Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Reimagining an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program
(USC Thesis Other)
Reimagining an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Reimagining an Antiracist and Structurally Ideological GED Program
by
Alisia Genese Thompson
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation proposal submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024
v
© Copyright by Alisia Thompson 2024
All Rights Reserved
vi
The Committee for Alisia Thomson certifies the approval of this Dissertation
John Pascarella
Alan Green
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Abstract
This qualitative action research study examines how I engaged my Chief Academic Officer and
Deputy Provost to propose antiracist and structural ideological change (reimaginings) to our
college’s General Education Development (GED) preparation program. I deployed the Rodgers
(2002) reflective cycle and various forms of assisted performance to create a supportive learning
environment for my supervisors to (1) conceptualize antiracism and structural ideology and (2)
propose intelligent action to the GED program based on their understandings of the theories.
Through my 8-week study, I found that we were able to share a common analytical language
around antiracism and how to enact it within our context; however, we were less successful in
cultivating a common analytical language around structural ideology. I also found that using the
reflective cycle as a cognitive structure supported us in reimagining the GED program as
antiracist and structurally ideological. By the end of the study, I strengthened my ability to be a
present thought-partner.
v
Dedication
To Mom, Grandma, and Grandad:
Thank you for being my first examples of teachers and leaders.
I pray I empower the world like you’ve empowered me.
vi
Acknowledgements
To Dr. Julie Slayton:
Thank you for transforming my doctoral experience. This accomplishment wouldn’t be possible
without your incredible support. It has been an honor to learn from you.
vii
Table of Contents
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Historically Entrenched Inequity ........................................................................................ 5
Context................................................................................................................................ 7
Role..................................................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework....................................................................................................... 9
Antiracism............................................................................................................. 11
Structural Ideology................................................................................................ 11
The Reflective Cycle............................................................................................. 12
Forms of Assistance.............................................................................................. 14
Research Methods............................................................................................................. 16
Actions.................................................................................................................. 21
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 25
Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 26
Credibility and Trustworthiness............................................................................ 29
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 30
Findings............................................................................................................................. 31
Common Analytical Language ............................................................................. 32
Cognitive Structuring............................................................................................ 43
My Growth............................................................................................................ 56
Afterword.......................................................................................................................... 59
viii
viii
The Value of The Reflective Cycle ...................................................................... 60
Commitment to Antiracism................................................................................... 62
References..................................................................................................................................... 63
ix
ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Action Plan Page 22
Table 2: The HEADSUP Checklist Page 25
x
x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Page 10
1
Reimagining an Antiracist and Structurally Ideological GED Program
My grandmother is one of my greatest inspirations in education. I grew up listening to the
stories of how she begged her Black sharecropper parents to allow her to attend the one-room
schoolhouse in their rural Mississippi town. For them, tending to the family’s land was a higher
priority than having their daughter seek a formal education—but my grandmother, growing up
poor and Black, was aware of limited options available to her in the racist South and wanted
more for herself. She saw education as her main opportunity to alleviate these hardships. Though
education didn’t eliminate racism, it helped her navigate spaces that she was never intended to
occupy. After graduating high school, my grandmother met and married my grandfather. They
moved to Los Angeles, California with hopes of finding better job opportunities and less racism.
My grandmother found a job as a housekeeper while my grandfather, also a high school
graduate, went back to school to earn his drafting certification in plumbing. My grandfather told
stories about the nights my grandmother stayed up late to keep him encouraged as he finished his
coursework. They worked as a team and used their education to create a path towards financial
security.
When my grandparents began having children, my grandmother stopped working to raise
them fulltime. As a stay-at-home mother, my grandmother instilled a passion for learning in my
mother and her siblings by reading books and playing spelling games as a family. Through these
experiences, my mother developed a love for learning. She became an avid reader and excelled
in school. When my mom was 10 years old, my grandparents purchased a home and moved the
family to Baldwin Park, California. They were the third Black family to live in their
predominately White, middle-class suburban neighborhood. This was a big transition for my
mother and her siblings who had grown up in a predominately Black neighborhood in Los
2
Angeles. My family wasn’t well received by the White families and businesses in town. Certain
churches and businesses refused to accept them because they were Black. The rejection they
experienced made my mother aware of the racism. As a child, my mother chose to challenge
these racist assumptions by continuing to excel in school. She even made a pact with the other
Black students in her classes to get all As to show their White peers that Black people were smart
too. My mother worked hard to establish a pattern of excellence so that White people couldn’t
underestimate her intelligence. After graduating from high school, my mom pursued her
associates degree in liberal arts and was then recruited by the workforce.
When my mother began having children, she raised us in the same Baldwin Park
neighborhood where she had grown up. Since my mother’s childhood, the city’s demographics
shifted from predominately White, middle class, to predominately Latinx, lower class. The same
schools that my mom attended as a child, were now all Title I schools, serving majority lowincome students. Like my grandmother, my mom emphasized the significance of education. She
taught my brothers and me that the skills we developed in school would help us thrive as
adults—both personally and professionally. She also explained that education would help us
mitigate some of the structural racism we would experience as Black people by providing us
access to higher education, employment, and housing. My mom supplemented our public-school
education with workbooks and educational games to advance our skills in fun ways. She also
invested in tutors, school trips, and extracurricular activities to ensure we developed into welleducated and well-rounded students. My mother made it clear through her words and actions that
our education was a priority because of its impact on the trajectory of our future.
As a child, I was very intrinsically motivated in school. I enjoyed learning and excelled in
my Title I K–12 education. My intrinsic motivation coupled with my mother and grandparents’ s
3
support, pushed me to thrive academically. Since kindergarten, I had established a pattern of
academic success that I expected to continue throughout college and beyond. These sentiments
were also reinforced by my mother, grandparents, and teachers. When I was accepted to USC to
pursue my bachelor's degree in neuroscience, I felt confident that my K–12 skills were going to
set me up for success. Despite my best efforts, I quickly realized that the skills I had acquired
were not enough to meet the academic expectations of college. My prerequisite courses expected
students to understand science concepts at a higher level of complexity and application than what
I was prepared for. I considered asking professors for help, but as one of few Black students in
my major, I was afraid I would convey to my professors that I didn’t belong at the college. As I
began forming friendships in my major, I found that many of my Black peers came from
affluent, predominately White, private high schools and seemed very familiar with this level of
content. I confided in them about my struggles in the program and they were happy to come to
my aid. They were generous with their time and knowledge which allowed me to strengthen my
skills and improve as a neuroscience major. However, this situation also made me aware that
there was a fundamental difference in the learning experiences received by those attending
predominately White affluent high schools and those attending predominately Latinx lowincome high schools.
During my senior year of college, I was recruited by Teach for America. My academic
struggles in college inspired me to want to teach students from backgrounds like mine. Teach for
America provided me the opportunity to start a teaching career working with Black and Latinx
students from low-income communities as I had hoped. My first teaching position was at a Title
I high school in Gwinnett County, Georgia. My bachelor’s degree in neuroscience allowed me to
be hired as a biology teacher. I enjoyed my role as a teacher; however, I realized that most of my
4
students had language and math skills that were at minimum 2 to 3 years below their grade level.
I realized that I needed to scaffold learning experiences to help my students reach success in the
class; however, that made it challenging to prepare them for the rigor of their next science class
and beyond. As a result, I became passionate about curriculum development. I wanted to find
ways to close the gaps of learning that I saw with my biology students. After three years as a
classroom teacher, I left to pursue a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction.
As I continued my career in education serving Black and Latinx students, I saw similar
barriers manifest in different contexts. In both K–12 and higher education settings, I noticed that
many of my students lacked the skills necessary to thrive in their learning experience. The
pattern I witnessed made me suspect that there were additional factors that were impacting the
learning and matriculation of Black and Latinx students in various educational spaces. I decided
to pursue my Ed.D. in educational leadership to become more aware and better equipped to
address these barriers for Black and Latinx students.
When I became the chair of the General Education Development (GED) preparation
program I wanted to be intentional about the experiences we provided our Black and Latinx
students. Within my role, I had the autonomy and funding to structure the program to best
support student needs and prepare them for the academic rigor of the GED exam. While the main
goal of the program was to prepare students to pass the GED exam, I wanted to create a learning
environment that scaffolded learning to support their success on the exam and beyond. To do
this, I wanted to facilitate change that alleviated barriers for Black and Latinx students pursuing
their GED. In my dissertation, I was interested in leveraging antiracism and structural ideology
to address racism and other structural barriers embed within our GED program.
5
Historically Entrenched Inequity
The GED exam was created in 1942 to serve as a college entrance exam for wounded
servicemen and acted as a substitute for those who had been unable to obtain a high school
diploma during World War II (Heckman et al., 2014). The exam allowed veterans who were
drafted before completing high school the opportunity to earn a diploma. At the time of the war,
the GED exam mostly benefited White men because over 85% of 16.1 million soldiers were
White (U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1948). In 1947, the New York Education
Department was the first to extend the GED exam to nonveterans (Heckman et al., 2014). Within
a year, 22 other states similarly extended the GED alternative to nonveterans. To deter high
school students from leaving school and taking the GED exam, many states established a
minimum age requirement of 18 years old (Heckman et al., 2014). The current version of the
GED exam was created in 2014 to serve as a foundation for students’ continued education,
training, and access to better-paying jobs (GED Testing Service, 2014). National data shows that
people without high school diplomas or alternative credentials experienced higher rates of
poverty (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2021). In 2020, 24.7% of high school dropouts were
living in poverty compared to the 13.2% of those with a high school diploma or alternative
credential (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2021). Despite the lack of data specific to GED
credentials, these findings suggest that earning a GED credential could positively impact an
individual’s socioeconomic status compared to not earning a high school diploma or alternative
credential at all. The GED exam provides a pathway for these individuals to earn a high school
credential and access to higher education and employment opportunities (Heckman et al., 2014).
Though the GED exam provides an opportunity for high school dropouts to earn a high
school credential, it has been critiqued for producing students who are unprepared for college
6
and the workforce (Heckman et al., 2014). Researchers have found that those who earn GEDs are
less likely to enroll in or complete college compared to high school graduates (Heckman et al.,
2014; Kim & Joo, 2013). GED recipients who dropped out of college were surveyed and
reported that most could not handle the advanced coursework–causing them to leave college
completely (Heckman et al., 2014). Researchers also found that when compared to high school
graduates, GED recipients earned lower annual income and experienced higher rates of
unemployment (Heckman et al., 2014). Though GED credentials afford individuals more access
to increasing their socioeconomic status, GED recipients still experience barriers to education
and the workforce that their high school diploma counterparts don’t.
Since the 1970s, data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (2021) has
shown that Black and Latinx populations have historically had the highest rates of high school
dropout in the United States. In 1972, White populations experienced a 12% dropout rate
compared to the 21% and 34% dropout rates experienced in Black and Latinx populations,
respectively (NCES, 2021). Though the difference in rates has decreased in recent years, Black
and Latinx populations continue to experience higher rates of dropout. National data from 2019
shows that when compared to the 10% dropout rates seen in White populations, Black and Latinx
populations still experienced higher dropout rates of 19% and 17%, respectively (NCES, 2023).
Similar differences across racial groups can also be seen in GED completion and pass rate data.
The American Council on Education (2019) reported that between 2014–2018, White test-takers
had the highest completion rates at 77% while Black and Latinxs had the lowest completion rates
at 62% and 64%, respectively. This data highlights possible disparities in exam preparation for
Black and Latinx populations. In addition, White test takers were also found to have the higher
pass rates of 70% compared to the 46% and 52.7% pass rates for Black and Latinx test takers
7
(American Council on Education, 2019). The differences in dropout and GED exam rates by race
allude to the existence of additional factors that hinder the educational attainment of Black and
Latinx people. Though the GED pathway provides an opportunity for these students attain high
school equivalency and continue their education or employment, support is needed to ensure they
are prepared for the exam (Heckman et al., 2014).
Context
The college Chief Academic Officer (CAO) was passionate about making GED exam
preparation more accessible to residents in the county of Los Angeles. To achieve this goal, he
sought out and earned a grant to launch a GED program at Valley College. When the CAO hired
me to develop its curriculum and matriculation structure we already enjoyed a positive working
relationship because I had previously volunteered and taught as an adjunct faculty member at the
college. At the time of the study, I had moved from developing the curriculum and matriculation
structure to serving as the chair of the GED program. The CAO and DP had created a peeroriented—as opposed to hierarchal—culture within the college. As a result, I had a lot of
autonomy in the development of the GED program. My supervisors were also very supportive
throughout the program’s development. They trusted my expertise as an educator and regularly
made themselves available to provide guidance and feedback.
I launched the program in October of 2022 and served as the program’s lead faculty. The
1-year GED program was taught online to encourage applicants from across the county. The sole
requirement for admission was that students be 18 years of age or older and had computer and
internet access. The program was comprised of four 12-week online courses: language arts,
mathematics, social studies and science. Students attended weekly 2-hour online workshops and
completed online learning modules from a curriculum platform approved by the GED Testing
8
Service. The online learning modules included multiple choice, fill-in-the-blank, drop-down, and
extended response questions aligned to the objectives of the GED exam. Students who completed
the course with a 75% or higher were provided with a GED exam voucher to pay for the cost of
their GED exam. Though the curriculum was approved by the GED Testing service, many of our
students struggled complete their coursework and pass the exam. Twenty-one students were
enrolled into our first cohort. Of those students, 11 were Black and 10 were Latinx.
Role
In its mission statement, Valley College identified itself as an antiracist college. When I
was hired to create the GED program, no operational definition or implementation strategies
around antiracism were provided. There was no college-wide assessment of antiracist practices,
which resulted in me deprioritizing antiracism within the development and facilitation of the
GED program. Engaging in my doctoral program reminded me of my failure to address
antiracism within the GED program.
In my role as chair of the GED program, I developed the program structure and
curriculum. I replicated structures suggested by the GED Testing Service and other colleges in
our region; however, I failed to center the Black and Latinx communities we served. Through my
experiences as a student and a teacher, I had an internalized belief that the GED structures I was
replicating would be the best tool to improve opportunities for our students. Unfortunately, I
didn’t consider ways the GED approved structure and curriculum would perpetuate racism and
create matriculation barriers for our GED students. This realization inspired me to utilize my
action research study to explore ways to make antiracist change to the GED program. At the
time, I had also become aware of structural ideology and believed leveraging it with antiracism
would help us address barriers that weren’t race specific.
9
I used my understandings of antiracism and structural ideology to develop a proposal for
an entrepreneurship-centered GED program. The goal of the entrepreneurship-centered GED
program was to teach the GED content areas within the context of entrepreneurship to pass the
GED exam and start a business. My goal was to empower our students to become entrepreneurs
so that they could evade racist structures and other barriers that exist within employment and
continued education. I intended to use the proposal during the study to show my college Chief
Academic Officer (CAO) and Deputy Provost (DP) how I was conceptualizing the terms within
our context. I also intended to use the proposal as a springboard to begin reimagining our GED
program as antiracist and structural ideological. The research question that guided the study was:
How do I collaborate with the Chief Academic Officer and Deputy Provost as thought partners
and decisionmakers, to reimagine an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program?
In the remainder of this document, I will provide my conceptual framework, which
describes the concepts that guided my research. Next, I will then provide my methods sections,
which will describe my actions within this qualitative study. Following, I will offer my findings
as they related to my research question. Finally, I will provide my afterword which will describe
my retrospective takeaways since completing my study and the next steps within my practice.
Conceptual Framework
As described by Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that support and inform one’s research. Since
completing my findings, my conceptual framework has been updated to reflect what I’ve learned
and serves as my new tentative theory of change. The conceptual framework in Figure 1,
describes the concepts, theories, and expectations that informed the ways I used the reflective
cycle (Rodgers, 2002) and forms of assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) to engage my
10
supervisors (the CAO and DP) and myself with the concepts of antiracism (Brookfield & Hess,
2021) and structural ideology (Gorski, 2016) to reimagine our GED program. The reflective
cycle provided a structure to uncover our current ideologies, allowed for discourse around
antiracism and structural ideology, and supported our transfer of knowledge to practice (Rodgers,
2002). To support the learning environment and transfer of knowledge for us, I used four forms
of assistance: modeling, feedbacking, questioning, and cognitive structuring (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). These forms of assistance, in conjunction with the phases of the reflective cycle,
supported me in creating an environment for us to engage with antiracism and structural
ideology.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
The subsequent sections will describe each component of my conceptual framework in
more detail. I will begin by conceptualizing antiracism and structural ideology. Then I will
explain the reflective cycle and each form of assisted performance used to support my
supervisors and me during the learning experience as well as the way they remain a part of my
theory of change as I continue to develop the GED program.
11
Antiracism
Antiracism is described by Brookfield and Hess (2021) as the practice of challenging
White supremacy, White privilege, and White normativity as the baseline of humanity. Antiracist
education empowers individuals to challenge White supremacy both individually and
collectively and requires them to interrupt the ways White supremacy results in automatic
gatekeepers, moralists, and policymakers across multiple institutions (Brookfield & Hess, 2021).
To disrupt these structures, it’s imperative for society to cultivate antiracists—individuals who
engage with ideas and actions that support antiracist policies (Brookfield & Hess, 2021; Kendi,
2019).
Structural Ideology
Paul Gorski (2016) describes structural ideology as one’s understanding that student
outcome disparities are largely the result of structural barriers. These barriers, whether
intentional or not, are often not acknowledged or eliminated and result in inequitable access to
opportunities. Structural ideology acknowledges these barriers and seeks to be responsive to
conditions and not punish marginalized students for their implications (Gorski, 2016). Though
structural ideology has great potential to help educators remedy inequities, it conflicts with the
United States’s dominantly held deficit and grit ideologies. Gorski defines deficit ideology as
“the belief that poverty is the natural result of ethical, intellectual, spiritual, and other
shortcoming in people who are experiencing it” (Gorski, 2016, p. 381). Deficit ideology places
blame on individuals experiencing inequities by attributing blocks in success to their attitudes,
behaviors, cultures, and mindsets that block their potential for success. Deficit ideology ignores
the structural barriers that contribute to people experiencing hardship. This often results in
educators developing well intentioned strategies that are geared to “fix” these individuals. Grit
12
ideology differs from deficit ideology in that the structural barriers are acknowledged; however,
instead of addressing barriers with policy or practice, individuals are encouraged to increase their
grit and perseverance (Gorski, 2016, p. 382). Gorski explains that the obvious problem with grit
ideology is that the barriers that most impact educational outcomes are not related to the
students’ grittiness. This ideology bypasses structural disparities and requires students to
overcome inequities that they shouldn’t be experiencing. Unfortunately, educators often
implement instructional interventions, promote grit, and work to increase family involvement,
and avoid addressing these disparities directly.
While I still agree with Gorski’s (2016) argument that we should challenge structural
barriers that impede student success, his theory is not something I need to operationalize with my
learners to accomplish what he’s suggesting. As a result, it has been omitted from my revised
conceptual framework.
The Reflective Cycle
The reflective cycle is a 4-phase inquiry process intended to slow down teachers’
thinking so they can attend to student learning in more rich and nuanced ways (Rodgers, 2002).
Learning experiences are reflected on across four phases: presence, description, analysis, and
experimentation. This process supports teachers in being able to better describe experiences and
gather feedback to take intelligent action. Rather than using the reflective cycle to attend to
student learning in the classroom or at the school level, as suggested by Rodgers, I adapted the
reflective cycle as a cognitive structure to slow down my supervisors and me to explore our GED
program with antiracist and structural ideology lenses. I also used the cycle to support us in
deliberating collectively about what an antiracist and structurally ideological (Brookfield &
Hess, 2021; Gorski, 2016) program would look like and how it would function. I leveraged the
13
reflective process during weekly meetings as a cognitive structure to support my supervisors in:
(1) developing their ability to conceptualize antiracism and structural ideology and (2) proposing
intelligent action to the GED program based on their understandings of these theories.
The four phases of this cycle provided the opportunity for my supervisors and me to
center ourselves around these concepts and guided us to proposing change to the GED program.
During the presence phase, educators are asked to be present and “learn to see” ways to improve
student learning (Rodgers, 2002). I used the presence phase to cultivate a common analytical
language (Rodgers, 2002) around antiracism and structural ideology. Rodgers (2002) states that
establishing a shared meaning is important to reveal our nature of teaching and learning. A
common language can be established by a group or leveraged from an existing framework
(Rodgers, 2002). To account for the variety of interpretations my supervisors and I had, sharing a
common analytical language allowed us to reveal the nuanced meanings behind our words and
expressions when discussing antiracist and structural ideological change for the GED program
(Rodgers, 2002). While we were able to share a common analytical language around antiracism,
we were less successful doing so with structural ideology.
I then invited my supervisors to conceptualize the terms within our context. The
description phase requires educators to name the elements of an experience so it can be seen
from as many perspectives as possible (Rodgers, 2002, p. 237). During the study, I used this
phase to support us in naming aspects of the GED program that are aligned and misaligned with
antiracism and structural ideology. In the analysis phase, educators learn to think from multiple
perspectives and form multiple explanations to describe experiences (Rodgers, 2002, p. 235). I
used the phase to guide us in describing why the previously identified GED program components
were aligned or misaligned to antiracism and structural ideology. In the final experimentation
14
phase, educators “learn to take intelligent action” by leveraging the information gathered in the
previous phases. I used this phase to support us in proposing antiracist and structurally
ideological change to the GED program based on what we described and analyzed in previous
stages. The reflective cycle remains a part of my theory of change as I expect to continue to
deploy it as a cognitive structure as I work with the college’s academic chairs to propose
antiracist change for their programs. I also continue to believe that it is essential to develop a
common analytical language amongst those with whom I work.
Forms of Assistance
I continue to include assisted performance in my theory of change to provide adult
learners the supports they need so that they can engage in the reflective cycle to explore
antiracism and apply an antiracist lens as a tool to (re)design programs at Valley College. Tharp
and Gallimore (1988) define assisted performance as what a learner can do with help, with the
support of others, the environment, and themselves. Its goal is to support learners in transitioning
from a place of assisted performance to one of unassisted performance. In my action research, I
used forms of assisted performance to support the learning of my CAO and DP to understand
antiracism and structural ideology and enact aligned change to the GED program. To support my
supervisors through this process, I leveraged modeling, feedbacking, questioning, and cognitive
structuring. Modeling, feedbacking, and questioning were all part of my initial conceptual
framework. Each form of assistance was attended to during my action research despite not being
reflected in my findings. Cognitive structuring was a form of assistance that emerged from my
findings. Therefore, my conceptual framework now includes this approach to assisting
performance.
15
Modeling offers a behavior for imitation (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Bandura (as cited in
Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) explains that modeling is highly effective in establishing abstract
behaviors like judgmental orientation. For the purposes of this study, I extended the concept of
“judgmental orientation” to apply to antiracism and structural ideology. During the study, I used
my antiracist and structurally ideological curriculum proposal to demonstrate the application of
these terms within our context for them to apply for themselves. I intend to use modeling as I
work with others at the college to demonstrate antiracist thinking and make space for them to
practice their application in our context.
The next mean of assistance, feedbacking, refers to information about student
performance compared to a standard (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Tharp and Gallimore explain
that feedbacking is often enough to guide learners to improved performance. In the case of this
study, feedbacking was provided to guide my supervisors’ understanding of antiracism and
structural ideology and how the theories could be used to reimagine the GED program. I used
definitions of antiracism and structural ideology as well as my own understanding of the
concepts to establish a standard that I could use to provide feedback about their proposed
reimaginings. I continue to believe that feeding back is an essential form of assistance for my
theory of change as it provides me with the ability to redirect learners to appropriate
understandings as they engage in experiences.
I used questioning to support the CAO and DP with mental and verbal practice of
antiracism and structural ideology and to regulate their assembling of evidence and logic (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1988). Specifically, probing and guiding questions (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) were
used to guide my supervisors towards unassisted performance of antiracist and structural
ideological change through their reimagining of the GED program. Probing questions ask
16
students to elaborate their thinking, apply prior knowledge, and justify their ideas while guiding
questions ask students to answer specific questions, recall strategies, or provide hints to
understand a concept or complete a procedure (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). These questions were used
to assist and regulate my supervisors’ learning of antiracism and structural ideology and
supported their reimagining of the GED program (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). I still hold this
form of assistance as essential to my theory of change because it provides me the opportunity to
understand how learners are making sense of the learning experience.
