University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

(USC Thesis Other)

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Decolonizing the Classroom: Moving from Reflection to Critical Reflection
Lucero Chávez
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 Lucero Chávez 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Lucero Chávez certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Briana Hinga
Julie Slayton
John Pascarella, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study examines how I facilitated AVID teachers’ growth in critical reflection at Mountain
View High School (pseudonym). The outcomes of this study detail how far the teachers
progressed in learning critical reflection for three cycles or a total of 9 weeks. The research
question asked, “How do I promote a critical reflection cycle that will support AVID teachers’
growth in the use of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support Latinx students
learning?” I collected field notes, reflections, artifacts, and documents I developed for the three
cycles. I found that the teachers were not able to learn critical reflection in this limited time but
were able to reflect and interrogate their identities, positionalities, internalized oppressive
practices, and inward gazes.

v
Dedication
This work is dedicated to my mom and dad, who instilled in me the passion to learn and the
courage to persevere. To my seven siblings, who have always been my cheerleaders. And to the
two people who are my heart, Katelyn and Danny. Everything I do is for you. And finally, to my
soul mate, Francisco, thank you for being my supporter and keeping me centered throughout this
process.

vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my committee, Dr. Pascarella, Dr. Slayton, and Dr. Hinga,
and your continuous support throughout this process. Your patience and insight were truly
appreciated. In addition, I would like to thank the faculty and students in the leading instructional
change concentration, especially Alex, Elia, and Ifeyinwa, for helping me become a critical
educator.

vii
Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x
Context Statement ........................................................................................................................... 1
Historically Entrenched Inequity ......................................................................................... 5
Historically Entrenched Inequity in My Context .............................................................. 10
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 15
Critical Reflection Cycle ............................................................................................................... 19
Ongoing Professional Learning Context ....................................................................................... 22
Constructive Development Theory ................................................................................................ 24
Instrumental Knowers ....................................................................................................... 27
Socializing Knowers .......................................................................................................... 28
Self-Authoring Knower ..................................................................................................... 29
Self-Transforming Knowers .............................................................................................. 30
Critical Reflection ......................................................................................................................... 31
Aesthetic Experiences That Elicit Disorienting Dilemmas ............................................... 32
Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Identity and Positionality ............... 38
Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Internalized Oppression ................. 39
Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Inward Gazes ................................. 41
Intended Versus Realized Outcomes: Decolonizing the Classroom via Critical Reflection ......... 43
Research Methods ......................................................................................................................... 45

viii
Participants and Setting ..................................................................................................... 46
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 67
Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 69
Delimitations ................................................................................................................................. 70
Credibility and Trustworthiness .................................................................................................... 70
Ethics ............................................................................................................................................. 70
Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 72
Theme 1: Leveraging Our Stories to Support the Learning of Critical Reflection ........... 75
Theme 2: Connecting to Self as a Way to Understand and Support Latinx Students ..... 107
Afterword .................................................................................................................................... 142
Learning About Myself ................................................................................................... 143
Implications for Learning ................................................................................................ 143
Growth as an Educator .................................................................................................... 144
The Value of Critical Reflection ..................................................................................... 144
Understanding My Positionality ...................................................................................... 145
The Path Forward ............................................................................................................ 146
References ................................................................................................................................... 148
Appendix A: Social Identities ..................................................................................................... 158
Appendix B: Intersectionality ...................................................................................................... 159
Appendix C: Wheel of Power/Privilege ...................................................................................... 160
Appendix D: My Journal Entry ................................................................................................... 161
Appendix E: Priscilla’s Reflective Cycle .................................................................................... 162

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Connection Between Constructive Development Theory and Zone of Proximal
Teacher Development Along With Scaffolds to Support Knowers at the Different Stages 26
Table 2: Aesthetic Experiences That Elicit Disorienting Dilemmas 33
Table 3: Critical Reflection Cycle 1: Examining Identity and Positionality via Critical
Reflection 55
Table 4: Critical Reflection Cycle 2: Unearthing Internalized Oppression Via Critical
Reflection 60
Table 5: Critical Reflection Cycle 3: Utilizing Structured Opportunities to Contend and
Reflect on Inward Gazes 64

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 16
Appendix A: Social Identities 158
Appendix B: Intersectionality 159
Appendix C: Wheel of Power/Privilege 160
Appendix E: Priscilla’s Reflective Cycle 162

1

Decolonizing the Classroom: Moving from Reflection to Critical Reflection
Context Statement
As a high school teacher, my passion was to support Latinx students’ access to equitable
instructional practices. My positionality as a Latina doctorate student who is a self-authoring
knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) gave me the privilege of discerning others’
expectations with my acumen. This privilege brought me to the notion that the U.S. educational
system produces inequitable learning opportunities for Latinx students. My position of privilege
is based on my identity as a public education teacher who is able-bodied, first-generation
Mexican American, heterosexual, and a cisgender female. My way of knowing allowed me to
discern ahistorical education practices and policies that have hindered Latinx students’ learning.
As a U.S.-born first-generation Latina, I am drawn to support Latinx students’
connections to learning due to my experiences in school. As a young student, I never felt like I
could see myself in the curriculum; it felt foreign. I remember my 11th-grade history teacher
discussing the need for immigrants to assimilate into “American culture.” The idea of
assimilation, negating my identity to assume another, was disheartening. It felt like I would have
to stop being me to become an American. I remember feeling perplexed by the notion of
assimilation because I did not understand how I could give up my Mexican heritage and native
language. Though I did try to assimilate into the U.S. culture, I never could leave my culture
behind.
As an educator and a doctorate student, I am critical of the assimilation practices in our
educational system because they are not inclusive or sustain Latinx students’ culture and
background. These hegemonic assimilation practices, such as changing a student’s name to one
that is easier to pronounce (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012) or forgetting a person’s language to learn
2

English only, are deeply ingrained into our educational landscape. So, it is unsurprising that
Western education models lack effective ways to teach cultural pluralism (Paris & Alim, 2017).
Cultural pluralism is the idea that students of color, such as Latinx and Black, Indigenous, and
Other People of Color (BIPOC), can maintain their cultural background while participating in the
dominant society (Paris & Alim, 2017). Cultural pluralism connects to liberatory methodologies
(Arce, 2016, where a classroom setting maintains minority students’ unique cultural identities,
values, and practices. Therefore, Latinx students can benefit from liberatory methodologies that
engage and empower students of color (Arce, 2016).
In this study, I refer to Latinx students as individuals of Latin American origin. In
addition, the “x” makes this a gender-neutral noun and more inclusive than Latino or Latina. In
addition, it visibilizes people who have not concurred with male-female gender binary terms (Del
Río-González, 2021). It is important to note that Latinx is not a widely accepted term. Many
people of Latin American origin find it challenging to pronounce the x because it does not follow
conventional Spanish grammar rules. Many argue that it erases Latin American identity and
replaces it with an English word. I use the term Latinx because it is gender-neutral, which I find
more inclusive and challenges traditional gender binary roles (Del Río-González, 2021).
As stated earlier, in U.S. society, people of other cultures are expected to assimilate into
the dominant ideology. A way to counter the status quo is to center and value Latinx students’
color, ethnicity, and culture. Viewing students’ culture as an asset requires shifting the
educational paradigm into one that uses cultural pluralism and liberatory methodologies to
decolonize education (Paris, 2021). Decolonizing education is undoing colonial practices that
stem from the past. To begin the decolonization of education, browning the curriculum (Tuck &
Gaztamide-Fernández, 2013) is essential. Browning referred to using students’ culture to support
3

learning and bringing other perspectives into curriculum and instruction (Tuck & Gaztamide-
Fernández, 2013). Browning the curriculum can move teacher instruction toward a more
pluralistic (Paris, 2021) way of learning to evolve from the one-sided Eurocentric content
perspective (Hollins, 2015). Browning the curriculum is to use a liberatory method that supports
a more inclusive and diverse curriculum no longer owned by a dominant perspective but by the
divergence of many different histories and ways of knowing (Paris & Alim, 2017).
To decolonize the education paradigm, educational practices that claim to be culturally
responsive need to be revealed. For example, practices such as multiculturalism are insufficient
because they sprinkle superficial aspects of culture into curriculum and instruction (Tuck &
Gaztamide-Fernández, 2013). In addition, multiculturalism shows a romanticized version of
historical events. An example of the latter is the portrayal of Rosa Parks as a non-threatening and
good Black woman who, with the help of friendly White people, started the Civil Rights
Movement (Tuck & Gaztamide -Fernández, 2013). This romanticized version does not depict
Rosa Parks as someone who “emphasized Black mobilization and solidarity” (Carlson, 2004, as
cited in Tuck & Gaztamide-Fernández, 2013, p. 81). Therefore, it is important to note that
multiculturalism is not a panacea for culture or diversity. Multiculturalism’s shallow way of
teaching culture needs to be challenged. To do the latter, educators need to critically examine
one-dimensional historical events. Diversity practices cannot just be about including a superficial
perspective that introduces multicultural books and saying the right thing or talking the “good”
talk without understanding the nuances involved in social justice (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017, p. 467). Social justice is a process where school educators can share wisdom
from multiple perspectives and advocate for all students, including race, gender, sexual
orientation, language origin, and immigration status, among many other aspects that may be
4

overlapping and inter-centered (Jean-Marie et al., 2009, as cited in Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017).
To move forward with producing classroom narratives that view Latinx students’ culture
as an asset, educators must support students’ cultures, languages, and backgrounds. A
pedagogical theory that can facilitate educators in this endeavor is culturally sustaining pedagogy
(CSP; Paris & Alim, 2017), which positions culture as dynamic and additive and critically
enriches cultural strengths. As a liberatory method, CSP aims to “perpetuate, foster, and sustain
linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of schooling for positive social transformation”
(Paris & Alim, 2017, p. 1).
The first step toward utilizing CSP is providing professional learning for educators to
reflect on their assumptions and biases (Brookfield, 2017). A tool educators can use for
reflection is the constructive-development theory (CDT). This neo-Piagetian theory draws on
how people learn, grow, and develop (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). According to
this theory, adults can continue to grow and evolve if given the “appropriate developmental
supports and challenges” (p. 463). This framework supports adult learners by helping them
understand and reflect on what type of knower they are. In addition, the framework gives
specific examples of what facilitators can do to support educators’ moving through the growth
continuum. Understanding the implications of how educators and all adults orient to and
understand the diversity of every kind, as well as what it means” (pp. 458–459), is powerful.
Thus, CDT supports educators’ growth by helping them examine “assumptions about what they
know is true or real” (Wergin, 2020, p. 158). This theory further supports educators in
questioning their assumptions, which will move them to a space to “engage in dialectical forms
of thinking-the ability to hold onto contradictions” (p. 158).
5

The CDT framework highlights studies that support the role of individual reflection in the
move toward social justice. For social justice educators, reflection helps illuminate power and
how educational terrain is “framed by wider structures of power and dominant ideology”
(Brookfield, 2017, p. 9). Critical reflection supports educators in understanding their past
perceptions, assumptions, and biases. Critical reflection supports educators’ growth toward
becoming social justice advocates, which involves sharing multiple perspectives and narratives
in classrooms where educators advocate for inter-centered identities (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017). Therefore, critical reflection supports educators’ move toward utilizing
liberatory methodologies and cultural pluralism by helping them interrogate their “external
actions, practices, and behaviors and [their] internal mindsets, beliefs, and understandings”
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 461).
It is important to note that I used Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017)
framework to reflect on my identity and positionality. This framework helped me assess what
type of knower I am. As I reflected on myself as an educator, I realized that I am a self-
authorizing knower because I am moving toward the next phase of the continuum, that of
becoming a self-transforming knower. As a self-authorizing knower, I stand up for my own
beliefs and can advocate for others. Yet, I am still in the process of learning how to critique my
biases and assumptions. Considering this limitation, I wished to facilitate teachers’ critical
reflection learning by acknowledging that my positionality as a self-transforming knower might
have limited my ability to critique my biases and assumptions.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
Latinx students have been negatively impacted in U.S. schools due to historically
entrenched policies and practices that produced inequities. These policies stem from the
6

beginning of the United States as a nation. Settlers who colonized the Native American lands had
an ingrained Protestant ideology (Hollins, 2015). This ideology was based on capitalist values,
private property, individual success, and competition (Hollins, 2015). Settler colonialism refers
to the erasure of Indigenous people to replace the native inhabitants of the American land with
European settlers (Tuck et al., 2014). Settler colonialist ideology produced practices and policies
that continue in U.S. schools today.
Settler colonialist policies and practices promulgated deculturalization, or the conscious
attempt to replace culture and language with another considered superior (Spring, 2010). As a
result, these policies produced a racialized and stratified system based on Whiteness or the
“collective racial epistemology of a history of violence against people of color” (Leonardo, 2009,
p. 111). According to Paris and Alim (2017), the historical underpinnings of deculturalization
practices persist in education.
Deculturalization practices are evident in the notion of assimilation or the process of
being absorbed into the dominant society. This idea is emboldened when educational success is
defined by accepting majoritarian

points of view, which means that those in the majority have the
power to set the social narrative (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). As a result, “unidirectional
assimilation into whiteness” prevails (Paris & Alim, 2017, p. 3), which stymies using students’
cultures and backgrounds to create new learning. Thus, schools teach the dominant culture or
way of knowing because it is viewed as the only one with value.
Despite the Latinx population’s growing numbers, they are among the “least formally
educated groups in the United States” (Gándara & Contreras, 2008, as cited in Irizarry, 2017, p.
84). In 2018, 71.9% of the Latinx population received a high school diploma, and 18.3% earned
a college degree. In comparison, their White counterparts’ graduation and college attendance
7

rates were 90.2 % and 35.2% (Statista, 2021). Other data depict that Latinx students have high
dropout rates for students aged 16–24. The Latinx dropout rate was 14% compared to 5% for
White students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012, as cited in Irizarry, 2017).
Though there are multiple influences on Latinx student’s disproportionality rates, one decisive
factor that I intended to study is that the lack of attention to students’ cultures and backgrounds
in teaching and learning underserves and harms Latinx students (Gutierrez et al., 2009, as cited
in Irizarry, 2017).
Interestingly, the disproportionate high school graduation rates, dropout rates, and college
attendance may be caused by outside-of-school factors or may be due to factors inside the school
environment that decenter and marginalize students of color. Research depicts that Latinx
students experience disengagement (Toldson, 2011, as cited in Sojoyner, 2013) when there is a
lack of shared racial and ethnic values between teachers and students, known as student–teacher
incongruence

(Marchbanks et al., 2016). The latter causes students to seek negative outlets
outside of school that may lead to the school-to-prison pipeline (Marchbanks et al., 2016;
Toldson, 2011, as cited in Sojoyner, 2013). It is important to note that the prison population in
California in 2021 was 44.1% Latinx/Hispanic and 21% White (Public Policy Institute of
California, 2021). However, the state’s population in 2021 was 39.4% Latinx/Hispanic and
71.9% White. There is apparent disproportionality when comparing Latinx to White individuals
in the prison system. The reasons for this disproportionality may be numerous. Nevertheless, as
educators, we must move toward critical reflection to support social justice. Teacher advocacy
toward sharing wisdom from multiple perspectives and advocating for Latinx students’ culture
and identity would support Latinx students’ sense of belonging (Kumar et al., 2018).
8

Disrupting inequities in the classroom requires educators’ concerted effort. A way to
move toward an equitable learning experience for Latinx students is to utilize CSP with teachers
to critically reflect on the hegemonic assumptions and biases. Consequently, I focused this action
research study on the component of CSP that centers on maintaining the richness and beauty of
culturally and linguistically diverse students’ backgrounds by focusing on “structured
opportunities to contend with internalized oppressions and inward gazes” (Paris & Alim, 2017, p.
367). The phrase “structured opportunities” refers to intentional experiences where educators
confront their ways of thinking in relation to internalized oppression and examine their way of
thinking (inward gazes).
Utilizing CSP to critically reflect supports teachers with Latinx student learning. This
requires leveraging students’ cultures and backgrounds in content instruction, which helps
students learn (Schunk, 2020). Using CSP will help teachers analyze educational practices
through an equity lens. In addition, CSP supports the production of a more inclusive classroom
environment that sustains students’ cultures and produces a “legitimizing” effect for
communities of color (Kumar et al., 2018).
Legitimizing educational practices for students of color is necessary because our
educational system is based on internalized oppressive practices that produce a stratified society
due to racist practices (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). These have produced an educational
divide. In the educational system, educators are indoctrinated into the idea that the majoritarian
perspective is valued. As a result, students’ cultures and backgrounds are rendered unnecessary
or irrelevant. As stated, assimilation in U.S. society is when individuals leave their ethnicity and
culture behind and accept the White way of being. The dissociation with culture and background
makes Latinx students withdraw from schools because their cultural, linguistic, and community-
9

based knowledge is not valued (Valenzuela, 2017). Not incorporating students’ cultures and
backgrounds produces a subtractive schooling environment where the curriculum is perceived as
“uninteresting, irrelevant, and test-driven” (p. 62).
A way to mitigate oppressive practices is to use CSP because it has shown positive
results for Latinx students. For example, Irizarry (2017) described how youth became part of a
participatory action research project and how they had control over the research and content of
the biweekly class. When students were positioned as teachers, they sought to connect their lives
and what they were learning. Latinx students wanted to be part of the FUERTE (Strong) Project
because they knew they were being tracked in high school and that the curriculum they studied
omitted the histories of Latinx people and other people of color.
Moreover, before experiencing the FUERTE project, students saw themselves as “passive
recipients of an oppressive education with little sense of agency, other than engaging in self-
defeating resistance (Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001) in the form of cutting class or being
disruptive” (Irizarry, 2017, p. 92). The study found that students who had control over their
learning approached teaching and learning as collaborative rather than individualistic. The
themes were that the approaches to teaching Latinx students thrived when learning was
“grounded in students’ lived experiences, built on their system of meaning-making, and
[provided] students with skills and confidence to advocate for themselves” (Irizarry, 2017, p.
97).
Culturally sustaining pedagogical practices support Latinx learning, but teachers must
critically reflect so that they can disrupt the dominant instructional narrative to help students
thrive (Brookfield, 2017). Nevertheless, first, teachers must bring awareness to their thoughts
and actions to move toward an inward gaze (Paris & Alim, 2017) and examine how they have
10

been complicit in sustaining the dominant ideology in education. Educators must reorder
priorities to focus on the subject matter, and this includes adults who care and value Latinx
student learning and progress (Noddings, 1992, as cited in Valenzuela, 2017).
Historically Entrenched Inequity in My Context
The historically entrenched inequity addressed in this study is the instructional practice
that negates Latinx students’ culture and background. According to Schunk (2020), connecting to
students’ backgrounds and cultures in a lesson produces new learning. The idea is based on
Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (Schunk, 2020). Vygotsky’s theory “stresses interactions or
interpersonal (social), cultural-historical, and individual factors as key to human development”
(Tudge & Scrimsher, 2003, as cited in Schunk, 2020, p. 331). According to Schunk (2020),
learning cannot be separated from the environment. A positive student environment can produce
“students who are confident of their learning abilities and feel self-worthy should display interest
and motivation in school” (p. 390).
Connecting theory to practice is vital. Unfortunately, my school and district have made
little effort to integrate students’ cultures and backgrounds into student learning. In the same
vein, it is essential to note that teacher preparation programs focus on teacher effectiveness
related to methodology (Valenzuela, 2017) and not on supporting students to feel connected to
learning. As a result, teacher preparation programs’ focus is “reduced to methodological
considerations, and no explicit culture of caring is in place.” Subsequently, teachers come into
schools and “lose the capacity to respond to their students as whole human beings, and schools
become uncaring places” (Primillan & Eaker, 1994, as cited in Valenzuela, 2017, p. 74).
Schools focus on student performance where caring for and incorporating students’
backgrounds is not considered integral. This way of perceiving the school environment is evident
11

at my high school. Mountain Side High School District (pseudonym) is in Los Angeles County.
My school serves approximately 1,200 students; 99% are from a Latinx background, 87% are
socially disadvantaged, and 12% are English learners. My school site focuses on helping students
attain the skills necessary for college and a career. Seniors at my school site are 59% college and
career ready, which means that students have met the requirements for admission to the
California State University and the University of California. My school community is focused on
a majoritarian narrative that centers on student performance to meet high school and college
requirements. There is no explicit focus on integrating students’ culture and background into
learning.
The focus on student performance is due to state and federal policies fueled by
perceptions that center on school accountability. As a result, my school site propagates a
Eurocentric curriculum assessed via student performance on high-stakes tests (Mehta, 2013).
Nevertheless, blaming educators for not addressing the status quo in our educational system is
not the answer. Years of higher education credential programs have indoctrinated essentialist
ideas in teachers, which “serve as the authority in the classroom, conveyor of knowledge, and
administrator of tests to ensure knowledge has been acquired” (Oakes et al., 2018, p. 79).
School accountability emanates from a report titled A Nation at Risk (1983), which
detailed how the U.S. educational system failed. The culprits were high levels of illiteracy, poor
international comparisons, and a steady decline in SAT scores from 1983 to 1990 (Mehta, 2013).
This report helped propel a new educational reform that pushed a state-controlled accountability
system. These measures yielded the state standards in the 1990s, federal control in the 2000s
with No Child Left Behind, and the Common Core Standards. Though many may argue that
these measures helped with student equality, what these measures did was sideline student
12

equity. Student equity was not a vital component of these measures (Paris, 2021) because they do
not account for how to support and integrate Latinx students’ culture into instruction.
The policies and reforms of the 80s, 90s and 2000s have the facade of being centered on
access and equality because students are taught the same standards and have access to the
“same” resources and educational materials. These practices are evident at Mountain View High
School. I have had informal conversations with teachers who believe that all that matters are
performance practices, whereby students learn the subject matter to perform well on assessments.
For example, a teacher, Mr. G., once told me, “I just send students who misbehave to the dean
and have him deal with it.” He stated, “It is [the dean’s] job to teach kids how to behave, not
mine.” Interestingly, the teacher who commented has a Latin American background, and most of
his students are Latinx. It is important to note that our school and district have not had any
training in CSP or other culturally relevant frameworks. Therefore, it is not surprising that Mr.
G. did not think the students’ misbehavior had anything to do with how he engaged students in
his class.
The disconnect between teacher discipline practices and student learning is important
because many educators do not think their job is to connect with students’ backgrounds.
According to Sojoyner (2013), students of color, such as Latinx students, suffer from
marginalization or enclosures known as forced removal, neglect, abandonment, and
incapacitation. In schools, these invisible enclosures are seen in discipline policies that
promulgate zero-tolerance practices that fuel the school-to-prison pipeline. Zero-tolerance
policies were put into place by the districts, which were punitive measures for adolescent
misbehavior, and these policies increased the likelihood of students’ contact with the juvenile
and prison system (Marchbanks III et al., 2016).
13

Moving toward utilizing liberatory methodologies such as social justice will help teachers
critically reflect on how they can support Latinx students in schools. According to Gray et al.
(2018), Latinx students learn when they feel a sense of belonging and when teachers show that
they care (Valenzuela, 2017). Consequently, teachers must be allowed to think critically about
their assumptions and biases (Brookfield, 2017). However, how can the expectation be that
teachers and administrators counter-hegemonic educational structures when few state
policymakers have questioned the state standards’ “deep roots in conservative, essentialist
philosophies in education” (Oakes et al., 2018, p. 110)? It is essential for teachers to realize that
the educational system has produced a landscape where few educators are privy to the notion that
Latinx students learn via space to cultivate a sense of honor and dignity for themselves and their
culture (Arce, 2016).
To bring awareness to how Latinx students connect to school, I would like to work with
three AVID teachers to critically examine and reflect on using CSP’s pedagogical practice. The
goal is to reflect so that the participants begin introducing counternarratives to support Latinx
students critically. Counternarratives generate knowledge by centering on people who have been
marginalized and silenced (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).
One of AVID’s espoused values is to support “students who will be the first in their
families to attend college and are from groups traditionally underrepresented in higher
education” (AVID, 2022, para. 6). In the AVID system, there is a heavy focus on student
performance indicators or grades. The focus is performance and not students’ connection to
learning. In terms of professional learning for teachers, AVID’s equity mission states that it
produces “practical training for teachers to help better and more authentically connect with their
students.” Yet the training offered is not a main component but an optional component of AVID.
14

Though the AVID program supports being equity-minded, it views equity as supporting
educators in identifying and changing practices that “keep students out of the advanced courses.”
The focus is on student academic outcomes and not on students learning.
In addition, the equity vision does not support cultural pluralism or leveraging students’
cultures and backgrounds to support academic learning. Under the AVID program’s equity
focus, “students who will be the first in their families to attend college and are from groups
traditionally underrepresented in higher education” (AVID, 2022, para. 6). On the website, there
is data that depicts that 56% of AVID students’ parents have no college experience, a fact that is
important to understand students’ college exposure. Nevertheless, this statement, in isolation
without thinking about the assets that AVID students’ parents and community leverage,
continues the deficit mindset of Latinx and other minority students. As a result, the AVID
curriculum does not align with CSP because it does not acknowledge cultural pluralism (Paris &
Alim, 2017) as necessary for student learning. Instead, the AVID curriculum maintains the status
quo because it focuses on student performance and achievement. Therefore, as AVID teachers, it
is important to realize that the AVID program does not call on leveraging students’ cultures and
backgrounds to create new learning. Instead, it focuses on supporting teachers learn how to
support performance-based measures. The negation of Latinx students’ culture and background
to create new learning make the AVID program one that perpetuates the status quo.
Thus, AVID teachers and I must be aware of the latter so that we intentionally connect to
students’ cultures and backgrounds. Consequently, I want to support my fellow AVID teachers
in learning to critically reflect to counter deficit perspectives of Latinx students. I plan to address
this entrenched inequity via equitable educational practices where educators utilize students’
cultural heritage and schema (Schunk, 2020) to cultivate learning for students of color (Gray et
15

al., 2018). By incorporating CSP to disrupt the traditional curriculum narrative, I wish to support
teachers in revealing an “unromanticized version of the historical events” that browns the
curriculum (Tuck & Gaztamide-Fernández, 2013). The goal is to bring new insight to the
traditional narrative that includes harsh realities and deliberately seeks to bring forth racist ideas
and events in the curriculum (Tuck & Gaztamide-Fernández, 2013). By browning the
curriculum, teachers can foster an anti-banking teaching system where students develop critical
consciousness to help build student self-agency, positive classroom relationships, a sense of
belonging, and the empowerment of civic duty (Gray et al., 2018).
In my study, I worked with three AVID teachers to support their learning of critical
reflection so that they could learn to leverage Latinx students’ culture (Kumar et al., 2018) and
ways of knowing. In this study, I addressed the research question: “How do I promote a critical
reflection cycle that will support AVID teachers’ growth in the use of critical consciousness and
dialectical thinking to support Latinx students learning?”
By focusing on this research question, I supported AVID teachers in learning how to
critically reflect on their identity, positionality (Brookfield, 2017), internalized oppressive
practices, and inward gazes (Paris, 2021). In my study, the AVID teachers and I critically
assessed our assumptions and biases using critical consciousness (Freire, 2000) and dialectical
thinking (Wergin, 2020). This process supported educators in using critical reflection to center
students’ cultures and backgrounds in learning. The goal or desired state (Coghlan, 2019) was for
the study participants to utilize students’ cultures and backgrounds to support learning.
Conceptual Framework
My conceptual framework is based on my system of ideas, beliefs, theories, and
assumptions gathered from my lived experience (Maxwell, 2013). My concept map is the visual
16

representation of the relationship between these ideas and concepts. This constructed framework
comprises the theory and research that informed this action research study. The primary function
of this framework was to work as a guide in this study and to depict the relationship among the
“ideas and beliefs that [I] hold about the phenomena studied” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39).
Furthermore, my conceptual framework illuminated how I addressed the unidirectional
assimilation practices that stymie the use of Latinx students’ cultures and backgrounds to create
new learning experiences. I used this framework to guide me as I addressed the research
question: How do I promote a critical reflection cycle that will support AVID teachers’ growth in
the use of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support Latinx students learning?
Figure 1 presents a visual diagram of the major concepts and their connections.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

