University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Critical Discourse: Enacting Asset Orientations that Disrupt Dominant Ideologies
By
Ifeyinwa Njubigbo
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023

© Copyright by Ifeyinwa Njubigbo 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Ifeyinwa Njubigbo certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Nasser Cortez
John Pascarella
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study examines my leadership enactment as a special education coordinator at Ready
Charter School. To provide a comprehensive examination of my leadership practices, I
deconstruct my use of a holding environment and andragogical move of cognitive structuring in
relation to special education teachers. My action research question was: How do I support special
education teachers and my adoption of (critical) reflection to enact asset orientations that disrupt
dominant ideologies? I collected field notes, reflections, and documents developed in my role as
a teacher-leader. I found that I was able to move special education teachers from defaulting to
interpretation to slowing down to describing their problem of practice. Thus, I was able to move
teachers closer to the development of critical reflection.

v
Dedication
To God be the Glory! I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Thank you.
My dearest mum. I dedicate this dissertation to you not only as a tribute to your memory, but a
reflection of the value and strength instilled in me. I miss you every day.
To my amazing dad. Thanks for always modeling, supporting, and loving me unconditionally.
To my siblings and family. Thanks for the inspiring conversations, love, and encouragement.
To my friends. Each of you contributed in your own unique way, motivating me. Thank you.
To my teachers. Thank you for being part of the study and allowing me to improve my practice. I
am humbled.
Finally, to my loving husband. Thanks for being my anchor and cheerleader “Together we can.”

vi
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge my committee, Dr. Slayton, Dr. Pascarella, and Dr. Cortez.
Thank you for supporting me in slowing down, challenging my thinking, and the continuous
learning throughout this process. I am a better critical reflective educator today because of you
all.
In addition, I would like to thank the faculty and my Leading Instruction Change
concentration peers, our shared experiences have made this educational path a truly enriching
one.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. iv
Dedication............................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... ix
List of Figures......................................................................................................................x
Not Right Feeling!............................................................................................................1
Historically Entrenched Inequity .....................................................................................9
Context ...........................................................................................................................12
Role ...............................................................................................................................15
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................17
Dominant Ideologies......................................................................................................21
Critical Reflection ..........................................................................................................24
Reflective Cycle .............................................................................................................26
Andragogy......................................................................................................................29
Research Methods..............................................................................................................36
Participants and Setting..................................................................................................37
Actions ...........................................................................................................................41
Data Collection...............................................................................................................45
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................48
Limitations and Deliminations.......................................................................................49
Credibility and Trustworthiness.....................................................................................50
Ethics..............................................................................................................................52

viii
Findings..............................................................................................................................53
Fostering a Holding Environment..................................................................................53
Cognitive Structuring .....................................................................................................73
Personal Growth ..........................................................................................................103
Afterword.........................................................................................................................112
Point of View ...............................................................................................................113
Beyond the Study .........................................................................................................115
References........................................................................................................................118
Appendix A......................................................................................................................126
Appendix B......................................................................................................................128

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Teacher-Adult Learning Facilitator Actions Page 42

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Page 21

1
Critical Discourse: Enacting Asset Orientations that Disrupt Dominant Ideologies
Douglas and Nganga (2013) explain, “we stand on and speak from the
(mis)understandings and (mis)interpretations of our own positionalities, our own identities, and
our research” (p. 68). I am a female Nigerian immigrant, non-disabled, English-speaking special
education coordinator working with special education (SpEd) teachers. I grew up in Nigeria, a
developing nation in constant tension with its tradition and the effects of colonialism and White
supremacist and ableist ideologies. I was raised in a country that viewed English as superior to
their local languages and being able-bodied allowed one access to school. My positionality,
assumptions, and biases are shaped by the lens through which I grew up. I grew up internalizing
the ideology that the English language was leverage over those who spoke the local language,
granting me access to places and people. As I reflect on how I was at USC pursuing my doctoral
degree, three experiences serve as my foundation.
Not Right Feeling!
My first experience was as a child in Nigeria. My neighbor had four children, one named
Eli, who was 15 and autistic (I did not know this at the time) and labeled as Mentally Retarded
(MR). Eli was the second child in her family, just like me. Her siblings and mine all attended
school, but not Eli. Eli was not allowed to attend school, play in the neighborhood with the rest
of the children, or attend birthday parties. Her communication skills were limited as she used
sounds and gestures to express herself. I remember feeling sad for Eli and wondering how I
could incorporate her into our fun. I often got into trouble with her mother because I tried to seek
Eli out or insisted, she play with us. In Nigeria, people with disabilities are not given the same
treatment as non-disabled adults because of some cultural beliefs. Obiakor (1998) says, “the care
of persons with exceptionalities has been relegated to the background because of ignorance,

2
superstition, and taboos related to the myriad of ethnic cultures in Nigeria” (p. 63). As a child, I
did not know why Eli acted differently and was not allowed to go to school or play with the other
children, but it did not feel right. This “not right” feeling stayed with me for years.
The second experience occurred when I was an undergraduate student in the United
States of America. I had moved from Nigeria to Los Angeles to attend college and study law. In
my first year, the college held a job fair where multiple companies came to recruit students. One
of these jobs was at Sunshine Care Center, a facility specializing in health care and daily living
services for adults with disabilities. I applied to Sunshine Center to work as a Certified Nursing
Assistant (CNA), not knowing what the job entailed. I was drawn to the job as the pay was over
the minimum wage, they paid for the CNA certification, the work hours aligned with my school
schedule, and it was guaranteed hire.
On my first day of orientation to complete my paperwork, I discovered Sunshine Care
Center was a residential facility for adults with MR. During the tour of the facility and meeting
the residents, memories of my childhood neighbor Eli came to mind. My primary duty would be
direct care for the adults with MR. My reaction was fear, doubt, and wondering if I could care
for adults with MR. However, on my bus ride home, I continued to think of how Eli’s behaviors
were like those of the residents at Sunshine. Eli’s screaming, throwing items, inability to
communicate verbally, and the “not right feeling” I had before flooded my thoughts. Was I
reacting to the adults with MR as I perceived others had acted towards Eli? I was sad about how
I felt. I had never envisioned myself working with adults with disabilities. The clients at
Sunshine were well groomed and seemed happy from their smiles and loud giggles. I grappled
and was fearful of whether I could care for adults with MR. I viewed the residents through an
ableist lens of what they could not do. I still felt unsure but showed up the next day and after. I

3
wanted to be an instrument for change in the life of a person with a disability. My job at
Sunshine was the inception of my career in special education.
I worked at Sunshine for 5 years. While at the center, I had the opportunity to learn more
about the residents, their needs, communication methods, likes, and dislikes. The residents
communicated with sign language, communication boards, language of their origin, different
sounds, and body movements. Though different from my normed belief of verbal and spoken
English, they were communicating. In an ableist society, speech is the preferred method of
communication most of the residents did not have. When I took the residents to restaurants in the
communities, I was aware of non-disabled people’s adverse or fearful reactions when they
displayed excited behaviors such as flapping their hands or making loud sounds. I remember
some customers telling me to eat at the outside tables to avoid scaring their little children or
because the residents were too noisy. Public stigmatization is a triadic process whereby
stereotypes among adults with disabilities are first followed by prejudice (i.e., affective reaction)
and discrimination (i.e., behavior) (Pelleboer-Gunnink et al., 2021).
I also observed that many residents had little to no contact with their parents or families
for years. For example, a resident’s sister came to visit her brother after several years. She told
me she would not have known what to do with her brother if not for the center and the
government aide as her parents took care of him, and now, she was left with the “burden.”
Though some families saw the center as the right choice for their family members, I also saw that
most of the residents were not only isolated and seemingly abandoned by their families but also
stigmatized by some members of their communities. My perception of others in relation to the
resident stemmed from my positionality and biases about adults with disabilities being helpless
and needing constant care. However, through interactions with the residents, particularly from

4
their ability and skill lens, I learned first-hand the importance of checking personal assumptions
and seeing through a different lens. While working at Sunshine, I received many compliments
from my superiors and peers for my care of the residents. The savior mentality internalized, a
tenet of White supremacist ideology, propelled me to want to work with children with
disabilities. I wanted to empower children with disabilities to advocate for themselves. Thus, I
changed my major from law to teaching and applied to work in K–12 schools.
The third experience took place in my final year of college. I got a job at Bird Elementary
School as a special education assistant for a fourth-grade student (Kenny) of Hispanic descent
with autism in a special day class. As Kenny’s one-to-one assistant, my role was to provide
academic and behavior support under the supervision of the Special Education (SpEd) teacher.
Kenny was considered a student with disability (SWD) who was mainstreamed for mathematics
only per his Individual Education Plan (IEP) as this was his area of strength. At an IEP meeting,
the parent and school team review and discuss the present performance level, types of services,
and placement for SWDs. However, the math general education (GE) teacher regularly provided
me with entirely different math tasks than the task provided to the other students in the GE
classroom. For example, Kenny would be coloring or working on non-grade level tasks, unlike
his peers. The math GE teacher also repeatedly communicated that Kenny needed a different task
because he was not performing at grade level and questioned why he was mainstreamed for
mathematics. Kenny often was within earshot when these conversations occurred. His reaction
would be to shut down or refuse to do work. Looking at Kenny through an ideology of White
supremacy and deficit lens, I also saw Kenny as helpless and used grades to determine his
ability.

5
According to Principle 1 of American Psychological Association’s (2015) Top 20
principles from psychology for preK–12 teaching and learning, “students’ beliefs or perception
about intelligence and ability affect their cognitive functioning and learning” (APA, 2015, p. 11).
Kenny’s math learning environment and my bias are examples of how students may begin to
produce a deficit mindset of themselves, shutting down and thinking of themselves as less than
others. Furthermore, Principle 1 states that a teacher “attributing failure to low ability often leads
students to give up or encounter failure” (p. 11). The verbal discourse between me and the
math/GE teachers focused on his lack of academic success harmed Kenny, yet it continued. We
intended to support the SWDs, but our actions showed our deficit orientations. I wanted
academic success for Kenny despite the math GE teacher’s opposition to him doing grade-level
tasks. In hindsight, despite wanting Kenny to accomplish more my conversations with the SpEd
teacher my lens was still from a deficit perspective wanting Kenny to be like his GE peers. While
the SpEd teacher would always push me to try the work assigned to all students, stressing
inclusion, differentiation, and access in the GE classroom for Kenny, she never spoke to the GE
teacher herself. Even with wanting him to do more, the expectation from his SpEd teacher was
much lower than his GE peers academically. For example, the SpEd teacher mentioned that if
Kenny’s GE peers were given an assignment with about 10 questions to completed. If Kenny
was able to complete four out ten questions correctly that accounted for success. During small
groups, I would encourage Kenny to work with his peers, scaffolding the grade level task.
Throughout the year, I increased his math tasks and rigor. I did this by gradually expecting more
from him. For example, if the SpEd/GE teacher wanted him to complete one step in a multi-step
problem, I encouraged him to complete the steps. By the year’s end, Kenny was a contributing
member of the small groups engaging in math conversation and completing about 80% of his

6
class work and tasks. I used this as proof for the math GE/SpEd teachers that success was
possible for Kenny. They both acknowledged his success, and the GE teacher did not make any
changes to her instructional practice. Furthermore, despite my happiness at Kenny’s success, I
realized that my focus was his academic success in math and not conversations about any other
non-academic strengths he displayed. My discourse about academic success with the math/SpEd
teachers perpetuated the status quo of White supremacist ideology in public schools by focusing
on grading as a measure of success. Before I left the school to obtain my SpEd credentials,
Kenny’s parents gifted me a bracelet with Catholic saints to appreciate my service and advocacy
for their child. Though this bracelet hangs on my car’s rear-view mirror as a reminder of my
passion for being a change for SWDs, I still wonder how much more I could have done if I had
seen Kenny’s through an asset lens.
Cheryl Matias (2013) emphasizes the need to investigate one’s cultural background and
privileges, which leads to embracing the identities and positionalities of others. In the
experiences mentioned above, I was drawn to working with SWDs. I had the skill due to my
orientation, but I didn’t understand what it meant to be a teacher for SWDs. I continued in my
career to obtain my mild to moderate credential as a SpEd teacher. As a SpEd teacher, I began to
increase my consciousness and acknowledge how my ethnicity was positioned against my
SWDs. I remember an eighth grade Black SWD telling me how he always felt picked by his
previous White SpEd teacher more than his peers and explicitly stated “because I am Black.” I
was forced to have a conversation about race which I had not done with a student before and
unsure how to approach it. Rather than acknowledge his perspective, I questioned his reasoning,
asking how his behavior may have led to him feeling this way. I blamed the student and when
the student stated that I would not understand, it stirred up that not right feeling. My response

7
could have inadvertently caused harm to the students I chose to serve. Being of Nigerian descent,
I thought I understood the identities, historical, social, and cultural contexts of what it meant to
be Black in America. My initial lack of recognition led to me disregarding the individual
experiences of my Black male student. Thus, I took it upon myself to read up on the plights of
Black Americans to become more aware of the effects of systematic and racial inequities. I
realized my misinterpretation of what it meant to be Black in America. It was more than “pulling
themselves up by their booth straps” but a history of systemic inequities and injustice.
When I was a SpEd teacher, my main measure of success for the SWDs I taught was
students meeting or approaching grade level standards. I designed my lesson with the objective
of providing access to the grade level standard. While this approach was rooted in good
intention, my enactment placed emphasis on their diagnoses as opposed to creating access to the
lesson through their individual strength or interest. For example, when I prepped the SWDs for
the state test, I collaborated with the GE teacher to get the power standards, sample test questions
that formed my core instruction for SWDs. I had a pivotal moment when after 2 years of
teaching focusing on grade level standards, a student who struggled with the test prep was able to
comprehend and articulate a passage based on the genre of choosing independently. This
happened when I asked the student to select a grade-level audio book of her preference and
answer the questions that followed. Remarkably, her performance surpassed my expectation as
she scored a 70%, an impressive leap for a student who averaged around 30% on comprehension
tasks. The standards were the same, but the means to access the instructional material differed,
listening versus reading. I had assumed that the student had to read a literal book to be
successful. I saw the student through an ableist lens, overlooking her learning style. This specific
experience was a realization that I used a deficit lens by underestimating the abilities of my

8
SWDs. This pushed me to change my pedagogical approach to be more attuned to the unique
needs and individual strengths of my students. While not explicitly named, I was engaging in a
form of self-reflective practice, fostering a more inclusive and empowering environment for my
SWDs.
At the time of the study, I was an Instruction and compliance specialist at Ready Charter
School in Los Angeles, educating SpEd teachers. Though I was now working with adultsteachers, I approached them with a lens of White Supremacy, expecting perfectionism and
worship of the written word, and encouraging either/or thinking (Jones & Okun, 2001). As I
reflected on the trajectory of my career, I came to recognize that I had consistently emphasized
the significance of high performance in terms of grad assessments, and I had delivered
professional development opportunities that perpetuated prevailing hegemonic ideologies.
Ableist attitudes were prevalent in both societies in which I have lived. This belief system
often underlies negative attitudes, stereotypes, and stigma toward people with disabilities,
placing non-disabled people as superior (Cherney, 2011). People with disabilities carry and face
stigma in education and socialization (Davis & Manago, 2016). Thus, my experiences and
culture shaped my ableist and White supremacist ideologies for people with disabilities. My
actions demonstrated my misunderstanding and misinterpretation of how I was positioned to
people with disabilities and my internalized White supremacist lens of thinking. Enrolling in
USC’s doctoral program, I continued to question my practice and interrogate my ways of
viewing SWDs through the deficit lens. Teaching is where I belong, and with each experience
comes an increasing awareness of how my actions diverge from what I believe individuals with
disabilities need from me. That “not right feeling” that I experienced with Eli continues to propel
me forward to see that I have been complicit and supported others in providing instruction for

9
SWDS through a deficit lens. Through the action research study, I was more aware of my
ideologies, positionality when supporting SpEd teachers through a critical reflection cycle to
unearth ableist and dominant ideologies that positioned us to reframe our actions and enact asset
orientation for SWDs.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
Legal cases have shaped the inclusion of SWDs in general education classrooms. Before
1975 there was very little reform in special education. Parent advocacy groups prompted the
government to act as their children with disabilities were refused enrollment or placed in
inappropriate programs. In the landmark court case, Mills v. Board of Education (1972), seven
children in the District of Columbia with varying disabilities were refused enrollment because of
their disabilities (Spring, 2016). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia
ruled that school districts were constitutionally prohibited from deciding that they had inadequate
resources to serve children with disabilities because the equal protection clause of the Fourteen
Amendment would not allow the burden of insufficient funding to fall more heavily on children
with disabilities that on other children. (Spring, 2016)
The evolution of federal law through litigation across the country led to the passing of
Public Law 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975. As
Spring (2006) says, “This act required that all students with disabilities receive a free,
appropriate public education and providing a funding mechanism to help with the excess cost of
offering such programs” (p. 28). ECHCA was later reauthorized in 1990 as the Individual with
Disability Education Act (IDEA, Crockett & Mostert, 2000; Yell et al., 1998). EAHCA also
included the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement for students with disabilities.
IDEA requires that a child with a disability be educated in the LRE that is appropriate for their

10
unique needs. LRE is an instructional setting viewed as a continuum of placement options. On
the continuum, the GE classroom is seen as the least restrictive setting, whereas a residential
special education school is considered very restrictive. The LRE in IDEA requires that SWDs are
provided placement in the least restrictive and most appropriate setting to meet students’ needs.
Yet being placed in the least restrictive environment is not a guarantee that a SWD will
experience the promise of inclusion set forth in the law. As Giangreco (2020, p. 12) argues, more
work remains to be done because “placement in general education classes is necessary, but not
sufficient, to be truly included.”
Over the past 40 years, with the federal mandate of IDEA for LRE and free, appropriate
public education, classrooms have become more inclusive (US Department of Education, n.d.).
As additional requirements push SWDs to participate in statewide testing and accountability
procedures, schools face increased pressure to pick an inclusive service delivery model fitting all
students. Thus, LRE and inclusion are similar concepts requiring schools to educate SWDs in GE
classes with peers without disabilities. According to Rodriquez (2021), “Inclusion is a
philosophy that recognizes that all students are capable learners who will benefit from
meaningful, challenging, and appropriate curriculum delivered in the general education
classroom” (p. 3). SWDs have a right to a normalized classroom experience. Ranzaglia et al.
(2003) argue that “inclusion is not a place; instead, it is a lifestyle in which a person is an active
participant in his or her life, rather than a passive and the recipient of decisions someone else has
made” (pp. 140–141). Students with disabilities remain underserved educationally in inclusive or
segregated settings (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). The research shows it is not the setting that
improves or doesn’t improve the outcomes for SWDs but the instruction happening in the
setting.

11
The U.S Department of Education National Center of Education Statistics (2020)
indicates that the percentage of students ages 6–21 served under IDEA spent most of the school
day (i.e., 80% or more of their time) inside GE classrooms in regular schools increased from
57% in fall 2009 to 66% in fall 2020. In addition to the high percentage of SWD in the general
education setting, there is an over-representation of Black and Hispanic students and underrepresentation in less restrictive settings when compared to White peers with identical disabilities
(Skiba et al., 2016) in disabilities categories such as learning disabilities or speech and language
impairment (NCES, 2020). Additionally, there is a disproportionate representation of linguistic
minority groups students whose native language is not English in special education (Sullivan,
2011). Inclusion and disproportionality for SWDs is on the rise. These systemic and hegemonic
problems of ableism and White supremacy are internalized and happening in the education
system (Annamma et al., 2013).
In US schools, ableism promotes the ideology that SWDs cannot attend to their needs and
learning. Marginalized students identified as having a disability have not only the stigma but also
the perceived problematic identities of racial and linguistic practice that contribute to the way
others construct them as abnormal (Annamma et al., 2013). Bartolomé (1994) states that the
academic underachievement of minority students is often a result of a lack of “cognitively,
culturally, and/or linguistically appropriate teaching methods and educational programs” (p.
173). These hegemonic inequities show up in both GE and SpEd teachers’ attitudes and
instructional practices toward inclusion, resulting in a deficit mindset toward SWDs (Bolstad &
Zenuk-Nishide, 2015). Researchers have suggested that a teacher’s ideological orientation is
often reflected in their beliefs and attitudes and in how they instruct their students
(Bartolomé,1994; Milner, 2010). I often hear teachers say that because of the students’ disability,

12
they are unable to do work, perpetuating the dominant ideology of ableism. Annamma et al.
(2013) offer that “US school can inadvertently be misused by teachers to lock students into ridge
ability levels” (p. 1280). When teachers assume that SWDs who do not speak the dominant
language or have linguist error lack intelligence.
These deficit ideologies do not allow teachers to build upon their students’ strengths and
values (Bartolomé, 1994), so instruction is not meaningful, challenging, and appropriate for
SWDs. Annamma et al. (2013) state that “cultural and historical practices inform teachers'’
conception of what is considered normal, and reflective analysis can interrogate existing
practices by externalizing new ones that are more inclusive and welcoming of diversity. Critical
reflection informs that teachers, through an examination of their positionalities and class power,
reinforce the status quo in minds, hearts, and report cards for students while working against
systems of domination (Dougals & Nganga, 2013). Thus, SpEd and GE teachers need to confront
their deficit thinking and examine both their conscious and unconscious beliefs. This selfreflection is essential to challenging the discourse associated with ableism and White
supremacy, understanding their role in perpetuating the status quo, and increasing consciousness
of their instructional practices toward SWDs.
Context
I worked at Ready Charter School, located in Los Angeles, with two campuses serving
Transitional kindergarten (TK) to eighth-grade students, with the school population of 576. The
student population was 71% Hispanic, 25% African American, 0.3% Asian, and 0.3% White
(CA Dashboard, 2021). In addition, the student groups included 15.6% SWDs, 35%
multilanguage learners, and 91.5% socioeconomically disadvantaged students eligible for free or
reduced lunch (CA Dashboard, 2021). On enrollment packets, Ready Charter boasted of

13
exceeding expectations by outpacing neighboring similar schools each year and gains in test
scores. This success was coupled with continued academic improvement, being innovative and
creating a vigorous enrichment program for its students. However, despite the claim, SWDs
scored below grade level on the English Language Arts and Mathematics California Assessment
of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) state tests compared to other groups at the
school (CA Dashboard, 2021). In addition, in 2020, Ready Charter was under the Special
Education Plan (SEP), per the California Department of Education (CDE). The SEP is intensive
or targeted monitoring of special education improvement for underperforming schools in reading
and mathematics for SWDs because of their CAASPP scores.
The emphasis on high test scores was a way Ready Charter was complicit with the
culture of Whiteness. In Ready Charter’s mission and some actions, such as alternative means to
suspension, the school was creating awareness of inequity. At the same time, Ready Charter fell
back on the importance of test scores with weekly emails and centralizing district and state data
in meetings, “subjecting students “to the hierarchical patterns of those who can, and those who
cannot achieve” (Annamma et al., 2013, p. 1283).
Ready Charter had five Hispanic and Black SpEd teachers who provided services for 86
Black or Hispanic SWDs with mild to moderate disabilities,1
all included in the general
education setting. Students with mild to moderate disabilities were typically placed in general
education, resource programs, or special day classes. Ready Charter used the Resource Specialist
1 Mild to Moderate disabilities are considered low-incidence learning disabilities, which include students with specific learning
disabilities, speech and language impairments, autism, other health impairments, traumatic brain injuries, orthopedic impairments, blindness,
deafness, emotional disturbances, hearing impairment, multiple disabilities, visual impairment, and intellectual disabilities (US Department of
Education, n.d)

14
Program (RSP)2
and co-teaching3
as the inclusion model to deliver services for SWDs. For RSP,
students were pulled out of the GE classroom to the resource room and provided with specialized
academic instruction. Co-teaching was fully adopted in the 2022 school year, requiring SpEd
teachers to co-teach either math or English language arts 4 days a week with one to two GE coteachers. The SpEd and GE teachers were expected to collaborate weekly and co-instruct their
lessons.
Teachers’ attitudes, perceptions, training, and experiences all play a role in effective coplanning (Sprowl-Loftis 2013). In my observations of planning conversations with SpEd and GE
teachers, I noticed the content of discourse mostly centered around students’ needs rather than
their strengths or assets. For instance, I heard one SpEd teacher state, “If the student puts in the
effort, he can do more,” while the GE teacher working with that same student mentioned, “I gave
the parent all the information for the computer, yet the student never logs in at home.” Another
GE teacher, when talking about an SWD in their classroom, said, “I wish he gets pulled out less
the student will be able to do more of his GE work.” In each statement, teachers blamed the
students or their parents for SWDs’ lack of academic achievement. The internalized belief of
SWDs being different from others may lead to teachers unintentionally treating them differently
or lowering their expectations.
Another way the ideology of ableism and White supremacy was unconsciously evident at
Ready Charter was during IEP meetings. While GE and SpEd teachers contributed to the level of
performance for SWDs, the focus was on what the student could do to increase academic
achievement and little on the teachers’ actions. Therefore, the discussions offered “little
2 The RSP program provided instruction and material support services to students with disabilities who spend more than 50% of their
school day in a GE classroom.
3
Co-teaching is where two educators co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess a group of students with diverse needs in the same general
education classroom (Dirker & Murawski, 2003).

15
assistance in designing culturally responsive and relevant IEPs” (Barrio et al., 2017). The IEP
was written from the internalized ideology of White supremacy and ableism, highlighting
standardized tests, and placing less value on the experiences of the SWDs. This action showed
the prevalence of teachers’ unconscious and conscious biases and the need to unearth dominant
ideologies.
Role
There was a need to move SpEd teachers towards reflecting and increasing consciousness
around their dominant ideologies. In my role as an instruction and compliance specialist, the two
main components of my job were coaching and compliance. There were three of us who handled
SpEd compliance. We were also responsible for creating and facilitating SpEd-related
instructional and compliance professional development (PD) and reviewing IEP documents. Fink
(2013) posits that “significant learning requires that there be some kind of lasting change that is
important in terms of the learner’s life” (p. 34).
In reflecting on the PDs, I have facilitated knowledge in practice (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999), with knowledge not residing with the classroom teacher but considering myself the
expert SpEd teacher and carrier of knowledge. I did not account for any knowledge the SpEd
teacher brought but planned PD per my expectation of what they needed. In addition, to
knowledge in practice, the PDs were one-shot workshops. I assumed that giving teachers new
skills enhanced their capacity to teach more effectively without following up or providing
feedback (Elmore, 2002). When the teachers returned to instruction and the ideas did not work in
their classrooms, they became frustrated and cynical about new ideas (Elmore 2002). In
producing these workshops, I did not view my teachers as knowledge holders. Therefore, no
change or significant learning was occurring. When I went in for my observations, I expected

16
perfection without taking the time to ensure that I met the needs of my SpEd teachers. They, in
turn, may have required perfection from their SWDs. My PDs inadvertently perpetuated the
dominant ideology of White Supremacy.
In the context of coaching adults, I considered the audience, learning environment and
had agendas in place to ensure that learners were productively engaged. I started each session
with my “Why,” as stated by Simon Sinek (2011). I aimed to discern, want I intended my
learners to leave with after the session, and apply this learning in their daily professional roles. I
came to realize that my coaching sessions primarily focused on compliance due to legal timelines
pertaining to Special education, thereby not enough time on the instructional aspect of their roles.
While our coaching sessions were theoretically a space for open discourse, deconstructing
problems of practice, and collaborative engagement, that was often not the case. As previously
highlighted in this paper, my personal journey of grappling with my identity as a Nigerian
immigrant and how I reproduce hegemonic ideas and structures, manifested in the support I
provided my adult learners during our coaching sessions. In retrospect, I recognized that my
intended validation of the teachers’ experiences often stemmed from a mixture of my conscious
and unconscious internalized ideologies. Consequently, the agendas, coaching notes, and
feedback failed to guide and support SpEd teachers in challenging their dominant ideologies as
our conversation remained at the surface level. Moreover, the discourse from the teachers during
the session revolved around the concept of grades as the measure of success for SWDs and
frustration when the students were not making progress. These experiences by the SpEd teachers
I coached mirrored the same challenges I mentioned I faced in the classroom centering grades.
As Ready Charter put an emphasis on grades, this carried on in the conversations during our
coaching session perpetuating hegemonic ideology and way of thinking.

17
During my coaching session, I also asked myself if I was perpetuating the status quo with
my deficit orientation or enacting assets orientations with my actions and words. I was aware that
I might not be able to disrupt the structures, but I understood that I could push against them no
matter how small. Therefore, evolving as a leader and learning from my practice led me to
develop the research question: How do I support special education teachers and adopt (critical)
reflection to enact asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies?
In the following section presents my revised conceptual framework that both guided my
actions, data collection, and analysis and evolved because of my analysis of the data I collected. I
will then move on to explain the methods I used to identify by which I accomplished my action
research study.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is the “systems of concepts, expectations, beliefs, and theories
that supports and informs your research” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). The original conceptual
framework I employed guided my action research, aiming to address the following research
question: How do I support special education teachers and my adoption of (critical) reflection to
enact asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies?
A revised framework has emerged, and it serves as my theory of change based on my in
the field experience and out of the field analysis as I generated new meanings to accomplish my
long-term goal of supporting SpEd teachers in their ability to enact asset orientations, take
informed actions, and experiment with new approaches when working with SWDs and coplanning lessons with GE teachers. I aimed to support SpEd teachers as they identified and
disrupted dominant ideologies that showed up in their practice. Moving forward, I realize the
importance of teachers bringing in their own problem of practice as it allows them to come to an

18
understanding of the need to slow down and reflect on their own ideologies for change to occur.
In my conceptual framework I refer to my learner as special education teachers. However, I use
learners and teachers interchangeably as I will continue to work with adult educators not only
SpEd teachers.
My conceptual framework illustrates the intricate interplay among concepts within my
study, while also delineating my role as an adult learning facilitator. As outlined in my context
statement and role, it is pivotal for teachers to increase consciousness and actively confront
dominant ideologies of ableism and White supremacy to disrupt deficit orientations when
working with SWDs. As depicted within my conceptual framework, I acknowledge that there is a
progression that exists from increasing consciousness about the dominant ideologies rooted in
White supremacy and of ableism to combating them. In my study, I strived to foster critical
discourse that would unearth and address dominant ideologies of White supremacy and ableism
present in our daily interactions with colleagues, and students. Thus, I set out to promote critical
discourse that moved from only expression of encouragement to considering alternative
perspectives (Horn & Little, 2010; Rodgers, 2002). The longer-term goal is to disrupt these
dominant ideologies and move towards asset-orientated perspectives. Although we did not
achieve critical discourse, I still believe that it is essential.
4 Within the scope of this study our
discourse extended the groups’ understanding of the dominant ideologies without directly
challenging the power dynamics and hegemonic structures.
In my revised theory of change, I continue to argue that adult learning facilitators must
cultivate a holding environment, one that fosters critical discourse and is free from fear and
4
I put critical in parentheses to represent the desire to engage in critical reflection but the
fact that I/we were not successful in achieving it within the confines of this study.

19
retribution (Northouse, 2016). This is done by setting the stage (Spikes, 2014) and
collaboratively working towards deepening trust where teachers feel safe to take risks to explore
new perspectives and adopt a new/different belief system. I rely on Horn and Little’s (2010) idea
that the way adult learning facilitators engage in discourse is intricately linked to the quality of
the relationship they nurture and the teachers’ sense of safety. Consequently, my conception of
andragogy entails creating a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013) where teachers can grapple
with disorienting dilemmas and potential distress (Brookfield, 2017; Heifetz, et al., 2009)
brought on by new learning challenging existing beliefs around their identities and practice.
Furthermore, while it is not reflected in my findings, I posit that an understanding of the Zone of
Proximal Teacher Development (ZPTD) coupled with utilizing forms of assistance empowers
adult learning facilitators to support teachers in discourse that unearths their assumptions,
dominant ideologies and enables them to question their practices so that they can enact asset
orientations for their SWDs.
To normalize conversation (Horn & Little, 2010) around the impact of our dominant
ideologies, I argue that is imperative for teachers to engage in reflective practices and
systematically unearth their underlying assumptions. Thus, I have adopted Rodgers’s 4-step
reflective cycle as a cognitive thinking and acting structure to slow down teachers’ thinking
(Rodgers 2002) and turn them toward their practice (Horn & Little, 2010). Rodgers 2020 asserts
that “teachers need to develop their capacity to observe skillfully and engage in critical analysis
of student experiences and learning outcomes, using these insights to inform their teaching
practices” (p. 231). Consequently, for this study, the foci areas were the first 2-steps: being
present and describing a problem of practice rather than interpreting. By encouraging teachers to
slow down their teaching and learning experience to see and notice things without prematurely

20
jumping to conclusions, we begin to create a brave space to challenge the deficit ideologies
enacted in practice. Horn and Little (2010) contend that when discourse is turned toward practice
it provides a collective sense of agency, allowing alternate responses. Conversation that is turned
away from practice tends to isolate and individualize the problem. I believe that Rodgers’ 4-step
reflective cycle enacted as an andragogical move is essential for teachers to engage in critical
reflection, interrogate their assumptions, analyze, and ultimately normalize their teaching
practice for SWDs.
Even though my teachers and I did not fully achieve the level of critical reflection I
intended, I still believe my primary responsibility as an adult learning facilitator is to foster
critical reflection within myself and among the teachers I work with. Critical reflection is vital to
my ability to examine how I was positioned in relation to my learners. Critical reflection is also
necessary in how I cultivate a brave holding environment and use andragogical moves that
promote the adoption of a thinking and acting cognitive structure. Through this, I aim to
empower my teachers to begin to unearth their own dominant ideologies.
I provide an in-depth explanation of the evolution of my theory of change, as depicted in
(Figure 1). I will begin with defining dominant ideologies, specifically White supremacy and
ableism. Then, I define critical reflection, the holding environment, the Rodgers reflective cycle,
and the andragogical moves enacted. Furthermore, in this section, I will describe how my
conceptual framework has changed because of my experiences in the field.

21
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
Dominant Ideologies
Dominant ideologies are the “set of beliefs and assumptions that are accepted as the
normal and common sense of explaining the world” (Brookfield, 2017, p. 11). These beliefs are
internalized and hard to uncover. Bartolomé (2008) argues that it is important for educators to
understand these ideologies as a teacher’s ideological orientation is often reflected in their
attitudes and beliefs and the ways they interact with, treat, and teach students in the classroom.
This is not an easy task but, as teachers, we must uncover and interrogate our ideologies to
ensure we are not harming our SWDs. Bartolomé (2008) goes on to say that “exposing and
interrogating dominant ideologies is fundamental to any discussions of education, pedagogy, and
teacher preparation” (p. XV). Fundamental ideologies include White supremacy and ableism,
which lead to deficit views of minority students. These ideologies suggest that disadvantaged
groups are responsible for their disadvantages (Bartolomé, 2008; Bogart, 2019; Brookfield,
2017). According to Petit-McClure and Stinson (2019), “ableism and racism are normalizing

22
processes that are interconnected and collusive” (p. 75). As mentioned in my context statement,
SpEd and GE teachers need to confront ableism and White supremacy ideologies to disrupt their
deficit perspectives. While our study did not extensively address the ideology of ableism, we
made progress in how we were situated and displayed ideologies rooted in Whiteness supremacy.
My theory of change evolved over the course of the study as I recognized that confronting
dominant ideology in general terms was the doorway to addressing the complex nature of
ableism and White supremacy. I still believe that it is still essential to overtly attack ableism in
the long run. In the section below, I first describe ableism and then White supremacy.
Ableism ideology refers to social oppression, stereotypes, and discrimination toward
people with disabilities (Bogart, 2019). Ableism stereotypes people with disabilities as warm but
incompetent (Bogart, 2019). This deficit perspective shows that nondisabled people tend to have
“negative implicit and explicit attitudes about people with disabilities” (Bogart, 2019, p. 656).
Gorski (2011) defines deficit ideology as “approaching students based upon our perceptions of
their weaknesses rather than their strengths” (p. 152). For example, a teacher stating that SWD is
too hard to teach lacks motivation and is defiant compared to non-disabled students is
articulating an ableist ideology. Unfortunately, not unearthing ableist perspectives like these
leads to the continuous dehumanizing of SWDs (Khalifa, 2018). Replacing these dominant
ideologies requires a dismantling of the deficit belief, but first, there needs to be a “sufficient
understanding of those beliefs” (Kennedy & Soutullo, 2018, p. 11).
The ideology of White supremacy “assumes that because of their superior intellect and
capacity to think logically and rationally, White people should naturally assume positions of
power and authority” (Brookfield 2007, p. 13). The characteristics of White supremacy culture
can be embedded in all our organizations and practices, regardless of our identities, these norms

23
are so deep that they take work to see and work against (Jones and Okun (2021). As mentioned
above in my context White supremacy culture still affects the education system and educators
viewing marginalized students from a deficit perspective. It is reproduced “when the focus is
solely on the individuals themselves rather than on systems and individual impact (Petit-McClure
& Stinson, 2019). Because of my research, I have also recognized ways that teachers are
currently upholding more White supremacist tenets of either or thinking (Jones & Okun, 2001).
They described one attribute of either or thinking as trying to simplify complex ideas. For
example, in the SpEd or co-taught classroom, the belief that the main language of English should
be spoken by students when in discourse. This doesn’t account for the non-native English
speakers or other dialects of the English language such as Ebonics. Love (2019) argues that a
teacher cannot support ideologies rooted in White supremacy and teach students with kindness,
love, and care and see the beauty of the child’s culture” (p. 14).
Throughout history, “Whiteness and ability [have been seen as] property, and the way
these power systems play out in the field of education creates our inequitable, oppressive
system” for marginalized groups (Petit-McClure & Stinson, 2019, p. 76). For example, in the
past, people deemed “defective” were institutionalized, or scientists claimed that Black brains
were inferior to White brains (Annamma, et al., 2013). Thus, too often, educators come into the
field believing that marginalized students and families are responsible for their life conditions.
As previously stated, research shows that marginalized students are disproportionately referred to
for special education services. When educators use a White supremacy lens, disproportionate
academic or behavioral problems among SWDs are on the students (Bartolomé, 2008). Without
the examination of Whiteness as educators, we turn to stereotypes rather than rich examples that
provide context to the lived experiences of our SWDs.

24
Critical Reflection
Brookfield (2017) points out that because one knows about hegemony intellectually does
not mean one is always able to recognize when one is enacting it. Critical reflection requires us
to challenge hegemonic assumptions that we think are in our best interests but that work against
us in the long term (Brookfield, 2017). We can critically reflect by questioning how our actions
and words are influenced by hegemonic assumptions and work towards framing or replacing
these dominant ideologies (Brookfield, 2010). Furthermore, critical reflection for teachers “is a
process of improving practices, rethinking philosophies, and becoming effective teachers for
today’s ever-changing population. Given the current cultural and racial demographics of our
school and society...” (Howard, 2003, p. 201). For reflection to be critical, there needs to be a
continuous investigation of power relationships and the uncovering of hegemonic assumptions
(Brookfield, 2017). Thus, I contend that critical reflection requires us to ponder our practices and
identities and challenge ideologies and assumptions that we hold dear.
Although we didn’t attain critical reflection, it continues to be an essential component of
my theory of change so that we can recognize and question our hegemonic ableist and White
supremacist assumptions. Drawing on Brookfield (2010, 2017) and Howard (2003), I continue to
define critical reflection as a process of questioning and aiming to uncover and challenge
dominant ideologies/assumptions and reframing these assumptions to improve actions and
practices. Therefore, as an adult learning facilitator, I continue to argue that by supporting SpEd
teachers in exploring their positionality, I can assist them as they “reflect on moral and ethical
implications and consequences of their classroom practices on students” (Larrivee, 2008, p. 343).
They can look inward at their practices where the work can get uncomfortable, consider their
positionalities, assumptions, beliefs, and actions that impact SWDs. I will continue to encourage

25
my learners to ask questions about their practice, such as: What beliefs do you hold on how
capable your SWDs are and why? Larrivee (2008) asserts teachers’ willingness to teach,
assumptions, and behavior are formulated based on teachers’ values and systems, which drives
their behavior. Explicitly naming and examining these values that inform teachers’ perceptions
and their deficit ideologies about SWDs to unearth the dominant ideologies and enact asset
orientations remains my long-term goal.
Self-Critical Reflection
While I was not able to fully accomplish critical reflection, I continue to believe that it is
critical for me to use critical self-reflection to examine how my positionality and power play a
part in relation to my learners. According to Wergin (2020), self-critical reflection is “subjective
reframing reflection on one’s own understanding” (p. 77). Hence, as an adult learning facilitator,
will continue to question if I am perpetuating existing inequitable learning or consciously
attempting not to reproduce marginalization. I am aware that I may not be able to disrupt the
structures, but I understand that I can push against them no matter how small.
It is essential that I continue to use self-critical reflection to consider the way my race and
internalization of hegemonic ideologies shape my actions with my learners. There are similarities
and differences between the SpEd teacher and me. I am a Nigerian Black female educator
serving marginalized students who works with SpEd teachers who are also part of the
marginalized group. I know that my immigrant experiences differ from the SpEd teachers.
Therefore, it is imperative that I continue to use self-critical reflection to check myself and how I
am vulnerable in naming my deficit ideologies and biases to produce change with teachers.

26
Reflective Cycle
In my conceptual framework and my way of making sense of the way change will occur,
I continue to draw on Rodgers’s 4-step reflective cycle infused with a critical component as a
tool to begin challenging dominant ideologies and adopt a new belief of thinking and acting.
Rodgers (2002) describes the 4-step reflective cycle as a process of inquiry that slows down
teachers and asks them to describe in detail, make meaning, and ultimately take intelligent
action. It is a means of uncovering dissonance between espoused theories and theories in use
(Rodgers, 2002). This framework is a systematic way teachers can unearth their assumptions,
dominant ideologies, deficit language, and biases. Slowing down thinking in the reflective cycle
means that “teachers can attend to what is rather than what they wish were so and shift the
weight of thinking from their teaching to students’ learning” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 231)
collectively.
According to Tharp and Gallimore (1988), culture and social interactions are essential to
acquiring new knowledge and skills. Rodgers (2002) asserts that “learning must be grounded in
the text of teachers’ experience” (p. 245). Horn and Little (2010) state that normalizing practice
aims to turn the conversation toward teaching as an object of collective attention. Therefore, I
used teachers’ posed problem of practice to turn them toward practice (Horn & Little, 2010) and
examine themselves and each other as learners by engaging in critical discourse. My theory of
change will continue to center around teachers’ experiences as I continue to support teachers to
engage in critical reflection as they work with SWDs. Though we did not attain critical discourse
I still believe it is essential and it will be explained in a subsequent section.
Presence in experience, description of experience, analysis of experience, and
experimentation make up the 4-steps of the Rodgers reflective cycle as an adult learning

27
facilitator. As stated earlier and given the time of this study the foci areas were the first 2-steps
of Rodgers’s reflective cycle. The first step is being present in the experience/learning to see.
Learners use the inquiry process to interrogate, probe, and examine examples of their teaching
and learning experiences. Doing this provides opportunities for learners to slow down their
thinking (Rodgers, 2002), analyze, and normalize their practice (Horn & Little, 2010). The
second step, describing the experience/learning to describe and differentiate. Rodgers (2002)
states that collaboration with colleagues to dig up details and examine a different perspective
occurs here. “Not jumping to conclusion” is a crucial credo for examining assumptions (Rodgers,
2002). In this step as an adult learning facilitator, I still believe that teachers need to not
immediately default to interpreting and develop the thinking and acting structure of slowing
down to describing their experiences. The third step is the analysis of experience or being able to
think from multiple perspectives. The final step is experimentation or taking intelligent actions.
In the adoption of this belief system, teachers begin to “uncover dissonance between espoused
theories (who we like to think we are) and theories in use (who our actions show us to be)”
(Rodgers, 2002, p. 247). The Rodgers reflective cycle is an iterative process where we will
continue to adjust and adapt as necessary as we engage in critical discourse. As I move forward,
I will continue working with the Rodgers reflective cycle, incorporating all four components in
questioning our dominant ideologies and practices.
As mentioned earlier, reflection is critical when it calls into question power relationships
and dominant ideologies (Brookfield, 2010). The critical nature of the discourse in the reflective
cycle needs to be constant and intentional to move learners from surface learning toward
deep/transformative learning. I will go into more detail in a later section. Mezirow (2000)
explains discourse as “dialogue devoted to searching for a common understanding and

28
assessments of the justification of an interpretation or belief. This involves assessing reasons
advanced by weighing the supporting evidence and arguments and by examining alternative
perspectives” (pp. 10–11). Wergin (2020) defines discourse as a collective and generative
inquiry that extends the group’s understanding. Mezirow (2000) goes further to state that when
there is “a critical assessment of assumption, it leads to a clearer understanding by tapping
collective experience to arrive at a tentative best judgment (pp. 10–11). This interaction is
possible if learners, as stated in Rodgers’s reflective cycle, are present in the experience, open to
multiple perspectives, ask questions, and build on each other’s experiences. Therefore, drawing
from Jay and Johnson’s (2002) concept of a continuum from descriptive to critical reflection, I
expect our discourse to move from descriptive and comparative to critical, individually and as a
group.
As stated earlier, discourse is collective and extends group understanding. Rodgers
(2002) asserts “there is a need for the group of teachers to develop a common language about
teaching and learning. In the process of turning over evidence and asking what is going on” (p.
246), I intend to normalize everyday problems learners may face. For learners to view problems
from multiple perspectives, they need to “(a) normalize[e] a problem of practice, (b) further
[specify] the problem, (c) revis[e] the account of the problem (its nature and possible causes),
and (d) generaliz[e] to principles of teaching” (Horn & Little, 2010, p. 193). I continue to argue
that it is the responsibility of an adult learning facilitator to assist teachers to turn toward practice
in naming their biases/assumptions and connecting how these show up in their practices as we
move towards reframing them. I will continue to move towards discourse and reflections that are
critical in nature by specifying and describing the problem and then considering multiple
perspectives while providing opportunities and then generalizing and thinking about their posed

29
problems of practice (Horn & little, 2010; Rodgers, 2002) in relation to power and hegemonic
ideologies. Though we did not get to a place where we attained critical discourse, I still believe
in my framework it is paramount to moving learners through multiple rounds of the reflective
cycle.
Andragogy
As an adult learning facilitator, I needed to utilize adult learning moves (andragogy) I
utilized to enable my learners to adopt new approaches to thinking and acting. Mezirow (1991)
defines andragogy as an “organized and sustained effort to assist [adults’ learning] in a way that
enhances their capability as self-directed learners” (p. 199). It is hard for adults to make new
meaning when they are emotionally invested in a belief that makes up their identity. Merriam
and Bierema (2013) suggest that adult learning connects past experiences to leverage new
learning. Mezirow (2000) argues that for adult learning to be transformative, there needs to be
constructive discourse using the experience of others and taking actions based on the insights
discovered. Challenging existing beliefs is when deep learning happens but only within the limits
of a person’s perceived ability to handle the challenge (Wergin, 2002). A tenet of deep learning
is the discourse process that should effect change in action (Slayton & Mathias, 2010).
During my study, I did not get to a place where SpEd teachers moved to transformative
or deep learning, I still believe that both transformative and deep learning are required to fully
take on a new belief system. Wergin (2000) asserts that deep learning is an emotional and
conceptual process. I posit that adult learning facilitators need to create opportunities for a
“disorienting dilemma” (Wergin, 2000, p. 28) where learners make new meaning of an
experience in a supportive holding environment. Engaging in discourse that does not fit into an
existing model creates tension (Wergin, 2000). Thus, for deep learning to occur, one must