The last form of assistance, cognitive structuring, is defined by Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) as the “provision of a structure for thinking and acting.” During the study, I used the
reflective cycle and developing a common analytic language as cognitive structures to facilitate
our thinking and acting around antiracism and structural ideology. I used guiding questions that
aligned with each phase of the reflective cycle to help us ground our understandings of these
concepts in our context. By utilizing the reflective cycle as a cognitive structuring, I was able to
slow down the learning experience to help us see the GED program from multiple perspectives
and propose antiracist change. I also worked with my learners to develop a common analytical
language (Rodgers, 2002) as a cognitive structure to help my supervisors and me cultivate a
shared meaning around antiracism. I was less successful in promoting a common analytical
language in relation to structural ideology.
Research Methods
My research question intended to explore how I collaborated with the CAO and DP as
thought partners to reimagine the GED program to be antiracist and structurally ideological. A
qualitative action research approach was used to help make sense of the social practices and
support my supervisors in reimagining the GED program. This approach also allowed me to
17
inductively interpret data with findings grounded in the dataset (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p.
164) from my transcripts, reflections, and analytic memos. My study is considered action
research because I acted as a practitioner-scholar while drawing on an issue from practice and
used the research process to identify and implement a possible solution (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017, p. 234). While I initially intended to collaborate with my supervisors to identify and
implement antiracist and structural ideological remedies (reimaginings) in relation to the GED
curriculum, after the cycle 1, session 1, I expanded the study to explore the entire program
because I believed it would allow us to propose more robust antiracist and structural ideological
change that would better serve our students.
Participants and Setting
This study took place at Valley College during the Spring 2023 semester. I used
purposeful selection of participants to provide information that was particularly relevant to my
research questions and could not be acquired from other sources (Maxwell, 2013, p. 97). I
selected the CAO and DP to participate because of their decision-making power regarding the
GED program and the college at large. Within my role as program chair, I reported to the CAO
for general approval for all program decisions and the DP to operationalize student support
services for the GED program’s students. Any reimaginings produced from this study, including
my proposed model, would need to be approved by the CAO and DP for implementation. My
supervisors were also selected because of the college’s antiracist mission. I intended for the
study to deepen our engagement with antiracism and provide exposure to structural ideology in
ways that would continue to influence our practice long term. Weekly meetings with the CAO
and DP were hosted online via Microsoft Teams and recorded for data collection.
18
During this study, I collaborated with the CAO and the DP to reimagine our GED
program to be antiracist and structurally ideological. To facilitate this work, it was imperative
that I was aware of the ways of knowing that guided my supervisors and me as adult learners. I
drew from Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) constructivist developmental theory to
assess where each of us was in their developmental typology. Drago-Severson and BlumDeStefano assert that there are four ways of knowing, instrumental, socializing, self-authoring,
and self-transforming.
The CAO originally launched the college in 2020 to offer health care certifications for
aspiring substance use disorder counselors. From there, he expanded the college’s services to
provide additional academic programs, including the GED program. The CAO identified as a
Black, cisgender man in his 40s. He held doctor of psychology degree and had over 15 years of
experience working in education and behavioral health. Based on the Drago-Severson and BlumDeStefano (2017) typology, the CAO’s ways of knowing could be described as self-authoring.
Self-authoring knowers are people who have the internal capacity to consider others’
expectations, assessments, and suggestions in relation to their own judgement (Drago-Severson
& Blum-DeStefano, 2017). As the chair of the GED program, I found the CAO to be proactive to
take a firm stand for me, students, and the college regarding social justice, diversity, and equity
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). They regularly advocate for the needs of students,
staff, and programs, regardless of the potential resistance from the organization’s board of
directors. The CAO committed themself to this advocacy because they believed in the leadership
of the individuals they employed at the college. These attributes are consistent with a selfauthoring knower because his proactivity and advocacy in his role is the result of him acting in
relation to his self-determined values.
19
The DP had worked for the college since its founding in 2020. She identified as a Black,
cisgender woman in her late 20s and had 8 years of professional experience in higher education.
Based on the Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) typology, the DP’s ways of knowing
could best be described as self-authoring. Within their role, she leveraged her own values, ideals,
and long-term vision to create innovative resources to support the recruitment and matriculation
of our students (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). During our collaborations, I had
found that the DP’s approach went beyond the expectations of their role to bring changes that
provided access for all students, particularly those from historically marginalized groups. She has
shown the internal capacity to prioritize and integrate the competing values between our
students, each program, and the college (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). As a result,
their influence had improved daily procedures, student resources, and policies for the GED
program and the overall college. These attributes are consistent with a self-authoring knower
because in her role, she used her internally derived standards to consider the expectations from
students, partners, and the college at-large.
I am a Black, cisgender woman in my 30s with 13 years of experience as a teacher and 8
years of experience as a curriculum developer. This was my first experience developing and
launching an academic program for a college. Based on the Drago-Severson and BlumDeStefano (2017) typology, I identified myself as a self-authoring learner. I was strongly driven
by my own values for teaching, leading and social justice. I was willing to advocate for myself
and others to make environments more equitable. As a result, I was accepting of the conflict that
arose from my advocacy. Within my role as GED program chair, I regularly advocated for the
needs of students and the program to better support student matriculation through the program
and passing of the GED exam. These attributes are consistent with a self-authoring knower
20
because I derived my own standards related to my role and leveraged them to consider and
advocate for student and program needs.
Since the DP and CAO were both identified as self-authoring, I provided similar supports
for their learning. During this study, supported them by serving as a thought partner to explore
the GED program, and its consistencies and inconsistencies with antiracism. As self-authoring
knowers, working as thought partners provided us the space to see into and critique new
initiatives for change—a skill that is challenging for the self-authoring (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017). These collaborations took place during recorded weekly meetings.
During these meetings, we worked together to reflection on the GED program and reimagine it
as antiracist and structurally ideological. I used the reflective cycle to provide a structure to
discuss the theories of antiracism and structurally ideology with the CAO and DP. In these
meetings, I supported my supervisors to use antiracism and, less successfully, structurally
ideology, to advocate for their ideas about what changes should be made to the GED program.
To guide our efforts around antiracism, I used three practical strategies that were
identified to empower individuals to become antiracists: (1) identify ways we perpetuate racism,
(2) deliberate collectively about what a racially equitable and inclusive community would look
like and function, and (3) enact antiracist change (Brookfield & Hess, 2021). In this study, I
leveraged these three antiracist strategies to facilitate discourse around the GED program.
Together, the CAO, DP, and I: (1) identified ways the GED program perpetuated racism, (2)
deliberated collectively about what a racially equitable and inclusive GED program would like
and function, and (3) proposed antiracist change to the GED program.
To guide our efforts around structural ideology, I utilized weekly meetings with my
supervisors to explore how the program is aligned or misaligned with structural ideology. Each
21
phase of the reflective cycle was used to further conversations that acknowledged and addressed
the program’s perpetuation of structural barriers. These meetings served as the opportunity for
my supervisors and me to see, describe, analyze, and experiment towards a program that
acknowledged and reduced structural barriers for our Black and Latinx students (Rodgers, 2002;
Gorski, 2016). Modeling, feedbacking, questioning, and cognitive structuring were also used to
explore these concepts and help us to reimagine the GED program. Data regarding this
collaboration was collected from jottings, meeting recordings, reflections, and analytic memos.
The study took place during online weekly meetings over the span of 8 weeks. These
meetings were hosted virtually to accommodate traveling for my supervisors and to allow for the
recording of each meeting. Per the protocol of the college, my supervisors and I had established
weekly meetings to evaluate the GED program prior to the study. For my study, these meetings
were used as the setting to explore my research questions. During the meetings, I conceptualized
antiracism and structurally ideology, facilitated discussions to help them explore our GED
program, and worked with them to reimagine the program. The meeting recordings were used to
write in-field analyses that explored how my supervisors and I engaged in this process.
Actions
During this study, I worked with the college CAO and DP to explore our GED program
and collaborated to reimagine antiracist and structurally ideological change (Brookfield & Hess,
2021; Gorski, 2016). As described in my conceptual framework, the reflective cycle was used to
guide the experience. Table 1 outlines the forms of assistance I used to facilitate this exploration
with my supervisors.
22
Table 1
Action Plan
Action researcher College Leaders Setting Data collected
Cycle 1:
Presence
Weeks 1 & 2
Week 1:
Conceptualize
antiracism.
Explore GED
program’s current
curriculum.
Week 2:
Conceptualize
structural
ideology.
Explore GED
program’s current
curriculum.
Week 1:
Discussion: How can
antiracism improve
the GED
program’s
curriculum?
Week 2:
Discussion: How can
structural ideology
improve the GED
program’s
curriculum?
Team
meeting
Weeks 1 & 2:
Meeting
Recordings
Jottings
Reflections
Analytic Memo: Meeting recording, jottings and reflections will be analyzed
for ways that my supervisors engaged with (1) antiracism, (2) structural
ideology, and (3) the weekly discussion question(s)? How did my
supervisors reimagine the GED program’s curriculum? How do their
reimaginings align with antiracism and/or structural ideology? How did I use
supportive learning conditions to help my supervisors engage in the
experience? How do the interactions and/or reimaginings relate to the
HEADSUP checklist (Andreotti, 2012a)
1 Analytic
Memo
Cycles 2 & 3:
Description &
Analyze
Weeks 3 & 4
Weeks 3 & 4:
Model how to name
components of the
GED curriculum
that are aligned or
misaligned to
antiracism.
Model how to
analyze why
components of the
GED curriculum
are aligned or
misaligned to
antiracism.
Weeks 3 & 4:
Discussion: Which
components of the
GED program’s
curriculum are
aligned or
misaligned to
antiracism?
Discussion: Why are
the named
components of the
curriculum aligned
or misaligned to
antiracism?
Team
meeting
Weeks 3 & 4:
Meeting
Recordings
Jottings
Reflections
Analytic Memo: Meeting recording, jottings and reflections will be analyzed
for ways that my supervisors engaged with (1) antiracism, (2) structural
ideology, and (3) the weekly discussion question(s)? How did my
supervisors reimagine the GED program’s curriculum? How do their
reimaginings align with antiracism and/or structural ideology? How did I
1 Analytic
Memo
23
use supportive learning conditions to help my supervisors engage in the
experience? How do the interactions and/or reimaginings relate to the
HEADSUP checklist (Andreotti, 2012a)
Cycles 2 & 3:
Description &
Analyze
Weeks 5 & 6
Weeks 5 & 6:
Model how to name
components of the
GED curriculum
that are aligned or
misaligned to
structural
ideology.
Model how to
analyze why
elements of the
GED curriculum
that are aligned or
misaligned to
structural
ideology.
Weeks 5 & 6:
Discussion: Which
components of the
GED program’s
curriculum are
aligned or
misaligned to
structural
ideology?
Discussion: Why are
the named
components of the
curriculum aligned
or misaligned to
structural
ideology?
Team
meeting
Weeks 5 & 6:
Meeting
Recordings
Jottings
Reflections
Analytic Memo: Meeting recording, jottings and reflections will be analyzed
for ways that my supervisors engaged with (1) antiracism, (2) structural
ideology, and (3) the weekly discussion question(s)? How did my
supervisors reimagine the GED program’s curriculum? How do their
reimaginings align with antiracism and/or structural ideology? How did I use
supportive learning conditions to help my supervisors engage in the
experience? How do the interactions and/or reimaginings relate to the
HEADSUP checklist (Andreotti, 2012a)
1 Analytic
Memo
Cycle 4:
Experimentation
Weeks 7 & 8
Weeks 7 & 8:
Model how to enact
(reimagine)
antiracist and
structurally
ideological change
to the named
components of the
GED program’s
curriculum.
Weeks 7 & 8:
Discussion: How
can we enact
antiracist and
structurally
ideological change
to the named
components of the
GED program’s
curriculum?
Team
meeting
Weeks 7 & 8:
Meeting
Recordings
Jottings
Reflections
Analytic Memo: Meeting recording, jottings and reflections will be analyzed
for ways that my supervisors engaged with (1) antiracism, (2) structural
ideology, and (3) the weekly discussion question(s)? How did my
supervisors reimagine the GED program’s curriculum? How do their
reimaginings align with antiracism and/or structural ideology? How did I use
supportive learning conditions to help my supervisors engage in the
experience? How do the interactions and/or reimaginings relate to the
HEADSUP checklist (Andreotti, 2012a)
1 Analytic
Memo
24
Table 2
The HEADSUP Checklist (Andreotti, 2012a, p. 4)
Problematic Historical Pattern Reflection Questions
Hegemony: justifying
superiority and supporting
domination.
Does this initiative promote the idea that one group of people
could design and implement the ultimate solution that will
solve all problems?
Does this initiative invite people to analyze things from
different perspectives, including complicities in the making
of the problems being addressed?
Ethnocentrism: projecting one
view as universal.
Does this initiative imply that anyone who disagrees with
what is proposed is completely wrong or immoral?
Does this initiative acknowledge that there are other logical
ways of looking at the same issue framed by different
understanding of reality?
Ahistoricism: forgetting
historical legacies and
complicities.
Does this initiative introduce a problem in the present without
reference to why this problem exists and how “we” are
connected to the making of that?
Does this initiative offer a complex historical analysis of the
issue?
Depoliticization: disregarding
power inequalities and
ideological roots of analyses and
proposals.
Does this initiative present the problem/solution as
disconnected from power and ideology?
Does this initiative acknowledge it’s on ideological location
and offer an analysis of power relationships?
Salvationism: framing help as
the burden of the fittest.
Does this initiative present helpers or adopters as the chosen
“global” people on a mission to save the world and lead
humanity towards its destiny of order, progress and harmony?
Does this initiative acknowledge that the self-centered desire
to be better than/superior to others and the imposition of
aspirations for singular ideas of progress and development
have historically been part of what creates injustice?
Uncomplicated solutions:
offering easy and simply
solutions that do not require
systemic change.
Does this initiative offer simplistic analyses and answers that
do not invite people to engage with complexity or think more
deeply?
Does this initiative offer a complex analysis of the problem
acknowledging the possible adverse effects of proposed
solutions?
Paternalism: seeking
affirmation of
authority/superiority through the
provision of help and the
infantilization of recipients.
Does this initiative portray people in need as people who lack
education, resources, maturity, or civilization and who would
and should be very grateful for your help?
Does this initiative portray people in need as people who are
entitled to disagree with their saviors and to legitimately want
to implement different solutions to what their helpers have in
mind?
25
Data Collection
To study my efforts to collaborate with the CAO and DP and the ways my supervisors
engaged with antiracism and structural ideology to reimagine our GED program as antiracist and
without the structural barriers that operated to impede student success, I collected data in the
forms of weekly meeting recordings, jottings, reflections, and analytic memos. While in the field,
these data were used to inform the second and third cycle of my actions and then to determine
how much progress we made and how much I grew because of our interactions. During the
study, I recorded meetings with my supervisors and collected jottings taken during the session.
After each meeting, I reviewed the recording and converted my jottings into observations about
my collaboration with my supervisors. Consistent with Bogden and Biklen (2007), my jottings
noted observations like, body language, tone, or thoughts I had during the experience. These
observations were used to write reflections about my thoughts on the meeting and how the
meeting impacted my next steps in the study. After each cycle of data collection, I reviewed the
data across all sessions to compose analytic memos. These analytic memos were used for data
analysis and allowed me to explore how I collaborated with my CAO and DP to reimagine our
GED program.
Documents
I collected a total of eight jottings over the course of the study. Jottings served as the
foundation for my fieldnotes that support me in gathering rich data to describe and reflect-on
experiences during the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Descriptively, jottings were used to
reconstruct dialogue, recount events, depict activities, and describe my behavior as an action
researcher during each meeting (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). During
the study, these documents were also be used to reflect on my analysis, methods, ethical
26
dilemmas, and my frame of mind as an action researcher (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Jottings from each weekly meeting were collected and converted into
observational fieldnotes and reflections. I wrote eight total reflections over the course of the 8-
week study. After each cycle, I used reflection questions from The HEADSUP Checklist
(Andreotti, 2012a, p.4) to write analytic memos that explored how the findings of each session
related to my research question and explore how we perpetuated problematic historical patterns.
For example, in my analytic memo from cycle 1, I noted that our program’s reliance on GED
approved curriculum was hegemonic. It assumed that the curriculum created by one group, the
GED Testing Service, would be the best support for our Black and Latinx students. Analytic
memos helped me to explore how I engaged my supervisors with antiracism and structural
ideology and supported them in reimagining GED program. I wrote four analytic memos over
the course of the 8 weeks of the study.
Observations
Meeting recordings and jottings provided the opportunity for me to take note of
occurrences like time and behavior during each meeting. These were converted into observations
that allowed me to write reflections on how I engaged my supervisors with antiracism and
supported them in reimagining an antiracist GED program. These 1 hour and 30-minute meetings
were held weekly for 8 weeks via Microsoft teams. Meetings were recorded and I reviewed them
to expand on jottings and converted them into observational fieldnotes. I reviewed footage within
3 days of the meeting to support the accurate description and reflection of the experience.
Data Analysis
I analyzed my data both in field and out of field to identify pieces of data that were
responsive to my research question and conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To
27
support my analysis of data while in the field, I developed analytic questions and planned data
collection sessions based on what I learned in previous observations (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
In the analytic questions, I used concepts in my conceptual framework to help determine how my
data related to my research question. Analytic questions were used to limit the exploration of this
study and helped me organize how to proceed. These questions also supported me in planning
data collection sessions based on what I learned from prior sessions. After each meeting, jottings
were collected and elaborated on using the meeting recordings to create observational fieldnotes.
I then used observational fieldnotes to write reflections that I wrote after each session. At the end
of each cycle, I used reflections to write analytic memos that provided insight that help me
engage in the plan-act-observe-reflect cycle. The analytic memos deepened my understanding
and suggested directions for the next meeting (Herr & Anderson, 2015). They also included
critical reflections from the HEADSUP Checklist (Andreotti, 2012a) that explored how the
interactions and reimaginings between the CAO, DP, and me reproduced problematic historical
patterns (Andreotti, 2012a). Systematic coding was then used to identify relevant data in the
analytic memos that helped answer my research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Coded
data was organized into categories to support interpretation and reflection on meaning. These infield analyses were also discussed and analyzed during the Dissertation in Practice 3 course for
deeper analysis.
During my out of the field analysis, I examined my session recordings, observational
fieldnotes, reflections and analytic memos to develop a code book. I used my conceptual
framework as a priori codes and looked for in vivo codes that emerged from the data. I used
these codes to develop a code book where I organized my data into themes by typicality. I also
met with my dissertation chair to review evidence and analyze it in alignment to my codes.
28
Leveraging analytic tools like questioning, drawing upon personal experience, and thinking
about the various meanings of a word (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) allowed me to identify additional
codes that hadn't been identified in previous reviews of the data. By using these codes, I was able
make connections that ultimately led themselves to my findings.
Limitations and Delimitations
The way I choose to explore my research questions resulted in various limitations and
delimitations. Limitations refer to aspects of the study that I could not control, while
delimitations refer to choices that I made to focus my study. These factors influenced what I was
able to accomplish during the study as well as what I learned from the data. Within my study, an
anticipated limitation was my role as a novice action researcher. I was collecting data for the first
time and my ability to capture what was happening during meetings was constrained by this
reality. In addition, my lack of experience facilitating antiracism and structural ideology limited
my ability to engage my supervisors, gather information, and analyze it related to my research
questions. While I had a stronger conceptualization of antiracism, I struggled to differentiate it
from structural ideology. This made it more challenging to facilitate a shared language around
the term structural ideology and model how to apply it. My study was also limited by the
engagement of my supervisors. While I invited the CAO and DP to engage in this discourse, I
could not control if or how they choose to engage. I also couldn’t control when the scheduled
meeting times were interrupted for other demands placed on me, the CAO and DP.
An anticipated delimitation was my choice to only work with the CAO and DP. These
individuals were selected because of the power their roles had in implementing antiracist change
to the program and the college-at-large. I intended to engage my supervisors in this learning to
29
expand their ways of knowing to improve their practice—and ultimately the college. Another
delimitation was my decision to focus on the GED program. While I could have focused on
specific components of the program, evaluating the entire program allowed for us to explore
more ways to make antiracist change and improve student matriculation.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Maxwell (2013) explains that researcher bias and reactivity are common threats to
qualitative research. While it is impossible to eliminate the researcher’s beliefs or their influence
on other participants, these threats can be mitigated. As a Black cisgender woman, I held a set of
theories, beliefs, and perceptual lens that influenced the conduct and conclusions drawn from this
study (Maxwell, 2013). Also, as an employee who traditionally played a supervisee role to the
CAO and DP, I had to account for potential participant reactivity to the study. The differences in
my identity and role had the potential to threaten the study’s credibility and trustworthiness. To
reduce researcher bias and participant reactivity within the study, I triangulated using intensive,
long-term involvement, rich data, and respondent validation (Maxwell, 2013). I also collaborated
with my dissertation chair, Dr. Slayton, to explore my triangulation for hidden assumptions,
power dynamics, and moves that hindered the study.
Intensive and long-term involvement was used to confirm observations and inferences.
During the eight 1.5-hour sessions, I invited my supervisors to explore antiracism and structural
ideology to reimagine the GED program. As explained by Maxwell (2013), my repeated
observations and sustained presence in the study helped to rule out inaccurate associations and
theories. This long-term interaction also allowed for the development and exploration of other
concepts or theories that emerged during my out of the field analysis. Prolonged and persistent
involvement in the study enabled me to collect rich data (Maxwell, 2013) reflected in the
30
recordings of the meetings, the jottings I created during the meetings, and the observations I
wrote after the fact. My analytic memos provided detailed accounts that supported my
understanding of how I collaborated with my supervisors to engage with antiracism and
structural ideology. For example, my analytic memo from cycle 1 session 2 noted frequent
instances of silence when asked to apply structural ideology within our context. The absence of
reimaginings alluded to the idea that my supervisors and I were not successful in centering
ourselves around structural ideology. Analytic memos also included critical reflections that
explored how the interactions and relationships between the CAO, DP, and me reproduced
problematic historical patterns (Andreotti, 2012a). To ensure I was correctly interpreted my
supervisors’ perspectives and actions, I used respondent validation to solicit their feedback about
my data during the study (Maxwell, 2013). For example, during cycle 3 when the CAO
suggested leveraging student narrative in their coursework, I noticed there was a shift towards a
more student-centered approach compared to his responses in previous sessions. To confirm the
accuracy of interpretation I asked the CAO if I properly represented his shift in perspective. This
supported me in identifying my biases and misunderstanding what I observed during the weekly
meetings. During my out of field analysis, I also spoke with my dissertation chair to ensure I was
not confirming my biases.
Ethics
Research ethics requires researchers to act responsibly, while continually considering the
interests, needs, and protection of participants (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). To protect the
interests and needs of my supervisors from potential harm, I obtained consent, ensured
confidentiality, balanced conflicting needs, and managed relationships (Coghlan, 2019). Before
obtaining consent, I was transparent about the intent of my study by sharing my research
31
questions and planned actions. These steps ensured my supervisors were aware of the
experiences they would be asked to engage in throughout the study. After receiving consent, my
supervisors were notified that they could end their participation in the study at any time and their
associated data would be removed.
Confidentiality was ensured by redacting participant names and removing details that
could identify them or the organization. This was to protect participants and their authentic
engagement in the study. This was also to help manage relationships between me, the
participants, and the college. I managed relationships by keeping my supervisors updated with
the developments of the study and seeking their counsel (Coghlan, 2019). This respondent
validation ensured I properly interpreted the statements and actions of my supervisors. As I
engaged in this work, my dissertation chair also helped me to analyze my data for biases and
misinterpretations.
Findings
In this section, I present the findings that emerged from my study related to the research
question: How do I engage my Chief Academic Officer and Deputy Provost to propose antiracist
and structural ideological change (reimaginings) to our college’s General Education
Development (GED) preparation program? I first discuss the progress my supervisors made with
my support. Two areas emerged from the data: common analytical language and cognitive
structuring. I will then discuss my growth as it relates to my andragogical moves and limitations.
These findings have been informed by 1 agenda slide deck, 8 session recordings, 8 jottings, 8
reflections and 4 analytic memos.
32
Common Analytical Language
Consistent with my conceptual framework, I believed that a common language would be
necessary within a community of inquiry to reveal our nature of teaching and learning. The
purpose of this common analytical language (Rodgers, 2002) was to ensure my supervisors and I
had a shared meaning of antiracism and structural ideology as we engaged in discussion around
the GED program’s alignment to these concepts. Since we were bringing our own interpretations
and experiences to the study, it was important to explore how we were making sense of these
words to avoid using the same words with different meanings or misinterpreting each other’s
analyses. By the conclusion of the study, we were able to share a common understanding of
antiracism and how to enact it within our context; however, there was more work to be done with
respect to structural ideology. were less successful in sharing a common analytical language
around structural ideology. I found that since I lacked a clear understanding of structural
ideology, it limited our ability to share a common language around the term. During week 1 of
the study, I introduced Brookfield and Hess’s (2021) definition of antiracism to center us around
the same language. I also used discussion questions to explore how we were internalizing the
term. At the beginning of the session, I shared the definition and conceptualized my
understanding based on my experiences in education. My conceptualization of antiracism
provided a space for me to reveal my understanding of the term to my supervisors. I then utilized
the discussion question, “How can antiracism improve the GED program’s curriculum?” to
create a space for my supervisors to internalize the term and articulate their understanding within
our context. The following excerpt shows an example of how we shared a common analytical
language for antiracism:
33
Me: So, just to give you the working definition that I’m having with antiracism. So
again, this is taken from Brookfield and Hess. (I begin reading from PowerPoint
slide with antiracism definition from Brookfield and Hess (2021)) They describe
antiracism as a practice of challenging White supremacy, White privilege, White
and White normativity as a baseline of humanity. So, when we speak specifically
about antiracism in education, it’s trying to empower individuals to challenge
White supremacy, both individually and collectively. So, kind of thinking about
our realm of influence as individuals, but also within the institutions that we work
for. So, when we’re trying to be antiracist, we are people who interrupt the ways
that White supremacy result in automatic gatekeepers, moralist policymakers
across multiple institutions. So, for us specifically, within education, that can look
at how do these traditional aspects of education actually make us gatekeepers and
actually perpetuate White supremacy. So essentially a lot of the work that I’m
trying to have us explore is how can we interrupt these structures that we’ve kind
of unknowingly fed into to be able to better support our Black and Latinx students
who are matriculating through the GED program? Walking us through this
reimagining…I really wanted to think of our students beyond the GED exam. So
yes, I know we’re very much like, “We want them to pass the GED.” And, you
know, that’s fantastic. But also thinking about what is that gonna mean for their
continued education? What is that gonna mean for their interactions as a
workforce professional? And also, being Black and Latinx adult students… I’ll
say for myself…I can say, from my experience being a Black woman, I know that
there can be additional factors that impact the Black student experience to
34
navigate and matriculate. Not seeing my history in the curriculum beyond slavery
and things like that. So, all of that to be said is I want to look at the curriculum in
a way that is kind of bringing those factors like those that our students may be
experiencing into the conversation. And so, for example, kind of reframing that
question to say, how does our GED curriculum contribute to being the
gatekeepers? And how can we use antiracism to challenge these structures and
improve the curriculum?
CAO: I think when we talk about how adults learn. Why is the standardized test the
chosen method of saying whether or not someone is equivalent with high school
learning? (sarcastic tone) And I think that’s an important question to think about.
Like when we think about. How we evaluate people in general, you know, what
does testing mean? In general, why? Why do people need to be tested? And there
are plenty of alternative assessments that can be done which aren’t rooted in sort
of. If you’re, Black or Latinx, you have a different outcome rate of passing versus
being White. Which anytime there’s data that. Immediately says, “If you're White,
then you’re more likely to pass the test” then it’s already flawed because it
doesn’t work for everyone, and so we can’t really…accurately I think evaluate
what the GED is trying to do. Because if so, then we need to teach Black and
Latinx people how to take a GED similarly.
When I said, “So, just to give you the working definition I’m having with antiracism,” I
was signaling that this was a starting point for our community of inquiry around the term. This
statement also alluded to the fact that I would be unveiling the nuances and understanding I had
around antiracism for them to understand and join me in inquiry. By informing them, “this is
35
taken from Brookfield and Hess,” I highlighted that I was introducing academic language. I
insinuated that other definitions of antiracism existed, but in alignment with Rodgers (2002), I
was centering us around a definition that I “borrowed from existing frameworks” (p. 247) by
Brookfield and Hess (2021). I intended for this definition to focus our attention on one
interpretation of antiracism and narrow down the language we used to describe it. After
reviewing the definition, I signaled our potential misalignment to antiracism within our
professional context by stating, “So for us specifically, within education, that can look at how do
these traditional aspects of education actually make us gatekeepers and actually perpetuate White
supremacy.” This statement suggested that our community of inquiry would also explore ways
we replicated White supremacy as I started by saying “So for us specifically,” and again pointed
to us when I said, “actually make us gatekeepers and actually perpetuate White supremacy”
I then invited them to reveal their own understandings of antiracism, when I introduced
the discussion questions, “…How does our GED curriculum contribute to being the gatekeepers?
And how can we use antiracism to challenge these structures and improve the curriculum?.” As
described in my conceptual framework, the discussion questions supported our cultivation of a
common analytical language by scratching the surface of our understanding of the word to see if
different meanings and understandings emerged (Rodgers, 2002). The CAO asked with a
sarcastic tone, “Why is the standardized test the chosen method of saying whether or not
someone is equivalent with high school learning?” In this instance, the tone of his question
revealed the way he was internalizing antiracism by questioning the GED’s standardized test. He
leveraged the GED racial outcome data to specifically question the validity of the exam for
Black and Latinx students when he stated,
36
If you’re, Black or Latinx, you have a different outcome rate of passing versus being
White. Which anytime there’s data that says, “If you’re White, then you’re more likely to
pass the test” then it’s already flawed because it doesn’t work for everyone, and so we
can’t really…accurately I think evaluate what the GED is trying to do.
His statement shows how he understood antiracism by noting the exam misalignment by race.
His accurate identification of ways the GED program perpetuated racism (“it’s already flawed
because it doesn’t work for everyone”) shows that we were able to establish that we shared a
common understanding around antiracism.
As the conversation continued, the DP’s engagement in the discussion around antiracism
showed a common analytical language existed with her as well. In the following example, she
internalized the definition of antiracism and revealed her understanding by identifying ways we
could make antiracist change to the GED curriculum.
Me: How can we change the structure of this curriculum, whether it be what
information we’re teaching or the ways that we’re going about teaching? What
ways can we break away racist gatekeepers for our students?
DP: So, one thing that I’m thinking about is the normal traditional way of teaching.
Like the lecturing from the book, I don’t think that is beneficial because most
students…I don’t wanna say it’s a guaranteed fact, but I believe, Black and
Brown people want other ways of learning… like visual or musical. Different
forms of learning are neglected. I think it contributes to students not seeing the
bigger picture. Learning in innovative ways would help us be able to achieve our
academic goals. So, I think that’s a huge factor.
37
When I asked, “What ways can we break away racist gatekeepers for our students?” I was
inviting my supervisors to apply their understanding of antiracism to name ways
we could improve our curriculum’s alignment. The DP displayed her
understanding by alluding to the idea that lecturing was misaligned with
antiracism when she said, “Like the lecturing from the book, I don’t think that is
beneficial because most students…I don’t wanna say it’s a guaranteed fact, but I
believe, Black and Brown people want other ways of learning. Like visual or
musical.” Her statement alludes to her belief that solely lecturing was a racist
instructional practice for Black and Latinx students and that other forms of
learning would be more aligned with antiracism. The DP’s ability to accurately
identify instructional components that hindered or support Black and Latinx
student learning shows we established that we shared a common analytical
language with the DP as well.
As I had done with antiracism, during week 2, I introduced Gorski’s (2016) definition of
structural ideology. Compared to antiracism, we were less familiar with structural ideology and
the ways it exists in the world thus, I presumed that I would be providing a framework to share
common language rather than establishing whether a shared understanding already existed.
Unlike antiracism, the term was more challenging to center our understandings around. At the
beginning of the session, as I had with antiracism, I paraphrased the definition to reveal my
understanding. In this instance, my own conceptualization was still too vague for my supervisors
to internalize it as Gorski (2016) intended. As a result, the way I facilitated the session limited
our ability to share a common analytical language around structural ideology. Despite our vague
understanding of the term, our discussion helped us centralize around a common understanding
38
of barriers that impeded student learning. The following excerpt shows an example of how we
engaged with structural ideology:
Me: (Reading from PowerPoint) Based on Paul Gorki’s definition, structural ideology
is our understanding of student outcomes and how their disparities are largely the
result of structural barriers. Structural ideology is essentially looking at the
barriers that are created by our society, by our laws, that essentially, whether
intentional or not, essentially cause these barriers to hinder people’s opportunities.
So, when we think of structural ideology, we look at these barriers and start to
eliminate them in order to make a more equitable learning experience. And so,
with that, structural ideology is acknowledging these barriers and trying to find a
way to respond to them. And that is kind of the brainstorming that I want to invite
you all to do today is to look at how we can identify the barriers that are impeding
our Black and Latinx students, and then also how do we reimagine the program?
How do we revamp it to be able to eliminate some of those barriers, but also
empower our students to be able to navigate the world?
39
Me: (Referencing to a PowerPoint) So I just put them on the screen. As I mentioned,
structural ideology is about understanding these barriers that are impacting
students from their success and challenging them on their behalf. And so I wanted
to pose what structural barriers are our Black and Latinx students experiencing?
So just kind of some examples, especially based on last week, there can be
language, identity, citizenship status, culture, access, whether that be to access to
technology or access to information and things like that. So, can you guys think of
any barriers with our students that they might be experiencing? And the goal is to
eventually come up with a plan to address those barriers and improve the GED
program. We want to answer the question, “How can structural ideology improve
the GED program’s curriculum?”
CAO: The first thing that I can think about is that structurally, the curriculum is rooted
in works that have been created by Western Society, specifically White scholars.
and so, I think that brings in some issues when it comes to how Black and Latinx
students learn in class, so I think that’s this one structural barrier. I also think that
testing and the way that students are tested and ranked is also racist. With the fact
that these standardized tests are rooted in Western educational theory, and that
40
may or may not be helpful or harmful to Black and Latinx students. I think a lack
of representation in the classroom. Is another structural barrier, specifically in
having instructors who understand cultural humility to the maximum ability.
Those are the first things I started think about, but on top of that, I think a lot of
Black and Latinx students deal with. Umm, some of the societal issues that then
impact their ability to be successful in school. And that’s one area that we’re
we’re trying to work towards, but we don’t have a full grasp on how we can be
supportive. So, a really good example of that would be if students are hungry,
that’s gonna take precedence over their ability to learn. And how do you manage
that or mitigate it as an educational leader?
Me: Great point! I agree.
DP: (To the CAO) You really hit all of my points. But another thing I was thinking
about is like housing too. Some of them have unstable housing which prevented
them to either get their GED test results or have access to a computer. But I also
think about like…Thinking about when my mom was trying to get her GED and
dealing with seven kids that were crazy and a whole husband and what that
looked like… I remember helping my mom do her courses. But that was also a
struggle trying to a different language, which is another barrier that you
mentioned. I would also add housing and income. All of those and what [the
CAO] said are all societal barriers for our students.
Me: I definitely agree.
When I said, “Based on Paul Gorki’s definition…,” I was indicating that I was using
academic language to define structural ideology. I then read Gorski’s (2016) definition of
41
structural ideology on the PowerPoint, providing a framework to share a common analytical
language. I stated:
And that is kind of the brainstorming that I want to invite you all to do today is to look at
how we can identify the barriers that are impeding our Black and Latinx students, and
then also how do we reimagine the program? How do we revamp it to be able to
eliminate some of those barriers, but also empower our students to be able to navigate the
world?
I introduced the purpose of the discussion directly after presenting the definition. This direct
transition shows that I never unpacked my understanding of Gorski’s definition for my
supervisors to internalize and center a common analytical language around.
I then asked, “And so I wanted to pose what structural barriers are our Black and Latinx
students experiencing?” but failed to elaborate on my understanding of “structural barriers”
before asking them to identify them. When I stated, “So just kind of some examples, especially
based on last week, there can be language, identity, citizenship status, culture, access, whether
that be to access to technology or access to information and things like that,” I provided general
examples but didn’t elaborate on how structural barriers manifest within those categories. I also
made the comment “especially based on last week” which alluded to our previous session when
we discussed antiracism. This statement failed to differentiate structural ideology from
antiracism which limited how my supervisors and I could take up the term.
The responses from my supervisors showed that my actions were insufficient in
supporting their understanding of structural ideology, and instead that they internalized the
language offered around “structural barriers.” When the CAO responded, “The first thing that I
can think about is that structurally, the curriculum is rooted in works that have been created by
42
Western Society, specifically White scholars,” he identified a barrier based on the language I
offered him; however, his mention of “White scholars” shows that his interpretation was still
within the context of race—and therefore antiracism—as opposed structural policies. When the
CAO noted “I also think that testing and the way that students are tested and ranked is also
racist,” his use of the term “racist” shows that I did not adequately differentiate between barriers
that were addressed with structural ideology as opposed antiracism. Despite that
misunderstanding, the CAO’s naming of “instructors who understand cultural humility to the
maximum ability” and recognizing that student hunger was “gonna take precedence over their
ability to learn” indicated that he had some understanding of structural ideology. After the CAO
provided his response, my only feedback was “Great point! I agree.” I agreed with his response
based on my own limited understanding of structurally ideology. I also didn’t take time to
redirect his understanding around structural ideology and antiracism to address his use of
language that was more aligned to antiracism.
When the DP said, “You really hit all of my points,” she signaled that she shared a
common understanding of structural ideology with the CAO. This also indicated that she held a
similar misunderstanding around Gorski’s definition of structural ideology. When the DP
identified “some of [our students] have unstable housing which prevented them to either get their
GED test results or have access to a computer,” she showed her understanding of structural
barriers. Her understanding was on par with what I offered them, but her response was not
aligned with Gorksi’s (2016) definition of structural ideology. When the DP said, “Thinking
about when my mom was trying to get her GED and dealing with seven kids that were crazy and
a whole husband and what that looked like… I remember helping my mom do her courses” she
revealed the perspective from which she was identifying structural barriers. She expressed that
43
the barriers were those she observed her mother experiencing while she pursued her GED. When
the DP said, “But that was also a struggle trying to a different language, which is another barrier
that you mentioned,” she indicated that language was a barrier for her mother and acknowledged
that I had listed language as an example. Her response showed that she connected to an example
I offered and not necessarily the definition of the concept I had introduced. The DP stated, “I
would also add housing and income,” where she identified housing and income as additional
barriers to student learning. She also stated, “All of those and what [the CAO] said are all
societal barriers for our students,” which indicated that she believed there was a common
language between her and the CAO’s naming of barriers, not the larger concept of structural
ideology. When I said, “I definitely agree,” I was indicating to the DP that I were agreeing that
these were barriers. However, I did not ask the DP to elaborate on how the factors she mentioned
created barriers for student learning. As a result, I couldn’t ensure that the CAO and I understood
how or whether the DP was making sense of the concept of structural ideology. My failure to act
limited our ability to share a common analytical language around structural ideology eve as we
were able to agree upon the barriers we identified.
Cognitive Structuring
As described in my conceptual framework, I believe the reflective cycle (Rodgers, 2002)
can operate as a form of cognitive structuring. The reflective cycle provides a structure to
consider students’ learning (Rodgers, 2002). I used the four phases of the cycle—presence,
description, analysis, and experimentation—as a set to organize our thinking and acting (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1988) to reimagine the GED program and leveraging antiracism and structural
ideology as lenses to do so. I first used the reflective cycle as a cognitive structure to establish a
common analytic language with the CAO and DP. Through that process, I was able to provide
44
enough assistance for them to then enact the cognitive structure without much assistance from
me.
To establish the reflective cycle as the cognitive structure, I modeled my understanding
and offered discussion questions aligned to each phase of the reflective cycle to provide a
structure for thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) with an antiracist and structural
ideological lens. These questions provided space for my supervisors to practice these cognitive
structures and reimagine our GED program. To explore the program, we engaged with the
following discussion questions across eight sessions: (Cycle 1: presence, session 1) How can
antiracism improve the GED program’s curriculum? (Cycle 1: presence, session 2) How can
structural ideology improve the GED program? (Cycle 2: description, session 3) Which
components of the GED program are aligned or misaligned to antiracism? (Cycle 2: description,
session 4) Which components of the GED program’s curriculum are aligned or misaligned to
structural ideology? (Cycle 3: analysis, session 5) Why are the named components of the
curriculum aligned or misaligned to antiracism? (Cycle 3: analysis, session 6) Why are the
named components of the curriculum aligned or misaligned to structural ideology? (Cycle 4:
experimentation, sessions 7 & 8) How can we enact antiracist and structurally ideological change
to the named components of the GED program? The following excerpt from session 1 in cycle 1:
presence is an example of how I introduced the concepts and provided my supervisors the
opportunity to practice within our context:
Me: Now that we’ve reviewed our current curriculum, I want to look at how we can
improve it to be antiracist. So, I mentioned before about how do we essentially
challenge these gatekeepers by like flipping education on its head. So, with this
thought, thinking about for Black and Latinx students, especially when we know
45
historically there can be a lot of factors that impede on them, and navigating
through the education system or getting employment would have nothing to do
with the skills that they’re bringing to the table, right. And so being able to say,
well, what if we create a program where they actually don’t even have to? We’re
trying to empower them to not have to rely on these traditional systems but also
making them aware they exist. So maybe how do we offer education that’s not in
its traditional form, but it’s also giving them skills that allow them to not have to
be dependent on structures that were not created to serve them. So, I have an idea
and my hope is that we can all start to brainstorm different types of ways that we
can do this. But just to model it, I came up with this entrepreneurial advancement
type of idea, which is they would be preparing the skills that they need to be
successful on the GED exam. But it’s also giving them kind of like an
entrepreneurship concentration where they are essentially learning this content,
but within a entrepreneurship lens, so it’s more of how do you, how do we apply
polynomials? If we were going to kind of come up with our business plan, like
how do we make this more applicable to the real world or just think differently
about the independence of their lives. And so in a hypothetical world, this could
look a couple of ways. The goal would be them learning the GED subject areas
within the context of entrepreneurship to not only pass the exam, but then at the
end they also have a business plan to be able to start their own career should they
want to.
DP: I love that idea because it takes me back to when I was in high school. And like
I’ve heard this from former students as well. It’s like “When am I ever going to
46
use the Pythagorean theorem…like in life ever?” And then later find out that I
really do need it. Having that connection into the workforce is very revolutionary,
because it makes them more invested in themselves to be able to get through that
first step.
Me: Aww, thank you! I appreciate that. Yeah, I wanted it to be more obvious why
they’re learning what they’re learning and how that can help them in the
workforce. So, like I said, this is this is an example that I wanted to provide for us
to start to reimagine together. So really this is just an example of how like
antiracism can be used. Essentially, I’m thinking of what are these barriers
specifically that are impeding our Black and Latinx students? And how can we
change the structure of this curriculum, whether it be what information we’re
teaching or the way that we’re going about teaching…what can we do to be able
to break away these gatekeepers for our students?
DP: So one thing that I’m thinking about is the normal traditional way of teaching.
Like the lecturing from the book, I don’t think that is beneficial because most
students…I don’t wanna say it’s a guaranteed fact, but I believe, Black and
Brown people want other ways of learning… like visual or musical. Different
forms of learning are neglected. I think it contributes to students not seeing the
bigger picture. Learning in innovative ways would help us be able to achieve our
academic goals. So, I think that’s a huge factor.
Me: Yeah. So, when you when you say “it’s helpful for them to get a visual,” do you
mind expanding on what you mean by that? Just so I can make sure I’m
understanding the way you meant.
47
DP: I think it’s trying…I don’t know if this would be considered unconventional
ways, but innovative. I’m gonna use the word innovative. More innovative ways
of teaching, such as one thing that I appreciate about our institution is that we
have a smart board and virtual reality headsets to help students learn with high
tech tools. How do we incorporate those to make it more stimulating for our
students to learn? How do we break apart math more? Or any subjects using these
tools? It would make it more fun for our students to learn, but also be essential
objectives.
Me: Yeah. Like looking at how we can use technology to deepen their understanding
and application of the content.
DP: Exactly!
Me: Great. Any other thoughts about how antiracism can help us improve?
CAO: Yeah, this was making me think about how we’re using languages that are not
indigenous to these groups, so they’re being expected to be tested in a language
that. That are not our DNA languages. We have a few centuries of Black and
Latinx scholars to look back on who are writing in English, who look like me, you
know. We can go back a couple 100 years, but further back we’re not seeing
ourselves in the curriculum. Part of the reason for that, aside from just general
racism and keeping people out, is this idea that historically we haven’t been able
to contribute the same way in this language that we’re now being told we’re going
to test you in this language. That in order for you to be successful, we need you to
be able to prove to us in this English that you can do. Though like Black Beauty
and John Steinbeck…And I know that [the GED exam] is offered in different
48
languages, which is different than what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the
cultural part of it. Because those are translations but it’s still the same oppression
for Blacks and Latinxs. We need to remove the oppression from the curriculum.
So that’s one, one thought that I had.
When I said, “I want to look at how we can improve it to be antiracist,” I signaled that I was
introducing the cognitive structure of presence around antiracism. The language of “look at”
(emphasis added) aligned with Rodgers’s intention that we slow down to see, in this case, what
was happening in the GED curriculum before we could reimagine (improve) it. My statement,
especially when we know historically there can be a lot of factors that impede on them,
and navigating through the education system or getting employment would have nothing
to do with the skills that they’re bringing to the table, right,
alluded to the historical factors we had previously identified as racist barriers for our students
and connected it to the cognitive structure of presence (seeing and slowing down) I wanted them
to adopt. These factors were what we could be slowing down to notice in the curriculum or
program before moving on to act. When I said, “And so being able to say, ‘Well, what if we
create a program where they actually don’t even have to,” I proposed a reflective question to
prompt my supervisors’ thinking within the cognitive structure of presence, again asking them to
slow down to consider what that might look like (“where they actually don’t even have to”). I
also provided an uncomplicated solution (Andreotti, 2012a) by proposing a program that helped
students to evade structural barriers as opposed to requiring systemic change. In this instance, I
missed the opportunity to add additional complexity that would support GED students and
challenge the structural barrier. Saying “We’re trying to empower them to not have to rely on
these traditional systems but also making them aware they exist,” shows I provided the goal for
49
thinking about making antiracist change for student learning. My statement, “So maybe how do
we offer education that’s not in its traditional form, but it’s also giving them skills that allow
them to not have to be dependent on structures that were not created to serve them,” offered them
a prompting question to guide their thinking/provide parameters to thinking about making
antiracist change in our context. They were being asked to see what it might look like to offer
something that was “not in its traditional form,” implying a move from those structural barriers
that existed in the original program. When I said, “But just to model it” I signaled that I was
introducing my structure for thinking and acting (being present) around antiracism. My
statement, “The goal would be them learning the GED subject areas within the context of
entrepreneurship … then at the end they also have a business plan to be able to start their own
career should they want to” showed how I was applying the cognitive structure and thinking
about antiracist change for the GED program.
The DP made a connection to the utility of the GED content but hadn’t taken it up within
the context of the cognitive structure of learning to see antiracism when she said:
I love that idea because it takes me back to when I was in high school. And like I’ve
heard this from former students as well. It's like “when am I ever going to use the
Pythagorean theorem…like in life ever?” And then later find out that I really do need it.
My response, “Yeah, I wanted it to be more obvious why they’re learning what they’re learning
and how that can help them in the workforce” redirected the DP back to the cognitive structure
of presence within antiracism. The language, “I want it to be more obvious” emphasized the
focus on seeing. When I said, “Essentially, I'm thinking of what are these barriers specifically
that are impeding our Black and Latinx students?” I prompted my supervisors to be present and
practice (slowing down to see) by naming racist barriers for our students. My question, “And
50
how can we change the structure of this curriculum, whether it be what information we’re
teaching or the way that we’re going about teaching…what can we do to be able to break away
these gatekeepers for our students?” prompted my supervisors to practice antiracist change
(learning to take intelligent action) within the GED program curriculum. When the DP said,
“Like the lecturing from the book, I don’t think that is beneficial because most students…I don’t
wanna say it’s a guaranteed fact, but I believe, Black and Brown people want other ways of
learning…like visual or musical” she improved her ability to use the cognitive structure to assess
antiracism (thinking from multiple perspectives) in our context. Her statement, “Different forms
of learning are neglected. I think it contributes to students not seeing the bigger picture” revealed
her thinking around antiracism and the impact of neglected forms of learning and her limited
ability at this moment to slow down and see whether the GED program was set up to be
responsive to students’ needs. My question, “So when you when you say, “it’s helpful for them
to get a visual,” do you mind expanding on what you mean by that? Just so I can make sure I’m
understanding the way you meant” worked to clarify how the DP was thinking and applying
antiracism to help measure her understanding of the cognitive structure I provided. I was asking
her to stop and revisit her assertion, to see more clearly. The DP’s statement, “More innovative
ways of teaching, such as one thing that I appreciate about our institution is that we have a smart
board and virtual reality headsets to help students learn with high tech tools” she attempted to
practice naming antiracist action by connecting it to actions we’re already taking within our
work site (phase 2 of the reflective cycle, describing); however, her response displayed that she
had not completely adopted the antiracist perspective that was defined for her.
When I asked, “Any other thoughts about how antiracism can help us improve?” I offered
another opportunity for my supervisors to practice applying the cognitive structure and think
51
about taking antiracist action. When the CAO said, “this was making me think about how we’re
using languages that are not indigenous to these groups, so they’re being expected to be tested in
a language that. That are not our DNA languages” he slowed down (the presence phase of the
reflective cycle) and leveraged the cognitive structure to demonstrate what he saw in the existing
program in relation to the language used within the program (“we’re using languages that are not
indigenous”) as well as the language used on the GED exam (“so they’re being expected to be
tested in a language…not our DNA languages”). His statement, “… aside from just general
racism and keeping people out, is this idea that historically we haven’t been able to contribute
the same way in this language that we’re now being told we’re going to test you in this
language” showed that the CAO took up the describe phase of the reflective cycle, the cognitive
structure, by describing why the language on the exam was racist. When he said “And I know
that [the GED exam] is offered in different languages, which is different than what I’m talking
about. I’m talking about the cultural part of it” he clarified his application of the cognitive
structure around language. The CAO’s statement, “Because those are translations but it’s still the
same oppression for Blacks and Latinxs” he used the describe phase of the reflective cycle as the
thinking structure to describe why the GED exam translations were still misaligned with
antiracism. When he said, “We need to remove the oppression from the curriculum,” he used the
cognitive structure to propose antiracist action around the GED curriculum.
By week 5 of the study, the CAO and DP were able to engage with the reflective cycle
independently to reimagine a more antiracist GED program. During cycle 3: analysis, I provided
the discussion question, “Which components of the GED program’s curriculum are aligned or
misaligned to antiracism?” to guide our thinking. In response, the CAO and DP leveraged the
cognitive structure by seeing, describing, analyzing, and experimenting with components of our
52
GED program to improve alignment to antiracism. The following excerpts show how my
supervisors were able to engage in the reflective cycle independently after being introduced to
the session 5 discussion question:
Me: So we’ve been talking about antiracism and the ways it can address racist
structures for our students. And over these past couple of weeks we’ve focused on
how we identify those kind of issues within [GED program] but also how can we
make changes to the program and reimagine it to be able to better support our
Black and Latinx students. And so we’re going to be looking at the components of
the program and analyzing their alignment with antiracism. So based on the
current structure of the program, which components are aligned or misaligned
with antiracism?
CAO: Yeah. I was gonna say the online accessibility, I think is helpful for our students
who live in rural areas or can’t commute. And so that, to me addresses one
barrier. I think on the other side. The primary issue is how Black and Brown
students learn, and I think historically both of those groups have learned in
communal and in-person fashions because of cultural religious, et cetera, customs.
And so I wonder how removing that impacts the learners progress.
Me: Yeah, I wonder what ways, from an instructional standpoint, how we can kind of
replicate that. Because obviously, like we have the group workshops, but I mean
even looking specific within that…how can we be intentional within those spaces
to be able to replicate it where it actually is communal?
CAO: Exactly. And there’s a couple. So the first is I incorporate the Community Circle
model because it is rooted in sort of the cultural traditions…particularly of like
53
Black and Brown people, whether it’s narrative-based or storytelling. It gives the
opportunity for call and response which is I think important in the Black learning
process. So yeah, when you had talked about how does that look? That was my
first thought.
When I said, “And so we’re going to be looking at the components of the program and analyzing
their alignment with antiracism,” I signaled that we would be reactivating prior knowledge and
using the cognitive structure of analysis (phase 3 of the reflective cycle) to assess the GED
program’s alignment to antiracism. When I asked, “So based on the current structure of the
program, which components are aligned or misaligned with antiracism?” I provided a discussion
question to structure their thinking and acting towards analysis (phase 3 of the reflective cycle)
within the session. The emphasis was on reimagining in relation to the components of the
program with the ideas they had already articulated regarding what antiracism looked like in an
educational program, and more specifically, this GED program.
When the CAO said, “Yeah. I was gonna say the online accessibility, I think is helpful
for our students who live in rural areas or can’t commute” he showed that he internalized the
cognitive structure by slowing down to see and describe the specific component of the GED
program (“online accessibility”) and the way it reflected his interpretation of antiracism (“is
helpful for our students who live in rural areas or can’t commute” emphasis added). His words,
“Yeah. I was gonna say” also suggested that he had already internalized the cognitive structure
(phase 2 of the reflective cycle) before being prompted. When the CAO stated, “I think on the
other side,” he signaled that he was engaging in the cognitive structure by analyzing online
accessibility from multiple perspectives. His statement, “The primary issue is how Black and
Brown students learn, and I think historically both of those groups have learned in communal
54
and in-person fashions because of cultural religious, et cetera, customs” showed that the CAO
leveraged the cognitive structure (phase 2 of the reflective cycle) by describing how the online
program was misaligned to antiracism in our context. When he said, “And so I wonder how
removing that impacts the learners progress” the CAO engaged in the presence phase (phase 1)
and considered the impact of the learning modality on student learning.
My statement, “Yeah, I wonder what ways, from an instructional standpoint, how we can
kind of replicate that,” showed that the CAO’s statement prompted me to engage with the
cognitive structure by being present to see the issue (phase 1) he stated and question how to
make the antiracist change in alignment. When the CAO said, “Exactly. And there’s a couple” he
signaled that he would introduce the DP and I to ways of thinking and acting in that context. His
statement, “I incorporate the Community Circle model because it is rooted in sort of the cultural
traditions… particularly of like Black and Brown people, whether it’s narrative-based or
storytelling” the CAO provided us a cognitive structure by offering an example to help us be
present and see the antiracism experimentation he proposed. When the CAO said, “It gives the
opportunity for call and response which is I think important in the Black learning process” he
provided a cognitive structure by analyzing why the community circle model would be beneficial
particularly for Black students.
Within the same session, the DP also showed her ability to engage in the cognitive
structure with little prompting. In the following excerpt, I reiterated the discussion question
leading the session for my supervisors and me. In the following excerpt, the DP shows that she
engaged with the cognitive structure by navigating through the phases of the reflective cycle
without prompting:
55
Me: Any other ideas? Again, we’re thinking about the components of our program and
how they’re aligned or misaligned to antiracism.
DP: Yeah, I was thinking about how our program is taught by faculty. Some low
hanging fruit would be how can we use student teachers as an example. Like the
student teaching model where you know, students are given specialty areas that
they know. Like, “OK, you’re going to be teaching about this in March, so I want
you to spend this time now with your tutor and making sure that you feel like
you’ve learned your section, whether it’s context clues or you know, like,
whatever it is that you know yours well enough to use your own stories to explain
that to us.” Because what I’m thinking is to have the students teach the GED
content in a way that would be more understanding for them, and I think it’s like
they don’t have to create a like a full Lesson plan but like have them teach it to
others because that way they’re able to break it down and can talk to their
community better than we can. Whether that be because of a foreign language, or
cultural.
When I asked, “Any other ideas? Again, we’re thinking about the components of our program
and how they’re aligned or misaligned to antiracism,” I reminded my supervisors of the
discussion question that was guiding our thinking and acting for the session. The DP’s response,
“Yeah, I was thinking about how our program is taught by faculty” signaled that the DP applied
the cognitive structure by being present (phase 1 of the reflective cycle) and slowing down to
identify the program’s teaching faculty as a component to be analyzed for alignment with
antiracism. Her words, “Yeah, I was thinking,” also suggested that she had already internalized
the cognitive structure (the reflective cycle phases) before being prompted. When the DP said,
56
“Some low hanging fruit would be how can we use student teachers as an example,” she applied
the cognitive structure by identifying how to take antiracist action regarding the GED. Her
statement, “have them teach it to others because that way they’re able to break it down and can
talk to their community better than we can. Whether that be because of a foreign language, or
cultural,” showed that she used the analysis phase of the reflective cycle as a cognitive structure
to analyze why students serving as faculty would be better aligned with antiracism.
My Growth
By the end of the 8-week study, I improved my ability to be present as a thought-partner
by becoming more learning-centered. Being learning-centered meant that I observed what my
supervisors did as learners and responded in a way that continued the learning (Johnson, 1998, as
cited in Rodgers, 2002). This presence also provided me the opportunity to learn from my
supervisors as they observed and responded to my facilitation and each other.
At the start of the study, I was not present to my supervisors as learners. I was more
focused on asking my guiding questions than on listening to their responses and engaging with
their learning. My teacher-centered approach caused me to miss opportunities to respond to their
learning and potentially enrich the experience for all of us. I noticed this lack of presence after
watching the video recording from session 1. The following excerpt from my cycle 1 analytical
memo shows me acknowledging my lack of presence in session 1.
During week 1 I also recognize I was participating more as an interviewer than as a
thought-partner. I was concerned I would monopolize the conversation, so I limited my
responses in the discussion. However, in replaying the recording, my attempts to avoid
monopolizing the conversation made me seem like I was interviewing the CAO and DP.
This has made me wonder if I’m creating a supportive enough learning environment.
57
Moving forward I will be intentional about participating more in the collective
reimagining.
My statement, “I was participating more as an interviewer than as a thought-partner,” I alluded to
the idea that my participation centered around asking questions as opposed to engaging with their
responses and continuing the learning. When I wrote, “I was concerned I would monopolize the
conversation, so I limited my responses in the discussion,” I signaled that minimizing my
contributions to the discussion was an attempt to be present and make space for my supervisors
to respond to the discussion questions. My statement, “my attempts to avoid monopolizing the
conversation made me seem like I was interviewing the CAO and DP” showed awareness that I
minimized my contributions too heavily. As a result, I did not respond to my supervisors’
learning enough during the experience. When I said, “This has made me wonder if I’m creating a
supportive enough learning environment,” showed that I was questioning how my lack of
presence in this session impacted my supervisors’ learning.
As the study progressed, I improved my presence and participated more as a thoughtpartners to continue our learning. I improved my ability to be present as a thought-partner by
becoming more learning-centered. Being learning-centered meant that I observed what my
supervisors did as learners and responded in a way that continued the learning (Johnson, 1998, as
cited in Rodgers, 2002).
Me: So, are there any kind of structural changes that we can implement or
hypothetically implement to address the financial needs that might exist for our
students or financial barriers that might exist?
DP: I would say even like a stipend would be helpful. Like if you stay in this program
for a month, we’ll provide you an additional like, $100. It’s an incentive for them
58
to stay in the program and continue. Or maybe we reimburse their tuition after a
certain point. But I think that again, getting childcare to go back to school is not
easy. Or even like it doesn’t even have to be daycare. But like, maybe it’s
homework time for their children. That’s what my mom calls it. When we sat
around the kitchen table and we all did homework together. But having a space
where the kids to come and do that as well. And seeing their parents do it will
motivate them to continue doing it. Like that's how I saw it as a kid. I saw it like,
“Well you know, Mom got an A and I have a test coming up. Let me also get an
A so we can celebrate, but I think that will help.”
Me: Yeah, your idea is also making me think, what if we had, like, a childcare or
housing stipend? And if it could be contingent on the fact that you were enrolled
in this program and you matriculate through, you know, things like that.
DP: Yeah, and we can help support them financially with like a food pantry or things
like that, as long as they're kind of continuing within the program. Ultimately, we
can start connecting them to resources, but also in a way that empowers them and
encourages them to really be committed to their education.
By the end of the study, my improved ability to be present allowed me to be a collaborative
learner with my supervisors. I was able to engage as both teacher and learner in sessions. This
interchange of roles provided me the opportunity to learn from my supervisors as they observed
and responded to my facilitation and each other. This allowed me to experiment with my
supervisors and be present to new knowledge they offered me. The following excerpt from my
cycle 4 analytical memo shows an example of how our collaborative presence impacted my
growth during session 7.
59
Overall, I believe the three of us did a great job reimagining the program considering we
are new to this type of work. I was really happy with the next steps we identified. They
made suggestions like pulling instructional strategies from our students’ culture and
having student teachers that I hadn’t considered. And finding ways to create an antiracist
assessment tool or process. It was great. But it made me realize how much my model
perpetuates salvationism by thinking the solution would be something we create as
educators and not within the students or their backgrounds.
My use of “the three of us” and “we” signaled that my supervisors and I worked together as
learners to reimagine the program. When I said, “They made suggestions…that I hadn’t
considered” I indicated that my supervisors took the roles of teacher when they observed and
responded to the discussion in a way that continued my learning. This also alluded to the fact that
this new knowledge from my supervisors allowed me to take the role of learner in the
experience. My statement, “But it made me realize how much my model perpetuates
salvationism” signaled that being present and learning from my supervisors allowed me to see
how my entrepreneurial model perpetuated historical patterns of oppression for our students.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss where I am now since leaving the field and conducting
intensive analysis of my practice as a leader engaging my supervisors to produce an antiracist
GED program. I will also discuss my next steps as I continue to develop my practice as a leader.
Since concluding my action research, I’ve been promoted from my role as the chair of the
GED program to the dean of academics for the college. As dean of academics, I oversee the
program development and evaluation of all academic programs—including the GED program.
Though I’m no longer working with the CAO and DP in the same capacity, I’m currently
60
leveraging my action research experience to develop a space for the academic chairs to similarly
reimagine their programs to be aligned with antiracism. I intend to facilitate biweekly meetings
where we cultivate a common analytical language around antiracism and then use the reflective
cycle as a cognitive structuring within our context. I recognize that as a supervisor, there has
been a shift in my role of power that I will need to address when applying my research to this
new context. Also, in contrast to the collaboration I had with the CAO and DP, there isn’t a peer
dynamic between me and the academic chairs. As a result, I will have to structure the experience
to establish trust before we can center ourselves around antiracism and reimagining their
programs. Creating a supportive learning environment will also look different due to the
difference in race, culture, and experience with antiracism. As a result, I would need to establish
trust within the space before embarking in the learning experience.
Through this study, I have learned a lot about myself as a leader and learner. In this
afterword, I reflect on my growth as a leader and discuss implications of my learning. While the
intent of an action research study is not generalizability, I will also discuss the need to include
those we intend the serve in the exploration and implementation of antiracist change.
The Value of The Reflective Cycle
A retrospective takeaway from conducting my action research study was the value of the
reflective cycle as a reimagining tool. While I anticipated its ability to slow down the learning
experience, I was surprised by the way it expanded our ideas over the course of the study. While
coding our session transcripts, I noticed that the ideas proposed in the presence cycle became
increasingly student-centered as we moved towards experimentation. Each phase allowed us to
deepen our understanding of antiracism and refine our conceptualizations of antiracist change.
The analysis phase was particularly valuable in supporting our reevaluation of our reimaginings.
61
Looking at our ideas from different perspectives allowed us to see antiracist misalignments that
we didn’t yet have the skills to see or simply hadn’t considered previously. As a result, we were
able to identify ways our reimaginings still perpetuated historical patterns of oppression. For
example, during cycle 1 we believed that a culturally responsive GED faculty would solely
provide students the best antiracist learning experience. During this phase, we did not view our
students as potential co-creators of the learning experience. Instead, we unintentionally
conceptualized them more as empty vessels (Eastwell, 2002) that we were responsible to fill with
knowledge. This indicated we were unintentionally contributing to salvationism (de Oliveira
Andreotti, 2012) before expanding to see students and their cultural expertise as a contribution to
antiracist change. Though we weren’t aware of it during the study, the reflective cycle gave us a
structure to interrogate our initial perspectives and improve the ways we envisioned antiracist
change for the GED program. By cycle 4 we believed that expanding to include student-centered
learning experiences would be more antiracist because of the cultural knowledge students could
bring to their peers and the GED curriculum. We realized that while a culturally responsive
instructor was important to structure the environment, student-centered learning experiences
would empower students to see themselves in the GED curriculum and as instructors. We also
believed that incorporating more student-centered learning experiences would address cultural
disconnects, should they exist, to improve the learning environment for students and faculty. We
also acknowledged the need for ongoing antiracist professional development for the faculty to
support them in evaluating their practice and improving their facilitation of student-centered
learning.
As a leader new to action researcher, the reflective cycle also taught me the significance
of being present to a learning experience. I learned that being present allowed me to respond to
62
my supervisors and continue the learning for all of us. During data analysis, I noticed that when I
wasn’t present, our conversations offered uncomplicated (de Oliveira Andreotti, 2012) antiracist
solutions. As described by Rodger (2002), my lack of presence manifested itself as a hyperfocus
on covering the session agenda. Though this was a challenge for me in the beginning, I became
more present over the course of the study and saw how it enriched our reimaginings. Moving
forward, I will continue to use the reflective cycle, formally and informally, to improve my
practice as a leader.
Commitment to Antiracism
Engaging in this research study has increased my passion to grow as an antiracist
educator. As a result, I will continue to seek professional development to build my skills and
assess my practice. I recognize that learning to be an antiracist educator is a life-long journey and
I’m willing to commit myself to the ongoing learning experience. My dissertation made me
aware that I perpetuate problematic historical patterns like hegemony and salvationism (de
Oliveira Andreotti, 2012) despite my good intentions. Moving forward, I would like to
strengthen my skills to identify these problematic patterns in my thinking and practice to avoid
causing harm to those I intend to serve.
As the dean of academics for the college, I will leverage my research to make antiracist
trainings available to students and colleagues to educate them and facilitate opportunities for
antiracist collaboration. For the trainings I facilitate, I will similarly utilize the reflective cycle to
help us establish a common analytical language and slow down our conceptualizations of
antiracist change. My hope is to continue to engage with others interested in antiracism to work
as thought partners to improve the systems we serve.
63
References
American Council on Education (2019). Race and ethnicity in higher education: A status report.
Retrieved from https://www.equityinhighered.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Race-andEthnicity-in-Higher-Education.pdf
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 4: Qualitative Data. In Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.) (pp. 117–158). Allyn and
Bacon.
Brookfield, S. D., & Hess, M. E. (2021). Becoming a white antiracist: A practical guide for
educators, leaders, and activists. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage
Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.) (pp. 65–86). SAGE.
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
de Oliveira Andreotti, V., (2012). The HEADSUP checklist. Retrieved from
http://www.oregoncampuscompact.org/uploads/1/3/0/4/13042698/andreotti_-_preface_-
_critical_literacy_org_-_headsup__1_.pdf
Eastwell, P. (2002). Social Constructivism. Science Education Review, 1(3), 82–86.
GED Testing Service (2014). The new assessment is a stepping-stone to a brighter future. New
assessment. Retrieved from
64
https://web.archive.org/web/20130209081225/http://www.gedtestingservice.com/educato
rs/new-assessment
Heckman, J. J., Humphries, J. E., Kautz, T., Grodsky, E., Halpern-Manners, A., LaFontaine, P.
A., Laurence, J. H., Quinn, L. M., Rodriguez, P. L., & Warren, J. R. (2014). The myth of
achievement tests: The GED and the role of character in American life. University of
Chicago Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Kendi, I. X. (2019). How to be an antiracist. One world.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Status Dropout Rates. Condition of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved July 6, 2022,
from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coj.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Percentage of high school dropouts among
persons 16 to 24 years old (status dropout rate), by sex and race/ethnicity: Selected years,
1960 through 2020. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
65
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221–
241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9071-2.
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in
social context. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173698
Wergin, J. (2019). Constructive disorientation. Deep learning in a disorienting world.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108647786.004
U.S. Department of Commerce (2021). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2020.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This qualitative action research study examines how I engaged my Chief Academic Officer and Deputy Provost to propose antiracist and structural ideological change (reimaginings) to our college’s General Education Development (GED) preparation program. I deployed the Rodgers (2002) reflective cycle and various forms of assisted performance to create a supportive learning environment for my supervisors to (1) conceptualize antiracism and structural ideology and (2) propose intelligent action to the GED program based on their understandings of the theories. Through my 8-week study, I found that we were able to share a common analytical language around antiracism and how to enact it within our context; however, we were less successful in cultivating a common analytical language around structural ideology. I also found that using the reflective cycle as a cognitive structure supported us in reimagining the GED program as antiracist and structurally ideological. By the end of the study, I strengthened my ability to be a present thought-partner.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies
PDF
Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color
PDF
Towards critical dialogue: an action research project building an awareness of an administrative team member’s role, identity, and deficit thinking
PDF
Towards ideological clarity: an action research project on the role of a teacher in unearthing unconscious bias to embrace culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection
PDF
Noticing identity: a critically reflective cycle to leverage student mathematical funds of knowledge and identity
PDF
Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection
PDF
Turning toward practice: establishing group reflective practice among upper elementary educators
PDF
Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community
PDF
Queer consciousness: one kindergarten teacher’s action research to support colleagues in creating safer schools for queer people
PDF
Changing the story: an action research study on utilizing culturally relevant pedagogical practice to enact a movement toward liberatory curriculum and instruction
PDF
Challenging dominant ideologies through sociopolitical discourse: an action research study on creating change as a history teacher
PDF
Developing sociopolitical consciousness and cultural competence to dismantle structural racism and hegemony within my high school English classroom
PDF
Fostering awareness and action: empowering marginalized colleagues to recognize and address systemic silencing in workplace decision-making processes: a qualitative action research study
PDF
Uncovering dominant ideology: an action research project aimed to uncover dominant ideology to enact culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom
PDF
Cultivating seeds of support: growing the capacity of educators to create meaningful learning opportunities in math
PDF
Using critical reflection to counter and disrupt deficit-based assumptions
PDF
Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…
PDF
Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy
PDF
Critical pedagogy for music education: cultivating teachers’ critical consciousness through critically reflective inquiry
Asset Metadata
Creator
Thompson, Alisia Genese
(author)
Core Title
Reimagining an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2024-05
Publication Date
01/30/2024
Defense Date
01/23/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
antiracism,Black,GED,General Educational Development,Latinx,OAI-PMH Harvest,structural ideology,the reflective cycle
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Slayton, Julie (
committee chair
), Green, Alan (
committee member
), Pascarella, John (
committee member
)
Creator Email
agthomps@usc.edu,alisiagthompson@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113817107
Unique identifier
UC113817107
Identifier
etd-ThompsonAl-12646.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-ThompsonAl-12646
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Thompson, Alisia Genese
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240131-usctheses-batch-1124
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
antiracism
GED
General Educational Development
Latinx
structural ideology
the reflective cycle