17

Figure 1 illustrates how AVID teachers and I began to go beyond reflection and learn
how to critically reflect using a critical reflection cycle. The AVID teachers and I grew in our
practice of critical reflection by examining our ways of knowing and interrogating our
assumptions and biases (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). By learning to reflect
critically, the participants and I considered alternative viewpoints and perspectives.
The AVID teachers and I engaged in three critical reflection cycles. To begin this
process, the AVID teachers and I examined the ideas depicted in the outer circle of Figure 1. The
first idea is contending and reflecting on identity and positionality (Brookfield, 2017; Collins,
2015). The previous idea connects to how we perceive who we are in the world and the power
and position we hold. The second idea, reflecting and contending on internalized oppression,
connects to the concocted belief that communities of color are not worthy of being part of the
curriculum. The third idea reflecting and contending on inward gazes (Paris & Alim, 2017),
refers to the participants’ and my need to introspect and examine how we have contributed to the
dominant narrative. Critically reflecting on these three ideas aided the participants and me in
becoming aware of how we have been complicit in contributing to hegemonic practices.
Through the three critical reflection cycles, the participants and I critically reflected on
how we identified and interrogated the narratives that perpetuated a deficit mindset that hindered
Latinx student learning and perpetuated the status quo. My goal was for us to learn how to use
critical reflection so that we could understand the additive value of Latinx students’ culture and
background in learning. Further, using students’ cultures and backgrounds challenges deficit
perspectives of racism, sexism, and classism (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). The participants and I
critically reflected on interrogating our assumptions and biases that may have prevented us from
18

supporting Latinx students. We did this by critically reflecting on our identity, positionality,
internalized oppressions, and inward gazes.
To understand AVID teachers and my way of knowing, I used CDT (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017) to ground my research. This theory highlighted how the participants and
my way of knowing dictated our interactions in the world. As the facilitator and researcher of
this study, I used CDT to ground my epistemological thinking as I faced challenges and
contradictory viewpoints (Brookfield, 2017). In addition, I leveraged CDT to anchor this study
and to help reveal ideas or concepts concealed in my research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
As the AVID teachers and I reflected on how we interacted in the world via a CDT lens,
we also contemplated whether this interaction supported or undermined Latinx learning. We
used CSP to examine whether we aided Latinx students’ learning (Paris & Alim, 2017). The term
CSP was coined by Paris (2021) and is based on the tradition of asset-based pedagogy. Culturally
sustaining pedagogy focuses on the strengths diverse learners bring to the classroom. It focuses
on four major asset-based concepts. First, CSP centers communities by valuing their languages,
practices, and knowledge. Second, CSP views communities as central collaborators in learning.
Third, CSP works to grow a positive relationship with the land and Indigenous people. And
finally, the fourth CSP concept is the one I leveraged for my study. This concept focuses on
creating opportunities for educators to contend with internalized oppression and inward gazes
(Paris, 2021).
During this action research study, the two concepts leveraged were CDT and CSP. My
study’s ideal state (Coghlan, 2019) was for AVID teachers and me to use CDT and CSP to learn
how to critically reflect by interrogating our assumptions via critical consciousness and
dialectical thinking. Utilizing these two concepts supported AVID teachers and me in learning
19

how to critical reflection learning through three iterative critical reflection cycles where we
contended and reflected on our identity and positionality, internalized oppression, and inward
gazes.
Critical Reflection Cycle
My intention with this framework was to depict a critical reflection cycle that would
support AVID teachers and my development in critical reflection. AVID teachers and I came to
this study with a wealth of information and knowledge learned through decades of teaching and
learning. To continue our growth as teacher learners, we used this experience to enhance our
pedagogical practice to better support Latinx students’ learning. As we began this endeavor, we
learned via a critical reflection cycle (CRC). This type of learning was an iterative process that
“uses prior interpretation to construct a new or revised interpretation of one’s experience as a
guide to future action” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 5).
However, uneasiness was inevitable as the participants and I engaged in critical
reflection. The uneasiness was caused by the realization that our underlying assumptions and
biases were faulty or wrong, which then caused us to question what we perceive as true (Wergin,
2020). Critical reflection was a complicated process because the participants and I had a
proclivity toward cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957, as cited in Wergin, 2020). At times, the
participants demonstrated a strong need for internal consistency, so resisting change was part of
the process. Consequently, the participants experienced cognitive dissonance when facing
inconsistency in their initial ideas or thoughts on a topic that challenged their worldviews
(Wergin, 2020). To avoid this uneasiness, the participants, at times, defaulted to internal
consistency or stability. According to research, individuals are naturally inclined not to question
their initial ideas derived from their intuitive beliefs (Wergin, 2020). Intuitive beliefs are caused
20

by our mental models, perceptions, and understanding of the world (Bolman & Deal, 2017;
Wergin, 2020). Due to mental models, the participants and I, when facing a different worldview,
tended to ignore the complexities in the world. Thus, the latter caused the participants to
experience cognitive dissonance or the need to move toward a stable state of mind.
Nevertheless, AVID teachers and I strived to experience “permanent white water” or the
instability of facing experiences that challenge our mental models or intuitive beliefs. According
to Wergin (2020), this turbulence occurs when an individual is open to questioning their beliefs
and assumptions through inquiry and open-mindedness (Wergin, 2020).
Open-mindedness is the willingness to search for evidence that counters a person’s
beliefs. An openness to learning and inquiry supports reflective and honest discourse. According
to Freire (2000), honest dialogue leads to conscientization or critical consciousness, shown in the
inner circle of Figure 1, to the left of critical reflection. Critical consciousness involves dialogue
characterized by equity and respect through praxis or critically reflecting on our educational
practice (Freire, 2000). The participants learned how to use critical consciousness through the
iterative process of the CRC (Wergin, 2020). Thus, AVID teachers and I used critical reflection
to encounter a disorienting dilemma or an experience that causes turbulence.
During a disorienting dilemma, an individual faces an experience that challenges a
particular belief or view of the world. The condition necessary to experience a disorienting
dilemma is a space where participants feel comfortable sharing and being vulnerable. This type
of environment is known as a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) or a place where I will
establish ground rules so that dialogue around power, privilege, and oppression can be openly
discussed. In this study, I established an environment where the participants experienced enough
discomfort to ask questions:
21

• Why do I think like that? How does racism live within me?
• How has my life been shaped by White Supremacy?
• How have I absorbed that ideology growing up?
• How have schools institutionalized this ideology in me? In what ways have I
reproduced this ideology with my Latinx students?
This type of questioning leads to learned mindfulness (Wergin, 2020).
Learned mindfulness is a process that necessitates actively and regularly seeking out
opportunities to question assumptions via dialectical thinking (Freire, 2000). Dialectical thinking
is illustrated in Figure 1 to the left of critical reflection and is the process of actively searching
for meaning and openness to contradictory ideas and stances (Wergin, 2020). The more AVID
teachers and I engaged with dialectical thinking, the better we held contradictions and dealt with
the disturbance caused by a disorienting dilemma.
Experiencing a disorienting dilemma through an aesthetic experience supported critical
reflection. Aesthetic experiences are an invitation to step into someone else’s lived experience
through multiple channels, which include reading a poem, analyzing artwork, songs, etc.
(Wergin, 2020). For instance, I introduced an aesthetic experience that supported participants in
learning about their identity and positionality via reading a poem that would unearth stock stories
and reveal concealed stories. Stock stories are the narrative told by the dominant group supported
by historical and literary documents, and concealed stories are told by people marginalized in
society (Hess, 2019). Also, songs and lyrics can explore resistance stories of people who have
challenged racism and injustice (Hess, 2019). These types of aesthetic experiences challenged
the participants to question and interrogate their assumptions and biases.
22

In addition to challenging ubiquitous stock stories (Hess, 2019), I created aesthetic
experiences that supported AVID teachers and my learning of critical reflection through the
critical reflection cycles. Through aesthetic experiences, the participants and I moved to
understand other perspectives. These experiences supported us in encountering a disorienting
dilemma. As we experienced a disorienting dilemma, we critically reflected on our assumptions
and biases. We used critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support incorporating
Latinx students’ culture and background in learning. The following section delineates how an
ongoing professional learning context supported the participant’s journey through the critical
learning cycle.
Ongoing Professional Learning Context
My study took place at the school where the AVID teachers and I work. The school is in
a suburban area east of downtown Los Angeles. The participants and I met in the teachers’
professional development room at Mountain View High School for the professional learning
(PL) meetings. Figure 1 depicts the context or where it took place; this is shown on the outside of
the circles on the top left-hand side. AVID teachers and I met in an ongoing PL context
(Webster-Wright, 2009), where they were engaged in critical reflection cycles. These cycles
challenged participants' hegemonic assumptions and deficit views of Latinx students. The PL
context promoted the use of students’ culture and background in learning.
Three secondary AVID elective teachers were invited to participate in this action research
study. It is important to note that as an AVID site team, we have continuously worked together to
organize, plan, and provide lesson instruction for students in the AVID program. Therefore, the
participants and I were used to meeting with each other. For this study, we met six times over 3
months. The participants and I shifted from passive professional development (PD) to active
23

learning (Webster-Wright, 2009). The intention was to change educator learning from a one-shot
informational meeting, or PD learned over a single meeting (Webster-Wright, 2009), to PL that
continuously revisited what was learned to expand and transform ideas.
Moreover, the participants and I generated and constructed knowledge in this ongoing PL
context. In this context, my plan was to move away from the formal knowledge disseminated or
given at many university institutions. According to Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999), for more
than 20 years, the educational establishment has been subject to the notion that a teacher who
“knows” more teaches better. The previous idea has elicited scholarly research regarding what it
means for a teacher to “know.” Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) have made three distinctions
among the conceptions of “teacher knowing.”
The first conception, knowledge-for-practice, is based on the premise that learners are
empty vessels where knowledge needs to be given to them or deposited. Freire (2000) referred to
the “banking system of education.” In this type of learning, learners receive information
deposited by a more knowledgeable individual. The second conception is knowledge-in-practice
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), where the knowledge that is valued is what “expert” teachers
bring to the table. This knowledge requires learners to acquire skills and understand ideas
already known and generated by experts (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
The knowledge that I focused on was the third conception, known as knowledge-of-
practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Knowledge-of-practice requires learners to have the
opportunity to intentionally investigate the knowledge and theory produced by others. Using this
third conception, educators stepped away from prescriptive PD or knowledge-for-practice
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), which dictated what teachers needed to learn. Subsequently,
when educators, like the participants in my study, intentionally investigate what they create as
24

knowledge, it moves away from PD, which comes from a so-called expert in the field of
knowledge-in-practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). The knowledge then becomes generative
material for interrogation and interpretation, known as knowledge-of-practice.
As a result, the learning generated in the PL was inductive or learning that leads to
analytical constructs generated by the individual teachers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The
environment supported the CRC because the participants had a space to critically reflect on their
own ideas and ways of thinking, which supported the use of inductive learning to investigate and
interrogate their assumptions and biases.
Constructive Development Theory
In Figure 1, constructive development theory (CDT) is depicted in the top-middle section
of the inner circle. The left arrow outside the rectangle connects to the circle that reads “AVID
teachers,” and the arrow on the right side is connected to the circle with the word “Self.” The
study participants are represented in the inner circle with a plus sign between AVID teachers and
me. As stated previously, AVID teachers and I used CDT as a vehicle to begin the critical
reflection process.
It is important to note that CDT draws on the neo-Piagetian theory of human
development research that focuses on how people grow, learn, and develop (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Like neo-Piagetian theory, CDT supports adult learning by guiding
adults through developmental challenges. In my study, CDT was utilized to reflect on who we
are as knowers, meaning the participants interrogated their mindsets and beliefs. The objective
was that the participants could interrogate their biases and assumptions through this examination
of who we are and what we believe. With this interrogation, the participants and I would be
better positioned to hold contradictory viewpoints and equipped to experience a disorienting
25

dilemma. In addition, the participants and I utilized critical consciousness and dialectical
thinking to help us keep in mind that no one has the absolute truth. We did the latter by using “I
feel ______” statements and practicing looking at other points of view throughout this study.
Moreover, CDT supported our aim toward critical reflection because it required AVID
teachers and me to be open to inquiry and examine how we construct knowledge. Referencing
the different ways of adult knowledge supported me as a facilitator. It helped me analyze and
interpret where the participants were in their zone of proximal development (ZPD) or the space
where learners can learn independently after they have been supported by others (Kozulin et al.,
2003). Consequently, knowing the participants’ ZPD supported me in figuring out where the
development of the participants as learners and what scaffolds would support the next stage of
adult knowing (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). In conjunction with ZPD, the AVID
teachers and I also leveraged Warford’s (2011) scholarship that supported educators’ growth
according to the zone of proximal teacher development (ZPTD).
The ZPTD offers four stages where the Vygostskyian theory of ZPD is integrated into
teacher education models. Per Warford (2011), ZPTD has four stages:
● Stage 1: self-assistance or reflection on prior experiences and assumptions
● Stage 2: expert other assistance or exploration of contemporary classroom realities
● Stage 3: internalization or promoting a deeper integration of learning experiences via
personal, professional, and theoretical narratives
● Stage 4: recursion or the process of accommodating new information into a
conceptual understanding
By applying ZPTD, I used the constructs to support the participants’ ways of knowing. The
different types of knowers are categorized as instrumental, socializing, self-authorizing, and self-
26

transforming knowers (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Table 1 illustrates the ZPTD
strategies that support the different types of CDT knowers.

Table 1
Connection Between Constructive Development Theory and Zone of Proximal Teacher
Development Along with Scaffolds to Support Knowers at the Different Stages
Constructive development
theory
Zone of proximal teacher
development
Scaffolds to support critical
reflection
Instrumental knower Stage 1: self-assistance Opportunities for discussions
Sharing of autobiographies
Responding to prompts
Socializing knower Stage 2: expert other
assistance
Collaborative learning
Journal writing
Learning agreements
Self-authorizing knower Stage 3: internalization Collaborative inquiry
Journaling
Self-transforming knower Stage 4: recursion Discussions
Sharing autobiographies

Note. Though not explicitly in stages, the different types of CDT knowers in the first column will
align to ZPTD Stages 1–4. The scaffolds in the last column will support growth opportunities for
learners.

27

Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) different stages of knowing are described
in the following section. The scaffolds I used to support the participants’ ZPTD varied from
those that support instrumental knowers or those in Stage 1, self-assistance to those that support
self-transforming knowers, or Stage 4, recursion. I began by using multiple opportunities for
discussion, short reading prompts, collaborative learning, journal writing, learning agreements,
collaborative inquiry, and discussions. Though we did share our experiences and backgrounds,
we did have enough time to share autobiographies. Using these scaffolds supported the three
participants in my study. Though I characterize all three as socializing knowers, which I will
explain in the following sections, I used a range of scaffolds to ease participants into learning
and challenge their learning.
Instrumental Knowers
The first type of knower is known as an instrumental knower. These individuals orient
strongly to concrete suggestions, rules, rewards, and the right ways of doing things (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). These types of knowers may not be able to take on
another’s perspective due to their background and experiences. They think of people as either
allies or impediments to meeting their needs (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). These
knowers see social justice in the classroom as taking concrete actions and focusing on tangible
outcomes. For example, instrumental knowers may perceive supporting diversity and social
justice in education as adding books to the curriculum from different cultures.
Instrumental knowers view social justice problems as issues related to specific
individuals rather than the result of systemic problems in society. In addition, they view racism
as an “individual act rather than institutionalized, pervasive injustice” (DiAngelo, 2010, as cited
in Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p, 468). To support and expand ways of knowing
28

and thinking for these knowers, I will “balance clear expectations, concrete models, and
meaningful resources with opportunities for making authentic connections to colleagues,
students, families, and stakeholders who might think differently” (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017, p. 469).
In addition, instrumental knowers benefit from expanding their ways of knowing by
taking advantage of opportunities for “stretches for growth” (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017). These stretches for growth are essential for AVID teachers and my endeavor
toward improving our ability to reflect critically. To support learners in the instructional
knower’s stage of adulthood, I utilized the ZPTD stage, known as the self-assistance stage
(Warford, 2011). The participants in my study utilized opportunities for discussions, shared
autobiographies, used follow-up questions, and responded to prompts using their prior
experience at this stage of development (Warford, 2011).
Socializing Knowers
The next type of knower is known as a socializing knower. These individuals align with
others’ opinions, values, and assessments; consequently, others’ thinking is adopted as best.
Socializing knowers need the approval of others, and exposing their inner uncertainties and
engaging in conflict are viewed as threatening (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). For
the latter reasons, it is difficult for socializing knowers to address issues of race and racism
because they fear that doing so may threaten peer relationships. For these knowers, I strove to
create brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) to help them navigate sensitive topics and practice
sharing their thinking and feelings. To do so, I set up ground rules or learning agreements, in
collaboration with the participants, to support them with discourse related to issues related to
29

power and race (Arao & Clemens, 2013). The learning agreements were continuously revisited
during the preceding CRCs. As we began a CRC, we reviewed the learning agreements.
I supported socializing knowers by helping them expose their uncertainties and deal with
difficult conversations through Warford’s (2011) ZPTD teacher-assisted stage. As the facilitator,
I assisted teachers at this stage of development by supporting a brave space for dialogue that
engaged learners in critical discourse and collaborative learning. Creating learning agreements
supported learners at this stage in feeling that they could be open when discussing racial and
political issues. In addition, the participants were stretched in their ZPTD by journaling. Journal
writing centers attention and clarifies thinking (Reiman, 1999, as cited in Warford, 2011). This
growth opportunity helped participants stretch their learning by utilizing writing to help them
critically reflect on who they are as knowers.
Self-Authoring Knower
The next type of knower is known as a self-authorizing knower. The latter “creates and
authors one’s values, ideals, and long-term purposes” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano,
2017, p. 470). These knowers have developed the capacity to interrogate competing values and
assumptions. They can think systematically about societal challenges and how they contribute to
them. These adults are willing to take a stand for their values and beliefs and are honest about
who they are. Though these adults feel comfortable advocating on behalf of their beliefs, they
have not developed the ability to “critique their ideologies and belief systems” (p. 471).
Engaging in inquiry helped self-authorizing knowers explore divergent ideologies and
beliefs. Using “critical collaborative inquiry with others will aid self-authorizing knowers to
reflect on their social justice practice—and themselves—in new ways” (p. 472). Warford (2011)
designates internalization as the next stage of ZPTD. According to Warford (2011), these
30

learners benefit from opportunities to ponder ideas and discussions with different points of view.
Therefore, I utilized journaling to support participants at this stage to internalize and think about
their espoused beliefs versus their actual values. Internalization supports learners at this stage to
figure out what they are “actually” conveying in their classrooms.
Self-Transforming Knowers
Self-transforming knowers yearn for interconnections (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017). Collaboration is approached as an opportunity to expand thinking mutually.
They recognize the value of looking beyond themselves. Also, they seek opportunities to
dialogue with others about life issues. One of the obstacles self-transforming knowers faces is
the ability to meet people where they are. These knowers would benefit from learning to be
patient and understanding toward knowers in the other stages. Self-transforming knowers can
grow as social justice educators by moving from inquiry to concrete action. Regarding ZPTD,
self-transforming knowers would benefit from embracing conflict as a catalyst for change
(Warford, 2011). The recurrence stage supports these knowers in their ZTPD by helping them
use tools such as discussions, processing role-plays, and sharing autobiographies (Warford,
2011) to support critical reflection.
In the methods section of this dissertation, I will introduce the participants and my
perception of what type of knowers they are according to Drago-Severson and Blum-
DeStefano’s (2017) four ways of knowing typology. The participants demonstrate the
characteristics of socializing knowers. The methods section further discusses how I came to this
conclusion. Throughout this study, I used a range of forms of assistance or scaffolds to engage
the participants and support them in adopting self-authorizing way of knowing or mindset.
31

Critical Reflection
Critical reflection is grounded in critical theory, which aims to understand and uncover
societal hegemony and aspires to create a more just system (Brookfield, 2010). Critical theory’s
core assumption is that Western democracies are unequal. Critical theory connects to critical
reflection in that it involves identifying and checking our assumptions that inform our actions as
teachers (Brookfield, 2017). Its premise is that inequity, racism, and class discrimination are
empirical realities and that a racially stratified society is normal due to dominant ideology
(Brookfield, 2010). The AVID teachers and I focused on critical reflection by stepping back to
examine our practices and pursue more just practices where Latinx students are supported by
virtue of teachers’ identifying their teaching assumptions and using dialectical thinking to
challenge their way of knowing.
Interestingly, critical reflection as an educational practice is defined as the “sustained and
intentional process of identifying and checking the accuracy and validity of our teaching
assumptions” (Brookfield, 2017, p. 3). Different Strategies were used to help teachers learn how
to critically reflect. For example, to practice learning critical reflection, I used Freirean culture
circles (De Los Rios & Souto-Manning, 2017). The primary purpose of culture circles is to
encourage conscientization or critical consciousness (Freire, 2000). This refers to a critical meta-
awareness of participants’ social and material conditions. I led this activity to help teachers and
me critically reflect. The primary tenets of this activity are to view education as a political
process and to engage in critical dialogue. This high-leverage practice restructures “power
relations in classrooms and their interactions with historicized injustice in local practice”
(Calabrese Barton et al., 2020, p. 477). By using a high-leverage practice, such as Freirean
culture circles, I generated a learning environment where the participants and I critically
32

reflected on the three ideas in the outer circles of Figure 1. By contending and reflecting on the
previous three ideas, we examined how we center and sustain communities of color and
problem-solve to envision new ways of becoming agents for change (Paris & Alim, 2017).
Figure 1 depicts the term “critical reflection” in the center of the inner circle. As
mentioned before, to move toward critical reflection, AVID teachers and I began the process by
encountering an aesthetic experience that led to a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 2000). A
disorienting dilemma is an experience that forces us to examine a dilemma that “does not exist to
fit into our existing mental models” (Mezirow, 2000, as cited in Wergin, 2020). I began by
introducing both the previous concepts by first sharing a disorientation I had experienced
(Cavalieri et al., 2019) in my classroom setting. I used my personal experience as a tool or
model. In addition, whenever possible, I used my experiences as examples of how I have and
continue to challenge biases.
Aesthetic Experiences That Elicit Disorienting Dilemmas
Experiencing a disorienting dilemma involved consciously reflecting on one’s own
practice or praxis (Freire, 2000). To promote critical reflection using disorienting dilemmas, I
promoted disequilibrium via aesthetic experiences (Wergin, 2020). When carefully planned and
facilitated, aesthetic experiences can elicit disorienting dilemmas. Table 2 depicts the four types
of aesthetic experiences: written work, visual images or representations, performing art, and
artistic expression (Wergin, 2020). It also presents the specific aesthetic experiences I facilitated
during my action plan.

33

Table 2
Aesthetic Experiences That Elicit Disorienting Dilemmas
Type of aesthetic experience Format/medium Work
used in this study
Written work Readings Poem titled “Strange Place” by
Olivia
Visual images or
representations
Artwork and visuals Picture titled “Boarding School
and Assimilation”
Performing art Songs, dance, etc. Poetry slam titled
“Unforgettable” by Button
Poetry (2014)
Artistic expression Journaling and reflections My journal

Note. The aesthetic experiences depicted in the first column align with a specific medium and
examples.

To begin the process of facilitating an aesthetic experience, I shared a journal entry from
my own practice. The journal entry is one of the four aesthetic experiences I modeled in the PL
context of the CRC. The example I shared came from a journal entry I wrote on the 2nd day of
the school year. This experience caused me to experience a disorienting dilemma in my third-
period senior AVID class. I shared the background information with the participants and
explained what led to my disorientation. Then the participants read my journal entry. This
journal entry is illustrated in the methods section of my research.
As stated previously, I shared background information related to the disorienting
dilemma I experienced. I let the participants know that the disorienting dilemma occurred when
the announcement was made over the loudspeaker that all students should stand for the flag
salute. The result was that only two-thirds of the students stood for the flag salute. I expressed
34

that I felt confused about what was happening. In addition, I told them that though I did not say
anything at the time, I felt perplexed. Subsequently, I continued the lesson I had planned with the
AVID class that period, but during lunch, I wrote a journal entry about my prior experience. At
this time, I asked the participants to read my journal entry. In addition, I asked them to think
about this experience to step into someone else’s shoes (Brookfield, 2017).
After the participants pondered whether I experienced a disorienting dilemma, I engaged
them with an opportunity to reflect on this question and others using the strategy of circle of
voices (Brookfield, 2019). The new questions I asked them to think about included
• Was this really a disorienting dilemma? Why or why not?
• Why do you think I felt confused about what was going on during the flag salute?
• What does this express about the way my indoctrination is the Eurocentric way of
knowing?
• What does this depict about how I support Latinx learning in the classroom?
In addition, I posed other questions to help the participants connect to my experience:
Have you experienced a situation when you questioned how you handled a situation where you
dismissed student autonomy and exuded your power as a teacher? Also, I asked myself questions
to probe my assumptions. I considered whether the participants’ thinking and actions changed
because of critically reflecting on their assumptions, how I could handle situations when they
perpetuated hegemonic ideology, what andragogical moves I needed to add to support them, and
whether my positionality was getting in the way of the participant’s ability to speak their truth.
Another opportunity I facilitated for the participants to experience a disorienting dilemma
came from a PD training at my former district. As a teacher on special assignment, I supported
an instructional coach during an after-school training on English learner support. The science and
35

history teachers were grouped together in a meeting focused on how to support English learners.
Clara, the instructional coach, asked the teachers to share what they were experiencing with
English learners in their classrooms. Mr. Moore, a science teacher, raised his hand and shared
that he was having difficulty with the English learners understanding the unit on Photosynthesis.
He stated that he was at his “wits’ end.” He was trying to stay on track with the pacing guide, but
he did not know what to do because there was no time to re-teach the concepts in the unit that the
students did not understand.
After a few other teachers shared, Clara displayed a poem on a PowerPoint slide. She
explained that it had been written by an 11th-grade English learner named Olivia. This poem had
been an assignment given to Olivia by her English teacher, and the topic was “What does school
mean to you?” Clara asked the teachers to read the poem silently:
A Strange Place
School is a strange place
Though it is colorful and clean
It feels cold and lonely
My teachers want me to learn
Yet they teach things that I do not understand
In English, I read about people who seem weird
I do not understand them
In History, you learn about the events that happened in this country
In Mexico, I used to learn about other countries too
In Science, I like learning about plants and animals
I could be good at science … I do not know how?
36

