University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Supporting World Language Teachers to Develop a Culturally Sustaining Curriculum and
Reflect on Its Enactment
Ashlee Buczek Romberger
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2024

©Copyright by Ashlee Buczek Romberger 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Ashlee Buczek Romberger certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Akilah Lyons-Moore
Jenifer Crawford
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This action research study examined my application of andragogical theory as a facilitator of
world language teachers in my school district. In this role, I supported the group’s learning about
culturally sustaining pedagogy to explore how we can invite students’ heritage culture into our
world language classrooms to counter assimilation and subtractive teaching practices in public
schools. The research question asked how I could support a group of world language teachers in
my district to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment. I applied
elements of adult learning theory to create adult learning conditions for the participants and me
to engage in dialogues to reflect and identify unconscious thinking that influences our
assumptions and practices. Over four meetings in 6 months, I provided space for group
ownership, instituted a cognitive structure, and paraphrased and asked probing questions. As a
result, I supported the participants’ engagement in meaningful group dialogue, including
discussions about the challenges and opportunities of enacting culturally sustaining curriculum
and pedagogy, the historical inequalities and contemporary stigma of non-English language
speaking students, and the teachers’ spheres of influence to affirms students’ linguistic and
cultural heritage in school. I also supported teachers’ self-reflection by instituting a cognitive
structure. Through self-reflection, they and I made progress in learning about ourselves, our
assumptions, and the influences on our unconscious thinking, which helped us work toward deep
learning and created the foundation for transformational growth. These findings could contribute
to improving teacher instructional practices that promote culturally sustaining practices and
counter-assimilation and subtractive teaching practices.

v
Keywords: andragogy; culturally sustaining pedagogy; culturally sustaining curriculum
and pedagogy; self-reflection; cultural conditioning; teacher learning; world language critical
teacher education; subtractive teaching practices

vi
Dedication
To Christian, thank you for believing in me and cheering me on every step of the way. Thank
you for all your sacrifices big and small that gave me the time to learn, research, write, and
reflect. My words cannot express my gratitude for all your unconditional love and support that
made this research and degree possible.
To my big kid Auggie, I hope you find joy throughout your education experience. My friends
and I are working hard to create a brighter future for you and all children.

vii
Acknowledgements
Dr. Artineh Samkian, you embody Angela Valenzuela’s concept of authentic care. Thank
you for supporting me as a novice researcher and providing conversational feedback that has
stretched my thinking, strengthened my research, and helped me reach my potential to put forth
my best work. Dr. Akilah Lyons-Moore and Dr. Jen Crawford, thank you for your dedication and
guidance throughout this process. I learned so much from your comments and feedback.
To my parents, I am very grateful to have been raised by the most positive and
encouraging parents who gave me the confidence and courage to step outside my comfort zone
to learn, grow, and embrace new opportunities. They have instilled in me the hope that change is
possible and the belief that I can make a positive difference. Special thank you to my mother-inlaw, who encouraged me to apply to doctorate programs. Thank you, Libby and Warren for
being wonderful grandparents. Your Tuesdays with Christian and Auggie made it possible for
me to attend classes. Thank you for making those days so special for them.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you to all my participants. Your participation and
engagement in our professional learning community were invaluable to this research. Your
vulnerability and willingness to share your personal stories about yourselves, your families, and
your students enriched this study. I am truly grateful to have learned from your insights and
reflections. I hope we can continue to learn from one another and work together to affirm the
cultural and linguistic identities of all of our students.
To Cindy, Elisa, and the whole Leading Instructional Change cohort. I’ve learned and
unlearned so much with you all. I am honored to have gone through this journey with you.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................iv
Dedication.......................................................................................................................................vi
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................xi
Context and Background .....................................................................................................2
Context ..................................................................................................................11
Role........................................................................................................................15
Conceptual Framework .....................................................................................................17
Adult Learning Conditions in Professional Learning Community........................22
Andragogy and Adult Learning.............................................................................27
Reflection and Critical Reflection .........................................................................35
Culturally Sustaining Curriculum and Pedagogy ..................................................44
Actions...................................................................................................................48
Research Methods .............................................................................................................56
Participants and Setting .........................................................................................56
Data Collection......................................................................................................59
Data Analysis.........................................................................................................61
Limitations and Delimitations...............................................................................63
Credibility and Trustworthiness............................................................................65
Ethics.....................................................................................................................66
Findings.............................................................................................................................68
Providing Space for Group Ownership .................................................................68
Instituting a Cognitive Structure ...........................................................................81

ix
Paraphrasing and Probing Facilitated a Deeper Conversation ..............................96
Afterword: My Growth....................................................................................................118
References ...................................................................................................................................121
Appendix A: Original Conceptual Framework ...........................................................................128

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Ways of Knowing: Developmental Orientations to Social Justice Practice and
Supports and Stretches for Growth 32
Table 2: De Oliveira’s (Andreotti’s) Heads Up Framework 42
Table 3: Key Features of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy 45
Table 4: World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 0 51
Table 5: World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 1 52
Table 6: World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 2 53
Table 7: World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 3 54
Table 8: World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 4 55

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: California’s Math Achievement Gap Between English Learners and Non-English
Learners 7
Figure 2: California’s Reading Achievement Gap Between English Learners and NonEnglish Learners 8
Figure 3: California’s Science Achievement Gap Between English Learners and NonEnglish Learners 9
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework 18
Figure 5: Meeting 3 Agenda 75
Figure 6: Participant’s Guide for Modified Rodgers’ Reflection Cycle 82
Figure 7: Partner Sharing Discussion Norms 84
Figure 8: Debrief Questions and Teacher Responses 115
Appendix A: Original Conceptual Framework 128

1
Supporting World Language Teachers to Develop a Culturally Sustaining Curriculum and
Reflect on the Enactment
I am a heritage Spanish language learner, as my maternal grandparents and mother speak
Spanish, and this is the language that has been passed down from previous generations of my
family who resided in the borderlands of what is now called El Paso, Texas. I imagine that my
ancestors, some of whom were Tigua Peoples, did not always speak Spanish, as this land that
had been inhabited by the Tiguas of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo has been colonized by Spain, Mexico,
Republic of Texas, and now the United States. To know Spanish is my way to remember the
complexities of my family’s mestizo (Spanish and Indigenous) heritage, culture, and history. I
appreciate the ability to learn more and understand how my family’s story is situated in the larger
historical context. I feel privileged to connect to my ancestors through a shared language and
hope to sustain my family’s language for the next generation. At the same time, I acknowledge
that the Spanish language was used to erase and replace my family’s Indigenous culture and
language.
Like most American families, heritage language loss is prevalent in our story, and I am
the only Spanish speaker among my family’s third generation. I am a heritage Spanish learner
because I have a cultural connection to the Spanish language, and I studied Spanish in school
(Kelleher, 2010). As I learned Spanish in an academic setting, I noticed the focus on the Spanish
language from Spain and cultural connections to Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America
and wondered why we did not acknowledge or spend much time discussing the Spanish speakers
in our own community or Southern California at large.
Now, as a high school Spanish teacher and a world language committee facilitator, I
notice that few resources reflect the Spanish-speaking American communities. This realization

2
led me to question how the lack of acknowledgment of local history contributes to cultural
erasure.
As a teacher, I have also learned that my students bring with them their heritage cultures
and languages, with a range of communication abilities. This makes me interested to learn how
world language teachers can sustain the language and culture in our school communities. What
would it look like for a world language classroom to collaborate with the local language
communities? How would this support students’ cultural competencies and the ability to use
language meaningfully? How can this approach affirm the identities of culturally and
linguistically diverse students and ultimately help them sustain their identities?
In this section, I will discuss how the U.S. education system has historically embedded
deculturalization efforts, English-only policies, and subtractive schooling practices through the
pretense of civilizing non-White communities. I will further discuss how these deculturalization
efforts contributed to creating and maintaining White normative standards, English as the
dominant language, and the pattern of heritage language loss. I will then describe how these
structures have led to deficit terminologies of emerging bilingual and multilingual students and
have resulted in differential opportunities and outcomes for students who speak a different
language. I will also demonstrate how these deficit lenses shape language teaching and learning
in the world language classroom in Southern California schools. Finally, I will describe how this
historical and systemic inequity is expressed in my school district, my role in perpetuating this
inequity as well as my current efforts to make incremental changes.
Context and Background
There is an overall decline in heritage language proficiency among immigrant
communities in Southern California (Commission on Language Learning [CLL], 2017). A CLL

3
study found that first-generation immigrants can understand, speak, read, and write in their
heritage language. However, it is very unlikely for the fourth generation to communicate in any
form of their heritage language (CLL, 2017). This data and trend resonates with me and my
family’s experiences. As a Spanish world language teacher, I wonder what historical and
educational factors contribute to this trend.
Historically, the United States has implemented deculturalization practices under the
pretense of civilizing to promote Anglo-Saxon values (Spring, 2016). One way that
deculturalization has happened is through the erasure and replacement of non-English-speaking
Americans’ home language. Heritage language loss leads to the lack of language diversity in a
society, as well as cultural replacement and erasure among community groups and families in the
United States. Tuck and Gaztambide-Fernandez (2013) described cultural replacement and
erasure as part of the settler-colonial curriculum project of replacement, “which aims to vanish
Indigenous peoples and replace them with settlers, who see themselves as the rightful claimants
to land, and indeed, as Indigenous” (p. 74). The treatment of Indigenous peoples exemplifies the
history of language replacement and erasure in the United States, as many Native American
languages have fewer than 10 speakers (CLL, 2017). The loss of heritage language proficiency
by generation is an example of the settler-colonial curriculum project of replacement and success
of assimilation. Spring (2016) described this historical pattern of cultural and language
replacement as deculturalization, which is the deliberate effort “to replace one culture and
language with one considered superior” (p. 1). This started through the settler-colonial project
with the Indigenous population and continues today with other groups that have historically and
contemporarily been perceived as non-White.

4
American schools were founded on a legacy of settler colonialism, capitalist ideas, and
White normative values (paperson, 2017; Patel, 2016). The historical purpose of American
education has been to deculturize and assimilate, deemed as civilizing, and sort people into
hierarchical positions of labor to serve our capitalist society (Anderson, 1988; paperson, 2017;
Patel, 2016; Spring, 2016). Many of these White normative structures remain prevalent, and
there are efforts to eradicate home culture and promote assimilation through laws like Englishonly policies.
Before English was adopted as the primary language of instruction in all U.S. schools,
teachers in the 1700s taught in the language associated with the immigrant community (Malakoff
& Hakuta, 1990). During World War I, the U.S. government implemented national English-only
policies in schools as a form of nation-state-building, as foreign languages, mainly German, were
perceived to threaten American unity (Malakoff & Hakuta, 1990). Nebraska banned non-English
languages as a form of instruction and as a subject of study (Malakoff & Hakuta, 1990). The
Supreme Court overturned this law in the 1923 Meyer v. Nebraska decision that stated that the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected foreign-language speakers and
education (Malakoff & Hakuta, 1990). In 1968, Congress passed the Bilingual Education Act to
support students with limited English-speaking skills. In 1974, in Lau v. Nichols, the Supreme
Court ruled that federally funded schools are required to provide English instruction to nonEnglish-speaking students to obtain English proficiency and ensure equal education (Malakoff &
Hakuta, 1990). Though this ruling was intended to support English language fluency, it also
centered the belief that schools needed English-only instruction at the cost of non-English
languages.

5
This English immersion approach failed to appreciate world language learning and
heritage language development and set the stage for English-only policies. For example, in 1998,
California passed Proposition 227, eliminating bilingual education (Proposition 227, 1998).
English-only legislation persisted to the end of the 20th and start of the 21st centuries all over the
country in laws such as Arizona Proposition 203 (2000) and Massachusetts Question 2 (2002;
España & Herrera, 2020). Some of these policies have been changed and updated, such as the
Aspira Consent Decree (1974), California Proposition 58 (2016) that overturned Proposition 227
(1998), and the Massachusetts Language Opportunity of Our Kids (LOOK) Bill (2017) that
reversed Question 2 (2002; España & Herrera, 2020). These are recent changes, as the culture of
English-only remains in many parts of the country and helps explain how the U.S. education
system has been designed to replace home languages with English instead of simultaneously
developing both languages. The legal legacy of these policies and Supreme Court rulings also
contribute to deculturalization and assimilation efforts and explain how the United States
maintains monolingualism and English as a norm (Reagan & Osborn, 1998).
In addition to policies, social factors contribute to heritage language loss. Many heritage
language speakers experience subtractive schooling (Valenzuela, 1999), which contributes to
historical and systemic inequities. In a 3-year ethnographic study, Valenzuela (1999)
demonstrated the subtractive schooling process among immigrant Mexican and Mexican
American students in a Houston, Texas, high school. The researcher described the process as deMexicanization, or subtracting students’ language and culture through the lack of Mexican
American history in the curriculum, the deficit categorization of students as English language
learners (ELLs), nonacademic course tracking for ELLs, mispronunciation of students’ names,
and the absence of advanced Spanish language classes (Valenzuela, 1999). These practices create

6
psychological harm that Love (2019) called spirit murdering, where students feel dismissed and
do not have a sense of safety and protection in school. This institutionalized de-Mexicanization
process resulted in U.S.-born Mexican students de-identifying with Mexico and the Spanish
language (Valenzuela, 1999).
This study’s findings revealed how the education system pressured U.S.-born Mexican
American students to culturally and linguistically assimilate to succeed academically
(Valenzuela, 1999). As a result of subtractive schooling, U.S.-born Mexican Americans lose
cultural connections, sense of identity, and social capital (Valenzuela, 1999). Valenzuela (1999)
defined social capital as the social ties that connect individuals to a group and its collective
resources. Per Valenzuela (1999), while assimilation or de-Mexicanization erodes students’
social capital, it also positions U.S.-born Mexican American students to be more vulnerable to
academic risk than first-generation Mexican immigrants who maintained strong ties to their
cultural networks (Valenzuela, 1999). The lack of social capital explains how subtractive
schooling contributes to linguistic hegemony, White normative standards, and, ultimately, to
differential outcomes for emerging bilingual students and is evident in standardized test scores.
The California standardized test results show an achievement gap between English
learners (EL) and non-EL students. From 2003 to 2019, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) showed that the majority (between 69% to 73%) of EL scored below basic in
the 8th-grade math assessment (NAEP, 2019a). From 2002 through 2019, 68% to 72% of EL
scored in the below basic achievement level in the 8th-grade reading assessment (NAEP, 2019b).
The Nation’s Report Card Achievement Gap Dashboard (National Assessment of Educational
Progress, n.d.) shows that there is a significant achievement gap between ELLs and non-ELLs in
math, reading, and science. Figure 1 shows that the achievement gap between ELLs and non-

7
ELLs has increased over time, even though there have been efforts to improve ELLs’ learning
outcomes through federal and state legislation. EL learning scores have improved in math and
science and have decreased in reading. Nonetheless, there is a significant difference in
achievement between ELs and non-ELs (Figures 1–3).
Figure 1
California’s Math Achievement Gap Between English Learners and Non-English Learners
Note. I generated this image using research tools provided to the public on the website of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress using the following criteria: California as
jurisdiction, Student Group 1 as English language learners, and Student Group 2 as not English
language learners.

8
Figure 2
California’s Reading Achievement Gap Between English Learners and Non-English Learners
Note. I generated this image using research tools provided to the public on the website of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress using the following criteria: California as
jurisdiction, Student Group 1 as English language learners, and Student Group 2 as not English
language learners.

9
Figure 3
California’s Science Achievement Gap Between English Learners and Non-English Learners
Note. I generated this image using research tools provided to the public on the website of the
National Assessment of Educational Progress using the following criteria: California as
jurisdiction, Student Group 1 as English language learners, and Student Group 2 as not English
language learners.
This learning gap is accepted because the school system is designed to focus on English
acquisition through an immersion method, so ELL students or emerging bilingual and
multilingual students access the course content and take standardized tests in a language they are
learning. This method can be a barrier to accessing learning opportunities because students must
access the academic content in English as opposed to their preferred language. English is the

10
dominant language in the United States and is impressed upon EL students as their way to
succeed in American society. The English language can become a barrier or gatekeeper in
accessing learning opportunities.
Despite the fact that English is the primary language in the United States, there are nearly
68 million speakers of other languages in the United States, which is nearly 1 in 5 people
(Dietrich & Hernandez, 2022). This number has tripled since the 1980 census (Dietrich &
Hernandez, 2022). The 2017 CLL study revealed that an individual’s childhood home is the most
effective setting to learn a language (CLL, 2017). This report referenced findings from the
Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) survey of the second-generation immigrant
population, which found that 75.5% of English-speaking adults who were fluent in another
language acquired their heritage language through their childhood home, 16.3% learned from
school, and 8.2% learned elsewhere (CLL, 2017). The CLL report also showed that Englishspeaking language learners acquired languages through family, cultural, and historical
connections; 37 million Spanish speakers and 2.9 million Chinese U.S. adults reported that they
learned at home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).
These findings are compelling for California schools, world language teachers, and
students because language learning is part of the California K–12 curriculum and is a
requirement for California university admissions (University of California, n.d.). The CLL report
recommended that schools leverage the language and cultural expertise of local immigrant and
heritage-language-speaking families because they are best positioned to support language
acquisition and maintenance. The consistent collaboration between world language teachers and
target-language-speaking community members is also a meaningful way to center and sustain
local linguistic communities’ cultures and histories and support language acquisition for all

11
students (CLL, 2017). Examples of school and community partnerships are common in heritage
language schools, as there is often parental support. In Chicago Public Schools, teachers
supplement Arabic language learning by connecting students with the local Arabic-speaking
population through the Center for Arabic Language and Culture and Qatar Foundation
International. Also, the French Embassy and International Network for Public Schools support
the French Heritage Language Program in New York City.
Context
Consistent collaboration between world language teachers and target-language-speaking
community members seems like a simple and straightforward recommendation, yet this is not a
common practice in world language teaching and learning or in my school district. The current
structure of language learning does not harness the language assets of Southern California’s
multi-linguistic heritage community. In fact, it is common to see monolingual English students
funnel down the hallway into a world language elective class to be eligible for admission to the
University of California, while emerging bilingual or multilingual students go a different
direction to take English language development remedial courses. This visual shows the missed
opportunity for world language classes to collaborate with students who speak the target
language and highlights the assets and expertise of emerging bilingual students.
World language classes in my school and school district are structured so that
monolingual English students excel based on work completion instead of language acquisition,
as language acquisition exams do not determine students’ grades. The world language classroom
becomes subjected to a historical practice of schooling as a place of social reproduction and
socialization rather than language learning (Patel, 2016). This current structure shows how my
school, school district, and most California schools reward monolingual English students for

12
learning a world language.1 In contrast, emerging bilingual and multilingual students do not have
space in their schedule to take a world language class because they are placed in an English
language academic support class. These support classes, though at times can be beneficial, are
not part of the courses needed to be eligible to apply to a California State University and
University of California college and often prevent students from taking other classes that they
would need to be eligible to apply. For example, high school students are ineligible to apply for
admission to the University of California if they do not take 2 years of a world language course.
Many emerging bilingual and multilingual students do not take a world language and instead are
enrolled in an English language academic support course. This schedule limitation places
emerging bilingual and multilingual students on a trajectory with fewer educational
opportunities. Limiting their future higher education opportunities follows the historic pattern of
tracking culturally and linguistically diverse students into hierarchical positions in the labor force
(Anderson, 1988; paperson, 2017; Patel, 2016; Spring, 2016).
In my context, there has been an interesting shift in thinking about world language
teaching and learning. Since the fall of 2021, the school district formed a world language
committee to support language teachers in enacting the American Council on Teaching Foreign
Languages (ACTFL) recommendation to adopt an immersion strategy for world language
teaching and learning, where 90% of classroom time is in the target language.2 This change
requires language teachers to move away from the traditional teaching strategies that focus on
grammar instruction and move toward comprehensible input strategies. This shift is an
1 or learning about a world language. Unlike emerging bilingual students, monolingual English students are not
required to prove their language proficiency to show mastery to earn advance scores/grades in their course. 2 In the world language committee, I focused on ACTFL standards to align with my district’s focus, though other
frameworks including the Common European Framework of Reference (CERF) for languages would have also
promoted my researcher objective.

13
opportunity to reimagine the world language classroom and a chance to challenge deficit
thinking about local target language communities and emerging bilingual learners and center
these community members as assets to the school and experts in the world language classrooms
(CLL, 2017).
At this moment, my school district and the state of California view our local target
language and emerging bilingual students through a deficit lens with the label “English learner.”
This terminology reflects a deficit lens with a focus on students’ lacking English abilities rather
than their assets as emerging bilingual or multilingual speakers. This framing leads to students
and families being susceptible to subtractive schooling practices. Disrupting the terminology can
also disrupt the practices that are driven by this terminology.
My district’s dashboard scores mirror the national trend of inequitable educational
outcomes between emerging bilingual students and English-only students, or as stated in the
California dashboard, there are inequitable educational outcomes between ELL and non-ELL
students. To be consistent with the terminology used on the California dashboard, non-ELL
students scored above average, in the green tier, on the math and English assessments (Smarter
Balanced Summative Assessment or the California Alternate Assessment), and ELL students
scored below in the yellow level (California School Dashboard, 2023). In other words, emerging
bilingual students in my school district have differential learning outcomes when compared to
non-EL students. Despite the lower test scores, I should also note that the ELL graduation rate in
my district is in the green tier, with 90.6% of emerging bilingual and multilingual students
graduating in 2023. This graduation rate is higher than the California statewide graduation rate in
the orange tier, with only 73.5% graduating in 2023 (California School Dashboard, 2023).

