University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Cultivating Seeds of Support: Growing the Capacity of Educators to Create Meaningful
Learning Opportunities in Math
Jennifer López
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 2024

© Copyright by Jennifer López 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jennifer López certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Yasmin Copur-Gencturk
Pedro Nava
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study examined my leadership enactment of professional learning sessions as a fifth-grade
teacher while at an urban, Title 1 public charter elementary school. Utilizing adaptive leadership,
meaningful learning, and adult learning theories, I sought to answer the following action research
question: How do I build my colleagues’ capacity to cultivate meaningful learning opportunities
in math during our elementary school’s academic enrichment hour using our Latinx students’
funds of identity? Over a 3-month span, I facilitated nine professional learning sessions for three
colleagues who work in an afterschool program, with a focus on creating more meaningful math
lessons for our Latinx students. To understand my role, I transcribed audio recordings and
collected jottings, field notes, analytic memos, critical reflections, and documents developed for
this study. As a result, my participants initially engaged in normalizing conversational routines
and through time, participated in more instances of specifying and generalizing moves. This, in
turn, supported their capacity to create math lessons that infused meaningful learning attributes
such as students’ funds of identity, student collaboration, and activating prior knowledge. In
addition, I found the use of cognitive structures enabled my participants to interrogate their
practices towards developing meaningful learning activities in math for their Latinx students.
Another finding was how my presence as a facilitator supported my participants’ learning needs.
Lastly, I found that my enactment of questioning was a missed opportunity in the study.

v
Dedication
To my parents, for your unconditional love and support as I have navigated my educational
journey, for always reminding me que Sí Se Puede, and consistently showing up for me when I
have needed it most. ¡Los amo!
To Vanessa, for supporting me from day one of this program. Thank you for building up my
confidence as a scholar, reviewing my writing, and encouraging me to work outside my comfort
zone. Love you kid!
A mi abuelita, por siempre dándome la bendición y apoyándome desde Guadalajara. ¡Te quiero
mucho Chachis!
To all my beautiful students, former and present, this is for YOU! Thank you for continuing to
push me to be a better teacher and human being every day.

vi
Acknowledgments
This dissertation was a team effort, and as such, I would love to express my sincere
gratitude to all the amazing individuals involved in this process.
To my dissertation chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian, your endless support and dedication to the
Leading Instructional Change concentration is truly admirable. I cannot thank you enough for
helping me throughout this process, pushing me to critically learn and unlearn, and being one of
my biggest cheerleaders. I truly look up to you and aspire to be as great a professor as you are
someday. Thank you for being such a great role model and human being!
My dissertation committee, Dr. Pedro Nava, thank you for pushing my thinking from the
first day I met you at the Academic Advancement Program (AAP) Graduate Mentoring and
Programs Office. Little did I know my research journey would begin as you encouraged me to
pursue Educators for Tomorrow, and grateful it came full circle in my doctoral journey. Dr.
Yasemin Copur-Gencturk, thank you for your critical feedback in helping me make the execution
of my study more effective. I appreciate both of you for your time and effort in this process!
To my Leading Instructional Change cohort, our critical dialogue, engagement with the
readings, and adventures made this experience so much richer. I want to especially shout out the
Burkie Babes! Alexis, my twin! Your dedication and hard work are so admirable! Thank you for
being one of my best friends in this process, a critical thought partner, and my writing buddy at
Nature’s Brew and Elysee. Kris, thank you for being such a beautiful soul, always offering a
listening ear, for our writing sessions at Nature’s Brew and Hilltop, and for being the true
definition of a co-conspirator. Thank you, Jeff, for always answering all my questions, sharing
your wisdom, insight, and experience to make the process easier for the rest of us! Could not
have written this dissertation without such a solid support system, so thank you all!

vii
Cachis, thank you for always putting us first, advocating for us to have the best
educational opportunities, and your continuous support as I became a teacher. You are the
strongest and most fearless woman I know and have such a caring heart. Thank you for always
checking in on me with calls and WhatsApp messages while I went through this process.
Dad, your hard work and dedication to Vanessa and I do not go unnoticed. Thank you for
all your support along the way, from your pep talks, Sunday runs to help me destress, and always
reminding me that everything is going to be okay. I am finally like Professor Lewinsky! Si se
pudo!!
Vanessa, I am eternally grateful for you. You were one of my rocks in this process, and
this dissertation is as much yours as it is mine. I appreciate you always providing encouraging
words. I look up to you kid and am honored to have you as my sista! Proud of the work you are
doing for our Latinx communities and can’t wait to see what Vamos becomes!
Alejandro, thank you for being my partner and best friend in life, who has seen me at my
best and worst throughout this program. I am grateful for your patience, encouraging words,
always keeping it real, and reminding me about the importance of being present. Thank you for
helping me find some balance in this journey with our trips and adventures!
To all my homies and friends. Jessica, thank you for always checking in and being one of
my biggest supporters and advocates. I miss our days co-teaching and creating magic, or like the
students would say, SASSS, in the classroom! Eric, thank you for studying with me throughout
my doctoral journey! I am grateful for all our mid-week study sessions at Norris Medical
Library, dinner breaks at Zingo tacos, and reflections on life. Laura, thank you for always
offering your listening ear, especially on late afternoons or weekends when I was overwhelmed. I
appreciate your positivity as I went through this process. Christian, thank you for studying with

viii
me as I first applied to grad school and taking running and hiking breaks with me as I finished up
my dissertation. And to the rest of my friends who checked-in along the process, I am grateful
for you!
Dr. Jevon Hunter, thank you for instilling in me the confidence and ability to believe in
my writing and scholarly abilities while at University of California, Los Angeles for checking in
on me while at Duke, and most recently, throughout my doctoral journey at the University of
Southern California (USC). I appreciate you always keeping it real and sharing your wisdom
about academia. Look forward to co-presenting future scholarly works!
To my school community, thank you for your flexibility, understanding, and check-ins as
I went through this program. To my study participants, thank you for engaging in this work with
me in support of our students. I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness throughout this study
and helping me grow as an educational leader.
And finally, to my fifth-grade Yale students in Room 12, for understanding when I
couldn’t always give you 100%, for all your cheering when you would ask me about my writing
process, for all your ESSSOOSSS, and Sí Se Puedes! I will always hold on to the moment when
we tracked where I was in the writing process on our class writing chart. Every time I moved my
Ms. Lopez writing clip, you all cheered and clapped enthusiastically. You don’t know how much
that meant to me. Beautiful people, SÍ SE PUDO! Thank you for being some of my biggest
cheerleaders!.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... xii
Context and Background..................................................................................................... 1
Historically Entrenced Inequity .......................................................................................... 5
Context.................................................................................................................... 7
Role ....................................................................................................................... 10
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 12
Meaningful Learning ............................................................................................ 14
Learning Conditions and Andragogy.................................................................... 19
Adaptive Leadership ............................................................................................. 24
Critical Reflection................................................................................................. 27
Actions.................................................................................................................. 30
Research Methods............................................................................................................. 38
Participants and Setting(s) .................................................................................... 38
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 42
Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 47
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................... 51
Credibility and Trustworthiness............................................................................ 53
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 54
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 56
Establishing Learning Conditions as an Adaptive Leader.................................... 57

x
Using Conversational Routines to Interrogate Practice ........................................ 72
Cognitive Structures.............................................................................................. 88
The Importance of Presence................................................................................ 112
Questioning as a Missed Opportunity................................................................. 119
Afterword........................................................................................................................ 131
Looking Back...................................................................................................... 131
Current Practice .................................................................................................. 132
Future Implications: An Opportunity to Further Cultivate Meaningful
Learning .............................................................................................................. 134
Final Thoughts.................................................................................................... 135
References................................................................................................................................... 137

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Action Plan 34
Table 2: Conversational Routine Counts per Cycle 73
Table 3: Discussion Guide on Meaningful Learning Activity 87
Table 4: Use of Cognitive Structures per Cycle 89
Table 5: Participant Rubric Scores 96
Table 6: Types of Funds of Identity Table 106
Table 7: Original Discussion Guide on Meaningful Learning 116
Table 8: Original Cycle 3 Action Plan Overview 118
Table 9: Assistance Questions per Cycle 120

xii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 13
Figure 2: Session Norms 58
Figure 3: Example Meeting Agenda 63
Figure 4: Chalk Talk Meaningful Learning Poster 91
Figure 5: Meaningful Learning Self-Reflection Rubric 94
Figure 6: Session 3 Meeting Agenda 114
Figure 7: Probing Questions in Jottings Notebook 122
Figure 8: Session 6 Instructor Guide Questions 128

1
Cultivating Seeds of Support: Growing the Capacity of Educators to Create Meaningful
Learning Opportunities in Math
My journey as an educator unknowingly began as a child walking the halls of various
underserved public schools in Lancaster, California. As a first-generation, Latinx1 student,
navigating the PK–12 educational system was challenging, particularly with the lack of
meaningful learning opportunities. Given this, alongside my experiences as a classroom teacher,
the goal of this study was to build the capacity of my colleagues2 to create meaning meaningful
learning opportunities in math for Latinx students.
In the following section, I discuss my educational background, identity, and experiences
with meaningful learning opportunities. I then examine the historically entrenched inequity that
results in differential academic outcomes between Latinx and White students3 in math. I also
consider how my professional context and role are complicit in reproducing inequitable
outcomes in math. Lastly, I preview how I enacted my action research study.
Context and Background
Growing up in Lancaster where the population was predominantly White, I struggled
showcasing my true, Latinx self at school. This was reflected when I refrained from speaking
Spanish and avoided sharing about familial trips to Mexico. These actions were rooted in fear of
1
In the literature, the term Latinx has been a contentious term in higher education over the last several years. While
some argue it offers an opportunity for more inclusivity and gender-neutral language, other scholars have critiqued it
as a form of linguistic imperialism on the Spanish language (Dame-Griff, 2022; Salinas, Jr., 2020). Accounting for
all these notions, I find these arguments also connect with navigating my own experiences as a Mexican American
living in the United States. As such, for the purposes of this study, I will use the term Latinx in order to be more
inclusive of the student population and participants I work with (unless participants otherwise identified differently).
2
For the purpose of this study, when I used colleagues, I am referring to the classified staff at my school, which
consisted of teaching assistants, after school coaches, supervision aides, and inclusion/SPED assistants. Given the
power dynamic that exists when using the term classified staff, I will instead use the term colleagues for my study in
an effort to disrupt the power dynamics at play.
3
Historically, White students are the racial group for whom education was created and functions for. As a result,
White students have become the barometer of what the educational system uses as a measure. For this reason, I do
not compare Latinx students to other racial, ethnic, and/or historically marginalized groups.

2
ridicule since there were not many students who looked or sounded like me in my AP classes.
Amongst my White and second or third generation Latinx friends, I quickly learned how to codeswitch to fit in. I always found myself in the unfair duality of appearing too “Mexican” in front
of my White teachers and peers, but then “acting White” amongst my Latinx peers. I vividly
remember enduring the school day hypersensitive of sounding more White to acclimate to the
classroom environment, then heading to soccer practice after school where I could be more of
my true self but still nicknamed “coconut” for caring too much about my academics. While this
notion of “acting White” has been complicated more recently by theorists (Fordham & Ogbu,
1986), it influenced me profoundly growing up. Understanding how to maneuver these two
worlds was stressful and perpetually exhausting for my younger self. However, leveraging my
community cultural wealth became crucial for successfully navigating these PK–12 experiences,
particularly my use of familial and aspirational capital (Yosso, 2005).
Being one of the few Latinx students in my classes, I often felt invisible and unseen
through the interactions with my teachers and the curriculum I was consuming. At the time, the
content of my history, English, and language arts courses were entrenched in White supremacist
values, lacking connections to my cultural and linguistic identities. With math, I assumed
correctly memorizing and applying formulas and computations was meaningful learning.
However, Mrs. O’Gara changed this narrative temporarily for me while I was in her third-grade
class. I distinctly remember the joy she brought to my learning, and the caring nature and warmth
she fostered in the classroom. She honored our cultures and identities, having us start the year
presenting our cultural backgrounds through a poster project, and using our cultural strengths to
influence her lesson plans for the rest of the year. I remember excitedly sharing my experiences
of folklorico dance and soccer, my Mexican parents’ immigration story, and my bilingualism.

3
Even after 25 years, I still remember the real-world mathematical connections she would make
during her lessons. She would use hands-on manipulatives and have us engage in projects that
connected our multiplication and division knowledge to real-life applications in our community.
As a result, I developed not only a love for math, but confidence in the subject. Prior to this, I
rarely spoke up in class or felt comfortable sharing out. In Mrs. O’Gara’s class I felt truly seen as
a student and in my true skin, and the math was relevant and meaningful to me as a young kid.
However, this experience was only temporary, as my teachers who followed throughout the rest
of my primary and secondary years engaged in the typical normalization of White supremacist
content and teaching practices. My experiences in Mrs. O’Gara’s class, while noteworthy in my
educational career, should not have been such a unique learning experience for me.
It was not until I reached my senior year of high school that I had another poignant
experience where my culture and identity felt validated while simultaneously nurturing
meaningful learning. Attending the Chicano Latino Youth Leadership Project (CLYLP)
Conference in 2006 was when I felt seen again. As a rising 12th grader, I was eager to build my
leadership skills and learn how to navigate the college application process. This conference not
only satisfied those goals, but also taught me about Chicano and Latinx history in Los Angeles. I
had the opportunity to hear Sal Castro speak about his dynamic experiences with the Chicano
Movement and East LA walkouts. He passionately shared how he fought for more equitable
educational opportunities for the Chicano/a people. Hearing him speak inspired me to become an
educator so I could challenge the inequities that exist within the PK–12 system. After the
institute, I researched more about Sal Castro’s legacy and the Chicano Blowouts. I had never
learned about this content in my history classes at Lancaster High, and it felt empowering to
learn about my culture, identity, and people, a rare occasion during my educational journey. I not

4
only shared this knowledge with my peers, but also encouraged my high school teachers to
research and discuss these topics during my senior year.
These pivotal experiences were what inspired me to be an educator, and to invest in
exploring how to create more meaningful learning opportunities using my Latinx students’ funds
of identity (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Saubich & Esteban-Guitart, 2011). The concept of
funds of identity (FoI) describes what individual students themselves find meaningful about their
own identity and self-understanding. While these experiences have ignited a shift in my
instructional practices over the years, I am also cognizant I have sometimes reproduced the same
White-centric teaching mechanisms I endured as a student. However, through the consistent
practice of critical reflection and ongoing dialogue with my USC peers, with whom I am
obtaining an educational doctorate, I have made it a priority to dismantle oppressive practices
through my action research dissertation. These practices include teaching to the test, which
replaces engaging, hands-on activities and student discourse with more teacher-led instruction
and computer-based multiple-choice questions and writing prompts. Although the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB) no longer exists, its lasting influence of teaching curriculum that yields high
test scores and strategically attending to students who will only help meet the proficiency
benchmark still lingers today. This is evident with the legislation Every Student Succeed Act
(ESSA) (Oakes et al., 2018). In addition, California Assembly Bill 1507 has placed pressure on
charter schools to perform well on standardized testing to remain open (California Charter
Schools Association, 2019). The teaching to the test culture unfortunately impacts how teachers
interact with their students and the content they teach them. As a result, this often places
opportunities to leverage students’ funds of identity on the back burner and puts a wrench in the
cultivation of true meaningful learning opportunities, which ultimately deleteriously affects

5
students of color. With my action research, I worked to disrupt this pattern by focusing on
meaningful learning in the way that Mrs. O’Gara modeled.
Historically Entrenced Inequity
The historically entrenched inequity that results from deficit teaching practices is the
differential academic outcomes that exist today between Latinx and White students. These
contrasting results are especially evident when examining standardized test scores in math. As
such, this study specifically focused on math.
Since 1969, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), also known as the
Nation’s Report Card, has administered a nationwide exam that evaluates students’ reading and
math capabilities in the fourth and eighth grade. According to NAEP, fourth-grade math results
in 2022 decreased in 43 states, averaging five points less than in 2019 (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2022). Even though these math scores are much higher than previously
reported by NAEP in the 1990s, Latinx students still trail in comparison to their White peers.4
For instance, NAEP reported that in California “Latinx students had an average score that was 27
points lower than that for White students” in 2022 (National Center for Education Statistics,
2022). When examining California’s 2021–2022 Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment Math
scores, Latinx students in Grades 3–8 scored lower in comparison to their White peers in meeting
grade-level standards. Only 21.24% of Latinx students met proficiency while White students
scored more than double with 48.18% (California Assessment of Student Performance and
Progress, n.d.). These stark numbers continue to impact Latinx students as they enter high school
and encounter tracking, lack of quality teachers, and access to honors and advanced placement
classes (Flores, 2007).
4
It is important to note that this comparison is problematic because it centers Whiteness as the norm (Tabron &
Thomas, 2023).

6
The statistics presented are a result of the historical deculturalization and emphasis on
White supremacy values in schools (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Spring, 2016). Deculturalization,
which is “the educational process of destroying a people’s culture and replacing it with a new
one” (Spring, 2016, p. 21), has been ingrained in our schooling system since European settlement
in the 15th century, when Europeans emphasized their cultural and linguistic superiority over
Native Americans (Spring, 2016). The United States has relied on Western philosophies as a
basis for their schooling system, and in doing so, these schools of thought have excluded the
cultures, identities, values, and histories of others (Oakes et al., 2018). The underlying belief that
not all students should experience the same type of education has been deeply ingrained in our
school systems, as seen with how the masses did not (and still do not) receive the same education
as the elite, but rather forced to assimilate to the White normative ways (Oakes et al., 2018) with
less well-resourced schools. Because of these historical implications, an education debt has
developed over time (Ladson-Billings, 2006). The notion of education debt challenges and
reframes the more popular concept of achievement gap, in that it sheds light on the debt, or lack
of resources and supports, accumulated over time through historical, economic, sociopolitical,
and moral impacts.
Most recently, this historically entrenched inequity and education debt continues today. It
has been exacerbated through the continued use of standardized testing without adequate support
and resources to help improve knowledge. NCLB called for schools to report and publish their
test scores, which pressured educators to prepare their students for these standardized exams
(Oakes et al., 2018). This pressure has continued more covertly with the enactment of ESSA in
2015, particularly true in disadvantaged neighborhoods and communities of color where
standardized test scores have acted as a proxy for White, high socioeconomic knowledge. This

7
“escalating pressure to be accountable for students reaching imposed standards of performance
increases the likelihood of teachers using teaching strategies that prioritize efficiency and
expediency” (Larrivee, 2008, p. 341), compromising high-quality curriculum and instruction,
especially for low-income students and students of color (Oakes et al., 2018).
This teaching to the test culture creates a competitive, market-based atmosphere in our
schools, diminishing the value of true meaningful learning (Ancess, 2004). It also promotes
teaching in sterile, essentialist ways that lack the incorporation of practices that leverage
students’ funds of identity (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Saubich & Esteban-Guitart, 2011). As
already stated, this pressure is even higher for schools in marginalized and systemically
disadvantaged communities. NCLB further pressured educators to focus their resources and
support toward particular students (i.e., those close to proficiency cut offs) who would produce
the scores to meet the intended NCLB targets. Consequently, African American and Latinx
students have been less likely to experience educators who teach reasoning and higher order
thinking skills when compared to their White counterparts (Flores, 2007) who, overall, tend to
live in communities where scores are higher and the pressure lower. Therefore, without
leveraging students’ funds of identity, schools create and exacerbate these differential
opportunities, placing students of color and other systematically disadvantaged students on an
unfair playing field.
Context
Community and Partnerships to Unite (CPU) Schools is a non-profit charter school
organization, monitored by an urban school district in California. This organization has more
than a dozen5 schools, TK–12th grades, located in urban communities. Milner (2012) explained
5
I chose not to be specific in order to keep the confidentiality of the district and school.

8
how the term urban can be broken down into different frames, which include urban intensive,
urban emergent, and urban characteristic. My school site, CPU Academy Community School
(ACS), is considered urban emergent because its location is less populated than the greater
metropolitan area, at around 100,000 people. Despite this, this urban emergent area is still
impacted by similar inequities as other urban contexts, like limited resources, poverty,
homelessness, and so forth. At CPU ACS, I am one of two fifth-grade teachers, and the school
includes 300 TK–5 students in all. The student population is 98.30% Hispanic/Latinx, 0.3%
White, 1.0% Filipino, 0.3% American Indian or Alaska Native (California Department of
Education, 2023). In addition, roughly 87.70% of students are on free or reduced lunch, a proxy
for low socio-economic status (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020). The school has a
total of 18 teachers, 14 of whom identify as people of color, and 18 classified staff, 17 of whom
identify as people of color.
In examining the mission statement of CPU Schools, it emphasizes the following three
values: fostering a college-going culture, increasing graduation rates in comparison to other
community schools, and supporting a student to reach proficiency after 4 years in CPU. This last
value, which focuses on achieving proficiency, is often what perpetuates the pressure for
teachers to teach to the test because academic proficiency is measured primarily through
standardized assessments. With a huge emphasis on these high-stake tests, a teaching to the test
culture permeates throughout CPU Schools organization, as described previously. Oakes et al.
(2018) noted that educational policymakers have historically created market-based reforms as
ways to support low-achieving schools. In doing this, states and the federal government utilized
standardized test scores to define how effective schools are, and those schools that do not
perform risk losing their autonomy or getting shut down. Due to the most recent pressures of

9
California Assembly Bill 1507, CPU ACS is heavily data-driven, focused on ways we can
prepare students to achieve on the end of year standardized tests.
A moment I observed this teaching to the test culture at my school site occurred during
our Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) MAP data analysis professional development in
early 2023. In analyzing the 2022–2023 NWEA-MAP winter data, our math scores were below
grade level across the three upper-grade levels, with only 30.26% of all students meeting
proficiency. This caused many teachers to feel disillusioned with the data, rather than asking
questions about their own practices, since it is often easier to look at and blame external sources
rather than look within. As a result, I observed an urgency with the teachers to come up with next
steps to address these data points, myself included. These conversations reflected a deficit
mindset. This deficit mindset was illustrated through our focus on the pandemic and learning loss
instead of considering the fact we did not more strategically leverage and value the assets
students learned while living at home to do math.
After this data review session, the response from our administrators included
implementing more test prep for students so they feel better prepared for the end of year tests. In
addition, there has been a push for classified staff, who serve as teaching assistants during the
school day, and/or as coaches in the after-school program, to facilitate an extra hour of academic
enrichment in math to reinforce what teachers have taught. Instead, we should have had more
conversations on how our teaching practices should leverage our students’ funds of identity and
in turn create opportunities for meaningful learning that would in turn support them on these
tests. While teachers and classified staff strive to collaborate more regularly, the collaboration
has not been consistent, further diminishing the potential outcomes of these well-intentioned but
faulty practices.

10
Furthermore, at the beginning of the 2023–2024 school year, the CPU organization
hosted the first of three district-wide professional development sessions. While the chief
executive officer and chief academic officer, who also serve as superintendents, initially opened
the session with the importance of educator well-being and self-care, the framing and purpose
description of these sessions quickly shifted. They discussed how the organization felt pressure
from California Assembly Bill 1507 to perform on end of year state assessments and shared how
this bill places charter schools at risk of closing if they do not perform well. In sharing this, they
telegraphed an urgency rooted in White supremacy ideals (Jones & Okun, 2001). Given this
pressure, they shared how as an organization, CPU Schools was committed to realigning
instructional practices to help our students prepare for this exam. As I listened to this
presentation, it felt like my action research was necessary to push back on the same oppressive
practices that do not leverage meaningful learning opportunities for our students.
Role
At the time of this study, I had completed my 7th year as a fifth-grade teacher at CPU
ACS. Before this, I taught for 5 years at a nearby middle school in the same charter district. In
addition to my fifth-grade teaching duties, I served in a myriad of roles within the school and
organization at large. I was a grade level team member, induction mentor, and self-care
committee facilitator. When looking through a hierarchical lens, I was perceived as a veteran
teacher leader at my school site and throughout the organization, where I had coaching and
facilitation roles with early-career and veteran teachers. I also reported to an administration team
both at my school site and the district office (i.e., instructional coaches and/or superintendents),
placing me at the bottom middle of the organization’s hierarchy. My colleagues whom I

11
collaborated with in my action research study, reported to both the school site administrators, the
after-school program coordinator, and the teachers they supported in the classroom.
As a teacher leader, I collaborated with different stakeholders on campus, from
administrators, teachers, classified staff, and so forth. While I did not hold a formal leadership
position, many teachers and staff often sought me out for advice about their teaching, how to
support their students, or navigating conflicts with a colleague. In having conversations with my
teaching assistant, she shared that she and other colleagues were eager to help students with math
during the academic enrichment hour in the after-school program but would benefit from more
guidance and support. While my administrators offered professional development sessions for
classified staff about once a month, they mostly revolved around behavior management and
NWEA and I-Ready data dives. Like teachers, my colleagues also engaged in a data dive of our
students’ test scores. Unfortunately, a similar rhetoric around pandemic learning loss emerged,
leading to the focus on extra math support during the academic enrichment hour. However,
through informal conversations with my colleagues, they shared not receiving consistent support
on how to best prepare our Latinx students in math during this allotted time.
Hearing this need, I saw an opportunity to serve as an adaptive leader and collaborate
with my colleagues to better support our Latinx students. Instead of focusing on learning loss and
testing, my goal was to reframe the conversation around student performance to instead promote
more meaningful student learning in math. This meant focusing on how my colleagues could
cultivate meaningful learning opportunities for students during their academic enrichment hour
after school which included drawing on students’ funds of identity and leveraging their cultural
and linguistic assets (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Saubich & Esteban-Guitart, 2011). I enacted
this action research by hosting 9 weekly sessions where I established conversational routines

12
(Horn & Little, 2010), utilized modeling (Loughran & Berry, 2005; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988),
and cognitive structures (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), and attempted questioning (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988) to critically assess our pedagogical practices, ultimately moving conversations
towards practice rather than away from it. Using a discussion guide, some conversational
routines I established with my colleagues included normalizing a problem of practice, specifying
what the issue was, and then generalizing possible ways to address them (Horn & Little, 2010).
By engaging my colleagues in what it meant to provide students with meaningful learning
opportunities in math, I worked towards disrupting both the differential outcomes in math as well
as inequitable opportunities afforded to students when educators do not leverage their funds of
identity. As such, my research question was as follows: How do I build my colleagues’ capacity
to cultivate meaningful learning opportunities in math during our elementary school’s academic
enrichment hour using our Latinx students’ funds of identity?
Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework is a visual or written model that
serves as a tentative theory for researchers to employ as they conduct research. The creation of a
conceptual framework allows for the development of realistic and applicable research questions,
permits the designation of suitable methods, and ultimately explains the research at hand
(Maxwell, 2013). Figure 1 depicts the visual representation of the conceptual framework I
created for my action research study. I will elaborate more on each section of the concepts
below.

13
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
As the teacher leader, I utilized adaptive leadership moves and ongoing critical reflection
to support my facilitation. During each professional learning session, my colleagues and I
engaged in discourse together, as noted by the bi-directional arrows in the visual between teacher
leader and colleagues. The discourse moves, grounded in adult learning theory (Mezirow, 1991),
included the consistent facilitation and cultivation of conversational routines (Horn & Little,
2010), modeling (Loughran & Berry, 2005; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), and cognitive structures
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). I also attempted to use questioning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). My

14
colleagues and I used conversational routines (Horn & Little, 2010) as shown by the arrows
pointing towards both stakeholders. I, the teacher leader, employed modeling and cognitive
structures that fostered the necessary learning conditions to engage colleagues in the short-term
outcome of transformative learning. This involved them examining their current application of
meaningful learning opportunities in the academic enrichment hour so they could disrupt
traditional ways of engaging our Latinx students.
The ultimate goal, as shown at the bottom right of the model, was to build the capacity of
my colleagues to cultivate meaningful learning opportunities consistently. To accomplish this
long-term outcome, I sought to co-construct with my colleagues what meaningful learning could
look like in practice during their math academic enrichment hour. This involved exploring how
funds of identity (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014) and discourse could serve to foster meaningful
learning, illustrated by the concepts connected to the meaningful learning segment. Although my
colleagues and I were unable to explore the tenets of math discourse in the short time frame of
this study, I continue to believe this component is a crucial part of meaningful learning in math.
As such, while I revised my research question to better mirror what was accomplished in the
time frame of this action research by taking out math discourse, it remains a key concept in my
conceptual framework. In the following sections, each of the ideas just mentioned will be further
defined and explained.
Meaningful Learning
The main purpose of my action research study was to build my colleagues’ capacity to
cultivate meaningful learning experiences during the after-school program’s academic
enrichment hour. Ausubel (1968), an educational psychologist, first coined the term meaningful
learning. He argued that prior knowledge in one’s cognitive structure should connect to the ideas

15
one is currently learning. In doing so, this will create new knowledge that will transfer to longterm memory. Rather than simply memorizing, meaningful learning allows students to take the
new information they are learning and make connections to the previous knowledge they have
acquired.
At my school site, my colleagues have used procedural worksheets downloaded from
different internet sites or i-Ready workbooks to activate students’ prior knowledge of learned
content. These teaching practices often mirror what I and other educators (i.e., certificated
teachers) have done during the school day when my colleagues support in the classroom.
However, these methods fail to yield quality opportunities for meaningful learning in math,
given their routinized predictability (Ares & Gorrell, 2002) and lack of purposeful opportunities
to connect students’ previous schema with their current learning (Koskinen & Pitkäniemi, 2022).
These methods focus more on procedural skills rather than more rigorous conceptual or critical
thinking problems, with students prescriptively filling out the handout rather than questioning,
discussing, and/or meaningfully engaging with the math concepts (Koskinen & Pitkäniemi,
2022). This often occurs because educators unintentionally, or intentionally, mimic how they
were taught. As such, my colleagues examined and reflected what learning looked like in their
PK–12 experiences and how they promoted (or did not promote) meaningful learning
opportunities for our Latinx students in the after-school program.
In addition to activating prior knowledge, meaningful learning in mathematics happens
when students’ personal worlds are connected to the content and serve an authentic purpose
(Ancess, 2004; Koskinen & Pitkäniemi 2022; Polman et al., 2021; Turner et al., 2009). Funds of
knowledge (FoK), a theory of human identity from a Vygotskyan social-historical psychology
perspective (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014), represents the “historically accumulated bodies of

16
knowledge and skills for household function and well-being” (Moll et al., 1992, p. 133).
Drawing on students’ FoK is one approach educators can use to enhance their students’ learning
experiences using their personal lives. This asset-based approach rejects more common deficit
models in education and involves teachers learning about their students’ households and life
experiences, often through means of ethnographic research methods such as home visits and
familial interviews (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Gonzalez et al., 2001). Drawing on FoK,
Saubich and Esteban-Guitart (2011) explored how students’ Funds of Identity (FoI) illustrates
what individual students themselves find meaningful about their own identity and selfunderstanding. FoK, in contrast, focuses more on interviewing family members to understand
household structures, history, and activities (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014). There are five
different types of FoI, which include geographical, practical, cultural, social, and institutional
(Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014). While I had observed colleagues making connections with
students’ lives through team building activities or during recess, there was a disconnect between
students’ FoI and the content they were delivering during the academic enrichment hour.
Given the time and scope of my research, rather than focusing on FoK, I encouraged my
colleagues to draw from students’ FoI through interviewing, surveying, reflections, word clouds,
and self-portraits to create their math academic enrichment lessons (Esteban-Guitart & Moll,
2014; Hogg & Volman, 2020). Analyzing math lessons, activities, and student work samples, my
colleagues assessed themselves using a meaningful learning self-reflection rubric to tease out the
different types of FoI they used (if any). This was denoted by the criterion making it relevant to
students’ personal lives. The funds of identity chart also supported their sense making when
identifying students’ FoI to support their lesson creation. Both examples will be explained more

17
in the findings section. Their discourse on meaningful learning also guided their lesson creation
to make it more relevant to their Latinx students.
Furthermore, another vital component of meaningful learning in mathematics is fostering
collaborative workspaces that promote discourse, as defined below. Although I initially set out to
provide my colleagues with support around collaborative workspaces and math discourse, we
only briefly touched on the importance of group structures during Session 8. However, I still
believe that student collaboration and discourse is an important component of meaningful
learning. Having students collaborate and discuss their work together draws from socio-cultural
theory, in that learning occurs through interactions with others, influenced by social, cultural,
and historical components (Vygotsky, 1978). By creating the structures for collaborative spaces
to unfold, students have more opportunities to support and learn from one another, which fosters
more meaningful learning (Ares & Gorrell, 2002; Koskinen & Pitkäniemi 2022; Polman et al.,
2021). Ares and Gorrell (2002) found that students believed group work supported their learning
in a more meaningful way. One student even reported, “I like to work in groups. It’s easier to
learn an answer. Two heads are better than one. There’s more people to think about it” (Ares &
Gorrell, 2002, p. 269).
These collaborative group structures support the facilitation of math discourse to ensue.
While I initially planned to facilitate sessions in the last cycle around math discourse, my
participants’ feedback required me to slow down and adjust to better meet their zone of proximal
teacher development (ZTPD; Warford, 2011). This meant providing them with more time to
create lessons and conceptualize how to incorporate funds of identity attributes into their lessons.
However, I continue to believe that discourse is vital to promoting meaningful learning in math.
Mathematics education literature has stressed the importance of teaching mathematics through

18
interactive practices among students and teachers, and student to student, by means of discourse
(Ball, 1993; Cobb, Wood & Yackel, 1992). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
(NCTM) (2000) defined math discourse as follows:
[Mathematical communication] is a way of sharing ideas and clarifying understanding.
Through communication, ideas become objects of reflection, refinement, discussion, and
amendment. The communication process also helps build meaning and permanence for
ideas and makes them public. When students are challenged to communicate the results
of their thinking to others orally or in writing, they learn to be clear, convincing, and
precise in their use of mathematical language. Listening to others’ explanations gives
students opportunities to develop their own understandings. Conversations in which
mathematical ideas are explored from multiple perspectives help the participants sharpen
their thinking and make connections. (p. 60)
Using the NCTM standard as guidance, Piccolo et al. (2008) explained mathematical discourse
as “interactive and sustained discourses of a dialogic nature between teachers and students
aligned to the content of the lesson that addresses specific student learning issues” (p. 378).
Moschkovich (2007) also noted how educators must be mindful of what they value and count as
math discourse given students’ myriad of experiences.
Prior to the onset of this study, students only occasionally worked in groups and often
worked independently or with my colleagues individually during the academic enrichment hour.
As my colleagues shared their math lessons during our check-ins, the meaningful self-reflection
rubric encouraged my colleagues’ thinking around how they could best use collaborative
grouping structures to support students’ progress towards meaningful learning. While we briefly
addressed some components of collaborative structures in Session 8, I still included the criterion

19
of student collaboration and student discussing ideas given that was part of our co-constructed
definition of meaningful learning. Some of the math discourse strategies I wanted to discuss but
was limited due to scope of the study included revoicing (Springer & Dick, 2006; Walshaw &
Anthony, 2008), creating questions to ask students (Ancess, 2004; Bennett, 2010; Myhill &
Brackley, 2004; Stein, 2007; Walshaw & Anthony, 2008), open strategy sharing (Kazemi &
Hintz, 2014), and encouraging students to explain and justify their mathematical thinking
(Kazemi & Hintz, 2014; Springer & Dick, 2006; Walshaw & Anthony, 2008).
As such, my definition of meaningful learning was when a student learns new
information by activating prior knowledge, connecting it to their personal lives through their
funds of identity, and/or collaborating with their peers through math discourse.
Learning Conditions and Andragogy
In order to cultivate opportunities for transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991) and reach
the short-term goal in this action research, the development of certain learning conditions was
essential. Mezirow (1991) defined transformative learning as follows:
Transformative learning involves an enhanced level of awareness of the context of one’s
beliefs and feelings, a critique of their assumptions and particularly premises, an
assessment of alternative perspectives, a decision to negate an old perspective in favor of
a new one or to make a synthesis of old and new, an ability to take action based upon the
new perspective, and a desire to fit the new perspective into the broader context of one’s
life. (p. 161)
Transformative learning was a short-term outcome of my study. My goal was for my colleagues
to examine their current math instructional practices of our Latinx students. In order for
participants to experience transformative learning, I created conditions in which disorienting

20
dilemmas they experienced were constructive. A disorienting dilemma is when a person
encounters a problem or issue that does not fit into their current beliefs, values, and/or ideals
(Wergin, 2020). This disconnect, if constructive, provides the opportunity for the individual to
question and examine their current mental models and possibly reflect and transform their
mindset. Wergin (2020) asserted the importance of a learning environment that facilitates
constructive disorientations to support an individual in productively interrogating and examining
their beliefs and assumptions. Disorienting dilemmas are constructive when they fall within a
productive zone of disequilibrium (PZD) (Heifetz et al., 2009). Wergin (2020) also noted that
they must be clear, but manageable challenges, while Heifetz et al. (2009) further added that
learners become too comfortable if it is below their PZD and disabled if it surpasses their limit of
tolerance. In addition to creating a manageable PZD, adult learners must also be intrinsically
motivated, feel self-efficacious, and socially connected to others to engage in the challenge
productively (Schunk, 2020; Wergin, 2020). If these conditions are also not in place,
transformative learning may not occur (Wergin, 2020). Therefore, my goal was to create a
psychological safe space, discussed more below.
Psychological Safety
As I facilitated each session, I intended to implement different andragogical moves that
strove towards supporting these transformative learning experiences. To do this, I needed to
make sure my participants felt psychologically safe to do so. I worked towards cultivating
psychological safety, aiming to create safe-ish spaces (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). Aguilar and
Cohen (2022) explained how safe-ish spaces provide a more authentic learning environment for
participants, especially people of color and other marginalized identities who have endured
discrimination and inequitable treatment outside the professional learning space. In practice, this

21
looked like being clear with my purpose and learning outcomes for each session, which were on
my weekly meeting agendas, co-constructing community norms during Session 1 and revisiting
them each week and taking time for relational activities connected to our identity makers and FoI
principles. I also allotted time at the beginning of each session for personal check-ins and
focused on utilizing power with strategies, such as asking for feedback each week through a
google survey and being transparent about how I used it to inform the following sessions
(Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). For example, my participants asked for more time to plan and digest
the content during Session 6, which informed my planning for the last cycle.
As norms were developed and upheld within each session, I engaged in discourse
(Wergin, 2020), both verbal and written, with my colleagues. Wergin (2020) emphasized the
importance of learning with and from others with different perspectives through purposeful
dialogue that generates inquiry. My colleagues each had distinct life experiences and FoK that
they contributed each session. Therefore, the social interaction I sought to foster among the
group promoted empathy, worked towards minimizing and addressing power differentials, and
embraced social capital (Wergin, 2020).
As a psychological safe space was established, I enacted different andragogical moves,
which Mezirow (1991) defined as, “an organized and sustained effort to assist adults to learn in a
way that enhances their capability to function as self-directed learners” (p. 199). In order to
accomplish this and have the participants reach moments of transformative learning, I utilized
conversational routines (Horn & Little, 2010) and drew from Tharp and Gallimore’s (1988)
forms of assistance to inform my andragogical moves. In the following sections, I will detail
more about these below.

22
Conversational Routines
Horn and Little (2010) defined conversational routines as “practices by which groups
structure work-related talk” (p. 181), which offer vital ways of exploring and interrogating ways
of learning in the workplace. The four parts of a conversational routine include normalizing,
specifying, revising, and generalizing. Horn and Little (2010) described these routines as
follows:
(a) normalizing a problem of practice, (b) further specifying the problem, (c) revising the
account of the problem (its nature and possible causes), and (d) generalizing to principles
of teaching. Through a routine of normalizing, specifying, revising, and generalizing,
[educators] created an interactional space rich with opportunities to learn about teaching
practice. (p. 193)
I used conversational moves to lean our conversations towards instruction rather than away from
it (Horn & Little, 2010). These routines supported our discourse on meaningful learning as my
colleagues brought in problems of practice and/or student work from their academic enrichment
hour experiences. These conversations addressed their meaningful learning activity facilitation
and enactment. By establishing these conversational routines, I also modeled (Loughran &
Berry, 2005; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and attempted to use questioning (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988) during these routines to examine ways my colleagues created their academic enrichment
math lessons. These two andragogical actions will be further discussed below.
Modeling
Modeling is “the process of offering behavior for imitation … [and] peer models are
highly important sources of assisted performance, for children and adults alike” (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988, pp. 47, 49). As the facilitator, I needed to demonstrate a given strategy or

23
behavior so that the participants had a foundation from which to practice the desired skill or
activity. In my study, this involved modeling tools to reflect on their practice, strategies, and/or
example lessons that promoted our Latinx students’ FoI. I also modeled relational activities that
fostered a safe-ish space like the artifact activity, learning spiral, social identity wheel, and
feelings chart. The tension existed, however, on figuring out which content and strategies should
be explicitly modeled, and which should be explored independently through readings and group
discourse (Loughran & Berry, 2005). However, using the pre-survey data, my jottings, and
reflective memos during my first sessions with them, I became cognizant of their PZD and how
they learned best. This helped me address this tension more easily, knowing what to model, and
avoid hindering their opportunity for a transformative learning moment to occur.
Questioning
Another andragogical move to support in the facilitation of a transformative learning
opportunity is questioning. There are two types of questions one can ask: assessment or
assistance. While assessment questions allow facilitators to know where learners are, assistance
questions prompt prior knowledge to support thinking in completing the task at hand. Tharp and
Gallimore (1988) explained that assistance questioning “inquires in order to produce a mental
operation that the pupil cannot or will not produce alone” (p. 60). The way (that is, the tone,
framing, question starter, and so forth.) in which a question is asked is also important to make
sure the cognitive load is on the learner rather than on the facilitator. In my study, while I
attempted to use assistance and assessment questions to support my learners, this proved to be a
missed opportunity in my study, something I will elaborate more in the findings section. While I
developed questions to ask in my weekly instructor guide, I did not consistently ask them. And

24
when I did, had I probed in a different way, I could have created more opportunities for
transformative learning to occur.
Cognitive Structures
In addition to questioning, cognitive structures serve as another form of assistance when
striving towards transformative learning. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) defined cognitive
structures as a support that shapes the way one builds their beliefs, ideas, feelings, and/or overall
comprehension around a topic. Two types of cognitive structures exist—structures of explanation
and structures of cognitive activity. Structures of explanation support the development of how
information is organized, while structures of cognitive activity guide the mental activity behind
one’s mean making. Cognitive structures can also develop through a collaborative process
between the teacher and learners, in that “it is often necessary for the teacher to assist by
providing these structures, both to accelerate learning and to correct any idiosyncratic or
unreliable structures” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 67). In my study, I found that cognitive
structures played a pivotal role in how my participants made meaning as they planned
meaningful learning lessons. Two structures in particular, a meaningful learning self-reflection
rubric and funds of identity table, particularly supported my learners in reforming their
conceptualization on how to plan more meaningful learning lessons in math. I will describe these
two examples in the findings section.
Adaptive Leadership
As the teacher leader in this study, I employed adaptive leadership techniques to support
the session facilitation with my colleagues. Adaptive leadership involves the “practice of
mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 14). It consists
of a more follower centered approach where leaders assist others in navigating challenges as well

25
as adapting to changes they may face (Northouse & Lee, 2022). When an adaptive leader
assesses a challenge, they must determine if it is technical, adaptive, or both (Northouse, 2016).
During our end of school year reflection days, administrators and teachers echoed that our
colleagues needed more training around behavior management to support the academic success
of our Latinx students in the afterschool program. The technical solutions provided included
“giving them” more professional development around how to “manage” students. As I listened to
these solutions, it became clear the need to implement adaptive leadership moves. This was done
to help others understand the actual adaptive challenge at hand: building our colleagues’ capacity
to create more meaningful learning opportunities for students, which in turn would support
engagement and decrease behavioral issues. Given this conceptualization and focus, I focused on
regulating distress by co-creating norms, providing direction through shared language, and
developing a strong holding environment, as further detailed below. While at the onset of this
study I wanted to include the moves of naming the elephant in the room and building leadership
capacity, what I observed was that the aforementioned adaptive leadership moves were more
relevant to the context of this study. Drawing from adaptive leadership literature, I defined
adaptive leadership as follows: a leadership theory that mobilizes people to address challenging
issues within their organization such as regulating distress, which involves creating a strong
holding environment and providing direction. Each of these concepts are discussed below.
Regulating Distress: Strong Holding Environment
One way to regulate distress is through the creation of a strong holding environment.
Heifetz et al. (2009) noted that in a highly adaptive organization, it is critical to develop a strong
holding environment to address the joint goals of a group. A holding environment involves
creating “an atmosphere in which people can feel safe tackling difficult problems, but not so safe

26
they can avoid the problem” (Northouse, 2016, p. 293), so that people can work productively
together. Heifetz et al. (2009) also stated how an adaptive leader needs to ensure that safety and
structures are present within a holding environment for people to authentically share their
viewpoints and engage in discourse. This can include ensuring there are shared language, values,
and vertical bonds of trust in authority figures. As such, I developed a strong holding
environment by creating opportunities to ensure my participants’ psychological safety, cocreating norms, and modeling vulnerability. As a result, my participants felt safe to share their
problems of practice, whether it went well, and were open to feedback to grow in their practice,
which I will discuss more in detail in the findings section.
Understanding what prior experiences my colleagues brought to the sessions I facilitated
was important for maintaining a productive zone of disequilibrium (PZD) and regulating distress
within our holding environment (Heifetz et al., 2009). During each session, the goal was to foster
transformative learning experiences where “the stress level is high enough that people can be
mobilized to focus on and engage with the problem they would rather avoid” (Heifetz et al.,
2009, p. 31), but not become paralyzed and shut down. Based on previous interactions and
conversations with my colleagues, I was cognizant that each participant had different life and
work experiences in the field of education. Given this, some participants were at different zones
of proximal teacher development than others (Warford, 2011). Providing too much content at
once could lead to cognitive overload (Schunk, 2020) and/or distress if not scaffolded
appropriately. Before beginning my study, I sent out a survey to gauge what their comfort was
with math content and ask questions about their identities as well. I used this information to
inform my initial sessions, as well as facilitated relational activities at the beginning of each
session to build trust and psychological safety, as discussed in the section titled psychological

27
safety above. Another way I made sure to regulate distress within sessions was obtaining
anonymous feedback after each session. Brookfield (2017) argued the importance of anonymous,
back-channel communication with students as an effective way for educators to gather critical
perspectives and feedback on their practice. Since the feedback was anonymous, more honest
feedback could be given to inform more intentional sessions in the future. This feedback also
elicited insight around instructional support they needed for the academic enrichment hour.
Regulating Distress: Providing Direction
Another prescribed adaptive leadership behavior I enacted to regulate distress was
providing direction. Northouse (2016) discussed how providing direction involves being clear
with the goals at hand, to avoid confusion or uncertainty about what to accomplish. In this action
research study, this involved developing shared language with my colleagues around what
meaningful learning entailed in order to be on the same page when assessing their math
instructional practices. In doing so, this helped regulate the distress of my participants since they
had clear expectations and therefore, more openly engaged in the interrogation of their practices.
Critical Reflection
Socrates’ notion of “knowing thyself first” is important when creating and enacting a
curriculum that cultivates deep and transformative learning for adults (Wergin, 2020, p. 38). The
practice of ongoing critical reflection is vital for truly knowing oneself and can support educators
in critically questioning assumptions and power dynamics that influence their daily work
(Brookfield, 2017). At my school site, I was perceived as a veteran teacher based on my
relational, informational, and expertise-based power sources (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). The
colleagues who participated in my study often took guidance and instructions from me and other
teachers while working in the classroom. They were also much younger than me and for many,

28
this was their first job in the education field. Due to this, I made assumptions regarding whether
their actions were always in the best interest of our Latinx students and if they were equipped
with the necessary support to engage in positive interactions with students. As such, these
assumptions had the power to inhibit the learners in the study, so using critical reflections to
question these underlying biases supported my continuous interrogation of how I showed up to
each session as a facilitator, adjusting the types of modeling, questioning, and conversational
routines I used to meet the needs of my learners.
Brookfield (2010) also explained that as adults, our thoughts, discussions, and actions are
influenced by our unconscious biases, assumptions, and beliefs that evolved while navigating
day-to-day interactions growing up. However, many of these normalized ideas originate from the
dominant group. As a first-generation, college-educated, straight, cisgender female, middle-class,
Latinx teacher, I realize my positionality, shaped by my multiple identities, frames how I view
and interact with the world. While many of my colleagues also identified as first-generation,
Mexican American females, I still had to hold us all accountable to engage in critical work. Even
though we all identify as people of color, this does not mean we did not have implicit biases or
assumptions to examine, as well as varying levels of privilege. The four lenses of critical
reflection, which include reflecting through a students’ eyes, using colleagues’ perceptions,
employing personal experience, and applying theory, offer different angles and perspectives
through which to challenge assumptions often grounded in dominant ideologies. As I
encountered disorienting dilemmas in Sessions 3, 5, and during the coding and analysis process,
I used these different lenses to shed light on how I was perpetuating dominant ideologies around
the teaching and learning I facilitated for my colleagues.

29
Wergin (2020) further added to the notion of critical reflection by introducing mindful
learning, which is “the habit of mind that consciously and routinely challenges existing
assumptions … a cognitive reminder that the premises upon which we decide and act are always
subject to question” (p. 78). Therefore, because hegemonic assumptions are often entrenched in
our everyday routines, rituals, and practices, critical reflection can support exposing these
ingrained notions that are often hard to see. I had to be mindful of how my teaching practices,
facilitation skills, and interactions with my colleagues during the sessions could have perpetuated
these entrenched hegemonic assumptions. Each critical reflection served as data and feedback on
my instructional moves and interactions that informed my future sessions as well as practice
moving forward. Channeling adaptive leadership, this ongoing and iterative practice supported
how I facilitated the interrogation of mine and my colleagues’ teaching practices with our Latinx
students.
In addition to Brookfield’s use of critical reflection, I also drew from Jay and Johnson’s
(2002) typology of reflective practice. The reflection typologies include descriptive,
comparative, and critical (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Descriptive reflection involves writing key
details down to understand the issue at hand. As the teacher leader, this came through for me
when describing in significant detail a recognized bias I experienced based on our discourse, an
uneasy feeling I had while facilitating content, or a concern with an interaction that ensued
between my colleagues. In one instance, I wrote a critical reflection on not feeling fully
comfortable navigating the social identity wheel we had for a relational activity and exploring
why I felt that way. Comparative reflection, like Brookfield’s (2017) four lenses, entails using
different viewpoints, such as critical friends or theory to reexamine a situation. In my action
research study, this involved getting weekly feedback and coaching from my dissertation chair

30
on how to navigate an interaction or instructional move more effectively. This also looked like
me examining the issue through different perspectives, stepping out of my own beliefs and
practices to see the situation through the eyes of my colleagues or Latinx students. Critical
reflection, the final type offered by Jay and Johnson (2002), implies taking the different
perspectives examined, and connecting them to the greater historical, political, or social context
in which the issue arose. This involved me not only thinking about what my colleagues and
Latinx students might feel or think, but also how the issue at hand connected to the historically
entrenched inequity I was looking to dismantle. In addition to using the different typologies to
guide my critical reflections, I also utilized Jay and Johnson’s (2002) analysis of how critical
reflection involves taking next steps in addressing the situation that arose. This meant using
critical reflection as a tool to create concrete actions moving forward for upcoming sessions I
still had to facilitate.
In using different theorists to ground my understanding of critical reflection, I defined
this concept as the ongoing process to mindfully interrogate my biases, assumptions, and sources
of power to take actionable next steps.
Actions
As mentioned previously, the short-term outcome of my action research study was to
foster transformative learning experiences for my colleagues around their use of meaningful
learning opportunities in math for our Latinx students. To achieve this, the teacher leader (me)
and my colleagues, engaged in discourse around what meaningful learning is, assessed how they
may or may not be cultivating it, and envisioned what it could look like during the academic
enrichment hour as they planned lessons and shared them with the group. As the teacher leader, I
used adaptive leadership, andragogical moves such as conversational routines (Horn & Little,

31
2010), modeling (Loughran & Berry, 2005; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), cognitive structures
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), and critical reflection to inform my actions. While I attempted to use
questioning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), this later proved to be a missed opportunity in my
findings. The ultimate long-term desired state was to build my colleagues’ capacity to cultivate
meaningful learning experiences consistently for our Latinx students even after the study ended.
My action research study was structured into three cycles over the course of 12 weeks. I
hosted nine, 1-hour, in-person sessions with my colleagues, allotting 3 weeks for in-the-field
analysis in between each cycle. Before the study, I held a meeting with my colleagues to explain
the purpose of the study and gather information regarding their self-reported strengths and areas
of growth when it came to planning for their math academic enrichment activities. I used the
survey information to initially plan sessions around their proximal zone of disequilibrium (PZD)
to better regulate their distress. During the first cycle, I focused on co-constructing session norms
with the participants and revisited them each session that followed by including them in the
meeting agenda. This helped work towards employing a safe-ish learning environment centered
on psychological safety (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). The other two sessions in this cycle focused
on co-constructing a definition of meaningful learning and assessing their use of it in their
current academic enrichment math plans. I drew from the meaningful learning literature to
support my colleagues’ understanding and conceptualization of what meaningful learning in
math looks, sounds, and feels like using a chalk talk, a silent poster activity in which learners are
given a question to answer and record their thinking independently (Brookfield & Associates,
2019). A chalk talk serves to track people’s thoughts that you may not normally hear from and
provides processing time before entering a whole group discussion (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022).
Participants can also make connections to other people’s comments or questions (Brookfield &

32
Associates, 2019). To regulate distress during the third session, I modeled vulnerability and
assessed one of my own math lessons critically following the rubric and definition of meaningful
learning we created in the previous session. I then attempted to ask assistance and assessment
questions to make connections to their own work during the academic enrichment hour. Given
the personal nature of self-assessing one’s work, I had to be consistently mindful of how I
regulated distress through the modeling and assistance questions I posed.
In the second cycle, I facilitated three sessions that focused on exploring how using our
Latinx students’ FoI can support the cultivation of meaningful math activities. These sessions
also all included check-ins of their current planning and/or implementation of meaningful
learning lessons to hold them accountable. In the first session, I introduced them to the concept
of FoI with a video and reading (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014), as well as had participants
engage in a jigsaw of different FoI reading excerpts and debrief takeaways. During the second
session in this cycle, participants experienced another FoI strategy, the word cloud (Hogg &
Volman, 2020). Practicing the FoI strategies with my colleagues not only built rapport and trust,
but also helped foster relational power (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). I also allocated time for them to
explore different lesson examples that involved using students’ FoI. Unfortunately, I over
planned this session, so did not provide them with as much time to explore the resources as I
would have liked. For Session 6, my colleagues engaged in another FoI activity, the learning
spiral. They then assessed themselves again using the meaningful learning self-reflection rubric
and shared student work, problems of practice, and how implementation was going. During this
session, conversational routines were enacted to support them with their instruction. Based on
this session and feedback from my colleagues, I decided to provide them with more time in the
final cycle to plan and implement their meaningful learning activities.

33
In the final cycle, I initially wanted to focus the sessions on ways to employ math
discourse to leverage meaningful learning opportunities. However, based on my pacing,
overplanning, and feedback from my colleagues, I slowed down and readjusted my plans to
better meet my participants’ needs. As a result, I was unable to facilitate sessions on math
discourse, however, I still believe it is a critical component of meaningful learning in math and is
thus still represented in my conceptual framework. Instead, during the first session of this final
cycle, I provided my colleagues with an opportunity to identify what FoI attributes they knew
about their students. Based on the information they gathered, they then used them to plan their
next math lesson, project and/or activity. The second session in this cycle involved my
colleagues sharing what they planned and/or progress they had made around implementation.
They also read about group structures, and how those support cultivating meaningful learning for
students. The last session had participants envision what their classrooms could look like next
semester after participating in this study. They then assessed their progress once again on another
lesson and brought in student work samples to share with each other. I ended by asking them
what their main takeaways were from the study and asked for any final feedback.
In addition to the leadership and andragogical moves I enacted, after each session, I used
my jottings (Miles et al., 2014) and audio recorded transcripts to create rich, descriptive field
notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007) to document my actions. I also wrote a reflective memo
immediately after each session, noting anything that stood out to me and what I could improve
for the following meeting. After each cycle, when engaging in in-the-field analysis, I wrote an
analytic memo, using questions drawn from Brookfield (2017) and Coghlan (2019) to guide my
thinking and reflections. I also used the anonymous feedback surveys to examine trends and
adjust my instructional moves after each session, and more closely during the in-the-field

34
analysis week. If a disorienting dilemma occurred during and/or after a session, I also engaged in
a critical reflection, utilizing questions from Jay and Johnson (2002), to inform my enactment.
These occurred after Session 3 and 5. Table 1 details the set of planned and enacted actions for
each cycle and meeting. This table is followed by the research methods section, which outlines
the documentation of this action research.
Table 1
Action Plan
Objectives Activities Progress indicators
Before study (Week 0)
I will be able to describe the
purpose of the action research
study.
I will be able to analyze the
survey data to inform my
future sessions.
Introduce the purpose of the
study, explain their rights,
and provide session
overview.
Send out Google form
survey
Participants recalled the
purpose of the study.
I posed questions to check
participants’
understanding of the
study and identify trends
in their survey data to
plan future sessions.
Cycle 1: Defining meaningful learning and assessing use of it
Setting: Weekly 1-hour meetings (3 weeks)
Objectives Activities Progress indicators
Week 1: Participants will be able
to co-construct session norms.
1. Relational: FoI share out
2. Recap study purpose
3. Co-create session norms
4. Closing
Participants recalled the
purpose of the study and
stated at least one
connection of the study to
our school’s vision.
Participants distinguished
between a safe and brave
space and used this
understanding to create
three to five discussion
norms.
Week 2: Participants will codevelop a definition for
meaningful learning drawing
from the literature.
1. Check-in and review norms
2. Relational: Quick write on
PK–12 school experience
3. Chalk talk on meaningful
learning
Participants identified and
discussed two to three
ways to cultivate
meaningful learning
opportunities in math.

35
Objectives Activities Progress indicators
4. Whole group debrief
5. Co-create definition
6. Closing
7. Next time: Bring in a math
lesson/activity you have
done in the past.
Week 3: Participants will assess
their use of meaningful
learning experiences in their
math lessons.
1. Check-in and review norms
2. Relational: Social identity
wheel
3. Recap meaningful learning
definition
4. Model and complete
meaningful learning selfreflection rubric
5. Whole group debrief
6. Closing
Participants assessed ways
in which they may or
may not integrate
meaningful learning
opportunities using a
rubric.
Andragrogical moves Data collection In-the-field analysis
Week 1–3 andragogical
moves: I modeled the
different activities (i.e.,
artifact activity, quick
writes, chalk talks, using
rubric on math lesson),
asked assistance and
assessment questions
during whole group
discourse, and enacted
and encouraged
conversational norms.
Weeks 1–3 data collection:
Jottings transcribed notes
of recorded session,
documents (i.e.,
meeting agendas, instructor
guides, chalk talk posters,
quick writes, anonymous
feedback surveys, reflective
memos, participants
bringing in student
work/math handouts)
Week 4 in-the-field
progress analysis
(wrote one analytic
memo using questions
below)
In what ways am I
supporting and/or
hindering the learning
for my participants?
Did I succeed in carrying
out the planned
outcomes/
actions? Why or why
not? How do I know?
What have I learned about
myself, my facilitation
skills, my assumptions,
and/or my biases? What
actions will I try next
time I am pursuing
similar outcomes in a
similar situation?
If a disorienting dilemma
occurs, I will use these
Jay and Johnson (2002)
questions to guide my
critical reflection.
Cycle 2: Exploring funds of identity and how to use it

36
Objectives Activities Progress indicators
Setting: Weekly 1-hour meetings (3 weeks)
Week 5: Participants will identify
one funds of identity strategy
to use in a future lesson.
1. Check-in and norms
2. Review study road map
3. Implementation check-in
4. Video and readings jigsaw
5. Whole group debrief
6. Closing
Participants shared current
progress with
meaningful learning
implementation.
Participants defined funds
of identity in their own
words and picked at
least one concrete
strategy to use in an
upcoming lesson.
Participants also discussed
how using FoI can
support their students’
learning.
Week 6: Participants will discuss
current meaningful learning
implementation and how it
supported their Latinx
students’ learning.
1. Check-in and norms
2. Implementation check-in
3. Relational: FoI word cloud
4. Choose own adventure FoI
lesson models/readings
5. Whole group debrief
6. Closing
Participants shared current
progress with
meaningful learning
implementation.
Participants referred to
discussion guide to ask
questions and offer
suggestions.
Participants picked one
strategy from lesson
models/readings.
Week 7: Participants will assess
their use of meaningful
learning components in their
math lessons.
1. Check-in and norms
2. Relational: FoI learning
spiral
3. Meaningful learning selfreflection rubric
4. Implementation check-in
5. Closing
Participants shared
reflections and shared at
least one way to
improve on practice
based on discussion.
Participants referred to
discussion guide.
Andragrogical moves Data collection In-the-field analysis
Weeks 5–7 andragogical
moves: I modeled different
activities (i.e. Jigsaw, FoI
word cloud, FoI learning
spiral, using FoI in a math
lesson), asked assistance
and assessment questions
provided feedback, and
enacted/encouraged norms.
Weeks 5–7 data collection:
Jottings, transcribed notes
of recorded session,
documents (i.e., instructor
guides, meeting agendas,
student artifacts,
anonymous surveys,
memos, critical reflections)
Week 8 in-the-field
progress analysis (wrote
one analytic memo and
critical reflection using
questions from Week 4)
Cycle 3: Planning and implementation
Setting: Weekly 1-hour meetings (3 weeks)

37
Objectives Activities Progress indicators
Week 9: Participants will develop
an academic enrichment hour
lesson that includes FoI
strategies and/or meaningful
learning components.
1. Check-in and norms
2. Review study road map
3. FoI reflection: How well
do you know your
students?
4. Lesson planning and
collaboration
5. Closing
Participants identified
different FoI attributes
of their students.
Participants used common
trends in data to plan
future lessons.
Week 10: Participants will discuss
progress in creating math
activities that utilize funds of
identity and/or meaningful
learning components.
Participants will also describe
how group structures support
their students’ learning.
1. Check-in and norms
2. Relational: Feelings chart
3. Implementation check-in
4. Group structures jigsaw
5. Whole group debrief
6. Closing
Participants shared current
progress with
meaningful learning
implementation.
Participants referred to
discussion guide to ask
questions and offer
suggestions.
Participants discussed at
least one way group
structures support their
student learning.
Week 11: Participants will assess
their use of meaningful
learning components in their
math lessons. Participants will
also reflect on study takeaways
and envision their future
classroom based on their
learnings.
1. Check-in and norms
2. Relational: Classroom
vision board
3. Meaningful learning selfreflection rubric
4. Implementation check-in
5. Whole group debrief on
study
6. Closing and next steps
Participants shared current
progress with
meaningful learning
implementation and
reflected at least one
way to improve on
practice based on
discussion.
Participants referred to
discussion guide to ask
questions and offer
suggestions. Participants
discussed at least one
takeaway from study/
learning.
Andragrogical moves Data collection In-the-field analysis
Weeks 9–11 andragogical moves:
I modeled different activities
(i.e., feelings chart, jigsaw
graphic organizer, FoI
Reflection), asked assistance
and assessment questions
during whole group discourse,
and enacted/encouraged norms.
Weeks 9–11 data collection:
Jottings, transcribed notes
of recorded session,
documents (i.e., instructor
guides, meeting agendas,
student artifacts,
anonymous surveys,
memos, critical reflections)
Week 12 in-the-field
progress analysis (wrote
one analytic memo and
critical reflection using
questions from Week 4)

38
Research Methods
In this next section, I will outline the research methods for my qualitative action research
study. Lochmiller and Lester (2017) defined action research as an “orientation to education
research in which a practitioner-scholar selects a problem, challenge, or issue drawn from their
practice and uses the research process to identify and implement a possible solution or response”
(p. 234). As a practitioner-scholar, I engaged in a qualitative action research study since I sought
to understand how to build the capacity of my colleagues to cultivate meaningful learning
opportunities in math during our school’s academic enrichment hour. For this reason, I was the
primary research instrument that not only enacted actions to support my learners, but also
observed, collected, and analyzed data in face-to-face weekly sessions at CPU ACS.
Per previous informal conversations, my colleagues had discussed needing more support
and guidance on how to develop math lessons for the academic enrichment hour.
Simultaneously, pressure from our administrators and district to teach to the test and utilize
resources that perpetuate deficit thinking of our Latinx students is a phenomenon I wanted to
challenge and address in this action research study. Given this, I facilitated 9 weekly sessions
that worked towards promoting transformative learning experiences around the use of
meaningful learning experiences in math, to answer the question: How do I build my colleagues’
capacity to cultivate meaningful learning opportunities in math during our elementary school’s
academic enrichment hour using our Latinx students’ funds of identity?
Participants and Setting(s)
This study took place during the Fall 2023 term at CPU ACS, an urban elementary school
in California. The sampling technique most appropriate for my action research study was nonprobability, purposeful, criterion-based sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Within my local

39
context, there were a total of 18 colleagues who qualified for the study, ranging from teaching
assistants, inclusion assistants, campus aides, office assistants, and tutors. Due to the nature of
my research question, building my colleagues’ capacity, I invited and selected from this pool of
individuals to participate in weekly sessions over the course of 9 weeks. I facilitated most
sessions Monday afternoons during the school day. When schedule conflicts arose due to parent
conferences, meetings that my colleagues had to attend and/or room availability, we hosted them
either on a Monday or Friday after school.
Since I conducted qualitative research, I was not seeking to generalize my research to the
whole population. Rather, I was looking to make an impact in a more in-depth manner in my
local context using a smaller group of intentionally selected individuals (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Consequently, convenience sampling was used since participants were recruited from my
school site who are available and willing to participate (Johnson & Christensen, 2017). Although
convenience sampling is generally considered to be a weak version of sampling, in the case of
action research, it is the most appropriate form of sampling to “discover, understand, and gain
insight … from which the most can be learned” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 96).
Participants
Drawing from my conceptual framework in Figure 1, I worked with three colleagues
from my elementary school. Prior to the start of this action research study, I had several informal
conversations with teaching assistants, who discussed wanting more support with math planning
for their academic enrichment hour lessons. Therefore, I recruited three colleagues who work as
teaching assistants during the day as well as support Latinx students during the after-school
program. Using pseudonyms, I will describe each participant in more detail below, including
where they fall on Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) four ways of knowing

40
typology. The four types of knowing include instrumental, socializing, self-authoring, and selftransforming.
My first participant was Daisy, a female of Mexican descent and a former alumnus of the
school district. She was in her final year of college at the time of the study and graduated at the
time of the writing of this dissertation. As she was preparing for graduation, she shared her
aspirations of being an elementary school educator and applying to teaching programs next year.
I have known her since she was in middle school and has served as a teaching assistant and afterschool coach at CPU ACS for the past 3 years. In these roles, she has supported our fifth-grade
students both during my math classes and after school, always asking for guidance on how to
reinforce math concepts our students are learning. Given this, I hold informational, positional,
and expertise power through my interactions with her (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). We have
developed a strong collaborative working relationship over the years, and through previous
interactions, has always shown a willingness to learn new ideas and content to best support our
students. Based on this and after the completion of this study, I still contend that Daisy is a
socializing knower. Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) described a socializing knower
as those who “tend to prioritize others’ feelings and internal states over their own and to adopt
the values, beliefs, feelings, and perspectives of authority figures and people they care deeply
about” (p. 464). She often sought advice and followed guidance and directions exactly as I and
other staff members provided them to her, especially if it avoids conflict. Furthermore, she has
mentioned on several occasions that she has structured her after school activities based on what
she has observed me and my partner teacher doing in class. During the study, Daisy collaborated
with Arely, another participant discussed later, to “create your own café” math project. During
this collaboration, she still sought out my approval at times. However, I did my best to offer her

41
assisting questions to help her express her own thoughts and feelings around how she thought the
project would benefit students. I also offered her and Arely a model as they were developing
their second math project, which involved having students creating a sports stadium.
My next participant was Quehtzali, who identified as Hispanic, cisgender, and grew up
and went to school in the surrounding area of our school site. At the time of this study, she had
served in her role for 2 years. Like Daisy, Quehtzali supported our Latinx students both as a
teaching assistant during the school day and after school coach. She had experience with
supporting both first and third grade levels. Before this study, I had not interacted with her as
much, so I learned more about her upbringing and work experiences during our sessions. Based
on my observations, I believed she came to the study as an instrumental knower, which means
someone who has a “concrete, right/wrong orientation to their work and the world and have not
yet developed the internal capacity to more fully take another’s perspective” (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 464) but grew to a socializing knower by the end of the study. For
example, during Session 9, she shared how this study made her examine her own practices and
challenge some of the assumptions she initially had of students she worked with. Throughout the
study, I also observed several times where she sought the group’s approval after sharing her
lessons and/or thoughts on a topic.
My last participant was Arely, who identified as Mexican American. At the time of the
study, she was contemplating pursuing a master’s degree in education. She served as a second
and third-grade teaching assistant during the school day, and as a fifth grade after-school coach
for the last 2 years. Given my interactions were more limited with her since she supported lower
grades and had recently switched to fifth-grade, rapport building with her throughout my study
was pivotal. From my initial interactions and observations of her with the Latinx students, she

42
was an instrumental knower. However, by the end of the study, she made progress towards
becoming a socializing knower given the “create your own café” project she created and stadium
project she was planning. When presenting these math projects, she was able to articulate how
these projects related to students’ FoI and needs.
Setting(s) of Action(s)
Before my study began, I met with my principal to discuss the purpose and scope of my
study. Due to the academic enrichment hour taking place after school, I met with my colleagues
during regular school hours in my classroom. Therefore, I asked for permission from my
administrators to facilitate my sessions during my afternoon Monday prep period, which was one
hour long. This time slot also worked with many of my colleagues’ planning periods used to
create their academic enrichment hour lessons. The administration team also provided my
colleagues monthly professional learning sessions, so I had to coordinate with them to make sure
meeting dates did not conflict. When scheduling conflicts arose, I hosted on Monday or Friday
after school, and my colleagues received coverage from their after-school duties to attend.
Data Collection
As previously stated, the goal of my action research study was to understand how I could
use adaptive leadership and andragogical moves to build my colleagues’ capacity to cultivate
meaningful learning opportunities in math for our Latinx students. In order to monitor our
progress towards this goal, I collected a variety of data sources, which included jottings,
fieldnotes, my own critical reflections (completed both in and out of the field), anonymous
feedback surveys, and other resources I created such as meeting agendas and instructor guides.
Below, I will outline each in more detail.

43
Documents and/or Artifacts
As I enacted my action research, I used a variety of researcher-generated documents.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized how researcher-generated documents help provide more
insight into the phenomenon being explored, which coincides with the tenets of qualitative action
research. Below I will explain the different researcher-generated documents I will use to collect
data.
Meeting Agendas. For every session I facilitated, I created a meeting agenda inspired by
components of the what-why-how structure described by Aguilar and Cohen (2022). The agenda
included the following components: intended learning objectives, the norms we co-developed
Session 1, estimated time stamps, an outline and purpose of each activity (what and why) and the
materials needed (how). Research shows that when adult learners understand why they are
learning something and outcomes are clear, this supports the learning conditions for adults
(Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). This agenda attempted to support my enactment of andragogical
moves by including assistance and assessment questions (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) to facilitate
discourse on the use of meaningful learning opportunities. However, as discussed in the findings
section, I did not use the questions as purposefully as I could have. These agendas, though, did
elicit evidence of how I provided clear direction (Northouse, 2016) to ultimately created a strong
holding environment that supported my peers.
Chalk Talk Posters. During Week 2, participants engaged in a chalk talk activity to
develop an understanding of what meaningful learning looks like. Through this activity, they codeveloped a definition drawing from the literature they read. As seen in the findings section, I
utilized these posters as data pieces to see how they supported my participants’ thinking around
what meaningful learning looks like, sounds like, and feels like. The chalk talk activity involved

44
participants commenting their thoughts, making connections, and/or adding questions about the
excerpts they read.
Meaningful Learning Self-Reflection Rubric. During Weeks 3, 6 and 9, participants
assessed their use of meaningful learning opportunities in math. Using the definition of
meaningful learning we co-created during Week 2, I developed a rubric in which my colleagues
assessed their academic enrichment hour lessons. In an effort to get more authentic responses, I
did not collect my participants’ rubrics, however, I jotted down their scores as they filled them
out. In doing so, this allowed me to see how they were making meaning of their progress, what
steps towards transformative learning they made, and what support they needed to continue to
build their capacity of cultivating meaningful learning opportunities in math. Based on their
responses during our discussions, I used that data to support the andragogical moves I employed
in the next cycle, whether it was providing them another cognitive structure, a modeled example
and/or more time to plan lessons that would ultimately support my colleagues in reaching the
short-term outcome of the study.
Classroom/Instructional Artifacts. During Session 3–9, my colleagues brought either
student work samples, draft lesson ideas and/or lesson plan documents to class that they felt
demonstrated meaningful learning opportunities for our Latinx students. The
classroom/instructional artifacts they brought included self-portraits, student projects such as
posters and power points, and journal entries.
Critical Reflections. In weeks 3, 5, and during the coding/analysis process, I engaged in
writing a critical reflection because of a disorienting dilemma that occurred. Using Jay and
Johnson’s (2002) typology questions, I considered the following as ways to interrogate and
challenge my assumptions and biases to reframe my thinking:

45
1. Descriptive: What is happening? Is this working/not working, and for whom? How do
I know? How am I feeling? What am I pleased or concerned about?
2. Comparative: What are alternative views of what is happening? How do other people
who are directly or indirectly involved describe and explain what’s happening (i.e.,
four lenses-student, colleague, experience, and/or theory)? What does the research
contribute to an understanding on this matter? How can I improve what’s not
working?
3. Critical: What are the implications of the matter when viewed from these alternative
perspectives? What is the deeper meaning of what is happening, in terms of public
democratic purposes of schooling? (p. 77)
Engaging in critical reflections helped me answer my research question in several ways. First,
critically reflecting helped me analyze, using different lenses (i.e., colleagues, students, theory
and/or experience), if my sessions were building my colleagues’ capacity in their understanding
of meaningful learning opportunities. It also pushed my thinking around my enactment of
instructional moves and adaptive leadership strategies, contributing to my overall growth as well.
Anonymous Feedback Survey. At the end of most sessions, I provided my colleagues
an anonymous feedback survey to fill out. I used Google forms to create the survey, and initially
used three questions modeled after the triangle, circle, square strategy (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022).
Over time, however, I changed the format to receive more concrete and specific feedback. I
found that the feedback I was receiving was not as specific, so I reframed my feedback questions
to be more aligned to my session learning goals. Due to the previously named power dynamics, I
would send them the link immediately after the session and have them fill it out on their own
time. Due to this, I would not always get all surveys back, however, I at least received two out of

46
three each time. I utilized this data to inform my next sessions, and it helped support any
modifications I needed to make in future meetings. I would also take time during the following
session to share out trends and/or pieces they asked about to make sure I was consistently
meeting their needs.
Observations
In addition to documents and artifacts, I also conducted observations. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) emphasized the importance of being a “careful, systematic observer” (p. 138). A
participant as observer is a “data collection technique that requires the researcher to be present at,
involved in, and actually recording the routine daily activities with people in the field setting”
(Schensul & LeCompte, 2013, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Taking on the participant as
observer role, I noticed the way in which my participants responded, reacted (verbally and nonverbally), and engaged in discourse around meaningful learning content, as well as how my
instructional moves and adaptive leadership influenced the learning environment and their
progress towards the short-term outcome. It also supported in triangulating the early findings I
captured (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
I observed and audio recorded all nine sessions I facilitated. Prior to recording, I asked
the participants permission to record them (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Each session took place
in my classroom (while students have P.E. outside) and lasted approximately 1 hour, totaling
around 9 hours of observational data. When scheduling conflicts arose and the session occurred
after school, I hosted the meetings in my partner teacher’s room next door since my classroom
was used by the afterschool program. During these sessions, I jotted down key ideas and phrases,
also known as observer’s comments, which I converted into field notes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Miles et al., 2014). I focused on capturing jottings related to key concepts from my conceptual

47
framework, such as discourse on the use and understanding of meaningful learning, how my
colleagues responded to my adaptive leadership and andragogical moves, and language and/or
actions that showed progress that my participants were engaging in transformative learning.
Additionally, I relistened to the audio recordings and captured any additional data I missed in my
original conversion of jottings to field notes. This process occurred the same day after the
session. Given that I took on the participant as observer role, there were times when I was
facilitating that I could not jot ideas down. For that reason, I relied on the audio recordings to
capture the verbal aspects of the sessions. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted the importance of
transcribing notes as soon as possible. Therefore, I allotted time every Monday afternoon
immediately following the sessions to transcribe the field notes. In doing so, the information was
fresher in my mind and captured more accurate data. On days we had scheduling conflicts, I
made sure to transcribe immediately after the session as well.
Data Analysis
To achieve the short-term outcome of my study, I engaged in “multiple iterative cycles of
action and reflection … each cycle involves the activities of constructing, planning action, taking
action, and evaluating action” (Coghlan, 2019, p. 129). In doing so, I conducted data collection
and analysis concurrently (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Over the span of 12 weeks, I facilitated
three cycles of actions and reflection. Each cycle had three sessions. After each cycle, I took 1
week to engage in in-the-field analysis by examining analytic memos, jottings, transcribed
observational field notes, researcher-generated documents and artifacts, anonymous feedback
surveys, and critical reflections.
While analyzing this data, I also wrote memos based on what I was observing and
learning. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) recommended routinely writing memos to support

48
researchers in identifying and analyzing data trends. Drawing on Coghlan (2019) and Brookfield
(2017), I used the following analytic questions to guide my thinking when writing memos:
• Did I succeed in carrying out the planned outcomes/actions? Why or why not? How
will I know?
• What have I learned about myself, my facilitation skills, my assumptions, and/or my
biases?
• What actions will I try next time I am pursuing similar outcomes in a similar
situation?
• In what ways am I supporting and/or hindering the learning for my participants (i.e.,
listening to understand, instructional moves, setting up learning conditions)?
• How does my positionality as a Latinx veteran teacher impact my perceptions of
learners and actions as a teacher leader? (pp. 141–142)
Engaging in this reflective practice better informed my leadership and andragogical moves,
progress towards the short-term outcome of transformative learning experiences for my
colleagues, and overall enactment for the upcoming cycles. For instance, during the second inthe-field analysis week, I noticed I was not allocating enough time for meaningful learning
planning based on my field notes and participant feedback. I also saw they needed more models
of what lessons could look like. Based on this, I modified how I facilitated Cycle 3, and instead
of delving into math discourse, I slowed us down to provide more time for planning, and
resources that modeled what possible lessons with FoI attributes could look like. Additionally, I
used the in-the-field analysis weeks to start speculating trends I noticed in the data, annotating
salient ideas or phrases from the different sources (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Meeting with my
dissertation chair each week also supported my speculation of trends and pushed my thinking on

49
trends I was not seeing, such as my questioning. I also was strategic in narrowing what I
captured during each cycle, that way I was collecting purposeful data that eased the analysis
process once I was out of the field (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Furthermore, I engaged in out-of-the-field analysis after Cycle 3 in my third Dissertation
in Practice (DIP) course. I first created a priori codes to support my data analysis using both my
conceptual framework as well as precoding of the data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Ravitch &
Carl, 2021). Prior to beginning the coding process, I re-read all my data and created summaries
of what occurred in each session to support the development of both a priori and emergent codes.
In addition, I created a code set to make sure I was consistent in my coding, which included
definitions of each code that were grounded in theory (Harding, 2013). Once the a priori codes
and code set were established, I used ATLAS.ti, a computer assisted qualitative system, to
undertake a systematic review of my dataset. In the first round, I coded all my session
transcripts, critical reflections, and reflective memos. I also met weekly with my dissertation
chair and received feedback on my code set and overall coding process. These sessions helped
refine my codebook each week. For example, during the first round, my chair and I collaborated
on how to more strategically code my missed andragogical opportunities. Initially, I coded them
as “missed opportunities.” However, when analyzing this code further, I decided to code any
missed opportunities within each move with a plus (+) or minus (–) symbol. For instance, with
questioning, I had an + assistance and – assistance code. In doing this, I more clearly saw which
andragogical moves were successful and which ones served as missed opportunities during this
first round. In addition, I created subcodes to elicit more specific analysis. For instance, under
“conversational routines,” I added the four different types of conversational routines, which
include generalizing, normalizing, revising, and specifying (Horn & Little, 2010). I also added

50
subcodes under questioning, modeling, learning conditions, and meaningful learning, which
further supported my analysis.
During the second round of coding, I revisited my code book to add emergent codes that
arose. For instance, an emergent code that developed during the first stage was “cognitive
structures.” I also merged codes that were tracking similar ideas and/or evidence (Harding,
2013). For instance, I merged “meaningful learning resources” with “cognitive structures” given
that both examined how my participants made meaning of the resources I provided them. I also
modified codes that needed more clarity. For example, under the code “transformative learning
progress,” I added each of my colleagues’ names to better track their progress of growth across
the different sessions and cycles.
Overall, I utilized systematic thematic coding to identify overall patterns and trends that
informed the progress I made towards reaching the short-term outcome of my action research
study. Additionally, I practiced reflexivity throughout the analysis process by asking myself the
following questions as I coded:
• Is the coding method(s) harmonizing with my study’s conceptual or theoretical
framework?
• Is the coding method(s) relating to or addressing my research questions?
• Are the data lending themselves to the coding methods (that is, are the codes
appropriate for field notes, appropriate for interview transcripts, and so on)?
• Is the coding method(s) providing the specificity I need?
• Is the coding method(s) leading me towards an analytic pathway (for example,
towards the construction of categories)? (Saldaña, 2009, pp. 50–51)

51
At the conclusion of this second cycle, I examined the typicality and occurrences of the codes,
which ultimately supported the development of my overarching themes and findings. Prior to
starting my findings section, I also wrote an analytic memo where I attempted to answer my
research question, which helped clearly develop my themes. I will elaborate on these themes
more in detail in the findings section.
Limitations and Delimitations
This next section will discuss both the limitations and delimitations of my action research
study. Limitations are factors outside of the researcher’s control which can alter the design and
results of a study, while delimitations are the choices and often constraints a researcher
consciously makes to ensure they can still achieve their study’s objectives (Theofanidis &
Fountouki, 2019). Therefore, both pieces should be acknowledged as possible weaknesses in a
study.
Limitations
One limitation in my study was time. As a practitioner-scholar, I only conducted research
for three months, limiting the amount of data I collected. Typically, intensive long-term
qualitative field work is highly encouraged to capture more complete data (Maxwell, 2013).
Other time constraints included professional learning scheduling conflicts with my
administrators, parent conferences, and my colleagues’ work schedules.
Another limitation was my expertise as a researcher. I was a novice when it came to
taking field notes, conducting observations, and data analysis. When in the field, there were a lot
of moving pieces to juggle, and newer researchers tend to lack the theoretical and conceptual
background needed (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). This hindered the type and amount of data I was
able to capture at times. Furthermore, the questions I asked during my weekly sessions limited

52
my findings if not constructed well, which I will discuss in the missed opportunities section.
Patton (2002) argued the importance of developing clear, open-ended, singular, non-leading
questions to capture the data a researcher needs.
Lastly, I could not control whether my participants applied the concepts they read and
discussed during our sessions to their academic enrichment lessons. While the goal was for them
to apply what they have learned, it was possible that at times they did not do it in a given week.
However, the weekly check-ins during Weeks 3–8 lessened this piece given we allotted time
during the sessions to share updates on progress made.
Delimitations
The first delimitation of my study was my sample choice. I chose to work with my
colleagues instead of teachers for two reasons. One, based on the professional learning needs in
my local school context, and two, due to informal conversations from colleagues requesting
more guidance around planning. Additionally, another delimitation was the use of my conceptual
framework. Maxwell (2013) emphasized how the creation of a conceptual framework, composed
of multiple theories, guides a researcher’s design. Yet, in doing so, it is important to note that a
theory that “brightly illuminates one area will leave other areas in darkness; no theory can
illuminate everything” (p. 50). As seen in my conceptual framework in Figure 1, I intentionally
chose to make meaning of meaningful learning using the concepts of FoI and math discourse.
Additionally, I purposefully chose to examine specific andragogical moves and use adaptive
leadership. In doing so, these theories influenced the enactment of my actions, making it a
delimitation.

53
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As the primary instrument for data collection and analysis, I had to ensure the credibility
and trustworthiness of my study. Credibility, also known as internal validity, means presenting
plausible data and findings aligned with reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In order to maximize
credibility in my study, I took rich, descriptive jottings as best I could as I facilitated sessions
and relistened to meeting recordings more closely immediately after the sessions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In these jottings and field notes, I did my best to capture exactly what was said, so
as not to misrepresent the data. Using a variety of data points, known as triangulation, also
supported the credibility of my study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These included
capturing rich, thick descriptive field notes, writing critical reflections and/or analytic memos,
and utilizing document analysis (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, I
conducted member checks to ensure I was correctly capturing the voices of my participants
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Moreover, it is important to name that in qualitative research “what is being investigated
are people’s constructions of reality—how they understand the world” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 243). As such, to establish trustworthiness and discipline my subjectivity, I practiced
reflexivity by engaging in ongoing critical reflection and analytic memos to constantly
interrogate my worldviews, biases, and assumptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). After each
session I facilitated, I alloted time to write a reflective memo. In each memo, I examined how my
given beliefs and values impacted my interactions with my participants and the content I
facilitated for that session. Moreover, I also examined how I felt it went, and what I could
modify or enact for the next session. After Sessions 3 and 5, I wrote a critical reflection. In

54
addition, I also wrote an analytic memo during each in-the-field analysis week to support my
accuracy in capturing the data and reflecting on what I was learning (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
Researchers might be perceived by participants in a certain way that shapes findings
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While I could never permanently remove my values and beliefs from
my research, I strove to be consistently transparent on how my biases and assumptions impacted
how I conducted my sessions with my participants (Maxwell, 2013). One bias I had to be
mindful of as I conducted the research was the coursework knowledge I had acquired on the
topics of meaningful learning and FoK I am conscientious that I am privileged to be in a space
where I can read and research these topics. Given this fact, I had a specific lens in which I
interpreted the data collected on these ideas. Another bias I had was around my experience with
teaching math and the assumptions I have around what meaningful learning looks like in this
subject. These assumptions are rooted in prescriptive ways of computing math from my teacher
preparation program, professional development at my school and organization at large, and other
math educators I have observed and worked with. An additional bias I endured was my
discontent with the “data driven” and “teaching to the test” culture that was present at my school
site.
Ethics
As the practitioner-scholar in this study, I had to consider the following ethical issues that
may arise. First, I had to clearly communicate to participants that this study was completely
voluntary, and they could withdraw at any time (Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Given my friendships and work relationships with some of my colleagues, I had to make sure
they did not feel obligated to join. I also wanted to avoid creating the perception that they had to
participate due to pressure from administrators, because others did, or out of fear that I may have

55
treated them differently when they supported my classroom if they decided not to join.
Therefore, I hosted an informational meeting before my study that outlined clear expectations of
their rights, included the purpose of my study, and transparency around my choices and actions
(Coghlan, 2019). I also provided them with an information sheet that included clear expectations
of their rights and overall study information. I gave them a week to decide whether they wanted
to participate and had them email or text me to confirm participation. In doing so, I assured
legitimate informed consent from each participant.
Another ethical issue I had to address was confidentiality. Glesne (2011) asserted the
importance of confidentiality when conducting research. I used pseudonyms, stored all
information in my personal, password protected laptop, and placed any documents in a locked
cabinet as ways to ensure privacy (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). However, considering the small
sample size and familiar context, I am cognizant of how I framed the dissemination of my
findings to make sure confidentiality was intact and does not produce harm. If it is revealed who
said what during our sessions, this could lead to feelings of embarrassment, shame, or fear of
what others might think of them. For instance, some findings revealed instructional practices of
some participants that were teacher-centered, perpetuated entrenched inequities, lacked
opportunities of meaningful learning and so forth. To make sure I captured my findings
accurately, I engaged in member checks, which involved asking my participants for feedback
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, my administrators may also feel uncomfortable with
the ultimate findings, given it challenges our organization mission statement, ways of doing
instruction, and shines a light on inequities we perpetuate as a school. Consequently, this could
lead to future tensions and/or awkwardness amongst myself and the administrators.

56
In addition, the way in which I asked questions and facilitated discourse minimized harm.
Assessing one’s practice is quite personal and could have disoriented a participant if they felt
unsuccessful with the content or lesson plans enacted with students. Therefore, taking on the role
as a conversational partner was vital. This involved showing respect, being straightforward and
authentic, honoring the promises I made with them, and not pressuring them to answer questions
they did not feel comfortable answering at the moment (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Additionally, by
asking good quality questions that were not leading, I avoided data collection that placed my
participants in uncomfortable situations (Patton, 2002; Seidman, 2013).
Findings
In this section, I examine the findings to answer my action research question: How do I
build my colleagues’ capacity to cultivate meaningful learning opportunities in math during our
elementary school’s academic enrichment hour using our Latinx students’ funds of identity? I
argue that, while there were some missed opportunities, my learners made progress towards
planning more meaningful learning experiences in math because of my leadership and
andragogical moves. This section will answer my research question in five parts, infusing
examples of both my growth and that of my participants. These sections include the learning
conditions that supported the enactment of andragogical moves (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022;
Mezirow, 1991) using adaptive leadership behaviors (Heifetz, et al., 2009; Northouse, 2016), the
development and evolution of conversational routines (Horn & Little, 2010), the use of cognitive
structures (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), and my presence (Rodgers, 2002) as a facilitator to make
adjustments within the study. The final part of this section will detail the missed opportunities of
my facilitation, specifically my questioning. Each will be discussed in more detail below.

57
Establishing Learning Conditions as an Adaptive Leader
As previously noted in my conceptual framework, I argued that the establishment of
learning conditions was vital for enacting the short-term outcome of my study–creating
transformative learning moments for my participants to critically examine their math practice.
Given this goal, I had to ensure each session provided my participants with a psychologically
safe space (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022) to interrogate and discuss their practices, given that, at
times, they could encounter a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1991; Wergin, 2020). I
accomplished this by focusing on the adaptive leadership behavior of regulating distress (Heifetz
et al., 2009). When regulating distress, the purpose is to maintain a productive zone of
disequilibrium (Heifetz et al., 2009). Northouse (2016) argued different ways a leader can
regulate distress–through the establishment of productive norms, providing direction, and
creation of a strong holding environment (Heifetz et al., 2009). In the following section, I will
detail how I regulated my participants’ distress and maintained a productive zone of
disequilibrium (PZD) by co-creating norms and providing direction through shared language
(Heifetz et al., 2009). I also modeled vulnerability (Spikes, 2018) to ultimately cultivate a strong
holding environment.
Creation of Norms
The first way I regulated the participants’ distress and maintained a PZD was through the
co-creation of norms. According to Northouse (2016), when “norms are constructive, they have
positive influence on the progress of the group” (p. 295). Therefore, as an adaptive leader, my
goal was to co-develop norms with my colleagues that set the stage for them to feel comfortable.
In doing so, I contend that this supported my colleagues in ultimately examining and reflecting
on their math lessons. During Session 1, I had the participants share what norms they had

58
encountered previously to assess what they knew. The participants then engaged in a gallery
walk where they read about the importance of norms, the difference between safe and brave
spaces, and looked at norm examples in shared settings. I pulled and summarized excerpts from
Aguilar and Cohen (2022), Arao and Clemens (2013), and Spikes (2018) to facilitate the gallery
walk. I also shared norms my USC professors used with my classmates and me in our doctoral
courses. Based on what they read, we discussed what stood out to them, and what they felt would
support their examination of their math practices throughout the study. Including individuals in
the process of developing norms, especially if meeting more than once, is key and supports in
maintaining a psychologically safe space (Aguilar & Cohen, 2022). We agreed on four norms,
which included: fostering a brave space, engaging in ongoing dialogue, moving up, moving
back, and taking care of yourself, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Session Norms

59
As my participants discussed which norms to include, they shared how the brave space
reading introduced a new concept for them. My colleagues felt brave space could help move our
discourse forward when examining our math lessons. The vignette that follows demonstrated
their openness to include the idea of brave space into our norms, as well as ongoing dialogue and
taking care of yourself.
J: And so, thinking about what we already read and talked about, what are some
norms we want to do for our group to keep us centered in our conversations
around our math practice?
D: I was gonna share about the brave space because it’s really new. But I really liked
the ideas behind it because I feel like it’s important to challenge the system or
even question it because I feel like we’re, we’re so like, used to always abiding
with the rules … I feel like that is something very important to be able to be in a
brave space and I think we can do that here.
Q: To add on to what Daisy was saying and the reason that poster stood out to
me is like hmmm a brave space. I haven’t really heard that expression before.
[OC: Daisy was nodding in affirmation and said yeah] And then I was like, what
does that look like? And that’s why I was reading it for so long because I’m like, I
don’t think I have seen that. We have a safe space, right, here at school. I don’t
think we’ve really implemented a brave space; you know so that would be cool to
add here to help us.
A: Yeah, this is new to me, the idea of brave space and what I got out of it
is that it creates a type of confidence where we can discuss our ideas openly,
which is what we need here. I don’t think it would be safe for me to say

60
something if we didn’t have something like that. And the point is for all of us to
participate right? So, like thinking about that too, how we all can safely share out.
Q: Oh, and another thing that stood out to me was taking care of yourself [OC: Arely
and Daisy nodding in the affirmative], like our work is hard and making sure we
take care of ourselves to be focused as we discuss our lessons.
In the example above, each of the participants agreed to include brave space in the norms. This
was illustrated when Daisy stated, “I think we can do that here [brave space],” as Quehtzali said,
“you know so that would be cool to add here to help us,” and when Laura added, “it creates a
type of confidence where we can discuss our ideas openly, which is what we need here.” As
such, this demonstrated how they felt this norm could have a positive impact on our group
dynamics (Northouse, 2016). In the importance of presence section, I discuss more of how I
incorporated their feedback to continue discussing the idea of brave space weekly. While we did
not necessarily cultivate a brave space given the scope of this study and the difficulty in arriving
at a truly brave space, the concept was nonetheless a helpful framing for our own discussions and
helped them process other scenarios in their workspace and personal lives.
Furthermore, my participants also selected the norm on “engaging in ongoing dialogue”
to support our discourse around meaningful learning practices. These two norms felt most
applicable throughout the study, in that they helped “maximize the group’s effectiveness and
ability to adapt to change” (Northouse, 2016, p. 295). This is evident when Arely stated, “where
we can discuss our ideas openly, which is what we need here. … And the point is for all of us to
participate right? So, like thinking about that too, how we all can safely share out.” My
participants also elaborated more on “move up, move back” later in this session as an important
norm to include. In later sessions, these norms were demonstrated in their discourse around

61
planning for meaningful learning in their math lessons for the academic enrichment hour using
conversational routines. Finally, they agreed to include the norm of “taking care of yourself,”
because we each acknowledged that being an educator has many demands, and that it was
important to take care of ourselves to fully show up to engage in these sessions. This was
illustrated when Quehtzali said:
Another thing that stood out to me was taking care of yourself [OC: Arely and Daisy
nodding in the affirmative], like our work is hard and making sure we take care of
ourselves to be focused as we discuss our lessons.
We revisited the norms at the beginning of each session onward. Starting Cycle 2, I also
prompted them each week to pick one to personally work on as well. Given the creation of these
norms, I supported the participants in regulating their distress as they critically examined their
math lessons throughout the study. This was evident when I asked for feedback in the final
session on what helped and shaped their learning throughout this study.
Q: I feel like we have to learn all the concepts ourselves first, to understand
in order to teach it or model it. And when we started with the first sessions
focusing on our own learning with norms and reading about brave space, that
helped us eventually do that.
D: Yeah, I feel like when we think of the norms, it keeps us organized. So having
those things [OC: norms] established since the beginning were very helpful. …
And yeah, because every time I think about norms, like they’re for different
situations, you know, like, for us as a team or like with the kids, so like, it really
does help kind of build that structure. But like here, it helped us think differently
and feel comfortable to look and talk about our lessons without feeling judged.

62
When Quehtzali said, “when we started with the first sessions focusing on our own learning with
norms and reading about brave space, that helped us eventually do that,” this demonstrated how
the creation and use of norms allowed her and the participants to engage in learning that
informed their instructional practices. Daisy then added “it helped us think differently and feel
comfortable to look and talk about our lessons without feeling judged.” This shows that Daisy
felt comfortable enough to discuss her lessons with the group, without the feeling of judgment,
because of the norms we established. Therefore, the norms fostered a productive zone of
disequilibrium (Heifetz et al., 2009) for the group, which is telegraphed when Daisy said, “feel
comfortable to look and talk about our lessons without feeling judged.” Therefore, it did not
“surpass their limit of tolerance” and the participants were able to engage in a productive
examination of their math lessons throughout the study (Heifetz et al., 2009).
Providing Direction
Another way I regulated the participants’ distress and maintained a PZD was by
providing direction using shared language. Northouse (2016) stated how adaptive leaders can
regulate distress is by providing direction, which involves helping “people feel a sense of clarity,
order, and certainty, reducing the stress people feel in uncertain situations” (p. 294). Given the
content of meaningful learning and funds of identity were new to my participants, I wanted to
ensure clarity in each session using consistent shared language that would support their learning.
Evidence of how shared language around meaningful learning was created is shown in Figure 3.

63
Figure 3
Example Meeting Agenda

64
In Figure 3, evidence of how shared language was created on meaningful learning is
demonstrated in several ways. First, the learning objectives of “Learners will discuss what
meaningful learning looks like, sounds like, and feels like” and “Learners will co-develop a
definition of meaningful learning” primed my colleagues that we would be engaging in discourse
around the topic of meaningful learning. These objectives provided clarity and certainty
(Northouse, 2016) around the shared language that would be developed. Additionally, the agenda
segment on “Defining Meaningful Learning,” included a chalk talk and a discussion to create a
shared language around meaningful learning. More on the specific process of how we created the
meaningful learning definition will be discussed later in the cognitive structures section. As a
result, this shared language provided direction, ultimately regulating distress given my
colleagues could productively work towards examining their lessons with more clarity around
what to look for. This was noted at the end of Session 3, when Quehtzali shared how developing
the definition of meaningful learning in Session 2 made better sense as she was filling out her
meaningful learning self-reflection rubric.
Q: Like I think the more sessions we have, the more I grasp about what we are
learning. Like last time we read about meaningful learning, right, and made our
definition. Then using the definition to reflect on our lessons today, and be like,
you know, how we can implement student identity, prior knowledge, students
talking, in our math activities. I remember the first session and was like I knew
what you were saying, but I was like how what does it look like right? And now I
see what it looks like and means more clearly.
In this vignette, when Quehtzali emphasized how, “the more sessions we have, the more I grasp
about what we are learning. … And now I see what it looks like and means more clearly,” this

65
showed how with each session, she was able to make meaning of the content with more clarity.
Cultivating this clarity helped lessen the stress the participants could have felt given this content
was new for them (Northouse, 2016). She also alluded to how the shared language of meaningful
learning helped her make meaning of the content, when she stated, “Like last time we read about
meaningful learning, right, and made our definition. Then using the definition to reflect on our
lessons today.” Creating and using this shared language to examine their math lessons provided
clarity and certainty (Northouse, 2016) for them, which in turn regulated their distress in the
moment. In the next section, I will detail how I modeled vulnerability to regulate distress.
Modeling Vulnerability
Besides providing direction, I regulated distress by also modeling vulnerability to foster
trust and create a strong holding environment with my participants. In this case, modeling
consisted of demonstrating the behavior of vulnerability so that my learners had a foundation
from which to practice the desired activity (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Moreover, Spikes (2018)
offered that as a facilitator, being vulnerable involves “modeling compassion in his/her
interactions with participants” and “sharing any cultural blind spots that he/she may hold” (p. 9).
When modeling vulnerability, I displayed how making mistakes were opportunities for learning
(Fullan, 2005). My intention with modeling this behavior was to create an environment where it
was okay for them to do so too. After systematic analysis of my sessions, I modeled vulnerability
in 10 different instances. By modeling vulnerability, I positioned my learners to also be
vulnerable and engage in a more authentic examination of their practice. For example, during
Session 3, I modeled vulnerability by sharing a math warm up from my first-year teaching math
in elementary school. I modeled using the meaningful learning self-reflection rubric as a

66
cognitive structure, described in more detail in the cognitive structures section. As I shared, my
participants listened attentively and were surprised by the mistakes I discussed.
J: I was in this funk; I call those my dark ages since it was so hard for me. I would
look at the exit ticket data every day and based on their scores, it felt like they
weren’t learning. I would do these warmups to help address what I felt they were
missing. And then I found myself at times being like, and I’m embarrassed to
admit this, but like I would blame the students without any kind of reflection or
putting a mirror to myself and saying okay, what am I doing? What’s going on
with me? And what I was realizing was, yes, I would use the data based on the
exit ticket, so I felt like I was activating prior knowledge [OC: pointing to the
meaningful learning self-reflection rubric] I would refer to this piece, but I wasn’t
making it relevant. I wasn’t taking time to get to know the students. And while the
students would work, it would be at voice level zero, because that’s what I saw in
other classes, and I thought that’s what we were supposed to do as a school. So, I
gave myself a one in student collaboration and discussing ideas. [OC: I noticed
Daisy was watching me intently as I spoke, almost in admiration listening to me
open up about this].
D: Like I see how you are so naturally up [OC: referring to teaching in action] there
it seems so natural for you I would never imagine what you are saying.
In this vignette, I modeled both how to complete the meaningful learning self-reflection rubric
and the behavior of vulnerability, specifically when sharing mistakes I made with my math warm
up. When I said, “So I felt like I was activating prior knowledge [OC: pointing to the meaningful
learning self-reflection rubric]” and “So I gave myself a one in student collaboration and

67
discussing ideas,” I was explicitly modeling using the rubric so they could mimic this task with
their own math activity they brought and were being asked to later discuss. Using modeling as a
form of assistance, which involves providing behavior for imitation, allows learners to then more
easily practice the skill intended (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). I observed this behavior as they
noted their scores on their self-reflection rubric, and then proceeded to share out. Moreover,
when I stated, “I’m embarrassed to admit this, but like I would blame the students without any
kind of reflection or putting a mirror to myself,” this showed how I was being vulnerable in
saying I placed blame on the students rather than reflecting on my teaching and instructional
practices. By sharing this mistake, which is hard to do in front of others, I demonstrated that
openly admitting these flaws in previous lessons served as a learning opportunity for me (Fullan,
2005). In doing so, I intended to model compassion with my participants (Spikes, 2018) if they
were to find themselves in a similar situation. Furthermore, by sharing this experience, I wanted
to create a holding environment where my colleagues felt comfortable addressing difficult
situations, especially within their own practice. Given the power dynamic as well, I knew it was
critical to share experiences that would allow for them to participate more authentically. When
Daisy said “you are so naturally up there. … I would never imagine what you are saying,” she
signaled her surprise that I would have made such a mistake.
Later in this session, my colleagues then shared more openly their meaningful learning
self-reflection rubric scores and math activity. This example demonstrated my colleagues’
willingness to imitate vulnerability after hearing my example earlier in the meeting. Here, Daisy
openly discussed a math worksheet she previously implemented during her academic enrichment
hour planning, demonstrating vulnerability as she spoke.

68
D: [OC: looked at Q] I’ll go first, I reflected on how I gave students this math
worksheet and it was based on the particular unit they were working on. I would
focus on that, but I wouldn’t really connect to their lives and like so much we
were saying I would not let them work with groups like if I did it would be very
minimal. And then I try to get them back to refocus, which I feel now wasn’t fair
because I didn’t really offer enough time for them to work as a group. And I feel
like it felt just kind of like kind of quick. So, I feel some were probably engaging
the other half were you know, distracted or not really interested because it was
just a worksheet so for them it was more like we have to do this. And now that I
think about it I feel like I was very hard on them. I didn’t even explain it or ask if
they needed help. I just kind of assumed like oh, you know how to do it but like I
didn’t really didn’t take the time to just ask like, hey, do you need any help? And
only the ones that would raise their hand I would help but then again, like the
ones that were kind of probably shy wouldn’t raise their hands. And I wouldn’t
end up helping because I wouldn’t ask or do that extra step to ask them if they
needed that extra help to make them feel more comfortable at least to raise their
hand. … And the kids feel obligated to finish because if not they were going to be
benched or not go outside. … Like see, as I am saying this, that isn’t good.
In the exchange above, Daisy was mimicking my previous model when she stated, “I wouldn’t
really connect to their lives and like so much we were saying I would not let them work with
groups.” She then placed the blame on herself when she said, “which I feel now wasn’t fair
because I didn’t really offer enough time for them to work as a group.” By watching and
listening to me model how to use the rubric, she in turn, was able to engage in her own reflection

69
and share out. Daisy was vulnerable in this excerpt given that she was honest about how she was
missing the components of connecting to students’ lives and not allowing students to work in
groups. She further modeled vulnerability when she mentioned, “And the kids feel obligated to
finish because if not they were going to be benched or not go outside … like see, as I am saying
this, that isn’t good.” In this instance, Daisy bravely shared her mistake openly with the group by
admitting that her actions of benching the students for not finishing their work were not good. By
previously modeling compassion and vulnerability with my participants, this allowed for Daisy
to feel more comfortable to share the mistakes she made during this math activity more openly.
During Session 7, I continued modeling vulnerability to create a strong holding
environment through both the activity and behaviors I modeled. The focus of Session 7 was to
have my colleagues explore how well they knew their Latinx students using the funds of identity
lens. In the following example, I modeled how to do the activity itself, which involved
identifying students’ funds of identity. I also shared how I did not know one particular student as
well as I thought I did, thus again demonstrating vulnerability and providing behavior for
imitation.
J: Essentially, what I want you to do is take a moment and think about what funds of
identity come to mind for each student. For example, if you focus on the social
piece, think about important family members, friends, maybe who their siblings
are, or think about the practical lens like the sports they play or music interests
they like anything you know, about the kid that defines them. I did Sammy to
model for you all because she’s not in after school. I know she has two older
sisters. She also goes to a lot of family parties; she shares a lot about that. I know
she’s in Girls on the Run. I know Kim is her best friend and in interviewing them

70
for the math word problem of the week, I know they like to play Roblox on
weekends. And so, these little things that I know I just jotted them down in this
section and that’s what I know for her. But then I went to my other class roster,
and picked Kathy, I was like, okay, what do I know about her? I’m like, well, I
know she’s friends with Rebecca. But then I thought, what else do I know? I was
like, shoot, I don’t know much else, I need to take a moment to learn a little bit
more about Kathy, maybe with informal conversations during class or dismissal. I
know she needs support in math. But doing this activity was a good check for me
to be like, I don’t really know this student, and I need to take a few moments to
learn more about her throughout these next couple of weeks.
In the excerpt above, I first modeled how to complete the activity when I mentioned, “I did
Sammy to model for you all because she’s not in after school. I know she has two older sisters.
She also goes to a lot of family parties; she shares a lot about that. I know she’s in Girls on the
Run.” In providing specific funds of identity details about the student Sammy, I was able to
model how to use the funds of identity table. By explicitly modeling by saying “to model for you
all,” I supported the learners in internalizing the information to then mimic the action or behavior
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) later. Furthermore, I modeled vulnerability when I said, “I was like,
shoot, I don’t know much else, I need to take a moment to learn a little bit more about Kathy.”
Given the power dynamic between me and my colleagues, sharing this information was
important so they felt more comfortable in engaging authentically in this activity. This was
evident later in the session when Quehztali shared how she only knew a few of her students, and
as a result, imitated my behavior of being vulnerable when sharing mistakes or areas of growth.
This vignette will be further discussed in the cognitive structures section.

71
All in all, as a result of modeling vulnerability, I fostered learning conditions that
supported my participants in feeling comfortable to share their mistakes, which in turn, created a
strong holding environment. This was evident during Session 9, when I asked for feedback
regarding my facilitation and how it shaped their learning throughout this study. Quehtzali
shared how creating a comfortable environment and modeling what was expected supported how
she participated in the sessions.
Q: I was just going to compliment you and like, in all of our sessions, I felt like you
were very empathetic and you would kind of set the tone for us to feel
comfortable [OC: Daisy nodded in affirmation and said yeah as Quehtzali spoke]
to express whatever you were kind of asking of us. And I just want to say thank
you because I feel like if you didn’t model what you kind of wanted or expected
maybe I wouldn’t have felt as comfortable, and I wouldn’t have shared so I just
wanted to compliment you on that.
In the transcript above, when Quehtzali stated, “I feel like if you didn’t model what you kind of
wanted or expected maybe I wouldn’t have felt as comfortable and I wouldn’t have shared,” this
showed how providing clear direction (Northouse, 2016) and modeling the activities explicitly
with my own experiences supported her learning. Additionally, by using the term “comfortable”
twice in her short feedback, she telegraphed her ability to be vulnerable “to express whatever” I
was asking of them. As such, providing direction and modeling vulnerability served as effective
forms of assistance for her in this study. Moreover, Spikes (2018) suggested a facilitator
cultivates vulnerability when exuding compassion with others. When Quehtzali said, “you were
very empathetic and you would kind of set the tone for us to feel comfortable,” this displays
evidence of how I enacted compassion towards my participants as we engaged in discourse.

72
Moreover, Slayton and Mathis (2010) suggested positive learning conditions “are conditions
where academic and behavioral expectations are established by those with power so that adult
learners understand what is expected of them” (p. 35). In providing the time and place to develop
shared language, as well as model vulnerability, I was able to cultivate learning conditions even
with the power dynamics at play between me and my colleagues. This was critical, because it
allowed for the development of conversational routines and the use of cognitive structures to be
used more authentically. In the section that follows, I contend that conversational routines
supported my colleagues’ growth and capacity for creating meaningful learning opportunities
over the course of our three months together.
Using Conversational Routines to Interrogate Practice
As mentioned in my conceptual framework, conversational routines support the
facilitation of discourse which in turn help educators more closely examine their problems of
practice with their colleagues (Horn & Little, 2010). As such, conversational routines can
support teachers in critically interrogating their practices. I facilitated the use of conversational
routines during check-ins with my colleagues in Sessions 3–8, which supported my participants’
accountability of implementation. These check-ins served as the impetus to discuss their progress
in creating meaningful learning opportunities, and in turn, reflect on their overall instructional
practices. Some of the examples of practice to be presented in this section are not about math
specifically, but about the ways in which my colleagues planned for getting to know their
students through their funds of identity. For the participants, discussing these practices was a
prerequisite for meaningful math learning. Throughout the different cycles, my participants
utilized different conversational routines, specifically the routines of normalizing, specifying,
revising, and generalizing. Table 2 illustrates the number of each routine per cycle.

73
Table 2
Conversational Routine Counts per Cycle
Routine Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
Normalizing 17 7 6
Specifying 1 15 14
Revising 0 4 6
Generalizing 0 15 8
Totals 18 41 34
After systematic analysis of our sessions, I found that using these routines did support my
colleagues’ discussions about practice, moving from more instances of normalizing in Cycle 1,
to more generalizing and specifying routines in Cycles 2 and 3. According to Horn and Little
(2010), normalizing are instances when colleagues offer examples of how a given instance
and/or interaction in the classroom also occurred to them, essentially normalizing or empathizing
with the situation. Specifying involves colleagues asking each other clarifying questions to
examine the situation at hand, as well as commentary to further explore the situation in more
detail (Horn & Little, 2010). During Cycle 1, normalizing occurred on 17 occasions, while
specifying only appeared once. Generalizing and revising were not present at all.
In the example below, which was an interaction also shared above in the modeling
vulnerability section, the conversational routine of normalizing was present. Normalizing
supported my colleagues’ sense making and understanding of what meaningful learning looks
like. This instance occurred during the last session of Cycle 1 and involved my colleagues
sharing a math activity and/or problem of practice for the first time with the group. Here, Daisy
discussed a math worksheet she previously implemented during her academic enrichment hour
planning, and how she felt it went. I then offered a probing question to help her specify her

74
thought process and while she was able to respond to this specifying routine, what followed (in
the second data vignette below) was Quehtzali normalizing Daisy’s situation, rather than further
probing her problem of practice.
J: As you reflected, what are some things you noticed as you like, compared your
handout to the rubric, whether it was a handout or an activity that you’ve done,
things that you might have highlighted as evidence?
D: [OC: looked at Q]. I’ll go first, I reflected on how I gave students this math
worksheet and it was based on the particular unit they were working on. I would
focus on that, but I wouldn’t really connect to their lives and like so much we
were saying I would not let them work with groups like if I did it would be very
minimal. And then I try to get them back to refocus, which I feel now wasn’t fair
because I didn’t really offer enough time for them to work as a group. And I feel
like it felt just kind of like kind of quick. So, I feel some were probably engaging
the other half were you know, distracted or not really interested because it was
just a worksheet so for them it was more like we have to do this. And now that I
think about it I feel like I was very hard on them. I didn’t even explain it or ask if
they needed help. I just kind of assumed like oh, you know how to do it but like I
didn’t really didn’t take the time to just ask like, hey, do you need any help? And
only the ones that would raise their hand I would help but then again, like the
ones that were kind of probably shy wouldn’t raise their hands. And I wouldn’t
end up helping because I wouldn’t ask or do that extra step to ask them if they
needed that extra help to make them feel more comfortable at least to raise their
hand.

75
J: What do you think that stemmed from, like that structure you set up that you just
explained?
D: I just kind of wanted to keep the class in control, like for example like volume. I
didn’t want them to start getting up out of their seats and like I wanted everything
to be okay, make sure we’re working quietly. And like in my head that’s what I
thought was effective. But now when I look back now and I’m saying it out loud
that’s like not … [OC: she laughs, and hesitates] I don’t know, like, I feel like it’s
important to let them talk and even just like to let them know like, hey, I’m here
for you if you have a question or, or else just encouraging them to work with their
group, and instead I was just kinda like enforcing independent voice level zero or
one. And so it was not very engaging, it was more of like, we’re just doing our
work.
J: Almost like compliance right?
D: Yeah, yeah. And the kids feel obligated to finish because if not they were going to
be benched or not go outside … like see, as I am saying this, that isn’t good. [Q
nods and laughs because it seems she has encountered this too] for not doing like
their work, but it’s like they are kids so they’re probably thinking let me finish
this so I can go play and rush through the work [OC: Q and I nodded in the
affirmative].
By asking participants what they “noticed … compared your handout to the rubric” and what
they “might have highlighted as evidence,” I telegraphed the expectation that I wanted to hear a
specific assessment of their practice. In this first part, Daisy shared how the lack of collaboration
between students, support, and personal relevance for students deleteriously influenced her math

76
handout implementation. When Daisy stated, “like see, as I am saying this, that isn’t good,”
Quehtzali nodded in the affirmative and laughed, which illustrated the normalizing routine since
she was agreeing with Daisy. This nod indicated that Quehtzali had also experienced this issue,
which, as presented below, she later confirmed and elaborated on. Additionally, only one
instance of specifying occurred this first cycle, when I offered the probing question, “What do
you think that stemmed from, like that structure you set up that you just explained?” My purpose
was for her to interrogate why she kept students at a given voice level, ultimately preventing
student collaboration. This question supported Daisy in unearthing her thought process of why
she felt the need to keep the students quiet–the notion of control. However, as demonstrated
below, this discussion continued with Quehtzali further normalizing rather than specifying
Daisy’s experience.
Q: I feel like that as well, everything you just said I’m like man I have done that too.
I’ve done it [OC: then she chuckles as she says this, but in a nervous way, her
tone shifts to be higher pitched].
D: Makes me feel better that I am not the only one.
Q: Like I have said, similar to you, if you [OC: you being the students] are not
focused or like I notice they are tapping their pencil and I have said it looks like
you are not trying, you are going to lose play time. But that isn’t good, it
shouldn’t be an incentive to take time for their play time. But sorry you go on.
D: No no I’m done. [OC: And she laughs.]
Q: Well, something similar to you Daisy, I was looking at your scores, and was
similar in some areas. I examined a roll the dice activity right and we had done
that for addition. So then I tried it for multiplication so I was kind of activating

77
knowledge there because they knew what I expected with rolling the dice, and
like understanding that it was one worksheet for two people. Two friends, right.
But I think I never really connected it to their lives. I was even like, you gotta be
at voice level one, you know. And it’s like, I’m expecting them to work like a
team but then I am like voice level one and like to roll the dice gently.
In the final part of this interaction, when Quehtzali replied to Daisy saying, “I feel like that as
well, everything you just said I’m like man I have done that too,” this helped normalize what
Daisy was realizing as she spoke–that her instructional practices did not promote meaningful
learning. This instance of normalizing reassured Daisy that she was not alone when she stated,
“Makes me feel better that I am not the only one.” This moment illustrated a shared teaching
experience encountered by my colleagues regularly, therefore creating a solidarity amongst each
other (Horn & Little, 2010). By Daisy sharing this example, it also allowed Quehtzali to then
discuss how her instructional practices did not all align with meaningful learning components
either, and at times promoted deficit thinking of her students. For example, when Quehtzali
stated:
Like I have said, similar to you, if you [OC: you being the students] are not focused or
like I notice they are tapping their pencil and I have said it looks like you are not trying,
you are going to lose play time. But that isn’t good.
She realized, like Daisy above, how those types of comments do not support student learning. In
addition, another instance of normalizing was when Quehtzali mentioned, “Well something
similar to you Daisy, I was looking at your scores, and was similar in some areas.” Quehtzali
normalized the situation in two ways. First, when stating how her math instruction was not

78
relevant to the students’ lives. And secondly, noting how she restricted student discourse in the
process by limiting their voice level. This was illustrated when Quehtzali said:
But I think I never really connected it to their lives. I was even like, you gotta be at voice
level one, you know. And it’s like, I’m expecting them to work like a team but then I am
like voice level one and like to roll the dice gently.
By having my participants engage in this discourse, it started to bring to the surface the fact that
what they have done is not always aligned with meaningful learning.
In addition to normalizing routines, in the following examples, I will demonstrate how
my colleagues moved from just normalizing their instructional experiences to also generalizing
and specifying. These routines more intentionally supported a continued shift in their practices
towards meaningful learning practices. For example, during Cycle 2, every session included a
check-in opportunity for my colleagues to discuss the implementation of meaningful learning
practices in their academic enrichment lessons. This held my participants accountable for
applying what we discussed to their lessons, and elicited time to reflect on their practices with
their colleagues. As such, it provided more opportunities to enact conversational routines. As
seen in Table 2, throughout Cycle 2, I found only seven occurrences of normalizing, while the
conversational routines of specifying and generalizing increased to 15 each. As explained above,
specifying involves colleagues asking each other clarifying questions to examine the situation at
hand, as well as commentary to further explore the scenario in more detail (Horn & Little, 2010).
This was evident with the probing question above. Generalizing occurs when participants offer
suggestions and/or support on how to better address the problem of practice in relation to
instruction (Horn & Little, 2010). In this next example, Quehtzali was seeking advice on a
writing activity that would support learning more about her students’ funds of identity, to

79
eventually create more meaningful learning opportunities in math for her Latinx students. While
I enacted a generalizing move, Arely and Daisy both engaged interchangeably with generalizing
and specifying moves, as seen below.
Q: So I was thinking of printing out a writing template with a picture box and then
giving them a sentence starter. What do you think about that? Since a lot of them
are drawers, and then like in this blank they could draw. I don’t know, I could
base it on things like what they did over the break, to find out more about their
personal lives. Like, how can I give them a sentence starter, so they understand?
J: What do you all think? Any suggestions or clarifying questions for her?
A: What if you did like an example for them? Like I usually do an example first. I
always want to show the kids something, even if it’s something simple like “I
spent time with my family and went to the park because that is important to us. In
my family, I have two sisters and so on.” You could put, like during fall break, I.
D: This is an example Mr. K did [OC: Daisy pulled out an example that another
afterschool coach had created. It was a colorful visual of sun rays, and in each
section, it has a different category on getting to know the students, very similar to
funds of identity categories, family, hobbies, interests, friends, sports, activities.]
J: Maybe for the coming days this could be something you do with them? [OC:
Quehtzali nodded in what seemed like in the affirmative]
Q: Can I borrow this Daisy?
D: Yeah for sure. So Mr. K and Arely do an example and then the students see and
then they do it their own way. This helps the kids in case they need some
inspiration or like a reference because I know even me, I also need it as an adult.

80
When a teacher tells you something to do in the classroom, you kind of want to be
like, oh how would you like me to do it. So, yeah, I think that’s the same with the
kids.
In the example above, I offered an opportunity for my colleagues to further interrogate
Quehtzali’s practice, when I asked, “What do you all think?” Horn and Little (2010) emphasized
how questions can evoke more information, exploration, and more centered reflection on
problems of practice. However, when asking the second question, “Any suggestions or clarifying
questions for her?,” I enacted the conversational routine of generalizing. This prompted Arely to
offer the question, “What if you did like an example for them?” which narrowed in on a specific
practice that Quehtzali could focus on. However, although I asked this question and it did prompt
Arely’s question, my colleagues focused more on the generalizing move thereafter, in that they
offered the importance of providing examples to support students’ learning and understanding.
This occurred when Daisy shared an example from another colleague, and when Arely provided
an example of how she would model the activity with her students. Daisy even added how
modeling supported her learning as an adult when she stated:
I know even myself, I also need it as an adult. When a teacher tells you something to do
in the classroom, you kind of want to be like, oh how would you like me to do it. So,
yeah, I think that’s the same with the kids.
Worked examples, such as the one discussed in the transcript above, can support the transfer of
skills warranted by educators and reduce cognitive load (Atkinson et al., 2000). They also serve
as a model that shows what the expectation is for students (Schunk, 2020). This worked example
helped contextualize the importance of incorporating them with students since adults also use

81
them to make meaning. Arely then continued to engage in the generalizing routine, by offering
another suggestion to Quehtzali on how to structure her writing activity.
A: I know we did like certain categories, like for the kids you could include like their
favorite movies, sports, friends, or music. I know for the current third graders, it
would be better if you had like categories, just because they need more structure
from what I have seen in class.
Q: Yeah, that makes sense.
J: Yeah so based on what you all have said they may need a little bit more scaffolds?
So then [OC: pointing to model Daisy had] this would be a way to provide it.
A: Maybe even doing less boxes than we have here?
Q: I think having the structure and categories laid out would definitely help, like a
movie, or their favorite character. So, it could be like my favorite movie is.
In this instance, Arely offered two ways to support Quehtzali’s writing activity. First, when
Arely mentioned “I know for the current third graders, it would be better if you had like
categories, just because they need more structure from what I have seen in class,” this
demonstrated Arely’s suggestion of providing more structure for Quehtzali’s students. This
suggestion stemmed from her experience as a third-grade teaching assistant. In addition, Arely
further suggested reducing the amount of information presented. While these are valuable
suggestions, I could have slowed us down during this interaction, and continued offering more
specifying and revising questions, rather than jumping to generalizing. For instance, I could have
asked Quehtzali, “What was the purpose of the activity?” In asking this, we could have discussed
further what her learning goals were, and how it tied to meaningful learning and if it aligned to
the suggestions previously given. I could have also utilized the discussion guide question “What

82
specific ideas on meaningful learning do you plan on addressing?” In doing so, this could have
supported our discussion more specifically towards meaningful learning. However, despite this
missed opportunity, this example provided Quehtzali with the schema of realizing that explicitly
modeling and providing appropriate scaffolds are important in supporting meaningful learning
opportunities, specifically when she stated, “I think having the structure and categories laid out
would definitely help.” Quehtzali enacted these skills in her problem of practice check in during
Cycle 3, seen in the next example.
During Cycle 3, my colleagues had two opportunities to check-in about their practices.
These check-ins involved discussing amongst each other their progress in learning more about
their students as well as creating more meaningful learning experiences. Their growth in turning
towards practice (Horn & Little, 2010) was evident when examining how often revising and
specifying conversational routines were coded. While the number of instances went down for
generalizing, the counts for revising increased to six, and specifying counts totaled 14. While
there was one less occurrence of specifying in Cycle 3, there were only two check-ins, whereas
15 counts resulted across three sessions in Cycle 2. Based on the feedback and discourse that
resulted from the previous session, Quehtzali implemented a relational writing activity to gather
information on her students’ funds of identity. As discussed previously in the conceptual
framework, understanding a students’ funds of identity involves learning more about what
students themselves find meaningful about their own identity and self-understanding (EstebanGuitart & Moll, 2014; Saubich & Esteban-Guitart, 2011). She created a worked example for the
students using her own funds of identity, and then modeled it for them. She brought student work
samples to share during the check-in. Below are two examples where specifying and revising
moves were utilized in order to examine Quehtzali’s activity.

83
Q: So now moving forward into the next semester, I will model the worksheet of
what we are doing. Like the projects I’ve been wanting to kind of copy from you
all. I just haven’t made the slide and had the time to do so. So I do think of those
visuals in that conversation and this [OC: pointing to student work] is what I
would like.
D: How do you think the modeling helped?
Q: The model right? Well by modeling first, and giving them an example of what it
looks like, they’re more willing to do it because otherwise if I’m like, oh, here, do
this, I am not being clear. That’s what I’m trying to work on, I’ve realized. So
yeah, moving forward, I would like to just kind of keep that in mind.
D: I think this is a really great start because you can already tell from this student
work, like the pictures and the writing too, I was looking at the writing. They’re
not writing just on the first line or just one sentence. They seem to be writing
more, I think seeing yours was like ooo okay that’s what she wants. Not
necessarily to copy but more so expectations and using the model to support their
thinking.
In the first line, the conversational move of revising is demonstrated. Revising occurs when an
educator rethinks their problem of practice and/or classroom situation based on the conversation
with colleagues. In this example, this conversation and commentary helps reframe their thinking
around possible causes surrounding the issue (Horn & Little, 2010). When Quehtzali stated, “So
now moving forward into the next semester, I will model the worksheet of what we are doing,”
this illustrated how she had revised her teaching practices to model, and ultimately, better
support her students. Previously, she had not explicitly modeled or provided examples for

84
students before the implementation of an activity. This was evident in Session 4, Cycle 2 when
she shared an example of how she felt students were not motivated to complete the self-portrait
funds of identity activity. This example will be elaborated further in a later section of the
findings because it was a missed opportunity for me to ask more effective specifying questions at
the time. However, when Quehtzali’s colleagues asked her about modeling and provided
examples in the previous session, it helped her rethink her teaching, prompting her to incorporate
worked examples in future lessons.
Furthermore, when Daisy asked, “How do you think the modeling helped?,” this
demonstrated her enactment of the specifying routine, given that she was probing Quehtzali
about how she felt the modeling supported her students. As a result, Quehtzali further elaborated
on the importance of modeling and setting clear expectations for the students, when she stated,
“Well by modeling first, and giving them an example of what it looks like, they’re more willing
to do it because otherwise if I’m like, oh, here, do this, I am not being clear.” This realization
was critical in her understanding of how to enact meaningful learning opportunities for her
students. This discussion continued and is presented below, with four more instances of
specifying routines about her enactment of this funds of identity writing activity.
Q: And then you have a group of kids surrounding you like I need help!
D: Did you notice if less kids were asking for help, or they were coming up like you
mentioned?
Q: Like with relational activities, they each get to tell their own kind of things about
themselves, like their friends, their own family members, like sister or brother. So
like, they’re more likely to stay more engaged, but it’s like yeah, I feel like it
depends on the activity or content.

85
J: How do you think the modeling will help in the future for more math based
content?
Q: I would really love to see them be more self-sufficient but what I’ve noticed is
they get discouraged. Not quickly, but with a challenging problem. And it’s like, I
can’t do this and I want them to try, you know, even if it’s wrong, and I always
tell them, it’s okay to make mistakes. I just want you to try your best. But then I
still have the kids coming up like I need help and it’s problem one. So I need to
find the balance for that. And I think modeling would be helpful for this since
they’ll see an example first.
J: Anything else that you all would like to add or ask about?
D: I just want to say it was great to hear about this, and from your samples you can
already see the difference like with the students as well, because I know you
mentioned in the last sessions they kind of struggled to follow through.
Q: Thank you. Yeah, it’s really cool. I mean, visually you can even see it right there
[OC: Arely was like yeah for sure].
D: Oh, just one more question. Did you put it on the board or did you pass it around?
Like how did you show them?
Q: I have been using the visualizer, like the yellow projector. And then I show them
the example. That’s what I’ve been trying to do now when I model.
When Daisy asked the question (Did you notice if less kids were asking for help, or they were
coming up like you mentioned?), she illustrated the use of a specifying question to explore more
about the problem of practice. Although Quehtzali responded by saying students asked for less
support since the activity carried less of a cognitive load, I then offered another specifying move

86
when I asked, “How do you think the modeling will help in the future for more math based
content?” I offered this question to have her further examine how modeling could support her
math instruction in the future. As a result, she stated, “And I think modeling would be helpful for
this since they’ll see an example first.” This reaffirmed her revision of how her instructional
practice needed modeling in order for the students to be successful. In addition, I primed my
colleagues to further ask any other questions or commentary, to which Daisy then asked, “Did
you put it on the board or did you pass it around? Like how did you show them?” In asking her
this specifying question, it allowed Quehtzali to elaborate what her modeling looked like in
practice.
Besides offering questions to prompt my colleagues to interrogate and support each
other’s instructional practices in conversational routines, I provided my participants with a
discussion guide to cultivate their discourse more purposefully around meaningful learning
practices. Horn and Little (2010) argued the importance of providing a shared frame of reference
in relation to how educators structure their talk towards practice, which involves including
similar structures, ideas and/or notions about teaching. I first introduced this discussion guide
during Session 4, Cycle 2. I modified the guide over time to make it more applicable to our
conversations, and less cognitive overload for my participants. This discussion guide is presented
in Table 3. Before every check-in, I would review the guide, reminding my colleagues of the
different steps. During Step 1, the participant described in detail how they made progress
towards implementation of meaningful learning experiences for their Latinx students, while their
colleagues and I listened. For Step 2, the question, “What connections can you make to their
activity and/or practice?” attempted to elicit normalizing and generalizing routines. The question,
“What specific ideas on meaningful learning did you hear from the presenter?” supported their

87
conversations towards practice with the use of the specifying routine. Lastly, for Step 3, the
question, “How could it be improved in the future if implemented again?” was meant to promote
the revising routine, while the question on providing suggestions supported the facilitation of
generalizing moves.
Table 3
Discussion Guide on Meaningful Learning Activity
Step 1: Describe Step 2: Connect Step 3: Reflections
Presenter:
Describe your
implementation of
meaningful learning
experiences so far.
Colleagues:
What connections can you
make to their activity
and/or practice? What
specific ideas on
meaningful learning did
you hear from the
presenter? (i.e.
activating knowledge,
connection to personal life,
student collaboration
and/or student discourse)
Presenter:
What went well? How
could it be improved
in the future if
implemented again?
Colleagues:
Listen attentively. Take
notes of anything you are
curious about. Ask any
clarifying questions.
Colleagues:
Any affirmations?
Any suggestions?
What evidence of student
learning did you see?

88
In conclusion, as demonstrated with the different examples above, I argued that over the
course of the different cycles, my learners grew in their ability to provide generalizing,
specifying and revising routines while reducing the number of only utilizing normalizing
instances. By enacting conversational routines, my colleagues grew in their understanding and
capacity of what is needed when developing meaningful learning opportunities for their Latinx
students–modeling by using worked examples, scaffolding, opportunities for student
collaboration, and incorporating their students’ funds of identity. Moreover, the facilitation of
these conversational routines leaned on different cognitive structures to support the discussions
towards practice. In the next part, I will elaborate more on cognitive structures that also
supported my participants in making meaning when developing meaningful learning
opportunities in math.
Cognitive Structures
In addition to facilitating conversational routines with my participants, another key way I
enabled the growth of my colleagues on their understanding of meaningful learning in math was
through the use of cognitive structures. As mentioned in the conceptual framework section,
cognitive structures are forms of assistance that provide a tool in which to organize a learner’s
thinking and meaning making process (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Furthermore, cognitive
structures are organized in two ways–either as structures of explanation or structures of cognitive
activity (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). My use of two cognitive structures in particular–meaningful
learning self-reflection rubric and funds of identity table –supported my participants’ capacity in
making sense of how their lessons involved meaningful learning. The rubric served initially as a
structure of explanation for my participants, while the funds of identity chart served as a
structure of cognitive activity. Through systematic analysis of each session, I found 83 instances

89
where my participants leaned on these cognitive structures while engaged in the conversational
routines around meaningful learning. This is illustrated in Table 4. Session 3, 6, and 7 displayed
the most counts, and within each of these sessions, a cognitive structure was provided to support
my participants in their understanding of meaningful learning.
Table 4
Use of Cognitive Structures per Session
Session Totals
1 0
2 2
3 19
4 8
5 5
6 13
7 23
8 10
9 7

90
Prior to introducing these cognitive structures, my participants and I discussed,
collaborated, and developed a definition for meaningful learning in Session 2. When developing
cognitive structures, Tharp and Gallimore (1988) emphasized the importance of collaborative
efforts between a teacher and student in order to shape student learning more effectively.
Therefore, in setting the foundation for the cognitive structure, my participants shared their own
PK–12 meaningful learning experiences, and then engaged in a chalk talk. This chalk talk was
meant to serve as an introduction to the concept of meaningful learning (and also served as an
example of providing direction through shared language as previously discussed). In this chalk
talk, my colleagues read about the different components of meaningful learning. The readings
were summaries drawn from a variety of meaningful learning literature to make it accessible to
my participants. They then responded to the question, “What could this meaningful learning
strategy look like, feel like, or/and sound like during the academic enrichment hour?” After
engaging in this activity, participants discussed their main takeaways. We then collaborated on a
definition for meaningful learning based on this discussion. Figure 4 shows an example of a chart
from the chalk talk.

91
Figure 4
Chalk Talk Meaningful Learning Poster
Note. This chalk talk poster is one of four posters participants read and wrote on during Session
2.

92
As demonstrated in Figure 4, participants began to make sense of how meaningful
learning could take place in their academic enrichment lessons. For example, one of the
participants wrote “Creating questions with numbers that have meaning to them. Ex: How many
family members live at home? How many minutes do you live away from school?” This
illustrated their thinking around creating equations that involve funds of identity components,
such as about family members and their schooling. Additionally, as shown below, the chalk talk
activity helped Quehtzali and Daisy’s sense making around meaningful learning to co-create a
definition. The definition drew from the chalk talk readings that articulated different attributes of
meaningful learning.
J: Is there anything specific from the readings and discussion that supported your
thinking on meaningful learning?
Q: Ooo yeah! I think reading about it today because you have information where the
studies come from, but also discussing it with each other. I’m like, okay, like I see
how it kind of looks in the classroom. So, you know, groups being collaborative,
and then activating prior knowledge. So with division, using multiplication to
activate their prior knowledge on the concept.
D: Also, having them connect to the real world and relating that to math can be very
helpful. Like going back to the connection piece I really liked, this one [OC:
pointed to the student’s personal lives poster] resonated with me a lot. Being able
to connect the curriculum with real life experiences of the children.
This passage illustrated how the reading and discussion supported my participants’ thinking in
creating the definition of meaningful learning. For instance, when Quehtzali stated, “I think
reading about it today because you have information where the studies come from, but also

93
discussing it with each other,” this displayed how the readings and discussion with Daisy guided
her understanding of meaningful learning. She then added how, “groups being collaborative, and
activating prior knowledge,” were components that resonated most with her from the readings in
the chalk talk, showing what her current understanding was. Furthermore, when Daisy said,
“Being about to connect the curriculum with real life experiences of children” this demonstrated
her understanding of bringing in relevant content about students’ lives into the lessons that she
learned from the chalk talk readings. Based on the discourse from this session, I utilized this
discussion to develop different cognitive structures to support my participants’ capacity towards
creating more meaningful learning opportunities. As Tharp and Gallimore (1988) argued,
cognitive structures are developed through both what students know and from different
“instances,” requiring assistance to allow the learners to understand the concept at hand. The two
cognitive structure tools will be discussed below in more detail.
Meaningful Learning Self-Reflection Rubric
Based on the discussion that occurred in Session 2, I introduced the meaningful learning
self-reflection rubric the following session. This rubric was created using Canva, an online
graphic design site, demonstrated in Figure 5. It included the draft definition we discussed and
co-created that was drawn from meaningful learning literature. It also offered an opportunity for
them to answer guiding questions to support how they ranked themselves with each criteria.
Once they reflected, my participants then shared their problem of practice using this reflection as
their guide.

94
Figure 5
Meaningful Learning Self-Reflection Rubric

95
This rubric served as a pivotal cognitive structure that helped my participants reflect on
whether their math activities incorporated meaningful learning components. For example, after
using this rubric for the first time, I asked my participants about what supported their learning for
that day, and they responded with the following:
J: In thinking about the things we did today, is there anything that supported your
learning in particular that helped increase understanding of the meaningful
learning concepts?
Q: [OC: picks up self-reflection rubric] It’s kind of like an assessment for yourself,
right? Like, it’s a tool where you can come back and be like, okay, did I meet all
the standards to make a meaningful learning experience? And these are kind of
like standards, you know, and then like, I was grading that activity, I’m like, well,
[OC: laughs nervously] this doesn’t really have these parts.
D: Yeah, it’s nice to see that because we get to really reflect on our past ways of
planning math we have done, but it’s good because now I feel like these things
will help us like in the present day, with what we are planning.
When I asked the question “is there anything that supported your learning in particular that
helped increase understanding of the meaningful learning concepts?” my goal was to elicit if the
rubric supported their sense making of meaningful learning. Asking this assessment question
also allowed me to see where my learners were in their understanding of the concept of
meaningful learning, and if I needed to make any changes for the next session (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988). When Quehtzali stated, “Like, it’s a tool where you can come back and be
like, okay, did I meet all the standards to make a meaningful learning experience?” it
demonstrated how the rubric shaped her thinking about what makes up a meaningful learning

96
experience. When she said “this doesn’t really have these parts,” it showed how her thinking was
shaped by the concepts in the rubric. This tool served as a means to assist and structure her
thinking. In addition, as Daisy added “we get to really reflect on our past ways of planning math
we have done” this illustrated how the rubric supported her reflection on what planning for
meaningful learning looks like in comparison to what she had previously done. This statement
demonstrates a move towards transformative learning for Daisy. As stated by Mezirow (1991),
transformative learning manifests when a point of view on a topic shifts to a new one and one
takes action on it. As such, evidence of transformative learning was shown since Daisy
developed a new perspective on how her math planning could look moving forward.
During Session 6, my participants utilized this rubric again before discussing their
progress of implementing meaningful learning math lessons. They rated themselves for each
meaningful learning component, and then explained what evidence justified their given ranking.
The scale was as follows: one-not present, two-emerging, and three-actively present. The
individual scores of each participant are displayed in Table 5.
Table 5
Participant Rubric Scores
Activating prior
knowledge
Making it
relevant to
students’ lives
Students
discussing ideas
Student
collaboration
Quehtzali 3 1 2 2
Daisy 3 2 2 1
Arely 3 3 2 2

97
In terms of the personal ratings, I noticed Quehtzali put a three on activating prior
knowledge, a one on making it relevant, and two on students discussing ideas and collaborating
together. Daisy gave herself a three on activating prior knowledge, two on making it relevant,
two on discussing ideas and one on student collaboration. Arely gave herself a three on
activating prior knowledge, two on making it relevant, two on collaborative structures, and and
two on discussing ideas. After they were done assessing themselves, Arely and Daisy shared
their “create your own cafe” project and demonstrated a student work sample. In this assignment,
students worked with a partner to create their own cafe, which involved picking a theme, menu
items, and using that information to develop their own math word problems. The vignette from
the transcript below describes how they presented their student work during the Session 6 checkin:
A: We brought this student work poster, but some also did PowerPoint. So, this was
one option they had. [OC: the student work she brought was very well organized,
it was Disney themed, labeled with the title “Disney Cafe.” It had a menu of food
options with prices, like coffee, chips, cupcakes, and so forth. and they were all
Disney themed. It also had five different word problems, created by the students,
with work shown. Most problems created showed two to three steps. They used
skills of adding, subtracting, and multiplying decimals]
A: And as far as I can see, let’s see what pieces of it that I felt had meaningful
learning. Hmm, well the theme they chose was Disney, since they had special
memories with their family growing up watching movies and going to the park.
Also, each student worked with one partner, and they had to agree on what to
include, so they had to collaborate and split the work. And then as far as the

98
questions on here [OC: pointed to the math problems and written questions on the
poster] they had to come up with their own questions like for number two, they
said Cassie wanted Tinker Bell items because she related to the character growing
up, and then you can see here how they showed us an example of what they did,
how they added it and subtracted. So as far as they were really good at working
together. I think it worked well. As far as presenting they’re a little shy just
because they’re not used to that, but we encouraged everyone to do it since we
told them they would do it in middle school.
As Arely presented her students’ work, she referenced the rubric as she spoke. In this instance,
the rubric served as a cognitive structure by guiding her thinking around how her student work
included meaningful learning pieces. For instance, when Arely stated, “And as far as I can see,
let’s see what pieces of it that I felt had meaningful learning. Hmm, well the theme they chose
was Disney, since they had special memories with their family growing up watching movies and
going to the park,” this demonstrated the criterion of “making it relevant to students’ personal
lives,” seen in Figure 5. Arely also found that the funds of identity component of significant
people and experiences connected to this criterion in the student work (Esteban-Guitart & Moll,
2014). Another meaningful learning component that Arely shared about was student
collaboration when she said, “Also, each student worked with one partner and they had to agree
on what to include, so they had to collaborate and split the work.” According to Tharp and
Gallimore (1988), cognitive structures of explanation support learners in how information is
organized for them. In this case, given the rubric included all the components of meaningful
learning, Arely was able to structure her conversation and sense making around the student work

99
using the rubric to guide her thinking and assessment of the activity. This check-in continues as
Daisy added in how prior knowledge was utilized by students to create this activity.
D: I did just want to add that for prior knowledge [OC: I saw Daisy looking at the
rubric to guide her thinking, so I think having that definition in front also helped
center her learning and discussion on ML] like it was interesting to see their
knowledge of money and like prices. Yeah, because you can see that some were
more realistic, and some would add more money than needed right? So, you get to
see their number sense and then like prior knowledge of adding, multiplying, and
subtracting, and then like relevant to their lives as like, one because it’s a topic
that’s important to them, and then two, they’re kind of in a way budgeting
themselves through like this process of like figuring out the menu. And then some
of them did connect to their personal lives like a lot of them are like their ideas
came from their personal interests or likes from home.
In this instance, Daisy added on to the discussion by describing the prior content knowledge
students had about money and decimal skills. For example, when she stated, “I did just want to
add that for prior knowledge like it was interesting to see their knowledge of money and like
prices,” I noted in my observer comments how she was looking down at the rubric reading her
reflection and pieces of evidence. This demonstrated how she was using the rubric, and
information within it, to anchor her thoughts as she shared. It served as a way to structure her
thinking and assessment of her lesson (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Her sense making in regard to
her students’ work related to the components of meaningful learning we previously discussed in
Session 2. As Ausubel (1968) asserted, meaningful learning involves activating students’ prior
knowledge in order for them to make connections to prior knowledge they have attained. In this

100
case, Daisy witnessed how she got to “see their number sense and then like prior knowledge of
adding, multiplying, and subtracting.” And like Arely, Daisy mentioned that “some of them did
connect to their personal lives like a lot of them are like their ideas came from their personal
interests or likes from home,” showcasing that she also felt students’ made connections with this
activity to their personal lives. Once again, the explanation of meaningful learning on the rubric
provided both participants with a starting point to support the discussion of their students’ work.
During Session 9, I asked my participants to assess themselves one last time using the
meaningful learning self-reflection rubric. As they recorded their responses, I noticed that
Quehtzali gave herself a one on student collaboration and students discussing ideas, and a two on
activating knowledge and making it relevant to students’ personal lives. In the reflection below,
Quehtzali shared how she created a holiday themed multiplication review activity, and how it did
not go as well as planned. As she explained, she referenced the rubric components to discuss
how she did not meet the criteria of meaningful learning.
Q: So, I reflected on one activity that I tried this week. It was creative and was about
reviewing multiplication, where students built a Christmas wreath as they
correctly answered the problems. First I made sure everyone celebrated Christmas
right to make sure I was being inclusive and relevant. After I printed out some
wreaths, the point of the activity was that I was going to put the multiplication
chart and the facts that they struggled to remember and write them on the wreaths.
So my intention was for the ones that they struggled with they would write those
on the ornament, then they get to decorate the ornaments and study them. And so,
at first I was like yeah, it’s gonna work but in reflecting now, it was kind of a flop
because it was like students discussing ideas like one, because they would just

101
say, oh this is hard for me, and I would just pick that one. But then they didn’t go
beyond discussing that. And then student collaboration. I put one on that one as
well, because it was like they didn’t really work together. And then it was a flop
because they just wrote some numbers and then they just spent the rest time
coloring and so I’m like maybe next time I can do a collaborative project but
execute it better with discussions and math connections because then at the end it
just felt like they were coloring, you know? [OC: should have probed here about
the execution piece]
As demonstrated above, Quehtzali used the rubric to reflect how her lesson did not execute
components of meaningful learning as she initially planned. For example, when she stated:
It was kind of a flop because it was like students discussing ideas like one, because they
would just say, oh this is hard for me, and I would just pick that one. But then they didn’t
go beyond discussing that.
This demonstrated her awareness that her students did not engage with the criterion of
collaboration as anticipated. Furthermore, as she mentioned, “And then student collaboration. I
put one on that one, as well, because it was like they didn’t really work together,” she also
noticed how her activity did not elicit opportunities for the criterion of student collaboration. In
both instances, Quehtzali used her reflection from the rubric to structure her thinking about
meaningful learning. Each component from the rubric assisted her in reflecting on the activity
she had created. As Tharp and Gallimore (1988) emphasized, cognitive structuring refers “to a
provision of structure for thinking and acting” (p. 63). Based on this, the rubric supported
Quehtzali in more intentionally reflecting on her lesson. However, as shown in my observer’s
comment above, I missed the opportunity to probe and interrogate her practice further.

102
After Quehtzali finished sharing, Arely and Daisy shared the new stadium math project
they were creating. I observed that Daisy and Arely gave themselves a one for activating prior
knowledge, a two for the categories of students discussing ideas and collaboration, and a three
for making it relevant to students’ personal lives.
A: I was telling Daisy, I think I need help with introducing the math concept in the
project, which [OC: she paused to point to the activating prior knowledge section
on the rubric] connects to this piece. Because I know that they’re getting excited
about creating a stadium, I saw from the last activity we did [OC: The funds of
identity student reflection from Session 7] a lot of them like to play and watch
sports. They were like oh my god, we get to build it. But like, I’m also trying to
incorporate math in it. So, I’m also like, telling them like okay, guys, like yes, it’s
a stadium like what we’re building but also like, we have money and we’re gonna
give you a certain amount of money to budget and make word problems with.
Daisy is making her stadium and questions to set an example for the kids. So, I
think just like going off of that and like showing them examples when they can
get the idea like, hey, we don’t have that much money, you have to spend certain
money on things like merchandise, food, and tickets. So I think that’s where I’m
struggling. [OC: important to note how they are using a model]
D: I know I shouldn’t but since I’m really excited about it, I’m gonna work on the
model over the weekend. Like how to organize it so they can see a model. I am
going to continue collaborating with Arely and Alex [OC: another colleague who
works in the after-school program] so we are on the same page.

103
In this example, Arely discussed how she needed support with activating students’ prior content
knowledge in the stadium project she and Daisy were developing. When she stated, “I think I
need help with introducing the math concept in the project, which [OC: she paused to point to the
activating prior knowledge section on the rubric] connects to this piece,” this illustrated how the
rubric prompted her to reflect on the pieces she felt her meaningful learning math project needed.
Once again, the rubric served as a way to structure her thinking and sense making around the
future implementation of her stadium math project in connection to meaningful learning.
Daisy later shared how she was creating a model to show students what their project
could look like to further support student thinking. She continued her discussion below based on
her main takeaways of the study, sharing what she felt she learned.
D: But I was gonna say beyond this project though I feel more equipped after these
sessions like I feel more like a better understanding now like to implement more
meaningful opportunities for the kids that are more relevant to their lives through
their math. Like being able to still focus on what they are learning, you know, but
also keeping in mind their personal interests, identity, and things important to
them. Like, that’s something I will be taking away from these sessions for forever
so I think that after yeah, maybe even if we can get extra copies of this handout?
[OC: referring to self-reflection rubric]
Q: Well definitely, I think the concepts we were introduced to because like Daisy
was saying, I have not heard of some of these things like funds of identity or even
last week, like how to group students and like everything has been knowledge,
you know, and once you have new information, you got to form new opinions and
stuff. So, like the way I have been carrying myself ever since we started this study

104
is like, okay, like, where am I not meeting the kids’ needs? You know, and so I
feel like I’ve started accommodating to things that I’m observing that the kids
need. Also like an awareness of myself and actions, like maybe I’m just giving
too much information at once, or too many worksheets at a time, or didn’t explain
it well, you know, and how can I make it more meaningful for them? Like it’s
kind of flipped my implementation of activities. So, it’s like good now I have
these ideas on my mind [OC: pointing to self-assessment rubric], like activating
prior knowledge, am I using pieces they know? Or am I meeting them where they
are at, so they don’t shut down and put their head down if it’s too hard [OC: I
think here she was alluding to ZPD]. So, it’s all been good, you know,
knowledge.
In these final excerpts, Daisy and Quehtzali shared how the study had supported their thinking
around meaningful learning in math for their students, and they pointed to the rubric specifically
as one such support. For example, when Daisy stated, “Like being able to still focus on what they
are learning, you know, but also keeping in mind their personal interests, identity, and things
important to them” this showed how the component of using students’ funds of identity and
personal interests really resonated with her for future planning. Moreover, when she asked,
“maybe even if we can get extra copies of this handout? [OC: referring to reflection rubric
assessment]” this demonstrated that she found value in using the rubric during this study and
wanted to continue using it in her future practice. This further shows how the rubric supported
my participants in building their capacity to create lessons with different components that make
up meaningful learning. Additionally, Quehtzali also demonstrated a move towards
transformative learning in this session when she stated, “everything has been knowledge, you

105
know, and once you have new information, you got to form new opinions and stuff.” Her naming
the formation of new opinions through participation in the study echoes what Mezirow (1991)
argued about transformative learning. Specifically, he argued that transformative learning
involves making a “decision to negate an old perspective in favor of a new one or to make a
synthesis of old and new” (p. 161). These new opinions formed through the support of cognitive
structures. Like Daisy, Quehtzali also shared how the rubric supported her thinking in planning
more meaningful lessons, when she said, “So it’s like good now I have these ideas on my mind
[OC: pointing to self-reflection rubric], like activating prior knowledge, am I using pieces they
know?” By referencing the rubric, it further displayed how her sense making about meaningful
learning was supported by this cognitive structure.
In conclusion, the use of the meaningful learning self-reflection rubric created more
awareness around which criteria they could have more intentionally included in their lesson
plans. It also supported the participants in thinking about their practice and implementation of
meaningful learning lessons.
Funds of Identity Table and Reflection
In this next section, I will discuss another cognitive structure, the funds of identity table.
This chart supported my participants’ thinking and sense making around how well they knew
their students, using funds of identity as a lens. In Session 6, all my participants mentioned
needing more time to not only plan their lessons, but also explore model lessons. Based on this, I
provided my participants with more time to explore math resources with meaningful learning
components for Session 7 instead of moving on to math discourse. But first, I had my
participants evaluate what they knew about their students’ funds of identity to more intentionally
plan their upcoming lessons. Using this information, they could identify common features and

106
identity markers amongst their students. In doing so, this information could help them plan
lessons more effectively in combination with the meaningful learning resources they also
explored. When presenting the student funds of identity table, I asked participants to reread the
different components of funds of identity, which I included in the meeting agenda. Table 6
displays the chart they re-read prior to engaging in the reflection activity.
Table 6
Types of Funds of Identity Table
Type Definition Examples
Geographical Any reference to an area such
as a river, a landscape, a
mountain, a town, a city,
or a nation
Canadian, Georgian,
Athenian, Appalachian
Practical Significant activities for a
person such as a sport,
music, or work
Basketball, guitarist,
drummer, barista
Cultural Artifacts such as flags or
religious symbols
Star of David, Sikh Khanda,
cross
Social Relevant people Partner, family members,
friends
Institutional Any social institution such as
references to marriage or
to a specific belief system.
Baptist, Sunni, university
student, marriage
Note. Adapted from “Funds of Identity and Humanizing Research as a Means of Combating
Deficit Perspectives of Homelessness in the Middle Grade,” by M. Moulton, 2018, Education
Sciences, 8(172), p. 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040172

107
After re-reading this table, I modeled for my participants how to complete the student
funds of identity reflection activity. For this activity, my participants were provided their class
roster, the funds of identity table, and asked to reflect on which funds of identity they knew
about each student. After completing this, I asked them to observe what features and identity
markers their students had in common. I then prompted them to brainstorm how they could
create an upcoming lesson with these new observations and the model lessons they just explored.
This table is an example of a cognitive structure activity given the tool helped them make
meaning and structure their thinking around how well they knew their students. According to
Tharp and Gallimore (1988), structures for cognitive activity involve providing learners with
structures to apply in a given situation or activity. In this case, the table served as a tool to have
my colleagues reflect on how well they knew each student.
As mentioned previously in the establishing learning conditions as an adaptive leader
section, I modeled how to fill out the reflection while also modeling vulnerability when sharing
about two students. While I knew a lot about one student’s funds of identity, I did not know as
much about the other. I reflected aloud why I did not and how my goal was to find ways to learn
more about this other student. The purpose in showcasing this was to model that even someone
in my position and experience can struggle with not knowing everything about their students.
However, in creating this awareness for myself, I also shared what my next steps were to find out
more about this student. In naming this, I told them that if they found themselves in this
predicament, to use this space for reflection on why that was, and what they could do moving
forward to get to know the student. The example below shows how the funds of identity table
served as a cognitive structuring activity, as Daisy and Arely were brainstorming simultaneously
what they knew about their students.

108
J: As you fill this out, think back to our conversation on funds of identity, like what
are the social institutions and important people in their life right? Think of the
social funds of identity, their friends, family members, and so forth. Maybe if
they’re really into religion.
D: Oh yeah, Sandy is really into religion. Like that’s her thing, like she holds bible
studies. She actually was holding a Bible during lunch today.
A: I didn’t know she was that religious.
J: So things like that would be a part of her institutional funds of identity, since it is
religion.
D: [to Arely] Like right off the bat I’m thinking of how close Anthony is to his sister
[OC: Arely nodded and said yeah]
A: Alex really loves Minecraft. I saw that with the cafe project. He also is so smart.
[OC: the cafe project was part of their work with meaningful learning]
D: And Jose, he is also from San Diego and dad works at Disney. So he’s definitely a
Disney kid and has a Disney dad [OC: laughs both in unison, Daisy and Arely].
A: Yes, he is. How about Jenny? Have you ever heard her say during the after school
program that she says I don’t want to do the girly girl stuff. I want to do sports
and stuff.
D: Yes Jenny I know she loves running. She was in Girls on the Run last year, but
couldn’t this year. I think she also does karate and soccer. There’s a soccer ball on
her water bottle.
In the example above, Daisy and Arely discussed different funds of identity their students
possessed. When I posed the question “like what are the social institutions and important people

109
in their life right?” Daisy shared what she knew about Sandy’s religious practices, which gave
insight into this student’s institutional funds of identity. In describing this, Arely discovered
something new about her student, as demonstrated by her comment “I didn’t know she was that
religious.” Both participants also highlighted how family was important for students, such as
“how close Anthony is to his sister” and Jose’s “Disney dad.” These connect back to their
students’ social funds of identity, which includes family members (Esteban-Guitart & Moll,
2014). They also hinted in this conversation of the practical funds of identity mentioning Jenny’s
love for sports and how Alex enjoyed the video game Minecraft. However, I missed an
opportunity to probe more when Arely commented, “He also is so smart.” In this instance, I
could have used the conversational routine of specifying to interrogate her comment further, and
asked why she assumed that was a funds of identity trait (when it is not). However, overall, by
using the funds of identity table, this shaped my participants’ thinking about what funds of
identity concepts relate to their students. It brought awareness around their students’ funds of
identity. As the conversation continued, they realized how they did not know as much about
another student.
A: How about Rebecca? She’s very chatty.
D: And also an artist [OC: appreciated her reframing to the positive here]
A: Yes, very true, she’s also in cheer. And then her brother, he’s really one that I am
like, he is so quiet, so I haven’t talked to him.
D: He does his schoolwork. He’s also gotten better at math too; I have noticed as he
does his homework.

110
A: I know that this month when he was sitting next to Paul I heard him talk a lot
more but other than that, like I would not hear him much so don’t know as much
about him.
In this example, Arely and Daisy mentioned a male student that they did not know as much
about. While they could name a few academic points such as “he’s gotten better at math” and “he
does his homework,” they realized they could not name any specific funds of identity about him.
As Arely said, “I would not hear him much so don’t know as much about him.” Therefore, this
cognitive structuring created an awareness for them to learn more about this student to inform
their future planning. As they continued brainstorming, I observed that Quehtzali was done, so
wanted to probe more about what she came across in doing this activity.
J: As you were looking over your piece, was there anything for you? Was there
anything that stood out to you? Like, oh, like I know that student really well or
maybe I don’t?
Q: There are some where I am like, I know too much about them, but then there were
like eight or nine of them where I knew a little bit of things about them, like just
school stuff, but I’m like, I don’t know more, you know? Yeah. You know, I
know who their parents are because when they pick them up, or like I know things
about Tim, like I know Cam is his brother. And he likes to play soccer when it is
free after school, but other than that, I don’t know much about him.
J: So, in thinking about trends, do you see any trends of the things you do know
about the kids, or any similar things?
Q: So some things that stand out to me are the different clubs they do, like you know,
soccer club, or drawing, just like I know, because I’ve seen them kind of where

111
they head off or I see them when it’s like free choice in our class like an after
school like, oh, you guys get to choose what you want to do. They prefer drawing
like I know, things like that, but like, I don’t know what the pattern is with the
ones I don’t have a lot of information for.
J: Is there anything you think you can do to find out more information? From here to
the next couple of weeks to get to know those students better, to in turn plan more
meaningful lessons for them?
Q: So I was thinking, maybe today I skip math well, like not skip it, but take time to
really get to know these students more, like maybe I can do today like a story like
writing? What did you do for fall break with your family or your loved ones?
J: Yes for sure, so then you can get to know them a little bit more?
Q: So do you think this is a good idea to do like getting to know you activities for
now instead? Because I am like, man this is a lot of kids I don’t know [OC: laughs
nervously; shows socializing knower because wants my approval]
Similar to the vignette above, Quehtzali realized that she did not know her students as well as she
thought she did after this activity. When Quehtzali stated, “there were like eight or nine of them
where I knew a little bit of things about them, like just school stuff” this served as a disorienting
dilemma for her, in that she thought she knew more funds of identity attributes than she could
list. Instead, she knew mainly academic pieces about her students. A disorienting dilemma
occurs when a person encounters a situation that does not fit into their current beliefs, values,
and/or ideals (Wergin, 2020). In this case, she became disorientated by the number of students
for whom she could not name any funds of identity characteristics. While disorienting dilemmas
can sometimes go unaddressed, in this particular instance, this cognitive activity served as a

112
constructive disorientation and supported her sense making around what she really knew of her
students. Given this newfound awareness, Quehtzali then asked “maybe today I skip math well,
like not skip it, but take time to really get to know these students more, like maybe I can do today
like a story like writing? What did you do for fall break with your family or your loved ones?”
She took immediate action, in that using this information, planned a relational writing activity for
the students and presented her student work during Session 8, described previously in the
conversational routines section. Therefore, this activity, using the funds of identity table as a
form of assistance, served to move her practice towards the creation of more meaningful learning
opportunities for her students.
All in all, cognitive structuring served as a tool to support my participants’ thinking
around how they create meaningful learning experiences for their Latinx students. The
meaningful learning self-reflection rubric guided their explanations of how well they included
key characteristics of meaningful learning, while the funds of identity table enabled my
colleagues to reflect how well they knew their students, therefore planning more meaningful
lessons with their identities in mind. In the following section, I will discuss how my ability to be
present also supported my participants’ in building their capacity to create meaningful learning
opportunities for their Latinx students.
The Importance of Presence
As a teacher educator, presence is an important skill to enact. Rodgers (2002) argued how
the importance of teachers “learning to see” involves them being present to enact andragogical
moves that better meet their learners’ needs. Specifically, presence “includes a way of acting
within it whereby the action that one takes comes out of one’s sensitivity to the flow of events”
(p. 235). Taking this into account, what I learned in this study was that I was capable as a teacher

113
educator to be present, slow down, and meet my learners where they were. Rodgers (2002) also
noted how not being present often results as a consequence of covering content. As discussed
previously in my context and background section, the pressures of teaching to the test in order to
have students perform academically is something I have been complicit in. Therefore, my
intention was not to replicate these same actions as a facilitator of adults in this study. In the
following vignettes, I will demonstrate how my presence supported my enactment of different
instructional adjustments to better attend to my learners’ needs.
As discussed in the establishing learning conditions as an adaptive leader section, my
participants and I co-constructed norms. To accomplish this, my colleagues engaged in readings
around brave space principles, which included controversy with civility, clarifying
conversations, and discussing what respect looks like for everyone (Arao & Clemens, 2013).
While at the onset of my study I strove to work our group towards a brave space, I saw in time
that the need for these principles were not as proximal. However, at the time, my participants
wanted to include “fostering a brave space as a norm,” because they were intrigued by the idea
and wanted more clarity around the concept. This was evident in Session 1 and 2 anonymous
feedback surveys, where I received the following feedback: “I would like to know more about
brave space and how we can implement it” and “One question is about brave space. I know we
talked in depth and shared examples but I’m wondering how this further looks in practice. Can
we go over it again?” Given these two pieces of feedback, I decided to revisit the concept of
brave space weekly using a different graphic or quote to help my participants make sense of the
concept. Starting Session 3 onward, I added a brave space graphic to support the participants’
understanding each week. This is illustrated in Figure 6.

114
Figure 6
Session 3 Meeting Agenda

115
Although not originally in my action plan, I decided to revisit the idea of brave space
weekly to continue the groups’ sense making around the concept. Had I ignored the feedback, I
would have just been “covering content,” as Rodgers (2002) emphasized often happens when
educators try to rush through content rather than attend to authentic student learning. By
spiraling the concept of brave space each week, I was present to my learners’ needs of wanting to
“know more about brave space” and “how this further looks in practice” given it was a part of
our whole group norms. Additionally, with each brave space graphic, I also included an
assistance question “How does this visual support your understanding of brave space?” to
prompt their thinking each week. This question is also seen in Figure 6. These conversations
each week helped nurture a strong holding environment since my colleagues and I brought in
personal issues or situations where brave space was needed, but not always present.
Another moment where I demonstrated presence as a facilitator occurred during Session
4. In this session, I first introduced a discussion guide to promote conversational routines about
meaningful learning with my participants. As I went over it, I noticed some hesitation from my
participants, which I noted down in my jottings and wrote in a reflective memo, displayed below.
Another thing I tried to implement based on my out-of-the-field analysis was more
structured conversational routines. As I was reading it, I observed my participants’ body
language and faces looking visibly overwhelmed (scrunching of face and blank stare),
like kind of like wait, what is she saying? I wondered why this was. Was I too top down?
Or was this maybe outside of their PZPD? Or it could have been something they haven’t
seen before?
When I stated, “I wondered why this was. Was I too top down? Or was this maybe outside their
PZPD?” I was reflecting on my actions and wondering if I was meeting my learners’ needs. My

116
dissertation chair probed further in our weekly check-ins, and suggested I ask my participants for
more insight. Following my meeting with my dissertation chair, who served as my peer reviewer
during this study, I informally checked in with my participants 1:1 before the next session. I
showed them Table 7 again, asking them for concrete feedback, given what I had noticed in their
reactions during the session.
Table 7
Original Discussion Guide on Meaningful Learning
Step 1: See and describe Step 2: Analyze Step 3: Reflections
Presenter:
Describe in detail
meaningful learning
activity and
implementation.
Colleagues:
Listen attentively, take
notes of anything you
are curious about, and
ask any clarifying
questions you may have.
Consider the power
dynamics presented.
Consider any
assumptions being
made, and how they
reproduce dominant
ideas.
Colleagues:
What connections can you
make to their activity
and/or practice?
What specific ideas on
meaningful learning did
you hear from the
presenter? (i.e. activating
knowledge, connection
to personal life, student
collaboration and/or
student discourse) What
other perspectives and/or
beliefs could be
considered on what was
presented?
Presenter:
What went well?
How could it be improved
in the future if
implemented again?
What evidence of student
learning did you see
and/or hear?
Colleagues:
Any affirmations?
Any suggestions?
What evidence of student
learning did you see
and/or hear?
Note. This is the original discussion guide before it was modified.

117
Two of them admitted that the text was overwhelming. They mentioned if there was less
text, it would be easier to follow. The other participant mentioned that since this was new
content, it would be helpful to break it down further. Taking this feedback, I adjusted the
discussion guide for the following sessions, as illustrated in Table 3.
When making adjustments, I focused on keeping the questions and/or prompts that
connected to the conversational routines of normalizing, specifying, revising, and generalizing at
the forefront. Therefore, I removed the prompts that dealt with power dynamics, assumptions,
and other perspectives given the focus of our work. Being present to my participants’ feedback
and needs allowed me to adjust the discussion guide to better support their learning for future
sessions. Rodgers (2002) asserted the importance of being “learner centered, where a teacher
observes what the learner is doing and responds in a way that serves the continuity of that
learning” (p. 236). By being present to my participants as I shared the discussion guide, and then
asking for their feedback, I saw an increase during Cycle 2 and 3 in specifying and generalizing
moves as reflected in Table 2. This is evident of the continuous learning that occurred.
Another moment of being present to my colleagues’ learning needs came in the final
cycle. Prior to the onset of this study, my action plan dedicated Cycle 3 to addressing the
meaningful learning component of math discourse, as did my research question. Table 8 displays
my Cycle 3 learning goals at the beginning of my study.

118
Table 8
Original Cycle 3 Action Plan Overview
Cycle 3 - Exploring Math Discourse and How to Use it
Setting: weekly 1-hour meetings (3 weeks)
Session 7: Participants will be
able to explain how math
discourse can support our
Latinx students during the
academic enrichment hour.
Session 8: Participants
will be able to develop an
academic enrichment hour
lesson that includes math
discourse strategies.
Session 9: Participants
will be able to assess
their use of math
discourse in their
lessons.
During Session 6, the last meeting before entering my second in-the-field analysis week,
I realized that my participants needed more time for planning their lessons, particularly using the
funds of identity lens. As I was listening to them share during our check-in, I heard each of the
participants say a version of “If I had more time” or “I need more time to dig into this.” I further
identified this during my Session 6 reflective memo below.
As the second person mentioned this, I had this realization like shoot, I’m not giving
them enough time to plan and flesh out ideas in this space. I’m doing exactly what we’ve
talked about in class about not allocating enough time to process their learning and
create. Therefore, this upcoming session, although not in my original action plan, I am
allotting a session to slow down, and give them more time to plan. I may spend 10–15
minutes modeling the lesson, being explicit on how to create and pace it, and then
provide them the rest of the 45 mins or so to plan and collaborate.
In the reflection above, my presence in this session allowed me to realize that I was not giving
my colleagues enough time to plan for meaningful learning lessons. This is evident when I
stated, “I’m not giving them enough time to plan and flesh out ideas in this space. I’m doing

119
exactly what we’ve talked about in class about not allocating enough time to process their
learning.” By being present in this moment, I had more awareness of how the following cycle’s
events should flow (Rodgers, 2002). Therefore, better attending to the needs of my colleagues’
learning. By recognizing that I over planned and adjusting to their needs, I demonstrated my
ability to use presence to ensure I was meeting my colleagues’ ZTPD (Warford, 2011). While I
did not get to answer my initial research question in its entirety, namely, to engage in discussion
about how to use math discourse, the fact that I was present and slowed down to give my
participants more time better met their needs. This is what reflective practitioners should do.
In conclusion, my presence as an adult educator played an important role in my
facilitation and enactment of andragogical moves. While I was present to my learners in the
examples above, I also had moments in my practice where I missed opportunities to further their
learning. These moments will be discussed more in detail in the following section.
Questioning as a Missed Opportunity
A short-term outcome of my study was to facilitate transformative learning moments that
would support my participants’ planning of meaningful learning opportunities. In this section, I
will detail a missed opportunity that, at times, hindered this short-term goal. As mentioned
previously in my conceptual framework, I planned to use modeling, conversational routines, and
questioning to support my colleagues’ growth in this study. While I was able to make progress
with modeling vulnerability, enacting conversational routines, and providing cognitive
structures, I did not see the same results with my use of questioning. While I attempted
questioning in each session, in hindsight, I could have asked more effective assistance and
assessment questions to support my participants’ interrogation of their lessons and instructional
practices. In a learning environment, questioning is a powerful means of assistance to support

120
learners when used strategically (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Two types of questioning I had
intended to use were assistance and assessment. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) argued that
assistance questions support learners in prompting what prior knowledge they have to support
where the learner may not get on their own. Assessment questions, on the other hand, are meant
to support a facilitator in understanding where their learners are. In both cases, using open ended
questioning techniques is more effective when attempting to engage the learner more deeply.
Therefore, asking more close-ended assistance and assessment questions ultimately hindered my
participants in two ways. First, from experiencing more moments of grappling critically about
their practice and second, engaging in less moments of transformative learning.
Prior to the onset of this study, my goal was to ask assistance and assessment questions to
support my colleagues towards transformative learning moments. My intent was that by asking
assistance and assessment questions, I would ultimately build their capacity to consistently create
meaningful learning experiences in math for their Latinx students. As mentioned above, I
realized there was a difference between closed and open-ended questions and the level of depth
each type prompted. And while I asked assessment questions, the section that follows focuses on
assistance questions. Table 9 presents counts of different kinds of assistance questions I asked in
each of the action research cycles.
Table 9
Assistance Questions per Cycle
Assistance questions
Closed Open
Cycle 1 7 8
Cycle 2 10 6
Cycle 3 11 10
Totals 28 24

121
However, after engaging in a systematic analysis of the sessions, Table 9 demonstrates
that I did not consistently ask open-ended assistance questions throughout my study. I asked 28
closed-ended assistance questions, and only 24 open-ended assistance questions. While I did ask
one more open-ended assistance question during Cycle 1, the other two cycles I used more
closed-ended questions. By asking more closed-ended questions, I missed out on gathering more
detailed information from my participants, especially when the question yielded a yes or no
response (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Asking yes or no questions can often provide little or no
information and will often just be answered that way by the participant (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Additionally, this impeded their learning process, in that by asking a closed ended, yes or
no question, I was unable to support a more critical interrogation of their practice.
I also missed opportunities to probe after my participants gave a response to my initial
question, and therefore I missed a chance to follow up on their thinking and learning. Probing
offers the opportunity to ask for more information, clarify something said, and/or ask for
examples (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Seidman, 2013). Probing can lead to development of
transformative learning opportunities given that my learners could have had a chance to
reexamine their practice more closely. Figure 7 showcases probing questions that I had in my
jotting’s notebook and in front of me during each session. Unfortunately, I failed to use these
probes consistently even though I had them with me as a reminder. As such, I will provide some
vignettes below that illustrate the types of questions I asked as well as missed opportunities to
further probe and elicit transformative learning moments.

122
Figure 7
Probing Questions in Jottings Notebook
The first example of a missed opportunity to ask probing questions was in Cycle 2,
Session 4. We were in the check-in segment of the meeting, where my participants were sharing
about their current implementation practices of meaningful learning. In the example below,
Arely was sharing her enactment of the “create your own cafe” project with her students,
particularly how they were understanding the math concepts. After she shared, I missed an
opportunity to probe and offer an assistance question to have her further examine why she felt
her students understood the content more.
A: Like, that’s something they’re really thinking about, like putting their own twist to
it. And they’re actually getting more out of it now, they’re getting the math more.
And like before they were just like, reading the problems quickly, and just doing

123
it fast. And they wanted to just finish quickly and now they’re actually like
getting into the math content, and enjoying it, and then like, this week, they got
happy because they were like, well, we want to keep working on the project. I’m
like, Yeah, you guys are gonna work on it until Friday like, I was like even if you
don’t finish this week, you can still work on it next week.
J: So you’re noticing engagement?
A: Yeah, definitely.
In the vignette above, when I asked, “So you’re noticing engagement?” this closed-ended, yes-no
question unfortunately was a missed opportunity to utilize the specifying move (Horn & Little,
2010) as an assistance question to find out more about her project implementation. First, I could
have probed more by what Arely meant by “putting their own twist” on it. As shown in Table 3
in the using conversational routines to interrogate practice section, I could have asked, “I noticed
you said the kids put their own twist on it. What specific ideas on meaningful learning did you
hear or see?” In asking this question, “more detailed and descriptive data, even stories about the
phenomenon” could have emerged (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 120). In eliciting more details
about Arely’s observations, I could have then offered another assistance question to continue a
deeper examination of her practice. Moreover, I also could have probed why she felt students
were understanding the content more, by asking, “What examples or evidence do you have that
students are actually getting the math content more?” A version of this question is also in Table
3, under “Step 3: Reflections.” In doing so, this could have evoked specific stories about what
her students said or did, and then we could have tied it back to the components of meaningful
learning from the rubric.

124
Another instance where I used closed-ended questioning that prevented one of my
colleagues from unearthing their assumptions in their practice was during Session 5. During the
check-in segment, my participants were sharing their progress on creating meaningful learning
math lessons and/or implementing an FoI strategy to learn more about their Latinx students. In
the example below, I primed Quehtzali to share more about the self-portrait FoI strategy she
implemented after we read and discussed it in Session 4. A self-portrait is an illustrative FoI
strategy where students draw a picture of themselves, as well as include any important people or
things in their life at the time the picture is drawn (Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014).
Q: Yeah, and then outside I told them they could show their interests, their likes,
right but the other half of your face would be what they looked like and like, they
would ask, how many do I have to do, like, I was having a struggle sort of
encouraging them. And I told them I guess I want to get to know you more, you
know, tell me what’s important to you. And I tried to do an example but they’re
trying to find the limit like how many pictures or persons do I have to draw on the
outside. And they mentioned they rather draw characters around the figure. [OC:
Daisy and Quehtzali laugh, and Arely smiles too, you can tell Quehtzali felt a
little flustered as she was sharing about this experience, based on the tone of her
voice]
J: Do they like those characters?
Q: Well, kind of, like one student in particular, just wanted to draw sonic, and I was
like it has to be what you look like in the mirror right? And he drew sonic or like
this superhero thing on this side. So, I don’t know, I’m kind of having a little bit
of a struggle that day to like, encourage them to do it and take initiative.

125
J: Do they typically like the drawing piece of it? Or do you think it was something
else that may have turned them off?
Q: They do like more creativity, creativity, like more than telling me about
themselves? They like to create characters, right?
In this instance, I asked two closed-ended questions that framed better, could have elicited an
unearthing of Quehtzali’s assumptions of why her students were not engaging in the activity as
she had hoped. For example, when I asked, “Do they like those characters?” I asked a closedended, yes-no question rather than an open-ended question that could have probed at her thought
process. Instead, I could have used a probing question from Figure 7, and have asked, “I noticed
you seem reserved about them drawing characters. Can you tell me more about why that is?”
With this modification, I could have gathered more concrete data as to why she was feeling
flustered about the implementation of this activity. Asking experience and behavior questions
like the latter can provide more information into a person’s behaviors or actions taken (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016), which was a missed opportunity here to cultivate a transformative learning
moment. Furthermore, when Quehtzali stated, “I’m kind of having a little bit of a struggle that
day to like, encourage them to do it and take initiative,” I missed another opportunity to probe
further as to why she felt that way, and what expectations she had for the students. Instead, I
asked another closed-ended, leading question, and made an assumption when asking, “do you
think it was something else that may have turned them off?” I assumed the students were turned
off by the drawing or characters. My classroom teacher bias and positionality came in, projecting
my own experiences onto her. Instead, I should have paused, referenced the probing questions in
my notebook to ask a more effective assistance question. For instance, I could have asked her
more about what criteria she had for the students when working on the self-portrait or if she had

126
modeled the activity first. With this new understanding, if facilitating a session like this in the
future, I would focus on pausing and asking more effective probing questions in the moment.
Immediately after this session, I wrote a reflective memo, and while writing it, I became
disoriented with my struggle to ask effective probing questions. This disorientation continued the
following day, during our USC concentration coursework class, where my professors and peers
discussed how questioning could be used as an effective form of assistance. I had a moment
when I wondered–am I doing this right? When sharing this epiphany, alongside the Session 5
transcript and reflective memo with my dissertation chair, she encouraged me to write a critical
reflection to explore what led to my disorientation. According to Wergin (2020), transformative
learning is “most powerful when disorientation is followed by dialogue with one or more other
people” (p. 88). This conversation and dialogue with my dissertation chair and USC classmates
served as an impetus to writing my critical reflection, and unearthing some of my assumptions,
as evidenced below:
I had this weird feeling in my stomach. I’m not sure if I’m attending to the types
of questions I am asking in this way. I really struggled with this feeling when I got home
and in the coming days, more so not because of how my sessions were going but
something more personal (like my competence as a facilitator and ability to ask effective
questions). Since I was a kid, the experiences around me and how I grew up, have
informed my thinking on how I should be the best at everything. Work hard, do your
best, but your best should be better than everyone, as if it was a comparison game. I
internalized this through my familial structure, as the oldest daughter of Mexican
immigrants who have the bootstrap mentality embedded, and that I internalized to a
certain extent. It was internalized through my participation in sports and academics, and

127
wanting to be the best on the soccer field, tennis team, academic clubs, and so forth. I
have tried to work through it, but it always comes creeping back whenever I start a new
activity or learn something new. Like the fear of sucking is something I don’t want, and
as we were in class that day, I was like mentally, Jennifer, you’re sucking at questioning
based on this discussion right now. This disorientating feeling also comes from my
perfectionism, something I have been battling since I was a kid as well. This societal
expectation, embedded in White supremacy, of wanting to be the best at everything and
not showing vulnerability or weakness since that’s “the weak thing to do.”
Despite this awareness, I continued to ask a higher number of closed-ended, assistance questions
in Cycle 3, as demonstrated in Table 9. As I was engaging in out-of-the-field data analysis, I
became disoriented once again observing the high number of closed-ended questions I asked.
This disorientation continued to stem from the perfectionism I struggled with and wrote about
above, particularly in continuing to ground myself in being a reflective beginner and embracing
new challenges as opportunities for growth. While at the moment I thought I was improving
since I was writing more questions into my instructor’s guide, I was not. Figure 8 shows an
example of the questions I had scripted for Session 6 after my Session 5 critical reflection.

128
Figure 8
Session 6 Instructor Guide Questions
As demonstrated in the Session 6 instructor guide, I created a series of probing and
assistance questions with the intention to support my colleagues towards more transformative
learning moments. For example, the assistance question, “What evidence of student learning did
you see and/or hear?” would have supported my colleagues in activating the prior knowledge
they have of meaningful learning attributes, in connection to their lesson enactment. In doing so,
this assistance question could have supported my learners in prompting what prior knowledge
they had. This, in turn, could have guided a more critical examination of whether they had clear
evidence of meaningful learning components in their lesson. However, even though I had these

129
questions as well as others written in my Session 6 instructor’s guide, I failed to ask them and
still defaulted to asking closed-ended questions. As a result, I missed an opportunity to support
my learners in engaging in further interrogation of their practice of meaningful learning
opportunities and ultimately engaging in transformative learning moments. During another
check-in with my dissertation chair, I shared this out-of-the-field observation, and as my critical
peer, she challenged me to think through why I did not use these questions. This dialogue
spurred another critical reflection seen below.
I started to question myself about why this occurred, when I literally had them written in
my guide, as well as in the agenda for participants to see. Is it because I wasn’t being
present? Is it because I was overwhelmed? Is it my ego getting in the way of wanting to
use notes? Am I enacting and reinforcing the same power dynamics I set out to break?
I took a moment to compare my facilitation to my current classroom teaching
experiences. When I first started as an educator, during my early years, I would script out
my lesson plans, which had notes and guiding questions to ask my students. Without
hesitation, I would refer to them consistently, and even now, 12 years later, I still refer to
them as I teach math and/or writing lessons. I don’t even hesitate, so then the question
begs, why did I not do it in this situation and throughout my study? After digging deep, it
goes back to reinforcing the same power dynamics I was ironically trying to break. I
realized I was self-conscious to use my notes, in the appearance of not seeming
knowledgeable given my positionality as a doctoral student and veteran teacher.
However, in doing so, I was perpetuating the all-knowing, top-down, banking complex
that individuals often do in “higher” positions. This in turn, influenced the teacher moves
I made at the moment–in this case providing more effective assistance and probing

130
questions. Had I just gotten over this and shown more vulnerability with my facilitation
and use of questioning, I could have supported my learners much more effectively in
unearthing more assumptions about their practice.
While engaging in this critical reflection, I reflected how I was “reinforcing the same power
dynamics I was ironically trying to break.” By letting my insecurities and fears of appearing like
a novice get in the way, I allowed power dynamics to interfere with my questioning, and
ultimately, facilitation skills. I did not utilize the resources I had at my disposal, and as a result,
hindered the learning of my participants. As Brookfield (2017) noted, critical reflection, “is,
quite simply, the sustained and intentional process of identifying and checking the accuracy and
validity of our teaching assumptions” (p. 3). This critical reflection served not only to examine
my assumptions of my facilitation, but also illuminated the power dynamics at play between
myself and my participants. This is evident when I stated, “However, in doing so, I was
perpetuating the all-knowing, top-down, banking complex that individuals often do in ‘higher’
positions.” While I was working towards creating learning conditions and building relationships
to break down these dynamics, as mentioned in the establishing learning conditions as an
adaptive leader section, I was also complicit in letting power dynamics get in the way of my
facilitation. I will elaborate more on this in the afterword.
In conclusion, as evidenced above, I missed opportunities to cultivate more
transformative learning moments for my participants through my lack of purposeful, open-ended
assistance questioning. Questioning is a vital means of assistance that, when used effectively, can
support a learner in grappling with new ideas they did not have previously (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). Had I leaned into my instructor guides, probing questions in my jottings notebook, and

131
used more assistance questions, my participants could have had more opportunities to interrogate
their practice further and therefore, experience transformative learning more frequently.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss key takeaways as well as what I learned about myself
and my leadership capacity through this action research study. First, I will describe a
retrospective takeaway on a cognitive structure I wish I would have implemented sooner. Then, I
will share how I am learning from the missed opportunities of my study and enacting into my
practice as a mentor and teacher leader. Lastly, I will address future implications of both my
leadership practice and the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program currently in California.
Looking Back
While I found that cognitive structures consistently supported my colleagues in
examining their practice around meaningful learning, looking back, there is one cognitive
structure I wish I would have enacted earlier in my study. Given that my research question
explored building the capacity of my colleagues to create meaningful learning opportunities in
math, I should have dedicated more time around exploring cognitive structures that supported my
colleagues actual lesson planning development. The two cognitive structures I highlighted in my
findings, the meaningful learning self-reflection rubric and funds of identity table, supported my
colleagues’ ability to interrogate their use of meaningful learning, not necessarily how to
structure a lesson in its entirety. While I introduced and modeled Bloom’s Taxonomy verbs and a
lesson planning template during the final cycle, I reflected during my final out-of-the-field
analytic memo how this piece could have used more time and been done sooner. The first time I
presented these, all my participants mentioned they had not heard of Bloom’s Taxonomy before,
which surprised me given they received professional learning from our administrators monthly.

132
If I conducted this study again, I would have included these sessions using cognitive structures
and tools around lesson planning much sooner. For example, I would like to collaborate with my
administrators on ways to deliver professional learning sessions around lesson planning, then
delve into meaningful learning components, to continue to build the capacity of my colleagues to
support our Latinx students.
Current Practice
As mentioned in my findings section, I realized there were times when I hindered my
participants’ growth. This was because of my own inability to use the resources, specifically
questions, I created to support them due to my positionality as their facilitator. Given how my
colleagues viewed me, I found myself not wanting to appear as a novice facilitator and therefore,
did not use the questions I crafted. I felt that if I used them, I would appear inexperienced or
insecure. Using critical reflection and conversations with my dissertation chair, I was able to
name how the power dynamics at play contributed to my hesitation to use the resources that
could have deepened our conversations. Considering this, I have been more aware of how I
present myself when facilitating conversations with my colleagues. I have been more
conscientious of how power dynamics influence how I present myself in each setting or situation
to make sure I do not allow learning opportunities to be missed. For example, as an induction
mentor, I have been more aware of the way I ask open-ended questions during my coaching
sessions. I now have probing questions projected on my screen, and as I check-in with my
mentee, I am more intentional in actually using the probing questions. Even if I must pause, and
let my mentee know I need a minute, I have learned to be okay with this, because I know it will
lead to more fruitful conversations. So, while I was not able to use these probing questions as

133
successfully in my study, I have been more intentional of using them now in my other teacher
leader roles.
Additionally, another finding that has resonated with my current teaching practice is my
ability to be present to learners. Although I did not answer my research question in its entirety,
being present and slowing down my pacing to meet my participants’ needs was a critical piece in
my study. This was something new for me, in that, as mentioned in the context statement, I have
been complicit in covering and rushing through content in my own fifth-grade classroom, and
not engaging in meaningful learning opportunities for my Latinx students. I recently found
myself in this same predicament once again, swept by the whirlwind of pressures to prepare my
students for end of year testing. As I was simultaneously writing my findings section on the
importance of presence, I found myself in a cognitive dissonance, asking myself–Jennifer, why
are you defaulting to the same deficit teaching practices that you chose to combat with your
participants in this study? What was the point of facilitating this study if you were going to
continue to engage in the same practices and not be present to your students’ learning?
Therefore, after engaging with a critical peer and my own critical reflection, I am rejecting these
complicit practices, slowing down my math content delivery in the coming weeks. As a result,
this will attune more to my students’ needs, since I will make a concerted effort to continue to
attend to their feedback and keep my routines that promote meaningful learning in math. For
example, for this coming week, instead of resorting to test prep questions, I will continue to
utilize word problems based on my students’ funds of identity, incorporate station work for them
to work collaboratively and engage in math discourse. Therefore, engaging in this study helped
me be more mindful and cognizant of counteracting the testing culture at my school site. It also
equipped me with the skills to pause, dialogue with others, and ultimately critically reflect how

134
to be a better educator in my own classroom practicing meaningful learning and encouraging
others to do so as well.
Future Implications: An Opportunity to Further Cultivate Meaningful Learning
Given that my study focused on building the capacity of my colleagues to create
meaningful learning opportunities in math, I foresee an opportunity with California’s current
Expanded Learning Opportunities Program to further enact this study’s findings. Since the 2021–
2022 school year, California Department of Education has offered TK through sixth grade
schools with funding for expanded learning opportunities (California Department of Education,
2024). The purpose of this funding was to provide student-centered, high engagement learning
opportunities such as field trips, summer school programs, before or after school enrichment,
tutoring, targeted intervention, and so forth. It could also address the academic, social,
emotional, and/or interests of the students enrolled in the program (California Department of
Education, 2024). These opportunities are facilitated by the afterschool program coordinator and
staff, like my colleagues who participated in this study. As such, engaging my colleagues in
professional learning opportunities around how to make explicit connections with the grants
programming to meaningful learning opportunities and leveraging our Latinx students’ assets is
critical, yet not consistently happening. For example, students have attended numerous field trips
to places like Dodgers Stadium, Underwood Farms, Los Angeles Zoo to name a few. However,
while many of our students enjoy sports and talked highly about the Dodgers Stadium visit, it
was not revisited in their afterschool programming content or lessons. This was a missed
opportunity to leverage their practical funds of identity into their academic enrichment math
lessons. Given this, continuing to provide professional learning sessions for colleagues working
with the afterschool program to support explicit connections between these field trip

135
opportunities and the math, reading, and writing skills is an opportunity that should not go
unnoticed. These sessions could be enacted using cognitive structures, modeling of lessons, and
creating a space to discuss and share instructional practices as I employed in this study.
Final Thoughts
As I look back on my doctoral journey, I cannot help but reflect on the growth and
learning I have made over the past 3 years. This includes my ability to embrace being a reflective
beginner, engage in continuous critical reflection of my practices, and being present to the needs
of my colleagues. I have struggled in the past in each of these areas, so being able to see the
growth I have made in this study is profound. However, the critical work continues, and I intend
to continue looking at ways to make learning meaningful for students as a classroom teacher, and
in the future, as a teacher educator and/or instructional coach. While I am currently an
elementary school educator, my dream has always been to teach high school. My next
professional goal is to transition to the high school level and enact these meaningful learning
opportunities through youth participatory action research. Simultaneously, I intend to become a
teacher educator at a local university. My goal is to continue to enact the andragogical moves
from this study, such as fostering conversational routines and providing cognitive structures, into
my future university classroom setting. In addition, I will continue to prioritize the cultivation of
learning conditions, because I saw that establishing a strong holding environment in my study
supported the enactment of my other andragogical moves.
As the great Maya Angelou (2011) once said, “My mission in life is not merely to
survive, but to thrive; and to do so with some passion, some compassion, some humor, and some
style” (Facebook Status Update, July 4, 2011). As I continue my journey in education as an
adaptive leader, I intend to live by the words of Maya Angelou. This work is not easy, and

136
therefore, in order to thrive, I will embrace the takeaways from my doctoral journey to continue
guiding my work as a teacher leader and adult educator.

137
References
Aguilar, E., & Cohen, L. (2022). The PD book: 7 habits that transform professional
development. Jossey-Bass.
Ancess, J. (2004). Snapshots of meaning-making classrooms. Educational Leadership, 62(1),
36–40.
Angelou, M. (2011, July 4). My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive; and to do
so with some passion, some compassion [Status update]. Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/MayaAngelou/posts/10150251846629796
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landerman (Ed.), The art of effective
facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150).
Ares, N., & Gorrell, J. (2002). Middle school students’ understanding of meaningful learning and
engaging classroom activities. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(2),
263–277.
Atkinson, R.K., Derry, S.J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2002). Learning from worked examples:
Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational
Research, 70(2), 181–214.
Ausubel, D.P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary
school mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 93, 373–397.
Bennett, C.A. (2010). “It’s hard getting kids to talk about math”: Helping new teachers improve
mathematical discourse. Action in Teacher Education, 32(3), 79–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463561

138
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (Ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-85744-2_11
Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Brookfield, S., and Associates. (2019). Teaching race: How to help students unmask and
challenge racism. Jossey-Bass.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress. (n.d.). Test results at a glance for
English language arts/literacy and mathematics. California Department of Education.
https://caaspp-elpac.ets.org/caaspp/DashViewReportSB?ps=true&lstTestYear=2022
&lstTestType=B&lstGroup=5&lstSubGroup=78&lstGrade=13&lstSchoolType=A&lstCo
unty=00&lstDistrict=00000&lstSchool=0000000&lstFocus=a
California Charter Schools Association. (2019, September). A summary of AB 1505 & AB 1507.
California Charter Schools Association. https://info.ccsa.org/ab1505_resources
California Department of Education. (2023). 2023-24 Enrollment by Ethnicity and
Grade. California Department of Education.
https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqcensus/EnrEthGrd.aspx?cds=19647330129619&agg
level=schoolyear=2021-22
California Department of Education. (2024, April 5). Expanded Learning Opportunities
Program. California Department of Education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ex/elopinfo.asp

139
Cobb, P., Wood, T., & Yackel, E. (1992). Discourse, mathematical thinking, and classroom
practice. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning:
Sociocultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 91–119). Oxford University Press.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Dame-Griff, E.C. (2022). What do we mean when we say “Latinx?”: Definitional power, the
limits of inclusivity, and the (un/re)constitution of an identity category. Journal of
International and Intercultural Communication, 15(2), 119–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2021.1901957
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L.M. (2014). Funds of identity: A new concept based on the funds
of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31–48.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X13515934
Flores, A. (2007). Examining disparities in mathematics education: Achievement gap or
opportunity gap? The High School Journal, 91(1), 2–42.
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J.U. Black students’ school success: Coping with the “burden of ‘acting
white’”. The Urban Review, 18(3), 176–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112192
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: System thinkers in action. Corwin Press.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
González, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed
knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for

140
Students Placed At Risk, 6(1&2), 115–132.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327671ESPR0601-2_7
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage Publications.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Hogg, L., & Volman, M. (2020). A synthesis of funds of identity research: Purposes, tools,
pedagogical approaches, and outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 90(6),
862–895. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320964205
Horn, I.S., & Little, J.W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
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
Jones, K., & Okun, T. (2001). White supremacy culture. Dismantling racism: A workbook for
social change groups.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L.B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
Kazemi, E., & Hintz, A. (2014). Intentional Talk: How to structure and lead productive
mathematical discussions. Stenhouse.
Koskinen, R., & Pitkäniemi, H. (2022). Meaningful learning in mathematics: A research
synthesis of teaching approaches. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics
Education, 17(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/11715

141
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt:
Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective practice: International and multidisciplinary perspectives, 9(3), 341–360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451
Lochmiller, C.R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modeling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21, 193–203.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Sage
Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Sage Publications.
Milner, H. R. (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516
Moll, L.C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132–141.
Moschkovich, J. (2007). Examining Mathematical Discourse Practices. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 27(1), 24–30.

142
Moulton, M. (2018). Funds of identity and humanizing research as a means of combating deficit
perspectives of homelessness in the middle grades. Education Sciences, 8(172), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040172
Myhill, D., & Brackley, M. (2004). Making connections: Teachers’ use of children’s prior
knowledge in whole class discourse. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52(3),
263–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2004.00267.x
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Nation’s report card. National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. NCTM.
Northouse, P.G., & Lee, M. (2022). Leadership case studies in education. Sage Publications.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Sage Publications.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Teaching to change the world (5th
ed.). Routledge.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Piccolo, D.L., Harbaugh, A. P., Carter, T.A., Capraro, M. M., & Capraro, R. M. (2008). Quality
of instruction: Examining discourse in middle school mathematics instruction. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 19(3), 376–410. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-809
Polman, J., Hornstra, L., & Volman, M. (2021). The meaning of meaningful learning in
mathematics in upper-primary education. Learning Environments Research, 24, 469–486.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-020-09337-8
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual,
theoretical, and methodological. Sage Publications.

143
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard educational review, 72(2), 230.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.
Salinas Jr., C. (2020). The complexity of the “x” in Latinx: How Latinx/a/o students relate to,
identity with, and understand the term Latinx. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,
19(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192719900382
Saubich, X., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2011). Bringing funds of family knowledge to school. The
Living Morocco project. REMIE: Multidisciplinary Journal of Educational Research,
1(1), 79–103. https://doi.org/10.4452/remie.2011.04
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. (4th ed.). Teachers College Press.
Slayton, J. and Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre-K
through 12 education. In Global Perspectives on Educational Leadership Reform: The
Development and Preparation of Leaders of Learning and Learners of Leadership (Vol.
11, p. 23–45). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Spikes, D. D. (2018). Culturally competent and racially conscious professional development for
school leaders: A review of the literature. Teachers College Record, 120, 1–17.
Springer, G.T., & Dick, T. (2006). Making the right (discourse) moves: Facilitating discussions
in the mathematics classroom. Mathematics Teacher, 100(2), 105–109.

144
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Stein, C.C. (2007). Let’s talk: Promoting mathematical discourse in the classroom. Mathematics
Teacher, 101(4), 285–289.
Tabron, L.A., & Thomas, A.K. (2023). Deeper than wordplay: A systematic review of critical
quantitative approaches in education research. Review of Educational Research, 0(0),
1–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221130
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). A theory of teaching as assisted performance. In Rousing
minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context, (pp. 44–70).
Cambridge University Press.
Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2019). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative nursing, 7(3), 155–162. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022
Turner, E.E., Gutierrez, M.V., Simic-Muller, K., & Diez-Palomar, J. (2009). “Everything is math
in the whole world”: Integrating critical and community knowledge in authentic
mathematical investigations with elementary Latino/a students. Mathematical Thinking
and Learning, 11(3), 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060903013382
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.
Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of
recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3),
516–551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27, 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008
Wergin, J. F. (2020). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.

145
Yosso, T.J. (2005) Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined my leadership enactment of professional learning sessions as a fifth-grade teacher while at an urban, Title 1 public charter elementary school. Utilizing adaptive leadership, meaningful learning, and adult learning theories, I sought to answer the following action research question: How do I build my colleagues’ capacity to cultivate meaningful learning opportunities in math during our elementary school’s academic enrichment hour using our Latinx students’ funds of identity? Over a 3-month span, I facilitated nine professional learning sessions for three colleagues who work in an afterschool program, with a focus on creating more meaningful math lessons for our Latinx students. To understand my role, I transcribed audio recordings and collected jottings, field notes, analytic memos, critical reflections, and documents developed for this study. As a result, my participants initially engaged in normalizing conversational routines and through time, participated in more instances of specifying and generalizing moves. This, in turn, supported their capacity to create math lessons that infused meaningful learning attributes such as students’ funds of identity, student collaboration, and activating prior knowledge. In addition, I found the use of cognitive structures enabled my participants to interrogate their practices towards developing meaningful learning activities in math for their Latinx students. Another finding was how my presence as a facilitator supported my participants’ learning needs. Lastly, I found that my enactment of questioning was a missed opportunity in the study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

PDF

Instructional coaching: disrupting traditional math practices through inquiry and action research

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

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

PDF

Development of error monitoring in preschool to 12th-grade students and relations in late childhood and adolescence to social-affective processing and emotions about math

Asset Metadata

Creator Lopez, Jennifer (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 06/13/2024

Defense Date 05/13/2024

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

Tag action research,adaptive leadership,adult learning,cognitive structures,conversational routines,funds of identity,math professional learning,meaningful learning,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Copur-Gencturk, Yasmin (committee member), Nava, Pedro (committee member)

Creator Email j.lopez52689@gmail.cm,jlopez57@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139963Q6

Unique identifier UC1139963Q6

Identifier etd-LopezJenni-13095.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LopezJenni-13095

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Lopez, Jennifer

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240614-usctheses-batch-1168 (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