My teacher just makes us memorize terms
My teachers just talk and talk
They do not seem to see me
Or care that I am there
School is a strange place
Clara then asked the teachers to pair-share and talk about what the poem conveyed to
them. Mr. Moore shared with a history teacher, Ms. Felix. Ms. Felix stated that she had many
English learners who had difficulty connecting to school. She shared what she did to connect
history to important things in English learners’ lives. For example, she shared how she was
currently teaching about the colonization of the U.S. lands. Knowing that many of her students
were from a Latinx background, she connected it to U.S. colonization to Latin American
colonization. In addition, she asked her students to decipher what it means to “colonize” and to
think about how they see colonization in different aspects of their lives. Once Ms. Felix finished
sharing, Mr. Moore paused and said, “I never thought of doing something like that.” He then
shared that the lines the student wrote that referred to science, stung, and hurt:
In science, I like learning about plants and animals
I could be good at science … but I do not know how?
My teacher just makes us memorize terms
Mr. Moore stated, “I think the student could have been talking about me.” It can be
inferred that while reading the poem and listening to Ms. Felix speak about how she supports
English learners, Mr. Moore experienced uneasiness and turbulence due to assumptions he was
forced to face. It is possible that Mr. Moore began to question his way of teaching and his
unconscious biases. Mr. Moore could have thought that English learners’ lack of understanding
37

of the science material had to do with their difficulty with language. This experience could have
made him realize that the students were not deficient in their ability, but their lack of
understanding was due to his inability to engage them contextually and make connections to their
backgrounds and communities. Clara, the instructional coach, used instructional moves by
having teachers pair-share. The latter supported Mr. Moore’s disorientation because he first read
and reflected silently and then shared with a peer. This example illustrates how an aesthetic
experience, reading a poem, is an invitation to step into someone else’s lived experience and can
cause a disorienting dilemma.
Hence, I shared the poem with my participants without telling them about Mr. Moore’s
experience. They read the poem, and then they participated in racial literacy roundtables. The
goal here was for the AVID teachers to experience an aesthetic experience using a high-leverage
strategy and critical reflection. The participants engaging in Olivia’s poem were meant to
encounter a disequilibrium through this aesthetic experience, which led to a disorienting
dilemma. After the teachers read the poem independently, they were asked to consider the
following questions: What does this poem tell us about how Olivia feels about school? In what
ways does this poem make us reflect on our own practice? What does this poem tell us about the
inequities Latinx students face? Reflect on your own practice. What have I done in my practice
that reproduces inequities for Latinx who are need scaffolds and supports? What do I do in my
instruction to make students like Olivia feel connected to learning? The group then used the
racial literacy roundtable strategy to have the participants ponder the latter questions. This
strategy supported the use of dialogue characterized by respect and equity to critically reflect on
their own practice (Freire, 2000).
38

It is important to note that in the methods section, I detailed two other opportunities for
teachers to learn through aesthetic experiences, which can lead to participants experiencing
disorienting dilemmas. For these examples, I used a visual image and performing art examples to
model aesthetic experiences. These experiences were conveyed through a poetry slam and a
picture.
Experienced disorienting dilemmas helped the AVID teachers and me to reflect on how
we reproduce hegemonic ideas that prevent Latinx students from receiving equitable
instructional practices. The participants had “structured opportunities” to experience disorienting
dilemmas in the three CRCs. As Paris (2021) stated, structured opportunities are intentional
experiences where educators confront their ways of thinking in relation to internalized
oppression and examine their way of thinking (inward gazes). In my study, the three CRCs
focused on contending and reflecting on our identity and positionality (Brookfield, 2017),
internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes (Paris, 2021). These ideas will be discussed
in the next three sections.
Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Identity and Positionality
To engage in a CRC, the participants and I uncovered hegemonic structures that have
limited our ability to reflect on our identity and positionality, shown in the top left-hand corner
of the outer circle in Figure 1. The ability to perceive hegemonic structures occurred as the
participants learned to reflect critically.
To begin uncovering hegemony in our educational setting, AVID teachers and I reflected
on our identity and positionality. Villaverde (2008) defined positionality as the “intersection of
power and politics of gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, culture, language, and social
factors” (as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, pp. 60–61). The intersection of race, gender,
39

social class, and sexuality is important to identify because they are socially constructed,
transmitted, legitimized, and reproduced as “separate systems of oppression that are
interlocking” (Collins, 2015, p. 8).
To explain the positionality, I leveraged the example I presented earlier when I detailed
the disorienting dilemma I experienced in my senior AVID class. When this dilemma occurred, I
reflected on my identity as a classroom teacher and the power and positionality I command. I
could have asked the students who were sitting to stand, and they probably would have obliged.
In addition, my authority as the teacher could have been another reason they felt compelled to
stand. It was important for the participants in my study to be aware of the power and privilege
they hold.
Therefore, I challenged the participants to reflect on their assumptions and biases
regarding their identity and positionalities. Challenging the participants’ past way of viewing the
world was essential. For participants to make changes and disrupt their current way of viewing
the world, they needed to become aware of the power and position they hold. In the first cycle,
they focused on critically reflecting on their identity and positionality.
Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Internalized Oppression
The second feature explored in my study is illuminating internalized oppressive practices
(Paris & Alim, 2017). Reflecting and contending on internalized oppressive practices is
illustrated in Figure 1 on the right-upper side of the outer circle. The latter refers to fabricated
beliefs and practices that depict communities of color as not worthy of being part of the
classroom curriculum (Paris & Alim, 2017). These internalized oppressive ways deject students’
culture and ways of being. These ideas stem from settler colonialism and the idea that
Eurocentric history or Whiteness is what is valued in the curriculum (Hollins, 2015; Leonardo,
40

2009; Tuck & Gaztamide -Fernández, 2013). Furthermore, internalized oppressive practices have
led educators to consciously or unconsciously believe that you cannot sustain Latinx students’
culture and identity while simultaneously capitulating to the dominant ideology (Paris & Alim,
2017). The idea that Latinx students must adopt the American culture by negating their own
culture is the result of internalized oppressive practices. In the second cycle, we focused on
critically reflecting on how to counter internalized oppressive practices.
The participants and I shared and reflected on our experience with university education
and teacher preparation programs. Teacher education programs in California focus on teaching
standards based on Eurocentric knowledge and beliefs (Hollins, 2015). As a result, we can infer
that educational policies have not acknowledged Latinx and other people of color’s cultures as
worthy of being part of the curriculum. As critical educators, we pondered questions regarding
who has benefitted from upholding a Eurocentric curriculum and how we can begin to see Latinx
students’ culture and background as an asset rather than a deficit. Whenever appropriate, I used
my own examples to challenge educator biases perpetuating the status quo. In addition, I
challenged my participants to think about ways in which they may have reproduced or
perpetuated the status quo in their classrooms.
An example that illuminates how internalized oppressive practices have affected students
was detailed in the previous section. Mr. Moore wanted to stay on track with the pacing guide, so
he taught the curriculum with haste and without making any connections to students’ cultures
and experiences. By following the dominant curriculum and not supporting Latinx students in
assessing their culture and background to create new learning, Mr. Moore, unbeknownst to him,
perpetuated the notion that the only narrative worthy of educational space is the dominant one.
41

Moreover, through critical reflection, AVID teachers and I worked on decentering
Whiteness to move from past educational practices that center “White-middle class linguistic,
literate, and cultural skills” as the gatekeepers of opportunity and progress (Paris & Alim, 2017,
p. 8). The aim was that through critical reflection, we would move toward including students’
cultures and produce a school environment where Latinx students felt that they belonged. It was
vital for the participants in my study to understand that students thrive when they feel like they
belong and feel valued (Gray et al., 2018). In addition, students feel connected to learning when
they feel that their communities are centered, have agency, and have opportunities to examine
internalized oppressive structures (Paris, 2021). To support students’ sense of belonging, the
participants and I thought of ways to sustain their culture and view it as an additive and an asset
to learning (Paris & Alim, 2017).
Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Inward Gazes
The third feature of CSP we explored is contending and reflecting on inward gazes (Paris
& Alim, 2017), shown in Figure 1 on the lower left of the outer circle. The participants in my
study reflected by turning their gazes toward themselves. Using an inward gaze, teachers
reflected on how they have decentered or sustained communities of color (Paris & Alim, 2021).
By turning the gaze onto ourselves, we moved toward rematriation, which aims to break the loop
of academic appropriation of Indigenous knowledge and challenge many assumptions inherent in
the academic gaze (Tuck & Gaztamide-Fernández, 2013). The focus of rematriation is rethinking
research in curriculum studies so that communities of color can reject narratives and theories that
minimize and subtract their worth.
An example that illustrates how a Eurocentric curriculum amplifies minimizing Latinx
students’ feelings of self-worth is found in Olivia’s poem about school. When reading the poem,
42

the participants inferred that Olivia did not feel connected to school when she stated, “It feels
cold and lonely” and “Yet they teach things I do not understand.” These lines from her poem are
a powerful example of how educators need to turn their gaze inwardly and contemplate their
complicity in perpetuating the status quo.
Further, by reflecting on our inward gaze, AVID teachers and I investigated how we are
complicit in perpetuating a White supremacist ideology. Past educational policies have had
deficit-orienting thinking for students of diverse backgrounds in schools (Moll, 2019). In
addition, these policies deprioritize Latinx students’ assets and reinforce and maintain Whiteness
(Leonardo, 2009, as cited in Utt &Tochluk, 2020). For example, Mountain View High School
places value on students’ meeting the college admission requirements. The rate at which students
meet these requirements gives the school and district legitimacy in an educational system that
validates student performance. These rates refer to the students earning a grade of C or better in
classes required to apply to a 4-year public institution in California. As a result, my site’s school
administrators are beholden to this accountability system, so their focus is primarily on student
performance and not on students’ learning or sense of belonging. Connecting students’ cultures
and backgrounds to learning is not a priority. Instead, the priority is for students to perform well
in the classroom so that the school is perceived as helping students meet the college
requirements.
The AVID teachers and I critically reflected on how we are complicit in impeding Latinx
students’ ability to leverage their funds of knowledge (Moll, 2019) to gain new academic
learning. AVID teachers and I examined how we are duplicitous in hegemonic practices when
we do not acknowledge or leverage students’ cultures and backgrounds.
43

Therefore, AVID teachers and I contended on whether we are complicit in continuing
practices that do not support utilizing students’ culture and background to support learning. It
was important to look inwardly and evaluate whether we care more about student performance
than students’ well-being (Valenzuela, 2017). Many Latinx students feel connected to learning
when they feel teachers “care” for them (Gray et al., 2018; Love, 2019; Valenzuela, 2017). By
turning the gaze toward us, we examined if we truly cared for students’ well-being and learning.
This is essential because teaching caring is imperative in helping students of color learn
(Valenzuela, 2017).
Intended Versus Realized Outcomes: Decolonizing the Classroom via Critical Reflection
The intended outcome of my study was that AVID teachers and I would learn how to
critically reflect on our identities and positionalities, internalized oppressions, and inward gazes
to unearth assumptions and deficit views of Latinx students’ students. Critical reflection
ultimately supported participants in interrogating their assumptions and biases. The purpose of
engaging in critical reflection was to better prepare participants to support Latinx students by
recognizing deficit views, assuming an asset-based perspective of Latinx students. The intended
outcome was to increase participants’ understanding of Latinx students’ cultural identities by
engaging in critical reflection. The participants and I increased the likelihood that we would
engage in practices that would advance educational equity to Latinx students by “giving space
for students own stories” (Calabrese Barton et al., 2020, p. 491). Therefore, utilizing action and
reflection or praxis (Freire, 2000), the participants and I began learning how to use critical
consciousness and dialectical thinking to better prepare them to support Latinx student learning.
Transformation of an individual’s teaching practice does not occur merely with critical
reflection but with “emancipatory action, the praxis based on reflective insights” (Habermas,
44

1971, as cited in Milner et al., 2020, p. 287). The realized outcome of my study is that the
participants and I took small steps that potentially prepared us to take emancipatory action by
interrogating our assumptions and biases to take the action of including Latinx students’ culture
and background in learning.
As stated previously, the steps needed for the interrogation of assumptions and biases
began with critical reflection through inquiry. As a result, the participants and I have begun to
interrogate our assumptions via asset-based narratives that incorporate Latinx students’ culture
and background in the classroom. Thus, we have pondered questions such as What story am I
telling in my instruction? From what perspective is this lesson being told? How do I incorporate
my Latinx students’ stories in classroom instruction? Is this lesson coming from an assets-
oriented perspective or a deficit-oriented perspective? This type of questioning led to inquiry and
critical reflection through praxis or action based on reflection.
To conclude, we had the opportunity to have discussions on dialectical dialogue (Belenky
& Stanton, 2000). The participants and I have begun to take the initial steps in our journey
toward learning critical reflection and future PL opportunities to question our assumptions and
practices. We have begun to connect learning to structural racism; the goal is to move toward
transformative steps to counter majoritarian perspectives (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). My
conceptual framework depicted how I planned to address the unidirectional assimilation
practices that stymie the use of Latinx students’ cultures and backgrounds to create new learning
experiences. The AVID teachers and I have begun to critically reflect on our assumptions and
biases regarding our identity and positionality, internalized oppression, and inward gazes. By
beginning the process of critical reflection on these concepts via three CRCs, the participants and
45

I began to take steps toward supporting the use of Latinx students’ culture and background in the
classroom.
Research Methods
This research methods section describes the qualitative approach, instruments, and data
collection I explored in my study. This methods section details the actions in my study’s PL
context. The process to support this study (Coghlan, 2019) was first described broadly in my
context statement and conceptual framework. In this methods section, I described how three
CRCs supported the participants of my study to unearth unidirectional assimilation practices. By
uncovering these hegemonic practices, teachers can sustain Latinx students’ culture and
background, interrogating their assumptions and biases.
I used andragogical moves and high-leverage practices to support participant discourse.
The andragogical moves utilized during this study refer to practices that support adult learners
with opportunities to learn in ways that are relevant to their lives (Calabrese Barton et al., 2020).
I used andragogical moves to support AVID teachers’ learning as they explored three CRCs.
The participants in my study learned how to engage in critical reflection by using critical
consciousness and dialectical thinking (Freire, 2000). The openness to contradictory ideas aided
AVID teachers in the critical reflection process. The actions of using andragogical moves and
high-leverage strategies occurred during the PL meetings. The data I gathered during the cycles
helped me answer the following research question: How do I promote a CRC that will support
AVID teachers’ growth in the use of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support
Latinx students learning?
46

Participants and Setting
This action research study took place at my school site, Mountain View High School
(pseudonym), in the fall of 2022. To reiterate what I stated in the context statement, the students
at my school are almost exclusively Latinx. It is important to note that though the term “Latinx”
is not yet widely used at my school site, it is beginning to be more readily accepted by teachers
and students. Many teachers and students use the term because they find it more inclusive from a
gender-inclusive perspective (Del Río-González, 2021).
At Mountain View High School, 99% of the students are Latinx. In this study, I adopted a
participant-observer stance as a qualitative researcher to carry out an action research study
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The role of participant as observer required me to be present and
engaged in the activities the along with the participants. In this role, “the researcher’s observer
activities, which are known to the group, are subordinate to the researcher’s role as a participant”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 144). To navigate the researcher as a participant role, I needed to
carefully maneuver my role as a research instrument (Maxwell, 2013) so that I could use “my
eyes and ears” as tools used “to gather information and to make sense of what is going on,”
while simultaneously facilitating a series of learning experiences for my participants (p. 88).
Moreover, I was cognizant that my role as a research instrument could hinder participants
from sharing their true feelings. Though I am an AVID teacher like my participants, I was also
the researcher and held power in this action research study (Maxwell, 2013, p. 91). As a result,
my role as participant-observer might have hindered aspects of my research and data collection
(Maxwell, 2013). Herr and Anderson (2013) situate positionality on a continuum depicted as one
of an insider in collaboration with other insiders. In education, the positionality of being an
insider in collaboration with other insiders gives way to what is known as an inquiry group.
47

Inquiry groups lend themselves to addressing equity issues (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2010; Herr
& Anderson, 2013). These groups hold the potential for “improvements in [PD] and
democratizing organizations” (Herr & Anderson, p. 46). Democratizing research is inherent in an
action research method because action research is “best done in collaboration with others” who
have a stake in the problem or issue (p. 4). As a result, action research is the ideal method for this
study. By leveraging this methodology, I supported AVID teachers in utilizing their prior
knowledge and experience to generate knowledge that “can be utilized beyond those in the
setting, as well as by those beyond the setting” (p. 6).
In this study, I used convenience, non-probability sampling. It was a convenience sample
because the AVID teachers I recruited for this study were teachers I work with monthly. Thus,
the AVID teachers were selected because meeting with them would be accessible since we work
at the same school. This was convenient because we know each other and already have a
working relationship (Lochmiller & Lester, 2016). The sampling was non-probability or non-
random because I asked the participants to be part of the study. Additionally, working with this
small group of AVID teachers allowed me to focus on the study’s topic.
As the primary instrument in this study, I worked toward having the participants critically
reflect on how factors outside their control have influenced their way of viewing reality. Using
CDT (Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano, 2017), the participants and I moved toward
uncovering the oncology or nature of reality, which is “shaped by economic, social, cultural, and
political forces” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2016, p.13). The teachers pondered and critically
reflected on their epistemological biases through a CRC (Wergin, 2020). The goal was for them
to reflect critically and respond to sociopolitical factors influencing their way of knowing.
48

Yet to have teachers reflect on their epistemological biases and ways of knowing, I first
needed to examine who I am as a knower. As a self-authorizing knower (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017), I have the capacity to interrogate competing values and assumptions; I
am just beginning to critique stock stories and my mental models. As a California teacher for
over 25 years, I was indoctrinated into learning and teaching a hegemonic curriculum and
ideology focused on performance. I had never truly questioned the racialized society I live in
until 2 and a half years ago. This questioning began when I entered my doctoral program.
Consequently, I was aware that I had begun my journey toward becoming a self-transforming
knower by examining divergent ways of thinking via journal writing and collaboration with my
peers.
Participants
The participants in my study engaged in activities that supported critical reflection via
three cycles. I worked with teachers at my school site to facilitate meetings with participants. My
prior relationships with the participants in a convenience sampling study supported me in
answering my research question (Herr & Anderson, 2013). The participants were four female
AVID teachers, including me, as I have the dual role of participant and researcher (Herr &
Anderson, 2013). I recruited the teachers at the beginning of the school year. I asked the teachers
during our AVID site team if they were interested in being part of my study. I told them it would
involve attending PL to reflect on ourselves as teachers and that it would involve reflecting on
how we are supporting Latinx students. In addition, I let them know that it would involve some
journaling, some rigorous reflection work, and meeting with me one-on-one. I also shared that if
they accepted to participate in the study, they could stop being part of it if they felt it would be in
49

their best interest. We have a good working relationship, so they immediately agreed to be part
of the study.
The three teachers I asked to be part of my study have a combined teaching experience of
nearly 40 years. The first participant, Debbie, is bicultural,White and Mexican, and has taught at
Mountain View High School for 12 years. She teaches ninth, tenth, and eleventh-grade AVID
classes. The second participant is Priscilla, a Latinx female who has taught at the high school for
20 years. She teaches 11th-grade AVID and physical education. The third participant is Amy, a
White female who has taught at the high school for 3 years. Amy teaches eleventh-grade AVID
and world history. Finally, I am a tenth and twelfth-grade AVID and Spanish teacher. To
reiterate, the participants in my study are my colleagues. We usually meet twice a month to
discuss our AVID site team agenda items. Though I have shared personal information with them,
I do not consider them my friends outside of work.
To better support the participants, I reflected on what characteristics the participants
demonstrated in relation to Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) four typologies of
knowing. I realized that my interpretation was subjective and may not align with how they see
themselves. Nevertheless, I did my best to describe each teacher regarding their way of knowing.
The first teacher, Debbie, has been a teacher for 17 years. I would describe Debbie as a
socializing knower. According to Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017), socializing
knowers align with others’ opinions and adopt others’ thinking as best. I presume Debbie is a
socializing knower because she wants to please others during interactions and usually succumbs
to others’ ideas. In addition, Debbie does not bring up issues of race when referring to students
and the curriculum. She is a “poster child” for AVID. She loves the curriculum and focuses on
helping the students perform.
50

I would also consider the next participant in my study, Priscilla, a socializing knower.
Priscilla has been a teacher for 21 years. During our site meetings, Priscilla usually aligns with
the opinions and values of the group. For example, when we share how we can improve students’
experiences in AVID, she usually will not share what she thinks would work best. More often
than not, she agrees with whoever is the most vocal in the group. Priscilla is always willing to
help the AVID team but is reluctant to express her opinions. This is probably due to her not
knowing how to navigate sensitive topics like race or handle contradictions in a group setting
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017).
And finally, the last participant of my study, Amy. I would consider her to be a
socializing knower as well. Amy has only been in the classroom for 7 years and likes to do what
others think is best (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Interestingly, Amy is very vocal
when she believes strongly about a topic, yet she does not push forward with what she thinks is
best. She usually goes with what the group thinks.
Based on my informal observations, the AVID teachers were in different stages of
knowing, according to the theory of CDT. As a result, I focused my actions on ways to support
the participants at the different stages of learning. To begin, I introduced learning agreements
that helped create a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013). In addition, I planned and facilitated
disorienting dilemmas so that the participants would experience “stepping into someone else’s
shoes” through aesthetic experiences (Wergin, 2020). Therefore, I used andragogical moves,
high-leverage strategies, and dialectical thinking to support the participants at the different stages
of knowing. These specific actions are detailed in the “actions” section. The next section
discusses the study’s setting.
51

Setting of Actions
For this action research study, I contacted the principal and the superintendent in charge
of curriculum and instruction to obtain permission to conduct my study at Mountain View High
School. The study took place over 3 months. I assessed what actions need to take to support the
participants to reach the ideal state, which is for teachers to interrogate their assumptions and
biases to better support Latinx student learning (Coghlan, 2019). The PL activities I shared
depict how I assessed what needs to be done to reach my study’s future or ideal state (Coghlan,
2019). The teachers and I met two to three times a month. Every month, the participants and I
met for 2 hours as a group. This occurred in the first week of the inquiry cycle. During this time,
the participants and I engaged in PL focused on one or more of the following ideas, contending
and reflecting on identity and positionality, internalized oppression, and inward gazes. For Week
2 of each month of the CRCs, the participants w learned to reflect critically on their practice
using journal writing. On Week 3 of the CRC, the teachers filled out a learning audit
(Brookfield, 2017) and answered three inquiry questions. I met with the participants at the end of
Weeks 2 and 3 to debrief on three questions for approximately 15 minutes. For Week 3 of the
CRC, I used an out-of-the-field analysis and critical reflection to analyze my progress in the
previous CRC to inform my subsequent actions.
For each CRC, I wrote observations after each PL meeting. I wrote a descriptive
reflection detailing what took place during the PL meeting. In addition, I wrote a critical
reflection on the 3rd week of each CRC. Once the monthly inquiry cycle was completed, I used
my critical reflection to support the teachers for the preceding CRCs.
52

Actions
As stated previously, this study’s goal was to support teachers with critical reflection.
Through the CRC, teachers began to unearth hegemonic structures that sustain a racialized
society. By unearthing the dominant ideology in our educational system and interrogating their
assumptions and biases, teachers moved to invalidate hegemonic beliefs.
I began the iterative process of supporting AVID teachers by contending and reflecting
on their identity and positionality. Table 1 depicts the 3-month PL context, titled CRC 1:
Examining Identity and Positionality via Critical Reflection. In Week 1 of this study, the
participants and I met for a 2-hour PL meeting. I began the PL by introducing learning objectives
and collectively creating learning agreements. I introduced an aesthetic experience to foster the
conditions for a disorienting dilemma by using a video about identity and assumptions. This
video illustrated how a young Latinx person distinguished between Hispanics and Latinx.
Hispanic, as opposed to Latinx, refers to people who are descendants of Spanish-speaking
countries. The participants watched the video and jotted down notes that resonated with them.
The teachers then pair-shared about assumptions people make about Hispanics and
Latinx people. Next, they were presented with an image of Native American assimilation in the
United States. I asked them to write a 2-minute reflection on what the image conveys. Next, I
asked them to work in a collaborative group. This instructional move allowed them to share their
ideas and engage in dialectical thinking by listening to each other’s points of view. While in the
collaborative group, the participants compared the video and image using a Venn diagram. At the
end, they wrote a reflection about the video and the image. They focused on centering their
journal on the following prompt: How have assimilation practices hindered the way Latinx
students are perceived in society? In school?
53

The next activity centered on the participants. The activity I used related to uncovering
how we see ourselves as educators of identity and power. The high-leverage activity we used is
the “I am from …” activity (Brookfield, 2019). I modeled this activity by sharing my “I am …”
poem. Afterward, I asked the participants to write their own “I am…” poem. I intended with this
activity that the participants would begin to critically reflect on the ideologies that have
influenced their way of identifying themselves. We ended the 2-hour meeting with participants
sharing new learning they experienced.
During Week 2, the participants were asked to write one or more reflections on how they
influence the power and position they hold in their classrooms. At the end of each week, I met
with each teacher individually for an informal chat and asked them how the PL they experienced
during our CRC in Week 1 affected their actions with students.
In Week 3, the participants filled out a learning audit document consisting of four
questions:
● What do I know now about my identity and positionality that I did not know last
month?
● What am I aware of now that I was unaware of last month?
● How have my actions in my classroom changed or been altered?
Week 3 was an out-of-the-field analysis and reflection time where I examined how I
could best support the participants (Heifetz & Linsky, 2014). I focused on their feedback and
critically reflected and evaluated whether they were contending with their identity and
positionality. Moreover, I used the data and teacher artifacts, the concept map, and the learning
audit reflection. In addition, I analyzed my jottings, observations, critical reflections, and
transcriptions. As I did so, I asked myself the following questions: Have my participants’
54

thinking changed because of contemplating their identity and positionality? Have my actions
changed due to contemplating my identity and positionality? How am I supporting my different
knowers/learners? How am I aware of the non-verbal cues of my learners? In addition, I looked
for themes that emerged and coded information. These questions helped me determine how to
best support the participants as we endeavored into the next part of the study.

Table 3
Critical Reflection Cycle 1: Examining Identity and Positionality via Critical Reflection
Intended outcome: AVID teachers and I will contend and reflect on our identity and positionality to examine how we
contribute to or disrupt hegemony.
Learning
objective
Researcher’s actions Participant’s actions Data collected Time Location
Week
1
Participants will
be able to
describe their
identity and
identify their
positionality.
Create learning
conditions.
Share assimilation
video and image
Share “I am from
…” poem with
participants.
Introduce counter-
narratives.
Reflect on
assimilation
practices in U.S.
schools using a
circle map.
Write an “I am …”
poem.
Concept map
Recording of
meeting
Observations
Jottings
2 hours Teacher’s
resource room
Week
2
Participants will
reflect on their
identity and
identify their
positionality.
Meet with
participants
individually.
Journal: How does
who we are as
people influence
the power and
position we hold
in our
classrooms?
Jottings and
observations
15 mins Teacher’s
classrooms
Week
3
Out-of-the-field-analysis and critical reflection: This time will help me analyze the data and information to inform my
subsequent actions. During this time, I will contemplate questions such as: Have my participants’ thinking changed
because of contemplating their identity and positionality? Have my actions changed due to contemplating my
identity and positionality? How am I supporting my different knowers/ learners? How am I aware of the non-verbal
cues of my learners?

