-Billings’s initial theoretical lens. That is,
each of these studies positioned academic achievement, cultural competence, and
sociopolitical consciousness as mainstays of successful new-century pedagogy. The
research included in this segment revealed that teacher-student cultural and generational
differences can indeed be bridged through self-reflection, empathy, and verbalized
sincerity. The final segment dedicated to Culturally Relevant Pedagogy included
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 108

literature that sought to extend or challenge some of the theory’s initial assumptions and
objectives. The voices included in this segment asserted that a) asset pedagogies could be
improved through scholars and practitioners being cognizant of the fluid, ambiguous, and
increasingly interconnected states within which contemporary urban youth operate; and
c) popular cultural texts, which should be employed with rigor and discretion, can have a
significant positive impact on motivation and learning outcomes among diverse student
populations.
The two studies that I have categorized as Learning Outcomes of Pedagogical
Approaches highlighted student responses to instruction. Both studies revealed strong
relationships between levels of student cognition and student academic outcomes. Results
summarized from one of these literatures suggested a statistically significant positive
relationship between higher-order classroom learning tasks and increased student
engagement and a negative relationship between recall-oriented tasks and student
engagement. The second study in this section revealed findings regarding the positive
impact of higher-order thinking on learning outcomes when mediated by a student’s
ability to utilize metacognitive strategies to organize and regulate knowledge. Conversely,
the study additionally found that a student’s inability to access and apply metacognitive
and self-regulatory skills to challenging learning tasks lead to severe academic struggle.
In the final segment of pedagogy, I reviewed literature associated with teacher-
initiated pedagogical approaches at the classroom level. Although both studies in this
segment elaborate on the ways in which teachers may elevate the rigor and engagement
of their students, their findings reveal different outcomes of these efforts and speak to the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 109

need for teachers to remain purposeful in their attempts to increase the quality of their
instruction.
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I illustrate the components that comprise my study’s conceptual
framework. Maxwell (2013) defined the conceptual framework as “the system of
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your
research” (p. 39), adding that it is “something that is constructed, not found. It
incorporates pieces that are borrowed from elsewhere, but the structure…is something
that you build, not something that exists ready-made” (p. 41). Thus, in discussing my
conceptual framework, I offer a picture that most accurately represents the reality of my
chosen topic. In Chapter 3, I used this lens to inform my approach to sampling, data
collection, and analysis.
Because my study sought to examine what learning environments look like in
culturally aware teachers’ classrooms, my conceptual framework comprises a latticework
of interdependent dynamics that emerge in these classes (see Figure 5). This framework
includes two essential dimensions of a complete classroom learning environment:
meaningful learning and the affective environment that supports meaningful learning.
Drawing from the literature discussed in the previous sections of this chapter and the
analysis of the data, I explain why I have included each of these elements in my
conceptual framework.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 110

Figure 5. Conceptual Framework in Action (Revised). ML represents Meaningful
Learning; ALE represents Affective Learning Environment
First, meaningful learning occurs at the intersection of those actions taken by the
teacher and those actions taken by the student(s) in the context of a powerful learning
environment. Meaningful learning is the combination of the pedagogical actions
undertaken by the teacher combined with the tasks the teacher chooses to use for
instruction and the students’ responses to that pedagogy and their approach to those tasks.
For meaningful learning to occur, both the teacher and the students have to work together
to construct an affective environment that supports them.
It should be noted that the conceptual framework as currently constituted in
Figure 5 has been modified from the original version I had proposed prior to conducting
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 111

this study (see Figure 6). That some of the original features have been modified,
subsumed, or eliminated is not intended to suggest that they were unimportant to this
study. As I discuss in greater detail below, select items from the original conceptual
framework were either modified or omitted because a) I did not have the data needed to
accurately determine the degree to which these phenomena occurred and b) I observed
some features (e.g., “Positive relationships with peers”) to exist as components of other
features (e.g., “Thoughtful and respectful oral discourse”).

Figure 6. Original version of Conceptual Framework in Action.
The since modified features of the conceptual framework are printed in blue.
They include components from “Pedagogy that scaffolds rigor” and “Facilitates
thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse,” respectively. For the feature “Pedagogy that
scaffolds rigor,” I chose not to address the component of “meets students where they are”
in my findings because I did not have the data needed to accurately determine the extent
to which teachers could modify their instruction to the intellectual capacities of each of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 112

their students. For the feature “Facilitates thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse,” I
chose not to address the component of “provides a safe environment” in my findings
because I did not have the data that would have indicated the importance of a “safe”
environment in each teacher’s contribution to an affective classroom environment.
The since eliminated features of the conceptual framework are printed in magenta.
They include the features of “Positive relationships with peers,” “Positive interactions
with teachers,” and “Respects boundaries.” I chose not to address the student-enacted
features of “Positive interactions with peers” and “Positive interactions with teachers” in
my findings because students demonstrated the extent to which they enacted positive
interactions with both their teacher and fellow classmates through their behavioral
patterns during classroom dialogue. I chose not to address the teacher-enacted feature of
“Respects boundaries” in my findings because teachers demonstrated the extent to which
they established a clear understanding of the social and emotional parameters that were
conducive to student growth through the affective features of “Self-awareness,”
“Emotional intelligence,” and “Enacts care.”
Prior to examining the interaction of the features noted in the revised conceptual
framework illustrated in Figure 5, I will first address each separately.
Teacher’s and Students’ Contributions to Meaningful Learning
For meaningful learning to take place, the teacher and the students must enact
specific behaviors in the room. The teacher must provide instruction that is responsive to
the students’ cultures, personal realities, communication styles, and worldviews and use
appropriate scaffolds that create equitable learning opportunities. He/she also engages the
students in culturally sustaining tasks that leverage students’ funds of knowledge. I draw
on the work of Ladson-Billings (1995, 2006), Paris and Alim (2014), and Milner (2011)
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 113

to conceptualize the ways in which a teacher enacts cultural awareness in his/her
classroom teaching practice.
Students, on the other hand, must be active in their own learning. In addition, they
must engage in cultural critique and be socially conscious. I draw on the work of
Anthony (1996), Paige et al. (2013), Preus (2012) and Ladson-Billings (1995-2006) to
describe these concepts. I will first provide further insight into the teacher’s behaviors
and then turn my attention to the students’ behaviors.
Teacher
Pedagogy. To foster meaningful learning, the teacher enacts pedagogy and the
tasks he/she provides to students during instruction. First, acting primarily as a facilitator,
the culturally aware teacher pre-determines the form and scope of the oral language
exchanges that he/she expects to take place during class time and actively monitors the
process to ensure that all students are provided with the skills and opportunities to engage
as active participants. Versions of these activities include small- and whole-group
discussions, dialogues, and debates. Whichever form these interactions take, the focus
topics highlighted during their allotted time span are purposefully aligned with core
elements of a concurrent unit of instruction.
Using Ladson-Billings’s (2006) characterization of some urban classrooms as
“oppressive atmosphere of standardized tests” (p. 34) as the antithesis, the culturally
aware teacher incrementally elevates the cognitive rigor of classroom tasks and activities
by increasing their complexity. In addition to providing students the instructional time
and support to master foundational knowledge and skills, the teacher frequently facilitates
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 114

activities that elicit the cognitive lift necessary for students to engage in deep inquiry,
critical analysis, and sophisticated problem-solving.
Using Ladson-Billings’s (2006) characterization of some urban classrooms as
“oppressive atmosphere of standardized tests” (p. 34) as the antithesis, the culturally
aware teacher provides students the instructional time and support to master foundational
knowledge and skills. Once students have demonstrated their proficiency in these areas,
the culturally aware teacher incrementally elevates the cognitive rigor of classroom tasks
and activities by increasing their complexity. In doing so, the teacher frequently
facilitates activities that elicit the cognitive lift necessary for students to engage in deep
inquiry, critical analysis, and sophisticated problem-solving.
While tasks increase in levels of complexity, cultural relevance and student
engagement remain equally essential: Structured activities that challenge students to
question, collaborate, investigate and design solutions-based projects through both “new”
and “old” media platforms consume much of the class’s instructional time. As he/she
gradually increases the instructional rigor of classroom tasks, he/she also provides
students with strategies that are targeted at developing self-regulation, metacognition, and
greater autonomy. These cognitive processes aid in development of the mental schema
needed to persevere through challenging tasks.
Culturally Sustaining Tasks. Drawing from Paris and Alim’s (2014) concept of
culturally sustaining pedagogy, I contend that a teacher who fosters meaningful learning
opportunities designs and enacts lessons that use tasks that reflect the complex, fluid and
ever-evolving nature of students’ cultural, ethnic, generational, and gender identities.
He/She also facilitates opportunities for students to critically examine past and current
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 115

traditions and “to gaze inward” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 92) at possibly oppressive
cultural practices that may elicit hegemonic relationships.
The culturally aware teacher recognizes the inherent tension that exists between
norms propagated by the dominant culture and the unique norms that exist within
populations that have been historically marginalized. However, rather than perpetuating
these tensions by resigning himself/herself to the enduring influence of the dominant
culture, the culturally aware teacher infuses her curricula and instructional approaches
with frequent opportunities for students to a) learn more about the triumphs and struggles
that their respective cultural, ethnic, or gender orientations have experienced b) use
norms, communication styles, and knowledge of their culture, ethnicity, or gender
orientation as entry points into unfamiliar or challenging intellectual terrain, and c)
develop these competencies alongside those valued by the dominant culture to foster
equitable outcomes.
Throughout these learning processes, the culturally aware teacher remains vigilant
about the funds of knowledge that may go undervalued or obscured by conventional
assessment systems. Therefore, the culturally aware teacher first identifies and then fully
integrates these assets into classroom instructional activities. Empowering students with
the latitude to use their personal assets as valuable fodder for development of new
knowledge and skills honors students’ identity and instills them with greater agency.
These assets include abilities, interests, and experiences that are integral components of
young people’s lived realities but that may be deemed of lesser intellectual significance
in more traditional learning environments. In this vein, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell
(2005) argue for the “academic worthiness” (p. 286) of teacher-facilitated activities that
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 116

situate purposefully selected popular culture texts at the center of student-driven inquiry
and discourse. They maintain that urban youth are deeply conversant in these texts, which
serve as powerful catalysts for critical analysis; moreover, their familiarity can provide a
scaffold to deeper understanding of and/or appreciation for more traditional “old-media”
texts.
Students
To be successful in a variety of classroom learning contexts, Anthony (1996)
contends that students “must develop expertise in how to learn” (p. 365). Preus (2012)
makes the connection between students who exhibit evidence of higher order thinking,
deep content knowledge, substantive conversation, and making connections to the world
beyond the classroom to increases in engagement and achievement outcomes among both
general education and special needs student populations. Both Preus (2012) and Ladson-
Billings (1995, 2006) discuss the importance of students routinely engaging in cultural
critique to gain understanding of social inequities that exist on local and more global
scales. Drawing from each of these perspectives, I maintain that students engage in
meaningful learning when they leverage a) metacognitive acuity; b) speaking, listening,
and writing literacies; and b) social consciousness to actively and purposefully immerse
themselves in meaningful academic tasks. I also contend that students exhibiting these
traits are the norm in the learning environments fostered by culturally aware teachers. For
the remainder of this section, I will refer to these students as intellectually active learners.
The assumption is that these students are invited to assume the role of both active
participant and knowledge constructor when attending the classes of culturally aware
teachers.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 117

Anthony (1996) cautions that taking an active role in classroom activities may not
be a sufficient precursor to knowledge and skills acquisition for adolescent or teenage
learners. Beyond being an active participant in classroom activities, the learning
processes of intellectually active learners is seen and heard through a more sophisticated
approach to knowledge acquisition and peer interaction. These pupils incorporate an
array of intentional, self-guided, cognitive, and metacognitive behaviors to create
meaningful learning experiences that are emblematic of student activity within a highly
functioning learning environment. For my conceptual framework, I categorize the
behaviors that comprise the meaningful learning experiences of intellectually active
learners as: a) active learning, b) engaging in respectful and thoughtful oral discourse
with classmates, and c) engaging in social and cultural critique.
Students who are more actively engaged in, and aware of, their own learning
processes are better equipped to a) self-manage their activities during complex tasks and
b) call on the strategies or skills necessary for success in a variety of learning contexts.
Drawing from Anthony’s (1996) characterization of active learning as a process whereby
students proactively construct rather than absorb knowledge, I contend that intellectually
active learners work toward mastery of a skill or deeper understanding of a concept by
leveraging self-directed strategies to do so. When reading complex texts, for example,
these students employ a variety of mindful approaches to both comprehend challenging
prose and to disentangle intricate concepts put forth by an author or editor. Such
interactive approaches to literacy include asking both clarifying and higher-order
questions, highlighting main ideas, recording comments, making predictions, or drawing
connections.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 118

Intellectually active learners also show clear evidence of engaging in
metacognitive or “resource management” (Anthony, 1996, p. 360) strategies that aid in
their own understanding of how best to approach difficult or unfamiliar tasks. These
students reveal evidence of being process- rather than output-oriented. That is, rather than
seeking an immediate answer to a challenging question or quandary, they engage in
activities like questioning, predicting, interpreting, and self-reflection. A civics task that
challenges students to design a more democratic system of governance, for example,
might prompt an intellectually active learner to access his/her notes on a) the definition of
democracy and b) the ramifications of various forms of self-identified democracies
throughout history or fiction. When confronted with an unsatisfactory grade on an essay,
intellectually active learners are more likely to a) autonomously examine the essay’s
rubric to determine the area in which they are in need of the most assistance, b) approach
his/her teacher or a more proficient student in attempting to improve the greatest area of
struggle, and c) apply these revised approaches to the next assigned essay.
Intellectually active learners also employ inquiry systematically, using it as a tool
for problem-solving or deeper exploration. While these students may ask fact-based
questions that seek to clarify a term or process, they use higher-order questioning to push
classroom dialogue, challenge conventional wisdom, and expand creative possibilities.
Thus, intellectually active learners frequently incorporate open-ended questions as they
engage in the process of what Paige et al. (2013) refer to as “knowledge work” (p. 107).
During this process, they pose probing questions about existing topics that broaden the
range of possibilities–and that may lead to even deeper levels of inquiry. For example,
when tasked with presenting an oral report on prominent leaders of the civil rights
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 119

movement, an intellectually active learner might question the definition of a prominent
leader; another might question why some of those leaders now exist in relative obscurity
while others remain relevant; and yet another might ponder how the trajectory of history
might have changed had certain leaders never existed or had lived beyond their premature
deaths.
Finally, intellectually active learners leverage their intellectual assets to manage
complex tasks. In some of these instances, they maximize their potential for successful
learning outcomes by readily and efficiently using prior knowledge to construct new
knowledge. Doing so contextualizes unfamiliar or challenging intellectual terrain: they
discern prompts triggered by their teacher and re-appropriate them to gain a clearer, fuller
understanding of the current task at hand. Preus (2012) regards these self-directed,
inquiry-driven approaches to knowledge construction as one’s ability to operate within an
authentic learning context. Working within this context, intellectually active learners
often are able to independently draw upon past knowledge without a teacher’s intentional
prompting. They achieve this through metacognitive functions, such as pondering what
information they already know about the topic. For instance, when instructed to write a
short response on the conditions that triggered World War II, intellectually active learners
may reflect on the causes of past wars about which they have already amassed knowledge.
Additionally, they reflect on the geopolitical conditions that existed in the years leading
up to World War II and may also incorporate fragments of knowledge about World War
II learned from various other media and learning contexts that may assist them with
tackling the task at hand. Finally, these students likely create a learning map or visual
organizer to aid in their pre-writing processes.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 120

Just as Ladson-Billings (1995, 2006) argues that historically marginalized student
populations must have opportunities to engage in classroom activities that question
cultural conventions, social norms, political structures, power dynamics, and economic
conditions, Preus (2012) includes this imperative as one building block of a six-part
foundation for a young person’s authentic learning growth. I draw from both of these
perspectives in underscoring the importance of cultural critique and social consciousness
as essential components of meaningful learning experiences enacted by intellectually
active learners.
In addition to exhibiting awareness of the many social and political dynamics that
exist on local and global scales, intellectually active learners a) investigate the social and
political conditions that contribute to inequity or injustice, b) analyze the implications for
these conditions, and c) devise possible solutions for current social and economic
challenges that exist among and within communities. In pursuing this goal, these students
draw from a variety of texts to deepen their understanding of social, political, and
economic issues. They then extend and exhibit this knowledge through a variety of text-
driven activities that involve written and oral argumentation, active listening, deep
inquiry, guided reflection, and action research projects that entail a solutions-based
approach to curbing social inequity or economic disparities.
Additionally, intellectually active learners display an awareness of how past
events, laws, and beliefs have impacted current social views, economic conditions, and
electoral trends. In doing so, they actively question the extent to which revered doctrines,
such as sacred texts and national constitutions, are a) equitable b) relevant to 21
st
century
attitudes, norms, and practices; and c) have been successful in creating their originally
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 121

intended consequences. They also question current social and cultural practices within
their own communities that may not be perceived as discriminatory but that, with closer
scrutiny, could very well be interpreted as such. Finally, intellectually active learners
reveal a grounded understanding of how social and economic conditions are of particular
concern to historically marginalized populations–and whether or not current policies,
norms, and practices achieve the levels of equity needed for a just and sustainable society.
Teacher’s and Students’ Contribution to the Affective Learning Environment
As is the case with meaningful learning, both the teacher and the students play an
essential role in fostering the affective learning environment within which meaningful
learning is able to take place. The teacher is responsible for facilitating thoughtful and
inclusive classroom discourse, demonstrating social and emotional competency, being
socially aware, demonstrating emotional intelligence, having self-awareness, enacting
care, and respecting boundaries between him/herself and his/her students. I draw on Paris
and Alim (2014), Matsumura et al. (2008), Campbell (2008), and others to explain the
teacher’s contributions to the affective learning environment.
Similarly, students must come into the classroom and demonstrate the positive
relationships with their peers and positive interactions with their teachers through their
participation in respectful oral discourse.
Teacher
Facilitates thoughtful and inclusive classroom discourse. Regularly immersing
students in classroom discourse that encourages diverse viewpoints prepares students to
operate in a global context in which negotiating opposing cultural mores and social
norms will become increasingly more integral to one’s career success (Paris & Alim,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 122

2014); establishing classroom norms for respectful, prosocial behavior elicits increased
student participation in class discussion (Matsumura et al., 2008); and establishing
classroom climates that encourage the discussion of different political perspectives have a
disproportionately positive impact on students of color (Campbell, 2008). Therefore, I
argue that a culturally aware teacher consistently provides a structured, equitable space
for students to engage in thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse that incorporates a full
range of student perspectives. Finally, culturally aware teachers work diligently and
continually to ease anxiety that students might feel in divulging unconventional or
potentially unpopular perspectives. To this end, culturally aware teachers establish clear
and consistent norms of classroom discourse and routinely direct students to reflect on
their fidelity to them.
Demonstrates social and emotional competency. Jennings and Greenberg
(2008) position a teacher’s social and emotional competency as the initial catalyst for a)
effective classroom management; b) a healthy classroom climate; and c) positive social,
emotional, and academic outcomes among students. For my conceptual framework, I
adopt this assertion and appropriate social and emotional competency as one of the
essential pillars of a teacher-cultivated culturally aware learning environment. In the
following paragraphs, I will discuss the ways in which culturally aware teachers enact
attributes associated with social and emotional competency. They demonstrate these
competencies by enacting a) social awareness, b) emotional intelligence, and c) self-
awareness.
Enacts social awareness. One way that a culturally aware teacher exhibits social
awareness is by employing cultural sensitivity when managing language usage and verbal
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 123

exchanges in the classroom. The culturally aware teacher is mindful of the considerations
that must be employed when interacting with diverse populations of students who may
feel marginalized in traditional scholastic contexts and, thus, he/she tailors his/her own
communication content and style to appeal to diverse populations of young people. While
a culturally aware teacher may not necessarily adopt the language employed by his/her
students, her/she demonstrates the cultural sensitivity to affirm diverse models of student
communication while simultaneously modeling academic literacies that provide access to
what Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2005) refer to as the “culture of power” (p. 291).
Moreover, a culturally aware teacher monitors his/her students’ language exchanges for
signs of oppression that may or may not appear to be deliberate. While the culturally
aware teacher demonstrates intentionality in promoting cultural competence in his/her
students, he/she does not blindly endorse all student-generated messages. When
appropriate, a culturally aware teacher identifies expressed language that can be
perceived as oppressive, insensitive, or intolerant by articulating how these words or
messages can be harmful or hegemonic.
Enacts emotional intelligence. Milner’s (2010a) work explores the growth
possibilities for both students and teachers alike when teachers make explicit attempts to
share lived experiences with their students. Thus, a culturally aware teacher also
demonstrates emotional intelligence by fostering connections that transcend teacher-
student differences. One way he/she accomplishes this objective is by sharing his/her
identity and personal history through verbal interactions when relevant and appropriate.
By sharing past challenges and successes, a culturally aware teacher promotes a common
identity of mutual understanding and empathy. Moreover, a culturally aware teacher
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 124

demonstrates discretion of: a) when to inject their personal stories with humor, b) the
appropriateness and utility of various types of personal anecdotes, and c) the instructional
time allotted for such episodes. Conversely, a culturally aware teacher exhibits social
awareness by actively learning about student interests, curiosities, and concerns.
Although he/she leverages these items to bolster motivation, relevance, and engagement
in academic activities, a culturally aware teacher primarily inquires about student
interests and concerns to illuminate their own viewpoints and to build a deeper
understanding of student perspectives. A culturally aware teacher expresses this pursuit
by tailoring his/her pedagogy to address these desires and concerns.
Demonstrates self-awareness. A culturally aware teacher comprehends the ways
in which his/her actions impact his/her students’ behaviors. The work of Matsumura et al.
(2008) reveals a robust relationship between teachers’ respect for their students and their
students’ respect for each other. In addition, Jennings and Greenberg (2008) situate a
teacher’s aptitude for modeling desired social and emotional behavior as a predictor of a
healthy classroom climate. Therefore, I argue that one of the ways in which a culturally
aware teacher demonstrates self-awareness is by modeling prosocial classroom behavior.
He/she instills the values of kindness, flexibility, generosity, and acceptance in his/her
students by embedding them within his/her everyday teaching practice. Milner and
Tenore’s (2010) work on culturally responsive classroom management distills this
process by showing how teachers’ unwavering commitment to what they view as positive
values generates reciprocated behavior in their pupils over time.
A culturally aware teacher’s purposeful approach to his/her development and
fidelity to classroom rules, procedures, and expectations reveals another important aspect
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 125

of her self-awareness. For instance, in developing classroom behavioral expectations, a
culturally aware teacher a) solicits collective student input before such expectations are
finalized b) employs an inclusive process that ensures all student voices are honored, and
c) holds him/herself equally accountable. By facilitating processes such as this, a
culturally aware teacher promotes equity while demonstrating to students the value of
inclusiveness. That is, a culturally aware teacher demonstrates the potential value of
democratic principles by continually modeling them in his/her practice.
Finally, Jennings and Greenberg (2008) situate the emotional self-regulation of a
teacher as a core indicator of his/her social and emotional competency. The culturally
aware teacher, therefore, exhibits self-awareness by successfully and proactively
managing his/her own emotions. Central to this ability to manage one’s emotions in the
classroom is the ability to exhibit empathy for students who behave in ways that can
provoke anger or frustration. As a consequence, the culturally aware teacher treats
students who struggle with regulating their own behaviors with firm but caring gestures.
In doing so, a culturally aware teacher demonstrates approaches that seek to dissuade
future provocations; however, he/she does so without stigmatizing or marginalizing the
provocateur or further disrupting the learning environment. Thus, even when provoked, a
culturally aware teacher humanely and respectfully defuses student provocations and
maintains a positive affect throughout the ordeal. This teacher shows evidence of
navigating these situations in various positive ways. Milner and Tenore (2010), for
instance, elaborate on the ways in which the teacher who is challenged by struggling or
resistant students mitigates the conflict by developing deeper rapport with them.
Accordingly, the culturally aware teacher ultimately perceives these conflicts as an
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 126

opportunity to develop deeper rapport with the student(s) involved in the ordeal and
leverages the situation as a catalyst for doing so.
Enacts Care
Prior segments of this chapter suggest the positive impact that demonstrably
caring teachers have on student behavioral and academic outcomes. For instance, Davis
(2006) reveals an explicit connection between caring teacher-student relationships (as
perceived by students) and positive student motivational, affective, and academic
outcomes. Thus, I argue that a culturally aware teacher is a teacher who consistently and
explicitly demonstrates a care for her students that exists in concert with her concern for
student academic performance outcomes.
In addition, I posit that, while the teacher-cultivated care detailed throughout the
literature assumes various labels, it nonetheless maintains constant attributes. Milner and
Tenore (2010), for instance, characterize the process of culturally responsive classroom
management as one in which teachers proactively respond to student needs by enacting
equity and developing relational trust. McHugh et al. (2013) refer to similarly intentional
teacher-enacted care as “bridging” (p. 20). Guided by these perspectives, I maintain that a
culturally aware teacher proactively and explicitly creates situations in which he/she is
emotionally and intellectually available to his/her students.
Because a culturally aware teacher is cognizant of the panoply of student learning
and emotional challenges within his/her classroom, these teacher-initiated bids are
context-specific, personalized, and purposeful. As such, a culturally aware teacher reveals
an ability to customize his/her caring overtures to suit the needs of a diverse spectrum of
students. Whether he/she targets individual students, small groups, or whole classes, this
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 127

approach is exhibited by a) explicit modifications in when and how the teacher
approaches students and b) behaviors that reveal a clear understanding of the type of
interaction that individuals and groups of students will view as most inviting or beneficial.
To this point, while the culturally aware teacher behaves in ways that foster teacher-
student connectedness, he/she most frequently and explicitly enacts care through
providing tools that support his/her students’ capacities to excel at academic tasks.
Milner’s (2010a) work suggests that a caring teacher a) comprehends the need that many
disenfranchised students have for surrogate caregivers and b) is willing and able to
assume multiple roles (i.e., surrogate sibling, parent, or mentor) to ensure his/her students’
healthy and positive state of mind. This approach is apart from Davis’s (2006) “dual
relationship” (p. 212) method taken by teachers whose role flexibility is a function of
their own professional objectives. In contrast, as a culturally aware teacher exhibits the
flexibility, will, and discretion that allows for him/her to operate successfully beyond
more traditional teacher-student relational paradigms, he/she does so irrespective of
student behavioral responses. Moreover, the culturally aware teacher is uniquely able to
alternate among various roles while simultaneously maintaining a structured classroom
learning environment that preserves his/her status as class leader.
Students
Engages in thoughtful and respectful oral discourse with peers. The work of
Matsumura et al. (2008) reveals explicit connections between core components of
classroom discourse and positive student outcomes. These positive relationships include:
a) students’ participation in class discussions and both the frequency with which they
makes explicit connections between their contributions and those of their peers and the
frequency with which they provide evidence to support their claims and b) the rigor of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 128

discussion and both the overall level of student participation and the frequency with
which students link their contributions to those of their peers. Thus, I maintain that
socially and emotionally competent students’ contributions to classroom discourse is
respectful, scholarly and relevant to the task’s focus. Moreover, their input is constructive
insofar as it makes connections or builds on the contributions of others while explicitly or
implicitly providing entry points for their classroom peers to do likewise. In addition,
when a particular activity is predicated on knowledge of one or multiple texts, socially
and emotionally competent students purposefully draw from these readings to support
their positions or to offer new possibilities. Beyond their verbal contributions, these
individuals display refined listening skills by a) actively listening to their classmates’
contributions and b) responding directly to the content of their peers’ input.
When engaging in classroom debate, socially and emotionally competent students
maintain equitable and respectful oral exchanges with both the teacher and peers.
Organized by the teacher, these debates may be represented by a wide range of structured
and semi-structured formats. For instance, an informal debate may take the form of an
impromptu whole-group debate over a literary character’s true intentions while a more
rigidly structured debate might more closely resemble a formal volley between political
candidates. Irrespective of format, socially and emotionally competent students
acknowledge possible flaws in their own arguments while validating the contrasting
positions of peers when contextually appropriate. During these activities, which are
driven by the exchange of contrasting points of view, socially and emotionally competent
students neither dismiss other students’ contributions nor suppress conversation by
seizing the floor for disproportionately large segments of time. Finally, irrespective of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 129

whether or not their arguments align with those of their peers, socially and emotionally
competent students adhere to the debate protocols set forth by the activity’s teacher or
facilitator and agreed upon by his/her classroom peers.
Learning Environment of a Culturally Aware Teacher
As described above, classrooms of effective teachers inhabit a universe of
affective and intellectual elements that interact and interdepend. In the classrooms of
culturally aware teachers, these elements take on an added significance because they are
cultivated by both the teacher and his students in a shared partnership. Although the
ecosystem that comprises a powerful learning environment is complex, its formula is
straightforward. That is, powerful learning environments are present when both the
teacher and his/her students are actively cultivating both a positive affective environment
and a meaningful learning environment. However, it should be noted that even the most
exceptional classrooms are unlikely to exhibit all of these elements simultaneously and
indefinitely. As more of these elements take shape within a given classroom, we can also
be assured that it is also moving in the direction of becoming a powerful learning
environment for students.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 130

CHAPTER 3: METHODS
This chapter details the qualitative approach, research design, instrumentation,
sampling strategy, and data collection methods that I used for this study. The purpose of
this study was to ascertain what learning environments looked like in the classrooms of
culturally aware teachers. Specifically, I examined the universe of interacting elements
that were or were not fostered within the learning environments of culturally aware
teachers during instructional time. These interacting elements were the pedagogy of the
teacher, the learning experiences of students, and the contributions that both the teacher
and his/her students made to the classroom’s affective environment. My multiple-case
study was informed by the following research question: What do the learning
environments look like in the classrooms of urban high school educators who are
culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized
populations?
Research Design
Merriam (2009) describes the case study approach to qualitative research as the
investigation or analysis of a bounded system. Using the case study approach, a
researcher uses multiple sources of data to investigate either a single bounded system or
multiple bounded systems. Within this process, the researcher prioritizes “insight,
discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing” (p. 42). For this study, I used
the case study approach in examining the elements that were or were not present within
the respective learning environments of two culturally aware teachers’ classrooms at a
large, urban high school with large populations of historically marginalized and low-
income students. Since this study involved two separate classroom learning environments
as its units of analysis, I employed a multiple case study approach. By investigating the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 131

learning environments of two teachers at the same urban high school, I was able to
examine each teacher’s pedagogical approach, the learning experiences of his/her
students, and the contributions that each teacher and his/her students made to their
respective learning environments.
I chose to use a qualitative case study approach for this study due to the features
inherent in its research design. First, rather than testing a hypothesis, case studies seek to
achieve a deeper insight into the research question(s) being investigated (Merriam, 2009).
Next, case studies aim to achieve a thick description of the subject being researched. That
is, its intended outcome is a “complete, literal description of the incident or entity being
investigated” (Merriam, 2009, p. 43). Third, the particularistic nature of the case study
design allows researchers to focus on a specific phenomenon within its own context.
Fourth, being heuristic in nature, case studies enable researchers to develop a new or
deeper understanding of the phenomenon being explored.
Finally, case studies “aim to uncover the interaction of significant factors
characteristic of the phenomenon” (Merriam, 2009, p. 43): Due to the dynamic,
interactive, and interwoven nature of the elements that exist within classroom learning
environments, this study enacted a holistic approach to analyzing the ways in which these
elements interacted and interdepended.
For this dissertation, I sought to gain a clearer understanding, and to help readers
understand, the elements that existed, interacted, and interdepended within the learning
environments of culturally aware teachers. My conceptual framework illustrates the ways
in which a culturally aware teacher and his/her students contribute to the learning
environment they share. A culturally aware teacher strives to contribute to classroom
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 132

learning environments by a) cultivating meaningful learning environments by tailoring
his/her students’ cultures, personal realities, communication styles and worldviews and b)
cultivating a positive affective environment in the classroom. His/her students contribute
to these learning environments by a) cultivating meaningful learning as intellectually
active learners and b) behaving in ways that foster a positive affective learning
environment. Because case studies “aim to uncover the interaction of significant factors
characteristic of the phenomenon” (Merriam, 2009, p. 43), a multi-case study research
design allowed for a holistic approach to analyzing the ways in which these elements
interacted, intersected, and interdepended.
Sample and Population
Site Selection
I conducted the multi-case study for this study at one high schools located in an
urban school district in Los Angeles County. Since the study examined the classroom
learning environments of culturally aware teachers who worked with students from
historically marginalized populations, I used purposeful sampling to select both the
study’s school site and each case study’s participants. Because finding the best case to
study requires the researcher to “first establish the criteria that will guide case selection
and then select a case that meets those criteria” (Merriam, 2009, p. 81), I will use this
section to establish the criteria that guided my school selection.
Criterion 1. The first set of criteria that was needed for a school site to be
considered for this study was that it needed to be public urban high schools that was
attended by large majorities of students who a) were designated by the state of California
as low-income and b) belonged to historically disenfranchised racial or ethnic
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 133

populations. At least 70% of the total student composition must be designated as both
low-income and belonging to one or more non-Asian racial minority populations.
Because my study sought to examine what learning environments looked like in the
classrooms of culturally aware teachers serving large numbers of historically
marginalized student populations, selecting a school that enrolled these student
compositions provided me with ample opportunities to capture the data needed to develop
a clearer understanding of the picture that emerged within these environments.
Criterion 2. The second set of criteria for a school site’s inclusion in this study
concerned both its school-wide student academic performance and its ranking with
respect to schools enrolling similar student demographics. To be included in this study, a
school needed to have an Academic Performance Index (API) score of at least 700 and/or
have met or exceeded its API growth targets over the years of 2009-2010, 2010-2011,
and 2011-2012. The school must also have had an API Similar Schools Ranking of at
least 8 for the 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 school years. Achieving or
surpassing these student performance benchmarks places a public high school with large
populations of low-income or historically disenfranchised students among the top
regional performers. Critical dimensions of this study examined the quality of both
teacher instruction and student learning inside the classroom. Therefore, having access to
a diverse urban high school that disrupted the pattern of underperformance among its
historically disenfranchised student populations enabled me to more efficiently locate
culturally aware teachers and intellectually active learners.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 134

Participant Selection
This study did not aim to assess the effectiveness of an educator’s teaching
methods. Rather, the expectation was that that the learning environments in the
classrooms of culturally aware teachers were a product of a) both culturally aware
teachers and intellectually active students’ respective contributions to meaningful
learning experiences and b) teacher and student contributions to the affective learning
environment. To gain further insight into this construct, it was necessary for me to further
examine the constellation of variables that existed within the learning environments of
teachers who implemented culturally aware practices with high-needs student populations.
Since this was a qualitative multi-case study, I selected candidates who a) aligned with
the purpose of this study and b) allowed for the greatest number of insights to be gained
through the research process (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, I used purposeful selection to
select this study’s two participants. In doing so, I adopted a criterion-based selection
strategy that narrowed the field of possible participants to educators who had gained a
reputation for being culturally aware teachers. I used the following criteria to select the
two teachers whose classroom learning environments became the focus of this study.
Criterion 1. The first criterion needed for a teacher’s inclusion in this study was
for him/her to have gained a reputation among his/her supervisors and colleagues for
enacting the characteristics of a culturally aware teacher. That is, the two teachers
selected for this study were individuals who reputedly fostered meaningful learning for
students by consistently enacting a majority of the following qualities:
• pedagogy that was embedded with purposeful scaffolds and
• culturally sustaining tasks that leveraged students’ funds of knowledge.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 135

In addition, these individuals had earned the reputation for contributing to the classroom
learning environment by
• facilitating thoughtful and inclusive classroom discourse,
• demonstrating social and emotional competency, social awareness, emotional
intelligence, and self-awareness; and
• enacting care.
The process of selecting teachers to include in this case study drew from elements
found in Cooper’s (2003) community nomination method and Merriam’s (2009) network
sampling approach. First, I composed a handout that briefly detailed the attributes of a
culturally aware teacher. Next, I sought approval from the school site’s leadership by
detailing my goal of identifying five culturally aware teachers for study. These
individuals included the school’s assistant principal and two lead teachers from the
school’s Social Studies department. Upon meeting with these individuals, I a) furnished
them with the aforementioned handout and then b) asked them to nominate a teacher who
fit the criteria of a culturally aware teacher. I first met with the school’s principal, who,
first, organized a meeting between me and the two Social Studies department lead
teachers and, then, introduced me to a well-regarded English teacher, Ms. Mendoza, who
was also leading the schools’ WASC team. After a brief meeting to discuss the nature and
scope of my study with Ms. Mendoza, she agreed to participate. After meeting and
discussing the nature and scope of my study with the two Social Studies lead teachers,
they introduced me to Mr. Rios, who subsequently agreed to participate in the study.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 136

Instrumentation
The purpose of this study was to develop a clear understanding of what learning
environments looked like in culturally aware teachers’ classrooms. As previously
expressed in my conceptual framework, my primary interest was in examining both the
academic contributions to meaningful learning and the affective contributions to the
classroom climate that both culturally aware teachers and their students cultivated as they
operated within a common learning environment. The expectation was that educators
who possessed the characteristics of a culturally aware teacher would have students who
exhibited the characteristics of intellectually active learners–irrespective of the students’
income, racial, or ethnic classifications. As this was a qualitative multi-case study, my
role as the sole researcher required me to operate as the primary instrument for data
collection and analysis (Merriam, 2009).
Data Collection Procedures
I collected data from direct classroom observations, teacher interviews, and
student focus groups. In addition, I collected task-related documents used during
instruction but did not analyze them as part of my study’s formal corpus of data.
Observation. The purpose of this study aligned with each of the three principles
put forth by Merriam (2009) that rationalize the primacy for systematic observation in
certain qualitative studies. That is, my study a) examined a multitude of details that
typically go unnoticed, b) provided a new perspective on a familiar context, and c)
revealed a more comprehensive picture of dynamics that some educators may not have
had the desire or ability to fully acknowledge in other data collection formats. Since this
study focused mainly on the constellation of tasks, events, and behaviors that unfolded
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 137

during classroom instructional time, I used classroom observations as my primary source
of data. In doing so, I conducted seven semi-structured classroom observations for Mr.
Rios’s second period class and six semi-structured classroom observations for Ms.
Mendoza's fourth period class. The total time spent in each teacher’s class amounted to
approximately 9 hours. I additionally observed the interactions between the study’s
teachers and their students during passing periods. For each teacher, I observed
approximately 7 passing periods. Affording myself this opportunity allowed me to
observe the informal interactions that transpired beyond the formal parameters of
designated instructional time.
In accordance with Merriam’s (2009) description of the qualitative observation
process, I will ground my approach in my research question and conceptual framework
while allowing for additional themes and concepts to gradually emerge over time. Since I
used my conceptual framework as the lens through which I made my classroom
observations, I focused on the contributions to meaningful learning experiences and
affective climate that a) were cultivated by both the teacher and her/his students and b)
comprised the classroom’s learning environment. In addition, throughout this process, I
used Merriam’s (2009) checklist of elements as a guideline to ensure that my data
reflected the host of dynamics that emerged during classroom instructional time.
As I observed both student and teacher actions–and interactions–that contributed to
meaningful learning experiences, I paid close attention to recording data related to the
degree to which teacher- and student-cultivated actions contributed to meaningful
learning experiences within the classroom learning environment. The teacher-cultivated
contributions that I observed included:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 138

• pedagogical strategies that scaffold increases in rigor,
• culturally sustaining academic tasks, and
• tasks that leverage students’ existing funds of knowledge in tackling tasks that
involve precision, unfamiliarity, or complexity.
The student-cultivated contributions to meaningful learning that I observed included:
• active learning strategies and
• social critique and critical consciousness.
Additionally, as I observed both student and teacher actions that contributed to the
classroom’s affective environment, I paid close attention to recording data related to the
degree to which teacher- and student-cultivated actions contributed to the classroom’s
affective environment. The teacher-cultivated contributions to the classroom’s affective
environment that I observed included:
• thoughtful and inclusive discourse,
• social and emotional competency,
• social awareness,
• emotional intelligence,
• self-awareness, and
• care for their students.
The student-cultivated contributions to the classroom’s affective environment that I
observed included:
• thoughtful and respectful oral discourse with peers and their teacher,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 139

Finally, in the interest of attaining the utmost authenticity, I refrained from participation
in classroom activities and tasks during my observations. Consequently, I assumed the
role of complete observer as detailed by Merriam (2009).
Interview. I interviewed each of the two teachers (Mr. Rios and Ms. Mendoza)
and select students from my multi-case study. As my study’s research question focused
primarily on the host of behaviors and tasks that emerge during classroom instructional
time, interviews comprised a supplementary role in my overall research design.
Nevertheless, interviews are a necessity in qualitative studies because they can capture
the underlying meanings and intentions that may not be visible to the observer (Merriam,
2009). Achieving this insight, however, requires the researcher to adopt a purposeful,
structured, systematic approach to the interview process.
I used a person-to-person semi-structured interview protocol when interviewing
each of my study’s two teachers. Enacting this protocol allowed for the flexibility to
tailor dialogue around emerging themes, ideas, or concerns brought forth by the
respondents (Merriam, 2009). I conducted two separate interviews with each teacher and
used my conceptual framework to guide the initial questions for each. I conducted the
first interviews prior to my three classroom observations and the second interviews
following each set of three observations. The questions for each interview were indicative
of the different approaches I took for each teacher’s interview. The first set of interviews
focused on each teacher’s respective approach to teaching. During this time, my purpose
was to develop insights into each teacher’s approach to classroom instruction and
relationship-building. The second set of interviews focused on notable elements that
emerge during the three observations. The purpose of the second set of interviews was to
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 140

ascertain a) the thinking behind each teacher’s pedagogical methods and teacher-student
interactions and b) the extent to which these responses aligned with each teacher’s
previously articulated insights. The total amount of time allotted for both pre- and post-
interviews for each teacher amounted to approximately 2 hours. This approximation does
not include informal discussions and casual exchanges that emerged between each of the
teachers and myself throughout the study’s duration. These informal exchanges amounted
to approximately 30 minutes for each teacher throughout study’s duration.
I conducted four 13-student focus groups to ascertain student perspectives,
thinking processes, and attitudes regarding selected tasks, activities, and interactions that
transpired during each series of classroom observations. Each focus group discussion
lasted approximately 40 minutes. Each pair of focus groups was represented by students
from each of my study’s teachers. Each pair of focus groups was conducted during the
same time span in which I also conducted classroom observations; however, student
focus groups were conducted during non-instructional time. Each focus group included a
purposeful sample of students who represented a diverse range of academic performers.
Although the initial set of student focus group questions was crafted with my research
question and conceptual framework in mind, I employed a flexible, iterative approach
that allowed for follow-up questions that explored emerging themes as they took shape.
Documents and Artifacts. Merriam (2009) uses the word document as “an
umbrella term to refer to a wide range of written, visual, digital, and physical material
relevant to the study at hand” (p. 139). My central purpose for collecting documents was
to obtain data that offered a more objective view of the teachers’ instructional approaches
and their students’ learning processes. I collected, but did not formally analyze,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 141

worksheets, graphic organizers PowerPoint slides, readings, quizzes, and seating charts
that were representative of each teacher’s contribution to a) meaningful classroom
learning experiences and b) the classroom’s affective environment. I also collected, but
did not formally analyze, worksheets, graphic organizers PowerPoint slides, readings, and
quizzes that represented the students’ contributions to a) the classroom learning
environment and b) the classroom’s affective environment.
Additionally, I will took note of physical features within the classroom, such as books,
seating arrangements, posters, posted student work, visual learning aides, and posted
announcements.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data included for analysis in this qualitative multi-case study included
observation field notes, transcripts from all four semi-structured teacher interviews, and
student focus group interviews. Data collection in qualitative research is an iterative,
recursive process wherein the insights derived from ongoing analysis inform subsequent
phases of the study (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, the purpose of analyzing the data
collected throughout this study was to provide a) deeper understanding for the elements
and dynamics that inhabited my conceptual framework, b) a response to my study’s
research question, c) new possibilities that both challenged previous assumptions and
offered new directions for research, and d) opportunities for extending previous insights.
As a starting point for my data analysis, I used open coding to identify data features that
coincided with this study’s research question and major elements illustrated in my
conceptual framework. After identifying emerging categories in my initial data set
through open coding, I used analytical coding of subsequent data to sort data into
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 142

categories that reflected “recurring regularities or patterns” (Merriam, 2009, p. 180) that
were central to my study. Critical to the coding process was my effort to ensure that all
categories were “mutually exclusive” and “conceptually congruent” (2009; p. 186).
Maintaining fidelity to this process informed my data collection and analysis as I
proceeded through each stage of my study. It also allowed for the possibility of emerging
themes or patterns to take shape.
As I refined categories, building toward what Merriam (2009) describes as a
“saturation point” (p. 183), I gradually shifted from an inductive to a deductive research
paradigm. By doing so, I continued to consolidate recurring categories while concurrently
seeking data that further supported the themes and patterns that had already emerged.
Validity and Reliability
Maxwell (2013) argues that much of the accuracy of data collection is reliant on
how well the types of methods employed by the researcher fit the purpose and scope of
his/her study. Thus, a research design that includes classroom observations, teacher
interviews and student focus group interviews is especially useful in gauging the extent to
which both teachers and students are contributing to the meaningful learning and positive
affect that create a powerful classroom learning environment. Observations enhance the
validity and reliability of interviews by allowing the researcher to observe behavior as it
happens (Merriam, 2009). Doing so provides the researcher with information that is not
or cannot be revealed through participant interviews. Observations also provide
opportunities to identify any inconsistencies between what the researcher observed and
heard during the interviews (2009). Moreover, observations provide context of events or
behaviors that can serve as reference points during interviews with subjects who had
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 143

experienced such events or behaviors first-hand during the observation (2009). In
addition, Merriam (2009) asserts that most or all data within a research study should
include participant interviews. Interviews offer a glimpse into a person’s feelings or
intentions, allowing the researcher to more accurately capture his or her worldview
(Patton, 2002). In addition to person-to-person encounters, Patton (2002) explains that
focus groups interviews provide “high-quality data” (p. 386) by sharing views with
fellow participants in a social context. As this study’s research question focused primarily
on the host of behaviors and tasks that emerged during classroom instructional time,
semi-structured person-to-person teacher interviews and student focus groups comprised
a supplementary role in the overall research design. The quantitative research design
(Merriam, 2009) of this study purposefully employed validity and reliability measures to
accurately gauge the likelihood and degree to which teachers and students contributed to
meaningful learning and a positive classroom affect to create a positive classroom
learning environment.
Internal Validity
Internal validity is essential to a study’s overall integrity because it asks the
questions, “How congruent are the researcher’s findings with reality?” and “Do the
findings capture what is really there?” (Merriam, 2009, p. 213). Merriam (2009)
maintains that human beings are the “primary instrument” (p. 214) in qualitative research.
In qualitative research, reality is interpreted through data yielded from human behavior.
When viewed in this way, internal validity thus becomes a strength of qualitative research
because the researcher’s interpretation of the array of participants’ behaviors is what
constitutes reality. As the primary instrument for data collection and analysis, my
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 144

interpretation of reality emerged from a) classroom observations, person-to-person
interviews, and focus groups and b) the subsequent analysis of the data yielded from each
source.
Merriam (2009) asserts that, while qualitative researchers can never truly
“capture an objective truth or reality,” (p. 215) there are actions they can employ to
elevate the credibility of their findings. One method of achieving greater credibility is by
employing “triangulation,” (p. 215) wherein a study’s investigator(s) incorporate multiple
sources, methods, or investigators throughout the data collection process (2009). The
purpose of triangulation is for the researcher(s) to develop a better understanding of data
by creating a point wherein different forms of data converge to establish a clearer reality
(2009). Thus triangulation with multiple sources of data “means comparing and cross-
checking data collected through observations at different times or in different places, or
interview data collected from people with different perspectives or from follow-up
interviews with the same people” (p. 216). In my study, I triangulated classroom
observations, teacher interviews, and student focus groups as a means of offsetting both
teachers’ and students’ self-reporting, and the discrepancies or inconsistencies that may
have emerged during my logging of classroom observations.
Another method by which investigators can achieve greater credibility of their
findings is by maintaining “adequate engagement in data collection” (p. 219). Using this
method, the researcher attempts to get “as close as possible to participants’ understanding
of a phenomenon” (p. 219). It is a method that requires the investigator to remain
purposeful of the time needed in the field to acquire data on a given phenomenon.
Adopting this approach allows for the researcher to ascertain whether data collection has
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 145

reached a “saturation point,” (p. 219) wherein no further data collection is necessary to
gain new information. To increase the level of internal validity in my study, I conducted
my study over a two-month period. During this time, I conducted seven and six
classroom observations of each teacher’s classroom, respectively; in-person pre- and
post-observation teacher interviews; focus group interviews of students from each
classroom who represented a cross-section of academic performers from each class; and a
review of PowerPoint slides, worksheets, graphic organizers, texts, and quizzes that were
used during class time. The time and depth of data collection invested in this study was
sufficient to reach a level of saturation needed in order to capture the breadth and depth
of data required to answer my study’s research question.
To increase the validity of their findings, investigators can also ensure that
adequate time in the field is accompanied by a purposeful attempt to look for data that
supports alternative explanations for the phenomenon being studied (2009). Patton (2002)
argues that credibility is contingent on the integrity of the researcher. Merriam (2009)
suggests that one approach a researcher can take to elevate his/her integrity is by “looking
for data that support alternative explanations” (p. 219). An inability to find evidence that
supports alternative ways of presenting data “helps increase confidence in the original,
principal explanation you generated” (p. 219). To help me offset potential biases or
discrepancies of field data, I set aside time immediately following each data collection
episode to compose a written reflection that interwove summary of the episode and
critical analysis that probed some of the assumptions and biases that I had begun to
cultivate during the experience. In addition to challenging my own emergent assumptions
or biases, this process also helped to neutralize any “variance” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 29)
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 146

that may have emerged between my own perception and the data collected across
observations and interviews.
Reliability
Merriam (2009) defines reliability as “the extent to which research findings can
be replicated” (p. 220) but also cautions that the human behavioral element endemic to
qualitative research can make the quest for reliability elusive. In addition, because
qualitative research does not seek to isolate human behavior into a singular known
quantity, the pursuit of a study’s reliability does not align to the spirit or purposes of
qualitative inquiry. Merriam states: “Reliability is problematic in the social sciences
simply because human behavior is never static, nor is what many experience necessarily
more reliable than what one person experiences” (2009, p. 221). However, in addition to
the approaches detailed above to attain greater validity, an audit trail, which gives a
written account of the type of research conducted, the process by which it was conducted,
and how decisions were made throughout the study, can be incorporated into the
qualitative investigator’s research design to achieve greater reliability. As noted above, I
incorporated individual summary-analysis entries for each data collection episode. In
edition to increasing my study’s validity through variance, these compositions also acted
as a metacognitive record of approaches taken, missteps in analysis, and refinements that
would be integrated in future data collection episodes.
Generalizability
Generalizability, or external validity, is “the extent to which the findings of one
study can be applied to other situations” (Merriam, 2009, p. 223). Patton (2002) situates
the qualitative iteration of generalizability as “modest speculations on the likely
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 147

applicability of findings to other situations under similar, but not identical, conditions”
(p. 584). Such extrapolations can be utilitarian for practitioners who want to “transfer”
the findings from what they see working in one school setting to their own setting
(Patton, 2002). The most common method undertaken by qualitative researchers to
achieve the possibility of results from one study transferring from one setting to another
is through “rich, thick description” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 125). This term refers to an
approach by which the investigator gives a description of the study’s setting, participants,
and findings. This study demonstrates this approach by offering descriptive overviews of
the study’s setting, participants, and the information that was yielded from multiple forms
of data collection.
Conclusion
This multi-case study examined what learning environments looked like in the
classrooms of culturally aware teachers. The classrooms of two high school educators
who had gained a reputation for both creating a positive affective environment and
engendering meaningful learning experiences for large populations of high-needs and low
income students served as the units of analysis for this multi-case study. I collected data
through a series of seven direct observations of Mr Rios’s and six direct observations of
Ms. Mendoza’s teaching practices, respectively, with each observation spanning full class
periods. Prior to each series of observations, I interviewed each teacher to ascertain
elements of their teaching approaches and perceived relationships with their students.
Once I had concluded observations of each teacher’s practice, I conducted interviews
with each teacher to reflect on specific tasks and interactions that occurred during the
classroom observation process. Concurrent to classroom observations, I also conducted
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 148

one pair of 13-student focus group interviews for each class observed during this study.
The focus groups took place during non-instructional time and included an academic
cross-section of students from Mr. Rios’s and Ms. Mendoza’s classes, respectively.
Finally, I collected classroom artifacts and teacher- and student-generated documents to
establish a more comprehensive and coherent picture of the data collected during my
observations and interviews. Although I cited many of these documents throughout my
study, I did not include any of them as part of my formal data analysis process.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 149

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
The purpose of this dissertation was to gain insights into the ways in which
affective and intellectual elements, as enacted by both high school teachers and their
students, contributed to the students’ capacity to function as intellectually active learners
and as members of the classroom community who collaborated with the teacher to create
powerful learning environments. The first three chapters of this dissertation discussed
some of the issues that contribute to a lack of meaningful academic learning opportunities
for students from historically disenfranchised populations, the research question that
guided this study; a review of the literature on culturally sustaining pedagogy, the role of
affect in classroom learning, higher order thinking, constructivist learning; and the data
collection methods used for this study. In this chapter, I will present the findings of the
study.
This dissertation is a qualitative study that used the multiple case study method of
examining two high school teachers’ classes at the same school site. For both cases, I
conducted seven and six classroom observations, respectively, as my primary sources of
data collection. For each case, I also conducted one-on-one teacher interviews, 13-student
student focus group interviews, and a review of PowerPoint slides, worksheets, graphic
organizers, and quizzes that were used during class time. Due to this study’s scope, I will
begin this chapter by presenting a cross-case overview of key findings (see Table 3)
yielded from data analysis of each case study. Next, since both cases were located in the
same school, I will briefly describe the community in which the school resides. Then, I
will present the findings and analysis of each case separately. The chapter will conclude
with a cross-case analysis of the case studies. The data collected from this study will
address the following research question:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 150

• What do the learning environments look like in the classrooms of urban high
school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students
from historically marginalized populations?
Table 3
Cross-Case Overview of Findings
Case Study #1: Mr. Rios’s 10
th
Grade
World History Class
Case Study #2: Ms. Mendoza’s 12
th
Grade
ERWC Class
• Neither Mr. Rios nor his students
cultivated the intellectual or affective
elements that would have contributed to
students’ capacity to function as
intellectually active learners in a
powerful learning environment.

• Students did not leverage positive
connections with their teacher into
episodes of meaningful learning.

• Some students made scholarly
contributions to dialogue, but a select
group dominated discussions and
periodically employed insensitive or
inappropriate language during classroom
discourse.

• Significant class time was consumed by
activities that had limited academic
import.

• Tasks and activities did not challenge
students to construct knowledge, draw
evidence-based conclusions, or develop
cultural competence.
• Ms. Mendoza and her students combined
to cultivate elements of a positive
affective environment, but their efforts
did not always foster the meaningful
learning experiences necessary for her
students to function as intellectually
active learners in a powerful learning
environment.

• Students took up their teacher’s
modeling of prosocial behaviors when
engaging in thoughtful, respectful
discourse.

• Ms. Mendoza designed tasks aimed to
develop a range of literacies, but she
sometimes impeded active learning by
employing teacher-centered pedagogical
moves.

• Students exhibited some higher-order,
self-guided metacognitive behaviors that
were sometimes, but not always, aided
by their teacher’s pedagogical moves.

Case Study #1: 10
th
Grade World History and Geography
Mr. Rios was a U.S. and World History teacher at Ellis High School. Ellis High
School was located in a well-maintained neighborhood and was situated among strip
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 151

malls, banks, chain restaurants, and a nearby railroad yard. With a population of 111,772,
the community was home to a multitude of residential developments and two large urban
high schools with similar student socioeconomic demographics and academic
performance records (California Department of Education, 2014; U.S. Census Data,
2010). According to the city hall’s website, the community was “highly recognized” for
its “centralized location, top medical facilities, quality residential neighborhoods and
schools, excellent golf courses, and an unmatched California lifestyle” (para. ). The racial
breakdown of the community’s population was: 73.5% Hispanic or Latino, 15.2% Non-
Hispanic White, 6.5% Non-Hispanic Asian, and 3.5% Non-Hispanic Black (U.S. Census
Data, 2010). The median income level of the city was $60,939 and approximately 12% of
individuals lived below the federal poverty level (U.S. Census Data, 2010).
The 2011-2012 school term was the most recent year for which both teacher and
student information could be extracted. During the 2011-2012 school year, there were
161 teachers who taught a student population of 4,255 students in grades 9-12. The racial
composition of the student body consisted of 84.6% Hispanic or Latino, 7.7% White,
3.4% Black or African American, 2.1% Asian, and 1.3% Filipino (CDE, 2014). The
number of students eligible for free or reduced lunch was approximately 68.2% and the
number of English Language Learners was approximately 8% during the same school
year (CDE, 2014). The racial composition of the teaching staff for the same school year
was 64% White, 27.3% Hispanic or Latino, 5% Asian, 2.5% Black or African American,
and 0.6% Filipino. Housed on a large, sprawling campus, Ellis High School consisted of
four large two-story buildings, a large athletic complex and a well-kempt courtyard
furnished with covered picnic tables. All of the buildings and furnishings at Ellis High
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 152

School were contemporary, aesthetically appealing, and in complete working order. In
contrast to many large local high schools, Ellis’s physical appearance was striking in its
cleanliness and its absence of derelict or vandalized infrastructure. Ellis High School
students attended their Monday, Tuesday, and Friday classes for 56 minutes and their
Wednesday and Thursday classes for 110 minute “blocks.”
Mr. Rios was a History teacher with nearly four years of full-time teaching
experience and had been teaching at Ellis High School for the entirety of his teaching
career thus far. Mr. Rios had worked as, first, a substitute teacher and then a student
teacher prior to his full-time role at Ellis High School. Mr. Rios talked at length about his
priority to promote care, compassion, and unity in his classroom, both between he and his
students and among his students. He said:
At the beginning of the year, I tell them that we’re a team, every single one of us.
When one person of the team is not doing well, then the whole team is not doing
well, and that includes the teacher. I am constantly…I think the thing that I try to
do with my students is I try to become vulnerable with them and say, “Hey,
Here’s what I’m feeling” or “Hey, this is what I think about this activity.” I try to
open up to them so they can see that I’m being genuine so they can respond with
the same. Maybe the word’s not “genuine.” Maybe I’m thinking more about
sincerity.
Mr. Rios also discussed the inadequacies of his teacher credentialing process, which
sometimes left him with a feeling of disconnect between his approach to his practice and
what he perceived as impractical preparation from his program.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 153

We have this model of perfection in our heads and then I went through the
credentialing process and they told me you have to be the hero of your classroom.
But then I show up to the staff lunch and I realize: wait a second, these teacher are
not perfect. I don’t know. I want to give students the identity that I’m not just a
teacher; I’m a human being. I feel like that opens up for them to also be human
beings and not this idea of a student that they’ve been told to be, these machines,
right? They’re human beings trying to learn, and they will struggle. But you know
what? So do I, and so that’s the idea.
Mr. Rios’s 10thh grade World History and Geography class met between 7:50am
and 8:46am on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays and between 7:50am and 9:40am
Wednesdays and Thursdays. The class was located in a second-floor class of one of Ellis
High School’s main academic buildings. It was a clean, modern structure whose
classrooms were appointed with one or more video screens, built-in audio surround sound,
and student furnishings that were new and mostly unblemished. Desks were arranged in
4x3 rows on the east and west flanks of the class and then a pyramid, in the back-middle
of the classroom, of two rows of six students capped by one row of two students. Mr.
Rios spend the majority of class time facing the back-middle group of students. During
this time, he either stood, paced in the middle vacancy, or perched atop a stool at the
center of the classroom. Open classroom wall space was scarce and largely unoccupied,
save for posters of Martin Luther King, Jr. and multiple world maps. No student work
was posted.
The class was composed of 38 students. 20 of the students were female and 18
were male. The racial composition of the class included 32 Latinos (17 male, 15 female),
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 154

3 Whites (all female), 1 male African American student, 1 female Indian student, and 1
male student of mixed race. Mr. Rios assigned students seats at the beginning of the
semester. Students were not seated in a discernable pattern in accordance with their
gender, race, or ethnicity. A group of 13 students (6 Latina students, 5 Latino male
students, 1 White female student and 1 mixed-race male student) from this class
participated in two focus group sessions for this study.
Teacher’s Contributions to Meaningful Learning
To determine whether Mr. Rios fostered a meaningful learning environment by
engaging in the behaviors of a culturally aware teacher, I examined his pedagogy, the
tasks and activities he enacted in the classroom, and extent to and ways in which he
leveraged students’ funds of knowledge. Observations of class time revealed that the
pedagogy and the tasks Mr. Rios used in the classroom did not foster meaningful learning.
Moreover, he was more likely to leverage his own outside of class experiences and
knowledge rather than those of his students.
In order to demonstrate how Mr. Rios’s actions created learning environments
that did not promote meaningful learning but instead lead to low-level cognitive
engagement on the part of the students, I first revisit the way that the concept of
“pedagogy that scaffolds rigor” is described in the conceptual framework. Then I turn my
attention to the evidence and explore the ways in which these elements were or were not
present in his interactions with his students. In the conceptual framework, I asserted that
meaningful learning results, at least in part, from the process by which a culturally aware
teacher scaffolds pedagogy with rigor. There are three essential components of pedagogy
that scaffolds for rigor. The three components are that the teacher: a) provides students
the instructional time needed to master foundational knowledge and skills, b)
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 155

incrementally elevates the cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity, and c)
frequently facilitates activities that elicit the cognitive lift necessary for students to
engage in deep inquiry, critical analysis, and sophisticated problem solving. As I
demonstrate below, Mr. Rios did not explicitly provide students with instructional time to
master foundational knowledge and skills. There was little evidence that he incrementally
elevated the cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity within or across an
instructional activity (in one day or across days). And finally, he rarely facilitated
activities that asked the students to carry the cognitive responsibility by engaging in deep
inquiry, critical analysis, or sophisticated problem solving. Instead, Mr. Rios tended
toward a teacher centered approach to instruction, answering questions for students or
asking students low level closed ended or basic recall questions. I will address each of
these points below.
As discussed above, Mr. Rios did not provide students with the time, tasks, or
activities needed for students to master foundational knowledge and skills that prepare
students for more complex intellectual tasks. Mr. Rios presented students with a two-
sided handout that depicted one-page summary descriptions of Fascism and Stalinist
Communism, respectively. Mr. Rios referred to the one-page summary descriptions as
“articles.” He then distributed a two-column worksheet that asked eight closed-ended
fact-based, text-dependent questions. Each of the questions targeted concepts found in
both the Fascism and Stalin’s Communism articles, respectively. Prior to reading each of
the articles in succession, Mr. Rios verbalized a preview of and rationale for the
impending activities:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 156

T: In front of you, this is the paper that we’re going to be working on. This is
what you’re going to be quizzed on. We’re going to take about 20 minutes
to go through this paper, and then we’re going to take five minutes to take
the quiz. Here are the following questions that we need to answer in the
next 20 minutes. We’re going to look at fascism and we’re going to look
at Stalin’s communism. Stalin’s communism is just a review. Fascism is
something new for you guys.
Mr. Rios then recited each of the items from the two-column worksheet”
T: We’re going to look at what’s the goal of the government, who controls
the economy, what was done to the opposition (meaning those who stood
up against these people), what was the role of the police, how was religion
controlled, how was information controlled, how was education controlled,
and how was the youth involved (so what did the young people do). Let’s
go ahead and turn to the fascism article. You guys want me to read it for
you?
LM
1
: Please.
Two Latino Male students and a White Female student begin reading the Fascism
article on their own.
T: What I do want you to do is I want you to have something ready to
underline certain parts. Basically, I’m going to point out, “This is probably
an answer for one of the questions,” so be ready to underline things as we

1

When known, student’s ethnicity and gender is indicated: LM=Latino Male, LF=Latino
Female, WM=White Male, WF=White Female, AAM=African American Male,
AAF=African American Female, MRM=Mixed Race Male, MRF=Mixed Race Female
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 157

read along. We’re on the fascism side of things. On the picture, you guys
see Hitler and Benito Mussolini right next to him. Here we go. Fascism.
Mr. Rios read the one-page article. During this time, he intermittently instructed
the students what he wanted them to do. He said:
T: Once in power, Adolf Hitler turned Germany into a fascist state. Fascist
was originally used to describe the government of Benito Mussolini in
Italy. Mussolini’s fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national
unity, patriot communism, admiration of military values, and
unquestioning obedience. What you want to underline from there is just
the specific words, so underline patriotism, unity, patriot communism,
military, and obedience. Sometimes, when I underline things when I read,
I don’t necessarily underline that whole line because my eyes can get lost.
I underline the specific key words.
Throughout the activity, most students underlined their articles in accordance with Mr.
Rios’s directives. Some students did not read along and/or underline the documents.
These off-task activities included: A MRM student tinkering with a bag of candy on a
nearby shelf; two LF students seated in the back of the room briefly communicating to
each other by mouthing words back and forth; and a LM student staring at the top of his
desk for a majority of the reading time. At one point, a LF student copied the underlined
text from a nearby LM student’s document. Later in the article, after reading a passage
that detailed Pope Pious’ complicity in Nazi expansion, Mr. Rios added:
T: That’s kind of crazy. The pope of the Catholic Church went to Hitler and
said, “I’ll make a deal with you. You don’t touch the Catholic Church and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 158

I don’t say crap about you.” He made a deal with the devil, in a sense.
That’s interesting.
After reading the final section, which described the Nazi censorship of scholastic
texts, Mr. Rios conveyed the following:
T: Underline that. This is why we don’t use textbooks in my class. Just
kidding. Every textbook is biased. I don’t know. I’ll leave it at that.
Mr. Rios then instructed students to “take the next 5 minutes to work on fascism with a
partner, somebody around you.” The verbalized task called for students to respond to the
eight questions listed on the left-hand-side of the two-column worksheet that Mr. Rios
had used to preview the Fascism article.
The task above also illustrates how Mr. Rios did not provide sufficient class time
for students to master foundational skills. These foundational skills include the
development of basic reading, writing, speaking, and listening competencies that enable
students to process and engage content with increasingly greater proficiency. The bulk of
the activity, however, was consumed with the teacher reading verbatim from the article,
periodically instructing students to underline specified passages, and contributing
occasional verbal commentary. As a result of these teacher-generated acts, students were
allowed neither the time nor type of activity wherein they would have been able to
interact with the text on their own terms, to construct their own meanings, or to build new
content knowledge from other students’ contributions. For example, when reading,
“Mussolini’s fascist one-party state emphasized patriotism, national unity, patriot
communism, admiration of military values, and unquestioning obedience,” rather than
pausing to check for students’ comprehension of terms that were integral to key unit
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 159

concepts, Mr. Rios paused to say, “What you want to underline from there is just the
specific words, so underline patriotism, unity, patriot communism, military, and
obedience.” Providing opportunities for students to demonstrate their comprehension of
the text by giving them the responsibility to identify, unpack, and discuss main ideas
would have aided in their development of the foundational literacy skills noted above.
However, directing students to underline specific passages from the text did not facilitate
these opportunities for students. Moreover, when Mr. Rios advised students to “underline
the specific key words,” he did not explain why some of those words were important to
understanding broader ideas or concepts within the content area. Additionally, students
were never given an opportunity to identify and then explain “key words” on their own.
The above task is also emblematic of Mr. Rios’s failure to incrementally elevate
cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity. Although students were directed to
underline information that was perhaps germane to the eight-question worksheet activity
that followed, they were never presented with more intellectually rigorous tasks that
would have challenged them to articulate why the passages that Mr. Rios had chosen to
underline were of greater significance. In addition, Mr. Rios’s approach precluded
students from engaging in critical analysis of the text. For example, by saying,
That’s kind of crazy. The pope of the Catholic Church went to Hitler and said,
‘I’ll make a deal with you. You don’t touch the Catholic Church, and I don’t say
crap about you,” he made a deal with the devil, in a sense. That’s interesting,”
Mr. Rios constructed knowledge for students rather than having them formulate their own
inferences. Mr. Rios’s reading of the Stalinist Communism article, later in the class
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 160

period, illustrates how he replicated this problem in a task that, initially, seemed to call
for greater student autonomy than the previous one:
T: Here we go. Stalin’s communism. Same questions. This time you guys
will underline on your own. I already showed you what I would’ve
underlined on fascism. You’re going to do something similar to
communism. I’m not going to tell you what to underline. You’re on your
own on that one. By the way, Stalin’s communism is not true communism.
Let’s get that out of the way right now. Remember, the goal of true
communism is for the government to disappear because everyone’s equal.
Stalin did not believe in the government disappearing. He did not believe
in equality. Here we go. Let’s see what Stalin believed in.
As Mr. Rios read the article, most of his students underlined information without being
prompted. However, despite the task’s modification, students were still left without
concrete instruction on how one might identify a key idea and how one would make
connections with broader concepts once these key ideas had been identified. As was the
case with the previous reading, Mr. Rios did not set aside time for discussion or
assessment of student work once students had completed underlining their articles that
might have challenged them to rationalize their annotations. Thus, despite the appearance
of having employed a task that seemed to elevate the level of cognitive rigor, there was
no verifiable evidence to suggest that students that students were actually increasing their
level of intellectual activity.
Finally, neither of the activities described above elicited the cognitive lift
necessary for students to engage in deep inquiry, critical analysis, and sophisticated
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 161

problem solving. As was the case with most of the lessons in Mr. Rios’s class, both of the
examples above were teacher-centered. As such, students were not given sufficient time
to participate in the active learning experiences necessary for them to think critically and
independently about the content material. By reading whole articles out loud to students,
providing them with the “key ideas” to underline, and offering his own inferences, Mr.
Rios prevented students from participating in interactive contexts that would have
enabled them to grapple with the material in more meaningful ways. In this way, the
tasks also lacked the necessary rigor for students to engage in gradually more
sophisticated levels of cognition. Moreover, when Mr. Rios did seemingly attempt to
increase task complexity, he omitted key details that might have lead to a more robust
scaffold. Such was the case when he instructed students to annotate the second article by
saying, “I already showed you what I would’ve underlined on fascism. You’re going to
do something similar to communism. I’m not going to tell you what to underline. You’re
on your own on that one.” This directive came with an assumption that students would be
able to identify key ideas by having completed a previous activity that neither instructed
students in the process of identifying key ideas nor assessing their level of proficiency
once they had done so.
Culturally sustaining tasks. In the conceptual framework, I defined a teacher
who practices culturally sustaining pedagogy as one who designs and enacts lessons that
use tasks that reflect the complex, fluid, and ever-evolving nature of students’ cultural,
ethnic, generational, and gender identities. In doing so, he/she also recognizes the
inherent tension that exists between norms propagated by the dominant culture and the
unique norms that exist within historically disenfranchised populations. Lastly, a teacher
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 162

who fosters culturally sustaining pedagogy facilitates opportunities for students to
critically examine past or current traditions within their own respective cultures that may
elicit oppression.
The types of academic tasks and activities that Mr. Rios facilitated in his class
were not culturally sustaining. On the occasions when Mr. Rios did attempt to
incorporate aspects of cultural relevance into his lessons, the culturally sustaining aspects
of the tasks were superficial, fleeting, and teacher-centered. As such, these particular
activities failed to reveal evidence of student learning. While often full of vigor, passion,
and perhaps good intentions, Mr. Rios’s lessons did not succeed in enacting culturally
relevant or culturally sustaining pedagogy. Unlike the calls made by Ladson-Billings
(2006b) for teachers to help students leverage various skills to better understand and
critique past and existing social and cultural dynamics, Mr. Rios did not position students
to actively participate in exploring how constructs within their own culture relate to the
subject matter. Nor did he enable them to examine the ways in which dominant cultures
often systematically marginalize disenfranchised ones.
The example illustrated below reveals how Mr. Rios’s efforts to enact culturally
sustaining pedagogy unfolded in his classroom. At the outset, Mr. Rios framed the lesson
by explaining to students that they were going to “analyze their own brains,” as well as
“the Nazis’ brains with the intent of seeing a crossover.” Moments later, he added, “I’m
hoping by the end of the period you realize that there’s a similarity between what the
Nazis believed and what you believe.” Mr. Rios attempted to illustrate this likelihood by
introducing a “cubby hole” metaphor, in which a person’s brain (as a series of cubby
holes) is often subject to being filled with misinformation.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 163

T: So when I say Hispanics, immediately your brain goes to that box that is
labeled Hispanics. And sometimes other people put information in your
box. Somebody else came by and said I’m gonna put that there.
Mr. Rios pantomimes someone putting information in a mailbox/cubby hole.
MRM: True.
T: Some of you guys for your little Mexican box–let’s call it a Mexican box–
the first image that comes to your mind is lazy.
Student crosstalk ensues. Voices escalate.
LM: Ahhh!
LF: Hey, hey!
LF2: Tamales!
The classroom noise level of student voices continues to escalate.
T: Interesting. So time-out.
MRM: Be quiet! Shhh!
T: It’s okay, it’s okay. So some of you guys seem to be thinking then, the box
for Mexicans are hard-workers.
Some students scattered about the classroom say, “Yes.”
LF2: Every race could be hard-workers.
More crosstalk.
T: Stop, stop. That box: It probably has tacos in it.
Mr. Rios’s comment prompts another upsurge in crosstalk and its volume.
LF3: But they’re so good!
T: Whether you want to or not, there’s a box labeled Asians –
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 164

Many students giggle at Mr. Rios’s “Asians” reference.
T: Okay, so maybe in that box, you have this idea that Asians are bad drivers.
And it’s interesting: You may have no idea how that information got into
that box. When a passenger in your car says, “I see an Asian driver next to
you,” you tighten up.
Mr. Rios mimes this scenario by gripping an imaginary steering wheel. Six
students call out in attempts to at once contribute, verify, or refute this
information. Their contributions overlap, and it is not possible to attribute the
voices to specific students.
T: I wonder if that information about Asian drivers becomes true in your own
head as you start noticing, That’s an Asian I’m going to notice every
single thing that he does. Did you just see him cut me off? It’s almost as if
these stereotypes become true in our head and we can’t question them.
As the lesson continued, Mr. Rios used the same metaphor to convey similar examples of
how people often “associate words with pictures, words, and experiences. And we don’t
always know where those experiences come from–they’re just there.” His approach to
providing these additional examples mirrored the example described above. They
included the categories of “women,” “black people,” “white people,” and “being gay.” As
in the case above and below, Mr. Rios’s commentary provided context and fueled the
bulk of the dialogue:
T: Earlier, (LM student’s name) asked me–he was like, “Rios,” do you think
this phone case looks girly?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 165

Some students chime in with a mixture of laughter and crosstalk. Some of the
more vocal girls–a White Female and two Latina Females–say “yes.”
T: How the heck do we associate color with a girl–especially this shade of
blue?
WF: Girls and boys are socialized from the minute you’re born.
T: (WF student’s name) brings up a great point. These are things we’ve been
raised with. These are things that other people have put inside our box,
saying, Oh yeah, this is what girliness is, this is what guyliness is.
WF: Because with a girl, it’s pink; it’s a guy, it’s blue. And if you don’t know
the sex of the baby, then–
T: Exactly! So some boys, they love to play with Barbies, and they grow up
playing with Barbies.
LM: That was you, right?
Mr. Rios ignores LM’s comment. Many students talk out of turn. The noise level
escalates.
T: Immediately, when I say something like that you think, there must be
something wrong with that kid–that kid must be gay.
Mr. Rios bridged the above “cubby hole” lesson and a subsequent reading of a Nazi
propaganda piece tailored for German schoolchildren with the following statement:
T: And what I’m trying to tell you is that you start associating these things,
and all of a sudden you start judging people based on that. That’s where
your judgments come from – from the boxes in your head…Imagine
growing up in Nazi Germany and your boxes are what are shaped by your
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 166

teachers. This is from a children’s book. Let me read to you what they
would’ve read to children, so their boxes could be cluttered with what the
Nazis wanted them to believe.
For the lesson above, Mr. Rios incorporated some elements of student cultural and
gender identities into a broader discussion about how stereotypes could be used to
subvert the power and/or human rights of certain populations. These elements included
examples of how African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and certain gender identities were
often associated with pejorative words, concepts, or feelings. However, neither the format
nor the content of the lesson allowed for students to develop their own understandings of
how theirs and others’ cultures were systematically oppressed through the manipulation
of language and ideas. Instead, questions and answers related to these concepts were put
forth by the teacher, all within the frame of a teacher-constructed metaphor. By
presenting the ready-made metaphor of the “cubby holes” to frame the discussion, Mr.
Rios’s students were forced to interact with the content through his conceptual lens rather
than their own. The approach of navigating the entire discussion around a teacher-
constructed metaphor also allowed students to become passive observers rather than
intellectually active participants in their learning. For example, when Mr. Rios informed
his students, “When I say Hispanics, immediately your brain goes to that box that is
labeled Hispanics. And sometimes other people put information in your box. Somebody
else came by and said I’m gonna put that there,” Mr. Rios was not allowing his students
an opportunity to explore other creative possibilities beyond his own metaphor and
subsequent assertions. Rather, he was telling them what to think and how to
conceptualize the information.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 167

In addition, Mr. Rios situated much of the lesson’s discourse around his own
worldview. Although he occasionally offered students a brief window of verbal
participation, these student insights were often subsumed by Mr. Rios’s commentary. For
instance, when Mr. Rios initiated the dialogue around the “Mexican box,” he
immediately expressed that the first thing that came to mind was “lazy.” Mr. Rios’s use
of the word “lazy” skewed the conversation away from whichever ideas Mr. Rios’s
students may have been able to construct of their own accord. Moreover, when the LF2
student responded to Mr. Rios’s comment that “All Mexicans are hard workers” with
“All races can be hard workers,” her more nuanced contribution was ignored in favor of
Mr. Rios’s next point of teacher-generated knowledge construction regarding stereotypes
of Mexican people (“That box: it probably has tacos in it.”).
This pattern of continually preempting potential student-generated analysis
repeated itself throughout the lesson. When Mr. Rios turned the lesson’s focus to gender,
students were not given the opportunity to explore, on their own terms, how various
groups in society might have perceived gender roles. Nor were they allowed what Paris
and Alim (2014) refer to as the “critical reflexivity” (p. 92) to determining for themselves
the extent to which these perceptions influenced their own reality. Mr. Rios’s approach to
presenting the LM student’s cell phone case dilemma, in which the LM student had
earlier asked Mr. Rios if the case looked “girly,” exemplified this problem. Presenting the
scenario to the whole class and then allowing students to call out one-word responses
suggests that Mr. Rios’s intent was to inflame knee-jerk opinions, rather than facilitate
rigorous discourse around gender associations. Closing the discussion off to more
meaningful, inclusive contributions prevented students a more thoughtful way of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 168

questioning current oppressive norms imposed by the dominant culture–and how they
connect to those from the past. It also denied them the opportunity to critique their own
potentially “regressive practices” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 92), which include oppressive
behaviors and biases directed within and across populations that might be promoted by
youth culture or their respective cultural identities.
Even when one student volunteered potentially meaningful analysis by offering,
“Girls and boys are socialized from the minute we’re born,” Mr. Rios chose not to
leverage her contribution into a more substantive and inclusive dialogue around gender
biases. Doing so might have allowed for student contribution to or critique of the WF’s
analysis. Instead, Mr. Rios used the WF student’s contribution to segue into the topic of
gender associations with children who play with Barbie Dolls when his statement of, “So
some boys, they love to play with Barbies” was met with the LM student’s quip of, “That
was you, right?” Allowing such hostile language to go unchecked runs counter to Paris
and Alim’s (2014) caution for educators to remain vigilant about students of color
reproducing the hegemonic practices that have oppressed historically disenfranchised
populations for generations.
Although discourse over the topic of gender associations with children who play
with Barbie dolls was short-lived, it nevertheless exposed three items that were
antithetical to culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2014). First, by ignoring the
LM student’s attempted barb of, “That was you, right?” Mr. Rios was, perhaps
unintentionally, providing a safe space for homophobic attitudes to fester in his
classroom. By remaining neutral to the student’s comment, Mr. Rios was choosing not to
cultivate the need for young people to examine past or current intra-cultural attitudes
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 169

toward different groups of people by shifting dialogue that would enable students to “turn
their gaze inward” (p. 92). In addition, the chorus of student voices following the LM
student’s quip should have indicated that many students were ready and willing to
contribute their own ideas regarding this issue–and that Mr. Rios was either unaware of
their willingness or unwilling to allow for more robust student contributions to the topic.
Limiting student-driven contributions eliminated the possibility of students being able to
draw their own conclusions regarding the norms in question. Such a decision also limits
the individual intellectual capacity of students who have yet to have such opportunities
afforded to them in a classroom setting. Finally, Mr. Rios’s subsequent response of,
“Immediately, when I say something like that, you think, ‘Something must be wrong with
that kid–that kid must be gay’” unearths perhaps the most problematic issue. This is
because the face-value implication of the teacher’s statement was that homosexual
children are inherently flawed. It is also a statement that speaks to the teacher’s inability
or unwillingness to adapt his own cultural mindset to the emerging “culturally dexterous”
(p. 91) realities that recast the perceptions of the types of behaviors that are deemed
“flawed” in the eyes of young people
That Mr. Rios’s students were not pressed to construct their own understandings
about institutionalized racism, sexism, and xenophobia was consistent with the extent to
which Mr. Rios claimed to downplay the importance of culturally relevant pedagogy
within his instructional approach.
In my teaching program, before becoming a student teacher, we had like
four classes about cultural awareness. I don’t know that I’ve ever truly
gotten them. I think it’s because I’m teaching in an environment to where
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 170

75-85 percent of the students share similar experiences as I do.
Socioeconomically, culturally, like 75-80 percent of the students are
Hispanic and I think they’re mostly middle class, which is kind of like
similar to me. I don’t know that it’s really a big deal for me. I don’t even
think about it, so I’m not really sure how to answer that question.
Considering the preponderance of Latino students who attended his second period
class, Mr. Rios’s pedagogical approach to matters of race, gender, and ethnicity,
represents a missed opportunity to engage students more deeply in their views of
hegemonic relationships between and within cultures, as well as current factors that have
also served as levers of human oppression across historical eras.
Students’ Contributions to Meaningful Learning
To determine whether Mr. Rios’s students contributed to a meaningful learning
environment, I examined the extent to which they learned actively during classroom tasks
and activities. Observations of class time revealed that, although some of Mr. Rios’s
students demonstrated one or more of the traits of active learners, most students were not
consistently able to leverage these traits into accomplishing academic tasks that, when
combined successfully, contribute to a meaningful learning environment. Moreover,
those students who did exhibit one or more traits of those who learn actively were far
fewer in number than those who did not.
In order to demonstrate that Mr. Rios’s students did not exhibit the traits
necessary to contribute to a meaningful learning environment but who instead exhibited
low levels of, or infrequent attempts at, learning actively, I first revisit the way that the
concept of “learns actively” is described in the conceptual framework. Then I turn my
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 171

attention to the evidence and explore the ways in which these elements were or were not
present in students’ behaviors during instructional time.
In the conceptual framework, I asserted that meaningful learning results, at least
in part, from the process by which a student engages intellectually and actively during
classroom tasks and activities. Therefore, I refer to the types of students who are able to
operate in this capacity–that is, those students who learn actively–as intellectually active
learners. As stated in the conceptual framework, the assumption is that these students
assume the roles of both active participants and knowledge constructors when attending
the classes of culturally aware teachers. There are three essential characteristics that
intellectually active learners consistently demonstrate. They are a) metacognitive acuity,
b) systematic inquiry, and c) social consciousness.
As I demonstrate below, Mr. Rios’s students did not explicitly employ
metacognitive acuity, or “resource management,” (Anthony, 1996, p. 360) that would
have revealed that they were able to self-manage their intellectual assets in tackling
difficult academic tasks. In addition, while some of Mr. Rios’s students did occasionally
ask higher order questions, they did not employ them in a systematic way that might have
led to deeper understandings of the topic: they did not use higher-order questions to push
classroom dialogue, challenge conventional wisdom, or expand creative possibilities.
Moreover, Mr. Rios’s students did not demonstrate the attributes of social consciousness.
That is, they did not demonstrate awareness and critique of social and political dynamics
that exist on both local and global scales; nor did they display an awareness of how past
events, laws, and beliefs had affected current social views, economic conditions, and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 172

electoral trends. With consideration for each of these items, I determined that Mr. Rios’s
students were not intellectually active learners.
Although Mr. Rios’s students did not consistently demonstrate the traits
associated with intellectually active learners, the example below demonstrates that the
structure, pacing, and tone of the lesson often positioned students to struggle in one or
more aspects of the task. The students’ apparent struggle to remain focused on the main
topic presented at the outset of the activity was likely a function of the teacher’s decision
to arbitrarily shift the focus away from the original topic during the same discussion.
When students deviated from the original topic, Mr. Rios did not attempt to redirect the
conversation back to its original topic. Moreover, as noted in other sections of this
chapter, Mr. Rios was not able to invite more student voices into a conversation whose
structure implied that it was intended for whole-group contributions. A wider range of
perspectives would have better situated students to push the dialogue through peer
interactions, co-construction of knowledge, and systematic inquiry. Finally, while
students share an intellectual and affective responsibility for helping to cultivate a
meaningful learning environment, the teacher’s role as primary classroom facilitator and
caregiver means that he/she has an added responsibility for ensuring that students are
provided with the conditions necessary to cultivate their academic and affective
competencies.
As discussed above, Mr. Rios’s students did not show clear evidence of
metacognitive acuity. In rare cases, their behaviors exhibited traits of the self-guided
functions that are indicative of metacognitive “resource management;” however, most of
Mr. Rios’ students did not explicitly demonstrate these functions. The example below
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 173

illustrates this. In this example, Mr. Rios facilitated a discussion around the “irrational
fear” local White residents had of Hispanic immigrants among during a wave of
immigration that took place in the 1970s. The discussion stemmed from the preceding
conversation regarding what Mr. Rios characterized as the “irrational fear” that Hitler and
the German populace was feeling toward Jews prior to the Holocaust. During the
discussion, some students periodically contributed to Mr. Rios’ oratory:
T: Why is it that the White people moved (from Downey)? They moved for a
few reasons. I can’t say individually that ... hey, they were racist! But I
can say that some of them left because they were scared that the school
system would get worse, which it kind of did for a while, but we’ve been
rebuilding. However, some White people ended up leaving because they
couldn’t come to terms that they could share the same street in the same
neighborhood with someone of a different color. Once again, irrational
fear. My mother lived in that time period, and she was bullied because
people couldn’t accept her as being American. It was almost like certain
White people during that time period were like, There’s no way you could
be American because you’re this color. You speak this language. And I
feel like that’s when you had this thing of, That’s you, This is us. You had
that segregation thing going on, right? But nowadays, is it like that?
LM: Not really.
T: I don’t feel like it’s like that anymore. I feel like White people decided to
get along because we’re all Americans. At least we all have this
understanding like, hey, our color doesn’t really define who we are.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 174

The LM student raises his hand. Mr. Rios calls on MRM.
T: Go ahead. What were you going to say?
MRM: I was going to say that racism doesn’t exempt anyone. My mom, she went
to L.A. High, and it was the other way around. She was like one of the
four Hispanic girls who went there; the rest were Black and she said she
got bullied and all that stuff.
T: I hear you. That’s right. Racism isn’t just for White people African
Americans can be racist. Hispanics … and I can tell you this from
experience … Hispanics can be racist.
Some students voice their agreement.
T: Holy crap: My grandparents? The most racist people in the world!
LF: My grandfather, he…(speaks in Spanish).
T: Sooo racist!
LF: Like they invented numbers!
Mr. Rios smiles; the LF student and the LF2 student seated directly behind her
both laugh.
T: It’s interesting how we like to say this is us and that’s them, and this is the
divide, and we can’t mix. And I feel like that’s what Hitler is saying here.
Those Jews: they may look like us, but they’re not. Like he can’t come to
terms that these people are European. He can’t come to terms with that.
This is us, that’s them, we don’t mix.
The WF student stirs in her seat and mutters inaudibly.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 175

WF: Well like, me and my brother, out of my first cousins, I have a lot of
cousins, and out of all of them, me and my brother are the only White ones.
They’re all Hispanic. So like whenever we go over there, they’re all like,
speaking in Spanish and me and my brother are just like…
T: Do you feel like they kind of leave you out?
WF: Well, no. Like, they’re all older, too.
Emily’s comments stir the majority of Mr. Rios’ students into pockets of crosstalk.
One exception is a LM student who completes his worksheet from the previous
activity. The WF raises her hand, and Mr. Rios calls on her.
WF: I’m the youngest.
T: Okay.
WF: And my brother’s the second-youngest.
T: Do they make fun of you for being White?
WF: No, they don’t make fun of us. It’s just…it feels like…
T: It’s this unspoken thing.
WF: I feel out of place.
T: Yeah, yeah!
WF: And like…
T: I hear ya.
Mr. Rios cuts off the WF student’s response.
T: And I feel like that’s going to keep happening in Southern California.
WF: (somberly) And they’re all like in jail and stuff…
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 176

Some students laugh. The laughter mutes the remainder of the WF student’s
contribution.
T: Hey, we gotta stop looking at color. Did I tell you that example where the
two White parents ended up having a black kid, right?
A chorus of students articulate different versions of “yes.”
T: Racism just doesn’t make sense anymore. It doesn’t make sense. It’s not
science.
A LM2 student raises his hand.
LM2: I’ve got a good example.
T: Okay. Go ahead.
LM2: Okay, so you know there’s a new Star Wars coming out?
Some students groan.
LF: Oh, my god!
WF: And they threw a fit about it!
T: I saw the trailer.
LF2: Yeah, and a lot of people were getting mad because there were black
storm troopers, and they said there should just be white storm troopers,
like the originals.
LM2: There’s Mexican storm troopers now.
Some students laugh at the LM2 student’s comment.
Mr. Rios concluded the discussion by instructing students to first put their handouts away
and then to “take a 2 minute break” as he prepared the room for the next activity.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 177

In the example above, most of Mr. Rios’ students did not explicitly demonstrate
the characteristics associated with metacognitive acuity and resource management.
Although many students participated in moments of unstructured, and mostly
imperceptible (due to the noise level), crosstalk, the absence of evidence in this area was
due, in part, to the lack of formal participation by most students. Nor did the non-
participating students exhibit behaviors at their seats that would have suggested that they
were developing “expertise in how to learn” (Preus, 2012, p. 365). That is, they did not
self-guide into more silent forms of metacognition, such as self-directed note-taking,
question formulation, topic-related sketching, or thinking maps construction. Of the
students who formally contributed to the discussion, both the WF and MRM students did
exhibit some of the behaviors associated with metacognitive processes. For example, the
nature of student contributions revealed that Mr. Rios’ students mentally deviated from
the lesson’s main focus of irrational fear. Demonstrating this pattern, After Mr. Rios
described the racist practice of segregating groups into “us” and “them” to draw attention
to the similarities in how divisions are created in both modern society and Nazi Germany,
the WF responded with, “I have a lot of cousins, and out of all of them, me and my
brother are the only White ones. They’re all Hispanic. So like whenever we go over there,
they’re all, like, speaking Spanish and me and my brother are just like…” By expressing
the cultural divide that she and her brother experienced within the context of her family,
the WF student’s verbal contribution demonstrated that she was able re-appropriate the
concept of “us” and “them” through a more personal and, thus, authentic lens. In
expressing her feeling of being marginalized within her own family, the WF student was
exhibiting the ability to re-appropriate an unfamiliar concept through self-reflection and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 178

interpretation, both of which are cornerstones of metacognitive behavior. While the WF
student’s contribution exhibited some hallmarks of metacognitive acuity, it nevertheless
strayed from the original topic of irrational fear introduced by Mr. Rios. Although this
deviation from the lesson’s main topic could be perceived as a low-level of self-
regulation due the student’s choice to digress, it was likely prompted by the teacher’s
choice to shift the discussion’s focus from “irrational fear” to “us and them.” The MRM’s
contribution of, “I was going to say that racism doesn’t exempt anyone. My mom, she
went to L.A. High, and it was the other way around…” revealed the only other instance
in which one of Mr. Rios’ students explicitly demonstrated metacognitive acuity: The
MRM student’s contribution suggests that he also was able to re-appropriate one of the
key concepts (the “us” and “them” aspect of racism) that had already been introduced by
his teacher, and that he was able to do so on his own terms. He accomplished this by
independently drawing from another event in order to build associations with the key
element of the current topic of discussion. In addition, by claiming that, “racism doesn’t
exempt anyone,” the MRM student revealed how he was able to build upon past
knowledge, in the form of his mother’s victimization, in order to make an inference that
had yet to be introduced. Nevertheless, while the MRM exhibited some metacognitive
behaviors in connecting prior knowledge to a key discussion topic, his contribution also
typified Mr. Rios’ students’ inability to explicitly demonstrate a shift in their
metacognition that was sophisticated enough to match the original, and more
intellectually complex, concept of irrational fear toward others.
The example above also illustrates that Mr. Rios’ students did not use systematic
inquiry as a tool for problem solving, knowledge construction, or deep exploration of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 179

concepts during the lesson. While doing so may have led to the “knowledge work” (Paige
et al., 2013, p. 107) in which open-ended questions are employed as probes to find new
meanings or possibilities, Mr. Rios’ students did not employ any form of inquiry to
further examine the concepts that were being discussed. While the MRM’s contribution
of “racism doesn’t exempt anyone” stretched the boundaries of classroom discourse at the
time, the student’s claim was not met with deeper inquiry from classmates that could
have either challenged any aspect of the MRM student’ assumption or further pushed the
boundaries of conventional wisdom. Similarly, when Mr. Rios affirmed the MRM
student’s claim by following it with, “Racism isn’t just for White people. African
Americans can be racist. Hispanics…can be racist,” rather than students employing
inquiry to question the veracity of the teacher’s premise, a collection of students affirmed
their teacher’s claim by simultaneously conveying various forms of verbal agreement. In
addition, the absence of most student voices from classroom discourse made the presence
of systematic inquiry all the more elusive. However, Mr. Rios’ students did not perceive
the lack of a broader range of student voices, nor the quality of inquiry that having more
inclusive discussions would likely foster, as a barrier in their overall perception of
whether students in the class helped each other to get work done. Students who
participated in the 13-person focus group cited “sharing answers,” “sharing perspectives,”
and “building off of each others’ ideas” as the most effective ways in which classmates
supported each others’ learning growth in Mr. Rios’ classroom. These responses reveal a
disconnect between student perceptions and the data collected from classroom
observations during instructional time. They also suggest that students did not perceive
systematic inquiry to be a factor in their intellectual growth nor a necessary component to
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 180

knowledge construction. Finally, the focus group responses also show that at least some
of Mr. Rios’ students did not see the absence of more reticent student voices as a barrier
to their growth.
Finally, the activity described above also illustrates how Mr. Rios’ students did
not consistently demonstrate social consciousness during instructional time. That is, Mr.
Rios’ students did not exhibit either the awareness or critique of the social and political
dynamics that exist on both local and global scales and that Ladson-Billings (1994)
situates as elemental behaviors in order for students to cultivate “a particular moral
character” (p. 477); nor did they display an awareness of how past events, laws, and
beliefs have impacted current social views, economic conditions, and electoral trends.
This was due, in part, to a lack of contributing student voices. As noted above, although
many students engaged in recurrent and unstructured crosstalk, only five of the class’s 38
students made verbal contributions to the formal discourse. Due to the paucity of voices,
the teacher and a few select students dominated an entire discussion that highlighted
complex and enduring social issues. In addition, some of the students’ collective laughter
in response to the WF student’s somber-toned statement of, “And they’re all like in jail
and stuff…” suggests that Mr. Rios’ students were not attuned to the inequities that
contributed to the incarceration of disenfranchised populations, nor the possible notes of
prejudice within the statement itself. Nevertheless, Both the MRM and WF students’
contributions demonstrated some characteristics of social consciousness. By sharing
personal anecdotes, both students’ verbal contributions exhibited an awareness of social
dynamics that involve racial differences. Making the claim that “racism doesn’t exempt
anyone” suggests the MRM student’s awareness of how racism can emerge in unexpected
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 181

ways. His assertion that racism was a universal phenomenon also, perhaps
unintentionally, provided a social critique of conventional wisdom’s view of how racism
is enacted. Finally, conveying the anecdote about his mother’s experience in high school,
he was able to leverage a personal example to elucidate what he viewed as a more
widespread occurrence. While slightly off-topic, the WF student’s personal admission of
feeling “out of place” among cousins who were predominantly Hispanic offered one
perspective of the complexities and tensions of living in a multicultural, multiethnic
family.
Teacher Contribution to Affective Learning Environment
I asserted in the conceptual framework that a teacher’s contribution to an affective
classroom learning environment in which meaningful learning takes place consists of
his/her ability to a) facilitate thoughtful and inclusive classroom discourse and b)
demonstrate social and emotional competency, and c) enact care. The data collected from
observations, interviews, and student focus groups revealed that, although Mr. Rios
fostered caring connections and positive rapport with some of his students, he did not
enact the full complement of components noted above in ways that would have cultivated
a positive affective learning environment. For this section, I will demonstrate the ways in
which Mr. Rios struggled to cultivate the positive affective learning environment needed
to foster meaningful student learning. First, I will discuss the extent to which Mr. Rios
facilitated thoughtful and inclusive classroom discourse. Next, I will turn my attention to
the ways in which he demonstrated social and emotional competence. And finally, I will
examine the degree to which Mr. Rios enacted the behaviors that are hallmarks of teacher
care.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 182

Facilitates thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse. In the conceptual
framework, I stated that a culturally aware teacher consistently provides a structured,
equitable space for students to engage in thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse that
incorporates a full range of student perspectives (Campbell, 2008; Matsumura et al.,
2008; Paris & Alim, 2014). To ease the potential anxiety that students might feel in
divulging unconventional or potentially unpopular perspectives, culturally aware teachers
establish clear and consistent norms of classroom discourse wherein the room must be
both structured and equitable so that students can engage in thoughtful, inclusive
discourse (Matsumura et al., 2008).
Mr. Rios did not foster a structured, equitable space that would have been needed
for more thoughtful and inclusive classroom discourse. The classroom dialogue was
instead marked by surges in unstructured student crosstalk and intermittent outbursts
from students who possessed the strongest opinions or loudest voices. It also resulted in
entire lessons during which a majority of Mr. Rios’s 38 students did not make any
substantive verbal contributions to classroom dialogue. These patterns of behavior were
likely due to Mr. Rios’s inability to establish clear and consistent norms of classroom
discourse whose purpose would be to ensure a safe, structured, equitable space so that
students could engage in thoughtful and meaningful discourse. The following example,
which involved a whole-class discussion on racial and gender stereotypes, demonstrates
Mr. Rios’s struggle to fully cultivate a safe, structured, equitable space for thoughtful,
meaningful, and respectful classroom discourse to flourish:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 183

T: And there’s a category for white people! So probably in your head, the
little box for White people: rich! (WF student’s name), I know you’re
going to say that’s not true because “I’m White and not rich.”
Two students (WF, LF) call out, but their messages overlap and are inaudible.
Mr. Rios stands up and makes a wiping gesture with his hands, from left to right.
T: There are different White people. Shades of White?
LF2: Fifty shades of Whites!
Five to six of the more vocal students in the class call out White stereotype
subsets. Most are inaudible among the din.
WF: Rednecks!
T: Okay, breathe, breathe, breathe. And thank you for that. And that just tells
me, you have a category within a category. So here’s White people
(illustrating his point by shifting his hands to one side), and one of those
categories within that box is rednecks.
WF: Hillbillies, and rednecks, and really skinny ones, and …
MRM: There’s several types. There’s the rednecks…
Both students’ contributions are excitable and enthusiastic; Mr. Rios listens
intently.
T: Okay.
Mr. Rios’s tone suggests that he’s willing to accept more examples.
MRM: And there’s the trailer park trash. And then there’s the honkeys …
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 184

The WF student chimes in to explain the origin of the word “honkey” but is
interrupted by a LM student. The Latino Male student trails off when his
contribution is interrupted by a wave of student crosstalk.
T: Okay, breathe. Breathe and come back to me. Everything we have a word
for we have a category for. Because we associate those words with
pictures, words, and experiences. And we don’t always know where those
experiences came from–they’re just there. It’s not just race, it’s also
gender. When I say women–female–all of a sudden your brain starts to
associating things with female. Weak.
Mr. Rios’s statement is followed by another upsurge of student crosstalk.
AAM: Where did you get weak from?
T: Loud, crazy.
The noise escalates.
WF: Emotional.
T: And there’s a category for guys. Jerks.
LF3: Fuck boys.
The class erupts with crosstalk again.
T: (feigning surprise) The language! So time out, time out…
In this example Mr. Rios did not cultivate a structured, equitable space for
classroom discourse. That some students felt free to call out responses indicates the
conversation also lacked structure or shared norms of group participation. This absence
of an explicit, coherent structure, coupled with Mr. Rios’s refusal to pause the discussion
for the purpose of establishing rules and expectations, enabled frequent upsurges in
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 185

student crosstalk and allowed students with the strongest and loudest voices to dominate
the conversation. Instead of clearly denouncing these behaviors, Mr. Rios enabled them.
Saying, “Okay, breathe. Breathe and come back to me” did little to clarify the norms of
behavior or participation but instead seemed to exacerbate the students’ rowdy behavior.
Neither did these words focus on specific students who were dominating the conversation
by calling out their responses. Moreover, an earlier succession of, “Okay, breathe,
breathe, breathe, breathe. And thank you for that” may have indicated to students that
their unruly behavior was appreciated by the teacher. By not informing individual
participants that it was important to create space for other voices to contribute, Mr. Rios
left norms of participation in his students’ hands. The absence of structured norms
amplified the participation of those who where already willing to contribute and who did
not fear formal consequences for vulgar, offensive, or inappropriate contributions. As
was revealed by Matsumura et al. (2008) in their analysis of the intersection of classroom
climate and student behaviors, Mr. Rios’s behavior of baiting, rather than curtailing,
student responses further demonstrated how a lack of consistent, structured norms
impeded thoughtful and inclusive dialogue. Moments after prompting students to
“breathe, breathe, breathe,” Mr. Rios contributed to the students’ stream of stereotypes by
adding “rednecks” to the pool. Mr. Rios thus provoked his students into using stereotype-
laden language that created a hostile environment by reinforcing the stereotypes as
acceptable characterizations. This was further evident when Mr. Rios went on to bait
students by inviting them to think of gender stereotypes. In doing so, he offered words
like, “Weak,” “loud,” and “crazy” as female stereotypes and “Jerks” as a male stereotype.
Feeding students emotionally-charged stereotypical labels welcomed students to
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 186

contribute to the inflammatory language to the point when one student felt it appropriate
to shout, “Fuck boys.” Mr. Rios’s response of, “The language! So time out, time out” did
not stop students to remind them about, or to establish, norms of discourse. Rather, by
saying, “The language!” Mr. Rios appeared to have arbitrarily decided in the moment that
the LF student’s word choice might have crossed the line. However, the playful tone with
which Mr. Rios used in his admonishment of the student did not clearly indicate whether
or not Mr. Rios fully disapproved of the LF student’s word choice.
The chaotic and inequitable nature of the conversation prevented more reticent
student voices from being honored as integral components of the classroom discourse.
Although Mr. Rios allowed for the conversation to be riddled with the crosstalk of many
students, few chose to have their individual voices heard. While it was unclear as to the
specific reasons why most students chose not to contribute their individual voices to the
whole-class discourse, Mr. Rios made no explicit overtures that might have promoted
greater equity. Instead, he reinforced this imbalance by encouraging the most strident
voices to dominate the conversation (using the methods described above) while choosing
not to actively recruit a more diverse range of student perspectives. Nevertheless, even
some of those students who made individual contributions had their voices ignored.
When the AA student questioned Mr. Rios’s “weak” label of female gender by calling
out, “Where did you get weak from?” Mr. Rios continued his recitation of stereotypical
labels without any acknowledgement of the student’s contribution. This shows that Mr.
Rios was either not listening to the AA student’s contribution or was not prepared to
acknowledge a new or opposing perspective. In either case, Mr. Rios’s actions fomented
inequity by preventing the student’s voice from being honored.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 187

Demonstrates social and emotional competency. In the conceptual framework,
I adopted Jennings and Greenberg’s (2008) assertion that a teacher’s social and emotional
competency is the catalyst for a) effective classroom management; b) a healthy classroom
climate; and c) positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes among students. I then
asserted that a socially and emotionally competent teacher demonstrates these
competencies by enacting a) social awareness, b) emotional intelligence, and c) self-
awareness. I defined socially aware teachers as those individuals who intentionally
promote cultural competence in his/her students while not blindly endorsing all student-
generated messages; I defined emotionally intelligent teachers as those individuals who
foster teacher-student connections by sharing his/her identity and personal history
through appropriate verbal interactions, and by inquiring about students’ lives, curiosities,
and concerns; and I defined self-aware teachers as those individuals who reveal the extent
to which they comprehend the ways in which his/her actions impact his/her students’
behaviors by consistently modeling prosocial behavior and positive values. Additionally,
self-aware teachers foster fidelity to prosocial behavior by co-developing clear and
consistent class rules, expectations, and procedures with their students.
The data described below exemplifies how Mr. Rios did not demonstrate social
and emotional competency in most instances. It reveals a lack of intentionality on Mr.
Rios’s part in attempting to meet the preconditions needed to promote effective
classroom management; a healthy classroom climate; and positive social, emotional, and
academic outcomes for his students in these areas. The following example demonstrates
how Mr. Rios did not show fidelity to the components of social awareness, emotional
intelligence, and self-awareness that, together, comprise a teacher’s social and emotional
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 188

competency. In this example, Mr. Rios facilitated an informal and spontaneous whole-
class dialogue that took place at the beginning of class and prior to the day’s focus lesson.
T: Okay. Before starting–it’s all right, you guys are excited. Before starting, I
want to hear maybe a bit about your weekend and about what you’re
excited about this week. So first of all, we’re going to start with dodge ball
because I’m actually super curious about that.
LM: We got fourth place.
T: Cool …
MRM: I got kicked out of the tournament.
T: (to MRM) Wait, you’re next.
LM: Oh! We had to change our name because somebody already had it –
MRM: The commentator had a really bad attitude with me.
LM: Yup.
T: (to MRM) Wait, you got kicked out?
LM: Yes.
T: Please tell us why.
LF: What do you expect?
T: (to LF) I don’t know. That’s what I want to find out.
MRM: They were talking ish, and I talked ish back. And since my voice carries
more than a bunch of little guys, Barry heard me. And Barry was like–and
then some Chinese lady came up and grabbed me by my arm and tried to
escort me out.
T: Wait, did you check her birth certificate? Are you sure she was Chinese?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 189

LM2: Yeah, her eyes were like this!
The LM3 student’s remark elicits laughter from many students.
T: Hey–easy there. You’re about to cross a line. All right, so an Asian lady
escorted you for saying a bad word.
Mr. Rios does not change his upbeat persona in admonishing the LM3 student.
MRM: Yeah, and then everyone was like, Why are you beefin’ bro? And I was
like, dude…
T: Why did you feel like you needed to say a bad word?
MRM: Because they said bad words to me.
T: So you’re like, you give me that, I’ll give you the same thing back.
MRM: When respect is earned, respect is given.
LM2: They were cheating.
T: Now does disrespect is earned where disrespect is given?
MRM: Yup.
T: Interesting.
In this example, Mr. Rios did not demonstrate social awareness. The example
typifies Mr. Rios’s permissive approach toward students who expressed potentially
offensive or culturally insensitive opinions during classroom discourse. For example,
when the MRM student described the dodge ball commentator as “some Chinese lady,”
Mr. Rios responded by saying, “Wait, did you check her birth certificate? Are you sure
she was Chinese?” This response implied that there was something problematic with the
MRM student’s characterization of the woman as “some Chinese lady” but did not
explicitly communicate to the MRM student that his characterization was inappropriate in
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 190

any way. It is clear that Mr. Rios did not communicate his point clearly, as the MRM
student responded to him with, “Nah, she was Chinese,” suggesting his certainty in her
ethnicity rather than that he heard his initial statement was problematic. Moreover, the
LM2 student’s act of pulling back his eyelids and remarking, “Yeah, her eyes were like
this!” further suggests that Mr. Rios’s response did not lead to the students recognizing
that MRM’s statement was problematic in any way. Finally, the LM2 student’s act
garnered widespread laughter, suggesting that this type of humor was acceptable in Mr.
Rios’s class. The findings of Matsumura et al. (2008) show that this type of teacher
behavior contributes to insensitive outbursts from students and a hostile classroom
climate. Following the LM2 student’s ethnically insensitive act, Mr. Rios’s final response
of, “Hey–easy there. You’re about to cross a line,” represented further evidence of Mr.
Rios’s failure to act with competency in this area. Here Mr. Rios indicated that the
student had not crossed the line although he had approached it. This statement reinforces
the legitimacy of the LM2 student’s act by not clearly banning it as unacceptable. Paris
and Alim (2014) situate inaction by educators in the face of racially oppressive language
or behavior as antithetical to the social awareness needed to underpin culturally
sustaining pedagogy. For a socially aware teacher, a student’s deliberately ethnically
insensitive behavior would already indicate that such a line has already been crossed. Mr.
Rios’s words, when combined with his light-hearted tone, were clearly not sufficient to
influence his students to modify their insensitive actions or perspectives. As was the
pattern across class observations, Mr. Rios’s actions suggested that he avoided potential
conflict with students even when their culturally insensitive behavior required swift
action. Moments later, Mr. Rios again chose not to hold the MRM student accountable
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 191

for his insensitive language or actions when offering a positive paraphrase of the MRM
student’s rationale for directing foul language at other participants during the past
weekend’s dodge ball tournament. By saying, “So you’re like, you give me that, I’ll give
you the same thing back,” Mr. Rios tacitly endorsed the student’s misconduct. While
socially aware teachers consistently affirm diverse models of student communication, the
blind endorsement of a student’s potentially offensive message runs counter to the
approach that a socially aware teacher must enact when communicating with students
from various cultures.
During the pre-observation interview, Mr. Rios expressed his challenges in
addressing some of the MRM student’s combative or insensitive behaviors. However, Mr.
Rios’s words also shed light on how his own indecisive action further enabled such
culturally insensitive behavior to linger in his classroom:
I know he’s had issues in middle school. He’s on the football team now and he’s
trying to develop his sense of identity, and part of that is being the person who has
to speak his mind and show how unfair things are. It’s literally a wave with him.
Some weeks it’s like we’re doing amazing; other weeks, he goes into his mode of
tension, and then we have to talk and then the next week it’s good. It’s up and
down, up and down with this kid.
Mr. Rios’s words reflect how he avoided responsibility for disapproving of or putting an
end to oppressive or inappropriate communication in his classroom. They also show how
he often perpetuated these behaviors through insufficient action. By saying, “He’s trying
to develop his sense of identity, and part of that is being the person who has to speak his
mind and show how unfair things are,” Mr. Rios justified his own lack of action by
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 192

expressing that the MRM student’s misbehavior was part of his personal growth cycle.
Mr. Rios’s sentiments in this example mirrored the laissez faire approach that he applied
to all observed instances of students’ intolerant, oppressive, and culturally insensitive
behavior within his classroom. In addition, by saying, “Some weeks it’s like we’re doing
amazing; other weeks he goes into his mode of tension, and then we have to talk, and
then the next week is good,” Mr. Rios conceded that his approach to the student’s
periodic outbursts had been largely ineffectual. As evidenced by the student’s behavior
across lessons, having a “talk” with the MRM student did not include the language
necessary to deter him from committing future outbursts of oppressive or culturally
insensitive behaviors.
The classroom discussion depicted above also reveals how student transgressions
involving racial or cultural insensitivity were left unexplored as possible teaching
moments in Mr. Rios’s classroom, further emphasizing the absence of “culturally
reflexive” (p. 92) analyses that call into question hegemonic discourses that may also
exist within populations of historically marginalized cultures (Paris & Alim, 2014).
Employing this pedagogical framework in the above instance might have called for a
more nuanced response that would have allowed students to explore the insidious aspects
of racial humor. Because the LM2 student’ racially insensitive act suggests that he was
unaware of the gesture’s inherent virulence, Mr. Rios may have benefitted all students in
the room by pausing to explain how such seemingly benign remarks and gestures can
actually cause great harm. Such a “teachable moment” might have also dovetailed with
the day’s focus lesson on Anti-Semitism.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 193

The above example also shows how Mr. Rios had difficulty demonstrating
emotional intelligence during instructional time. Although Mr. Rios expressed interest in
his students’ recent experiences by indicating that he was “super curious” about the past
weekend’s dodge ball tournament in which several of his students had competed, the
overture and subsequent 20-minute conversation, was entirely devoid of academic
content. Moreover, during the subsequent academic activity, Mr. Rios did not appear to
leverage any of the information that had been divulged by students during the informal
discussion to bolster the task’s relevance or student motivation and engagement. Mr.
Rios’s propensity to appropriate significant segments of classroom instructional time for
informal, unstructured, and/or nonacademic dialogue was observed across lessons. In the
above example, approximately 10 minutes into the conversation, Mr. Rios’s statement to
his class indicated that he did not feel an urgency to move forward with academic
instruction:
T: It’s probably the best way to start off a Monday–not taking it too seriously.
At this point, unless somebody really has to say something, I think it’s just
best to move on.
Mr. Rios’s announcement was not sufficient in content or tone to convey to students that
it was now time to begin academic learning and instruction. Communicating to students
that it was “best to move on,” may have sent a confusing message to them as to whether
“moving on” embodied academic activities or more informal, non-academic dialogue.
Whatever the intent of Mr. Rios’s message, the non-academic dialogue extended for an
additional 10 minutes of class time and exemplified how Mr. Rios often sacrificed
valuable academic learning time in favor of sharing lived experiences with his students.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 194

Finally, the example above also illustrates that Mr. Rios was not successful in
enacting self-awareness in his classroom. Although successful modeling of prosocial
behaviors by a teacher requires his/her students to both demonstrate and reciprocate the
acts of kindness, generosity, and acceptance, the cultural insensitivity (as described
earlier) exhibited by Mr. Rios’s students, coupled with their lack of understanding as to
why their behavior was potentially harmful, reveals that Mr. Rios was not successful in
this capacity. This shortcoming was most clearly evidenced by the student laughter that
came as a response to the LM2 student’s racially insensitive act, as it revealed cultural
insensitivity to be an acceptable component of the class’ culture. Additionally, Mr. Rios
failed to more emphatically disapprove of his students’ culturally insensitive and
potentially oppressive acts (as described earlier), or the intentionality to model more
positive alternatives to these behaviors. In failing to do so, he was, in effect, modeling
acceptance for such hostile views. Lastly, Mr. Rios did not consistently and coherently
demonstrate a purposeful approach to developing classroom rules, procedures, and
expectations that incorporated students’ collective input. Mr. Rios acknowledged that
these expectations were not formalized. However, he also maintained that there were
uniform expectations that were both implied and adhered to:
You’re not going to walk into my classroom and think, Oh, this classroom is out
of control. I think part of the reason is because we have an unspoken agreement
that I will allow you to be a teenager up until this boundary as long as you make
sure that that boundary is not crossed, and as long as you also allow me to help
you learn something.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 195

Despite Mr. Rios’s claim of an “unspoken agreement” that ostensibly established
standards of behavior, the omission of clear, coherent, and co-constructed rules and
procedures allowed students to behave in ways that were frequently hostile and
insensitive. The one indication of formalized class rules, procedures and expectations
took the form of the quote, “Make no judgments where you have no compassion,” which
was posted on the classroom’s dry erase board. Mr. Rios explained his rationale for its
posting:
That’s something I’ve been trying to drive into my students’ heads. Whenever
somebody calls somebody out in a mean way, I point at the sign and tell them,
“Make no judgment where you have no compassion.” It’s come to the point where
a student might be saying something and I cut them off or I kind of become a little
critical. I have students every day lift their hands and point at the board and say,
“Make no judgments, (Mr. Rios’s surname).” You’re right – I’m sorry. It’s gotten
to that point where they’re aware of it at least. They’re mindful of the fact that
people are going to voice their opinions, and we have to be compassionate to what
they say. We don’t have to agree, but we have to be compassionate.
Despite Mr. Rios’s claim that the quotation had a significant effect on his students’
classroom behavior, it was only referenced in one instance by two students (LM, LF) who
gestured to it after a Latino male classmate called out the phrase “Dumb people” after Mr.
Rios wondered aloud who might have missed the answer for a quiz question that was
being reviewed. Moreover, Mr. Rios himself was never observed to elaborate on the
quotation’s meaning, purposefully cite the quotation during an appropriate moment, or
indicate that usage of the quotation was something that was influenced by student needs
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 196

or desires. In contrast to Mr. Rios’s claim, students’ overall behaviors were not consistent
with the content or spirit of the quotation. As depicted in the classroom example above,
the students’ laughter at a racially insensitive act by one of their classmates, coupled with
the MRM student’s claim that he felt the need to shout profanity at fellow dodge ball
participants “because they said bad words to me,” show Mr. Rios’s claim of students
becoming “mindful of the fact that people are going to voice their opinions, and we have
to be compassionate to what they say” to be inaccurate. By not exhibiting the self-
awareness necessary for taking a purposeful approach to developing rules, procedures,
and expectations that students would be expected to co-construct and honor, Mr. Rios
consequently became a complicit partner in student behavior that exhibited episodes of
unchecked expressions of racism, misogyny, and homophobia. Moreover, as Jennings
and Greenberg’s (2008) findings showed the modeling of positive prosocial values to be
predictive of a healthy classroom climate, Mr. Rios’s inattentiveness to the purposeful
modeling of prosocial values triggered student behavior that had an adverse effect.
Enacts care. In the conceptual framework, I assert that a culturally aware teacher
proactively and explicitly enacts care towards his/her students. The culturally aware
teacher demonstrates care by behaving in ways that a) allow the teacher to respond to a
panoply of student learning and emotional challenges with teacher-initiated bids that are
context-specific, personalized, and purposeful (McHugh et al., 2013), b) cultivate
relational trust, c) enact care by proactively and explicitly creating situations in which
he/she is emotionally and intellectually available to his students, and d) consistently and
explicitly demonstrate care for his/her students that exist in concert with his/her concern
for student academic performance outcomes. Observations of class time revealed that,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 197

while Mr. Rios demonstrated many, but not all, of these hallmarks of teacher care. In
addition, findings from both teacher interviews and student focus groups revealed
positive perceptions of teacher care that were sometimes, but not always, explicitly
enacted during classroom tasks and activities. The data described in the examples below
illustrates these findings.
In the following example, Mr. Rios demonstrated care for a LF student when she
approached him about a conflict that had materialized at some point prior to class. The
exact nature of the student’s conflict was unclear at the time, due to the ambient noise of
student chatter, and remains unclear. The episode occurred immediately following the
bell signaling the start of second period and after a procession of students had filed in to
greet Mr. Rios. The class was fully occupied by Mr. Rios’s second period students.
During the entirety of Mr. Rios’s conversation with the LF student, no students engaged
in schoolwork. Instead, many of his other students conversed with nearby classmates
from their assigned seats, some students left their seats temporarily to confer with
classmates, and some students sat quietly at their desks while eating or remaining idle.
The LF student approaches Mr. Rios as other students return to their seat. He
stands behind his desk and holds a stack of papers in one hand.
T: Good morning. What happened to you?
LF2: Stuff.
T: Stuff? You all right?
LF2: I guess.
T: (concerned but inviting tone) Yes or no or you guess?
LF2: It’s a long story, but–
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 198

T: Is there drama going on?
LF2: Yeah, since like Friday…
The LF2 student starts talking to Mr. Rios. Some of her words are muted by the
din of student chatter.
LF2: Like she was just standing there, waiting by my locker.
T: (incredulous) Are you serious? That’s not okay–that’s not on you. That’s
not okay that the institution’s making you feel that way. Can I try having
you talk to anybody else?
The LF2 responds but some of her words are again muted by the ambient chatter.
LF2: …Yeah, I just don’t want to be near him.
T: How about this: Toward the end of the period, I write a note for you to see
your counselor. I’ll write you a pass, and you can go see her. But you can’t
also miss out on class. So talk to her, see what happens, and good luck
with that.
The LF2 seems to agree to this and returns to her seat.
The above example illustrates that Mr. Rios demonstrated many of the behaviors
associated with care, but that his care for one student perhaps came at the expense of
other students’ academic growth. Mr. Rios’s choice to counsel the LF2 student about
what appeared to be a serious conflict between her and another individual (or group of
individuals) demonstrated Mr. Rios’s ability to respond to a panoply of student learning
and emotional challenges with teacher-initiated bids that are context-specific,
personalized, and purposeful. Rather than offering a perfunctory greeting, Mr. Rios said,
“Good morning. What happened to you?” This suggested that Mr. Rios was able to
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 199

identify that his student was in an uncommon state of distress, and that he was
proactively making himself available to the student. Moreover, when the LF2 student
responded with, “Stuff,” Mr. Rios offered non-threatening probes such as, “Stuff? You all
right?” and “Yes or no or you guess?” These bids were both personalized and context-
specific. They additionally demonstrated Mr. Rios’s commitment to being emotionally
present and physically available for one-to-one dialogue.
The above example also demonstrates how Mr. Rios’s caring behaviors had been
able to cultivate relational trust. This finding was most frequently exemplified by the
consistent pattern in which students made voluntary overtures toward Mr. Rios in
conversations that involved their personal issues or struggles. Although Mr. Rios enacted
the verbal bid of, “Good morning. What happened to you?” in the example above, his
inquiry was prompted by the LF2 student’s physical approach toward the teacher that
occurred as he finished an earlier conversation with another student. This pattern,
exhibited in the example above by the LF2 student, demonstrates relational trust for their
teacher that has already been cultivated. In addition to the elements of care already
discussed, Milner and Tenore (2011) situate relational trust as a key component of
culturally responsive classroom management and, thus, a culturally aware teacher.
In addition to showing their trust of Mr. Rios by willingly, and often voluntarily,
sharing troubling or challenging issues with him, Mr. Rios’s students also verbalized their
feelings of trust and connectedness for their teacher by expressing the various ways in
which he potentially engendered these feelings. When asked to describe their favorite
class during the 13-student focus group, the students prefaced their response by
voluntarily and uniformly identifying Mr. Rios’s class as their favorite. Students were
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 200

also in unanimous agreement over their perception of Mr. Rios as a teacher who “cares
about you as a person, not just a student,” who “knows you as a person,” who
“understands your vibe/state of mind,” and who “knows how to connect with young
people.” That these attributes are key characteristics of teacher-enacted care demonstrates
that Mr. Rios was a caring teacher through the eyes of a significant segment of his
students.
Mr. Rios also enacted care by proactively and explicitly creating situations in
which he was emotionally and intellectually available to his students. Upon learning
about the nature of the LF2 student’s problem, Mr. Rios’s response demonstrated
compassion and trust. By responding with, “That’s not okay. It’s not on you. That’s not
okay that the institution’s making you feel that way,” Mr. Rios signaled to the student
that he sympathized with her plight and that he was taking her situation seriously.
Moreover, by validating the student’s version of the conflict, Mr. Rios customized his
overture to suit the state of mind of a student whom he perceived to be in distress in that
moment. Mr. Rios’s behaviors also demonstrated that he was willing and able to assume
multiple roles (i.e., mentor, surrogate sibling) in support of his student’s emotional well-
being. Demonstrating his capacity to exhibit care for a student that transcended her
academic performance also indicated that Mr. Rios was willing to exercise the flexibility,
will, and discretion that allows culturally aware teachers to operate beyond traditional
teacher-student relational paradigms. Mr. Rios expressed care for the whole-student. That
is, while Mr. Rios’s initial directive was for the student to “…see your counselor,” he
quickly added, “But you can’t also miss out on class. So talk to her, see what happens,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 201

and good luck with that.” By articulating this message, Mr. Rios conveyed to the student
the importance that he placed both on her academic and emotional welfare.
Mr. Rios elaborated on his intentional support of his students, which situated
teacher-initiated caring behaviors, such as providing emotional supports, as a necessary
precursor to academic performance:
Kids are not machines and kids are not just students. I think if teachers believe
that the kids walking into a classroom are just students, they miss out completely
on who the kid is. For example, when a student is absent for a couple of days, the
first thing I do, whenever I remind myself to do it of course, is to say, “Hey, you
were absent for a couple of days. Are you okay? What’s up?” They would tell me,
most of the time, it was, ‘Oh, I was sick’ or ‘I was with my family. I’m “So
everything okay now?” I feel like you have to validate these students as more than
students in order for the academics to be more effective. You’re a human being.
You don’t stop being a human being when you walk into the classroom, and I
think intrinsically human beings are social things that need each other and if you
walk into the classroom forgetting that you’re a human being and that the students
are human beings, and you’re just a teacher and they’re just students, you miss out
completely on communication. There is no real communication going on, just
superficial communication and if you need to get into depth of the content there
has to be real communication, real safety, there has to be real engagement and I
don’t think that happens if the teacher walks in thinking that okay it’s all about
the content, because it’s never just about the content.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 202

Mr. Rios’s claims of how he thought care should be enacted were congruent to his
interactions with students during class time. As the example above demonstrates, he did
not treat his students as “just students.” Rather, Mr. Rios incorporated the act of making
himself emotionally, socially, and intellectually available to students as part of his
practice. However, Mr. Rios’s statement that, “if you need to get into depth of the content,
there has to be real communication, real safety, there has to be real engagement and I
don’t think that happens if the teacher walks in thinking that, Okay, it’s all about the
content” was an approach that was not fully demonstrated in his practice. As I will note
in the next paragraph, Mr. Rios’s practice often situated teacher-student interactions at a
higher priority than academic engagement and cognitive rigor.
Despite demonstrating multiple key aspects of teacher care, Mr. Rios’s actions
also revealed that he did not always consistently and explicitly demonstrate care for
his/her students that existed in concert with his concern for student academic
performance outcomes. Although Mr. Rios was appropriately attentive to the LF2
student’s circumstances, Mr. Rios did not manage the situation in a way that optimized
the well-being of all of his students. This was evidenced by his failure to ensure that the
rest of his students were simultaneously engaged in a structured academic activity while
he was counseling the LF2 student. During the episode, students were intellectually idle
and spent the time by socializing with classmates, snacking, or sitting quietly at their
desks. In allowing for this scenario to materialize, Mr. Rios was, in effect, choosing to
address one student’s struggles at the expense of the affective and intellectual needs of 37
others. Consistent with McHugh et al’s (2013) on social and emotional bridges that
students most value, a culturally aware teacher consistently and explicitly demonstrates a
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 203

care for his/her students that exist in concert with his/her concern for student academic
performance outcomes. Thus, while Mr. Rios explicitly demonstrated care for the LF2
student, he was not acting with the full fidelity to academic skills and capacities that fully
enacted teacher care requires.
Finally, despite the care with which Mr. Rios employed with the LF2 student, his
decision to instruct the student to wait until the end of the period to speak with a
counselor may have been ill advised. Although the specific details of the student’s
problem were unclear during hers and Mr. Rios’s exchange, the LF2 student’s visibly
distressed emotional state may have required more immediate attention from a mental
health professional. Mr. Rios’s decision to keep the student in class may have been
beyond the scope of his training as to the type and speed of care that the student might
have required.
These findings reveal that, while Mr. Rios did clearly care about his students, he
did not fully cultivate each of the components necessary for a positive affective
classroom learning environment. When examined as a whole, Mr. Rios’s contributions
led to an affective classroom learning environment that did not adequately cultivate the
social and emotional conditions necessary for students to fully engage with peers and
their teacher with the respect, thoughtfulness, and intellect necessary to cultivate a
meaningful learning environment. Although Mr. Rios made intentional efforts to enact
care for his students, and though some of his students maintained that these caring efforts
were successful in cultivating a positive classroom affect, Mr. Rios was unable to
cultivate the care between students that would have promoted the mutual respect and
compassion necessary for greater interdependence among students during tasks and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 204

activities. Moreover, Mr. Rios did not attempt to leverage the success with which he had
in enacting care toward students into efforts that would promote a broader understanding
of care and respect toward others. Nor did he demonstrate the self-awareness to purposely
and explicitly model how a compassionate individual exhibits compassion through
discourse. Doing so may have enabled students to demonstrate greater compassion for the
harmful words and acts that oppress marginalized groups, rather than employing some of
this oppressive language on their own. Finally, while the affective learning environment
cultivated by Mr. Rios appeared boisterous and light-hearted at times, it did not promote
the safety, structure, and equity needed for more meaningful and intellectually rigorous
discourse. With an absence of formal norms of participation, verbal participation was
limited to a select group of the class’ loudest and most confident voices who were thus
given the implicit license to dominate the conversation, or to make offensive or
inflammatory contributions, with impunity. The consequence of so few student
participants meant that all of the students were deprived of a diverse range of
perspectives that likely would have cultivated more meaningful learning experiences.
Students’ Contribution to Affective Learning Environment
To determine whether Mr. Rios’s students contributed to a positive affective
learning environment, I examined the extent to which they engaged in thoughtful and
respectful discourse during designated classroom discussions. Observations of class time
revealed that, although some of Mr. Rios’s students intermittently demonstrated positive
social or emotional behaviors during class discussions, the majority of his students did
not consistently engage in the confluence of behaviors necessary for thoughtful and
respectful discourse.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 205

In order to demonstrate that Mr. Rios’s students did not consistently demonstrate
the behaviors necessary for thoughtful and respectful discourse but who instead exhibited
oral contributions to classroom dialogue that were frequently unruly, non-inclusive, self-
centered, or off-topic, I first revisit the way the concept of “engages in thoughtful and
respectful discourse” is described in the conceptual framework. Then I turn my attention
to the evidence and explore the ways in which these elements were or were not present in
students’ behaviors during instructional time.
In the conceptual framework, I asserted that a positive affective learning
environment results, at least in part, from the extent to which students engage in
thoughtful and respectful discourse with both their classmates and their teacher. I refer to
the types of students who are able to consistently engage in thoughtful and respectful
discourse as socially and emotionally competent students because their contributions are
respectful, scholarly, and relevant to the task’s focus. Thus, socially and emotionally
competent students demonstrate thoughtful and respectful discourse through oral
contributions to classroom discourse that a) maintain respectful and equitable oral
exchanges with both the teacher and their peers, b) employ active listening to make
explicit connections between their contributions and those of their peers while also
providing evidence to support their claims, and c) are relevant to the task’s or
discussion’s topic, concept, or focus.
As I demonstrate below, while some of Mr. Rios’s students demonstrated the
characteristics necessary to maintain equitable and respectful oral exchanges with both
their teacher and their peers during active participation in classroom discourse, other
students exhibited one or more behaviors that were not conducive to thoughtful and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 206

respectful discourse. In addition, during the discussion, Mr. Rios’s students periodically
made scholarly contributions to classroom discourse. That is, they occasionally, but did
not consistently, employ active listening to make explicit connections between their
contributions and those of their peers while also providing evidence to support their
claims. And finally, only some of the students who participated in classroom discourse
made oral contributions that were relevant to the topic, concept, or task being discussed
or debated. However, as described above, shifts in student focus were often triggered by
the teacher’s shift in the topic being discussed. With consideration of these items as
individual components, and also as a collective unit, I determined that Mr. Rios’s
students demonstrated an uneven and inconsistent ability to engage in thoughtful and
respectful oral discourse.
As discussed above, most of Mr. Rios’s students did not demonstrate many of the
characteristics necessary to maintain respectful and equitable oral exchanges with both
their teacher and their peers. The example below illustrates this. In this example, Mr.
Rios facilitated a discussion around one of the question items included on a two-sided
worksheet titled “Adolf Hitler: A Closer Look.” One side of the worksheet listed 12 facts
about Hitler’s life; the opposite side listed seven questions related to the list of facts that
offered a range of cognitive rigor. Earlier in the lesson, students had been given time to
read the list of facts and then answer the questions with the help of a classmate. The
question that Mr. Rios used as a point of discussion in the example below was stated on
the worksheet as, “Which of these facts (about Hitler) might surprise people? Why?”
LM raises his hand. Mr. Rios calls on him.
LM: I think it’s surprising that he liked animals and kids.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 207

T: It’s surprising. If he liked kids, why did he kill Jewish kids?
LM2: I never would’ve thought he’d like Opera.
T: That’s a good point. I don’t even picture him liking music. Why?
LM2: Because he was crazy, and…
T: What does music do to people?
LM2: It makes you human.
T: That’s why when you hear that he likes love poems and music, it doesn’t
fit.
A LF student raises her hand but does not wait for Cesar to call on her.
LF: I don’t know why, but when I picture him listening to music, I picture him
like cleaning off a bloody sword.
Mr. Rios laughs, the LF laughs, and some other students laugh.
T: What about his paintings?
Mr. Rios does not wait for an answer. He retrieves an old Life Magazine from a
pile behind his desk. He flips it open to a bookmarked page of a bucolic painting
and displays it to the class.
T: Hitler’s paintings.
Some students chuckle; others crosstalk.
MRM: Hitler was gay.
T: (with an admonishing tone) Time out.
MRM: How is he supposed to be hard and all, and then he’s painting castles and
stuff.
T: And that makes him homosexual?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 208

Most of the class launches into crosstalk. Mr. Rios “shushes” them, and the
volume decreases.
T: You don’t picture Hitler painting these things because you picture him
painting a bloody sword. So (MRM’s name), that’s a good point.
MRM: Thank you.
T: It was said ineloquently, but that’s a good point. So how do people like
Hitler have the ability to see beauty in things?
LM3: There’s probably dead bodies in the castle.
T: It’s interesting to me that…
LM: They tattoo in our minds that Hitler was so bad.
WF: (with an accusatory tone) Why are you trying to get us to like Hitler?
T: It’s interesting. Sometimes things aren’t so black and white. In reality, it’s
not like that.
WF: (with a resentful tone) It’s like you’re trying to make us like Hitler.
T: I wonder how much of this is propaganda that we get. Isn’t that true of our
enemies now? They’re all bad people?
Students crosstalk but no one directly answers Mr. Rios’s question.
T: Let’s get to Hitler’s destructive decisions, just so you know I’m not a
Hitler sympathizer. Don’t get me wrong.
Mr. Rios reads the worksheet’s final question verbatim.
T: “Could another Hitler exist and gain power today? Under what
circumstances? What can be done to prevent another Hitler?” Regarding
number seven, could another leader like Hitler come in to power today?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 209

LM3 raises his hand but does not wait to be called on.
LM3: There’s all kinds of crazy people. And the Treaty of Versailles didn’t stop
Hitler.
LF2: I think there’s always going to be a flaw in the system. And there’s going
to be that person who feels that their way is the best way.
T: Do you think it could catch on, though?
The LF2 student responds to Mr. Rios’ probe, but her response is not audible.
T: Interesting. That’s a good answer. That’s a great answer.
In the example above, Mr. Rios’s students demonstrated some, but not all, of the
characteristics necessary to maintain respectful and equitable oral exchanges with both
their teacher and their peers. Although the MRM student’s contribution of, “How is he
supposed to be hard and all, and then he’s painting castles and stuff,” was eventually
praised by Mr. Rios, the student’s previous statement of, “Hitler was gay” was
problematic because it demonstrated a disregard for the feelings of his classmates and, in
a broader sense, the norms of acceptable public decorum. The student’s contribution was
also inequitable because it contained language that was inherently oppressive; thus, some
of the students who may have intended to contribute a more thoughtful response to Mr.
Rios’s question around Hitler’s artwork may have been cowed or put-off by the MRM’s
remark. The final exchange between the MRM student and Mr. Rios was also
problematic. When Mr. Rios said, “Time out,” presumably as a signal to the MRM
student to modify his language, the MRM student did not demonstrate contrition. Instead,
the student attempted to bolster his claim by adding, “How is he supposed to be hard and
all, and then he’s painting castles and stuff.” This choice of response to the teacher’s
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 210

admonishment demonstrates that the MRM student was either unaware of or undeterred
by possible flaws within his own message. Matsumura et al. (2008) revealed this type of
student behavior to be detrimental to a respectful, collaborative environment. In not
acknowledging flaws within his own message, the MRM student failed to demonstrate a
hallmark characteristic of a socially and emotionally competent student. Despite the
MRM student’s missteps during the conversation, as has been described throughout this
analysis, Mr. Rios, in his role as facilitator and primary adult caregiver, was deficient in
acting to impose a more rigid set of norms that would have included clear and swift
consequences for the MRM student’s behavior. Moreover, by eventually validating the
student for his “good point,” Mr. Rios may have been effectively encouraging such
behavior for future conversations, as the student responded with, “Thank you.”
Furthermore, while one of the expectations for socially and emotionally competent
students is to speak out against oppressive language (Paris & Alim, 2014), asking young
people to do so against one of their peers might be a request that is both unrealistic and
inappropriate. Another student lapse in respectful, equitable discourse occurred in an
exchange between the WF student and Mr. Rios, during which the WF student first asked,
in an accusatory tone, “Why are you trying to get us to like Hitler?” and then, moments
later, added, in a resentful tone, “It’s like you’re trying to make us like Hitler.” It would
be reasonable for a student who engages in respectful and equitable oral exchanges with
her teacher and classmates to demonstrate active listening skills and social competency
by questioning the teacher about any specific aspect of the conversation. However, the
WF student’s tone and word choice suggested that she was making an accusation rather
than offering critical analysis that may have elicited more thoughtful dialogue. Moreover,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 211

the choice, or inability, to acknowledge Mr. Rios’s approach to the lesson as a potentially
legitimate perspective as part of her critique revealed that the WF student was unable to
demonstrate the social and emotional competencies necessary to engage as a respectful
and equitable partner in the discussion. And finally, that both the MRM and WF students
called out their contributions without being invited by the teacher or a designated
facilitator was indicative of a lack of awareness by these students for the types of
exchanges that are needed to promote respect and equity among participants. While
adhering to norms of participation is a shared responsibility between the teacher and
his/her students, some of Mr. Rios’s students frequently contributed to classroom
discourse in ways that were either disrespectful in their choice of tone or language, or
egocentric in their choice to make unsolicited contributions whenever desired. When
discussing the challenge of facilitating respectful and equitable oral discourse with his
students, Mr. Rios expressed both his need and desire for growth in this area:
I would love to fine-tune my ability to lead discussions and their ability to speak
to one another in a way that they can voice their opinions and yet still be
respectful of each other. These students tend to not raise their hands, they tend to
just speak out and yell out different things and argue with each other and have
sidebar conversations. I would love to develop a way where they are mindful of
each other’s opinions so they would take turns having these conversations and be
able to validate each others’ opinions while at the same time making their points.
For Mr. Rios, successful classroom discourse would ultimately involve students
demonstrating many of the elements of socially and emotionally competent students.
However, he acknowledged that his students exhibited behaviors that were, in many ways,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 212

antithetical to thoughtful and respectful oral discourse by acknowledging that, “These
students tend to not raise their hands, they tend to just speak out and yell out different
things and argue with each other and have sidebar conversations.” While Mr. Rios’s word
choice of “These students” suggests a distancing between Mr. Rios’s feelings of
responsibility for his students’ behaviors in this area, he also expressed a desire to
cultivate a more positive affective experience during discourse by developing “a way
they are mindful of others’ opinions so they would take turns having these conversations
and be able to validate each others’ opinions while at the same time making their points.”
Despite the struggle for many of Mr. Rios’s students to engage in thoughtful and
respectful discourse, some of Mr. Rios’s students demonstrated moments of social and
emotional competency by making occasional scholarly contributions to classroom
discussion. After the LM2 student responded to the teacher-generated question about
music’s effect on people with “It makes you human,” the LF student’s contribution of, “I
don’t know why, but when I picture him listening to music, I picture him, like, cleaning
off a bloody sword,” was scholarly because it made an implicit connection with the LM2
student’s commentary while offering a contrasting point of view which suggested that a
love of music and heartless behavior could exist synonymously. Additionally, the LM3
student’s response to Mr. Rios’s question of, “Could another leader like Hitler come into
power today?” with “There’s all kinds of crazy people. And the Treaty of Versailles
didn’t stop Hitler,” was also scholarly because it propelled classroom dialogue by
drawing upon prior knowledge to offer a new perspective. Moreover, the LF2 student’s
follow-up commentary of, “I think there’s always going to be a flaw in the system. And
there’s going to be that person who feels that their was is the best way,” demonstrated
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 213

refined listening skills. Actively listening to her classmate’s contribution enabled her to
respond directly and thoughtfully to the content of her peer’s input. Despite scholarly
contributions that demonstrated the social and emotional competencies needed for
thoughtful and respectful discourse by select students, few overall contributions included
the scholarly behaviors that would have revealed evidence of students validating other
students’ perspectives, making explicit connections between their contributions and those
of their peers, and citing evidence to support their claims. Finally, although some student
contributions in this area demonstrated one or more of the scholarly behaviors that are
integral to thoughtful and respectful oral discourse, the majority of Mr. Rios’s students
chose not to engage as active participants. As has been noted throughout this chapter, the
absence of a significant portion of Mr. Rios’s students’ voices from classroom discourse
demonstrates one of two possibilities: either the majority of Mr. Rios’s students did not
show proficiency in these areas, or, consistent with the findings of Matsumura et al.
(2008), they were not willing to engage in a space that was advantageous to their
participation. Mr. Rios acknowledged this problem, as well as his challenge with
including a broader range of student voices in scholarly discussions:
Part of it is me not doing a good enough job at adapting my lessons to meet their
needs. It’s one of those things where I try not to get frustrated when I see students
put their head down because you know they could be having a terrible day that
day. I try to not get frustrated when students are struggling with an activity
because it could be that it’s just not clicking in their brain. For me, I try more and
more each year to see that as an opportunity for growth. Where I see that maybe
my lessons need some tune-ups.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 214

While Mr. Rios was aware of his need to develop a more effectual approach to
incorporating a broader range of student voices in scholarly discourse, his words also
suggested that he believed the lack of student contributions in this area to be due to
students “struggling with an activity because it could be that it’s just not clicking in their
brain” rather than a function of the lack of formal norms for participation in classroom
discourse.
Finally, while some student contributions were relevant to the main topics that
were being discussed, other students demonstrated a lack of desire or ability to
demonstrate the same level of focus. The exchange between the LF2 student and Mr.
Rios discussed earlier is applicable to this area of thoughtful and respectful discourse as
well. After Mr. Rios asked, “Could another leader like Hitler come into power today?”
the LF2 student’s response of, “I think there’s always going to be a flaw in the system.
And there’s going to be that person who feels that their way is the best way,”
demonstrated that her contribution was focused on the topic introduced by Mr. Rios and
also attuned to her classmate’s earlier contribution of “There’s all kinds of crazy people.
However, student contributions during classroom discourse also had the tendency to shift
away from the conversation’s main topic or concept. In most cases, student deviations
maintained a peripheral relationship with the topic or concept being discussed or debated.
For example, the LM3 student’s contribution of, “There’s probably dead bodies in the
castle,” was the first student response to follow Mr. Rios’s comment of, “So how do
people like Hitler have the ability to see beauty in things?” The LM3 student may have
been responding to earlier statements by the LF student that contrasted Hitler’s love of
the arts with a hypothetical image of Hitler cleaning “a bloody sword.” However, his
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 215

statement was only tangentially relevant at the moment it was articulated and
demonstrated that some students did not make the relevant contributions that may have
pushed dialogue forward in a more meaningful way. The MRM student’s outburst of
“Hitler was gay,” was emblematic of a deeper problem because, in addition to the
statement’s deviation from the discussion’s main focus at the time (how Hitler could
possess and express such contradictory human characteristics), his freedom to express
such a message suggested the absence of formal and structured norms that might have
curtailed such outbursts that noticeably derailed discourse during Mr. Rios’s lessons.
Conclusion
Neither Mr. Rios nor his students fully employed the student- and teacher-enacted
intellectual and affective elements needed for his students to engage as intellectually
active learners and engaged members of a classroom community. That is, Mr. Rios did
not consistently demonstrate the behaviors of a culturally aware teacher and his students
did not consistently demonstrate the behaviors of intellectually active learners. Mr. Rios
did enact care for his students. However, despite being able to operate beyond a
traditional teacher-student paradigm by exhibiting care and compassion for his students,
Mr. Rios was unable to do so while simultaneously maintaining a structured classroom
learning environment that preserved his status as class leader. Although Mr. Rios
developed connectedness with some of his students, much of the class time was allotted
for activities that had limited academic import. These included long stretches of
instructional time devoted to unstructured banter and tasks that did not challenge students
to construct their own knowledge or draw their own evidence-based conclusions. Mr.
Rios’s students likewise did not consistently demonstrate the active listening skills
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 216

associated with thoughtful and respectful oral discourse that would have fostered a more
positive affective classroom learning environment. Although some students displayed an
ability to make scholarly contributions to dialogue, a select group of students dominated
discussions and periodically employed language that was insensitive or inappropriate.
Unruly or inappropriate behaviors often went unchecked by ambiguous norms of
participation and by Mr. Rios’s permissive approach to classroom management. During
academic tasks and activities, students also struggled to demonstrate the metacognitive
acuity, systematic inquiry and social consciousness that are the hallmarks of active
learners. Overall, the patterns of interactions between Mr. Rios and his students were
largely positive but also intellectually superficial. They did not promote thoughtful,
inclusive dialogue around complex ideas or dilemmas. Nor did they promote rigorous,
culturally sustaining tasks that pushed all students to employ the higher order cognition
required to solve authentic, rigorous, culturally sustaining tasks. As a consequence,
neither Mr. Rios nor his students enacted the intellectual elements that would have
contributed to the students’ capacity to function as intellectually active learners in a
powerful classroom learning environment.
Case Study #2: 12
th
Grade Expository Reading and Writing (ERWC)
Ms. Mendoza was a was a 9
th
grade Honors English and 12
th
grade Expository
Reading and Writing (ERCW) teacher, who had been practicing as a full-time teacher at
Ellis High School for 9 of her 10 years as a full-time public school teacher. Ms. Mendoza
said that she began her teaching career as a middle school teacher but that she shifted to
high school because of what she viewed as the absence of “a growth position” at the
middle school in which she had been teaching.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 217

Ms. Mendoza acquired her surname through marriage. She was a tall White
woman, with blonde hair and blue eyes; and she remarked, on one occasion, how school
visitors and new students would sometimes pause upon seeing her for the first time after
first learning that she possessed an Hispanic surname. Raised in a nearby culturally and
ethnically diverse community, Ms. Mendoza occasionally employed her unique
experiences as a White female, who was raised in a multi-ethnic community, to raise
issues about race, power, gender, and culture with her students during class discussions.
She also incorporated details about her uncommon social and cultural circumstances to
convey humorous, self-deprecating personal anecdotes, such as in one case in which she
was assigned to bring tamales to her Hispanic in-laws annual Christmas party but needed
to “Yelped” “meat markets” in attempting to locate an establishment that had more
authentic tamales than “Costco.”
Ms. Mendoza said that she was brought to teaching because, “I love working with
kids and I wanted to make a difference” adding, “Total cliché, but it’s the truth.” When
asked to speak at greater length about her relationships with students, Ms. Mendoza often
invoked experiences she had shared with specific students. In one case, she said:
I’m thinking right now about (LF student’s name) in my sixth period, and she is
struggling with a lot of things right now, and it’s something that she wrote about
in her college essay. She and I have talked, and normally she’s a very happy kid.
But over the past month, two months, she’s definitely become quieter, not herself.
Normally she’d walk in and say, “Hi, Ms. Mendoza! How are you today?” She
and I have talked, and I asked her how she’s doing. And I think that I filed that
report with her because then she came to me and just kind of broke down. Maybe
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 218

a couple of weeks ago I said, “Okay, let’s go to your counselor. Let’s see what we
can do.” And so the counselor is hooking her up with a psychologist, and we are
kind of working with a bunch of different people to help her out, and then just
checking on her on a daily basis. I think that’s really what the kids need to
promote their social development. It’s just to know that someone cares about
them and sees them as an individual.
Although Ms. Mendoza seemed to embrace her role as caregiver, she also discussed the
emphasis that she placed on establishing a balance between her expressed care for
students and maintaining a structured academic environment.
I definitely think they know that I care about them. There seems to be sometimes,
and I’ve spoken specifically with this period about this: I’m not here to sugar coat
things and make you feel great about yourself all the time. I want you to know
that I care about you, but if you’re not working up to your full potential, I’m
going to let you know that also…. I have pretty high expectations for my students.
I expect them to come in and not have cell phones out, not have their ear buds in
their ears, hoods off. Even at this point in the year, I’m still having to ask kids to
put their phones away. That was something second semester we had to re-start
again. I feel like things were a little bit too lax. As far as their behavior, I want
them to have fun, so I’m a little more lenient with behavior in here. I don’t really
assign detentions. On occasion I will ask the student to leave the classroom
because the idea is, I addressed you already two or three times, and you are just
not functioning very well in the classroom environment today, so you need to go
outside.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 219

On separate occasions, two administrators (one of whom was the head principal), and
three different lead teachers expressed their admiration and appreciation for Ms.
Mendoza’s high pedagogical craftsmanship, her ability to connect with students, and her
commitment to school wide leadership. She was asked to steer the school’s WASC self-
review committee by the school’s leadership and accepted to spearhead the WASC
committed and serve as one of the main writer-editors of the school’s accreditation report.
Ms. Mendoza noted that having the added responsibility of spearheading Ellis High
School’s WASC team, which called for her to dedicate pre- and post-school hours, team
with other members during her conference period, and occasionally work on weekends,
sometimes precluded her from exhibiting a high capacity for patience when some of her
students demonstrated what she viewed as inappropriate or unruly behaviors.
Ms. Mendoza’s 12
th
-grade ERWC class met between 11:15am and 12:11pm on
Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays and between 10:00am and 11:50am on Wednesdays and
Thursdays. When describing the overall purpose and function of the ERWC framework,
she said:
With these students, it’s definitely an area of need because the majority of
students in this class have tested conditional or not ready for English 100 at the
college level. This class is specifically designed with the CSU systems to prepare
them for the types of reading that they’re going to be encountering when they go
to college. We try to teach them skills and techniques for tackling these dense
readings.
Ms. Mendoza’s English classroom was located on the second floor of one of the school’s
clean and modernized main academic buildings. The classroom was equipped with two
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 220

video screens, audio surround sound, a white board spanning the front of the classroom,
an LCD projector, and a recent-model desktop PC that resided on top of the teacher’s
desk. Although there was a dearth of open wall space in her classroom, Ms. Mendoza had
recently hung her ninth grade students’ projects from her ceiling that depicted key
symbols from Homer’s The Odyssey.
Desks were arranged in six table groups, each consisting of four to six students.
Ms. Mendoza said that she purposely arranged table groups so that students would have
an opportunity to work with other students who possessed dissimilar learning approaches,
motivation levels, and academic skill sets. Although heterogeneous grouping of students
was Ms. Mendoza’s first priority when assigning students their seats, Ms. Mendoza also
expressed the need to ensure that individuals were provided access to at least one table
mate who possessed similar academic traits, and that students who had previously posed
distractions to one another were assigned to different table groups. There were a total of
35 students in Ms. Mendoza’s fourth period ERWC class, and the demographic
backgrounds of the students included: 29 Latino students (19 girls, 10 boys), 3 white
students (2 boys and 1 girl), 1 Black male student, 1 Asian male student, and 1 female
student of mixed race. A group of 13 students (5 Latina female students, 5 Latino male
students, 2 White students, and 1 Black male student) from this class participated in two
focus group sessions for this study.
Teacher’s Contribution to Meaningful Learning
To determine whether Ms. Mendoza fostered a meaningful learning environment
by engaging in the behaviors of a culturally aware teacher, I examined her pedagogy, the
tasks and activities she enacted in the classroom, and extent to and ways in which she
leveraged students’ funds of knowledge. Observations of class time revealed that most of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 221

the pedagogy and tasks that Ms. Mendoza facilitated during class time did not foster
meaningful learning. Although students were assigned tasks and activities that employed
culturally sustaining materials, and that also involved a range of literacies, Ms. Mendoza
constructed much of the knowledge for her students, rather than enabling them to
leverage their own knowledge, skills, or experiences in doing so.
In order to demonstrate how Ms. Mendoza’s actions created learning
environments that did not promote meaningful learning but that instead demonstrated
situations in which much of the cognitive rigor was taken up by the teacher, I first revisit
the way that the concepts of “pedagogy that scaffolds rigor” and “culturally sustaining
tasks” are described in the conceptual framework. Then I turn my attention to the
evidence and explore the ways in which each of these elements were or were not present
in Ms. Mendoza’s interactions with her students.
Pedagogy that scaffolds rigor. In the conceptual framework, I asserted that
meaningful learning results, at least in part, from the process by which a culturally aware
teacher employs pedagogy that scaffolds rigor. There are three essential components of
pedagogy that scaffolds rigor. The three components are that the teacher a) enacts
instructional approaches needed for students to master foundational knowledge and skills,
b) incrementally elevates the cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity, and c)
frequently facilitates activities that elicit the cognitive lift necessary for students to
engage in deep inquiry, critical analysis, and sophisticated problem solving. As I
demonstrate below, Ms. Mendoza did not enact the instructional approaches needed for
students to master foundational knowledge and stills. For the teacher, student success
during these types of tasks indicates that they are prepared for activities that require
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 222

elevated levels of cognitive rigor. While Ms. Mendoza set aside some class time for
students to focus on their development of foundational knowledge and skills, her
instructional approaches were lacking in the pedagogical elements necessary to cultivate
the basic but essential skills that would be needed for success during more complex tasks.
In addition, when these moments did occur, the teacher infrequently monitored levels of
student performance to determine whether or not students were developing the
knowledge and skills being targeted for growth. There was some evidence that Ms.
Mendoza elevated cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity within or across
instructional activities. And finally, despite having some success with increasing task
complexity, Ms. Mendoza rarely facilitated activities that asked her students to carry the
cognitive responsibility by engaging in deep inquiry, critical analysis, or sophisticated
problem solving: Although she provided students with frequent opportunities to interact
in structured small group dialogue over academic content, many of the class activities and
discourse tended toward a teacher-centered approach in which Ms. Mendoza drove
inquiry by asking leading questions and constructing knowledge for students.
As discussed above, Ms. Mendoza did not enact the instructional approaches
needed for students to master foundational knowledge and skills. Foundational
knowledge and skills include the reading, writing, speaking, and listening competencies
that enable students to process and engage content with increasingly greater proficiency
(Anthony, 1996; Preus, 2012). They also include the understanding of key ideas that are
essential in order for students to develop an understanding of broader and/or more
complex concepts or themes. Although Ms. Mendoza allotted some instructional time for
attempts to cultivate some of these basic competencies in her students, her instructional
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 223

approach lacked the types of approaches necessary for learning acquisition. As the
following example illustrates, Ms. Mendoza was not able to enact the instructional
approaches necessary for students to properly annotate text or to make connections with
the content of the focused text that she was reading aloud to students. For example,
during one class time, Ms. Mendoza conducted a reading activity that targeted key
concepts of Deborah Tannen’s “The Power of Talk” article that aligned with the current
unit of Language, Gender, and Culture. The article had been assigned the previous class
period with the expectation that students would read, annotate, and underline key
concepts and ideas from the first five pages of the 10-page article. Upon learning that
many of her students had not completed the assignment, Ms. Mendoza initiated the
following exchange:
T: So I’m gonna go ahead and read through. Okay, and I feel bad for those of
you who have read, so I’m not going to read everything. But I am going to
start where it says, What is Linguistic Style on page 139 because I think
that is important.
The LF student raises her hand. Ms. Mendoza calls on her.
LF: I was going to ask if you could go over–it’s on page 140 where it starts
talking about childhood–how the girls are –
Between 6-10 students affirm the LF student’s request.
LM2: (agreeing) Yeah.
T: Okay, well, I’m going to start on page 139, so we’ll cover that, okay? Are
you good? So some of you who just highlighted, you want to go back and
do what?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 224

LM: Annotations.
T: That’s right. Those notes to yourself. Annotations, right? (Begins reading
verbatim from the text) “So what is Linguistic Style? Everything that is
said must be said in a certain way, in a certain tone of voice, at a certain
rate of speed, and with a certain degree of loudness…”
Ms. Mendoza continued to read verbatim from the text. She pauses at three separate
points to instruct students to highlight a specific passage. In one of those instances, Ms.
Ramirez verbalized a rationale for highlighting the passage:
T: (reading verbatim) “…In other words, linguistic style is a set of culturally
learned signals by which we not only communicate what we mean but also
interpret others’ meaning and evaluate one another as people.” (looking up
from the text) And I think that’s important to note. It’s not just the way we
communicate but the way that we interpret how somebody else
communicates.
Throughout Ms. Mendoza’s reading, most students exhibited physical cues associated
with reading, highlighting, and annotating text. In particular, two Latina Female students
(LF2 and LF3), seated at the same five-student pod in the back of the room, made
annotations. The LF2 student’s annotations mainly took the form of paraphrases or
summaries of text in the margins of her article; the LF3 student’s annotations included
commentary such as, “Communication makes better relationships: RESPECT” and
“Because she doesn’t feel confident there–THAT’S HOW I AM!” Also during this time,
Ms. Mendoza paused, looked up, and commanded two male students (LM3 and AM), by
name, to “Get out.” Both students immediately gathered their belongings and left the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 225

room with no visible reactions or responses from their classmates. Toward the latter
stages of the reading, after she had read a section on how language can create status, Ms.
Mendoza paused to facilitate the following dialogue:
T: So for example, when I just said, “Get out,” what was I doing?
WM: Expressing your dominance.
T: Expressing my dominance?
WM: You were alpha.
T: I was alpha?
An LF4 student laughs.
T: Okay, all right. So I said, “Get out,” which means literally to…
(prompting students):
Many students chime in with “Get out.”
T: But the implication is also that…
LF1: You’re being bad.
T: You’re being bad, you’re not behaving, you need to remove yourself from
the classroom, right? Okay. But if you say, (reading from the text) “I
would be honored if you would sit down.” (looking up and lowering her
voice) I would be honored if you got out now…
LF1 and LF4 both laugh. Ms. Mendoza continues.
T: “You are signaling great respect – or great sarcasm – depending on your
tone of voice, the situation, and what you both know about how close you
really are.”
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 226

Ms. Mendoza continued reading into the next section of the article, in which the author
emphasized the different approaches to language that American boys and girls employ
when at play.
The above example represents how Ms. Mendoza did not enact instructional
approaches needed for students to master foundational knowledge and skills. The teacher
spent the majority of the activity reading verbatim from the article and periodically
instructing students to highlight specified passages. As a result of these teacher-generated
acts, students were not given the opportunities needed to demonstrate their
comprehension of the text or the opportunities to demonstrate their proficiency in the
tasks that were assigned to them throughout the course of the activity. For example, Ms.
Mendoza’s annotation instructions for students, both at the outset and during the activity
were problematic because they lacked the adequate detail and explanation that would
have given students an understanding of how and why to annotate text. The skill of
annotation is foundational because it enables students to become more proficient readers:
it helps them to make sense of the reading, to make connections with concepts in the text,
to build their understanding by asking questions of the text, and to cultivate one’s
awareness of his/her own thought and learning processes (Pressley & Arrington, 2014).
Ms. Mendoza prompted students at the outset of the activity to annotate while she read
the article aloud. However, the only additional instruction regarding how they should do
so was a reminder that annotations were “Those notes to yourself.” By limiting her
instructions to a reminder that annotations were simply “Those notes to yourself,” Ms.
Mendoza was neither explaining the purpose for her students to engage in such a task nor
modeling how one would go about doing so in a way that elicits a clearer, deeper, more
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 227

meaningful understanding of the text. Moreover, after Ms. Mendoza followed her reading
of, “In other words, linguistic style is a set of culturally learned signals by which we not
only communicate what we mean but also interpret others’ meaning and evaluate one
another as people,” with the statement to her students that, “I think that’s important to
note. It’s not just the way we communicate but the way that we interpret how somebody
else communicates,” Ms. Mendoza did not explain to her students why they should note
the information but only that they should. Ms. Mendoza did not provide a rationale or
solicit one from her students. Instead, she presented students with an oral summary of the
text she had just read, without providing or soliciting any additional connection(s) to the
main topic just discussed. Without providing explicit instructions as to how to make
annotations, why one should make annotations, or checking for understanding as to
whether or not her students were successfully engaging in the process of annotating, Ms.
Mendoza’s students were not presented with the rationale for or the instruction of how to
enact the process successfully. And while two Latina students (LF2 and LF3) both
demonstrated that at least some of Ms. Mendoza’s students possessed the skill and self-
directedness to make purposeful annotations, much of Ms. Mendoza’s reading activity
offered students the opportunity to sit passively for an expansive stretch of instructional
time. During this time, most students demonstrated the physical acts of reading,
annotating, and highlighting; however, the teacher did not allot time during or following
her reading of the Tannen text to verify the extent to which students were making
meaningful annotations. That is, she neither presented them with opportunities to share
how their annotations connected to ideas from the text, nor opportunities to verbalize
these associations with the brief conversation that she eventually facilitated. Because
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 228

students were neither tasked with reading the text independently, nor with making
annotations whose significance they would eventually need to substantiate, students were
presented with an activity that did not require them to work beyond elemental stages of
cognitive intensity. In addition, Ms. Mendoza’s reading of large portions of the article
included only one moment in which she checked for student comprehension of either the
author’s language or one of the concepts in the text. She did so by asking students, “So,
for example, when I just said, ‘Get out,’ what was I doing?” Ms. Mendoza’s question was
presumably intended to make a connection between the concept presented in the reading
(language and status) and a recent real-life occurrence (her verbal dismissal of two
students from the classroom moments earlier). However, when the WM responded with,
“Expressing your dominance?” Ms. Mendoza did not further probe the WM student (or
other students) how or why her earlier command of “Get out” was an expression of
dominance or a function of relational status. Doing so would have leveraged the WM
student’s initial response into a meaningful connection with text. Instead, after repeating
the student’s follow-up response of “You were alpha” with, “I was alpha?” Ms. Mendoza
asked the students what the “implication” for her earlier usage of “Get out” was. Asking
students about the “implication” of her message had the potential to shift dialogue back to
the text. However, when the LF student responded with, “You’re being bad,” rather than
re-directing the LF student back to the text’s concept of the relationship between
language and status, Ms. Mendoza affirmed the LF student’s response with, “You’re
being bad, you’re not behaving, you need to remove yourself from the classroom. Right?”
Taken as a whole, the brief verbal exchange between Ms. Mendoza and the three
participating students did not accomplish what appeared to be the initial goal of enabling
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 229

students to successfully make key connections with the text. They did not “engage in a
critique of the text” (p. 34) as a culturally relevant teacher would challenge them to do
(Ladson-Billings, 2006b). Also problematic were the teacher’s succession of questions
that were both closed-ended and leading. When Ms. Mendoza asked, “So I said, ‘Get out.’
Which literally means to:” she was guiding the students into the fact-based response of
“Get out” that required minimal cognitive effort. Finally, Ms. Mendoza’s decision to
truncate the exchange with three of her 36 students represented a missed opportunity for
students to engage in more rigorous and inclusive dialogue that may have fostered
foundational oral language development for a broader range of students.
In addition, while Ms. Mendoza made some attempts to elevate cognitive rigor by
increasing task complexity, many of these tasks did not succeed in eliciting deeper levels
of intellectual intensity among students. The example below, which took place during the
same class period as the example above, demonstrates this pattern. It reveals that, while
students were tasked with discussing concepts from the Tannen article, they were rarely
challenged to connect their discussion points with explicit concepts from the text in a
meaningful way. In the example, Ms. Mendoza facilitated a whole-group class discussion
around a section of the Tannen article that discussed gender-specific conversational
rituals among American children. Prior to facilitating the whole-group discourse depicted
in the example below, Ms. Mendoza had instructed students to first discuss the section
among their four to six student table groups by presenting students with the following
guiding question:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 230

T: Do you think that when young children play, this is how they behave? Or
do you think she is off the mark–she doesn’t really know what she’s
talking about?
After giving the students approximately 5 minutes to discuss the topic, Ms. Mendoza
transitioned into the whole-group dialogue.
T: Okay, your conversations seemed to die down a little bit, so let’s hear
what your groups were discussing.
LM: We were getting into it.
T: You were getting into it? (LM’s name), what was your group kind of
discussing?
Ms. Mendoza “shushes” the remaining crosstalk from the earlier activity.
LM: We were discussing about how we don’t agree how she talks about the
guys. How she essentially says that in the boy group, there’s one guy
who’s telling the stories and the jokes and that he turns into the leader. We
don’t feel like it’s like that. We feel like that’s the cool guy in the group.
Like, when you’re making plans, it’s like, We should invite him. Like, you
know? Like, he’s not essentially the leader, but he’s the one that everyone
looks at – that everyone expects the most out of.
T: But you don’t necessarily expect him to lead you.
LM: Lead, no.
T: But maybe in that sense, it’s a different kind of –
LM and T: (simultaneously) Leading.
T: It’s not your typical dictionary definition of leading –
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 231

LM: Yeah.
T: But he is to some extent leading you because you –
LM: Follow.
T: Right. You follow him, and you want him included. Right?
LM: Yes.
T: Okay, absolutely.
As the example demonstrates, while Ms. Mendoza initially attempted to increase
task complexity through student participation in text-dependent dialogue, she had uneven
success in elevating the cognitive intensity for her students. By initially situating ideas
from the Tannen text as the focus for student discourse with the guiding question of, “Do
you think that when young children play, this is how they behave? Or do you think she is
off the mark–she doesn’t really know what she’s talking about?” Ms. Mendoza created an
opportunity for students to engage in dialogue over certain aspects of the concepts put
forth by the text’s author. However, the structure and content of the teacher-facilitated
conversation that unfolded allowed students to make contributions that were often either
tangentially related or irrelevant to either Ms. Mendoza’s original guiding question or the
concepts specifically put forth by the article’s author. These problems were illustrated
most concretely by Ms. Mendoza’s exchange with the LM student. After Ms. Mendoza
prompted the LM student to convey what “your group was discussing,” the LM student
responded with,
We were discussing about how we don’t agree how she talks about the guys. How
she essentially says that in the boy group, there’s one guy who’s telling the stories
and the jokes and that he turns into the leader. We don’t feel like it’s like that. We
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 232

feel like that’s the cool guy in the group…he’s not essentially the leader, but he’s
the one that everyone…expects the most out of.
First, although the LM student demonstrated an ability to build his assertion from a text-
driven idea, Ms. Mendoza’s repeated attempts to clarify his response through leading and
closed-ended probes precluded the student from re-formulating or re-stating the message
on his terms. The exchange that began with Ms. Mendoza saying, “But you don’t
necessarily expect him to lead you” and ending with her comment of, “Okay, absolutely”
did not present the LM student with the opportunity to construct his own message, as it
was structured with leading and closed-ended questions that led the student into the
teacher’s line of thinking. By offering contributions like, “But maybe, in that sense, it’s a
different kind of leading,” and “It’s not your typical dictionary definition of leading…”
Ms. Mendoza took on the labor of constructing meaning on her own terms. Because her
probes were masked as pre-constructed answers, they were devoid of the intellectual
rigor needed to elevate the student’s cognitive efforts. Another possible hindrance to
cognitive rigor emerged through Ms. Mendoza’s lack of commitment to the protocols of
the discourse that she had outlined to students at the outset of the whole-group
conversation. Being able to show proof that they were able to synthesize ideas from
multiple participants in order to generate a coherent message would have demonstrated
that students were rising to the demand of increased cognitive rigor. Although selected
students were instructed to distill and convey the information that their table groups had
cultivated, Ms. Mendoza failed to clearly articulate the steps necessary for one to
coherently and accurately synthesize the contributions of multiple students. Nor did she
appropriate the time to model what such an activity might have looked like. Furthermore,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 233

although Ms. Mendoza explicitly selected one individual from each group to act as
spokesperson for his/her group, there were no explicit structures or norms that might
serve as confirmation that these individuals were in fact synthesizing contributions from
multiple table group members.
And finally, Ms. Mendoza did not frequently facilitate activities that elicited the
cognitive lift necessary for students to engage in deep inquiry, critical analysis, and
sophisticated problem solving. The following example demonstrates how Ms. Mendoza
struggled to cultivate these higher-order activities as she continued to facilitate the
conversation whose initial stages were shown in the example above.
T: (LF student’s name), what did your group talk about over there?
The LF student’s response is partially inaudible, mainly due to her low speaking
volume. She concludes her response with, “What she’s wearing or something like
that.”
T: Okay, so when she says that for girls, when somebody compliments the
way you look–and this question is for the ladies, the girls–or how you’re
dressed for the day, how do you respond? You what?
Students engage in chatter and crosstalk.
T: (increases volume) You what?
LF2: You usually deny it.
T: Hang on–(LF2 student’s name) says you usually deny it and (LF3
student’s name), you kind of agreed. Why?
WM: (LF3 student’s name – light-hearted tone) does that all the time…
LM: (LF3 student’s name–playful tone) does that all the time!
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 234

The volume of student crosstalk escalates. Students “shush” each other.
WM: They say, “No, I look ugly!”
Several students laugh.
LM: Exactly!
T: Okay, so from a man’s perspective, he just said we do deny it. And
according to Tannen, the reason why we do deny it is because…
Some students call out their answers.
T: Wait, wait, wait: Why is it that girls have a tendency to deny it? (LF4
student’s name)?
LF4: They don’t want to seem like arrogant and self-centered.
T: Right. Because if then you go, “Oh, wow. Thanks! I totally thought so,
too…”
Between 15-20 students laugh at Ms. Mendoza’s response.
T: But the point is, you don’t even have to say that! But then it sets them up
almost for this, “Oh, she does…” It brings me back to that movie, “Mean
Girls.”
More student laughter and surging crosstalk materializes.
LM: Yes! I love it! I love it!
As the above example illustrates, students were not given sufficient time to
participate in the active learning experiences necessary for them to think critically and
independently about the content material. Although Ms. Mendoza grounded the dialogue
in a key concept from Deborah Tannen’s “The Power of Talk” text, the bulk of the
activity was devoid of the cognitive lift necessary to bridge students from teacher-driven
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 235

discourse to activities that involve deep inquiry, critical analysis, and sophisticated
problem-solving that Ladson-Billings (2006b) situates as some of the key preconditions
for culturally relevant teaching practice. When Ms. Mendoza first asked, “Okay, so when
she says that for girls, when somebody compliments the way you look–and this question
if for the ladies, the girls–or how you’re dressed for the day, how do you respond?” and
then followed the question with, “You what?” the teacher was simply checking for
student comprehension of the text, which had stated that girls tend to “downplay ways in
which one is better than the others.” Thus the LF3 student’s response of, “You usually
deny it” was little more than a verbal paraphrase of the author’s words. Although the LF3
student’s paraphrase of the text demonstrated an important academic skill, it did not
require higher-order cognition. In addition, Ms. Mendoza’s follow-up question of, “Hang
on: (LF3 student’s name) says you usually deny it and (LF4 student’s name), you kind of
agreed. Why?” may have elicited critical analysis by the L4 student. However, Ms.
Mendoza allowed for the question to go unanswered after the LF4 student’s response was
preempted by the White and Latino male students’ outbursts claiming that the LF4
student had behaved that way “all the time.” Furthermore, Ms. Mendoza did not transfer
ownership of the dialogue, which would have enabled students to participate in the
“knowledge work” (Paige, et al., 2013, p. 107) that distinguishes activities that involve
the active organization and creation of new knowledge, the transformation, organization
and creation of new knowledge. Rather than facilitating inquiry that may have enabled
students to arrive at deeper understandings of the ideas or potential inaccuracies
presented by the article’s author–and that may have eventually led to them driving their
own inquiry around the topic–Ms. Mendoza continued the pattern of driving the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 236

conversation by asking closed-ended or leading questions, allowing students to make
low-level verbal contributions without facilitating additional intellectual rigor, and
constructing knowledge through her own verbal contributions. When the WM responded
to Ms. Mendoza’s question of, “(WM’s name), what do you say?” with, “They say No, I
look ugly,” Ms. Mendoza did not ask the WM to elaborate on his assertion nor to make
an explicit connection between his claim and the Tannen text. Nor did she ask another
student to offer either a competing perspective or one that may have further substantiated
the WM student’s claim. Moreover, when the LM student called out, “Exactly!” Ms.
Mendoza transitioned to a new teacher-generated question rather than having the LM
student substantiate his unsolicited claim. Both the WM and LM students were allowed to
enter and exit the conversation without making contributions that demonstrated the
intellectual rigor needed to engage in more sophisticated cognitive activities. Finally,
after the LF6 student responded to Ms. Mendoza’s question of, “Why is it that girls have
a tendency to deny it?” with, “They don’t want to seem like arrogant and self-centered,”
Ms. Mendoza again missed the opportunity to have either the student or her classmates
build on her response. Instead, Ms. Mendoza’s response of, “Right. Because if then you
go, “Oh wow, thanks. I totally thought so too…” provided both confirmation that there
was a “right” answer to a question that may have possessed more complexity than the
teacher’s categorical response implied, and also the elaboration that could have been
provided by a student. Finally, Ms. Mendoza concluded the exchange above by doing the
cognitive work of providing students with both a summary and an analogy for the
concepts discussed. Ms. Mendoza’s statement of, “But you don’t even have to say that!
But then it sets them up almost for this, “Oh, she does…it brings me back to that movie
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 237

“Mean Girls”” demonstrated how Ms. Mendoza’s approach often posed barriers to
cognitive lift by constructing meaning and knowledge for her students by advocating for
a perspective. In this case, the teacher did the work of elaborating on the LF6 student’s
previous point while adding heft to it with an emphatic, teacher-generated summary that
included, “you don’t even have to say that!” and concluded with a reference to the movie
“Mean Girls” with which many students may not have been familiar.
Ms. Mendoza described her expectations for student contributions to classroom
discourse, as well as the procedure she employed to assess the quality of student
contributions:
Every month they have to get so many participation points, and normally the goal
is 10. But if I’m out a couple of days, it’s eight. Or if it’s a short month, it’s
seven–that type of thing, depending on how the structure of the classes and the
lessons that we’ve covered. But ultimately, the goal every month is 10. I just keep
tally marks. When they say something intelligent, I mean sometimes they want
points and they don’t understand why they maybe have only have five as opposed
to eight; and you don’t just get a point for shouting something out. Or you have to
say something that has something to do with whatever topic we’re covering for
the day. I put that in the grade book. Participation is 10 percent of their grade.
While Ms. Mendoza’s “tally” system demonstrated that she placed value on student
participation to classroom dialogue, her standards of intellectual rigor for student
discourse remained unclear. By employing a tally system in which the criterion of a
quality student contribution was “something intelligent,” Ms. Mendoza’s expectations
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 238

were limited to the frequency of student contributions that may or may not have signaled
the cognitive lift needed for more sophisticated learning experiences.
Culturally sustaining tasks. In the conceptual framework, I asserted that
meaningful learning results, at least in part, from the process by which a teacher provides
instruction that is responsive to students’ cultures, personal realities, communication
styles, and worldviews. Thus, a culturally aware teacher contributes to meaningful
learning by enacting culturally sustaining pedagogy. I defined a teacher who practices
culturally sustaining pedagogy as one who designs and enacts lessons that use tasks that
reflect the complex, fluid, and ever-evolving nature of students’ cultural, ethnic,
generational, and gender identities. In doing so, he/she also recognizes the inherent
tension that exists between norms propagated by the dominant culture and the unique
norms that exist within historically disenfranchised populations. In addition, undervalued
funds of knowledge by first identifying and then fully integrating traditionally
undervalued or obscured student assets into classroom activities. Lastly, a teacher who
fosters culturally sustaining pedagogy facilitates opportunities for students to critically
examine past or current traditions within their own respective cultures that may elicit
oppression.
As I demonstrate below, although some of the academic tasks and activities that
Ms. Mendoza facilitated in her class exhibited particular aspects of culturally sustaining
pedagogy, she did not practice these elements with fidelity or frequency. On the
occasions when Ms. Mendoza did attempt to incorporate aspects of cultural relevance
into her lessons, the culturally sustaining aspects of these tasks and activities were often
superficial, short-lived, or teacher-centered. In addition, while much of the content
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 239

presented by Ms. Mendoza included materials that suggested a willingness to incorporate
culturally relevant topics into her instruction, many of the accompanying tasks and
activities did not reveal evidence of the types of student learning that are hallmarks of a
culturally sustaining classroom.
As discussed above, although Ms. Mendoza designed and enacted some lessons
that that reflected aspects of the complex, fluid, and ever evolving nature of her students’
cultural, ethnic, generational, and gender identities, her lessons did not reflect a
recognition of the inherent tension that exists between norms propagated by the dominant
culture and the unique norms that exist within historically disenfranchised populations.
The following examples reveal how Ms. Mendoza’s efforts to enact culturally sustaining
pedagogy unfolded in her classroom through a whole-class review of seven text-
dependent homework questions associated with Vershawn Ashanti Young’s “Prelude:
The Barbershop” essay. Ms. Mendoza had instructed students to read and annotate
Young’s essay two classes earlier. After checking each student’s annotations during the
following class, Ms. Mendoza then assigned the seven text-dependent questions noted
above for students to begin in class and to finish for homework with the expectation that
they would be prepared to discuss any one of their answers during the lesson depicted
below. The first question (“What is the paradox of the Black male profile”?) had already
been used as a point of discussion during the previous class’s lesson, and a significant
portion of class time had been allocated for deconstructing its meaning through open
discourse.
T: Okay. Question number one. We started talking about this paradox of the
Black male profile, and we were talking about this idea that, according to
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 240

Young, this Black male profile is romanticized. But the reality is different
than the fairy tale perception. And the fairy tale perception is that you
know they have these great shoes, and they have this swagger, and they’re
very confident, when the reality is…what is this reality, at least in the state
he’s from?
AAM: Prison.
T: Prison. Prison is their reality, the ghetto is their reality. And this idea that
they can’t escape that, that is more or less their reality. We left off on
Question 2. We were talking about schizophrenia, and I think I called on
LF. Did I call on you, (LF’s name)?
LF: Yeah.
T: To talk about…?
LF: You asked me…
T: I asked you what schizophrenia was, and then the bell rang. So let’s talk
about…
Another student (LF2) chimes in.
T: Okay (LF2 student’s name). What do you want to tell me?
MRF: About racial schizophrenia?
T: Right. So schizophrenia is when you have multiple voices in your head.
But what about racial schizophrenia?
MRF: I kind of see it as like when you have multiple cultures that you want to be
a part of. And one day, you’re White and one day you try to be Black and
one day, you’re Mexican. So it’s like you have all these different aspect of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 241

you, and you try to be one of them but other times you’re a different one.
And certain times one culture comes out and then another culture comes
out, and it depends on what situation you’re in. But you’re never truly one.
T: Okay, absolutely. What’s the point behind the idea with schizophrenia?
A White Male (WM) student raises his hand.
T: What do you think, (WM student’s name)?
WM: It’s like she says: It’s how the cultures believe in different directions, and
it’s to show that it can cause anxiety to the person mentally, and
schizophrenia can often cause that.
T: Right. The idea that it causes anxiety, or that it can make you what?
Another Latina female (LF2) student raises her hand.
T: (LF2 student’s name)?
LF2: Crazy.
T: Thank you, (LF2 student’s name). This idea that it can make you crazy.
Constantly trying to fit in to one culture and feeling like you’re not being
accepted and then trying to fit into another culture and feeling like you’re
not being accepted. And that’s what I was trying to convey to your with
the YouTube video, right? Do I check off the Latino box? Do I check off
the Asian box, right? My little nephews are Asian, Hispanic, and White.
So which box do they check off? But why is it even necessary?
WM2: They can check “other” or put “mixed.”
T: Check of “other,” put “mixed”?
WM2: Yeah.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 242

T: Do they have “other”?
A chorus of students say “yes.” Some students giggle.
LM2: It says, “Other, not specified.”
T: I guess that tells…what? But why is that even necessary? Why do you
have to list all of the things that you are?
LM: Because they want to understand who you are…
LF3: Demographics.
WM2: You’re a mutt.
T: I am a mutt. A multitude of cultures and I embrace them all. But it will
make you schizophrenic if you try to fit into every single one. But this is
his point, is that it is bound to sometimes make some people feel a little
crazy because they don’t always feel they are accepted into every single
one.
For the example above, Ms. Mendoza facilitated a discussion that centered on the
racial and cultural turmoil felt by the essay’s African American author through the
concepts that the author characterized as “The paradox of the Black male profile” and
“racial schizophrenia.” That 30 of Ms. Mendoza’s 34 fourth-period students were Latino
offered the potential for the activity’s focus (the effect of cultural discord on one’s
identity) to have culturally sustaining properties for her students. However, neither the
structure nor the content of the lesson enacted by Ms. Mendoza provided students with
the opportunities needed to develop their own understandings of how theirs and others’
cultures attempt to manage the inherent tensions that exist between norms propagated by
the dominant culture and the norms that exist within historically marginalized
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 243

populations. This was largely due to Ms. Mendoza’s propensity to construct knowledge
and make meaning for students through her own worldview. For example, rather than
facilitating student inquiry around the possible systems within the dominant culture that
can potentially foment racial and cultural discord within an individual, Ms. Mendoza’s
framing of the problem as, “This idea that it can make you crazy. Constantly trying to fit
in to one culture and feeling like you’re not being accepted. And then trying to fit into
another culture and feeling like you’re not being accepted” was devoid of the potential
social or societal mechanisms that may inflame the emotional anxieties that the author
associated with feelings of “racial schizophrenia.” By not facilitating opportunities for
her students to explore how and why individuals come to feel this way, and by limiting
the framing of the problem to her own view of its potential implications (“My little
nephews are Asian, Hispanic, and white; so which box do they check off?), Ms. Mendoza
sheltered her students from the opportunity to examine the mechanisms of oppression that
can influence cultural anxieties.
The above example also demonstrates that Ms. Mendoza did not allow for student
inquiry that would have leveraged students’ traditionally undervalued funds of
knowledge in further exploring the causes or implications of racial schizophrenia. Ms.
Mendoza began the lesson’s dialogue by summarizing the author’s concept of the
“paradox of the Black male profile” that had been discussed during the previous class. In
doing so, Ms. Mendoza stated,
…According to Young, this Black male profile is romanticized. But the reality is
different than the fairy tale perception. And the fairy tale perception is that you
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 244

know they have their great shoes, and they have this swagger, and they’re very
confident, when the reality is…?
By re-constructing the meaning of the author’s words with her own words, Ms. Mendoza
precluded her students from exploring the concept in ways that may have mattered most
to their respective cultural identities. In addition, when the class’s only African American
male (AAM) responded to Ms. Mendoza’s question of, “…what is this reality, at least in
the state he’s from?” with, “Prison,” rather than attempting to leverage the student’s
uniquely relevant perspective, Ms. Mendoza used the AAM student’s one-word response
as a lever to continue her summary of the author’s perspective. As the AAM student was
the only African American student enrolled in Ms. Mendoza’s fourth period, Ms.
Mendoza did not attempt to cultivate what may have been a uniquely relevant perspective
for the topic being discussed. When Ms. Mendoza introduced the author’s concept of
“racial schizophrenia” to the discussion, she provided students with more space to
explore the concept. However, her approach did not allow for inquiry that would have
leveraged students’ funds of knowledge in further exploring the causes of racial
schizophrenia. The MRF student’s characterization of the concept as one in which an
individual has “…multiple cultures that you want to be a part of…So it’s like you have
all these different aspects of you, and you try to be one of them but other times you’re a
different one…but you’re never truly one” demonstrated that she was able to deconstruct
the complexity of the concept while seemingly putting it into terms that were meaningful
to her own cultural context. However, after Ms. Mendoza responded to the student’s
answer with, “Okay, absolutely,” she sought out another interpretation of the same
concept by again asking students, “What’s the point behind the idea of schizophrenia?”
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 245

By choosing not to more further, and thus more meaningfully, integrate the MRF
student’s contribution into the conversation, Ms. Mendoza missed an opportunity to draw
from her students’ funds of knowledge in order to open the dialogue to exploring the
potential social or societal factors that force individuals into distressful circumstances
that involve race, ethnicity or culture. In addition, by not integrating the MRF student’s
personal experience in a more substantive way, Ms. Mendoza missed, as Duncan-
Andrade and Morell (2005) might argue, the opportunity to empower the student with
greater agency by acknowledging that her shared experience had intellectual significance .
Finally, although Ms. Mendoza did present opportunities for students to examine
past or current traditions within their own respective cultures that may elicit oppression,
she did so by enacting a teacher-centered approach to facilitating discourse that reduced
the quality of contributions from many of her students. The following example depicts a
later stage of the conversation whose earlier stages were represented in the examples
above, and whose discussion points were driven by the text-dependent questions
associated with Vershawn Ashanti Young’s “Prelude: The Barbershop” that had been
assigned for homework. In the example below, Ms. Mendoza facilitated whole-class
dialogue around a question that asked students to locate the theme of academic literacy in
the text and to also explain what they thought the author was trying to convey to his
readers. Ms. Mendoza began the dialogue by asking, “What is Young trying to convey
about academic literacy in his book? What do you see? After several minutes, the topic
shifted to the question (originally raised by the author) of whether some cultures value
formal education more than others.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 246

T: You guys: I have a question for you: Why is education seen as any race or
culture?
Students engage in crosstalk.
T: Let’s raise your hands and talk about this.
Ms. Mendoza calls on an LM student, who has his hand raised.
T: (LM3 student’s name)?
LM: I was gonna say that I think other–certain races appreciate education more
because they come from different backgrounds. Like they come from their
countries like bad situations in their countries, so they know that to have a
better life, they have to get educated.
T: So maybe because of the culture, the background they’re coming from,
and if it’s…
LM: It’s not like the people already here. There’s like more opportunity unlike
other places.
T: Are we spoiled then?
LM1 and LM2: Yes.
T: I would totally agree with you. I would absolutely agree with you 100
percent. We are totally spoiled. We see this free education, and totally take
it for what?
LM2: Granted.
T: We totally take it for granted. This makes me sad, I’ll be honest with you.
This idea that if somebody’s educated, all of a sudden they don’t become
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 247

part of their culture makes me really sad. I feel like as a group of humans
we should be what?
LM2: Accepted.
T: Accepted? Educated? Just because I read books…
The class’s only Asian Male student (AM) raises his hand, and Ms. Mendoza calls
on him.
AM: Maybe in other cultures, they don’t accept education as much because they
value manual labor more.
T: Sure. Of course. But should a person be shunned because they value
education over manual labor?
AM: I guess not.
T: I would hope not.
Ms. Mendoza then shifted the topic of conversation to the concept of racial anxiety put
forth by the author.
The above example demonstrates that Ms. Mendoza was willing to present
opportunities for students to critically examine past or current traditions within their own
respective cultures. She did so by facilitating classroom dialogue around the question of
whether some cultures valued formal education more than others, which grew from one
of the themes put forth by the author in the focus text. The conversation provided
moments for some students to present their own insights on a topic of relevance. For
example, in responding to Ms. Mendoza’s question of, “Why is education seen as any
race or culture?” the LM student replied with, “I think other–certain races–appreciate
education more because they come from different backgrounds. Like they come
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 248

from…bad situations in their countries, so they know that to have a better life, they have
to get educated.” Whether or not the LM’s response was drawn from personal experience,
his contribution demonstrated the critical analysis necessary for students to engage in
culturally sustaining discourse. The AM student’s contribution of, “Maybe in other
cultures, they don’t accept education as much because they value manual labor more,”
presented a different perspective but an equally analytical contribution. It suggested that
formal education was not necessarily perceived as a universal pathway to success by
some cultures–and also that one’s success through hard work can take different forms.
Despite these moments of meaningful student contributions to dialogue, Ms. Mendoza
often leveraged her own perspective and charisma to shift the nature of the conversation
and the quality of student responses. For example, after her question of,
Are we spoiled then?” was answered “Yes” by both the LM1 and LM2 students,
Ms. Mendoza added, “I would totally agree with you. I would absolutely agree
with you 100 percent. We are totally spoiled. We see this free education and
totally take it for what?
suggests that Ms. Mendoza was leading students into agreeing with her perspective. It
additionally reveals Ms. Mendoza’s tendency across lessons to construct meaning for
students, rather than having them do the critical culturally sustaining work of “gazing
inward” (Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 92) at possible oppressive cultural practices that were
unique or meaningful to their lives. In addition to leading the LM1 and LM2 students into
agreement with her about how some individuals take education “for granted” and how
people who choose to be educated should be “accepted,” Ms. Mendoza responded to the
AM student’s analysis (already noted above) with, “Sure. Of course. But should a person
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 249

be shunned because they value education over manual labor?” This question led the AM
student into his response of, “I guess not.” Most problematic was Ms. Mendoza’s final
remark of, “I would hope not.” This remark was problematic for two reasons. First, it
situated the teacher’s worldview as the definitively correct worldview. Moreover, both its
content and positioning in the conversation prevented students from deciding whether or
not the perspective put forth by the AM student required further scrutiny. Paige et al.
(2013) caution against pedagogical practices that impinge upon students’ intellectual
exploration by creating meaning for them because doing so can diminish a students’
sense of self-determination. Milner (2010) also cautions educators about the emergence
of “opportunity gaps” (p. 13) in the classroom as a product of “cultural conflicts” (p. 14)
that prevent teachers from broadening their cultural viewpoint beyond a Eurocentric lens.
Students’ Contributions to Meaningful Learning
To determine whether Ms. Mendoza’s students contributed to a meaningful
learning environment, I examined the extent to which they learned actively during
classroom tasks and activities. Observations of class time revealed that Ms. Mendoza’s
students demonstrated most, but not all, of the traits of active learners. In addition, most
students were consistently able to leverage these traits into accomplishing academic tasks
that, when combined successfully, contribute to a meaningful learning environment.
In order to demonstrate that Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated the traits
necessary to contribute to a meaningful learning environment, I first revisit the way that
the concept of “learns actively” is described in the conceptual framework. Then I turn my
attention to the evidence and explore the ways in which these elements were or were not
present in students’ behaviors during instructional time.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 250

In the conceptual framework, I asserted that meaningful learning results, at least
in part, from the process by which a student engages intellectually and actively during
classroom tasks and activities. Therefore, I refer to the types of students who are able to
operate in this capacity–that is, those students who learn actively–as intellectually active
learners. As stated in the conceptual framework, the assumption is that these students
assume the roles of both active participants and knowledge constructors when attending
the classes of culturally aware teachers. There are three essential characteristics that
intellectually active learners consistently demonstrate. They are a) metacognitive acuity,
b) systematic inquiry, and c) social consciousness.
As I demonstrate below, Ms. Mendoza’s students explicitly employed
metacognitive acuity, or “resource management,” (Anthony, 1996, p. 360) that revealed
that they were able to self-manage their intellectual assets in tackling difficult academic
tasks. In addition, while some of Ms. Mendoza’s students did, on occasion, ask higher
order questions, they did not consistently employ them in a systematic way that might
have led to deeper understandings of the topic: That is, they did not consistently use
higher-order questions to push classroom dialogue, challenge conventional wisdom, or
expand creative possibilities. Moreover, Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated some, but
not all, of the attributes of social consciousness. That is, they inconsistently and unevenly
demonstrated awareness and critique of social and political dynamics that exist on both
local and global scales along with an awareness of how past events, laws, and beliefs had
affected current social views, economic conditions, and electoral trends. With
consideration for each of these items, I determined that some, but not all, of Ms.
Mendoza’s students were intellectually active learners.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 251

As discussed above, Ms. Mendoza’s students showed clear evidence of
metacognitive acuity. In most cases, their behaviors exhibited traits of the self-guided
functions that are indicative of metacognitive “resource management.” The example
below illustrates this. In this example, Ms. Mendoza facilitated a discussion around the
opening paragraph of Vershawn Ashanti Young’s “Prelude: A Barbershop.” She
facilitated the discussion after first reading the paragraph aloud and then instructing
students to “re-read” the paragraph, “highlight one or two things that really stuck out to
you,” and “write a note as to why you found this to be important.” After giving students
approximately 5 minutes to complete the reading and annotation task, Ms. Mendoza
started the activity:
T: Okay, (LM student’s name). Shhh. What is something that you highlighted
that stood out to you in this paragraph?
LM: I highlighted, “I am different from a lot of Black men, and yet I was
compelled to acknowledge my desire to be like them.”
T: Okay, and why did you highlight that?
LM: It shows that he’s not your stereotypical Black male. So he’s kind of not
satisfied about his background, and that’s why he’s at the barbershop–so
he can be like them. He’s not comfortable.
T: So you understand up front that he’s not your typical Black male. And
he’s kind of telling you that he wants to be like them but feels as though
he’s not.
Ms. Mendoza calls on a Latina (LF) student, whose hand is raised.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 252

LF: “Their self-assurance made me want to mimic them, to give a gender
performance that would say unequivocally to everybody–White folks,
Black folks, everybody–that I too am a Black male.” I highlighted because
he wants to be just like them. Just like a little kid, he sees somebody older
and they’re like, I want to be like you because you’re cool. That’s how
he’s kind of looking at them.
T: Right. And he feels like when he says that they’re self-assured he feels
like they really know who they are and own who they are and can connect
to these different cultures or this culture that he can’t connect with.
Ms. Mendoza calls on an Asian Male (AM) student, whose hand is raised.
AM: I highlighted “Many spoke a spicy Black lingo, the hip linguistics that
even white kids from Iowa crave.”
T: Right. And you highlighted that why?
AM: Because a lot of people want to be a part of Black culture because it’s cool.
T: And it’s telling me that even the White kids…
AM: Even the White kids respect it.
T: Okay, absolutely.
Ms. Mendoza calls on a LM2 student, whose hand is raised.
LM2: I wanted to build off of what (LM student’s name) said–about the desire
stuff. I feel like he relates to us when he says that. Because I feel like all of
us–when we see other people of the same race, we think, Is that how we’re
really supposed to be? And all of us has this small or big desire of what
we’re supposed to be.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 253

T: Right. Whether it encompasses a large amount of what we do or a little bit
of what we do, it somehow impacts us, maybe not on a daily basis, but at
some point within our existence. I’m going to move on to the second
paragraph, and that’s where we’re probably going to end today.
In the example above, Ms. Mendoza’s students explicitly demonstrated the
characteristics associated with metacognitive acuity and resource management. For
example, in explaining why he had highlighted, “I am different from a lot of Black men,
and yet I was compelled to acknowledge my desire to be like them,” by saying, “It shows
that he’s not your stereotypical Black male. So he’s kind of not satisfied about his
background, and that’s why he’s at the barbershop–so he can be like them. He’s not
comfortable,” the LM student employed a mindful approach to proactively constructing
rather than absorbing knowledge by first identifying a key idea and then making his own
inference based on that information. The student’s inference that the author was “not
comfortable” with his own identity, and that he was drawn to the barber shop “so he can
be like them” revealed a construction of new meaning that was not explicitly revealed
through the text. Moreover, the LM2 student’s statement of,
I wanted to build off of what (LM student’s name) said, about the desire stuff. I
feel like he relates to us when he says that. Because I feel like all of us, when we
see other people of the same race, we think, Is that how we’re really supposed to
be? And all of us has this small or big desire of what we’re supposed to be
demonstrated the “resource management” thinking strategies (Anthony, 1996, p. 360)
that are hallmarks of metacognitive acuity and emblematic of intellectually active
learners. First, the LM2 student incorporated his classmate’s earlier contribution of “the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 254

desire stuff” to aid in cultivating new meaning when he says, “I feel like he relates to us
when he says that.” Then, the LM2 student additionally extended the scope of the
student’s idea by employing questioning and self-reflection in the form of, “when we see
other people of the same race, we think, Is that how we’re really supposed to be?” By
thinking and speaking in this manner, and by concluding his statement with, “And all of
us has this small or big desire of what we’re supposed to be,” the LM2 student
demonstrated the ability to reorient an intricate concept by putting it in terms that make it
more applicable to both he and his classmates. In addition, the LF2 student’s explanation
of, “I highlighted because he wants to be just like them. Just like a little kid, he sees
somebody older and they’re like, I want to be like you,” demonstrated an ability to
leverage her intellectual assets by employing a scenario that was analogous to the
author’s conundrum. By re-contextualizing the concept, the student demonstrated self-
guided meaning-making that was independent from the teacher’s prompting.
The example above also illustrates that Ms. Mendoza’s students did occasionally
but not consistently use systematic inquiry as a tool for problem solving, knowledge
construction, or deep exploration of concepts during the lesson. In some instances, Ms.
Mendoza’s students engaged in inquiry that led to the “knowledge work” (Paige et al.,
2013, p. 107) in which open-ended questions are employed as probes to find new
meanings or possibilities. For example, when the LM2 student transitioned from his
statement of, “Because I feel like all of us, when we see other people of the same race…”
to the question of, “…we think, Is that how we’re really supposed to be?” he established
a line of questioning that probed for a deeper understanding of both the text and the lived
realities of he and his classmates. The nature of the student’s question took the form of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 255

knowledge work because it probed for deeper meaning while also inviting deeper levels
of inquiry from classmates. However, as the above example also reveals, while Ms.
Mendoza’s students did occasionally employ higher-order questions during classroom
discourse, their questions rarely elicited additional inquiry from classmates that might
have led to more rigorous dialogue, challenges to conventional wisdom, or a deeper
understanding of concepts being discussed. Some of Ms. Mendoza’s students did make
non-inquiry-based analytical contributions to dialogue. Such was the case with AM
student’s contribution, who stated, “I highlighted ‘Many spoke a spicy Black lingo, the
hip linguistics that even white kids from Iowa crave,’” followed by his highlighting
rationale of, “Because a lot of people want to be a part of Black culture because they
think it’s cool.” However, while the AM student’s contribution revealed a mindful
approach to identifying a key idea, his verbal contribution offered limited analysis that
did not succeed in broadening the scope of dialogue or expanding creative possibilities.
Finally, as discussed above, Ms. Mendoza’s approach to facilitating dialogue, in which
she frequently a) engaged as a full participant, b) situated herself at the center of
knowledge construction, and c) generated the bulk of classroom inquiry impeded her
students’ more active role in systematic inquiry. This was evidenced by Ms. Mendoza’s
response to the LM2 student’s inquiry, wherein she immediately added,
Right. Whether it encompasses a large amount of what we do or a little bit of
what we do, it somehow impacts us maybe not on a daily basis, but at some point
within our existence. I’m going to move on to the second paragraph…
Thus, rather than providing the time and space for additional students to present an even
deeper level of inquiry or build meaning from one of the ideas already presented, Ms.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 256

Mendoza instead presented a verbal paraphrase that did not, however, fully capture the
meaning or tone of her LM2 student’s message.
In addition, the activity described below illustrates that some, but not all, of Ms.
Mendoza’s students demonstrated the attributes of social consciousness during
instructional time. In some ways, a select number of students exhibited the cultural
competencies that Ladson-Billings (2006b) situates as a key pillar of successful student
discourse. That is, some of Ms. Mendoza’s students did exhibit awareness and critique of
social and political dynamics that exist on both local and global scales, as well as an
awareness of how past events, laws, and beliefs have impacted current social views,
economic conditions, and electoral trends. Others, however, demonstrated a lack of
awareness for many of these dynamics, or an understanding of why they persist.
Moreover, of the students who exhibited some aspects of social consciousness, most did
not consistently demonstrate evidence of leveraging these understandings into actions
that would have required them to extend and exhibit their knowledge through a variety of
text-driven activities that Anthony (1996) situates as necessary for proactive construction
of knowledge, and that would have required a solutions-based approach to curbing social
or economic inequity cultivated by the “culture of power” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell,
2005, p. 291). Ms. Mendoza facilitated a whole-class dialogue around a series of
provocative advertisement images, projected on PowerPoint slides, which objectified
women in different ways. The point of discussion in the following example involved a
Carl’s Jr. advertisement that depicted an image of a young, attractive, naked woman who
was concealing her breasts by holding two large hamburgers in front of her upper-torso.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 257

T: Okay, (LF student’s name): Positive, negative, acceptable, unacceptable?
What are your thoughts?
LF: I think they’re trying to bring people in through sex appeal, and I have a
problem with that.
Ms. Mendoza calls on another Latina (LF2) student who raises her hand.
LF2: In reality, it’s bringing women down more, because it says we’re only
good for our bodies. And then women are also getting influenced by that.
You wouldn’t want your nieces or cousins up there.
Ms. Mendoza calls on a LM (LM1) student who raises his hand.
LM1: Nobody’s forcing women to do this. Just like strippers.
T: (LM2 student’s name), you had something to say about this.
LM2: I don’t think there’s anything wrong. There’s also guys that do that.
T: My little girls: How would you explain that to them?
LM2: Sooner or later, they’re going to find out.
Ms. Mendoza calls on another Latina (LF3) student with her hand raised.
LF3: I think it downgrades women. It shows that men think we want this.
LF4: (to the LM3 student, angry tone) You would want this woman as your
wife? She’s willing to sell herself to the world, and you’re okay with that?
T: (LM3 student’s name), you did say something that was a little troubling to
me: “It’s the truth. They’re going to have to get used to it at some point.”
LM2: It’s sad but true.
T: But does this style of advertisement facilitate a negative stigma? Do the
positives of this ad outweigh the negatives?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 258

LM3: I don’t think it shows nothing negative. It’s her choice. It’s a business.
The activity above reveals that Ms. Mendoza’s students were able to demonstrate some,
but not all, of the elements of social consciousness during instructional time. By stating,
“I think they’re trying to bring people in through sex appeal, and I have a problem with
that,” the LF student offered a critique of a social trend that she deemed unacceptable. In
doing so, she displayed an understanding of the potential social and behavioral
implications, as well as her own concern, for the types of images that portray women
purely as objects of sexual desire. However, despite her ability to articulate this level of
awareness, the LF student was not provided with an opportunity to provide deeper
analysis for her initial assessment of the image. Her truncated analysis was due, at least in
part, to Ms. Mendoza’s decision to immediately seek the next student’s contribution. The
LF2 student’s contribution of, “In reality, it’s bringing women down more, because it
says we’re only good for our bodies” demonstrated social consciousness through a
critique of social and cultural norms that extended the LM student’s earlier analysis. By
asserting that the image was “bringing women down more, because it says we’re only
good for our bodies,” the student provided further justification, beyond the LM student’s
earlier statement of, “and I have a problem with that” for why such images are potentially
harmful. In addition, by expressing her concern that these types of advertisements “bring
women down “more,” the LM2 student demonstrated an ability to discern how current
social and cultural practices are of particular concern to historically marginalized
populations that have been subject to multi-generational discrimination or oppression.
Moreover, the LF2 student’s additional commentary of, “And then women are also
getting influenced by that. You wouldn’t want your nieces or cousins up there,” revealed
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 259

the student’s attempt to project potential social ramifications of a current culturally
accepted practice. By adding the emotional appeal of, “You wouldn’t want your nieces or
cousins up there,” she also challenged conventional thinking by unveiling the hypocrisy
that exists in concert with the cultural acceptance of such advertisements. Despite some
students’ ability to demonstrate various aspects of social consciousness, the example
above was also emblematic of other students’ inability to demonstrate a clear
understanding of culturally embedded dynamics that either cause or perpetuate social
injustices. For example, both Latino Male (LM1, LM2) students expressed viewpoints
that did not demonstrate an awareness of the social and cultural mechanisms that oppress
women. For example, by responding to the LF 2 student’s earlier appeal with, “Nobody’s
forcing women to do this. Just like strippers,” the LM1 student demonstrated a lack of
knowledge for the institutionalized systems that have disempowered women and that
continue to do so. Being unfamiliar with the causes of female oppression, in this case, led
the student to present an uninformed view of the topic being discussed. His statement
also speaks to Paris and Alim’s (2014) assertion that historically marginalized
populations of students sometimes “unwittingly reproduce forms of exclusion in our
classrooms and communities” (p. 93). The LM2 student’s contributions likewise
demonstrated a lack of understanding for historical gender inequities that persist in
modern culture. By regarding the hyper-sexualized image of the woman being discussed
as “nothing negative,” the student demonstrated a perspective that was devoid of the
ways in which images have been utilized throughout modern history to oppress minority
or marginalized groups.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 260

Finally, many of Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated visible but uneven
success in leveraging their social consciousness into actions that required them to extend
and exhibit their knowledge through activities that required a solutions-based approach to
curbing social or economic inequity. Such was the case when students utilized class time
set aside by Ms. Mendoza to develop their unit-culminating PSA projects. Ms. Mendoza
described the purpose of the task as the following:
To have students take a deeper looks at the communities or cultures in which they
belong and to choose an area in which they see a need, or to address an issue that
bothers them regarding language, gender, and culture.
The projects required small, self-selected student teams to create a research-based public
service announcement video that responded to the team’s call to action, research question,
and rationale outline in their project proposal. The example below shows a team of four
Latina Students engaging in a group discussion. It involved them sharing research
information and brainstorming ideas for their PSA’s storyboard whose call to action was
to eradicate bias and prejudice toward special needs students by highlighting their
contributions as invaluable to the school.
LM1: How do they determine severe? What’s severe?
LM2: There’s a scale they go based off of.
LM3: It’s kind of like...there’s a scale for autism, but there’s also a scale for how
they react to different...um…
LM1: I know but, like, in danger to themselves kind of severe? Like they do
stuff that…
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 261

LM2: It’s so complex. Because they go based off of each diagnosis that there is
and then they go off of that. And they go, Okay, so this person has this,
they’re either mild or severe.
LM3: So what’s an example of severe?
LM2: So for instance, my brother is considered “mild” because he is able to
function–he is able to speak well.
LM3: He’s like Gabriel, yeah?
LM2: No. He has trouble understanding differences. But there are other kids that
have autism, and they’re not able to talk at all, and they need more help to
function. And that’s “severe.”
LM3: Got it.
After a brief discussion over the data collected from the group’s student survey and
interview questions, the team’s focus turned to the structure and content of the PSA video.
LM3: So how are we going to go about this storyboard?
LM4: I was thinking on the editing side, how do you want to do it? Do we want
to make it a funny PSA or a sentimental PSA?
LM3: Or just informational?
LM2: (to LM4 student) Dude, I don’t care; I would leave it up to you because
you’re really good with editing and stuff.
LM4: If you wanted it to be sentimental, we could do it with slow motion and
songs and stuff.
LM2: I wouldn’t really say sentimental; I want to say more fun, to show them…
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 262

LM1: ‘Cause if it’s going to be like one of those dog commercials, people are
gonna be like, “Aww,” and I don’t want it to be like that.
LM4: Yeah, I want people to react to it…
LM2: I want them to see their creativity.
As the above example reveals, Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated visible but uneven
success in leveraging their social consciousness into actions that required them to both
extend and exhibit their knowledge through activities that required a solutions-based
approach to curbing social or economic inequity. First, in choosing to address the
problem of the biases and prejudices toward special needs students, the team depicted in
the above example demonstrated the social consciousness to identify practices within
their own community that may not be perceived as discriminatory but that, with closer
analysis, may be occurring without scrutiny. In addition, the students’ chosen activity of
shared and systematic inquiry exhibited and extended their knowledge and awareness of
their chosen topic of special needs students. By launching the first verbal exchange with,
“How do they determine severe? What’s severe?” the LF1 student initiated a process by
which her peers engaged in deeper levels of inquiry. For example, the LM2 student’s
explanation of, “It’s so complex. Because they go based off of each diagnosis that there is
and then they go off of that…” prompted the LM3 student’s probe of “So what’s an
example of severe?” Thus, the group’s systematic approach to inquiry facilitated a deeper
understanding of their project’s topic through meaningful contributions from each of the
group’s participants. Lastly, the final verbal exchange in the above example, which was
initiated by the LM3 student’s question of, “So how are we going to go about this
storyboard,” demonstrated an attempt by the group to develop a plan of action around the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 263

problem of school-wide bias and prejudice toward special needs students. During this
exchange, a consensus emerged as to how the group would portray special needs students
in their PSA video that gradually materialized into a unified desire to empower their
subjects. Although the LM4 student initially raised the possibility of making the video
“sentimental…with slow motion and songs and stuff,” the LM2 student’s response of, “I
wouldn’t really say sentimental; I want to say more fun, to show them…” suggested a
desire to present special needs students in a more empowering light. Moreover, the LM1
student’s statement of, “Cause if it’s going to be like one of those dog commercials,
people are gonna be like, “Aww,” and I don’t want it to be like that,” which spurred her
peers’ responses of, “Yeah, I want people to react to it…” and “I want them to see their
creativity,” demonstrated a collective awareness of the importance to present their
subjects in a way that would accentuate their assets rather than evoke pathos. Despite the
group’s overall positive attempts to engage in a solutions-based approach to curbing
social inequity, their conversation lacked the depth of dialogue that might have been
needed to establish a more educated perspective of the problem of the marginalization of
special needs students by the school’s majority student population. This problem,
exemplified by the LF4 student’s statement of, “Yeah, I want people to react to it,”
demonstrated that the group was willing to opt for a stylized video presentation at the
expense of one that might address the topic by employing a more research-based,
intellectually rigorous approach.
Ms. Mendoza described both the purpose of the PSA project and her view on how
students had taken to it. She said:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 264

The purpose of the task was to have student take a deeper looks at the
communities or cultures in which they belong and to choose an area in which they
see a need, or to address an issue that bothers them regarding language, gender,
and culture.
Teacher Contribution to Affective Learning Environment
I asserted in the conceptual framework that a teacher’s contribution to an affective
classroom learning environment in which meaningful learning takes place consists of
his/her ability to a) facilitate thoughtful and inclusive classroom discourse, b)
demonstrate social and emotional competency, c) enact social awareness, emotional
intelligence, and self-awareness, and d) enact care. The data collected from observations,
interviews, and student focus groups revealed that Ms. Mendoza made these
contributions unevenly and inconsistently, sometimes offering more and sometimes
offering less of each component. For this section, I will show the ways in which Ms.
Mendoza both succeeded and struggled in cultivating a positive affective learning
environment. First, I will discuss the extent to which Ms. Mendoza facilitated thoughtful
and inclusive classroom discourse. Next, I will turn my attention to the ways in which she
demonstrated social and emotional competency, social awareness, and emotional
intelligence, and self-awareness. And finally, I will examine the degree to which Ms.
Mendoza enacted the behaviors that are hallmarks of teacher care.
Facilitates thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse. In the conceptual
framework, I stated that a culturally aware teacher consistently provides a structured,
equitable space for students to engage in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful
classroom discourse that incorporates a full range of student perspectives (Campbell,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 265

2008; Matsumura et al., 2008; Paris & Alim, 2014). To ease the potential anxiety that
students might feel in divulging unconventional or potentially unpopular perspectives,
culturally aware teachers establish clear and consistent norms of classroom discourse
wherein the room must be both structured and equitable so that students can engage in
thoughtful, inclusive discourse (Matsumura et al., 2008).
Ms. Mendoza did not fully cultivate a structured, equitable space that would have
been needed for more thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse to materialize. In some
instances, Ms. Mendoza was able to promote one or more of these necessary
preconditions for thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse. However, she was not
successful at simultaneously cultivating all of the components necessary for this process
to be fully and consistently actualized for her students. Her failure to fully cultivate a
structured, equitable space resulted in classroom dialogue that alternated between
harmony and disarray, both among students and between the teacher and her students. It
also resulted in entire lessons during which a majority of Ms. Mendoza’s 35 students did
not make any substantive verbal contributions to classroom dialogue. These patterns of
behavior were, in part, due to Ms. Mendoza’s inattentiveness to the actions needed to
establish clear and consistent norms of classroom discourse whose purpose would be to
ensure a structured, equitable space so that students could engage in thoughtful, inclusive
discourse. The following is a typical example of the classroom discourse present in Ms.
Mendoza’s classroom. This interaction followed a “Quickwrite” activity earlier in the
class time, during which students were asked to write about the ways in which their
culture influenced or constrained them. After students finished responding to the prompt,
Ms. Mendoza initiated a whole-class dialogue by stating, “So what I’m asking you, and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 266

what it leads to is Young’s argument, to some extent in “Prelude: A Barbershop,” is how
does our culture limit us or what constraints do we feel because of our culture or lack of
culture?” The example demonstrates Ms. Mendoza’s struggle to fully cultivate the,
structured, equitable space necessary for thoughtful, inclusive classroom discourse to
flourish:
T: (LM student’s name), what do you think?
LM: Like whenever I go to The Grove or Americana.
T: The Americana? Why?
LM2: Yes! I know!
Students erupt into a burst of loud crosstalk.
LM2: I feel like whenever you walk into a store, they watch you!
LM: Because everybody’s so rich and…
T: So he says whenever he goes to The Grove or Americana. I don’t even
know where they are. See, I don’t get out much.
LM2: You should Yelp it.
Students laugh. (Their laughter about “Yelp” is in reference to Ms. Mendoza’s
earlier admission to having to access Yelp in order to locate quality tamales.)
Ms. Mendoza calls on a Latina Female (LF1) student, who has her hand raised.
LF: The former school I went to, Bishop High School, it was made up of a lot
of Whites and a lot of Asians, and I just didn’t fit in. Like my first day
there, it was either go with the White people or Asian people. Because
there was me and there was two other Mexicans and one Black person in
the entire high school. I did not fit in.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 267

T: So there was very little diversity and you kind of felt uncomfortable and
you questioned yourself. Yes? Okay, (LF2 student’s name), I’ve seen your
hand. And then…
LF2: I play club volleyball, and our team in Commerce and there’s a lot of
Mexicans on the team. So when we’d go to tournaments, we played
against White girls mainly because there’s a lot of White girls who play
volleyball. So we were all short, and they were all…
Another Latina Female student (LF4) chimes in with “Tall!”
LF2: Big. And they’d always look down on us and think that we weren’t good.
But when we would beat them, they would just like get this look like they
hated us because they just got beat by little Mexican girls. And this was
one time when parents in the stands–and they were like, “Oh, don’t get
beat by these little Mexican girls.”
Students engage in crosstalk.
T: That’s really bad. Have you guys felt like that when you play sports at
other schools?
Several students say “Yes.” Amidst the rising volume of crosstalk, one female
student says, “I got called ‘beaner.’” It is not clear as to whether or not Ms.
Mendoza hears her.
WM: I was in Washington at an international tournament with Russia, Puerto
Rico, and countries like that. And it was only us and Puerto Rico who
were dark. And it was out of 32 teams. So we were two out of 32 teams.
T: Two out of 32?
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 268

Another Latino Male Student (LM3) raises his hand. Ms. Mendoza calls on him.
LM3: According to that, everything we have for Jazz, no matter where we go,
there’s White people wherever we go. And we get ignored until we win–
and then they talk to us.
T: And then they talk to us. So before that, they aren’t very friendly or
outgoing?
LM3: Yeah.
T: And then when they see what you can do, they’re more inclined to…okay.
I just want you guys to understand where your author is coming from and
try to connect because it’s easy for us to say, No, I’ve never felt that way.
Or my culture doesn’t have any impact on how I feel about myself or how
I behavior or the way I act. And when we are actually honest and truthful
with ourselves, at some point we actually feel like this at one point or
another.
Both the manner in which students contributed to classroom discourse and the
limited scope of student contributions indicated that the structure of these activities was
compromised by inconsistent norms for student participation. At times, students adhered
to a conversational structure in which they waited to participate until first called upon by
Ms. Mendoza. Such was the case with the LF2 student in the above example, wherein Ms.
Mendoza called on the student after “seeing her hand.” In other instances, as when Ms.
Mendoza asked the LM student, “(LM student’s name), what do you think?” Ms.
Mendoza recruited student contributions irrespective of whether or not they had indicated
their desire to participate was signaled by their raised hands. A third pattern that emerged
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 269

was one in which students called out without first being invited to participate by the
teacher. This pattern was evidenced by the WM’s unsolicited contribution in which he
offered,
I was in Washington at an international tournament with Russia, Puerto Rico, and
countries like that. And it was only us and Puerto Rico who were dark, and it was
out of 32 teams. So we were two out of 32 teams.
Rather than reminding the WM student of group norms, or taking a moment to either
establish or revisit group protocols, Ms. Mendoza responded with, “Two out of 32?”
While Ms. Mendoza’s response to the WM student demonstrated only a superficial
acknowledgement of the student’s contribution (as was the case in other responses noted
earlier), her response also failed to enact greater conversational structure by explicitly
discouraging such behavior. By choosing not to denounce her students’ unsolicited
contributions, or to offer alternatives that might have fostered more equitable and
structured participation, Ms. Mendoza enabled such behavior to repeatedly emerge across
lessons. Moreover, Ms. Mendoza’s permissive approach toward unsolicited student
responses had a clear effect on the overall quality and thoughtfulness of student
contributions. This was evidenced by the LF2 student’s unsolicited outburst of, “Yes–I
know!” that both interrupted the LM student’s response and elicited a surge of student
crosstalk. Finally, the absence of clear and consistent norms of participation was also
evident in the absence of a broader range of student voices during classroom discourse.
This allowed the strongest voices among Ms. Mendoza’s students to dominate classroom
dialogue. It also assured repeated episodes of student crosstalk, which frequently muted
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 270

potentially rich contributions to dialogue, as when a female student’s contribution of, “I
got called beaner” was lost during amidst a burst of other student voices.
While the inconsistency of enacted group norms adversely affected equity by
allowing the strongest student voices to dominate, Ms. Mendoza’s verbal contributions
also impeded equity of student discourse. As noted throughout this chapter, Ms. Mendoza
frequently enacted her own worldview on various issues by constructing meaning and
knowledge for her students during. For example, after paraphrasing the LM2’s
contribution, Ms. Mendoza added,
Okay. I just want you guys to understand where your author is coming from and
try to connect because it’s easy for us to say, No, I’ve never felt that way. Or my
culture doesn’t have any impact on how I feel about myself or how I behave or
the way I act. And when we are actually honest and truthful with ourselves, at
some point we actually feel like this at one point or another.
In imparting this message, Ms. Mendoza constructed meaning by imposing her
worldview. Using language that employed words like “honest” and “truthful” created the
implication that students who did not feel this way were somehow not being truthful with
their own thoughts and feelings. Therefore, these types of contributions impeded equity
by limiting opportunities for students to construct knowledge and meaning on their own
terms. While Ms. Mendoza’s commentaries during classroom discourse suggested that
she had a sincere and personal desire for her students to broaden their perspectives by
making personal connections to the material, her verbal contributions left little room for
students with opposing views or values to participating in classroom discourse.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 271

Demonstrates social and emotional competency. In the conceptual framework,
I adopted Jennings and Greenberg’s (2008) assertion that a teacher’s social and emotional
competency is the catalyst for a) effective classroom management; b) a healthy classroom
climate; and c) positive social, emotional, and academic outcomes among students. I then
asserted that a socially and emotionally competent teacher demonstrates these
competencies by enacting a) social awareness, b) emotional intelligence, and c) self-
awareness. I defined socially aware teachers as those individuals who intentionally
promote cultural competence in his/her students while not blindly endorsing all student-
generated messages; I defined emotionally intelligent teachers as those individuals who
foster teacher-student connections by sharing his/her identity and personal history
through appropriate verbal interactions and by inquiring about students’ lives, curiosities,
and concerns; and I defined self-aware teachers as those individuals who reveal the extent
to which they comprehend the ways in which his/her actions impact his/her students’
behaviors by consistently modeling prosocial behavior and positive values. Additionally,
self-aware teachers foster fidelity to prosocial behavior by co-developing clear and
consistent class rules, expectations, and procedures with their students.
The data described below reveals that Ms. Mendoza often but did not always
demonstrate the social and emotional competencies that are hallmarks of a culturally
aware teacher. Although Ms. Mendoza’s classroom behaviors and interactions
demonstrated each of the elements associated with social and emotional competency, her
fidelity to them was, at times, inconsistent or uneven. Thus, Ms. Mendoza was often, but
not always, successful in meeting the preconditions needed to promote effective
classroom management; a healthy classroom climate; and positive social, emotional, and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 272

academic outcomes for his students in these areas. The following example demonstrates
how Ms. Mendoza often, but did not always, show fidelity to the components of social
awareness, emotional intelligence, and self-awareness that, together, comprise a teacher’s
social and emotional competency. In this example, Ms. Mendoza facilitated a structured
whole-class dialogue around an earlier Quickwrite that asked students to write about the
ways in which both women and men communicate (both verbally and non-verbally) in
their conversations.
LM: When women get mad, they’re kind of like with their friends; they tend to
lean in, all of them, like a pack…
Students laugh.
LM: …to the person they’re talking to. And when a man gets mad, he steps up
by himself so he gets his ass kicked by himself without his friends getting
involved.
LM2: I disagree.
T: (gestures to LM2 student) Okay, you disagree with him. Why?
LM2: (referring to an earlier student’s comment) I feel like guys stick together
the same way women stick together. I don’t like when he said the guy
goes out alone.
T: Okay, (WM student’s name—hand raised) and then (LM3 student’s
name—hand raised): One at a time, go ahead.
WM: I disagree. I mean, if one of my homies was getting in a fight, I’d beat the
shit out of the guy trying to fight him…
LM2: Exactly, exactly.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 273

T: Okay, all right. So, (LM student’s name), you’re saying men are more
inclined to confront somebody one-on-one when girls have the tendency to
do this more in a group?
LM: Yeah.
T: Yes? But the rest of my boys were kind of saying they would disagree: If
there was a fight, that they would combine forces…but we don’t fight here
anyways. (smiling, facetious tone) We’re all happy, we all love each other
as a school.
A Latina Female student laughs at Ms. Mendoza’s commentary.
LM3: The train tracks.
T: The train tracks! I’ve heard about the train tracks, (LM3’s name).
Students break into crosstalk. The volume escalates. Ms. Mendoza “shushes” the
class. She gestures to another Latino Male student (LM5), whose hand is raised.
LM4: About what he was talking about, I feel like it kind of starts off with the
guy going in by himself, and when someone starts losing, the person who
starts losing, their friends jump in to intervene.
Moments later, after the WM student shared an anecdote about how a personality
assessment discussed in his Psychology class consistently rated men as “less
approachable” than women, Ms. Mendoza shared her own anecdote.
T: More approachable? That’s funny, because I sometimes have to give my
husband like a pep talk if we’re going out to dinner or something like that.
Many of the students laugh.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 274

T: Okay! (she claps) So you’re going to talk tonight, and you’re going to be –
I mean he’ll talk to me, but otherwise, he tends to be more stand-offish,
right? And so I’m like, you’re going to be nice tonight, and talk, and be
friendly, and I’m like, Why aren’t you saying anything?
LM5: (laughing) ‘Cause that’s in our nature.
T: And – right – and I completely and totally get that, (LM5’s name). I do.
But it’s just interesting to see the dynamic between the two, right?
The LM student raises his hand, and Ms. Mendoza calls on him.
LM: It’s like, be nice and talk to people. Well, we are being nice. We just don’t
want to talk to people.
Students break into laughter.
The above example demonstrates how Ms. Mendoza was able to demonstrate
some, but not all, of the characteristics associated with social awareness. She did so
primarily by facilitating academic dialogue that allowed her students to examine theirs
and their classmates’ perspectives around a key social topic that is often rife with biases
and assumptions. For example, when the LM student says, “…when a man gets mad, he
steps up by himself without his friends getting involved,” the LM2 student countered
with, “I feel like guys stick together the same way women stick together.” Although the
two students’ views were in opposition, their presence planted the seeds for other
students to subsequently weigh in on both sides of the debate while offering variants on
the original perspectives. During these exchanges, Ms. Mendoza was able to promote
social competency by maintaining a debate structure that promoted civility and
intellectual reasoning. For example, after the LM2 student voiced his opposition to the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 275

LM student’s contribution by saying, “I disagree,” Ms. Mendoza affirmed the LM2
student’s response by saying, “Okay, you disagree with him,” immediately followed by
the prompt of “Why?” This prompt signaled the expectation by the teacher that her
students would need to hold themselves intellectually accountable for their verbalized
opposition to others’ viewpoints by substantiating their own claims with evidence. By
holding students intellectually responsible for their assertions, Ms. Mendoza established a
classroom cultural expectation that prioritized scholarly debate over emotional argument.
This ensured that Ms. Mendoza’s classroom debates were often (though not always)
respectful and that they did not typically lead to student behaviors that inflamed tensions.
Having students routinely operate in this intellectual capacity positioned them to employ
rhetorical assets and academic literacies that are highly valued by academia and that
provide greater access to the “culture of power” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, p. 291,
2005). Although Ms. Mendoza demonstrated success in promoting behaviors that are
valuable in scholarly settings, she also allowed students to occasionally employ
inappropriate or insensitive language that others may have found insulting or offensive.
For example, when the WM student voiced his opposition to the LM student’s
contribution with, “I disagree. I mean, if one of my homies was getting in a fight, I’d beat
the shit out of the guy trying to fight him,” While accepting usage of the term “homies”
in an academic context demonstrated Ms. Mendoza’s willingness to affirm different
models of student communication, she forged ahead with the discussion, rather than
addressing the student’s expletive. Ms. Mendoza’s reluctance to disapprove of the WM
student’s behavior may or may not have been due to her past experiences with what she
perceived as the student’s “combative” personality in her class. She said:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 276

(WM student’s name) will probably not say anything. He has some depression
issues. He’s in the front right here, so he is hit and miss with what you are going
to get from him. He’s the one I made the comment on the report card about, and
he was mad that I said, “Not working up to his full potential.” He has some
background with depression, and I try not to take it personally. He and I have
spoken before about some things that have happened to him, and he has good
days, he has bad days. He can be mean, too. He’s combative and a difficult kid to
work with. Again, I read his college essay, and it was: My mom’s not doing
enough for me; my dad’s not doing enough for me. So again, I try to keep it in
perspective with the individual kid and think it’s maybe not me. It’s hard to do
that sometimes because you want them to be happy coming into your room, and
you want to create a positive classroom environment. You want them to like you.
Ms. Mendoza’s words illustrate her struggle to address the behavioral challenges posed
by some of her most provocative students. While Ms. Mendoza valued “creating a
positive classroom environment,” she also divested herself of the responsibility to foster
greater social awareness in her student by saying, “He has some background with
depression, and I try not to take it personally,” “maybe it’s not me,” and “He can be mean,
too. He’s combative and a difficult kid to work with.” This perspective perhaps
contributed to Ms. Mendoza’s reluctance to address moments during which students
employed inappropriate language. However, Ms. Mendoza did not always manage
oppressive or hostile language in a way that would have better enabled them to critically
examine the “full complexity” and “impact of their words” as possible tools of hegemony
(Paris & Alim, 2014, p. 95). Without explicitly identifying language that was
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 277

inappropriate or insensitive for a public setting, Ms. Mendoza enabled students to
continue expressing themselves in a manner that could hinder their social competency.
Nevertheless, Ms. Mendoza displayed emotional intelligence by fostering
connections that transcended conventional teacher-student differences. She succeeded in
doing so primarily by sharing her own history and identity through personal anecdotes
that were always germane to the academic content being discussed. In the above example,
Ms. Mendoza responded to a student’s contribution that situated women as “more
approachable” with a humorous anecdote that illustrated the student’s point. In doing so,
Ms. Mendoza shared the directives she ostensibly issued to her “stand-offish” husband
prior to their social outings that included, “…be nice tonight and talk and be friendly…”
Ms. Mendoza’s anecdote revealed emotional intelligence because it sought to promote a
common identity of mutual understanding through her verbalization of a universal
challenge among genders. Ms. Mendoza’s success in conveying her challenge was
affirmed by both the LM and LM5 students, who both genially sided with her husband’s
perspective. In addition, Ms. Mendoza demonstrated the converse of this approach by
actively learning about her student interests, curiosities, and concerns. As illustrated in
the example at the beginning of this section, Ms. Mendoza incorporated this knowledge
into her instruction by inviting students to volunteer the ways in which their lived
experiences connected with key concepts put forth by the author of the “Prelude: A
Barbershop” text. For example, by asking, “How does our culture limit us or what
constraints to we feel because of our lack of culture” Ms. Mendoza created a space for
students to volunteer personal and relevant anecdotes, such as the LF3 student’s
contribution of, “…So when we’d go to (volleyball) tournaments, we played against
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 278

White girls… But when we would beat them, they would just like get this look like they
hated us because they just got beat by little Mexican girls.” Although Ms. Mendoza’s
approach to facilitating dialogue demonstrated flaws described earlier, her attempt to
learn about and incorporate her students’ experiences into instructional activities revealed
emotional intelligence. Such an approach, discussed by Milner (2011), signifies a
teacher’s desire to illuminate one’s own understanding of students while concurrently
improving one’s quality of practice by making instructional activities more engaging and
relevant. In describing her approach to engaging students in academic content, Ms.
Mendoza said:
Your audience: you have to know your kids. You really have to know their
personalities, what their interests are. I guess I can’t emphasize that enough. It’s
just really knowing them on an individual basis, too, as opposed to a class. Asking
them to write something about themselves just as an introductory piece, so that
you get some sort of sense of who they are. I think it’s important because when
they feel that you are connected to them or you have a valued interest in them,
they’re going to do whatever you want them to do. They’ll be more engaged
because they’re just going to be happy coming to your class, I think. And that’s
ultimately what’s important.
For Ms. Mendoza, student engagement in academic activities first required making
teacher-student “connection” that involved “knowing them on an individual basis.” Ms.
Mendoza’s behaviors demonstrated that she prioritized these connections primarily
through structured classroom dialogue. She also exhibited some of these behaviors
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 279

through less formal interactions before and after formal class time, which will be further
discussed later in this section.
Similarly, when a focus group composed of 13 of Ms. Mendoza’s fourth period
students discussed how Ms. Mendoza’s success in developing relationships with them
opened the door for more powerful learning experiences. Students strongly and uniformly
agreed that Ms. Mendoza took time to learn and “know the basics” about each of them,
both personally and academically. To this point, a LF student shared an anecdote about
how Ms. Mendoza’s care for her became even more apparent after she had shared some
of her personal challenges while writing her autobiography, which had been assigned
during the previous semester. The student shared that Ms. Mendoza wrote very specific
and meaningful comments on the paper that revealed her teacher’s genuine care and
interest. These types of unsolicited “bridging” (McHugh et al., 2013, p. 20) expressions
of care were hallmarks of Ms. Mendoza’s approach to building connectedness and
relational trust. Moreover, the AAM student in the focus group noted that Ms. Mendoza
used her knowledge of his individual pursuits outside the classroom (especially athletics)
as a way to sometimes frame questions or hypothetical situations in a way that might help
to better contextualize the academic topic or theme being discussed. He also noted that
Ms. Mendoza used this knowledge as a way to “get to know him more” beyond their
teacher-student role. In the eyes of the focus group students, Ms. Mendoza exhibited a
high degree of emotional intelligence. She did so by actively seeking to learn more about
their personal lives and then leveraging this knowledge in meaningful ways during
instructional activities.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 280

Finally, the example above illustrates that Ms. Mendoza often but did not always
enact self-awareness in her classroom. She mainly demonstrated her self-awareness by
modeling prosocial values during classroom discourse. In the example above, Ms.
Mendoza demonstrated her ability to model these values by exhibiting acceptance,
flexibility, care, kindness, and trust. When the WM said, “If one of my homies was
getting in a fight, I’d beat the shit out of the person who was fighting him,” Ms. Mendoza
chose not to verbally admonish the student for his would-be choice to resort to violence,
nor for his use of inappropriate language in conveying his message to the class. Nor did
she question the LM2 student’s subsequent affirmation of his classmate’s behavior with,
“Exactly, exactly.” Instead, Ms. Mendoza demonstrated acceptance (but not approval),
emotional self-regulation, and flexibility in her reaction to the WM student’s potentially
inflammatory language and the LM2 student’s subsequent outburst of approval. Ms.
Mendoza’s choice to follow the LM, WM, and LM2 student’s contributions with verbal
paraphrases of both opposing positions revealed the teacher’s ability and willingness to a)
defuse a potentially incendiary situation by legitimizing (and, thus, accepting) each
position as worthy of debate and b) frame each viewpoint in such a way as to make them
less inflammatory and also more responsive to student discourse. For example, Ms.
Mendoza paraphrased the WM and LM2 student’s aggressive language by stating, “But
the rest of my boys were kind of saying they would disagree. If there was a fight that they
would combine forces…” By using less antagonistic language, and then immediately
following her paraphrase by facetiously stating, “…but we don’t fight here anyways.
We’re all happy; we all love each other as a school,” Ms. Mendoza demonstrated an
awareness and flexibility to soothe potential tensions by employing a diplomatic
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 281

approach to her language and tone. The continued debate, as evidenced by the LM3
student’s contribution of, “I feel like it kind of starts off with the guy going in by himself
and when someone starts losing, the person who starts losing, their friends jump in to
intervene” also demonstrated that Ms. Mendoza’s restatements of the earlier, more
inflammatory student viewpoints were successful in paving the way for additional student
discourse on the same topic. Moreover, Ms. Mendoza’s choice to employ the phrase “my
boys” in her paraphrase modeled the prosocial values of care and kindness. This word
choice connoted that, in addition to assuming the role of classroom teacher, Ms. Mendoza
also embraced her role as caregiver. Finally, Ms. Mendoza modeled trust by willingly
incorporating personal anecdotes into her instruction. The previously noted example
above, in which Ms. Mendoza described her husband’s trepidation in social situations
with, “I mean, he’ll talk to me, but otherwise he tends to be more stand-offish…”
demonstrated how Ms. Mendoza modeled both trust and generosity. By entrusting
students with specific details of her personal life, Ms. Mendoza modeled an integral step
in developing healthy relationships, which calls for parties to reciprocate generosity of
trust by sharing personal details about key aspects of their lives. Ms. Mendoza’s success
at modeling trust by sharing details of her personal life was evidenced by frequent student
contributions that revealed key or poignant aspects of their personal lives. As the example
at the beginning of this section demonstrates, by sharing deeply personal information, the
LF student’s contribution of, “The former school I went to…there was me and there was
two other Mexicans and one Black person in the entire school. I did not fit in,” and the
LF2 student’s contribution of, “…But when we would beat them, they would just like get
this look like they hated us because they just got beat by little Mexican girls” exhibited
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 282

trust in both Ms. Mendoza and their fellow classmates Moreover, the WM student’s
contribution of the inflammatory comment already noted in the example above suggested
that he was willing to trust both Ms. Mendoza and his peers with sentiments that may
have triggered either reprimand or judgment of his character by another teacher. Finally,
as evidenced by the mostly cordial interactions among Ms. Mendoza’s students during
classroom activities, Ms. Mendoza was also successful at modeling respect for her
students’ perspectives. These behaviors were consistent with Matsumura et al’s (2008)
findings that revealed strong positive links between a teacher’s respect and regard for
his/her teachers and the students’ expression of these same types of social behaviors to
fellow classmates. As noted throughout this case study, Ms. Mendoza frequently infused
conversations with her own opinions; however, she was also willing to honor different
viewpoints without criticism or judgment. The following whole-class exchange took
place after Ms. Mendoza’s African American Male (AAM) student offered the perception
that light-skinned Black people were more sensitive than those who were dark-skinned.
T: What exactly is that? Can somebody explain that to me?
A Latino Male (LM) student raises his hand, and Ms. Mendoza calls on him.
LM: It’s because dark skins are, like, more tough…
LF: Yeah…
LM: Light skins are soft…
AAM: I’m not saying that…
LM: That’s the stereotype.
T: That’s the stereotype?
AAM: Yeah.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 283

T: Okay. Interesting. (LM student’s name), is that what you were going to
say?
LF: I don’t know.
T: That if you’re a light-skinned person…
LF: They tend to be more sensitive.
T: They tend to be more sensitive? What do you mean? Emotionally
sensitive?
LF: Yeah.
T: Physically sensitive?
Students begin to engage in boisterous crosstalk.
T: Okay, one at a time, because this is very interesting to me.
Ms. Mendoza’s choice to use language associated with inquiry rather than judgment or
ridicule, such as when she responded to the LF student’s comment of, “They tend to be
more sensitive” with “They tend to be more sensitive?” followed by, “…this is very
interesting to me,” signaled that she was willing to allow for students to articulate, or
experiment with, viewpoints that she may not have personally endorsed or understood.
Moments later, Ms. Mendoza turned to another Latina Female (LF2), whose facial
expression suggested disagreement with the conversation’s previous participants and
inquired about her perspective.
T: (LF2 student’s name), you wanted to say yes? It doesn’t hurt my feelings.
LF2: I didn’t want to say yes. I was just thinking about it.
The LF2 student’s response, in turn, suggested that Ms. Mendoza was successful in
modeling this type of non-judgmental behavior. Rather than verbally dismissing or
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 284

ridiculing her classmates’ biased contributions, the LF2 student’s response instead
indicated that, although she did not necessarily side with her classmates, she was
nonetheless willing to consider their perspectives.
Despite Ms. Mendoza’s successes in demonstrating self-awareness, she
periodically struggled with the critical prosocial behavior of emotional self-regulation
when students exhibited unruly or inappropriate behavior. For example, during one class
time (described earlier in this case study) in which Ms. Mendoza was reading from
directly from a text, she commanded a Latino Male student and an Asian Male student,
who were seated across from each other in the same table group, to “Get out.” The two
students obeyed Ms. Mendoza’s orders and departed the classroom without further
incident. After their departure, Ms. Mendoza did not check outside her classroom, nor did
she inquire as to her students’ whereabouts. The nature of her students’ transgression was,
and remains, unclear. In discussing her behavioral expectations for students, Ms.
Mendoza also described her criteria for removing students from her classroom as a
consequence of their misbehavior. She said:
I want them to have fun, so I’m a little more lenient with behavior in here. I don’t
really assign detentions. On occasion, I will ask the student to leave the classroom
because the idea is, I addressed you already two or three times and you are just
not functioning very well in the classroom environment today. So you need to go
outside. There’s been about two, three boys in particular that I can think of in that
period (Period 4) that have been asked to leave. When they step out, afterwards,
they can come in at the end of the period. We sit down, we talk, we discuss what’s
going on: Why’d you get kicked out? Can we work this out together–tomorrow’s
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 285

a new day. Then, I usually write them a pass back to class. I don’t give them
detentions or anything like that. I think I wrote one referral this year; that was it.
Despite it being an uncommon occurrence, Ms. Mendoza’s response to provocative
student gestures, (as evidenced by her outburst to “Get out” in the earlier example),
coupled with her feeling that students whom she perceived to “just not functioning very
well in the classroom environment,” demonstrated that she was not always able to exhibit
the firm but compassionate self-regulatory gestures that Jennings and Greenberg (2008)
argue are core indicators of self-awareness. Moreover, by not inquiring about her two
removed students, Ms. Mendoza failed exhibit the care that she described as part of her
typical protocol and that is also, according to Jennings and Greenberg, a hallmark of self-
awareness–and thus social and emotional competency (2008).
Enacts care. In the conceptual framework, I assert that a culturally aware teacher
proactively and explicitly enacts care towards his/her students. The culturally aware
teacher demonstrates care by behaving in ways that a) allow the teacher to respond to an
array of student learning and emotional challenges with teacher-initiated bids that are
context-specific, personalized, and purposeful (McHugh et al., 2013), b) cultivate
relational trust, c) proactively and explicitly create situations in which he/she is
emotionally and intellectually available to his students, and d) consistently and explicitly
demonstrate care for his/her students that exist in concert with his/her concern for student
academic performance outcomes. Observations of class time revealed that Ms. Mendoza
demonstrated each of these elements of teacher care. In addition, findings from both
teacher interviews and student focus groups revealed positive perceptions of teacher care
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 286

that were consistent with those enacted during classroom tasks and activities. The data
described in the examples below illustrates these findings.
The following example illustrates how Ms. Mendoza was able to cultivate care by
enacting the key elements of care briefly noted in the previous paragraph. It exemplifies
how Ms. Mendoza made herself physically and emotionally available to students prior to
the opening moments of class time. It illustrates how one of these moments materialized
as students filed into class prior to the official start of the period:
Ms. Mendoza sorts through papers at her desk while monitoring the influx of
students entering her classroom.
As two Latino Male (LM1, LM2) students enter, Ms. Mendoza says, “Hi, guys.”
A Latina Female (LF) enters and approaches Ms. Mendoza.
LF: Good morning, Ms. Mendoza.
T: Good morning, (LF student’s name). How are you?
LF: Good. How are you?
T: I’m good. What are we so excited and happy about?
LF: I don’t know.
T: Just life, in general? Yes?
Two more Latina (LF2, LF3) students enter and sit in their assigned seats.
LF2: Hi, Ms. Mendoza.
T: (to LF2 student) Hi, sweetheart. (to LF3 student) Have you heard back
from anyone else yet?
LF3: (smiling) Not yet.
A Latino Male (LM3) student enters and sits in his assigned seat.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 287

T: Hi, (LM3 student’s name). How are you?
LM3: (downcast tone) I’m okay now.
T: What happened yesterday? What was goin’ on?
LM3: Yesterday? Oh, when I fell asleep?
T: Yeah. You just seemed a little…
LM3: I don’t know. Just like family problems and stuff.
T: Are you okay?
The LM3 student stands and voluntarily approaches Ms. Mendoza.
LM3: Nah, it’s kind of like…not for me. It’s my mom.
T: Is she okay?
LM3: No. They say that she may have incurable cancer.
T: (incredulous) What?
LM3: She already survived two types of cancer already, so I’m not really, like,
worried too much I guess.
T: Is she all right?
LM3: I think so.
T: Can they do some tests or what?
LM3: Yeah. They sent her home, but they’re going to see what the X-Rays say.
Not the X-Rays…
T: The MRI?
LM3: Yeah, the CAT-scan and all that stuff. I’m just hoping it’s not too bad.
T: I hope it’s not anything bad, too. Will you let me know?
LM3: Yeah.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 288

T: When did she find out?
LM3: Last week. She said she was having pains in this area of her lower back.
So they’re saying it could’ve been something else.
T: Will they find out on Monday or Tuesday?
LM3: Sometime next week. Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday.
T: Okay. Let me know, all right?
LM3: Okay.
Although the above example demonstrates how Ms. Mendoza enacted many of
the behaviors associated with care, chief among them was her ability and willingness to
respond to an array of student emotional challenges with teacher-initiated bids that were
context-specific, personalized, and purposeful. First, it demonstrates the intentionality
with which Ms. Mendoza enacted personalized bids toward students as they entered her
room each day. For example, after greeting the LF student as she entered, Ms. Mendoza’s
immediate follow-up question of, “What are we so excited and happy about?” indicated
that Ms. Mendoza was assessing her students’ emotional states as they entered her
classroom and tailoring her interactions to match what she perceived to be their
respective states of mind. The more fleeting and convivial greetings that Ms. Mendoza
initiated with the LF student and the two Latino boys, whom she greeted with, “Hi, guys!”
contrasted Ms. Mendoza’s interaction with the LM2 student, as she immediately followed
her greeting bid with, “What happened yesterday? What was goin’ on?” By tailoring
these overtures to the physical or emotional states of her students, Ms. Mendoza
demonstrated that she was making efforts to learn more about them as individuals. In
addition, Ms. Mendoza’s overtures signaled that she was willing to make herself socially
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 289

and emotionally available for them. Consistent with Milner’s (2011) conception of care,
these types of interactions are emblematic of a caring teacher. That is, they demonstrate a
flexibility that enables teachers to operate beyond more traditional teacher-student
paradigms and satisfy a need that many disenfranchised students have for their teachers
to assume roles as surrogate caregivers (Milner, 2011).
The example also shows how Ms. Mendoza’s caring bids often existed in concert
with her interest or concern for their academic performance. By inquiring to the LF3
student as to whether she had “heard back from anyone else yet,” Ms. Mendoza
expressed interest in the student’s academic fortunes beyond her classroom; thus, her bid
to learn whether the student had been contacted by a college or university demonstrated
care for the student’s academic and personal well-being. In addition, Ms. Mendoza’s
verbal bid toward the LM2 student of, “What happened yesterday? What was goin’ on,
followed by, “Yeah, you seemed a little…” in reference to the student’s having fallen
asleep during class time the previous day, indicated a concern for the student’s personal
well-being that existed in concert with her concern for his academic success.
The above example also demonstrates Ms. Mendoza’s success in cultivating
relational trust with many of her students. While Ms. Mendoza’s intentional bids toward
the LM2 student of, “What happened yesterday? What was goin’ on,” followed by,
“Yeah, you seemed a little…” indicated a concern for the student’s well-being, and an
attempt to learn more about the student’s challenges, the student’s willingness to leave
his seat and approach Ms. Mendoza signaled both his trust in and his desire to engage in
deeper dialogue with his teacher. Moreover, the LM2 student’ increasingly personal
responses during the exchange, such as, “She already survived two types of cancer
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 290

already…” revealed a level of honesty that suggested an already significant level of
relational trust and that also enabled Ms. Mendoza to develop a more comprehensive
understanding of the student’s struggles as their conversation continued to unfold.
Lastly, Ms. Mendoza’s desire to continue the dialogue with the LM3 student long
after she had ascertained the cause of the student’s unusual behavior demonstrated her
willingness to assume the role of caregiver for however long the student might require
her to do so. This approach revealed that Ms. Mendoza proactively and explicitly created
situations in which she was emotionally and intellectually available to her students. It
also revealed how Ms. Mendoza’s choice to operate as a surrogate parent existed in
contrast to the “dual relationship” (Davis, 2012, p. 212) that some teachers assume when
their attention to student challenges comes primarily as a result of attending to one’s own
personal objectives. Ms. Mendoza’s efforts to both cultivate trust and proactively and
explicitly making herself emotionally and intellectually available to her students was
largely affirmed by student responses during the 13-student focus group. For example,
students uniformly agreed that they felt comfortable sharing personal aspects of their
lives with Ms. Mendoza and that her care came irrespective of a student’s academic
performance. To this point, the WM student in the group conceded that, although he and
Ms. Mendoza had frequently “butted heads” during class time, he never felt as though
these conflicts impinged upon her overall level of care for him, which he perceived to be
both high and genuine. Moreover, when a LF student (LF) described Ms. Mendoza as
someone who “reminds me of Mom,” most of the other students strongly agreed with her
characterization. She added that these feelings arose from the way in which Ms. Mendoza
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 291

willingly offered her care and support while still maintaining a distance that ensured clear
teacher-student roles remained intact.
Thus, a significant segment of Ms. Mendoza’s fourth period students viewed their
teacher as a trustworthy, responsible, and proactive caregiver. Forming consensus around
the LF student’s statement of, “she reminds me of Mom” demonstrated that, from the
students’ perspective, Ms. Mendoza exhibited qualities that they associated with a caring
and competent parental figure. These views were consistent with many of the observed
acts and interactions that Ms. Mendoza initiated with numerous students over the course
of six observed lessons. Their responses also confirmed the high levels of trust,
connectedness, and emotional availability that are hallmarks of culturally aware teachers
who practice cultural competence by building “cultural congruence” (Milner, 2011, p. 67)
with diverse learners. In addition, the LF student’s view that Ms. Mendoza was able to
maintain a balance between her roles as both educator and caregiver suggested that Ms.
Mendoza was able to alternate among various roles while simultaneously maintaining a
classroom learning environment that preserved her status as leader. Finally, the WM
student’s perception of Ms. Mendoza as a caring adult who was, nevertheless, willing to
“butt heads” with occasionally disagreeable students was consistent with classroom
observations that revealed Ms. Mendoza engaging in momentary confrontations with
students with whom she normally, and subsequently, demonstrated positive rapport. That
Ms. Mendoza’s care for students did not appear to be affected by confrontations with
them suggests that the care that she demonstrated was sincere and authentic.
Students’ Contribution to Affective Learning Environment
To determine whether Ms. Mendoza’s students contributed to a positive affective
learning environment, I examined the extent to which they engaged in thoughtful and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 292

respectful discourse during designated classroom discussions. Observations of class time
revealed that Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated the positive social and emotional
behaviors during class discussions that enabled them to consistently engage in the
confluence of behaviors necessary for thoughtful and respectful discourse.
In order to demonstrate that Ms. Mendoza’s students consistently demonstrated
the behaviors necessary for thoughtful and respectful discourse, I first revisit the way the
concept of “engages in thoughtful and respectful discourse” is described in the conceptual
framework. Then I turn my attention to the evidence and explore the ways in which these
elements were or were not present in students’ behaviors during instructional time.
In the conceptual framework, I asserted that a positive affective learning
environment results, at least in part, from the extent to which students engage in
thoughtful and respectful discourse with both their classmates and their teacher. I refer to
the types of students who are able to consistently engage in thoughtful and respectful
discourse as socially and emotionally competent students because their contributions are
respectful, scholarly, and relevant to the task’s focus. Thus, socially and emotionally
competent students demonstrate thoughtful and respectful discourse through oral
contributions to classroom discourse that a) maintain respectful and equitable oral
exchanges with both the teacher and their peers, b) employ active listening to make
explicit connections between their contributions and those of their peers while also
providing evidence to support their claims, and c) are relevant to the task’s or
discussion’s topic, concept, or focus.
As I demonstrate below, Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated the characteristics
necessary to maintain equitable and respectful oral exchanges with both their teacher and
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 293

their peers during active participation in classroom discourse. In addition, during the
discussion, Ms. Mendoza’s students consistently employed active listening to make
explicit connections between their contributions and those of their peers while also
providing evidence to support their claims. And finally, students who participated in
classroom discourse made oral contributions that were relevant to the topic, concept, or
task being discussed or debated. With consideration of these items as individual
components, and also as a collective unit, I determined that Ms. Mendoza’s students
demonstrated the ability to engage in thoughtful and respectful oral discourse.
As discussed above, Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated the characteristics
necessary to maintain respectful and equitable oral exchanges with both their teacher and
their peers. The example below illustrates this. In this example, Ms. Mendoza facilitated
a discussion around an earlier Quickwrite that had instructed students to respond to how
they perceived American women and American men to speak by also considering
“volume and pitch of voice, choice of words, body posture (open or closed), proximity or
closeness to other speakers, gaze/eye contact, and use of hand gestures.
LF: With guys, when you approach them, they’re more, like, open to talk to
you and make more eye contact; with women, when you make eye contact,
they kind of, like, look away. Or when you approach them, they back off–
like, Why are you talking to me? It’s kind of weird.
Ms. Mendoza calls on a White Male (WM) student, whose hand is raised.
WM: I think that’s kind of a non-gender thing because, I mean, if the other
person’s attractive, you’re going to be a little more evasive with our eye
contact versus the same thing with authority–you want to look them so
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 294

that you’re not seen as downward and so that you’re not losing your status.
So I don’t think that’s a gender thing.
T: Okay. I think you both had very valid points. Does anyone else want to
weigh in on that eye contact thing, because I think (LF student’s name)
really touches on something. And again, I’m female. But I would probably
tend to agree with you a little bit more that we tend to look away. Because
when you make eye contact with someone and you hold that stare, it can
be seen as a sign of what?
WM: Affection.
T: Well, affection or flirtation. But also…
LF2: A challenge.
T: A challenge. Like a sign of aggression, right?
Ms. Mendoza calls on the LF2 student, who has her hand raised.
LF2: I know a lot of people who are afraid of eye contact because they feel that
somebody’s threatening them or something. But also, for some people,
that’s just how they talk. They use eye contact to see if a person’s
interested.
T: Okay, (calls on LM1, whose hand is raised) and then (WM2 student’s
name).
LM2: That’s why I didn’t really like this Quickwrite–like, no offense.
T: I take no offense. I’m just trying to get you to think about something.
LM2: I kind of don’t like how you asked us, because I feel like it doesn’t depend
on if it’s a guy or girl. It depends on how shy the guy is compared to how
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 295

shy a girl can be. Can there be girls that are shy and guys that are shy and
girls who are outgoing and guys who are really outgoing? I feel that it’s
everywhere; it’s not just gender-based. I do agree that, like, men can be
more like what everyone is talking about, but I feel like it depends on the
person–not the gender.
T: I think it’s a very valid point, absolutely. And I don’t take any offense to
my Quickwrite at all. (WM2 student’s name)?
WM2: I agree with him. It’s not really about gender. It’s more about the
personality of the person. But gender can play a part in building that
personality. Boys usually hang out with boys, girls usually hang out with
girls. And if all the boys are like this personality, then the boy hanging out
with them will probably develop that personality. Gender might play a part,
but I don’t think it’s the main thing–it’s personality.
As the example above demonstrates, Ms. Mendoza’s students exhibited the
behaviors necessary to maintain respectful and equitable oral exchanges with both their
teacher and their peers. For example, in voicing his criticism to Ms. Mendoza of the
Quickwrite prompt that served as the launching point for the conversation, the LM2
student said, “That’s why I didn’t really like this Quickwrite–like, no offense” before he
elaborated on his statement. Adding the phrase, “no offense” to his critique enabled the
LM2 student to maintain his position of autonomous disagreement while showing respect
to his teacher by making a purposeful attempt to soften his language. Moreover, the LM2
student’s subsequent contribution of,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 296

I kind of don’t like how you asked us, because I feel like it doesn’t depend on if
it’s a guy or girl. It depends on how shy the guy is compared to how shy a girl can
be…it’s not just gender-based
presented a detailed and coherent explanation that logically supported his earlier criticism.
The content of the LM2 student’s elaboration on his claim provided further evidence that
his disagreement was intellectual rather than a personal attack directed at the teacher, and
further demonstrated the student’s social and emotional competency to engage in a
disagreement while maintaining a scholarly message and a professional tone. Similarly to
the LM2 student, the WM2 student’s subsequent contribution of, “I agree with him. It’s
not really about gender. But gender can play a part in building that personality. Boys
usually hang out with boys, girls usually hang out with girls” demonstrated thoughtful
and respectful discourse by maintaining respectful and equitable oral language exchanges.
By prefacing his commentary with, “I agree with him,” the WM2 student verbally
validated the LM2 student’s previous contribution and thereby honored his classmate’s
standing as an equal partner in the conversation.
In addition to demonstrating the ability to cultivate and maintain respectful and
equitable oral language exchanges, Ms. Mendoza’s students also exhibited thoughtful and
respectful discourse by employing active listening to make explicit connections between
their contributions and those of their peers while also providing evidence to support their
claims. Through his oral contribution to the conversation, the WM2 student was also able
to demonstrate thoughtful and respectful discourse by employing active listening to make
explicit connections between his contribution and those of his peers. By stating, “But
gender can play a part in building that personality. Boys usually hang out with boys, girls
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 297

usually hang out with girls,” the WM2 student made a purposeful connection between his
LM2 classmate’s earlier contribution of, “I feel like it depends on the person–not the
gender.” His statement extended both students’ line of thinking by suggesting the
additional possibility that gender-specific play can influence and reinforce children’s
behaviors that are then interpreted as gender-specific behaviors. Earlier in the
conversation, the WM student also demonstrated traits of thoughtful and respectful
discourse by employing active listening to make explicit connections between his
contributions and those of his peers while providing evidence to support his claims. For
example, the WM’s response to his LF classmate’s earlier statement, which posited
approaches to eye contact as gender-dependent, demonstrated the WM student’s ability to
both listen actively to his classmate and make explicit connections that bridged her
contribution with his subsequent assertion. His statement of, “I think that’s kind of a non-
gender thing…if the other person’s attractive, you’re going to be a little more evasive
with your eye contact…” demonstrated refined listening skills because it included a direct
reference to the LF student’s earlier statement of,
With guys, when you approach them, they’re more, like, open to talk to you and
make more eye contact; with women, when you make eye contact, they kind of
like look away. Or when you approach them, they back off…
The WM’s response also demonstrated his ability to make connections by using his LF
classmate’s contribution noted above as the launching point for his counterargument in
which he situated eye contact as a matter of “status” rather than “a gender thing.” In
addition, with his final sentence, the WM student provided an explicit conduit by which
other participants could make connections by summarizing his main argument with, “So I
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 298

don’t think it’s a gender thing.” Finally, in supporting his initial claim of “I think that’s
kind of a non-gender thing,” with “I mean, if the other person’s attractive, you’re going to
be a little more evasive with your eye contact versus the same thing with authority–you
want to look at them so that you’re not seen as downward and so that you’re not losing
your status” the WM student was able to advance his assertion with evidence
During the 13-student focus group, students unanimously agreed that Ms.
Mendoza played a significant role in their development as more proficient speakers and
listeners. Students strongly agreed that Ms. Mendoza was particularly successful in
teaching them how to “effectively argue” by cultivating skills that better enabled them to
“actively listen” and “acknowledge counterpoints.” Students also strongly and uniformly
emphasized that Ms. Mendoza consistently pressed them to support their assertions with
“evidence-based claims” drawn “from text and life experiences.” Consistent with
Matsumura et al.’s (2008) findings that draw significant links between a teacher’s
pressing for evidence during discourse and his/her students’ a) frequency with which they
link their contributions to others, b) frequency with which they provide evidence, and c)
frequency with which they participate in discourse, Ms. Mendoza’s students attributed
much of their positive development as thoughtful and respectful communicators to their
teacher’s efforts to cultivate active listening skills and to hold them accountable for
supporting their arguments with evidence. These perceptions were mostly consistent with
observations made across lessons. Students showed clear evidence of active listening
skills that including citing students’ earlier contributions, verbally “acknowledging
counterpoints,” and making both implicit and explicit connections between and among
students’ contributions. However, in spite of the students’ collective assertion that Ms.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 299

Mendoza pressed them to support their arguments with “evidence-based claims” drawn
“from text and life experiences,” classroom observations revealed that students mostly
supported their claims during dialogue with anecdotal evidence rather than evidence
grounded in text or research. Having been pressed more frequently to support their claims
with text- or research-driven evidence likely would have elevated the overall intellectual
rigor of classroom discourse.
Finally, the example above demonstrates that Ms. Mendoza’s students’
contributions were directly relevant to the discussion’s concepts and focus. Such socially
and emotionally competent behavior is critical to successful classroom discourse because
it enables students to engage in increasingly rigorous interactions through expanded
opportunities to share and construct knowledge around similar concepts and ideas. For
example, in responding to Ms. Mendoza’s suggestion that eye contact could be perceived
as “a sign of aggression,” the LF2 student’s statement of, “I know a lot of people who are
afraid of eye contact because they feel that somebody’s threatening them or something.
But also, for some people, that’s just how they talk. They use eye contact to see if a
person’s interested” moved the conversation forward in a meaningful way, because it
maintained focus on the concept of eye contact during communication while linking it to
the WM student’s broader assertion that styles of communication are not necessarily
gender-specific.
Conclusion
Ms. Mendoza and her students were often successful in cultivating many of the
affective elements that foster positive learning environments. Ms. Mendoza developed
caring relationships with her students by making herself physically and emotionally
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 300

available for counseling before and after class time, and by frequently initiating verbal
contact with her students through intentional verbal bids that were tailored to the
student’s physical or emotional state. These caring, trustful relationships were repeatedly
demonstrated by Ms. Mendoza and confirmed by her students during focus group
dialogue. Ms. Mendoza also demonstrated key social and emotional competencies during
class discussions by holding students intellectually responsible for their assertions, which,
in turn, established a classroom culture that prioritized scholarly, civil debate over
emotional argument. Ms. Mendoza succeeded in facilitating academic conversations
around topics that were socially relevant to her students and that enabled them to
participate in dialogue that overlapped with their lived realities. Her students’ consistent
expressions of flexibility, kindness, and trust suggested that Ms. Mendoza’s prosocial
modeling of these behaviors, in turn, had a positive effect on her students’ classroom
behaviors. In addition to taking up their teacher’s modeling of prosocial behaviors, Ms.
Mendoza’s students demonstrated social and emotional competencies during oral
language exchanges with both their teacher and their peers. Most apparent among these
traits was the consistency with which students enacted active listening competencies that
enabled students to engage more meaningfully in oral language exchanges. While Ms.
Mendoza was successful in cultivating social and emotional competencies among her
students during open dialogue, these same discussions were often hampered by
unproductive student behaviors that stemmed from unclear norms of student participation.
Although students exhibited good will and respect toward one another, the absence of
clear and coherent norms often led to oral language exchanges in which students spoke
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 301

out of turn, used potentially inflammatory or insensitive language, and dominated the
conversation for disproportionate stretches of class time.
Despite the successful efforts by Ms. Mendoza and her students to cultivate a
positive affective learning environment, Ms. Mendoza did not always foster the
meaningful learning experiences necessary for her students to function as intellectually
active learners. In many cases, Ms. Mendoza was unable to promote meaningful learning
due to pedagogical choices that led to her constructing much of the knowledge and
meaning for her students during classroom tasks and activities. Moreover, when tasks and
activities turned to matters of race, culture, gender, and power, Ms. Mendoza’s teacher-
centered approach failed to allow for students to engage in the depth of inquiry and
exploration necessary to achieve a clearer understanding of the complexities that emerge
within and between cultures. Ms. Mendoza’s choice to impart her knowledge and
understanding of concepts and ideas, rather than presenting students with more
opportunities to do so, placed limitations on the depth and breadth of student
contributions, as well as the opportunities for them to leverage theirs and their peers’
knowledge, skills, and experiences to construct new meaning. Although the opportunities
for students to more autonomously construct meaning and knowledge was, at times,
limited by Ms. Mendoza’s facilitator moves, students showed evidence of the
metacognitive acuity that is a cornerstone of intellectually active learners. In doing so,
they exhibited an assortment of self-reflective behaviors that included leveraging prior
knowledge to build new understandings, making connections between the ideas of theirs
and their classmates, and projecting possibilities based on given information. Finally,
students demonstrated limitations of the social competency that would have enabled them
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 302

to better understanding the critical social and institutional dynamics that influence power,
race, gender, and culture. Part of this limited awareness was due to a lack of discussion
around the dominant culture and its effect on the lives of historically marginalized
individuals. Despite these limitations by some students, other students demonstrated the
awareness to identify current human conditions that are fomented by social injustice and
then to act in a purposeful way. They did so by collaborating on a group research
assignment, developed by Ms. Mendoza, which called for students to develop an action
plan to counteract various social injustices through a PSA multimedia campaign.
Ms. Mendoza and her students were able to collaboratively cultivate a positive
and caring affective classroom environment through behaviors that exhibited positive
prosocial values, teacher-student connectedness, and reciprocal trust. However
consequential these elements are in establishing the preconditions for meaningful
learning, they were not adequate in this case to significantly increase the students’
capacity to function as intellectually active learners and as members of the classroom
community who collaborate with the teacher to create powerful learning environments.
Despite these findings, Ms. Mendoza and her students were still able to cultivate some
critical elements of meaningful learning that are indicative of culturally aware teachers
and intellectually active learners and that signal the potential for them to eventually
operate closer to this capacity.
Cross Case Analysis
As this study proposes that powerful learning environments are present when both
the teacher and his/her students are actively cultivating both a positive affective
environment and a meaningful learning environment, this section examines the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 303

intersections of a teacher’s contribution to meaningful learning, a teacher’s contribution
to his/her affective learning environment, the students’ contribution to meaningful
learning, and the students’ contribution to their affective learning environment.
In a cross-case analysis, the following patterns emerged as the most salient
intersections in Ms. Mendoza’s and Mr. Rios’s efforts to cultivate meaningful learning
and positive affect as culturally aware teachers and their students’ efforts to contribute as
both intellectually active learners and socially and emotionally competent students to
these classroom environments:
• Pedagogy that scaffolds rigor
• Culturally sustaining tasks
• Learns actively
• Enacts care
• Thoughtful and respectful oral discourse
Pedagogy that scaffolds rigor. Drawing from the work of Anthony (1996), Paige
et al. (2013), and Preus (2012), this study posits that are three components of pedagogy
that scaffolds rigor. They are that the teacher a) enacts instructional approaches needed
for students to master foundational knowledge and skills, b) incrementally elevates the
cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity, and c) frequently facilitates activities that
elicit the cognitive lift necessary for students to engage in deep inquiry, critical analysis,
and sophisticated problem solving. The data from the observations, teacher interviews,
and student focus groups revealed that both teachers had difficulty with facilitating the
tasks and activities necessary to gradually elevate levels of cognitive intensity that would
enable their students to fully engage in meaningful learning as intellectually active
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 304

learners. Mr. Rios created classroom environments that did not promote meaningful
learning but that instead led to low-level cognitive engagement on the part of his students.
Classroom tasks and activities were teacher-driven, overly-simple and devoid of
intellectual rigor. Although Mr. Rios demonstrated positive rapport with many of his
students in actively engaging with them in a host of loosely-structured and informal
classroom conversations, these activities did not challenge students to think deeply or to
actively develop multiple literacies through structured dialogue, complex writing tasks, or
solutions-based activities. While Ms. Mendoza demonstrated a significantly higher level
of intentionality in purposely developing structured, coherent tasks, activities, and lessons
aligned with a concurrent unit of instruction that also aimed to develop a range literacies,
she was unable to foster meaningful learning due to pedagogical choices that led to her
constructing much of the knowledge and meaning for her students during classroom tasks
and activities, rather than enabling them to leverage their own knowledge, skills, or
experiences in doing so.
The data from Mr. Rios’s class revealed that he did not provide students with the
range of learning experiences necessary to promote the positive intellectual growth of his
students. He did not explicitly provide students with instructional time to master
foundational knowledge and skills, and there was little evidence that he incrementally
elevated the cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity within or across an
instructional activity. Although Mr. Mendoza denounced the use of textbooks as a
primary vehicle of information, many of the instructional materials that he dispensed to
students during instructional time mirrored the low-levels of rigor that he had
problematized about textbooks. Moreover, he rarely facilitated activities that asked the
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 305

students to carry the cognitive responsibility by engaging in deep inquiry, critical analysis,
or sophisticated problem solving. Instead, Mr. Rios assumed much of the cognitive effort
rather than providing his students with the opportunities to build their own intellectual
capacities. He did so by answering questions for students, providing his own commentary
on instructional content, or asking low-level questions that did not require students to
incorporate problem-solving or critical analysis. Finally, although Mr. Rios did attempt to
incorporate elements of his students’ cultures, personal realities, and worldviews into
some tasks and activities, many of these attempts were inconsequential because they did
not also accompany tasks and activities that were intellectually rigorous.
While Ms. Mendoza enacted pedagogy that included tasks, activities, and lessons
that were structured and purposefully aligned with core aspects of the concurrent unit of
instruction, her approach to enacting these elements impeded meaningful learning
outcomes for her students. Ms. Mendoza set aside some class time for students to focus
on their development of foundational knowledge and skills in core literacies of reading,
writing, speaking, and listening; however, her instructional approaches were lacking in
the pedagogical elements necessary to cultivate student proficiency in these basic but
elemental skills that would be needed for success during more complex tasks. There was
some evidence that Ms. Mendoza elevated cognitive rigor by increasing task complexity
within or across instructional activities; however, these activities did not ask students to
carry the bulk of the cognitive responsibility by engaging in deep inquiry, critical analysis,
or sophisticated problem solving. Instead, these tasks and activities often led to Ms.
Mendoza creating meaning for her students by answering questions and presenting her
own perspective on topics and concepts of discussion. Although she provided students
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 306

with frequent opportunities to interact in small- and whole-group dialogue over academic
content, many of these activities tended toward a teacher-centered approach in which Ms.
Mendoza drove inquiry by asking leading questions and constructing knowledge for
students. Finally, although students were assigned tasks and activities that employed
culturally sustaining materials, and that also involved a range of literacies, Ms. Mendoza
constructed much of the knowledge for her students, rather than enabling them to
leverage their own knowledge, skills, or experiences in doing so.
Culturally sustaining tasks. Using Ladson-Billings’s (2006) characterization of
some urban classrooms as “oppressive atmospheres of standardized tests” (p. 34) as the
antithesis, while also drawing from the work of Paris and Alim’s (2014) concept of
culturally sustaining pedagogy, this study posits a teacher who practices culturally
sustaining pedagogy as one who designs and enacts lessons that use tasks that reflect the
complex, fluid, and ever-evolving nature of students’ cultural, ethnic, generational, and
gender identities. In addition, these teachers leverage students’ traditional undervalued
funds of knowledge by first identifying and then fully integrating traditionally
undervalued or obscured student assets into classroom activities. Guided by these
characteristics, the data collected from observations, interviews, and student focus groups
revealed that neither teacher was fully able to enact culturally sustaining pedagogy. On
the occasions when Mr. Rios did attempt to incorporate elements of cultural relevance
into his lessons, the culturally sustaining aspects of the tasks and activities were
superficial and fleeting. The casual way with which he approached matters of gender,
sexuality, and race may have additionally been perceived by some students as insensitive
or inappropriate. Moreover, Mr. Rios’s propensity for enacting teacher-centered
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 307

pedagogy meant that students were not provided with ample opportunities to explore
aspects related to culture, power, and equity in meaningful ways.
Although Ms. Mendoza more explicitly incorporated culturally relevant
instructional materials and tasks that were connected to her students’ lived realities, her
similarly teacher-centered approach failed to allow for students to engage in the inquiry
and exploration necessary to gain a clearer understanding of the complexities that emerge
within and between cultures. Neither teacher facilitated tasks or activities that allowed
students to explore the complex dynamics between various cultures and the dominant
“culture of power” (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2005, p. 291). Finally, while Ms.
Mendoza incorporated new media as a catalyst and vehicle for students’ critical analysis,
neither teacher explicitly and consistently facilitated tasks or activities that called upon
students’ traditionally undervalued funds of knowledge to complete these tasks.
Learns actively. The work of Anthony (1996), Paige et al. (2013) and Preus
(2012), situates meaningful learning as an intellectually active process by which students
assume the roles of both active participants and knowledge constructors when attending
the classes of culturally aware teachers. In defining a student who learns actively, this
study draws from these perspectives while positing that “intellectually active learners”
are also culturally aware students who demonstrate an understanding of how past events,
laws, and beliefs have impacted social views, economic conditions, and electoral trends;
additionally, they demonstrate an understanding of how these dynamics individually and
collectively effect historically marginalized populations (Ladson-Billings, 2006b). The
data from observations, interviews, and student focus groups revealed that, while Ms.
Mendoza’s students demonstrated hallmark behaviors of metacognitive acuity, some of
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 308

her students struggled with the aspects of intellectually active learning that call for
systematic inquiry and social consciousness. And although a small segment of Mr. Rios’s
students engaged in the beginning stages of “knowledge work” (Paige et al., 2013, p.
107) processes, by which students ask open ended questions to acquire deeper
understanding of concepts or topics, most of his students did not enact the self-directed
behaviors that are necessary for students to actively forge a deeper understanding of
complex topics.
During lessons that involved complex historical concepts, Mr. Rios’s students did
not explicitly employ metacognitive acuity, or “resource management,” (Anthony, 1996,
p. 360) that would have revealed that they were able to self-manage their intellectual
assets in clearer and deeper. In addition, while some of Mr. Rios’s students did
occasionally ask open-ended questions to pose “what if” scenarios, they did not employ
their questioning in a systematic way that might have led to new approaches to or deeper
understandings of topics of discussion. In this vein, Mr. Rios’s students did not use
higher-order questions to push classroom dialogue, challenge conventional wisdom, or
expand creative possibilities. Finally, Mr. Rios’s students did not demonstrate the core
attributes of social consciousness when discussions turned to matters of culture, race,
power, or justice. Through verbal discourse, a small segment of individuals demonstrated
a fundamental grasp of the types of conditions that have trigger prejudice and bigotry;
however, the vast majority of Mr. Rios’s students did not demonstrate an awareness of
how these feelings have emerged in the past and how they persist today. Nor did any
students engage in solutions-based work that would attempt to raise critical social issues
or stem the proliferation of social inequity. Finally, classroom observations revealed that
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 309

Mr. Rios’s unstructured and teacher-centered approach to facilitating dialogue and
managing classroom activities presented a sizable barrier to students having opportunities
to demonstrate traits of more intellectually active learners. Mr. Rios’s casual approach to
classroom dialogue did not provide the norms or protocols to allow for the contributions
of a broader range of student voices. Moreover, Mr. Rios’s propensity to construct
meaning through his own opinions and commentary precluded students from constructing
their own understandings of important social and historical concepts. Finally, most of the
tasks that Mr. Rios presented to his students did not require the academic rigor that would
have required students to develop or engage in more sophisticated cognitive processes.
Ms. Mendoza’s students demonstrated metacognitive acuity, primarily during
classroom dialogue. In many cases, students demonstrated self-reflective behaviors that
enabled them to make connections between the text and real life circumstances. They also
demonstrated proficiency in knowledge and meaning construction by building upon the
contributions of classmates or presenting new possibilities for consideration. Students
were less adept at exploring topics via systematic inquiry. Although students periodically
contributed isolated open-ended questions to probe an aspect of a given topic or concept,
they did not employ deeper levels of questioning to arrive discern new meanings or
possibilities, or to unveil previously hidden complexities. This was in part due to Ms.
Mendoza’s teacher-centered facilitation approach, which transferred the responsibility of
inquiry from student to teacher and which often removed the intellectually active
responsibility of asking higher order questions from the student’s purview. Finally, Ms.
Mendoza’s students demonstrated various and uneven levels of social consciousness.
Some students did not demonstrate a clear understanding of how socially unjust or
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 310

oppressive practices reproduce over time. Others were able to show their understanding
of both the causes and consequences of historical injustices by applying some of these
understandings to tasks that required a solution to persistent social problems.
Enacts care. Guided by the work of Davis (2006), McHugh et al. (2013), Milner
(2011), and Milner and Tenore (2010), this study posits that a caring teacher a) responds
to an array of student learning and emotional challenges with teacher-initiated bids that
are context-specific, personalized, and purposeful, b) cultivates relational trust, c)
proactively and explicitly creates situations in which he/she is emotionally and
intellectually available to his students, and d) consistently and explicitly demonstrates
care for his/her students that exist in concert with his/her concern for student academic
performance outcomes. While each teacher’s commitment to care was strongly validated
by their respective students during separate focus group interviews, the data from the
observations and teacher interviews revealed that Ms. Mendoza enacted the core elements
of care listed above to a higher degree of fidelity and frequency.
Both teachers demonstrated the flexibility, will, and discretion that allowed each
of them to operate successfully beyond more traditional teacher-student relational
paradigms. Mr. Rios frequently demonstrated the will and ability respond to a host of
student learning and emotional challenges with teacher-initiated bids that were context-
specific, personalized, and purposeful. In doing so, he tailored his demeanor to the
personality or emotional state of each student’s case and made his made his overtures
congenial but non-intrusive. Mr. Rios’s care was frequently reciprocated by student-
initiated bids, during which individuals or groups of students approached Mr. Rios to
discuss a range of topics. Mr. Rios’s care for his students’ personal well-being, however,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 311

sometimes came at the expense of other students’ academic growth. This was
demonstrated by his allotment of significant portions of class time to counsel individual
students or engage in less intimate discussions with individuals or groups of students.
Finally, Mr. Rios’s students uniformly identified him as a teacher who “cares about you
as a person, not just a student,” who “knows you as a person,” who “understands your
vibe/state of mind,” and who “knows how to connect with young people.”
Ms. Mendoza took a more systematic, holistic, and comprehensive approach to
enacting care. By being intentional about making herself physically and emotionally
available for counseling to her students before and after class time, she was able to
provide substantive social and emotional support for her students without sacrificing
instructional time. Ms. Mendoza frequently initiated verbal contact with her students in
these instances, through intentional verbal bids that were tailored to the student’s outward
physical or emotional state. However, her students often demonstrated their feelings of
connectedness and trust by reciprocating these initial bids by willingly moving closer to
their teacher and further engaging her in dialogue. In further underscoring Ms.
Mendoza’s holistic approach to enacting care, her teacher-student exchanges that may
have initially focused on the social and emotional needs of the student often included
additional references by Ms. Mendoza to the student’s physical and intellectual well-
being. Ms. Mendoza’s students’ contributions during focus affirmed many of these
observations that materialized during class time. They felt comfortable sharing personal
aspects of their lives with their teacher and that her care came irrespective of a student’s
academic performance. They uniformly and strongly attributed much of this comfort to
their feelings toward her as a maternal figure. Moreover, the student whom she had
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 312

earlier claimed to have had the most difficulty with (during an earlier one-on-one
interview) conceded that, although he and Ms. Mendoza had frequently “butted heads”
during class time, he never felt as though these conflicts impinged upon her overall level
of care for him, which he perceived to be both high and genuine. Ultimately, Ms.
Mendoza’s intentional, flexible and compassionate approach to student care enabled her
to create the preconditions necessary for meaningful learning to occur but did not fully
enact that pedagogy that would have sustained elevated intellectual rigor among her
students. This outcome is consistent with Matsumura et al.’s (2008) conclusion that
situated classroom climate as a necessary precondition, though not a guarantee, of
rigorous instruction.
Thoughtful and respectful oral discourse. Drawing from the work of
Matsumura et al. (2008), which reveals explicit connections between core components of
classroom discourse and positive student outcomes, this study defined a socially and
emotionally competent student as one who demonstrates thoughtful and respectful
discourse through oral contributions that a) are respectful and equitable, b) employ active
listening to make explicit connections between their contributions and those of their peers
while providing evidence to support claims, and c) are relevant to the discussion’s topic
or focus. That is, thoughtful and respectful oral discourse is respectful, scholarly, and
focused. The data from observations, interviews, and student focus groups revealed that,
in most cases, students from both classes were able to demonstrate equity and respect
toward peers and their teacher during classroom discourse. However, while Ms.
Mendoza’s students’ respectful and scholarly contributions enabled them to share ideas
and co-construct meaning, many of Mr. Rios’s students struggled to maintain focused
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 313

dialogue and to incorporate key aspects of active listening during oral language
exchanges.
In demonstrating the ability to make connections by building from contributions
of their peers, some of Mr. Rios’s students showed proficiency for engaging in an area of
thoughtful and respectful classroom discourse. However, these types of contributions
were made by a small segment of Mr. Rios’s students and did not also included the
scholarly behaviors of explicitly validating other students’ perspectives and providing
substantive evidence to validate claims. More troublesome was the small number of
frequent student participants who periodically undermined respectful oral discourse by
making claims that employed hostile, insensitive, or potentially offensive language.
Although Mr. Rios conveyed his own concern for this problem, along with a desire to
“fine-tune” this area of his practice, episodes in which students employed inappropriate
language during formal discussions nevertheless went largely unchecked by their teacher.
Finally, although the absence of a broader range of student voices presented an obstacle
to more equitable and respectful oral language exchanges, the propensity of Mr. Rios to
shift focus topics or concepts during classroom dialogue in many cases precluded
students from developing their ideas and from engaging in more rigorous dialogue.
Ms. Mendoza’s students often demonstrated the characteristics necessary to
maintain equitable and respectful oral language exchanges with both their teacher and
their peers during active participation in classroom discourse. Most apparent among these
traits was the consistency with which students constructed new meanings and
strengthened their own positions by actively listening to their classmate’s prior
contributions during discussions and then building their message as an extension of these
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 314

ideas. Moreover, in these instances, students routinely presaged their own contributions
by citing or paraphrasing the contributions of others. By doing so, Ms. Mendoza’s
students were able to foster respect by demonstrating the sophisticated social and
emotional competency of explicitly acknowledging the positive contributions of peers.
These social and emotional competencies were also highlighted during moments of
debate during which students were able to focus their critique on their classmate’s claim
rather than the individual who generated it. Finally, although the majority of Ms.
Mendoza’s 13 focus group the students maintained that their pressed them to support
their arguments with “evidence-based claims” drawn “from text and life experiences,”
classroom observations revealed that students mostly supported their claims during
dialogue with anecdotal evidence rather than evidence grounded in text or research.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 315

CHAPTER 5
This dissertation explored the ways in which affective and intellectual elements,
as enacted by both urban high school teachers and their students, contributed to students’
capacity to function as intellectually active learners and as members of the classroom
community who collaborated with the teacher to create powerful learning environments.
A qualitative, multi-case study was used to address the following research question:
• What do the learning environments look like in the classrooms of urban high
school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students
from historically marginalized populations?
The data I collected to answer this question included, as my primary sources of data
collection, observations and interviews from two purposively sampled high school
teachers. I conducted seven and six classroom observations of each teacher’s classroom,
respectively, in-person pre- and post-observation teacher interviews; focus group
interviews of students from each classroom who represented a cross-section of academic
performers from each class; and a review of PowerPoint slides, worksheets, graphic
organizers, texts, and quizzes that were used during class time. Data collection from this
study yielded insights into the pedagogical approaches of these two urban high school
teachers, the nature of the relationships between these teachers and their students, these
teachers’ perceptions of their practice, their students’ perceptions of their teachers’
practice, and the ways in which both teachers and students contributed both affectively
and intellectually to urban high school classroom learning environments to create
powerful learning experiences. Although I set out to examine the classrooms of two
exemplary culturally aware teachers, the data revealed that even highly recommended,
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 316

well respected, and well intended teachers were not able to demonstrate that they
embodied many of the actions and practices of culturally aware teachers as
conceptualized in my conceptual framework. It is possible that no teacher would be able
to live up to the expectations set forth in my conceptual framework, as it offers an ideal.
Moreover, the findings suggest that there were ways in which each of these teachers
engaged in practices that were consistent with elements of the conceptual framework and
that were beneficial to their students. Of significant note was the high regard with which
their students expressed for them as both classroom practitioners and adult caregivers. I
do not think it is essential that a teacher be perfect in order to support meaningful
learning for children from historically marginalized communities. On the other hand,
there are essential elements embedded in each component of the conceptual framework
that I argue must be in place for students to be able to engage in meaningful learning. In
the remainder of this chapter I will briefly review the findings that emerged from the data
and. Given the discrepancies between the findings and this ideal, I offer implications for
teacher practice, educational policy, and educational research.
Summary of Findings
This study proposed that meaningful learning occurs at the intersection of those
actions taken by the teacher and those actions taken by the student(s) in the context of a
powerful learning environment. Mr. Rios was a 10
th
grade World History and Geography
teacher who did not cultivate a powerful learning environment for his students by
fostering meaningful learning and a positive affective classroom environment that
supported meaningful learning. Similarly, his students did not perform the actions and
behaviors that would have been necessary for them to function as intellectually active
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 317

learners in a positive affective learning environment. Although Mr. Rios was well-
intentioned in his approaches to building both positive relationships with his students and
in enacting pedagogical actions and tasks for his students, the quality of the tasks and
actions, when taken up by his students, were neither adequate to foster intellectually
rigorous learning experiences for his students nor the positive affective classroom climate
needed to support them in intellectually rigorous endeavors. Although many of the
students were similarly well-intentioned, they did not demonstrate the qualities of
intellectually active learners nor the behaviors necessary to foster the affective
environment needed for these behaviors to create meaningful learning experiences. Thus,
when combined, efforts from both Mr. Rios and his students did not produce the
meaningful learning experiences that take shape when culturally aware teachers and
intellectually active students mindfully and mutually combine their efforts to cultivate
powerful learning environments.
Although Mr. Rios and his students demonstrated moments of mutual care and
respect, neither Mr. Rios nor his students fully employed the student- and teacher-enacted
social and emotional competencies needed to cultivate a positive affective learning
environment. Mr. Rios showed care for his students. However, despite being able to
operate beyond a traditional teacher-student paradigm by exhibiting care and compassion
for his students, he did not do so while simultaneously maintaining a structured
classroom learning environment that preserved his status as class leader. Although Mr.
Rios developed social and emotional connections with students, they did not leverage
these positive connections with their teacher into more thoughtful and respectful oral
discourse with both their fellow classmates and their teacher during instructional
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 318

activities. While some students displayed an ability to make scholarly contributions to
dialogue, a select group of students dominated discussions and periodically employed
language that was insensitive or inappropriate. Unruly or inappropriate behaviors often
went unchecked by ambiguous norms of participation and by Mr. Rios’s lax approach to
classroom management.
Nor were the positive teacher-student connections, as initiated by both Mr. Rios
and a segment of his students, sufficient to support the meaningful learning experiences
that are essential to a powerful learning environment. Much of the class time was
consumed by activities that had limited academic import. These included long stretches
of instructional time devoted to unstructured banter and tasks that did not challenge
students to construct their own knowledge, draw their own evidence-based conclusions,
or pursue solutions to persistent social problems through research or systematic inquiry.
During academic tasks and activities, students also struggled to demonstrate the
metacognitive acuity, systematic inquiry and social consciousness that are the hallmarks
of intellectually active learners. Overall, the patterns of interactions between Mr. Rios
and his students were largely positive but also intellectually superficial. They did not
promote thoughtful, inclusive dialogue around complex ideas or dilemmas. Nor did they
promote rigorous, culturally sustaining tasks that pushed all students to employ the higher
order cognition required to solve authentic, rigorous, culturally sustaining tasks. As a
consequence, neither Mr. Rios nor his students enacted the intellectual elements that
would have contributed to the students’ capacity to function as intellectually active
learners in a powerful classroom learning environment.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 319

Ms. Mendoza was a 12
th
grade Expository Reading and Writing (ERWC) teacher
who was able to collaborate with her students to cultivate moments of meaningful
learning. Although these moments of meaningful learning were inconsistent and uneven,
they were, in part, supported by elements of a positive affective learning environment
that was cultivated through a climate of care. This climate of care was cultivated by Ms.
Mendoza’s purposeful bids to counsel her students, by her displays of social and
emotional competency and by her students’ engagement in thoughtful and respectful
classroom discourse. Despite these efforts employed by Ms. Mendoza and her students to
cultivate a positive affective learning environment, Ms. Mendoza did not always foster
the meaningful learning experiences necessary for her students to function as
intellectually active learners. Ms. Mendoza’s students, however, periodically contributed
to the classroom learning environment by demonstrating intellectually active behaviors
that enabled them to advance their current knowledge by operating with metacognitive
acuity, higher order questioning and, in some students’ cases, social consciousness.
While Ms. Mendoza demonstrated intentionality in purposely developing
structured, coherent tasks, activities, and lessons aligned with a concurrent unit of
instruction that also aimed to develop a range literacies, she was unable to foster
meaningful learning due to pedagogical choices that led to her constructing much of the
knowledge and meaning for her students during classroom tasks and activities, rather
than empowering them to leverage their own knowledge, skills, or experiences in doing
so.
Ms. Mendoza and her students were often successful in cultivating many of the
affective elements that foster positive learning environments. Ms. Mendoza developed
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 320

caring relationships with her students by making herself physically and emotionally
available for counseling before and after class time, and by frequently initiating both
formal and informal verbal contact with her students through intentional verbal bids that
were tailored to the student’s physical or emotional state. These caring, trustful
relationships were repeatedly demonstrated by Ms. Mendoza and confirmed by her
students during focus group dialogue. Ms. Mendoza also demonstrated key social and
emotional competencies during class discussions by holding students intellectually
responsible for their assertions, which, in turn, established a classroom culture that
prioritized scholarly, civil debate over emotional argument. Students contributed to their
learning environment’s positive affect by taking up their teacher’s modeling of prosocial
behaviors. Students expressed these social and emotional competencies, which included
flexibility, respect, and trust, most frequently during oral language exchanges with both
their teacher and their peers. Most apparent among these traits was the consistency with
which students enacted active listening competencies that enabled them to engage more
thoughtfully in oral language exchanges.
Ms. Mendoza was purposeful in developing structured, coherent tasks, activities,
and lessons that aligned with the Language, Culture, and Gender unit of instruction.
While these instructional items aimed to develop a range literacies, Ms. Mendoza did not
foster the meaningful learning experiences needed for her students to function as
intellectually active learners within a powerful classroom learning environment. Ms.
Mendoza’s deficit in this area was due to pedagogical choices that led to her constructing
much of the knowledge and meaning for her students during classroom tasks and
activities. Thus, Ms. Mendoza chose a teacher-centered approach to knowledge and skills
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 321

acquisition over supporting a process by which students would build their own
knowledge by leveraging existing knowledge, peer contributions, observations, or lived
experiences in doing so. One notable exception to this pattern was a unit-culminating task,
developed and assigned by Ms. Mendoza, which called for students to design a solutions-
based multimedia campaign around a social issue of their choice. Although the
opportunities for students to more autonomously construct meaning and knowledge was,
at times, limited by Ms. Mendoza’s pedagogical approach, students showed evidence of
the metacognitive acuity that is a cornerstone of intellectually active learners. In doing so,
students exhibited a series of higher order, self-guided behaviors. Most prominent among
these behaviors were leveraging prior knowledge to build new understandings, making
connections between the ideas of theirs and their classmates, and projecting possibilities
based on given information. These intellectually active behaviors were sometimes, but
not always, aided by their teacher’s pedagogical moves. Finally, students demonstrated
limitations of the social competency that would have revealed a clearer understanding of
the critical social and institutional dynamics that influenced power, race, gender, and
culture–along with a more critical lens by which they could develop solutions to thwart
social injustice. Despite these limitations by some students, other students demonstrated
the awareness to identify current human conditions that are fomented by social injustice
by developing purposeful PSA videos. A summative unit assessment that was conceived
of and designed by Ms. Mendoza to align to the unit’s theme of Language, Gender, and
Culture, students designed multimedia, research-driven campaigns whose purpose was to
thwart specific local or global social injustices.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 322

Implications
This dissertation explored the intellectual, social, and emotional nexus of two
classroom environments at a large, urban high school. That is, it examined the ways in
which affective and intellectual elements, as enacted by both urban high school teachers
and their students, contributed to the students’ capacity to function as intellectually active
learners and as members of the classroom community who collaborated with the teacher
to create powerful learning environments. Findings from this study revealed that teachers
and their students did not fully succeed in enacting the strategies and behaviors necessary
to cultivate powerful learning environments in which students consistently functioned as
intellectually active learners. Both teachers were well-intentioned in their approaches to
building positive teacher-student relationships and the dedication with which they
practiced their profession. Moreover, one teacher was particularly successful in jointly
cultivating a positive affective learning environment with her students. However, it
should be noted that this success in establishing a positive emotional climate of care and
trust was not sufficient to produce a powerful learning environment for students. Below, I
will discuss implications that emerge as a result of these findings, as they relate to teacher
practice, public policy, and the research community.
Practice
Students from distressed and underserved communities often enter school with
social, emotional, and academic challenges that can affect their intellectual and affective
behaviors inside the classroom (McHugh, et al., 2013; Milner & Tenore, 2010). In these
environments, teachers are the sole caregivers who are also tasked with facilitating
student learning (Jennings & Greenberg, 2008; Milner, 2011; Milner & Tenore, 2010).
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 323

Thus, teachers play a critical role in their students’ current and future lives. To ensure
that their students have full and equitable access to a healthy, stable, and prosperous
future, teachers must meet each of their students “where they are” (Ladson-Billings,
2006b) by cultivating a classroom environment in which all young people feel personally
valued and in which each student receives the care and instruction needed for him or her
to thrive both socially and academically. This is a sizable task for urban high school
educators who serve a majority of students from historically disenfranchised populations.
Although I will momentarily discuss the steps that school leadership can take in
providing urban high school teachers with the supports that they require as they attend to
the social, emotional, and academic well-being of their students, teachers can also
address some of their classroom-level challenges of their own accord and that do not
require school-level supports or resources for their successful implementation.
First, urban high school teachers who serve a majority of students from
historically disenfranchised populations must realize and understand that most, if not all,
students will thrive in learning situations that call for them to combine intellectual rigor
with issues that are related to their lived realities (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2005; Gay,
2010; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2015;). As this study revealed, students were
most intellectually engaged when given a problem or social issue to solve or debate. Next,
teachers must not let themselves fall victim to adopting deficit perspectives that espouse
low levels of cognitive rigor, and thus low expectations, for traditionally underserved
student populations. Milner (2010) writes about educators’ beliefs that can trigger these
pedagogical responses:
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 324

Low expectations and deficit mind-sets make it difficult for educators to develop
learning opportunities that challenge students. For instance, teachers may believe
that some students cannot master a rigorous curriculum, and consequently may
avoid designing important learning opportunities for those students. They may see
the knowledge and skills that culturally diverse students possess as liabilities
rather than assets. And when educators do recognize student assets, they
sometimes struggle to understand how they can scaffold those assets or strengths
with learning opportunities (p. 35).
In addition, each day, secondary teachers have countless opportunities to make sincere,
authentic interpersonal connections with their students. While it is unlikely that all of
these overtures will be reciprocated with the same degree of intentionality, young people
are far more likely to succeed academically and socially when they have the support of
both their teacher and peers (Jennings & Greenberg, 2008; Matsumura et al., 2008).
Moreover, students are more likely to exhibit prosocial values when these values are first
modeled by their teacher (Jennings & Greenburg, 2008). And finally, this study reveals
the potential social, emotional, and intellectual value of small- and whole-group
classroom discourse. However, in order for this process to cultivate meaningful learning,
teachers must adapt their practice by employing two approaches. First, they must
establish clear, structured, and equitable norms of participation that apply to all students.
Establishing structured norms that are purposeful in creating equitable, respectful
discourse is a necessary precursor to ensuring that a broad range of student voices are
included and honored. Teachers must also provide students with frequent opportunities to
explore concepts, topics, and themes without the added contributions of teacher
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 325

commentary that takes the form of meaning making. By remaining in the facilitator’s role
rather than becoming an active participant, teachers can give students the time and space
to construct meaning and knowledge that are independent of their teacher’s worldview.
For their part, site-level administrators can take steps to provide high-quality
professional development for their staff that would shift an emphasis from program
delivery and implementation to developing highly functioning collaborative work groups
and communities of practice. The primary function of these collaborative groups, also
referred to as Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), is to build the individual and
collective capacities of educators (DuFour et al., 2006). The process by which educators
increase their professional capacity through participating in intentional, goal-oriented
communities of practice is also referred to by some contemporary economists, systems
analysts, and education researchers as amassing professional capital (Hargreaves &
Fullan, 2012) because it relies on the interdependence, flexibility, consciousness, and
collective efficacy of a collaborative group. Such groups gradually develop a capacity to
work productively, respectfully, and with the collective responsibility of improving the
quality of student learning (DuFour et al., 2006; Fullan, 2014; Hargreaves & Fullan,
2012).
Both teachers from this study would likely benefit from participation in a mature
PLC or community of practice that places a robust emphasis on the following items:
shared inquiry, collective responsibility for the success of both students and colleagues,
activities that facilitate meaningful reflection, and opportunities to implement peer
consultation and guided reflection into one’s practice. For example, Mr. Rios’s struggles
to more effectively scaffold rigor and facilitate respectful and inclusive classroom
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 326

discourse would benefit from a structured peer observation and coaching cycle. Often
serving as fundamental components of highly functioning PLCs, most peer observation
and coaching cycles include post-observation reflection conversations between the
observed teacher and one or more colleagues (Wellman & Lipton, 2004). Peer
observations would, thus, enable Mr. Rios to analyze, discuss, and reflect upon data
yielded from one or more colleagues’ observations of his facilitation of dialogue and his
approach to scaffolding intellectual rigor (both of which were troublesome areas of his
practice during this study). In addition, the PLC model described above would also allow
Mr. Rios to mindfully implement refinements and modifications to his practice by
engaging in planning, problem-resolving, and reflecting conversations with colleagues.
These exchanges can take the form of one-on-one coaching conversations between the
teacher and a peer, who, assuming the role of coach, spurs connections and new
possibilities through dialogue that is driven by systematic inquiry. They can also take the
form of small group dialogue, wherein a colleague, acting in the role of facilitator,
initiates group inquiry by posing probing and clarifying questions of a self-selected
teacher (presenter) whose lesson or activity becomes the focal point of the group’s
inquiry. Such inquiry would challenge Mr. Rios to examine the extent to which his
pedagogical approaches are fostering meaningful learning experiences for his students.
Having access to feedback and consultation of multiple colleagues during these
exchanges would also provide Mr. Rios with opportunities to increase his human capital
by incorporating emerging ideas and concepts into his everyday practice. That is, having
these opportunities for growth and reflection would enable Mr. Rios to monitor his own
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 327

progress, learn strategies and approaches enacted by fellow educators, and fully
implement many of the modified approaches into his instructional practice.
The PLC model described above would present Ms. Mendoza with the structures
that could foster greater proficiency in the areas of practice that posed the most
significant challenges for her during this study: facilitating student-centered, inquiry-
driven discourse and employing pedagogy that more effectively scaffolds cognitive rigor.
Because some of the comments expressed by Ms. Mendoza during the course of this
study suggested high levels of professional self-efficacy, the peer observation and
coaching cycle noted in the previous paragraph would provide her with the impartial
perspectives that would likely lead to more substantive, actionable reflection than other
reflection-oriented activities that do not involve an outside observer’s perspective. That is,
having access to post-observation data and feedback, presented by one or more
colleagues, would push Ms. Mendoza to consider possible oversights and missteps in her
practice that she might otherwise overlook without the aid of more dispassionate
perspectives. Because she is a high-efficacy practitioner, Ms. Mendoza may not garner
significant benefits from more authoritative modes of professional development that
involve consultation, evaluation, or direct instruction. In contrast, peer coaching requires
colleagues who assume the coaching role to prioritize active communication skills. In
doing so, they employ purposeful paraphrasing, strategic questioning, and moderating
one’s tone and diction to match his/her partner’s emotional state. Ms. Mendoza would
likely see benefits from observation and coaching cycles because they preserve and
elevate a practitioner’s autonomy by “habituating self-directed learning” (Costa &
Garmston, 2013, p. 15). Being in command of her own professional growth process by
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 328

which she is guided into new ways of approaching her practice, would likely provide Ms.
Mendoza with a stronger impetus to make positive changes in her instruction. Moreover,
Ms. Mendoza would also have frequent opportunities to adopt more effective strategies
by observing her colleagues’ approaches to promoting rigor and student-led inquiry.
Having access to these types of growth opportunities that elicit interdependence, self-
awareness, and collective responsibility would likely lead to their adaptation of shared
approaches to practice that are hallmarks of highly functioning PLCs (DuFour et al.,
2006).
Highly functioning PLCs can also leverage their cohesion as a community of
practice to develop and implement instructional rounds. Teachers such as Mr. Rios and
Ms. Mendoza would benefit from participation in instructional rounds because they aim
to build both the individual and collective capacities of educators through inquiry-driven
analysis of a common problem of instructional practice (City et al., 2010). Engaging in
collective analysis of a discrete problem element of classroom instruction, such as
structured norms of student participation in class dialogue, would allow both teachers
from this study to a) observe different approaches to the ways in which group norms of
participation are enacted by their colleagues b) engage in group analysis and reflection
regarding the effectiveness of different teacher-enacted approaches to group norms of
participation, and c) contribute to a collective plan of action that seeks to formulate and
implement shared PLC norms of student participation in dialogue. This process would
expose both Mr. Rios and Ms. Mendoza to the ways in which their colleagues enact
norms of discourse, along with subsequent peer dialogue aimed at deconstructing the
features and efficacy of each teacher’s norms. Thus, each teacher from this study would
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 329

have exposure to the teacher-enacted behaviors that can either promote or impede norms
of student discourse, along with peer dialogue that might offer insights into how one can
improve upon examples put forth by fellow practitioners.
Site-based administrators who choose to incorporate peer observation and
coaching cycles and instructional rounds into their PLCs would be advised to ensure that
their staff is fully trained in effective coaching practices and instructional rounds
facilitation and participation protocols. Without robust training in these areas, educators
will be far less likely to cultivate theirs and their colleague’s positive professional growth.
Policy
This dissertation does not purport to have definitive solutions for all of the
challenges that confront teachers and students in 21
st
-century large, urban public high
schools. Because this study exposed the challenges presented by the multitude of
elements that emerge and converge across a high school classroom environment over a
full class period, it perhaps also revealed that, while more effective policies are needed,
no one piece of reform legislation should be crafted with the intent of solving all of the
challenges that exist within urban high school classrooms in historically marginalized
communities. Existing policies have failed to place an emphasis on building capacity for
educators and school leaders. Fullan (2014) writes:
Wrongheaded accountability is like pushing a train by building up power in a
caboose. It is far more effective to pull humans than to try to push them. This is
why the better alternative to simply demanding accountability is to aim at
building capacity from the beginning, with an explicit focus on results.
Paradoxically, this produces greater accountability, as people in groups are more
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 330

likely to hold themselves accountable, because transparency puts on the right kind
of pressure for greater performance and makes it easier and more effective to
identify the true laggards, who turn out (after capacity building) to be very small
in number–much less than 5 percent. (p. 28)
Thus, policymakers and school leaders must develop and implement policies that both
incentivize and support whole-systems reforms, which emphasize capacity building,
collaborative effort, pedagogy, and whole-systems thinking. This shift in philosophical
mindset requires legislators to view individual problems as symptomatic of a broader
system failure. With these concepts in mind, to ensure that teachers are given the
structures and supports that will ensure continual professional growth of practice, future
public school policies should comprise each of the following components:
• Time allotted for professional growth that places an emphasis on developing
individual and collective capacities of educators,
• incentives for schools to develop Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that
are cultivated either through support from an external learning organization or
partnership with a local school site that has demonstrated measurable success of
PLC implementation,
• time allotted for site-level educators to “benchmark intelligently” by partnering
with schools in other districts, states, and countries in an effort to share and
acquire knowledge of best teaching practices, (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2011, p.
179), and
• a systems-based holistic approach adopted by policymakers and school leaders to
the challenges that face urban public schools.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 331

These recommendations must also come with the caveat that their effectiveness
would likely be enhanced through a shared partnership with current educators who
best understand the needs and challenges of their students and colleagues. State and
federal policies that omit the contributions of classroom educators have historically
been accompanied by unintended consequences that handicap professional growth
and harm students.
Research
While this study offers insights into the classroom learning environments of urban
high school teachers who serve a majority of students from historically marginalized
populations, it was limited by several key factors. First, time restrictions placed
limitations on the volume of data collection. Having added time to observe each of the
study’s two classrooms during the course of instruction would have provided additional
data from which to draw more decisive findings. Next, the value of data gathered from
student focus groups was limited by their structure. While drawing insights from students
during focus group conversations provided this study with an added dimension of
valuable information, obtaining consent to incorporate individual in-person student
interviews may have elicited more nuanced or candid responses from students than those
that were conveyed during 13-student focus groups. Finally, the presence of one novice
field researcher placed limits on the depth and breadth of data that could be captured
during classroom observations. The presence of at least one additional researcher in a
study that sought to gain insights into a constellation of real-time dynamics that
materialized within a high school classroom setting would have been necessary to capture
the entire scope of data that was available as it happened.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 332

Future researchers who endeavor to examine the dynamics and outcomes of
classroom-level teaching practice should also give consideration to concurrently focusing
on the types of professional growth supports that are in place for educators at the school
level during these studies. Although one of this study’s teachers spoke explicitly about
his desire to improve certain aspects of his instructional practice, it remained unclear as
to whether he had consistent access to either high-quality learning experiences or skillful
colleagues who might have increased his individual capacity. Obtaining knowledge about
the types of learning supports that are available to teachers who are part of a study that
also seeks to examine their classroom-level teaching practice could yield valuable
knowledge into a) the extent to which types of available professional growth
opportunities available to the study’s teacher(s) (i.e. cognitive coaching, PLC teaming,
peer observation cycles, instructional rounds, social and emotional learning workshops)
have the most powerful positive effects on one’s teaching practice, b) the extent to which
different forms of professional growth opportunities are offered to the study’s teacher(s),
and c) the extent to which teachers value professional growth as a tool to maximize their
effectiveness as classroom practitioners.

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 333

References
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations
of effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms:
Predicting student achievement with the classroom assessment scoring system-
secondary. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 76-98.
Altshuler, S. J. & Schmautz, T. (2006). No Hispanic student left behind: The
consequences of “high stakes” testing. Children & Schools, 28(1), 5-14. doi:
10.1093/cs/28.1.5
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies
in Mathmatics, 31(4), 349-369.
Ball, A. F. (2000). Empowering pedagogies that enhance the learning of multicultural
students. Teachers College Record, 102(6), 1006-1034.
Bartolome, L .I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing
prospective teachers. Teacher Educational Quarterly, 31(2), winter.
Campbell, D. E. (2008). Voice in the classroom: How an open classroom climate fosters
political engagement among adolescents. Political Behavior, 30(4), 437-454. doi:
10.1007/s11109-008-9063-z
Center for American Progress. (2012, March). Race to the Top: What have we learned
from the states so far?. Washington, DC: Boser, U.
Center on Education Policy. (2006, March). From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4
of the No Child Left Behind Act. Rentner, D. S., Scott, C., Kober, N., Chudowsky,
N., Chudowsky, V., Joftus, S., & Zabala, D.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 334

Center on Education Policy. (2014). Federal Education Programs >> NCLB/ESEA
Waivers. Retrieved from http://www.cep-
dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentSubTopicID=48
Center on Education Policy. (2014). Waiver- CORE Districts. Retrieved from
http://www.cep-dc.org/page.cfm?FloatingPageID=80
City, E., A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2010). Instructional Rounds in
Education: A Network Approach to Improving Teaching and Learning.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Cooper, P. M. (2003). Effective White Teachers of Black Children Teaching Within a
Community. Journal of Teacher Evaluation, 54(5), 413-427.
Costa, A.L. & Garmston, R.J. (2013). Cognitive Coaching Seminars Foundation Training
Learning Guide. Ninth Ed. Thinking Collaborative.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of
State Policy Evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). doi:
10.14507/epaa.v8n1.2000
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 76(4), 642-667.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s commitment
to equity will determine our future. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 318-334. doi:
10.3102/0013189X07308253
Davis, H. A. (2006). Exploring the contexts of relationship quality between middle
school students and teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 193-223.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 335

Diamond, J. B., Randolph, A., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Teachers’ expectations and sense
of responsibility for student learning: The importance of race, class, and
organizational habitus. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 35(1), 75-98. doi:
10.1525/aeq.2004.35.1.75
DuFour, R., DuFour, R, Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A Handbook
for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree
Press.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (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
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. (2009). Note to educators: Hope required when growing roses
in concrete. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 181-194.
Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. & Morrell, E. (2005). Turn up that radio, teacher: Popular
cultural pedagogy in new century urban schools. Journal of School Leadership,
15(3), 284-308.
Economic Policy Institute. (2013, September). Mismatches in race to the top limit
educational improvement. Washington, DC: Weiss, E.
Education Data Partnership. (2014). Ed-Data: Fiscal, Demographic, and Performance
Data on California’s K-12 Schools. Retrieved from https://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/E
dDataClassic/profile.asp?level=04&reportNumber=16
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 336

Fine, M., Burns, A., Payne, Y. A., & Torre, M. E. (2004). Civics lessons: The color and
class of betrayal. Teachers College Record, 106(11), 2193-2223.
Ford, D. Y. & Ken, C. D. (2009). Creating culturally responsive instruction: for students’
and teachers’ sakes. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(9), 1-16.
Fullan, M. (2014). The Principal: Three Keys to Maximizing Impact. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Furrer, C. & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic
engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-
162. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of
Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 143-152. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347320
Gay, G. & Howard, T. C. (2000). Multicultural teacher education for the 21st century.
The Teacher Educator, 36(1), 1-16.
Groves, P. (2002). “Doesn’t it feel morbid here”? High-stakes testing and the widening of
the equity gap. Educational Foundations, 16(2), 15-31.
Hawley, W. D. & Nieto, S. (2010). Another inconvenient truth: Race and ethnicity.
Educational Leadership, 68(3), 66-71.
Haberman, M. (1991). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. The Phi Delta
Kappan, 73(4), 290-294.
Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Downer, J. T., DeCoster, J., Mashburn, A. J., Jones, S. M.,
Brown, J. L., Cappella, E., Atkins, M., & Rivers, S. E. (2013). Teaching through
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 337

interactions: Testing a developmental framework of teacher effectiveness in over
4,000 classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 113(4), 461-487.
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in
Every School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2012). The Global Fourth Way: The Quest for
Educational Excellence. London, UK: Corwin.
Heilig, J. V. & Darling-Hammond, L. (2009). Accountability Texas-Style: The progress
and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110. doi:
10.3102/0162373708317689
Hemphill, F. C., Vanneman, A., & Rahman, T. (2001). How Hispanic and White Students
in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. National Center for Education Statistics,
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf
Hughes, J. & Kwok, O. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher
relationships on lower achieving readers’ engagement and achievement in the
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39-51.
doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.39
Irvine, J. J. & McAllister, G. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse
students: a qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(5), 433-443. doi: 10.1177/002248702237397
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 338

Jennings, P. A. & Greenberg, M. T. (2008). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and
emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 491-523. doi: 10.3102/0034654308325693
Johnson, L. (2002). “My eyes have been opened”: White teachers and racial awareness.
Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 153-167. doi:
10.1177/0022487102053002007
Kim, J. S. & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No
Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational
Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
Kozol, J. (2005). The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in
America. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Association, 32(3), 465-491. doi:
10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006a). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006b). “Yes, but how do we do it?”. In J. Landsman & C. Lewis
(Eds.). White Teachers/Diverse Classrooms: A Guide to Building Inclusive
Schools, Promoting High Expectations, and Eliminating Racism (pp. 20-41).
Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Lomax, R. G., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., Viator, K. A., Madaus, G. F. (1995). The
impact of mandated standardized testing on minority students. Journal of Negro
Education, 64(2), 171-185.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 339

Love, A. & Kruger, A. C. (2005). Teacher beliefs and student achievement in urban
school serving African-American students. The Journal of Educational Research,
99(2), 87-98.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous
instruction and curriculum, and students’ interaction in urban middle schools. The
Elementary School Journal, 108(4), 293-312. doi: 10.1086/528973
McHugh, R. M., Norner, C. G., Colditz, J. B., & Wallace, T. L. (2013). Bridges and
barriers: Adolescent perceptions of student-teacher relationships. Urban
Education, 48(1), 9-43. doi: 10.1177/0042085912451585k
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milner IV, H. R. (2010). A Diversity and Opportunity Gaps Explanatory Framework.
Start Where You Are, But Don’t Start There: Understanding Diversity,
Opportunity Gaps, and Teaching in Today’s Classrooms (13-44). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Education Press.
Milner IV, H. R. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom.
Urban Rev, 43, 66-89 doi: 10.1007/s11256-009-0143-0
Milner, H. R. & Tenore, F. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms.
Urban Education, 45(5), 560-601. doi: 10.1177/0042085910377290
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009, July). Achievement Gaps: How Black and
White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 340

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdfhttp://nces.ed.gov/na
tionsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011, May). The Nation’s Report Card: Civics
2010. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2010/2011466.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011, June). Achievement Gaps: How Hispanic
and White Students in Public Schools Perform in Mathematics and Reading on
the National Assessment of Education Progress Statistical Analysis Report.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2011459.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012, May). The Nation’s Report Card:
Science 2011. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012465.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012, September). The Nation’s Report Card:
Writing 2011. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf
National Staff Development Council. (2009). Professional Learning In The Learning
Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and
Abroad. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., & The School Redesign
Network at Stanford University.
Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D. C. (2008). Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing
Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Noguera, P. A. (2009). The achievement gap: Public education in crisis. New Labor
Forum, 18(2), 61-69, 127.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 341

Onosko, J. (2011). Race to the Top leaves children and future citizens behind: The
devastating effects of centralization, standardization, and high stakes
accountability. Democracy & Education, 19(2), Article 1.
Orfield, G. & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Increasingly segregated and unequal schools as
courts reverse policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 718-734. doi:
10.1177/0013161X14548942
Pace, J. L. (2010). Using ambiguity and entertainment to win compliance in a lower-level
US history class. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(1), 83-110.
Paige, D. D., Sizemore, J. M., & Neace, W. P. (2013). Working inside the box: Exploring
the relationship between student engagement and cognitive rigor. NASSP, 97(2),
105-123. doi: 10.1177/0192636512473505
Paris, D. & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally
sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review,
84(1), 85-100.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Phillips, R. S. (2011). Toward authentic student-centered practices: Voices of alternative
school students. Educational and Urban Society, 45(6), 668-699. doi:
10.1177/0013124511424107.
Pressley & Allington (2014). Reading Instruction that Works: The Case for Balanced
Teaching (4
th
ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Preus, B. (2012). Authentic instruction for 21st century learning: Higher order thinking in
an inclusive school. American Secondary Education, 40(3), 59-79.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 342

Ravitch, D. (2010). The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How
Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Ready, D. D. & Wright, D. L. (2011). Accuracy and inaccuracy in teachers’ perceptions
of young children’s cognitive abilities: The role of child background and
classroom context. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 335-360. doi:
10.3102/0002831210374874
Reyes, M. R., Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., White, M., & Salovey, P. (2012). Classroom
emotional climate, student engagement, and academic achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104(3), 700-712. doi: 10.1037/a0027268
Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2010). Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes:
Is there a relationship?. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1),
121-135. doi: 10.1348/000709909X466334
Ryan, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., & Midgley, C. (2001). Avoiding seeking help in the
classroom: Who and why?. Educational Psychology Review, 13(2), 93-114. doi:
10.1023/A:1009013420053.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning
Organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Thompson, G. L. & Allen, T. G. (2012). Four effects of the high-stakes testing movement
on African-American K-12 students. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(3), 218-
227.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Teacher-Student Relations and the Politics of Caring. Subtractive
Schooling U.S. Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. (pp. 61-113). Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS 343

Wayman, J. (2002). Student perceptions of teacher ethnic bias: A comparison of Mexican
American and Non-Latino white dropouts and students. The High School Journal,
85(1), 27-37.
Wei, X. (2010). Are more stringent NCLB state accountability systems associated with
better student outcomes? An analysis of NAEP results across states. Educational
Policy, 26(2), 268-308.
Wellman, B. & Lipton, L. (2004). Data-Driven Dialogue: A Facilitator’s Guide to
Collaborative Inquiry. Sherman, CT: Miravia.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Both a caring, safe classroom climate and intellectually rigorous instruction are essential precursors for student academic success. However, many students from historically marginalized populations do not have access to learning environments that adequately foster their social, emotional, and intellectual well-being. This study examined the ways in which affective and intellectual elements, as enacted by both culturally aware high school teachers and their students, contribute to the students’ capacity to function as intellectually active learners and as members of the classroom community who collaborate with the teacher to create powerful learning environments. The classrooms of two high school educators who had gained a reputation for both creating a positive affective environment and engendering meaningful learning experiences for large populations of high-needs and low income students served as the units of analysis for this qualitative multi-case study. Data collection from this study included seven and six classroom observations of each teacher’s classroom, respectively

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Developing sociopolitical consciousness and cultural competence to dismantle structural racism and hegemony within my high school English classroom

PDF

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

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

Which grain will grow? Case studies of the impact of teacher beliefs on classroom climate through caring and rigor

PDF

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

PDF

How do teacher beliefs shape the approaches used to support low-income, Black, White, and Latino students in Advanced Placement English?

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the intersection of ideology, classroom climate, and pedagogy in creating open-forum discussions in secondary English classrooms

PDF

Cultivating a growth mindset: an exploration of teacher beliefs and learning environments

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Latino cognitive apprenticeship: creating a meaningful learning environment for Latino students through authentic teacher care

PDF

A culture of care in elementary schools to impact Black student academic achievement: a case study

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students

PDF

An examination of classroom social environment on motivation and engagement of college early entrant honors students

PDF

Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment

Asset Metadata

Creator Cohen, Brock D. (author)

Core Title Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 09/01/2015

Defense Date 07/22/2015

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

Tag classroom learning environments,culturally relevant pedagogy,culturally sustaining pedagogy,historically marginalized students,instructional rigor,OAI-PMH Harvest,positive and negative affect,social and emotional competency,student discourse,teacher care

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Green, Alan G. (committee member), Marsh, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email brockcoh@usc.edu,brockdc2001@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-173599

Unique identifier UC11275261

Identifier etd-CohenBrock-3861.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-173599 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-CohenBrock-3861.pdf

Dmrecord 173599

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Cohen, Brock D.

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