14
There are 22,140 students in the district, and 17.1% are ELL (California School
Dashboard, 2023). The student population is 46.9% (10,373 students) Hispanic, 21.6% (4,778
students) White, 21.3% (4,718 students) Asian, 5.7% (1,255 students) two or more races, 2.2%
(486 students) Filipino, 1.5% (342 students) African American, 0.3% (64 students) Pacific
Islander, and 0.2% (40 students) American Indian. The school district has about 3,709 students
who represent 40 different languages. Most, 80%, of the emergent bilingual students speak
Spanish (2,987 students), followed by Korean (154 students), Mandarin (Putonghua, 124
students), Farsi (Persian, 62 students), Vietnamese (61 students), Japanese (49 students), Russian
(38 students), other non-English languages (37 students), Pashto (15 students), Turkish (15
students), and Filipino (Pilipino or Tagalog, 13 students). There are 29 other languages with
seven or fewer speakers. There is a variety of languages, races, and ethnicities represented in my
school district, and I wonder what it would look like for world language teachers to enact Paris
and Alim’s (2014) culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP), which “seeks to perpetuate and
foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive
social transformation” (p. 1). How can world language teachers enact CSP to promote the
histories and cultures of our regional heritage-language-speaking communities? These are the
context-specific questions I explored in this dissertation.
During the 2021–2022 school year, World Language Level 1 met every other month for a
full school day to learn and collaborate on designing four unit assessments that would be used for
all Level 1 world language classes in the district. The teachers identified key standards and cocreated four units’ essential questions, skills, assessments, and rubrics. The World Language
Level 1 teachers piloted the new assessments during the 2022–2023 school year and met
quarterly to reflect on the implementation of the assessment and revise based on new

15
understandings. Many teachers in our committee explained that they needed more support and
resources to redesign their lesson plans to prepare students for the new assessments. One teacher
explained that it felt like they were “building the plane while flying” this school year. Teachers
asked the district’s leaders if our group could continue to meet during the summer to write,
source, and share lesson plans and resources that align with our World Language Level 1 unit
assessments.
In the Spring of 2023, I asked district leaders if they would be willing to support the
committee in meeting during the summer to backward plan, source, and share lessons/resources
that will correspond with the newly created unit assessments. I also requested to use these
summer workshop days to conduct action research for my dissertation in practice by supporting
the development of a culturally sustaining curriculum and planning out activities aligned with
this approach. The leaders expressed support for the committee meeting during the summer and
approved my action research proposal.
Role
When preparing the study, I was a Spanish high school teacher and co-facilitator of my
district’s world language curriculum committee, which positioned me to foster a professional
learning community and support teachers to reflect on their practice. Our committee’s goal was
to improve our world language instruction by teaching cultural content in our respective target
languages as well as creating, implementing, and reflecting on our common formative
assessments.
When I reflected on my teaching practices, I found that I have been complicit in
reproducing deficit thinking and subtractive practices in my Spanish world language teaching.
My curriculum did not include the local Spanish-speaking community. I did not center and

16
sustain local linguistic communities’ cultures and histories. I have not invited Spanish-speaking
parents or community members to be guest speakers or to participate as cultural experts in my
class. Some of the readings I used in my classes perpetuate negative stereotypes of Latin
America as a dangerous place. Many resources I used are written by White Americans rather
than by Spanish speakers. Through this research process and reflection on my practice, I have
made efforts to intentionally make space to invite my students’ cultural and linguistic
backgrounds into our class discussions and assignments.
To counter subtractive schooling and cultural erasure, I aimed to adopt the tenets of Paris
and Alim’s (2014) theory of CSP, which recognizes our pluralistic society as an asset. In
addition, CSP looks to sustain historically and systemically marginalized communities by
disrupting how school systems perpetuate the settler-colonial project and maintain White
normative standards and linguistic hegemony (Paris & Alim, 2014). Before focusing on CSP, I
also considered critical race language pedagogy and community-based language learning models
frameworks which are more commonly implemented in high education settings and therefore
there is limited research of the implementation of these frameworks in the pre-K–12 public
school context. I decided to focus on CSP because it was a new theory to me and closely aligned
with my study’s goals. In my facilitation role on the world language committee, I intend to foster
a learning community and implement adult learning strategies to support my world language
colleagues in enacting CSP in our world language classrooms. As such, a central research
question guided this study: How do I, as a facilitator, support a group of world language teachers
in my district to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment?

17
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I describe my tentative theory of change, key theoretical concepts, and the
relationship among them as it relates to my assumptions, values, expectations, and desired goals
(Maxwell, 2013). This tacit theory, or my unconscious sense-making, has been influenced by my
positionality, epistemology, and socialization (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). I developed a visual
representation of this study’s conceptual framework after intentional reflection on my tacit
theories as they relate to theoretical concepts and prior empirical research findings, which guided
the design and actions for this research (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). After conducting the research, I
revised the original conceptual framework based on my new insights. Figure 4 is the visual
representation and explanation of my evolving theory (Miles & Huberman, as cited in Maxwell,
2013, p. 39).

Figure 4
Conceptual Framework
18

19
The conceptual framework shows the working theory of how a professional learning
community can work toward a transformative learning process for the members of the group. I
was the facilitator of my school district’s world language committee, which was the professional
learning community that I focused on for my action research. I referred to this group as the
professional learning community and as the world language committee interchangeably.
The blue box in Figure 4 is a visual representation of an adult professional learning
community and the conditions needed for adult learning. In the top left, I highlighted the
structure, conditions, and group norm characteristics that are essential for adult learning.
Embedded in the adult professional learning community are two pink circles that represent the
leadership role of the facilitator and the asset role of the world language teachers.
My role as the facilitator was to enact andragogical moves to support my world language
teacher colleagues and practice critical reflection. The andragogical moves I focused on were to
engage prior knowledge, organize active learning, use questioning techniques, and scaffold new
learning. The world language teachers were professional learning community members who
brought their teaching and content expertise, experience, and instructional practices. I created a
space for the group to engage in a reflection cycle so teachers could think about how their
positionality influenced their curricular decisions and pedagogical practice. They are represented
in Figure 4 as the group with whom I worked.
There are double arrows that connect the facilitator to the characteristics of the adult
learning conditions in a professional learning community, indicating that the facilitator is
responsible for organizing and fostering the structure, conditions, and group norms to support
ideal adult learning conditions. As the facilitator, I am responsible for creating the adult learning
conditions to support the world language committee.

20
The adult learning conditions are situated in the professional learning community to
demonstrate that the participants and I, as the facilitator, are contributing to the learning
conditions and co-creating the group norms to create a professional learning community. The
adult learning conditions, established in part by the group norms, served as a tool to hold the
committee and committee members accountable to the group expectations. The group norms
were also a resource to support group reflection on the progress of maintaining these
expectations for learning. The double arrow between me, as the facilitator, and the world
language teachers shows how I intended to learn from them, hoped they would learn for me, and
we were accountable to each other to implement the community norms and foster productive
adult learning conditions.
The purple box represents the content of the professional learning community. Two thin
arrows point to the purple box that shows the facilitator and world language teachers are both
responsible for focusing on developing culturally sustaining curriculum and pedagogy (CSC&P).
In the professional learning community, the world language teachers and I, as the facilitator,
developed CSC&P by learning about CSP, writing (CSC&P), and reflecting on our CSC&P in
practice.3
In the original conceptual framework (Appendix A), there was a white double arrow
between the CSC&P purple box and a yellow circle that indicates teachers’ attempts to enact
CSC&P. The conceptual framework shows that the enactment of CSC&P is intended to take
place outside of the professional learning community, as represented by a white arrow leaving
the professional learning community represented by the blue box. The goal was for teachers to
take what we developed in the learning community and then attempt the CSC&P in our
3 Teachers also had the option to reflect on an emotional moment during their teaching practice.

21
classrooms. The white arrow points back to the professional learning community to show that
teachers would reflect on their enactment of CSC&P in subsequent group meetings. This was a
cyclical process to experiment, reflect, and learn how to refine our practice and CSC&P
implementation as a professional learning community. The learning and reflection cycle within
the professional learning community was continuous and aimed to support the ongoing attempts
to implement CSC&P in our district. This part of the conceptual framework visual has been
replaced, and I will discuss this in detail in the CSC&P subsection.
In the new conceptual framework, the purple box still represents the content of the
professional learning community. The world language teachers and I worked to develop CSC&P.
Additionally, CSC&P served as one of the tools to engage in self-reflection. From the pink circle
that represents the world language teachers, there is a purple arrow that points to the engage in
self-reflection box. This purple arrow represents the moments of practice that the world language
teachers could use as a tool to engage in self-reflection. The engage in self-reflection box
represents the committee’s aim to practice self-reflection to identify assumptions and unearth
belief systems that influence our teaching practices. This process supports teachers to make
meaning from an experience and engage in what Wergin (2020) called deep learning. From the
self-reflection box there is a green arrow that represents deep learning that points to the
professional learning community. The green arrow shows that the teachers’ increased capacity is
invested back into the professional learning community and, therefore, improves the quality of
the learning community. In other words, as members enhance their internal growth, the entire
group will benefit because teachers learn from each other. There is also a squiggly line that stems
from the green self-development arrow that points to the long-term outcome of individual
teachers’ growth and development. I believe that when teachers practice self-reflection, they

22
build their internal capacity to develop critical reflection skills and thus create the opportunity for
transformational learning and the ability to change instructional teaching practices.
From the blue box that represents the professional learning community, there is a
squiggly line pointing to the long-term outcomes box that represents changes in classroom
practices and student engagement with CSC&P. I believe that through a meaningful professional
learning community, teachers can change their instructional strategies and create opportunities to
affirm students’ linguistic and cultural heritage in school and, in turn, sustain our pluralistic
society. I believe that when teachers participate in an authentic professional learning community,
they will develop the skills to effectively enact CSC&P and generate stronger relations between
the world language teachers and students’ families/guardians, including the local language
communities. Through these relationships, teachers can facilitate meaningful learning
experiences for students that can increase student social capital among the target language
community. Through the sustained enactment of CSC&P teachers can support students in
developing social consciousness as they together reconstruct normative school standards that
reflect the pluralistic linguistic and cultural society. In the sections below, I will expand on each
of the concepts just summarized and provide literature to support my theory of change.
Adult Learning Conditions in Professional Learning Community
In this study’s conceptual framework, I detail the adult learning conditions needed for a
teacher professional learning community. Drawing on the professional learning literature,
including works by Elmore (2002), Webster-Wright (2009), and Grossman et al. (2001), I define
a teacher professional learning community as a space where teachers collaborate consistently,
have the autonomy to structure their learning, engage in reflection on their professional practice,
and foster a trusting community to analyze pedagogy and elicit feedback. Some indicators of a

23
professional learning community that I sought to cultivate and ultimately saw within the world
languages professional learning community were consistent and continuous collaboration,
teacher agency and choice in activities and learning objectives, desire to learn, engaging in a
reflection cycle, sharing reflections, engaging in discussion, and collaborating and asking for
feedback from colleagues. As suggested by the adult learning literature, I supported the teacher
professional learning community by organizing the structure, working to create ideal adult
learning conditions, and co-creating /maintaining group norms.
Structure
I structured my action research in the context of my school district’s world language
committee, which had been meeting every few months since the start of the 2021–2022 school
year. I built upon this frequent meeting structure and continued to plan learning meetings in the
summer of 2023 and fall of the 2023–2024 school year. I intentionally aligned this adult learning
structure with the andragogy literature that argues teacher learning should be continuous and take
place in the context in which the educators teach instead of a once-a-year conference outside
their work context (Elmore, 2002; Grossman et al., 2001; Spikes, 2018; Webster-Wright, 2009).
Roegman et al. (2019) and Webster-Wright (2009) argued that context and learning are
interconnected, so teachers should continuously engage in learning activities that support and
maintain learning with and from their colleagues throughout the school year.
One of the benefits of a consistent structure over a prolonged period was that it exposed
discussion themes that may reveal competing commitments (Wergin, 2020). For example, many
teachers were interested in developing their comprehensible input skills. This was an example of
a competing commitment because some teachers were more interested in this methodology than
in learning about CSP. The consistent structure enabled me to notice patterns and reflect on

24
implicit messages and helped me to inform my actions as a facilitator. This will be further
explored in the reflection section below.
Conditions
To create ideal conditions for teacher learning, I built on Fink’s (2013) six critical
conditions to support faculty development. These conditions are the individual’s (a) awareness of
the need to learn and change, (b) encouragement from colleagues and others to value the
individual’s professional development, (c) time to learn, reflect, and revise their courses and
institutional curriculum, the (d) resources (reading materials and support groups) to support
intellectual and emotional change, (e) cooperative participants that are mindful of good teaching
and learning, and (f) recognition and reward that celebrates achievements and efforts to improve.
For this action research, I focused on awareness, time, and resources because I thought I would
have the ability to observe and assess these three conditions, but I agree with Fink (2013) that
adult educators should create all six conditions.
Awareness of the need to learn and change is the first condition to support faculty and
teacher development. Specifically, individuals “become aware of their own need to learn and
change, and, later, of their need to support organizational changes that affect the context within
which they operate” (Fink, 2013, p. 223). Based on the previous workshop days in the 2022–
2023 school year, I learned that participants had an awareness and willingness to learn new
strategies to support language learning using comprehensible input strategies. During these
workshops, I also saw teachers have the desire to learn how to embed and balance cultural
content with this new approach, as one teacher commented on the cultural cost of teaching in the
target language and questioned how we can include culture if we are limiting ourselves to speak
in simple target language structures. During this study, I continued to cultivate this awareness to

25
learn. For example, I re-visited the historical and political influences that have minimized
language learning to reinforce the importance and awareness of the need to learn about assetbased pedagogy, such as CSP.
Fink (2013) also discussed the importance of time in faculty development: “Faculty need
help in finding the time necessary for learning about teaching and for revising their courses and
institutional curricula” (p. 223). Most teachers in the committee did not teach during the summer,
so these months lent themselves to be a reflective time of the year and provided teachers distance
from their daily routine to think about their practice. Teachers were more willing to reflect, learn
about new ideas, and rethink traditional curricula and habitual ways of teaching during the
summer months. These meetings prepared us to carry the work forward into the school year.
Third, resources such as workshops, conferences, reading materials, support groups, and
consulting services are necessary to support the emotional response to change and intellectual
development (Fink, 2013). I facilitated and cultivated a teacher professional learning community
to serve as a resource for intellectual development and to support group learning. I provided
members with a journal where they were prompted to reflect on their purpose and reason for
teaching a world language and to engage in a structured reflection cycle. I also provided
participants with reading material that provided examples of how other teachers implemented
CSP strategies in their classrooms.
Group Norms
As the facilitator, I worked to establish a psychologically safe space for adult learning
and reflection on self-identity as it influences teacher practice (Spikes, 2018). Through engaging
in reflection and understanding teacher positionality and epistemology, we built a foundation to
springboard to authentic and adaptive change (Spikes, 2018). I worked toward establishing a

26
psychologically safe and brave space by establishing community norms, modeling vulnerability
by sharing my blind spots in the ways I have missed opportunities to invite student’s cultural and
linguistic knowledge in the classroom or how I have excluded the local Spanish-speaking
community and framed experiences of discomfort as feelings of learning (Arao & Clemens,
2013; Gooden & O’Doherty, n.d., as cited in Spikes, 2018).
Arao and Clemens (2013) explained the difference between a safe space and a brave
space. In a brave space, the language in the dialogue is uncomfortable and controversial and
challenges oppressive power. I worked to develop a psychologically safe space and meet
participants where they were by accepting their experiences as their truth to normalize engaging
in racial and political discourse (Rueda, 2011). I also challenged my group to be brave by
embracing conflict as a natural outcome of a diverse group, and I challenged safe language that
often reproduces the status quo. I used terms like “emerging bilingual student” instead of “EL”
and exposed the color blindness in the cultural content embedded in our district’s curriculum and
named the influence of White normative values.
I facilitated the development of our community agreements and norms. I asked
participants to think about what they need from themselves and others to learn. I included
agreements from Spikes (2018), such as staying engaged, experiencing discomfort [as learning
and unlearning], speaking your truth, and expecting and accepting non-closure. In the fourth
session, I invited teachers to evaluate our group’s enactment of our co-created norms. I asked
teachers to reflect on a norm that was being practiced and to identify a norm that we as a group
could improve on. As the facilitator, I worked to model vulnerability by sharing my own
examples and experiences to lower the affective filter, help the group build trust, and normalize

27
learning (Lencioni, 2002; Spikes, 2018). I contend that creating and revisiting group norms sets
the conditions for learning to occur.
Andragogy and Adult Learning
This study’s conceptual framework shows the actions of the facilitator as a leader who
enacts andragogical moves. I define andragogy as an organized effort to support adults to learn,
facilitate their active construction of meaning (Anthony, 1996), and create conditions that enable
the adults to direct their own learning (Mezirow, 1991), all within the learner’s zone of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978). From the literature, I understood that professional learning for
teachers occurs when adults examine their prior knowledge, contribute their expertise, reflect on
their practice, and openly discuss, challenge, and hear diverse perspectives; observe experts as
well as be observed by experts and receive feedback (Elmore, 2002; Webster-Wright, 2009).
In this section, I will describe the three andragogical strategies I focused on enacting as
the facilitator in the world language professional learning community. I will describe how I
facilitated andragogical moves such as active learning activities (Fink, 2013; Polman et al.,
2021). I will explain how I used questioning techniques to create a reflective group discourse to
move the committee’s conversations toward opportunities for a deeper examination of teaching
practices (Grossman et al., 2001; Horn & Little, 2010) and to support individual teacher
reflection (Sahin & Kulm, 2008; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Lastly, I will explain how I
managed cognitive overload by providing individualized forms of assistance based on the zone
of proximal teacher development (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Warford, 2011).
Active Learning
In designing committee meetings, I intentionally included active learning strategies that
engage participants in “experimental learning activities and opportunities to reflect on the

28
meaning of those activities” (Fink, 2013, p. 23). I drew inspiration from Polman et al.’s (2021)
active learning procedure to inform my workshop activities. Polman et al.’s (2021) procedures
included facilitating a prior knowledge activity, introducing a new concept by providing teachers
with definitions and key features, and providing space for teachers to review and discuss these
definitions in groups. Polman et al.’s (2021) study then instructed teachers to collaboratively
analyze examples of how the new concept is implemented in practice, discuss key issues based
on the literature, brainstorm how they implement the new concept in their current curriculum,
and discuss ways they would want to implement the new concept in the future. In this study, our
group fell short in discussing key issues from the literature; however, I still believe it is
important to do so.
In this study, I facilitated many of these active learning strategies to introduce and reteach CSC&P, as this concept was new to all participants. Drawing on Polman et al. (2021), the
group built on their prior knowledge of culturally relevant pedagogy and read and discussed the
CSP definitions and examples. I guided teachers to analyze and critique examples of CSP and
discuss ways they already implement this new concept in their curriculum or practice, as well as
time to discuss how they could adopt this new strategy. Overall, Polman et al.’s (2021) active
learning procedure supported participant engagement and increased understanding of CSP.
I continued to use Polman et al.’s (2021) active learning process throughout the study and
facilitated activities that prompted teachers to reflect and discuss with a partner or small group.
For example, in the first meeting, teachers reflected on their CSP-inspired lesson plan and
discussed their lesson with a small group. In the second meeting, the group engaged in a CSP
lesson simulation where one teacher practiced implementing her CSC&P lesson while the rest of
the group acted as her students. As a group, we reflected and discussed our student experience

29
from the simulation. In the third meeting, teachers worked in pairs to read and discuss different
language teaching and learning methodologies to co-create a group definition of a good lesson.
In the fourth meeting, teachers engaged in a reflection cycle, and I asked them to write, reflect,
and discuss. I intentionally designed each meeting with active learning in mind by enacting an
experimental learning activity and inviting teachers to reflect on the learning from the activity
(Fink, 2013).
The adult learning literature states that the active learning approach enables teachers to
build on their prior knowledge and share their current sense-making. This created a feedback
loop where I could revise my meeting agenda to focus on the participants’ learning and build on
the momentum of their contributions. For example, based on the CSP-inspired lesson plans
teachers presented in the first meeting, I learned the teacher’s current sense-making of CSP and
understood that I needed to do a better job providing more concrete examples of CSP for the
world language classroom. This insight prompted me to center the second meeting around the
simulation of a world language CSP lesson. Overall, the cyclical process developed a sense of
group ownership. In my findings section, I will discuss more about how I supported group
ownership and the implications of providing space for group ownership.
Questioning Techniques
I intentionally used questioning techniques as an andragogical strategy to support the
world language committee’s group discourse toward a deeper examination of teaching (Horn &
Little, 2010). Horn and Little (2010) described how teacher talk is a potential way for educators
to learn in and from practice and detailed a conventional routine to normalize a problem of
practice to learn more deeply about teaching practice. I supported the group in engaging in a
teacher talk discussion using questioning techniques. I used guiding and probing questions to

30
support individual teachers in developing their thinking, questioning their current sense-making,
and co-creating new knowledge about the teaching profession (Sahin & Kulm, 2008; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988). Based on recommendations from prior researchers (Sahin & Kulm, 2008;
Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), I used probing statements and questions like, “Tell me more,” or
“Please you elaborate on what you meant by that statement,” or “I thought what you said was
interesting. Can you expand on your initial thoughts on that topic?” Though I need to continue to
practice asking probing questions, this andragogical move played an important role in supporting
the group to normalize teachers’ situation, specify the issue, and generalize the problem of
practice to collectively theorize on general principles of teaching.
In alignment with Tharp and Gallimore (1988), I believe questioning techniques are an
effectively andragogical move, and I enacted guiding questions throughout my meetings. I used
guiding questions to scaffold a cognitive structure that aligned with the Rodgers’ (2002)
reflection cycle and embedded Larrivee’s (2006) self-reflection questions. I also used guiding
questions to support my adult learners to engage in a reflection cycle to see multiple dimensions
of a problem, identify and challenge their existing assumptions, reflect on what shaped their
assumptions, and create a new understanding of their practice (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). I also
used the guiding questions to facilitate individual reflection and asked teachers to describe a
puzzling, troubling, or surprising moment from their lesson or teaching practice (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988). I invited teachers to share their reflections with a partner and provided guiding
questions to assist teachers in reframing the problem in light of possible causes and prompt
questions to the group so we could understand the multiple dimensions of the problem (Horn &
Little, 2010). With inspiration from Sahin and Kulm (2008), I used probing questions in group
conversations to help the world language teachers engage in a self-reflect by thinking about how

31
their personal belief system, family values, or cultural conditioning influenced their assumptions.
By enacting the guiding and probing questioning techniques from Sahin and Kulm (2008) and
Tharp and Gallimore (1988), I facilitated a deeper dialogue about the historical inequities and
contemporary stigmas for speaking languages other than English. I will discuss this more in my
findings.
Individualized Forms of Assistance
While conducting the research, I thought about my learners as individuals with their own
zones of proximal teacher development (Vygotsky, 1978). I provided individualized forms of
assistance within the learner’s zone of proximal teacher development and based on what DragoSeverson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) called the learner’s way of knowing. Drago-Severson and
Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) typology described the four ways of adult knowing as instrumental,
socializing, self-authorizing, and self-transforming, as detailed in Table 1. Drago-Severson and
Blum-DeStefano (2017) suggested different forms of assistance to support adult learners
depending on their way of learning to support them to move through their zone of proximal
teacher development. During the research, I referenced this typology as a framework to think
about how to support each participant based on my analysis of their way of knowing. I created
individual learning goals to help me think about instructional moves to stretch participant
thinking and regulate distress.

32
Table 1
Ways of Knowing: Developmental Orientations to Social Justice Practice and Supports and
Stretches for Growth
Type of
knowers
Developmental
orientations to social
justice practice
Effective supports Stretches for growth
Instrumental
knowers
Demonstrate
commitment to
social justice in
concrete ways.
Make pedagogical and
leadership decisions
about social justice
issues based on
perceived benefits
and outcomes (i.e.,
are transactional in
their orientation).
Tend to see the world
in black and white,
with little room for
grayscale.
Experience other
people as either
helpers or obstacles
to their worldviews
and concrete needs.
Have not yet
developed the
capacity to think
abstractly in the
psychological sense
or to see larger
patterns across
contexts (i.e., make
generalizations)
Offer knowers concrete
models, curricula,
research, examples
from history, and
strategies for
supporting identity
development and
social justice practice
(e.g., the “right” way
to teach or lead).
Provide feedback about
what is going right
and wrong in their
work.
Encourage knowers to
look beyond “right”
solutions for teaching
and leading for social
justice.
Invite consideration of
more than one “right”
worldview or
approach.
Scaffold authentic
connections with
people with different
experiences and
perspectives.
Offer multiple pathways
for improvement and
professional growth.
Socializing
knowers
Have grown the
internal capacity to
take perspective on
and take
responsibility for
their own needs,
wants, and desires
Express appreciation
and acceptance of
knowers as people
even while learning.
Validate progress,
commitment, and
hard work.
Invite knowers to
express own thoughts
and feelings.
Support engagement in
difficult or sensitive
conversations with
students, colleagues,

33
Type of
knowers
Developmental
orientations to social
justice practice
Effective supports Stretches for growth
Co-construct their
realities based on
valued others’ and
society’s
expectations,
assessments, and
opinions of them.
Orient to inner states
(feelings) about
diversity, equity,
and working across
lines of difference.
Feel responsible for
others’ feelings
about social justice
and hold others
responsible for their
own.
Offer ideas and
suggestions for best
practices, curricula,
and effective social
justice education.
valued others, and/or
supervisors.
Model and encourage
turning toward
conflict and
addressing the
“elephants in the
room,” such as race,
sexual orientation,
gender, religion, and
other kinds of
diversity.
Self-authoring
knowers
Are driven by their
own values and
standards for
teaching, leading,
and social justice
Can take perspective
on and be
responsibility for
their relationships
Can take a firm stand
for others,
themselves, and
their ideas about
social justice,
diversity, and equity
View conflict as a
natural part of
advocacy, work, and
leadership.
Can think systemically
and reflect on social,
organizational, and
societal challenges
and their roles
within them
Offer explicit
recognition of
cognition of
competence, skills,
and expertise.
Provide opportunities to
share and advocate
for own ideas.
Invite ongoing
reflection and
development of own
goals for social
justice practice.
Allow for critique and
leadership around the
design and
implementation of
initiatives and
proposals for change.
Encourage knowers to
look beyond their own
values, ideas, beliefs,
ideologies, and
theories about social
justice, effective
leading, good
teaching, and
instructional practices.
Create opportunities for
open and empathetic
engagement with
individuals whose
ideologies feel
diametrically opposed.
Support reflection
around underlying
assumptions and
worldviews as well as
exploration of how
seemingly opposing
values and ideologies
can support inner
growth rather than

34
Type of
knowers
Developmental
orientations to social
justice practice
Effective supports Stretches for growth
Will likely experience
frustration when
self-determined
goals are not met
threaten personal
integrity.
Selftransforming
knowers
Orient to multiple selfsystems, interindividuality.
Are more open to
others’ perspectives
and can open up
ideologies to
critique and
expansion
Strive to grow and
improve different
aspects of their
selves and
understandings.
Can understand and
manage tremendous
complexity and
ambiguity
Feel supported when
colleagues are
invested in
exploring paradoxes
and inconsistencies
in self, others, and
the world
Co-create contexts for
growth, social
justice, and
mutuality.
Reflect collaboratively
on practice to explore
alternatives,
paradoxes,
contradictions, and
internal and systemic
inconsistencies.
Emphasize the
mutuality of
commitments and
vision.
Help knowers adjust to
and manage the
sometimes slow pace
of change.
Support the recognition
of when others may
not be open to or
ready for
change/meaningful
collaboration.
Encourage movement
from reflection to
action when needed.
As Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) suggested, for instrumental learners, I
offered concrete examples and research-based solutions and posed questions that invited them to
consider more than one right approach or propose multiple right solutions for improvement. This
came about in my meeting slides when I showed data about the historically entrenched inequity
of culturally and linguistically diverse students. For socializing knowers, I expressed

35
appreciation for their progress and hard work and encouraged their engagement in difficult
conversations. I wrote individualized thank-you cards for each participant after every session
since most of the group aligned with the socializing knower typology. For self-authoring
knowers, I provided opportunities for them to share their own ideas and expertise with the group.
Providing this space also enabled the development of group ownership, which I will discuss in
the findings section. To support their growth, I created opportunities for them to reflect on their
assumptions and biases by instituting a cognitive structure. For self-transforming knowers, I
created opportunities to reflect and think about paradoxes and systemic inconsistencies and
supported their growth by implementing debrief questions that prompted their reflection into
action.
Reflection and Critical Reflection
To support teacher learning, I drew on the literature that explains that learning occurs
when teachers have the opportunity to reflect and engage in reflective discourse with others
(Horn & Little, 2010; Wergin, 2020). Larrivee (2006) distinguished four levels of reflection in
education. Pre-reflection is the automatic response where the teacher perceives the fault for not
learning to lie with the student. An example of pre-reflection is when an individual is blamed,
and there is no deeper examination. Surface reflection thinks about the instructional strategies;
pedagogical reflection focuses on the application of teaching knowledge, theory, and/or research;
and critical reflection is the self-reflection of the implications of a teacher’s beliefs and behaviors
(Larrivee, 2006). Larrivee (2006) further explained that reflection is the process of examining
assumptions, family imprinting, and cultural conditioning that influences teachers and their
learning.

36
Elmore (2002), Spikes (2018), and Wergin (2020) explained that teachers need time for
reflection to think about their positionality and how their students and families perceive them;
critically reflect on assumptions, power dynamics, and habitual practices; and think differently
about the purpose of their work. Wergin (2020) reasoned that deep learning is so hard, and
individuals are resistant to change, because their behavior is embedded in their personal belief
systems. As Shermer (2011, as cited in Wergin 2020) stated,
We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological
reasons in the context of environments created by family, friends, colleagues, culture, and
society at large; after forming our beliefs we then defend, justify, and rationalize them
with a host of intellectual reasons, cogent arguments, and rational explanations. Beliefs
come first; explanations for beliefs follow. (p. 261)
It is particularly important for world language teachers to reflect on racial and cultural
identities because of hierarchies in languages, dialects, and language speakers (Von Esch et al.,
2020). Many language teachers teach their first language or heritage language, so the cultural
content embedded in the subject matter is often intertwined with their cultural identity. This
interconnectedness can also make implicit biases more difficult for world language teachers to
identify and challenge (Reagan & Osborn, 1998).
I have learned that to enact CSC&P effectively, teachers need to grow in our social
consciousness and become aware of our racial and cultural identity to better see ourselves in the
structural system of education (Spikes, 2018). Emerick et al.’s (2020) 1-year ethnographic study
found that teachers need to reflect on their language biases and how they maintain language
inequities, which can reproduce social discrimination toward culturally and linguistically diverse
students. From this study, I also learned that teachers need to recognize the cultural and linguistic

37
assets of their students and be willing to shift the classroom power dynamic that enables them to
learn from their students before they can apply CSP strategies.
Reflection can help world language educators examine what students’ learning [grammar
structures, cultural content, practical phrases, vocabulary to travel] looks like. Who is learning in
the class, and is that learning reflected in the gradebook? Does the grade book focus on task
completion or language acquisition? What content is being prioritized, and whose story is
missing? Are Indigenous and Black target language speakers included? If so, are they
celebrated? What accents and dialects are students exposed to? Is the local target language
community represented? How would they perceive your class? What insight could they offer?
Reflecting on world language curriculum and pedagogy reveals multiple perspectives and where
the power is situated.
In my action research, I would have liked for the participants to practice critical
reflection, as I still believe in its importance in teacher learning. The limited time of this study
prevented our committee from practicing critical reflection. However, the group engaged in
meaningful pedagogical reflection to help shape our approaches to relevant and common
problems of practice in world language teaching and learning. I will discuss this more in the first
findings section. The self-reflection cognitive structures supported the participants to reflect on
influential forces in their lives that have shaped their belief systems that then ultimately shape
their instructional practices. Engaging in pedagogical and self-reflection helped normalize
reflection as a practice within our group, a practice that is not common for teachers in
professional learning situations. In the future, my teacher colleagues and myself to work toward
critical reflection as a professional learning community. I will discuss this more in the afterword.

38
Engaging in a Reflection Cycle
In this section, I will explain how I embedded a self-reflection from Rodgers (2002) and
Larrivee (2006) to support the world language teachers to pause and reflect on their enactment of
CSC&P (Wergin, 2020). In this study, I introduced reflection in the professional learning
community as a way to pause, reflect, and rethink the habitual actions that may reproduce the
status quo. In the fourth meeting, I presented Larrivee’s (2006) four levels of reflection to
explain that our group’s objective was to practice reflection by examining assumptions, family
imprinting, and cultural conditioning that influence our thinking and actions. As shown below, I
presented a modified Rodgers’ (2002) reflection cycle through a series of guiding questions and
invited my colleagues to apply Rodgers’s (2002) see, describe, analyze, and experiment cycle to
reflect on their implementation of CSC&P or another moment of practice.
See and Describe. I posed descriptive reflection questions based on Rodgers (2002),
such as
• Describe a moment in your CSC lesson or a moment in your practice that you found
puzzling, troubling, or exciting.
• Tell a story of this [puzzling, troubling, or exciting] experience in as much detail as
possible.
• Limit your description to this specific moment.
• Write the description objectively without interpreting the situation or trying to solve a
problem.
Pair Share. Rodgers (2002) explained that the describe phase can be challenging for
teachers, as people tend to interpret the situation and not describe it. To support teachers in
describing their moments, I invited my colleagues to share their reflections with a partner. In

39
alignment with Tharp and Gallimore (1988), I provided guiding questions to aid the participants
in further describing the situation, gathering more details, and considering alternative
perspectives of the situation, all important elements of Rodgers’s reflection cycle.
Analyze. I supported teachers’ analytical reflection and offered more time for teachers to
individually think about my guiding questions based on Larrivee’s (2006) insistence on
reflection on assumptions, family imprinting, and cultural conditioning that influences teachers. I
drew from Larrivee (2006) and presented the following prompts:
• Suspend any judgment you might be holding toward the student(s) or individuals
involved, and consider their experience of the same moment.
• What is an alternative description or explanation of the moment?
• What were your assumptions at that moment?
• How might your personal beliefs or experiences have shaped your perspective of the
moment?
• How might your family imprinting and cultural conditions have influenced your
assumptions or perceptions at that moment?
Whole Group Discussion. As a group, we discussed our responses to our analytical
questions, and for the most part, I asked probing questions, as suggested by Sahin and Kulm
(2008), to support teachers in engaging in self-reflection. Originally, I thought this group
discussion would resemble Horn and Little’s (2010) normalizing toward practice conversational
routine with the aim of extracting new understandings about our praxis. When three teachers
volunteered to share their reflections with the group, it was not until I asked probing questions
that two participants shared their self-reflection. The self-reflection was the key learning

40
objective for this meeting, I focused on assisting teachers to engage in and share their selfreflection.
Experiment. As a group, we debriefed the discussion and noted our committee’s
takeaways. Teachers had the opportunity to discuss their learning and think about how to use this
new understanding to inform and revise their practice (Rodgers, 2002). I will discuss the
outcomes of this cognitive structure in more detail in the findings sections.
Reflection as a Facilitation Tool
According to the andragogy literature, reflection is also important for the facilitator of
adult learners as it is a deliberate practice of getting on the balcony, identifying what is being
learned as opposed to what is being taught, and checking our assumptions to guide intelligent
action (Brookfield, 2010; Heifetz et al., 2009; Rodgers, 2002). As the facilitator and researcher, I
also reflected on ways I implemented my desired learning conditions. For example, I analyzed
the adult learning conditions and thought about how participants perceived the structure,
conditions, and enactment of group norms (Fink, 2013). I looked to see if there was a sense of
community, the development of trust, and whether teachers had lowered their affective filters
(Arao & Clemens, 2013; Spikes, 2018). I thought about the ways my activities activate teachers’
prior knowledge, active learning, and reflection (Larrivee, 2006; Polman et al., 2021; Rodgers,
2002). I reflected on the participants as learners and thought about how I supported their growth
based on each learner’s way of knowing (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017).
Critical Reflection
This study’s conceptual framework shows my engagement in critical reflection as the
facilitator. While, as stated above, I also believe in the power of critical reflection for all teacher
learners, in this study, I only focused on engaging in critical reflection myself. Brookfield (2017)

41
defined critical reflection as “the sustained and intentional process of identifying and checking
the accuracy and validity of our teaching assumptions” (p. 3). These assumptions can be explicit
or implicit (Brookfield, 2010). A person must intentionally think about their thinking, challenge
confirmation bias, and see the world from multiple perspectives to uncover implicit assumptions
(Brookfield, 2010). Reflection becomes critical when it illuminates power structures and
uncovers hegemony (Brookfield, 2010). Brookfield (2010) suggested that educators can examine
their assumptions by leveraging different perceptions by viewing a discussion or lesson through
the lens of students, colleagues, personal experiences, and theory and research.
For example, as the facilitator, I wrote five critical reflections in response to the four
committee meetings. I wrote two critical reflections for the second meeting. I used these entries
to think about the ideas and behaviors categorized as common or neutral. I analyzed assumptions
and power to uncover hegemonic practices that think through who benefits from these thoughts
and ideas. In my effort to be a critically reflective teacher, I worked to challenge power and
hegemony in my own practice, too. Brookfield (2017) explained, “Critically reflective teaching
happens when we build into our practice the habit of constantly trying to identify, and check the
assumptions that inform our actions as teachers” (pp. 4–5).
I used critical reflection to pause and think about my power, positionality, epistemology,
assumptions, biases, and how these characteristics influence my interactions within and among
my world language colleagues and local target language community members. I reflected on
power dynamics and how dominant ideology infiltrates my ideas and actions. I used de
Oliveira’s (Andreotti’s; 2012) heads up framework (Table 2) as a tool to pause and slow my
thinking, and I attempted to respond to several questions I asked myself:
• Am I producing hegemonic ideas about language learning?

42
• Am I inviting participants to analyze from multiple perspectives [or am I reinforcing
the status quo]? How am I hearing, listening, to multiple perspectives?
• Am I challenging myself and the participants to think dialectically and to hold
multiple ideas as true?
• How am I naming the historical legacy and connecting myself in contributing to the
current issue?
• How am I analyzing the power relations between myself and participants and among
participants?
• How am I acknowledging my self-serving aspirations?
• How am I challenging myself and the participants to think deeply, engage in the
complexity of the structural, root causes and offer adaptive solutions?
• As the facilitator and researcher, in what ways have I been condescending or have
minimized or dismissed participants or their ideas?
Table 2
De Oliveira’s (Andreotti’s) Heads Up Framework
Historical pattern of
engagement and
representation
Whose idea of
development/education/the way
forward?
Whose template for knowledge
production?
Hegemony (justifying
dominance and
supporting
domination)
What assumptions and
imaginaries inform the ideal of
development and education in
this initiative?
Whose knowledge is perceived to
have universal value? How
come? How can this imbalance
be addressed?
Ethnocentrism
(projecting the
views of one group
as universal)
What is being projected as ideal,
normal, good, moral, natural,
or desirable? Where do these
assumptions come from?
How is dissent addressed? How
are dissenting groups framed
and engaged with?

43
Historical pattern of
engagement and
representation
Whose idea of
development/education/the way
forward?
Whose template for knowledge
production?
Ahistoricism
(forgetting historical
legacies and
complicities)
How is history, and its ongoing
effects on
social/political/economic
relations, addressed (or not) in
the formulation of problems
and solutions?
How is the historical connection
between dispensers and
receivers of knowledge framed
and addressed?
Depoliticization
(disregarding power
inequalities and
ideological roots of
analyses and
proposals)
What analysis of power relations
has been performed? Are
power imbalances recognized,
and if so, how are they either
critiqued or rationalized? How
are they addressed?
Do educators and students
recognize themselves as
culturally situated,
ideologically motivated, and
potentially incapable of
grasping important alternative
views?
Self-congratulatory
and self-serving
attitude (oriented
toward selfaffirmation/CV
building)
How are marginalized people
represented? How are those
students who intervene
represented? How is the
relationship between these two
groups represented?
Do individuals recognize
themselves as part of the
problem? Who is exalted by
the resource? Who benefits
from this exaltation?
Un-complicated
solutions (ignoring
the complexity of
epistemological,
ontological, and
metaphysical
dominance)
Has the urge to “make a
difference” weighted more in
decisions than critical systemic
thinking about origins and
implications of “solutions”?
Are simplistic analyses offered
and answered in ways that do
not invite people to engage
with complexity or recognize
complicity in systemic harm?
Paternalism (seeking
affirmation of
superiority through
the provision of
help)
How are those at the receiving
end of this initiative expected
to respond to the “help” they
receive?
Does this initiative promote the
symmetry of less powerful
groups and recognize the
groups’ legitimate right to
disagree with the formulation
of problems and solutions
proposed?
Note. Adapted from “Mapping Interpretations of Decolonisation in the Context of Higher
Education,” by V. de Oliveira Andreotti, S. Stein, C. Ahenakew, & D. Hunt, 2015.
Decolonisation: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40.

44
(https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/22168/18470). Copyright 2015 by
Vanessa de Oliveira Andreotti, Sharon Stein, Cash Ahenakew, and Dallas Hunt.
My critical reflections intentionally supported my development to view events from
different teachers’ perspectives, disconfirm my assumptions about the participants (Wergin,
2020), and examine my complicity in how my assumptions perpetuate hegemonic practices. As
suggested by Brookfield (2017), I used critical reflection to capture new ideas to inform my
actions as a facilitator and made efforts to apply my new insights to improve the learning for the
world language professional learning community.
Culturally Sustaining Curriculum and Pedagogy
Culturally sustaining pedagogy is the content the world language committee learned
about to disrupt assimilation, subtractive teaching, and heritage language loss practices.
Culturally sustaining pedagogy builds on the asset-based pedagogies of Ladson-Billings’s (1995)
culturally relevant pedagogy, Gay’s (2000) culturally responsive teaching, and Hollie’s (2017)
culturally and linguistic teaching and learning that view culturally and linguistically diverse
students as assets to the classroom. Paris (2012) explained, “Culturally sustaining pedagogy
seeks to perpetuate and foster—to sustain—linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of
the democratic project of schooling” (p. 95). Culturally sustaining pedagogy recognizes our
pluralistic society as an asset and looks to sustain historically and systemically marginalized
communities by disrupting ways in which school systems perpetuate the settler-colonial project
and maintain White normative standards and linguistic hegemony (Paris & Alim, 2014). Table 3
describes the key features of CSP (Farlazzo, 2017, as cited in California Department of
Education, 2023).

45
Table 3
Key Features of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy
Feature What it looks like
Valuing community languages,
practices, and ways of being
Students’ languages, literacies, and cultural ways of being
are centered meaningfully and consistently in classroom
learning instead of being considered as “add-ons.”
Schools are accountable to the
community.
Educators and schools are in conversation with
communities about what they desire and want to sustain
through schooling.
Curriculum that connects to
cultural and linguistic histories
Educators connect present learning to the histories of
racial, ethnic, and linguistic communities both locally
and nationally.
Sustaining cultural and linguistic
practices while providing
access to the dominant culture
Educators valuing and sustaining the cultural and
linguistic practices of the community while providing
access to the dominant culture (White, middle class, and
standard-English-speaking)
Culturally sustaining pedagogy was the content of the learning sessions. As a
professional learning community, we learned more about CSP and wrote CSP-inspired lesson
plans. In this section, I will refer to these lesson plans as culturally sustaining curriculum (CSC).
I will use the phrase CSC&P to describe CSP and culturally sustaining curriculum.
As a world language committee, one of our group’s purposes was to support each other in
transitioning to language learning using the target language through comprehensible input
strategies away from learning about the grammatical structures of the target language. Many
traditional world language curricula follow the pacing of a textbook where each chapter is
organized by grammatical structure, a list of 30 vocabulary words to memorize, and a cultural
component. This approach is best described as learning about the language instead of learning
how to communicate with the language. Though there are some cultural connections in each unit,
the textbook lacks the ability to highlight dynamic and ever-changing contemporary cultural

46
practices. Through this committee, we aimed to reimagine our district’s world language
curriculum. To reimagine the world language classroom and student language learning, I worked
to foster a teacher community that enabled teachers to collaborate, challenge, and learn from
each other.
In this study’s original conceptual framework, I focused on supporting teachers to
experiment with CSC&P, reflect, and revise based on new insights about CSC&P. Part of the
conceptual framework was influenced by Puzio et al.’s (2017) research. I learned from detailed
examples that showed how CSP enactment can further harm historically and systemically
marginalized students. For example, one teacher’s attempt to enact CSP was by reading a novel
in Spanish to sustain the language of her Mexican and Mexican American students. However,
students were confused and uncomfortable because the novel used Castilian Spanish, and some
of the words from this version have double meanings with sexual connotations in Mexican
Spanish. Another teacher’s attempt to discuss the progress of racial inequality in the United
States led one of her students to ask if she, the student, was Black. The teacher’s reflection on
her lesson made her realize that she may have unintentionally made the student feel othered or
different and ashamed because of her skin color. A different teacher’s attempt to enact CSP led
to a classroom segregation simulation where the teacher withheld snacks from non-brown-eyed
students. Students were sad, angry, and hurt after this simulation and the teacher felt that she
violated their trust. These examples show that teachers need support, community, and guidance
when enacting CSP. There are ways in which CSP can cause unintended harm.
With Puzio et al.’s (2017) CSP findings in mind, I modeled CSP activities that provide
time for participants to reflect and share their own cultural identity with the group. We learned
about CSP. Teachers created a CSP-inspired lesson plan for their class and collected feedback

47
from peers before they implemented it in their classrooms. In an effort to learn from Puzio et al.
(2017) and illuminate potential harm, as a group, we engaged in a simulation to try out one of the
teacher’s CSP-inspired lesson plans to evoke the student experience and debriefed these
strategies to improve the ways in which we enact CSC&P. I will discuss this more in the findings
section. This study’s original conceptual framework prompted teachers to reflect on their CSP
enactment. While I still believe in the importance of reflecting on CSP enactment as a
community of learners, the structure of my meeting schedule during this action research study
made it difficult to follow up with my colleagues.
Meeting 3 took place during the 1st week of September, and we met again as a group 3
months later in mid-December. This extended period made it difficult to keep the group’s
momentum around CSC&P. After the third meeting, I followed up with participants individually
to see whether they had implemented their CSC&P lesson so that they would be prepared to
reflect on their CSC&P implementation. My approach felt task-oriented and did not resonate
with my definition of a professional learning community. This moment reminded me of Slayton
and Mathis’s (2010) article, “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,” which argued the curriculum adoptions are limited to first-order change
and emphasized reflection to support the individual capacity to facilitate transformational growth
and effective organizational change. Though I also believe in the importance and impact of
CSC&P development, first-order changes, and pedagogical reflection, I stepped away from
gaining new insights about CSP enactment, which was at the center of this study’s original
conceptual framework to refocus on the individual growth and development of my teacher
colleagues.

48
For these reasons, I shifted focus to support the learners’ individual development to
position them to effectively enact CSC&P. I centered the individual growth and development of
my teacher colleagues so they could gain new insights about themselves, their assumptions, and
what influences their unconscious thinking. This self-reflection aimed to create the foundation to
reflect on and revise their instructional practices.
The new conceptual framework shows that teachers could use their CSC&P enactment as
one tool to engage in self-reflection. Teachers could also pull from moments of practice to
engage in self-reflection. As previously stated, this change stemmed from the shift to supporting
world language teachers to gain new insights about themselves to create the foundation to reflect
on and revise their instructional practices. The new conceptual framework invests in the growth
and development of the individual teachers so they can ultimately effectively enact CSC&P. This
evolution of the conceptual framework exemplifies how each action informs the next cycle.
From this experience, I also recognize that as I continue this work, the conceptual framework
will continue to evolve.
Actions
In this section, I will detail my actions to support Level 1 world language teachers in the
district to develop CSC&P, implement CSC&P, and engage in self-reflection. I conducted my
fieldwork during the optional committee summer meetings and two committee meetings during
the 2023–2024 school year. Meeting 0 took place on June 7, 2023, during the 1st week of
summer break, but it is not part of the data because the USC Institutional Review Board had not
yet approved this study. The first meeting was a virtual synchronous meeting on Tuesday, June
27, 2023. The second meeting was an in-person meeting on Wednesday, August 2, 2023, before
the district professional development days. These summer committee meetings lasted 3 hours

49
and were attended by the committee’s world language teachers on a voluntary basis. The third
meeting and fourth meetings were embedded during the 2023–2024 district-organized
professional learning meeting days. The district provided each teacher a substitute so that they
could attend the in-person committee meeting during the school day. The third meeting took
place on Wednesday, September 6, 2023, and the fourth meeting was on Tuesday, December 12,
2023. I also met with participants one-on-one to support their creation and implementation of
their CSC. Individual meetings were based on participants’ interest and willingness to meet and
took place over the phone and through Zoom or Google Meets. The following section describes
my actions, which were drawn from both the original and the revised conceptual frameworks, or
theory of change.
The learning purpose for my action plan was to foster and maintain an authentic
professional learning community so we could reflect on our shared purpose and individual
identities as world language teachers to create a meaningful student learning experience. The aim
was for the participants and me to be better prepared to disrupt the subtractive teaching practices,
fewer learning opportunities, and heritage language loss for emerging bilingual and multilingual
students. In the professional learning community, I created opportunities for teacher learning,
experimenting, and self-reflection. Through this process, teachers started to reimagine language
learning and disrupt traditional methods that have dismissed home language and reproduced
subtractive teaching practices for emerging bilingual and multilingual students. As we continue
to enact culturally sustaining lesson plans and pedagogy to center the cultural diversity of our
student population, we will challenge heritage language loss for emerging bilingual and
multilingual students and (hopefully) give students a stronger sense of belonging at school.

50
Meetings 0, 2, 3, and 4 took place in person. Meeting 1 took place via Zoom. As shown
in Tables 4 through 8, I worked to establish the conditions for an adult professional learning
community with deliberate instructional moves during each meeting of my action research. I
started each meeting by maintaining group norms to build trust, lower affective filters, normalize
learning, and create a physiological safe space (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Lencioni, 2002; Rueda,
2011; Spikes, 2018). In each meeting, I also intentionally made time for teacher reflection
(Elmore, 2002; Spikes, 2018; Wergin, 2020), engaging in prior knowledge (Elmore, 2002;
Webster-Wright, 2009), organizing active learning activities (Fink, 2013), and using questioning
techniques to challenge assumptions and support learning/unlearning (Sahin & Kulm, 2008;
Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). At the same time, I regulated my colleagues’ distress and worked
within zones of proximal teacher development (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017;
Warford, 2011). I ended each session by requesting feedback on my facilitation through a
reflection survey (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022).

Table 4
World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 0
Objectives Activities Progress indicator
Participants
will reflect on their purpose for world
language learning.
will reflect on messages they received
from school about their own heritage
and community cultural practice.
analyze examples of CSP in the
classroom.
think about how they already implement
CSP or could implement CSP in the
world language classroom.
Myself
I will enact andragogical move to engage
prior knowledge, organize active
learning, use questions and scaffolds to
guide new learning.
Part 1
Community energizer
Co-create group norms
State group’s purpose
Part 2
Instructor-led: historically entrenched
inequality
Individual reflection and whole group
share out
Part 3
Learn about CSP activity
Partner activity: analyze examples of
CSP in the classroom.
Group discussion of analysis of CSP in
the classroom.
Part 4
Individual reflection
CSP brainstorm activity
Reflection and feedback
Homework: Create a CSP lesson plan.
In the field analysis and critical
reflection.
Participants
practice individual reflections and share
their reflections in a group discussion.
start to think about CSP and analyze
what it looks like in practice.
Myself
I will practice facilitating a discussion
on community norms for meetings. I
will practice using question prompts
to support individual reflection. I will
support learners in creating a CSP
lesson plan that will be discussed in
the next meeting.
51

Table 5
World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 1
Objectives Activities Progress indicator
Participants
will reflect on group norms and
constructive peer feedback.
Analyze examples of CSP for the world
language classroom.
Myself
I will enact andragogical move to
engage prior knowledge, organize
active learning, use questions and
scaffolds to guide new learning.
Part 1
Community energizer
Re-visit group norms
Part 2
Reflect on constructive feedback.
Co-create meaning of constructive
feedback.
Part 3
Recall CSP tenets
Analyze CSC participant examples
Individual reflection and whole group
share out
Part 4
Partner share a cultural lesson
Analyze the lesson through a CSP lens
Homework:
Reflection and feedback
Consider the peer feedback and revise
CSC lessons
In the field analysis and critical
reflection
Participants
practice co-creating a physiological safe
space and work toward community.
demonstrate their current level of CSP
understanding.
reflect, collaborate, and brainstorm new
ideas about CSP for the world
language classroom.
reflect on their learning experience and
provide feedback.
Myself
I will provide time to reflect on and
discuss characteristics of a
psychologically safe space and a
trusting community. I will provide
time for individual reflection and
partner sharing.
I will review and expand on the ideas of
CSP. I will elicit input and invite
participants to think about new ideas
of CSP and how they might adopt
these lessons in their own settings.
52

Table 6
World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 2
Objectives Activities Progress indicator
Participants:
will reflect on group norms and
constructive peer feedback.
Analyze examples of CSP for the world
language classroom.
Myself
I will enact andragogical move to
engage prior knowledge, organize
active learning, use questions and
scaffolds to guide new learning.
Part 1
Community energizer
Re-visit group norms.
Recall purpose of CSP.
Part 2
Teacher/participant guided CSP
simulation
Individual reflection and whole group
share out
Homework
Implement CSP activity to get to know
students and their culture.
In the field analysis and critical
reflection.
Participants
practice co-creating a physiological safe
space and work toward community.
demonstrate their current level of CSP
understanding and purpose.
reflect on their CSP student experience
and provide feedback.
collaborate, and brainstorm new ideas
about CSP for the world language
classroom.
Myself
I will support a participant/teacher in
guiding the group through a CSP
lesson activity.
I will provide time for individual
reflection and partner sharing.
I will ask questions to expand on
participants’ understanding of CSP. I
will give time for teachers to
collaborate and share resources.
5
3

Table 7
World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 3
Objectives Activities Progress indicator
Participants:
will reflect on group norms and
individual goals.
engage with CSP and other language
teaching and learning pedagogy.
engage in co-create characteristics of a
“good” lesson resource
Myself
I will enact andragogical move to
engage prior knowledge, organize
active learning, use questions and
scaffolds to guide new learning.
Part 1
Community energizer
Re-visit group norms
Recall group purpose
Align our individual goals with group
purpose
Part 2
Engage with CSP and other language
teaching and learning pedagogy
Co-create characteristics of a “good”
lesson resource
Individual reflection
Part 3
Teacher/participant showcase of CSP
lessons
Teacher/participant debrief on CSP
enactment
Group CSP resource and lesson sharing
Group discussion on a teacher problem
of practice
Homework
Enact CSC&P
In the field analysis and critical
reflection
Participants:
practice co-creating a psychological
safe space and work toward
community.
demonstrate their current level of
understanding of CSP and other
language teaching and learning
pedagogy.
engage in examples of CSP in the world
language classroom.
Myself
I will support a participant/teacher in
guiding the group through individual,
partner, and group activities.
I will provide time for individual
reflection and partner sharing.
I will give time for teachers to showcase
and share resources.
54

Table 8
World Language Professional Learning Community Action Plan Meeting 4
Objectives Activities Progress indicator
Participants
will reflect on group norms and reflect
on reality of group norms in
practice.
practice reflection on assumptions,
family imprinting, and cultural
conditioning that influences
teachers.
think about their learning and use this
new understanding to inform and
revise their practice.
Myself
I will enact andragogical move to
engage prior knowledge, organize
active learning, use questions and
scaffolds to guide new learning.
Part 1
Community energizer
Reflect and analyze group norms in
practice
Part 2
Individual see/describe reflection
(Rodgers, 2202) on a puzzling,
troubling, or exciting moment during
CSC&P enactment.
Individual analyze reflection through
reflection on assumptions, family
imprinting, and cultural conditioning
that influences teachers (Larrivee,
2006).
Group discussion that aims to support
teachers’ self-reflection (Larrivee,
2006).
Part 3
Debrief reflection cycle
Discuss new insights to inform our
teaching practice
Homework
Experiment with new ideas generated
from the reflection activity
In the field analysis and critical reflection.
Participants
attempt to hold group accountable to
group norms.
demonstrate their current level of selfawareness of assumptions, family
imprinting, and cultural
conditioning.
attempt to normalize toward practice
conversation routine
Myself
I will attempt to hold the group
accountable to group norms.
I will provide time for individual
reflection and group discussion.
I will ask questions to attempt to enact
a normalizing toward practice
conversation routine.
55

56
Research Methods
At the time of this study, my district had approved a plan for teachers to work together to
reconceptualize our world language curriculum. I supported teachers in developing a curriculum
that more closely aligns with CSP. This study documents our committee’s process in doing so
and my role in facilitating the work. I followed a typical action research approach described by
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) and cultivated a professional learning community with world
language teachers in my school district to develop a CSP-aligned curriculum that leverages the
community’s linguistic assets. I focused on enacting andragogical skills through the facilitation
of the world language committee to encourage the development of a CSC.
This is an action research study, which Herr and Anderson (2015) defined as a cycle of
action that participant(s) take to improve a problem of practice. Specifically, this research was
self-study action research on my actions as a facilitator. This study documented my andragogical
moves to better inform my practice and support my colleagues in developing a CSP-aligned
curriculum.
Participants and Setting
I conducted my fieldwork during the professional learning committee lab days during the
summer of 2023 and throughout the 2023–2024 school year. I recruited participants from my
district’s World Language Level 1 committee. The world language teachers were the most
appropriate participants to include in this study and to answer the research question, given that I
facilitated the group meetings and they were already positioned as professional learning
community members. I used purposeful sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2017; Maxwell,
2013) and invited my world language colleagues who were serving on the committee to
volunteer to participate in this action research study. While I recruited all 10 committee members

57
to participate in this action research, their participation on the committee did not hinge on their
participation in the study. I anticipated having a subset of those 10 colleagues volunteer to also
participate in this study, but they all agreed.
I shared more about my research topic and formally invited teachers to participate during
the May 16, 2023, professional learning lab day. I explained that I would be conducting action
research on my role as a facilitator in creating the learning conditions so world language teachers
can reflect on their practices and move toward understanding how to develop a CSC and later
reflect on their enactment. I addressed the confidentiality of the data collection and informed the
group that participation in the study was voluntary and that participants could withdraw from the
research at any time without affecting their standing on the committee. I also explained that all
teachers could still participate in the summer committee without being part of the study and that I
would not analyze or include the words and actions of those teachers who opted out of
participating in the study. I then paused and invited the group to ask questions. After responding
to the group’s questions, I sent out a Google Form to those who were interested in meeting
during the summer to see if they would also be interested in participating in this action research
study. I used a Google Form so that the other committee members would not know who is or is
not participating in the action research, thus protecting their privacy.
Participants
The participants were world language teachers and employees of my school district. In
considering inclusion and exclusion criteria, I was prepared to exclude data from teachers who
did not want to participate in the study. However, all the world language teachers consented to
participate in the study.

58
The world language committee consisted of one French and nine Spanish world language
middle school and high school teachers representing native speakers, heritage speakers, and/or
formerly monolingual speakers. At the time of this study, I was a Spanish world language
teacher and a member of the world language committee, and in the Spring of 2023, I took on the
leadership role as one of the facilitators of the committee. Along with my co-facilitator, we were
charged with planning and facilitating the professional learning community lab days, which
consisted of 4 school days throughout the year set aside to reflect, learn, and collaborate on
World Language Level 1 curriculum and pedagogy.
Setting of Actions
I conducted fieldwork during the world language committee summer lab days upon
receiving the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. In
this research, I refer to the lab days as meetings, whereas the district termed these sessions as lab
days. Meeting zero was during the 1st week of summer break prior to IRB approval and was held
in a classroom dedicated to professional development. This meeting focused on introducing CSP
to the group, however, it is not part of the data collection. The first meeting was a virtual
synchronous meeting on Monday, June 27, 2023. Participants joined from their homes. The
second meeting took place in person in the school district’s professional development classroom
on Wednesday, August 2, 2023. The third meeting took place in a small collaboration room in
one of the district’s high schools on Wednesday, September 6, 2023. The fourth meeting took
place on Tuesday, December 12, 2023, in a classroom dedicated to professional development at a
different high school in the district.

59
Data Collection
As the research question states, my focus was to analyze my role as a facilitator in
supporting world language teachers to develop a CSC and reflect on the enactment. I specifically
examined how I supported my colleagues as learners and aided their development through
reflection and group dialogue about their practice. As the facilitator and researcher, I was the
primary instrument for data collection and analysis (Bowen, 2009). In other words, the research
depended on my knowledge and skills as the investigator to identify data that revealed the
participants’ progress in their development as learners (Bowen, 2009). Additionally, I filtered the
data through my lens and interpretation (Bowen, 2009).
I collected data through documents and observations. In terms of document collection, I
collected research-generated documents, which were documents I created as the researcher and
facilitator for the study, as well as documents the study participants generated (Bowen, 2009). I
also conducted observations during the group meetings and individual conversations with
participants as they related to the research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the facilitator
and researcher, I embodied what Merriam and Tisdell (2016) called a participant as observer,
which required me to be present in the field setting as the researcher to record actions and
behaviors and guide the group as an active facilitator (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this section,
I explain the data collection process and describe how this process guided me toward the ideas
outlined in this study’s conceptual framework and to answer the research question.
Documents
I collected the documents created for and from the world language meetings, as these
documents demonstrated my andrological moves as a facilitator and participant in learning, or
lack thereof (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, for each lab day meeting, I created

60
agendas, Jamboards (to support structured, inclusive visual thinking and participation), slides
with reflection prompts, and reflective exit tickets. These documents supported me in enacting an
action plan based on this study’s conceptual framework and allowed me to capture the
participants’ understanding with the learning materials. As a group, we continued to build on our
community agreements, and I used this document as an artifact to inform my action research
about whether or how I cultivated safe and brave learning conditions. I also collected copies of
participant-created documents, such as the lessons and resources participants created based on
their understanding of CSC. From these lesson plans, I saw the participants’ level of
understanding of CSP. This information helped me re-teach or scaffold feedback for individual
support. In the last session of my action plan, I guided participants to reflect on their enactment
of CSP or any moment of practice that elicited puzzling, troubling, or surprising emotions. I
asked participants to share their written reflections with me if they felt comfortable. After the
fourth meeting, three participants shared their written reflections with me. From these individual
reflections I gauged participants’ development in their practice of reflection.
After each meeting, I wrote at least one critical reflection to help support my
understanding of my actions as a facilitator and inform my actions for the following meeting. My
own critical reflections also minimized my researcher bias and assumptions as well as positioned
me to intentionally think about my positionality, how others may perceive me, alternative
perspectives, and how my personal belief system, family imprinting, and cultural conditioning
influenced my assumptions. I also updated a research journal that detailed my decision-making
process and captured new ideas and questions to consider for the future of the study. This
research journal also served as an audit trail and showed how my design choices aligned with
this study’s conceptual framework (Lincoln & Guba, 1985 as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

61
Observations
I wrote descriptive, low-inference notes to document my observations for all the
committee lab day meetings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). With permission, I audio-recorded the
in-person lab days to accurately depict the group discussions and limit the intrusiveness of a
video recording (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). During the June 27th synchronous virtual workshop,
I video-recorded our call to note body language and facial expressions (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). A video recording in an online setting is less intrusive, and participants are more likely to
ignore or forget that the session is being recorded. I documented my interactions with my teacher
colleagues who volunteered to be part of the study. This documentation is important for this selfstudy action research project because it enabled me to examine the andragogical moves I made,
or failed to make, to support my teacher colleagues. From our interactions, I observed the
participants’ words and actions, saw where they were as learners, and understood their sensemaking of CSC&P. From this observational data, I supported them in their enactment of CSC&P
and understood their reservations for enactment. These observations aided my reflections on my
andrological moves as a facilitator and helped me see the participants’ progress and areas of
growth. When I was out of the field, I compiled my field notes, observer comments, and 18
hours of audio transcripts into a comprehensive set of observational data.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of reviewing data such as documents, observations,
transcripts, and fieldnotes and organizing this information, coding it, and synthesizing it to reveal
patterns to respond to the research question (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Bowen, 2009). Action
research is a cyclical process, or as Kemmis and McTaggart (1987) called it, the action research
spiral of planning, implementing, observing, reflecting to revise the next plan, and enacting the

62
cycle again. I intentionally used the reflection stage to slow down, attend to the participants,
think critically, and take intelligent action (Rodgers, 2002). I engaged in this research cycle and
analyzed the data while in the field as much as possible to help inform my decisions, revise my
future meeting actions, and focus my research (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Herr & Anderson,
2015). I conducted a formal data analysis out of the field to engage in an ongoing analysis and
interpretation process (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
My action research was divided into four meetings during June, August, September, and
December 2023. After each meeting, I conducted in-the-field analysis and reviewed my researchgenerated documents, fieldnotes, and observations. As I reviewed the data, I wrote observer’s
comments and memos to keep track of my new learning and ideas generated from the data
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I also thought about metaphors and analogies to make connections
between data and my learnings (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I examined the data to see my actions
in how I supported and failed to support my learners in their ability to enact CSC&P, reflect on
their practice, and think about how to learn from their reflection. Lastly, I looked at the data to
examine whether and how my actions fostered the learning conditions and contributed to the
participants’ learning as I aimed to support the participants’ development through individual
reflection on their teaching and using their learning to inform and revise their practice.
Out of the field, I organized, synthesized, and analyzed the data to look for patterns. I
conducted the out-of-the-field analysis after my fourth meeting. I used a software called Otter.ai
to create a computer-generated transcript from the four meeting recordings. I listened to the
audio recordings of the meeting and edited the transcripts to more accurately match the
participant’s statements in the recordings. During this process, I typed in my observer comments
and created new comments, including ideas for future coding. In this data analysis phase, I

63
referenced Grossman et al.’s (2001) and Horn and Little’s (2010) research, looked closely at
word choice, and analyzed the discourse used in group dialogues and discussions.
I used Atlas.ti to code the data and uploaded the four meeting transcripts and researchgenerated documents: the four meeting slides, the group’s community norms, and my five
critical reflections. I created a code list based on this study’s conceptual framework and learning
objectives from each meeting. I used a thematic coding approach and created six code themes
from the conceptual framework: andragogy (AND), CSCP, discussion (D), facilitator thinking
(FT), participant thinking (PT), and learning conditions (LC). Some of the priori codes included
AND: Guiding Questions, AND: Probing Questions, CSCP: Understanding, FT: Assumptions,
PT: Social Political Consciousness, LC: Trust. As I coded the data, I added emergent codes,
including AND: Group Ownership. This emergent code revealed unexpected patterns of
moments where I provided space for participants to lead our group learning. I will discuss this
andragogical move more in my findings section. Lastly, while coding the data, I wrote memos to
keep track of my new insights and any ideas that came from the research findings (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007).
Limitations and Delimitations
In this section, I discuss the limitations and delimitations of this action research study.
The limitations are the constraints of this study that are out of my control, whereas the
delimitations are my intentional choices that limit and focus my research (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2019).
Limitations
This study was timebound from the summer of 2023 and the 2023–2024 school year. I
was limited in the number of meetings I had with the participants based on district-provided

64
professional learning days. Additionally, the participants had other commitments that may have
prevented them from attending every committee meeting. The 2023 summer meetings were
volunteer meetings, and as such, not every member attended. We had three summer meetings. Of
those three meetings, meeting zero was not used as part of the data collection because this
research had not yet been IRB-approved. I invited the committee to volunteer for the two
remaining summer meetings though not every member attended. Some committee members
changed positions at the start of the 2023–2024 school year, so there were new members who
joined the group and one member who participated in one summer meeting and did not
participate in the 2023–2024 school year meetings. The school district arranged for the
committee to meet for four full working days throughout the 2023–2024 school year meetings.
The first 2 meeting days, September 6, 2023, and December 12, 2023, were part of this action
research.
In documenting my observations, there were limitations in the extent to which I, as a
researcher, could be detached from the situation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My presence as a
researcher collecting observation data could have influenced the participants’ actions and
behaviors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
There are also limitations in action research as the solutions or findings are usually
context-specific (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Context-specific action research can produce new
ideas or conclusions that highlight different perspectives or theories that can inform a nuanced
way of thinking about a problem of practice (Quinn et al., 2019).
Another limitation is that this study asked participants to write or source a CSC to enact
for their classroom. Though there were opportunities to collect feedback, teacher-created
curricula can lead to sourcing popular curricula and serve as a technical or superficial solution

65
rather than an adaptive solution (Duke & Martin, 2011; Heifetz et al., 2009). As Emerick et al.
(2020) mentioned, enacting CSC&P requires educators to look within themselves, assess their
assumptions, and think about ways their beliefs and actions contribute to the harm of historically
and systematically marginalized communities. This research was limited by the willingness of
participants to engage in individual reflection and to share their reflections in the group dialogue.
Delimitations
In my action research, I created delimitations through conscious choices that narrowed
the scope of this study. One delimitation was that this study only asked for volunteer participants
from my district’s World Language Level 1 committee. This included 10 participants who were
willing to learn as well as bring their interests and competing commitments. This study was also
framed by a conceptual framework based on theoretical readings and empirical research. Many
of the concepts of this study’s conceptual framework aligned with my program of study and
focused on adult learning conditions, andragogy, reflection, and critical reflection. These
concepts influenced the research question and, therefore, the study’s design and methods.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Given that this research was a qualitative action research study, I tried to ensure this
research was credible, the data were trustworthy, and the findings were plausible or matched a
version of “reality” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 242). To ensure credible research, I
triangulated the research through multiple data collection methods, including observations and
documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I conducted several observations and included documents
created by the world language committee to help me see how my actions contributed to the
participants’ learning or lack thereof (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

66
In thinking about Maxwell’s (2013) internal validity test checklist, I wrote rich, thick
descriptive data to challenge validity threats. I have been a part of the world language committee
since it started in January 2021. This allowed me to be a long-term participant, providing a more
comprehensive understanding of individual learning and the group’s experience over time, which
helped produce plausible findings. My continuous involvement also positioned me as an insider
of the group. This could have blinded me to new ideas, and at the same time, this supported this
study’s credibility, as participants were more likely to reveal their unfiltered feelings and
perspectives.
To build confirmability in this research, I developed an audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985
as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) by keeping a research journal that detailed my decisionmaking process and captured new ideas and questions to consider for the future of the study. To
minimize the researcher bias, I self-monitored through a systematic process of researcher
reflection memos, critical reflections, and member checks (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The reflection memos helped me document my research process and any changes I made.
The critical reflections were a tool for me to slow down my thinking and to examine my
positionality, assumptions, and power relations within a single moment. These reflections
revealed my blind spots and supported my learning as a facilitator. Lastly, during the analytic
phase, I used systematic coding and looked for disconfirming or negative cases to help maximize
the findings’ credibility.
Ethics
Given the human aspect of action research, I thought about and reflected on my choices
and interactions. I considered consequences in my research decisions to make ethical choices in
my planning, implementation, and writing. In my action research, I asked teachers from the

67
world language committee to volunteer as participants and asked for direct consent (Lochmiller
& Lester, 2017). The participants might have felt obligated to be part of this action research
study given that I facilitate the world language committee. The participants may have also felt
social and professional pressure to participate because the action research group continued to
meet during the summer and discussed changes to the curriculum. Participants might have felt
obligated to participate because they wanted to participate in the decision-making process. To
address this power dynamic, I reminded teachers before every session that their participation was
voluntary and that they could remove themselves from the study anytime. This aimed to mitigate
any perceived pressure to participate or influence the data due to my role as a facilitator.
When designing the research question, I took ethical considerations to implement some
basic research practices for minimizing harm (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The research question
focused on enabling the participants to enact CSC&P. This change in pedagogy disrupts existing
traditional world language teaching practices and requires participants to reflect on their own
identity, assumptions, biases, and beliefs and think about their identity and values that reflect
their curriculum and instructional practices. This blend of personal and professional reflection
could have been uncomfortable for participants. This process of learning and unlearning might
have felt uncomfortable and may have caused feelings of embarrassment for the participants. I
worked to reduce this risk by framing moments of discomfort as normal and part of our learning
process. I also modeled vulnerability and shared my shortcomings and moments of discomfort
and learning.
I stored all data on a password-protected computer and followed the University of
Southern California’s IRB rules for collecting permission to facilitate this study from the
participants and school district. I tried to keep the participants’ identities private and recognized

68
that my name and identity could be traced back to my school site and workspace and limited
participant confidentiality. In my research writing, I tried to protect the participants’ privacy by
using pseudonyms and de-identifying the data when writing the findings.
Findings
In this section, I will detail the findings of this action research study. I supported a group
of world language teachers in my district to develop CSC&P and to reflect on the enactment. I
did this by facilitating professional learning meetings. To support my colleagues, I found that I
enabled group ownership. I relinquished control over our meeting time to provide space for
participant-led learning and for new discussions on problems of practice. I also instituted
cognitive structures that supported teachers to consider multiple perspectives and engage in selfreflection to unearth belief systems that influence their teaching practices. As a facilitator, I
paraphrased and probed during the group’s dialogue, which helped focus the discussion on
historical inequities and contemporary stigmas for speaking languages other than English. My
probing also prompted teachers to voice how they leveraged their influence and enacted their
influence in their homes and classrooms to change the negative stigmas associated with cultural
and linguistic diversity. In the following sections, I will present evidence for each of these
findings, thus demonstrating how I supported the learning of the participants.
Providing Space for Group Ownership
Throughout this study, I provided space for group ownership 63 times. Group ownership
occurs when learners own part of the learning process and feel empowered to direct the focus of
our professional learning meetings (Anthony, 1996; Mezirow, 1991). Facilitators enable group
ownership when they provide space to support self-directed learning to center the learner, not on
the task or meeting activity (Taylor & Colet, 2010; Webster-Wright, 2009). This andragogical

69
move to provide space for group ownership aligned with the adult learning literature that argues
teachers should have the autonomy to design their own learning (Elmore, 2002; Webster-Wright,
2009). I supported group ownership through instructional moves by providing choices in the
learning goals and the structure of the activities as well as more significant efforts such as
providing space for participant-led learning and for new discussions on problems of practice.
Below, I discussed how I provided space for participant-led learning and for new discussions
about problems of practice.
GI’s CSP-Inspired Lesson
I encouraged group ownership by supporting participant-led learning. GI revised her
CSP-inspired lesson plan based on the feedback she received in our first session. The CSPinspired lesson aimed to explore her students’ cultural and linguistic heritage. The first part of
the lesson asked students to complete a survey about their families, the languages their families
speak, and the cultural traditions they practice. The second part organized students into an
interactive whole-class matching game. Between Sessions 1 and 2, GI and I met over Zoom to
discuss and revise the survey questions. I had reservations about the survey questions and
matching game activity. I deliberately decided to support her as a way to focus on her as a
learner and to use this process for both of us to develop new insight and not control the creation
of the lesson (Webster-Wright, 2009). I recalled Puzio et al.’s (2017) creative failures study and
remembered that attempts to enact CSP can also reveal meaningful learning. In the Zoom call, I
invited GI to share her CSP-inspired lesson in our next meeting. She agreed to role-play the
lesson as a teacher while the rest of the participants and I would play the role of the students. We
decided to conclude the lesson simulation by debriefing the experience to better understand the
student’s perspective so she could revise the lesson based on feedback from our teacher

70
colleagues. The following dialogue demonstrates how I created space for GI to take ownership of
the group when I introduced GI’s simulation of her CSP-inspired lesson.
Ashlee: I got to talk to a lot of you guys about what you want to use this time for. [Most
wanted] to think about community builders and how to get to build those
relationships [with students]. So, GI is going to model [this for us]. … I pass the
baton to her.
GI: Ok, so as teachers, we want to get to know our kids. It’s difficult to try to get to
know them on a personal level because sometimes they’re really closed off. They
don’t know you. So, they don’t trust you that much, or they’ve heard things from
other people. And so, they, you know, you want to get to know them from them,
not from their friends or from other teachers and vice versa. … Ashlee and I
worked on this cultural identity survey. So, I’m gonna pretend you guys are the
students and I’m the teacher. So, I want you to go ahead and go to this website.
And I want you to click on where it says cultural identity survey. And what I want
you to do is I want you to fill it out based on what the questions ask. … Fill in the
blanks as best you can, just fill in with your responses, no sentence starters
needed. So, Number 1 says my cultural background is … Number 2, I was born
in. Number 3, my parents were born in. Number 4, my grandparents were born in,
you could talk about one or both sets of grandparents. My family can speak. And
then these languages, so including [the languages] you [speak]. My family
celebrates these holidays. So, you can list as many [holidays] as you can. If your
family doesn’t celebrate holidays, and you can list that as well. You don’t have to
get into specifics as to why. I’m on Number 7, one tradition my family has is …

71
That could be activity, it could be like making a dish [or meal], whatever it is.
And Number 8, one thing I like to do with my family is—
LA: —This is awesome. So, this would be a good survey but with modeling. … I want
to make a copy of … this assignment.
GI: Yes, for right now, what I would like for you to do is to pair share [your
responses] or, within this little group, go ahead and talk to each other about your
answers for the next, let’s say, 5 minutes.
In this dialogue, I said, “So, GI is going to model [this for us]. … I pass the baton to her.”
I supported group ownership by empowering GI to lead the group in a CSP-inspired lesson that
aimed to get to know our students. This andragogical move to provide space for group ownership
is important because it illustrates that through my facilitation, I practiced focusing on the
learning process and holistic human development rather than the professional development
approaches that aim to fill up a person with knowledge (Webster-Wright, 2009). Providing space
for GI to take ownership of the group also allowed for a discussion about a problem of practice
that can occur when a lesson centers on student cultural identity. As shown in the dialogue
below, my debrief question prompted teachers to consider how students may experience GI’s
CSP-inspired lesson plan.
Ashlee: Okay, so thinking about when we’re asking about students to think about their
culture and their identity. You know, we played the role of a student, so what
feelings, stories, memories did you experience during this activity? [We are]
trying to put ourselves in our student’s shoes, having that empathy of what they
will be feeling? … How did it feel for you?

72
LA: I got to talking to this fellow, he was very reserved about sharing his background,
… and it [was] brought [up] the reservation that put[s] down … the stigma that …
the main culture puts on different culture[s]. Salvadoreños oh my gosh, they’re
so—
GI: —Oh, the … they’re criminals because of because
LI: Mara Salvatrucha yes. MS 13. MS 13 is the gang …
LA: Yeah. It’s what I’m thinking? It’s a cultural stigma. Yeah
Ashlee: I love that this was brought up because … even [when we] created this [survey],
… [we discussed:] How do we phrase this [cultural questions]?
I prompted teachers to debrief the lesson simulation when I said, “We played the role of a
student, so what feelings, stories, memories did you experience during this activity?” I invited
teachers to reflect on the CSP-inspired lesson through the lens of a student. This allowed teachers
to discuss the reality that many people are unwilling to or have reservations about sharing their
cultural background because of cultural stigma. When LA said, “The stigma that … the main
culture puts on different culture[s],” she identified that the dominant American culture has
created a negative narrative about different cultures.
The group discussed an example of how Salvadoreans can sometimes be associated with
the Mara Salvatrucha or the MS-13 gang because the gang was founded by Salvadoreans who
immigrated to Los Angeles, California. This discussion enabled the group to problematize the
enactment of CSC&P with the reality that students might be unwilling to share their cultural
background with their peers and teachers because of the preconceptions and stigmas associated
with their cultural background. The interaction below shows that teachers continued to discuss
different possible challenges and opportunities for enacting GI’s CSP-inspired lesson.

73
LA: Yeah, actually, yeah. How does a White kid interpret this [other student’s cultural
background] information?
GI: Well, and this is like going back to this, it gives you a chance to, like, get a little
bit of knowledge of other people.
LA: Could you have experienced [the cultural stigma]? I have never done this [lesson].
So, would you have kids saying I’m really gonna stay away from her?
Ashlee: I’m glad we’re talking about this. Because this is what we’re trying to anticipate,
what, what can go wrong, right? Or to anticipate some of these challenges so that
as teachers [we] can be prepared, right? And I think you’re saying … and because
both could be true. We can say, “Oh, now I have a new face to what Salvadorians
look like, right?” Or it could be like, “Oh, you’re thinking of stereotyping.”
This discussion centered around an anticipated problem of practice when enacting CSP.
LA showed concern when she asked, “How does a White kid interpret this?” She worried that
this lesson could lead to stereotyping students from the non-dominant American culture, such as
culturally and linguistically diverse students.4 She hypothesized that a student would say, “I’m
gonna stay away from her.” That student would distance themselves from other students once
they learned about a student’s cultural background. GI countered LA’s concern by showing how
this lesson can disrupt stereotypes and allow students to “get a little bit of knowledge of other
people.” As a group, we brainstormed how this CSC&P activity might bring about anticipated
challenges. We did not come to a decisive conclusion; however, we acknowledged that lessons
that center on students’ cultural backgrounds could potentially be challenging for students who
4 LA’s comment focused on how White students might stereotype students of color, according to other statements
she made in the meeting. She did not mention the common concern that White, American dominant culture students
might not feel like they have a culture.

74
may resist sharing their heritage due to cultural stigmas and stereotypes. At the same time, this
type of lesson could be an opportunity to challenge harmful preconceptions by allowing students
and teachers to “get a little bit of knowledge of other people.”
I provided space for group ownership and empowered GI to model her CSP-inspired
lesson. After I asked reflective questions, the group then discussed possible challenges that could
occur when talking about students’ cultural backgrounds. This dialogue allowed us to gain new
insights about the challenges and opportunities of enacting CSC&P.
LA’s Problem of Practice
Another example that demonstrates how I provided space for participant-led learning and
facilitated a discussion on problems of practice occurred during the third meeting. At this point
in the meeting, participants shared lesson plans they had used to learn about their students’
cultural identity. Teachers shared their lessons by projecting student examples or the assignment
guidelines on the meeting screen and discussing what they liked about the lesson. This sharing of
lessons was not part of the agenda, but many teachers were eager to share their cultural identity
lessons after GI debriefed the enactment of her CSP-inspired lesson. The next part of the agenda
was to submit lessons for unit planners. This part of the meeting was intended to give teachers
time to share their lessons, including CSP-inspired lessons, as shown in Figure 5.

75
Figure 5
Meeting 3 Agenda
I asked the group if anyone else would like to share and warned the group that I would
take a teacher pause to encourage more participation. In response, LA used my question as an
invitation to share a problem of practice, not a lesson plan. Again, this discussion about her
problem of practice was not part of our agenda and prevented the group from submitting lessons
for the unit planners. Nonetheless, I felt it was important to give her the floor, given her desire to
share. As she described her dilemma, it reminded me of Horn and Little’s (2010) normalizing
toward practice conversational routine, so I thought that giving space for this discussion would
support LA as a learner and contribute new insights about instructional practices for the group
(Horn & Little, 2010; Webster-Wright, 2009). I intentionally decided to relinquish control of the
agenda and provide space for LA to present her problem of practice.
Ashlee: I’m just going to do a teacher pause. [Would] anyone else like to share? [I’m] not
looking at anyone.

76
LA: I have something to share, but I don’t want to share. But I am going to share. …
My students, first of all, are awesome. Given the level of expertise that you guys
[have] … I found I was just kind of thrown in. And … I just do the best I can. So,
I feel bad for my students, because I’m not giving them the best expertise that you
guys have, you know what I mean? But they’re delivering so nicely. … The class
makeup is kind of awesome for me, for me, my level of expertise when it comes
to delivering Spanish, you know what I mean? Because I have native speakers
who are past the level of hola yo soy ... basic introduction, I have maybe 10%–
15% of the population is monolingual English- or other that’s not Spanish. So,
because of the makeup of the class, I can get away without a lot of the
scaffold[ing] … to support the true second language learners. Does that make
sense? But so, I have this young lady who’s a native [Spanish] speaker, who’s
constantly absent. But if you don’t mind, just listen, listen to this kid. … She’s
very fluent. Obviously. She’s like 90% absent. And she’s able to produce this. So,
my question to you all is … obviously, she’s way above Spanish Level 1. She’s
ready to go to Level 2 versus writing paragraphs et cetera, et cetera. So, what do
you do with a kid like this?
JA: You give them a grade that they can pass the class. It’s a kind of like if someone
was in Algebra 1, and they should be in Algebra 2, you know?
JA: I mean, what are you gonna do? Like, you can’t, you can’t know, right? You’re
not going to change the class, so.
LA: But I do want to influence this kiddo and say: look, part of your grade is to be a
part of the class ... you’re not.

77
GI: For grey stuff [like] that [do] you know what can get her [to class]? Well, if it’s
her choice of not coming to class or if she got sick?
JA: But is she absent just from your classroom?
I provided space for participant-led learning when I said, “I’m just going to do a teacher
pause. [Would] anyone else like to share?” My question created space for LA to present her
current problem of practice to the group, even though it was not related to our agenda item. She
pivoted the conversation to describe her pedagogical dilemma with a student “who’s a native
[Spanish] speaker” and has a skill level “way above Spanish Level 1” but is “constantly absent.”
LA turned to the group for advice and steered the group into a problem of practice discussion
when she asked, “So, what do you do with a kid like this?” In response, JA argued, “You give
them a grade that they can pass the class.” JA justified his point with an analogy: “It’s a kind of
like if someone was in Algebra 1, and they should be in Algebra 2.”
JA’s response was an example of what Horn and Little (2010) termed normalizing
because his response did not place judgment on the teacher but framed the teacher’s problem as a
common problem in teaching. This quick response from JA was also an example of a technical
solution to justify passing the student based on their Spanish skill level despite the student’s
chronic absence (Heifetz et al., 2009). LA deepened the discussion and revised the problem
when she said, “But I do want to influence this kiddo,” which showed that JA’s technical
solution would only address the grade book dilemma but would not influence the student to
change their attendance or engagement with school (Heifetz et al., 2009). This comment invited
the group to look beyond the surface of the issue and led GI to question “if it’s her choice” to
come to school or “if she got sick?” GI wanted to learn more about the student’s situation. JA
asked, “Is she absent just from your classroom?” These questions align with what Horn and

78
Little (2010) called “further specifying a problem of practice” because the questions helped slow
down the conversation, collected more details about the student, and focused our thinking about
the root of the problem.
As shown below, these questions allowed LA to reflect on the specifics of the student
situation and allowed for a more in-depth examination of the problem of practice, which is
important in creating opportunities for teacher learning (Horn & Little, 2010).
LA: No, she’s absent from all [classes]. I’m more concerned about where she’s going
to end up as a 10th grader. A kiddo that was dating a ninth grader in fifth grade,
you know where I’m going with this?
JA: Yeah, she’s kind of doing those. … She shouldn’t be doing that stuff.
LA: When they do show up, it’s a complete disregard to their authority … just by the
body posture. In other words, my concern with this student is not even standards,
more like [human].
JA: Yeah, well, I don’t think this room is ready for that.5
GI and JA’s clarifying questions allowed LA to elaborate on what she knew about the
student and explained, “She’s absent from all [classes]” and was “dating a ninth grader in fifth
grade.” LA focused her problem of practice when she said, “I’m more concerned about where
she’s going to end up as a 10th grader.” This comment shows LA’s concern about the student’s
future based on the student’s current choices. The problem of practice, LA clarified, was about
connecting with the student to engage them in school. JA’s response acknowledged the
complexity of LA’s problem of practice and provided the group an opportunity to end the
5 JA stated that he didn’t think the group was ready for a conversation that focused on how to influence students’
actions and choices. The group had historically focused on discussing curriculum and assessments. JA’s comment
shows that this type of discussion was not common for our group.

79
conversation: “She shouldn’t be doing that stuff. … I don’t think this room is ready for that.” At
this point, I knew that this problem of practice was relatable to many teachers, including myself,
and I thought there could be a possibility to further analyze and extract new understandings
about our professions as teachers. I scrambled to contribute to the discussion and tried to direct
the conversation toward teacher agency by focusing on what was in our control.
Ashlee: I guess what we can do is like, well, what’s in our control, right? Like, …
relationships with our students … and working on making the content meaningful
and connecting it to them to—
JA: —I think the biggest thing, if you want to be worried about her is just keep
holding her accountable to stuff. That’s it. … Like, you’re not doing what you’re
supposed to be doing. That [accountability] talks again. Get her to confide in you.
And then once you get that, then you can—
LI: —Keep us updated.
Ashlee: Because I think I think we all have students like that.
GI: Yeah, I mean, if they [the students] know that … we are there for them, … and we
care about them. And it’s not just, “Hey do your work.” It’s like, “Hey, what’s
going on? You know, can I help with something?”
My contribution encouraged JA to continue to engage in this problem of practice. When I
said, “what’s in our control,” it framed the conversation around our choices as teachers as
opposed to dismissing this problem as outside the scope of our role as teachers or the
professional learning community. My suggestions about working on “relationships with our
students” and “making the content meaningful” started the shift in the conversation from
discussing LA’s specific student dilemmas to a more generalization about what we can do as

80
teachers in this type of situation. Horn and Little (2010) referred to this as generalizing, when the
conversation shifts from talking about the specific issue to a more general problem of practice
that occurs in teaching. This conversational shift enables teachers to engage toward practice,
think about new insights about our professions as teachers, and create general principles of
teaching (Horn & Little, 2010).
However, JA’s response was not general and discussed specific ways for LA to act and
argued to hold the student accountable and “get her to confide in you.” GI’s comment was more
general and toward principles of teaching when she suggested teachers should let students know
that “we care about them” and that teachers can be a resource if a student needs help. These
strategies positioned LA to take action on her problem of practice and helped move the
conversation “toward practice.”
This conversation was important as it demonstrated that the group extracted theories of
teaching based on a specific problem of practice. The above conversation revealed that JA, GI,
and I suggested a general principle of teaching is to connect with students by building
relationships, holding them accountable, making them confide in you, and showing that you care
about them. The commonality among these strategies aligns with Valenzuela’s (1999) concept of
authentic care, which argued that the foundation for all learning is created when teachers develop
a trusting relationship with their students. This conversation was significant because, as Horn
and Little (2010) explained, co-creating a generalizing principle of teaching supports the
development of teacher knowledge.
In summary, I provided space for participant-led learning and facilitated discussions on
problems of practice. Webster-Wright (2009) argued that professionals learn from different
experiences, including informal conversations, reflecting on difficult dilemmas, and

81
acknowledging the realities and responsibilities of the profession. LA’s problem of practice
created an opportunity for the group to engage in what Horn and Little (2010) called a
normalizing toward practice conversational routine. As a group, we analyzed the specifics of the
problem, LA reframed the issue and revealed a possible root cause. The conversation moved
toward general principles of teaching as we discussed strategies that positioned the teacher to
respond to her problem of practice. We theorized that a general principle of teaching is to
connect with students by building relationships, holding them accountable, making them confide
in you, and showing that you care about them.
Instituting a Cognitive Structure
Another finding from this action research is that I used cognitive structures, an
andragogical move, to support my colleagues’ learning. Specifically, in the fourth meeting, I
instituted a cognitive structure to guide teachers to practice self-reflection. Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) described cognitive structuring as scaffolding a structured activity to support thinking and
acting. This andragogical move is important because it can create space for teachers to reflect on
assumptions, power dynamics, and habitual behaviors and enable individuals to revise or
reconsider their practice (Elmore, 2002; Spikes, 2018; Wergin, 2020).
Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle supports teachers to slow down and reflect on student
learning by engaging in the process of presence, description, analysis, and experimentation. I
facilitated a modified Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle as a cognitive structure to support the
participants to be present to a moment of practice, describe the situation, analyze their
assumptions in that moment, engage in a self-reflection on how their belief system shaped their
assumptions, and think about how to experiment with new instructional strategies. This cognitive
structure differs from Rodgers’ (2002) reflection cycle because I embedded what Larrivee (2006)

82
termed self-reflection. The self-reflection phase introduces teachers to critical reflection and
assists them in thinking about how their personal belief systems shaped their assumptions and,
thus, influenced their teaching practices (Larrivee, 2006). The self-reflection phase builds on the
work of Wergin (2020), who explained that individuals are resistant to change because their
actions are embedded in their personal belief systems. I created a participant’s guide, see Figure
6, and provided each teacher with their own copy to aid the group through this modified
Rodgers’ reflection cycle. This guide served as a cognitive structure.
Figure 6
Participant’s Guide for Modified Rodgers’ Reflection Cycle

83
I read through my instructor’s guide, which closely resembled the participant’s guide and
included probing and guiding questions. As stated in Figure 6, using the individual reflection
guiding questions, I invited teachers to reflect on a puzzling, troubling, or exciting moment of
practice during their CSP-inspired lesson, to focus on just one moment, tell a story, and describe
the situation. In alignment with Rodgers (2002), I instructed teachers not to solve or interpret the
moment but to add as many details as possible. This descriptive phase aimed to make time for
teachers to slow down and reflect on the moment of practice instead of jumping into action to
interpret or fix the situation (Rodgers, 2002). I continued to reference the individual reflection
guiding questions in Figure 6 and asked teachers to suspend any judgment they might be holding
toward the student or individuals involved and to consider their experience of the same moment.
I asked teachers to write about different perspectives of that moment; as Rodgers (2002)
explained, one should “not be limited to the sum of one’s own perceptions.”
Before giving them time to work together, I shared my puzzling moment of practice with
the group as an example and to model vulnerability because I was asking them to be vulnerable,
too. I informed the group that they could write about this moment of practice in their language of
preference and that the writing was for them, so they had the choice to keep this reflection to
themselves. One teacher asked if we could skip the writing time and just talk about this as a
group. I did not follow the suggestion, though I was transparent about my instruction and I
explained that the writing time allowed for all teachers to pause, reflect, and support deeper
thinking.
Following the individual reflection time, I continued to guide teachers through the
participant’s guide and introduced the parameters of the partner share step in Figure 6. I

84
explained that teachers are welcome to share their moment of practice with a partner at their
table. I introduced partner-sharing discussion norms, as seen in Figure 7.
Figure 7
Partner Sharing Discussion Norms

85
The purpose of the discussion norms was to support teachers to feel comfortable sharing
a moment of practice and to assist them in the description phase of Rodgers’s reflection cycle.
As seen in Figure 7, the discussion norms prompted the partner listening to ask questions to learn
more details so that the partners could seek to understand multiple dimensions of the situation
and reminded the group that the reflection aimed to “earn, not judge or solve the problem.
Partners shared their experiences for about 15 minutes.
As stated in Figure 6 in the participant’s guide, I then invited the group to start the second
set of individual Reflection guiding questions, which was to think about their assumptions and
reflect on how their personal beliefs, family imprinting, or cultural conditioning influenced their
perspective during that moment of practice. This second set of individual reflection questions
supported teachers in the analyze phase of Rodgers’s reflection cycle. The reflection cycle aimed
to help teachers unearth how their personal beliefs, family values, or cultural conditioning
influenced their assumptions during their practice. My goal was to use this reflection as a
cognitive structure to slow teacher thinking, identify their assumptions, and think more deeply
about what influenced their assumptions. As Shermer (2011) and Wergin (2020) argued, it is
when individuals understand their unconscious thinking that they can unearth how they formed
their perspectives and create the opportunity to reflect on new ways of thinking and acting.
After the final round of the individual reflection time, I created space for the whole group
reflection, as seen in Figure 6. The purpose of the whole group discussion was to create a
platform for individuals to share their reflections so that I could ask more questions to assist the
describe and self-reflection phase of the reflection cycle. I asked if any teachers would like to
share and restated the discussion norms in Figure 7. Three teachers volunteered to share their
reflections with the group. Below I will analyze the dialogue of two teachers who shared

86
reflections on their assumptions. The first example shows how the cognitive structure supported
the teacher to see multiple perspectives of the moment and to name her assumption. The second
example demonstrates how the cognitive structure supported the teacher to work toward selfreflection by revealing how his assumptions stem from his personal belief system and influenced
his teaching practice.
Scaffolding Modified Rodgers’ Reflection Cycle
The dialogue below demonstrates how I reminded our group of the discussion norms and
asked for a volunteer to share their moment of practice and self-reflection. In response, ST
shared her moment of practice.
Ashlee: So, I’m going to this next part … just to remind us of our norms because I think
this does kind of put us in a more, like, vulnerable position to share. But that, that
we want to not judge and normalize that these practices are, that these experiences
are so common in teaching and what we share [are common issues that come up
in teaching]. And I think one of the norms is, you know, that willingness to reflect
on successes and struggles and, being okay to make mistakes and kind of going
back to those two norms. And then I’d like to just, yeah, before I invite anyone, or
for volunteers to share for those that feel comfortable. Yeah, we’ll use … the
same discussion norm. So, yeah, normalizing that … this is a normal issue in our
teaching profession. If for the person that’s sharing, to ask questions, to learn
more details about the situation. … So, we can collectively like come together to
think about the puzzling situation and then seek to understand multiple
dimensions of the problem and aim to learn, not to judge or solve the problem. So
same thing discussion norms, as before. So, with that, would anyone like to share?

87
ST: So, one of the moments that I was writing about was I have students from, like,
different Middle Eastern areas, they’re my [English language development]
classes, and we watch CNN 10 for their listening activities. So, a lot of the times,
from October until now, CNN 10 will report about the war on Hamas or in Gaza
or Hamas against the Israelites. And so, they have very strong beliefs on the war,
and they get very emotional. And when we were discussing with NI, at first, my
assumption was that this strong [political] belief came from their parents and that
they hear this because they’re our sixth graders, right? Like, they’re very young.
And I thought like the ideologies that were coming from their parents, but one of
the things that NI brought up was that they [the students] have TikTok, and they
just keep watching [this content] over and over. And then they get very emotional
because I will see the kids getting so emotionally like attacking each other and it
was just very difficult to understand like, why are they getting so [emotional]?
Like, I understand … this is an emotional topic, but they will get so mean and
rude, right? And so, I just thought, ‘Oh,’ this is a behavior that they see at home. I
don’t have social media. So, it never came into my mind that social media could
have been one of the things that was affecting them. And then seeing the content
over and over and over again, it’s really affecting how they treat others and how
they see the world to take the first political, you know, topic that they’re growing
in. And they’re like talking about [it] and that they’re seeing [it] everywhere, so.
Before I invited teachers to share their self-reflection, I stated that this request to share
puts the volunteer in a “vulnerable position.” I encouraged the group to “not judge” and
normalize these moments of practice as “common in teaching.” I recalled our group norms and

88
highlighted our agreement to have a “willingness to reflect on successes and struggles” and
“being okay to make mistakes.” I also established guidelines for our discussion and requested
teachers to “ask questions, to learn more details about the situation” and to “seek to understand
multiple dimensions of the problem.” I stated that our “aim [is] to learn, not to judge or solve the
problem.” Below, I explain how the dialogue followed Rodgers’s reflection cycle phases.
See and Describe. ST engaged in the see phase of the reflection cycle during the
individual reflection time. In the above dialogue, ST recalled a moment where she was puzzled
by her students’ strong emotional response to the war in Gaza. ST tried the description phase of
the cycle when she explained her moment in a story-like fashion. She stated that on Mondays her
students watch a news summary, and since October, the news has reported on the war in Gaza.
She described that her students “get very emotional,” they attack each other, and are “mean and
rude.” She said, “It was very difficult to understand,” and she asked herself, “Why are they
getting so [emotional]?” This was a missed opportunity for me to assist ST in the description
phase and clarify what ST meant by “mean and rude,” as these adjectives are ST’s interpretation
of the moment and not a description of the student’s words or actions.
Analyze. She stated her initial thoughts: “At first, my assumption was that this strong
belief came from their parents” and “this is a behavior that they see at home.” ST identified that
she assumed parents or family members influenced her students. Then shared her thought partner
NI helped her see a different perspective. During the pair-share conversation, “one of the things
NI brought up that was they [the students] have TikTok, and they just keep watching [this
content] over and over.” The modified Rodgers’ (2002) reflection cycle helped ST see that she
assumed that the students were being influenced by their families6 and thought this still could
6 In a follow-up conversation, I learned that she assumed her students were influenced by their parents and family
because her political views and beliefs were shaped by her parents and family. She mentioned she did not have

89
hold true, but NI also provided ST with a different perspective about the source of the students’
emotional response to the news. The modified Rodgers’ (2002) reflection cycle and the time
spent describing the moment of practice to NI helped ST to identify her assumptions during the
analyze phase. ST described her puzzling moment of practice, identified her assumption, and
revealed an alternative perspective on the situation.
The conversation continued, but the response from JA shifted the focus of the discussion
toward a pedagogical reflection, as shown below.
JA: And they [the students] can’t discern between the slanted message or not. Most of
the grown-ups can’t.
ST: Yeah. Yeah. Sounds like … they feel like the information they’re getting [is] …
the real information.
ST: Yeah. So, it has just become really difficult when that happens.
Ashlee: Can I ask, like, what do you do when those moments [occur]?
JA: Do a TikTok dance.
ST: I will try that. It might work … So, on Monday, it was something about Jewish
communities, and … we talked about genocide. So, it’s like words that they didn’t
even know. … We talked about discrimination. They didn’t really know what
discrimination meant. And then we talked … about how … the way they … talk
about somebody else might affect them.
The first response was from JA: “And they [the students] can’t discern between the
slanted message or not. Most of the grown-ups can’t.” This comment shifted the direction of the
conversation and centered the concern about the spread of misinformation through social media.
access to the Internet when she was growing up and forgot that her students have access to social media that can
enable influences beyond their parents or circle of family and friends.

90
This conversation was valuable and relevant because it opened up the opportunity for ST to
reflect on how to respond to challenging teaching situations. Also, I missed my opportunity to
probe ST about her assumption, as my intention was to use a modified Rodgers’ (2002)
reflection cycle as a cognitive structure to help ST in a self-reflection so she could unearth the
belief system that shaped her choices during this moment of practice. To support self-reflection, I
should have asked ST if she thought her personal beliefs, family values, or cultural conditioning
influenced her belief that her student’s ideologies were from their parents. However, I was
caught off guard by her example and I did not stick to the norms I created that listeners should
ask clarifying questions about the situation to help deepen the teacher’s reflection. Instead, I
asked her, “Can I ask, like, what do you do when those moments [occur]?” This question
positioned ST to provide what she perceived as a correct answer, and she described an ideal
pedagogical response to a challenging teaching moment of practice. She had a strong response
and this cognitive structure created a platform for her to reflect and share how she addressed the
political tension in the classroom and provided an example for other teachers to follow. ST
explained that she talked to the students about genocide and discrimination.
In summary, the aim of instituting the modified Rodgers’ (2002) reflection cycle was to
create a cognitive structure to guide teachers to practice self-reflection. This cognitive structure,
specifically the pair-share discussion, supported ST to see a different perspective and name her
assumption in that moment. This ultimately led to a discussion about misinformation through
social media, a pedagogical reflection. Though I intended to support ST to engage in a selfreflection, her reply about her pedagogical response provided the group valuable example on
how to address a sensitive topic in class.

91
Unearthing JA’s Belief System
The second example demonstrates how the cognitive structure of an adapted Rodgers’
cycle supported JA in seeing, describing, and analyzing a moment of practice and working
toward self-reflection by highlighting how his assumptions stem from his personal belief system
and influenced his teaching practice.
JA: Maybe that’s part of my personality, but I always look at that, you know, why
would they [the student] do that? And then I always arrive at like, you know, what
if it’s some kind of value system that they have that … influences their decision
making. So, you know, then it goes back to, like, what’s, what’s their set of
values? This is what I wrote about in mine [my reflection].
Ashlee: Do you want to share your [reflection] JA? Are you interested?
JA: Yeah, I got, I got a kid who? Well, I teach PE also. And so I was like, looking at
one of the students who was coming in and checked them out to see what’s going
on. I see he’s a sophomore. But he was born in April 2006, which means he
should be about a senior right now. And so that kind of got me thinking and then
just trying to figure out his background. What brought him to [the district]? So the
first day of class, you know, I see his name is [student name], and what’s going
on … just to get to know him better. So it’s been a little bit of time talking, and
he’s been in and out of juvie. And came from like, the Upland area. And, you
know, like, maybe had some weapons, whatever it was. But it just got me thinking
about you know, as we talk more, you can tell … he’s got a sense of duty to
[him]. … Like, he has some things that he’s defending, you know? And so, my
assumptions in that was [that] he’s in a situation [or an] environment … where

92
whatever it is, … [it goes] back to value system [that] has been given to him. He
believes it, defends it, whether it’s going to cause him some bad consequences in
the society he lives in or not. That is not as important to [him], you know … my
assumption is in that moment … that he had … he has that sense of duty. But, you
know, this would be an opportunity for me in just a little continuous dialogue of
maybe giving them some responsibility of getting to see, well, this is what other
types of adults do in their life, you know? He’s not gonna get into a sport, which a
lot of times, sports can for kids young and could be very life-changing, because
they find someone that they can line up to, and say, those are some good set of
values and follow up and at least keeping them into a situation where he can, you
know, he can contrast what he has or been exposed to, to other types of adults that
… have a job, raise their kids, you know what I mean? So, you know, and that can
result in him making positive contributions in school and extend out to society in
a large [way]. So, personal beliefs, yes, so those are, those are just some of my
personal beliefs. … I was a PE teacher, which has a ton of minimal impact on a
kid because, to them, it’s kind of like a hassle. But given them a good set of
expectations … like finding what he likes … but then at the same time, you still
gotta dress out, and I am going to put him in charge of these couple of things and
see if he can be up to it. So, you know, we’re about 2 months in, and it’s gone
pretty good. [He] tells me when he has his PO meetings and just different stuff
like that, but he’s a good kid. And like I said, he’s got a strong sense of obligation
and duty, you know? Like, it’s just getting into … things that would be good idea
to follow up with [him].

93
See and Describe. JA worked toward engaging in the phase of learning to see during the
individual reflection time. In the dialogue above, he shared that he was curious about a new
student joining his PE class and noticed that “he’s a sophomore” but that he “should be a senior
right now.” He explained, “That kind of got me thinking and then just trying to figure out his
background: What brought him to [the district]?” His reflection on that moment corresponded
with Rodgers’ (2002) description of “learning to see” as he emulated a presence that was alert,
curious, and free of judgment. The teacher described the situation and his steps to learn more
about the new student. The teacher spent “a little bit of time talking” to him to “get to know him
better” and learned the student has been “in and out of juvie.” These descriptive characteristics
about the student demonstrated JA’s intentional presence to and description of the student.
Analyze. This analysis of the experience phase in the reflection cycle helped JA identify
his assumptions about the new student. He explained that he assumed his new student was “a
good kid,” had a strong value system, and “he believes it, defends it” even if it “cause[s] him
some bad consequences in the society.” In other words, knowing that this student has been “in
and out of juvie” did not mean that JA automatically wrote him off. Rather, he entertained an
alternative explanation by discussing the “duty” he assumed the student had. Entertaining
alternative explanations is a key part of the “analyze” phase (Rodgers, 2002), so the modified
Rodgers’ reflection cycle prompted teachers to consider how their personal belief systems might
have influenced their assumptions.
The conversation continued, and I wanted to know if JA had any false assumptions from
his first impression of meeting the new student.
Ashlee: Did your impression about him change at all from first meeting him to now?

94
JA: From the first meeting him my, my first impressions? They were confirmed. I
would say, because, you know, my first impression without even talking to him, I
go to his background just looking at his birthday. Looking what grade he is in. We
have a social worker, soccer coach, and, you know, [I] had a conversation with
him because he knows everyone that’s coming from, like, juvie, or all these
different schools. [He] keeps an eye on them. And so I asked what’s [student’s
name] story and said, he’s going through, you know, some stuff.
Ashlee: Can I ask you now like, a personal question? … I’m just wondering, not all
teachers would have thought that. You know, you said: he’s like a good kid.
JA: He has a lot of ability, too. He’s got a good sense of who he likes and who he
wants to be. Maybe his earlier decisions was, well, I want to be loyal to this group
of people. Yeah. And that’s why he had a pistol [or] had a knife at a facility, you
know, because he’s defending.
Ashlee: Did he have a weapon in a different setting? Is that?
JA: Yeah, yeah. So, and then that’s part of the stuff that he’s going to go through.
Yeah, case officer, parol [officer], you know, whatever.
Ashlee: Was there anything in your … life experience that that is going to help you give
him like this [‘good kid’ impression]?
JA: Oh, I was, I was a kid that was [like] that. But I could always balance that off with
… [I] kept in line because I liked sports, too. And I was, but you know, just like
any kid whose parents, you know, dad’s here, and … mom’s there. Just sort of
like there with your group of guys. So, I am. I think about this a lot. And that, you

95
know, I could have been a different case. But a coach saw something in [me], you
know. [He] leaned heavily on me to make good choices and whatever.
Self-Reflection. The cognitive structure allowed JA to pause and think about why he
looked into the new student’s background, built a relationship with him, and tried to understand
what influenced the student’s past choices. Through the dialogue, JA revealed that he thought the
new student was a “good kid” despite his past experiences. I asked a question to assist JA in
thinking introspectively to consider what influenced him to believe that the student was “a good
kid:” “Can I ask you now, like, a personal question? You said: he’s like a good kid.” T JA
reflected on his thinking and explained, “I was a kid that was [like] that” and “I think about this a
lot … I could have been a different case, … but a coach saw something in [me]” and “[He]
leaned heavily on me to make good choices.” From this self-reflection, it was evident that JA’s
“good kid” impression of the new student was influenced by his personal belief system formed
by his own youth experience. By asking him to consider where his assumption came from, JA
pointed to his own past experiences to help with his analysis.
In conclusion, the modified Rodgers’ reflection cycle of learning to see, describe, analyze
and experiment served as a cognitive structure to support teachers to reflect on a moment of
practice. This process aims to help teachers unearth their assumptions and self-reflect on how
their belief system influenced their assumptions to plant the seeds to change instructional
practices (Elmore, 2002; Spikes, 2018; Wergin, 2020). The first example showed that the pairshare discussion supported ST in describing the experience and considering a different
perspective during a puzzling moment of practice. Despite the cognitive structure provided, I
was unable to support ST to engage in self-reflection during the group dialogue; instead, the
group discussion shifted to a pedagogical reflection. This example reveals the importance of the

96
facilitator’s ability to pause the group conversation to paraphrase and ask probing questions that
assist teachers in engaging in self-reflection (I will continue to discuss my ability as a facilitator
to deepen group dialogue through paraphrasing and probing in the next section).
In the second example, individual reflection time helped JA to unearth his assumption
about a new student. Through the group dialogue, he could identify that his own experiences
growing up influenced his personal belief system, which shaped his assumptions about the new
student and his pedagogical strategies. These two examples demonstrated how providing a
cognitive structure can support teachers to pause and reflect on a moment of practice, unearth
their assumptions, and consider alternative explanations. This process is important because it
creates a foundation to engage teachers in deep learning because, as Shermer (2011) and Wergin
(2020) argued, when individuals identify what influences their assumptions, it creates an
opportunity to change habitual actions such as instructional practices.
Paraphrasing and Probing Facilitated a Deeper Conversation
Throughout the study, I also supported my colleagues’ learning when I paused and
paraphrased the group’s dialogue 40 times. This allowed me to highlight certain words to focus
the discussion on our learning objectives and go deeper into those topics. The fast-dynamic
nature of the conversation sometimes made it difficult for me to interject to ask probing and
guiding questions, so I used the paraphrase technique to slow down the pace of the discussion
and pose a question to pivot the conversation or focus the dialogue.
Pausing to Discuss Historical Inequities
My pausing and probing deepened our conversation, as demonstrated in the dialogue
below. In this conversation, the group started to discuss how beans are a cultural part of a
teacher’s identity. As previously mentioned above, I instituted cognitive structures to support

97
teachers’ reflections on identity. Spikes (2018) explained that teachers’ self-reflection allows
educators to understand how their identity influences their practice and to consider changes to
benefit student learning. The following dialogue demonstrates how I paraphrased a key part of
the conversation to center the idea that beans, a part of teachers’ and students’ identity, can
signal culture and socioeconomic status. This paraphrase, thus, led to a deeper discussion.
Ashlee: To bring us back, … we [were talking about] beans, and maybe it’s a class thing,
you know, being affordable food and rice and then LA, you were saying?
DI: Maybe not. Maybe it’s just all in my head.
CA: Okay, so I think that it’s a difference between people like myself that … come
from a different cultural background, even though these kids are Hispanic
heritage. But they’re not exactly the same because they have assimilated into the
culture here. They’re [in] American culture. And to me beans here are cool in
California because we have Chipotle, you have all these restaurants. And so I
don’t think that kids growing up here see beans as you and me.
LI: I grew up here. And I disagree. Because you’re forced to eat beans because that’s
what is part of your culture. That’s what is affordable. And I … didn’t like beans
growing up. Now, I do. I think it’s a taste [they are] good, … but I do. I do see it.
CA: No, that’s what I’m saying. We see it this way. But maybe in a different context
maybe.
LA: You know, this discussion brings back my student teaching years. There was a
gentleman whose book we read, Richard Rodriguez, are you familiar with them?
… Think [he] was a first-generation American, Mexican American, but he
advocated for English-only. … He was [in] a family that completely acculturated

98
into the American whatever that means, culture. That acculturation process [got
him] accolades, achievements, status, political status. He advocated for education.
He said his idea, … if I remember correctly, was to drop your culture and
assimilate [to] this one because this is the one you need to succeed in. And let it
be by your attributes not because of your ethnicity. … Since my college years,
the success rate for Hispanics has not changed much. We’re still at a 10% success
rate. So, when you look at it [the success rate], some of the changes that have
happened where the [English language program and] the mentoring [program is a]
process to help the students get through the college process. Does that make
sense? So, advocates like this man bring in a different perspective, from a
person’s cultural experience in their native land versus those that are raised in the
second culture or, in this case, … their first culture. … Yeah. So, the cultural
values, the context of one person could be different from that of another, given
where you’re raised.
When I said, “To bring us back, … we [were talking about] beans, and maybe it’s a class
thing, you know, being affordable food and rice and then LA, you were saying?” I invited LA to
continue their comment about beans as an affordable cultural food that defined one’s Hispanic7
identity, and allowed the group to engage in a deeper discussion about the different perceptions
of ethnic identity. The goal of my action research was to support world language teachers to
engage in reflective discourse (Brookfield, 2010; Elmore, 2002; Larrivee, 2006; Rodgers, 2002;
Wergin, 2020).
7 There is no perfect word to describe the Latina/Latine/Latino/Latinx identity. I chose to use the term Hispanic,
which emphasis the language identity, because all the Spanish teachers in the group speak Spanish. Not everyone is
from Latin America, as one teacher is from Spain.

99
Through reflective discourse, I argued in this study’s conceptual framework, teachers
could unearth individual assumptions to support deep learning. In the conceptual framework, I
also explained that I would focus on using guiding and probing questioning techniques as an
andragogical move to engage the participants in deeper discourse to challenge current
assumptions and consider different perspectives. My guiding question above shows I used the
andragogical technique to support a teacher to expand on their thoughts, and my prompting
enabled the group to explain their current sense-making. This pausing, paraphrasing, and
questioning technique was important because it exposed the teacher’s way of thinking and,
therefore, created an opportunity to question assumptions, consider different perspectives, and
co-create new knowledge or ways of thinking (Sahin & Kulm, 2008; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
The interaction above also demonstrates that while the conversation started with
reflections on personal examples and perceptions of beans, it shifted to the perception of
maintaining Latino culture in an American context. The transition to a deeper level of dialogue
took place when LA referenced California’s historical attempts to marginalize the Spanish
language and culture by bringing up Richard Rodriguez and his belief in the English-only
legislation.8 After discussing participants’ personal experiences with beans as a marker of ethnic
and socioeconomic identity, LA made a connection and offered a macro perspective on the
historical existence of the motto “drop your culture and assimilate.” This was an alternative point
of view that had been missing from our conversation and served to contextualize the participants’
lived experiences within a historical framework.
The reference to the English-only campaign was a turning point for our group because it
situated our discussion in a historical context and considered language policies that targeted
8Such as California’s proposition 227, which eliminated bilingual education in California schools (Proposition 227,
1998).

100
culturally and linguistically diverse students in California schools. LA seemed to be suggesting
that perhaps assimilation through English-only may be more effective when she said, “That
acculturation process [got him] accolades, achievements, status, political status” and later said
that despite “some of the changes that have happened where the [English language program and]
the mentoring [program is a] process to help the students get through the college process”
“We’re [Hispanics] still at a 10% success rate.” LA’s contribution enabled the group to consider
opposing perspectives.
The introduction of the concept of assimilation and LA’s connection to the English-only
movement prompted me to paraphrase and pose the next question to invite other participants to
share their perspectives on whether assimilation leads to success in the United States. This
question invited participants to explore contradictions and inconsistencies in our school systems.
This is important because it guided the group into a deeper level of discussion by considering
divergent points of view (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). The dialogue below shows
how I referred to the words acculturation and assimilation and asked the group if they thought
assimilation into American culture was the way to succeed. This questioning technique
supported teachers to engage in reflective discourse on a key ideological debate.
Ashlee: I think, … how did you phrase the acculturation part … basically assimilate into
the American culture as a way to succeed? Yeah, and I guess I want to pose that
to a roomful of language teachers. … Do we think [assimilation into American
culture is] the way [to succeed]?
JA: I think LA is referring to a previous time because my dad [thought the] same
thing. [He] came from Thailand to the [United States], he didn’t teach us any
Thai. Anything. Yeah, it was just like English. [He] married an American.

101
CA: I think that’s still happening.
JA: Yeah, but … I don’t think that kind of suggestion [English-only] is as prevalent.
NI: I think there’s a very strong opinion: teach kids two languages, they’re going to
be bad at English. I think that’s still a very pervasive thought. Amongst the
general population, if I teach them Thai, I teach them Spanish, I teach them,
whatever, they’re going to be confused, and their English is going to end up being
bad, which is factually untrue. [This is a] basic thought amongst a really large
chunk of the population.
DI: I think parents are seeing the benefits of that [language learning]. And I think that
shift [has been] happening for the past 10 years, at least, like when I was in high
school, right, of course, like, English, English, English, but like [now parents
think] the more languages you know, the better educated you are, the more your
mind will grow, the better health benefits, whatever all these things are
contributing to those factors [for parents] wanting to teach their kids second
languages.
JA: Just look on TV. How many programs have … main characters from different
backgrounds?
NI: But the thing that a lot of Asian students, their parents … send their kids to
Chinese school on Saturday or Japanese. Right? Like, I actually think that [the
perception on language learning is] very culturally dependent, which groups
believe in English-only versus actually I’m gonna send you to Japanese school
until you go to college.

102
ST: It also has to do with, the whole Mexican schools here in California [during the
1940s]. Like, if you spoke Spanish, [children] were sent to a Mexican school
where they were taught how to sweep the floors or feed the animals, grow crops.
But if you spoke English, you were sent to a regular school where you were
taught how to read and write
DI: It was the old generation, maybe because like, I speak to my kids [in] just
Spanish. I would not hesitate sending them to just a Spanish-speaking school.
In this interaction, I paused and paraphrased LA’s idea that one must assimilate to
succeed in American culture and asked a probing question: “I want to pose that to a roomful of
language teachers … do we think [assimilation into American culture is] the way [to succeed]?”
When I asked this probing question, I invited the entire group to share their thoughts, which led
to a meaningful back-and-forth discussion where seven of the nine participants voiced their
perspectives on how they think contemporary American society, including parents in our school
district, perceive learning and speaking other languages. Many teachers voiced their opinions
based on their personal belief systems and referenced and compared their experiences as
children, parents, and teachers. For example, JA said that “drop your culture and assimilate” was
an idea from a “previous time” and cited their upbringing. Their Thai father did not teach them
Thai. This prompted CA to say, “This is still happening,” and for NI to agree by saying, “It is
still a very pervasive thought” that if you learn another language, your English language will
suffer, which NI argued “is factually untrue.” DI then rebutted by saying, “I think parents are
seeing the benefits of that [language learning]. And I think that shift [has been] happening for the
past 10 years,” demonstrating their understanding that the ideological debate seems to be leaning
in favor of multilingualism, albeit not fully.

103
In this study’s conceptual framework, I built on the ideas of Wergin (2020), who
explained behaviors are embedded in a personal belief system, so to achieve deep learning,
individuals need to reflect and think about their beliefs and unearth how they formed their
beliefs. The dialogue above exemplifies how my paraphrasing and probing question allowed the
participants to practice reflective discourse, voice their perspectives, and start to understand how
they formed their current belief system (Sahin & Kulm, 2008; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). It was
significant that seven of the nine teachers participated fully in this reflective discussion because
this conversation built a foundation for teachers to reconsider their assumptions and work toward
deep learning (Wergin, 2020).
The group had not yet come to an agreement about whether assimilation is best for
culturally diverse Americans. Rather, my paraphrasing and probing question focused the group
discussion on the public perception of learning and speaking other languages. This focus led the
group to discuss additional nuances and examine differential ways our society has valued some
languages over others, including the historical attempts to marginalize and exclude Spanishspeaking children in California schools. When NI said that the perception of language learning is
“very culturally dependent, which groups believe in English-only versus actually I’m gonna send
you to Japanese school until you go to college,” ST provided an explanation rooted in historical
discrimination of Spanish speakers by recalling the racially segregated Californian Mexican
schools. ST said,
Like, if you spoke Spanish, [children] were sent to a Mexican school where they were
taught how to sweep the floors or feed the animals, grow crops. But if you spoke English,
you were sent to a regular school where you were taught how to read and write.

104
This is another example of placing our discussion in a historical context and citing
discriminating policies toward Spanish speakers in California schools. ST’s comment allowed
the group to consider how historical legacies influence public perception of learning and
speaking other languages.
Considering the historical legislation that segregated Spanish-speaking students was an
important shift in our conversation because it allowed teachers to think in terms of policies,
processes, and structures rather than simply their personal experiences with ethnic identity. As
stated in this study’s conceptual framework, my goal was to support teachers to think deeply and
engage in the structural root causes of the historical inequity of culturally and linguistically
diverse students (Heifetz et al., 2009; Senge, 2006; Wergin, 2020). It was significant that our
conversation recalled historical laws and practices that created inequitable structures for Spanish
speakers in California schools. Discussing historical legislation enables teachers to engage in
system-level thinking, which, according to the study’s conceptual framework, is a springboard
for adaptive solutions that address structural complexity (Heifetz et al., 2009; Wergin, 2020).
Pausing to Discuss Contemporary Stigma of Non-English Language Speaking
The discussion about discriminating policies toward Spanish speakers ignited the next
part of the conversation, as many world language teachers are also English language
development (ELD) parents, former ELD students, and current ELD teachers. JA, DI, and ST
offered their experience as ELD parents who shared the prevalent strategy of not marking a
different language on district forms to avoid their child being “labeled differently.” The
following dialogue illuminates the contemporary stigma of speaking other languages than
English.

105
ST: Like if you’re a parent who has an ELD kid, the parents a lot of the times say, I
don’t want to mark that my son speaks a different language.
DI: That’s what happened [to my son] … My son just entered TK … [The district
asked] what language is spoken in [the] home: Spanish. [And] he speaks perfect
English. And I keep getting correspondences in Spanish, like whatever, you
know, no big deal. Now he’s marked as an [ELL], but he speaks fluent English.
ST: No, but yeah, but a lot of parents are scared of marking that [their child speaks a
different language at home]. Because once you mark [them] as an EL student,
then you have to take the ELPAC. And they see the ELPAC as a—
LA: —like a deterrent to education.
ST: Yeah. And then they see it, oh, my kid is labeled, you know, like special
education is labeled differently. … Like, ELPAC is a label, like, “Oh, my kid is
less because of that [English learner label].” And so, they don’t want to mark that.
So, a lot of the parents usually tell each other, “Oh, don’t mark that box [that your
child can speak a different language].”
After this point in the conversation, I paraphrased the previous back-and-forth discussion
and focused on two contradicting ideas: some parents in our district value their children learning
a second language, and, at the same time, there is a stigma attached to the school district’s ELL
label. By doing so, I facilitated a discussion that focused on how the historical policies and
stigmas related to non-English-speaking Americans plays out in contemporary schooling
practices. I did not pose a question, but by paraphrasing what was previously said and focusing
on the paradox of language learning, I led the group to a deeper discussion about the perception
of being labeled as ELLs, treated differently, and being tracked in our school district.

106
Ashlee: So, I think I’m just going to, like, recap some parts of our conversation of just
how we’re thinking about going from food, and maybe at [as a] point of
embarrassment for some students if it’s like, especially if it’s related to their
culture, or maybe related to like, you know, to income status, what they have
access to, and, and then how that relates back to how language is [perceived].
And, and like the English-only movement and being that that was a way to be
successful in our American society, and then a great dialogue of like, you know,
having two contradicting ideas of like, well, we’ve made improvements and the
way we’ve viewed a second language and seeing the benefits. And we see
different examples of parents wanting that second language [for their kids]. And
at the same time, like, perhaps some areas of improvement of like the way even
our schools perceived [ELLs] and how it has a stigma if you need to take the
ELPAC, or have, you know, that [stigma] does exist still is what I’m hearing.
NI: Because the idea of language being exclusionary versus inclusionary—
JA: —There’s one form [my wife] filled out, and, like, is there another language [your
kids can speak]. Like, [when] my kids were at their grandparents’ house, they
speak … Korean, … so [my kids] they’re in this track of like, being pulled out for
[English language support]. Like, it was puzzling, you know, but it was like,
learning English. But they didn’t realize it [until] later. Because she had marked
just trying to be candid with what they’re going through, what they’re doing,
where they’re narrowed in as EL learners, or whatever it’s called.
JA: [You’re] better off keeping some information. Not being too candid [with the
school district].

107
DI: My son, 5 years old, I’m thinking down the road, like, his first language was
Spanish. He’d speak Spanish to his sister. They communicate in Spanish with me,
Spanish, [with] grandparents, Spanish. But he speaks fluent English with
everybody else. And I’m just thinking, like, how is that going to impact [him]?
[What will his] education [be] like going forward? And like you said, is it just
gonna be an obstacle that he’s gonna have to overcome? I mean, we all did. Well,
I did it. I learned English in school. Exactly like how my son is doing, you know.
He does it [speak English] with his mom, or he’s doing it in school. But at the
same time, like, is it going to distract them from the actual curriculum? You
know, is [he] going to feel embarrassed growing up speaking Spanish? Because
he’s labeled an [ELL], which he is.
ST: They all are. [laughter] Since my kids [have] already [gone] through all of that,
right? Like, if you review the ELPAC and you go through the [study] steps, what
the ELPAC is just at their age is a little bit easier to pass it. So, I had my [son pass
the ELPAC] in first grade, right, like, that’s when they first give it to them, and
they [he] pass[ed] it in first grade [and the district] never had him take it again.
DI: It’s a lifelong thing. You know?
ST: If the parent is not willing to get the kid [to take the ELPAC test seriously] willing
to look at it and say, “Hey, this is what you … need to [do to] practice with your
[test].” … Like that, then it [the ELPAC test] just becomes like long term. Yeah.
GI: After they [students] pass the ELPAC, they [the district] monitor[s] the kids for 4
years, with [monitoring] grades, … checking up their English grade, [and if it] is
fine, … then you’re good after that.

108
LA: Really, [the] truth of the matter is that our educational system tracks. And that’s
good. Because if you’re not grouping, then how do you address the needs of
specific groups? You know, like ELD.
I supported the group to engage in a deeper dialogue by paraphrasing and highlighting
two contradicting viewpoints from our previous conversation. By saying, “We see different
examples of parents wanting that second language [for their kids],” and at the same time, our
school district classifies students that speak other languages as ELLs, and “it has a stigma if you
need to take the ELCAP. … That [stigma] does exist still is what I’m hearing.” This
andragogical move slowed the conversation and allowed two participants to reconsider their
initial perspectives about whether there is a stigma to speaking other languages. Moments before,
JA said this was an idea from a “previous time,” and DI argued that in the past 10 years, there
has been a new perspective on language learning and that there are a lot of benefits that “are
contributing to those factors [for parents] wanting to teach their kids second languages.”
However, the above conversation shows JA and DI sharing their concerns about their
children being classified and tracked as ELLs and the current stigma that goes with this
classification. JA said his children were tracked as ELLs because his wife marked a form that
they speak Korean with their grandparents, and he regretted sharing this information with the
school district when he said, “It was puzzling. … [You’re] better off keeping some information.
Not being too candid [with the school district].” DI voiced his worry about what his son’s school
experience might be like in the future under the English learner label: “How is that going to
impact [him]? [What will his] education [be] like going forward?” DI projected from his own
school experience with the same classification: “[It] is it just gonna be an obstacle that he’s
gonna have to overcome? I mean, we all did.” He wondered if the English learner label would

109
take away from his son’s learning or affect his son’s perception of himself as a Spanish speaker,
“is [he] going to feel embarrassed growing up speaking Spanish? Because he’s labeled an ELL,
which he is.” JA’s and DI’s anecdotal concerns about how their children may be treated
differently because of their English learner label align with the larger concept of Valenzuela’s
(1999) theory on subtractive education, where schools diminish students’ heritage language and
culture, potentially weakening their cultural identity.
For language teachers who value language learning to be concerned about the
contemporary stigma associated with knowing a language other than English demonstrates the
pervasiveness of this issue. My paraphrasing and focusing the dialogue on two contradictions
allowed the teachers to consider how historical policies and stigma toward culturally and
linguistically diverse students are so entrenched that they show up in our contemporary beliefs
and practices. This was important because it enabled participants to discuss contradicting
viewpoints, and as argued in this study’s conceptual framework, reflecting collaboratively on
contradictions supports adult learners’ transformational growth (Drago-Severson & BlumDeStefano, 2017). This was significant for my action research because my learning goal was to
enact instructional moves to support adult learning by stretching participant thinking.
Teachers’ Sphere of Influence
The topic of the discussion then shifted as teachers who are also parents shared technical
strategies to work around the system and eliminate the burden of the English learner label by not
checking the box that they speak other languages at home. At this point, I paused the
conversation and highlighted the word “embarrassment” to focus the conversation on the stigma
of speaking Spanish and other non-English languages in school. I tried to pivot the conversation
so the entire group could speak to the subtractive schooling practices toward culturally and

110
linguistically diverse students. Before I could finish my question, participants talked about their
power to influence the perception of “other” languages in their homes and classrooms. The
dialogue below shows how I paraphrased the previous conversation, which led to a deeper
discussion about our influence in countering the stigma of cultural and linguistic diversity.
Ashlee: But can I? DI mentioned … what his son would go through, and I don’t want to
[only] address you [DI] with … this question. … [You] used, like, the word
“embarrassed.” … Will he be embarrassed to speak Spanish? And … just kind of
bring that out to like everyone else? Like [hesitation]9 what does that say about
our—
ST: —It’s based on your belief that you have at home, like, what I did when my kid
when he was growing up. … They had that Dr. Seuss thing, right? And I was
always at work, so I couldn’t go. But I sent my mom to Dr. Seuss day, and she
will read a book in Spanish, and he will sit down there and translate the book to
[the] kids, or to the kids in the classroom. So, I feel like in that sense, if you are
making him feel proud about [speaking Spanish], they’re not going to feel
embarrassed. Like my kid, the other day, … was at the cross-country invitational.
And there was a guy who, like, the taquero guy who only spoke Spanish, and so I
decided to talk in Spanish. And then he gave me free fries. And I was like, okay.
[lots of laughs] And so if you make them feel proud of it [speaking Spanish], feel
9 At that moment, I hesitated and paused to find the right wording. I recalled that DI used the word embarrassed. I
hesitated to bring this word back up to the group because I was sad that this was the reality of our society: that kids
would feel embarrassed for speaking their heritage language. We weren’t just talking about our students in a general
sense but our own children. I was sad to think that at such a young age, our societal stigma can infiltrate the minds
and emotions of our own children. DI seemed upset that his son would feel embarrassed and not proud of his
Spanish heritage language. DI also wondered out loud if he should have taught his son Spanish. I was very hesitant
to bring this up again because I didn’t want DI to regret his choice or feel like he made a mistake by teaching his son
Spanish.

111
like it’s okay to do it. It’s okay for him to just go up to a person and say hi in
Spanish, or like in another language or whatever, they’ll feel okay. Like, it’s just
the way that
NI: I think also on the application side, not everyone has parents who have that
approach. So, how do we address that with our students in class, right, where
they’re maybe coming in with a negative opinion, right? They’re not your kids.
They’re somebody else’s kids. And their parents were like … [it’s] embarrassing
to do XYZ. Don’t do that in public. Don’t let anyone know you speak Spanish at
home. So, how do we address that with students in a way that is productive and
caring and respectful?
LA: I’m transparent … with music with culture with heritage. My parents have a lot of
pride. And I think it goes back to my grandmother. The teachings of this is this
old lady who basically said, know who you are. And going back to my elementary
school years, where I was taking tacos for lunch. Beans. That was not a cool thing
during my time, everybody [had] Wonder bread and sandwiches and peanut
butter. And it was like: What is she having tacos? And the stories that I tell to my
students involve my race [and] my personal experience as a Mexican American.
JZ: And I really liked that, the transparency thing, because I do the same with my
students and a lot at the beginning of the year with my cultural activity. But I do
share out a lot of my, of being proud myself of being multicultural, coming from a
Pakistani background and a Mexican background, and a lot of students, and I feel
like by sharing your own experience and trying to give them that why, how is this
class going to benefit you? And not just learning Spanish? But overall, what skills

112
are you learning? And how, what are you bringing also into the classroom? I
always like to open with that because I get a lot of students who … speak Korean,
who speak Chinese, who speak Urdu, who speak. And so, I like to open that and
also connect a lot with my own experience in my own proudness of sharing [my
culture]. And I think students really look up to that because then they feel, like,
oh, she’s really proud of that. And they kind of like to open up a little bit or so I
like to connect a lot or give them even, you know, what’s the benefit of being,
speaking, I’ve had some maybe some of your French students as well being able
to speak French at home and how is that going to be beneficial to you in the
future? So, making it as a positive for them even if they don’t see that in that
moment or are embarrassed of it, trying to give situations or my own personal
experiences where knowing another language has helped me in some kind of
situation. So, I don’t know.
Ashlee: Is there anything that you do with your students to get them to that point where
they can like have that like oh, yeah, this is cool?
JZ: Well, I think any moment where I see that where I can apply any personal
experience, I like to add a lot of like transparency of my own personal upbringing
and experiences with language just because it was very diverse, so I like to share a
lot I think just connecting with them in that way. So may not seem like it seems
like a very simple thing, but I think it means a lot to them.
Ashlee: Yeah, I think so, too.
My paraphrasing and attempt to state a probing question led the group to discuss how
they counter the stigma around cultural and linguistic diversity. When I said, “[You] used like

113
the word “embarrassed” … just kind of bring that out to, like, everyone else? Like, what does
that say?” This prompted ST to share two personal stories of how she sets the tone in her home
and with their family to feel pride for speaking Spanish. She argued, “It’s based on your belief
that you have at home,” and you have to make your children “feel proud about [speaking
Spanish]. They’re not going to feel embarrassed.” Given that this was expressed from the
perspective of ST as a parent, NI argued, “Not everyone has parents who have that approach. So
how do we address that with our students in class.” LA gave examples of ways she is transparent
with her “music with culture with heritage” through “the stories that I tell to my students involve
my race, my personal experiences as a Mexican American.”
JZ built on LA’s example and discussed being transparent about their multicultural
identity to connect with students and show pride in language and cultural diversity. JZ explained
that because they share their cultural background, it provides the opportunity to invite students to
share their linguistic and cultural identities by asking their students, “What are you bringing also
into the classroom?” JZ commented that they share their personal experiences with their students
to make cultural and linguistic diversity “a positive for them even if they don’t see that in that
moment or are embarrassed of it.” This is important because it shows how a teacher affirms
students’ linguistic and cultural heritage in school and creates meaningful learning experiences
for students by connecting with students through promoting their cultural diversity. These two
examples align with the CSP literature (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) and this study’s longterm outcome, which is that the enactment of CSC&P may create opportunities to affirm
students’ cultural identity in school and create meaningful learning experiences for students.
These three examples illustrated how pausing the conversation to center the word
embarrassed supported teachers to think more deeply about the historically entrenched stigma of

114
speaking other languages and discuss their spheres of influence in their homes and classrooms to
instill pride in speaking other languages. This andragogical move allowed two participants to
discuss their instructional practices to promote cultural and linguistic diversity among their
students. This discussion provided teachers with a platform to showcase self-reported examples
of CSP teaching practices that they use to instill pride in cultural and linguistic diversity and, in a
way, model this practice for other teachers in the group. Though we did not explicitly identify
these strategies as CSP, these instructional practices align with two of CSP’s key features, given
that teachers valued their students’ cultural and linguistic practices and invited students to share
their cultural and linguistic identities as meaningful assets for the classroom (Farlazzo, 2017, as
cited in California Department of Education, 2023). This was significant for this research
because, as argued in my conceptual framework, I aimed to use questioning techniques to
stimulate discourse and support the learners to come to their own learning (Sahin & Kulm, 2008;
Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). I assisted the group in sharing some of their CSP practices to affirm
and promote pride in cultural and linguistic diversity in schools through pausing, paraphrasing,
and attempting to ask probing questions
I concluded this part of the dialogue and transitioned the group to debrief our
conversation, which led the group to discuss their sphere of influence to enact additional CSPaligned practices. I displayed the following three debrief questions, as shown in Figure 8, to
support teachers in thinking about their new learning from our conversation. We divided into two
groups and discussed our responses to the debrief questions. I typed the teacher responses that
my group discussed. When we reconvened as a whole group, I asked both groups to share their
responses for each question, and I typed their responses in the slide, as seen in Figure 8.

Figure 8
Debrief Questions and Teacher Responses
115

116
As shown in Figure 8, I guided the group to think about their sphere of influence in their
classrooms and ways to implement CSC&P-aligned practices. The common themes among the
teachers’ responses, in Figure 8, correspond with the features of CSP (Farlazzo, 2017, as cited in
California Department of Education, 2023). However, teachers did not identify these practices as
CSP. The three themes in Figure 8 are to make space in our classrooms for students to share their
cultural and linguistic diversity, share CSP-aligned lesson plans and pedagogy takeaways, and
brainstorm concrete activities and instructional strategies to support students to think more
deeply about their culture.
My first debrief question in Figure 8, regarding how identity influences how or what they
teach, prompted the group to consider their sphere of influence to make space for students to
share their cultural and linguistic diversity. The teacher responses in Figure 8 stated that they
“teach in Spanish about other cultures,” use their classroom to share about their identity, and
“give students the opportunity to share theirs [culture].” As seen in Figure 8, they argued this is
important because “I didn’t have this experience as a student, and I wish I did” and “All teachers
have different perspectives, but also all students do too. Give opportunities for students to share
out.” These ideas show the common theme of creating space in our classrooms for students to
share their cultural and linguistic identities. This theme is important because it corresponds with
the CSP feature to meaningfully center students’ cultural ways of being (Farlazzo, 2017, as cited
in California Department of Education, 2023).
The second question, in Figure 8, stated, “What are your takeaways from our
conversation? How will you use this takeaway to inform or revise your teaching practice?” When
I asked this question, I enabled teachers to share CSC&P-aligned practices. As shown in Figure
8, teachers’ responses showed thinking about ways to “build it into the lesson plan to learn about

117
everyone’s culture” to be transparent about the teacher’s cultural identity so “students will start
opening up, leading to connections,” and to “model my reality of who my family is and not sugar
coat it.” These three responses are examples of pedagogical practices that align with CSC&P as
teachers voiced that they would intentionally design lesson plans to learn about students’ cultural
identities and deliberately share their cultural identities with students, including family make-ups
that are not aligned with the dominant culture, thus normalizing and affirming different ways of
being. These strategies align with the CSP feature to embed students’ culture into the curriculum
(Farlazzo, 2017, as cited in California Department of Education, 2023).
My last debrief question, shown in Figure 8, asked, “How can we facilitate a cultural
reflection for students? What are anticipated challenges in student reflections?” This question
guided teachers to share concrete activities and instructional strategies to support students to
think more deeply about their culture. As seen in Figure 8, the debrief question prompted
teachers to share the Awkward Silence Activity, where a teacher asks students a question that
elicits a reflection on cultural identity, and students silently think about their response without
sharing to eliminate the influence of their peers. Other teachers shared instructional strategies, as
shown in Figure 8, that included prompts to support students in comparing their “culture with
each other” rather than contrasting culture and, during the conversation, teachers mentioned
highlighting the pluralism of a culture.10 Lastly, Figure 8 shows that teachers reinforced the ideas
to be transparent with students and “model it in the moment for the students.” The teacher
responses show how my third debrief question supported teachers in thinking about ways to
revise their curriculum and teaching practices that promote CSC&P (Paris, 2012; Paris & Alim,
2014). This is significant because it shows how debrief questions helped teachers think about
10 The teacher responses that highlighted the pluralism of culture was mentioned in the discussion and not
documented in Figure 8.

118
using CSC&P-aligned strategies within their spheres of influence to counter assimilation and
subtractive teaching practices. This was a desired outcome for this action research and one that I
included in my conceptual framework.
In conclusion, I supported a group of world language teachers in my school district to
develop CSC&P and reflect on the enactment by providing space for group ownership,
instituting cognitive structures, and paraphrasing and asking probing questions. Providing space
for group ownership enabled my colleagues and me to engage in meaningful discussions where
we identified some of the challenges and opportunities in enacting CSC&P and theorized on
general principles of teaching. Instituting a modified Rodgers’ reflection cycle as a cognitive
structure assisted participants and me in seeing different perspectives and practicing engaging in
self-reflection. By paraphrasing and asking probing questions, I facilitated a deeper dialogue
about the historical inequities and contemporary stigma of non-English language speakers. This
andragogical move led the group to discuss teachers’ spheres of influence and co-create concrete
strategies to counter assimilation and subtractive teaching practices.
Afterword: My Growth
In this action research process, I learned more about myself as an adult educator and the
challenges of enacting CSC&P. In this afterword, I discuss my growth as an education leader and
reflect on how I will embrace these new insights to inform my future practice.
This action research taught me about myself as a facilitator of adult learners. The data
analysis revealed that when I relinquished control to the other group members and supported
them to lead the learning process, the outcomes led to meaningful conversations with significant
new learning opportunities for the group. However, it was challenging to relinquish this control,
as I noticed heightened emotions in my observer comments when the group was not on track

119
with the meeting agenda. I noticed I had a sense of urgency to complete the task. This data
helped me realize the positive impact of focusing on the participants and their learning above the
meeting agenda. All in all, I learned the importance of providing space for group ownership, as
this andragogical move helped me focus on my teacher colleagues’ learning. I will continue to
build on this skill of supporting group ownership as I move forward in my work as an adult
educator.
The research revealed that when I paused and paraphrased, I was able to support my
teacher colleagues by deepening the dialogue. There were many missed opportunities to ask
guiding and probing questions, and in the future, my hope is to improve my questioning skills, as
these, too, would help deepen the dialogue. For example, in the fourth meeting, our group
discussed inequitable ELL program education structures that lead to differential learning
outcomes and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students. However, the
discussion shifted to how teachers work within the current structure and support students and
their children navigating the system. This shows an area of growth in ways I, as a facilitator, can
improve in asking probing questions to support my learners’ critical reflection. This was my
opportunity to ask probing questions like, how are we complicit in this structure as teachers and
parents? How can we reimage a new structure or program? What actions can we take to make
incremental changes to create equitable education outcomes for culturally and linguistically
diverse students?
I know the significance of probing questions and that this andragogical move can help
redefine or reveal the root of the problem (Horn & Little, 2010). Through probing questions, I
can give the mental work back to the learner (Heifetz et al., 2009). I also know guiding questions
can support problematizing and reflection, which can support adaptive solutions and intelligent

120
action and open the door to new learning opportunities (Heifetz et al., 2009; Rodgers, 2002).
This research helped me realize that even though I understand these concepts intellectually, I
need more practice internalizing them to put this andragogical move into practice more fluently.
This growth starts with me and my ability to practice critical reflection. While conducting
this research and writing critical reflections, I identified several of my assumptions and biases.
The reflection process helped me see how I have internalized the dominant culture and
reproduced the status quo. As I continue my practice in critical reflection, I will be better
prepared to support others to critically reflect and facilitate a critically reflective dialogue.
Moving forward, I will use what I have learned from this research to develop my practice
as a teacher and adult educator. I will continue to develop my critical reflection skills and
practice asking probing questions. As stated in the conceptual framework, adult learning is a
cyclical process. As such, I will continue to facilitate the world language committee, build on our
momentum to counter assimilation and subtractive schooling, and develop CSC&P. In our
professional learning community, we are primed to strengthen our self-reflection practice and
work toward critical reflection. I believe that building the self-development and internal growth
of teachers leads to the transformative learning needed to change the inequitable outcomes for
culturally and linguistically diverse students.

121
References
Aguilar, E., & Cohen, L. (2022). The PD book: 7 habits that transform professional
development. Jossey-Bass.
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. The University of
North Carolina Press. https://doi.org/10.5149/uncp/9780807842218
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349–369. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3482969
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.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In N. Lyons (Ed.),
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-
387-85744-2_11
California Department of Education. (2023). English learner students by language by grade
[Data file]. https://dq.cde.ca.gov/Dataquest
California School Dashboard. (2023). Tustin Unified academic engagement.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/30736430000000/2023/academicengagement#graduation-rate

122
Commission on Language Learning. (2017). America’s languages: Investing in language
education of the 21st century. American Academy of Arts & Sciences.
https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/publication/downloads/Commission-onLanguage-Learning_Americas-Languages.pdf
de Oliveira Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations
of decolonisation in the context of higher education. Decolonisation: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 4(1), 21-40.
Dietrich, S., & Hernandez, E. (2022). What languages do we speak? U.S. Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/12/languages-we-speak-in-united-states.html
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
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
Elmore, B. R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
Emerick, M. R., Hoffman, B. Y., & Kanno, Y. (2020). Teaching Hispanic restaurant workers:
Translanguaging as culturally sustaining pedagogy. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 51(3), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/aeq.12340
Fink, L. D. (2013). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to
designing college courses. Jossey-Bass.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.

123
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
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.
Hollie, S. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning: Classroom
practices for student success. Shell Education Publishing.
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
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
Kelleher, A. (2010). Who is a heritage language learner? Center for Applied Linguistics.
https://www.cal.org/heritage/pdfs/Who-is-a-Heritage-Language-Learner.pdf
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1987). The action research planner. Deakin University Press.
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
Larrivee, B. (2006). An educator’s guide to teacher reflection. Cengage Learning.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. Jossey-Bass.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.

124
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Malakoff, M., & Hakuta, K. (1990). History of language minority education in the United States.
In A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, & C. M. Valadez (Eds.), Bilingual education: Issues
and strategies (pp. 27–46). Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (n.d.). Achievement gaps dashboard.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/dashboards/achievement_gaps.aspx#
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019a). Mathematics, Grade 8, status as English
learner, 2 categories [Data set]. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019b). Reading, Grade 8, status as English
learner, 2 categories [Data set]. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/NDE
paperson, la. (2017). A third university is possible. University of Minnesota Press.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77

125
Patel, L. (2016). Pedagogies of resistance and survivance: Learning as marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397–401,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Polman, H., Hornstra, L., & Volman, M. (2021). The meaning of meaningful learning in
mathematics in upper primary education. Learning Environments Research, 24(3), 469–
486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09337-8
Puzio, K., Newcomer, S., Pratt, K., McNeely, K., Jacobs, M., & Hooker, S. (2017). Creative
failures in culturally sustaining pedagogy. Language Arts, 94(4), 223–233.
https://doi.org/10.58680/la201728949
Quinn, D. M., Desruisseaux, T.-M., & Nkansah-Amankra, A. (2019). “Achievement gap:”
Language affects teachers’ issue prioritization. Educational Researcher, 48(7), 484–487.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19863765
Ravitch, S., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. Sage Publications.
Reagan, T. G., & Osborn, T. A. (1998). Power, authority and domination in foreign language
education. Educational Foundations, 12(2), 45–62.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Roegman, R., Allen, D., Leverett, L., Thompson, S., & Hatch, T. (2019). Equity visits: A new
approach to supporting equity-focused school and district leadership. Corwin.
Rueda, R. (2011). The three dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solution to the right problem (6th ed.). Teachers College Press.

126
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
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Currency Doubleday.
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.), Global perspectives on educational
leadership reform: The development and preparation of leaders of learning and learners
of leadership (Vol. 11, pp. 23–46). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-
3660(2010)0000011005
Spikes, D. D. (2018). Culturally competent and racially conscious professional development for
school leaders: A review of the literature. Teachers College Record, 120(4), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812001403
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of education of
dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
Taylor, K. L., & Colet, N. R. (2010). Making the shift from faculty development to educational
development. In A. Saroyan & M, Frenay (Eds), Building teaching capacities in higher
education: A comprehensive international model (pp. 139–167) Stylus Publishing.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). The Rousing minds to life: Redefinition of teaching and
schooling. Cambridge University Press.
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022

127
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernandez, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89.
University of California. (n.d.). Subject requirement (A-G) | UC admissions. Retrieved April 15,
2023, from https://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissionrequirements/freshman-requirements/subject-requirement-a-g.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Detailed languages spoken at home and ability to speak English for
the population 5 years and over for United States: 2009–2013.
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2013/demo/2009-2013-lang-tables.html
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
State University of New York Press.
Von Esch, K. S., Motha, S., & Kubota, R. (2020). Race and language teaching. Language
Teaching, 53(4), 391–421. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000269
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M.
Cole, Ed. & Trans.). Harvard University Press.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27, 252–258.
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
Wergin, J. F. (2020). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.

128
Appendix A: Original Conceptual Framework
Appendix A: Original Conceptual Framework

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This action research study examined my application of andragogical theory as a facilitator of world language teachers in my school district. In this role, I supported the group’s learning about culturally sustaining pedagogy to explore how we can invite students’ heritage culture into our world language classrooms to counter assimilation and subtractive teaching practices in public schools. The research question asked how I could support a group of world language teachers in my district to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment. I applied elements of adult learning theory to create adult learning conditions for the participants and me to engage in dialogues to reflect and identify unconscious thinking that influences our assumptions and practices. Over four meetings in 6 months, I provided space for group ownership, instituted a cognitive structure, and paraphrased and asked probing questions. As a result, I supported the participants’ engagement in meaningful group dialogue, including discussions about the challenges and opportunities of enacting culturally sustaining curriculum and pedagogy, the historical inequalities and contemporary stigma of non-English language speaking students, and the teachers’ spheres of influence to affirms students’ linguistic and cultural heritage in school. I also supported teachers’ self-reflection by instituting a cognitive structure. Through self-reflection, they and I made progress in learning about ourselves, our assumptions, and the influences on our unconscious thinking, which helped us work toward deep learning and created the foundation for transformational growth. These findings could contribute to improving teacher instructional practices that promote culturally sustaining practices and counter-assimilation and subtractive teaching practices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Towards ideological clarity: an action research project on the role of a teacher in unearthing unconscious bias to embrace culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

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

PDF

Towards critical dialogue: an action research project building an awareness of an administrative team member’s role, identity, and deficit thinking

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Incorporation of culturally relevant pedagogy to improve my practice and address the opportunity gap

PDF

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

PDF

Uncovering dominant ideology: an action research project aimed to uncover dominant ideology to enact culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom

PDF

Critical pedagogy for music education: cultivating teachers’ critical consciousness through critically reflective inquiry

PDF

Cultivating a community of practice: an action research study on cultivating a community of practice that engages in trauma-informed dialogue and critical reflection

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Coaching to transform: an action research study on utilizing critical reflection to enact change towards incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices

PDF

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

PDF

Challenging dominant ideologies through sociopolitical discourse: an action research study on creating change as a history teacher

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Romberger, Ashlee Buczek (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-12

Publication Date 09/26/2024

Defense Date 09/04/2024

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

Tag andragogy,cultural conditioning,culturally sustaining curriculum and pedagogy,culturally sustaining pedagogy,OAI-PMH Harvest,self-reflection,subtractive teaching practices,teacher learning,world language critical teacher education

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Crawford, Jenifer (committee member), Lyons-Moore, Akilah (committee member)

Creator Email aromberg@usc.edu,ashleeromberger@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11399B9ZE

Unique identifier UC11399B9ZE

Identifier etd-RombergerA-13551.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-RombergerA-13551

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Romberger, Ashlee Buczek

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240926-usctheses-batch-1214 (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