56

I began the second CRC in Month 2 by revisiting the previous PL meeting. The
participants had the opportunity to share part of their journal entries with the whole group and
engaged in a conversation regarding the learning they experienced in the first CRC. Afterward, I
introduced the second CRC, titled unearthing internalized oppression via critical reflection, as
depicted in Table 2. l then introduced Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle. The participants learned
about the four stages of the reflective cycle, learning to see, learning to describe and
differentiate, learning to think from multiple perspectives, and learning to act. I let the
participants know that throughout the day’s PL, we will stop and reflect on this cycle as we
learn.
Next, I asked the participants to help me consider whether I had a disorienting dilemma. I
shared the definition of a disorienting dilemma with them. A disorienting dilemma is an
experience that causes an individual to face an idea that challenges their way of viewing the
world (Wergin, 2020). I then gave the participants a copy of my journal and read it aloud to the
group:
To my dismay, only two-thirds of the class stood up. The rest of the students remained
sitting. I was initially a bit perplexed because I never had a class where members refused
to stand for the flag salute. I felt perturbed and uneasy when several students did not
stand. I pondered whether I should ask them to stand next time. Shortly after, I began to
question why I was upset they were not standing for the flag salute. After pondering and
reflecting, I began asking myself, why did I feel the students had to stand? What was it
that made me want to abide by this precedent? I began to think about why I expected
them to stand. So, I began to question, “Why do some choose not to stand? What has
happened that has made them not want to stand?” So, I began to question why I had to
57

abide by this precedent. After feeling uneasy for some time, I realized that my
indoctrination into normative thinking made me think that standing for the flag salute was
correct and right. I realized that I was perpetuating hegemony and Whiteness. I realized I
had to stop expecting my students to stand for the flag salute. Instead, I needed to listen
to them and have a dialogue about what it means to stand for the flag salute and why
some people choose not to stand.
After I was done reading my journal. I asked the participants to ponder whether I
experienced a disorienting dilemma. In addition, I asked the participants to think about which
details presented a disorienting dilemma. Then, they pair-shared and discussed their thoughts on
the question I posed. After, they discussed whether they thought I had a disorienting dilemma.
Then, they shared their thoughts with the whole group.
Next, I led another activity that supports teacher learning and reflection, Freirean culture
circles (De Los Rios & Souto-Manning, 2017) is a high-leverage strategy. The primary purpose
of culture circles was to encourage critical consciousness or conscientization (Freire, 2000),
which is defined as a critical meta-awareness of participants’ social and material conditions. I
helped AVID teachers critically reflect during this activity by asking questions and using
prompts that situate education as a political process to engage in critical dialogue. This high-
leverage practice restructures “power relations in classrooms and their interactions with
historicized injustice in local practice” (Calabrese Barton et al., 2020, p. 477).
Freirean circles are also justice-oriented because they promote social transformations,
including altering patterns of participation and authority structures that disrupt the hierarchical
social order (De Los Rios & Souto-Manning, 2017.) During this activity, I asked participants to
58

critically view material and to learn from each other as they problem-solve and envision new
ways of becoming change agents.
To do so, I introduced an aesthetic experience related to internalized oppression that
Latinx and students of color face in the education system. I first used the instructional move to
activate prior knowledge or elicit the information they were familiar with to add to upcoming
information. This video promoted reflection on what their names mean and why their name was
given. Afterward, the participants and I watched the “Unforgettable” video (Button Poetry,
2014). This video details three poets of color, explaining how their names depict who they are
and they have been morphed into names that align with Whiteness.
After listening to the video, I used another instructional move by asking teachers to pair-
share their thoughts with a partner, and I annotated these ideas. I asked what stories the poets
were telling and how racism and White supremacy shaped the speakers in the poem. Once every
group shared ideas, we did a share-out and grouped responses by themes. We discussed the video
using dialectical thinking (Freire, 2000) so that participants practiced holding multiple
perspectives and contradictory ideas as they engaged in the strategy. It was the goal that this
aesthetic experience or the invitation to step into someone else’s lived experience through the
video could cause a disorienting dilemma for the participants in my study. At the end of the
activity, the aim was for the participants to become more aware of historicized power
relationships and enact positive social change through educator critical reflection.
During Week 2, the participants were asked to write one or more journal reflections per
week on how internalized oppressive practices influence how they convey knowledge in their
classrooms. At the end of each week, I met with each teacher individually, had an informal chat,
and asked them how the PL they experienced during the second CRC impacted their actions with
59

Latinx students. In Week 3, the participants filled out a learning audit document. The following
four questions will be on the document:
● What do I know about internalized oppression that I did not know last month?
● How do I reproduce internalized oppression in my classroom?
● How can I interrogate my assumptions and biases of Latinx students to disrupt
internalized oppressive practices?
I asked the following questions to evaluate whether the participants are contending with
internalized oppression: Have my participants’ thinking, and actions changed because of
contemplating and internalized oppression? Have my actions changed due to contemplating and
internalized oppression? These questions helped me figure out how to best support the
participants as we endeavored into the next part of the study.
The 3rd week of the CRC was an out-of-the-field analysis and critical reflection. I
collected and analyzed teacher artifacts, the participant’s reflections, and the learning audit
reflections. In addition, I analyzed my jottings, observations, critical reflections, and
transcriptions. While I analyzed this information, I asked myself if the participants’ thinking, and
actions had changed due to contemplating and internalized oppression and whether my actions
changed because of contemplating and internalized oppression. In addition, I contemplated how I
handle situations when my learners perpetuate hegemonic ideology and what andragogical
moves I needed to add to support my learners. I wondered if my positionality was getting in the
way of the participant’s ability to speak their truth. As in CRC 1, I looked for emerging themes
and coded information.

Table 4
Critical Reflection Cycle 2: Unearthing Internalized Oppression Via Critical Reflection
Intended outcome: AVID teachers and I will contend and reflect on internalized oppression and examine how we contribute to or
disrupt these hegemonic practices
Learning objective Researcher’s
actions
Participant’s actions Data collected Time Location
Week 1 Participants will be
able to define a
false choice and
identify
internalized
oppressive
practices.
Connect to
previous
learning in CRC
1.
Describe Rodger’s
reflective cycle.
Share personal
reflection.
Share video titled
“Unforgettable.”
Reflect on journals
written for CRC 1
Participate in Freirean
circles.
Reflect on my journal.
Pair-share discuss
video
Participant
reflection
Researcher’s
critical reflection
and observations
2 hours Teacher’s
resource
room
Week 2 Participants will be
able to define a
false choice and
identify
internalized
oppressive
practices.
Meet with
participants
individually.
Journal: How do
schools in the U.S.
perpetuate
internalized
oppression in
classrooms?
Jottings and
observations
15 mins Teacher’s
room
Week 3 Out-of-the-field analysis and critical reflection. This time will help me analyze the data and information to inform my
subsequent actions. During this time, I will contemplate questions such as Have my participants’ thinking, and actions changed
because of contemplating internalized oppression? Have my actions changed because of contemplating internalized oppression?
How do I handle situations when my learners are perpetuating hegemonic ideology? What andragogical moves do I need to add to
support my learners? Is my positionality getting in the way of the participant’s ability to speak their truth?
61

In the 3rd month of the study, I began to revisit the learning I provided during the second
CRC. The participants shared their journals or their thoughts related to their learning. I then
revisited Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle to review and clarify misconceptions.
Next, I introduced the third CRC, utilizing structured opportunities to contend and reflect
on inward gazes, as depicted in Table 3. I began this cycle by introducing “inquiry as stance”
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2010). I defined inquiry as an approach to teaching that recommends
students’ voices over teachers’ voices, questions instead of directions, and processes instead of
outcomes (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2010). The participants had a pair-share activity and
discussed how inquiry as stance could benefit student learning. In addition, I shared that for the
next activity, the participants thought about interrogating their thinking by reflecting on an
“inward gaze.” I defined an inward gaze as a focused and intentional awareness of being. I asked
the participants to think about their own thinking and knowing as we engage in today’s PL
activities.
After introducing the latter concepts, I presented an aesthetic experience through a poem
written by an English learner whom we will call Olivia. The teachers had the opportunity to read
the poem independently. I then used the instructional move of asking the participants to take
notes and annotate the poem.
Next, I prompted my participants to discuss their thinking and assumptions about
“Olivia’s poem” using the high-leverage strategy of racial literacy roundtable (Sealey-Ruiz,
2017). This strategy was used to confront issues related to race and racism. I leveraged this
strategy because it gave participants equal standing in a discussion and enabled them to
contribute ideas and perspectives to the conversation. In addition, this supported teachers with
critical reflection because it helped the participants in deep conversations about race and power.
62

We used the strategy of racial literacy to read, discuss, and write about situations involving race
and racism and apply this understanding to everyday living situations.
During Week 2, the participants had a similar protocol to CRCs 1 and 2. They were asked
to write one or more weekly journal reflections on how interrogating their way of thinking helps
better support them to support Latinx students. At the end of each week, I met with each teacher
individually for an informal chat and asked them how the PL they experienced during the third
CRC impacted their actions with their students.
In Week 3, the participants filled out a learning audit document consisting of three
questions:
• How have I begun to interrogate my actions and thinking (inward gaze)?
• What actions depict how I may have been complicit in not interrogating my own
actions and thinking (inward gaze)?
• How can reflecting on my thoughts and actions (inward gaze) help me better support
Latinx student learning in my classroom?
During Week 3, I collected and analyzed teacher artifacts, participant reflections, and
learning audit reflections. In addition, I analyzed my jottings, observations, critical reflections,
and transcriptions. While I analyzed this information, I asked myself the following questions:
Have my participants’ thinking, and actions changed due to interrogating their thinking and
actions (inward gaze)? How have my actions changed due to interrogating their thinking and
actions (inward gaze)? In addition, I critically reflected on questions I needed to ponder as the
facilitator of the CRC: Am I validating what my learners share during our meetings? Am I giving
my learners opportunities to apply what they are learning? How am I creating a democratic space
63

for discussion? How am I ensuring that all voices are heard? As in critical reflection cycles one
and two, I looked for emerging themes and code information.

Table 5
Critical Reflection Cycle 3: Utilizing Structured Opportunities to Contend and Reflect on Inward Gazes
Intended Outcome: AVID teachers and I will contend and reflect on interrogating our thinking and actions (inward gaze) and
examine how we contribute to or disrupt hegemony.
Learning objective Researcher’s
actions
Participant’s actions Data collected Time Location
Week
1
Participants will contend
and reflect using an
inward gaze or how they
have been complicit in
perpetuating hegemony.
Revisit
learning
from CRCs 1
and 2.
Describe
inquiry as
stance.
Share poem.
Share and reflect on
journals written for
CRCs 1 and 2
Engage in racial
literacy activity.
Read “Olivia’s
Poem.”
Annotate and pair-
share.
Participant
reflection
Researcher’s
critical
reflection and
observations
2 hours Teacher’s
resource
room
Week
2
Participants will
contend and reflect using
an inward gaze or how
they have been complicit
in perpetuating
hegemony.
Meet with
participants
individually.
Journal: How do
schools in the U.S.
perpetuate
internalized
oppression in
classrooms?
Jottings and
observations
15 minutes
per
teacher
Teacher’s
classrooms
Week 3 Out-of-the-field analysis and critical reflection. This time will help me analyze the data and information to inform my
subsequent actions. I will contemplate questions such as Have my participants’ thinking, and actions changed due to
interrogating their thinking and actions (inward gaze)? How have my actions changed due to interrogating their thinking and
actions (inward gaze)? Am I validating what my learners are sharing during our meetings? Am I giving my learners
opportunities to apply what they are learning? How am I creating a democratic space for discussion? How am I ensuring that
all voices are heard?
65

Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
As the researcher and the primary collection and data analysis instrument (Herr &
Anderson, 2013; Maxwell, 2013), I collected data through multiple sources: concept maps,
teacher reflections, teacher journals, jottings, field notes, observations, transcriptions, and critical
reflections. The use of documents and artifacts, combined with observations, minimized bias and
established credibility (Bowen, 2009). Using these multiple data sources, I worked on analyzing
information and triangulating data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) to identify trends and themes that
support teacher critical reflection.
Documents
Document analysis is how I obtained empirical data as part of the research process.
Document collection is important because I used these items as evidence and combined them
with my observations to minimize bias and establish credibility (Bowen, 2009). The documents I
collected and analyzed are teacher journals, teacher reflections, and critical reflections. Personal
documents are first-person narratives that describe an individual’s actions, experiences, or beliefs
(Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Personal documents are a “good source of data concerning a person’s
attitude, beliefs, and views of the world” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 166). Personal documents
were vital to my study. These documents helped me understand how the participants and I began
to take steps toward critical reflection as a means for interrogation of our assumptions and biases.
Participant Journals and Reflections
Participants’ journals and reflections are important data sources because they helped me
understand how the participants contended and reflected on their assumptions and biases. In
CRC 1, the participants wrote a journal at the end of the cycle where they reflected on their
identity and positionality. In CRC 2 and 3three, the participants followed Rodgers’ (2002)
66

reflective cycle to reflect on the concepts discussed in the cycles, internalized oppressive
practices and inward gazes. In addition, at the end of every cycle, the participants reflected on
their practice using a learning audit (Brookfield, 2016). The learning audit was composed of
specific questions I posed, which are detailed in the actions section. These data sources provided
me with an insight into the phenomena studied. In addition, I wrote a descriptive reflection after
each monthly group PL. The reflections focused on how educators understood the PL, the
questions they asked, and their responses to the PL meeting.
Critical Reflections
I wrote one critical reflection at the end of every cycle. In total, I had three critical
reflections that detailed how I analyzed and investigated my actions as a facilitator and
participant. Writing a critical reflection after each cycle helped me check my assumptions and
biases as a facilitator and researcher. I used the critical reflections to help me scrutinize my
assumptions and biases so that I could better support teachers with PL the following month.
Artifacts
Artifacts are an important part of data collection because artifacts are used for
participants to express themselves using a medium that is a form of expression that can be
captured in images, symbols, and words (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The artifacts I collected
were concept maps. Concept maps are visual representations of thoughts and ideas. The
participants used concept maps in every cycle to support them in making connections between
concepts and ideas. It is important to collect and analyze concept maps because, many times,
thoughts that are not articulated in discussions are displayed on a concept map. In addition,
thoughts and ideas that are articulated in discourse may be supported by the concept maps. As a
67

result, the participants generated the concept maps individually and collaboratively during the
three critical reflection cycles.
Observations
I used observations because they are an essential form of data collection for qualitative
studies. Coghlan (2019) stated that documentation is essential in research. While conducting my
observations, I focused on the physical setting, the participants, activities and interactions,
conversations, subtle factors, and my own behavior (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I developed
observations based on what the participants were saying and doing. I used observations every
time I met with participants. Therefore, I wrote observations using the jottings and field notes,
which were essential for my role as a participant and a researcher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Going in and out of these different roles was difficult, so I took notes to remember details in my
study. Utilizing the notes I took during the interactions with the participants helped me write
observations and connect the data by coding and building themes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). In
addition, I recorded our monthly whole-group meetings. Using audio transcriptions supported
and supplemented my field notes and observations.
Data Analysis
Using multiple data collection methods, I strove to minimize biases in my analysis and
interpretations. I analyzed each of the three cycles using the same method. To begin, each cycle
started with a PL meeting, which lasted between 120 and 150 minutes. Once the meeting
concluded, I began my data analysis by reviewing my field notes and jottings. Next, I wrote a
descriptive reflection that detailed what took place during the meeting and also listened to the
audio recording of the meeting.
68

After reviewing these documents and listening to the audio recording multiple times, I
wrote a critical reflection. As I wrote, I reflected on my facilitation and the power I hold and how
that might have hindered participants’ growth in critical reflection. In addition, I used my
researcher’s position (Herr & Anderson, 2013) as another strategy for critical self-reflection and
strove to be transparent about my positions and assumptions.
Once the 3 weeks concluded and I gathered the data and documents, I analyzed the data
composed of participant journals, participant reflections, concept maps, observations, and audio
transcriptions. I also used respondent validation or taking the findings back to the participants to
check if the interpretations were credible.
Subsequently, once I went through the data analysis for all three cycles, I began to look
for a priori codes. To facilitate this process, I leveraged my conceptual framework, which
detailed what I conceptualized would help answer my research question. To generate these
codes, I went through my data analysis cycles iteratively. I reviewed the data for each cycle
multiple times by reading the information, listening to the transcripts, and analyzing the
information multiple times. This iterative process helped me generate the a priori or deductive
codes.
I continuously met with my dissertation chair and with peers to discuss my codes and
ways data analysis method. After meeting with my dissertation chair, I made a spreadsheet where
I focused on the data that supported my research question. I looked for evidence that supported
the participants’ learning of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking. The spreadsheet
included examples of how each participant showed growth in one or both concepts. As I
reviewed the data in this spreadsheet, I generated empirical codes. In addition, I used analytical
memos to reflect on the empirical codes I generated and to help deepen my analysis of my
69

research. The empirical codes were key in helping me generate themes. Using these codes, I once
again went through data cycles iteratively to find trends, which then supported the production of
themes.
To support this study’s transferability, I used extrapolation (Patton, 2002, as cited in
Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) to depict how similar studies can support teachers with the use of
critical reflection to support Latinx learning.
Limitations
It was important for me to be aware of the limitations of my study, which are factors
outside of my control as a researcher. One of the limitations is my role as a researcher who will
perform an “observer-participant” role. As an action researcher, my participant as observer role
was necessary, but it had limitations. The role of participant inhibited me from being aware of
nuances when participants were engaged in discussion and discourse. The duality in roles, as
researcher and participant, made it difficult to critically and clearly see if the participants were
connecting to the concepts and ideas I was presenting. Nonetheless, I made it a goal to be
perceptive and insightful. Another limitation that impeded my research is the fact that I am very
familiar with the participants in my study. Though we have a professional relationship, they may
have felt obligated to help me with my research. Time was also a limitation in my study. As a
full-time professional and full-time doctorate student, time was a significant limitation in my
ability to conduct a longer study in which I would have multiple and/or varied opportunities to
further engage participants in learning experiences that might have resulted in different
outcomes.
70

Delimitations
The delimitations are also important to consider in my research. As a researcher, I set
boundaries in this study to narrow its focus (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As an action researcher, I
did not include more AVID teachers because it would have made it very difficult to present the
information as a convenience study. In addition, working with more AVID teachers from other
sites would have made it difficult to meet participants individually and collect data. Working
with a small group of AVID teachers helped me keenly analyze qualitative data that will emerge.
The study’s delimitations supported its success because I worked with the teachers as a whole
group and one-on-one while participating as an active member of the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness are essential measures for producing quality research.
Diligent attention to these measures produces quality research. Patton (2002) depicts that
credibility hinges partially on the integrity of the researcher, and one approach to dealing with
the issue is to “look for data that supports alternative perspectives” (p. 248). The researcher’s
position or reflexivity is another form of the integrity of the research. This refers to how the
researcher affects and is affected by the research.
To maximize these components, I tried to be transparent about my data and depict
consistent results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Therefore, I reviewed the data, observations,
reflections, and artifacts to generate results.
Ethics
Ethics are central to research: “Qualitative researchers are guests in the private spaces of
the world,” so it is incumbent that researchers follow a strict code of ethics (Stake, 2005, as cited
in Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 261). (“Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
71

Conduct.,” 2002) defined ethics as giving credit to others’ intellectual property, being conscious
of multiple roles, and following informed consent rules and guidelines.
It is important to note that actual ethical practice depends on the researcher’s values and
ethics (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). A researcher must treat participants as more than just data
points and acknowledge people as whole individuals with background stories and different ways
of knowing (Tracy, 2013, as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Another salient aspect is the
subjectivity of researcher bias. Explaining my possible biases helped me deal with these ideas
and attitudes was necessary to produce ethical research.
A timely and ethical aspect is to critically reflect on how research has been one-sided and
ahistorical (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Milner (2007) expressed that research needs to begin to
depict colored epistemologies by exposing theories and perspectives in ways that hold
researchers accountable for discussing issues of race and culture. In addition, the decolonizing of
research can bring forth methodologies for healing, transformation, and spiritual recovery for
Indigenous populations (Smith, 2002, as cited in McDonough, 2013) and other people of color.
Therefore, I used critical race methodology (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) to focus on the
inter-centricity of race and racism (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1998). The latter is relevant because
race and racism have disproportionately affected culturally and linguistically diverse students.
By acknowledging the inter-centricity of race and racism in research, I helped bring forth a more
comprehensive picture of epistemologies that have been silenced due to ahistorical research and,
thus, reached the goal of the study’s desired state (Coghlan, 2019): sustaining Latinx students’
culture and background via critical reflection of teachers’ assumptions and biases.
72

Findings
In this action research study, I provided three CRCs that focused on promoting AVID
teachers’ growth in critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support Latinx students’
learning. Each of the three cycles consisted of one PL group meeting, a one-on-one meeting with
each participant, a personal reflection, and a learning audit reflection completed on a Google
form by each participant. In addition, the data I used to inform my findings included the research
tools I created during the three CRCs: slide decks, three informal reflections, three sets of
observation notes, three analytical memos, and three critical reflections.
The intended outcome of my study was that AVID teachers and I would learn how to
critically reflect on our identities and positionalities, internalized oppressions, and inward gazes
to unearth assumptions and deficit views of Latinx students’ students. The latter is illustrated via
three critical reflection cycles where participants contended and reflected on their identity and
positionality (Brookfield, 2017), internalized oppression, and inward gazes (Paris & Alim, 2017).
I used Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) four ways of knowing typology as a guide
to help me scaffold learning for my participants. Since I had worked with all three participants
for the past year, I used my prior experience to determine what type of knower they most
resembled. This information helped me design learning experiences that aligned with my
conceptual framework, and I leveraged andragogical moves to buttress the key ideas in each
critical reflection cycle. Andragogical moves helped me support participants’ move toward self-
directed learning (Holton et al., 2008).
The three critical reflection cycles were connected to ideas I conceptualized would
promote critical reflection: critical consciousness and dialectical thinking. The first CRC focused
on contending and reflecting on identity and positionality. In this cycle, the intended goal was for
73

participants to conceptualize identity and positionality not as binary or dualistic but as
intersecting concepts that “introduce complex dynamics of power and privilege” (Brookfield,
2019, p. 90). In CRC 2, we focused on internalized oppressive practices. The participants and I
reflected on the fabricated beliefs in hegemonic institutions that negate Latinx students’
background and culture in a Eurocentric curriculum (Hollins, 2015; Leonardo, 2009; Paris &
Alim, 2017). And in CRC 3, we focused on reflecting and contending on inward gazes or turning
the gaze onto ourselves. We did the latter by examining how we may be complicit in
perpetuating a White supremacist ideology (Arce, 2016; Paris & Alim, 2017). In all three cycles,
the goal was for the participants to contend with and critically reflect on their identities,
positionalities, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes. Though the participants did
begin to reflect on these concepts, we did not have enough time to critically reflect on the greater
hegemonic factors that have perpetuated a stratified educational system. In addition, as the
researcher of this study, I was concerned with the participants’ psychological safety. As a result,
I did not want to cause the participants too much disorientation because I felt this would hinder
their engagement during our 9-week study.
Each cycle consisted of three weeks of in-field analysis and a week of out-of-the-field
analysis. For this analysis, I removed myself from the field, analyzed information, revised my
objectives, and wrote a critical reflection. The critical reflection served as a way for me to reflect
on my positionality, assumptions, and biases. In the three critical reflections, I explained my
ability to support participants’ growth or my inefficiency in assisting participants’ growth in
critical consciousness and dialectical thinking.
In this section, I interpret the study’s findings. The findings are centered on the
following research question: How do I promote a critical reflection cycle that will support AVID
74

teachers’ growth in the use of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support Latinx
students’ learning? Two major themes that emerged from my research. The first theme is
leveraging our stories to support the learning of critical reflection, and the second theme is
connecting to self as a way to understand and support Latinx students.
The first theme represents how the participants leveraged their experiences and stories to
interrogate their identity and positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes.
Through the interrogation of the latter concepts, the participants began to learn how to question
their assumptions and biases, which may have hindered their ability to support Latinx student
learning. For the first theme, three sub-themes emerged, sharing stories about our identity and
positionality, sharing stories about our internalized oppressive practices, and sharing stories
about our inward gazes. These sub-themes are composed of data that highlight how the
participants utilized their experiences and stories to begin the process of critically reflecting on
their identity and positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes.
The second theme depicted how making connections to their lived experiences supported
the participants. As socializing knowers, the participants began their journey toward learning
how to critically reflect through the interrogation of their assumptions and by contemplating
other perspectives. Two sub-themes materialized as part of this second theme. The first was
learning to use critical consciousness and dialectical thinking by interrogating assumptions, and
the second was learning to use critical consciousness and dialectical thinking by interrogating
dominant practices. These sub-themes garner data detailing how the participants are on the road
toward utilizing critical consciousness and/ or dialectical thinking.
The following sections present each theme and include a discussion of how the
participants began to explore the use of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to
75

interrogate entrenched practices that prevent Latinx students from having equitable learning
opportunities.
Theme 1: Leveraging Our Stories to Support the Learning of Critical Reflection
In CRC 1, the participants and I focused on grappling with our identity and positionality
by sharing our experiences and stories. As stated in the conceptual framework, critical reflection
involves challenging our assumptions and biases through the lenses of critical consciousness and
dialectical thinking. The theme of leveraging our stories to support the learning of critical
reflection conveys how we utilized our stories and experiences to uncover instances of power
and privilege. Using our stories and experiences to reflect critically was important because the
“personal experiences of learning are intertwined with teaching practice” (Brookfield, 2017, p.
70). To help the participants, I created a PL space where they felt comfortable sharing their
experiences and stories. This space gave them multiple opportunities to interrogate their
identities, positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes. Sharing experiences
and storytelling helped the participants reflect and begin to move toward thinking critically and
questioning majoritarian stories that depict racial privilege as normal (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002,
p. 28).
Moreover, the participants began critical reflection by questioning dominant stories
stemming from a legacy of privilege that “distorts and silences the experiences of people of
color” (p. 29). The participants grew and learned differently in these three CRC cycles. Amy
thought about how her Catholic identity has helped her relate to Latinx students. She also
reflected on her inward gaze and how she has not questioned her own hegemonic thinking in the
past due to the time constraints of the study and as a consequence of my uneasiness to ask
probing questions that may have helped Amy better understand larger hegemonic structures. On
76

the other hand, Debbie began the process of critical reflection by questioning why she had
checked off “White” under race when filling out forms and documents. In addition, she began to
question internalized oppressive practices by questioning the practice of standing for the flag
salute. And finally, Priscilla began to dive deep into questioning her assumptions and ways of
knowing by critically reflecting on why she does not know more about her Mexican culture and
background. She also began to question hegemonic practices like the flag salute. In addition, she
began the trek toward reflecting on her inward gaze by using Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle to
question her ability to support a student’s voice over her own. The following three sub-themes
detail how the participants used their stories about identity and positionality, internalized
oppressive practices, and inward gazes to critically reflect on our power and privilege.
Sharing Stories About Our Identity and Positionality
In CRC 1, the participants utilized their experiences and stories to commence the process
of critically reflecting on their identity and positionality. In this cycle, the participants and I
began by defining identity. We began with the concept of identity in the first cycle because
reflecting on identity is necessary for the critical reflection process (Brookfield, 2017). Each
participant grew in the process toward critical reflection in different ways. Amy connected to her
religious identity of being a Catholic. She expressed that this identity helped her connect to many
of her Latinx students who are Catholic. Debbie connected the identity of race and began to
question her past assumptions. She reflected on how she answered legal documents and forms;
Debbie stated that she had always checked off “White” when asked for her race but never
thought about why she answered that way. In contrast, Priscilla connected to her identity of
being Mexican. Yet she disclosed that she was just beginning to learn about her Mexican culture
by making connections with her students and learning from them. In addition, Priscilla
77

questioned why her father had always told them they were “American” and elected not to teach
them Spanish or about Mexican culture. This realization made Priscilla question her former
worldview about not being connected to Mexican culture. Interestingly, the three participants
connected to identity and positionality in this cycle but made different strides in learning how to
reflect critically.
To begin this cycle, the participants collaboratively defined identity as the qualities and
beliefs that distinguish a person or thing. In addition, I gave the participants a handout that
detailed different social identities, illustrated in Appendix A. This document facilitated the
participants’ understanding of social identities. In the handout, Social Identity was defined as
those identities “that reflect how we see ourselves and how others see us with respect to major
social categories” (The Institute for College Access & Success, 2023). After reading over the
different identities, the participants wrote down the identities they most identified on the handout
depicted in Appendix A. Next, I asked the participants to think of the following questions: What
identities resonate with you? What is your most important identity? Why?
The participants had 3 minutes to answer the question. Afterward, they shared their
thoughts about their identities. After looking over the one-page handout on social identities and
taking notes, they shared the identities that resonated the most with them. Amy stated that the
identities she connected with were being Catholic, a mother, and a coach. For Debbie, the
identities she felt she connected with were her race and having obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Lastly, Priscilla connected with her ethnicity and being the associated student body (ASB)
advisor. After the participants shared the identities they connected with, they spoke about the one
they considered to be the most important.
78

A: One of the identities that I put on here that stuck out to me was religion and faith.
Being that I’m Catholic, I feel it’s the same (religion) as many people in our
community. And so that identity alone automatically connects me at times to the
community. Just, dealing with, like, confirmation and like little things, they have to
go to church, I understand, you know. That identity allows me to connect.
D: The one that stood out the most was race because we get this question a lot. They put
race on a lot of government forms; I usually put “White” because Latina or Hispanic,
… is not listed as an option in the real world.
P: For me, it was ethnicity. Growing up, my dad pushed that we were American. So, I
see myself as an American of Mexican descent. But I have an additional identity,
Black culture. So, I grew up in a very predominantly Black area. I was telling the kids
in class the other day that I did not know much about Mexican culture. And it was
until I was in college that I learned about the culture.
Amy, Debbie, and Priscilla each shared the identities they felt were the most important
for them. Amy expressed that religion was the most important because it connected to her faith.
As a Catholic, she related to many of our school community, “being that I’m Catholic, I feel it’s
the same as many people in our community who are Catholic. And so that identity alone
automatically connects me at times to the community.” In this example, Amy began to connect
her personal experience of being Catholic with the Latinx student community, who may also be
Catholic. Later during our one-on-one meeting in cycle one, I asked Amy a follow-up question
about her Catholic identity and how she relates to students in her classroom.
R: Amy, in our group meeting, you mentioned that being Catholic was the identity you
resonated with the most because you connected to many of your students. What has
79

been your experience with students who are not Catholic? How do you make
connections with them?
A: Well, it really has not come up. I only share that I am Catholic if a student shares
about going to church or doing their confirmation. I never really thought about
students who are of other religions or how I could make connections. I wonder if
other students of different religions feel left out. I never thought about it, but it was
definitely not my intention.
In this interaction, Amy used her previous experience in her classroom to question
whether students felt left out, “I wonder if other students of different religions feel left out? I
never thought about it, but it was definitely not my intention.” After I asked Amy the follow-up
question, she began to reflect on what she expressed in her classroom. Though she felt that she
was making a connection with students who are Catholic, she realized that she had not
acknowledged people who are of different religions, “I never really thought about students who
are of other religions or how I could make connections.” At this point, Amy reflected on her
assumptions and thought about how students of other religions must feel when she only
acknowledges those who share her Catholic faith. Becoming aware that not everyone in her
classroom is Catholic is a way to begin to use critical consciousness to counter what Brookfield
(2017) stated as dominant ideology or “assumptions that are accepted as normal or commonsense
ways of explaining the world.” (p. 11). Thus, Amy utilized her experience to begin to reflect on
how she may have been making students of other religions feel left out or marginalized by
acknowledging the Catholic religion and not others.
In contrast, Debbie identified race as the identity that stood out to her the most. She
mentioned that she found it interesting that the social identities handout did not dictate what race
80

you had to write in. Like in the “real world,” which can be interpreted as the area that is outside
of the educational setting. She said that Latinx or Hispanic is not usually identified as a race on
government forms, so you can’t choose it. At our one-on-one meeting during this cycle, I asked
Debbie to expand on what she said at the whole-group meeting.
R: Debbie, you mentioned that race was the one that stood out for you because you were
free to fill in whatever you wanted. You mentioned that in forms, you answered,
White, when you were asked the race question. Why do you answer White, and not
“other,” for example?
D: I usually answer “White” because that is what I was told to answer back when I was
applying to college, I think? Gosh, that is a good question. I guess I thought I had to
answer this question with that response; it never occurred to me to answer it with
‘other.’
I asked Debbie the follow-up question because I wanted her to think about why she
answered “White” under race. Debbie mentioned that she never thought about answering
differently, “I guess I thought I had to answer this question; it never occurred to me to answer it
with ‘other’?” Debbie’s remarks reflected her assumptions about how to classify her race on
documents. After the follow-up question, Debbie questioned why she answered “White” when
prompted with questions about demographic data. This questioning surfaced unconscious
assumptions (Wergin, 2020) that Debbie had about race. The example depicted how leveraging
experiences and stories helped Debbie question and commence the journey toward critically
reflecting on hegemonic practices that classify and confine people into categories that produce a
racially divided society.
81

In addition, during the whole-group meeting, Priscilla answered that ethnicity was the
most important social identity in her case. She mentioned that her ethnicity was important
because she recalled, “Growing up, my dad pushed that we were American. So, I see myself as
an American of Mexican descent.” Further, she stated that for her, it was not until college that
she learned about Mexican culture. During our one-on-one meetings in this cycle, I asked
Priscilla a follow-up question about her ethnicity.
R: You shared that you grew up in a community where most of the community was
Black, and your dad told you that you were American, correct?
P: Yes, that is true.
R: In addition, you also mentioned that it was not until college that you learned more
about the Mexican community. Thinking about your experiences with different
cultures, which culture do you identify with more?
P: Umm…I think I identify more with American culture. My dad was in the military and
always wanted us to connect to American culture. But I think I am starting to identify
with Mexican culture more. Aside from learning in college (about Mexican culture), I
have also learned from my students. Not all of them are Mexican, but they come from
Spanish-speaking countries. They share a lot of information about what they do for
different holidays, so I feel that I am beginning to connect to that culture too.
R: Do you think feeling connected to Mexican culture is important?
P: I think so. I feel a bit more connected…so I think that is good because my students
are from Latin American countries. Also, I need to know more about my heritage.
In this example, Priscilla connected to her past experience to express the identity she
connects with most. By connecting to her personal experience, she began to ponder which
82

culture she felt a connection with. Priscilla shared that she is beginning to feel more connected to
Mexican culture and her students, “I think so. I feel a bit more connected…so I think that is good
because my students are from Latin American countries. Also, I need to know more about my
heritage.” Through recalling her experiences, Priscilla began thinking about why knowing her
background is important to her. Aside from making connections with students, she said, “I need
to know more about my heritage.” This is important because she previously stated that she felt
more connected to American culture but acknowledged that she “needs to know more” about her
heritage. These different perspectives are important because Priscilla initially stated that the
American culture is the one she related with most. However, she had a divergent idea; she
wanted to know more about Mexican culture. By reflecting on her experience with her identity,
Priscilla began to question her assumptions and biases regarding her identity. Her questioning of
her identity was necessary and moved Priscilla closer to thinking dialectically. She
acknowledged that even though she felt like an American, she wanted to know more about
Mexican culture.
Another example that depicted how the participants learned how to critically reflect
through the connection to their experiences to identity and positionality is also in CRC 1. After
we reflected on our identity and positionality, the participants learned about intersectionality. I
explained how our social identities intersect and further elaborated that intersectionality relates to
overlapping social identities and how these intersect and create systems of oppression,
domination, and privilege (Walby et al., 2012). I showed them the image in Appendix B to
illustrate the idea of intersectionality. In addition, I defined positionality as “the social and
political context that creates your identity in terms of race, gender, sexuality, and ability status.”
83

(Villaverde, 2008, as cited in Douglas & Nganga, 2013, pp. 60–61). And showed them the
following image, the wheel of power/privilege, depicted in Appendix C (Eliot, 2020).
I asked the participants to look at the image and think about what it represents. The
participants looked over the handout for 3 minutes and took notes. In the following interaction,
Priscilla connected to how the inner circle conveyed cisgender men as the ones with the most
power in society. Debbie identified the outer circle with people who have less power in society,
non-English speakers, and undocumented. After Debbie shared, Priscilla made the connection to
the outer circle representing all the things that her dad did not want her to be associated with
dark-skinned, undocumented, and non-English speakers. I then probed Priscilla and asked her
why she thought her dad felt that way.
P: It seems as if the inner circle shows the individuals with the most power. It says
citizen cisgender male, slim, White, post-secondary. It seems that it looks like they
are the ones with power. But then you see those in the outer circle.
D: Yeah, look what it says under the language. Non-English speaker. Also,
undocumented, dark-skin, and elementary education.
P: All those things you just named are what my dad did not want us to be. He wanted us
only to speak English at home. He wanted us to have an education. He did not want
us to be viewed as less than.
R: Why do you think he thought that way?
P: I think my dad just wanted us to be identified as American, not Mexican or as
Spanish speakers. Now that I see this, he did not want us to be marginalized. This
makes me a bit sad. I wish I would have learned Spanish fluently. Why are we seen as
less powerful because we are not White and privileged?
84

In this example, Priscilla showed how her dad did not want to see them as individuals
who were not part of the dominant society, “I think he just wanted us to be identified as
American, not Mexican or as Spanish speakers. Now that I see this, he did not want us to be
marginalized.” This acknowledgment possibly helped Priscilla understand how her father did not
want her to feel “less than” those in the dominant society. Priscilla stated, “This makes me a bit
sad. I wish I would have learned Spanish fluently. Why are we seen as less powerful because we
are not White and privileged?” Priscilla expressed that she wished she could speak Spanish
fluently but may have realized that her dad did not teach her the Spanish language because he did
not want her to be seen as “Mexican” or less powerful. After looking at the Wheel of Privilege/
Power, she was aware of the power and position that the people in the inner circle hold. Priscilla
questioned why people of color are less privileged and powerful. In this example, Priscilla
reflects on her intersecting identities related to her ethnicity. She was socialized to think of
herself as an American but recognized that she is also Mexican. Now, as an adult, she realizes
that she wants to learn more about her heritage. By sharing her experience, Priscilla began the
process of undertaking critical consciousness because she questions the social constructs that
categorize one identity as more powerful than others (Brookfield, 2019.
In this cycle, the participants learned how to critically reflect by sharing their stories
about their identities and positionality. Amy shared that she felt connected to her identity of
being Catholic. She questioned her past practice of assuming that her students were Catholic
after we discussed identity and positionality, “I really never thought about students who are of
other religions or how I could make connections. I wonder if other students of different religions
[not Catholic] feel left out.” Debbie connected to her race as an identity. She shared that she had
the practice of answering “White” on legal documents. After contending with her identity and
85

positionality, Debbie began to critically reflect by questioning why: “I guess I thought I had to
answer this question with that [White] response; it never occurred to me to answer with other.”
Priscilla learned to critically reflect when she shared that she did not feel connected to being
“Mexican.” Through sharing this story and analyzing the wheel of power/privilege, she realized
that it was her father who did not want her to be associated with being Mexican: “Now that I see
this, he did not want us to be marginalized.” In this example, Priscilla reflected on why she did
not connect to her culture in the past.
As the facilitator of this adult learning, I supported the participants’ journey toward
critical consciousness and dialectical thinking and answered the research question by providing
the participants with a space to share their stories and by frontloading abstract terminology.
Providing the participants with multiple opportunities to learn terms such as positionality, social
identities, and intersectionality helped them better understand these abstract concepts. Also, I
provided the participants with the space to work with their peers and time to unpack their
assumptions and worldviews.
In addition, I strengthened my skills as a facilitator by working toward knowledge-of-
practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I wanted the participants to see me as a participant or a
colleague who actively constructed knowledge with them. Moreover, I began to strengthen my
skills as a facilitator by helping the participants engage with the information and not necessarily
giving them the answers to the questions I posed. Instead, I provided them with opportunities to
collaborate and share knowledge. I asked the participants probing questions. For example, I
asked Priscilla, “Do you think feeling connected to Mexican culture is important?” Priscilla
shared that she realized that learning about her Mexican heritage was important to her because,
through her students, she had learned more about her culture and realized that her heritage is
86

important to her. In these examples, I learned that I could let go and let my participants explore
and engage in disorientation (Wergin, 2020).
Although I let my participants ponder and reflect on their thoughts, I still spoke the
majority of the time in this cycle. In this cycle, I spoke 52% of the time during this cycle. The
participants spoke about 48% of the time. This made me realize that I defaulted to knowledge-in-
practice (Merriam & Tisdell, 1999). As the facilitator of this study, I wanted to increase space for
the participants to share and cogenerate ideas. My intention was to go against my training as a
PD provider, which focused on a lecture-style approach.
Nevertheless, it is essential to mention that my facilitation hindered the participants’
ability to grow in the process of critical reflection. For example, in one of the previous examples,
Amy shared that she made connections to students in her classroom due to her Catholic religion,
“I only share that I am Catholic if a student shares about going to church or doing their
confirmation. I never really thought about students who are of other religions or how I could
make connections.” As it was our first PL meeting, I did not feel comfortable asking her probing
questions, such as in what other ways Catholicism had contributed to dominant ideologies and
oppression. I let Amy just share and did not probe further because I wanted to conserve the
psychological safety of our environment. I decided on this because I did not want to have Amy
disengage because she felt threatened by my questions. However, I realized that by constraining
myself from asking more challenging questions, I was potentially stopping Amy from going past
reflection to critical reflection.
Sharing Stories About Our Internalized Oppressive Practices
In CRC 2, sharing stories about internalized oppressive practices also helped the
participants approach critical reflection. As stated previously, internalized oppressive practices
87

have produced a stratified society due to racist practices (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). The
participants utilized their experiences and stories to begin to interrogate instances of internalized
oppression. In this cycle, Amy began to grapple with the concept of an internalized oppressive
practice by relating high school sports and her job as a softball coach. She shared that high
school sports are not inclusive of all genders. Interestingly, she shared an example that was the
opposite of what I intended when I introduced the topic. Amy shared that those who
“considered” themselves “female” could play baseball and football, yet those students who
considered themselves “male” could not play softball. She also expressed that she saw this as an
oppressive practice for boys because they thought it was unfair to exclude boys from playing
softball though girls could play baseball.
Amy’s example does not reflect how women have been historically marginalized.
Instead, it is connected to how boys are not allowed to play softball. This is how Amy connected
to this concept. I share this non-example of internalized oppression because I think it is important
to make clear that the process of learning how to critically reflect requires time and effort. It is
not a streamlined process and requires facilitators to figure out how to handle these situations. At
that moment, I did not probe and ask Amy follow-up questions. In hindsight, I wish I had asked
how boys have been historically oppressed.
On the other hand, Debbie began to relate to the internalized oppressive practice of
forcing students to stand for the flag salute. Debbie expressed that she thought people should not
be forced to stand for the flag salute. Lastly, Priscilla shared an example of internalized
oppression that occurred while she was the ASB Sponsor. She shared that an ASB student had
unknowingly read a different version of the Pledge of Allegiance that did not have the words
“under God” in it. Having read the wrong version of the pledge caused her, as the ASB advisor
88

and the ASB student, who read the pledge, to receive heated backlash from another teacher on
campus. Priscilla made the connection to internalized oppression because many people do not
believe in God, yet this is still part of the public school ritual. In CRC 2, the participants began to
learn to think about internalized oppressive practices and how they related to themselves and
their teaching practice.
We began this cycle by first going over the concept of internalized oppressive practices. I
defined this concept as practices that value the dominant way of thinking as valuable and
important and look at other ways of knowing as not important or not worthy of being part of the
curriculum (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Paris & Alim, 2017). The participants then began to
brainstorm different examples of oppression.
A: An example of oppression is women not being paid the same as men for the same job.
D: How about … women in professional sports are not given comparable wages and
opportunities as men in professional sports.
P: And women are expected to do more than their husbands. However, it is changing a
bit. Women are seen as the person at home who has to work full time, take care of the
kids, and do the housework.
I then asked the participants to think about what things we do at our school that may be
seen as oppressive.
I want you to think of our oppressive practice at school. And as previously stated, an
oppressive practice is viewed as something that is taken as “the way things. are done” but
causes oppression or “unjust treatment or control.”
The participants thought about the question for this question for 2 minutes and wrote
some notes. Amy shared the following example of an internalized oppressive practice.
89

I think an oppressive practice is seen in sports. One of the things that always comes up to
me as a coach is that boys ask, why can’t I try out for softball? At first, I was like, yeah,
sure. But technically speaking, girls can try out for baseball or football teams. They say
that girls can play football because there is no female ‘counterpart sport’ to football. But
there is for baseball; you have softball, right? So, I always get the challenge from the
boys because they ask, ‘Then how come girls can play baseball?’ But some would call it
an unfair advantage. And what about safety?
Amy’s example depicted a practice that many may see as oppressive. As a softball coach,
Amy shared her personal experience with this practice that she found unjust. She stated,
“Technically speaking, girls can try out for the baseball or football team,” yet boys cannot try out
for softball. This example can be seen as internalized because it is something that is done at the
school and not questioned and oppressive because it is unjust treatment in that the boys challenge
her with, “How come girls can play baseball?” Amy made her point about how this practice can
be seen as oppressive. Moreover, Amy began to grapple with the idea of critical reflection
because she questioned and assessed entrenched assumptions (Brookfield, 2017) regarding what
“typical” boys’ sports girls can play and what “typical” girls’ sports boys are not allowed to play.
Though she does give an example related to her experience as a softball coach, it is
important to note that it does not depict critical reflection on an internalized oppressive practice
because of the historical and systemic history of boys receiving favorable treatment, funding,
resources, and opportunities in most U.S. secondary school athletic programs. This example did
not illustrate internalized oppression because it actually perpetuates patriarchal dominance. Amy
made the connection to what she understood as unfair treatment, not to a systemic internalized
90

oppressive practice. With more time and practice, the goal would be for Amy to differentiate and
understand the societal policies and practices that have caused systemic gender inequities.
Another example in CRC 2 that depicted how the participants connected their
experiences and stories to internalized oppressive practices was illustrated after I shared my
journal (Appendix D). I detailed how only one-third of my class stood for the flag salute. After
sharing my journal, I questioned whether I had had a disorienting dilemma or an experience or
worldview that I believed in the past, but that may not be true (Wergin, 2020). The following
dialogue occurred after I shared my journal entry with the participants. They each had a unique
perspective that stems from their classroom experience and worldviews. The following dialogue
occurred after I shared my journal with the participants:
D: I think that people think that the Pledge of Allegiance is a practice that should not be
forced upon people.
R: Is it possible that we think that students need to stand for the pledge just because that
is what we do and that there should be no protest?
P: That makes me think about an experience when I was running ASB. I had two people
that would do the pledge in the morning before the announcement over the
loudspeakers. Both of them were out one day, so I needed to get another person. Like,
nobody wants to be on the microphone. I had a student say, “I’ll do it.” They looked
up the pledge because they weren’t sure. I guess there’s an old or new version of the
Pledge of Allegiance, and he showed it to me after. So, maybe it’s just another
version? That doesn’t have the word, God? So, he read it. After that, I got an email
instantly from a teacher. This teacher was questioning me and asking what I was
trying to teach and what the student was trying to say. She asked if this was a protest.
91

I was like, what just happened? Right? And I asked the student to show me where he
read it from. He said he wasn’t sure of the exact words, so he pulled it up on his
phone, so he wouldn’t mess up. And I’m like, that’s not. That’s not the pledge we say
in the morning! So, he made an honest mistake. But it was, like, instant email to me.
She was appalled that you messed up the pledge, and what was that student trying to
say? Instead of getting upset, I wanted to tell that teacher, why don’t we explain to
your students why there are different versions of the pledge and why some people do
not stand for the pledge? And I’m like, oh, my gosh, I had to go and tell her, like, it
was an honest mistake. He doesn’t usually say the pledge. He was helping us out. He
pulled something up but did not say the correct one. I apologized to her about the
whole situation, but I thought, my gosh … people really take offense … but it was an
honest mistake.
In the example above, Priscilla shared an experience depicting an internalized oppressive
school practice. She shared a story about how one of her ASB students mistakenly said the
wrong Pledge of Allegiance and how this caused discontent with a teacher. Priscilla’s example
showed she connected the idea of internalized oppressive practices with the Pledge of
Allegiance. She mentioned that it would have been a great way for the teacher to have explained
to students that not everyone agrees with the pledge: “I wanted to tell that teacher, instead of
getting upset, why don’t we explain to our students why there are different versions of the pledge
and why some people do not stand for the pledge.” Though Priscilla did not say it explicitly, she
alluded to the fact that many might see saying the Pledge of Allegiance and the words “under
God” as oppressive. By leveraging a personal experience, Priscilla connected to an internalized
oppressive practice and school, and she began to think about oppression and hegemony when she
92

expressed that students should know why there are different versions of the Pledge of Allegiance
and why some people may perceive the pledge as oppressive. In this example, Priscilla
approaches critical reflection because she began to question why students have to stand for
something that may go against their personal beliefs.
In this sub-theme, the participants began to connect internalized oppressive practices to
their personal backgrounds and experiences. By leveraging their personal experiences and
backgrounds, the participants were better able to learn to question oppressive and hegemonic
practices. Nevertheless, the process of critical reflection is difficult and takes time to learn. Each
of the participants learned at a different stride in their journey toward critical reflection. The
participants learned about oppressive practices but still have not grappled with the understanding
that oppression is systemic. For example, Amy questioned and understood how a woman’s role
in society is still seen as less than a man’s: “An example of oppression is women not being paid
the same as men for the same job.” Yet Amy grappled with differentiating what is seen as
historical oppression in relation to gender roles. In contrast, Debbie questioned the dominant
practice of why students have to stand for the flag salute when she expressed, “I think people
think that the Pledge of Allegiance is a practice that should not be forced upon people.” Lastly,
Priscilla questioned the hegemonic practice of the flag salute, yet she does not get to critical
reflection because she does not question how teachers have been indoctrinated into thinking this
ritual is an absolute rule that has to be followed. These examples illustrated how the participants
learned differently and used their background knowledge and experiences to reflect on
internalized oppressive practices.
During Cycle 2, I supported the participants’ learning by sharing my own vulnerabilities
related to the topic and by giving them time to think and reflect on internalized oppression. In
93

doing so, I documented evidence that helped me answer my research question. To model
vulnerability, I shared my journal with the participants. I expressed the uncertainties I felt about
my teaching practice. Sharing these vulnerabilities seemed to have the effect of making me more
relatable to them. Using my personal experiences to support the learning of abstract concepts and
ideas might have helped the participants understand the ideas I was trying to convey. By using
my own thoughts and experiences, I most likely helped the participants see me as a teacher who
has struggled and has questioned her instruction and pedagogy. As the facilitator, I also made a
conscious effort to let the participants speak more to allow them time to think and reflect during
our meetings. I spoke 56 % of the time and they spoke 44% of the time, which indicates that they
had slightly more time to process their reflections in this cycle. After this experience, I felt more
comfortable setting up the stage and giving the participants time to construct their knowledge. I
also felt more comfortable sharing my experiences with participants.
However, it is essential to share that I still have much to learn in regard to my facilitation
skills. I still need time to practice how to better support participants when they use language that
perpetuates the status quo and Whiteness. For example, Amy connected to an example of
internalized oppression that dismissed the historicized oppression women have faced. She did
this when she stated that the boys at her school were not given fair treatment because they were
not given the opportunity to join softball. When Amy expressed that example, I did not question
her. In hindsight, at the time, I felt it was important to let her and the other participants explain
their thinking to build psychological safety. Nevertheless, I now realize that was a learning
opportunity that I let go because I was unsure of how much to push and question her beliefs. In
addition, due to the limited time of this study, I have realized that my job as facilitator was
94

difficult to navigate. I realized that I should have pressed her more to explain her thinking. Had I
done this, I could have offered a different perspective to challenge her thinking.
Sharing Stories About Our Inward Gazes
In CRC 3, the participants also used their experiences and stories to begin the process of
reflecting on their inward gaze. As stated previously, an inward gaze is referred to as
introspection and examination of how we have contributed to the hegemonic narrative in society
(Paris & Alim, 2017). In CRC 3, the participants and I examined our inward gaze by using
inquiry as stance (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2010) to analyze how we each support or do not
support Latinx students. The participants began to think of ways to promote student voices over
teachers’ voices, questions instead of directions, and processes over outcomes. Amy connected
to her inward gaze by reflecting on an experience during the pandemic. She shared that she could
have supported her students’ individual needs better. Amy shared that this experience connected
to how she did not use inquiry as a stance because she was not focused on her students’ needs
but on what she needed as the teacher.
In addition, Priscilla, after learning about inquiry as stance and used Rodgers’s (2002)
reflective cycle to think about why one of her students was giving her student-teacher a difficult
time. She used the Rodgers cycle to slow down, observe what was happening in her class, and
listen to her students’ voices before her own. In contrast, Debbie did not think of her actions in
isolation but, instead, began to think about her inward gaze in terms of how she and others are
connected and can work collectively to support Latinx students’ learning. In other words, Debbie
did not think about how she contributed the hegemonic narrative because instead she thought
about how her actions and others’ actions have collectively supported or interfered with student
learning. As a result, Amy and Priscilla grew in their journey toward learning how to reflect on
95

their inward gaze. Yet, Debbie focused on reflecting on her own actions and others’ actions and
how, collectively, they could support Latinx students’ learning.
To begin CRC 3, I reviewed the previous concepts we learned in CRC 1 and 2. We went
over the terms we learned, positionality, intersectionality, internalized oppressive practices,
reflection, and critical reflection. After we reviewed, I introduced the new concepts for this
cycle: inward gaze and inquiry as stance. I shared that examining our inward gaze had to do with
thinking about how we have been complicit in perpetuating a dominant way of thinking. I then
shared that we would use the idea of inquiry as a stance to reflect on our inward gaze. I defined
inward gaze as how we could support learners’ voices over teachers’ voices. I then showed them
a video by Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz, titled “Interrupter.” They watched the video and then reflected
on the video. As the participants reflected, Amy volunteered and shared an example of how she
did not use her inward gaze to support an English learner who was new to the U.S.
A: During the pandemic, I got a new student in one of my history classes. I did not
realize he was an English learner and spoke limited English. In his native country, he
did not have a computer, so when he got his Chromebook, he did not know how to
use his email. He used Google Translate and sent me a message through the chat
feature. He asked if I could help him figure out how to check his email. I remember
reading that message and feeling so horrible. I never thought to ask him if he was new
to the country. I just assumed that he had been transferred from another school or
class. I felt horrible because I did not reach out. This taught me that I need not assume
things about students. I had assumed he knew what was going on. I have always
thought about myself as a person who connected with students, but I realize that is not
always the case. Sometimes, I miss things. Like before, I did not even look at the
96

student’s English proficiency level. I made that assumption…I thought he knew what
was going on. But it is hard…you know, making sure everyone is understanding.
Especially back then.
In this example, Amy acknowledged that she missed that her student did not understand
what was going on in the class because he was new and did not know how to use email because
he never had a computer of his own. Amy shared that she assumed that “he had been transferred
from another school or class.” She stated that she assumed that he knew what was going on. She
treated him like everyone else without realizing that he needed help. In this example, Amy
acknowledged that she had made mistakes: “I have always thought about myself as a person who
connected with students, but I realize that is not always the case. Sometimes, I miss things.”
Amy used her experiences to share what she had assumed about new students. She did not think
of checking his English proficiency or getting to know him better, or if he understood English.
By reflecting inwardly on this experience, Amy identified a problematic assumption she held
about her new student and the teaching decisions she made that did not create productive
learning conditions for him or to best serve his learning needs. Amy began to move toward
reflecting on her inward gaze by acknowledging her shortcomings and interrogating her past
assumptions. Nevertheless, Debbie’s experience in CRC 3 differed from Amy’s. Debbie did not
think about her own independent actions but about how her actions and others’ actions may
hinder students:
I think it’s really key that sometimes we don’t think about our students and our families
who are just Spanish-speaking. Your syllabus used to be in English and in Spanish, you
know, we don’t really do that anymore. What does that make me think about? Just our
97

education system and a whole, like, what are we doing to really support our families?
And do we have time? I think that’s always the key thing.
Debbie expressed that it is important to think about families who need information in
Spanish. From this statement, it can be implied that Debbie referred to how she, the school, and
the district do not translate information from English to Spanish anymore. In fact, Debbie
utilized the pronoun “we” to express her thoughts: “We don’t think about our ….” It is
interesting to note that she used the pronoun “we” instead of “I” as she expressed her thoughts
about having information available in the parents’ native language. She did not think about
herself in isolation but related her thinking to the general teacher population, the school, and the
district. Not having used the pronoun “I” may indicate that she was not necessarily thinking
about herself or questioning her actions but may have viewed the issue as a problem that needs to
be addressed collectively. Debbie thought about her actions in relation to others. Therefore, it
seemed that, for Debbie, the collective gaze is what has hindered the Latinx community at her
school.
Another example in CRC 3 that depicts how sharing experiences and stories supported a
participant thinking about her inward gaze occurred when I shared my journal entry. I asked
participants to consider if I had demonstrated an inward gaze and engaged in critical reflection.
At the end of this cycle, the participants wrote a reflection about how they utilized their inward
gaze to counter the status quo. Initially, I introduced Rodgers’ (2002) Reflective Cycle as a
framework for them to apply to my journal example and then as a tool to engage in written
reflection about a situation in their classrooms. To begin, I reviewed the four stages of Rodgers’
cycle with the participants. The first stage was to observe and to be present in a given situation
represented in learning to see. The second stage was to describe what was happening in a
98

particular event not as an interpretation but as a story, represented by learning to describe and
differentiate. In this third stage, I explained that an individual views the experience through
multiple avenues, perspectives, and explanations, represented as learning to see from multiple
perspectives and form multiple explanations. The final stage is represented as learning to take
intelligent action, which occurs when an experience has been described and analyzed in multiple
ways. I asked the participants to think about their practice and answer the following question:
How are you using your inward gaze to counter the status quo?
The participants used the following 2 weeks to think about the question and write their
reflections. I asked the participants to use the handout on Rodgers (2002) cycle as an analytical
tool to guide their reflection on their inward gaze or to think about how they may be complicit in
perpetuating dominant ideology. Priscilla’s reflection depicted a situation in one of her physical
education (PE) classes, illustrated in Appendix E. She stated that she had a student-teacher who
was having a difficult time dealing with a male student. Using the four stages of Rodgers’
reflective cycle, Priscilla wrote the following for the first stage, learning to see:
A student I observed while having a student-teacher acted out with her. He tended not to
listen and give her problems. In contrast, he did what was asked of him from the male
supervising teacher.
Priscilla used this experience to examine how she had seen the situation play out. She
stated that the student tended not to listen and give her (female student-teacher) problems. In
contrast, he did what was asked of him by the male supervising teacher.” In this part of the cycle,
Priscilla observes a male student who is not listening to a female teacher but listens to a male
teacher. Priscilla connected to what Rodgers (2002) cited: “The first phase of the reflective cycle
focuses on the ability to be present. The more a teacher is present, the more she can perceive” (p.
99

234). In this phase, Priscilla perceived what was happening by being present and mindful of what
was occurring at that moment. In the second stage of Rodgers’ reflective cycle, learning to
describe and differentiate, Priscilla expressed:
Initially, I thought he was just showing off in class, but as I observed more and listened to
what he said, it sounded like he had an issue with women or female teachers. He asked
the female student-teacher why she smiled so much.
In this part of the cycle, Priscilla began to interpret instead of describing the experiences:
“He was just showing off in class. … It sounded like he had an issue with women or female
teachers.” As Rodgers (2002) stated, “The description phase is perhaps the most difficult stage of
the reflective cycle for teachers because it asks them to withhold interpretation of events and
postpone their urge to fix things” (p. 238). Priscilla was in the process of learning how to
describe her experience without trying to resolve the situation at hand. Though Priscilla did not
fully describe the situation, she was learning the process of critical reflection, and it is important
to note that critical reflection has to be explicitly taught and practiced (Brookfield, 2017). In this
part of the cycle, Priscilla had the opportunity to think about how they could be more critical
about interpreting a problem by reflecting on their inward gaze and using multiple perspectives
and explanations to understand a problem. According to Rodgers (2002), this part of the
reflective cycle is the most difficult to teach and will require multiple opportunities for practice.
For the third stage, learning to see from multiple perspectives and form multiple explanations,
she stated,
I had to correct him a few times, and, like, the student-teacher tried this with a friendly
face. Nothing changed. I ended up speaking to his mom via Zoom parent conference, and
his mom said his dad was the disciplinarian but that he [dad] isn’t in the picture. She was
100

having a tough time with him with the separation. I didn’t think about what things outside
of school this young man was facing.
In the third stage, Priscilla analyzed the situation and tried to unveil the other factors
(Rodgers, 2002) that could be causing the students to behave in this way. Though she did not
reflect on her inward gaze in this section, she shared other explanations. Priscilla first spoke to
the student, and when that did not work, she reached out to his mom, “I had to correct him a few
times, and like the student-teacher tried this with a friendly face. Nothing changed.” After
speaking to his mom, she found out that the parents were going through a separation and that the
student did not have a male figure to guide him: “Mom said his dad was the disciplinarian but
that he isn’t in the picture. She was having a tough time with him with the separation.” Using the
knowledge she gathered from the three previous stages, in the fourth stage, Priscilla learned to
see from multiple perspectives and form multiple explanations:
I spoke to him kindly but sternly and didn’t give him much leeway. He needed some
guidance and support. We spoke, and I found out that he had an interest in football. I
spoke to the football coach and the student after school. He showed effort and dedication,
and he was moved out of PE and into Period 6, athletics, so that he could practice with
the team. I also thought this was a good idea because he would have male role models as
coaches that would help check his behavior.
In the fourth stage, Priscilla takes intelligent action because she used the three previous
stages to guide her response (Rodgers, 2002). After speaking to his mother, Priscilla’s
perspective changed. She engaged the student again, but this time she better understood what
was happening at home: “I spoke to him kindly, but sternly, and didn’t give him much leeway.
He needed some guidance and support. We spoke, and I found out that he had an interest in
101

football.” Priscilla learned about his interest in football, went out of her way to talk to the coach,
got him to start practice, and eventually joined the class. She then said, “He showed effort and
dedication, and he was moved out of PE and into Period 6, athletics, so that he could practice
with the team.” She did the latter because after speaking to the student’s mom, she realized that
he would benefit from structure and a male role model: “I also thought this was a good idea
because he would have male role models as coaches that would help check his behavior.”
Through this experience, Priscilla slowed down, observed what was happening, analyzed the
situation, and took intelligent action.
After Priscilla completed Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle, she reflected on an additional
question I posed, “How are power and/or hegemony involved in the example you gave?” I
inserted this question at the end of the handout because this gave Priscilla and the other
participants the opportunity to call out what they perceived as power and/or hegemony. I thought
they would be able to think about their inward gaze and detail how they have been complicit in
perpetuating the status quo. Priscilla stated,
I tried to initially observe and not throw myself and try to power over him, as I would
have previously. I may have previously told him that he would never play with that
attitude. This time I pulled him aside, spoke to him, and told him the benefits as well as
the consequences of his actions but tried to support his hope to play ball.
Priscilla commented that she began by observing and intentionally did not throw her
power around as she would have previously. Using this experience, she thought of what other
factors could be contributing to this student’s behavior problems. Thinking about how her use of
power could be interfering with her student’s learning was evidence that Priscilla reflected on her
inward gaze. By taking a step back and questioning her role in what was going on with the
102

student, Priscilla changed the way she dealt with the student: “This time, I pulled him aside,
spoke to him and told him the benefits as well as the consequences of his actions but tried to
support his hope to play ball.” By reflecting on this experience, Priscilla questioned her use of
power, changed her behavior, and seemed to help her student overcome personal challenges.
Using Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle as an analytical tool was helpful in that it helped
Priscilla slow down when analyzing a situation with her students. In Stage 3, when she thought
about multiple explanations and perspectives, she did not think about her inward gaze. She
thought about the student’s and his mother’s perspectives but not hers. It was not until I asked
Priscilla to think about power and hegemony that she began to think about her past actions and
how she handled difficult situations in her classroom. It is important to note that Priscilla began
the process of reflecting on her inward gaze and learning how to critically reflect by using this
analytical tool. She showed growth in her reflection skill because she was thinking about her
own power in relation to her agency in the classroom. Yet she did not get to critical reflection
because she did not have the opportunity to fully question or describe her teaching practices that
reproduced hegemonic power relations with her students due to the time limitations of this study.
In the three examples illustrated in CRC 3, the participants began to move closer to
learning how to use their inward gaze to reflect critically on their practice. They began by
learning the term inquiry as stance, which focused on examining classroom experiences by
centering students’ voices over teachers’ voices. For example, Amy began to connect the notion
of inquiry as stance to explore a past teaching experience. Amy shared she had not used inquiry
as a stance during distance learning in 2020. She stated that she received a new student, an
English learner who was having difficulty communicating and understanding how to use the
computer features. Yet Amy did not know the student’s difficulty because she never asked if he
103

needed help. It was not until the student reached out and asked for help that Amy realized that
she had assumed that the student understood what was going on in her class, “This taught me that
I need not assume things about my students. I had assumed he knew what was going on.”
Debbie, on the other hand, implied that she thought of her inward gaze in relation to other
teachers, the school, and the district. Debbie reflected on how the parents of Latinx students need
to receive better communication in English and Spanish. She used the pronoun “we” when she
expressed her concern about not having equitable communication for Latinx parents. Debbie
thought of this issue as a collective problem that needs to be solved collaboratively. However,
Debbie did not question her role in reproducing inequitable communication practices, nor did she
propose changes to her own actions in relation to other teachers, the school, or the district
leaders. With additional time and the use of critical reflection questions, I might have better
promoted Debbie’s inward gaze and potentially supported her practice of critical reflection.
Priscilla shared how she connected inquiry as stance in her reflection. She used Rodgers’
reflective cycle to slow down and figure out a problem she had with one of her students. She
went through the four stages and used inquiry to explain why the student acted out. Using the
four stages of Rodgers’ cycle, she concluded that his misbehavior had to do with problems at
home. By speaking to his mother, Priscilla came up with a way to support the student: “He
needed guidance and support. We spoke, and I found out he had an interest in football.”
Nevertheless, it was not until she answered the question that asked how power and hegemony
were involved that she detailed she had used her inward gaze: “I tried to initially observe and not
throw myself and try to power over him, as I would have previously.” Priscilla stopped, reflected
how, and used inquiry as stance and Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle to examine her practice. By
slowing down and reflecting, she figured out other ways to support the student.
104

In this sub-theme, I supported the participants’ growth in learning how to critically reflect
by giving them the opportunity to share their own experiences and by teaching them how to use
Rodgers’ (2002) Reflective cycle. In addition, I grew closer to answering my research question
in that the participants reflected on their past assumptions regarding identity, positionality,
internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes. Though the participants did reflect on their
own experiences, they did not have the time to reflect on the bigger structural factors in society
that propagate inequitable learning opportunities for Latinx students.
In addition, this experience helped me grow as a facilitator by allowing participants to
share their personal experiences. The participants shared their experiences in an environment that
was more receptive to dialogue. In this last cycle, the participants spoke 59% of the time, and I
spoke 41% of the time. I was intentional about frontloading terms but made space for them to
have collaborative conversations. For instance, I set up the discussion by frontloading the terms
inward gaze and inquiry as stance and illustrating multiple examples of the terms, but I also
asked questions to have them think. I let the participants ponder the questions. Letting the
participants ponder this question is something that I thought was important because I wanted
them to construct their knowledge. In my previous experience as a leader of adult learning, I was
more like a presenter of information and not a facilitator. My facilitation aligned with
knowledge-in-practice because I was seen as the person who was an expert that disseminated
information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As a result, I grew in my facilitator by moving away
from the persona of being known as the expert in the room.
Moreover, I introduced Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle as an analytical tool for the
participants and me to examine our practice. In my past practice, I probably would have offered
my own example first before I gave the participants a chance to think. As I reflect on my role as
105

a facilitator in this theme, I learned that it is best to focus on less but go deeper into the
conversations. I also realized that it was helpful to probe and ask the participants follow-up
questions that might help clarify their thinking. Nonetheless, I realize that I could have still
probed the participants more to help them reflect and go deeper into questioning their
assumptions. For example, I could have asked Debbie to think about her own actions when she
thought she kept referring to the collective gaze by using the pronoun “we.” I realized that I did
not want to push her because I wanted to maintain psychological safety in our PL environment.
In addition, as a socializing learner, I did not want to press her to reflect on her own gaze
because I assumed that she was not ready. As previously stated above, I believe that additional
time and the use of critical reflection questions might have offered her additional opportunities to
promote each participant’s inward gaze and practice of critical reflection.
Conclusions of Theme 1
To conclude, this first theme that emerged from my findings, leveraging our stories to
support the learning of critical reflection, represents how the participants leveraged their
experiences and stories to begin to interrogate their identity and positionality, internalized
oppressive practices, and inward gazes. In sub-theme one, the participants learned reflection
through telling their own stories and listening to others’ stories about their identity and
positionality. Amy began to question her past practice of assuming that Latinx students are
Catholic, Debbie began to critically reflect on why she answered “White” on legal documents,
and Priscilla questioned her worldviews and assumptions about her Mexican identity.
In Sub-theme 2, the participants learned from sharing stories about internalized
oppressive practices. Amy questioned the oppressive role women have in society, Debbie
questioned the Pledge of Allegiance and why people are ridiculed when they choose not to stand
106

and recite it, and Priscilla also questioned the flag salute and why many teachers seem to be
intolerant of going against the unwritten expectation that all students stand for the flag salute and
recite the Pledge.
And lastly, in the third sub-theme, the participants learned from sharing stories related to
their inward gazes. Amy progressed in learning reflection by sharing a personal experience
where she did not support an English learner because she assumed he understood her class
expectations. On the other hand, Debbie reflected on the collective inward gaze. She questioned
the practice of translating information from English to Spanish for families. Debbie thought
about how she, the school, and her district was supporting the Latinx community by using the
pronoun “we.” And Priscilla progressed in learning how to reflect by using her inward gaze. She
used Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle to slow down to try to understand why a student was
having difficulty in her class and thought about how she was complicit in not supporting her
student.
Though the participants grew in learning how to reflect on their assumptions, they did not
reach critical reflection in their reflective practices during our meetings. Moving toward and
achieving critical reflection was a lofty goal. Learning how to critically reflect takes time and
requires risks. Due to the limited time and ability to navigate and take risks as a facilitator, the
participants did not reach the study’s intended learning outcome. As depicted in the conceptual
framework, the intended learning outcome of my action plan was for participants to learn and
practice critical reflection. In the conceptual framework, I conceptualized that the participants
and I would learn via a PL context where we would meet for three cycles. Though we did learn
about identity, positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes, we have not yet
interrogated hegemonic factors that are inherent in society, how we were socialized with
107

hegemonic ideas and practices, and how we could use critical reflection to unearth the ways we
reproduce hegemony in our teaching interactions with Latinx students.
Nevertheless, I progressed toward answering the research question because the
participants have begun to take steps to reach critical reflection. The participants began to reflect
by interrogating their assumptions and biases in their stories. They began to interrogate
themselves. In this theme, I supported the participants by scaffolding learning the concepts in
relation to the CDT (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). As socializing knowers, I was
able to support them by introducing aesthetic experiences that caused disorienting dilemmas with
which they grappled during our meetings. Yet, due to limited time, the participants did not move
toward thinking about hegemonic structures that factored into how they participated in
maintaining the status quo in their classrooms with Latinx students. In addition, they did not
interrogate larger societal factors informing their thinking and teaching due to my facilitation
choices and developing skills. Although I supported them with opportunities to contend with
their identity, positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes, I focused on
opportunities centered on reflecting on their actions and assumptions without probing further.
Interestingly, though I strove to be a facilitator focused on the participants constructing
their own learning, I did not know when or if I should or could push their learning to support
questioning societal factors that impede equitable learning opportunities for Latinx students. I
must plan to contend with this area of growth in my facilitation skills to support educators in
learning and engaging in the process of critical reflection.
Theme 2: Connecting to Self as a Way to Understand and Support Latinx Students
In this second theme, the participants connected to themselves and their past experiences
and began to move toward using critical consciousness by interrogating oppressive and
108

marginalization practices that have hindered Latinx student learning. The participants began the
process of using dialectical thinking by learning to see experiences and events through multiple
perspectives. Moreover, I supported participants’ growth by sharing multiple examples of critical
consciousness and dialectical thinking by modeling (Bandura & Kupers, 1964) and using think-
aloud activities (Ericsson & Simon, 1998). As I shared my values and opinions through examples
of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking, my intent was to be relatable to them as one of
their peers. In this theme, the participants connected with their own way of knowing through
critical and dialectical thinking to investigate assumptions that may have prevented them from
supporting Latinx student learning.
Learning to Use Critical Consciousness and Dialectical Thinking by Interrogating
Assumptions
The theme of learning to move toward the use of critical consciousness by interrogating
assumptions was evident in multiple examples of this study. The participants began the road
toward using critical consciousness by interrogating their assumptions in relation to their
worldviews and practices. To help support the use of critical consciousness, I shared various
examples that illustrated how certain dominant identities and positions in society maintain the
status quo and make it difficult for Latinx students to feel connected to learning.
In CRC 1, the participants contended with their identity and positionality and began to
question hegemonic ideas and assumptions. Debbie questioned teachers’ power to add students’
cultures and backgrounds into the curriculum. Also, Debbie questioned how much power
teachers have to add information to the curriculum. Next, Priscilla reflected on why the standards
focus on certain dominant themes while other important aspects of history are not mentioned.
Also, Priscilla began to question how teachers could include more minority stories in the
109

classroom. Amy reflected on how she could add students’ cultures and backgrounds to the
curriculum. Amy began to recognize that though students’ cultures and backgrounds were not at
the forefront of the curriculum, she wanted to integrate more of students’ cultures and
backgrounds in her classroom.
To begin CRC 1, the participants explored ideas related to identity and positionality in
the PL meeting after school. For this cycle, we meet for 2 hours as a group of four. I enacted my
plan by beginning with community agreements to explore identity, positionality, and
intersectionality. I gave two examples of community agreements and asked the participants if
they agreed with them, and I asked if they wanted to add more. The participants agreed to keep
them and added two more they came up with collaboratively. The instructional move of giving
the participants examples of learning agreements was to guide them into thinking of them as a
tool to encourage learners to accept more responsibility for their own learning (Arao & Clemens,
2013).
Next, I defined identity as the qualities, beliefs, etc., that distinguish a person or thing.
The participants explored identity using a handout and then shared their own personal identities
and social identities with one another. After exploring their identity, the participants learned
about intersectionality, or overlapping social identities, and related systems of oppression,
domination, and privilege (Walby et al., 2012). I asked the participants to think about the
following questions:
• Where do you see intersections in your own identities? (Do you have overlapping
identities?)
• Do these identities give you power in society? Why or why not?
110

Amy shared that some of the intersections of her identities were that she was a female, a
White woman, a coach, and a teacher. She also gave the following example of how she
understood intersectionality:
I was asked to be an assistant athletic director for the school. I felt that in order for me to
ever consider that, I need to feel comfortable and confident in that role. Because I know
I’ll be challenged as a female by the umpires. Yeah, with the umpires. I feel like I am
always female. I mean, I have a firm handshake, but it would be a challenge in that role.
By thinking of how her identities intersect, Amy began to reflect on why she did not
accept that role. This example depicts how Amy was taking a step toward the use of critical
consciousness because she thought about why she needed to prove herself as a female when she
states, “Because I know I’ll be challenged as a female with the umpires.” Thinking about her
identity, positionality, and intersectionality made Amy question why she did not want to face
unfair treatment because she would be seen as a female athletic director. This entrenched
thinking endorsed hegemonic narratives and status quo thinking. To challenge Amy’s thinking, I
asked her why she thought she had to prove herself to be respected as a female assistant athletic
director.
R: Why do you think you would have to prove yourself to the umpires?
A: Well, I know because, as a female coach, I already deal with that. When I have
questioned a call, there have been times when I feel that some of the umpires look at
me as if I do not know what I am talking about. So, I have dealt with that already, and
if I could have accepted being assistant [athletic director], I think it would be worse.
R: Why do you think females or female coaches are treated differently?
111

A: Because people just automatically think that a coach or [athletic director] has to be
male, I think it’s a total gender thing. … It really bugs me.
At this point, Amy alluded to the dominant ways in society that assign genders specific
roles. Yet she does not question or protest this inequity in society, so she depicted reflection, not
critical reflection. As a result, I decided that I needed to share my personal experiences to
support my participants’ understanding of identity, intersectionality, and positionality.
To better explain how to use critical consciousness when discussing the concepts of
identity, positionality, and intersectionality, I modeled by making connections to my own lived
experiences as a Latina student in school who did not see herself in the curriculum. I modeled
critical consciousness by critiquing my experience with a hegemonic curriculum. In the
following example, the participants and I had previously shared our social identities. I began to
dialogue about the interconnectedness of identity and culture.
I’m a first-generation Latina student; my parents were born in Mexico, and I was born in
the United States. As a young student, I felt in the middle of two cultures, two different
places; I always felt like I didn’t know where I belonged, here or there. So, … the thing is
… when your identity is not even talked about in the classroom. It’s like it is not
important, right? It doesn’t have any power. In school, my experience was one where
Latinx students’ culture … was never referenced or talked about. I didn’t learn anything
about Latin America. And in high school, … it was all about England, the United States,
the French Revolution, and not even about other countries like Africa or anything. It was
not until I got to college. When I took classes where I learned [about other countries].
Yeah, so then, when you think about it, a lot of them [Latinx students] are possibly not as
interested in learning because the connection hasn’t been made. Just thinking about that,
112

in terms of how it could possibly devalue the way you feel about yourself. It’s not
important if no one teaches it and no one talks about it. It has no value. So, hence, I am
not important.
In this example, I questioned and critiqued the curriculum I learned in school to engage
my participants in reflective discourse by challenging their assumptions and encouraging group
members to consider various perspectives. Brookfield (2017) cited that helping individuals
experience a shift in their frame of reference or worldview supported critical reflection. By
modeling critical consciousness and dialectical thinking, I intended to support the participants in
critiquing their own way of learning the curriculum in school.
Amy commented on what I shared; she said it reminded her of what she had shared at a
department meeting earlier in the year. During the department meeting, Amy explained that she
felt it was important for students to feel connected to the history her department was teaching.
Amy expressed how a significant amount of time was spent learning about topics that, many
times, were not relatable for most students, such as the French Revolution.
I shared with my colleagues that it is important to focus on material that is of interest to
Latinx students, like Mexican Independence and Central American and South America’s
Independence.
Amy recounted what she shared at a department meeting because she had been mulling
over how she was making more connections in her own lessons and curriculum. At this point, an
interesting exchange ensued between the participants and me.
D: Do we really have the power to make that change (curriculum)? And again, I am
more in physical education as a PE teacher and AVID elective teacher. So, in the
academic content area, how much power do you guys really have?
113

P: I thought that the state mandated that we had to teach. I teach PE, but I am wondering
if other contents have the power to teach whatever they feel is best for students.
Students should be able to relate to learning; you can make it would like to know if
you connect to the students.
A: If students see themselves in the curriculum, they are more likely to pay attention and
be engaged. Everyone spends more time on certain areas of history that they feel
they’re well versed in or they feel they connect to, right? So, with that being said, to
answer your question, yes, I believe there’s flexibility to my knowledge.
R: Amy, did you pursue that? … What you mentioned about making it more the content
relatable? Was there a consensus to add more relatable topics for Latinx students in
your department? Or does each teacher still choose what they want to focus on?
A: No, there has not been a consensus. … Well, we did not even vote. I just brought it
up. Aside from what the standards require, everyone teaches what they feel
comfortable with … I think.
In this interaction, Debbie questioned who had power or how power was granted or
approved in teaching the curriculum. This example illustrated how difficult it may be to get
teachers to move away from the deep-rooted Eurocentric ways (Tuck & Gaztamide-Fernández,
2013). Debbie wondered and questioned whether she could speak about culture in the classroom
and was hesitant to teach something that differed from the state standards. Similarly, Priscilla
questioned whether teachers could diverge from the curriculum standards: “I am wondering if
other contents have the power to teach whatever they feel is best for students?” The previous
statement exemplifies how, unbeknownst to Priscilla, essentialist ways have been ingrained in
teachers’ perceptions (Oakes et al., 2018). Nevertheless, Priscilla began to move toward using
114

critical consciousness when she said, “Students should be able to relate to learning; you can
make it more relatable if you connect to the students.” This example depicted how Priscilla
moved away from her normative way of thinking and began to question her past assumptions
when she stated that teachers need to “make(s) it more relatable to connect to students.” In this
example, though she reflected and questioned her assumptions about what to teach in the
curriculum, she did not get to critical reflection because she did not question the greater
educational barriers that stifle the use of Latinx students’ backgrounds in learning and she did
not question her own role in reproducing those barriers in her curriculum or teaching decisions.
Likewise, Amy made a connection with students’ backgrounds when she stated, “If
students see themselves in the curriculum. They are more likely to pay attention and be
engaged.” Amy’s thinking connects to culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP; Paris & Alim, 2017)
because she linked students’ feelings of engagement to learning. Here, Amy, like Priscilla,
reflected and realized that she needed to make connections to student learning. Amy is on the
path toward critical reflection because she began to think about how to connect Latinx students
to instruction. It is possible that with more time to ponder why Latinx students’ culture and
background are not part of the mainstream curriculum, the participants could have begun to go
deeper into the societal policies and practices that are barriers to equitable learning practices.
Another example in CRC 1 depicting how the participants learned to use critical
consciousness by interrogating their assumptions about their worldviews and practices was seen
as we continued the conversation regarding integrating students’ culture and background into the
curriculum. In this example, Debbie began to move toward using critical consciousness when she
questioned how to incorporate events and information not part of the dominant curriculum into
the classroom environment. She questioned how to bring relatable topics to the classroom. On
115

the other hand, Amy acknowledged that she needs to begin to bring in topics that interest Latinx
students. Amy began to explore critical consciousness because though she recognized that her
department had not reached a consensus on teaching relatable topics to Latinx students, she
realized that students need to connect to the curriculum. And Priscilla began to progress in
learning how to use critical consciousness when she related Native Americans’ suffering due to
the usurpation of their lands and colonialism.
At the end of CRC 1, the participants received an image of a Native American to evoke a
disorienting dilemma or an experience that challenges a particular worldview (Wergin, 2020).
The image depicted a Native American in his regalia or typical clothing. To the right of that
image was a picture of the same Native American dressed in a European-like suit with his hair
cut short. The image elicited many different responses from the participants. Collaboratively, the
participants discussed their thoughts regarding what the image had evoked. I asked the
participants to think about the following questions as they examined the image.
• What does this image remind you of?
• What thoughts come to mind as you examine this image?
After looking at the image, the participants wrote down notes. Debbie shared that she did
not know how to incorporate topics that were not in the standards into the classroom:
I know it is important to share more about culture. How do we bring this out to the
forefront if it is not in the standard? How do we bring more relatable topics to our
classrooms?
At this point, I shared the following information to connect with Debbie and the other
participants as socializing knowers who need to value others’ opinions and values:
116

