University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

(USC Thesis Other)

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Reimagining Professional Learning for Early Childhood Educators of Color
Cindy O’Neill
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
December 2024

© Copyright by Cindy O’Neill 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Cindy O’Neill certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Akilah Lyons-Moore
John Pascarella
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This action research study used a theoretical framework integrating insights from leadership and
andragogy research to support an early childhood curriculum coordinator in developing identity
consciousness and to position her to provide more effective professional learning opportunities to
teachers she supported. The framework combined adaptive and transformational leadership
strategies, along with andragogical techniques, to help the coordinator actively participate in a
reflective cycle and professional learning community. The goal was to contribute to the
transformation of professional learning opportunities for early childhood educators of color with
the ultimate aim of improving instructional quality. Through qualitative inquiry, this action
research study investigated my leadership and andragogical skills and actions to support the
curriculum coordinator of an early childhood education program that predominantly serves
children and families of color. Field notes, transcripts, and reflections were collected as data to
form the study’s analysis. I found that by facilitating learning conditions, andragogy, and
discourse, the coordinator was able to engage in a reflective cycle and professional learning
community to examine educational inequities within the profession. Thus, she was able to be
more identity-conscious in her role supporting teachers of color and reimagine how professional
learning could be structured. This study may contribute to improved instructional quality by
examining and reimagining professional learning for early childhood teachers of color.

v
Dedication
To my amazing husband and honorary Trojan, your unwavering support and belief in me made
this journey possible. Thank you for your love, patience, and constant encouragement—I could
not have done this without you.

vi
Acknowledgments
By giving our students practice in talking with others, we give them frames for thinking
on their own.
—Lev Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes
Dr. Artineh Samkian, I extend my heartfelt gratitude to you. Your unwavering guidance
throughout the dissertation journey has been invaluable. Your continued recognition of early
childhood education has been instrumental to my success in this doctoral program and my
learning process. Thank you for always being so kind, compassionate, and optimistic!
Thank you, Dr. John Pascarella, for modeling the principles of andragogy from the start. I
knew you would consistently encourage me to reflect on my experiences and decisions towards
equity. I am grateful to Dr. Akilah Lyons-Moore for the calming and reflective energy you
exuded to help me through my dissertation process. Dr. Julie Slayton, you were a strong presence
in my learning journey. I am inspired by your commitment to the LIC program’s vision.
Para toda mi familia, I love you all! Gracias por tu paciencia y ánimo. Mamá, estaré
eternamente agradecido por tu amor, sacrificios y fe en mí. My children, anything is possible!
Live, love, and learn. David, you inspired this achievement. I carry your wisdom and love with
me every day, and though you are not here to see me finish, I know you are with me in spirit.
To my friends (both at USC and beyond), thank you for your support, shared experiences,
patience, and motivation to keep moving forward. To all the dedicated early childhood educators
I call friends, you deserve recognition and appreciation for shaping the lives of so many children.
To my participant, thank you for letting me learn with you, helping me grow as a leader,
and always advocating for our profession. You are an inspiration to so many educators. I am so
excited to see what will come from our work together.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
Historically Entrenched Inequity .........................................................................................5
High-Quality Programs............................................................................................6
Professional Learning ..............................................................................................9
Identity-Consciousness..........................................................................................11
Context...............................................................................................................................12
Role ....................................................................................................................................15
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................17
Professional Learning Communities..................................................................................19
Leadership..............................................................................................................23
Andragogy/Adult Learning....................................................................................35
Critical Reflection..................................................................................................43
Actions...................................................................................................................53
Research Methods..............................................................................................................59
Participant and Setting ...........................................................................................59
Setting of Actions ..................................................................................................61
Data Collection ......................................................................................................62
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................64
Limitations and Delimitations................................................................................67
Ethics......................................................................................................................70

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness.............................................................................73
Findings .............................................................................................................................75
Andragogy and Deliberate Learning Conditions...................................................76
Discourse................................................................................................................98
The Power of the Reflective Cycle ......................................................................120
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................130
Afterword.........................................................................................................................132
Why This Work Is Important...............................................................................132
Current Progress...................................................................................................134
Future Work.........................................................................................................136
References....................................................................................................................................138

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Action Plans 55
Table 2: Agenda 1 78

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 19

1
Reimagining Learning for Early Childhood Professionals
I remember growing up believing education was a means to get ahead and out of
poverty. These messages were subliminal through comments made by adults in my life or
various media representations. These messages drove me to stay in school and pursue higher
education, even though it took me longer than I care to admit to complete my postsecondary
degree. My time as a community college student helped spark a passion for a career in early
childhood education. I took all the general education classes that interested me and felt most
connected to child development. Child development covers the mental, social, and physical
development of humans. There was always something new to learn about myself and others
around me. When I continued into my post-baccalaureate studies, the focus shifted to early
childhood education, as I began working as a preschool teacher. I realized how important highquality early childhood education is for students’ life chances and wanted to be a part of that. I
have been a passionate early childhood educator since 2005. In some ways, I achieved my goal.
Despite loving what I do, my years of experience as a Latina early childhood educator
have revealed many hidden inequities that drive me to want to make changes in the field. For
one, a common misconception about my work is that I am a babysitter instead of a qualified
educator. This message comes from parents, professionals, and other educators from other grade
levels. For example, despite how much experience I gain or how much I continue my education,
the pay my early childhood education colleagues and I receive is lower compared to K–12
educators. The message that education is a means of getting ahead and out of poverty is only
partly true. In another example, the misconception that we are not educators causes early
childhood to be excluded from conversations that pertain to education. For instance, it was
extremely difficult to find a doctoral program geared toward early education, let alone include it

2
as a concentration. When I began my studies in the leading instructional change concentration at
the University of Southern California, I quickly noticed that although the program was designed
for educators in pre-K–12, higher education, and administration, very few conversations,
readings, and even syllabi included the term “pre-K.” This devaluation and invisibility of our
field often result in less attention paid to early childhood educators’ learning needs to support
high-quality instruction for young children.
In addition to the need to feel included, respected, and valued, early childhood teachers,
like all other grade-level teachers, need proper resources and support to improve their practice.
Researchers state that it is no longer enough to have adequately trained (preservice) early
childhood teachers entering the profession (Hamre et al., 2017). Hamre et al. (2017) argued that
ongoing in-service professional learning opportunities translate to improved outcomes for
children (Hamre et al., 2017).1 However, most professional learning opportunities do not align
with research on effective adult learning practices. For example, they are, for the most part,
designed by individuals or organizations outside of the school. The training sessions are mainly
delivered from a top-down approach based on expertise in topics that may not align with the
school’s context or culture. Unfortunately, this reflects my own in-service professional learning
experience, where I listened to people deemed experts and was expected to return the
information to my classroom. According to the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
(2021), early childhood educators must maintain 105 hours of professional growth per 5 years.
Many of these hours involve listening to others tell me how to change my practice. In my 15
years as an educator, I was never asked to collaborate with experts who developed the
1In this dissertation, Webster-Wright’s (2009) perspective on professional learning,
which disrupts the traditional approach to developing teachers will be used, except when directly
quoting other authors who may use different terminology.

3
professional learning sessions I was required to attend. Unsurprisingly, I often felt challenged
when attempting to independently implement new strategies from the professional learning
sessions.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) offered an alternative approach for adult learning that
includes the “continual process of questioning and using data of practice to investigate” to work
on our understanding of our assumptions together as learners (p. 121). The inquiry-as-stance
approach requires time, collective participation, and the belief that questions over directions lead
to deeper learning about the practitioner’s practice and student learning. This approach centers
the educators’ experiences and expertise, is site-based, and is relevant to their practice. I think
about how much more impactful I would have been to my students if I had been part of a
collaborative group like this, constantly inquiring about my practice and making informed
changes.
With my combined experiences and given my role now as a director of an early
childhood education program, I continue to focus on the treatment of early childhood education
compared to other grade levels, especially when discussing its value in allocating resources for
professional learning opportunities. Hamre et al. (2017) said, “Even the very best professional
development approaches will not work at scale if programs do not implement them well and if
there are no policies that facilitate that implementation” (p. 3). Recently, while working as
director of a higher education institution’s child development center, I saw how stakeholders
withheld resources from the early childhood department and the child development center
laboratories that train future educators. Those resources include financial support for teachers to
have time and a space to meet and discuss their practice or for the facilitation of professional
learning. For example, in the few opportunities my organization’s teachers had to meet as a

4
group during a school year, they spent most of the time discussing technical challenges in
program operations. In conversations with individual teachers, they expressed their desire to
connect with other teachers and to engage in more intentional inquiry about their work. This was
a reasonable request, and I obtained funding from outside the organization for additional time
and a coordinator who could support the teachers when they met.
Nonetheless, providing a coordinator does not alone solve all the teachers’ challenges and
the inequities the early childhood profession faces. Heifetz et al. (2009) believed that solutions to
adaptive challenges lie in the collective participation and responsibility of the individuals in an
organization. As a Latina administrator in a position to empower other teachers of color, in my
scope of influence, I can bring to my colleagues a sense of value as professionals by allowing
them to engage in a professional learning community that values their expertise. Throughout this
paper, I deliberately use the terms teachers of color, children of color, families of color, students
of color, and educators of color to acknowledge and demonstrate a dedication to inclusivity and
cultural sensitivity that acknowledge and reject oppressive hegemonic structures that may be
linked to conventional categorizations of race, ethnicity, and gender (Camangian & Cariaga,
2022). Hopefully, the teachers of color will feel empowered to identify, communicate, and tackle
their school’s adaptive challenges together to enact high-quality instruction and ultimately help
their students of color succeed.
The following section will begin with a discussion of how student success derives from
the quality of instruction delivered in early childhood, particularly in marginalized communities.
Additionally, it will share information about the challenges of providing in-service training for
early childhood educators of color that contributes to the quality of their instruction. Ultimately,
this dissertation investigated my work as a leader of an early childhood education laboratory

5
program that predominantly serves children and families of color. In my organizational context,
children and families of color comprise 96% of the child development center’s (CDC)
population, and the educators are all people of color.2 This work focuses on building the capacity
of early childhood educators of color to improve their instructional practices and place children’s
outcomes at the center of their work. I worked on my role as the leader of this program to create
effective learning conditions that supported the curriculum coordinator in examining historically
entrenched inequities affecting professional learning and helped develop her identity
consciousness skills and habits to reimagine professional learning. Subsequently, she will work
collaboratively with the early childhood educators in a professional learning community to
support them to ultimately enact high-quality instruction to improve children’s educational
success.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
Research on children’s outcomes related to preschool participation is abundant. Since its
inception in 1965, the National Head Start program, initially designed to reduce disparities in
marginalized communities, has been studied to assess the long-term benefits for its participants
(Gibbs et al., 2011). One common finding from preschool education research is that participation
in a preschool program supports long-term educational and economic success for students from
low-income backgrounds (Ladd et al., 2014; McCoy et al., 2017; Phillips et al., 2017).
However, the findings also suggest that the program’s quality matters most for children to
reap the benefits of early childhood education, especially for those families that need it the most
(Barnett, 1995; Phillips et al., 2017). This emphasis on quality is similar to having a strong
2 The identity of the organization and its sources have been intentionally redacted to
ensure confidentiality throughout the paper.

6
foundation for learning; without it, the entire learning process is at risk. At the same time,
children from marginalized communities who may not have access to high-quality programs are
the most harmed when attending programs that are not of high quality (Early, 2007). Investing in
initiatives to enhance program quality enables children from families without preschool options
to thrive. For example, a large-scale public preschool report by Yoshikawa et al. (2013) found
that children from marginalized communities who participated in high-quality programs are most
likely to make socioemotional, reading, and math development gains. The report also found that
supporting early childhood teachers’ instructional approaches can reap the highest benefit for
those students (Yoshikawa et al., 2013).
Providing a fair chance for children of color to succeed requires addressing biases in the
educational system (Kohli, 2008). Doing so means supporting and building the capacity of
teachers of color and encouraging them to reflect on their teaching practices. Literature on
education’s purpose showed a lack of focus on those responsible for training teachers, leading to
a failure to recognize them as intellectuals (Oakes et al., 2018). The imposition of teaching
methods on them does not consider the profession’s intricacies, resulting in a
deprofessionalization of teaching. For example, teachers face the challenge of implementing
policies like standardized testing from the No Child Left Behind era and being held accountable
for their students’ success (Mehta, 2013). At the same time, Oakes et al. (2018) stated that it was
less the issue of implemented standards for learning and more the issue of standardized teaching
practices.
High-Quality Programs
The quality of childcare delivered to families depends on the education of early childcare
workers, professionals standards, qualifications, and expectations (National Association for the

7
Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2019). Variances in teacher qualifications impact
access to high-quality programs and ultimately affect the quality of instruction delivered to
young children. Certified early childhood educators have the skills and knowledge to support
children’s cognitive, social, and emotional development. Therefore, childcare centers and
schools must prioritize hiring qualified and competent educators who can positively influence the
lives of children and their families.
Teacher Qualifications
Research by Melnick et al. (2018) indicated that pre-K teachers with bachelor’s degrees
and training in early care and education (ECE) are generally more effective than teachers who
lack these qualifications. Boyd (2013) reported that the teachers with the highest educational
credentials and experience get hired in more affluent communities that can afford them and may
receive additional resources to implement high-quality instruction. Melnick et al. (2018)
described the challenges for early childhood teacher qualifications to be uniform as related to
programs not being supported by legislature and, therefore, being unable to afford adequate
wages for their staff and retain qualified staff. In addition, current preschool teachers interested
in pursuing their degrees and increasing their qualifications do not receive support to navigate,
pay for, and make time to complete degree programs. This keeps their wages low, which is
problematic as many early childhood teachers may feel unappreciated and burnt out (Boyd,
2013). Melnick et al. (2018) pointed out that policymakers could compensate for the lack of
qualifications by increasing support for educators’ training and professional support until the
expectations and compensation are expanded.

8
Standards and Instructional Supports
Many other components of the ECE system influence classroom quality and child
outcomes, such as materials, curricular support, skilled teaching assistants, and a physical setting
appropriate for meeting young children’s needs (Early, 2007). Currently, the amount of
curricular support allocated to the early childhood profession is related to whether a program is
considered high-quality instruction and is ultimately connected to children’s educational
outcomes (Early, 2007; Hamre et al., 2017). A policy brief from Melnick et al. (2018) shared that
while there are strides from the state to define and promote quality across programs, standards
and implementation are still varied, localized, and inconsistent. For instance, California’s early
childhood programs set requirements for standards that define and affect the quality of individual
programs (Melnick et al., 2018). There are funding incentives for programs trying to improve
their quality based on a quality rating and improvement system, but these are not equally
distributed. Each early childhood program volunteers to participate and is then assessed on
quality ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 to determine the dollar amount they can receive for support
determined by the county in which they reside. Programs that receive a score of 1 to 3 generally
receive less funding than those that receive a 4 or 5. In the end, although all programs receive an
incentive, the programs that need the most support also receive less financial support and fewer
professional learning opportunities (Melnick et al., 2018).
Access
Researchers question the benefits of early childhood education because of the many
variances in program delivery and how they create inequitable access for marginalized
populations (Gibbs et al., 2011; Prentice, 2007). Prentice (2007) shared that limited access to
high-quality early childhood education means that children are more likely to reproduce a life of

9
socioeconomic disadvantage. Research presented by Prentice (2007) also suggested that
underprivileged children have less access to childcare than more affluent children, and their
childcare tends to be lower quality. The ECE settings that many children from low-income
families attend are of too low quality to adequately promote children’s learning and development
(Chaudry et al., 2021). In this view, children who do not attend high-quality programs begin their
educational journeys behind those privileged enough to have access. With this evidence
presented, high-quality education should be equally distributed and accessible to all children so
they can all succeed.
Professional Learning
High-quality programs require teachers to continually improve their practice and enact
instructional strategies that best support their students. Educators often receive professional
learning as a one-way transfer of knowledge rather than an opportunity for authentic learning.
Webster-Wright (2009) proposed a shift toward authentic professional learning, which focuses
on enhancing support for professionals as they continue to learn. This approach acknowledges
that professionals can learn from a broad range of experiences and argues for guidelines that
align with authentic learning experiences and the realities in the workplace. Professional learning
can include activities that expand an educational practitioner’s knowledge, skills, and/or
attitudinal perspectives.
There is growing research on reforming in-service professional learning to support
student success via professional learning communities (PLCs; Eaker & DuFour, 2002; Kennedy,
2016; Owen, 2014). A PLC comprises a set of individuals with a common interest in education.
It involves teams of teachers working together to support one another in building skills and
capacities as co-learners and facilitators of student learning (Owen, 2014). Researchers agree that

10
PLCs benefit teachers and students, but children’s learning outcomes ultimately benefit most
(DuFour & Mattos, 2013; Owen, 2014; Vescio et al., 2008). Alternatively, the literature on early
childhood asserts that when resources to support teachers’ professional growth are too scarce,
these types of benefits are unlikely, and children will suffer the consequences (Melnick et al.,
2018; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Despite conducting an extensive search for data to support the
assertion of historical inequity in children’s outcomes from different types of programs, the
required data could not be found. This suggests that the claim stems from previous researchers’
publications and reinforces Gomez et al.’s (2015) argument that the early childhood workforce
faces challenges due to a lack of adequate data, research, professional development systems, and
articulation.
Evidence presented by Gomez et al. (2015) suggested that professional learning
opportunities for early childhood teachers in the United States overall are not equally distributed,
funded, sustained, or monitored for quality. In addition, as early childhood programs are
historically a responsibility of individual states, professional learning opportunities are most
often provided for participants in particular programs (e.g., state-funded programs) or by
allotment of insufficient funding to meet the entire early childhood workforce’s needs. Although
there have been strides to improve governance and funding, the overall message is that early
childhood policymakers, scholars, and practitioners encounter significant challenges in the
current U.S. context (Melnick et al., 2018; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Nevertheless, there are
optimistic prospects as researchers continue to recognize a need for ongoing investment and
improvement in infrastructure to elevate this workforce’s professional learning.

11
Identity-Consciousness
A recent publication from Kohli and Pizarro (2022) on creating a healthy racial climate
for educators of color addressed the fact that most empirical research focuses on White educators
and shows discrimination against educators of color. This is important because research can
shape the standards for assessing children and implementing best practices for teaching and
learning. As prior research and current standards may promote a hegemonic culture, the
aforementioned research aims to help teachers of all backgrounds support their students of color.
For instance, Kohli’s (2008) earlier title, Breaking the Cycle of Racism in the Classroom,
engaged in-service teachers of color in critical race reflections and found that they experienced
many internalized negative messages about their own cultures during their schooling but never
had a chance to reflect on them until later in life. These in-service teachers recognized how some
of their learning experiences created deficit assumptions of the students and themselves.
To attend to the harm done to students and teachers of color through the reproduction of
standardization and instructional practices rooted in settler colonialism, Lees et al. (2023)
suggested that teachers examine decolonizing theories, build awareness of critical pedagogy, and
reflect on their experiences of being educated in a system that considered them others. Identities
are vital in teachers’ experiences, values, and beliefs. Research by Bettini et al. (2021)
highlighted administrators supporting novice teachers in navigating their identities to better
support their students of color. However, teachers of color expressed that they often feel isolated
when attempting to implement teaching strategies rooted in a dominant system that do not align
with values and beliefs related to their students or own identities (Bettini et al., 2021; Cheruvu et
al., 2015; Lees et al., 2023). With limited resources for overall instructional supports already
noted, it is less likely that early childhood teachers of color will engage in the critical work of

12
building identity consciousness to help them navigate decolonization and deficit perspectives of
themselves and their students. To address the issue of isolation, educators of color require
opportunities for collaboration, mentoring, and professional learning with those in positions to
help them build their capacity for identity consciousness and teaching critically (Cheruvu et al.,
2015; Talusan, 2022).
Context
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2020), the CDC in which I
work is located in a college designated as an Hispanic-serving institution because its students and
community members are mostly Hispanic. In addition, 89% of the student population qualifies
and receives financial aid, particularly the Pell Grant, meaning they display an exceptional
financial need. As noted earlier, the student population at the CDC is 96 % Hispanic or Latino,
2% White, and 2% Black. The teachers are all people of color and have varied educational
qualifications, such as AA degrees in child development, with teacher permits from the
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Half of the teachers have BA degrees with
higher site-supervisor permits. In addition, 50% of the teachers have been in the field for over 10
years. Newly hired teachers are in their early years of teaching. Because this center is situated in
a community college and serves as a training laboratory for future early childhood educators, the
resources allocated are fair compared to stand-alone programs. For example, with support from
the college, a recent state-funded grant allowed for hiring an on-site curriculum coordinator with
an MA in early childhood education. The coordinator works with the teachers to develop
teaching plans and pedagogical practices. This type of support is not typical for all child
development teachers.

13
The CDC’s staff uses the Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) tool to assess
students annually. Analysis of the resulting profiles revealed that children as young as 2
consistently demonstrated challenging behaviors such as higher levels of aggression, anxiety,
emotional outbursts, and defiance in the last 2 years. The teachers observed that they could not
rate children of color who experienced low control and development in their socioemotional
measures in other measures, such as language or cognitive development. Thus, their scores in
these domains are unreported. The reasons teachers could not rate their students in these domains
are unclear. However, according to the DRDP’s directions, the unable-to-rate option is used if a
child is frequently absent from the program (California Department of Education, 2015). In
addition, the reasons for absence do not need to be indicated.
The assessments can also reveal how early childhood educators of color working in lowincome marginalized communities have limited resources to engage in authentic professional
learning opportunities on how their instructional practices may contribute to their students’ lower
long-term achievement. This trend persists, and teachers still need support to improve their
practices. For instance, the teachers at the CDC make continuous requests for additional support
to address challenging behaviors in the classroom, particularly when they believe a child’s
behavior will disrupt the other children’s learning. In another example, a collection of this
organization’s agendas on the topics for professional learning sessions for teachers of color
shows that these sessions have yet to emphasize the collective responsibility to assess, analyze,
and reflect on the children’s data and the standards used to assess children of color using their
knowledge and skills in the past 2 years.
Elmore (2002) expressed that “effective professional development is connected to
questions of content and pedagogy that educators are asking or should be asking about the

14
consequences of their instructional practices on real students as well general questions about
effective teaching practice” (p. 7). In this view, each adult at the CDC, including myself, is
responsible and capable of reproducing the types of teaching that either (a) potentially harm
themselves or (b) create attitudes or mindsets that assume deficits of the students of color, their
families, and the communities. In my opinion, the agendas provided by the curriculum
coordinator demonstrate an absence of critical examination of the children’s performance, the
teacher’s instructional practices, the standards used, the connections between them, and how they
could be harmful or reproduce negative outcomes for children of color.
Since my tenure as their director, staff at CDC have received four opportunities per year
to attend external professional growth workshops, conferences, and six internal meetings with
the coordinator. Similar to my previous experiences described above, the opportunities for
teachers consisted of sit-and-get information rather than more authentic opportunities for
professional learning. A study by Kennedy (2016) found that professional learning program
designs that consider participants’ motivation, strategies, and insight are strong indicators of
program success. When teachers feel that their opinions and contributions are being listened to,
they are more likely to feel motivated to try new strategies from others that can contribute to
their learning and practice.
Through this action research study, I collaborated with the curriculum coordinator to
identify and design a PLC for teachers that is site-based and relevant to their practice. During the
process, I gathered agenda items, observational field notes, and other artifacts, such as reflections
on conversations with the curriculum coordinator. A key component in Webster-Wright’s (2009)
study was that critical reflection is necessary for challenging assumptions of professional
practices and to shift into a more authentic continuous professional learning format. Merriam and

15
Bierema (2013) stated, “At the heart of adult learning is engaging in, reflecting upon, and
making meaning of our experiences” (p. 104), as transformational learning occurs when one
changes the way they make meaning through reflection of assumptions and biases in their
experiences. Brown (2004) added that the openness of perspectives through discourse and
reflection ultimately makes up adult learning, which will be evident in the quality of instruction.
Therefore, ongoing critical reflection and dialogue with the participant were essential to
understanding the efficacy of this study. In addition to the critical reflections, I facilitated
discourse as part of my leadership position, discussed in the following section, to support the
curriculum coordinator’s learning about new ways to conduct professional learning for teachers
of color.
Role
Villaverde (2008, as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013) defined positionality as “how one
is situated through the intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality,
ethnicity, culture, language, and other social factors” (pp. 60–61). On the surface, I have many
privileges based on my current titles and identities. Contradicting these surface privileges are my
history and experiences that allowed me to attain these titles and privileges in a culture intended
for the dominant White male culture (Spring, 2016). As the director of the CDC, I am positioned
to support teachers’ professional growth in various ways. For one, being a Latina, while
recognizing we are not a monolithic group, I can empathize with the specific cultural and ethnic
standards of the staff, who are all people of color. At the same time, I am also aware of the
difficulties of growing up, receiving an education, and working as a minority educator in
America. This connection can support me as I create learning conditions, allowing authentic and
trusting conversations between the curriculum coordinator and myself.