30
actively challenge their existing belief with support and within their constructive disorientation,
where learners are pushed out of their comfort zone to seek new meanings (Wergin, 2000). I
continue to define andragogy as an organized and sustained process that allows adults to connect
past experiences to interrogate their biases and construct new meaning in a supportive holding
environment.
When looking to have teachers adopt a new cognitive structure, adult learning facilitators
need to foster a holding environment with trust to reduce the fear of judgment and challenges
that come with taking up new learning. In working with my teachers, I gained more knowledge
on their zone of proximal development (ZPD) and utilized different andragogical forms of
assistance that provided guided or independent learning as we engaged in the reflective cycle.
While I was in the field, I was working on deepening the trust I have with the teachers. In the
next section, I will further explain the different andragogical moves that I believe will support
teachers to maintain curiosity and develop the habits of inquiry and reflection that will
continuously move them forward when working with SWDs.
Holding Environment
As mentioned above, for deep learning to occur learners must face a disorienting
dilemma (Wergin, 2000). The disorienting dilemma can be incremental or epochal, which causes
discomfort (Mezirow, 1997). To manage the distress of my teachers, I need to “set the stage”
(Spikes, 2014) by fostering a brave holding environment. Northouse (2010) asserts that a holding
environment is one where “people feel safe tackling difficult problems, but not so safe that they
can avoid the problem” (p. 265). According to Heifetz et al. (2009), the holding environment
needs to be regulated by the facilitator with the right amount of distress for learning. If it is too
intense, the environment becomes ineffective, and no learning happens. Thus, a holding

31
environment requires a brave component where teachers can critically reflect. I have updated my
conceptual frame to include a requirement for developing a holding environment where critical
reflection occurs collaboratively.
Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) posit that a teacher’s perspective on their
practice and action is connected to their ways of knowing. They contend that that are four main
ways (instrumental, socializing, self-authorizing, and self-transforming) adult learners make
meaning of their work and the world. For my learners to embrace the change, I need to
understand how the learners make sense of their experiences and work to support their learning.
Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano go on to say that,
our ways of knowing also have important implications for how educators and all adults
orient to and understand diversity of every kind, as well as for what it means (from their
perspectives) to teach or lead for social justice. (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano,
2017 p. 458)
They also suggest that there are specific forms of support that an adult learning facilitator can
provide to their learners based on their ways of knowing. Therefore, I need to determine the type
of learner I am working with so that I can differentiate the supports and challenges I provided to
them as we worked towards unearthing and challenging our ideologies rooted in White
supremacy and ableism.
As stated earlier, and in line with Horn and Little (2010), how we engage in discourse
depends on the quality of relationships we have with our learners and their sense of safety.
Although we did not achieve a brave space, as we toggled between a safe and a brave space, I
still believe brave space to be an essential component of my conceptual framework. Arao and
Clemens (2013) argue that a brave space is a collectivist approach where the space is co-

32
constructed and may include tension, challenging topics, and risk-taking. This brave space is
where internalized ideologies can be unearthed, and new orientations formed. Therefore, we
must move beyond a sense of safety to engage in critical discourse. Arao and Clemens (2013)
state that “language of safety may encourage entrenchment in privilege” (p. 40). Mezirow (2000)
indicates that supportive relationships and environments create a sense of personal efficacy of
having a self-or-selves more capable of being critically reflective of assumptions and the selfconfidence to take actions on these reflective insights.
While we have a safe space, I need to continue to push towards a brave space that goes
beyond comfort so that teachers can challenge their dominant ideologies. So, to challenge my
learners, I need to pursue a brave space where participants can reflect, speak about racism, and
not feel judged (Spikes, 2018). Arao and Clemens (2013) offer suggestions for creating
discussion agreements to set the conditions for the brave space. One discussion agreement that I
adopt is controversy with civility, where varying opinions are accepted, and it is important to
acknowledge where dialogue may have inflicted harm and own it as well as not allowing
intentional attacks on one another (Ali, 2017). For a brave space to exist, I also must
acknowledge the power that I hold in relation to my teachers as a leader as well as the distress
teachers face when they are asked to adopt new ways of thinking and acting. Therefore, I must
foster a holding environment to deepen our connection and therefore, trust where teachers can
experience productive discomfort without fear of retribution based on the power dynamics in the
space.
Zone of Proximal Teacher Development
To facilitate the development of critical discourse I understand that I need to know my
learners’ ways of knowing as this directly connects to practices and actions enacted in the

33
classroom (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano 2017). Brookfield (2010) contends that ideology
frames our ways of knowing and judgment of what is real or not.
Wergin (2020) uses Zone of Proximal Development and Warford (2010) uses Zone of
Proximal Teacher Development (ZPTD) to describe the area where one benefits from the support
of others to reach their learning potential. I draw on Warford’s (2010) definition of ZPTD as “the
distance between what [teachers] can do on their own without assistance and a proximal level
they might attain through strategically mediated assistance from more capable others” (p. 253).
To learn about my learners’ ZPTD, I need to draw out prior experiences and assumptions about
their use of deficit language, especially about SWDs, by being intentional in the questioning
during our critical discourse. By understanding my learners’ ways of knowing and ZPTD, I
equipped myself to provide forms of assistance that will create learning opportunities for them to
unearth, question, and revise their hegemonic assumptions in relation to the SWDs.
Though, not stated in my findings, my understanding of my teachers’ ZPTD positions me
to differentiate/provide forms of assistance as we examine our assumptions. Adult learning
facilitators who want teachers to take up a need belief system need to be aware of what
disorienting dilemmas may arise and ask what “supports and stretches would feel most
meaningful and productive to help build a fertile foundation for collaboration and mutual
understanding” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 473).
Forms of Assistance
Forms of assistance allow adult learning facilitators “to assist [adults’ learners] in a way
that enhances their capability as self-directed learners” (Mezirow, 2000, p. 199) and to operate in
their ZPTD so that they can unearth their hegemonic beliefs and question their practice to enact
asset orientations for SWDs. The three forms of assistance I rely on are: cognitive structuring

34
modeling, and questioning. I added cognitive structuring based on my in the field experience.
Though I did not engage in all three while in the field, I still believe they are all essential in my
conceptual framework and will continue to drive my work efforts to support adult learners. I will
further describe each of these three forms of assistance.
Cognitive structuring. Cognitive structuring is “the provision of a structure for thinking
and acting” and “assists by providing explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify”
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1989, p. 63). I argue that it is the responsibility of an adult learning
facilitator to support teachers in moving away from deficit thinking and taking up new learning
(enacting asset orientation) by challenging their dominant ideologies. I focused on the process of
scaffolding the information through cognitive structuring. Horn and Little (2010) assert that
incorporating a structural component into our discourse routine fosters deep learning. Through
my action research, I was able to focus teachers’ understanding on assets orientation thinking
from the strength-based perspectives where SWDs abilities are leveraged for their strengths and
identities. However, I was not able to have teachers explicitly engage in critical discourse around
enacting, as we needed to first identify and unearth the dominant ideologies that show up in
practice. According to Tharp and Gallimore (1989), cognitive structuring is the most frequently
used form of assistance and is difficult to put into practice. Thus, I will continue to learn and use
it in different ways to serve as a concept of change to guide teachers in adopting new thinking
and navigating complex information.
I believe the Rodgers reflective cycle can be used as a cognitive structure to provide
teachers with the thinking and acting structure to first internalize and then apply in relation to
their individual problem of practice to enact asset orientation towards SWDs. I want the teachers
to slow down their thinking using the reflective cycle of learning to see, describe, analyze, and

35
experiment as a framework for reflection (Rodgers, 2002). To shift teachers from their default
way of being, I need to be intentional in how they engage and internalize the new way of
thinking. Critical reflection takes time “the more a teacher is present, the more [they] can
perceive; the more [they] perceive the greater the potential for intelligent response” (Rodgers,
2002, p. 234). As we were only able to move through the first two phases of the reflective cycle,
to reach my long-term goal, I will continue to use the cognitive structure to coach teachers to
adopt and integrate the reflective cycle into their practice to develop critical reflection.
Modeling. Tharp and Gallimore (1991, p. 47) say that “Modeling is a process of offering
behavior for imitation.” If I need my learners to be open and critically reflect on their practice, I
must do the same. Brookfield (2017) says that a teacher who models critical reflection on their
practice is one of their students’ most potent catalysts for critical thinking. Although not called
out in my findings, I modeled vulnerability. I shared how I was and still am complicit in
perpetuating hegemonic ideologies in my instructional practice with SWDs when my
assumptions go unchecked. As a facilitator, it is important to show that failures and mistakes are
significant for learning opportunities. In modeling reflection during the study, I also provided a
model of continuous inquiry (Brookfield, 2017) where collective learning is happening as
teachers engaged in the critical reflective cycle. Tharp and Gallimore (1991) argue that modeling
should not be isolated and taken out of context but as a conscious act. Thus, I intend to carry on
modeling in my future work because as asserted by Brookfield (2017) “to skip an initial
modeling of the process [of critical reflection] is a grave tactical error” (p. 257).
Questioning. While I did not get to use questioning as I intended, I still argue that
questioning is an essential form of assistance I will rely on as I continue to foster critical
discourse with my learners. Tharp and Gallimore (1991) argue that questioning is a way to tailor

36
instruction to the ZPTD of learners to facilitate adult learning. Thus, I will rely on intentional
questions to incite discourse. Sahin and Kulm (2008) state that “a good teacher knows how to
use questions for maximum impact” (p. 223). I will utilize different types of questions to engage
my learners, slow their thinking, analyze their thoughts, and push them to think critically as we
engage in discourse around their problems of practice. Sahin and Kulm (2008) assert that there
are three main types of questions: probing, guiding, and factual questions. Probing questions not
only expands learners’ knowledge but pushes learners to use previous knowledge to develop new
perspectives (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). I will use probing when asking my learners to describe and
explain their problems of practice. For example, elaborating on what it means to say a student
does not grasp the concept. Guiding questions can be described as helping or leading questions
used to ask for the next steps (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). I will use these types of questions to help
my learners when they need assistance interpreting their experiences. Finally, factual questions
are questions with predetermined answers (Sahin & Kulm, 2008).
I continue to believe that unearthing dominant ideologies requires developing critical
reflection to challenge and adopt new ways of thinking using teachers’ experiences. Though not
explicit in my findings, I still believe that using questioning as a form of assistance allows
learners to engage and make connections at their own ZPTD.
Research Methods
This section outlines the qualitative approach instruments, data collection, and methods I
utilized to conduct this study. This study was guided by the following research question: How do
I support special education teachers and my adoption of critical reflection to enact asset
orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies? I specifically analyzed how I created a holding
environment and enacted andragogical moves of cognitive structuring to develop critical

37
reflection with two of my SpEd teachers. My actions took place during our coaching sessions,
where I collaborated with both participants. As mentioned earlier, the goal was to promote the
awareness of dominant ideologies that we have internalized and present in our actions,
behaviors, and words when working with their co-teachers and SWDs. In this section, I will
discuss my participants and setting, actions, data collection and instruments, data analysis,
limitations and delimitation, credibility and trustworthiness, and ethics.
Participants and Setting
My action research took place at Ready Academy, a TK–8 Charter school in South Los
Angeles. I engaged in self-study action research as the primary instrument of data collection and
analysis working with two special education teachers at my site. I used purposeful, nonprobability sampling, using “information-rich case[s]” to answer my research question (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016, p. 96). Purposeful, non-probability sampling helped me discover, understand,
and gain insight into a particular phenomenon (Patton, 2015) observed at my school site. In
addition, this approach to sampling created the opportunity to deepen my understanding of ways
to disrupt current teaching practices and move towards enacting asset orientations versus
generalizing to other settings. Thus, I reached out to the SpEd teachers to share the definition of
action research and the study’s purpose and structure. I also explained to them that together we
aim to disrupt our dominant ideologies as I gained knowledge to support them as a leader and
deepen our practice to affirm our SWDs. Being in a position of power, I made sure my
participants knew their participation was voluntary.
Participants
I engaged two SpEd teachers in my study. The first SpEd teacher was Abby. She had
worked in her position for 3 years as the SpEd teacher for transitional kindergarten to third grade

38
SWDs. Teaching was her second career, having worked in the business industry. Abby identified
as a Black, cisgender female in her 40s. She migrated to the United States as a child from West
Africa. In addition, Abby was vocal in school department meetings and would support all
students even when they were not on her caseload. Furthermore, she advocated for SWDs and
was willing to take on more tasks if needed.
At the outset of the study, Abby was a socializing learner. Drago-Severson and Blum
DeStefano (2017) describe socializing learners as those who “have grown to realize that there is
not one, universal “right” way to live, learn, or teach” (p. 46), The opinions and assessments of
others are essential to socializing learners and “exposing inner uncertainties and engaging in
conflict can feel like painful threats to their inner fabric” (Drago-Severson and Blum DeStefano,
2017, p. 469). Furthermore, for this reason, it may be extremely hard for socializing knowers to
broach sensitive subjects like race or prejudice as they worry that doing so may threaten
important relationships (Drago-Severson and Blum DeStefano, 2017). Though as I had observed
Abby was verbal and not afraid to bring up new ideas that benefited SWDs, she struggled to not
be accepted. In addition, I observed an ableist orientation in her practices to please others. For
example, Abby told a GE teacher to move a SWD to a spot that allowed access for the SpEd para
to work with the student in the classroom despite the GE teacher’s vocalizing that it would
disrupt the seating arrangement. Abby checked a few times and the GE teacher had taken no
action. Even though she had the right plan in mind by centering the student, not wanting to rock
the boat, Abby did/said nothing. She chose building a relationship with the GE teacher, and
valuing their opinion, over the child’s best interests. Through the study, Abby moved toward a
self-authoring knower (Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano, 2017) as she started to reflect on

39
the presence of White supremacist culture in her practice and to use other perspectives to inform
her own action, embracing new alternatives.
The second teacher was Clara who identified as an African American cisgender female.
She had been working with the school for 5 years as the middle school SpEd teacher. She lived
near the school and loved to travel during the breaks. Clara tended to be very quiet in school
meetings and would do what was required. Also in our coaching session, she worked best with
checklists.
At the outset of the study, I described Clara as an instrumental knower. Drago-Severson
and Blum DeStefano (2017) describe learners as having “a concrete, right/wrong orientation to
their work and the world and having not yet developed the internal capacity to more fully take
another perspective” (p. 464). For example, SWDs used accommodations in the GE classroom
and Clara gave the IEP passports5
to the teachers every time one was updated. She was not happy
that the GE teachers were not providing the accommodations. In questioning her, she stated that
she had gone over it with them, and they should know what to do. Also, in conversations I had
observed the unexamined effects of White supremacy culture in her practice. For example, she
inferred that multi-language students needed to assimilate by learning English, not realizing she
was not honoring the students’ culture. These instances made me aware of the need to challenge
the unexamined effects of White supremacy in Clara’s practice while deepening our relationship.
Through the action research, Clara’s moved to a developing socializing knower. Clara was able
to identify her dominant ideologies and started to have conversations about race and her
positionality.
5
IEP passport is a document provided to the GE teacher with a snapshot of the student’s IEP information for easy accessibility and
implementation.

40
At the beginning of the study, I was a self-authoring learner. Drago-Severson and Blum
DeStefano (2017) describe learners as “have grown the internal capacity to consider others’
expectations, assessments, and suggestions in relation to their own bench of judgment” (p. 464).
As described in my conceptual framework, our discourse during our coaching session remained
at the surface level and tactical in nature. I did not have challenging discourse about race, power,
or how we may enact hegemonic ideologies in our practice. At the end of the study, I would
describe myself at the latter end as a self-authoring learner, I had grown an internal capacity to
take responsibility for my needs, wants, and desires. For example, I was aware of my deficit
mindset and would speak out against inequities for my SWDs. Now I find myself diving deeper
by questioning how I am positioned against my teachers as a leader and critiquing the systems
and some of the initiatives of my organization. In relation to my learners, I allowed the
opportunity for them to provide feedback and critique my leadership. As well as fostering a
space for teachers to unearth their dominant ideologies using problem practice to move towards
critical reflection.
Setting of Actions
The action research was designed to examine my leadership and ability to engage my
SpEd teachers in critical reflective cycles as we worked together to unearth dominant ideologies
to enact asset orientation. The action research study took place during our coaching sessions.
These sessions were opportunities for us to check in and share ideas, concerns and questions on
instruction, IEPs, students, GE teachers, administration, and families. Prior to the study, I mostly
had individual coaching sessions. However, for the study, I conducted group sessions because of
the importance of social interaction in acquiring new knowledge and skills (Tharp & Gallimore,

41
1988). Because there had been a shift from in-person meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic,
and because the SpEd teachers worked on different campuses, we met in Zoom (virtually).
Actions
Consistent with my conceptual framework, I understood that supporting SpEd teachers to
enact asset orientations, take informed actions, and experiment with new approaches in our
practices for SWDs required critical reflection. I was aware that I needed to meet teachers where
they were (Warford, 2010). Thus, to achieve the long-term goal of increasing consciousness and
reframe our language in inclusive terms while recognizing the assets SWDs bring to the
classroom and school, I had to create a holding environment to deepen our trust where there was
a synergy between the concepts of engaging in a critical reflective cycle of slowing down
unearth dominant ideologies and adopt a thinking and acting structure. I also had to provide
forms of assistance to promote our ability to engage in critical reflection cycles. As a result, I
designed the action research in three phases:
1. Foster the holding environment and define dominant ideologies.
2. Unpacking the critical reflective cycle.
3. Normalizing our problem of practice.
As an adult learning facilitator, I supported teachers by fostering a holding environment
to deepen trust as they began to adopt a reflective cycle to interrogate their practice through a
critical lens in activities and using literature and forms of assistance that unearthed the dominant
ideology of White supremacy and ableism. Table 1 outlines the interactions I had with my
learners and the data I collected for each cycle of the study.

42
Table 1
Teacher-Adult learning facilitator Actions
Cycle1: Foster the holding environment and defining dominant ideologies
Action researcher Setting Progress indicators
Week 1
Create learning
conditions
.

Objectives:
– Reviewed the purpose of the
study and anchor it into
supporting SWDs
– Teachers will discuss
community agreements to
build trust in a space where
learners are in support of
individual and collective
growth
– I modeled my “I Am from”
Activity:
– Review our discussion norms
– I Am From activity
– Introduce dominant ideology:
– What are dominant
ideologies
Coaching sessions
Learners were vulnerable as they shared
their positionalities.
Data
Discussion agreements
I Am Statements
Jotting
Field notes
Zoom recording

Week 2 Objective:
– Define positionality
– Define dominant ideologies
(Douglas & Nganga, 2013)
Activity:
– Positionality & dominant
ideology explored using the
intersecting Axes of privilege,
domination, and oppression
Coaching sessions

Learners began to realize the power they
held through discourse
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording
Week 3 Objective:
– Define dominant ideologies
– Introduce and define the types
of reflection using questions
(Brookfield, 2019; Jay &
Johnson, 2002)
Activity:
– Discourse around dominant
ideologies continued
Reflection types
– Discourse: How are you
implicated or complicit in the
problems we are trying to
address: how are you both
part of the problem and the
solution (in different ways)?
Coaching sessions

Learners can identify the types of reflections
Data
Field notes
CIQ
Zoom recording

43
Week 4: Out of
the field
Analysis
Out of Field Analysis and Critical Reflection: Using self-critical reflection to understand group
dynamics, disorienting dilemmas and analyze progress to inform my subsequent actions.
How does my positionality impact my interactions with learners?
Do the strategies I use promote progress towards the development of unearthing dominant
ideologies?
Am I present to the non-verbal cues of my learners?
Are learners demonstrating progress in their learning?
How do I redirect learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo?
Am I creating learning conditions that foster a brave space?
Am I utilizing and validating the experiences of my learners during the meeting?
What andragogical moves would I need to insight learning for the SpEd teachers?
Data
– Critical Reflection
Cycle 2: Unpacking Critical Reflection
Action researcher Progress indicators
Week 1 Objectives:
– Describe Rodgers’s reflective
cycle.
– Focused on the difference
between description and
interpretation through
cognitive structuring
(Rodgers, 2002)
Activity:
– Teachers used pictures and a
video to begin to slow down
interpretation
– Discourse: The four phases
of the Rodger cycle
Coaching sessions

Learners explain the difference between
describing and interpreting
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording
Week 2 Objectives:
– Continued to expand on
Rodgers’s reflective cycle
Activity:
– Teachers continued to use
pictures and videos to begin
to slow down interpretation
Coaching session Learners expand on the difference between
describing and interpreting
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording
Week 3

Objectives:
– Understanding how to reflect
using my problem of practice
Activity:
– Teachers engaged in the
reflective cycle by analyzing
using my problem of
practice
Coaching session Learners used questioning to elicit more
information
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording
CIQ

44
Week 4 Out of Field Analysis and Critical Reflection: Using self-critical reflection to understand group
dynamics, disorienting dilemmas, and analyze progress to inform my subsequent actions.
How do I provide multiple entry points into the conversation?
Do the strategies I use promote progress towards the development of unearthing dominant ideologies
and enact asset orientation for SWDs?
How do I redirect learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo?
Am I creating learning conditions that foster a brave space?
Am I utilizing and validating the experiences of my learners during the meeting?
What andragogical moves would I need to insight learning for the SpEd teachers?
How does my positionality impact my interactions with learners?
DATA: Critical Reflection
Cycle 3: Normalizing Problem of Practice
Action Researcher Progress indicators
Week 1 Objective:
– Apply Rodgers’s reflective
cycle to a problem of
practice
(Horn & Little, 2010)
Activity:
– Review concepts from
previous sessions
– Discourse on teachers’
problem of practice
Coaching sessions

Learners are observed to slow down when
describing a problem of practice
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording
Week 2 Objective:
– Apply Rodgers’s reflective
cycle to a problem of
practice
Activity:
– Teachers’ analysis a
problem of practice
Coaching session

Learners are observed to slow down when
describing a problem of practice
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording
Week 3

Objective:
– Apply Rodgers’s reflective
cycle to a problem of
practice
– Debrief collectively
Activity:
– Teachers’ analysis a
problem of practice
Coaching session

Learners see how their practice is influenced
by their dominant ideologies
Learners are aware of alternate perspectives
for the same situation when they slow down
to describe
Data
Field notes
Zoom recording

