University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Critically Reflective Dialogue: An Action Research Study on Increasing the
Critical Consciousness of Ethnic Studies Teachers
by
Sarah Anne St. Clair Henderson

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 Sarah Henderson 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Sarah Henderson certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Julie Slayton
Brad Ermeling
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The purpose of this action research study was to examine how I, as a high school English and
Ethnic Studies (ES) teacher supported my fellow ES teachers in developing our critical
consciousness through critically reflective dialogue during our weekly professional learning
community (PLC) meetings. I investigated how I supported my colleagues from my position
within our PLC. This study took place at PS 501, a high school located in Southern California,
during regularly scheduled PLC meetings. The research question guiding this action research
study was, how do I support high school English teachers in developing their critical
consciousness so as to fully enact the emergent Ethnic Studies curriculum? My conceptual
framework, grounded in critical theories, adaptive leadership theories, and adult transformational
learning theories, informed the development, implementation, and revision of my actions within
my learning community meetings. Through observational field notes, critical reflections, and
analytic memos, I was able to systematically observe and analyze my practice over a 3-month
period. My findings show my ability to cultivate a safe space as a prerequisite to carrying out the
vulnerable work of critically reflective dialogue. Also, I learned the importance of and provided
for differentiated supports based on my colleagues’ previous life experiences and their uneven
critical consciousness. And, lastly, my findings show my growth as a leader within my PLC,
namely my awareness of how my positionality as a socializing knower shaped my behaviors and
affected my colleagues in this study.

v
Acknowledgements
I first would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Artineh Samkian, for your steadfast
support and encouragement through my entire doctoral program at USC. You taught my first
class at Rossier and continued with me to my last day. Your clarity and insights guided me in my
study and helped me complete a final product that I am proud of. Thank you to Dr. Julie Slayton
and Dr. Brad Ermeling for being members of my committee. I appreciate your guidance and
feedback through this process.
To my husband, Doug, thank you for your constant support and love. You gave me the
encouragement I needed to complete this program even when I wanted to give up. You listened
to me ramble about research theories and methods and findings with a never-ending supply of
patience. To my boys, Jaren, Kory, and Micah, thank you for being my cheerleaders through this
whole process, celebrating with me at every stage, and giving me a “You got this!” whenever I
struggled or felt overwhelmed. I love you.
To my sister, Dr. St. Clair, many years ago we started kindergarten together, so it only
seems appropriate that we finished our doctoral programs within weeks of each other. Thank you
for your constant support and encouragement as I completed this dissertation. I always knew that
I could turn to you because you could relate and commiserate. We did it!
Lastly, I want to say a special thank you to the members of my PLC team. Your
willingness to allow me to record our meetings and analyze our dialogue was generous,
vulnerable, and brave. This dissertation, quite literally, would not have been possible without
you.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... x
Historically Entrenched Inequity ......................................................................................... 4
Local Context ...................................................................................................................... 5
Role and Expectations ......................................................................................................... 9
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 11
Professional Learning Community ........................................................................ 13
Critically Reflective Dialogue ............................................................................... 15
Critical Self-Reflection .......................................................................................... 18
Ethnic Studies Curriculum and Pedagogy ............................................................. 19
Critical Consciousness in Ethnic Studies Teachers ............................................... 22
Teacher Ideology ................................................................................................... 23
Facilitating Critical Consciousness From Within a Professional Learning
Community ............................................................................................................ 25
Intended Outcomes ................................................................................................ 33
Methods ............................................................................................................................. 34
Participants and Settings ........................................................................................ 35
Actions ................................................................................................................... 40
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols ........................................................... 42
Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 45
Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................... 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ............................................................................ 48

vii
Ethics ..................................................................................................................... 49
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 51
Finding 1: Cultivating a Safe Space Within an Ethnic Studies Professional
Learning Community as a First Step in Creating the Conditions for
Critical Consciousness Development .................................................................... 52
Finding 2: Supporting Critical Consciousness Development in Ethnic
Studies Teachers From Within a Professional Learning Community ................... 71
Finding 3: Leading From Within an Ethnic Studies Professional Learning
Community as a Socializing Knower .................................................................... 99
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 122
Afterword ........................................................................................................................ 122
Growth as a Leader .............................................................................................. 123
Implications for Practice ...................................................................................... 124
References ................................................................................................................................... 129
Appendix A: Culture Tree Handout ............................................................................................ 138
Appendix B: Axes of Intersectionality ........................................................................................ 139
Appendix C: Warm Demander Chart .......................................................................................... 140
Appendix D: Intended Actions Cycles and Dialogue Protocols ................................................. 141
Dialogue Protocols .......................................................................................................... 143
Cycle 1: Dialogue Protocols ................................................................................ 143
Cycle 2: Dialogue Protocols ................................................................................ 145
Cycle 3: Dialogue Protocols ................................................................................ 147

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Characteristics 36
Table 2: Meeting Attendance 54
Table 3: ES Teachers’ Entry Points 82
Table D1: Intended Actions Cycles 141

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 12
Appendix A: Culture Tree Handout 138
Appendix B: Axis of Intersectionality 139
Appendix C: Warm Demander Chart 140

x
List of Abbreviations
ES Ethnic Studies
PLC Professional Learning Community

CRT Critical Race Theory
CRD Critically Reflective Dialogue

1
Critically Reflective Dialogue: An Action Research Study on Increasing the Critical
Consciousness of Ethnic Studies Teachers
I was born and raised in a Seventh-day Adventist family in a predominately White
community in the American South that not only shaped my views of right and wrong, but also
my understandings of knowledge, truth, and ultimately, education as a whole. My positionality,
or ways of being, and my epistemology, or ways of knowing, were both largely shaped by the
religion in which I was raised. I can trace my family’s roots in the church back for at least three
generations on each side. Adventists maintain a highly insular community with its own unique
culture (church on Saturday, no meat, no dancing, etc.), and I grew up deeply embedded. My
church was Adventist, my immediate and extended family were Adventist, my friends were
Adventist, I attended Adventist church schools, and even my medical doctors were Adventist.
Because of this insular bubble, I was never faced with different ways of knowing. I grew up in a
world where the identical, essentialist teachings were shared in every space I inhabited. There
was no separation, ideologically or otherwise, between home, church, school, and friends. Truth
was truth. Knowledge was knowledge.
I now recognize the paradoxical privileges and challenges of this upbringing. I had the
privilege of two loving parents and a tight-knit, supportive community of teachers, family, and
friends. At the same time, I was taught to be fearful of the rest of the world that I was
intentionally secluded from. This included people of other races, religions, and nationalities, so,
like many White, Christian Americans, I grew up with very few meaningful interactions with
people of color. Adventist churches were mostly segregated in the South, where I grew up, and
many are still segregated to this day.
2

I have also examined the ways in which my positionality and epistemology were affected
by the fact that I was defined and singled out from an early age because of others’ perceptions of
my intelligence. Family legend has it that I taught myself to read at the age of 3 and from that
point on always had my “nose in a book.” I started school early, which meant that I was in the
same grade as my sister from kindergarten on, even though she was a year older; an odd situation
that we were questioned about often. The internalizing of my intellectual identity naturally
became central to my self-identity, rooting it in feelings of superiority. I was led to believe that
this was an innate ability that made me special, rather than a product of the safe, loving home I
was raised in, the personal attention I received in my small church schools as well as being a
member of the dominate race with all the societal privileges that that entailed.
As I reflect on my childhood, I see now how much my upbringing led to my essentialist
philosophy of education (Oakes et al., 2018), not only as a student, but also when I became a
teacher. Meaning, I believed that essential knowledge is knowable and can be taught to future
generations. As a student, I loved school because I was consistently praised and rewarded. I
wanted to know more and more, so I read and read, studied and studied. I decided to become a
high school teacher while I was still in high school. Teaching was the natural route for me to take
because then I could be seen as the bearer of knowledge, bestowing it upon others. This top-
down, essentialist view of education was reinforced by the essentialist nature of my insular
Seventh-day Adventist upbringing. I also note the imbedded saviorism and colonialism
associated with the rhetoric of the Adventist missionary movement and its impact on me. I was
intentionally raised to feel superior, and that has affected how I have viewed my students in
public and private schools throughout my career. Always as the savior, always as the bearer of
knowledge and truth, and always at a distance.
3

Therefore, my transformational journey as an educator has been fraught with challenges.
Throughout my career, I always believed I was showing care toward my students, but it was
with, what I now realize, a deficit ideology that positioned me as the savior and the bearer of
knowledge. Since beginning my studies at USC, my eyes have been opened to the White
supremacist hegemony all around me and my role in perpetuating the inequities that it creates. I
realize, now, my paternalistic goals of seeking affirmation and gratitude due to the knowledge I
was bestowing on my students (de Oliveira Andreotti, 2014). No matter how well-intentioned I
have been, there is no way to know the amount of unintentional harm I may have caused
throughout my nearly quarter-century as a classroom teacher because I am a product of the
White hegemonic system that I was never asked to question.
I was inspired to affect change with this research study because of my own history and
upbringing that intentionally blinded me to the larger world around me. From my insular,
predominately White community, I was unable to see the entrenched inequities that existed in
our society. And I knew that I was not alone in having these blinders. It was my purpose in this
research study to work to remove the blinders of my fellow teachers to see the larger systems of
oppression and power and the systemic inequities around us so that we can work to dismantle
them.
Luckily, I was given the opportunity to teach Ethnic Studies (ES) in my role as a high
school English teacher. When I considered my role in enacting a fully realized (ES) curriculum
through the lens of what I have learned at USC, I am passionate about not allowing those
systems of power and oppression to be perpetuated in our ES classrooms. ES courses are an
excellent place to start to disrupt systems of power and oppression, because, within these
courses, there is the potential to critically examine these systems and center the experiences and
4

voices of historically marginalized people. With the knowledge I gained, I could not stand idly
by and allow some form of bad multiculturalism (Carrim, 1998) to be implemented by my ES
colleagues or me. Therefore, it was important to examine the ES teacher. It was essential for us
to learn to interrogate our positionalities, assumptions, and biases to inform our pedagogy as we
worked to enact the emergent ES curriculum.
Historically Entrenched Inequity
In the history of the United States’ public education system, Black and Latino students
have been systematically marginalized through White supremacist expectations of assimilation
by the dominant White hegemony (Anderson, 1988; Spring, 2016; Tuck & Gaztambide-
Fernandez, 2013; Tyack, 1974). The structures and ideologies that have informed U.S. education
are Eurocentric and White supremacist in nature and are “offered to students of color, demeaning
them and their communities and ignoring their people’s contributions to society, while leaving
them waiting for a White savior to provide them with opportunities” (Cabrera, 2019, p. 151).
This marginalization continues largely unchecked due to the unexamined Whiteness
(Picower, 2009) of an American teaching force that is 80% White taught by post-secondary
educators who are 75% White (NCES, 2021), even though the ethnic composition of the K–12
student population in the United States is increasingly Latino
1
and Black (de Oliveira Andreotti
et al., 2015). In 2000, students in K–12 schools were 61% White. By 2015, that number
decreased to 49%, and by 2027, the White population of K–12 public schools is expected to
decrease to 45% (NCES, 2021).

1
I understand that there is much debate involving the use of the terms Latino, Latinx, Hispanic, Chicano, and others.
I have chosen to use Latino for the purposes of this dissertation although that is an imperfect decision. I
acknowledge the complexity of this choice and do not have a perfect solution.
5

Teachers are products of teacher education systems with embedded White supremacist,
deficit ideology that romanticizes cultural assimilation as the ultimate path to life-long student
success, especially in communities of color (Bartolomé, 2008; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). New
teachers carry this ideology into their classrooms and schools where they continue to hear it
reinforced around them by their fellow teachers and administrators (Gorski, 2011). This deficit
ideology about students of color results in low expectations for student achievement and a lack
of rigor in content and pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), contributing to differential outcomes.
For example, the high school graduation rates for Black and Latino students are 9% and 7%
lower, respectively, than White students (NCES, 2021). Additionally, Black and Latino students
are more likely to be suspended, expelled, and arrested at school when compared to White
students (Advancement Project, 2011). Deficit teacher ideology, therefore, has serious, negative
consequences that shifts blame to students and their families as a way to avoid responsibility on
the part of the educational system (Gorski, 2011).
Local Context
Public School District 500 (PSD 500, a pseudonym), where this study took place, was
founded in the late 1980s, encompassing unincorporated rural land and suburban communities.
The area’s population grew dramatically in the 30 years prior to this study due to an increasing
immigrant population, new industrial complexes, and expanding suburban housing
developments. Although PSD 500 consisted of rural and suburban regions, it had what Howard
and Milner (2014) described as distinctly urban characteristics such as high poverty, a diverse
population, and increasing numbers of immigrant families and students. The student population
of the school district was predominately Latino and Black; almost all students qualified for free
and reduced-price meals. White teachers made up just over half of the teaching force in the
6

school district, although White students only accounted for a negligible percentage of the student
population creating a disconnect between the cultural identities of teachers and students.
Since the late 1980s when PSD 500 was founded, accountability practices connected to
philosophies of essentialism, sharing essential knowledge from one generation to the next;
neoliberalism, corporatizing and industrializing education; and behaviorism, creating habits of
mind through systems of rewards and punishments, grew exponentially in American school
systems (Oakes et al., 2018). All of these philosophies directly impacted the policies of PSD 500.
Steadily increasing systems of accountability and competition have, therefore, always been a part
of the fabric of PSD 500 from the development of state standards in the 1990s to Goals 2000 and
NCLB, and most recently, Race to the Top and ESSA initiatives. Haras et al. (2017) referred to
this as the “Age of Evidence.” Unfortunately, these high-stakes testing and accountability
practices led to the belief that teaching happens with benchmarks and standardized instruction,
test scores are equated with achievement and learning, and instructional leadership is tied to data
and fidelity of implementation (Theoharis & Brooks, 2012); all of which are evident in the
policies, priorities, and systems of PSD 500. As Elmore (2002) noted, “all that performance-
based accountability systems will demonstrate is that some schools are better prepared than
others to respond to accountability and performance-based incentives, namely the ones that had
the highest capacity to begin with” (p. 23).
In PSD 500, deficit ideology was used pervasively to shift the blame from the teachers
and hegemonic systems of power and oppression onto students and their families (Gorski, 2011).
For example, district and site administrators often blamed a culture of poverty for student
misbehavior, lack of parent involvement, and low test scores. There have been attempts to
incorporate culturally relevant pedagogy in professional development as well as the
7

implementation of an ES pathway in the high schools, but without examining the systems of
power and oppression in PSD 500 and our positionality within those systems, these equity
initiatives were likely to have only superficial impacts, and could, quite easily reproduce student
marginalization and harm (Cabrera, 2019; Carrim, 1998).
Public School 501 (PS 501, a pseudonym), where this study was conducted, served the
population of an unincorporated area in the school district where a quarter of the population lived
below the federal poverty line. The area’s population was predominately Latino. The educators
in the area generally viewed their students from a deficit ideology and positioned themselves in a
savior role for the community. Parents were mostly deferential to the education system and
administrators and teachers did not seek substantial input from the local community when
making decisions and developing policies. The lack of community responsiveness led to what
Khalifa (2018) described as school-centric expectations and policies.
Due to rampant deficit ideology, teachers at PS 501 generally had low expectations of
students and exhibited a lack of rigor in curricular content. Teachers generally did not access
students’ funds of knowledge or outside school knowledge to support their learning. In place of
making connections and building relationships with students, many PS 501 teachers relied on
elements of behaviorism for classroom management. Meaning, teachers used rewards,
punishments, deal making, and classroom push-out strategies to manage their students’
behaviors. In PS 501, there was a distinct lack of critical professional development, as teachers
were not asked to critically examine the systems of power and oppression around them and their
positionality within those systems. Therefore, adult learners may have increased their curriculum
or pedagogy knowledge through trainings, but avoided critical reflection of themselves (Taylor,
8

2000). This lack of critical reflection created a tendency to champion equity-minded initiatives,
such as an ES pathway, but with only superficial application and support.
ES was added as a graduation requirement by the PSD 500 school board in 2018, and
with the passage of Assembly Bill 1460 in 2020, it is set to become a California state graduation
requirement beginning with the class of 2025. ES courses have the potential to disrupt the status
quo in education by centering the histories and experiences of historically marginalized people
(Cabrera, 2019). At the time of this writing, the state Department of Education had released only
a model curriculum with very little guidance for how to support teachers new to this program.
This lack of support aligns with the commonly held misconception that anyone can teach an ES
course (Cabrera, 2019). Additionally, the state guidelines allowed for ES curriculum to be
embedded into already existing English and history courses (California State Board of Education
[CSBE], 2021), which is how it was adopted in PSD 500. This is an additive approach, where the
courses were taught by teachers trained in other disciplines who attempted to incorporate and
interpret an ES curriculum into their already established courses.
The professional development for ES teachers in PSD 500 revolved primarily around
curriculum content, themes, and standards. There was no mention of teacher critical reflection to
unearth how teacher ideology shapes curriculum development and pedagogy. A superficial
application of an ES curriculum without teacher critical reflection could easily lead to well-
meaning teachers who continued to perpetuate systems of power and oppression in their
classrooms. There was a danger that PSD 500 would institute a form of bad multiculturalism
where, “rather than being a positive acknowledgment of difference, [teachers continued to] view
people’s identities in fixed, stereotyped, homogenized, and generalised ways” (Carrim, 1998, p.
302). At PS 501, I was a member of a team of English teachers who transitioned to an ES
9

curriculum the year before this study took place. In developing our course, we were given little
guidance in creating our curriculum other than suggested themes and additional planning time.
Essentially, we were expected to be our own support for the adoption of the ES curriculum.
Observations and oversight from administrators and coaches were as minimal as the support.
Role and Expectations
As a White teacher within a predominantly White teaching force, it is all too easy to fall
into habits of what Picower (2009) described as unexamined Whiteness. As a product of the
White supremacist hegemony, I needed to critically reflect to unearth and address my inherent
biases, especially as I worked to fully enact an ES curriculum and support others in the process.
As I considered adult developmental stages (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) and my
own positionality, I identified myself in the socializing stage; meaning, I often questioned if I
was using the right language or saying the right things and I easily fell into habits of color-
avoidant language, described by Bonilla-Silva (2015) as new racism. I found that my
positionality as a socializing knower directly shaped my efforts in this study.
Additionally, I was a White teacher of majority Latino students. As a member of the
dominant race and class and in a position of power in my classroom, it was all too easy for me to
malign or marginalize my students’ experiences and contributions without even realizing it.
Compounding the situation is the fact that I taught the subject of English, which has historically
promoted White authors who focus on White experiences while undermining or marginalizing
the contributions and experiences of all other voices (Cabrera, 2019). No matter their cultural or
language background, English students are expected to assimilate to Eurocentric vocabulary,
grammar, and syntax. This was a particular challenge for my ES colleagues and me as we
worked to embed an ES curriculum into an already established English course, because as
10

Cabrera (2019) noted, “one cannot simply take out Shakespeare, insert Maya Angelou and claim
the class is meaningful Ethnic Studies” (p. 155).
Ultimately, the adoption of an ES curriculum in all its intended fullness was a challenge
at PS 501, which is why it was important to take seriously ES teachers’ need for critical
reflection along with professional development in both content and pedagogy. Other school
districts in California have led successful professional development for ES teachers (Sacramento,
2019), indicating that teaching ES is a “skill set and world view that not everyone has, but that
can be developed” (Cabrera, 2019, p. 152). Unless we focused on our own development as ES
teachers, it is unlikely that we could enact a fully realized ES course. As ES teachers, it was
essential for us to critically reflect through the mechanism of our PLC dialogue because, as the
ES model curriculum contends, “it is important that Ethnic Studies educators are aware of how
their own identities, implicit biases, and cultural awareness may impact Ethnic Studies teaching
and learning” (CSBE, 2021, p. 5). Unfortunately, this type of teacher self-reflection does not
typically occur in K–12 environments.
An additional challenge in my context was that, prior to our transition to the ES
curriculum, I struggled to relate to and work productively with one member of our PLC team,
Robert, a pseudonym, who had a history of combative and unpredictable behavior. In the past, I
often chose to confront him in meetings when I disagreed with him, and this created a lot of
tension leading to a PLC environment that was often unproductive and unsafe. As I will discuss
further in my findings, throughout our adoption of the emergent ES curriculum over the past two
years, I intentionally worked to engage positively with this colleague and capitalize on our
mutual interest of enacting a fully realized ES course.
2

2
Specific examples of our contentious interactions are not included in this dissertation for ethical considerations and
to protect the confidentiality of participants.
11

Even though I did not hold a position of leadership in my teacher team and was not
officially charged with providing opportunities for my colleagues to learn how to fully enact an
ES curriculum, I conducted this study committed to ensuring the success of ES teaching and
learning at PS 501. The research question driving this study was: How do I support high school
English teachers in developing their critical consciousness so as to fully enact the emergent
Ethnic Studies curriculum?
In the following sections of this dissertation, I will first discuss my conceptual framework
which highlights the theories that grounded this research study, I will then discuss the research
methods that highlight this study’s qualitative approach and the actions, data collection, and data
analysis of my study. I follow that with a presentation of my findings and conclude with an
afterword where I reflect on my growth as a leader, the implications of my study, and my next
steps going forward.
Conceptual Framework
According to Maxwell (2013), the purpose of a conceptual framework is to illustrate a
“tentative theory of the phenomena” (p. 39) of a research study. The conceptual framework for
the phenomena of my study, shown in Figure 1, illustrates the Critically Reflective Dialogue
(CRD) of my Professional Learning Community (PLC) as we worked together to enact an
emergent but fully realized ES course within our high school’s tenth-grade English courses.
In this study, I contend that the reflective dialogue of our PLC must be critical to enact a
fully realized ES course. The CRD of our meetings was shaped by ES curriculum and pedagogy
as the central content. In this study, I leaned on my own critical reflections, as I worked to
support my fellow ES teachers by utilizing specific andragogical moves and adaptive leadership
moves. These elements of my conceptual framework are indicated in Figure 1.
12

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

In the following sections, I will discuss the rationale behind the value of CRD in our ES
PLC meetings and the theories that guided my critical self-reflections during this study. I will
discuss the andragogical and adaptive leadership moves that I enacted to advance our CRD from
my position within my ES PLC, and the teacher ideologies I attempted to uncover to increase our
critical consciousness. I will end with an overview of my intended outcomes as my ES PLC
worked together to plan and enact our ES curriculum and pedagogy.
13

Professional Learning Community
My PLC, indicated on my conceptual framework in the large circle, includes me and my
fellow ES teachers, our dialogue content, and my leadership and andragogical moves. The ES
teachers are indicated in the dark blue circles on the conceptual framework in Figure 1 on the
same horizontal plane as me because I held no positional, hierarchical authority in our
relationship (Northouse, 2019). We were colleagues who worked together in our regularly
scheduled ES PLC meetings.
Teacher PLCs are generally expected to have “shared values and vision, a focus on
student learning, taking an inquiry stance, making teaching more public, sharing experiences and
expertise, a willingness to experiment with alternative strategies, and engaging in reflective
dialogue” (Owen, 2014, p. 58). In my context, our PLC was expected to hold weekly discussions
around student data, reteach if needed, identify students for extra support, and adjust our
teaching strategies accordingly. We were also required to complete compliance-focused
collaborative forms which were submitted to our site administrators after every meeting. Marsh
et al. (2015) described these types of PLC expectations as bad uses of data, because the PLC
work becomes compliance-oriented and does not allow space for deeper dialogue and reflection.
The structure of our ES PLC meetings would best be described as loose and casual.
Although one member, David, was designated as the “lead” of the team at the time of this study,
no one was really in charge in our meetings. We did not write formal agendas, but we did work
together to complete the collaborative form each week. The flow of each meeting usually
fluctuated between curriculum and pedagogy discussions to casual conversations to data
analysis. For example, in one meeting, our dialogue might have included comparing how far
each teacher had progressed in a novel we were teaching, discussing recent movies or TV shows
14

we were watching, and then on to comparisons of our midterm data. This freewheeling format
often led to the stronger voices being heard the most in the meetings, while quieter personalities
were able to avoid engaging. Because of my PLCs lack of structure, I was easily able to bring
handouts for discussion without having to add them to a formal agenda, but the lack of formality
may have contributed to some of the challenges I experienced in trying to support CRD during
this research study.
Inconsistent attendance due to competing commitments was also a challenge with my ES
PLC throughout the 3 months of this research study. As I will discuss further in my findings, the
lack of a stable setting (Gallimore & Ermeling, 2010) made the work of our ES PLC more
challenging. As Horn and Little (2010) noted, “impediments and constraints may make it
difficult for teachers to engage in interaction with sufficient frequency, specificity, and depth to
generate new insights” (p. 182). As such, while my conceptual framework visual does not
represent this level of specificity, it was important to recognize the importance of these factors
that can either facilitate or inhibit the work of a PLC.
One additional challenge for an ES PLC, in particular, is that the concept of PLCs, like
most educational theories, is color-avoidant, while ES is not. Khalifa (2018) argued that PLCs
are rarely culturally responsive, so it is our responsibility as ES teachers, to intentionally bring
culturally responsive and community responsive elements into our PLC dialogue. Research has
indicated that teacher leadership and peer facilitators are essential components to successful
PLCs (Gallimore & Ermeling, 2010; Wilson, 2016), therefore, as a teacher leader working from
within my ES PLC, I worked to support my colleagues to increase our critical consciousness and
upset the typical color-avoidant dialogue of traditional PLCs. In this work, I utilized specific
leadership and andragogical moves which I will discuss in this section.
15

Critically Reflective Dialogue
According to Mezirow (1997), “learning is a social process, and discourse becomes
central to making meaning” (p. 10). The work of this research study took place in the interactions
that occurred between me and my fellow ES teachers as we worked to make meaning of the
emergent ES curriculum during our weekly PLC meetings. Because CRD is the central
component of my theory of change, it is centered on my conceptual framework visual, Figure 1,
in the middle, orange square. For the purposes of this action research study, I bridged the
concepts of critical dialogue (Milner, 2003; Sacramento, 2019), teacher critical reflection
(Brookfield, 2010; Howard, 2003), and reflective dialogue (Hord, 2004; Owen, 2014) in coming
to the term critically reflective dialogue. I will discuss each of these concepts in this section.
I first drew on PLC theorists for reflective dialogue. In effective PLCs, Hord (2004)
argued that reflective dialogue is a central feature. Reflective dialogue is defined by PLC
theorists as the “types of talk in which knowledge is exchanged and developed to enhance
understanding and problem-solving” (Schaap & de Bruijn, 2018, p. 111). PLCs are intended to
work from a place of shared mission, vision, and values (Eaker, 2002), and reflective dialogue is
intended to be the mechanism in PLC meetings by which teachers collectively examine both data
and instruction (Marsh et al., 2015).
I also drew on the work of Milner (2003) and Sacramento (2019) as I considered the
ways in which my PLC’s reflective dialogue must be critical, particularly because we were
tasked with enacting a fully realized ES course. Milner (2003) coined the term “critically
engaged dialogue” to describe the interactive process of engaging in dialogue around race within
higher-ed classrooms. He argued that when educators and students collectively engage in critical
dialogue, they “uncover inconspicuous phenomena … to understand hidden values, biases, and
16

beliefs about race” (Milner, 2003, p. 196). Sacramento (2019) drew from concepts of critical race
theory (CRT) and critical pedagogy along with the action of dialogue to develop the term
“critical race dialogue” to describe how ES teachers, in particular, “arrived at shared
foundational understandings of systems of oppression, privilege, and power through
transformative discussions” (p. 170).
For the final component of CRD, I drew on theories of teacher critical reflection.
Brookfield (2017) defined critical reflection as the “sustained and intentional process of
identifying and checking the accuracy and validity of our assumptions” (p. 3). This type of
reflection is critical in nature because it seeks to uncover systems of oppression, power, and
privilege. Mezirow (1997) argued that “we transform our frames of reference through critical
reflection on the assumptions upon which our interpretations, beliefs, and habits of mind or
points of view are based” (p. 7). Critical reflection through dialogue was particularly important
for me and my colleagues as ES teachers in this research study, because “externalizing and
investigating power relationships is the first purpose of critical reflection” (Brookfield, 2010, p.
222) and that is central to becoming more critically conscious teachers.
The critical nature of reflective dialogue must be intentionally developed in ES teachers
and should not be expected to just happen on its own through the traditional, reflective dialogue
of PLCs (Hord, 2004). Due to color-avoidant teacher education programs and a general
resistance in US society to discuss race, “teachers are ill-equipped to deal with the reality of
racism both inside and outside of the school system” (Strong et al., 2017, p. 134). In this study, I
worked to support CRD in my ES PLC to move from superficial reflection or simple discussion,
towards critical reflection. As Brookfield (2010) argued, “it is quite possible to practice
reflectively while focusing solely on the nuts and bolts of process and leaving unquestioned the
17

criteria, power dynamics, and wider structures that frame a field of practice” (p. 216); and
indeed, that is the type of reflective dialogue espoused by PLC theorists, and the type that is
practiced in most K–12 environments. Because we were an ES PLC, we needed to move beyond
reflective dialogue to CRD. Milner (2003) argued that authentic, critical reflection “should lead
to self and social understanding through focusing on self … and power structures” (p. 200) and I
intended for this to lead to the increase in critical consciousness that is essential for an ES
teacher and is represented as a desired outcome in my conceptual framework. Howard (2003)
contended that, “the development of culturally relevant teaching strategies is contingent upon
critical reflection about race and culture of teachers and their students” (p. 195); however, I
needed to enact intentional moves to facilitate this CRD. The specific andragogical and adaptive
leadership moves that I utilized to facilitate our dialogue will be discussed in a later section.
By drawing on these authors, I bridged the concepts of critical dialogue, teacher critical
reflection, and reflective dialogue in coming to the term critically reflective dialogue to describe
the mechanism by which my colleagues and I worked collectively in our ES PLC meetings to
enhance our critical consciousness. In this study, I worked to support my colleagues as we
examined systems of oppression, privilege, and power, as well as our positionality within those
systems.
ES courses come from a critical epistemology with the goal of affecting social change by
disrupting racial hierarchies that exist throughout education (Cabrera, 2019; CSBE, 2021).
Therefore, to enact a fully realized ES course, it was not enough for me and my colleagues to
discuss content alone, our dialogue needed to be critical in nature. Cabrera (2019) noted that, in a
collective, ES teachers “establish and refine their practice of Ethnic Studies skills – in particular,
through critical consciousness and critical race dialogue” (p. 152). In this study, based on this
18

conceptual framework, I worked to support my ES PLC in dialogue that examined topics of
oppression, privilege, and power, to develop our critical consciousness. Therefore, it was me and
my colleagues’ CRD that is the central component of my theory of change represented in this
conceptual framework.
Critical Self-Reflection
For me to facilitate CRD in our PLC meetings, I needed to engage in critical self-
reflection. Bolman and Deal (2017) argued that unless a leader can “step back” and see the
systems and patterns of an organization, they will “muddle along blindly, unaware of better
options” (p. 35). Northouse (2019), drawing on Heifetz et al.’s (2009) work, referred to this as
“getting on the balcony,” the act of stepping out of the fray to gain perspective. This is where
critical reflection on my part was crucial to the work of this study. My critical reflection is
indicated on my conceptual framework visual in the light blue circle connected to Self. It is
placed outside the PLC circle because it is my own critical self-reflection that informed my
actions within our ES PLC. I utilized critical reflections to interrogate my own actions, biases,
assumptions, and positionality, and to step back and see the systems and patterns of my
organization. I used in-the-field analysis of these critical reflections during my action research
cycles to make adjustments, as needed, to the moves that I made with my ES PLC. In this way,
my written critical reflections were part of the larger reflective cycle that did include
experimentation and actions, which I will discuss further in my methods and findings sections.
Critical self-reflection was particularly important for me because of my position as both
the instrument of this research study and a participant in my own self-study action research.
Because I researched from within my own organization, I used critical reflection to reflect on
how my researcher moves may have been inhibited by my own biases and assumptions about my
19

colleagues, my organization, and myself (Coughlan, 2019). I also utilized critical reflection to
uncover mine and my colleagues’ dominant ideologies that have long prevented teachers from
seeing their students in asset-based ways and recognizing the hegemonic barriers to equitable
education.
Ethnic Studies Curriculum and Pedagogy
The content of the CRD in our PLC meetings, indicated by the yellow circle at the top,
right in the conceptual framework, was ES curriculum and pedagogy. Because it was the core
content of our PLC meetings, and therefore the fodder for our CRD, it is connected to the center
square directly. To enact a fully realized ES course, both curriculum, what is taught, and
pedagogy, how it is taught, were discussed in our weekly PLC meetings.
Curriculum and pedagogy are inextricably linked, yet in an ES class this is particularly
true (Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2015). There is a commonly held misconception that anyone can
teach ES (Cabrera, 2019); this is the type of misconception that Bartolomé (2008) referred to as
the myth of teacher neutrality. In reality, curriculum and pedagogy become an extension of the
teacher, so in an ES course, a teacher’s critical consciousness can have a direct impact on the
experiences of their students because it will affect their pedagogical decisions and their
implementation of the curriculum. Sacramento (2019) argued that in “a dynamic course like
Ethnic Studies, continual professional development that enhances teachers’ content knowledge
and pedagogical repertoire is necessary to ensure that the course is responsive and relevant to
students and their communities” (p. 180). According to the ES model curriculum, “Ethnic
Studies courses address institutionalized systems of advantage, and address the causes of racism
and other forms of bigotry” (CSBE, 2021, p. 5) and they should be built around the key
principles and outcomes of diversity, inclusion, challenging systems of inequality, and support
20

for student civic engagement. The model curriculum is written as a guide rather than a
prescriptive curriculum because it is intended to be flexible enough to reflect the needs of each
school community (CSBE, 2021). This aligns with Howard’s (2003) argument that, “teachers
must be able to construct pedagogical practices that have relevance and meaning to students’
social and cultural realities” (p. 195).
Currently, the examples of high school ES classes in the state of California are found
only in a few, scattered regions led by teachers who have historically been associated with
grassroots movements to incorporate ES and have had previous life or educational experience
increasing their critical consciousness (Nevárez, 2021; Sacramento, 2019; Young, 2021).
Therefore, there is limited literature about how best to support ES teachers on a large scale who
may come to ES teaching from varying entry points (Nevárez, 2021), and uneven content
knowledge and critical consciousness (Sacramento, 2019).
The literature thus far on ES pedagogy (Cabrera, 2019; Sacramento, 2019; Tintiagco-
Cubales et al., 2015) pulls thematic elements from across a range of culturally relevant theories
such as culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995), culturally responsive teaching
(Gay, 2002), and culturally relevant school leadership (Khalifa, 2018) with the added theme of
developing individual teacher critical consciousness (Tintiangco-Cubales et al., 2015). The major
thematic elements of ES pedagogy, as outlined by Tintiangco-Cubales et al. (2015) are culturally
responsive pedagogy, community responsive pedagogy, as well as teacher racial identity
development. Gay (2002) defined culturally responsive pedagogy as “using the cultural
characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students as conduits for
teaching them more effectively” (p. 106). Community responsive pedagogy requires educators to
“learn about each community they serve and situate aspects of their schools, so they celebrate all
21

cultures” (Khalifa et al., 2016, p. 1278). Teacher racial identity development (Tintianagco-
Cubales et al., 2015) is a teacher’s increasing awareness of the roles of race, power, and
oppression in society, and their individual positionality within these systems. Although teacher
racial identity development may not seem like a pedagogical element, in the case of ES teaching,
it is, because teachers’ varying levels of critical consciousness directly affect the pedagogical
decisions that ES teachers make in these classes, and as mentioned earlier, this can have a direct
impact on students’ experiences in these courses (Sacramento, 2019).
In my context, our PLC had the additional challenge of including the elements of ES
pedagogy within a previously established English course. Because most of the members of our
PLC were veteran English teachers, it was all too easy to enact an English course with some ES
content as an additive approach. Instead, it was our task to center the ES curriculum as the
content to support our students’ growth in the traditional English course skills of reading,
writing, listening, and speaking.
In this study, the elements of ES curriculum and pedagogy were central to our PLC
meetings and our CRD. Martinez (2017) argued, “developing a critical consciousness is a
necessary first step for social change” (p. 141), and that is one of the purposes of the ES
curriculum (CSBE, 2021). To enact a fully realized ES course in my local context, we worked in
our PLC to center our students’ lived experiences, view those experiences as assets, center
historically marginalized voices in our English content. An area of ES curriculum that my PLC
did not yet achieve in the limited time of this study, but I contend is an important goal, was
seeking out and incorporating community needs and voices. To achieve the goals of ES
curriculum and pedagogy, we needed to collectively reflect on our critical consciousness through
the mechanism of our dialogue within our ES PLC.
22

Critical Consciousness in Ethnic Studies Teachers
In this section, I will discuss the rationale for developing critical consciousness in ES
teachers. I will then discuss the teacher ideologies I intended to uncover and mitigate in this
study. I argue that this is important work for ES teachers to undertake, although, I found that I
underestimated just how entrenched these ideologies are in teachers and how difficult they were
to uncover during the short time frame of this research study.
Sacramento (2019) defined ES teachers’ critical consciousness as “the praxis of
continuously reflecting on how power relations operate and situating one’s praxis within the
context of the classroom” (p. 173). In other words, critical consciousness in an ES teacher refers
to their awareness of the systems of oppression, privilege, and power in society as well as an
awareness of the ways they, individually, are uniquely positioned within these systems and how
they play out in the classroom. This is a crucial awareness for ES teaching.
ES teachers come to their classrooms with varying levels of critical consciousness based
on previous life and education experiences. Recent dissertations by Nevárez (2021) and Young
(2021) noted the importance of ES teachers’ critical consciousness development prior to entering
ES classrooms because it had a direct impact on their pedagogy. Sacramento (2019) also noted
that, “without critical professional development, teachers’ uneven critical consciousness can
jeopardize students’ experiences within these courses” (p. 179). However, through dialogue,
teachers have opportunities “to engage in the necessary personal reflection about their racial
beliefs and practices and teach their students to do the same” (Sealey-Ruiz, 2017, pp. 129–130).
Sacramento (2019) argued that critical dialogue “sheds light on the reflective processes
necessary to develop a critical race consciousness” (p. 170) which is essential in an ES teacher.
Therefore, as a researcher and teacher leading from within my ES PLC, I worked to support
23

CRD as a mechanism to increase our critical consciousness, which was an intended outcome for
this action research study.
Teacher Ideology
In this study, I intended to support CRD as a way to uncover our deficit teacher
ideologies, indicated in my conceptual framework in the grey oval that encompasses ES teachers,
our CRD, and Self. Brookfield (2010) defined ideologies as the “sets of values, beliefs, myths,
explanations, and justifications that appear self-evidently true and morally desirable” (p. 221)
which, as I discovered in this research study, made them inherently difficult to uncover, much
less interrogate. However, ES teachers must make this effort because, as Bartolomé (2008)
argued, “exposing and interrogating dominant ideologies is fundamental to any discussions of
education [and] pedagogy” (p. xv). Brookfield (2010) defined ideology critique as “the process
by which people learn to recognize how uncritically accepted, and unjust dominant ideologies
are embedded in everyday situations and practices” (p. 220). This is an important yet challenging
process, as I found in this research study. In discussing the myth of teacher neutrality, Bartolomé
(2008) identified the dominant, detrimental teacher ideologies associated with meritocracy,
White supremacy, and deficit views of minority students. All of these ideologies ran rampant in
my local context and went largely unchecked. Although I intended for my actions to uncover and
address these ideologies in this research study (Appendix D), I found, due to the challenges
referred to here, my positionality as a novice leader, and the limited 3-month time period of this
study, I was unable to achieve that goal. Still, teacher ideology is part of my conceptual
framework because I contend that for teachers to develop critical consciousness and enact a fully
realized ES course, their ideologies need to be unearthed and interrogated.
24

The ideology of meritocracy is the belief that we exist in a fair and just system based on
merit and, therefore, individuals are responsible for their own successes and failures (Bartolomé,
2008; Yosso, 2005). The ideology of meritocracy supports the belief that those who work hard
will naturally succeed because the system itself is just, and, alternatively, those who do not
succeed are responsible for their own failures, generally believed to be associated with a lack of
effort or some other inherent failure on the part of the individual. The ideology of meritocracy
plays out in K–12 schools, such as the setting of this research study, in a hyper-focus on
standardized test scores, perfect attendance rewards, and a general resistance to examine the
education system as a cause of student failures and instead shift the blame to the students and
their families (Gorski, 2011).
White supremacy ideology plays out in education in the expectation for all students to
assimilate to the dominant, Anglo-Saxon culture (Bartolomé, 2008). Instead of cultural
integration, Black, Latino, and Indigenous students in K–12 schools experience the “sanctioned
practice of cultural assimilation to achieve domestic and linguistic suppression” (Bartolomé,
2008, p. xvii). Non-English-speaking students are expected to quickly transition to mainstream
English classes, and leave behind their home languages, cultures, and identities. This White-
supremacist ideology reinforces in educators the “ideological myth that assimilation is a desired
goal in the education of minority students” (Bartolomé, 2008, p. xviii).
Gorski (2011) defined deficit ideology as “approaching students based upon our
perceptions of their weaknesses rather than their strengths” (p. 152) and ES teachers are
specifically tasked with viewing their students’ lived experiences as assets (CSBE, 2021). Moll
et al. (1992) described asset ideology as developing a positive view of the cultural and
community funds of knowledge. This cultural capital (Yosso, 2005) can be recognized by
25

teachers “acquiring more knowledge about the contributions of different ethnic groups to a wide
variety of disciplines” (Gay, 2002, p. 107). Paris and Alim (2014) argued that teachers must
make a commitment to embracing youth’s non-hegemonic potential as teachers work to develop
their asset-based pedagogies.
Dominant deficit ideologies are quite common in educators (Bartolomé, 2008; Gorski,
2011), and if we, as ES teachers do not critically reflect on, uncover, and interrogate our own
ideologies through the mechanism of our critically reflective dialogue, the danger is that we
could enact a superficial, deficit-focused version of the course instead of a fully realized ES
course. In this study, although I was not successful in uncovering and addressing these ideologies
in my ES PLC during the limited time of this study, I still contend that it is essential work for us
because of the detrimental impact these ideologies are likely to have in an ES course (Cabrera,
2019; Sacramento, 2019).
Facilitating Critical Consciousness From Within a Professional Learning Community
Because I held no positional authority over my colleagues during this study, my
leadership moves were influential in nature. Achor (2018) noted that one can lead from any seat,
so, although I was not in a formal leadership position, I worked to leverage my influential power
to lead from within my PLC using adaptive leadership and andragogical moves. Northouse
(2019) argued that leadership is not determined by a position, but it is an individual’s power to
influence others. I did not need to be in a position of power to influence my colleagues, but, as I
will discuss further in my findings, I found it to be a challenge to learn to lead from within.
The moves I utilized with my fellow ES teachers to facilitate our PLC dialogue are
connected to the CRD square at the top, left of the conceptual framework, namely andragogical
moves and adaptive leadership moves. These moves are connected by an arrow to the CRD
26

square and are connected to Self because these are the moves that I utilized during our weekly
PLC meetings as I worked to facilitate CRD. As indicated on the conceptual framework visual, I
contended in this study that my andragogical and adaptive leadership moves must work through
the mechanism of CRD for us to increase our critical consciousness and enact a fully realized ES
course.
Andragogical Moves
I relied on various andragogical moves in planning for my actions to facilitate CRD in
our ES PLC meetings including, brave space building, modeling, and the use of dialogue
protocols (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017; Hammond, 2020;
Selkrig & Keamy, 2015) as we moved through a transformational learning process (Brookfield,
2010; Merriam & Bierema, 2013; Mezirow, 1997). As a novice researcher and leader, I was not
successful in enacting all of these andragogical moves during this research study, even though I
believe they were the right moves for my context. In this section, I will discuss my intended
moves and indicate which moves I was able to enact.
According to Mezirow (1997), “transformative learning is the process of effecting change
in a frame of reference” (p. 1). In relationship to CRD, Sacramento (2019) noted, “critical
professional development can connect teachers to transformative perspectives and methods” (p.
169). In this study, I intended for transformative learning to happen through the mechanism of
our CRD because “the act of speaking has a transformative dimension” (Milner, 2003, p. 203).
Merriam and Bierema (2013) argued that transformational learning works to transform the
depths of an adult. Transformative learning theorists make a key distinction between andragogy,
the teaching of adults, and pedagogy, the teaching of children. For adult transformational
learning to occur, adults must be faced with a spark that causes what Mezirow (1997) referred to
27

as a disorienting dilemma. This could come in the form of any new knowledge that disrupts an
adult’s previously accepted assumptions. According to Brookfield (2010), in transformative
learning, an adults’ assumptions must be identified and assessed for accuracy, followed by
looking at the assumption from all sides and, finally, moving to action.
In the context of this study, I intended for the spark for transformational learning to be
facilitated by handouts and my questioning in our ES PLC meetings (Appendix D). Strategic
questioning can be used to dig deeper, create options, and increase empowerment (Peavey,
1994). My belief going into this research study was that through the mechanism of our dialogue
that we could spark disorienting dilemmas to uncover our assumptions and biases and take
cognitive or behavioral action (Brookfield, 2010). I found that, as a novice leader working from
within my PLC, I was only partially successful at inciting disorienting dilemmas in my adult
colleagues, and I was not successful at incorporating the dialogue protocols I intended.
There were inherent advantages and challenges to the fact that my colleagues and I were
adult learners in this transformational process. Adult learning theorists contend that adults tend to
be self-directed learners who think contextually and critically and thrive on experiential learning
(Brown, 2004). In the context of my research study, my fellow ES teachers and I were certainly
self-motivated and critical thinkers, and this research study was based in experiential learning
because we taught ES daily. However, there were also challenges to being adult learners.
Transformative learning is rooted in lived experience (Merriam & Bierema, 2013), but those
lived experiences also mean that, as adult learners, we brought with us deeply held ideologies
and biases. Senge (2006) referred to these ideologies as mental models and noted how difficult it
is to adjust them in adult learners. Therefore, the process of surfacing, testing, and improving
these mental models (Senge, 2006) is the work that I intended for our PLC to undertake in our
28

CRD, but I found that I had only limited success in the short time of this research study in my
role as a novice leader.
Another challenge in seeking transformational learning in adults in this study is that my
colleagues and I were in the instrumental and socializing stages of adult development, meaning,
we look for the “right” answers and concrete solutions, and we tended to do and say whatever we
thought others wanted us to, which inhibited the deep, critical reflection we needed to undertake
to uncover and act on our assumptions and biases. In this study, I intended for my colleagues and
I to use the mechanism of CRD to move beyond reflection-on-action to reflection-in-action;
meaning, to analyze our theories in use instead of espoused theories (Merriam & Bierema, 2013;
Senge, 2006). I found that in the short time of this research study, I had limited success in
supporting my team in becoming critically conscious adult learners.
Brave Space Building. Because transformation requires discomfort (Mezirow, 1997), I
intended for our CRD to move from congenial to collegial (Selkrig & Keamy, 2015); meaning,
we needed to be collectively supportive of honesty, openness, and vulnerability, even if it was
uncomfortable and not just rely on superficial professionalism. As Bolman and Gallos (2011)
recommended, I worked to promote openness and transparency with my team because trust and
confidence are easier to squander than to develop. I found that I had some success in promoting a
safe space for our CRD to occur, which, for my context, I argue was a first step in moving
towards a brave space. For my ES PLC to critically reflect in our dialogue, we needed a safe
enough space to be vulnerable with each other. As I will further analyze in my findings, since
our meetings had not always been a safe space in the past, I worked to cultivate a safe space as a
starting point, despite researchers’ suggestions that a safe space can be problematic for some
members of a community (Arao & Clemens, 2013; Strong et al., 2017).
29

Arao and Clemens (2013) defined a brave space as one that may include tensions,
conflict, and challenging topics, but can lead to transformational growth among participants.
Although creating a sense of safety during critically reflective dialogue may seem like a worthy
enough goal, “safe usually denotes comfort for Whiteness at the expense of [people of color]”
(Strong et al., 2017, p. 134). Therefore, within our ES PLC, I intended to do the challenging and
vulnerable work of moving beyond a safe space to a brave space (Arao & Clemens, 2013). As
Howard (2003) argued, “part of guiding race-related discussions is to not allow individuals’
discomfort or ignorance about race to become an escape for not addressing and analyzing their
own beliefs” (p. 198). This was essentially unsafe and, therefore, required bravery.
Arao and Clemens (2013) suggested creating discussion agreements to create the
conditions for a brave space. These discussion agreements are unique to the community who
develops and agrees to them. In my context, I intended for my PLC team to create and agree on
discussion agreements that would be specific to our unique needs and expectations for creating a
space where we could disagree and confront our assumptions and biases in a productive way.
There is a dearth of literature defining distinguishing characteristics of a safe space versus a
brave space or viewing them on a continuum where one can build to another. I found that due to
internal and external factors that I will analyze in my findings, I was unable to support the
building of brave space and was only able to take the first step for my context which was to
cultivate a safe space.
Modeling. An additional technique that I intended to employ in our critically reflective
dialogue was the andragogical move of modeling, specifically for supporting my colleagues in
critical reflection. If I expected my colleagues to critically reflect publicly during our PLC
meetings, I knew I must model this with honesty and vulnerability. Because of teachers’ uneven
30

critical consciousness (Sacramento, 2019), modeling was an important andragogical move for
me to employ during our weekly meetings. Brookfield (2010) argued for the use of modeling as
part of the adult learning experience because adult learners bring with them their unique
ideologies and lived experiences and cannot be expected to have similar understandings of what
critical reflection looks and sounds like.
Modeling is the act of “offering behavior for imitation” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991, p. 47)
also referred to as cognitive apprenticeship (Merriam & Bierema, 2013). Without a behavior to
imitate, I could not expect my colleagues to understand or enact critical reflection. I intended to
incorporate modeling of critical reflection into our PLC meetings by offering the behavior of
critical reflection for my colleagues to imitate. I intended to invite inquiry and feedback from my
colleagues as I modeled publicly interrogating my assumptions and biases. Tharp and Gallimore
(1991) argued that peer modeling can be effective even into adulthood, so it was an appropriate
andragogical move for me to attempt to utilize. As a novice leader from within a PLC, I found
that I had limited success modeling critical reflection for my colleagues.
Dialogue Protocols. Another andragogical move that I intended to employ in this study
was the use of protocols to guide our critically reflective dialogue (Appendix D). Dialogue
protocols are structured communication plans that allow for every voice to be heard in an
organized fashion and for everyone to have the opportunity to contribute confidently (Hammond,
2020). Selkrig and Keamy (2015) argued that these protocols provide a way to move teachers
toward critical reflection because, “we need to move beyond routine and technical aspects of
reflection to a level that is critical and transformative, and this can be achieved through the use of
protocols in purposeful and collaborative conversations with others” (p. 1). Brookfield (2010)
suggested that inquiry is central to the process of transformative adult learning, therefore, I
31

intended for my dialogue protocols to promote inquiry, reflection, and ideology critique with my
ES PLC. As a novice researcher and leader from within a team, I found that I was unsuccessful at
incorporating dialogue protocols into our meetings in an organic fashion.
As indicated on the conceptual framework, I intended to employ the andragogical moves
of brave space building, modeling, and dialogue protocols with strategic questioning in this
action research study to support CRD in our PLC meetings. As a novice researcher and leader, I
found that my attempts to enact these andragogical moves had limited success. I still believe that
these moves are important, even if I did not have as much success enacting them as I had hoped.
As I will discuss further in my findings, I did have limited success in utilizing strategic
questioning in our ES PLC meetings. Through strategic questioning, I was able to encourage and
support the quieter personalities in our group to move into the conversation.
Adaptive Leadership Moves
Although it was my perception that my ES PLC was invested in enacting a fully realized
ES course, I had to keep in mind that teaching this course was only a portion of their career and
daily work expectations. Our PLC also has a history of contentious behavior that I knew I would
need to overcome to undertake the vulnerable work of developing our critical consciousness.
Therefore, in this study, adaptive leadership moves were particularly important for me to utilize.
Adaptive leadership is focused on overcoming challenges in ever-changing and unpredictable
environments (Heifetz et al., 2009), which made it an essential component of this research study.
First of all, creating an ES course is, in itself a disruptive act, and therefore, requires adaptive
leadership; and, secondly, my PLC team is made up of complex individuals who are, like all
humans, ever-changing and unpredictable. Additionally, as the researcher, I was engaged and
invested in this action research study, however, I couldn’t assume the same of my colleagues
32

(Coughlan, 2019). As Brookfield (2017) reminded me, I could not assume that my colleagues
shared the same convictions as I did. The adaptive leadership moves that I utilized were to act
politically, expand informal authority, and build unlikely allies (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Heifetz et
al., 2009).
In this study, I needed to act politically by forging alliances and building networks of
influence. I found that I had to begin these efforts prior to the beginning of this study. These
efforts went a long way in expanding my sphere of informal authority (Heifetz et al., 2009).
From my seat in the middle, I knew that, as Kegan et al. (2009) noted, “for this to be effective,
group and individual desire to solve a problem through hard, critical work, must be in place” (p.
82). The core members of my PLC team were already invested in the hard work of implementing
an ES curriculum, and I used that as a starting point to expand my informal authority by bringing
topics for discussion and working to enhance our critical reflection through our CRD. Because I
was relying on my influential moves for this research study, I worked to expand my informal
authority with my team by leading discussions and promoting inquiry within our ES PLC.
As in any team, it was essential to strive for partnership, open communication, and
credibility (Bolman & Gallos, 2011). On my PLC team, I had the adaptive challenge of one
member who had a history of combative and unpredictable behavior that often led to conflicts
within the team. To manage this challenge, I worked to strengthen my professional relationship
with him and build what Heifetz et al. (2009) described as an “unlikely ally.” I did this by
avoiding disagreements, scoring some early wins, and capitalizing on mutual interests (Bolman
& Gallos, 2011). I found that my enactment of these adaptive leadership moves was the most
successful part of my work in this research study.
33

Because ES courses and the adults I worked with formed an unpredictable, constantly
changing environment, my adaptive leadership moves were crucial. As I will discuss further in
my findings, I found that my adaptive leadership moves of acting politically and building an
unlikely ally were generally successful in supporting my ES PLC.
Intended Outcomes
The intended outcomes of this action research study, indicated in the brown square at the
bottom of the conceptual framework, were to move myself and my colleagues toward becoming
more critically conscious teachers as we worked to enact a fully realized ES course. The arrows
to this square are not directly attached because these goals were not expected to be reached
during the limited time of this action research study; instead, the expectation was that we would
move toward these outcomes as we continued to teach, collaborate, and reflect on our ES course.
By the end of the 3 months of this action research study, my goal was for my ES PLC to
have increased our critical consciousness through our CRD; meaning I intended for us to
increase our awareness of the systems of oppression, privilege, and power around us and how we
are individually positioned within those systems. Becoming a critically conscious teacher does
not have a finish line. Because our ideologies are so engrained and we are immersed in an
education system that does not typically teach, support, or even define critical consciousness, it
is an ongoing process of continuously critically reflecting on systems of oppression, privilege,
and power around us. I intended that through our dialogue that we would uncover and mitigate
our damaging teacher ideologies and, ultimately, become more critically conscious teachers who
enact a fully realized ES course. Ultimately, in this research study, as I will discuss in my
findings, I found that my abilities to lead from within a team were beginning to develop, I was
34

able to support limited instances of CRD, and my colleagues and I were in the nascent stages of
becoming a critically conscious ES PLC.
Methods
The U.S. education system is particularly adept at perpetuating Eurocentric and White
supremacist hierarchies, and my local context was certainly rooted in these systems. At the time
of this study, deficit ideology and language, assimilationist ideals, and color-avoidance ran
rampant on my campus and went largely unchecked. Adding the ES curriculum into our 10th-
grade English course meant it was taught by teachers, including me, who are products of this
system and its damaging ideologies. Therefore, increasing my colleagues’ and my critical
consciousness was crucial work in enacting a fully realized ES course. My theory of change was
that, through the mechanism of CRD, my colleagues and I could increase our critical
consciousness so that we would be better positioned to teach in ways that disrupted the status
quo.
This study employed a qualitative action research approach to both enact the practices
outlined in my conceptual framework and to examine progress towards the goals therein.
Because I was exploring and observing within my own context and studying my behaviors
within that context, a qualitative study was an appropriate methodology (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). In qualitative action research, the study takes place in the local context where the
researcher is the key instrument of data collection as well as a participant (Herr & Anderson,
2014; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). The action research process involves iterative
cycles informed by preliminary data as the researcher seeks to enact and observe a theory of
change (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).

35

Participants and Settings
In this qualitative action research study, I utilized purposeful sampling (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). A small and purposeful sample was the most appropriate sample
for this research study because I chose my participants based on specific criteria from my
research question (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017): they were current teachers of an emergent ES
curriculum. Additionally, because this was an action research study, I chose people and settings
in my local context. It was the phenomenon (Maxwell, 2013) of my support of these ES teachers,
who were my colleagues, in our weekly PLC meetings that I studied in my action research
cycles.
Participants
As I considered how best to support my colleagues in this study, it was important for me
to first consider their adult developmental stages (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) as
I determined which andragogical and adaptive leadership moves would be most effective in
supporting their development of critical consciousness. As adult learners, my colleagues and I
had various ways of knowing based on the Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017)
typology. These authors created a typology for adult learners’ “developmental meaning-making
systems” (p. 457). They identify four ways of knowing for adults: instrumental, socializing, self-
authoring, and self-transforming. At the time of this study, my colleagues and I were socializing
and instrumental knowers, as indicated in Table 1.

36

Table 1
Participant Characteristics
Participants Characteristics
Race/ehnicity Years of teaching Developmental stage
Me White 20+ Socializing
James Latino Novice Instrumental
Robert Chicano* 15+ Socializing
David White 5+ Instrumental
Emma Latina 10+ Instrumental
Brian Latino-White Substitute Instrumental

*Robert verbalized to me that he preferred to be identified as Chicano.

Instrumental knowers prefer concrete suggestions and rules on the “right” ways of
behaving, while socializing knowers often conform to “others’ opinions, values, and
assessments” (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017, p. 465). I anecdotally determined the
adult developmental stages of my participants based on my observations of our dialogue during
our ES PLC meetings. Being instrumental and socializing knowers created challenges during this
study as I worked to support the development of critical consciousness through CRD. I have had
to examine my own positionality and location within this typology, along with the impacts of my
positionality. I identify myself as a socializing knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano,
2017). In other words, I find myself doing and saying what I think others expect, and that shaped
my behaviors during this study which I will analyze further in my findings.
It would, of course, have been ideal if my ES colleagues and I were all self-transforming
knowers, meaning we would value and prioritize collaboration to co-construct meaning and
expand thinking (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), but the reality was that we were
not. Social justice work is never done with perfect people in perfect environments, so, although
37

there were challenges in this research study related to our adult developmental stages, my
colleagues and I owed it to our students to do the difficult work of increasing our critical
consciousness through our dialogue to enact a fully realized ES course.
The ES teachers in this study were an interesting and complex group. Our ES PLC was
previously an English II PLC, but we transitioned to English II - Ethnic Studies during the 2020–
2021 school year, the year prior to this research study. This transition was agreed to unanimously
by the PLC during the spring of 2020. A team of four members, including me, piloted the ES
program last year in a completely online format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Those four
teachers remained with the team for the 2021–2022 school year when this study took place, but
we were joined this year by a novice teacher who was added to our team just days before the
beginning of the school year. Because of the medical leave of one member, there was a long-
term substitute who replaced one of our PLC members during the first two cycles of this study.
In this research study, therefore, I worked to support three ES teachers who each have one year
of experience teaching the course, one ES teacher who was just beginning their career, and one
long-term substitute.
The six ES PLC members in this study were me, James, Robert, David, Emma, and Brian
(pseudonyms). The newest member of our PLC was a first-year teacher, James, a Latino male
who grew up in Southern California. Robert, a Chicano male, had been teaching high school
English for over 15 years. David, a White male, had taught high school English for over 5 years.
Robert and David grew up in Southern California near where our school was located, and both
had deep roots in the region. Emma, a Latina female who grew up in Southern California, had
been teaching high school English for over 10 years. Brian, the long-term substitute, identified as
Latino and White. In this section, I will provide more detail about each member of the team.
38

James was added to our team just a few days before the beginning of the school year.
This aligns with the commonly held misconception that anyone can teach an ES course (Cabrera,
2019). His only training for teaching ES came from our team sharing our curriculum resources
with him and the support he received from our instructional coach. I would anecdotally identify
James as an instrumental knower; looking for the “right” thing to do and looking for concrete
answers and solutions. The andragogical moves and adaptive leadership moves I used to support
James were modeling, questioning, and safe space building.
Robert, a veteran English teacher, is passionate about his work, but he can also be
aggressive and unpredictable. He cared deeply about social justice issues. As the Puente teacher
on our campus, he was heavily invested in bringing ES to our high school. Puente is a ninth and
10
th
grade, college preparatory English sequence that incorporates Latino and multicultural
literature. Robert’s adult developmental stage (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), true
to his unpredictable nature, was difficult to pinpoint. Because of his Puente training and his lived
experiences, he was well-read and knowledgeable about social justice, however, based on the
deferential and agreeable ways that he has spoken to authority figures, always saying what he
though they wanted to hear, I identified him as a socializing knower. When I considered how
best to support Robert as an adult learner, it was my adaptive leadership moves that were most
effective. Acting politically and building an unlikely ally (Heifetz et al., 2009) with Robert were
the most effective moves I made to support Robert’s engagement in our CRD.
David was generally agreeable in our meetings, sometimes serving as peacemaker by
looking for common ground when disagreements have occurred. I have noticed a tendency
toward unexamined Whiteness (Picower, 2009) in his dialogue and based on Drago-Severson
and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) typology, I would anecdotally identify David as an instrumental
39

knower, looking for the “right” solutions and concrete suggestions. For David, I expected that
my andragogical move of modeling critical reflection would be particularly helpful in supporting
his understanding of and ability to engage in CRD. Unfortunately, because of his limited
attendance in our meetings during this study, I was unable to determine if the andragogical move
of modeling was an effective support for David.
Emma was generally agreeable and supportive in our meetings. Based on Drago-
Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) typology, I would anecdotally identify Emma as an
instrumental knower because she appreciates concrete suggestions and looks for the “right”
solutions. For Emma, I expected my andragogical moves of questioning and modeling to be most
effective in supporting her critical consciousness development; however, Emma’s attendance
only during the final cycle of this research study did not provide me with enough data to know if
my andragogical moves were effective at supporting her.
Brian was a long-term substitute who was with us for the first two cycles of this research
study. Brian had no experience teaching ES, and his only support came from our PLC sharing
resources with him. I would anecdotally identify Brain as an instrumental knower. He was often
looking for easy, concrete answers in our PLC meetings. His presence in our meetings added an
interesting element to my research study because, in reality, when the ES curriculum is adopted
in high schools across the entire state of California, long-term substitutes who are placed into
these classes with no training are a challenge that will likely occur and require addressing.
Because of the varying positionalities of my participants and my own positionality, the
work of this research study was a challenge. Through critical self-reflections, field notes, and
analysis of our CRD during our PLC meetings, I observed my support of my colleagues in
increasing their critical consciousness as well as my own. I used my own critical reflections to
40

analyze my support of my colleagues and make changes as needed during my action research
cycles.
Settings of Actions
This research study took place on the campus of the high school where I am employed,
and specifically in my classroom during our weekly PLC meetings. The final four PLC meetings
in the final cycle of this study were conducted in the online platform of Zoom due to COVID-19
restrictions. These were appropriate locations because our weekly PLC meetings were scheduled
at the beginning of the school year and this study did not require any change to our weekly
routines. These current workplace settings were appropriate for seeking out answers to my
research question because I was observing the phenomenon of my action research study, as
discussed in my conceptual framework, within the on-going work of my own context.
Actions
As is indicated in my conceptual framework, in this action research study, I utilized
andragogical and adaptive leadership moves to support my fellow ES teachers as we worked to
increase our critical consciousness and ultimately enact a fully realized ES course. Since I was
not the department chair or even our PLC team lead at the time of this study, I worked from my
seat in the middle (Achor, 2018) to help support our dialogue.
My actions took place over the course of 3 months during our weekly PLC meetings. The
first two action research cycles of this study consisted of two weekly meetings followed by a
week of in-the-field analysis to evaluate my actions and make changes as needed. In the third
and final cycle, we held four ES PLC meetings and then I moved into out-of-the-field data
analysis. Altogether, there were 8 PLC meetings included in this study. The actions I took within
our ES PLC meetings were to encourage CRD through handouts and andragogical moves as I
41

worked to support our dialogue and my participants in being critically reflective. In my original
proposal, I intended to use dialogue protocols (Appendix D) to support our dialogue, but as a
novice researcher and leader, I found that I was unable to incorporate the dialogue protocols in
the ways I intended.
In the first two weeks of this study, I attempted to stimulate CRD in our ES PLC by using
the culture tree handout (Appendix A) as a starting point in the first week and then using the axis
of intersectionality handout (Appendix B) in the second week. I thought that beginning with
these handouts, I would set the stage for our CRD by encouraging my colleagues to consider the
levels of culture and the concept of intersectionality and begin to interrogate their positionalities
through our dialogue. I also utilized the andragogical techniques of modeling and questioning in
the first two meetings. There was no third meeting in the first cycle because of Thanksgiving
vacation, so I then moved into my in-the-field analysis through the writing of an analytic memo.
I then utilized that analysis to inform my actions in the following cycles.
In the second cycle, I utilized my analytic memo and preliminary field notes data to
inform my actions. For instance, I reached out one-on-one during the second cycle to support
James and I also integrated an article (Yosso & Burciaga, 2016) as a handout based on our
dialogue regarding cultural wealth that had come up during Cycle 1. I was unable to incorporate
all my intended handouts into our two ES PLC meetings in the second cycle due to attendance
challenges and competing outside demands of our ES PLC. I continued to utilize my intended
andragogical moves of modeling and questioning. Again, there was no third meeting in the
second cycle because of Winter vacation, so I moved into in-the-field analysis to inform my
actions for the final cycle of this study.
42

During the third cycle and final cycle, I utilized my analytic memos and my preliminary
field notes data to inform my actions. For example, based on my analysis, I worked to be more
intentional with my use of handouts and questioning. During the four meetings of this cycle, I
supported our dialogue with modeling and questioning, and in the final meeting, we discussed
the warm demander chart (Appendix C) to enhance our CRD. After our final meeting of the final
cycle in my action research study, I moved into my first round of out-of-the-field data analysis.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
I generated data throughout the three action research cycles of this study. The data I
generated during the cycles were my critical self-reflections, low-inference PLC meeting field
notes, and analytic memos. My critical self-reflections were written after each PLC meeting
during the data collection phase of the study. I generated fieldnotes after each PLC meeting from
the audio recordings along with my jottings and observer’s comments from the meetings. Data
from my field notes and critical self-reflections were used to generate analytic memos at the end
of each of the first two cycles which were used to inform the following action research cycles in
an iterative process (Coughlan, 2019).
Documents and Artifacts
In this study, I intended to generate critical reflections to interrogate my own
assumptions, positionality, and biases, specifically in how they relate to my support of my
colleagues, as suggested by Brookfield (2017). As a novice researcher, I found that I wrote
reflections with some critical elements. Through the course of this research study, I wrote eight
self-reflections with critical elements focusing on my support of my colleagues, including the
leadership and andragogical moves I was making and my perceptions of their impacts on my
participants. I wrote my reflections on the weekend after each PLC meeting so that I would have
43

a few days to think about the meeting’s dialogue and my actions, and then develop my critically
reflective thoughts. I dictated my reflections into a recording device and generated the transcripts
through the online software program Otter. Each reflection with critical elements was saved in an
online drive with a file name that identified the date and time of each reflection.
I used my reflections to systematically and critically interrogate my assumptions,
positionality, and biases as well as my behaviors and actions as I worked with my colleagues. I
promoted my critical reflections by asking myself questions such as: What do I assume about my
colleagues based on my perceptions of their identity? What might they assume about me? How
did I activate my dominant and marginalized identities in our meeting? What is the role of our
intersectional identities in our meetings? To prompt my critical reflections regarding my actions
with my colleagues, I interrogated myself with questions such as: How am I creating a brave
space, if at all? How am I modeling critical reflection? How do I know that this reflection is
critical? How am I facilitating critically reflective dialogue?
Observational Field Notes
The next type of document I generated were observational field notes for each of our
weekly PLC meetings. The purpose of these field notes was to go beyond the words of the
transcript to record physical descriptions, behavioral descriptions, and observations (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1997). The field notes provided data in the service of answering my research question as
I worked to observe and analyze my support of my fellow ES teachers and whether/how we
moved towards CRD. I examined these field notes during both my in-the-field analyses and also
during my out-of-the-field analysis. The field notes were generated after every PLC meeting
using a combination of audio recordings, jottings, and observer’s comments.
44

With my colleagues’ permission, I recorded the audio of our weekly PLC meetings
because I was an active participant in the PLC conversations and, thus, was unable to write low-
inference observational field notes during the meetings. I audio recorded 8 PLC meetings over
the course of 3 months.
Even with the permission to record, I created jottings during the meetings. The jottings
that I generated were brief, informal notes written down quickly during our PLC meetings. These
jottings recorded my in-the-moment thoughts and observations and were also used to document
specific words or phrases that occur during our meetings (Emerson et al., 2011). I then utilized
these recordings along with my jottings and observer’s comments to generate low-inference field
notes. I formatted the field notes using the same first-page template which included the date,
time, setting, and participants for each PLC meeting (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). My observational
field notes also included a reflective portion where I recorded reflections on my methods, ethical
dilemmas, and/or conflicts (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). My “observer’s comments” recorded
insights and speculations and made connections to the literature of my conceptual framework,
my research question, and my conceptual framework (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). I saved my field
notes in an online drive with a file name that identified the date and time of each field note. Most
of our ES PLC meetings were 45-60 minutes long. In all, I generated around 10 hours of
observational data because two of our meetings were on teacher prep days and we met for longer
periods of time.
Interviews
In my proposal, I intended to invite my participants for an interview at the culmination of
the fourth week of the final cycle to gain perspective on how I may or may not have supported
my colleagues’ increase in critical consciousness. However, when I reached the end of the 3
45

months, most of my colleagues had only been in attendance in our meetings a limited amount of
time. I did not invite them for an interview because I believed they did not have the perspective
from the full time of the study in which to respond. James was the only PLC member, other than
me, who was in attendance for every meeting of this study, but I also did not invite James for an
interview because of the perceived hierarchical power difference between our positions. I was
not sure that James would be comfortable answering honestly about my support in our PLC
meetings since he was a novice teacher, and, although I was not in a position of authority over
him, he might have reacted to perceived power dynamics due to my status as a veteran teacher
and scholar.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was used to make meaning out of data I collected (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). For the purposes of this research study, I utilized two types of data analysis: in-the-field
analysis and out-of-the-field analysis. Because this was an action research study, I began data
analysis during my in-the-field data collection cycles (Herr & Anderson, 2014). My data
collection took place from November 2021 through January 2022. Each month was one cycle,
and my in-the-field data analysis took place at the end of the first two cycles.
For my in-the-field analysis, I used the initial data collected in my critical reflections and
field notes to inform my practice in the next cycles. As I reviewed the data in these initial
analysis stages, I asked myself, “What is it that I do not know?” (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997, p.
163). I looked for evidence that I was enacting the leadership and andragogical moves as set out
in my conceptual framework. To do this, I asked myself, “What evidence is there that I am
facilitating CRD?” and “What evidence do I have that I am enacting the andragogical moves I
planned?” and “What evidence is there that my andragogical moves are effective?” and “What
46

evidence do I have that I am enacting the leadership moves I planned?” and “What evidence is
there that my leadership moves are effective?” The answers to these questions informed my
decisions during the following action research cycles. During the final week of each action
research cycle, I used my initial data and my questioning to generate a one-page summary in the
form of an analytic memo regarding what was emerging from the preliminary data (Bogdan &
Biklen, 1997). In these memos, I recorded themes, ideas, and areas for further investigation
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1997) as I looked to make changes for future cycles. I wrote my first analytic
memo at the end of Cycle 1 and the second analytic memo at the end of Cycle 2.
My out-of-the field data analysis began after my third cycle of data collection. I created a
codebook based on my first round of coding and included a priori codes, or deductive codes,
based on my conceptual framework (i.e., elements of critically reflective dialogue, ES
curriculum and pedagogy, andragogical moves, etc.), and empirical codes, or inductive codes,
that I observed during the coding process (i.e., my fears, normalizing, vagueness, etc.). During
the first round of coding, I examined my field notes, critical reflections, and analytic memos
across and within cycles to find categories that provided evidence to answer my research
question. I highlighted and made comments on my data during this cycle, and I used analytic
tools such as questioning and looking for different meanings of a word to further analyze my
data in this first round of coding.
In my second round of coding, I again read my data asking myself if I had missed any
evidence related to my a priori or empirical codes that could serve to answer my research
question. I continued to highlight and make notes in my data. I then added new empirical codes
to my codebook based on new categories I noticed in my analysis. It was during this second
cycle that I began to count the occurrences or typicality of the coded data and I included those
47

counts in my codebook as well. I also created axial codes representing larger themes in my codes
(i.e., andragogical moves, questioning, emotion, etc.) and grouped the categories into those
themes in my codebook.
I then moved into my third round of coding where I looked at my codebook and my data
to construct conceptual themes which were used to inform my theories. After completing my
data analysis with my research question in mind, I narrowed my findings and arguments, which
are presented in this dissertation.
Limitations and Delimitations
The unpredictable and ongoing Covid-19 pandemic is one limitation that was a challenge
to navigate through the course of this study and had direct impacts on our PLC meetings, my
participants, and my findings. Due to the pandemic, schools across the country experienced
severe substitute shortages during the school year that this study took place. In my context,
instead of qualified substitutes teaching ES classes, there was a revolving door of long-term
substitutes with no ES training. Additionally, because my district remained online for the entire
2020–2021 school year, many students had struggled to be successful in online learning.
Additional remediation classes were required to help students make up courses they failed during
online school, and one of my participants, David, was teaching one of those classes during the
time of my data collection. His class met during our scheduled PLC time, and, although a
substitute was promised to him so he could attend our meetings, substitute shortages did not
always make that possible which directly impacted his attendance. In fact, two members of the
PLC, Brian and David, never met.
Another limitation to this study was my positionality as a novice researcher and leader
and a socializing knower, these elements of my positionality shaped my behaviors in this study,
48

such as intending to write critical reflections, but actually writing reflections with some critical
elements. As I will discuss further in my findings, I found that my positionality impacted the
behaviors of my participants as well.
A delimitation in this study was the relatively short window of time I used for data
collection. My colleagues and I were teaching a year-long ES course, but my data collection took
place during only 3 months of the year, November through January. Although I was able to
collect sufficient, robust data during that amount of time, increasing ones’ critical consciousness
to enact a fully realized ES curriculum is a continual process with no finish line.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In this study, credibility and trustworthiness were considered throughout the research
process, and specifically during the data analysis of my field notes and critical reflections.
Because the participants in this pilot study were my colleagues, issues of credibility and
trustworthiness may have come into play because of perceived hierarchical collegial
relationships. Power dynamics are always an influence on data collection, especially in this
research study because, as a qualitative researcher, I was the key instrument of data collection. I
also conducted research within my own organization, so I had to be aware of the ways that my
positionality and biases shaped my interactions with my colleagues throughout the research
process (Coughlan, 2019), thus affecting what I found in my data analysis.
I received permission from my participants to audio record each PLC meeting during the
data collection process to ensure that the exact words of my participants were captured and that I
produced as low-inference field notes as possible. I used triangulation to enhance the credibility
and trustworthiness of my data collection and data analysis (Maxwell, 2013). I triangulated by
using multiple sources of data: field notes and critical reflections (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I
49

used my critical reflections throughout the research process to keep in mind that I could have
been wrong because of my roles as both the designer and the key instrument of data collection.
My critical reflections were used to monitor my own change process (Herr & Anderson, 2014). I
also incorporated peer review through regular interactions with my dissertation chair to help
check my biases and assumptions.
The credibility of my participants’ meeting interactions came into play because of
perceived hierarchical collegial relationships. Although I had no positional authority over my
colleagues, there may have been issues with perceived authority based on my years of experience
and the status I held within my team as a teacher leader and scholar. The perception of this
authority, combined with the teachers’ adult developmental stages and social desirability bias,
may have affected their honesty and willingness to be vulnerable (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017; Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
In qualitative research, transparency is crucial in ensuring credibility and trustworthiness.
Essentially, my role as a qualitative researcher was “providing information and rationale for the
study’s processes and adequate evidence so that readers can determine the results are
trustworthy” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 260).
Ethics
Ethical implications were considered at every stage of the research process (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Prior to beginning this action research, I received approval to conduct this study
from my site principal and from USC’s Institutional Review Board. To address the ethical
principle of respect for persons, my colleagues were informed of the research study at the formal
invitation stage through an information sheet and I gave them the opportunity to consent or
decline participation. My participants were given the option to decline and were informed that
50

they would not be penalized and there would be no repercussions. My colleagues were also given
the option to drop out of the research study at any time and, again, were informed that they
would not be penalized for doing so (Glesne, 2011; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). All the ES PLC
members included in this study agreed to participate and consented for me to audio record our
weekly meetings.
I also evaluated the ethical implications of including my own colleagues as a sample set,
including a novice teacher who was on a probationary contract, meaning they could be released
without cause at any time. I recognized the ethical challenges associated with recording our
discussions of issues of power, positionality, and bias with my colleagues whom I did not have
any positional authority over and did everything I could to make sure that they knew that their
participation was voluntary and that they were free to leave the study at any time.
For data security purposes, all recordings, interview data, critical reflections, and field notes
were stored in a password protected online drive with file names related to date and setting, but
that did not identify the participants or my site. Additionally, my colleagues and school site were
referred to in this dissertation by pseudonyms to protect their identity. Although every effort was
made to ensure confidentiality of the participants in data analysis and writing, there remained
ethical limits to this confidentiality. Confidentiality is not the same as anonymity (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). Because this research study was confined to the teachers in one Southern
California high school, one that is identified here as my current school site, it may be possible for
those familiar with the local context to deduce participant identities even with confidentiality
measures in place.
51

Findings
In this section, I present my findings in response to the following research question: How
do I support high school English teachers in developing their critical consciousness so as to fully
enact the emergent Ethnic Studies curriculum? These findings are divided into three sections. In
the first finding, I discuss the actions I took prior to the beginning of this research study in
cultivating a safe space as a first step in creating the conditions for critical consciousness
development to occur. The section analyzes the adaptive leadership moves I enacted to cultivate
a safe space and their relative effectiveness with my colleagues during the 3 months of this
action research study. In the second finding, I discuss the andragogical and adaptive leadership
moves I enacted and the progress I made in supporting my colleagues in developing their critical
consciousness through critically reflective dialogue (CRD). In the third and final finding, I
reflected on my growth as a leader from within an Ethnic Studies Professional Learning
Community (ES PLC).
As stated in my conceptual framework, my goal in this action research study was to
engage with my fellow ES teachers in CRD during our regularly scheduled weekly PLC
meetings as a mechanism to develop our critical consciousness. The purpose of this study was to
analyze how I could support current, yet essentially novice, ES teachers in developing their
critical consciousness while they were teaching ES, not prior to entering the classroom as has
been seen in previous studies of ES teachers (Nevárez, 2021; Sacramento, 2019; Young, 2021). I
entered this research study with an initial plan of actions in mind for the 3-month study, but I
adjusted my actions based on my perceptions of the needs of my colleagues and also due to
competing external challenges which I will discuss in these findings. For each ES PLC team
meeting, I prepared handouts to enhance dialogue, participated in our dialogue, and worked to
52

support CRD from within each meeting. I then critically reflected on each meeting and used
informal in-the-field analysis of those critical reflections and perceptions about my participants’
needs to guide my actions in the following meetings.
Finding 1: Cultivating a Safe Space Within an Ethnic Studies Professional Learning
Community as a First Step in Creating the Conditions for Critical Consciousness
Development
My first challenge in this study was to cultivate a space for participants to feel safe
enough to engage in honest and vulnerable dialogue around critical consciousness (Brookfield &
Hess, 2021), and because I was working in my own context with participants I knew well, I felt
that my work needed to begin prior to the official start of this research study. A safe space is
defined as an environment where people can feel confident that they will not experience criticism
or harassment, or experience physical or emotional harm (Ali, 2017). My PLC has not
historically been a safe space. Prior to our decision to convert our English II course to ES, our
PLC was a space often filled with confrontation and unresolved conflict, mainly between Robert
and me. Our PLC was not a place of honest dialogue or learning. Therefore, for our PLC team to
increase our critical consciousness through CRD to fully enact the emergent ES curriculum, I
knew that I would have to begin laying the groundwork for a safe space ahead of inviting my
participants and beginning the study.
When I proposed this study, I had every intention of building a brave space (Arao &
Clemens, 2013) through co-created discussion agreements that would outline our unique needs
and expectations in cultivating a space where we could disagree and confront biases in a
productive way. Arao and Clemens (2013) define a brave space as a one where groups of people,
especially those engaged in social justice efforts, can work through tensions, conflict, and
53

challenging topics that can ultimately lead to transformative growth. The authors stress the act of
co-creating norms and discussion agreements as a way to give everyone a voice and to help the
group hold each other accountable. They argue that building a safe space is not ideal, because it
might allow participants to retreat into their own previously held beliefs and avoid the conflicts
and tensions that a brave space entails. It is the engagement in a brave space that can lead to
transformative growth (Arao & Clemens, 2013). Others argue that a safe space has a tendency to
become just a comfortable place for the White people in the room, often at the further discomfort
of people of color in the room (Strong et al., 2017).
Therefore, my intent was to move my PLC towards a brave space, as indicated in my
conceptual framework. As I neared the start of this study, our ES PLC was well into the school
year, and I struggled to come up with an organic way to co-create discussion agreements in an
already established and on-going PLC. Other situational challenges came into play such as a new
substitute who joined our team the week before the study began, and attendance was inconsistent
throughout, as indicated in Table 2.

54

Table 2
PLC Meeting Attendance
Team
member
Weekly meetings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Me ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
James ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü
Robert ü ü ü ü ü
David ü ü ü ü
Emma ü ü ü ü
Brian ü ü ü

Note. ü denotes present.

Inconsistent attendance was due to a variety of situational factors including the medical
leave of one member and competing responsibilities related to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. In fact, my entire, core PLC with no substitutes was completely in attendance only
one time during the study and that meeting was the eighth and final meeting of the data
collection portion of this research study. Because the consistent presence of a dedicated team
who have co-created discussion agreements is vital when building a brave space (Arao &
Clemens, 2013), I was unable to move my PLC to that desired point. As a novice researcher and
novice leader of adults, I found that I did not have the opportunity or skill needed to initiate a
discussion regarding brave space agreements during the limited time frame of this study and
compounded by the challenges articulated above.
I do not intend to suggest that building a brave space was not a worthy goal or that
cultivating a safe space was “good enough.” Rather, it is the honest account of what I was able to
accomplish in order to support my colleagues during the limited months of this research study.
As Shapiro (cited by Ali, 2017), noted, people “don’t fully embrace uncomfortable learning
55

unless they are themselves comfortable. Safe spaces provide that comfort” (p. 3). Essentially,
given our group’s dynamic prior to this study and the inconsistency in attendance of PLC
members, cultivating a safe space was the first step I was able to take in our journey to work
together to increase our critical consciousness in order to enact a fully realized ES course. This
type of work requires, at the minimum, opportunities for the honest dialogue and learning of a
safe space (Ali, 2017). So, although it was not the brave space that I intended, nor was it ideal for
social justice work, it was the first step on our journey.
In the following sections, I will discuss the adaptive leadership moves I enacted, namely
acting politically and building an unlikely ally, in order to shift our group dynamics toward a
safe space. This section will also include evidence to support my assertion that my efforts to
cultivate a safe space were effective within my context as seen in examples of both James and
Robert’s willingness to participate in honest, vulnerable ways in our dialogue.
Adaptive Leadership Moves: Shifting Group Dynamics From Within
Because the group dynamics of our PLC were often contentious in the past, I knew I
would have to incorporate adaptive leadership moves (Heifetz et al., 2009) to build a safe space
as a first step in my context for CRD to occur and to serve as a mechanism to build our critical
consciousness. Adaptive leadership is focused on overcoming challenges in ever-changing and
unpredictable environments (Heifetz et al., 2009) such as my context. If my goal was to support
critical consciousness development in our PLC, I needed to cultivate a safe space by building a
supportive community where we could feel comfortable being honest in our dialogue.
As indicated in my conceptual framework, the primary adaptive leadership moves I
utilized were acting politically and building an unlikely ally (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Heifetz et
56

al., 2009). I will discuss these moves and their relative effectiveness with my participants in the
following sections.
Acting Politically. Heifetz et al. (2009) defined acting politically as forging alliances and
building networks of influence as needed. When I originally decided to propose this action
research study within my own PLC, my first adaptive leadership move was to act politically,
even before the study began. I immediately began to communicate with my team about what I
was considering. Because I would be proposing to audio record, study, and write about how we
work to increase our critical consciousness through our dialogue, I wondered if my colleagues
would express any resistance at the idea of our semi-private PLC work being formally analyzed
and documented. I first presented this study to our PLC as a hypothetical option in May of 2021,
at the end of the school year prior to this study. Because this was prior to IRB approval, I framed
this study as something I was considering researching.
3
While it was not a formal invitation to
participate in the study, it was a way to gauge their interest and uncover any possible resistance.
Therefore, I described this research study as a compliment to us as pioneers in ES
implementation. I explained that I was proud of what we were doing together and that was my
motivation for studying us. To my delight, their reactions were very positive. I stressed that I
would not ask them to do any additional work, but that I would be qualitatively analyzing our
dialogue during our PLC meetings as we continued our work to develop our critical
consciousness and implement the emergent ES curriculum. When the new school year began in
August of 2021, I continued to speak positively about our team and avoid disagreements with
Robert. In this way, as I mentioned in my conceptual framework, I was utilizing the adaptive
leadership move of acting politically (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Heifetz et al., 2009) by working to

3
The exact dialogue from that meeting is not included here as it was prior to IRB approval and data collection.
57

forge an alliance with my team and building my network of influence prior to the beginning of
my data collection in November of 2021. I reflected on my efforts to act politically in my first
analytic memo:
I have been complementary of our group for implementing ES and have worked to
express since last school year how proud I am of our efforts to enact ES in an authentic
way even though we’ve had little outside support.
In this passage, I reflected on my technique of being “complementary of our group” as a way to
act politically to forge alliances (Heifetz et al., 2009). Noting how I was “proud” of our efforts in
the face of “little outside support” is a further complement to our fortitude and an honest
acknowledgement of the lack of outside support. My intention in utilizing these moves was to
help our group feel that we are in an alliance with each other as a way to cultivate a safe space
for our critical consciousness to develop through dialogue.
Again, acting politically was an adaptive leadership move I enacted from within the
group as a prerequisite to build camaraderie amongst our PLC, especially because of the history
of conflict within our group. Acting politically in this way before I began the work of this study
could be seen as a selfish move if it was only in service of my research; however, it was also a
leadership move I needed to enact to support my PLC regardless of the study purposes.
Cultivating a safe space through acting politically was the first step I needed to take, in my
context, for the honest dialogue and learning needed to develop our critical consciousness in
order to enact a fully realized ES course.
Building an Unlikely Ally. While acting politically includes the concept of building
alliances as a group, a specific adaptive leadership move I needed to enact in my own context
was to build what Heifetz et al. (2009) describe as an “unlikely ally.” To build a safe space
58

within our ES PLC, I knew that, due to the prior history of antagonism between Robert and me, I
would have to utilize the adaptive leadership move of cultivating an unlikely ally (Heifetz et al.,
2009). When I first began the work of cultivating a safe space prior to beginning this study, I
consciously chose to avoid disagreements with Robert in ways that I had not in the past. I chose
to capitalize on our mutual interest (Bolman & Gallos, 2011) of implementing an authentic ES
course by exchanging articles and pedagogy ideas with him outside of our meeting times. In
these ways, I was utilizing the adaptive leadership move of building an unlikely ally with Robert
(Heifetz et al., 2009).
One particular piece of evidence that Robert was seeing me as an ally and invested in this
research study happened during the first cycle. The substitute teacher, Brian, brought up the
racial conflicts he witnessed when he was in high school:
Me: There were fights?
Brian: Oh yes. Race fights. In the 90s. It wasn’t like super bad. I had friends that were
being picked on by those who were in the KKK. I mean [He pauses awkwardly
and looks around] Maybe this is all off topic.
Me: No, no. I think it’s totally on topic. This is what we need to talk about. I mean,
people like to think racial conflict is all over or all in the past.
Robert: We ended slavery and Barack Obama was president, so racism is over
[Laughter] [OC: He’s being sarcastic].
Brian: Sure. I mean OK. If we are all open here and we can talk about these things.
Me: Yeah, for sure. And that’s the point of this class, too. To talk about these things
that students aren’t expected to talk about or don’t talk about.
Robert: [Claps his hands. Turns to me] Hey, are you recording today?
59

Me: Oh yes. I’m recording. I forgot to mention. I’m sorry.
Robert: Cool, cool. Cause I’m thinking, this would be the perfect conversation to record.
In this dialogue excerpt, I began by questioning Brian for clarity, “There were fights?” This
question was not intended to pressure, but to encourage Brian to elaborate, which he did, adding,
“Oh yes. Race fights. In the 90s.” It seemed as if he felt safe enough with our group to continue,
but then he stopped himself, paused, looked around, and said, “Maybe this is off topic.”
Brookfield and Hess (2021) noted how race discussions are rarely practiced, supported, or
expected in school environments, so Brian’s hesitation may have been due to the socialized
expectation not to talk about racism within the workplace. I supported and encouraged his
contribution by responding, “No, no. I think it’s totally on topic. This is what we need to talk
about.” I validated his contributions while also working to cultivate a safe space by encouraging
open sharing of the oft-taboo topic of racism (Strong et al., 2017). The moment that stood out to
me in this excerpt, in particular, was when Robert turned to me excitedly and asked, “Hey! Are
you recording today?” and then he followed that up with “Cool, cool. Cause I’m thinking, this
would be the perfect conversation to record.” This indicated to me that Robert was indeed
invested in this research study and that he viewed me as an ally in our work.
It was at the end of Cycle 1 when I noted the effects of my adaptive leadership moves in
my first analytic memo:
The “unlikely ally” work that I have undertaken since last May when I decided on this
[research] topic, seems to be playing out. Robert seems to see me as an ally in the work
of developing this course and is participating productively in our meetings.
In this excerpt, I referred to the fact that I have undertaken the adaptive leadership move of
building an unlikely ally “since last May,” well before the beginning of this study. I also noted
60

that Robert “seems to see me as an ally,” so it was not just that I saw him as an ally, but that he
was beginning to see me as one as well. I also noted that he was “participating productively”
meaning that he was actively engaged in our meetings and his contributions to our dialogue were
positive and supportive of the other members of the team.
Another piece of evidence that I was able to build an unlikely ally with Robert was that I
did not deter his off-topic comments in our meetings. In the past, I may have changed the subject
or simply not engaged with Robert as a way to end his off-topic comments. However, I had
observed that venting frustrations in my PLC, even if the subject was unrelated to the curriculum
or pedagogy topics of the day, could encourage the feeling of safety and may also open the door
to reflective dialogue within our PLC (Hord, 2004). I noted one particular off-topic venting
session in a Cycle 2 reflection
4
:
Another thing that happened was Robert contributed an extended discussion about his
experience at the board meeting the night before. He was frustrated and we allowed him
to talk. I feel like we were commiserating with what he had experienced and sort of
building connections in that way. We were agreeing with him that this sounded like a
frustrating experience. He doesn’t always act in a political way very naturally, and so
he’s frustrated with that. We did affirm him in the fact that he was put in a tricky
situation. So, in that way, I felt like this was important for team building and community-
building with our group.
In this reflection, I noted that our PLC “allowed” Robert to talk in an “extended discussion,”
meaning we did not step in to change the topic or disengage as a deterrent. I observed that we
were “commiserating” with Robert and that we “did affirm him in the fact that he was put in a

4
I referred to the excerpts in my findings as “reflections” when that section was reflective, but not critical.
61

tricky situation.” I noted, at the end that these efforts were “important” in that they seemed to
support “team building” as well as “community building.” My efforts to enact the leadership
move of building an unlikely ally with Robert were necessary in order to cultivate a safe space
for our honest dialogue and learning to occur.
While Robert’s venting
5
may have been off topic, we as a PLC, took the time to engage
in his account, affirm him, and validate his frustration. Although this could be seen as
normalizing away from practice (Horn & Little, 2010), I would argue that allowing sharing and
offering support to a colleague, even when unrelated to the day’s topic, can build a sense of
safety and support, especially in our case given that our PLC has not been historically supportive
or safe. Evidence that allowing Robert to vent was effective in cultivating a safe space for him
occurred at the end of that Cycle 2 meeting. The following exchange occurred between Robert
and me:
Robert: [OC: Speaking directly to me. I’m the only one left because the meeting was in
my classroom] Thanks for letting me rant a while.
Me: Of course. No problem. You needed to vent about that.
Robert: Yeah, yeah [He leaves].
This interaction, although brief, indicated that Robert appreciated my support when he said
directly to me, “Thanks for letting me rant a while.” He was aware that he was off topic as
evidenced by his use of the word “rant,” but he appreciated the opportunity to speak his mind
and express his frustrations. I further supported him through validation, saying, “Of course. No
problem. You needed to vent about that.” The fact that he waited until we were the only two
people left in the room to thank me directly is another indication that he saw me as an ally.

5
Robert’s exact words were not included here as it could potentially break confidentiality by revealing his identity.
62

Before my intentional use of adaptive leadership techniques and our incorporation of ES into our
course, he rarely spoke directly to me at all, other than to disagree with something I was saying.
So, the fact that he not only spoke to me directly but also offered thanks, was yet another
indication that my leadership moves of acting politically and building an unlikely ally (Bolman
& Deal, 2017; Bolman & Gallos, 2011; Heifetz et al., 2009) were having some type of impact.
Even his tone when he was leaving and said, “Yeah, yeah,” was not dismissive or flippant, but
rather thoughtful and contemplative. Robert did not walk away with a sarcastic attitude, but
instead sounded thankful; therefore, this interaction indicated to me that he was viewing me as an
ally and that my efforts were effective for this context as I endeavored to cultivate a safe space
for our ES PLC where we could be honest and vulnerable to develop our critical consciousness.
As indicated in my conceptual framework, the purpose of this research study was to
support my fellow ES teachers in developing their critical consciousness. Due to the history of
conflicts in my context, it was important that before we could develop our critical consciousness,
I needed to work to shift the dynamics of the group from my position within it. As I discussed in
this section, I found that working politically and building an unlikely ally were the adaptive
leadership moves that I utilized in order to create a safe environment as a prerequisite to support
our critical consciousness development. Evidence of the effectiveness of these adaptive
leadership moves in cultivating a safe space, will be discussed in the following section.
Evidence of Safe Space As Seen in Robert and James’ Vulnerability
Although my intent to cultivate a brave space was not successful during the limited time
of this study, in this section, I will discuss the evidence in my data that my adaptive leadership
moves of acting politically and building an unlikely ally (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Heifetz et al.,
2009) were effective in cultivating a safe space as a first step. This was primarily seen in the
63

willingness of Robert and James to be honest and vulnerable with our PLC team. I contend that
this is evidence of my cultivation of a safe space because feeling comfortable enough to be
honest and vulnerable is an essential component of a safe space (Ali, 2017).
Robert. My adaptive leadership moves to cultivate a safe space for vulnerability and
growth prior to this study seemed to be effective for Robert as evidenced by the fact that he
immediately demonstrated a willingness to be vulnerable and honest. For example, he made the
following statement during Cycle 1 about a critical awareness that he was developing in himself
and how he was bringing that awareness into his ES classroom context:
Robert: It’s made me more reflective about my own family. Especially talking to my
female students. You know we have the blended family of six kids, 2 girls, 4
boys. I have to tell them I’m guilty of this myself. I used to never question the
boys like when they got home or what they were doing. But if it was the girls,
“Where are you going?” “What are you doing?” “What time are you getting
home?” I don’t know … it’s been really good for me. I’ve had to face a lot of, uh,
uh. It’s been challenging. And not in a bad way. I’ve had to challenge myself and
reflect on myself.
In this excerpt, Robert clearly felt safe to not only be reflective, but he was also indicating his
awareness of how he has been complicit in the systems of oppression when he admitted, “I have
been guilty of this myself.” When he mentioned, “I’ve had to challenge myself and reflect on
myself,” he was being vulnerable with our group, giving me the impression that he felt safe to
share with us what he was reflecting on even if it was potentially embarrassing or might be
putting him in a bad light with our group. He gave a specific example of the different ways he
had treated his own children based on their gender and he connected it to his Chicano culture by
64

saying, “especially culturally.” Robert was verbalizing the disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1997)
he had experienced while teaching ES and how he was reflecting and learning. When he said,
“It’s made me more reflective about my own family,” he was referring to the ES course he was
teaching. This excerpt supports my assertion that I was cultivating a safe space in our ES PLC
because Robert was comfortable enough to share his honest and vulnerable personal reflections
with us.
Without my efforts of building a safe space, I am not sure that Robert would have felt
comfortable sharing his vulnerable thoughts in this way. Prior to my adaptive leadership moves,
Robert was generally either quiet or combative in our meetings. I do not recall him sharing his
experiences with such vulnerability, indicating to me that my efforts to cultivate a safe space
through acting politically and building an unlikely ally were effective.
Again, it was important for me to shift the dynamics of our group into a safe space for
our critical consciousness to develop. Critical consciousness, or awareness of the systems of
oppression, privilege, and power in society and as it relates to one’s positionality is a crucial
awareness for the ES teaching (Sacramento, 2019; Sealey-Ruiz, 2017). Our PLC needed to be a
safe place for our critical consciousness to develop.
James. Further evidence that I cultivated a safe space within our PLC was that James
increased his participation and his willingness to be vulnerable in our meetings substantially
between Cycle 1 and Cycle 3. As a novice teacher, James said very little in our PLC meetings
which is evident in my Cycle 1 and 2 field notes. Although he was present for all 8 PLC
meetings in this research study, his contributions were minimal in the first 4 meetings. For
example, during Cycle 1, I wrote the following in an observer’s comment about James: [OC:
James arrives. Greets everyone. Sits quietly.]. This was generally his behavior throughout the
65

first two cycles. Below is a selection from my reflection during Cycle 1 of my observations of
James’ behavior:
How to include James more in the conversation is another concern I have. When I am
making my field notes, it is striking how little he speaks up. His input is excellent when
he does speak up, but he tends to sit quietly, nodding and listening. He doesn’t say much.
I tried to pull him into the discussion, by asking him questions or seeking out his input on
teaching strategies, but honestly, the bigger personalities of Robert, me, and Brian seem
to overpower him.
In this reflection, I mentioned that it was a “concern” to me as I pondered how to “include James
more in the conversation.” I noted how “striking” it was that his contributions were so rare,
because I was seeing a lack of contributions during my field note writing. At this point, I did not
know if this was due to his personality, the fact that he was a novice teacher, or because he was
being drowned out by “bigger personalities.” I was referring to the outgoing personalities of
Robert, Brian, and myself. In my field notes, it was evident that the three of us spoke up a lot,
but James was mostly quiet. I noted that he seemed engaged in our dialogue even when he did
not say anything because he “tends to sit quietly” but is “nodding and listening.” I also noted that
I tried to bring him into our dialogue by “asking him questions or seeking his input on teaching
strategies.” For instance, in our first PLC meeting, James spoke a total of five times in the entire
meeting and two of those contributions were prompted by me asking him questions. For
example, in this excerpt from that meeting, we were discussing the student feedback we had
received from our first unit. James had been quiet for the previous seven minutes when I asked:
Me: [to James] So, what did you notice?
James: My students mentioned that it was affirming of their identity. And that they
66

learned a lot about women of color. How they are treated differently. And I had
quite a few students say how I’m the same as people in their class. And so, some
students I guess come into class thinking I’m not the same as everyone else and
I’m not going to be afforded the same time as others but that they feel in this class
that I’m equal, too. They felt that they are equal to everyone else.
Me: And that inspires them to be more engaged or more involved or what do you
think?
James: Yes. Also, my classes are small. Everybody is kind of finding their voice as
they’re going through.
In this passage, James was responding specifically to the questions I asked. I started with an
open-ended prompt, “So, what did you notice?” because, as I said, James had not said a word for
over seven minutes, so I was trying to bring him into the dialogue. His response was focused on
his students: “My students mentioned that it was affirming of their identity.” He then went on to
talk about the treatment of “women of color” which was not part of that unit, so I wondered if he
was mixing the feedback from his non-ES course with the feedback from his ES course. I was
also not sure what he meant by his students coming into his class “thinking I’m not the same as
everyone else and I’m going to be afforded the same time as others” so I asked a clarifying
question about engagement, “And that inspires them to be more engaged or more involved or
what do you think?” But his response was limited, “Yes.” Which he qualified with “also my
classes are small.” In this excerpt I was asking James questions to try to bring him into our
dialogue, but he answered either in limited or convoluted ways.
Throughout the first two cycles, James’ contributions to our dialogue revolved primarily
around curriculum and pedagogy, and even then, he often needed prompting to contribute. In
67

another example from the beginning of a Cycle 1 meeting when James, Brian, and I were the
only participants present, James mentioned a strategy he was using with his non-ES students
which I encouraged him to share in more detail:
Me: How’s the student engagement with House on Mango Street? My students are
struggling [with engagement].
James: I noticed that when I used the question sheet they struggled to be engaged, just
like my [Senior English class]. So, I used the questions and put them into teams to
draw a question and answer it on a grid on my board. Then each team has to
present their response to the class and discuss their reasoning and evidence. I give
immediate feedback. We are getting off the page while still responding to the
passage.
Me: Oh, I like that idea. And they’re more engaged with that?
James: Yes, I asked them, “How do you guys like this? Do you prefer the handout?” And
they were like, “We hate the handouts, and we like this more.” So, I’m going to
continue using that for this week. And each presenter has to take a turn so
everyone in each group gets a chance to present [OC: He provides a bit more
detail about turn taking, etc.].
In this passage, James shared a teaching strategy he used to help engage his students. I initiated
this sharing by being vulnerable and mentioning that my students were struggling with
engagement, thus alluding to me also struggling to engage them. This may have encouraged
James to share because he responded with a detailed description of the strategy he was using. I
prompted him to connect his strategy to student engagement by asking, “And they’re more
engaged with that?” And he responded by describing how he was seeking feedback from his
68

students by asking, “How do you guys like this? Do you prefer the handouts?” They responded
positively to his strategy, “We like this more.” When Robert joined us later in the meeting, I
encouraged James to share his strategy with Robert:
Me: But [James] has a good plan for that. Not to make you repeat it or anything,
[James] [Laughter] [OC: James repeats his lesson strategy for Robert. I’m trying
to encourage sharing of strategies. I also want James to feel valued because he is a
new teacher and usually stays pretty quiet in our meetings].
In this excerpt, I encouraged James to share his strategy with the PLC because I did not believe
that he would have contributed without prompting. Here I expanded my informal authority
(Bolman & Deal, 2017; Heifetz et al., 2009) in our PLC to encourage James to enter the dialogue
and feel safe sharing his ideas with the team. I used my informal authority to vouch for him by
saying “James has a good plan for that.” Without my support, I believed that James would have
stayed quiet, based on his previous behavior in PLC meetings.
It was not until the third cycle that James entered into our dialogue beyond just questions
and comments about curriculum and pedagogy. His behavior was quite understandable because
PLCs are traditionally a place for reflection on curriculum and pedagogy (Hord, 2004; Owen,
2014), not oneself and how it impacts curriculum and pedagogy; however, as I contended in my
conceptual framework, because we are an ES PLC, we must move beyond reflective dialogue to
critically reflective dialogue, which requires a safe environment to be vulnerable and to examine
ourselves as ES teachers.
Although it is impossible to definitively determine the cause of James’ increased
participation and vulnerability during Cycle 3, there are several reasons that I can speculate that I
played a role in this change. For example, after reflecting on James’ lack of participation, I chose
69

to use the andragogical move of reaching out one-on-one to offer support and encouragement.
My opportunity came at the beginning of Cycle 2 when James and I were the only ones left in
the room at the end of a meeting. I took that opportunity to talk to him directly about what I was
noticing regarding his contributions in our dialogue:
Me: So how do you feel about our meetings?
James: Good. Yeah. I feel good.
Me: Okay. Because I’ve noticed you’ve been a bit quiet. You kind of listen. And I
know [Robert] and I tend to talk a lot. So, if you feel like we are speaking over
you or that you’re not getting a chance to share or to talk. That’s not offensive to
me if you tell me that you feel like you can’t, like, get a word in edgewise.
James: Oh, no worries. It’s fine. I just don’t know this curriculum as much and I really
want to listen to make sure that I understand. So that I have a better idea.
Me: Ok. So just let me know if there’s something I can do to make it more
comfortable for you to share and be involved. Just let me know.
This one-on-one invitation to participate may have helped James feel more confident and more
welcomed into our dialogue. I started with an open-ended, and non-specific question “So how do
you feel about our meetings?” to begin the conversation. Because I asked a non-specific
question, his response was also non-specific, “Good, yeah, I feel good.” Instead of leaving it at
that vague response, I probed further by describing what I was observing about his participation,
“you’ve been a bit quiet. You kind of listen.” Because of my awareness of the perceived power
differential (Northouse, 2019) between our positions, I tried to encourage him to be honest by
saying, “It’s not offensive to me if you tell me that you feel like you can’t, like, get a word in
edgewise.” I was also framing Robert and me as the cause of what may be limiting his
70

participation by saying “Robert and I tend to talk a lot.” When he responded with, “I really
wanted to listen to make sure that I understand. So that I have a better idea,” it increased my
awareness of his quiet, observant personality, giving me the impression that although he was
often silent, he didn’t feel silenced. His response also indicated to me his desire to “understand”
and get “a better idea,” meaning that he was engaged, albeit quietly, in our meetings and that he
was determined to do a good job as an ES teacher. We were interrupted by students coming to
class at this point in our short conversation, so I ended with an invitation to “let me know” how I
could support him in his participation. This approach may have encouraged James to participate
later, which he did. I was careful not to pressure him, but to focus on inviting him into our
dialogue.
Whether it was due to our one-on-one conversation or just feeling safer and more
comfortable with our group, by the end of Cycle 3, James was participating readily and with a
level of vulnerability that surprised me based on how quiet and seemingly reticent he was in the
first 2 cycles of this study. Most significantly, the following interaction ensued between James
and me while we were reflecting on first semester during the final PLC meeting of this research
study:
Me: Have you found it [topics related to race and/or oppression] easy to talk about, or
has it been awkward for you?
James: I think it’s easier for me and partly because I embody a lot of those things. I’m an
only child, I’m Hispanic, I’m queer, and the only grandson, and so there’s a lot of
things.
This response by James indicated to me that he felt safe to verbalize elements of his identity that
he had not previously mentioned in our PLC meetings. In fact, he verbalized a string of elements
71

all in one sentence, “I’m an only child, I’m Hispanic, I’m queer, and the only grandson” as if in a
rush to share. The challenging dynamics for LGBTQ individuals in choosing to “come out” in
the workplace are complicated and unique to each persons’ experience (King et al., 2008). I do
not know exactly why James felt comfortable sharing his sexuality with our PLC, but research by
King et al., (2008) found that “the supportiveness of the climate of an organization may be more
critical than timing or method of disclosure for gay and lesbian individuals” (p. 566). Therefore,
I can only speculate that James felt he was working in a supportive climate making him feel safe
enough from discrimination or harassment (Ali, 2017) in our PLC to share his identity as a queer
man. I argue that this is further evidence that my efforts to build a safe space in our ES PLC were
effective and laid the groundwork for the development of critical consciousness through CRD.
To conclude, in this section, I contended that, although my original intent was to build a
brave space in our ES PLC, I was unable to achieve that. I was, however, able to take the first
steps toward cultivating the conditions for our critical consciousness to develop by utilizing
adaptive leadership moves in support of a safe space. I argue that cultivating a safe space was a
necessary first step in my context for our PLC to do the vulnerable work of developing our
critical consciousness through our CRD, which I will discuss in Finding 2.
Finding 2: Supporting Critical Consciousness Development in Ethnic Studies Teachers
From Within a Professional Learning Community
As indicated in my conceptual framework, critical consciousness in ES teachers is their
awareness of the systems of oppression, privilege, and power in society as well as the ways they
are uniquely positioned within these systems and how they play out in the classroom
(Sacramento, 2019). This is a crucial awareness for ES teaching (Nevárez, 2021; Sacramento,
2019; Young, 2021) that not every teacher has, but that can be developed (Cabrera, 2019). In my
72

conceptual framework, I argued that my ES PLC could develop our critical consciousness
through CRD in our weekly meetings.
The development of critical consciousness in adults is a type of transformational learning
experience that requires what Mezirow (1997) described as a disorienting dilemma. For this
study, my intentions were to support ES teachers in developing their critical consciousness by
instigating disorienting dilemmas through andragogical moves and adaptive leadership moves
intended to encourage CRD. The andragogical moves I employed were modeling, questioning,
and dialogue protocols prompted by handouts (Brookfield, 2010; Merriam & Bierema, 2013;
Peavey, 1994; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). The adaptive leadership moves I enacted, as discussed
in Finding 1, were cultivating a safe space through acting politically and building an unlikely ally
(Bolman & Deal, 2017; Heifetz et al., 2009). As I will further explain in this section, my
andragogical moves had uneven effectiveness with my participants and my data indicates that
there were only a few moments of CRD during the eight meetings of this research study. The
challenges of inconsistent attendance, as discussed in Finding 1, study participants coming to ES
from different entry points (Nevárez, 2021), and the fact that I was a novice leader of adults
contributed to the uneven effectiveness of my andragogical and leadership moves in supporting
the development of the critical consciousness of my participants.
In the following sections, I will analyze the ways in which I worked to support critical
consciousness development in my ES PLC. I will begin by discussing how I supported the
limited examples of CRD that did occur in the three cycles of the study. I will then analyze the
relative effectiveness of my andragogical and adaptive leadership moves with the individual
participants in my study as I worked to support their critical consciousness development.
Supporting Critically Reflective Dialogue From Within
73

Given that my theory of change, as indicated in my conceptual framework, was that
critical consciousness would be developed through CRD among colleagues, one aim of this
action research was to examine how I supported this dialogue from my position within my PLC.
In order to identify examples of CRD in my data, I searched for portions of our dialogue that
included all three elements of CRD. Based on my conceptual framework, these three CRD
elements were that 1) it was critical, 2) reflective, and 3) dialogic, as in not simply a critically
reflective statement but dialogue between at least two people (Brookfield, 2010; Hord, 2004;
Howard, 2003; Milner, 2003; Owen, 2014; Sacramento, 2019). I then analyzed these CRD
examples to see how I supported or participated in these interactions through my andragogical or
leadership moves as were indicated in my conceptual framework.
Evidence of Critically Reflective Dialogue in Cycle 1. During the first cycle of this
study, there were already some moments of all three elements of CRD in our PLC meetings. This
research study began well into the school year and our PLC had been meeting for months. As I
discussed in Finding 1, I had already enacted adaptive leadership moves to cultivate a safe space
for our dialogue to occur. We were also having critical discussions related to the ES curriculum
and pedagogy, so, although it was the beginning of this study, there were a few examples of all
three elements of CRD even in Cycle 1. For instance, in my first cycle of data collection, Robert
and I were engaging in CRD as seen in the following example:
Robert: I was sharing that my Chicana students didn’t seem to see anything about the
machismo and sexism within the Latino culture until I brought it to their attention.
Then they were like, oh yeah.
Me: Maybe that’s one thing we can talk about more. How to bring these issues up. I
feel like you have the advantage there to say that. But as a White woman, can I
74

say that? Probably not. So how do I bring up these challenges in a way that gets
them thinking about this?
Robert: I think you can use your experience as a woman. You could talk about like,
“What are traditional roles for men and women in America?” And then, “Do you
see this in your culture? In your home? Ethnically, do you see these gender
expectations?” And then that can bridge that gap.
In this example of CRD from Cycle 1, the only two participants interacting were Robert and me,
although others were in the meeting with us. We engaged in dialogue regarding our ES
curriculum and pedagogy along with examining how our positionality affects how we come to
our ES teaching. Robert, who identifies as a Chicano male, mentioned his role in raising his
students’ critical consciousness, saying “my Chicana students didn’t seem to see anything about
machismo and sexism within the Latino culture until I brought it to their attention.” As Paris and
Alim (2014) argued, culturally sustaining teachers are not afraid to critique their cultures to
unearth sexist practices. After Robert’s comment, I demonstrated my ability to be critically
reflective by saying “as a White woman, can I say that? Probably not.” Rather than simply
agreeing or dismissing my comment, Robert continued to engage in the dialogue and offered a
suggestion for how I could use my own positionality to accomplish the same end. In other words,
the reflection on practice indicated in this example included advice from Robert as to how I, as a
White woman, could initiate discussions of oppression. In this exchange, the three elements of
CRD are apparent, in that, Robert and I engaged in dialogue that was critical and reflective.
Because I had enacted adaptive leadership moves to support the safe space conditions
necessary for CRD to happen, as discussed in Finding 1, I did not always have to initiate or
engage in the CRD for it to occur. For example, in Cycle 1, our PLC was discussing how to bring
75

up topics of oppression in our classes by using our own experiences with marginalization. The
following interaction occurred between Robert and Brian:
Robert: [Pointing at Brian] It’s probably going to be harder for you. [OC: Robert is
assuming Brian is White. I had assumed the same.]
Brian: My grandmother is full Mexican. So, then I talk about that with my students. She
was from Mexico City. My dad is half Mexican.
Robert: So that’s good to talk about with students. Because a lot of our students are
Chicano-American. I be talking about that a lot. For myself. That duality of not
ever being Mexican enough and not ever being American enough. Trying to
traverse both. That is your “in” to talk about that with students.
Brian: Yeah, yeah [agreeing].
Robert: They’re probably looking at you like, “There is this guero.”
Brian: This guero. [smiles]
Robert: And you’re like, “I’m half Mexican.” They’re like, “WHAAAAAT?” It’s a good
“in.”
In this excerpt, Robert started out in what could be interpreted as an accusing way by
pointing directly at Brian and saying, “It’s probably going to be a lot harder for you.” Brian did
not appear to be offended by this, and maybe because of my efforts to build a safe space or
because we were already talking about marginalization, he wasn’t defensive, but felt comfortable
enough to jump in with an element of his own identity that could relate to students, “My
grandmother is full Mexican,” and then he added specificity with, “She was from Mexico City.”
He also mentioned that this was an element of his identity that he referred to in his classroom
when he said, “I talk about that with my students.” Robert furthered this CRD by supporting
76

Brian in sharing his cultural identity because it is “good to talk about with students.” In this way,
Robert encouraged Brian to address his Mexican-American identity in his classroom as a way to
connect with his students and then he added his rationale, “Because a lot of our students are
Chicano-American.” Twice in this excerpt, Robert stressed the word “in” without explaining
what he meant by it. He may have assumed that Brian would understand that an “in” with
students is a reference to connecting or building relationships with students, but Robert was not
clear. It was a missed opportunity for me, from my leadership position within the PLC, to step in
and ask Robert to clarify what he meant by “in.” I could have also stepped in to challenge the
idea that Robert seemed to be using here that you must share an identity with your students in
order to relate to them. I held back and did not address this because of my own fear, as a novice
leader and researcher, of upsetting the new and therefore, fragile safe space I was cultivating.
Robert contributed further to the CRD in this excerpt by bringing up his own challenges
as a person who identifies as Chicano-American and how he addresses those challenges with his
students, “I be talking about that a lot. For myself. That duality of not ever being Mexican
enough and not ever being American enough. Trying to traverse both.” This statement by Robert
was both critical and reflective because he referred directly to his dual identity as a Chicano-
American and the judgement he feels from both the Chicano and American cultures which gives
him the impression that he is not “enough” for either identity. Robert also blended the Spanish
word, guero, into this English dialogue, further exemplifying his dual Chicano-American
identity. He didn’t translate the term, which means blondie, or colloquially White boy, as if he
assumed that Brian also spoke Spanish. Brian did laugh and repeat the word, but I do not know
whether he knew the translation. By referring to Brian’s appearance, Robert stressed that by
77

Brian informing his students that he is “half-Mexican” he will subvert their expectations of his
Whiteness and they may connect to him better, or as Robert noted, “It’s a good ‘in.’”
I contend that this exchange is an example of CRD because it was a dialogue between
Robert and Brian that was critically reflective. Although I was not directly involved in the
dialogue of this excerpt, I argue that the adaptive leadership moves I enacted to facilitate a safe
space prior to this exchange supported the conditions necessary for this CRD to occur. Based on
the contentiousness of our meetings prior to my enactment of the adaptive leadership moves
previously discussed in Finding 1, I contend that this example of CRD would probably not have
occurred or may not have been so positive and growth oriented.
James’ Critically Reflective Dialogue Growth in Cycle 3. The examples of CRD
within our ES were limited during the first two cycles of this study. It was not until the final
cycle of this study that James first began to verbalize the ways in which his positionality shaped
his ES teaching, a first step in developing critical consciousness as defined by Sacramento
(2019). For example, during Cycle 3, when we were discussing how we were planning to teach a
new novel, the following exchange ensued between James and me:
James: It’s finding her [the novel’s main character] voice and her experiences, you know,
being a person, being a child in today’s age, so I think it also kind of helps that
we’re all similar in age. So, like, when we’re talking or I’m explaining it to them,
they’re like, “Yeah, you know, you’re not too much older, you’re living the same
experience.”
Me: They feel like you get it?
James: Yeah, I think being so close in age really helps.
78

In this excerpt from the beginning of Cycle 3, James verbalized the impact of one element of his
positionality, specifically his age, and how it affected his ES teaching and relationships with his
students. Although a single comment about age would not be considered an indication of critical
consciousness on its own (Sacramento, 2019), it was the first time that James had verbalized any
element of his identity and the ways in which it shaped his teaching and relationship with
students. By saying, “I think it also kind of helps that we’re all similar in age,” James connected
his relatively young age to how he was able to relate to his students. In this statement, he did not
refer to himself as a neutral being in the classroom, but, instead, he indicated an awareness that
because he was only a few years older than his students, he sensed that they trusted and related to
him. This statement may not represent the fullness of critical consciousness, defined by
Sacramento (2019) as an awareness of the systems of oppression, privilege, and power in society
and how individuals uniquely are positioned with these systems, but James’ reference to his age
was the first example in my study where he verbalized any element of his positionality that
affected his ES teaching and his relationships with his ES students. My question, “They feel like
you get it?” was intended to clarify that I understood what he meant, and to offer support by
validating his comment. When James restated his comment by saying, “Yeah, I think being so
close in age really helps,” he indicated to me that I understood what his intent was and solidified
his perspective to our PLC through restatement. My support of James in this exchange was
intended to validate his contribution and hopefully encourage him to continue to consider how
his positionality shapes his ES pedagogy and classroom relationships. Therefore, I argue that this
exchange between James and me is an example of an early stage of CRD that continued to
develop during Cycle 3.
79

My support of James through cultivating a safe space, one-on-one interaction, and
validating his contributions to our dialogue may have contributed to his increased participation in
CRD during Cycle 3. A portion of the following vignette was quoted in Finding 1 as evidence of
the safe space I was cultivating. Although I am referencing the same vignette again, it is used
here as an example of James’ increased participation and growth in CRD during the final cycle
of this study. The following interaction ensued between James and me while our entire PLC was
reflecting on our first semester curriculum and pedagogy during a Cycle 3 meeting:
Me: Have you found it [OC: topics related to race and/or oppression] easy to talk
about, or has it been awkward for you?
James: I think it’s easier for me and partly because I embody a lot of those things. I’m an
only child, I’m Hispanic, I’m queer, and the only grandson, and so there’s a lot of
things. Like when we’re talking about being open, and I feel like if people are
saying we want to share our story, so they feel comfortable doing the same. And
so, I do have students who are like, “This is a really good thing for me to talk
about.” … So, it gives me the opportunity to say, Okay well we’re in this
classroom for a reason. We’re in this class for a reason. And it’s to give you the
option to not only kind of conceptualize these ideas, but consider, “How do I talk
about them?” “How do I use my language to create that change or to improve
somebody else’s situation, even though it may or may not be affecting me?” And
so, I think there’s always going to be that one student who is like, “Oh, this is
awkward. I don’t want to think about this.” But as a class, we can come together
and do it. Then that student is like, “All right, I can give it a shot at least and try.”
80

In this example of CRD, James responded to my question with critical consciousness and
reflection on how the various elements of his identity affected his ES pedagogy and his
relationships with his students. I first prompted James to participate in the group dialogue by
asking him directly, “Have you found it [OC: topics related to race and/or oppression] easy to
talk about or has it been awkward for you?” Although this question was not an ideal, open-ended
question because I contrasted “easy” and “awkward” which may have been leading, it did illicit a
rich response from James. As I mentioned in Finding 1, he started off his response with a rush of
identity, “I’m an only child, I’m Hispanic, I’m queer, and the only grandson, and so there’s a lot
of things.” He connected these elements to his teaching of ES, “I think it’s easier for me and
partly because I embody a lot of those things.” His reference to it being “easier” for him to
discuss topics related to race and/or oppression, was because he recognized that he does
“embody a lot of those things.” Although the remainder of his response was a bit convoluted and
focused more on the students, he did connect his marginalized identities to the nature of his ES
pedagogy when he added, “it gives me the opportunity to say, Okay, well, we’re in this
classroom for a reason. We’re in this class for a reason.” James then added elements of activism
by suggesting that students might ask themselves, “How do I use my language to create that
change or to improve somebody else’s situation, even though it may or may not be affecting
me?” As an English teacher, he specifically referenced how a student might “use my language”
in their activism. He ended his comment by mentioning the community element of ES pedagogy,
“But as a class, we can come together and do it.”
I contend that this example of CRD indicated growth in James’ critical consciousness
development as he moved from very little participation in our PLC in the first cycles of this
study, as indicated in Finding 1, to his first connection to his age and his ES teaching at the
81

beginning of Cycle 3, and then, ultimately, to this example of his participation in CRD where he
critically reflected in a dialogue with me on the various elements of his identity and how they
shaped his ES teaching.
As indicated in my conceptual framework, one of my goals in this study was to support
CRD in our ES PLC meetings through andragogical and adaptive leadership moves. I contend,
based on the evidence presented in this section, that while there were only a few examples of
CRD in my research data, I was able to support some instances of CRD in an effort to support
critical consciousness development in my ES PLC. In the following sections, I will discuss the
relative effectiveness of my support of critical consciousness development with each of my
participants.
Supporting Ethnic Studies Teachers With Uneven Critical Consciousness
The participants in this action research study came to teaching ES from different entry
points (Nevárez, 2021); therefore, our critical consciousness varied at the time of this study.
Sacramento (2019) referred to this phenomenon in ES teachers as “uneven critical
consciousness” (p. 172). As a novice researcher and leader of adults, I did my best to deploy
scaffolds to support my participants in developing their critical consciousness; however, my data
indicated that my actions had varying effectiveness.
Recent literature (Nevárez, 2021; Sacramento, 2019; Young, 2021) has emphasized the
influence of ES teachers’ previous life and/or educational experiences on the development of
their critical consciousness prior to entering the ES classroom. In fact, Nevárez (2021) argued
that administrators should place a priority on “recruit[ing] racially literate teachers to teach ES”
(p. 141). This was not the case in my context. Our team was invited to imbed ES into our
existing English II course last school year and we, as teachers, were provided with themes and
82

content suggestions, but no meaningful professional development to help us develop our critical
consciousness or to learn how to be ES teachers. This context is important to provide because it
shaped what I was able to accomplish in the relatively short, three-month period of this research
study. The various entry points (Nevárez, 2021) of my participants are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3
ES Teachers’ Entry Points
ES
teachers
ES teaching experience Critical consciousness
development experience
Novice One year None Some
Me ü ü
James ü ü
Robert ü ü
David ü ü
Emma ü ü
Brian ü ü

83

I determined my PLC team members’ ES teaching experience based on my knowledge of
our team. Last year, four of us piloted our ES course fully online due to the COVID-19
pandemic, so we each had one year of previous ES teaching experience prior to the year this
study took place. James joined our team this year as a novice teacher and Brian was a novice as a
long-term substitute who was with us for a short time during the first cycle of this study. I
determined the previous experience of my team in developing critical consciousness based
anecdotally on direct statements they have made regarding systems of privilege, power, or
oppression and how they were uniquely situated in those systems (Sacramento, 2019).
Among my participants, only Robert and I had any previous experience developing our
critical consciousness prior to this study. Robert had experience developing his critical
consciousness because of his history teaching in the Puente program and coming from a family
of activists. My experience with developing my critical consciousness began only a few years
before this study when I entered the EdD program at USC; so, although I had some experience
coming into the study, it was both limited and recent.
The other members of our PLC were either new or had limited experience with ES and
critical consciousness development. James was a novice teacher and was learning ES pedagogy
and curriculum as a first-year teacher. Brian, hired as a long-term substitute during the first two
cycles of this study, had no previous experience with ES curriculum and pedagogy or developing
his critical consciousness. Both Emma and David had one year of experience teaching ES prior
to this study, but neither received any professional development in critical consciousness
development and both were only present in our meetings for the final cycle of this study, as
indicated in Table 2. Neither Emma, David, or Brian indicated that they had attended a critically
conscious BA or MA program.
84

In the following sections, I will discuss how these different entry points (Nevárez, 2021)
impacted the effectiveness of the ways I supported our critical consciousness development, and,
therefore, direct implications for the data that I collected during this study.
Supporting Critical Consciousness Development for Participants With Some
Previous Experience. Two participants in this study had some previous experience developing
our critical consciousness, namely Robert and me. Therefore, because of his previous life
experiences, and my previously discussed efforts to cultivate a safe space, Robert began the
study willing to be vulnerable and express his critically reflective thoughts. For example, in
Cycle 1, Robert mentioned the impact that teaching ES has had on his personal reflections:
Robert: I’ve had to challenge myself and reflect on myself. My attitudes have informed
my teaching, I guess. It’s made me more invested in the challenges that my
female students face, especially culturally.
In this excerpt, Robert made the vulnerable statement that he has had to “challenge myself and
reflect on myself.” He then made a specific connection between his own reflections and his ES
teaching practice by adding, “my attitudes have informed my teaching.” This excerpt implies that
Robert had experienced a disorienting dilemma (Mezirow, 1997) and it had affected his teaching
practice, because he stated specifically, “It’s made me more invested in the challenges that my
female students face.” This statement from Robert indicates his readiness to verbalize his critical
consciousness and disorienting dilemma. His willingness to be vulnerable at the beginning of this
study may have been due to my efforts to cultivate of a safe space prior to the beginning of this
study, as discussed in Finding 1, or possibly due to his previous experiences developing his
critical consciousness.
85

I found that as a novice researcher and leader of adults, I was more effective at engaging
in CRD with Robert than with the other members of my PLC, especially in the first cycle. For
example, during Cycle 1, Robert and I discussed the topic of Chavez Ravine and the history of
Dodger Stadium which we were reading about in our ES classes:
Robert: So, I told my kids [students], you know, I’m a huge Dodger fan. This is the
history that I’m conflicted about as a Chicano man. I love my Dodgers, but I hate
the story behind the stadium. … But if you look at the Latino community, they
love their Dodgers. And a number of us are aware of the history.
Me: Right. It’s these contradictions we live with.
Robert: Yes. Yes.
During this example of CRD from Cycle 1, Robert and I engaged in dialogue that was both
critical and reflective. When Robert brought up, “the history that I’m conflicted about as a
Chicano man,” he indicated the challenges he faced because of his love of the Dodgers and his
knowledge of the history of the team and site of the stadium. I furthered the dialogue with a
statement regarding “these contradictions we live with” validating his observation and also
referring back to a previous discussion we had had regarding intersectionality and contradictions.
I had utilized the intersectionality handout (Appendix B) during the previous week’s PLC
meeting. During the previous week’s meeting, we had looked at the handout and I had stated,
“We are all a mix of dominance and oppression. None of us is one thing. Even though it may
appear that we are one thing and that becomes the dominant story about that person.” So, by
bringing my comment back to the intersectionality handout from the previous week, I intended to
further the dialogue. However, instead of referring specifically to the handout or even asking a
question to further the dialogue, I made the mistake of making a statement which ended the
86

dialogue quickly as evidenced by the fact that Robert responded simply with “Yes. Yes.” In this
short example of CRD from Cycle 1, Robert and I engaged in dialogue that was both critical and
reflective, while also leaving room for deeper dialogue had I referred directly to the
intersectionality handout or posed questions rather than making a statement.
Evidence of Robert’s critical consciousness continued through Cycle 3. During a
reflection on first semester in the final meeting of this study, I specifically asked my participants
their thoughts about the impact of teaching ES:
Me: I have one other question. Do you guys think that teaching this ethnic studies
curriculum has changed your perspective or opened your eyes to things or made a
difference in your teaching? [OC: This is actually three questions.]
[OC: Another teacher responds first.]
Me: [After a pause] Any other thoughts anyone?
Robert: As far as the ethnic studies incorporation into English?
Me: Yeah.
Robert: I think it’s something that I’ve been doing since I’ve been teaching, and I can’t
help but do it because I’m Brown and because I share that experience and because
I draw from all of that. I’m probably in a little better position than I think most of
my students are. What I mean by that is, there are very few people in my family
who did not go to college, especially on my dad’s side. My grandfather, my tata,
my tias were all politically active. They were part of MAPA [Mexican American
Political Association]. They were active throughout Cesar Chavez’s work in
Blythe. That’s just kind of how I grew up. I’ve tried to incorporate and infuse that
into a lot of what I’ve done [in my classroom].
87

In this excerpt, I began with questioning. Although I said that I had “one more question,” I then
strung together three questions disguised as one, “Do you guys think that teaching this ethnic
studies curriculum has changed your perspective or opened your eyes to things or made a
difference in your teaching?” This could have been confusing to my participants, but one teacher
did quickly offer a response. After a pause in the dialogue, I prompted my participants with,
“Any other thoughts anyone?” which was vague and unclear because Robert had to clarify what I
meant by asking, “As far as the Ethnic Studies incorporation into English?” After that confusing,
convoluted, and vague start, Robert did offer a critically conscious response. He connected his
identity to his ES teaching when he said, “because I’m Brown and because I share that
experience and because I draw from all of that.” He added a deficit viewpoint of his students as
well, “I’m probably in a little better position than I think most of my students are. What I mean
by that is, there are very few people in my family who did not go to college, especially on my
dad’s side,” which made the assumption that his students are not from college educated families
and that his family history puts him in “a little better position” than his students. He then
mentioned the activism of his family being a part of “MAPA” as well as “Cesar Chavez’s work
in Blythe” adding, “That’s just kind of how I grew up.” He then brought his comments about his
family, life, and identity back to his ES teaching by concluding with, “I’ve tried to incorporate
and infuse that into a lot of what I’ve done [in my classroom].” I contend that this response from
Robert indicates critical consciousness (Sacramento, 2019), albeit with some assumptions about
his students sprinkled throughout, because he directly referred to his own positionality and how
it has impacted his ES teaching. A missed opportunity was the absence of my questioning of his
assumptions that he is in a “little better position.”
I contend that it was easier for Robert to participate in CRD and further develop his
88

critical consciousness, because his entry point to teaching ES was further along and small moves
on my part, although mixed with missed opportunities to probe further, still prompted deep
responses from Robert.
Supporting Critical Consciousness Development for Participants With No Previous
Experience and Limited Attendance. This research study indicated a lack of critical
consciousness development in those participants who were either not in attendance for the entire
eight meetings of this study or who did not engage in all three elements of CRD, namely Emma,
David, and Brian. None of my andragogical moves were effective in cultivating CRD or
supporting these teachers in developing their critical consciousness. The ineffectiveness of my
efforts may have been due to any number of limitations to this study, such as Brian’s position as
a substitute, and Emma and David’s lack of experience with developing their critical
consciousness, as well as their attendance in only a few meetings towards the end of this action
research study. As I discussed previously, James did engage in CRD by the third and final cycle
and did indicate some development in his critical consciousness. In this section, I will discuss my
efforts and their relative ineffectiveness in supporting Brian, David, and Emma.
Brian, a long-term sub, was new to our campus and joined us for only the first three
meetings of this research study. He had no previous training in ES curriculum and pedagogy and
indicated no previous experience developing his critical consciousness; therefore, although he
may have engaged in a few moments of CRD, such as the one mentioned in Finding 1, I was not
able to support his critical consciousness development during the brief time he was with us. For
example, in the following excerpt, even when Brian discussed the impacts of racism on his
Mexican father, he still did not examine his own positionality:
Brian: I remember my dad used to tell me. He grew up in San Diego but the school he
89

went to was mostly White. He used to get called names. Taco Vendor or Wetback
or whatever. He had an interesting experience growing up. As he got older there
were more people of his background, but it was difficult for him because of his
background. Just like for me, I used to get made fun of for my name or because of
my coke-bottle glasses.
In this example, although Brian examined the impact of racism on his father in this statement,
when he referred to himself, there was no critical consciousness evident. He referred to general
teasing he experienced as a child, but there was no connection made to his positionality or the
larger systems of power and oppression. He mentioned being teased about his name and his
“coke-bottle glasses” which is not the same level of oppression as the racial microaggressions
that his father experienced. I did not have an opportunity to probe further to try to elicit a more
critically conscious response, because, immediately after Brian made this statement, Robert
jumped in with his own comment about his identity. Therefore, this was a missed opportunity for
me to support Brian to develop his critical consciousness.
In another exchange that indicated a lack of critical consciousness development and my
difficulties supporting him, Brian asked a question about the way our school, which is
predominately Latino, recognized the Day of the Dead:
Brian: I’m curious. If we can do that Day of the Dead stuff, can we do Christ’s birth
stuff?
[OC: This seemed to come out of nowhere. I’m mostly confused at this point. Our ASB
acknowledged Day of the Dead a few weeks before with lunch-time music and
signs around campus.]
Me: What do you mean, Christ’s birth stuff? [I’m baffled.]
90

Brian: I’m just curious. Isn’t Day of the Dead in the religious sector? Right? So, can we
talk about Christ’s birth, too?
Robert: We do that all the time anyway.
Me: It’s embedded. We have Christmas vacation. We acknowledge Christian holidays
in our school calendar.
Robert: I mean we have a Bible club.
In this excerpt, Brian asked a question about our recognition of Day of the Dead that was not
instigated by anything in our dialogue. Maybe he had been thinking about this for a while, so we
were surprised when he asked, “If we can do that Day of the Dead stuff, can we do Christ’s birth
stuff?” The reactions of Robert and me did not support a safe space to encourage honest and
vulnerable dialogue. I immediately questioned him by asking, “What do you mean, Christ’s birth
stuff?” largely because I was baffled, but that probably did not help Brian or James, who was
also in the room during this meeting, feel like it was a safe to ask questions. Robert and I both
jumped in with a series of assertive statements, instead of probing questions to understand where
Brian was coming from: “We do that all the time anyway.” “It’s embedded.” “We acknowledge
Christian holidays in our school calendar.” “We have a Bible club.” These statements did not do
anything to further the dialogue with Brian or help us understand what Brian was trying to ask
with his original question. These statements effectively shut down Brian’s curiosity instead of
eliciting rich CRD. Later, I realized that I needed to consider my participants’ various entry
points (Nevárez, 2021) to ES teaching and how I could better support Brian. In a critical
reflection after the meeting, I noted:
When I consider Brian’s ZPD, I can’t assume he is at the same point as the rest of us. I
guess I know that on a theoretical level, but when it comes to our reflective dialogue, it’s
91

clear to me that he needs different supports than my other colleagues. How can I best
support him? This is what I need to consider before our next meeting. I may need to have
a private conversation with him during lunch. That may come across aggressive or like I
think he’s doing something wrong. So, I must tread carefully.
In this critical reflection, I noted that because Brian is new to ES teaching, I must consider his
ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978) and that, “I can’t assume he is at the same point as the rest of us.” This
comment indicated that I was developing a deficit mindset about Brian and how he was
positioned as an ES teacher. I asked myself how I could “best support him.” In this reflection, I
debated whether, “I may need to have a private conversation with him during lunch.” I was
concerned about the perceived power dynamic between the two of us because of my years of
experience and position as a full-time ES teacher and teacher leader, so I wondered if talking to
him privately, “may come across aggressive or like I think he’s doing something wrong.” I noted
that, “I must tread carefully,” but, ultimately, due to scheduling challenges and conflicting
responsibilities, I did not have a chance to talk to him privately.
In my next critical reflection, I reflected on the power dynamics represented in how
Robert and I, two veteran teachers in positions of perceived authority (Northouse, 2019),
snapped at Brian because of his question and how that could impact the hard work I had been
doing to cultivate a safe space for our ES PLC to be honest and vulnerable. I noted in my critical
reflection that, “We are not cultivating a safe space. It was an aggressive space when Robert and
I pounced on Brian.” These interactions with Brian increased my awareness of the impact of
varying ES teachers’ entry points (Nevárez, 2021) on our ES PLC dialogue and also the ways in
which I needed to differentiate my support.
92

Although he had one year of ES teaching experience, David, the only other White
member of our team besides me, had limited attendance in our meetings and indicated no
previous experience developing his critical consciousness through professional development or
education. I found that I was able to engage David in critical dialogue during the few meetings
he was in attendance, but he did not show growth in personally reflective dialogue. For example,
in the following exchange, the dialogue between David and me is critical but not reflective:
[OC: We are choosing individuals for a civil disobedience research project in the
upcoming unit. When we discuss Fred Hampton, David brings up the movie,
Judas and the Black Messiah.]
David: That was a great movie. That movie and Imitation Game. It’s like one of the
movies that after I watch it, I’m like, how did I not know this story already?
Me: But I think that that’s like a good thing to point out [to our students]. These are
people who are marginalized by society so much that they have been erased from
history lessons. In Imitation Game, he was gay right? And they put him through
that therapy?
David: Yeah, yeah, they chemically castrated him essentially and then he committed
suicide, I think.
Me: It’s a horrible story. And that was in the UK, right?
David: Yeah. And after he basically won World War II for them.
Me: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And then Fred Hampton, who’s, you know, feeding children
you know, doing all this stuff for his community, and he is killed in his bed. And
that’s basically been erased because he’s linked to the Black Panther Party, which
was, you know, put into this “Oh, they’re evil” category.
93

David: Yeah. Violent activists. Domestic terrorists.
Me: Yeah. Which is how BLM [Black Lives Matter] is being treated now. Yeah, same
attitudes. So, I like bringing these individuals up [in my classroom] because
there’s, you know, the ones that are super commonly known and people hear
about them all the time. And you know, MLK has a holiday, but then Malcolm X.
[I trail off.]
In this exchange, I argue that David and I engaged in critical dialogue, but it is not personally
reflective. We discussed the movies Judas and the Black Messiah and The Imitation Game and
David noted that, “It’s like one of the movies that after I watch it, I’m like, how did I not know
this story already?” I furthered this dialogue when I added, “But I think that that’s like a good
thing to point out [to our students]. These are people who are marginalized by society so much
that they have been erased from history lessons,” as a way to connect David’s observation, “how
did I not know this story already?” to the importance of teaching these “marginalized” and
“erased” stories in our ES classrooms. I continued our dialogue by noting how Fred Hampton
and the Black Panther Party were vilified, “put into this ‘Oh, they’re evil’ category,” which
David then furthered by saying, “Yeah. Violent activists. Domestic terrorists.” I then connected
that historical vilification to a contemporary example, “Which is how BLM is being treated now.
Yeah, same attitudes.” I then connected these statements back to my ES teaching, “I like
bringing these individuals up [in my classroom].” I contend that this dialogue between David and
me was critical but does not represent the fullness of critical consciousness. Although we
discussed power and oppression (Sacramento, 2019), we did not connect it to our own
positionality. In this exchange, I supported our critical dialogue, but I did not support all three
elements of CRD because this dialogue was not personally reflective on my part or David’s. This
94

may have been due to unexamined Whiteness (Picower, 2009) in both David and me. We were
two White teachers engaging in critical dialogue without ever bringing up our own positionality
within these issues we were discussing. I missed this opportunity to support David as an
instrumental knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). If I had provided a concrete
model by bringing my positionality and critical self-reflection into our critical dialogue, David
may have been able to do so as well.
The impact of my lack of concrete modeling for David occurred again in a later meeting.
In the following excerpt, I tried to encourage David to interrogate the impacts of teaching ES in
line with what I noticed when Robert said:
Robert: I’m definitely enjoying teaching more so, you know, since we’ve been doing this,
then I previously had so it’s definitely re-energized and reinvigorated me, and I
think part of it is just like now being able to be explicit about [ES curriculum] and
feeling like I’m not on the fringes anymore. … I don’t feel like I’m the lone
warrior anymore. I feel very supported in what we’re trying to do. What it comes
down to me, is just being seen and telling your story, that’s what it is. On a
personal level, it’s helped me a lot professionally.
[pause]
Me: [David]?
David: I think, like you guys have mentioned, it seems to be more engaging for students
then some of the other stuff we might have done. I think I’m getting better
responses, more personal responses. I think the personal narrative we did,
especially, was evidence of that during the first semester. We got some very, very
honest responses from our students, alarmingly honest responses. But the fact
95

they felt comfortable sharing those things that they might not have had an outlet
to do so otherwise I took that as a big positive from semester one.
In this excerpt, Robert’s comment was centered on his own experiences and reflection, “now
being able to be explicit about [ES curriculum] and feeling like I’m not on the fringes anymore.”
David’s response shifted the focus entirely to the students and away from himself, beginning
with “it seems to be more engaging for students.” There was no reference to his positionality or
evidence of his critical consciousness. I did not probe further out of fear of pushing too hard or
giving the impression that I was trying to take over the meeting, but also because Robert jumped
in and continued talking about Latino culture and his own experiences and I did not want to
interrupt in a way that might harm the safe space I was cultivating. I was hoping that Robert’s
comments would serve as a model to the other participants, but there is no evidence here that that
was effective with David. I learned from this exchange that if David is to move beyond critical
dialogue to all three elements of CRD, he needed to be prompted with specific language beyond
me prompting him by simply saying his name, “David.” I should not have assumed that critical
reflection would magically happen just because others were doing it.
In my conceptual framework, I intended for the andragogical move of modeling
(Brookfield, 2010; Merriam & Bierema, 2013; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991) to be an effective way
to support CRD in our ES PLC. However, as this exchange indicates, my reliance on implicit
modeling rather than explicit modeling was not effective in supporting David. As a leader, it may
have been more effective for me to specifically refer to Robert’s comment as a model of critical
reflection, point out why, and then explicitly encourage emulation by David. As a novice leader
from within a group, I missed the opportunity to do that.
96

Emma came into this research study only during the final cycle. Like David, she had one
year of experience as an ES teacher but indicated no professional development or education in
examining her positionality and developing her critical consciousness. In the brief time that she
was in our meetings, I was not able to support her critical consciousness development. In the
following exchange between Emma and me, I specifically asked her if she felt that the
experience of ES teaching had made an impact on her teaching as a whole. The purpose of my
question was to uncover the ways in which ES teaching has influenced her critical conscious
development. I was hoping she would connect her positionality as a Latina with her teaching of
ES in a predominantly Latino environment. I was not clear about my intent in my question.
My question wasn’t specific enough or scaffolded properly because this is how she responded:
Me: I have one other question. Do you guys think that teaching this ethnic studies
curriculum has changed your perspective or opened your eyes to things or made a
difference in your teaching? [OC: This is actually three questions.]
Emma: For me, I’m just trying to make sure the kids are very open to the ideas, whether
they agree with it or not. You know, like they might not get it. They’re not going
through it, they don’t know anybody that’s going through it, but just trying to be
as open as possible, and I have those conversations with those kids that are a little
bit. … I’m not sure that they push back, but just try to have a little side
conversation with them about it, and they can hear me whether they want to or
not, but just having that little one on one conversation with those that do push
back a little bit on certain things.
This response was vague and convoluted. It did not indicate any reference to her positionality or
her critical consciousness. Much like David, Emma pushed her response out to the students
97

rather than reflecting on her own positionality. In general, teachers are not expected or trained to
be critically reflective or to connect their positionality to their teaching practice (Brookfield &
Hess, 2021; Strong et al., 2017). Emma’s response reflects the default for teachers to reflect on
practice and students (Hord, 2004; Owen, 2014), and avoid reflections on self. In her response,
Emma did not reflect on systems of privilege, power, or oppression or how she was uniquely
situated in those systems, so it was not an indication of critical consciousness (Sacramento,
2019). I did not structure my question in a way that would support her ability to construct a more
clear and specific response. If I wanted Emma to reflect on her positionality and critical
consciousness, the triple-barreled, vague prompt that I started the dialogue with was not the way
to do this. I needed to be more direct and specific. I also failed to probe further after this
response because of my own fears. I was fearful of alienating her by putting her on the spot and
did not want to make it seem to the rest of the team that I was trying to establish a position of
authority in our meetings.
I noted in a critical reflection the challenges I had supporting Emma and David to
develop their critical consciousness during the brief time they were in our meetings:
Emma and David are having a very difficult time referring to themselves in any sort of
critically reflective way. They shifted the conversation and their comments to being about
the students or the curriculum, and not really talking about themselves. It has been very
difficult for me to support their critical consciousness development. It makes me wonder
that, if teachers have no experience with critical consciousness, maybe it’s almost
impossible for them to talk about it on their own. … As a general rule, teachers aren’t
taught or expected to be critically reflective. It makes it difficult for them to be critically
98

reflective in any sort of honest way. And then it makes me wonder if it would be difficult
for anyone in the workplace to be honestly critically reflective.
In this critical reflection, I noted the difficulties I had supporting Emma and David’s critical
consciousness development. I observed that, “they shifted the conversation and their comments
to being about the students or the curriculum, and not really talking about themselves.” I was not
able to support them in being personally reflective. I reflected on possible reasons for this, “As a
general rule, teachers aren’t taught or expected to be critically reflective. It makes it difficult for
them to be critically reflective in any sort of honest way.” I found that the uneven critical
consciousness of ES teachers (Sacramento, 2019) prior to teaching the course can affect
teachers’ ability to develop their critical consciousness while teaching the course. I also
wondered in this critical reflection about another challenge to being critically reflective when I
noted, “And then it makes me think that it would be difficult for anyone in the workplace to be
honestly critically reflective.” There is a general resistance in US society to discuss race and, as
products of that society, teachers are ill-equipped to develop their critical consciousness both in
and out of the classroom (Strong et al., 2017). Coming into this research study, I underestimated
how ingrained it is in teachers to avoid reflections on ones’ positionality and to not look at self
when examining practice, even with others in the room modeling self-reflection. This critical
reflection indicated that I was beginning to realize the challenges to facilitating teacher critical
self-reflection and some reasons I fell short in supporting my colleagues.
To conclude, as I indicated in my conceptual framework, I deployed various andragogical
and adaptive leadership moves in an effort to support my participants in developing their critical
consciousness as ES teachers. In this section, I analyzed the varying effectiveness of my efforts
with my participants. Essentially, I found that my moves were more effective with those who
99

were either in attendance for the full eight meetings of the study or had previous experience
developing their critical consciousness, likely because they had less to move. My moves were
less effective for those who were not in attendance for the full study or had no previous
experience developing their critical consciousness.
Finding 3: Leading From Within an Ethnic Studies Professional Learning Community as a
Socializing Knower
When I consider my own growth as a leader during this research study, I am keenly
aware of the challenges I faced as I worked to lead from within my ES PLC and the ways in
which I attempted to overcome those challenges, both successfully and unsuccessfully. Although
leadership theorists contend that leadership can come from any seat (Achor, 2018; Northouse,
2019), perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995) was a challenge for me as I worked to enact
leadership moves from my seat within my PLC and without any positional authority (Northouse,
2019). I was not the department chair or even the PLC team lead at the time of this study;
therefore, my perceived self-efficacy was low because I entered into this action research study
without a positional leadership position (Northouse, 2019) and in the context of regularly
scheduled on-going meetings. Even though I was armed with literature, action plans, a bevy of
adaptive leadership and andragogical moves, and my own determination, I was plagued with
doubts that I would be able to accomplish my goals of supporting my colleagues in increasing
their critical consciousness in the limited time of my study. My role as a novice leader also
impacted my self-efficacy, because, as Bandura (1995) noted, mastery experiences are the
greatest influence on perceived self-efficacy, which I did not have. Supporting ES teachers’
development of their critical consciousness is challenging enough in the best of circumstances,
100

and, as indicated in Finding 1, I was faced with logistical and situational challenges throughout
this study as I worked from my position within my ES PLC.
In K–12 education, we are presented with few, if any, real-world examples of those who
lead effectively without positional authority. So, although leadership literature may extol the
value of leading through influence (Northouse, 2019) and leading from any seat (Anchor, 2018),
there is little research to support its effectiveness or to serve as a guide. Most celebrated
leadership examples in K–12 education are those in positions of authority such as principals, and
superintendents. Essentially, for those without positional authority (Northouse, 2019), it is
difficult to imagine what one cannot see. Bandura (1995) refers to this influence on self-efficacy
as a lack of “vicarious experiences” where one can imagine themselves being successful because
others who are in similar situations serve as a model. K–12 leaders working from within a team
do not have many models to emulate.
In the following sections, I will discuss my growth as a novice leader working from
within my ES PLC, even with low perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1995), and the ways in
which the challenges of my lack of positional leadership shaped the effectiveness of my
andragogical and leadership moves. I will discuss the impacts of leading from within a group as
a socializing knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), and I will analyze my growth
as seen in both my critical and non-critical reflections as I worked to support my colleagues to
develop their critical consciousness from within our ES PLC.
As adult learners, my colleagues and I came to this research study with various ways of
knowing, based on the Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano (2017) typology. These authors
defined the developmental meaning-making systems of adult learners. They identified four ways
of knowing for adults in a social justice setting: instrumental, socializing, self-authoring, and
101

self-transforming. Based on this typology, I define myself as a socializing knower, meaning I
have a tendency to conform to the opinions, values, and assessments of others, especially in
social justice circumstances. Essentially, I often find myself doing and saying what I think others
expect me to say or do. As a novice researcher and the key instrument of data collection for this
study, my positionality as a socializing knower shaped my research behaviors and decisions due
to my internalized social desirability bias (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
In examining my research data, I identified two areas that were primarily affected by my
positionality as a socializing knower; namely how my fears of offending others affected my
researcher and leadership behaviors and the difficulties I had learning to talk about race with my
team. I will discuss these challenges and their impacts in the following sections.
Fear of Offending
As I previously discussed in Findings 1 and 2, my ES PLC had a history of contentious
interactions; therefore, my critical reflections are riddled with references to my fears of possibly
offending my colleagues, often leading to hesitation and reticence on my part as a novice
researcher and leader. In addition, this research study took place in the context of an ES PLC
during a time of heightened political and social resistance to critical race theory (CRT) which
created an additional layer to the fears of resistance from outside forces. In the year this study
took place, legislators in 42 states introduced bills to restrict or ban the teaching of CRT in K–12
schools (Schwartz, 2021). California, where this study took place, was not one of those states,
but the national, political, and social tensions were still felt. In this section, I will discuss the
ways in which my positionality as a socializing knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano,
2017) influenced my perceptions of fear and my reactions to it during this research study and that
shaped how I interacted with my colleagues.
102

Overall, I noted 27 references to fear of offending my colleagues in the data from this
study. The references were related both to outside forces and my own fears of offending my
participants. I found that 10 of those references were related to my fears of offending my
participants specifically by appearing to overstep because of my lack of positional authority
within my PLC. The handouts I used in this study were intended to lead to CRD and then to
disorienting dilemmas and, ultimately, increased critical consciousness. Yet, as a socializing
knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) without positional authority (Northouse,
2019), I was hesitant to move into the dialogue protocols (Hammond, 2020; Selkrig & Keamy,
2015) I had intended to use. In the following sections, I will discuss the how my fears manifested
in my behaviors and the impacts they had on the effectiveness of my actions as well as my
participants throughout the 3 cycles of this action research study.
Cycle 1. Although I had every intention of using them (Appendix D), when it came down
to our real, in-person meetings, the dialogue protocols did not feel natural to me, so I avoided
them. I was fearful of appearing like I was trying to take over the meeting or assuming the role of
a teacher in our group. For example, as a novice leader and socializing knower, this was the
vague and ineffective way that I brought up the first handout (Appendix A):
Me [OC: handing out culture tree handout]: I have this handout that I think would be
interesting for us to think about when we think about ourselves and our students.
It has questions on the back that are specific for teachers. Maybe we could use it
for our discussions on another day. Looking at the impacts of culture. I like that it
has questions for classroom teachers.
[OC: Brian excuses himself to use the restroom before class begins.]
Me: This will be just for discussion. For us. I mean, we are Ethnic Studies teachers,
103

this is what we need to be discussing. It can only make us better [OC: Everyone
heads to class].
My first observation about this interaction is that I did not ask a single question. I felt
uncomfortable with the dialogue protocols I had planned because it would be a new role for me
in my team and I was suddenly fearful that my intended questions wouldn’t seem organic to our
already established group dynamics. Instead, I ended up not asking any questions, just making a
series of statements, “I have this handout,” “Looking at the impacts of culture,” “I like that it has
questions,” “This will be just for discussion.” These statements effectively closed off dialogue
instead of encouraging it. Also, I waited until the end of the meeting to give my participants the
handout which I introduced with, “I have this handout that I think would be interesting for us to
think about when we think about ourselves and our students” which didn’t have the potential to
lead to dialogue. Even as I introduced the handout, I was nervous and fearful appearing like I
was trying to take over the meeting. I gave everyone an out by adding, “Maybe we could use it
for our discussions on another day,” effectively shutting down dialogue before it could begin.
Leaving it for “another day” also reduced the likelihood that we would use it in any meaningful
way unless I facilitated the dialogue. Clearly my own fears as a socializing knower and my
concern for offending anyone by saying the wrong thing made my handout seem unimportant
and optional. This is evident in that Brian excused himself before our meeting ended. I must have
sent the message, with my words and my tone, that the meeting was more or less done and what I
was adding was not essential. I concluded my promotion of the handout by adding, “this is what
we need to be discussing. It can only make us better,” in the hopes of keeping everything
positive and not offending anyone by insinuating that they needed this or that I was overstepping
104

my role within the PLC. Due to my fears, I ended up telling my colleagues about a handout
instead of engaging my colleagues in CRD as I had intended.
In a reflection after that meeting, I noted how hesitant I was in incorporating the handout
for discussion, but I still sounded hopeful about circling back to it later:
I was hoping to use the culture tree handout, but our conversation was going really well.
And so, I handed it out at the end, and I mentioned that we could discuss it next week.
So, I’m hoping an effective way of just giving us things to talk about without seeming
like I am being pushy or trying to take over or give them an assignment or something like
that. It was just a handout. Just something to consider. I said we can just discuss what you
notice about the culture tree and then the questions that were on the back are specific to
classroom teachers. So, I’m hoping that that can lead to further discussion in the next
week.
In this reflection, my fears of offending my colleagues stand out. I refer to hoping I introduced
the handout, “without seeming like I am being pushy or trying to take over or give them an
assignment or something.” I was fearful of doing and saying the wrong things and worried about
offending my participants, which are indicative of a socializing knower (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017). I used the word “just” four times in this reflection which further
minimized the handout’s importance and is another example of how fearful I was of offending
my colleagues. In this reflection, I was still feeling positive that the handout could be, “an
effective way of just giving us things to talk about,” even though I had been, myself, very
dismissive and casual about it when I introduced it. I added again, “I’m hoping that that can lead
to further discussion in the next week,” but I had no specific plan, just a vague feeling of
hopefulness because this was the first week of the study. At this early point in my study, I had no
105

awareness of the impact of my hesitation, and I was still feeling “hopeful,” a word I mentioned
three times in this reflection. As this study progressed, what I learned was that, if I am working
to achieve a specific outcome, I must be specific in my actions and my language and not leave it
up to chance.
My fears also inhibited the full implementation of additional materials for discussion in
the ways I had planned. As indicated in my conceptual framework and actions, the handouts
were intended to elicit CRD to further develop our critical consciousness. In the following
example from Cycle 1, I had attended a webinar hosted by a group of ES teachers from another
school district with an established ES program. They discussed a cultural wealth project they did
with their students, so I suggested adding a project to our curriculum related to cultural wealth:
Me: One thing that I thought was a great idea was that they did a cultural wealth/funds
of knowledge project with their local community. Like their neighborhood. I think
that would be a good thing to do here with our local community. Our community
is always referred to with such negative terminology. Always deficit language. To
help students shift that viewpoint. … I love that idea for our [local context]. To
switch the focus to the assets instead of what this community doesn’t have and
what they lack. Maybe we could think about this as a final project for this class.
[OC: Robert connects this idea to a community needs project he does in one of his non-
ES classes.]
Me: Dr. Yosso from UCR has a great article about cultural wealth we could take a
look at. I think it’d be good for students to take a look at the history of our
community.
106

In this excerpt, I connected what another team of ES teachers had done, “they did a cultural
wealth/funds of knowledge project with their local community,” and suggested that this project
“would be a good thing to do here with our local community.” I then brought in the deficit
ideology that pervades discussions of our area, “Our community is always referred to with such
negative terminology. Always deficit language.” This did not illicit CRD with my PLC; instead,
Robert made a vague connection to a “community needs” project that he did with a different
class, but that still demonstrated deficit ideology focused on what a community “needs” and not
the cultural wealth and funds of knowledge that they already have. It was at this point that I
brought up Yosso and Burciaga’s (2016) article. This article was not part of my original actions,
but in the iterative process of action research (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017), I decided it was an
opportunity to support my colleagues in furthering their understanding of cultural wealth as a
way to increase their critical consciousness. However, this attempt was not successful because I
diminished the importance of it by saying the article would be for us to simply “take a look at,”
essentially undermining its importance before we even read it. Additionally, I then shifted the
focus away from our learning and onto the students when I said, “I think it’d be good for
students to take a look at the history of our community.” My fear of offending my colleagues by
suggesting they needed to learn something from me prevented me from guiding the discussion in
the direction I wanted it to go.
In this situation, my fears of offending those inside our team were compounded by fears
of resistance from outside forces. In my critical reflection after I made this suggestion, I noted
how, even though I had the best intentions, my fears, this time of possible anti-CRT ideologies
held by others, inhibited my use of the article (Yosso & Burciaga, 2016) about cultural wealth in
the way I initially intended:
107

During our ES PLC dialogue this week I brought up Yosso and Burciaga’s article on
cultural wealth. As soon as we finished class, I was excited about it, so I printed it out for
our group and I was going to deliver it around to the other teachers. Then, I noticed that
the authors use the terms “critical race theory” and “critical race” a lot in the article. It is
such a politicized topic right now, that I held back. After Brian’s comments this week, I
am not sure I should give this to him. The rest of us talk openly about CRT and the drama
around that term right now. But Brian may not know that our class is based in CRT
because we don’t use that term in our meetings very often. At this point, I do not know
what I will do with this article. Still deciding.
In this excerpt from my critical reflection, I noted how I had brought up the article and that “I
was excited about it.” I then noticed the references to CRT in the article and my fears of
resistance because of outside, anti-CRT forces, caused me to hesitate. I noted how CRT is “such
a politicized topic right now,” so then, “I held back.” My specific concerns were about whether I
should hand the article to Brian because of his “comments this week.” That week, as indicated in
a vignette in Finding 2, Brian had questioned our school’s celebration of “Day of the Dead
stuff,” wondering if we do something similar on our campus with the Christian faith. This
interaction with Brian made me wonder about his ideologies, especially since I had not engaged
him in dialogue at the time and thus lacked understanding of where he was coming from, and
that caused me to hesitate. I became concerned because I did not know much about Brian’s
ideology or critical consciousness, and I did not know how he would react. I ended by reflecting
that “I do not know what I will do with this article.” Again, my fears caused hesitation even with
using an article that I was initially “excited about,” one that could give us a lot to discuss as a
group and to move us towards CRD about how we bring our students’ cultural wealth and
108

backgrounds into the classroom. I could have delivered it to the classrooms of my other
participants, but my fears caused me to pause altogether.
By the end of Cycle 1, I became more aware of the ineffectiveness of my handouts and
how they did not seem to be leading to CRD or disorienting dilemmas. I noted the following in a
reflection at the end of Cycle 1:
I need to have more specific plans for the handouts. I have been handing them out at the
end which kind of feels natural in the meeting, but I am afraid it comes across like an
afterthought. So far, I have tried to hand them out in a way that feels organic to our
conversation, and maybe that’s a good idea. But we are all immediately heading off to
class, so there is a good chance they take them to their classrooms and forget about them.
If I want the resources to be meaningful, I should hand them out earlier in the meeting
and then find a way to bring them into our dialogue in a meaningful way.
In this reflection, I noted that I needed “more specific plans for the handouts,” because my
efforts in Cycle 1 with my handouts were not effective at encouraging CRD. I argued in this
reflection that handing them out at the end “feels natural in the meeting,” and “organic,” but my
perception of natural may have just meant comfortable and safe. This could be seen as a side
effect of not building a brave space with my participants and only working within a safe space
where participants feel comfortable to stay in their own comfort zone and avoid challenge (Ali,
2017; Arao & Clemens, 2013). I realized that I was, “afraid it comes across like an afterthought,”
to share a handout at the end of a meetings. This brought me to my awareness that, “If I want the
resources to be meaningful, I should hand them out earlier in the meeting and then find a way to
bring them into our dialogue in a meaningful way.” I contend that this reflection indicates growth
in my awareness that I could not just be hopeful that a handout or article, provided to my
109

colleagues at the end of a session, would be effective at encouraging CRD, but that I needed to
be more intentional in my actions.
Cycle 2. As a novice action researcher, my analysis of my actions in the first cycle
guided my changes for the second cycle of my study in an iterative process (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017). My analysis of my actions regarding the ineffectiveness of the handouts, led me to
look for better opportunities to position the handouts in a way that could lead to dialogue, and
hopefully CRD. I thought I found my opportunity during the second cycle. Brian was no longer
with us as a substitute and David was in attendance in our PLC meeting for the first time in this
research study. There was a natural pause in the conversation, so I took the opportunity to hand
out the Yosso and Burciaga (2016) article:
Me: So, a couple weeks ago we were discussing the idea of a project for this class next
semester focusing on community cultural wealth. I mentioned the article about
cultural wealth [OC: Robert nods and says “uh huh” but he is trying to fix his
phone.], so I found a copy of it [I hand out the copies].
[OC: I point out the types of cultural capital which are in a graphic on page 2. I give
David a quick overview of our discussion from a few weeks ago when this came
up. I kind of trail off here because I notice they are just glancing at it casually.]
Me: So, anyway, something for us to consider for next semester.
[OC: They glance at the article, but no one seems very interested and there is a long
pause with no comments or questions.]
David: [Changing the subject] So, um, are there any thoughts on the final?
This interaction was discouraging, and my fears prevented me from pressing the issue further. I
started this exchange by reminding the PLC what we had talked about “a couple weeks ago”
110

regarding the project on community wealth. Robert did nod that he remembered, but he was
focused on something else and not really paying much attention. I barreled on through by giving
David a brief overview because he was not in attendance when I had first brought up the article
and pointing out specifics in the graph of page two in the article (Yosso & Burciaga, 2016). It
was at that point that I noticed my colleagues were not really paying attention and didn’t seem
too interested. I noted that they were just “glancing at it casually.” Instead of asking questions or
modeling what we could discuss with this article. I was fearful of sounding like I was trying to
take charge or pushing too hard. No one said anything for a while, and so I became more fearful
and immediately minimized the handout because I added, “So, anyway, something for us to
consider for next semester,” effectively ending any further dialogue or interest in the article. This
is evident by the long pause with no responses and then the abrupt way that David changed the
subject, “So, um, are there any thoughts on the final?” In this exchange, my fearfulness as a
socializing knower of offending anyone or overstepping my position within my PLC prevented
me from effectively incorporating the article into our meeting in a way that could have
encouraged CRD. Just handing my colleagues an academic article with no specific plan was not
effective. If I wanted the handout to be more effective, I should have prepared some questions to
start the conversation or been more intentional about my references to the graphic on the second
page.
Essentially, my fear of pushing my participants too much shaped my leadership behaviors
in that meeting. I reflected on this failed article interaction in a reflection I wrote after the
meeting:
One thing that I noticed that I did was, in an effort to try to make my handouts more
effective, I didn’t want to wait until the end of the meeting like I did in the first cycle.
111

There was this little natural pause that happened in the meeting, and I jumped in with a
handout of the Yosso and Burciaga article. It was a handout that was connected to
something we had talked about a couple of weeks ago that had come up just organically
in our discussion. It wasn’t something I’d originally planned in my actions. I thought it
would be an effective thing for us to talk about. It is about cultural wealth, and we’re
talking about maybe doing a project on that in the second semester. But it was sort of
treated as a little bit superfluous by my team. It was just kind of pushed aside as, okay,
got it, and then we moved on with the discussions of what we needed to accomplish that
day. So, I feel like I forced that and rushed that and maybe should have presented the
article a little bit more slowly and deliberately approached it.
In this reflection, I first reviewed my actions which were based on my reflections during Cycle 1,
“I didn’t want to wait until the end of the meeting like I did in the first cycle.” I was intentionally
adjusting my actions based on my reflections and analytic memo from Cycle 1. I also reflected
on the iterative nature of my decision to use this Yosso and Burciaga (2016) article because I
reflected that, “It wasn’t something I’d originally planned in my actions,” and, “I thought it
would be effective.” I also note that the article connects to the ES course curriculum because we
were, “talking about maybe doing a project on that in the second semester.” That was when I
noted the casual way the article was treated by my participants because I noted it was “treated as
a little bit superfluous,” and that it was “kind of pushed aside.” I reflected that “we moved on
with the discussion” at this point, but in this reflection, I did not seem to be aware that my
dismissal and minimizing of the article likely contributed to the dismissive reactions of my
participants. My fears clearly impacted my behaviors in this situation, but, at this point in the
research study, I did not seem to be fully aware of what those behaviors were or how they were
112

contributing to certain reactions among my ES PLC. We were also pressured for time in this
meeting because of the outside expectations of our group which I referred to when I noted we
moved on to talking about what “we needed to accomplish that day.” These multiple and
immediate expectations are common to PLCs, but they limit dialogue and deeper reflection
(Horn & Little, 2010).
Cycle 3. My reflections on my struggle to incorporate the handouts in a way that would
lead to CRD in our team, led me to resist using them altogether instead of improving my delivery
or incorporating them in a more effective way. As a socializing knower (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017), my fears of upsetting our fragile safe space made me hesitant to push
my team to interact and respond to the handouts. I decided in the final cycle to try to incorporate
the warm demander handout (Appendix C) in another attempt to instigate CRD, but it became a
challenge to do so in a meeting where not everyone was in attendance. I reflected on my
frustrations with this in a reflection near the end of Cycle 3:
David was missing again. So, I didn’t mention the handout. I wanted to talk about the
warm demander chart, and I wasn’t able to do that because we were meeting on Zoom
again and not everyone was present. So, no handouts again, just like the last week and
maybe this is better, maybe it’s smoother if the conversation is more organic and natural.
I have one more week and I hope to be able to use the handouts or at least talk about them
if we’re allowed to be in person.
I began this reflection by noting the attendance challenges as seen in Table 2, “David was
missing again.” I then moved into my rationale for why I “didn’t mention the handout.” Even
though I had planned to try again, we were placed on Zoom due to new Covid-19 protocols put
in place by the district leadership. So, my first rationale expressed in this reflection was that I
113

couldn’t use the handout “because we were meeting on Zoom again.” This was not a valid reason
because I could have easily found a digital version to share with my participants in our Zoom
meeting. I also made the excuse that “not everyone was present.” That is another rationale that
doesn’t really hold up because our attendance had been inconsistent throughout this research
study, and I never let that hold me back from enacting other actions. In this reflection, I am
blaming everything else but my own facilitation. I think my fears were compounding that I
would not be able to effectively incorporate a handout, because all of my previous attempts had
not been successful. I settled on a positive analysis that, “maybe this is better, maybe it’s
smoother if the conversation is more organic and natural,” which effectively let me off the hook
for using the handout that day. I still ended my reflection with the “hope to be able to use the
handouts” before the end of the study.
Near the end of Cycle 3, I became more aware of the ways in which my own fears as a
socializing knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) were impacting my behaviors in
our meetings. I reflected on this phenomenon in a Cycle 3 reflection:
I am concerned that my own hesitation and probably fear of offending anyone or having
anybody close down before we ever get started is one thing that I’m trying to be
particularly careful of.
In this reflection, I said I was “concerned” about my “hesitation” and “fear of offending anyone”
and I noticed that it was impacting my leadership behaviors. I also added a fear of, “having
anybody close down,” indicating a concern about my participants withdrawing from the dialogue
altogether because I had offended them. These fears were holding me back from interacting with
my participants in the ways that I had planned because, in this reflection, I became aware that
this fear is, “one thing that I am trying to be particularly careful of.” I contend that this awareness
114

of the impact of my fears on my behaviors as a leader and as a researcher signals an area of
growth, albeit small, through this research study.
Ultimately, my fears as a socializing knower affected the enactment of my actions
throughout this research study. Having said that, my growth was further indicated in a Cycle 3
reflection when I observed, “Today, I’m reflecting on the fact that I feel like I’m sort of settling
into my leadership role with the group.” So, although I was plagued by fears throughout this
study which shaped my actions, growth was indicated in that I did become more aware of my
fears and how they shaped my actions, and I began to feel more comfortable in the role of a
leader.
Learning to Talk About Race
Another area that was a challenge for me as a socializing knower (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017) was learning to talk about race with my colleagues. Talking about race,
especially in the workplace, is a difficult undertaking in color-avoidant US society, and my
tendencies as a socializing knower to overthink and hesitate to avoid offending anyone created
challenges in our ES PLC. I intended to model public critical reflection (Raelin, 2001) for my
participants, but my fears, as a socializing knower of saying the wrong thing or using the wrong
term led to hesitation on my part.
Brookfield and Hess (2021) noted that discussions of race with adult learners generally
involve discomfort, which often causes White people to avoid the topic altogether. White people
are often buffered from their discomfort by using “not offending anyone” as a justification for
their avoidance (Brookfield & Hess, 2021). This was a particular tendency in my case because I
was trying to encourage CRD within an ES PLC as a White teacher and a socializing knower.
The members of my ES PLC, like most K–12 teachers, were educated in color-avoidant teacher
115

prep programs and moved into their careers without the background or experience necessary to
have real dialogue about race and racism (Strong et al., 2017). However, Brookfield (2010)
argued that critical dialogue can spark disorienting dilemmas to uncover our assumptions and
biases and are thus necessary in educational settings.
In this section, I will analyze the ways in which my hesitation to talk about race and other
sensitive topics shaped my behaviors as a researcher which, in turn, impacted the behaviors of
my participants. I will also analyze the ways that I critically reflected on those behaviors. I
contend that my growth in this area was largely seen in my increased awareness of my
positionality as a White, socializing knower and how my fears of offending others were
impacting my behaviors and decisions in this study.
Cycle 1. In my critical reflections, I noticed that I was aware of my tendency to use
vague and color-avoidant language early in the first cycle of this study. During our PLC meeting,
in a vignette previously analyzed in Finding 2, Robert was discussing a conversation with a
student, and I said to him, “I feel like you have the advantage there to say that. But as a White
woman, can I say that? Probably not. So how do I bring up these challenges in a way that gets
them thinking about this?” In the following excerpt, I critically reflected on what I was noticing
about my behaviors in that line from Cycle 1:
I noticed that I still use color-avoidant language. It’s difficult for me to use the
terminology that would be more specific. For instance, when talking to my colleague who
identifies as a Chicano male, I mentioned that it is easier for him to have a conversation
about machismo with a student then maybe I would have. I referred to myself as a White
woman, and I said it would be easier for “you” in talking to him, but I didn’t say why. I
didn’t use the term Chicano. I didn’t say Latino. The student that he was talking about
116

was also Latino, and I was noticing that correlation, but I didn’t use the language. Color-
avoidant language still comes out of my mouth even when I’m actively aware of it. Quite
often. I think it is to avoid saying the wrong thing or saying something offensive and so it
is safer to not use the right terms. So, I need to work on saying the words that I mean.
In this critical reflection, I referred to my use of “color-avoidant language” which Bonilla-Silva
(2015) refers to as new racism. I then added an awareness that it was “difficult for me to use the
terminology that would be more specific,” when speaking about my colleague. Again, as a
socializing knower, I was worried about offending someone or saying the wrong thing. I noticed
that although I referred to myself as a White woman when responding to my colleagues’ story
about an interaction with a student, when referring to him, “I didn’t use the term Chicano. I
didn’t say Latino.” I had noticed that the student he was talking about was also Latino, but I
wasn’t specific in my references to him, “I didn’t use the language.” I critically reflected that
“color-avoidant language still comes out of my mouth even when I’m actively aware of it.” I
emphasized this by adding, “Quite often,” to refer to the fact that this is an ongoing occurrence. I
hypothesized that I was using this language “to avoid saying the wrong thing or saying
something offensive,” which is in alignment with my positionality as a socializing knower. I then
noted my efforts to correct this behavior when I added, “it is safer to not use the right terms,” but
then added that, “I need to work on saying the words that I mean.” In this last statement, I can
see my awareness of the need for growth in this area because it was something “I need to work
on.” At this point in my study, I was becoming aware of my color-avoidant behavior, but I did
not yet notice the impact it was having on my participants.
I also noted early in this research study the hesitation in my language regarding other
sensitive topics such as LGBTQ students. We were talking about a personal essay our students
117

were writing and I said, “I noticed that my three boys who were writing about relationships with
boys specifically brought me their computers as they were drafting to say, ‘Hey, can you read
mine? What do you think?’” This was a round-about way of saying LGBTQ. My fears, as a
socializing knower of not using the correct terminology contributed to my hesitation, so I
defaulted to “three boys who were writing about relationships with boys.” I noted my awareness
of these tendencies in the following critical reflection from Cycle 1:
The other thing that I noticed was that I also avoided even using the term LGBTQ when
we were talking about our students’ writing assignments. Another teacher had mentioned
the term LGBTQ, but I did not use that term when I was talking about my students, and I
don’t know why. Maybe I was afraid of missing a letter. I don’t know. But I noticed that I
didn’t use that term. I just referred to three of my students as boys who mentioned
relationships with other boys in their writing and went from there. So, I didn’t say
LGBTQ students, which would have been more specific. So those are some things that I
found in my own awareness.
In this critical reflection excerpt, I noted that I avoided using the acronym LGBTQ in a
conversation about student writing. Even though another teacher had mentioned the acronym, “I
did not use that term when talking about my students.” My fear of offending anyone was
addressed with my guess that, “Maybe I was afraid of missing a letter.” I then critically reflected
that, instead of using the acronym LGBTQ, I “referred to three of my students as boys who
mentioned relationships with other boys in their writing,” and effectively avoided using the
acronym and then quickly moved on. This critical reflection increased my awareness of my fears
and avoidance of specific terminology when I said, “So those are some things that I found in my
118

own awareness.” As I became more aware of in Cycle 3, my avoidance behaviors, impacted my
participants’ behaviors as well.
Cycle 3. As this research study progressed, I noticed that the vagueness in my language
did not go away. I was still hesitant to talk about race or other sensitive topics, but I did grow in
my awareness of how my vague language was impacting my participants’ use of language. In the
following critical reflection from Cycle 3, I noted the impacts of my behavior:
Another thing that I noticed was with my language. I’m still vague. I’m not direct about
what I want to say. I talk in vague circles and so I think that leads to others doing the
same thing. If I am not using specificity of language, how can I expect them to do that?
For example, we were talking about the warm demander chart, and I was referring to
vague areas of the chart saying, I’ve been on this side of the chart or that side of the chart
in different places and with different students, and I wasn’t specific. What I meant was
that I have been on different places on that chart based on the schools I’ve been teaching
at. In private school, with wealthy White and Asian students, I behaved differently in the
classroom and my expectations were different than in my current public school with
predominately Latino students. I wasn’t clear and direct, and I noticed that the other
teachers were not either. There was a lot of vagueness in their responses.
In this excerpt, I first reflected that my language was “still vague.” I further defined what I meant
by that with, “I’m not direct,” and, “I talk in vague circles.” At this point, I noted that my use of
vague terminology led “others to do the same thing.” I then questioned myself regarding my
behavior, “If I am not using specificity of language, how can I expect them to do that?” I was
increasing my awareness of the impact of my hesitant behaviors on my participants’ behaviors.
119

As indicated in my conceptual framework, one of the andragogical moves I intended to enact
was modeling, which offers behavior for imitation (Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Essentially,
instead of modeling CRD, I modeled a lack of specificity in language. I then moved into a
specific example of our dialogue about the warm demander chart (Appendix C) where I noted
that I referred to, “vague areas of the chart,” and that, “I wasn’t specific.” I then critically
reflected on the vagueness of my statement, “I have been on this side of the chart or that side of
the chart,” but what I was actually referring to was the different behaviors I had when I taught in
private school with White and Asian students, and when I taught in public school with Latino
students. Again, my hesitation to bring race into the dialogue for fear of saying something
offensive led me to be vague. I also may have been shy about revealing how my own inherent
biases and deficit ideology affected my behaviors. This was a missed opportunity for me to
model critical reflection for my colleagues. I noticed that this behavior may have caused my
colleagues to also be vague, “I wasn’t clear and direct, and I noticed that the other teachers were
not either.” The lack of clarity I was noticing in my colleagues’ responses were discussed in
Finding 2. I contend that this critical reflection indicates growth in my awareness of the impact
of my avoidance of talking about race.
During Cycle 3, my awareness increased of the ways my vagueness and hesitation as a
leader were impacting my participants’ behaviors. In a Cycle 3 critical reflection, I expressed
concern that the modeling of critical consciousness that I thought I was doing was not actually
very effective:
One thing that I think is not very effective in my andragogy is the modeling of critical
consciousness. I don’t know that what I am doing is encouraging others to be critical in
their reflection, or critical in their dialogue, or to bring their positionality in as much as I
120

would like. I keep identifying myself as a White woman so much that I think it might be
getting repetitive or getting old. And I don’t know that it’s encouraging others to do that
same sort of thing.
In this critical reflection, I noted that I was worried that my andragogical move of modeling
critical consciousness was not “very effective.” I expressed concern that, “I don’t know that what
I am doing is encouraging others to be critical.” Even this concern was convoluted because I
wasn’t clear about what type of critical language I was referring to, because I mentioned
“reflection,” “dialogue,” and bringing in “their positionality.” This vagueness of intent probably
contributed to the lack of effectiveness of my modeling. I also addressed the weakness of my
modeling of critical consciousness, because I noted that “I keep identifying myself as a White
woman so much,” which is a thin model of critical consciousness. Modeling can be an effective
tool for adult learning (Brookfield, 2010), but effective modeling offers behavior for imitation
and cognitive apprenticeship (Merriam & Bierema, 2013; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991) and my
continual reference to myself as a White woman was not an effective model. My fears came up
again in this critical reflection because I was concerned that my references to my race might be
“getting repetitive or getting old.” I ended with my increased awareness that my form of
modeling of critical consciousness may not be “encouraging others to do that same sort of thing.”
Again, as a socializing knower, I continued to be concerned about offending or upsetting my
participants and did little in the way of intentional modeling and facilitation of critically
reflective dialogue.
Later in Cycle 3, I analyzed some of the reasons why I thought we, even as ES teachers,
were struggling to be specific in our language when talking about race and oppression and other
sensitive topics. I critically reflected on this with the following analysis:
121

The thing is that teachers aren’t taught to do this or expected to do this. So, if you have
been teaching a long time, your instinct is to talk about the students or to talk about the
curriculum, because that’s what we are expected to do. That’s what we practice doing.
We’re not taught to talk about ourselves. It takes me back to the myth of teacher
neutrality and the theories surrounding that. So, I don’t know that I fault them in the fact
that they weren’t able to get there because the system is not set up for them to get there.
In this critical reflection excerpt, I was reflecting on why my participants were struggling to talk
about race and oppression or to even talk about themselves. I noted that, “teachers aren’t taught
to do this or expected to do this.” I also referred to the tendency that I noted in Finding 2 that
teachers are “expected” to “talk about students or to talk about the curriculum,” because “that’s
what we practice doing. We’re not taught to talk about ourselves.” In my reflection, I brought
this back to the “myth of teacher neutrality” (Bartolomé, 2008), meaning, the belief that teachers
are neutral beings, and that the positionality of teachers has no impact on their teaching practice.
This is one of the main reasons that teachers are not expected to talk about themselves.
Therefore, most teachers have the impression that they can be reflective on curriculum and
students and not address issues of race, power, oppression, and positionality (Brookfield, 2010).
In conclusion, although I entered this study as a socializing knower with low self-efficacy
and no positional authority, I found that I did grow as a leader. I increased my awareness of the
impacts of my fears of offending my colleagues and my difficulties discussing race and other
sensitive topics. I found that, even with all these challenges, I was able to support my PLC, albeit
in small ways. In the final critical reflection of my study, I reflected about our ES PLC, “The
space is feeling safe. We laugh. We’re talking about controversial topics, talking about race,
ethnicity, LGBTQ leaders, and we’re doing that comfortably within our group.” By the end of
122

this study, I argue that my abilities to lead from within a team were beginning to develop, and
my colleagues and I were in the nascent stages of becoming a critically conscious ES PLC.
Conclusion
These findings highlight the ways in which I worked to support my ES colleagues in
developing their critical consciousness through CRD by enacting andragogical and adaptive
leadership moves. I found that, although I was not able to cultivate a brave space, I was able to
cultivate a safe enough space for our ES PLC to begin to engage in limited moments of CRD as a
mechanism to support our critical consciousness development. Through this action research
process, I learned about my own abilities and limitations to leading from within a team and the
impacts that my behavior had on my participants’ dialogue.
Afterword
In this afterword, I will discuss where I am in my practice now that I have left the field
and conducted intensive analysis of my practice as a leader within my ES PLC as I worked to
support our critical consciousness development. I will also discuss the path forward as I continue
to develop my practice as an ES teacher and a teacher leader.
Since the time of my action research study, my ES PLC continued to meet on a weekly
basis. Although schedule disruptions, inconsistent attendance, and competing commitments
continued to plague our meetings, we are still invested in the vital work of developing our
critical consciousness through CRD in order to enact a fully realized ES course. As I mentioned
in my conceptual framework, this work is ongoing and does not have a finish line. No one is
every fully critically conscious, but I still contend that making efforts to improve our critical
consciousness is essential for an ES teacher.
123

Through this action research self-study dissertation, I have learned a lot about myself as a
leader working from within my PLC. In this afterword, I will reflect on my growth as a leader
and discuss the implications of my learning. While the intent of a qualitative action research
study is not generalizability, I will also discuss some of the implications for practice for ES
teacher leaders and the larger implications for school leadership practices as ES courses are
adopted in high schools across the state in the coming years.
Growth as a Leader
Through this action research self-study, I have grown in ways I never expected in my role
as a leader. Before beginning this study, I was unsure that adult transformational learning and
adaptive leadership theories could actually be applied in my context, so I was surprised at even
the small successes that I had in applying these theories to practice. In fact, the very idea that I
could study my role in the ES PLC for an action research dissertation that focuses on my
leadership was initially difficult for me to fathom. However, through the course of this research
study, especially during the data analysis stage, I gradually began to see the effects of my
leadership moves on those around me, even if those were small and bounded.
Prior to this study, I believed that the application of leadership theory was something that
experienced leaders in positions of authority could successfully enact; and I was neither
experienced nor in a position of authority. The context of my ES PLC was already well
established at the time of this study, so, as I discussed in my third finding, my self-efficacy was
low that I could enter into our space and actually apply leadership and learning theory. I was
astonished to discover that I could and that I had some successes, however small.
Largely because of my efforts to cultivate a safe space, my ES PLC continues to function
as an open, sharing, and supportive team. While we may not have developed a brave space yet in
124

our meetings, we are making incremental progress towards that goal. Considering where our
PLC was a little over a year ago, I contend that this progress is due, in part, to the intentional
efforts I made to act politically within my team and build an unlikely ally in a colleague who has
not always seen eye to eye with me. We are continuing our critical dialogue in our ES PLC
meetings, working towards our next goal of increasing the community responsiveness of our ES
curriculum and pedagogy in our course for next year. Analyzing my growth as a leader has made
me more confident in working intentionally to lead the adults around me and to see and
appreciate the slow process of adult transformational learning.
Implications for Practice
While the intent of qualitative action research is not generalizability, in this section, I will
discuss some implications for practice based on my findings in this study. I will first discuss the
implications for ES teacher leaders and then the larger implications for the adoption of ES
curriculum. I will finish with a reflection on the implications of this work for my own practice by
discussing my plans moving forward.
Implications for Ethnic Studies Teacher Leaders
Based on the findings of this action research study, there are some implications for ES
teacher leaders to consider when adopting the emergent ES curriculum and working with
colleagues in a PLC-like environment. Because of teachers’ different entry points to teaching ES
classes and their uneven critical consciousness, differentiated scaffolds will be needed to support
each ES teacher as they work to develop their critical consciousness. ES teachers should be
trained by qualified leaders who have experience with high school ES curriculum and pedagogy
and who understand adult learning theory. I was a novice leader with limited experience, so I had
uneven success in supporting my fellow ES teachers. I did have the opportunity to learn
125

leadership and adult learning theory in my program at USC, but these are essential elements for
supporting ES that are often lacking in most teacher leader education, coaching preparation
programs, and professional development. ES teachers need qualified ES leaders to guide them to
examine themselves and not just turn their focus out to the students and the curriculum, as
teachers are typically expected to do, as was seen in this study. ES teachers need concrete models
and explicit guidance in interrogating their positionality and developing their critical
consciousness. I contend, based on my study, it is unlikely that ES teachers can fully enact the
ES curriculum without qualified leaders to support them. Hoping that ES teachers’ critical
consciousness will develop naturally, with minimal intentional scaffolds, or over a short period
of time while teaching ES was not supported by the findings of this study.
The reality, at the time of this writing, is that the type of ES teacher leaders described
here do not currently exist on a large enough scale to support the adoption of the ES curriculum
across the state. Leaders who are charged with building adults’ capacities should also be trained
and have opportunities for learning. Therefore, the training of ES teacher leaders should focus on
the key elements of adult learning theory along with developing an understanding of ES
curriculum and pedagogy.
Implications for Ethnic Studies Adoption
As in all PLCs, the protection of dedicated meeting time is crucial to the work of an
effective PLC. Maybe even more so for ES PLCs where there is a need for a dedicated stable
environment with consistent attendance in order to build a brave space for critical consciousness
development. School leadership must protect PLC meeting time if the crucial work of developing
critical consciousness is to occur and teachers must be held accountable for attendance. In this
126

study, our meeting time was not protected, and I found that the inconsistent attendance of my
participants had a direct impact on what I was able to accomplish in supporting my colleagues.
As the emergent ES curriculum is adopted across the state in the coming years, school
leadership should also work to develop their own and their teachers’ critical consciousness. As
was evident in my school site and in this research study, if school leaders do not truly understand
the purpose of ES, beyond just content and themes, they are unlikely to prioritize protecting ES
PLC time, properly training ES teachers, focusing on teacher learning, or ensuring that
appropriately trained substitutes are chosen. Additionally, rather than require ES PLCs to
complete compliance-oriented tasks, like the weekly data team forms we were asked to complete
at each meeting, school leadership should communicate and support the need for critically
reflective dialogue during PLC meetings that focuses on developing teachers’ critical
consciousness and learning.
We must, again, face reality here. The reality is that as the emergent ES curriculum is
adopted across the state, many teachers will not be trained or “ready” to be ES teachers and this
is something that needs to be accounted for. Many of these ES teachers will need to develop their
critical consciousness while teaching ES, not prior to, and that is a challenging task, as was seen
in this study. This is all the more reason for leadership efforts to focus on high quality,
continuous professional learning opportunities for ES teachers. If they are to fully enact the ES
curriculum, intentional efforts must be made to build their capacity to do so.
Implications for My Practice
As I look back on this dissertation journey, I have a better understanding of my role as a
leader and how I can successfully support adults around me, even from my influential position
within our team. I have a better understanding now of how every member of the team plays a
127

role in engaging with each other in ways that are productive and positive with a focus on what is
best for students. Even though I now have the experience of this action research study, I will
need to continue to work to overcome my lack of self-efficacy. I have learned through this study
that if I systematically examine my work as a leader, I can find growth, however small. I can use
that knowledge to improve my practice and increase my self-efficacy as a leader moving
forward.
My plans are to continue to support the adults around me by working to improve my
enactment of the andragogical and adaptive leadership moves I began to use in this study. I
found that I was more successful at enacting my adaptive leadership moves of acting politically
and building an unlikely ally, than I was enacting the andragogical moves of modeling, brave
space building, and incorporating dialogue protocols. So, my future practice will focus on
improving my andragogical moves.
Armed with these strategies, and a developing sense of self-efficacy as a leader, I am
more confident that I can support the adults I work with. Because I was not able to enact all of
my intended actions during the time of this study, I can still work to incorporate them into our
future ES PLC meetings. Our ES PLC can discuss community responsive PLC questions, we can
discuss critical incidents, and we can continue to enact CRD. I have learned to be more
intentional about incorporating handouts and strategic questioning, including asking open-ended
questions to stimulate more CRD in our meetings. I have also learned to be more intentional
about modeling critical reflection in concrete and explicit ways, and I can work to scaffold
necessary supports for my colleagues as we continue to develop our critical consciousness.
I can also use the data I gathered in this research study to work with those in leadership
positions in my district to encourage them to provide more authentic professional development
128

opportunities for ES teachers. I can also use the data of this study to encourage school leadership
to protect meeting times and move away from compliance-based mandates.
As I continue working with my ES PLC team next year, I look forward to the
opportunities to further develop my leadership skills. Additionally, I am excited about our
opportunities to grow together and continue to develop our critical consciousness as we work to
enact a fully realized ES course.

129

References
Achor, S. (2018). Big potential: How transforming the pursuit of success raises our achievement,
happiness, and well-being. Currency.
Advancement Project. (2011). Federal policy, ESEA reauthorization, and the school-to-prison
pipeline. Education law project. http://advancementproject.org.
Ali, D. (2017). Safe spaces and brave spaces. NASPA research and policy institute, 2, 1–13.
Anderson, J.D. (1988). The education of blacks in the south: 1860-1935. University of North
Carolina Press.
Arao, B., & Clemens, K. (2013). From safe spaces to brave spaces. The art of effective
facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators, 135–150.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon.
Bartolomé, L. I. (Ed.). (2008). Ideologies in education: Unmasking the trap of teacher neutrality
(Vol. 319). Peter Lang.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. Self-
efficacy in changing societies, 15, 334.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, L. G., & Gallos, J. V. (2011). Reframing academic leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2015). The structure of racism in color-blind, “post-racial” America. American
Behavioral Scientist, 59(11), 1358–1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215586826
Brookfield, S. D. (2010). Chapter 11: Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In: N.
Lyons (Ed.), Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing
for professional reflective inquiry (pp. 215–236). Springer.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons.
130

Brookfield, S. D., & Hess, M. E. (2021). Becoming a white antiracist: A practical guide for
educators, leaders, and activists. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Brown, K. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformational
framework and pedagogy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.
Cabrera, N.L. (2019). Ethnic studies in an age of expansion: An introduction. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 52(2–3), 151–153,
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2019.1649611
California State Board of Education. (2021). Ethnic studies model curriculum.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/esmc.asp
Carrim, N. (1998). Anti‐racism and the ‘new’ South African educational order. Cambridge
Journal of Education, 28(3), 301–320.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage.
de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2014). Critical literacy: Theories and practices in development
education. Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, (19).
de Oliveira Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations
of decolonization in the context of higher education. Decolonization: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 4(1), 21–40.
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457–481.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.457
Eaker, R. (2002). Cultural shifts: Transforming schools into professional learning communities.
In Getting started: Reculturing schools to become professional learning communities (pp.
9–29). Solution Tree Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
131

Elmore, B. R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education. Albert Shanker Institute.
Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University
of Chicago Press.
Gallimore, R., & Ermeling, B. A. (2010). Five keys to effective teacher learning
teams. Education Week, 29(29), 23–25.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106–116.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Gorski, P. C. (2011). Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: Thoughts on
authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoints, 402, 152–173.
Hammond, Z. (2020). The power of protocols for equity. Educational Leadership, 77(7), 45–50.
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Haras, C., Taylor, S. C., Sorcinelli, M. D., & Von Hoene, L. (2017). Institutional commitment to
teaching excellence: Assessing the impacts and outcomes of faculty development.
http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Documents/Institutional-Commitment-to-Teaching-
Excellence.pdf.
Heifetz, R. A., Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive
leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard
Business Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2014). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and
faculty. Sage.
132

Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for
professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.
Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through
professional learning communities. Teachers College Press.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into Practice, 42(3), 195–202.
Howard, T. C., & Milner, H. R. I. (2014). Teacher preparation for urban schools. In H. R. Milner
& K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of Urban Education (pp. 221–237). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203094280
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73–85.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., and Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership:
A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.
Khalifa, M. A. (2018). Culturally responsive school leadership. Harvard Education Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage.
Marsh, J. A., Bertrand, M., & Huguet, A. (2015). Using data to alter instructional practice: The
mediating role of coaches and professional learning communities. Teachers College
Record, 117(4), 1–40.
133

Martinez, A. N. (2017). Chapter 18: A people’s education model to develop and support critical
educators. In Picower, B., and Kohli, R. (Eds.) Confronting racism in teacher education:
Counternarrative of critical practice. Routledge, 139–145.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). Sage.
Merriam, S., & Bierema, L. L. (2013). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. John Wiley
& Sons.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and
Continuing Education, (74), 5–12.
Milner, H. R. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193–
208.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into
Practice, 31(2), 132–141.
NCES. (2021). Report on the condition of education. US Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2021/2021144.pdf
Nevárez, A. (2021). Reading “racial grammar”: Latinx students’ racial literacy development in
Ethnic Studies classrooms to name and resist racism (Publication No. 28542050)
[University of California, Riverside]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Northouse, P.G. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice. Sage.
134

Oakes, J., Lipton, M., Anderson, L., & Stillman, J. (2018). Politics and philosophy: The struggle
over the school curriculum. In J. Oakes & M. Lipton (Eds.), Teaching to change the
world (5
th
ed., pp. 75–112). Routledge.
Owen, S. (2014). Teacher professional learning communities: Going beyond contrived
collegiality toward challenging debate and collegial learning and professional growth.
Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54(2), 54–57.
Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100.
Peavey, F. (1994). Strategic questioning. Insight and Action. New Society.
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers maintain and
enact dominant racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 197–215,
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320902995475
Raelin, J. A. (2001). Public reflection as the basis of learning. Management Learning, 32(1), 11–
30.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230.
Rodriguez, V., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2011). The teaching brain: An evolutionary trait at the heart
of education. The New Press.
Sacramento, J. (2019). Critical collective consciousness: Ethnic studies teachers and professional
development. Equity & Excellence in Education, 52(2-3), 167–184.
Schaap, H., & de Bruijn, E. (2018). Elements affecting the development of professional learning
communities in schools. Learning Environments Research, 21(1), 109–134.
135

Schwartz, S. (2021). Map: Where critical race theory is under attack. Education Week.
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-
attack/2021/06
Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2017). Chapter 16: Talking race, delving deeper: The racial literacy roundtable
series at Teachers College, Columbia University. In Picower, B., and Kohli, R. (Eds.)
Confronting racism in teacher education: Counternarratives of critical practice.
Routledge, 127–132.
Selkrig, M., & Keamy, K. (2015). Promoting a willingness to wonder: Moving from congenial to
collegial conversations that encourage deep and critical reflection for teacher educators.
Teachers and Teaching, 21(4), 421–436.
Senge, P. M. (2006). Chapter 9. Mental models. In The fifth discipline: The art and practice of
the learning organization (pp. 163–190). Currency Doubleday.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
Strong, L., Pittman-Polletta, M., & Váquez-García, D. (2017). Creating critical racial affinity
spaces for educators. In Picower, B., and Kohli, R. (Eds.) Confronting racism in teacher
education: Counternarratives of critical practice. Routledge, 133–138.
Taylor, K. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
Jossey-Bass.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge University Press.
136

Theoharis, G., & Brooks, J. S. (2012). Introduction: Equity-oriented instructional leadership. In
G. Theoharis & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), What every principal needs to know to create
equitable and excellent schools (pp. 1–12). Teachers College Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Tintiangco-Cubales, A., Kohli, R., Sacramento, J., Henning, N., Agarwal-Rangnath, R., &
Sleeter, C. (2015). Toward an ethnic studies pedagogy: Implications for K–12 schools
from the research. The Urban Review, 47(1), 104–125.
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89.
Tyack, D. B. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Harvard
University Press.
Vegan, L. (2018). Intersecting axes of discrimination. Wikimedia Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Intersecting_Axes_of_Discrimination.png.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in Society, 6, 52–58.
Wilson, A. (2016). From professional practice to practical leader: Teacher leadership in
professional learning communities. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 7(2),
45–62.
Yosso, T. J., & Burciaga, R. (2016). Reclaiming our histories, recovering community cultural
wealth. Center for Critical Race Studies at UCLA Research Brief, 5.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
137

Young, K. (2021). Listen to the teacher: The realities of leading ethnic studies classrooms.
(Publication No. 28864163) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

138

Appendix A: Culture Tree Handout

Note. From “Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement
and Rigor Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students,” by Z. Hammond. Copyright
2014 by Corwin Press.
139

Appendix B: Axes of Intersectionality

Note. From “Intersecting Axes of Discrimination,” by L. Vegan, (https://commons.wikimedia.
org/wiki/File:Intersecting_Axes_of_Discrimination.png). Copyright 2018 by Lay Vegan.

140

Appendix C: Warm Demander Chart

Note. From “Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain: Promoting Authentic Engagement
and Rigor Among Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students,” by Z. Hammond. Copyright
2014 by Corwin Press.

Appendix D: Intended Actions Cycles and Dialogue Protocols
Table D1
Intended Actions Cycles
Week Month 1 Month 2 Month 3
Actions Data collection Actions Data collection Actions Data collection
1 CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic: discussion
agreements &
teacher ideology

Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic: culturally
responsive PLCs
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic:
critical reflection,
and critical incident
dialogue
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
2 CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic: teacher
ideologies &
critical
consciousness
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic:
culturally
responsive PLCs
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic: critical
reflection, and
previous topics
based on in-the-
field analysis

Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
141

Week Month 1 Month 2 Month 3
Actions Data collection Actions Data collection Actions Data collection
3

CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic:
teacher ideologies,
warm demander
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic: critical
reflection
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
CRD during
PLC meeting

Dialogue protocol
topic: critical
reflection, and
previous topics
based on in-the-
field analysis
Observational field
notes

Critical self-
reflection
4 Analyze
preliminary data
and adjust as
needed
In-the-field
analysis: analytic
memo

Analyze
preliminary data
and adjust as
needed
In-the-field
analysis: analytic
memo

Informal
interview(s)

Begin out-of-field
analysis
142

143
Dialogue Protocols
Cycle 1: Dialogue Protocols
Week 1
Objective: Educators will be able to (EWBAT) work together to build community
agreements. EWBAT understand cultural layers.
Dialogue Topics: discussion agreements, cultural awareness
Materials: Culture tree handout
Literature: Bartolomé, 2008; Gorski, 2011; Hammond, 2014; Arao & Clemons, 2013
Dialogue Protocol:
Actions: Create discussion agreements to begin to build a brave space. Discuss the
culture tree handout
Prompts: What are your thoughts looking at this handout? How do you experience
structural racialization? How do you believe your students experience it? What differences do
you notice between your experiences and theirs, if any?
Week 2
Objective: EWBAT identify our teacher self-awareness to begin to uncover our teacher
ideologies.
Dialogue Topic: Teacher awareness of self, teacher ideology, define critical
consciousness
Materials: Questionnaire handout, culture tree handout
Literature: Bartolomé, 2008; Gorski, 2011; Hammond, 2014; Rodriguez & Fitzpatrick,
2011; Sacramento, 2019
Dialogue Protocol:

Actions: Complete teacher self-awareness questionnaire, discuss. Refer back to the
culture tree handout. I will define critical consciousness.
Prompts: What did you find interesting about the questionnaire? What surprised you
about the topics or questions, if anything? What topics or questions had you had never
considered before, if anything?
Circle back to these questions as needed: How do you experience structural racialization?
How do you believe your students experience it? What differences do you notice between your
experiences and theirs, if any?
Week 3
If this week is not available, this topic can be moved into the next cycle.
Objective: EWBAT increase their self-awareness to continue to uncover teacher
ideologies.
Dialogue Topic: Becoming a warm demander
Materials: Warm demander handout
Literature: Hammond, 2014
Dialogue Protocol:
Actions: View and discuss the warm demander handout
Prompts: Of the four types of teachers, what type are you? What shifts would you have
to make in order to become more of a warm demander? In what ways are you being an ally to
your students, if at all? In what ways are you not being an ally to your students, if applicable?
What role does feedback play in your instructional practice, if any?

Week 4
In-the-Field Self-Analysis Prompts: What is it that I do not know? What evidence is
there that I am facilitating critically reflective dialogue? What evidence do I have that I am
enacting the andragogical moves I planned? What evidence is there that my andragogical moves
are effective? What evidence do I have that I am enacting the leadership moves I planned? What
evidence is there that my leadership moves are effective?
Cycle 2: Dialogue Protocols
Week 1
Objective: EWBAT evaluate the cultural responsiveness of our PLC and define ways to
make our PLC more culturally responsive and increase their critical consciousness.
Dialogue Topic: How to make PLCs more culturally responsive.
Materials: Table handout.
Literature: Khalifa, 2018
Dialogue Protocol:
Actions: View and discuss the table handout
Prompts: As an Ethnic Studies PLC, what is our responsibility to be culturally
responsive, if at all? Looking at this table, in what ways are we culturally responsive, if at all?
Looking at this table, where can we improve our cultural responsiveness, if at all?
Week 2
Objective: EWBAT evaluate the cultural responsiveness of our PLC and continue to
define ways to make our PLC more culturally responsive
Dialogue Topic: Making our PLC more culturally responsive
Materials: Table handout

Literature: Khalifa, 2018
Dialogue Protocol:
Actions: View and discuss the table handout
Prompts: Looking at this table, in what ways are we culturally responsive, if at all? What
are some examples of ways we are culturally responsive, if at all? Looking at this table, where
can we improve our cultural responsiveness, if at all?
Week 3
If this week is not available, this topic can be moved into the next cycle.
Objective: EWBAT observe and participate in critical reflection.
Dialogue Topic: Critical reflection
Materials: None
Literature: Brookfield, 2010; Howard, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Raelin, 2001,
Rogers, 2002
Dialogue Protocol:
Actions: I will model public critical reflection.
Prompts: What happened? How did I respond? What assumptions did I bring into the
space? How did I activate my dominant identities in this interaction? How did I activate my
marginalized identities in this interaction? How does this reflection inform my perspectives?
How does the reflection inform my behavior? How does this reflection demonstrate a discussion
or consideration of power dynamics?
Week 4
In-the-Field Analysis Prompts: What is it that I do not know? What evidence is there
that I am facilitating critically reflective dialogue? What evidence do I have that I am enacting

the andragogical moves I planned? What evidence is there that my andragogical moves are
effective? What evidence do I have that I am enacting the leadership moves I planned? What
evidence is there that my leadership moves are effective?
Cycle 3: Dialogue Protocols
Weeks 1–3
Objective: EWBAT engage in critically reflective dialogue as we continue to make
meaning of and enact a fully realized Ethnic Studies course.
Dialogue Topic: Critical reflection and other topics to be determined, based on in-the-
field analysis
Materials: TBD
Literature: Brookfield, 2010; Howard, 2003; Jay & Johnson, 2002; Raelin, 2001,
Rogers, 2002; others TBD
Dialogue Protocol:
Actions: I will continue to model public critical reflection. I will continue to prompt
participants to critically reflect. I will encourage my colleagues to bring a critical incident to
discuss.
TBD based on in-the-field analysis
Prompts: TBD based on in-the-field analysis
Week 4
Participant(s) will be invited for an informal interview.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this action research study was to examine how I, as a high school English and Ethnic Studies (ES) teacher supported my fellow ES teachers in developing our critical consciousness through critically reflective dialogue during our weekly professional learning community (PLC) meetings. I investigated how I supported my colleagues from my position within our PLC. This study took place at PS 501, a high school located in Southern California, during regularly scheduled PLC meetings. The research question guiding this action research study was, how do I support high school English teachers in developing their critical consciousness so as to fully enact the emergent Ethnic Studies curriculum? My conceptual framework, grounded in critical theories, adaptive leadership theories, and adult transformational learning theories, informed the development, implementation, and revision of my actions within my learning community meetings. Through observational field notes, critical reflections, and analytic memos, I was able to systematically observe and analyze my practice over a 3-month period. My findings show my ability to cultivate a safe space as a prerequisite to carrying out the vulnerable work of critically reflective dialogue. Also, I learned the importance of and provided for differentiated supports based on my colleagues’ previous life experiences and their uneven critical consciousness. And, lastly, my findings show my growth as a leader within my PLC, namely my awareness of how my positionality as a socializing knower shaped my behaviors and affected my colleagues in this study.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transformative social-emotional learning: an action research study on supporting parents in a predominantly White community…

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Decolonizing the classroom: moving from reflection to critical reflection

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Cultivating seeds of support: growing the capacity of educators to create meaningful learning opportunities in math

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Ethnic studies as critical consciousness and humanization

Asset Metadata

Creator Henderson, Sarah Anne (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/18/2022

Defense Date 06/13/2022

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

Tag adaptive leadership,adult transformational learning,critical consciousness,critically reflective dialogue,Educational Leadership,ethnic studies,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Samkian, Artineh (committee chair), Ermeling, Brad (committee member), Slayton, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email sahender@usc.edu,sarahahenderson32@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111373172

Unique identifier UC111373172

Legacy Identifier etd-HendersonS-10853

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Henderson, Sarah Anne

Type texts

Source 20220719-usctheses-batch-955 (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