For me, it was difficult to feel connected to the school. I’m first-generation; my parents
were both in Mexico. I always felt like I was between two cultures. I did not know where
I belonged, here or there. So, another thing, like the picture on the right. If your identity is
not even touched on or talked about in the classroom, … it is not important, right? It
doesn’t have any power. So, if you do not see a connection, it is hard for students. I also
want to mention that it has been documented, and studies have shown that students feel
connected to learning when they see themselves in the curriculum. If students make a
connection in the curriculum with their culture, they’re going to be more invested.
Sharing the previous example of how Latinx students need to feel connected to learning
was a way to scaffold for Debbie and the other participants. As socializing knowers, the
participants value expert opinions (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Consequently, I
found it necessary to share with Debbie and the other participants that researchers have made the
case that valuing students’ cultures can lead to more invested students (Kumar et al., 2018). At
this point, the participants continued to look at the image and wrote notes. Amy expressed that
the image connected to a unit on imperialism that she had just finished in her U.S. history class:
In a past unit on imperialism, I asked (the class) a central question, is imperialism a good
thing? Or a bad thing? We talked about the conquest of the United States territory.
Because, you know, is it good? Or is it bad? Like, there are definitely two sides to it. And
so, we talked about Columbus, right? Like, why is this bad? And why? Why was it?
Sometimes good? Do you know what I mean? Because a lot of the times these, these
bigger, stronger companies, control companies, countries come over, and they provide
structure, education, roads, and a new and different way of living, right? But then
sometimes it’s very horrible, right? Because often, they strip them from their culture or
117

their identity, and they want them to assimilate and transition into their way of living
instead of introducing these things and allowing them to live with their own culture.
In this example, Amy recounted what she had shared with her students. Amy asked her
students if colonialism was good or bad. Amy gave an example of critical consciousness when
she stated, “But then sometimes [imperialism] is very horrible, right? Because often they strip
them [people] from their culture and identity.” Amy’s remarks depicted her thinking when she
gave examples of how imperialism is bad by “stripping people of their culture,” yet how it might
be good: “imperialism may structure and educate a country.”
After Amy shared, Priscilla thought of other instances of how dominant ideology negated
the telling of minorities’ stories. Priscilla shared how a friend had recently shared an article about
Native Americans in Canada. The article stated that Native Americans in Canada suffered due to
the English conquest. In addition, she shared that the article expressed that Native American
bodies had been found in a mass grave in a remote part of Canada.
There is a lot of information coming out. This is a big deal … making sure, and we are
questioning whether it was a cover-up. It’s not just in the [United States], you know.
Priscilla made the connection of how Native Americans from Canada also suffered due to
colonization. She stated that she questioned whether “it was a cover-up” because Native
Americans’’ bodies had been hidden to cover up the unjust usurpation of Indigenous lands. In
this example, Priscilla made a connection with what Amy said about imperialism in the United
States to what Canada did to gain Native Americans’’ land. Priscilla began to use critical
consciousness when she expressed that Native Americans had been on their land in the United
States and Canada and that they had been killed for their land. I asked Priscilla to expand on her
latter comment:
118

R: Priscilla, can you elaborate on your previous comment? What do you mean by cover-
up?
P: People think that the colonists and pioneers made our country what it is today, but at
what cost? How many lives had to be lost? I don’t know; seeing it this way is just
upsetting.
Priscilla further expressed that the inequities Native Americans experienced were due to
colonialism: “At what cost? How many lives had to be lost?” After Priscilla listened to Amy, she
made the connection that imperialism and colonialism were detrimental to Indigenous people.
When Priscilla stated, “How many lives had to be lost? I don’t know; seeing it this way is just
upsetting,” we can infer that Priscilla began to question stock stories (Hess, 2019) or tales that
have been told by the majoritarian group (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) to legitimize the
perspective of the White dominant group. Priscilla expanded her comments when she said that
the stories are one-sided: “People think that the colonists and pioneers made our country what it
is today, but at what cost.” Priscilla used critical consciousness in this example because she
questioned the dominant narrative (Brookfield, 2019). In addition, when Priscilla asked about the
cost, she brought to light the idea of concealed stories (Hess, 2019) or stories that are hidden
from public view. Priscilla began to think about and question assimilation practices that have
hindered Indigenous people in the United States and Canada. Though Priscilla began to question
assimilation practices that hindered Native Americans, she did not connect it to student learning.
As the facilitator, I did not see this opportunity to make the connection to curriculum inequities
that exclude Indigenous and Latinx stories.
During CRC 1, the participants progressed toward critical consciousness to interrogate
their assumptions in relation to their worldviews and practices. Further, the data in this theme
119

helped me answer my research question because the participants began to learn how to reflect
and interrogate their assumptions to better support Latinx students. First, Amy progressed in her
ability to use critical consciousness to think about why it is important for students to see
themselves in the curriculum. Amy acknowledged that only teaching the standards will not
support students connecting to learning. In addition, Amy recognized that connecting students’
culture and background in the classroom would help them be more engaged in learning: “If
students see themselves in the curriculum, … they are more likely to pay attention and be
engaged.”
Similarly, Debbie progressed in her moving toward critical consciousness as well. At
first, she questioned how to incorporate students’ culture into the curriculum, “Do we really have
the power to make that change (curriculum).” Nevertheless, as we continued in the cycle, Debbie
came to the realization that she had never thought about connecting students’ culture into the
curriculum during the one-on-one meeting, “I know that I never talked about identity or did not
think about really trying to incorporate culture into learning.” She stated that she wanted to learn
more about how to integrate students’ cultures and backgrounds into learning. By interrogating
her past beliefs, Debbie reflected and realized that she wanted to incorporate Latinx students’
culture into learning. She took the first steps toward critical reflection because she realized the
inequity Latinx students face by not leveraging their culture and background in learning.
Although, she does not question the larger societal inequity inherent in student learning.
In addition, Priscilla progressed on her road toward using critical consciousness. She
questioned how teachers could connect to students’ backgrounds, “I thought that the state
mandated that we had to teach. I teach PE, but I am wondering if other contents have the power
to teach whatever they feel is best for students?” In addition, she began to question how
120

Indigenous stories have not been told, “People think that the colonists and pioneers made our
country what it is today, but at what cost?” Priscilla began to question the hegemonic curriculum,
demonstrating she was on the path toward using critical consciousness to interrogate dominant
ideas and practices.
The instructional move of using modeling to support critical consciousness was helpful to
the participants because this helped them see me as someone they could relate to as an equal and
feel comfortable sharing in our PL space (Arao & Clemens, 2013). My use of relatability
connected to supporting socializing knowers with navigating sensitive topics and practicing
sharing thoughts and feelings (Arao & Clemens, 2013). This relatability was modeled in that I, a
teacher like them, questioned hegemonic institutions and shared multiple ways of viewing an
issue or problem.
As I reflected on this portion of PL, I realized that modeling my past experiences helped
me show vulnerability. By modeling critical consciousness, I could relate to the participants as
one of their equals who has unique experiences due to my upbringing: “I always felt like I was
between two cultures. I did not know where I belonged, here or there.” Sharing my thoughts and
experiences helped me show vulnerability and supported the participants with feeling
comfortable sharing their assumptions and worldviews. In addition, I thought it was important to
share with them that I am still learning to reflect critically. By showing vulnerability, I made
connections with my participants. I shared my experience because it is helpful to reflect on and
discuss the assumptions I hold about the world (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). I
did this to disrupt the idea that only a Eurocentric curriculum has value and for the participants to
think about what they can do to disrupt the status quo.
121

As I reflect on my research question, I realize that modeling critical consciousness with
my personal experiences supported the participants’ steps toward learning how to critically
reflect. Yet, I had several missed opportunities where I could have taken risks and probed my
participants to go deeper and possibly reach critical consciousness. For example, when Priscilla
shared the example of how Native Americans had also suffered in Canada due to imperialism
and colonialism, I did not take that opportunity to ask her to think about how that connects back
to our curriculum and not valuing students of color’s culture. This is an area of growth for me as
a facilitator. I need to figure out how to be more keenly aware of learning opportunities and
utilize instructional moves that can support learners’ growth toward thinking critically.
Moreover, I did progress in my ability as a facilitator because I used reflexivity to think
about the influence I have on my participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Due to my dualistic
role as a participant and observer (researcher), it was difficult to differentiate whether it was the
power and position I held as a researcher that was helping the participants understand how to use
critical consciousness or if they were truly constructing knowledge together.
Learning to Use Critical Consciousness and Dialectical Thinking by Interrogating Dominant
Practices

During CRC 2, each participant grew in taking steps toward the use of critical
consciousness and dialectical thinking to interrogate practices entrenched in the educational
system that hinder Latinx student learning. First, Debbie grew in her ability to think about how
students perceive educational practices and routines, such as the flag salute. Debbie reflected by
thinking about different reasons why students may not feel comfortable standing for the flag
salute. In addition, Priscilla began to interrogate how teachers handle contentious situations such
as the flag salute. She began to think about the possible ways that these conversations could be
122

addressed. In addition, Amy began to take steps toward thinking dialectically when she pondered
how to discuss topics that go against the norm. For example, Amy thought about providing a
discussion forum and other ways to handle difficult topics in our high school classrooms. In this
cycle, the participants began to scratch the surface on the road toward the use of critical
consciousness and dialectical thinking because they began to recognize entrenched practices,
such as standards-based testing and the flag salute.
During CRC 2, the participants and I focused on contending with internalized oppressive
practices. As stated previously in theme one, I defined an internalized oppressive practice as the
fabricated beliefs in hegemonic institutions that negate Latinx students’ background and culture
in a Eurocentric curriculum (Hollins, 2015; Leonardo, 2009; Paris & Alim, 2017). To scaffold
learning, I read one of my journals as a think-aloud to illustrate how I used different perspectives
when I critically reflected. In this example, I shared that in the past, students in my classes
always stood for the flag salute. However, contrary to my experience, only about one-third of the
students stood for the flag salute this year in my third-period twelfth-grade AVID class. As a
result of this experience, I shared that I may have experienced a disorienting dilemma or inner
turbulence (Wergin, 2020). I explained that I thought this because I felt that students’ not
standing for the flag salute challenged one of my worldviews. As I read my journal, I let my
participants know to think about whether they thought I experienced a disorienting dilemma:
To my dismay, only two-thirds of the class stood up. The rest of the students remained
sitting. I was initially perplexed because I had never had a class where members refused
to stand for the flag salute. I felt perturbed and uneasy when several students did not
stand. I pondered whether I should ask them to stand next time. Shortly after, I began to
question why I was upset they were not standing for the flag salute. After pondering and
123

reflecting, I began asking myself, why did I feel the students had to stand? What was it
that made me want to abide by this precedent? I began to think about why I expected
them to stand. So, I began to question, “Why do some choose not to stand? What has
happened that has made them not want to stand?” So, I began questioning why I had to
abide by this precedent. After feeling uneasy for some time, I realized that my
indoctrination into normative thinking made me think that standing for the flag salute was
correct. I realized that I was perpetuating hegemony and Whiteness. I realized I had to
stop expecting my students to stand for the flag salute. Instead, I needed to listen to them
and discuss what standing for the flag salute means and why some people choose not to
stand.
After I read my journal, we engaged in a think-aloud activity in which the three
participants agreed that I had experienced a disorienting dilemma.
D: Wow, I think you definitely had a disorienting dilemma, according to the definition
you gave us. It challenged your previous thinking.
P: Yes, I agree. I can imagine being in that situation. I know I was forced to stand for the
flag salute. We did not have a choice.
A: I think most people, though, have never thought about why they even stand. Getting
back to your question. Yes, I think you had a disorienting dilemma. I do not force my
students to stand, but I say the flag salute loud and proud in my classroom.
R: Yes, I agree that I did experience a disorienting dilemma because this experience
really challenged my worldview. Right. But in my mind, the country, this country has
given me so much in our family so much. And I know what it’s like to live in places
like Mexico, even though I love Mexico. I know what it’s like, through my family
124

members who live there, how difficult it is to be an independent woman who can, you
know, kind of do her own thing, be in charge of her own life. I know what the United
States has given my family and me. So, for me, it’s just a sign of respect. So, this was
my disorienting dilemma because I didn’t know what to do. Yeah, I was just like,
what is happening here? There was that moment when I felt like I should force my
students to stand. Yet I did not do it because I knew that standing for the flag salute
was my way of thinking, not theirs.
The participants all agreed that I had a disorienting dilemma. Debbie shared that
according to the definition of a disorienting dilemma, it seemed to change my worldview.
Priscilla shared that I had a disorienting dilemma and added that, as a student, there was no other
choice but to stand. Interestingly, Amy again agreed that I had a disorienting dilemma. She also
shared that when she stands for the flag salute in her class, she recites it “loud and proud.” I
shared that this experience challenged my worldview because I recognize how much the United
States has given to my family and me, so not standing for the flag salute went against my
personal beliefs.
In addition, I contributed something that was embarrassing to admit to the participants. I
told them that there was a moment when I felt like making the students stand. I shared that, at
this moment, I only saw my perspective; it was my tunnel vision. The students who did not stand
were disrespecting the flag. I shared that I felt extremely uneasy with this experience, but I
stopped myself from using my power as the teacher in the classroom. This was important
because, according to Brookfield (2017), publicly revealing your mistakes or errors in judgment
helps portray vulnerability and helps build trust among colleagues.
125

As our discussion progressed, I shared that this experience made me question my view on
standing for the flag salute: “Don’t we have freedom of speech and expression in this country?
So why do I feel that students are disrespecting the flag?” I also shared that this disorienting
dilemma made me aware of the degree of indoctrination in which I have internalized oppressive
practices. This experience made me realize that I continued to reinforce oppressive practices in
my classroom and that I needed to critically reflect to understand why I had assumptions and
biases related to standing for the flag salute. After I shared, the participants listened and just
shook their heads in confirming gestures.
Debbie then expressed that there were assumptions on both sides. She stated that maybe I
did not understand why some of them did not stand and that the students were also making
assumptions about the flag salute:
Your conclusion at the end of your journal made a connection with me; I think of having
a class discussion. Because they [students] just might not be informed. And again, they
could have a deeper reason why not to stand, or they could just not know themselves.
And they’re just like, well, nobody else has told me to, or I didn’t have to, or I see my
friends, or maybe they want to stand, but they just don’t feel comfortable because
everybody else is not standing. So, there are assumptions on both sides.
Debbie’s comments about how teachers and students make assumptions exemplify how
she began to reflect on the practice of the flag salute. This example details how Debbie began to
connect to internalized oppressive practices and used dialectical thinking to demonstrate how I
had made assumptions about my students and how the students had their own assumptions about
why they stand or not stand for the flag salute. This is depicted in her statement that “they just
might not be informed. Furthermore, they could have a deeper reason not to stand or not know
126

themselves.” The latter depicts how Debbie can oscillate between different perspectives and
ways of thinking or use dialectical thinking. Sharing my journal helped Debbie begin to think
dialectically about my situation. Debbie did not see my experience as black or white but more
like a shade of gray. As Wergin (2020) articulated, “We do not delete our mental models but
rather detach from them, modify and rearrange them” (p. 153). This example revealed that my
journal as a think-aloud helped Debbie, a socializing knower, understand and possibly modify
her thinking and not think that there necessarily has to be a “right” answer to this dilemma I had
faced.
Once Debbie shared about how what she thought were assumptions on both sides by the
students and me, Priscilla related the conversation about the flag salute to what teachers are
currently facing in their classrooms:
Your experience makes me think about what new and veteran teachers are facing. For
example, we have teachers on campus who are veterans. Yeah. Thinking about how we
are supporting our teachers or educators? No one talks about it, or we should handle
things, like the flag salute, in the classroom. Have they gotten any training? Or are they
just expected to figure it out for themselves? And we have our own experience. The
people in this meeting are similar in way of thinking … I think. But what are all our other
colleagues experiencing? What are the possible ways to address these types of issues? Do
we just let each teacher handle the situations how they see fit? Do we have some sort of
streamlined way … I do not know … to handle these situations? Is the district even aware
of doing this? I think it may be so stuck in its ways that it does not even realize that there
is an issue. How do other districts handle these issues?
127

In this example, Priscilla began to take steps toward thinking dialectically because she
began to think about different ways our district can handle these types of situations. Priscilla
questioned how the teachers are supported when she stated, “Have they gotten any training? Or
are they just expected to figure it out for themselves?” Priscilla began to interrogate how past
dominant hegemonic practices, such as the flag salute, can be addressed, “What are the possible
ways to address these types of issues?” Further, she thought of different ways to address and
think about the issue when she stated, “Do we just let each teacher handle the situations how they
see fit? How do other districts handle these issues?” Also, Priscilla questioned the possibility of
our school district not even being aware of the issue, “I think it may be so stuck in its ways that it
does not even realize that there is an issue?” Therefore, Priscilla began to take steps toward using
dialectical thinking because she does not give a one-size fits all solution but instead thinks of
different ways to address the issue.
Amy added to the discussion and shared her insights about different ways to address
hegemonic practices in the classroom:
I think … maybe we can start by just discussing our experiences with situations that may
not follow the norm … things we experience in school and the classroom. How can we
learn to be more inclusive of others’ thoughts and ideas? Is there a PD that conveys this
information about how to use students’ culture in the classroom? Can we have a teacher
forum? Or do we just let every teacher do what they think is right for their classrooms?
In the previous quote, Amy reflected on what is being done to help teachers navigate
difficult classroom situations. Though she reflected on what our school is doing to support
teachers, she does not yet think critically about how educational practices and policies are
128

entrenched in following the status quo. In addition, I did not probe Amy into thinking deeper. At
this point, my focus was for her to understand the concept of oppressive practices.
Nonetheless, it is possible that listening to me think about my inner thought process as I
grappled through this disorienting dilemma facilitated Amy’s ability to reflect. In addition, Amy
gets closer to using critical consciousness when she wonders how other teachers use their power
in certain situations and how they are supported with navigating the use of this power, such as
standing for the flag salute, “so I’m curious about someone else, other teachers, how they use
their power?” Amy acknowledged that teachers have power in the classroom and pondered how
other teachers confront power dynamics. In addition, Amy began to grapple with dialectical
thinking when she articulated, “How can we learn to be more inclusive of thoughts and ideas? Is
there a PD that conveys this information about how to use students’ culture in the classroom? Or
do we just let every teacher research and learn how to do this independently?” In the previous
instance, Amy questioned how we can support teachers in integrating culture into the classroom.
She thought of the possibility of learning from PL provided by the school or letting the teachers
learn independently and figuring it out for themselves. Amy highlighted that our district has had
few opportunities to consider being more inclusive of others’ perspectives and worldviews. Amy
brought up an interesting point about how our district had focused on one-shot PD that is never
revisited. Her comments brought forth the need to reframe ongoing PD so that it focuses on
learning rather than development (Webster-Wright, 2009).
In this cycle, the participants learned how to explore critical consciousness and dialectical
thinking by interrogating dominant practices. Debbie began the move toward learning how to use
critical consciousness when she analyzed my thoughts about students not standing for the flag
salute. She stated that “there are assumptions on both sides.” Through reading my journal,
129

Debbie realized that I had made assumptions about why my students should stand for the flag
salute and that my students had their own assumptions. Debbie also began to express dialectical
thinking when she shared that the students may have different perspectives or experiences that
students may have to explain why they stand or do not for the flag salute, “And again, they could
have a deeper reason why not to stand, or they could just not know themselves. And they’re just
like, well, nobody else has told me to, or I didn’t have to.”
In addition, Priscilla began to continue her journey toward critical consciousness when
she questioned how to address assumptions in our teaching practice, “What are the possible ways
to address these types of issues? Do we just let each teacher handle the situations how they see
fit? Do we have some sort of streamlined way?” She acknowledged that these issues need to be
addressed, which illustrated how she began to use critical consciousness as well as dialectical
thinking. Similarly, Amy began to learn to interrogate internalized oppressive practices by
beginning to question classroom power dynamics. In addition, she began to think dialectically
when she pondered the multiple ways that teachers can learn to deal with situations, such as
whether to stand or not to stand for the flag salute.
This experience in CRC 2 was valuable for my participants and me. Using the journal as
a think-aloud bolstered the participants and my relationship. Being open and vulnerable and
having shared my feelings in my journal helped them see me as an equal. A teacher who has had
assumptions and biases and who has had to interrogate these views to see them from different
perspectives. Consequently, my power and position as a researcher was pushed aside. And
instead, my role as a participant seemed to be what was at the forefront. Showing vulnerability
by sharing “uncomfortable personal disclosures” helped me build trust with my participants
(Brookfield, 2017).
130

To support the participants’ growth toward critical reflection, I used a think-aloud to
support my participants’ learning of critical reflection. The think-aloud strategy has been used as
a scaffold for many years in the field of education because it helps with introspection and
constructivist thinking (Charters, 2003). According to Erickson and Simon (1980, as cited in
Charters, 2003), “verbal reports such as those from think-aloud data are a ‘thoroughly reliable’
source of information about thought processes” (p. 71). Before I shared my think-aloud, I front-
loaded the participants with the information I shared in the previous sub-theme. To reiterate,
prior to the think-aloud, the participants and I had reviewed and discussed critical reflection,
Rodgers’ Reflective cycle, and the definition of a disorienting dilemma.
In addition, the think-aloud strategy helped the participants think about how they think.
Using a think-aloud supported metacognitive learning because participants saw and interpreted
how I expressed my inner thought processes (Charters, 2003). As I read my journal out loud,
they heard specific examples of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking. This strategy also
supported making the power dynamics more even among them and me. Doing this helped them
see me as someone who does not know all the answers. Instead, I might have been viewed as a
learner, like them, who is in the process of constructing knowledge as depicted in knowledge-of-
learning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
This sub-theme helped me answer my research question in that I elicited a disorienting
dilemma when I shared my journal entry. I helped the participants move a few steps forward in
their journey toward critical consciousness and dialectical thinking because they began to reflect
on entrenched practices that have hindered Latinx students learning. However, like in theme one,
I could have done a better job as the facilitator of this study. There were missed opportunities
where I could have asked follow-up questions to help them go deeper and possibly reach critical
131

reflection. For instance, when Amy questioned the PL that teachers reach regarding supporting
Latinx students with their culture, I did not ask Amy or the other participants to think about the
reasons PL on connecting to students’ culture is not part of teacher learning. I was focused on the
participants understanding the concept or idea of oppressive practices. I realize that by doing the
latter, I did not go further to help them go past the microcosm they see in their classroom to go
beyond and unveil the macrocosm of societal structures. Once again, as the facilitator of this
study, it was difficult to navigate between psychological safety and time to help the participants
go deeper and learn critical reflection.
In CRC 3, we see another example of how the participants began to take steps in the use
of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking by interrogating dominant practices. They
showed growth in their ability to think about different perspectives to interrogate past practices.
Amy began to engage her inward gaze by interrogating her way of thinking. She questioned how
she could interrupt a belief. This questioning of how to interrupt or change a belief helped Amy
to begin to think dialectically because she demonstrated the different ways in which her students
had developed worldviews.
In contrast, during this cycle, Debbie began to use multiple perspectives to try to
understand her students’ ways of thinking and continues to be in the process of thinking about
her inward gaze. When asked, “How to use our inward gaze to critically reflect on our teaching
practice?” Debbie thought of her gaze in a collective manner. She thought about how she and
others could begin to move toward reflection. Nonetheless, Priscilla, like Amy, began to take
steps toward using critical consciousness and dialectical thinking because she began to examine
her inward gaze by questioning whether she had supported Latinx students’ learning. Priscilla
132

questioned whether it was due to compliance measures or if it was because she cared about
student learning.
In this cycle, the participants reflected on their inward gaze. They thought about whether
they had perpetuated Whiteness or the idea that those who do not emulate the dominant belief are
viewed as inferior (Hollis, 2015). To build background for CRC 3, I reviewed the concepts and
ideas we discussed in CRC 1 and CRC 2. Afterward, I shared the essential questions for our
session:
• How to use our inward gaze to critically reflect on our teaching practice?
• How can we incorporate ‘inquiry as stance’ in our teaching practice?
To begin this cycle, I reviewed the difference between reflection and critical reflection.
To facilitate learning these concepts, I gave the participants more examples of the two concepts.
They compared the differences between reflection and critical reflection. They were given
examples of each. For reflection, I offered the following definition: “consideration of the larger
context, the meaning, and the implications of an experience or action” by means of exploring
emotions, feelings, reactions, and knowledge (Branch & Paranjape, 2002). I gave them the
following example for reflection: “Educators are given 5 minutes to reflect on how they can use
sentence frames for English learners after attending a meeting where instructional coaches share
how to use sentence frames in their classrooms.” And I stated that reflection becomes critical
when it focuses on teachers’ understanding of power and hegemony (Brookfield, 2017). I further
explained that critical reflection involved questioning the assumptions held about how power
dynamics operate in classrooms, programs, schools, and teachers’ classrooms.
To better understand this concept, I shared that critical reflection involved questioning
why educators focused on standard performance instead of on students learning. The problem I
133

presented in this cycle is a paradox in our education system. What is more valuable and
important for students, student performance or student learning? It has been the practice that
district accountability measures student success by how well students do on high-stake tests and
not on student learning. I asked the participants to think about this and how it aligned with our
school’s mission. The mission characterized successful students as critical thinkers who
“comprehend, interpret, and synthesize information.” So, the problem I posed was how we could
help students become critical thinkers. I wanted the participants to think about how we navigate
between student performance and student learning.
Further, I elaborated on how I have contented with my inward gaze when confronted with
hegemonic issues by sharing a personal example I had grappled with. I shared this personal
example to illuminate how to critically reflect on your inward gaze. In this example, I wanted to
share with the participants that moving away from majoritarian stories (Solórzano & Yosso,
2002) and moving away from the White gaze is a way to move toward methodologies that value
Latinx students’ culture and background, such as CSP. I shared with them that I had realized
that, for many years, my focus had been on student performance or the normative majoritarian
way of thinking and not on student learning. I shared that as a former eighth-grade teacher at
another district, I felt proud when my students executed and did well on the English Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium exam. Though I encouraged student performance, I also
thought I had fostered community in my classroom. Nonetheless, I realized that I had not
supported Latinx student learning because I had not been inclusive of students’ cultures and
backgrounds, but instead focused on state standards in my lessons:
I always compared how my students did on the state assessments from year to year. I
would try to see what they had not learned in seventh grade and try to fill in that gap. As I
134

think about it now, I realize I was teaching to the test. The students were learning certain
skills or standards, but I never focused on critical thinking skills.
I continued to share that there seemed to be a disconnection between our state
accountability measures and our district mission. Although the district’s mission was to help
students become critical thinkers, I realized that it was difficult to focus on the mission when the
educational system is driven by state accountability measures. As I critically reflected on this
topic, I comprehended that what I was doing was following what was expected of me as a public
education teacher. I had been taught essential knowledge in college, my teacher education
programs, and PD in my district to “preserve the culture and enable constructive participation in
it” (Oakes et al., 2018). Moreover, I was driven not by my school’s mission but by hegemonic
ideas. Ideas of one group’s dominance over others are represented in Whiteness and the norms
and values that govern societal rules (Brookfield, 2017). I went on to explain that perpetuating
the status quo has made me less effective as a teacher of Latinx students. Teaching only a
curriculum that negated Latinx students’ background and culture made me a teacher who just
focused on meeting standards and not on student learning:
An example of keeping the status quo is focusing on standards instead of student learning
or critical thinking: performance instead of student learning. For example, public schools
are evaluated by a system that measures student performance. State accountability
measures have been put in place to ensure students are meeting these standards. But
should that goal be … performance? Or should it be that students are able to learn and be
able to think critically?
To support the participants’ understanding of the oppressive practices evident in
education, such as valuing student performance over student learning, I connected to an example
135

by Dr. Yolanda Sealey-Ruiz. In the video titled Teacher as Interrupter (2017), Dr. Sealey-Ruiz
shares that teachers need to be interrupters of the status quo. In addition, this video was used as
an aesthetic experience (Wergin, 2020) to facilitate a disorienting dilemma. After thinking about
teachers as interrupters, the participants began thinking about their inward gaze. Amy shared that
she resonated with what Dr. Sealey-Ruiz said and thought the idea of being an interrupter was
important to her:
How do you interrupt a belief? And use your pedagogy as a source of interruption? I
think it is important for us to think about how we can try to better understand the
different perspectives and environments students come from. But first, thinking about
ourselves, … where do we get our beliefs as educators? Is it from school? Is it from our
parents? Also, thinking about our students? Why do they think the way they do? And
then, most importantly, as she mentioned in the video, I think our profession is deeply
tied to future generations. Like, we literally are creating the future. So, we need to stop
thinking only about student performance and concentrate on student learning.
In this example, Amy began to take steps toward dialectical thinking when she stated that
educators need to try to figure out how to understand the different perspectives of students. She
gave examples of thinking: “Where are our beliefs as educators? Is it from school? Is it from our
parents?” Amy questioned her way of thinking and why she thought that way. As she contended
with her inward gaze, Amy thought of where her beliefs came from, and after she thought of her
students, “Why do they think the way they do?” Amy thought of the different possible reasons
why her students had different perspectives and ways of thinking.
136

The next participant to share was Debbie, and she connected to Dr. Sealey-Ruiz’s video.
She stated how watching it helped her realize that we are continuing to worry about grades
instead of learning.
Our students struggle with being open-minded, branching out, and finding areas they
need improvement. I think it is important to help students figure out why they want to do
well in school. What is the purpose of this? They need to know the different reasons why
they do something. Sometimes they just want to hurry up, just get this answer, and I can
pass this test and take it, or I got to retake it. And like I always tell them, it’s more than
just points. … You want points, I’ll give you points. That’s what we have … students
who are just about points for performance, like you said, the status quo. Is it about the
grade you get instead of what you have learned?
As Debbie shared, I found it interesting that she made the connection to the students and
not to herself. Unlike Amy, who connected the video to how she can interrupt her practice,
Debbie did not connect it to herself. She referred to students when asked, “Our students struggle
with really being open-minded and really branching out and finding areas they need
improvement in.” Rather than speaking about herself or reflecting on her inward gaze, Debbie
says, “Our students.” Using the possessive pronoun “our” is important because Debbie seemed to
include herself in realizing that they were her students. Debbie using this pronoun may be a
result of being a socializing knower who may not feel comfortable “exposing her inner
uncertainties” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, as cited in Drago-Severson, 2016).
She might have been at a stage where she saw the problem as multifaceted and had not had the
time and space in the PL to fully engage her inward gaze. It is important to add that as the
137

facilitator, I did not ask Debbie follow-up questions that could have possibly helped her think of
her gaze as independent from others.
In contrast, Priscilla shared how she felt her idea of being an interrupter caught her off
guard. But after listening to the entire video, she realized the need to interrupt the status quo.
I think what she shared about building productive citizens in society is so important. I
liked her comment about the archaeology of the self and really digging deep and
reflecting. I need to continue digging deep and figuring out how I contribute to helping
students think critically instead of focusing on performance. I think it is also important
for me to think about whether I am doing things to be in compliance with my role as a
teacher for this district, but also about thinking about what is best for my students. How
do I grapple with that?
In this example, Priscilla reflected on her inward gaze. She thought of how she could help
build productive citizens. She questioned whether she was “doing things to be in compliance
with my role as a teacher for the district” or by “thinking about what is best for my students.”
Priscilla began to think dialectically by questioning how to grapple with doing her job, meeting
compliance standards, and doing what is best for students to learn.
In this cycle, the participants learned by experiencing a disorienting dilemma which
caused them to think about different ways of viewing dominant practices. The video served as a
disorienting dilemma because the teacher did not think of themselves as interrupters of the status
quo prior to watching the video. After being front-loaded with the problem, listening to my
example, and finally watching the video, two participants began to think of themselves as
interrupting the status quo. Amy began to depict critical consciousness when she stated, “We
need to stop thinking only about student performance but concentrate on student learning.” And
138

Priscilla showed that she was in the process of understanding the concept of critical
consciousness and inward gaze when she stated, “I need to continue to dig deep and figure out
how I am contributing to having students perform instead of thinking critically.” Yet, Debbie did
not seem to reflect independently on her inward gaze. She instead focused on the collective gaze
when she mentioned that her students needed to think about how they were performing or doing
on tests instead of learning. She did turn the gaze on herself when she stated, “I think it is
important to help students figure out why they want to do well in school.” In this example,
Debbie began to reflect on how she could help her students figure out the reasons why they
should do well in school.
I progressed in answering the research question in Theme 2 because I supported the
participants with the introspective process, which is necessary for critical reflection. They had
the opportunity to think and analyze through collaboration and discussion. Nevertheless, it was
not sufficient time. They still needed more time to process their thoughts and assumptions
regarding their inward gaze. I reviewed the terms for this last cycle and gave examples. I do not
think I gave them enough time to process. I think I was a bit ambitious because I wanted them to
learn a lot of information. For example, the term “Whiteness” was new to them. The process of
reflecting on how a teacher may be complicit in perpetuating Whiteness is a difficult task.
According to Paris and Alim (2014, as cited in Paris & Alim, 2017), an inward gaze is “a
position of reflection and resistance to colonization as it has been internalized” (p. 62). Thus,
when I began CRC 3, I felt that I needed to review past terms and try to fit into the new terms in
an efficient way. As a result, I do not think I was effective due to the lack of time.
I strengthened my facilitation practice because I reviewed key concepts and moved
toward learning new ones. For Cycles 2 and 3, I reviewed the concepts discussed previously. The
139

review of major concepts helped the participants understand complex ideas. In my past
facilitation practices, I rarely made connections to previous learning because the topics were
generally not connected to each other. Going through these three iterative cycles helped me learn
how to make connections to concepts and ideas to better support participants’ learning of
difficult concepts. Another area of growth in my facilitation is that I will need to take a step back
and slow down (Rodgers, 2002). After each cycle, I reflected on what the participants had
learned in order to prepare for the next PL cycle. However, I do not think I gave them enough
time to grapple with the concepts and have multiple opportunities to interact with each other. In
addition, I need to do a better job of figuring out when to take risks by asking them probing
questions that can help them go deeper to reach critical reflection. I need to mitigate how to
foster psychological safety but, at the same time, help the participants grow in the process of
critical reflection.
Conclusion of Theme 2
To conclude, the second theme of my findings connecting to self to support Latinx
students represents how the participants in my study began to use critical consciousness and
dialectical thinking to interrogate assumptions and dominant practices. In sub-theme one, they
learned by interrogating their worldviews and assumptions. Amy made the connections that
students need to have the opportunity to see themselves in the curriculum and in learning. She
began to take the steps toward critical consciousness by thinking about how to better support her
Latinx students by integrating more inclusive student culture into her curriculum. Debbie also
progressed in her journey toward critical consciousness as well. She began to question if teachers
have the power to add to the curriculum. And at the end of the cycle, Debbie came to the
realization that she wanted to begin to incorporate students’ culture into her classroom
140

instruction. And Priscilla demonstrated growth in the process of critical reflection because she
began to question the curriculum and why the stories of Native Americans’ struggle due to the
English conquest are not told or missing from the curriculum.
And in Sub-theme 2, the participants continued in their journey toward using critical
consciousness and dialectical thinking by interrogating dominant practices. In this sub-theme,
Amy demonstrated growth in critical reflection by questioning classroom power dynamics. She
began to use critical consciousness when she thought about how teachers handle the flag salute.
She also attempted to use critical consciousness when she questioned the hegemonic practice of
focusing on student performance instead of student learning. In addition, Debbie began to think
dialectically when she analyzed whether I had a disorienting dilemma. Debbie thought about the
different ways of interpreting the situation I was in and shared that there were assumptions on
both sides of the dilemma. And Debbie thought of her inward gaze collectively as she thought
about how students need to gain control of their learning and how she could support student
learning. And lastly, Priscilla demonstrated growth in critical consciousness after listening to the
video of Yolanda-Sealey Ruiz. Priscilla stated that she needed to think about how she could
better support student learning over student performance.
Moreover, I have progressed in my endeavor toward answering my research question in
Theme 2. The participants have shown some growth in their path toward learning how to use
critical consciousness and dialectical thinking. As depicted in my conceptual framework, I
wanted to support the participants in learning the process of critical reflection. Nevertheless,
after this study, I have come to the realization that reaching critical reflection in the span of three
cycles or 9 weeks was an ambitious goal that was not possible. Nevertheless, my findings did
depict that the participants were learning how to reflect when provided a PL context with
141

structured opportunities to reflect on their identity, positionality, internalized oppressive
practices, and inward gazes.
It is essential to note that the participants did not learn how to critically reflect due to not
having enough time and the limitations of my own developing facilitation skills. As a result, they
did not explore the larger societal landscape that has caused systemic inequities, nor did they
fully interrogate their own roles in reproducing learning conditions that perpetuate systemic
inequities for Latinx students. First, the short length of this study was a major impediment. The
participants and I only had 9 weeks to try to learn the process of critical reflection. Consequently,
there was insufficient time to dive deep into learning how to use critical consciousness and
dialectical thinking. Second, as the study’s facilitator, I was hesitant to push too much during the
PL meeting and one-on-one sessions. I wanted to maintain the participants’ psychological safety
because I did not want them to disengage from the learning. Therefore, I missed opportunities
where I could have helped them go further into questioning the role hegemony in their own
conditioning as individuals and practices as teachers.
As a result, I realized that I could have done several things differently. I could have, for
example, focused on just one of the topics for all three cycles. The PL could have exclusively
focused on contending with identity and positionality for all three cycles or 9 weeks. Doing this
could have helped the participants think deeper about the role of identity and power in hindering
Latinx students’ learning.
In the future, I would like to continue to use my conceptual framework to work with
teachers on the process of critical reflection. I will definitely need to have more time to work
with them, so that they can explore the concepts on a deeper level. In addition, I would like to
work on building psychological safety so that the participants and I take more risks. I would like
142

them to think about the concepts in relation to the microcosm of their own lives and expand it to
the macrocosm of societal structures that perpetuate hegemony.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss where I am now and what I have done since I
concluded this study. In addition, I will also discuss what I have learned about myself, the
implications of my learning, my growth as an educator, the value of critical reflection,
understanding my positionality, and the path forward.
After I concluded this study, I continued to meet with the AVID teachers twice a month.
At our meetings, we incorporated learning agreements to create an adult learning environment
where we strive to create a brave space. In addition, we included the strategy circle of voices
(Brookfield, 2019) when we discussed various issues related to supporting student learning.
Also, we have begun to be more inclusive of learning about students’ backgrounds. We are now
aware of calling out and naming our assumptions and thinking dialectically. For example, Amy
recently had difficulty with some of her students not turning in a class project. Amy shared the
following with the group: “It is my assumption that the students are not turning in their projects
in one time because they are not interested in topic and maybe they are not finding any
connection … or is it that other classes or things outside of school are keeping them away from
completing it?” This example depicts how we are beginning to become aware of our assumptions
and thinking dialectically to figure out if what we are teaching is connecting to Latinx students.
In addition, we are explicitly trying to make more connections to texts when we practice reading
and annotation. We have begun to make sure that we include information about Latin American
countries as well as what is happening in the United States.
143

In this doctorate program, I had the opportunity to read literature and have discussions
that have facilitated my learning of concepts and practices that produce an educational divide.
This divide is the result of ideas and concepts related to hegemony, privilege, positionality, and
power. Learning about these concepts helped me figure out what I wanted to focus on in my
study. I chose to write about critical reflection because I realize that if educators do not know
how to do the latter, they cannot support students of color, such as Latinx students, with
equitable learning experiences.
As I began the writing of my dissertation, the conceptual framework component was the
section I found the most challenging. Yet, creating my own conceptual framework helped me
realize the inequity I wanted to address: Latinx students’ not having the opportunity to use their
culture and background in their learning. This realization made me cognizant of the fact that we,
AVID teachers, were not leveraging students’ culture and background in our teaching decisions.
Learning About Myself
Through this action research study, I have learned a great deal about myself as an
educator. Before this study, I thought I did a good job providing PD for educators. Nevertheless,
I have now realized that I had not supported educators in constructing knowledge. This study
challenged my previous worldviews on how to conduct PL. For this study, I learned how to be a
facilitator of learning. This was difficult for me because I was used to disseminating information.
I realized that working with teachers to construct knowledge took time and effort.
Implications for Learning
Learning how to critically reflect on my practice as a facilitator has had implications on
how I perceive my role as an instructional leader. After learning how to critically reflect and
examining my identity, positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gaze, I have
144

realized that this study was one phase in my growth toward fostering emancipatory education.
Through this process, I came to the realization that to support Latinx students with emancipatory
education, educators needed to first learn how to critically reflect. Thus, educators need to learn
how to question hegemonic practices and assumptions before they can produce equitable
learning opportunities for Latinx students.
Growth as an Educator
Personally, I have learned a great deal about my own practice as an educator. Aside from
having had the opportunity to work with my colleagues as a facilitator, this experience has
facilitated my growth as a teacher. I have become more aware of the power and position I hold in
my own classroom. The practice of critical reflection has facilitated my questioning of my past
perceptions, assumptions, and biases. The personal growth I have experienced in this process has
helped me evolve as an educator who better understands the value of critical reflection, my
positionality as a facilitator, and my positionality as a teacher. This process has brought me
closer to expanding my way of knowing as a self-transforming knower (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017) or a person who explores paradoxes and inconsistencies in myself,
others, and the world.
The Value of Critical Reflection
Critical reflection is a concept I now consider essential to my teaching practice. This
action research study confirmed the notion that critical reflection has to be explicitly taught. To
date, it is not something that is taught to all educators in credential programs or in PL
opportunities. There is a need for critical reflection when working with students of color who
have not been taught equitably due to dominant policies that promote Whiteness and hegemony
(Hollins, 2015; Leonardo, 2009; Oakes et al., 2018). The indoctrination of teachers in a
145

knowledge-in-practice, or what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999) referred to as knowledge
provided by experts, has made it difficult for teachers to learn knowledge-of-practice or PL
where they can critically reflect and construct knowledge via a collective group of educators
(Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999)
After this study, I realized that to support Latinx students and students of color, educators
need to learn how to think critically. I speak from experience because I can say that before I
began my doctorate program, I was an educator who promoted dominant ideology. I believed in
what I was taught at my educational institutions: a Eurocentric ideology that promoted
Whiteness. Nevertheless, it is essential to know that without this experience as a doctoral student
and researcher, I would have never questioned the status quo and would have continued to teach
in colonizing and hegemonic ways.
As depicted in my conceptual framework, I conceptualized critical reflection as using
critical consciousness and dialectical thinking (Freire, 2000) to analyze or interrogate
assumptions or ideas. After analyzing my data and going through this research experience, I now
have a strategy to use as I continue my critical reflection process and learning. I have found it
helpful to integrate critical consciousness and dialectical thinking in Rodgers’ (2002) reflective
cycle. To critically reflect, I will use the cycle by first using presence in experience, description
of experience, analysis of experience and here is where I use critical consciousness and
dialectical thinking for experimentation or to take intelligent action.
Understanding My Positionality
Before this doctoral program, I was not aware of my positionality as a teacher. I did not
realize the true power I held in the classroom. In addition, I never questioned the power I held as
a teacher leader and as an instructional coach. Moreover, I was not aware of the privilege that
146

comes with the power. The experience as a doctoral student and researcher has made me realize
that I continue to interrogate my position and privilege. It has given me the position and privilege
to understand the dynamics of our hegemonic educational system and stratified society to
continue the work of supporting educators with critical reflection. My position gives me this
opportunity to learn about other ways of knowing and ways to help my colleagues and students
think critically about the world we live in. Through critical reflection, I plan to use my position
to think critically about how I can best support Latinx communities and communities of color.
Therefore, it is my goal to continue the work of supporting educators with understanding how to
critically reflect on their practice so that stock stories are seen as tales. And instead, it is my
personal goal to invigorate learning by bringing counter stories (Brookfield, 2019) that challenge
stock stories to counter the status quo.
The Path Forward
My colleagues and I want to continue the work of critically reflecting on our educational
practice. The goal is to expand our group of teachers so that we reach more of our staff. In
addition, we would like this work to continue on an ongoing basis. We want to focus on the three
cycles we explored in this study first and then expand our growth in other areas. We brought the
preceding to our school administrators, and they agreed we can work as teacher leaders and
begin the work this coming year. In addition, all of the participants have agreed to learn more
about the topics I presented so that they can learn to be facilitators for our future critical
reflection cycles. First, the three of the participants and I have agreed to read the book Advancing
Racial Literacies in Teacher Education (Price-Dennis & Sealey-Ruiz, 2021) beginning in the fall
of 2023 to learn more about how to support Latinx student learning. Once we read this book, the
participants and I agreed that we want to support educators at our school in learning about
147

identity, positionality, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes. We have received the
green light from our principal and hope to begin this endeavor of bringing these PL opportunities
that focus on supporting Latinx students learning to our colleagues, beginning in the Spring of
2024.

148

References
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation
(pp. 135–149). Van Haren Publishing. https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/843249C9-
B1E5-BD47-A25EDBC68363B726/from-safe-spaces-to-brave-spaces.pdf
Arce, M. (2016b). A barrio pedagogy: Identity, intellectualism, activism, and academic
achievement through the evolution of critically compassionate intellectualism. Race
Ethnicity and Education. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&. In White Washing
American Education. Praeger.
AVID. (2022). What AVID Is / College & Career Readiness - Explore AVID Students by Grade
Level. https://www.avid.org/what-avid-is
Bandura, A., & Kupers, C. J. (1964). Transmission of patterns of self-reinforcement through
modeling. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041187
Barrs, M. (2021). Vygotsky the teacher: A companion to his psychology for teachers and other
practitioners (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429203046
Belenky, M. F., & Stanton, A. V. (2000). Inequality, development, and connected knowing. In J.
Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 71–102). Jossey-Bass.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership
(6th ed.). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119281856
149

Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a research method. Qualitative Research Journal,
9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Branch, W. R., & Paranjape, A. (2002). Feedback and reflection. Academic Medicine, 77(12,
Part 1), 1185–1188. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200212000-00005
Brookfield, S. D. (2010). Radicalizing learning: Adult education for a just world (1st ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brookfield, S. D. (2019). Teaching race: How to Help Students Unmask and Challenge Racism.
John Wiley & Sons.
Button Poetry. (2014, September 4). Pages Matam, Elizabeth Acevedo & G. Yamazawa -
Unforgettable [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvah3E1fP20
Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Birmingham, D. J. (2020). Rethinking high-leverage practices
in justice-oriented ways. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 477–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119900209
California Department of Education. (2020). Fingertip facts on education in California -
CalEdFacts. https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/ceffingertipfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2021). California school dashboard.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/19651281936889/2020
Cavalieri, C. E., French, B. H., & Renninger, S. M. (2019). Developing working alliances with
students. In S. D. Brookfield (Ed.), Teaching race: How to help students unmask and
challenge racism (pp.151–170). Jossey-Bass.
150

Charters, E. (2003). The Use of Think-aloud Methods in Qualitative Research An Introduction to
Think-aloud Methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2).
https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1167272
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Collins, P. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–
20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142
De Los Rios, C., & Souto-Manning, M. (2017). Freirean culture circles as a strategy for racial
justice in teacher education. In Confronting racism in teacher education:
Counternarratives of critical practice (pp. 145–150). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315623566-23
Del Río-González, A. M. (2021). To Latinx or not to Latinx: A question of gender inclusivity
versus gender neutrality. American Journal of Public Health, 111(6), 1018–1021.
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306238
Douglas, T., & Nganga, C. (2013). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 5(1), 58–81. http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/viewFile/237/771
151

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
Eliot. (2020, November 12). Spin The Wheel of Power & Privilege [Marginalization &
Intersectionality]. THIS IS HOW YOU CAN.
https://www.thisishowyoucan.com/post/__wheel_of_power_and_privilege
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1998). How to Study Thinking in Everyday Life: Contrasting
Think-Aloud Protocols with Descriptions and Explanations of Thinking. Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 5(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0503_3
Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. (2002). American Psychologist, 57(12),
1060–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.57.12.1060
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary ed., M. Ramos trans).
Continuum.
Gray, D. L., Hope, E. C., & Matthews, J. S. (2018). Black and belonging at school: A case for
interpersonal, instructional, and institutional opportunity structures. Educational
Psychologist, 53(2), 97–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1421466
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.43.2.3
Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M., & Grashow, A. (2014). Adaptive leadership: The Heifetz collection (3
Items). Harvard Business Review Press.
Herr, K. G., & Anderson, G. (2013). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and
faculty (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
152

Hess, M. E. (2019). Using digital storytelling to unearth and galvanize Action. In S. D.
Brookfield (Ed.), Teaching race: How to help students unmask and challenge racism (pp.
253–272). Jossey-Bass.
Hollins, E. R. (2015). Culture in school learning (3rd ed.). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315813615
Holton, E. F., Swanson, R. A., & Naquin, S. S. (2008). Andragogy in Practice: Clarifying the
Andragogical Model of Adult Learning. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 14(1),
118–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.2001.tb00204.x
Irizarry, J. (2017). For US, By US: A vision for culturally sustaining pedagogy forwarded by
Latinx youth. In D. Paris, & H. S. Alim (Eds.), Culturally sustaining pedagogy: Teaching
and Learning for Justice in a changing world. (pp. 83–98). Teachers College Press.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2004). The knowledges of teacher education: Developing a critical complex
epistemology. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 49–66.
Kohli, R., & Solórzano, D. G. (2012). Teachers, please learn our names: Racial microaggressions
and the K-12 classroom. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 441–462.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.674026
Kohli, R., Montaño, E., & Fisher, D. (2019). History matters: Challenging an a-historical
approach to restorative justice in teacher education. Theory into Practice, 58(4), 377–
384. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1626613
Kozulin, A., Gindis, B., Ageyev, V. S., & Miller, S. L. (2003). Vygotsky’s Educational Theory
in Cultural context. In Cambridge University Press eBooks.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511840975
153

Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement
motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F., IV. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 11–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104
Leonardo, Z. (2009). Race, Whiteness, and education (Critical Social Thought, 1st ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880371
Lochmiller, C., & Lester, J. N. (2016). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice (1st ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Love, B. L. (2019). We Want to Do More Than Survive: Abolitionist Teaching and the Pursuit of
Educational Freedom. Beacon Press.
Marchbanks, M. P., Peguero, A. A., Varela, K. S., Blake, J. J., & Eason, J. M. (2016). School
strictness and disproportionate minority contact. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
16(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016680403
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Applied Social
Research Methods, 3rd ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
McDonough, S. (2013). Project MUSE - Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous
Peoples by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (review). Collaborative Anthropologies, 6, Article
537850. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/537850
Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics. American Educational Research Journal,
50(2), 285–324. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212471417
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
154

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory. Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers
Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x07309471
Milner, H. R., & Lomotey, K. (2013). Handbook of Urban Education. In Routledge eBooks.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203094280
Miller, R. A., Liu, K., & Ball, A. F. (2020). Critical Counter-narrative as Transformative
Methodology for Educational Equity. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 269–300.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20908501
Moll, C. (2019). SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals. SAGE
Journals. https://journals.sagepub.com/action/cookieAbsent
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for
educational reform. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Teaching to change the world (5th
ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351263443-4
Paris, D. (2021). Culturally sustaining pedagogies and our futures. The Educational Forum,
85(4), 364–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2021.1957634
Paris, D., & Alim, S. H. (2017). Culturally sustaining pedagogies: Teaching and learning for
justice in a changing world (Language and Literacy Series). Teachers College Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
155

Pizarro, M. (2017). The Institute for Teachers of Color Committed to Racial Justice: Cultivating
community, healing, and transformative praxis. In B. Picower & R. Kohli (Eds.),
Confronting racism in teacher education: Counternarratives of critical practice (pp.
151–156). Routledge.
Public Policy Institute of California. (2021). California’s prison population.
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-prison-
population/#:%7E:text=Most%20inmates%20in%20California%20were,adult%20
immigrant%20 population%20is%2034.6%25.
Price-Dennis, D., & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2021). Advancing racial literacies in teacher education:
Activism for equity in digital spaces. Teachers College Press.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Salmerón, C. (2021, December 15). Translanguaging pedagogy as an enactment of authentic
cariño and an antidote to subtractive schooling. Association of Mexican American
Educators Journal, 15(3), 30–46. https://doi.org/10.24974/amae.15.3.444
Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Pearson.
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2017). Talking race, delving deeper: The Racial Literacy Roundtable Series at
Teachers College Columbia University. In B. Picower & R. Kohli (Eds.), Confronting
racism in teacher education: counternarratives of critical practice (pp. 127–132).
Routledge.
Sojoyner, D. M. (2013). Black radicals make for bad citizens: Undoing the myth of the school to
prison pipeline. Berkeley Review of Education, 4, 241–263.
https://doi.org/10.5070/B84110021
156

Solórzano, D. G., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance through a
critical race and LatCrit theory framework. Urban Education, 36(3), 308–342.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085901363002
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.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103
Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Statista. (2021, March 11). U.S.: educational attainment, by ethnicity 2018.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/184264/educational-attainment-by-enthnicity/
Tuck, E., & Gaztamide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, Replacement, and Settler Futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89.
https://journal.jctonline.org/index.php/jct/article/viewFile/411/pdf
Tuck, E., Guess, A., & Sultan, H. (2014, June 26). Not nowhere: Collaborating on selfsame land
[Blog post]. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education, & Society.
https://decolonization.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/not-nowhere-collaborating-on-
selfsame-land/
Utt, J., & Tochluk, S. (2016). White teacher, know thyself: Improving anti-racist praxis through
racial identity development. Urban Education, 55(1), 125–152.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916648741
Valenzuela, A. (2017). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring.
State University of New York Press.
157

Walby, S., Armstrong, J., & Strid, S. (2012). Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social
Theory. Sociology, 46(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038511416164

Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
Wergin, J. F. (2020). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.

158

Appendix A: Social Identities
Appendix A: Social Identities

159

Appendix B: Intersectionality
Appendix B: Intersectionality

160

Appendix C: Wheel of Power/Privilege
Appendix C: Wheel of Power/Privilege

161

Appendix D: My Journal Entry
To my dismay, only two-thirds of the class stood up. The rest of the students remained
sitting. I was initially a bit perplexed because I had never had a class where members refused to
stand for the flag salute. I felt perturbed and uneasy when several students did not stand. I
pondered whether I should ask them to stand next time. Shortly after, I began to question why I
was upset they were not standing for the flag salute. After pondering and reflecting, I began
asking myself, why did I feel the students had to stand? What was it that made me want to abide
by this precedent? I began to think about why I expected them to stand. So, I began to question,
“Why do some choose not to stand? What has happened, that has made them not want to stand?
So, I began questioning why I had to abide by this precedent. After feeling uneasy for some time,
I realized that my indoctrination into normative thinking made me think that standing for the flag
salute was correct and right. I realized that I was perpetuating hegemony and Whiteness. I
realized I had to stop expecting my students to stand for the flag salute. Instead, I needed to listen
to them and have a dialogue about what it means to stand for the flag salute and why some
people choose not to stand.

162

Appendix E: Priscilla’s Reflective Cycle
Appendix E: Priscilla’s Reflective Cycle

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines how I facilitated AVID teachers’ growth in critical reflection at Mountain View High School (pseudonym). The outcomes of this study detail how far the teachers progressed in learning critical reflection for three cycles or a total of 9 weeks. The research question asked, “How do I promote a critical reflection cycle that will support AVID teachers’ growth in the use of critical consciousness and dialectical thinking to support Latinx students learning?” I collected field notes, reflections, artifacts, and documents I developed for the three cycles. I found that the teachers were not able to learn critical reflection in this limited time but were able to reflect and interrogate their identities, positionalities, internalized oppressive practices, and inward gazes.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Using critical reflection to counter and disrupt deficit-based assumptions

PDF

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

PDF

Cultivating a community of practice: an action research study on cultivating a community of practice that engages in trauma-informed dialogue and critical reflection

PDF

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

PDF

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

PDF

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

Reimagining an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The case for leader self-reflection in the workplace

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Critical thinking development in the 21st century college classroom

Asset Metadata

Creator Chavez, Lucero (author)

Core Title Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/21/2023

Defense Date 06/23/2023

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

Tag assumptions,critical consciousness,critical reflection,dialectical thinking,identity,internalized oppression,interrogating,inward gaze,Latinx students.,OAI-PMH Harvest,positionality,Power,teacher reflection

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email luceroch@usc.edu,lucerowrite@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113282118

Unique identifier UC113282118

Identifier etd-ChavezLuce-12130.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChavezLuce-12130

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Chavez, Lucero

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230721-usctheses-batch-1072 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu