University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

(USC Thesis Other)

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Promoting Students’ Sense of Belonging as a Practitioner Inquiry Community
by
Isabella Chiang

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2023

© Copyright by Isabella Chiang 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Isabella Chiang certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Briana Hinga
John Pascarella
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study examines my leadership enactment as a teacher and action researcher at Constance
High School. To provide a comprehensive examination of my leadership enactment, I
deconstruct my use of a holding environment and cognitive structuring in relation to a group of
colleagues in varying positions. My action research question was: How do I engage my
colleagues in inquiry so that they will explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging
from a humanizing social emotional learning perspective? I collected fieldnotes, reflections, and
documents in my role as the researcher. I found that I was able to move my colleagues from
perceiving their problems of practices related to students’ sense of belonging as detached from
their own actions to recognizing their own role as we investigated our problem of practices.
Therefore, I was able to support my colleagues in taking a step closer toward promoting
students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing social emotional learning perspective by
centering adult responsibility.

v
Dedication
To my brother, for inspiring me to be an empathetic educator.
To my sister, for your ever-present support that comes in many forms.
To my parents, for your unconditional love and sacrifice.
To my husband, for your patience, love, and unwavering faith in me.
To my cousin, for your company and support on and off campus.
To my friends, for your encouragement and care.

vi
Acknowledgements
To my committee: Dr. Julie Slayton, Dr. John Pascarella, and Dr. Briana Hinga.
I am grateful and thankful for all the ways you have helped me to slow down, question,
engage, and learn throughout this process. I appreciate all the discussions, readings, support, and
encouragement you shared with me to help me grow as an individual and educator. Thank you
for creating opportunities for disorienting dilemmas and then regulating my distress so that I
could learn from them. Lastly, thank you for helping me grow in my ability to critically reflect.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Promoting Students’ Sense of Belonging as a Practitioner Inquiry Community................ 1
Why I Am Invested in the Promotion of Students’ Sense of Belonging ............................ 2
Historically Entrenched Inequity ........................................................................................ 7
Context .............................................................................................................................. 11
Role ................................................................................................................................... 17
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 19
Sense of Belonging ............................................................................................... 24
Humanizing SEL ................................................................................................... 26
Andragogy............................................................................................................. 30
Ideal Learning Conditions..................................................................................... 39
Systematic Inquiry ................................................................................................ 43
Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 52
Participants and Setting......................................................................................... 55
Actions .................................................................................................................. 61
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 67
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 69
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................... 71

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 74
Ethics..................................................................................................................... 76
Findings............................................................................................................................. 77
Finding 1: Our Growth as a Practitioner Inquiry Community .............................. 79
Finding 2: My Growth Toward Critical Reflection ............................................ 151
Afterword ........................................................................................................................ 166
Navigating My Identity as a Taiwanese American ............................................. 167
Looking Forward ................................................................................................ 170
Continuing My Growth ....................................................................................... 172
References ................................................................................................................................... 174

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Planned Actions Page 65

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Page 24

1
Promoting Students’ Sense of Belonging as a Practitioner Inquiry Community
Having a strong sense of belonging is pivotal for students’ cognitive, social, and
emotional well-being and is linked to increased school satisfaction, academic motivation, and
achievement (Jagers et al., 2021). Ginwright (2016) frames well-being as a function of social-
justice because injustice and oppression cause various forms of harm—psychological, emotional,
spiritual, and physical—to individuals and communities. When schools adopt a deficit-based
approach for social and emotional learning (SEL) and place the onus of students’ social-
emotional well-being on students’ abilities to change how they manage their emotions and
change their behaviors, they are perpetuating the hegemonic idea that well-being is solely
influenced by an individual’s actions (Camangian & Cariaga, 2021). Instead, student well-being
is a collective responsibility and is influenced by the adults who inhabit their school contexts
(Camangian & Cariaga, 2021; Ginwright, 2016; Legette et al., 2022). For example, positive
student-teacher relationships may lead to students’ increased sense of belonging, whereas
negative student-teacher relationships may lead to the opposite (Legette et al.). Thus, it is
imperative that teachers, counselors, and administrators consider how they are complicit in
perpetuating harm to some students and experiment in the promotion of all students’ sense of
belonging. I begin by sharing my educational and professional experiences and explain why I am
invested in promoting students’ sense of belonging at my school. Next, I describe the historically
entrenched inequity of marginalized students experiencing racialized and systemic trauma and
how it relates to their sense of belonging in schools. This is followed by a description of my
organizational context as it relates to students’ sense of belonging. I then describe my role in my
organization.

2
Why I Am Invested in the Promotion of Students’ Sense of Belonging
As I have reflected on my own schooling experiences, I have become aware that there
have been several aspects of my identity that have affected my sense of belonging. I come from
two Taiwanese immigrant parents, and I grew up in fluctuating socioeconomic statuses. I have
also transferred to different school districts outside of the district we resided in, once during third
grade, then another time during seventh grade. During my elementary school years, I was one out
of a handful of Asian American students in my classroom. I recall feeling different and
experiencing several instances of cultural shock and cultural assimilation. There was a lack of
representation of people sharing my ethnic culture in my environment from both students and
teachers and I remember feeling a sense of shame if my food had a different smell than my
classmates, taking my shoes off at my friends’ homes as they expressed a look of bewilderment
at my action, and embarrassed when my parents would speak Mandarin to me in public, causing
me to request that they speak English to me. I was never a popular kid nor was I an outcast. I
found myself subscribing to Eurocentric standards of beauty and did not want to associate myself
with other Asian American students because I believed in the societal stereotypes that they were
geeky and socially awkward without recognizing the beauty of my own ethnic culture.
In seventh grade, my parents transferred me to a different school district outside of the
district of our residence because it was important to them that I attend a high-achieving school
district that they believed would deliver a better education and, hence, a better future. At this
new school district, my sense of belonging was affected in varied ways. I experienced an
increased sense of belonging with respect to my ethnicity. For the first time in my life, most of
my peers were Asian American, and this allowed me to feel more comfortable with my own
ethnicity, which built my confidence and esteem. I was also able to learn more about my ethnic

3
culture from my peers and embrace it. At the same time, my sense of belonging was jeopardized
because this was also around the time when my family experienced significant financial
difficulties and was of low socioeconomic status while most students in this district were from
families of high socioeconomic status. In several ways, I did not feel accepted or included at my
school due to the difference between my family’s financial situation and that of the majority of
students that attended my school. For example, there were several instances where I could not
join extracurriculars or attend field trips and events because my family could not afford the fees
associated with them, while the costs did not deter other students. Additionally, I could not relate
to many of my peers in high school who had access to private tutoring that allowed them to have
competitive grades and college applications, and I did not feel included because I did not have
the privilege of accessing the same resources and had to rely on myself.
My school failed to provide me with the support that would have allowed me to believe I
belonged as my teachers demonstrated a lack of awareness of my financial situation and did not
attempt to get to know me beyond my academic abilities. Many teachers at my school were not
sensitive to class differences, assuming all students were from families of high socioeconomic
status. Moreover, most of my teachers were White and could have held the assumption that all
Asian Americans were a monolithic group with the characteristics of the “model minority.”
Therefore, their assumption may have led them to be blind to the varied financial states of all
students. Consequently, most of my teachers did not offer help or resources for students whose
families struggled financially. For example, my teachers expected all students to have purchased
a list of required school supplies. Since my teachers did not offer any resources for students with
difficulty affording the supplies, I assumed my family’s difficulty in purchasing the list of
supplies was ours alone. Additionally, because I was not confident that I would be accepted and

4
supported for my family’s financial situation, I was too ashamed to ask for any help. In another
example, my fear of letting my peers and teachers know of my family’s financial situation
prevented me from going up to the front to the classroom to pick up a fee waiver for my AP
exams. When my parents could not afford to pay for a band trip to New York, we did not receive
any assistance. I was just unable to join my classmates on this trip and I made up an excuse to
my friends when they asked why I was not going.
Similarly, the teachers and administrators at my school failed to cultivate a sense of
belonging for my older brother. Out of my siblings, my brother bore the brunt of the financial
burden by working many hours after school and shielded my sister and me from knowing the full
extent of our family’s financial circumstances. Since making money was more pressing than
completing his homework or studying for his classes, my brother focused on his job. My
brother’s situation was not common for students at our school and his teachers did not ask him
why he was not completing his homework and performing well on tests. Additionally, they did
not ask him what support he needed to be successful in school. Instead, they resorted to
delivering failing grades and sending him to his grade-level coordinator to receive disciplinary
consequences. His high school experiences affected his educational outcome as my brother
barely received his high school diploma and jumped from one junior college to another without
completing his degree requirements. His educational outcome, in turn, affected his life trajectory
as he missed out on the privileges that come with having an advanced degree, such as financial
security and health benefits. He resorted to drugs as a coping mechanism, which led to his
diagnosis of congestive heart failure at the young age of 24. Thankfully, he was able to make
significant life changes and survive this condition. Today, at the age of 33, he has found his way
back to education to pursue a college degree. Nevertheless, the teachers and administrators at the

5
high school we attended could have worked toward fostering his sense of belonging by seeing
beyond his academic responsibilities as a student and acknowledging him as a human being with
aspirations and struggles.
After high school, I attained my bachelor’s degree at the University of California, Los
Angeles with a major in Mathematics for Teaching and obtained my teaching credential there
shortly after. At first, I wanted to be a teacher because I loved working with children and I
believed that was the best use of my skills. However, my professors and my engagement with the
curricula at my graduate school prompted me to think about how societal systems and structures
affected students’ education and how students’ education could influence their life outcomes. I
discovered that teaching was more than delivering content and I began to critically think about
the intersection of education and other factors such as race and socioeconomic status. I started to
recognize the impact of societal structures on the education of disadvantaged students, especially
Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) students (Patel, 2016). Additionally, my
graduate school education opened my eyes to how my own education and life was affected by
social injustices as previously mentioned.
Even though I experienced various forms of identity-related trauma in my schooling
experience, I am grateful for the quality of education that I received and am invested in the field
of education because I saw how my sister’s and my own education afforded us both life chances
and opportunities that were different than what my brother had access to. To me, this is evidence
that education can be used as a tool to combat the consequences of belonging to a group
experiencing disadvantages. At the same time, I recognize our education system itself is a culprit
to the stratification of social groups (Patel, 2016). I believe that disparities between my brother’s
life chances and opportunities and my own would not be so vast if we were White and with the

6
same education levels that we have now. Our life chances and opportunities were not solely
based on our socioeconomic status, but due to our intersectionality. The same was true for my
students from my first year of teaching. My first-year teaching was at a low-income school in
South Los Angeles with a 99% Latinx population. At this high school, going to college was not a
taken-for-granted assumption. In fact, students faced many barriers to college such as financial
pressures to focus on earning money and taking care of their family instead of paying for and
attending college. Moreover, many of their parents did not speak English and were not
knowledgeable of the college-application process so that they could help their child. While my
students were experiencing financial difficulties as I had, our educational and life outcomes were
different because our racial and ethnic background, our geographic location, and our social
capital were different among other factors.
My second-year teaching was at my former high school, which was the same school I
taught at during my action research. In light of my brother’s and my own experiences at this very
high school, I found it very important to get to know my students’ full humanity and their lived
experiences. I strived to build a positive classroom climate and positive relationships with my
students so that they would feel comfortable letting me know what else they have going on in
life. Especially after remote instruction due to the earlier COVID-19 pandemic, several parents
had expressed to me that their child did not have any friends and, therefore, were not motivated
to come to school because they had no one to look forward to seeing. I also noticed during lunch
hours, many students sat by themselves and when my classroom was open, they treated it as a
haven. I frequently got asked, “Ms. Chiang, is your room open today?” Through interactions
with my own students and informal conversation with another teacher, students belonging to the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transexual, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) community perceived school

7
to be a hostile environment due to their sexuality. Through conversation, several Black students
also spoke to a lack of diversity and sense of belonging at our school. Therefore, in conjunction
with my own experiences and my family’s experiences, I was motivated to engage fellow
colleagues in promoting students’ sense of belonging and reflect on the ways in which we were
complicit in perpetuating social inequities and grow in my capacity as a leader to transform the
systems and structures that have contributed to such inequities. Consequently, my research
question was how do I engage my colleagues in inquiry so that they will explore their promotion
of students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective?
Historically Entrenched Inequity
Historically, BIPOC in our country have been oppressed in a systemic and
institutionalized manner. They have been stripped of human rights, democratic participation,
access to quality education, language, land, culture, and opportunities based on racism and
ethnocentrism (Anderson, 1988; Spring, 2016). The disproportionate health outcomes of the
BIPOC community during the first year of the COVID-19 state, demonstrate the ways in which
racial capitalism exploits the BIPOC community (Laster Pirtle, 2020). Compared to other areas
of health and medicine, mental health care is more notably affected by the racial and ethnic
disparities in the availability of and access to services, where many BIPOC encounter systemic
barriers to healthcare, as well as mistrust, fear, discrimination, and language differences while
many White people do not (Smedley & Smedley, 2015). Moreover, BIPOC communities have
been disenfranchised and excluded from the decision-making process affecting the quality of
education for the people within the community (Ladson-Billings, 2006). For example, in 1867,
the government’s Indian Peace Commission used schooling to prepare Indians for agricultural
work and sent their own teachers to reservations to force cultural and linguistic assimilation and

8
deculturalization with the rationale of its necessity in reducing conflict between American Indian
tribes and White America and to “civilize” American Indians (Spring, 2016). In more recent
events, eighteen states have successfully passed legislature or issued executive orders restricting
or limiting teachers’ instruction of concepts related to racism and sexism (Whiteboard Advisors,
2023). For example, Florida has rejected AP African American Studies because it “lacks
educational value.” Florida had also temporarily banned AP Psychology for its instruction on
gender identity and sexual orientation (Najarro, 2023). While California did not ban the teaching
of Critical Race Theory, 11 school districts introduced measures restricting instruction about race
with seven school districts passing those measures (Lambert, 2023). Such legislation inhibits
BIPOC students from actively coping with social stresses related to racism and discrimination by
“having a critical understanding of how race and racism operate in American society, including
in educational contexts” (McGee & Stovall, 2015, p. 499). Furthermore, schools’ failure to
provide students the opportunity to explore their ethnic-racial identities and the macrosystems
that perpetuate inequities is linked to students’ poor social competence, academic outcomes, and
achievement motivation (Kumar et al., 2018; Rivas-Drake et al., 2020).
Schools are a microcosm of society as they “are a function of the political, economic,
cultural, and social environment in which they exist” (Ginwright, 2016, p. 11). Therefore, we see
the ingrained structures of racism and oppression in our society reflected in our schools. In many
aspects of schooling, from past to present, students experience identity-related trauma whether
implicitly or explicitly. Nationwide, most preservice teachers are White females who have been
socialized to have hegemonic understandings of race and cultural differences due to their life
experiences (Picower, 2009). Additionally, Matias (2013) expresses the danger of White teacher
candidates’ race-evasive approach to teaching as they claim race is not an issue nor do they see

9
race, yet they impose their epistemology of race on others. Instead, it is important for teachers to
acknowledge that “education is never neutral, even ‘as they engage in a social construction of not
seeing’” (Macedo, 2000 as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 61). Consequently, it is
important for all teachers, not just White teachers, to engage in sociopolitical consciousness and
reflect on the role their positionality plays in their interactions with students, the ways in which
they are complicit in maintaining an inequitable status quo, and take responsible action
(Brookfield, 2017; Douglas & Nganga, 2013; Picower, 2009). Moreover, school leaders have a
consistently pivotal role in promoting and modeling what they want to see happen with the
educators in the classrooms (Khalifa, 2018).
Barnes (2019) asserts the effects of institutional racism are associated with a variety of
negative outcomes such as “(a) increased referrals for special education and disciplinary action
(b) higher rates of school failure, grade retention, and school drop-out (c) lower grades and
standardized test scores and (d) higher rates of mental health disorders” (p. 600). Moreover, an
oppressive education directly affects a student’s life outcomes. Specifically, Khalifa (2018)
states:
the overrepresentation of minoritized student in remedial programs, disabilities programs,
disciplinary programs, and poor academic performance directly impacts students’ future;
it affects their college attendance and graduation rate, their employment rate, and even
the likelihood that they will spend time in prison. (p. 21)
Currently, disparities in standardized test scores between BIPOC students and their White
counterparts continue to persist (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). Ladson-Billings (2006)
attributes the disparities in standardized test scores to an “education debt” accumulated from
deliberate decisions and actions taken to oppress people from marginalized communities.

10
Furthermore, racialized disparities in disciplinary actions are “a direct indication that school
cultures are hostile toward minoritized students” (Khalifa et al., 2016, p. 1279). For example,
young Black males often experience disproportionate and exclusionary school disciplinary
actions (Skiba et al., 2014). Such experiences have a negative impact on their mental health and
well-being (McGee & Stovall, 2015). Additionally, LGBTQ students experience various forms
of bullying, harassment, and disempowerment when there is a real danger in showing up to
school as their authentic selves (Sadowski, 2016). The aforementioned forms of oppression in
schools directly contradicts the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 in which the definition of
student success is larger than just academic outcomes but includes having safe and supportive
school environments (Congressional Research Service, 2015). Additionally, schools are expected
to cultivate intrapersonal and interpersonal skills (DeMartino et al., 2022).
In the recent years, schools are emphasizing the importance of students’ social emotional
learning (SEL) as students navigate a variety of complex issues such as the COVID-19
pandemic, increase in school shootings, and increase in mental health disorders. However, just as
how the U.S. Office of Education misattributed the education debt to differences in family
backgrounds and minimized the role schools played in influencing student achievement in the
Coleman Report written 50 years ago (Hanushek, 2016), schools are misattributing students’
well-being as a direct consequence of their individual actions, leading students to internalize and
blame themselves for suboptimal states of well-being (Ginwright, 2016). While schools have
adopted SEL programs and curricula to address students’ well-being, the implementation of
traditional SEL does not explicitly address the role of racism and other -isms on students’ well-
being (Barnes, 2019). Instead SEL programs are currently used as what de Oliveira Andreotti
(2012) calls an un-complicated solution, to systemic inequities that in turn affect students’ well-

11
being. Ginwright (2016) argues oppression is a form of social and collective trauma in which the
response necessitates the restoration of individual’s and communities’ well-being. As Ladson-
Billings (2006) asserts, we collectively have a social responsibility to rectify the mistakes of the
past that have resulted in the marginalization and oppression of others, and instead, strive for a
more equitable world. Depending on the conceptualization and enactment of SEL, SEL has the
power to address trauma derived from social and political injustices. From a radical healing
perspective, healing stems from “building a healthy identity and a sense of belonging”
(Ginwright, 2016, p. 8).
Context
Constance High School (CHS) was a suburban high school founded in 1982 and located
on the eastern edge of Los Angeles County in Southern California. It was one of two high
schools in its school district and had a population of about 2,600 students. Data from 2021–2022
academic year indicated the student population was comprised of 23% eligible for free or
reduced-priced meals, 5% English Language Learners, and 7% in Special Education (Ed-Data,
2022). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2022), the median household income of residents
in Constance from 2017 to 2021 was $100,723. Therefore, the socioeconomic diversity of our
students was likely to go unnoticed and students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals might
have experienced additional forms of marginalization based on their race. For example, I had
been told by an administrative assistant and another mathematics teacher that I was the only
teacher who had asked for so many classroom supplies for my students when students could just
bring the supplies themselves.
CHS was ranked as a high-performing, top quality school by many organizations such as
U.S. News and World Report (2022) and Niche (2023) and has received recognition as a

12
National Blue Ribbon School. However, CHS was not immune to the evident nationwide
education debt. Fourty-seven percent of our Black students, 41% of our Latinx students, and
33% of our multiracial students did not meet mathematics standards in the 2021–2022 Smarter
Balanced Summative Assessment, whereas 14% of our White students, 19% of our Filipinx
students, and 7% of our Asian students performed likewise (Ed-Data, 2022). For reference, the
racial and ethnic demographics of our school was roughly 63% Asian, 19% Latinx, 7% White,
4% Filipinx and 4% multiracial, and 2% Black. Thus, the rates of underachievement for Black,
Latinx, and multiracial students were an alarming contrast to the percentage of students who
identified as Black, Latinx, and multiracial at our school. From informal observations as an
educator at my organization with experience teaching a range of remedial to advanced courses,
there were disproportionate rates of Black and Latinx students placed in remedial courses.
Additionally, when Black and Latinx students did enroll in advanced courses, they tended to
drop out within the first few weeks. While the Black and Latinx students who had dropped out of
advanced courses had communicated that it was because they could not keep up with the rigor,
they might have also been receiving implicit messages about who belongs in the class when they
did not see other peers who looked like them, thereby affecting their sense of belonging and self-
efficacy.
Furthermore, disciplinary data from the academic year of 2021–2022 showed Black
students had the highest rate of suspensions at 7%, while they only made up 2% of the student
population (Ed-Data, 2022). In all other racial and ethnic groups, the rate of suspension was
lower than the rate of students that identified with that group as follows: 6% White, 6% Latinx,
5% multiracial, 1% Asian, and 1% Filipinx. The most current data available on the demographics
of our teacher was from the academic year 2018–2019 indicating our school had a majority

13
White teaching staff with the following breakdown: 57.7% White, 19.8% Asian, 16.2% Latinx,
and 5.4% Black (Ed-Data, 2022). Consistent with nationwide statistics, there was a clear
overrepresentation of White teachers at our school when compared to our student population,
which was only 7% White.
As mentioned earlier, there is a real danger to BIPOC students when White teachers use a
race-evasive approach to teaching and do not acknowledge that the lives of BIPOC students are
affected by their racial and ethnic identities (Matias, 2013). My intention is not to discount the
power and privilege White teachers hold as I contend that the potential to inflict harm on BIPOC
students was not limited to the White teachers at our school, but applied to teachers and adults of
all races. For example, this year, one of my students who identified as Black and Latinx shared
an experience in her civics class with me. Her teacher, who appeared to be Asian, randomly
assigned this student to role-play the part of a slave in their unit on the civil war. My student
conveyed feelings of embarrassment in that moment and her fear in letting her mother know
because she knew her mother would have confronted the teacher and the student did not want to
cause any trouble. In another example, her younger brother was discouraged from enrolling in an
advanced mathematics course by his White grade-level coordinator because he would be the only
Black student in the class. Such examples illustrated that adults at my school have caused harm
to students through their beliefs and actions that have failed to acknowledge the role of students’
identities on their lives. Additionally, through informal conversation with my colleagues, Black
students, and LGBTQ students, Black students have expressed that they did not feel a sense of
belonging at our school because there was a lack of representation of Black people in our school
population and LGBTQ students have communicated that they did not feel safe from harassment
or accepted by others for their sexual orientation or gender identity. Thus, the accumulated data

14
above served as indicators that our school was complicit in reproducing inequities as some
students were experiencing identity-related traumas in our school.
The development and enactment of curriculum, programs, and events in my organization
by teachers and administrators have often perpetuated hegemonic ideologies. I, too, was
complicit in maintaining the status quo of perpetuating hegemonic ideas and beliefs without
deliberately considering the consequences of my decisions and actions. For example, I had the
power to decide which AP Psychology textbook our school would adopt. In all honesty, I did not
review many alternative publishers’ textbooks and had the assumption that the one I chose,
which was the newest edition of our previous one and the most popular textbook, was the best
choice. While this textbook explicitly discussed issues of social justice, it was still lacking in
psychological theories that strayed from White, Eurocentric, cisgender, and heteronormative
ideas. Moreover, it was lacking in its representation of racially and ethnically diverse
psychologists and promoted cisgender or heteronormative ways of thinking and behaving.
While CHS’s vision statement was to create “a community where every student’s cultural
heritage enriches the learning experience for all students” (Constance High School, n.d.a),
teachers and administrators had room for growth in leveraging students’ cultures in the
development and enactment of curriculum, programs, and events at a school-wide level. For
example, in a past department meeting, teachers filled out a Google Form asking various
questions needed for our Western Association of Schools and College (WASC) report. One
question explored how our curriculum was culturally relevant and responsive. The conversation
revolved around the ways teachers incorporated generation Z (the generation our students are in)
popular culture and financial education, which suggested teachers’ understanding of culturally
relevant and responsive curriculum was race-evasive and absent of a critical consciousness of

15
societal inequities. Instead, their responses communicated that their understanding of being
culturally relevant and responsive meant to incorporate popular culture and financial education
into the curriculum. In fact, we did not have routines and structures for discussing issues of race
and ethnicity, and so, it was uncommon for adults at our school to talk deeply about such issues
or even bring them up.
However, it is important for schools to create spaces for such conversations. As Rivas-
Drake et al., (2020) contend, the classroom is a critical space for talking deeply about issues of
race and ethnicity and enhancing social competence. Social competence is a skill linked to
students’ racial and ethnic identity exploration—“the various ways adolescents engage in
learning about what it means to be part of their ethnic-racial group,” and resolution—“clarity,
about the role their ethnic-racial group membership plays in their lives” (p. 1334). According to
Principle 14 of American Psychological Association’s (2015) Top 20 principles from psychology
for preK–12 teaching and learning, “interpersonal relationships and communication are critical
to both the teaching-learning process and the social-emotional development of students” (p. 22).
Therefore, schools are sites for students to develop positive racial and ethnic identities as
interpersonal relationships are fostered between adults and students or students and their peers.
Additionally, Principle 15 states, “emotional well-being influences educational performance,
learning, and development” (APA, 2015, p. 23). Thus, a factor of students’ emotional well-being,
such as their sense of belonging, has an impact on their educational outcome. CHS’s Wellness
Center was an example of a space on our campus that had the potential for generating discussion
around race and ethnicity. The Wellness Center served to train student wellness consultants,
organized schoolwide wellness events, promoted student well-being, and offered SEL strategies
to our teachers. It was established prior to my arrival at the organization so I did not know the

16
rationale or motivation behind it. However, my assumption was that school leaders understood
the link between students’ social and emotional well-being and their learning and believed in its
importance. The implementation of SEL at my school was also motivated by federal and district
directives and funding and then current educational trends. Schools across our district, including
CHS, have adopted the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning’s (CASEL)
framework for SEL.
While CHS had been recognized as a pioneer in establishing a Wellness Center on
campus and had received numerous accolades for its work on promoting students’ social-
emotional health (CHS, n.d.b), school leaders had marketed SEL strategies as behavior
management techniques in the classroom. In line with traditional SEL that is grounded in deficit
theory, teachers held the knowledge of what it meant to be socially and emotionally healthy and
taught students SEL strategies without recognizing students’ personal experiences with conflict
resolution in a racialized society (DeMartino et al., 2022). Moreover, my school’s
implementation of SEL focused on changing student thinking and behavior and placed the
responsibility of well-being on students instead of recognizing the various practices, injustices,
and systems that jeopardized students’ well-being in the first place.
At the time of the study, one of my organization’s growth areas for our Western
Association of Schools and College (WASC) cycle was in inclusivity and SEL. Consistent with
this goal, our principal sent out an email to all staff members in the first month of the new school
year at the time of my study and asked us to identify our students that “are in the margins” and
what we were doing to help them, which demonstrated his awareness of this school-wide need to
be more inclusive. There was no common understanding for what it meant to be “in the
margins.” My interpretation of my principal’s message was for me to identify students who were

17
left out in academic or social ways such as students who were failing or students who sat alone
during lunch. However, he did not make any explicit connections to our publicly proclaimed
SEL goal to “model SEL practices as educators” and “cultivate meaningful relationships with
students and staff” that was found on our school website (Constance High School, n.d.c). As an
educator in my organization, I was not aware of this goal until I started to look for information
on my organization’s implementation of SEL. This communication (or lack of) signified while
some leaders had the intended SEL goals, teachers were not expected to know of them in any
explicit way.
Out of the five SEL competencies (CASEL, 2020)—self-awareness, self-management,
social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making—social awareness was the
least emphasized at CHS, often unmentioned. In relation to the SEL competency social
awareness, Jagers et al. (2021) suggest a focus on belonging in efforts to transform SEL toward a
justice-oriented approach. As previously mentioned, several students from historically
marginalized groups had communicated a lack of sense of belonging through informal
conversations with me and a colleague who was a participant in my action research. Moreover,
inclusivity and SEL were directly tied to students’ sense of belonging since sense of belonging
may be promoted through SEL practices and encompasses inclusivity.
Role
At the time of my study, it was my eighth year in my organization as a mathematics and
AP Psychology teacher. In several ways, I contributed to my students’ sense of belonging
through the curricula I enacted and my teaching practices. I recognized the curricula that I used
for my classes were lacking in representation as the mathematicians and psychologists we
studied were White males. While the psychology content reflected some aspects of students’

18
identities, there were many heteronormative and cisnormative ideas in various psychological
theories. The mathematics content did not reflect students’ identities at all. In turn, this could
have negatively affected the development of students’ identities and their sense of belonging at
our school. Furthermore, I had the power to retain students, especially students that have been
historically marginalized, by attending to the barriers I might have created that was preventing
my students from academic success. For example, I had two Black students in AP Psychology
and one Black student in Trigonometry/Math Analysis at the start of the 2021 school year. By
second semester, they had all dropped. This indicated that I could have done better in cultivating
my Black students’ sense of belonging and self-efficacy in these courses. Moreover, I needed to
work toward disrupting the ways I was complicit in perpetuating educational inequities that
detracted from my students’ sense of belonging.
Outside of my classroom, I had various roles related to SEL. At my organization, I was
one of the first teachers to explicitly incorporate SEL strategies in the classroom. Since 2015, I
have facilitated regular SEL practices in my own classroom, such as facilitating mindfulness
weekly. Many of my colleagues and administrators knew of my interest and passion in
addressing students SEL needs. In the more recent years, I had several opportunities to lead SEL-
related professional development for teachers at my school site due to my membership of our
school’s SEL council and administrators’ knowledge of my consistent and routine
implementation of SEL practices. Another role I held at the time of the study was WASC Focus
Group Co-Leader for Category E, which entailed School Culture and Support for Student
Personal, Social-Emotional, and Academic Growth. In this role, I was responsible for designing
and facilitating staff meetings and discussions to evaluate our areas of strength and areas of
growth related to Category E of our WASC Self-Study Report. I was also responsible for

19
gathering evidence and writing a preliminary report for this category along with my co-leader.
Additionally, at the time of the study, I was part of our school’s pilot of an Inclusivity Action
Team where one of my participants was the lead. This team was designed as a response to one of
of our WASC growth areas and our first big project was to put on an event to celebrate Día de
los Muertos in honor of our Mexican students and staff.
My past understanding and implementation of SEL had been limited to traditional SEL,
using a one-size-fits-all approach in my practices, with some knowledge of trauma-informed
practices. In several ways, I was complicit in adopting a hegemonic approach to SEL and found
it difficult to disrupt the status quo. Prior to my action research, my dissertation chair directed me
toward CASEL’s TSEL framework and I began delving into SEL practices that considered
students’ sociopolitical contexts, their positionalities, and were culturally responsive. From there,
I discovered the concept of humanization in lieu of traditional SEL and the healing-centered
framework that recognized the need to address the systemic injustices that have affected
students’ well-being instead of placing the onus on students to manage their emotions and
change their maladaptive responses to life’s stresses.
In the remaining sections, I will discuss my conceptual framework that served as the
underpinnings of my action research. I move on to explain my research methods, detailing the
actions that I took in my effort to answer my research question. Next, I share my findings that
emerged from my analysis of my data. Finally, I describe my retrospective takeaways from my
action research.
Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) defines a conceptual framework as “the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p. 39).

20
Additionally, Brookfield (2017) states the purpose of theory is “to make sense of the world,
communicate that understanding to others, and thereby enable us to take action” (p. 172).
Therefore, it was important for me to construct a conceptual framework, informed by various
theories and my own clinical experience, that served as a theory of action and illustrated the lens
I used to develop, conduct, and analyze my action research project. However, I expected my
conceptual framework to be tentative, rather than fixed, and I expected to continually revisit my
conceptual framework as I used it as a compass to guide my thinking and actions (Maxwell,
2013). I was aware that since my conceptual framework was utilized like a spotlight in my action
research process, it would serve to illuminate specific meanings and understandings aligned to
the theories I included but also fail to bring other perspectives to light (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Therefore, I needed to attend to the other perspectives that were missing from my
conceptual framework throughout my action research.
My initial conceptual framework did not seek to cover all the existing literature in my
field of interest but rather it helped me customize and synthesize theories relevant to how I was
going to answer my research question: How do I engage my colleagues in inquiry so that they
will explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL
perspective? My long-term goal for my continuation of this work would be for me to move
beyond exploration and into experimentation. Since then, my conceptual framework has evolved
based on what emerged from my findings and additional concepts I came to understand as part of
my theory in action. The theories described below allowed me to be critical of my actions and
understandings as they dropped what Brookfield (2017) calls “bombs of productive dissonance,”
where a previous understanding of a phenomena is deemed problematic (p. 174). My conceptual
framework was informed by existing theories of Humanization, Healing Justice, Transformative

21
Social Emotional Learning (TSEL), Andragogy, Adaptive Leadership, Brave Space, Inquiry as
Stance, Practitioner Inquiry Communities (PIC), and Action Research. Additionally, the theories
in my conceptual framework did not stand alone but were interrelated (Coghlan, 2019).
Consistent with systems thinking, I recognized my and my colleagues’ roles in relation to the
whole organization. Therefore, I worked with specific colleagues in different professional roles
with the authority and influence over the systems, policies, and practices that influenced
students’ sense of belonging. These participants directly faced students, teachers, or a
combination of both. Moreover, they were in positions to use what they learned from my action
research to engage other teachers and staff members in inquiry toward the promotion of students’
sense of belonging.
As shown in Figure 1, I drew on various adult learning theories to engage in andragogy
as I worked with my colleagues to address the historically entrenched inequity of students
experiencing identity-related trauma as it manifested in the context of high school. While
traditional SEL is a response to potentially help students cope with their trauma, its enactment
falls short in doing so as it fails to recognize the whole child and their sociopolitical context.
Therefore, I guided my colleagues to interrogate the ways we were complicit in reproducing
marginalization that caused students to feel a lack of sense of belonging with a future goal of
adopting practices that exemplify humanizing SEL. Although I did not do a great job of using
my observations of my learners’ developmental profile (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano,
2017; Warford, 2011) to inform my andragogical moves, I believe that assessing leaners’
developmental profiles is still an essential part of my tentative theory. I engaged in various forms
of assistance to support my participants as they explored their promotion of students’ sense of
belonging, such as modeling, questioning, and cognitive structuring. I include the specific

22
adaptive leadership behaviors of getting on the balcony and giving the work back to the people in
my conceptualization of andragogy (Heifetz et al., 2009; Northouse; 2016). While I did not
attend to my adaptive leadership behaviors in my findings, I still believe them to be essential in
my theory of action as I continue my work as an adult educator. Therefore, I have retained the
theory of adaptive leadership in my conceptual framework.
I worked on cultivating ideal learning conditions to support my participants’ learning.
Within our PIC, I set out to induce constructive disorienting dilemmas that would be significant
enough for my colleagues to want to strengthen their capacity to increase students’ sense of
belonging but not too significant to be debilitating. Maintaining this balance and being
responsive to my adult learners’ needs were adaptive challenges that required the adaptive
leadership behavior of regulating distress. This required a strong holding environment that I
likened to a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013). A step toward developing a brave was to
deepen the trust between us.
In my dual role as adult educator and action researcher, I engaged in critical reflections
on each cycle of action to inform my subsequent cycles of action. While action research resides
in my conceptual framework figure, its description falls under my research methods section.
Through my action research, I built my muscles to critically reflect on the ways I engaged my
participants in our practitioner inquiry community as a beginning step toward understanding how
to adopt an inquiry as stance disposition. While my short-term goal was to engage my colleagues
in inquiry so that they would explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging in their
professional roles, I intended to continue our PIC to infuse humanizing social and emotional
learning (HSEL) with transformative SEL beyond my action research. To promote students’
sense of belonging aligned with HSEL required that my participants and I worked to create

23
conditions for teachers to be attentive to their practice to promote students’ sense of belonging in
their classrooms so that it would be infused in our pedagogy and culture.
In the narrative for my conceptual framework, I begin by describing and defining sense
of belonging. I move on to explain HSEL because it served as my epistemological basis for
understanding and conceptualizing how I would engage my colleagues to promote students’
sense of belonging. If I had the opportunity to engage in this work again in my next position, I
would explicitly introduce HSEL and consistently use HSEL as a lens for my colleagues and I to
investigate our practices. However, since I narrowed my focus to HSEL in my action research, I
was imposing an epistemological framework on my participants. Therefore, to counteract a
positivist orientation, I would be open to exploring additional lenses for my colleagues and I to
investigate our practices in the future.
Next in my narrative for my conceptual framework, I describe the andragogical theories
that have informed my knowledge of how adults learn, the forms of assistance for adult learners,
and adaptive leadership. Combined with ideal learning conditions, these concepts informed my
actions and either emerged in my findings or did not get addressed directly through my analysis,
but have remained in my tentative theory because I still believe them to be true. I then express
my intention to adopt an inquiry as stance disposition in the future, what I was able to
accomplish in my action research in relation to inquiry as stance, and what I still need to do
moving forward. Finally, I explain my conceptualization of a practitioner inquiry community as
a tool to engage my colleagues in inquiry so that they could explore in the promotion of students’
sense of belonging from an HSEL perspective.

24
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Sense of Belonging
My conceptualization of students’ social and emotional well-being was inspired by
Ginwright’s (2016) notion of well-being as a function of social justice, where students have
control and power over their life circumstances, a sense of hope, and the ability to pursue their
dreams. Oppression, on the other hand, is a form of injustice and derives from systemic barriers
to access, privilege, and opportunities based on identity markers. Suffering is the internal
consequence—the psychological, emotional, spiritual, and physical injury—resulting from
oppression. The many forms of systemic exclusion, such as racism, homophobia, classism, and
sexism make up an “ecosystem of socially toxic environments” (Ginwright, 2016, p. 3) that harm
our students’ development and inflict identity-related trauma on our students. Such toxic
environments will continue to harm our students’ well-being if we do not disrupt such systems
and address the harm done to our students.
While there are many aspects of students’ social and emotional development that
contribute to their overall well-being, I chose to focus on promoting students’ sense of belonging
in our school across all spaces. Sense of belonging is not to be conflated with inclusion, rather

25
sense of belonging encompasses inclusion and more. For the purposes of my action research,
sense of belonging was defined as “experiences of acceptance, respect, and inclusion within a
group or community. It implies not only feeling recognized but also being fully involved in
relationship-building and co-creating learning spaces” (Jagers et al., 2021, p. 14). The
importance of belonging is evident for a multitude of reasons. Jagers et al. (2021) assert, “having
a sense of belonging is critical to students’ and adults’ cognitive, social, and emotional well-
being, as well as school and work satisfaction and academic motivation and achievement” (p.
14). Moreover, social support or connections are “one of the strongest predictors of positive
well-being and mental health” (Kawachi & Berkman, 2001, as cited in Camangian & Cariaga,
2021, p. 9). Alternatively, some Indigenous, Asian, and African models of wellness suggest
disconnection from an individual’s loved ones, cultural roots, and ancestors may be the
underlying issue in their psychological well-being (Camangian & Cariaga).
Informed by Camangian and Cariaga’s (2021) humanization framework, to promote
students’ sense of belonging requires us to recognize our students’ full humanity by cultivating a
school community where students feel connected to one another, to the adults in the
organization, and to their historically grounded and contemporarily relevant identities.
Additionally, to promote students’ sense of belonging means to have an awareness of how
systems, policies, and practices negatively contribute to students’ sense of belonging in the first
place. Subsequently, there is a need to engage in authentic dialogue with an anti-oppressive
commitment to disrupt such systems, policies, and practices and promote experiences of
acceptance, respect, and inclusion within our school. Although I did not fully realize humanizing
SEL, I taught my learners to uncover how they were complicit in their practices that affected
students’ sense of belonging. Thus, I firmly believe in the theory of humanization and have

26
decided to keep it in my theory of action to promote students’ sense of belonging. While TSEL
does not appear in the figure of my conceptual framework, I describe my long-term goal to
infuse HSEL with TSEL to address the last part of the definition for sense of belonging and fully
involve students in “relationship-building and co-creating learning spaces” (Jagers et al., 2021, p.
14) where students are valued by adults in the organization as a stakeholder in promoting their
sense of belonging and are empowered in their pursuit of an increased sense of belonging for
themselves and others.
Humanizing SEL
Although my school had adopted CASEL’s (2020) SEL framework, I contend that
conceptualizing SEL using the CASEL framework is inadequate for advancing equity, is a form
of masked White supremacy, and is oppressive in nature because it is grounded in deficit theory,
fails to recognize the role of racism and sociopolitical contexts on students’ well-being, and
places the onus on students to self-regulate and manage their emotions without addressing the
practices and policies that are negatively affecting students’ social emotional well-being to begin
with (Barnes, 2019; Camangian & Cariaga, 2021; DeMartino et al., 2022; Drake & Oglesby,
2020; Ginwright, 2016; Williams & Jagers, 2020). Although Camangian and Cariaga propose
humanization in lieu of SEL, I chose to use the framework of humanization as a foundation for
the implementation of SEL as it offers what CASEL’s framework of SEL is criticized for
lacking. Furthermore, the term “SEL” served as an entry point for me to engage in dialogue with
my colleagues because we had already adopted this term school-wide. However, the term SEL
did not specifically refer to CASEL’s framework, instead SEL referred to the development of
various aspects related to students’ social and emotional well-being in schools, such as sense of
belonging. Inspired by Bettina Love’s Abolitionist SEL framework and its conceptualization of

27
SEL as “a way of being that informs all aspects of teaching, learning, and relationship building
with students, families, and communities” (Abolitionist Teaching Network, 2020, p. 3), I also
viewed HSEL as a framework that could be infused into our pedagogy and culture. For the
purposes of my action research, I defined HSEL as a way of being, expressed through our
pedagogy and culture, that recognizes individuals’ full humanity while challenging
dehumanizing experiences.
Humanization
Although I did not address humanization directly through my analysis, I used its concepts
to guide my learners’ thinking and actions in our PIC. Therefore, the humanization framework
(Camangian & Cariaga, 2021) is still essential to my conceptualization of humanizing SEL.
Humanization contains the component of solidarity that maps onto CASEL’s SEL competency of
social awareness and TSEL construct of belonging. Legette et al. (2022) explain,
“dehumanization deprives human beings of the very qualities, attributes, or necessities that make
them human beings—the capacity to feel, to dream, to think or act autonomously, and to express
their desires without fear of judgment or punishment” (p. 279). Furthermore, dehumanization is a
structure and a process that can very well be culturally ingrained in our schools. SEL is
insufficient in transforming our dehumanizing structures that “harm the social and emotional
health and well-being of historically oppressed and multiply-marginalized communities”
(Camangian & Cariaga, 2021, p. 5). As an alternative, Camangian and Cariaga (2021) propose
humanization, “a concept that recognizes the importance of being fully human subjects in a
world that seeks to subjugate people’s humanity” (p. 5). Legette et al. (2022) insist teachers must
first understand the nature of dehumanization to recognize and honor students’ full humanity.
Consequently, in my action research, I set out to engage my colleagues in inquiry to uncover the

28
ways we dehumanized our students in our problems of practice so that we might recognize and
honor their full humanity to promote their sense of belonging.
As Drake and Oglesby (2020) claim, “[W]hite supremacy tends to invisibilize relational
experiences that would create more humanizing experiences for all students, particularly BIPOC
students” (p. 10). Therefore, promoting students’ sense of belonging using a humanization
framework requires cultivating a school community where students feel connected to each other,
to the adults in the organization, and to their historically grounded and contemporarily relevant
identities. Relatedly, in Ginwright’s (2016) healing justice centered framework, he describes
culture—one of the five elements of radical healing—as the anchor that connects students “to a
racial and ethnic identity that is both historical grounded and contemporarily relevant” (p. 25).
However, I extend the element of culture beyond students’ racial and ethnic identity to any
aspect of their identity. Practices that comprise the element of culture may involve affirming,
celebrating, and integrating cultural practices into school rituals to intentionally move toward the
radical healing outcome of a sense of belonging. Moreover, Camangian and Cariaga (2021)
emphasize humanization as more than just care and respect; it is “a response to colonial and
intersectional dehumanization” (p. 5) and is counterhegemonic. Therefore, the response to
colonial and intersectional dehumanization I propose is informed by Ginwright’s framework of
healing justice.
Healing Justice. In my study, I engaged my colleagues in inquiry to explore their
promotion of students’ sense of belonging. Although we did not get to experiment with what we
learned through inquiry to promote students’ sense of belonging, I still believe the concept of
healing justice is crucial in my theory of action. Essential to Ginwright’s (2016) framework of
healing justice is the specific process of radical healing to restore individual and collective well-

29
being because schools are places that can further inflict identity-related trauma on our students.
The healing justice framework recognizes injustice and oppression as more than barriers to
opportunities, but forms of social and collective trauma that cause psychological, emotional,
spiritual, and physical harm. From a radical healing perspective, healing stems from developing a
healthy identity and a sense of belonging. Moreover, radical healing “moves away from
individualistic notions of health, and views health and illness as the result of political priorities
and decisions” (Ginwright, 2016, p. 8). Therefore, it is imperative that we analyze and disrupt the
institutional causes of trauma, “while simultaneously building practices in schools and
communities that promote [individual and collective] well-being” (Ginwright, 2016, p. 7) as it
relates to students’ sense of belonging. Ginwright (2016) proposes radical healing as the process
for building “the capacity of people to act upon their environment in ways that contribute to
well-being for the common good” (p. 8). While I had planned for my colleagues to use what they
learned in inquiry to “act upon their environment,” we did not get to revisit our planned actions
within my inquiry project, so I was not aware of how they transpired. However, we did begin to
analyze how we perpetuated identity-related trauma in the form of the systems, policies, and
practices we employed. Furthermore, I worked toward uncovering our political priorities and
decisions, the power dynamics, and our assumptions that served as barriers to students’ sense of
belonging within our school community through authentic dialogue with an anti-oppressive,
humanizing, purpose.
Infusing HSEL with Transformative Social Emotional Learning
TSEL is CASEL’s response to the critiques of SEL (Williams & Jagers, 2020). TSEL is
rooted in justice-oriented citizenship and encourages individuals to “participate in actions that
attempt to resist, disrupt, and dismantle the inequities perpetuated by the dominant culture that

30
keeps their neighbor in an oppressed, marginalized position” (Williams & Jagers, 2020, p. 3)
with focal constructs of identity, agency, belonging, collaborative problem-solving, and curiosity
(Jagers et al., 2021). Due to the time limitations of my action research, I did not plan to engage
my colleagues to promote TSEL. However, as previously mentioned, one of my long-term goals
was to infuse HSEL with TSEL so that adults in the organization value students’ ideas about the
promotion of their sense of belonging and work toward creating a culture that promotes students’
agency to resist, disrupt, and dismantle inequities related to their own and others’ sense of
belonging. In relation to belonging, Camangian and Cariaga (2021) propose that dialogue is
“necessary for people to feel connected” (p. 10). Therefore, it is necessary for us to fully involve
the very people who we are trying to promote sense of belonging for by engaging in dialogue
with students toward building relationships and co-creating learning spaces that promote their
sense of belonging. However, to make progress in my long-term goal requires teachers to create
a classroom climate and culture that empowers students to address the inequities that influence
their individual and collective sense of belonging. This requires my participants to leverage the
power and influence they have in their professional roles to lead teachers and other colleagues to
engage in inquiry on how they promote students’ sense of belonging so that we are not placing
the responsibility on the student to promote their own sense of belonging.
Andragogy
Mezirow (1991) posits, “the job of adult educators is to help learners look critically at
their beliefs and behaviors, not only as these appear at the moment, but in the context of their
history (purpose) and consequences in learners’ lives” (pp. 197–198). For my study, I drew on
several adult learning theories to inform my andragogy as I supported my adult learners in
inquiry to confront how we contributed to students’ sense of belonging. For the purposes of my

31
action research, I conceptualized andragogy by drawing on Slayton and Mathis’s (2010) idea of
andragogy as an integrated framework consisting of the knowledge of how adults learn and the
forms of assistance for adult learners and complement it with adaptive leadership moves to
facilitate my participants’ learning as they explored their promotion of students’ sense of
belonging.
Knowledge of How Adults Learn
I had set out to evaluate my learners’ developmental profile to cater their supports
according to their unique needs. While I did attend to their developmental profiles in my action
research, it was done minimally, which was why I did not analyze my use of the knowledge of
how adults learn. However, I still believe that the theories related to how adults learn belong in
my conceptual framework. Andragogy acknowledges that adult learners’ prior experiences and
assumptions have a significant impact on their learning (Warford, 2010). Consequently, since my
participants arrived at this space with different life experiences, positionalities, and
understandings, it was imperative that I observed their developmental profile by calibrating their
ways of knowing (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), considering the sociocultural
dimensions to their cognition (Warford), and acknowledging their prior experience and
preexisting beliefs within my first cycle of action so that I could better support them in their
learning.
Adult learners’ ways of knowing reflect their “cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal capacities” (p. 458), and consequently affect how they think, feel, and act in
relation to their own and others’ identities and their capacity to teach or lead for social justice
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017)
describe four ways of knowing as follows: instrumental knowers focus on the “right” way to do

32
things and are guided by specific suggestions, rules, and rewards; socializing knowers adopt
others’ thinking as “best” and are guided by others’ opinions, values, and assessments; self-
authoring knowers construct their own values, beliefs, and opinions; and self-transforming
knowers “yearn for interconnection and co-construction of meaning where collaboration is
approached as an opportunity to mutually expand thinking” (p. 465). Further described in my
research methods section, I attempted to engage my participants in inquiry in ways that were
informed by my participants’ way of knowing.
Sociocultural dimensions to cognition are the influences that our socialization or culture
have on our thinking processes such as the hegemonic narratives we adopt through our
experiences in our communities. An example of a sociocultural dimension to cognition is the
common occurrence of teachers teaching the way they were taught because their first exposure to
teaching was as learners in the classroom (Warford, 2010). Similarly, the sociocultural history of
how sense of belonging is promoted in our school or in their personal experiences could have
influenced my participants to subscribe to hegemonic notions about the ways they promoted
students’ sense of belonging in our school. Moreover, the way we engaged in inquiry with our
colleagues could be influenced by how we had been socialized to engage in discourse with one
another within the context of our school’s culture.
For my adult learners to engage in transformative (toward deep) learning, they needed to
be critically reflective of their own beliefs and assumptions about how they promoted students’
sense of belonging. Such beliefs and assumptions might have existed outside of their awareness
and derived from their past experiences and interactions with the world. Therefore, it was
important in my role as the adult educator, to help my adult learners recognize and uncover how
their prior experiences and preexisting beliefs influenced the ways they promoted students’ sense

33
of belonging through reflective discourse. As my participants examined their beliefs and
assumptions, they became better positioned to take on alternate perspectives and engage in what
Brookfield (2010) calls, informed actions,—“informed because they are based on a careful
scrutiny and assessment of assumptions, their rationale can be explained to others, and they stand
a good chance of achieving the consequence we intend for them” (p. 217).
Yorks and Kasl (2002) argue some North American adult educators have a cultural bias
favoring the use of discourse to learn from experience and urge adult educators to examine their
assumptions about what it means to learn from experience and recognize the “hegemonic force
of an epistemology that privileges rationality” (p. 184) and an epistemology that minimizes the
role of affect in learning. However, Wergin’s (2019) theories about deep learning serve as a
counterexample to Yorks and Kasl’s assumptions about North American adult educators. Wergin
acknowledges art as a way of learning and emphasizes the role of affect in learning. Similarly,
Yorks and Kasl (2002) propose whole-person learning where presentational knowing serves as a
“bridge between the extralinguistic nature of felt experience, which an individual cannot directly
communicate, and the ideas communicated through propositional knowing, which is the mode of
discourse” (p. 187). Activities such as drawing, dancing, story-telling, and other forms of
expression are often discounted and given secondary priority to the “real” learning through
reflection and analysis (Yorks & Kasl). Yet, such expressive processes create opportunities for
empathic connections between group members so that they may understand each other’s point of
view and lead each other toward growth and transformation. Therefore, I argue it was important
to not only engage in reflective discourse, but to utilize other forms of presentational knowing.
Therefore, I engaged my colleagues in presentational knowing as we shared our

34
conceptualization of sense of belonging using various mediums, such as digital collages and
poems. We also explored our positionalities by writing “I Am From … ” poems.
Forms of Assistance for Adult Learners
The presence of diverse ways of knowing called for me, the adult educator, to utilize
differentiated approaches, described as effective supports and stretches for growth (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), to teach my participants to explore the systems, policies,
practices they have adopted to promote students’ sense of belonging from an HSEL perspective.
In addition, Warford (2010) and Tharp and Gallimore (2012) suggest adult educators
provide forms of assistance for adult learners depending on the learners’ zone of proximal
teacher development (ZPTD). The concept of ZPTD draws on Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory
and extends the zone of proximal development—the distance between what a learner can do on
their own and a proximal level of what they can do with the help of a more-expert other—to
teachers’ development. Warford posits adult learners require self-assistance prior to teacher-
assistance due to the weight of their prior experiences and assumptions on their learning.
Therefore, Warford (2010) suggests starting with self-assistance (in the form of reflection on
prior experiences and assumptions) before modeling or direct teaching to “coax tacit assumptions
into critical consciousness and subject them to new approaches” (p. 253).
An avenue to uncovering our underlying assumptions about teaching and learning was to
have generative conversations about our problems of practice with our colleagues and expand on
the meaning of collegiality as a trusting relationship with our colleagues where we could
question and critique one another’s work (Horn & Little, 2010; Levine & Marcus, 2007). Horn
and Little argue generative conversations occur when the discourse consists of more than a report
on a problem of practice and brainstorming of quick advice. Instead, discourse may be conducive

35
for learning when it provides a “means for defining, elaborating, and reconceptualizing the
problems that teachers encountered and for exposing or building principles of practice” (p. 190)
and incorporates structural and agentic components of conversational routines (Horn & Little,
2010). To promote generative discourse among my participants, I had a visible role in directing
my group’s attention to problems of practice related to students’ sense of belonging and their
own agency in affecting students’ sense of belonging through the following forms of assistance:
modeling to demonstrate how I expected my participants to engage in inquiry, questioning to
make the tacit explicit, and cognitive structuring to assist my colleagues in reconceptualizing
their role in their promotion of students’ sense of belonging. In my inquiry project, I attended to
the various forms of assistance in varying degrees. Since cognitive structuring was the most
salient form of assistance that emerged in my findings, I engaged in an analysis of that particular
form of assistance and did not examine the ways modeling and questioning contributed to my
participants’ learning as forms of assistance.
Modeling. In my action research, I modeled inquiry on my own problems of practice
related to promoting students’ sense of belonging in ways that were aligned with HSEL, before I
asked my participants to do the same. Modeling was a demonstration of what I was asking my
participants to do in my action research. Tharp and Gallimore (1989) argue modeling is a
powerful means of assisting performance because learners may visualize the components of a
complex behavior by watching others and imitating them. In fostering transformative changes,
the modeling from individuals one phase ahead of conventional learners can be very useful in
helping conventional learners “define and elaborate all the factors that sustain their unquestioned
meaning perspectives” (Mezirow, 1991, p. 218). Additionally, Brookfield (2017) argues it is

36
important for the leader to take risks and disclose their own racist inclinations, instincts, and
microaggressions before expecting colleagues to do the same.
Questioning. I utilized four forms of questioning in my action research. Questioning
calls for the use of language to assist with thinking (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). Assessment
questions are used to discover what the learner can do without assistance whereas assistance
questions inquire to produce a mental operation the learner cannot or will not do without
assistance. Assistance questions may be used to guide the learner toward making connections and
emerge with high-level insights. Specifying questions are representative of Horn & Little’s
(2010) conversational move toward specifying and are questions used to elicit more details from
the individual sharing. Probing is a form of questioning and statements where one makes a direct
inquiry to one member at a time, “to find out the facts, reasons, assumptions, inferences, and
possible consequences of a given suggestion or action” (Raelin, 2001, p. 27). The use of probing
questions can elicit our conscious and unconscious biases and assumptions by making our tacit
rationales explicit. Although I describe questioning as a form of assistance that I enacted in my
action research, my participants also engaged in the last two forms of questioning described in
this section. Moreover, I reduced my use of questioning in later sessions to encourage my
participants to engage in questioning. Thus, the consequences of my use of questioning as a form
of assistance did not overtly stand apart from my participants use of questioning as we were all
engaged in questioning, so I decided to turn my attention toward my use of cognitive structuring
as a form of assistance in my findings. Therefore, I did not analyze my use of questioning as a
form of assistance in my findings.
Cognitive Structuring. I engaged in cognitive structuring to assist my learners in their
conceptualization of sense of belonging so that they could analyze their past actions and

37
reimagine new ways to promote students’ sense of belonging. Cognitive structuring is “the
provision of a structure for thinking and acting” and “assists by providing explanatory and belief
structures that organize and justify” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989, p. 63). Cognitive structures may
be conscious or unconscious; some may be verbalized or perhaps automatic without awareness.
Attention toward cognitive structures during learning is important because “the learner will
invent cognitive structures during learning, continually providing the self with explanations and
schema” (Tharp & Gallimore, p. 67). Tharp and Gallimore explain cognitive structuring does not
need to be “announced” by the teacher but can be done through mutual participation. Instead of
providing my participants with the definition of sense of belonging at the start of our journey, I
began with assessment questions to explore my participants’ perceptions of students’ sense of
belonging and encouraged my participants to draw connections between our conceptualization of
sense of belonging. Through discourse, I began to introduce elements of humanizing SEL as a
lens to understand students’ sense of belonging. Additionally, I developed a protocol as a tool to
structure our discourse and for my participants to adopt new ways of thinking and acting.
Furthermore, cognitive structuring need not attend to only the problem of practice at hand but
like instances as well. Therefore, I intended for my participants use the cognitive structure I
introduced to guide their thinking and acting in future problems of practice beyond my action
research.
Adaptive Leadership
In my action research, I planned to engage in adaptive leadership moves to change my
participants’ beliefs and actions concerning students’ SEL and build their capacity to do the
adaptive work of exploring systems, policies, and practices we have adopted to promote
students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective. Although I tried to engage in

38
adaptive leadership, I did not attend to this theory as much as I would have liked. Therefore, it is
not present in my analysis. However, I do still believe that the theory of adaptive leadership is an
important aspect of being an adult educator and have kept this theory in my conceptual
framework. Heifetz et al. (2009) define adaptive leadership as “the practice of mobilizing people
to tackle challenges and thrive” (p.14). For my action research, I was asking my colleagues to
hold a critical mirror up to themselves and to let go of their historical ways of knowing and
facilitating SEL so that we could build our capacity in promoting students’ sense of belonging in
our school from an HSEL perspective. The self-work required was challenging and adaptive in
nature where a technical solution would not serve this adaptive challenge, instead, “adaptive
challenges [could] only be addressed through changes in people’s priorities, beliefs, habits, and
loyalties” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 19). In the context of my action research, I set out to enact the
following adaptive leadership moves: (a) get on the balcony, (b) give the work back to the
people, and (c) regulate distress. I will discuss the first two adaptive leadership moves below and
then discuss regulating distress when I describe ideal learning conditions.
Get on the Balcony. Get on the balcony is “a prerequisite for the other adaptive leader
behaviors” (Northouse, 2019, p. 262) and is a metaphor for momentarily stepping out of the
participant role and stepping into the observer role with a bird’s eye view of everything at play.
For my action research, I recorded my cycles of action as I engaged my colleagues in inquiry so
that they would explore the systems, policies, and practices we have adopted to promote
students’ sense of belonging from an HSEL perspective. Subsequently, I observed how I
progressed in my research question through my interactions with my colleagues and my
leadership by “getting on the balcony.” This allowed me to engage in systems thinking and
consider the interrelated and interdependent elements of how I engaged my colleagues in inquiry

39
(Coghlan, 2019) such as considering my participants’ body language, their emotion, and noticing
what was not being said (Heifetz et al., 2009). Additionally, spending time in my observations
allowed me to slow down before taking immediate action. Since immediate actions often rely on
intuition, I needed to uncover my implicit biases governing the steps I took as a leader (Wergin,
2019). “Getting on the balcony” (Heifetz et al.) was a means for reducing the influence of my
implicit biases as I observed and “examine[d] [my] assumptions and create[d], through
reflection, a new mental model” (Wergin, p. 29), to inform my next actions.
Give the Work Back to the People. I planned to “give the work back to the people” so
that my participants could exercise their agency in their professional roles and their efforts to
promote students’ sense of belonging from an HSEL perspective could be sustained beyond the
action research. Adaptive leadership is about preparing and encouraging “people to adapt—to
face and deal with problems, challenges, and changes” (Northouse, 2019, p. 257). While I was
providing direction, too much direction would have been debilitating and counter to the purpose
of adaptive leadership which is to “mobilize people to tackle challenges and thrive” (Heifetz et
al., 2009, p. 14). Therefore, I engaged in progressive forms of assistance to “shift problem
solving back to the people involved” (Northouse, 2019, p. 269), by starting with modeling
inquiry, then using questioning, and then engage in cognitive structuring so that they might
internalize the cognitive structure to guide them in future inquiry. Furthermore, I stepped back
with my use of questioning so that my participants would be able to step up with their use of
questioning and learn how to engage in inquiry independently or with other colleagues.
Ideal Learning Conditions
To facilitate my participants’ learning as they explored their promotion of students’ sense
of belonging, I supplemented andragogy with ideal learning conditions (Mezirow, 1991). For

40
transformative learning to occur, the learner must have an emotional response that galvanizes
them to want to change, learn, or grow (Mezirow, 2000). Learning also involves “the pain of
giving up a former condition in favour of a new way of seeing things” (Boostrom, 1998 as cited
in Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 141). However, if their anxiety runs too high as their existing
beliefs about how they promote students’ sense of belonging are challenged by contradictory
evidence or new perspectives, they might reject new perspectives and resort to indulging in their
current SEL practices and mental models to promote students’ sense of belonging. While conflict
or discomfort is a catalyst for developmental change (Mezirow, 2000; Warford, 2010; Wergin,
2019), I needed to create an optimal tension between “a perceived challenge to [my participants’]
existing belief system on the one hand, and a perceived level of confidence in [their] ability to
create new meaning in that system on the other” (Wergin, 2019, p. 35), so that my participants
might enter a productive zone of disorientation. Similarly, Heifetz et al. (2009) call this a
productive zone of disequilibrium (PZD), where their “stress level is high enough that [they] can
be mobilized to focus on and engage with the problem they would rather avoid” (p. 30).
Furthermore, to mobilize my participants, I attempted to connect with their values, beliefs, and
anxieties so that I could move their heart to move their mind (Heifetz et al., 2009).
Since I was asking my participants to interrogate how they were complicit in their
promotion of students’ sense of belonging, I knew that there was a likelihood they would
experience some form of discomfort, and possibly distress. This was likely to occur if my
participants’ assumptions had been hidden even from their own consciousness, making them feel
exposed. Additionally, distress could have served as either a motivator or a barrier to my
participants’ learning of promoting students’ sense of belonging. In my action research, I did not
induce distress, but some levels of discomfort for my participants indicated by one participant’s

41
resistance to seeing her role in her problem of practice and another participant’s anxiousness in
reflecting on her positionality. Even so, I still believe it is important to attend to my learners’
experience of discomfort or distress in their learning and create ideal learning conditions in
anticipation of possible discomfort or distress.
Northouse (2019) describes the adaptive leadership behavior of regulating distress is to
cultivate a strong holding environment—a space where “people can feel safe tackling difficult
problems, but not so safe that they can avoid the problem” (p. 265). Other features of regulating
distress include providing direction to “reduce the stress [my participants’] feel in uncertain
situations” to help them “feel a sense of clarity, order, and certainty” (Northouse, 2019, p. 266)
and regulating personal distress that may arise. For the purposes of my action research, I focused
on strengthening the quality of our holding environment and analyzed my efforts to do so.
Brave Space
As a part of my tentative theory, I contend that a brave space serves as a strong holding
environment. In my action research, I worked toward the creation of a brave space by deepening
the trust between us. The sole act of putting a group of professionals in a room to collaborate was
futile without creating conditions for them to wrestle with the ways they were complicit in
perpetuating educational inequities so that it would be productive (Arao & Clemens, 2013;
Levine & Marcus, 2007; Wergin, 2019). Additionally, creating an optimal tension required that I
protect my participants’ social and emotional safety while encouraging their bravery to engage in
honest and generative discourse to promote students’ sense of belonging. My use of the phrase
“emotional safety” is not meant to be conflated with feelings of comfort that are unlikely to
generate contradicting ideas (Arao & Clemens), but instead acknowledges the central role of
affect in learning, as mentioned previously (Yorks & Kasl, 2002). Consequently, I worked

42
toward cultivating a brave space, a space where my participants could be brave and take risks by
being vulnerable and receptive to new information (Arao & Clemens). While I mentioned, but
did not emphasize, the importance of trust in my action research, I have come to understand trust
as an essential feature of a brave space. Moreover, trust is a precondition for reflective discourse
(Yorks & Kasl) and essential for learning in the presence of others (Wergin). Additionally, I did
not want to put my participants in a position where they felt isolated, unsafe, and their important
social networks threatened. In my participants’ case, this might have translated into maintaining
cherished relationships within our organization and being mindful of our job security.
Furthermore, having a high level of trust was crucial in our PIC because it allowed for my
participants to be receptive when others challenged their ideas and prevented feelings of being
personally attacked (Raelin, 2001) that could have led to defensive reactions (Arao & Clemens).
Therefore, I defined trust as a characteristic of a relationship where one could confide in another
without fear of retribution (free of the fear of being personally attacked) and judgment (free of
the fear of defensiveness).
A step toward building trust was to establish a set of productive norms for us all to adhere
to—our discussion agreements. As Hardiman et al. (2007) state, “participants need some basic
discussion guidelines in order to develop trust and safety” (p. 54 as cited in Arao & Clemens,
2013). While I had planned to adopt Arao and Clemens’s five alternatives to common group
norms as our set of discussion agreements, I was only able to attend to the last one. Nevertheless,
I still believe the set of discussion agreements to be important in my tentative theory. The
following are Arao and Clemens’s (2013) five alternatives to common group norms: (a)
controversy with civility in lieu of agree to disagree by recognizing the natural occurrence of
conflicting ideas to arise from a diverse group and committing to seek a common solution, (b)

43
own your intentions and your impact in lieu of don’t take things personally to allow room for our
own emotions as they arise and to take responsibility of the emotional impact we have on others
by examining how and why we have caused harm and the role our privilege played in the matter,
(c) extending the idea of challenge by choice by being attentive to the privilege and power, or
oppression, that underlies our decisions, (d) to discuss the various ways respect is demonstrated
in our cultures in efforts to mitigate assumptions about how we are or are not being respectful
toward our peers, and (e) to differentiate a personal attack from a challenge to one’s idea that
results in feelings of discomfort and may lead to defensive reactions; the attention is then
redirected toward the root of the defensive reaction, which often derives from “a sense of threat
to the privileges of one’s agent group membership” (p. 149).
Systematic Inquiry
Without systematic inquiry, “teachers may be passive consumers’ of others’ ideas, and
unreflective implementers of their own and others’ curriculum” (Levine, 2010, p. 114), which
can be dangerous when the curriculum used subscribes to hegemonic notions. Similarly, I argue
that the same applies to all adults in my organization. The absence of inquiry maintains the status
quo of an educational institution that has historically been designed to oppress students from
marginalized communities. Without interrogating the way we were implementing SEL in our
school, we were likely to continue to reproduce hegemonic structures that negatively influence
our students’ sense of belonging. Moreover, Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) claim
the following:
It is only by coupling the urgent inner work of education (critically interrogating our
mind-sets and beliefs) with the outer work of teaching and leading (intentionally aligning
our actions, practices, and behaviors with a social justice stance) that we will be able to

44
more authentically see, understand, support, champion, and celebrate all of our students’
great diversities and potentialities. (p. 463)
Additionally, with my long-term goal for adults to promote students’ agency to resist, disrupt,
and dismantle inequities in their pursuit of individual and collective well-being, engaging in
inquiry will be very influential because what adults do from an inquiry stance foster the
development of students to do the same: to question, critique, reason, and analyze. (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 2009). Therefore, I set out to utilize the theory of inquiry as stance for my own
systematic inquiry and cultivated a practitioner inquiry community for my learners to engage in a
form of systematic inquiry.
Inquiry as Stance
For the purposes of my action research, I defined inquiry as stance as a disposition where
I am engaged in an iterative process of problematizing how I work with my colleagues and
questioning my epistemology to progress toward a socially just education for our students.
Although I did not internalize an inquiry as stance disposition in my action research, I began to
understand what it might look like and how to work toward an inquiry as stance disposition. I
begin this section by describing the theory of inquiry as stance, then I explain what I came to
understand and how I will continue to pursue inquiry as stance in my own work.
Aligned with action research’s emphasis on practical knowing, inquiry as stance is “a
grounded theory of action that positions the role of practitioners and practitioner knowledge as
central to the goal of transforming teaching, learning, leading, and schooling” (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2009, p. 119). The dissonance between inquiry (or theory) and practice creates generative
and productive tensions leading to a dialectical relationship, rather than a dichotomy. Essentially,
the ultimate purpose for pursuing an inquiry as stance disposition is to enhance “students’

45
learning and life chances for participation in and contribution to a diverse and democratic
society” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 146). Inquiry as stance is a disposition a practitioner
takes toward knowledge and its relationship to practice that is not space- or time-bounded.
Rather, it is a “critical habit of mind” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009p. 121), and so any
professional setting has the potential to be a site for inquiry.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) describe the counterhegemonic essence of inquiry as
stance and what it takes to enact it in the following:
Fundamental to the notion of inquiry as stance is the idea that educational practice is not
simply instrumental in the sense of figuring out how to get things done, but also and more
importantly, it is social and political in the sense of deliberating about what to get done,
why to get it done, who decides, and whose interests are served. Working from and
within an inquiry stance, then, involves a continual process of making current
arrangements problematic; questioning the ways knowledge and practice are constructed,
evaluated, and used; and assuming that part of the work of practitioners individually and
collectively is to participate in educational and social change. (p. 121)
Consequently, inherent in the work of inquiry as stance was the use of critical reflections and
establishing a PIC for democratic purposes and social justice ends. As Drago-Severson and Blum
De-Stefano (2017) suggest, critical reflection is important for us to better understand and
transform the world and ourselves. Brookfield (2010) distinguishes critical reflection from
reflection in stating “[critical reflection] must have as its explicit focus uncovering, and
challenging, the power dynamics that frame practice and uncovering and challenging hegemonic
assumptions” (p. 216). Brookfield (2010) further cautions that assumptions disguised as common

46
sense “are sometimes the same ones that have been constructed by a dominant group or class to
keep us servile or marginalized” (p. 217).
For my action research, a site of inquiry was our PIC. Because I did not consistently
engage in inquiry across multiple professional settings, I did not achieve an inquiry as stance
disposition. However, I did begin to understand what it means to pursue an inquiry as stance
disposition by working toward building the muscle to make “current arrangements problematic,”
and assume “that part of the work of practitioners individually and collectively is to participate in
educational and social change,” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 121) through my attempts at
writing critical reflections. Therefore, in my findings, I analyzed my efforts to critically reflect.
While I improved in my ability to uncover power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions that
framed my practice, I fell short in challenging those very power dynamics and hegemonic
assumptions. Moving forward, I will attend to the challenging of power dynamics and
hegemonic assumptions and continue to uncover them in my future professional setting.
In Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009)’s updated conceptualization of inquiry as stance, the
authors emphasize inquiry as a collective, not individual, stance. Therefore, it was important to
investigate questions of knowledge and practice critically and collaboratively. In my conceptual
framework (Figure 1), inquiry as stance was directed only toward me and not toward my
learners. While I acknowledged the authors’ emphasis on a collective stance, I drew on a
characteristic of Coghlan’s (2016) philosophy of practical knowing for action research in which I
needed to attend to the uniqueness of my situation. Since my period of data collection was only 3
months, I recognized that was not enough time to engage others in pursuing an inquiry stance.
Instead, I established a practitioner inquiry community for my participants and me to engage in
systematic reflection collaboratively.

47
Practitioner Inquiry Community
Levine (2010) warns against romanticizing the idea of community, because there are
communities that exist that inhibit learning. Instead, the goal should not be to foster community
in general, but to foster a specific kind of community as a tool to achieve a specific goal in mind.
Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) define PICs as communities that “work together to uncover,
articulate, and question their own assumptions about teaching, learning, and schooling” (p. 141).
Therefore, I drew on Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) concept of a PIC to create a specific
kind of community as a tool to engage my learners in the exploration of our promotion of
students’ sense of belonging.
Engagement in a PIC necessitated a reimagination of our roles in our organization as both
leaders and learners. Levine (2010) posits teachers learn by talking about, investigating, and
reflecting on their teaching. I expanded on this idea to be inclusive of all my adult learners who
had roles in and out of the classroom, that they learn how to promote students’ sense of
belonging from an HSEL perspective by talking about, investigating, and reflecting on their
problems of practice as it related to the systems, policies, and practices they had adopted.
Consistent with adaptive leadership, as previously mentioned, engaging in a PIC required
iterative cycles of observing, interpreting, and intervention. Similarly, Rodgers (2002) proposes a
reflective cycle of learning to see, describe, analyze, and experiment as a framework for
reflection. While Rodgers’s reflective cycle was intended to apply to teachers attending to
student learning, I adapted her reflective cycle to be inclusive of all participants in my PIC as I
perceived all beings within our sphere of influence as learners. Therefore, my participants
benefitted from using the reflective cycle to investigate their problems of practice as they
attended to their learners in their sphere of influence.

48
For the purposes of my action research, I defined a PIC as a community of practitioners
who explore how they promote students’ sense of belonging from an HSEL perspective and
experiment with what they learn through inquiry to promote students’ sense of belonging. In
promoting inquiry communities, Levine (2010) suggests to “describe, model, and give teachers
scaffolded opportunities to practice asking generative questions, engaging in relevant data
collection and analysis, and participating in the kinds of dialogue and critical colleagueship
essential to this enterprise” (p.114). Similarly, Fairbanks and LaGrone (2006) recommend
teachers collaboratively analyze one another’s situational knowing, where exploring questions
deepen and enrich their understandings so that they may begin to transform their practice through
planned actions based on information and analysis. For the purposes of my action research, I
adapted the aforementioned practices of teachers to be transferrable to my participants’ roles in
our school. Therefore, I supplemented Rodger’s (2002) reflective cycle with Horn & Little’s
(2010) conversational move of toward specifying (which I call specifying questions) and a
couple of Raelin’s (2001) skills of reflective practice in inquiry with others as actions for my
participants to take in our PIC. As stated above, my research question attended to our exploration
of our promotion of students’ sense of belonging and experimentation would be the next step
forward beyond my action research. In the sections below, I describe what it means to explore
and experiment in our PIC.
Exploration. Exploration consists of Rodgers’s (2002) stages of presence in experience,
description of experience, and analysis of experience. Presence in experience is likened to the
practice of mindfulness, which “allows us to interrupt knee-jerk reactions to stimuli that might
lead to the assortment of cognitive biases that stand” (Wergin, 2019, p. 53). Subsequently,
presence in experience is a way of encountering our moments of practice and a way of acting

49
within it where we observe what the learner is doing and respond in a way that promotes
students’ sense of belonging. Description is then, “the process of telling the story of an
experience” (Rodgers, p. 237). It is the most difficult stage of the reflective cycle because
participants were asked to refrain from interpretation or problem-solving. In our PIC, my
participants and I engaged in the act of asking specifying questions (Horn & Little, 2010) to
elicit more details about each other’s problems of practice at this step. Raelin (2001) argues, “our
thoughts are constantly re-shaped when converted into language and brought out in the presence
of others … most of us find that we may change our viewpoints slightly or even a great deal as
the conversation ensues” (p. 21). Consistent with Raelin’s claim, at times, our description of our
experience was revised and that fed the analysis of the experience.
Analysis of experience involves “generating a number of different explanations for …
what’s going on and settling on a theory or hypothesis that one is willing to test in action”
(Rodgers, 2002, p. 244). Probing during analysis of experience was a combination of questions
and statements used to draw out “facts, reasons, assumptions, inferences, and possible
consequences of a given suggestion or action” (Raelin, 2001, p. 27). In our PIC, a way we
engaged in probing was to point out inconsistencies in our colleague’s rationale to help them
uncover the assumptions and beliefs behind their actions toward promoting students’ sense of
belonging from an HSEL perspective. Brookfield (2010) contends “an important element in
making sense of assumptions is taking different perspectives on them, seeing situations and
actions through the eyes of others involved in them” (p. 217). Therefore, another example of
probing in my action research was taking on the perspective of the learner in a colleague’s
problem of practice. It is important to note the dialectical relationship between description of
experience and analysis of experience where “it is sometimes necessary to return to the

50
descriptive phase and seek more data, which in turn may point toward different analyses”
(Rodgers, p. 244). Therefore, it is alright to move back and forth between describing the
experience and analyzing the experience.
Experimentation. As stated earlier, we did not get to experimentation. However, the
theories maintain relevance in my conceptual framework as experimentation is the subsequent
step beyond my action research. In my conceptualization of a PIC, we would work toward
making our tacit knowledge explicit and, subsequently, raise our consciousness of our implicit
assumptions and beliefs so that we could revise the theoretical constructs that guide our choices
and be more deliberate in our actions (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Fairbanks & LaGrone,
2006; Horn & Little, 2010; Levine, 2010). Deliberation, here, is not just being careful with our
thinking but it involves critical thinking, contextual knowledge, and understanding and
appreciating other people’s perspectives (Gutman, 1987/1999 as cited in Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
2009). Deliberation is congruent with the work that precedes what Rodgers (2002) calls
intelligent action or as previously mentioned, what Brookfield (2010) calls informed action.
Raelin’s (2001) skill for reflective practice, testing, was a step in our protocol designed
for my colleagues to experiment with the promotion of student’s sense of belonging from a
humanizing SEL perspective. I had planned to “uncover new ways of thinking and behaving”
(Raelin, 2001, p. 27) by having my participants role-play a proposed course of action and
investigate any underlying assumptions about students’ sense of belonging that could create
dehumanizing experiences in our proposed course of action before we enact it. For example, how
does this new way of thinking and behaving challenge the dehumanizing experiences of our
students? Consistent with healing-justice as a response to humanizing our learners, how does our
proposed course of action recognize our students’ identities and experiences and restore their

51
sense of belonging? Although we did not get to experimentation, I have kept it in the protocol
and my conceptual framework because it remains an important concept in my tentative theory of
action, and I plan to use the protocol in my future work with adult learners.
Benefits and Potential Traps in Engaging in Inquiry with Others. Freire (1970)
believes oppressed peoples “become empowered to change the world through critical reflection
in a community of learners” (as cited in Wergin, 2019, p. 29). Instead of critiquing and reflecting
on our problems of practice in isolation, our inquiry was facilitated through dialogue with others
as we sought to understand multiple perspectives and deeply question what we knew (Levine,
2010). Moreover, Wergin (2019) highlights how deep learning is facilitated in our interactions
with others in the following:
Other people perform several functions for us: they test our conscious reasoning; they
model alternative perspectives; they provide richer opportunities for experiential
learning; and they create accountability, the expectation that we will be called upon to
justify our beliefs, feelings, or actions to others. (p. 89)
However, Wergin (2019) also warns of several serious pitfalls of deep learning in groups such as
the “lack of diversity of beliefs in the group,” the groupthink that may occur when participants
fail “to criticize each other’s suggestions and consider alternatives,” and the inattention to
“power differentials and hegemonic differences” (p. 90). Raelin (2001) cautions not everyone
has the same physical and psychological security of public reflection, especially for marginalized
groups in particular settings. Therefore, in my action research, I attended to the traps in engaging
in inquiry with others by examining how my participants and I “consciously or unconsciously
use[d] power, privilege, and voice to exert influence and suppress dissent” (Raelin, 2001, p. 18),
as revealed in my findings. Furthermore, I communicated the benefits and potential traps in

52
engaging in inquiry with others as I reviewed our protocol for our PIC so that my participants
would attend to them as well. Although I do not know if my participants were consciously
attending to these ideas through their discourse in our PIC, I still believe in their importance and
thus, they remain as essential components of my conceptual framework.
Research Methods
This section describes how I conducted my action research and data analysis. The
purpose of my study was to analyze how I engaged in andragogy, the cultivation of learning
conditions, and critical reflections to support my colleagues as a practitioner inquiry community.
Guiding my action research was my research question: How do I engage my colleagues in
inquiry so that they will explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a
humanizing SEL perspective?
I contend my organization was at the early stages of working toward promoting students’
sense of belonging as it stated inclusivity and SEL as an area of growth for our current WASC
cycle and the cultivation of “meaningful relationships with students” as our SEL goal. While the
areas of growth for WASC had been consistently and widely communicated, the SEL goal, was
not widely known. The communication of our goals suggested the motivation behind our
espoused goals was for our accreditation as opposed to an authentic investment in working
toward such goals. The direction that we would take toward this goal depended on if teachers,
counselors, and administrators prioritized these goals and would take specific actions to improve
on them. Moreover, as previously stated, students would not have communicated a lack of sense
of belonging if my organization had systems, policies, and practices that promoted students’
sense of belonging in a robust way. Therefore, it was important for my colleagues and me to
interrogate our problems of practice to uncover how we jeopardized the sense of belonging for

53
underserved students in our practices. Specifically, our problems of practice related to students
with disabilities or students who identified with the LGBTQ community. Thus, I worked with
specific colleagues whose roles granted them authority and power over systems, policies, and
practices related to students’ sense of belonging and the ability to influence what teachers do in
their classrooms as it relates to students’ sense of belonging.
From informal observations prior to my study, teachers, counselors, and administrators
tended to discount their role in perpetuating inequities within our school and place the
responsibility on the students. For example, the first step to our school’s system for disciplinary
action was for a teacher to write a referral to the student’s designated grade-level coordinator.
Our school prided itself in this system because then teachers could just “focus on teaching” and
the coordinators would handle the behavior that was perceived as disruptive or defiant. Instead of
cultivating the relationship between students and teachers, students were given the message that
they needed to learn how to manage their behaviors and emotions in the classroom and teachers
were excused from any responsibility for their actions that could have led to the student’s
behavior in the first place. I did not know whether my colleagues privately engaged in inquiry on
their own practice. However, I did know there was no formal system and structure for colleagues
to engage in collective inquiry on problems of practice. Moreover, discussing issues of inequities
had not been normalized in our school so my participants might have felt uncomfortable in
engaging in inquiry on their own practice as it related to promoting students’ sense of belonging.
For my study, I identified my role as both adult educator and action researcher in
answering my research question. As there are many conceptualizations of action research, Herr
and Anderson (2015) explore the commonalities among them as follows: action research as
“inquiry that is done by or with insiders to an organization or community, but never to or on

54
them” (p. 3); it involves deliberate and systematic reflection accompanied by evidence
supporting assertions made; it involves a cycle of actions to address a specific problem and
consequently induces changes within the context or participants themselves. I viewed my role as
consistent with Coghlan’s (2019) notion of the researcher as a scholar-practitioner engaged in an
intended study of themselves in action as I inquired into my own assumptions in action and
learned about myself as I worked with adult learners in my setting.
Although the theory and practice of action research is conceptualized through a variety of
epistemologies, Coghlan (2016) emphasizes the philosophy of practical knowing for action
research as he describes action research as “grounded in embedded engagement, where
contextual knowledge emerges interactively and collaboratively through cycles of action and
reflection” (p. 86). This contradicts the hegemonic notion of perceiving practitioner knowledge
as subjugated knowledge that is typically valued less than academic knowledge derived from
professional researchers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Instead, practical knowing for action
research addresses the everyday concerns for human living, posits thinking and knowledge as
socially constructed, requires reflexive attentiveness to the uniqueness of each situation, and is
driven by values and ethics (Coghlan, 2016).
As seen in my conceptual framework (Figure 1), I identified my role as an action
researcher and chose action research as my method for conducting research within my
organization and its specific context, so that it was the vehicle used to address my specific
research question at hand and make incremental changes to bring my organization closer to my
intended outcome. Herr and Anderson (2015) argue it is important for the researcher to make
clear her definition of action research for the purposes of the study as it will impact
epistemological, ethical, and political decisions made throughout the study. For the purposes of

55
this study, I defined action research as research that required me to engage in intentional cycles
of action and reflection within a practitioner inquiry community and a commitment to learning-
in-action as practical knowledge emerged through dialogical and collaborative acts.
Participants and Setting
A purposeful sampling approach was appropriate for my action research because I was
seeking to understand and gain insight about my research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To be exact, I planned to engage my colleagues in inquiry so that we would explore how we
promoted students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective. As previously
stated, I had purposefully selected specific colleagues in various capacities who directly faced
students, teachers, or a combination of both and had the authority and power to execute
leadership to promote inquiry among other teachers and staff members after the timeframe of my
action research. I planned to create a PIC with the assistant principal who oversaw discipline,
grade-level coordinators, and wellness; the Wellness Coordinator who was also a classroom
teacher; an Instructional Dean; and the Intervention Counselor. Furthermore, our meetings took
place either during my daily prep period or during staff collaboration for approximately 45
minutes, once every week to two weeks.
Participants
At the outset of my action research, my four participants were Zoe, Lillian, Rhea, and
Sara. Sara dropped out after the second session due to time constraints. Around halfway into the
study, Zoe transitioned into a new role at a different school in our district and that had
implications for her attendance in my study. Before my first cycle of action, I identified my own
and my participants’ way of knowing using Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) four
ways of knowing typology to have a better understanding of my participants.

56
Prior to my action research, I was as a socializing knower. I did not believe in one “right”
way to live, learn, lead, or teach and instead I sought out the “best” way that I should live, learn,
lead, or teach. I oriented strongly to others’ ideas and suggestions, and I prioritized others’
feelings over my own. I tended to adopt the perspectives of authority figures who I respected and
people I cared deeply about. At the end of my action research, I am teetering between being a
socializing knower and a self-authoring knower. I am improving in my ability to think
systematically about organizational and societal challenges and my role within them as indicated
in my findings and afterword. Moreover, I am beginning to author my own values and long-term
purpose of treating myself and others in a humanizing way to move toward educational change.
Zoe was the assistant principal of our school and at the time of the study, it was her third
year in the position. She joined the school during our completely remote year in the fall of 2020
with a couple of years of experience as an assistant principal at a neighboring district and 12
years of experience as special education teacher prior to that. She was a Korean American,
middle-aged woman with a daughter who was my student during the year of the study. Within
her first year at our organization, she arranged for individual meetings with all staff members
who were willing to have a conversation and get to know one another. Her role came with many
responsibilities, some of which were to oversee discipline, our grade-level coordinators, and
wellness. The main reason why I chose her to be a participant was because her responsibilities
related to SEL and students’ sense of belonging. Furthermore, her position granted her
knowledge, power, and influence over various policies, systems, and structures related to
students’ sense of belonging. In 2022, she proposed a change for our in-school suspension
program to incorporate restorative practices, drug education, and other courses instead of having
students sit in a room and work on homework. Together with the intervention counselor, Rhea,

57
they had begun to adopt the proposed change for our in-school suspension program that appeared
to have the potential for alignment with humanizing SEL. Furthermore, in informal conversation
with her, she had communicated that, although she missed the classroom, she was able to get to
know individual students when they saw her for disciplinary issues. She communicated, while
both the student and she knew that a rule was broken and a consequence would be delivered, she
tried to connect with the student and ensure they would have a smooth transition back into the
classroom. Such attempts had the potential to be reimagined in ways that were consistent with
humanizing SEL if she worked towards recognizing the students’ full humanity, acknowledging
their dehumanizing experiences, and restoring their well-being in response the harm done by
prohibiting the student from attending their classes. Prior to my study, I perceived her to be an
instrumental knower because she had the agency to change the structure of our in-school
suspension program but viewed student behaviors necessitating disciplinary actions as “right” or
“wrong.” Furthermore, she had expressed a vested interest in student wellness as the content was
not originally under her jurisdiction, but she asked our principal to assign it to her. Therefore, I
presumed there was an openness and readiness for her to engage in inquiry in the promotion of
students’ sense of belonging. During my study, Zoe limited her conception of our professional
duties to concrete tasks, which was an action that was consistent with my assessment of her way
of knowing.
Lillian was one of three instructional deans at our school and at the time of the study, it
was her first year in the position. She was an ELD coordinator and English teacher at our school
for one year prior to when my study took place. Furthermore, her previous experience included
serving as a master teacher and supervisor at a teacher credential program and she had been an
English teacher at two other school districts. Lillian was a Latina, middle-aged woman and had

58
two children who attended our school. A memorable moment was when we were looking over
our proposed WASC goals and my team had proposed a focus on culturally relevant pedagogy
along with trauma-informed practices. In a carousel activity, where we went around leaving
comments and suggestions on different team’s posters, she looked at what was on the poster and
noticed our LGBTQ community was missing. She also indicated that students who identified
with the LGBTQ community had communicated they did not feel safe at our school and
underwent various forms of harassment, so we needed to be attentive to that. Relatedly, her son
had disclosed issues connected to identity and harassment, which Lillian then divulged to me. I
assumed from that interaction, there was some level of trust between us. The reason why I chose
her to be a part of my study was because she had been vocal about the need for our organization
to be more inclusive and she worked directly with teachers by observing, evaluating, and giving
feedback to them. Therefore, I believed her to be invested in this work and capable of bringing
alternative perspectives to our PIC to stimulate dialogue. Although my intent was for her to use
what she learned from our PIC to guide her work with her teachers to promote students’ sense of
belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective, I now expand the idea to be inclusive of her
peers. At the outset of my study, I could not appropriately place her on Drago-Severson and
Blum-DeStefano’s four ways of knowing typology because I had not had enough interactions
with her to gauge her way of knowing. After my study, I believe that she is a self-authoring
knower as she is driven by her own values of a socially just education.
Rhea was our school’s intervention counselor and at the time of the study, it was her
seventh year in the position. She worked directly with students who had behavioral, emotional,
or learning issues and served as a bridge between the students’ parents or guardians and their
teachers. Furthermore, she had an active role in our school’s in-school suspension program. Prior

59
to her role as intervention counselor, she was an English teacher at our school for 11 years. Rhea
was a Japanese American, middle-aged woman. My interactions with her had been related to
working with students with 504 plans. Based on those experiences, I assumed she was consistent
about keeping teachers up to date about her conversations with the parents or guardians of
students on her case load. However, there was an incident several years back where she made the
decision to transfer a student with a disability to my class in the middle of the school year
because his mathematics teacher could not work with him. The decision was made without my
input nor did a conversation ensue. This change was very upsetting for me because it reinforced
my perception of the burden of competence. I communicated my frustration to the grade-level
coordinator who made the final change and he seemed to express remorse and said he would
communicate my concerns to her. Since that incident, the same situation had not occurred again.
I selected her as a participant because she worked directly with students, parents, and teachers
with regards to students’ behavioral, emotional, and learning needs. Moreover, her work to bring
restorative practices into our in-school suspension program and her work as the intervention
counselor could have been sites to investigate students’ sense of belonging at our school. Similar
to Lillian, I could not appropriately place her on Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s four
ways of knowing typology at the outset of the study because I had not had enough interactions
with her to gauge her way of knowing. From the one interaction described above, I thought she
might be a socializing knower because she sought to please others and their expectations of her.
After my study, I believe she is more of an instrumental knower as she expressed her desire to be
told what to do and the “right” way of doing things, and she had difficulty thinking abstractly
about students’ sense of belonging.

60
Sara was our school’s wellness center coordinator who also taught several core classes at
our school. At the time of the study, it was her second year in the position of wellness center
coordinator and her 19th year as a classroom teacher at our school. Her responsibilities beyond
teaching consisted of training our peer counselors, making decisions about and supervising the
wellness center, and coordinating school-wide wellness events. She also attended district SEL-
related events as a representative of our organization. She was a White, middle-aged woman. My
previous professional experience with her was when we both served on our school’s data team
responsible for gathering and analyzing data on our students’ D and F grades stratified by
identity groups. Furthermore, I had helped her with some of our school’s wellness events. I
selected her as a participant because of her professional role that gave her direct access to
students as a wellness center coordinator and a teacher. Additionally, she could exercise power
and influence in the decisions she made about the wellness center and the wellness center events
she organized for our students and teachers. Using the Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano
typology, I perceived her to be an instrumental knower because she oriented toward a hegemonic
understanding of SEL that was free of any sociopolitical context nor was it equity-driven. I
believed she was open to the type of learning I was seeking to engage my participants in, but I
was not sure if she would adopt new ways of understanding SEL and, hence, sense of belonging
from a humanizing SEL perspective. Unfortunately, she dropped out of my study after the
second session.
I engaged my learners in a set of activities to build our relationships with one another and
then engaged them as a PIC to explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a
humanizing SEL perspective, in which I recorded our sessions. Additionally, I collected data
from them in the form of documents produced in our PIC as we entered into a set of discussion

61
agreements about how we were going to treat each other as we engage in dialogue, explored our
positionalities, and reflect and analyze our problems of practice in relation to students’ sense of
belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective.
Setting of Actions
My actions took place in my PIC once a week for about 45 minutes. Our meetings
occurred during my fourth period prep time or staff collaboration time due to my workday
schedule being fixed. The main reason for establishing a PIC was because I believed, as
described in my conceptual framework, that inquiry, critical reflection, and learning are best
facilitated in the presence of others. Since teacher autonomy was prevalent in my organization
and I had strong connections with my district and school administrators, I did not foresee any
barriers in my conduction of my action research. However, in my analysis, I will discuss a
barrier to my action research that emerged as my assistant principal exerted her power over us.
Although, my organization did not have its own IRB or proposal review process I needed to
adhere to, I informed and received permission from my principal and the superintendent as a
formality.
Actions
Within my first session of the first cycle, I began to deepen trust by introducing elements
of a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) using assistance questions (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989)
as we established discussion agreements for our PIC. For example, I asked what counted as
respect in this space? Additionally, Ginwright (2016) highlights the importance of establishing
goals collectively in a critical inquiry group. Although I had my own goals, I also asked my
participants their own professional goals for our PIC. This served as a window into their hearts,
as Ginwright argues, changing hearts precedes changing minds. Moreover, we shared with one

62
another our understanding of what sense of belonging meant, its importance, and what affected it
using a presentational way of knowing in the form of digital collages and poems. Subsequently,
we highlighted our commonalities and wonderings, and I implicitly introduced elements of the
humanization framework in lieu of the CASEL (2020) framework for SEL as it related to our
articulated understanding of sense of belonging.
My second week of action consisted of engaging my colleagues to explore their
positionalities. Villaverde (2008) defines positionality as “how one is situated through the
intersections of power and the politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture,
language, and other social factors” (as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, p. 60). In other words, I
define positionality as power(s) and privilege(s) one may wield because of one’s belonging in
specific identity groups. As Freire (as cited in Merriam & Bierema, 2013) believes, we need to
first become aware of power and oppression in our own lives to challenge and transform
oppressive structures in society. Since I was asking my participants to interrogate the systems,
policies, and practices that contribute to students’ sense of belonging at our school, it was
important that we explore our positionalities. Consequently, I used “I Am From …” poems
(Klein, 2019) to help my learners explicitly uncover what their identities were constructed of and
the complexities of our identities through a presentational way of knowing. Furthermore, it
served as a starting point for us to engage in dialogue about how our identities influenced our
power and privilege with an awareness that the intersection of our identities could not be
disentangled as we experienced marginalization. Moreover, it served as an entry point for critical
reflection as we reflected on “how [our] different identities sustain, reproduce, and sometimes
challenge privilege and oppression” (Klein, 2019, p. 98). Consistent with Brookfield (2017), it
was essential for me to first do everything I was asking my participants to do. Therefore, it was

63
important that I shared my “I Am From …” poem first, especially when I was asking them to be
vulnerable and take a risk in sharing about themselves. Furthermore, this activity elicited both
intellectual and affective responses as my learners disclosed the possibly “unexamined history
behind their identities” (Klein, 2019, p. 98). Therefore, I set out to regulate their distress (Heifetz
et al., 2009) as an adaptive leader by promoting a holding environment with deepened trust in
our PIC. Although I did not analyze my ability to regulate their stress, I was able to strengthen
the quality of the holding environment by deepening the trust between us.
While I had planned to only have two sessions in my first cycle, we ended up using
session 3 to finish where we left off from session 2. In session 3, we discussed three reflection
questions inspired by Klein (2019), (a) What surprised you about the responses of others?; (b)
How might this deeper consideration of others’ identities change the way you interact with
them?; and (c) How might our diverse identities promote or complicate our work to promote
students’ sense of belonging?
In the second cycle of action, we interrogated our problem of practice as a PIC.
Subsequently, I had individual meetings with each participant for them to share their reflection
on their problem of practice after we explored it as a PIC. While I had planned to provide forms
of assistance through modeling, questioning, and cognitive structuring, in the analysis of my
data, I found the most significant form of assistance to be cognitive structuring, as conveyed in
my findings. As Levine and Marcus (2010) demonstrate, the structure and focus of teachers’
collaborative activities may facilitate or constrain teacher learning. While my participants were
not all teachers, I believed the same to be true for them. Therefore, I engaged in cognitive
structuring as a form of assistance by providing a structure for thinking and acting (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989), using a protocol as a tool to guide our PIC in exploring and experimenting in

64
the promotion of students’ sense of belonging. As discussed in my conceptual framework, the
PIC protocol included four steps inspired by Rodgers’s (2002) reflection cycle. The three steps
of exploration entailed presence in experience, description of experience, and analysis of
experience. During description of experience, participants engaged in asking specifying questions
to help each other further specify their problem of practice and elaborate on common
terminology (Horn & Little, 2010). During analysis of experience, participants engaged in
probing to draw out “facts, reasons, assumptions, inferences, and possible consequences of a
given suggestion or action” (Raelin, 2001, p. 27). Furthermore, participants were given an “On
the One Hand” graphic organizer to aid in their analysis of their experience after our session. The
graphic organizer was a tool for them to clarify their problem of practice and reflect on how they
contributed to their problem of practice and were a solution to their problem of practice. The last
step of the protocol was experimentation. Although, we did not get to the last step, testing was
meant to be used to engage in new ways of thinking and behaving by having my participants act
out various scenarios to explore and experiment in the promotion of students’ sense of
belonging.
At the end of each cycle, I engaged in data analysis and attempted to critically reflect on
how I engaged my adult learners toward my desired outcome. I used the following questions
found in Table 1 to guide my critical reflections.

65
Table 1
Planned Actions
Cycle 1 (November 2022–January 2023)
Establishing norms and language, exploring positionality, and setting conditions
Session 1
Learning objectives Adult educator Practitioner inquiry
community
Data collected
Establish discussion
agreements toward
a brave space.
Share our current
understanding of
sense of belonging.
I will begin my
journey toward
inquiry as stance by
writing consistent
reflections.
Introduce elements of
brave space (Arao
& Clemens, 2013)
through assistance
questions (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989).
Introduce elements of
a sense of
belonging from a
humanizing
perspective.

Colleagues will share
their ideas for
discussion
agreements that will
be established in
our PIC.
Colleagues will share
their current
understanding of
what sense of
belonging means,
its importance, and
what affects sense
of belonging
through any
medium (e.g.,
words, art, music,
storytelling).
1 Observation/
fieldnote
1 Reflection
Session 2
Learning objectives Adult educator Practitioner inquiry
community
Data collected
Colleagues will
explore their
positionalities
Model (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989)
my “I Am From
…” Poem (Klein,
2019)
Build trust
Regulate distress as
my colleagues
examine the
construction of their
identity and its
relation to power
and privilege
Colleagues will write
and share their “I
Am From …”
Poems
1 Observation/
fieldnote
1 Reflection
Session 3
Learning objectives Adult educator Practitioner inquiry
community
Data collected

66
Colleagues will
reflect on what
came out of sharing
our “I Am From
…” Poems.
Facilitate a discussion
around the
reflection questions
posed.
Colleagues will
reflect and share
their thoughts with
respect to the
discussion
questions.
1 Observation/
fieldnote
1 Reflection
End of Cycle 1
Out-of-the-field analysis and critical reflection
I will engage in the adaptive leadership behavior of get on the balcony (Heifetz et al., 2009) to
understand group dynamics and analyze progress for the purpose of informing my subsequent
actions.
I will write a critical reflection on how I engaged my adult learners in the first cycle.
Questions:
Do the strategies I use promote progress towards the development of a brave space?
What are my assumptions about my learners’ developmental profiles?
Am I demonstrating presence in experience as I work with my participants?
How do I redirect learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo?
How does my positionality impact my interactions with leaners?
Cycle 2 (January 2023–March 2023)
Engaging in a practitioner inquiry community to explore our promotion of students’ sense of
belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective
Session 4–Session 7
Learning objectives Adult educator Practitioner inquiry
community
Data collected
We will engage in a
PIC to explore our
promotion of
students’ sense of
belonging from a
humanizing SEL
perspective.
We will describe a
problem of practice.
We will engage in
questioning and
probing.

Model description of
experience
(Rodgers, 2002).
Engage in asking
specifying
questions (Horn &
Little, 2010) and
probing (Raelin,
2001).
Cognitive structuring
(Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989) of
sense of belonging
from a humanizing
SEL perspective.
All colleagues will
take turns sharing
their problem of
practice for Session
5–Session 7.
We will engage in
description and
analysis of
experience.
Engage in asking
specifying
questions &
probing.

4 Observations/
fieldnotes
4 Critical reflections
One-on-one reflections
Learning objectives Adult educator Practitioner inquiry
community
Data collected
Colleagues will
reflect on how they
contribute to their
problem of practice
I will listen to my
colleagues’
reflections.
Colleagues will use
the “On the One
Hand” graphic
organizer to reflect
3 Observations/
fieldnotes
1 Reflection

67
and how they are a
solution to their
problem of practice.
on their problem of
practice considering
what emerged in
our whole group
sessions.
Colleagues will share
their reflection with
me individually
End of Cycle 2
Out-of-the-field analysis and critical reflection
I will engage in the adaptive leadership behavior of get on the balcony (Heifetz et al., 2009) to
reflect on how I engaged my participants to explore their promotion of students’ sense of
belonging and analyze their progress.
I will write a critical reflection on how I engage my adult learners in the last cycle.
Questions:
Do the strategies I use promote progress towards the development of a brave space?
Are learners demonstrating progress in their learning?
Am I demonstrating presence in experience as I work with my participants?
How do I redirect learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo?
How does my positionality impact my interactions with leaners?
How do I promote a humanizing SEL approach to students’ sense of belonging?
Data Collection
Since I did not regularly work with my participants and the learning objective was to
engage in inquiry through discourse about problems of practice related to students’ sense of
belonging, there were no documents or artifacts that already exist in the regular routines of my
job for me to collect.
Most of my data was generated in my PIC or during my out-of-the-field weeks. I wrote
descriptive reflections after every session and intended critical reflections after every cycle.
Drawing on Brookfield’s (2010) distinction between reflections and critical reflections, I grew in
my ability to explicitly uncover the power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions that framed my
practice. However, I fell short of critically reflecting as I only began to challenge the power
dynamics and hegemonic assumptions that framed my practice, if at all. Consistent with inquiry
as stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009), I attempted to pose problems about the way I engaged

68
my adult learners in my PIC and questioned my epistemology for educational and social change
in my reflections. I aspired toward a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) by building trust as I
guided my adult learners in establishing discussion agreements. I collected data in the form of
documents and observations on my progress as an adult educator and my learners’ progress in
their exploration of their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL
perspective.
Documents and Artifacts
Generated documents assisted me in answering my research question because they were
intentionally created for that reason (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I collected generated documents
in the form of seven meeting agendas, one PIC protocol, four “On the One Hand” graphic
organizers, eight descriptive reflections, two intended critical reflections, 11 analytical memos,
and four methodological memos. My meeting agendas helped me compare what transpired in my
sessions to what I had planned to do. The PIC protocol served as a cognitive structure for my
participants to engage in inquiry on their problems of practice. The “On the One Hand” graphic
organizers helped me understand my participants’ reflections shared in our one-to-one sessions.
My descriptive reflections were written as soon as possible after our meetings, while my
intended critical reflections were written during my out-of-the-field analysis. Both forms of
reflections helped answer my research question. My descriptive reflections helped capture what I
noticed, how I felt, and served as a window into my thinking, which would not have been present
in my transcripts. My intended critical reflections represented my attempts to uncover and
challenge the power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions that framed my practice (Brookfield,
2010).

69
Observations
With the permission of my participants, I recorded the entire length of all my PIC
meetings using a recording application with transcription capabilities. Therefore, I collected
nearly 7 hours of observations. During the meeting, I wrote some jottings down and mapped
where my participants were sitting. Since I was facilitating the meetings, I saved more in-depth
fieldnote writing for after the meeting. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) recommend researchers write
down important insights as soon as possible before we lose them. Therefore, shortly after the
meetings, I wrote fieldnotes in the form of descriptive reflections. During my observations, I
observed how my participants engaged in our PIC, verbally and nonverbally. I looked for
indications of my andragogical moves and its consequences, noting any perceived differences
between my intentions and the actual impact. Furthermore, I looked for evidence of the holding
environment and I noted my participants’ and my own emotional states so that I could help
regulate their distress as well as my own.
Data Analysis
Data analysis “involves engaging in intentional and systematic processes of interpreting
data” (Ravitch & Carl, 2021, p. 236). While there were many aspects of my research question
that I was interested in pursuing, I needed to discipline myself and not pursue every aspect.
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) caution that researchers need to make decisions to narrow the study,
determine what is feasible, and recognize our physical limits. Therefore, I focused on analyzing
data about my andragogical moves and the holding environment to answer how I engaged my
participants in a PIC to promote students’ sense of belonging. I further analyzed growth in my
participants’ ability to explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging through how they
engaged in generative dialogue as a PIC to uncover problematic assumptions and reconceptualize

70
their problem of practice. I managed to analyze my actions while I was still in the field by
narrowing my focus and setting aside time directly after my meetings to flesh out my fieldnotes
and ideas.
Since action research consists of cycles of action and reflection, it was tentative and
iterative in nature. Therefore, I began data collection while I was still in the field because I used
my analysis to inform my future actions and make revisions. I created analytic memos at the end
of every cycle and used my fieldnotes, planned actions, and conceptual framework to assist in
my analysis. For example, in my analytic memo after Cycle 1, I realized that I had asked my
participants for their professional goals, but I did not overtly attend to them as I had intended in
my planned actions. However, in my original conceptual framework, I stated that in establishing
ideal learning conditions, it was important to connect with my participants’ values so that I could
move their hearts to move their minds (Heifetz et al., 2009). Therefore, in Cycle 2, I decided to
speak with my participants individually before their turn to present their problem of practice and
reminded them of their previously stated goal in hopes that they would connect their problem of
practice to their goal.
When I left the field at the end of Cycle 2, I began a deeper analysis of my data by first
coding each session. My use of coding allowed me to interact with my data during analysis and
develop concepts from my data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). I conducted deductive analysis as I
created a priori codes using the definitions of concepts that had already existed in my initial
conceptual framework. Examples of my a priori codes are modeling, questioning, cognitive
structuring, and critical reflection. I implemented inductive analysis through my creation of
empirical codes from concepts that emerged from my data, such as trust and self-regulation of
distress. As I developed more codes, I noticed themes and I was able to cluster my codes

71
according to themes, such as power and affective conditions. Additionally, I recorded the
typicality of each code for each session and each participant. For example, for the code
“presence of relationship building,” I tallied one instance for me, two instances for Lillian, three
instances for Rhea, and two instances for Zoe in Session 3. After coding each session, I would
write an analytic memo to detail what I believed was emerging from my analysis. After I
finished coding a cycle, I would write another analytic memo that represented the trends I was
noticing as I looked at the typicality across my sessions. Subsequently, I began writing my
findings based off what had surfaced from my coding.
The analytic tools that I used to write my findings were looking at language (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008) and connecting the language to my definition of concepts to answer my research
question. Additionally, I wrote methodological memos to document my methods for analysis
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). As Ravitch and Carl (2021) recommend, it is important to engage
other people in the analysis process. Therefore, I met with my dissertation chair one to three
times a week for guidance and feedback. I utilized the course I was taking in my doctoral
program, EDUE 725, as a space to discuss my action research among two of my committee
members and my classmates. I also met with my classmates in my cohort to work together so
that we could hold one another accountable and gain additional perspectives in our analysis.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are the factors affecting my study beyond my control. Delimitations are the
intentional decisions that I made about my study and that bound what I was able to learn.
Limitations
A limitation of my study was the willingness of my participants to disclose their own
thoughts, opinions, ideals, and experiences. Moreover, I was not able to control my participants’

72
authenticity and honesty. Their words could have been a regurgitation of what they thought I
wanted to hear as the adult educator and action researcher. Since two of my participants were in
leadership positions, they might have had a fear of admitting complicity because they might have
believed it undermined their expertise as leaders. Furthermore, because my participants and I
were all in different professional roles, there were power dynamics among our PIC members that
affected the study. For example, Zoe exercised her authority in the group and cautioned that our
work should not interfere with our formal obligations in our roles. Another limitation was my
participants’ attendance. I did not account for time constraints, emergencies, and illnesses that
affected my participants’ attendance. Therefore, Sara dropped out of my study after the second
session, Zoe attended four of the seven whole group sessions, and Rhea attended five of the
seven whole group sessions which limited the conclusions I could draw during my analysis.
My status as a novice researcher and novice adult educator were limitations because this
was my first study so my inexperience might have affected different aspects of my action
research. While I had led a couple of professional development sessions related to SEL and had
facilitated some meetings as WASC co-coordinator prior to the study, I was not as comfortable
teaching and leading my colleagues. I had no experience modeling inquiry and had minimal
experience with probing. Although I had experience with the use of cognitive structuring in my
experience as a classroom teacher, it was not in relation to students’ sense of belonging nor was
it with adult learners. Furthermore, this was my first time facilitating a PIC. Therefore, my
participants’ learning was aligned to my own understanding of promoting students’ sense of
belonging from an HSEL perspective and my understanding of the concepts in my conceptual
framework.

73
Delimitations
My status as a novice researcher and novice adult educator were also delimitations. I was
inexperienced with research, yet I constructed my research question, designed my research
methods, and captured and analyzed the data. Additionally, I made choices about how to interact
with my participants as the adult educator and enact my planned action. Therefore, my status as a
novice researcher and novice adult educator limited what I learned and accomplished.
Since my conceptual framework was personally constructed, I chose specific lenses
through which I carried out my study and analyzed my data. Therefore, my conceptual
framework served as a delimitation in that it highlighted ideas related to my chosen theories and
hid other observations, insights, and interpretations. Furthermore, some of the literature that I
drew from focused their studies on a homogenous group of participants (i.e., teachers, teachers in
relation to their students, or administrators in relation to teachers). However, I had selected a
heterogenous group of participants specific to my context. Although I believed the theories and
research I was using for my study applied to my mixed group of educational professionals, I
recognize this was an assumption I made that the authors did not set forth nor did they study.
Furthermore, I deliberately chose to work with a heterogenous group of professionals instead of
a group of teachers who directly faced students every day in the classroom. While I recognized
that working with teachers could be very powerful in prompting change, my assumption was that
my specific group of participants were better positioned to enact meaningful change beyond the
scope of my action research where what we learned was sustained and passed on at a larger,
system-wide, level.
Another delimitation was my decision to only operate during school hours. I made the
decision to operate during school hours out of respect for my participants’ time. However, my

74
participants had also expressed they were not open to meeting outside of school hours or they
could not meet weekly. This had implications for how much I could accomplish during school
hours and the length of our meetings. Furthermore, I decided that I would be in the field for three
months and I did not extend that time. Therefore, I did not engage in a third cycle of action.
Additionally, I recognized that I did not have any student, parent, or community member
directly involved in my study. Therefore, I was perpetuating the characteristic of paternalism in
White supremacy culture (Jones & Okun, 2001) where the adults in our PIC were making
decisions that directly affected our students without student input. This led me to my intention
for my participants exercise their agency, authority, and leadership and use what they learned in
my action research study to teach others in their sphere of influence (i.e., teachers) to engage in
inquiry about how they promote students’ sense of belonging. From there, my long-term goal
was to progress toward a transformation in our school culture and engage in humanizing and
transformative SEL where students are agentic in “relationship building and co-creating learning
spaces” (Jagers et al., 2021, p. 14) and engage in justice-oriented citizenship.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The different types of data that I collected allowed me to triangulate my data. Maxwell
(2013) suggests triangulation reduces the risk that research results are associated with chance and
reduces systemic biases of choosing a specific form of data. I encapsulated rich, descriptive data
by taking jottings and using the transcripts of the recordings of my meetings with my participants
so that there was a reduced risk of my faulty memory interfering with my results. I wrote
intended critical reflections at the end of each cycle as another type of data. Furthermore, I wrote
analytic memos to detail what I was learning and the discrepancies between my intended actions
and my enacted actions. Consequently, I wrote methodological memos as an audit trail for the

75
changes I made in my methods. I talked to my dissertation chair for guidance and feedback
throughout my action research since she had more experience in this field and was very
knowledgeable of various educational theories. I utilized my classes in my doctoral program to
talk about what I was doing in the field and practiced different activities and andragogical moves
with my peers. Furthermore, I met with my classmates outside of class time and they helped to
serve as an extra set of eyes during analysis.
Additionally, I attended to how my positionality impacted my study to maximize its
credibility and trustworthiness. Herr and Anderson (2015) emphasize the importance of
considering our multiple positionalities in action research as they influence our epistemological,
methodological, and ethical underpinnings of our research. Likewise, Milner (2007) warns
against the seen, unseen, and unforeseen dangers that may emerge from inquiry if a researcher
does not pay attention to the racial and cultural positionalities of the researcher and participants.
To assist in considering our multiple positionalities, Herr and Anderson (2015) provide a list that
includes but is not limited to: (a) our insider/outsider positionality within their setting, (b) our
level of informal power within the organization that derives from our hierarchical position, and
(c) our position in societal groups dependent on classifications such as class, race, ethnicity,
gender, sexual orientation, age, ability, and religion.
Some assumptions that I had going into this study were my participants’ developmental
profiles. Therefore, I tried to not let my perception of their developmental profile influence how I
interpreted their words and actions. Additionally, my dissertation chair helped point out instances
where my analysis was not justified by the language that was present. Furthermore, I assumed
that my White participant was the least ready to talk about issues related to students’ identities
and most likely to perpetuate inequities related to students’ sense of belonging when she could

76
have had more experience in that regard while other participants may have been indoctrinated to
perpetuate White supremacist beliefs. The first step in interrogating my assumptions was to bring
awareness to them. Therefore, I wrote intended critical reflections at the end of every cycle to
uncover my assumptions, biases, and power dynamics in my PIC. Furthermore, recordings
allowed me to depict more accurately what I observed and heard from my participants so that my
depictions were less likely to be modified by my faulty memory or my assumptions.
Ethics
Prior to my action research, I obtained informed consent and let my participants know
what my action research project entailed, what I was studying, and what was expected of them.
My participants had the right to withdraw from my study at any point. In addition, I sought
permission to use any generated data that involved my participants. I maintained my participants’
confidentiality in my study by removing information that would allow them to be identified.
Furthermore, since we engaged in discourse to problematize how we were complicit in our
promotion of students’ sense of belonging, I put my participants at risk for psychological and
emotional discomfort. Therefore, I attempted to regulate the distress my participants
experienced. After my study, I will debrief my participants and inform them of what I have
learned. To ensure security of my data, I stored physical documents away from our campus and
secured digital documents in a private folder.
As Hostetler (2005) states, “our ultimate aim as researchers and practitioners is to serve
people’s well-being—the wellbeing of students, teachers, communities, and others” (p. 17).
Hostetler further cautions that researchers who are genuinely concerned for well-being need to
expand their conceptualization of well-being as involving more complexity. Drawing on
Ginwright’s (2006) notion of well-being as a function of social-justice and Cochran-Smith and

77
Lytle’s (2009) notion of inquiry as stance for social justice ends, I used my research to bring
about awareness to the ways we harm the well-being of our students, with the intention to
eventually heal students from that harm, and to promote a socially just education for all students.
As Hostetler stresses, “it is in the power of every researcher and educator to do something to
improve the lives of people” (p. 21).
Findings
My research question was how do I engage my colleagues in inquiry so that they will
explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective? In
response to my research question, two findings emerged. The first finding is in relation to how I
supported my colleagues in our PIC and two themes emerged—the deepening of trust and the
use of cognitive structuring. The second finding is in relation to how I grew as an adult educator
by improving my ability to critically reflect.
I supported my colleagues in this process by deepening the trust between us so that we
could move toward a brave space. I utilized the activity of creating discussion agreements as an
entryway to fostering trust within our group so that we could engage in honest and reflective
discourse without a fear of retribution or judgment. Prior to our sessions together, we worked
with one another in varying capacities and had different levels of closeness to one another. Over
time, our connection with one another deepened as evident by our increased willingness to be
vulnerable with one another, challenge each other’s thinking, and be receptive to each other’s
ideas. While we fell short of achieving a brave space, our deepened trust established a solid
foundation for the cultivation of a brave space, and we began to challenge our hegemonic
assumptions.

78
Secondly, I engaged in cognitive structuring as a form of assistance to shape my
participants’ conceptualization of their problem of practice in relation to the promotion of
students’ sense of belonging and how they may detract from and promote students’ sense of
belonging. My use of cognitive structuring entailed the development and utilization of a protocol
for our practitioner inquiry community as a tool to provide reason and structure for us to start
inward and to let our inner work positively impact our outer work. Furthermore, the protocol
included examples of questions for us to consider in this process and concluded with each
practitioner filling out the “On the One Hand” graphic organizer designed for us to reflect on
how we are a part of the problem and a solution. Through cognitive structuring, I was able to
support my colleagues move from perceiving their problem of practice as one that was detached
from their own actions to recognizing their own role in the promotion of students’ sense of
belonging. Additionally, we devised ways that we could be a solution to our problem of
practices, although we did not have time in the span of my action research project to enact our
solutions. As a PIC, we grew in various ways, in varying degrees, because of our engagement
with the structure provided. I demonstrated evidence of adopting a humanization framework
(Camangian & Cariaga, 2021; Legette et al., 2022) and consideration of the multiple ways I was
complicit in my problem of practice. Lillian illustrated a shift in her thinking of her problem of
practice from detailing how her colleagues contributed to her problem of practice to confronting
her own role in it. Rhea showed minimal growth that was influenced by her inconsistent
attendance and resistance to using the transcript of our session as a resource in her reflection.
The second finding is in relation to how I grew as an adult educator in my ability to
critically reflect. While I set out to pursue an inquiry as stance disposition, I came to understand
it as a state of being and that was not what I had achieved. I recognized that while I was

79
engaging in individual acts of problematizing my action research and questioning my
epistemology to progress toward a socially just education for our students (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 2009) in my reflections, it was not my disposition. However, in my attempts to
problematize my action research, I built my capacity to critically reflect as evident in the changes
from my intended critical reflection in the first cycle to my intended critical reflection in the
second cycle. In my efforts to critically reflect, I went from a shallow uncovering of power
dynamics and hegemonic assumptions to a deeper uncovering of them (Brookfield, 2010).
Finding 1: Our Growth as a Practitioner Inquiry Community
At the outset of my research, my participants were Lillian, Rhea, Zoe, and Sara. As
described in my context statement, Lillian was an instructional dean, Rhea was the intervention
counselor, Zoe was the assistant principal, Sara was the Wellness Center Coordinator and
English teacher, and I was a mathematics and psychology teacher. Sara dropped out of my
research after the second session due to schedule conflicts and a heavy workload so I do not
analyze her growth. Zoe missed critical sessions, so I do not have sufficient evidence of her
growth. Therefore, I will only be analyzing growth in two participants—Lillian and Rhea. There
were two themes that emerged from the data, the deepening of trust in pursuit of a brave space
and cognitive structuring as a form of assistance to promote the exploration of our role in our
problems of practice related to students’ sense of belonging.
Toward a Brave Space: Deepening Trust
As articulated in my conceptual framework, I recognized that my participants’ affective
state would play an essential role in their readiness to wrestle with how they were complicit in
reproducing any form of marginalization negatively affecting students’ sense of belonging and
change how they promoted students’ sense of belonging. I recognized that this reflective act was

80
not part of our school’s culture; we did not have practice in doing that, nor did we have comfort
in doing that. Therefore, I set out to strengthen the quality of our holding environment, a space
where “people can feel safe tackling difficult problems, but not so safe that they can avoid the
problem” (Northouse, 2019, p. 265). To protect my participants’ social and emotional safety in
our holding environment, I worked toward the creation of a brave space (Arao & Clemens,
2013). A brave space would serve as a strong holding environment that would allow for my
participants to engage in collective inquiry on the role of privilege, power, and oppression in our
problems of practice. A feature of this brave space I aspired to have was a high level of trust as
trust was essential for learning in the presence of others (Wergin, 2019). The level of trust
between us could dictate the quality of our interactions with one another because trust could
open the door for ideas to be challenged and might prevent feelings of being personally attacked
(Raelin, 2001) where such feelings might lead to defensive reactions (Arao & Clemens).
Additionally, my participants needed assurance that adopting new perspectives would not
threaten their important social networks and self-images (Wergin). As stated in my conceptual
framework, I defined trust as a characteristic of a relationship where one could confide in another
without fear of retribution (free of the fear of being personally attacked) and judgment (free of
the fear of defensiveness). I recognized that the way toward a brave space was to deepen the trust
between us. A step toward deepening trust was to establish a set of productive norms for us all to
adhere to—our discussion agreements. Therefore, I will illustrate how I utilized the development
of discussion agreements to deepen the trust between us in pursuit of a brave space.
I began my endeavor to deepen trust in the first session of our first cycle. Prior to my
action research, my participants worked with one another in varying capacities suggesting they
had some form of a relationship with one another. Zoe and Lillian were on the administrative

81
team, Lillian was Sara’s supervisor, Zoe and Rhea had worked together in their roles, and I had
worked with all of my participants in informal ways. Although I did not know the level of trust
that existed between my participants, I did describe in my research methods an experience that
suggested trust existed between me and Lillian. As articulated in my research methods, I had
planned to build deepen trust through our creation of discussion agreements. Prior to planning
for our first session, Lillian approached me to share her concern about how her participation
might be affected by the presence of our assistant principal. I wrote about how this conversation
influenced my agenda and my actions for the first session in the critical reflection I wrote about
the first cycle:
I mentioned it [power dynamics] because the dean [Lillian] personally came to me and
demonstrated that she is very interested in my research and she may be reticent in the
meeting because this is her first year as a dean and she doesn’t want to say anything that
may affect her job security since the assistant principal is also in this space.
I interpreted this as she was interested in my research, but she was worried that she could not
authentically show up and say what she wanted to say because it might hurt her career in some
way. While Zoe was not her direct supervisor, Zoe could bring the information back to others in
power. This demonstrated the low level of trust Lillian started with where she was wary about
what she could confide in us for fear of repercussions that might jeopardize her career.
Therefore, when I planned the session, I took Lillian’s fear of retribution into account and
planned to name the power dynamics in the room as a reason to establish discussion agreements
with my participants to protect one another from harm as we engaged in collective inquiry. In my
planning, I wrote a script in my agenda to name the power dynamics and subsequently, invite my
participants to create discussion agreements. Furthermore, I was attending to several ideas from

82
my conceptual framework—the inattention to power differentials as a potential trap of learning
in groups (Wergin, 2019) and the conscious or unconscious use of power to “exert influence and
suppress dissent” (Raelin, 2001, p. 18). As written in the same critical reflection, “my intention
was for those in supervisory positions to acknowledge this power differential and express or
agree to not hold their power over others in this space.”
The following excerpts show the low level of trust that was present for me, Lillian, and
Rhea and how I was beginning to increase trust in the group. My indirect language, deference,
and lack of expressing dissent within this session implied a discomfort and apprehensiveness that
indicated my fear of retribution and judgment. While Rhea directly communicated that she did
not have a fear of retribution, she did express a fear of retribution after Zoe exercised her
positional power in the room. Lillian telegraphed a fear of retribution and judgment through the
language she used as she communicated her thoughts. Later in the session, Rhea also
demonstrated a fear of judgment as she expressed caution about interpreting a question the
“right” way. My first step toward fostering trust was by naming the power dynamics that existed
in our space to reduce the fear of retribution for my participants. Then I worked toward
increasing trust by asking my participants to co-create discussion agreements to reduce the fear
of judgment. I continued to build trust by telegraphing that there might not be trust all around
and encouraging my participants to think about what was needed for us to trust one another.
What followed was my proposal of two discussion agreements intended to build trust by
reducing the fear of retribution and judgment.
I: Um, so, because we are going to be talking about something you might be
struggling with there may be some vulnerability in our conversations and also just
recognizing that there are some power dynamics in this room, right? (participants:

83
mm) So we have Zoe, who’s the Assistant Principal and just naming it and so she
has a supervisory role and then Lillian might be a supervisor for … (Sara points
at herself) for Sara and so I don’t want people to feel like they can’t say certain
things because they might get in trouble by their supervisor. And also you don’t
have to say anything that you don’t want to say. I won’t force you to say anything,
um, because your participation is voluntary, but I did want to think about how we
can establish some discussion agreements so we can think about how we show up
in this space and how we communicate with one another. And I’m thinking we
could do this collectively. So it’s not just like I’m telling you what to do, but we
can kind of think about how we want to engage with one another. So what do we
think? Shall we take a couple minutes to jot down some ideas for how we want to
work with one another? Like our discussion, they’re like norms, discussion
agreements, and then we’ll share out what we think.
R: Can we just say it?
I: If you’re ready, you can say it but if someone needs like, processing time to think
about things. What are, where are we at? You’re ready.
R: Well, I’m at the place where I, I don’t feel that in this group because I, we’re all
coming from the same ilk. I feel like the four of us where we just want to help our
students help the students here. So the power dynamic I don’t know. How do you
guys feel? I don’t feel inhibited or you know.
S: Yeah, I don’t feel inhibited either.
R: Yeah.
I: Um, so aside from the power dynamic that could influence how we show up in a

84
space, are there other norms of just communicating with one another that we
would like to establish?
S: I’m good with communicating during school hours, but not on weekends that’s
my time, I’m sorry, haha.
I: I disconnected my email … (trails off)
S: Yeah, I just don’t respond to stuff like that after hours.
Z: I may caution though that we don’t take away too many, uh, you know, if it’s a
classroom time or if it’s, you know, a prep or anything that we don’t impede on
the on the contractual things as long as it it’s free from that then then we’re good
to go, I mean, I guess that’s my supervisory role I have to insert, but otherwise, in
that, because we have to speak for our kids, but otherwise.
I: Um, sorry could you tell, expand a little bit on that?
Z: So since we’re meeting five, up to five more times, um, just so that we don’t
impact any time that we would need to spend with students or prepping for our
contractual duties, you know, since it’s for a dissertation, which is great. I want to
support and empower you.
I: Thank you.
R: In the event that a student is in my office during the fourth period what should be
the norm for that?
I: Okay, uh, and then this is like last minute like they showed up and then …
R: It’s yeah, I, everything is very spontaneous in my day.
I: What I would say then you have to attend to the student and then we, we could
carry on and then you’ll just be missing from that week.

85
R: That day.
I: And then if we know earlier in advance then perhaps we could reschedule around
it?
R: Okay.
I: Does that sound good?
R: Yes.
S: Yeah, I would have the same issue yeah if there’s something major that comes,
then I need to go out.
I: Okay um what about norms like the ones we established with our students in
terms of if there’s a different perspective, how we might deliver the different
perspectives? Or what counts as respect in the space between us? Do we have
thoughts about that? Like if we have different perspectives about a topic that
we’re discussing how might we deliver these different perspectives but also
respect one another’s perspectives?
30 seconds pass
L: I think one thing I’m kind of thinking about right now but I haven’t come to as
sort of a feeling of it for myself yet but I’ll just kind of put it out because it’s
occupying my brain right now um and that is this is such a unique group right and
it’s connected to school but in some ways it’s, it’s not, right, if that makes sense,
but so if we have conversations that we want to have with each other should they
be within this safe space? Because I think there’s something to be said sort of
emotionally and psychologically, of just place and time and space. And I think
that if there is something that is said here, and we were to have a conversation say

86
about it in the PCR [Principal’s Conference Room], I don’t know that that would,
I’m still processing, I don’t know that that would feel safe, necessarily for me
within the context of this unique work. Um, but then I recognize pragmatically
that it may not always be, I mean, I don’t know if this is a space that could be
open like if Sara and I wanted to have a private conversation. Could we come into
this space in habit at a time that’s convenient for the Wellness Center that doesn’t
impede on students and whatnot, but I’m just thinking of the importance of these
four walls for this particular task and the opportunity that we have with you.
I: Yeah, and that’s a great point too, because we’ll be revealing some things about
our own practices that we might not want everyone else to know because we are
going to talk about something that we’re struggling with and that’s something
that’s going to elicit some emotions within us, maybe, and so can we agree that, I
guess, what we say in this space will stay in the space? Unless it’s something
that’s like life threatening or you know, where we have to fulfill our duties as a
mandated reporter. But can we agree that what we say in here stays within the
within these walls? (everyone else also nods and says yeah) … And then I would
just add maybe one norm into our discussion agreements, which could be, if we
are, if we do have a disagreement of ideas, it’s more so that we are, I would say,
maybe, challenging the idea but not the person. So then, and I don’t think it will
happen in this space, but just establishing some ground rule that you don’t feel
personally attacked, but it’s more so that it’s the idea that’s being challenged and
not the person, if it comes to that.

87
I began my naming of power dynamics with “Um, so,” demonstrating that I was wary about
saying what I was about to say out of fear for how my participants would receive it. I followed
with, “because we are going to be talking about something you might be struggling with,”
communicating to my participants that we were not perfect in our practices, and they could
expect to confide in one another about a problem of practice. Furthermore, I signaled that I
recognized our discourse about each other’s struggles might expose us to emotional and
psychological harm when I said, “there may be some vulnerability in our conversations,” which
was an acknowledgement of the central role of affect in learning (Yorks & Kasl, 2002). I was
beginning to protect my participants’ social and emotional safety in our holding environment
through my mentioning of their affective states. “And also,” conveyed that it was not just our
discussion of our problems of practice that could lead to harm. I pointed to another factor as the
power dynamics in our space through my language, “just recognizing that there are some power
dynamics in this room,” illustrating my effort to address Wergin’s (2019) caution of the
inattention to power in group learning. I followed with, “right?,” suggesting that I was seeking
affirmation that there are indeed power dynamics that existed in our space. My participants’
response, “mm,” implied they also recognized the power dynamics in this space. I explicitly
named the positional power differentials when I said, “So we have Zoe, who’s the Assistant
Principal and just naming it and so she has a supervisory role and then Lillian might be a
supervisor for … (Sara points at herself) for Sara.” When I inserted, “and just naming it,” I
cushioned what I was saying out of fear that my participants would interpret this as an accusation
demonstrating my low level of trust in the group. When I called attention to Zoe’s “supervisory
role,” I telegraphed that Zoe had the power to induce a fear of retribution. I followed with “and
then Lillian might be a supervisor for,” communicating I knew Lillian was in a position of

88
power, but I did not know if she oversaw any of the participants. Sara then pointed at herself,
indicating that she was cognizant of her supervisor in the room. My language, “and so I don’t
want people to feel like they can’t say certain things because they might get in trouble by their
supervisor,” implied my desire for authentic discourse and that an obstacle to achieving this
would be a fear of retribution. This was consistent with Raelin’s (2001) claim that emotions
might detract from learning experiences and that having trust is crucial for reflecting with others.
I telegraphed I respected their choice in what they chose to reveal when I said, “And also
you don’t have to say anything that you don’t want to say.” Implied in my statement was the idea
that trust was not something that was demanded, but it was to be cultivated in the group so that
my participants could feel safe enough to confide in one another. I also expressed that I would
not abuse my power as the researcher in the room and was conscious of their right to leave the
study through my words, “I won’t force you to say anything, um, because your participation is
voluntary.” I illustrated there would not be any acts of retribution from me as a researcher no
matter how they chose to participate in my study. Furthermore, I demonstrated my consciousness
around how I would not misuse power to pressure them (Raelin, 2001). I added, “but,” signaling
while they might opt out of conversations, I was going to create conditions that would encourage
them to opt in on our conversations. This idea mirrored the notion that merely getting my
participants in a room to talk about their problems was futile without attending to the conditions
that would allow for them to do it in a productive way (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Levine &
Marcus, 2007; Wergin, 2019). Furthermore, invoking feelings of fear would be
counterproductive to fostering trust between us. Instead, I wanted us to “think about how we can
establish some discussion agreements so we can think about how we show up in this space and
how we communicate with one another.” My words suggested the discussion agreements we

89
created could have the potential to increase the amount of trust between and could dictate how
we interacted with one another. I expressed my respect for their agency and that I desired their
input when I said, “And I’m thinking we could do this collectively.” Implied in my reasoning,
“so it’s not just like I’m telling you what to do,” was the repeated message that I would not abuse
my own power and to trust that this was a safe space for them to engage in, without fear of
retribution or judgment (Raelin). Furthermore, this was aligned with the idea that too much
direction can be debilitating and not sustainable when the purpose is to “mobilize people to
tackle challenges and thrive” (Heifetz et al., 2009, p. 14). I drew on Northouse’s (2019) idea of
productive norms when I further conveyed that we needed to be intentional with how we
interacted with one another when I stated, “but we can kind of think about how we want to
engage with one another.” I asked, “So what do we think? Shall we take a couple minutes to jot
down some ideas for how we want to work with one another?,” expressing my belief that
establishing discussion agreements required thinking time. However, I did not present it as a
statement and instead presented it as a question implying they had the power to determine what
they needed and encouraging them to trust that I would respect their decision without delivering
any repercussions. I added, “Like our discussion, they’re like norms, discussion agreements,”
telegraphing the term, “discussion agreements,” might not be one that they are familiar with and
offered the term, “norms,” demonstrating my awareness that their prior experiences might
contribute to their learning (Warford, 2010). I concluded with, “and then we’ll share out what we
think,” providing the opportunity for us to begin confiding in one another in this space.
Rhea’s immediate response, “Can we just say it?,” showed that she felt safe enough to
offer her opinion, demonstrating that some level of trust existed for Rhea to jump into
conversation without hesitation. I responded with, “If you’re ready, you can say it but if someone

90
needs like, processing time to think about things,” implying other participants might have needed
processing time. I then said, “What are, where are we at? You’re ready,” expressing my curiosity
about the readiness of the rest of my participants and “you’re ready” meant that only Rhea gave
me visual feedback while the rest of my participants did not. When Rhea said, “Well, I’m at the
place where I,” she telegraphed that she had arrived at this idea and it might not have always
been her experience. She continued with, “I don’t feel that in this group,” directing the attention
to her affective state with respect to her participation in our group. Her language, “because I,
we’re all coming from the same ilk,” implied what contributed to her affective state was the idea
that we all had something in common. She expanded on what she meant when she said, “I feel
like the four of us, where we just want to help our students, help the students here.” Rhea
telegraphed her belief that we are all here for the same purpose and that was to help the students
on our campus. Her addition, “So the power dynamic I don’t know,” signaled her belief that if
we were all here to help our students, she was not sure that the power dynamics that existed
would be a problem. She then asked, “How do you guys feel?” without wait time and
immediately followed with, “I don’t feel inhibited or you know,” suggesting her question was
rhetorical and she was comfortable with sharing her own feelings. Rhea’s response illustrated
that she was not afraid of the possibility that power dynamics could influence our interactions
and she did not feel inhibited by the people of positional power in the room, Lillian and Zoe.
Rhea’s sentiments mirrored Raelin’s (2001) argument that not everyone has the same level of
psychological security in reflecting with others. Rhea’s courage to disagree with my statement
demonstrated that she trusted me enough to share a dissenting opinion without fear of some
repercussion from me. Sara agreed with Rhea’s sentiments with, “Yeah, I don’t feel inhibited
either,” communicating her belief that people of power in the room were not going to affect her

91
participation in the group. Rhea responded with, “Yeah,” emphasizing her idea once more. In
this part of the discussion, the people in positions of power, Lillian and Zoe, did not speak to the
concept of power dynamics. Lillian’s silence implied that she did not feel safe enough to express
her own opinions about this matter, for fear of retribution and judgment, which was consistent
with what she shared with me prior to the session. Zoe’s silence implied that she was not going
to say anything to soothe other participants’ fear of retribution, which consequently fed the fear
of retribution in the room.
I avoided further discussion about power dynamics when I said, “Um, so aside from the
power dynamic that could influence how we show up in a space,” indicating I felt a level of
discomfort to further explain the conscious and unconscious ways power dynamics affect group
interactions. My response pointed to my low level of trust because I demonstrated a fear of
retribution and a fear of judgment when Rhea and Sara did not agree with me, and I did not push
back. Additionally, my feelings of safety were threatened, indicating the quality of our holding
environment was not conducive for learning and my redirection was a regulation of my own
distress (Northouse, 2016). I then asked, “are there other norms of just communicating with one
another that we would like to establish?” redirecting the conversation to norms of
communication. Sara responded with, “I’m good with communicating during school hours, but
not on weekends,” telegraphing her boundary between work time and personal time. She added,
“that’s my time,” signaling her weekends were meant for focusing on herself and that did not
include the work involving my dissertation. She followed with, “I’m sorry, haha,” which implied
that she had a level of self-consciousness and nervousness around how others would respond to
her setting a boundary demonstrating a fear of judgment. I empathized with her need for work-
life balance when I said, “I disconnected my email … (trails off),” demonstrating that she was

92
not alone with her valuing her time outside of work hours. By connecting with Sara’s need for
work-life balance, I expressed that I did not judge what she said, nor would there be retribution
for communicating her boundary. Furthermore, this exemplified my desire to connect with my
participants’ values to mobilize them (Heifetz et al., 2009). Sara’s addition of, “Yeah I just don’t
respond to stuff like that after hours,” telegraphed that her boundary did not solely apply to our
space, and it was how she operated.
At this point, Zoe exercised her authority and positional power in the room. Her
language, “I may caution though,” signaled that she was warning us of possible repercussions if
we did not abide by what followed, “that we don’t take away too many, uh, you know, if it’s a
classroom time or if it’s, you know, a prep or anything.” She set her foot down and established
that we should not be meeting during a teacher’s class time or prep time. Her words telegraphed
that she did not trust us to fulfill our duties and we needed to be reminded of our obligations. She
reinforced the norm of prioritizing our contractual duties over reflection on our professional
practices with, “that we don’t impede on the on the contractual things.” She demonstrated her
power to obstruct our meetings when she said, “as long as it it’s free from that then then we’re
good to go,” and acknowledged that her power came from her position, “I mean, I guess that’s
my supervisory role I have to insert but otherwise.” She rationalized her exercise of power when
she said, “in that, because we have to speak for our kids, but otherwise,” communicating her
belief that what we were doing was distinct from our duty to educate our students. My response,
“Um, sorry,” represented my deference toward Zoe as I asked her to elaborate, indicating my
fear of retribution for asking Zoe to clarify. I asked Zoe to “expand a little bit on that,” signaling
I did not understand the disconnect she saw between what we are doing for my dissertation and
what we should be doing for our students. Zoe explained, “So since we’re meeting five, up to

93
five more times,” telegraphing her belief that my dissertation would be taking up a lot of time.
Her language, “so that we don’t impact any time that we would need to spend with students or
prepping for our contractual duties,” conveyed our contractual duties were to be our priority.
Implied in, “you know,” was her assumption that I must be in agreement with her. She added,
“since it’s for a dissertation,” minimizing the importance of my dissertation and juxtaposed it
with, “which is great,” sending a mixed signal. She concluded with, “I want to support and
empower you,” telegraphing her desire to be of assistance so long as my dissertation did not
interfere with our contractual duties and her use of the word “empower” suggested Zoe had
power to give me demonstrating her higher power in the room. My terse response, “Thank you,”
indicated my low level of trust as I did not take the opportunity to explain how my dissertation
work was aligned with our students’ educational outcomes for fear of retribution. My reticence
illustrated a discomfort in disagreeing with colleagues that was consistent with our school culture
as mentioned above. Furthermore, our interaction exemplified Raelin’s (2001) caution of the way
people might use power to “exert influence and suppress dissent” (p. 18).
Following Zoe’s statement, our conversation was centered around worries about fulfilling
contractual obligations. Rhea telegraphed her fear of retribution when she asked, “In the event
that a student is in my office during the fourth period what should be the norm for that?” I was
slow to respond and needed more information as conveyed in my language, “Okay, uh, and then
this is like last minute like they showed up and then.” Implied in my response was that our
agreed upon meeting time should be protected time and participants should not be scheduling
meetings during this time. Rhea’s response, “It’s yeah, I, everything is very spontaneous in my
day,” verified her hypothetical situation would be unplanned for. My words, “then you have to
attend to the student” mirrored Zoe’s previous words, “that we don’t impact time we would need

94
to spend with students,” demonstrating my fear of retribution if I did not take Zoe’s words into
account. I did not realize that in this moment, I set a precedent for my participants’ attendance
with, “we could carry on and then you’ll just be missing from that week,” prioritizing our
contractual duties over my dissertation. I signaled that an absence would not be ideal, “if we
know earlier in advance then perhaps we could reschedule around it?” communicating my intent
for our meetings to take place at a time when all participants could meet. My delivery was in the
form of a question suggesting I was tiptoeing around this idea for fear of retribution. The
repeated act of confirming my proposed solution was acceptable, “Does that sound good?”
signified my effort to ensure Rhea felt safe and that she could trust I would not ask her to do
anything that would jeopardize her career. Sara shared sentiments like Rhea’s with, “Yeah, I
would have the same issue, yeah if there’s something major that comes, then I need to go out,”
further illustrating my efforts to increase trust were in competition with a looming fear of
retribution if any of us were to say anything that would suggest a failure to fulfill our duties.
Subsequently, I shifted our conversation back to discussion agreements, “Okay, um, what about
norms like the ones we established with our students,” demonstrating my effort to minimize the
harm produced by Zoe’s words and continued to work toward building trust.
Drawing on Warford’s (2010) acknowledgment of the impact adult learners’ prior
experiences have on their learning, my use of the word “like” directed my participants to draw
on a similar experience and translate it over to our current activity. When I said, “the ones we
established with our students,” I expressed my assumption that all my participants had
experience creating norms with their students. Implied in my question, “what counts as respect in
the space between us?” was the idea that there are various ways to demonstrate respect and we
might not all be on the same page about what kind of behavior is determined as respectful

95
behavior (Arao & Clemens, 2013). I telegraphed that it was acceptable and safe in this space for
us to have different perspectives about what respect looked like and they would not be judged for
it. My use of the word, “if,” signaled that there was a reasonable expectation that we would
“have different perspectives about a topic that we’re discussing,” and my language of “different
perspectives” was an expression of my anticipation that we would not agree in this space. My
question, “how might we deliver these different perspectives” suggested that our disagreements
could raise some emotional or psychological harm and the way we “deliver” our thoughts, the
language, the tone we used mattered because if people felt attacked or judged, their emotions
would run high and they were more likely to reject new perspectives (Wergin, 2019). Instead, we
needed to communicate in a way that allowed us to be open to hearing one another’s thoughts in
lieu of reacting defensively. Implied in my question was an acknowledgment that not everyone
in the room felt equally safe (Raelin, 2001) and I did not believe we could confide in one another
because I was not sure that trust existed in the room. I raised my participants’ consciousness to
the idea that our interactions would diverge from our typical interactions at our school where
dissenting opinions were not encouraged nor welcomed and we appeared to all agree. I added,
“but also respect one another’s perspectives?” where my use of “but” served as a caveat that the
act of offering a different perspective was not free from inflicting harm to others and, therefore,
we needed to deliberate on how we could communicate varying perspectives without inducing a
fear of retribution or judgment. We needed to ponder what was needed for us to trust one
another.
I gave my participants wait time without interruption, demonstrating I valued their
thinking as intellectuals with the capacity to formulate their own ideas. After 30 seconds, Lillian
was the first one to jump in suggesting while she might have been reticent, she trusted us enough

96
to confide in us. Her words, “I think one thing I’m kind of thinking about right now” represented
a level of uncertainty about whether it is safe enough for her speak freely. This idea was
reinforced by her next words, “but I haven’t come to as sort of a feeling of it for myself yet,”
illustrating a lack of confidence that what she was going to say was going to be well received by
others. Her indirectness in her language implied that Lillian was wary about the consequences of
sharing her thoughts. While Lillian was taking a risk and confiding in us, it was not free from the
fear of retribution or judgment indicating her low level of trust. When she said, “this is such a
unique group,” her language pointed to the fact that our group was unlike any other group
because they were being asked to expose themselves in front of people of power in different
positions at different levels of the school. Her statement was then followed by the phrase,
“right,” softening her statement because Lillian had yet to trust this space enough to make bold
claims without a fear of repercussions. This phrase also signaled her belief that we all had to
agree and that we recognized such power dynamics. Lillian implied she was not confident that
she could say what she really wanted to say in this space without putting her position at risk or
being judged. Her fear of retribution was reinforced with her belief that “it’s connected to school
but in some ways it’s, it’s not,” communicating that we would be entering unchartered territory
at our school and what she said could jeopardize her career. She then added “right” a second time
and “if that makes sense,” as a protective clause to shield her from judgment from others further
demonstrating her low level of trust.
Lillian then compared our space, not to any other room at school, but to a room with clear
power structures even within the name of the room, when she asked,
if we have conversations that we want to have with each other should they be within this
safe space? Because I think there’s something to be said sort of emotionally and

97
psychologically, of just place and time and space. And I think that if there is something
that is said here, and we were to have a conversation say about it in the PCR [Principal’s
Conference Room] I don’t know that that would, I’m still processing, I don’t know that
that would feel safe, necessarily for me within the context of this unique work.
Implied in her example of choice was her belief that the physical location in which we had our
sessions could reduce her fear of retribution for what she said and increase her trust that her
confidentiality would not be broken. Lillian’s belief resembled Raelin’s (2001) assertion that
there are varying degrees of physical and psychological safety that exist among participants. The
PCR was an example of a space that lacked trust, where there was a chance for repercussions if
she were to communicate honestly in a room with clear power differentials. When Lillian said, “I
don’t know that that would, I’m still processing, I don’t know that that would feel safe,
necessarily for me within the context of this unique work,” she telegraphed her need to meet in a
location that reduced her anxiety about feeling judged so that she could confide in others about
her thoughts regarding students’ sense of belonging and trust that there would not be any
repercussions. She pointed to a fear of broken confidentiality when she said, “Um but then I
recognize pragmatically that it may not always be, I mean, I don’t know if this is a space that
could be open like if Sara and I wanted to have a private conversation,” conveying that she did
not want what she shared in this space to be repeated to others for fear of the repercussions that
might follow. She then asked, “Could we come into this space in habit at a time that’s convenient
for the Wellness Center that doesn’t impede on students and whatnot,” in a way that
acknowledged the power in the room and alluded to her fear of retribution or judgment. She
concluded with, “but I’m just thinking of the importance of these four walls for this particular
task and the opportunity that we have with you,” again emphasizing how our physical location

98
could reduce her fear and the uniqueness of what I was asking them to do. Through her response
to my question, Lillian signaled that before she could begin to think about how we could offer
and respect different perspectives, she needed to feel safe from retribution and judgment if she
were to confide in us.
My response to Lillian, “Yeah, and that’s a great point too,” affirmed Lillian’s idea by
demonstrating her input was valuable and she was not being judged for it. Drawing on Spikes
(2018), it was important to help my participants not feel judged so that they could be vulnerable
and feel safe. I explained why Lillian’s input was valuable with, “we’ll be,” communicating my
participants could expect to, “revealing some things about our own practices,” pointing to the act
of confiding in one another about our professional work. Implied in “that we might not want
everyone else to know,” was the idea that we keep some things to ourselves because we do not
trust others with that information, but this would be a space where we could trust one another. I
specified that they could expect to confide in one another not just about any topic, but about a
problem they have not quite figured out, something that they are “struggling with.” I also
expressed that the act of confiding in one another with our struggles puts us in a position of
vulnerability when I said, “and that’s something that’s going to elicit some emotions within us.”
I added, “maybe,” suggesting the impact on one’s emotion would vary.
My words, “and so” communicated because I was going to ask them to be vulnerable
with one another, “can we agree that, I guess, what we say in this space will stay in the space?”
Through that question, I explicitly requested that we adhere to a discussion agreement of
confidentiality for what we share with one another to build trust. As Hartiman et al. (2007)
argue, “participants need some basic discussion guidelines in order to develop trust” (as cited in
Arao & Clemens, 2013, p. 54). I added, “Unless it’s something that’s like life threatening or you

99
know, where we have to fulfill our duties as a mandated reporter,” telegraphing my
consciousness around our legal obligations that come with our profession. My participants all
agreed with nonverbal (nod) and verbal (“yeah”) consent indicating that they were willing to
adhere to what I had proposed and contribute to the increase of trust between us. My indirect
language, “I would just add maybe,” suggested I was hesitant to propose another discussion
agreement out of fear that I would cause too much distress, which was aligned with the need to
regulate distress so that my participants could enter productive zones of disequilibrium (Heifetz
et al., 2009). Again, I followed with more indirect language, “which could be, if we are, if we do
have a disagreement of ideas, it’s more so that we are, I would say, maybe,” demonstrating my
discomfort at the time. My proposed discussion agreement, “challenging the idea but not the
person,” illustrated my effort to mitigate any fear of retribution or judgment to build trust and
was inspired by one of Arao and Clemens’s proposed norms to cultivate a brave space. I
conveyed we would be interrogating one another’s thinking with the words, “challenging the
idea.” My words, “but not the person” signaled that we would not be engaging in any personal
attacks and represented my effort to attend to the fear of retribution and judgment. My language,
“I don’t think it will happen in this space,” communicated my belief that what follows was
unlikely to happen. I added, “but,” indicating there was still a chance. Therefore, I needed to
implement a discussion agreement where my participants “don’t feel personally attacked, but it’s
more so that it’s the idea that’s being challenged and not the person.” My proposed discussion
agreement demonstrated my effort to deepen trust so that people would be open to different ideas
and not feel personally attacked (Raelin, 2001) or a need to be defensive (Arao & Clemens). I
ended with, “if it comes to that,” which again emphasized my belief that personal attacks are not
likely to happen but in the case that they do we need to come back to this discussion agreement.

100
Following our conversation around discussion agreements, I moved onto the next piece
of my agenda. I stated, “I’m curious what we all think about what it means to have, for students
to have a sense of belonging, because I think there’s a lot of different ways to conceptualize it or
imagine what it might look like for students to feel like they belong on campus.” Through my
language, I was trying to deepen trust by reducing the fear of judgment. In encouraging different
perspectives, I was attempting to eliminate a “right” or “wrong” answer. I then introduced a slide
deck where each participant had a slide to answer the three questions: (a) What does it mean for
students to have a sense of belonging?; (b) Why is it important?; and (c) What affects your sense
of belonging? Subsequently, I welcomed my participants to be creative in different ways we
could represent our thoughts by offering various mediums such as writing, drawing, or creating a
digital collage. I asked that they not peek into other participants slides so their responses would
not be influenced by others’ responses and let them know that we would share out afterward. I
gave my participants 10 minutes to work on this task and then I shared my slide first. Sara
followed me, then Zoe, and then Rhea shared next. The following example further demonstrates
Rhea’s low level of trust in the first session due to her fear of judgment that is evident in her
response to the third question, “What affects your sense of belonging?”
R: Yeah, um, for me, if I’m, I don’t know if I interpreted this the right way but if I’m
tired, or drained, or stressed, or I’ve been isolated all day just like in my office,
but with kids, but it was like I didn’t mean to isolate all day then my sense of
belonging is negatively impacted.
In the excerpt from our first session together, Rhea began her response by saying, “Yeah, um, for
me, if I’m,” demonstrating some degree of insecurity about how safe it is for her to share her
opinions. She then interrupted her response to the question by saying “I don’t know if I

101
interpreted this the right way.” Her statement indicated that she was not sure if she understood
the question correctly. Implied in her response was that she was afraid she might be judged for
her interpretation of the question. This illustrated her low level of trust in this space because
there existed a level of fear of judgment from others. Consequently, her level of trust in the
group would dictate how vulnerable she was willing to be with the group and confide in them
without fear of judgment. Her uncertainty about her understanding of the question did not
prevent her from sharing her thought as indicated by, “but,” as she continued to answer the
question. This implied while she had a fear of being judged, her fear was not debilitating and
there was some level of trust.
Starting from the second cycle, which was our fourth session, one participant would share
her problem of practice in our practitioner inquiry community per session. Drawing on
Brookfield’s (2017) idea for the leader to take risks first before expecting others to do the same, I
went first to model the process of describing a problem of practice and to demonstrate my
willingness to be vulnerable as my participants interrogated my thinking. I wanted to illustrate
that I trusted them, and it was safe for them to reciprocate that trust without any repercussions.
At the end of the fourth session, I asked if either Lillian or Rhea would feel comfortable going
next. Rhea communicated she needed time to think about it while Lillian offered to go next.
Rhea’s hesitance indicated she was not ready to confide in us yet, while Lillian’s volunteering
was a demonstration of her increased level of trust in us and her willingness to confide in us. In
the second cycle, Zoe was absent from all sessions but the sixth session, for which I approached
her and asked if she was willing to share her problem of practice and she agreed. Zoe was not in
attendance for other sessions in this cycle for various reasons such as other meetings and then
later she was transitioning into her new role at a different school site. My preference was for my

102
participants in positions of power to share their problem of practice first before Rhea went so that
she could witness the safety around sharing our challenges with one another and trust us with her
problem of practice.
By our last meeting as a whole group, there was a substantial increase of trust between
Rhea, Lillian, and me. Rhea’s level of trust in the group increased from worrying about
interpreting questions the “right” way to being more assertive through her words and tone,
demonstrating a reduced fear of judgment. Furthermore, her willingness to be vulnerable and
expose what she needed to improve on demonstrated a reduction in her fear of retribution.
Lillian’s level of trust in the group shifted from having concern about her reticence due to a fear
of retribution to taking risks in probing Rhea as she shared her problem of practice. My own
level of trust shifted from having reservations about challenging my participants’ thinking
toward having confidence to express opposing opinions illustrating a diminished fear of
retribution and judgment.
The excerpt below takes place in the context of Rhea sharing her problem of practice in
our practitioner inquiry community (PIC). As a PIC, we were engaging in inquiry to “uncover,
articulate, and question [our] own assumptions” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 141) about
the promotion of students’ sense of belonging. Prior to our last session, I approached Rhea and
invited her to share a problem of practice for our last session and she accepted. In contrast with
the fourth session where she was hesitant to accept my invitation, her acceptance this time
suggested she trusted us enough to be willing to confide in us. Additionally, I reminded her of
her professional goal that she shared with us the first session, which was to learn more about her
transgender students and their needs. I encouraged Rhea to connect the problem of practice she

103
would be sharing to her goal and our objective of promoting students’ sense of belonging. Rhea
began to describe her problem of practice in the following excerpt:
R: Okay, so I wrote the problem on my phone. So just to describe the problem that
I’m having with a student, and it does relate to their sense of belonging in the long
run. I have a student that comes to me often just escaping avoidance going to
class. And for this particular problem, though, this student has, what I’m labeling
as irrational because it’s my it’s not a nice way for me to describe it, but I can’t, I
can’t think of this any other way. It’s like an irrational fear the student has of a
teacher because the teacher reminds them of a teacher they had in middle school
that was traumatizing to that student. However, this student has never even given
this teacher a chance like they’ve barely I want to say they’ve not gone to the
class and actually interacted with the teacher at all. It’s just they won’t go in and
so that’s the problem, the struggle. And so, what, to layer on top of that, I don’t
want, because one of the ways to solve it is just to change the schedule because of
this, so the student doesn’t have to have this class right now. Just because we
can’t think of the student’s GLC and me, we can’t think of ways to get this to
work. So that would be the easy way out or have the student take a class over the
summer and just prolong the actual facing of, because this teacher only is the only
one that teaches this class. And I’m calling it irrational which it doesn’t feel right
for me to say they have this irrational fear. But I’ve tried so many angles of like
nudging them, you know, trying to nudge them and make them see the big picture
and talking about people as humans and you know, and nothing is helping. So,
just out of frustration, I’m calling it an irrational fear of this teacher, because

104
they’ve never even interacted with them. So much so that they don’t even want to
walk past the door of the classroom because of the fear and how much this teacher
reminds them of this other teacher that they had in middle school, so.
Rhea’s readiness to confide in us about her problem of practice was evident through her
language, “I wrote the problem on my phone,” implying she took the time to think about what
she wanted to share in this space and trusted us enough to share with us. Her words, “and it does
relate to sense of belonging in the long run,” represented a reciprocity of trust where she assured
me that she was going to present a problem of practice that was relevant to her professional goal
and students’ sense of belonging, as I had encouraged. Her confidence in herself was telegraphed
through the words, “it does relate,” as she used more assertive language demonstrating a reduced
fear in being judged. She described her student as “irrational” multiple times and acknowledged
through the phrases, “what I’m labeling,” and “I’m calling it,” that the perceived irrationality
was from her perspective and opened the door to the possibility of other perspectives. Consistent
with Raelin (2001), Rhea’s openness for her ideas to be challenged was demonstrative of her
trust. Furthermore, she was expressing vulnerability by taking a risk and opening herself up to
retribution and judgment as she communicated her thoughts and feelings. Rhea’s behavior
mimicked what Arao and Clemens (2013) contended, where a brave space requires participants
to take risks by being vulnerable and receptive to new information. Her words, “it’s not a nice
way for me to describe it,” illustrated her consciousness around a fault of hers and demonstrated
her belief that this space was safe enough for her to admit her own fault. She added, “but I can’t,
I can’t think of this any other way,” voicing her concern of being stuck with perceiving her
student as irrational and implying she was seeking help from us to understand this situation. Her
language, “it doesn’t feel right for me to say they have this irrational fear,” further indicated that

105
her current understanding of the problem did not sit well with her, and she would be open to our
assistance in understanding her student’s fear. Her reflection, “I’ve tried so many angles,” and
“nothing is helping,” signaled the distress she felt in her experience and her ability to confide in
us about her experience. In addition, she expressed how her affective state contributed to her
problem of practice as she described, “so just out of frustration,” indicating Rhea trusted us
enough to be vulnerable with her feelings and trusted that we would help her learn and not attack
or judge her for what she shared with us. While Raelin warns about participants having different
levels of safety to publicly reflect, Rhea indicated her degree of safety allowed her to share her
reflection with us in a vulnerable manner. This further supports the notion that Rhea trusted us as
trust is a precondition for reflective discourse (Yorks & Kasl, 2002).
After Rhea’s description of the problem of practice, we engaged in asking specifying
questions to help Rhea specify and expand on her problem of practice. Subsequently, we moved
on to asking probing questions to analyze her experience and draw out “facts, reasons,
assumptions, inferences, and possible consequences of a given suggestion or action” (Raelin,
2001, p. 27). In the following excerpt, Lillian probes Rhea’s thinking:
L: This one’s a tough one. Is there anybody, of all, of the different people involved
in the different voices that had input, is there anybody’s voice who you need to be
involved that has not been involved?
R: I don’t know. I would assume everybody is. Oh, maybe that teacher, maybe those
teachers if they were in that student’s IEP meeting, or you know, with the student,
because I don’t know if that’s happened.
L: And what impact do you do you think that that might have if the teachers voice
was included these two different teachers?

106
R: With the one that they’re afraid of, so, they would actually see that this is a human
being not to fear? And then with that teacher that they would often escape the last
semester, [the GLC] had the class with the student practically one on one, if that
teacher could speak more and to that student’s sense of like, wanting them in the
classroom and wanting them to feel comfortable and happy with them. I don’t
know if that ever happened actually.
I: That’s interesting.
R: Yeah.
I: Because we were talking about humanizing the student or dehumanizing, but a
solution that I just heard could be humanizing the teacher …
R: Yes!
I: For the student.
R: Yes, and I haven’t been effective doing that. You know, because I’m just saying
of course, I’m going to say “No, this teacher is so nice,” you know, but they have
to see it for themselves. Yeah, it’s been completely ineffective. Me trying to
convince this student that the teacher’s not who they think they’re, you know.
Yeah. So, humanizing more the teacher.
Lillian validated Rhea’s struggle through her words, “This one’s a tough one.” Through her
response, Lillian demonstrated that she was not judging Rhea for disclosing her problem at hand
and affirmed her difficulty with the issue at hand. Lillian asked, “Is there anybody, of all, of the
different people involved in the different voices that had input, is there anybody’s voice who you
need to be involved that has not been involved?” In the initial part of her question, Lillian
indicated that she was listening to Rhea describe her problem of practice and noticed there were

107
various people who had a say in the matter. Lillian’s active listening communicated to Rhea that
she could trust Lillian to listen intently and care about her problem of practice as Rhea confided
in us. The latter part of Lillian’s question served as a nudge for Rhea to consider whose voice
was missing from the problem at hand. Lillian’s comfort in pushing Rhea’s thinking indicated
Lillian trusted that Rhea would not attack or judge her for asking her questions. Moreover,
Lillian’s responses emulated an atmosphere of trust that allowed for our learning among one
another (Wergin, 2019).
Rhea initially responded to Lillian’s question with, “I don’t know. I would assume
everybody is,” which demonstrated that her thinking of the problem had not changed in that
moment. Then, there is evidence that Lillian’s question stimulated a new perspective for Rhea
when she said, “Oh, maybe that teacher, maybe those teachers if they were in that student’s IEP
meeting, or you know, with the student, because I don’t know if that’s happened.” Rhea’s
thinking of Lillian’s question also telegraphed that she was open to Lillian’s line of questioning.
Lillian extended Rhea’s thinking with “And what impact do you do you think that that might
have if the teachers voice was included these two different teachers?,” demonstrating Lillian
trusted Rhea enough to push her thinking even more without a fear of retribution or judgment. In
this interaction, Lillian telegraphed her respect for Rhea as an intellectual and offered her support
without depriving her of her agency to work through her problem of practice. Lillian’s approach
to challenging Rhea’s thinking was resonant with our discussion agreement from our first session
where we agreed that a challenge to an idea was distinct from a challenge to a person and should
be done with respect.
Rhea expressed that she was open to Lillian’s probing through her response, “With the
one that they’re afraid of, so, they would actually see that this is a human being not to fear?” Her

108
use of a rhetorical question here demonstrated she was thinking about Lillian’s question for her.
Rhea then arrived at an idea that centered the role of teachers, “if that teacher could speak more
and to that student’s sense of like, wanting them in the classroom and wanting them to feel
comfortable and happy with them,” in contrast to her previous sentiments of feeling stuck and
helpless with her problem of practice. Her words, “I don’t know if that ever happened actually,”
indicated her realization that there were still various approaches to apply to her problem of
practice and her thinking through the questions illustrated her openness to new perspectives,
demonstrating her trust in us. Lillian and Rhea’s engagement in the asking and answering of
probing questions demonstrated their reciprocal trust. Drawing on Horn and Little (2010) and
Levine and Marcus (2007), Lillian’s ability to question and critique Rhea’s thinking was due to
the existence of their trusting relationship. Since Lillian’s trust had deepened, she could probe
Rhea without a fear of offending her because of our trust that the act of probing was to help us all
grow in our ability to promote students’ sense of belonging on our campus. Lillian was not here
to attack or judge Rhea for what Rhea chose to share in confidence. On the receiving end, Rhea’s
increase of trust allowed her to be open to Lillian’s ideas without feelings of being personally
attacked (Raelin, 2001) and the need to react defensively (Arao & Clemens, 2013).
I conveyed Rhea’s response was particularly interesting and explained why it stood out to
me, “Because we were talking about humanizing the student or dehumanizing, but a solution that
I just heard could be humanizing the teacher for the student.” My rationale illustrated that Rhea’s
response had shifted my own perspective about humanization and my blind spot for teachers,
demonstrating my trust in them allowed me to be open to new perspectives as well (Arao &
Clemens, 2013). Rhea exclaimed, “Yes!,” indicating a positive affective state as we engaged in
collective inquiry illustrating her emotional safety at hand. Rhea telegraphed that she trusted us

109
by being honest and vulnerable with her approach to the problem and said, “Yes, and I haven’t
been effective doing that.” She provided her rationale for her belief with, “You know, because
I’m just saying of course, I’m going to say ‘No, this teacher is so nice,’ you know, but they have
to see it for themselves,” and demonstrated her adoption of a new perspective. She reiterated,
“Yeah, it’s been completely ineffective. Me trying to convince this student that the teacher’s not
who they think they’re, you know. Yeah. So, humanizing more the teacher,” again opening
herself up to judgment and retribution by communicating how she had contributed to her own
problem and demonstrating her trust in us through her act of confiding in us. Furthermore, the
distress of foregoing a previous perspective in favor of an alternative perspective (Boostrom,
1998 as cited in Arao & Clemens) had not caused Rhea to feel unsafe, which speaks to the
quality of our holding environment as one where trust had deepened.
About 6 minutes of discourse between Lillian and Rhea occurred as Lillian continued to
probe Rhea and eventually touched on the experimentation piece of our PIC protocol.
Experimentation in our PIC involved engaging in new ways of thinking and behaving by acting
out various scenarios to consider how we could restore our learners’ sense of belonging with
respect to their identity-related experiences.
L: Sorry, I kind of monopolized this.
I: No, this is great because it moved all the way to experimentation which nobody
was able to get to, like me, you, like we were never able to get to experimentation
because that’s the idea to role-play.
R: This is perfect.
I: And Lillian just had so many different ideas.
R: Yeah.

110
I: And my inclination is because you had said it’s almost definite that the student is
going to take summer school and like the schedule is going to change.
R: Yeah.
I: But I’m also wondering, is there room to work with the student the rest of the
semester where the ideas that came out, having the student talk to other students.
R: In that class.
I: Or even communicate with the teacher and maybe the teacher can also, you know,
be understanding and he doesn’t, the students need to make up every day’s work
but what are some things that we can give the students so there’s still a chance for
the student to finish the school year in this class and not have to take it over
summer.
R: There could be a middle ground.
I: Because I think we said earlier, like not having the student in this class and taking
it in the summer is a disservice to the student.
R: Yeah.
I: And we’re trying to get the student to feel like they belong in that classroom.
R: Right. Yeah!
L: I think too, right, to feel empowered because if you can’t articulate, you can’t
empower, right? So the student, it’s like trying to get that student to be able to
articulate so that the right supports can be put in place like right now this idea of
just caving in and retreating, is not, is not humanizing to himself, herself. Like
and recognizing, like trying to create that cognitive shift for that student.

111
R: Yeah, I just keep thinking also, there is a lot of manipulation that has occurred,
you know.
L: Maybe.
I: We just, we don’t know unless we really,
R: Yeah.
I: Talk to the student. Because it seems like there’s a lot of stuff that, that wasn’t
said. We don’t have the specifics of like, what exactly happened in middle
school? Why is it you can’t be in this class? Why can’t you be in this other class?
R: Yeah, because of course, it was the student’s perception of what happened in
middle school. But if I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the to the middle
school teacher too, humanize that teacher, because the, how extreme, this is so
extreme that you would think that teacher would be in jail or fired or something,
but they’re not. So it’s a lot of perception, too.
I: Right. And then I guess part of humanizing the learner too, is not, is to
acknowledge that this is like, this is what they think, this is their truth, instead of
saying,
R: Yes.
I: This did not happen.
L: Mhmm.
R: Yeah.
I: So it’s, it’s tough.

112
R: Which I, of course, we all have, because I get I’ll get frustrated out of just like not
being able to help the kid, like I’ll get frustrated that they’re not seeing things the
way I think what really happened, you know, so there’s that too.
Lillian’s language, “Sorry, I kind of monopolized this,” indicated she was aware of how much
space she was taking up and believed that she should step back for me to engage in the
conversation. Her actions telegraphed her consciousness around interacting respectfully in our
space as mentioned in our conversation about discussion agreements. I gave Lillian affirmation
that it was okay to move in that direction when I said, “No, this is great because it moved all the
way to experimentation,” demonstrating our PIC was a safe space for her to say what was on her
mind and she could trust that there would not be any form of retribution or judgment for it (Arao
& Clemens, 2013). I expressed what Lillian voiced was valuable, “we were never able to get to
experimentation because that’s the idea to role-play” and Rhea also affirmed Lillian by saying,
“This is perfect.” My words, “Lillian just had so many different ideas” illustrated Lillian was
actively engaged in our discourse and was thinking about ways to help Rhea with her problem of
practice, telegraphing to Rhea that she could trust her with her problem of practice. The fact that
Lillian felt comfortable enough to present a multitude of ideas also suggested the trust was
reciprocated where Lillian did not have a fear of being attacked or judged.
I demonstrated my trust in the group through my willingness to encourage Rhea to adopt
new perspectives by voicing alternative perspectives. For example, “you had said it’s almost
definite that the student is going to take summer school and like the schedule is going to change”
indicated I was paying attention to Rhea’s words. “But I’m also wondering,” signaled I was
going to challenge what Rhea said and encourage her to shift her thinking, illustrating we had a
trusting relationship (Horn & Little, 2010; Levine & Marcus, 2007). I asked, “is there room to

113
work with the student the rest of the semester where the ideas that came out, having the student
talk to other students,” telegraphing I was also listening to Lillian’s ideas and I was wondering if
Rhea could act on what came out of our discourse. Rhea responded, “There could be a middle
ground,” indicating she was listening to what I was suggesting, demonstrating she trusted me
because trust needed to be present for her to be open to her ideas being challenged (Raelin,
2001). I brought our group’s attention back to the thrust of my inquiry project, which was to
challenge how we may create dehumanizing experiences for the student, “Because I think we
said earlier, like not having the student in this class and taking it in the summer is a disservice to
the student,” as we promote their sense of belonging, “And we’re trying to get the student to feel
like they belong in that classroom.” Rather than treading lightly, I demonstrated a confidence in
what I was saying which telegraphed I could engage in authentic discourse because I trusted my
participants (Slayton & Mathis, 2010). Furthermore, my push to challenge the dehumanizing
experiences we create for our students was characteristic of a brave space (Arao & Clemens,
2013).
Rhea’s response, “Right. Yeah!” signified she was receptive to this information where
being receptive to new information indicated her trust in me. Lillian’s extension of my ideas, “I
think too, right, to feel empowered because if you can’t articulate, you can’t empower, right?,”
illustrated she was actively engaged in our discourse, which resonated with Mezirow’s (2000)
argument that trust is a precondition to full participation in discourse. Lillian centered the agency
of the student with, “it’s like trying to get that student to be able to articulate so that the right
supports can be put in place like right now this idea of just caving in and retreating, is not, is not
humanizing to himself, herself,” and centered the agency of the adults with, “and recognizing,
like trying to create that cognitive shift for that student.” She addressed Rhea’s sentiments of not

114
understanding her student’s trauma by communicating the need to encourage the student to
articulate the supports they need. She also acknowledged our theme of humanization by arguing
the retreat of the student was not humanizing to themselves, demonstrating she was actively
engaged in our discourse and the presence of trust.
Rhea expressed her concern, “Yeah, I just keep thinking also, there is a lot of
manipulation that has occurred, you know,” illustrating she was listening to Lillian, and she had
reservations about her idea. Lillian responded, “Maybe,” signaling she did not agree nor disagree
with Rhea but it was a possibility. I implied the student’s manipulation was an assumption
because, “We just, we don’t know unless we really … talk to the student.” I further pointed out
there were many unknown factors involved in this assumption, “Because it seems like there’s a
lot of stuff that, that wasn’t said. We don’t have the specifics of like, what exactly happened in
middle school? Why is it you can’t be in this class?” The act of challenging Rhea’s assumption
served as an indicator that there existed enough trust between us (Horn & Little, 2010; Levine &
Marcus, 2007). Furthermore, my act of pushing on Rhea’s hegemonic assumptions about the
student suggested the trust between us allowed for movement toward a brave space.
Rhea acknowledged the need to hear the student’s story, “Yeah, because of course, it was
the student’s perception of what happened in middle school.” At the same time, she dismissed its
value, “But if I want to give the benefit of the doubt to the to the middle school teacher too,
humanize that teacher,” illustrating she was willing to push back on my idea. She added, “So it’s
a lot of perception, too” telegraphing the student’s story might not be the truth of what happened.
I acknowledged Rhea’s ideas and challenged her thinking with, “Right. And then I guess part of
humanizing the learner too, is not, is to acknowledge that this is like, this is what they think, this
is their truth, instead of saying, this did not happen.” My act of challenging Rhea’s hegemonic

115
assumption that this student’s experience was not real because a teacher could not have possibly
traumatized the student demonstrated my efforts to move us toward a brave space (Arao &
Clemens, 2013). My language, “So it’s tough,” telegraphed my recognition that Rhea was
struggling with the existence of the multiple sides to a story and affirmed the difficulty in
navigating her problem of practice. Consistent with Wergin (2019), the cognitive tension Rhea
was experiencing should not have put her in a position where she felt unsafe. My response
indicated I was not attacking Rhea nor was I judging Rhea, but rather, Rhea was safe to confide
in us. Rhea’s admission that her affective state was a factor in this problem, “I’ll get frustrated
out of just like not being able to help the kid, like I’ll get frustrated that they’re not seeing things
the way I think what really happened, you know, so there’s that too,” further demonstrated her
willingness to confide in us and be vulnerable with us, indicating the presence of trust.
Overall, what was evident in the transcripts from my action research was a deepening of
trust between us. Consistent with Arao and Clemens’s (2013) description of a safe space, my
participants trusted one another enough to engage in authentic and reflective discourse about our
problems of practice without fear of retribution or judgment. Our deepened trust allowed us to be
vulnerable and receptive to new information in our PIC. On the other hand, a brave space would
have entailed an examination of the role our privilege, power, or oppression had in our words,
actions, and emotions. While my participants and I did not achieve a brave space, we made
progress toward a brave space as our deepening trust created a space where we were able to
challenge one another’s hegemonic assumptions. A characteristic of a brave space that was
missing in our discourse was an explicit examination of power in our problems of practice.
Furthermore, we did not explicitly examine the role of identity markers and its relation to

116
privilege, power, or oppression in our problems of practice, which would have been more
aligned with the establishment of a brave space.
Reconceptualizing our Problems of Practice through Cognitive Structuring
As communicated in my conceptual framework, I formed a practitioner inquiry
community (PIC) with my participants to challenge the ways we dehumanized our learners in our
promotion of students’ sense of belonging so that we could adopt a humanizing approach. I drew
on Legette et al.’s (2022) definition of dehumanization as “depriv[ing] human beings of the very
qualities, attributes, or necessities that make them human beings—the capacity to feel, to dream,
to think or act autonomously, and to express their desires without fear of judgment or
punishment” (p. 279) and Camangian and Cariaga’s (2021) concept of humanization as the
recognition of “the importance of being fully human subjects in a world that seeks to subjugate
people’s humanity” (p. 5) to guide us toward uncovering the ways we dehumanized our learners
in our problems of practice so that we could recognize and honor their full humanity to promote
their sense of belonging. I was inspired by Ginwright’s (2016) framework of healing justice and
used it to supplement humanization by working toward restoring the well-being of our learners in
response to trauma experienced because of the systems, policies, and practices we employed. As
a PIC, we engaged in reflective discourse inspired by Rodgers (2002) to explore our promotion
of students’ sense of belonging. Drawing on Horn and Little (2010), incorporating a structural
component into our discourse routine would foster learning. Therefore, the form of assistance I
used was cognitive structuring by adapting Rodgers’s reflective cycle as a structure to use with
my participants. Defined in my conceptual framework, cognitive structuring was “the provision
of a structure for thinking and acting” and “assists by providing explanatory and belief structures
that organize and justify” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989, p. 63). Since I expected my participants to

117
“invent cognitive structures during learning, continually providing the self with explanations and
schema” (p. 67), I knew that I had to attend to their conceptualization of sense of belonging and
use cognitive structuring to frame their thinking through a humanizing, healing-centered lens.
Through cognitive structuring, I was able to support my colleagues with helping each other shift
their perception of students’ sense of belonging as detached from their own actions to
recognizing their own role as we investigated our problem of practices. To promote learning in
our PIC, we needed a method for “defining, elaborating, and reconceptualizing” our problems of
practice and “exposing or building principles of practice” (Horn & Little, p. 190). Consequently,
as articulated in my research method, I created a PIC protocol as a tool for me to provide a
structure for us to think and act. The structure for thinking and acting that I helped my
participants adopt in varying degrees, will be described further below, illustrating my use of
cognitive structuring as a form of assistance.
The protocol for our PIC was introduced at the end of our third session and revisited in
following sessions. Participants were provided with their own copies to hold onto, and I also
prepared extra copies of the protocol every session. We began our fourth session with Rhea
reading a quotation by Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) that served as the
foundation for our PIC:
It is only by coupling the urgent inner work of education (critically interrogating our
mind-sets and beliefs) with the outer work of teaching and leading (intentionally aligning
our actions, practice, and behaviors with a social justice stance) that we will be able to
more authentically see, understand, support, champion, and celebrate all of our students’
great diversities and potentialities. (p. 463)

118
I stated our learning objective was for us to explore and experiment in the promotion of students’
sense of belonging as we investigated our own and others’ problem of practice. Implied in the
learning objective was my desire for my participants to adopt a structure for thinking and acting
in our promotion of students’ sense of belonging. I conveyed Step 1, presence in experience, was
pre-meeting work where we observe what our learner is doing and respond in a way that
promotes their sense of belonging. Step 2, description of experience, involved the telling of the
story of an experience without interpretation or problem-solving (Rodgers, 2002). This was
consistent with cognitive structuring because each of the steps was a thinking system that I was
guiding my participants toward adopting. The following excerpt depicts how I enacted our PIC
protocol to describe my problem of practice:
I: Okay, so I did prepare something about a student, a student that I’m kind of
struggling with this year. He is in my math class, and he also he has autism, but
he’s also, he’s one of the high functioning students with autism. And he, when he
applies himself, he gets math concepts really quickly. But one problem is that
across all classes he’s too hard on himself, and so he always wants a perfect score.
And if he gets a bad quiz score or a bad test score, he shuts down and he can get
very, like, verbally aggressive with others. And he also says a lot of self-
deprecating comments. A lot of the issues that we have in class in the beginning it
was very like behavior oriented, where with other students he will like scoff when
someone makes a mistake, or he will say something that’s very sarcastic and off-
putting for students. And we had kind of a tense relationship, the beginning of the
school year, and it’s significantly better now where he sees me as someone that is,
I think he sees me as someone that is on his side from the conversations that

119
we’ve had, but he still has these tendencies to like yell in class or just make
people feel uncomfortable. My concern is, how do I make him feel like he does
belong in the classroom? Because I noticed this semester, we do something called
clock buddies at the beginning of the semester, where you choose a partner for
every time on the clock, and that’s how we have our partners. He wasn’t here that
day and so I wrote his name on a clock for him. And I was usually, I will just put
it on the whiteboard, and I’ll have the students, “Hey, don’t forget this person is in
our class, so make sure his clock is filled up too.” But with his clock, I was
worried that if I put it on the whiteboard, people wouldn’t want to be, be his
buddy. And so, I personally kind of went around to other students like, “Hey, do
you have this time available? Do you want to be this person’s partner?” And I, I,
I’m aware that I was using, I was using my position as the teacher to fill out the
clock for him because my students would not say no to me that they wouldn’t say
like, “No, I don’t want to be his buddy.” But I could hear chatter, where it was
like, they were like, like, it was their luck that I talked to them and now he’s, you
know, like, it was kind of like that conversation. Even when we do seating charts,
you can tell when someone realizes they’re in the same group as him there’s like
an “ugh”, and so I sense it. I’m wondering if he senses it, other students, and how
that is affecting how he feels included in this space. I’m just gonna stop here in
case anyone has any questions.
My language, “so I did prepare something about a student,” demonstrated I was taking up the
structure I provided to engage in an action that was reflective of presence in experience in the
protocol. My naming of the student as one that “I’m kind of struggling with this year,” implied I

120
was presenting a problem of practice, which was aligned with the content the protocol was
intended to be used for. This illustrated I was enacting the protocol for its stated purpose, which
was to investigate our problem of practices. My taking up of the structure was a form of
assistance as I portrayed the structure for thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) I was
asking my participants to adopt. In my description of my student, “He is in my math class, and
he also he has autism, but he’s also, he’s one of the high functioning students with autism,” I
refrained from interpretation or problem-solving, which was consistent with the structure for
acting in description of experience. I described his performance in my math class, “when he
applies himself, he gets math concepts really quickly,” without problem-solving, utilizing the
structure I provided for acting at this step of the protocol. However, I did interpret when he
applies himself. I stated, “one problem is that across all classes he’s too hard on himself, and so
he always wants a perfect score,” without trying to solve my problem posed, but I did interpret
that he is too hard on himself. In the sentences that followed, my continued description of
experience was somewhat aligned with the protocol as I told my experience with my student
without problem-solving, but I did engage in some interpretation of what was happening.
Although imperfect, this indicated I was using the protocol as a structure for acting at this step of
our reflective discourse. Moreover, I was illustrating how I wanted them to think and act during
this step of our protocol as a form of assistance (Tharp & Gallimore).
My description of what he did when he received a bad score, “he shuts down and he can
get very, like verbally aggressive with others,” his language, “he also says a lot of self-
deprecating comments,” his behavior, “he will scoff when someone makes a mistake or he will
say something that’s very sarcastic and off-putting for students,” and our relationship, “a tense
relationship … significantly better now” reflected the variety of factors present in a situation and

121
the complexity of a problem that become overt in the description of an experience as contended
by Rodgers (2002). Depicted in my description was my form of assistance as I telegraphed the
structure for thinking that I wanted my participants to implement in their description of their
experiences. Specifically, I wanted them to articulate the complexity and nuances of their
problem of practice during this step of our protocol when it was their turn to share.
I directed our attention to his sense of belonging by explicitly asking, “How do I make
him feel like he does belong in the classroom?” The centering of my student’s sense of belonging
was consistent with one of the purposes of the protocol which was for “building principles of
practice” (Horn & Little, 2010, p. 190) so that our discourse was conducive for learning. Implied
in my question was my form of assistance as I communicated the need to bring the thrust of our
discourse back to the promotion of students’ sense of belonging, illustrating the structure for
thinking and acting I wanted my participants to engage in. My belief structure in that moment
was that my student did not feel a sense of belonging because of his own actions that caused
other students to not want to work with him when I said, “Because I noticed this semester …
with his clock, I was worried that if I put it on the whiteboard, people wouldn’t want to be, be his
buddy.” By revealing my existing beliefs, I presented an opportunity for our PIC to engage with
the protocol as a structure to reconceptualize my problem of practice (Horn & Little). Therefore,
I used my description as a form of assistance to cognitively structure my participants’ thinking
by illustrating my expectation for my participants to also reveal their beliefs so that we might
explore them when it was their turn to share their problem of practice.
I utilized the structure provided to expose my principles of practice (Horn & Little, 2010)
as I described my actions that followed, “And so, I personally kind of went around to other
students like, ‘Hey, do you have this time available? Do you want to be this person’s partner?’”

122
and my rationale for my use of power, “I’m aware that I was using, I was using my position as
the teacher to fill out the clock for him because my students would not say no to me.” I
telegraphed my belief that it was acceptable to exert my power in this instance because students
did not want to work with him, “you can tell when someone realizes they’re in the same group as
him there’s like an ‘ugh,’” and he would not have classmates to work with. My utilization of the
cognitive structure was my form of assistance as I depicted my desire for them to reveal their
principles of practice, their rationales, and their beliefs as a means for thinking and acting that
was aligned with the structure I was asking them to embrace (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). I
concluded with a revision of my stated problem, “I’m wondering if he senses it, other students,
and how that is affecting how he feels included in this space,” where I question how I, along with
other students, affect my student’s sense of belonging, illustrating the protocol was providing me
with a structure for thinking. Drawing on Raelin (2001), I knew that “our thoughts are constantly
re-shaped when converted into language and brought out in the presence of others” (p. 21).
Consequently, consistent with what was written on the protocol, I expected that talking about my
problem of practice would likely produce a revision of my problem of practice. My revision of
my problem of practice served as a form of assistance as I demonstrated what it looked like to
engage with the structure for thinking and acting and that a likely outcome was a more specific
representation of their problem of practice. I concluded with, “I’m just gonna stop here in case
anyone has any questions,” drawing our attention to the PIC protocol as a form of assistance to
guide our reflective discourse by signaling my participants to be attentive to the structure for
acting in the form of questioning during description of experience.
The protocol stated in questioning during description of experience, “others use questions
to help the participant to further specify their problem of practice and elaborate on common

123
terminology.” I included examples of specifying questions as a form of assistance to convey to
my learners how I would like them to emulate this structure for acting. For example, “What do
you mean when you say … ?,” “What did it sound like?,” “What did they literally do/say?” The
following excerpt illustrates Rhea and Lillian’s initial efforts to engage in questioning by using
the protocol.
I: This point, the questions is just for any, any clarifying questions, and then we
could go into analysis.
L: I sort of feel like in listening to you that there, there are several problems or
conflicts. I’m wondering which one do you feel is most important?
I: That’s a great question. I think what’s most important in this space is inclusion,
his sense of belonging, because he is someone, you know, with an IEP, and I
don’t think students in the class know, he has, they, they don’t know that he’s
dealing with something, and I think students think that he is just being rude or
being odd. And people don’t, students don’t like to be in his group, and they don’t
want to work with him, and I, I feel like he can sense that. So, I’m wondering
how, what, how can I change that interaction in this class where I can see people
are more accepting of him and he’s more accepting of himself because he’s very,
very self-deprecating. I’m also concerned about like, what is it that I do? What,
what am I communicating to the entire class with my actions?
R: Yeah. Have you modeled how you would like the kids to handle him or perceive
him? Are you modeling that?
I: I think somewhat, I think.
R: It’s hard to be perfect, though.

124
I: Yeah. So, I will ask him how his day is and try to get to know his interests to try
to build that relationship with him, which is what I would like to see kids doing
too. What I’m not good about is sometimes I do get irritated, and I do get
frustrated and I think other students can see that I am getting irritated or I’m
getting frustrated. And so, I’m not sure, I’m not sure how to handle it when, when
so much happens and, but I’m aware that what I do is affecting how people, how
people treat him.
L: So maybe while that is a source of conflict, I’m wondering though, if maybe
starting with you first might be the way to sort of approach this problem initially.
What do you think about that?
I: So, what do you mean by starting with me first?
L: Well, I think in just listening to your reflections, you’ve identified that maybe
there’s something that you’re doing or you’re wondering and putting it out there if
there’s something that you are doing that is contributing to, you know, students’
perceptions and reactions to him. And so, I guess I’m wondering just what I kind
of lost my train of thought, but what, what would need to happen for you, in order
to shift that around, where maybe your reactions to him are not what they have
been in the past.
R: Out of being frustrated or tired or yeah.
I: So.
L: Like, what would you need to not be frustrated?
R: Yeah.

125
I: What would I need? That’s a good question, to not be frustrated. I don’t, I don’t
know what I need to not be frustrated. I think what I get frustrated with is with his
comments. I think when I’m trying to teach and he has a comment about the
content, it, I, I feel like it takes away from students’ engagement and the content,
or its.
R: Enjoyment?
I: Or enjoyment or, or it’s just, I don’t know the word for it. Like, it could be
engagement, enjoyment, like we’re doing something, and someone just has a bad
attitude about it.
R: Yeah, what does it look like when he does that? What does it look like with you?
Do you respond? Does it like impact your energy?
I: So, it does impact my energy and sometimes I ignore it because sometimes it’ll
just be like a mutter but I also have really good hearing so I could hear things
across the room and other students have really good hearing. Sometimes I’ll
ignore it. I know from his profile, what his case carrier has said is, he will say
things and do things to grab attention. And so, my thinking is if I stop every time
and address every comment he says, then I will, I will never get to the end of the
lesson, because it just happens that frequently, depending on his mood. If he’s in a
bad mood, it will happen frequently. If he’s in a good mood, once or twice, but it
still happens.
R: How has ignoring helped? Sometimes it does build more resentment in you.

126
I: Oh, ignoring helps … I don’t think it helps me and him. I think ignoring helps
other students because we move on with the lesson and the lesson isn’t
interrupted.
R: Do you think the other students want you to address it, if not, ignore it?
I: I think some students want me to address some things that he says yeah. And I
think some students have learned to ignore it from what, because I’ve heard other
students just say in passing like, “Oh, he’s like this in every class like just ignore
him” and stuff like that to other students, and so I think some students want me to
address it, and some students want me to ignore it.
L: So let me ask you this question, if you were to address it in the way that were sort
of maybe thinking that students would appreciate how would that address the
other conflict, which is his sense of belonging in your classroom? Would that
increase it, keep it neutral, decrease it? No impact at all?
I: I don’t, I don’t know. If I, so if he says something sarcastic, I don’t even know
what the appropriate response to him is.
R: Kill him with kindness.
I: What? I don’t know. I don’t know because there’s so many things. I don’t know
how to respond.
L: But you’re, I want to get to analyzing.
I reinforced the purpose of questioning was to elaborate on my description as I stated, “This
point the questions is just for any, any clarifying questions, and then we could go into analysis,”
using what was written in the protocol as a form of assistance to communicate to my participants
the cognitive structure for acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) in our PIC. Lillian telegraphed I

127
was not clear in stating my problem of practice when she asked, “I sort of feel like in listening to
you that there, there are several problems or conflicts. I’m wondering which one do you feel is
most important?” Lillian’s question indicated she was taking up my form of assistance and
utilizing the protocol as a cognitive structure for acting because her question served to help me
further specify my problem of practice. Subsequently, I affirmed Lillian’s questioning as a form
of assistance through my words, “That’s a great question,” implying she was applying the
structure in a way that was consistent with what it was designed for. I emphasized the crux of our
focus was my learner’s sense of belonging, “I think what’s most important in this space is
inclusion, his sense of belonging,” mirroring the language found in the learning objective of our
protocol and pointing back to my use of the cognitive structure as a form of assistance to
emphasize the centering of sense of belonging in our structure for thinking (Tharp & Gallimore).
While my participants did not ask me about my learner’s background, which was an example of
questioning in the protocol, I telegraphed a consciousness around his identity as a student with
special needs through my language, “because he is someone, you know, with an IEP.” I was
using the protocol as a structure for acting in our PIC, illustrating my desire for my participants
to attend to our learner’s identities as a feature of the cognitive structure for thinking. I
elaborated on my problem of practice, “I don’t think students in the class know, he has, they,
they don’t know that he’s dealing with something, and I think students think that he is just being
rude or being odd,” demonstrating that Lillian’s use of the structure for questioning was eliciting
more information from me.
I contended that this student was experiencing a lack of a sense of belonging through my
language, “students don’t like to be in his group, and they don’t want to work with him, and I, I
feel like he can sense that.” My statement was misaligned with the structure for describing an

128
experience because I interpreted my other students’ behavior in this moment, demonstrating my
utilization of the structure as a form of assistance was not perfect. I then clarified my specific
problem of practice, “So I’m wondering how, what, how can I change that interaction in this
class where I can see people are more accepting of him and he’s more accepting of himself,
because he’s very, very self-deprecating,” revealing the protocol could be used as a structure for
“building principles of practice” (Horn & Little, 2010). I then shared a wondering about my role
in promoting my students’ sense of belonging, “I’m also concerned about like, what is it that I
do? What, what am I communicating to the entire class with my actions?” My wondering was a
form of assistance as I illustrated that I was using the structure for thinking and acting in a way
that resembled Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) idea of “intentionally aligning our
actions, practices, and behaviors with a social justice stance” that served as a foundation for the
PIC protocol.
Rhea’s questions, “Have you modeled how you would like the kids to handle him or
perceive him? Are you modeling that?” strayed away from the purpose of questioning during
description of experience, where the intent was to help me further specify my problem of
practice. Instead, her questioning was aligned with a problem-solving approach where the
attention was turned away from practice and remedies were offered without a deeper
understanding of the problem (Horn & Little, 2010). As Rodgers (2002) expressed, “the urge to
fix problems and move on is powerful,” and Rhea was quick to leap toward fixing the problem
demonstrating she had not yet learned to apply the structure for acting in this instance and how
she was taking up the form of assistance I provided. I contemplated Rhea’s question as indicated
through my language, “I think somewhat, I think … ” Rhea inserted, “It’s hard to be perfect
though,” normalizing the difficulty for teachers to model the behaviors they expect from their

129
students and that it was okay if I failed to do so, which was a common response to teachers’
expressed problems (Horn & Little). What matters with a normalizing response is if it turns us
toward our practice or away from our practice. Subsequently, I exemplified my use of the
cognitive structure as a form of assistance by sharing my reflection on how I contributed to my
problem of practice to turn us toward, not away, from our practice as I answered Rhea’s
question:
I will ask him how his day is and try to get to know his interests to try to build that
relationship with him, which is what I would like to see kids doing too. What I’m not
good about is sometimes I do get irritated, and I do get frustrated and I think other
students can see that I am getting irritated or I’m getting frustrated. And so, I’m not sure,
I’m not sure how to handle it when, when so much happens and, but I’m aware that what
I do is affecting how people, how people treat him.
In my reflection, I revealed how I perceived my emotions to be an obstacle and was vulnerable in
my expressions of feeling stuck, but I recognized something needed to change because my
students are vicariously learning how to interact with this student through observing my
experiences with this student. While Rhea’s question was not an accurate representation of
questioning during description of experience, her question helped “generate a number of
different explanations for what is going on to transform our practice through planned actions,”
which was Step 3, analysis of experience. The outcome of Rhea’s engagement with my form of
assistance signified while Rhea has yet to internalize the structure, her attempt was still fruitful
because it helped me reconceptualize my problem of practice. Lillian asked, “So maybe while
that is a source of conflict, I’m wondering though, if maybe starting with you first might be the
way to sort of approach this problem initially. What do you think about that?” Like Rhea,

130
Lillian’s question was consistent with an analysis of experience. This suggested Lillian and Rhea
were not clear about the difference between description of experience and analysis of experience,
where we start from asking questions that lead to specifying the problem of practice and then
shift to probing. This demonstrated both of my participants were still grappling with how to take
up my form of assistance and use the protocol as a structure for thinking and acting (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). When I asked Lillian to clarify what she meant, she responded, “you’ve
identified that maybe … there’s something that you are doing that is contributing to, you know,
students’ perceptions and reactions to him.” Her recognition of my expression of how I
contributed to my problem of practice telegraphed her understanding that an aspect of this
protocol was to use it as a structure to name our role in our problem of practice.
Lillian continued with, “what would need to happen for you, in order to shift that around,
where maybe your reactions to him are not what they have been in the past?” and further
specified her question with, “Like, what would you need to not be frustrated?” Her questions
were not representative of questioning during description of experience, suggesting she
understood how to utilize the protocol as a structure for thinking and acting in varying degrees.
My feedback for Lillian’s question, “That’s a good question,” miscommunicated that her
question satisfied how I was asking them to take up the protocol as a structure for thinking and
acting. I demonstrated my struggle with answering her question through my language, “I don’t, I
don’t know what I need to not be frustrated.” Additionally, I showed my willingness to entertain
her question, “I think what I get frustrated with is with his comments.” I elaborated with, “I feel
like it takes away from students’ engagement and the content … like we’re doing something, and
someone just has a bad attitude about it.” Like Rhea, while Lillian’s question was not an accurate
use of the structure at this step in the protocol, her question evoked a reason for my affective

131
state in my problem of practice, which was consistent with the next step of the protocol.
Although flawed, Lillian was taking up my form of assistance by wrestling with how to
implement the cognitive structure for thinking and acting.
Subsequently, there is evidence of Rhea taking up my form of assistance as she
appropriately used the protocol as a structure for acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) when she
asked, “What does it look like when he does that? What does it look like with you?” which were
questions very similar to the examples provided on the protocol. She followed with “Do you
respond? Does it impact your energy?” My response, “Sometimes I’ll ignore it. I know from his
profile, what his case carrier has said is, he will say things and do things to grab attention,”
illustrated her use of the structure was successful in producing more details of my problem of
practice. My rationale, “my thinking is if I stop every time and address every comment he says,
then I will, I will never get to the end of the lesson, because it just happens that frequently,
depending on his mood,” should have been reserved for the next step of our protocol, indicating I
had not fully internalized my structure for thinking and acting in our PIC either and my
execution of my form of assistance was flawed. Rhea’s following question, “How has ignoring
helped?,” and opinion, “Sometimes it does build more resentment in you,” was not an accurate
use of the structure for questioning during description of experience telegraphing how she was
receiving my form of assistance. My response, “I don’t think it helps me and him. I think
ignoring helps other students because we move on with the lesson and the lesson isn’t
interrupted,” indicated my realization that my actions were misaligned with the promotion of this
student’s sense of belonging. My realization of the “possible consequences of a given suggestion
or action” (Raelin, 2001, p. 27) demonstrated, while Rhea’s question was misplaced, there was

132
still value in her efforts to take up my form of assistance and utilize the cognitive structure
provided because her question resembled those asked during analysis of experience.
Rhea’s question, “Do you think the other students want you to address it, if not, ignore
it?,” again exemplified that she had not fully understood how to utilize the protocol as a structure
for acting as her question had the potential to draw out an assumption instead of specifying my
problem. The gist of my response, “I think some students want me to address it, and some
students want me to ignore it,” entailed an assumption about how my other students wanted me
to respond. While my assumption was not explicitly challenged, Lillian asked, “if you were to
address it in the way that were sort of maybe thinking that students would appreciate how would
that address the other conflict, which is his sense of belonging in your classroom?,” reminding us
of our main objective of promoting this student’s sense of belonging, suggesting she had
internalized an aspect of my form of assistance which was to center students’ sense of belonging.
Lillian’s redirection implied she was cognizant of our learning objective listed in our protocol
and she adopted the structure to bring us all back to the main point. My language, “I don’t, I
don’t know … I don’t even know what the appropriate response to him is … I don’t know. I
don’t know because there’s so many things. I don’t know how to respond,” communicated I was
flustered and was having difficulty imagining how to move forward in a way that could promote
my student’s sense of belonging. Lillian’s language, “But you’re, I want to get to analyzing,”
illustrated she stopped herself because she believed we were still in the description phase of our
protocol, and we had not yet begun our analysis. She telegraphed she was aware of the different
steps in the protocol and was relying on the structure provided to guide her thinking and actions
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) in our PIC, indicating she was embracing the form of assistance I
provided. While Lillian demonstrated her efforts to apply the structure, her misconception

133
indicated she was not clear of the distinction between how to use the structure to think and act
during description of experience versus analysis of experience.
Subsequently, I set up Step 3, analysis of experience by reviewing the protocol with my
participants as a form of assistance to cognitively structure their thinking and acting (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). The protocol stated at this step, we “collaboratively generate a number of
different explanations for what is going on to transform our practice through planned actions.”
Additionally, we would take on the role of “critical friends.” The description of this step was
consistent with my purpose for designing the protocol to assist in the provision of an explanatory
structure (Tharp & Gallimore) and a means for reconceptualizing and exposing principles of
practice (Horn & Little, 2010), depicting my use of cognitive structuring as a form of assistance.
Furthermore, the protocol served as a structure for thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore) as
we engaged in probing during the analysis of experience. Probing is a form of questioning and
use of statements to draw out “facts, reasons, assumptions, inferences, and possible
consequences of a given suggestion or action” (Raelin, 2001, p. 27). Probing was the structure
for thinking and acting I wanted my participants to adopt at this step. I provided examples of
probing in the protocol, “take on the perspective of the learner,” “point out inconsistencies in our
colleague’s rationale to help them uncover assumptions and beliefs behind their actions,” “whose
voice is not included?,” “What are we assuming about the leaner?,” and “How are we
humanizing/dehumanizing our leaner,” as a form of assistance to cognitively structure my
participants’ thinking and acting. I also provided what I meant by humanizing and dehumanizing
to further structure their thinking at this step.
Fifteen seconds passed by, then Rhea expressed it was difficult to take on the perspective
of my student and that he might not even have a desire to belong because he’s the only person in

134
his world which she believed to be characteristic of students with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
This indicated Rhea was struggling with taking up my form of assistance. Specifically, she was
wrestling with the example provided, to “take on the perspective of the learner.” I disagreed with
Rhea and elaborated on why I believed my student had a desire to belong. Lillian offered
building empathy and the use of social stories as a strategy to address my problem. Both aspects
illustrated Rhea and Lillian were having difficulty using the protocol as a structure for thinking
and acting, in this case probing. Rhea could not take on the perspective of my student and
doubted my student felt a lack of a sense of belonging. Lillian jumped to problem-solving, again
demonstrating the powerful urge to fix problems without fully dissecting them (Rodgers, 2002).
In the following excerpt, I redirected our conversation toward probing and Rhea and Lillian
continued their efforts to help analyze my problem of practice.
I: Are there any assumptions of mine that you notice that maybe we didn’t uncover?
Where I said something, but maybe I was assuming something that I don’t really
know that to be true.
R: Um, hmm, maybe assuming to not include his supports like his GLC and you,
you’re trying to keep it in house, which I understand. But assuming that, that
wouldn’t be as helpful as you might, it might be?
I: I think my assumption isn’t that it’s not helpful, but my assumption is I can
handle it. Yeah, I think, where last week was probably, last week was the first
time that I reached out to the case carrier this semester. I think, I reached out to
her once last semester and then in passing we’ll talk, but last week I felt the urge
to call the case carrier and say this is what’s going on and I need help in my
classroom.

135
R: Yeah. Okay.
L: I think there was something that you said that caught my attention and this idea of
fair versus equity or equitable. You said something to the effect of, is it, is it fair, I
think, for, for the students in the classroom, that whole piece, but then at that
moment, I almost wanted to flip it and kind of say is it fair not to … It's not about
being fair, it’s about it, I mean, it’s not about fair, but it’s about giving people
what they need and that that is what’s, just, right? And, and that's what equity is
about. So, I think it’s almost getting away. I would just challenge your notions of
fairness and equity and justice, and how are you operating from that place and,
and there’s equity and justice on all sides, right, not just for the whole class of
students. So maybe that and then I’ll just say really quickly, lastly was Rueben
talks often about and I think we may even do it on February 17, something called
Arbinger training, and I've just got like a Reader’s Digest quick and dirty version
of it and it’s really like mind blowing, but essentially, it is about how we interact
with others and talks about how in every interaction we have to, we are concerned
in a sense with how we are seen to others. And the moment that we are more
concerned, not more concerned, but the moment that what enters into the equation
is “how am I looking or what is my need to look like in this situation?” [the
school bell rings] that person becomes an object and no longer a person. This
person is blocking or hindering my ability to be seen as to be viewed as … I’m
wondering if you apply Arbinger in this case, that along with that frustration, this
student is hindering or preventing my ability to be seen as an effective teacher to
be seen as all composed and I mean, so it’s really interesting because then you’re

136
looking at [the student] more as an object, you are impeding my … so therefore I
must squash and conquer you because, and we’re totally unconscious to all of
this.
My question, “Are there any assumptions of mine that you notice that maybe we didn’t uncover?
Where I said something, but maybe I was assuming something that I don’t really know that to be
true,” demonstrated my realization that Rhea and Lillian were not utilizing the protocol the way I
intended, and as a form of assistance, I was attempting to reinforce the structure for thinking and
acting I was seeking to have them adopt (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). Therefore, I referenced one
of the examples of probing listed in the protocol. Rhea’s response, “Um, hmm, maybe,” implied
she had uncertainty around how to engage in probing, but she was willing to try to take up my
form of assistance and adopt the structure for thinking and acting. While her language,
“assuming to not include his supports like his GLC and you, you’re trying to keep it in house,
which I understand, but assuming that, that wouldn’t be as helpful as you might, it might be?”
did not serve to interrogate my assumptions, she addressed another example in the protocol
which was to consider voices that were not included, indicating the form of assistance was
helping to structure the questions that she was asking.
I listed benefits and potential traps in our engagement with the protocol as a form of
assistance to cognitively structure our thinking and actions (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). My
disagreement with Rhea’s assumption, “I think my assumption isn’t that it’s not helpful, but my
assumption is I can handle it,” was a form of assistance as I demonstrated my use of the structure
to think and act in a way that was avoiding a potential trap inspired by Wergin (2019), which
was the failure “to criticize each other’s suggestions and consider alternatives” (p. 90). Lillian’s
response, “You said something to the effect of, is it, is it fair, I think, for, for the students in the

137
classroom, that whole piece, but then at that moment, I almost wanted to flip it and kind of say is
it fair not to,” exemplified probing, illustrating she was taking up my form of assistance. She
used the example of pointing out an inconsistency in my rationale, as I verbalized a concern of
promoting this student’s sense of belonging, yet my actions indicated my concern about other
students’ learning. Her use of the structure to probe served to expose my principles of practice
(Horn & Little, 2010) and drew attention to the alignment of my “action, practices, and behaviors
with a social justice stance” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p.190), demonstrated
she was engaging with my form of assistance of cognitive structuring.
She stated, “it’s not about fair, but it’s about giving people what they need and that that is
what’s, just, right? And, and that's what equity is about. So, I think it’s almost getting away.” In
voicing her critique of my actions as inequitable, she avoided a potential pitfall listed in our use
of the protocol (Wergin, 2019), demonstrating the protocol was structuring her thinking and
acting in our PIC. She further challenged my thinking when she stated, “I would just challenge
your notions of fairness and equity and justice, and how are you operating from that place and,
and there’s equity and justice on all sides, right, not just for the whole class of students,”
indicating she was applying the structure to engage in an action (probing) that would help me
reconceptualize my notions of fairness, equity, and justice. Lastly, Lillian offered a new way of
thinking that challenged how we dehumanize our learner as she stated, “the moment that what
enters into the equation is ‘how am I looking or what is my need to look like in this situation?’
that person becomes an object and no longer a person.” In her response, Lillian demonstrated
how my form of assistance encouraged her to use the structure as she addressed one of the
examples of probing provided in the protocol, which was to consider how we are humanizing or
dehumanizing our learner. She telegraphed that I needed to reconceptualize my student in a way

138
where he was not an obstacle and investigate how his actions contributed to how I wanted to be
seen in my classroom. For example, Lillian offered, “this student is hindering or preventing my
ability to be seen as an effective teacher to be seen as all composed … therefore, I must squash
and conquer you.” Her language, “and we’re totally unconscious to all of this,” normalized the
occurrence of our actions to be separate from a critical interrogation of our beliefs, which
attended to the words of Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) that I wrote at the top of
our protocol as a form of assistance. As a cognitive structure for thinking and acting, I stated the
need to critically interrogate our beliefs and “intentionally align our actions, practices, and
behaviors with a social justice stance” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 463) to
promote our students’ sense of belonging.
Part of our analysis of experience was for participants to fill out the “On the One Hand”
graphic organizer to engage with the form of assistance provided. I had asked them to fill it out
on their own time after engaging in reflective discourse as a PIC. The top of the handout asked,
“How are you implicated or complicit in the problem you are trying to address and how are you
also part of the solution (in different ways)?” depicting my use of cognitive structure to engage
my participants in a particular way of thinking about their problem of practice. Participants were
instructed to write a short phrase to briefly describe their problem of practice related to students’
sense of belonging. Then, they were asked to trace their two hands and in one hand, they
write/depict the ways they contributed to and/or were complicit in their problem. On the other
hand, they write/depict the ways they have been or plan to be a solution the problem.
Only Lillian and I were present for Session 5, so she was the only one who had heard my
reflection from filling out the “On the One Hand” graphic organizer following our discourse on
my problem of practice. Subsequently, in the same session, Lillian shared her problem of

139
practice and I engaged in asking specifying questions and probing. Zoe presented her problem of
practice in Session 6, while Lillian and I engaged in asking specifying questions and probing.
Rhea was absent from this session as well. In our last session (Session 7), Rhea described her
problem of practice and Lillian and I engaged in asking specifying questions and probing.
Following our whole group sessions (Sessions 5–7), I sent my participants the recording and
transcript of the session where they shared their problem of practice for them to have as a
resource to reflect and fill out their handout. Subsequently, I scheduled one-on-one meetings
with them to share their revised reflection of their problem of practice.
By the end of my action research project, there was some evidence of the implementation
of the cognitive structure I provided as a form of assistance. We demonstrated our ability to
enact the protocol as a structure for thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989)
independently and in varying degrees. Positioning myself as both a facilitator and a participant in
our PIC, I saw my own growth in my capacity to adopt the structure for thinking and acting I was
seeking to instill in my participants. My use of the structure (“On the One Hand”) allowed me to
reconceptualize my problem of practice in ways that acknowledged the complex forces that
impact my actions, such as the role of my affect and prior experiences. Moreover, my
consideration of the humanization and dehumanization of my learner indicated I was utilizing the
structure for thinking in the way I intended. Lillian also demonstrated substantial growth in her
application of the structure to guide her thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore). At the start,
Lillian was resistant to seeing her role in her problem of practice. In my reflection of the session
where Lillian shared her problem of practice (Session 5), I wrote, “In much of her problem of
practice, she is describing what is wrong with the leadership team without acknowledging how
she is contributing to the problem or a solution for the problem.” In comparison, when given the

140
chance to use the cognitive structure independently at the end, Lillian was able to confront how
she contributed to her problem of practice, illustrating how the form of assistance enabled a shift
in her thinking and acting. In her effort to engage with the cognitive structure by filling out her
“On the One Hand” graphic organizer, Lillian depicted the form of assistance facilitated her
ability to slow down and observe our previous interactions using the transcript to assist her,
resembling her presence in experience. Rhea’s ability to take up the structure as a form of
assistance was limited by her inconsistent attendance and her resistance to using the transcript as
a tool to assist her in her reflection. While Lillian indicated she had used the transcript to help
her with her reflection, Rhea stated she did not need to use it. Additionally, Lillian had attended
every session, therefore, she had more opportunities to practice using the structure and
internalize it. On the other hand, Rhea had one session to apply the structure for asking
specifying questions and probing, and another session to practice using the structure to describe
her problem of practice before independently filling out her “On the One Hand” graphic
organizer. The consequences were illustrated in Rhea’s reflection where her statements for how
she contributed to her problem of practice were brief and her revised description of her problem
of practice had not changed much from her initial description, illustrating there was a minimal
shift in her thinking that was produced from her engagement with the structure. While she
demonstrated difficulties with using the structure to identify her complicity in her problem of
practice, she telegraphed a shift in thinking from perceiving her actions as helpless to expanding
her conceptualization of her problem of practice as one where she could be proactive in
including the voices of those that were missing, alluding to a particular example under probing in
the cognitive structure provided.

141
The following excerpt is my conversation on my problem of practice after our reflective
discourse as a PIC:
I looked through the transcript and kind of just reflected and noticed that I did prioritize
my content and my agenda because as I was describing it to you [Lillian] and Rhea, I was
talking about how I was worried that, you know, I planned this lesson and it would get
derailed because now something happened in the classroom and then I have to address it,
and then I feel bad that other students are missing out on this learning. But that also led
me to my second point, which was that I was prioritizing what the majority needed over
the minority, in this case, my student would be the one that’s a minority. And so, when
you [Lillian] mentioned that difference between what’s fair and what’s being equitable, it
just reminded me that I needed to attend to all my students’ unique needs and it’s very
easy for one to just attend to the majority needs because you know, I’m helping most of
these students and then forgetting about that one student that needs a different kind of
support. And I was also noticing I was getting, when I get frustrated or impatient, I shut
down the problematic behavior without asking the student what’s going on. And that’s
something that I had done realizing later after talking to his case carrier, that something
had happened in the previous period, which is why he was acting that way, in this period.
So just being better about that. And I really enjoyed what you when you brought up,
Arbinger. And so I filled in that sentence, that sentence frame and I wrote, “This person
is blocking my ability to be seen as in control of the classroom, and not being taken
advantage of.” Because I know like, a lot of people will say, “Oh, you’re too nice,” to me
in my past just as an adolescent, and then as an adult, people have always said that to me.
And so sometimes I think about, I don’t want to be seen as taken advantage of and I think

142
it might be inhibiting the way that I’m interacting with this student, because I know other
students are watching our interaction.
I stated, “I looked through the transcript and kind of just reflected,” telegraphing while the use of
the transcript was not in my original instructions for filling out the handout, I realized it was
helpful to revisit what transpired so that I could be deliberate in my reflection. My engagement
with the structure changed my thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) as I recognized a
form of assistance was to incorporate the use of the transcript as a new aspect of the structure to
facilitate my participants’ thinking and acting. My language “and noticed,” conveyed my use of
the structure, where I slowed down and was present in the recording of my session (Session 4),
allowed for a new way of conceptualizing my problem of practice (Horn & Little, 2010).
Additionally, I was direct in naming my complicity in my problem of practice, “I did prioritize
my content and my agenda,” suggesting my application of the structure (“On the One Hand”)
had enabled me to confront my own role in my problem of practice, reflecting the inner work of
education (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017).
As I began to articulate my rationale, “because as I was describing it to you [Lillian] and
Rhea,” I illustrated the structure had helped me uncover my beliefs behind my actions, which
was an example of probing during analysis of experience (Raelin, 2001). I continued with, “I was
worried that, you know, I planned this lesson and it would get derailed because now something
happened in the classroom and then I have to address it,” signaling the structure of our PIC,
where we had to elaborate on our description of the experience, had allowed me to identify the
role of my affective state in my problem of practice and how it inhibited me from taking an
action. My language, “and then I feel bad that other students are missing out on this learning,”
telegraphed my engagement with the structure helped me to acknowledge that my concern for

143
my other students affected what transpired. My words, “But that also led me to my second
point,” indicated my utilization of the structure helped me to recognize another way I contributed
to my problem of practice. I elaborated, “I was prioritizing what the majority needed over the
minority,” signaling my practice was misaligned with a social justice stance (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017). I specified, “I needed to attend to all my students’ unique needs … I’m
helping most of these students and then forgetting about that one student that needs a different
kind of support,” challenging my notions of equity as a result of my engagement with the
structure for thinking (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). I implied my dehumanization of my learner, “I
was also noticing I was getting, when I get frustrated or impatient, I shut down the problematic
behavior without asking the student what’s going on,” as I deprived my learner of his freedom to
act without fear of judgment or punishment (Legette et al., 2022). Moreover, in my description,
“that’s something that I had done realizing later after talking to his case carrier, that something
had happened in the previous period, which is why he was acting that way, in this period,” I
realized I did not recognize my learner’s full humanity by exploring his experiences (Camangian
& Cariaga, 2021). This suggested, my internalization of the structure had allowed me to adopt a
way of thinking that reflected a humanization framework, as I had intended.
I had taken up Lillian’s suggestion during our PIC and wrote, “This person is blocking
my ability to be seen as in control of the classroom, and not being taken advantage of,”
demonstrating our enactment of the structure had led me to adopt an explanatory structure for
organizing and justifying (Horn & Little, 2010). Furthermore, my use of the structure helped
draw out how my past experiences informed my actions, “Because I know like, a lot of people
will say, ‘Oh, you’re too nice,’ to me in my past just as an adolescent, and then as an adult,
people have always said that to me.” Consequently, my language, “I don’t want to be seen as

144
taken advantage of and I think it might be inhibiting the way that I’m interacting with this
student, because I know other students are watching our interaction,” demonstrated my
utilization of the cognitive structure had facilitated my ability to generate a different explanation
for what was going on in my problem of practice by considering the role of my past experiences
that had contributed to my problem of practice.
For Lillian, my use of cognitive structuring as a form of assistance was effective in
shifting her thinking of her problem of practice from an initial description that only considered
how others contributed to her problem of practice to a revised description of her problem of
practice that names her own role in it. The following excerpts from Lillian’s reflection
demonstrate how she applied the structure provided to reconceptualize her approach to a problem
of practice:
So, this one here is the areas where I felt, maybe, I contributed to the problem. So maybe
here, and this is some of it is also speaking to this kind of second problem of practice,
which was that conversation around pronoun usage versus orientation. So here, don’t take
the opportunity to educate. So, in that moment, I did not take the opportunity to educate
or even ask clarifying questions about “hmm,” I mean, whatever that question would
have been, but I didn’t take that opportunity or that time in that conversation. And part of
what I wrote down from the transcript that was just kind of important to me was when I
made the comments about a socially just school, like if this is important to me, why
didn’t I take that opportunity to have that conversation? … And then you and I had talked
a little bit about that Arbinger work and then I thought maybe it’s a matter of, you know,
too, for me that I want to be seen as credible, right, or not judged, because there was a
part in the transcript where I mentioned about it is my bias, right, because of my son, but

145
at the same time, I don’t want people to feel that I’m only championing this or I’m only
supporting this because, and I know at one point, you asked me that question, “Is there
anything wrong with though, with them knowing?” And I, knowing that that’s a bias, or
naming it as a bias, I don’t think so, but I think ultimately, at the end of the day, you do
want people to walk away, viewing you, which I think connects back to professional
opportunity, you do want them to see you as credible and not judge you because you do
have this bias. So that was that was part of it too. And then I might miss opportunities, oh
and kind of tapped into this, but I might be missing on opportunities due to the type of
learner that I am. So if I really value reflection and introspection and I really want to
formulate my thoughts and my language clearly and purposefully, then I can’t necessarily
seize the moment. At the same time, I recognize if that’s the case, then I need to have a
plan for circling back right. So in that sense, maybe not having a plan for circling back is
part of being complicit, you know?
Lillian’s language, “So this one here,” conveyed she was referencing what she had written in the
“On the One Hand” graphic organizer and had utilized it as a cognitive structure for thinking by
providing an explanatory structure that organized her thinking (Tharp & Gallimore). Her use of
the word, “maybe,” twice conveyed an indirectness in her communication of her complicity,
suggesting she might have experienced some disorientation as she confronted her role in her
problem of practice in the taking up of the structure. Aligned with Boostrom (1998 as cited in
Arao & Clemens, 2013), giving up a former perspective to make room for a new perspective was
a painful task. Even so, Lillian continued to reconceptualize her problem of practice suggesting
her disorientation was constructive (Wergin, 2019; Heifetz et al., 2009). She stated, “I did not
take the opportunity to educate or even ask clarifying questions,” illustrating her recognition of

146
the value in asking questions to extract more details from a situation and minimize her
assumptions, which mirrored our use of the protocol to question during description of
experience. Furthermore, this signaled she had internalized aspects of the structure for acting and
it had helped to build her principles of practice (Horn & Little, 2010).
Her language, “And part of what I wrote down from the transcript,” indicated her review
of our engagement with the protocol had influenced her thinking about her problem of practice.
She telegraphed something significant came out of our reflective discourse through her words,
“that was just kind of important to me,” suggesting our use of the structure had provoked a shift
in her thinking (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). She referenced a moment in her description, “when I
made the comments about a socially just school,” and an inconsistency in her rationale, “if this is
important to me, why didn’t I take that opportunity to have that conversation?,” demonstrating
the structure for our PIC had contributed to her awareness of a misalignment between her actions
and her social justice stance (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Additionally, many of
her statements began with “I” instead of “they,” illustrating the structure had helped her reframe
her thinking about her problem of practice in a way that encouraged her focus on her inner work
and interrogate her role instead of others on her leadership team so that she could promote
students’ sense of belonging.
She referenced a part of the transcript where she named her bias for promoting LGBTQ
students’ sense of belonging, but she did not want people to perceive she was only championing
LGBTQ students because of her bias. The phrase, “which I think connects back to professional
opportunity,” telegraphed her realization that her fear of risking career growth was an
impediment to her promotion of students’ sense of belonging. This demonstrated the protocol
served as a structure for thinking and had assisted (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) by helping her

147
generate several different explanations for what was going on in her problem of practice, one of
which was the role of her fear that contributed to her problem of practice. She expressed, “you
do want them to see you as credible and not judge you because you do have this bias,” further
illustrating her consciousness around her reasoning for her actions in her problem of practice
because of our engagement with the structure to probe during the analysis. Her language, “I
might be missing on opportunities due to the type of learner that I am,” conveyed her realization
of a consequence of her actions in her problem of practice. Her realization resulted from her
engagement with the structure as it was consistent with the purpose of probing. Subsequently,
she contended, “if I really value reflection and introspection and I really want to formulate my
thoughts and my language clearly and purposefully, then I can’t necessarily seize the moment,”
which signaled she was using the structure provided to couple her beliefs with her actions
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). The extension of her thoughts, “At the same time, I
recognize if that’s the case, then I need to have a plan for circling back, right,” illustrated how
the use of the structure changed her thinking where her value for reflection was not an excuse for
her inaction but could allow her to take what Rodgers (2002) referred to as intelligent action.
Lastly, her language, “So in that sense, maybe not having a plan for circling back is part of being
complicit, you know?” indicated the use of the structure for thinking and acting had allowed her
to see that not acting could have also contributed to her problem of practice.
While Rhea’s growth in her use of the cognitive structure was minimal, there was
evidence of her engaging with the tool (protocol) and trying to apply the structure in her thinking
and acting. The following excerpt illustrates where Rhea landed in her use of the structure to
guide her thinking and acting with respect to her problem of practice:

148
So, in reflection and how I’m complicit to the problem, um (takes a long pause), I
realized that, or I acknowledged that working with the student can become complicated
by their erratic reactions to any advice that’s like not what they want to hear. And I’ve
allowed that to kind of steer and manipulate my conversations with him. Because I don’t
want to poke the bear, per se … I put how I could have done more, in reflection with
what we talked about, like I could have set up a meeting with other students from that
class with this kid to show like firsthand their experience with this teacher, like I really
liked that idea. And even a meeting with the teacher, that I never did that as well.
Her language, “So, in reflection and how I’m complicit to the problem,” suggested the structure
of the handout prompted a reflection of her problem and encouraged her to think of her
complicity in the situation. The long pause implied Rhea was having difficulty articulating her
role in her problem of practice, demonstrating she was grappling with how to apply this structure
for thinking and acting (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). She changed, “I realized that” to “I
acknowledged that,” indicating her thinking of her student’s behaviors remained the same
because she had acknowledged that behavior in her initial description of her experience. Her
statement, “working with the student can become complicated by their erratic reactions to any
advice that’s like not what they want to hear,” centered the role of the student and did not speak
to the ways Rhea contributed to her problem of practice. She believed his “erratic” reactions
were a consequence of her providing advice and did not present a variety of explanations for her
problem of practice, which was the purpose of our use of the structure for analysis of the
problem. She continued with, “And I’ve allowed that to kind of steer and manipulate my
conversations with him,” telegraphing her “allowance” of his behavior was how she was

149
complicit in her problem of practice. She viewed her student’s reactions as a manipulation of the
conversation instead of an expression of the trauma he experienced.
In her reflection she had not considered the perspective of her learner by exploring why
the learner was avoiding his teacher or named her assumptions about the learner as irrational and
manipulating, which were ideas that came out of our discourse as we engaged with the structure
in our PIC. This illustrated her resistance to a shift in thinking and acting I intended for her to
adopt because of my cognitive structuring. Rhea’s words, “I put how I could have done more,”
telegraphed her use of the structure (“On the One Hand”) was helping to build her principles of
practice (Horn & Little, 2010), where she was confronting her role by shifting from a reactive
stance to a proactive stance with her learner. She expressed she had taken the time to reflect on
our last whole group session, “in reflection with what we talked about,” indicating the structure
of our reflective discourse had helped produce her following thoughts. While her earlier
statement was vague, she elaborated on what she meant, an action that was consistent with using
the protocol as a structure for elaborating (Horn & Little). Her language, “like I could have set
up a meeting with other students from that class with this kid to show like firsthand their
experience with this teacher, like I really liked that idea,” conveyed our utilization of the
structure in our PIC had generated ideas for her to experiment with, which was consistent with
Step 4 testing during experimentation in our protocol. She referred to an idea of her own that
came out of our last session, “And even a meeting with the teacher, that I never did that as well,”
where she realized the teacher’s voice was missing in her description of her problem of practice
during analysis of experience. This indicated the structure had helped her engage in a new way
of thinking and acting, which was to consider more voices in her approach to a problem of
practice.

150
Limitations. As stated above, Rhea’s absences and her resistance to using the transcript
as a resource could have affected her ability to internalize our PIC protocol as a cognitive
structure. Additionally, I was not perfect in enacting my structure as it was also my first
experience in engaging with it. In my description of experience, I did not articulate a specific
experience for us to analyze in our PIC and provided a general problem consisting of multiple
experiences. Moreover, I did not provide immediate feedback as my participants were grappling
with the distinction between asking specifying questions during description of experience and
probing during analysis of experience because I was slow to recognize the alignment of my
participants’ thinking and acting with the structure. This had implications for the way that my
learners were able to take up the cognitive structuring and use the protocol because their learning
was constrained by my own understanding of the tool. Furthermore, I did not overtly attend to
the role of identity markers in my presentation of the PIC protocol. I did not specifically ask my
participants to tie their problem of practice to students belonging to a historically marginalized
group, and instead, allowed my participants to bring a problem of practice that was most pressing
to them. While we had brought problems of practice related to students who identified with the
LGBTQ community and students with disabilities, we had neglected to interrogate the role of
identity markers such as race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality in our problems of practice. This
had implications for my participants’ understanding of the humanization framework I had
intended for them to adopt in their promotion of students’ sense of belonging since humanizing
SEL requires that we recognize our students’ full humanity such as their identities (Camangian &
Cariaga, 2021).

151
Finding 2: My Growth Toward Critical Reflection
As articulated in my conceptual framework, my intention was to pursue an inquiry as
stance disposition. I defined inquiry as stance as a disposition where I am engaged in an iterative
process of problematizing how I work with my colleagues and questioning my epistemology to
progress toward a socially just education for our students. While I did not adopt a “critical habit
of mind” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, p. 121), I had given myself a system for reflection which was
a change from the way I would have approached reflection prior to my action research where I
had only attempted to write critical reflections as assignments and did not have a good grasp on
what it looked like. I wrote reflections after every session and every cycle of my action research,
for a total of nine reflections. Additionally, I reflected with my classmates in the courses I was
taking during the span of my action research, and I received feedback from my dissertation chair
about how to improve my critical reflections. However, I was not engaging in an inquiry as
stance disposition, since my individual acts of problematizing my action research were not a
state of being and I had to intentionally put them as a task in my planner. Therefore, what
emerged in my findings was my growth in my ability to critically reflect.
I drew on Brookfield’s (2010) description of critical reflection as I wrestled with what it
looked like to problematize what transpired in my action research. Brookfield (2010) stated,
critical reflection “must have its explicit focus uncovering, and challenging, the power dynamics
that frame practice and uncovering and challenging hegemonic assumptions” (p. 216). I was
building my muscle to make “current arrangements problematic” and assume “that part of the
work of practitioners individually and collectively is to participate in educational and social
change” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 121) through my attempts to critically reflect. While I
did not master the skill of critical reflection as I only uncovered power dynamics and hegemonic

152
assumptions without challenging them, there was evidence of my growth. I went from a shallow
uncovering of power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2010) in my Cycle 1
Reflection to a deeper excavation and dissection of the power dynamics (Brookfield, 2010) that
frame my inquiry project in my Cycle 2 Reflection.
In the first critical reflection that I wrote following the first two sessions, I uncovered
power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2010), but in a shallow manner. I
reflected on how power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions affected the way I facilitated the
activities in the first two sessions. The excerpt below illustrates a shallow uncovering of power
dynamics and hegemonic assumptions where I named them and briefly tried to understand them
with a couple of following thoughts without acknowledging their complexity and the diverse
ways they manifested in our PIC:
From my reflection with my classmates in EDUE 725, I signaled that I felt like I had the
least power in the room because of my professional role compared to the other
participants. I see this belief influencing how I interact with my participants. I tend to ask
them what they think about what I had planned for them to do and am seeking for
agreement or approval. However, in my own classroom, I do not do this as frequently
with my students, although I do seek their input, but ultimately, I make the decision
because I trust my expertise … I find myself dipping my toes in the water and then taking
them out when I am unsure or uncomfortable. I wonder if this has to do with my Asian
identity where it is our cultural norm to maintain group harmony and prevent any discord.
Instead in my action research project, I am asking myself to cause some disruption and
disorientation with my participants. This is very difficult for me, but I know that this is
something I need to work on in my subsequent cycles. I also need to be more direct and

153
stop worrying about whether I am causing feelings of discomfort by asking difficult
questions. My belief about my own power and position is presenting itself as a
mental/psychological block in how I lead my colleagues (two of who have a formal
leadership/supervisory role and two who do not). My age as well as my years of
educational experience serve as factors of my identity that influence my confidence in
leading others who are older and with more years of experience. Again, I also wonder if
this has to do with my Asian upbringing where we are taught to listen to our elders and
how I correlate years of experience with expertise when this may not be necessarily true.
In this space, I should be the expert other in the room to guide my participants toward
inquiry into their own practice and work toward promoting students’ sense of belonging
aligned with HHSEL … I also wonder if by classifying Rhea and Sara as instrumental
knowers I am making the assumption that they’re at a lower level of knowing because
they are also at a lower level of positional authority and power compared to my other two
participants.
My language, “I signaled that I felt like I had the least power in the room because of my
professional role compared to the other participants,” indicated I was uncovering a power
dynamic that framed my practice (Brookfield, 2010) by first recognizing its existence. However,
my reflection was shallow as I did not question why my position made me feel like I had the
least power in the room in comparison to other participants and the hegemonic structures that
contributed to my belief. I elaborated, “I see this belief influencing how I interact with my
participants,” which implied I was problematizing how I worked with my colleagues, while brief
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). I specified, “I tend to ask them what they think about what I had
planned for them to do and am seeking for agreement or approval,” demonstrating I was

154
uncovering the power dynamic by understanding the impact power had on my practice
(Brookfield, 2010). However, my uncovering of the power dynamic remained shallow as I did
not investigate how my behavior was a consequence of how my school operated with respect to
power. I compared my behavior as an adult educator in this space to my behavior as a classroom
teacher, “However, in my own classroom, I do not do this as frequently with my students,
although I do seek their input, but ultimately I make the decision because I trust my expertise,”
acknowledging the ways my perception of my power influenced my practice. What I did not do
was question why my behavior was different with my students and if it was a result of the power
that I held over them as their teacher. All in all, my critical reflection of my positional power
stopped short as I did not seek to challenge it (Brookfield, 2010), which illustrated I was
grappling with how to critically reflect at this point in my action research. Moreover, I illustrated
a shallow excavation of my positional power by merely identifying its existence and seeking to
briefly understand its implications without acknowledging its complexity. I did not explore why
my position contributed to my perception of my power in the room and how my perception was
an impact of hegemonic structures.
I stated, “I find myself dipping my toes in the water and then taking them out when I am
unsure or uncomfortable,” which conveyed my next effort to problematize my practice
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Implied in my language, “I wonder if this has to do with my
Asian identity,” was the opportunity to explore my positionality—the intersection of my race and
power (Villaverde, 2008 as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013). While I considered the role of my
race, “it is our cultural norm to maintain group harmony and prevent any discord. Instead in my
action research project, I am asking myself to cause some disruption and disorientation with my

155
participants,” there was no explicit uncovering of power, demonstrating my reflection fell short
of being critical (Brookfield, 2010).
Resembling my earlier statements, I wrote, “I also need to be more direct and stop
worrying about whether I am causing feelings of discomfort by asking difficult questions,”
without investigating my statement further. I could have taken my reflection one step further by
questioning why I worried about ruffling feathers in my organization and how that could be
attributed to how I had been conditioned to think. My language, “My belief about my own power
and position is presenting itself as a mental/psychological block in how I lead my colleagues
(two of who have a formal leadership/supervisory role and two who do not),” illustrated my
shallow uncovering of a power dynamic (Brookfield, 2010) by acknowledging its role in my
actions as the leader of my PIC without an interrogation of the multiple ways my belief about my
power and position manifested in my action research. Implied in my language, “My age as well
as my years of educational experience serve as factors of my identity that influence my
confidence in leading others who are older and with more years of experience,” was my
uncovering of how age and years of experience contributed to my perception of my power and
how that affected my practice, illustrating my attempt to critically reflect (Brookfield, 2010). I
explored the intersection of my race, “Again, I also wonder if this has to do with my Asian
upbringing,” and age, “where we are taught to listen to our elders,” as a factor influencing my
perception of my power. My uncovering of the power dynamic was shallow as demonstrated by
my naming of my position, age, years of experience, and race as factors without an interrogation
of why and how they influenced my thoughts and actions. My language, “and how I correlate
years of experience with expertise when this may not be necessarily true,” telegraphed I was
engaged in a shallow uncovering of a hegemonic assumption by recognizing its existence

156
without questioning where it came from. I added, “In this space, I should be the expert other in
the room to guide my participants toward inquiry into their own practice and work toward
promoting students’ sense of belonging aligned with HHSEL,” illustrating the sole instance
where I was beginning to challenge a hegemonic assumption in my critical reflection
(Brookfield, 2010). I recognized my hegemonic assumption that someone with more years of
experience had more expertise, and I confronted my assumption by speculating an alternative
without acknowledging its complexity, demonstrating a shallow uncovering and challenging of
it. A more thorough excavation of my hegemonic assumption would have entailed an exploration
of what it would look and feel like to unlearn this hegemonic assumption.
In another instance, I questioned my epistemology (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) by
uncovering a hegemonic assumption about position, power, and knowledge,
I also wonder if by classifying Rhea and Sara as instrumental knowers I am making the
assumption that they’re at a lower level of knowing because they are also at a lower level
of positional authority and power compared to my other two participants
without challenging the hegemonic assumption, demonstrating I had not fully internalized the
skill of critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010). Furthermore, I portrayed a shallow uncovering of
the hegemonic assumption as indicated by my identification of its existence without seeking to
understand how it was a consequence of the way I had been conditioned to believe people in
higher positions had more knowledge and the diverse ways it manifested in my interactions with
my participants.
By my last critical reflection, I grew in my ability to critically reflect as I problematized
my action research. I went from a shallow uncovering of the power dynamics that framed my
practice to a deeper uncovering of them. In my reflection, I interrogated the role of power in our

157
interactions with one another and explored what affected our ability to challenge one another’s
thoughts and actions in our PIC. I problematized my action research and had begun to surface its
relation to moving toward a socially just education (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Depicted in
the excerpt below is a deeper excavation of the power dynamics that framed our practice
(Brookfield, 2010) as I dug deeper to explore its roots in our identities and experiences.
Furthermore, I illustrated a deeper dissection of the power dynamics that framed our practice, as
I sought to understand the diverse ways it manifested in our PIC by exploring the power
differentials between me and each participant, and between Zoe and Lillian, instead of solely
perceiving my participants as a collective as I had done in my reflection from my first cycle.
I wonder if my professional position was Zoe’s supervisor, would she still miss the
meetings and come unprepared? I don’t think so. The power differential between my
position as a classroom teacher and her position as the assistant principal was evident in
Zoe’s treatment of my dissertation work where it was not a priority to her. And yet, I
would not directly tell her that I was upset with this because I think of her as doing me a
favor and she is in a higher position than me, nor do I want to break the relationship with
her. Keeping a harmonious relationship with my colleagues is important to me, in this
case with an administrator is important because they have the power over my teaching
schedule and your relationship with them influences whether they will go to bat for you if
issues were to arise. There are also many aspects of my identity that influenced my desire
to not be disruptive or cause any discord. One aspect is my Asian identity where keeping
peace is prioritized over individual desires. Positional roles and age are also very
important identity markers where I was never to disagree with my elders, and I had to
listen to them. Growing up if I disagreed with my mom in an argument, it would be seen

158
as a very disrespectful act—頂嘴 (to talk back). I am the youngest in our PIC and our
differences in age could also be a barrier as to why I do not challenge my participants
more often. I noticed that in a lot of my participants’ telling of their problem of practice,
they believed their problem lied with others and external factors and there was not much
interrogation of how they were complicit in their problem of practice, but I didn’t push
them further. Although, I will have to wait to meet with Lillian and Rhea to go over their
“On the One Hand” to make more conclusions about this. At the same time, my
participants are not challenging one another’s thinking as well which makes me think that
the behavior of not challenging one another is a learned norm between colleagues in the
K–12 system. Another reason could be due to all of our gender identity as women who
may have been conditioned to agree with others and be nice to one another. At times, I
have been quiet when someone says something problematic or when I do not agree with
what they are saying but I keep these thoughts to myself. I might laugh it off or try to
sympathize when adults are complaining about students, but I actually see the student’s
point of view. While I am trying to voice my opinions more and more, it takes a
conscious effort, bravery, and a reversal of what I have been conditioned to do. I feel a
tension of maintaining good relationships with my colleagues and also disrupting the
status quo. I recognize that I have a desire to be liked and accepted—which affects my
sense of belonging. However, in order to advocate for my students and increase their
sense of belonging, I have to cause disorientation that could lead to damaged
relationships. Then, the key is to cause constructive disorientation but that can only
happen if the receiver is open to learning/growth and there is trust between us … The
power differential between Zoe and myself affected how she received my suggestions or

159
recommendations. It also affected how seriously she took my action research project
which is supported by her attendance and preparation for our meetings. The power
differential between Zoe and Lillian also affected Lillian’s participation in this process.
Lillian voiced multiple times her concerns about what she could share in this space
because Zoe, while not her direct supervisor, is still an administrator with a higher
authority and this being Lillian’s first year in her position makes her concerned about her
job security as well. Zoe is not afraid of using her power and knows that she is in power
from the first meeting where power was mentioned and instead of giving up/removing
that power in this space she exercised it by cautioning us of our duties. While I was aware
of the power differential between Zoe and Lillian, I was naïve in thinking that it would
not be an issue and we could be open with one another. Rhea voiced the same sentiments
from our first session where she didn’t think it would be an issue … It’s difficult to
address this power differential because I think Lillian feels this way due to her past
interactions with Zoe. Additionally, Zoe and I have a big power differential as well.
Where I imagine a good leader would value/respect the opinions of its employees, I
didn’t take into account the difficulties of leading up. I wanted to exercise the agency I
had as a teacher to make changes, to influence others in a higher position, to be a teacher
leader, to be a fellow leader. I don’t see Rhea as having a higher position than me in our
organization. While my first instinct is to think I might feel most relaxed with her
because we are both Asian, Zoe is Asian too and I feel least comfortable with her.
Perhaps I am comfortable with her because I also recognize her as a teacher when I was a
student, although she was not my teacher, she has been a part of our organization since
then. I see Rhea as someone who is supportive of my dissertation with her concern with

160
my deadlines and data. While she did miss two sessions, she really cares about whether
she is doing her part right. She has also been very encouraging of others in the session. I
also notice she is very agreeable, and I wonder what part of her identity influences her
behavior of being very agreeable. Given this, the push would be for her to disagree with
colleagues or parents and strongly advocate for her students as the intervention counselor.
While Lillian is an administrator, I do not perceive her exercising her positional power
over us in this space. This could be that Lillian was my peer just last school year and this
is her first year as an administrator. It could also be Lillian’s leadership style or her
awareness of the power she wields and choosing not to use it. It could be that she is not
the direct supervisor of me or Rhea. She is not the dean of my division, so she is not in
charge of evaluating me.
My question, “I wonder if my professional position was Zoe’s supervisor, would she still miss
the meetings and come unprepared?” telegraphed my uncovering of the role of positional power
in the interactions between me and Zoe. Instead of just identifying its existence, which would be
a shallower approach in the uncovering of power dynamics (Brookfield, 2010), I envisioned a
reversal of the roles and investigated further. My answering of my own question, “I don’t think
so,” communicated my assertion that Zoe’s behavior would be different if I had more authority
over her. Furthermore, I conveyed the implications of the power differential between us, where it
“was evident in Zoe’s treatment of my dissertation work where it was not a priority to her. And
yet, I would not directly tell her that I was upset with this.” Additionally, I investigated why it
affected my reticence, “because I think of her as doing me a favor and she is in a higher position
than me, nor do I want to break the relationship with her,” demonstrating a deeper uncovering of
the power dynamic that was more aligned with a critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010). I

161
continued to excavate our power dynamic, “Keeping a harmonious relationship … with an
administrator is important because they have the power over my teaching schedule and your
relationship with them influences whether they will go to bat for you if issues were to arise,” as I
alluded to how my previous experiences with administrators and the power they yield
contributed to my beliefs.
My words, “There are also many aspects of my identity that influenced my desire to not
be disruptive or cause any discord,” telegraphed a deeper uncovering of the power dynamic as I
explored its roots in my identity and experiences (Brookfield, 2010). I named my race, “One
aspect is my Asian identity,” and a cultural norm, “where keeping peace is prioritized over
individual desires,” as factors that prevented me from having a difficult conversation with Zoe. I
named position and age as additional factors, “Positional roles and age are also very important
identity markers,” and explained its intersection with my race, “where I was never to disagree
with my elders, and I had to listen to them.” I drew on my childhood experiences, “Growing up
if I disagreed with my mom in an argument, it would be seen as a very disrespectful act—頂嘴
(to talk back)” to further understand the power dynamic (Brookfield, 2010). Lastly, I identified
my age as a potential obstacle in my teaching, “I am the youngest in our PIC and our differences
in age could also be a barrier as to why I do not challenge my participants more often.” My
consideration of a multitude of factors affecting my fear of challenging my participants
illustrated a deeper excavation of my hesitance to be direct with my expectations for Zoe because
of my perception of our power differential. My language, “I noticed that in a lot of my
participants’ telling of their problem of practice,” telegraphed that I was beginning to
acknowledge the diverse ways the power dynamic manifested in my action research in more
places than one, illustrating I was engaging in a deeper dissection. I contended, “they believed

162
their problem lied with others and external factors and there was not much interrogation of how
they were complicit in their problem of practice, but I didn’t push them further,” demonstrating
my efforts to critically reflect by communicating my consideration of how power framed our
interactions (Brookfield, 2010). Subsequently, I caught my own assumption, “Although, I will
have to wait to meet with Lillian and Rhea to go over their ‘On the One Hand’ to make more
conclusions about this,” indicating I was beginning question what I know to be true (Cochran-
Smith & Lytle, 2009).
I continued a deeper dissection of the power dynamic by exploring the diverse ways it
played out in our interactions, “At the same time, my participants are not challenging one
another’s thinking as well.” Moreover, I posited our interactions could be a product of the way
we have been conditioned to interact with one another within schools, “which makes me think
that the behavior of not challenging one another is a learned norm between colleagues in the K–
12 system,” showing a deeper investigation of the power dynamic I was attending to (Brookfield,
2010). I considered the role of gender and how we had been socialized to behave, “Another
reason could be due to all of our gender identity as women who may have been conditioned to
agree with others and be nice to one another,” further indicating my excavation of the power
dynamic (Brookfield, 2010). I reflected on my own experiences, “At times, I have been quiet
when someone says something problematic or when I do not agree with what they are saying but
I keep these thoughts to myself,” to explore how they might have affected my thoughts and
actions. I unearthed a dissonance between my enacted theory and espoused theory (Argyris &
Schön, 1974 as cited in Rodgers, 2002), “I might laugh it off or try to sympathize when adults
are complaining about students, but I actually see the student’s point of view,” articulating a
deeper dissection of the power dynamic by understanding the diverse ways it has affected my

163
practice. My language, “While I am trying to voice my opinions more and more, it takes a
conscious effort, bravery, and a reversal of what I have been conditioned to do,” telegraphed I
was beginning to challenge the power dynamic by contemplating what I needed to do for it not to
be that way, suggesting a more complex critical reflection in comparison to the one I wrote in the
first cycle. My statement, “I feel a tension of maintaining good relationships with my colleagues
and also disrupting the status quo,” depicted my effort to problematize my action research
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). I explored what was contributing to the tension I was feeling, “I
recognize that I have a desire to be liked and accepted—which affects my sense of belonging.”
Although I was not perfect in my inquiry as I could have pushed my thinking and considered the
relationship between belonging, power, and disruption, I acknowledged my responsibility for
social and educational change (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Implied in my language,
“However, in order to advocate for my students and increase their sense of belonging, I have to
cause disorientation that could lead to damaged relationships,” is a confrontation of how my
behavior needed to change, illustrating an interrogation of my beliefs and its alignment with my
actions to advocate for a socially just education (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017).
Furthermore, I explored what conditions needed to be in place for me to actualize my proposal,
“Then, the key is to cause constructive disorientation but that can only happen if the receiver is
open to learning/growth and there is trust between us,” indicating I was deliberately exploring
how to advocate for educational and social change in this instance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
2009).
In my reflection, I uncovered a power dynamic that framed my practice, “The power
differential between Zoe and myself,” first by identifying its existence (Brookfield, 2010). My
words, “affected how she received my suggestions or recommendations,” communicated what I

164
perceived to be the impact of the power dynamic on my participant, uncovering it a step further.
I asserted, “It also affected how seriously she took my action research project,” and explained
my rationale, “supported by her attendance and preparation for our meetings,” depicting a deeper
dissection of the various ways the power dynamic contributed to my action research.
Additionally, I expanded my understanding of how power dynamics might have manifested
differently between participants, illustrating a more thorough uncovering of the role of power
(Brookfield, 2010) as I stated, “The power differential between Zoe and Lillian also affected
Lillian’s participation in this process.” I elaborated on what informed my belief, “Lillian voiced
multiple times her concerns about what she could share in this space,” and its relation to power
structures, “because Zoe, while not her direct supervisor, is still an administrator with a higher
authority.” I recalled what Lillian shared with me, “and this being Lillian’s first year in her
position makes her concerned about her job security as well,” and the validity of her fear from
my perception of Zoe, “Zoe is not afraid of using her power and knows that she is in power.” I
explicitly uncovered the ways in which the power dynamic had framed our practice as a first step
in critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010) as I wrote, “instead of giving up/removing that power in
this space she exercised it by cautioning us of our duties.” Implied in my language, “I was naïve
in thinking that it would not be an issue and we could be open with one another,” was my
realization that “the dynamics of power permeate all professional practice” (Brookfield, 2010, p.
222). Consequently, it was a step toward the recognition of the “oppressive dimensions to
practices we had thought were neutral or even benevolent” (p. 222), which is an outcome of
critical reflection (Brookfield, 2010). My depiction of Rhea’s belief, “Rhea voiced the same
sentiments from our first session where she didn’t think it would be an issue,” illustrated the
invisibility of power dynamics, while still ever present (Brookfield, 2010). Depicted through my

165
words, “It’s difficult to address this power differential because I think Lillian feels this way due
to her past interactions with Zoe,” was my effort to excavate the power dynamic by
acknowledging the impact of Lillian’s experiences with Zoe. I communicated a prior assumption,
“where I imagine a good leader would value/respect the opinions of its employees,” and my
misconception, “I didn’t take into account the difficulties of leading up.” While I did not fully
challenge the hegemonic assumptions around leading, I moved toward doing so as I
communicated my desire, “I wanted to exercise the agency I had as a teacher to make changes, to
influence others in a higher position, to be a teacher leader, to be a fellow leader,” depicting my
growth in critical reflection.
I continued to analyze the pervasiveness of power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions
(Brookfield, 2010), as I questioned its role in my interactions with another participant, “I don’t
see Rhea as having a higher position than me in our organization,” illustrating a deeper
dissection of positional power differentials. I considered the role of race, “While my first instinct
is to think I might feel most relaxed with her because we are both Asian,” and tested my thinking
by considering a counterexample “Zoe is Asian too and I feel least comfortable with her,”
indicating my efforts to deeply uncover the role of power by investigating (Brookfield, 2010)
what contributed to the relationship between me and Rhea. I began to explore the root of Rhea’s
agreeableness as I “wonder what part of her identity influences her behavior of being very
agreeable,” although I stopped short of discovering its relation to her positionality, depicting
there are moments where my ability to critically reflect was not as strong. I connected to
Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) claim that our collective work as practitioners was to
participate in educational and social change, “Given this, the push would be for her to disagree
with colleagues or parents and strongly advocate for her students as the intervention counselor.”

166
I continued to consider the diverse ways positional power dynamics had framed my practice,
thus demonstrating a deeper dissection of power dynamics (Brookfield, 2010) as I explored its
place in the interactions between me and Lillian. I did not deny the existence of power, “While
Lillian is an administrator, I do not perceive her exercising her positional power over us in this
space.” Instead, I telegraphed that it could be redirected, “It could also be Lillian’s leadership
style or her awareness of the power she wields and choosing not to use it,” consistent with
Brookfield (2010). This illustrated an exploration of how “power over people is transformed into
power with people,” (Follet, 1924 as cited in Brookfield, 2010), as I was building my capacity to
critically reflect. I continued to contemplate the role of power in the relationship between me and
Lillian, “It could be that she is not the direct supervisor of me or Rhea. She is not the dean of my
division, so she is not in charge of evaluating me,” further contrasting my ability to critically
reflect between the first cycle and the second cycle of my action research. In closing, I displayed
evidence of growth in my ability to critically reflect. This was indicated by my deeper
uncovering of how power dynamics framed my action research in my excavation of its roots in
our identities and experiences and my dissection of the multiple ways the power dynamics
manifested in our interactions with one another. However, I have yet to master the skill of
critically reflecting and need to practice challenging the power dynamics and hegemonic
assumptions that frame my practice moving forward. Moreover, while I mentioned the role of
gender, position, and sometimes race in our interactions with one another, I did not thoroughly
investigate the role of our positionality in our interactions.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss my retrospective takeaways from my action research,
where I currently stand in my practice, and how my action research will continue to influence my

167
growth as I continue to work toward my goal of engaging my learners to promote students’ sense
of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective. After conducting analysis, I realized that I had
talked about many aspects of my ethnic identity as barriers and recognized that I had allowed
these narratives to influence how I navigated professional spaces. Moving forward, I am seeking
to challenge those very narratives and embrace a positive ethnic identity. With respect to my
career, I have decided to look for a new role within the field of education that will allow for more
opportunities to work with prospective or current teachers. Lastly, I will carry what I learned
about enacting humanizing SEL and inquiry as stance to my next position and continue to grow
as a learner, educator, and leader.
Navigating My Identity as a Taiwanese American
On my journey to unveil how my identity and experiences as an Asian American
contributed to the power dynamics and hegemonic assumptions that framed my practice, I
neglected to affirm my identity and experiences. Although I understand a central purpose of
critical reflections is to challenge power dynamics, I often found myself in the position of having
less power and that had implications for my psyche. As I uncovered the power dynamics that
framed my practice, my reflections were reinforcing the oppressive messaging that my social
group was inferior (Camangian & Cariaga, 2021). In both of the critical reflections presented in
my findings, I identified my ethnicity several times as a factor that contributed to my hesitance in
disrupting the status quo. I stated, “keeping peace is prioritized over individual desires,” “we are
taught to listen to our elders,” and “Growing up if I disagreed with my mom in an argument, it
would be seen as a very disrespectful act— 頂嘴 (to talk back).” In all these instances, I was
naming characteristics of my ethnic culture as barriers to my ability to teach and lead my
colleagues to promote students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective.

168
Moreover, I had allowed these narratives to influence how I navigated professional
spaces. For example, in the first session, I expressed deference when I asked my assistant
principal to elaborate on a statement she made that implied my dissertation was disconnected
from improving students’ educational outcomes. My response was, “um, sorry, could you expand
a little bit on that?” demonstrating a hesitance to ask her to explain and a failure to articulate how
my action research was directly tied to improving students’ educational outcomes. Furthermore,
when she showed up unprepared to share her problem of practice (Session 6) and her “On the
One Hand” reflection, I pretended that it was all right and did not confront her about it. Both
instances telegraphed how I had been conditioned to express deference to people who are in
positions to wield their power over me.
As many authors contend, social change begins from the inside out (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Ginwright, 2016; Palmer; 1999). I now realize that I need to expand my
perspective on my identity as an Asian American. Like my “On the One Hand” graphic
organizer, on the one hand, I need to explore the ways that society has marginalized aspects of
my identities, and on the other hand, I need to challenge them and explore my strengths deriving
from my identities and experiences. While I acknowledge that I have many intersecting identities
(e.g., gender) that play a role in how I navigate this world, I draw my attention to my ethnic
identity.
In my “I Am From …” poem that I shared with my participants in Session 2, I wrote:
I am from a Taiwanese culture that values harmony and respect for elders, often
penalized for speaking out and so it took me a while to find my voice; I’m still working
on it.

169
I am from a tension to be both “American” and “Asian.” Are Asian Americans not
American, or do I need to be white?
Through my words, I highlighted my struggle to be both Asian and American, and the perpetual
foreigner stereotype. According to Spring (2016), many people of color and multiply-
marginalized people are taught to “substitute their perspectives with another lens through which
to view the world that is directly at odds with the existence and history of oppressed peoples” (as
cited in Camangian & Cariaga, 2021, p. 7). Subsequently, they “question the validity of their
lived experiences, language practices, and social paradigms” (p. 8). A social paradigm with deep
roots in Taiwanese culture is the concept of filial piety ( 孝順). However, Americans value
freedom and independence. Therefore, I had an internal conflict to be both filial and exercise
independence. While I describe filial piety as a norm for interacting with one’s parents with
honor and respect, my description does not truly capture the essence of filial piety. Filial piety is
so embedded in culture that many scholars in Western societies have a limited understanding of
what it truly means (Bedford & Yeh, 2019) and using the English language to describe a Chinese
concept is restricting. In my efforts to hold on to my Taiwanese roots and adopt the value of filial
piety, I inadvertently learned to translate that behavior to other professional spaces, and it had
implications for the actions that I took or did not take as an adult educator.
In the art of critical reflection, it is not enough to just uncover power dynamics and
hegemonic assumptions that frame my practice but requires the challenging of those very power
dynamics and hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2010). Similarly, it is not enough to just
uncover my deference, but to challenge the behavior. I recognize that my deference in
professional spaces was a product of various factors influencing how I have been conditioned to
behave. The various factors include, but are not limited to, my ethnic identity, my experiences,

170
racial stereotypes, oppressive messaging, and other social paradigms. One step toward
challenging my deference is to learn how to distinguish demonstrating filial piety toward my
parents from speaking my mind and being direct in professional spaces. Another step is
acknowledging filial piety as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, filial piety has its values in
caring and taking care of one’s parents, known as reciprocal filial piety (Bedford & Yeh). On the
other hand, it entails hegemonic structures that demand obedience and suppress individual
desires, known as authoritarian filial piety (Bedford & Yeh). Both dimensions coexist, and so the
challenge is to hold on to the part of my ethnic culture that serves me and let go of the part that
does not serve me.
Moreover, while it is important to uncover the ways that society has marginalized my
identities, it is equally as important to extend my thinking and explore “culturally affirming
navigation strategies inside of the existing social system” (Franklin et al., 2006 as cited in
Camangian & Cariaga, 2021, p. 8). I recognize that my tunnel vision in exploring the ways that I
have been oppressed blinded me to the assets that come from my identities. Embracing a positive
ethnic identity could look like naming stereotypes and counteracting them by resisting what I am
conditioned to believe about myself and my culture (Camangian & Cariaga). Another way is to
balance being both Taiwanese and American by affirming what is beautiful in both cultures and
challenging hegemonic structures within the two cultures. By attending to my individual well-
being and humanizing myself, I am better equipped to lead with a purpose of humanizing others
and advocate for collective well-being (Ginwright, 2016).
Looking Forward
At the end of the school year, I made the difficult decision to resign from my high school
teaching position. After teaching high school for 9 years, I decided it was time to seek a different

171
position within the field of education. Being in my specific concentration, Leading Instructional
Change, has encouraged me to be an adult educator in a greater capacity than my role as a high
school teacher. While there were some opportunities for me to teach my colleagues, I desire a
position where most of my time will be spent teaching prospective or current educators.
Therefore, upon finishing my dissertation, I will look for a new position in the field of education.
In my new role, I plan to utilize my PIC protocol to engage my adult learners in a reflective cycle
to explore and experiment with their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a
humanizing SEL perspective. In my action research, I had made the decision for my participants
to bring in a problem of practice that was connected to their professional goal and the promotion
of students’ sense of belonging without overtly attending to students who have experienced
identity-related trauma. However, White supremacy is sustained by being unnamed and invisible
(Drake & Oglesby, 2020) and I was perpetuating an identity-evasive approach to our work
through our discourse. Therefore, with the opportunity to implement the protocol again, I would
explicitly turn our focus to students who may have experienced identity-related trauma and the
role that our identity markers and our students’ identity markers have in our problems of
practice.
Although, I am unable to continue my work with my participants, what they learned from
my action research could influence their prospective thinking and acting at our school. What I
hope for this community is for adults to engage in a systematic critical reflection on how they
contribute to students’ sense of belonging and the role of privilege, power, and oppression in the
systems, policies, and practices they employ. Lastly, it will be important for them to examine
how their identity markers and students’ identity markers influence the promotion of students’
sense of belonging.

172
Continuing My Growth
In my future as an adult educator, I will continue my growth in engaging my learners to
promote students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing SEL perspective. With more time, I
want to move beyond an exploration of our promotion of students’ sense of belonging to
experimentation. I will continue to use and revise my PIC protocol in my future work with adult
learners. For example, I realized that my instructions for description of experience were too
vague. I have since changed it from, “a participant tells the story of an experience without
interpretation or problem solving” to “a participant tells the story of a particular experience in
nuanced ways by specifying what people said and did in the story, and refrains from
interpretation or problem-solving.” Additionally, I will continue to teach the concepts of
humanization and healing justice while simultaneously working toward a deeper understanding
of the theories. One avenue is to continue asking questions that push adults to challenge how we
create dehumanizing experiences for our learners (Legette et al., 2022) and take action to restore
students’ individual and collective well-being (Ginwright, 2016). To challenge how we create
dehumanizing experiences for our learners requires a critical reflection of the power dynamics
and hegemonic assumptions that frame our practice by uncovering and challenging them
(Brookfield, 2010). Moreover, Camangian and Cariaga (2021) contend, humanization is
counterhegemonic as it is “a response to colonial and intersectional dehumanization” (p. 5).
Therefore, humanization may be leveraged as a means for challenging the power dynamics and
hegemonic assumptions that frame our practice.
Another way that I will continue my growth is my ability to critically reflect so that I may
be better positioned to pursue an inquiry as stance disposition. Consistent with my findings, I
will continue to improve in my ability to critically reflect by deeply uncovering the power

173
dynamics and hegemonic assumptions that frame my practice instead of engaging in a shallow
uncovering of them (Brookfield, 2010). Moreover, it is not enough to just uncover them, I will be
working toward challenging them as well. As seen above, I problematized my perceptions of my
ethnic culture in a way that was complex and nuanced, illustrating my effort to continue growing
in the skill of critical reflection. In my journey as an adult educator, I plan to increase the
frequency of making “current arrangements problematic; questioning the ways knowledge and
practice are constructed, evaluated, and used; and assuming that part of the work of practitioners
individually and collectively is to participate in educational and social change” (Cochran-Smith
& Lytle, 2009, p. 121) eventually toward a state of mindful learning, where I move from a state
of planning when to engage in inquiry toward a state of engaging in inquiry, without
provocation, as a moment-by-moment disposition (Wergin, 2019).

174
References
American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK–12 teaching and learning. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf
Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of blacks in the south: 1860-1935. University of North
Carolina Press.
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. M. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective
facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators (pp. 135–150). Stylus Publishing.
Barnes, T. N. (2019). Changing the landscape of social emotional learning in urban schools:
What are we currently focusing on and where do we go from here? Urban Review, 51(4),
599–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00534-1
Bedford, O., & Yeh, K. H. (2019). The history and the future of the psychology of filial piety:
Chinese norms to contextualized personality construct. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1–
11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00100
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods (5
th
ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical Reflection as an Adult Learning Process. In N. Lyons (Ed.),
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-
387-85744-2
Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons,
Incorporated.

175
Camangian, P., & Cariaga, S. (2021). Social and emotional learning is hegemonic miseducation:
students deserve humanization instead. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1798374
CASEL. (2016). What is SEL? https://www.casel.org/what-is-sel/
CASEL. (2020). CASEL’s SEL framework: What are the core competence areas and where are
they promoted? https://casel.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/CASEL-SEL-Framework-
11.2020.pdf
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249–305.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x024001249
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Ways forward. In Inquiry as
stance: Practitioner research for the next generation (pp. 118–166). Teachers College
Press.
Coghlan, D. (2016). Retrieving a philosophy of practical knowing for action research.
International Journal of Action Research, 12(1), 84–107. https://doi.org/10.1688/IJAR-
2016-01-Coghlan
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5
th
ed.). SAGE.
Congressional Research Service. (2015, December 10). S.1177– Every student succeeds act.
Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177
Constance High School. (n.d.a). Vision, mission, & SLOs.
https://chs.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=64353&type=d&pREC_ID=85344
8

176
Constance High School. (n.d.b). Social emotional learning.
https://chs.k12.ca.us/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1644541&type=d&pREC_ID=178
6795
Constance High School. (n.d.c). CHS mindfulness. GLC Mindfulness.
https://sites.google.com/g.chs.k12.ca.us/glc-mindfulness/home
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. In Basics of qualitative
research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed., pp. 65–
86). SAGE.
de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2012). Editor’s preface ‘HEADS UP.’ Critical Literacy: Theories and
Practices, 6(1), 1–3.
DeMartino, L., Fetman, L., Tucker-White, D., & Brown, A. (2022). From freedom dreams to
realities: Adopting transformative abolitionist social emotional learning (TASEL) in
schools. Theory into Practice. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2036062
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), 58-82.
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
Drake, R., & Oglesby, A. (2020). Humanity is not a thing: Disrupting white supremacy in K–12
social emotional learning. Journal of Critical Thought and Praxis, 10(1), 1–22.
Ed-Data. (2022). Constance high. Ed-data: Education data partnership. https://www.ed-
data.org/school/Los-Angeles/Constance-High

177
Ginwright, S. (2016). Hope and healing in urban education: How urban activists and teachers
are reclaiming matters of the heart. Routledge.
Hanushek, E.A. (2016). What matters for student achievement: updating Coleman on the
influence of families and schools. Education Next, 16(2), 18–26.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Cambridge Leadership Associates.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2015). The action research dissertation (2
nd
ed.). SAGE.
Hostetler, K. (2005). What is good education research? Educational Researcher, 34(6), 16–21.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3699806?uid=3739776&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739
256&sid=21104304010557
Jagers, R. J., Skoog-Hoffman, A., Barthelus, B., & Schlund, J. (2021). Transformative social
emotional learning: In pursuit of educational equity and excellence. American Educator,
12–18.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Klein, M. (2019). Teaching intersectionality through “I am from …”. In Teaching race: How to
help students unmask and challenge racism (pp.87–108). Jossey-Bass.
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement
motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.

178
Lambert, D. (2023, April 20). National wave of anti-CRT measures trickle into California
schools. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2023/national-wave-of-anti-crt-measures-trickle-
into-california-schools/688862
Laster Pirtle, W. N. (2020). Racial capitalism: A fundamental cause of novel coronavirus
(COVID-19) pandemic inequities in the United States.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120922942
Legette, K. B., Rogers, L. O., & Warren, C. A. (2022). Humanizing student–teacher relationships
for black children: Implications for teachers’ social–emotional training. Urban
Education, 57(2), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920933319
Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning: The
affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity theory. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 37(1), 109–130.
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2007). Facilitating multiple trajectories of teacher learning.
Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(1), 116–138.
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative
activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(3), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Massey, K. J., Warrington, A. S., & Holmes, K. (2014). An overview on urban education: A
brief history and contemporary issues. Texas Education Review, 2(2), 173–183.
Matias, C. E. (2013). On the “flip” side: A teacher educator of color unveiling the dangerous
minds of white teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(2), 53–73.

179
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
Mcgee, E. O., & Stovall, D. (2015). Reimagining critical race theory in education: Mental health,
healing, and the pathway to liberatory praxis. Educational Theory, 65(5), 491–511.
https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12129
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Fostering transformative learning. In Adult learning:
Bridging theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Fostering transformative adult learning. In Transformative Dimensions of
Adult Learning (pp. 196–227). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In
Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07309471
Najarro, I. (2023, August 22). The Florida AP Psychology controversy, explained. Education
Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/the-florida-ap-psychology-
controversy-explained/2023/08
Niche. (2023). Constance high school. https://www.niche.com/k12/constance-high-school-
constance-ca/
Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8
th
ed.). SAGE.
Palmer, P.J. (1999). Let your life speak: Listening for the voice of vocation. Jossey-Bass.

180
Patel, L. (2016). Pedagogies of resistance and survivance: Learning as marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined whiteness of teaching: How white teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475
Raelin, J. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32(1), 11–
30.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Rivas-Drake, D., Lozada, F. T., Pinetta, B. J., & Jagers, R. J. (2020). School-based social-
emotional learning and ethnic-racial identity among African American and Latino
adolescents. Youth and Society, 52(7), 1331–1354.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20939736
Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Williams, N. T. (2014). More than a metaphor: The
contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.958965
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre–
K through 12 education. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), Advances in Educational
Administration (pp. 23–45). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2010)0000011005

181
Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is
real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race.
American Psychologist, 60(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.1.16
Spikes, D. D. (2018). Culturally competent and racially conscious professional development for
school leaders: A review of the literature. Teachers College Record, 120(14), 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811812001403
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the claim of racial and cultural superiority by Anglo-
Americans. In deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8
th
ed.). Routledge.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2022). Quick facts: Constance city, California.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/constancecitycalifornia/PST045221
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Achievement gaps dashboard. The nation’s report card.
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/dashboards/achievement_gaps.aspx
U.S. News & World Report. (2022). Constance high. Best high schools rankings.
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/california/districts/constance-high-
3634
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. (2019). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647786

182
Whiteboard Advisors. (2023). State outlook: Critical race theory in 2023.
https://whiteboardadvisors.com/state-outlook-critical-race-theory-in-2023/
Yorks, L., & Kasl, E. (2002). Toward a theory and practice for whole-person learning:
reconceptualizing experience and the role of affect. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(3),
176–192.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines my leadership enactment as a teacher and action researcher at Constance High School. To provide a comprehensive examination of my leadership enactment, I deconstruct my use of a holding environment and cognitive structuring in relation to a group of colleagues in varying positions. My action research question was: How do I engage my colleagues in inquiry so that they will explore their promotion of students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing social emotional learning perspective? I collected fieldnotes, reflections, and documents in my role as the researcher. I found that I was able to move my colleagues from perceiving their problems of practices related to students’ sense of belonging as detached from their own actions to recognizing their own role as we investigated our problem of practices. Therefore, I was able to support my colleagues in taking a step closer toward promoting students’ sense of belonging from a humanizing social emotional learning perspective by centering adult responsibility.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

A new lens to examine and increase sense of belonging of Latin* students from postsecondary institutions in the midwestern United States

PDF

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

PDF

Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging

PDF

Improving first-generation students' sense of belonging at university

PDF

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

PDF

Students’ sense of belonging: college student and staff perspectives during COVID-19

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

Asset Metadata

Creator Chiang, Isabella (author)

Core Title Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/11/2023

Defense Date 09/05/2023

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

Tag action research,critical reflection,humanization,OAI-PMH Harvest,practitioner inquiry community,sense of belonging,social emotional learning

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Pascarella, John (committee member)

Creator Email chiang.isabella@gmail.com,chiangi@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113305026

Unique identifier UC113305026

Identifier etd-ChiangIsab-12348.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChiangIsab-12348

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Chiang, Isabella

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230911-usctheses-batch-1094 (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