University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

(USC Thesis Other)

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Developing Cultural Competence in Relation to Multilingual Learners
by
Linda Gog

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Linda Gog 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Linda Gog certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Eugenia Mora-Flores
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract

This study examines my enactment as a teacher-leader in the ELD/Transitional department at
Arnold O. Beckman High School. To provide a holistic examination of my teacher-leadership
practice, I deconstruct my use of structure and andragogical moves in relation to fellow English
Language teachers. My action research question was: How do I promote the development of
teachers’ cultural competence in relation to their multilingual students? I collected fieldnotes,
reflections, and documents developed in my role as a teacher-leader. I found that I was able to
move learners from limited understanding of the role of identity and cultural values in their
instructional practices to an awareness of the role of identity and cultural values in their
instructional practices, moving participants closer towards the development of cultural
competence.

v

Dedication

To God who has given me grace upon grace. Thank you.

To my mom who taught me to love sacrificially and serve others. Thank you.
To my dad who taught me to dream big. Thank you.
To my brother who taught me to believe in myself. Thank you.

vi

Acknowledgements

To my committee: Dr. Julie Slayton, Dr. Artineh Samkian, and Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores.
I am grateful and thankful for all the ways you have helped me to slow down, question,
engage, and learn throughout this process. I appreciate all the discussions, readings and support
you shared with me to grow as an individual and educator.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Historically Entrenched Inequity ........................................................................................ 7
Context .............................................................................................................................. 10
Role ................................................................................................................................... 13
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 16
Critical Reflection ................................................................................................. 23
Andragogy ............................................................................................................. 26
Adaptive Leadership ............................................................................................. 29
Cultural Competence in Relation to ML Students ................................................ 32
Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 37
Participants and Setting ......................................................................................... 37
Participants ............................................................................................................ 39
Setting of Actions ................................................................................................. 43
Actions .................................................................................................................. 43
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols .......................................................... 46
Documents and Artifacts ....................................................................................... 47
Observations ......................................................................................................... 49
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 50

viii

Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 52
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 54
Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 56
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 58
Structure ................................................................................................................ 60
The Self-Growth ................................................................................................. 106
Afterword ........................................................................................................................ 130
Addressing My Ambivalence ............................................................................. 130
The Value of Critical Reflection ......................................................................... 132
Staying Engaged ................................................................................................. 135
References ................................................................................................................................... 137

ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Teacher Educator – Leadership Actions Page 45

Table 2: Equitable and Effective Learner Profile Survey Page 69

x

List of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework Page 18
Figure 2: Agenda from Session 2 Page 62
Figure 3: Culture Tree Page 80
Figure 4: Our Culture in the Classroom Page 88
Figure 5: Reflecting and Evaluating Our Practice: Curriculum Page 93
Figure 6: Reflecting and Evaluating Our Practice: Instructional Practices Page 101

1

Developing Cultural Competence in Relation to Multilingual Learners

Over the last few years, I have found myself thinking about how my identity as an
immigrant impacts my work as an educator. Reaching the cusp of a decade in teaching and the
onset of my doctoral degree forced me to wrestle with the decisions I had made as a teacher and
the impact I had on students. I am a 33-year-old, Romanian immigrant, White, female with a
Judeo-Christian heritage working as a teacher in a public school. These identity factors have
allowed me to thrive, both personally and professionally. Today, I am an English teacher, to the
surprise of my immigrant parents, on the precipice of completing a doctoral degree. As I have
pursued both research and growth in my career, I’ve come to learn that I must unpack my
identity and how it has influenced my way of thinking and professional choices because, despite
my intentions, my choices have the potential to harm students by limiting learning opportunities
or support students by enhancing learning opportunities.
My family immigrated to the United States when I was just 3 years old. My father was in
search of his American dream: stability for his family, economic opportunity, and liberty.
Throughout my childhood, my parents emphasized the dominant narrative of the American
Dream: If you work hard, then you can achieve anything you want in America. I spent most of
my up brining watching my parents make decisions and act in the pursuit of this idea. Given their
negative experiences and limited educational opportunities in Communist Romania, my parents
emphasized the value of education. They often spouted aphorisms about the power of education,
its ability to open doors and, “have the life we never had.” My parents’ chase after the American
Dream was visible through the neighborhoods and the homes we lived in. When we first arrived
in the United States, we moved into an apartment in a low-income neighborhood. My parents
worked two to three jobs my entire life so that they could eventually upgrade to their “dream”
2

neighborhood. My father, an electrician, would take side jobs in those “dream” neighborhoods
and he would come home with stories about how beautiful the homes were, how clean the streets
were. Little did I know or understand, these were also “White” neighborhoods. On our way to
school, we were often encouraged to work hard and listen to our teachers because education was
our ticket to the dream life. He reminded my brother and me that survival depended on your hard
work and not to expect handouts from anyone, especially the government. Handouts, for him,
were methods of controlling people. We were going to rise above our current position without
the assistance of others. I internalized this narrative. It was not until I became a teacher that I
became enlightened to the fact that my parents’ story was a story of both perseverance and
privilege. I already recognized their story as one of perseverance, as they overcame lack of
education, little knowledge of English and socio-economic status; I then came to realize they
carried privilege based on their skin color. Our identity as White individuals put us an advantage,
while other aspects of our identity, such as lack of education, little knowledge and understanding
of the English language, and lower socio-economic status, put us at a disadvantage. Given the
complexity of our identity and circumstances, my parents took different approaches to
establishing new life.
The different philosophies towards life in the United States were often a source of tension
in our household. My father was and is a staunch believer in assimilation. From his perspective,
it was not important that my brother and I spoke Romanian at home or ate Romanian food. He
changed the spelling of his name to make it easier for his colleagues to pronounce, and he often
did not show up to our after-school activities, as he did not want to embarrass us with his accent
or lack of formal education. He encouraged my older brother and me to fully assimilate to a new
way of life, even if he couldn’t participate. From his perspective, encouraging us to assimilate to
3

the language and cultural norms of our new home meant we would be better set to thrive. His
strategy was one of self-reliance and belief that his kids would “figure it out because they speak
English.” On the other hand, while my mother valued navigating and finding success in her new
home, she also did everything in her power to sustain our home culture. She spoke with us in
Romanian and expected that we would reply in Romanian. She valued the strong connections she
had with other Romanian immigrants she had met and often set up times for us to play with other
Romanian children. From her perspective, finding a balance between sustaining our Romanian
culture and language and assimilating to a new society was key to success. Knowing her children
will need to build a life in this new country, she wanted to find ways to keep ties to Romania.
Speaking Romanian at home was one of the ways she tried to ensure we did not forget our
Romanian heritage. Overall, growing up I adopted more of my dad’s philosophy on assimilation.
I desired blending in by speaking English and rejecting Romanian.
Until the sixth grade I was labeled an English language learner (ELL) student. The effects
of that label were immediate; beginning in kindergarten, I was pulled out of my general
education class English class for one-on-one English language sessions. I went to another room
during the English language arts portion of class and worked on verbal exercises. As a result, I
did not get the same learning opportunities as my peers. I did not read the same books, nor
complete the same writing tasks. In addition, I was assessed annually. The label not only
negatively impacted my educational opportunities, but it has also rippled into my motivation,
self-efficacy, and identity. My mother took note of the fact that I was not reading the same books
or writing the same tasks as my peers and by the sixth grade my mom noticed the negative effect
on my motivation and self-efficacy. After conferring with her fellow Romanian, immigrant
moms, she advocated for the removal of the label. Her advocacy changed the direction of my
4

educational opportunities, but it was too late in terms of how I had internalized the ELL
designation. In addition, I recognize how her advocacy was a privilege I experienced, as she was
eventually listened to. While I had teachers who were kind, the constant removal from my peers
to learn English solidified my identity as “dumb” and “different” and “can’t read.” During my
elementary years, it appeared to me that my teachers just accepted my designation. It took years
of repeated academic success, particularly in English language arts, to finally see myself through
a different lens. My first memory of a positive reading experience was in college. It was during
my first semester at community college that I finally felt I reached the language competency of
my peers. My positive experience in literature and writing courses at community college inspired
me to pursue a career in English instruction.
It was not until I became a teacher and took a job in the East Bay suburbs of northern
California that I began to recognize my internalized ideology of assimilation. My first teaching
assignment was at a public high school in the East Bay suburbs. For the first time in my adult
life, I was cognizant of the contradictions in my own ideology, the tension between my identity
and my espoused beliefs. On the one hand, I felt extreme culture shock as the students I was
teaching came from generational wealth, were predominately White, had little exposure to
immigrant communities, and came from highly educated families. This was completely different
than my own up brining; thus, when I encountered academically struggling students and/or low-
motivated students, I did not know how to approach them. My go-to strategy was to preach the
same motivational speech my immigrant father gave me growing up. At the time, I was operating
under the assumption that if one was a native English speaker, one has no reason to struggle or
lack motivation; I projected my experience onto them. It is safe to say, I was wrong. I quickly
became frustrated and blamed students and thought to myself, “Didn’t they know how privileged
5

they were?” I continued in this pattern for a few years, which led to various misunderstandings
between me and my students, failed attempts at meeting their needs, and stubbornness that most
likely reduced learning opportunities. With time I came to acknowledge that I needed to rethink
my understanding of students and English instruction. Working through my own ideology of
students and English instruction I began experiencing what Brookfield (2017) refers to a
disorienting dilemma. For me, my disorienting dilemma came from many aspects of my teaching
environment. My assumption was native speakers were already part of the dominant language
and culture, therefore, how and/or why would they struggle? My thinking around native speakers
as privileged and my inability to see them as students who could struggle made it impossible for
me to meet them where they were.
I struggled with my internalized ideology of assimilation well into my second and current
teaching assignment. At the time of the study, I was an ELA teacher at an Orange County public
school. My context had a large multilingual student population.
1
Most of the multilingual (ML)
students in my current context are of Latino/a, Asian, and Middle Eastern backgrounds. Even
though I taught many ML students, I still found myself approaching them with the same
assimilationist attitude, expecting them to master English and abandon their home language. It
has also taken me a long time to recognize the difference in my experience, as a White language
learner, as opposed to my current ML students. While I noticed the systemic obstacles ML
students faced, I was still unable to recognize how my own thinking around language
perpetuated obstacles, rather than supported students.

1
The California Department of Education (2020) argues for the use of the term multilingual student (ML) to replace
the commonly used term English language learner to establish an asset-based and inclusive orientation towards
language learning and multilingualism (p. 35). The term ML is inclusive of students who are labeled Dual Language
Learners and English Learner students (Newcomer EL, Long-term EL, Reclassified Fluent English Proficient,
Initially Fluent English Proficient). For this study, I used the term multilingual (ML).
6

I also failed to recognize the way the school produced/reproduced marginalization for
ML students. Between the assessments, labels, and sheltered classrooms, students face several
barriers to experiencing meaningful learning opportunities. Students who are currently ML are
reassessed annually via the English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC)
and are discouraged from enrolling in College Preparatory (CP), honors, or Advanced Placement
courses. Additionally, they are isolated in sheltered classrooms that limit their interactions with
native speakers, which is essential to language acquisition (Cummins, 2008). Furthermore, for
the last 5 years I had been teaching an 11
th
grade sheltered English course with three fellow
teachers. The longer time I’ve spent on the team, the more aware I became of my choice to either
perpetuate learning obstacles or create more equitable and meaningful learning opportunities for
ML students. First and foremost, I recognized how my beliefs and attitude toward the students
shapes the interactions and culture of my classroom. I have mistakenly imposed my internalized
assimilationist ideology onto my students. I emphasized performance on assignments and high-
stake testing. My curriculum and pedagogy have reinforced dominant narratives and reflected
assimilationist practices. I have neglected to acknowledge the role of race, language, culture,
ethnicity, gender in both my interactions, curriculum development, and instructional practices.
While I do not pretend that my internalized ideology of assimilation ceases to exist, I
have worked towards awareness and tempering of this ideology in my work with multilingual
students. I have questioned and interrogated my assimilationist ideology. Further, as a
multilingual individual, I am drawn to the experiences of students who are multilingual because I
have personally dealt with both the cultural and language obstacles in my education that have led
me on a long journey of self-exploration and inquiry. I have spent most of my life living in the
chaos of the hyphenated self (Sirin & Fine, 2017, as cited by Ravitch & Riggan, 2017). I have
7

balanced language, cultural identity, and my sense of belonging; thus, I had a strong investment
in this study. Through this study, I challenged my own assumptions, and supported my own
colleagues in this, to support ML students. By becoming aware of our own ideologies, identities,
we were able to make strides towards interrogating our practice and moving towards practices
that honor students’ culture and create more meaningful interactions and learning opportunities
for ML students.
Historically Entrenched Inequity

One of the most pressing inequities facing multilingual students
2
today is the lack of
culturally sustaining instruction that provides educational opportunities that honor their home
language, cultures, voices, and identities and educational opportunities that provide rich and
meaningful content (Genzuk, 2011; Hollie, 2018; Lucas et al., 2008; Mora-Flores, 2018). In its
current format, English language instruction is characterized by over assessment, sheltered
environments, and rote language acquisition (Genzuk, 2011). Instruction is often limited to
worksheets, low-level reading opportunities, and limited writing exposure (Lucas et al., 2008).
When it comes to English language instruction for ML students, the emphasis on language
acquisition and skills fails to recognize the linguistic and cultural diversity of students. ML
students are grouped together based on one factor: English is not their primary language
(Genzuk, 2011). As a result, instruction neglects to take in consideration students’ racial, ethnic,
cultural backgrounds, and their funds of knowledge (Moll et al., 1992). ML students are taught

2
For this study, I use the term “multilingual learner” to refer to students who have developed or are developing
proficiency in both English and one or more other languages, which may be their home language, including Dual
Language Learners, English learner students (Newcomer EL, Long-term EL, Reclassified Fluent English Proficient,
Initially Fluent English Proficient). I use the term “multilingual learner” to establish an asset-based and inclusive
orientation towards language learning and multilingualism.
8

under a one-size-fits all model with the goal to perform on language tasks, such as the ELPAC
(Genzuk, 2011).
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCLEA) reported that
during school year (SY) 2017–18, over 5 million multilingual students were enrolled in U.S.
schools in grades K–12., this is 10.5% of the student population. In the 2017–18 SY, four states
had a multilingual student population that was above 12% of total student enrollment; California
had the highest percentage, with over 20% of K-12 students classified as multilingual. As more
and more ML students are enrolled in the public school system, it becomes imperative that
teachers are skilled and prepared to provide equitable educational opportunities and meet the
needs of each student (Hollie, 2011). To do this, individual teachers and institutions need to
interrogate their philosophy and approach to English language instruction for multilingual
students (Hollie, 2011). More specifically, teachers need to develop cultural competence. First
and foremost, educators need to examine the ways in which historically English language
instruction has failed to recognize the individual histories of multilingual students (Genzuk,
2011; Hollie, 2011).
According to the most current NAEP data, students who are identified as multilingual
students score significantly below native speakers with an average score of 235 in reading, which
is considered basic (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2019). Moreover, according
to the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP), 68.11% of
English learners in the 11
th
grade scored Level 1-Standard Not Met in the English Language Arts
Assessment (California Department of Education, 2019). These scores are problematic for
several reasons: they point to instructional practices that fail to meet the students’ needs and
these test scores can determine other educational opportunities, such as college entrance. The
9

consistent low performance affirms the need to improve instruction and pedagogy for ML
students.
The current approach to English language instruction for ML students is a result of a long
history of assimilationist practices. From its origins, American schools were used to deculturize
students. For example, “many missionaries feared that if Cherokees learned to read and write in
their own language, then they would never learn English. For most missionaries, learning
English was essential for changing Cherokee culture” (Spring, 2016, p. 8). This early practice set
the foundation for assimilation ideology that permeates the education system. When language is
controlled, so is the maintenance of the dominant culture, a middle-class White culture. Ahern
(1976) describes how school is used as a tool for assimilating students into the dominant culture.
While deculturization can happen in many formats, for the purpose of this study, I focused on
multilingual students. Genzuk (2011) argues that,
Schools in the United States were traditionally designed to educate students whose native
language was English. Students whose home language was other than English were
expected to grasp both the scope and the sequence of the typical English curriculum at
the same pace and with the same ease as the native speakers of English. (p. 3)
I often hear teachers remark how it is their duty to teach multilingual students English so
they can fit into “our” society. While never mentioned explicitly, this is the dominant ideology
and approach to English language instruction for multilingual students at my current school site.
Although teachers fail to recognize and articulate this approach, it shows up in their
instructional choices. These attitudes reflect a deficit mindset towards ML students. Genzuk
(2011) explains how, at the heart of these attitudes, is a lack of understanding about role of
language in learning. The assumption is that because students do not speak English, they do not
10

have the skills or abilities for high cognitive tasks or valuable knowledge. As a result, I found it
important to interrogate our assumptions and biases in relation to ML students.
Learning to make our assumptions, cultural values, beliefs, and current practices explicit
is the first step in becoming more culturally competent educators. Ladson-Billings (1995) argues,
“culturally relevant teachers utilize students’ culture as a vehicle for learning” (p. 161). In the
context of my school, whether in sheltered courses, or mainstream courses, teachers often taught
ML students with a deficit-minded instructional approach that was not culturally relevant
(Ladson-Billings, 2006) and limited to low-cognitive tasks. For example, teaching to the ELPAC
test activities, de-contextualized vocabulary activities, limited writing opportunities, and limited
discussion opportunities. The deficit-minded instructional approach often manifested itself in
teachers’ “dumbing down” the rigor of learning activities and disguising it as scaffolding:
“Language minority students were labeled as deficient and remediation programs were
prescribed. English as a second language (ESL) was considered a remedial curriculum” (Genzuk,
2011, p. 4). This is like the sheltered program at my school site. ML students are removed from
the mainstream courses and enrolled in “transitional” courses in which the instructional practices
are often limited to vocabulary activities, short, low-level reading tasks, and condensed writing
assignments. Genzuk (2011) continues to state that “These programs usually emphasized
grammar, spelling and pronunciation, all of which had to be mastered before the student was
allowed to explore the academic curriculum” (p. 4). These instructional approaches rob ML
students from the rich, meaningful learning opportunities native students are privy to.
Developing cultural competence is necessary to work towards more meaningful and equitable
learning opportunities for ML students.
Context

11

One of the ways in which this inequity expressed itself in my context is through the
sheltered transitional program. The EL/Transitional program was an English Language program
that was designed for students who scored between 2–3 on the ELPAC and needed additional
academic language support. Each grade level offered a sheltered English course. The word
transitional was used instead of sheltered. This change in language was made before my time on
the team. At the time of the study, I taught the grade 11 transitional course. According to data,
there were 29 students enrolled in the transitional program. This represented approximately 12%
of the ML students on our campus. This sheltered English course was designed with the intention
of “transitioning” students into their grade level college preparatory course. At the time of the
study, there was no systematic way of transitioning students, instead it was left up to teacher
discretion. While this allowed for flexibility that would ostensibly benefit students, it allowed a
significant amount of space for teacher bias. For example, all four teachers had different ideas of
when it was appropriate to reclassify students. Some teachers reclassified in the middle of a
quarter because the student did well on a teacher-designed assessment, while other teachers
might have waited until the end of a semester and evaluated a student’s progress throughout the
semester. Furthermore, our curriculum was not aligned; some teachers required more rigorous
reading and writing tasks, while some teachers emphasized speaking skills. This lack of
coherence between teachers would drastically impact students’ educational opportunities and
movement through the system.
Moreover, the instructional focus for our courses was unclear. The lack of clarity and
focus was a constant topic of discussion in our team meetings. Based on conversations during
our team meetings, the individual teacher philosophies ranged from language acquisition with a
focus on speaking because language learners were “shy and won’t speak in classes with native
12

speakers,” to language acquisition with a focus on literary analysis because “this was what they
would do in college preparatory classes,” to language acquisition with an emphasis on critical
thinking skills. The lack of cohesion in purpose and goals created room for inequitable learning
opportunities and potentially misaligned instructional strategies and students’ needs. While each
philosophy offered benefits and drawbacks in their instructional approach, what each philosophy
and instructional approach had in common was a lack of cultural competence. There was very
little, if at all, conversations about students’ assets and how best to capitalize on them for
instructional purposes. They were highly curriculum-centered, rather than student-centered.
While the design of this program had the benefits of smaller classroom size and more
individualized instruction, it also isolated students from the rest of their peers. By isolating
students from their peers, they missed an essential component of language acquisition, exposure
to native speakers and the opportunity to build friendships and become part of the larger school
community. In addition, I had observed that there was an assumption from other teachers that
students would be supported in all their classes in the transitional program, which freed them
from the responsibility of getting to know their students and their language needs. Other than this
team, teachers were limited in their knowledge of how to support ML students in their
classrooms.
Given the relative autonomy teachers had in this program, the curriculum and
instructional practices ranged. Over the 4 years of collaboration, I observed little work towards
getting to know our students, little appreciation and honoring of students’ racial, cultural, and
linguistic backgrounds, and little use of students’ funds of knowledge, which led to limited
opportunities for authentic engagement in content and fewer learning opportunities. Some of the
instructional practices that were utilized include, paragraph writing, isolated vocabulary
13

exercises, and ELPAC and other high-stake test prep assessments. These instructional practices
reflected a deficit-mindset and a curriculum centered instructional approach. Unfortunately,
students in this program did not experience the same curriculum and instructional opportunities
of students enrolled in mainstream courses. Most starkly, however, was the lack of understanding
of our students’ background. As Genzuk (2011) asserts, “By understanding the influence that
culture has on students, educators can prevent or at least reduce the unfair advantage those
students who share the dominant culture have over those students whose cultures differ from the
mainstream” (p. 3). As teachers of ML students, it is essential that we understand our students’
cultures and work to bridge any barriers or disadvantages students might face (Moll et al., 1992).
Furthermore, California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP)
assessments for the 2019 school year demonstrated ML students were the lowest performing
group at our school. According to the Smarter Balanced Summative Assessment in English
Language Area for 2019, ML students scored 60.4 points below standards and declined by 19.9
points from the previous year (California Department of Education, 2017). This highlighted how
the students’ needs were not being met. The lack of cultural congruency between students’ lives
and the curriculum taught in school impacted their access to skills and content.
Role

While my experience as an immigrant student could help foster connections between me
and some students, it had also created my blind spots. I must work on interrogating and
challenging my ideology of assimilation with my students, even more so with my ML students.
My own ideology has harmed many students in the process. I have failed to recognize how my
White, European background has sheltered me from discrimination. I am now beginning to
understand the value of acknowledging and celebrating cultural backgrounds, both personally
14

and professionally. For many years, I compartmentalized this portion of my identity, yet now I
realize it permeates through the core of who I am. In the same way, my students walk into the
classroom with lived experiences and valuable ethnic and cultural assets that can create more
rich and meaningful learning for all students.
At the time of the study, I served as an ELA teacher at a public high school in Orange
County, California. The school’s demographics included approximately 3,000 students of diverse
ethnicities. Approximately 35% of the students were Asian, 30% were White, 26% were
Latino/a, 24% were socioeconomically disadvantaged, 9% were ML students. One hundred
percent of the teachers were highly qualified per the standards of the State of California (Arnold
O. Beckman High School). The school was highly resourced, and teachers were encouraged to
experiment with the curriculum and pedagogy. This created a culture of teacher autonomy in
which instructional practices were determined by teacher preference, not always by what was
best for students. This was evident in the EL/Transitional team, as our focus and instructional
choices reflected our personal preferences and philosophies.
As the EL/Transitional team lead, I was in a position of influence. Not only could I
change my practice, but I also had the opportunity to influence the culture, purpose, and practice
of my team. Beginning with my classroom, I could interrogate how the ideology of assimilation
permeates my practice and I could enact culturally sustaining practices to center the lived
experiences of my ML students, challenge practices that reflected a White Eurocentric value and
identify and address deficit thinking. Furthermore, I could bring in my experiences and work
with culturally sustaining practices to the team, as way to foster discussion about our
instructional approach and practices. I could work with my peers to challenge our practice,
reconsider ideas about what it meant to care for our students with diverse backgrounds, what it
15

meant to provide meaningful and equitable learning opportunities that capitalize on students’
assets, and ways we could develop our cultural competence.
More broadly, I was able to foster discussion that challenged our institution’s larger
educational goals. In recent years, problem solving skills, creativity, critical thinking, and
emotional intelligence were the top priorities. While fostering these skills in students was vital, it
also reflected an economic mindset of education (Mehta, 2013). An education that emphasizes
skills without acknowledgement of students’ lived experiences and backgrounds only further
supports the status quo (Mehta, 2013). It continued to deny students’ realities and experiences.
For the first chapter of my teaching career, I have attempted to teach ML students without
acknowledging or attempting to understand who they are. I have made assumptions about their
experiences based on my own. As a teacher of ML students, I wanted them to feel the same sense
of belonging and success that I did, ignoring that my own sense of belonging and success was
rooted in internalized beliefs about assimilation and denial of my own cultural heritage. As I’ve
grown in my understanding of what to means to be an effective educator, I’ve come to realize I
want to teach for the purpose of empowering, equipping, and encouraging my students to
understand their own identities, use their voices, and grow in their understanding of the world.
One way I examined the lack of cultural competence in relation to English language
instruction for ML students and my own practice was through the process of critical reflection.
By using Rodgers’s systematic reflection cycle, teachers could research their own assumptions,
biases, practices, and teaching. As Rodgers (2002) states, “As teachers gain skill in this kind of
extended reflection, they become more able to respond thoughtfully in the moment” (p. 232). As
I became more aware, I worked towards teaching practices that centered students’ lived
experiences and students’ funds of knowledge. As an educational leader I had the ability to work
16

with teachers around their practice. As Genzuk (2011) states, “Educators need both a foundation
of cultural awareness and the ability to acquire further awareness and knowledge of the
backgrounds, habits and values of communities they serve” (p. 3). My colleagues were the
gateway of creating more equitable learning opportunities, therefore, my goal was to interrogate
and challenge dominant ideologies in relation to ML instructional practices that support rich and
meaningful learning opportunities, which led me to the development of the following research
question: How do I promote the development of teachers’ cultural competence in relation to their
multilingual students?
The following section will explain my conceptual framework, which will specify the
underlining philosophies that guided my research. I will then move on to explain the methods by
which I accomplished my action research study.
Conceptual Framework

Maxwell (2013) asserts that a conceptual framework is “the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p.
39). My original conceptual framework guided my action research to answer the following
research question: How do I promote the development of teachers’ cultural competence in
relation to their multilingual (ML) students? My framework has evolved and serves as my
current tentative theory for working towards the development of cultural competence in relation
to multilingual students. In this section I offer a conceptual framework informed by adaptive
leadership, critical reflection, and andragogy. I derived my conceptual framework from concepts
at the intersection of culturally sustaining practices and English language (EL) instruction. The
long-term goal is to work with teachers towards the development of cultural competence in
relation to ML students so they can create learning opportunities where ML students will feel
17

safe, affirmed, intellectually challenged, and successful. For this study, I narrowed my focus on
culturally sustaining practices to the development of cultural competence of teachers working
with ML students. As mentioned in the context statement, the development of teacher cultural
competence is necessary work when addressing the assimilationist nature and status quo of
English language instruction for ML students.
My intention was to work to promote the development of cultural competence of other
teachers on my team. Through critical reflection, andragogical moves, and adaptive leadership
moves, I engaged my colleagues in conversations about cultural competence. These concepts
helped me develop my methods, data collection, analysis, and findings. These concepts are
represented in Figure 1. I will address each of the core concepts in the following order: Critical
reflection, andragogy, adaptive leadership, and cultural competence in relation to ML students.
In addition, in this framework I will describe how my conceptions of these relationships has
changed because of my in the field experiences.