16
Secondly, my bachelor’s degree is in child development, and my master’s is in early
childhood education. Although my master’s degree is the highest among the current teaching
staff, we still have the same content knowledge, having completed work in the same major. I
consider myself an insider in relation to the teachers who understand the language and landscape
of child development. At the same time, I am an outsider, in relation to my staff, as my degree
holds higher value in society and to organizational stakeholders who pay our salaries. Thirdly, I
serve as a new administrator for an educational profession that is behind in structural resources
to support the students it serves (Gomez et al., 2015; Hahn & Barnett, 2023). As someone who
pursued a leadership role in the early childhood education profession, I feel an obligation to give
back to the educators working directly in the classrooms with children, so they feel supported in
their work.
The research presented above show that student outcomes significantly improve when
early childhood staff receive adequate professional learning support. As a former teacher and
curriculum coordinator, I understand the need for supportive directors. In my current role as
program leader, I am committed to providing support to ensure the teachers’ success. At the time
of the start of this study, the curriculum coordinator and I had separate responsibilities and had
only shared our individual progress as needed. By working more closely with her in this action
research study, I aimed to ensure that everyone involved in children’s learning experiences
aligned with our vision and goal. As the program’s leader, I have a direct impact on making clear
the vision and the impact of all our shared responsibilities to ensure that all those responsible for
children’s learning experiences are working together.
There is more to me than these three identities. Reflecting on my actions as a new
supervisor, I aimed to disrupt the status quo to support teachers and promote student success by

17
prioritizing quality care and education for marginalized children and considering the challenges
teachers of color face. Self-reflection helped me uncover and check biases and assumptions in
my leadership role, such as those related to my experiences surrounding how the CDC staff have
engaged in professional learning thus far. The tenets of Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle guided
me to slow down and reflect on the curriculum coordinator’s learning by exploring the role of
presence, description, analysis, and experimentation.
Guiding my theory of how educators should be supported is literature on adult learning
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Shabani, 2016), learning conditions (Arao &
Clemens, 2013; Horn & Little, 2010), and professional learning (Eaker & DuFour, 2002;
Kennedy, 2016; Owen, 2014). The next section explains how I used these concepts to support
authentic professional learning opportunities for the curriculum coordinator at CDC. This study
aimed to answer the following research question: How do I establish effective learning
conditions to assist a curriculum coordinator at one early care and education center in examining
professional learning opportunities and cultivating awareness of her positionality regarding
historically entrenched inequities that impact early childhood educators of color?
Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) defined a conceptual framework as a “system of concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, and theories” (p. 39) that support a tentative theory of the phenomena one
is investigating. A conceptual framework was used in this research to guide my actions and
better understand how I, as a school leader, can work with my curriculum coordinator to provide
authentic and continuous professional learning to early childhood educators of color to ultimately
support children’s educational success. In a PLC, school personnel are charged to work together
to improve their professional practice through discourse and reflection as a means of school

18
improvement (Eaker & DuFour, 2002). In a perfect world, teachers would already know what
students in their context need and have a shared understanding and goals for how to support
them. However, many schools face challenges and disagreements due to differences in staff
expertise, experiences, backgrounds, and assumptions that hinder achieving shared goals.
Furthermore, not all school personnel have access to a PLC within their organizations
(Elmore, 2002). Therefore, leaders must take responsibility for creating a culture of collaboration
by providing support and necessary conditions, such as those found in a PLC (Owens, 2014).
The following conceptual framework defines the roles of the leader and the curriculum
coordinator working with teachers of color. Drawing on leadership and adult learning literature, I
will detail how I, as the leader, worked with her to support her work with the teachers of color in
our organization. Figure 1 is a visual representation of my conceptual framework, which details
the specific leadership and andragogical moves I theorized I must make to best support my
curriculum coordinator. The desired outcome of this work was for her to understand the
characteristics of a PLC such that she could create and cultivate one with our teachers of color
one day.

19
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Professional Learning Communities
Eaker and Dufour (2002) argued that “the most promising strategy for school
improvement is developing the capacity of school personnel to function as a [PLC]” (p. 1). A
PLC, as Owen (2014) described, is “closely aligned to the community of practice literature
involving characteristics of collegiality, practical tasks with a focus on student learning, and
being research-oriented for the purposes of improving practice” (pp. 58–59). Authors agree that
three key characteristics make up a PLC: (a) a collaboratively developed shared mission, vision,
values, and goals, (b) collaborative teams that are interdependent on achieving common goals,
and (c) focus on results through the commitment of continuous improvement (Eaker & DuFour,
2002; Owen, 2014).

20
First, PLCs have a shared mission, vision, values, and goals. Grossman et al. (2001)
stated that a community of teachers allows individuals to “earn the right to represent the
collective vision” (p. 996), while Elmore (2002) added that “specific professional development
activities would follow from a well-articulated mission or purpose for the organization and that
purpose would be anchored on some statement about student learning” (p. 7). Northouse and Lee
(2019) expressed that shared visions move organizations from a current to a future state, creating
visions of potential opportunities with new cultures and strategies that mobilize and focus energy
and resources. Many systemic issues may challenge how school personnel work together toward
a shared vision (Elmore, 2002; Grossman et al., 2001). For instance, educators with diverse
identities may resist negotiating a common vision, mission, values, and goals. Senge (1990, as
cited in Achor, 2018) shared a theory of mental models that asserted each individual holds their
beliefs and assumptions of the world that may result in a “vision without systems thinking ends
up painting lovely pictures of the future with no deep understanding of the forces that must be
mastered to move from here to there” (p. 197). Therefore, school leaders are responsible for
recognizing and navigating patterns of thinking for the collective and for creating the support and
conditions so school personnel can engage in reflective dialogue to expose their assumptions and
core values as they negotiate with one another toward the ultimate goal of student success. This
study examined CDC’s current vision and mission statement and questioned how the staff
upholds the vision, mission, and values. At the same time, it is important for me to examine my
role in making the vision and mission clear so that everyone can work toward them together,
even if it means revising them.
Second, PLCs are collaborative teams that are interdependent on achieving goals. The
ultimate goal of a PLC is for children to succeed and learn. In a school organization with varied

21
roles and responsibilities, some individuals can learn how to better help students learn from one
another, even if they are not in the same classroom. Owen (2014) connected to Wenger’s (1998)
community of practice, where collegiality and mutual engagement help one another share ideas
and reflect on experiences and where all have a shared responsibility for learning from others in
the group. Knowledge is seen as a communal resource, and everyone participating in the PLC
has a role and responsibility for the learning of others in the group (Owen, 2014). At CDC, the
curriculum coordinator works independently and is responsible for developing learning
opportunities for the teachers during planned professional development days once a month. I
contend that a shift must happen in how the curriculum coordinator engages the teachers and me.
Third, PLCs focus on results through continuous improvement. In a broad sense, authors
of professional learning agree that using evidence-based teaching practices can improve student
outcomes (DuFour, 2004; Elmore, 2002; Hamre et al., 2017; Owen, 2014). In a study about the
impact of professional development for early childhood, Hamre et al. (2017) suggested that
educators who focus on observational measures that predict children’s learning and development
as a strategy for improvement are more likely to target focused teaching practices and change
behaviors to support positive outcomes based on those measures. Furthermore, DuFour (2004)
added that in today’s era, data are easy to come by, but “data will become a catalyst for improved
teacher practice only if the teacher has a basis of comparison” (p. 5).
A common challenge for organizations to apply assessment data to their professional
learning is that some teachers feel that the demands of performance-based accountability are
unreasonable, given that education systems were not originally designed or necessarily wellstructured to support evidence-based teaching practices (Elmore, 2002). Still, Elmore (2002)
argued that school personnel must recognize that performance-based accountability is a

22
collective responsibility that ultimately serves children and that their strategies need to ensure
teachers can share performance data and ideas for improving the data with one another. This
means that there need to be strategies in place for assessment data to be embraced and
continuously shared with others so that the focus on student learning remains at the center of
improved practices, there are decreased negative feelings associated with the teacher’s ability to
have students score high, and any assumptions about student learning are not in the way of the
teacher’s ability to improve their practice. In my organizational context, the curriculum
coordinator meets with the CDC teachers monthly. At the time of this study, the teachers did not
incorporate data from children’s assessments into their meetings. They occasionally used the
data from the children’s performance records for their own planning and did not share it with
each other. Instead, during meetings, they shared their personal experiences and challenges on
the topics the curriculum coordinator had prepared on the agenda. Drawing on the literature
about the importance of using assessment or observational data to inform pedagogy, I hoped the
curriculum coordinator would ultimately see the effectiveness of using the children’s assessment
data as a professional learning strategy with the teachers.
Beer et al. (1990) wrote, “The most effective way to change behavior is to put people into
a new organizational context, which imposes new roles, responsibilities, and relationships” (p.
159), which ultimately allows for new attitudes toward effective change and task alignment. For
the curriculum coordinator to consider changing the delivery of professional learning to the
teachers, I introduced a new collaborative role and relationship with me, the director, and a coconstructed approach to authentic and meaningful learning experiences for adults that translates
to children’s success.

23
I aimed to support the curriculum coordinator to create a shared mission and vision
centered around their children’s success while also building a culture of collaboration for adult
learning and results-based instruction. For these concepts of a PLC to come to fruition, I
explored my role and responsibilities as the organization’s leader to support her in ways I had not
done previously. Literature on transformational and adaptive leadership guided and still guides
my understanding of my role and how I engage with her toward my goals.
Leadership
Northouse (2022) has written extensively about leadership styles and asserted that all
approaches to leadership have strengths and weaknesses, and it is best to use a combination of
leadership approaches because “leading effectively means consistently surveying follower, task,
and environmental needs and pressures” (p. 197). I used a combination of transformational and
adaptive leadership approaches as the organization’s director to work with the curriculum
coordinator. These two leadership approaches positioned me to support her in better
understanding how a PLC will serve and can later be incorporated with the teachers to support
high-quality instruction for children. I selected these two leadership styles as they are closely
related to the characteristics needed to facilitate a PLC. I also considered these two leadership
styles in combination, as each style focuses on helping the leader and the follower in specific
ways that I believe will address the problem of practice articulated above. The following sections
discuss each style and how they relate to this study.
Transformational Leadership
According to Northouse (2022), transformational leadership is “concerned with the
process of how certain leaders are able to inspire followers to accomplish great things” (p. 220).
In 1978, Burns began his work on transformational leadership and wrote that these leaders attend

24
to the needs and motives of the followers to ultimately reach a collective vision (as cited in
Northouse, 2022). What distinguishes this leadership style from others is the role the leader has
to ultimately empower followers to raise their consciousness as change agents “to transcend their
own self-interests for the sake of others” beyond what is usually expected of them (Northouse,
2022, p. 201).
In my study, I employed transformational leadership behaviors, such as setting an
example, clearly stating objectives, communicating high expectations, and showing confidence
and proficiency. I aimed to establish a trustworthy bond with the curriculum coordinator,
enabling me to gain insight into motivations for learning about alternative approaches to
professional development that tackle the aforementioned issues. As we built our relationship, I
shared my intentions and this study’s purpose, which align with my values and morals. I shared
my expectations for those working with children of color, and we explored how those
expectations aligned with our current practice. The important piece is that while engaging in
these behaviors, I was careful to set an environment that would encourage and motivate the
curriculum coordinator to raise consciousness about our shared goals. The transformational
behaviors I used increased her sense of efficacy and self-confidence to be a change agent for
children of color.
Four factors separate a transformational leader from a transactional leader (Northouse,
2022): idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration. I choose to engage in transformational leadership behaviors because these four
factors are very similar to the characteristics of a PLC mentioned earlier, such as focusing on
values, shared mission, achieving goals, and continuous improvement. Consideration of these

25
four factors helped me enact transformational leadership behaviors while working with the
curriculum coordinator and will be described further in the passages below.
To begin, a leader can accomplish idealized influence by acting as a strong role model of
high morals and standards (Northouse, 2022). In addition, similar to the characteristics of a PLC,
transformational leaders striving for an idealized influence provide opportunities for a collective
vision and sense of mission so the followers can see outside their interests and strive for the
“ideal” outcome for the organization. This requires self-awareness and understanding of one’s
values and morals, which a later section will cover. When working with the curriculum
coordinator, I started by presenting the current issues concerning the professional learning of
teachers of color and making space for her to discuss how those problems connect to personal
values and the organization’s current vision and mission. Idealized influence required that she
and I work to explore our identities, positionalities, assumptions, biases, and motives before
creating a collective vision for others. The following sections discuss the behaviors I engaged in
to understand myself and explore my morals and standards concerning the organization’s goals,
values, and mission. As a leader, I also needed to model and allow opportunities for the
curriculum coordinator to engage in these behaviors. We could move on to the next factor once a
shared understanding of the issues exists.
Inspirational motivation is the second factor of transformational leadership when leaders
encourage others to achieve higher expectations based on the collective vision they created
(Northouse, 2022). Compared to a PLC, this factor is related to the second characteristic of
creating shared goals. Once Factor 1 (idealized influence) is accomplished, I am responsible for
encouraging and co-creating a new shared vision for professional learning that will better serve
all impacted by the current ways teachers of color engage in professional learning or lack

26
thereof. As we work together, this second factor requires me to model how to listen, be attuned
to the curriculum coordinators’ perspectives and needs, and recognize when to move forward or
pause for shared understanding as we co-create a shared vision.
Intellectual stimulation is the third factor that promotes followers to be change agents via
collective problem-solving (Northouse, 2022). In this view, my role as a leader is to ensure that I
do not deliver information to the curriculum coordinator as if she could develop creative
solutions independently. Connected to the characteristic of a PLC, collaborative problemsolving, I did not give her answers and ensured that the creation of ideas and solutions was a
shared responsibility. I can provide opportunities for critical thinking and perspective-taking that
will keep the children’s learning at the center of my discussions with the curriculum coordinator.
In addition, learning during times of change is influenced by autonomous motivation (Wergin,
2020) and connected to creativity (Senge, 1990). In a later section about andragogy, I will
discuss specific moves and behaviors that I used to draw out ideas from her after we had
explored the organization’s issues and shared vision with respect to professional learning.
Factor 4 is individualized consideration, providing a supportive climate where a caring
and listening leader builds trust (Northouse, 2022). This aligns with the characteristic of a PLC,
which sees learning as a collaborative, continuous improvement process. Trust is essential to
help others feel comfortable collaborating, and it takes time to establish. Although this is the
fourth factor for transformational learning, this does not have to occur in the end. As noted in
Factor 2, I listened and paid attention to the curriculum coordinator’s perspectives and needs as
we co-create a shared vision. Because I am in a position as her leader, feelings can be associated
with our work roles that may prevent her from responding or engaging authentically. I needed to
establish behaviors and moves for individualized consideration at the beginning of the study and

27
continue until the end so that the curriculum coordinator could feel safe learning and engage in a
PLC with me first and hopefully with the teachers in the future. In this view, she and I engaged
in the learning process and collaborated over time.
Key aspects of transformational leadership involve the leader’s responsibility to set an
example of strong ethics and principles and ultimately empower their followers to elevate their
awareness as catalysts for change and to go beyond their self-interests for the benefit of others
(Northouse, 2022, p. 188). To support the curriculum coordinator toward facilitating a PLC, I
engaged in idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration (Northouse, 2022) to match the characteristics of a PLC having a
strong mission and vision, creating shared goals, and collaborating to problem-solve and
continue growing. The transformational leadership behaviors and factors described above, plus
the adaptive leadership behaviors described in the next section, were the foundation for my work
with the curriculum coordinator.
Adaptive Leadership
Northouse (2022) described adaptive leadership as focused on how the leader encourages
people to adapt in response to changing environments, and the focus lies on followers’ work in
each situation. Heifetz (1994) suggested that adaptive leaders “engage in activities that mobilize,
motivate, organize, orient, and focus the attention of others” (p. 286) through tough challenges
(as cited in Northouse, 2022). The challenges of individuals in an organization are seen as
complex and multifaceted because they incorporate four different biases: (a) systems bias, (b)
biological bias, (c) service orientation bias, and (d) psychotherapeutic bias (Heifetz, 1994, as
cited in Northouse, 2022). The leader is then tasked with recognizing those biases in a challenge
and deciding whether the challenge is technical, technical and adaptive, or adaptive.

28
Once the leader has decided on the type of challenge, the use of six leader behaviors (get
on the balcony, Identify the adaptive challenge, regulate distress, maintain disciplined attention,
give work back to the people, and protect leadership voices from below) help to attend to
adaptive, or adaptive and technical challenges. If the challenge is technical, the leader can attend
to it alone. Because of the time constraint required in this action research, not all six behaviors
were enacted and examined. However, the behaviors I engaged in, such as regulating distress,
maintaining disciplined attention, giving work back to the people, and protecting voices from
below, align with the PLC characteristics and transformational leadership behaviors. The
following sections discuss the four behaviors, how they connect to a PLC, and how I used them
in my study.
Regulating Distress. The first behavior of an adaptive leader is connected to maintaining
the leader’s emotional intelligence during pressure (Northouse, 2022). An adaptive leader must
also model how to be aware and self-reflect on the adaptive process of examining one’s practice
in relation to the organization’s challenges. Goleman (2011) distinguished good leaders from
great leaders by their ability to enhance the performance of their followers and their own by
honing in on five skills that encompass emotional intelligence: (a) self-awareness, (b) selfregulation, (c) motivation, (d) empathy, and (e) social skills. Similar to the transformational
leadership behavior of role modeling morals and values and the PLC’s characteristics of
exploring one’s values and morals, self-reflection and self-awareness will support me in
uncovering my assumptions for regulating the distress of the curriculum coordinator when
working toward organizational challenges.
As rethinking professional learning is not a technical challenge, it requires taking in new
ideas, beliefs, or perspectives to develop an adaptive solution without a single solution. Agreeing

29
on a course of action for the challenge means that those participating must suspend assumptions,
entertain fresh questions, and try on the perspectives of others (Wergin, 2020). When
practitioners are presented with a historically entrenched inequity and the opportunity to
critically reflect on how it is reproduced in their organization, many negative or uncomfortable
feelings may follow (Brookfield, 2010; Love, 2019). These feelings are termed disorienting
dilemmas (Brookfield, 2010; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Wergin, 2020) when new
information contradicts old ways of thinking and acting and is usually connected to a sense of
loss. Furthermore, according to Mezirow, a typical “first reaction to a disorienting dilemma is to
blame oneself for one’s supposed failure or mistake” (as cited in Brookfield, 2010, p. 217) with
added feelings such as guilt and needing to fix the damage already done instead of focusing on
the systems that created the problems (Brookfield, 2010; Elmore, 2002). Therefore, I anticipated
that the curriculum coordinator would experience an emotional response, such as loss, guilt, or
fear, when presented with information that may contradict the current understanding and delivery
of professional learning. I had to be ready to offer support by creating a holding environment,
described more in detail in the learning conditions section.
According to Wergin (2020), my role as the leader supporting someone through adaptive
learning is to present the information of cognitive dissonance deliberately to not make it too easy
or challenging that the person will not be motivated to learn any other new ways. Psychological
safety is the belief that the environment one is in is safe to share ideas or perspectives without
feeling judged (Edmondson, 2019). I had to create the right support conditions or directions for
the curriculum coordinator to feel safe to take risks, share beliefs, and be creative in problemsolving. I looked and listened for signs of disorienting dilemmas and was prepared to provide
direction or support. Creating a safe space for the participant is different from cultivating a brave

30
space (Arao & Clemens, 2013). My ultimate goal was to move the participant from a safe space
into a brave one, where it is acceptable to challenge assumptions and learn other perspectives.
One way to do this was by establishing ground rules and discussing ways to share information
and perspectives. This will be discussed further in the discourse section. Although this study may
not have led my participant to a brave space, the hope was that I could model strategies that
would one day lead to it in the future.
This study delves into the initial behaviors I engaged in as an adaptive leader managing
distress. When individuals encounter information that contradicts their previous beliefs and
actions, they may experience negative emotions. My responsibility as an adaptive leader is to aid
the learning process and establish a secure environment to experiment, be imaginative, question
assumptions, and learn. I regulated distress in this study as an adaptive leader through selfawareness and reflection, managed conflict by creating a safe holding environment, established
ground rules for discourse, and provided support and direction when necessary.
Maintaining Disciplined Attention. According to Fullan (2020), a prescription for an
effective leader does not exist because each leader and the context of the leader’s organization
are ever-evolving. As Fullan suggested, change stirs emotions, and leaders “need to encourage
people to focus on the tough work they need to do” (Northouse, 2022, p. 296). Discourse is an
important tool to help leaders listen to the concerns of followers that may inhibit change and then
help followers navigate through any tough decisions or emotions that need to be made with focus
and disciplined attention to the work that must be done (Webster-Wright, 2009; Wergin, 2020).
As collaboration is expected in PLC, I engaged the curriculum coordinator in discourse. I
simultaneously modeled and prepared discussion questions and prompts to guide the discourse to

31
better understand her concerns about implementing a PLC, a new way of working with the
teachers, and help her confront any decisions we must make together.
Wergin (2020) believed that a facilitator must have clear criteria for performance, give
concrete feedback, and help participants believe that failure is an essential aspect of deep
learning. In this view, I planned to gather feedback to uncover my assumptions about the
direction of the learning and bring the focus back to the core issue. I modeled how to slow down
when the curriculum coordinator communicated needing more time on a particular issue. I hoped
a flexible structure based on the responses to the questions from the participant would allow me
to address concerns that kept the focus away from carrying out the key characteristics of the
PLC, such as having a shared vision, collaborative problem-solving, and using data for ongoing
improvement. At the same time, I hoped these behaviors allow the curriculum coordinator to feel
safe to respond honestly about her understanding of the inequities and our roles in addressing
them.
Maintaining disciplined attention emphasizes the significance and focus that leadership
maintains for participants, particularly when coping with change. I intended to have several
discussions with the curriculum coordinator to comprehend her apprehensions regarding
implementing a PLC and tackle decisions together. Additionally, I aimed to gather feedback,
adjust the learning outcomes if necessary, and establish a versatile learning environment to
address concerns and emphasize the fundamental aspects of a PLC. Ultimately, I aspired to
create a secure environment for the curriculum coordinator to express her honest views on the
inequities in our current professional learning practices and our role in resolving them.
Giving Work Back to the People. Giving work back to the people consists of leaders
empowering followers to be problem solvers and balancing how much direction they give and do

32
not give (Northouse, 2022). Heifetz (1994) first described adaptive learning as “when a gap
exists between the values people stand for (those that constitute thriving) and the reality that they
face (their current lack of capacity) to realize those values” (as cited in Wergin, 2020, p. 60).
Wergin (2020) added that for deep learning to occur, three interacting sources of intrinsic
motivation must be considered: autonomy, efficacy, and relatedness. The first, autonomy,
concerns how humans are intrinsically motivated to act or reject something based on how much
the topics align with their personal volitions. The second, efficacy, is related to whether someone
feels competent in their work and how it gives meaning to them. Lastly, relatedness is how one
feels connected to the work they are doing. Before I consider how much learning I can expect
from the curriculum coordinator, I will keep in mind these sources so that the curriculum
coordinator feels empowered and connected to develop actionable solutions for the entrenched
inequity in our program.
Wergin (2020) additionally proposed creating a clear and manageable challenge to
stimulate conditions for deep learning. As mentioned earlier, the leader is responsible for the
balance of structure and direction so the followers can feel safe to creatively solve issues they are
already unsure about. One of the first actions I took in this study was to present the historically
entrenched inequity in a way that did not overwhelm the curriculum coordinator. The holding
environment and discourse described in this paper will allow a flexible structure to give the
curriculum coordinator the feeling of autonomy, efficacy, and relatedness as these align with the
collaborative approach of a PLC and the intellectual stimulation factor in transformational
leadership.
Giving work back to the people allowed me to exercise the leadership characteristic of
allowing the curriculum coordinator to devise solutions contextual to the problems identified

33
during our discourse and encouraging space for creative problem-solving. Three sources of
intrinsic motivation aided the conditions for deep learning: autonomy, efficacy, and relatedness.
Providing clear, manageable challenges, holding spaces, and engaging in discourse provided a
flexible structure that aligned with the collaborative approach of a PLC and the intellectual
stimulation factor of transformational leadership, allowing for problem-solving and learning.
Protect Leadership Voices From Below. This adaptive leader behavior means that the
leader is responsible for listening and being open to the ideas of people who may be “at the
fringe, marginalized, or even deviant within the group organization” (Northouse, 2022, p. 298).
The leader is aware of whose voices are being heard and not heard and positioned to encourage
and allow voices to be heard from all levels so they may be a part of the decision-making
process. The voices I aimed to protect in this study were those of the curriculum coordinator and
the teachers of color, who are implicated when professional learning for teachers is not examined
and interrogated for possible harm and are not a part of this study.
Protecting leadership voices from below is another behavior that goes hand in hand with
the collaborative approach, shared vision, and mission aspect of the PLC. For example, the
CDC’s current vision and mission goals include the following passage: “providing safe, healthy,
culturally relevant and developmentally appropriate educational experiences for preschool
children.” As the curriculum coordinator and I discussed and examined how teachers’
professional learning remains true to this mission, we considered the voices of the children and
families and the teachers. The solutions and possible actions that the curriculum coordinator and
I developed will ultimately affect children’s and teacher’s learning in our organization.
In connection to transformational leadership, protecting leadership voices from below is
closely aligned with individualized consideration behavior, where listening to my participant and

34
creating a safe space to share were key for me to enact this behavior. Since the curriculum
coordinator is my only participant, I also needed to consider ways I could have unintentionally
influenced her opinions and ideas by continuing to be reflective during our discourse. As I
worked to protect her voice and those of our organization, I critically reflected on the specific
types of learning conditions I created (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Slayton & Mathis, 2010), my
positionality (Villaverde 2008, as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 60) as the director of the
program working with an employee in my organization, and my hegemonic assumptions or
biases (Brookfield, 2017) about the practices she implemented in our program that hinder the
CDC’s mission.
Protecting leadership voices from below is an adaptive leader behavior that involves
listening to and being open to ideas from all levels of the organization. I strived to protect the
curriculum coordinator’s voice, as this behavior is related to individualized consideration
behavior and requires a safe space to share ideas. At the same time, I was conscious of how
modeling this behavior to the curriculum coordinator can impact others, such as our students of
color and their families, in the long run.
Overall, the adaptive leadership model is about practice and requires that leaders be
aware of their behaviors as they relate to their followers’ needs and the changing dynamics in
their context. There are a lot of similarities and connections between transformational and
adaptive leadership that align with the PLC characteristics, such as working collaboratively
toward a shared goal, empowering followers to become creative change agents, and reflecting on
one’s values and assumptions. Now that I know what behaviors I need to engage in as a leader,
the next step is to describe adult learning for my participant as it relates to my study’s goals.

35
Andragogy/Adult Learning
Grossman et al. (2001) maintained that educators emphasize being lifelong learners to
children. Most authors on adult learning assert that it should also be continuous (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 1999; Elmore, 2002; Wergin, 2020). The following passages will cover my
understanding of adult learning connected to literature and how I sought to promote it through
this study.
Adult learning relies on contextual understanding, critical reflection on assumptions, and
assessing reasons (Brookfield, 2010; Mezirow, 2000; Wergin, 2020). Mezirow (2000) claimed
that “transformative learning involves participation in constructive discourse to use the
experience of others to assess reasons justifying these assumptions, and making an action
decision based on the resulting insight” (pp. 7–8). In addition, Mezirow (2000) stated that the
learning conditions for critical discourse also constitute the same conditions for adult learning.
Wergin (2020) listed six experiences to promote student learning similar to adult learning:
• cognitive dissonance
• creative engagement
• supportive environment for learning and risk-taking
• real-world, contextual, meaningful experiences
• some challenges, but not too many challenges that paralyze the learner
• personal reflection and analysis
Upon reflection on my new role as director, I recognized that I had been attending to the
technical challenges of adult learning in our organization instead of the adaptive ones. I have had
limited time to assess the staff’s current understanding and assumptions of our program’s
collective goals and roles. The goal of hiring a curriculum coordinator was to help the teachers

36
create high-quality learning experiences for children through professional learning meetings.
However, I did not express my belief that this is not a role the curriculum coordinator should
take on alone. In retrospect, and after careful reflection on what I believed I knew about
professional learning for adults, I gained some new understanding about how our organization is
ineffectively helping teachers learn in the ways described by the authors above. I see a need to
make time for shared meaning-making and responsibility (Mezirow, 2000) to increase shared
collective accountability (Elmore, 2002) for how our organization delivers professional learning
to teachers of color so that they may continue learning while supporting young children’s
education.
Therefore, I designed this study to help me recognize where the curriculum coordinator
was in her understanding of our programs’ goals in relation to her role as the facilitator of
professional learning for teachers of color. At the same time, I hoped to gain insight into what
she knew and understood about adult learning and PLC. Ultimately, I hoped to model for and
support her in learning and implementing a PLC in our program.
This adaptive challenge encompasses my moves to promote change in the curriculum
coordinator’s practice and the work I needed to do to inspire transformational learning of the
collective problem. It required my support so that the curriculum coordinator could examine how
the current practice of delivering professional learning harms children and teachers of color.
Concurrently, I was responsible for cultivating conditions so she can be creative and develop a
new way of working with adults specific to our community’s needs. For these experiences to be
effective and for her to be moved to make active changes in practice, I needed to make the
learning environment safe for risk-taking in the discourse and reflection. For myself, the

37
reflections served as insight into making sure the learning experiences had just enough challenge
and dissonance to keep the learning going.
Throughout this study, my objective was to create a learning environment where
discourse and safe spaces guide the learning of the curriculum coordinator. The forms of
assistance I engaged in were planned, intentional, and reflected upon to help me determine where
she was in the learning process. Moreover, the discourse in this study helped me determine and
assess how I engaged in the behaviors of a transformational and adaptive leader to support the
curriculum coordinator toward the study’s goals.
Discourse
Mezirow (2000) argued that transformative learning, the type that changes one’s existing
frame of reference, cannot occur without specialized dialogue between people to seek common
understandings and assess assumptions toward common goals. It is believed that in a group
setting, participants can challenge one another to listen and receive new perspectives outside
their own. To understand Wergin’s (2020) point about learning experiences that need to occur
for learning, if a negative emotional reaction appears during discourse and the learner is not
supported, the learner may not feel inclined to share, change, or learn, thus the challenge is too
paralyzing (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Kegan & Lahey, 2011). However, if the
right learning conditions and supports are enabled to facilitate the learning experience and
discourse, there is a higher possibility that the learner will be more open to exploring new roles,
perspectives, skills, and knowledge.
In practice, discourse can look different for each setting. Whether it is a large or small
group, the conversation can look like a ping pong of ideas bounced back and forth from one
participant to the next, and a facilitator notes key remarks and guides further topics. The key to

38
discourse is how the facilitator allows the participants to share their understanding and
assumptions without judgment so that they can feel more inclined to share freely. Therefore, an
inquiry-as-stance approach (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) created the foundation for the
discourse between the curriculum coordinator and me, as described below. As I am tasked with
creating a conducive learning environment that would allow for authentic responses to be
generated from our discourse, the next section will discuss learning conditions.
Learning Conditions
As the adult educator and researcher, my role was to plan diligently for the most optimal
learning conditions to address the study’s goals. Many authors have discussed the conditions that
positively promote adult learning as those that allow for a feeling of safety to express oneself and
be curious about the learning process, and see themselves as a community of learners (Arao &
Clemens, 2013; Belenky & Stanton, 2000; Webster-Wright, 2009; Wergin, 2020). A holding
environment, careful consideration of the physical elements and structure of the study, and the
use of agreements were andragogical moves I used to support the curriculum coordinator in the
examination of current pedagogical practices. These elements were intended to allow her to feel
comfortable and safe to respond authentically.
Holding Environment. Heifetz et al. (2009) described a holding environment as
consisting of “all the ties that bind people together and enable them to maintain their collective
focus on what they are trying to do” (p. 71). When dealing with adaptive change, a leader must
create and solidify a strong holding environment to provide safety and structure so that
participants can face and address the difficult challenges ahead. Some requirements for a holding
environment are shared language, purpose and values, lateral bonds and trust, and vertical bonds
of trust with authority (Heifetz et al., 2009). In this study, I considered the holding environment

39
in each cycle as I planned which activities to incorporate that align with the learning objectives. I
reconsidered and redeveloped the holding environment each time I critically reflected on my
decisions and actions to support the curriculum coordinator.
Physical Elements and Structure. The physical environment is an often overlooked
aspect of professional learning but is often an essential component for setting the tone for
comfort for adult learners (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). Merriam and Tisdell (2015) expressed that
when collecting data for a qualitative study, carefully considering the physical environment and
logistics for meetings can affect how much a participant is willing to share. The physical
environments that produce the most learning and data from participants are (a) well organized,
(b) comfortable, (c) quiet, and (d) private (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In
addition, the time needed to meet with participants should be sufficient for them to think through
the responses and not feel rushed.
At the same time, the meetings’ structure should be emergent and flexible, responsive to
the learners/participants’ needs (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A welldesigned learning space is very similar to a space conducive to engaging research participants. I
paid careful attention to the physical and structural factors to support the curriculum
coordinator’s participation as the learner and research participant.
Agreements. Arao and Clemens (2013) argued that establishing agreements sets the
learning environment so learners can respectfully engage with one another when there are
differing opinions. They add to the literature above about differing positions eliciting mixed
emotions that challenge one to think outside their comfort zone and move away from comfort.
Triggered emotions such as fear and feeling unsafe activate a defensive response such as
discount, deflect, or retreat. As risk cannot be removed from dialogue about one’s practice,

40
especially when it relates to social justice topics, Arao and Clemens contended that learners shift
from a concept of bravery through agreements to attend to the challenges of genuine dialogue.
Lastly, from an ethical perspective, as a research participant, the curriculum coordinator needs to
feel encouraged to participate without feeling pressured by the person facilitating the discussions
(Krueger & Casey, 2015).
Commonly used agreements such as agree to disagree, do not take things personally,
challenge by choice, be respectful, and no attacks, examined by Arao and Clemens (2013), are
seen as a means to “contribute to the conflation of safety and comfort and restrict participant
engagement and learning” (p. 143). These authors added alternative agreements: controversy
with civility, own your intentions and your impact, consider why we challenge ourselves,
defining respect, and consider ideas versus people to support facilitators in setting up guidelines
for conversations that will encourage participants to be brave in content that pushes them outside
of their comfort zones to maximize learning. These alternative agreements3 served to foster
respectful interactions, manage emotions, and build a foundation for how I created a
psychologically safe environment for the curriculum coordinator.
Controversy With Civility. The ultimate goal of discourse is to encourage the voicing of
disagreement and contrasting views. A typical agreement statement is to agree to disagree, which
serves as a tool to retreat from conflict to avoid additional discomfort and potentially damage a
relationship. However, agreeing to disagree can further reinforce systems of oppression, as there
is a higher chance that the dominant group can also exercise privilege and opt out of
3 Although, Arao and Clemens (2013) used the term “ground rules,” this study will refer
to them as agreements since the term “rules” has a controlling, dominant, overpowering
connotation that does not align with the collaborative approach.

41
uncomfortable conversations. An alternative to agreeing to disagree from Arao and Clemens’s
(2013) point of view is to engage in controversy with civility.
Astin and Astin (1996) defined controversy with civility as a “value whereby different
views are expected and honored with a group commitment to understand the sources of
disagreement and to work cooperatively toward common solutions” (p. 59, as cited in Arao &
Clemens, 2013, p. 144). This language makes explicit the idea that positive or neutral intentions
may contribute to negative impacts and that, ultimately, we must attend to the impact no matter
our intention or discomfort.
Own Your Intentions and Your Impact. During the discourse, an often-used agreement
to not take things personally is related to the reassuring concept of no judgments and that it is
okay to make mistakes to invoke a safe space for all. Arao and Clemens (2013) argued that these
agreements often “preserve comfort to the agent group members, who may allow their power and
dominance to show without having it reflected to them and without being held accountable for
it” (p. 145). Instead, the notion of owning one’s your intentions and impact is offered as an
alternate method to not take things personally, as it allows anyone responsible for negative
impacts on others to be collectively responsible for sharing the emotional load and task of
meaningful reflection on their actions.
Consider Why We Challenge. The third common agreement used during conversations
described by Arao and Clemens is a challenge by choice, where there is an implied message that
“individuals will determine for themselves if and to what degree they will participate in a given
activity, and this choice will be honored by facilitators and other participants” (Neill, 2008, as
cited in Arao & Clemens, 2013 p. 146). However, it is also necessary to be conscious of the
factors that influence one’s decisions about whether they choose to challenge themselves on a

42
given issue, particularly for agent group members. Those factors can be beliefs, feelings, and
positionalities that can also be related to a certain degree of privilege and need to be examined so
as not to perpetuate any further harm to marginalized populations.
Define Respect. When being respectful is offered as an agreement, there is little
disagreement about whether to use it. Still, Arao and Clemens (2013) pointed out that it is not
enough to use respect if everyone has a separate meaning for it. Participants using this agreement
must be willing to deconstruct the meaning of respect to support one another and maintain
increased mindfulness and respect for one another. “The objective here is not to lead participants
to consensus but rather to support them in maintaining increased mindfulness of the different
ways they can demonstrate respectfulness to one another” (Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 148).
Consider Ideas Versus People. Arao and Clemens (2013) believed that participants
should be asked to “describe the differences between a personal attack on an individual and a
challenge to an individual’s idea, belief or statement that simply makes an individual
uncomfortable” (pp. 148–149). In this view, the participants engaging in dialogue clearly
distinguish between the person, idea, belief, or statement that caused the uncomfortable feelings.
Delineating between the two is important as it redirects the attention back to the ideas and not
focus on one feeling attacked.
As a leader, I was responsible for fostering a safe environment so that the curriculum
coordinator and I could discuss the different assumptions we may or may not have or that come
up as we work to co-construct authentic professional learning for early childhood teachers. I
recognize that my position as the director meant there was a power dynamic between us that
could have caused discomfort for her. In adaptive leadership, the idea of maintaining disciplined
attention can be connected to these agreements, as it was my role to offer these agreements to

43
keep the focus on the outcomes for teachers and children of color. I planned to present a draft of
these agreements to the curriculum coordinator at our meetings and explain how they connect to
and support a PLC’s shared vision and collaborative aspect. I then will encourage the curriculum
coordinator to add, edit, or revise the agreements I presented so that it is truly a collaborative and
co-created effort. By attending to the agreements suggested by Arao and Clemens above, I could
establish a strong holding environment to promote authentic and brave discussions with the
curriculum coordinator. These agreements are also intended to be flexible and open to
suggestions or revisions to allow the curriculum coordinator to feel empowered in her learning.
Critical Reflection
Many published studies describe reflection as a pivotal strategy for educators to use
toward pedagogical improvement and a means for understanding themselves, their practice, and
the systems their practice is situated in (Brookfield, 2010; Larrivee, 2008; Milner, 2003). For
instance, Larrivee (2008) identified a habit of systemic reflection as a means for teachers to
regain power over their teaching practice with the escalating pressures of accountability and
performance standards. Brookfield (2010) indicated that personal commitments influence human
habits of mind and assumptions and can shape educators’ decisions. Milner (2003) highlighted
the need for educators to continuously use self-reflection as a prerequisite to making informed
decisions for the classrooms on the issues of race. All authors agreed that reflections that
examine the ethical, social, and political consequences of their teaching, along with the
promotion of democratic ideals, are an essential component to keeping children away from the
structural and hegemonic limitations of their potential.
According to Brookfield (2017), a reflection becomes critical when it focuses on
“understanding power and hegemony” (p. 9), and it happens when “we build into our practice the

44
habit of constantly trying to identify, and check, the assumptions that inform our actions” (p. 5).
Webster-Wright (2009) added that the value of critical reflection is the possibility of
transformative change for the learner and those with whom they engage in questioning their
assumptions. Three types of assumptions give meaning and purpose to what people do: (a)
paradigmatic assumptions that structure the world into fundamental categories, (b) prescriptive
assumptions about what people think ought to happen, and (c) casual assumptions about how
different parts of the world work (Brookfield, 2017). As Brookfield (2017) pointed out, the
critical aspect is keeping in mind the two distinct purposes of the reflection: illuminating power
and uncovering hegemony (p. 9).
Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) stated, “It is not just what we do in our
classrooms, schools, and districts that matters but also how we think and feel as educators that
makes a big difference in our effectiveness as social justice practitioners” (p. 462). Without
critically reflecting on how I am making assumptions or holding any unconscious biases that can
impede teaching and learning, I will not progress toward what I believe is causing a great
inequity in professional learning for teachers of color. This study included many opportunities
for me to critically reflect on how power and hegemony trickle down to the professional learning
opportunities for early childhood teachers of color and how I am poised to make positive
transformative changes through my work with the curriculum coordinator in our program. I must
engage in a critical reflection such as this to learn about the assumptions I hold of my work, the
work of the curriculum coordinator, and professional learning in relation to systems outside of
our control that ultimately affect students of color.

45
Four Lenses
To uncover assumptions, Brookfield (2017) advised using four specific lenses when
reflecting: student’s eyes, colleague’s perceptions, personal experiences, and theory and
research. Milner (2003) emphasized that reflection on one’s biases, assumptions, and practice
can uncover deficit mindsets when working in diverse communities and transfer the balance of
power from the educator to those receiving the learning. In education, critical reflection requires
everyone involved in an organization’s decision-making process to consider how decisions are
made and that practices are delivered using the four lenses. Without considering these four
lenses, there is a chance that some dominant groups will continue to take power over others. The
four lenses guided the critical reflections I engaged in to help me learn about my assumptions
connected to this study.
When I engaged in critical reflection, the first lens I used was that of the student’s eyes,
which, in the case of this study, was the curriculum coordinator, who is the learner. This lens
allowed for a redistribution of power back to the learner, as I am considered the leader of the
program and her direct boss. In another example, before I created any meeting agendas or
discussion prompts, I engaged in a self-examination of the student’s point of view to make sure
that I considered my power, my thinking processes, experiences, and the theories that guide the
decisions I make for our work, to make visible any hidden assumptions along with the intentions
for the curriculum coordinator’s learning.
Brookfield (2017) stated that the second lens, a colleague’s perceptions, can also be a
method to guide the learning process. In this particular case, the curriculum coordinator is both
the learner and a colleague. However, for this study, I viewed her as the learner, and I did not use
the colleagues’ lens when reflecting. In theory, if this were not a confidential study, I would have

46
elicited feedback from other colleagues in the program, such as teachers or other directors, who
could help give me perspective on how my learning conditions support my learner. In the future,
I hope that the curriculum coordinator will find colleagues to reach out to after implementing a
professional learning session with teachers who will do the same. This perspective can allow one
to reflect on setting the learning conditions and discourse goals for future meetings.
Personal experiences, as the third lens, are important when considering how much a
participant already knows about a particular topic (Brookfield, 2017). Mezirow (2000) believed
that the ways humans create meaning structures and interpret experiences could be in/out of
awareness and often represent cultural paradigms or personal perspectives. Authors writing about
transformational learning contend that for one to support learners to move outside their existing
frames of reference, they should have opportunities to engage in dialogue with others beyond
current experiences and meaning-making or who may have opposing views (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Loughran & Berry, 2005; Mezirow, 2000; Wergin, 2020). I cannot
assume what type of experiences the participant in my study has had about professional learning
compared to my own.
Like my context statement, where I shared my prior experiences with professional
learning, I planned to include questions for the curriculum coordinator that could give me an
understanding of personal experiences in professional learning outside of our organization. The
information shared in consideration of my personal experiences prevented my assumptions about
her experiences in professional learning from taking over the study and helped guide the
conversations. Additionally, I intended to share my experiences in professional learning with her
to model how to consider the third lens and still be open to multiple perspectives.

47
The lens of existing theory and research is fourth on Brookfield’s list. The critical aspect
of this lens is a careful examination of the literature and research used not to perpetuate any
hegemonic harm to children, families, and teachers, as there is evidence that educational research
has been historically harmful to teachers of color (Milner, 2003). A study such as this would be a
great resource to show the curriculum coordinator during the study and make visible the
importance of how we are all accountable for making sure that we explore our assumptions about
our practices and learning. Just as the research shows, she may or may not have known how
hegemonic ideologies are implicated in current practices with teachers of color. Most
importantly, I considered and modeled how to include existing research, as this was essential for
me to promote her learning about authentic professional learning for teachers of color. Using
existing research helped me critically reflect on how I provide time for my learner to examine
and challenge prior learning experiences without causing any added harm. I knew that I needed
to be mindful of how I received, interpreted, and ultimately acted on her responses as part of the
critical reflection process so that I did not impose any deficit views or assumptions on my
participant as the learner. My behaviors and actions served as a model of how I hope she would
engage with teachers as a PLC.
Engaging in critical reflection utilizing three of the four lenses, the student’s viewpoints,
personal experiences, and theoretical research, allowed me to reflect on how I enacted the
leadership behaviors of a transformational and adaptive leader. These lenses encourage adopting
different perspectives about myself and the curriculum coordinator’s perspectives on
professional learning throughout the study. As an educational leader, critical reflection must
begin with the self about any assumptions and biases that can preserve inequitable power and

48
hegemony over others. How I conduct myself as critically reflective serves as a role model for
transformational learning.
Reflective Cycle
In this section, I will discuss how reflection, as viewed by Rodgers (2002), is a tool to
support the learning process for both the leader and the participants as they engage with one
another over time. In this study, I engaged in a (critically) reflective cycle and taught the
curriculum coordinator how to engage in a reflective cycle. In 1983, Schön wrote that “reflection
can happen in the midst of experience [in action] or outside an experience [on action]” (as cited
in Rodgers, 2002, p. 234). The practice of reflection is not the same as critical reflection. A
reflective practice hinges on the capacity to embrace change and carefully evaluate evidence that
can challenge or inform decision-making. Critical reflection, on the other hand, deeply examines
and uncovers assumptions and understandings surrounding power and hegemony, and one
subsequently takes actionable steps to improve them (Brookfield, 2010). My objective, as
described in the conceptual framework, was to engage in a process of critical reflection myself,
where I scrutinized my assumptions and beliefs connected to the observations I made during
each session, along with the behaviors I planned to enact. During this study, it was not realistic to
both teach and expect the curriculum coordinator to engage in critical reflection. However, by
teaching her to participate in a reflective cycle with me, I hoped to introduce a more authentic
and contextual way of conducting professional learning with early childhood professionals of
color. In the following section, I will explain how I engaged in the reflective cycle and discuss
how I supported the curriculum coordinator to do the same.
Rodgers’s (2002) four-phase reflective cycle explored the role of presence, description,
analysis, and experimentation so that educators can slow down and be attuned and reflective to

49
student learning in meaningful ways. Being attuned to thoughts and assumptions is important
because when one is responsible for the learning of others, one must continuously be aware of
how they are imposing their views onto others and how they are emotionally responding to
students’ responses. The cyclical nature of the reflections allowed me to learn from each of my
experiences with the curriculum coordinator and adapt the agendas based on what went well and
what did not. At the same time, I made the process of engaging in a reflective cycle visible to
show the intention of meeting the learner at the current level of understanding.
The presence phase is learning to see and being present to the learner during the
experience (Rodgers, 2002). In this view, I critically reflected before the study, planned
accordingly to make sure I was prepared to facilitate the curriculum coordinator’s learning
during our sessions and was mindful to plan time to reflect immediately after our sessions. The
goal is to fully listen to the perspectives of the curriculum coordinator at our initial meeting.
Although this study has an action plan in place, my initial observations and notes from our first
session will help me move to the next phase, where I can determine if there need to be any
changes in the learning conditions or environment I am creating.
The description phase is being able to tell the difference between what is occurring and
my interpretation of the learning process (Rodgers, 2002). At the end of each meeting, I will
reflect on the observation notes and feedback from the curriculum coordinator to ensure I can
capture authentic descriptions of our interactions and learning. By soliciting structured feedback,
one can uncover assumptions of what they think students are learning and the learning that is
happening in reality (Rodgers, 2002). Data from these observations, feedback solicited, and
critical reflections will allow me to move into the analysis phase.

50
Rodgers (2002) described the analysis phase, where the adult educator generates “a
number of different explanations for our ‘conjectures’ about what is going on and settling on a
theory or hypothesis that one is willing to test in action” (p. 244). This analysis phase allowed
me to think about ways to revise my agendas and objectives for future meetings as I continued to
reflect and examine assumptions in our experiences and what I hoped to move toward next in the
study. The key aspect of this analysis phase is combining the observational data and my
reflections from the first two phases to make my determination.
Lastly, the experimentation phase returns the adult educator to the initial presence phase
(Rodgers, 2002). By that time, I was prepared to take action based on the information I gathered
from the first three phases and had an opportunity to demonstrate my understanding of where the
curriculum coordinator was and what I needed to do to support and facilitate learning to the next
objective. For example, I may have learned that I need to slow down and revisit a concept or let
her guide the direction of a new learning objective connected to the initial problem of practice of
supporting professional learning for educators of color.
Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle served as a checklist for how I, as the leader, attended
to and focused on the specific needs of the curriculum coordinator’s learning toward our shared
goals. The ways in which I reflected and revised our meetings within the four phases (presence,
description, analysis, and experimentation) also served as a model to teach her how to attend to
learners’ needs and be a transformational and adaptive leader. I aimed to include exercises and
activities during each session (the presence phase) that explicitly explained how we implemented
the reflective cycle. An example of this was to show her how agendas are planned and co-edited
per session as an instructional method for the two of us to assess and review our co-created
objectives and goals. In the end, this study gathered observations, participant feedback, and

51
reflections as primary sources for data collection and my analysis of my ability to attend to the
learner’s needs during each phase of the cycle.
Engaging my curriculum coordinator in a reflective cycle will be the first step to helping
her move toward inquiry as stance. According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), inquiry as
stance is an approach to “uncover, articulate, and question” (p. 141) assumptions about teaching,
learning, and schooling for practicing educators. To promote the learning process, during
discourse, I intended to scrutinize the current teaching practices that may have an adverse impact
on teachers of color via thoughtful and intentional questioning to support learning for the
curriculum coordinator. Because inquiry as stance is a disposition that requires ongoing
engagement on the part of the practitioner, and is thus a long-term goal for me and the
curriculum coordinator, it will not be a focal point of this action research.
Four Levels of Reflection
To support the curriculum coordinator in reflection, a useful typology is Larrivee’s
(2008) four levels of reflection. Larrivee (2008) believed that “with strategic scaffolding
developing teachers can be helped to reflect on and modify their teaching practices to address
classroom concerns” (p. 358). The scaffolding educators receive can help them move through
four levels of reflection: (a) pre-reflection, (b) surface reflection, (c) pedagogical reflection, and
(d) critical reflection. In the first level, pre-reflection, there is an automatic reactive response to
challenges without considering any other possible responses. The second level, surface
reflection, focuses on teaching methods and strategies with specific goals. Pedagogical
reflection, the third level, adds a layer of consideration for espoused theory and what the
educator is doing. Lastly, critical reflection is the highest level that incorporates a deeper

52
consideration of inward assumptions with external social conditions connected to the
pedagogical practices of the educator.
A tool developed by Larrivee (2008) assesses the development of a reflective practitioner
and serves as a collaborative dialogue format between the facilitator and the practitioner toward
common goals. Larrivee further suggested that when using the assessment tool, the facilitator
and the practitioner independently partake in the self-reflective process before working on the
collaborative dialogue or joining goals. Therefore, in practice, critical self-reflection was vital for
me to incorporate as I began my meetings with the curriculum coordinator to model and make
visible the ways I examine any assumptions I have about the inequity, professional learning, her
potential to engage in her reflective process and other related topics that come up during the
study. In addition, I intend to use Larrivee’s reflective tool during the description and analysis
phase of the reflection cycle to properly assess where she was concerning the four levels of
reflection using the observation and feedback data. Knowing what level or levels of reflection
she was currently at supported my experimentation phase of the reflective cycle, where I decided
how to move forward best and what learning conditions needed to be in place to support future
learning and toward my goal of helping her toward the inquiry as stance approach.
Larrivee (2008) described a concept of strategic scaffolding and its potential to assist
teachers in addressing concerns by reflecting on and adjusting their teaching practices. It presents
the four stages of reflection that educators undergo, beginning with an automatic response and
progressing to critical reflection that considers both internal assumptions and external conditions.
I utilized Larrivee’s tool during this study to evaluate the growth of the curriculum coordinator
as a reflective practitioner as we worked toward shared goals. The significance of critical
reflection in education is the key topic discussed in this section. It emphasizes system reflection,

53
mainly when dealing with accountability and performance standards. Examining the ethical,
social, and political teaching outcomes is also a means for educators to understand themselves,
their practices, and their working frameworks. This section presented the four lenses I used for
critical reflection and the intent to use a reflective cycle as I worked with the curriculum
coordinator. In the end, the four levels of reflection demonstrate that although I intended to be
critically reflective, it was also my role to understand where the learner was in the understanding
of being reflective and to support as needed.
Actions
This section will provide insight into the design and enactment of the study in which all
of these components came together. As depicted in the conceptual framework in Figure 1, one of
this study’s first goals was to assess my leadership role in supporting the curriculum coordinator
to carefully examine the historically entrenched inequity using data from children’s assessment
scores and evidence from past professional learning opportunities. I intended to use critical
reflection and transformational and adaptive leadership moves. Simultaneously, the plan was to
create learning conditions conducive to discourse that will promote learning for the curriculum
coordinator about the historically entrenched inequity and how we contribute to it in our
program. For instance, I used a strategy of holding space for reflection when she examined
reproduced inequities in the children’s learning. At the same time, she reflected on ways to enact
authentic professional learning for teachers of color and describe the traits of a PLC, such as (a) a
collaboratively developed shared mission, vision, values, and goals; (b) collaborative teams that
are interdependent on achieving common goals; and (c) focus on results through the commitment
of continuous improvement. At the end of this project, the curriculum coordinator also learned to

54
hold reflective discourse about the inequities portrayed in the professional learning of teachers of
color and how this can trickle down to teaching preschool children of color.
The action plan in Table 1 includes three cycles with three learning outcomes
surrounding professional learning for teachers of color. The first cycle of actions in this action
research focused on the impact of standardized assessments on children of color and exploring
positionality and how current teaching practices and professional learning experiences align with
our mission and vision statements. The second cycle examined the curriculum coordinator’s past
experiences with professional learning compared to the current experiences provided for teachers
of color. Lastly, the third cycle shifted the focus to learning about the traits of a PLC and
considered establishing and nurturing one with the teachers of color at the CDC.

Table 1
Action Plans
Cycle/learning outcomes/topics Part A agenda Part B agenda Analysis
Cycle 1: Learning Outcome 1
Topic 1: Historical foundation of
teaching and standards
connected to CDC
performance data
CC will examine the impact
teachers of color have on
children of color by exploring
the historical foundations of
teaching and standards
connected to performancebased data at the CDC.
I will communicate the study’s
intentions and learning
outcomes, and facilitate
discourse for each cycle using
andragogical moves.
Meeting 1 (Part A) outcomealigned objective: CC will
contemplate how standards
can have a deficit view for
children of color.
Exercises: Opening check-in,
intention setting, agenda
preview, LO-related topic,
closing debrief, review data
on the historical roots of
standards and national data
regarding performance data,
assess CDC children’s
current performance data
Instructional moves: fostering
a holding environment,
normalize feelings and
problems, creating
psychological safety,
facilitate feedback
Meeting 2 (Part B) outcomealigned objective: CC will
examine positionality and
intersectionality connected
with the current practices
at the CDC.
Exercises: opening check-in,
intention setting, agenda
preview, LO-related topic,
closing debrief, introduce
community agreements,
introducing I am
statements, introducing
positionality and
intersectionality
Instructional moves: probing
privilege, building
collective empathy,
decoding language, give
work back to the people
(20/80 rule), facilitate
feedback
Critical Reflection 1: I will
assess my ability to
identify and support the
learner through adaptive
challenges.
I will be looking to see if
my instructional moves
reveal new
understandings,
misunderstandings, or
changes in beliefs or
attitudes, perceptions,
assumptions, or biases
regarding how
performance data can
hinder or support students
of color, any gaps or
possibilities for using
performance data with
teachers of color, and
CC’s role in interrogating
and supporting the current
HEI at the CDC.
5
5

Cycle/learning outcomes/topics Part A agenda Part B agenda Analysis
Cycle 2: Learning Outcome 2
Topic 2: Professional
learning/adult learning
CC will identify biases,
experiences, and assumptions
about the role of professional
learning for teachers of color
that inform teaching practices
for children of color.
I will communicate the learning
outcomes and facilitate
discourse for each cycle using
andragogical moves.
Meeting 3 (Part A) Outcomealigned objective: CC will
reflect on past experiences
as an adult learner, receiving
and facilitating professional
learning.
Exercises: opening check-in,
intention setting, agenda
preview, LO-related topic,
closing debrief, generate
discussion and feedback
about CC’s experiences and
feelings with professional
learning for adults, ask CC
to do a self-reflection as part
of Rodgers’s reflective cycle
Instructional moves:
normalizing feelings and
problems, establishing
credibility and authority,
validating student’s
experiences, facilitate
feedback
Meeting 4 (Part B):
Outcome-aligned
objective: CC will learn
about transformative adult
learning for adults
compared to the current
professional learning
experiences provided to the
teachers of color at the
CDC.
Exercises: opening check-in,
intention setting, agenda
preview, LO-related topic,
closing debrief, examine
transformative learning
traits with past experiences
for the CDC with an equity
check lens
Instructional moves:
addressing conflict,
generating constructive
disorientation, decoding
language, fostering a
holding environment,
facilitate feedback
Critical Reflection 2
I will assess my ability to
identify and support the
learner through any
changes of behavior,
practices, or beliefs, if
any.
I will be looking to see if
my instructional moves
reveal new
understandings,
misunderstandings, or
changes in beliefs or
attitudes, perceptions,
assumptions, or biases (if
any) from CC about the
role of positionality when
supporting professional
learning for teachers of
color as a curriculum
coordinator.
5
6

Cycle/learning outcomes/topics Part A agenda Part B agenda Analysis
Cycle 3: Learning Outcome 3
Topic 3 Professional learning
communities (PLCs)
CC will explore and understand
the key traits of a PLC as it
relates to working with
teachers of color.
I will communicate the learning
outcomes and facilitate
discourse for each cycle using
andragogical moves.
Meeting 5 (Part A) outcomealigned objective: CC will
consider the first trait of a
PLC compared to how the
CDC currently supports
teachers of color.
Exercises: opening check-in,
intention setting, agenda
preview, LO-related topic;
closing debrief, examine the
organization’s vision,
mission, and statements.
Identify gaps in our shared
vision. Co-create a vision for
professional learning
Instructional moves: cultivate
connections to the mission,
build collective empathy,
give work back (20/80 rule),
facilitate feedback
Meeting 6 (Part B) outcomealigned objective: CC will
consider the second and
third traits of a PLC
compared to how the CDC
supports teachers of color.
Exercises: opening check-in,
intention setting, agenda
preview, LO-related topic,
closing debrief, revisit
student performance data
in connection with these
meetings, provide 1–5
takeaways, co-generate a
purposeful plan for the
next PLC with teachers
Instructional moves: getting
on the balcony, give work
back to the people (20/80
rule), identifying the scope
of influence, creating a
brave space, facilitate
feedback
Critical Reflection 3: I will
assess my ability to
identify and support the
learner through adaptive
challenges and facilitate a
PLC.
I will be looking to see if
my instructional moves
reveal new
understandings,
misunderstandings, or
changes in beliefs or
attitudes, perceptions,
assumptions, or biases
when sharing and
reflecting on the
experiences of learning
and working within a PLC
and how she feels this will
ultimately impact the
children of color at the
CDC.
Analysis
I will …
Use documentation and observational data to critically reflect on where the learner is during
each session and commit to scaffolding and supporting the learning conditions with discourse
as needed. I will critically reflect on my leadership behaviors to support the learner in
meeting intended learning outcomes.
5
7

58
Each cycle consisted of two meetings with the curriculum coordinator, approximately 1.5
hours long. The standard organizational design for each meeting consisted of the following
activities: (a) opening check-in, (b) intention setting, (c) agenda preview to prepare and engage
with her emotions, (d) introduction to the topic(s) related to the learning outcomes, and (e) a
closing debrief. The first meeting included an introduction to the study and a review of logistics.
I introduced specific topics in each meeting after the standard organizational activities and
aligned them with the learning outcomes of each cycle. The second meeting included an
introduction to community agreements as an instructional move that was co-created and
continued for every following meeting to redistribute the power dynamics between us.
The goal of transformative learning is to become liberated, socially responsible, and
autonomous with the help of critical reflection, where learning is situated in individual contexts
and socially constructed (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). How the curriculum coordinator learned to
work with the teachers aligns with the goal of transformative learning. The examinations and
reflections practiced during this study were necessary so that she could change the current views
of the teachers of color at the CDC as only recipients of knowledge. Instead, the hope is that the
curriculum coordinator (CC) would see the teachers as learners capable of making powerful and
critical contributions to children of color (Kohli, 2008; Oakes et al., 2018). I hope to see future
meeting agendas created by the curriculum coordinator for professional learning include more
time for community agreements, individual and group reflection about data, collaboration for
problem-solving ideas and goal setting, and reflective discourse. If she can see a new way of
thinking about professional learning by collaborating with me, she will conceivably use this
approach with the teachers.

59
Research Methods
Herr and Anderson (2015) described the structure of action research as resembling
emergent qualitative research, usually written in the first person. Compared to quantitative
research, which has the final form of the first three chapters, qualitative action research begins
with a clear direction. At the same time, it also anticipates that the data and analysis will guide
the inquiry process where change is expected from the beginning to the end. The research
methods discussed in this section draw out how I intended to assess my role in supporting the
curriculum coordinator’s learning using structured action research methods.
To begin, the critical reflections I engaged in focused on any assumptions and biases
about reproducing the current historically entrenched inequity as well as my assumptions about
the curriculum coordinator as a learner and research participant. These critical reflections set the
direction of the study. Secondly, the qualitative data from the sessions with the curriculum
coordinator were analyzed to assess whether I needed to change or adapt my andragogical moves
to better support my learner. Lastly, andragogical moves and leadership behaviors, whether
changed or not, were the basis for assessing my ability to support the participant in the learning
outcomes during the analysis phase.
Participant and Setting
The curriculum coordinator, as described in the conceptual framework, was the sole
participant in this study who assessed, analyzed, and reflected on the Historically Entrenched
Inequity (HEI) in our school context, referred to children’s data to inform practice, and explored
the principles of a PLC to implement with the early childhood teachers of color. The teachers of
color and children of color did not directly participate in this study, as I prioritized the
curriculum coordinator’s capacity first. As such, I used purposeful sampling to include her as the

60
focal participant in this action research. CC was the pseudonym used to describe this participant
throughout the study.
Before becoming a curriculum coordinator, CC had experience working as a director, an
early childhood educator, and a higher education instructor. The fact that, at the organization, she
was responsible for supporting the teachers of color in their professional growth and learning is
the most critical reason for selecting this participant. I also chose her for this study as her workrelated experiences, educational qualifications, personal characteristics, and years of experience
were similar to mine. I was interested in learning how this person, whose current role was
supporting teachers of color with a similar background, has developed an understanding of adult
professional learning. With that information, the aim of this action research study involved my
role as the director and my leadership capacity in supporting CC to examine the HEI and learn
new ways to engage in a PLC with early childhood teachers of color.
Before this study, CC shared that professional learning opportunities provided to early
childhood educators could be improved. I share the same sentiment about professional learning
based on what I have seen as the current practice and what I have learned about adult
professional learning. For instance, Loughran and Berry (2005) proclaimed that it is essential for
teacher educators to highlight differences between the kinds of teaching decisions they make and
the impact of their thinking on their subsequent actions. Moreover, teacher educators should
create opportunities for student teachers to recognize how these decisions impact their learning.
In this case and previous to this study, I had not seen this type of self-reflection concerning the
impact on children’s educational outcomes in our organization. It was also my belief that
including these types of opportunities could be one way to improve the current professional
learning practice. However, I was unclear as to what actions or decisions CC believed would

61
improve the learning opportunities for the early childhood teachers in our organization. This
assertion made me wonder about CC’s assumptions and beliefs that guided the decisions for
working with early childhood teachers of color at the CDC and if she considered any
responsibility for the actions.
In addition, rapport with participants is vital for the researcher to consider, along with
knowing the relationship between the observer and the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
As CC’s boss, I recognized that I held positional power that could have influenced the direction
of her responses. Later in this study, the ethics, credibility, and trustworthiness section discusses
the positional relationship. For the reasons stated above, the six study sessions occurred outside
the organization and during CC’s voluntary personal time.
Setting of Actions
Per the section on adult learning, I carefully considered the physical space where the
study took place. The participant agreed to six in-person sessions, in a mutually agreed-upon
location outside of the organization and CC’s work hours. The location was quiet, comfortable,
and free from distractions. I researched possible libraries that met the study’s needs and ensured
the reservation for each of the six in-person sessions by planning and having a possible backup
location if needed. The final agreed-upon location depended on CC’s availability and preference,
as comfort and accessibility can impact the learning goals. As an additional option, when she had
little time, I was open to meeting via Zoom. However, I preferred the sessions to be in person to
prepare for minimal distractions and optimal learning conditions. To ensure the location of each
session was secured, the dates for each session were predetermined and spaced out weekly based
on CC’s schedule. In the end, there were six in-person sessions that were 1.5 hours in length
each. Each session was recorded via Zoom to capture the transcript of our discourse.

62
Data Collection
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) defined action research as “an orientation to education
research in which a practitioner-scholar selects a problem, challenge, or issue drawn from their
practice and uses the research process to identify and implement a possible solution or response”
(p. 234). To answer the research question, Merriam and Tisdell (2015) suggested that multiple
observations are necessary to gather purposeful data, such as the description of the physical
setting, the participants and their behaviors, my behavior, specific activities, and interactions, as
well as conversations and subtle factors from the participant. A mixture of existing and new data
gathered from the research study process allowed me to find answers to the research question
from each session’s 1.5-hour recording and transcripts and will be discussed further below. This
qualitative action research study asked for a descriptive response to how CC would learn to
engage in an authentic PLC with my support.
Documents
Existing documents for this study included research articles and sources for the HEI to
help set the context for this study. To explain the problem of practice, I presented CC with
evidence and literature on the harm done to children of color by their teachers not having
opportunities to engage in authentic professional learning. In addition, agendas and learning
activities that CC created in the past served as documents for reflection and exploration in
relation to the problem of practice. The ways in which I set the learning conditions and presented
existing data and literature allowed CC to share current understandings of the HEI during
discourse, which I later documented in my critical reflections and analysis.
Critical reflections throughout the action research were important data sources for this
study. As mentioned earlier, I collected documentation of my critical reflections after each

63
session. There were six critical reflections. These included depictions of my observations, our
experience together, and my attempt to uncover any assumptions about power and hegemony.
My critical reflections served as the main documentation source for assessing my ability to
support CC in her learning.
An example of the new documents used in this study process is the agendas that
specifically detail the activities I prepared and that connected to the study’s learning outcomes
for each meeting. Additionally, the pre-planned discourse questions showed how I intended to
guide the conversation in relation to the learning outcomes. The pre-planned questions also
showed that I was flexible in the emergent process when I needed to veer away from the script.
Observations
In a qualitative research study, the researcher serves as the instrument for collecting
qualitative data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). During each session, I
carefully recorded my observations of CC, including facial expressions, tone of voice, silence, or
other descriptors that stood out and that I thought captured the full experience of our meetings. In
addition, I recorded each meeting with CC, with prior approval, to ensure that I captured the
observations and responses thoroughly.
Since I was the instrument, I also took into account how my traits influenced the
acquisition of empirical data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). My role as
the observer and researcher meant that I had to prepare the environment, myself, and materials
ahead of time to remain present during the meetings. I reminded myself that the study aimed to
understand where the learner was and how to better support the learning process. How I
conducted myself during the study and posed questions was a vital part of data collection. In
another example, after responding to the pre-planned discourse questions, the transcribed

64
answers were the documents showing evidence of CC’s learning. To answer whether I supported
CC in learning about a PLC, I documented the means of assistance I engaged in as she answered
the questions I intentionally prepared to support the learning outcomes. The total number of
observational data collected for the six sessions consists of 9 hours of transcripts and video
recordings, along with the six critical reflections mentioned earlier.
Data Analysis
Flick (2014) described the process of data analysis as “the classification and
interpretation of linguistic material to make statements about implicit and explicit dimensions
and structure of meaning-making in the material and what is represented in it” (p. 195). This
action research included both in-the-field analysis to help inform my subsequent actions and outof-the-field analysis once I completed all my proposed actions. The in-the-field data analysis
aimed to show that I was making informed decisions while analyzing the data presented to me
during the six sessions. Three analytic memos were written in between the three cycles. Writing
these memos to myself aided me in organizing, interpreting, and making sense of the data I
collected and served to identify emerging patterns and themes from the study (Miles et al., 2014).
Ultimately, the data analysis provided evidence of my leadership effectiveness in supporting
CC’s learning after the in-the-field process. I completed the out-of-the-field analysis after I
concluded my time in the field collecting evidence. There were a total of three in-the-field data
analysis at the end of the study. In addition, there was an out-of-the field analysis that took place
after I enacted all the leadership behaviors and collected data on the observations to capture the
full breadth of my leadership capabilities.
It is recommended that researchers prepare to look for themes and categories in the data
collection process at different stages of the study from the beginning to the end, as data analysis

65
can be compared to documenting a moving train (Herr & Anderson, 2015). My goal was to
devote additional time after each meeting to organize the data I received from this study, codify
it accordingly, and ensure it was organized for a thorough analysis. I anticipated that particular
themes connected to the concepts in my conceptual framework would be revealed in the analysis.
However, as Herr and Anderson (2015) pointed out, I had to be prepared to capture themes as
they came up. Therefore, I prepared accordingly, as the direction of the study was flexible based
on CC’s schedule and the learning experiences.
Merriam and Tisdell (2015) further explained that data analysis in an action research
study focuses on what happens in the study and how it happens. The intentional design to meet
with CC for three cycles gave me more than enough time to cover the learning objectives and
learning activities in my action plan. I broke down one topic per session to give enough time to
slow down the process. I also included moments of revisiting topics as they connected to new
topics. I carefully used wording such as explore, identify, understand, and examine so that each
session could be accomplished and assessed. The activities I planned for each session created
data that provided evidence of previous knowledge and new understandings for the learning
analysis. The last session covered two topics that I believed went hand in hand. In preparation for
engaging in transformative learning, I connected the instructional moves in each meeting to
cover at least one of the following: engaging emotions, navigating power, and critical reflection.
The findings section that resulted from this analysis will show the learning process and which
instructional moves I used to support the participant’s learning.
After completing the third in-the-field cycle of my study, I entered the final analysis
phase, during which I employed thematic coding of the data. According to Ravitch and Carl
(2021), coding involves assigning meaning to the data. This process helps identify patterns,

66
variations, contexts, and a range of experiences connected to the research goals. I used the
conceptual framework as a foundation to develop a codebook that contained a priori codes, along
with additional emergent codes. This approach allowed me to evaluate whether I effectively
supported my participants in achieving the learning objectives of each session and the overall
study. In addition, Herr and Anderson (2015) noted that “the use of qualitative data analysis
software as a way to organize and analyze data” is a common practice among action researchers
(p. 91). I utilized qualitative analysis software called Atlas.ti, which allowed me to draw
connections between the data and identify various themes and patterns by uploading all of my in
the field data such as transcripts, observational comments, and critical reflections.
In my initial round of coding, I identified five overarching concepts: (a) leadership
moves, (b) learning conditions, (c) discourse, (d) reflection, and (e) identity consciousness. As I
continued to analyze the data, new themes emerged, prompting me to refine and add codes to
my codebook based on specific patterns that appeared. During the second coding cycle, I revised
my codes by comparing them across different sessions to enhance the datasets. For instance, I
created sub-codes linking “regulating distress” and “establishing agreements” under the concept
of learning conditions. This process allowed me to connect different concepts, identify patterns,
highlight emerging observations, and check for potential biases. For example, in my second
analytic memo, I noted a recurring pattern: I often forgot to ask open-ended questions. However,
my participant was still able to engage in a deeper discussion on the topic. When I shared this
observation with my dissertation chair, we discussed its implications for coding. We concluded
that the structure of the questions mattered less than I initially thought, as long as I created an
environment where the learner perceived the interaction as a dialogue and felt comfortable.

67
Therefore, through coding data, I learned to examine the data from various perspectives
of my conceptual framework to better understand my role as a facilitator with the help of my
critical reflections, my dissertation chair, and analytic memos. The concepts were refined and
revised during each of the three coding cycles, ultimately shaping the final dataset and the
findings for this study.
The organization system I created allowed me to revisit the data set after data gathering
and showed the progress in the study’s action plan. I organized the data by meeting dates to show
the timeline of events. Then, I created subfolders for each type of data, such as planned agendas,
meeting transcripts, reflections, critical reflections, field notes, and analytic memos. All in all,
the data analysis phase required that I create a system to organize all data that informed my
analysis of the study from beginning to end.
Limitations and Delimitations
Every research has limitations (Duke & Martin, 2011). A limitation is a constraint outside
of the researcher’s control. In contrast, a delimitation is an explicit constraint the researcher
makes to delimit what may be accomplished within the study’s timeline (Bowen, 2009). It is up
to individual researchers to make light of the decisions that are being made that will bind the
study in a certain direction through limitations and delimitations. Below are the limitations and
delimitations of this action research study.
Limitations
Insufficient time was a limitation outside of my control for this study. The data collection
portion of this action research study was limited to the timelines available from the university I
attended. For this reason, I considered the number of meetings CC was available to meet with
room for occasional setbacks or cancellations. In addition, some concepts covered during the

68
sessions needed more processing time than others and needed to be covered again. Based on the
examples by Aguilar and Cohen (2022), a 1-hour period seemed counterproductive to what a
PLC needs. Therefore, the six sessions of 1.5 hours were planned and enacted to cover material
in my action plans to allow room for more reflection and collaboration that a PLC needs. As I
did not know exactly how much processing time I would need while planning each session, I
outlined limited activities and topics in each session to allow more time to cover the activities
and topics.
Another limitation of this study was my experience level with research. Triangulation is a
method that uses multiple data to build a solid case for the research findings and will be
discussed further in the credibility and trustworthiness section below (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017) and learning to collect all that data was new to me. This study began with observations
that explain CC’s prior experiences and assumptions about the problem of practice.
Concurrently, I collected detailed anecdotal notes that included comments about the observations
I made during our interactions together. Lastly, I incorporated critical reflections and analysis to
show my thought processes during the study. Combined, these data sources provided solid
evidence for this study’s findings. Still, I also wonder how different the findings would look with
more experience in data collection and recording. Although I intended to incorporate as much
data as possible to build a credible and trustworthy case, my ability to record, gather, and analyze
this much data proficiently was out of my control as I was bound by my limited practice and
experiences as a researcher.
Delimitations
A significant delimitation of this action research was that I decided to work with one
participant at my organization whom I was responsible for leading. As discussed previously, I

69
chose CC purposefully because she was the curriculum coordinator and was responsible for
creating professional learning experiences for teachers of color at the organization. There were
no other curriculum coordinators in the program, so it may help others understand why only this
participant was selected. At the same time, there were limits to not including the teachers’
perspectives as we invited the concept of a PLC into this organization. My hope was that CC
would eventually incorporate some of the PLC concepts into future monthly professional
learning sessions established at the CDC. When I designed this study, it seemed like a good idea
to start with one person. I recognized there was limited time to do all the necessary work within
the given timeframe. I hoped working with one participant at a time could allow for deeper and
more authentic learning experiences. The overarching concern was that the findings would need
to be more representative of the intended audience. I know that not all early childhood programs
are designed similarly. Still, sharing these experiences of working with CC was meant to broaden
perspectives.
The concepts in the conceptual framework can also be perceived as delimitations, as I
deliberately opted for specific leadership and andragogical moves that I hoped would serve to
bolster CC’s learning in the present context and aid in the reimagining of professional learning
for early childhood educators of color. Action research aims to develop an action plan to bring
about change and improve specific educational contexts (Herr & Anderson, 2015). These
specific moves may not be transferable to other studies but may improve professional learning
for early childhood educators of color in my current context. Furthermore, these moves proved
instrumental in navigating the systemic challenges inherently associated with professional
learning.

70
Although I mentioned time as a limitation above, and that more time is necessary for a
PLC, another delimitation involved my decisions on where the study took place and the length of
those sessions. Because the study occurred outside working hours, I allotted 1.5 hours for each of
the six meetings to honor CC’s personal time. In the end, one and a half hours for each session
was not enough time to revisit and reflect on everything in the action plan, but I adapted and was
prepared with a flexible agenda.
Ethics
Coghlan (2019) expressed that when one is engaged in action research in one’s
organization, one should consider the impact of the inquiry process, who the major players are,
and how they are engaged. Ethical practice involves the researcher not deceiving, causing harm,
and maintaining as true to the process as possible (Coghlan, 2019). The following strategies,
examining positionality, receiving informed consent, concealing identities, and using identity
memos, were strategies that I incorporated to ensure CC’s safety and well-being during my
study.
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) stated, “Ethics involves practitioner-scholars acting in a
responsible and fair way while continually keeping in mind the interests, needs, and protection of
current and/or future research participants” (p. 68). Before the study and throughout the process,
I continued to examine my power and positionality, as it was essential to consider CC’s wellbeing and protection. The initial design phase of my study incorporated recognition of ways I
may have inadvertently influenced CC to respond during the study and ways that I tried to reduce
harm. The conceptual framework shows that I continued incorporating critical reflection after
each meeting. As discussed previously, for reflection to be considered critical, it must explicitly
focus on uncovering and challenging the power dynamics that frame practice and uncovering and
challenging hegemonic assumptions, particularly when those embraced are in our best interests

71
or when they are working against us. The purpose of these critical reflections was to keep CC’s
best interests and protection in mind while also examining ways that my positionality, power,
and hegemony were intertwined in this study.
Informed consent was the process of informing the participant about her rights as a
research participant, including the purpose, process, and possibility of risks (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Plus, it is a requirement by the institutional review board (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). An additional incentive for consent included letting CC know I would store all records in
a secure Google drive that only my dissertation chair, Artineh Samkian, and I could access.
Reducing harm to participants can also be accomplished by providing as much detailed
information about the study and my goals before consenting to participate (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). After receiving IRB approval, I contacted CC to request permission to conduct a selfstudy action research and shared that there was no compensation for participating in this
voluntary study. Although CC chose to participate voluntarily, the option to withdraw from this
study was also available at any time. I shared the purpose of the study, the design methods, and
meeting expectations with CC ahead of the study. Lastly, to the best of my ability, I informed CC
that participation in this study was intended to have no great risk associated with anyone directly
or indirectly related. I explained the procedures for her confidentiality, the organization, the data,
and the analysis in detail prior to CC consenting to participate.
Another reason to omit the identity of a participant in a study is to make sure they are not
uncomfortable, put in a trauma-inducing situation, or feel embarrassed (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). I strived to de-identify the individual identity and avoid any of the previous risks
mentioned above to my participant. Before receiving consent, I informed CC that I aimed to
conceal all identities and study records to reduce harm to all directly and indirectly involved. No

72
study can ever guarantee full confidentiality, yet I made this ethical commitement to do what I
could to conceal the identity of the consenting participant so that no additional harm could occur.
Maxwell (2013) suggested that using a researcher identity memo helps one reflect on the
research goals and relevance while examining assumptions and experiential knowledge.
Researcher identity memos also draw out a visual representation of how the researcher has
considered all perspectives. For this reason, I handed CC an information sheet about the study
ahead of time. I shared the progression of the study using the researcher identity memos as a
means of being transparent. Using the researcher identity memo, I also considered how my
positionality spoke to me once the data were collected and what findings I chose to report based
on my biases and assumptions. Ultimately, I was thoughtful in interpreting and reporting
information from the study and allowed CC to see it before I released it to everyone else. My
intentions were to come from a place of mutual respect as I learned what makes me an effective
researcher, leader, and facilitator of adult learning.
According to Coghlan (2019), conducting action research within an organization requires
considering the impact of the inquiry process, identifying the key players involved, and ensuring
their engagement. Ethics are significant in this process, requiring the researcher to avoid
deception and harm while staying true to the research process. During my study, I employed
diverse strategies such as examining positionality, obtaining informed consent, concealing
identities, and using researcher identity memos to ensure CC’s safety and well-being as an
ongoing process. These measures were essential for maintaining ethical principles and protecting
the participant’s interests.

73
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Qualitative research aims to provide insights and understandings that can inform theory
or practice. However, some critics argue that the researcher’s bias can lead to distrust or
discrediting the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, I, as a researcher,
needed to address these concerns by demonstrating the links between the research topic, the
methods used to collect and analyze data, and the various factors considered for data analysis.
Some of the strategies I incorporated to maximize the validity of my study, such as reflexivity,
triangulation, and considering the five validity criteria, are shared in the following paragraphs.
As a part of this study, I implemented reflexivity as one of my primary strategies.
Reflexivity involves examining one’s biases, judgments, practices, and belief systems while
collecting data. The goal is to shift the focus from the subject to the researcher, uncovering any
assumptions that may be present (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). To ensure that I remained aware of
conscious or unconscious personal beliefs, my conceptual framework and action plan included
intentional time and activities for critical reflection. For instance, after every meeting, I planned
time to analyze and critically reflect on the observations and the CC’s responses. I asked myself
if what I was seeing or hearing from the participant could have been explained in an alternative
way that I initially interpreted. This way, I stayed vigilant and could identify personal biases
throughout the study.
Triangulation is a powerful research strategy involving multiple data collection methods
to ensure internal validity (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Triangulation is a highly effective method
for obtaining accurate findings by cross-referencing and converging multiple modes of data and
findings. Denzin (1978) proposed four types of triangulation: “multiple methods, multiple
sources of data, multiple investigators, [and] multiple theories to confirm emergent findings” (as

74
cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 244). In this study, I utilized multiple methods and data
sources, such as observations, recordings, and documents, to provide a comprehensive data
corpus that could be cross-checked for accuracy. Since this was an action research study, I was
the main investigator. I also sought feedback and peer reviews from my dissertation chair and
committee members from my university on the findings. At the end of the study, the findings
drew upon various modes of data collection as evidence and the data analysis and reflections of
these data to demonstrate my ability to support CC’s learning.
According to Herr and Anderson (2015), various descriptors, including quality, goodness,
validity, trustworthiness, credibility, and workability, have been proposed as criteria for effective
action research. The five validity criteria, process validity, democratic validity, catalytic validity,
outcome validity, and dialogic and process validity, outlined by Herr and Anderson (2015), were
used in my action research and showed how close this study’s findings are to the realities of the
process. All of these validity criteria were considered throughout the study in the following
ways. Process validity involves continuous learning and depends on the process, such as the
reflective cycle I consistently used in my study. Democratic validity research involves
collaboration and considers diverse perspectives, such as the purpose of engaging in a PLC with
the coordinator and how I sought feedback from my chair on my analysis of the findings.
Catalytic validity requires the researcher and participants to be open to new perspectives and
alternative realities, which was discovered through discourse and critical reflections. Outcome
validity aims to guide participants toward successful action outcomes, even if that means
reframing the problem differently. Outcome validity correlates to the concept of maintaining
focus on the problem, such as the reminders I would give my participant about the impact that
authentic professional learning has on student outcomes. Lastly, dialogic and process validity,

75
including peer review, incorporates methods and evidence findings that resonate with the
community of practice. As part of this action research process and to be as transparent as
possible, I shared my data findings with my participant, despite a concern that she would
disapprove of what was found. The goal of this validity measure was so that evidence was shared
and clear to all those reading it. The five validity criteria helped me understand how closely the
findings matched what actually happened during the process.
Reexamining my assumptions and biases after data collection ensured that the
information I gathered or experienced was accurate. As mentioned earlier, a handout was
presented to CC before the study to ensure that I was transparent with my intentions for the
study. In that handout, CC learned that I chose to conduct a study with an unstructured approach
that leaves room for additional questions that are not predetermined. The follow-up questions
helped clarify any observations or assumptions I made to have the most factual information
possible. In the end, I gathered the trust of my audience and participant by embracing multiple
validity strategies.
Findings
In this section, I present the findings of my action research aimed at addressing the
following research question: How do I establish effective learning conditions to assist the
curriculum coordinator in examining historically entrenched inequities that impact professional
learning and cultivate awareness of identity to transform professional learning for our early
childhood educators of color? I posit that by focusing on andragogy and deliberate learning
conditions, engaging in discourse, and modeling reflective practices, I successfully guided the
curriculum coordinator through reflective inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999) regarding her
experiences with professional learning, both past and present. Particularly, I assert that providing

76
opportunities for the co-construction of knowledge (Webster-Wright, 2009), making explicit the
expectations and norms for dialogue (Arao & Clemens, 2013), and regulating distress with a
strong holding environment (Heifetz et al., 2009; Northouse, 2022) helped establish a sense of
psychological safety for CC and laid the groundwork for effective andragogy. To help CC build
a strong sense of identity consciousness, I used discourse that guided CC to “identify and
scrutinize the assumptions that shape our practice” (Brookfield, 2017, pp. viii). I organized
agendas to encourage active engagement, asked open-ended questions connecting identity and
past experiences to our topic, and used cognitive structures to scaffold new learnings. In
addition, I utilized Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle as a model to illustrate how critical
reflection can be integrated into professional learning for oneself and for teachers of color,
especially those experiencing adaptive change or striving to establish a shared vision (Heifetz,
1994, as cited in Northouse, 2022). All three actions (effective andragogy/deliberate learning
conditions, discourse, and reflective practices) significantly contributed to my study’s success.
Fundamentally, my emphasis on andragogy and deliberate learning conditions influenced the
capacity for discourse and reflection. In light of the focus on the self as a researcher throughout
this action research study, I will also address any missed opportunities and moments of personal
growth in my leadership while interacting with my participant, CC.
Andragogy and Deliberate Learning Conditions
The central idea of significant learning occurs when the learning process is engaging and
energetic while also having an outcome that can result in either lasting change, value in life, or
preparation for the world of work (Fink, 2013, pp. 7–9). Therefore, creating conditions and
experiences for learning where my participant was actively engaged was a deliberate decision in
this study that allowed CC and me to co-construct knowledge in the reflective inquiry process.

77
The co-constructive nature of our time together, the establishment of clear agreements,
and my efforts to cultivate a strong and supportive holding environment were instrumental in
fostering a consistent sense of psychological safety throughout the study so that CC and I could
actively engage in the co-construction of knowledge. The combination of these three concepts
contributed to the overall effectiveness of the andragogy as it allowed for engagement,
collaboration, and mutual learning about our identities and assumptions about our practice as
Latina educators supporting other Latina educators.
Opportunities for Co-construction of Knowledge
Webster-Wright (2009) described authentic learning as the lived experience of continuing
to learn as a professional and that the process of learning should be seen as integrated with our
experiences, shifting the focus from an individual’s mindset to a socially constructed practice.
This highlights the facilitators of adult learners to include real-life experiences in the context of
learning and development. In this study, as a facilitator, a goal of mine was to allow CC to bring
her prior knowledge, experiences, and perceptions into the learning environment rather than just
filling her mind with new information based on my assumptions of what she did not know. As an
example of how I structured our sessions to ensure these goals were met, Table 2 is the agenda
for Cycle 1, Session 1. The agenda is based on the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1.
The session’s learning objective was to examine the impact of teachers of color on children by
exploring the historical foundations of teaching and standards connected to performance-based
data at the CDC. It included a check-in, reviewing the learning objectives and intentions, sharing
reflections, examining CC’s prior knowledge of topics, and a closing debrief as active learning
activities that provided the choice and the space to bring her voice into the context of the
conversation and to actively engage her in the learning process (Table 2).

78
Table 2
Agenda 1
Item Steps Timing
Reflective transition Ask, “How are you feeling about the study and the
goals?”
Ask, “What initial wonderings come up about the
study’s intentions, if any?”
7 min.
Topic 1 Examine prior knowledge/experience of performance
standards in the ECE world.
Review data on the historical roots of standards and
inequity and national data regarding performance
data.
Review current performance data of children at the
CDC.
60 min.
Closing debrief Affirmations: How did this session feel?
Omissions: What did we not discuss that we should
bring back next week?
Confusions: At what point were you most distanced
from our discussion?
Disruptions: Did anything happen that disrupted your
learning?
Possibilities: What might help your learning about
historical foundations of teaching and standards
connected to performance-based data? What can I
think about so that I can be responsive to where you
are in the learning process?
5 min.
Merriam and Bierema (2013) believed that transformative adult learning considers prior
experiences and provides spaces for students to reflect, discuss, and engage in activities that
draw upon their life experiences. By intentionally creating an agenda with a sociocultural
perspective in mind, the activities that CC engaged in back-and-forth with me during each
session provided an opportunity to move away from traditional teaching approaches and instead
provided a space for her to share her ideas, reflect on her experiences, and share and listen to
diverse perspectives, thus co-constructing authentic knowledge alongside me.

79
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory argues that knowledge is constructed through social
interaction between individuals of different knowledge levels and is influenced by sociocultural
factors such as communication (Shabani, 2016). The transcript for Cycle 1, Session 1 highlights
the words I used to express my intentions and hopes for the overall study that would engage her
in a collaborative dialogue and what that would require from her.
Cindy: I wanted to introduce my conceptual framework for this study, as we are going to
engage, you and I, in a reflective cycle. Overall, I hope there is a deeper
understanding of the characteristics and values of a … PLC, where you and I have
shared goals. Where we collaborate, where we look at results, and then we look at
them through the lens of continuous improvement for our teachers of color. …
We will be learning from one another … and the big work that you’re going to be
doing with me is in reflecting and engaging in discourse about specific topics that
may sometimes require some vulnerability and bravery on your end as you share
your ideas or past experiences.
By inserting “we are going to engage, you and I, in a reflective cycle” and “we will be
learning from one another,” I emphasized the collaborative nature of our work together. Rather
than telegraphing that she would be doing “the work,” I added myself to highlight the fact that I,
too, would be a learner alongside her. In my communication, I conveyed my intention for her to
engage in the exchange of thoughts and experiences, highlighting the expectation for both parties
to contribute information and emphasizing the mutual potential for knowledge acquisition
through social interaction.
Using a constructive developmental lens can help one better understand how educators’
internal capacities influence their teaching and leadership for social justice (Drago-Severson &

80
Blum-DeStefano, 2017). The opportunities and the shared intentions I created allowed CC to
openly share her prior experiences on various topics, giving us insight into her practice’s
motives. For instance, when the agenda in Cycle 3, Session 4 touched on the topic of adult
learning, I asked CC why she continued to deliver content to the teachers in a way that she
believed was “superficial.” The co-constructive nature of our conversation allowed me to get
immediate clarity when she said the word “superficial.” Still, it also created some tension as my
observer’s comments recognized her facial features and body language, demonstrating a sense of
shock that I would question her motives. In my critical reflections on this session, I wrote that I
was worried that CC thought I was casting blame on her but that I was pleased that she could
move past the initial uncomfortableness and share her experiences after an initial pause. I learned
that she was not focused on the delivery method but more unintentionally focused on staff
members’ individual motivational challenges. She recognized as she spoke out loud that it
became harder for her to know when and how to invest in and inspire a teacher who is
demonstrating signs of feeling devalued or lacking motivation in her role.
CC: Yeah, because sometimes I feel like this person has such great characteristics [the
teacher]. She has such great attributes that I think can definitely benefit from, but
there is something missing in her performance. I think it’s just like, how do we
get over the hump. Like, how do we meet in the middle, right? Like, how do we
get here? … But if this is not their long-term goal, and they’re just in the passing,
then that’s hard, right? Because for some people, if we’re [the organization] a
stepping stone to the next step, they are just gonna check off boxes, and that’s it.
I’m done. I gotta go, when is the next one, right? And I feel again when you’re
invested when you’re in it. When you’re valued and respected, then you give

81
more of yourself. I truly believe that as a person, you don’t have to be a
professional to do that right. That’s true for relationships. That’s true for
education, like, if your teacher is amazing, your professor and they believe in you,
you’re going to go that extra mile, right? And this person’s like, I can’t even stand
them. You’re just gonna show up because you have to. And that’s the kind that is
difficult for me.
Without providing an opportunity to gain insight into CC’s prior experiences, I would
have been left with my assumptions about her responses and work. My assumptions in my
critical reflections revealed that I assumed CC didn’t know what the teachers were capable of or
that CC did not know how to deliver more meaningful professional development. Through these
co-constructive opportunities, I was instead able to learn about her internal capacity and values
that lead and shape the early childhood educators she works with. During our conversation, CC
acknowledged that she had unintentionally delivered a “superficial” curriculum, which did not
effectively engage the teachers in learning. She realized it was challenging for her to support
teachers who were not invested or did not care. As a result, she tended to provide generic
professional learning opportunities. The teacher she described, who had “great characteristics”
and could “definitely benefit” from her support, was an example of someone she wanted to
support. However, she could not figure out how to do that. In my observer comments, when she
said, “How do we get over the hump?” I gathered a bit of hesitation in admitting she did not have
the answers or solutions to these questions out loud. When she shared that the most “difficult”
teachers for her to work with were the ones that were not “invested” and “only show up because
they have to.” This signaled that she recognized her limits to supporting teachers when her
intentions of helping them were not “met in the middle.” She realized how tough that can feel

82
since her role is to figure out how to meet each teacher’s individual needs. She delivers content
that is trying to cover the bases for all teachers and recognizes she cannot possibly meet all of
their needs. I interpreted this recognition of her limitations in my critical reflection as a sign of
vulnerability, knowing she shared a challenge in her work with her immediate supervisor and
how she could possibly be judged for her performance or competency in this matter. The coconstructive approach I took with this session by asking about her prior experiences allowed CC
and me to learn that supporting early childhood educators of color can be layered with
challenges, such as personal motivations for both the teachers and the professional learning
facilitator.
In this section, I have highlighted how I created opportunities for co-construction of
knowledge in how I structured the sessions. This involved allocating dedicated time in the
agenda for meaningful discussions and reflections on the past and present experiences of
providing support for early childhood educators of color by facilitating CC’s learning about how
she delivers professional learning. It is one matter for CC to hear my articulation of the
intentions and comprehend the expectations as a co-constructive endeavor; it is another matter
for her to embrace the concept fully and genuinely believe that she is in a secure environment to
openly convey her ideas, experiences, and viewpoints. As the above examples show, CC shared
her experiences of providing a professional development opportunity to early childhood teachers
of color that, in her opinion, was not truly benefiting them and her perspectives on why she
found facilitating their learning so challenging. Openly communicating the challenges inherent in
her role as a facilitator required a display of courage and vulnerability, particularly in the context
of being recorded by a colleague.

83
Consequently, establishing psychological safety was crucial, given its critical importance
in adult learning theory. Psychological safety means creating an environment where people feel
safe to take interpersonal risks and share their ideas without fear of judgment (Edmondson,
2019). For CC to feel comfortable sharing her experiences and viewpoints, thus accomplishing
the co-construction of knowledge goal I had set, specific conditions had to be met for her to trust
that she was in a safe and non-judgmental space to share. In the next section, I will discuss how
establishing agreements and a strong holding environment were two of the most recurring
conditions that created psychological safety, enabling CC to feel comfortable sharing her role
with me and co-constructing knowledge.
Establishing Agreements
Arao and Clemens (2013) argued that “facilitators of social justice education have a
responsibility to foster a learning environment that supports participants in the challenging work
of authentic engagement with regard to issues of identity, oppression, power, and privilege”
(p. 138). They also argued that setting guidelines for the conversations (ground rules) will foster
feelings of safety and bravery during difficult discussions. In Cycle 1, Session 2, similar to
ground rules, I emphasized creating a safe and brave learning environment by introducing the
concept of “agreements” to CC. As part of my initial proposal, I intended to reduce bias by
examining my assumptions and reflecting on what CC already knew about certain topics. I
checked first to see if she was familiar with the concept of agreements. If she had heard of the
concept, I would have invited her to share her experiences with them. I learned that she had not
heard of this concept, so I introduced the concept using Arao and Clemens’s (2013) definition, as
stated in the description of learning conditions above. I offered a few sample agreements to CC:

84
(a) be present, (b) speak your own truth, (c) foster a brave space, (d) engage in ongoing dialogue,
and (e) hold each other lovingly accountable.
When I introduced the five initial agreements during our session, I also added a
descriptor and an example for each so CC would understand what I meant for each agreement. I
then asked her thoughts, and CC expressed,
I think you nailed them all. I think they all open up a safe space to have a dialogue when
there is an agree-to-disagree type of deal or whether it’s a conflict with either person’s
point of view. We want to create that space to be able to share and hold a conversation
about it.
When she said, “We want to create that space to be able to share and hold a conversation
about it,” it signaled to me that she understood the reason we need agreements. And when she
said, “Whether it’s a conflict with either person’s point of view,” she alluded to Arao and
Clemens’s (2013) definition of a “brave space.” After hearing this, I asked if there were any
additional agreements that she would like to add or if she wanted any clarification or editing for
any of these agreements, which she did not at the time.
The agreements I introduced were intentionally brought up at the beginning of each
subsequent session to keep them relevant in our topic discussions and to allow space for CC to
add to them or revise them as needed. For example, during Cycle 2, Session 3, I brought up the
agreements again by stating,
These agreements were modeled to you in the last session. … You and I will be cocreating a set of agreements. … To practice that today, I was hoping that maybe there
was an agreement that you would like to add or remove or revise in this current one, just
to give a practice of what it’s like to co-create an agreement.

85
In response to this, CC mentioned that after she reflected on the agreements, she had an
idea to incorporate the word “trust” because she had learned in her past learning experiences that
“trust is the foundation for everything we do” and that resonated with her because it was
important to her that her colleagues trusted her. I honored her engagement in the co-construction
of these agreements and added a sixth agreement: work on building trust. In allowing space for
CC to add her idea, I believe I modeled how agreements can be a co-constructed effort and how
each person can be present and have their own beliefs that guide agreements so that they can
safely participate in discussions. However, in my critical reflection for this session, I did not note
or even question why I did not take action to understand further why it was important to CC that
her colleagues trusted her. I took her comment as a simple shared understanding and moved on
to the next agenda topic. Therefore, my analysis was that co-constructing agreements with CC
emphasized my dedication to engaging in genuine conversations and ensuring CC felt safe,
comfortable, and respected while also discussing the topics associated with her position
(identity) and her role in supporting early childhood educators of color. This was subjective to
my interpretations and the limited data that I collected. I am left to wonder if I were a more
experienced researcher or critical reflector, would there be more data to support this claim?
Bravery is necessary because “learning necessarily involves not merely risk, but the pain
of giving up a former condition in favor of a new way of seeing things” (Boostrom, 1998, p. 399,
as cited in Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 141). The concept of “brave space” might be new to some
participants who are more accustomed to the concept of “safe space.” The third agreement
proposed to CC was to “foster a brave space,” intending to foster an environment where the
concept of bravery could be explored when engaging in discussions that challenge each other’s
perspectives. The description that I offered CC for “foster a brave space” is as follows:

86
I hope that we can help foster a brave space for one another. For example, if we say
things that are challenging to one another, it may not always feel safe, and that can make
us feel exposed or vulnerable. Being brave means even though it can maybe be scary to
say something out loud, in order for us to maybe address or name some of those
inequalities that you mentioned in the educational system [from Cycle 1], we’re going to
need to be brave to bring them up.
In modeling an example of the concept of “brave space” as opposed to the more
commonly known “safe space,” I emphasized bravery in learning. I acknowledged the
discomfort and vulnerability that can come with challenging discussions. The following
discussion is an example of what I believe is a brave vs. safe conversation that occurred between
CC and me when I asked CC her thoughts on the assessments used at the CDC to record
children’s performance data.
CC: I’d like to know if, as educators, we know how to use the assessment tools
efficiently or properly. Or is it based on perception or individual interpretations?
I'm tasked with rating these children, yet I will read the data I'm collecting one
way and transfer my thoughts to this assessment, whereas another person might
interpret it differently. It has always seemed unfair that we use our assessments
and perceptions to score young children who can’t take assessments for
themselves, and their outcomes are at risk.
Cindy: Those are really good questions. Do you believe the children are being scored a
certain way because of the teacher’s inabilities as educators?
CC: (a long pause) It’s a possibility.
Cindy: Can you expand on that answer?

87
CC: No! (pause) But I will “be brave.” (laughing) I think that it depends on the
training they received. We all come with different educational backgrounds and
training, and our backgrounds and upbringing also need to be considered!
Whatever that looks like, that's part of our perceptions and lived experiences.
Cindy: Why didn’t you want to share that?
CC: Initially, because it would sound like I thought it was the teacher’s fault, but the
more I thought about my question, I know there are more layers, as I explained.
But sometimes, I really do think the teachers have a huge responsibility to assess
children correctly.
Cindy: Back to your other question, do you think your teachers know how to use the tools
efficiently?
CC: If I am being honest (looking hesitant to respond) … maybe not. Are we
providing enough professional learning opportunities for our teachers to feel
confident using the tool or apply their strategies to increase support in this area? I
know the teachers haven’t even seen this data. It is the first time I am looking at
it.
By introducing this concept in the initial agreements, I also emphasized the need for
courage in addressing inequalities in the educational system while expressing my intention to
create an environment that promotes bravery and openness in dialogue. When I asked CC to
expand on her answer of “it’s a possibility,” I noticed, as noted in my observer’s comments, that
CC would initially hesitate to respond to a question but would then summon up the courage to
share her honest thoughts on the matter. When she used the words “No! But I will be brave”
while laughing a little, it let me know that modeling specific agreements, such as “foster a brave

88
space,” was an effective strategy to encourage open dialogue for difficult conversations. In
hindsight, while hearing CC question areas of her work outloud, I learned that this agreement
allowed CC to feel empowered to continue questioning the reasons for the inequities she was
discovering, even if in her responses she was critiquing my leadership. When she said, “Are we
providing enough professional learning opportunities for our teachers to feel confident using the
tool or apply their strategies to increase support in this area?” she was critiquing my role in
providing teachers what they needed in order to be successful. In this particular example, the
goal was not to find a solution or place blame on what she was noticing but to set a foundation to
begin conversations about what is actually occurring and to hear about how she is experiencing
it. In line with Arao and Clemen’s notion of “ground rules,” I established norms for dialogue and
set the foundational conditions for CC to feel safe and brave enough to engage in conversations
regarding her identity and the challenges in her practice of supporting early childhood teachers of
color.
Throughout the data analysis, I found 33 instances where CC engaged in safe or brave
conversations because of the agreements we co-constructed. Knowing that the agreements were a
new concept for CC made this evidence particularly significant. In addition, listening to her use
the same language that stemmed from our agreements indicated her alignment with them. For
example, during Cycle 2, Session 3, I asked CC, “What examples do you have that you can share
with me that these agreements are being held true?” After this question, CC responded,
So, obviously, we find a safe space right? To have these difficult conversations. You dig.
You probe sometimes with the questions. So, you give me pointers or cues to let me
know that it’s a safe space; it’s free. And then yes, you know you also point out, let me
hear more about this, so let me hear, let’s stop there. You’ve asked me if I need a break,

89
which I think last time we had to take a couple of breaks. Right? So, I think that’s part of
building trust. Right? I can trust that you’re not just looking at the subject, but rather the
person to be able to have, you know, a safe space to have those conversations. I also
know when I pause it feels like a place to assess if I can be brave or trust you enough to
share with you what I am really thinking that I don’t normally say out loud.
When CC said, “We find a safe space … to have these difficult conversations. You dig,
you probe sometimes with the questions; it’s free,” she demonstrated that she recognized the
goal was to have a safe space for dialogue that can be difficult. She continued by saying, “It feels
like a place to assess if I can be brave or trust you enough.” Her ability to articulate the role of
the discussion agreements and align her articulation to the definitions of safe and brave space
(Arao & Clemens, 2013) suggested to me that building trust through agreements was a useful
tool to support CC in feeling comfortable engaging in safe and brave conversations. As I
engaged in the coding process in and out of the field, the concept of CC expressing bravery was
a consistent re-occurrence that I felt aligned with my ability to establish an effective learning
condition for open dialogue about CC’s work and her identity.
As shown in this section, establishing agreements was important for the co-construction
of knowledge because it allowed CC to feel both safe and brave when it came to discussions that
would expose her identity and role as a facilitator working with educators of color as well as
questioning my own leadership. On a basic level, these examples show how I engaged CC in
discussions where she could question the strategies and the methods used in her work, such as
what Larrivee (2008) described as surface reflection. The forthcoming discourse section will
provide evidence of the types of discussions that occurred. As emotions would arise from CC
and our discussions, my role was to assess how to move forward based on the information that

90
was shared, verbal and non-verbal, and then take action as needed. The next section will discuss
how the concept of a holding environment helped me assess the discussions and regulate the
emotions that would come up as CC engaged in safe and brave conversations.
Holding Environment
In my conceptual framework, I incorporated a holding environment, based on
Northouse’s (2022) definition, to provide safety and structure for CC to confront and tackle
difficult challenges. When working on adaptive tasks, such as reimagining professional learning,
it is important to establish or reinforce a strong holding environment that offers safety and
structure to regulate participants’ distress. A strong holding environment allows individuals to
share and explore their unique values, perspectives, and creative ideas related to the difficult
situation they are collectively dealing with (Heifetz et al., 2009). “I Am From … ” is an activity
that helps learners understand how their identities are shaped by society (Klein, 2019). It
encourages individuals to express their complex identities and think critically about power and
privilege from different perspectives. Still, it can also elicit strong emotions as it encourages
individuals to acknowledge their thoughts and feelings related to the intersectionality of those
identities. During Cycle 2, Session 1 of my study, I engaged my participant in discourse about
our positionality using the “I Am From … ” activity and prepared to help CC navigate the
emotions that would arise from this activity using a strong holding environment.
As CC shared her “I am” statement, I noticed she sounded confident until she paused and
hesitated to say, “I am middle class.” Not only did she hesitate to express this identity, but she
also briefly explained that originally, she was not going to write it because she thought, “Does
that mean I am entitled?” However, she later decided to include it. I did not want to interrupt her
flow then, and I did not want to assume the reason for her hesitation. More importantly, I wanted

91
to ensure the structure of the conversation was still open and flowing. Therefore, I made a note to
follow up with her later. I also recognized in this conversation that while engaging in an activity
that explored her identity and positionality, CC recognized that her identity had shifted since she
began working in early childhood. She was now positioned to take on an administrative role with
a higher income compared to her colleagues and could identify as “middle class.” I remained
quiet but still attentive to allow her to continue with her I am statement. As she finished
describing herself, I asked how she felt, and she said she felt good. After checking on her, I felt it
was a safe time to probe deeper and follow up on the notes I made. As an adaptive leader, it is
important to adjust the level of tension to see how much someone can handle and keep the
tension in “the productive zone of disequilibrium: enough heat generated by your intervention to
gain attention, engagement, and forward motion, but not so much that the organization (or your
part of it) explodes” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 20).
By being present to CC’s tone, her facial expressions, and the words she said, I assessed
whether to pause or push the conversation through different points to ensure a strong holding
environment. For instance, I noticed the previous statements she made caused emotion, so I
slowed the conversation down and tried to pause her to help her through her emotions and
thought process.
Cindy: Can we talk about why you initially omitted the words “middle class” in your “I
am” statement?
CC: Ha ha ha, yea. I knew you would catch that.
Cindy: I noticed a change in your emotions. Let’s name that emotion. Let’s name what
you are experiencing.
CC: Discomfort?

92
Cindy: If you were to tie an emotion or a feeling of knowing that you are of middle class
and the people that you work with are not, what is that feeling? What other
feelings come up?
CC: Frustration.
Cindy: Rip a few more, frustration, discomfortCC: I hate the word unfair. So, I don’t want to use that one. I hate that word.
Cindy: So, if it’s not unfair, why isn’t it unfair?
CC: So, the word unfair. I don’t like it just because there are lots of different, so what
I’m looking for? There are lots of different things that happen right and not every
circumstance is the same, so things will always be different for all of us, for the
most part, depending on your situation, my situation. So, that’s why I don’t like
the word unfair, but I guess the big one is just frustration. … I am very proud,
right? Because it was our family’s struggle, and it was again, we earned it right.
We worked hard, and we did what we needed to do to take care of ourselves and
take care of our children for the future, … but at the same time, I can relate to the
staff and the working moms who are struggling to make ends meet.
By considering the adaptive leadership behavior of creating a holding environment in my
conceptual framework, I anticipated that examining past experiences with new perspectives
would be challenging for my learner, CC. Therefore, I made sure to be mindful and not push CC
far out of her safety zone and create too much tension outside her zone of productive
disequilibrium. The safety and structure of the holding environment I created allowed CC to
slow down her thinking process and reflect on why she was feeling the way she was while at the
same time feeling safe to continue. As I checked in on her feelings and encouraged her to talk

93
them out, I demonstrated a desire to ensure she was okay and safe before moving further. In this
example, as I questioned CC further, I caused her to challenge her values and ways of thinking. I
heard her say, “I am very proud … because it was our family’s struggle. … We earned it. … We
worked hard, and we did what we needed to do to take care of ourselves.” That statement
signaled to me that CC was subscribing to the values of meritocracy. However, she also said,
“But at the same time, I can relate to the staff and the working moms who are struggling to make
ends meet.” Thus, I realized her values conflict with the inequities she and early childhood
educators of color experience in the educational system. In this moment, I felt that CC was
expressing vulnerability while she shared her empathy as she was trying to process how these
two ways of thinking can co-exist and feel conflicting. The holding environment was a way that I
managed to regulate distress, which allowed CC to keep sharing and working through the
questions about the emotions the activity generated without feeling overwhelmed, as Heifetz et
al. (2009) pointed out.
For me to recognize when to pause or push a conversation with CC, I also needed to be
present. My conceptual framework, which consists of Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle, includes
presence as the first stage toward enhancing learning, and this is the primary reason why I
included it in our agreements. Fostering a strong presence means actively seeking ways to
enhance student learning, remaining mindfully attuned to students’ progress, consistently
identifying the best possible instructional approaches, and embodying an energized, curious,
alert, and non-judgmental presence (Rodgers, 2002). During data analysis, I found that being
engaged in presence was evident 163 times. Specific ways that I was present included being
prepared to take notes for our meetings, having the recording ready, paying extra attention to
facial expressions and tones, and being genuinely curious about the things being expressed. The

94
sentence starters I used were intentionally helpful to let CC know I was paying close attention to
her tone and words. For instance, I would start with “I noticed” when she made a face or changed
an emotion or “I heard you say” prior to probing deeper into something that stood out to me. In
the example above, I said, “I noticed a change in your emotions.”
I believe that being present allowed me to gauge CC’s distress and model our agreement
to “be present.” After only a few sessions, CC caught on to my efforts to be present, as
evidenced by her earlier comment, “I knew you would catch that.” Being fully present and
engaged is important because it allows for a better understanding and interpretation of shared
information (Rodgers, 2002). When I first recognized CC’s expressions as hesitant to share that
she was middle class, I verbally and explicitly let her know that I noticed a change in her
emotions and also asked for clarification on what I was seeing. While I could have interpreted
that emotion in my way, being present to her words and facial expressions allowed me to
understand what I could not see, which was her inner thoughts and understandings. Additionally,
being present aligns with Tharp and Gallimore’s (1988) notion of a means of “assisted
performance,” building on Vygotsky’s idea that learning is optimized when a teacher is attuned
to a student’s zone of proximal development and facilitating new learning. If I had not been
present to slow her down, CC would have missed an opportunity to build on and reflect on her
identity, which ultimately allowed her to change her language and perspective about herself. This
is important because I learned that identity-conscious conversations like this can shape how
people see themselves and help to interrupt the pattern of avoidance and instead turn toward an
invitation to challenge, learn, and engage in difficult identity questions (Talusan, 2022). Overall,
the data showed that presence allowed me to pause or slow our conversations 41 times and that
CC, in those times, felt comfortable continuing with the conversations. While being attentive to

95
facial expressions, tones, and the overall communication of CC, I gained deeper insights into her
thought process and made informed decisions for regulating distress. Furthermore, incorporating
intentional sentence starters let CC know through modeling that I was actively listening, which
helped build rapport and demonstrated a genuine interest in the conversation, ultimately leading
to more productive and meaningful interactions.
My use of Fink’s (2013) method of assessment through eliciting feedback aided the
facilitation of a holding environment. Fink (2013) believed that assessment enhances educational
goals. He argued that individuals improve their skills by continuously monitoring the quality of
their work, seeking out new ideas, and incorporating those ideas into their practice. This process
allows them to become more effective and proficient in what they do through meaningful
feedback for improvement of instruction, such as how I used eliciting feedback in my study.
Eliciting feedback was critical for ensuring a strong holding environment as it allowed me to use
the observational data I collected along with CC’s perspective to evaluate and revise teaching
methods’ effectiveness as safe and structured enough to confront challenges. To gather feedback,
I asked specific questions aimed at understanding how I could better attend to my learner’s
safety needs, both physically and cognitively. The feedback was gathered at the end of each
session and allowed me to reflect on my strategies for future sessions. As seen in the following
example, during our closing debrief in the fourth session of Cycle 2, I asked, “What may I
consider to be responsive to where you are in the learning process?” She shared the following
feedback:
I liked that we talked about our past experiences, how my experiences sometimes impact
us and our communities … and how the cycle is still repeating. … Even though it’s hard
to hear that I may be helping the cycle repeat sometimes, it’s nice that I could talk it out

96
and share those experiences with someone I can trust. We also talked about how we could
potentially bring those experiences into our meetings to transform our conversations and
invite teachers into the conversation. I think I like that you pause and ask deeper
questions because that gets me to be more critical about my own experiences. So, what’s
happening now? What [could I] do? I don’t do that enough with the teachers, and it’s
definitely not easy. It made me feel uncomfortable at first, but your questioning helped
me process and look at it in a different way. I feel that you have shown me some ways
that I can support them to bring their experiences and reflect too.
For CC, asking that she bring in her past experiences supported her learning. In this
example, CC recognized that her past experiences and her current practice have a negative
impact on her community, stirring uncomfortable emotions. She mentioned, “It’s definitely not
easy. It made me feel uncomfortable at first, but your questioning helped me process and look at
it a different way.” With this statement, she communicated to me that she acknowledged my
efforts to help her feel safe to share when moments of discomfort arose. In addition, this phrase
let me know that using questions was a good strategy that helped her “process” those
uncomfortable moments. Therefore, I made a note to look back at the specific questions I asked
and to continue them throughout the sessions. When CC added, “and look at it a different way,”
it signified that my questioning also helped her push through the challenges and see things
differently as a means of moving past the discomfort. As a result of this feedback, I decided to
continue to use these questioning strategies to support the holding environment so that CC would
continue to feel safe and share more past experiences.
An example of how I used facilitating feedback to revise the learning conditions and
strategies I used to ensure a strong holding environment is depicted in the closing debrief, where

97
I was able to ask CC for feedback about Cycle 1, Session 1. In this instance, I asked, “What did
we not discuss that we should bring back next week?” CC responded, “Nothing in particular. It
was a lot to dissect and peel the layers to it.” Listening to CC say that “it was a lot” prompted me
to ask, “What exactly was a lot?” She responded, “It was a lot of data at once. And then I felt I
had to process and reflect on it all. But it was good data. It helped to see and add perspective.” I
made a note to myself to double check the agenda for the following week. After our session, in
the reflection phase (Rodgers, 2002), I followed up on next week’s agenda and plans by
checking that there was not too much information and that there would be enough time to
process and reflect on it. I needed to regulate CC’s distress so she would not feel that the
information was “a lot” so that I could focus on the important part of processing and reflecting.
In the following session, I also explicitly pointed out the changes I made to CC as evidence that
her feedback was important to me. By utilizing feedback to maintain a strong holding
environment, I listened to my learner’s needs, understood what teaching methods needed to be
revised in my sessions, and ensured my learner felt safe and comfortable sharing feedback by
applying what I heard from her in the following sessions.
Applying the concept of a holding environment, as articulated by Heifetz et al. (2009),
enabled me to provide safety and structure by effectively regulating my learner’s distress,
remaining fully present, and skillfully facilitating feedback. The holding environment also
empowered me to confidently address tough emotions or take a break after a difficult discussion,
all while keeping CC actively engaged in discourse about past and current practices that impact
children and families. CC demonstrated a pre-service level ability to engage and reflect in
difficult conversations about her identity and her practice (Larrivee, 2008). This next section will

98
demonstrate the nature of that discourse and some examples of how I navigated emotions that
came up during those discussions.
Discourse
Discourse is “the process in which we have an active dialogue with others to better
understand the meaning of an experience” (Wergin, 2020, p. 14). According to Wergin (2020),
social discourse is the fuel that supports constructive disorientation and critical reflection. He
also pointed out the importance of “challenging existing truths, and truths that may be so
embedded in one’s life perspective as to be unconscious, even unquestioned” (Wergin, 2020,
p. 115) if we aim to cultivate deep learning. In this study, the discourse was intended as a tool for
CC to critically reflect and gain new identity-conscious perspectives about her role and
assumptions in providing professional learning to educators of color and how the current
practices impact children. Prior to our sessions, I anticipated the conversations we would have
would possibly draw a disorienting dilemma that could either paralyze or progress CC’s learning
and that I would need to support CC toward a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2020).
Constructive disorientation is defined as a sense of curiosity sparked by the disparity between
our current state and the state we aspire to be in, along with confidence in the ability to address
this disparity (Wergin, 2020). Although constructive disorientation is dependent on how a
participant is supported through a disorienting dilemma, it may not always occur. On the other
hand, discourse is necessary for critical reflection to occur (Brookfield, 2017) and to support CC
as she learns about a new way to engage in professional learning with educators of color. Critical
reflection is important for uncovering and challenging those existing truths (Brookfield, 2017).
As mentioned earlier, for participants experiencing adaptive leadership, when uncovering and
challenging existing truths, an “initial response is to blame oneself for supposed failures or

99
mistakes” (as cited in Brookfield, 2010, p. 217), which is something I wanted to avoid. Instead, I
wanted CC to uncover and challenge the inequities her profession faces systemically with an
identity-conscious lens and better understand the reasons for her beliefs and assumptions.
Brookfield (2017) expressed that critical reflections happen when “we build into our
practice the habit of constantly trying to identify, and check, the assumptions that inform our
actions” (p. 5). As deep learning requires that we question existing truths, and the process of
challenging those truths can often lead to disorienting dilemmas, I aimed to lead CC in discourse
toward “constructive disorientation” and guide her through critical reflections and identity
consciousness so that she could support the educators of color she works with and ultimately the
children they serve. This could not have been possible without a strong structured holding
environment and carefully crafted discourse. In the next sections, I will demonstrate how I
engaged CC in discourse by using (a) specific questioning4 strategies and (b) conversations
intended for the exploration of the intersections between identity and positionality.
Probing and Guiding Questions
Sahin and Kulm (2008) suggested that the types of questions asked can serve various
important purposes, such as stimulating students, encouraging attentive listening, analyzing
thoughts, and promoting critical thinking. They highlighted three types of questions: factual,
probing, and guiding (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). “Teachers who encourage students to elaborate on
and explain their thinking through the use of probing questions promote learning because such
questions push students to think more deeply about the topic being discussed” (Sahin & Kulm,
4 I incorporated questioning into this section about discourse even though it is a form of
andragogy, because the questions I asked significantly enhanced the conversations between CC
and myself toward identity consciousness. The types of questions asked were essential for me to
adapt the conversation as necessary and to guide how I would formulate questions for future
sessions.

100
2008, p. 224). Alternatively, guiding questions are used to “guide students to discuss problems”
or “when a student is not sure how to solve or proceed with the problem, and the teacher may
lead the student with a question” (Sahin & Kulm, 2008, p. 225). For my study, I used probing
and guiding questions to help me learn more about CC’s thinking as a professional learning
facilitator to educators of color in early childhood education and to engage in deeper reflections
about the impact professional learning has on children. Data analysis revealed that probing
questions were asked 78 times and guiding questions 62 times overall. Probing questions served
to push CC’s thinking about previous knowledge and experiences to develop new ways of seeing
her work and the historically entrenched inequities in the education system at large. Guiding
questions guided CC in problem-solving or proceeding with the challenges that would arise as
we explored and reflected on her practice. The probing and guiding questions were intended to
help CC feel empowered to face challenges within her scope of influence and ultimately provide
high-quality professional learning to ECE teachers of color.
The following passage shows a conversation between CC and me, during which I used
both probing and guiding questions. In this particular instance, we were discussing her feelings
about child outcome data depicting the current level of development of the children at the center.
These data were compared to national data for all preschoolers and demonstrated that the
children in our center were not performing as well in the areas of language and literacy.
Cindy: You keep using the word tough. I want to unpack it and make sure I value it.
What does tough mean to you?
CC: Tough would be that I’ve been in the field for over 20 years, and I like to think of
myself as someone who continues to grow right. So I went to school. I got my
AA, I got my BA, I got my masters, and even now, like, I continue to do

101
professional development workshops, and so, even with all this knowledge, right
like or this experience, I like to believe that I can bring value to our field and to
my team, and to whatever school I’m working at. But I think when you see this
data, that’s the tough component. It makes me question, … are we, like me, am I
doing enough? Am I doing the right thing for the children? Am I supporting the
teachers enough? Our data is still so low [compared to the national data], and it’s
still very much not equitable. It’s tough.
By asking CC to decode the word “tough” and what that meant to her, I probed and
allowed her to expand on this feeling and why she was connecting the word “tough” to the data
she was examining. As I heard her say, “Am I doing enough? Am I doing the right thing for the
children? Am I supporting the teachers enough?” I recognized and learned she was feeling
responsible for the outcome of children’s assessments in her program, and that’s what made it
tough to see that “our data is still so low, and it’s still very much not equitable.” I also wondered
what she meant by saying, “very much not equitable,” however, I missed the opportunity to ask
more about what CC meant about that. Instead, at this moment, I thought about Elmore’s (2002)
concept of reciprocal accountability, where education reform requires accountability from
policymakers and stakeholders to ensure that educators have all they need to help students
succeed. Listening to CC express that she somewhat felt responsible for the low outcomes data
prompted me to ask the next probing question.
Cindy: And what resources did you receive to support the teachers? If at all?
CC: So, there’s minimal resources. … In my thought process, I’m the one in charge of
making this possible for the teachers. And so, for example, when a management
bulletin came in (from the State of California), there was like maybe four different

102
links inundated with information, which is great, but then I have to peel all the
layers out and then determine, like out of these resources, what’s best for our team
and for the community we serve right. And so, within that new law and
regulation, I was able to pull some of those resources on my own.
While hearing CC state she had minimal resources in her role, I could hear her slow
down as she spoke and noticed that her facial expressions began to look more upset. As a result
of the probing question I asked, she was considering that what she initially thought about being
responsible for the data alone was also connected to bigger systematic issues. When she said
there were “four different links inundated with information” in the state bulletin, she alluded to
the provision of these minimal resources as being difficult to access. However, she still took
ownership of support to the teachers when she said, “In my thought process, I’m the one in
charge of making this possible for the teachers.” In other words, despite there being minimal
resources, I learned that CC believed it was her job to leverage that which does exist.
At this point, I recognized that after I asked the probing question, CC confronted a
disorienting dilemma, and she was beginning to grasp the extent of the inequity she had
experienced, realizing its profound impact on children to be far greater than she initially
anticipated. My observer’s comments also highlighted noticeable changes in her facial
expression, demeanor, and tone, capturing CC’s expression as it changed from friendly and
confident to “frowning and uncomfortable.” Therefore, while trying to empathize with her, I also
decided to ask a guiding question that could empower her to see things in a different way as a
means to constructive disorientation: What kind of solution to this challenge, of you feeling like
you’re the only one figuring it all out, could you imagine?

103
After a small pause, she stated, “Well, I guess I am not the only one who is going through
this, and there definitely needs to be change on a higher state or federal level, but in my
organization, there is someone else.” This response demonstrated that she was able to “proceed”
her thinking beyond the disorienting dilemma into constructive disorientation because of the
guiding question that I asked (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). I paused and carefully processed what she
was saying. While silent and without any probing or guiding questions, CC openly continued
sharing that she believed the director (me) in her organization was someone she could count on
to collaborate and brainstorm with when challenges arose so that she wouldn’t have to decipher
things on her own. She continued, “I recognize I need to dedicate time to ask for help and be
open to collaborating without fearing asking for help.” In hearing this, I sensed a bit of
trepidation acknowledging that her fear of asking for help contributed to her feelings of working
in isolation. My observer comments noted that her facial expression also changed to appear
“uncertain” about sharing what I interpreted as another vulnerable thought. At that moment, I
wanted to reassure her that she was still in a safe place to share. I used a guiding question to
regulate the distress I observed she was experiencing.
Cindy: Is there something you need from your organization that could help you ask for
help when you need it?
CC: No, it’s just me. I have this thinking that my work is an image of me. It is
connected with my identity and how I have to prove myself. I think it also has a
lot to do with how I have worked, and a lot of us in ECE have worked in isolation
for so long it is hard to break habits.
I believe that my probing and guiding questions allowed for a new way of thinking about
her challenge and, at the same time, helped her feel safe and validated. I heard CC say, “Well, I

104
guess I am not the only one … and there definitely needs to be change on a higher state or
federal level.” This conveyed that she was now thinking differently about whose responsibility
children’s outcomes are. As CC shared “it is connected with my identity and how I have to prove
myself,” she demonstrated a reflection about her acknowledgment that her identity is shaping
some of the decisions she makes in her daily practices. I learned that my guiding question did not
necessarily solve her problems. However, CC still continued with the conversation, reflecting
and attempting to problem-solve despite how uncomfortable she initially appeared when she first
noticed that children’s outcomes are part of a larger systemic problem. Plus, she acknowledged
that her role is to address the inequities in those outcomes within her sphere of knowledge and
experience. At the end of this conversation, CC shared the following about using data to inform
practice with her teachers, “maybe there could be more time for conversations to happen [with
teachers]. To get their perspectives … I think that would be powerful.” My goal was to find a
balance of probing and guiding questioning that was challenging and supportive of constructive
disorientation, and this was met.
Probing and guiding questions were significant to my study as they allowed for an
organic back-and-forth conversation that allowed CC to practice critically reflecting on her past
beliefs, experiences, and assumptions. Webster-Wright (2009) explained that critical reflection’s
value lies in the potential for transformative change for the learner and those with whom they
engage by questioning their assumptions. During the time of this study, I believed that CC did
indeed have an opportunity to practice reflecting on her role and practice, such as what Larrivee
(2008) considered pedagogical reflection. In this conversation, CC strived to understand her
experiences with providing the right types of support to the teachers so they could help children
meet their performance outcomes. At first she considered the notion that having the right

105
educational qualifications and training should deliver more positive performance outcomes.
Upon further examination and reflection, CC considered that “teaching and learning is
multidimensional, connecting events within a broader framework” (Larrivee, 2008, p. 348). Still,
with limited time left together, I did not have the opportunity to observe CC take action based on
her new understanding of how to address asking for support and what truly is in her scope of
influence on this issue. Therefore, I am unsure if I truly moved CC to a state of critical reflection
based on this single example and attest that I did provide an opportunity to practice pedagogical
reflection. However, I will cover what CC has done since the study was completed later in the
afterword section.
In our Cycle 3, fifth meeting, I started a conversation about adult learning by posing an
initial reflection question. The purpose was to understand better what CC thought constituted an
effective professional learning opportunity. I wanted to gather information about CC’s previous
experiences in professional learning, which would allow her to reflect on these experiences and
possibly challenge any assumptions she had made about them.
Cindy: Could you please tell me about any professional learning opportunities that you
have participated in and found to be effective?
CC: At the very beginning, I was very much the audience. They (professional learning
opportunities) were giving information, sharing information, and there was some
dialogue, not so much hands-on experience, and that was kind of the way the
presentation was given through my years. In the last 5 years, there’s been a shift,
and I’ve been fortunate to attend more PDs [professional development sessions],
where I have more hands-on experience and I am able to share more dialogue. For
example, I’m part of an academy, and that’s like a monthly PD that’s given to us.

106
And even when we have these amazing presenters that come and share content
information, they’re very mindful about breaking it down and allowing a lot of
time for dialogue and shared experiences with each other. I think that’s really the
key characteristics for me, where the dialogue depends on experience, sharing
experiences, sharing challenges, and content with others who may or may not be
experiencing some of these experiences themselves as educators. The other
component as an early childhood educator is that I’m very visual and very handson. I speak with my hands all the time. So, I’m also a kinesthetic learner and a
visual learner, and I learn better when I do something instead of just listening.
Through this question, I gained knowledge about the shift in professional learning opportunities
from passive information sharing to more hands-on experiences and meaningful dialogue that
helped shape CC’s profession.
Gaining insight into the specific learning preferences of the curriculum coordinator, such
as being a visual and hands-on learner, made me wonder if this preference helped inform the
design and delivery of professional learning activities to ensure they are more effective for
educators of color in her organization. Therefore, I asked the following probing question:
Cindy: I heard you say that some of the key characteristics of an effective PL opportunity
involve allowing time for dialogue and shared experiences. Based on your
experience, is there adequate time in the PL sessions with the teachers in your
program for dialogue and shared experiences?
CC paused and responded with “sometimes, not always.” Although I asked a closed ended
question, I waited and remained silent for this response.
CC: I can honestly say I’ve tried. Not all of the PDs have time for that.

107
Cindy: Why do the PDs not have time for that?
CC: But I also know I open up for dialogue, and a lot of the time, maybe people don’t
feel safe. Because I feel we’re not sharing enough. So, there’s obviously
something there.
Cindy: What do you mean by obviously something is there?
CC: Maybe I haven’t built our trust to be able to share experiences. Some teachers
share experiences connected to the content I am sharing with them in our time
together and other times, it feels like it’s always the same teachers sharing
repeatedly. The other teachers who don’t share say, “Everything’s great.
Everything’s the same. Nothing’s changed.” When clearly, they’re not telling the
truth.
Cindy: Why do you think that “clearly” they are not being truthful?
CC: Through my observations of their facial expressions during the meetings. I’ve also
noticed some things coming up right after the meetings about the topics we have
shared but never during our whole group meetings.
Cindy: What are some of those things that came up after the meeting?
CC: For example, we were having a training on how we can better prepare the
classroom and techniques to help children with challenging behaviors. Mind you,
this is a topic that they requested during the survey I sent out. And when it came
down to me sharing the strategies and the actions we could take, they simply
stayed quiet and said, “Okay, no further thoughts or questions.” But I can’t force
them to share what they don’t want to share. I can only try to support them when

108
they actually bring up questions or concerns. And often, I feel I’m assuming what
support they need because they’re not vocalizing it, which is unfortunate.
Cindy: That does sound unfortunate. Let’s pause and go back to the part where you said,
“Maybe I haven’t built our trust to be able to share experiences.” Say more about
that.
CC: So, I think going back to our conversation from last time, I think it means we need
to be looking at the vision and the mission and wondering if we all have the same
vision for this place.
Cindy: How do you see your role in helping to answer that question?
CC: Maybe that’s where we start. Even if it’s brought up at the beginning of each
meeting. Or maybe I introduce the agreements just like you did so we can all be
on the same page, and I am not wondering why they’re not sharing or what they
are thinking is our collective vision.
The initial question I asked provided an opportunity for CC to reflect on her past PL
experiences that were effective. The probing questions that I asked helped me to understand
better some of the responses CC shared and to clarify any assumptions she and I both had. For
instance, my first probing question after this response was to clarify if she believed there was
enough time for the teachers to engage in activities she thought were effective. Her response in
my observer’s comments suggested that she appeared defensive in her tone as she said, “I can
honestly say I’ve tried. Not all of the PDs have time for that.” So, I asked why there was no time,
and she began to imply that it could also be part of the teacher’s fault, not just her own. In my
critical reflection for this session, I wrote that I was worried that CC thought I was probing
further to question her decisions regarding how she delivered her professional learning. I also

109
wrote how surprised I felt that the conversation, instead, moved in a different direction. She
stated, “Maybe people don’t feel safe because I feel we’re not sharing enough. So, there’s
obviously something there.” It appeared that CC had an “obvious” explanation for expressing
frustration that not all teachers are willing to share their experiences and that some may not feel
comfortable or safe enough to do so as the second reason why she avoided adding more time for
sharing in her PL agendas. But I did not know what that obvious reason was. Therefore, I probed
again to clarify what she meant by “obviously.”
Her answers after those probing questions suggested a lack of trust and openness within
the group that she “clearly” was experiencing, leading to her struggle to encourage more teacher
participation during her professional learning meetings. In this example, by using more probing
questions, after each answer she gave to the initial question, I learned that although CC
acknowledged it was her role to provide time for sharing of experiences in the professional
learning meetings, she was also cognisant that there are other reasons such as lack of trust and
lack of a collective vision that stands in the way of these opportunities that will support the
teachers in their work caring for young children of color. Without having the opportunity to ask
these probing questions, I would not have learned the internal and contextual challenges that CC
is faced with in her work. During my reflection after our meeting, I noted that I had also made an
assumption that CC was making a connection to the larger educational system that did not allow
for more time with the teachers to share, and instead, she showed the sociocultural motivational
challenges (Schunk, 2020) she is trying hard to identify. My reflection further noted that probing
questions made me feel pleased that she had the opportunity to give me her explanation so I
could guide her through the next part of the conversation. The last question I asked in this
example was a guiding question. “How do you see your role in helping to answer that question?”

110
I wanted to allow CC to try to work through this challenge, and her response, “Or maybe I
introduce the agreements just like you did so we can all be on the same page,” showed that she
brought in some of the conversations from our other sessions to use as a solution for these
challenges.
The probing questions I asked facilitated CC in expanding or elaborating on her current
thought process and assumptions. In contrast, guiding questions prompted her to consider a
solution to the issue she brought up during our discourse and the possibility of new learning. The
organic piece was woven in as I tried to be present, listening and paying attention to facial cues
and gestures as I asked these types of questions, not knowing what she would say next. Hearing
CC say, “Or maybe I introduce the agreements just like you did so we can all be on the same
page,” suggested that using guiding questions was an effective method to get CC to feel
empowered to problem-solve the issues that came up. In Larrivee’s (2008) point of view, this is
another example of pedagogical reflection where CC is thinking about how her teaching
practices (of the teachers of color) are affecting children’s outcomes. Ultimately, the probing and
guiding questions I asked supported CC’s learning as it supported her in the process toward
critical reflection (Brookfield, 2017; Rodgers, 2002) about her practice.
Wergin (2020) emphasized challenging established truths, while Sahin and Kulm (2008)
highlighted using different types of questions to stimulate learners and promote critical thinking.
The use of probing and guiding questions created the opportunity for me to learn where CC was
in her thought process and to help her expose a counter-narrative to her current thinking process.
It also allowed CC to check her own beliefs and assumptions, reflect, and activate what she
already knew as a technique for problem-solving. As evidenced in this section, applying
intentional probing and guiding questioning strategies led our discourse and fostered learning

111
through critical thinking about adaptive challenges (Heifetz et al., 2009) and transformative
thinking (Northouse, 2022). The discourse from these probing and guiding questions empowered
CC to raise her consciousness as a change agent examining current understandings and providing
deeper learning that ultimately benefits the children and teachers of color who are impacted by
the professional learning she is tasked with providing. In the following section, I will provide
details about how I aimed to build identity consciousness through the carefully crafted questions
that helped uncover how positionality and identity intersected and how these intersections
influenced CC’s work.
Exploring Intersecting Identities/Positionality
The long-term goal of this study was to build CC’s identity-consciousness habits and
skills to support early childhood teachers of color by using specific questioning strategies and
identity-specific questions to guide our conversations. Villaverde (2008) noted that the status one
holds today is an intersection of identity, epistemology, and positionality within social structures
(Douglas & Nganga, 2013, pp. 60–61). As argued in my conceptual framework, building a strong
sense of identity consciousness can help shape educators’ instructional choices, help learners
develop positive identities, and influence student outcomes (Kohli, 2008; Kohli & Pizarro,
2022). To help CC develop a strong sense of identity consciousness in her practice, in line with
my conceptual framework, I facilitated discourse to encourage her to explore and reflect
critically on her identity, epistemology, prior experiences, thought processes, and her
positionality relating to her role as a curriculum coordinator that perhaps had not been
unquestioned before.
To gather more information about CC’s personal identity after she shared her “I am
from” statement, I purposefully prepared follow-up (probing and guiding) questions that would

112
allow CC to examine her identity through a new lens and consider how her identity could
influence her position or her work. Listed below are examples of open-ended probing and
guiding questions connected to identity and positionality that I asked CC throughout the study:
• Tell me about how that part of your identity has shaped you.
• What is your role in supporting the implementation and understanding of these
standards?
• What do you think connected to your role would be a solution to this (challenge)?
• How does your role connect to how the teachers must be feeling?
• How does your identity connect to how the teachers must be feeling?
• What is your view of the identities of the teachers we work with?
• Under what circumstances have you talked about identity or positionality in your role
or context, if at all?
• Is there anything about your identity that you feel hinders you in your role?
• What changes can be made to achieve a truly PLC, keeping in mind the impact that
high-quality professional learning has on teachers of color and their students?
• What does it mean to have a PLC with our ECE educators of color?
• What would that look like for the children being served in your community?
• What’s your role in building collaboration within your community of educators of
color?
• How do you see the development of a PLC with educators of color?
These identity-related questions allowed CC to explore her identity further, her views on
the identities of those she worked with and served, and her past experiences and assumptions.
“Critical consciousness (often termed critical pedagogy) is devised to strengthen learners’ critical

113
literacies– a dynamic and reflexive approach to reading the world (text, media, audio,
interactions) that strengthens one’s understanding of power, inequity, and injustice” (Freire,
1985, as cited in Kohli, 2008, p. 25). Kohli (2008) continued that critical consciousness is
important because it allows individuals to recognize and understand societal inequalities,
injustices, and power dynamics. By developing critical consciousness, individuals can become
more aware of the structures that impact their own lives and the lives of others, potentially
leading to taking action and fostering positive change. Because of the specific questions related
to identity exploration, I listened and learned about existing assumptions, new questions,
understandings, or ways of making meaning related to her role in supporting the professional
development of teachers of color connected to sociopolitical consciousness. In one example, a
response to my asking, “What is your view of the identities of the teachers we work with?” CC
expressed,
CC: Our teachers can very much be our clients. What does that tell you about our
system? [Implying the families served often qualify for services for being lowincome] That they are struggling financially. They’re trying to give all of
themselves to the profession, to our children, their mental health, and their
development, … but what does that do for their mental health? What does that do
for their stress level? What does that do for their families? Because there are,
unfortunately, different hurdles that you constantly have to endure as being on the
lower class level. And so, these things are impacting our teachers. I don’t know if
they have enough food. Do they have enough to make ends meet? I don’t know
that. Well, I know for sure one teacher has verbally shared that when her kid was
sick, she had to pay out of pocket, and I take that for granted. I don’t pay anything

114
out of pocket. So, there’s already that difference between us, and there is stress
around her and her family that I don’t necessarily bring into my work.
After asking a direct question about identity, I discovered that CC was worried about the
challenges teachers face, especially those in lower socioeconomic classes. When she asked what
that says about our system, she was pointing out the impact of financial difficulties on the mental
health and stress levels of teachers, as well as the potential impact on their families due to the
larger educational system within which teachers operate. More importantly, questioning the
education system and its impact on teachers demonstrated CC’s sociopolitical consciousness as
she acknowledged the disparity in financial resources between teachers of different
socioeconomic backgrounds. CC’s concerns are based on her past personal experiences and
conversations with teachers. I interpreted her statements about trying to give all of themselves
and not knowing if they make ends meet as suggesting that these hardships that teachers face
may influence or shape the instructional choices that teachers make as they strive to balance
meeting their own needs and what is in the best interest of the children in their classrooms,
including instructional choices. I also noted that those thoughts were possible assumptions, based
on just one example from one teacher sharing; still, her statement finished with, “So, there’s
already that difference between us, and there is stress around her and her family that I don’t
necessarily bring into my work” which emphasized the stress and challenges faced by those in
the lower class compared to her own identity. It also highlighted the implication that she
recognized that changes the dynamic between them as they come from different socioeconomic
classes.

115
Kohli et al. (2019) emphasized that women of color, because of their multiple
experiences with marginality, have a unique ability to reimagine boundaries imposed by those in
power. Kohli et al. (2019) further argued,
Not all teachers of Color approach teaching in ways that effectively serve marginalized
communities. It is the intersecting social locations and ideological commitments of
critically conscious teachers of Color that position them as culturally sustaining
pedagogues—able to name, analyze, and confront systems of oppression alongside
students. (p. 25)
For example, when I heard CC describe her challenges in her work, she sometimes
described herself and her profession in a negative light, describing early childhood education as
the “scum of the earth,” sometimes in comparison to other fields. Therefore, I asked if anyone
had ever said those words to her. She thought about this question in silence and then answered,
“Not necessarily. It’s an accumulation of experiences.” I realized that I may have given her an
opportunity to reflect on a different perspective, to make sense of how her experiences have
shaped her point of view. Drawing from Merriam and Bierema (2013) on the importance of past
experiences for adults’ learning, my intention was to engage CC’s experiences first. I asked CC
if she could try to recall a specific experience that helped to shape that perception.
CC: I remember our previous conversation about how pre-service teachers of color
often feel disconnected and excluded from their peers and mentor teachers. When
I was a student in college, during my general education courses, none of the
professors looked or sounded like me. I had always wanted to be a K–3 teacher
and be the best third-grade teacher in the world. I then remember taking an early
childhood course completely changed my perspective. … I felt that the instructors

116
could relate to me as a woman, and one instructor in particular became a mentor
to me. In addition, there were many Latina women in the early childhood classes
sitting next to me. … Sadly, this professor was so brutally honest sharing her
experiences, and I think it shifted my vision of what education could be for early
childhood teachers compared to elementary teachers. She outlined the challenges
of shaping young children and their families. She also shared her own experiences
of not feeling respected or valued in the field, especially as a woman of color, and
why she went into teaching child development. … She also pointed out the
discrepancies in pay wages. … I think she was trying to prepare us for the reality
of the field, but at that time, I wasn’t ready to accept it. It didn’t hit me until much
later that it’s not easy getting the grunt work for little pay and little respect.
Cindy: When did you think you first felt this disrespect?
CC: Ooof, a long time ago. Maybe it wasn’t my first time, but I remember a parent
said to me, “I don’t have time to sit with you and listen to you tell me how to raise
my children, you’re just a babysitter,” during a parent-teacher conference. I was
trying to build a connection with this parent and he clearly did not want to listen
to my opinions about his children’s development. He didn’t understand that I have
a degree and am trained to recognize children’s milestones. He assumed I just
“play” and sing songs all day. And that’s really the big piece. No one outside of
our field understands that “play” is how children this age learn, and they think this
is easy, and they treat us as if we don’t know anything and then the trickle effect
of everything else follows.
Cindy: So, what makes you stay in this profession as a woman of color?

117
CC: There are moments, glimpses, even days, that it feels like I am making a
difference. When I can give back to my community and when I can say that I
have continued to strive toward helping children and, ultimately, their families.
Cindy: How does all of this that you are saying connect to your role now?
CC: Like I said, it’s important to me that I continue this fight for quality for the
families that look like me. They deserve quality care, too, … and that’s why when
we have these conversations, I think about how the teachers must feel. And if they
feel valued or are they just exhausted on top of all the other things [personal] they
have to deal with? And am I, are we, is there enough support for them to face
these challenges?
From our previous conversations I already learned that CC came from a marginalized
background. On top of that, I then heard that she had negative experiences in her earlier career
that caused her to internalize a negative image of her profession. In this session’s discourse,
through the support of my specific questioning, she critically reflected on why she needed to
continue the work that she does, considering she was now in a position to support other early
childhood educators who were going through similar experiences. When she stated that a male
parent made her feel devalued, it prompted me to ask an identity-specific question. Specifically, I
wanted to know why she stuck around as a woman of color, and she responded,
There are moments, glimpses, even days that it feels like I am making a difference. When
I can give back to my community and when I can say that I have continued to strive
toward helping children and, ultimately, their families.
When I asked her to elaborate on her experiences with identity-specific questions, CC
reflected on why this work is still important to her and how her work, albeit not always

118
respected, can positively influence student outcomes as she “[fought] for quality for the families
that look like me.” As she expressed, “And that’s why when we have these conversations, I think
about how the teachers must feel.” I made a note to follow up to ask if she had these types of
conversations with her teachers. When she was done sharing, I posed the following question:
Cindy: It sounds like these conversations have really helped you reflect on your
experiences. How will having these conversations with your teachers of color
impact the children of color you work with?
CC: I guess first we need to start having these conversations more often. And I feel
like [children] definitely have been impacted. Because in our roles [ECE
teachers], at least for the organizations I have worked at, it’s mainly people of
color who are working these roles, people like us. And then the second part is that
we haven’t had a chance to pull apart or dissect the larger piece. … Stakeholders
who are not in the classrooms or even in our communities often decide and say to
us, “Get it done, get it done, done” [assessments and standards] no matter what it
takes. You gotta meet those goals. And there’s very little time to dissect and pull
apart, like, what that does for our clients [and] what that does for our children, our
teachers. Who in our community is speaking up for us and for the children? …
Who is deciding if these standards that are being passed down to us are good for
our children?
Later, I asked her if she had ever asked her team the questions she was posing to me out loud,
and she acknowledged that she had not.
CC: [Pausing and looking me right in the eyes.] I see what you did. I need to have
these conversations with them so they can feel reignited. They can feel listened to

119
and at least validated amongst a group of people who understand what this role is
and what it feels like to be a woman and educator with all these layers impacting
children.
CC said in the previous vignette, “Who is deciding if these standards that are being
passed down to us are good for our children?” She was communicating that she believed the
choices the teachers will make for their classrooms are ultimately influenced by the
conversations outside of the classroom. However, related to sociopolitical consciousness, these
reflections also helped her to understand that there is a need for more conversations among the
group of teachers in the organization working directly with children who are making
instructional choices. CC expressed a new understanding of her role, which was to help her team
feel comfortable asking questions and exploring their identities and assumptions about their work
together, as she just did. CC said,
I need to have these conversations with them so they can feel reignited. They can feel
listened to and at least validated amongst a group of people who understand what this
role is and what it feels like to be a woman and educator with all these layers impacting
children.
I knew that she made a connection to our identity activity and recognized her role in creating
supportive environments that foster these types of discussions with her teachers to support and
develop a positive identity.
This section underscored how asking identity-specific questions allowed CC to examine
and confront past negative experiences to recognize how her layered identity could positively
influence teachers’ positive identities, instructional choices, and, ultimately, student outcomes
(Kohli, 2008). The carefully crafted probing and guiding questions that were prepared ahead of

120
the study allowed me to guide our discourse in an attempt toward critical reflection and identity
consciousness in each cycle. Whether CC reached critical reflection will be discussed further in
the description phase subsection under the power of the reflective cycle following this section.
For the discourse to be as successful as it was, I had to engage CC in a reflective cycle. As CC
and I engaged with one another in each cycle, the reflective cycle (Rodgers, 2002) played a
significant role in modeling and developing her skills and habits for identity consciousness and
understanding the characteristics of a PLC. The next section will delve deeper into how I utilized
the reflective cycle to build identity-conscious skills and habits for CC to see a new way to
engage in professional learning.
The Power of the Reflective Cycle
I utilized Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle as a model to illustrate to CC (a) how and
why critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010; Larrivee, 2008; Milner, 2003) can and should be
incorporated into professional learning for oneself and participants, (b) especially for those
experiencing change (Heifetz, 1994, as cited in Northouse, 2022), and (c) striving to establish a
shared vision (Heifetz, 1994, as cited in Northouse, 2022). As mentioned in my conceptual
framework, there are differences between reflective and critically reflective practices. Reflective
practices can be grouped into four levels. The initial levels focus on teaching functions, a more
advanced level considering theory and rationale, and a higher-order level examining ethical,
social, and political consequences of teaching (Larrivee, 2008). As a higher-order level, critically
reflective practices are important for examining assumptions and beliefs related to observations
and behaviors, and they involve considering the moral and ethical implications of classroom
practices on students, focusing on equity and social justice. (Brookfield, 2010; Larrivee, 2008).
The process of a reflective cycle encompasses four phases that help educators slow down and

121
reflect on student learning: (a) presence, (b) description, (c) analysis, and (d) experimentation
(Rodgers, 2002). My intention was for me to engage in reflective and critically reflective
practices while also aiming to model and teach CC how to do so by participating in a reflective
cycle as part of the PLC.
Experimentation Phase
In the experimentation phase, the educator is preparing to take informed action and risk
implementing a new strategy (Rodgers, 2002). I initially identified experimentation as the final
phase in my conceptual framework. However, in practice, my enactment of the reflective cycle
for this project began at this phase. This happened because my conceptual framework served as a
guide that helped me plan out my sessions with CC before the study even started and prepare for
the other phases. As noted in the sections above, in this phase, I intentionally prepared for the
deliberate learning conditions and discourse that would take place in the actual enactment of this
study’s actions. The actual enactment of my leadership and andragogical moves were thus my
experimentation. Earlier in the section on opportunities for co-construction of knowledge, I
showed how I made this phase clear to my participant by sharing the intentions of my study with
her during our very first session and demonstrating the visual of the reflective cycle. In those
examples, I made explicit the intentions of our time together as it was important to me to gain
her trust in the study, to show how each session would inform the next, and how this process
could be useful in reimagining professional learning sessions with teachers of color. In another
example, during our final session, the experimentation phase was evidenced when I decided to
test getting rid of the initial check-in. I wanted to first test if the check-in was still necessary this
far into the study, and it was not. Secondly, I wanted to provide us with more time to discuss a
PLC conversation based on the information I received from our fifth session.

122
Cindy: Something that we are doing different today based off my reflections and my
analysis of our conversations, is to be more explicit of my actions. So, for this
week, I noticed that we have done a good job establishing a relationship and
building trust, so I intentionally cut our check-in time in the agenda so we could
have more time together getting to the objective, which is exploring and
understand the key traits of a PLC as it relates to working with teachers of color
going through transformative and adaptive change. I also did this because, as you
can see in the agenda, I am bringing back to this week’s conversation, our
discussion on vision and mission from Session 5. … I wonder what your thoughts
are on that.
CC: I think it’s good. Let’s try it. It’s also important to be transparent and explicit. It is
part of speaking our truth and having a safe or brave space. … Otherwise, I am
not a mind reader, and I would wonder why you changed things.
Cindy: And I think sometimes we use the word guessing like, I don’t know what they
need. I heard you say that in one of our conversations. I want to be as transparent
with you as much as possible about any changes I am making so you can trust me
and feel safe to continue engaging with me. … Plus, I am trying to see if we can
squeeze in all the objectives in six sessions.
The extra time and the changes I experimented with in the agenda allowed CC and me to
review the conversations and reflections we had about the program’s mission and vision, which
flowed into a good conversation about a PLC:

123
Cindy: What changes can we make to achieve a truly [PLC] keeping in mind the impact
that high-quality professional learning has on the teachers of color and its
students?
CC: Just understanding that there’s no right or wrong answer for this work. At the
beginning, I felt that I’ve been doing something wrong this whole time, and it’s
not working. It hasn’t worked. And yet that’s the process that we engage in every
single month, so is it worth it? No right. They [teachers] might as well have time
to do whatever they need to do in the classroom, so understanding that the PL is
also evolving, or always evolving and changing right. So, being open to the selfreflective piece is really critical in understanding that once you do the selfreflection things could continue to change, and they should continue to change.
Because we’re a community of learners. Perspectives are different. Experiences
are different. So, creating a PLC with the thoughts of it’s an ongoing process. I
guess that’s something I learned.
Hearing CC say, that “there’s no right or wrong answer for this work” and “being open to
the self-reflective piece is really critical” told me she understood that there are many factors and
perspectives to consider for professional learning to be truly effective. As she added “because
we’re a community of learners” and “it’s an ongoing process,” I understood that CC was going
to reconsider the way she engaged in professional learning as an ongoing process and the
importance of adaptation and growth alongside her teachers in comparison to the way it had been
done previously. If given more time in this study, I would have liked to work with CC on her
new understandings of what a community of learners is and what it entails to create a PLC. My
conceptual framework did not include that aspect as the initial goal was to help build identity

124
consciousness and help reflect on the current experiences, which I believe just like her response
is “an ongoing process.” Finally, when CC expressed “understanding that the PL is also
evolving, or always evolving and changing right,” she pointed to our agenda that included
revisions per my observer’s comments. This was evidence that she recognized and understood
how the reflective cycle is structured and how it allows for change, which she could also
incorporate into her time with the teachers.
Presence Phase
I needed to be present in all the study sessions with CC. During the presence phase, I
modeled how to be prepared and fully engaged with CC as my learner/participant. During this
phase, although I did not make explicit the fact that I was modeling, I did make comments to
show that I was attentive to her words and visual cues, such as the sentence starters mentioned in
the holding environment section above to model to CC what being present looks like. In another
example, during Cycle 2, Session 4, CC was sharing a reflection about how she believed adults
learn.
CC: If I hold a lot of experience, and we need to revisit a topic or dive into a topic,
share this topic with other peers or colleagues. Then, I would love to empower the
teachers to also share their knowledge. Teaching others is a great way to learn.
But a lot of the times, the teachers are silent.
Cindy: What you are saying right now about empowering the teachers reminds me of
something you said in the last session, relating to feeling valued. I am curious.
Can you say more about that?
CC: It would be interesting … maybe to revisit our professional learning plans and
figure out how to incorporate more of their knowledge. What does that look like

125
for our team moving forward, right? Because I don’t want to have another year
where I am pulling teeth for them to share.
By mentioning that what she was saying reminded me of something she said in the last
session and asking her to say more about that, CC saw that I was curious and mindful about her
thinking process while also being present in our discourse together. Remembering something she
said in a previous section and bringing it forward into a future session demonstrated my presence
toward her and her contributions. Because of my focus on being present during each session, CC
elaborated more on her responses and reflections. When CC expressed, “It would be interesting
… maybe to revisit our professional learning plans and figure out how to incorporate more of
their knowledge,” she was thinking about a different way to design the professional learning
opportunities and include the teachers as additional “holders of knowledge” alongside her. The
strategies I used to demonstrate what the presence phase looks like were not only a model for CC
but also a great resource for me to gain meaningful information for the description phase that
followed in the reflective cycle. Ultimately, the presence phase documented the actions I took in
this study to meet the goal objectives and how CC responded to those actions. After concluding
the study and analyzing the results, I realized that I missed an opportunity to account for whether
CC was aware of the presence phase connected to the reflective cycle. However, I did include
her engagement in our discussions as indicative of presence. This can be attributed to my current
stage as a new researcher. I was focused on developing various new documentation skills, which
may have impacted my ability to identify this important aspect for future studies and a learning
opportunity for myself.

126
Description Phase
The description phase was a time that I could personally reflect on whether I could tell
the difference between what occurred in our conversation and my interpretation of the learning
process. This phase occurred immediately after our sessions ended and I ensured that I carved
out enough time to write a critical reflection on my initial thoughts for the session. In this phase,
I considered during my reflections whether I was truly listening to CC’s perspectives and
attempted to uncover any assumptions from our discussions. I did not explicitly model this
description phase as much as I would have liked, which was a missed opportunity on my part. I
did, however, explicitly share with CC one of my reflections after asking my chair whether to
share with CC critical reflections that influenced my analysis and experimentation. For this
example, I consciously chose to share a few selected reflections as I believed CC would benefit
from a clear example of how I reflect after each session, especially after our last session. In
Cycle 2, Session 4, the following conversation occurred:
Cindy: Welcome back. This week, we will be talking about a topic that we only touched
base on in Session 3. This is because, after each session, I take extra time to write
a reflection about how our session went to ensure I am doing everything I can to
reflect on my assumptions between our conversations. In my last reflection, I
wrote, “When CC shared her “I am” statement last week, we talked about how
being of middle class made her feel. I wonder about other areas that she may have
intentionally or unintentionally omitted from her “I am” statement.” Could you
think of any this week that were maybe left out?
CC: As a matter of fact, I did think of one. I didn’t talk about my education level. Oh,
and my skin tone/color.

127
Cindy: Say more about that.
CC: Because again, it’s an uncomfortable thing to talk about. I remember somebody
called my daughter a black crayon, and at that time, it made me really sad. The
black part didn’t bother me. It bothered me that people are making fun of her
based on the color of her skin. And she looks just like me, which is funny because
I am proud of my skin color. But ultimately, I want her to know that she’s worthy,
she’s beautiful, and she can do anything she wants, and it took me a long time to
feel this way. I didn’t write it because even having those conversations now can
be difficult.
Cindy: Why do you think at this time, since you said you are proud now, you still didn’t
bring it up?
CC: Maybe I am not ready.
Sharing with CC that I engaged in a critical reflection allowed me to model how I came
up with new questions and theories about a previous session. It also showed CC how our
discussions went beyond the presence phase. I showed that even though our session had ended,
there was still work for me as a facilitator to reflect on my assumptions by directly stating what I
did, such as, “This is because, after each session, I take extra time to write a reflection about how
our session went to ensure I am doing everything I can to reflect on my assumptions between our
conversations.” I aimed to be transparent in my intentions of modeling the ways I engaged in the
description phase to show CC how she could also reflect after her time spent in professional
learning with the teachers of color. However, in hindsight, I think the majority of my critical
reflections were implicit. Upon further reflection, I realize that I aimed to support CC move
towards a higher level of reflection that I myself am still practicing and learning about. In all of

128
the data collected, I can detect how nervous I was to move CC too far as not to have her feel
responsible for the inequities she was noticing in our sessions. The holding environment was
where I felt I was still learning to gauge my own facilitation skills. It is also the reason why it
feels as if there is a missing piece to this study, and why I am not fully sure I was able to move
CC to critical reflection where she could see herself as complicit or perpetuating the very
inequitable systems she faced. Still, the data above shows that I engaged my participant in
meaningful discussions and reflections about her role in helping the development of teachers of
color. This included initial takes on moral or ethical implications connected to personal beliefs
and values with her current practices and experiences as noted in some of her responses above.
For these reasons, I believe that CC did not reach critical reflection but only achieved a meta
level of pedagogical reflection where she aimed to comprehend the theoretical foundation for her
practice and to promote consistency between the theory she espoused (what she said she does
and believes) and the theory (about what she actually does) in practice (Larrivee, 2008). In the
end, I am left to wonder what our conversations would have been like if I had been more open
and explicit about modeling the critical reflections in the description phase or a more
experienced and skilled research practitioner.
Analysis Phase
Lastly, during the analysis phase, I carefully reviewed my field notes, recordings,
transcripts, observational comments, and critical reflections for each session to develop the next
plan of action. This phase was the most time-consuming part of the reflective cycle. I remember
writing an analytic memo in which I wondered, “Will CC and the teachers realistically be able to
incorporate this phase into their practice given the time constraints they already have?” In other

129
instances, during the analysis, I came up with several questions and theories for what I believed
was happening in our conversations, as evidenced below:
• This is a great conversation. Bring this back next week to slow down and stay on the
topic instead of moving on.
• How will this conversation look with multiple participants? In the next session, ask
CC how the teachers of color would react or feel about this information.
• How would this data be interpreted if given more time at the end? Is there time to
bring this up again?
• The children’s voices are not being considered in this conversation by either of us.
How do we bring their voices into this topic of discussion?
• How much knowledge and experience does CC have on this topic (deep learning)
already? I forgot to ask. Bring this up in Session 5.
Some of these conjectures were incorporated into a hypothesis to test in action in the
experimentation phase, while others were considerations for self-reflection, and some were left
as missed opportunities. Similar to the description phase, I could have been more explicit in
sharing my analysis with CC. I would share the technical changes that I made in the agenda or
the times I would bring back topics of discussion. Yet, I only briefly explained to CC how this
phase is continuous in the reflective cycle and did not connect the analysis phase when bringing
back topics. In several of my critical reflections and analytic memos, I questioned and doubted
my abilities as a skilled facilitator and researcher. For instance, I also did not code for CC
recognizing the analysis phase. I mostly worked in the analysis phase on my own and didn’t
realize this could have benefited her understanding of the reflective cycle better until after all
was said and done. Overall, this phase was essential to the study as it allowed me to combine all

130
of the evidence from our sessions together, with my reflections and previous plans to determine
the next course of action. It allowed me to bring us back to the experimentation phase to help CC
to develop identity-conscious skills and habits to examine professional learning practices which
is more evidenced in the presence and experimentation phases.
In this section on the power of the reflective cycle, I demonstrated how I engaged in each
phase of the reflective cycle: presence, description, analysis, and experimentation (Rodgers,
2002). The ways I used Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle were intended to show CC the
significance of incorporating critical reflection into professional learning for oneself and
participants. Although critical reflection is particularly important for individuals going through
change and working toward establishing a shared vision, I am not fully sure that my andragogical
moves supported my participant in fully achieving critical reflection as I was implicit in my
modeling of critical reflection during our sessions together and I still have areas of growth as a
research practitioner. However, I learned the importance of being explicit with my andragogical
moves, particularly with critical reflection, and I am dedicated to continuing practicing how to
foster environments where critical reflection can flourish and lead to meaningful growth. In
addition, this section also highlighted how I engaged in reflective and critically reflective
practices and, by implication, engaged with the curriculum coordinator in a reflective cycle and
PLC.
Conclusion
Aligned with my conceptual framework, the purpose of this study was for CC to engage
in professional learning sessions with me, reflect on ways that professional learning could be
more authentic, and learn about PLCs to reimagine and change her current practices with our
teachers. I recognize that developing identity-conscious skills and habits takes longer than the six

131
weeks initially planned for this action research. Nevertheless, this study’s success is evident in
how I utilized (a) andragogy and (b) deliberate conditions to establish the groundwork for (c)
discourse. The moves I enacted were essential to set the foundation for critical reflection and for
CC to consider changes in beliefs and actions about her practice. Furthermore, my participant’s
learning was demonstrated through her self-reflections, examination of past experiences, and
connections with aspects of her identity that influenced her role as a coordinator facilitating the
learning of early childhood teachers of color in her work environment.
The interactions observed in the data demonstrate that I created the necessary conditions
for CC to express herself and engage in discourse about systemic inequities and social powers
affecting her work. I believe that employing Rodgers’s reflective cycle contributed to my ability
to model and support CC in reimagining professional learning and examining her past
experiences with confidence. Challenging myself to slow down, reflect, and question my
assumptions and thought processes felt like a significant accomplishment, and the data indicate
that I could also model these behaviors and skills with my participant. I learned a lot about
myself as research practitioner very quickly and there is still more to learn. In the end, even
though I only captured a few instances of CC developing identity-conscious habits, I am
reminded that although a main characteristic of a PLC is continuous growth, the work always
begins with self to collaborate and engage with others. This study allowed me to engage in a
different way with the CC than I had since she was hired to work at our CDC. Through this
process, I sharpened my skills as a research-practitioner, leader, and adult educator. In all three
roles, only when working first on myself, can I then support others through adaptive and
transformative changes.

132
Afterword
Through engaging in action research and working on my dissertation, I have gained
valuable insights into myself as an educator of adult learners and a supporter of professional
learning for educators of color. In this concluding section, I will explore how this experience
shaped my androgogical and leadership skills and my current ability to drive meaningful changes
in early childhood programs. I will also outline my future direction as I continue to evolve as an
educator and leader.
Why This Work Is Important
Merriam and Bierema (2013) argued that adult learning occurs through the incorporation
of past experiences. It is my experiences working in early childhood education and being an
educator of color that have influenced my career and led me to pursue this specific study. Now
that I am in a position of leadership, I am driven by the desire to support other early childhood
educators of color in learning more about and improving their practice, as they have historically
faced marginalization and have had limited access to support and resources.
A study on early childhood Latina/Chicana female administrators further highlighted the
significance of their roles, the integration of their cultural identities, and the impact they have on
society as researchers, mentors, and leaders (Flores, 2022). Understanding the significance of the
roles of early childhood Latina/Chicana female administrators is important for creating an
inclusive and supportive work environment. Recognizing the impact of cultural identities is
important for leaders so they can empower and develop strong teachers capable of reflecting on
their own identities to inform practice. Lastly, appreciating the unique impact administrators
have to share their perspectives as individuals from diverse backgrounds ultimately benefits the
overall success of early childhood educators of color and the communities they serve.

133
Furthermore, the roles of early childhood educators have become increasingly complex and
challenging, necessitating constant adaptation and support as society has evolved and children’s
needs have changed (Bloom, 1998, as cited in Flores, 2022). This underscores the importance of
leaders understanding their roles to continue to provide equitable support to educators of color,
as only when there is support can young learners be served effectively.
As the new director of an early childhood program, I have years of knowledge and
experience to share with other educators of color. However, I, too, am still looking for support
and advocacy to navigate this ever-evolving profession. Seeking support and advocacy in the
field of early childhood, particularly in the realm of professional learning for early childhood
educators of color, is important because if I, as the leader, do not have the capacity to support my
staff, I cannot expect them to know how to ensure their practices will serve our students. As
such, this action research was an attempt at creating a network of support and resources that can
help early childhood educators, myself included, examine and challenge inequities and
challenges in the profession together. Additionally, the work I did in this study acknowledges the
historically entrenched inequities and challenges early childhood educators face in providing
quality educational services with limited time and resources and how there could be in-house
solutions to address them. This work is important because it addresses the limitations of
professional learning opportunities for teachers of color and the need for authentic and
meaningful learning, such as what can be achieved through the collaboration of a PLC. Working
within our spheres of influence is one way to overcome the challenges of an under-resourced
profession where empowering educators of color is of utmost importance. Building the capacity
of educators of color ultimately benefits the children and families of color who are part of the
early childhood education system.

134
Current Progress
This study emphasized educators coming together to share resources and expertise rather
than working alone. It also discussed the value of finding comfort and validation in others’
experiences and the inspiration that comes from working together to solve problems in our own
context. I focused on working with the curriculum coordinator, who was responsible for
delivering professional learning to early childhood teachers to improve or support their practice.
The findings revealed that I used specific andragogical and leadership moves to scaffold and
examine past experiences, current practices, and inner assumptions connected to larger external
educational systems. In so doing, I moved CC toward Larrivee’s level of critical reflection
(2008) and worked to help her see the advantages of engaging in a PLC. During our sessions and
with my support, CC engaged in discourse to examine and reflect on past experiences and beliefs
about her current practice. She also demonstrated a willingness to challenge assumptions and
thought processes, all of which contributed to her continuous growth and development during
our PLC sessions. Nonetheless, there is still work that needs to be ongoing.
After our study concluded, CC shared that she was very excited to continue the work of
including teachers in the professional learning process. She mentioned that she would implement
some of the strategies, beginning with the agreements and the idea of creating a shared vision
together. While I was still writing this dissertation, CC shared her progress in creating
agreements and a collective vision with the teachers. She reported that there was “genuine
collaboration and buy-in from the teachers” and that she “did not feel pressure to come up with
topics on her own.” In our last session during the debrief section, I asked CC to share her five
takeaways from the study. I feel proud that she shared,

135
It’s been a process, I think. … The reflective piece is one of the biggest takeaways
because it has to do with everything we do every day. At least, that will help me in my
personal and professional life. I will try to incorporate that into my time with the team, as
they deserve to be a part of a process that helps them learn about themselves and their
past experiences, too.
An additional layer that I wonder if CC will incorporate into her PLC is conversations
about identity and inequities that impact children or if they will come up organically over time
with the changes she will continue to implement in her professional learning sessions. I know it
will take time and practice. As this is a layer that I am still getting comfortable applying in my
practice, I will use this study with CC as a reminder of what needs to be in place before those
conversations happen so that they can feel just as successful as this study did. I will continue to
support CC or anyone by sharing my strategies so we can begin to have those conversations
together.
I believe that CC could have made greater strides during the study in her deep learning
about how professional learning can support educators of color. Due to time constraints, we only
touched the surface of several concerns that limit CC’s ability to enact high-quality professional
learning for early childhood educators of color. However, through the study, she saw herself as a
“coach or mentor” to continue elevating early childhood educators “so they see themselves as
valued members” of the educational community. This study opened the door for us to have
conversations where we both acknowledged our knowledge and skills and were motivated to
make changes. Our future collaboration will be a commitment as I support these kinds of
professional learning opportunities to keep progressing in my role as director. I will need to
continue to observe, listen, be present, and provide modeling and feedback to CC so that she and

136
the teachers of color can see the changes in how professional learning is conducted as a
community effort, with everyone in the program playing an essential role. I also believe that the
decision not to include the teachers in this study was a delimitation only to this study. The lesson
I learned from this study is that conversations related to inequities and identity with others can
unveil powerful perspectives and possible solutions to collective problems.
Future Work
As a leader, I have gained the confidence to question systems that are often passed down
to educators but are, in fact, harmful. For instance, the implementation of excessive standards
that focus on the achievement gap (Ladson-Billings, 2006) or existing teacher development
approaches that reproduce hegemonic worldviews with deficit and racialized perspectives about
students of color (Kohli, 2008). Although this accomplishment might seem small, it is significant
to me because it involves work that I am not accustomed to doing, especially not with another
person or others. A large takeaway for me during this research was how much I now question
ideas before implementing or adding them to my practice. I am now open to exploring existing
mental models (Senge, 2006) by bringing others into conversations to see and hear multiple
perspectives. Moving forward, I am committed to including the teachers and anyone in our
organization as they are “holders of knowledge” and have much to contribute to supporting
children’s outcomes. Ultimately, keeping the voices of the children and families at the center of
the work of early childhood education motivates me to keep advocating for the profession. I hope
to continue to disrupt the organizational structures in early childhood education that have
marginalized educators of color and have prevented them from providing consistent quality care
and education to their students. By encouraging them to explore their own identities and
perspectives alongside me, I hope to build a team of educators of color who continually reflect

137
on how who they are shapes their instructional practices and, in so doing, make strides at
improving these practices.
One of the main factors that motivated me to continue with the Leading Instructional
Change concentration in my doctoral program, which required that we try to act to address a
historically entrenched inequity, is the idea of focusing on small victories. Even after realizing
the enormity of the challenges in the field of early childhood education, I knew that if I focused
on what I could accomplish, it would be more meaningful than not acting at all. It is especially
important to remember and celebrate the small victories within our scope of influence (A. M.
Brown, 2017) when things feel overwhelming or isolating. While I cannot change the past or
transform the entire education system alone, I find solace in connecting with others who share
my goal of improving early childhood education. Because I cannot ignore what I have learned
about engaging in identity-conscious conversations I cannot ignore my call to engage in them
more often and with anyone who will jiong me. I plan to cultivate PLCs that will continue to
inspire me, help me keep practicing my skillset, and challenge my ways of thinking and that of
the colleagues with whom I work.

138
References
Achor, S. (2018). Big potential: How transforming the pursuit of success raises our achievement,
happiness, and well-being. Currency.
Aguilar, E., & Cohen, L. (2022). The PD book: 7 habits that transform professional
development. Jossey-Bass.
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landerman (Ed.), The art of effective
facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus.
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school
outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3) 25–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602366
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change.
Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158–166.
Belenky, M. F., & Stanton, A. V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J.
Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 71–102). Jossey-Bass.
Bettini, E., Cormier, C. J., Ragunathan, M., & Stark, K. (2022). Navigating the double bind: A
systematic literature review of the experiences of novice teachers of color in K–12
schools. Review of Educational Research, 92(4), 495–542.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211060873
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Boyd, M. (2013). “I love my work but … ” The professionalization of early childhood education.
Qualitative Report, 18, Article 71. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/boyd71.pdf

139
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer.
Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, A. M. (2017). Emergent strategy. AK Press.
Brown, K. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformational
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03259
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2021, March). Child development matrix.
Child Development Training Consortium. https://www.childdevelopment.org/
California Department of Education. (2015). Desired results developmental profile (2015): An
early childhood developmental continuum. CDE Press.
Camangian, P., & Cariaga, S. (2022). Social and emotional learning is hegemonic miseducation:
students deserve humanization instead. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(7), 901–921.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1798374
Chaudry, A., Morrissey, T., Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2021). Cradle to Kindergarten: A
new plan to combat inequality. Russell Sage Foundation.
Cheruvu, R., Souto-Manning, M., Lencl, T., & Chin-Calubaquib, M. (2015). Race, isolation, and
exclusion: What early childhood teacher educators need to know about the experiences of
pre-service teachers of color. The Urban Review, 47, 237–265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0291-8

140
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x024001249
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage.
Douglas, T.-R., & Nganga, C. (2013). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 5(1), 58–82.
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
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How do principals really improve schools?. Educational
leadership, 70(7), 34–40.
Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2011). Ten things every literacy educator should know about
research. The Reading Teacher, 65(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.65.1.2
Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional
learning communities. Solution Tree Press.
Early, D. M. (2007). Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic
skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs. Child Development, 78(2), 558–
580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01014.x

141
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the
workplace for learning, innovation, and growth (1st ed.). Wiley.
Elmore, B. R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
Flick, U. (2014). Mapping the field. In U. Flick (Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data
analysis (pp. 3- 18). Sage.
Flores, S. (2022). The testimonios of hidden diasporic Latina/Chicana women leaders in early
childhood education: Si se puede! (Publication No. 29998882) [Doctoral dissertation,
California State University, Los Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Gibbs, C., Ludwig, J., & Miller, D. L. (2011). Does Head Start do any lasting good? (No.
w17452). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Goleman, D. (2011). What makes a leader? In Harvard Business Review Press (Ed.), On
leadership (pp. 1–21). Harvard Business Review Press.
Gomez, R. E., Kagan, S. L., & Fox, E. A. (2015). Professional development of the early
childhood education teaching workforce in the United States: An overview. Professional
Development in Education, 41(2), 169–186.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.986820.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.
Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/0161-4681.00140

142
Hahn, R. A., & Barnett, W. S. (2023). Early childhood education: Health, equity, and economics.
Annual Review of Public Health, 3(44), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevpublhealth-071321-032337
Hamre, B. K., Partee, A., & Mulcahy, C. (2017). Enhancing the impact of professional
development in the context of preschool expansion. Aera Open, 3(4).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858417733686
Heifetz, R.A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Belknap Press.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2nd ed.). Sage.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2011). The real reason people won’t change. In Harvard Business
Review Press (Ed.), On change management (pp. 119–136). Harvard Business Review
Press.
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Klein, M. (2019). “Teaching intersectionality through I am from…” In S. D. Brookfield and
Associates (Eds.), Teaching race: How to help students unmask and challenge racism
(1st ed, pp. 87–108). John Wiley & Sons.
Kohli, R. (2008). Breaking the cycle of racism in the classroom: Critical race reflections from
future teachers of color. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(4), 177–188.

143
Kohli, R., Lin, Y. C., Ha, N., Jose, A., & Shini, C. (2019). A way of being: Women of color
educators and their ongoing commitments to critical consciousness. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 82, 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.03.005
Kohli, R., & Pizarro, M. (2022). The layered toll of racism in teacher education on teacher
educators of color. AERA Open.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Ladd, H. F., Muschkin, C. G., & Dodge, K. A. (2014). From birth to school: Early childhood
initiatives and third-grade outcomes in North Carolina. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 33(1), 162–187. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21734
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives, 9(3), 341–360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451
Lees, A., Vélez, V., & Laman, T. T. (2021). Recognition and resistance of settler colonialism in
early childhood education: perspectives and implications for Black, Indigenous, and
Teachers of Color. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 36(6),
1073–1091.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.

144
Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.005
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
McCoy, D. C., Yoshikawa, H., Ziol-Guest, K. M., Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Magnuson,
K., Yang, R., Koepp, A., & Shonkoff, J. P. (2017). Impacts of early childhood education
on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 474–
487. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17737739.
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational
policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212471417.
Melnick, H., Meloy, B., Gardner, M., Wechsler, M., & Maier, A. (2018). Building an early
learning system that works: Next steps for California. Learning Policy Institute.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley
& Sons.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J.
Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 333–352). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed). Sage Publications.

145
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2019). Defining and recognizing
high-quality early learning programs: NAEYC’s 10 accreditation standards. Teaching
Young Children 13(1).
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). College navigator. U.S. Department of
Education.
Northouse, P.G. (2022). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed). SAGE.
Northouse, P., & Lee, M. (2019). Leadership case studies in education (2nd ed.) SAGE.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Teaching to change the world (5th
ed.). Routledge.
Owen, S. (2014). Teacher professional learning communities: Going beyond contrived
collegiality toward challenging debate and collegial learning and professional growth.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 54–77.
Phillips, D., Lipsey, M., Dodge, K., Haskins, R., Bassok, D., Burchinal, M., Duncan, G.,
Dynarski, M., Magnuson, K., & Weiland, C. (2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of
scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects. A consensus statement. In K. Dodge
(Ed.), Issues in pre-kindergarten programs and policy (pp. 19–30). The Brookings
Institution.
Prentice, S. (2007). Less access, worse quality: New evidence about poor children and regulated
child care in Canada. Journal of Children and Poverty, 13(1), 57–73.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10796120601171328

146
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.72.2.5631743606m15751
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 221–241.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9071-2
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Currency Doubleday.
Shabani, K. (2016). Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional
development. Cogent Education, 3(1), Article 1252177.
ttps://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1252177
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre-K
through 12 education. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), Advances in Educational Administration
(Vol. 11, pp. 23–45). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2010)0000011005
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
Talusan, L. A. (2022). The identity-conscious educator: Building habits & skills for a more
inclusive school. Solution Tree Press.

147
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: redefinition of teaching and
schooling. Cambridge University Press.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91. ttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5),
2–3.
Wergin, J. F. (2020). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.
Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M. R., Espinosa, L. M., Gormley, W.
T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K. A., Phillips, D., & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in our
future: The evidence base on preschool education. Society for Research in Child
Development.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This action research study used a theoretical framework integrating insights from leadership and andragogy research to support an early childhood curriculum coordinator in developing identity consciousness and to position her to provide more effective professional learning opportunities to teachers she supported. The framework combined adaptive and transformational leadership strategies, along with andragogical techniques, to help the coordinator actively participate in a reflective cycle and professional learning community. The goal was to contribute to the transformation of professional learning opportunities for early childhood educators of color with the ultimate aim of improving instructional quality. Through qualitative inquiry, this action research study investigated my leadership and andragogical skills and actions to support the curriculum coordinator of an early childhood education program that predominantly serves children and families of color. Field notes, transcripts, and reflections were collected as data to form the study’s analysis. I found that by facilitating learning conditions, andragogy, and discourse, the coordinator was able to engage in a reflective cycle and professional learning community to examine educational inequities within the profession. Thus, she was able to be more identity-conscious in her role supporting teachers of color and reimagine how professional learning could be structured. This study may contribute to improved instructional quality by examining and reimagining professional learning for early childhood teachers of color.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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

Transformative learning: action research disrupting the status quo in literature in classrooms

PDF

Turning toward practice: establishing group reflective practice among upper elementary educators

PDF

Perceptions of early childhood educators on how reflective supervision influences instructional effectiveness and teacher wellbeing

PDF

Changing the story: an action research study on utilizing culturally relevant pedagogical practice to enact a movement toward liberatory curriculum and instruction

PDF

Reimagining an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program

PDF

Cultivating seeds of support: growing the capacity of educators to create meaningful learning opportunities in math

PDF

Queer consciousness: one kindergarten teacher’s action research to support colleagues in creating safer schools for queer people

PDF

Critically reflective dialogue: an action research study on increasing the critical consciousness of ethnic studies teachers

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Noticing identity: a critically reflective cycle to leverage student mathematical funds of knowledge and identity

PDF

Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…

PDF

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

Improving professional learning for teachers

PDF

Efficacy drivers that aid teacher professional development transfer

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Neill, Cindy (author)

Core Title Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-12

Publication Date 12/02/2024

Defense Date 11/01/2024

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

Tag Early childhood,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities,reflective cycle

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Lyons-Moore, Akilah (committee member), Pascarella, John (committee member)

Creator Email cindyone@usc.edu,teacher.cindy.oneill@gmail.com

Unique identifier UC11399E8J2

Identifier etd-ONeillCind-13666.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ONeillCind-13666

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights O'Neill, Cindy

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20241205-usctheses-batch-1226 (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