45
CIQ
Week 4 Out of Field Analysis and Critical Reflection: Using self-critical reflection to understand group
dynamics, disorienting dilemmas and analyze progress to inform my subsequent actions.
How do I provide multiple entry points into the conversation?
Do the strategies I use promote progress towards the development of unearthing dominant ideologies
and enacting asset orientation for SWDs?
How do I redirect learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo?
Am I creating learning conditions that foster a brave space?
Am I utilizing and validating the experiences of my learners during the meeting?
What andragogical moves would I need to insight learning for the SpEd teachers?
How does my positionality impact my interactions with learners?
Data: Critical reflection
Data Collection
Data helps to understand and discover insights relevant to the research question (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). As mentioned in my conceptual framework, the action research was designed
to examine my leadership and ability to engage my SpEd teachers in critical reflective cycles as
we worked together to unearth dominant ideologies to enact asset orientation for SWDs. As the
primary research instrument, my data collection included three critical reflections, nine meeting
field notes, three analytic memos, and two methodological memos, three CIQs, nine Zoom
recordings, and instructional resources. My reflections were intended to be critical, however,
they were more descriptive and comparative, which will be explained further in my findings.
These sources collectively constituted the body of evidence that I examined to show my
development as a leader.
Documents
I used a variety of documents to collect data. To co-construct discourse norms, I used my
previous documents which contained three questions and nine discussion agreements adapted
from a handout provided by the California Conference for Equality and Justice (CCEC) from my
EDUE 700 course. I also used my previously written “I AM” statement to model as we expanded
on our positionalities. These documents helped to build trust and set the foundations for a strong

46
holding environment as we interrogated and started to unearth our dominant ideologies rooted in
White supremacy and ableism. In addition, I used a slide deck to guide our learning as we were
via Zoom with the learning intention and purpose of the study stated in each session. In addition,
I used the Critical Incident Questionnaire (CIQ). The questionnaire form served as a snapshot of
what the learners were thinking (Brookfield, 201. The questionnaires were collected but not
analyzed. They informed or helped me to justify my different andragogical moves for the next
cycle.
These documents aided in the discourse around our practice while creating awareness of
deficit ideologies to enact asset orientations.
Observations
Coughlan (2019) explains the importance of documenting. As the primary research
instrument for the study, I needed to observe interaction comprising what I saw, heard,
experienced, and thought about during our sessions (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). This helped to
drive the andragogical moves I enacted and better understand who my learners
were. Observation occurred during our weekly coaching sessions via Zoom. The coaching
sessions lasted for about an hour weekly. I used Zoom recorded observations, jottings, and
fieldnotes to aid my critical reflections as well as for the purposes of analysis.
Jotting. I used jotting to explore the tension of my role and power issues that arose. I also
captured notes about my behavior and the teacher’s behavior during our sessions to determine
and articulate how my positionality and power hindered or moved the study forward. My jotting
served the purpose of supplementing my memory.
Fieldnotes. Following each session, I relied on my jotting notes to aid in the creation of
my fieldnotes. Additionally, I referenced the Zoom transcript to ensure that I accurately

47
documented actions verbatim. My fieldnotes included various elements, including but not limited
to the setting, participants, interactions, discourse, spontaneous activities, non-verbal cues, and
my own actions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a novice researcher, juggling the role of
facilitator and note-taker was challenging as I wanted to remain fully engaged with my learner.
Therefore, the journals, fieldnotes, and Zoom transcript served as an invaluable resource for
recounting our sessions and provided a stepping stone for my critical reflection and out of the
field analysis.
Critical Reflection. As I explained earlier, critical reflection is a process of questioning
and aiming to uncover and challenge dominant ideologies/assumptions and reframing these
assumptions to improve actions and practices. Critical reflection needs one to continuously
investigate power relationships and uncover hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2017). Selfcritical reflection allowed me to ask questions that I might not otherwise have asked, such as
how the power I held influenced my work with the learners. How did I situate and negotiate the
SpEd teachers’ knowledge and experience with my own? How did I utilize and validate their
experiences during the meeting? What andragogical moves did I need to insight learning for the
SpEd teachers? Thus, I (critically) reflected after each cycle to inform my subsequent actions and
ensure that I centered the progress of my participants. The process of interrogating my
complicity in perpetuating dominant ideologies and examining my enactment of the andragogical
moves to foster learning was not easy. To do this I wrote or recorded three (critical) reflections at
the end of cycle, using the questions in my action as a guide.
Data Analysis
Data analysis involves working with, organizing, breaking down, coding, and
synthesizing data in search of patterns (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007, p. 159). Furthermore, data

48
analysis is ongoing occurring in and out of the field, moving between concrete data and abstract
concepts (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For my in-the-field analysis, I utilized some of the 10
helpful suggestions per Merriam and Tisdell (2016): Practicing the act of sticking to the purpose
of the study, jotting comments and writing fieldnotes, developing analytic questions, and
grounding myself in the literature through my conceptual framework. Data analysis started
immediately as I collected jottings and field notes after each session for each week in the field.
When out of the field in between cycles, I stepped back to analyze my actions in relation to my
learners for the next cycles. In addition, I wrote an analytic memo to capture the rich and
descriptive data. Ravitch and Carl (2021) describe this as a process of reading, questioning, and
engaging with data to make sense of how collective actions shaped the study. For example, after
my analysis in cycle I, I noticed that my teachers were experiencing the space differently, though
I had made some changes, I needed to be more intentional. This was the process for three cycles
over a 3-month span.
Data analysis informed my actions in the field and allowed me to start precoding. Once I
left the field, I engaged in a more intensive analysis that included cycles of coding, planning,
acting, observing, and reflecting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and created a code book. This
involved me rereading each data type from each cycle and writing an analytic memo to make
sense of what I was finding. As a novice researcher, I started creating a group of codes as
Ravitch and Carl (2021) posit that it is best to “start broadly and then work to develop more
narrow and specific code as analysis progress” (p. 266). This aided in linking or not linking my
findings to concepts, theme development, and development of a new framework as needed. I
used a priori codes of White supremacy, ableism, reflection, turning to or away from practice,
presence, or lack of critical discourse, along with precoding to drive my analysis as emergent

49
codes developed such as emotional safety, vulnerability, and ties that binds us together. For
example, when coding I recognized I had in-vivo codes with similar meaning, Andragogy:
bridging the sessions and Andragogy: making the connection to race and the larger system and
merged them to cognitive structuring. In addition, I used my code book to determine the
typicality of my actions as themes emerged. Another example of this is through typicality
noticed that the ideology of White supremacy my spoken to more with very little attention to
ableism as discussed in my conceptual framework. Furthermore, my weekly meeting with my
chair served as a reminder to let the data speak for itself and look at my data from an inductive
perspective.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some limitations and delimitations to this study. Limitations are conditions not
within my control that bound what I was able to learn. Delimitations are conditions of my
creation that bound what I learned through this study.
Limitations
One limitation that constrained the study was the SpEd director at Ready Academy
resigned at the onset of the study and this led to a change in my role. I became the SpEd
coordinator to lead teachers. However, as the lead teachers still provided instruction, I still had a
few teachers to coach and Abby and Clara were two of them. I had to account for the fact that I
was the mentor teacher and supervisor to both learners. Because of both condition conditions (I
had been their mentor and was their supervisor, I could not be sure that they shared openly or
were unafraid of any consequences that might result from our work together in this action
research study. I also had to consider that their responses might have been altered based on my
position, balancing the power of being the researcher and leader. Finally, I could not control the

50
fact that I was a novice researcher as well as a novice at enacting the reflective cycle and
andragogical moves at the moment.
Delimitations
A delimitation is the 3-month frame of the study for action and data collection because it
limited how far we could get to unearthing our dominant ideologies. In addition, I took on a new
approach to coaching by changing the structure from individual to group, I could not guarantee
how the change affected the learners. In addition, student voices are missing from the research as
the study focuses on unearthing the dominant ideologies of SpEd teachers inclusive of myself.
As a novice researcher and adult learning facilitator—using the forms of assistance outlined in
my methods—I was limited in my ability to gather, analyze, and understand data as well as enact
the moves I believed were in our collective interest to reach my long-term goal.
Creditability and Trustworthiness
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offer that “Ensuring validity and reliability in qualitative
research involves conducting the investigation in an ethical manner” (p. 237). Therefore,
credibility and trustworthiness were in play throughout the research process. As mentioned
earlier, reflexivity is the awareness of the researcher’s influence on the study and how the
research process affects the researchers. I was the key instrument of data collection and
conducting research in my organization. Thus, I had to grapple with how power dynamics shaped
the interactions with my learners. In doing so, I used my experience of supporting teachers, and
the teachers experiences to unearth dominant ideologies in relation to their practice as a step to
enacting asset orientation.
Maxwell (2013) argues that biases and reactivity are two threats to research. I know I
could not eliminate my biases and assumptions stemming from White supremacy culture and

51
ableism ideologies. I ensured I used strategies to check my biases, so they did not influence the
study. One strategy I used was being vulnerable and transparent with my learners about my
biases and learning from my practice. Despite not getting to self-critical reflections, my
reflections were the process I engaged in to critique and analyze my andragogical moves to
increase asset orientations for SWDs and how I was positioned in relation to learners. I used
some of these questions to guide my critical reflection process: What do they think of me? How
does this affect how they bring themselves into the space? What effect does my power as a
management staff play in our discourse? Furthermore, I reflected on the values I held about
ableism and White supremacy, being an immigrant, able-bodied, Nigerian female educator with
values stemming from colonialism. For reactivity, the goal is not to eliminate the influence but to
understand and use it productively (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher’s position or reflexivity is
another form of the integrity of the research.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue that triangulation is “probably the best-known strategy
to shore up the internal [credibility] of a study” (p. 244). Collecting multiple forms of data
ensured that I was analyzing the study from different angles. As stated earlier, I used
observations, jottings, fieldnotes, and recordings to ensure that I presented a holistic
interpretation of what was happening. In addition, I utilized member checks from the participants
to clarify aspects of the study rather than form a conclusion. For example, reaching out to a
learner to check if she wanted her country of origin listed or not. I member checked to confirm
the accuracy of the transcript check. I did not share the analysis of my findings with the
participants. Triangulation helped me adjust my practice using the participants’ input. Finally, I
met weekly with my chair and, as needed, for feedback and support.

52
Ethics
Lochmiller and Lester (2017) say, “Educational researchers respect the rights, privacy,
dignity, and sensitivities of their research populations and the integrity of the institutions within
which the research occurs” (p. 68). I must make ethical choices in the conduction of my study
because so much data collection will entail discourse. Therefore, as a researcher, I was mindful
of my role when gathering data. If ethics is unchecked, it can reproduce harm (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). As noted by Glesne (2011), it is vital not to exploit participants during research
while also considering what knowledge will be gained by both the researcher and the
community. This point is essential as the study also dealt with a marginalized group-SWDs.
Therefore, there were ethical considerations at every stage of the research process. (Glesne,
2011, Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
According to Lochmiller and Lester (2017), ethics in educational research involves the
following, “(a) inviting the consent of participants, (b) ensuring no harm is done, and (c)
protecting the identity of participants (p. 71). I received prior consent from the Chief Academic
Officer to conduct the study. As well as went through USC’s Institutional Review Board,
following their rules regarding the protection and rights of the participants of the study.
Furthermore, I was aware of the play of power as an inside researcher and my position as my
learners’ mentor teacher, and their supervisor. I addressed this by emphasizing to my participants
that the study was voluntary, and their identity would be confidential. I used pseudonyms to
report my research findings to further obscure the participants’ identities. The participants were
made aware that they would receive no penalty or repercussions if they chose to decline.
Furthermore, as I had been the coach for both SpEd teachers, I was cognizant of balancing the
power dynamics in the space. One way was to ensure my voice was not centered and review the

53
transcriptive to see how much I took up space or not and adjust accordingly. I wanted to foster an
environment where knowledge was co-created.
During data collection, asking learners to grapple with ideologies they held dear can be
disorienting and uncomfortable. I acknowledged the emotional toll and was upfront with my
actions, many times vocalizing it. I also reminded learners at the start of each session that our
discourse created in the space was recorded. In addition, I stored all documents in a secure
location and deleted names referencing others in our organization.
Findings
In this section, I present my findings to the following action research question: How do I
support special education teachers and my adoption of (critical) reflection to enact asset
orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies? First, I present the progress that my participants
made with my support. Second, I present the ways that I developed as an adult learning
facilitator.
Fostering a Holding Environment
Consistent with my conceptual framework, the holding environment I needed to create
was one where trust was present, and teachers felt safe to engage in critical discourse. Trust is
essential and a reciprocal act and happens through connection (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006)
when teachers feel safe. As suggested by Northouse (2016), trust also means freedom from fear
of retribution. Consistent, with Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006), I believed by deepening trust,
we would feel safe to take risks and engage in discourse together that was not surface/tactical in
nature and lacked any focus on our assumptions and identities in relation to supporting our
SWDs. Through the action research cycles, I was able to increase the connections between us,
strengthening the holding environment from one where there were no conversations about our

54
assumptions and identities to one where deeper trust existed and teachers moved closer to
unearthing dominant ideologies and questioning their own internalized assumption rooted in
dominant ideologies.
Deepening Trust
Horn and Little (2010) state that how we engage in discourse and the learners’ sense of
safety depends on the quality of relationships. Prior to the study, my relationship with each
teacher varied. I also met weekly with Abby and Clara on an individual basis. Our meetings were
primarily made up of one way communication from me to them with little opportunity for open
dialogue or feedback. I did not ask them to engage in challenging conversations that questioned
and pushed back against their internalized assumptions or to be introspective about their practice.
The way I interacted with them fostered discourse that was tactical/surface, focused on day-today execution of activities and conversations about students' IEPs documentation and
compliance. In this environment, there was a level of trust that existed where Abby and Clara
could communicate their needs. However, both Abby and Clara often experienced stress due to
the legal requirements of IEP compliance. Both feared retribution and potential disciplinary
actions from me if they were not in compliance. This fear hindered the quality of our relationship
and the trust needed to engage in critical discourse. I recognized that moving from
tactical/surface discourse to one where trust was present and where learners felt safe to engage in
critical discourse required a change in the quality of our relationship and the connections
between us. One communicative action I took to deepen trust was to strengthen the connections
between us by establishing discussion agreements. In alignment with Arao and Clemens (2013),
by going over discussion agreements and inviting Abby and Clara to ask questions and share

55
additional ground rules of their own, I was increasing trust by strengthening our connections so
that we would be able to communicate authentically with one another.
In session 1, Cycle 1, in line with my action plan, I started the meeting “setting the
stage” (Spikes, 2014, p. 45) by reintroducing the purpose of my study to examine my own
leadership abilities and to engage my colleagues in an inquiry of their practice. I then introduced
and provided the participant with a Google document called the Classroom Community
Agreement. (Appendix A). This document contained three questions and nine discussion
agreements adapted from a handout provided by the California Conference for Equality and
Justice (CCEC) I used in my EDUE 700 course in the EdL program. The questions invited us to
be introspective about how we engage with one another (Aaro & Clemens, 2013). The excerpt
below demonstrates how I set out with the intention of deepening our connection and therefore,
trust.
(Note I started recording about 1 minute into the session)
M: And then just examining my leadership ability and as well hoping that I create a
space where we can push ourselves outside of our norm. Do guys you have any
questions about that?
C: So, we’re talking about you as an individual or just leadership as a whole.
M: So, me as an individual, but as well as you also digging into your practice as well.
M: Okay.
C: So, it will be together. Together will collaborate and discourse.
F: (I shared a Google Doc) I got these norms from the California Conference for
Equity and Justice. These are nine norms that talk about when we want to create a
space where we attend to discomfort so what I mean by in this space. I want us to

56
get uncomfortable if we can. That culture of niceness let’s put it to the side. So,
when we hear something that makes us go arghh, rather than deflect or we don’t
want to engage I want us to challenge ourselves like Abby. Why do you think that
way? You know, Ifeyinwa, why do you think that way. Because I feel like that’s
the only way for us to get deeper and engage in conversation that’s more nuanced
because we’re used to just saying it’s okay. Even though deep down inside, we
feel like it’s not okay. Okay, so I’ll stop talking. Take about 2 minutes for us to
look at the discussion norms. If 2 minutes is not enough, let me know.
By indicating that I was “examining my leadership abilities,” I was extending an invitation to my
learners, by being vulnerable, to connect with me. Exposing myself for Abby and Clara to
question me as a leader was not something I had done before. In alignment with Heifetz et al.
(2009), one must be engaged with their heart to connect to others. I was opening myself for
critique or praise and in doing so sending the message that I trusted them to be honest in their
opinions of me as a leader. I was telegraphing how I was here to listen and in return listen to
them. In my next statement that I was “hoping that I create a space where we push ourselves
outside of our norm.” I was signaling that I understood something was absent in our space and
“hoping” being optimistic that by “creat[ing] a space” being intentional to bring a set of
conditions that was not there into existence. I was interested in a space where we could be
uncomfortable, risk being judged and “push[ing] ourselves.” I was inviting the teachers to take a
risk with me to engage beyond our usual approach, “outside of our norm” of discourse.
Consistent with Northouse (2016), to develop the communication process, the holding
environment has to be a place where people feel safe to confront changes in their values. By

57
asking, “Do you have any questions about that?” I invited Abby and Clara to connect by sharing
their perspectives or concerns, suggesting that I was not going to judge their input.
Clara’s response of “So we are talking about you as an individual or just leadership as a
whole” signaled a level of connection (trust) already present in the space as she responded to my
question and was not afraid to ask a clarifying question. Her response also showed uncertainty in
understanding what I was trying to say, did the discussion pertain to me as a leader or a broader
context of leadership? This made me aware that my language aired on the side of my caution
(weak connection). My response of “so, me as an individual” pointed back to “me” clarified my
role as an active participant in the research process. I was letting Clara know that I was also
seeking feedback and putting myself at risk. Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2016) point that “to
create trust in a relationship, [facilitator and teachers] need to engage in work together” (p. 275).
When I said, “as well as you,” I was expressing an expectation that there would be reciprocity
and transparency where I was willing to share experiences and expecting the teachers to do the
same, creating a stronger connection between us. In promoting similar self-exploration, I was
fostering a safe environment where both parties could feel comfortable sharing. By using the
word “digging,” I was asking them not to be afraid to challenge themselves to turn inwards,
uproot assumptions, identify strengths and weaknesses in “[their] practice.” Clara’s one word
response of “Okay,” and her tone denotated a sense of uncertainty and provided limited
transparency into her thinking as she did not exhibit a readiness to share her own thoughts, again
signaling a weaker connection. I interpreted Abby's silence and body language of shaking her
head in agreement during this conversation exchange to demonstrate her lack of clarity too. By
saying “So, it will be together” I was reassuring Clara and Abby that they were not alone.
“Together [we] will collaborate and discourse” suggested that I understood there was uncertainty

58
and wanted them to know that they were not alone demonstrated my effort to make the space
safe and connect us to each other.
In sharing the quote, “I got these norms from the California Conference for Equity and
Justice” I was openly sharing the source of my norms indicating my transparency of where the
information came from. The transparency was implicitly me building trust by being open and
seeking to connect with them. Through the language “These are the nine norms that talk about
when we want to create a space” I was establishing that the process of creating a space different
from what we were used to and it would take a shared understanding of the norms, for it to
happen. I had initially mentioned that I was aware that there were conditions not in place for a
space “where we attend to discomfort.” Now in stressing the word “discomfort” I acknowledged
that I was aware of the potential challenges that might arise during the research process and
invited them to trust that I had considered their safety. This invitation to trust ourselves to take
the risk to be open and vulnerable is consistent with Heifetz et al.’s (2009) idea that it is essential
to honor the reality that change comes with distress and important to have compassion for the
pain that comes with change. Thus, by reiterating “I want us to get uncomfortable if we can,” I
pointed back to the reciprocal process of “us” as a collective in the space to be open and trust
each other’s shared experiences.
By communicating the “culture of niceness” I named the space in existence where open
and honest discussion did not exist. My statement of “let’s put it to the side” is consistent with
Heifetz et al.’s (2009) assertion of calling attention to drawing people’s sense of responsibility
commitment beyond current norms” (p. 29) demonstrates a reinforcement to engage in candid
conversations without fear of retribution, trusting each other to grapple with the distress that will
arise. “So, when we hear something that makes us go arghh” I was going further to encourage

59
teachers to be open and share their genuine thoughts. By indicating that “rather than deflect or
we don’t want to engage” I again was communicating what was and “I want us to challenge
ourselves” communicating the invitation for active engagement and “us” mutual accountability.
My statement here is evidence of Heifetz et al.’s (2009) claim in trying to move people one must
connect with the values, beliefs, and anxieties of the people. I followed this by modeling
questions “Clara, why do you think that way? You know, Ifeyinwa, why do you think that way?”
intentionally mentioning names I was letting the learners know that they were active and not
passive recipients of the information. This statement “because I feel like that’s the only way for
us to get deeper and engage in conversation that’s more nuanced because we’re used to just
saying it’s okay” expressed my belief that depth and complexity built trust by me showing
genuine interest in us exploring together. This statement “even though deep down inside, we feel
like it’s not okay” indicates my complicity as well as the prevailing cultural norm and the need
for change. When I said, “Okay, so I’ll stop talking. Take about 2 minutes for us to look at the
discussion norms,” I reiterated the language of “us” to show that together we would build on
these agreements. In line with Northouse’s (2010) idea that when norms are constructive, it
creates a positive effect on the progress of the group (p. 267). I then took the actionable of step
circling back to establishing trust letting Abby and Clara know their input was valid I did this
when I offered, “If 2 minutes is not enough, let me know.”
Although I had begun to deepen trust in the holding environment by using discussion
agreements to strengthen our connection to each other, I wrote in my field notes during the
session, “I feel myself talking too much.” I recognized I had centered my voice. I wanted to
decenter my voice and ensure that Abby and Clara knew that their input also mattered. Thus, to
take another step toward strengthening the holding environment, I used the “I Am From”

60
exercise to continue to deepen trust (our connections to each other) in pursuit of unearthing our
assumptions. “I Am From,” as described by Klein (2018), “is a tool for analyzing the social
construction of intersectional identity that addresses racism and other inequities in the
classroom” (p. 87). The intention of this activity was to encourage connection through
vulnerability, asking those speaking to share without fear and those who are listening not to
judge and be open to what is shared working to strengthen the holding environments and deepen
trust. I enacted this activity by letting them know the purpose of the “I Am From” and asking
they be open to the process. I then put up a slide with sentence starters and asked them to
complete as many phrases as possible and pick at least four identities they felt comfortable
sharing. Finally, I let them know I had done this several times and each time I had gone deeper in
my responses. I then modeled.
In modeling my “I Am From” I was foreshadowing how I intended the teachers to engage
in the space. To build a connection, I took the risk of going first talking about my constructed
identities with the hope that Abby and Clara would not judge me and reciprocate in their
responses. I recognized that people only participated to the extent they perceived the holding
environment to be safe and my act of encouraging teachers to engage to the extent they were
comfortable demonstrated no judgment (Klien, 2019). On the other hand, I focused narrowly on
Whiteness in my “I Am From.” I did not attend to myself as an able-bodied individual. This
action set up my learners to also put the emphasis on White supremacy and not ability/disability,
as evident in their responses.
The excerpt below of my “I Am From” shows how I sought to strengthen my connection
to Abby and Clara and deepen trust by creating a space where I was vulnerable and set the
expectations for their responses.

61
I am now from two countries (US/Nigeria) still struggling with freeing itself from
colonialism and how that impacts my view of Whiteness and its power in society.
I am from losing a parent and wondering how I have survived the past 5 years with my
mentor gone.
I am from joy, pain, and faith. That one is always hard for me.
I am from being Black and privileged as my immigrant status accords me to an entrance
to White America and recipient of racism because of my skin color in personal and
structural situations.
I am a fighter, advocate, and one who desires to work for social justice issues speaking
out about race, gender, and ableist ideas in hopes of leaving my professional and personal
space a little better than it was.
By communicating that “I am from two countries (US/Nigeria),” identities that Abby and Clara
were aware of, I demonstrated to them that they could trust me to be honest. I then took it a step
further stating that both countries were “still struggling from freeing itself from colonialism.”
Based on my past conversation with both teachers on colonialism I linked our common
experiences to deepen our connection and the trust between us. By using the words “how that
impacts my view of Whiteness and its power in society,” I went a step further to share my ideas
around Whiteness and White supremacy. Though, we had been in a few conversations outside of
this space, they were not explicitly about how we have/had been affected by racism. In sharing
my political views, I was extending a connection and asking them not to judge me. In my
statement “I am from losing a parent,” I was taking the risk of being vulnerable and sharing my
personal experience, trusting my stories with the teachers. When I shared I “wonder[ed] how I
have survived the past 5 years with my mentor gone,” I was inviting connection. I was visibly

62
emotional at this point as my voice dipped and I was fighting back tears. Through this act of
being open, “I am from joy, pain, and faith. This one is hard for me,” I was letting Abby and
Clara know even in my discomfort, I was willing to be transparent and inviting them to feel safe
to share their personal stories.
Similarly, in my words “Black and privileged” I was taking a risk in disclosing my
thoughts on the complexity of my identity, suggesting that I might be better than them. I
continued to be vulnerable in saying, “As my immigrant status accords me to an entrance to
White America,” understanding that though we all identified as Black in the space, the statement
might seem like I was differentiating myself from Abby and Clara. This “entrance to White
America” stemmed from my immigrant position outside the historical context of slavery in the
United States which allowed me avoid the “burdens” linked to the history. Moreover, I
acknowledge that my accent signaled to others that I was not of African American descent and
freeing me from the burdens associated with its history Also, in saying that I could be a
“recipient of racism because of my skin color in personal and structural situations,” I was
extending a connection to them and opening myself to not be judged for making contradictory
statements on the role of race in society. On one hand, separating myself saying my immigrant
status accorded me certain privileges, and on the other hand, I experience racism because of the
color of my skin. Northouse’s (2016) view is that a [facilitator] needs to feel the frustration of
change and be able to regulate their personal distress (p. 267). Thus, by honestly sharing my
views on structural racism, Whiteness and White Supremacy, I was asking the teachers to listen,
connect, trust me, and open to share too. In my words, “I am a fighter, advocate, and one who
desires to work for social justice issues speaking out about race gender, and ableist ideas” I was
openly sharing what drove me to work with SWDs. When I shared, “As well as my hopes of

63
leaving my professional and personal space a little better than it was,” I was sharing with Abby
and Clara what was important to me and inviting them to trust and connect with me. In the
sentences in my “I Am From” I telecommunicated how my racial ethnic identity was visible and
not did not give voice to my own ableism. The sentence on ableism was in relation to my role
rather than myself.
When I was done sharing, the reaction from each participant varied. I observed Abby
wipe tears from her eyes and trying to hide from the screen. I interpreted this as her showing
empathy, connecting to and not judging my experience and my words resonating with her. In
addition, she was not comfortable enough to be vulnerable and cry on camera. While Clara had
no visible emotions and seemed to be avoiding eye contact by looking down. I interpreted the
non-verbal behavior to her not being sure how to react. We sat in silence for a few seconds. I
interpreted this as everyone being present in the moment and focusing on their feelings. Clara
was the first to speak. Below is our trust exchange discourse:
C: I hope that was not the first one you wrote. Oh, my goodness. (Excited tone)
F: That was not the first time and every time I write it, I write based on my
experiences and things that resonate with me some are still very raw.
C: The one about your mom got me.
F: It is still very raw for me. You know, but at the same time, that’s where I’m
from.
F: So now, I’m going to push it to you guys to get as deep as you want and craft your
own.
Clara’s response of “I hope that was not the first one you wrote. Oh my goodness” and her smile
communicated that she thought that my responses were revealing, intense, and set the bar high.

64
Implied in her response is evidence that she recognized I trusted them by demonstrating
vulnerability in sharing my identities. Also, implied in Clara’s responses is that she did not want
to be judged as hers may not be as personal and/or explicit as mine. My response of “that was not
the first time” demonstrated that I recognized her hesitation and well as letting her know I would
not judge her as I had opportunities to rewrite. In line with Heifetz et al. (2009), I wanted to
create enough heat to gain attention, engagement, and forward motion, but not too much that one
explodes” (p. 29). Thus, in sharing my stories, I was trying to strengthen my connection to Abby
and Clara and trust to feel open and safe to engage in critical discourse. Implied in my statement
of “Every time I write it, I write based on my experience and things that resonate with me” was
that they might be open to sharing whatever they were comfortable with as “some [are] still very
raw” for me too. Clara’s statement of “The one about your mom got me” communicated her
empathy and connection to me, not judging my experience and being open to listening and
receiving my experiences.
I then invited the teachers to engage when I said, “I’m going to push it to you guys
“challenging them cautiously “to get as deep as you want and craft [their] own” conversations on
their identities without fear of retribution, trusting each other with our experiences. Abby chose
to share her thoughts first then Clara.
A: Okay, so let’s see I just started writing (raised tone). I am not sure if I took
everything on there, mainly because I like those who have seen that I’m gonna
have to put in more time to really connect to what I want to say. Well, I just wrote
out what came to mind. So, I just put, the first thing that came to mind was just
my origin. So, I guess I am from [an African country] proud to stand among the
great tribes that fight for its independence. I am a proud mother of strong

65
intelligent Black men, future leaders of their community. I am the product of
strong women who raised me to be who I am today. I am a proud teacher teaching
my students to stand tall and be proud of those that came before them.
F: That’s lovely. Thank you for sharing.
Implied in Abby’s raised tone of voice and statement and “Let’s see I just started writing”
indicated her willingness to participate. This action of reciprocity indicated that she was trusting
the process, and therefore me and Clara. Her statement, “I am not sure if I took everything on
there” suggested that she had trust in the space to be honest about her hesitation about being on
par with my response. Despite her hesitation, she explained, “I’m gonna have to put in more time
to really connect to what I have to say” suggesting that she was aware of what she needed to do
to produce a meaningful response and was asking not to be judged by her responses. By saying
“Well, I just wrote out what came to mind” I suggested I was attending to Abby’s discomfort and
encouraging her to continue in the discourse. “So, I just put, the first thing that came to mind was
just my origin” suggested Abby was actively listening to my response as she started with country
of origin and making a connection to her sense of national identity “an African country proud to
stand among the great tribes that fight for its independence. Also implied is the power dynamics
of the history of enslavement as an African whose tribes were enslaved by other tribes and
colonial masters. By going on to share personal details such as “a proud mother of strong
intelligent Black men future leaders of their community” Abby offered a connection and
indicated she trusted the space to be personal and not feel judged for her views. Also, implied is
her view about the effects of race in the United States while raising Black boys. Abby also
demonstrated a willingness to be vulnerable with the group as she indicated “I am the product of
strong women who raised me to be who I am today” revealing the possibility of the lack of a

66
father figure and an awareness of the struggles Black women face in the United States. Her
willingness to be vulnerable demonstrated her openness to connecting and that she trusted the
group with identities that shaped her. Her view on her role as an educator was “teaching [her]
students to stand tall and be proud of those that came before them” she implied the dominant
ideologies of her non-White students to “standing tall” and go against what society had defined
that as “be[ing] proud” of their history that made them who they were. Here Abby followed my
lead in putting the emphasis on White supremacy rather than ableism. She viewed ableism in
relation to her disabled students and her role rather than her own able-bodied state. I also
interpreted the move from personal to her practice as her reaching her comfort zone of sharing.
My response of “that’s lovely, thanks for sharing” is in line with Klien’s (2019) suggestion that
acknowledgment contributes to the development of the learning space (p. 94). Though Abby
trusted the space to share personal details and strengthen our connection, I could have asked her
to explain her colorblind and unspoken assumptions about her students, I played it safe lacking
trust that Abby would be receptive of me if I questioned her. As a novice researcher, I also
missed the cue to follow up.
Clara’s “I am from” response was:
C: So, I’m from a family of educators who went to college and later sent me to
college. I’m from two adoptive parents who taught me how to be the person that I
am. And I am from movies, art, and music. I’ve always enjoyed going to
performances and being a performer.
Clara’s response of “I, from a family of educators who went to college and later sent me to
college” indicated her listening by following the structure of the responses as modeled. Though
Clara limiting her sharing to facts signaled a hesitation to delve deeply into personal feelings or

67
emotions immediately. This also communicated a weaker connection to me and Abby. By
mentioning her “two adoptive parents who taught me how to be the person that I am today,” she
indicated a level of trust to share some sensitive and personal information about her family
history, yet no connection to her race or ethnicity. She then again moved back to more
impersonal and generic language when she said, “I am from movies, art, and music.” The
absence of emotional depth suggested a hesitation to fully engage (connect) at the same level as
Abby and I had and suggested her efforts to avoid judgment. This is consistent with Klien’s
(2019) claim that some [participants] will respond with nondescript or short answers that they
perhaps see as safe responses” (p. 94). While this could reflect her communication style, it
suggested her reluctance to elaborate, stemming from a lack of connection to us and trust of the
space. Despite Clara’s display of emotions when I shared, her last response of “I’ve always
enjoyed going to performances and being a performer” continued to reveal her conciseness
without elaboration, rather than her willingness to trust and be vulnerable.
By Cycle 3, with increased connection and therefore, trust present, I was able to move the
teachers to engage in overt discussion about their assumptions in relationship to their rooted
dominant ideologies related to White supremacy. More specifically, the reciprocal learning we
had undertaken “in the presence of others [had produced] an atmosphere of trust” (Wergin, Ch.
7, p. 111) where Abby and Clara engaged in conversation around naming dominant ideologies
(White supremacy) without fear of retribution. This deeper level of trust is evident in session 7
when I asked the teachers to engage in an activity to define key concepts covered over Cycles 1
and 2 and make connection to their learning. The intention of this activity was to have teachers
unpack their understanding of the concepts. For the session, I started by grounding the teachers
in the learning intentions, doing this consistently to maintain trust in the holding environment.

68
Next, I put up on the ZOOM screen a PowerPoint with five shapes numbered 1–5 on them. Abby
and Clara both smiled. Each shape hid one of five concepts: ableism, critical reflection, dominant
ideologies, reflection, and Whiteness. I asked teachers to pick a number and answer the prompt
“What does the word mean to you?” Each participant then selected a number, and I uncovered
each word selected. I also told them that there were no wrong responses. My approach to
introducing the activity and their response to it demonstrated the level of trust that was present in
the space. My introduction of the activity did not have the modeling that I had provided in Cycle
1, indicating I was not worried about their response to the task. Their smiles when they saw the
PowerPoint slide signaled their comfort with being asked to engage in this way. In addition,
Abby’s immediate response to picking a number and Clara following suit further indicated that
they were both comfortable and trusted the space to engage in discourse. Although both Abby
and Clara were comfortable and able to explore White supremacy, the evidence in cycle 1 and
my out of the field analysis demonstrated that I did not include any emphasis on ableism.
As stated earlier, our previous communication created little opportunity for open
dialogue. In this meeting we were “learning in the presence of [each] other (Wergin 2020, p. 89).
This stronger holding environment where deeper trust existed enabled Abby and Clara to
produce courageous conversations that showed them questioning, naming, and making
connections to their assumptions rooted in dominant ideologies, which differed from what they
had done previously. Clara and Abby both showed growth in how they engaged in discourse. In
Cycle 1, in their “I AM From” both Clara and Abby displayed a color-blind approach when
speaking about their identities. Clara did not speak about her race or the race of others and did
not acknowledge the importance of identities. She also shared very little. While Abby did
identify her Blackness, she did not account for ways her understandings were grounded in a

69
culture of White supremacy. By Cycle 3, with deeper trust present, Clara named, and Abby made
the connection to how she could be complicit in displaying aspects of dominant ideologies rooted
in White supremacy. Their responses demonstrated evidence of increased trust required to
engage in honest conversation around dominant ideologies.
Abby picked Whiteness and this is the conversation that followed.
A: Whiteness to me whiteness, especially through our sessions is not necessarily
based on like, what I’m thinking like a white person necessarily. So, to me now,
I’ve learned whiteness is more or less what the majority is thinking. Like what is
in place. So, it’s not necessarily oh, this person is white. I could display
whiteness, just from my behavior and what I have learned. So, all of us
sometimes, I think the call here when we, when I see whiteness now is what is
that? It’s almost like mainstream, right? Like what is happening that is called
whiteness, but it’s more or less the majority behavior or how the majority sees
things. This is kind of like what I’m learning now. And it’s not necessarily placed
on whiteness, because African, Black, and brown can be displaying this behavior
to, and it’s a norm. That’s kind of what I’ve learned now.
F: Yeah, it is not just about skin color.
A: Right.
C: But more how you act or maybe how you think.
Abby’s first statement, “Whiteness to me Whiteness, especially through our sessions is not
necessarily based on like, what I’m thinking like a White person necessarily” demonstrated she
trusted the group to share her thoughts on Whiteness and to not judge her as she went on to name
her assumptions. The use of the language “so to me now” implied that there was a shift in her

70
thinking, what she believed had changed and she was open to sharing. Abby went on to name her
assumption, “I’ve learned Whiteness is more or less what the majority is thinking” implying that
she was comfortable in the space and trusted the group not to judge her as she overtly gave her
insight of Whiteness. Her words of “I’ve learned” implied that she was actively taking
information from previous sessions. Abby went on to make the connection to how her views
were from a White frame and trusted us to listen. She said, “It’s not necessarily this person is
White.” Here it shows her disorientation regarding her grasp of the concept of Whiteness as more
than color but also as something actionable. Abby also telegraphed the majority perspective on
what is considered Whiteness in the United States and accounted for the possibility that as a
Black woman she was complicit. She went on to say, “I could display Whiteness, just from my
behavior.” This explicit statement demonstrates Abby’s willingness to name how her assumption
was rooted in dominant ideologies, and she trusted us to listen and not judge her. This was
missing in Cycle 1. Though she was openly sharing personal information, there was a colorblind
approach and now there was an understanding with “what I have learned” that she was complicit
in perpetuating the status quo by also displaying Whiteness. Abby continued to be vulnerable as
she expanded on her thoughts saying, “I think the call here when we, when I see Whiteness now,
what is that? It’s almost like mainstream.” Here the noted shift of the word “we” to “I” is
evidence of sticking to agreement number 2 Speak for Myself and a clear connection to the
understanding that some of her behaviors were rooted in the dominant ideology of Whiten
supremacy and may not be the same for everyone. In addition, evidence of questioning is present
“When I see Whiteness now, what is that?” suggesting that she planned to be cognizant and
present to her actions in the future. Abby’s reiteration of “African, Black, and brown can be
displaying [Whiteness] behavior too, and it’s a norm” is evidence of the level of trust she had to

71
express her views and not feel judged in return. More importantly, unearthing that her
representation of Blackness in contrast to Whiteness is different from her view in Cycle 1. There
is now a recognition and naming by Abby of how some of her actions were grounded in
Whiteness. By me saying “Yeah, it is not just about skin color” I was agreeing with her and
creating a safe space. Abby agreed with me “right” and Clara chimed in, agreeing that Whiteness
was “more how you act or maybe how you think.” Clara’s response demonstrated the reciprocal
act by actively listening and affirming Abby’s response. More importantly, Clara was also
naming the dominant ideology without hesitation.
Clara was next and she picked the concept: dominant ideologies. Below is her response:
C: Dominant just the popular ideology. What is popular at that time.
F: I like that you say that. Can you expand on that?
C: Well, going back to what you said, at this time, you know, we see a lot of white
on Black crime with police. That’s what’s going on now. That’s the dominant
ideology. Whereas maybe, you know, before you know, all this started there was
a different type of ideology. Now, a lot of and then there’s this a lot of awareness
about Black culture, you know, the whole in Tulsa, that business area where it
was, you know, they set it on fire. Now, it’s coming back to light, it’s being
brought out. So, a lot of is just that dominant ideology, where Blacks are starting
to have to stand up for themselves, you know, carry on what Martin Luther King
did that type of ideology is what’s going on now.
F: Is there a way we can look at a dominant ideology in education, like if we turn it
towards like our field, what will we name as some dominant ideologies for us in
education, in our own setting,

72
C: Mindfulness that works with adults and with students. Kids just seem angry. I just
broke up a fight inside a classroom yesterday. And it’s, you know, it’s the least
just seems like the kids are angry this year. So, we have to work on what’s going
on in their mind and how to help them redirect that. I don’t want to say anger, but
that whatever is going on, help them redirect it to a calmer way of handling their
situation.
Clara’s lack of hesitation to partake in the activity signaled she trusted that the group would not
judge her, and she had been actively listening as she responded, “just the popular ideology.
What’s popular at that time.” My statement, “I like that you say that” demonstrated that I was not
judging her response and coming from a place of inquiry, asking her “expand on [her
statement].” Once again, the reciprocal action of Clara responding to my question “Well going
back to what you said” demonstrates her trust as she shared more, expanding from a phrase to
multiple sentences, and referencing something I had previously said. Her response of “We see a
lot of White on Black crime with police” implied was Clara talking about the increased racial
tension present between Blacks and the police force and naming that “what’s going on now.
That’s the dominant ideology.” Further, Clara’s example displayed trust as she stated her views
on the political climate of Blacks in the United States saying, “There is a lot of awareness about
Black culture, you know, the whole thing in Tulsa that business area where it was, you know,
they set it on fire. Now, it’s coming back to light, it’s being brought out.” Clara’s referencing
“awareness about Black culture” and the “whole thing in Tulsa” showed her naming her
assumptions referencing one of the worst incidents of racial violence in the United States that
happened over 100 years ago and today “it’s coming back to light” with people making progress
toward revitalizing the area of Tulsa known as the Black Wall Street. Connecting back to her

73
previous comment, Clara went on to say “Blacks are starting to have to stand up for themselves,”
indicating she was aware of the status quo and the need to do something different. This
conversation of naming dominant ideologies was absent in Cycle 1 where race was missing from
the conversation, and this telegraphed that Clara trusted that in sharing her views she would not
be judged. Her next comment of “you know, [carrying] on what Martin Luther King did that type
of ideology is what’s going on now” Clara revealed her assumption and by saying “you know,”
she implied that we listened and did not judge her experiences. Clara implicitly named current
struggles of racism in the United States, and I interpreted this as her being vulnerable in the
holding environment to share her awareness of people going against the status quo, and naming
race in her responses.
My use of inquiry “Is there a way we can look at a dominant ideology in education, like
if we turn it towards like our field, what will we name as some dominant ideologies for us in
education, in our own setting,” continued to demonstrate the reciprocal nature and trust that
existed in the holding environment for Clara to respond without feeling her responses were
judged. Although Clara’s response of “Mindfulness that works with adults and with students.
kids just seem angry” did not directly answer the question, there continued to be evidence of her
naming her assumptions. The use of the language “Mindfulness” implies she was present and
fully aware (Rodgers, 2002) of the racial inequities and her statement that “work with adults and
with students” also implied the identities of the students and staff she worked with who were
mostly from marginalized groups (Blacks and Hispanics). Clara telegraphed in her responses
“like kids are angry this year” and “work on what’s going on in their mind and how to help them
redirect” that the racial tension showed up in the classroom and that she needed to “help [her
students] redirect” the anger. She continued to show she was not fearful of retribution as she

74
shared her views. Despite Clara not getting as far in making a connection to how she was
complicit, her increased responses and reciprocal nature of the discourse demonstrated a deeper
trust not previously present. This is consistent with Wergin’s (2002) view that challenging
existing beliefs is when deep learning happens only within the person’s perceived ability to
handle the challenge. There was growth and movement from a colorblind perspective in Clara’s
“I AM from” activity to now naming her assumptions on the impact of race by Cycle 3.
Cognitive Structuring
Having established deeper trust, and consistent with my conceptual framework, I needed
to push teachers to a sustained and intentional process of identifying and checking the accuracy
and validity of [their]assumptions” (Brookfield, 2017, p. 3). Thus, I used the Rodgers reflective
cycle (Rodgers, 2002) as cognitive structuring (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). As stated earlier,
Cognitive structuring is “the provision of a structure of thinking and acting” that “assists by
providing explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify” (p. 63). The reflective cycle
is made up of four phases: presence in experience, description of experience, analysis of
experience, and experimentation (Rodgers, 2002). I used the reflective cycle to move learners
from their default way of interpreting to slowing down their thinking and uncovering their
assumptions and the dominant ideologies, specifically White supremacy, they had internalized to
see how these showed up in their practice when they supported SDWs. I did not attend to the
ideologies related to race and ableism in the introduction of the cognitive structure. Instead, I
focused on getting my learners to internalize the cognitive structuring to push toward critical
reflection. Although we were not able to accomplish critical reflection, teachers engaged in
descriptive and comparative reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002).

75
I used Rodgers’s reflective cycle as a cognitive structure across six sessions to provide
teachers with the thinking and acting structure that they were going to first internalize and then
apply in the examination of their individual problems of practice. First, I needed to introduce the
cognitive structure. I noted in my pre-session reflection for session 4, that I re-read Rodgers’s
2002 article and talked to my classmate Lucero about how to introduce the cognitive structure of
the reflective cycle. Thus, I decided to introduce all four phrases focusing on bringing the
teachers to see the difference between describing and interpreting by using pictures and videos. I
used the pictures and videos as a means to provide an explanation and set up the belief structure
to enable teachers to understand and take on the thinking and acting structure of the reflective
cycle. I moved from still pictures to videos to further slow down their thinking as I wanted them
to adopt the thinking and acting structure of being present, slowing down and considering
thoughtful responses rather than being reactive. In alignment with Rodgers’s (2002) assertion
that teachers can slow down their thinking, teachers need to be able to first distinguish between
description and interpretation. Across the session, Abby and Clara, in their responses and with
my assistance, showed that they were beginning to utilize the cognitive structure of the reflective
cycle to pause, provide more description and not revert to immediate conclusion.
In Cycle 2, session 4, I had a few activities, each serving a different purpose, to create a
cognitive structure that served to organize how they saw and described in new ways (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). First, I defined the Rodgers reflective cycle and its four phases. Next, I went
over the learning intentions and informed teachers that we would focus on the first two
components of the Rodgers cycle, learning to see and learning to describe and interpret. I started
by showing two still pictures (Appendix A) the with prompt, Describe what you see. After each
picture, we talked about what we saw and what was interpreted. I invited the teachers to engage

76
in a mental operation, the cognitive structuring of slowing down their thinking and having them
see when they jumped to conclusions and understand how their assumptions drive interpretation.
Finally, I showed two videos, a poetry titled “Unforgettable” by Button Poetry (2014) and a
video titled Little Girl Smashes Classroom Because She Mad (2022). I again invited the teachers
in discourse to engage in how they were adopting the thinking and acting structure by analyzing
the videos. The first part of our discussion below is the process I used to introduce and promote
the adoption of the cognitive structure of thinking and acting using Rodgers’s reflective cycle as
the form of assistance.
F: Now, critical reflection takes time. It's not something that we can do overnight,
but we have tools to assist us, to be able to reflect critically. So, the tool that we
are going to be using today. Actually, the tool we’re going to be using for the rest
of our session while we're here is called the Rogers reflective cycle. And so,
looking at the diagram. Is it big enough for everyone to see it? Yes, okay. The
Rodgers reflective cycle has four different categories, and the first one is presence
in experience, learning to see. The next one is the description of an experience
learning to describe and differentiate. And then the next one is the analysis of
experience or analyzing an experience and then there is learning to think from
multiple perspectives and form multiple explanations. For one experience we can
have more than one explanation. Finally, is experimentation, learning to take
intelligent actions. So, what does that mean? Learning to see a lot of times is just
paying attention to what is happening. What is happening in this experience this
moment, this practice. Learning to describe is being able to distinguish between
what you see and how you’re assigning meaning. This is usually the hardest one

77
for us to do is teachers, and then the third one is learning to think from multiple
perspectives. So, like now even in our previous sessions, they were things where
we're like. Oh, I didn’t think of it that way, and it’s happening because we are
having multiple perspectives, multiple people in the space, coming in with
different ideas. And then the final one is, how do we take action. Different
strategies to deal with either the inequity or the problem that we are experiencing.
So, we’re going to keep this, and we're going to keep revisiting this for the next
couple of weeks. Questions about this?
C& A: No.
F: I just realized that Abby, I notice you jotting. Do you need time? I see you jotting
were you writing?
A: I just started. I thought that might be a good idea.
C: So, does that mean it’s in a circle? We go on a loop, and eventually, we come out
of that.
F: That’s a very good question because it’s a yes and a no. Yes, because in some
experiences you might go in a loop or you might kind of bounce around, but the
idea is to be able to go in that loop.
C Okay.
F: So, when you begin to critically reflect, it is best to go in a loop because you’re
still training yourself. So, once you start hopping around as a novice, you might
have a situation where you miss some things. Okay, that’s actually a good
question. So, quickly, I just want to go back to the agenda and make sure we
ground ourselves in it. So, today we are going to review critical reflection, go

78
over the Rodgers, reflective cycle and differentiate between description and
interpretation using activities, and then we are going to close. So, remember that
learning intention is how we affirm the different identities of our students with
disabilities as well as unearthing our own dominant ideologies. This is more so
how do we work on ourselves to be able to work with our students with
disabilities. Okay.
F: The first activity—describe what you see. So, I’m going to give about, and it may
seem long, but it’s 3 min. I’m going to give you 3 min. Describe what you see. If
you have a paper, you can write it down 3 min to describe what you see.
During the 3 minutes Clara and Abby took notes, they were observed looking up at the
screen and then down as their hands moved indicated that they were writing.
F: What do you see?
C: I see a yellow square which could represent a table or a scratch sheet of paper. I
see two brown notebooks. They’re both spiral. One is closed, and you can see a
white label on it. The other one’s open to a blank sheet of paper with a red line
down the left side. There is a pen with a blue cap with blue ink on the inside.
A: What I put was, I see one open notebook with a pen, next to it. The open notebook
has line paper suggesting it is for writing versus maybe drawing If I saw a blank
page. And then I saw the closed notebook with a label tag on it which to me
represents you taking ownership of it, and whatever you write, inside of it, and
you have a choice to either use it or not with the open and close.

79
F: So, both of you describe what you saw right? And then when you are describing is
the process of telling an experience. So, there was a description, and there was
interpretive.
Now the whole essence of the Rogers cycle is sometimes to slow us down before
we move into the interpretation. So, I heard Clara say there is a yellow paper
which represents a scratch paper possibly and then I heard Abby say, well, it’s
open, so I’m suggesting is for writing, but not drawing because it would have
been a blank sheet of paper. So, in looking at this, and what I said. Could there be
any alternate perspective to what you guys said?
C: I mean, she said, it has lines on it, so it wasn’t used for drawing, but you can use it
for drawing. Paper is paper, you can use it for writing, drawing, making a paper
airplane, you know.
F: And maybe the yellow square is just a box at the back. One of those things you
put from the computer, right? Could be scratch paper or could be just the box.
By saying, “Now, critical reflection takes time. It’s not something that we can do overnight, but
we have tools to assist us, to be able to reflect critically,” I was signaling the need to adopt a
cognitive thinking structure to assist us engage in a thinking and acting system when reflecting
critically. In my statement, “So, the tool that we are going to be using today. Actually, the tool
we’re going to be using for the rest of our session while we’re here, is called the Rodgers
reflective cycle” I was identifying the cognitive thinking and acting structure contained in the
reflective cycle that I wanted them to take up, internalize, and practice over the next couple of
weeks. Through my use of visuals— “looking at the diagram. Is it big enough for everyone to

80
see it”—I was illustrating the thinking and acting structure I wanted the teachers to engage in.
My next statement,
The Rodgers reflective cycle has four different categories, and the first one is presence in
experience, learning to see. The next one is the description of an experience learning to
describe and differentiate. And then the next one is the analysis of experience or
analyzing an experience and then there is learning to think from multiple perspectives
and form multiple explanations
was a verbal explanation to establish the process of the thinking and acting belief system I
wanted the teachers to adopt. When I said, “For one experience we can have more than one
explanation, right?” I was reiterating the uptake of a thinking system and inferred was the idea of
more than one explanation and the need to slow down and be present to different vantage points.
By saying, “And then, finally, is experimentation, learning to take intelligent actions” I
continued to offer up the cognitive structure that would require the teachers to engage in an
action of thinking and slowing down when reflecting. Understanding that this was a new
thinking and acting structure I wanted them to take up, I went on to describe each phase in depth
stating,
So, what does that mean? Learning to see a lot of times is just paying attention to what is
happening. What is happening in this experience this moment, this practice. Learning to
describe is being able to distinguish between what you see and how you’re assigning a
meaning.
In my next statement, “This is usually the hardest one for us to do as teachers,” I was drawing
the teachers’ attention to why the adoption of the thinking and acting structure required
discipline. In my statement,

81
Then the third one is learning to think from multiple perspectives. So, like now even in
our previous sessions, they were things where we’re like. Oh, I didn’t think of it that way,
and it’s happening because we have multiple perspectives, multiple people in the space,
coming in with different ideas
I proceeded to make a connection with the approach to thinking and acting that had happened
previously, emphasizing the structure. By saying “Then the final one is, how do we take action?
Different strategies to deal with either the inequity or the problem that we experiencing,”
I continued to demonstrate the thinking and structure I wanted teachers to adopt. In this next
statement, “So, we’re going to keep this, and we’re going to keep revisiting this for the next
couple of weeks. Questions about this?” I was stressing that the thinking structure was one that
would be ongoing, utilized, and sustained. This next phrase, “Abby, I notice you jotting. Do you
need time? I see you jotting where you writing,” I drew attention to her action, which indicated
she was participating in the thinking structure. Her response of “I just started. I thought that
might be a good idea” showed her inclined to take on the thinking structure. Clara added to the
conversation, “So, does that mean it’s in a circle? We go on a loop, and eventually, we come out
of that” implying that she was grappling and trying to make sense of the thinking and acting
embedded in the reflective cycle. My response of “That’s a very good question because it’s a yes
and a no. Yes, because in some experiences you might go in a loop or you might kind of bounce
around, but the idea is to be able to go in that loop” was consistent with Rodgers’s (2002) claim
that though the cycle is linear, there might be fluidity between each phase. Clara’s response was
“Okay,” signaling that she might still be unsure of how to adopt the approach to thinking and
acting. I elaborated with, “when you begin to critically reflect, it is best to go in a loop because
you’re still training yourself. So, once you start hopping around as a novice, you might have a

82
situation where you miss some things” to ensure that the teachers had a clear understanding of
how we were going to take on the thinking structure. My echoing “Okay, that’s actually a good
question” demonstrated my observation that the teachers were showing interest in the thinking
and acting structure I presented.
I continued to explain and connect the cognitive structure of thinking to the research
when I said,
So, quickly, I just want to go back to the agenda and make sure we ground ourselves in it.
So, today we are going to review critical reflection, go over the Rogers reflective cycle,
and differentiate between description and interpretation using activities, and then we are
going to close.
By using the words, “differentiate between description and interpretation” I drew attention to the
focal area of the thinking approach (description versus interpretation). I wanted teachers to
internalize the acting approach of defaulting away from immediately interpreting. I also returned
to the purpose of the action research by saying, “So, remember that the learning intention is how
we affirm the different identities of our students with disabilities as well as unearthing our own
dominant ideologies.” I was letting the teachers know that the cognitive structure I was asking
them to engage in was “more so how do we work on ourselves to be able to work with our
students with disability.” Consistent with Tharp and Gallimore (1989) “that cognitive structuring
is an intimate part of the development of cognition” (p. 66), I was asking Abby and Clara to
develop the capacity to engage in the thinking and acting belief system embedded in Rodgers’s
reflective tool. I understood that if I wanted the teachers to take up the belief system, they needed
opportunities to practice. My statement,

83
The first activity, describe what you see. So, I’m going to give about, and it may seem
long, but it’s 3 min. I’m going to give 3 min. Describe what you see. If you have a paper,
you can write it down 3 min to describe what you see.
demonstrated me setting up the teachers to begin internalizing the thinking structure and practice
by describing the picture (Appendix B) on the screen. In questioning “What do you see?” I
assisted the teachers on how to utilize the thinking approach when sharing their thoughts. In
Clara’s response of “I see a yellow square which could represent a table or a scratch sheet of
paper” she immediately moved to interpretation, showing that she was not taking on the thinking
structure and indicating she was leaning toward her default way of thinking. She demonstrated
her thought process as she continued to decipher the picture saying,
I see two brown notebooks. They’re both spiral. One is closed, and you can see a white
label on it. The other one’s open to a blank sheet of paper with a red line down the left
side. There is a pen with a blue cap with blue ink on the inside
and showing some evidence of using the cognitive thinking approach by focusing on describing.
Next, Abby responded by saying, “What I put was, I see one open notebook with a pen, next to
it. The open notebook has line paper suggesting it is for writing versus maybe drawing.” She also
immediately defaulted to interpreting, demonstrating she was not yet internalizing the thinking
structure. Abby went on to say,
If I saw a blank page. And then I saw the closed notebook with a label tag on it which to
me represents you taking ownership of it, and whatever you write, inside of it, and you
have a choice to either use it or not with the open and close.

84
Her choice of words “represents,” “taking ownership,” and “use it...open and close”
demonstrated she also did not have a clear understanding of the cognitive thinking structure. My
response of
So, both of you describe what you saw right? And then when you are describing is the
process of telling an experience. So, there was a description, and they were interpretive.
Now the whole essence of the Rogers cycle is sometimes to slow us down before we
move into the interpretation
is evidence of me redirecting the teachers to the cognitive thinking and acting structure to engage
in the act of slowing down. I used their examples stating,
So, I heard Clara say there is a yellow paper which represents a scratch paper possibly
and then I heard Abby say, well, it’s open, so I’m suggesting it is for writing, but not
drawing because it would have been a blank sheet of paper
to draw their attention to how they went into the default mode of thinking rather than taking up
the thinking and acting approach by focusing on describing. I posed the question “So, in looking
at this, and what I said. Could there be any alternate perspective to what you guys said?” to
continue redirecting them to the thinking and acting approach. Clara’s response of “I mean, she
said, it has lines on it, so it wasn’t used for drawing but you can use it for drawing” demonstrated
her starting to apply the cognitive structure of thinking and provided the reason of “Paper is
paper, you can use it for writing, drawing, making a paper airplane, you know.” This indicated
that she was showing an understanding of the thinking structure stating the possibility of having
multiple interpretations of the same experience. I reinforced Clara’s response, adding on with the
example that “maybe the yellow square is just a box at the back. One of those things you put

85
from the computer, right? Could be scratch paper or could be just the box” to redirect their
thinking.”
For our second activity we reviewed a second example of a stereogram/ambiguous
picture (Appendix B) and I provided the same instruction to describe what they saw. We spent
15 minutes where I noticed both teachers wrestling with the idea of describing as they attempted
to apply the thinking structure. I went on to provide them with a third activity to deepen their
knowledge as well as providing them opportunities to practice the cognitive thinking and acting
structure. The discussion below happened as I transitioned to the third activity.
F: There’s nothing wrong in interpreting, but we need to slow down and make sure
we see (emphasized) the whole picture before we form conclusions, because, as
teachers, especially SpEd teachers we want to solve without actually looking
(emphasized) at everything and describing. So, see It took us about what 15 min
just to describe this picture. And if we really dig deeper, there still other things. I
see. I don’t know what is towards like the base. I don’t know if it’s like a fruit
stand. I see some, maybe alphabet or numbers, but I see writing. I don’t know
what the writing is, toward the base of the…
C: Yeah, like a shop?
F: Yeah, exactly. Now it’s interpretive if I say a shop. But what I actually see is a
C A building.
F: Right, any thoughts about this? Any ahas?
C: The whole thing was an aha I am still glued on that one.
A: I was really trying not to be objective, and to actually describe what I saw, and I
was still making assumptions. So nice one.

86
F: Your subjectivity was just fighting with objectivity, right? It was like you want to
form a conclusion, and you are like. No, no, no, no! You need to step back, and
that's why I said it’s a process. Clara had asked, is it a circle? Does it loop
around? And the reason that we start off looping is because sometimes you tend to
just want to take action without fully stopping and looking at what you're seeing. I
am going go back to the PPT.
A: And that is not my strength.
F: Say more about that while I find the PPT.
A: This is basically something that I’ve been working on specifically with my son.
Because he’s the type that he likes to when he’s speaking you need to hear him
out, and he needs to finish with his thought. And in my mind, you don’t get to
filibuster. It’s like you don’t get to talk for 10 min. So, I’m learning, or what I
might need to learn to sit through because that's how he needs to communicate.
Cause If I interrupt, he gotta start all over again. I know I have difficulties with
just sitting and just listening because I’m used to multitasking and moving
around. So just sitting still, I did good the other day, but I had to really tell myself,
and I noticed even in my head. I’m like 1 1,000 2 200, just counting to make sure
that I’m sitting still and listening, and not interrupting.
F: Then being present. It takes effort to be present in a situation.
A: Even if I’m sitting still, my mind wanders off to start thinking about something
else. So that’s something that I noticed that I need to work on just because I’ve
always had to do so much at once that I don’t know how to sit still. So yeah, that
is something I have to work on.

87
F: Slowing down! Well, hopefully, I know we're using a professional setting. But
you can take some of these tools into your personal life. Because I’ll be honest, I
find that I am also now doing it in my personal life as well.
Okay. I just wanted to bring us back to the Rogers cycle, because I know we only
saw it briefly before the activity. And we are just hit in the first two parts, right?
Really, learning to see. Paying attention to what is happening. Learning to
describe—description—what we see. Interpretation—making meaning. So far,
we’ve looked at still pictures not moving. That’s not a reality in our setting
nothing is stand still. Things are constantly moving. So, the next thing we’re
gonna do is watch a video.
By stating “There’s nothing wrong in interpreting,” I was drawing attention to the cognitive
structure I wanted them to use in the Rodgers reflective cycle. When I said, “but we need to slow
down,” I was pushing them into the structure to differentiate between description and
interpretation. When I went on to say, “make sure we see the whole picture” I was asking them
to check the validity of assumptions made “before we form conclusions” (Brookfield, 2017, p.
88). In further stating, “Because, as teachers, especially SpEd teachers we want to solve (both
agreed) without actually looking at everything and describing. So, see It took us about what? 15
min just to describe the picture,” I was stressing the process of the thinking and acting approach
that withholding interpretation was hard for teachers as we had the urge to want to fix and move
on but we needed time and space to explore and be surprised by other elements present in a
situation (Rodgers, 2002).
I continued using the example (Appendix B) to illuminate my point of the thinking and
acting approach of interpretation saying,

88
And if we really dig deeper, I see. I don’t know what is towards like the base. I don’t
know if it’s like a fruit stand. I see some, maybe alphabet, some numbers, but I see
writing. I don’t know what the writing is, toward the base of the...”
Clara’s addition of “Yeah, like a shop” indicates that she was still grappling with the thinking
approach by moving straight to interpretation. I redirected her on how to use the thinking
structure correctly “Yeah, exactly. Now it’s interpretive if I say a shop. But what I actually see
is.” This time she interrupted saying “a building,” demonstrating an accurate use of the structure.
By me asking “So, any thoughts about this? Any ahas,” I was using questioning to encourage the
teachers to internalize the thinking structure. Clara indicated her grappling with the cognitive
system saying, “The whole thing was an aha, I am still glued on that one” and adoption of a new
way of thinking structure. Abby’s language of “I was really trying not to be objective, and to
actually describe what I saw, and I was still making assumptions” indicates her grappling with
the tension of applying the cognitive thinking and acting approach and not defaulting to her
normal way of thinking. Abby saying, “So nice one” implied she recognized the new learning of
the thinking structure. I continued to reinforce the thinking structure by responding “Your
subjectivity was just fighting with objectivity,” you want to form a conclusion,” which was a
default to interpretation “and you are like, no, no, no,” which suggests that she was taking in the
thinking structure. I reinforced “You need to step back, and that’s why I said it’s a process,” once
again pushing them into the structure. I then referenced what Clara had mentioned at the
beginning of the session saying,
You know Clara had asked, is it a circle? Does it loop around? And the reason that we
start off looping is because sometimes you tend to just want to take action without fully
stopping and looking at what you’re seeing

89
to make the connection to how the cognitive structure allows us to think differently. Abby’s
response of “that is not my strength” demonstrated her tension as she was attempting to adopt the
cognitive approach of thinking. My follow up question “Say more about that while I find the
PPT” invited her to push further into her thinking to explicitly name her struggle with the
structure. Abby’s response, “This is basically I’ve been working on specifically with my son.
Because he's the type that he likes to when he's speaking you need to hear him out, and he needs
to finish with his thought” indicated an awareness of her default way of thinking and where she
could make the correlation to her personal life. Her statement, “And in my mind, you don’t get to
filibuster. It’s like you don’t get to talk for 10 min” implied the realization that of her not being
present, which is indicated in the cognitive structure. Her next statement, “So, I’m learning or
what I might need to learn to sit through because that’s how he needs to communicate” inferred
how not being present affected her interaction and interpretation of experiences with her son
“Cause If I interrupt, he gotta start all over again.” Abby’s acknowledgment of “I know I have
difficulties with just sitting before and just listening because I’m used to multitasking and
moving around” indicates a realization of her need to do something different. She went on to say
So just sitting still, I did good the other day but I had to really tell myself, and I noticed
even in my head...counting to make sure that I’m sitting, listening, suggests an
application of the cognitive tool of being present to her actions
and using the term “not interrupting” suggests a start to internalizing the thinking structure. My
response of “Being present. It takes effort to be present in a situation” was me pushing her
further into the cognitive structure. Abby’s response of “Even if I'm sitting still, my mind
wanders off to start thinking about something else” demonstrates her wrestling with her thinking
and an application of the cognitive structuring tool of pausing and being present. She then moved

90
to say, “So that’s something that I noticed that I need to work on just because I’ve always had to
do so much at once that I don’t know how to sit still” suggests she was beginning to reflect as
she went on to say, “So yeah, that is something I have to work on.” I recentered her response
saying “I know we’re using a professional setting. But hopefully, you can take some of these
tools into your personal life” showing that the thinking and acting structure of slowing down
took intentionality and presence in all experiences. In expressing “I’ll be honest, I find that I am
also now doing it in my personal life as well” I stressed that the cognitive structure was
applicable across different experiences and a means to unearth our thinking. I then redirected the
teachers back to the third activity and reground our conversation by saying, “Okay. I just wanted
to bring us back to the Rogers cycle, because I know we only saw it briefly before the activity.”
In my repetition of “we are just hitting the first two parts—learning to see, paying attention to
what is happening. Learning to describe—description—what we see. Interpretation—making
meaning” I was supporting the exploration of teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the
cognitive structure. I continued, “So far, we’ve looked at still pictures not moving,” guiding the
teachers further into the structure. By then saying “that’s not a reality in our setting nothing is
stand still. Things are constantly moving” I was drawing their attention to the shift I would be
making as they applied the cognitive structure. In giving the directions “The next thing we’re
gonna watch is video” requires Abby and Clara the opportunity to engage in the structure by
responding to “What do you see? And what can you describe” providing opportunities for
practice and continuing to take on new learning of cognitive thinking and acting structure.
After the third activity of watching the video Unforgettable” (Pages Matam, Elizabeth
Acevedo & G. Yamazawa) the discussion below demonstrated the way the teachers applied
thinking and acting structure.

91
C: (Clapping) Oh, I’m sorry I really got in to it today. Well, I got goosebumps. And
it’s not because it’s cold.
F: So, what do you see?
C: Oh, well, that's a lot to unpack. I saw three people from different ethnic
backgrounds, and they were all talking about their names and how they felt their
name doesn’t correlate with their ethnicity like being named George has nothing
to do with being Asian. Elizabeth and Patrick has nothing to do with being I’m
assuming she’s Hispanic, and he said he was French. So, the poem sounds like it's
about how their parents name them these White names so they can get through
society without being judged.
F: Okay Abby do you want to answer that?
A: While I was listening, I was like, oh (Mrs. Njubigbo your name was what they
were hoping to have. You have that strong name). So that was coming into my
mind as I was listening and then it just reminded me as Clara said that our name
currently, is given to us. They also spoke about assimilation. But as I was saying
that about you, I said, wait a second. I have that name but they never even thought
about it, because my middle name is Lambly and I never use it.
The excitement from Clara is evident in the language “I really got into it today” and “I got
goosebumps and it is not because it’s cold” as she began to engage in the cognitive thinking
structure. My question of “What do you see?” was directing her to cognitive structure, to see and
describe her thinking process (Rodgers, 2002) and which aspects of the cognitive structure she
had started to internalize. Clara started to describe what she saw, “Oh, well, that’s a lot to
unpack. I saw three people from different ethnic backgrounds” indicating that she was beginning

92
to take on the cognitive structure. Her reference that “They were all talking about their names
and how they felt their name doesn’t correlate with their ethnicity like being named George has
nothing to do with being Asian” was an indication that she was applying the thinking process of
describing. However, by saying “So, the poem sounds like it’s about how their parents name
them these White names so they can get through society without being judged” she was pulling
away from the cognitive structure of describing. She moved to interpretation as evident in the
phrases such as “sounds like” and ‘get through society without being judged.”
Abby’s excitement was also evident when she spoke as observed by her tone elevated and
rapid speech when she said “Mrs. Njubigbo your name was what they were hoping to have. You
have that strong name” as she attempted to apply the cognitive structure. She shared her thinking
process “So that was coming into my mind as I was listening.” Her language of “listening”
showed that she was pulling away from the cognitive structure of describing. She went on to say
“and then it just reminded me as Clara said that our name currently, is given to us,” which
demonstrated the challenge she was having in taking up the thinking and acting structure moving
to interpretation. Abby’s remark indicates that she was focused on understanding the video as
she started to interpret saying
They also spoke about assimilation. But as I was saying that about you, I said, wait a
second. I have that name but they never even thought about it, because my middle name
is Lambly and I never use it.
Implied in her statement is her pulling away from the cognitive structure as she talks about her
connection to the video not describing, consistent with Rodgers (2002), that teachers are quick to
jump to conclusions.

93
The conversation below demonstrates me pulling the teachers back to the cognitive
thinking and acting structure per the teachers’ responses after the third activity. Both teachers
struggled with internalizing the tool entirely and focused on interpreting. In my responses, I
continued to set them up to understand how they moved away and redirect them to applying and
internalizing the cognitive structure.
F: I'm gonna go back to our Rodgers cycle, looking at the first two. Learning to see
learning and learning to describe. As I mentioned earlier, it is very hard for us to
separate the two, especially as teachers and interpreting. There is nothing wrong
in interpreting or making meaning but as teachers, we tend to default to that, and
that's exactly what happened. Without realizing it both of you went straight to
interpretive. But if you were to describe what you saw.
C: But I said three people from different ethnicities?
F: Oh yes and that was the only vision of what you saw. But there are people who
have microphones.
C: Ohhh.
A: You are right, their clothes.
F: Facial expression as they’re speaking. I see the Asian guy wearing beads. I saw
somebody in the background. I think that the Black guy has dreadlocks. We get
carried away with the story.
C/A: Yes & That’s so true.
F: We don’t stop to say, what do we see? So, if I were to play this video again and
say, pause on the interpretation. what do you see? It allows a broader perspective.
There is only one female in the group or someone who may identify as a female.

94
When we are in the field, we don't have still pictures, we have experiences. So, in
moment as teachers, we go straight into interpretation versus pausing to see.
Thoughts?
A: No, no, you’re right, because I think we got to a point where or me anyways.
What do you see? It’s what I am interpreting. It’s like, I'm listening to what they
saying, and what I’m seeing is how I’m understanding, basically it is my
interpretation of it versus just looking at them. And like my eyes, is seeing
something but my brain is what it’s describing it. So, my brain is thinking versus
what my eyes is actually just looking at.
F: Based on what you’ve hearing you started making meaning because you’re
hearing it and you lost track of the seeing. Clara touched on it a little bit and went
straight into interpretive, which is what we tend to do as teachers. It is normal. We
all do it, I am guilty of it as charged.
C: I was making my circle and this is good, though
F: I have one more. No, we have a time crunch. But I don’t know if we want to look
at this next week, or actually, you know what we’re gonna look at it and we will
watch both videos again next week.
My exchange with the teachers stating
I’m gonna go back to our Rodgers cycle, looking at the first two. Learning to see learning
and learning to describe. As I mentioned earlier, it is very hard for us to separate the two,
especially as teachers and interpreting”
is evidence of Rodgers’s (2002) claim that teachers struggle to withhold interpretation or
application. By saying “Without realizing it both of you went straight to interpretive, but if you

95
were to describe what you saw” I was drawing their attention to their default, using the structure,
to emphasize the need to slow down their thinking and describe. Clara’s response of “But I said
three people from different ethnicities?” suggested some understanding of and revealing her
thinking on how she was grasping the cognitive structure. I continued to push them into the
cognitive structure when I said, “Oh yes and that was the only vision of what you saw. But there
are people who have microphones.” I made an explicit statement to encourage them to take up
the structure and slow down their interpretation. Implied in their responses of “ohhh” and “you
are right their clothes” was a realization of them not applying the cognitive structure and moving
to interpretation. I described the content of the video with words like the “facial expression as
they're speaking” and “I see the Asian guy wearing beads” with the intention of drawing them
into the thinking and acting structure of being present to what they saw. The rhetorical question
of “We don’t stop to say, what do we see?” was intended to reinforce the need to internalize the
structure to help focus and draw them back. I went on to ask them “So, if I were to play this
video again and say, pause on the interpretation. what do you see? It allows a broader
perspective” to engage them in applying the thinking and acting structure.
I continued to work on them internalizing the structure by saying “We are in a field
where we don’t have still pictures. We have experiences, so in the moment as teachers, we go
straight into interpretation versus pausing to see” making the connecting to our practice. This led
to Abby’s response which signaled an understanding of how she pulled away from the describing
(cognitive structure) “No, no, you’re right, because I think we got to a point where or me
anyways. What do you see? It's what I am interpreting.” The evidence of her referencing the
structure signaled she was grappling with how to push her understanding of the thinking and
acting structure, withholding interpretations, and describing. Here words continued to show her

96
struggle “It’s like, I’m listening to what they are saying, and what I’m seeing is how this what
I’m understanding basically is my interpretation of it versus just looking at them” as she reveals
her default way of approaching an experience. Implied in Abby’s continuation of her thoughts,
“like my eyes, is seeing something but my brain is what it’s describing it. So, my brain is
thinking versus what my eyes is actually just looking at” is that she was slowing down and
beginning to internalize the structure and articulating her rush to interpretation when describing a
situation. By referencing the Rodgers reflective cycle and reinforcing, the thinking and acting
structure, I was able to assist Abby and Clara become aware of the need to be present and
describe by applying the structure. When I said “Based on what you’re hearing you started
making meaning because you’re hearing it, and you lost track of the seeing” I was drawing their
attention again to how easy we interpret rather than describe. Implied in my comment “which is
what we tend to do as teachers. It is normal” was the need to adopt the structure “We all do it, I
am guilty of it as charged” produced a conversation where the teachers began to internalize the
structure. Implied in Clara’s response, “I was making my circle and this is good, though” is that I
was able to push them to start adopting the cognitive thinking structure to assist in a thinking and
acting system when reflecting on experiences.
For Cycle 3, I shifted the pattern of our meetings as mentioned in my methods to
applying the thinking and acting structure toward describing and normalizing (Horn & Little,
2010) our problem of practice. This differed from previous cycles that were not explicitly geared
towards our practice. Consistent with Rodgers’s (2002) assertation that “supplementary input
from research on teaching and learning is important and even critical for teachers’ development,
the primary text for reflection must be their experience as teachers and learner” (p. 232), I
focused on teachers holding off on interpretation by slowing down to see, then describe

97
(cognitive structure) around their chosen problem of practice. The teachers had an awareness
around the need and application of the structure, and they had not fully internalized it. In
normalizing our problem of practice, it allowed us engage in discourse where we used the
cognitive structure to recognize how we “turn toward” or “turn away” (Horn & Little, 2010)
when reflecting (critically) on how our assumptions come to play when describing an experience.
As a result of normalizing practice teachers were able to start observing skillfully, applying the
cognitive structure I wanted them to use to slow down and attend to their assumptions prior to
acting. In wanting the teachers to slow down their practice, I was not explicit in facilitating the
type of problem of practice that would foster critical discourse around White supremacy and
ableism. I instead had the teachers bring in any problem of practice. Despite, evidence of learners
beginning to internalize the cognitive structure, my prompting during the Cycle 8 and 9 (problem
of practice) did not focus on discourse around ableism.
I had three sessions in Cycle 3. In sessions 8 and 9, Abby and Clara brought in their
respective problems of practice. In preparation for these sessions, I asked teachers to document a
current or previous problem of practice and start applying the thinking and acting structure. The
conversation below demonstrates Abby’s use of cognitive structure (slowing down and
describing) helped her reflect on her practice.
A: Okay, so my problem of practice I’m just basically restating what happened
previously when I had a student over to do an assessment. Okay. I also had an
outside provider, who was his counselor, come to assist me with the assessment.
Because this was my third attempt, and the previous two attempts were
unsuccessful. So, we kind of brought her in to help with the assessment. And we
actually, I changed things around where I had.

98
F: Can I slow you down a little bit because you said this was your third, right?
A: Yes.
F: Tell us about the other two before we go into the third.
A: He wasn’t on my radar that he’s going to just walk out. And at this time, I also
had guardian with me. So, it wasn’t just me. It was him and guardian, just trying
to get him comfortable in my room to explain the process of what we will do. So,
at this time, he basically turned around and walked out, we literally went right
afterwards, we could not find him for about 10 minutes of us just looking around.
We finally were able to find him and bring him back into my room. So that was
kind of the story. So now knowing that I’m like, okay, it’s not okay for you to
leave. If you want to leave, you need to let us know just trying to put in some
guidelines. And then I am I inform parents that okay, we’re gonna give this a try
and basically parent left. We started my session, we were able to get through the
first two parts of the assessment, and it was verbal. So, he’s very chatty and
social. So, he was okay with that. It was just ask and answer. So that one fine, but
when we got to session three, which is where, okay, now here’s your booklet, or
actually he didn’t even have it booklet. Okay, now I’m just going to ask you to
spell some words for me, spell the word is. So as had to pick up his pencil to the
right is it was just an immediate trigger. I want to say.
Abby response of “I had a student over to do an assessment” for a “third attempt” and help from
“an outside provider, who was [the student’s] counselor” because “the previous two attempts
were unsuccessful” demonstrates her starting to apply the structure (describing) as she named the
“outside provider” as a counselor and number of attempts to test. My interruption of “Can I slow

99
you down a little bit” was my awareness of her moving too quickly as redirecting her back to the
cognitive structure. This is consistent with Tharp and Gallimore (1998), that a “[facilitator]
assists the [learner] to organize raw stuff of experience” (p. 65). Then saying, “because this was
your third” and “Tell us about the other two” describe the matter for reflection “before we go
into the third” demonstrated I was familiar with the situation and was drawing Abby’s attention
to the other person in the room not having the full information.
Abby continued the discussion of her problem of practice as she went to show how she
was taking on the thinking and acting structure.
A: Okay, because I was describing. Okay, so the first time was I had student come in,
basically to do the WJ assessment for academic support. During that time. We
actually from the first time he walked in, he was excited to be on campus, I tried
to help him be as excited. So, I spoke with parents beforehand, looking forward to
meeting you. So, I was actually excited to meet him. And then he hasn’t been on
campus for a while as he was independent study online. So, I think he was also
excited to be on campus. So, as soon as we came into my room he was looking
around. And as I’m showing him around, he turned around, and he eloped. I
didn’t know this about him at the time.
F: I was just gonna ask you, what did you know about the student?
Abby’s use of the word “describing” reinforced the notion that Abby understood the expectation
of the cognitive structure. Her description explained that “the first time [she] had [the] student
come in, basically to do the WJ assessment for academic support” as well as the student’s
demeanor “he was excited to be on campus,” “I tried to help him be as excited” and that “he
hasn’t been on campus for a while as [student] was in independent study online” finally the

100
incident “as I’m showing him around, he turned around, and he eloped” was sticking with the
structure of not interpreting. Rodgers (2002) stressed that one needs to dig up as many details as
possible in an experience. Despite Abby’s utilizing the structure of describing, she lacked the
details, settling on descriptive reflection. Jay and Johnson (2002) define this as a descriptive
reflection of a puzzle of practice involving salient features of a situation and answering the
question of what is happening? My questioning of “I was just gonna ask you, what did you know
about the student?” was an attempt to push her to expand on the details (be present). In not being
explicit in my question asking her to describe, I perpetuated not being present (cognitive
structure) as I was asking “what did [she] know about the student” rather than asking Abby to
expand on the describing and not skip moments in her descriptions.
In session 9, Clara brought in her problem of practice. The data conversation below
demonstrates how Clara’s use of cognitive structure (slowing down and describing) helped her
reflect on her practice.
C: So, my situation is with a teacher who, for the most part does not want to, at least
from my view, follow the accommodations for my students. And one situation
was when he asked the student to do an assignment. So, this student’s
understanding that he doesn’t write well had his mother dictate is assignment. So,
the student brings the assignment back to school, the teacher asked for it. And he
gives it to the teacher. The teacher looks at it and says you didn’t do this and rips
it in front of it, not only in front of the student, but there are other classmates
around. So also, this student has an academic one on one. So, the teacher has also
been trying to find things wrong to get rid of this person. So, on this day, the one
on one comes and tells me that the teacher ripped up the student's homework and

101
the students upset. So, the classroom is next door to mine, so I go next door, and I
peek in on the student and I can see in his face. He wasn’t crying, but you can tell
he was upset. So, I asked him to come next door so we can talk in private. And he
just bawls out crying. And it wasn’t one of those fake tears. It was one of those I
am deeply hurt, kind of cry. So, I just let him I said, you know, sit here, go to the
bathroom, get some water, whatever you need to do to calm down.
F: So, the student said nothing, just as soon as he walked into your room, he started
crying?
A: Well, I said what happened he just starts crying. So, I allow him that time for
himself. A couple of days later I think that happened like a Wednesday or
Thursday, but I know on Friday,
Clara’s first statement “So, my situation is with a teacher who for the most part does not want to,
at least from my view, follow the accommodations for my students” indicates her defaulting to
interpretation first with the language “for the most a part” and “at least from my view.” Her next
statement describing her problem of practice “understanding that [student] doesn’t write well
[he] had his mother dictate his assignment” and “he gives it to the teacher” showed a positive
shift as she started describing the problem. She built off her previous comment saying “The
teacher looks at it and says you didn’t do this and rips it in front, not only in front of the student,
but there are other classmates around” showed evidence of her pushing into the structure. Her
next statement “This student has an academic one on one. So, the teacher has been trying to find
things wrong to get rid of this person” indicated how she struggled sticking to describing
“student has an academic one on one” (pushing into the structure) and forming a conclusion

102
“teacher has been trying to find things wrong to get rid of this person (pulling away from the
structure. Clara worked towards expanding on her description saying,
So, the classroom is next door to mine, so I go next door, and I peek in on the student and
I can see in his face. He wasn’t crying, but you can tell he was upset. So, I asked him to
come next door so we can talk in private. And he just bawls out crying. And it wasn’t one
of those fake tears. It was one of those I am deeply hurt, kind of cry. So, I just let him I
said, you know, sit here, go to the bathroom, get some water, whatever you need to do to
calm down.
When Clara said, “I can tell he is upset” and went on to describe what that looked like “bawls out
crying,” “not one of those fake tears” and “deeply hurt” is evidence of her taking up the thinking
and acting structure (being present, slowing down and describing) I provided. She demonstrated
her attempt of being present to the student's needs when she stated, “I just let him” and “[do]
whatever you need to do to calm down” providing options. Like Abby, I asked Clara the question
“So, the student said nothing, just as soon as he walked into your room, he started crying?” that
failed to push her further into the structure to describe her experience. Her response of “He sits
down and when I said what happened he just starts crying. So, I allowed him that time for
himself” reflected the limitation of the question. As she continued to drift away from describing
the experience she said, “a couple of days later, I think that happened like a Wednesday or
Thursday, but I know on Friday,” I attempted to recenter the thinking structure when I asked the
following questions,
F: Hold on before we go into Friday. Let’s unpack Wednesday a little bit. Okay, so
when you took him from the room, do you remember like the teacher’s reaction?
Did you and the teacher even have any interaction?

103
C: I didn’t have any interaction with the teacher because there are other students in
the classroom. And I don’t, I’m not gonna bring that up in front of other students
F: Did he look at you a certain way, was there any nonverbal or he just
totally ignored you.
C: He just totally ignored me.
By saying “Hold on before we go into Friday. Let’s unpack Wednesday a little bit” I was
grounding up back to the thinking structure with the use of more overt questions “do you
remember like the teacher’s reaction?” My limitation is noted with the dialectal question “Did
you and the teacher even have any interaction?” I asked without pausing for Clara to answer the
first question. Clara’s response of “I didn’t have any interaction with the teacher” and “I don’t,
I’m not gonna bring that up in front of other students” demonstrates how as, I novice adult
learning facilitator, turned her away from the structure (moving away from description). I
attempted again and repeated the same process of not pausing when I asked “Did he look at you
a certain way, was there any nonverbal, or he just totally ignored you? For a response. Clara’s
response of “He just totally ignored me” again reflected the limitation of my question to assist
her in internalizing the structure. Like Abby, Clara was able to apply the thinking and acting
structure to her problem of practice. She landed on descriptive reflection (Jay & Johnson, 2002),
not digging up as many details as possible. For example, race, gender, and power were absent
from both teachers’ problem of practice. However, my prompting and interaction with my
learner focused on first internalizing the structure and created a gap, excluding race and ableism
from our discourse. Clara most of the time was able to reframe from interpretation,
demonstrating a move towards reflection on how she showed up in practice.

104
Personal Growth
One of the reasons I enrolled in the Doctor of Education Leadership Program at USC was
to grow as a leader. The not right feeling that I had as a child and that followed me throughout
my profession role brought me to this point. As a special education coordinator, I wanted to get
better at working with Special education teachers. This was especially true for me because of my
courses at USC, and even more so after taking course EDUC 723. In this class I faced a
“disorienting dilemma” (Wergin, 2020). I was made to question my assumptions/biases/values
and what happens when these are pushed up against and perhaps uncomfortably enough to create
disequilibrium. After getting over the paralysis, I was forced to question myself as the leader I
thought I was and gained insight that I lacked self-reflection on my practice. I had a lot of work
to do on myself. As a result, critical reflection is present in my conceptual framework. As an
action researcher, I needed to reflect on how my actions could perpetuate hegemonic
assumptions providing inequitable adult learning and push back against these assumptions in my
study. I recognized that prior to this study, my action when teachers were not learning, was a
rush to judgment, criticize, or blame them for not taking up the learning. It could not be me as I
was providing them with all the necessary tools, I told myself. Innately I was perpetuating the
same hegemonic ideologies (White supremacy and ableism) that I blamed the teachers of doing
when working with SWDs. I was not considering the implication of my deficit ideologies in my
practice from the lens of power. For reflection to be considered critical, it must have an explicit
focus on discovering and challenging the power dynamics that frame practice, revealing, and
confronting hegemonic systems (Brookfield, 2010). I needed to move to being present and
addressing the power dynamics with my learners when critically reflecting. At the onset of my
study, I had started to practice critical reflection. I was learning to question myself and

105
disseminate my own biases first to pour into my adult learners. Though I did not fully attain
critical reflection in the study, I moved towards it. I created descriptive and comparative
reflections (Jay & Johnson, 2002) where I described what was happening, what was working or
not, and for whom, as well as how I could improve what was not working using multiple
perspectives.
At the end of Cycle 1 when I was out of the field, I wrote a (critical) reflection. I
recognized that my reflection did not question power or how my positionality impacted the
space. According to Brookfield (2017), critical reflection requires a continuous investigation of
power relationships and the uncovering of hegemonic assumptions. Thus, embedded in my
conceptual framework were a few questions to help guide my use of critical reflection to ensure I
examined how my positionality played a part in relation to my learners. In this following excerpt
from my response to the question: How does my positionality impact my interactions with
learners?” my response illustrates how I remained descriptive and comparative in my reflection
and not attending (not present) to the power structure at play.
We got vulnerable. I got vulnerable in this cycle. I was very surprised that I got
vulnerable because I have done the “I am poem” several times and didn’t expect a
reaction from myself. Why am I still questioning being vulnerable as if it is a bad thing?
Also, these are colleagues I don’t have a very close relationship with and yet I was in a
place where I felt it was okay to tear up. I am wondering if all my learnings at USC and
letting myself be in the moment provided me the opportunity to be more open. In addition
to speaking about the loss of my mother took me to a place I hadn’t expected that it
would, years later I am still uncomfortable sharing the experience Despite the feeling us
being vulnerable, I noticed that my learners were experiencing the space differently. I

106
was hoping that I’m starting to build at least a safe space where my participants see me in
this space as someone they are collaborating with. Abby was more open in sharing her
personal experiences. Such as her relationship with friends of different races, and
reflecting on past personal experiences, which I liked. Clara was less vulnerable, keeping
her conversation on the surface level and or agreeing with R and building on rather than
expanding on her idea. I know that Clara was the same way prior to the study and I
wonder why? Outside of the study I have more conversations with Abby, she is more
willing to call me and ask for both personal and professional advice. Being both of
African descent, Clara will ask me questions about Africa as we both moved here young,
but I visited since then. On the other hand, with Clara, our conversations are more
procedural and professional. Though we share the identity marker of all being Black
women, I believe that how I relate to my learners outside of this space may have played a
part in how safe they felt here to engage in conversations. Could I tag that to the comfort
or discomfort level of the teachers to the relationship we have outside of this space?
In my statement, I started with a descriptive reflection when I wrote “We got vulnerable. I got
vulnerable in this cycle” I started off with “we” and went to “I” instead of addressing my
positionality, I continued, writing “I was very surprised that I got vulnerable because I have done
the ‘I am poem’ several times and didn’t expect a reaction from myself.” Here I focused on
descriptive reflection in line with Jay and Johnson (2002) as I described my feelings rather than
my actions. I proceeded to question myself,
Why am I still questioning being vulnerable as if it is a bad thing? Also, these are
colleagues I don’t have a very close relationship with and yet I was in a place where I felt
it was okay to tear up

107
rather than focus on the power relationship between myself and the teachers. I failed to unearth
the cause of my discomfort “Why am I still questioning” rather than slowing down (Rodgers,
2002) I interpreted “I am wondering if all my learnings at USC and letting myself be in the
moment provided me the opportunity to be more open.” I further focused on interpreting when I
wrote “In addition to speaking about the loss of my mother took me to a place I hadn’t expected
that it would” a painful experience “years later I am still uncomfortable sharing the experience”
These words, “speaking about the loss of my mother,” showed me attempting to bring in my
positionality. However, I did not account for or address how my positionality was in relation to
my learners by checking my assumptions of reproducing hegemonic ideas in the relationship
instead I focused on my feelings, keeping the reflection still descriptive. A slight movement
toward critical reflection is implied when I wrote, “Despite the feeling us being vulnerable, I
noticed that my learners were experiencing the space differently.” My words showed evidence of
my awareness of the power dynamic in the space with the words “my learners were experiencing
the space differently” and what I overtly did not do was push into it. I did not check the validity
of my assumption or identity that my positionality could impact the space. I continued to focus
on myself and stay descriptive when I wrote “I was hoping that I’m starting to build at least a
safe space where my participants see me in this space as someone they are collaborating with”
still not directly asking myself how my role and identities are relevant to the goal of creating a
safe space as the person with the position of power. I noticed a shift to comparative reflection
(Jay & Johnson, 2002) in the later part of my reflection, comparing why “Abby was more open
in sharing her personal experiences. such as her relationship with friends of different races, and
reflecting on past personal experiences, which I liked” than “Clara [who]was less vulnerable,
keeping her conversation on the surface level and or agreeing with Abby and building on rather

108
than expanding on her idea.” Here I attempted to consider alternative perspectives making my
reflection comparative. However, my language of “I liked” exhibited my hegemonic ideology of
appreciating a strength that favored me rather than trying to understand how my positionality
may have hindered or not pushed my teachers to be critical in reflection. I went on to write,
I know that Clara was the same way prior to the study and I wonder why? Outside of the
study I have more conversations with Abby, she is more willing to call me and ask for
both personal and professional advice. Being both of African descent, Clara will ask me
questions about Africa as we both moved to the States young, but I have visited since
then. On the other hand, with Clara, our conversations are more procedural and
professional. Though we share the identity marker of all being Black women, I believe
that how I relate to my learners outside of this space may have played a part in how safe
they felt here to engage in conversations. Could I tag that to the comfort or discomfort
level of the teachers to the relationship we have outside of this space?
I demonstrated my attempt to move towards critical reflection by grappling with my positionality
using language such as “Being both of African descent,” and “we share the identity marker of all
being Black women.” Despite the truth in my statements and being an area, I talked about in my
conceptual framework, I did not question why our race and identities mattered in the study as
this was important in understanding how my positionality impacted my teachers, which made my
comments mainly comparative. I fell short of getting critical here as I knew “that Clara was the
same way prior to the study and I wonder why?” and made no attempt to question or push into
the power that I held and not attending to how it may affect her. Instead, I went to move towards
interpretation “I believe that how I relate to my learners outside of this space may have played a
part in how safe they felt here to engage in conversations” slipping back to descriptive. As I

109
attended to how I was feeling, and why I thought things were and were not working. This next
statement of “Could I tag that to the comfort or discomfort level of the teachers to the
relationship we have outside of this space?” is evidence of how I moved between descriptive and
comparative reflection as now I was considering alternative perspectives of who is served and
not served and not its implications (Jay & Johnson, 2002). Overall, my reflection remained
descriptive and comparative, I did not attend to how my positionality and the power I held
reproduced hegemonic ideas.
By the end of Cycle 3, my last critical reflection, though I had not attained mastery,
showed how I moved between descriptive, comparative, and critical reflection, with an increase
in my time in comparative and critical. I started to name and understand the implications of my
power in the space and examine my assumptions. The following excerpt was a response to one of
the questions, Am I utilizing and validating the experiences of my learners during the meeting?
that I chose to respond to for my critical reflection.
I want to focus on Clara first today, as I was very conscious of how I was bringing her
into the space especially after cycle 1 when my questions and affirmations were leaning
more towards Abby than Clara. In session 7, when I asked her to tell me her definition of
dominant ideology, this led to her talking about Blacks standing up for each other. This
showed me that she was experiencing some comfort in the space and previously race was
not a topic that came up. What I realized in hindsight was I missed the opportunity to
challenge her ideologies and rushed to turn her to practice as I noticed she was not talking
about her own experiences in reference to dominant ideologies. Though, I let go off the
agenda planned and allowed the conversation in this session to flow based on what my
participant response and my questioning. The question I wonder now is how I could have

110
encouraged both participants to delve deeper into their experiences. During Cycle 3, I
continued to be intentional in decentering my voice after modeling as each participant
brought in their problem of practice. I noticed at this point my learners were comfortable
enough to talk about sessions in person and their responses in the CIQ. In reviewing the
CIQ I was excited when Abby wrote that she felt engaged “when discussing specific
events and provided with examples.” While Clara in response to what she found helpful
or affirming said “confirming my ideas, expanding my ideas” this proved to me that I was
validating their experiences. Were they validating mine? I wished their feedback was
more honest and less nice. How would grow as a leader, if people don’t want to tell me if
my actions are right or wrong? I need to find a way to manage the unspoken thoughts, or
would I say niceness if I am to truly be impactful. Despite this another glow from my
CIQ was their response on their understanding of CR, Clara saying, “to take a situation
and do a deep dive into one's train of thought on why they are thinking this way and what
made them think that way” and Abby “reflecting on not only my own thinking but how
other think and learn their viewpoints.” I can see that they are at different points in their
understanding and both have made tremendous progress.
In this reflection, when I wrote “I want to focus on Clara first today, as I was very conscious of
how I was bringing her into the space” showed I moved towards critical reflection implied the
awareness of my potential bias with my interaction with Clara, “especially after cycle 1 when my
questions and affirmations were leaning more towards Abby than Clara” is evidence of my
acknowledgment of me explicitly unearthing my biases. I continued here defaulting to
descriptive reflection “when I asked her to tell me her definition of dominant ideology, this led to
her talking about Blacks standing up for each other” as I was describing what was happening. I

111
kept describing as I wrote “this showed me that she was experiencing some comfort in the space
and previously race was not a topic that came up” recognizing that I was not attentive to the
dynamics of race and identity. In line with the descriptors of Jay and Johnson’s (2002) definition
of description, I wrote about how I was feeling and what I am concerned about saying “This
showed me that she was experiencing some comfort in the space and previously race was not a
topic that came up.” I again moved toward a critical reflection in my statement
In hindsight I missed the opportunity to challenge Clara’s ideologies and rushed to turn
her to practice when I noticed she was not talking about her own experiences but keeping
it broad when she described dominant ideologies. Though, I let go off the agenda planned
and allowed the conversation in this session to flow based on the learner's response and
my questioning. The question I wonder now is how I could have encouraged both
learners to delve deeper into their experiences.
This is demonstrated in my acknowledgment of hegemonic practice when I attempted to
“uncover [my] assumptions and practice that seem to make [my] life easier and ended up
working against [my] best interest” (Brookfield, 2017 p. 9) in the “missed opportunity” and
rushing the teacher “to turn to practice” rather than slowing (Rodgers, 2002) myself down. In
addition, this “missed opportunity” was evidence that I was a novice researcher with limited
consciousness who did not question the choices I made while I was in the field so that I could
shift my focus to both dominant ideologies rather than a focus on White supremacy. This ended
up with me questioning the deeper meaning of what was happening Jay and Johnson’s (2002)
descriptor of critical reflection, when I wrote “The question I wonder now is how I could have
encouraged both participants to delve deeper into her experience.” My struggle to engage

112
exclusively in critical reflection is evident of Brookfield’s (2017) view that reflection is critical
when it focuses on power as I wrote,
During Cycle 3, I continued to be intentional in decentering my voice after modeling as
each participant brought in their problem of practice. I noticed at this point my learners
were comfortable enough to talk about sessions in person and their responses in the CIQ.
I demonstrated an effort to be critical being “intentional in decentering my voice” and note that
the teacher “were comfortable enough to talk.” However, I remained comparative as I did not
question how my positionality or power in the space or external factors created that comfort.
Consistent with Larivee’s (2008) view on reflective practices that “Teachers may reflect at
different levels simultaneously, interweaving various levels” (p. 344), I moved between critical
and comparative reflection when I wrote,
In reviewing the CIQ I was excited when Abby wrote that she felt engaged “when
discussing specific events and provided with examples.” While Clara in response to what
she found helpful or affirming said “confirming my ideas, expanding my ideas” this
proved to me that I was validating their experiences. Were they validating mine? I wished
their feedback was more honest and less nice. How would grow as a leader, if people
don’t want to tell me if my actions are right or wrong? I need to find a way to manage the
unspoken thoughts or would I say niceness if I am to truly be impactful.
I was comparative as I wrote about how involved describe what was happening Abby feeling
“engaged” and Clara finding the process “helpful or affirming.” I then shift to a critical
perspective when I expressed the desire for “more honest and less nice” feedback from my
teacher. This desire reflected evidence of my recognition of the potential power dynamic at play
that discouraged my participants from providing critical feedback. The fluidity between

113
reflection is evident when I switched back to comparative when I questioned how “I would grow
as a leader if people do not tell me if my actions are right or wrong” and “managing the
unspoken thoughts” of “Niceness” to be “truly impactful” seeking for what is not working rather
than the implication of attending to the hegemonic assumption of the guilt that I am the one to
meet the needs of my learners. I ended my reflection with the acknowledgment of that critical
reflection is an “ongoing reflection and critical inquiry concerning teaching actions as well as
thinking processes” (Larrivee, 2008 p. 348) when I wrote about the teachers understanding of
critical reflection,
Despite this, another glow from my CIQ was their response on their understanding of
CR, Clara saying “to take a situation and do a deep dive into one’s train of thought on why they
are thinking this way and what made them think that way” and Abby “reflecting on not only my
own thinking but how other think and learn their viewpoints.” I can see that they are at different
points in their understanding, and both made tremendous progress.
This reflection is an indication of comparative reflection as I wrote how Clara focused on
the “deep dive” into ones thought process and Abby emphasized the need to reflect on her “own
thinking” as well as “how others think and learn their viewpoints” sharing how they explained
what they were learning in light of others’ perspectives and theory provided (Jay & Johnson,
2002).
Through the whole process of my critical reflections, I was more descriptive and
comparative. I exhibited evidence of critical reflection in naming the power and hegemonic
ideologies I held. While this is not fully critical reflection, it is progress towards my goal of
becoming a reflective leader as I continue to push back against hegemonic assumptions.

114
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss the retrospective takeaways from conducting my action
research and the ways these findings continue to inform my growth as a special education
coordinator as I continue to work to disrupt and enact practices that challenge dominant
ideologies. Additionally, I will also discuss the trajectory as I continue to further develop my
practice.
The action research was my attempt to foster a holding environment where conversations
involved us having to discuss our deficit-oriented thinking and unearth dominant ideologies that
show up in our pedagogical practices. While I was able to make progress, it became evident that
the multifaceted nature of Whiteness and ableism ideologies exceeded my initial estimation. In
our exploration of our identities and privileges, it became clear that the focus gravitated toward
issues associated with White supremacy rather than ableism. I also recognize that in my
modeling, prompting, and interaction with my learners, I inadvertently moved them to put the
emphasis on White supremacy. I failed to link the intersectionality of ableism to the other
ideology of White supremacy. For example, in my “I Am From,” I did not include how I was
aware of my own “status” as an “able-bodied” person and instead only spoke as someone who
supported SWDs. I also did not prompt the teachers to identify problems of practice that centered
around White supremacy or ableism, limiting their investigation into both. Since the conclusion
of my action research study, I continue to meet on a weekly basis with some teachers and every
other month, I hold professional development (PDs) for all SpEd teachers in my district. Though
our meetings are individual and based on SpEd teachers’ individual schedules, I embed
collaborative discourse in the PDs. I now recognize that I need to be intentional and continue to
(critically) reflect on my role as a facilitator. Furthermore, as both a SpEd leader and inside

115
action researcher, I learned a lot about the importance of self-critical reflection and discussed the
implications of my learning. It is vital to note that the intent of this action research was not to
arrive at generalizability; rather a deeper understanding of how critical reflection promotes
individual and collective growth. I will also discuss the need to instill a culture of a critically
reflective cycle beyond my SpEd teachers.
Point of View
As a SpEd leader who had been coaching teachers for several years, I came into this
study with the perception that I was going to better at my skill and get teachers engaged in
critical discourse. By fostering connection, and deepening the trust in the space, I was able to
make progress, moving teachers from a surface conversation to them recognizing and naming
how their actions were grounded in the ideology of White supremacy. I kept us in a safe, not a
brave, space. Recently I had the opportunity to witness the progress Clara continues to make.
During one of our 1:1 session, Clara was explaining a situation about how she was struggling to
get a student to produce work. In her description, she caught herself and said, “I need to slow
down as we worked on last month and not rush to conclusion.” This showed me that Clara had
begun to internalize the thinking and acting structure when reflecting on her practice.
Additionally, I was not prepared for the evidence in my critical reflections and transcripts
of the ways I needed to slow down to examine the implications of how, explicitly, and implicitly,
I was positioned against my learners. I had failed to recognize how my positionality as a
Nigerian sometimes created blind spots for me with my Black and Hispanic SpEd teachers. I
thought I was very aware of it and yet by Cycle I was dealing with the tension and questioning if
I was leaning more towards one learner than the other. Despite us all being Black cisgendered
women in the space, I found that I was projecting my expectation of White supremacy more on

116
one participant and attended to it. Furthermore, I toggled more between describing my feelings,
what was pleasing and/or concerning, and determining alternative views to what was happening,
and how to improve what was happening more so than critical reflection. I made progress and
did not attain critical reflection. Despite being aware of my positionality, I missed the
opportunities to question the power dynamics in the space. I also did not use questioning that
enabled introspective learning that moved the values, beliefs, knowledge, and experiences that
contribute to perspectives from self and other people to systems and political inequities. Absent
from my reflection is my failure to attend to how some of my andragogical moves created
actions that did not further turns toward practice related to SWDs. I also did not focus on the
andragogical moves I would have needed to make to promote my learners’ ability to unearth
White supremacy or give voice to ableism as I had intended.
As a result of the data from my personal growth, I have been more intentional in using
critical reflections to hold myself accountable on how I take up teachers who are non-Black and
teachers who are Black with different racializing histories. For example, I received an email from
a Black female leader and a Hispanic SpEd paraprofessional (para). The leader had a complaint
about the SpEd para not doing an added-on task. She thought the para was intentionally avoiding
the task. The para thought the leader did not allow her to express that her priority was to SWDs.
The para thought her every move was being watched and this made her feel uncomfortable as
none of the Black paras were given the same treatment. As a SpEd leader in the past, I would
have been quick to react and inform the leader of the next steps while not discussing race.
Instead, I decided to slow down. As a result, I met up with the leader and the para separately,
listened while asking probing questions to gain more insight. Next, together with my facilitation,
we worked out a plan to ensure that the needs of the SWDs were met first and some time was

117
allocated for other duties for the paras. By slowing down, I was able to pause and question any
tension that arose for me and how I was positioned between both people, working towards us
centering our SWDs.
Moving forward, in my new role as a SpEd coordinator, I will continue to use the
Rodgers (2002) reflective cycle as a tool to develop my critical reflection skills and hold myself
accountable as I work with my team to enact asset orientations for SWDs. Consequently, I will
continue to work to foster trust in the space with my teachers and beyond where critical
reflection is happening by first engaging in critical reflection of how my lived experiences and
positionalities influence my andragogical moves and interactions. Then, I can engage in the
continuous cycle of critical reflection with teachers aiding them in slowing down, describing,
analyzing dominant ideologies in their practice to take intelligent action for SWDs.
Beyond the Study
As I move forward, I will continue to work on developing teachers to use critical
reflection to attend to how their deficit ideologies show up in practice and take intelligent actions
for SWDs. I am currently seeking to conduct PDs at conferences beyond my district and not only
with SpEd teachers, as inclusion of SWDs is a philosophy that goes beyond just SpEd educators.
I have signed up and will be presenting in the Fall at CABSE with a fellow USC EdD alumnus.
The overall purpose is to provide strategies for Black educators to maintain well-being and
develop continuous reflective skills. As I have learned from literature there are limitations to the
format of these types of one-shot PDs (Elmore, 2002). The PDs may not produce lasting change
as there are “knowledge in practice” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999), considering myself as the
holder of knowledge and not the learners. I am aware of the limitations and the need to slow
down the content and approach for my presentation, so I am not repeating hegemonic ways. I

118
will focus on the importance of developing a cycle of critical reflection to understanding how our
identities and some practices are rooted in dominant ideologies. Understanding that critical
reflection takes time, that will be a long-term goal that requires more than one PD. Therefore, in
slowing down I will engage participants in an activity and discourse to determine what type of
reflection they are currently doing and have them turn toward practice. I know that deep learning
will not happen, however, I hope to get them thinking. I also will seek to find PDs that push for
deeper learning with knowledge of practice rather than significant learning. Furthermore, in need
for continuous growth as a leader, which I credit to this study, I applied to be one of the fellows
for the Special Education Leadership fellowship and was selected. The fellow last a year, with
coaching, training, goal setting, and the opportunity for leaders to visit each other and
collaborative learn to ensure that the mindset and systems are in place for students to have
equitable, inclusive, and anti-bias classroom spaces.
As one of the SpEd coordinators at my district with my partner, we are responsible for
monthly professional development for SpEd teachers and department heads as needed. I plan to
use this study to inform my decision as I continue to work within my district. I have come to
understand that having teachers take up critical reflection is not only difficult but also very
emotional. As I plan to use my study as a reference to move from on-shot PDs to one where
challenging conversations are happening, I need to be cognizant of the andragogical moves I use,
especially the cognitive structure for teachers to take up new learning. Equally important is the
need to foster trust with new and old teachers by strengthening connections and process of
inquiry for critical reflection. In addition, focusing their practice as this provides the opportunity
for self-questioning and deeper learning. For example, as we worked on the scope and sequence
of the SpEd teacher PD this year, in our discourse I brought up the importance of grounding our

119
learning using teacher’s experiences in PDs. This was different from what we had done in the
past with PDs being us as the holders of knowledge and expecting teachers to take it on without
validating their experiences. Thus, this year we started with our purpose and explained the
change. For one of our PDs teachers brought in their 30-day IEPs and collaboratively had to
determine how they can provide authentic compliant services for the SWDs. I plan to collect
qualitative data to drive my support. Furthermore, 1 need to continue to develop and be
intentional with the types of questions that push teachers towards the desired aim of critical
reflection. As critical reflection takes time, I plan on introducing the reflective cycle moving
from descriptive to more critical discourse over the course of the year, cognizant of their ZPTD. I
also plan to be more attentive to introducing the idea of ableism beyond my role and through my
own able-bodied experiences. As a member of the “majority,” it is essential that I attend to the
power of language to increase teachers’ asset orientations, and disrupt deficit and ableist biases.
For example, I can and will engage in continuous reflection to adjust my language
acknowledging the privileges that come with being able-bodied and the need to continue to
advocate for inclusivity. Therefore, as I continue to develop as a leader, I will not stop
developing my critical reflection skills and plan to meet with some of my critical classmates for
accountability. It is important that I challenge my deficit ideologies openly and encourage
teachers to do the same to ensure we are viewing our SWDs from an asset lens.

120
References
Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces. NASPA Research and Policy Institute, 2, 1–13.
Alsarawi, A. (2019). A process, framework, and set of tools for facilitating co-planning among
co-teachers. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 15(2), 1–23
American Psychological Association, Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK–12 teaching and learning. Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf
Annamma, S. A., Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2013). Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit):
Theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race Ethnicity and Education
16(1), 1–31
Arao, B., & Clemens, K (2013). From safe spaces to brave space—A new way to frame dialogue
around diversity and social justice. In L. Landreman (Ed.), The art of effective facilitation
(pp. 135–150). Stylus.
Barrio, B. L., Miller, D., Hsiao, Y. J., Dunn, M., Petersen, S., Hollingshead, A., & Banks, S.
(2017). Designing culturally responsive and relevant individualized educational
programs. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 114–119.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Introduction: Beyond the fog of ideology. In L. Bartolomé (Ed.)
Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality (pp. ix–xxi). Peter
Lang.
Bogart, K. R., & Dunn, D. S. (2019). Ableism special issue introduction. Journal of Social
Issues, 75(3), 650–664.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction
to theories and methods (5th ed.) Allyn and Bacon.

121
Bolstad, F., & Zenuk-Nishide, L. (2015). Beyond the deficit model: Co-constructing team
teaching to address learner goals and needs. In Team Teaching and Team Learning in
the Language Classroom (pp. 78–93). Routledge.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Chapter 11. Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In N. Lyons
(Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer.
Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons,
Incorporated.
Button Poetry, (2014, September 4). Pages Matam, Elizabeth Acevedo, & G. Yamazawa
Unforgettable [Video]. YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xvah3E1fP20&t=11s
Little girl smashes classroom because she is mad [Video]. YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZzs9TR8DpY
California School Dashboard (CA Dashboard). (2019). School performance overview: Charter
school [Data file].
Cherney, J. L. (2011). The rhetoric of ableism. Disability Studies Quarterly, 31(3), 7–11.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press. 
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage
Publications.
Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus
on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16.

122
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.) (pp. 65–86). SAGE.
Davis, J. L., & Manago, B. (2016). Motherhood and associative moral stigma: The moral double
bind. Stigma and Health, 1(2), 72–86.
Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues,
current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13.
Douglas, T. R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity.
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(1).
59–82
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457 
Elmore, B. R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for PD in education. Albert Shanker Institute. (pages 18–33)
Fink, L. D. (2013). Better organizational support for faculty. In Creating significant learning
experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses (pp. 221–271). JosseyBass.
Giangreco, M. F. (2020). “How can a student with severe disabilities be in a fifth-grade class
when he can’t do fifth-grade level work?” Misapplying the least restrictive environment.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 23–27.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796919892733
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.

123
Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on
authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 402, 152–173. 
Grady, M., Cayton, C., Preston, R. V., & Sinicrope, R. (2019). Co-planning strategies for mentor
teachers and interns. Theory & Practice in Rural Education, 9(2), 79–91.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and
tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2009). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources 
for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational 
Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. 
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2nd ed.). Sage.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202. 
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 73–85.  
Jones, K. and Okun, T. "White Supremacy Culture." Dismantling racism: A workbook for
social change groups. Portland: Western States Center,2001.
Kennedy, B. L., & Soutullo, O. (2018). “We can't fix that”: Deficit thinking and the exoneration
of educator responsibility for teaching students placed at a disciplinary alternative school.
Journal of At-Risk Issues, 21(1), 11–23.
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Pressfind
Klein, M. (2018). Teaching Intersectionality Through “I Am From…”. Teaching race: How to
help students unmask and challenge racism, 87–108.

124
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective practice, 9(3), 341–360.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications. 
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Sage. 
Matias, C. E. (2013). On the flip side a teacher educator of color unveiling the dangerous minds
of white. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(2), 53–73.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43684739
Mark P., Mostert & Jean B. Crockett (2000) Reclaiming the history of special education for more
effective practice, Exceptionality, 8(2), 133–143.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with
learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 26(1), 48–5.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice (pp. 82–103).
John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass. 
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass. 
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative Learning as Discourse. Journal of Transformative
Education, 1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172

125
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J.
Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress
(pp. 333–252). Jossey-Bass.
Milner IV, H. R. (2010). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for
diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118–131.
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National study on inclusion:
Overview and summary report. National Center on Educational Restructuring and
Inclusion Bulletin, 2(2). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED389143)
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed.). SAGE.
Obiakor, F. E. (1998). Special education reform in Nigeria: Prospects and challenges. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 13(1), 57–71.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. 
Pelleboer-Gunnink, H. A., van Weeghel, J., & Embregts, P. J. (2021). Public stigmatizatiherryof
people with intellectual disabilities: a mixed-method population survey into stereotypes
and their relationship with familiarity and discrimination. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 43(4), 489–497.
Petit-McClure, S. H., & Stinson, C. (2019). Disrupting dis/abilization: a critical exploration of
research methods to combat white supremacy and ableism in education. Intersections:
Critical Issues in Education, 3(2), 4.
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, C. C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of
inclusion. Focus on autism and other developmental disabilities, 18(3), 140–149.

126
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253
Rodgers, C. R & Raider‐Roth, M. B (2006): Presence in teaching,Teachers and Teaching:
Theory and Practice, 12:3, 265–287
Rodriguez, J. (2021). Perceptions and practices of US pre-service special education teachers on
teaching social studies instruction in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 25(8), 928–943.
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 11(3), 221–
241.
Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre-K
through 12 education. Advances in Educational Administration (Vol. 11). Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3660(2010)000001100
Spikes, D. D. (2018). Culturally competent and racially conscious professional development for
school leaders: A review of the literature. Teachers College Record, 120, pp. 1–17.
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
Skiba, R. J., Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Losen, D. J., & Harry, E. G. (2016). Risks and
consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et
al.(2015). Educational Researcher, 45(3), 221–225.
Sinek, S. (2011). Start with why: How great leaders inspire everyone to take action. Penguin
Books Limited.

127
Sprowl-Loftis, P. (2013). General education teachers’ attitude towards inclusion and factors
that contribute to their attitude (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Strogilos, V., Stefanidis, A., & Tragoulia, E. (2016). Co-teachers’ attitudes towards planning and
instructional activities for students with disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 31(3), 344–359.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of
English language learners. Exceptional children, 77(3), 317-334.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press. 
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). About IDEA. IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. Retrieved 02 07, 2021, from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. (2), 252–258.
Wergin, J. F. (2020). In Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.
Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., & Rogers, E. L. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a
long, strange trip it’s been! Remedial and Special Education, 19(4), 219–228.
https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259801900405

128
Appendix A: Classroom Community Agreements

129

130
Appendix B: Description-Still Picture 1

131
Appendix B: Description-Still Picture 2
The Other Face Of Paris" by Gianni Sarcone

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines my leadership enactment as a special education coordinator at Ready Charter School. To provide a comprehensive examination of my leadership practices, I deconstruct my use of a holding environment and andragogical move of cognitive structuring in relation to special education teachers. My action research question was: How do I support special education teachers and my adoption of (critical) reflection to enact asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies? I collected field notes, reflections, and documents developed in my role as a teacher-leader. I found that I was able to move special education teachers from defaulting to interpretation to slowing down to describing their problem of practice. Thus, I was able to move teachers closer to the development of critical reflection.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Promoting students' sense of belonging as a practitioner inquiry community

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Using critical reflection to counter and disrupt deficit-based assumptions

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Reimagining an antiracist and structurally ideological GED program

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

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

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

PDF

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

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

PDF

Activating student engagement in shared governance

Asset Metadata

Creator Njubigbo, Ifeyinwa (author)

Core Title Critical discourse: enacting asset orientations that disrupt dominant ideologies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 11/27/2023

Defense Date 11/23/2023

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

Tag ableism,andragogical moves,cognitive structuring,critical reflection,holding environment,OAI-PMH Harvest,reflective cycle,white supremacy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Cortez, Nasser (committee member), Pascarella, John (committee member)

Creator Email nwodo@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113778573

Unique identifier UC113778573

Identifier etd-NjubigboIf-12494.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-NjubigboIf-12494

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Njubigbo, Ifeyinwa

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231129-usctheses-batch-1109 (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