18

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

The design of the conceptual framework (Figure 1) demonstrates the reciprocal nature of
the relationships in the context of my study. The framework functions as a theory that illuminates
how I saw my role in the study (Maxwell, 2013) as well as how I continue to see my role. I
position myself as the teacher leader (TL), informed by critical reflection and adaptive
leadership. While I was not able to achieve critical reflection, as discussed in my findings, I still
believe critical reflection is central to the way I need to take up and hold myself accountable to
engaging as an adaptive leader using andragogy (teacher-leader moves) that promotes critical-
dialectical discourse so that the learners (my colleagues) could develop cultural competence in
relation to their ML students. I argue that critical reflection is foundational to leadership and
action research as it helps me unearth assumptions about leadership, adult learning, students, and
19

myself. As Brookfield (2017) asserts, the function of critical reflection is to illuminate power and
uncover hegemony. The purpose of critical reflections is to grow in my ability to recognize my
own complicity in perpetuating dominant ideologies and hegemony, such as deficit mindset and
assimilationist ideology. Critical reflection provides leaders with the tools to interrogate their
assumptions and power they hold in relation to their colleagues, leadership moves, teacher-leader
moves, and understanding about ML students. Khalifa (2018) asserts that “Leaders who are not
critically self-aware or knowledgeable about racism and other histories of oppression, and who
do not embrace anti-oppression and social justice, will reproduce racism and other forms of
systemic oppression in their schools” (p. 24). Working with ML students, educational leaders
have the power to perpetuate inequities, such as assimilationist practices, and limit learning
opportunities. By working to disrupt my own biases and assumptions, I was better positioned to
see and understand where my learners (my colleagues) were, how my leadership and teacher
leader moves supported or hindered their learning, and how my own interpretations of cultural
competence influenced my leadership. In addition, I argue that critical reflection is necessary to
reduce harm towards learners, as well as to make progress towards the goal of developing
teachers’ cultural competence, as it is important to ensure that my engagement in adaptive
leadership moves and andragogical moves is not colorblind.
Rooted in critical reflection, leaders can work toward enacting adaptive leadership
behaviors with a critical lens. Northouse (2004) states, “The goal of adaptive leadership is to
encourage people to change and learn new ways of living so that they may do well and grow” (p.
258). Adaptive leaders must focus on adaptive challenges and behaviors. Developing cultural
competence is an adaptive challenge as it asks the learners to change their attitude, beliefs, and
behaviors in relation to their ML students and instructional practices, which can lead to a
20

disorienting dilemma (Brookfield, 2017). In the work towards developing cultural competence, I
argue it is necessary to rely heavily on both literature and discussion, therefore I fused my
adaptive leadership behaviors with critical reflection. I argue that critical reflection allows me to
be attentive to my positionality in relation to my leaners as I interact with them.
Adaptive leaders work to build capacity around their understanding and use of (Heifetz et
al., 2009) cultural competence. Adaptive leaders are responsible for establishing a shared frame
of reference, thus I expand the concept of establishing a shared from of reference to include Horn
and Little’s, 2010 notion of normalizing conversations around our identities, cultural beliefs, and
values, as well as students’ identities and cultural backgrounds. To normalize conversations
around culture, I argue it is necessary to establish common analytical language, as Rodgers
(2002) asserts that “a second critical point about analysis is the need for the group of teachers to
generate a common language about teaching and learning” (p. 246). Hollie (2018) builds on
Rodgers’s (2002) idea by asserting, “Being culturally and linguistically responsive begins with
understanding its meaning and having consensus about how to name it” (p. 21). By establishing
common analytical language and normalizing discussion about identity and culture, learners are
better positioned to question and interrogate their own belief systems and practice.
To enact adaptive leadership behaviors, I argue that leaders need to get on the balcony so
that they can build capacity through continuous leaning and giving the work back to people
(Heifetz, 2009). By getting on the balcony, leaders can slow down to identify the gaps between
their espoused theories and the theories in practice. As Heifetz (2009) argues, “adaptation
requires learning new ways to interpret what goes on around you and new ways to carry out
work” (p. 105). As learners continue to grow and apply cultural competence into their practice,
adaptive leaders work to give the work back to the people, encouraging them to solve their own
21

problems through questioning. As Heifetz (2009) argues, adaptive leaders encourage continuous
learning and giving the work back to the people by seeking out “the perspectives of frontline
people,” engaging in “two-way conversations instead of one-way lectures or mandates,” and
“encourage[ing] pure reflection as well as more disciplined processing of complex dynamic
situations” (p. 106). As a leader and colleague, it is important to remain intentional about my
language and intellectual position; adaptive leaders approach the development of cultural
competence as a joint learning experience, therefore, I fuse adaptive leadership with critical
reflection. By fusing adaptive leadership with critical reflection, I am better positioned to
interrogate my language and intellectual position in relation to my colleagues. Furthermore,
understanding that developing cultural competence and working with adult learners who have
years of experience both as students and teachers, it is crucial to respect their lived experiences
by engaging them in the work (p. 105).
As a teacher leader, it is imperative to engage in andrological moves that facilitate
learning. One key element to developing teacher cultural competence is the discourse within the
team. More specifically, I argue that leaders need to engage learners in critical-dialectical
discourse, as defined by Mezirow (2003), “Discourse here refers to dialogue involving the
assessment of beliefs, feelings, and values” (p. 59). I will use the terms critical-dialectical
discourse and discourse interchangeably. This form of discourse is intended to challenge the
ways in which learners see themselves and their practice. I contend that, to promote critical-
dialectical discourse, teacher-leaders need to rely on questioning strategies that help push
learners into their practice and towards critical reflection (Horn & Little, 2010). Relying on
Heifetz’s (2009) idea that leaders need to give the work back to the people and Garrett’s (2002)
22

idea that teaching should rely on questioning and learner experience, I argue that teacher-leaders
must center learner experience as the content of the discourse as well as literature.
As represented in the conceptual framework, the content of the critical-dialectical
discourse transitions from culturally sustaining literature, with a focus on cultural competence, to
teacher practice. Consistent with my actions, I still argue that it is essential to use literature to
develop common analytical language and normalize conversations around culture. In addition, I
still believe, and even more so than originally, that the discourse needs to transition to teacher
practice, reflecting Rodgers’s (2002) assertion that the primary text for exploration should be
teachers’ experiences. The nature of the discourse requires critical self-reflection and
vulnerability from me and participants.
In my original conceptual framework, I focused the content of discourse on literature
pertaining to culturally sustaining pedagogy, focusing on cultural competence, however, I shifted
from my original conceptual framework as I came to understand that promoting the development
of teacher cultural competence requires the linking of theory and practice (Horn & Little, 2010).
Therefore, culturally sustaining pedagogy literature is a tool to challenge dominant ideologies
and practices that relate to ML students. The literature then helps promote an understanding
around asset-based pedagogies and the development of analytical language that can be used in
common. In addition, I recognize that my role as a leader is to engage followers to “develop and
sustain culturally responsive teachers and curricula; [and] promote inclusive, anti-oppressive
school contexts” (Khalifa, 2018, p. 13). As such, when demonstrating cultural competence with
ML students, educators need to be aware of students’ cultural assets, such as home language,
cultural capital, funds of knowledge, as well as awareness of their own biases and assumptions in
making pedagogical decisions. The purpose of discourse centered around cultural competence is
23

to facilitate the interrogation of their own assumptions and beliefs, learn new ways of knowing,
and revise their understanding of culture in order to disrupt the further marginalization of ML
students. By shifting the discourse to teacher practice, I argue that I am better positioned to
facilitate constructive disorientations (Wergin, 2020) that will encourage learners to reflect and
ultimately develop cultural competence. In making this content change, from centering literature
to centering teacher-practice, I argue that teacher-leaders need to work towards leaners’ critical
reflection. I will offer a more complete explanation of each of these concepts in the following
sections.
Critical Reflection
Drawing on Brookfield (2017) and Rodgers (2002), I have come to define critical
reflection as a continuous and cyclical process of describing an experience for the purpose of
analyzing and uncovering power and hegemonic assumptions to take intelligent action.
Brookfield (2017) asserts that critical reflection is an attempt to understand how power manifests
itself in institutions and how it opens and closes learning opportunities for meaningful learning.
As such the purpose of critical reflection is to illuminate power and uncover hegemony
(Brookfield, 2017, p. 9). Power is ever fluctuating and evolving thus it is important to engage in
continuous critical reflection. Leaders have an ability to shift power through their actions: “They
can choose not to listen to it, to embrace, validate, and promote it. In fact, they only to hear
community voice, but also to can lead with community voice at the center of their administrative
behaviors” (Khalifa, 2018, p. 37). As an immigrant, White, female, Judeo-Christian educator I
have been socialized to assume certain positions in educational institutions, therefore, it is
imperative that not limit my reflection to one occasion and instead, engage in critical reflection
cycles. Rodgers (2002) describes a 4-part reflection cycle in which individuals eventually learn
24

to think from multiple perspectives to take intelligent action. Continual critical reflection will
help me interrogate my use of power as a teacher leader and researcher. As Rodgers (2002)
asserts, the goals of the reflective cycle are “to slow down teachers’ thinking so that they can
attend to what is rather than what they wish were so, and then to shift the weight of that thinking
from their own teaching to their students’ learning” (p. 231). In the process of leading and
helping my colleagues develop cultural competence, continuous critical reflection illuminates the
effectiveness of my leadership moves.
The act of critical reflection was intended to help foster clarity around my study. By
interrogating my biases, assumptions, and personal experiences as an ML student, colleague, and
researcher I was expecting to be better positioned to foster discussions, ask questions, and lead
my colleagues towards a development of cultural competence. While I was not able to
accomplish the act of critical reflection, I still hold that as the primary research instrument,
working with adults I need to pay attention to my positionality, my role as a teacher leader in the
study, and my navigation of the discourse and interactions through critical reflection. The
purpose of critical reflection is to gain insight into how well I am acting as an adaptive leader
who uses teacher leader moves to promote my colleagues’ learning. As both the researcher and
the team lead, I hold unofficial power in fostering and directing discussions that can lead to
transformation in our EL instructional practices. It is imperative that I work towards challenging
the assumptions and practices that inform our instruction with ML students, as the goal is
develop cultural competence. Brookfield (2017) asserts that “Anyone who wants to lead well
wants to be sure the assumptions they hold about what constitutes a justifiable exercise of
authority are accurate and valid” (p. viii). To approach this study and engage my colleagues, I
first had to be honest about my working assumptions and biases and critical reflection offers a
25

strategic way for me to interrogate my teacher leader moves and the ways in which I dialogue
with my colleagues. More specifically the language I chose, the moves I made to challenge their
thinking and understanding, and the ways in which I fell short of communicating. Critical
reflection had to happen around my field notes and observations to interrogate how my
positionality, assumptions, and biases impacts my work with my colleagues. I was unable to
achieve this type of reflection through my study and that was revealed in my interactions with
my colleagues, and therefore, my fieldnotes. As I continue to work with my colleagues to
develop their cultural competence, I will build my critically reflective practice.
While not in my original conceptual framework, through my action research I have come
to understand that if one of my primary goals as a leader is to help learners understand how their
espoused theories align with theories in practice, I need to slow down learners’ thinking and
facilitate critical reflection on their practice. Hammond (2015) asserts that to implement
culturally responsive practices in the classrooms teachers need to first develop an awareness:
“Every culturally responsive teacher develops a sociopolitical consciousness…They are also
aware of the impact of their own cultural lens on interpreting and evaluating students’ individual
or collective behavior (p. 18). By developing awareness teachers are better positioned to question
their own practices. Brookfield (2019) asserts that “self-knowledge also grounds our normative
analysis, helps us understand how other world views are different from our own, and spurs us to
recognize our blind spots and biases” (p. 89). Critical reflection offers learners the opportunity to
develop self-knowledge and a new lens by which they can interrogate their practice. Further, as
Rodgers (2002) asserts, to engage in critical reflection, it is important to develop a common
language by which we can interrogate our practice:
26

Unveiling the nuances of the words and concepts we use to talk about teaching and
learning is as important as revealing the nature of teaching and learning themselves. If
there is no common language across education, there does need to be a common language
within a community of inquiry (p. 246).
Without common language it is very difficult to explicitly name one’s cultural values and
identity, making it challenging to critically reflect as Brookfield (2017) suggests, “to illuminate
power and uncovering hegemony” (p. 9).
Andragogy

To facilitate development of cultural competence I understand I need to use adult-
learning moves to facilitate discourse. Through my action research, I came to understand that I
specifically needed to promote critical-dialectical discourse. As mentioned earlier, I refer to
critical-dialectical discourse as dialogue that calls into question one’s beliefs, attitudes, and
practices (Brookfield, 2017; Mezirow, 2003). Engagement in conversations around literature on
culturally sustaining pedagogy, with a focus on cultural competence and teacher practice. First
and foremost, teacher-leaders need to know their learners. In working towards the development
of cultural competence in relation to ML students, it becomes imperative to understand how my
learners already understand and see themselves in relation to this work:
This vital kind of engagement calls on our internal capacities for seeing, being, and
connecting with and for one another and for taking a differentiated approach to reflection,
transformation, and communication that can help us better meet each other where we are
as we strive for change and growth. (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p.
459)
27

This encompasses understanding where they are on their own journeys: “these ways of knowing,
which comprise another significant and often underrecognized kind of diversity, reflect
cumulative stages of growth in relation to our cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and
intrapersonal capacities” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 458). Leaders and
educators need to understand how adults learn and the ways of knowing to enact change that
leads to more equitable outcomes (Slayton & Mathis, 2010). The ways of knowing are often
invisible and relate to our learning process and learning capacity.
Once a leader gains an understanding of where their learners are starting, the leader is
now responsible for establishing a structure that promotes critical-dialectical discourse. While
not in my original conceptual framework, I came to recognize that establishing a learner-centered
structure in which learners take an active role and present information, conversation should
stimulate students to respond at a higher cognitive level, thus questioning is central (Garret,
2008) to promoting critical-dialectical discourse. It is imperative that create opportunities for the
team to engage in discourse, offering differing perspectives, willingness to take risks and change
their practice. To create opportunities for the team to engage in this type of discourse it is
essential to ask the right questions that provide the appropriate level assistance (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989) and challenge, one that is within my colleagues’ Zone of Proximal Teacher
Development (ZPTD; Warford, 2010). Questions are a way teacher-leaders can encourage
learners to think more critically about the topic at hand (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). I recognize that
questioning is an essential teacher-leader move to facilitate critical-dialectical discourse as it
calls into question one’s beliefs, attitudes, and practices (Mezirow, 2003).
Through my action research, I came to understand that leaders need to set an example for
learners by modeling. I understand that how we engage in discourse depends on the precedent
28

that is set, including what content is acceptable for public discussion. Horn and Little (2010)
provide conversational routines that can help sustain and promote learning and improvement.
The quality of conversations that we have can hinder or foster teacher learning, thus it is critical
to set up routines that encourage leaning into the conversation. For conversations to produce
opportunities for learning 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. Through a routine of normalizing, specifying, revising, and generalizing,
[leaders] created an interactional space rich with opportunities to learn about teaching
practice. (Horn & Little, 2010, p. 193)
As I argued in my original conceptual framework and continue to argue, as the leader, I need to
be cognizant of the opportunities I help create. I need to foster conversations that go beyond
sympathy and over-simplifying to make teachers feel better. We need to find a rhythm and norm
of exploring the hard parts of our practice, especially when we are bound to make mistakes in
developing cultural competence. Thus, I continue to recognize the importance of normalizing
conversations (Horn & Little, 2020) about culture and modeling vulnerability (Brookfield, 2019;
Loughran & Berry, 2005).
Drawing on the works of Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017), Horn and Little,
(2010), Knowles (1978), I have come to understand adult learning as rooted in conversational
norms that challenge the status quo, provide multiple perspectives, begin with the learner, and
lead to transformation in practice.
29

Adaptive Leadership
To maintain disciplined attention on not perpetuating historical inequities, I fuse critical
reflection with adaptive leadership. Working towards the development of cultural competence is
an adaptive challenge. As Heifetz (2002) describes, adaptive challenges are
systemic/organizational challenges that require a change in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. To
address inequalities in relation to ML students’ educational opportunities, creating opportunities
in which people can address their beliefs and practices is essential. Leaders in an adaptive
organization “encourage people to adapt—to face and deal with problems, challenges, and
changes” (Northouse, 2004, p. 257). As the team lead and researcher, I continue to argue it is my
responsibility to bring to the surface difficult conversation, create opportunities in which all
members participate, and mobilize our team to enact change. As I move beyond the study and
maintain my role as a team lead, I will continue to be responsible for bringing to the surface
difficult conversations and creating opportunities for team members to enact change. I continue
to argue that adaptive leadership needs to pair with critical reflection to address adaptive
leadership theory’s color-blind approach and to help me be attentive to whether I am reproducing
hegemonic assumptions. Through my action research, I was unable to critically reflect well, thus
I argue as a leader I will need to continue working on my critical reflection. I define Adaptive
leadership as a leadership approach that is relationship focused, creates opportunities and
encourages all members of the organization to participate in the decision-making process, uses
deep listening skills to adapt and address systemic/organizational challenges while building
teacher capacity.
According to Northouse (2004) the strengths of adaptive leadership include taking a
process approach because leadership is a complex, interactive process that occurs between
30

leaders and followers in different situations, is follower-centered, helps followers deal with
conflicting values, takes a prescriptive approach, meaning it provides guidelines for what leaders
and followers should do to facilitate adaptive change, and identifies the idea of a holding
environment. The following adaptive-leadership moves are critical: getting on the balcony,
identifying adaptive challenges, and giving the work back to the people (Northouse, 2004).
Getting on the Balcony
I argue that leaders need to take a step back to get the big picture understand of what is
going on below: “Effective leaders are able to move back and forth as a participant and observer
between the struggles of their people and the intentions of the group, organization, or
community” (Northouse, 2004, p. 263). As a leader it is imperative that I continue to navigate the
immediate challenges on the team, but also continue to step back and revisit the ultimate goals of
the team, the purpose, and our why. To do so, it is important to take consistent breaks from the
field. During this time, it is imperative to critically reflect on both our work as a team and my
leadership. By getting on the balcony, leaders can identify power conflicts, symbolic change
from transformative change, properly analyze competing commitments and interrogate
problematic team dynamics (Heifetz, 2009). While my progress towards critical reflection was
limited, I continue to argue that is an essential practice and I will continue to work towards
integrating critical reflection into my regular practice when taking a step back. Institutions often
impede change (Brooks & Tooms, 2008), thus the need to collaborate and create internal synergy
are key tasks of a leader. Getting on the balcony allows leaders to regain perspective and adjust
their behavior.
31

Identify Adaptive Challenges
Adaptive leaders know and understand that they alone cannot solve problems, thus they
foster collaboration and synergy within their teams (Brooks & Tooms, 2008; Heifetz et al., 2009;
Northouse, 2004). Northouse (2016) says, “Identifying adaptive challenges means leaders need
to focus their attention on problems they cannot solve themselves and that demand collaboration
between the leader and follower” (p. 264). In this study there are several main adaptive
challenges: teachers’ understanding of themselves and their beliefs, teachers’ perceptions of ML
students, resistance to difficult conversations, and lack of cultural competence. Through my
action research, I was able to begin tackling teachers’ understanding of themselves and their
belief, and their perceptions of ML students. I will continue to work on identifying and
addressing these adaptive challenges beyond my action research. I argue that the ability to
address the elephant in the room (Heifetz et al., 2009) is a challenge that can be addressed by
asking more questions, expanding the circle of individuals who can speak to the issue, and
encouraging critical reflection with my colleagues. I argue that these actions will create the
opportunities to begin interrogating our practices, which we began through my action research
and will continue to do throughout our team time. More pertinently, the gap between our
espoused values and behaviors presents an adaptive challenge that will require the teacher leader
to prioritize regulating distress.
Give Work Back to the People
Developing teacher cultural competence requires leaders give the work back to the
people. Leaders cannot force or cajole learners into change (Northouse, 2016). I continue to
argue that to give the work back to the people I needed to link theory to practice (Horn & Little,
2010). I also argue that leaders need to create opportunities for learners to engage in both theory
32

and practice without judgement and/or penalty (Northouse, 2016). Further, as Rodgers (2002)
asserts, “learning must be grounded in the text of teachers’ experience” (p. 245). As Sadowski
(2017) argues, a key role of the leader is to provide followers with resources, otherwise followers
will likely not engage in the work. Therefore, to give the work back to the people, it is important
to center teacher practice. As discussed before and presented in my conceptual framework as my
content, learning happens when the critical-dialectical discourse is centered around teacher
practice and that learners needed the appropriate supports (Gallimore & Tharp, 1989). By
centering teacher practice, leaders can work within the ZPTD (Warford, 2010) and allow them to
be agentic in their work (Horn & Little, 2010).
Further, I argued and continue to argue that developing teacher cultural competence
requires building awareness of students’ experiences and culture (Hammond, 2015, p. 18). By
giving work back to the team, leaders allow learners to engage with the content at their own
pace, comfort, and ability.
Cultural Competence in Relation to ML Students

Culture and language are complex, dynamic, nuanced, and most misunderstood (Gay,
2018). I drew from both EL and culturally sustaining pedagogy literature to establish my
understanding of cultural competence in relation to ML students and I will explain each one in
turn. While I pull from literature on culturally sustaining pedagogy, I focus on cultural
competence, which served as the content for exploration in the first half of the study and then
used to link theory to practice in the second half of the study, which is represented by the
movement of the arrows on the conceptual framework. As I continue to move forward to build
cultural competence with my colleagues, I will continue to focus on linking theory to practice.
EL Instruction

33

As Mora-Flores (2018) argues, EL instruction, “serves a dual purpose, as English learners
are learning content and language simultaneously” (p. 83). I argue that teachers of ML students
have a responsibility to facilitate language acquisition and teach grade-level content. To
accomplish this, Genzuk (2011) identifies the following instructional practices for EL
instruction: increase wait time; respond to student’s message, don’t correct errors; simplify
teacher language; don’t force oral production; demonstrate, use visuals and manipulatives; pair
or group students with native speakers; adapt materials to student’s language level, maintain
content integrity; increase your knowledge, build on student’s prior knowledge; and support the
student’s home language and culture; bring into the classroom. These instructional strategies
help make input comprehensible (Genzuk, 2011). Furthermore, Krashen (as cited by Lucas et al.,
2008) argues that “to lead to new learning, the input should be not simply comprehensible but
just slightly beyond the learners’ current level of proficiency” (p. 363). The EL instructional
strategies that are often employed, such as providing written scaffolds, academic vocabulary
acquisition, focus on academic content and cooperative learning environments are foundational
to EL instruction; however, teachers of ML students need to “make content comprehensible, it
helps to connect new learning to existing schema” (Mora-Flores, 2018, p. 85). Lucas et al. (2008)
assert that “language cannot be separated from what is taught and learned in school (p. 362).
Drawing on the works of Mora-Flores (2018), Lucas et al. (2008), and Genzuk (2011), I believe
that EL instruction provides comprehensible input through appropriate scaffolds, maintains
content integrity, and builds on students’ prior knowledge.
While teachers have good intentions, without cultural competence instructional strategies
ignore students’ lived experiences, as Gay (2000) argues, “instructional effectiveness is often
minimized by inconsistencies in rules and protocol governing interactions in different cultural
34

systems” (p. 203). The integration of cultural competence into these existing practices offers an
investigation into how our EL instructional practices are color blind, may fail to address the
cultural assets of ML students.
Cultural Competence

Developing cultural competence provides teachers the opportunity to bridge gaps
between students’ lived experiences and content. Ladson-Billings (1995) asserts that culturally
relevant pedagogy is
[C]ommitted to collective, not merely individual, empowerment. culturally relevant
pedagogy rests on three criteria of propositions: (a) Students must experience academic
success; (b) students must develop and/or maintain cultural competence; and (c) Students
must develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the status quo of the
current social order. (p. 160)
To build students’ cultural competence, teachers need to develop their own cultural competence,
thus, for my study, I focused on the understanding, development, and integration of cultural
competence of the teachers on my team. Through my action research I was able to focus on
teachers’ understanding and development of cultural competence, however, I was not able to
work towards the integration of cultural competence into their practice. I will continue to work
on the understanding, development, and integration of cultural competence as the team lead.
Building on Ladson-Billings’s (1995) idea of cultural competence, Gay (2018) states,
“Educational reform needed to begin by changing teacher attitudes about non-mainstream
cultures and ethnic groups, and then developing skills for incorporating cultural diversity into
classroom instruction (p. 35). In addition, Gay (2018) sets the foundation for what she refers to
as cultural congruity as “bridging and contextualizing- or scaffolding” between students’ existing
35

knowledge and new knowledge. Furthermore, Hammond (2015) maintains that “an educator’s
ability to recognize students’ cultural displays of learning and meaning making and respond
positively and constructively with teaching moves that use cultural knowledge as a scaffold to
connect what the student knows to new concepts” (p. 15). A key element that Hammond offers is
the teachers’ positive response, in essence seeing and understanding students’ cultural displays
as an asset. Using Ladson-Billing (1995), Gay (2018), and Hammond (2015) as the foundation, I
argue that Paris and Alim’s (2014) argument for culturally sustaining pedagogy (CSP) is critical,
as “CSP seeks to perpetuate and foster–to sustain–linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as
part of the democratic project of schooling” (p. 88). CSP’s focus on raising critical consciousness
while sustaining students’ culture and understanding the culture is dynamic, not static is a
necessary addition to the conceptual framework as educators need to not simply acknowledge
students rather affirm and sustain.
While Ladson-Billings (1995), Gay (2018), and Paris and Alim (2014) offer a strong
foundation of cultural competence, their work does not specifically address ML students, thus I
argue for the incorporation of culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. Hollie (2018)
builds on these key ideas and argues that when working with ML students it is imperative to
emphasize the language aspect of culture (p. 25) and to “respond to students’ needs by taking
into account cultural and linguistic factors in their worlds” (p. 27). Additionally, I argue for the
use of funds of knowledge. Moll et al. (1992) maintain that the use of funds of knowledge is a
bridge between students’ home lives and academic content. Moll et al. (1992) define funds of
knowledge as “these historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and
skills essential for household or individual functioning and well-being” (p. 133). Mora-Flores
(2018) builds on this idea: “it is important to know what your students already know and
36

understand about the content and build upon their prior knowledge” (p. 84). By tapping into
students’ funds of knowledge, teachers are not only acknowledging students’ cultural displays as
assets as well as building bridges between students’ current knowledge and new knowledge.
More specifically, when working with ML students, it is vital that teachers value and understand
the role of home language. Ladson-Billings (1995) argues, “sociolinguists have suggested that if
students’ home language is incorporated into the classroom, students are more likely to
experience academic success” (p. 159). Building on Moll et al. (1992), the understanding of
funds of knowledge more distinctly acknowledges and recognize language as an asset. Building
on these concepts I offer the following definition of cultural competence: the ability to
acknowledge, affirm, and use students’ cultural displays, including language as a scaffold to
content knowledge (Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2015; Ladson-Billings, 1992; Moll et al., 1992; Paris
& Alim, 2014; Santamaría, 2009).
3
My conceptual framework serves as a tentative theory in
which the reciprocal interactions between myself as a teacher-leader, learners, and content
through critical-dialectical discourse promotes the interrogation of our identity, cultural beliefs,
and teaching practices. By interrogating our identities, cultural beliefs, and teaching practices, we
are better positioned to acknowledge, affirm, and use students’ cultural displays as a scaffold for
content knowledge. This supports the process of adult learning and moving towards the
development of cultural competence. While this conceptual framework may change as my
experience as a teacher leader grows, it will serve as a foundation of moving teachers towards
increased cultural competence in relation to their ML students.

3
Since the enactment of my action research and data analysis, I have become aware of Tervalon and Murray-
Garcia’s (1998) concept of cultural humility, as culture is ever changing and shifting that requires a lifelong
commitment to self-evaluation. As such, cultural humility may replace my language of cultural competence in a
future iteration of my conceptual framework.

37

Research Methods
This section describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methods that I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine how I
enacted critical reflective, adaptive leadership, and andragogy to support teachers in their
development of cultural competence. I specifically analyzed the ways I enacted andrological and
discourse moves in my EL/Transitional team, a team of four colleagues. My actions took place
during our unofficial team meetings that we typically had once a week during lunch; the data I
gathered helped me answer the following research question: How do I promote the development
of teachers’ cultural competence in relation to their multilingual students? As mentioned earlier,
for the purpose of my dissertation, I narrowed my focus of culturally sustaining pedagogy on
cultural competence, defined as the ability to acknowledge, affirm, and use students’ cultural
displays, including language as a scaffold to content knowledge. (Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2015;
Ladson-Billings, 1992; Moll et al., 1992; Paris & Alim, 2014; Santamaría, 2009). In this section,
I will discuss my participants and setting, actions, data collection and instruments, data analysis,
limitations and delimitations, credibility and trustworthiness, and ethics. I will address each in
said order.
Participants and Setting

My dissertation research took place at my school site, Arnold O’ Beckman High School,
during the Fall 2021 semester. I engaged in a self-study action research study as I was the
primary instrument of data collection and analysis. This was a study that took place in a natural
environment, my current ELD/Transitional team. Action research was an appropriate
methodological approach as I was situated in the context, and I was committed to the success of
the team (Herr & Anderson, 2015). Action research allowed me to use my prior experience with
38

the participants to build truth/rapport and work to “improve the rationality and justice of [my]
own social or educational practice” (Herr & Anderson, 2015, p. 4). I used purposeful, non-
probability sampling, as I was the primary participant and I worked directly with my colleagues
(Maxwell, 2013). This sampling gave me direct insight into the perceptions and practices of my
colleagues. I used purposeful, non-probability sampling because the goal of the study was to gain
a deeper understanding, rather than form generalizations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Purposeful,
non-probability sampling helped me access rich descriptions and deeper insight into our practice.
I used convenience sampling as my participants were and are based in my current
EL/Transitional team.
As the primary research instrument and at the onset of my study, I described myself as a
self-transforming learner (Drago-Severson & Blum DeStefano, 2017) because I have an
established system of belief and am constantly look for ways to open my thinking, reflect on my
identity, and transform my worldview. Having taught this Transitional course for the last 5 years,
I was familiar with EL instructional strategies, but was always researching better ways to frame
my instruction to create more equitable learning opportunities. I remained reflective to my
teaching and instruction, as I relied heavily on collaboration, both formal and informal. I
regularly used collaboration as a strategy to challenge and affirm my belief. I often sought out
other perspectives to better understand what I was missing. Through my action research, I
discovered that I remained a self-transforming knower, as I found myself striving to grow and
improve different aspects of my leadership and development of cultural competence. Directly
working as a teacher leader, I found myself regularly reflecting collaboratively on my action and
trying to explore paradoxes or internal inconsistencies in my practice, which ultimately led to my
change in structure, discussed in my findings. At the time of the study, I served as an English
39

teacher and the EL/Transitional team lead. As the team leader, my main role was to facilitate
team meetings, develop agendas, and establish areas of growth and exploration. This was a new
role to me, and I held no official power to enact policy or change. Given the limitations of the
role, I was in a position to influence my team by encouraging the team to interrogate our
practice, asking questions that engaged them in critical-dialectical discourse, inviting
consideration of other perspectives, supporting engagement in difficult topics, modeling
alterative practices and critical self-awareness, and helping people adjust to change (Drago-
Severson & Blum DeStefano, 2017; Khalifa et al., 2016).
Participants
In this study, I engaged with my EL/Transitional Team, which included three members,
in addition to me. The first was Harold, the only male and longest serving member of the team.
Harold was a White male who had taught at the school site since its opening 16 years ago. He
predominately taught English 3 Honors and Transitional 1 (the freshman Transitional course).
The second member of the team was Tabitha. She had been teaching at the school site for 5 years
and attended Beckman as a student herself. Tabitha was of Iranian decent and had often
described herself as a “citizen of the world.” Tabitha predominately taught Freshman and
Sophomore Honors, as well as the Sophomore Transitional course. Tabitha and I often engaged
in hallway conversations and had spent time outside of work together. I considered Tabitha a
friend and this influenced the way I engaged with her while on our team. Lastly, was Dana. She
identified at Latina and had been with the department for 4 years. Before working at our school
site, Dana worked at our neighboring school district. She lived in the community we served and
often described herself as “a member of the community I serve.” Dana taught our ELD classes:
40

ELD A, B, and C. For the first time ever, the master schedule divided these courses into separate
periods: ELD A and B, and ELD C to better meet the needs of the students.
With regards to their way of knowing, at the onset of the study, I described Harold as an
instrumental learner. Drago-Severson and Blum DeStefano (2017) describe an instrumental
learner as “hav[ing] a concrete, right/wrong orientation to their work and the world and have not
yet developed the internal capacity to more fully take another’s perspective” (p. 264). I
concluded that Harold is an instrumental learner based on our interactions and conversations.
Harold often advocated for the skill of our content area and considered the topics or themes as
secondary. He often made comments about how unnecessary it was to discuss race and culture,
rather we should prioritize students speaking in our classes, meaning using English. Historically,
this had caused tension in our collaboration. Harold’s focus on vocabulary rather than academic
discourse often led to disagreements when designing common curriculum or assessments. Our
differences had made me aware of my communication style and how much I could challenge his
perspective while maintaining the relationship. In addition, Harold had the most teaching
experience and thus often assumed his understanding was correct. As Drago-Severson and Blum-
DeStefano (2017) argue “educators’ unconscious biases can impede their teaching and
leadership, even when they profess a value for diversity and inclusiveness” (p. 462). However,
throughout the action research, Harold’s orientation shifted to socializing knower. Before the
study, Harold avoided conversations about race and rarely engaged with alternative perspectives,
however throughout the study he grew is his internal capacity to ask questions about his own
beliefs and he began to take on alternative perspectives.
At the onset of the study, I described Tabitha as a self-authoring learner. Drago-Severson
and Blum-DeStefano (2017) describe self-authoring knowers as individuals who
41

have grown the internal capacity to consider others’ expectations, assessments, and
suggestions in relation to their own bench of judgment. In fact, for self-authoring adults,
learning, leading, working, living, and loving according to self-determined values and
internally derived standards is of utmost concern. (p. 464)
Tabitha was educated both in Iran and the United States, which allowed her the privilege of
understanding education systems from a variety of perspectives. Tabitha was open to a wide
range of perspectives, and we often engaged in conversations about global education. As
immigrants, we both tended to bond over the limitations of the United States school system and
discussed ways to transform our practice. As language learners, we both tended to be extra
sensitive to the ways in which standardized testing, sheltered classrooms, and teacher attitudes
impact student learning. Tabitha often engaged in research on her own time and brought articles,
studies, and pedagogical practices to discuss at department meetings and collaboration sessions.
Tabitha’s self-authoring orientation was evident as she regularly expressed her own values and
standards for teaching, took firm stances in her ideas culture, and worked to think systematically
to reflect on societal challenges and her role with the education system. This was made apparent
in her wrestling to understand the role of her culture on her teaching practices.
Further, at the onset of the study, I described Dana as a socializing learner. According to
Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017), “Because others’ opinions and assessments make
up socializing knowers’ identities, exposing inner uncertainties and engaging in conflict can feel
like painful threats to their inner fabric” (p. 469). Dana taught ELD A, B, and C, all in one. This
had created a lot of logistical tensions for her as she attempted to meet the needs of her students.
Dana often expressed insecurity around her pedagogical choices and looked to others for
guidance and affirmation. While insecure, she had suggestions that clearly reflected culturally
42

sustaining practices and an asset mindset. She advocated for the purchase of books in students’
home language and often approached students from a holistic point of view, keeping in mind
their cultural backgrounds. By living in the community that we served, Dana also tended to
speak for the community. I often saw her as a community advocate. Interactions with Dana often
led to questions about meeting the community’s needs, incorporating families, and designing
curriculum that was more relevant to the students. Throughout the study, Dana shifted her
orientation to self-authoring knower as she demonstrated evidence of taking a firmer stance on
sustaining students’ home culture and language. Additionally, she demonstrated frustration when
she recognized she hadn’t met her own personal goals.
Due to the range of learners in my study I focused on critical-dialectical discourse that
worked to unearth our assumptions, cultural values, and beliefs in relation to ML students. As we
engaged in critical-dialectical discourse, I was able to facilitate authentic connections between
literature and practice, encourage learners to look beyond their world view and invite on-going
reflection. As Horn and Little (2010) suggest, throughout my action research I worked to
normalize conversations about our culture and our students’ cultures to help expand our
understanding of our own identities, assumptions, and beliefs, as well as to work towards
understanding those could be incongruent with our students’ culture. As Horn and Little (2010)
assert, normalizing conversations can work to communicate the inherent complexity and
ambiguity of [teacher] practice (p. 202). Given that work directly with ML students, the
conversations that we had on our EL/Transitional team had and continue to have the potential to
help us grow in our practice. Understanding the norms for conversation (Horn & Little, 2010)
helped create opportunities to interrogate our practice as well as grow our cultural competence.
At the center of my interactions with my colleagues was critical reflection: According to
43

Merriam and Bierema (2013), all change needs to be “with critical reflection at the heart of the
process” (p. 93).
Setting of Actions

The purpose of the study was to deepen my understanding of my leadership and ability to
support my ELD/Transitional team in developing cultural competence in relation to ML students.
Due to changes in PLC time at our school, our team did not have a common prep period or
meeting time. As a result, we agreed to meet weekly at lunch, in my classroom. Thus, the action
research took place during those meetings. While the study was embedded in our weekly
meetings, we only had approximately 30–40 minutes of discussion time each session. We met a
total of 8 sessions. We met for a total of approximately 4.5 hours throughout the whole study. As
a result, the time constraint made it difficult to engage in critical-dialectical discourse that I
thought necessary to promote the development of cultural competence.
Actions

Consistent with my conceptual framework, I understood that developing cultural
competence was a reciprocal action between me, the learners, and the content. Further, I
understood that developing cultural competence must begin from within through an interrogation
of one’s assumptions and beliefs about culture (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). However, I also
understood that to engage in conversations about culture, I needed to establish a common
language for analysis and work my way into facilitating a turn to practice. As a result, I designed
the action research in three phases:
1. Defining culture
2. Our culture: Our students’ culture
3. Interrogating our culture in the classroom
44

The three phases of this study reflect Barton et al.’s (2020) theory of high leverage practices as
Refraction involved pedagogical moves that expanded how newly recognized resources
could be leveraged collectively as a part of disciplinary learning, while also challenging,
disrupting, and/or restructuring forms of practice which delegitimized them. Our research
reveals that recognition needed to be coupled with refraction to resettle the powered
dimensions of disciplinary learning in sociopolitical ways, where “expert knowledge” has
been codified and passed down to students through core curricula and standards.
Recognition alone is insufficient. (p. 492)
As a teacher leader I helped teachers use literature to define culture, work towards
naming their culture and their students’ culture, and finally interrogate their practice through the
lens of culture. Table 1 outlines the interactions I had learners to work towards the goals below.
It also details the data I collected for each period of the study.

45

Table 1
Teacher Educator-Leadership Actions
Action researcher Teacher leader Setting Data collected
Before study Communicate the
purpose and
objective of the
study, the learner’s
role in the study.

Communicate
structure of study.
Team
meeting
Agenda slide
deck
Cycle 1:
Defining
culture
Teachers will define
culture.

Teachers will begin
to establish
common analytical
language.

Activity: Defining
culturally sustaining
pedagogy

Activity: Defining
culture
Team
meeting
Instructional
resources
generated for
action
research

2 Fieldnotes

Out of Field Analysis and Critical Reflection: Getting on the balcony to
understand group dynamics, disorienting dilemmas, and analyze progress
for the purpose of informing my subsequent actions. How do I provide
multiple entry points into the conversation? Do the strategies I use
promote progress towards the development of cultural competence? Are
learners demonstrating progress in their learning? How do I redirect
learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo? Am I able to give the work
back to the people? How does my positionality impact my interactions
with leaners?
1 Critical
reflection

Cycle 2:
Our culture:
Our
students’
culture
Teachers will begin
to name their own
identity, cultural
values, and
beliefs.

Teachers move
towards to
describe how their
culture impacts
classroom choices
and interactions.

Activity: Applying the
culture tree (our
culture)

Activity: Applying the
culture tree (our
culture in the
classroom)

Activity: Equitable
and effective learner
profile survey
Team
meeting
Instructional
resources
generated for
action
research

3 Fieldnotes

2 Critical
reflections
46

Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols

Action researcher Teacher leader Setting Data collected
Teachers will begin
to describe and
identify ways in
which they
recognize/integrat
e students’ culture
in their practice.

Out of Field Analysis and Critical Reflection: Getting on the balcony to
understand group dynamics, disorienting dilemmas, and analyze progress
for the purpose of informing my subsequent actions. How do I provide
multiple entry points into the conversation? Do the strategies I use
promote progress towards the development of cultural competence? Are
learners demonstrating progress in their learning? How do I redirect
learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo? Am I able to give the work
back to the people? How does my positionality impact my interactions
with leaners?
1 Critical
reflection

1 Analytical
memo
Cycle 3:
Interrogation/
Implementa-
tion
Teachers will engage
in critical-dialectical
discourse for the
purpose of
interrogating their
practice the three
areas:
Relationships/studen
t interactions,
curriculum, and
instructional
practices.
Activity: Reflecting
and evaluating our
practice (Student
interactions)

Activity: Reflecting
and evaluating our
practice
(Curriculum)

Activity: Reflecting
and evaluating our
practice
(Instructional
Practices)
Team
meeting
Instructional
resources
generated for
action
research

3 Fieldnotes

2 Critical
reflections
Out of Field Analysis and Critical Reflection: Getting on the balcony to
understand group dynamics, disorienting dilemmas, and analyze progress for
the purpose of informing my subsequent actions. How do I provide multiple
entry points into the conversation? Do the strategies I use promote progress
towards the development of cultural competence? Are learners
demonstrating progress in their learning? How do I redirect learners when
ideas perpetuate the status quo? Am I able to give the work back to the
people? How does my positionality impact my interactions with leaners?
1 Critical
reflection

1 Analytical
memo
47

As mentioned earlier, the primary purpose of this study was to deepen my understanding
of my leadership and ability to support my ELD/Transitional team in developing cultural
competence in relation to ML students. More specifically, I was exploring how my teacher leader
moves could help teachers gain an understanding of their culture, their students’ cultures and the
role culture plays in our practice. As I was the primary research instrument, my data collection
included seven intended critical reflections, eight meeting observations (fieldnotes), eight
informal reflections, three analytical memos, and instructional resources I generated for the
action research. The intended critical reflections were intended to be critical, however, they were
more descriptive and comparative, which will be explained further in my findings. Together,
these sources formed the corpus of evidence that I analyzed to demonstrate my progress as a
teacher leader.
Documents and Artifacts

Over the course of 3 months, I collected documents generated by me because of my
teacher leader role. The documents that already existed in my context were meeting agendas and
lesson plans, as they were generated as part of my responsibilities as the team lead. As part of the
study, we engaged in conversations about these documents, particularly in Cycle 3. The purpose
of using these documents was primarily to unearth our current practice and link theory to
practice. These documents helped us describe and see our practice, make the implicit more
explicit. By making our practice explicit we could begin to interrogate our practice through a
cultural lens. We used these documents to springboard our critical-dialectical discourse and
establish context in my findings.
Documents that I generated for action research purposes included handouts that paired
literature with questions for reflections. The purpose of these documents was to assist the
48

participants to engage in the discourse necessary to interrogate their practice and move learners
towards critical reflection. I also collected jottings in a notebook, which are notes that I took
during the meeting, meeting observations (fieldnotes), and informal reflections that I wrote after
each session. I wrote 8 intended critical reflections at the end of each cycle, as well as after team
meetings, individual meetings, and/or informal interactions that I experienced a critical incident.
A critical incident occurred in Cycle 2 when I pushed Tabitha beyond her comfort zone, and she
responded with silence. As a teacher-leader I understood that I went beyond her ZPTD, thus I
wrote an intended critical reflection. While I intended to write critical reflections, I wrote
descriptive and comparative reflections. The questions in my intended critical reflections
included: How do I provide multiple entry points into the conversation? Do the strategies I use
promote progress towards the development of cultural competence? Are learners demonstrating
progress in their learning? How do I redirect learners when ideas perpetuate the status quo? Am I
able to give the work back to the people? How does my positionality impact my interactions with
leaners? The purpose of the intended critical reflections was to unearth how my decisions,
actions, and positionality as a colleague promoted or interfered with learning opportunities.
While I intended to engage in critical reflection, I remained predominately descriptive and
comparative, limiting my ability to see and understand how my positionality interfered with my
leadership. As a result of the intended critical reflections, I adjusted my actions.
Additional data that I collected were learner reflections. Learners used the handouts that I
generated to move toward critical reflection. I collected a total of 6 learner reflections. Each
learner reflection had a set of reflection questions that asked them to interrogate their ideas
and/or practice. During my action research, I predominately used these in between sessions to
49

understand learners’ growth and adjust my actions. During data analysis, I used these reflections
to understand the learners’ growth in relation to cultural competence.
Observations

Throughout my action research study, I conducted observations of my teacher-leader
moves and interactions with learners. I started by taking jottings in a notebook during team
meetings that occurred once a week on Wednesdays at lunch, in my classroom. I then
transformed them into observations (fieldnotes) immediately following the meeting so as to
capture the discourse as accurately as possible. I did not have permission to record our meetings,
thus I relied on my jottings and meeting agendas to help me critically reflect on my actions. The
30-minute time constraint made it difficult to have sustained discourse, however, I used
observations because
When you observe the dynamics of groups at work–for example, communication
patterns, leadership behavior, use of power, group rolls, norms, elements of culture,
problem solving and decision-making, relations with other groups - you are provided
with the basis for inquiry into the underlining assumptions and their effects on the work
and life of these groups. (Coughlan, 2019, p. 135)
I documented notes to capture the quality of our discourse. Generally, the observations
captured a sequence of interactions and conversation. I paid close attention to dialogue that
revealed leaners’ assumptions, biases, or current understanding of culture, as well as the ways in
which I engaged, such as offering sympathy, asking questions, offering personal anecdotes, or
leaning into literature. Observations of team meetings captured the language teachers use and
what that language reveals about their assumptions and beliefs in relation to culture and ML
students. Observations documented how I was facilitating the learning and what adjustments I
50

needed to make. The observations provided evidence for my intended critical reflections on my
own behavior, feelings, and teacher-leader moves.
Data Analysis

Ravitch and Carl (2021) argue that analysis is systematic, deliberate, and structured (p.
236) for the purpose of making sense of the experience. Furthermore, they argue that when
conducting data analysis, it is important that the researcher explore various data sources,
organize data so you can explore various aspects, and engage in enough theory to ground your
analysis (p. 245). Given this, I began data analysis immediately after I collected data as Maxwell
(2013) argues the “researcher begins data analysis immediately after finishing the first interview
or observation and continues to analyze the data as long as he or she is working on the research,
stopping briefly to write reports and papers” (p. 104). This happened at the end of each cycle. I
wrote intended critical reflections and collected jottings and fieldnotes for the 3 weeks in the
field. Afterward, I stepped back to analyze to act in the next cycle for the first two cycles.
Considering the nature of the data the purpose of data analysis “is to bring meaning and some
type of order to the data” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p. 164). I began by carefully reading the
documents, artifacts, and observation notes. During this reading and re-reading process I wrote
analytical memos concerning what I was seeing in the data. The memos functioned as a tool for
me to reflect on my goals, methods, theory, and relationship with the participants (Maxwell,
2013). I wrote a total three analytical memos throughout the action research, and three more after
the action research. I kept all data analysis protected in a password protected cloud service and
used an excel sheet to keep them organized, allowing for their interpretations organized
chronologically. I generated several analysis questions that guided my in the field analysis as
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggests to, “keep your questions at a substantiative level for the
51

purpose of guiding your data collection” (p. 162). I used following questions (a) Who dominates
the conversation? (b) How do I support and encourage each member to speak? (c) How are
participants showing progress towards their development of cultural competence? (d) How do I
create learning opportunities for learners? Through this process I noticed I was centering myself,
thus as a result I changed the structure of our meetings to reflect a more learner-centered
approach, which I discuss in detail in the findings section. I also began to recognize my own
ambivalence towards challenging learners, which led me to be more intentional in my use of
questioning.
Once I was out of the field, I organized my observation fieldnotes to “fracture the data
and rearrange them into categories that facilitate comparison between things in the same
category and that aid in the development of theoretical concepts” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 107). To do
this, I engaged in open coding that reflected and included a priori codes that reflected my
conceptual framework and empirical codes that I discovered in my data. I used my documents,
and I documented my observations in the margins. Some of the codes included: Critical
reflection, cultural competence, discourse. The use of open coding provided me a systematic,
deliberate, and structured way of analyzing how aligned my actions were to my conceptual
framework.
The lack of a code indicated where my actions fell short of my conceptual framework,
and the addition of an empirical code revealed elements that were missing in my original
conceptual framework. For example, I had not originally intended to engage learners in critical
reflection; however, as I began in-field analysis and once I began analyzing out of the field, I
recognized the importance of shifting learning towards critical reflection if they were going to
develop cultural competence. Using a priori codes helped me develop categories and organize
52

the data into broader themes and issues. Only after this initial round of data analysis was I able to
develop a codebook.
While the structure was helpful, it was not linear. I regularly revisited each document. I
returned to the data repeatedly with new questions and new connections and added new codes as
I became familiar with more analytical tools, such as asking questions, drawing upon personal
experience, looking at emotions, and looking at language (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). This helped
me develop analytical codes when reexamining all the data collected in the field. The new codes
evolved into the following codes: colorblind (lack of cultural competence), disorienting
dilemma, critical reflection (feelings), critical reflection (positionality), questioning, teacher
centered, and student centered. By using the code book, I was able to recognize the typicality of
my actions. I was able to aggregate ideas until they lent themselves to the findings I landed on. A
primary example of this is my use of questioning through my action research.
Additionally, I wrote analytical memos that documented my thoughts and how I was
making sense of my actions. As Ravitch and Carl (2021) argue, analytical memos are for
“theoretical and personal reflection; theory building; considering evidence for theoretical links;
describing research processes, procedures, questions, and emergent issues with detail and
transparency” (p. 291). By writing analytical memos, I was able to make connections between
my choices as a teacher-leader, literature, and the goals of my action research. For example, the
memo at the end of my first cycle of data analysis brought into light my ambivalence to
challenge learners’ assumptions and biases and my hesitation to challenge problematic
comments throughout my study. The analytical memos helped me recognize how my intended
critical reflection remained predominately descriptive and comparative.
Limitations and Delimitations

53

By its very nature, qualitative action research is context specific and attempts to
understand “social life as it unfolds in its natural environment” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017, p.
93). In particular, the study was bounded by the context. I worked with a limited number of
participants, four, including me, which limited my ability to generalize, but may be used for
transferability. At the time of the study, I worked in a public school in Orange County,
California. Working in my own environment presented ethical dilemmas, such as the delicate
balance of power, managing my roles as teacher/colleague and researcher, and time. As I already
had close relationships with all my colleagues, it was challenging to separate myself from the
study. On one hand, my colleagues may have altered their responses because they might be
concerned about how I would perceive them. Furthermore, time is a natural limitation. Given
that we came back from pandemic teaching, administrators took away a secondary team meeting.
This was all of our secondary team; thus we did not have a built in meeting time as we had in the
past. Thus, I predominately analyzed data from our team meetings, limited to approximately 30–
40 minutes per week at lunch. This limited the potential of our discourse, and my timeline was
easily disrupted by lunchtime activities on campus. Furthermore, we were returning from
online/hybrid teaching and thus teachers already had a lot of obstacles and stress. Adding one
more weekly meeting to their plate was a lot to ask. Lastly, as a novice researcher and teacher-
leader I was limited in my leadership skills. While I had a theoretical understanding of leadership
and andragogy, I did not have opportunities to put the theories into practice before. This limited
the quality of the discourse, my scaffolding of the discourse, and my ability to interrogate my
role as a researcher. In addition, my lack of research experience limited my ability to see my
decisions and actions in the moment.
54

Some of the delimitations of the study included only involving three participants.
Because I wanted to focus on teachers who work directly with multilingual learners and have a
base understanding of the role of language on student learning, I focused on the EL/transitional
team, even though every teacher on campus should be incorporating cultural competence into
their practice. Furthermore, I was hesitant to ask too much, push too hard, or cause additional
stress. To address this concern, I was flexible as to how much I asked learners to do before our
meetings. This limited the level of discourse as we had. Additionally, I selected to meet during
lunch because there was no additional time to meet for our team and I did not want to impose
extra responsibilities and stressors on the participants. The reason we did not have a regular time
to mee this year was because administration changed our team schedule, and we were only
allowed to meet with one team regularly this school year. These delimitations limited my ability
to gather, analyze, and understand data.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Transparency played a key role in my study at every step as “action research is full of
choices and it is important that how these choices are made be transparent, to the action
researchers themselves, to those with whom you are working, and to those who read your work”
(Coughlan, 2019, p. 16). The first credibility threat that I addressed was bias. I did this by being
transparent about my possible biases and worked towards critical reflection to understand how
my positionality and biases influenced the study. As Peshkin (1988) argues, the researcher as
instrument means the researcher is not disconnected form the study and they have the power to
reinforce systems of oppression. I monitored how my actions reinforced the current practices that
may limit the learners progress and how my actions led to teachers’ development of cultural
55

competence. Subjectivity affected the results of observational investigation thus, Peshkin (1988)
argues that one
can consciously attend to the orientations that will shape what [we] see and what I make
of what [we] see. By this consciousness [we] can possibly escape the thwarting biases
that subjectivity engenders, while attaining the singular perspective its special
persuasions promise. (p. 21)
As Maxwell (2013) asserts, the validity (credibility) of the study is only as good as it
measures up to reality. To establish content validity, I leaned on literature that addressed cultural
competence. Furthermore, I leaned on the literature of adaptive leadership and andragogy so I
could be intentional about the meeting agendas, questions I posed, and resources that I provided
the participants. These were vetted through a culturally sustaining lens. I used these items to
develop a sense of triangulation in my study: “triangulation is thought of as the practice of using
multiple data points to build a solid case for the claims you make” (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017,
p. 105). The triangulation helped me identify patterns across multiple areas. This helped me
ensure that what I found measures up to reality.
I worked towards trustworthiness through several actions. How I designed the meeting
agenda, questions I posed, and resources I provided could easily have compromised the trust
between us, especially if the questions were perceived as accusatory, pejorative, or used too
much technical language. Having spent time in the literature of adaptive leadership, andragogy,
EL instruction, and cultural competence, I was careful not to ask leading or accusatory questions;
but created opportunities for my colleagues to respond in honest ways, as well as an opportunity
to share their experiences with me. This was necessary as my colleagues might have not
56

responded to my leadership honestly if they perceived that I was judging them. I needed to make
my positionality and purpose clear. As Maxwell (2013) argues,
the goal in a qualitative study is not to eliminate this influence, but to understand it and to
use it productively…what is important is to understand how you are influencing what the
informant says, and how it affects the validity of the inferences you can draw from the
interview. (p. 125)
By stating my positionality, I offered transparency, which hopefully modeled vulnerability.
Besides making my positionality, bias, and purpose clear to participates, I wanted to use
collaboration during my analysis of the data. I did this for several reasons. First of all, I was very
aware of my limitations to fully grasp other’s perceptions in my everyday life; thus, as an inherit
weakness of mine, I needed to address this particular validity threat. I engaged in collaborative
analysis on a weekly and bi-weekly basis with my chair. I did this as Milner (2021) suggests
discussing data with a partner or adviser by sharing my emerging sense of the data, they can ask
questions, express concerns, and engage with suggestions and feedback (p. 27). By including my
chair in the analysis and discussion of the topic, I hoped to not only generate more accurate
inferences, but also build trust.
Ethics

The goal of this study was to gain insight into my leadership and promote the
development of teacher cultural competence, thus
It goes without saying that an understanding of the simultaneity of oppression is essential
if the educator/researcher is to understand the experience of oppression dealt with by
minoritized individuals. The simultaneity of oppression always speaks directly to lived
experience of the minoritized, but for this way of conceptualizing oppression to move
57

beyond theory, it must inform practice through daily human [social] action, e.g., research,
teaching. (Dei, 2005, p. 2)
As a result, I needed to make a few ethical considerations. First, I needed to take in consideration
my positionality throughout the process, not just at the beginning (Atkins & Duckworth, 2019, p.
88). To avoid perpetuating English only practices that are rooted in assimilationist ideology and
to not undermine our goal of quality of learning opportunities for our students, I needed to
engage in critical reflection as there was an inherent contradiction in my study and role. My job
was to teach English, but not perpetuate assimilationist ideology. My job was to honor the home
language of my students while teaching the language of power. To hold myself accountable, I
remained reflective and questioned myself at all stages of the research. While not reaching
critical reflection, my movement towards critical helped me work towards staying transparent
throughout the research process and addressing issues of bias and assimilationist ideology.
In addition, to avoid the role of exploiter, participation in the study required informed
consent: potential study participants were made aware (a) that participation is voluntary; (b) of
any aspects of the research that might affect their well-being; and (c) that they may freely choose
to stop participation at any point in the study (Glesne, 2011). Participants were given an
information sheet that will detail the study and the requirements of their participation and were
allowed to opt out of the study at any time. As mentioned prior, my participants/learners were
also colleagues and friends. I attended to these relationships by holding to the four ethical
principles: serve the good of the whole, treat others as we would like them to treat us, always
treat people as ends, never only as means, and act so we do not increase power by more powerful
stakeholders over the less powerful (Coughlin, 2019, p. 94). As such, my focus was on the co-
58

generation of knowledge. I worked to treat my learners as experienced and knowledgeable
contributors, rather than empty vessels to be filled.
I followed AERA’s Ethical Principles: I worked to achieve professional competence by
recognizing limitations of my expertise, using appropriate resources. I worked to achieve
integrity by being honest, fair, and respectful of professional activities. I worked to achieve
professional, scientific, and scholarly responsibility by gaining public trust and understanding
that I was part of a community. I worked to achieve respect for people’s rights, dignity, and
diversity by protecting the rights of my participants. I demonstrated active social responsibility
by applying and making public my knowledge to contribute to the public good (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). I communicated with participants that they can choose to leave the study at any
time.
To protect my participants’ rights, I did not use any teacher or student names, instead I
used pseudonyms. With a commitment to the greater good, I analyzed both the data and feedback
through an understanding that my role was to advocate for justice, honor human dignity, and
interrogate systems of power.
I stored all data on a password encoded computer and all physical documents were locked
in a cabinet (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This helped prevent harm towards my participants if
information was leaked, as some information might be embarrassing, or critical of the larger
organization. In addition, the use of pseudo names and locking away any data protected
participants from possible retaliation by superiors (Coughlan, 2019, p. 102).
Findings

In this section, I present my findings to the following research question: How do I
promote the development of teachers’ cultural competence in relation to their multilingual
59

students? This section will be divided two parts: In part one I offer my use of structure to
promote my colleagues’ cultural competence. Here I discuss the actions I took and the changes I
made to structure the discourse during our meetings to promote teachers’ development of
cultural competence. In part two, I discuss my growth in relation to my andragogy and my
limitations. I explain the growth in my ability to ask questions and model vulnerability, as well
as the limitation of my intended critical reflections. The data used to inform the findings include
1 agenda slide deck, 7 intended critical reflections, 8 observation notes (fieldnotes), 8 informal
reflections, 3 analytical memos, and instructional materials.
Through my action research, I was able to implement an eight-session small group
discussion group. I used the literature, reflection, and questioning strategies to create space for
the internal work that is necessary for transformative learning (Mezirow, 1991). Given my
personal experience with the participants as colleagues, I used my prior knowledge to determine
where each participant fell on the Four Ways of Knowing Typology (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017); I used that information to inform how I designed each session. I designed the
details of the sessions as I learned more about the participants and reflected on the session. I used
the informal in-the-field analysis, via intended critical reflections and information I learned from
each session to inform the content, and questions for the next session. In addition, I removed
myself from the field at the end of every cycle to get on the balcony and adjust my objectives, as
well as content and questions for the next cycle. Using this action research approach allowed me
to adjust the objectives and differentiate as needed, paying attention to participant needs, my
internal barriers, and any ineffective actions. Further, I worked to promote critical-dialectical
discourse as defined in my conceptual framework: discourse as dialogue that calls into question
one’s beliefs, attitudes, and practices (Brookfield, 2017; Mezirow, 2003) Using structure and
60

andragogical moves, I helped learners move from limited understanding of the role of identity
and cultural values in their instructional practices to an awareness of the role of identity and
cultural values in their instructional practices, moving participants closer towards the
development of their cultural competence.
Structure

At the outset of the study, I recognized that, to integrate culturally sustaining practices
into my learners’ instructional practices, they needed to develop cultural competence. To develop
cultural competence, my learners needed the language to engage in collective inquiry and critical
reflection. As a result, I first set out to establish a structure that promoted the development of a
common analytical language that we would be able to use together. The common analytical
language was then used to engage in collective inquiry. After I worked towards the establishment
of common analytical language, I set out to promote critical reflection. Although we did not
reach critical reflection, we made movement towards critical reflection. Finally, I changed the
structure by centering teacher practice and experience to move learners into deeper inquiry. I will
address each of these themes in turn.
Developing Common Analytical Language

As I suggested in my conceptual framework, I presumed that to develop cultural
competence, teachers needed the tools to interrogate their assumptions about their identity,
cultural values, and their students (Brookfield, 2017; Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017;
Rodgers, 2002). As suggested by Horn and Little, (2010), the primary tool for this interrogation
was language. In alignment with Rodgers (2002), I also believed that we needed to have a
common language that we would be able to use together to engage in a shared inquiry to analyze
our assumptions about our identities, cultural values, and students. She argues that “A second
61

critical point about analysis is the need for the group of teachers to generate a common language
about teaching and learning” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 246). By establishing common analytical
language, we would have the tools to engage in discourse that interrogated our practices and
went beyond the surface. Moreover, given that I was seeking a shared language so that we could
become more culturally competent, I had to begin by developing our understanding of the
meaning of cultural competence and coming to consensus “about how to name” it (Hollie, 2018,
p. 21). Developing common analytical language in relation to cultural competence would give us
the tools to question, evaluate, and discuss. Consistent with Rodgers’s (2002) assertion that to
establish common analytical language, I had “to slow down teachers’ thinking so that they can
attend to what is rather than what they wish were so” (p. 231). Thus, I first had to establish a
structure that slowed teachers’ thinking down.
I enacted my plan, the use of the structure—in which I centered content combined with
questions—throughout the first five sessions across Cycles 1 and 2. Consistent with my action
plan, I planned each session with the intention of using a piece of literature as the subject for
discussion and questions that would enable discussion of the literature. I emailed both the
content and questions 2 days in advanced to the teachers on the Monday prior to meeting on
Wednesday. Embedded in the instructional materials were excerpts of the literature or diagrams
and questions for reflections. Participants were asked to read the excerpts or diagrams and
complete the questions for reflection. While I provided copies of full articles and/or chapters of
books, those were optional. Participants came having read the excerpt or diagram and most of the
questions for reflection completed or partially completed. There were instances where it was
clear that they had read at least some of the optional readings as participants made references to
page numbers and concepts. We met on Wednesdays for approximately 30–40 minutes for a total
62

of 4.5 hours. In my enactment on the day we met, I projected a portion of the weekly literature
on my whiteboard and used the questions to guide our discussion. For example, during our
second session I centered the discussion around the definitions of culturally sustaining pedagogy.
The purpose of the definition was to frame the session around the theory of culturally sustaining
pedagogy (the content) and to provide teachers with an entry into the vocabulary of the theory.
The engagement of the vocabulary was working towards the development of cultural
competence. Teachers had various levels of training in relation to culturally sustaining pedagogy
from the district, thus I used this definition to establish a common language. Here is the excerpt
from the agenda that represents the structure.

Figure 2
Agenda from Session 2

63

During the session, I asked the following questions: What parts of the definition stand out
to you and why? What does it mean to sustain students’ culture, particularly multilingual
students’ culture?
The definition paired with questions for reflection were intended to slow teachers down
to relay what key concepts of culturally sustaining pedagogy resonated with them, to make their
assumptions clear and to communicate their level of alignment to the theory. This is consistent
with Hollie’s (2018) claim that it is important for teacher groups to have a consistent language
when engaging in a collective inquiry. For instance, the first question, “What parts of the
definition stand out to you and why?” was meant to give me insight into aspects of the theory
participants naturally gravitated towards, telegraphing their assumptions about culture. In
addition, I wanted to set up the language of culture for the rest of the sessions. The definition
provided key vocabulary in relation to culturally sustaining pedagogy that promoted teachers’
ability to develop a common analytical language. By starting with the definition, I was working
towards a shared meaning (Hollie, 2018) of culturally sustaining pedagogy. The second question
was intended to help me understand the teachers’ current ideology regarding their multilingual
students. I planned on asking teachers to use language that might be unfamiliar to them and
connect it to their prior knowledge for the purpose of understanding where they were in heart and
mind (Hollie, 2018) at that point in time. This structure was meant to serve as a starting point for
teachers as we worked towards the goal of establishing a shared language and understanding of
culturally sustaining pedagogy. This structure was focused on developing language, which
helped move towards the intended objective of the discourse. The excerpt below shows how the
discourse unfolded:
L: What parts of the definition stand out to you and why?
64

H: I like the way it states, “connecting to students’ cultural knowledge, prior
experiences because I think it is important for us to help students connect with the
curriculum and our classes.
T: Yea, I particularly like the way it says to respect and affirm students’ culture, I
think that is important for us to do.
D: I’m curious what it means by “schools as places where the cultural ways of being
in communities of color are sustained, rather than eradicated.”
H: Yea, what does that mean?
L: Well, the definition states that culturally sustaining pedagogy goes beyond
“affirming and accepting.” What does it mean to sustain students’ culture,
particularly multilingual students’ culture? The whole concept is about promoting
equality across racial and ethnic communities.
H: Hmm, I’m curious to learn more.
In this example, by asking “What parts of the definition stand out to you and why,” I was asking
teachers to take time to read the definition presented to them and choose words or concepts that
“stand out” or resonated with them and explain the “and why” of their thinking. Harold’s
response, “I like the way it states, ‘connecting to students’ cultural knowledge, prior experiences’
because I think it is important for us to help students connect with the curriculum and our
classes” is evidence of his slowing down because the language of “I like the way it states”
indicates he read the definition. His restating language from the definition “connecting to
students’ cultural knowledge, prior experiences” demonstrates his close read of the definition,
taking the time to identify concepts that resonated with him. In alignment with Brookfield’s
(2017) idea that “theoretical and research literature can provide unexpected and illuminating
65

interpretations” (p. 8), the definition and questions helped illuminate his assumptions about
student-teacher interactions. This act of reading the definition slowed down their thinking to help
them name what aspects of the definition that resonated with them and to telegraph their
assumptions.
Similarly, Tabitha’s language, that she “particularly like[d]” communicates that she was
attending carefully, slowly enough to identify specific aspects of the definition that resonated
with her, indicating she was slowing down to articulate (Hollie, 2018) the beliefs she held.
Additionally, she communicated her alignment to the theory, naming her belief that it was
important “to respect and affirm students’ culture.” Consistent with Hollie’s (2018) assertion
that one must have an alignment of the definitions one is using; Tabitha was working towards a
clearer articulation of her beliefs. By saying, “Well, the definition states,” and reading the
definition to them, I was recentering the literature. I used my structure (centering literature and
questions) to pull them back into the definition, asking them to grapple with the language again
by rereading the definition to them. I followed it with a question for reflection (What does it
mean to sustain students’ culture, particularly multilingual students’ culture?), asking them to
engage with the theory before making connections to their practice, which is consistent with
Rodgers’s (2002) idea that we need to slow down to attend to what is before we can adopt new
practices. By reinforcing the structure of the literature and the questions I enabled the slowing
down of teachers’ thinking.
Dana’s response, “I’m curious what it means by “schools as places where the cultural
ways of being in communities of color are sustained, rather than eradicated” suggests a slowing
down and a close reading of the definition, as she referenced the definition, “schools as places
where the cultural ways of being in communities of color are sustained, rather than eradicated.”
66

Her statement, “I’m curious” indicates a sense of skepticism and grappling around the idea of
sustaining versus eradicating culture. Having the literature in front of her enabled her to wrestle
with the difference between the concepts of sustaining and eradicating culture and her role in
either of those. This suggests she was experiencing a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2020)
regarding her assumptions about what was important for her to know to meet the needs of her
students, the purpose of schooling, signaling the tension between sustaining and eradicating
students’ culture. Harold’s response to Dana’s comment, “Hmm, I’m curious to learn more” was
a turning into the definition of culturally sustaining pedagogy. In response to Harold’s question,
“Yea, what does that mean?,” I used the structure to continue to draw their attention to the
language in the definition of going beyond “affirming and accepting, what does it mean to
sustain students’ culture, particularly multilingual students’ culture?” for the purpose of
reinforcing the language to which I wanted them to attend. Hollie (2018) points out that over
time there have been multiple names and additions to culturally relevant pedagogy, contributing
to superficial interpretations (p. 22). This conversation was essential to avoid any confusion
and/or misinterpretation. Consistent with Hollie’s (2018) assertion that teachers need to build
consensus on how to name and discuss theory, by introducing the definition, I worked towards
the common analytical language and a shared understanding of the meaning of culturally
sustaining pedagogy that would get reinforced over time and used to support our discussions.
In the second cycle, I continued to use the structure of centering literature and questions,
narrowing our focus on culture in relation to multilingual students. Consistent with my
conceptual framework, I believed I needed to build common analytical language in relation to
multilingual learners, particularly the role of language as it is primary when working with
multilingual learners: “Linguistic identity is a crucial aspect of who we are” (Hollie, 2018, p. 25)
67

and role of funds of knowledge (Moll et al.,1992). By narrowing the common analytical
language, I intended to push them further towards the development of cultural competence as
defined in my conceptual framework, the ability to acknowledge, affirm, and use students’
cultural displays, including language as a scaffold to content knowledge (Ladson-Billings,1992;
Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2015; Moll et al., 1992).
In my enactment of the structure, I was able to further facilitate teachers’ slowing down
and narrow the common analytical language to a focus on culture. Given that I asked open-ended
questions and didn’t probe, our discussion remained on the broader concept of culture. For
example, in Session 5, I used the same structure, centering an article, followed by questions to
guide the conversation. I used the article, “Equitable and Effective Identification and Assessment
of Language Learner’s Background Knowledge” (Crawford & Gross, 2019). Embedded in this
article was the Equitable and Effective Learner Profile Survey, designed for teachers to use with
their multilingual students to get to know their students’ cultural backgrounds. The intention of
this literature was to slow teachers’ thinking down to be able to discuss the role of students’
cultural backgrounds in our instructional practices, specifying the common analytical language
towards multilingual learners. The three questions I posed for reflection were: “How does our
identity impact our choices and interactions in the classroom?” “How do those choices limit or
create learning opportunities, particularly for our multilingual students?” and “How do we access
students’ culture, do we access it, and do any of our choices inhibit or create those learning
opportunities?” The discussion that emerged focused on the survey and the third question for
reflection: How do we access students’ culture, do we access it, and do any of our choices inhibit
or create those learning opportunities? Figure 3 and the following excerpt includes the survey
and the discussion that followed.
68

Table 2
Equitable and Effective Learner Profile Survey

Socio-Cultural Knowledge
I do the following with my family and/or community: Regularly Sometimes Never
I have opportunities to share my family’s stories, customs,
and experiences

I read holy book(s) and memorize passages
I read the newspaper and debate current events together
I read novels and bedtimes stories
Adults ask me for my opinion and ask questions about
what we read together

Someone in my family grew up in a different country than
me

I go to the library and/or museums with my family
I help my family with their business or work to contribute
to my family

I think about how my skin color, religion, gender, or
culture is similar or different from those of other people

I am afraid I will learn their mistakes if I work with other
students in the class

Note. Equitable and Effective Learner Profile Survey for teachers to use in relation to ML
students. Adapted from “Equitable and Effective Identification and Assessment of Language
Learner’s Background Knowledge” by J. Crawford and E. Gross, 2019, The Language Educator,
Oct/Nov, 48. Copyright 2019 by ACTFL. Adapted with permission.

L: Tabitha, I know you mentioned you really enjoyed this article, would you like to
begin with your reflections?
T: I was confused, interested in understanding what you do with the diagnostic. Do
you give it to students to think about, to access their cultural background?
L: This is a tool they suggest using. How do you get to know your students?
69

T: I just get to know them with time. What do you do when you have all the
information?
L: Do you do certain activities? Have them write about themselves?
T: We do ice-breakers and then move on.
H: That is a good question, there is no way in the world that each student is going to
have the same response. I don’t know if you should look at it holistically. Even if
a majority are one thing, there will always be a few that fall out of the majority. I
don’t know. That wouldn’t help you.
T: Yea, so what do you do next? You know their background, their culture, their
values, but what is next?
H: I think you would look at certain criteria. I like to think of myself as an inclusive,
culturally sustaining teacher, but I know I can do better. I put an asterisks next to
some of these. In the areas I know I can do better. I would look for red flags.
L: Can you explain what you mean?
H: The survey item, ‘I am afraid I will learn other students’ mistakes if I work with
them in class.’ I would flag that. I use a lot of collaboration, but if there is a
student that feels marginalized, I need to address it right away.
L: You (to H) said there were ones that stood out to you, which ones stood out to you
and why?
H: Reads “I act differently when interacting with adults whose skin color is different
than mine” I would want to know if that were the case.
L: Why would you want to know that information?
70

H: I mean we are being super vulnerable here, that is an example where I don’t think
skin color ever plays a role in how I interact with someone, but realistically
maybe I do subconsciously without realizing it.
L: Dana, what about you? What stood out to you?
D: To me, the one that states, ‘I go to museums with my family’ - That came up in
my ELD C class, and two went to museums and I was so impressed with their
ability to go, but then I thought it could be connected to finances, so I was
reinforcing middle class opportunities and values. It reminds me of the reading,
“when it comes to prior knowledge, teachers value racially and economically
dominant white upper middle-class values” so me being impressed by my
students who go to the museum, am I giving value, reinforcing the dominant
culture? I am seeing my own bias.
L: By being impressed and vocalizing it in front of the classroom?
D: Yea, am I further marginalizing students who don’t have those opportunities?
L: What do you mean by that?
D: Even our unit about street art versus graffiti versus museum uses language that
can make students from certain neighborhoods feel marginalized. It was
interesting because in this class it is majority immigrants, and their understanding
of art is different in their countries so the connotation might be different. Street art
might be normal in their home country, part of their norm, while here we consider
it a crime. The conversation got interesting with the students because they did
bring in their cultural understanding of street art. I noticed my biases coming
through.
71

By asking Tabitha “would you like to begin with your reflections?” I was drawing her attention
to the article, using structure, to slow her thinking down. Her response, “I was confused,
interested in understanding what you do with the diagnostic. Do you give it to students to think
about, to access their cultural background?” suggests that she was eager to jump to the
implementation of the survey rather than focus on how she already understood who her students
were. Tabitha’s response was consistent with Rodgers’s (2002) assertion that teachers are quick
to react and leap to conclusions (p. 234). Her use of the language, “cultural background”
demonstrates a reinforcement of the common analytical language established in Cycle 1. My
follow up question, “This is a tool they suggest using. How do you get to know your students?”
redirected her to her existing process of getting to know her students. I recognized that she was
ready to leap to the application of the tool, thus the question was intended to reinforce the act of
slowing her down, to help her focus on what she already did and to draw her back to the
literature. This is evidence of my use of the structure to slow teacher thinking down. She again
moved back to a desire to implement the survey as she indicated that she “just get[s] to know
them with time,” not thinking about how that process prepared her to understand who her
students were. I continued to work on slowing her down when I said, “Do you do certain
activities? Have them write about themselves?” I narrowed the question to activities to further
encourage her to slow down. Her response, “We do ice-breakers and then move on” continues to
reveal her emphasis on implementation, rather than slowing down. My exchange with Tabitha is
evidence of Rodgers’s (2002) claim that teachers struggle to withhold interpretation or
application (p. 238). Harold added to the conversation,
That is a good question, there is no way in the world that each student is going to have
the same response. I don’t know if you should look at it holistically. Even if a majority
72

are one thing, there will always be a few that fall out of the majority. I don’t know. That
wouldn’t help you.
His remark indicates that he too was focused on implementation; he also demonstrated
skepticism when he stated, “Even if a majority are one thing, there will always be a few that fall
out of the majority. I don’t know. That wouldn’t help you.” Implied in his statement is that there
was no value in slowing down to understand who his students were culturally because there was
little value in being culturally competent as “there will always be a few that fall out of the
majority.” His resistance to slowing down appeared to be connected to his positionality as a
White man working with students with whom he did not have cultural congruence, expressing
his unconscious bias through his minimizing the importance of slowing down to know them.
Tabitha returned to implementation when she stated, “Yea, so what do you do next? You know
their background, their culture, their values, but what is next?” Harold continued to focus on
implementation as well when he added, “I think you would look at certain criteria” and “I would
look for red flags” indicated a rush towards application without reflection. Further, Harold’s
remark “I like to think of myself as an inclusive, culturally sustaining teacher, but I know I can
do better. I put an asterisk next to some of these. In the areas I know I can do better” reveals his
assumptions about himself, thinking he was culturally sustaining teacher. Both teachers remained
at the surface level and focused on the use of the tool, thus in response, I continued to ask
questions with the intention of slowing them down, “Can you explain what you mean?” Harold’s
response indicated the beginning of slowing down to name his assumptions when he stated,
The survey item, “I am afraid I will learn other students’ mistakes if I work with them in
class.” I would flag that. I use a lot of collaboration, but if there is a student that feels
marginalized, I need to address it right away.
73

The presence of the literature recentered his response, which indicates a slowing down, as he
closely read a survey item, “I am afraid I will learn other students’ mistakes if I work with them
in class” and expressed one of his assumptions about learning, the importance of using
collaboration. His statement is evidence of the beginning of slowing down to name his
assumptions. Throughout this discussion, I use the structure, the article and five questions, to
redirect their thinking and to ground the conversation in their current instructional practices and
beliefs, beginning to slow their thinking down and encouraging them to use the common
analytical language we were building. My effort to slow them down is consistent with Rodgers’s
(2002) that slowing down to name takes intentional and collaborative effort as well as discipline
(p. 238). Furthermore, throughout the discussion, Harold used common analytical language that
was introduced in Cycle 1: His use of the language “culturally sustaining teacher,” and “a student
that feels marginalized” indicate that through our discourse and reinforcement of the common
analytical language that was introduced in Cycle 1, teachers were beginning to slow down to
work towards cultural competence.
In the second part of our discussion, I used the structure and encouraged Harold to slow
down to identify his assumptions when I asked him to clarify, “You said there were ones that
stood out to you, which ones stood out to you and why?” By doing this, I encouraged Harold to
explicitly identify what he meant by culturally sustaining and ground his response in details of
his experience, reflecting the ideas that to engage in collective inquiry one needs to be able to
have consensus on meaning (Hollie, 2018). This led to his response in which he signaled a close
reading of the tool: “I act differently when interacting with adults whose skin color is different
than mine’ I would want to know if that were the case.” The presence of literature and his
reference to the tool signaled that he was grappling (Wergin, 2020) with how to articulate and
74

how vulnerable to be in naming his beliefs. There was a clear discomfort in his statement, as he
chose to discuss the survey item about the racial background of students. I continued to
encourage Harold to slow down by employing the structure, “Why would you want to know that
information?,” soliciting a deeper response that required him to slow down his thinking,
revealing his assumptions about his race in relation to his multilingual students: “I mean we are
being super vulnerable here, that is an example where I don’t think skin color ever plays a role in
how I interact with someone, but realistically maybe I do subconsciously without realizing it.”
By referencing the tool and asking probing questions (structure), I was able to aid Harold in
slowing down enough to clearly articulate his belief that race is not always at play in his student
interactions, “that is an example where I don’t think skin color ever plays a role in how I interact
with someone.” The language in the tool, “skin color is different than mine” coupled with my
questions forged a conversation in which Harold was able to begin to name his assumptions in
relation to the racial background of him and his students (Brookfield, 2017), pushing him
towards cultural competence. In addition, through discussion we were able to reinforce the
language of culture from Cycle 1, leading to more specific language in relation to his
assumptions.
In the third section of this discussion, by asking Dana, “Dana, what about you? What
stood out to you?” I was using structure to slow her down for the purpose of communicating how
she had made sense of the survey, as well as, to build upon the discussion thus far. Dana’s
response indicated a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2020). When Dana responded,
To me, the one that states, “I go to museums with my family.” That came up in my ELD
C class, and two went to museums and I was so impressed with their ability to go, but
then I thought it could be connected to finances, so I was reinforcing middle class
75

opportunities and values. It reminds me of the reading, “when it comes to prior
knowledge, teachers value racially and economically dominant white upper middle-class
values” so me being impressed by my students who go to the museum, am I giving value,
reinforcing the dominant culture? I am seeing my own bias.
her response indicates a wrestling with hegemonic assumptions (Brookfield, 2017) that she
reinforced in her practice. This is evident that the structure promoted her development of cultural
competence, as she wrestled with the role of students’ cultural background in her practice.
Throughout this excerpt, Dana used language from Cycle 1: “reinforcing middle class
opportunities and values,” “am I giving value, reinforcing the dominant culture?” “I am seeing
my own bias” indicates that Dana was grappling with her power she held as a teacher in relation
to her students. This connected with her articulation of the tension between sustaining and
eradicating from Cycle 1. In alignment with Brookfield’s (2017) idea that teachers need to check
the accuracy of their teaching assumptions, her reference to the survey item, “I go to museums
with my family” and “when it comes to prior knowledge, teachers value racially and
economically dominant white upper middle-class values” signals a close reading of the tool, a
slowing down for the purpose of interrogating and naming her assumptions and beliefs. I
continued to utilize the structure by responding with “By being impressed and vocalizing it in
from of the classroom?” I probed Dana to further describe her experience (Rodgers, 2002) to
provide specific examples. Dana’s response, “Yea, am I further marginalizing students who
don’t have those opportunities? signals her awareness of the role she played in relation to her
students, particularly her power to “marginalize” students (Hammond, 2015). My follow up
question, “What do you mean by that?” intended to push her further into her experience to
explicitly name her assumption. Dana responded,
76

Even our unit about street art versus graffiti versus museum uses language that can make
students from certain neighborhoods feel marginalized. It was interesting because in this
class it is majority immigrants, and their understanding of art is different in their
countries so the connotation might be different. Street art might be normal in their home
country, part of their norm, while here we consider it a crime. The conversation got
interesting with the students because they did bring in their cultural understanding of
street art. I noticed my biases coming through.
In her response, Dana indicated an awareness of the role of cultural background, “in this class it
is majority immigrants, and their understanding of art is different in their countries so the
connotation might be different.” Dana was able to recognize how her students’ various cultural
backgrounds played a role in their ability to engage with the curriculum she designed. Further,
Dana acknowledged that students brought in their cultural backgrounds into the classroom, “they
did bring in their cultural understanding of street art.” Her statement, “I noticed my biases
coming through,” suggests she was beginning to work towards critical reflection as she was on
“high alert for the presence of dominant ideology” (Brookfield, 2017). Using the established
structure served as an instrument to help all participants slow down to identify their assumptions
about the role of multilingual learners’ cultural backgrounds and reinforce common analytical
language, moving them towards critical reflection.
In my enactment, I did not want to overly direct my learners, so I asked open-ended
questions, such as, “How do we access students’ culture, do we access it, and do any of our
choices inhibit or create those learning opportunities?,” which inadvertently impeded progress
towards discussion of cultural competence. During the discussion, I also did not probe or push
77

them towards cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners’ linguistic identity or funds
of knowledge.
Promoting Critical Reflection

Once we began establishing a common analytical language around culture, I recognized
that the next step towards developing cultural competence was for teachers to use that language
to engage in critical reflection around their assumptions about their identity, culture, and their
role in their practice. This aligns with Brookfield’s (2017) assertion that anyone who wants to
teach well needs to “identify and scrutinize their assumptions” (p. viii) because who we are and
what we believe ultimately extends into our interactions with students and the curriculum that we
design. Working with my definition of critical reflection from my conceptual framework, a
continuous and cyclical process of describing an experience for the purpose of analyzing and
uncovering power and hegemonic assumptions to take intelligent action (Brookfield, 2017;
Rodgers, 2002), I focused on the first step of describing. Consistent with Hollie (2018), we had
to be honest about how our identities and assumptions played out in the classroom, therefore,
understanding ourselves was essential in the process of developing cultural competence.
Focusing on the first step of critical reflection, describing, offered us a tool to “keeps us honest
about our potential for bias, prejudice, misinformation, and ignorance” (Hollie, 2018, p. 30) and
set the foundation for promoting critical reflection.
The structure served as the fodder for our conversations, as the purpose of this structure
was to draw my learners’ attention to the way they understood their own identity, culture, and
their role in their practice. In alignment with Rodgers’s (2002) assertion that teachers can slow
down through feedback, I posed questions that served as structured feedback, giving teachers the
space to step away from practice and interrogate. Using the established common analytical
78

language, and consistent with my conceptual framework, I set out to promote critical reflections
by providing opportunities for naming and interrogating teacher identity and culture. To promote
critical reflection on teachers’ identity, culture, and their role in their practice, I selected Zaretta
Hammond’s (2015) Culture Tree and paired it with questions for reflection, as I understood that
to promote critical reflection, I first needed to push teachers from surface reflection to
pedagogical reflection (Larrivee, 2008). I used the Culture Tree as a scaffold because Hammond
(2015) divides culture into three categories: surface culture, shallow culture, and deep culture. I
paired Hammond’s (2015) culture tree with several questions for reflections (How did your
family identify ethnically or racially? What are some of your family traditions - holidays, foods,
or rituals? What did your parents, neighbors, and other authority figures tell you respect looked
like? How were you expected to interact with authority figures? Was authority of teachers and
other elders assumed or did it have to be earned? What shapes your world view about teaching?
What did you learn about “doing school”? Was it a place where your culture was comfortable?
Hammond’s (2015) language enabled us to engage in a conversation that helped us describe our
identity and cultures, thus raising to consciousness our identities and culture. During our third
session, I centered the Culture Tree and offered several questions to prompt pedagogical
reflection. An example of the structure and the instructional resources that I used is represented
in Figure 3 and the interaction that follows.

79

Figure 3
Culture Tree

Reflection Questions

Directions: Take some time this week to reflect on your own culture and identity. Select one or two
questions from each section.

80

Note. Visual of the three levels of culture within the Culture Tree. Adapted from Culturally
Responsive Teaching and the Brain (24), by Z. Hammond, Corwin. Copyright 2015 by Corwin.
Adapted with permission.

L: Would any one like to share their reflections on the Culture Tree?
H: I don’t see family anywhere. I see kinship and group identity. Family differs from
culture to culture. It can have an impact on our students.
L: Where would you put family?
H: I would put it in deep culture. It is not immediately viewable. Could be unspoken
rules. Maybe it is better under shallow.
D: Points out the concept of “childrearing” on the Culture Tree. Are they communal
or individualistic?
T: Looking at culture through a school lens. If I am moving to a new country, I am
navigating three levels of culture. Maybe one is stable, but “rethinking” and
“adapting” but also “sustaining” culture. It is a lot.
L: As teachers we are in a position to help students navigate that tension. I often
wonder if I unintentionally try to eradicate their culture. Eradicate can seem like
extreme language, but if I push their culture aside to complete a task or if I am not
taking into consideration their deep culture when I am asking them to perform a
task, am I signaling to students that their culture and identity doesn’t matter? For
example, how does my notion of fairness impact my class dynamics? That is big
for me because I dwell on what is fair a lot. I’ve come to realize my definition of
fair is cultural, not neutral.
81

H: I value participation and communication collaboration, but I am aware that in
some cultures you do not do that, you expect the teachers to do most of the
talking. So, for some of them, to talk is disrespectful. I would love to know more
about what is the right way to handle that.
T: I come from a Middle Eastern culture where we talk with our hands. It is
disorganized but I like unorganized discussion. However, that might be hard for
students. Navigating my type of discussion. There is a place and time to raise your
hand. How do we interpret things as teachers? Code switching. Layers of teaching
navigating different protocols. Know when to switch. Is it a disservice to not
teach them to navigate the differences?
D: This makes me think of Linda’s comment about unintentionally eradicating a
culture. I do that through discipline. For example, Student A and his eye contact. I
took him outside to discipline him and he was smiling and looking around. I
asked him if he thought it was funny, a joke. Student A replied, “No, in my
culture it is rude to stare an adult in the eye and I laughed because I was nervous.”
This is a miscommunication of cultural expectations. This connects to the
childrearing principles. I need to understand where they are coming from.
L: Hammond says this all starts with knowing your own culture. This is where we
get started.
T: Our culture?
L: Yes.
By asking, “Would any one like to share their reflections on the Culture Tree?” I was using the
structure to engage the teachers in dialogue about their reflections. I was asking the teachers to
82

share the way they were making sense of Hammond’s (2015) language in relation to culture and
identity with the intention of focusing us on our understanding of the various aspects that make
up culture. Consistent with Wergin’s (2020) idea of constructive disorientation, Harold’s
response, “I don’t see family anywhere. I see kinship and group identity. Family differs from
culture to culture” indicates a grappling with the concept of family and culture, as Hammond’s
organization of family does not seem to fit into his understanding of culture. Furthermore, his
statement, “It can have an impact on our students” begins to reveal his assumption and indicates
some level of awareness of the role of family in classroom interactions and student learning. My
follow up question, “Where would you put family?” encouraged Harold to think more deeply
about the concept of family and culture, reflection on his understanding of culture. His response,
“I would put it in deep culture. It is not immediately viewable. Could be unspoken rules. Maybe
it is better under shallow” (emphasis added) reveals he was trying to align his prior knowledge
about family with this new knowledge, indicating a level of disorientation. Dana builds on
Harolds’s inquiry when addressing her confusion about childrearing: “Are they communal or
individualistic?” Her question demonstrated her prior knowledge of different cultural ways of
existing. It also hinted at her assumption that it mattered if students were raised in a communal
environment or an individualistic environment. This is evidence of Brookfield’s (2017) argument
that to begin the process towards critical reflection one needs to make their assumptions explicit.
Tabitha’s remark demonstrated a level of awareness of the various cultural dynamics students,
particularly those who moved from another country, had to navigate in relation to school:
“Looking at culture through a school lens. If I am moving to a new country, I am navigating
three levels of culture. Maybe one is stable, but ‘rethinking’ and ‘adapting’ but also ‘sustaining’
culture. It is a lot” (emphasis added). In her response, she began making her assumptions that
83

culture was multifaceted and not static explicit. Her use of the language from the handout
“rethinking,” “adapting,” and, “sustaining” culture signals her assumption that students’ culture
underwent some level of change in the schooling process.
By responding with “As teachers we are in a position to help students navigate that
tension” (emphasis added), I intended to bring to the forefront our roles and power in student
interactions. Consistent with Horn and Little’s (2010) idea about normalizing a problem of
practice, I shared my own experience with grappling with culture:
I often wonder if I unintentionally try to eradicate their culture. Eradicate can seem like
extreme language, but if I push their culture aside to complete a task or if I am not taking
into consideration their deep culture when I am asking them to perform a task, am I
signaling to students that their culture and identity doesn’t matter?” (Emphasis added)
By sharing this specific example, I wanted to push them towards pedagogical reflection
(Larrivee, 2008), articulating how our practice impacted students’ learning experiences. By
asking the question, “am I signaling to students that their culture and identity doesn’t matter?” I
was inviting the teachers to “provide alternative perspectives on the situation” (Brookfield, 2017,
p. 116). The combination of sharing my experience and inviting teachers to challenge my ideas,
served as a model and entry point to critical reflection. I offered a more specific example for the
purpose of modeling vulnerability and how to make beliefs explicit: “For example, how does my
notion of fairness impact my class dynamics? That is big for me because I dwell on what is fair a
lot. I’ve come to realize my definition of fair is cultural, not neutral.” By naming a specific value
(notion of fairness) that was referenced in Hammond’s (2015) Culture Tree, asking a question
about it, and then stating my new understanding I was using the structure to model how to
grapple with my values and how to interrogate them, which is alignment with the notion that to
84

develop cultural competence one needs to be able to name their assumptions (Hollie, 2018).
Following my reinforcement of the literature and question, Harold was able to make explicit his
value around classroom participation: “I value participation and communication collaboration,
but I am aware that in some cultures you do not do that, you expect the teachers to do most of the
talking. So, for some of them, to talk is disrespectful.” Harold was naming his bias. His response,
“But I am aware,” “For some of them” demonstrated an awareness that his culture may be
different from his students’ culture, thus creating obstacles to their success in his class. By
stating, “I would love to know more about what is the right way to handle that” reflects the
beginning of critical reflection, as he is able to understand that he had a role in bridging the
cultural gap between him and his students. Tabitha’s statement was consistent with Hammond
(2015) that teachers need to “know and own [their] cultural lens” (p. 17) when she said, “I come
from a Middle Eastern culture where we talk with our hands. It is disorganized but I like
unorganized discussion” (emphasis added). In this example, she clearly named her cultural
identity and a cultural practice that she valued, indicating the beginning of critical reflection. Her
statement, “However, that might be hard for students. Navigating my type of discussion. There is
a place and time to raise your hand” reveals her awareness of how her value in unorganized
discussions might impact her students. Tabitha’s response is in alignment to Hammond’s (2015)
argument that teachers need to be knowledgeable about their beliefs regarding culture. By
asking, “How do we interpret things as teachers? Code switching. Layers of teaching navigating
different protocols. Know when to switch. Is it a disservice to not teach them to navigate the
differences?” Tabitha expressed the beginnings of a disorienting dilemma (Wergin,
2020). Dana’s statement, “This makes me think of Linda’s comment about unintentionally
eradicating a culture” suggests that the established structure promoted Dana’s own reflection.
85

Dana demonstrated evidence of critical reflection as she interrogated a student interaction in
which her cultural norm concerning eye contact misaligned with her students’ cultural norms of
eye contact. In alignment with Brookfield’s assertion (2017) that teachers need to be able to
name their belief, Dana described her how her cultural norm failed to take in consideration her
students’ cultural background,
I do that through discipline. For example, Student A and his eye contact. I took him
outside to discipline him and he was smiling and looking around. I asked him if he
thought it was funny, a joke. Student A replied, “No, in my culture it is rude to stare an
adult in the eye and I laughed because I was nervous.”
Dana’s initial response to the student demonstrates very little cultural competence, while her
statement “This is a miscommunication of cultural expectations” exemplifies her working
towards an awareness of how culture played a role in her student interaction. Further, Dana
demonstrated movement towards critical reflection when she stated, “This connects to the
childrearing principles. I need to understand where they are coming from.” In this statement,
Dana began to interrogate the relationship between her students’ culture and her interactions with
them. My statement, “Hammond says this all starts with knowing your own culture. This is
where we get started” revealed my attempt to recenter the discussion on the literature (use of
structure) and reinforce the idea that our culture mattered. Tabitha’s question, “Our culture?”
indicates that she was still uncertain of how teachers’ identities played a role in our practice. My
simple, “Yes,” demonstrates my hesitancy to push or fully engage in the content.
In this example, the structure, the use of Hammond’s (2015) Culture Tree and questions
for reflection promoted all three teachers’ development towards critical reflection as they
86

identified specific values they held and began identifying how those values impacted their
students, moving them towards developing cultural competence.
I continued to use this structure to further promote teachers’ critical reflection. I
recognized that I needed to provide opportunities for teachers to critically reflect on how their
culture, identity, and assumptions played out in their classrooms, which is consistent with Yu’s
(2008) idea that “the ultimate aim of promoting the use of reflective practices in teacher
education is to enable teachers to reflect on their thoughts and experiences and their daily
classroom practices” (p. 764). By providing opportunities to critically reflect on the role of their
identity, culture, and assumptions in their teaching practices, I intended to push them deeper into
critical reflection, and ultimately further the development of their cultural competence. This
aligns with my conceptual framework, in which I argued that to develop cultural competence,
teachers need to connect their culture and identity to their teaching practices (Ladson-Billings,
1995; Gay, 2018).
As a result of the structure, I was able to further promote teachers’ critical reflection,
working towards cultural competence. For Session 6, I used the same structure (centering
literature, paired with three questions for reflections). I continued to use Hammond’s (2015)
Culture Tree, this time focusing on teachers’ surface, shallow, and deep culture. The three
questions for reflection were: How do you recognize/integrate Surface Culture in your teaching
or interactions with multilingual students? How do you recognize/integrate Shallow Culture in
your teaching or interactions with multilingual students? How do you recognize/integrate Deep
Culture in your teaching or interactions with multilingual students? This was intended to link the
theory to practice (Horn & Little, 2010), deepening their critical reflection. Figure 4 is an
87

example of Tabitha’s work towards critical reflection on the handout that included the structure I
used.

88

Figure 4
Our Culture in the Classroom

Our Culture in the Classroom
Surface Shallow Deep
How do you recognize/integrate
Surface Culture in your teaching
or interactions with multilingual
students?
How do you recognize/integrate
Shallow Culture in your teaching
or interactions with multilingual
students?
How do you recognize/integrate
Deep Culture in your teaching or
interactions with multilingual
students?

Consider the three questions above and reflect on the role of your culture in your classroom. You may
consider your surface, shallow, or deep culture. You may consider how it impacts your curricular choices,
instructional practices, and student interactions. Provide specific examples.

In terms of surface culture—I bring in my own culture through talking with them about my own stories of
culture and language learning as well as in sample works I do with them, such as the Ted Talk project
or creative writing (in both of which I make connections to cultural information I know and am
learning). I also have learned the power of tasks and prompts that offer, encourage, and model ways to
bring in their own version of their culture into their classroom learning and assessments. I come from a
culture that is multicultural, so it is hard for me to define or label culture for myself. I recognize that not
everyone is like this too. Therefore, I value diversity in choice, representation, individuality and
culturally, and I think that plays a role in the way I offer choice and creativity in the classroom
curriculum. Also, it shapes my professional development involvements on the topic of culture and
diversity.

Shallow culture has very layered elements of culture, and as a teacher who is also part of different
cultures, I know I am also coming to learning space with my own set of expectations/norms and
learning to navigate them. For example, I practice efficient and effective time management or that I
value and practice collaborative learning and student-centered learning because it is what I was trained
through my programs and professional development from the start of teaching; however, I also know
that not all places and cultures value that way of learning. Therefore, it is important to be aware of such
habits of learning and collaborating when interacting with people from all over the world and from
different families. Also, part of this is we live in a culture that sets examples on the way
collaboration/leadership looks, or the way time management/organization looks, or the way
participation and expression of ideas looks, etc., and it is important to be aware of these as we want to
prepare students to thrive in the academic and career force, we are in. Additionally, I invest time in
asking and learning about how different places practice and set examples on the same elements. That
is the power of conversation with diverse individuals,—I see it as a learning opportunity to expand my
own understanding of cultures.

For example, in deep culture, I often spend time thinking about how students learn different languages
and cultures at the same time (in and out of school and by different people). I am trying to learn more
about the role of deep culture in the classroom through professional development involvements, books,
and podcasts. For example, I come to education recognizing the way individuality is a key part of
culture too and how these norms and layers (such as educational values, forms of demonstrating
membership/leadership, decision making styles, etc) are both cultural and yet also individual-based
because you can have students from the same culture but very different. Similarly, I come from cultures
but am not necessarily a representation of a specific culture/s. Culture plays a role in shaping
perception so as an educator it is important for me to consider both layers and how that then interacts
with our own cultural understandings and that of the social settings culture we are in currently. So
examples of how I am recognizing and learning about this layer, is through what we do—learn from and
with each other in the study of humanity.

89

Tabitha’s reflection, “bring in my own culture through talking with them about my own
stories of culture” indicates that she was aware that she was not neutral and that she brought her
culture into the classroom. Her words reflect Larrivee’s (2008) idea of pedagogical reflection, as
Tabitha was able to think about how her teaching practices affected students’ learning and
experiences. When she wrote, “I also have learned the power of tasks and prompts that offer,
encourage, and model ways to bring in their own version of their culture into their classroom
learning and assessments” she was demonstrating her understanding that she held power in the
classroom, which is evidence of her working towards critical reflection. Consistent with Hollie’s
(2008) assertion that teachers need to be honest about who they are, Tabitha demonstrated this
awareness when she stated,
I come from a culture that is multicultural so it is hard for me to define or label culture
for myself. I recognize that not everyone is like this too. Therefore, I value diversity in
choice, representation, individuality and culturally, and I think that plays a role in the
way I offer choice and creativity in the classroom curriculum.
In this statement, she named her cultural background and recognized how her ethnic identity was
linked to her value in diversity in choice, representation, and creativity. She further demonstrated
this level of awareness when she stated, “as a teacher who is also part of different cultures, I
know I am also coming to learning space with my own set of expectations/norms and learning to
navigate them.” Both statements suggest that the structure (literature and questions) facilitated
her ability to identify how her own culture plays out in her teaching practices. In her remark,
I practice efficient and effective time management or that I value and practice
collaborative learning and student-centered learning because it is what I was trained
through my programs and professional development from the start of teaching; however,
90

I also know that not all places and cultures value that way of learning. Therefore, it is
important to be aware of such habits of learning and collaborating when interacting with
people from all over the world and from different families
Tabitha worked towards stronger pedagogical reflection, as she was attempting to name specific
beliefs and positions about teaching (Larrivee, 2008). She was focused on how her ideas around
time management and collaborative learning were rooted in the way she was trained and thus
may be incongruent with her own students’ understanding of learning environments. She
continued to vocalize her understanding of the role culture when she stated, “it is important to be
aware of these as we want to prepare students to thrive in the academic and career force we are
in.” Her statement reflects Brookfield’s (2017) notion of prescriptive assumptions (p. 6), as
Tabitha revealed that she believed the role of education was to help students thrive in the world
as it currently exists, rather than liberate them. This statement hints at her potential
assimilationist perspective. Her statement, “That is the power of conversation with diverse
individuals, I see it as a learning opportunity to expand my own understanding of cultures”
reveals her value in engaging with multiple perspectives. The two statements seem to contradict
themselves. She continued to build on this idea when reflecting on her deeper culture,
I come from cultures but am not necessarily a representation of a specific
culture/s. Culture plays a role in shaping perception so as an educator it is important for
me to consider both layers and how that then interacts with our own cultural
understandings and that of the social settings culture we are in currently.
Her remark reveals how she viewed her own identity, part of a culture, but not representative of
the culture. She also articulated her understanding that culture played a role in her position as a
teacher, reflecting the notion that teachers’ need to connect their culture and identity to their
91

teaching practices (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Consistent with Larrivee’s (2008) idea
that when teachers critically reflect, they are holding their philosophies and practices for
continuous examination, Tabitha demonstrated that she was working to examine her identity and
interrogate how her identity played out in her teaching practices. Through this structure, Tabitha
was able to work towards critical reflection.
Moving Towards Practice-Based Inquiry

Informed by action research, I stepped out of the field between cycles to understand the
big picture of my actions (Northouse, 2004). In alignment with Coughlan (2019), I engaged in
inquiry and attended to the type of discussion I was promoting through my structure. I noticed
our conversations remained theoretical, thus in the third cycle, I changed the structure of our
meetings to center teachers’ practices and experiences to move learners towards practice-based
inquiry. Consistent with Rodgers’s (2002) assertion, I found that “supplementary input from
research on teaching and learning [was] important and even critical to teachers’ development” (p.
232) in Cycles 1 and 2 as it helped establish common analytical language, but it was insufficient.
This is consistent with Loughran and Berry’s (2005) assertion that theoretical research
knowledge does not always solve problems of practice (p. 196). Consistent with Rodgers’s
(2002) argument that “the primary text for reflection must be their experience as teachers and
learners” (p. 232), I recognized that to move teachers towards practice-based inquiry, I needed to
link theory to practice (Horn & Little, 2010) and to position teachers as “agentic in their work
and [encourage] them to reconstruct their understanding of and responses to complex situations”
(Horn & Little, 2010, p. 201). This is consistent with Garrett’s (2008) idea that learners need “an
instructional strategy where the teaching begins with questions and relies on them heavily
thereafter as a way to stimulate student exploration, discovery, and critical thinking” (p. 37).
92

To move teachers towards practice-based inquiry, for each session in Cycle 3, I asked
participants to bring in an example document or experience in three areas: In Week 8 we focused
on relationships and student interactions; in Week 9 we focused on curriculum, and in Week 10
we focused on instructional practices. I paired each week’s focus with a set of questions for
reflection. The questions for reflection were rooted in culturally sustaining pedagogy, facilitating
the linking between theory and practice. Consistent with my practice throughout our work
together, I emailed the document to teachers on the Monday prior to the Wednesday meeting.
Learners were expected to come to the meeting with their example document and the questions
for reflection completed. As a result of this structure, we were able to engage in critical-
dialectical discourse that led to a constructive disorientation, moving towards the development of
cultural competence.
Week 9 serves as an example of this new structure (centering teacher practice and
questions for reflection). In anticipation for our meeting in Week 9, I asked teachers to select an
example of their own curriculum and use the provided questions for reflection to interrogate their
practice. I linked the brochure Research Brief and Discussion Guide–Culturally Responsive
Curriculum (Hanover Research, n.d.) to provide teachers with a reference to the literature, so that
they could link theory and practice (Horn & Little, 2010). By linking literature, I was reinforcing
the language from Cycles 1 and 2 and moving literature from the center of discussion to the side
(Rodgers, 2002). Figure 6 is an example of the structure (handout teachers used to interrogate
their own practice) in preparation for Week 9. The following is an excerpt of the discussion that
emerged.

93

Figure 5
Reflecting and Evaluating Our Practice: Curriculum

Note. This figure demonstrates instructional material that I designed to promote practice-based
inquiry, with a focus on interrogating curriculum.

After a brief hello, Harold begins:
H: I don’t know if there is any cultural aspect to this at all. So, here (holds up a piece
of paper with words on it) I go through constructed response, a CR. I define it, I
give them some details, and then a prompt. Some people like to X and some
people like to Y, which one is better? I want them to use evidence to support their
opinions. I don’t really care how they answer, my goal is a really good paragraph
94

which they really struggle with, even the indenting. So, they get 20 minutes. I
always give an example. I used this example from last year. I tell them why it was
effective. I make suggestions. I pointed out that there were tons of grammatical
mistakes. Next step is to support their opinion. This is the standard about being
able to support your opinion with evidence. They have two different articles. They
had to use evidence from of the articles. I show them various ways to add in
evidence. So, is there a cultural component?”
L: Let’s see, let’s use the question they provide. “Academic success for all students:
How does your curriculum ensure that all students have access and are held to
high academic standards?’
H: Well, rubric score for each of them, same directions for each of them. Same
amount of time. I don’t think they need 20 minutes, but I wanted to ensure
everyone was able to finish.
L: Does your curriculum allow for differentiation based on individual needs and
learning styles?
H: No, not really.
L: So, one thing I noticed is that one of the responsibilities is to give students access
to the dominant language. “CR” does that throw them off, it is not language that is
used in college or the real world or maybe other classrooms?
H: English, what do you mean?
L: So, you call it a CR, maybe they don’t know what that is because they’ve never
heard it before.
H: I did start them with a definition.
95

T: That is like our CER, CTA, whatever.
L: Yea, so the language we use might be inaccessible to them, they might be more
familiar with argumentative which is more universally used.
H: I did give them an example on the screen. But yea maybe creating multiple access
points.
D: Was this more formative or summative?
H: This is very formative. My plan with this one is after the evidence for them to do
it again to have evidence for both and then a short lesson on transitions.
L: Well, I noticed you didn’t discuss audience, occasion, purpose. When we teach
writing to MLL it might be critical to explicitly discuss audience, occasion,
purpose. According to the literature this is critical when teaching writing to
multilingual students. Do you discuss that with your students?
H: Oh, that’s great, purpose, occasion, audience.
D: So, then it hints at some aspects of writing, tone, vocabulary, etc.
T: For a MLL, they might need more explicit lessons on those aspects. I also noticed
your prompt; it was about time. For portrayal of culture, you gave them two
articles, they can bring in sources from their own culture. Like individualism and
collectivism, concepts of time are cultural.
H: So, there is a filter to be used for culturally responsive teaching, even when it’s
something as dry and standard based as this.
L: Yes, that is a good way to put it. CSP is more of a lens on our ourselves, our
students, and our practice and how we shape the learning opportunities students
have.
96

Harold opened the discussion with the statement, “I don’t know if there is any cultural aspect to
this at all,” which is evidence of him using the handout prompt, “Select a current lesson plan and
use the following questions to evaluate the lesson from a culturally sustaining lens, a CR.” It can
be inferred that by thoroughly describing his assignment, “I go through constructed response,” he
was offering his answer to the first question for reflection, “Describe the goals/learning objective
of your lesson plan.” His goals and objectives were for students to write an opinioned claim and
to support the claim with evidence from the sources. His statement, “I don’t really care how they
answer, my goal is a really good paragraph which they really struggle with, even the indenting”
reflects his value (question for reflection 3) that writing structure was more critical than student
opinion. This statement also demonstrates that he held a colorblind and context neutral
understanding of his lesson because he was uninterested in their prior knowledge, “I really don’t
care how they answer” and his focus was on “a good paragraph” where they focused on
traditional academic content. His question, “So, is there a cultural component?” is further
evidence of how the structure focused the discussion on his practice. While Harold was
compliant in bringing in a lesson, my questioning limited his inquiry into his practice. By asking,
“Let’s see, let’s use the question they provide” I was reinforcing the literature and the slowing
down process we began in the previous two cycles. My response, “Academic success for all
students: How does your curriculum ensure that all students have access and are held to high
academic standards?” failed to redirect Harold into inquiry using a culturally sustaining lens. As
a result, Harold’s response, “Well, rubric score for each of them, same directions for each of
them. Same amount of time. I don’t think they need 20 minutes, but I wanted to ensure everyone
was able to finish” demonstrates an equality, rather than equity mindset. His statements telegraph
that he was not thinking about the differential needs of his multilingual students, their prior
97

knowledge of writing, which is imperative when teaching multilingual students (Genzuk, 2011),
or their access to academic language needed to complete the task (Mora-Flores, 2018). I
continued to ask Harold questions, “Does your curriculum allow for differentiation based on
individual needs and learning styles?” that failed to link theory on cultural competence to his
practice. His response, “No, not really” reflected the limitation of my questions. Because my
questions were not overtly about the role of culture in his practice, up until this point, learners
were reproducing Cycles 1 and 2, engaging in more theoretical discussion. The limitations of my
questions were a result of the fact that I was a novice teacher-leader. I began to ask more overt
questions about cultural competence when I made a statement calling out his use of academic
language,
So, one thing I noticed is that one of the responsibilities is to give students access to the
dominant language. “CR” does that throw them off, it is not language that is used in
college or the real world or maybe other classrooms?
Here, I was contrasting the dominant language, the use of a term like constructed response (CR),
against who the students were and the likelihood they, from a cultural perspective, would have
had access to the academic language. I noticed that Harold was not turning towards practice,
therefore, by pointing out his use of language, I was using the structure to move him toward
practice-based inquiry by focusing him on how his writing instruction might be inaccessible to
his multilingual students, however by answering the question, I cut off practice. I will discuss my
growth in asking probing question to move learners towards practice in the next section.
Harold’s response, “I did start them with a definition” reveals his confusion, reflecting what
Wergin (2020) refers to as a “constructive disorientation, a feeling of arousal brought about by a
perceived disconnect between the current and a desired state” (p. 57). His statement combined
98

with the silence in the room, indicates he needed further guidance. Tabitha’s statement, “That is
like our CER, CTA, whatever” reinforced the idea that the language Harold used for writing
instruction could hinder student learning opportunity, demonstrating her movement toward the
development of cultural competence. I added to “Yea, so the language we use might be
inaccessible to them, they might be more familiar with argumentative which is more universally
used.” My comment provided more guidance around my original question about the use of
language. I was emphasizing the importance of how we used academic language with
multilingual students. By doing this, I was moving Harold into his practice, and I created an
appropriate challenge (Wergin, 2020, p. 58). I encouraged Harold to slow down and think more
critically about how the language he used may hinder his students’ ability to learn. Harold’s
response, “I did give them an example on the screen. But yea maybe creating multiple access
points” indicates that he was beginning to acknowledge how the design of his curriculum might
need different scaffolding for his multilingual learners. The structure allowed for movement
towards critical-dialectical discourse that promoted his interrogation into his own practice.
Further, Harold’s willingness to engage in dialogue about his beliefs in relation to race
demonstrates his orientation as a socializing learner, as he was able to take various perspectives
on.
When Dana asked, “Was this more formative or summative?” the discussion began to
emerge into a collective inquiry as Rodgers (2002) describes, as all members of the discussion
began to interrogate Harold’s curriculum. Harold’s response, “This is very formative. My plan
with this one is after the evidence for them to do it again to have evidence for both and then a
short lesson on transitions” suggests he was still focused on equality and struggling to connect
how culture connected with his curriculum design. My statement and question,
99

Well, I noticed you didn’t discuss audience, occasion, purpose. When we teach writing to
MLL it might be critical to explicitly discuss audience, occasion, purpose. According to
the literature this is critical when teaching writing to multilingual students. Do you
discuss that with your students?
served to link theory to Harold’s practice, directing his thinking to both the literature on
curriculum design for multilingual students, and his curriculum. My questioned was rooted in
Mora-Flores’s assertions that “Integrated ELD is content-area instruction; it simply calls out the
need to be more intentional about language instruction to ensure successful content-are lessons”
(p. 25), thus the question pushed Harold toward the development of cultural competence in
relation to his practice of writing instruction for multilingual learners. Harold’s response, “Oh,
that’s great, purpose, occasion, audience” indicates that he was beginning to become aware that
something was missing in his writing instruction. Dana continued to build on this awareness
when she stated, “So, then it hints at some aspects of writing, tone, vocabulary, etc.” Tabitha
also, built on this acknowledgment when she stated, “For a MLL, they might need more explicit
lessons on those aspects.” Both Dana and Tabitha began to recognize that writing instruction for
multilingual students needed explicit guidance on writing. Tabitha expounded on the connection
between culture and curriculum when she stated, “I also noticed your prompt; it was about time.
For portrayal of culture, you gave them two articles, they can bring in sources from their own
culture. Like individualism and collectivism, concepts of time are cultural.” Her comment
reveals her awareness that students had cultural understanding of concepts, such as time, that
may have impeded how they accessed the curriculum. Dana’s and Tabitha’s questioning and
perspectives were evidence of what Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2009) call inquiry as stance, as
there was a social deliberating over Harold’s curriculum. By structuring the session this way, I
100

set up the teachers to engage in a collective inquiry, which ultimately led to Harold’s
constructive disorientation when he said, “So, there is a filter to be used for culturally responsive
teaching, even when it’s something as dry and standard based as this.” His statement reflects a
beginning to link theory to practice (Horn & Little, 2010). My response, “Yes, that is a good way
to put it. CSP is more of a lens on our ourselves, our students, and our practice and how we
shape the learning opportunities students have” affirmed Harold’s awareness, but also the inquiry
that led to his constructive disorientation. Harold’s constructive disorientation is evidence of him
working toward the development of cultural competence.
In the last session together, I continued to use the new structure (centering teacher
practice and questions for reflection) to further promote practice-based inquiry. More
specifically, this structure helped normalize problems of practice, move between conceptual and
discipline, and further specify so teachers could reconceptualize their practice (Horn & Little,
2010) through the lens of cultural competence.
For our final topic of inquiry, we had chosen to focus on our writing feedback practices.
The focus of this session emerged from our time together in the previous session, as all teachers
began to recognize the importance of interrogating our writing feedback practices in relation to
our multilingual students.
Consistent with previous sessions, I emailed a handout to teachers on the Monday prior to
the meeting in which I asked teacher to select one example of student feedback and respond the
following four questions for reflection. The data conversation demonstrates how my use of
structure (centering practice and questions) helped Dana use practice-based inquiry to further
develop her cultural competence. Consistent with Horn and Little (2010), Dana demonstrates a
turn to practice as we collectively normalized a problem of practice, moved from the particular to
101

the general, and linked abstract concepts to experiences, which, in turn, facilitated the
reconceptualizing of practice.

Figure 6

Reflecting and Evaluating Our Practice: Instructional Practices

Note. This figure demonstrates instructional material that I designed to promote practice-based
inquiry, with a focus on interrogating instructional practices.
102

L: Per discussion last week, we chose to talk about feedback. Would anyone like to
share their reflections from this week about their practices around feedback? All
right, the first question is what role does feedback play in your instructional
practice?
D: What I thought was interesting was it was divided into three threads: response to
content, response to error, grading/evaluation. It gave an example of a student
being confused by the score. Even if there is a rubric, I don’t give an overall
comment about what they did well. Its more rubric related like “you need more
evidence here” “you need more analysis here” My feedback is tied to the rubric
and I’m not giving enough positive comments on their content. (Points to the
example in front of her)
L: How is your current practice aligned or not aligned with the literature?
D: Reads “teachers think of their ideas and their work,” but I focus on where is your
evidence, support, etc. Not correct structure. Getting away from that and
affirming their ideas first. I had a student share a poem with me today and he
wanted my opinion. While I was reading, I was correcting his capitalization - but I
remembered the chapter. He corrected me and asked if I like the poem, he wasn’t
looking for corrections. That affirmation becomes important. I revert to my
teacher’s lens of all the things I need to correct instead of looking at what was
interesting in the poem. So, I tried to compliment his ideas too. It also stated on
page 92, “The shaping of a cohesive and well-constructed argument in one
country or culture is not necessarily the same in another.” This really made me
think of how I understand what good writing is.
103

T: What do you mean by that?
D: Well, if I only focus on mechanics, then I never acknowledge their ideas. And,
what if in their culture they start with the thesis at the end? I started paying
attention to their structure and trying to compliment it, while helping them write
how we write here.
T: That reminds me of how I do revisions, when it comes to writing I have them
revise and continue learning, so they can resubmit.
D: I don’t prioritize revisions enough. I don’t meet with them; I don’t verbalize what
they can do on their next writing. I do need to have feedback conferences. The
rubric is for me to enter the scores in the gradebook vs. a tool to discuss with
them. Again, it reminds me of page 92—English teachers’ expectations are
shaped by cultural expectations better different than the culture of their
multilingual students. I want to guide them, but I don’t want that guy to replace
their free will and their voice in writing. It’s a balancing act. I don’t want to over
correct or under correct them.
When I said, “Per discussion last week, we chose to talk about feedback,” I was reinforcing our
collective act of normalizing writing feedback as a problem of practice. This is consistent with
Horn and Little’s (2010) idea that normalizing a problem of practice is essential to begin inquiry.
By asking teachers, “Would anyone like to share their reflections from this week about their
practices around feedback?” I was grounding their inquiry in their practice, reflective of
Cochran-Smith and Lytle’s (2009) idea that inquiry should be grounded in problems of practice
(p. 122) and Horn and Little’s (2010) concept of turning to practice. I reinforced this approach
when I then asked, “What role does feedback play in your instructional practice?,” using the
104

structure to center their inquiry. Dana’s response, “What I thought was interesting was it was
divided into three threads: response to content, response to error, grading/evaluation. It gave an
example of a student being confused by the score” suggests her linking practice to theory (Horn
& Little, 2010). She moved towards practice-based inquiry and turn into practice when she
stated,
Even if there is a rubric, I don’t give an overall comment about what they did well. Its
more rubric related like “you need more evidence here,” “you need more analysis here.”
My feedback is tied to the rubric and I’m not giving enough positive comments on their
content. (Points to the example in front of her)
because she named her practice (e.g., “I don’t give an overall comment,” “My feedback is tied,”
and “I’m not giving enough”) in relation to writing feedback. She also identified what she did
tacitly, making it explicit to herself and to us (Horn & Little, 2010); she laid bare the limitations
of her current practice, and how it might not align with the literature. My question, “How is your
current practice aligned or not aligned with the literature?” pointed Dana back to the literature,
encouraging her to evaluate her practice by further specifying (Horn & Little, 2010). By using
this structure, I created an opportunity for Dana to engage in practice-based inquiry and work
towards the development of cultural competence; Dana was able to reconsider her practice,
“Reads ‘teachers think of their ideas and their work,’ but I focus on where is your evidence,
support, etc. Not correct structure. Getting away from that and affirming their ideas first.” Here,
Dana recognized where her current practice fell short and might hinder student learning, which is
evidence of her engagement in critical-dialectical discourse, as she begins questioning her
practice. She then continued to share a more detailed description,
105

I had a student share a poem with me today and he wanted my opinion. While I was
reading, I was correcting his capitalization—but I remembered the chapter. He corrected
me and asked if I like the poem, he wasn’t looking for corrections. That affirmation
becomes important.
In this example, Dana engaged with her practice from both a discipline and conceptual
perspective (Horn & Little, 2010) because she used the structure to interrogate her practice: “I
had a student share,” “but I remembered the chapter.” Further, Dana began to recognize how her
instructional practices were rooted in her own biases when she stated,
So, I tried to compliment his ideas too. It also stated on page 92, “The shaping of a
cohesive and well-constructed argument in one country or culture is not necessarily the
same in another.” This really made me think of how I understand what good writing is.
When saying, “So, I tried to compliment his ideas too,” Dana demonstrated an attempt to change
her practice based on the literature she read. This is evidence of the structure helping her develop
cultural competence. Further, when she stated, “It also stated on page 92,” and proceeded to
quote the literature, Dana was using all the resources I provided (literature, questions for
reflection, and her practice) to cross examine her practice, demonstrating cultural competence.
By asking this question, “What do you mean by that?,” Tabitha invited Dana to expound, moving
the group towards a collective inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Dana’s response,
Well, if I only focus on mechanics, then I never acknowledge their ideas. And, what if in
their culture they start with the thesis at the end? I started paying attention to their
structure and trying to compliment it, while helping them write how we write here
reinforced her earlier comments about limiting student learning through her instructional
practices.
106

Her statement, “Well, if I only focus on mechanics, then I never acknowledge their ideas. And,
what if in their culture they start with the thesis at the end?” indicates her becoming aware of
how her practice was incongruent with her students’ culture and she played a role in affirming or
eradicating their culture. Her follow up statement, “I started paying attention to” indicates that
she was begging to work towards adjusting her practice, a result of her cultural competence
development. At this point, Tabitha built on Dana’s problem of practice by stating, “that reminds
me of how I do revisions, when it comes to writing I have them revise and continue learning, so
they can resubmit.” As suggested by Horn and Little (2010), “this linking move positioned the
teachers in alliance with one another, creating a sense of membership and affiliation” (p. 197).
Dana’s comment,
Again, it reminds me of page 92—English teachers’ expectations are shaped by cultural
expectations better different than the culture of their multilingual students. I want to
guide them, but I don’t want that guy to replace their free will and their voice in writing.
It’s a balancing act. I don’t want to over correct or under correct them.
is evidence of how Dana was able to interrogate her practice, via the structure, and recognize
how her culture and understanding of feedback may be incongruent with her students’ ideas of
writing. In addition, she recognized her power in providing feedback when she stated, “I want to
guide them, but I don’t want that guy to replace their free will and their voice in writing.” As a
result of the structure, Dana was able to recognize the value of affirming student writing,
demonstrating a move towards cultural competence.
The Self-Growth

Prior to the 2021–2022 school year, I had limited teacher-leadership experience because
my primary role was as a classroom teacher. In 2019 I enrolled in the Doctor of Educational
107

Leadership program (EdL) to learn about leadership. As a result, I engaged with leadership
theories that helped me develop a conceptual understanding of leading adult learners and helped
position myself as a leader to address a historically entrenched inequity. Leading up to the
dissertation in practice (DiP), I immersed myself and grappled with literature on the relevant
topics. At this point my understanding of leadership was more theoretical, rather than applied.
Furthermore, by engaging in literature on leadership and historically entrenched inequities in
relation to multilingual learners, I recognized there was a lack of understanding of the role of
culture in creating learning opportunities for multilingual students in my school site and within
my team. Consequently, throughout my time in the EdL program, I began focusing my inquiry
on culturally sustaining pedagogy and more specifically, developing cultural competence for
myself and my colleagues because I recognized that building cultural competence was an
adaptive challenge (Heifetz, 2002) that required learners to interrogate their assumptions about
their identity, cultural values, and their students (Brookfield, 2017; Drago-Severson & Blum-
Destefano, 2017; Rodgers, 2002).
By engaging in literature on leadership and historically entrenched inequities in relation
to multilingual learners, I began to recognize the ways my own positionality and values were
interfering with student learning opportunities, though this understanding was theoretical, not
experiential. Further, I recognized the importance for all educators to interrogate their identifies,
cultural values, and assumptions. Thus, I began to consider how to address the lack of cultural
competence within my ELD department. As a result, I developed a conceptual framework and
action plan that reflected my understanding at the time, but I had no opportunity for the
application of the knowledge. More specifically, I did not have experience structuring learning
opportunities for adults, in relation to cultural competence.
108

At the point of implementation of my DiP, I began to explicitly work towards developing
leaners’ (teachers’) cultural competence. In the context of my DiP, I engaged in the practice of
leading and facilitating learning opportunities for adults in relation to developing cultural
competence. To engage in this work, I attended to my andragogy and my on-going cultural
competence development, therefore I continued to step back and reflect on my positionality to
understand (Northouse, 2004) how my andragogical moves and positionality were impacting my
work. Given that I was a novice in critically reflecting, the quality of my critical reflection was
constrained, remaining descriptive and comparative (Jay & Johnson, 2002). In this section I will
discuss my two areas of growth, which are moving from generic questions to probing question
and not modeling vulnerability to modeling vulnerability, as well as my limitation, which was
my lack of critical reflection on my positionality. I will discuss each of these in turn.
Andragogy

Consistent with my conceptual framework, I argue that to develop cultural competence,
learners must “engage in critical-dialectical discourse involving the assessment of assumptions
and expectations supporting beliefs, values, and feelings” (Mezirow, 2003, p. 60). I understood
that learning happened when the critical-dialectical discourse was centered around teacher
practice and that learners needed the appropriate supports (Gallimore & Tharp, 1989) with their
ZTPD (Warford, 2010). To accomplish this, I needed appropriate forms of assistance and I chose
questioning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) and modeling vulnerability (Brookfield, 2019). Though
our discourse did not rise to the level of critical-dialectical discourse, we made movement
towards critical-dialectical discourse.
In alignment with my conceptual framework, I understood that questions were a way
teacher-leaders could encourage learners to think more critically about the topic at hand (Sahin &
109

Kulm, 2008). I chose questioning to facilitate critical-dialectical discourse as it calls into
question one’s beliefs, attitudes, and practices (Mezirow, 2003). Given that the work to
interrogate one’s beliefs, attitudes, and practices can be risky and requires vulnerability, I
understood that I needed to model vulnerability (Brookfield, 2019) to set an example for my
learners. Throughout my action research I was able to improve my use of questioning and my
ability to model vulnerability for the purpose of moving learners towards the development of
their cultural competence.
Improved Questioning. At the beginning of the action research, my limited experience
leading discussions with adults and fear of creating a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2020)
for my colleagues inhibited me from asking probing questions that led to critical thinking or
critical reflection on their practice, ultimately limiting their development of cultural competence.
Given the fact that I was a colleague, I was hesitant and reluctant to ask questions that might
sound accusatory. While “getting on the balcony” (Heifetz, 2009) between Cycles 2 and 3,
writing analytic memos (Ravitch & Carl, 2021), and writing descriptive reflections (Jay &
Johnson, 2002), I discovered that I was asking generic questions for reflection that did not push
against learners’ assumptions and understanding of their practice. As a result, learners replied
with vague responses, rooted in literature, and the discourse did not rise to the level of critical-
dialectical and remained theoretical. I came to recognize that I was not providing the appropriate
or necessary assistance needed to push learners understanding of themselves and their practice.
According to the codebook, in Cycle 1, I did not ask any probing questions, while in Cycle 2 and
3, I asked a total of 16 probing questions.
By the third cycle and because I got on the balcony and wrote descriptive reflections, I
began asking probing questions that encouraged learners to critically think and interrogate their
110

assumptions about their identity, cultural values, and their practice (Mezirow, 2003). As defined
in my conceptual framework, I identify probing questions as questions that ask students to
explain or elaborate their thinking and use prior knowledge and apply it to a current problem or
idea (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). The probing questions I began asking encouraged learners to specify
(Horn & Little, 2010) and analyze (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) their practice for the purpose
of pushing learners toward critical reflection. By asking probing questions, I was able to move
learners toward thinking that produced movement toward critical-dialectical discourse.
The following data set from Session 5 in Cycle 2 demonstrates how I used generic
questions for reflection in the first two cycles that failed to push against learners’ assumptions
and beliefs. We discussed Hammond’s (2015) Culture Tree, referenced previously. As discussed,
the purpose of the Culture Tree was to promote the development of common analytical language
pertaining to culture. I presumed that by establishing common analytical language we would
have the necessary language to engage in critical-dialectical discourse that would unearth our
assumptions about identity and cultural values. The goal of this discussion was to begin making
our cultures explicit and start working towards a greater understanding of the role of our
students’ culture in the classroom. Because I had limited experience facilitating discussions
about culture with adult learners and my fear of sounding accusatory, I relied on generic
questions that failed to challenge learners’ assumptions about culture and the role of culture. We
were discussing the Culture Tree in theoretical terms and then I asked the following question:
L: Why would you want to know that information? [Culture Tree]
H: I mean we are being super vulnerable here, that [reference to the Culture Tree] is
an example where I don’t think skin color ever plays a role in how I interact with
someone, but realistically maybe I do subconsciously without realizing it.
111

L: That is interesting.
H: My dad, when we would go into a Mexican restaurant would always say “mas
agua” and I would give him such a hard time about that. He did it just because of
the color of their skin. And he didn’t understand. I promised myself I would never
do something like that, but I don’t think my dad knew how disrespectful he was
being and maybe there is something I’m doing that I need someone else to point
out for me.
T: That makes me think of intention. You may intend to do one thing, but intention
is hidden. Your intention is good, you are culturally integrating.
H: Yea, it is short sighted to say that my intentions never have a negative impact. I
welcome this type of discourse to really see what that would be.
L: Yea, intentions versus impact are two different things. Dana, what about you?
What stood out to you?
The question I asked, “Why would you want to know that information?” was generic, too large,
and not focused. The word “that” could apply to anything that had been a part of the previous
discussion. The question did not make an explicit connection to the purpose of the discussion,
developing common analytical language. Harold’s response indicates a willingness to engage in
critical-dialectical discourse when he shared his beliefs about the role of race in his practice:
“that [reference to the Culture Tree] is an example where I don’t think skin color ever plays a
role in how I interact with someone.” Harold very clearly identified his assumption that skin
color is not always at play. He, then, demonstrated a willingness to dig deeper into his belief
when he stated, “but realistically maybe I do subconsciously without realizing it.” Because I felt
uncomfortable, I was afraid to ask a question that would highlight Harold’s assumptions.
112

Therefore, I responded with, “That is interesting.” I acknowledged Harold’s statement rather
than asking a question that would have furthered the critical-dialectical discourse by engaging
him in dialogue about his assumptions about race. I did not probe, I did not inquire, I left
Harold’s comments unexamined. My use of the word “interesting” was indicative of the fact that
I was aware that Harold’s comment was colorblind, but I was not equipped to facilitate further
exploration of Harold’s belief and felt uncomfortable engaging in explicit discourse around race.
By not leaning into the opportunity to ask a probing question, Harold would not have the
opportunity to engage in critical-dialectical dialogue that challenged his assumptions about the
role of race in his practice. He continued to share an experience from his childhood that impacted
the way in which he continued to view skin color when he shared his anecdote about his father.
In his statement, “I promised myself I would never do something like that ... maybe there is
something I’m doing that I need someone else to point out for me” Harold indicated he was
aware that his assumptions might be inaccurate and that engaging with others (someone else)
would help him see what he could not see by himself. This was another missed opportunity to
engage Harold in critical-dialectical discourse. Again, due to my lack of experience facilitating
discussions around culture, more specifically race, and my fear of accusing Harold, I left his
statement unexamined. By not asking probing questions, I unintentionally communicated that
there was nothing left to interrogate, and I left room for the other learners to fill in the gap.
Tabitha’s comment affirmed Harold’s experience when she stated, “That makes me think of
intention. You may intend to do one thing, but intention is hidden. Your intention is good, you
are culturally integrating.” Tabitha did not use language that pushed into critical-dialectical
discourse because she did not push Harold to interrogate his assumptions about race, rather she
assumed his assumptions were good. In response, Harold accepted Tabitha’s affirmation, “Yea, it
113

is short sighted to say that my intentions never have a negative impact.” For the third time in this
discussion, Harold demonstrated willingness to interrogate when he stated, “I welcome this type
of discourse to really see what that would be.” I responded with, “Yea, intentions versus impact
are two different things.” My comment revealed that I was aware that the conversation was
colorblind, but I was not open to asking the type of questions that would push learners to
interrogate their belief systems. I ended the discussion by moving on to the next learner when I
asked, “Dana, what about you? What stood out to you?” Finally, by failing to ask probing
questions and moving the conversation away from Harold’s experience, I did not create the
appropriate assistance for Harold to engage in a critical-dialectical discourse around his
experience and assumptions about race. Ultimately, I took away from the opportunity for
learners to develop their cultural competence.
As a result of “getting on the balcony” (Heifetz, 2009) between Cycles 2 and 3, writing
analytic memos (Ravitch & Carl, 2021), and writing descriptive reflections (Jay & Johnson,
2002), by Week 8 of our time together, I grew in my ability to ask probing questions that
encouraged learners to explain or elaborate on their thinking, analyze, and interrogate their
practice, working toward facilitating critical-dialectical discourse. This further worked toward
the development of their cultural competence. In Week 8 of the action research, I used a learner-
centered structure to interrogate student-teacher interactions and relationships. I asked learners to
reflect on a critical moment they had experienced with a student. The purpose of this exercise
was to engage in critical-dialectical discourse that would unearth their assumptions and beliefs
about student behavior. For example, in Session 8 during a conversation about a student
interaction, I used probing questions to engage Dana in critical-dialectical discourse that pushed
114

her to think about how her assumptions about student behavior might have unintentionally
marginalized her student. The following is an excerpt from that conversation:
D: I focused on my Period 4, because this class has a group of students that are all
teammates on a sport. It bugs me when they dance. Its disruptive, they look at
each other and move. They are very active, and they do it quickly, so it is not long
enough to give a referral or call home. And using the protocol, I began to think is
this their community. How do I not let that erk me and embrace it? But at the
same time, it has nothing to do with the content. Well, this chapter in Hammond
was about having a community environment that is caring. That was coming to
mind, but I read Coates and he talks about black bodies, so who am I to tell these
students don’t do this with your body. I don’t want to reinforce things like
oppression, control, authority. At the same time, I want to maintain classroom
management. Why does it bug me so much when they are happy and dancing?
L: Have you ever asked them why they are dancing?
D: Well sometimes they just have their air pods, and they just show up dancing.
L: I am going to challenge you, have you ever asked them?
D: No, I have not. I just let it bug me?
L: How do you interpret their dancing?
D: As a classroom disruption.
L: Why?
D: Because their friends are looking at them instead of paying attention to the
discussion.
L: Why do you find that problematic?
115

D: They are supposed to be doing small group discussion. They are on opposite sides
of the room and yesterday one student was dancing and the other was watching.
L: I can see that, one thing that challenged me from this protocol is step 4, which is
what Harold was alluding to. What is an alternative interpretation of their
behavior? Having a conversation with your students might give you knowledge
and understanding behind their thinking. Perhaps having that convo might build
understanding to get you out of your interpretation.
D: Yea, they talk and then they wait. I wonder how their dancing is interpreted by the
quiet introverted student. It is rude to the introvert. But when I read their work,
they are doing well. When we start having conversations about power dynamics,
microaggressions (as this is their curriculum) they are contributing, they are doing
amazing. This is what came to mind. I need to ask myself, why does it bother me.
Why do I need to control everything?
Dana opened the discussion by revealing her interpretation of student behavior as disruptive and
frustrating when she stated, “It bugs me when they dance.” Her statement, “They are very active,
and they do it quickly so it is not long enough to give a referral or call home” suggests that she
found their behavior worthy of punishment, reflecting a lack of cultural competence. However,
Dana was able to articulate her own lack of cultural awareness when she stated, “And using the
protocol, I began to think is this their community. How do I not let that erk me and embrace it?”
This is evident of her using the new knowledge to interrogate her attitude toward student
behavior. She continued to reveal a willingness to further interrogate her assumptions when she
stated,
116

Well, this chapter in Hammond was about having a community environment that is
caring. That was coming to mind, but I read Coats and he talks about black bodies, so
who am I to tell these students don’t do this with your body. I don’t want to reinforce
things like oppression, control, authority.
My follow up probing question, “Have you ever asked them why they are dancing?”
encouraged Dana to engage in the mental operation (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) of further
interrogating her interpretation of student behavior, thus engaging her in critical-dialectical
discourse. The use of this probing question is reflective of Sahin and Kulm’s (2008) idea that
probing questions ask learners to explain and elaborate their thinking. By asking Dana to
elaborate, I was pushing her further interrogate the reasons behind her reaction. Her response
indicated an attempt to elaborate, “Well sometimes they just have their air pods, and they just
show up dancing.” I responded with a more explicit probing question, “I am going to challenge
you, have you ever asked them?” My use of the language, “I am going to challenge you” is
evidence of my growth, as I felt more equipped to push Dana. Dana’s response, “No, I have not.
I just let it bug me?” continues to reveal her attitude towards her students’ behavior. There is a
clear sense of resistance here as her students’ behavior pushed against her desire for authority in
her classroom. I continued to lean into the conversation by asking, “How do you interpret their
dancing?” This probing question intended to push Dana into further explaining and elaborating
on her attitude and perception of student dancing. Up until this point, we had not discussed why
it bothered her. She simply stated that it “bugged” her; therefore, I wanted to challenge Dana to
explore her biases. Her response, “As a classroom disruption” is evidence of Dana beginning to
work toward explicitly naming her true frustration about this student behavior. I continue to
probe by asking, “Why?,” which ultimately led to Dana’s ability to explicitly articulate her
117

frustration, “Because their friends are looking at them instead of paying attention to the
discussion.” Dana’s comment indicates that at the root of her interpretation of student behavior
was her desire to maintain power in the classroom. I continued to probe Dana by asking, “Why
do you find that problematic?,” which initiated her response, “They are supposed to be doing
small group discussion. They are on opposite sides of the room and yesterday one student was
dancing and the other was watching.” Her response reveals the idea that at the root of her
dilemma was her desire for power and control in the classroom. Recognizing that we had reached
an important revelation, I transitioned from probing questions to sympathy, “I can see that, one
thing that challenged me from this protocol is step 4, which is what Harold was alluding to. What
is an alternative interpretation of their behavior?” I offered sympathy to remind Dana that her
experience was a problem of practice, we all faced. I then proceeded to offer a suggestion:
“Having a conversation with your students might give you knowledge and understanding behind
their thinking. Perhaps having that convo might build understanding to get you out of your
interpretation.” In this conversation, I used six probing questions to engage Dana in a critical-
dialectical discourse that challenged her to unearth her beliefs about student-teacher
relationships. By engaging Dana in this critical-dialectical discourse, I was able to move her
toward a constructive disorientation, ultimately encouraging her cultural competence
development. Her statement, “I need to ask myself, why does it bother me. Why do I need to
control everything?” is evidence of her becoming aware of her beliefs and how they might have
impacted students and recognizing the need to challenge her biases, which aligns with Wergin’s
(2020) notion of a clear and manageable challenge. Each of my probing questions further
provided a manageable challenge that engaged Dana in critical thinking about her practice.
118

Modeling Vulnerability. As Tharp and Gallimore (1989) assert, modeling is a highly
effective support for learning. Brookfield (2019) builds on the importance of modeling and
advocates for the modeling of vulnerability as it is through this process, of marking our own
complicity, that we can demonstrate to learners how to engage critically, openly, and boldly (p.
28). As Brookfield (2019) asserts, the nature of engaging in discourse around our assumptions
and biases is emotional work that asks teachers to confront their own biases and assumptions (p.
5). By modeling vulnerability, teacher-leaders can normalize the discourse around culture and
change learners’ understanding of the role of culture within our practice.
At the outset of my DiP, I was afraid to demonstrate any vulnerability around my own
practice and development of cultural competence, as I assumed it would compromise my
position as a teacher-leader. As a result, I did not offer any real-world examples from my own
experience or explicitly name things that were problematic in my own practice. I used references
to literature to avoid exposing myself. However, as a result of “getting on the balcony” (Heifetz,
2009) between Cycles 2 and 3, writing analytic memos (Ravitch & Carl, 2021), and writing
descriptive reflections (Jay & Johnson, 2002), I began to recognize the importance of modeling
vulnerability, thus I began sharing my own experiences as models, serving as an assistance for
learners, which is in alignment to Brookfield’s (2019) argument that learners need to see teachers
talking about their experiences and struggles because it encourages them to do the same.
For example, in Session 4, when discussing the definition of culture, as defined by
Hammond (2015) in her Culture Tree, I directed the conversation toward the literature rather
than share personal experiences about culture when the purpose of the conversation was to
unearth our own cultures. In this moment, Hammond’s (2015) Culture Tree functioned as a form
of an assistance to help us discuss our culture. I believed sharing my experiences or mistakes
119

might expose me to judgement and compromise my position as a teacher-leader because it would
demonstrate that I was not competent. The following is an excerpt of our conversation:
T: I’ve been thinking about how we define culture. Culture is always changing.
Sometimes I wonder what the difference between culture and tradition. I don’t
want to go too far into philosophy, but I wonder what is culture. At the end of the
day, when I look at all these things (points to Culture Tree), what is it because it
changes. Generation to generation, period to period, culture changes.
L: Well, Hammond defines it in three ways, shallow, surface, and deep. If you look
at the Culture Tree, those are the ways in which culture is defined.
T: Yea, it’s interesting.
Tabitha’s statement, “I’ve been thinking about how we define culture,” reveals a move toward
cultural competence, as she recognized that there were various definitions to culture and that the
definition mattered. She opened an opportunity for us to explore the topic and engage in a
personal manner when she stated, “Culture is always changing. Sometimes I wonder what the
difference between culture and tradition.” Her use of “I wonder” about the difference between
culture and tradition and “what is culture is” suggest an authentic curiosity. Tabitha made a
connection to her own practice when she stated, “At the end of the day, when I look at all these
things (points to Culture Tree), what is it because it changes. Generation to generation, period to
period, culture changes.” In response, I stated, “Well, Hammond defines it in three ways,
shallow, surface, and deep. If you look at the Culture Tree, those are the ways in which culture is
defined,” which closed the conversation because I missed the opportunity to model what it
looked like to talk about one’s own culture by redirecting the conversation to the literature. I did
not model how I applied the literature to my own experience. By not taking the time to share my
120

understanding of my culture, I signaled that it was not acceptable to share personal responses and
perspectives or have questions. By returning to the literature, I signaled that the literature was
more valuable than Tabitha’s ideas and inquiry. Her response, “Yea, it’s interesting” suggests
that my previous comment signaled to Tabitha that we were required to use Hammond’s (2015)
definition of culture, rather than personal experience, which contradicted my goal of assisting
leaners’ application of literature to their practice.
By Cycle 3, I had grown in my ability to model vulnerability through self-interrogation.
By providing this form assistance, I demonstrated to the learners how to interrogate their beliefs
and practice, but also signaled that it was valuable to share mistakes. We used The Mindful
Reflection Protocol (Dray & Wisneski, 2011) as a form of assistance to help us interrogate a
critical incident in relation to student-teacher interactions. For example, when discussing teacher-
student interactions in Week 8, I shared an experience in which I had not considered the role of
culture in the way I interpreted a student’s behavior and my interactions with him. The following
is an excerpt of our exchange:
L: All of their [students] behavior require considering another interpretation. So
much changes when we challenge our own assumptions about student behavior.
Taking the time to learn their perspective or considering alternative perspectives. I
have a student this year that just frustrates me because he is so cynical, angry,
negative. Everything we do turns into resistance. And it is exhausting so I’ve
resorted to ignoring him. But this week I was going through this protocol and in
order to challenge my assumption that he doesn’t care, I decided to engage in his
perspective and ask him some questions and he just said, “You don’t understand.
You don’t have Asian parents that have ridiculous expectations of you and tell
121

you they don’t love you.” When I engaged in this conversation, the one small
change I am going to do is work towards more positive affirmations with him. I
was grateful that this protocol challenged me to engage with something I wanted
to disengage from.
T: So, I reflected on something from a few years ago. The part where it says, “What
triggers you about this behavior?” This was 2 years ago. I had a student that
always showed up late. This constant of always losing the work. And I would
reprint and reprint. It became a thing. I interpreted it as lack of interest. They
walked in on the first day and said they don’t like English; I like my language.
But going through these discussions together, it made me think it’s not about me
about that they are late. And talking with them one-to-one. I had the conversation
with them and this student wanted to go to Hillview and the student were
intentionally setting themselves up to fail. And in picking the students’ brain I
learned that they take the bus every day and he didn’t want to take the bus every
day. I realized this is so much bigger. Once you open up their story it puts things
into perspective and there are bigger factors at play which helps me position my
attitude differently.
In my statement, “All of their [students] behavior require considering another interpretation. So
much changes when we challenge our own assumptions about student behavior,” I used the
protocol to examine my own assumptions, publicly interrogating my practice that exposed my
biases and assumptions. I demonstrated that I could be wrong, as I made assumptions about my
student’s behavior. I was acknowledging that I had a lack of understanding around his culture, as
I interpreted his behavior from a colorblind perspective. When he revealed that I did not
122

understand him culturally, I learned that his cultural context was influencing the way he showed
up in my class, therefore it caused me to reinterpret his behavior. As a result of this vulnerability,
I signaled that it was important to question our actions and the beliefs underlining those actions. I
explicitly use the language, “considering alternative perspectives” to clearly indicate that
interrogating required trying to understand our interactions through our students’ lens
(Brookfield, 2017). I then proceeded to model vulnerability by sharing an experience when I was
frustrated with a student’s attitude. I explicitly communicated where my mistake was when I
stated, “And it is exhausting so I’ve resorted to ignoring him.” In this moment, I share something
about my practice that I believed to be embarrassing and unethical. I proceed to demonstrate how
I used the literature to examine my actions, “But this week I was going through this protocol and
in order to challenge my assumption that he doesn’t care, I decided to engage in his perspective
and ask him some questions.” By doing this, I was openly demonstrating my willing to rethink
my actions and lean-into uncomfortable topics. I explained what I wanted to differently moving
forward when I said, “When I engaged in this conversation, the one small change I am going to
do is work towards more positive affirmations with him.” It was through this interrogation
process that I became more aware of how my positionality and cultural frame of reference was
incongruent with my students’ cultural context, thus making me more aware and changing my
interactions. In response, Tabitha reciprocated by sharing an experience in which she interpreted
a student’s behavior as a lack of interest. Consistent with my example, Tabitha shared, “So, I
reflected on something from a few years ago,” which reflects Tharp and Gallimore’s (1989) idea
that modeling serves as form of assistance to demonstrate the skills and cognitive performance
being asked of the learner (p. 49). Tabitha’s willingness to describe her initial interpretation of
her student’s behavior, “This was 2 years ago. I had a student that always showed up late. This
123

constant of always losing the work. And I would reprint and reprint. It became a thing. I
interpreted it as lack of interest” could be linked to my example of modeling vulnerability.
Further, she used my example of linking to the literature to link her own practice to the literature
when she stated, “But going through these discussions together, it made me think it’s not about
me about that they are late. And talking with them one-to-one.” Tabitha’s time engaging in this
discourse led her to question her own practice and change her action. She further explained how
the literature prompted her to engage with her students and learn an alternative perspective,
I had the conversation with them and this student wanted to go to Hillview and the
student were intentionally setting themselves up to fail. And in picking the students’ brain
I learned that they take the bus every day and he didn’t want to take the bus every day.
Using the forms of assistance throughout the study, Tabitha was able to engage in an
interrogation of her practice, which ultimately led to a new understanding, revealed when she
stated, “I realized this is so much bigger. Once you open up their story it puts things into
perspective and here are bigger factors at play which helps me position my attitude differently.”
By sharing my mistake and misunderstanding about my students’ behavior I demonstrated
growth in my ability to take risks that would leave me open to judgment, ultimately illustrating
my ability to model vulnerability.
Limitation: Limited Critical Reflection

Before enacting my study action plan, I recognized the importance of critical reflection,
especially as an immigrant, White, female, multilingual teacher-leader. In alignment with
Brookfield’s (2019) call for White educators to be prepared to foreground their own whiteness
(p. 25) in their work, I worked to uncover the ways in which my whiteness interfered with my
ability to promote learners’ development of cultural competence. Within my action research, I
124

attempted to write critical reflections after each research cycle. Despite my efforts to critically
reflect, my reflections remained predominately descriptive and comparative, as defined by Jay
and Johnson (2002); I typically described what was happening or attempted to reframe an
experience considering alternative views. Occasionally, I skipped over the description and
jumped into what Rodgers (2002) describes as interpretation, drawing conclusions before I had
established a more objective view of what had taken place in the interactions. Very rarely did I
consider the implications or establish a renewed perspective from the lens of power (Jay &
Johnson, 2002). Brookfield (2017) asserts that critical reflection is the “sustained and intentional
process of identifying and checking the accuracy and validity of our teaching assumptions” (p. 3)
and more particularly reflection becomes critical when “we start to see [decisions] in their social
and political context, influenced by the structures and workings of power that exist” (p. 9). My
efforts to critically reflect fell short of unearthing my assumptions and illuminating structures of
power. As a result of my struggle to critically reflect on my positionality as an immigrant, White,
female, multilingual individual I was limited in my ability to be an effective leader who
facilitated productive constructive disorientations that would lead to the development of cultural
competence. More specifically, my struggle to critically reflect inhibited me from tackling the
root of my own discomfort with the content and hindered me from recognizing the power
structures inherit in my interactions. In this section, I demonstrate how my reflections remained
descriptive or comparative, while occasionally leaning towards interpretation, inhibiting my
ability to unearth how my positionality interfered with my work.
Over the course of my action research, I wrote seven “critical” reflections. I wrote critical
reflections following each cycle (3) and following any critical incidents (4). Throughout all
seven critical reflections, I remained descriptive and comparative, while occasionally offering
125

interpretations. When I wrote descriptive reflection, I was able to gather evidence of my actions
and decisions, while when I jumped to interpretation, I failed to see how my positionality
impacted my interactions with learners. In addition, I found that I made references to my fear and
hesitancy to challenge learners in each reflection, yet I did not ask questions in relation to
positionality and power, thus the assumptions and biases underlining my interactions with
learners remained unexamined. The following data sets are an example of a typical attempt to
critically reflect.
I attempted to write a critical reflection in reaction to an interaction I had with Tabitha
during Session 4 in Cycle 2. In the interaction I used Hammond’s (2015) Culture Tree to
facilitate a discussion intended to unearth learners’ current understanding of their culture. In this
interaction, Tabitha attempted to describe her beliefs about traditions and culture. In response, I
predominately remained silent. Her language in the interaction made it appear to me that the
conversation pushed Tabitha beyond her comfort zone, which reflected Wergin’s (2020) notion
that learning is deeply emotional and Warford’s (2010) assertion that learning needs to stay
within the leaner’s ZTPD. As a result, I backed down and opened the conversation to another
learner. In my reflection after the meeting, I remained descriptive, thus I was unable to recognize
how my positionality interfered with my ability to lead. The following is an excerpt from my
“critical reflection.”
During this conversation I find myself listening more and as I’m listening, I think two
things are happening in my head. The first is I’m simply listening to understand and to
see and gauge where particularly Tabitha is and what she’s thinking. The second is I find
myself wanting to ask questions but not knowing when and where and how. It seems to
me like there is a fine balance between allowing people to verbally process what they’ve
126

been reflecting and thinking about, but at the same time pushing their thinking. In this
moment I provided Tabitha the space that she needed but I did not do a good job pushing
and probing her thinking. I noticed that Harold was the one who most often asked
questions and the questions he asks were quite pointed. This makes me wonder is it
because they have a closer relationship that he feels comfortable doing that? Or is this a
flaw of mine and my leadership?
In this reflection, I remained descriptive, as defined by Jay and Johnson (2002) when I wrote, “I
find myself listening more” as I was simply describing what I noticed that I was doing. I
proceeded to focus on myself by describing my thinking during the interaction, rather than my
actions, “The first is I’m simply listening to understand and to see and gauge where particularly
Tabitha is and what she’s thinking.” I was sensing Tabitha’s discomfort, yet I was focused on
myself rather than the dynamic between Tabitha and me. This reflection falls short of critical
reflection as I did not ask questions that would check the validity of my assumptions or unearth
the power structures at play during this interaction. I further focused on describing how I was
feeling when I wrote, “The second is I find myself wanting to ask questions but not knowing
when and where and how.” This information was valuable because it revealed how difficult the
act of critical reflection was for me as a novice teacher-leader. The focus on myself and my
emotions, rather than the interaction between Tabitha and me is evidence of how my reflection
failed to be critical as I was not identifying my assumptions (Brookfield, 2017) or the root of my
silence. Inconsistent with Rodgers (2002), I did not slow down enough to be able to describe, in
detail, the incident to engage in critical reflection to better understand why I reacted the way I
did. I made an attempt to name my beliefs about my role as a leader when I stated, “It seems to
me like there is a fine balance between allowing people to verbally process what they’ve been
127

reflecting and thinking about, but at the same time pushing their thinking,” however, the
comment failed to really work to unearth the root of what was causing me hesitation and
discomfort. I attempted to describe my decision to “give Tabitha space” when I stated,
In this moment I provided Tabitha the space that she needed but I did not do a good job
pushing and probing her thinking. I noticed that Harold was the one who most often
asked questions and the questions he asks we’re quite pointed
but the comment is mainly descriptive. Consistent with Jay and Johnson’s (2002) descriptors, I
was answering questions that described what I thought was working, and for whom; how I felt in
the moment; and if I am pleased. I end my reflection with the questions, “This makes me wonder
is it because they have a closer relationship that he feels comfortable doing that? Or is this a flaw
of mine and my leadership?” Both questions are leaning into comparative reflection, as they
attempted to consider alternative perspective, but overall, I remained descriptive of my emotions
in the moment. As a result, I was not able to understand how my positionality limited Tabitha’s
engagement in this incident or what caused my reaction to back away from the conversation.
At the end of Cycle 3, subsequently the end of my action research, I attempted to
critically reflect on my contributions in the third cycle. In my attempt to critically reflect, I
blended interpretations (Rodgers, 2002) and descriptions (Jay & Johnson, 2002). At the end of
each cycle, I used a set of questions to guide my critical reflection. The following excerpt was a
response to the question: Does my contribution to meetings encourage or hinder learning?
I think my contributions to the meeting both encouraged and hindered learning. I think I
hinder learning because I didn’t probe. I feel this real time when I’m in the session. There
are so many missed opportunities to dig further into what my participants are saying but I
don’t know how. I think sometimes the personal experiences I provide don’t do anything
128

for the learning but take up space. Although my intention is to connect or to provide an
example, I think it often just took up space because the participants weren’t necessarily
using my personal experience to make a connection to their teaching or to bring up an
example. And I also noticed I often used personal experience to provide them an example
of what I was expecting to hear, and I don’t think this is a good thing. I do think the ways
that my contributions encouraged learning was most prominently seen when we were
talking about Harold’s curriculum. So, maybe that is a thing. I’m learning is that in order
to have teachers truly critically reflect and engage with their own practice there needs to
be a good amount of time concentrated on something they’re bringing in otherwise the
conversations become very theoretical. I also notice that I’m not very explicit in my
contributions I don’t name elephants in the room, I don’t push back when I hear
something problematic.
In this reflection, I drew a conclusion about my actions (Rodgers, 2002), “I think my
contributions to the meeting both encouraged and hindered learning.” Consistent with Jay and
Johnson’s (2002) definition of description, I wrote about what I was pleased with and what I was
not pleased with when I wrote, as well as Rodgers’s (2002) notion of forming interpretations, “I
think I hinder learning because I didn’t probe. I feel this real time when I’m in the session.” My
use of the language “I think,” and “I feel” indicate that my reflection was focused on my feelings
in relation to my actions, rather than attempting to describe the interaction or unearth the deeper
meaning behind my interpretations and feelings by asking questions about my positionality and
power. My statement, “There are so many missed opportunities to dig further into what my
participants are saying but I don’t know how” suggests that I thought my main issue was a skills
issue, rather than a deeper issue related to my positionality. My statement, “I think sometimes the
129

personal experiences I provide don’t do anything for the learning but take up space” again offers
a weak interpretation of my actions and failed to engage in an interrogation of my assumptions or
my positionality in relation to my leadership in this cycle. I attempted to reveal my beliefs about
my interactions with my learners when I wrote,
Although my intention is to connect or to provide an example, I think it often just took up
space because the participants weren’t necessarily using my personal experience to make
a connection to their teaching or to bring up an example.
Consistent with Jay and Johnson’s (2002) descriptors, I wrote mainly about my feelings and
what I was pleased with. I went on to describe my actions when I wrote, “And I also noticed I
often used personal experience to provide them an example of what I was expecting to hear and I
don’t think this is a good thing.” I offered an interpretation when I wrote, “I do think the ways
that my contributions encouraged learning was most prominently seen when we were talking
about Harold’s curriculum.” My struggle to even describe my actions in detail is reflective of
Rodgers’s (2002) assertion that describing is most difficult stage of the reflection cycle. I
continued to form interpretations when I wrote,
So, maybe that is a thing. I’m learning is that in order to have teachers truly critically
reflect and engage with their own practice there needs to be a good amount of time
concentrated on something they’re bringing in otherwise the conversations become very
theoretical.
I ended my reflection with a description, “I also notice that I’m not very explicit in my
contributions I don’t name elephants in the room, I don’t push back when I hear something
problematic.” While I made important observations throughout the reflection, such as my
hesitancy to be explicit, challenge, or question, I did not attempt to engage with alternative
130

perspectives, or seek to understand the assumptions and values behind my actions. Throughout
my attempt to critically reflect, I fell short of asking questions that intend to unearth the way in
which power and dominant ideology influence my interactions. Ultimately, by not engaging in
quality critical reflection, I was not able to recognize how my positionality interfered with my
leadership until the action research was complete.
Afterword
In this final section, I will discuss where I am now that I have left the field and have
conducted intensive analysis of my practice as a teacher-leader within my ELD/Transitional team
as I worked to promote the development of cultural competence. I will also discuss the path
forward as I continue to develop my practice as a teacher-leader.
Since the time I concluded my action research study, my ELD/Transitional team has
continued to meet on a weekly basis during lunch. Although competing commitments and the
stress of teaching in the first year post pandemic imposed online teaching, we are still committed
to developing our cultural competence in relation to multilingual students.
Through this action research self-study dissertation, I have learned a lot about myself as a
leader working from within my ELD/Transitional team. In this afterword, I reflect on my growth
as a teacher-leader and discuss the implications of my learning. While the intent of an action
research study is not generalizability, I will also discuss the need to promote the development of
cultural competence beyond the ELD/Transitional team.
Addressing My Ambivalence

At the time of research, I was a classroom teacher, and my action research was my first
time enacting a leadership role. In addition, it was the first time I was leading work that
explicitly aimed to address a historically entrenched inequity. While I made progress, I
131

underestimated the level of internal work necessary to lead when addressing teachers’ lack of
cultural competence in relation to ML students. Through this process, I have learned a lot about
my own understanding of my positionality. As result of my data analysis, I began to recognize
that the most fundamental step in becoming a leader is engaging in the on-going internal work of
interrogating my positionality and belief system. At the onset of the action research, I assumed
that I had fully interrogated and understood my positionality, especially in relation to my work as
an educator. Throughout my time in the EdL program, I engaged in literature and critical
discussions that led me to a theoretical understanding of my positionality as an immigrant,
White, female, multilingual individual, I could name my positionality as a white, middle-class
woman, who was representative of most of the teaching work force, and I understood that my
positionality had implications for how I engaged; however, it was not until the enactment of my
action research that my theoretical understanding of my positionality came to life. At the
beginning of the action research, I presumed that interrogating my positionality was an action
completed once, rather than on-going. Through my action research, I came to understand the way
my positionality as a white leader allowed me to hide behind literature and theories, avoid asking
the pointed questions, and circumvent the explicit naming of inequalities. Further, through the
action research, I recognized how I projected assumptions from my experience onto my
multilingual students, and I found myself reacting to colleagues’ comments.
As a result of this new understanding, I have become conscious and intentional about my
efforts to continuously interrogate my positionality and the need to address moments when I
naturally pull away from conversations that center culture. As mentioned previously, our team
continues to meet regularly, once a week. Through this study, I have learned to interrogate my
positionality and power, systematically and regularly. I now use guiding questions for critical
132

self-reflection after each team meeting. I regularly take time to call into question my actions and
words during our meetings. When I recognize that my actions are problematic or I stay silent, I
lean into taking ownership by communicating with the team. For example, immediately
following the action research, we began preparing for the ELPAC testing. At first, I followed my
usual behavior by staying silent. However, after our initial meeting, I used my guiding questions
for critical reflection to interrogate the implications of my silence. I recognized that by staying
silent, I was not working toward cultural competence in relation to ELPAC testing and
multilingual students. As a result, in our next meeting, I pushed against our original plan to
spend the month of April as test-prep. I acknowledged the need to prepare students for the
ELPAC as that is the current system of power and we have an obligation to help our students
navigate the system. However, I also engaged my colleagues in a conversation of the purpose,
history, and implication of the ELPAC for our ML students. Thus, we worked towards
developing a more culturally competent preparation plan to help students succeed while creating
learning opportunities, instead of engaging in test-prep style teaching.
As I continue in my role as a teacher-leader, specifically on the ELD/Transitional team, I
will continue to work towards pushing against my own ambivalence due to my positionality by
engaging in the critical reflection. I will use the critical reflection to help create constructive
disorientations for my colleagues that promote the development and application of cultural
competence. The following section will discuss in detail the value and ways in which I now
engage in critical reflection.
The Value of Critical Reflection
A retrospective takeaway from conducting action research is the value of critical
reflection. At the beginning of my action research, I underestimated the difficulty and value of
133

critical reflection and the necessity for teachers (my learners) to engage in critical reflection.
While I attempted to write critical reflections, I found myself simply describing my feelings,
rather than working to unearth my assumptions and biases. I struggled to slow down to describe
and analyze so that I could ask critical questions that would unearth my assumptions and biases.
As a result, I struggled to recognize the ways in which my whiteness impacted my decisions and
actions as a leader. Further, I did not examine my practice in relation to my dual role as a
colleague and researcher. Because I had a theoretical understanding of my positionality and the
theories used in this action research, I assumed I was prepared to engage in discourse that
promoted the development of cultural competence. As a result, I often assumed a position of
sympathy, fearing I would push participants too hard and compromise my rapport with them,
instead of challenging them to interrogate their practice. Furthermore, because I was able to
articulate my positionality and had a theoretical understanding of the implication of my
positionality on my practice, I underestimated the level of vulnerability necessary to engage in
the type of discourse I was intending to facilitate. Consequently, I pulled away from critical
engagement by leaning on literature. As a result of the study, I recognize the need to collect data
of my actions and slow down to critically reflect on a regular basis. I learned that the recording,
slowing down to really see what is, is necessary for me to critically reflect, otherwise I simply
focus on my feelings.
To hold myself accountable I developed a critical reflection protocol using the Rodgers
(2002) reflective cycle in which I work toward a description of the incident first, followed by a
layer of critical lens, using explicit questions designed to bring to the surface my positionality as
an immigrant, White, female, multilingual individual. This protocol requires several days to
complete, as on the first day I document the interaction with a level of detail that allows me to
134

see the room, capturing my decisions, actions, and statements, and others’ responses. I
intentionally remove statement such as, “I feel” and “I think” as those lead to analysis and/or
interpretation. Only once I have created some distance, usually the next day or a few days
afterward, do I go back and continue the reflective cycle by asking questions about my power
and positionality. These questions include: How did my race influence my work in this incident?
How does my students’ racial background influence my actions? What is the impact of race on
my beliefs about the [relevant topic]? How did I situate myself in this interaction? How did I
negotiate the power structure? How did I situate and negotiate leaners’ knowledge, experiences,
and expertise with my own? (Milner, 2010).
Using this protocol has allowed me the opportunity to continue working towards the
development of cultural competence within my team. Recently, the team continued to meet
regularly to discuss a common public speaking assessment. In our original planning of the
common public speaking assessment, we had relied heavily on Western notions of public
speaking, such as the need for strong eye contact and the use of English only. By asking myself
the question, “What is the impact of race on my beliefs about the [relevant topic]?” I was able to
recognize how our practice was marginalizing students’ cultural assets. As a result, I engaged our
team in a discussion about the role of culture in public speaking. We discussed our cultural
understanding of public speaking and our students’ cultural understanding of public speaking and
how we could bridge the two to provide more equitable learning opportunities that honored
students’ cultural assets in relation to public speaking.
Moving forward, I will use this critical reflection to wrestle with my identity as a white,
female, and multilingual teacher leader. Further, to hold myself accountable, I will work toward
135

developing a thought-partner with whom I can have bi-monthly discussions how my identity as a
white multilingual individual impacts my work with students and colleagues.
Staying Engaged
To stay engaged in the work toward developing teacher cultural competence, I will seek
roles outside of the classroom to lead professional learning opportunities within my district. I
would like to move beyond the ELD/Transitional team and English department. Language
teachers have a foundation of understanding of the role of language in providing learning
opportunities, but the work needs to go beyond language teachers. All teachers need to develop
cultural competence to provide equitable learning opportunities for their multilingual students. I
will engage other teachers in cycles of inquiry in which they work toward critical self-reflection
and a deeper understanding of culture and its role in our practice.
I recognize that I had the unique advantage of working with learners who were engaged
and open to engaging in the internal work necessary to develop cultural competence, however
that will not be the case as I step outside of my current role and begin working with educators
who may be more apprehensive. Participants in this study were already somewhat aware of the
role of language and culture in teaching, as they were all language teachers, however, when
moving beyond this group of individuals, I will use this study to inform my decisions. One of the
key takeaways from this study is the importance of naming our culture; it is incredibly difficult
to understand students’ culture when one cannot name their own. Consistent with my conceptual
framework, when working with teachers in the future, I will begin by having learners work
towards defining culture and naming their own culture. However, as I revise my conceptual
framework to incorporate cultural humility, I would also begin by promoting a mindset of
cultural humility (Tervalon & Murray-Garcia, 1998). Secondly, using a workshop model, I
136

would center teacher practice, as I learned teachers are more likely to engage and remain
inquisitive when they are working with their own practice. By centering their practice, they are
in a better position to slow teachers down to interrogate their practice. A critical component of
expanding this is recognizing the appropriate structures that need to be in place and clearly
establishing the why. As a leader, it is essential that I establish a clear sense of purpose for
teachers and why developing cultural competence is necessary, especially when working with
multilingual students.

137

References

Ahern, W. H. (1976). Assimilationist racism: The case of the “friends of the Indian.” The
Journal of Ethnic Studies, 4(2), 23–32.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Arnold O. Beckman High School. (2019). Arnold O. Beckman High School School
Accountability Report Card.
https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1585854495/tustink12caus/cjnpzwlx0rcvjw6griqa/
2019_School_Accountability_Report_Card_CDE_Arnold_O_Beckman_High_School_20
200127.pdf
Atkins, L., & Duckworth, V. (2019) Research methods for social justice and equity in education.
Bloomsbury Research Methods for Education. Bloomsbury.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
Brookfield, S. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons,
Incorporated.
Brookfield, S. (2019). Teaching race: how to help students unmask and challenge racism (1
st

ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Brooks, J. S., & Tooms, A. K. (2008). A dialectic of social justice: Finding synergy between Life
and work through reflection and dialogue. Journal of School Leadership, 18(2), 134–163.
https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460801800202
138

Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Birmingham, D. (2020). Rethinking high-leverage practices in
justice-oriented ways. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(4), 477–494.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119900209
California Department of Education. (2017). Arnold O. Beckman Academic Performance. 2019.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/30736430102871/2019/academic-
performance#english-learner-progress
California Department of Education. (2017). English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics
Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments Test Results at a Glance. 2019. https://caaspp-
elpac.cde.ca.gov/caaspp/DashViewReport?ps=true&lstTestYear=2019&lstTestType=B&
lstGroup=4&lstSubGroup=160&lstGrade=11&lstSchoolType=A&lstCounty=00&lstDistr
ict=00000&lstSchool=0000000&lstFocus=a
California Department of Education. (2020). Improving Education for Multilingual and English
Learner Students. https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/er/documents/mleleducation.pdf.
Cochran-Smith, & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2001). Multicultural education: Solution or problem for American schools?
Journal of Teacher Education, 52(2), 91–93.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002001
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2001). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage
Publications.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.) (pp. 65–86). SAGE.
Crawford, J., & Gross, E. (2019). Of language learners’ background knowledge. Language, 48.
139

Dei, G. J. S., & Johal, G. S. (2005). Critical issues in anti-racist research methodologies. Peter
Lang.
Domhoff, W. (2005). Basics of studying power.
http://whorulesamerica.net/methods/studying_power.html.
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
Dray, B. J., & Wisneski, D. B. (2011). Mindful reflection as a process for developing culturally
responsive practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(1), 28–36.
https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991104400104
Garrett, T. (2008). Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study
of three elementary teachers. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(1), 34–47.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23869529
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487102053002003
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice (3
rd
ed.). Teachers
College Press.
Genzuk, M. (2011). Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) for language
minority students. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research Digital Papers Series.
Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research, University of Southern California.
http://www.use.edu/dept/education/CMMR/DigitalPapers/SDAIE_Genzuk.pdf.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.). Pearson.
140

Hanover Research. (2020). Research brief and discussion guide: Culturally responsive
curriculum [Brochure] Hanover Research. https://www.wasa-
oly.org/WASA/images/WASA/6.0%20Resources/Equity/DISCUSSION%20GUIDE---
CULTURALLY%20RESPONSIVE%20CURRICULUM.pdf
Hammond, Z., & Jackson, Y. (2015). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: promoting
authentic engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students.
Corwin, a SAGE Company.
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.
Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the line: staying alive through the dangers of
leading. Harvard Business School Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2
nd
ed.). Sage.
Hollie, S. (2017). Culturally and linguistically responsive teaching and learning (Second Edit:
classroom practices for student success. Shell Educational Publishing.
Hollins, E. (2015). Culture in school learning: revealing the deep meaning (3
rd
ed.). Routledge.
Horn, I., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00051-8.
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
141

Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1331.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
Kim, J., de Long, S. P. A., Ortega, M. C., Kelly, L. A., Dray, B. J., & Casias, M. (2019). Cultural
and cognitive autonomy: Teacher motivational practices for emergent bilingual
students. The Elementary School Journal, 120(1), 32–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/704515
Knowles, M. (1978). Andragogy: Adult learning theory in perspective. Community College
Review, 5(3), 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155217800500302
Ladson‐Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849509543675
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational Researchers, 35(7), 3–12.
Larrivee, B. (2008). Development of a tool to assess teachers’ level of reflective practice.
Reflective Practice, 9(3), 341—360. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623940802207451
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 21(2), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.12.005
Lucas, T., Villegas, A., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher
education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English language learners. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108322110
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3
rd
ed.). SAGE.
142

Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational
policy, 1980-2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212471417
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley
& Sons. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education,
1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172
Milner, H.R., (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race, Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320308200
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice,
31(2), 132–141.
Mora-Flores, E. (2018). Integrated English language development: Supporting English learners
across the curriculum. Shell Educational Publishing.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2019). National Student Group Scores and Score
Gaps. 2019. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/groups/?grade=12
Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7
th
ed.). Sage.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.
https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.982l873k2ht16m77
143

Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017007017
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical,
and methodological. (2
nd
ed.). SAGE.
Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2017). Reason and rigor: How conceptual frameworks guide
research. SAGE Publications.
Rodgers. S. C. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230–253.
Sadowski, M. (2016). Safe is not enough: better schools for LGBTQ students. Harvard Education
Press.
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 221–
241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9071-2.
Santamaría, L. J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers College Record,
111(1), 214–247.
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
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.
144

Tervalon, M. & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural Humility Versus Cultural Competence: A
Critical Distinction in Defining Physician Training Outcomes in Multicultural
Education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117–125.
https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233
Tharp, R.G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173698
The National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition. California. 2019.
https://ncela.ed.gov/t3sis/California.php
Warford, M. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines my enactment as a teacher-leader in the ELD/Transitional department at Arnold O. Beckman High School. To provide a holistic examination of my teacher-leadership practice, I deconstruct my use of structure and andragogical moves in relation to fellow English Language teachers. My action research question was: How do I promote the development of teachers’ cultural competence in relation to their multilingual students? I collected fieldnotes, reflections, and documents developed in my role as a teacher-leader. I found that I was able to move learners from limited understanding of the role of identity and cultural values in their instructional practices to an awareness of the role of identity and cultural values in their instructional practices, moving participants closer towards the development of cultural competence.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Developing sociopolitical consciousness and cultural competence to dismantle structural racism and hegemony within my high school English classroom

PDF

Culturally responsive teaching in science: an action research study aimed at supporting a resident teacher in developing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

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

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

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

PDF

Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model

PDF

Leading conditions to support reclassification of long-term multilingual learners

PDF

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

PDF

How teacher preparation programs prepare White teachers to teach in urban school settings

PDF

Anti-racist adaptive leadership: an action research study on supporting principals in predominantly white schools to develop color consciousness and support future anti-racist practices

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Gog, Linda (author)

Core Title Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/02/2022

Defense Date 07/05/2022

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

Tag cultural competence,multilingual learners,OAI-PMH Harvest,Teacher Education,teacher professional development

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email lindagog@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375987

Unique identifier UC111375987

Legacy Identifier etd-GogLinda-11070

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Gog, Linda

Type texts

Source 20220803-usctheses-batch-967 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu