University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Incorporation of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to Improve My Practice and Address the
Opportunity Gap
by
Melanie Golyer-Blair

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

August 2022

© Copyright by Melanie Golyer-Blair 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Melanie Golyer-Blair certifies the Approval of this Dissertation

Akilah Lyons-Moore
Julie Slayton
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022
iv
Abstract
This qualitative action research examined the following question: How do I as a teacher
incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy with students to create conditions that address the
opportunity gap? This self-study action research took place Spring 2021 at the elementary school
where I am a second-grade teacher. Using jottings, fieldnotes, and critical reflections, in
conjunction with my conceptual framework, I systematically examined my practice. I found that
(a) I communicated differing levels of expectations for different students, based on my
assumptions about their abilities, (b) I did not demonstrate accessing funds of knowledge and
was not able to incorporate it into my teaching because discovered I needed to be intentional, (c)
I made progress towards being authentically caring, though it is still an area of growth, and (d) I
did not demonstrate being present during lessons, which led to missed opportunities to
successfully incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy into my practice. I was unable to fully
answer my research question. The following concepts were planned, but not enacted (a) rigorous
instruction, (b) creating a positive classroom environment through positive peer interactions, (c)
developing a community of learners, and (d) developing cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness.
v
Dedication
To my grandmother, Linda Golyer, I would not have undertaken this doctoral journey, had she
not instilled in me a love of education. For a woman who was not able to attend college herself,
she understood the power education can have. She emphasized the importance of attending
college because she wanted me to have a better life, with less hardship and struggle than she had
had. After each college course, she would call and ask me about what I had learned, what I had
read, and who I had met; vicariously enjoying the experience alongside me. I want to thank her
for always reminding me what a privilege and gift higher education is. Although she was unable
to see me reach the finish line and unable to ask me endless questions about the process, her
influence lives on in this document and my continuing role as an educator and a leader. I hope
that I can embody her warmth, kindness, compassion, and never-ending curiosity
vi
Acknowledgements
To my committee chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian: Thank you for your constant patience and
support as I conducted this self-study action research. I am so grateful for your guidance,
feedback, and questioning.
To my committee, Dr. Julie Slayton and Dr. Akilah Lyons-Moore: Thank you for all of
the ways you have helped me learn during this process. I appreciate the readings you shared and
for pushing me to grow as a teacher and as a teacher educator.
To my family and friends, Mom, Dad, Cory, and Shameka. Thank you for the endless
support and encouragement over the time it took me to write this dissertation.
vii
Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Context ............................................................................................................................................ 4
My Role .............................................................................................................................. 6
Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................................. 10
Observation and Critical Reflection.................................................................................. 17
Teacher/Student Interactions ............................................................................................ 19
Updated Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................... 27
Research Methods ......................................................................................................................... 30
Participants and Settings ................................................................................................... 30
Actions .............................................................................................................................. 32
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols ...................................................................... 37
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 41
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 43
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 45
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 46
Findings......................................................................................................................................... 47
Differing Expectations ...................................................................................................... 48
Accessing Funds of Knowledge........................................................................................ 65

viii
Authentic Care .................................................................................................................. 78
Being Present .................................................................................................................... 87
Afterword ...................................................................................................................................... 97
Fully Enacting Concepts in My Conceptual Framework .................................................. 98
Unfinished Work ............................................................................................................. 101
References ................................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix A: Critical Reflections Questions............................................................................... 111
Appendix B: Midpoint Interview Protocol ................................................................................. 113
Appendix C: Final Observation Protocol .................................................................................... 115
Appendix D: Codebook .............................................................................................................. 117
Appendix E: Family Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 118

ix

List of Tables
Table 1: Numbers and Types of Data Being Collected 41
Table 2: Number of Interactions with Students 54
Table 3: Types of Questions 63

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 12
Figure 2: Updated Conceptual Framework 28
Figure 3: Lesson Plan Excerpt 86

1

Incorporation of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to Improve My Practice and Address the
Opportunity Gap
The student population in the United States continues to grow increasingly diverse
(Banks, 2009; Garrett & Segall, 2013). Evidence to support what demographers have been
predicting for years comes from a NCES report released in 2014 that revealed that for the first
time there were more non-White kindergarteners enrolled in U.S. schools than White students.
This symbolizes the changing racial demographics in the United States (Banks, 2009; Howard &
Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017; NCES, 2014).
Although the United States is growing more diverse each year, educators remain
predominantly White (NCES, 2019). This racial difference between students and teachers
matters because it can lead to cultural misunderstandings between White teachers and their
ethnically diverse students. Cultural misunderstandings are at the root of many issues in
education.
Race has consequences in education because minoritized students are historically
underserved, disproportionately represented in underfunded schools and/or have unqualified
teachers (Howard & Minkoff, 2017). Khalifa et al. (2016) define minoritized students as
individuals from racially oppressed communities. These students have been marginalized
because of their non-dominant race, ethnicity, religion, language and/or citizenship. The term
marginalized recognizes the historically and continuingly oppressive contexts, including the
structures that perpetuate this oppression.
Minoritized students are not served well by education, one reason being the lack of
preparation and reflection on the part of their predominantly White teachers, resulting in negative
outcomes. Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2019 report
2

compared to the 1992 report shows that although the population grows more diverse, there have
been no significant changes in White-Black or White-Latinx score gaps in math or reading
(NAEP, 1992, 2019). The opportunity gaps and differential learning outcomes between Black,
Latinx, Native American, and certain Asian American students and their White counterparts has
been repeatedly documented (Howard & Rodrigues-Minkoff, 2017; Milner 2010). Evidence that
is symptomatic of these opportunity gaps are disproportionate expulsion and suspensions as well
as an overrepresentation in special education of historically minoritized students. The U.S.
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), in a 2014 report, found that discipline
disparities are distinct along racial and cultural lines, and that these disparities begin in preschool
and continue throughout a student’s academic career. Teachers who do not use culturally
relevant pedagogy (CRP) cause or have exacerbated these gaps.
The disparities described above stem from structural inequities, poor teacher quality, lack
of schools’ engagement with families, lack of student motivation, and racism present in school
practices. Identifying disparities in performance and discipline are not representations of
marginalized students, but evidence that historically entrenched inequity exists. Often when such
statistics are used they are used in deficit terms. Deficit ideology or deficit thinking is a
worldview that is used to justify unequal outcomes and it discounts sociopolitical contexts
(Gorski, 2011, 2012; Milner, 2010; Sleeter, 2004). Deficit thinking on the part of the educators is
partly to blame for the continued opportunity gap. When discussing student achievement data,
the social conditions that grant some people greater access to high quality schooling compared to
others needs to be a part of the conversation. Milner (2017) states that it appears that Black
students are underachieving, but really it is the educational system that is not helping them,
because the current educational system forces students to reify the cultural practices of the White
3

majority. Ladson-Billings (1995; 2014) calls this an education debt that the educational system
owes to many students, especially minoritized students of color or those living in poverty. Milner
(2010) states that color-blindness, deficit mindsets, and low expectations all lead to an
opportunity gap.
Although there are many factors contributing to the opportunity gap, one factor that can
be addressed in my classroom and school site level is the lack of culturally relevant pedagogy
enacted by teachers. This is in part due to the cultural mismatch between teachers and their
students. Cultural mismatch needs to be addressed in the current context of my school site and
the difference in the demographics of our teachers and students, as well as how my context is a
representation of larger systemic problems. The fact that a majority of teachers are White and
middle class, while the student population is increasingly diverse is just one of the many factors
contributing to the continued marginalization of students. And while I am not arguing that White
and middle-class teachers cannot be good teachers to historically marginalized students, often,
the cultural mismatch results in pedagogical practices that do not serve historically marginalized
students best, especially when teachers do not reflect critically on their assumptions, ideologies
and how these shape their practice. I acknowledge that there are many factors contributing to the
inequities marginalized students face, however for the purpose of this study I am choosing to
narrow my focus on the pedagogy that results from a cultural mismatch between students and
teachers. Although I am not White, I present as such and have also internalized many of the
practices that perpetuate dominant White ideology. The presence of cultural mismatch at my
school site has illuminated the need for a change in pedagogical approach, both in my classroom
and school wide.
4

Context
Westside Union School District is a school district with approximately 10,000 students
from grades Kindergarten to eighth grade (California School Dashboard, 2019). When
examining data from the California Department of Education the demographic changes are
remarkably like the national demographics described previously. Since the earliest report in
1998–1999, the population has increased from 6,312 students to 9,622 students. Over the last 20
years the district has seen a rise in the Latinx population from 14.4% to 47.9%. The Black
student population has remained more or less near 10% of the student population. In 2019, 50%
of students were socioeconomically disadvantaged as well.
Even though the student population has been changing, the teacher population has
remained predominantly White and middle class. In the 1997–1998 school year 94% of teachers
in the district were White and in 2019, 80.8% of teachers were White. Although the teacher
population is becoming slightly more diverse, it is not representative of the students we serve. In
2019, only 40 teachers out of 375 were Latinx and 19 were Black.
Student outcome data show disparities by marginalized groups. Although the Black
student population is only 10% of the district, suspension rates were higher for Black students, as
well as foster youth and students with disabilities, compared to their White and Latinx peers.
Likewise, Black, Latinx, English Language Learners (ELL), and socioeconomically
disadvantaged students performed worse on the Smarter Balance assessment (SBAC) in math
and language arts compared to their White and Asian American peers (California School
Dashboard, 2019). For example, on the English Language Arts SBAC test Black students were
47.4 points below standard, ELL students were 37.7 points below standard, socioeconomically
disadvantaged students were 25.5 points below standard, and Latinx students performed 9.2
5

points below standard indicated by an orange classification on the accountability system. White
students, on the other hand, performed 11.7 points above standard indicated by a green
classification on the accountability system. Finally, Asian students performed 49.5 points above
the standard and were the only group in the blue.
Even more shocking are the SBAC mathematics scores. Black students performed 85.6
points below standard, Latinx students performed 44.9 points below standard, ELL students
performed 66.5 points below standard, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students performed
60.2 points below standard indicated by yellow. Whereas White students scored 16.7 points
above standard and Asian students performed 34.6 points above standard indicated by green.
These scores are not shared as deficits of marginalized groups, but to draw attention to the
failures of current teaching practices. The scores above highlight that the current teaching
practices, beliefs and the lack of culturally relevant pedagogy incorporated by a predominantly
White teaching staff has negative outcomes for minoritized students.
When discussing the “achievement gap” in my district, I have experienced conversations
about my district and my school site’s data, in which students and their families are often blamed
for their so-called lack of achievement. What is not present in these conversations is what we are
going to do about it or what role, as educators, we play in these outcomes. Increased
accountability, testing, and interventions are often discussed, implemented and quickly discarded
and results do not change. Somehow when looking at data that is disaggregated by race, we do
not discuss race. A color-blind approach is often used, in which marginalized students and the
historically oppressive structures that continue to keep them marginalized remain unchallenged.
When students receiving disciplinary action, sitting at the detention table, isolated from their
peers in classrooms, and students in special education classrooms are disproportionally
6

minoritized students, I find myself asking what are we not doing for these students? So often the
conversation about our students is centered on blaming them and their families, rather than
focusing the blame on ourselves and taking responsibility for our inequitable practices and
structures. Our district and school data indicates that our practices are inequitable and
perpetuating the opportunity gap for our students.
My Role
I have worked as a teacher for Westside Union School District for 6 years. I was
originally an upper grades teacher and now teach second grade. I have been a second grade
teacher for four years. In my role as an upper-grades teacher I witnessed first-hand students who
had six years to internalize their teachers’ expectations of them. Sometimes students’
internalization of their value is negative and compounds over time. Students often internalize the
expectations their teachers have of them, even in primary grades (Hatt, 2012; Valenzuela, 1999).
My personal experiences illustrate that lack of belief that all students are capable of learning is
one way teachers minoritize their students and perpetuate the opportunity gap.
One approach advanced by educational scholars to narrow the opportunity gap is to enact
culturally relevant pedagogy. By incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy, I hope that all
students will feel like they are valued, that their funds of knowledge and experiences add to all
students’ learning, and that as their teacher I have high expectations for them, knowing they are
capable of accomplishing what they set out to accomplish. Culturally relevant pedagogy can also
help to combat the entrenched inequities that lead to the opportunity gap minoritized students
experience.
In addition to being a second grade teacher, my other role in my setting is a teacher
leader. In this role I help to plan staff meetings, support teachers with curriculum and
7

technology, and meet with new teachers to help them plan lessons and try new strategies. I would
consider myself an emergent leader because my leadership role is unofficial. I am often asked by
administration to provide support and teachers at my site also solicit my advice. As an emergent
leader, I have an opportunity to address the opportunity gap in our school by facilitating
culturally relevant pedagogy in other classrooms as well as implementing it in my own. If I truly
want to promote equity for all students, then I need to encourage and support the use of culturally
relevant pedagogy in other classrooms, not just enact it in my own classroom. I want to go
beyond my classroom and have a school that enacts culturally relevant practices, but recognize
that I first need to understand and enact it in my own classroom before I encourage its use in
others’.
The historically entrenched inequity that is present in my setting is the opportunity gap. I
believe applying culturally relevant pedagogy in my own classroom will help both the
historically oppressive structures that still exist and uncover how we are complicit in reproducing
entrenched inequities. Incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy is really a moral issue in
bridging the opportunity gap and providing a welcoming place where students’ cultures are
valued (Khalifa et al., 2016). Culturally relevant pedagogy not only values students’ funds of
knowledge and cultures, but it also fosters sociopolitical and critical consciousness, so that all
students can critique the current oppressive structures and develop the tools to disrupt these
structures in the future (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris & Alim, 2014).
Through observation of my own practice and critical reflection I intended to implement
and examine several components of culturally relevant pedagogy present or not present in my
classroom. These included authentic caring, developing a community of learners by building
relationships between students and with students, high expectations, rigorous instruction, cultural
8

competence and sociopolitical consciousness (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2013, 2018;
Ladson-Billings, 1995; Matsumura et al., 2008; Milner, 2017; Paris & Alim; 2014; Valenzuela,
1999). Observation and critical reflection were used to help me unearth if there is a misalignment
between my words, actions, and beliefs. Engaging in critical reflection also helped me challenge
biases and beliefs that I hold that are reproducing the status quo in the education system
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Hatt, 2012; Gay, 2013). The biases and beliefs that I hold come
from the mismatch in my race/ethnicity compared to my students, my past experiences, as well
as my prescription to dominant ideology. I have benefitted from and am guilty of unintentionally
perpetuating the status quo. Critical reflection is a helpful tool to uncover hegemonic practices
that I engage in. It also helped me to examine which of my actions perpetuate oppressive
structures, so that I can improve my practice and deepen my learning.
Engaging in critical reflection was meant to disrupt hegemonic and oppressive structures
within my context (Brookfield, 2017). To that end, my research question for this study was: How
do I as a teacher incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy with students to create conditions that
address the opportunity gap?
Larger systematic problems, teacher, and administrative structures are not meeting the
needs of all their students and color-blind or racist practices needed to be questioned and
disrupted. Drawing on Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) I needed to both examine
my external actions, practices, and behaviors as well as my internal beliefs, mindset, and ways of
understanding. I felt that I could no longer accept that students and their families are to blame,
and that it was time to look inward: What practices am I employing that go against my beliefs
that all students can achieve? How am I perpetuating the status quo that does not value all
students? What can I change in my classroom and pedagogy to show students that they are cared
9

for, capable of anything, and their cultures are additive to the learning of our classroom
community?
I became an elementary school teacher because I loved attending school. School was a
safe place for me, in which I could be successful. I am Latinx and grew up socioeconomically
disadvantaged, and I have realized that I was successful in school because my appearance leads
others to perceive me as White. I was also successful in school because I prescribed to the
dominant ideology and subtractively assimilated to a school system that did not value my
families’ history and culture. My success meant giving up parts of myself that did not fit the
status quo that values White dominant ideology.
Reflecting on my school experience now, I realize that I participated in hegemonic
practices and benefited from a system that also hurt me in building cultural capacity. I recognize
as I pursue the work of shifting my pedagogy to use culturally relevant pedagogy that I will have
to acknowledge systemic prejudices that sustain the opportunity gap for marginalized students. I
also acknowledge that I will have to grapple with uncovering how I was complacent or
intentionally involved in perpetuating an unequal education for my students. I became a teacher
because I wanted all students to learn and to achieve the American dream. Previously I would
have said that I was an example of a successful minority achieving the American dream. Now I
push back on the notion of the American dream because it means subscribing to a White
dominant ideology that oppresses and marginalizes students. Through this work I hoped to
change my own practice, centralizing my own learning in the process. I wanted to first look
inward, at how I was incorporating CRP, so that I can then use my role as a teacher leader to
enact change. How can I ask others to change their pedagogy, if I did not first systemically
examine my own practice? In the long-term, my colleagues and I can work to be change agents
10

who address the opportunity gap and make progress towards paying back some of the
educational debt.
Conceptual Framework
First I will introduce my initial conceptual framework (CF), which guided the planning
and actions of this self-study action research. Then I will move to discuss my revised conceptual
framework, that resulted from revisiting my initial CF after systemically examining my practice
through data analysis.
The purpose of developing this conceptual framework was to provide my own theory that
demonstrated how I made sense of the research about culturally relevant pedagogy and critical
reflection to improve conditions for student learning and address the opportunity gap. It also
provides a picture of how I connected the literature to my own context and actions (Maxwell,
2013). By developing this conceptual framework related to my own practice, I was able to take
intelligent action once in the field (Brookfield, 2017; Rodgers, 2002). The conceptual framework
described below acted as the lens through which I applied the literature and guided my action
research (Maxwell, 2013).
The goal of my action research represented in this conceptual framework was to use
culturally relevant pedagogy in my own classroom. The literature is clear that culturally relevant
pedagogy promises to close the opportunity gap for students in settings like mine. Ladson-
Billings (2014) said that the secret behind culturally relevant pedagogy is its “ability to link
principles of learning with deep understanding of (and appreciation for) culture” (p. 77).
Changing pedagogical practices to be culturally relevant changes the narrative about historically
marginalized students to one that looks at what I can learn from students and helps to create
11

conditions to ensure their success. In Figure 1, I present my initial conceptual framework
1
,
informed by literature, which supported my work as a teacher and shaped my action research.

1
I originally had a more complex visual that included my role as a teacher leader and
interactions with colleagues. It incorporated leadership literature. However, I did not
systematically analyze the data collected on my teacher leadership moves, so I updated my
conceptual framework to only represent what is being discussed in this study.

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
12

13

Context
The entire conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 is situated within several
contexts, represented by the large oval encompassing the rest of the concepts. These contexts
included the larger societal context like systemic structures and policies, the district level that
implements those policies, and my school site. These contexts guided, influenced, provided
opportunities, or constrained the actions/practices necessary to enact culturally relevant
pedagogy and improve my practice. I describe the following contexts to bring attention to my
recognition that my work was situated within them.
The larger societal context includes systemic structures and policies. An example of
systemic structures is the high stakes standards-based testing movement. Oakes et al. (2018)
described how standards are developed by the federal government and adopted by state
governments to shape curriculum so as to raise student achievement. This movement puts
pressures on schools and teachers to raise test scores but does not provide adequate support to
achieve the desired results.
Another issue with the high stakes testing movement is that it applies the same standards
to all students at the same time, and does not allow for much differentiation to meet the needs of
students, especially those from marginalized groups. Oakes et al. (2018) described this structure
as a factory model approach, in which all students receive the same education at the same time in
the same way. The goal of the factory model approach is to structure schools like a business and
achieve effective and efficient schooling for all students. According to Oakes et al. (2018)
meritocracy, deficit thinking, and racial superiority distort conceptions of equitable and effective
schooling. The result is high accountability with a top down approach, rather than actually

14
improving schools. These policies from the federal level leave little room for or encouragement
of culturally relevant pedagogy.
The smaller context of my school site and district include policies, structures, school
culture, and demographics. These two more local contexts are situated within the larger systemic
context just described. At the district level there are policies and structures that influenced this
action research. For example, the board and superintendent choose the professional development
that is offered to teachers. A potential constraint is that the professional learning is not centered
around closing the opportunity gap or how to implement culturally relevant pedagogy. Oakes et
al. (2018) described how local district officials are beholden to politics and pressures from their
constituents. Not surprisingly, the politics present in my district focus on improving test scores
with curriculum implementation and accountability through benchmarks and data collection
about student achievement. Accountability measures constrain the use of culturally relevant
pedagogy because there is a push for time being spent on test preparation. Data collection solely
about student achievement, when culturally relevant pedagogy is not being implemented,
sustains the deficit narrative about minoritized students without a deep examination of teacher
practice.
Demographics also influence the district and the work of implementing culturally
relevant pedagogy. As stated above, a predominantly White, middle class teaching force and a
demographically diverse student population leads to a cultural mismatch, making it harder to
implement culturally relevant pedagogy. Gay (2013) argued that all teachers do not have the
same beliefs, customs, and values of their students, but as educators we have to accept cultural
pluralism and learn about our diverse students’ funds of knowledge. A cultural mismatch, though
not making it impossible, makes it harder for teachers to learn about and use students’ funds of

15
knowledge in their instruction. This action research focused on enacting practices as a teacher to
do just what Gay suggested is necessary.
The context represented by the outer oval in my conceptual framework also includes
curriculum implementation and professional development. At my school site there is freedom to
supplement curriculum, independence to teach differently than peers, and very little fidelity to
adhere to a yearlong plan, which allows opportunity to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy.
However, at the time of this study there was no discussion about the culture of our students or
training provided to equip teachers with the ability to pursue more culturally relevant practices.
Staff meetings and professional development in my context emphasize the poor achievement of
our minoritized students but has thus far not included opportunities to discuss the race and
cultures of our students positively or how to enact culturally relevant pedagogy. This lack of
meaningful professional learning opportunities for teachers is important because we are not
confronting the opportunity gap at all if we only discuss our student populations in terms of their
poor achievement and do not discuss how to make school a safe, caring, affirming, and
challenging place for all our students (Khalifa et al., 2016). The work begins by discussing how
to disrupt the status quo. If we are not having such discussions then we are subscribing to the
status quo and perpetuating the dominant ideology. Our organization cannot undergo change
unless all of the individuals within it change (Slayton & Mathis, 2010).
Also included in the context of my school site are the lack of structures that would
support the collaboration necessary to incorporate CRP school wide. One way to begin
addressing the cultural mismatch and opportunity gap at my school site would be to collaborate
and engage in discourse that is centered around implementing culturally relevant pedagogy
(Khalifa et al., 2016). Both leadership and adult learning theory literature describe the

16
importance of collaborating and engaging in dialogue to support change (Drago-Severson &
Destefano, 2017; Elmore, 2002; Marsh & Farrell, 2015; Mezirow, 1991; Slayton & Mathis,
2010). The culture of the school currently does not support collaboration as evidenced by the
lack of formal structures for collaboration. Also, little time is given to grade level planning and
the school site does not implement the structure of professional learning communities (PLCs).
Elmore (2002) argues that teachers learn best through social interactions. The current lack of
structures in place to support teacher collaboration means that teacher collaboration and learning
are limited. While my study did not focus on these contexts directly, it is important to include
them in my conceptual framework because they influenced the work I was able to do in my own
local context. Implementing culturally relevant pedagogy in my school site requires a reframing
of education that is different from the way educational policies and structures have framed our
profession.
In the remaining sections, I focus on the specific actions represented in the conceptual
framework. Maxwell (2013) stated that in qualitative research there needs to be flexibility to
construct and reconstruct the research design. The cycle depicted in this graphic, especially the
ability to plan, observe, and reflect allowed for me to change of course. My conceptual
framework was cyclical because it is influenced by the action research spiral. Herr and Anderson
(2015) described the process of action research as a cyclical process that involves four steps;
plan the action, act to implement the plan, observe the effects of action and reflect on these
effects for further planning and subsequent actions, observations and reflections. These four
steps were implemented in my role as a teacher.
The cycle depicted in Figure 1 focused on interactions between me and my students. The
focus of the cycle was to incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy in my classroom, observe my

17
practice and desired student outcomes, and engage in critical reflection to question if my practice
was improved or if I needed to change course. Next I describe in detail each component of my
CF and ground them in the literature.
Observation and Critical Reflection
Before explaining each of the concepts represented in the conceptual framework, this
section describes the process I enacted throughout the action research. Engagement in
observation and critical reflection acts as a mechanism through which both cycles occur. As
such, both of these practices are represented in the arrows that span the full cycle of plan, act,
observe and reflect. The cycle was influenced by Maxwell’s (2013) action research cycle, in that
all of the pieces are interconnected. Herr and Anderson (2015) stated that the nature of action
research is cyclical and is a reflective process. They describe how reflexivity is a crucial part of
action research because a researcher needs to interrogate the perceived notions of improvement.
Both observation and reflection are part of the action research spiral. In my action research,
observation and critical reflection helped to connect all parts of my conceptual framework. I used
observation and critical reflection for each aspect of the study, including my planning, my
actions, and influences on my students.
My definition of “observation” was influenced by Carol Rodgers’ reflective cycle.
Rodgers (2002) explains observation as the ability to be present in an experience. The term
“observe” in my conceptual framework represents this ability to slow down and learn to see my
teaching, students’ learning, and colleagues’ learning. The ability to observe leads to richer
description. I was able to write about the experience in detail, which helped me to see a situation
from as many perspectives as possible to support the writing of critical reflections. I saw
observation as essential in critically reflecting. Without being present in experiences, I would not

18
have been able to examine the effects of my actions, how my biases and assumptions influenced
my actions and others, and how power and systematic structures were influencing the learning
experiences of my students.
Writing critical reflections helped to reveal the limits of my own frames and open up my
thinking. Across the literature represented in this conceptual framework, critical reflection is a
recommendation in implementing culturally relevant pedagogy, leadership, and andragogy
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Brookfield, 2017; Gay, 2013; Hatt, 2012; Khalifa et al., 2016;
Mezirow, 1991; Milner, 2017; Slayton & Mathis, 2010). Critical reflection also helps me to
consider the historical, sociopolitical, and the moral context of my school. Critical reflection can
be used to critically examine the pressures and politics that exist in my context and how
community constituents contribute to the structures that are in place (Oakes et al., 2016).
Brookfield (2010) argued that the focus of critical reflection is to uncover assumptions, meaning
schemes and habits of mind. Critical reflection can be used to investigate the power relationships
in my school setting, especially the power that I exert in the context represented in this
conceptual framework.
Maxwell (2013) recommended the explicit incorporation of a researcher’s identity and
experiences in their research and terms this experiential knowledge. Likewise, Gay (2013)
argued that in order to effectively teach through culture teachers have to examine their own
biases and beliefs and acknowledge their own positionality and power. For example, I asked
myself, how does my positionality negatively influence student learning? What am I assuming
about students? Are these assumptions framed in a deficit way? I saw and still see the use of
critical reflection as a tool and a practice to engage in racial and cultural introspection. I am the
central participant in this study and my learning was the focus. Bringing to my awareness and

19
consciousness the known, unknown, and unforeseen issues, perspectives, and positions I hold
helped me to uncover how I frame the world and influence it (Milner, 2010).
Critical reflection in this action research acts as a mechanism through which culturally
relevant pedagogy is implemented and facilitated. I used critical reflection to examine my own
teacher characteristics and instructional moves as well as student actions and desired outcomes.
Critical reflection helped me to notice a connection between student culture and learning, helped
me to see students’ cultural capital as an asset, and identify the deficit notions that permeate the
system and that I have internalized and/or perpetuate. It helps to center me and focus on my
practice in this cycle, in how I interact with my students. (Howard, 2003). I developed a list of
questions to consider as I write my critical reflections. For example, “What am I assuming about
my students?” To see the full list of critical reflection questions, see Appendix A.
Teacher/Student Interactions
The cycle presented in the conceptual framework graphic represents teacher/student
interactions. The goal of the cycle was to improve my classroom practice so as to provide my
students with equitable learning opportunities. The first step is to plan action. This is located at
the top of the cycle in red. In this part of the cycle, and to begin my action research, I considered
literature to inform my initial actions. I also used initial informal observations as a teacher and
my critical reflections to inform my actions. As such, I contended that it was important to use
Brookfield’s lens of “theory” to inform my initial practice. As the cycle completes and a new one
begins, other lenses should be used in conjunction with theory to plan further action. For
example, once an action is implemented and studied, the analysis of that/those actions based on
student and colleagues’ feedback and my own critical reflections informs the next cycle.

20
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Teacher Characteristics
According to Milner (2017) culturally relevant pedagogy can be divided into teacher
characteristics and instructional moves/practices, which are located in the green box on the left
side of the graphic. The teacher characteristics of particular importance in my study were holding
high expectations for all students, being authentically caring, and valuing students’ funds of
knowledge. Initially, I theorized these as teacher characteristics because they are qualities I
believed the teacher exudes, rather that moves we enact. I conceptualized teacher characteristics
as mindsets or ways of being that need to be internalized that will later manifest themselves as
actions.
Authors who write about culturally relevant pedagogy emphasize the importance of
teachers holding high expectations for their students. Having high expectations is the belief that
all students are capable of learning and achieving (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2013, 2018;
Hatt, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014; Matsumura et al., 2008; Milner, 2017; Valenzuela,
1999). Matsumura et al. (2008) suggested one way of achieving high expectations is by clearly
communicating expectations in detail about what students need to include to produce quality
work and holding students to high standards for the work they produce. Communicating
expectations can be achieved by providing detailed rubrics to support students producing quality
work. Providing individual feedback to students to communicate if expectations were met as well
as providing opportunities for students to redo assignments to strive to meet high expectations
are also ways to demonstrate high expectations. I conceptualize feedback and multiple
opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning as having high expectations, because I
am demonstrating my belief that they are capable of achieving at the highest levels.

21
Another teacher characteristic that is necessary when enacting culturally relevant
pedagogy is being authentically caring (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2018; Milner, 2017;
Ladson-Billings, 1995; Valenzuela, 1999). Valenzuela (1999) described authentic care as the
cohesion between words and actions. Care has to be initiated by adults and given freely without
students necessarily reciprocating. Authentic care also involves a teacher getting to know their
students and building relationships with them. For example, asking students questions about their
interests and home lives is one way to get to know my students. Another example of getting to
know students, is developing a list of experts for the classroom. This would involve discovering
what students are passionate about or talents they have and acknowledging student expertise to
the whole class (Ladson-Billings, 1995). These strategies should be implemented at the
beginning of the year and continue throughout the year. In this action research, I planned to
gather information about my students through daily writing focused on their lives and interests.
Students were asked to share their writing aloud, so that I had the opportunity to engage with
them and make connections with their peers. I envision taking instructional time to learn about
students as one way that I can show authentic care. Authentic care is a concept in its own right,
however I am deciding to include it within culturally relevant pedagogy because caring is
mentioned in different literature about culturally relevant pedagogy.
The final teacher characteristic incorporated in this action research is valuing students’
funds of knowledge (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2013; Milner, 2017; Ladson-Billings,
1995; Paris & Alim, 2014). Ladson-Billings (1995) emphasized the importance of developing a
community of learners. To achieve this community of learners, teachers have to learn about their
students and discover their expertise, which is connected to demonstrating authentic care
described above. Valuing students’ funds of knowledge shows a teacher’s mindset is centered on

22
the assets of their students and the prior knowledge they bring into the classroom (Aronson &
Laughter, 2016). Valuing students’ funds of knowledge also leads to valuing the cultures they
bring to the classroom. I contend that teachers have to take the time to learn about their students’
different races, cultures, and family backgrounds, so that they can incorporate them into
pedagogy. Valuing students’ funds of knowledge makes authentic care actionable in pedagogy
because it goes beyond just taking the time to get to know students and means actually
incorporating their funds of knowledge into my practice. How I use the information I learn about
my students is described in further detail in the following section.
Instructional Moves and Practices
Milner (2017) stated that instructional moves and practices are the other important
components to incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy. Some teacher moves and practices
described in the culturally relevant pedagogy literature are: (a) developing rigorous instruction,
(b) creating a positive classroom environment through positive peer interactions, (c) developing
a community of learners, (d) developing the learners’ cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness.
Matsumura et al. (2008) stated that rigorous instruction includes discussions that build on
each other, open-ended problems that can be solved in multiple ways, and students who can
provide evidence to support their thinking. Rigorous instruction is connected to high
expectations and is how a teacher can demonstrate their high expectations. Rigorous instruction
is the most evident in classroom discussions and in student discourse. I have to model what
building on other ideas looks like by connecting students’ responses and by summarizing
students’ responses. Students will mimic the discourse they hear (Matsumura et al., 2008).
Rigorous instruction also includes asking student questions while they are working to uncover

23
their thinking and to push them to provide evidence that supports their thinking. The teacher
move of questioning also becomes critical during classroom discussions through the use of high-
level questioning that pushes students to make connections that go beyond the text and bring in
real world examples (Matsumura et al., 2008).
Another important instructional move to enact culturally relevant pedagogy is creating a
positive classroom environment by fostering positive peer interactions (Aronson & Laughter,
2016; Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Matsumura et al., 2008). A positive environment can
be developed by having classroom expectations and norms that focus on respectful and prosocial
behavior. Respectful behavior begins with how I treat students and the expectations that I
enforce for how they treat each other. I also have to intentionally design opportunities for
students to practice working together and collaborating.
Connected to a positive classroom environment is the concept of a community of
learners. Ladson-Billings (1995) described the importance of developing a community of
learners to achieve cultural relevant pedagogy. This community comes from students learning
collaboratively and emphasizing prosocial behaviors (Gay, 2018; Matsumura et al., 2008). A
community of learners can also be fostered by creating opportunities for students to participate in
discussions and allowing student voice (Milner, 2017). Evidence that a community of learners is
being created is when students are learning together, teaching each other, and helping each other.
It leads to an environment that exudes the idea that one person’s success is the success of the
entire class (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 1995). To achieve a community of learners I have to
design learning experiences that are collaborative and expect students to be helpful towards one
another. It is important to model and scaffold how I want students to treat each other through
collaborative activities and classroom discussions. Tharp and Gallimore (1989) described

24
modeling and peer modeling as mechanisms that assist learners through their zone of proximal
development. Modeling how students should behave during collaboration offers the expected
behavior for them to imitate. I can also reinforce the desired state I want to see through praise
and recognition when students imitate collaboration well and provide feedback when they need
support.
The final instructional move in my conceptual framework is to develop my students’
cultural competence. Cultural competence begins with incorporating and valuing students’
cultures. Culturally relevant pedagogy literature emphasizes learning about students’ cultures
and then teaching all subjects through students’ cultures (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2013;
Ladson-Billings, 1995; Milner, 2017; Paris & Alim, 2014). Teachers can design curriculum that
builds bridges between culture and academic skills (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). One way to
value student culture is to allow a variety of communication styles (Hatt, 2012). Teachers can do
this through classroom discussions or in providing different assessments for students to showcase
their learning. Students will not only learn through their own cultures but will also learn about
the cultures of others. Evidence for cultural competence is when students can become more
knowledgeable about their own cultures and the cultures of their peers.
The last instructional move is developing sociopolitical consciousness in my students.
Sociopolitical consciousness develops from focusing curriculum on critiquing and critically
questioning inequitable systems and pursuing social action (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-
Billings, 1995, 2014; Milner, 2017). The work of critiquing inequity can begin in our classroom
discussions. One way I envision beginning to develop sociopolitical consciousness is by asking
students what or who they notice is absent from texts. I can also design projects in which they
take social action by thinking of ways to help their community. In my opinion, this will be the

25
most difficult outcome to achieve because of the age of my students. I did not expect to see
sociopolitical consciousness developed by the end of this year, but culturally relevant pedagogy
is a mechanism to get students there eventually. As such, I have included it in my conceptual
framework so that I am actively implementing practices that begin the process.
Desired Student Outcomes
To see if my teaching has effectively incorporated the above actions, there are potential
student outcomes that are observable. By examining student outcomes in my study, I do not aim
to make generalized causal claims in the positivist tradition. Rather, drawing on Erickson’s
(2012) conception of qualitative causality, I aim to engage in “close description and analysis of a
particular case at hand (including the discovery of causal processes at work within the case)
rather than treating the case primarily as an instance of a general class of similar cases” (p. 686).
These desired student outcomes are located on the left of the visual in blue. The desired short-
term student outcomes are students will engage in positive peer interactions, participate in
discourse and discussions, and express themselves. The desired long-term student outcomes are
improved academic learning and sociopolitical consciousness.
Drawing on the literature, I theorized that if I create a positive classroom environment I
will be able to observe positive peer interactions such as students teaching each other, helping
each other, and students complimenting and praising each other (Ladson-Billings, 1995;
Matsumura et al., 2008). Positive peer interactions could also be students learning
collaboratively, demonstrating prosocial behaviors, and demonstrating care towards each other
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Matsumura et al., 2008; Valenzuela, 1999).
These desired student outcomes rely on having a classroom that is intentionally challenging, has
high expectations, and provides opportunities for students to collaborate (Ladson-Billings, 1995;

26
Milner, 2017). If I have demonstrated that I have high expectations for all students and designed
rigorous instruction, this will show up in how they express themselves and communicate with
peers.
Another observable student outcome is student discourse and participation in discussions.
If I design and teach rigorous instruction with an emphasis on discourse and I model discussions,
I should be able to observe students participating in class discussions and imitating the discourse
they hear (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Matsumura et al, 2008; Milner, 2017; Ladson-Billings,
1995). Matsumura et al. (2008) argued that participation includes students building on what
peers are saying, summarizing each other’s contributions, providing evidence to support their
opinions, and praising each other. The same researchers also state that 75% of students
participate in these types of discussions. In this action research, I observed how students
participated in discourse with each other and in classroom discussions. If I incorporate and value
student cultures and develop cultural competence within myself and my students, an observable
student outcome could be students who feel safe enough to express themselves and use a variety
of communication styles to express themselves (Matsumura et al., 2008; Paris & Alim, 2014).
A desired long-term goal is students who can critique inequitable systems and develop
cultural and sociopolitical consciousness (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 1995,
2014; Paris & Alim, 2014). Ladson-Billings (2014) described cultural competence as the ability
to help students value and celebrate their own cultures while learning about and developing
fluency in other cultures. This can also be observed in classroom discussions.
The other desired long-term goal for this action research is increased student learning
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Gay, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Although some improvement in
student learning may be visible, the goal of incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy in my

27
context is to address the opportunity gap and improve student learning school wide and this work
does not end when students leave my classroom or when this action research is finished. This
action research intends to be a step in that direction.
Updated Conceptual Framework
In Figure 2, I present my updated conceptual framework. Once I began to enact my
action research self-study, I realized I needed to update my conceptual framework and add more
literature to deepen my understanding of some of the concepts as well as edit my
conceptualization of how to implement culturally relevant pedagogy.

Figure 2
Updated Conceptual Framework
28

29

In my initial conceptual framework I had separated the components of culturally relevant
pedagogy into teacher characteristics and instructional moves and practices. In this updated
conceptual framework I have put all seven components under the heading of instructional moves
and practices. As stated previously, I had originally conceptualized holding high expectations,
being authentically caring, and valuing students’ funds of knowledge as characteristics that I
would exude. However, through the implementation of this self-study action research I realized
that I do not simply exude these attributes, but have to intentionally incorporate them into my
practice in the same way I do the other instructional moves and practices. I have to
systematically work to incorporate them, critically reflect on how I am implementing them, and
adjust my plans and practice.
I also added ability to be present as an instructional move and practice. Although this
concept is discussed in terms of the action research cycle, I realized how important it was to
include on the teacher/student list of actions as well. The ability to be present had implications
on my ability to enact other concepts in my CF and requires continued planning and
incorporation, thus is included as an instructional move and practice.
The final change I made to my CF was to move critiquing inequitable systems and
developing sociopolitical consciousness from a long-term goal to an observable short term
student outcome. This was a portion of my conceptual framework and action research self-study
that I did not address in this study. However, now that I have a more practical understanding of
many of the other concepts, I believe I need to adjust my approach to have it be a more
immediate goal. Having it as a long-term goal, meant that I did not actively address it. However,
given what a central concept it is in culturally relevant pedagogy, I now believe it needs to be
included in my daily planning and thus included in my critical reflections.

30

Research Methods
The purpose of this section is to identify the different research methods I used in my
action research study. I will first describe the participants and setting included in this self-study
action research. I will also discuss the actions I took, informed by the literature and as described
in my conceptual framework. I will discuss what data collection and data analysis looked like in
this study, including documents and artifacts I collected and generated, as well as how I
conducted interviews and observations. Finally I will discuss the limitations, delimitations,
credibility and trustworthiness and ethical concerns of this study.
Participants and Settings

Maxwell (2013) described that purposeful selection is achieved when “settings, persons,
or activities are selected deliberately to provide information that is particularly relevant to your
questions and goals, and that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (p. 97). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) also suggested choosing a sample that is relevant to the research problem. I
purposefully selected my own classroom and students. Purposeful selection was used in this
action research study and is the most appropriate sampling because I wanted to choose
individuals and settings that could provide me with the most information related to my research
question. I examined my own teaching practice, so choosing my own classroom as the setting
and my own second grade students as participants was relevant to my research question.
Maxwell (2013) suggested that the goal should be to select groups with whom you can establish
the most productive relationships. By choosing my students, I chose participants who I already
had access to in my context or had already established relationships with to facilitate my study.
My teaching actions were implemented in relation to my second-grade students. My
classroom was the setting.

31

Participants

The students I worked with were second grade students. There were 26 students with
whom I interacted in my classroom. Twelve students were female and 14 students were male.
The race/ethnicity of my students were 13 students were White, 11 students were Latinx, and
three students were Black. Additionally, three students had Individualized Education Plans (IEP)
for speech and language services and one student had an IEP for resource services. Although I
had 26 students, only 10 students participated in my action research because they were the ones
who returned to in person instruction AND submitted parent consent forms.
2
In my participant
group of 10 students, four students were female and six students were male. Five students were
White, three students were Latinx, and two students were Black. One student who returned to in
person learning had an IEP for speech and language services.
My conceptual framework illustrates how I carried out actions with students through my
pedagogical decisions. To examine how I know my teacher actions were being implemented, I
observed my interactions with students. For example, as illustrated in my conceptual framework,
whether my interactions with students demonstrated high expectations. Observing how I
interacted with students and the types of questions I asked them, demonstrated whether I reached
the goal of holding high expectations for all students.
Settings of Actions

My actions with students took place during instructional time. I examined my own
pedagogical actions and observed student actions and interactions. This means that my classroom

2
I later found out that parent permission was not a requirement of USC’s Institutional Review Board, because I
was not videotaping or recording students. However, I still felt more comfortable engaging in the work having
informed parents of my study and received their permission for their students to participate. Getting parent
permission only limited my participant number by five students given my focus on students who decided to come
back to in person instruction.

32

during instructional time where students were present was the most appropriate setting. I needed
and obtained permission from the district, my principal, and the parents/guardians of my students
to be able to conduct this research in my classroom setting.
Actions

As represented in my conceptual framework, my desired state was and continues to be to
improve my practice by incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy in my classroom. To improve
my practice by incorporating culturally relevant pedagogy I used the literature included in my
conceptual framework narrative. The actions included and described in my updated conceptual
framework are: holding high expectations; being authentically caring; valuing students’ funds of
knowledge; ability to be present; rigorous instruction; creating a positive classroom environment
through positive peer interactions; developing a community of learners; developing cultural
competence and sociopolitical consciousness. The goal was to include these pedagogical moves
daily, though I made varying progress, which I describe later in the findings section.
Enacted Actions
Holding high expectations, being authentically caring, valuing students’ funds of
knowledge and the ability to be present were not included in my original CF as actions (See
Figure 1). However, because they emerged as themes through my study, I reconceptualized them
as actions and subsequently added them as actions to my updated CF (See Figure 2). These four
concepts were not planned for, though they were enacted and observable.
Holding high expectations began with looking at the opinions and biases I held about
students and were captured in the biographies I wrote for each student. High expectations in my
student biographies included discussing students using asset-based language, discussing their
academic strengths, and discussing their academic weaknesses while also considering how to

33

support them to improve. High expectations also included the quality of interactions I had with
students. This includes both the length of interactions as well as the types of questions I asked
them. To demonstrate high expectations I had to ask open-ended questions, another important
teacher move I enacted.
Accessing funds of knowledge includes actions such as the need for opportunities to be
included in the lesson planning, reflecting on what I learned about students and missed
opportunities in which I could have learned more, and planning how to incorporate students’
funds of knowledge in subsequent lessons or units of study. Opportunities to access students’
funds of knowledge should be present in every lesson plan. Accessing funds of knowledge also
includes critically reflecting on what I learned about students’ funds as well as where there were
missed opportunities in my lesson to learn more about my students.
To be authentically caring, I had to make sure students had a voice, that I was validating
student contributions, and intentionally getting to know students. All students having a voice
means that in each observed lesson every student participated in the discussion and responded to
the lesson question. Validating student contributions means that students received
an affirmation after they participated in the discussion. Intentionally getting to know students
means that I included questions in lessons with the sole purpose to learn about students’ lives and
experiences.
The ability to be present included both reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action.
Reflection-in-action means that I noticed an opportunity to incorporate CRP and adjusted my
instruction in the moment. Reflection-on-action means that immediately following a lesson, I
reflected and noticed opportunities to incorporate CRP and take intelligent action to plan to

34

change course in a future lesson. In this self-study action research I attempted to enact these
actions, but as explained in the findings section, there were missed opportunities to do so as well.
As these pedagogical actions were being implemented, I planned to informally observe
student actions and engage in critical reflection afterwards, which informed my next steps.
Rodgers (2002) described being present as learning to see and the ability to slow down in
experiences. As I incorporated culturally relevant pedagogy in my classroom, I needed the ability
to be present in order to see how my students were responding and acting. Coghlan (2019)
argued that in order to execute action research, the researcher has to enact multiple iterative
cycles of action and then reflection. My actions similarly moved from implementing research-
based actions as described in the conceptual framework, to observation and reflection, which can
happen concurrently. In my initial proposal, my plan was to engage in critical reflection
following each observation. While I did reflect after each observation, upon further analysis, I
realized that many of my reflections were not critical in nature. As such, I enacted descriptive
reflection, not critical reflection.
Planned and Not Fully Enacted
Other instructional moves that were represented in my CF, but were not enacted in this
self-study action research iteration were: rigorous instruction; creating a positive classroom
environment through positive peer interactions; developing a community of learners; developing
cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness. I am still including them as important
concepts in my conceptual framework, because I still believe these are important actions to enact
if one is to engage in culturally relevant pedagogy. These were actions I had proposed before
fieldwork and I looked for them while coding data. Though they were absent in my practice for
this cycle of action research, I still believe they are important for future cycles of action research.

35

I intended to enact rigorous instruction that includes questioning students to explain their
thinking as they complete assignments. Rigorous instruction also includes planning lessons that
incorporate class discussions. In class discussions, where there is rigorous instruction, students
are expected to explain their thinking, provide evidence, make connections with peer comments
and build on their peers’ comments. At first, my role would have been to model and explicitly
teach what it looks like to engage in class discussions. I intended to model and support students
by providing sentence frames and holding high expectations that all students participate in class
discussions, as illustrated above. When enacting rigorous instruction, I intended my role to be to
make connections between student comments, ask questions, and ensure that all students have an
opportunity to share.
The actions involved with creating a positive classroom environment through positive
peer interactions are providing daily opportunities for students to collaborate with each other. I
intended to model and explicitly teach what positive peer interactions looks like, by providing
examples of how peers should work together and how to praise others for their success. I also
intended to engage in one-on-one discussions with students if they were not demonstrating
positive peer interactions to help them improve. Given COVID-19 safety guidelines, peer
interactions were not a common part of my instructional plans, as explained further in the
findings section.
I also planned, but did not fully enact creating a community of learners. Creating a
community of learners involves similar actions to creating a positive classroom environment in
that students should have opportunities to learn collaboratively, but with more emphasis on the
content that is being learned. In my daily instruction, my intended actions were to group students
to teach each other. I planned on discovering which students are experts in a particular skill or

36

topic and purposefully grouping them with students who need support. Another proposed action
was grouping students together so they could share ideas and discuss new learning. I also
planned to provide feedback and praise as I witnessed students demonstrating the desired
outcomes, which can promote students’ continued participation in creating a community of
learners. Prior to students working collaboratively it is important for the teacher to model how
conversations should look and sound, especially how they should engage in discussions with
each other.
Lastly, I planned to take action to develop cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness in my students. Learning about students, their cultures and funds of knowledge is
important in developing cultural competence. I planned to take time each day in morning
meetings to ask questions and have students write about themselves and their lives. I intended to
have them share what they had written with the class, so all of us can learn more about each
other cultures and lived experiences. I planned to model making connections between students’
writing and explicitly asking questions that encourage students to notice each other’s’ writing
and sharing. I also planned to model excitement and interest about students’ experiences to make
my learning visible to students’ through thinking out loud. This would have expressed that I
valued students sharing their cultures and was noticing the cultural competence I was developing
because of their contributions. To help my students develop a sociopolitical consciousness, I
wanted to ask questions to help students critique texts and content we are learning. Some
examples are: Who is this written for or made for? Why do you think this was created? Who is
missing from this or who is left out? Once students identify the sociopolitical underpinnings of
curriculum, and texts I wanted to plan together ways to improve it for future students. I intended
to examine our community and develop plans together how to improve it as well. Based on my

37

experience during this action research, I anticipated that cultural competence and sociopolitical
consciousness would be the most difficult action to implement. I expected that students would
require a lot of support and scaffolding to achieve this type of thinking. Cultural competence and
sociopolitical consciousness require intentional instructional planning as well. This is another
area of actions that I hope to enact more intentionally in the future.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols

The data that was gathered for this study included lesson plans, field notes from
observations, critical reflections and interviews. Lesson plans are data that already exists. Lesson
plans are naturally generated in the regular routines of my job.
The additional data I generated were jottings as a means to record observations of my
lessons. I also generated lesson plans and wrote critical reflections for each of the eight
observations I conducted in my classroom. Critical reflections helped my own learning and
informed the planning of my subsequent actions. Similarly, the interview conducted by Dr.
Slayton helped my learning and led to changes in my planning and actions. In each of the
sections below, I will detail these data collection efforts.
Documents and Artifacts

For my teacher/student interactions, the documents and artifacts I generated were eight
lesson plans, eight critical reflections and 10 student biographies. Lesson plans helped show me
how to intentionally plan the incorporation of cultural relevant pedagogy and acted as evidence
of my thinking to reflect on. Lesson plans provided my intentions, whereas field notes and
critical reflections focused on the results of my intentions. The student biographies helped me
capture my unfiltered thoughts about students and when juxtaposed to my interactions with
students, helped uncover how my biases played out in my instruction.

38

Brookfield (2017) described critical reflection as “the sustained and intentional process of
identifying and checking the accuracy and validity of our teaching assumptions” (p. 3). It is a
process to help uncover implicit biases and assumptions that I unconsciously hold that could
achieve the opposite of the work I try to do with students and colleagues. Brookfield (2017)
recommended engaging in critical reflection consistently and regularly. After each lesson, I
attempted to write critical reflections. Though I later realized they were not truly critical, they
were still used during analysis and were integral to my learning. I generated eight reflections.
Interviews
Given that my own practice is the focus of this action research, I asked my second
committee member, Dr. Slayton to interview me once during the implementation of my action
research. This interview occurred midway through my action research implementation. I wrote a
set of interview questions informed by my conceptual framework and sent it to Dr. Slayton prior
to the interview (See Appendix B). The interview was semi-structured and was used to uncover
patterns in my thinking, my personal theories about the action research and changes in my
thinking over the course of the implementation of my action research. Critical reflections provide
a snapshot of individual experiences whereas the interview highlighted broader theories and
assumptions. Additionally, the interview uncovered some of what was missing in my critical
reflections since the reflections were based on what I was willing to write, whereas Dr. Slayton
was able to probe to reveal new and different insights. This interview also helped to uncover
misunderstandings about concepts included in my conceptual framework and led me to further
my reading and change my practice in the second cycle of my action research. I compared my
interview with later reflections to identify changes in my thinking and actions.

39

Observations

Both my research question and my conceptual framework focused on my actions as a
teacher and the potential outputs of my students. I wanted to examine the behaviors, actions, and
discussions that resulted from my actions. The most appropriate data collection tool for this
purpose was observation. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) described observation and the writing of
fieldnotes as a description of people, objects, places, events, conversations, and activities. As a
participant as observer, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described the researcher’s observation
activities as secondary to the researcher’s role as a participant. Being a participant as observer
required me to be an active participant involved in daily activities, while also being present and
observing. My dual roles were being a teacher and a researcher.
To record my observations, I wrote detailed field notes after jotting notes in the field. I
used an observation protocol, see Appendix C. An important component of participant
observation is generating detailed, accurate and extensive fieldnotes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). I
chose to record jottings during the lesson, because a mechanical device such as a video camera
can be obtrusive or influence how students and teachers behave (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
jotted down notes during instruction—which is simultaneously the observation setting—and I
waited until afterwards to record the field notes with as much detail as possible. According to
Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995) the purpose of jottings is to jog a researcher’s memory later
when they write up more detailed field notes. They also suggested recording key words, phrases,
to-be-remembered actions and dialogue, which is how I approached jottings. My goal was to use
jottings to capture bits of talk and action, so that afterwards I could write detailed field notes that
accurately depicted what occurred during the observations.

40

My jottings focused on my own teaching and on student words as listed in the conceptual
framework. What I had hoped to capture, but did not because of COVID-19 restrictions, were
student actions such as students engaging in positive peer interactions, participating in discourse
with each other, and expressing themselves. Most of my jottings were restricted to my back-and-
forth interactions with students during direct instruction. My jottings included class discussions
and my interactions with students.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommended writing field notes in a narrative format as
soon after the observation as possible. I wanted to generate rich data that includes portraits of
participants, reconstruction of dialogue, description of the setting, events, activities, and the
observer’s behavior (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). For each observation, I wrote detailed field notes.
As it relates to my conceptual framework, I observed my interactions with students. For
example, I focused on how I asked questions, facilitated opportunities to collaborate or lack
thereof, and facilitated classroom discussions. I also planned to observe student interactions to
see if students were engaging in positive peer interactions and observe their discourse, however,
I was not able to include peer interactions as I had planned.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) also recommended that there should be a reflective
component to field notes called observer comments. Observer comments can be a record of
ideas, reflections, hunches or a note of patterns that are emerging (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). At
the end of my fieldnotes I included memos. Bogdan & Biklen (2007) described memos as think
pieces about the progress of the research. Memos can also include considerations about emergent
themes in the research. Noting observer comments and writing memos provided information for
my critical reflections as well and can act as the beginning of data analysis. See Table 1 for a
summary of the types of data that I collected and the amounts of each that were generated.

41

Table 1
Numbers and Types of Data Collected
Types of Data Teacher/Student
Documents and Artifacts 8 lesson plans
8 critical reflections
10 biographies; one for each student
Observations 8 field notes (480 mins)
Interviews 1 90-min. interview with committee member

Data Analysis
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggested writing many observer comments in your fieldnotes
to support later data analysis. Observer comments and memos are the first steps to interpretation
and analysis. Data collection and data analysis should occur simultaneously in qualitative
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) and this is especially true for qualitative action research.
Maxwell (2013) also recommended analyzing data throughout data collection because it can
inform the progress or lack thereof and can inform next actions. In my own data analysis
approach summarizing my experience helped me to uncover my own perceptions during events,
helped me formulate questions and to plan action moving forward.
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggested reading data several times and as you review to
make comments in the margins. They also recommend identifying key words and phrases that
participants use, begin to identify themes, and connect to literature. Reading several times and
writing memos can help to inform tentative ideas about categories and relationships (Maxwell,
2013). I had planned to connect concepts from the literature while I was still conducting
observations, but in reality focused more on procedural aspects of the lessons and my behavior.

42

Though I still believe in using the margins to connect data to the literature. I began connecting
concepts from the literature only when I began reading through data several times and started
coding my data.
Coding is a type of categorizing strategy that connects and compares data (Maxwell,
2013). To create my codebook I first read and wrote in the margins on a digital copy of the
observation field notes, memos, lesson plans, critical reflections, and interviews all compiled
together. I then made notes in the margins and color coded the different codes. I also indicated
concepts represented in my conceptual framework as +/- to identify missed opportunities.
Coding can also be used to organize data into broad themes and issues as well (Maxwell, 2103).
The goal of coding was to rearrange data and begin to develop theoretical concepts.
My a priori codes were derived from the literature and my conceptual framework. An
example of an a priori code for high expectations was teacher questioning. See Appendix D for
the full list of a priori codes. I then added emergent codes that were derived from analyzing the
observations, critical reflections and midpoint interview and that I did not anticipate when
constructing my conceptual framework. For example, being present or a missed opportunity to
be present was not included in my a priori codes, though emerged as theme during analysis.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) described qualitative design as emergent, thus some of the coding I
developed was emergent.
I applied analytic tools to analyze my data in a variety of ways. Corbin and Strauss
(2008) described how researchers use different analytic schemes or tools to organize, probe
and/or arrive at an understanding about their data. Some analytic tools they recommend are
asking questions about data, making theoretical comparisons, and looking at language and
emotions. According to Corbin and Strauss (2008) asking questions began the analytic thinking

43

about my data and helped me to consider and arrange possible answers. I asked myself
theoretical questions to make connections. For example, “what is the relationship between these
two concepts?” I analyzed data by looking at the language my participants and I used and the
emotions we expressed. Emotions acted as cues in my analysis to the meaning of an event.
Likewise, carefully looking at language helped to relate to existing a priori codes and theories in
my conceptual framework (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
There are some constraints that come with my context. My pedagogy is bound by
adhering to standards and to high stakes testing. This is a limitation because I do not have total
autonomy to develop curriculum and teach at my own pace.
There were some constraints that came with COVID-19 restrictions. The setting changed
to be on zoom and my classroom environment for in person learning was constrained. Only 15
students could be in a cohort for half a school day. Students had to be six feet apart with plastic
desk shield and wearing masks. Students were not allowed to move around the classroom freely,
but had to stay seated. The air conditioner had to stay running to keep the air circulating, which
was loud and made it difficult to hear one another. These limitations made it difficult for me to
fully enact my conceptual framework. For example, I could not focus on positive peer
interactions given these restrictions.
One delimitation was choosing not to record lessons in my own classroom. This limited
what I could observe and jot down, however, it also protected the learning experience for
students. Using jottings limited the level of detail that I could ultimately write down. Finally, I
purposefully bound my study with my conceptual framework. This is a delimitation because I

44

have specific concepts that I want to examine, but as Maxwell (2013) said, a conceptual
framework both illuminates and blinds us to certain concepts.
Another delimitation was the number of participants I had. I first chose to limit my
observations to the students who returned to in person schooling. I chose to only focus on the
students who returned to in person schooling because I wanted to learn about my practice in a
setting more similar to my normal teaching experience, rather than on zoom, which required
different teaching strategies not necessarily transferrable to a classroom setting. I had also
originally thought I needed to obtain parent permission for students to participate in my study
and was only able to obtain permission from 10 students. However, I later found out that parent
permission was not necessary because I was not videotaping or recording students.
Lack of information around the nuances as it relates to racial markers of my students was
missing in my student biographies and creates a delimitation in this study. My student
biographies were meant to capture everything about students, however I did not include
information like skin tone, language proficiency, participation in resources services, student
speech, and my own reaction to students in interactions. All of these details could have
illuminated why the biases I held (as described in the findings section) existed. I could not
account for these details analytically and it constrains what I can say to the reader.
The final delimitation in this study was that student feedback and/or student work was not
included as part of the data I was collecting. Rodgers (2002) included student feedback as an
important part of the reflective cycle. Without student feedback I was missing an important part
of the reflective cycle needed to improve my practice. I also did not capture the work that
students were producing in my field notes nor did I reflect on student work in my critical
reflections. This is a delimitation because academic success is the goal of CRP and none of the

45

data I collected represented progress made towards academic success or examined if progress
was being made.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
According to Maxwell (2013) one potential threat to validity is researcher bias. This is
particularly a concern given the nature of this study as a self-study action research. I used two
strategies to discipline my subjectivity. The first strategy was to attempt to use critical reflection
through the process. I specifically questioned biases I held in situations. The second strategy was
separating low inference observations from observer comments during observations. This forced
me to attend to my own thoughts during observations and separated out what my students and
colleagues said and did.
Another potential threat to validity is reactivity. Maxwell (2013) described reactivity as
the influence of the researcher on the setting or individuals. I chose to use jottings rather than use
a recording device with my students because I know that the presence of technology can alter
participant behavior. I did not want to negatively affect my students’ learning because a
recording device was present. I cannot guarantee that there was zero reactivity, because students
likely noticed I was taking notes.
A strategy I used to increase credibility during the analytic phase of this study was the
use of numbers. Maxwell (2013) described how analyzing data to look for occurrences that are
typical or rare enables the researcher to assess the amount of evidence that exists to support a
claim. I counted which interactions occurred more frequently and which ones occurred less
frequently. For example, as I observed students’ actions, I examined the frequency with which
particular actions were occurring, or the lack thereof to inform next steps in my next iteration.

46

Triangulation is another strategy that can be used to increase credibility. According to
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) triangulation is the use of multiple data collection methods and
multiple sources of data. In this action research I conducted observations, wrote critical
reflections, used an interview and collected lessons plans to triangulate data. Where my bias
could seep into my observations of my own teaching and discussions with colleagues, being
interviewed by Dr. Slayton and writing critical reflections acted as a way to triangulate the data
and challenge my biases and assumptions. Triangulation also provided multiple sources to
compare in order to result in more rich data collection and analysis. Triangulation also supported
maximizing reliability; the more data that is collected and compared the more consistent and
reliable my results would be.
Ethics
Glesne (2011) stated that ethical issues exist in qualitative data because of concerns about
the nature of relationships between the participants and the researcher. To ensure that I
conducted an ethical study I took steps throughout the whole process. For example, during the
sampling process an ethical concern that I had to consider before approaching participants
involves the relationships we had established already. I did not want to coerce them into
participating in my study because they felt pressured to help me on my doctoral pursuit, rather
than volunteering to participate in learning that they are interested in. This could potentially
cause harm because participants were volunteering as a favor and not anticipating or prepared for
the discomfort that is involved with unearthing biases.
I also took steps to ensure an ethical study during data collection. I was working with
children, so maintaining their privacy was crucial. Choosing to do jottings as my observation tool
helped to protect the identities of my students and I kept documents secured that had identifiable

47

information. I also chose to refer to students by letter, rather than include their names in this
document.
Another ethical concern is that my own self-understanding and goals influenced the
ethics of this action research. Coghlan (2019) suggested that issues of power are central to
considering ethics as well. To address issues of ethics in my own organization, I paid attention to
and integrated ethical practices in every stage of my action research cycle and was also
transparent to participants and stakeholders.
Findings
Four findings emerged through the analysis in my action research to help address my
research question. My research question was, “How do I incorporate culturally relevant
pedagogy into my practice to address the opportunity gap?” In my conceptual framework, I
identified concepts like being authentically caring, holding high expectations, and valuing funds
of knowledge as important components of incorporating CRP into my practice. Themes emerged
around these three concepts that highlighted the extent to which I was engaging in these practices
as a teacher. Initially, I misidentified them as teacher characteristics that I would exude, rather
than instructional moves and practices that need to be intentional and planned. The fourth theme
that emerged was the ability to be present. It was not explicitly included in my CF, though it was
included as a component of the action research cycle.. Presence emerged as a theme, because its
absence throughout my action research hindered my ability to incorporate CRP in my pedagogy.
I included presence in my updated CF (See Figure 2). Next, I present the four findings that will
be discussed in the following sections.
• I communicated differing levels of expectations for different students, based on my
assumptions about their abilities.

48

• I did not demonstrate accessing funds of knowledge and was not able to incorporate it
into my teaching because I had a conceptual misunderstanding and lacked
intentionality in my instructional planning.
• I made progress towards being authentically caring, though it remains an area of
growth.
• I did not demonstrate being present during lessons, which led to missed opportunities
to successfully incorporate CRP into my practice.
Differing Expectations
Rather than having and expressing high expectations for all my students, I communicated
differing levels of expectations for different students, based on my assumptions about their
abilities. A tenet of culturally relevant pedagogy is that teachers have high expectations for all
students and provide rigorous instruction to demonstrate those high expectations (Milner, 2017).
Demonstrating high expectations is included in my conceptual framework given its importance
in the scholarship on culturally relevant pedagogy. I included this concept under the teacher
characteristics, or qualities that I would exude (See Figure 1). As such, I see having high
expectations as an important part of what I should be doing when engaging with students.
Ladson-Billings (1995) described this as the belief that classroom practice should be grounded in
the educability of all students. In this section I provide evidence that my classroom practice was
not yet grounded in the belief of the educability of all students. Although I hold that belief
intellectually, my actions did not show it during the action research process. Demonstrating low
expectations and teacher bias can be a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, teachers’
expectations of students’ academic ability have a strong influence on their actual performance

49

(Gay, 2018). As such, it is critical to change one’s practice so as to communicate high
expectations for all students.
Through the analysis of my action research data, I found that I had and was projecting
differing levels of expectations for different students. It was not until I was examining my
observations in depth that I began to notice the difference in my interactions with students.
Differing expectations were shown by the number of interactions I had with students as well as
the rigor of the questions I asked them during the interactions. In other words, both the length
and quality of interactions pointed to differential treatment of my students. First, I will start by
explaining the assumptions I held about the different students in terms of their perceived
abilities. Then, I will discuss the length of interactions I had with students before turning to the
quality of those interactions.
Assumptions About Perceived Ability
Teachers’ assumptions and perceptions about academic ability can be very influential in
how teachers interact with students. Gay stated, “what the teacher perceived in the children may
have served as the catalyst for a series of interactions, with the result that the child came to act
out within the class the very expectations defined for him by the teacher” (Gay, 2018, p. 297).
This highlights how important teacher assumptions can be in a student’s academic experience.
At the beginning of the action research process I wrote a short biography of each of the
10 students with whom I had permission to engage in research. I wrote these biographies to
provide a snapshot of everything that came to mind when I thought about the students. This
included what I knew about their families, as well as opinions I had about their families. I also
included comments about their academic strengths and weaknesses, personal interests, and my
general perceptions of the students. I did not analyze them immediately; I just wrote as much as I

50

could about each student, as freely as I could. This resulted in an honest picture of the opinions
and biases I held about each student at the outset of this project. When I reviewed these
biographies during the analysis phase, I noticed that I described some students using deficit
language. While I initially wondered if the students for whom I demonstrated low expectations
were from certain racial or gender groups, the data revealed that the low expectations aligned
with biases I held about students’ intellectual abilities, rather than along the lines of race or
gender.
3
The deficit thinking present in these biographies permeated into the interactions I had
with students. Valencia (2012) explained that deficit thinking can be about internal, cognitive,
motivational, and familial deficiencies.
In reviewing these biographies, all types of deficit thinking described by Valencia (2012)
were present. Deficit thinking was present in several of the biographies, however, this was
sometimes coupled with asset-based comments as well. There were four biographies that
included more deficit thinking language and less asset-based language than the other six. Below
is an example of a student biography that demonstrates deficit thinking:
[The student] struggles academically and I think that her mom does a lot of the work for
her. My initial thoughts were that she has a kind of learned helplessness. If she acts
confused, but really just isn’t putting forth any mental effort, then someone will tell her
the answer or will do it for her. She is always eager to read, but really struggles. I’ve
noticed that she will just repeat words you help her with without actually looking at the
page of the book.

3
My biographies were not nuanced enough to account for students’ personalities, how I perceived their use
of language, and what I was bringing cognitively to interactions. I also did not capture nuances as it relates to racial
markers such as skin tone, accent, language use etc..

51

The example above is steeped in deficit thinking, because I did not describe any of her assets.
While I recognized that “she is always eager to read,” I did not focus on any academic strengths,
which may be because I did not actively search for any strengths. I also did not describe her
academic struggles in a way that allowed me to support her academic growth. It is a very fixed
description of my perception of her ability when I say she “struggles academically and I think
her mom does a lot of the work for her” and “she has a kind of learned helplessness,” without a
discussion about how to best support her academic growth. I also did not include any positive
comments about this student as an individual, with the exception of her eagerness to read. I did
not reflect on what interests her and what her personal strengths are, as I did for students I held in
higher regard. This suggests that I did not spend time trying to get to know her or think about her
as an individual with both strengths and areas for growth. In contrast, an example of a student
biography where I used asset-based language is:
[The student] is friendly, participates often, and is very sweet. She quickly got along with
everyone. She receives speech services, so a goal of ours was that she practices writing
and reading in complete sentences. She did well virtually and has been a pleasure in live
class as well. She struggles with math a little bit, but with extra support eventually
masters the concept. She is very artistic and will draw pictures to represent her thinking
before she does the writing. At first I had a problem with this, but then realized that that
was how she was processing the information and she just enjoyed it more.
In this example I described this student’s academic ability in a more evidence-based way,
balancing both strengths and areas for growth (rather than deficits). For example, I highlighted
“she struggles in math a little bit, but with extra support eventually masters the concept.” Here I
am showing I know what her academic weakness is, but I am aware that she needs additional

52

support and I provide it. This type of observation is not present in the first biography. I discussed
both strengths and areas of growth but identified that growth is achievable with support. Unlike
the first example provided, I did not represent this student’s academic abilities as fixed, and
instead the biography demonstrates awareness of the types of support needed for this student’s
success. In this biography, student success was the goal, whereas in the first example, student
success was not addressed. I also observed the second student’s process of learning and adjusted
my own expectations to meet her learning needs. This suggests that I was paying attention to this
student as an individual, leveraging her strengths and working to help her grow in places she
needed.
Other examples of asset-based language present in the second biography, but not the first
are “she’s a pleasure to have in class,” “she’s friendly, participates often, and is very sweet.”
These types of positive descriptions are missing from the first biography. Juxtaposing these two
biographies, my perceptions about these two students’ abilities is obvious. These perceptions I
held at the beginning of my data collection resulted in different interactions with each student
during my instruction.
Number of Interactions with Students
Across the two-month period during which I was documenting my classroom practice,
there were approximately 109 recorded interactions between me and my students. An interaction
occurred during teacher led discussions and was examined by the number of turn-taking that
occurred during an exchange. When looking at my biographies about my students written at the
beginning of data collection and comparing it to the length of time interacting with each student,
a pattern emerged that students who I perceived and described as “struggling students” received
fewer interactions with me. Those whom I described as having academic strengths received more

53

interactions. There were four out of 10 students whom I described using deficit language and
those four students received less of my interaction time. The other six students who I did not
describe with deficit language, received more of my attention during teacher led discussions.
This differing time spent interacting with students demonstrates that the way I perceived my
students’ abilities (as represented by the short biographies at the beginning of the school year)
shaped how much time I spent engaging in discussions with them. This is important when
referring back to the CRP literature. Ladson-Billings (1995) said that a teacher implementing
CRP should believe that all students are capable of learning. The difference in the biographies
and the differing interactions represented below, show that I did not hold this essential belief
about all my students. I also included the race and gender of my students in Table 2 to be
transparent about whether or not high and low expectations were influenced by racial or gender
biases I held. Based on how students are grouped, no patterns emerged about the influence of
race and gender on my perceptions of students. Though, with a larger group of participants, I
might have been able to see biases emerge that are not present in this smaller group.
When coding, I counted one interaction as me asking a question directly to a student or
making a comment to a student. I counted an interaction only when it was prompted by me, since
I was looking at my interactions with students, how I was facilitating the interactions, and if
assumptions I had about the students’ perceived ability were influencing the interactions I was
guiding. Table 2 shows that students whom I described as having academic weaknesses had
fewer interactions and those whom I described without using deficit language received more.

54

Table 2
Number of Interactions with Students
High/Low
Expectations
Student Race/Gender Number of Interactions
High Expectations Student A White/Female 17
Student B White/Female 13
Student C Latinx/Male 12
Student D Latinx/Male 11
Student E White/Female 10
Student F
4
Black/Male 9
Low Expectations Student G White/Male 9
Student H Black/Male 8
Student I White/Female 7
Student J Latinx/Male 7

The difference in length of interaction is important when referring back to my conceptual
framework. In my CF I emphasized the teacher characteristics I wanted to exude, one of which is
holding high expectations for all my students. Another teacher characteristic included in my CF

4
Although student F and student G have the same number of interactions, I placed them in separate groups
because student F was only present for 4 of the 8 observations, while Student G was present for all 8 observations. I
also placed them in separate groups based on the presence of deficit language in their student biographies. Although
Student G has the same number of interactions as Student F, I described him using more deficit language. Whereas
Student F had asset based language present in his student biography. The boundary between the two groups is
imperfect, but I made my best guess about how the quality and quantity of interactions were related to the
biographies.

55

is valuing students’ funds of knowledge. The difference in interaction length in addition to the
student biographies, demonstrates that I did not hold high expectations for all my students nor try
to access their funds of knowledge equally. A shorter interaction with a student signals that I did
not want to learn more about a students’ thinking or potential funds of knowledge. It shortened
their opportunity to share and to contribute to the class’s learning as a whole.
Also included in my CF were desired student outcomes. These outcomes were for
students to participate in discourse and for students to express themselves. Although all students
engaged in discussions with me, the number of these discussions were limited for some students
because of my perceptions of their ability. In other words, my unequal expectations interfered
with the desired student outcomes I had hoped to see.
The more interactions I had with a student meant I asked more questions and provided
more opportunities for a student to express themselves and share. It also allowed for more
opportunities for me to access their funds of knowledge. Below are two examples, one which
demonstrates a typical interaction with a student whom I did not describe using deficit language
and one with a student whom I did. The first example is an interaction between me and a White
female student. It shows a typical interaction between me and a student whom I did not perceive
as having academic weaknesses.
Me: What are you an expert at?
Student: Being nice to my little sister.
Me: So you could teach me how to be nice too? When you say be nice, do you help take
care of her?
Student: Yeah, I take care of her all the time when my mommy is sick.
Me: What do you do to help take care of her?

56

Student: I play with her and watch her when my mommy is sleeping, I’ll make food for
her. We play games and watch TV. My daddy has to go to work and my brother doesn’t
help out at all. I don’t think he likes us, he’s in school or in his room.
Me: How old is your brother?
Student: 11.
Me: Ah, so he’s like too cool for school right now?
Student: Yeah, he thinks he’s too cool to play with us.
Me: So you do the most to take care of your sister? That is so nice of you. I love that you
say you do it to help your mom out.
The example above includes six turns. I asked her two open ended questions, three close-ended
questions, and I made one comment to signal the end of the discussion. This example
demonstrates how a student whom I did not perceive as having academic weaknesses nor
described using only deficit language received more of my interaction time. The questions that I
asked demonstrated higher expectations because they required the student to engage cognitively.
The questions also communicated that I had more interest in her answers and getting to know her
in general. The questions and longer interactions could also provide more opportunities for
students to express themselves. With these longer interactions I learned more about the student
and the class did as well. A longer interaction with more turn taking provides opportunities for
the student outcomes I had identified in my CF to be achieved. In the example above, I asked the
student about her family and the answers she provided gave insights into her home life and her
relationships. For example, she shared that her “mommy is sick,” which is information I did not
know previously, and I was able to follow up with her more privately after the class discussion,

57

where she shared that her mother is often tired and needs to sleep. I also learned that she can
“make food” or cook, a fund of knowledge I could later pick up and use in my instruction.
Next is an interaction between me and a White female student. It is a typical example of
an interaction with a student whom I perceived as having academic weaknesses is:
Me: What do you like to do with your family?
Student: Go swimming with my dad at my grandma’s house.
Me: I know that you go to your grandma’s house a lot on the weekends to go swimming.
Student: Yeah we go to my one grandma’s house every weekend. My other grandma
lives like farther away.
Me: You’re so lucky you get to spend time with you grandma.
In the example above, I coded this interaction between me and this student as three turns. I asked
an initial question and then made two comments. This example shows how my low expectations
for this student shaped the discussion that took place. Compared to the first example, this
interaction is much shorter with fewer turns and fewer questions. A shorter interaction meant that
the student was not given a chance to express themselves and share freely. One of the desired
student outcomes I identified in my CF was students’ ability to express themselves, meaning that
this shorter interaction hindered achieving what I had identified as important in incorporating
CRP. The use of comments rather than questions signaled for the conversation to end and did not
support further learning about the student. When I said, “I know that you go to your grandma’s
house a lot on the weekends to go swimming,” I did not give this student the chance to share any
new information about time with her family, but essentially provided the answer for her. When
she said, “my other grandma lives like farther away,” I missed an opportunity to ask her about
her other grandma. I could have also asked what else her family likes to do with her grandma.

58

The two vignettes above demonstrate how my perception of student ability affected the
number of interactions I had with them. The implications of this are that I did not make progress
towards incorporating CRP because I did not demonstrate high expectations for all my students.
Likewise, my differing interactions with students impacted my ability to access students’ funds
of knowledge, which I discuss in more detail in a later section. My assumptions about student
ability also influenced the types of questions I asked them or the rigor of questions they were
posed, the topic of the next section.
Rigor of Questions
When coding my interactions, I was curious about not only the number of interactions I
had with students, but how those interactions telegraphed the expectations I had for my students.
In other words, I wondered about the quality of the interactions. One observable behavior on the
part of teachers to demonstrate their expectations is the rigor and quality of the questions posed
to students. Matsumura et al. (2008) discussed how rigorous instruction includes providing
students with the opportunity to answer high level questions during class discussions. Gay (2018)
connected how providing rigorous instruction requires having high expectations for all students.
One goal of CRP is academic success (Ladson-Billings, 2014). The ability to have access to
rigorous questions contributes to being academically successful. Thus, engaging in conversations
in a rigorous way allows students to engage cognitively and develop cognitive strategies that
they will need to be academically successful. Rigorous instruction and high level questioning
directly relate to the desired student outcome I outlined in my CF, which was that students would
be academically successful.
Initially, in trying to achieve high expectations for my students, I thought it was sufficient
to have the expectation that all students would have to participate in class. I spent a great deal of

59

time making sure all students voiced their thoughts or shared what they were working on during
class. In analyzing the interactions, however, I realized that expecting mere participation was not
sufficient. Rather, the quality of the questions that I asked communicated the expectations,
whether high or low, that I had for students.
The types of questions I asked included open-ended and close-ended questions. Cakir and
Cengiz (2016) said that analyzing the features of discourse between teachers and students is
important because it helps a teacher to see how effectively they are facilitating learning and
thinking. The use of close ended questions encourages short, restricted responses. These
questions allow for a “yes” or “no” with factual information already known by the teacher. On
the other hand, open ended questions are used when the teacher is genuinely seeking new
information. Open-ended questions promote longer responses in which the teacher does not
know what is going to be shared. In my conceptual framework I included the desire to have high
expectations for all students as well as designing rigorous instruction. The use of open-ended
questions is connected to both goals. These types of questions promote higher order thinking,
encourage knowledge construction, demand more thought, and increase the amount of speech
students give (Cakir & Cengiz, 2016). The results of using open-ended questions connects to my
ability to develop cognitive strategies students’ need to be academically successful. Because
open-ended questions allow for elaboration and allow me to gain more insight about students,
they also help me to access students’ funds of knowledge.
The use of open-ended questions is essential in effectively incorporating CRP because it
is tied to achieving so many of the concepts included in this approach. This is important because
the perceptions I held about some students’ abilities meant that, in the case of students whom I
viewed from a deficit lens, I withheld or denied the open-ended questions they needed for

60

facilitating learning as well as worked against my own goals of incorporating CRP. I also
hindered their ability to work towards academic success. Below are examples of interactions
with students I had high and low expectations for and demonstrates how the types of questions I
used differed. The following is an interaction with a White female student. It is an example of a
typical interaction with a student whom I had high expectations for.
Me: What are you an expert at?
Student: I’m an expert at building things, like helping building cars with my dad.
Me: Do you help him build real cars?
Student: No we build cars with Legos.
Me: Oh yeah, I knew that you liked building with Legos. I remember your leprechaun
trap! What is your favorite thing you’ve built?
Student: Well, probably Baby Yoda, but we’re not done with it yet.
Me: Is it a really big Baby Yoda?
Student: Yeah, I don’t know how many Legos it is, but it’s like five packs, so probably
500 pieces.
Me: Is that more pieces than you normally use?
Student: Yeah, it’s a lot of work.
Me: That is very cool. You will have to let us know when you’re done and send a picture.
With the exception of the opening question, which was posed to all students, the best example of
an open-ended question in the example above is “What is your favorite thing you’ve built?” I
was seeking unknown information from the student and showing a genuine interest in gaining
new information about her. This open-ended question also required her to think more deeply
about her experiences to then share a favorite experience. This means that I asked her to engage

61

in the conversation in a more rigorous way and expected her to engage in higher level cognitive
strategies. Although this does not appear to be a rigorous question, the use of this open-ended
question provided new information that lengthened our conversation and provided the student
further opportunities to share. I demonstrated higher expectations through my use of open-ended
questioning and received a longer, more detailed response in return. The student in turn, was able
to engage cognitively and was given the opportunity to develop the strategies needed to be
academically successful.
In contrast, close-ended questions only provide students the opportunity to respond with
short, restricted answers and do not allow for students to elaborate. Close-ended interactions
signal that the teacher wants a quick response, which unnecessarily puts constraints on students’
responses. The following is an interaction between me and a Black male student. The following
is a typical example of an interaction with a student whom I perceived as having academic
weakness and with whom I used only close-ended questions.
Me: What are you an expert at?
Student: Rock climbing.
Me: Do you only climb on a rock wall or are you good at climbing everything?
Student: Everything.
Me: How cool.
The close ended question in this interaction is “Do you only climb on a rock or are you good at
climbing everything?” In the wording of this question, I provided the student with the two
answers I expected to hear. I placed constraints around the response the student could provide
and in doing so, received a much shorter answer, which aligned to one of the choices provided.
When compared to the first interaction above, this interaction itself was shorter, the student

62

response was shorter, and the information I gained about my student was less rich and
meaningful. It did not provide the student the opportunity to think more deeply about a response
and hindered the opportunity for the student to develop the cognitive strategies that would help
him be academically successful.
Another type of interaction that demonstrated my expectations of students was when I
made a comment about what the student said but did not ask a question that could continue the
interaction. A comment telegraphs an end to the interaction, and thus, does not allow the student
to share or elaborate. Giving students a comment signals to the student that I do not expect a
response and shortens the interaction. The following is an interaction between me and a White
female student. The following is an example of an interaction with a comment as a turn rather
than a question.
Me: How do you celebrate birthdays?
Student: We always celebrate birthdays at my Grammy’s house. We have a BBQ and go
swimming.
Me: How fun. I know how much you like to go over to your grandma’s house.
In this example, I signaled the end of the interaction by making the comment “How fun. I know
how much you like to go over to your grandma’s house.” By using a comment rather than asking
a question, I did not give the student space to tell me any more information. I also signaled that I
did not expect the student to share any more. Compared to the two examples above, this
interaction was much shorter and the student shared less information. The use of comments
shortens interactions, communicates low expectations for responses from students and does not
give students the chance to think more deeply or engage in the conversation in a rigorous way.

63

Students whom I described using deficit language in the student biographies were met
with more close-ended questions and comments during our interactions. Students whom I did not
perceive as having academic weaknesses were asked more open-ended questions. Over time, the
pattern of interactions communicated to students who I had high expectations for and who I did
not. Table 3 shows the types and number of interactions I had with each student.

Table 3
Types of Questions
High/Low
Expectations
Student Number of
Open-Ended
Questions
Number of Close-
Ended Questions
Number of
Comments
High
Expectations
Student A 18 10 15
Student B 19 7 13
Student C 13 12 8
Student D 15 10 9
Student E 15 4 12
Student F 9 4 9
Average
Number of
Interactions
14.83 7.83 11
Low
Expectations
Student G 11 2 8
Student H 9 6 9
Student I 8 4 9
Student J 8 3 7
Average
Number of
Interactions
9 3.75 8.25

64

The table shows that students whom I perceived as having academic strengths were those I also
had high expectations for, as demonstrated by the number and quality of interactions with them.
5

These six students received longer and more rigorous interactions with me. The six students
whom I had high expectations for had a greater number of interactions and had more interactions
with open-ended questions. The students whom I described as having academic weaknesses and
had low expectations for received fewer interactions and those that would not characterize as
high-quality interactions. These four students had fewer questions asked of them, and they
especially had less open-ended questions asked of them.
To conclude, the evidence provided above shows that I first developed differing
expectations for students based on perceptions I had about their academic abilities. These
differing expectations influenced how I interacted with students. Based on the examples I
provided above, I demonstrated that the interactions I had with students were unequal with some
students receiving higher quality, open-ended questioning and other students receiving lower
level questioning and comments. In my CF I discussed how having high expectations for all
students is an important part of implementing CRP and, in this study, I did not demonstrate
progress towards this goal. The lack of high expectations for all students is critical. Gay (2018)
said “what the teacher perceived in the children may have served as the catalyst for a series of
interactions, with the result that the child came to act out within the class the very expectations
defined for him by the teacher” (p. 297). This means that the perceptions held by the teacher can
be a self-fulfilling prophecy for students. In my classroom, students I identified as struggling
learners or used deficit language to describe in the beginning received unequal interactions with

5
The boundaries between the types of interactions and whether I identified if I had high or low
expectations is not perfect. However, I made the best assessment I could based on the patterns in interactions across
observations as well as how I described students in their biographies. The line between quality and quantity of
interactions is nuanced, but attempts to represent patterns in my actions with students.

65

me throughout my action research. I also asked them to engage in less rigorous thinking and as
such did not support their progress towards academic success. Differential treatment and unequal
access to rigorous questions connects to and has ramifications in other areas of incorporating
CRP as well, which I explain in more detail in the following two sections about accessing
students’ funds of knowledge and authentically caring below.
Accessing Funds of Knowledge
Geneva Gay and Gloria Ladson-Billings argue that accessing funds of knowledge is
critical to culturally relevant pedagogy. How can a teacher be responsive or create curriculum
that is relevant if they do not know their students? Getting to know students and accessing funds
of knowledge are important to gather and use when incorporating CRP and are discussed across
CRP literature. In the previous section about high expectations, I discuss how my low
expectations of some students led to missed opportunities to access their funds of knowledge. In
this section I will dive deeper into my understanding of funds of knowledge and two ways in
which I did not successfully incorporate it into my practice, though I will also provide evidence
that I made some progress.
First, my understanding of funds of knowledge changed from the beginning of my study.
I did not possess the practical understanding or application fluency of the concept of funds of
knowledge, even though I had included it in my original conceptual framework, drawn from my
literature review. It was not until a midpoint interview I had included in my research design with
my dissertation committee co-chair that I realized my misunderstanding and the importance of
accessing students’ funds of knowledge in incorporating CRP. Namely, I had a very surface level
understanding of this concept when I first began this action research, because I made the choice
to learn about the concept solely from the way it was discussed in CRP literature, opting to not

66

read literature about the concept specifically. After my midpoint interview, I revisited the
concept by reading the foundational literature that more explicitly conceptualized what it is.
Secondly, I realized that accessing funds of knowledge has to be intentionally planned
for. Initially, valuing funds of knowledge was included in my CF as a teacher characteristic. I
thought it was something that I had to exude or care about. I realized that accessing students’
funds of knowledge has to be intentional in instructional moves and practices (See Figure 2). As
I will discuss below, my lack of presence made it difficult to recognize, access, and value funds
of knowledge in the moment. I learned during this action research that not only did I have an
incorrect operational definition of the concept but that “valuing funds of knowledge” was also
not something in me as the teacher but something I had to plan in my instruction intentionally to
seek information about my students. After the midpoint interview, I dove back into the literature
to learn the nuances of this concept, and I subsequently made adjustments to my practice to more
readily access my students’ funds of knowledge. Though I still had many missed opportunities to
utilize the funds of students in subsequent lessons, I made some progress towards enacting this
concept in practice.
In the following sections I will discuss what I thought was accessing funds of knowledge
prior to my midpoint interview, the discussion that led to my shift in understanding, and an
example of an intentional change I made in instruction after the interview.
Initial Approach and Misunderstanding of Funds of Knowledge
Prior to my midpoint interview I equated the concept of funds of knowledge with simply
getting to know students. Although trying to get to know students can lead to accessing their
funds of knowledge, not understanding the difference led to missed opportunities to get to know
students in ways that would reveal their funds of knowledge. Learning about students’ interests

67

is different from learning about their home lives enough to draw on what they know as a result of
their home lives and use it as a resource in instruction. The following is an example of an
interaction with a student in which I conflated getting to know students with accessing funds of
knowledge. The student with whom I am interacting is a Latinx male. In this lesson I asked
students two questions: What are you good at and what would your families say your good at?
Student: I’m good with my goats.
Me: Do you help take care of them?
Student: Yeah I help my dad. I feed them and they let me go right up and pet them. There
are four babies now.
Me: That’s so cool that you help with your pets and you’re good at it too.
In the short interaction, this student was both sharing an expertise that I did not know he
possessed as well as sharing funds of knowledge that could have been a resource for future
lessons about farming and tending to animals (husbandry). Moll et al. (1992) included animal
management as an example of funds of knowledge, because it is knowledge that students might
have as a result of tending to their family’s animals and/or farm. Although I asked this student
one follow up question, it was a missed opportunity to learn more about how his family came to
have farm animals, what taking care of goats looks like and requires, if the goats were new to his
family or if they have always raised them, if they had other farm animals, or if his family has had
other farm animals in the past. I could have also reached out to his parents to see what they knew
and used them as a resource for a future lesson. Despite my closed ended question, “Do you help
take care of them?” the student did not just simply answer with a yes but shared how he takes
care of them. This extended response points to the student’s desire to share his home life
experiences with me and his peers. Instead of recognizing this as an opportunity to access his

68

funds of knowledge and use it to help all students learn, I quickly moved on. I said, “That’s so
cool that you help with your pets and you’re good at it too,” thus simply repeating his
contribution and stopping the discussion.
When writing my reflection after this observation I did not recognize that this interaction
could have been an opportunity to access this student’s funds of knowledge. I also did not spend
time connecting this lesson back to my CF. Rather I noted how this student’s demeanor changed
when he shared, without recognizing that his excitement was a marker for me to take advantage
of:
[This student] had the most difficult time saying positive things about himself. He is
normally very quiet and speaks with few words. His posture and enthusiasm changed
when he thought of his goats.
I recognized that sharing his and his family’s expertise got him excited to participate, which as I
noted, he usually was reluctant to do. I wrote “He is normally very quiet” and then wrote “His
posture and enthusiasm changed when he thought of his goats.” However, even noticing this
change in his demeanor did not prompt me to take action or to give him the space to share more,
which would have been a necessary step to accessing his funds of knowledge, not simply getting
to know his perception of what he is good at. This interaction with the student and the
subsequent, brief reflection is an example of how I did not know the difference between getting
to know students and accessing their funds of knowledge. It is also an example of how I was not
present enough to use students’ experiences to influence my future lesson planning, which is a
critical component of funds of knowledge in the educational context. Next, I will discuss how
my midpoint interview changed my understanding of funds of knowledge.

69

Midpoint Interview
After conducting half of my observations, I scheduled a “self-interview” to better
understand how I was enacting the actions I had set out to enact. I wrote interview questions
related to my CF and asked my second committee member, Dr. Julie Slayton, to conduct the
interview. It is important to note that this interview was the first time in several months that I had
revisited my CF or the literature that influenced it. I had engaged in my teaching practice,
simultaneously collecting data about my actions without regularly re-reading my CF. The
excerpt below shows how I misunderstood and incorrectly equated culture, getting to know
students, and funds of knowledge. I was unable to articulate the definition of each concept
individually nor did I provide accurate examples. The following is the midpoint interview
excerpt:
Dr. Slayton: Can you share an example of how you learned about your students’ culture if
at all?
Me: So I was thinking about this one a lot. And I think culture is something that I haven’t
really defined well. But I haven’t had any conversations where I’m like, tell me about
your culture, but I will say that this year I think I know more about my students than I
ever have before. So like, how do they spend their time, what family members do they
spend their time with, how do they celebrate things, you know, what do they do in their
afternoon, so just finding, like what their family lives look like. I’ve spent, I think more
time than ever on just learning about them and their families and what they do and what
they value and things like that.

70

Dr. Slayton: Okay, so the, what you gave me were very generalized statements about
what you have learned, the question you asked to answer was an example of how you’ve
done it.
Me: Yeah, so at the start of the year, I decided to implement writing every single day that
was just questions about the kids. So, every day we do questions where the only
information that’s being written about is things that they’re sharing about themselves.
And so every day we’re learning kind of a different aspect of their interests and what they
do with their time and their families and different things like that. And so it’s every single
day, we’re having and writing our conversations, in a journal, write about their lives. We
share it out loud, so we brainstorm, like one big document where we all contribute
different things to it and then we can say like, oh I really liked that idea or I do that too
and I didn’t think about it like that and then they do like a little quick read that they share
out with each other. So every day, culture has been what the kids can bring in our
classroom.
Dr. Slayton: And what would be an example of a question you’ve asked?
Me: Let me see. Last week we did like what do you know how to do well that you could
teach someone else. And we got a lot of interesting like, oh, I actually have goats, and I
could teach you how to raise goats because we have a farm and, you know, all kinds of
different answers that I didn’t know about the kids that really shed light on them.
In the excerpt presented I am asked to provide a specific example of when I learned about
students’ culture. I do not address culture in a way that suggests I have a conceptual
understanding of it. Instead, I respond with examples of simply getting to know students. I
needed to tease apart specifically what questions I was asking students that accesses culture,

71

what was getting to know students, and what was accessing funds of knowledge. When I said,
“So like, how do they spend their time, what family members do they spend their time with, how
do they celebrate things, you know, what do they do in their afternoon, so just finding, like what
their family lives look like,” I was conflating all the concepts together under the idea of getting
to know students. I also noticed that I discussed what I had done throughout the school year,
rather than looking at specific examples from my action research. I should have referred solely to
the four lessons that I had observed thus far. The reason being that rather than making
“generalized statements” I would have had evidence from the data I had collected. Next the
interview transitioned to a discussion about funds of knowledge:
Dr. Slayton: Great. So then that segues right into the next question, which is how, if at all,
have you used what you learned from them in your lessons. What would be a noun, I
guess I want to ask. Give me an example. You can, give the specific instance where you
incorporated something from what you’ve learned about their, as you put it, cultures into
a lesson.
Me: I mean maybe not cultures, but, like, their funds of knowledge, I guess would be
something that I could think of, I can’t think of a specific example for culture, but like in
a previous lesson, what do we know a lot about and one of the kids knew a lot about
dinosaurs, we’re talking about dinosaurs right now, so he’s like my go to. Okay, what do
you already know about them, and he kind of starts off our lesson each day. So I think
culture I don’t know how well I’m doing with that, but just having the kids take over a
little bit more.
Dr. Slayton: How’s that an example of funds of knowledge?
Me: Just what they I guess already know.

72

The example above shows that I did not know the difference between getting to know students,
accessing their prior (academic) knowledge and funds of knowledge. When I gave the example
about a student knowing a lot about dinosaurs, and Dr. Slayton asked, “how is that funds of
knowledge?” I responded with “just what they I guess already know.” This conflation of prior
and funds of knowledge revealed a conceptual misunderstanding with which I was operating.
Her question “how is that funds of knowledge” hinted at the fact that she didn’t think it was an
example.
In the next segment from the interview Dr. Slayton explains that having knowledge about
dinosaurs is what we would consider prior knowledge rather than historical family knowledge
that incorporates students’ culture.
Me: I just thought it was what they know, like what they bring their own experiences.
Dr. Slayton: Okay, So no, I mean that’s not wrong, so much as it is a simplistic version of
it. [Moll says] funds of knowledge comes from their history, their family’s historical
practices, those things that are reflective or representative of who they are as complete
people in the real world; so your example of the goats, is a better example of a
historically developed or family developed base grounded in its culture in their culture
and history. Okay, then dinosaurs which is why I asked that question, it’s much more
about how do you use what they are taught through their lived experiences in relation to
their family structures and their family’s history and culture. Okay, that would then count
as a kind of outside of school knowledge, that isn’t necessarily defined in this. It’s prior
knowledge but it’s not prior knowledge as in I like to read about dinosaurs at home.

73

Me: Okay, so kind of more like what they do with their families, almost like what’s,
what’s being passed on in their experiences with their family. So, a family, having three
generations of a farm and then teaching those skills.
Until the exchange above, I believed I had an understanding of the concept of funds of
knowledge. Dr. Slayton’s question, probing for examples, and then explanation helped me to see
that a student knowing a lot about dinosaurs was just an example of prior knowledge. Following
the interview, I furthered my reading and expanded my conceptual understanding that prior
knowledge is different than funds of know because prior knowledge is more recall-based rather
than new information that the students are providing from the familial and generational funds.
Anthony (1996) says that “elaboration strategies involve making sense of incoming information
by adding details, explanations, examples and mental images that can relate the information at
hand to prior knowledge, thus they are critical in the knowledge construction process” (p. 355).
This description, which is related to active learning, highlights how prior knowledge is more
about academic knowledge and how it can be used to scaffold and connect new learning to
preexisting academic knowledge.
When Dr. Slayton explained that the “example of the goats is a better example of a
historically developed or family developed base grounded in its culture in their culture and
history,” I could see the difference between these two knowledges. As shown in the excerpt from
my interaction with the student above, I did not consider the expertise of goats as an example of
funds of knowledge. It was simply a way for me to know more about my student. This interview
made me rethink that interaction with my student and my subsequent reflection. I was treating
his knowledge of goats as “just what they … already know” instead of cultural knowledge that
could be leveraged to connect school to home.

74

This interview prompted me to read more literature that directly defines funds of
knowledge rather than relying on how it is explained in the CRP literature by authors like
Geneva Gay and Gloria Ladson-Billings. Ladson-Billings (1995) does not include the concept of
funds of knowledge in CRP explicitly but explains that one broad proposition to accomplish CRP
is to understand that students have their own knowledge that can be pulled out. Gay (2018) said
that “culturally responsive teaching recognizes and further develops this natural diversity and
fluidity of competence among diverse student populations. Some theoretical developments
associated with these emphases are referred to as funds of knowledge” (p. 17). Gay (2018) also
described funds of knowledge as “out of school experiences matter and are resources and filters
for in school learning. These funds of knowledge, skill, and experience are assets, building
blocks, and leverage for subsequent learning” (p. 203). Although the importance of bringing in
students’ funds and treating students’ funds as assets is emphasized, I do not think using these
readings alone was sufficient enough to develop my practical understanding of the concept or
how to put it into practice.
To be able to develop a deeper and more accurate understanding of the concept and shift
my instruction in the second cycle of my action research, I read the seminal literature by Moll
and colleagues. Moll et al. (1992) described funds of knowledge as “historically accumulated
and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skill essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (p. 133). As the interview excerpt also demonstrated, the key
distinguishing factors are that the knowledge is “historically accumulated,” “culturally
developed,” and “essential for… functioning and well-being” in the students’ home life. As Dr.
Slayton explained, unless the student who knows a lot about dinosaurs knows that because of
their family’s profession, it falls under the category of prior knowledge, not funds of knowledge.

75

Moll and his colleagues (1992) also include the social networks and social relationships in their
explanation. This description of funds of knowledge is very different from my initial
understanding, which relied on summaries from scholars who focus on culturally
relevant/responsive pedagogy.
My misunderstanding did not stem from CRP representing funds of knowledge in a
different way than Moll and colleagues present it. However, delving into literature that explicitly
focuses on funds of knowledge helped me to zero in on what I had missed in the larger CRP
literature and provided more tangible things to think through. Thus reading funds of knowledge
literature illuminated what I had missed. I also had to consider that the purpose of CRP is aimed
to help Black students, whereas funds of knowledge literature is rooted in Mexican and
indigenous communities. Although there are similarities in these community’s experiences of
oppression, the audiences they consider are different, and I had completely missed that nuance in
my initial conceptualization. I mention this to emphasize that my conceptual misunderstanding is
not from a difference in how funds of knowledge, written as cultural knowledge, is represented
in the CRP literature, but from my need to explore it in more depth.
Another part of this interview that stood out to me was when Dr. Slayton explained “it’s
much more about how do you use what they are taught through their lived experiences in relation
to their family structures and their family’s history and culture.” My initial focus in this action
research was to spend time learning about students. What was missing from my CF to
appropriately address my research question was using the information I learned to then inform
future instruction. This is clear from the questions I posed each day such as “what do you know
how to do well that you could teach someone else?” This question elicited responses even from
students who were not active or verbal in general. As such, asking an open-ended question that

76

engaged students in something relevant to them was a step in the right direction. However, I did
not think about how to use that information in future lessons. The aim was simply to know what
they knew and to move on. This was demonstrated in my closing comment “That’s so cool that
you help with your pets and you’re good at it too.”
The discussion of how to use information I discovered about students’ funds of
knowledge is not in any of my reflections, which means I did not consider that crucial element
that is suggested by scholars like Moll and his colleagues who advanced the concept of funds of
knowledge. I was more focused on acquiring the information and missed the opportunity to use
students’ funds of knowledge, once accessed, to improve student learning and successfully
incorporate CRP.
Revised Approach to Accessing Funds of Knowledge
As previously stated, I did not have a clear understanding of funds of knowledge, much
less being able to develop application fluency that would prompt the use of students’ funds of
knowledge in instruction. Although it was included in my original CF, it was not discussed or
reflected on in my reflections prior to my midpoint interview. Had it been included in my
reflections it could have prompted changes in my instructional planning that incorporated
students’ funds for the lesson that followed. After my midpoint interview, I shifted my lessons to
be about accessing students’ funds of knowledge more intentionally. In the lessons that followed,
my students and I discussed how we like to spend time with our families, family traditions, how
we celebrate with our families, ways families get together, and what our definition of family was.
The focus on families was an intentional move on my part to enable me to center, not just the
students’ interests and prior knowledge, but what was “culturally developed” and helped the
students’ “functioning and well-being” in the home. Asking open-ended questions would have

77

helped to access students’ funds of knowledge more successfully. As previously mentioned, I did
not ask open-ended questions to all of my students throughout this action research self-study,
though I did begin to include reflections on how I might adjust or change my approach to
accessing my students’ funds of knowledge more. For example, the following is an excerpt from
a reflection I wrote during cycle 2:
Thinking about accessing funds of knowledge, questions about how we spend time with
our family members is a great way to uncover some potential funds of knowledge that
could be incorporated into lessons. I only wish I had done this lesson earlier in the year
and even asked the question more than once. It shows that some students spend time with
extended family and also opens up the definition of family. If I were to redo this lesson, I
might first ask students which family members they spend the most time with or like to
spend time with and then ask how they spend their time. This may help them share more
traditions they have, by widening what comes to mind as family.
Although I did not identify and reflect on specific examples that were funds of knowledge, I was
at least thinking about accessing them in a more intentional way. Specifically, I was mindful of
uncovering students’ social networks. In the same critical reflection, I stated that five students
“mention spending time with extended family like grandparents.” By realizing that I might in the
future “ask students which family members they spend the most time with or like to spend time
with and then ask how they spend their time,” I demonstrated making mental notes of how to
more intentionally excavate students’ funds of knowledge. In this regard, I made growth in both
my understanding of funds of knowledge and adjusted my practice to be more intentional about
how I incorporated the concept of funds of knowledge into my instruction.

78

What is missing from my reflection is how I could use the information I learned about
students in future lessons. I ended the reflection above with “This may help them share more
traditions they have.” But sharing their traditions shouldn’t be the end goal. Rather, it should be a
means to the teacher leveraging those traditions in instruction. At this point in the action
research, I was more concerned with accessing students’ funds of knowledge with my renewed
understanding of the concept, and I did not take the next step to contemplate how I will use the
information, much less actually use it. It is also important to note that this series of lessons was
done in the last few weeks of the school year, so using the information in future lessons was not
realistic. The midpoint interview, expanding the literature I read to include the seminal authors
that initially conceptualized funds of knowledge, and the lessons I subsequently taught helped to
improve my intellectual fluency of accessing students’ funds of knowledge. As stated above,
however, by stopping short of not yet leveraging students’ funds of knowledge for instructional
purposes, my application fluency is still a work in progress. In the next section I move to discuss
authentic care and how I made progress towards including it in my practice.
Authentic Care
The concept of authentic care is multi-faceted. Valenzuela (1999) said authentic caring
focuses on reciprocity between students and teachers. She emphasizes that for students to
perceive care from their teachers there needs to be cohesion between teachers’ words and
actions. Valenzuela (1999) also distinguished the difference between aesthetic care and authentic
care. She explains that aesthetic care is often what takes place in classrooms and is focused more
on non-personal content, whereas authentic caring is focused on students’ subjective reality and
focused on building relationships. Noddings (2005) concept of ethic of caring included
modeling, dialogue, practice, and confirmation. Noddings (2005) said that dialogue should be

79

open-ended and a “genuine quest for something undetermined at the beginning” (p. 23). In
previous sections I focused on my ability to have the type of dialogue Noddings describes and
asking open-ended questions is an area of growth for my practice. Noddings’ (2005) concepts of
ethic of caring also highlights confirmation or the “act of affirming and encouraging the best in
others” (p. 25).
Geneva Gay expands upon the literature described above. Gay (2018) said that a
component of authentic care is constantly seeking ways to get to know students. As previously
stated in the section above, getting to know students and accessing students’ funds of knowledge
were areas that I made progress on, but still have a lot of room to grow to successfully adopt it in
my pedagogy. Gay (2018) also described authentic care as a teacher providing “spaces and
relationships where ethnically diverse students feel recognized, respected, seen, and heard” (p.
62). I provide evidence below that demonstrates that I made progress towards making students
feeling recognized, respected, seen, and heard. Gay (2018) described CRP as validating and
affirming, which are also components of care.
In my CF I included authentic caring as it was described in CRP literature but did not
read and include the foundational literature that I briefly described above, namely how Noddings
and Valenzuela define it. I realized I needed to read the literature to deepen my understanding of
the concept and it is now included more thoroughly in my updated CF (See Figure 2). Below I
will provide examples to show how I (a) ensured that all students were able to have a voice in
class discussions, (b)validated students’ contributions, and (c) was intentional about getting to
know students. These three examples are small components of authentic care as a concept.
However, I am choosing to focus on these, because in previous sections I discussed other
components such as getting to know students and dialogue in more detail. Noddings (2005) said

80

that “caring is a way of being in relation not a set of specific behaviors” (p. 17). In the sections
below I am focused on a set of behaviors, because it helps to address my research question as
well as assess areas for growth.
Ensuring Student Participation
Gay (2018) argued that teachers can “empower students by legitimizing their ‘voice’ and
visibility” (p. 66). I wanted to ensure that every student shared during discussions so that
everyone’s voice would be heard and represented in our classroom. I had several students in my
class who were reluctant to share, and as discussions were coming to a close I called on them to
give them the space to share before the lesson ended. I wrote every student contribution on the
white board verbatim, essentially giving student responses equal visibility. Ensuring students
participation was my attempt to give students voice and visibility. The following excerpt is an
example of my prompting a Black male student and a Latinx Male student to share during a
discussion.
Me: [Student A] you are my last kiddo to share. What do you like to do with your family?
Student A: Go to the beach with my mom, brother, dogs, and grandpa.
Me: Does your dad go with you?
Student A: No he doesn’t like the beach he does other stuff.
Me: (How he said this made me laugh) It’s his day off huh?
OC: Student A smiles and laughs too. His mom runs a family business, and his dad is a
stay-at-home dad. He expresses often how exhausted he is taking care of his two boys. I
imagine a day alone sounds nice to him, which is why I laughed.
Me: Oh, [Student B] you didn’t share yet. What about you? What do you like to do with
your family?

81

Student B: I help my family.
Me: With what?
Student B: Taking care of the yard and cleanin’ up.
Me: What do you do to take care of the yard?
Student B: Take care of plants, pick up bottles, and pick up from our animals.
OC: He has a lot of animals so I imagine that taking care of them and cleaning up after
them does take a lot of time.
In the excerpt above, our class discussion about what we like to do with our families was coming
to an end because most students had shared. Student A and Student B did not raise their hands to
share up to this point, but in previous lessons, even though they were reluctant to share, they
shared their ideas towards the end of the lessons. This could be because they were nervous to
speak in front of others or because they needed more time to think about their answer. I wanted
all students to participate and have their ideas represented in our discussion. I ensured student
participation by saying “[Student A] you are my last kiddo to share” and “oh, [Student B] you
didn’t share yet.” By giving them the opportunity to participate, I gave them a chance to have
their voices heard and let them know that their ideas were missing and valuable to our
discussion. This connects to authentic caring, because it acts as modeling caring (Noddings,
2005). I was broadcasting that I believed they have something to contribute and that it would
benefit everyone’s learning. Gay (2018) included making students feel like they are important as
a small part of creating relationships. Noticing which students had not participated yet and
inviting them to participate signaled that their voices were important to me and to the learning of
the class. These two students also responded to my efforts by participating in the discussion. It is
not just about my demonstrating authentic care, but also that the students are experiencing my

82

actions as such, which is a key element of Valenzuela’s (1999) theorization of authentic care.
Both students did end up participating in our discussion, which shows that they were
experiencing the care I was demonstrating. I created the conditions where everyone had a chance
to speak and all students speaking in turn shows how they were experiencing my actions.
Although ensuring student participation is a small portion of authentic caring, it is progress
towards adopting authentic caring as part of my pedagogy.
Validating Student Contributions
In a previous section I shared the number of open-ended questions, close-ended
questions, and comments I made in interactions with students (See Table 2). Although, as I
argued elsewhere, the comments I made to students did not demonstrate high expectations, the
comments did validate student contributions. Gay (2018) described authentic caring in CRP as
providing space where students feel recognized and heard. The comments I made during a
teacher/student interaction typically gave students recognition for what they shared and were
positive and affirming words. Below is a typical example of a comment I made at the end of an
interaction that validated a student’s contribution and was affirming. The following interaction is
between me and two Black male students, two Latinx male students, and two White female
students. In the example below, students were sharing what they believed to be their strengths in
school:
Student A: Can I just say learning? Like I’m good at learning. I just like all of it. I just
like school.
Me: That is a great attitude to have. I love that, so no subject but learning new things.
That’s great! [Student B] what is your strength in school?
Student B: Math. It’s easy for me.

83

Me: Great! We have two [people] who say math so far. [Student C] what about you?
Student C: Reading. I’m good at reading like those tests we do I’m good at.
Me: You are great at the reading tests, you’re right! All right [Student D] you’re my last
kiddo. What is your strength in school?
OC: [Student C] was not a strong reader, but his parents have been helping him practice
his fluency passages. Last Friday was the first time he beat his goal. I made a really big
deal about it and his dad also acted really excited and gave him a high five. He actually
was one of the best readers of the day with zero errors and it was a particularly difficult
passage to read. I told him he was one of the best readers of the day. He doesn’t smile
often and he was visibly happy with himself, sharing that he had been practicing a lot. It
is good to hear in this discussion that he has internalized so quickly that he is a strong
reader.
Student D: Is crafts one of them?
Me: Like anything that you make? Cutting, pasting, coloring?
Student D: Yeah, I like that.
Me: I love crafts too. It is definitely a strength of mine. It is a great idea, I’ll add it [to our
brainstorming slide]
Student E: Oooo, I like crafts too, I’ll add it to mine too!
OC: I really like that [Student E] validated [Student D’s] idea. She sounded so unsure that
her answer was okay. I know student D is reluctant to share so I tried to be more excited
about the idea and connect it to my own experiences.
In the excerpt above there are four comments that I made in response to a students’
contribution to our discussion. I would describe these comments as positive and affirming

84

because I used language like “that is a great attitude to have,” “I love that,” “that’s great,” “you
are great at reading tests you’re right,” and “it is a great idea, I’ll add it.” Although my comments
were quick and not descriptive, I used positive language to acknowledge each students’
contributions. I used inflection in my voice, indicating I was excited or happy about their
answers. I know this inflection existed, because as a lower elementary teacher I have adopted an
enthusiastic and exaggerated tone whenever students share. Also important to note is that every
student in the excerpt above received an affirmation after they shared their idea, meaning that I
gave affirmations to all of my students and this type of validation it is a part of my pedagogy.
Noddings (2005) included confirmation as part of her ethics of caring and describes it as the act
of affirming and encouraging others.
I also showed authentic care through validating students’ answers by the attention I paid
to two students whom I previously described as struggling students in my student biographies
(discussed in more detail in a previous section). Although the quality of the interactions I had
with these two students showed low expectations, the affirmations I provided and their choosing
to participate in the conversation could indicate that they were experiencing authentic care.
Student C in the excerpt above was a struggling reader all year, but because of a recent positive
interaction, showed confidence in his academic abilities. Student C shared “his strength is
reading” and in my observer comments I discussed that he had recently met his reading goal and
both I and his father made a big deal about his growth. I told him “he was one of the best readers
of the day” and I wrote “it was good to hear he had internalized so quickly that he is a strong
reader.” This example shows the effects of a previous affirmation and could indicate that he
experienced my affirmation as authentically caring. This example also shows my presence in the
moment to recognize and tailor my validating response for this particular student.

85

The second student I paid particular attention to was Student D. I had described her as
having academic weakness in my student biographies, which was discussed in more detail in a
previous section. In my observer comment I noted “she sounded so unsure that her answer was
okay” and “I know she is reluctant to share so I tried to be more excited about the idea and
connect it to my own experiences.” This observer comment shows that I had the presence to
recognize her lack of confidence in her answer and adjusted my response to reassure her and
validate her contributions. Gay (2018) said that CRP develops individual self-worth and an ethic
of caring. My validation of Student C and Student D was my attempt to develop their individual
self-worth through bolstering their confidence in their academic abilities and contributions.
While validation and affirmation are only a small part of authentic caring, my use of them shows
progress towards demonstrating authentic caring, which was part of my CF in incorporating
CRP.
Planning and Intentionality
Noddings (1988) described caring as planned and intentional. Gay (2018) said that
“caring for is a deliberate and purposeful action plus emotionality” (p. 58). Below I provide
examples of how my lesson plans demonstrate I had some purpose and intentionality. Although
my lesson plans evolved to focus more on getting to know students’ funds of knowledge as
described in a previous section, they also connect to the concept of authentic caring. Below I
provide an example of a typical lesson plan that demonstrates intentionality in my planning of
guiding questions that focus on students’ lives. I provide an image of a portion of a lesson plan
that shows were I was intentional in my planning. Then I include a list of the guiding questions
for discussions.

86

Figure 3
Lesson Plan Excerpt

Figure 3 shows that in the introduction of this lesson as well as the sentence frame I planned for
this lesson was intended to be about getting to know students. As stated above, constantly
seeking ways to get to know students is an aspect of being authentically caring (Gay, 2018). The
focus of this lesson was for students’ lives to be the topic of our discussion and for them to have
an opportunity to talk about themselves and for me to learn about them as well as for students to
learn about their peers.
The following is a list of other questions that I ask students that were included in my
lesson plans. The questions below were asked as part of a writing lesson, but students are the
focus of the discussion and the intention was to get to know students.
• What is your strength in school?
• What are you really good at?
• What would your family say you’re really good at?
• What do you like to do with your family?

87

• What are some traditions your family has? For example, what are ways you celebrate
with your family?
• How would you describe what a family is?
The focus of all the questions above is on students’ lives and experiences and makes them
each the topic of our conversation. In previous sections I discussed how my ability to ask open-
ended questions and my lack of presence hindered some of the discussions. However, the list of
questions above shows that I planned to get to know students better. This shows that I made
some progress towards authentically caring because I infused it into lessons. Although this could
be considered aesthetic caring because it is focused more on form, meaning students sticking to
an academic topic, writing, that I set up for them, I did so with intentions that are more aligned to
authentic care.
In conclusion, I did make some progress towards authentically caring for my students. I
provided evidence that I ensured all students participated, I validated students each time they
shared, and I intentionally infused getting to know students in my lesson plans. Although I made
some progress, authentically caring for students continues to be an area of growth. Gathering
feedback from students could provide better insights into whether I am truly demonstrating
authentical caring. The next section discusses how being present emerged as a theme throughout
my action research self-study and impacted many of the other ideas from literature in my CF.
Being Present
It was only after I had “left the field”—stopped systematically collecting data on my
teaching practice—that I realized I had many missed opportunities to incorporate CRP
effectively, because I was not present during or immediately after a lesson. In my original CF I
identified being present as important in teacher/teacher interactions in facilitating others to use

88

CRP, however, it is absent from the teacher/student side of my CF (See Figure 1). My CF has
been updated to include presence when working with students, as it is a key part of CRP (See
Figure 2). Presence was important both during instruction and immediately after when writing
critical reflections so that I could take intelligent action right away.
Rodgers (2002) discussed being present as an important stage of the reflective cycle.
Presence is the ability to slow down and attend to what is happening. If teachers can be present
to students’ learning, they will be able to respond with the best possible instructional moves to
ensure students are learning (Rodgers, 2002). Presence can occur during a lesson or immediately
after when writing a reflection. Schön (1992) described two types of reflection: reflection-in-
action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-in-action is having the ability to attend to what is
occurring during instruction and responding to the flow of events. Whereas reflection-on-action
occurs immediately following instruction.
Larrivee (2008) argued that it can be challenging to reflect in the moment, because
teachers have multiple demands on their attention. This may have been the case in my own
practice because I was not only meeting the many demands of teaching but was also writing
jottings to help document my actions for my action research. Larrivee (2008) also said that
teachers’ attention can be focused on finishing a lesson, so reflection-in-action is less likely to
take place. Schön (1992) similarly described this as knowing-in-action or moving through a
performance or routine. Although my goal was to incorporate CRP, during this action research I
was performing the same routine that had become tacit from years of teaching and without
practicing being truly present to the students’ learning. The cognitive load of teaching, the
constraints of COVID-19, and writing observational jottings simultaneously contributed to my
relying on a more traditional teacher-centered approach and hindered incorporating CRP

89

effectively. In the sections below I provide examples of how reflection-in-action was missing in
my practice and led to missed opportunities to incorporate CRP. Additionally, even in the
reflections that followed the observation, focusing on my CF, the kind of reflection that would
have placed focused attention on issues of students’ race, gender, and culture, was absent. I argue
in the sections below that the reflective approach I used could be considered surface reflection.
Larrivee (2008) described surface reflection as focused more on strategies and methods used to
reach a predetermined goal. Although I attempted to use critical reflections to improve my
teaching practice, I failed to be present to students’ learning, and to consider the elements of my
CF in the reflective process in ways that would allow me to mid-course correct during my
enactment of CRP.
Below I provide examples of how lack of presence and reflection during and after lessons
led to three different types of missed opportunities: not accessing funds of knowledge, not
spending time on developing students’ sociopolitical consciousness, and not providing the
support students needed. I will also discuss how I did not always notice the missed opportunities
when writing my critical reflections following the observations. It was not until I left the field
and began to look at my data for evidence of actions from my CF that I realized I had missed
opportunities to truly support students’ learning and make progress towards my desired goal as
represented in my research question.
Accessing Funds of Knowledge
In my CF I identified valuing students’ funds of knowledge as an important teacher
characteristic. To access students’ funds of knowledge, however, I had to be able to recognize
when students had something to share and ask them questions to access what they knew. In other
words, I had to be present to them and to their learning. Below is a typical example of when a

90

student was sharing their prior knowledge and I missed the opportunity to access their funds of
knowledge.
Me: Today we are going to move on from practicing quarter time and discuss something
called AM/PM. What do you know about AM/PM?
Student: AM is in the middle of the night and PM is the middle of the day
Me: Oh that’s a great way to think about that. [Student] said that AM is in the middle of
the night and pm is in the middle of the day. Great thank you.
I began this short interaction by asking a question to access students’ prior knowledge. I have
taught an AM/PM lesson for several years and had never started the lesson this way before. With
the question I was attempting to make the lesson more culturally relevant, by trying to connect it
to what they already know and to see how time was involved in their daily lives. However, in the
short interaction above my lack of presence both in the moment and in the critical reflection
afterwards demonstrated how I missed the opportunity to be culturally relevant. Rodgers (2002)
argued that being present means attending to students’ learning. Although I asked a question to
start the lesson that could have positioned me for a more culturally relevant approach, my lack of
presence while the student above was answering stopped me and the class from getting more
insight into how he knew what he knew and how he used this knowledge in his home. When the
student said “AM is in the middle of the night and PM is the middle of the day” if I was more
present to what the student had said rather than just collecting answers, I could have engaged the
student in dialogue. The dialogue could have included asking him to explain what he meant, how
he knew what he knew, or to give an example of how he used this concept in his home. My lack
of presence to what he shared and his learning in the lesson stopped me from asking these
follow-up questions that could have improved everyone’s learning experience. Thus, my

91

inability to be present to what he shared ultimately hindered the well-intended question from
leading to a culturally relevant teaching approach.
I also did not notice this missed opportunity until I began analyzing my data, which took
place months later. When reviewing my reflection after this lesson, this student’s contribution
was not mentioned at all. Instead, I focused more on procedural aspects of my teaching, like the
order I structured the activities. Not only was I not present to this students’ learning during the
lesson, but I also did not reflect on it immediately afterwards. As such, I did not have presence in
close proximity to the lesson to enable me to make adjustments to the following lesson. This is
important in answering my research question because I identified valuing students’ funds of
knowledge as an element of incorporating CRP. However, I lacked the presence both during
lessons and in my reflections afterwards to identify moments in which students could have
shared more about their home lives and communities.
Sociopolitical Consciousness
I also identified developing sociopolitical consciousness as an important tenet of CRP in
my CF. Ladson-Billings (2014) described sociopolitical consciousness as the ability to learn
beyond the classroom and to solve real-world problems. Ladson-Billings (1995) also discussed
the importance of teachers helping students identify and critique social inequities. My lack of
presence both during and after lessons also hindered my ability to guide discussions that would
help students develop sociopolitical consciousness. Below is a typical example of how a
potential sociopolitical issue was brought up, but I missed the opportunity to have meaningful
discourse with students about it.

92

Me: So looking at my book, I disagree with this page a little bit. It is saying that every
family sits down and has breakfast. Do you agree with that? Do any of you have
breakfast sitting down with your family?
Student: We are always running late, so we don’t have time to eat breakfast.
Me: Does anybody have a similar morning? They are rushing and don’t have time to eat?
OC: Every student raises their hand, but [one]
Me: [Student] what about you, do you eat breakfast before school?
Student: No because my dog keeps eating my breakfast.
Me: Oh no, every day your dog steals your breakfast? What are you supposed to be
having?
Student: I have pancakes every morning, but my dog has been stealing it.
Student: You need to eat up higher!
Me: So all of you wait until lunch to eat? I don’t know how you make it. I have to eat
something to start my day. So we definitely disagree with this page in our book.
In the example above we were using a book about families to discuss our own. Many places
throughout this lesson I attempted to facilitate a critique of what was being displayed as
normative. However, my lack of presence during and after this lesson led to missing an
opportunity to critique the book’s insistence on the normative nature of eating breakfast. It meant
I missed the opportunity to develop my students’ sociopolitical consciousness about the possible
classist messaging in the book. Although I identified that not all families eat breakfast together,
the biggest mistake was that I assumed that all the students ate breakfast at all. Even when
students were not volunteering an answer, it did not occur to me in the moment that the real
focus of discussion should have been about eating breakfast at all. Towards the end of this

93

interaction I said, “So all of you wait until lunch to eat? I don’t know how you make it. I have to
eat something to start my day.” Even when I realized that they were waiting until lunch, I did not
have the presence to ask about this. I could have asked why students are waiting until lunch and
possibly if they are waiting for the school provided lunch, because they do not have food readily
available at home. Since only one student shared that they eat breakfast, it could have been a
great learning experience for that student and others to discuss their possible experiences with
food insecurity. While I can only infer in hindsight that food insecurity might shape my students’
experiences, this is a reality in our society and could have been leveraged as a learning
opportunity. We could have discussed solutions to food scarcity and insecurity, as well as the
importance of the school system to provide breakfast, not just lunch.
I was not present enough to probe deeper about what students’ situations were when I
found out that most of my students were skipping breakfast. For example, in my observer
comment I noted “every student raises their hand, but [one],” when I asked students if they were
all skipping breakfast. Unfortunately, I asked, “Does everyone have a similar morning? They are
rushing and don’t have time to eat?” Instead, I could have asked the other students why they
were not eating breakfast or if there were other reasons students were skipping breakfast. Not
only did I not adjust my instruction in the moment, but I also did not discuss this missed
opportunity in my critical reflection afterwards. Although I did discuss this part of the lesson, I
did not address it through a sociopolitical lens. Below is an excerpt from my critical reflection
that followed the lesson.
When I first read this story, I noticed there were some parts that we could disagree with
or critique. I thought it would be a good way to introduce critiquing literature. The book
shows a family sitting down eating breakfast. We first disagreed with this page. It was

94

interesting because only [one of the students] shared he had a similar morning and even
he said his mornings were different because his dog eats his breakfast. I don’t know how
long that has been happening though because I know he just got his puppy a few weeks
ago. He really likes to share stories about his puppy in whatever way he can work it in. I
was really surprised that everyone waits until the afternoon to eat. I notice they talk a lot
about how hungry they are as we get to lunch time and now it makes sense why. I don’t
feel like I’ve been as sympathetic to them saying that as I should have been. It has to be
difficult to focus and learn on an empty stomach.
The excerpt above shows that I noticed “everyone waits until the afternoon to eat,” but did not
reflect on potential reasons why they are waiting or approach it as an opportunity to develop
sociopolitical consciousness. It was not until I was analyzing my data months later that I realized
my own biases impacted my approach to the critique of this book. When examining my data
through the lens of my CF, I realized I had assumed everyone was eating breakfast because that
was my own personal experience. When I learned that they were not, I was not able to pivot my
instruction. Instead, I was more focused on critiquing the book in the way that I had planned,
rather than having students engage in the cultural critique that stemmed from their own
experiences.
Opportunities to Collaborate
Another way that my lack of presence negatively affected my ability to teach in a
culturally relevant way was regarding creating a positive classroom environment through
positive peer interactions, developing a community of learners and students participating in
discourse. Student collaboration is identified across CRP literature as important. Gay (2018) said
that student collaboration “has generated for participating students’ higher self-esteem, more

95

friends, great involvement in classroom activities, and improved attitudes toward learning” (p.
219). Gay (2018) also said that “for the most part, this instructional technique has similar
positive effects for students across ethnic, gender, and ability groupings” (p. 218). In other
words, student collaboration is beneficial for all students’ learning. For the purpose of this
section, I am going to discuss collaboration in terms of missed opportunities for students to
collaborate and interact with one another. Opportunities for students to work together was
missing from my instructional planning and was compromised because of COVID-19
restrictions. However, below I provide a typical example of how my lack of presence during
instruction and immediately afterwards also hindered this part of my CF from being fully
actualized.
During one lesson students were asked to write their ideas down on a white board. I made
an observer comment that “[two students] are waiting until they see another students’ board
before they write their answers down.” In this example, I noticed that two students were
struggling with the content, but I did not take action and adjust my teaching to meet their
learning needs. In my critical reflection that immediately followed this lesson I discussed
potential reasons these two students were struggling:
I noticed that still some students shared more than others. [Student A and Student B]
shared the least. I also noticed that they were the least on task. I know this because they
didn’t have their supplies ready as quickly as others and didn’t have their answers ready
as quickly as others. There are a couple of explanations. [Student A] is the farthest from
the board and [Student B] is the farthest from me when I sit down. They may fall out of
my radar because they are farther from my eye line or they may have a hard time hearing
me or keeping focused because they lack proximity. I noted a couple of times that

96

[Student B] waited to start her answer until she saw another one. This may be evidence
that she needs more support. Another explanation is that the lesson didn’t interest them
and they were bored. I also may not have given them enough think time. I noticed that I
don’t give students as much wait time/think time as I could. This is a problem because it
doesn’t give every student the opportunity to complete their thoughts and connections
before I start calling on others. The use of whiteboards could be constraining because I
am not letting them share in a variety of ways and I am limiting their student voice.
In the excerpt above I did have presence enough to notice that the students were struggling with
the content and I was attending to their learning. This is evidenced when I wrote they “didn’t
have their answers ready as quickly as others” and “[Student B] waited to start her answer until
she saw another one.” These two examples show that I noticed they were not confident in their
answers compared to their peers or needed more processing time. Although I noticed that these
two students may have needed additional support to master the concept, I did not have the
presence in my reflection to discuss potential solutions to help them in the next lesson. Rodgers
(2002) described presence as the ability to see what the learner is doing and respond
appropriately to support that learning. In the example provided above I did not respond to
students’ learning or lack thereof appropriately. One possible solution would have been having
them collaborate with a peer. Collaboration was constrained because of COVID-19, which I
discuss in the following section.
In this lesson my presence was constrained by the circumstances. Due to COVID-19
regulations students were seated six feet apart, the air conditioner had to remain on, and they
were surrounded by plexiglass. Under normal circumstances student collaboration would have

97

been in my lesson plan or I commonly use it at a scaffolding strategy when I notice students are
struggling. In the same reflection I also discussed this issue.
It really bothers me how this lesson is very teacher-centered, which is not how I would
normally teach. I’m really struggling with the set-up of my classroom. Students pair-
sharing or talking to each other is very difficult because they can’t hear each other. I’m
fully aware that the teacher-centered structure is boring for me and them, and doesn’t
provide the peer interactions they need, but turning to talk to each other isn’t an option
because of COVID-19 restraints.
In the examples above I notice students are struggling in my reflection and I also discuss how I
wanted to use student collaboration but could not because of rules in place. I noted that “the use
of whiteboards could be constraining” and the lesson “doesn’t provide the peer interactions they
need.” This is an example of lack of presence because during the lesson I was unable to think
about alternative solutions when I could not use my default teaching strategies. When reflecting
after the lesson, I still did not consider alternative scaffolding strategies. This means that I
noticed a problem but did not take intelligent action to address it.
In this section I discussed how my lack of presence during and in reflections immediately
following lessons led to missed opportunities to enact concepts from my CF. Specifically,
accessing funds of knowledge, developing sociopolitical consciousness, and noticing
opportunities to collaborate. In the section I will discuss the implications of my findings on
addressing my research question.
Afterword
This afterword will discuss several implications of this study’s findings on my practice as
I plan next steps for enacting my conceptual framework and continue to incorporate culturally

98

relevant pedagogy. First, I will discuss the implications of my findings on my practice; how I
plan to access funds of knowledge, be more authentically caring, hold higher expectations for
students, and improve my ability to be present in the next iteration of my action research self-
study. Then I will address the parts of my CF not included in my findings section. Lastly, I will
discuss the implications of this work to my future leadership roles.
Fully Enacting Concepts in My Conceptual Framework
In the findings section I discussed four concepts: demonstrating high expectations,
accessing funds of knowledge, authentic caring, and presence. These four concepts were present
throughout my action research, and I argued the enactment of them are still areas of growth in
order to successfully incorporating CRP into my practice. I grappled with theoretical
understanding and practical application of these concepts throughout this cycle of action
research. I would argue that for the four concepts in my findings I did not truly have a theoretical
understanding yet and had to dive into foundational literature to further conceptualize what
practical application would look like. Now that I have had one iteration of my action research, I
feel I have unpacked many of the concepts so that I have better practical application literacy for
the next iteration.
Personally, the most difficult finding for me to come to terms with was that I did not
demonstrate high expectations for all my students. I held the self-perception prior to this action
research project that I had high expectations for all my students. In closely and systematically
examining my student biographies as well as my interactions with students, I found that my
students received differential treatment from me. It became clear that I formed biases early on
that impacted my relationships with students, creating a stratified system in my class and
hindering students’ access to support and rigorous instruction. This goes against my espoused

99

values and is at odds with the kind of teacher I want to be. It also hinders my ability to close the
opportunity gap if I am perpetuating entrenched inequities. In this cycle of my action research I
wrote student biographies and later analyzed them for my biases and misperceptions. I plan on
continuing to hold myself accountable for the unconscious opinions I form about my students. In
previous sections of the paper I discussed how I realized my critical reflections were not really
critical. Critical reflections are an essential area I can make improvements. I plan to write critical
reflections about each of my students, so that I can uncover my biases earlier and actually change
my behavior, so that students do not suffer unequal treatment and low expectations. I plan to
continue to critically reflect on my interactions with students to provide a more equal treatment
for all students and demonstrate high expectations for all of my students. I made the mistake of
not using my conceptual framework and the concepts I want to incorporate into my practice as a
lens through which to reflect. In the next iteration of this action research I plan to constantly refer
to my conceptual framework as well as the literature that supports it to better analyze how I am
addressing or not addressing each concept.
Not fully understanding the concept of funds of knowledge prior to starting my action
research led to many missed opportunities to improve my practice. I realized that so much of
CRP relies on fostering relationships with students and learning what household and community
experiences they bring to the classroom. I also realized the distinction between prior knowledge
and familial and cultural knowledge. There are two big takeaways that I plan to incorporate in
my practice moving forward in order to foster deeper relationships with my students. First,
getting to know students and accessing their funds of knowledge has to be a priority and it has to
be intentional. Finding out as much as possible about my students’ experiences and their funds of
knowledge early in the school year is more important than I initially realized. As a result of this

100

study, I developed a questionnaire to send home with families at the start of each school year. I
need to access the funds of knowledge from my students and families early so that I can actually
incorporate them in my planning throughout the school year. This leads to the other lesson I
learned and plan to incorporate as I continue my action research, which is not to focus solely on
gathering information about students, but actually incorporating students’ funds into lessons or
by planning entirely new units. I did not use students’ funds of knowledge in this cycle of action
research, but plan to intentionally incorporate it in the next iteration. This could mean designing
units of study around students’ examples and experiences, rather than using examples from
textbooks. It could also mean family members coming into the classroom as a resource for what
we are learning.
The next finding I need to make more progress on is authentic care, which is in many
ways intertwined with the other concepts just discussed. Making progress in other areas of my
conceptual framework, specifically adjusting my practice on the two concepts discussed above
will help me to be more authentically caring. However, what I learned about authentic care in my
practice was the need for student feedback. It is not enough to believe I am authentically caring
or to examine different actions I take and then critically reflect on them. Most important is
whether students perceive me as authentically caring and are experiencing that care. Asking
students about their feelings, their opinions about the classroom environment, and how I am
forming relationships with them in ways that affirm their whole being will be the best indication.
Stephen Brookfield (2010) discussed four lenses of critical reflection, the student’s being one of
them. Student feedback was missing from this iteration of action research. I can use student
feedback, how students are participating in the classroom, and the work that they produce to
inform if I continue or adjust my practice in any way.

101

Finally, I discussed my lack of presence during and immediately after lessons. Prior to
beginning my data collection I thought that I would be able to notice opportunities to incorporate
CRP. However, I realized that I had to be intentional in planning lessons to be more culturally
relevant because I could not rely on my ability to seize spontaneous opportunities. Reflection-on-
action is a way to improve presence and identify missed opportunities to incorporate CRP.
Improving my critical reflections will also help me to reflect-on-action in a way that improves
instruction and informs the next steps I take. Constantly analyzing my actions using the concepts
I identified as important in my CF will help me to make progress towards incorporating CRP. I
also think I cannot rely solely on my ability to critically reflect. My midpoint meeting with Dr.
Slayton showed the importance of having a peer to help me interpret concepts and help me to see
concepts I am not fully understanding. A peer can also keep me accountable to uncovering my
own biases and misperceptions and adhering to my conceptual framework. This connects to the
teacher/teacher side of my CF and the importance of building a learning community, which I will
discuss next.
Unfinished Work
In the previous section I discussed the components of my CF that were included in my
findings. Next, I will discuss the teacher/student side of my CF that was not addressed in my
findings, however, I plan to include in my next action research cycle. Then I will discuss the next
steps for the teacher/teacher side of my CF, which was not analyzed or included in my findings.
In my practice
There were four teacher moves and practices in my CF that I did not address in this cycle
of my action research: developing rigorous instruction, creating positive classroom environment

102

through positive peer interactions, developing a community of learners, and developing cultural
competence and sociopolitical consciousness among my students.
I learned that being intentional was important in applying many concepts in my CF. I do
not believe that I had enough intentionality in this action research around developing rigorous
instruction. In my next iteration I want to focus more on the planning of instruction. I noticed
many changes to lessons that I could have made, like questions I could have asked, opportunities
to collaborate, and the actual content being discussed. I only noticed these changes once I had
stopped systemically collecting data in my classroom. Because I lacked intentionality and I was
grappling with other concepts, I was not focused on planning rigorous instruction. Perhaps the
lesson is that I, and teachers in general, can only focus on a few things at a time. My CF was
ambitious and I was only able to make incremental changes in a few areas. There are two
implications of this: that changing my practice is slow and will take several iterations of action
research and I need to consider the slow nature of changing practice when working with other
teachers as well.
In addition to rigorous instruction, I was not able to accomplish my desired outcome of
creating a positive classroom environment through positive peer interactions and creating a
community of learners. Due to COVID-19 restrictions there were not many opportunities for
peer interactions. My action research was conducted in the last quarter of the school year. In the
preceding quarters, students were learning online and having peer interactions was not equivalent
in the online environment to being in the classroom. I was not successful at using breakout
rooms for collaboration. Students would turn off cameras, stay muted, walk away from their
computers, siblings and parents would join breakout rooms, or students would begin sharing
their toys and pets. I constantly tried new ways to have students collaborate, but with mixed

103

results. Partly this has to do with their age and the circumstances of learning online and partly is
a comment on my inability to use breakout rooms effectively. Planning peer interactions online
was difficult and I mention it here because it means that I had not built the foundation for
positive peer interactions throughout the school year. When my action research began, we had
just returned to in person learning, but there were many constraints, such as being six feet apart,
using clear plastic desk shields, and having the air conditioning on high. It was challenging to
hear each other and thus challenging to talk to each other. It was disappointing that my action
research was very teacher-centered and lacked peer interactions. I believed in and still believe in
the importance of Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory and how peer interactions were
important for students to learn. I would have liked the opportunity to analyze how I used peer
interactions and if they were or were not contributing to peer relationships and a positive
classroom environment. In my next iteration, I plan to examine peer interactions as an active
learning strategy. Most importantly, I plan to ask for student feedback about our classroom
environment. I think my perception of peer interactions, peer relationships and our overall
classroom environment is one part, but students’ perceptions would be more beneficial in
improving my practice.
Finally, developing my students’ cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness
was not present in this iteration of my action research, despite being a desired outcome in my
conceptual framework. My many areas of growth contributed to my inability to address this part
of my CF and perhaps the cognitive overload of the number of concepts I had hoped to address.
My lack of presence meant that when an opportunity arose to have conversations that could
begin to develop my students’ sociopolitical consciousness, I missed it. I also did not reflect on
actions well enough to make mid-course adjustments to my lessons to address those missed

104

opportunities. Likewise, I was still grappling with getting to know students and accessing their
funds of knowledge, which hindered my students being able to develop cultural competence
about each other or themselves. Finally, the absence of peer interactions meant that the class was
not engaging in discourse with each other, which is needed to discuss sociopolitical issues. In my
next iteration, I plan to have these two concepts be the goal for my students. My hope is that if I
continue to improve in the other areas of my CF, applying what I have learned from this cycle of
action research, such as the importance of accessing and using students’ funds of knowledge, I
will be able to create an environment that supports developing cultural competence and
sociopolitical consciousness. I knew at the start of this action research cycle that developing
cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness would be the most difficult for me. What I
now realize is how foundational the other concepts from CRP literature are in creating a
classroom environment and lessons that focus on developing cultural competence and
sociopolitical consciousness. I also needed to reframe my approach to these two concepts.
Previously, I conceptualized them as results to CRP, not goals to actively plan and work towards.
Leadership
This action research cycle focused on the teacher/student interactions presented in my
CF. Prior to starting my action research I had developed a much more complex CF that also
focused on interactions with teachers. While I did meet with teachers and discussed CRP
concepts as I had planned, I had too much data that resulted from those meetings and not enough
time to analyze them in this iteration. For the purpose of the study, I chose to focus on just
interactions with students, however, moving forward I would like to analyze the data from my
interactions with peers and update my CF to reflect my findings on my leadership practices. I
was also grappling so much with the concepts in my own practice, that analyzing and improving

105

my own practice in the classroom was more valuable in my current role, leaving the leading of
other teachers and close analysis of my leadership to future work. I still believe I will have a
leadership role in the future and hope to represent it my next iteration of my theory of change. I
first want to improve my own classroom practice based on what I have learned from this action
research cycle and then apply my experiences in a leadership capacity.
My findings demonstrated that I was still grappling with both a theoretical understanding
of many of the concepts in my CF. I misunderstood what funds of knowledge was and needed
more foundational literature to understand what practical application of this concept looked like.
My learning from this cycle of action research has helped me to develop more application
fluency so that I can help other teachers with these concepts as well. I still have a lot of progress
to make in enacting my theory of change and effectively incorporating CRP, so I do not believe I
have all of the answers to lead others. I do think I understand what it is like to develop a theory
of change and systemically examine my practice, so I can do this work alongside other teachers.
I can see my leadership role being to develop a learning community where we struggle and grow
together. I know that I need peers to help me see my biases and misunderstandings, so my next
steps as a leader are to find peers to help me improve and who want to address the opportunity
gap present in our district by incorporating CRP with me.

106

References

Anthony. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349–369.
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education:
A Synthesis of Research Across Content Areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1),
163–206.
Banks, J. A. (2009). Diversity, group identity, and citizenship education in a global age.
Educational Researcher, 37(3), 129–139.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Fieldwork. Qualitative research for education: An
introduction to theory and methods (pp. 82–112). Pearson.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer.
Çakır, H. and Cengiz, Ö. (2016) The use of open ended versus closed ended questions in
Turkish classrooms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 60–70.
California Department of Education. (1999). Certificated Staff by Ethnicity for 1998–1999.
Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/106ataquest/
California Department of Education. (2019). Certificated Staff by Ethnicity for 2018–2019.
Retrieved July 27, 2022, from https://dq.cde.ca.gov/106ataquest/
California School Dashboard. (2019). District Performance: Overview, Westside Union School
District. Retrieved July 27, 2022,
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/19651020000000/2019
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage Publications

107

Limited.
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.
Elmore, R. F. (2003). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for

professional development in education. Secondary lenses on learning participant book:

Team leadership for mathematics in middle and high schools, 313–344.

Emerson, E. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995) Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes.
The University of Chicago Press.
Erickson, F. (2012). Comments on causality in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8),

686–688.

Garrett, H. J., & Segall, A. (2013). (Re)Considerations of ignorance and resistance in teacher
education, Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 294–304.
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70.
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching : theory, research, and practice (3rd ed).
Teachers College Press.
Gibbons, L. K., & Cobb, P. (2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. The
Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–260.
Glesne, C. (2011). Crafting your story: Writing up qualitative data. Becoming qualitative

researchers: An introduction (pp. 218–240). Pearson.
Gorski, P.C. (2012). Perceiving the problem of poverty and schooling: Deconstructing the class
stereotypes that mis-shape education practice and policy. Equity & Excellence in
Education, 45(2), 302–319.

108

Hatt, B. (2012). Smartness as a cultural practice in schools. American Educational Research
Journal, 49(3), 438–460.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and

faculty. Sage publications.

Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.

Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.

Howard, T. C., & Rodriguez-Scheel, A. (2017). Culturally relevant pedagogy 20 years later:
Progress or pontificating? What have we learned, and where do we go?. Teachers
College Record, 119(1), n1.
Khalifa, M., Gooden, M., & Davis, J. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3).
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the remix.(Essay). Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.
Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269–289.
Matsumura, L., Slater, S., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction and
curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary School
Journal, 108(4), 293–312.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Sage
Publications.

109

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there. Harvard.
Milner, H. R. (2017). Where’s the race in culturally relevant pedagogy. Teachers College
Record, 119(1), 1–32.
Moll, 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.
Noddings. (1988). An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements.
American Journal of Education, 96(2), 215–230.
Noddings. (2005). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education (2
nd

ed.). Teachers College Press.
Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Teaching to change the world.

Routledge.

Paris, D., & Alim, H. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. (Critical essay). Harvard Educational Review,
84(1), 85–100.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. Qualitative research & evaluation methods (pp.
339–415). Sage.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education
Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992 Reading
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education
Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1992 Mathematics

110

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education
Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress: 2019 Reading
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education
Statistics. National Assessment of Educational Progress: 2019 Mathematics
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Science, National Center for Education
Statistics. National Teacher and Principal Survey: Percentage distribution of public
school teachers, by race/ethnicity and state: 2017–18
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. Civil rights data collection: Data
snapshot (school discipline).
Schön. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Slayton, J. & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, learning
conditions, and andragogy in developing leaders who can change the face of public Pre
-K through 12 education. In Advances in Educational Administration (Vol. 11, pp. 23
–45). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Sleeter, C. E. (2004). Context-conscious portraits and context-blind policy. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 35(1), 132–136.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing schools to life. American Educator, 13(2), 20–25.

Valencia. (2012). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Falmer
Press.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling : U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring .
State University of New York Press.

111

Appendix A: Critical Reflections Questions
The following is a list of critical reflection questions to consider after teacher/student
interactions occur.
1. What am I assuming about my students?
2. How are my expectations of my students shaped by a majoritarian idea of behavior?
3. How am I perpetuating the status quo?
4. What structures, both systemic and contextual are influencing my instructional
decisions?
5. What am I assuming about myself?
6. How are power dynamics operating in my classroom?
7. What hegemonic practices are present in my classroom? What am I perpetuating? Am
I adhering to institutional priorities, if so, what are they?
8. How does my experience with school, my ethnicity, and past experiences, potentially
influence my thinking and decision making?
9. How, if at all, are students demonstrating the desired outcomes associated with my
teacher characteristics and actions
10. What dominant ideologies, i.e. beliefs, traditions, and assumptions are present in my
teaching practice and classroom?
11. Are my actions democratizing the classroom or hindering democratization?
12. What are alternate perspectives? What are the implications of these alternate
perspectives?
13. Did I accomplish my goal? How do I know? What evidence do I have? Were there
other ways I could have accomplished the same goal?

112

14. Who was served by my actions, pedagogical decisions and who was not?
15. Am I painting myself in too positive a light? How might other perceive the same
situation/decisions/actions?
16. Is there deficit thinking or deficit language present in how I am thinking about
students?
17. What political and moral dimensions are present?
18. How does this reflective process inform and renew my perspective?

113

Appendix B: Midpoint Interview Protocol
The purpose of this interview is to discuss my study and to uncover any patterns or trends
in my thinking that are not clear during in my written critical reflections. This interview acts as a
midway check to unearth any potential misunderstandings or any patterns in my thinking that I
have not uncovered during analysis so far. As well as to discuss how the data collection and
incorporation of culturally relevant pedagogy is going thus far and to act as a different type of
analysis of my own learning. Below is a list of questions being provided to my co-chair to guide
the conversation with me and to ensure that the interview is grounded in my conceptual
framework. It is semi-structured, so my co-chair can ask follow-up questions if the need arises.
Incorporating Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and My Roles as a Teacher
1. Tell me about how your action research self-study is going so far in relation to your
role as a teacher.
2. Tell me about a time you demonstrated authentic care with your students?
3. Give me an example of how you’ve demonstrated high expectations for all of your
students.
4. Give me an example of how you’ve learned about students’ cultures, if at all?
5. Tell me more about how you’ve incorporated their cultures into lessons, if at all?
6. Give me an example of how you’ve created a positive classroom environment
through positive peer interactions, if at all?
7. Give me an example of how you have implemented rigorous instruction in your
classroom, if at all?
8. Tell me about how you have tried to develop a community of learners, if at all?

114

9. Give me an example of how you’ve incorporated developing sociopolitical
consciousness and critique into your lessons, if at all?
10. What challenges have arisen, if any?
11. What do you think has worked well, if anything?
12. What has surprised you about the self-study so far, if at all?
13. What are the components of culturally relevant pedagogy have you not yet tried to
implement in your instruction, if any?
14. As you have begun to analyze your data, what patterns or trends have you noticed, if
any?
15. What are your next steps in your role as a teacher?
Desired Outcomes
16. What evidence do you have that students are engaging in positive peer interactions?
17. What evidence do you have that students are participating in discourse and
discussions?
18. What evidence do you have that students are expressing themselves?
19. What evidence do you have that students are critiquing inequitable systems and
developing critical consciousness?
20. What evidence do you have that students are improving in their learning?

115

Appendix C: Final Observation Protocol
This is the formal observation protocol that will be used during each observation of both
teacher/student interactions and teacher/teacher interactions. There is space for jottings as well as
more detailed field notes following the observation.

Name of Observer Date Time

Location Study

Physical Space
Describe the physical space.

People/Participants
Who are the participants? How many
participated?

Observer as a Participant Role
What am I doing?

Describe some of my interactions with student
participants throughout observation

Time Jottings OC’s

116

Field Notes/Memo

Critical Reflection

117

Appendix D: Codebook
Teacher/Student Interactions
Instructional Moves/Practices +/-
High expectations
Authentic caring
Students’ funds of knowledge
Rigorous curriculum
Positive Peer interactions
Cultural competence
Sociopolitical consciousness
Being Present
Desired Student Outcomes +/-
Positive peer interactions
Participate in discourse and discussions
Express themselves
Improved academic learning
Sociopolitical consciousness
My Learning +/-
Change in thinking
Awareness of something new to consider

118

Appendix E: Family Questionnaire
Language(s) What language(s) does your student hear or speak at home?

Holidays What holidays does your family celebrate? Do you have any holiday
traditions?

Family Does your student spend time with extended family? (grandparents, aunts,
uncles, and/or family friends)

Do you have family or family friends living in other states or countries? If so,
where? Does your student visit family that live elsewhere?

Activities What kinds of outings does your family enjoy?

What kinds of activities does your family enjoy doing together?

Chores What kinds of household chores does your student do, if any?

Does your student help with cooking? If so, what do they cook?

Occupation What are your family’s occupations? (grandparents, aunts, uncles too)

119

Agriculture Do you grow any food or plants?
Do you have farm animals?
Do you have any family members with agriculture experience?

Technology What kind of technology does your student have access to? (tv, computer,
tablet, gaming system, cell phone)

References
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching : theory, research, and practice (3
rd
ed.).
Teachers College Press.
González, Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2009). Funds of knowledge : theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms (González, L. C. Moll, & C. Amanti, Eds.).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Moll, 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.
Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (n.d.). Funds of knowledge toolkit –
k12.wa.us. Funds of Knowledge Toolkit. Retrieved July 27, 2022, from
https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/migrantbilingual/pubdocs/Funds_of_Kno
wledge_Toolkit.pdf

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative action research examined the following question: How do I as a teacher incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy with students to create conditions that address the opportunity gap? This self-study action research took place Spring 2021 at the elementary school where I am a second-grade teacher. Using jottings, field notes, and critical reflections, in conjunction with my conceptual framework, I systematically examined my practice. I found that (a) I communicated differing levels of expectations for different students, based on my assumptions about their abilities, (b) I did not demonstrate accessing funds of knowledge and was not able to incorporate it into my teaching because discovered I needed to be intentional, (c) I made progress towards being authentically caring, though it is still an area of growth, and (d) I did not demonstrate being present during lessons, which led to missed opportunities to successfully incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy into my practice. I was unable to fully answer my research question. The following concepts were planned, but not enacted (a) rigorous instruction, (b) creating a positive classroom environment through positive peer interactions, (c) developing a community of learners, and (d) developing cultural competence and sociopolitical consciousness.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize 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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic teacher care in creating meaningful academic learning opportunities for students of color

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

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

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to increase access and engagement in STEM for historically underrepresented and marginalized populations

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

Exploring culturally relevant pedagogy in a Chinese immersion program: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

Asset Metadata

Creator Golyer-Blair, Melanie (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 08/04/2022

Defense Date 07/11/2022

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

Tag action research,culturally relevant pedagogy,elementary school,OAI-PMH Harvest,opportunity gap

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Lyons-Moore, Akilah (committee member), Slayton, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email golyerbl@usc.edu,groovykitten733@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111376142

Unique identifier UC111376142

Legacy Identifier etd-GolyerBlai-11106

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Golyer-Blair, Melanie

Type texts

Source 20220805-usctheses-batch-970 (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