University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development

(USC Thesis Other)

An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

An Exploration: Teacher Reflections of Implicit Bias Professional Development

Lesly M. Culp

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

August 2023

© Copyright by Lesly M. Culp 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lesly M. Culp certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Holly Ferguson
Courtney Lynn Malloy, Committee Co-Chair
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
The primary framework guiding my study is the model of triadic reciprocity as used in
social cognitive theory to understand the role of the environmental, behavioral, and personal
influences on teacher reflection of their self-efficacy on mitigating implicit bias after
attending professional development (PD) that addresses it. The purpose of this study was to
understand how teachers in a diverse suburban high school are reflecting on their motivation
and experience attending PD that addressed implicit bias. This study also examined what
participants felt were the impacts of the PD on their understanding of and self-efficacy to
address implicit bias in their practice. The qualitative study used a standardized open-ended
interview protocol with 16 questions to gather data from 10 participants who attended an
implicit bias PD between 2019 – 2022. Interview transcripts captured on an audio-visual
recording and field notes were coded, analyzed, and mapped to the research questions.
Findings from this study indicate that the participants were motivated to attend the PD
whether it was mandated or self-selected. While the oppositional socio-political environment
concerning Critical Race Theory influenced a negative reception of the PD by colleagues, it
did not dissuade the participants’ motivation to engage in the learning. However,
participants did not feel the PD provided applicable strategies. This exploration revealed that
when participants’ personal attitudes were influenced by the social awareness of the murder
of George Floyd, Bryonna Taylor, and Black Lives Matter (BLM), combined with
supportive environments from their department, and a stated personal social consciousness,
changes to curricular choices were prompted and personal reflection was encouraged. This
study helps inform the design of PD that aims to mitigate implicit bias at the personal level
as way to contribute to a more equitable school system.
v
Dedication
To my maternal grandparents, Blanca Tapia y Jorge Palacios. You taught me about love, sacrifice,
and commitment.

vi
Acknowledgments
This dissertation was possible because of the incredible support to my parents, Sonia and
Bob and my loving family, Tex, Patrick, and Jackie. I am also grateful for the support and
guidance of my dissertation committee, Drs. Kim Hirabayashi, Courtney Malloy, and Holly
Ferguson. I appreciate the patience, encouragement, and support from all the leaders and co-
workers at USC Shoah Foundation. I embarked on this journey to be a strong force for change
through education.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. ix
An Exploration: Teacher Reflections of Implicit Bias Professional Development .................... 1
Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 4
Understanding Implicit Bias ................................................................................................... 5
Implicit Bias in Education ...................................................................................................... 6
Teacher Self-Concept .............................................................................................................. 7
Implicit Bias Professional Development ................................................................................ 9
Reflection to Develop Critical Consciousness ...................................................................... 10
Social Cognitive Theory ........................................................................................................... 11
Positionality .............................................................................................................................. 13
Methods..................................................................................................................................... 14
Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 14
Participants ............................................................................................................................ 15
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................... 15
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................... 18
Findings .................................................................................................................................... 19
Research Question 1: How do teachers in a diverse suburban high school describe their
motivation for and experience attending professional development that addressed implicit
bias? ...................................................................................................................................... 19
viii
Research Question 2: What did teachers perceive were the impacts of the professional
development that addressed implicit bias? ........................................................................... 31
Discussion and Implications ..................................................................................................... 40
Implications ........................................................................................................................... 44
Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 48
Recommendations for Future Research ................................................................................ 48
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 49
References ................................................................................................................................. 51
Appendix A: Recruitment Form .............................................................................................. 60
Appendix B: Interview Protocol - Teacher ............................................................................... 62

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Demographics and Professional Development Information for
Participants
16
Table 3: Self-reported School Staff and Student Population and Ethnicity
Demographics
22

1
1
An Exploration: Teacher Reflections of Implicit Bias Professional Development
Teachers are, have been, and will continue to be vital actors in the strive toward social
justice. While they are only one factor of a larger system, they are essential to the effort (Alridge,
2020) of cultivating a more equitable society because of their sustained interactions with students
– members of society who are developing their critical thinking skills and self-concept. Working
with them to maximize the positive effect of their practice can create opportunities to positively
influence other aspects of the system that contribute to what Ladson-Billings (2006) calls the
educational debt. The educational debt points to the most prevalent educational problem in the
United States, the persistent and wide opportunity gap between minoritized and nonminoritized
students. While there are various explanations as to the cause of such disparities, Ladson-Billings
and Tate (2017) assert that racialized society contributes to inequities in schools that produce to
the opportunity gap. This contributes to teacher perception of student ability which directly
influences student access and shapes the classroom environment (Dee, 2005). Teachers are
positioned to be change agents (Alridge, 2020), developing their critical consciousness about
race can have a positive impact.
Society influences teacher beliefs. They are part of a society that holds endemic
racialized beliefs (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) as well as attitudes of colorblindness and
meritocracy (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2017; Lopez, 2003). Greenwald and Krieger (2006) state
that these beliefs become internalized as implicit biases. They define implicit biases as
“discriminatory biases based on implicit attitudes or implicit stereotypes... [that] can produce
behavior that diverges from a person's avowed or endorsed beliefs or principles " (p. 951).
Implicit bias has been found to be as prevalent among teachers as in the general public (Peterson
et al., 2016; Quinn, 2017; Starck et al., 2020). Further, studies have found that on average

2
2
teachers hold negative implicit bias about students from minoritized groups (Good et al., 2018;
Pit-ten & Glock, 2019) which negatively affects their expectations about those students’
academic achievement (Dee, 2005; Gershenson et al., 2015). This has been found to create a
disposition in educators that influence their implicit beliefs about and their interactions with
students from minoritized communities (Carlana, 2019; Devine, 1989).
Because teacher beliefs about their students play a role not only in their curricular
choices, but also in their perception of students, negative or prejudicial beliefs need to be
interrogated and addressed as part of equity efforts. These internalized beliefs are foundational to
the interactions they have with students and the environments they create (Calaza et al., 2021;
Kempf, 2020; Munch-Jurisic, 2020). A student’s sense of self and their motivation to accomplish
goals are influenced by the implicit and explicit biases held by their teachers (Annamma &
Morrison, 2018; Calaza et al., 2021; Quinn, 2017; Rios, 2017). If teachers develop a critical lens
from which to reflect on their practice, they will be better informed about their curricular
choices, their interpersonal and intrapersonal interactions, and their classroom environment
(Leonardo, 2009). This will in turn, according to social cognitive theory of learning, begin to
develop a positive effect on student’s sense of self and motivation (Bandura, 1977; Schunk,
2020), which can contribute to equity efforts by bridging the opportunity gap.
However, educators are not necessarily aware of these implicit biases and their
detrimental impact on the success of minoritized students (Annamma & Morrison, 2018), nor are
many prepared to enter such discussions and reflection (Matias et al., 2016). Through
professional development (PD) that addresses implicit bias in education, this reflection and
openness could be possible. Studies that examined the proactive control of implicit bias indicate
that individuals who hold a high disposition towards equity aim to avoid racial bias in their

3
3
behavior. The studies also demonstrated that those who hold a sense of conscientiousness
towards anti-racist behavior are vigilant in their approaches (Amodio & Swenctonis, 2018;
Devine et al., 2012; Lai et al., 2016). This closely relates to many educators who count
themselves as anti-racist by virtue of being a teacher (Bonilla-Silva, 2001). While this
supposition creates other barriers such as resistance, developing the conscientiousness and
intentionality to overcome implicit racial bias could be leveraged as an inward-facing approach
to social justice.
Since 2016 there has been a rising demand for PD to address implicit biases in public
organizations including educational spaces (Williamson & Foley, 2018). In response to the rising
call for racial justice in education, districts around the nation are making PD available that asks
their staff to examine the unconscious and conscious bias impacting students (Sparks, 2020). For
example, in 2020, California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond launched the “Education to
End Hate” Initiative to Combat Bias, Bigotry, and Racism (California Department of Education,
2020). This initiative makes available teacher training grants for professional development that
tackles the pervasive issue of implicit bias, bigotry, and racism in schools. In Ohio the Board of
Education also passed a resolution raising awareness to the importance of implicit bias training
for educators and the examination of student discipline, curriculum, and staff development
(Candisky, 2020).
These PD offerings differ in theory, structure, and approach. Studies that have explored
such interventions across fields – medical, corporate, and education – have not found consistency
or guiding frameworks that shape the efforts (Alhejji et al., 2016). Regardless of the
inconsistency in the frameworks, the nature of reflection teachers engage in post-PD can be
indicative of the impact and lasting effect the training had on their understanding. Reflection is

4
4
imperative in developing the critical consciousness (Reinholz, 2016; Rios, 2017) needed to
mitigate the effects of implicit bias on student success. However, there is little empirical data that
addresses this reflective frame (Hernandez et al., 2013). Teacher receptiveness to this type of PD
is still unclear.
As PD becomes more available with some districts requiring staff to attend, thousands of
teachers will engage in this type of training. However, while in-service teachers can benefit from
professional development that helps address the issue of implicit bias, there is a lack of
understanding about how educators are reflecting on the intervention. Because this is a relatively
new area of focus, understanding how the PD is perceived can help frame the approach to
maximize its effectiveness. This study intends to add to the limited literature on the topic.
The purpose of the study is to inform effective PD approaches that address implicit bias
by exploring how teachers reflect on their experience with such PD, the perceived receptiveness
by their colleagues, and what kind of connection, if any, they are making to their teaching
practice. Examining the reception of such interventions can inform the success of future
professional development that addresses implicit bias for in-service teachers. I begin by
summarizing the literature and discussing the theoretical foundation guiding the research
questions. This is followed by an explanation of the semi-structured qualitative interview method
I employed, a description of the participants, and an analysis of the data. I conclude with a
summary of the findings and a discussion about the implications of the analyzed data for the
framing of future PD to address implicit bias.
Literature Review
The growing awareness of the deleterious effects of implicit race bias has made it
a popular area of research. To answer the public demand, as well as the ethical calling, school

5
5
districts are recommending professional development for employees (Sparks, 2020; Starck et al.,
2020). Because implicit bias mitigation can lead to deep discussions about race and identity,
resistance is likely, and thus careful planning is needed to maximize the effectiveness of such
programs that will allow individuals to engage in the learning (Sparks, 2020; Williamson &
Foley, 2018). When it comes to implicit bias mitigation, measures that focus on building
awareness are not enough. According to Fujimoto and Härtel (2017), Noon (2017), and Reinholz
et al. (2020), implicit bias training needs to address those behaviors that happen informally, those
daily microaggressions that influence the lived experiences of students from minoritized
communities. These attitudinal changes or lack thereof are difficult to ascertain in short-term
trainings. The intention of implicit bias PD is to address inequities and to alter the negative daily
experiences of those from minoritized communities, yet findings so far suggest that due to the
sensitive nature of the topic and the structure of the PD session/s, this could be challenging.
Understanding Implicit Bias
The substantial and continuously accumulating body of evidence convincingly
establishes the prevalence of implicit bias in society, especially toward African Americans, even
in the absence of explicit bias (Calaza et al., 2021; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006). Greenwald &
Krieger (2006), define implicit bias as the unconscious and pejorative judgments about a person
based on implicit stereotypes about their perceived ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual
orientation, or weight, among others. They found substantial evidence indicating that implicit
attitudes function outside a person's conscious awareness, influence unintentional discriminatory
behavior, and diverge from a person's stated beliefs or principles. This is different from explicit
bias which presents as conscious beliefs and discriminatory actions. Various studies suggest that
our cultural and political environment socialize and reproduce these unconscious beliefs

6
6
(Munch-Jurisic, 2020; Reinholz et al., 2020; Sparks, 2020) beginning at a young age (Baron et
al., 2006; Clark & Clark, 1940; Yogeeswaran et al. 2016) and are reproduced in social
environments such as schools (Calaza et al. 2021; Peterson et al., 2016; Quin 2017). Studies have
found that implicit bias influences decisions made by healthcare professionals (Gill et al., 2022),
law enforcement officers (Jackson, 2018), educators (Reinholz et al., 2020) and impact
individuals who consciously defend social justice ideals (Calaza et al., 2021; Devine, 1989;
Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Quinn, 2017). As demonstrated by these studies, the prevalence of
the implicit bias phenomenon and its repeatedly transmitted nature induce social structures that
maintain entrenched inequities (Calaza et al., 2021; Starck et al., 2020). In education, this
phenomenon is problematic as minoritized students are negatively impacted by these implicit
beliefs and shape their misunderstanding of who they are, their capacity, and their worth
(Annamma & Morrison, 2018).
Implicit Bias in Education
Educators, as socially minded as they might be, are influenced by implicit bias. Social
justice scholarship clearly shows that a teacher’s effectiveness is not only dependent on the skills
they teach but also on what they think and feel about their students. The growing body of
evidence makes it clear that even teachers who profess a commitment to diversity and inclusion
are subject to implicit bias (Carlana, 2019; Drago-Severson & Blum-Destefano, 2017; Quinn,
2017; Starck et al., 2020) because such beliefs are embedded through their own socialization
beginning in childhood (Carlana, 2019). The presence of implicit bias prompts microaggressions,
stereotype threat triggers, and low expectancy effects (Quinn, 2017; Reinholz et al., 2020).
According to these studies, the daily and brief interactions that communicate lack of warmth,
interest or confidence are detected by students. Strong implicit bias has also been found to lead

7
7
educators to interpret student behavior, especially Black students, as threatening (Chin et al.,
2020) which leads to higher probabilities of suspensions (Cherng et al., 2022; Chin et al., 2020;
Pit-ten & Glock, 2019; Reinholz et al, 2020). Another interpersonal aspect influenced by implicit
bias is a teacher's perception of student ability. Studies have found that teachers often have lower
academic perceptions of students from minoritized groups which minimizes the learning
opportunity and can lead to fewer recommendations to students of color to advance program
(AP) classes (Cherng et al., 2022; Chin et al., 2020; Neal, 2008; Peterson et al., 2016; Reinholz
et al., 2020). Through the social cognitive theory lens which places importance on the learning
environment (Bandura, 1977), interactions such as dismissive looks, tones, comments or low
expectations create a negative environment that affects students.
The findings in these studies assert the understanding that teachers are not immune to
implicit bias and the extent to which they are subject to such unconscious beliefs impacts their
capacity to effectively contribute to racial equity regardless of their intentions (Drago-Severson
& Blum-Destefano, 2017; Starck et al., 2020). With the understanding that learning is a social
experience, and that social context influences the cognitive priming (Bandura 1977), the
environment created by implicit bias negatively impacts students’ sense of self which has been
shown to lead to lower academic achievement.
Teacher Self-Concept
Race-dysconscious attitudes can block teachers from examining their implicit bias and its
impacts. King (1991) explains dysconsciousness as “an uncritical habit of mind (including
perceptions, attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs) that justifies inequity and exploitation by
accepting the existing order of things as given” (p. 113). Sociologist, psychologists, law, and
education scholars propose that systemic racism, which favors whiteness, perpetuates in part

8
8
because of implicit bias (Bonilla-Silva, 2001; hooks, 1994; Payne et al., 2017; Solórzano &
Yosso, 2002; Vargas et al., 2020). As so, racism in socio-political systems is invisible to those
who benefit from it and even well-intentioned educators, White and non-white, are subject to it
(Vargas et al., 2020). This "racism without racist" (Bonilla-Silva, 2001) poses a barrier to
mitigating the issue. When confronted with the history and social political movements that
advantage whiteness, individuals who identify as White or who have benefitted from performing
white (Vargas et al., 2020; Matias et al., 2016) experience dissonance. This often leads to
feelings of defensiveness, anger, guilt, censorship (Bonilla-Silva, 2001; Howard, 2003; Matias et
al., 2016; Munch-Jurisic, 2020; Vargas et al., 2020), or what DiAngelo (2011) terms white
fragility.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2020), 79.3% of public school
teachers in the United States identify as White non-Hispanic. This makes the possibility of
dissonance especially relevant. Further, beliefs grounded in race-dysconscious can lead
individuals to equate structural racism with explicit and malicious acts of discrimination
performed by morally deficient people (Vargas et al., 2020). Teachers do not see themselves as
morally deficient which can lead to a race-dysconscious attitude (King, 1991; Vargas et al.,
2020). Confronting the idea that they can unconsciously activate biases that disadvantage their
students often leads to discomfort, denial, and resistance (Matias et al., 2016). Understanding
that many educators dedicated to egalitarian ideals (Munch-Jurisic, 2020) enter the field and
contribute their time, effort, and money towards quality education for minoritized students
(Quinn, 2017) helps contextualize their dissonance and resistance.

9
9
Implicit Bias Professional Development
Academic research over the past 40 years shows that the effects of implicit bias training
have not only been short-lived, but have the potential to backfire (Alhejji et al., 2016; Noon,
2017). In particular, mandatory implicit bias training has been found to be ineffective because
participants feel coerced (Sparks, 2020; Williamson & Foley, 2018) and have also been found to
create a backlash (Dobbin & Kalev, 2016; Fujimoto & Härtel, 2017; Noon, 2017). There is
resistance if individuals are not open to confronting their biases and the issues that contribute to
them. Other scholars propose that trainings can be counterproductive when they employ an
overemphasis on discomfort inducing, that is confronting personal implicit bias and how it
contributes to the negative effects on individuals from minoritized communities (Munch-Jurisic,
2020; Sparks, 2020). Other studies find that trainings that position implicit bias as involuntary,
neurological, and widespread create a normalization of bias and individuals do not feel
compelled to make changes (Jackson, 2018; Williamson & Foley, 2018). These findings link to
the understanding that the mitigation of implicit bias requires a change in attitude and behavior.
According to studies by Devine et al. (2012), Lai et al. (2016), Noon (2017) and Payne et al.
(2017), building awareness of one's biases is only one step to mitigating the effects. These
studies introduced strategies for individuals to implement alongside their awareness. They found
that in addition to the awareness and effective strategies, the participant’s willingness to change
played an important role in mitigating implicit bias.
However, research on the effectiveness of implicit bias training for educators is in its
nascent stages. Few studies have been conducted to understand the effectiveness of implicit bias
training with educators. Nevertheless, schools nationwide are calling for teachers to participate in
implicit bias training to improve opportunity gaps and teacher relationships with students. Some

10
10
districts are making the training mandatory and others are advocating to make it part of teacher
contracts (Schwartz, 2019; Sparks, 2020). Pilot implicit bias training with educators in
California's Long Beach Unified school district and Ohio's Cleveland Heights-University
Heights City school district have shown mixed anecdotal results with some teachers feeling
comfortable in exploring the issue within the 45-minute session while others showing visible
discomfort, as reported by a high school math teacher in the Long Beach school district
(Schwartz, 2019). School boards in Canada have also made implicit bias training a policy
priority (Kempf, 2020). A 10-month long longitudinal multi-faceted study by Kempf (2020)
found promising approaches to implicit bias training for educators. It included engagement with
critical and social psychology literature, online modules, dialogical activities, ongoing
reflections, and a culminating interview. Among other findings, the study demonstrated that
teacher reflection evolved to a more complex understanding of identity and race in education and
the steps that individual teachers need to take in their own classrooms to promote equity. These
studies, along with the substantial data on unconscious bias training can inform how teacher
reflections about the implicit bias professional development they receive is analyzed.
Reflection to Develop Critical Consciousness
Because of their positionality, teachers are often at the epicenter of social change, and
developing critical consciousness about their biases becomes vital for equity and justice (King,
1991). Critical consciousness is the recognition and evaluation of the ideology that influences
one's thinking about self, diverse others, schooling and society (Rios, 2017; King, 1991). Social
justice practices, like mitigating the effects of implicit bias, call on teacher programs to approach
reflection and transformation in a way that will lead educators to examine their beliefs, actions,
and behaviors (Drago-Severson & Blum-Destefano, 2017). According to Calaza et al. (2021),

11
11
increasing awareness of these easily ignored tendencies can open possibilities to actively regulate
them. Further, awareness fosters deep attention to redressing assumptions made about students
from minoritized backgrounds (Henry & Feuerstein, 2021). Research has found that this
awareness can create discomfort that prompts either anger, resistance, or can be a source of
motivation for change especially when working with individuals who assume a personal
responsibility through critical consciousness (Munch-Jurisic, 2020; Peterson et al., 2016).
Although large-scale studies on teacher reflection about implicit bias training are not yet
available, related studies have demonstrated positive outcomes. These studies demonstrate that
reflection leads to positive changes in teaching practices. For example, Reinholz et al. (2020)
conducted a study of an implicit bias intervention with three mathematics university instructors.
While the professors reported difficulty in considering their own implicit biases in the moment,
they found that reflection prompted awareness. This awareness led to concrete shifts in
instructional practices to mitigate their implicit bias. The study by Kempf (2020) also focused on
redressing implicit bias through an intervention that incorporated teacher reflection. The findings
suggest that implicit bias training can lead to reflection that motivates a more socially conscious
teaching practice.
Social Cognitive Theory
The approach to this study is informed by social cognitive theory of learning which
emphasizes the role of the environment, behavior, and interpersonal influences on self-efficacy
(Schunk, 2020). Teachers influence the classroom environment by their curricular choices, their
interpersonal interactions with students, and their beliefs about student capacity. Implicit bias, as
the growing body of evidence demonstrates, influences teacher perspective (Calaza et al., 2021;
Quinn, 2017). These unconscious beliefs have the capacity to shape the classroom environment

12
12
teachers create through their practice. Through this framework, the study explores how a
teacher’s reflection on the implicit bias PD they attended is connecting, if at all, to their
classroom practice.
Social cognitive theory of learning establishes that self-efficacy is influenced by how a
learner processes the environment around them (Bandura, 1977). The theory is grounded in the
interplay between the environment, the person, and behavior known as triadic reciprocity. The
theory suggests that environmental cues in the form of actions, models and emotions (enactive,
vicarious, and emotive) influence a student's belief in and activation of their ability, in other
words, their self-efficacy. Positive cues, experiences, and successful attempts build their self-
efficacy and motivation. On the other hand, disconfirming cues, experiences, and attempts
undermine a student's perceived self-efficacy and chip away at their confidence (Bandura, 1977).
Other findings in social psychology, according to Carlana (2019), show that negative
stereotypes, which lead to biased beliefs, strongly influence academic self-concept. Marginalized
individuals, who are at risk of confirming those stereotypes, lose confidence and underperform in
such circumstances (Spencer, Steel, & Quinn, 1999). These experiences can have a lasting effect
and, according to Bandura (1977) and Baum (1973), the more consistent the experiences the
more enduring the effect.
Presumably, implicit bias PD looks to mitigate the enduring effect of such beliefs.
Teacher receptiveness of the PD and their reflection on the learning could affect the classroom
environment they create for all students. Their receptiveness, as influenced by the environment
and their personal beliefs can lead to their sense of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) in mitigating
implicit bias. Understanding how teachers are reflecting, if at all, on the role implicit bias can
play on teaching practices and classroom environments can better inform the PD approach.

13
13
Positionality
My worldview is informed by my cultural and educational background, and by
my intersectionality as an immigrant Latina from Quito, Ecuador who experienced
deculturization and bias as a student and a teacher in America. From this perspective, I consider
what has shaped my ways of knowing and being. As a classroom teacher of 22 years, I witnessed
the disparities that plague our educational institutions and felt the tragedy of it in the face of
marginalized students who yet place their hope in the system. In one school with a
predominantly Latinx population, there was a near 50% dropout rate; in another school with
predominantly white demographics, students with diverse cultural backgrounds, some whom
resembled me, were rarely represented in advanced placement programs or extra-curricular
activities. As a teacher, I shared educational spaces with predominantly White administrators and
teachers. I recall the biased rhetoric in the teacher cafeteria and during department meetings
revealing possible implicit feelings used to inform decisions about students. My work developing
educational resources grounded in audio-visual testimonies of survivors and witnesses of
genocide further informs my world view from the perspective of the marginalized. These first-
person accounts reveal the personal and social impact the rising tides of hate promulgated by
racialized beliefs had on their lives. Finally, my decade-long experience designing and delivering
professional development provides insight into PD approaches that resonate with educators.
These vantage points give me a unique perspective and direction for research on implicit bias. I
can step into the shoes of the marginalized student, the well-meaning teacher, or the social
advocate to better understand the data I collect.
However, while my epistemology and positionality inform my research design, they can
be their own source of bias. The topic of implicit bias is not easy to examine because it could feel

14
14
so personal to the research participant and me, the researcher who has experienced
marginalization. This may limit the openness of my analysis of participants whose experience
with implicit bias PD did not inspire reflection or discount individuals who are not prepared to
acknowledge their implicit bias. My awareness of these biases, according to Solórzano & Yosso
(2002) and Tuck-Yang (2014), can alleviate the impact of blind spots inherent in my perspective.
Pausing to reflect on my beliefs and biases, has informed the semi-structured interview protocols
and better shaped my data analysis.
Methods
Research Questions
Professional development to mitigate implicit bias has been found to be successful with
individuals who report social consciousness and awareness of their own implicit bias (Devine et
al., 2012). Teachers fall in this category; however, many studies have found that PD is often
ineffective if it is not long-term or if participants are not receptive (Devine et al., 2012; Lai et al.,
2016; Quinn, 2017). With the heightened demand for implicit bias training for educators, this
study aims to investigate how teachers are reflecting on their experience with such PD offerings
and what kind of connection they are making to their teaching practice. The study will examine
how, if at all, teachers are motivated to address the issue and use strategies to counter their
implicit biases.
This qualitative study is guided by two research questions:
1. How do teachers in diverse suburban high schools describe their motivation for and
experience attending professional development that addressed implicit bias?
2. What did teachers perceive were the impact of the professional development that
addressed implicit bias?

15
15
Participants
Ten suburban high school English, social studies, and math teachers who attended a
professional development addressing implicit bias within the last three years participated in the
study. These teachers were from ten different diverse suburban high schools in southern
California, Ohio, and Arizona, where they routinely engaged with students from diverse
backgrounds belonging to majority and minoritized communities. This engagement allowed for
concrete teacher reflections on the applicability of implicit bias PD. Participants were chosen
through a non-probability purposeful approach that met the criteria of the study. Study
participants were recruited via emails sent to schools where such PD offerings were made
available and through a social media posting to my contacts. Teachers self-selected to complete a
recruitment form to participate in the study. See Appendix A for the complete recruitment form
questionnaire. Table 1 provides demographic characteristic information about the study
participants and Table 2 provides self-reported staff and student demographics about their
schools. Participants were given pseudonyms to protect their confidentiality.
Instrumentation
Instruments used to collect data included a recruitment form and an interview protocol
with 16 questions. The standardized open-ended questions explored how participants reflected on
the implicit bias training they attended, their understanding of implicit bias and the perceived
impact on teaching practice. See Appendix B for the full questionnaire used to collect the
participant responses. To begin, participants were asked about their background and the purpose
of attending the PD. This established their pre and present disposition concerning the implicit
bias PD. Questions that followed asked participants to recall the session/s structure. This served
to contextualize the type of PD they received. Many of the questions focused on how teachers

16
16
were reflecting on and applying, if at all, the learnings from the implicit bias PD. This attended
to the perceived relevance, effectiveness, colleague receptiveness, and applicability of the PD to
address implicit bias in the classroom.
Table 1
Demographics and Professional Development Information for Participants
Pseudonyms Demographic Characteristics

State
Years
teaching
Subject Gender Ethnicity
Session
Date
Session
Length
Mandated or
self-selected PD
Charles AZ 20
Social
Studies
Male
White
2019 7 hours
Self-selected
Marva CA 8
English
Female
Latina
2021 3 hours
Mandated
school wide
Charlotte CA 15
English
Female
White
2021 12 hours
a

Self-selected
Carl CA 26
English
Male
White
2022 8 hours
b
Mandated
school wide
Kelly CA 4
Math
Male
White
2022 6 hours
Mandated
district wide
Jean CA 10
Social
Studies
Male
Asian
American
2021 1 hour
Mandated
district wide
Clark OH 20
Social
Studies
Male
White
2022 2 hours
Mandated
district wide
Beverly OH 26
English
Female
White
2022
45
minutes
Mandated
district wide
Mary OH 8
English
Female
White
2022 6 hours
c

Mandated
district wide
Pierson OH 9
English
Male
White
2021 6 hours
Mandated
district wide

17
17
a
Indicates total hours for semester course.
b
Indicates two day, 4-hour sessions.
c
Indicates three
day, 2-hour sessions
Table 2
Self-reported School Staff and Student Population and Ethnicity Demographics
Pseudonym Self-reported

School staff
demographics
Department staff
demographics
School
student
population
Student demographics
Classroom student
demographics
Charles
predominantly
White
9 total –
8 White,
1 Latinx
1500
70% White,
10% Asian American,
5% Native American,
10-15% Latinx
Reflective of school
Marva
215 total -
predominantly
White,
1 Latino,
2 African
American
25 total –
21 White,
3 Latinx,
1 African American
3600
45% White,
50% Latino, small
Asian American or
Black population
Honors ELA
predominantly White
Special education
class predominantly
Latino
Charlotte
100 total -
predominantly
White,
1 African
American
20 total –
13 White,
2 SE Asian,
1 East Asian,
1 African American,
3 Latinx
3000
40% White,
40% Latino,
20% other,
5% or less African
American
Reflective of school
Carl
90-100 -
predominantly
White,
2-3 Asian
American,
2-3 Middle Eastern,
2-3 Latinx
12 total –
11 White,
1 Asian American
2000
50% White,
25-30% Asian
American,
10% Latino,
10-15% Native
American, Indian,
African American,
mixed
Reflective of school
Kelly
100 total -
predominantly
White
4 total –
3 White male,
1 White female
2000
Primarily White and
East Asian
ADV classes –
White and East
Asian, primarily
males in older grades

18
18
Jean
130 total -
predominantly
White
15 total –
9 White,
6 Latino or Asian, 9
male, 6 female
3000
Predominantly Asian -
Chinese, Korean,
Indian,
growing Latinx, small
minority of White
population
Reflective of school
Clark
150 total -
predominantly
White,
2 African
American teachers
16 total –
9 White male,
7 White female
2000
80% White,
19% East Asian, South
Asian, Middle Eastern,
1% Latino
Reflective of school
Beverly
80 total -
predominantly
White,
8 other ethnicities
13 total –
11 White,
2 African American
3 male, 10 female
1300
70% White,
30% Asian American,
Latino or African
American
Reflective of school
Mary
70-75 total -
predominantly
White,
2 African
American,
1 South Asian,
1 East Asian
15 teachers –
13 White,
2 African American,
5 male, 10 female
1450
70% White,
19% bi-racial or Latinx,
6% African American,
5% Asian American
ELA Classes are
ELLs - 50%
Brazilian, 50%
Middle Eastern,
Ukrainian,
Honduran, Egyptian
Pierson
85 total -
predominantly
White,
1 African
American,
1 Latinx
14 total –
2 White male,
12 White female
450
80-85% White,
5-8% Asian American,
8-10% Black and
African American
Reflective of school

Note. Participants provided estimated demographics from the perspective and understanding.
Data Collection
Patton (2002) explains that the qualitative interview is meant to capture how interviewees
perceive their experiences with the issue and allow for more nuanced explanations of their
perspectives. I used a semi-structured interview design to allow participants to share their
experiences and reflections. The 16-question 60-minute interview was conducted through Zoom

19
19
which allowed for a broader geographic reach and accommodations. Data was captured using an
audio-visual recording and field notes. This allowed for rich data to be collected.
Findings
The ten teacher participants representing ten different suburban high schools in ten
different districts, in three states – five in California, one in Arizona, and four in Ohio – provided
anecdotal descriptions of their experience attending PD addressing implicit bias. The findings are
based on their observations, recollections, and perceptions.
Research Question 1: How do teachers in a diverse suburban high school describe their
motivation for and experience attending professional development that addressed implicit
bias?
Environmental Prompting for Professional Development
Nearly all participants, eight of the ten, attended the PD as part of a district or school-
wide mandate to address inequities in student achievement. The mandate provided the
environmental push as the impetus for the attendance. This was the case for Jean, Kelly, Marva,
and Carl, participants from California, and Clark, Mary, Pierson, and Beverly from Ohio. Three,
Pierson, Beverly, and Clark, specifically mentioned a connection to their district’s diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative, or as Clark and Pierson described, “the DEI banner” or
“DEI buzzword” to describe the environment. All eight articulated, in some form, their district’s
DEI goal of addressing inequities affecting minoritized communities. Kelly had a personal
"optimistic interpretation" that the district was "trying to ensure...[a] move towards more
equitable student outcomes” based on what others explained was a "notable disparity in the
[student] data." In Jean’s case, the PD session on implicit bias was embedded within another
compulsory training for the mandated ethnic studies course in social studies.

20
20
Seven of the eight also made connections to racialized social issues in their school
environment as a reason for the district-wide mandate. For example, Marva explained that the
PD was prompted by "race related incidents [including] a teacher [who]was recorded on zoom
responding to a student who asked why the school didn’t have a white student union." The
recording made national news. This as well as “incidents that had been going on,” according to
Marva, highlighted the school’s divisions among students from different ethnic backgrounds and
socioeconomic status, which created a difficult learning environment. The PD was an attempt to
“reconnect the staff” and build their efficacy to address “fears about having the conversations of
race and looking at their own implicit bias." This need to address social issues through this type
of training was a common theme. Four, Pierson, Clark, Beverly, and Carl, also asserted that the
PD was in response to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, the murder of George Floyd,
and the heightened awareness during the pandemic of how, as Pierson explained, "minorities
were treated and suffered." Participants were keenly aware that social issues outside of the
school walls influenced the school environment which influenced the PD mandate. The two
participants, Charles from Arizona, and Charlotte from California, who were not mandated to
attend such a PD, sought it out of their own accord as part of their personal agency for
professional growth.
Personal Agency and Goals for Attending PD
All participants reported either an intrinsic or extrinsic motivation for attending the PD;
none were opposed. Among the reasons for the intrinsic motivation, four participants, Pierson,
Carl, Charles, and Kelly, stated a personal drive for cultural awareness and sensitivity especially
because of the diverse school environment in which they work. This was illustrated by Pierson
who stated, “I don’t want to come off as rude and insensitive, or just naïve and ignorant…it's

21
21
important to me to respect the people [for] better outcomes in the classroom." Another reason
that emerged demonstrating an intrinsic motivation was the connection to and personal goals to
attend to social justice and equity issues. Clark mentioned he was “supportive of the efforts to
combat racism in the community through DEI initiatives” and Marva felt it was a “great way to
look at social justice and equity within [them]selves.” Kelly, a math teacher, expanded on this
sentiment and articulated that he felt such PD was important to "…improve outcomes for
students that typically have systems working against them.” Like the other eight who were
intrinsically motivated to attend, Kelly mentioned appreciating PD that guides his efforts to
offset the barriers students face. Jean and Mary felt that the PD would offer “valuable learning”
and an opportunity to “engage with colleagues” in discussions. They were interested in the
environment the PD would create to allow for learning and interactions. Beverly, who was
neutral about attending “…didn’t view it any differently than any other mandated professional
development" and felt overwhelmed with "so many other different things that [she] need[ed] to
be doing." Her behavior of attending the PD was influenced by the need to comply with the
mandate. The extrinsic factors framed her motivation. Charles was in a different situation
because his district actively opposed such PD, yet he has sought out other training. Like
individuals who articulated intrinsic motivations for attending the PD, Charles found it
meaningful and useful to learn new things to be "100% in" as a teacher to meet the mission of
the school to educate all students. Overall, the participants expressed socially conscious attitudes
or personal goals to improve their practice as their motivation for attending the PD.
Influence of Socio-political Atmosphere on the PD Environment
Socio-political issues also influenced the receptivity of the PD amongst colleagues. This
was the case across the three states represented by the participants, Arizona, California, and

22
22
Ohio. The oppositional socio-political atmosphere in the district or school surrounding topics
connected to Critical Race Theory (CRT) contributed to the discomfort and perceived lack of
reception of the PD by some of their colleagues. This was also the case for topics perceived as
“liberal” or ‘woke” agendas, as Clark from Ohio, Charles from Arizona, and Carl from
California stated. Five, Charles, Jean, Clark, Marva, and Carl, mentioned the negative
environment around the PD was connected to the political atmosphere. Four of the five, Charles,
Clark, Marva, and Carl, made specific mention of CRT as a “controversial” or “hot button
issue” connected to implicit bias. They explained that parents and community members actively
protested at board meetings against what they perceived to be CRT tenants demanding that it not
be taught in classrooms. These participants noted that this thinking influenced the receptivity of
those colleagues who were not open to the topic.
Carl, Marva, Clark, and Charles felt that the news media played a role in creating this
oppositional environment. Of those four, three participants pointed to audio-visual recording
incidents of staff being questioned about CRT or racial issues - a teacher from Marva’s district, a
superintendent from Charles’, and a DEI director from Clark’s. The recordings, picked up by
national news media, were captured or found by parents or students who opposed the teaching of
what they perceived to be "controversial topics.” Three of the four who made mention of the
oppositional political atmosphere and the role of the media, reflected on how that environment
created "fear of getting that phone call" from the parent or “fear of being fired” for having
conversations about topics such as implicit bias. In Charles’ case, the socio-political atmosphere
in Arizona opposing CRT and topics perceived to be connected was widely endorsed by state
officials which kept such PD from being readily available. He stated, “There’s no way that the
district would require training like this.” The oppositional socio-political environment created a

23
23
barrier for participants, but notably, for eight of the ten, personal agency to mitigate implicit bias
contributed to their positive reception of the PD.
Structural Environment of PD
Participants noted that the structure of the PD sessions framed the effectiveness of the
learning environment and their colleague’s willingness to engage. When participants
contemplated the strengths and weaknesses of the PD, they pointed to the learning environment
created by the presenter, the structure of the sessions, and the perceived gaps in the sessions.
Presenters. Participants found that when presenters were perceived to lack expertise in
the field of implicit bias, the sessions felt weak. This was the observation of five of the
participants, Pierson, Charles, Beverly, Mary, and Carl. Pierson and Mary commented about the
importance of the ethnicity of the presenters to add gravitas the topic. Mary stated, “It’s weird
that White people are leading the session of a lot of other White people talking about other
groups of people. We’re not actually incorporating or empowering or lifting the voices of diverse
people.” Charles and Beverly felt the presenter’s comfort level with conversations about race and
racism needed to be stronger. Beverly felt that the presenter was “not necessarily an expert in
implicit bias.” Charles further explained that “unless you are one to enjoy these discussions, like
for me, this is my jam, it would be difficult to deepen the conversation.” For these participants,
presenters who were perceived to lack credible negatively affected the learning environment.
On the other hand, when presenters were perceived as approachable, knowledgeable, or
in control of the sessions, the PD was perceived as effective. Four of the participants, Jean,
Clark, Kelly, Marva, articulated a positive experience with presenters. Jean perceived his
presenter as dynamic and inclusive, “He was one of the best presenters. He was inclusive when
he presented his examples, looking at different demographic groups, so he wasn’t just, you

24
24
know, targeting a particular group, but different groups of people. He’s an expert.” Marva felt
that the district presenters brought a credibility to the environment and made the topic feel
important. “I think it was great having somebody from the country run it because it held a little
bit more high status.” Clark, like Marva, felt the importance of having experts from within the
district. He stated, “I think in our case it’s probably good that fellow colleagues and teachers led
the training, so it wasn’t an outside group coming in. I think there’s some benefit to that.” The
perception of the presenters as knowledgeable and credible by these four participants played a
positive role in cultivating an effective learning environment.
Community building. Other aspects of the PD environment that contributed to the
perceived effectiveness of the session were the community building and safe space encouraged
during the sessions. Three of the participants, Beverly, Kelly, and Marva, felt the PD provided a
common vocabulary to create a baseline for “…all staff members in the entire district,” as
Beverly explained. Kelly also noted the importance of that baseline vocabulary as a way to “take
people from wherever they are and moving them forward on understanding the issues.” Marva,
Kelly, Pierson, and Carl felt that the small group structure of their sessions contributed to an
open and safe space where individuals could have conversations about the topic. Marva shared
that a strength of the PD for her was the opportunity to “just work with other staff members who
I don’t usually work with and kind of hear stories and experiences from different perspectives.”
Kelly also found that “smaller groups were really helpful for eliminating some of [the] barriers
about whether or not the issues being brought up should be discussed was avoided and we were
able to actually have the conversations.” Carl contemplated how the small group environment
allowed for all individuals to deepen their activity engagement, “when people get to role play,
you’re the teacher or the student, and then you reverse roles. I think that allows people to push

25
25
the feeling of how it makes others feel in that place. We all took turns.” Pierson, who sought out
other sessions with three other colleagues after his initial engagement with the mandated PD,
found a PD opportunity that created an environment where:
No question was a dumb question, which, I like that kind of safe space in a professional
development because I mean, if we’re going to get to the root of things, we have to
presume positive intentions, and we have to, you know. So, somebody might come off,
and it’s just an ugly question, and they just didn’t know it was ugly, but some are really
trying to get to the root of the matter, and are curious, so we can’t dampen curiosity if
we’re there, truly to learn.
Participants found the PD sessions effective when the environment encouraged community and
openness. This was the experience for half of the participants.
Perceived gaps in the PD. The lack of applicable strategies for classroom practice and
lack of time to reflect were the biggest perceived gaps in the PD. The most often referenced gap,
mentioned by six of the participants, Pierson, Jean, Kelly, Beverly, Clark, and Carl, was the lack
of useful strategies to apply the new understanding to their classroom practice. Pierson noted
that, “…the how to or how can you use this on Monday type of ideology was really never
present…the applicability of it all was not really [there].” They wanted to be efficacious with
their deepened knowledge and combined with the uncertainty of “what it looked like in action,”
as Charlotte stated, a desire for strategies to help mitigate it was engendered. Carl articulated
that, “It could have been better if there was a component to address implicit bias better in your
own classroom. Some actual real strategies.”
However, the structural environment of PDs they attended was missing this element. Half
(5) of the participants, Pierson, Jean, Kelly, Marva, and Carl felt the sessions did not provide

26
26
enough time, if any, to reflect on the learning during the session. Jean provided a description
exemplifying what the other four participants who voiced this point meant:
How do [we] unpack this implicit bias in the classroom? And, not just in the classroom.
How do we unpack that in our curriculum? How do we unpack that in our department as
we think about the course that we offer…so I think that part was missing, more
reflection.
Four, Charles, Jean, Marva, and Mary, contemplated the lack of follow-up sessions as a gap in
the PD to help translate the learning. Mary reflected that:
…missing from my implicit bias training [was] that follow up. I feel like they give us
information, they talk to us about it, but then they never come back and say, ‘Oh, hey, by
the way, where have you noticed this? How has it influenced your practice?’ We never
had another opportunity three months later to sit down with each other and follow-up on
that conversation.
Checking in on how the learning has settled, questions or ideas that may have come up, or
challenges they were facing felt important, or as Charles put it, “to continue to learn and continue
to grow.” Other gaps mentioned were missing credible data in the form of research, student data
or student narratives to deepen reflection and substantiate the prevalence of implicit bias and/or
the impacts of it in the classroom. They felt this was especially important for colleagues who
were unreceptive to the PD. Four participants, Charles, Kelly, Pierson, and Charlotte sought out
other learning or PD opportunities to continue their reflection or learn new strategies, but for
most of the participants, the mandated PD did not include the reflective environment or follow-
up element.

27
27
Social Environment Created by Colleague Reactions to PD
The social environment created by the reactions and reception of colleagues influenced
participants’ experiences of the PD. A positive reception made the learning environment more
conducive to learning. On the other hand, a negative reception made the learning environment
uncomfortable.
Positive reception. When positive reception of the PD by colleagues was perceived,
participants felt the learning environment was reaffirming and encouraging. Six of ten, including
Pierson, Clark, Kelly, Mary, Marva, and Carl, recalled that during the PD session, colleagues
were overall receptive to the learning. Kelly and Marva both noted that the small group setup
allowed for positive engagement with the content. Post sessions, all six, plus Charles, noted that
informal conversations with colleagues from their department demonstrated their openness to the
topic. Mary recalled having “conversations where people were really open to stretching their
thinking and really reflecting on where those biases creep up in their teaching practice. And
those have been great and have opened my eyes to some things here and there.” Pierson shared
that the “raving and enthusiastic” feedback about the session from his department colleagues was
encouraging. This deepened awareness was especially noted in those participants who were
highly inclined to attend the session. Six participants, Charles, Kelly, and including four of the
five English teachers, Pierson, Mary, Marva, and Carl, noted that the positive reception of the PD
from colleagues in their department reaffirmed their ongoing equity discussion. Charles, who is
part of the social studies department, shared that he had informal and reaffirming conversations
with one of the few English department colleagues from a minoritized group in a predominantly
white staff. He stated:

28
28
She and I would have discussions all the time about bias and LGTBQ rights and about
race. She is lesbian herself and so I think being from a background that affects you on a
daily basis with bias, I think it created a situation where she was very open to discussing.
He felt her lived experience allowed for openness to the conversation. Participants noted that
positive reception by colleagues contributed to a positive PD environment.
Negative reception. In contrast, a negative reception by colleagues of the PD contributed
to a discomforting environment not conducive to engaging in the learning and discussions. Eight
participants, Charles, Pierson, Clark, Beverly, Kelly, Mary, Marva, and Carl, noted that there
were at least a few colleagues who were not open to the topic. Pierson reflected that some of his
colleagues “were not ready to face. They were not ready to admit. They were not ready to
explore and be introspective” about the concept of implicit bias. Negative reception of the PD
generally came from a few individuals. Five participants, Charles, Pierson, Beverly, Mary, and
Carl, noted the oppositional teachers were typically veteran teachers who were “set in their
ways” or, as Carl explained the attitude, “of the good old boy or good old girl club, [who were]
like, ‘I’m not changing a dang thing. I’ve been at this for years. And how the heck am I gonna be
aware of like the smallest thing now.’” This impression was made by as few as one and as many
as “fifty percent” of their colleagues. Four, Charles, Pierson, Clark, and Marva, shared that they
heard colleagues state that the PD was a waste of their time or, as Clark stated, "they’d rather be
grading or [attending] professional development they felt was more relevant and practical to
what they were currently teaching." Many of these negative receptions were side remarks or
outside the session, but some were more vocal. Three, Beverly, Marva, and Mary, shared that at
least one colleague was openly and verbally opposed to the training. Beverly shared that she
overheard a group of colleagues talking in a group discussing “something that was said in the

29
29
implicit bias training that they kind of vehemently disagreed with” to demonstrate how strongly
they opposed the topics presented at the training.
Participants observed that colleagues who opposed also connected the PD to political
leanings. Clark recalled that during a debriefing section, colleagues expressed they felt the PD
was forwarding a “liberal progressive agenda” and was not a “good use of their time because
they were not racist.” Four, Charles, Pierson, Beverly, and Mary, reflected that there was a
negative reception widely across the staff. Eight of the ten participants cited three or more
reasons for the negative reception. These instances did not necessarily thwart the PD efforts, but,
according to the participants, it added to the uncomfortable environment throughout the sessions
and minimized approachability post-session because, as Mary explained, “…there are people
who are absolutely unwilling to hear this or unwilling to change.”
Interplay of the PD Environment with Personal Cognition and Affect
The interplay of participants’ personal beliefs and emotions, with the environmental
influence of the sessions’ structure, framed their behavior – how they reflected on the
effectiveness of the PD. For all 10 participants, the structure of the PD sessions – the
environment – included speakers, a definition of implicit bias, and open discussions in large or
small group settings. Additionally, Mary, Charlotte, Beverly, and Marva recalled their sessions
included activities that asked them to reflect on their own identities and perceived privileges.
Pierson, Charles, and Clark mentioned the use of the Harvard implicit attitudes test (IAT) to
assess their implicit bias. Taking these elements of the Pd structure into consideration,
participants perceived the content presented at the PD as relevant, discomforting, and valuable.

30
30
Personal cognition and relevance. The seven participants, Charles, Pierson, Jean, Clark,
Kelly, Mary, Marva, and Carl, who articulated relevance pointed to a broader social effort of
“addressing racism in America,” as Carl framed it. Kelly stated:
I know that I need to make active effort to offset structures that exist. And so, having
professional development to, like, help guide that and reinforce that for, like, myself and
what I’m wanting to be able to do. The other piece is that I have an awareness that there
are a lot of other colleagues that don't have that same mindset and I would like to see
them understand the scale of the problems they are contributing to.
Charles similarly reflected on the need for a wider community awareness by “…police officers,
community members, and really overall” to help address the social issue. This relevance to the
social issues faced by minoritized communities was an ardent point articulated by the seven. It
influenced their openness to the PD topic.
Discomforting personal affect. Half (5) of the participants, Clark, Beverly, Mary,
Marva, and Carl also voiced that the topics brought up discomfort for them. Clark mentioned that
the IAT created a level of discomfort because it showed that “unconsciously people discriminate
and have a preference for certain people similar to [them].” Beverly felt the topics “ma[de]
people uncomfortable because you kinda worry, ‘Do I have implicit bias?’” Mary found
discomfort in the structure of the sessions because the “learning was not created with the target
audience in mind…and for people who haven’t engaged in this learning, [she found] them to be
very defensive.” These five found the PD relevant even in the moments when it challenged them
because, as Carl explained, “it definitely made [him] aware of not just past behavior, but also
current behavior.” Their personal beliefs about the importance of mitigating implicit bias

31
31
encouraged their open behavior in a challenging environment where they were asked to confront
their own implicit beliefs or engage with defensive colleagues.
Personal beliefs about value of PD. Eight participants, Pierson, Jean, Clark, Kelly,
Mary, Marva, Charlotte, and Carl felt the information presented at the PD was valuable for
teaching practices. Of the eight, Pierson and Kelly who sought out additional sessions on the
topic, felt the PD established a baseline to have conversations with colleagues. All eight felt it
was valuable knowledge for teachers to improve their effectiveness. Mary captured this in
stating, “…this learning is important and understanding this connection is important in reflecting
on our teaching practice.” The perceived implications of the interplay between the broad social
issues, their behavior in their teaching practice, and their personal beliefs, informed how the
participants evaluated the value of the PD.
Research Question 2: What did teachers perceive were the impacts of the professional
development that addressed implicit bias?
Perceived Impact on Personal Cognition
Participants perceived that the PD broadened their personal understanding of implicit bias
as well as their understanding of the impact on teacher practice and student achievement. Their
conceptual understanding was expanded as was their perception of how teacher implicit bias
impacts the academic success of minoritized students.
Conceptual understanding of implicit bias. The conceptual knowledge of implicit bias
was heightened for all participants by the PD. They expressed an understanding of the nature of
it, how it functions, what influences it, and to whom it is directed. They all described the nature
of implicit bias as an unconscious or subconscious belief. Three, Clark, Kelly, and Mary,
expanded that idea by mentioning that it was a natural inclination of “our brain.” Understanding

32
32
it as a natural behavior of the brain was an important affirmation that they were not racist or
discriminatory. As Clark reflected, “our brain kind of tries to simplify the world” and Kelly
described that it arose “…from the fact that we naturally, as part of the human condition, try to
make quick judgments…” To explain the function of implicit bias, four, Pierson, Jean, Charlotte,
and Carl described the belief to be an assumption or presupposition and one, Kelly, also
describing it as a habit. Five, Charles, Clark, Beverly, Mary, and Marva, described it as a bias. In
explaining how implicit bias is influenced, all participants pointed either to things in our society
such as news and films or to personal experience with particular groups. Pierson specifically
articulated that “white norms…middle class, western, Christian norms” influenced implicit bias.
They all understood that implicit bias was directed towards a group of “people different from
[them]selves.” Because eight of the participants identified as White and whose suburban school
has a predominantly White student and staff population, it can be inferred that the “different”
people were those not perceived as White. Clearly, the ten participants had a straightforward
understanding of implicit bias and identified the different aspects mentioned in textbook
definitions.
Understanding of impact on teacher practice. All participants believed that implicit
bias impacts teacher practice generally. The six participants who had PD sessions that were six
or more hours long or who sought out other learning opportunities believed the impact was
"enormous,” "very large,” "substantial,” and "major impact.” From their perspective, they
ascertained that implicit bias significantly influences teacher practice. The other four participants
expressed that implicit bias has a moderate impact on teaching practice. Marva articulated that
she felt it "…didn’t necessarily shape the entirety of our teacher practice and it really depend[ed]
on, you know, [our] own experiences, and how that correlates to what you teach." They all

33
33
named two or more ways in which they understood the impact manifested. Five, Charles,
Pierson, Jean, Marva, and Charlotte, believed implicit bias influences expectations and beliefs
about students’ academic success. Eight participants said they believed implicit bias impacts
interpersonal interactions. Three, Pierson, Clark, and Charlotte, articulated that implicit bias
influences how grades are assigned or how behavior is handled. Two, Pierson and Carl, pointed
to the impact on curricular choices by educators. While they expressed a contrasting
understanding about the extent of the influence and the ways in which implicit bias manifests in
teacher practice, they all articulated the understanding that it did.
Understanding of impact on academic achievement of minoritized students. While
all participants affirmed that implicit bias impacts the academic achievement of students from
minoritized communities, they differed in the extent of the impact. Six of the participants felt
that minoritized students are significantly impacted by implicit bias. Charlotte stated that she felt
it has a “really really large impact,” Jean and Carl felt it impacted “a lot,” Mary emphasized that
it was “so so much,” and Kelly described it as a “significant factor” on the academic
achievement of minoritized students. Pierson explained that from his perspective, minoritized
students’ academic success is impacted "across the board 100%." He communicated that implicit
bias comes through with “backhanded microaggressions" and felt that if teachers are "not
fostering relationships with students and…don't know their [student’s] backgrounds, that's
problem number one.” He captures a consistent perspective that the other five participants have
reflected on throughout the interview. On the other hand, the other four participants, Clark,
Marva, Charles, and Beverly, gauge that the impact on the academic success of minoritized
students was somewhat connected. Two of the four, Clark and Marva, further reflected that the
impact was largely due to lack of diverse teacher representation. While there was a spectrum in

34
34
the belief about the extent of the impact, nearly all (8 of 10) felt that implicit bias impacts teacher
expectations, access to advance courses, approaches to discipline, and curricular choices. Five of
the eight, Pierson, Jean, Mary, Charlotte, and Carl, stated that student/teacher relationships were
impacted. Carl explained how he saw the lack of an inter-relational approach to students and how
he saw the impact on students’ trust in their teachers. Echoing, Pierson, he felt it impacted their
willingness to learn, "…’how could you possibly teach me as a person if you don’t really
understand me?’" One participant, Beverly, was still reflecting on what the impact might be,
surmising that “At times bias might lead to impact of student success.” Her response suggested
uncertainty about the possible effects. Overall, the participants’ understanding about the impact
on the academic achievement of minoritized students demonstrates they agreed that it has a
deleterious effect.
Perceived Impact on Emotions and Reflective Behavior
Participants recalled the personal emotions the PD brought up for them connected to the
concept of implicit bias. The challenges to mitigating it were also discussed. They also
contemplated on the self-reflective behaviors it activated.
Feelings about the concept of implicit bias. Frustration and anger about the prevalence
of implicit bias and vulnerability about the personal manifestation of it were common effects
voiced by participants. Three who contemplated the social prevalence, Charles, Charlotte, and
Mary, described feelings of outrage, frustration, fear, or sadness at the permeance of it in the
broader social environment. Charles expanded on the reason for these sentiments by stating that
“…these biases, I think, puts people at a disadvantage...” Charlotte, like Mary, explained that her
outrage and frustration was due to the sense that “…implicit bias is something that people can
easily deny” or “flat out refuse to acknowledge that this is a problem.” The perceived

35
35
unwillingness of others to acknowledge implicit bias as an issue of equity that needs to be
addressed charged this feeling of frustration. Six, expressed difficult personal emotions at the
realization that they too, carry these biases. Beverly and Carl characterized these feelings as
"shame," Kelly as “guilt,” Marva as "vulnerability," Clark as "insecurity," Mary as “discomfort,”
and Beverly as "fear." Clark explained further:
It’s somewhat frustrating that your brain does things that maybe you don’t want it to
right. And so, if you say, ‘Oh, I want to be someone who treats people equally’ but then
you don’t quite treat people equally, it shows the limitation of what you consciously
control in your behavior.
Kelly articulated that the awareness brought up a sense of guilt because “there are likely harms
that I have committed without my awareness, and I don’t want to be a person causing harm.” The
perception of having limited control over one’s thoughts prompted feelings of “inadequacy,” as
Mary described, for these individuals who described themselves as equity-minded. The two
participants from diverse backgrounds, Jean and Marva, expressed feelings of discomfort when
they contemplated, they too were subject to implicit bias. They alluded to their own heritage and
ethnicity as a factor in the discomfort it brought up for them. Overall, the participants shared
sentiments of frustration and discomfort in light of their expanding understanding.
Reflections on challenges of mitigating implicit bias in teacher practice. The
participants’ perceived challenges to mitigating implicit bias in practice fell into three categories
which fall into the environmental, personal, and behavioral. The categories were the social or
school structures, self/internal factors, and lack of procedural knowledge for how to translate the
learning to their practice. Five named social or school structural factors as a challenge. Three of
those specifically named the backlash from society/community, with Pierson stating that

36
36
“society...we're not there yet” meaning that the topic of implicit bias is still fraught with
uncertainty and political opposition. They felt there is still too much negative tension in the
environment creating “fear” and “pushback” to have broader support. The other two
contemplated that school structural approaches such as lack of follow-up sessions and dedicated
time for more sessions made it challenging to “make it more of a communal effort.” They felt
reflection takes time and having “refresher” conversations would make it more effective and
demonstrate that their leadership supported the efforts. The two that ascertained that internal
framing was a challenge, reflected on their inability to know or manage specific behaviors
because of their own "acculturation." Mary explained, “And in those moments where I am not
my most patient self, it is really challenging to pause in that moment and collect myself and
respond in a way that fully takes into account the bias that I’m bringing into that situation.” She
appeared to still be contemplating the feeling of not fully being in control of one’s actions
regardless of stated beliefs and aims, in essence, the core function of implicit bias. Five also
focused on "the lack of clarity” on what actions to take to mitigate implicit bias. They stated
things such as "not knowing students well enough," not knowing "the right levels of support" for
students, or not knowing what "specific behaviors" within themselves need to be addressed. The
heightened awareness about implicit bias made them notice the challenges, whether pedagogical
or self-reflective, to mitigating it within their own teaching practice.
Self-reflective behavior. All participants, reflected in one way or another, formally or
informally about the personal implication of implicit bias. Self-reflections and social
consciousness deepen for nine of the ten participants. Five, Charles, Jean, Marva, Charlotte, and
Clark, reflected on the self-awareness the PD raised for them. Marva, for instance, contemplated
how the PD changed her assumptions about who has implicit bias:

37
37
I think the go-to when you think about it is you know, white men tend to, you know, have
these biases towards, like, you know minorities…but then, when you think about it right,
I have an implicit bias…and so for me it was recognizing that you know, everybody has
them, that I have them. You feel vulnerable, there’s vulnerability.
For her, the realization that individuals from minoritized groups, in her case female and Latinx,
could also have implicit biases created a sense of vulnerability and heightened awareness. It
shaped her reflective behavior about the topic. The other four, Pierson, Carl, Kelly, and Mary,
shared that the heightened awareness made them recall past interactions with students that they
felt guilty about in light of the learning. In this vein, Carl ascertained that he “…need[s] to be
aware of what things [he’s] saying as a teacher" especially to his Black students. Seven
participants, Charles, Pierson, Clark, Beverly, Mary, Marva, and Carl, explained the different
ways in which their social consciousness was raised. For example, Charles reflected on his
awareness of how the messaging in popular media influences people’s thoughts, "the training
opened [his] eyes to movies, tv shows and music” that carried antisemitic beliefs. Beverly
articulated that “this is inherent in all of us and it’s something that we need to intentionally
realize.” All ten perceived that their own teaching practice is impacted by their implicit bias.
Two, Clark and Beverly, thought it was likely but uncertain about how. While the other eight
reflected that their implicit bias impacted "everything" they did in the classroom, from
"assessment" to “curriculum" to beliefs and expectations to "decisions.” Three of the participants
who identified as White male, Charles, Pierson, and Carl, perceived their "white privilege" as a
factor in their implicit bias. The articulated depth of their contemplation varied in scope, but they
all engaged in some degree of self-reflective behavior in response to the PD environment and
their personal agency.

38
38
The Interplay of the Social Environment, Personal Cognition and Affect on Behavior
A notable observation in the study was how the mention of George Floyd, Breonna
Taylor or Black Lives Matter (BLM) as part of the political atmosphere, alongside a conducive
environment built by the positive reception of the PD by colleagues, translated to active change
in their school environments. In discussing the socio-political atmosphere, four participants,
Pierson, Mary, Carl, and Beverly, made specific mention of the murder of George Floyd,
Brianna Taylor or the Black Lives Matter movement. They ascertained that the implicit bias PD
was prompted by the event in connection to the DEI movement that had been building in their
district. Of the four, three, Pierson, Mary, and Carl, reflected on the supportive informal and
formal conversations with their department debriefing the implications of the learning. Mary
shared that the:
English department was largely receptive and welcoming of this type of thinking…[and]
has also worked diligently and had a lot of meetings to change the text that we’re
teaching to represent more diverse authors and other backgrounds, and make sure that the
voices that we’re amplifying in the classroom are not just those of old white men…this is
within their realm of control over the systemic racism.
For them, the PD was more than a session or mandate, it was part of an existing environment
where equity efforts were undertaken at the school level. These three shared that their
department, English in this case, was actively working on updating their reading lists and
continuing to have discussions about their teaching practices. One of those three, Carl, also
reflected on how the Black community in the district actively contributed to this environment by
engaging in board meetings asking for the curriculum to be updated and made more relevant to
Black students. He expressed how his principal and department understood the argument and

39
39
agreed with the need to make change. Carl, a department chair, recalled that his principal
“reached out to [him] right around Black Lives Matter and the George Floyd thing that happened
and said ‘Are you going to be teaching of Mice and Men? I’ve got some new choices coming
up’…the English department picked All American Boys.” They were the only school in the
district that made this change, and it was welcomed by the school’s parent community, the
school leaders, department colleagues, and well received by the students. The one participant,
Beverly, who mentioned BLM and George Floyd and whose department offered formal, non-
mandatory meetings post PD to discuss updates to curricular reading lists did not feel
comfortable enough with the topic to join the sessions, but the department did continue this
work. She mentioned that the concept of implicit bias brought up feelings of “shame,
awkwardness, insecurity, fear.” When the opportunity to join further discussions was made
available she contemplated, “How do I choose to spend my time? I choose my time thinking how
I can serve all of my students. I haven’t joined in the other things offered. I don’t have time.” For
the other three, the social awareness, which prompted many of the implicit bias PD mandates
across states, also prompted behavior changes when there was a supportive community
environment.
In summary, the ten participants reflected that they had a positive leaning towards
attending and participating in PD addressing implicit bias. Of the eight, ten attended as part of a
school or district mandate. While they all also articulated observing negative receptivity from
some of their colleagues during and after the sessions, nine of the ten perceived that a larger
majority of the staff were receptive to the learning. They attributed the negative receptivity to
teachers who are set in their ways and to the influence of the oppositional social-political
environment surrounding CRT. They felt the PD needed to be longer to enable deepened

40
40
reflection and learning. They were looking to become and feel more efficacious in the effort to
mitigate implicit bias. Lacking for them were also applicable strategies to help them mitigate
implicit bias in their own practice. However, when the social awareness raised by the murder of
George Floyd, Bryonna Taylor, and BLM was combined with a supportive environment within
their department, and stated personal beliefs about social consciousness, it prompted changes to
curricular choices and encouraged personal reflective behavior.
Discussion and Implications
According to Bandura’s (1986) model of triadic reciprocity, in social cognitive theory
(SCT), there is a constant interplay between environmental factors, personal (cognitive,
affective, biological) factors and behavior. These factors mutually influence each other, function
bi-directionally, and do not necessarily have equal force on each other. This interplay was
evident in this study that looked at ten high school teachers from diverse suburban schools who
attended PD to mitigate implicit bias. Aligned with the model of triadic reciprocity, the study
found that the effectiveness and reception of the PD depended on how participants entered the
PD environment, and what attitudes, and cognition they carried with them. The social
environment created by their receptive or non-receptive colleagues also played a role ss did the
learning environment fostered by the PD structure and the kinds of behaviors the activities
promoted.
Notably, the broader socio-political atmosphere stirred by the social unrest that had been
building prior to and the social awareness prompted by George Floyd’s murder as well as the
Covid 19 pandemic (Dreier, 2020) made the necessity salient and primed the school environment
for the receptivity of PD addressing implicit bias in teacher practice. This broad socio-political
atmosphere prompted the mandate across districts. This study found that individuals who were

41
41
mandated to attend this PD in response to the social unrest were positively inclined because of
their personal goals to address equity issues for minoritized students. The mutual influence of the
personal, environmental, and behavioral factors can be seen. Though their level of motivation
varied, it was enough for a positive receptivity of the PD. This aligns with studies by Munch-
Jurisic (2020) and Quinn (2017) that found many educators are dedicated to egalitarian ideals
and work towards quality education. While the topic did create personal discomfort, as Matias et
al. (2016) noted, educators often experience, the interplay of the social-political atmosphere, the
environment fostered by the PD, and their personal awareness of social issues, also prompted
reflective behavior about the relevance of it in their teaching practice and the value of mitigating
implicit bias.
While the social movements prompted the mandates and primed the receptivity, those
with a supportive district and school environments or with a personal inclination to the address
implicit bias demonstrated a willingness to undertake the process. Positive reception by
participants and their department colleagues prompted discussions, reflection, and action. The
receptive school environment influenced the personal behaviors. This positive reinforcement
from the environment, as pointed out by SCT, promotes the likelihood that the behavior will
continue (Bandura, 1977; Schunk, 2019). This was the case for the study participants. When
department colleagues had a favorable disposition, it contributed to the necessary space for
discussion and reflection about the concepts learned at the PD to carry on and deepen. This
aligns with the Kempf (2020) finding that in addition to time, teacher reflection about implicit
bias needs various modalities of engagement to evolve to a more complex understanding.
On the other hand, the study findings about negative reception by colleagues or an
oppositional social-political environment suggest that while a barrier of discomfort is created it

42
42
does not stymie personal effort of individuals who have a self-perception as advocates for social
justice. In this case, the participants’ personal goal to understand implicit bias and its impacts
had a stronger pull on their receptivity than did the discomforting environment. Despite the push
back, those with a strong personal leaning towards addressing inequities through critical
awareness were not dissuaded. This was the case for nine of the participants. The positive
reinforcement was self-initiated and did not require external environmental factors (Bandura,
1977; Schunk, 2019). This self-initiated positive reinforcement served to promote self-reflection
and personal action to make changes to their classroom practice. As difficult as an oppositional
environment can be or as challenging as self-reflection on implicit bias is, teachers whose
reflections indicated a heightened critical consciousness were not diverted by the negative
reception in their environment.
The study demonstrated that as participants developed an understanding about and
implications of implicit bias it contributed to feelings of frustration and discomfort. These
sentiments resonate with those experienced by educators who undertake this self-reflective work,
as mentioned in other studies (Bonilla-Silva, 2001; Di Angelo, 2011; Howard, 2003; Matias et
al., 2016; Munch-Jurisic, 2020; Vargas et al., 2020). Regardless of these uncomfortable feelings,
the understanding built on existing critical consciousness held by most of the teacher participants
which speaks to the findings by Bonilla-Silva (2001) that many educators see themselves as anti-
racist. That research also showed that socially conscious individuals, such as teachers, would be
reluctant to enter such reflection suggesting that their personal belief strongly influences
reluctant behavior. Yet, this self-concept, while it can lead to a reluctance about entering such
discussions and reflections about implicit bias, can also contribute to their sense of
conscientiousness towards anti-racist behavior (Amodio & Swenctonis, 2018; Devine et al.,

43
43
2012; Lai et al., 2016). This was the case for nine of the ten participants. The PD sparked an
interest to learn more even through the discomfort. Here, the applied triadic reciprocity model
demonstrates that the PD environment alongside their personal inclination encouraged reflective
behavior about their readiness to confront their implicit bias and the need for strategies to help
mitigate it. However, the shortness of the sessions did not encourage the depth of reflection this
endeavor needs (Devine et al., 2012; Lai et al., 2016; Reinholz, 2016).
The complexity of mitigating implicit bias requires sustained interventions (Devine et al.,
2012; Lai et al., 2016; Noon, 2017; Payne et al.,2017). Additionally, the various levels of
receptivity and understanding brought by participants can benefit from an environment that
provides sustained support. Participants in the study noted the missing extended support. They
wanted more opportunities to interrogate the topic and grow as educators. The conveyance of
this heavy topic which places teacher beliefs about their students at the center of equity efforts
(Leonardo, 2009) needs the space to deepen reflection. A short-lived awareness session, such as
those explored in this study, only opened the door to the topic. Of the ten different PD
experiences explored, none were perceived to provide educators with the tools and introspective
spaces to expand their understanding. The PD did not provide participants with the strategies
needed to help build their self-efficacy. A study by Goodnough (2018) asserted that without the
appropriate time supports and access to relevant PD, the likelihood of teachers deepening their
confidence in and self-efficacy in new skills is low. This is also the case for mitigating implicit
bias in educational spaces. As this study demonstrates, some participants took it upon themselves
to find other PD opportunities to deepen this learning, but this was only the case for some. It
leaves a large percentage of school and district staff needing and wanting more. These single
sessions are counterintuitive to the aims of implicit bias mitigation. As Greenwald and Kreiger

44
44
(2006) and Calaza et al. (2021) assert, implicit bias is reproduced in social environments such as
schools. To maximize the effectiveness of such efforts, entire school systems need to be
involved. This is not a learning that can be fully achieved in a single session or with the effort of
a few educators. This is a heavy lift that necessitates the backing of all actors in a school system.
Implications
A PD structure that addresses the pulls exerted by personal factors, environmental
factors, and behaviors can more effectively engage participants in the work of mitigating implicit
bias. The broader socio-political atmosphere has made the moment ripe for PD addressing
implicit bias for educators to take stronger hold. While this study is small, it does suggest that
many teachers may be more ready to interrogate concepts of implicit bias and their role in
perpetuating. The personal inclination for such PD also makes this a viable option. PD designs
that are responsive to the teacher audience and sustained over time can capitalize on this
heightened awareness. Particularly, long-term engagement would provide the needed support for
this difficult topic that is challenging even for those who are fully invested (Bonilla-Silva, 2001;
Devine et al., 2012; Leonardo 2009). Additionally, a PD environment that provides structured
support to engage in reflective behaviors can build the self-efficacy needed to undertake this
personal and societal endeavor.
Consideration of Personal Factors for PD Design
Taking the spectrum of participants’ personal cognition and affect to promote reflective
engagement can inform PD designs that lead to change behavior. The Reinholz et al. (2020)
study found that developing teachers’ critical consciousness over time about how implicit bias
manifests in practice as well as providing strategies for reflection and classroom application was
successful. That critical consciousness pushed teachers to persist and persevere in their personal

45
45
goal. PD that takes individual’s understanding and goals about mitigating implicit bias into
account accentuates the personal factors that interlink with the environmental factors and
influence behavior. The findings of this research demonstrated that each teacher entered the topic
at different levels. Some wrestled with the concept of implicit bias for the first time while others
felt they knew the topic well to lead the sessions. Some were vulnerable with the understanding
that they hold implicit bias and were ready to confront it, while others struggled with the idea
and personal implication. Regardless of their personal attitude towards the topic, the difficulty of
the concept made the work to mitigate implicit bias discomforting for them all. PD needs to
account for these varying levels of emotional and cognitive engagement to elicit the intended
outcomes – mitigating personal implicit bias.
Environmental Factors and Behavior During PD
Competent presenters, small group settings and relevant artifacts shape the structural
environment of the PD in a way that deepens understanding about the impact of implicit bias.
The environment plays an important role in producing intended outcomes, according to social
cognitive theory (Schunk, 2019), because people process information from what is happening
around them over extended periods of time. Presenters who are knowledgeable and engaging
frame the environment of the sessions. They set the tone. The study found that when presenters
were not well received, the learning suffered. The opposite was also true. Structurally, PD design
that incorporates small group sessions, as was evidenced in the study, create the space to have
more individuals participate in the discussions. The open exchange of ideas in a small group
setting can influence how people feel based on what others share, deepen understanding based on
what is analyzed, and influence how they interact based on how they feel.

46
46
Another aspect of the environmental factor that can influence how participants feel and
think is the type of artifacts and resources used during the sessions. Participants in the study
expressed wanting to explore different data for a more convincing and irrefutable approach to the
learning. This was in part a response to the negative reception by colleagues and in part an
interest in having tangible information from which to base decisions on. Providing opportunities
to analyze data sets that demonstrate academic achievement, representation of minoritized
students in higher level courses, behavioral records, among other trackable information, can
provide a substantive look at the disparities. For instance, four participants in the study analyzed
curriculum resources for representation and relevance which informed the needed changes.
Providing relevant artifacts and resources during PD sessions can inform the learning.
Consideration of Behavioral Factors for PD Design
Changing behaviors that have become invisible because of their automatic activation,
requires new behaviors to be cultivated, nurtured, and sustained. This is at the heart of mitigating
implicit bias. Researchers of implicit bias compare such behavior to habits that need breaking
(Devine, et al., 2012; Lai, et al., 2017; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006). Breaking habits requires the
building of new habits. Strategies that can be used to mitigate automatic biased responses was
gap all participants of the study noted. PD sessions can benefit from providing useable strategies
such as those used in the Devine et al (2012) study or the Reinholz et al. (2020) study. Among
those strategies were critical reflection skills to interrogate student-teacher interactions, academic
opportunities, curricular representation, and approaches to discipline. The learning from these
observations can inform new behaviors that actively oppose the implicit bias. However, because
individual do not function in isolation of their environment, as the model of triadic reciprocity
asserts (Bandura, 1986), engaging in continuous small group reflections to discuss the

47
47
observations and attempts at mitigating implicit bias can create the needed environment to
cultivate the self-efficacy for which teachers are aiming. Personal agency can become collective
group agency (Bandura, 1997) where teachers learn from each other.
Broader District and School Environment
School leadership needs to be courageous in mandating a long-term PD engagement to
address implicit bias. It is important to keep in mind that entrenched systems of oppression will
continue to raise barriers to equity work (Annamma & Morrison, 2018; Bonilla-Silva, 2001;
Chin et al., 2020) and society will continue to perpetuate stereotypical and derogatory beliefs
about individuals from minoritized communities (Amodio & Swencionis, 2018; Calaza et al.,
2021; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Leonardo, 2009). For suburban areas,
such as those represented in this study, with changing demographics more inclusive of students
from minoritized communities (Diamond et al., 2021), this is also the case. Professional
development that surfaces the internalized bias attitudinal tendencies and the impact on teaching
are essential (Darling-Hammond, et al., 2017).
School leadership that prioritizes this type of learning year after year contribute to
maintaining vigilance and progression. Even a single year or two of deep engagement with PD to
mitigate implicit bias would not be enough. For the environment to change, people’s thinking
needs to change, and those changes can contribute to reshaping behavior. The interplay of these
three frames, as described by Bandura’s triadic reciprocity (1986), is a constant factor. Implicit
bias, also a constant factor, needs consistent awareness as well (Devine et al., 2012; Greenwald
& Krieger, 2006)). Courageous leaders can create the supportive environment that promotes
deepened understanding and critical consciousness. In states, such as California and Ohio, where
the social-political atmosphere has heightened awareness about equity issues, leaders have the

48
48
opportunity to shift the thinking and influence changes in classroom practices and educational
systems broadly. Further, because not all states or districts support this effort, PD organizations
that specialize in DEI topics are needed to continuously offer PD opportunities for those who are
motivated and in search of ways to build self-efficacy. As Fullan (2001) explains, “Moral
purpose must be accompanied by strategies for realizing it, and those strategies are the leadership
actions that energize people to pursue a desired goal” (p. 19).
Limitations
This study has three main limitations. First, the small number of participants limits the
transferability of the findings. The study is not meant to generalize findings but to inform a
framing for future studies and interventions. A second limitation of the study is the possible bias
of those self-selecting to participate in the study. Those willing to participate in the study likely
already had a strong disposition for countering implicit bias and the inequitable practices created
by such thinking. Because the study focuses on participants’ thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, this
may skew the findings. Keeping this limitation in mind will help inform the analysis of the data.
Another limitation is the number of triangulation data points. The study gathered data from semi-
structured interview questions that delved into a potentially sensitive subject for educators.
Participant feedback on preliminary findings was sought out to mitigate possible
misinterpretation of the observers’ perspectives.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the learnings from this limited qualitative study, I recommend five areas for
future research. First, whole school or district surveys of staff who has participated in implicit
bias PD can provide a broader understanding of the perceived value of the PD as well as gaps.
Secondly, teachers are interested in effective strategies to mitigate implicit bias in their

49
49
classroom practice. Future research with educators modeled after the 12-week longitudinal study
by Devine et al. (2012) would provide evidence-based results. The study examined the effects of
a multi-faceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention to mitigate the long-term reduction in
implicit race bias among university psychology students. The findings were positive and
demonstrated success in this endeavor. Thirdly, research to assess how teachers of color are
reflecting on implicit bias PD would be helpful to determine the best approaches to deepen their
learning considering their unique experiences. Fourthly, a study focusing on how educational
leaders reflect on the benefits and challenges of this PD would inform what support they need be
more effective. Finally, because a large portion of PD opportunities are delivered by external
providers or DEI school officials, a study of what factors they take into consideration and how
sessions are structured can inform protocols for future implicit bias PD for educators. These five
areas can further inform the impact of PD that addresses implicit bias.
Conclusion
To reach and sustain equity in schools, interrogating teachers’ implicit beliefs about their
students is key. It is of equal importance to the interrogation of and changes to educational
policies that maintain inequities. These internalized beliefs underlie the interactions teachers
have with students, their curricular choices, and the environments they create. While teachers
may develop curriculum that brings in diversity and culturally relevant pedagogy, unexamined
implicit bias may compromise such approaches. Implicit bias is an invisible barrier that keeps us
from achieving a more inclusive society. Teacher positive beliefs about marginalized students
validate their experience, and their humanity and in so doing, sets an example and expectation
for those students from privileged communities, the non-students of color, to also value their
classmates. Professional development that deepens understanding, promotes reflection, and

50
50
provides effective strategies to mitigate implicit bias can contribute to more equitable practices
that broach the opportunity gap for students from minoritized communities. With this study, I
hope to contribute to reflections, actions, and the development of more effective professional
development approaches that address implicit bias.

51
51
References
Alhejji, H., Garavan, T., Carbery, R., O’Brien, F., & McGuire, D. (2016). Diversity Training
Programme Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
27(1), 95–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21221
Alridge, D. (2020). Teachers in the movement: Pedagogy, activism, and freedom. History of
Education Quarterly, 60(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2020.6
Amodio, D., & Swencionis, J. K. (2018). Proactive control of implicit bias: A theoretical model
and implications for behavior change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
115(2), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000128
Annamma, S. & Morrison, D. (2018). Identifying dysfunctional education ecologies: A DisCrit
analysis of bias in the classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(2), 114–131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1496047
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. The
Psychological Review., 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/info:doi/
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Baum, W. M. (1973). The correlation-based law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis
of Behavior, 20(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1973.20-137

52
52
Baron, A.S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes: Evidence of race
evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17(1), 53–58.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01664.x
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2001). White Supremacy and Racism In The Post-Civil Rights Era. Lynne
Rienner Publishers.
Calaza, K.C., Erthal, F. C. S., Pereira, M. G., Macario, K. C. D., Daflon, V. T., David, I. P. A.,
Castro, H. C., Vargas, M. D., Martins, L. B., Stariolo, J. B., Volchan, E., & de Oliveira,
L. (2021). Facing racism and sexism in science by fighting against social implicit bias: A
Latina and Black woman’s perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 671481–671481.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671481
California Department of Education. (2020, September 21). State Superintendent Tony
Thurmond launches new "Education to End Hate" initiative to combat bias, bigotry, and
racism. News Release. (#20-77). https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr20/yr20rel77.asp.
Candisky, C. (2020, July 15). State Board of Education condemns hate speech, takes aim at
racial bias in schools. The Columbus Dispatch.
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/15/state-board-of-education-
condemns-hate-speech-takes-aim-at-racial-bias-in-schools/112261592/.
Carlana, M. (2019). Implicit stereotypes: Evidence from teachers' gender bias. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 134(3), 1163–1224. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz008
Cherng, H.S., Halpin, P. F., & Rodriguez, L. A. (2022). Teaching bias? Relations between
teaching quality and classroom demographic composition. American Journal of
Education, 128(2), 171–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/717676

53
53
Chin, M., Quinn, D. M., Dhaliwal, T. K., & Lovison, V. S. (2020). Bias in the air: A nationwide
exploration of teachers’ implicit racial attitudes, aggregate bias, and student
outcomes. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 566–578.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937240
Clark, K.B., & Clark, M. K. (1940). Skin color as a factor in racial identification of Negro
preschool children. The Journal of Social Psychology, 11(1), 159–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1940.9918741
Dee, T.S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter? The American
Economic Review, 95(2), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282805774670446
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.56.1.5
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term reduction in
implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267-1278. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
Diamond, J., Posey-Maddox, L., & Velázquez, M. D. (2021). Reframing suburbs: Race, place,
and opportunity in suburban educational spaces. Educational Researcher, 50(4), 249–
255. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20972676
DiAngelo, R. (2011). White fragility. International Journal Critical Pedagogy,3(3), 54–70.
Dreier, P. (2020, January 8). The decade in 11 movements. The American Prospect.
prospect.org/civil-rights/the-decade-in-11-movements/.
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2016). Diversity: Why diversity programs fail and what works better.
Harvard Business Review, 94(7-8), 52–60.

54
54
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
Fujimoto, Y., & E.J. Härtel, C. (2017). Organizational diversity learning framework: going
beyond diversity training programs. Personnel Review, 46(6), 1120–1141.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2015-0254
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gershenson, S., Holt, S.B., & Papageorge, N. (2015). Who believes in me? The effect of student-
teacher demographic match on teacher expectations. IDEAS Working Paper Series from
RePEc.
Gill, A.C., Zhou, Y., Greely, J. T., Beasley, A. D., Purkiss, J., & Juneja, M. (2022). Longitudinal
outcomes one year following implicit bias training in medical students. Medical Teacher,
1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.2023120
Good, T., Sterzinger, N., & Lavigne, A. (2018). Expectation effects: Pygmalion and the initial 20
years of research1. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24(3-5), 99–123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1548817
Greenwald, A.G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law
Review, 94(4), 945–967. https://doi.org/10.2307/20439056
Henry, S.E. & Feuerstein, A. (2021). Body language signals, social class, and implicit
bias. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 57(4), 151–157.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2021.1968246
Hernandez, R.A., Haidet, P., Gill, A. C., & Teal, C. R. (2013). Fostering students’ reflection
about bias in healthcare: Cognitive dissonance and the role of personal and normative

55
55
standards. Medical Teacher, 35(4), e1082–e1089.
https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.733453
hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Education as the practice of freedom, London,
UK: Routledge.
Howard, C. T. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_5
Jackson, J. (2018). The non-performativity of implicit bias training. Radical Teacher
(Cambridge), 112(112), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2018.497
Kempf, A. (2020). If we are going to talk about implicit race bias, we need to talk about
structural racism: Moving beyond ubiquity and inevitability in teaching and learning
about race. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 19 (2). Retrieved from
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/taboo/vol19/ iss2/10
King, J. (1991). Dysconscious racism: Ideology, identity, and the miseducation of teachers. The
Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.2307/2295605
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. F. (2017). Toward a Critical Race Theory of Education. In
Critical Race Theory in Education (1st ed., pp. 10–31). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315709796-2
Lai, C. K., Skinner, A. L., Cooley, E., Murrar, S., Brauer, M., Devos, T., Calanchini, J., Xiao, Y.
J., Pedram, C., Marshburn, C. K., Simon, S., Blanchar, J. C., Joy-Gaba, J. A., Conway, J.,
Redford, L., Klein, R. A., Roussos, G., Schellhaas, F. M. H., Burns, M., … Nosek, B. A.
(2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time.

56
56
Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 145(8), 1001–1016.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, whiteness, and education. Routledge.
Lopez, G.P. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics of education: A critical race theory
perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 68-94.
Matias, C., Montoya, R., & Nishi, N. W. M. (2016). Blocking CRT: How the emotionality of
whiteness blocks CRT in urban teacher education. Educational Studies (Ames), 52(1), 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2015.1120205
Munch-Jurisic, D.M. (2020). The right to feel comfortable: Implicit bias and the moral potential
of discomfort. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(1), 237–250.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10064-5
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Race and ethnicity of public school teachers and
their students. Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020103/index.asp.
Neal, D.M. (2008). Organizational structures and systems in high -performing, high -poverty
urban schools: The construct of race and teacher expectations as mediating factors in
student achievement (Vol. 69, Issue 9). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Noon, M. (2017). Pointless diversity training: Unconscious bias, new racism and agency. Work,
Employment & Society, 32(1), 4294967295–209. https://doi.org/info:doi/
Payne, B. K., Vuletich, H. A., & Lundberg, K. B. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias
bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28, 233–
248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568

57
57
Peterson, E. R., Rubie-Davies, C., Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. (2016). Teachers’ explicit
expectations and implicit prejudiced attitudes to educational achievement: relations with
student achievement and the ethnic achievement gap. Learn and Instruction, 42, 123–
140. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.010
Pit-ten Cate, I.M., & Glock, S. (2019). Teachers’ implicit attitudes toward students from
different social groups: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2832–2832.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02832
Quinn, D. M. (2017). Racial attitudes of preK–12 and postsecondary educators: Descriptive
evidence from nationally representative data. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 397–411.
Reinholz, D. (2016). Developing mathematical practices through reflection cycles. Mathematics
Education Research Journal, 28(3), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-016-0175-1
Reinholz, D., Stone-Johnstone, A., & Shah, N. (2020). Walking the walk: using classroom
analytics to support instructors to address implicit bias in teaching. The International
Journal for Academic Development, 25(3), 259–272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2019.1692211
Ríos, R. (2017). Teacher Agency for Equity: A Framework for Conscientious Engagement.
Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315178646
Schwartz, S. (2019, May 15). Next step in diversity training: Teachers learn to face their
unconscious biases; diversity training asks teachers to understand students’ different
backgrounds. Implicit-bias training goes further, and asks teachers to look at themselves.
Education Week, 38(33), 10–10.
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning Theories: An Educational Perspective (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

58
58
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Sparks, S. D. (2020, November 17). Training bias out of teachers: Research shows little promise
so far. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/training-bias-out-of-
teachers-research-shows-little-promise-so-far/2020/11.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
35 (1999), 4–28.
Starck, J., Riddle, T., Sinclair, S., & Warikoo, N. (2020). Teachers are people too: Examining the
racial bias of teachers compared to other American adults. Educational
Researcher, 49(4), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20912758
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry for Youth and Communities (pp.
223– 247). Sage.
Vargas, J.H., Saetermoe, C. L., & Chavira, G. (2020). Using critical race theory to reframe
mentor training: theoretical considerations regarding the ecological systems of
mentorship. Higher Education, 81(5), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-020-
00598-z
Williamson, S., & Foley, M. (2018). Unconscious bias training: The “Silver Bullet” for gender
equity? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(3), 355–359.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12313
Yogeeswaran, K., Devos, T., & Nash, K. (2016). Understanding the nature, measurement, and
utility of implicit intergroup biases. In The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of

59
59
Prejudice, (pp. 241–266). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.011

60
60
Appendix A: Recruitment Form
To potential participant:
By completing this form and if you meet all requirements, you agree to participate in the
interview process of this research study. The study looks to understand how teachers are
reflecting on the implicit bias (also referred to as anti-bias or unconscious bias) professional
development they attended.
Please respond to all questions.
● Are you 18 years or older? Yes/No (logic)
● Are you a high school teacher? Yes/No (logic)
● In the last three years, have you attended profession development (PD) that addressed
implicit bias (also referred to as antibias or unconscious bias) Yes/No (logic)
● First Name:
● Last Name:
● What subject do you teach?
● How would you describe your school setting? (suburban, urban, rural)
● In which state are you employed?
● What year did you attend PD that addressed implicit bias?
● What was length of the PD that addressed implicit bias? Total number of hours ____
● How would you rate your inclination for attending the PD that addressed implicit bias
(Likert scale 5-highly inclined – 1-not inclined)
● How many years have you worked at your current place of employment? ___
● How many years have you worked at you place of employment?
● How many years have you been employed as a teacher? ___

61
61
● Current district of employment ____
● Are you willing to participate in an individual interview with the researcher? (Yes/No)
logic

62
62
Appendix B: Interview Protocol - Teacher
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.

1. First, tell me about your background in education.
a. What led you into teaching?
b. What roles or positions have you held?

Now I’d like to ask you some information about the school at which you work.

2. How would you describe the student demographics of the school?
a. Please describe the demographics of your classes.
3. How would you describe the teacher demographics of the school?
a. Please describe the demographics of your department.

I’d like to ask you about your experience attending a professional development that addressed
implicit bias.

4. You attended PD that addressed implicit bias (sometimes referred to as antibias or
unconscious bias PD), correct?
a. What do you think prompted the training being offered?
b. How did you feel about attending the training?
c. What about the training brought up those feelings for you?
5. Walk me through the professional development session.
a. What was the general structure?
b. What topics do you remember were presented and discussed?
c. What are your thoughts about the topics covered?
d. What feelings did the topics bring up for you?
6. I’d like to ask you about the PD’s overall effectiveness.
a. What do you think were the strengths of this PD, if any?
b. What do you think were the weaknesses of this PD, if any?
c. What do you think was missing from the PD?
d. What do you feel were the key takeaways from the PD?
7. I’d like to ask you about the general reception of the PD addressing implicit bias by
colleagues in your department.
a. How would you characterize their reception?
b. To what extent do you agree/disagree with that opinion?
c. How did you feel about discussing the PD with others?
d. How have you observed others incorporate the information from the PD into their
practice, if at all?
8. How do you define implicit bias?
a. How, if at all, did the training change your understanding of implicit bias?
b. What emotions does the concept of implicit bias bring up for you, if any?

Now, I’d like to ask you your opinion pertaining to topics and strategies that may have been
presented at the PD.

63
63

9. In your opinion, to what extent does implicit bias impact teacher practice?
10. To what extent, do you think, teacher implicit bias impacts the academic success of
minority students?
a. How does this align with the ideas presented in the PD you attended?
11. Most professional development programs demonstrate strategies that could be applied to
one’s practice, can you describe one or two of the strategies presented for addressing
implicit bias?
a. How relevant do you think these strategies are to you?
b. How, if at all, did you bring these strategies into your practice?
i. What motivated your choice to use/not use the strategies?
I’d like to ask you some questions pertaining to your perspective and reflections after
attending the PD.

12. To what extent do you think the concept of implicit bias applies to you?
a. To your teaching practices?
13. How have you reflected, if at all, about the concepts presented in the implicit bias
training?
14. Some people might say that implicit bias training is not effective. What would you
characterize as the most challenging aspect of mitigating implicit bias
a. At a personal level?
b. In your teaching practice?
15. From your perspective, what type of support is needed to mitigate implicit bias in
teaching practices?
a. What type of support would be helpful to you, if any, in addressing implicit bias
in your teaching practice?
b. Could you describe the ideal PD that addresses inequities?
16. What other insight would you like to share about our conversation on professional
development that addresses implicit bias that I might not have covered, if any?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The primary framework guiding my study is the model of triadic reciprocity as used in social cognitive theory to understand the role of the environmental, behavioral, and personal influences on teacher reflection of their self-efficacy on mitigating implicit bias after attending professional development (PD) that addresses it. The purpose of this study was to understand how teachers in a diverse suburban high school are reflecting on their motivation and experience attending PD that addressed implicit bias. This study also examined what participants felt were the impacts of the PD on their understanding of and self-efficacy to address implicit bias in their practice. The qualitative study used a standardized open-ended interview protocol with 16 questions to gather data from 10 participants who attended an implicit bias PD between 2019 – 2022. Interview transcripts captured on an audio-visual recording and field notes were coded, analyzed, and mapped to the research questions. Findings from this study indicate that the participants were motivated to attend the PD whether it was mandated or self-selected. While the oppositional socio-political environment concerning Critical Race Theory influenced a negative reception of the PD by colleagues, it did not dissuade the participants’ motivation to engage in the learning. However, participants did not feel the PD provided applicable strategies. This exploration revealed that when participants’ personal attitudes were influenced by the social awareness of the murder of George Floyd, Bryonna Taylor, and Black Lives Matter (BLM), combined with supportive environments from their department, and a stated personal social consciousness, changes to curricular choices were prompted and personal reflection was encouraged. This study helps inform the design of PD that aims to mitigate implicit bias at the personal level as way to contribute to a more equitable school system.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Ageism and ingrained stereotypes: a qualitative study of systemic injustices in hiring practices

PDF

Educators, experiences, and environment: exploring Doctor of Physical Therapy student perceived influences on professional identity formation

PDF

"After a neutral and impartial investigation...": implicit bias in internal workplace investigations

PDF

A case study in how middle school counselors mentor students at risk for emerging academic disengagement

PDF

Implicit bias: an advancement opportunity limiter for African American women in entertainment

PDF

A cyclical approach to professional development: a case study of the San Bernardino School District

PDF

Motivation, persistence, and achievement in East Asian languages learning: an expectancy-value theory perspective

PDF

Exploring the influence of implicit bias among police officers and minoritized citizens

PDF

Math teachers and growth mindset

PDF

Professional development in generating managerial high-quality feedback

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

We sant you! Kind of: Exploring the experiences of women pastors/leaders in Christian churches

PDF

The underrepresentation of Asian American Pacific Islanders serving in the senior and executive leadership ranks in the U.S. Navy SEALs

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

Indonesian teachers' adoption of technology in the K-12 classroom: a TAM-based quantitative study

PDF

An evaluation of employee perceptions of onboarding experiences: an evaluation study

PDF

Double jeopardy: the influence of prevalent race and gender bias on women of color executive leadership promotions

PDF

Exploring the effectiveness of continuing medical education for physicians enrolled in an MBA program

PDF

Good intentions are not enough: exploring implicit racial bias in philanthropy

Asset Metadata

Creator Culp, Lesly M. (author)

Core Title An exploration: teacher reflections of implicit bias professional development

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 08/08/2023

Defense Date 06/27/2023

Publisher University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag implicit bias,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,triadic reciprocity

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Malloy, Courtney Lynn (committee chair), Ferguson, Holly (committee member), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email lculp@usc.edu,tolesly@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113296574

Unique identifier UC113296574

Identifier etd-CulpLeslyM-12208.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CulpLeslyM-12208

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Culp, Lesly M.

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230808-usctheses-batch-1080 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu