University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Coaching to Transform:
An Action Research Study on Utilizing Critical Reflection to Enact Change Towards
Incorporating Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
By
Enrique Felix
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 Enrique Felix 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Enrique Felix certifies the approval of this Dissertation:
Marco Nava
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This study examines my enactment as a leader in the Teacher Growth and Induction program at
Los Angeles Unified School District. To provide a holistic examination of my leadership
practice, I deconstruct my use of structure and andragogical moves in relation to a candidate
teacher in the induction program. My action research question was as follow: How do I engage a
first year K–12 teacher in critical reflection to interrogate their teaching practices to move them
towards incorporating tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom? I collected
fieldnotes, reflections, and analytic memos developed in my role as a leader. I found that by
utilizing a holding environment and consistent guiding and probing questions, I was able to
move the teacher’s initial understanding of culturally responsive teaching towards recognizing
and internalizing the importance of culturally responsive teaching in relation to their instructional
practice.
Keywords: culturally responsive teaching, transformational coaching, holding
environment

v
Dedication
To my immediate family, thank you for understanding this journey. I appreciate you always
checking in on me and being patient when I couldn’t attend family events.
A mi papá, gracias por tu trabajo, esfuerzo, y sacrificios para garantizar un futuro mejor para tu
familia.
A mi mamá, desearía que pudieras estar aquí pero espero haberte hecho sentir orgullosa. ¡Ya
llego su ejecutivo!
To my El Rancho Family, thank you for the laughs as I was going on this journey.
To my Long Beach State/Delta Sigma Chi/Hit Squad Family, our bond will forever be forged as
we continue to live our lives. Hit Squad on 3!
To my BFF Kris, thanks for always being there to hear me vent and providing a different
perspective on education.
To my USC EdD Cohort Family, thank you for welcoming me into your life. We did it!
To my LAUSD Family, thank you for helping me find my way through this crazy journey we
call teaching. Each one of you has played a significant role in who I am today.
To my small, but powerful Felix Family, thank you Cat and Quique for being patient with me.
Thank you, Cristina, for being the rock I needed to help me through this process. You took on
the role of parent while I found myself away in completing this work. You have supported all my
goals, and I will always cherish that. I love you all and I know “you got CREDIT!”
To myself, you did it! You deserve to be acknowledged for stubborn bravery and foolish tenacity
to see this through! Go get yourself some new kicks!
Fight On!

vi
Acknowledgements
To my committee: Dr. Julie Slayton, Dr. Artineh Samkian, and Dr. Marco Nava.
I am forever grateful and thankful for all the ways you have supported me throughout this
journey. The words of encouragement kept me focused on this relentless path. Dr. Samkian,
thank you for a wonderful learning experience. Although our cohort was pushed to remote
learning, your words and support extended themselves across the screen. Dr. Nava, thank you for
helping me in making the relevant connections to our work in the district and creating action
steps to continue my development. Dr. Slayton, I cannot thank you enough for your tremendous
support throughout this process. Your teaching practice provided me with a sharp definition of
what it means to meet their students where they are at. I could not have undertaken this journey
without your support.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Historically Entrenched Inequity ...................................................................................... 13
The Inequity as Found Within the Organization............................................................... 17
My Role in the Context of the Organization..................................................................... 20
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 22
The Leader Creates a Holding Environment ........................................................ 24
The Leader, the Novice teacher, and the Content................................................. 27
Research Methods............................................................................................................. 39
Participant and Settings......................................................................................... 40
Actions.................................................................................................................. 44
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols .......................................................... 53
Data Analysis........................................................................................................ 56
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................... 59
Credibility and Trustworthiness............................................................................ 61

viii
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 63
Findings............................................................................................................................. 64
Finding 1, Part 1: Holding Environment............................................................... 66
Finding 1, Part 2: Using Guiding and Probing Questions to Enact Change ......... 95
Finding 2: My Growth ........................................................................................ 116
Afterword........................................................................................................................ 131
Takeaways From Analysis.................................................................................. 133
Continuing the Work........................................................................................... 136
References....................................................................................................................... 138

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Leadership Actions 48

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 25
Figure 2: Agenda: Session 1 68
Figure 3: (Critical) Reflection Slide: Session 6 91

1
Coaching to Transform:
An Action Research Study on Utilizing Critical Reflection to Enact Change Towards
Incorporating Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices
I am learning to be a better person in life because I am tired of what goes on in society. I
want to be able to uphold the values that are important to me and reflect on my family. Lately, I
have looked back on my academic journey and what it has truly meant for me and my family. It
has brought about many opportunities for reflection and has enabled me to examine my
positionality with respect to my work, my lived experiences, and how I benefit from the
privileges I have been given. Villaverde (2008) defines positionality as “how one is situated
through the intersection of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity,
culture, language, and other social factors” (as cited by Douglas & Nganga, 2013, pp. 60–61).
My identities align themselves with being a middle-class, heterosexual, man of color, who
identifies as both American and Mexican, and who utilizes both English and Spanish to
communicate on social and professional platforms. These specific intersectional identities have
undoubtedly contributed to who I am today and why I am so passionate of the work I continue to
do in my organization.
In my attempt to further describe myself, I must first address my upbringing. I am a firstgeneration United States citizen. My parents immigrated from Mexico, and as my father put it,
came over to seek better opportunities and raise a family that would benefit from being
American. My father first came over as a bracero, a manual agricultural laborer working in the
fields of Central California, following the seasons to make as much money as possible to send
back to my mom. He was able to gain access to the country during the tail end of the Bracero

2
Program, an agreement between United States and Mexico that permitted many Mexican
nationals to work legally in the US on short term contracts.
To better understand his plight, I look back now on the moment that fully connected me
with his experience. I was 16 years old, a junior in high school, tasked with interviewing a family
member on their story for settling in California, so I chose my dad. The interview was an artifact
assignment given by my history teacher to better connect us to the classroom content. As any
teenager, I was oblivious to what my father went through, and being the selfish and egocentric
juvenile that I was, I pretty much did not care. I say this, because my relationship with my father
was not the best, perhaps because he himself did not know how to connect with me, and as the
years went by, I sought to further distance myself. So, I found this assignment to be quite
awkward. I remember being upset at my teacher for forcing me to use school to connect with my
father. It is not like I did not care for him; I just did not know how to have a conversation with
him. Nevertheless, I proceeded with the interview to ensure that I would receive a passing grade.
What happened in that interview forever changed my perspective on my father and our
relationship moving forward.
He told me a story about how he came over to work, and the dehumanization he
experienced when he crossed the border to connect with program officials. He mentioned about
the cleansing process that was administered to him and others once they arrived, stripping down,
and being deloused with lye. With an anguished look on his face, he shared how he could still
feel the burning sensation and the dehumanization of being treated like an animal. He never
repeated that story again. I was left in awe and came to realize that perhaps my father’s
experiences coming to this country may have impacted his ability to be more open to me.

3
As time went on, my father continued to work in various labor-intensive industries
dominated my immigrants like agriculture and hospitality. Eventually, my father was able to
establish his residency and decided it was the right time to bring my mother over. They settled in
East Los Angeles in the 1960s, in a small apartment off Pleasant Avenue adjacent to the 101
freeway. My parents were both hard workers, striving to make ends meet in any way. My father
took a job in a steel company and became a machinist for Ingersoll-Dresser Pacific Pump in
Huntington Park. Just as well, my mother contributed to the household income by cooking and
baking foods to sell to my father’s coworkers. With the money they were able to save and
relocated to Pico Rivera, a small city situated 11 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles,
comprised of Anglo-Americans and multigenerational Latinos.
In describing the Latino community of Pico Rivera, it is important for me to indicate the
distinct division between those who were of immigrant families and those who had been in the
country for some time. Multigenerational Latinos in this community assumed the identity of the
“typical American citizen,” actively engaging in various patriotic activities such as soap-box car
races, Boy Scouts, and Huck Finn Day Parades. While there were lingering examples of some
connection to their Mexican culture, residents in this community more often incorporated
decidedly American cultural practices. Nothing was more evident of this combining of Mexican
and American traditions than the early culinary fusion arts of combining burritos with French
fries. This became the staple of our community and resembled the negotiations many made to
Americanize the Latino experience. This was also true in the racial identity and treatment of
those who looked, acted, and sounded too much like a Mexican nationalist. Through my
experience and interactions, I was told to stop acting Mexican or face the consequence of being

4
labeled as a “wetback,” a derogatory term used to identify individuals who are of Mexican
descent.
As a child growing up in this environment, there was much confusion on how to navigate
this landscape. My parents were not able to provide me with the support on how to advocate for
myself when confronted with discrimination. Rather, my parents were dealing with their own
identity issues, trying hard not to bring too much attention to themselves and the family.
Although my parents had established their residency by this time, they were not secure in their
immigration status, which often led them to feel feared of deportation. They lived their lives
under a microscope, being mindful of when and where they could speak Spanish, with fear of
being targeted as illegal immigrants. They rarely spoke about their own struggles, and rather
continuously promoted the idea of being a good American and taking advantage of the privileges
of being a citizen of the country. They would preach about always speaking good English and
“doing good in school,” just like my teachers said I should. I was so confused on how to go
about in balancing both of my identities. I wanted to be proud of who I was, but the pressure to
assimilate from my community was immense. Because I did not have the tools to communicate
with my parents for support, I found myself moving towards the American custom, forced out of
my own culture, losing my native tongue, and separating myself from my roots all to please the
narrative that was being constructed for me.
Encountering all these messages from people who looked just like me created a complex
dilemma within me regarding when I should or should not act as who I was raised to be. My
parents raised us in a traditional Mexican household that embodied the cultural, linguistic, and
religious attributes of the mother country. My mother imparted the importance of faith to the
Catholic religion by having us participate in events at home and church. As mentioned earlier,

5
she loved to cook, so my experience growing up included eating national and regional dishes that
she created flawlessly. We were encouraged to express ourselves in the Spanish language, and if
we did not, were often scolded for our behavior and reminded of the importance of using our
language to secure our identity as Mexicans. I understood the value of our culture, and how
important it was to our family’s legacy. However, I was stuck in a cultural conflict, pressed
between two competing groups, that created a complex within my identity, which led to me
feeling shame. I felt embarrassed in saying my name correctly and made every effort to
disassociate myself from certain parts of my homelife. When given rides home from school, I
would often ask people to drop me off around the corner because I was embarrassed to show
where I lived as I feared being ridiculed for how our house looked like. When my father would
take me to my sports practices, I felt embarrassed about how heavy his accent was when he
communicated with other fathers. I felt bad even thinking this, but it was all I understood at the
time.
Growing up, I attended the public elementary school in my neighborhood. School
presented similar challenges to those I faced in my community as I had to navigate an
environment that was consistently reinforcing strong American values and countering my
cultural upbringing. The press for me to assimilate was strong. Nothing said assimilation more
than the veiled threats that I would be paddled by the principal if I spoke Spanish in the
classroom. The thought of being punished for speaking my native language confused me, but the
fear of being hit with a wooden paddle ignited my linguistic assimilation. I wouldn’t know this
till later, but when I turned 9, California banned corporal punishment in public schools
(Prohibition of Corporal Punishment, 1986). Although the act of paddling went away, the fear
still lingered as I recall being sent to the principal’s office for my continuous use of the Spanish

6
language and noticing the silhouette of the wooden blade that once hung in the back wall of the
room as a reminder. My teachers were Caucasian and staunch supporters of the assimilation
process for immigrant students. They made every attempt to instill this process in our schooling
and communication with my parents. My teachers would often comment to my parents that it
was important for me to start acting and talking like those in this country for me to achieve
success. My parents were concerned in how they would communicate with my teachers, which
was consistent in how they felt about speaking Spanish outside of the cultural setting. They
wanted to demonstrate their commitment to my academic development but did not know how to
go about it. Like many children of immigrant parents, I acted as the interpreter and learned to
understand that the messages given to my parents were reminders on their part in helping me
assimilate. I came to realize that my parents viewed these interactions as warnings, signals that
correlated with their insecurities of fearing deportation. They saw teachers as government agents
always keeping a watchful eye on them. I can recall a time after I translated at a parent
conference in the fourth grade, my mom told my dad about everything the teacher had said. She
took what I had translated to her as a threat on how easy it was for teachers to report them to
immigration if we did not follow what they said. My mother was very suspicious of any
interactions she had with those outside her culture, which increased her apprehension in wanting
to communicate with my teachers. The true irony of all this was using Spanish as a tool to
support the school in communicating with my parents, when all these years I was told not to.
Looking back, I can now see how these experiences between my teachers and my parents
contributed to what I thought education was, a pathway to achieve the American dream at any
means necessary. I had to learn that not being able to be who I was raised to be was conflicting

7
with how I would progress academically. To resolve these issues, I knew that for my world to
function, establishing dual identities was my only way to succeed.
In addition to pressing me to assimilate into American culture, my public-school
experience followed the traditional, American education structure of attending one elementary,
one middle, and one high school. The schools in the community best matched what Milner et al.
(2015) describe as urban settings, areas that were beginning to “experience some of the shifts and
realities seen in much larger districts, such as increasingly diverse populations including
immigrant families, families from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and families whose first
language is not English” (p. 531). As mentioned earlier, most of the teachers I was taught by
were Caucasian and did little to forge relationships in creating cultural relevance in their
classroom. Rather than establishing or shifting their practice to meet the needs of their
diversifying student population (Milner et al., 2015), schools in our community created barriers
through their instructional practice, that did not center funds of knowledge (Ladson-Billings,
1995; Moll et al., 1992) and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2014). Ultimately,
this prevented me from fully developing as a student. Douglas and Peck (2013) indicate that
“Teachers have to intentionally carry a disposition in their practice that enacts an inviting space
for all students, including those who have been traditionally marginalized (as cited by Douglas &
Nganga, 2013, p. 62). I was not aware that I was being marginalized, but I knew that I was not
being supported because of what I saw other classmates receive as academic support. I would be
intrigued by the level of support my classmates would receive in the form counseling,
enrichment learning opportunities like music and technology, and the gifted and talented
programs. I can recall asking myself, “How do they get to go and not me?” It made me question
what was wrong with me and what else I needed to do to gain access to these options. I was shy

8
as a child, so it didn’t surprise me that I did not understand how to advocate for myself. I found it
confusing how I could be capable enough to perform translation services for the school at a
young age, but not show promise to be presented additional school resources. In fact, the lack of
culturally sustaining pedagogy and funds of knowledge in the classroom prevented me from
centering my voice, of which denied me opportunities for multiple means of representation that
would have allowed me to otherwise demonstrate my ability to understand the content. Because
of this, I thought that I could not measure up to my classmates and show evidence of growth in
the classroom. By the time I was in high school, I understood that to gain access to these systems
of support, I would need to be able to assert myself in the context of the classroom and follow
the norms that demonstrated mastery of the content. This meant having to make the decision of
separating my identities, keeping my home culture completely separated from the school and
community to ensure that I would follow the path set forth for me.
I identify as both an American and Mexican male and it is important for me to note that
they act as separate identity markers because of the contradictions within my upbringing. Having
dual identities, my cultural ties are distinctly associated with my family roots, but my political
and social frames are shaped by my experiences in this country. I was not brought up
understanding or supporting the political ideals of my parents’ country. We seldom spoke of
governmental issues or propaganda that were taking place in their country. Although we watched
Spanish news telecast, there was never a moment that my parents engaged me in discourse on
social conditions in Mexico. My experiences in this country primarily informed the varied
political and social frames I learned to adopt that informed me when I should or should not speak
on a particular issue. I learned that code-switching within my identity markers was key to
enabling me to navigate growing up in my neighborhood and going to school. However, much of

9
my life has been filled with conflict and tension, attempting to balance both cultures to please
those around me. I learned to believe that I could never truly be myself and always had to act a
certain way to make those around me feel more comfortable. My parents often sent confusing
messages to me growing up. They would tell me to make sure I was following what my teachers
would say, which meant act more American. However, I couldn’t be too American around my
parents or use the English language for fear of being labeled a pocho, a term used to describe an
Americanized Mexican who has lost touch with their culture. My interactions with
multigenerational Latinos or Caucasians had to be consistent with their identities and not
promote any identifiable markers of my Mexican heritage or else I would be tagged as a beaner,
a derogatory slur used towards Mexicans that takes the term from the prevalence of beans in the
Mexican cuisine and embodies the xenophobic sentiment of not being American. This conflict
and tension within my family, culture, and community has always made me believe as if I
needed to present myself as part of that culture to affirm my identity. There is a Spanish saying,
ni de aquí, ni de allá, not from here or there. This saying best describes who I am and how
people see me, an individual constantly juggling two cultural identities of being American and
Mexican living in this country.
To interrogate my understanding of urban education and learning, I must first examine
my own epistemology, its origins, and how its aligned to leading for equity and anti-racist
practices. Scheurich (1994) explains epistemology as “the study of how we know or what the
rules for knowing are” (as cited in Bourgeois, 2011, p. 372). In my pursuit to better understand
urban education, I first examine my perspective as it was influenced by my experiences growing
up in my community. The instructional practice provided in my community was a one-way
model, an approach that was influenced through rote learning, or memorization of specific facts

10
as I encountered them in the classroom, which prevented me from making connections to the
content as a learner. This lack of culturally relevant instruction further provided me with the
understanding that education was a one fit model and that my teachers subscribed to the idea of
how formal education was the “arbiter of social mobility” (Patel, 2016, p. 398), that if I learned
their way and paid close attention to the specific ways of learning, I too could move through the
varied social classes in our society through this formal education process.
My outlook on teaching best resembled my experiences as a student. Those experiences
led me to believe that there was only one way to learn and the steps to become successful in life,
specifically in education, were to navigate the system according to this one-way model. It spoke
volumes to me on how my view of urban education and learning should ground me. I became
interested in wanting to support students who looked like me, students of color who came from
communities that required the support system to help them become successful, just like me. I
enrolled in a teacher preparation program as a bilingual multiple subject candidate teacher. I
knew that my language and culture would complement my future school, and I wanted to have
the credentials and authorizations to endorse my background. My teacher preparation program
took me in a different direction than my K–12 experience, as it provided me with a set of
different lenses to examine urban education. I was provided opportunities to analyze the impact
of teachers in urban settings and how we should seek to address teaching practices that were
deemed inequitable to our students. Culturally relevant teaching was used as the model to further
the program’s development of new teachers and how it would support the understanding of
teaching in a cross-cultural and multi-cultural setting, while promoting student understanding
through their own culture. I found the experience to be challenging, as I did not see how this was
even possible due to my own K–12 experience. These two pedagogical approaches caused a

11
conflict within my understanding of teaching in how I would approach the profession. This was
my first introduction to a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2020), where I found myself
confused through these two different ideas on how education should look for students like me. I
decided to default to my earlier experiences, as I understood that if I benefited from this
experience, learning from a one model approach, my students would be able to do the same. I
could instill in them the pathway to success, as demonstrated through my own journey. My mind
was made up and felt confident that I would make the immediate and ongoing impact in my
classroom.
As a new teacher, my instructional practices were met with lackluster success and
minimal connections with my students. They were dull and ineffective, as I was guided by
practices that lacked the level of cultural connections and inclusivity that my students would
benefit from. I was regurgitating the strategies and learned behaviors, of my previous publicschool teachers, expecting my students to fall in line just like I did. My instruction was geared
around a rote learning model and was heavily teacher centered. As years went by, these actions
did not resonate with my students and further alienated them from the idea of taking control of
their own education. They did not understand what it meant to take ownership of their learning,
as I was only giving them one way to learn. I didn’t bother utilizing strategies to align the
curriculum through their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992), as recommended through my
teacher education program. I was blinded by my own ignorance, or better yet the educational
cultural hegemony (Zaidi et al., 2016) habits, or “educational practices where teachers assume
that the content and task is ‘culture free’ and, therefore, implicitly discourage bringing in
personal cultural context” (Zaidi et al., 2016, p. 2) that was prescribed to me in K–12 public
school experience. I had a harsh reality check through the conversations with my colleagues,

12
administrators, parents, and more importantly my students, that this model was not working. It
was evident through the lackluster academic results I produced in the classroom and how I
neglected to create a learning environment that fostered the rich community culture my students
brought with them.
Through my failed attempts at teaching during my first years, I understood that my
mindset had to change, and I had to reexamine my instructional strategies that served as
oppressive practices for my students and the community. I became aware that I was not serving
the community as I was intended to do. I looked back at my teacher preparation program and the
research given to us to promote culturally responsive practices and funds of knowledge that
would position students to succeed. These practices included building relationships with my
students and the community that would center their experiences within the curriculum to
encourage students to leverage their cultural capital to make the necessary connections to build
comprehension and demonstrate mastery of the content. My journey would take me to refining
these practices and providing support to teachers at my school and in my district. It allowed me
to share my story and collaborate with colleagues on my earlier mistakes and how working
together could lead to a more culturally responsive settings for our students to succeed. I found
my calling and it was in teacher development.
The last 8 years have provided me the opportunity to exit the classroom setting and
provide support for aspiring teachers in my district. I live with the guilt of putting my first
students through a cycle of instruction that was not beneficial to their learning. I often find
myself having reoccurring flashbacks that highlight my initial teaching practices and how
detrimental that must have been to my students. I think about where they are and what might
have happened if I took the lead of my teacher preparation program. Nevertheless, my journey

13
led me to editing the wrongs I produced by supporting those entering the profession for the first
time. I want to be able to share my story with new teachers and the significant impact it made on
me in learning to better understand urban education.
This is why I am so passionate about what I am doing. I want to be able to help new
teachers in surfacing their assumptions and biases of their students and the impact they make on
the learning environment they provide. I did not have that opportunity to interrogate my teaching
practices and had to learn the hard way by witnessing the failure of my students across a model
that I thought was perfect for them, a model that promoted the idea that if you just do as I tell
you and you work hard at it, you will succeed. I have learned to reflect on and accept how my K–
12 education influenced and shaped my identity in my early interactions in the public school
system and how it now informs my actions in interrogating systems that reproduce hegemonic
educational practices within urban contexts. Howard and Milner (2014) recommend that for
improvement to take place in urban schools, “teachers need to be prepared in a manner that
allows them to acquire the essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions that are uniquely situated
for work in urban schools” (p. 222). I want to be able to provide new teachers a platform to
interrogate their own dispositions on teaching in urban contexts and how that could lead towards
altering the learning experiences of students towards academic improvement.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
The entrenched inequity that I intended to address was the lack of culturally responsive
teaching practices in K–12 schools and the consequences for students of color. This reproduction
of lackluster instructional practices afforded to students in marginalized communities denied
them the use of their funds of knowledge—the opportunity to leverage their cultural
background—to engage with the curriculum and perpetuated what has become known as the

14
achievement gap. Ladson-Billings (2006) addresses the achievement gap by calling into question
“the wisdom of focusing on the achievement gap as a way of explaining and understanding the
persistent inequality that exists (and has always existed) in our nation’s schools” (p. 4).
Understanding this persistent inequality helped me better understand what Howard and Milner
(2014) have identified as the root of the problem: the continued promotion of a one-size fits all
approach to teacher preparation that inadequately serves children in urban schools. Knowing the
role teacher preparation plays in reproducing this inequality empowers us to seek alternative
ways to support the development of new teachers in urban schools.
Across the country, the need for new teachers continues to grow as our nation faces a
teacher shortage that is affecting schools. In California, to counter the high demand of new
teachers needed, the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) has created various
pathways in becoming a teacher through a traditional and alternative route. The traditional route
includes completing a post-baccalaureate program where it provides an “academic and
theoretical focus in addition to classroom-based field and student teaching experiences”
(California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2023). The alternative pathway includes a
teacher intern program where the candidate is taking coursework and teaching in the classroom
at the same time. As part of the state’s first tier of credentialing, either route will prepare
candidates to obtain an initial teaching credential through successful completion of coursework,
fieldwork, and a performance demonstration of their knowledge through state assessments.
Although the preparation programs are supported by the Teaching and Performance Expectations
standards that includes opportunities for reflection throughout their program, “there is no way to
gauge the links between what teachers are learning in teacher education and their actual practices
(in P–12 urban schools) with students” (Howard & Milner, 2014, p. 210). This concept begins to

15
target the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs and how novice teachers are equipped in
entering urban schools. Once they graduate as novice teachers, they begin to teach and move on
to the second tier which is a two-year job-embedded individualized induction program that is
focused on support and mentoring. Every teacher with a preliminary credential is required to
participate in induction to be recommended for their California clear credential.
The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing provides accredited state programs
with preconditions and program standards to support new teachers in clearing their preliminary
credentials. Within these state requirements, induction programs are called on to create models
of learning and mentoring that ensure new teachers have the necessary support to guide their
development across the state standards (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing, 2016).
Specifically, the induction standards recommend planned reflective opportunities throughout the
induction program to provide the teacher with space to look back at the effectiveness of their
instruction and the analysis of student and other outcomes data (California Commission on
Teacher Credentialing, 2016). Although reflection is integrated within induction, it is more on
the surface, or more descriptive to the teacher’s experience in the classroom. Howard and Milner
(2014) write about in helping develop culturally responsive teachers, programs should be
mindful in how they support their novice teachers to "explicitly and implicitly recognize the
salience of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, linguistic heritage, and culture (among other
categories) in everyday classroom interaction (p. 220). With that said, integrating critical
reflection within the induction process would enable teachers in taking a deeper look at their own
dispositions and making relevant connections to the curriculum and the students’ cultural
backgrounds. Brookfield (2017) describes critical reflection as an experience of questioning our
biases and teaching assumptions, and then replacing or reframing them towards making more

16
informed actions to support student learning. This practice will enable teacher to examine their
teaching by reflecting on how they are centering their students’ assets and funds of knowledge
within their lesson design to promote a more equity-minded environment (Aguilar, 2020) where
students and teachers can learn together.
Critical reflection opportunities within the induction process leads to the development of
equity-minded teachers (Aguilar, 2020). Providing a learning environment for novice teachers
that promotes the practice of critical reflection would enable them to make commitments towards
better understanding who they are and how their behaviors and beliefs impact the learning of
students in their classroom (Howard & Milner, 2014) towards equity. Drago-Severson and BlumDeStefano (2017) found that “a constructive-developmental lens can help us better understand
how educators’ internal capacities influence their teaching and leadership for social justice, as
well as their orientations toward race, diversity, identity, privilege, and collaboration within and
across lines of difference” (p. 460). It is critical to build on these ideas to foster a dialogic space
within the induction process, a space that provides an opportunity of openness to all voices in the
group that enables “collaborative critical reflection in a community of practitioners to circumvent
the barriers to transformative learning” (Liu, 2017, p. 806). This opportunity can provide
avenues for novice teachers to address their positionality and the steps taken to better support
their students. Furthermore, Meyer (2007) stressed the point that “Institutions of learning must
redefine themselves in order to move toward a truly liberatory and emancipatory learning
experience” (p. 28). To address the entrenched inequity, induction programs need to examine
their learning model and seek how critical reflection is used to surface the novice teachers’
beliefs on teaching and working with students in marginalized communities to promote culturally

17
responsive teaching practices and enact change in their practice to support the academic success
of their students.
The Inequity as Found Within the Organization
One of the ways that the inequity was expressed in my context was through The Los
Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) Teacher Growth and Induction Program (TGI). The
program worked under the umbrella of the district’s mission statement of “embracing our
diversity to educate L.A.’s youth, ensure academic achievement and empower tomorrow’s
leaders” and the vision of acting as a “progressive global leader in education, providing a
dynamic and inspiring learning experience where all students graduate ready for success” (Los
Angeles Unified School District, n.d.). The alignment to the core principles of the district, as
well as the CTC’s preconditions and program standards, was key to how TGI structured its
program. Furthermore, with the use of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession
(CSTP), the program was committed to supporting the acceleration of teacher growth and
development as professional educators within an urban context.
At the time of the study, TGI served over 1,000 beginning teachers in clearing their
preliminary credentials. The program strived in assisting novice teachers with a support system
that would enable them to navigate their first years in the classroom and identify areas that would
promote their growth in the profession. Howard and Milner (2014) indicate that “Helping
teachers develop knowledge is an essential aspect to preparing them to teach in urban
classrooms” (p. 228). The goal was for novice teachers to progress towards mastery of the
CSTPs through intensive individualized support. Key elements of the TGI model of support
included individualized professional development and support, classroom instruction and
content-focused mentoring, and active participation from, and communication with, site

18
administrators. TGI provided participants with credentialed like mentors, teachers who have the
same teaching credential as the novice teachers, to provide differentiated support through an
Individualized Learning Plan (ILP). The ILP served as a developmental document that surfaced
the teachers’ teaching dispositions and provided opportunities for reflection that would guide
them along the CSTPs continuum of teaching practice. Each novice teacher collaborated with
their mentor on identified areas of development that would serve towards meeting the CTC
requirements for teacher induction. Furthermore, TGI embedded a cycle of inquiry within the
mentorship, a process that called on the novice teacher to not only examine their own practice
but to also connect with other members of the school, like administrators and fellow colleagues,
to build partnerships in their professional growth towards lifelong learning. This cycle of inquiry
encouraged the novice teacher to build an understanding of how the school as a community to
support student learning and discourage silos that could be reproduced in the early years of the
profession.
To support the development of the mentors, TGI provided a mandatory program
orientation prior to the start of the academic year, that covered the history of TGI, the induction
process, and appropriate mentoring practices that aligned with the ILP. The orientation was
provided virtually and consisted of three hours of synchronous learning and 1 hour of
asynchronous activities, that included reviewing elements of the ILP, steps in documenting
interactions, and creating connections with the novice teacher’s administrator. Although the
orientation covers a general outlook on the program and ways to support novice teachers, it lacks
depth in providing support to mentors in better understanding how to promote novice teachers’
critical self-reflection and their adoption of culturally relevant pedagogy. Douglas and Nganga
(2013) discuss the concept of preparing teachers as, “Preparing to teach and lead a culturally and

19
linguistically diverse student body warrants that educators examine their own values and
assumptions about working with students who are different from them” (pp. 59–60). The fact
that mentors are given only a short amount of time to begin to discuss reflection, undermines the
scholarship of using reflection as a tool to examine the complexities of race in teaching and
learning (Milner, 2003). By being more intentional in centering critical reflection and culturally
relevant pedagogy within the orientation, mentors would be more equipped in their attempt to
facilitate reflections that engage novice teachers in addressing their instructional practice and
how that aligns with the cultural and racial make-up of their students.
Although the program offered a systematic model that provided structure that had the
potential for mentors to guide their novice teachers to reflect on their teaching practice to better
support their students, there were missed opportunities for the program to leverage critical
reflection within the mentoring conversations and the ILP. The ILP provided novice teachers
time to engage in surface reflection, or the examination of teaching methods and how it is
“confined to tactical issues concerning how best to achieve predefined objectives and standards”
(Larrivee, 2008, p. 348), and not necessarily the opportunity to engage in critical reflections that
addressed the assumptions and biases they were coming in with. As a result, mentors used the
ILP to guide teacher reflection to support novice teachers to realign their practice along the
CSTP’s Continuum of Teaching Practice. Although the Continuum of Teaching Practice serves
as a tool for self-reflection, goal setting, and inquiry into practice, the common language that is
used about teaching and learning does not fully embrace the systemic issues impacting our
district on the underlying assumptions of teaching and learning in marginalized communities.
Blank and de las Alas (2009) identifies attributes for more effective programs to implement
opportunities for teachers to learn by being more intentional in how they engage their

20
participants in “active learning methods, collective participation, and substantive attention to
how students learn specific content” (as cited in Kennedy, 2016, p. 946). Because critical
reflection was not included in the ILP, it limited the ability of mentors to have in-depth
conversations with their novice teachers to consider the implications of their beliefs and
dispositions on teaching and how it impacts student learning. Furthermore, at its true essence, the
inquiry process should allow the novice teacher to make meaning of their development in
helping them set goals, by using what they have learned from their experience that will inform
future action and consider the real-life implications to their thinking.
The implementation of critical reflection within the ILP would provide teachers with the
dialogical space to examine their own mental models to enact culturally responsive teaching
practices in their classroom and make TGI more effective as an induction program.
My Role in the Context of the Organization
At the time I conducted the study, I served as a Specialist and Full Release Mentor for
LAUSD’s TGI Program. My primary role was as a support system for novice teachers working
towards clearing their preliminary teaching credentials. These teachers came from various
cultural and economic backgrounds and supported students in historically marginalized
communities. Although my position as program leader was to facilitate the organization’s
structure and goals, I used the space to promote my perspective on urban education, that included
my experiences as it relates to my mentoring practice. I understood that my role within this
program could enable me to work towards addressing the continued entrenched inequities in our
school communities.
While I was a member of the TGI team, I noticed that our design of supporting new
teachers in their induction process excluded the use of critical reflection. As stated earlier, our

21
mentors were given few opportunities to learn about how to address candidate teachers’
assumptions and biases within their teaching practices in urban settings, but more concentrated
on surface reflections that addressed maintaining an efficient classroom. Providing mentors with
the necessary tools, like critical reflection, to surface and unpack novice teachers’ biases and
dispositions, and how is key to sustaining their growth and retention in the profession. Milner
and Lomotey (2014) discussed the implications related to urban education by building a more
robust knowledge base amongst programs that will benefit “students and practitioners in urban
ecologies” (p. 19). An explicit connection between our induction process and the use of critical
reflection was vital to supporting the development of our novice teachers.
At the beginning of the study, I had been actively reproducing the elements of the ILP by
encouraging my teachers to reflect on their practice on the surface. However, I was interested in
changing my practice and seeking opportunities to create space for change in my organization. I
was curious about how I could begin working with my novice teachers in the practice of critical
reflection to help support their understanding of culturally responsive teaching and make efforts
towards bringing about its use within their practice. I was interested learning to utilize the tenets
of transformational coaching to build rapport with novice teacher in co-constructing learning
spaces that surfaced their strengths and explored opportunities for commitments to change, that
would improve the reorientation of classroom structure to better support the academic and socialemotional learning needs of historically marginalized students. Although I did realize that this
shift in support would take time and should continue after the study concluded, I believed the
implementation of critical reflection within the ILP would benefit the organization in moving
forward in addressing inequitable practices and beliefs that created oppressive conditions for our
students. For this reason, I answered the question: How do I engage a novice K–12 teacher in

22
critical reflection to interrogate their teaching practices to move them towards incorporating
tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom?
In the ensuing sections of this document, I present the conceptual framework that
specifies the theoretical concepts and literature that guided my research. I then present the
methods I used, my action plan, my approach to data analysis, the limitations and delimitations
that bound my study, my approach to ensuring credibility and trustworthiness, and the ways I
ensured that I enacted this study ethically. I then present my findings and the implications for my
work moving forward, found in the afterword.
Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) writes that a conceptual framework is a “system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p. 39).
My original conceptual framework guided my action research as I worked to answer the question
How do I engage a novice K–12 teacher in critical reflection to interrogate their teaching
practices to move them towards incorporating tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the
classroom? Since completing my study, the revised conceptual framework is my current tentative
theory of action in relation to helping novice teachers engage in critically reflective practice to
internalize the importance of culturally responsive teaching and enact it as their instructional
practice. In this section, I offer a conceptual framework that is not only informed by elements of
critical reflection, transformational coaching, and culturally responsive teaching, and the analysis
I conducted of data collected during my dissertation in practice. The long-term goal is to
continue to work with novice teachers towards supporting their instructional practice that
supports and centers the students they teach. As I will demonstrate in my findings section, I was
able to make significant progress with one of the teachers from the focus group I initially began

23
with. This experience has provided me the space to use what I have learned in strengthening my
practice and move the work towards supporting additional novice teachers in the future.
In my original conceptual framework, I focused my attention on research that addressed
transformation coaching, critical reflection, and culturally responsive teaching. However, as a
result of data analysis, I supplemented my original conceptual framework as I came to realize the
value of promoting and sustaining a holding environment to enable the learner to enter a
constructive disorientation, or a perceived disconnect between the current and a desired state,
accompanied by a sense of efficacy that one is capable of dealing with that disconnect” (Wergin,
2020, p. 57). This disorientation would lead them to transform their beliefs and dispositions
around their instructional practice and make shifts towards incorporating culturally responsive
teaching. By shifting my attention to the holding environment, I argue that I am in a better
position to build intrinsic motivation within my teacher towards interrogating their practice and
engage in transformational learning.
Thus, in my revised theory of action, I argue that by establishing a holding environment
and enacting transformational coaching moves that contain (critical)1
reflection and various
forms of assistance, I can help the learner (the novice teacher) to maintain disciplined attention to
the content, engage in collaborative discourse, and grow in their internalization of the importance
and enactment of culturally relevant pedagogy (the content). These concepts are represented in
Figure 1. I will describe each of these core concepts in the following order: Holding
Environment, Transformational Coaching, including Forms of Assistance and Critical
1 Although I set out to engage my learners in critical reflection, I was only able to engage them in
(descriptive and comparative) Thus, I offer (critical) reflection to represent the intended goal versus the enacted
goal.

24
Reflection, and Culturally Responsive Teaching. Additionally, I will detail how my conceptions
of these relationships have changed because of my in the field experience.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
In the subsequent sections, I will elaborate on each element located within the conceptual
framework, as well as offer a more complete explanation of the core concepts. I will first
describe how the leader establishes or extends the holding environment as a key in support
change in both the novice teacher and the leader. I will then elaborate on my role as the leader to
enact transformational coaching to enable the novice teacher to surface and examine assumptions
and biases in teaching and explore new opportunities in the content.
The Leader Creates a Holding Environment
In Figure 1, the leader is represented as a component within the Induction Program. As
part of my theory of change, to move the novice teacher towards interrogating their instructional
practice and engaging in transformational learning, I as the leader must first establish a holding
environment. A holding environment is a “structural, procedural, or virtual space” (Northouse,

25
2019, p. 496) where teachers can feel safe to exist in the struggle of dealing with conflicting
values about their practice, without feeling overwhelmed and learn to experiment with a new
way of being. Within this environment, to help regulate this distress I must monitor the level of
stress of the teacher by extending the current structure of our meetings. In my action research, I
needed to extend the holding environment to include opportunities for my teacher to feel safe
and allow me to monitor the level of tension they were experiencing by ensuring that appropriate
forms of assistance were in place to support their learning. Thus, by extending the existing
holding environment, it served to provide my teacher with a sense of security as I fostered
disorientation that allowed them to transform their beliefs.
As I have added this to my theory of change, to establish or extend an existing holding
environment, I have to take a step back and “get on the balcony” (Northouse, 2019, p. 262), to
better understand the needs of the novice teacher and how I can better support their learning. In
doing so, I recognize that there is a need to be more student centered and step back from my own
agenda to attend to their learning. Getting on the balcony provides me with the opportunity to
identify the “value and power conflicts among people, ways they may be avoiding work, and
other dysfunctional reactions to change” (Heifetz & Laurie, 1997, as cited in Northouse, 2019, p.
262), that gives me a clearer picture of what is taking place. I believe that by establishing or
extending the holding environment, I will have a better understanding of what the novice
teacher’s reality is and how I position myself to mobilize them to begin the work in making
changes in their practice.
As a part of this holding environment, I continue to believe that specific learning
conditions must be in place. These include direction, protection, orientation, conflict
management, and productive norms of support (Northouse, 2019). These learning conditions

26
enable me to cultivate the holding environment that promotes deep learning (Wergin, 2020) that
enabled my learner to explore new viewpoints towards their “productive zone of disequilibrium”
(Heifetz, 2009, as cited in Wergin, 2020), or the threshold of learning that enables learners
towards adaptive learning. Moreover, the learning conditions provide a systemic structure that
promotes the collaborative discourse2
to not only develop the novice teacher’s internalization and
actualization of culturally responsive teaching in their practice, but to provide the leader with
opportunity to reflect and interrogate their practice in how they are present to their learner and
the content. This encouraged the exchange of ideas based on evidence to generate new thinking
and a stronger understanding of the content.
To extend this environment, I now believe that the leader must maintain discipline
attention (Northouse, 2019) to the learner, which means that “the leader needs to encourage
people to focus on the tough work they need to do” (Northouse, 2019, p. 268). In my study, this
meant that I needed to be able to extend the holding environment by providing a structure that
promoted safety that allowed my learner to surface their values perspective and interrogate her
thinking. To do so, I established norms and procedures to ensure the expectations for our
meeting and the method we would use in our collaborative discourse to move us towards
establishing a shared orientation of values and purposes around the importance of culturally
responsive teaching. In my study, this meant that I needed to understand that in part of ensuring
my study was meeting the goals, the structural features of the meeting would need to include
core productive norms and procedures (Wageman et al., 2009, as cited in Northouse, 2019) that
allows my participant to flourish. For example, norms of behavior that are established and shared
by group members and not easily changed, have a positive influence on the progress of the
2 For this study, I use the term “collaborative discourse” interchangeably with interpersonal and
intrapersonal communication.

27
group. The procedures within the meetings are highly influenced by the agreed norms in the
group and determines how the work is carried out. In my study, as the leader I needed to be
explicit in how the norms and procedures were shared with my learner and how I would identify
when the norms and procedures were unproductive and how it would impede our collaboration
(Northouse, 2019). By being cognizant in how I maintain discipline attention to the safety and
structure of the holding environment, I was more equipped in engaging my learner in
constructive discussions about their practice and make progress towards making changes in their
practice.
The Leader, the Novice teacher, and the Content
As indicated earlier, the leader is represented as a component within the environment of
the TGI Program. To move towards the direction in enacting change, I still believe that
transformational coaching is the best vehicle to move novice teachers to understand the
importance of and incorporate tenets of culturally responsive teaching practices in their
classroom. Transformational coaching is the four-phase process of building collaborative
discourse that is intended to create significant change within an individual’s mindset and practice
(cite). It provides coaches with opportunities to guide their learners in unpacking their
assumptions and biases informed by their behaviors, beliefs, and ways of being that may be a
hindrance in their commitment to transform systems of inequity in their practice (Aguilar, 2020).
The four phases of transformational coaching serve to guide the novice teacher in
reflecting on their practice towards understanding their instructional behaviors, beliefs, and ways
of being as it relates to their students. Aguilar (2020) describes the uniqueness of this model on
coaching novice teachers by emphasizing the attention to emotions and interpersonal
relationships within the mentoring process. I integrated forms of assistance throughout the four

28
phases to promote thinking and discussion of the content, which created an entry point to support
my learner in in managing their struggle to teach her students. I used questioning strategies, like
guiding and probing questions (Sahin & Kulm, 2008), as the specific form of assistance to
promote discussion and guided support throughout each phase. Consistent with Tharp and
Gallimore (1988), questioning is a form of assistance by which speech, interaction and
collaboration come together to help learners develop, comprehend, and personalize concepts
being presented. Questioning helps learners triangulate the interrogation of their own ideas,
beliefs, and how it relates to the new concepts presented. I used guiding and probing questions as
forms of assistance in our cooperative learning space to support the constructive disorientation
my leaner was experiencing. Guiding questions are like leading questions, as they are used to
promote student thinking (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) and guide the discussion towards deeper
dialogue on the topic. In my action research, this meant creating questions that would frame our
conversations and collaborations towards more profound understanding of the concepts. Once
guiding questions were established, probing questions were used to move the conversation along.
As I will demonstrate in my findings section, some of the guiding questions used were
dichotomous, or closed ended questions, that served to guide my learner in not closing off their
responses but meeting them where they were at during the study. The purpose of probing
questions was to extend the learner’s understanding of the concept by asking them to go beyond
what they can recollect, but to “push students to use previous knowledge to explore and develop
new concepts and procedures” (MSDE, 1991, as cited in Sahin & Kulm, 2008, p. 224). The use
of these questions supported me in focusing in on the learner’s thinking and redirecting the
conversation to clarify any misconceptions presented. In my study, probing questions were an

29
integral part of my conversations as it enabled me to push my teacher towards interrogating their
practice and begin to take steps towards integrating culturally responsive teaching in her practice.
In addition to questioning, I used modeling—the process of offering behavior, language,
and thought processes for imitation (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989)—to help the novice teacher
understand the concept being taught. Although I did not address this in my findings, I used this
means of assistance to demonstrate to them how a specific strategy should be used within our
collaborative session. Intertwined with modeling, feedback regarding performance is key to the
development of the learner. Feedback is the act of providing information on performance to
guide the learner to “substantial improvement in performance” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989, p. 54)
on their next attempt. During my study, I provided this shared information in the forms of my
response to our interactions, live observations of their performance, and data regarding
performance. Although I did not address this in my findings, I included this support to provide
direct instruction to assist the performance of the learner towards the next specific act (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). Instruction involves the leader informing the learner on what to do or
explaining how something must be done. If instruction becomes too authoritarian, it can create
an autocratic environment that will deter the learner from wanting to engage. In my action
research, this meant being overtly aware of how I manifested oppressive practices through my
instructional voice. Although I did not analyze this in my findings, I believe these actions to be
true that in creating a safe environment to unearth biases and assumptions within teaching, I must
be cognizant in how I regulate my voice in support of my learner. As I move forward, I continue
to believe this to be my theory of action, that these things are essential to my ability to support
future candidates. Below I unpack each of the four phases of transformational coaching as it
continues to be central to my theory of action.

30
Phase 1 of transformational coaching is for the coach to support the novice teacher in
surfacing their current reality. In this phase, I got a better understanding of the novice teacher’s
current reality, that included their strengths and challenges in teaching their students. In the
beginning part of the phase, I used questioning strategies as the specific form of assistance, like
guiding and probing questions, to guide the learner through this phase. Through our initial
discussions, I was able to gain a clearer picture of not only what is going on in their context, but
also learn who they were, why they got into teaching, and how that contributed to their
instructional choices. Kolb (1984) indicates that for there to be transformational growth,
reflection on experience is imperative in evaluating the dissonance that can surface during
experiential learning situations (as cited in Rodgers, 2002, p. 232). Within these discussions, the
novice teacher also surfaced their experience in learning, that included their teacher preparation
program and student teaching experience. I used guiding and probing questions in this initial
interaction to help her construct new knowledge (Ridgway et al., 1999, as cited in as cited in
Sahin & Kulm, 2008) of her experience through reflection. This process allowed her to unpack
their assumptions and biases towards teaching and illuminate how systems of oppression
manifested in their classroom. In my study, this meant using modeling to activate their previous
experiences and how they made direct connections to their existing practice. Towards the second
part of Phase 1, I engaged my novice teacher in a lesson observation. I was looking for her to
develop a lesson, based on her own dispositions, to gather additional data that would inform her
current reality and how it effects student learning. The next phase will engage the learner in
identifying how their behaviors are perpetuating inequities in the classroom through the feedback
provided from the reflection and lesson observation.

31
Phase 2 of transformational coaching provides the opportunity to engage the novice
teacher in recognizing the impact of their teaching practice on students. In the surfacing phase,
the novice teacher can unpack their previous understanding of teaching, through reflective
discourse, and examine the decisions they made when teaching their students. During the study, I
positioned the previous reflection to begin recognizing the impact our behaviors and beliefs may
have on perpetuating inequities in the classroom. Through my study, I was able to instruct the
novice teacher on the purpose of reflecting and how it was an iterative process that rarely led to a
simple solution to our problem. We engaged in an opportunity for further reflection that
generates new questions and improved understandings of the problem (Jay & Johnson, 2002)
using a cognitive structure. A cognitive structure serves as a frame of reference in the
information processing ability of learners (Navaneedhan & Kamalanabhan, 2017). It allows
learners to develop “mental representations by illustrating the content with graphical
representation, visualization of diagrams as well as through symbolic and abstract thinking”
(Navaneedhan & Kamalanabhan, 2017, p. 90). To better support her in organizing her thoughts, I
introduced Jay and Johnson’s (2002) typology of reflection as a cognitive structure to support her
understanding of reflection and add new layers towards reflective practice. Through our
reflective practice, I was able to engage the novice teacher in analyzing the observational
feedback, to help identify areas that conflict with her own underlying mental models (Aguilar,
2020) of teaching her students. In my study, the feedback I provided supported her in
recognizing the impact her behaviors and beliefs had on perpetuating inequities in the classroom
by not being aware of the diverse needs of their students. Howard and Milner (2014) described
the importance of ensuring that novice teachers are “equipped to work with students who possess
a wide array of academic, linguistic, psychological, social, and emotional needs” (p. 224). The

32
reflective space allowed the novice teacher to begin recognizing the importance of students’
assets and funds of knowledge, and how it can be leveraged in the classroom to increase student
interaction. To support them through this phase, the use of guiding questions was key in leading
them towards understanding the implications of the observational data and how it connects to
their willingness to make changes in their practice (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). In my study, this
meant that I needed to be explicit in how I leveraged the responses and model how to use the
data to create areas of professional growth. As a result, I recognize that I need to continue to
model how these growth opportunities are centered on the teacher’s ability to be present in
student learning (Rodgers, 2002). This culminating point served as a transition into the exploring
phase of transformational coaching that addressed the commitments to change in the novice
teacher’s instructional practice. I will continue to use questioning with future novice teachers.
Phase 3 of transformational coaching is meant to support the novice teacher in exploring
their emotions around solidifying a commitment towards changing their instructional practice. In
the recognizing phase, the novice teacher can recognize and reflect how their selection of
teaching practices impacted student learning, by unpacking the observational data. In the
exploring phase, I positioned our previous reflection to provide space for the novice teacher to
explore, acknowledge, understand, and release emotions from their classroom experience to
access “deeper levels of courage, commitment, and confidence” (Aguilar, 2020, p. 41) towards
change in her instructional practice. Aguilar (2020) details the level of strong emotions that
could be surfaced as teachers begin to recognize aspects of their identity that need to be
transformed. In my study, this meant that I needed to use questioning to help my learner unpack
their emotions and positionality surfaced from the feedback of the lesson. Consistent with Sahin
and Kulm (2008), the use of guiding and probing questioning at this point was pivotal in pushing

33
my learner to utilize the observational data and reflection to explore and develop new ideas that
would promote their learning. Additionally, it was critical that I provided opportunities for the
novice teacher to slow down and be present in the moment of instruction, that served to build
their capacity to observe skillfully in recognizing the impact their teaching practices had on
student learning. Rodgers (2002) discusses the importance of understanding the multiple
elements in a learning setting by slowing down to find those nuances that inform our practice
that will support meaningful student learning. Though I did not attend to the level of critical
reflection in my action research, in terms of depth and skill development, I still believe in the
skill of centering the varied perspectives or lenses in our context to help explain why things are
happening a certain way and how we begin to use that information to examine teaching
assumptions. Brookfield (2017) describes the best way to unearth and scrutinize our assumptions
of teaching is to use “four specific lenses available to us: students’ eyes, colleagues’ perceptions,
personal experiences, and theory and research” (p. 7). Moving forward, I will continue to
practice the skill of interrogating the teaching practices of my teachers, through these lenses, that
will enable them to further investigate distorted assumptions that impact student learning. This
concluding point of the exploring phase transitioned the study towards the creating phase of
transformational coaching that enabled me to begin moving the novice teacher towards enacting
new teaching practices.
Phase 4 of transformational coaching is intended to coach the novice teacher in creating
and enacting new practices in their teaching. In the exploring phase, the novice teacher can
analyze their instructional practice by exploring their emotions and positionality surfaced in the
teaching cycle. In the creating phase, I positioned our previous reflection to promote the
development of new behaviors and beliefs that would move the novice teacher towards creating a

34
change in their teaching practice. In our collaborative setting, I was able to provide purposeful
feedback on their reflection, that included ways to examine how their growth-oriented goal can
incorporate tenents of culturally responsive teaching. In my action research, this meant using
probing questions to push my teacher’s thinking towards internalizing the role that culturally
responsive teaching should play in their practice. Although I was not able to use critical
reflection in this final phase, I still believe in the opportunity to support my learner in becoming
a reflective practitioner in examining the multiple perspectives in their context that would enable
them to establish a renewed perspective on the matter. Moving forward, continuing the practice
skill of critical reflection will continue to help my learner’s increased awareness of developing
new understandings of teaching practices and its implications towards a new belief of
meaningful student learning.
As the leader, it was ultimately my responsibility to ensure that I modeled critical
reflection within the four phases of transformational coaching. While I was not able to attend to
this in my action research, I still believe in the importance of critical reflection and its ability to
support my learner in examining their own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and behaviors (Mezirow,
1991, 2003). Moving forward, continuing to practice the skill of critical reflection with my
leaner will continue to help them identify how their identity shapes their role as the teacher and
their commitment towards changing their instructional practice to support student learning.
Continual practice of critical reflection for myself is crucial as I continue to create space to
critically reflect on my own epistemology and how that contributes to the actions taking place in
our collaborative setting.
In my action research, I facilitated the collaborative discourse within the ILP, by not only
focusing on the candidate teacher, but to myself as well. I was able to attend to myself as a

35
learner within the study, by taking the time to interrogate my own set of behaviors, beliefs, and
ways of being (Aguilar, 2020, p. 34) to ensure that I understood the identity of my learner as it
relates to their instructional practice. To be the transformational coach I strive to become, it is
not enough to have an extensive knowledge of the forms of assistance I use to support the
learner, but equally important, a thorough understanding of their positionality and how it can
influence the coaching conversation. An effective transformational coach is mindful of the
learner’s positionality and how their multiple identities shape how they understand and engage in
their teaching practice to consider how their knowledges and perspectives impact educational
equity (Aguilar, 2020). Understanding the impact of these components was vital in creating a
space for my learner to engage in reflexive practice to examine what they have learned and
consider the implications of their learning towards the impact of teaching her students. In my
study, to ensure that the novice teacher was working to develop a consistent critically reflective
practice, my intention was to include critical reflection within the four phases of transformational
coaching. Critical reflection is a process that allows individuals to uncover and examine the
power structures and hegemonic practices within their professional practice. It enables
professionals to question assumptions they hold that inform their practice and seek alternative
methods to create new understandings that will challenge and disrupt inequities created by
dominant ideology (Brookfield, 2017). Although I was not able to fully support my teacher in
reaching the level of a complete critical reflection, I was able to yield the product of surfacing
the teacher’s assumptions and biases and begin promoting a change in their integration of
culturally responsive teaching practices.
The last component within the environment of Figure 1 represents the content being
enacted in the study. Within the environment, the interaction between me and the learner,

36
through our collaborative discourse, and facilitated by the forms of assistance to promote
thinking and discussion, led the novice teacher towards internalizing the importance of culturally
responsive teaching in her practice. Culturally responsive teaching is a pedagogical approach that
recognizes the need of including students’ cultural references in all areas of teaching to improve
the learning experience of students. Modeled after the work of Geneva Gay (2018), culturally
responsive teaching validates and affirms the legitimacy of the cultural heritages of different
ethnic groups within the classroom by “using the cultural knowledge, prior experiences, frames
of reference, and performance styles of ethnically diverse students to make learning encounters
more relevant to and effective for them” (p. 36). Key practices of culturally responsive teaching
include high expectations of students, engaging students’ cultural knowledge, experiences, and
practices through a wide variety of instructional strategies, bridging gaps between the school and
home, seeking approaches to educate the whole child, identifying, and leveraging strengths to
transform educational practices, and critically examining social orders and power structures at
the school and in the community. Attention to incorporating culturally responsive practices
enables educators to foster an academic environment that ensures opportunities for student
engagement that will enable students to have equity of voice in the classroom (Calabrese Barton
et al., 2020). In my action study, this meant sharing with my teacher on the value of enacting
culturally responsive teaching in their practice to help students to take up more space in the
classroom when expressing their understanding of content-based instruction.
Advocating for the incorporation of culturally responsive teaching includes the process of
designing learning experiences to leverage student assets and create high expectations that hold
students accountable for their learning. Gay (2000) explains the impact of culturally responsive
teaching on academic success is when the teacher begins to include opportunities within the

37
content that incorporate the “lived experiences and frames of reference of students” (Gay, 2001,
p.106). In my study, academic success meant recognizing and understanding where students are
at and what resources they need to gain deeper insight into their learning. This meant that I
needed to model to my teacher how to leverage their relationships with their students to develop
opportunities to include the various cultural backgrounds in the class to enhance their lessons. I
believe that as teachers we have the unique opportunity of using the rapport we have with
students to embed their lived experiences into the content. As a result, these learning experiences
have an impact on the interest level of the students on the content and creates a richer learned
experience that contributes to their academic success.
In my action research, this meant being explicit on how these culturally responsive
teaching opportunities surfaced in our collaborative discourse. Through the four phases of
transformative coaching, I positioned questioning as the specific form of assistance to guide my
learner in unpacking the lesson observational data and create entry points to address culturally
responsive teaching as catalyst for a transformative learning experience for students. Banks
(1991) discusses the connection between culturally responsive teaching and high-quality
education through transformative learning experiences. He contends that “being transformative
involves helping students to develop the knowledge, skills, and values needed to become social
critics who can make reflective decisions and implement their decisions in effective personal,
social, political, and economic action” (as cited in Gay, 2018, p. 131). In my study, this meant
providing the teacher with opportunities to engage in critical reflection to explore their emotions
in “solidifying a commitment to changing their practices” (Aguilar, 2020, p. 43) to create a
transformative learning experience for their students. Though I did not attend to this level of
critical reflection in my action research, in terms of skill development, I still believe in and will

38
continue to practice skill of critical reflection with teachers to move them towards integrating
culturally responsive teaching to promote transformational learning in our classrooms.
In my action study, my teacher and I used our collaborative discourse to engage in in
reflective conversations within the four phases of transformational coaching to develop
pedagogical actions towards culturally responsive teaching practice. Within our collaborative
discourse, I was able to use a variety of forms of assistance to support my teacher in exploring
their mental models and teaching dispositions on the students they taught towards a willingness
to make changes in their practice. Though our conversations and feedback, identifying the
disconnect in her practice led her to enter a constructive disorientation that would help her frame
and interrogate her practice and begin to internalize the importance of culturally responsive
teaching. In my action research, this meant continuously using questioning as the specific form
of assistance within our collaborative conversations to guide them in building intrinsic
motivation toward interrogating their practice and take steps towards transformational learning.
It is my contention that if we seek to position our students to succeed in the classroom, I must
continue to provide opportunities for my teachers to examine their instructional practice through
(critical) reflection. The use of critical reflection will enable the teacher to examine their
assumption of power dynamics towards teaching students in marginalized communities and the
willingness to make changes in their practices to incorporate culturally responsive practices. As I
move forward, I still believe that critical reflection plays a significant role in creating
commitments towards engaging in transformational learning. Though I did not attend to the level
of critical reflection in my action research, in terms of modeling and skill development, I still
believe in and will continue to practice the skill of critical thinking with my teachers as we

39
continue to move towards increased cultural awareness of our students in relation to the work we
do as educators.
Research Methods
This section describes the qualitative approach, tools, data collection methods and
analytic approach that I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine
how I supported a novice K–12 teacher in examining their biases and assumptions, how those
biases and assumptions were revealed in their classroom, and their long-term integration of
instructional practices that were consistent with tenets of culturally responsive teaching. I
specifically examined the ways I enacted a holding environment, transformational coaching,
which integrated (critical) reflection and forms of assistance, and culturally responsive teaching
to one novice teacher who I mentored as a part of their participation in the TGI program. My
actions took place during our scheduled collaborative mentor meetings, which took place in both
a physical and virtual setting. The physical setting consisted of my classroom visit, while the
virtual setting took place via the communication platform Zoom and occurred in the late
afternoon. Both settings consisted of a 60-minute time frame. The data gathered from these
interactions helped me answer the following question: How do I engage a novice K–12 teacher
in critical reflection to interrogate their teaching practices to move them towards incorporating
tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom? As mentioned earlier, for the purpose
of my dissertation, I narrowed my focus of critical reflection to the enactment of reflective
practices within my collaborative settings to help my teacher internalize the importance of
culturally responsive teaching within their instructional practice. I recognized that the amount of
time I spent in the field would not permit a great shift in the novice teacher’s approach to their
work, but I believed I could help create small, substantial shifts in their practice that could

40
continue to be expanded upon after the completion of the study. In this section I will discuss my
participant and setting, actions, data collection and instruments, data analysis, limitations and
delimitations, credibility and trustworthiness, and ethics. I will address each in said order.
Participant and Settings
My dissertation research took place in my current work site, the TGI Program, during the
Spring 2022 semester. I engaged in a self-study action research study as I was the primary
instrument of data collection and analysis. Because I was situated within the context of my study,
action research was an appropriate methodological approach to undertake as it enabled me to
address a particular problematic situation (Herr & Anderson, 2015) within my context to create
change. Action research allowed me to use my prior experiences with a novice teacher to build
rapport and work to “improve the rationality and justice of their own social or educational
practices” (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1987, as cited in Herr & Anderson, 2015, p. 4) to develop a
commitment to interrupting inequities in the classroom. I used a purposeful sampling approach
(Maxwell, 2013) in my study, as I was the primary participant, and the novice teacher was
enrolled in our induction program. This sampling gave me direct insight into the perceptions and
practices of my teacher that would inform me about their individual experience. I used
purposeful sampling because the goal of the study was to gain a deeper understanding of the
novice teacher’s experience as a first-year teacher, rather than form generalizations (Merriam &
Tisdale, 2013). Purposeful sampling helped me access rich information and deeper insight into
our practice that enabled me to build intrinsic motivation within my teacher towards
interrogating their practice and engage in transformational learning.
As the primary research instrument and at the onset of my study, I described myself as a
self-transforming learner (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) because I believed that I

41
had developed my own set of philosophies and systems of beliefs that provided the space for
reflective practice towards my own evolution as a knower. I believed that going through my EdD
coursework, I was the type of learner who was able to orient themselves towards personal and
professional growth through continued collaboration with colleagues that had challenged and
affirmed my beliefs. Furthermore, I believed that practicing critical reflection in our coursework
indicated that I was continuously developing as a practitioner, which had led me to continuously
reevaluate my own actions within my organization. Once I entered the field, I found that I was
not practicing my own intentions, but rather creating an environment that fostered my own
thinking and goals around the study. In fact, working directly with my novice teacher provided
me the time to reflect on the inconsistencies in my practice, that would eventually create change
in the structure of my study, discussed in my findings. Through my action research, I discovered
that I was much closer to a self-authoring knower, as I found myself reflecting on my
interpersonal relationship with my teacher and how I was limiting my ability to recognize her
perspective. Through our conversations, I came to understand how important it was for me to
focus on my learner’s needs to better understand their experiences and perspectives (DragoSeverson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), of which I neglected to do at the beginning of our time
together. Nevertheless, I found myself striving to improve in different aspects of my leadership
and development to grow in my knowing.
Participants
Initially, the participants in this study, aside from me, were five novice K–12 teachers
enrolled in the TGI Program, within the LAUSD’s Human Resources Division of Induction and
Credentialing Programs. At the time of the study, I was supporting and mentoring 22 novice K–
12 teachers. I had identified and invited these five teachers to participate in the study. Each

42
participant engaged in the study and participated in the collaborative sessions through the four
cycles. When reviewing the data of all participants, it became clear that I had too much data to
analyze and needed to narrow my focus on the participant who could provide me the best
opportunity to examine my development. In the process of determining who I should focus in on,
I chose a novice elementary school teacher who I believed provided me the opportunity to
explore my practice as it related to their development. While I was in the field, I believed they
were growing and developing their practice that made them the most interesting candidate to
study. Rebecca, a White female second grade teacher, worked in an elementary school located
within a public housing development and was teaching 15 students at the time of the study.
Rebecca taught the multiple subjects required of the grade level curriculum to their students that
included the following: English/Language Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, Science, Visual
and Performing Arts, Health, and Physical Education. Additionally, they were responsible for
administering locally designed assessments to measure academic growth and provide
intervention in each curricular area. Rebecca’s prior experience included teaching remotely for
their school due to the Covid-19 pandemic and in their student teaching assignment outside of
the school district. Rebecca appeared to be motivated about improving her teaching practice and
wanted to learn more about how to support her students.
At the onset of the study, I described Rebecca as an instrumental learner, one who orients
themselves across a right or wrong perspective and had not yet developed the capacity to fully
understand another perspective within their work (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). I
believed that Rebecca was an instrumental learner based on our initial conversations in our
induction meetings. They often sought input from others, like me and their colleagues at school,
on what specifically they should do to make their practice better, that would lead to the “right”

43
way to teach in their classroom. They viewed others as allies in their development as a new
teacher and gravitated towards those that would support their development. Rebecca would
comment on how they were inclined to follow the curriculum guide explicitly and not focus on
student assets. Throughout the study, Rebecca began to make shifts in their orientation to a
socializing way of knowing as they demonstrated evidence in how they “considered others’
experiences and perspectives” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 469), when
creating learning opportunities in the classroom. Through our conversations, they expressed an
interest in learning more about culturally responsive teaching and began to engage in reflection
as they considered their students’ assets and cultural capital.
Throughout the study, I focused on engaging Rebecca in collaborative discourse that
allowed them to go deeper into understanding themself in relation to their students and the
negotiations they made in their teaching practices. As we engaged in our collaborative discourse,
I was able to facilitate opportunities of reflection within the ILP that provided space for Rebecca
to examine their practice and how it uplifted the academic experience of their students. This form
of reflective practice within the ILP adheres to what Campbell-Jones and Campbell-Jones (2002)
described as an “inner dialogue with oneself whereby a person calls forth his or their own
experiences, beliefs, and perceptions about an idea” (as cited in Tillman, 2003, p. 228). This
form of reflection is typically accompanied in the development of professional practice to inform
next steps towards progression. In my study, I introduced (critical) reflection as an opportunity
for Rebecca to further examine themself within the context of negotiating teaching practices and
its impact on student learning. I quickly learned that to reach the level of reflection I was seeking
Rebecca to get to, I needed to shift my focus in extending the existing holding environment
(Heifetz et al., 2009) to better support their development in understanding how to use reflection

44
to begin making changes in their practice. To navigate the discussion towards reflection, I used
elements of discussion protocols, like guiding and probing questions to shift and focus our
discourse. Throughout the study, Rebecca and I engaged in writing our own (critical) reflections
and used them as entry points in our collaborative meetings to help guide our ways of knowing
towards our role and responsibilities as learners, teachers, and leaders. Throughout the
collaborative sessions, I collected data by writing weekly jottings and observational notes that
focused on the nature of my interactions with Rebecca. These writing collections not only
documented my interactions but served as way to examine my actions within the study that led to
being present to Rebecca’s needs and reflecting on my own practice towards being more studentcentered.
Settings of Actions
The purpose of this study was to explore how I could engage a novice teacher in
examining their biases and assumptions, how those biases and assumptions are revealed in their
current practice, and their long-term integration of instructional practices that were consistent
with tenets of culturally responsive teaching. Since much of our collaborative work took place
during our weekly meetings, we set aside time during our scheduled meetings to for this action
research to take place. At the time of the study, our schools were returning from working
remotely and the use of the communication platform Zoom was prevalent for all meetings across
the district. As a result, all six of our meetings for this study took place through this platform and
occurred in the late afternoon, for 60 minutes, for a total of 6 hours throughout the entire study.
Actions
Consistent with my conceptual framework, I sought to engage a novice K–12 teacher in
using critical reflection as a tool to interrogate their teaching practices to move them towards

45
incorporating tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom. I understood that by
engaging in collaborative discourse, I would be able to guide the novice teacher in examining
their biases and assumptions on teaching their students towards a commitment to transform their
practice. However, while in the field, I came to understand that to engage in conversations about
reflection and culturally responsive teaching, I needed to extend the existing holding
environment to provide the novice teacher with structure and security to promote their growth.
Within this holding environment, I embedded structural features like norms and procedures,
along with forms of assistance, like the use of guiding and probing questions, to help create
structure and safety that helped us to maintain discipline attention to the content and engage in
discussion around reflection and culturally responsive teaching.
One of the major topics we explored was critical reflection through our collaborative
discourse. We attempted the skill of critical reflection, but ultimately practiced descriptive and
comparative reflection. Once we were able to discuss the value of critical reflection, I modeled
how to write a critical reflection to prepare Rebecca to write their own. For this to happen, I
needed to guide the novice teacher through a cognitive structure that would provide her a frame
of reference to reflect on organizing past information, beliefs, assumptions, and feelings about
her practice. To enact this cognitive structure, I introduced Jay and Johnson’s (2002) typology of
reflective practice as a means of obtaining a better understanding of the processes related to
reflection. This learning process provided the novice teacher with the opportunity to build on her
understanding of reflection and add new layers towards reflective practice. The typology is made
up of three sections of reflective thought: descriptive, comparative, and critical. By using the
typology of reflective practice, Rebecca was able to learn how to move from addressing surface
level reflections that explain why things did not go as planned to more (critical) reflections that

46
surface “inherent values in their practice as well as how their practice will lead to change, a
commitment to quality, and respect for differences” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996, as cited in Jay &
Johnson, 2002, p. 76) in their classroom.
Consistent with my conceptual framework, I utilized the model of transformation
coaching to support my novice teacher within our collaborative meeting to examine her biases
and assumptions and how those biases and assumptions were revealed in her instructional
practice. Moreover, the use of guiding and probing questions as forms of assistance in our
cooperative learning space provided them the necessary support as they were experiencing a
constructive disorientation. Each phase provided her with the opportunity to examine her
understanding of student learning and how her behaviors and beliefs were perpetuating inequities
in the classroom. As we progressed towards the last phase, Rebecca began to develop growth
goals towards making steps in transforming her practice.
Table 1 outlines the interactions I had withing my collaborative meetings for this study. It
includes the learning exchanges I had with my teacher towards engaging their thinking in
examining their behaviors and beliefs and how that contributes to their teaching practices. It also
includes the data I collected for each period of the study. The four cycles built upon one another,
with each cycle ending with a week of in-the-field analysis for me to reflect on the learning and
prepare me for my next cycle of inquiry. This was aligned with Coghlan’s (2019) cycles of
action research, in which researchers “construct, plan, act, and evaluate” (p.130) prior to
recalibrating and starting again.

47
Table 1
Actions
Before Study
Action Researcher New Teacher Setting Data Collected
Communicate the
purpose and objective
of the study, the
learner’s role within
the study.
Explain the structure of
the study.
Ask participant to share their
questions, comments, concerns,
and hopes for the study.
Collaborative
Meeting: Virtual
Fieldnote (1)
Cycle 1
The Observation Cycle and Critical Reflection: Surfacing Current Reality
Action Researcher New Teacher Setting Data Collected
Objective:
Participant will
examine and surface
their current teaching
assumptions and
biases during the preobservation planning
section of the ILP.
Literature:
• Aguilar (2020)
• Brookfield (2010,
2017)
• Coghlan (2019)
• Drago-Severson
& BlumDeStefano (2017)
• Jay & Johnson
(2002)
• Knight (2018)
• Larrivee (2008)
• Milner (2003)
• Rodgers (2002)
• Tillman (2003)
Moves:
• Engaging new
teacher within
phase one of
transformational
coaching
• Collaborate with
novice teacher
through discourse
to center their
voice.
Week 1-2
Phase One: Surface
1. Pre-Observation
• Explore underlying
mental models and
teaching dispositions.
• Recognize their beliefs,
behaviors, and ways of
being as a teacher in the
classroom.
• Identify focus area for an
observation: Classroom
Management or
Instructional
• Identify observational
data to be collected by
me.
Week 3-4
2. Observation
• Teacher instructs lesson
in the classroom.
• Leader observes lesson
in the classroom.
Week 5
• Out of the field
Collaborative
Meeting: Face to
Face or Virtual
Novice Teacher
Classroom
Week 1
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
Week 2
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
• (Critical) Reflection
(1)
Week 3
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
Week 4
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
• (Critical) Reflection
(1)
Cycle 2

48
The Observation Cycle and Critical Reflection: Recognizing Impact
Action Researcher New Teacher Setting Progress Indicator
Objective:
Participant will debrief
and reflect on the
lesson observation of
the ILP.
Participant will begin
to learn elements of
reflection by
engaging in a
descriptive reflection.
Literature:
• Aguilar (2020)
• Brookfield (2010,
2017)
• Coghlan (2019)
• Drago-Severson
& BlumDeStefano (2017)
• Jay & Johnson
(2002)
• Knight (2018)
• Larrivee (2008)
• Milner (2003)
• Rodgers (2002)
• Tillman (2003)
Moves:
• Build on prior
knowledge.
• Engaging new
teacher within
phase two of
transformational
coaching
• Modeling
descriptive
reflection as a
method to identify
and understand
the context of a
situation.
• Asking probing
questions to help
new teacher
develop a
descriptive
reflection.
Week 6-7
Phase two: Recognize
Post-observation Reflection
• Debrief lesson
observation through
guided reflection.
• Identify and reflect on
negotiated teaching
practices and their
implication to student
learning.
• Engage in descriptive
reflection practice with
leader to identify and
understand context of
their situation in the
classroom.
Week 8
• Out of the field
Collaborative
Meeting: Virtual
Week 6
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
Week 7
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
• Novice Teacher
Descriptive
Reflection (4)–Take
the form of a written
log
• (Critical) Reflection
(1)
Cycle 3
Development of Growth Goals and Critical Reflection: Exploring Emotions
Action Researcher New Teacher Setting Progress Indicator

49
Objective:
Participant will reflect
on previous teaching
cycle by engaging in
collaborative
discourse in
surfacing emotions to
inform the
development of
growth goals on the
ILP.
Participant will
continue to learn
elements of reflection
by engaging in a
comparative
reflection.
Participant will utilize
the ILP to identify
areas of growth that
promote culturally
responsive teaching
practices.
Literature:
• Aguilar (2020)
• Brookfield (2010,
2017)
• Coghlan (2019)
• Drago-Severson
& BlumDeStefano (2017)
• Gay (2002, 2018)
• Jay & Johnson
(2002)
• Knight (2018)
• Larrivee (2008)
• Milner (2003)
• Rodgers (2002)
• Tillman (2003)
Moves:
• Build on prior
knowledge.
• Engaging novice
teacher within
four phases of
transformational
coaching
• Modeling
comparative
reflection as a
method to reframe
Week 9
Phase Three: Explore
1. Development of Growth Goals
• Explore emotions and
positionality surfaced in
the teaching cycle.
• Reflect on emotions
surfaced within teaching
practice and identify
areas of growth within
the ILP.
• Engage in comparative
reflection practice with
leader to recognize and
attempt to understand the
multiple feelings and
perspectives within the
context.
Week 10
2. Working towards goal
• Develop actionable steps
to address identified
areas of growth within
ILP with the support of
culturally responsive
teaching.
• Engage in readings and
discussions with leader
on culturally responsive
teaching that will
reorient student
discourses and
interactions in the
classroom.
Week 11
• Out of the field
Collaborative
Meeting: Virtual
Collaborative
Meeting: Virtual
Week 9
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
• Novice Teacher
Comparative
Reflection (4)–Take
the form of a written
log
Week 10
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
• (Critical) Reflection
(1)

50
the context of the
situation through
alternative views,
others’
perspectives, and
research.
• Asking probing
questions to help
novice teacher
develop a
comparative
reflection.
• Introducing tenets
of culturally
responsive
teaching.
Cycle 4
Development of Growth Goals and Critical Reflection: Creating New Practices
Action Researcher New Teacher Setting Progress Indicator
Objective:
Participant will reflect
on previous teaching
cycle by engaging in
collaborative
discourse in
surfacing emotions to
inform the
development of
growth goals on the
ILP.
Participant will utilize
the ILP to make
connections between
their new
understandings of
teaching practices
and how it creates a
new expanding belief
of teaching their
students.
Participant will begin
to explore the
practice of critical
reflection producing
a written artifact of
their increased
awareness of utilizing
culturally responsive
teaching to support
meaningful student
learning.
Literature:
Week 12-13
Phase Four: Create
1. Reflecting on Goal Outcomes
• Reflect on previous
lesson taught by
identifying areas that can
promote tenets of
culturally responsive
teaching.
• Design a new lesson that
will incorporate tenets of
culturally responsive
teaching practices.
• Compose 1 critical
reflection on their
teaching cycle.
Week 14
• Out of the field
Collaborative
Meeting: Virtual
Week 12
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
Week 13
• Collaborative
discourse with novice
teacher
• Jottings and
Observational Notes
• Novice Teacher
(Critical) Reflection
(4)–Take the form of
a written log
• (Critical) Reflection
(1)

51
• Aguilar (2020)
• Brookfield (2010,
2017)
• Coghlan (2019)
• Drago-Severson
and BlumDeStefano (2017)
• Gay (2002, 2018)
• Jay & Johnson
(2002)
• Knight (2018)
• Larrivee (2008)
• Milner (2003)
• Rodgers (2002)
• Tillman (2003)
Moves:
• Build on prior
knowledge.
• Engaging novice
teacher within
four phases of
transformational
coaching
• Engaging novice
teacher with
making
connections
between their
current practices
and incorporating
culturally
responsive
teaching.
• Asking probing
questions to help
novice teacher
develop a critical
reflection.
• Encourage the
practice of critical
reflection in open
dialogue as a
method to
interrogate current
practice to create
systemic change
in their classroom.
My work in the field began with reaching out to the novice teacher in the TGI Program
and having a conversation about my study. I explained that I was seeking to explore how could

52
engage novice K–12 teachers in critical reflection to interrogate their teaching practices to move
them towards incorporating tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom. I asked
Rebecca if they were willing to explore this with me and answered any questions they might
have had about the study.
During the study I engaged Rebecca in collaborative discussions that utilized the four
phases of transformational coaching. These conversations provided me the opportunity to
produce jottings, observational notes, (critical) reflections, and analytic memos to examine my
efforts in enacting the phases of transformational coaching and interrogate my positionality and
biases within the study. These writings helped shape my interactions with my learner and
provided the space to recalibrate my practice to better support the next steps in each cycle.
Each cycle of interaction was built upon one another, as part of the four phases of
transformational coaching, with the support of (critical) reflection within the collaborative
meetings. The reflective opportunities produced in the meetings provided the space to address
and promote the incorporation culturally responsive teaching in the classroom. The first cycle
focused on providing the space for the teacher to surface their existing reality by exploring their
underlying mental models and teaching dispositions. This cycle also included a lesson
observation, where the teacher prepared a lesson to be taught to her students. This provided me
the opportunity to observe the teacher in her environment and gather information on how their
dispositions are impacting her practice. The second cycle focused on the impact of their teaching
practice on students through the teacher lesson. Our conversations led to her recognizing the
impact her behaviors and beliefs had on perpetuating inequities in the classroom by not being
aware of the diverse needs of her students. The third cycle guided Rebecca in exploring their
emotions in solidifying a commitment towards changing their practices. The cycle provided the

53
space for Rebecca to develop growth goals that reflected a commitment towards making shifts in
her practice that centers student assets. Finally, the fourth cycle focused on supporting the novice
teacher in creating and enacting new practices in their instructional choices. Through all my
discussions with Rebecca, we were able to begin formulating action steps towards enacting
change in her practice. The cycle provided her with the opportunity to not only reflect on her
learning, but in identifying gaps within their teaching practices that would benefit from
implementing culturally responsive teaching practices.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
During this action research study, I was both researcher and as a participant. I was the
primary instrument for data collection and data analysis, as the purpose was to explore my own
actions within my workspace (Maxwell, 2013). I collected the following types of data: jottings,
observational notes, (critical) reflections, and analytic memos. The combined data sources
provided me the insight into creating learning conditions, that would provide structure and
support for my new teacher, to use (critical) reflection as a tool to interrogate their current
teaching practices and make changes towards incorporating tenets of culturally responsive
teaching in the classroom. In the next section, I will further elaborate on my approach to data
collection.
Documents and Artifacts
Over the course of the study, I used the existing document in my context, the
Individualized Learning Plan (ILP), as an entry point to our collaborative discussions. Although
the document was not a part of my data collection, it was used as a source where participants
produced data. The data produced by participant in this study were reflections based on Jay and
Johnson’s (2002) typology of reflection that examines “the inherent values in their practice as

54
well as how their practice will lead to change, a commitment to quality, and respect for
differences” (p. 76). While Rebecca did produce descriptive and comparative reflections, these
were not collected nor transcribed in my fieldnotes at their request. I produced six jottings, six
observational notes, three (critical) reflections, and four analytic memos. These data sources will
be explained further below.
Jottings. During our six meetings, I jotted notes about what I was seeing, hearing, and
experiencing. These quick field notes were objective and documented what was specifically
taking place in the study. By rendering a description of the participant’s actions and the events
that took place, I was able to note patterns that emerged from these observations (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2017), that contributed to the organization of my observational notes. Furthermore, these
notes informed my own critical reflections, which enabled me to capture my own frame of mind,
ideas, and concerns with respect on restructuring my practice in the next cycle (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2017).
Observational Notes. Utilizing my jottings from my collaborative meetings, six
observational notes were written after the meetings, prior to my reflections. The observational
notes captured the conversations and reflective discourse that took place, including the portraits
of the subjects, reconstruction of dialogue, description of the setting, the examination of what
was taking place, and how I understood these experiences (Bogdan & Biklen, 2017). Since I was
an active participant in the meetings, it was vital that I consistently monitored my subjectivity
(Peshkin, 1988) throughout the process to ensure that the descriptions of these meetings were
authentic and not influenced by my behavior (Bogdan & Biklen, 2017). This data provided
insight into how my teacher was experiencing the learning process, as well as helping me
generate my (critical) reflections.

55
(Critical) Reflections. The jottings and observational notes provided me the opportunity
to write three (critical) reflections over the course of the study, written out at the end of cycles 2
through 4. Although I was practicing the skill of critical reflection, my reflections were more
aligned to descriptive and comparative reflections as I continue to work towards creating actual
critical reflections. The purpose of these critical reflections was to interrogate my own beliefs,
assumptions, and biases within the study and how I produced opportunities to support the novice
teacher in examining their teaching practices to center the students’ lived experiences and frames
of references within their learning. I attempted to examine how my positionality informed my
actions, whether these actions were informed by a dominant ideology, and how these actions
affected the learning conditions of the novice teacher. These critical reflections were crucial in
informing my next actions and steps.
Analytic Memos. The culminating piece of my data that I collected were analytic memos
that were written in the last week of cycles 2 through 4 and used to determine the progress made
in the collaborative sessions and the adjustments needed to move forward. Each analytic memo
was written by looking over my transcripts and describing what I see in the data. The memos
allowed me to synthesize the information I was capturing in my study. Some of the information I
captured in my memos was how I was overtly presenting myself within the meeting to center my
own agenda, inadvertently reinforcing a color blind and context neutral approach to content and
teaching and not asking her to question her choices regarding the curriculum or who her students
are in relation to the curriculum. These memos helped me identify the progress I was making
towards answering my research question and determining my next course of action for the
upcoming cycle.

56
Data Analysis
After I collected my data, I began to make meaning out of what I collected. This helped
me determine how the data I collected informed the findings of my research question (Merriam
& Tisdale, 2016). Consistent with Maxwell’s (2013) assertion that a “researcher begins data
analysis immediately after finishing the first interview or observation and continues to analyze
the data as long as he or she is working on the research, stopping briefly to write reports and
papers” (p. 104), I began my data analysis immediately after I collected data while in the field
and out of the field. Because action research study is cyclical in nature (Coughlan, 2019; Herr &
Anderson, 2015), it was critical that I analyzed my data in the field to make the necessary
adjustments to my actions to better support my learner. These in the field analyses took place at
the end of each cycle. Once I left the field at the end of Cycle 4 and concluded my data
collection, I began to analyze all my data that I collected to reach my findings.
For in the field analysis, I developed analytic questions (Bogden & Biklen, 2017)
grounded on my conceptual framework and the actions I intended to take and included the
following: Have I established a space for my learner to feel safe to speak? How do I support and
encourage my learner to share their thoughts? How has my learner demonstrated progress
towards their development of culturally responsive teaching? In what ways have I created
opportunities of reflection for my learner to interrogate their practice and make progress towards
transformational learning? In my first cycle, I recognized that I was not providing the necessary
holding environment for the novice teacher to feel safe, nor did I consider how I was not being
present to their learning. Thus, I used Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle to restructure my
approach in our meetings, of which I will discuss further in my findings.

57
The interpretation of the data served a significant role in my study as it enabled me to
make sense of what I collected. Once I left the field, I used several analytic tools to help uncover
the hidden meanings contained within my jottings, observational notes, and (critical) reflections.
These tools included questioning, making comparisons, drawing on personal experience, and
looking at language (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I first looked at the use of questioning to help me
start thinking about the data and how it enhanced my understanding. Asking myself questions, as
I examined the data, provided me the space to reflect on Rebecca’s perspective within the study
that helped establish the various themes being produced in each cycle. Additionally, drawing
upon my own personal experiences provided me the opportunity to gain insight into their
experience. Corbin and Strauss (2008) discuss the relevancy of the researcher’s similar life
experience to their learner as an integral part in analyzing the data as it provided the opportunity
to identify other possible meanings. However, I was mindful that my comparisons were only
based on a conceptual level and only intended to establish other possibilities of meaning (Corbin
& Strauss, 2008). Finally, I looked at language within my jottings, observational notes, and
reflections to guide my understanding, within the different stages of the study, in informing me
how the novice teacher’s actions and thoughts developed over time.
Once I examined my data using the analytic questions I had developed, I organized my
observation fieldnotes (Maxwell, 2003) to see the themes that emerged during our collaborative
meetings. To do this, I engaged in open coding that reflected and included a priori codes that
reflected my conceptual framework and empirical codes that I discovered in my data. I used the
transcripts generated from our meetings to document my observations in the margins. Some of
the codes included: culturally responsive teaching, reflection, ideology, and student academic

58
success. The use of open coding provided me a systemic, deliberate, and structured way of
analyzing how my actions were aligned to my conceptual framework.
The lack of a code indicated where my actions fell short of my conceptual framework
while additional codes indicated missing elements from my conceptual framework. As an
example, a holding environment had not existed in my conceptual framework. It was only
through my analysis that I began to realize the value of extending a holding environment to
support the learner in building intrinsic motivation toward interrogating their practice and make
progress towards transformational learning. Through coding, I was more equipped to see the
essence of our work and organize my data into more significant themes. Only after my initial
round of analysis, was I able to produce a codebook and use it as a tool to support my qualitative
analysis.
Additionally, I wrote analytic memos that documented my thoughts and how I was
making sense of the data. Ravitch and Carl (2021) assert that analytic memos are for “theoretical
and personal reflection; theory building; considering evidence for theoretical links; describing
research processes, procedures, questions, and emergent issues with detail and transparency” (p.
291). Engaging in writing analytic memos, provided me with a better understanding of the
decisions I made in my actions with my teacher and the goals of my action research. Initially, I
found it difficult to write objectively about my actions, often not being able to synthesize how
my moves were impacting the goals of the study. However, as I continued to analyze my data
and reflect on my actions through my memos, I was able to see how this insight to my practice
can improve my leadership moving forward. Using both a code book and analytic memo helped
me in developing my findings by aggregating the codes, through phases of coding into analytic

59
codes, and those became themes, which then allowed me to refine my analytic memos into my
findings.
Limitations and Delimitations
My study was bound by both limitations, part of the study that I was unable to control, as
well as delimitations, aspects of the study that were bound by the actions and decisions I made.
Limitations
There were some limitations to this research study. Because qualitative research is
context specific and attempts to understand how actions are unfolded in its natural environment
(Lockmiller & Lester, 2017), my study was bound by the context of my organization. Further,
since I worked with only one participant, this limited my ability to make my findings
transferable. At the time of the study, I worked for the LAUSD’s TGI Program where the novice
teacher was enrolled to clear their preliminary multiple subject teaching credential. The sample
would only reflect teachers who had access to a program who was fully supported by the school
district they were employed in. This limited the study to other induction programs that support
teachers from different districts. Another limitation was the study only reflected a participant
from a large urban school district. This decision excluded other programs located in suburban or
rural communities. The LAUSD is the second largest public-school district in the country, with
over 600,000 students in kindergarten through t12th grade. According to the district, “The
district covers 710 square miles, and includes Los Angeles, as well as all or parts of 31 smaller
municipalities, plus several unincorporated sections of Los Angeles County” (LAUSD, 2020).
The study creates limitations to the findings that address specific elements that are relevant to
urban school districts.

60
Additionally, the study was intended to be conducted in person and I had to pivot to an
online setting. At the time of the study, our school district transitioned from remote learning to
in-person classroom instruction, and thus created many obstacles and stress for teachers. This
may have contributed to how the novice teacher, and I engaged in our conversations.
Additionally, time was a consistent limitation during the study, as I was competing with school
meetings and obligations that were directly connected with Covid-19 updates and district
instructional initiatives to support the transition from remote learning. Rather than rescheduling
our meetings, we met in the early evening, via video conferencing, for an hour, which may have
also caused fatigue and engagement in our conversations. This was out of my control, as I was
limited with my opportunities to engage my novice teacher with a reasonable time to engage in
the study.
Lastly, as a novice researcher and leader, I was limited in my leadership skills. While I
had a sound theoretical understanding of leadership through my doctoral program, I did not have
the opportunity to put these theories into practice prior to my study. This limited the quality of
my actions, how I created forms of assistance to support the learner, and the ability to interrogate
my practice effectively. Additionally, my lack of research experience limited my ability to
properly reflect on my decisions and actions in the moment. Moreover, I could not control how
willing the novice teacher was in participating in the activities. There was no way in making
them grow faster, as they were an instrumental learner.
Delimitations
There are several delimitations within the study. Knowing that it was impossible to fully
eliminate my own beliefs and biases as I assumed multiple roles within the study, as a member of
the organization, participant, and researcher, I understood the value of adopting a critical mindset

61
to enable me in interrogating my actions. Another delimitation was the sample size. Although I
utilized a small, but purposeful sample of participants from the TGI program, I only included one
participant in the study. By purposely excluding the data of the other participants, I understood
that I was intentionally leaving out valuable information. Finally, time was another considerable
delimitation to the study. I decided to gather data over a 14-week/4 cycle period, knowing that
my ability to promote progress, growth, and change would be more gradual than immediate.
These delimitations limited my ability to gather, analyze, and understand data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
With respect to credibility and trustworthiness, my goal was to ensure that my study’s
findings carefully matched the lived experiences of the participant and that the data reported was
consistent with the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study sought to examine how I
engaged a novice K–12 teacher in critical reflection to create new understandings and
enactments of practice in student learning and how I supported the novice teacher in
interrogating their practice towards transformational learning. As a researcher in my
organization, not only did I need to work alongside the novice teacher in building our
understanding of reflection and culturally responsive teaching, but I also needed to support and
analyze their development within their practice. To maintain credibility and trustworthiness, I
used triangulation. More specifically, I compared and cross-checked data collected, across
multiple sources of data that included my jottings, observation notes, and my critical reflections
that were critical in ensuring credibility and trustworthiness.
To gain a better understanding on the reactivity, or the influence of the researcher on the
setting or individuals being studied (Maxwell, 2013), I engaged Rebecca in member checks to
solicit feedback on my preliminary findings through her reflections. I asked Rebecca to review

62
my transcripts from the previous cycles to make sure I accurately represented her voice. Most of
the feedback Rebecca shared was agreeing with her contributions to our discourse. This member
check helped determine if there was a validity threat (Maxwell, 2013) to my findings that could
lead to the misinterpretation of the data and invalid conclusions by my reader. Furthermore, it
helped me to understand the misinterpretation of my actions and informed my next steps in better
capturing their perspectives on their learning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). By being an active
participant in the member check, it provided me the space to accurately triangulate the data and
use member checks to minimize my bias within the findings.
Finally, I engaged in developing (critical) reflections throughout this process to discipline
my subjectivity within the study. Through my reflections, reflexivity was key to understanding
how my biases, assumptions, and dispositions played an integral role in the development and
progression of the study. The inclusion of reflexivity within the study provided me the space to
address my conduct and interrogate my behavior so that it would not influence the conclusion of
the study (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). In my reflections, I indicated how I was focusing my
attention across a teacher centered approach, not meeting my learner where they are, and
centering my own agenda to satisfy my goal of the study. Additionally, I met with my
dissertation chair during my field work and analysis for peer review that helped me interpret my
experience.
With the various intersections to my identity that I brought to the study, as well as being
cognizant of my positionality, reflecting on my approach to this study was key to ensuring that I
was not biased in how I engaged and collected data. As a researcher, it was vital that I worked to
see how unearthing and scrutinizing my teaching assumptions, through the different critical
reflection lenses—personal, students, colleagues, literature (Brookfield, 2017), enabled me to

63
address the validity threats within the study. This presence of mind to continually interrogate my
assumptions and beliefs demonstrated my credibility and trustworthiness as a researcher.
Ethics
The process of conducting an action research study brought with it ethical challenges.
The first challenged was the blurred lines within my role as a mentor, participant, and researcher.
It was important that my actions as a researcher did not negatively impact the novice teacher
(Coghlan, 2019). This included the fact that the study sought to challenge Rebecca in disrupting
their existing ideologies towards transformational learning. Although I do not believe that by
engaging them in discourse around the tenets of culturally responsive teaching caused any harm,
it was essential for me to consider how I did not come across as an exploiter (Glesne, 2011) in
disrupting their ideology, reframing their thinking, and reporting out the data I collected from
what they said and did. To ensure that I avoided these ethical challenges, I made sure that I was
fully transparent with the novice teacher in explaining my roles, as both a researcher and mentor,
in gaining insight on my actions in relation to them. It would have been audacious to assume that
they would be fully open and honest with me simply because I was their mentor, so establishing
an environment built on trust was key in ensuring that the participant felt safe and free from
judgment as we engaged in discourse. Furthermore, I ensured Rebecca knew that the study was
optional and that they were free to leave the study at any time.
In addition, to avoid the role of exploiter, participation in the study required informed
consent. The participant was made aware of the following: participation is voluntary, any aspect
of the research that could cause any possible inconvenience or discomfort to their well-being, the
steps that have been taken to minimise any possible risks, and their right to withdraw from the
study at any time without any implications to them. They were given a copy of the written

64
information sheet that outlined the details of the study, participant requirements, the audio-visual
recording of any part of or all research activities, and the publication of results from this study
using pseudonyms to support confidentiality. Aligned with Glesne (2011), providing my
participant with the information sheet ensured their privacy within the study and limited the
ethical implications that could arise if I did not disclose the intent of the study that would protect
my participant’s confidence. By attending to the participant’s privacy, I was able to establish
transparency within the study and empower the learner to fully engage in the study as a
collaborator, rather than a subject of my research.
Finally, since the study involved a novice teacher from the induction program, it was
necessary to keep the data as confidential as possible, as I recognized that any breach of
confidentiality would impact our working relationship. All the data was stored on a passwordprotected laptop (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). While there was no penalty for participating in my
study, to protect the identity of my participant, I did not reveal their names in any part of the
data. Rather, a pseudonym was used as an identifier within the study. At the onset of the study, I
indicated to the participant that I would use a pseudonym within the study to ensure that their
identity would not be revealed. To further engage the participant in the use pseudonyms, I asked
them to choose their own name to be used in the study, which allowed them to decide the level of
representation in the findings through this final dissemination. This limited the amount of harm
done to the participant by ensuring that they were able to read and discuss the findings
represented in my study prior to it going public (Glesne, 2011).
Findings
In this section, I present my findings to the research question: How do I engage a novice
K–12 teacher in critical reflection to interrogate their teaching practices to move them towards

65
incorporating tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom? This section is divided
into two parts: In part one I offer both my use of extending an existing holding environment
(Northouse, 2019) and utilizing forms of assisted performance like guiding and probing
questions (Sahin & Kulm, 2008; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) with a novice teacher towards
interrogating their practice and engaging in transformational learning. Here I discuss the actions I
took and the changes I made to structure our collaborative discourse to promote my learner’s
understanding of culturally responsive teaching. In part two, I discuss my growth in my ability to
being more present to my learner and how I restructured my approach to address their learning
needs in moving them towards establishing a commitment to transforming their practice. The
data used to inform my findings included the following: six jottings, six observational notes,
three (critical) reflections, and four analytic memos.
Throughout my action research, I supported Rebecca’s transformative learning (Mezirow,
1991) with the use of literature, reflection, and varied forms of assistance that were based on the
model of transformational coaching. Given my previous mentoring experience with Rebecca, I
used my prior knowledge to inform how I designed each collaborative session. As I continued to
meet with them, and reflected on each interaction, I began to adjust out collaborative meetings to
better meet their learning needs. I used my in-the field analysis, through my (critical) reflection
and synthesis of the data, to inform the content and questions I would use in the next session.
Allowing myself to take the time to reflect at the end of each cycle, and get on the balcony,
provided me with the direction to adjust my action steps accordingly, as I continue to support my
learner in the study. Utilizing this action research approach enabled me to adjust my actions
throughout the study, focused attention to my learner’s needs, and differentiated instruction
accordingly. In the following sections, I first address the way I extended an existing holding

66
environment. Then, within the context of transformative coaching, I turn to the forms of
assistance that I used to promote Rebecca’s growth. I conclude this section by identifying my
growth as a leader as it applies to my learning.
Finding 1, Part 1: Holding Environment
In alignment with my conceptual framework, because I understood that the deep learning
I was seeking for the novice teacher would create some form of tension, I set out to extend the
holding environment within our collaborative meetings. A holding environment is a “structural,
procedural, or virtual space” (Northouse, 2019, p. 496) where people can feel safe in addressing
difficult problems, but not so safe that they can avoid the problem. It provides a growth-oriented
structure of support that enables the learner to explore new ideas while managing their existing
beliefs that are challenged by a constructive disorientation. Wergin (2020) asserts that as a
condition of deep learning, a constructive disorientation, or a “perceived disconnect between the
current and a desired state, accompanied by a sense of efficacy that one is capable of dealing
with that disconnect” (p. 57), is necessary to guide individuals towards their “productive zone of
disequilibrium” (Heifetz, 2009, as cited in Wergin, 2020), or the threshold of learning that
enables learners towards adaptive learning, while feeling safe in the process. Extending the
holding environment allowed me to help regulate the pressure Rebecca faced throughout the
study by providing nurturance and support as I began to disorient and transform their beliefs
towards incorporating culturally responsive teaching in their instructional practice. In the
following sections, I will first address how I extended the holding environment by setting out to
produce bonds of cohesion that developed a trust between us to foster a growth-oriented
collaboration. Then, I will turn to the norms and procedures I put in place within our meetings,

67
using agendas, that created the structures and support systems that enabled my teacher to feel
safe enough to address their constructive disorientation.
Theme 1: Bonds of Cohesion (Trust)
I began working with Rebecca prior to the action research process. By the time we began
the study activities, we had worked together for 7 months in their induction program. Over this
period of time, we had created a shared language that promoted our collaborative work. We had
already established a routine of weekly meetings and informal observations that allowed us to
begin reflecting on their instructional practice. This initial collaboration enabled us to create a
bond of trust that was centered on Rebecca’s development towards supporting all their students
in the classroom. Consistent with Heifetz et al.’s (2009) assertion that when creating a holding
environment, “common elements serve to strengthen the bonds of cohesion towards collective
focus” (p. 155), I was able to utilize our established comfort and familiarity with one another
towards engaging in discourse that interrogated their practice. Therefore, there were already in
place some attributes or aspects of a holding environment that made for a smoother transition
into the study. Thus, by extending the existing holding environment, it served to provide
Rebecca with a sense of comfort and familiarity as I began to disorient and transform their
beliefs.
Theme 2: Norms and Procedures (Agendas)
In accordance with Heifetz et al. (2009) claim, “safety and structure for people to surface
and discuss the particular values, perspectives, and creative ideas they have on the challenging
situation they all face” (p. 146) is vital when doing adaptive work in organizations. To ensure
that my actions were in alignment with adaptive learning, extending the holding environment in
our meetings was key to providing safety and structure for Rebecca to begin exploring new ideas

68
and opportunities as it pertained to their instructional practice. I used norms and procedures were
as a way of deepening the safety and structure within our meetings. To put this into practice, I
used agendas to establish norms and procedures that promoted safety and structure for my
learner to engage in the content. By using agendas, I was able to explicitly define and state the
norms and procedures to be used in the collaborative meetings, where every member of the
group would not only understand how to interact with others, but also set the standard for a more
productive discussion (Heifetz et al., 2009).
Through my action research, I conducted six individual collaborative meeting sessions
where I used agendas each time. Figure 2 is the agenda from my first action research session and
is representative of the agendas I used throughout our time together. I used an agenda to deepen
the existing holding environment to push further into the work we had started before the action
research process began.
Figure 2
Agenda 3/24
The structure of the agenda provided Rebecca with a step-by-step overview of how I expected us
to spend our time together. The agenda started by communicating that we were at the very
beginning of our work together as it said, “Agenda—Week 1.” The use of this information was
intended to signal the first of a series of interactions. I offered each activity, first a welcome

69
followed by an overview of the study and my research question. Through this structure, I was
ensuring that they would not be surprised by the content that we would be discussing during our
time together. The agenda made clear that I would be explicit about the role that I played as a
researcher. The next topic on the agenda was “Ensuring a safe and brave space,” communicating
using the word “ensuring,” my intention to build a safe space and not assume one was already
present between the two of us. Once we had established our setting for the work, I positioned our
next topic as a focal point in every meeting we would have, the reflective discourse. I provided
an overview of this discourse, and how we would use this time to reflect on our practice, its
connection to the ILP, and the implications to create new opportunities towards transforming our
learning. Finally, the last piece of the agenda covered the next steps that would take place before
our next meeting. I indicated that this would be a placeholder for us to bring in items we would
need to prepare. For example, in this instance we discussed my pending classroom visit for their
observation and what I would need to be familiar with to document their instructional practice.
By providing a bulleted list of the activities I expected us to engage in during our time together, I
overall delineated the norms and procedures I expected to enact.
The following excerpt is from the beginning of our first meeting. It demonstrates how I
was able to establish norms and procedures within the meeting by using an agenda to create a
structure that would enable Rebecca to surface values and perspectives and interrogate their
thinking. The interaction below shows how I utilized norms and procedures to create a safe space
that established the expectations for the meeting to move us towards establishing a shared
orientation of values and purposes.
E: Good afternoon, Rebecca. Thank you for joining me today and helping me within
my study.

70
R: You’re welcome. Thank you for asking me to be part of your study.
E: I appreciate the time you are willing to put into this work. As we discussed in our
previous meeting, the work we are doing moving forward in this study will not
create any additional work to your induction plan.
R: Yes, I remember that part. Thank you.
E: What I will now do is go over our agenda for today to provide you a layout on
how our session will go. If there is anything that you would like for me to add to
the agenda, please let me know. On this next slide you will find the various parts
of the agenda that we will cover today. As you can see, we have already covered
the welcome portion of the agenda and we are already off to a good start. Next, I
will share with you the overview of the study, along with the research question
that is guiding my study. After that, we will discuss how I plan to ensure a safe
and brave space. Moving forward, we will begin our reflective discourse with
respect to your observation cycle from the ILP. We will discuss the lesson you
plan to teach and use a pre observation tool to help surface the various elements
of the lesson. We will conclude by establishing next steps towards our next
meeting. Is there anything you would like for me to clarify or add on to the
agenda?
R: No everything seems fine. Thank you.
E: Part of this process is to ensure that both of us have the opportunity to provide
input on what we would like to see in our meetings. I want to give you the time to
think about what is important for you in our meetings.

71
R: Ok are you asking me to add something to the agenda or think about what I would
like to see?
E: Not necessarily asking you to add something but making sure that you are aware
that the agenda has a purpose for you too.
R: Ok (pauses for 2 minutes). I mean I would like to see how I can improve the way
I teach.
E: Improving on your teaching practice is important for you.
R: Yes, I mean of course. I know that I struggle at times and want to find a way to
teach what I had planned for. It is important for me to make sure my students are
provided with good lessons.
When I said, “Good afternoon, Rebecca. Thank you for joining me today and helping me with
my study,” I was following the structure I had established in the agenda in the Welcome.
Rebecca’s response, “Thank you for asking me to be a part of your study,” indicated that they
were participating in the norm by responding to the structure I had created as we briefly touched
on the “Overview of Study/Research Question.” This exchange reflected the structure outlined in
the agenda. I then more overtly used the agenda to establish a routine as I said, “What I will now
do is go over our agenda for today to provide you a layout on how our session will go.” In this
statement, I provided a structure of how our collaborative session would go and capture the
sequence of events that would take place. By offering, “If there is anything that you would like
for me to add to the agenda, please let me know,” I was inviting Rebecca to co-construct the
structure of the agenda with me. Implied in Rebecca’s response “No everything seems fine.
Thank you” was a deference to me as the person in the meeting with power to make the
necessary decisions for the construction of the meeting. Their response also implied that they

72
appreciated the invitation to take part in structuring the agenda, but that they did not really have
any ownership or power to be able to make any contributions. My response,
Part of this process is to ensure that both of us have the opportunity to provide input on
what we would like to see in our meetings. I want to give you the time to think about
what is important for you in our meetings
was reinforcing the invitation as I was clarifying that I meant I wanted them to or expected them
to co-construct what happens in the space. I then furthered the conversation by reinforcing the
norms and procedures within our meeting by decentering the power away from me. My response
“Not necessarily asking you to add something but making sure that you are aware that the agenda
has a purpose for you too” was meant to inform Rebecca that I was not trying to impose my
power onto them by saying what they needed to do but providing the safety and structure to let
them know that their voice belonged in our meeting. Rebecca responded by taking me up on the
invitation of co-constructing the agenda by indicating the importance of focusing in on their
instructional practice and how our conversations could lead to improving student learning. By
creating this norm and procedure, I provided Rebecca with the safety to be able to center their
own purpose within our meeting and how their contributions were valued.
I then moved us towards the heart of the agenda, which was the reflective discourse.
During this time, I was able to provide Rebecca with a learning opportunity to surface their
practice through an observation cycle on their Individual Learning Plan. I used a pre-observation
tool with guiding questions to establish the norms and procedures in enabling Rebecca to explore
their underlying mental models and teaching dispositions. Here is an excerpt of my use of one of
those guiding questions:

73
E: We’re going to go ahead and start taking a look at our reflective discourse by
using a pre-observation tool to help with the organization of a lesson. In our last
session [prior to the study], we talked extensively about some of the items that
you wanted to discuss about how to better support your students in the classroom.
Today, our job is to be able to take a look at what you’re going to teach. Take me
through that upcoming lesson.
R: I guess I know more about language arts. I will be starting a new unit that covers
the War of 1812. It talks about the Louisiana Purchase and other historical events.
The unit says that the students should have covered these events last year, but I
feel that they didn’t get much since they were in remoting learning. So, I wanted
to review that with them first.
E: So, tell me a little bit more about what specifically within the lesson are you going
to do? Is it going to be a reading or writing lesson?
R: This lesson is a read aloud that allows me to show a flipbook of the pictures. As I
am reading the story, I am asking them comprehension questions to help them
exercise their listening comprehension. So, the students, they don’t get a book for
themselves. But they do get a workbook that they do after the read aloud. And it’s
mostly just summarizing what they’ve learned in the read aloud like writing a
sentence about a fact from the story.
E: What I’m hearing you saying is that you will be conducting a read aloud and
guiding your students with comprehension questions to build their listening skills.
The end goal is for them to write a summary that consists of writing at least one

74
fact mentioned in the story. Walk me through the rationale behind that sequencing
of the lesson.
R: I want to be able to better increase or improve student comprehension skills. I also
want them to be able to engage in higher order thinking. Some of the questions
that they ask them from the book, like evaluative questions, you know, why do
you think this happened, or why do you think this? Why do you think that? They
do ask them that and I think that those are questions that they need to hear a lot
because they’re used to hearing the literal questions. And then they do ask them
inferential questions. So, it’s just so they can keep practicing comprehension and
also do better with dibbles on the maze. That’s another reason why. So, it’s really
targeting more comprehension, listening comprehension.
E: You mentioned that it’s important for them to improve their comprehension skills
through higher order thinking. What about that is important for you? For your
students?
R: Well, so that they can be critical thinkers, because they are. They’re used to just
literal questions, and they get it, but sometimes they give like short phrase
answers, and I want them to really expand on their answers. And really dig in
deep into the story, not just, you know, surface level understanding. But really
think about it or really understand what’s going on. And hopefully, they can carry
that skill on into math, with word problems, writing with writing prompts,
science, and everything. Also, social studies as well. So, they can transfer those
skills. But I really want the goal for them to become critical thinkers.
E: And for you what is a critical thinker?

75
R: To question everything, going beneath the surface. We have the pilgrims they
moved from England to go to America, North America. But like, why? Why was
that? You know, we were talking about that? I told them because they want
religious freedom. And they weren’t like, oh... And also, like, the word problems
we do in math. And they have problems with key words, and I want them to really
think about it, are we trying to find the part or we’re trying to find the whole?
Because they tend to just like read through everything and start working on it.
And I go, wait a minute, you have to think back? Are you trying to find the part?
Are you trying to find the whole in the word problem? And once they’ve really
thought about it, then they know they know what to do. I just don't want them to
be rushing in through everything.
By mentioning that “We’re going to go ahead and start taking a look at our reflective discourse
by using a pre-observation tool to help with the organization of a lesson,” I was being explicit
about setting up the procedure for the discourse by naming the tool we would be using in
organizing the upcoming lesson. I followed up by saying, “In our last session, we talked
extensively about some of the items that you wanted to discuss about how to better support your
students in the classroom.” Here I was signaling to their that I was going to be bringing forward
information from our previous sessions as a norm within our practice. I then shared the first
guiding question of the pre-observation tool by saying, “Today, our job is to be able to take a
look at what you're going to teach. Take me through that upcoming lesson” to engage Rebecca in
the procedure of the pre-observation tool to help them unpack the lesson. Their response was “I
guess I know more about language arts. I will be starting a new unit that covers the War of 1812.
It talks about the Louisiana Purchase and other historical events” indicating that they were

76
responding to the procedure of the pre-observation tool. I continued the conversation by saying,
“So, tell me a little bit more about what specifically within the lesson are you going to do.” Here
I extended the opportunity to them to be more specific about what they were going be teaching,
This lesson is a read aloud that allows me to show a flipbook of the pictures. As I am
reading the story, I am asking them comprehension questions to help them exercise their
listening comprehension… summarizing what they’ve learned in the read aloud like
writing a sentence about a fact from the story
demonstrates how they responded to the procedure of being more specific with their lesson. This
enabled me to move the conversation towards unpacking their understanding of the content by
stating “Walk me through the rationale behind that sequencing of the lesson?” In this moment, I
was indicating to them the procedure of providing a rationale when organizing and developing a
lesson for their students. Rebecca’s response,
I want to be able to better increase or improve student comprehension skills. I also want
them to be able to engage in higher order thinking…I think that those are questions that
they need to hear a lot because they’re used to hearing the literal questions…So, it’s just
so they can keep practicing comprehension and also do better with dibbles on the maze.
That’s another reason why. So, it’s really targeting more comprehension, listening
comprehension
indicated a reaction to the procedure by elaborating on the goals that they had for the lesson and
what they would like their students to improve on. I then followed up by saying, “You mentioned
that it’s important for them to improve their comprehension skills through higher order thinking.
What about that is important for you? For your students?” Here I was continuing to engage them

77
in the procedure of rationalizing their lesson plan by including both themself and their students.
Rebecca responded to the procedure by indicating,
Well, so that they can be critical thinkers, because they are. They’re used to just literal
questions, and they get it, but sometimes they give like short phrase answers, and I want
them to really expand on their answers. And really dig in deep into the story, not just, you
know, surface level understanding. But really think about it or really understand what’s
going on. And hopefully, they can carry that skill on into math, with word problems,
writing with writing prompts, science, and everything. Also, social studies as well. So,
they can transfer those skills. But I really want the goal for them to become critical
thinkers.
Their response provided a deeper connection to what they hoped their students could learn from
this learning experience. My follow up question, “And for you what is a critical thinker?” was
intended to establish a norm and procedure within the practice of unpacking academic terms to
construct a common understanding moving forward. Rebecca clarified by saying,
To question everything, going beneath the surface…. And they have problems with key
words, and I want them to really think about it…Because they tend to just like read
through everything and start working on it… I just don’t want them to be rushing in
through everything.
Their reply indicated a response to the norm by clarifying the term and how it connected to the
skills that they believed contributed to being a critical thinker. By engaging Rebecca with norms
and procedures within the reflective discourse, I was able to guide them in unpacking their
mental models and teaching dispositions when developing their lesson plans.

78
Going into cycle 2, I was looking to build on our previous conversations and ensure that
Rebecca was engaged within our discussion protocol. Building on the norms of trust, I was
looking to establish the conditions of discourse that would allow me to share my lesson
observation notes and center the data for analysis to engage Rebecca in rational discourse
(Mezirow, 1991). For there to be rational discourse, Mezirow (1991) expresses that colleagues
should have “accurate and complete information, be free from coercion, be able to weigh
evidence and assess argument objectively, be open to alternative perspectives, and have an equal
opportunity to participate” (p. 77). To promote rational discourse, I needed to be mindful of the
power dynamics my notes and data could signal to them. I was trying to avoid coming across as
an evaluator, but rather as a coach that is providing information to improve the quality of their
lessons and the quality of students’ education. By ensuring them that the data was an opportunity
to engage in reflection, it would set the tone for deeper understanding in examining their
thoughts, feelings, actions on their impact on student learning.
The following excerpt is from the beginning of our fourth meeting. It demonstrates how I
was able to continue to engage Rebecca with norms and procedures by using an agenda. It
further indicates how grounding the space in norms of trust set the conditions for rational
discourse towards co-constructing meaning in our study. The exchange below shows how I
established the expectations for the meeting to continue to move us towards establishing a shared
orientation of values and purposes.
E: Good afternoon, Rebecca. How are you doing?
R: Good. How are you doing?
E: I’m doing well. Thanks so much. Hopefully the spring break treated you well and
you were able to have some time to yourself.

79
R: Yes, I was well rested.
E: So, we’re going to go ahead and continue with the work that we’ve been doing
prior to our spring break. The last time that we saw each other was during your
lesson observation. And today’s meeting is going to start looking at the data that
was collected, what you asked me to collect and seeing how we can look at where
we were able to highlight those areas of your indicator to help you in your
development as a teacher.
R: Yes, I am looking forward to looking over the data and seeing where I can
improve.
E: Let’s take a look at today’s agenda and see if there are any comments, questions,
or suggestions you may have about the agenda.
R: Ok.
E: The first part of today’s meeting will be on our reflective discourse using a postobservation tool. We will first take a look at what you recall about the lesson and
how it went. I will capture your initial thoughts on the post-observation tool as
you are debriefing.
R: So, you want me to use the notes and reflection you asked me to make after the
lesson?
E: Yes, thank you for reminding me. I will give you some time to review your notes
and provide you the space to debrief.
R: Ok I can do that.
E: After you’ve had the opportunity to reflect on your notes, I will be sharing with
you the observation tool I used to collect the data from your lesson. This will

80
provide you the opportunity to reflect on the data and share thoughts about what
was captured and how it resonates with you. I will be capturing your reflection on
the post observation tool.
R: What do you mean by resonate?
E: Great question! Well, when I say the term resonate, I am asking you to think
about how the data and information has a particular importance to you.
R: So, do you mean how the information is important to me?
E: Yes, and why is it important for you. This provides you the opportunity to reflect
on its importance to you as a teacher and how it creates implications to your
practice.
R: Ok. I think we’ve done this before.
E: Yes, we have done this before in our previous sessions. To help you in better
understanding the data, I will introduce to you our data discussion protocol. It’s a
3-step protocol that allows you to find patterns in the data, interpret the data, and
formulate action steps to create new opportunities for your students.
R: So, I’m going to look at the data and see how I can improve?
E: We will use the data to look back at what your objective for the lesson was and
see if there are areas, we can talk about to make changes.
R: Ok that makes sense.
Consistent with previous meetings, I started by welcoming Rebecca into the meeting. The
welcoming continued to build on the norms of trust within our collaboration that reinforced our
cohesive relationship (Northouse, 2019). For this analysis, I am going to focus on the discussion
around the agenda. When I said,

81
The first part of today’s meeting will be on our reflective discourse using a postobservation tool. We will first take a look at what you recall about the lesson and how it
went. I will capture your initial thoughts on the post-observation tool as you are
debriefing
I immediately set the conditions for discourse as I invited Rebecca to share their thoughts on the
lesson they taught. I was intentional on how I regulated the heat (Heifetz, 2009) within the
meeting by slowly navigating Rebecca towards sharing their reflection on how the lesson went.
Rebecca’s response, “So, you want me to use the notes and reflection you asked me to make
after the lesson,” indicated that they were comfortable with engaging in the established norms of
the conversation and utilizing the tools for reflection shared in previous meetings. This exchange
provided me with the opportunity to step back and allow them to be empowered in expressing
their experience and become more actively involved in problem solving (Northouse, 2019). I
followed up by addressing their question and following up with the next steps to our
conversation by stating,
Yes… I will give you some time to review your notes and provide you the space to
debrief. After you’ve had the opportunity to reflect on your notes, I will be sharing with
you the observation tool I used to collect the data from your lesson. This will provide you
the opportunity to reflect on the data and share thoughts about what was captured and
how it resonates with you. I will be capturing your reflection on the post observation tool.
Here I was being strategic in establishing the procedure of sharing their observational notes and
analyzing the data that was captured by me. I was leading them through the initial steps of the
Three Step Data Discussion Protocol (Aguilar, 2020), where I was looking for them to be able to
identify patterns found within the data to begin interpreting how this impacted student learning.

82
Rebecca’s immediate response to my comment centered around their understanding of the term
“resonate” within the data analysis. I followed up with acknowledging their question and
clarifying, “Great question! Well, when I say the term resonate, I am asking you to think about
how the data and information has a particular importance to you.” They then responded, “So, I’m
going to look at the data and see how I can improve?” I then indicated, “We will use the data to
look back at what your objective for the lesson was and see if there are areas, we can talk about
to make changes.” They responded, “Ok, that makes sense.” This exchange showcases how the
established confidence and trust in our relationship provided the opportunity to explore our ways
of being towards building resiliency through reflective practice (Aguilar, 2020). It further
exemplifies their assurance in probing their concerns and my ability to clarify their worries to
“strengthen their reflective abilities” (Aguilar, 2020, p. 38). This effort demonstrates how we
were working towards co-construction in our collaborative setting.
Towards the end of cycle 2, going into cycle 3, we had securely established our
discussion protocol that enabled us to build on the norms of trust within our collaboration that
reinforced our cohesive relationship. This was an opportunity to begin the process in helping
Rebecca see how their instructional behaviors and beliefs could reveal the impact of practice on
students which would deepen their “willingness to make changes in their practice” (Aguilar,
2020, p. 43). Building on the existing norms of trust we had established, I was able to
supplement our conversations by including a new 3-step data discussion tool to promote a
constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2020) that would lead to their building intrinsic motivation
(Wergin, 2020) towards interrogating their practice and seek to engage in transformational
learning. The following excerpt is an exchange on the use of the 3-step data discussion tool to
examine Rebecca’s lesson observation. It demonstrates how I was able to supplement the

83
discussion tool that reinforced the established norms and procedures for conversations that would
ultimately allow them to interrogate their practice by describing the data, making inferences, and
sharing implications for future work.
E: We’re going to take a look at the data that I collected during your observation.
We’re going to utilize this protocol that I’ve shared with you earlier. This 3-step
data discussion protocol will help us in unpacking the data captured in your lesson
by engaging in a series of reflective practices to address the impact of your
teaching practice and how it impacts student learning.
R: Ok I remember you discussing that earlier in the agenda.
E: So, as we begin this process, I’m going to give you the opportunity to look
through the data and capture any thoughts you are having about what you are
reading. Some examples might be looking for patterns or trends taking place in
the data. Let me stop right there and give you the time to think about what you
will be doing first. (Paused for 3 minutes to give Rebecca the time to think). What
questions might you have about the first step of the protocol?
R: I understand that you want me to look over the data and see what things I am
noticing from the classroom.
E: Yes, I want you to jot down what stands out to you as it relates to student
learning. After you are done with the first step, we will then begin to surface what
those facts and patterns you see in the data. I will guide you along the way with
questions to help us interpret the information we see. Basically, trying to make
sense of the data.

84
R: Ok so I will gather what I notice and then discuss with you how this will help me
in better supporting my students. I think I have an idea how this will go. Will you
also be sharing some of the things you saw in the observation?
E: Yes, I will be using the data to help you in discussing the trends we both see. This
will enable us to begin examining the potential implications of your practice and
how it affects student learning.
R: That’s what I want to see. If I’m doing a good job and helping my students with
their learning.
E: It is important for you to learn about your practice and how it ultimately impacts
your students learning. This last step of the protocol will give us the opportunity
to examine what potential changes need to be made to your practice to support
your students.
R: I really like that. I don’t normally get a chance to talk to people at my school
about how to improve my teaching. A lot of the times it just on school obligations
and behavior.
E: I hope this discussion will allow us to move you towards not only evaluating your
practice but making the changes to better support your students. Let’s get started.
When I said,
We’re going to take a look at the data that I collected during your observation. We’re
going to utilize this protocol that I’ve shared with you earlier. This 3-step data discussion
protocol will help us in unpacking the data captured in your lesson by engaging in a
series of reflective practices to address the impact of your teaching practice and how it
impacts student learning,

85
I was reminding Rebecca of the procedures shared earlier of the discussion protocol to examine
the data collected during their lesson. I was being explicit on how we would use the data to
reflect on their teaching practice and its potential impact on student learning. This is consistent
with Aguilar’s (2020) claim that cultivating awareness through data provides the opportunity to
confront discrepancies between the teacher’s “vision for themselves and the impact of their
action” (p. 43). By bringing forward the tool discussed from the agenda, I was being explicit
about the procedure in using the discussion protocol and how it would be used to unpack the data
collected. Rebecca’s response, “Ok I remember you discussing that earlier in the agenda,”
indicated that they were aware of the discussion protocol shared earlier. I then followed up by
giving them directions on examining the data by indicating,
I’m going to give you the opportunity to look through the data and capture any thoughts
you are having about what you are reading. Some examples might be looking for patterns
or trends taking place in the data.
When I said this, I was providing the procedure to move Rebecca towards analyzing the data and
find concrete examples that address the impact of their teaching practice on student learning. By
telling them they would have the opportunity to examine the data and find areas in their practice
that were worth exploring, I was building on their intrinsic motivation towards self-interrogation.
Additionally, I used a supportive tone in my exchange to assist in cultivating awareness of
thoughts and feelings in the data analysis. This aligns with Aguilar’s (2020) assertion, “The
purpose of the data is not to shame the client: it is to help them see the impact on students” (p.
43). This was a critical point within the procedure as it laid the foundation in engaging them in a
constructive disorientation. I was signaling to them in my instructions what should come out of
the data would be things that might create discomfort for them in how they were influencing

86
student learning. Continuing with the established norms and procedures of collaboration, I gave
them some time to think about the task and address any concerns they might have had about the
procedure. Their response, “I understand that you want me to look over the data and see what
things I am noticing from the classroom” indicated a response to the procedure by restating the
instructions. This provided me the opportunity to further the protocol by instructing them to
capture what they were reading and how it related to their students’ learning. In my statement,
“After you are done with the first step, we will then begin to surface what those facts and
patterns you see in the data,” I was communicating to them that we would be co-constructing the
facts and patterns within the data. I was signaling to them that this process would continue to
support their voice within the holding environment. When I shared, “I will guide you along the
way with questions to help us interpret the information we see. Basically, trying to make sense of
the data,” I was letting them know that I would be helping their extend and deepen their
understanding of the data to reflect on how it impacted students (Aguilar, 2020). I was conveying
that the questions I would be asking would be intended in helping interpret the data and promote
their thinking process that would shift them to dig deeper into the information and consider
elements of their practice that are not represented on the surface. Rebecca’s response,
Ok so I will gather what I notice and then discuss with you how this will help me in
better supporting my students. I think I have an idea how this will go. Will you also be
sharing some of the things you saw in the observation?
showed their understanding of the next part of the protocol and the connections they were
making in supporting their students’ learning. This was a pivotal moment in the conversation as
they were able to create an anchor of purpose (Aguilar, 2020) for the data analysis that would
help guide their reflection. Rebecca’s level of comfort provided them the opportunity to probe

87
their concern about my role in the protocol, which continued to demonstrate the trust in our
collaboration. When I stated,
Yes, I will be using the data to help you in discussing the trends we both see. This will
enable us to begin examining the potential implications of your practice and how it
affects student learning,
I was clear about my position (Northouse, 2019) in the discussion and how I would support them
in identifying potential implications from their instructional practice. To transition our analysis
of the data towards implications for future work, I wanted to remind Rebecca about the purpose
of our study in supporting their development by stating,
It is important for you to learn about your practice and how it ultimately impacts your
students learning. This last step of the protocol will give us the opportunity to examine
what potential changes need to be made to your practice to support your students.
In this exchange, I was being explicit on how our discussions would lead them to begin
exploring the potential discomfort (Aguilar, 2020) of analyzing their practice and enact change
(Northouse, 2019) in teaching their students. Rebecca asserted that they really liked the next part
of the discussion and how they didn’t “normally get a chance to talk to people at my school
about how to improve my teaching.” Their response to the procedure demonstrated their
willingness towards interrogating their instructional practice and establish a commitment to
changing their practice (Aguilar, 2020). By maintaining the norms and procedures of the
supplemental 3-step discussion protocol, I was able to ensure equity of voice within the holding
environment that enabled Rebecca to begin the process of analyzing their teaching practice to
create a space to enact change to their approach in supporting student learning.

88
In my conceptual framework, I argued that providing structure in the holding
environment and maintaining attention to it would allow my learner to engage in reflective
discourse that would lead to intrinsic motivation toward interrogating their practice and
experience transformational learning. Mezirow (1991, 2000) defines transformative learning as
“learning that transforms problematic frames of reference—sets of fixed assumptions and
expectations (habits of mind, meaning perspectives, mindsets)—to make them more inclusive,
discriminating, open, reflective, and emotionally able to change” (p. 58). I was able to provide
Rebecca with the opportunity to engage in a structured reflective discourse that enabled them to
make connections between Culturally Responsive Teaching (Gay, 2018) and their own practice.
To illustrate how they had demonstrated change in their new understanding, I pointed to our first
session and how they shared their problematic frame of reference of self-projecting onto their
students what was most important in learning, based on their own learned experiences. Rebecca
had a very superficial understanding of what it meant to meet their students where they were.
They described their assumptions in organizing the curriculum as conditions of rote learning to
better support their students’ retention of information for comprehension. Additionally, their
expectations on student achievement were primarily centered around their students performing
below grade level. They thought that they were not able to handle the content and thus had to
lower their expectations by watering down the curriculum. Through our discourse, Rebecca was
able to create a new construction of learning that allowed her to self-reflect to consider her
beliefs and dispositions on teaching and how it impacted student learning. They able to adjust
their thinking and create new mental models based on the information presented in the data and
the new perspectives offered in the literature.

89
The following excerpt comes from my last meeting with Rebecca. It demonstrates how
they perceived themselves to have benefited from the existing structure within the holding
environment. It shows how maintaining attention to the structure in our reflective discourse led
them to build intrinsic motivation towards interrogating their practice. The evidence will further
exhibit how the format provided them with the opportunity to begin exploring their identity
markers (Aguilar, 2020) and how critical reflection would solidify their commitment towards
engaging in transformational learning.
E: Tell me about what it has meant for you to reflect on your teaching practice.
R: It allows me to look back at what I've been doing, to see what kind of a teacher
am I and how I really need to take time and get to know just myself as a teacher.
E: What have you learned about yourself?
R: That I really do want to grow as an educator and know that I am passionate about
what I teach I care about. How I’m teaching the subjects. I care if I’m doing it
right. if I’m meeting the needs of my students.
E: In our earlier sessions you talked about what teaching means to you. What
learning means to you and what it’s supposed to look like. And through this
whole process that you and I have been going through has there been a change in
how you’ve seen what meaningful student learning looks like?
R: Yes, now that we’ve been talking about culturally responsive teaching and
students being able to do some collaboration and promoting equity. I’ve been able
to make sure that they’re having that time to collaborate and make learning more
meaningful. I’ll definitely learn more about their culture. And see how I can have
posters of people that, that represent them that talk about education, like quotes

90
about education. I am mindful that I need to be more aware of how I am making
continuous connections to their lives.
E: I want to honor what you said earlier, that understanding inequities in your
classroom and how you go about in disrupting them is something that really
resonated with you upfront. It sounds like you’re wanting to take more of a deeper
step into being able to support your students with these practices. So, as we wrap
this up, we’ve worked on this typology together. We’ve learned how to describe a
specific situation and frame it through our lens, we’ve learned about how we can
utilize different lenses and perspectives to address the problem. But now we’re
going to take a look at examining what a critical reflection is. The goal of the
actual study was to understand how can I utilize critical reflection to help you in
changing some of the ways that you’re currently teaching to implement or enact
culturally responsive teaching. So, when we think about critical reflection, it’s
understanding the implications of the matter. It involves carefully considering all
the perspectives that will hopefully lead to a new perspective of your practice. It’s
not necessarily the last step, but rather a return to your understanding, and then
deciding to carefully deliberate what are your next steps.
R: So now what I am thinking about is not only the perspectives I’ve addressed in
my descriptive reflection, but other factors as well?
E: Let me give you a quick moment to read this slide to yourself with hopes of
giving you clarification to your question on critical reflection.
Figure 3
Critical Reflection Slide 5/31

91
E: So, as you read this, it builds on your descriptive and comparative reflection by
giving you the opportunity to examine the problem in a different way. What do
you see as that opportunity.
R: To consider a history of inequity in schools that may influence the direction they
take, whenever you’re reflecting on a student performance? So instead of just
looking at it from the student or parent perspective, you’ll take a look at the
inequity of schools. This reminds me on how certain things are done at my school
and provides me the chance to question why this happens here. Like the
overemphasis on testing and test prep. Seems like we only focus on that and not
on authentic teaching.
When I said, “Tell me about what it has meant for you to reflect on your teaching practice?” I
was being consistent with the structure of the holding environment in engaging Rebecca with
reflecting on their journey as a teacher. Maintaining attention to the format in our collaboration
provided them the necessary structure to feel secure (Northouse, 2019) in being open about their
process of finding out who they were as an educator. Rebecca then stated, “It allows me to look
back at what I’ve been doing, to see what kind of a teacher am I and how I really need to take
time and get to know just myself as a teacher.” This response demonstrates how the established
normalized routine has provided them the space to begin exploring their identity markers as a

92
teacher and the time they invested in anchoring their purpose in supporting student learning.
When I mentioned, “What have you learned about yourself?” I was leveraging their previous
response by empowering them to explore their identity and begin to unravel their underlying
mental models that contributed to student learning (Aguilar, 2020).
Rebecca’s response of “I really do want to grow as an educator” is evidence of their
intrinsic motivation towards wanting to establish a purpose in their work as a teacher. They
further indicated, “I am passionate about what I teach” and “I care if I’m doing it right. If I’m
meeting the needs of my students,” which demonstrates their acknowledgment of wanting to
deepen their commitment to their practice (Aguilar, 2020) that would transform the learning
experience of their students. When I mentioned, “In our earlier sessions you talked about what
teaching means to you. What learning means to you and what it's supposed to look like” I was
bringing back elements of our previous conversations that coincided with their reflection. At this
moment, I could sense their frustration, through their rising tone of voice, of wanting to be a
well-rounded educator for their students. By indicating my comments to them, I was being
explicit about centering their language and demonstrating my presence to them. In my question,
“has there been a change in how you’ve seen what meaningful student learning looks like?” I
was pressing them to interrogate whether they could see change in their practice. They
mentioned how having the opportunity to discuss the literature of culturally responsive teaching
in our meetings had made them more aware of promoting equity in the classroom and creating
conditions of collaboration that would encourage meaningful learning. They further exemplified
the notion of learning more about their students’ culture and making relevant connections to their
lives through the curriculum. This progression of initially making abstract or loose connections
to the curriculum, to a more inclusive and meaningful learning experience for their students

93
demonstrated their growth. They had learned how to operationalize this process in being more
intentional on how they planned and supported their students in the classroom. When I said,
I want to honor what you said earlier, that understanding inequities in your classroom and
how you go about in disrupting them is something that really resonated with you upfront.
It sounds like you’re wanting to take more of a deeper step into being able to support
your students with these practices
I was validating their shift in better understanding the abstract idea of promoting equity to now
having a concrete representation of what it meant to advance equity in their classroom. This
profound transformation was a direct response to their constructive disorientation. They had
gone from their problematic frame of reference of self-projecting onto their students what was
most important in learning to a more inclusive and reflective mindset that will enable them to
create conditions of culturally responsive teaching.
I transitioned our conversation towards culminating our reflective practice by introducing
critical reflection. I shared with Rebecca about our journey in unpacking Jay and Johnson’s
Typology of Reflection (2002) by being able to learn how to “describe specific situation and
frame it through our lens” and reframe that situation by utilizing “different lenses and
perspectives to address the problem.” I was being strategic in centering the work that we had
done throughout the study to prepare her for the next step of examining a critical reflection. I
pointed their back to the goal of the study “how can I utilize critical reflection to help you in
changing some of the ways that you’re currently teaching to implement or enact culturally
responsive teaching.” This was a vital connection to the introduction of the critical reflection
because it provided an anchor of purpose (Aguilar, 2020) towards making meaning of their
critical reflection. When I mentioned,

94
So, when we think about critical reflection, it's understanding the implications of the
matter. It involves carefully considering all the perspectives that will hopefully lead to a
new perspective of your practice. It’s not necessarily the last step, but rather a return to
your understanding, and then deciding to carefully deliberate what are your next steps.
I was signaling to them to consider their current practice and consider alternative perspectives
that would lead to a new way of thinking. When Rebecca answered, “So now what I am thinking
about is not only the perspectives I’ve addressed in my descriptive reflection, but other factors as
well?” they were not only indicating their active role in the reflective process but asking for
clarity in building towards a critical reflection. their curiosity towards better understanding how
alternative factors could contribute to their development was key to building their intrinsic
motivation towards examining their practice. When I said, “Let me give you a quick moment to
read this slide to yourself with hopes of giving you clarification to your question on critical
reflection,” I was being strategic in providing an opportunity for them to engage in the language
of critical reflection to build a deeper understanding of how this connects to their practice. After
giving their time to read the critical reflection slide, I mentioned to their how this last piece of
the typology builds on their descriptive and comparative reflection towards an opportunity to
examine the problem in a different way. When I asked her, “What do you see as that
opportunity,” I was inviting them to take the next step in analyzing their reflection by examining
the context given on the slide and developing a deeper understanding of the implications
impacting their practice. Their reply,
To consider a history of inequity in schools that may influence the direction they take,
whenever you're reflecting on a student performance? So instead of just looking at it from
the student or parent perspective, you’ll take a look at the inequity of schools

95
indicated a response to my invitation in creating an opportunity to examine their reflection and
view it from a different perspective. They further made the connection to their school’s
overemphasis on test preparation, rather that focus on authentic teaching. As a result of providing
them time to read the language of critical reflection and providing them with more insight, they
were able to formulate an opportunity to begin interrogating a broader historical context of
schooling (Valli, 1990) that would transform their own instructional practice moving forward.
By maintaining disciplined attention to the structure of the holding environment, I was
able to engage Rebecca in constructive discussions about their practice and lead them to building
intrinsic motivation toward interrogating their practice and make progress towards
transformational learning.
Finding 1, Part 2: Using Guiding and Probing Questions to Enact Change
Within our collaborative sessions throughout each cycle, I worked towards prompting a
constructive disorientation that would lead Rebecca to transform their beliefs and dispositions
around their instructional practice. As framed by Wergin (2020), for a disorientation to be
constructive, there are four necessary qualities that must be present: a clear disconnect that
requires adaptive learning, the situation is conducive to autonomous motivation, it empowers a
sense of efficacy, and the disorientation takes place in a setting where the learner feels supported
and confident that they are contributing to their environment in a positive way. I targeted the
disconnect Rebecca experienced between the way they supported their students in the classroom
and their realization that their choices were inconsistent with culturally relevant pedagogy.
As I argued in my conceptual framework and drawing on Tharp and Gallimore (1986), I
used two forms of questioning, guiding and probing, as forms of assistance in our cooperative
learning space to support Rebecca in the constructive disorientation they were experiencing. I

96
used guiding questions to help them enter a constructive disorientation and probing questions to
encourage Rebecca to reveal more information about their context and dig deeper into their ideas
as they addressed how they managed the disconnect to bring them through the disorientation to
new knowledge. In the enactment of Phase 1 of Transformational Coaching, I began to engage
my learner in questioning to surface their current reality, that included their strengths and
challenges in teaching their students. These questions were critical in promoting my learner’s
understanding of their teaching practice, that addressed their unique needs, interests, and goals.
This overlapped with our program’s competency that speaks to building trust and relationships
towards cultivating teacher efficacy and growth.
Specifically, I used guiding questions, or a fundamental query that promotes student
thinking (Ortenzi, 2002, as cited in Sahin & Kulm, 2008) in search for understanding, as entry
points in our collaborative conversations. Prior to our meetings together, I developed a specific
guiding question that would frame our discussions and collaborations for that day. I conducted
six meetings throughout my study, with six guiding questions within our learning interaction.
These six guiding questions ranged from “What does supplemental instruction look like when
supporting student learning?” to “How would incorporating culturally responsive teaching
practices support meaningful student learning?” Although the guiding questions were designed
to be open ended, there were some questions that were dichotomous or closed ended and served
to guide Rebecca in not closing off their responses but meeting them where they were at in their
learning. I used these questions to guide Rebecca in exploring their underlying mental models
and teaching dispositions on the students they taught towards a willingness to make changes in
their practice.

97
The following excerpt is from our first meeting together. It demonstrates how I used a
guiding question to initiate a discussion with Rebecca about how they would supplement their
lesson with background information to support their students. I chose this guiding question to
engage Rebecca in surfacing their existing knowledge on how they selected supplemental
resources for their students.
E: Do you have other items that you’re going to supplement to support that
background information for your students?
R: Yes, I showed them the BrainPOP Jr. on the 13 colonies. And they enjoyed it. We
did talk about it, about the pilgrims. Just England, like Where is that? And, you
know, Christopher Columbus, what they knew about him. They just learned that
he meant to go to India or China. He didn’t really mean to go to North America.
He was looking for India or China. And so that was needed for me as information
for them. I’m pretty sure even after this lesson, I’m going to put the BrainPOP Jr.
again so they can make that transition over to the new unit. And I want them to
know this because then after this unit, it goes on to the westward expansion. So
really our language arts program has some social studies and history in there and
as well as science. But right now, we’re doing the history part of it. Because their
idea, the publisher, is that this is good for them to get them exposed now to these
topics. Because later they will definitely get exposed to them as they get older.
My question, “Do you have other items that you’re going to supplement to support that
background information for your students?” created an entry point to our conversation to engage
Rebecca in sharing their “general heuristic” (Polya, 1947, as cited in as cited in Sahin & Kulm,
2008, p. 225) approach in supporting their students with background information. The questions

98
were asking them to contemplate what material they would be using and how that reflected on
their heuristic in making informed decisions when it came to their students. Rebecca shared their
strategy to support their students by stating,
Yes I showed them the BrainPOP Jr. on the 13 colonies…We did talk about it, about the
pilgrims. Just England… And, you know, Christopher Columbus, what they knew about
him. They just learned that he meant to go to India or China. He didn’t really mean to go
to North America. He was looking for India or China. And so that was needed for me as
information for them.
My question guided them to communicate what choices they had already made in supporting
their students. It enabled them to reflect on what they had done and what they believed served as
sufficient supplemental information for their students. The question provided me with a better
understanding of their orientation towards their students and the background information
Rebecca chose: a strong reliance on supporting students with a dominant narrative of history.
This was a key component of our dialogue as it laid the foundation for the work that would push
them to reconsider how they supported their students. Although we had yet to establish the
disorientation, I used the guiding question to begin moving them towards the disconnect that is
not only clear and requires adaptive learning but would also create a situation that was conducive
to autonomous motivation (Wergin, 2020).
Once I shared my guiding question with Rebecca to promote dialogue within our
meeting, I used probing questions to guide our discourse. The purpose of using probing questions
was to not only surface Rebecca’s existing knowledge of teaching their students, but to push
them towards the disconnect on how their instructional practice was inadvertently reinforcing a
color blind and context neutral approach to content and teaching (MSDE, 1991, as cited in Sahin

99
& Kulm, 2008) and not centering the lived experiences of their students. This exchange provided
an opportunity to begin identifying the gap between what Rebecca valued as being a teacher at
their school and the reality of their current environment. The use of probing questions was an
integral part in helping them frame and interrogate their approach to teaching and begin to take
steps towards using culturally responsive teaching practices to affirm and leverage student assets
in the classroom (Gay, 2001). By using probing questions in our discussion, I had a better
understanding of Rebecca’s outlook on teaching as a tool to support their shift in making
learning meaningful for their students (Aguilar, 2020). These entry points were essential in
empowering a sense of efficacy in the disorientation that would encourage them to create
growth-oriented goals that were consistent with culturally response teaching.
The following excerpt is the second part of our first meeting where I began to use probing
questions to extend Rebecca’s existing knowledge towards reflecting on their learned experience
(Rodgers, 2002), as both a student and teacher, and how that informed their selection of
instructional resources.
E: Tell me a little bit about where all this comes from. Because there was a lot that
you mentioned earlier about ethics as a teacher, about making sure that your
students are prepared, making sure that you fill in the gaps in a lot of areas in
becoming critical thinkers. For you, where does this come from? Does it come
from your teacher preparation program? Does it come from your upbringing?
Where is it coming from?
R: Yeah, I would say from my teacher preparation program, while we were learning
about theories. I can’t remember the name of the theorist. So basically, I guess,
we knew that we should give students enough context and background knowledge

100
so that there’s a smooth transition from one thing to the next. And so, I learned
that through reading the different theories in the teacher preparation program. I’ve
always believed in, trying to simplify things to make things easier for people to
understand. I always think that children they like to explore, they're very curious.
I mean, they’re just children, I think about their development. And just that’s why
I try to, you know, give them enough background knowledge, and make the
context more accessible for everyone.
E: Where does that part come from about your belief? Is it from your program, or is
it come from somewhere else?
R: I think maybe it came from somewhere else. I mean, I know that I’ve, I’ve
volunteered in classrooms before and with little kids, and I've seen how their
teachers would guide them. I remember just seeing kids all the time and observing
how they are just natural wonderers they really like they’re always touching
things, they, they’re not afraid to explore things. And also, it could also be from
when I learned about child development, learning about you know, I think it was
Piaget and I think at this stage, they can’t make sense of abstract thinking.
E: Did you have any of those experiences growing up? Is that how you were taught
when you were a child?
R: No. When I learned about ancient civilization, I didn’t learn that until I was in
high school. My high school teacher, he didn’t really provide enough context for
us to be accessible. We all had a textbook, but I don’t remember feeling I had any
connection with it. Because I didn’t. It was very unfamiliar for me. I didn’t know
too much about it. And I think only once did he ever show a movie. But it was I

101
thought it was really boring. It wasn’t very informative. I just wasn’t engaged.
Yeah, so as I’m doing ancient civilizations now, I’m thinking wow, like, so much
I missed out on and it's like I'm relearning again, what I should have learned back
in high school. I didn’t really care too much about history back then. And now I
do. So, I feel like I’m, I’m more into social studies and history. So, I think maybe
from there, it’s me feeling like, Okay, I don’t want my students to feel that way.
So that’s probably why I do that.
E: And is that important for your students to have that same appreciation for the
content area like you had?
R: I mean, I don’t want them I don’t want them to, like, I don’t want to force them to
appreciate social studies and history, but just at least, I want them to feel positive
about understanding it and not feeling left behind. So, I mean if they do grow to
appreciate it, then that's great. But what I care more is just them feeling like they
get it and they understand it.
E: What do you mean by left behind? Do you mean within the content of the
curriculum you decide to use or grade level wise?
R: Yeah, you know, grade level wise, but also, especially for those kids that are like
struggling readers. You know, I don’t want them to feel different because they
can’t read at grade level they won’t understand the reading. I want to be able to
provide support and work with them to understand the information. I want to learn
how I can do that.
I shared with Rebecca some of their earlier comments on student academic achievement and how
it was important for her, ethically, to provide supplemental information within their lessons to

102
ensure that their students were academically prepared to engage in the content and encourage
critical thinking. By sharing previous contributions, I was promoting their thinking towards
identifying their values and how they connect to their environment. My initial probing questions
were taking advantage of a situation that was conducive to autonomous learning as they
expressed their willingness to provide academic support for their students. When I said, “Where
does this come from? Does it come from your teacher preparation program? Does it come from
your upbringing?” I was being intentional with the transition of probing questions to gain a better
understanding of their mental models and dispositions on teaching, but also push them to think
more about the topic (Krupa, Selman, & Jaquette, 1985, as cited in Sahin & Kulm, 2008). It was
important to provide them the opportunity to share their learned experiences to promote their
competency and feel supported within their autonomous learning. Rebecca shared,
Yeah, I would say from my teacher preparation program, while we were learning about
theories. I can’t remember the name of the theorist. So basically, I guess, we knew that
we should give students enough context and background knowledge so that there's a
smooth transition from one thing to the next. And so, I learned that through reading the
different theories in the teacher preparation program.
Their response provided an insight into their understanding on how to best support their students
within the curriculum. It indicated how they learned from various theorists in their program that
one should provide students with enough content within the curriculum to ensure success. They
shared about their students’ development and justifying their strategy, “And just that’s why I try
to... give them enough background knowledge and make the context more accessible for
everyone.” The question provided them the opportunity to share their instructional beliefs and
how they justified their approach in supporting their students.

103
Building on this dialogue, I asked further, “Where does that part come from about your
belief? Is it from your program, or is it come from somewhere else?” When I asked this, I was
seeking to get a better understanding of what experiences had shaped their vision on teaching
and student learning. Rebecca shared, “I think maybe it came from somewhere else. I mean, I
know that I’ve, I’ve volunteered in classrooms before and with little kids, and I’ve seen how
their teachers would guide them.” It indicated their experience as a volunteer and how during
those clinical hours allowed them to see the collaboration between the adult and the child in the
classroom. They expressed their amazement on the curiosity of child development and how
intrigued they would be in “observing how they are just natural wonderers … they’re not afraid
to explore things.” When I said, “Did you have any of those experiences growing up? Is that how
you were taught when you were a child?” I was being intentional on how I was guiding the
conversation towards getting them to unpack their childhood schooling experience and how that
indivertibly contributes in how they supported student learning (Rodgers, 2002). Their response,
No. When I learned about ancient civilization, I didn’t learn that until I was in high
school. My high school teacher, he didn't really provide enough context for us to be
accessible. We all had a textbook, but I don’t remember feeling I had any connection
with it
indicated the lack of background information they were seeking as a student and the disconnect
to the content. They shared that their high school teacher contributed to this disconnect by not
providing the necessary prior knowledge that led them to assert “I just wasn’t engaged.” They
transitioned the conversation to their own practice, by sharing how being present in the
curriculum had enabled them to gain a new appreciation and joy for History and how it had
given them the opportunity to relearn some of the concepts they missed out on. When they

104
shared, “I'm more into social studies and history. So, I think maybe from there… I don’t want
my students to feel that way. So that’s probably why I do that,” it validated their experience as
both a teacher and learner, and how that had shaped their willingness to provide extended
support for their students.
Expanding on this conversation, I utilized this entry space to ask, “And is that important
for your students to have that same appreciation for the content area like you had?” I was seeking
to create inclusivity within the context of our dialogue by questioning who their students were in
relation to the curriculum. They asserted,
I don’t want to force them to appreciate social studies and history…I want them to feel
positive about understanding it and not feeling left behind. So, I mean if they do grow to
appreciate it, then that’s great. But what I care more is just them feeling like they get it,
and they understand it.
This demonstrated their knowing the influence they might have on how their students would feel
about the content. They understood that potentially not all of them would have an appreciation
for the subject area, but if they understood it and not fell left behind, aligned with their initial
belief in teaching. This was the beginning of Rebecca understanding the disconnect that students
might have with the content and how they might have needed to begin making shifts in their
practice. I wanted to get a better outlook on what it they meant by their students feeling left
behind, I asked “What do you mean by left behind? Do you mean within the content of the
curriculum you decide to use or grade level wise?” I was looking to see how this perception
informed their support of student learning and how that informed their selection of instructional
resources. Rebecca indicated,

105
Yeah, you know, grade level wise, but also, especially for those kids that are like
struggling readers. You know, I don’t want them to feel different because they can’t read
at grade level, they won’t understand the reading. I want to be able to provide support and
work with them to understand the information. I want to learn how I can do that.
In their statement, Rebecca indicated their awareness of students being able to work at grade
level, specifically with reading fluency and comprehension. They acknowledged that the reading
abilities in their classroom were below grade level, and how it impacted the students’
understanding of the content. They further explained that regardless of their reading abilities,
Rebecca had high expectations for their students to achieve academic success and planned to
continue to find ways to provide supplemental support along the way. Their comments clearly
indicate a desire, driven a curiosity, to explore how they could engage those students who were
not reading at grade level. Although I was not able to address how their existing knowledge
informed their selection of instructional resources to support student learning, I was able to use
guiding and probing questions to build a foundation of autonomous motivation towards
supporting Rebecca in their willingness to make change in their practice.
Towards the end of cycle 1, going into cycle 2, I continued to use guiding and probing
questions within our collaborative sessions to support Rebecca in continuing to recognize the
impact their behaviors and beliefs had on perpetuating inequities in the classroom through their
instructional choices. By focusing my attention on how I posed my questions, Rebecca began
using the language of reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002) to begin generating new questions and
improved understandings on how they supported their students. By our third meeting, I began to
narrow down the scope of my questions to better address how Rebecca was present to student
learning (Rodgers, 2002). Instead of asking questions such as “What does reflection mean to you

106
as a teacher?” or “How does reflection support teacher development?” I asked, “Do you find the
space to reflect on your instructional practice?” In my previous two meetings, I found that my
questions were too general and not asking them to question their choices regarding the
curriculum or who their students were in relation to the curriculum. The following excerpt is
from our third meeting together. It demonstrates how I used a guiding question to begin
discussing the impact of reflection on their teaching practice and how they had been able to
adjust their practice along the way.
E: Do you find yourself reflecting about your instructional practice?
R: Yeah, I do. I say to myself, maybe I shouldn’t have done it this way. Maybe I
should have not spent too much time on this. But more, I think it’s more about
handling like student behavior and then academic wise. And so that influences on
what I do moving forward.
When I asked, “Do you find yourself reflecting about your instructional practice?” I was
engaging Rebecca in sharing how they reflected on their practice. I was looking to promote their
thinking and provide an opportunity for them to begin recognizing the impact their behaviors and
beliefs had on perpetuating inequities in the classroom through their instructional choices.
Rebecca shared, “Yeah, I do. I say to myself, maybe I shouldn’t have done it this way. Maybe I
should have not spent too much time on this.” Their response telegraphed a surface level
reflection, one that exemplified an inner dialogue with themself, and not how their students were
affected by their practice. They continued by adding, “I think it’s more about handling like
student behavior and then academic wise. And so that influences on what I do moving forward.”
Rebecca’s contribution indicated a shift in their approach to supporting student learning. In our
previous meetings, they indicated that their students’ academic ability was of a concern to them

107
and influenced their approach to providing supplemental support. Here, they were expressing
their motivation in addressing student behavior before moving forward with academics. The
guiding question provided me the opportunity to get another layer to their disconnect on how
student behavior was triggering them to suspend their initial thoughts on student support and
prioritizing student behavior, which further added to the perceived gap in their work and how
vital it s to establish the disorientation (Wergin, 2020).
Building upon our dialogue, I continued to guide the conversation by asking probing
questions that included their students within the learning process, to begin establishing
transitional points that would enable me to begin moving them towards culturally responsive
teaching practices. The following excerpt is the second part of our third meeting. It demonstrates
how Rebecca began to deal with their constructive disorientation in what they perceived as the
best way to support student learning was through behavior management. Their comments
indicate their shift in wanting to focus in on academic development and move away from their
existing mental model. The data will show how they were able to come to this conclusion
through reflection and establish what they perceived as a clear disconnection that required
adaptive learning (Heifetz, 1994, as cited in Wergin, 2020). The evidence will further show their
commitment towards wanting to create change in their practice and establish next steps in our
collaboration to make those shifts.
E: Tell me about how this influences you moving forward?
R: You know, just when a student misbehaves, what would be a more logical
consequence instead of punishment. I’ve been working on that a lot more. I think
I remember it was my first year of teaching and there was a student that kept
misbehaving. It got to the point that I had to take them out of my classroom. But

108
as soon as I did that, I felt really bad because I didn’t really believe in that. So, I
reflected in that moment that I shouldn’t have done that and so after that, I didn’t
do it anymore. Instead, I had him maybe go take a break in another classroom and
in the other teacher’s classroom they would give him work to do. And then sort of
like do a reflection on his behavior as well. So, to this day whenever I see a
student that is misbehaving I know to talk to them first and have them reflect on
their behavior and so we do we do a lot of reflection in my classroom like in their
behavior wise.
E: What about their academic development? How do you reflect on that?
R: That’s something that I do want to work on, reflecting on how my students were
able to contribute with their partner. I think about how to get better at developing
writing rubrics. I think that will also help them with their reflection. I want them
to put their best effort into their work. But I do want to focus more on academic
reflection, like creating self-assessments for my students. I know that is what I
want to work on, but I don’t practice that very often.
E: What has prevented you from creating those opportunities?
R: Well like I told you before, I am the only person in my grade level, and I don’t
really have anyone to talk to about this. It’s hard for me to do it by myself because
I don’t know how to do that. That’s why I am hoping you can help me with that
because I do want to reflect on how they are learning in my class and what I need
to do to improve.
E: Thank you for that. It would be great to begin this process with you in helping
you support your students with their academic development.

109
When I asked, “Tell me about how this influences you moving forward?” I was interested to
know more about their motivation of focusing in on student behavior, rather than their academic
development. Rebecca responded, “You know, just when a student misbehaves, what would be a
more logical consequence instead of punishment. I’ve been working on that a lot more.” Their
statement indicated an awareness of exclusionary practices that had occurred in their classroom
and how they were reflecting on their progress. Rebecca’s disorientation was strong enough to
encourage a suspension of an assumption and belief and a willingness to entertain a new
perspective (Wergin, 2020). They continued by sharing an example of their first-year teaching
experience and how they initiated discipline by removing the student from the classroom. When
Rebecca said, “But as soon as I did that, I felt really bad because I didn’t really believe in that.
So, I reflected in that moment…I didn’t do it anymore,” their comments indicated how they used
the opportunity to authentically reflect on their decision and make the changes they needed to
disorient their beliefs on student discipline. Rebecca further explained how they now used
reflection in their classroom to provide students with the opportunity to self-reflect and redirect
their engagement in the classroom. This was a pivotal moment in our conversation as it provided
them with the space to be transparent in how they interrogated their practice and how that
disconnect was strong enough to suspend their beliefs on how they dealt with student behavior.
Building on this exchange, I leveraged that experience to create an entry point to their
constructive disorientation. When I asked, “What about their academic development? How do
you reflect on that?” I was being explicit in making the connections between how their beliefs on
student discipline and how their behaviors influenced their instructional choices to support
student learning. Their response, “That’s something that I do want to work on, reflecting on how
my students were able to contribute with their partner,” indicated their willingness to make

110
changes in their practice by engaging students in collaborative practice. Rebecca discussed how
they wanted to provide students with opportunities to self-assess themselves through rubrics.
Rebecca’s statement, “I know that is what I want to work on, but I don’t practice that very
often,” indicated the expectations they were setting for themself and also owning up to their
shortcomings when it came to being consistent. Their comments further validated not only their
motivation to wanting to change for the betterment of their students, but also how it had begun to
empower a sense of efficacy (Wergin, 2020) in engaging in this learning task. The discussion
allowed me to further probe, “What has prevented you from creating those opportunities?” By
intentionally asking a question that addressed their inability to be more consistent with their
students’ academic development, I was leading them to hold themself accountable and take the
time to meet the expectations they set forth. Their response,
Well like I told you before, I am the only person in my grade level, and I don’t really
have anyone to talk to about this. It’s hard for me to do it by myself because I don’t know
how to do that
demonstrated their vulnerability for wanting to change and the lack of collaborating with
colleagues to initiate this process. Rebecca shared further with a probing statement, “That’s why
I am hoping you can help me with that because I do want to reflect on how they are learning in
my class and what I need to do to improve.” This assertion demonstrated their willingness to not
only create opportunities for change in their practice, but the trust and connectiveness they had
with me (Wergin, 2020) to collaborate on making those shifts. I accepted their invitation by
stating, “Thank you for that. It would be great to begin this process with you in helping you
support your students with their academic development. By continuing to ask guiding and
probing questions, I was able to support Rebecca in exploring a constructive disorientation,

111
move them towards a commitment of change in their practice and establish next steps in our
collaboration to address those shifts.
In my conceptual framework I argued that providing reflective opportunities for my
learner to examine their teaching dispositions and how that affected their instructional choices,
would lead towards the incorporation of culturally responsive teaching. Going into my last cycle,
I was able to sustain consistency in our reflective conversations that continued to address
Rebecca’s growth in better understanding who their students were and how they were leveraged
in learning (Gay, 2020). Building on the existing structure of our reflective discourse, I was able
to be more explicit and intentional in our conversations to promote their development of new
behaviors and beliefs on creating learning opportunities for their students. I will demonstrate
how by continuing to use guiding and probing questions, the structure and flow of the questions
provided Rebecca with the space to make connections between their new understandings of
teaching practices and how it created a new expanding belief in teaching their students (Aguilar,
2020).
The following excerpt is from our final meeting together. It demonstrates how Rebecca
perceived their relationship with their students would look like if they incorporated culturally
responsive teaching practices. They recognized how the disorientation had stalled the
connections they’d made with their students which would eventually motivate them to engage in
adaptive learning to mend that gap in their instructional practice.
E: What would your teaching look like if you considered incorporating culturally
responsive teaching practices?
R: I would probably have a better relationship with them. I think that they would get
along better as students.

112
When I used the guiding question, “What would teaching look like if you considered
incorporating culturally teaching practices,” I set the tone for the final part of our conversation,
grounded on the idea that for change to occur, a clear and manageable challenge must be
presented. I presented Rebecca with the challenge of considering culturally responsive teaching
as an alternative to their current beliefs. I was seeking to see if they would accept the invitation
to pause their current belief and entertain a scenario that would be grounded on the tenets of
culturally responsive teaching. When Rebecca responded, “I would probably have a better
relationship with them” it demonstrated their consciousness that what they knew and what they
needed to know were not the same thing. They were on the pursuit of transformative learning.
Rebecca was aware that their disconnect was influenced by the lack of connection they had with
their students. They further shared “I think that they would get along better as students”
indicating that the lack of connectivity trickles down to their students as well. Rebecca was
mindful that their practice was inadvertently promoting problematic practices that lacked
inclusivity and collaboration. I thought the question did not fully justify their response in whole.
I fell short in being able to take their all the way to unpacking their response due to the time. At
this juncture of the session, we were well into over an hour into our conversation.
Consistent with previous sessions, I continued to guide Rebecca with my probing
questions to frame their previous response on wanting to change their practice to engage their
students with culturally responsive teaching. I was seeking to capture how they planned to
address those fixed assumptions and expectations of how students should learn best towards a
more inclusive and reflective model that centered students’ strengths and lived experiences
within the curriculum. As we discussed, I continued to push them towards making a commitment
to creating a pathway that would allow them to recognize fully their constructive disorientation

113
and the support systems they needed to help their find where they needed to be to support their
students (Wergin, 2020).
The following excerpt is from the second part of our last meeting. It demonstrates how
Rebecca was able to make connections between culturally responsive teaching practices and their
own practice. The data will indicate how they became more aware of how creating collaborative
opportunities within their classroom would lead to better relationships with their students. It will
elaborate on how they wanted to continue to collaborate after the study to become more
comfortable in incorporating culturally response practices and ensuring that they were not
perpetuating inequities (Aguilar, 2020) through their teaching. The evidence further captures the
four ideas Wergin (2020) described as essential qualities for a constructive disorientation: a clear
disconnect that requires adaptive learning, the situation is conducive to autonomous motivation,
it empowers a sense of efficacy, and the disorientation takes place in a setting where the learner
feels supported and confident that they are contributing to their environment in a positive way.
E: What might you see happening in your classroom if you integrated some of those
key practices?
R: They might be collaborating more. I would say collaborating more and have more
respect for one another. I just don’t know how to plan for that in my lessons. As I
said before, I know that I should be planning for my students to get more out of
my teaching that is just the content. I want them to enjoy the learning process, but
I just don’t know how to go about it. I get frustrated because I don’t often get this
support at my school and since I am the only one in my grade level, there is really
no one to talk about this with.

114
E: What type of support do you need from me in helping you integrate some of these
tenets of culturally responsive teaching?
R: Having a better understanding of the key practices of culturally responsive
teaching. I want to be clear about them. Also, we went over anti-oppressive
practices. I am curious to know if I am currently doing any of those or am I
unknowingly creating these through my teaching. Oh, and one more thing, I am
interested to know how do I begin to create an environment where respect is
valued and practiced by my students.
When I said, “What might you see happening in your classroom if you integrated some of those
key practices?” Prior to our exchange, I shared with them a graphic of the essential elements of
culturally responsive teaching that included the following: collaboration, reflection,
communication, inclusivity, cultural awareness, high expectations, recognition of bias, and realworld connections. I was looking for them to unpack the key practices we discussed and the
implications it would have in their classroom. When Rebecca shared, “They might be
collaborating more. I would say collaborating more and have more respect for one another,” it
demonstrated their understanding of one of the benefits in integrating culturally responsive
teaching in their practice. They indicated that by promoting culturally responsive teaching in
their practice they were contributing to their environment in a healthy and valued way (Wergin,
2020) that centered collaborative practices to promote the development of interpersonal skills for
their students. They later stated,
I just don’t know how to plan for that in my lessons. As I said before, I know that I
should be planning for my students to get more out of my teaching that is just the content.
I want them to enjoy the learning process, but I just don’t know how to go about it. I get

115
frustrated because I don’t often get this support at my school and since I am the only one
in my grade level, there is really no one to talk about this with.
Their statement indicated a level of frustration that they had been experiencing for some time in
making the shifts in their instructional practice. They were aware of their limitations when they
said that they didn’t know how to plan for collaboration in their lessons. They were seeking
support through their conversation and felt comfortable in being transparent with their lack of
direction and support at their school site. This is evidence of their welcoming the disorientation
and reaching out in our environment where they felt socially connected and supported through
their learning process. Building on the momentum, I offered, “What type of support do you need
from me in helping you integrate some of these tenants of cultural responsive teaching?” When I
said this, I was extending my support as a gesture of good faith to show them that their feelings
matter and were of value when making changes in their way of being. I was looking to support
their adaptive learning process by offering my support in becoming more aware of the tenets.
Rebecca concluded by stating,
Having a better understanding of the key practices of culturally responsive teaching. I
want to be clear about them. Also, we went over anti-oppressive practices. I am curious
to know if I am currently doing any of those or am I unknowingly creating these through
my teaching. Oh, and one more thing, I am interested to know how do I begin to create an
environment where respect is valued and practiced by my students.
Their statement outlined their commitment to address the constructive disorientation and the
pathway they wanted to establish to fulfill this goal. When they said that they wanted to better
understand the language of culturally responsive teaching and anti-oppressive practices, they
were seeking to deepen their sense of efficacy within their learning task that would provide them

116
the opportunity to lift the veil on oppressive practices they might be perpetuating. When they
concluded that they were interested in how to create an environment where respect was valued
and practiced by her students, they were seeking to explore, through curiosity, how they use
these tools to help find balance in their classroom. By learning to be intentional and explicit in
my guiding and probing questions, Rebecca was able to enter a constructive disorientation that
provided them the opportunity to internalize the importance of culturally responsive teaching and
make efforts towards actualizing its use within their instructional practice.
Finding 2: My Growth
Over the course of my 14-week study, I grew in my ability to be present to Rebecca by shifting
my practice from a teacher-centered approach, that was driven by how I was covering the
content, to a student-centered model that attended to how my learner was learning. At the onset
of the study, I was using a combination of tools that served as the curriculum I was
implementing. I combined our induction program’s Individual Learning Plan and questions from
Transformational Coaching to enhance the learning experience of my learner that would lead
them to building intrinsic motivation toward interrogating their practice and make progress
towards transformational learning. Balancing both tools in my study, while maintaining attention
to my agenda, interfered with my ability to be present to my learner. I began to see how my
practice impacted their understanding of the curriculum in how I went from merely glancing over
the content to being more explicit and intentional in how I described and modeled the use of the
content. Being fully aware, or practicing mindfulness (Tremmel, 1993, as cited in Rodgers,
2002), in my collaborative settings meant being open to my learner’s needs rather than attending
to my own and being aware of the potential power dynamics I was reproducing. In my
conceptual framework, I argued that to establish presence, I would need to build rapport with my

117
learner for transparency and trust to exist by slowing down and being present in the moment
(Rodgers, 2002). However, I learned that my own awareness of being student-centered when
supporting new teachers was not only about being transparent and trustworthy, but it was how I
continued to interrogate my own practice to make the necessary shifts in my practice to meet the
needs of my learner.
Initially, I was not being present to the novice teacher. I began my study with Rebecca by
engaging in teacher-centered behaviors by consistently centering my own agenda as the priority,
rather than slowing down and allowing the space to fully address their needs. At the beginning of
Cycle 1, these teacher-centered behaviors were most obvious in how I would interrupt or curtail
their conversation to maintain what I believed was the appropriate goal and pace of the meeting.
This acceleration of our collaborative session did not allow me to fully be present and created an
environment where I was simply trying to cover the material (Rodgers, 2002) and move Rebecca
through the agenda, assuming they were comprehending the information. The following excerpt
comes from our first meeting, which was partially analyzed in my first finding for its use of
guiding and probing questions to enact change but will now be analyzed for evidence of my
growth. In my first meeting, I used an agenda to unpack specific elements of Rebecca’s practice
through constructive discussions. I included a bulleted list of the activities I expected us to
engage in during our meeting and how I would be sequencing based on our time allotted, which
was 1 hour. Specifically in this part of the meeting, the agenda included opportunities to discuss
their reasons for selecting certain parts of the curriculum and how that related to the support of
their students. The intention was to provide them space to unpack their own experiences as a
student and how that influenced what curriculum they would use with their students. The goal of
the agenda was to help them identify the mismatch between the curriculum they chose and their

118
students. However, what I ended up doing was being more teacher-centered in how I latched on
to my agenda rather than being present to my learner. The data will reveal how I demonstrated a
lack of presence and mindfulness in my exchange with Rebecca, by consistently centering my
own agenda as the priority and assuming they were fully comprehending my feedback.
E: Did you have any of those experiences growing up? Is that how you were taught
when you were a child?
R: When I learned about ancient civilization, I didn’t learn that until I was in high
school. My high school teacher, he didn’t really provide enough context for us to
be accessible. We all had a textbook, but I don’t remember feeling I had any
connection with it. Because I didn’t. It was very unfamiliar for me. I didn’t know
too much about it. And I think only once did he ever show a movie. But it was I
thought it was really boring. It wasn’t very informative. I just wasn’t engaged.
Yeah, so as I’m doing ancient civilizations now, I’m thinking wow, like, so much
I missed out on and it’s like I'm relearning again, what I should have learned back
in high school. I didn't really care too much about history back then. And now I
do. So I feel like I’m, I'm more into social studies and history. So I think maybe
from there, it’s me feeling like, Okay, I don’t want my students to feel that way.
So that’s probably why I do that.
E: And is that important for your students to have that same appreciation for the
content area like you had?
R: I mean, I don’t want them I don’t want them to, like, I don’t want to force them to
appreciate social studies and history, but just at least, I want them to feel positive
about understanding it and not feeling left behind. So, I mean if they do grow to

119
appreciate it, then that’s great. But what I care more is just them feeling like they
get it and they understand it.
E: What do you mean by left behind? Do you mean within the content of the
curriculum you decide to use or grade level wise?
R: Yeah, you know, grade level wise, but also, especially for those kids that are like
struggling readers. You know, I don’t want them to feel different because they
can’t read at grade level they won’t understand the reading. I want to be able to
provide support and work with them to understand the information. I want to learn
how I can do that.
E: Now, I want you to think about this next portion [referring to the agenda for the
meeting], I want you to talk me through what you think it’s [the curriculum]
going to mean for your students. So not what you want it to mean for your
students. What do you think this is going to mean for them? What do you think
they would say to this?
R: Like, what would they say after they’ve learned about this lesson?
E: Right. What is their impression of this content area that you’re going to present
for them? How do you think they will feel about what you will present to them?
In the beginning of this exchange, I was guiding Rebecca to examine their reasons for the
selection of the curriculum and its relationship to their students. When I said, “Did you have any
of those experiences growing up? Is that how you were taught when you were a child?” I was
setting their up to begin thinking about their own experiences as a student with the curriculum. I
was providing an opportunity to unpack their learning and identify the reasons that justified their
selection of the curriculum. Rebecca shared their connection to the content they would be

120
teaching by reflecting on their experiences as a student. They mentioned, “When I learned about
ancient civilization, I didn’t learn that until I was in high school. My high school teacher, he
didn’t really provide enough context for us to be accessible.” They indicated the lack of support
they received as a student from their teacher and how that prevented their access to the
curriculum. Rebecca went on to mention that the content was “really boring” and not “very
informative,” which they credited for not really being fond of the content area. They continued
by sharing that now as a teacher, they had gotten more of an appreciation for the subject and
believed that they were “relearning again” what they missed out in their own experience.
Rebecca closed their exchange by indicating, “I don’t want my students to feel that way. So
that’s why I do that,” which signaled a connection to their own experience as a student and if
their students may feel the same way if they didn’t teach the content explicitly.
At this moment, I neglected to slow down with what I was seeing and not attending to
Rebecca’s needs (Rodgers, 2002) from their previous comment. Their comments required that I
pivot and provide the space for them to unpack their feelings about student learning.
Nevertheless, I discovered that I was focusing my attention across a teacher centered approach,
rather than being in tune with my participant’s learning. In my next exchange, I was setting them
up to self-interrogate their practice through reflection. When I said, “And is that important for
your students to have that same appreciation for the content area like you had?” was my way of
asking them to reflect on the experiences they mentioned earlier to help them explore the
relationship their students had to the curriculum. They indicated, “I don’t want to force them to
appreciate social studies and history, but just at least, I want them to feel positive about
understanding it and not feeling left behind.” Rebecca acknowledged that they did not want to
impose their own appreciation for the content to their students but infuse a sense of positivity in

121
their students towards feeling satisfied with understanding the content and not feeling left
behind.
When I said, “What do you mean by left behind? Do you mean within the content of the
curriculum you decide to use or grade level wise?” I was being intentional in my andragogical
move in seeking additional information about their students feeling left behind and alerting them
that I was “investing in the present moment with full awareness and concentration” (Tremmel,
1993, as cited in Rodgers, 2002, p. 236). By further probing her, I was seeking for them to
elaborate on what they meant by their students feeling left behind and how that impacts the
decisions they made in their practice. Rebecca responded by saying,
Yeah, you know, grade level wise, but also, especially for those kids that are like
struggling readers. You know, I don’t want them to feel different because they can’t read
at grade level, they won’t understand the reading. I want to be able to provide support and
work with them to understand the information. I want to learn how I can do that.
Their response provided an outlook of what they understood for their students to feel left behind;
the grade level content curriculum they needed to cover and the low reading proficiency levels in
their classroom. they further acknowledged that because students were unable to read at grade
level, the content became incomprehensible and further created barriers for students to learn.
When they said, “I want to be able to provide support and work with them to understand the
information. I want to learn how I can do that” they were seeking for me to be able to provide
them with the support in addressing their teaching practice and finding ways to organize an
action plan. Their comments cued an alert in our meeting that asked for me to respond in the
moment and make my mentoring shifts from a facilitator to an instructive role, one that would
direct the interaction based on the needs of the learner.

122
At this moment, I was continuously looking at my time and noticed that I was vastly
approaching my 1 hour allotted time. I wanted to ensure that I covered all the elements of the
agenda to secure a successful transition to our next session. So, when I said, “Now, I want you to
think about this next portion, I want you to talk me through what you think it’s going to mean for
your students” I was curtailing their response intentionally as a direct reference to the agenda I
had for the day. It demonstrated that I was more focused on covering the content (Rodgers,
2002), moving through the curriculum, then I was on the information they had just provided me.
I was more concerned with getting to the point of my agenda that addressed their students, rather
than being present to what was happening in our meeting. I then said to her, “So, not what you
want it to mean for your students. What do you think this is going to mean for them? What do
you think they would say to this?” I was overtly concentrating on making them see the mismatch
between the curriculum they’d chosen and the students. My mindset was set on threading in
elements of culturally responsive teaching within our conversation by pushing in the student
lens, rather than first attend to their own doubts in teaching. I was ignoring their cry for help for
the sake of keeping us on pace and centering what I thought was most important to them. When
Rebecca said, “Like, what would they say after they’ve learned about this lesson?” there was a
brief pause prior to their response. They looked confused and when they spoke, their response
conveyed a message of uncertainty. Again, this was another opportunity where Rebecca was not
sure about how to answer my questions and seeking for clarification from my end. I quickly
responded, “Right. What is their impression of this content area that you’re going to present for
them? How do you think they will feel about what you will present to them?” Here I was
assuming that their response was a validation of their understanding what I was looking for them
to respond. My lack of presence to their learning denied me the opportunity to assume the role of

123
providing them with the external feedback (Hawkins, 1975, as cited in Rodgers, 2002) they were
looking for to make the necessary connections to their lived experience. At this point it was clear
that I was demonstrating teacher-centered behaviors by being more concerned in finding entry
points that would allow me to move the conversation along and meet my goal of accomplishing
my agenda.
After this meeting, I took the opportunity to reflect on the collaborative session, by
looking over the transcript and video recording to give me a better perspective on how the
meeting went. It was evident that the time of the day and duration of the meeting played a
significant role in how I facilitated the conversation through a teacher-centered approach. After
reviewing the transcript, I connected with some of my doctoral classmates about my initial
meeting to help me work through my own description and analysis of my experience (Rodgers,
2002) to understand the misdirection I took in the meeting. Our discourse led me to better
understand how overtly I was presenting myself within the meeting to center my own agenda. It
addressed how I was creating an environment that was not focused on the learner and how my
lack of presence could affect my interactions. In my reflection on this meeting, I began to
uncover an awareness of my approach:
I had to take a step back and really think about how I positioned myself within the
meeting. As I am looking over my transcripts, I noticed that the time and duration of the
meeting is making me speed things up. I looked over some of the jottings I wrote and
read how I was worried about the time and wondered if I would be able to complete
everything, I said I wanted to do. I can see that I am fumbling my words within my
questions to expedite the process. One area that I saw where I was going way too fast,
was my last question on what the content or lesson meant for the student. I was looking

124
for them to take a step back and consider what their students thought about the topic as it
relates to them as second graders. I was more interested in getting that question in to
satisfy my ambition of completing the agenda, rather than slowing down and hearing
their out. It was a missed opportunity and I need to be able to be more prepared in my
approach, by slowing down and provide the scaffolds necessary to assist them in this
process.
By recognizing that “I was more interested in getting that question in to satisfy my ambition of
completing the agenda, rather than slowing down and hearing their out,” I discovered that I
needed to be more mindful in how I positioned myself to be fully present to my learner. In line
with Rodgers (2002):
The power of the reflective cycle seems to rest in its ability to slow down teachers’
thinking so that they can attend to what is rather than what they wish were so, and then
shift the weight of that thinking from their own teaching to their students’ learning. (p.
231)
In my practice, this meant that slowing down my teaching approach and recognize that it was
more important that I work collaboratively with my learner on moving towards understanding
the value of culturally responsive teaching practices rather than satisfying my own ambition of
getting through an agenda. This also meant that I needed to be an active listener within the
meeting and being more intentional with my feedback by pausing and paraphrasing within our
exchange to become more present to them. The following excerpt comes from our last meeting
together where we discussed how our reflective discourse has enabled Rebecca to examine their
teaching practice throughout the study. I was intentional in how I connected this culminating
reflection to their growth and demonstrated being present by pausing to allow time for reflection

125
and paraphrasing their comments to show that I valued what they were contributing. By being
present and mindful, I became a collaborator rather than an authority figure that enabled me to
meet the needs of my learner.
E: So this last part, I want to shift ourselves over to wrapping up everything we’ve
been going through in our study together. And in this reflective practice, I’m
going to ask you a couple questions that will enable me to learn more about your
progress this academic year. Tell me about what it has meant for you to reflect on
your teaching practice.
R: It allows me to look back at what I’ve been doing and to see what kind of a
teacher I am. It has allowed me to really take the time in getting to know myself
as a teacher.
E: And what have you learned about yourself?
R: That I really do want to grow as an educator, and I know that I am I am passionate
about what I teach. I care about how I’m teaching the subjects. I care if I’m doing
it right and if I’m meeting the needs of my students.
E: It is important for you to grow as an educator. I hear you saying that you are
passionate about what you do and that you genuinely care about how you teach
your students. You also mentioned that you want to know if you are meeting the
needs of your students.
R: Yes, that is important for me. I want to grow and become better than I am now.
E: I am mindful that we are entering a space where our collaboration will soon end. I
am interested to know that as you continue to reflect on your practice, what
emotions come to mind as you being to enter this space by yourself?

126
R: Well, the emotions of just feeling okay with where I am right now but also feeling
little bit of frustration about this new curriculum. But really, just okay, where I’m
at.
E: I appreciate you sharing what emotions or thoughts you are having. You are
feeling frustrated about the curriculum you are responsible for teaching, but you
are also okay with where you are. Can you tell me what it means to being okay
where you are at?
R: Although I am frustrated with how the curriculum is supposed to be taught, I feel
like I am at an okay place. I know that I am still new to teaching and that these
feelings I have are normal for a new teacher. I know that with practice I will
improve over time. I just sometimes feel overwhelmed with all the stuff that is
given to us and how I can meet my students where they are at.
E: It is normal to feel that way. The feeling of the unknown and the anxiety that it
can bring. The curriculum can be overwhelming, especially with all the resources
they provide and how to find ways to meet your students where they are at.
However, I agree with you that with time and support you will get more
comfortable in teaching and leveraging the assets of your students within the
curriculum.
R: Yes, I agree and appreciate you sharing that because it helps reassure where I am
at with my progress.
By beginning my culminating part of the meeting with, “So, this last part I want to shift
ourselves over to wrapping up everything we’ve been going through in our study together,”
I focused my attention on our collaboration rather than my eagerness to cover the content.

127
It was important that I shared with them my awareness of our collaboration to set the tone of my
intentions of recognizing the impact we had had on one another. When I followed up with “And
in this reflective practice, I’m going to ask you a couple questions that will enable me to learn
more about your progress this academic year,” I was telegraphing to them my intentions of being
present to them during their reflection. Consistent with Rodgers (2002), “being present is being
‘learning 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 transparent with my actions, I was
signaling to their that I cared about what they said about their progress and how we can use that
to create next steps for learning. This provided me the opportunity to share with them, “Tell me
about what it has meant for you to reflect on your teaching practice?” Here my intentions in
wanting to learn about their progress was supported by how I was able to shift my practice to a
more student-centered model. By being accountable for my practice, I was able to be more
explicit with my intentions in wanting to understand their learning process, rather than pushing
my own agenda.
When Rebecca responded, “It allows me to look back at what I’ve been doing and to see
what kind of a teacher I am. It has allowed me to really take the time in getting to know myself
as a teacher,” it demonstrated how they experienced me as being present to them. This provided
them with the space to be open with me on how they wanted to monitor their growth towards
better understanding the type of teacher they were. According to Brookfield (2017), “Learning
something new and difficult as an adult and then reflecting on what this experience means for
teaching is a visceral rather than intellectual route into critical reflection” (p. 154). Rebecca
expressed how the experience has provided them with the space to get in touch with their
development as a teacher and how they were learning to come to terms on who they really were.

128
When I said, “And what have you learned about yourself,” I was taking them up on the language
they were using on getting to know themself better as a teacher to continue demonstrating my
presence to them. I wanted them to unpack how their reflection had informed their identity as a
teacher. When Rebecca said,
That I really do want to grow as an educator, and I know that I am I am passionate about
what I teach. I care about how I’m teaching the subjects. I care if I’m doing it right and if
I’m meeting the needs of my students,
they acknowledged their will and commitment to wanting to grow as an educator. their exchange
was a direct response to my probing question, which demonstrated how they continued to see me
as being available to them. They indicated their passion about the profession and the level of care
they had for not only the content they taught, but how it was meeting the needs of their students.
Our reciprocal conversation provided them with an entry point to being vulnerable and honest in
in what they specifically wanted to see change in their practice. Their ability to identify how they
cared for their students and their learning process, was indicative of their inclination towards
implementing culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2018). When I paraphrased their response,
It is important for you to grow as an educator. I hear you saying that you are passionate
about what you do and that you genuinely care about how you teach your students. You
also mentioned that you want to know if you are meeting the needs of your students,
I was communicating that I valued what they shared by reciprocating the language to
demonstrate my attention to their newfound knowledge. It was key that I centered that
contribution to show Rebecca that they had been truly heard and provide them the lane to
continue reflecting on their development. When they said, “Yes, that is important for me. I want
to grow and become better than I am now,” they implied how I was available to them by

129
validating my response to their reflection and further taking up the language I used to create a
commitment to transform their practice. With this being our last collaborative meeting, I was
intentional in how I centered their transition to begin reflecting on their own. When I said,
I am mindful that we are entering a space where our collaboration will soon end. I am
interested to know that as you continue to reflect on your practice, what emotions come
to mind as you being to enter this space by yourself?
I was demonstrating my presence in wanting to know what emotions they were encountering as
they transitioned to reflecting on their own. When Rebecca shared, “Well, the emotions of just
feeling okay with where I am right now, but also feeling little bit of frustration about this new
curriculum. But really, just okay, where I’m at” it indicated a response to the language I used in
my probing question and continued to imply my focus on their reflection. Their vulnerability in
feeling frustrated with the curriculum they were using, but also feeling comfortable in where
they were at within that space, provided evidence on their willingness to share what emotions
they were experiencing as they transitioned out of the study, Consistent with my initial intentions
of demonstrating my presence, I shared, “I appreciate you sharing what emotions or thoughts you
are having. You are feeling frustrated about the curriculum you are responsible for teaching, but
you are also okay with where you are.” Here I continued paraphrasing Rebecca’s comments to
not only validate their ideas, but also to provide an entry point for a deeper understanding of their
reflection. When I followed up with my question, “Can you tell me what it means to being okay
where you are at?” I was using their language to evoke a deeper explanation on what it meant to
them in being okay where they were at in their practice. I was signaling my presence in our
conversation by probing them to clarify what they were describing. Rebecca responded,

130
Although I am frustrated with how the curriculum is supposed to be taught, I feel like I
am at an okay place. I know that I am still new to teaching and that these feelings I have
are normal for a new teacher. I know that with practice I will improve over time. I just
sometimes feel overwhelmed with all the stuff that is given to us and how I can meet my
students where they are at.
They acknowledged my question by using the language I used to formulate their response. In
demonstrating my continued presence to them, they were able to begin clarifying my question by
indicating their content with their current comfort level and feeling relieved knowing that other
new teachers have similar experiences. They further implied that there would be improvement in
their practice through their continued interaction in the classroom. However, they reverted to
their previous level of frustration of the curriculum and how it overwhelmed them in meeting the
needs of their students.
In my transition from their response, I was intentional in how I connected this
culminating reflection to their growth and demonstrated being present by pausing to allow time
for reflection and paraphrasing their comments to show that I valued what they were
contributing. By being present and mindful, I became a collaborator rather than an authority
figure that enabled me to meet the needs of my learner. I demonstrated my presence to Rebecca
by recognizing their concern when I replied,
It is normal to feel that way. The feeling of the unknown and the anxiety that it can bring.
The curriculum can be overwhelming, especially with all the resources they provide and
how to find ways to meet your students where they are at,
which validated their concerns. I furthered this by saying, “However, I agree with you that with
time and support you will get more comfortable in teaching and leveraging the assets of your

131
students within the curriculum,” which demonstrated that I was listening and attending to their
needs, which was an utter contrast to my first meeting where I was more focused on covering the
content. Rebecca asserted, “Yes, I agree and appreciate you sharing that because it helps reassure
where I am at with my progress.” their final exchange summarized my presence to their needs by
confirming their appreciation to my active listening and how that encourages them to feel
comfortable with where they were at.
By being more present to my leaner, our interactions became richer and more
constructive. Rebecca became more engaged with our work, and it allowed me to see where they
needed support in our journey. By moving away from being focused on my agenda and the
content I needed to cover, I became more aware to the shifts I needed to make to meet my learner
where they were at. As well, being transparent with them in how I was working on being mindful
and explicit of their needs made them more willing to engage in their development and create
action steps to transform their practice. Establishing a learning community was difficult when I
initially approached my practice through a teacher-centered model. However, once I grew
towards being more present and student-centered, Rebecca was able to explore their identity as a
teacher towards establishing a commitment to transforming their practice.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss where I am now that I have left the field and have
conducted intensive data analysis of my practice as a leader within the TGI team as I worked to
promote the inclusion of culturally responsive teaching practices. I will also discuss the path
forward as I continue to develop my practice as a leader.
Since concluding my action research, I continue to be a part of the TGI team as a
Specialist and Full Release Mentor where I meet with novice teachers and support their progress

132
towards clearing their preliminary teaching credentials. While I no longer meet with Rebecca on
a consistent basis, due to completing our program and receiving their clear teaching credential, I
continue to check in on their progress and maintain an open line of communication for any
support they may need.
During the study, I began to engage in the idea of understanding how teacher preparation
programs are addressing the support of new teachers working in historically marginalized
communities. I wanted to understand how our mentoring practices could create a space that
promotes opportunities to prepare teachers working in urban classrooms (Howard & Milner,
2014) to begin examining their own values and assumptions about teaching students from said
communities (Douglas & Nganga, 2013). My goal was to use critical reflection to support novice
teacher in surfacing their assumptions and biases towards teaching and recognize the impact their
behaviors and beliefs may have on perpetuating inequities in the classroom. I wanted to help the
novice teacher recognize and internalize the importance of culturally responsive teaching and
make efforts towards actualizing its use within their instructional practice. While I made progress
with Rebecca, I underestimated the level of critical reflection in my action research, in terms of
depth and skill development, necessary to lead when addressing increased awareness of
developing new understandings of teaching practices and its implications towards a new belief of
meaningful student learning. Further, I began to understand the value of being present to the
learner’s needs and reflecting on my own practice towards being more student-centered. Moving
forward, as I make sense of my own practice in meeting the needs of my learners, the continued
practice skill of critical reflection with the novice teachers is necessary to better prepare them to
teach their students, and interrupt the inequities found in their practice, to enact culturally
responsive teaching in their classroom.

133
Throughout this study, I have learned a lot about myself as a leader working with novice
teachers. In this afterword, I reflect on my growth as a leader and discuss the implications of my
learning. While the intent of an action research is not generalizability, I will also discuss the
value of promoting the development of culturally responsive teaching practices with the entire
TGI team.
Takeaways From Analysis
During my 14-week action research study, I became more mindful of my teaching
practice. While I had been a classroom teacher and district program leader for teacher
preparation programs prior to this study, and having conducted various professional development
learning opportunities, this action research study presented the first time I had looked at my
teaching and leadership enactment through a critical lens. Through this process, I learned a great
deal about myself. While I thought I had been using reflective practice in my teaching, my
analysis of my data led me to realize that I had not been a truly critically reflective teacher. In my
collaborative sessions with Rebecca, I initially took the approach of what best suited my practice,
by ensuring that I got through the curriculum in one setting. At the onset of the action research, I
assumed that I had fully understood the needs of the novice teacher, specifically what I believed
was most essential to work in urban communities. Creating an agenda that addressed the various
components of supporting students in urban settings was key to my instructional practice in this
study. What I came to realize through my analysis was that I was being inattentive to my
learner’s needs and overtly focused on the agenda I believed needed to be accomplished. This
called into question what I perceived to be an effective teaching model. I assumed that if I taught
and exposed my learner to the content, the obvious outcome would be learning. My data analysis
revealed this error for me, and while it took some time to process, I committed myself to

134
understanding how to slow down, be reflective in my practice (Rodgers, 2002), and be attentive
to the individual needs of my learner.
As a result of this new understanding, I have become more conscious and intentional
about my efforts to continuously interrogate my own practice in being student-centered when
supporting novice teachers. I recognize that too often I am focused on what I need to complete in
my work and not necessarily on what is happening in the present. I continue to grapple with the
ability to use my time efficiently in my collaborate sessions, while ensuring that I am meeting
the needs of the novice teacher. I try to remind myself that the work I do is not task oriented,
rather an opportunity to support the individualized needs of the novice teacher to improve the
educational experience of their students. To counter this, I am now purposely slowing down my
practice by looking over my agendas prior to my meetings. Where I would have previously
planned the agenda and then sent it to the novice teacher, I am making more of an effort of
sharing it with my colleagues to provide input and making sure that I am addressing the needs of
my learner within the meeting and not satisfying a specific task. For example, immediately
following the action research, I began working on my Mentor Individual Learning Plan, where I
documented my goal that was informed by my data analysis, that would allow me to collaborate
with my mentor partner for support. I was able to include action steps that directly aligned in
promoting novice teacher agency, through collaborative conversations and reflective analysis, to
improve student academic, social, and emotional growth. Focusing on this goal enabled me to
slow down and increase my awareness of varied stances and mentoring languages to promote
teacher growth in supporting student achievement and social emotional development.
Something that I had not considered during my time in the field were the ways in which I
believed that transformational coaching was to be used in my study. Initially, I made it a point in

135
my study that Aguilar’s (2020) Four Phases of Transformational Coaching would be the primary
method in how I engaged my learner in exploring their learned experiences and how that affects
their teaching practices. I was under the impression that naming each phase would be sufficient
to guide me in facilitating the learning of the study. I came to realize that the means of assisted
performance I integrated within the study was the catalyst to promote thinking and discussion of
the content. It was not until I moved into my data analysis that I began to name the various forms
of assistance I used to help my learner begin unpacking their assumptions and beliefs of teaching
their students. Analyzing my data helped me recognize the value of strategically positioning
forms of assistance within my meetings to promote collaborative discourse and guide my
learner’s learning towards creating change in their practice.
I now seek to continue practicing the skill of being critically reflective and using the
Rodgers’s Reflective Cycle in all aspects of my professional role, in recognizing the value of
interrogating my beliefs and actions to become a better leader in my role. Throughout my time in
the EdD program, I engaged in literature and critical discussions about systems teaching,
learning, and education, of which enabled me to begin understanding the impact critical
reflection has on the interrogation of my practice in education. While I am still learning how to
reflect critically, practicing it in my work has allowed me to recognize the ways I can impact
those around me. For example, I had the opportunity to create content for our program to address
intentional settings within collaborative settings for our new mentors. One of the resources I
designed and modeled for our mentors was the collaborative protocol template. The template
addressed three elements when collaborating with their teachers: conducting check-ins, being
intentional, and exploring entry points for the meeting. The use of the tool was geared towards
providing safety and structure in the meeting to enable the teacher in describing their current

136
setting and exploring areas of development in their practice. Through the action research, I
recognized the value of critical reflection and its need to implement it in my own work moving
forward.
Continuing the Work
As I continue to move forward, I will work on using the reflective cycle in
my practice, as well as seek opportunities to support my colleagues within my organization to
engage the novice teachers they work with in enacting culturally responsive teaching in their
practice. Through my continual practice of the skill of critical reflection, and using the reflective
cycle jointly, I can better understand how I am engaging my colleagues across the organization
and supporting their growth as culturally responsive coaches. I am fully aware of how important
the practice of self-awareness is in listening to my colleagues in being truly present to their
needs. I recognize the value of establishing and extending holding environments for my
colleagues and me is an essential part of a collaborative environment that will center discourse
and encourage opportunities for critical reflection. I am looking forward to being able to engage
with my leadership team to begin creating opportunities to lead organizational meetings that will
enable me to put these items to practice. I am consciously aware of the affective environment
that needs to exist, paying attention to my own positionality, by continuously interrogating my
practice, and ensuring that I am being student-centered in establishing conditions for discourse.
Further, paying close attention to how I slow down and listen to my colleagues, by reminding
myself of being present, can lead to valuable conversations in how we are supporting our new
teachers in enacting culturally responsive practices.
At the beginning of this academic journey, I said to myself that if I could help support
and motivate one novice teacher to examine their practice with hopes of creating change, I would

137
be satisfied. I still believe in helping novice teachers develop an understanding of who they are
as educators towards teaching in urban classrooms. I came to understand that the implications of
teaching our students in marginalized communities comes with more responsibilities from not
just them, but from me as the coach and mentor. Moving forward, I want to continue to reflect on
my practice and learn ways where I can be direct when affirming behavior and calling into
question the disconnect between the learner and their students. I continue to hold this true, that
all students should have access to a teacher who is intentional in how they engage them in the
curriculum and leverage their cultural assets and capital towards meaningful student learning.
For my organization to truly abide by its mission in providing a pathway towards teacher
efficacy and growth, our reflective mentoring process must begin to examine the depth of
reflection our mentors/coaches go to in supporting their teachers in unpacking their assumptions
and biases to teaching their students towards a commitment to transform their practice. This
commitment to change is guided by our understanding that each student arrives with a unique
and diverse set of strengths, skills, and perspectives (LAUSD, 2024) that we must honor through
our teaching. By committing myself to being a critically reflective practitioner, I can further
support my organization in not only meeting our mission but creating a new opportunity to make
systemic changes for a better school experience in our urban communities.

138
References
Aguilar, E. (2020). Coaching for equity: Conversations that change practice. Jossey-Bass.
Aguilar, E. (2013) The art of coaching: Effective strategies for school transformation. JosseyBass.
Anderson, D. (2021). An epistemological conception of safe spaces. Social Epistemology, 35(3),
285–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2020.1855485
Bogdan, R. C. & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Bourgeois, N. (2011). An epistemology of leadership perspective: Examining the fit for a critical
pragmatic approach. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(4), 371–384.
Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Brookfield, S. (2019). Teaching race: How to help students unmask and challenge racism.
Jossey-Bass, a Wiley Brand.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical Reflection as an Adult Learning Process. In N. Lyons (Ed.),
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215-236). Springer.
Brooks, J. S., & Tooms, A. K. (2008). A dialectic of social justice: Finding synergy between life
and work through reflection and dialogue. Journal of School Leadership, 18(2), 134–163.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460801800202
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Birmingham, D. J. (2020). Rethinking high-leverage practices
in justice-oriented ways. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 477–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119900209
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (n.d.). https://www.ctc.ca.gov/

139
California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2016). Teacher Induction Program
Preconditions and Program Standards. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/defaultsource/educator-prep/standards/teacher-induction-precon-standardspdf.pdf?sfvrsn=59e14eb1_2
Callahan, J. (2016). Encouraging Retention of New Teachers Through Mentoring Strategies.
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 83(1), 6-11.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing ground theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s Radical Love Got to Do with It: Navigating
Identity, Pedagogy, and Positionality in Pre-Service Education. International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 6(1).
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
Dunphy, B. C., & Dunphy, S. L. (2003). Assisted performance and the zone of proximal
development (ZPD): a potential framework for providing surgical education. Australian
Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 3(2003), 48–58.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is right. Becoming qualitative
researchers: An introduction, 4, 162-183.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2nd ed.). Sage
Publications.

140
Howard, T. C., & Milner, H. R. I. (2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In H. R. Milner
& K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of Urban Education (pp. 221–237). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203094280
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00051-8
Johnson, R.B. and Christensen, L.B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (6th ed.). Sage.
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching? Review of
Educational Research, 86(4), 945–980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership.
Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Knight, J. (2018). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful
improvements in teaching. Corwin, A Sage Company.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Langberg, J., & Nicholson, P. (2013). Racial justice and the school-to-prison pipeline.
Clearinghouse Review, 47(5-6), 204-210.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451

141
Lazar, A. M., & Reich, L. M. (2016). What school leaders and teacher mentors can do to support
teachers for social equity. New Teachers in Urban Schools: Journeys Toward Social
Equity Teaching, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26615-2_8
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lopez, A. E. (2016). Culturally responsive and socially just leadership in diverse contexts from
theory to action. Palgrave Macmillan US: Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan.
Los Angeles Unified School District / Homepage. (n.d.). https://achieve.lausd.net/domain/4.
LAUSD strategic plan 2022-26 - Los Angeles Unified School District. (2024).
https://www.lausd.org/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/1371/BG_STRATEGIC_
PLAN_2.pdf
Los Angeles Unified School District. (2021). Teacher Growth and Induction Program Handbook.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley
& Sons.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Meyer, E. (2007). Chapter 1. “But i’m not gay”: What straight teachers need to know about
queer theory. In M. Rodriguez & W. Pinar (Eds.), Queering straight teachers: discourse
and identity in education (pp. 15-32). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare

142
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200
Milner, H. R., & Lomotey, K. (2014). Handbook of urban education. Routledge.
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.
Navaneedhan, C. G., & Kamalanabhan, T. J. (2017). What is meant by cognitive structures? how
does it influence teaching –learning of psychology? IRA International Journal of
Education and Multidisciplinary Studies. https://researchadvances.org/index.php/IJEMS/article/view/833/781
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2014). Increasingly segregated and unequal schools as courts
reverse policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 718-734.
Papay, J. P., Bacher-Hicks, A., Page, L. C., & Marinell, W. H. (2015). The challenge of teacher
retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. SSRN
Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2607776
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.
Patel. L. (2016) Pedagogies of Resistance and Survivance: Learning as Marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397-401, DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017007017

143
Prohibition of Corporal Punishment, Ca. Education Code § 49001(1986).
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=EDC§i
onNum=49001
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72 (2), 230–253.
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221–
241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9071-2.
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, andragogy,
and instructional knowledge in developing leaders who can change the face of public K12 education. In A.H. Normore (ed.), The development, preparation, and socialization of
leaders of learning and learners of leadership: A global perspective (pp. 23-45). United
Kingdom: Emerald Publishing
Taylor, K. (2000). Teaching with developmental intention. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 151–180). Jossey-Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press.
Tillman, L. C. (2003). Mentoring, reflection, and reciprocal journaling. Theory Into Practice,
42(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_9
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 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.

144
Zaidi, Z., Verstegen, D., Vyas, R., Hamed, O., Dornan, T., & Morahan, P. (2016). Cultural
hegemony? educators’ perspectives on facilitating cross-cultural dialogue. Medical
Education Online, 21(1), 33145. https://doi.org/10.3402/meo.v21.33145

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines my enactment as a leader in the Teacher Growth and Induction program at Los Angeles Unified School District. To provide a holistic examination of my leadership practice, I deconstruct my use of structure and andragogical moves in relation to a candidate teacher in the induction program. My action research question was as follow: How do I engage a first year K–12 teacher in critical reflection to interrogate their teaching practices to move them towards incorporating tenets of culturally responsive teaching in the classroom? I collected fieldnotes, reflections, and analytic memos developed in my role as a leader. I found that by utilizing a holding environment and consistent guiding and probing questions, I was able to move the teacher’s initial understanding of culturally responsive teaching towards recognizing and internalizing the importance of culturally responsive teaching in relation to their instructional practice.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

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

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

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

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

PDF

Activating student engagement in shared governance

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Felix, Enrique (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/17/2024

Defense Date 04/16/2024

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

Tag culturally responsive teaching,holding environment,OAI-PMH Harvest,transformational coaching

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Nava, Marco (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email exf8735@lausd.net,felixe@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113939968

Unique identifier UC113939968

Identifier etd-FelixEnriq-12937.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FelixEnriq-12937

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Felix, Enrique

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240517-usctheses-batch-1153 (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