University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Challenging Dominant Ideologies Through Sociopolitical Discourse:
An Action Research Study on Creating Change as a History Teacher

Gerry Jonathan Goyenaga

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

May 2023

© Copyright by Gerry Jonathan Goyenaga 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Gerry Jonathan Goyenaga certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Briana Hinga
Artineh Samkian
Committee Chair, Julie Slayton

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this action research study was to investigate my role as a history teacher in
creating conditions that facilitated the deepening of the sociopolitical consciousness of my
immigrant, Spanish-speaking, bilingual emergent students. By creating these conditions, my
students could use the deepening of their sociopolitical consciousness to confront dominant
ideologies in their school context. I was able to create conditions that facilitated the deepening of
my students’ sociopolitical consciousness by relying on the practice of critical reflection,
implementing tenets from culturally relevant pedagogy, and enacting prosocial behaviors. This
study took place over the course of the Fall 2020 semester at El Rancho High School, where I
was a multi-grade teacher. El Rancho is in Pico Rivera, a suburb of Los Angeles, and most of the
students, staff, and community members are Latino. My research question, alongside the
components of my conceptual framework, were used to conduct in and out of the field analysis.
By the conclusion of my research, my students had deepened their sociopolitical consciousness
and were able to identify and challenge dominant ideologies within their school context. As a
teacher, I grew in my ability to be present to my students’ learning and in my ability to set high
expectations for my students. I also grew in my own ability to identify and challenge dominant
ideologies.

v

Dedication
To my mother, Rocío: I dedicate this dissertation to you, my mother, my greatest supporter. She
was and always will be the queen of my heart. She was my first example of love. She was my
first memory of kindness. She encouraged me to dream and to be brave. Although she could not
be here physically, she was with me in my heart throughout this journey. I love you forever and
always mom. I hope I made you proud.

vi
Acknowledgments
My mother passed away one week into my doctorate program at USC. It was only
through God’s mercy and grace that I was able to face and complete this task. I want to start by
thanking Him for being my source of strength and peace.
I want to thank my two brothers: Kendall and Giraldi. For as long as I can remember they
have been the ultimate role models. They are men of integrity and great character. Kendall, the
eldest, has been like a father to me, and he has helped me become the man I am today. I also
want to thank my father, Gerardo. In his wisdom he has always encouraged me to dream and to
believe in myself. I would not be where I am today without his words of encouragement and
love.
I also want to thank all my students. They make teaching the best job in the world. In
their enthusiasm for life, they give me hope.
Next, I want to thank my USC cohort. Vanessa, Adrian, Alejandra, Thomas, Tim, Kenny,
Karen, Sonya, Elias, Ava and Alan, thank you for standing by my side during this journey.
Thank you for your friendship and for making this one of the most memorable experiences.
In closing, I want to thank my committee for their support and guidance. Dr. Hinga,
thank you for your patience and grace, and thank you for teaching me that research can be done
with love and compassion. Dr. Samkian, thank you for your help in helping me prepare the
outline and concepts for this study. Your feedback and perspective helped me see things in a
different way. Dr. Slayton, thank you for being the single, most impactful professor in my
academic career. Thank you for challenging my thinking and my way of seeing the world.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
Historically Entrenched Inequity ........................................................................................ 7
Context of the Organization ................................................................................................ 9
My Role ............................................................................................................................ 11
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 12
Society and Dominant Ideologies ..................................................................................... 15
Interaction between Teacher and Students ....................................................................... 17
Critical Reflection and My Teaching .................................................................... 17
CRP in My Class and My Students....................................................................... 19
Prosocial Behaviors in My Class and My Students .............................................. 21
Section Summary .............................................................................................................. 23
Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 23
Participants and Setting of Actions ................................................................................... 24
Participants ............................................................................................................ 24
Setting of Actions ................................................................................................. 25
Actions .................................................................................................................. 26
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols .......................................................... 29
Documents and Artifacts....................................................................................... 30
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 34
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 37
Credibility and Trustworthiness ....................................................................................... 39
Ethics ................................................................................................................................ 40

viii
Findings............................................................................................................................. 41
Finding 1: My Students’ Growth .......................................................................... 42
Finding 2: My Growth .......................................................................................... 55
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 66
Afterword .......................................................................................................................... 67
Current Practices ................................................................................................... 67
Retrospective Take-Aways ................................................................................... 70
Implications........................................................................................................... 72
References ..................................................................................................................................... 75

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 13

x
List of Tables

Table 1: Actions in the Classroom ............................................................................................. 27

1

Challenging Dominant Ideologies Through Sociopolitical Discourse:
An Action Research Study on Creating Change as a History Teacher
At the onset of this study, I found myself thinking about my positionality in relation to
others in society, and its connection to my lived experiences and my privileges. I was and I am
an able-bodied, educated, light skinned, heterosexual Latino male living in a society that
privileges most of these identity markers. Undoubtedly, these intersectional components of my
identity have influenced the trajectory of my life. From my childhood to my adulthood, these
markers have allowed me to survive and advance in a tiered society. To explain how these
identity markers have impacted and continue to impact my positionality in relation to others in
society, I must look back at my formative experiences in my hometown, my college years, and
my early professional life.
I was born and raised in the Los Angeles suburb of Pico Rivera. My parents and my
brothers were immigrants from Costa Rica who made this town their home in the mid-1980s. By
the time I was born, in the early 1990s, Pico Rivera was predominantly a Latino city. However, I
can now see that my family, despite being a Latino family, was different than the typical Pico
Rivera family. While we were a Costa Rican household, most of the families in Pico Rivera had
heritages that connected them to Mexico or El Salvador. This might seem like a minor
difference, but it affected my family’s positioning within society in the United States of America.
While Costa Rica is often celebrated as a dream destination, the stereotypes regarding Mexico
and El Salvador often focused on drug or gang violence. Even within my own home, my mother
always made it a point to remind me that we were different from the people from our
community. So, despite having a Latino heritage, like most of the other kids in my town, from an
early age I started to see myself as different, as better.

2

My household was also different than other Pico Rivera homes in the 1990s because it
had two college students—my two older brothers. Although my father and mother never went to
college in Costa Rica, they wanted my brothers and me to pursue higher education. By the time I
was 5, both of my brothers were in college. They would eventually go on to become educators.
Having role models like my brothers, who persisted as first-generation college students, afforded
me an invaluable privilege. Although their success made bringing home anything lower than an
A treacherous, I knew that if I faced a challenge in school or life, I could turn to them for
support. Rather than creating pressure, their success in school gave me a sense of security that I
too would eventually succeed. Their academic success also gave me access to resources and
experiences that many of my neighborhood peers did not have. At a young age, I was able to
visit my brothers in college, and I attended events like football games, music recitals, and
graduation ceremonies.
My brothers’ persistence and experiences in academic settings strongly impacted the way
I viewed school. At a young age, I internalized the belief that doing well in school would allow
me to become “successful” in life. From elementary to high school, I enjoyed school. I took
pride in earning “high grades” and in being involved in diverse extracurricular activities.
Throughout these formative years, my parents and my teachers would frequently tell me that I
was “smart, gifted, and hardworking.” Looking back, I believe I received this level of praise
because of some of my privileges. For example, identity markers like my light skin, and my
ability to fluently read, write, and speak English, allowed me to receive preferential treatment
from my mostly White teachers. Despite speaking Spanish at home, my ability to speak English
at school allowed me to connect with my teachers in ways that some of my Latino peers could
not. Because I was a recipient of preferential treatment, I felt comforactions in the classroom

3

asking and answering questions, and I frequently participated in class discussions. Now, I look
back and I think about how I internalized this adulation. I grew up believing that the “success” I
had experienced in grade school had to be related to my natural intellect and hard work. This
belief led me to foster racist beliefs about most of my Latino peers. While I saw myself as smart
and dedicated, I came to view my school peers as lazy, dumb, and as not disciplined. Thus,
growing up Pico Rivera, a place where 90% of the population identifies as Latino or Latina
(County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health, 2018), I started seeing myself as an
exception amongst my Latino peers. Unbeknownst to me, I had begun to internalize a dominant
ideology of exceptionalism (Brookfield, 2017).
When I moved from Pico Rivera to Santa Barbara to start college, the internalization of
the dominant ideology of exceptionalism continued. In the past, I had interacted with White
teachers, and I had consumed White culture through television and music, but my time at UCSB
was my first real contact with White America. At Santa Barbara, White people were the
majority, and they clearly outnumbered the Latino population. I accepted this White majority as
a validation of the ideology I had internalized at home: that Latino people like my peers from
Pico Rivera did not often succeed in the United States of America. It is clear now that my belief
in my own exceptionalism was also connected to my acceptance of White supremacy. Early on, I
decided that if I wanted to survive in this new setting, I would need to become like my new
friends—specifically my White friends. I came to believe that if I wanted to become someone in
life, I would need to learn White ways of speaking, White mannerisms, and White customs.
Again, my ability to fluently read, write, and speak English played a pivotal role in my ability to
integrate myself into this new setting, both socially and academically. While my privilege in Pico
Rivera led me to internalize an ideology of exceptionalism, my experience in Santa Barbara led

4

me to internalize White supremacy. This far-reaching ideology made me feel superior and
inferior simultaneously. While I looked down at my Latino peers who never left Pico Rivera, I
was also subjected to racism from my new White peers. For example, my White peers would
often make racist assumptions about me. Once, a White housemate told me “I was pretty smart
for being a Mexican.” Unfortunately, incidents like these were common at Santa Barbara, and I
accepted them as part of the social fabric of this new setting.
While the social dynamics of UCSB presented a new challenge in my life, I continued to
excel academically. At UCSB, I studied the historic intersection of Christianity, Islam, and
Judaism on the global stage. On a superficial level, I was able to expand my ability to consider
multiple perspectives on topics such as religion and war. However, I was unable to make a
meaningful connection between the history I was studying and my lived experiences in Pico
Rivera and Santa Barbara. My study of history did not challenge my self-perceived
exceptionalism, nor my acceptance of White supremacy. In looking back, I believe that in Santa
Barbara I learned history for history’s sake. The discussions embedded into many of my classes
were typically rushed and superficial. I recall having the feeling that neither my White professors
nor my White peers wanted to truly engage in historical conversations that challenged or
examined the racial, social, and economic constructs of Santa Barbara and of our country.
Although I learned about different historic events, I was not able to apply a historic lens to my
own lived experiences in a tiered society. Unfortunately, this allowed for my internalized
ideologies to grow stronger over the course of my 4 years at UCSB.
When I returned home, I was presented the opportunity to coach soccer at my alma
mater, El Rancho High School. After coaching for a season, I enrolled in a master’s and teaching
credential program at USC Rossier. During this time, I learned about teaching pedagogy, theories

5

of learning, classroom management, and other tenets of the teaching profession. Concepts such
as White supremacy, power, and other dominant ideologies were also introduced in this program.
Unfortunately, I was closed off to truly exploring the depths of these topics in my own life.
During my class discussions or conversations, I only engaged with these topics in a superficial
manner. Although I was open to exploring these topics in the context of my teaching, I falsely
believed that these topics were not relevant to my own life. Although some my professors
stressed the importance of addressing these concepts in the classroom, I never questioned the
how my lived experiences regarding White supremacy, and other dominant ideologies had
shaped my own world view. Once again, this shortcoming allowed for the fortification of my
internalized dominant ideologies. Again, here I failed to challenge my self-perceived
exceptionalism and my world view. At the time, I was more focused on culminating my journey
through academia. Like my experience in Santa Barbara, I failed to apply what I was learning
into my own life. To my detriment and to that of my future students, my exposure to these topics
did not change the way I saw myself in the world.
After my credential program, I became a world history teacher at El Rancho. I thought of
myself as a success story. I had completed my master’s degree and teaching credential at a
prestigious university. At the same time, I had led a winning soccer program while attending
school. Now, I was eager to give back and help the kids from my city by teaching them history.
This eagerness blinded me from the truth. I falsely believed that I was like the students I was
teaching. I was not capable of seeing how my positionality, my experiences, and my privileges
made me different from the students I was teaching. Furthermore, my internalized acceptance of
exceptionalism and White supremacy remained unchallenged.

6

I will speak more about my teaching experience at a later point. Nevertheless, because I
never challenged my internalized beliefs, I made decisions that negatively impacted my students.
By ignoring important concepts like White supremacy and other dominant ideologies, I
implemented classroom practices that were damaging to and perpetuated the marginalization of
Latino students. As a teacher, I failed to realize that I was perpetuating the dominant ideologies
that had been formed in my childhood years, solidified in my collegiate years, and ignored
during my professional preparation.
One of the byproducts of believing in my own exceptionalism was that I often framed my
story as an underdog story. I often cited my Latino ethnicity and my family’s immigrant status as
hurdles that I had to overcome on my way to success in a tiered society. Framing my story in this
manner allowed me to ignore two pivotal markers of privilege. First of all, even though my
family was from Costa Rica, I was born in the United States. Secondly, although I spoke Spanish
in my home, I could read and write in English by the time I started kindergarten. Given the
flawed nature of our schooling system (more on this in the upcoming section), speaking English
and having United States citizenship were privileges that gave me an advantageous position in
my grade school experience. I now realize that my story was much different than the stories of
the students I taught. My students were typically recent immigrants from Latin America, who
were often undocumented or did not have full citizenship. They usually spoke Spanish as their
primary language, and usually spoke very little English when they enrolled at El Rancho. They
came from countries like Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. They also had
complex identities and diverse experiences that were considerably different from my own
identity and experiences.

7

It was not until my enrollment in the doctorate program at USC Rossier that things began
to change. It was this program that helped me address and acknowledge concepts like White
supremacy, and other dominant ideologies (Alfaro & Bartolomé, 2017; Brookfield, 2017).
Through the practice of critical reflection, I realized my complicity in perpetuating racism and
White supremacy through my own internalized dominant ideologies and my actions as a teacher
(Bartolomé, 2010; Brookfield, 2017). In becoming more critically aware of my positionality and
my privileges, I used this insight to enact change in my professional context. Over the course of
this study, I continued to explore my internalized ideologies, to investigate the consequences of
my actions in my role as teacher at El Rancho High School. In my classroom, I applied certain
tenets from culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) and certain prosocial behaviors to enact change.
These concepts will be defined and further explained in my upcoming contextual framework.
The upcoming sections will have three different areas of focus. First, I will address the
historical mistreatment of Spanish-speaking immigrants in California public schools. Second, I
will describe how this entrenched inequity was expressed in my context, El Rancho High School.
Third, I will describe how I was situated in relation to the inequitable treatment of Spanish-
speaking immigrants at my school.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
One historically entrenched inequity in public education is the hostile treatment of
Spanish-speaking immigrant students. Typically, this group exists within a larger group known
as English language learners or ELLs (McFarland et al., 2019). However, the widespread use of
this term can be problematic (García et al., 2008). This term often misleads people into
overlooking the differences between students identified as ELLs, such as country of origin,
spoken language or languages, and cultural practices. Rather than using the term ELL when

8

describing Spanish-speaking immigrant students or any other students in this category, I will use
the term bilingual emergent. While the use of this term is contested (García et al., 2008), the use
of the term bilingual emergent is one way of centering my students’ ability to learn and speak
multiple languages as they learn English.
According to the California Department of Education (CDE, n.d.-a), the state identified
1,148,024 students as being bilingual emergent in 2019. From this population, 81% spoke
Spanish as their primary language (CDE, n.d-a). However, even amongst this Spanish-speaking
subset, certain differences needed to be acknowledged. For example, within the category of
Spanish-speaking bilingual emergent students there were distinctions between students who were
born and/or raised in the United States, and students who recently immigrated from a Spanish-
speaking nation. In the case of Spanish-speaking immigrants, they were and are typically
included and grouped with students who were born and/or raised in the United States (McFarland
et al., 2019). Given that Spanish-speaking immigrants are a minority group within a minority
group, this student population has been susceptible to inequitable treatment and historic
marginalization (Hendrick, 1975; Ladson-Billings, 2006).
In California, the hostile treatment of Spanish-speaking immigrant students is a
historically entrenched occurrence. The ethnic and cultural diversity of Spanish-speaking
immigrants has been overlooked for more than a century (Hendrick, 1975). While Spanish-
speaking immigrants can migrate from North America, Central America, South America, the
Caribbean, and Europe, the California school system has historically treated Latino immigrants
as a homogeneous group (Hendrick, 1975). This lack of cultural recognition is also connected to
other historical transgressions. Dating back to the late 1800s, Spanish-speaking immigrants were
forced to attend separate schools with fewer resources than the schools for White English-

9

speaking students (Hendrick, 1975; Valencia et al., 2002). Eventually, when they were accepted
into English-speaking schools, they were placed in separate classes (Valencia et al., 2002). In
these classes, teachers emphasized the importance of learning English, while shunning the
experiences and cultural heritage of immigrant students (Hendrick, 1975; Valencia et al., 2002).
The historical mistreatment of Spanish-speaking immigrants has included the intentional denial
of access to education, both at the teacher level and at the system level (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
In the past, even the use of Spanish, be it in or outside the class, was prohibited (Hendrick,
1975). One recent example is California’s proposition 227. This was a bill that favored English-
only instruction and was in place from 1998 to 2016 (California Teachers Association [CTA],
2016).
Presently, many of these challenges remain (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Milner, 2010).
Schools throughout California continue to rely on Euro-centric curricula, and they have policies,
practices, and traditions that center White middle-class values (Bartolomé, 2010; Taylor, 2017).
Thus, Spanish-speaking immigrants face the challenge of learning a new language, while
adjusting to life in a new country; and they must also endure a school system that has been
historically unwelcoming and unaccommodating to immigrants (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
Context of the Organization
According to the CDE (n.d.-b), almost all the bilingual emergent population at El Rancho
was Spanish speaking. At the school, 185 out of 187 bilingual emergent students spoke Spanish.
They made up almost 99% of the bilingual emergent population. However, when the data was
further analyzed, only 32 students were listed as being “ELLs” for 3 or fewer years (CDE, n.d.-
b). These students were the Spanish-speaking immigrant population at El Rancho. These were
my students. Because these students were in high school, the 3 years or fewer label was

10

indicative of their recent arrival to the United States. Unfortunately, El Rancho was not exempt
from the historic hostility displayed towards Spanish-speaking immigrants in California public
schools. Like other schools, the historic mistreatment of Spanish-speaking immigrants was also
expressed at El Rancho.
In a school of 2,297 students (CDE, n.d.-b), this small population was frequently
overlooked and dismissed for several reasons. First, these students were usually isolated from the
larger population. As newcomers, they were enrolled in an English language development class,
known as ELD, that took the place of an elective or athletic period. They were also typically
enrolled in content classes like history and science with other recently arrived immigrants, in
what were deemed transitional bilingual classes. This often led to new students missing out on
athletic competitions, school dances, club fairs, and other campus events. While this was done
with the intention of helping Spanish-speaking immigrants integrate into the school, it usually
had the opposite effect. By limiting these students’ access to sports, electives, and general
classes, many students were unable to make friendships with students from the larger population.
This limiting experience also hurt these students when they applied for college. Their
applications often lacked the experiences and/or extra-curriculars that colleges were often
looking for. From a language standpoint, the literature indicates that it is important for students
to have access to students who speak English, to promote English language use and adoption
(García et al., 2008). Under this isolating experience, Spanish-speaking immigrant students lost
access to English-speaking students at El Rancho. Ultimately, this type of grouping impeded
Spanish-speaking immigrants’ ability to learn and use English. Second, because this group of 32
students was kept together, many teachers on campus were not aware that this population even
existed. It was my experience, through informal conversations, professional trainings, and staff

11

meetings that many teachers struggled to identify the larger bilingual emergent population and
were unable to distinguish long-term bilingual emergent students or recently arrived immigrants.
For the few teachers who did work with this population, coordination was often non-existent.
Rather than working together to integrate skills across the different content areas, teachers often
worked in isolation. At the time of the study, this was a school problem at El Rancho, in that the
school leadership had not established the expectation that teachers should work together to meet
the needs of this population. Third, school policy (e.g., students had to have a C or better in
English class plus a passing score on the ELPAC state exam) made it difficult for students to
reclassify as being English language proficient. To compound this problem, teachers were poorly
positioned to prepare bilingual emergent students for state exams, because many teachers were
not aware of how these exams worked or what students were being tested on. Further, they were
often unaware of the requirements that students needed to meet in their content classes and state
exams to reclassify. This made it more difficult for immigrants to reclassify, and it perpetuated
the isolation that this group experienced. While not exhaustive, this list highlighted how the
historic mistreatment of Spanish-speaking immigrants was also present at El Rancho.
My Role
As a world history teacher who worked with bilingual emergent students, I was in a
position of influence. As a history teacher, I played a role in shaping how my students saw and
understood the world. Specifically, I used culturally relevant pedagogy and prosocial behaviors
to create conditions that helped deepen the sociopolitical consciousness of my Spanish-speaking
immigrant bilingual emergent students at El Rancho. This change in my classroom was a small
but important step in challenging the entrenched mistreatment of Spanish-speaking immigrants at
El Rancho.

12

At start of the study, I had already taught for 4 years. However, during this time, I
attempted to teach a diverse group of immigrant students while embracing damaging dominant
ideologies. In believing in my own exceptionalism, I held racist beliefs about the students I had
taught, while also falsely believing that I was like them. I ignored my privilege and continued to
perpetuate ideologies of meritocracy, believing that students simply needed to work harder.
When I started teaching, I was also motivated by a false sense of saviorism. I wanted to help
students without wanting to learn about their experiences, their ideas, their views, and their ways
of being. But by the beginning of this study, I was motivated and excited by the changes I had
experienced. I no longer viewed myself as a superior savior. Instead, I saw myself as a teacher
who could help my students grow in their questioning and understanding of the world. Thus, I set
out to investigate and address the following question: What was my role in creating conditions
for students to deepen their sociopolitical consciousness within my history classroom?
In the ensuing sections of this study, I will explain my conceptual framework, my
methods, and my findings. Together, these components of the study will explain what I
accomplished and how I grew during this process.
Conceptual Framework
Consistent with Maxwell (2013), the conceptual framework shown in Figure 1—one that
has since evolved since the start of the study—is a synthesis of my assumptions, beliefs,
experiences, and expectations, and it draws on concepts from the theoretical and empirical
literature I have reviewed. The framework encapsulated my understanding of my context and my
role as a teacher at El Rancho High School. It functioned as reference point as I generated new
meanings of understating that I took onto my methods, data collection, data analysis, and
findings. I used this framework to engage in two cycles of analysis, one that was in action (i.e.,

13

while I was “in” the field) and the other that was on action (i.e., after I “left” the field). As a
result, I used the framework while I was in the field, and I used it inductively and deductively
once I was out of the field.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

14

In this conceptual framework I partnered the practice of critical reflection with the tenets
of culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP) and prosocial behaviors to create conditions that
facilitated the deepening of my students’ sociopolitical consciousness. At the onset of the study, I
included critical reflection and CRP as important components of my conceptual framework.
Furthermore, I sought to use adaptive leadership, and not prosocial behaviors, in conjunction
with the other two concepts. However, during data analysis it became clear that I relied on the
implementation of prosocial behaviors, rather than adaptive leadership to create conditions in my
classroom that facilitated the deepening of my students’ sociopolitical consciousness. Next, I will
expand on each component of the framework.
Critical reflection aims to explicitly uncover and challenge the power dynamics, the
wider structures, and the hegemonic assumptions that frame a field of practice (Brookfield,
2010). Critical reflection also challenges individuals to investigate why deeply held assumptions
are often unquestioned or unchallenged; it encourages individuals to consider alternative
perspectives and to change their course of action in effort to challenge established systems and
ways of knowing. CRP focuses on how teachers create equitable learning conditions by
connecting course content to the cultural context and cultural backgrounds of students (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). CRP also focuses on how teachers can socially, emotionally, and politically
empower students to affirm their cultural identities and in turn challenge the inequities that
schools perpetuate (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Prosocial behaviors allow a teacher to create a
setting that supports academic and social goals (Weinstein et al., 2004). These prosocial
behaviors serve as precondition for preparing students for participation in planned academic
activities that serve an overarching goal (Weinstein et al., 2004). Together, the elements in this
framework positioned me to enact change as a teacher of bilingual emergent students, as I was

15

better positioned to create conditions that allowed for the deepening of my students’
sociopolitical consciousness.
In Figure 1, change was represented at the level of my classroom. As a teacher, I wanted
to deepen the sociopolitical consciousness of my students within the context of history and their
current environment. My goal was for my students to change the way they talked about history
inside my class, with the expectation that my students would examine their experiences to
identify places where they actively engage in behaviors that push back at dominant ideologies in
relation to their peers and their teacher. At the same time, I wanted to promote an awareness to
the role that these dominant ideologies played in historical events and everyday life. My goal
was to foster an environment where students could begin to critically reflect on how they
reproduced the status quo, and in turn change how they approached and understood the world.
In the ensuing section, I further explain the varying elements of my conceptual
framework. First, I will introduce dominant ideologies that were filtered from society into my
classroom. Second, I will contextualize critical reflection and the tenets of CRP and prosocial
behaviors within my role as teacher of bilingual emergent students.
Society and Dominant Ideologies
I contend that the status quo in society is perpetuated by dominant ideologies (Bartolomé,
2010; Gorski, 2012). According to Brookfield (2010), dominant ideologies uphold entrenched
beliefs and assumptions that are often unchallenged or unquestioned, and they create hegemonic
narratives that marginalize and harm different groups of people. In this study I addressed a
narrower set of ideologies that revealed themselves in my interactions with my students. Some of
the more common ideologies that came up in our discussions were: White supremacy, racism,
meritocracy, assimilation, and classism. Initially, I thought that the deepening of my students’

16

sociopolitical consciousness would allow my students to confront a wider set of ideologies. In its
original conception, this framework included dominant ideologies like colorism, colonialism,
patriarchy, classism, heteronormativity, and religious hierarchies among others. As the study
progressed, I realized that much more time would be needed to address such an extensive list of
ideologies. Instead, I made the conscious choice to address the ideologies that came up
organically and the ones that were most relevant to my students’ lived experiences. In the future
I would make the same choice again, rather than attempting to address a long list of ideologies.
Next, I will define the most common dominant ideologies that revealed themselves in
my interactions with my students, and ones which I thought were relevant to my students’ lived
experiences. White supremacy is the belief that people of the White race are superior to all other
races, and should thus dominate society (Nkomo & Ariss, 2014). Another ideology related to
White supremacy is racism; racism is the belief that discrimination, prejudice, or antagonism can
be directed at a person or people based on their membership in a racial or ethnic group (Nkomo
& Ariss, 2014). Meritocracy is the belief that people attain success based solely on their talent
and effort; it usually ignores the impact of societal structures in creating social inequality
(Milner, 2010). Assimilation refers to belief that minority groups must adopt the cultural norms
of the cultural majority; it can be applied to race, religion, gender identification, sexual
orientation, and other markers of identity (Johnson, 2006; Roark et al., 2009). Classism is the
belief that people of different social classes should be treated differently, often favoring the
wealthy and harming the poor (Roark et al., 2009). As the study progressed, my students were
able to discuss and debate the role and influence of ideologies like White supremacy, racism,
meritocracy, assimilation, and classism. The process of deepening their sociopolitical
consciousness also allowed them to investigate how they themselves had come to internalize and

17

perpetuate some of these ideologies in their own life. In the ensuing section, I explain how my
classroom became a brave space where my students challenged and combatted the centering of
dominant ideologies by holding each other accountable during discussions and other classroom
interactions (Arao & Clemens, 2013).
Interaction Between Teacher and Students
In my United States history class, I challenged the influence of dominant ideologies by
creating classroom conditions that deepened the sociopolitical consciousness of my students. I
began the process of deepening my students’ sociopolitical consciousness by asking students to
consider multiple perspectives, question their assumptions and or beliefs, connect historical
events to their current lives, and evaluate their own markers of privilege and oppression. After
examining their experiences, student identified places where they actively engaged in behaviors
that pushed back at dominant ideologies in relation to their peers and teacher. Together, this
process produced a change in the way students talked about history during our class discussions.
In this context, the practice of critical reflection, coupled with the tenets of CRP and prosocial
behaviors, informed my actions as I moved to create this change within my class. Yes, my
conceptual framework was instrumental in guiding my actions in this study. However, I believe
that this combination of concepts would continue to operate as my theory of action in future
studies or in future professional contexts. My belief in the combination of these concepts as an
effective way to create conditions that allow for the deepening of sociopolitical consciousness
was solidified during this study, and I continue to hold on to this belief.
Critical Reflection and My Teaching
Critical reflection serves two purposes: to externalize and investigate power relationships,
and to uncover hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2010). For teachers, critical reflection can

18

generate new understandings as they relate to their power, positionality, and bias. In this process
of critical reflection, teachers can gain a deeper understating of their context (i.e., their
classroom), and reframe how they approach their instruction (Brookfield, 2010). They can
evaluate how they interact with their students, and they can also investigate the resulting
outcomes of these interactions by considering the perspectives of their students (Jay & Johnson,
2002). Furthermore, they can investigate the moral implications of their actions, and investigate
how these actions are influenced by hegemonic assumptions or dominant ideologies (Brookfield,
2010; Jay & Johnson, 2002).
In my own teaching, I relied on critical reflection to document and investigate my own
power, positionality, and biases as they relate to my role as a teacher of Spanish-speaking,
bilingual emergent, immigrant students. My goal was to write reflections that were critical, ones
that considered my positioning, my power, and my role in reproducing the status quo. I did not
always accomplish this goal, as sometimes my reflections became more descriptive or
comparative. Sometimes these reflections unintentionally repeated what I had previously written
in descriptive reflections. My critical reflections were informed by jottings of my classroom
interactions (i.e., on my ability to implement CRP and later prosocial behaviors) and by
descriptive reflections (i.e., describing different events or interactions within my class). When I
did succeed in writing true critical reflections, I was able to investigate my assumptions about the
purpose of teaching, and my assumptions about my bilingual emergent students. It also allowed
me to reflect on my own positionality and my own power as a Spanish-speaking Latino teacher
who was born and raised in the local community. Documenting these assumptions and personal
markers gave me a sense of where I stood throughout the study. In addition, my pre-study
reflections served as a reference point for my future in-study reflections. In those reflections, I

19

was able to question what content, what voices, and what actions I centered in my classroom.
This enabled me to often center the experiences of Spanish immigrant students and the
marginalized markers of their identity. I was also able to investigate my internalization of
dominant ideologies and identify instances where these ideologies affected my actions in the
classrooms. Ultimately, this practice created an iterative cycle of reflection and action that made
me more self-aware of my power, positionality, and biases. In these reflections, I was able to
connect my actions to larger societal structures and evaluate how these actions affected my
bilingual emergent students. As one of the three components of my conceptual framework, I
would continue to apply this action in future studies and future professional contexts.
CRP in My Class and My Students
Ladson-Billings (1995), Milner (2010, 2017) and Camangian (2015) contend that CRP
focuses on cultural competence and student achievement of students and creates more equitable
learning conditions for historically marginalized students. They argue that CRP affirms the
cultural identities of students, and it empowers them to challenge societal structures that produce
inequities.
According to Bartolomé (2010), Ladson-Billings (1995), and Milner (2010), for teachers
to enact cultural competence, they must be aware of their positionality and their world view.
They must also have knowledge of historical injustice and social inequities. Teachers must also
consider their students’ cultural backgrounds, values, lived experiences, and ways of knowing.
After acquiring this knowledge, teachers must find ways to properly communicate and
incorporate this knowledge into their instruction and classroom environment. Teachers who rely
on CRP create relevancy by matching their course content and classroom environment to the
cultural identities of their students.

20

According to Ladson-Billings (1995) and Milner (2010), CRP also focuses on student
achievement. Teachers influence student achievement by setting and upholding high
expectations (Milner, 2010). When planning lessons, teachers consider their students’ prior
academic knowledge, their outside of school knowledge, their personal backgrounds, and their
current capacity (Milner, 2010). They plan lessons that are that are rigorous, and they recognize
and avoid deficit mindsets when planning and/or teaching a lesson (Milner, 2010). Once in
action, teachers provide support to students by providing scaffolds that are based on students’
zone of proximal development or ZPD—ZPD focuses on the difference between students’
current ability and their future potential (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). Teachers who enact CRP
can assign rigorous work that challenges students to work in the area between what they can
already do comfortably, and what they will be able to do in the future. When focusing on
achievement, CRP also requires that teachers evaluate their interactions (i.e., feedback,
conversations, test performance, etc.) with students and the interactions of students with one
another. Based on the nature of their interaction with students, and their students’ interaction
with each other, teachers adjust their future planning and instruction to better meet the needs of
students. Instead of doing this once or twice, teachers engage in a cyclical process of reflection
and informed action. In my case, I still believe that use of these concepts is the best way to
advance equity. I would continue to implement them going forward.
In my class, evidence of students’ development of sociopolitical consciousness in relation
to the way they made sense of history, and their current experiences was visible in the classroom
discourse via student writing (i.e., student critical reflections), and in shared examples from their
outside of the classroom experiences via class discussions. While my aim was to get students to
write critical reflections in conjunction with having class discussions, not all students were able

21

to fully engage in the act of critical reflection. Instead, some students reflected in a more
descriptive or comparative manner. However, I interacted with students in a way that reflected
my internalization of concepts like cultural competence, high expectations, and ZPD. Using
modeling, and routine setting I was able to help my students progress towards writing reflections
that were more critical in nature.
Going forward, I would continue to rely on important concepts like cultural competence
and critical reflection. In this study, this looked like me balancing my focus between my own my
background, identity, and lived experiences and the backgrounds, cultural assets, and lived
experiences of my students. Going forward I would continue to select historical content, that is
relevant and connected to the cultural backgrounds of my students and/or peers. Like I did in
this study, I would continue to plan lessons that are rigorous. My goal would be to have students
work in their zone of proximal development—where students are challenged to go beyond the
content they know or the skills they could already enact. In future contexts, I would continue to
assess my ability to effectively enact CRP by writing critical reflections that investigate my
lesson plans, assigned work and student products in relation to CRP.
Prosocial Behaviors in My Class and My Students
Initially, prosocial behaviors were not included as one of the three major components in
my conceptual framework. However, I integrated this concept into my framework after realizing
that these behaviors were essential in helping me create conditions that deepened the
sociopolitical consciousness of my students. According to Weinstein et al. (2004), the use of
prosocial behaviors allows a teacher to create a classroom environment that supports students'
academic and social goals. Two prosocial behaviors that emerged as a result of my analysis
were: modeling and routine setting. Per Gallimore and Tharp (1990), modeling is the “process of

22

offering behavior for imitation” (p. 178). Modeling is an effective way of setting standards, as
students observe the teacher enact a desired behavior. Teachers can model for students the
behaviors they want students to enact such as modeling how students should behave during
discussions (e.g., raising their hand or typing in the chat to participate, listening to others, and
acknowledging their peers’ responses). These types of behaviors can allow for the construction
of new knowledge by facilitating the possibility of having meaningful interactions and discourse
(Matsumura et al., 2008). The other prosocial behavior this framework now includes is the
contingency management strategy of routine setting. Gallimore and Tharp (1990) describe
contingency management as a means of assisting performance. Regarding the zone of proximal
development, contingency management strategies can help students in the area between what
they can already do comfortably, and what they will be able to do in the future. As students grow
in their ability to meet expectations, teachers adjust their future planning and instruction to better
meet students at their current ability levels. A consistent routine can help with students’ learning
by providing structure and organization to the classroom. Based on my use of prosocial
behaviors in this framework, these are behaviors I would rely on in future studies or future
professional contexts.
In my class, I used prosocial behaviors as precursors to help foster sociopolitical
discussion. These prosocial behaviors facilitated my ability to create conditions that could
deepen the sociopolitical consciousness of my students. As it relates to discussion, I modeled
behaviors that students did not initially perform them on their own. My goal in modeling
prosocial behaviors, was for students to eventually internalize these behaviors and demonstrate
them with less of my support. Throughout the study I modeled behaviors that I wanted my
students replicate, such as raising my hand or typing in the chat, listening to others, and

23

acknowledging students’ responses. I also modeled how students could begin to respond to their
peers. This modeling allowed me to set the expectation and standard that I wanted my students to
meet during the weekly discussions. In addition, I also created a routine that would be followed
during every discussion lesson. From the first lesson in the first action cycle, I enacted a routine
that consistently relied on three pedagogical moves: allotting time for group work, using a
Google form to record student responses, and providing sentence starters, both in English and
Spanish, so that students could address discussion questions. Together these moves provided a
structure that my students became more familiar with over time. With each passing discussion,
my students were able to internalize the components of this routine.
Section Summary
In this section, I explained the varying elements of my conceptual framework. My
framework partnered the practice of critical reflection with the tenets of culturally relevant
pedagogy, and prosocial behaviors. First, I introduced the dominant ideologies that are filtered
from society into my school and my classroom. Second, I contextualized critical reflection and
the tenets of CRP and prosocial behaviors within my role as a teacher of bilingual emergent
students.
Research Methods
While schools, such as El Rancho, are social structures that uphold the status quo through
the perpetuation of dominant ideologies, schools can also become places of discovery that
produce change (Bartolomé, 2010). As explained in my conceptual framework, change in my
context was represented at the level of my classroom. I wanted to deepen the sociopolitical
consciousness of my students. This change was represented in my students’ actions, as they
examined their experiences, and they identified places where they actively engaged in behaviors

24

that pushed back at dominant ideologies. Throughout the study, my Spanish-speaking immigrant
students, discussed and shared their views through a sociopolitical frame. Like me, they too
began this process by unearthing their own assumptions, biases, and privileges. At the same time,
they also examined the assets they brought into their own learning experience and classroom. On
my end, I was intentional in using critical reflection to examine how I reproduced the status quo,
and how I could best create conditions to deepen my students’ sociopolitical consciousness.
Participants and Setting of Actions
In this section I will describe the participants and the setting within which my study took
place. I begin by first by explaining the participants of my study. I then shift to the setting of
actions for the study.
Participants
I collected data from my students and on myself in relation to my students. As shown in
my conceptual framework, I engaged my bilingual emergent students within the context of my
classroom. I focused on two components from our interaction, class discussions and student
critical reflections. I also collected data on myself by writing jottings, descriptive reflections, and
critical reflections that focused on the progress and evolution of the class discussions and
students’ critical reflections.
I investigated my actions as they related to my bilingual emergent students. In my
classroom, I had 24 bilingual emergent students who come from diverse countries all over Latin
America, such as Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. The students were in mixed
grades, from grade nine through grade 12 . All the students had been in the United States for 3
years or fewer. A small number of students were able to read, write, and speak in English; but
most of them were in the early stages of learning English. These students possessed a knowledge

25

of history, especially history specific to their home country. Their diverse life experiences and
backgrounds created a uniquely global collection of students. Drago-Severson and Blum
DeStefano (2017) posit that adults have different ways of knowing that influences how they
make sense of social justice. While their research focuses on adults, a similar framework can be
applied to my students. In my case, I used Severson and Blum DeStefano’s language of
instrumental, socializing, self-authoring, or transformative knowers to think about where my
students stood throughout the study. This mattered because it helped me differentiate my
approach towards my students’ when prompting student discussion and when giving feedback on
student work. I also used this language to think about my own status as learner. In my critical
reflections I saw myself as a self-authoring learner and I self-questioned how I could become a
transformative learner.
Setting of Actions
The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the setting of actions for this study. Originally, I
intended to explore my actions during instructional time within my physical classroom. In the
end, this study focused on my actions during distance learning. I explored my teaching in my
online bilingual United States history class. As mentioned previously, my class included 24
students from mixed grades anywhere from grade nine to grade 12 who had lived in the United
States for fewer than 3 years. This class took place during third period. We had synchronous
classes (where everyone was required to log in at the same time) on Google Meets three times a
week: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Each class was limited to 40 minutes of synchronous
instruction; followed by 40 minutes of asynchronous class time (where students were dismissed
to work individually). To carry out research in these setting, I sought permission from my school

26

principal and my department chair, while also informing my bilingual emergent students about
the study.
Actions
In my conceptual framework I explained that I enacted change on one front: in my
history classroom. In my classroom, I deepened the sociopolitical consciousness of my students
by enacting the tenets of CRP and prosocial behaviors. I used jottings, descriptive reflections,
and critical reflections to evaluate my ability to enact these concepts. I wrote four critical
reflections over a 2-month period. My goal was to write reflections that were critical, ones that
considered my positioning, my power, and my role in reproducing the status quo. I did not
always accomplish this goal, as sometimes my reflections became more descriptive or
comparative. Sometimes these reflections unintentionally repeated what I had previously written
in descriptive reflections. From the onset I wanted to also include how well I enacted CPR and
adaptive leadership. Later in the study, by the second action cycle, I inserted an analysis of
prosocial behaviors instead of adaptive leadership into my critical reflections.
To supplement and inform these critical reflections, I wrote jottings (during class) and
descriptive reflections (after class) twice a week as observation tools for my synchronous classes.
I collected student work in the form of critical reflections, and I looked at transcripts from the
weekly synchronous class discussions (produced on Google Meets). Table 1 maps the actions I
took during this study.

27

Table 1
Actions in the Classroom
Teacher in the Classroom: CRP and Prosocial Behaviors
Topics Month 1 2012 Election Month 2 2016 Election
Immigration

Week 1
Jottings &
Descriptive Reflections
Synchronous Discussion Lesson
Students’ Critical Reflection
Critical Reflection
Week 1
Jottings &
Descriptive Reflections
Synchronous Discussion Lesson
Students’ Critical Reflection
Critical Reflection
Race/
Social Class

Week 2
Jottings &
Descriptive Reflections
Synchronous Discussion Lesson
Students’ Critical Reflection

Week 2
Jottings &
Descriptive Reflections
Synchronous Discussion Lesson
Students’ Critical Reflection
Gender/
Identity

Week 3
Jottings
Descriptive Reflections
Synchronous Discussion Lesson
Students’ Critical Reflection
Critical Reflection
Week 3
Jottings
Descriptive Reflections
Synchronous Discussion Lesson
Students’ Critical Reflection
Critical Reflection

Week 4
Out of the Field Analysis
Week 4
Out of the Field Analysis

Actions Influenced by CRP and Prosocial Behaviors
Elements of CRP such as cultural competence, ZPD, and high expectations are embedded
within the action plan. I selected culturally relevant content (i.e., two of the three most recent
presidential elections) that was directly connected to the events that were happening in our
society at the time. My selection of this content also allowed me to address culturally relevant
topics like immigration, race, social class, and identity. These were topics that were relevant to
the lived experiences of my Spanish-speaking immigrant students. Based on Table 1, I used
students’ participation in class discussions as evidence of students’ development of sociopolitical

28

consciousness in relation to the way they made sense of history and their experiences. Originally,
I also intended to use students’ critical reflection as another source of evidence, but I did not
accomplish this goal.
Using the concept of ZPD, I facilitated weekly class discussions during our synchronous
classes on Google Meets. I gradually pushed my students to engage in discussions where they
examined their experiences and identified places where they actively engaged in behaviors that
pushed back at dominant ideologies. To provide support for my students, I used sentence starters
(i.e., I agree with you because, I disagree with you because, I hear what you are saying and/but I
believe, etc.) for every discussion lesson. Furthermore, I also challenged students to provide
examples of inequitable social systems in history and in our school by asking questions that
could prompt these types of responses. I asked students to discuss and reflect on their personal
strengths, interests, and experiences. I asked students to make connections between the present
setting and historic events such as the presidential elections. In these discussions, I challenged
students with follow up questions that pushed them beyond superficial responses. Initially, I
played a bigger role in leading these discussions. During the first month, I modeled for students
how they could construct evidenced-based claims and how to respond to other peers. In these
early discussions, I played a more active role in guiding conversations. I intentionally prompted
students to respond directly to their peers, and I interjected in moments where students made
claims without using evidence or in moments where they do not engage with their peers. By the
second month, my students were more capable in their ability to form their own evidence-based
claims, and they were also able to consider and evaluate the claims of their peers. By the end of
the second cycle, some students were able to engage directly with one another without my
prompting.

29

I also assigned critical reflections (this represented student work) that progressively
become more rigorous. I introduced the practice of writing critical reflection in my class as a
weekly asynchronous assignment, gradually challenging my students to investigate their own
positionality, power, and biases. Initially, these reflections were not critical in nature. Students
tended to describe the events from the class or focused on how they felt during the lesson.
Overtime, I was able to provide feedback to students in order to push them towards a more
critical way of reflecting. I asked the following reflection questions:
1. What is my positionality in our society, and how is it connected to the history I am
learning?
2. How can considering the perspective of my peers or people who are different than me
improve my understanding of the world and history?
3. How have I identified the manifestation of dominant ideologies in my own interactions
with my peers and teachers; how do I help my friends do the same?
4. In what ways, if at all, do I question my own assumptions about history and my
worldview?
Initially, I only asked my students to reflect on one question. As the semester progressed, I
challenged students to reflect on different combinations of these questions.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
Because I explored my own actions as they related to my students in this action research
study, I functioned as the primary data collection and data analysis instrument (Herr &
Anderson, 2015; Maxwell, 2013). I collected data through my critical reflections, jottings,
descriptive reflections, and transcripts from synchronous class discussions. Together, these
sources of data showed my progress towards creating the conditions that deepen the

30

sociopolitical consciousness of my students. In the next section, I will further explain each data
collection approach.
Documents and Artifacts
The documents that were already available in my context were my instructional artifacts
such as my unit plans and lesson plans on recent presidential elections. These plans focused on
the more recent events of United States history and were typically implemented in the latter part
of the school year. However, given the purpose of this study (to create conditions to deepen the
sociopolitical consciousness of students), and the November date of the 2020 election, it was
appropriate to focus on this content in the fall of 2020. Although I engaged in this work late into
the fall semester, the events and outcome of the 2020 election remained relevant. Other
documents such as the synchronous class discussion transcripts were also available because they
happened during the fall semester. Documents like my jottings, descriptive reflections, critical
reflections were generated after I began the study.
Personal Critical Reflections
I wrote two critical reflections per month over the course of 2 months. In total, I wrote
four critical reflections. These critical reflections focused on my teaching actions. My goal was
to write reflections that were critical, one that considered my positioning, my power, and my role
in reproducing the status quo. I did not always accomplish this. Over the span of 4 weeks, I
wrote one critical reflection while I was still in the field, and the other was written at the end of a
month or cycle of action. From the onset, my critical reflections also investigated my actions
related to my teaching of bilingual emergent students, including my ability to enact CRP. Later
in the study, my critical reflections helped me investigate my prosocial behaviors as they
emerged as a result of my analysis.

31

To maintain consistency, I created a set of standard questions that I used for my critical
reflections. In each critical reflection, I asked myself the following questions:
1. Did my positionality, as a young, light-skinned, heterosexual cisgender Latino male
impact my actions in my classroom or in my department?
2. How have I considered the perspective of my students and what steps have I taken to
challenge my assumptions about them?
3. How have I identified the manifestation of dominant ideologies in my own interactions
with students and how do I help my students and colleagues do the same?
4. In what ways, if at all, did I use CRP and prosocial behaviors in the classroom?
5. How have I used my critical reflection to advocate and or create changes in material
conditions for marginalized students?
I used the insight gained from the critical reflections to reflect on my positionality, power, and
biases, and to take informed action in my class and further use the concepts from conceptual
framework. I relied on the cyclical process of reflection until I generated a rich and descriptive
data set that provided insight on my ability to create conditions that deepened the sociopolitical
consciousness of my students. To write critical reflections that accurately represented the
interactions and events of my classroom and department, I referenced jottings and descriptive
reflections that focused on my classroom actions.
Jottings
I wrote jottings as observation tools for my synchronous classes. I usually wrote
anywhere from three to five jottings per class. The jottings were written during class time, as
quick snapshots of the events and interactions that took place. For example, I would often make
notes of how I was feeling during a moment of the lesson, or I would note events or interactions

32

that stood out to me. According to Miles et al. (2014), jottings can help a researcher capture
fleeting and emergent reactions. They can also serve multiple purposes and can denote
inferences, personal reactions, emotions, doubts, second thoughts, mental notes, cross references,
elaborations, and/or clarifications. In my study, jottings served as an observational data
collection tool that began my larger descriptive reflections and personal critical reflections.
Descriptive Reflections
I wrote descriptive reflections for my synchronous classes twice a week. Overall, I wrote
a total of twelve descriptive reflections. I wrote six descriptive reflections for the first cycle, and
six descriptive reflections for the second cycle. The descriptive reflections were written after
class time. According to Jay and Johnson (2002), descriptive reflections ask varying questions:
1. What is happening?
2. Is this working, and for whom?
3. How am I feeling?
4. What am I pleased about?
5. What do I not understand?
In my descriptive reflections I summarized and explained what I did in class, my students’
actions, what I heard from them, what I did to disrupt, what I did to scaffold, how I felt during
the lesson, etc. For example, I was able to at times incorporate verbatim dialogue between my
students and verbatim dialogue between myself and my students, that proved useful for my data
analysis. In most instances, I was able to write summarizing data that described the chronological
order of activities in my lesson. In other instances, these descriptive reflections included my
feelings about the lesson or the events that transpired in my class. Each reflection usually
captured about 40 minutes of class time. In my study, descriptive reflections built on initial

33

jottings and served as an observational data collection tool that informed my larger critical
reflections.
Synchronous Discussions Transcripts
I led weekly class discussions during our synchronous online classes on Google Meets.
Over the course of 2 months, my Spanish-speaking immigrant students engaged in six
synchronous class discussions. Usually, these discussions lasted anywhere from 20-25 minutes.
From these weekly discussions, I recorded the Google Meets class and generated transcripts from
three discussions. The rest of the synchronous discussions, including the recorded lessons, served
as fodder for my daily jottings, daily descriptive reflections, and critical reflections. The
following classroom norms were upheld during class discussions:
1. Respect peers by listening when they speak, do not talk over or silence others.
2. Respond directly to your peers.
3. Speak for yourself and not for others.
4. Use evidence to support your claims.
5. Share your experiences, and listen to the experiences of others.
In first month, the discussions focused on the 2012 election. In the second they focused on the
2016 election. Over the course of each month, each election was framed by weekly discussions
that focused on different topics related to each election (e.g., immigration, race, social class,
gender, and identity).
Asynchronous Student Critical Reflections
I introduced the weekly practice of critical reflection to my students. Over the course of 2
months, my Spanish-speaking immigrant students wrote a total of six critical reflections during
asynchronous class time. Initially, these reflections were not critical in nature. Students tended to

34

describe the events from the class or focused on how they felt during the lesson. Overtime, I was
able to provide feedback to students in order to push them towards a more critical way of
reflecting.
As students became familiar with our routine, students began to answer a combination of
the following questions:
1. What is my positionality in our society, and how is it connected to the history I am
learning?
2. How can considering the perspective of my peers or people who are different than me
improve my understanding of the world and history?
3. How have I identified the manifestation of dominant ideologies in my own interactions
with my peers and teachers; how do I help my friends do the same?
4. In what ways, if at all, do I question my own assumptions about history and my
worldview?
Initially, I intended to collect two reflections per student to analyze for data. However, I was
unable to accomplish this goal as I did not have the capacity or ability to analyze such a high
volume of data. Nevertheless, I still used these reflections as assignments for my students that
served as products for my course.
Data Analysis
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), data analysis allows the researcher to make
meaning out of the data that has been collected. This process allows the researcher to investigate
how the different components of the data collected are related, and how they work together in
relation to the purpose of the study. In my study, the data generated from personal critical
reflections, jottings, descriptive reflections, and transcripts from synchronous class discussions,

35

served as evidence that my actions created a change in my classroom. Because this was an action
research study, the process of data analysis was cyclical in nature and happened while I was in
the field and out of the field (Herr & Anderson, 2015). The nature of this continuous analysis
served two purposes: it informed my actions during the study, and it informed my findings at the
conclusion of action cycles and of the study (Herr & Anderson, 2015; Maxwell, 2013).
The cycles of action for this study were each 3 weeks long and took place in the fall
semester of the 2020 school year. In each cycle I wrote two critical reflections and six
descriptive reflections, one while I was in the field and one while I was out of the field. At the
end of each cycle, I spent about 5 −7 days analyzing the data before returning to the field. In total,
I engaged in two cycles of action research. In each cycle, I engaged in data collection in the field
and then I engaged in data collection once I left the field. Once I left the field, I looked at the
entire corpus of evidence to draw conclusions about my ability to enact change.
During data analysis, while I was in the field, I used analytic tools to make sense of my
data. Specifically, I used tools such as making comparisons, looking at emotions, drawing on
personal experience, and looking at language, to make sense of my jottings, descriptive
reflections, and critical reflections (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For example, I used the drawing on
personal experience and looking at emotions techniques to question my own thoughts and
assumptions when I read my summary of events or the dialogue from conversations in my
descriptive reflections. These techniques helped me think about how I had originally processed
and experienced an event in my class, and they helped me reevaluate the conclusions I made
about said events.
During the initial cycle, while in the field, I used a priori codes from my conceptual
framework like examples of CRP to create initial categories in my data (Miles et al., 2014).

36

Other categories, like adaptive leadership, which was one of my original categories, did not
develop as my actions led me towards other concepts like prosocial behaviors. This change
became evident at the end of my first cycle, when I left the field for the first time. After
reentering the field and starting the second cycle of action, I continued to conduct analysis.
During this phase, I began to construct conceptual groupings by building on the patterns
identified in my data during the first cycle. I created conceptual groupings that added to the
concepts from my conceptual framework. Concepts like prosocial behaviors emerged from my
analysis. Again, this was a concept that was initially not included in my framework. This shows
that my out of the field data analysis, be it in between my action cycles or after I left the field for
good, was more inductive. I allowed myself to see what I might have missed when I was in the
field and add to what I did not originally include in my conceptual framework. I also used other
analytic tools to find patterns and comparisons within my collected data once I was out of the
field at the end of each action cycle (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For example, I used the making
comparisons technique during my out of the field analysis to compare data from descriptive
reflections early in the study, to ones that were written in the second cycle. This tool helped
evaluate my growth and my student’s growth as the study progressed as I was able to compare
the nature of my students’ responses in early discussions and latter discussions.
Once out of the field for good I used Google Sheets to highlight and codify the data I
collected, by assigning a color to different patterns, categories, and conceptual groupings. I
continued using analytic tools like making comparisons and looking at language to examine the
larger corpus of data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). For example, in looking at language I realized
that I frequently used the word “quickly” when explaining assignments or giving directions. The
repeated use of this word in my data indicated that I was struggling with being present to my

37

students’ learning. Instead, I was being present to an internal urgency to cover content and get
through the lesson.
During the analysis phase, I frequently met with my dissertation chair to make sense of
my collected data. I created a spreadsheet that included original and newly emerged concepts. I
used my code book to track the number of times I enacted components like CRP and prosocial
behaviors. I also looked at other emerging themes, like being present and setting high
expectations. I did this by analyzing my lesson plans, my descriptive reflections, and my critical
reflections in chronological order across the two cycles. I extracted quotes and excepts and
slotted them into the corresponding category. Over time, I could tangibly count how many times
I enacted each component across a 2-month period. When extracting these examples and
excerpts, I analyzed each by using the techniques outlined above (making comparisons, looking
at language, drawing on personal experience, and looking at emotion) to determine the correct
category. I originally intended to use my students’ critical reflections as well, but I did not have
the time or bandwidth to analyze these documents. I also used analytic memos as a part of the
analytic process. I used these analytic memos to see what was emerging across the different
cycles, in particular after I would analyze my descriptive and critical reflections.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are several limitations and delimitations in this study. One limitation for this study
is that originally this study was intended to take place in physical spaces rather than online ones.
During the study, teachers at El Rancho taught online synchronous and asynchronous lessons.
Rather than meeting every day, I met with classes three times a week. This meant I had a reduced
amount of contact with students, and this impacted the rapport and organic relationships that
develop during in-person interactions. Fortunately, synchronous instruction allowed for a set

38

time and space where I met with my bilingual emergent students. While this was a positive, the
synchronous schedule also limited my ability to reflect right after my instruction because I had
other classes to teach. Instead, I had to write descriptive reflections at the end of the workday, a
few hours after the events of my class. Thus, it was more difficult to retain information for the
purposes of writing my reflections.
Another limitation was the lack of time. Originally, I set out to include interactions with
my peers, but because of the reduced amount of time and their lack of willingness to participate,
I had to drop this from my study. Again, the online format of this study impacted my ability to
connect with collogues, and their willingness to participate in this study. For that reason, the
study shifted towards examining change solely in my classroom. One additional limitation was
my novice status as a researcher.
One delimitation was how I operated as a novice researcher. Aligning the varying
components of my study proved to be a challenge, while the ambiguous nature of action research
often made me feel overwhelmed. I collected data for the first time and tried the actions involved
in this research for the first time. This bounded what I was able to learn.
Another delimitation for this study was that as I engaged in action research, I assumed
multiple roles (i.e., teacher, researcher, member of the organization). Because I was researcher
examining my own actions as they related to people in my context, it was impossible to eliminate
my own biases and beliefs. Because I bound my study in this manner, I had to adopt a critical
mindset, where I consistently had to question my own reflections and conclusions. This
delimitation also impacted my data analysis process. As I generated a priori codes from my
conceptual framework and open codes from my data, I had to conduct thought experiments to
challenge the patterns and themes I identified. Another delimitation was my role as member of

39

the school I studied. As a student who attended El Rancho, and a teacher and coach who had
been working there for 6 years at the time of the study, I was in a position of relative comfort and
safety at El Rancho. I often experienced fear of stepping outside of my comfort zone and times
this impacted my ability to carry out my study, especially when I reached out to colleagues. This
was in part connected to my decision to drop this component of my study, as I often delayed in
reaching out to colleagues and setting up meeting times.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To establish credibility for my study I conducted validity checks that provided an audit
trail of my actions (Maxwell, 2013). First, I focused on my primary data approach: personal
critical reflections. To the best of my ability, I wrote reflections that were rich in detail, and ones
that considered alternate explanations of my initial interpretations of interactions or events
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This helped me bracket my biases and disciplined my subjectivity by
considering alternative explanations to my assumptions (Brookfield, 2010). For example, I
would often write questions and comments on the margins of my reflections to further question
how I had processed or interpreted an event. As it relates it critical reflections, I addressed threats
to validity by conducting member checks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I frequently met with my
dissertation chair and used her feedback as a sounding board for my assumptions and beliefs. Her
pushback and outside perspective helped me gain clarity on my data. In relying on an alternative
perspective, I was able to further challenge my own bias, power, and positionality (Brookfield,
2010). While critical reflections served as my primary data approach, I also collected other data
such as lesson plans, jottings, descriptive reflections, and transcripts from synchronous class
discussions. The insight I gathered from lesson plans, jottings, and descriptive reflections, and
transcripts from class discussions, offered an opportunity to triangulate the data from my

40

personal critical reflections because they added complexity to my interpretations of events and
interactions.
Ultimately, I should be trusted as a researcher because through the practice of critical
reflection I interrogated my privileges, biases, assumptions, and power. In addition, I carried out
supplemental data collection approaches that helped diminish my bias, projection, and
sensemaking of events or interactions (Herr & Anderson, 2015). In addition, this study should be
trusted because of my position as a teacher. This role granted me unique access to Spanish-
speaking immigrant students. As an inside member of a public school, I had first-hand
knowledge and experience of the context that was being researched (Herr & Anderson, 2015).
Ethics
The process of conducting an action research study presented several ethical challenges.
One challenge presented by this process was the blurring of roles and responsibilities. For
example, I had to balance my roles of teacher and researcher. The actions I took as a researcher
could not negatively impact my students (Coghlan, 2019). I could not harm or cause risk to
students, and I did not deceive, coerce, or exert pressure on students or colleagues in the hopes
that they would participate in the study (Coghlan, 2019). I took certain actions to avoid these
ethical challenges. First, I informed my students that I was engaging in research about my
actions in relation to them. Second, I explained that their decision to participate in my study was
optional, and not mandatory. Third, I also explained to students that their refusal to engage in
activities associated with my study would not bring negative consequences. From a power
standpoint, I did not use my position of teacher to harm students (i.e., negative treatment or
lowering of grades).

41

Other ethical factors were also considered such as authorship, confidentiality, and
security of data. Authorship and power were connected to my interpretations of events and
interactions. I did my best to properly represent my students in my depictions of events or
interactions by using member checks. One way I minimized risk for my students was by safely
storing my critical reflections, daily jottings, descriptive reflections, transcripts from
synchronous class discussions, and students’ critical reflection. In terms of the security of data, I
kept organized digital files that do not disclose the identities of either students or colleagues;
instead, my files were organized by date, data collection approach, and setting.
Findings
In this section, I will focus on my findings as they relate to my research question: What
was my role in creating conditions for students to deepen their sociopolitical consciousness
within my history classroom? This findings section will be further broken down into two
sections. The first section will focus on what I learned about my students and their learning in
relation to my ability to create conditions that deepened their sociopolitical consciousness. The
second section will focus on how I grew as a teacher in my ability to create conditions that
deepened students’ sociopolitical consciousness.
Prior to moving forward, I want to summarize the structure of my study. Over the course
of 6 weeks, I planned two units that centered on the presidential elections of 2012 and 2016.
Each unit was 3 weeks long, and each week had a different topic of emphasis: immigration, race,
and identity. Each week was further broken down into three different lessons. Mondays, or the
first lesson of the week, were designed as context-setting lessons, where background information
was provided on the elections and on the topic for that week. Wednesdays, or the second lesson
of the week, were designed as guided discussion lessons. During these discussions, students

42

relied on pre-written responses that were generated during group work to share their claims.
Fridays, or the third lesson of the week, were critical reflection lessons, in which students
worked on writing critical reflections. With this weekly structure in place, I carried out my study
alongside my bilingual emergent students.
Finding 1: My Students’ Growth
This section will focus on what I did as a teacher to deepen my bilingual emergent
students’ sociopolitical consciousness. To deepen my students’ sociopolitical consciousness, I
established conditions that facilitated prosocial behaviors. According to Weinstein et al. (2004),
prosocial behaviors allow a teacher to create a setting that supports academic and social goals. In
my class, these prosocial behaviors were a precondition for preparing my students for
participation in guided discussions that promoted sociopolitical consciousness. To generate
prosocial behaviors in my classroom, my lessons incorporated modeling and routine setting.
After these preconditions were established, I focused on the progress my students made,
focusing on the deepening of their sociopolitical consciousness. This decision was grounded in
the belief that deepening the sociological consciousness of my students can alter how the
perceive themselves and world around them. As a history teacher, I also believed that this
deepening could also alter how students made sense of history and longstanding dominant
ideologies. In the ensuing sections, I will expand on the progress my students made because of
the preconditions established.
Modeling
The first way that I promoted prosocial behaviors as a precursor to students’ participation
in discussions that promoted sociopolitical consciousness, was through modeling. According to
Gallimore and Tharp (1990) modeling is the “process of offering behavior for imitation” (p.

43

178). They go onto say that modeling is an effective way of setting standards, as students
observe the teacher enact a desired behavior. In the first cycle, I started modeling for students
how they should behave during discussions (e.g., raising their hand or typing in the chat to
participate, listening to others, and acknowledging their peers’ responses), to created meaningful
interaction between students that lead to the construction of new knowledge. I decided to focus
on prosocial behaviors as a precursor to fostering a sociopolitical discussion, because according
to Matsumura et al. (2008), students can construct new knowledge through meaningful
interaction and discourse. It was important for me to model these behaviors because students did
not initially perform them on their own. My goal in modeling prosocial behavior was for students
to eventually internalize these behaviors and demonstrate them with less of my support. I
performed this type of modeling in every discussion lesson. In total I modeled these prosocial
behaviors in six discussion lessons, across two action cycles. In the ensuing example, taken from
one of these lessons, I provided clear directions on how students could begin to respond to their
peers. Then, I explicitly modeled behavior that I wanted students to imitate in future discussions.
I said:
I want to provide certain guidelines and expectations that will help with us during our
discussions. Firstly, it is important that we understand that some students may have
different beliefs and opinions than our own. Here the goal is to learn to listen to others,
by not interrupting or ignoring our peers when they share with the class. I also want us to
practice responding to our peers. For example, if Anna makes a claim, I can respond by
saying, “Anna I hear what you're saying but I believe, or I hear what you're saying, and I
agree because blank reason. ” This will show me that you're not only listening to your
peers but you're also including your own thoughts.

44

By saying, “I want to provide certain guidelines and expectations for our discussion,” I was
establishing that there were expectations that I held for our students when they engaged in
discussions with each other. I then addressed the possibility of students having differing opinions
and beliefs when I spoke to the fact that “some students may have different beliefs and opinions
than our own.” Here, my intention was to address two behaviors that had been present in my
classroom: students ignoring one another and students interrupting one another. While these
behaviors were opposite of one another in nature, they were both detrimental to having a
meaningful discussion. Thus, I communicated with students the importance of expecting and
acknowledging these different opinions in a productive manner. This set the stage for my
modeling of the prosocial behavior of acknowledging peers’ responses as I said that I wanted “us
to practice responding to our peers.” I modeled for students how to acknowledge their peers, by
enacting how I would respond to a peer. I responded to “Anna” using both, a phrase of
disagreement: “Anna I hear what you are saying but I believe,” —and a phrase of agreement:
“Anna I hear what you are saying, and I agree because”—as way to connect my opinion to
Anna’s opinion. This modeling showed students that they needed to listen to their peers, but that
they also needed to include their own thoughts in a response, to create a meaningful dialogue
with their peers. In this example, I established an early expectation of how students should
behave during discussion. In this interaction I offered the behavior that I wanted to see them
imitate. Going forward, my goal was to identify instances when students acknowledged peers’
responses on their own.
By the second action cycle, I found evidence that some students had internalized the
prosocial behavior of acknowledging their peers’ responses during discussions. Virginia was one
student who started to acknowledge her peers’ responses. Early in the second action cycle, the

45

class was examining the topic of immigration as it related to the presidential election of 2016. In
this discussion, another student, Alex, stated that the topic of immigration had become more
important in recent years. Alex saw 2016 as a turning point for immigrants because he believed
that immigrants started to receive more attention because of President Trump’s disparaging
remarks about immigrants during his presidential campaign. While he did not agree with
President Trump’s views, he believed his comments had brought important attention to the topic
of immigration. Virginia responded to his claim by saying:
I see why people would think that this wasn’t an important issue before 2016, because to
some that may seem like a long time ago, but that doesn't mean that we weren't here
[immigrants in the U.S]. So, for that reason, I disagree with Alex that it just became an
important issue in more recent years. People have been mistreated for a long time, and
even in the 2012 election they focused on immigration, I just think he might not know or
remember that.
Here, Virginia was attempting to acknowledge Alex’s comments by incorporating his beliefs into
her response. In her response, Virginia was able to form a claim that attempted to include Alex’s
claim and her own beliefs. She inversely imitated the structure I modeled in the previous
example, in which I stated a name followed by a phrase of agreement/disagreement. In her case,
she made a claim and then stated, “for that reason, I disagree with Alex”—thus demonstrating
that she was able to acknowledge a peer’s response that was different than her own. She was also
able to imitate other desired behaviors like allowing her peers to speak and raising her hand in
the chat to participate. However, there are other elements of Virginia’s response that deserve
analysis. Virginia misunderstood Alex, as her response indicated the belief that Alex believed
“that this [immigration] wasn’t an important issue before 2016.” Alex was making the claim that

46

Trump had brought notoriety to the issue of immigration. Virginia did not fully address this
claim in her response. At the same time, we can see how personal this topic is to Virginia, as she
made the statement, “but that doesn’t mean that we weren’t here.” Here, she was pointing to the
fact that immigrants have long been present in the United States, and she uses the word “we” to
show that she identifies as part of this group. She finished her response, by indicating that
“people have been mistreated for a long time,” and that her peer Alex “might not know or
remember that.” Here, her response highlights a moment where a student attempted to uptake the
prosocial behavior of acknowledging her peer’s response. While she failed to fully comprehend
her peer, this example is useful in showing that some students like Virginia had internalized the
modeled and desired prosocial behavior of acknowledging their peers’ responses during
discussions.
Routine Setting
The second way in which I promoted prosocial behaviors as a precursor to students’
participation in guided discussions that promoted sociopolitical thinking, was through routine
setting. Routine setting can be seen as contingency management strategy. Gallimore and Tharp
(1990) describe contingency management as a means of assisting performance. Regarding the
zone of proximal development, contingency management strategies can help students in the area
between what they can already do comfortably, and what they will be able to do in the future. As
students grow in their ability to meet expectations, teachers adjust their future planning and
instruction to better meet students at their current ability levels. The goal of this routine was to
help students develop a thinking process where they worked together to establish a claim, while
having language made available made to them. In this time, they would plan and prepare how
use their thoughts and the provided language during the ensuing whole group discussion. With

47

this is mind, I created a routine that would be followed during every discussion lesson. Similar to
my modeling, I performed the moves of this routine in every discussion lesson. In total I enacted
this routine in six discussion lessons, across two action cycles. From the first lesson in the first
action cycle, I enacted a routine that consistently relied on three pedagogical moves: allotting
time for group work, using a Google form to record student responses, and providing sentence
starters, both in English and Spanish, so that students could address discussion questions. In the
ensuing example, I provide an example that highlighted the third move of my routine (providing
sentence starters) however, my first move (time for group work) and second move (using a
Google form) are also embedded within the example. When introducing these moves, I said:
I explained that we would transition into our activity for that day starting with our group
work, in which students would collaborate with one another to answer discussion
questions. I told students that in Google classroom students would find a Google form
that had two excerpts taken from the candidate NPR fact sheet we had reviewed on
Monday. The form also had on it two questions that were listed in Spanish: According to
the two different positions, with which candidate do you agree and why? The one at the
left or at the right? … Then I showed the students that they could respond to the
questions using sentence starters. I wrote out two sentence starters in the Google meet
chat “I agree with candidate (blank) because” and “I do not agree with candidate (blank)
because.” I told students to rely on these sentence starters as they would be helpful to
them (students) in answering the discussion questions. I explained that the goal of the
sentence starters was to help students use the questions directly in their response.
Early in the example, I previewed the ensuing group work (my first move), with the expectation
that this would be a time where students could prepare for the discussion by collaborating with a

48

small group of peers. This was a designated time where students could prepare responses prior to
sharing their response with the class. In this example, the Google form (my second move) listed
two primary questions and a “side-by-side comparison of each candidate and their stance on
different immigration topics.” While the content of future Google forms would change based on
the topic of that week, the move of using a Google form to collect responses was one I
consistently enacted. This move allowed me to record student responses in real time. In the
example, I also provided students with sentence starters in the classroom chat: my third move.
The expectation was for students to use sentence starters such as “I agree with candidate (blank)
because” and “I do not agree with candidate (blank) because,” to directly address the discussion
questions on the Google form. Like the other two moves, using sentence starters became a
pivotal component of my discussion lessons because it provided language examples for my
bilingual emergent students. This was language that I wanted them to use in their written
responses and their classroom discussions. Thus, my goal was to identify instances when
students demonstrated that they had internalized and could make use of the routine.
By the second action cycle, I found evidence that some students had internalized the
routine components and began to use these routine components in the whole group discussion.
For example, some students started to respond to discussion questions by embedding questions
into their written responses. Bryan was one student who started to consistently embed discussion
questions into his responses. Early in the second action cycle, the class was examining the topic
of immigration as it related to the presidential election of 2016. On this day, the class addressed
to two questions:
1. Why do you think certain voters supported Hilary Clinton in 2016 based on her stance
on immigrants?

49

2. Why do you think certain voters supported Donald Trump in 2016 based on his stance
on immigrants?
Rather than using the sentence starters that I provided for the class, Bryan began to formulate his
own responses by borrowing language directly from the questions themselves. This was
highlighted in the data below:
1. I believe that some voters supported Hilary Clinton based on her views on immigrants
because they agreed with her that immigrants could be helpful to the United States
because they are hard-working and can contribute to the United States economy. These
voters were not afraid of the new immigrants coming to the United States
2. I believe that some voters supported Donald Trump based on his views on immigrants
because they agreed with him that immigrants were dangerous criminals who were
changing the United States These voters had racist ideas like the candidate.
Here, the data showed that Bryan used the language from the questions to form his responses. In
both instances he used the starting phrase of “I believe that some voters supported Hilary
Clinton/Donald Trump based on her/his views on immigrants because blank reason.” The use of
this strategy showed that Bryan had internalized the understanding of how sentence starters can
be useful when responding to questions because they allow students to address the topic directly.
In addition, Bryan did not use the more basic sentence starters I provided, but instead he
formulated his own sentence starter for each response. In addition to embedding the question into
his response, Bryan also supplemented each sentence starter with his own claim. While I am not
analyzing the nature of his claims in this section, I am highlighting the fact that Bryan used the
routine strategies to complete this activity. Regarding Clinton, Bryan contended that voters
supported her because these voters believed immigrants were “hard-working and [could]

50

contribute to the United States” In his opinion, these voters were not xenophobic. In contrast,
Bryan contended that Trump voters supported him because these voters believed immigrants
were “dangerous criminals who were changing the United States” In his opinion, these voters
were racist like the candidate they supported. Together, both his responses indicate that Bryan
learned how to use sentence starters to introduce his claims, and together they show that he was
able to internalize routine components to participate in discussion activities.
Deepening of My Students’ Sociopolitical Consciousness
By establishing the prosocial behaviors of modeling and routine setting, I was able to
create conditions that set the stage for my goal of deepening the sociopolitical consciousness of
my students. Matsumura et al. (2008) contend that a positive classroom climate is a precondition
for rigor. They argue that a teacher’s effort to create respectful, collaborative environments can
improve the quality of students’ participation in discussions and other classroom activities. In my
class, my establishing of prosocial behaviors helped create a positive climate for students, so that
they could engage in the rigorous work of deepening their sociopolitical consciousness.
According to my conceptual framework, evidence of students having deepened their
sociopolitical consciousness would look like students questioning their personal assumptions and
or beliefs, students connecting historical events to their current lives, and students evaluating
their own markers of privilege and oppression in order to challenge dominant ideologies
(Bartolomé, 2010; Camangian, 2015; Milner, 2010). My challenge as a teacher, was to meet
students at their current place of ability, and to help them deepen their sociopolitical
consciousness so that they could enact the previously mentioned skills. My goal was to help
students transition from superficial participation to a participation that was grounded in a
heightened level of sociopolitical consciousness. In the ensuing example, taken from the first

51

lesson of the first action cycle during a lesson, I explained to students how they could begin to
engage in the work of deepening their sociopolitical consciousness.
In our discussions it is important that we listen to our peers, but it’s also important
that we challenge our own ways of thinking. Therefore, there will be moments when we
challenge our peers, and moments when they challenge us. We have to be aware of our
own markers of privilege and oppression, and we have to make connections between
our lived experiences and the history we are discussing. Lastly, we need to be open-
minded to the idea of questioning our own beliefs and assumptions. If we can keep
these goals in mind, then we will be able to deepen and change the way we see
ourselves and the world around us.
In this example, I encouraged students to listen to their peers to preserve a positive environment.
However, my priority in this example was for students to engage in the act of self-questioning as
they participated in discussions. When I told students that “there will be moments when we
challenge our peers, and moments when they challenge us,” I was establishing the expectation
that students should engage in a symbiotic act of learning with their peers. I wanted students to
be open to the idea of being challenged by their peers, and I also wanted them to feel empowered
to challenge their peers’ thinking. On top of this, I also communicated the expectation that
students “be aware of [their] own markers of privilege and oppression.” Here, I wanted students
to start the process of analyzing their positionality. I wanted them to “connect” their experiences
as bilingual emergent immigrants to the way they saw the world, and to the way they understood
history. Essentially, I wanted my students to engage in the process of asking themselves, “why
do I think the way I do?” This ties into the last part of the example, in which I asked students to
have “an open mind” to question their beliefs and assumptions. By doing this, I wanted students

52

to be open to the idea that they might have a biased, limited, or skewed world view. By setting
these expectations, I was able to present students with a guide on how to deepen their
sociopolitical thinking, so that they could eventually enact behaviors such as questioning their
personal assumptions and or beliefs, students connecting historical events to their current lives,
and students evaluating their own markers of privilege and oppression to challenge dominant
ideologies.
Initially, students struggled to meet the expectations outlined in the example above. Thus,
they were far from being able to enact behaviors that signaled sociopolitical growth. Rather than
providing responses that were self-aware and self-questioning, all my students initially provided
responses that were superficial and not socio-politically driven. Despite my setting of
expectations, I was aware that it would take time for students to internalize these expectations.
Taken from the same lesson as the example above, the following example focuses on Roselia and
her beliefs regarding the topic of immigration. This was a response she provided in our very first
discussion, after hearing my expectations for the first time.
Immigration can be good, because people get more opportunities, but immigration can
be bad because people still have hard lives, and they are not always accepted. I think in
2012, people were becoming more okay with immigrants in the United States.
In this example it was clear that Roselia was engaging with the discussion question in a
superficial manner. Her initial comment that “people get more opportunities” highlighted a status
quo belief, where she indicated that immigrants come to the United States in search of better
lives. However, her response was devoid of any personal connections to her experience as an
immigrant, nor did it highlight the lived experiences of immigrants in their respective home
countries. Roselia hinted at a connection to her own experience when she shared, “people still

53

have hard lives, and they are not always accepted.” However, Roselia did not make mention of
her own positionality, in that she did not mention her own markers of privileges or oppression,
nor did she question her own way of thinking. Instead, she made a general statement that lacked
a connection to the historical context of 2012. While she said that immigration was both good
and bad and “that in 2012 people were becoming more okay with immigrants,” her response
lacked the depth necessary to engage in sociopolitical discussion. Nevertheless, her response in
this initial discussion was important because it was representative of the ability level of many of
my bilingual emergent students at the start of the study.
By the second cycle, my bilingual emergent students made varying levels of progress
towards the deepening of their sociopolitical consciousness. Prior to the start of the study, I
envisioned evidence of sociopolitical growth in my students, as students questioning their
personal assumptions and or beliefs, students connecting historical events to their current lives,
and students evaluating their own markers of privilege and oppression to challenge dominant
ideologies. With most of my students operating in different zones of proximal development,
there were three students who had progressed further than the rest of the class, including Roselia.
These students demonstrated the ability to evaluate their own markers of privilege and
oppression to challenge dominant ideologies (one of the envisioned behaviors form my
conceptual framework). In the ensuing example, my student Roselia spoke about the way she and
other United States citizens viewed Latino immigrants during the 2016 election. She shared:
I know that other Americans, like the White majority, judge us. They think we are lazy
or criminals. But I know that’s not the truth. My family and I are good people who have
want to live better. But in the same way, even though I’m Mexican, I know that I have
judged other people from other countries at school. Like from Guatemala or Honduras

54

or other countries. So, I can be guilty of the same thing. Of looking down on other
people just because they are different or come from other countries. In 2016, there was
a lot of division in our country, it became more acceptable to blame one group of people.
And this is something that we have done, but shouldn’t do, judge people or not like them
because they are different than you.
Early in the example, Roselia made the comment that most of voters in the 2016 election were
White. In the beginning of the quotation, she expressed the belief that the White majority in 2016
believed in the ideology of racism that portrayed Spanish-speaking immigrants as “lazy” and
“criminal.” While she did not explicitly name the ideology of White supremacy, her response
indicated that she was in the early stages of her sociopolitical development. In her response, she
was able to challenge this ideology by pointing to her own experiences a Mexican immigrant.
Here she made use of her own markers of oppression, as she attempted to make sense of the far-
reaching effect of White supremacy. She connected her response to her life experiences and cited
the belief that she and her family were “good people” who were working towards a “better life.”
She used her own experience to challenge a dominant ideology, but her response also highlighted
how she has internalized racism to the point where she had to justify the high-character nature of
her family. She then turned this critique on herself and said, “I can be guilty of the same thing.”
She went on to share how she has “looked down” on other Spanish-speaking immigrants from
different countries. Here, she showed the ability to not only examine the racism she has
experienced as an immigrant, but also the judgement she has reproduced against other groups of
people. By reflecting on her markers of privilege of being a part of the Mexican majority at El
Rancho (most bilingual emergent students at El Rancho are Mexican), she was able to use the

55

history of the 2016 to challenge her own past actions. In this example, she was able use her
makers of oppression and privilege as she attempted to make sense of the world and history.
Finding 2: My Growth
This section will focus on how I grew as a teacher in my ability to create conditions that
deepen students’ sociopolitical thinking. Over the course of 6 weeks and two action cycles, I was
able to grow in three areas: being present, having high expectations of my students, and
identifying and questioning dominant ideologies. In the ensuing paragraphs, I will elaborate on
my growth in each of the areas.
Being Present
In the initial stages of the study, I struggled as a teacher in my ability to be present in the
classroom. Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) define being present as a state of alert awareness,
receptivity, and connectedness to the mental, emotional, and physical workings of both the
individual and the group within the context of learning environments. They argue that this
awareness, receptivity, and connectedness allow the teacher to respond to classroom challenges
with a considered and compassionate next step. In the first cycle, I struggled with my ability to
be aware, receptive, and connected to the mental, emotional, and physical workings of my
bilingual emergent students. This lack of presence interfered with my ability to create conditions
of that deepened students’ social political thinking, because rather than paying attention to the
needs of my students, I was more present to an internal sense of urgency to cover content and
reach the goal of my study. Thus, I taught as if I had a check list of items that I needed to get
through by the end of the lesson. In the ensuing excerpt taken from the first discussion lesson, I
highlight my inability to be present and the consequences for my students in relation to their
learning:

56

Okay class, you are going to partner up and quickly discuss with your partners what you
will write in your Google form, your responses do not need to be super long, I just want
to make sure you are completing the form so you can participate in the discussion that is
to follow. We do not have a lot of time today, so we need to move quickly.
Going back to my check list comparison, this example shows how I was overwhelmed by my
thinking about all the components of my lesson at once (e.g., getting partners set up, having
students complete the Google form, having students participate in the discussion, etc.). Instead of
focusing on my students’ learning, in this case, the deepening of their sociopolitical
consciousness, in this example I am focused on getting through the lesson in a timely manner. In
the beginning of the example, I stated “quickly discuss with your partners,” indicating to my
students a sense of urgency that is contrary to the nature of the thinking that I was trying to
produce in my students. In the first action cycle, across nine lessons, I used the word “quickly”
about six to eight times per lesson. In this example, I went on to state, “I just want you to
complete the form,” again conveying a message that prioritized completion of an assignment,
over actual learning or meaningful discussion. I followed this statement by indicating that a class
discussion would follow the partner activity; however, I did not mention to students the type of
discussion I wanted the students to have. I did not tell students that during the discussion they
should question their own thinking, that they should consider their own positionality, or that they
should engage in any other act that could help deepen their sociopolitical consciousness. Instead,
I prioritized a perceived lack of time as my primary message to students. Overall, my lack of
awareness and lack of connectedness to my students’ learning shows that I was fixated on the
superficial components of my lesson (completing each activity) rather than on the underlying
objective of deepening students’ sociopolitical consciousness. Grounded in Coughlan’s

57

suggestion that in action research following an intentional data collection process can allow one
to see how one’s actions are playing out, I used the weekly practice of descriptive reflections to
explore my lack of presence. By the second and third week of the first action cycle it became
clear that this was an area of my teaching that needed improvement. Connected to the example
above, I reflected on how I felt about my teaching during this lesson from the first cycle:
I remember feeling scattered and rushed, unprepared for the lesson at hand, I felt as if
there were too many components to my lesson (although there was only 3 segments). I
felt like I wanted to just get through the lesson. I remember using phrases like “quickly
discuss” or “quickly respond” when talking to the students. I felt as if couldn’t remember
what or how students had contributed to our discussion, as if the whole lesson was blur.
In this excerpt, I was conscious to me being unaware during the lesson and to me lacking a
connectedness to my students’ learning. The excerpt shows that I was fixated on the superficial
components of my lesson (completing each activity) rather than on the underlying objective of
deepening students’ sociopolitical thinking. The example began with my admittance that I felt
scattered, rushed, and unprepared. Here, I conveyed the feeling that I was overwhelmed by my
own planning, and that I did not possess the required skills–alert awareness, receptivity, and
connectedness–to properly lead this lesson. In the example, I expressed the desire to “just get
through the lesson.” This mentality highlighted my decision to be task oriented; to be present to
an internal sense of urgency to cover content and reach the goal of my study. Counterintuitively,
being task oriented and responding to this sense of urgency compromised my overarching goal of
deepening students’ sociopolitical consciousness. Furthermore, I externalized this internal
feeling with my actions when I told students to “quickly discuss” or “quickly respond.” The
example showed that I explicitly conveyed to students my desire to “quickly” get through the

58

lesson, thus making it evident to them and myself that I was not present to their learning. It is not
surprising that I went on to say that the lesson felt like a “blur,” one in which I failed to recall
how my students’ participated in the lesson. Ideally this is the space, when I am thinking about
how students contributed to the lesson, where I would have attended to the sociopolitical growth
of my students. Instead, I attended to my own internal sense of urgency to cover content.
Fortunately, writing a descriptive reflection, enabled me to identify and confront my lack of
awareness, receptivity, and connectedness to my students’ learning.
By the second action cycle, I started to grow as a teacher in my ability to become more
present. I grew in my ability to enact some of the components of Rodgers and Raider-Roth’s
definition of being present; particularly like my ability to be more receptive and connected to the
responses that my students provided in discussions. Different than the first cycle, where I was
mostly present to my own needs, in the second cycle I was more present to my students and their
learning. In the example below, I provide a quote from my descriptive reflection from our final
discussion lesson that highlights this growth:
I want us to take our time as we share our responses...if you would like to address your
classmates, please do so by including their response in your rebuttal. While we might
not get to everyone’s response, please feel free to jump in at any point, if you feel that
you have a thought or comment that will enrich our discussion. Topics like race are
important, so I want to hear what you really have to say, and I want us to stop and think
about what we are saying.
In contrast to the previous example, I began this example by encouraging the students to “take
our time as we share our responses.” This showed a conscious effort on my part to reject my
sense of urgency to cover content. By focusing on the act of taking time, I aligned myself to the

59

possibility of being more alertly aware, receptive, and connected to the mental, emotional, and
physical workings of my class. Furthermore, in encouraging my students to interact with one
another, I shifted the focus to the quality of their contributions to the discussion. This changed
showed that my previous reflections, undertaken on a weekly basis throughout the two action
cycles, had helped me start the process of becoming more aware of my students and their
learning, rather than my own internal expectations. I also explicitly stated that “we might not get
to everyone’s response,” and this signaled a change from my previous attitude, in which I wanted
my students to participate in discussion for the sake of saying that everyone participated. In this
excerpt, I had started to become more focused on the quality of my students’ responses, rather
than the quantity of responses. Lastly, I finished by reminding the students of the importance of
the discussion topic. While not explicit, I implicitly signaled to students that these topics
(immigration, race, identity) are not topics that can be addressed in quick or hollow manner. In
contrast to lessons from the first cycle, I no longer used words like “quickly” in the second cycle.
In this example, I reiterated to students that I wanted them to “stop and think” about their
comments and claims. Different than the previous example, in this example I started creating a
space where I could tend to the sociopolitical deepening of my student’s thinking, by slowing
down and being more present to the quality of my students’ responses.
Having High Expectations
Early in the study, I struggled as a teacher to have high expectations of my bilingual
emergent students. According to Milner (2010), low expectations can become self-fulfilling
prophecies that lead to students only performing minimal expectations. Milner (2010) contends
that students will generally meet expectations set for them, including both low and high ones.
During the first cycle, I struggled with my ability to set high expectations. Rather than pushing

60

my students towards meaningful discussions and interactions, I set low expectations that
rewarded superficial participation and superficial completion of assignments. Again, here I was
more present to an internal sense that I needed to cover content. Typically, I communicated low
expectations about two to three times per lesson in the first action cycle. In the ensuing excerpt,
taken from the second discussion lesson on race from the first action cycle, I highlight my
inability to set high expectations.
What I am looking for is your participation more than anything, your responses don’t
need to be that long, as long as you are addressing the discussion question and topic...I
want all of you to have a response to share in the discussion. I think as long as we do
this, we will be okay
In this example, I started off by focusing on student participation. However, I did not address the
quality of participation that I expected of students. This should have been the space where I
could have worked with students on the deepening of their sociopolitical consciousness. Based
on my prompting and questioning of student responses, I could have pushed students towards a
meaningful discussion; one in which they questioned their own beliefs or positionality in the
world. Instead, I directed students to write responses that did not “need to be that long.” While I
wanted to ensure that every student had a response ready for the discussion, this suggestion
compromised my expectations of students. On the surface, I communicated an expectation that
centered on the length of responses, the true underlying message communicated to students was
that they did not need to push themselves on an intellectual level to participate in the discussion.
According to Milner (2010), this type of messaging would negatively impact students’ learning
because they would start to meet minimal expectations. Furthermore, this messaging in its nature
is counterintuitive to the type of intellectual effort that is required when engaging in the

61

sociopolitical discussions. Clearly, I set a low level of expectations because I implicitly
communicated to students that minimal effort would be accepted if they participated in the
discussion. Not surprisingly, my students produced responses that were short and superficial, and
ones that met my low expectations.
By the second action cycle, I started to grow as a teacher in my ability to have higher
expectations of students. Per Milner (2010), the same way in which students can meet low
expectations, students can also rise to meet high expectations. Through the process of descriptive
and critical reflections, I realized that I needed to communicate and set higher expectations for
my students. By using the looking at language technique across my weekly reflections, I saw that
I was frequently using coded language that implied to students that low quality work would be
accepted and tolerated. By the second cycle, I had lowered the amount of instances in which I
communicated low expectations. I noticed that I started to communicate high expectations about
one to two times per lesson in the second action cycle. In the ensuing excerpt, taken from the
first discussion lesson on immigration from the second action cycle, I highlight my improvement
in setting high expectations.
Rather than me calling on you, I want you to share when you feel ready, because I want
you to take your time in writing and thinking about your position. Reminded that you
can share in English or in Spanish. Furthermore, when you agree or disagree with another
student and please respond or elaborate on their comments. I want to hear your opinions
and beliefs on how people’s identity impacts their world view; and I know you will have
great insights on this topic based on your participation in previous discussions.
Like the previous example, I started off by focusing on students’ participation. However, in this
example I focused my attention on the quality of students’ participation. Tied to my ability to set

62

higher expectations, was my ability to silence my own internal desire to “quickly” get through
the content or the lesson. Instead, in this example I told students to “take their time” in both their
thinking and their writing. I implicitly communicated the expectation that students would need to
put forth an intellectual effort to craft a meaningful response. This was different to my actions in
the first cycle, where I told students that “their responses don’t need to be that long.” In this
example, I used language that was congruent to the rigorous intellectual effort that is needed to
participate in a sociopolitical discussion. I also told students that they were expected to have
instances of agreement and disagreement amongst themselves. It was in these instances, where I
wanted students to “elaborate” on their peers’ responses and expand on their personal views
when it came to the topic of identity. Whether in agreement of disagreement, my goal here was
to set the expectation that students would need to interact with one another in a meaningful
manner during the discussion. Implied in my language, was the expectation that my students
would take the time to self-examine their beliefs, while also listening and contemplating their
peers’ beliefs. Supported by Milner’s (2010) belief that students will rise to expectations, I
finished by reinforcing high expectations for my students when I stated, “I know you will have
great insights on this topic.” This was my way of telling my students that I expected them to
produce quality discussion, and a way of setting up a positive self-fulfilling prophecy.
Challenging Dominant Ideologies

In the initial stages of the study, I struggled as a teacher in my ability to properly identify
and challenge dominant ideologies when they manifested themselves in the classroom.
According to Brookfield (2010), dominant ideologies uphold entrenched beliefs and assumptions
that are often unchallenged or unquestioned, and they create hegemonic narratives that
marginalize and harm different groups of people. In my conceptual framework, I contend that the

63

status quo in our schools and society is perpetuated by dominant ideologies such as White
supremacy, racism, classism, meritocracy, assimilation, and others (Bartolomé, 2010; Gorski,
2012). In the ensuing excerpt, taken from the third discussion lesson from the first action cycle, I
highlight my inability to identify and challenge the dominant ideology of White supremacy.
During this class discussion I had posed the question: How do you think different groups in the
United States viewed Latino immigrants in the 2012 election cycle? During this lesson, students
worked in groups of three or four students on a pre-discussion Google form. In this group format
students prepared written responses, that they would later share aloud in the larger classroom-
wide discussion. Below is Bryan’s response during the class discussion and my response:
Bryan: I think that we have to come over and work hard to get people’s respect.
We have to work for our opportunities and make a good name, so that we
can succeed, and this will change how they see us.
Me: Thank you for sharing, Bryan, I hear what you’re saying. Does anyone
else have a response that is like Bryan’s, or one that is different? Bryan
has brought up some interesting points.
In this interaction, Bryan was one of the students to participate early the discussion. He stated
that when immigrants “come over” to the United States, they need to work hard and earn
people’s respect. His response implicitly upheld the dominant ideologies of White supremacy
and meritocracy. He communicated a narrative that has long been upheld in the United States,
one that ignores the assets and strengths of immigrants and places immigrants at the bottom of
the social hierarchy. In this ideology, the only way in which immigrants can move up this
hierarchy is by “working hard.” The ideology implies that immigrants are less than the dominant
White majority and must find ways to earn the approval and acceptance of this majority.

64

Bryan went onto say that immigrants can “change the way” immigrants are perceived if they
“make a good name for themselves.” His comment suggested that responsibility lay with
marginalized immigrants to win the respect of the dominant group, and did not place
responsibility on the groups that were in power or positions of privilege. The problem with this
interaction, is that I failed to name and address the ideologies that Bryan communicated through
his response. Instead, I provided a vague reassurance in the form of “I hear what you’re saying.”
This was done with the intention of showing Bryan that I appreciated his participation, but
unfortunately it could be taken as me agreeing with the ideas Bryan communicated. Instead of
identifying and challenging dominant ideologies, I asked the class if anyone had a response that
was “similar or different” to Bryan’s. I showed that I was aware of the problematic nature of
Bryan’s response, but I passed over it, and thus compromised my overarching goal of deepening
my students’ sociopolitical consciousness. Interactions, like this one, were frequent during
lessons from the first action cycle. Typically, I would fail to identify or challenge dominant
ideologies about three to four times per lesson.
By the second cycle, I grew as a teacher in my ability to be more intentional in my
identification and challenge of dominant ideologies. By the second cycle, I started to
intentionally name and challenge dominant ideologies about two to three times per lesson. By
pointing out when my students shared responses or claims that upheld dominant ideologies, I
was able to challenge my students’ thinking, by having them confront and further explain their
responses. With Brookfield (2010) in mind, the goal was to have my students question and
challenge, entrenched beliefs and assumptions that marginalize and harm different groups of
people. In the ensuing excerpt, taken from the third discussion lesson from the second action
cycle, I highlight my growth in being able to identify and challenge the dominant ideology of

65

racism. During the class discussion I had posed the question: How can someone’s identity impact
how they view people who are of a different race or have a different background? During this
lesson, students worked in groups of three or four students on a pre-discussion Google form. In
this group format students prepared written responses, that they would later share aloud in the
larger classroom-wide discussion. Below is Virginia’s response during the class discussion and
my response:
Virginia: I think that some groups struggle with getting along or accepting people
from different races. Because they are from different places or have a
different skin color, for example White Americans can be intolerant or
fearful of Latinos and immigrants. That’s why someone like Trump
became popular and an option.
Me: I appreciate what Virginia said, and I think we can push deeper into what
she is saying. Clearly the 2016 election showed us that racism and White
supremacy still have a big role in our society, but let’s think about what
Virginia said. Is it just White people who can be racist? I know that they
are the “majority” and the group with historical privilege in this country,
but how can Latinos or Latinas be racist as well? How can Spanish-
speakers from one country be racist towards Spanish-speakers from
another country? Why do you think this might be possible, and what does
is say about racist ideologies?
In this interaction, Virginia was one of the students who participated in the early stages of the
discussion. Virginia began by pointing out racism and White supremacy without explicitly
naming these ideologies when she stated, “some groups struggle with getting along or accepting

66

people from different races.” While she provided reason as to why people might be racist, such
as people not liking others because they had different places of origin or different skin colors, her
response lacked a deeper connection to the historical and sociopolitical causes that fueled
narratives of racism and White supremacy. In her response she did attempt to make a connection
to the political events of 2016 and the rise of Donald Trump. Implicitly, Virginia argued that
racism made the rise of Donald Trump possible. However, she failed to elaborate on the
connections between her claims. In contrast to the example taken from the first action cycle, in
this interaction I was able to name and challenge the dominant ideologies that Virginia was
beginning to address. By doing this, I was able to pose questions that facilitated conditions that
could help deepen my students’ sociopolitical consciousness. I started off by imploring the class
to “push deeper” into what Virginia had shared. In the previous example, I had simply accepted
Bryan’s response. In this example, I asked a series of questions that encouraged the students to
question their own marker of privilege in relation to racism. In this discussion, many of the
students were able to point out the racism exhibited by Trump’s White supporters. However,
with my line of questioning I wanted the students to think about they too could be perpetuators
of racist ideologies. I wanted to point students towards the notion that dominant ideologies are so
pervasive, that they often infiltrate marginalized groups. This example demonstrated my ability
to grow in ability to identify and challenge the role of dominant ideologies in my students’
learning experience.
Summary of Findings
In this section, I explained my findings to the question: What was my role in creating
conditions for students to deepen their sociopolitical consciousness within my history classroom?
This findings section was broken down into two sections. The first section focused on what I

67

learned about my students and their learning in relation to my ability to create conditions that
deepened their sociopolitical thinking. The second section focused on how I grew as a teacher in
my ability to create conditions that deepened students’ sociopolitical thinking.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss where I currently stand after leaving the field and after
conducting an intensive analysis of my practice. During my dissertation in practice, I was able to
adopt practices that I am currently using in my professional context such as descriptive and
critical reflection. Through this process I was also able to formulate significant takeaways, such
as the importance of being present and the ongoing nature of deepening one’s sociopolitical
consciousness. In addition, the dissertation in practice has shown me that there are implications
for my growth as leader and as a person.
Current Practices
During my study, I experienced a major professional transition. I went from being a
classroom teacher to becoming El Rancho’s athletic director. As an administrator my duties
shifted from working in the classroom with students, to working out of the classroom with other
adults. In my new role, I became responsible for the athletic department at El Rancho, including
all its athletic teams and its coaches. On a personal level, I was excited by this transition and new
opportunity. However, this shift impacted and changed how I interacted with the data I had
collected while in the classroom.
Whilst in my new position, I began and concluded my data analysis and findings section.
Given the new nature of my position, there were moments, early on, where I felt removed or
distant from the work that I had carried out in the classroom. But over time I began to make
connections between my new role and the action research I had carried out. I started to see that I

68

could apply certain tenets of action research to my new experience. Specifically, I started to
consistently practice descriptive and critical reflection, two practices that were central to my
study.
In my new role, I started writing weekly descriptive reflections of my interactions
towards my professional peers. In my new position, I often must work with adults who have
varying personalities, clashing world views, and different motivations. The practice of
descriptive reflection has helped me navigate this challenging landscape, and it has allowed me
to reexamine how I interact with different people in a new professional context. For example, I
recently had a conversation with a veteran female head coach whom I have known since my
teenage years as a student at El Rancho. Recently, I had received complaints from several
parents expressing concern with how this coach was speaking to players. Some parents thought
that this coach could at times be too harsh with players and insensitive to player needs. In
approaching this coach, I had to be tactful in how I communicated these concerns. For one, I
wanted to make sure that the student athletes were protected, but I also wanted to make sure that
I did not alienate a coach who I respect and have worked with for many years. Ultimately, my
goal was for the coach to understand the validity of the concerns, so that moving forward both
parents and athletes could feel encouraged by the way the coach spoke to players rather than
alienated or aggravated. At the end of the week, I wrote a descriptive reflection that focused on
my conversation with this coach. I made note of the coach’s gender, the team’s gender, and held
them in comparison to my own. I also factored in things like age, power imbalances, and role
differences. I did this so that I could reexamine my own actions and replay a pivotal moment
from my work week. In doing this I can continue to stay present in my interactions with my

69

peers and continue to improve my capacity to lead. Going into my second year as an athletic
director, I have continued the practice of writing weekly descriptive reflections.
I also started the practice of engaging in monthly critical reflections, where I examined
my smaller descriptive reflections, and where I thought about the larger consequences of my
actions in my new role. I usually write these critical reflections at the end of each month once I
have four or five weekly descriptive reflections at my disposal. By using these smaller
reflections, I can start to map out my actions, and I can examine the connections and patterns
between my actions as an athletic director. Another important component of these critical
reflections is that I can also continue to question my biases, my internalized beliefs, my
positionality, and my world view. For example, this last month, I dealt with a student athlete who
was being bullied by some of his teammates. In my position, coaches will often defend their
team culture rather than the student or player who is being ostracized. I believe coaches often do
this because they do not want to engage in the mentally and physically taxing work of
reevaluating their program and its culture. It’s easier or more convenient to protect the status
quo, rather than challenge or change it. By engaging in critical reflection, I too have been able to
see the moments in my role where I protect or uphold the status quo. Here I reflected on things
like gender, identity, race, and positional power, to better understand how these moments are
unfolding and taking place. Thus, this practice has been instrumental in reminding me that my
growth and development as school leader is ongoing. Ultimately, the practice of critical
reflection has also allowed me to stay present in my interactions with my peers and continue to
improve my capacity to lead.

70

Retrospective Take-Aways
After completing my dissertation in practice, I have two central takeaways: the
importance of being present, and the ongoing nature of deepening one’s own sociopolitical
consciousness. Together, these two takeaways have changed the way I see action research and
my role as an educator.
First, my inability to be present, and my internal desires to “cover content” and “get
through my lessons and discussions,” often compromised my ability to engage in the work of
helping my students deepen their sociopolitical consciousness. Ironically, the inability to be
present to the learning needs of my students perpetuated the very status quo that I was trying to
disrupt. Furthermore, my inability to be present during lessons or discussions was connected to a
larger and deeper pressure: my desire to complete the study. My lack of presence initially
comprised my ability to see and benefit from the nature of action research, a meticulous process
that establishes an iterative process of in-the-field actions, in-the-field reflections, and out-of-the-
field reflections and adjustments. Fortunately, the action research process is what allowed me to
reflect on my in-the-field actions. From my descriptive and critical reflections, it became clear to
me that I needed to slow down and become more present. Like Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006)
argue, I realized I needed to enter a state of alert awareness, receptivity, and connectedness to the
mental, emotional, and physical workings of both the individuals and the group within the
context of my classroom. After comparing the data from my first and second action cycles, it
became clear that both my in-the-field reflections and out-of-the-field reflections helped me
grow in my ability to be present. In this growth, and during my time of professional transition, I
came to the realization that the practice of being present can also be applied outside of the
classroom. Going forward I will be mindful of the importance of being present in all my

71

professional interactions with other colleagues, parents, or students. I also realize that like action
research, the process of becoming more present is ongoing and never ending. It is a skill that
must be continually fine-tuned through reflection and real-life application. This takes me back to
the two practices that I have incorporated into my professional life: the practice of writing
weekly descriptive reflections, and the practices of writing monthly critical reflections. These are
tangible actions that can help me remain present to my actions.
Second, the action research process helped me realize that sociopolitical growth is
ongoing and unending. At the outset of the study, I thought of sociopolitical consciousness as the
result of the learning process in my class. I now realize that as students and educators deepen
their sociopolitical consciousness, they can always continue to deepen their knowledge as their
experiences, abilities, beliefs, and world views change. What I have learned is that action
research along with the deepening of sociopolitical consciousness, places the onus on the process
rather than the result. As cliché as it may sound, this enterprise of personal and professional
growth is more about the journey rather than the destination. The reason being, is that if one is
true to the tenets of action research, the destination will often change. According to Herr and
Anderson (2015), the action research process is value laden, and what constitutes improvement is
not always self-evident. They contend that notion of reflexivity is crucial as researchers must
continually interrogate received notions of improvement in terms of who ultimately benefits
from the actions undertaken. Thus, the very nature of action research implores learners to
question their actions and findings. It brings one back to the drawing board, in an ongoing
process of self-examination with goal of improving one's practice (Coghlan, 2019). On a similar
note, as I deepen my own sociopolitical consciousness, the very process of growth should
position me to perpetually engage in the iterative process of in-the-field actions, in-the-field

72

reflections, and out-of-the-field reflections and adjustments. This process can ensure that my
sociopolitical growth is both unending and ongoing. Here, I cite the process I mentioned above,
of writing weekly descriptive reflections and monthly critical reflections. This continuous
process can help me reexamine and reevaluate events and interactions from the field. I can
continue to use the reflections to make out-of-the-field adjustments, and then return to my work
as an athletic director with adjusted and renewed purpose.
Implications
The implications for me as I move forward lie in two categories: improving my
leadership capacity, and in my personal growth. I can improve my capacity as leader by
continuing to grow in my ability to challenge the status quo. One of the core arguments of my
dissertation in practice was that dominant ideologies perpetuate the status quo in schools. Thus,
as an educator I must challenge dominant ideologies whenever they manifest themselves in the
context of my work. Originally, my goal was to empower my bilingual emergent students so that
they could identify and push back against these dominant ideologies within the school context.
Despite my transition into a new position, I can still be effective in challenging dominant
ideologies that reproduce the status quo in two ways. First, I can do this by being vigilant of my
own internalizations of dominant ideologies by continuing the practices of writing weekly
descriptive reflections and writing monthly critical reflections. Furthermore, these practices can
help me reexamine my actions and can help identify moments where my words or actions upheld
dominant ideologies. Second, I can challenge my peers when they uphold dominant ideologies
through their words or their actions. As leader of the athletic department at El Rancho, I can
employ some of the same tenets from my study such as implementing prosocial behaviors, being
present, and having high expectations, to create conditions where my peers and I are encouraged

73

and empowered to have honest and difficult conversations that address the role that dominant
ideologies play at El Rancho. I go back to the example of the veteran coach who was struggling
with how she communicated with her athletes. In this case, I can use my role to leverage how
this coach thinks about traditional or outdated coaching methods, in hopes of changing how this
coach sees and treats her athletes.
On another note, in my role as athletic director, I can create change that challenges the
status quo. For example, I can challenge patriarchal norms, by hiring more female head coaches.
In my time as athletic director I have hired two female head coaches, one for softball and one for
girls’ water polo. However, I could further challenge traditional norms by considering and hiring
female head coaches for male sports as well. Along the lines of race, I can recruit and hire fellow
Latino coaches so that students have role models who have a shared background. I can also
affect change by recruiting centering marginalized groups to participate in one of the many
sports offered at El Rancho. Groups like my immigrant bilingual emergent students come to
mind.
Personally, my growth continues in the areas of my life that I addressed at the beginning
of the study. This study has shown me that I must continue to think about my positionality in
relation to others in society, and its connection to my lived experiences and my privileges. I must
remind myself that as a young adult, able-bodied, educated, light skinned, heterosexual Latino
male living in a society that privileges most of these identity markers, I have power and privilege
in many spaces. Undoubtedly, these intersectional components of my identity have allowed me
to survive and advance in a tiered society. While this study has allowed me to become more
critically aware of my positionality and my privileges, I still believe that I need to use this new
insight to enact change in my professional context, but also to keep growing on a personal level.

74

Thus, I will continue to explore my internalized ideologies, to investigate the
consequences of my actions in my role as an administrator at El Rancho High School, and as a
person within my Pico Rivera community.

75

References
Alfaro, C., & Bartolomé, L. (2017). Preparing ideologically clear bilingual teachers: Honoring
working-class non-standard language use in the bilingual education classroom. Issues in
Teacher Education, 26(2), 11–34.
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation
(pp. 135–150). Stylus.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2010). Preparing to teach newcomer students: The significance of critical
pedagogy and the study of ideology in teacher education. Teachers College
Record, 112(14), 505-526. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011201410
Brookfield, S. D. (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.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2
nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (n.d.-a). 2018-19 "at-risk" and long-term English learners
(LTEL) by grade: El Rancho High School report [Data file]. Retrieved on January 12,
2020, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/filesltel.asp
California Department of Education. (n.d.-b). English learner students by language by grade
[Data file]. Retrieved on January 12, 2020, from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/fileselsch.asp
California Teachers Association. (2016). Campaign 2016: CA Proposition 58. Retrieved on
January 20, 2020, from https://www.cta.org/en/Campaign2016/Prop58.aspx

76

Camangian, P. R. (2015). Teacher like lives depend on it: Agitate, arouse, and
inspire. Urban Education, 50(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913514591
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5
th
ed.). Sage
Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing ground theory (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Health. (2018, June). City and community health
profiles: Pico Rivera.
http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ohae/docs/cchp/pdf/2018/PicoRivera.pdf
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.
Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. (1990). Teaching mind in society: Teaching, schooling, and literate
discourse. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and
applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175–205). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173674.009
García, O., Kleifgen J.A., Falchi, L. (2008, January). From English learners to emergent
bilinguals (Equity matters: Research review no. 1). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524002.pdf
Gorski, P.C. (2012). Perceiving the problem of poverty and schooling: Deconstructing the class
stereotypes that mis-shape education practice and policy, equity & excellence in
education. Equity and Excellence in Education, 45(2), 302–319.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.666934

77

Hendrick, I. (1975). Public policy toward the education of non-White minority group children in
California, 1849-1970 (National Institute Education Project no. NE-G-00-3-0082). ERIC.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED108998.pdf
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2
nd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Jay, J. K., & Johnson K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8
Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power, and difference. McGraw Hill.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest
Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., and Barmer, A. (2019, May 22). The condition of
education 2019. National Center for Education Statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

78

Milner, R. H., IV (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. The
Urban Review, 43(1), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0143-0
Milner, R. H., IV (2017). Where's the race in culturally relevant pedagogy? Teachers College
Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 119 (1), Article 010303.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900109
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
Nkomo, S. M., & Al Ariss, A. (2014). The historical origins of ethnic (White) privilege in US
organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(4), 389–404.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0178
Roark, J. L., Johnson, M. P., Cline Cohen, P., Stage, S., Lawson, A., & Hartmann, S. M.
(2009). The American promise, volume I: To 1877: A history of the United States (4
th

ed.). Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Taylor, A. J. (2017). Putting race on the table: How teachers make sense of the role of race in
their practice. Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 50–73.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). The redefinition of teaching and schooling. In R. G.
Tharp, & R. Gallimore (Eds.), Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context (pp. 13-26). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173698.002
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and integration of
Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed.), Chicano school failure and
success: Past, present, and future (pp. 70-109). Routledge.

79

Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally
responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25–38.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487103259812

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this action research study was to investigate my role as a history teacher in creating conditions that facilitated the deepening of the sociopolitical consciousness of my immigrant, Spanish-speaking, bilingual emergent students. By creating these conditions, my students could use the deepening of their sociopolitical consciousness to confront dominant ideologies in their school context. I was able to create conditions that facilitated the deepening of my students’ sociopolitical consciousness by relying on the practice of critical reflection, implementing tenets from culturally relevant pedagogy, and enacting prosocial behaviors. This study took place over the course of the Fall 2020 semester at El Rancho High School, where I was a multi-grade teacher. El Rancho is in Pico Rivera, a suburb of Los Angeles, and most of the students, staff, and community members are Latino. My research question, alongside the components of my conceptual framework, were used to conduct in and out of the field analysis. By the conclusion of my research, my students had deepened their sociopolitical consciousness and were able to identify and challenge dominant ideologies within their school context. As a teacher, I grew in my ability to be present to my students’ learning and in my ability to set high expectations for my students. I also grew in my own ability to identify and challenge dominant ideologies.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to deepen students' socio-political consciousness: an action research project

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

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

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

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

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

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

PDF

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

Asset Metadata

Creator Goyenaga, Gerry Jonathan (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 05/03/2023

Defense Date 11/14/2022

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

Tag action research,critical reflection,culturally relevant pedagogy,dominant ideologies,OAI-PMH Harvest,prosocial behaviors,sociopolitical consciousness

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member)

Creator Email gerrygoyenaga@erusd.org,goyenaga@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113099309

Unique identifier UC113099309

Identifier etd-GoyenagaGe-11765.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GoyenagaGe-11765

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Goyenaga, Gerry Jonathan

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230504-usctheses-batch-1036 (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