University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Culturally Responsive Teaching in Science: An Action Research Study Aimed at
Supporting a Resident Teacher in Developing Inquiry-Based Culturally Responsive Science
Lessons
by
Jill Mary Mayorga

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

December 2022

© Copyright by Jill Mary Mayorga 2022
All Rights Reserved

Committee for Jill Mayorga certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Frederick Freking
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

2022

iv

Abstract
This study was an action research self-study that examined my role as a teacher educator
supporting a resident teacher in learning how to design inquiry-based culturally responsive
science lessons. I explored my own growth in understanding how to act as a teacher educator to
provide appropriately scaffolded support to promote learning for a resident teacher in
understanding the lesson design process. A single research question guided my study: How do I
support a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and designing inquiry-based culturally
responsive science lessons that provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful
learning? I collected transcripts, field notes, descriptive and critical reflections related to
collaborative planning conversations I had with a resident teacher. I found that I was able to
support my resident teacher in internalizing and articulating how to design inquiry-based
culturally responsive lessons by asking scaffolded questions and modeling my thinking and
reasoning during the lesson design process. I also uncovered the ways that I both supported and
hindered learning for my resident teacher by examining my behaviors and actions during our
interactions.

v

Dedication
To my partner Oscar. Thank you for your love, encouragement, patience, and willingness to
always be my champion even when I wasn’t sure I could do it. I love you always.
To my children Lydia and Mateo. Thank you for understanding the many times mommy had to
work and couldn’t play. You helped me keep going during every difficulty I faced.
To mom, dad, Holly, Lydia, Oscar, Luis, and all my family. Thank you for your constant
encouragement and support. I am so grateful that you could watch me graduate both near and far.
To my friends. Thank you for your loving support and belief in me always.
To Omar. Thank you for participating in this study and giving me a chance to grow in my
understanding of being a teacher educator.

vi

Acknowledgements
To my committee: Dr. Julie Slayton, Dr. Artineh Samkian, and Dr. Fred Freking.
Dr. Julie Slayton, I am so grateful to you and the countless ways you challenged my thinking
and helped me to become a better version of myself during this process. I learned so much from
our conversations not only about who I am as an educator and who I hope to be, but also who I
am and what I stand for as a person. Thank you for being a mentor and constant support to me.
Dr. Artineh Samkian, thank you for setting such a great example of a teacher educator. You
embody this and I am grateful to have started my doctoral journey learning from you and being
able to continue to do so. Dr. Fred Freking, I appreciate you welcoming me to your class and
providing wisdom and thoughtful feedback to support me in this process. I appreciate everything
you all did for me and will forever be grateful for what I have learned and who I have become by
working alongside you.
vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
My Upbring and Understanding of the World .................................................................... 3
Colorblind Teaching ............................................................................................................ 9
Inequitable Educational Opportunities for Black and Latino/a Students in Science ........ 20
Stem Prep’s Mission, Demographics, and Student Data ................................................... 24
Research Question ............................................................................................................. 27
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 28
Self and Resident ............................................................................................................... 32
Critical Reflection ............................................................................................................. 34
Inquiry-Based Culturally Responsive Science Pedagogy ................................................. 36
Transformational and Deep Learning ............................................................................... 39
Adult Learning .................................................................................................................. 40
Summary of My Theory of Action .................................................................................... 47
Research Methods ............................................................................................................. 47
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 48
Setting of Actions .............................................................................................................. 50
Actions .............................................................................................................................. 50
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols ....................................................................... 55
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 58
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 60
viii

Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 61
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 63
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 64
Afterword ........................................................................................................................ 147
Changes in How I Viewed my Role as a Mentor ............................................................ 147
Future Research ............................................................................................................... 151
References ................................................................................................................................... 152

ix

List of Tables
Table 1: Action Cycle 1: Pre-planning phase-Unpacking Standards to Create Learning Targets
and Guiding Questions to Drive Each E in the 5E Sequence 54
Table 2: Action Cycles 2 and 3: Co-planning Phase- Revising, Designing, and Reflecting on
Inquiry-Based Culturally Responsive Science Lessons 55
Table 3: Types and Frequency of Questions Asked 68

x

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 32
1

Culturally Responsive Teaching in Science: An Action Research Study Aimed at
Supporting a Resident Teacher in Developing Inquiry-Based Culturally Responsive Science
Lessons
I always knew I wanted to be a teacher while growing up. As a young child I would play
school with my chalkboard set at home or while playing with my dolls. As I got older, I would
spend hours studying for tests and then call friends on the phone and explain everything. I
always put myself into situations where I could act or mimic being a teacher. I enjoyed many
things when I was younger, and when I was contemplating a career choice I realized that
teaching allowed me to do all of them. I loved acting, and teaching was like being on stage. You
could take on a persona or character and see how the audience, or students, responded to your
performance. I loved writing and teaching allowed me to tap into this creativity through
designing lessons and writing curriculum. I knew I wanted to be a teacher, but it wasn’t until I
went to high school, that I realized I wanted to be high school teacher. I did not yet know which
subject though. I enjoyed high school as a student and admired many of my high school teachers.
I learned a lot from them, not only about the subject(s) they taught, but also how to navigate both
the joy and disappointment of teenage years. During high school, I felt like I started to learn who
I was as a person and what I valued. My high school teachers were with me as I went on that
journey Particularly, I admired my high school physics teacher because he was able to make
physics fun while showing genuine care for his students. I wanted to emulate my high school
teachers and support other teenagers navigating the world outside of their parents. During high
school, I also realized that the subject I was most passionate about learning was science. I was
fascinated by how the world worked and loved how science was both very abstract and concrete
at the same time. It was the one subject that was interesting, challenging and not so challenging
2

that it became frustrating. It seemed like it would be fun to teach science and I wanted to follow
in my physics teacher’s footsteps. Therefore, it was an obvious choice to choose secondary
science teaching when I went to college.
I knew I always had the desire to be a teacher, but I did not always understand or
interrogate where this desire came from. It was true that teaching allowed me to do many
different things I desired, but I also was limited in my understanding of possible career choices.
It was not until I started teaching that I realized that I was likely socialized into entering this
career. I grew up in a segregated White suburban neighborhood outside of Buffalo, NY. I was
the youngest in my neighborhood of mostly girls. We all played school together. We all talked
about and identified with the young White teachers who taught us. Not surprisingly, all thirteen
girls in my neighborhood entered education. At first, I thought it was a coincidence, but then I
realized that we may have been socialized into the profession. Growing up, many women were
still in traditional gendered roles such as teaching, nursing, or working as secretaries. I never
imagined other types of careers for myself since this was not what I was accustomed to seeing. I
grew up as a practicing Roman Catholic and attended catholic schools. My identity was tied to
my religious beliefs. I had a deep sense of altruism and wanted to pursue a career that could
allow me to do this. I knew I wanted to make a difference in people’s lives, and I did not have
any interest in taking care of people’s physical ailments, so nursing was never an option for me. I
also did not want to work at an office as a secretary, so teaching seemed to be the best fit.
Unfortunately, most of my reasons for entering teaching were to satisfy a desire I had for myself
as explained previously. I wanted to have an impact on others’ lives and feel like I was making a
difference. I loved science and knew that many people did not, so I wanted to help others see that
science can be fun and exciting to learn. As a result, when I entered the profession, I was most
3

concerned about how being a teacher fulfilled my needs and focused on what I could bring to
others. I had little concern or understanding about the students, families, and communities I
taught and what I could learn from them. Over time this changed. However, the act of becoming
a teacher to fulfill my needs became very detrimental to my students during my first years of
teaching. I will explore this further in an upcoming section. First, I will take the next few
sections to examine my upbringing and how it led me to understand the world and eventually my
role within it as an educator.
My Upbring and Understanding of the World
My parents, grandparents, neighbors, and teachers were the main influences in my life.
My parents’ lives manifested the belief in meritocracy and the so-called American Dream.
Bartolomé (2008) describes meritocracy as "a form of society in which educational and social
success is the outcome of ability and individual merit.” Both my parents grew up poor in a small
rural town in upstate New York. My father was the only one out of seven children to go to
college. My mother was one of five children who attended college, which was very rare at that
time.
Both my parents “made it” out of poverty in their minds. They worked hard, built
themselves from nothing and earned the life they created in the suburbs outside of Buffalo. My
father earned his bachelor’s degree in accounting. He received his first job in Buffalo at an
international company that made turbocompressors that compressed air to be used to power
machines. He was promoted from accountant to controller in his company. He then was able to
receive a master’s degree at Rice University for free through an executive program paid for by
his company at Rice University, stayed in his company for his whole career and eventually was
promoted to chief financial officer. My mother had a similar experience, although I argue her
4

identity as a woman did not afford her the privilege of advancement as quickly as my father. She
was a secretary for many years before being promoted as a business administrator at the
University of Buffalo. However, after that, she was easily promoted and advanced to a senior
associate director for residence life with a bachelor’s degree. When she retired, her role required
a doctorate degree.
My father would always say, “I’m just a simple country boy.” He worked two jobs to pay
for his bachelor’s degree and believed that his work ethic set him apart. This is how he views his
identity to this day, as he continues to be blinded by his privilege. He never has acknowledged
his privilege as a White man in the 1970s earning an accounting degree and easily making it
through the interview process to get hired. He never has recognized the privilege of staying in
one company for his whole career, and the ability to be recognized for his work and easily
promoted with his bachelor’s degree. Growing up, I was constantly internalizing messages of the
hierarchical social order that race coupled with class could lead to success (Bartolomé, 2008). I
knew that I would be successful in school and in my career. How could I not be? I was
surrounded by images of success and told explicitly and implicitly that I was fortunate enough to
be born into an upper middle class White family where I could choose my career, my pathway,
my destiny with little hardship or few obstacles to overcome. My parents were able to buy a
house, continue to accumulate wealth from their stable jobs, and never had debt nor worry about
money or financial security. In some ways, my life trajectory has been similar. My Whiteness
has afforded me many privileges. I have been able to pursue teaching, to get to this place of
earning a doctorate degree. I have been fortunate to maintain employment despite two economic
recessions within the 17 years I’ve been in the workforce. I have been able to receive
5

opportunities and job offers and praise in my performance reviews, sometimes unearned. I have
always been able to afford housing, even when renting and living in very expensive cities.
At the same time, I have intimately experienced the other side when society does not
automatically afford you unearned privileges. I have lived through my partner’s experiences with
the difficulty of finding work, receiving promotions, and navigating unemployment. I have come
to realize how White supremacy as a social hierarchy, functions and continues to be perpetuated
in almost all aspects of society (Bartolomé, 2008; Patel, 2016; Picower, 2009). I will explore
more of this in upcoming sections. However, in the next sections I will continue to unpack the
internalized messages I received that reified White ideological thinking, particularly through my
schooling experience. I will also explore how my Catholic identity served as a backdrop of these
messages both causing me to perpetuate this White ideological thinking while also offering a
pathway to critically examine and disrupt this thinking and actions in my own life.
Internalizing Messages of White Supremacy From My Catholic Identity
I attended Catholic schools from kindergarten until graduate school. The teachings of the
Catholic church were always a part of my education. I internalized messages about love,
kindness, and acceptance. I was taught to be charitable and love those who hate you, to give to
those who have less, and to befriend those shunned in society. For me this meant individual acts.
I manifested this by having empathy towards my classmate who was bullied and sat by herself at
school. I thought I was living my faith by befriending her and acknowledging her existence as a
human being. However, I did not realize that at the same time, I was also internalizing messages
of who was worthy of love, kindness, forgiveness, and second chances and who was not.
I engaged in service projects offered at school and church by volunteering at soup
kitchens, food pantries, giving gifts to families in need, and visiting nursing homes. I thought I
6

was doing my part, by helping and loving those living at the margins of society. However, I
never took the time to really engage with the people who I met and learn who they were as
people. It was more for me and what I got from the benefits of “serving” others. My altruistic
beliefs of helping others blinded me from seeing a system that afforded privileges to Whites and
left these unattainable for non-Whites in society. I used these altruistic beliefs as a tool to uphold
and maintain the social hierarchy as natural or normalized (Picower, 2009).
Becoming Aware of My Privilege
There were specific instances where I became aware that I had a racial identity as a White
person and that this afforded me unearned privileges. For example, I realized my privilege one
summer day in high school when I was hanging out with my friend Nicole, who was White, and
her boyfriend Jermaine, who was Black. It was the first time I noticed the watchful stares of
White moms while we were having lunch together at a park and witnessed Jermaine’s pain and
humiliation to hide in the front seat of the car because Nicole was terrified that she had seen her
father’s car in the rearview mirror. Nicole screamed for Jermaine to hide immediately so her
father wouldn’t see him. I also noticed overly concerned and looks shock on my neighbors faces
when Jermaine came back to my house. I never had so many watchful eyes or witnessed blatant
dehumanization ever before this day. It was the first time I realized that race mattered in how
people perceived you and that my Whiteness served as a protective shield allowing me to move
without question or suspicion around my suburban town. However, these realizations did not
have an impact on changing my behavior or actions. As quickly as they occurred, I would forget
about them, and normalize situations around me so I could convince myself that people weren’t
treated differently because of their race. I continued to use the tools of Whiteness to attribute
prejudice to individualized or isolated acts of racism versus seeing a larger systematic and
7

intentional structure in place that upholds a social hierarchy and ideology of Whiteness
(Bartolomé, 2008; Picower, 2009). The most significant transformation for my understanding of
how a White supremacist ideology is present in almost all parts of society came after meeting my
partner. I slowly started to make connections to how prejudice is systemic insidious and not an
individualized construct. Rather, racism is systemic and perpetuated through invisible
understandings of how the world works (Bartolomé, 2008). I started to see how I had
unconsciously used tools of Whiteness every day to protect unearned privileges and maintain my
strata in this social hierarchy. This realization emerged over the 18 years that I have been with
my partner. I first met Oscar during my senior year of college when I was student teaching and
deciding what I would do after graduation.
Having a Meaningful Relationship With Someone Different From Me
Up until this point in my life, I rarely had meaningful encounters, friendships, or
relationships with people from different racial, ethnic, or cultural backgrounds than my own. I
met Oscar through campus ministry programs at my college and we both attended a service trip
to Appalachia together. We became friends on the trip and started dating shortly after. Shortly
after we started dating, Oscar started to share what it was like being an immigrant living in this
country. He was born in Managua, Nicaragua and immigrated to this country shortly after his
birth. From the ages of 2 to 7, he moved back and forth from Puerto Rico to Miami. Spanish was
his native language and he experienced schooling fully in Spanish for kindergarten and first
grade. Oscar revealed how he was labeled and mistreated by many teachers growing up. He said
that none of his teachers ever took the time from second grade through high school to help him
learn English grammar and conventions to help him improve his writing. As a result, he lacked
confidence in his writing ability. Despite this, he was able to overcome challenges in K–12
8

schooling, earning a fully funded MLK scholarship to attend Providence College in Rhode
Island.
Oscar shared that he experienced culture shock when he started college, identifying as a
Latino immigrant attending a predominantly White serving institution at Providence. He shared
several experiences of being outcasted and “othered” on campus. He mentioned countless
microaggressions and racial slurs. He spoke about his desire to make friends quickly, assimilate
and fit in, but instead became known as an outspoken person on campus who would denounce
racist acts. As a result, he was further ostracized from professors, classmates, and some people
whom he thought were friends. After dating Oscar for several years, I started to notice implicit
bias and microaggressions when I was with him, that I was oblivious to prior. We would have
conversations after an incident happened, such as someone asking him “where are you from?”
and when he said, “Miami,” they would then say, “no but you have an accent, where are you
really from?” I started to become aware of my privilege as a White person and the biases and
microaggressions that marginalized groups of people experience in this country. Despite these
moments of awareness, I still unconsciously used tools of Whiteness as a shield to avoid
interrogating how my actions and behaviors could be perceived by others as microaggressions or
upholding the White social hierarchy in society. This was most apparent in my role as a teacher.
I had a complete lack of awareness of how my identity as a White woman, growing up and living
in a predominantly segregated world surrounded by norms and White ideological thinking
affected my ability to be a culturally responsive teacher for my mostly Black, Latino/a, and
immigrant students.
This all occurred during the same time as my first year of teaching. I joined the Urban
Catholic Teacher’s Corps (UCTC), a program out of Boston College, where I lived in
9

community with other volunteer teachers while earning a Master’s degree in Teaching and
working at an urban catholic school. I used tools of Whiteness to separate Oscar experiences
from my own, and believed that all people were and should be treated equally. I did this to
protect myself, emotions, and perceived failures I was going through as a new teacher. I did not
take the time to critically reflect on my own practice nor recognized my deeply engrained beliefs.
I used deficit thinking and stereotypes to justify my actions and blame students for their failures
as being lazy or not wanting to learn. I did not interrogate how my assumptions and biases
prevented me from becoming culturally responsive and positively impacting students as I had
desired to do when entering teaching. At the time, I did not know what being culturally
responsive meant as a teacher nor had any mentors or colleagues supporting me in how to do
this. Unfortunately, I unknowingly resorted to colorblind teaching practices that negatively
impacted my students.
Colorblind Teaching
As part of the UCTC program, I lived with 11 other White teachers in a predominantly
Black and Caribbean immigrant neighborhood. Although I was physically living in the same
space as the communities and families that I taught, I never embraced or immersed myself within
the community. We did have a program director who encouraged us to get involved and
participate in community outreach. We also had monthly spiritual and reflective meetings about
how we were serving our communities through our teaching. However, none of these were about
learning cultural differences between us and our communities, gaining cultural competence,
seeking to participate in and be part of the community or building sociopolitical consciousness
(Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2014). As a result, my classroom reflected how I was living at
home. I was in the same physical space with my students but acted in colorblind ways that
10

distanced me from my students. I believe part of my religious identity caused me to take on an
altruistic attitude towards teaching as helping or serving others who have less than me. As a
result, my interactions came from a deficit perspective as if I had something to offer my students
that they lacked in themselves (Picower, 2009). I caused a lot of harm to my students by teaching
in colorblind ways and perpetuating deficit thinking and actions in my teaching.
First, I did not acknowledge my identity as a young White woman growing up in
predominantly White and high socioeconomic suburb outside of Buffalo teaching low income
Black and Latino/a immigrants and first-generation students in the city of Boston. I ignorantly
believed that my desire to infuse joy for learning and a hope for my students was all that they
needed to overcome oppressive social conditions that many students were experiencing. I did not
take the time to build authentic relationships or acknowledge their identities, cultures, and
experiences they brought into the classroom. I acted as Hammond (2014) describes, as a
technocratic teacher, diving into my own love for the content and trying to bestow my wisdom
and knowledge onto others.
Second, I was never taught in my coursework the existence of an opportunity gap or the
educational debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006) that my students experienced in their years of
schooling, particularly in science (Zeidler, 2016). I was the first science teacher who seniors had
in high school who was not a temporary sub. They had missed 3 years of high school science. I
completely ignored these gaps in learning and continued to teach content that was largely
inaccessible to them.
Third, I did not align my teaching practices to meet the needs of our multilingual learners
or consider that many of my students took on childcare responsibilities at home to help their
parents who had two or three jobs. The school I worked in primarily served immigrant families
11

from over 20 different countries and had the second lowest average socio-economic income per
family out of all public and private schools in the greater Boston area. I never acknowledged the
sacrifices all my students took in commuting over an hour across the city of Boston to simply get
to school. I piled on homework and faulted students for not doing it. I never stopped to consider
that most students did not get home before 6 p.m., some were taking on childcare roles and that
almost all had to wake up before 5 a.m. to get to school the next day. My privilege blinded me
from recognizing and acknowledging my students’ lived realities. I was too concerned with
maintaining my own power in the classroom and overwhelmed with the demands of being a new
teacher. I subscribed to the no excuses and high stakes classroom management that I learned
from my teacher certification program in undergrad, was supported through my graduate
program at Boston College and further acknowledged as the best way to get students to learn at
my school. It was difficult for me to build and earn trust with my students when I replicated the
messages I received and acted on my bias and belief that the students needed to try harder. As
part of the no excuses high stakes classroom management style that I subscribed to, I did not
hold myself accountable to student learning. I believed that students needed to change to be
successful in my class, rather than critically reflecting on how I as a teacher was not recognizing
and meeting their needs so that they could learn. I did not recognize that it was my responsibility
to break down the content into manageable chunks and provide scaffolds to help students learn
the material. Instead, I blamed my students for their failure in my class.
Fourth, I did not listen, respond to students’ needs, nor did I take the time to interrogate
myself, my practice, or my school’s policies. This was a consequence of racist policies that
reproduced marginalization (Khalifa, 2020). It was considered normal to have large percentages
of students failing all classes. Rarely did I call parents and I wrongly believed that they did not
12

care. I thought it was unnecessary to inform or onboard parents as partners in their child’s
learning. Consciously and unconsciously, I was acting out of fear, blame and conceptions of
White supremacy, never looking inward at changing myself and the conditions in my classroom
so that my students could learn. In doing so, I perpetuated harm, oppression, and the status quo
of systematically depriving students of opportunities for relevant, engaging, and meaningful
learning in science (Barton, 2003; Barton & Tan, 2009; Brown, 2021).
Shifting My Teaching
I stayed at this school for four years before transitioning to teaching at a suburban public
high school. I learned and grew a lot as a teacher moving to a suburban public school during the
2008–2009 school year that fundamentally changed the way I viewed my role as a teacher. I was
no longer the only teacher teaching my content. I worked with a team of other chemistry and
physics teachers. I was challenged to re-think my approach to teaching. I worked with a team of
teachers who used a constructivist and inquiry-based practices. I started to see my role as a
facilitator, learning alongside my students and I noticed that my students seemed to be able to
internalize and understand scientific concepts and ideas much better than when lecture and
practice were my main teaching tools, as was the standard at my previous school. Although, I
started to become aware of my responsibility as a teacher for student learning and transitioned to
more student-centered teaching practices, it was the beginning of a longer journey of
interrogating and dismantling the engrained White ideological belief system that I operated in as
a teacher.
Part of my difficulty in recognizing my own belief structure and actively working to
dismantle it, was being a perpetual new teacher through the many transitions in my teaching
from year five to 17 in education. I spent most of my time an energy learning new school
13

systems, re-teaching myself different science disciplines I had to teach, and learning curriculum
rather than reflecting on my actions, beliefs, and how I was reifying a system of marginalization
for my Black and Latino/a students. Year five of my teaching was 2008–2009 during an
economic recession. Oscar and I had just gotten married the year prior and the next year he was
unemployed due to the recession. He worked in admissions at a small liberal arts college and his
whole office had been laid off during a merger with another college. This occurred at the same
time he just received a Master’s in Higher Education at Boston College. He was not able to find
a new position, so he went back to school for a second Master’s in Education Research,
Evaluation and Assessment also at Boston College. When he graduated in 2010, he was hired as
a director of a cross-cultural center at a small catholic liberal arts college in Albany, NY. We
moved to Albany, where I was a new teacher working at a catholic school for two years before
moving back to Boston again in 2012. I returned to teach at the original catholic school I started
my teaching career at for one year before returning to the same suburban high school I worked at
the following year. Both schools had building renovations, new leadership and completely
changed their professional development and evaluation systems. Although, I technically was
returning to previous schools I worked at, the school cultures at both schools were completely
different and I felt like a new teacher all over again. The reason for the change from the catholic
to public school in one year was because Oscar was unemployed due to lack of grant funding
from his new position as a chief diversity officer at a small liberal arts college in Worcester, MA.
Again, he had difficulty finding a new position. He had moved up too quickly within Higher
Education without earning a doctorate degree and was told that he was either over or under
qualified for the positions he applied for. He decided that his best chance for employment was to
earn a PhD, so we moved to Los Angeles in 2014 when he started his program at UCLA. This is
14

when I stepped out of the classroom for six years and acted as an instructional coach and science
content specialist at two different charter management organizations, before returning to the
classroom as a teacher again during the 2020–2021 school year. I will discuss more about my
realization of how Oscar’s ethnic and immigrant identity played a role in his difficulty finding
work and how that informed my understanding of obstacles that my Black and Latino/a students
would likely face in college in their careers in the next section.
When I transitioned to working primarily with adults as a coach during the 2014–15
school year, I used my experience of constantly being a new teacher to help relate to the new
teachers that I was coaching. When I first started coaching, I focused mostly on supporting
teachers with lesson planning using constructivist and inquiry-based approaches. I did not make
explicit connections to how this lesson planning approach engages students while also being
culturally responsive. I also did not use my own growing understanding of cultural competence
through the professional learning I received at work during the 2016–17 school year to support
teachers I was coaching at that time. It was a missed opportunity to support teachers in how to
integrate students’ resources, assets, prior knowledge, and cultures into their lessons (Gay, 2018;
Ladson-Billings, 2014). Once I started my doctorate program at University of Southern
California during the 2019–2020 school year, I started to make more explicit connections
between my personal life experiences, teaching, and how I had been complicit in a system that
perpetuated White ideological thinking. I then started to coach teachers more explicitly around
using culturally responsive practices. I became more intentional by engaging teachers in
reflecting on the types of planning decisions they made and whether it supported or hindered
student learning for their mostly Black and Latino/a low-income students.
15

Disrupting White Ideological Thinking in My Personal Life
Although I began to enact a few culturally responsive practices named above in my
teaching and coaching, I had not fully understood or dismantled the White ideological beliefs
and thinking that were engrained in my psyche. I started to actively uncover and attempt to
dismantle these beliefs when I began making connections, mostly comparing Oscar’s life
experiences with my own, during my first year in my doctorate program in 2019. Before this,
every time I started to become aware of my power and privilege in society or in my classroom, I
would unknowingly revert to using tools of Whiteness to protect, affirm, and perpetuate these
beliefs through my behaviors and actions (Picower, 2009). During my first USC class on urban
education, I engaged in readings that explicitly outlined the history of racism in this country and
how it led to an ongoing opportunity gap for marginalized student populations. However, there
was one reading that was the connecting factor between my experience as a White person living
in this country and Oscar’s experience as an immigrant that helped me to realize the
institutionalized and structural nature of racism (Bartolomé, 2008; Patel, 2016). In Patel’s (2016)
article about pedagogies of resistance and survivance, she shared a personal narrative about her
father’s experience as an immigrant. He was educated as an engineer and believed in the myth of
meritocracy that he would be able to experience continued upward social mobility in this
country. However, that was not his experience. Instead, after a certain level of educational and
career attainment, his professional life became a series of contingencies and collateral damage.
Patel (2016) explained that despite her father’s successes and countless quests to show his
exceptionalism, he too was a victim of a racist capitalist society that sought to stratify and
maintain the racial order. Oscar’s father had the privilege to come to the United States at the age
of 16 to earn a college degree in mechanical engineering at Manhattan college paid for by the
16

sisters at his catholic high school in Nicaragua. He later earned his Master’s in Business
Administration and enjoyed years of upward mobility. He took a risk to start a consulting
business that failed during a mini recession in the 90s. After this point, he struggled to find stable
work and the family suffered financial instability through much of Oscar’s high school, college
years, and beyond. It was only 5 years ago, that his father finally found stable work again. I
could not help but notice the parallels between Patel’s (2016) father’s story and Oscar’s father’s
story. Noticing these parallels allowed me to question seemingly race neutral systems and
structures in society. Like Patel’s father, Oscar’s father had a achieved what was arbitrarily
considered his pinnacle of success and could not move up any further from that point, no matter
how hard he worked. Oscar also has had similar hardships as his father, by reaching high levels
of educational attainment and positions within his career to then encounter unemployment.
Despite, both Oscar and his father having acquired educational and career attainment, they still
did not receive acknowledgement and recognition for their accomplishments in the field when
seeking work. They both were finalists in many interviews, to then be told by a predominantly
White male panel or executive that they chose another candidate because they believed they were
a better “fit” for the organization. What did “fit” really mean? It sounded very similar to Patel’s
(2016) argument that advancement in the field occurs up to a certain level and then becomes
more unattainable for those with marginalized identities after that point.
These experiences were in stark contrast to my parents and me. My father earned
countless promotions, often over other candidates who had earned higher educational degrees
than he, and I recall him saying that many were people of a different race or ethnicity than him. I
recall a dinner conversation with my mother where she casually commented about being
promoted with her bachelor’s degree to a higher position. She had received the promotion over
17

another candidate with a master’s degree, who also happened to be a Black woman. The parallels
were all too clear. My parents reaped the benefits of their privilege while Oscar and his father’s
racial and ethnic background were considered a liability to advancement. I watched my partner
do everything he could to earn credibility in his field, even by reaching one of the highest levels
in the hierarchy of higher education as a chief diversity officer at a small liberal arts college, yet
he could not obtain a mid-level administrator position after experiencing unemployment during
the financial crisis. At the same time, I was fortunate enough to always find a position
immediately, even after we had to move during the financial crisis. This was when teaching
positions were difficult to find. I also was able to get promoted in my career as an instructional
coach after moving to Los Angeles and was the first person ever in the organization to become
an instructional coach without having already worked there. Again, these could be isolated
incidences and coincidences. However, I was explicitly told by predominantly White male and
female interview committee members that I was hired because it seemed like I was a good “fit”
for the organization. I too, was following my parents’ life trajectory of experiencing upward
social mobility through my career, while Oscar continued to encounter roadblocks. These very
personal experiences along with learning about inequitable access and opportunities to education
through my doctorate program at USC allowed me to view racism and White ideological beliefs
and thinking as part of a larger system that is embedded, manifested, and perpetuated throughout
all parts of society. I no longer viewed racism as isolated incidences that I could convince myself
that I was separate or not a part of. I accepted that I had unconsciously used tools of Whiteness to
justify or ignore how I was complicit within a system that continually benefited me while
undermining and erasing the achievements of people with marginalized identities (Bartolomé,
2008; Patel, 2016). Everything about how I approached my role as a teacher changed once I
18

realized that I needed to undo the deeply engrained White ideological beliefs I held and was
rampant throughout all aspects of society. This set me on my current path of becoming a more
culturally responsive educator and supporting others on their journey to do the same.
Becoming a Culturally Responsive Educator
As stated above, the realization that I was complicit within a system that perpetuated
deficit thinking and stereotypes and interfered with people’s lived experiences and life chances
crystallized for me during the first year of my doctorate program at USC. Upon the reflections I
shared in my personal life above, I also started to uncover and critically reflect upon how I was
perpetuating colorblind practices in my work as a science content specialist mainly supporting
science teachers. Through my reflections, I started to become aware of my automatic responses
and my default to talk about the content when working with teachers rather than reflecting with
teachers about how to create a culturally inclusive classroom environment conducive to learning.
I realized that I was not integrating the practices I learned both at school and through reading
Hammond’s (2014) book about culturally responsive teaching practices and the brain at work.
Although I was using the 5E inquiry-based lesson sequence (engage, explore, explain, elaborate,
evaluate) to support teachers in planning, I was not making explicit how the lesson sequence
could be used as a tool in designing culturally responsive lessons.
The 5E lesson sequence is structured so that students engage, question, investigate and
build upon their initial understanding of scientific phenomenon to explain and evaluate more
complex scientific concepts. It is often presented as a tool for equity, leveling the playing field
for all students by providing access and entry points into the content (Duran & Duran, 2004).
Although teaching students through inquiry is important, phenomenon and scientific concepts are
often presented to students as if the topics, theories, and concepts are neutral or objective truths.
19

This lends itself to a colorblind approach to teaching science concepts with little to no
interrogation about where the concept came from, who is given credit for it, and in what ways
science has and continues to perpetuate a White ideological understanding of how the world
works (Barton, 2003; Gravel et al., 2020; Olayemi & DeBoer, 2021; Sengupta-Irving &
Vossoughi, 2019; Zeidler et al., 2005). Therefore, planning using the 5E lesson sequence does
not automatically translate into a culturally responsive lesson. I realized that I needed to support
teachers in a process of reflecting on who their students were as learners as a starting point to
planning. They then could use their students’ interests, prior knowledge, and life experiences
(Gay, 2018; Hammond, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006) to develop each part of the E in the 5E
lesson sequence in authentic ways that would be more meaningful. I started to do this more in
my work with teachers before transitioning back into the classroom as a teacher again.
I decided to return to the classroom as a chemistry teacher once the pandemic started., I
enjoyed getting a chance to try out culturally responsive practices in action with my own
students. I also had a passion for working with adults and supporting them in their learning. Part
of this passion came from a deep and personal desire to act as a mentor for developing and
novice teachers to actively challenge and disrupt conceptions of White ideological thinking that
pervade society. I came to understand and adamantly believe that all educators should be
educated about inequitable opportunities to education, interrogate their belief systems and biases,
and have a basic understanding of how White supremacist structures are built into the
educational system where Whites are at an advantage at the expense of students with
marginalized identities (Bartolomé, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Picower, 2009). Therefore, I
gladly accepted the opportunity to mentor a resident teacher this past year while he also engaged
in coursework through his credential and master’s program. In the next sections, I will outline
20

the historically entrenched inequity that my research study addressed along with the context of
where I worked, my role as a teacher and mentor, and my research question.
Inequitable Educational Opportunities for Black and Latino/a Students in Science
In this next section I will outline the historically entrenched inequity that my study
addressed by first explaining the ongoing opportunity gap for Black and Latino/a students and
then how deficit teaching practices continue to the widen the gap, particularly in STEM. I will
then describe what I believe meaningful learning in science looks like as one way to address this
opportunity gap for Black and Latino/a students in STEM. I will close by explaining my school
context, demographics, current science curriculum offerings and teaching practices along with
my role as an educator and mentor teacher.
An Ongoing Opportunity Gap
Black and Latino/a students living in low-income communities are more likely to attend
public schools with less funding and fewer resources. They are also more likely to have newer,
inexperienced, and uncredentialed teachers compared to their more affluent White peers (Carter,
2013; Tyson, 2013). These factors along with systematic racism, conscious and unconscious
bias, and pervasive stereotypes contribute to an ongoing opportunity gap that prevents students
from accessing high quality learning opportunities (Carter, 2013; Dumas & Ross, 2016; Ladson-
Billings, 2006; Tyson, 2013).
Several scholars suggest that educators’ beliefs about their students’ capabilities drive
decision making processes where often low-income Black and Latino/a students receive less
challenging work that robs them of opportunities to build knowledge and develop critical
thinking and processing skills to achieve at higher levels (Brown, 2021; Dumas & Ross, 2016;
Hammond, 2014; Ladson-Billings, 2006). Additionally, many scholars note the importance of
21

implementing culturally responsive teaching practices to address and close the opportunity gap
(Bush & Fries-Britt, 2017; Douglas & Nganga, 2013; Dumas & Ross, 2016; Hammond, 2014;
Ladson-Billings, 2014; Love, 2019). This opportunity gap is even wider in STEM.
Jones (2018) demonstrated an opportunity gap in STEM for Black and Latino/a students
by analyzing data from the 2015–16 Civil Rights Data Collection Survey, Educational
Researcher’s 2016 report, and a 2017 Education Trust-West report. According to Jones (2018),
Black students made up only 17% of overall eighth grade math enrollment and only 11%
enrollment in algebra 1 classes. Latino/a students made up 25% of overall enrollment and only
18% taking algebra 1 classes. Eighty-five percent of White students passed Algebra 1 while only
65% and 72% of Black and Latino/a students passed Algebra 1 classes respectively. Jones (2018)
also noted that the reports showed widespread funding inequities in schools predominantly
serving Black and Latino/a students, particularly with less equipped classrooms or science labs.
Some schools did not even have science labs. There were greater shortages of experienced and
credentialed math and science teachers, and survey results indicated widespread low expectations
and beliefs among teaching staff that Black and Latino/a students were not capable of learning
math and science. In California, Black and Latino/a students were less likely to be offered math
and science classes, especially advanced classes. There was also a large gap between
multilanguage learners (ML) and native English speakers. ML students were underrepresented in
chemistry, physics, calculus, advanced math, and algebra II. However, this was not true for
lower-level classes like algebra I, geometry, and biology. Latino/a students had a higher
likelihood of being placed in non-college preparatory classes in high school and had to take
remedial classes in college. Finally, there were large gaps in science knowledge when comparing
White students to their African American and Latino/a peers. The study noted that income
22

inequality and racial segregation perpetuate disparities in learning opportunities in science that
contribute to these achievement gaps particularly in elementary and middle school (Jones, 2018).
Deficit Teaching Practices and the Widening Gap in STEM
Scholars have argued that inadequate and deficit teaching practices towards marginalized
student populations are a logical consequence of colorblind systems, structures and practices
perpetuated and largely unchallenged within the field of STEM (Andersen & Ward, 2014; Jiang
et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2019). Historically, political, and educational leaders’ pursuits to
diversify the STEM work force by creating a STEM pipeline and providing better STEM
educational opportunities was a direct response to a fear of falling behind in STEM
advancements compared to other countries (Zeidler, 2016). It was never about a deep and
continued commitment to advancing learning opportunities or engagement for marginalized
students to pursue a path in STEM (Zeidler, 2016). On the contrary, it led to a series of surface
level STEM reform initiatives that failed to adequately address the lack of high-quality STEM
learning for marginalized student populations (Zeidler, 2016). Additionally, Patton (2016) states
that “the racism embedded within STEM learning environments must also be disrupted,
particularly if the goal is to retain students of color to contribute to a more diverse STEM
workforce” (p. 328). One way to address the opportunity gap is to improve science teaching
practices so that they are more culturally responsive to prepare, challenge, and engage Black and
Latino/a students in meaningful learning. According, to Upadhyay (2021)
students from marginalized communities around the world are struggling to gain access
to better science education opportunities that are meaningful and engage them in science
learning that builds their capacity to question, challenge, and take actions to better their
future lives. (p. 1120)
23

For the purposes of this research study, I focused on the S in STEM. I did this by supporting a
resident teacher in up taking inquiry-based culturally responsive pedagogy when designing
science lessons to provide opportunities for students to engage in science as described by the
scholars above.
Meaningful Learning in Science
Making science accessible to and for all students is the first step in meaningful learning
in science (Brown, 2021; Windschitl et al., 2020). Kumar (2018) suggests “learning is
meaningful when it reflects students’ cultural diversity, the learning process is aligned with
individual and cultural modes of learning, and the classroom and home sociocultural contexts are
in harmony” (p. 82). Therefore, I define meaningful learning as students seeing how science
relates to social realties and their lived experiences and using science thinking to both
problematize and design effective solutions to address inequitable social conditions.
Opportunities for students to experience meaningful leaning can occur when science is taught in
ways that value communication styles and discourse that mimic their home culture as students
engage in understanding scientific phenomenon that is relevant to their everyday lives (Brown,
2021; Kumar et al., 2018; Moje et al., 2001). In other words, science learning becomes more
meaningful when teachers use an asset-based approach to learning that engages their students.
In this research study, I modeled how to integrate culturally responsive pedagogy into 5E
inquiry-based lesson plans to support a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and
designing these types of lessons. I focused on two aspects of culturally responsive teaching. One
was incorporating students’ interests to design relevant lessons. The second was to allow
students to use their everyday language in their science discourse. Brown (2021) states that an
intentional process of disaggregating scientific talk by supporting students in moving from
24

everyday language to academic vocabulary scaffolds the learning process and provides students
with greater access and understanding of complex science ideas. Therefore, I made efforts to
model how to do this to support the growth and learning of a resident teacher. My attempts were
not always successful as I will describe during my findings, however, this study was one way
that I tried to be intentional about addressing the opportunity gap in science. I explored and
questioned my own understanding while simultaneously supporting my resident in learning how
to create high quality science lessons that support meaningful learning. In the next sections, I
will further describe the context of my school and the students I taught.
Stem Prep’s Mission, Demographics, and Student Data
Math and Science College Preparatory (MSCP) was a Grade 9–12 high school that was
part of Stem Preparatory Schools (Stem Prep) located in Mid City Los Angeles. 91% of students
identified as Latino/a and 9% Black. Additionally, 13% were multi language learners and 93% of
students qualify for free and reduced lunch. Stem Prep was founded to create a Tk–12 STEM
pipeline in the pursuit of increasing the number of women, Latino/a and Black students to pursue
STEM in college and careers. There were three core values: we are family, STEM thinkers, and
agents of change. These core values drove the decision-making process of all aspects of the
organization including the academic program. In many ways Stem Prep was disrupting the status
quo through leaders’ and educators’ attempts to address and narrow the opportunity gap for
Latino/a and Black students. However, there was room for improvement where Stem Prep fell
short of its mission, core values, and promise to prepare students for success in pursuing STEM
in college or career. This will be discussed more in the next section.
According to 2018–19 CAASP data, 76% of high school students met or exceeded
standards for English Language Arts (ELA) while only 42% for math. This was the first year that
25

state implemented and released scores for the Next Generation Science Standards test and 33%
of students met or exceeded standards for science. One major success was that Black students
performed in the top 1% in the state on ELA and math tests compared to other Black students in
the state in 2019. Latino/a students performed in the top 11% compared to their Latino/a peers as
well. However, students performed much higher for ELA, and more than half the students did
not meet or exceed standards for math and science. This was concerning as a science educator
teaching at a Stem School. Also, according to the most recent data for 2020–21 school year, 54%
of graduates declared a STEM major. Although, this was higher than average compared to other
schools with similar demographics, it was well below fulfilling Stem Prep’s mission to prepare
students to pursue STEM. Improving the quality of instruction by engaging students in both
culturally responsive and inquiry-based learning experiences (Brown, 2021; Duran & Duran,
2004; Gravel et al., 2020), the focus of this study, had the potential to increase student
performance and the desire to pursue and persist in STEM fields. One reason is because when
students experience success in their STEM classes in high school, they are more likely to pursue
a career path in STEM (Brown, 2021; Duran & Duran, 2004; Gravel et al., 2020).
Curriculum Offerings and Teaching Practices
There were several things that Stem Prep did in support of its mission and core values.
One way Stem Prep was disrupting the status quo and fulfilling its mission was through program
offerings. As mentioned prior as an inequity, many schools with similar demographics did not
offer a systematic STEM program for students Tk–12 that included access to credentialed
teachers and adequate funding to equip STEM laboratories. At Stem Prep, all students had access
to a nationally recognized Project Lead the Way (PLTW) curriculum that offered engineering,
computer science, and biomedical engineering courses from Tk–12th

grade. These courses were
26

all taught by credentialed teachers in the subject area and funding was prioritized to ensure that
teachers had all the equipment and resources they needed for students to engage in laboratory
work. Each teacher also received PLTW training on how to use and teach the curriculum. This
curriculum allowed students to use tools and platforms like what scientists and engineers use in
the field, thus helping to prepare them for college and career.
Stem Prep enacted its core value, we are STEM thinkers, by providing professional
learning for all teachers on how to use an inquiry-based lesson cycle modeled from the BSCS 5E
learning sequence (Bybee et al., 2006). All teachers had a coach who was an administrator,
director, or lead teacher in the same content area. Coaching was focused on understanding each
part of the lesson cycle along with lesson design. Each coach also had a coach to support them in
their new role. Coaches frequently observed teachers and teachers met in collaborative teams to
analyze, discuss student data, and collaborate around ways to better support students.
Despite successes, Stem Prep fell short of fulfilling its mission and core values. One
potential gap was the perpetuation of colorblind practices by focusing on the inquiry component
of the lesson cycle with little attention to incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices
mentioned earlier in the meaningful learning section. There was not a systematic effort for
coaches or teachers to receive training on culturally responsive teaching practices that could be
integrated into the inquiry-based lesson cycle. Additionally, department meetings focused on
looking at student data to identify gaps in learning, often from a deficit approach. The
conversations centered around what students were missing from their learning and how teachers
could support them to achieve at grade level standards. There were few opportunities to discuss
and learn more about who students were as people and what assets they brought into the
classroom. There was little to no space provided to discuss what students did know and could do
27

as a lever to support them better with what they needed help on. Therefore, the majority of
teacher learning at Stem Prep was largely colorblind. I argue that the lack of focus on
incorporating culturally responsive teaching into coaching and professional learning so that all
teachers could understand these practices, be intentional about designing lessons using these
practices and getting feedback on implementation caused Stem Prep to fall short on consistently
delivering high quality to all students in all content areas.
My Role as a Science Teacher and Mentor
During this study, I was the only chemistry teacher for sophomores at MSCP. I also
served as a mentor teacher for a resident, Omar, who was co-teaching chemistry in my
classroom. As a mentor teacher, I was responsible for supporting Omar in transferring his
learning from his coursework into practice in our classroom. Taking on this role was very
important to me because I know firsthand the importance of receiving a quality education and
having a supportive mentor to guide you during your first years of teaching. I did not have this
support and succumbed to my unconscious biases and White ideological ways of thinking that
were largely left unchallenged. I made a lot of mistakes and caused harm by perpetuating
oppressive teaching practices with little to no awareness that I was doing that. Therefore, as a
mentor, I supported Omar in the process of unpacking his values and beliefs to become aware of
how biases and assumptions impacted his decision making and actions as a teacher.
Research Question
The research question I explored directly addressed the opportunity gap for Black and
Latino/a students to experience meaningful learning in science. My research question was: How
do I support a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and designing inquiry-based
culturally responsive science lessons that provide opportunities for students to engage in
28

meaningful learning? In the next section I will present a conceptual framework that outlines my
current theory of action and how that changed over time during my study.
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is a system of concepts, theories and beliefs that supports and
informs your research (Maxwell, 2012). My conceptual framework has changed both from being
informed by literature and through my experiences within the field. It reflects my theory of
action and how I situate myself with others and in the context of my research as well as at a
given moment in time (Maxwell, 2012). Figure 1 represents my current theory of action related
to my research question: How do I support a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and
designing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons that provide opportunities for
students to engage in meaningful learning? The aqua circles in the center show me, as a teacher
educator and my resident, acting as a student teacher. My long-term goal remains the same as my
initial conceptual framework, which was to support novice science teachers in becoming
critically reflective practitioners by experiencing transformational and deep learning related to
how their identity, beliefs, and actions as a teacher affect students’ opportunities to engage in
meaningful learning, shown in pink. My short-term goal, which also was the focus of this
research study, was to assist my resident teacher, Omar, in internalizing and designing inquiry-
based 5E lessons that incorporated students’ cultural and language resources, experiences, and
assets to provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning, also shown in pink.
I believe that critical reflection and discourse, shown in purple, are key levers for a teacher
educator to support a resident teacher in learning how to critically reflect on their own practice.
Ongoing discourse and critical reflection can support resident teachers in understanding the types
of thinking and questioning (Brookfield, 2002) required to integrate inquiry-based and culturally
29

responsive science pedagogy into lesson design to facilitate meaningful learning for students. I
did achieve some success with my short-term goal by creating the conditions necessary for Omar
to experience what Wergin (2019) describes as constructive disorientation in a process of
transformational and deep learning. Although the disorienting dilemmas that I created for Omar
did facilitate reflective practice, they did not require him to critically reflect on his actions as a
teacher that could lead to transformational and deep learning. However, I kept critical reflective
practice on my framework in purple because I still believe that both a teacher educator and
resident teacher should move to a critically reflective space in their practice to experience the
type of transformational and deep learning required to enable them to facilitate meaningful
learning for students.
One new learning that I added to my conceptual framework was my responsibility to
critically reflect so that I can uncover and interrogate how my actions reify or dismantle the
inherent power dynamic (Brookfield, 2017) present when acting as a teacher educator supporting
a resident teacher. Initially, I had anticipated that I would engage in critical reflection alongside
Omar through discourse as I supported him in learning how to take up both inquiry-based and
culturally responsive science pedagogy practices when designing lessons. However, I did not
account for the need for me to also engage in ongoing critical reflection related to my
interactions with Omar as a resident teacher. I now realize that to support a resident teacher in
becoming critically reflective in their practice requires me as a teacher educator to interrogate the
ways that I support or hinder a resident teacher in being able to engage in collaborative discourse
with me. I believe that taking on the eyes or perspective of the resident teacher as my learner
through critical reflection (Brookfield, 2017) is an essential component of being able to enact
tenets of adult learning that can ultimately support a resident teacher’s growth (Mezirow, 1999).
30

Therefore, I added critical reflection in green with an arrow directed towards myself as a teacher
educator to uncover my own beliefs and interrogate how they influence my ability to enact tenets
of adult learning also shown in green.
Additionally, I changed my understanding of how I viewed myself and my role in acting
as a teacher educator to support my resident teacher’s learning through my experience and
analysis in the field. Although, I originally had adult learning on my conceptual framework in
green, I did not fully understand my role and responsibility in acting the way Zeichner (2005)
describes a teacher educator should, to appropriately draw on tenets of adult learning to support a
resident teacher. I realized that I had to view myself as a teacher educator who was responsible
for supporting the learning of a resident teacher and could not assume that a resident would
already have the tools to engage in discourse with me. My original conceptual framework had
self and resident only written in the aqua bubbles, but in my current version, I added teacher
educator to the bubble labeled as self to clearly identify my role and then student teacher to
identify the role for my resident. I believe this change is an important component for how I hope
to draw on my theory of action in the future. By adding in the relationship between the two of us
as teacher educator and student teacher, it clearly indicates a power differential and my
responsibility to view and attend to a resident, or student teacher, as a learner rather than a peer.
Therefore, I will use the term resident teacher when speaking specifically about my interactions
with Omar during this research study. I will use the term student teacher when I am talking more
broadly about the relationship between a teacher educator and a teacher who identifies as either a
resident or student teacher working in the same classroom learning alongside a teacher educator.
I will use the term novice teacher to describe my current and future goals aligned with my theory
of action and how I view my role working with any new teacher, either as a resident, student
31

teacher, or a teacher new to the profession working in their own classroom. I will describe more
in depth the connections shown in my conceptual framework among critical reflection, my role
as a teacher educator, and learning how to appropriately draw on tenets of adult learning to assist
and support a resident teacher in moving towards transformational and deep learning. First, I will
discuss each component of my current conceptual framework, how my understanding of each
concept changed over time, the progress I was able to make towards my short-term goal in this
study with my resident Omar, where I fell short, and how I plan to use my theory of action in the
future. I will start by explaining how I came to view myself as a teacher educator through critical
reflection. Next, I will explain the specific inquiry-based and culturally responsive science
pedagogy that I believe supports meaningful learning and I hope for a novice teacher to be able
to internalize, articulate, and eventually enact in practice. I will then explain aspects of adult
learning I believe to be important to draw upon along with specific scaffolds that enable the type
of discourse necessary to engage in ongoing critical reflective practice. Finally, I will close by
explaining how a teacher educator who is critically reflective can strategically provide
opportunities for a novice teacher to experience disorienting dilemmas. I believe that with a
teacher educator’s assistance, these disorienting dilemmas can become constructive and have the
potential to transform how a novice teacher might approach their practice. Specifically, it
provides a novice with a framework of thinking and tools to allow them to critically reflect on
how their pedagogical choices support or hinder opportunities for students to engage in
meaningful learning.

32

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework

Self and Resident
The interactions between me, as a teacher educator, and my resident, as a student
teacher, in aqua were integral to both Omar and my growth. Mezirow (1999) described discourse
as a major component to how adults conceptualize and process meaning, thus learning occurs
through discourse. Therefore, an important component of my theory of action s to situate myself
as a teacher educator and my resident as a student teacher or learner. I drew upon Zeichner’s
(2005) realization in his work that becoming a teacher educator requires providing scaffolded
opportunities for the student teacher to learn how to apply what they know in practice. I believe
that acting as a teacher educator and viewing the student teacher as a learner sets up a dynamic
where the teacher educator is responsible for establishing the quality of discourse within the
interactions between the teacher educator and student teacher. Quality discourse can only occur
33

if the student teacher is authentically invited into the interaction as a collaborator and the teacher
educator is open to being a learner rather than a bestower of knowledge (Zeichner, 2005). This
requires the teacher educator to take ownership of their responsibility to view the student teacher
as a learner by interacting in ways that focus on the learner and elevate their voice so that they
can process and make meaning of new learning and understanding through discourse (Garrett,
2008). I believe that this also can break down the power differential between the teacher educator
and student teacher by creating opportunities for authentic discourse as the teacher educator
remains attuned to recognizing and moving the conversation within the student teacher’s zone of
proximal development (Warford, 2011). I did not set up opportunities for quality discourse in a
way that allowed my resident Omar and me to critically reflect on our practice. I identified Omar
as a self-authoring knower and wrongly believed that I was not responsible for creating a space
that would allow for us to engage in quality discourse around inquiry-based culturally responsive
science pedagogy and critical reflection on our practice. I incorrectly assumed that, as a self-
authoring knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), he already had the knowledge
and tools he needed to engage collaboratively with me. I now believe that despite the teacher’s
typology, it is my responsibility as a teacher educator to view a novice teacher as a learner to
help them make progress towards becoming a transformative knower. Therefore, in the future I
aspire to support a novice teacher in moving from a place of reflecting on practice to inquiry and
critical reflection of their practice by being intentional about the types of opportunities I set up
for us to engage in quality discourse. I believe that this can only be achieved if the teacher
educator is willing to critically reflect on how their actions and behaviors manifest in
opportunities for quality discourse and deep learning to occur for the novice teacher. In the next
section I will elaborate on aspects of critical reflection on behalf of the teacher educator that I
34

believe are essential to support a novice teacher in making progress towards becoming a self-
transforming knower and moving to a place of deep learning.
Critical Reflection
A teacher educator should develop a self-awareness by becoming critically conscious
about how their actions empower or stifle learning opportunities for a novice teacher
(Brookfield, 2017). As mentioned earlier, I placed critical reflection in green on my conceptual
framework pointing towards self as the teacher educator. This is because I believe that a teacher
educator must constantly deconstruct their own ideologies that shape their beliefs and examine
how these beliefs manifest through their interactions (Bartolomé, 2008; Brookfield, 2017). It
involves the process of uncovering and challenging power dynamics and assumptions
(Brookfield, 2017). Specifically, I believe that teacher educators should critically reflect on their
positionality and how they are supporting or hindering learning by acknowledging and breaking
down the inherent power differential between the teacher educator and novice teacher to allow
for authentic discourse and collaboration. Unfortunately, I did not critically reflect on how my
belief that I was an expert and knower and my incorrect belief that Omar did not need my
support or assistance. Omar and I had a conversation about the different types of knowing and he
identified himself as a self-authoring knower, which I agreed with. Since he identified as a self-
authoring knower, this led me to unintentionally disempower Omar during our interactions. My
actions reinforced the power dynamic that I was the decision maker and only my ideas mattered,
which silenced Omar rather than inviting him to engage in discourse and grapple with his own
learning. Therefore, my revised conceptual framework and my theory of action moving forward
places critical reflection prominently as something that a teacher educator needs to engage in on
their own, reflecting on how they present themself during interactions with any type of novice
35

teacher. Although not critical on its own, I do believe that engaging in Rodgers’s (2002)
reflective cycle using a critical lens is an important framework to support a teacher educator in
viewing and responding to a novice teacher as a learner. A teacher educator needs to pause and
reflect during their interactions with a novice teacher to discern their zone of proximal
development (ZPD) and then take intelligent action (Rodgers, 2002) by choosing an appropriate
scaffold to assist their learner in moving through their ZPD to a new understanding (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). The zone of proximal development or ZPD is the space between what the
learner can do on their own and what they can do with assistance (Warford, 2011). A teacher
educator should pause and reflect during interactions with a novice teacher to help determine
appropriate scaffolds and assistance to provide. However, they also need to critically reflect on
the ways the teacher educator was able or not able to identify and move within a novice teacher’s
ZPD to help the teacher educator become better in their practice. Brookfield (2017) describes
how best intentions can lead to unintended consequences in the absence of critical reflection. I
believe that a teacher educator needs to be mindful about how their beliefs show up in their
interactions by undertaking Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle with a critical lens by taking on the
perspective of a novice teacher. For example, in this study I did not initially critically reflect and
interrogate a belief that I had to completely eradicate the power differential between Omar and
me by acting as if it did not exit. This was a harmful belief that may have had good intentions,
but dangerous unintended consequences. I became teacher centered in my actions and dominated
the conversation when interacting with Omar, thus reifying traditional hegemonic interactions
inherent within the power dynamic of teacher educator and novice teacher. Moving forward, I
now understand the importance of ongoing critical reflection so that I can interrogate my beliefs
and how they manifest in my actions to recognize teacher centered actions and change to a more
36

learner centered approach. I will discuss what this means in terms of using adult learning theory
to provide scaffolded support when working with a novice teacher in an upcoming section.
However, first I will explore the specific types of practices that I believe represent inquiry-based
culturally responsive science pedagogy that I as a teacher educator would want any novice
teacher to internalize, articulate and eventually enact consistently in their practice.
Inquiry-Based Culturally Responsive Science Pedagogy
Inquiry-based culturally responsive science practices shown in purple on my conceptual
framework are one way to provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning.
Engaging students in inquiry allows students to explore first before then making sense of
scientific concepts and ideas. The 5E lesson sequence is a framework a teacher can use to
structure inquiry-based lessons. First, a teacher introduces a phenomenon, question, or event to
get students to ask questions and make observations during the Engage. This is then followed by
an Explore where students investigate, gather data, and ask more questions related to the Engage
as they start to grapple with scientific concepts. The Explain portion of the sequence is when
students analyze data, discuss scientific ideas they explored, create models, learn scientific
vocabulary and specific names for concepts, or write explanations to show how they’re making
sense of concepts they uncovered during the Explore. The Elaborate is when students apply new
knowledge gained by revising their initial models and explanations or applying what they
learned to a new context or problem. The Evaluate portion of the 5E sequence occurs at each E
where a teacher gathers formative data to guide and adjust learning (Bybee et al., 2006; Duran &
Duran, 2004). As mentioned in my context statement, this framework allows for inquiry but is
often taught in a colorblind way. Therefore, I will discuss how to use the 5E lesson sequence
37

framework to intentionally integrate culturally responsive practices, which I refer to as inquiry-
based culturally responsive pedagogy in my conceptual framework.
The specific culturally responsive teaching practices that I believe are important for a
teacher to integrate into the 5E lesson design are using students’ interests to choose relevant and
engaging phenomenon and allowing students to use their everyday language as they develop
their understanding of science ideas prior to learning and using scientific vocabulary. I chose
these two aspects of culturally responsive teaching to integrate into inquiry-based learning
because inquiry-based learning requires students to navigate multiple and sometimes conflicting
discourses such as everyday home or community language, content language and the language
norms of school (Moje et al., 2001). Therefore, a teacher needs to know how to carefully
structure the inquiry experience so that it is relevant and accessible to students. Drawing on
culturally responsive practices such as using students’ prior knowledge, experiences, and
questions that students come up with are all ways to decipher relevant phenomenon for students
to explore (Brown, 2021; Kumar et al., 2018; Moje et al., 2001). To ensure that the phenomenon
is accessible, a teacher should allow students to discuss their understanding of the phenomenon
using everyday language rather than being required to use scientific vocabulary, which also has
the potential to stifle the inquiry process and disengage students from learning. This
disaggregated process allows students to access the content first by using their own language and
discourse styles when exploring phenomenon and making their initial explanations before a
teacher introduces scientific vocabulary. Students will then use this vocabulary to explain and
elaborate their understanding of these concepts during the Explain and Elaborate portions of the
5E lesson sequence (Brown, 2021). During this study, I was able to scaffold Omar’s learning so
that he could understand elements of inquiry-based lesson design and the types of thinking and
38

questioning a teacher should engage in to ensure that they are integrating culturally responsive
practices into the inquiry-based lesson. However, I realized that Omar needed to learn these as
two separate processes and I did not have the time I hoped for Omar and me to reflect on how
well he understood how to integrate both processes into lesson design. We also did not have time
to critically reflect on the quality of our attempts to integrate inquiry-based and culturally
responsive pedagogy into the lessons we designed. Moving forward, I now understand the
complexity of a novice teacher having to learn both concepts and then apply that knowledge
when designing lessons. I will need to allow for more time and create space for reflective
moments both during and after lessons are designed. The double-sided arrows with discourse as
the mechanism between inquiry-based culturally responsive science pedagogy and critically
reflective practice in purple on my conceptual framework illustrates my new understanding of
the importance of moving between these two concepts to support a novice teacher in
experiencing constructive disorientation leading to transformational and deep learning shown in
pink. I do believe that if a teacher enacts inquiry-based culturally responsive pedagogy as
described above it can provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning also
shown in pink. As described previously in my context statement, the type of meaningful learning
in science from this type of planning provides opportunities for students to connect how science
relates to social realties and then use scientific thinking to problematize and design effective
solutions to address inequitable social conditions.
So far, I described the importance of identifying as a teacher educator and critically
reflecting on how positionality affects discourse and interactions specifically between a teacher
educator and novice teacher. I also described my understanding of what inquiry-based culturally
responsive science pedagogy looks like when designing lessons. In the next section, I will
39

describe in more detail what transformational and deep learning looks like for any novice teacher
learning aspects of inquiry-based culturally responsive lesson design in pink. I will end by
discussing how a teacher educator can use aspects of adult learning shown in green on my
conceptual framework to scaffold learning to support a novice teacher in making progress
towards becoming a self-transforming knower and experience deep learning related to their
practice.
Transformational and Deep Learning
Both my long- and short-term goals for this study and beyond are to help create
constructive disorientations for novice teachers so that they can experience transformation as
they engage in deep learning (Wergin, 2019). Wergin (2019) describes constructive
disorientation as “a feeling of arousal brought about by a perceived disconnect between the
current and a desired state, accompanied by a sense of efficacy that one is capable of dealing
with that disconnect” (p. 57). His argument is that deep learning occurs when someone is willing
to experience and learn from this constructive disorientation in a lasting way that goes beyond a
moment of awareness. The goal is not to simply seek for a transformation in understanding, but
to continually critically reflect and act upon this transformation to move into a space where deep
learning occurs. During this research study, I was able to provide opportunities through discourse
for Omar to experience moments of constructive disorientation and the efficacy in knowing that
he could respond to his current state and move towards a more desire state as a self-transforming
knower. However, most of these moments were more technical in nature in learning the process
of lesson design. I did not provide opportunities for Omar to experience constructive
disorientation and transformation leading to deep learning by asking him to critically reflect on
his practice to evaluate if what he had learned and internalized allowed him to design lessons that
40

provided meaningful learning experiences for students. I did keep this on my conceptual
framework as part of my theory of action because I believe that transformational and deep
learning can occur through constant critical reflection on how a teacher’s values and beliefs
manifest in how they create opportunities for student learning. Moving forward, I would like to
support a novice teacher in learning how to critically reflect so that they can achieve a more
lasting transformation of their practice rather than a technical understanding that may not have a
lasting impact on a novice teacher’s practice. In the next section, I will describe how a teacher
educator can use adult learning to scaffold a novice teacher’s learning by providing
constructively disorienting experiences that can move a novice teacher from technical and
surface level understanding to internalization, transformation, and deep learning.
Adult Learning
A teacher educator should pay close attention to how a novice teacher’s ZPD changes to
support the novice teacher in moving from apprentice of observation to internalization of
practice (Warford, 2011) in becoming a more self-transforming knower (Drago-Severson &
Blum-DeStefano, 2017). To do this, a teacher educator needs to understand how to support adult
learners, shown in green on my conceptual framework. First, a teacher educator should be
mindful about properly identifying the type of knower a novice teacher is so that they can
provide appropriate scaffolds that supports the teacher’s typology (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017). In this study, I was not mindful of using appropriate scaffolds to support
Omar as what I believed him to be a self-authoring knower. For example, I did not specifically
invite Omar to share his suggestions and ideas when planning together. Once I realized that I was
acting in a teacher centered manner and ignoring Omar’s needs as a learner, I was more
intentional about asking for Omar’s ideas and encouraging him to use what he learned from his
41

program to integrate into lesson plans. I was able to support him in becoming more reflective
about his design choices but did not spend as much time asking him to take on multiple
perspectives, beliefs, and worldviews (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017) when
critiquing and designing lessons, which can be difficult for self-authoring knowers to do on their
own. I do believe that a teacher educator should support novice teachers in moving towards
becoming self-transforming knowers through critical reflection by exploring alternatives,
paradoxes, and contradictions within themselves and within a larger system in society (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Moving forward, I will be more intentional about engaging
a novice teacher in critically reflecting on their practice to encourage a transformation in how
they understand and approach their role as a teacher. As mentioned previously, I believe that
transformation is the first step to deep learning and the ability for a novice teacher to provide
opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning.
A teacher educator needs to be intentional about using andragogical moves to provide
conditions to support a novice teacher in becoming a self-transforming knower positioned to
engage in the deep learning. I chose two andragogical moves, questioning and modeling, that I
believe encompass a range of other moves within them such as making the tacit explicit or
feeding back which have potential to assist a novice teacher in improving their practice (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). Making the tacit explicit is when an expert or teacher educator’s automatic
thinking processes are made visible to a novice learner (Loughran, 2013). One form of modeling
is when a teacher educator is explicit about their thought processes for the novice teacher to
internalize and replicate in their practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005). Feeding back occurs
throughout any type of interaction between a teacher educator and novice teacher. Feeding back
is when a teacher educator uses both verbal and nonverbal cues to demonstrate that a novice
42

teacher is moving in the right direction or off track (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). I chose
questioning and modeling to focus on because they are both andragogical moves that help a
novice teacher engage in mental operations that provide a cognitive structure or framework that
they can draw and expand upon as they are learning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). A novice
teacher may have a theoretical understanding of what they should do, but not necessarily a
practical understanding of how to do what they intended. Both questioning and modeling can
assist a novice teacher in exploring and elaborating on their thinking to apply their theoretical
understanding in practice. I learned through this study that the teacher educator is an integral part
of this process because they decide what types of andragogical moves to use that will best move
a teacher educator within their ZPD (Zeichner, 2005). Moving through a novice teacher’s ZPD
allows the novice teacher to stretch and grow in ways that are not possible without the teacher
educator’s assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). This assisted transformation for the novice
teacher is described by Loughran and Berry (2005) as moving from an epistemic knowledge, or a
theoretical understanding of ideas and concepts, to phronesis, or how to apply these ideas to
specific context in practice. During this study, I did use both questioning and modeling to assist
Omar in learning the types of thinking and questioning he should ask himself during lesson
design. I did help him move from an epistemic understanding to phronesis in being able to
design inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons. He did experience a transformation in
his understanding of the complexity and thinking processes that underpin lesson design.
However, it is unclear whether this will have a lasting effect in the absence of critical reflection.
If I was able to continue to work with Omar in the future or any other potential novice teachers, I
would be intentional about critically reflecting myself to recognize and move within a novice
teacher’s ZPD. I believe this is the best way to ensure that I am accurately identifying a novice
43

teacher’s ZPD and using the appropriate forms of assistance that can lead to deep learning. In the
next sections I will describe my understanding of how to use both questioning and modeling as
forms of assistance and how they overlap and integrate with other andragogy moves to support a
teacher educator in moving through a novice teacher’s ZPD.
Questioning Techniques
Questioning can be used as a form of assistance to support a learner in producing a
mental operation that they could not produce on their own (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). A teacher
educator can use different types of questions to support a novice teacher in producing various
mental operations from simple recall to more thorough elaboration and application while
learning the lesson design process. Questions can allow a novice teacher to think about what they
know and not yet understand as well as critically reflect on how their decisions during lesson
design can either facilitate or hinder opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning.
Using a novice teacher’s responses to questions can help facilitate a teacher educator in
accurately identifying a novice teacher’s ZPD. They also allow opportunities for the teacher
educator to feedback valuable information to the novice teacher. For example, if a novice teacher
shows an understanding, a teacher educator can provide feedback by affirming their response. If
a novice teacher is off track, the teacher educator can show this by being explicit or redirecting
the novice teacher to pay attention to something specific that they should think about (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). At the beginning of my data collection, I asked Omar questions, but I was not
intentional about using questioning to uncover his ZPD or help him move through his ZPD. I
now believe that an important aspect of adult learning that a teacher educator should draw upon
is determining the types of questions they will ask and how they will intentionally use questions
to assist a novice teacher’s performance. I will now describe Sahin and Kulm’s (2008) indicators
44

that a teacher educator can use to identify the types of questions and the mental operations that
the questions can support a novice teacher in undertaking. I did not learn about these types of
questions until I was analyzing my data. I became more intentional about what I was asking
Omar as I progressed through the study. However, I was not purposeful about the types of
questions I was asking and the mental operations they would support Omar in up taking during
data collection. I came to understand the importance of having this type of knowledge prior to
working with a novice teacher. In the future, I will think about the types of questions I hope to
ask during a planning session with a novice teacher, using Sahin and Kulm’s (2008) categories as
a guide, so I can leverage this type of assistance better.
Sahin and Kulm’s (2008) indicators help identify the types of questions a teacher
educator can ask to support a novice teacher in engaging in various mental operations leading to
deep learning. Sahin and Kulm (2008) categorize questions as factual, guiding, or probing
questions. Factual questions allow a teacher educator to check a novice teacher’s understanding
of key concepts and ideas (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) and serve as a precondition to assessing a
novice teacher’s ZPD. Guiding questions facilitate a novice teacher in exploring their thinking
and then make connections to apply theoretical knowledge in practice. Probing questions require
a higher mental operation where the novice teacher explains, elaborates, or justifies their
thinking (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). In this study I used both guiding and probing questions to create
disorienting dilemmas for Omar to grapple with when I noticed that he had a misunderstanding
or gap in how to apply what he knew in theory to practice. He was able to do this from using
both my assistance and his prior knowledge to work through these dilemmas to come to a new
understanding (Wergin, 2019) of how to approach a difficulty in planning. These disorienting
45

dilemmas became constructive (Wergin, 2019) for Omar when he started to transform how he
perceived his role as a teacher in designing meaningful lessons for students.
A teacher educator should also engage a novice teacher in reflection and critical
reflection related to their practice. Reflection questions can be used to assist a novice teacher in
pausing and reflecting (Rodgers, 2002) on how their decisions during planning impact how
students will experience a lesson. Reflection questions allow a novice teacher to engage in
metacognition about their own learning process, supporting internalization of new
understandings, concepts, and ideas (Rodgers, 2002). Critical reflection allows a novice teacher
to explore more deeply how their own beliefs or assumptions show up in their practice and how
that affects student learning (Brookfield, 2017). As mentioned previously, I did engage Omar in
reflecting on technical aspects of his practice as he learned how to design inquiry-based and
culturally responsive science lessons. However, we did not engage in critically reflective
discourse related to our practice during planning conversations. In the future, I would like to
intentionally model critical reflection and ask critically reflective questions that a novice teacher
and I can discuss during planning interactions.
Modeling
Modeling allows a teacher educator to make their own thinking, reasoning, and
reflections visible to assist a novice teacher in mimicking these processes to support their own
growth and understanding in practice (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). Modeling mental operations
that a novice teacher should mimic is one way to make the tacit explicit (Loughran, 2013).
Making the tacit explicit supports a novice teacher by bridging the gap between the practical
wisdom and understanding that the teacher educator holds and what a novice teacher still needs
to learn (Loughran & Berry, 2005). I made the tacit explicit by modeling the types of questions I
46

ask myself and things that I consider when planning. I also made the tacit explicit by modeling
how to engage in ongoing reflective practice, both when initially thinking about a lesson,
reviewing the lesson, and then making final revisions to the lesson to ensure that students have
access to engage in meaningful learning experiences. Intentional modeling of the mental
operations such as explaining how to integrate theoretical concepts of the 5E lesson sequence
and culturally responsive practices that allow students to make sense of science content using
their own language before being introducing to scientific vocabulary are integral for novice
teacher to understand lives (Brown, 2021; Kumar et al., 2018; Moje et al., 2001). Modeling
allowed me as a teacher educator to also pause, think, and reflect on what I wanted to make
explicit in my thinking to Omar to support him in grappling with a given dilemma he was
experiencing by giving him the just right amount of information he needed (Rodgers, 2002). In
this way, I was able to model similar processes that I wanted him to think about when designing
lessons for students such as what types of questions to ask or information to give to guide their
learning and sense-making rather than stifling it. At the beginning of the study, I was not
intentional about what or how I was modeling my thinking to Omar. I processed my own
thinking aloud and some of this did serve as modeling, but not in a way that Omar was able to
process and then mimic. I also modeled urgency and that the purpose of planning was
accomplishing a task and not learning a process with reflection being the cornerstone of that
process. Despite this, once I became intentional about explicitly modeling how I was thinking
through a process or dilemma that came up during lesson design, Omar did show growth in his
understanding and ability to use similar types of thinking and reasoning when designing lessons.
I have come to appreciate that a teacher educator is always modeling something to a novice
teacher. I need to critically reflect on both intended an unintended message I may be displaying
47

through modeling so that I do not model a behavior that I would not want a novice teacher to
mimic. Moving forward, I will engage in reflective practice during my interactions with a novice
teacher so that I can pause, reflect, and take intelligent action by explicitly modeling thinking
and reasoning that I hope for a novice teacher to learn from.
Summary of My Theory of Action
In sum, my conceptual framework shows how I have come to understand my theory of
action as a teacher educator working with novice teachers. As a teacher educator I need to
critically reflect on how my beliefs and assumptions translate into the quality of discourse with a
novice teacher in supporting or hindering their ability to grow. Through critical reflection, I can
then leverage aspects of adult learning by choosing appropriate scaffolds such as questioning and
modeling to move a novice teacher within their ZPD to growing in their practice. I believe that
this can occurs through discourse to support a novice teacher in coming to new understandings as
they learn how to implement inquiry-based culturally responsive pedagogy into lessons and
critically reflect on the potential impact the lessons can have on student learning. Finally, this
type of discourse can support a novice teacher in experiencing constructive disorientation that
can transform their understanding of the impact of their decisions on student learning. Ultimately
with my assistance acting as a teacher educator, I have the potential to support a novice teacher
in experiencing deep learning so that they can internalize critical reflection and inquiry-based
culturally responsive pedagogy to enact in their practice.
Research Methods
My study was a self-study action research project where I analyzed how my leadership
actions as a teacher educator supported Omar, a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and
48

designing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons. I collected data from collaborative
planning sessions for three 4-week action cycles from December 2021 through March 2022.
Participants
This research study took place in my chemistry classroom at Math and Science College
Preparatory. Since it was a small school, I was the only chemistry teacher; however, Omar was a
resident teacher who co-taught with me. Therefore, I had one participant other than myself. This
was a purposeful sample (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015) because I focused on an information rich
case to understand how I develop a resident teacher’s abilities in how to design inquiry-based
culturally responsive science lessons. Omar was a Mexican American gay man in his late 20s.
He had experience substitute teaching and was a long-term sub prior to joining the Alder
Graduate School of Education Master’s and Credential Teacher Residency program. Omar also
worked several jobs in the service industry before entering education. He was passionate about
education and desired to work in low income predominantly Latino/a and Black schools, like
schools he attended. He identified most closely with other Mexican American first-generation
students who made up approximately 80% of our school’s demographic. He was the seventh
child out of a family of nine children and had recently lost his older brother who partially helped
to raise him when the family was moving back and forth from Mexico in 2020. His brother
supported and encouraged Omar to attend college, the first of his siblings, and then to follow his
dream of becoming a teacher. When he died, Omar decided to pursue his master’s and teaching
credential. From the beginning of our time working together, Omar was passionate about
learning culturally responsive practices that held students to high expectations. He mentioned
that he often had science teachers in school who did not hold students to high expectations, and
he was discouraged from entering the field himself. He wanted to be a role model for students so
49

that they could gain the tools they needed to pursue and succeed in STEM. Omar’s passion and
desire to be in service to his students and honor his late brother by pursuing his dream drove
everything he did. He was dedicated to teaching, showed up every day, and gave his best, despite
how exhausted he felt juggling requirements as a full-time resident teacher, course work, and
other credential requirements such as the edTPA.
Omar identified himself as a self-authoring knower and showed the persistence and
dedication of someone who works consistently to achieve their goals (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano’s, 2017). Though I agreed with this assessment at the beginning of data collection, it
became more evident during my data analysis that Omar acted mostly as a socializing knower
(Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano’s, 2017). He did not want to disappoint me, the students,
his professors, or residency supervisor (Drago-Severson & Blum-DeStefano’s, 2017). As a
result, he often did not communicate to me or others that he was struggling managing his time. I
did not realize until after data collection that Omar had not been straight forward with me about
what he could realistically accomplish. I also identified as a socializing knower and ultimately
did not want to disappoint Omar or my students. Therefore, I would just complete tasks Omar
started so they’d be ready for our students and rarely probed why he was not able to accomplish
them. At the time I respected his identification as a self-authoring knower and incorrectly
assumed that meant he did not want or need my assistance. I became very task-oriented during
our planning meetings to attempt to get things accomplished so I would not have to finish them if
Omar left them incomplete. As a result, I did not appropriately scaffold his learning. Although I
viewed myself as a teacher educator, I did not realize the nuances of what this meant nor
accurately recognize what Omar needed from me at the beginning of data collection. I did not
fully understand this until out of the field analysis, however, through with my advisor while still
50

in the field, I started to see more clearly the need to act as a teacher educator and provide
intentional scaffolds to support Omar’s learning. I’ll explain more about this in my findings
section.
Setting of Actions
My actions for this study took place both over Zoom and in person in our classroom
when we had planning sessions. There was a total of three action cycles with approximately 3
weeks in the field and the fourth and final week out of the field for each action cycle. The first
action cycle took place in December and January when Omar and I planned before the start of
second semester. During action Cycle 1, we met five times to plan together. The first two
planning sessions were each 1.5 hours, the next two sessions were 2.5 hours, and the final
session was 3 hours. We met over Zoom for the first four sessions and then in our classroom for
the fifth session. We met for three planning sessions during action Cycle 2. The first session was
in our classroom for 1.5 hours and the other two were over Zoom for 2 hours. We met in person
for two out of three meetings and once on zoom for the final meeting during action Cycle 3. The
first meeting was 2 hours, the second was 40 minutes and the last was 2.5 hours. I will further
discuss the actions I took as a teacher educator during our planning sessions in the next section.
Actions
Consistent with my conceptual framework, I drew on adult learning theory to support
Omar in learning the process of how to design inquiry-based culturally responsive science
lessons. I knew that he had some experience with parts of lesson design from his master’s
program. I assumed that he had already had to design inquiry-based 5E lessons through his
program and that we would be spending most of our time revising these lessons and adding to
them by ensuring they were designed using culturally responsive pedagogical practices. I quickly
51

learned within the first action cycle that Omar had not yet learned the inquiry-based 5E lesson
sequence other than the few times we discussed this based on the lessons I had designed during
first semester. Therefore, I adjusted objectives for each action cycle to reflect how I supported
Omar in learning how to unpack the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and integrate
the three dimensions appropriately when designing an inquiry-based 5E lesson. Most reflections
were descriptive and metacognitive about what he learned about the process of planning or how
culturally responsive practices were integrated into the design. Although this is only one part of
my theory of action, it was a necessary step towards making progress to what I now believe is
needed for a novice teacher to be able to internalize, articulate, and design inquiry-based
culturally responsive science lessons. Below are the objectives I had for Omar based on his
learning and my reflections during the 4th week at the end of each action cycle.
1. Pre-planning Phase: Unpacking standards to create learning targets and guiding
questions that can be used to drive each E in the inquiry-based 5E lesson sequence.
2. Co-planning Phase 1: Using inquiry-based culturally responsive pedagogy as a guide
to revising 5E lessons that I previously designed.
3. Co-planning Phase 2: Reflecting and revising parts of 5E lessons that Omar initially
designed.
The first action cycle was the pre-planning phase. Omar and I spent planning sessions looking at
a unit plan on chemical reactions and chemical bonding from last year. The purpose of the co-
planning phase was for Omar to learn how to create learning targets and guiding questions from
breaking down NGSS standards in a unit plan and brainstorm phenomenon and labs that students
could explore as they learn science concepts throughout the unit. The pre-planning process was a
necessary precondition to designing inquiry-based 5E lessons. First, as teachers we decided
52

which standard to use, constructed a specific learning target aligned to a standard and an
essential question for a lesson. After this, we chose a phenomenon for students to explore, which
often included research to understand different aspects of that phenomenon better, and finally
decided how to introduce or engage students in that phenomenon (Duran & Duran, 2004).
During action Cycles 2 and 3 Omar and I discussed how to design or revise parts of an
inquiry-based 5E lesson using the learning targets and guiding questions we came up with during
the pre-planning phase. The difference between Cycle 2 and 3 was that Omar and I were revising
lessons that I had planned during Cycle 2 and plans that he took the lead in initially revising
during Cycle 3. Designing a 5E lesson takes time to process and plan even after the pre-planning
phase. We now needed to choose which science and engineering practice from the standards to
use for specific student actions for each E, designed or revised specific resources students used
for each E and included the teacher actions needed to scaffold student learning. These teacher
actions included coming up with facilitative questions to guide the inquiry process, checks for
understanding and anticipated misconceptions students might have (Bybee, 2006; Duran &
Duran, 2004; Windschitl et al., 2020). As a teacher educator, I supported Omar in internalizing
how to apply these different parts of planning during lesson design by using questioning and
modeling described in my conceptual framework. Although, I had some pre-planned questions, I
mostly decided what to model and ask Omar in the moment based on what Omar needed at the
time. However, none of the process described above explicitly incorporated the types of learning
students engage in that are culturally responsive nor specific teacher actions that are culturally
responsive to use when implementing the lesson. Therefore, I built in specific reflection
questions that Omar and I discussed to see if and how we incorporated culturally responsive
pedagogy into our lessons. I intended to ask critically reflective questions during each planning
53

session particularly related to culturally responsive pedagogy; however, since Omar needed more
of my support in learning how to design an inquiry-based lesson using the standards, I was not
able to do this as often. Instead, I asked reflective questions related to process oriented planning
in three out of five planning sessions during Cycle 1, two out of three planning sessions during
Cycle 2, and two out of three planning sessions during Cycle 3. I only asked reflective questions
specific to looking at culturally responsive practices in one planning session during Cycle 2 and
one planning session during Cycle 3.
During all 3 action cycles, I used forms of assistance such as questioning or modeling to
produce disorienting dilemmas for Omar as he learned how to internalize components of lesson
design in practice. Since most of my study involved recognizing and responding to the Omar’s
ZPD in the moment, I included how I used modeling and questioning scaffolds outlined in my
conceptual framework and data I collected in Tables 1 and 2. The tables show an overview of my
actions. I will explain more in detail the types of questions I asked and how they facilitated Omar
in internalizing and articulating his own understanding of lesson design in my findings section.

54

Table 1
Action Cycle 1: Pre-planning Phase—Unpacking Standards to Create Learning Targets and
Guiding Questions to Drive Each E in the 5E Sequence
Objectives Progress indicator Teacher educator actions
Omar identified
which standard to
use for a 5E
lesson and created
a learning target
and guiding
question for 5E
lessons in a unit
plan that align
with the 3
dimensions of
NGSS standards
Embedded in text.
Omar was able to use
my scaffolded
support to create a
3-dimensional
learning target and
guiding question for
4 lessons in the unit
plan.

I modeled my thinking about how to decide
which part(s) of the standard to use and
pick the 3 dimensions for each 5E lesson in
the unit.

I asked questions that checked for Omar’s
understanding related to the standards and
helped me gauge his ZPD.

55

Table 2
Action Cycles 2 and 3: Co-planning Phase—Revising, Designing, and Reflecting on Inquiry-
Based Culturally Responsive Science Lessons
Objectives Progress indicator Teacher educator actions
Omar identified
appropriate
phenomenon and
revised lesson
materials to match
the intended
purpose of each E
in the inquiry-
based 5E lesson
sequence.

Omar reflected on
opportunities for
students to engage
in authentic
inquiry and
identified
culturally
responsive
practices
embedded within
lesson plans.
Omar was able to use
my scaffolded
support to work
through disorienting
dilemmas he faced
during lesson
planning.

I modeled my thinking about how to revise
lesson materials to better match each E in
the 5E lesson sequence. I also modeled the
types of questions I ask myself to reflect on
if the lesson matches my intended purpose;
allowing opportunities to engage in
authentic inquiry while using culturally
responsive pedagogical practices.

I asked questions that checked for Omar’s
understanding, allowed him to grapple with
difficulties in designing lessons and reflect
on his learning as well as how the lessons
matched our intended purpose and
incorporated culturally responsive
practices.

Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
I took scripted notes during our planning conversations and then went back to these notes
to add my own thoughts and takeaways as descriptive field notes. For each descriptive field note,
I also added a descriptive reflection immediately after I wrote the field note. Additionally, I
wrote an analytical memo and attempted to a critical reflection that was mostly descriptive and
slightly critical during the fourth week at the end of each action cycle when I was out of the field.
I used documents such as a 5E lesson planning document, the California science framework, and
56

standards as well as previous unit and lesson plans that I designed to support our planning
sessions.
Descriptive Fieldnotes
I mainly collected data by taking scripted notes during our planning conversations that I
then turned into descriptive field notes. My scripted notes served as jottings that was primarily
information that I captured during our discussions (Bogden & Biklen, 1997). Merriam and
Tisdell (2015) suggest that descriptive fieldnotes should include descriptions or segments of the
activity, are descriptive in nature, and detailed to capture direct quotations or verbatim responses.
Each time Omar and I met, I used a video recording when on Zoom and audio recording when in
person and scripted our conversation. I then took my scripted notes and recording to create
descriptive fieldnotes and reflections from each conversation. I used a 2-column system when
creating my field notes, with descriptive notes on the left and observer or researcher commentary
on the right. The comments on the left were specific responses and jottings that allowed me to
see how Omar was internalizing, articulating, and enacting parts of lesson design. The
commentary on the right included my reactions, thoughts, feelings, initial interpretations and
working hypothesis of where Omar was at in his process of internalizing and demonstrating
understanding of the intended objectives from Table 1 (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I wrote a total
of 11 descriptive field notes throughout my study. I wrote five during Cycle 1 and 3 each during
Cycles 2 and 3.
Artifacts and Documents
In addition to descriptive fieldnotes, I used artifacts and documents as part of data
collection. The documents I collected were the unit plan template and 5E lessons that we
evaluated and revised during our planning conversations. Together, Omar and I revised one unit
57

plan template during Cycle 1 and a total of four lessons within that unit plan, two lessons during
Cycle 2 and two lessons during Cycle 3.
Descriptive and Critical Reflections
A secondary form of data collection was my descriptive and critical reflections based on
the descriptive field notes I collected. I used descriptive reflections to process our interactions
and assess how well I was recognizing and supporting Omar within his ZPD. I attempted to write
critical reflections to reflect on my biases, assumptions, values, and beliefs that affected how I
interacted with Omar as well as uncovering the power dynamics between us. The critical parts of
these reflections were when I attempted to think about how I was reifying or breaking down the
power dynamic between us through my actions or inactions (Brookfield, 2017). Most of my
descriptive and critical reflections occurred both in the field and out of the field when having
conversations with my advisor. My advisor and I would review what I had written and discuss
implications and next steps. My advisor also helped me to realize how I could be more critical in
my reflections, so I then went back and added in parts of what we discussed to my original
reflections. For example, I wrote a descriptive reflection during Cycle 2 where I mostly
described a planning session with Omar and then I attempted to infer that Omar was not
participating that much during the exchange because he lacked confidence in his abilities. I
believed that it was my role as a teacher educator to support him in building his confidence so
that he could take on lesson planning without my assistance. After discussing with my advisor,
she pointed out that I was dominating the conversation and very task oriented rather than learner
centered. I then changed my perspective of my role by writing a critical reflection about how my
actions reified that I was the main decision maker, and that Omar did not have a voice. I realized
that I had not asked for his opinion at all and assumed that he would feel comfortable sharing it
58

with me. I then altered my understanding of how I should support Omar by now intentionally
being aware of how much I was talking and inviting Omar to share his ideas. I realized that it
was less about building Omar’s confidence and more about inviting him to truly collaborate and
participate in the process with me. The end goal was not for Omar to lesson plan in the absence
of my assistance, but to be a true collaborator using my assistance to help guide his learning. In
total, I wrote 11 descriptive reflections following each descriptive field note and a total of three
reflections that could be considered critical, one during Cycle 2 and two during Cycle 3.
Data Analysis
The process of data analysis was cyclical since this was an action research study where I
took data both in the field and out of the field (Herr & Anderson, 2015). The analysis within the
field informed how I proceeded in the next action cycle. Analysis outside of the field at the
completion of all three actions cycles helped to inform my findings. While in the field, I used
descriptive or critical reflections mentioned above after each planning session to reflect on my
actions and how I should proceed in supporting Omar’s learning. I did this be pre-coding data
from my reflections using terms from my conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015)
such as making the tacit explicit, using questioning, noting Omar’s ZPD, use of inquiry-based or
culturally responsive practices, creating a disorienting experience etc. After each action cycle, I
then wrote an analytical memo. In general, I used analytical memos to generate summaries,
patterns, themes, and ideas from 3 weeks of data collection (Bogden & Biklen, 1997) to gain a
broader perspective in understanding my own role as a teacher educator in supporting Omar’s
learning. Specifically, I used Ravitch and Carl’s (2019) questions to analyze trends or patterns
emerging from the data to inform my next action cycle. I used the following questions for each
analytical question: What am I seeing across the data at this point? What stands out to me? Why?
59

Do I have the necessary questions on my instruments given what I seek to learn? Too many? Too
few? Following these memos, I attempted to write critical reflections related to how I was
understanding my role in the power dynamic between Omar and me at that time. They were
mostly descriptive with some critical aspects as described in the previous section. I discussed
these memos with my advisor while in the field, which helped me to more accurately identify
Omar’s ZPD and adjust the type of assistance I could use to support his learning
I started out of the field analysis after action Cycle 3. This is when I spent time coding
data from all three action cycles. I did this by creating a codebook to code the dialogue from
either the Zoom or audio transcript I had taken from each planning session, my descriptive field
notes and the descriptive and critical reflections I had written after each field note and analytical
memo. I started out of the field coding by using some of the same a priori codes I set up during
pre-coding that aligned with my conceptual framework (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). However, I
realized that these a priori codes were limited, and I needed to break them down further. For
example, I broke down questioning into different types of questions I asked such as factual,
guiding, probing, check for understanding, reflection, critical reflection etc. I also broke down
ZPD even further to when I recognized Omar’s ZPD and acted and when I missed Omar’s ZPD.
I also created emergent codes based on what I was noticing (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). One
emergent code was sensemaking, that I broke down even further to describe how Omar was
making sense of the content, process of lesson design, or trying to make sense of me, or showing
partial understanding in his sensemaking. Other emergent codes were when I held decision
making power for the process and then for the content, when Omar took ownership over the
content or process, when I recognized and responded to emotions, how I validated Omar’s
contributions, when Omar experienced a disorienting dilemma, etc. I also came up with emergent
60

codes that I noticed from my descriptive and critical reflections. These included recognizing and
reflecting on the power differential, teacher centered actions, and my choices as a researcher.
Coding allowed me to determine the typicality of both my actions and Omar’s responses as well
as themes in how we were interacting with each other and how these interactions changed over
time. I wrote three additional analytical memos out of the field based on what I was noticing
from coding and to help me come up with my findings.
Limitations and Delimitations
One limitation was the amount of time that Omar and I had for planning periods. We
were able to meet for approximately 2 hours only once per week. Prior to this role, I was a
STEM content specialist where I designed NGSS 5E lessons with teachers. From my experience,
planning a 5E inquiry-based lesson that is culturally responsive and aligns to NGSS standards
can take approximately 4–6 hours. Therefore, having approximately half the time each week was
a limitation to what we could achieve. I had to adjust my expectations based on the data from the
first two action cycles. Omar and I ended up co-planning throughout all three cycles where I had
hoped that he would plan independently, and we would spend most of the time critically
reflecting on his lessons together during action Cycle 3. Additionally, I did not account for how
Omar’s responsibilities out of the classroom cut into the time we had together. Some of our
planning time was taken up by discussing time management strategies or other difficulties he
was having with coursework and completing the edTPA outside of the scope of this research
study. Another limitation was that I was a novice researcher that bounded my actions and what I
could do in the amount of time given.
One delimitation was how I bound this study. Since there were only 3 months of action
cycles, I chose to focus on one aspect of teacher education by supporting Omar in designing
61

science lessons. I did not collect data on how we implemented the lessons, feedback given to
Omar during and after implementation, or student data and responses to the lessons. Another
delimitation was the quality of the data that I collected and analyzed as a novice researcher. For
example, I was still learning how to move from descriptive field notes and reflections to writing
critical reflections related to how my own actions could help to explain what I was seeing or not
seeing from Omar’s responses. I also did not understand how to code or determine which types
of codes might be useful to note during my in the field analysis. As a result, my in the field
coding did not help me to uncover as many adjustments that I needed to make in how I was
interacting with Omar. Some critical reflections occurred during conversations with my advisor
in the field and I was able to make changes based on these. However, most occurred during out
of the field data analysis after my data collection ended. This limited the quality of data I
collected and what I was able to do to achieve my intended goals through this action research
project. Instead, I learned more about what I would hope to do in the future working with a
resident teacher again.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
In action research, I acted as the main research instrument, and I was mindful of my dual
role as researcher and participant studying myself and my own actions as they related to
supporting Omar. I ensured credibility in the data by using multiple forms of data and conducting
member checks. Member checks are when you ask participants to verify that the data you
recorded is accurate (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). I asked Omar sometimes during planning
sessions if what I was hearing was accurate and I also asked him after I came up with patterns or
themes after each action cycle if my noticing matched his experience. Data triangulation is when
you cross-check multiple forms of data against each other to increase the credibility (Merriam &
62

Tisdell, 2015). I triangulated the data by referring to audio recordings, transcripts, scripted
responses to questions, and lessons we co-designed together to cross-check my descriptive field
notes and to come up with accurate codes for my codebook. (Herr & Anderson, 2015).
Omar was a co-teacher and resident in my classroom. I have my own biases related to
how I think certain concepts should be taught and the responsibility I feel towards ensuring that
students are engaging in meaningful learning. My own desire for what I think or want a lesson to
look like impeded my ability to authentically engage Omar in the planning process. Therefore, I
was conscious about stepping outside of my role as teacher responsible to my students in my
classroom and mentor responsible for Omar’s learning to a researcher’s role. I made sure to
accurately record the data from our conversations including the times that I was not present to
Omar as a learner or the purposes I hoped to achieve from this study. I also used transcripts to
ensure that I was coding actual exchanges and not only parts of exchanges that I captured during
meetings due to my unconscious bias or lack of awareness of what should be recorded as a
novice researcher. I also wrote descriptive reflections and attempted to write critical reflections
related to my own biases to help address validity threats to the data I collected. During these
reflections, I attempted to take on the eyes of Omar as my participant to recognize my bias in
how I interpreted our interactions. I was able to step into a researcher role versus mentor teacher
role to increase the credibility of data that I collected and analyzed by being mindful of what I
was collecting for data and reflecting on my actions and biases, (Maxwell, 2013).
Trustworthiness in qualitative research accounts for how consistent the reported results
match with the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). As the main instrument of this action
research study, I needed to move outside of myself to better see biases I brought into the process.
Therefore, I met with my advisor biweekly at first, and then weekly during data collection and
63

data analysis to help address validity threats and to ensure that my findings accurately matched
the data. This allowed me to discuss what I noticed as well as uncover my own blind spots,
assumptions, and biases when looking at the data with a critical partner who can ask questions,
express concerns, and provide feedback (Milner, 2007). My advisor helped to minimize the
impact of my own subjective viewpoints from the data and have a more objective understanding
of what I was noticing and what it meant.
Ethics
It is important for research participants to have the freedom to choose to participate in a
research study and not feel coerced in any way. Glesne (2011) states that there are several ethical
considerations throughout the research process. Primarily the research must consider if and how
participants can be harmed, exposed, or mistreated at any point during the process. Since Omar
was a resident teacher in my classroom, I needed to ensure that he did have the freedom to
choose to be a part of this study and not think or believe in any way that he had to do this.
Another issue of potential harm or concern was my role in both his mid-year and final evaluation
conversation along with Omar’s direct supervisor and our principal. Although, I was not a
primary decision maker for this, I did give input. Therefore, I was intentional about separating all
data from this action research project from any evaluative conversations or documents about
Omar’s performance. I made this clear to Omar at the start of the study when I asked for his
consent. Additionally, I asked for Omar’s consent to record our interactions during data
collection and explained the purpose behind using these audio recordings as a crosscheck on the
accuracy of my data collection. I also asked consent at both the onset and end of the study if I
could use his name or if he preferred an alias. He consented both to recordings and to use his
name. By doing this, I reinforced to both Omar and me that the space we were entering was
64

based on my research question where I acted in the role of researcher and he as participant rather
than our traditional mentor and resident roles.
Findings
I had two findings that I will address in detail that answered my research question: How
do I support a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and designing inquiry-based
culturally responsive science lessons that provide opportunities for students to engage in
meaningful learning? The first finding was how I assisted Omar’s growth by using questioning
and modeling scaffolds during planning sessions. The second finding was how I grew in my
understanding of how to be a teacher educator to support Omar’s learning.
Finding 1: Assisting Omar’s Thinking and Reasoning During Lesson Design
I assisted Omar by providing him with cognitive tools such as the types of thinking,
reasoning, and questioning that he would need to enact when designing inquiry-based and
culturally responsive lessons. This provided Omar with a cognitive structure of thinking (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1989) to move from an episteme, or theoretical knowledge, to develop a phronesis,
or practical understanding, of the thoughts and actions (Loughran & Berry, 2005) that underpin
the process of lesson design. The two main forms of assistance I used were questioning and
modeling. Both types of assistance allowed Omar to explore his thinking and understanding so
that he could internalize the process of lesson design to develop inquiry-based and culturally
responsive science lessons.
When I started data collection, Omar had a basic understanding of the three dimensions
of NGSS standards, which are science and engineering practices (SEP), disciplinary core ideas
(DCI), and crosscutting concepts (CCC). He understood the purpose of each dimension, how to
identify them and practiced looking at how standards were written and used in practice. He had
65

less of an understanding of how to integrate the three dimensions of the standards into an
inquiry-based 5E lesson sequence and needed the most support from me to help him do this over
the three cycles. He had also learned culturally responsive pedagogy from his coursework,
separate from his science methods class. I assisted him in learning how to bridge both inquiry-
based learning and culturally responsive teaching when designing an inquiry based and culturally
responsive science lesson. During our planning conversations, I recognized what Omar did and
did not understand about the NGSS standards, the inquiry-based 5E lessons sequence, or
culturally responsive teaching practices and then appropriately chose the type of assistance that
would create a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2019). This disorientation provided an
opportunity for Omar to grow in his ability to translate his epistemic knowledge into phronesis
(Loughran & Berry, 2005) when designing lesson plans. Wergin (2019) describes a constructive
disorientation as a person experiencing a sense of efficacy in moving from their current state to a
more desired state. In other words, Omar demonstrated growth with my support by
constructively working through disorienting dilemmas that enabled him to move from a basic
understanding of theory to a more systematic and intentional process to use during lesson design.
I used questioning as the main form of assistance to help Omar understand that choices he made
as a teacher during lesson design either facilitated or hindered opportunities for students to
engage in meaningful learning. Loughran and Berry (2005) suggest that transferring epistemic
knowledge only to the student teacher “does not carry sufficient understanding to the receiver of
information to be personally meaningful. The student teacher may know ‘what’ to do, but not
‘how to do it’” (p. 199). Therefore, I used questioning as an opportunity for reflection and self-
direction so that it was more likely for Omar as a student teacher to know “how” not just “what”
to do in similar situations (Loughran & Berry, 2005). Simply telling Omar what to do by using
66

the inquiry-based 5E lesson sequence or incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices
would not necessarily translate into Omar understanding the types of thinking, reasoning, and
questioning he should engage in, or the how of lesson design. There were instances where I
noticed that Omar was stuck either from a lack of epistemic knowledge such as understanding
what the standards meant or a lack of phronesis, in how to appropriately apply his knowledge in
a particular planning situation. During these moments, I switched to more explicit modeling in
the form of think alouds as a means of assistance to support Omar’s growth and understanding of
the lesson design process (Loughran & Berry, 2005). This allowed Omar access to my process of
thinking and reasoning around the lesson design choices more explicit for him to then mimic
similar types of thinking and reasoning when designing inquiry-based and culturally responsive
lessons.
Questioning
Questioning was a technique I used to assist Omar in uncovering his own thinking and
gaps in understanding about lesson design. One of the main ways that I assisted Omar as a
learner in exploring, explaining, and elaborating his thinking process when designing inquiry-
based and culturally responsive lessons was by asking questions during and after the lesson
design process. Drawing on Tharp and Gallimore (1989), the questions I asked assisted Omar’s
thinking by inviting him to engage in a mental operation to respond in ways that he could not
have produced alone. The thinking he did to respond to me enabled him to deepen his
understanding and bridge theory into practice. I asked various types of questions, each serving
different purposes in activating Omar’s thinking so that he could internalize how to make
connections and apply his theoretical understanding of inquiry-based and culturally responsive
science teaching when designing lessons. During data analysis, I used Sahin and Kulm’s (2008)
67

indicators to identify the types of questions I asked and analyzed the forms of assistance and
corresponding mental operations that Omar engaged in from my questions. Factual questions
allowed me to check for Omar’s understanding of key concepts and ideas necessary to apply
theory to the lesson design process. I used guiding questions to engage Omar in higher order
mental operations such as exploring, articulating, and processing his thinking. These questions
helped him to make connections between ideas and how his theoretical understanding of the
standards and 5E inquiry lesson sequence could be integrated to design a lesson that promoted
meaningful learning. I used probing questions that required Omar to explain and elaborate his
thinking related to choices that he made when designing a lesson. Probing questions also served
to help him recognize what questions or misunderstandings that he had and where he still needed
help and guidance from me.
I asked more factual and guiding questions during Cycle 1 and more guiding and probing
questions during Cycle 3 (Sahin & Kulm, 2008). The types of questions I asked increased in
sophistication as I transitioned from taking the lead in designing plans in Cycle 1 to Omar to
taking the lead on reviewing and revising plans that he designed in Cycle 3. In addition to these
three types of questions, I also asked reflection questions throughout all three cycles. The
reflection questions assisted Omar in engaging in Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle requiring him
to pause, reflect, and become mindful of the lesson design process. The reflection questions
specifically helped Omar to slow down and reflect on his thinking so that he could see and
describe the design choices made and analyze if and how these choices would or would not
provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning. Table 3 shows the types and
number of questions I asked in each action cycles.

68

Table 3
Types and Frequency of Questions Asked
Type of question Mental operation required Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3
Factual questions Recall: Check for
understanding of key
concepts and ideas.
9 0 0
Guiding questions

Explore, articulate and
process thinking.
Make connections between
theory and practice.
11 7 3
Probing questions Explain and elaborate
thinking and reasoning
for design choices.
Recognize own
misunderstanding and
what questions to ask.
0 3 7
Reflection questions Pause, reflect and
become mindful of
planning decisions and
reasoning for them.

8 9 14

I used factual questions during Cycle 1 to assess Omar’s understanding of relevant NGSS
standards and the components of the 5E inquiry-based lesson sequence that he learned during his
coursework. I asked five factual questions during the second planning session and four factual
questions during the third session out of a total of five planning sessions during Cycle 1. One
aspect of inquiry-based science teaching is having students explore scientific phenomena as they
learn scientific concepts (German, 2019). Omar and I had discussed the two different types of
phenomena previously and he had learned this during his coursework, so I knew he had a basic
understanding of the difference between using an anchor versus investigative phenomena during
lesson planning. An anchor phenomenon is introduced at the beginning of the unit and students
69

learn different science concepts throughout the unit that they then put together to explain the
anchor phenomenon by the end of the unit. Investigative phenomena are smaller aspects of the
anchor or sometimes separate phenomena entirely that are used to engage students in one or two
lessons to understand a specific scientific idea or concept. Both anchor and investigative
phenomena are important aspects to include in the Engage and Explore components of the
inquiry-based 5E lesson sequence (German, 2019). Therefore, I used factual questions to assess
his understanding of what he believed would qualify as an engaging and relevant phenomenon as
well as identifying and appropriately using the two different types of phenomena when planning.
Omar and I also had previously discussed the purpose of each dimension of NGSS standards and
how they could be integrated into the 5E lesson sequence. He also learned this during his
coursework. Therefore, I wanted to assess his understanding of one dimension, known as the
science and engineering practices (SEPs), particularly asking questions, and designing solutions
labeled as SEP 1. I used factual questions to see if he recognized opportunities for students to
engage in this SEP.
The exchange below took place during the third out of five total planning sessions during
Cycle 1. Omar and I were evaluating a unit plan used during distance learning the previous year
to edit and revise the plan. The factual questions I asked Omar required him to demonstrate his
level of understanding of phenomena present in the unit plan along with where he believed he
saw opportunities for students to use SEP 1. These served as an important questioning technique
because they were a precondition to lesson planning together. Omar needed to demonstrate a
basic understanding of concepts such as phenomena, a key component of the 5E inquiry-based
lesson sequence (German, 2019), and the NGSS standards before we could evaluate and revise
70

specific lessons within the unit plan. I will use J to signal when I am speaking and O to signal
when Omar is speaking in dialogue.
Where in this unit plan do you see opportunities for students to engage in phenomenon?
O: Students have to explore phenomena with the steel wool as the anchor
phenomenon. Also, the HF case study is another one with seeing the skin burns
and what it can do.
J: Ok, but is the steel wool the anchor phenomenon? That’s just how we’re starting
the unit with an investigative phenomenon. What’s the anchor phenomenon that
we’re using throughout the unit?
O: Oh yeah, that’s right, I messed that up. I was thinking the steel wool because
that’s what we were talking about for the beginning, but that’s an investigative
phenomenon. We’ll introduce the HF later, it’s the HF case study then right.
J: Yeah.
J: Ok, what about opportunities for students to ask questions or design solutions?
O: Oh, like the labs is an opportunity to design their or labs, come up with a
question, collect data. It also can give opportunities to ask more questions or
explore more questions—maybe use case studies to ask themselves other areas
where they see something happening like why use salicylic acid to help with
acne? Why does it burn skin?
J: Yeah, I agree and, also, we can even use some of those questions as an
investigative phenomenon if students don’t come up with them.
O: Yeah.
71

When I asked, “Where in this unit plan do you see opportunities for students to engage in
phenomenon?” I was asking a factual question that allowed Omar to demonstrate his
understanding and recognition (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) of appropriate examples of NGSS
scientific phenomena. When he said, “Students have to explore phenomena with the steel wool
as the anchor phenomenon. Also, the HF case study is another with seeing the skin burns and
what it can do,” he demonstrated an understanding of what an appropriate phenomenon could be
for an Engage or Explore. While he correctly identified two different phenomena in the unit,
“steel wool” and “HF case study,” he showed a misunderstanding when he said, “the steel wool
as the anchor phenomenon.” The steel wool in the unit plan was considered an investigative
phenomenon because it was only being used to help students understand evidence of chemical
versus physical changes in chemical reactions for one or two lessons. It was not large enough to
act as the anchor phenomenon that students would explore throughout the unit (German, 2019). I
assisted his performance by asking another factual question when I asked, “Is the steel wool the
anchor phenomenon” and “What is the phenomenon we’re using throughout the unit?” I asked
these questions to provide assistance to Omar because I was partially defining what an anchor
phenomenon was in the phrasing of the question, thus providing enough information to activate
his thinking so that he could accurately apply his knowledge in context (Loughran & Berry,
2005). He showed that he used this assistance when he accurately identified the steel wool as an
investigative phenomenon by stating “that’s what we were talking about for the beginning”
referring to us using this as a phenomenon for only the first lesson. He then further showed his
understanding of an anchor phenomenon when he correctly identified the “HF case study” as the
phenomenon used throughout the unit. My assistance allowed him to correctly identify the
investigative versus anchor phenomenon in the unit. I then used factual questions to assist Omar
72

in demonstrating his understanding of SEP 1, asking questions, and designing solutions, so he
could then later apply using this SEP to help facilitate inquiry when designing lessons. When I
asked, “Ok, what about opportunities for students to ask questions or design solutions?” this
required Omar to use his knowledge and understanding of SEP 1, asking questions and designing
solutions, to identify where he saw this in the current unit plan. Omar demonstrated
understanding when he identified specific examples of when students could engage in SEP 1. He
did this when he said, “Oh like the labs is an opportunity to design their or labs, come up with a
question, collect data. It also can give opportunities to ask more questions or explore more
questions, maybe use case studies.” He then demonstrated a higher level of understanding when
he gave sample questions that students might ask based on the labs or case studies we planned to
do when he said, “to ask themselves other areas where they see something happening like why
use salicylic acid to help with acne? Why does it burn skin?” This showed that Omar was using
my assistance through asking factual questions (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) to make meaning of
concepts he previously learned to how they apply in practice, thus starting to move from
epistemic knowledge to phronesis (Loughran & Berry, 2005).
As mentioned previously, I switched to using more guiding questions in Cycle 2 versus
mostly factual questions during Cycle 1. I used guiding questions as a form of assistance to
support Omar in exploring his knowledge and understanding of theory and connect it to practice
(Loughran & Berry, 2005) as we designed lesson plans. I asked 11 guiding questions total in
three out of the five planning sessions during Cycle 1, seven guiding questions total in all three
planning sessions in Cycle 2 and only three guiding questions in the first of three planning
sessions during Cycle 3. Guiding questions required Omar to explore and articulate his thinking
to identify new understanding or gaps in understanding (Sahin & Kum, 2008). I used guiding
73

questions during Cycle 2 to specifically support Omar with exploring and further articulating his
understanding of how to appropriately use investigative phenomena when designing the Engage
portion of an inquiry-based 5 E lesson sequence.
The exchange below occurred during our third planning meeting during Cycle 2. Omar
had an outline of a lesson design that he had revised from materials I had given him to introduce
students to the concept of covalent bonding and intermolecular attractions. He began by
describing his ideas in the lesson outline. I then used a series of guiding questions to help Omar
explore his thinking process and articulate what the investigative phenomenon for the lesson was
and how to effectively use the investigative phenomenon when introducing this to students in a
lesson. The guiding questions assisted Omar in his thinking process so that he was able to
demonstrate the “just right” amount of information to provide to students (Tharp & Gallimore,
1989) when introducing an investigative phenomenon during the Engage without taking away
from authentic exploration and inquiry that students would have to do during the lesson.
O: Okay. Okay. And because then we’re for this one, it would be like [pause] Now
I’m using for their engage, is I was gonna use actually a video of tie dye. Then
we’re gonna be like how they’re gonna be, and how they show like reacting. So,
they show like the tie dye shirt is like a white t-shirt plus a tie dye. The fiber plus
water are equal. All right, we got this tie dye. Then now you wash it over and
over and it doesn’t remove. But then in the second lesson, they’re gonna start to
look at also water and what’s happening there. So then, and it’s like, okay, well
now let’s, let’s now explain, what‘s like the properties of water. Why does, why
do we observe the things with water the way we do? Why is it now that we use
74

water with tie dye and it allows this reaction to occur, this bond? Now there’s
investigating also. So, it sort of connects in that sense too.
J: Okay. So, what’s your investigative phenomenon based on what you’ve said?
O: So, the investigative, so is just sort what’s happening with [pause], why does, why
this in the dye leave the water after every wash? I was gonna just show pictures of
denim jeans and also showcase something with denim jeans. So then I would just
ask them, why the wash doesn’t leave the shirt once it‘s made, or why does that
retain its color? Even after each wash? What chemical properties might explain
what‘s going on?
J: Nice. Okay. So, um, so the phenomenon would be, how would you say that in a
sentence?
O: The phenomenon would be, why does water stay? Or why, why does the [pause]
J: Notice, I said sentence. Say this as a statement, not a question.
O: Um, tie dye, Or the, yeah. The dye reacts strongly to form a bond within the fabric
to explain why, you know, the wash space.
J: And so, this is hard. So, what I’m doing to you right now is what the grant had us
do, cuz the way they define phenomenon is that it’s not a question. It has to be
something you can like see or an event and you can say it in a statement. So
instead of why it doesn’t wash out, it would be something about the tie dye and
washing out. Right? Is there a way to write or say that as a statement, like
something you would observe?
O: Oh yeah. Um, okay. The tie dye reacts strongly with the fabric.
75

J: Okay. So, tie dye reacts or wait, wait, it forms the tie dye right? So, what’s
reacting?
O: Yeah. So, so the fiber, so the fiber reactive dye forms strong covalent bonds with
the fiber with like, um, the material. I guess in this case to cotton to allow for the
wash to stay on.
J: The strong covalent bonds are an attraction not a reaction then.
O: Yes, attracts, tie dye attracts strongly with the shirt by forming strong covalent
bonds.
When Omar went over his overview for the lesson, I noticed that he did not explicitly state the
investigative phenomenon for the Engage portion of the lesson. When I said, “Okay. So, what’s
your investigative phenomenon based on what you’ve said?” Omar needed to connect the ideas
he previously stated to clearly articulate (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) what the phenomenon would be
in the lesson. Omar connected some ideas together related to dyes on jeans, bonding and whether
the dye forms strong enough bonds to stay on the fabric when he stated a series of questions for
the investigative phenomenon “Why the wash doesn‘t leave the shirt once it’s made, why does
that retain its color? Even after each wash? What chemical properties might explain what’s going
on?” I affirmed his thinking when I said “Nice, okay.” I then asked, “So the phenomenon would
be, how would you say that in a sentence?” This question assisted Omar in exploring his thinking
because he had to connect the questions he came up with together into a cohesive statement
(Sahin & Kum, 2008) to clearly articulate what the phenomenon was. He showed that he had
processed his ideas through the form of a question when he said “Why does water stay? Or why,
why does the [pause]” I noticed that Omar was showing partial understanding in his questions, so
I created a disorienting experience (Wergin, 2019) by pressing him to articulate the observable
76

phenomenon in a sentence when I said, “Notice, I said sentence. Say this as a statement, not a
question.” I had learned from the NGSS Ca Early Implementor’s grant to always change partial
statements into full sentences and questions into statements to activate conceptual thinking. I
wanted to activate his conceptual thinking by requiring Omar to clearly articulate in a statement
what he meant by his questions (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). When Omar struggled with turning
his questions into a cohesive statement, I acknowledged the difficulty in the task when I said,
“And so this is hard,” and then provided additional assistance by asking a series of guiding
questions to help him move through the disorienting dilemma to experience what Wergin (2019)
describes as a constructive disorientation. This happens when a person learns something new
from working through the disorientation (Wergin, 2019). The guided questions facilitated
Omar’s thinking so that he could effectively connect his ideas into one cohesive statement (Sahin
& Kulm, 2008) when I said, “Is there a way to write or say that as a statement, like something
you would observe?” Omar showed he made the connections he needed to from my assistance
through guided questions when he said, “Oh yeah. Um, okay. The tie dye reacts strongly with the
fabric.” He was able to turn the questions he was saying into a cohesive statement indicating that
the dye strongly reacts with the fiber. I then assisted Omar by asking him to further clarify what
was the main science concept, the dye attracted to the fabric, when I asked, “So what’s
reacting?” This question also served to assist Omar in uncovering his own misunderstanding that
attracting and reacting are not the same thing. He showed a partial recognition of his
misunderstanding when he changed his language by stating “strong covalent bonds with the
fiber” suggesting an attractive force is not the same as a chemical reaction. However, he still did
not demonstrate full understanding that covalent bonding is not a chemical reaction. I assisted
again by stating that what he said was an attraction and not a reaction when he referred to “strong
77

covalent bonds.” He demonstrated understanding when he re-stated the phenomenon in a
statement again using the word attract instead of reacts when he said, “Yes, attracts, the tie dye
attracts strongly with the shirt by forming strong covalent bonds.” Later in the planning session I
then said,
J: Yeah. So, what do you think is this? Are the statements [referring to the
phenomenon statement: tie dye attracts strongly with the shirt by forming strong
covalent bonds] something that you would use this language with the students?
Would you not use this language with the students? What do you think about that?
O: Um, probably not in this case a little because it’s [pause] I’m already saying too
much about covalent bonds and I want them to, in a way, not like see that or
maybe, maybe I want [the students] to see. Maybe they’ve heard it before, so
maybe I can probe. Maybe I say, what kind of bonds allow for these, for the
reactive die to form? You know? So, then I could just say a fiber reactive dye
reacts strongly with clothing to prevent it from being stripped away.
J: Okay, do you think in this particular instance you should even give that much?
O: Maybe I could even say like, I guess now, cause I’m talking now I’m saying in
this case, I’m saying that there’s a strong bond. So, so now we’re saying now it’s
like bonds. Maybe I wanna just probe them a little more prior to that without
telling them that. So, then I could just say something about like fiber reactive dye
reacts with clothing to prevent it from being stripped away.
J: You’re still saying that it reacts and prevents it from being stripped away though.
Is there a way to even give less to the students? Like you said before, let them
78

know what the phenomenon is without the explanation yet, because they’ll get
there.
O: Yeah. So maybe even just like fiber dye. Cause I don’t wanna say reactive that
either. So just fiber dye. So, fiber dye fades slowly over time, even after multiple
washes.
J: So, what do you think about this? You wanna think about clarity of the
phenomenon, right? So that they can envision it and you wanna make sure you’re
not giving them anything that you want them to do. So, you said fiber dye fades
slowly over time, even after several washes. So, does that fit those categories that
we want?
O: I think in a way it does, but I still, I think I can still clarify a little bit more.
J: In what way? Like what part do you think is not clear?
O: In the last part? Multiple washes.
J: Okay, you can change a little bit if you want, but it seems pretty darn clear to me
without telling them its attracting. Again, we want to be careful to use the term
attracting and not reacting. I noticed that we slipped and both said that a couple of
times. I don’t think multiple washes is a problem and the statement [fiber dye
fades slowly over time, even after several washes] seems clear to give to students.
Notice that there is the teacher version of the phenomenon that we use to guide
our planning of the lesson. This includes the science concept that strong covalent
bonds to the fabric cause the dye to attract to the fiber and not wash out, but to the
students we don’t give this information. The student version is one that they
explore on their own to come to this understanding in the Engage or Explore.
79

O: Ok, yeah I was getting stuck on multiple washes, but that wasn’t the point. I see it
now, take out that one word for covalent bonding and then students have to figure
out how it attracts. So maybe in Engage I can probe them with a question of this
instead.
J: Yes, that’s where turning the phenomenon statement back into your original
questions that you were saying comes into play.
After Omar demonstrated understanding of what the investigative phenomenon was, I then asked
another series of guiding questions to explore Omar’s thinking around how to present the
investigative phenomenon to students. I wanted to ask questions that would help Omar facilitate
his understanding of how to design a lesson in a way that would allow students to grapple with
exploring the phenomenon on their own without giving too much information that would stifle
the inquiry process. When I asked, “Would you use this language with the students? Would you
not use this language with the students? What do you think about that?” it required Omar to
demonstrate his understanding of how to effectively integrate an investigative phenomenon into
an Engage or Explore of the inquiry-based 5E lesson sequence, thus showing an understanding
of how to apply his knowledge in practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005). Omar’s response showed
partial understanding when he said “Um, probably not in this case a little because it’s [pause]
I’m already saying too much about covalent bonds.” He realized that by giving the statement as
is would be providing too much information to the students. However, as he continued to process
his thinking, he was uncertain about how to change it or what to give to the students when he
said, “I could just say a fiber reactive dye reacts strongly with clothing to prevent it from being
stripped away.” Providing students with this statement would reduce cognitive lift and inquiry
for students. I noticed that Omar needed further assistance to support him in applying his
80

knowledge in practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005) to allow students to explore the investigative
phenomena and engage in the inquiry process. Therefore, I asked another guiding question to see
if Omar could continue processing his thinking and uncover this understanding on his own
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). When I asked, “Do you think in this particular instance you should
even give that much?” Omar continued processing his thinking; however, my question did
challenge his thinking again to experience another disorienting dilemma (Wergin, 2019). He
showed confusion or a lack of understanding as he repeated the same answer he said above when
he stated, “So then I could just say something about like fiber reactive dye reacts with clothing to
prevent it from being stripped away.” I followed up by making the tacit explicit (Loughran,
2013) when I said, “still saying that it reacts and prevents it from being stripped away though. Is
there a way to even give less to the students?” Omar demonstrated his understanding of how to
give less information to the students when he said, “So fiber dye fades slowly over time, even
after multiple washes.” He omitted that it was because of strong attractions due to covalent
bonding, implying that students would have to uncover and figure that out on their own. I still
was unsure that he fully understood how that change would allow for more student inquiry so I
asked another series of guiding questions to see if Omar could clearly demonstrate understanding
of why the change was needed. I was explicit about what to think about when I said,
So, what do you think about this? You wanna think about clarity of the phenomenon,
right? So that they can envision it and you wanna make sure you’re not giving them
anything that you want them to do. So, you said fiber dye fades slowly over time, even
after several washes. So, does that fit those categories that we want?
I was explicitly directing him to what to think about when I said, “think about clarity of the
phenomenon,” and then stated what to consider when I said, “make sure you’re not giving them
81

anything that you want them to do.” I saw that he got stuck on an unimportant detail in
considering if his statement about the investigative phenomenon was enough to allow for student
inquiry when he said, “like the part about multiple washes,” so I assisted by making the tacit
explicit again when I said, “It seems pretty darn clear to me without telling them its attracting.”
He demonstrated that he processed and understood the difference in language between the
teacher version of the investigative phenomenon to help guide how to design the lesson and then
the student version to allow for inquiry when he connected these two theoretical concepts into
practice when he said, “I see it now, take out that one word for covalent bonding and then
students have to figure out how it attracts. So maybe in Engage I can probe them with a question
of this instead.” I affirmed Omar’s connection along with making the tacit explicit again when I
said, “Yes, that’s where turning the phenomenon statement back into your original questions that
you were saying comes into play.” This was a direct statement about how to use both the teacher
and student versions of the investigative phenomenon to guide designing the rest of the inquiry-
based lesson. My guiding questions along with making the tacit explicit engaged Omar in several
mental operations that required him to explore his thinking so that he was able to make
connections between theory and practice (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). With this new and
solidified understanding, Omar and I were ready to evaluate and revise the draft lesson he
created using the new guiding question and idea he was able to come up with for the Engage
portion of the lesson.
I used probing questions in Cycles 2 and 3 to support Omar in explaining and elaborating
his thinking (Sahin & Kum, 2008) for lessons that he took the lead in designing and we reviewed
and revised together. I asked a total of three probing questions, one in each planning session
during Cycle 2 and seven probing questions in two out of the three planning sessions during
82

Cycle 3. I noticed that probing questions allowed him to explain and elaborate on his lesson
design choices so that he could recognize his own misunderstanding and ask clarifying questions
(Sahin & Kum, 2008). The exchange below is from the first planning session in Cycle 3 where
Omar had designed the first of two lesson plans in this cycle. Omar had designed a 5E lesson
where students were part of the fashion team of a cotton company and had to decide which dye
would be best to use for their summer collection. I noticed that he had multiple science concepts
in one 5E lesson and that he would need to separate these out into smaller 5E lessons so that
students could focus on learning one science concept at a time. Below is a portion of this
conversation where I used probing questions to get Omar to explain and elaborate his reasoning
for specific activities. The probing question allowed him to narrow down the 5E lesson into 1
science concept and appropriately sequence learning experiences in a way that would scaffold
students’ understanding that different dyes have different molecular structures, and therefore
attract differently to the cotton fabric.
O: Ok, so the simulation is moved to the Explore then.
J: Yeah I think so, so that all goes in the Explore.
J: Is there anything that they [students] can do after the simulation relating back to
their CER [claim-evidence-reasoning to explain which dye would be best to use
for the t-shirt]? Or not really? That’s your million-dollar question.
O: Say it again.
J: Is there something that they are learning from that simulation that is directly
getting them thinking about what happened during the lab [students observed how
different colored dyes moved up a strip of paper, which faded and which did not
based on attractions to the water and paper] and go back to the CER or do they
83

need more [information/science concepts to work with]?
O: They need more.
J: So, what is missing? We want them to look at structures and then bonding and
already they did interactions in the lab, so what does this simulation get them to
think about specifically?
[Long pause]
O: Maybe they now know will, like do we think a covalent bond occurs like with
dyes. I wanted them to basically know what interactions allow for these dyes to
hold their shape or color and to say “Oh there’s covalent bonding, I notice that the
yellow has single bonds, blue has double bonds.” So, I want them to look at it by
how do the interactions of the atoms allow for the shape of the dye and relate to
bonding.
J: Or even just what they saw in the lab. It sounds like you’re getting into science
talk zone.
O: Yeah.
J: They aren’t going to get further than Engage and simulation on Monday. They
might be able to think about their science talk, but they shouldn’t do this on
Monday. That can be on Tuesday.
O: For science talk, I wanted them to talk to have the sense of what’s happening with
the bonds and that wouldn’t be until the third day though.
J: Why?
O: After they do the molecule kit.
J: What does it [molecule kit] give them though?
84

O: It gives them more like so they can see what is happening with the bonds, so it’s
like [long pause]
J: See I’m seeing that as a separate idea and it could be and help them there. But
what will help them the most is looking at structures and know the basis of what
to look at, which the simulation does do, and I like how you mentioned bond
strength in Lesson 1 too. So, they can add that in the science talk to see what
they’re thinking is related to bond strength. So, if you wanted to add that in, but
I’m not seeing how them practicing specifically with the model kit helps them
with their CER. I see that better with another topic of how to bond these on their
own.
O: Ok, I see, I’m trying to do that, too much [for students] again.
J: Separate out those two ideas.
I attempted to ask two probing questions to get Omar to explain and elaborate on what he hoped
for students to get from the simulation in the Explore to complete the CER in the Evaluate.
However, he seemed confused by my questions. Since my probing questions did not accomplish
the mental task I wanted him to do, I specifically asked “So what is missing? and “what does this
simulation get them to think about specifically?” that required him to elaborate by explaining the
concepts (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) students would gain from the simulation that they would need to
write about for their CER. He elaborated on what he expected students to say or do in the CER
from the simulation when he said, “I wanted them to basically know what interactions allow for
these dyes to hold their shape or color and to say “Oh there’s covalent bonding, I notice that the
yellow has single bonds, blue has double bonds.” Following this, I asked two more probing
questions. When I asked “Why?” and “What does it [molecule kit] give them though?” Omar had
85

to elaborate on his reasoning for the sequence of learning experiences by explaining why
students should wait to do the science talk at the end of the third lesson after the molecule kit
activity. Omar was able to explain his reasoning when he said, “It gives them more like so they
can see what is happening with the bonds,” suggesting that Omar made that specific choice so
that students could add what was happening with bonds in the dye to their CER. However, he
had a long pause and did not elaborate further why that mattered for the CER.
Later in the planning session Omar then said…
O: I’m feeling overwhelmed now, like I like your questions because I’m thinking
which direction to go and what I need and don’t need. It’s just a lot to think about
and piece together to not do too much. So, I don’t have to do an entire lab for that
[model kit activity]. I can just do something small for model kit for lesson 3.
J: So, what is the guided instruction [guided instruction is the term our school uses
for Explain in 5E sequence] for this [Lesson 2] then? That’s where were stuck.
So, if they do the simulation and science talk here, then where should the guided
instruction be then? So, science talk is practice [practice is the term our school
uses for Elaborate in 5E sequence] so it could just be the prep for the science talk
right?
O: Yeah.
J: So, the revised CER they add in what they know about the structure and bonding
so they’d be adding to reasoning now.
O: So how would that look like for me then if I’m doing guided instruction then? So
now that we learned about the simulation, now let’s look at what’s happening
with these two molecules for the structure.
86

J: Yeah exactly, and you can add in the slide with the structures and have them think
about the structures and use their notes and the structures to add to your reasoning
and a focus question. What could a focus question be for them to add to their
reasoning then?
O: Like for focus question, does that mean what they will add to the reasoning?
J: Yeah we do want them to add something very specifically to the reasoning, so
what could we ask them then? So, they look at their notes and structures and add
to their reasoning?
O: Maybe like, how can the types of bonds explain the interaction of the dyes with
the materials?
J: Yeah sure, that works. I like how you related back to the phenomenon explicitly
in your question, so then they are taking time to add to CER and that’s science
talk prep right.
O: Yeah, I see that now.
J: So now they know next class is a science talk. Yeah that’s great, try to get to
revised CER on Monday and T/W is practice with two science talks and then they
do their final CER revisions to turn in. So technically the closure is the revised
CER from the science talk then.
O: Yes, I see how that works now, with 1 concept in this one full 5E, they don’t need
to do the specific types of bonding yet.
I wanted to see if Omar understood that there were multiple concepts in the plan and that he
would have to choose one to focus on and match with the CER for this lesson so I then asked a
probing question that set up a disorienting dilemma for him to try to problem solve (Wergin,
87

2019) when I said, “So, what is the guided instruction [guided instruction is the term our school
uses for Explain in 5E sequence] for this [Lesson 2] then.” This was a disorienting dilemma that
I wanted him to grapple with (Wergin, 2019) and apply his knowledge in practice (Loughran &
Berry, 2005) because there was not an Explain in the lesson as defined by the 5Es the way he
wrote it, and he would need to figure that out and then think about what an Explain could be. My
probing question asking about the missing Explain allowed Omar to recognize what he did not
understand and needed clarified (Sahin & Kulm, 2008) when he asked, “So how would that look
like for me then if I’m doing guided instruction then? Could it be like, so now that we learned
about the simulation now let’s look at what’s happening with these two molecules for the
structure?” He was able to demonstrate his understanding of how to change the Explain by
answering his own question when he said, “So now that we learned about the simulation, now
let’s look at what’s happening with these two molecules for the structure,” which I affirmed by
saying “Yeah” and then added an idea for how to present the structures. Although he identified
what an Explain could be, I noticed that it could allow for more student sensemaking and inquiry
if they were doing the explaining rather than Omar simply telling them about the structures. I
assisted his thinking further when I asked, “What could a focus question be for them to add to
their reasoning then?,” which probed him to elaborate on what he had said previously further
(Sahin & Kulm, 2008) by now coming up with a question that could serve as a prompt to use for
the Explain. My question did help him apply his knowledge (Loughran & Berry, 2005) by
coming up with a question prompt for the Explain when he said, “Maybe like, how can the types
of bonds explain the interaction of the dyes with the materials?” The probing questions served as
a tool to both set up a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2019) by assisting Omar in explaining
and elaborating his initial thinking when designing the lesson, ask questions he was unsure about
88

(Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) and eventually co-revise a 5E lesson sequence that focused on only
one key concept that students could meaningfully apply and show their learning through a
science talk and revised CER.
Factual, Guiding and Probing questions all served as a tool to assist Omar in identifying
his understanding, exploring, and processing his thinking and explaining his thinking (Sahin &
Kulm, 2008) to gain a deeper understanding of parts of the inquiry-based 5E lesson sequence.
Each example given above demonstrated how questioning was used to assist Omar in clarifying
and coming to a new understanding of the lesson design process that he was not able to do on his
own (Tharpe & Gallimore, 1989). This allowed Omar to grow in his knowledge and
understanding of how to translate what he had learned about the NGSS standards and inquiry-
based 5E lesson planning from coursework or observed me doing in class into practice
(Loughran & Berry, 2005).
I used reflection questions across all three cycles to support Omar in moving from
understanding aspects of inquiry-based 5E lesson design into further internalizing these
processes so that he could eventually design future lessons on his own without my assistance. I
asked eight reflection questions during planning sessions 2 and 3 out of five total during Cycle 1.
I asked nine reflection questions total across all three planning sessions during Cycle 2, and 14
total across all three planning sessions during Cycle 3. Additionally, I used reflection questions
to help Omar evaluate if the lessons we planned incorporated culturally responsive practices and
if they did not, to think about what changes could be made to better integrate culturally
responsive teaching into inquiry-based 5E lessons. I asked Omar reflection questions both in the
moment when we were designing or revising a lesson plan together and out of the moment
(Rodgers, 2002) when we were evaluating a plan that we had already revised. According to
89

Rodgers (2002), teachers who reflect out of the moment in guidance with another can help them
to better internalize and use this practice during the moment. My use of reflection questions
helped to bridge Omar from reflecting with my assistance to being able to uptake this as a part of
his own thinking and practice.
Drawing on Rodgers’s (2002) reflective cycle, I engaged Omar in the practice of slowing
down, to become more present to his own thinking so that he could see how his design choices
could impact student learning. Reflective questions required Omar to see and describe (Rodgers,
2002) a process that he had just completed to help internalize the types of thinking and questions
he should ask himself when planning. They also served to help him see and describe what was
written on the page, think through his intentions for teaching and analyze whether what was
written would lead to the type of student inquiry-based or culturally responsive practices he
intended students to experience. When he noticed these gaps in his intentions and what students
might experience, he then took intelligent action (Rodgers, 2002) to determine what should
change in the plan and how it should change to become more inquiry-based and culturally
responsive when enacting the plan. Although the majority reflection questions that I asked and
Omar eventually started to take up on his own were not considered critical (Brookfield, 2002), I
did start to ask more questions that required Omar to take on student perspectives and think more
critically about his own identity and design choices as to how they impact students. The
exchange below was at the end of the third planning session during Cycle 2. The purpose of the
reflection questions I asked in this exchange were to help Omar pause to see and reflect on his
own thinking. I wanted him to see where, if at all, there were culturally responsive teaching
practices within in the lesson and then describe what makes those culturally responsive
90

J: Um, so let’s just end with where we are now in the lesson. Do you see some of the
stuff we’ve been talking about, like phenomenon, culturally responsive teaching?
Like, it’s just kind of your final summary of where you see those pieces. Cause as
you design that’s what you need to be thinking of.
O: Yeah. So, I mean, even like the investigative [phenomenon] on like again, like
I’m trying to help them like use like jeans, things that they already are familiar
with. Like common things like that for them to then, um, and then like, and
connecting them also even like, um, uh, like using like visuals using like extra
things for them to use with their hands. And it’s more hands on things they can to
talk about and they can build [molecule kits] because that’s what kids wanna do,
hands on learning. So, then that’s why I’m also then incorporating the models
because that’s hands on. They’re able to use like play around with it, fidget, ask
questions and that’s also UDL when they’re able to, do, or [create a]
representation with each other. And that’s also, then that’s another way of
allowing these students to show that they’re making sense of the information. So,
I’m glad incorporating those things in there. So, um, that’s just my little quick
little overview.
J: Yeah. No, I think definitely. And did any of your, as we went through this lesson
cycle, I know I was in some parts directive about the lesson cycle, other parts, not
as much. But was there anything like new that you learned about your
understanding of the 5E at all from us going through this?
O: Um, so what I learned from the, the 5E was also just that, um, just that the 5E
helps now sort of like separate when you have those multiple, um, like sort of like
91

pieces once you have different things going on. Now I can see how actually, like I
can sort of use to continue using that cycle to sort of then pull other things that I
want to go into too, and actually turn that into another lesson or guide it towards
that route because that’s obviously where I’m trying to go. It’s just, I have so
much. So, it’s like [pause]
J: So, I’m hearing reduce the [amount], what you’re putting into it [one 5E lesson
sequence]
O: These. Yeah. So, so then it’ll last for more. Then I can chunk it.
I wanted Omar to pause and reflect on specific parts of the plan. I did this when I asked
specifically, “Do you see some of the stuff we’ve been talking about, in particular phenomenon
and culturally responsive teaching practices?” My question prompted Omar to slow down, see
and describe his thinking process (Rodgers, 2002) around the design choices that could be
considered culturally responsive. Additionally, when I added, “Cause as you design, that’s what
you need to be thinking of,” I was suggesting to Omar that he become mindful of his thinking
process as part of internalizing how to do this type of thinking on his own. Omar was able to
become more present to his own thinking and design choices when he slowed down and
described which part of the phenomenon might be of interest to students, which was also one
aspect of culturally responsive science teaching (Brown, 2021) when he said, “So I mean, even
like the investigative [phenomenon] on like again, like I’m trying to help them like use like
jeans, things that they already are familiar with.” He continued to be present to his thinking by
elaborating why being familiar with the phenomenon might matter for students when he said,
Like common things like that for them to then, um, and then like, and connecting them
also even like, um, uh, like using like visuals using like extra things for them to use with
92

their hands. And it’s more hands on things they can to talk about and they can build
[molecule kits] because that’s what kids wanna do, hands on learning. So, then that’s why
I’m also then incorporating the models because that’s hands on.
He further described why this would be important for student learning, thus taking the time to
solidify in his mind how particular design choices make the content more accessible to students,
when he said, “They’re able to use like play around with it, fidget, ask questions and that’s also
UDL when they’re able to, do, or [create a] representation with each other.” After this, I wanted
to understand how Omar had made sense of his own learning to help with internalizing and
continuing to apply what he learned (Loughran & Berry, 2005) after having reviewed and co-
revised a 5E lesson together. I asked, “Was there anything like new that you learned about your
understanding of the 5E at all from us going through this?” allowing Omar space to pause and
think about what he had internalized (Rodgers, 2002). Omar showed that he had started to
internalize important aspects of inquiry-based 5E lesson planning. He was able to pause and
articulate that he had learned how to use the 5E sequence to help guide students through one
major concept and then create another 5E lesson for additional concept, thus chunking the
content through the use of each 5E lesson sequence. He did this when he said,
Now I can see how actually, like I can sort of use to continue using that cycle to sort of
then pull other things that I want to go into too, and actually turn that into another lesson
or guide it towards that route because that’s obviously where I’m trying to go. It’s just, I
have so much. So, it’s like [pause] Then I can chunk it.
Later in the planning session I then said…
J: Any thoughts about phenomenon or how they fit into [lesson] with ease?
O: Oh yeah. And that’s the thing also that I did realize that the phenomenon does
93

need to be, um, it needs to be like throughout the common theme. And I realized
that that’s what also what the CRP [culturally responsive pedagogy] is asking,
because it’s asking for like, what is a common theme for, um, like the central
focus for the learning segment. So then, which was like the us to get to a
phenomenon, and then I wasn’t connecting it. So, in a way now, by talking over
with you and just having more of like, okay, well, what are you trying? What
direction do you wanna go with this lesson? Then I realized that, yeah, we’re
missing that piece there. So then how can I do it now? Finally, with the second
lesson I will realized I can connect it back and still connected throughout the last,
the two lessons.
J: Yeah. So not exploring [having students explore] the phenomenon first was
actually one issue in the lesson of being less CRT for the kids. Or like less access.
And so now I’m wondering now that that is built in, um, how do you see the
students? Do you think they might experience the lesson the same or different,
like now that we made the changes?
O: Yeah. No. So the reason why is, because now we’re able to keep, I’m keeping the
focus of the investigative phenomenon, make keeping that like culturally
responsive and like just making, connecting [phenomenon] to the experiences
[students have in life or can relate to]. Whereas I was sort of just going straight to
the model sets and then it was just sort of like the models was sort of me going
straight to the content in a way. Yes, it is hands on. But at the same time it was
sort of content and I wasn’t relating it back to their own experiences. Now I am,
because now they’re able to now see like with the type of jeans they’ve, I’m sure
94

they’ve experienced that a few kids have I’m sure. I mean, they weren’t jeans, so
they know they’re that experience now they’re gonna be, I’m gonna be having
them do a little chromatography. Now they’re able to know and have that shared
experience as well now where they’re, um, now it’s now becomes a shared
experience between them. Um, so then now again, it’s sort of like the information
becomes more accessible. The content does because now they can relate to it.
I then asked him to reflect on what he learned specifically about how to integrate the
phenomenon into the 5E lesson sequence when I said, “Any thoughts about phenomenon or how
they fit into [lesson] with ease?” This question was intended to get Omar to see and describe his
understanding (Rodgers, 2002) of the phenomenon being something that students engage in
throughout each E and not simply a hook at the beginning of a lesson that students do not explore
and make sense of more deeply. This is an important component of having students engage in
authentic inquiry (Duran & Duran, 2004) and my question helped facilitate Omar in pausing,
focusing on this one aspect of lesson design, and then articulating it (Rodgers, 2002). Omar was
able to pause, focus on this one aspect lesson design and clearly articulate that the phenomenon
was a common theme tied throughout the lesson when he said, “the phenomenon does need to
be, um, it needs to be like throughout the common theme.” He then was able to see and describe
his thinking further about how connecting a phenomenon was also a culturally responsive
practice by being a shared experience that was accessible for all students to participate in the
learning when he added “And I realized that that’s what also what the CRP [culturally responsive
pedagogy]” and “Now they’re able to know have that shared experience as well now where
they’re, um, now it’s now becomes a shared experience between them. Um, so then now again,
it’s sort of like the information becomes more accessible.” Although he did not elaborate here
95

and I did not ask him to, he did demonstrate an understanding that a relevant phenomenon and
shared experience can make science content more accessible for students to learn and be
considered a form of culturally responsive science pedagogy (Brown, 2021). Since he had started
to make this connection on his own, but it was unclear if he had really internalized this and
understood that it was important component of lesson design, I helped clarify these connections
to further assist Omar when I said, “So not exploring [having students explore] the phenomenon
first was actually one issue in the lesson of being less CRT for the kids Or like less access.”
Exploring a common phenomenon allows for access to the content and then teaching can become
more culturally responsive by allowing students to use their everyday language to describe
science concepts rather than requiring students to use scientific vocabulary as they explore and
explain the phenomenon (Brown, 2021). By jumping right to the content in the Explore, a
teacher would negate the positive effects of teaching using a relevant and engaging phenomenon.
Therefore, I followed up with another reflection question to assist Omar in pausing again to see
and describe (Rodgers, 2002) the lesson from a students’ perspective. I did this when I asked,
“How do you see the students? Do you think they might experience the lesson the same or
different, like now that we made the changes?” Omar was able to see that the phenomenon
needed to be the driver of the lesson rather than the content as he originally had written the
lesson when he said “So the reason why is, because now we’re able to keep, I’m keeping the
focus of the investigative phenomenon.” Originally when he designed the lesson, he had students
start by looking at model kits rather than asking questions and trying to further understand the
investigative phenomenon he introduced. He now saw that he jumped right into the content,
model kits, for the Explore with no relation back to the jeans phenomenon in the Engage. He
further went on to describe his new understanding that content, the model kits, should come later
96

in the lesson after students had a chance to explore phenomenon when he said,
whereas I was sort of just going straight to the model sets and then it was just sort of like
the models was sort of me going straight to the content in a way. Yes, it is hands on. But
at the same time, it was sort of content and I wasn’t relating it back to their own
experiences.
Omar demonstrated that he now understood and was able to articulate for himself that the
purpose of inquiry was not to give students hands-on experiences, but rather to integrate hands-
on experiences purposefully as students explored and explained phenomena. He also was able to
describe that the changes he made in allowing students to engage and explore the phenomenon
more deeply before moving onto the model kit was a form of culturally responsive teaching
(Brown, 2021) when he specifically said, “relating it back to their own experiences.” My
questions supported him in thinking about his design choices by taking up a student’s perspective
(Brookfield, 2017) when planning and further solidifying how he should have students engage in
phenomenon throughout a lesson to explore one scientific concept.
The exchange below is another example of how I asked Omar reflective questions to
assist his process of internalizing how to use inquiry-based culturally responsive pedagogy when
designing lessons. This exchange is from the second out of three total planning sessions during
Cycle 3. I asked Omar questions to reflect on what aspects of 5E lesson planning he believed he
understood and internalized. I also asked him a reflection question about how his identity played
a part in lesson design. I wanted him to see and describe his thinking process (Rodgers, 2002)
related to how aspects of who he was as a person affected how he designed lesson experiences. I
also wanted him to analyze how these choices impacted student learning (Brookfield, 2017).
J: What obstacles came up for you, like when you were designing this lesson?
97

O: Well, I was sort of like wanted to have to I include [pause]. I chose penny one
because penny is more hands on than the phet. So, I think I realized when talking
to you that we can have two explore and explain cycles so that I opened up for me
to add the phet simulation there.
J: Ok, was there anything easier this time around? Or that you did or have that
before that you didn’t?
O: I worked with the practice/guided instruction—so what would students learn and
do [pause]. So, I was building on what is it that they’re going to know and do that
backwards design with the Explore and then the Engage. Instead of starting with
Engage, which is unclear and ambiguous, but because I started with guided
instruction first I knew my parameters…so that really helped me out.
J: Any missed opportunities for this lesson or to think about for next one?
O: If there is something I think that students might benefit from by incorporating it
into the lesson without making it too long. Like additional Explore and Explain
like phet simulation is short and simple but meaningful for them to see shapes add
bonds and take bonds away.
J: I agree with that.
J: Do you think your identity plays a role at all in planning?
O: I’m thinking about connections that are more home base, so if I haven’t seen it
myself then my students probably haven’t either. So, if there’s something I can
make a connection with then maybe they will, or how I incorporate those
household things and why I wanted to add pictures with little water bug and
washing hands. Where is the science in my life so I can make those connections
98

for the students as well.
J: My role? Did it change at all? Helpful not helpful?
O: You definitely took a step back while still putting little things to help me stay in
track [hands in steering motion]. This lesson I had more control and knew where
to find information and where to pull things from. I didn’t have to ask you where
to find it and ask about this or find this. You just could look at it and say I see you
have this here or you maybe you want to add this here. I felt like I had more
ownership and decision making versus go here or don’t forget this part, just
straight feedback instead.
J: Is that appropriate for where you’re at?
O: I think it is to put into practice science methods, coursework, and seminar.
When I asked, “What obstacles came up for you, like when you were designing this lesson?” I
wanted Omar to see and describe (Rodgers, 2002) which aspects of the planning process he had
started to internalize. He initially answered by describing what he learned from this specific
lesson that he could include two Explore and Explain cycles in one 5E lesson. However, he did
not analyze his thinking more broadly in terms of what he should think about or questions he
should ask himself when planning. I wanted him to elaborate and articulate more specifically his
current thinking processes, analyze how they may have changed, and articulate what he should
be mindful about in the future (Rodgers, 2002), so I asked, “Ok, was there anything easier this
time around? Or that you did or have that before that you didn’t?” Omar indicated that he had
started to internalize a backwards design approach to planning by starting with the Explain first
and then working backwards in the 5E model when he said,
So, I was building on what is it that they’re going to know and do that backwards design
99

with the Explore and then the Engage. Instead of starting with Engage, which is unclear
and ambiguous, but because I started with guided instruction first I knew my parameters.
So that really helped me out.
He was able to slow down and analyze the steps that were best for him to take during planning
when he said the purpose of the Explain was to set clear “parameters” for the lesson and so that it
would be less “unclear and ambiguous” than by starting at Engage. I asked, “Any missed
opportunities for this lesson or to think about for next one?” He replied “ Like additional
Explore and Explain like phet simulation is short and simple but meaningful for them to see
shapes add bonds and take bonds away,” he started to analyze the purpose for a teacher including
two Explore and Explain components into one 5E lesson as he had in this lesson when he
specifically said “like phet simulation is short and simple but meaningful.” He had internalized
that the conditions for having two Explore and Explain in one lesson should only occur if both
are short and meaningful in helping students explore or explain the phenomenon better to help
them make sense of science concepts. I then asked Omar to reflect on himself and how his
identity played a role in how he chose to design lessons when I said, “Do you think your identity
plays a role at all in planning?” I wanted Omar to analyze how his identity impacted his lesson
design choices so that he could take intelligent action (Rodgers, 2002) in thinking about how his
identity could help or hinder students in engaging in meaningful learning (Brookfield, 2017).
Omar suggested that he had thought about his identity in planning when he said,
I’m thinking about connections that are more home base, so if I haven’t seen it myself
then my students probably haven’t either. So, if there’s something I can make a
connection with then maybe they will, or how I incorporate those household things and
100

why I wanted to add pictures with little water bug and washing hands. Where is the
science in my life so I can make those connections for the students as well.
He used this to try to interpret how students in the class with similar identities to him might
experience the lesson when he said, “if I haven’t seen it myself then my students probably
haven’t either”. He was able to stop and see how he used his own understanding and prior
knowledge to think about his students from their perspective to come up with ideas for lesson
plans. By slowing down and reflecting on his identity, Omar was able to see how his identity
influenced the choices he made in the lesson. He first thought of phenomenon and approaches to
teaching based on how he learned and then used this to take on his students’ perspective when
planning. Most reflection questions asked, and Omar’s responses were descriptive in nature and
helped him solidify his developing phronesis (Loughran & Berry, 2005) around inquiry-based
culturally responsive lesson design. Although I did ask him to reflect on how he thinks about
incorporating culturally responsive practices into lessons or how his identity impacts design
choices, I still did not ask him to critically reflect on the impact of his design choices in
providing opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning.
Modeling
I used modeling to assist Omar in moving from an epistemic or theoretical understanding
of the NGSS standards, inquiry-based and culturally responsive teaching to phronesis or a
practical wisdom of how to apply theory into practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005). Tharp and
Gallimore (1989) describe modeling as the “process of offering behavior for imitation” (p. 47).
Drawing on Loughran and Berry (2005), I used modeling to “offer our students access to the
pedagogical reasoning, feelings, thoughts, and actions that accompany our practice across a
range of teaching and learning experiences” (Loughran & Berry, 2005, p. 194). I did this in the
101

form of think alouds by making my own thinking and reasoning process explicit during our
planning sessions (Loughran & Berry, 2005). As mentioned previously, I used modeling as a
technique to promote a constructive disorientation for Omar to be able to reflect on how his
planning choices did or did not match his intended purpose (Wergin, 2019). Loughran and Berry
(2005) suggest that modeling is not simply telling or showing a student teacher what to do, but
rather being intentional about explicitly highlighting certain aspects of practice to focus on.
When I was intentional about the types of thinking I was modeling and provided Omar with
opportunities to reflect and direct his own learning from it, he was then able to demonstrate
similar types of thinking when making and justifying lesson design decisions in his own practice.
Below are three exchanges, one from each cycle. The first 2 cycles demonstrate how I made the
tacit explicit by modeling the types of thinking, reasoning, and questions I asked myself during
planning that I wanted Omar to emulate (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989). During Cycle 3, the
exchange demonstrates how Omar had internalized and then used similar types of thinking,
reasoning, and questioning that I had modeled previously for lesson design decisions he made.
The exchange below occurred during the fifth and final planning session during Cycle 1.
Omar and I had previously finished revising the essential questions and learning targets for the
lessons in a unit plan on chemical reactions and bonding and were trying to decide which order
would make the most sense to sequence the learning for students. Omar noticed that we might
need to make a change in the original sequence of plans now that we were starting the unit with
students investigating physical and chemical changes from burning steel wool which they were
not able to do during this unit in distance learning last year. During the conversation, Omar
suggested switching the original sequence we had previously discussed for the unit. I realized
that this provided a potential opportunity for Omar to learn an important aspect of planning that
102

could assist in student learning by teaching macroscopic topics prior to microscopic topics. The
change in order he suggested could potentially still work, but we would both have to be more
intentional about how we structured the learning to ensure that microscopic and more abstract
concepts were taught after macroscopic topics. I used modeling in the form of a think aloud to
explicitly name my thinking and reasoning (Loughran & Berry, 2005) for the original sequence
and to set up an opportunity for Omar to experience a constructive disorientation around how to
work through planning dilemmas (Wergin, 2019) around sequencing topics appropriately and
meaningfully for students.
O: It seems like they need to define the terms in 3.3, but then 3.5 they need to know
the trends prior in order to do chemical reactions. They need to understand why
they [atoms] come together and then chemical reactions, as opposed to them not
knowing why they come together and balancing equations. I think it’s going to
make a disconnect.
J: Ok, ummm, yes and in terms of how the brain works, it’s always good to go
macro to micro. Because once we do trends, we’re doing in trends it takes a while,
which is fine, we can leave the balancing until later as another phenomenon.
O: Wait, What?
J: Whatever we decide to do we have to go macro first then micro.
O: Yeah.
J: It may not matter [to start with balancing or trends as long as macro is first].
O: I guess if we go from macro to micro then it makes more sense for kids to just
balance numbers out and then we can further explain the micro of ok, why are
these things really coming together, what are the properties like and bonding.
103

J: Hmmm, yes, that’s how I see it from macro to micro. However, there’s something
to be said about umm what feels logical, right, so you haven’t looked at this right?
So as a student what do you think is most logical? Like we can still do the trends
first. We just need to have context to go macro to micro for that. So think like a
student what seems most logical. We can still do trends first so we need to make
sure we do macro, which leads me to think is the balancing actual context for
that? So, think as a student, what makes the most sense from that lens? What
makes most sense in your brain how to put this together? I’ve been in this for a
while so I might be stuck on something, and any order is fine. It can be trends first
as long as we go from macro to micro. So, maybe after going through all the
topics and think about it, and then we can decide. I’ll give you time to think about
what you think makes sense, factoring in stuff like labs, factoring in introducing
abstract information, all of those things are good to think about.
O: [long pause, thinking and looking back at essential questions and learning targets
from unit plan we previously revised together]
J: Do you think you have an idea and then we’ll do a to be continued?
O: Taking a look at this, I think it makes more sense as a student if you start
balancing equations first, because it’s a little more of macro content and not so
much very like specific. But with trends I see we are going into specifics of
electronegativity and all those different things that make the bonds stronger like
ionic compounds and covalent bonding. So, they will need to know that
[balancing equations] so it will be easier to already know how to balance an
equation. So that when we tell them EN [electronegativity] is 3 for carbon and Li
104

is 1.0 then how strong of a bond and what is that equation going to look like
depending on strength of EN values so they will need to already practice
balancing equations. In 3.1 they need to know valence electrons in order to
balance equations and they need to have that down in order to understand the
other concepts. So, if they understand valence electrons because that’s the biggest
thing for balancing equations.
J: Ok, I agree or it could be a blind spot of mine, so we just have to make sure to
connect it, so we’re deciding to move 3.5 up earlier, right?
O: Yeah.
J: Ok I’ll move this to new 3.3 and then we see if it makes sense or not [pause.] Ok
to be continued to after school.
When Omar said, “they need to understand why they [atoms] come together and then chemical
reactions, as opposed to them not knowing why they come together and balancing equations, I
think it’s going to make a disconnect,” I recognized that he had a misunderstanding. He believed
that students needed to understand microscopic and abstract concepts of bonding to balance
chemical reactions which was incorrect. I used this as an opportunity to model my thinking and
reasoning for why not to do this when I said, “it’s always good to go macro to micro, because
once we do trends, we’re doing in trends it takes a while, which is fine, we can leave the
balancing until later as another phenomenon.” I then noticed that Omar still was not fully
understanding what I just said when he said “Wait what?” I used this as an opportunity for him to
think through his reasoning more for wanting to switch the sequence, by redirecting his thinking
and making the tacit explicit (Loughran & Berry, 2005) when I said, “whatever we decide to do
we have to go macro first then micro.” In doing this, I was intentional about redirecting Omar’s
105

thinking towards what was considered the most macro level topic to choose that lesson to start
with. Omar demonstrated that he followed my thinking when he said, “I guess if we go from
macro to micro then it makes more sense for kids to just balance numbers,” and elaborated on
why macro might be important for students to learn before micro topics when he further said,
“and then we can further explain the micro of ok, why are these things really coming together,
what are the properties like and bonding.” It is unclear whether Omar saw this as modeling. At
this point he was following my thinking of what I was attempting to model for him. I then
continued to model the thinking and questioning I desired for Omar to emulate (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989) when I was making planning decisions. Although, I stated that macro concepts
should be taught prior to students learning micro concepts, I also wanted Omar to understand that
making planning decisions such as this required more than just thinking about macro versus
micro level topics. It was more complex than that and there were other considerations and
questions a teacher should ask oneself during planning before making decisions how students
engage in learning experiences. I modeled how I both think and ask myself questions (Loughran
& Berry, 2005) when making such decisions when I said,
However, there’s something to be said about umm what feels logical, right, so you
haven’t looked at this right? So as a student what do you think is most logical? Like we
can still do the trends first. We just need to have context to go macro to micro for that.
So, think like a student what seems most logical. We can still do trends first so we need
to make sure we do macro, which leads me to think is the balancing actual context for
that? So, think as a student, what makes the most sense from that lens? What makes most
sense in your brain how to put this together?
106

In this statement, I intended to assist Omar’s thinking by modeling how ideas flowed together
and then asking him the question “So, as a student, what do you think is most logical?” I also
wanted him to think about in this case, was “balancing the actual context” for trends and most
importantly how might students perceive or experience the lesson? I intended to create a
disorienting dilemma (Wergin, 2019) for him to grapple with both the importance of sequencing
learning experiences when I said, “We just need to have context to go macro to micro for that,”
and thinking through the student perspective when I said, “so think as a student.” I told Omar to
take some time to think about his response and pointed him to specific things he should be
thinking about (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) when I said, “Think about it, and then we can decide.
I’ll give you time to think about what you think makes sense, factoring in stuff like labs,
factoring in introducing abstract information, all of those things are good to think about,” thus
intentionally redirecting his thinking on certain aspects of planning to consider. After a few
minutes of pausing and looking through the unit plan materials, Omar demonstrated a similar
thinking process as mine in thinking about macro versus micro topics when he said, “I think, it
makes more sense as a student if you start balancing equations first, because it’s a little more of
macro content and not so much very like specific.” He further elaborated on how ideas might
flow after choosing balancing first when he said,
So, they will need to know that [balancing equations] so it will be easier to already know
how to balance an equation so that when we tell them EN [electronegativity] is 3 for
carbon and Li is 1.0 then how strong of a bond and what is that equation going to look
like depending on strength of EN values so they will need to already practice balancing
equations. In 3.1 they need to know valence electrons in order to balance equations and
107

they need to have that down in order to understand the other concepts. So, if they
understand valence electrons because that’s the biggest thing for balancing equations.
Based on his response, Omar mimicked his thinking to match mine that I had modeled
previously when he said, “I think, it makes more sense as a student if you start balancing
equations first, because it’s a little more of macro content and not so much very like specific, but
with trends.” He demonstrated that he was thinking about how students would experience the
flow of ideas presented to them by thinking about what was most macroscopic and accessible to
understand first. However, he showed a misconception when he said, “they need to know
valence electrons in order to balance equations.” Students don’t need to know about valence
electrons to balance equations. Despite this, Omar was attempting to think through what would
make most sense for students to learn first and then appropriately sequencing topics. He further
demonstrated this type of thinking when he said, “they need to know valence electrons in order
to balance equations and they need to have that down in order to understand the other concepts.”
We ran out of time because the bell was going to ring so I simply said that I agreed rather than
asking him to reflect on what types of students’ prior knowledge and experiences are needed for
students to move from one topic to the next to help him to uncover his content misconception.
Based on Omar’s responses, it was unclear if I was successful in creating a constructive
disorientation for him to work through by my modeling my thinking for him to emulate (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). He showed partial understanding by mimicking similar types of thinking as I
had done during planning, but he did not flesh out his ideas and he had a misunderstanding about
the content that I was not able to address due to time constraints. During Cycle 2, I was more
intentional about how I modeled my thinking and supported Omar in turning his disorienting
108

dilemmas into a constructive disorientation (Wergin, 2019) that he could learn from in the future
rather than potentially become more confused by them.
Through modeling, I set up the parameters for Omar to experience another constructive
disorientation during the third and final planning session during Cycle 2. I did this by modeling
my thinking and reasoning for feedback I provided for a lesson he designed. I noticed that Omar
had jumped from the Engage to Explain bypassing the Explore or inquiry-based portion of the
5E lesson sequence. I assisted him in recognizing that what he labeled as Explore would not
constitute as an inquiry based Explore and serve better as an Explain by modeling the types of
thinking and questioning that he should ask himself when evaluating a lesson to determine if the
lesson provides authentic opportunities for students to engage in inquiry during the Explore
(Duran & Duran 2004). I first used guiding questions to get Omar to see for himself that the
Explore was missing, and when he did not recognize this, I then switched to making the tacit
explicit (Loughran, 2013) by stating that I did not see an appropriate Explore in the lesson. I then
modeled my thought process and reasoning (Loughran & Berry, 2005) for why what he
originally wrote did not constitute an Explore. Although I modeled my thinking and reasoning
aloud for Omar, it was unclear during this exchange how much he understood or potentially
internalized about what to think about when critiquing and evaluating a lesson. However, as I
will demonstrate during another exchange in Cycle 3, Omar did mimic similar thinking and
reasoning that I demonstrated to him in the exchange below during Cycle 2. This suggests that
the modeling I did by making my thinking, reasoning, and questioning visible during my critique
of the lesson may have helped him to internalize this process on his own during Cycle 3.
J: Oh, okay. So, I think one thing maybe we can think about is, is there something
that could belong in this lesson? Cause I noticed there was a jump from this great
109

phenomenon to like now getting into the atomic level. Looking at the model kits,
is there something like, it seems like there might be something more macro that
could come before the model kits.
O: Okay.
J: So, like let’s go back up and think about your Explore. So, you’re engaging them
with the tie dye [during Engage] right. So, what I’m noticing is you’re going from
the tie dye to jumping to the model kits. So, when I look at that, that kind of looks
like you went from an Engage to Explain. Yeah. The students are technically
exploring through the model kits. But that also could be an Explain cuz now
they’re taking the chemistry and making sense of the chemistry on their own.
They’re not really exploring the phenomenon. So, they’re exploring a scientific
concept, not a phenomenon. So, exploring a scientific concept can actually be an
Explain.
O: Okay. So, what if then, so should I go with the route with the tie dye shirts just yet
then? I mean, should I then change it? What if I then show a series of pictures
instead of showing like different structures of different types of bonding, of like
different elements.
J: I still think you’re skipping to the content. So, there’s like, so an Explore
generally is exploring something from the Engage, which is the phenomenon. So,
you’re kind of going from the phenomenon right into what’s happening
molecularly.
O: Oh, you know what I can do then? What if I show them like a picture of the, the,
like a picture of the dye and maybe the type of bonding informs like an actual
110

representation of the bonding to explain, okay. Why does this type of bonding
occur? Well, let’s take a look at these models. That‘s gonna take, look what’s
happening. But then I’m already showing in the video and the picture of like the
actual bonding. What do you think?
J: Well, I think that maybe would be too big for the Engage. So, it’s possible what
you’re starting to describe is exploring the phenomenon. Maybe, it’s always good
to have when you’re going to do something hands on. Is there something like, I
love your idea on the second lesson. I’m just wondering if some of the second
lesson is actually moving to the first and some of the first is gonna actually move
to the second. Cause you go into like content here, but the kids really didn‘t have
a chance to Explore other than watching the video. They, they haven’t really seen
how dye like interacts with paper. Let’s say like, they’re not really, they’re not
really working with the dyes yet. And I think they possibly could here, cause
that’s like a macro level thing. So, everything you just described about this is
what you said. You said, well, we’re using the water, right? So, you wanna probe
water and water’s properties and realizing, um, to create the type of material. And
even though it’s not as expensive, the video talks about that, but we’ll tie it in
later that the material’s valuable and still a resource in the pollution in the water.
So, I’m just wondering, is there an opportunity in lesson one for them to just see
dyes with materials? And then it, look, it sounds like everything you have here
looks amazing. It just sounds like it might be your Explore might actually be an
Explain.
O: Okay.
111

J: And then your Explain might actually be a Practice, like an Elaborate on the
bonding and then the, what you now have for practice might end up moving into
the next day and the next lesson cycle when you go deeper now into water or you
go deeper now into the bonding.
O: Okay. So then, so you, so you’re basically advising then for the, I could do them.
I can have them show dye, reacting with different materials.
J: Yeah. I mean, I, I just think the Explore is missing. Okay. So, when I, when I look
at this lesson, I see a great lesson that’s missing an Explore.
O: Okay.
J: There was a jump and the way you can think about it is the Explore is a way to
explore the investigative phenomenon. And it, it doesn’t surprise me. It was
missing because, um, well maybe, maybe not because you didn’t, although you
didn’t say it, you knew it. Cause remember you were like, oh, I don’t know what
the investigative, not like we just talked about it here, but you did know it, you
knew it was tie dye. Um, so Explore is exploring the phenomena and Explain is,
the best Explains are honestly exploring the content cuz then the students are
coming up with it. And practice is like either cycling back to the phenomenon or
practice is like building on them, explaining the content.
O: Okay. So, then I would not have them. So, I wouldn’t show them the chemistry
model sets then until, until the practice [our school uses the term practice in place
of Elaborate for 5E lesson sequence].
J: No, that could still be your Explain depending on what you decide the Explore is.
Those chemistry sets would either be the Explain or Elaborate. So, either the
112

Explain or Elaborate the way we do it, um, it really just depends on what your
Explore is. Cuz if you do an Explore and you realize, wait a minute, they’re not
ready to jump to the chemistry kits yet. There might be another like Explain just
right there. So, I, I think you’re switching your lessons. Like I think actually
lesson two might actually be lesson one. And you just created more of lesson one
for lesson two.
O: Okay.
I began by asking a guided question, “So, I think one thing maybe we can think about is,
is there something that could belong in this lesson?” and then attempted to make the tacit
explicit when I said, “it seems like there might be something more macro that could come
before the model kits,” but it was unclear if Omar understood or was confused that the
Explore he had in the lesson was better as an Explain when he simply said, “Okay.” I
then decided to switch to modeling by making the tacit explicit (Loughran & Berry,
2005) when I said, “That kind of looks like you went from an Engage to Explain
[skipping the Explore, even though he labeled model kits as the Explore]” and “So
they’re exploring a scientific concept, not a phenomenon. So, exploring a scientific
concept can actually be an Explain.” I was making explicit that what he labeled as
Explore was actually better as an Explain and that exploring a scientific concept is
considered an Explain. Omar then mimicked the thinking that I had just modeled (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1989) when he asked me questions related to the purpose of each E and
what he could do in this lesson. He asked
113

So, should I go with the route with the tie dye shirts just yet then? I mean, should I then
change it? What if I then show a series of pictures instead of showing like different
structures of different types of bonding, of like different elements.
His questions illuminated his thinking that he should change his tie dye Engage to something
different like showing pictures of bonding so that he could keep his model kit activity as an
Explore that would better match his new idea for an Engage. However, he was still
misunderstanding a key idea that I attempted to make explicit that exploring a phenomenon is
considered an Explore and exploring scientific content is considered an Explain. Omar and I then
engaged in a back and forth where I continued to attempt to explicitly point out that he was
missing the Explore and needed to move around the content from his second lesson to his first
lesson so that students could move more seamlessly from macro to micro topics. My attempt to
model my thinking and reasoning did not appear to be taken up by Omar other than when he
demonstrated an understanding that he needed to make a change to in how he labeled each E in
both of his lessons. He did this when he said, “so then I would not have them. So, I wouldn’t
show them the chemistry model sets then until, until the practice [our school uses the term
practice in place of Elaborate for 5E lesson sequence].” I did attempt to model how to think
about the content in relation to the Es in the 5E lesson sequence when I said
I’m just wondering if some of the second lesson is actually moving to the first and some
of the first is gonna actually move to the second. Cause you go into like content here, but
the kids really didn’t have a chance to explore other than watching the video. They, they
haven’t really seen how dye like interacts with paper. Let’s say like, they’re not really,
they’re not really working with the dyes yet. And I think they possibly could here, cause
that’s like a macro level thing
114

and when I said
Is there an opportunity in lesson one for them to just see dyes with materials? And then it
looks, it sounds like everything you have here looks amazing. It just sounds like it might
be your Explore might actually be an Explain.
In these two exchanges I attempted to model how to think about the content in relation to
sequencing each E when I said, “I’m just wondering if some of the second lesson is actually
moving to the first and some of the first is gonna actually move to the second. Cause you go into
like content here, but the kids really didn’t have a chance to explore other than, and watching the
video.” I also modeled how to ask oneself a question related to how students will experience the
content when I said, “Is there an opportunity in lesson one for them to just see dyes with
materials?” However, I was talking fast and thinking aloud at the same time, so it was unclear if
Omar fully understood my thought process in changing the sequence of his activities to better fit
an inquiry-based 5E lesson when he simply said “Okay” and then we made changes to the
lesson. Although he did not explicitly mimic similar types of thinking about content in relation to
each E during this session, Omar did mimic a similar way of processing aloud (Tharp &
Gallimore, 2005) when he interweaved content ideas with the purpose of Es to figure out an
appropriate inquiry-based lesson sequence that he took the lead in designing during our next
planning session which was the first session during Cycle 3. This suggested that Omar did
internalize the types of thinking and questions to ask himself based on my modeling during
Cycle 2.
The exchange below occurred during the first planning session in Cycle 3. Omar had
designed a lesson and I was giving feedback on it as we reviewed the lesson together. Omar
began by explaining to me the Engage for the lesson, and in doing so, he demonstrated his
115

thinking and reasoning for the lesson design decisions he made. Through his self-talk, he
demonstrated his reasoning for how he designed the lesson, what he expected students to say or
understand because of a particular activity, how he decided which part of the standard he would
use, and a change he made when he realized that his original idea of an Engage would not work
in the first lesson and should be moved to the second lesson. All of these were elements of lesson
planning that I had specifically modeled by making my thinking visible to Omar when we
revised and evaluated lessons together during Cycles 1 and 2.
O: I’ll show you everything on there and as I show you, I’ll tell you where I’m stuck.
I guess my only concern would be just to double check the question, the learning
target that we’re doing is going to be PS1–3 or PS2–4?
J: Oh, there we have overlapping learning targets, right? Let’s do PS1–3 for the
covalent bonding because that can overlap covalent bonding plus some of the
polarity.
O: Okay. In this lesson we are looking at jeans and at end of lab I want them to tell
me whatever is bonding the most is strongest dye with the material, and the least
is the weakest. Oh, and the students are working for good citizen denim company
and tasked with releasing their summer collection of shirts and which dye is the
best to use that won’t wash off and comparing red, blue and yellow.
J: Nice little scenario there.
O: The video shows good citizen jeans working out of LA, no cotton citizen, not
good citizen.
J: So, in this lesson it seems that you’re doing both, interactions and introducing
covalent bonding so you can say type and strength of bonding that occurs [in the
116

learning target]
O: The NGSS standard follows this, but then looking at the evidence targets here say
everything, do I need to use all of these?
J: I am at liberty with that since the standards are so broad, but yes you can choose
which evidence target not all of them for the learning target.
O: So, with this piece, planning an investigation, it would fall under here [points to 1
evidence target on the standard]. Yes, I want them to understand that there is a
covalent bond that is occurring and the red dye had a stronger attraction to the
material and looking at rf values and comparing and analyzing data.
J: Are you having them calculate the rf values?
O: They take the distance the dye traveled and where the water stopped.
J: You might need to do straight instead, to measure.
O I’m switching it up with coffee filters, so with a linear strip instead, I ordered that
so they can do the r values and the little papers represent their “t-shirts” so they
are dying the t-shirts and then run it in the water, as the washer [smiles]. So, I
want to them to relate to it. Ok students now that you dyed let’s run it in the
washer. I thought of all of that to make it culturally relatable.
J: I wasn’t even thinking of that connection water and washer, duh.
O: I’m showing them the molecules of each dye…or keep this in the Engage so that
when we do have the science talk on Tuesday they can see what they noticed. So,
they took a look at single, double and triple bonding. At the end I’m going to have
them figure out and evaluate or identify the number of types of bonds and lone
pairs in the dyes, so connecting that piece at the end. So, first lesson is what has
117

the strongest affinity during the stationary phase. So, on the third day end with the
types of bonds and lone pairs that exist within molecules and then an assessment
for that.
Omar began by emulating the types of questions a teacher should ask oneself that I previously
modeled in earlier cycles when he said, “I guess is my only concern would be just to double
check the question, the learning target that we’re doing is going to be PS1–3 or PS2–4?” He
demonstrated that he was thinking about how the learning target and guiding question related
back to the standards by asking this clarifying question. I clarified that we should just pick one
standard and use PS1–3 since this topic overlapped both standards. Omar then further emulated
similar types of thinking that I modeled for him about how he approached lesson design when he
said, “Okay, in this lesson we are looking at jeans and at end of lab I want them to tell me
whatever is bonding the most is strongest dye with the material, and the least is the weakest.”
This showed that he used a backwards design approach that I had previously modeled during
Cycle 2, by stating what he expected students to know during the Explain part of the lesson. He
then further showed how he was thinking about the purpose of each E in making sure the Explain
connected back to the Engage (Duran & Duran, 2004) in the lesson when he said, “Oh and the
students are working for good citizen denim company and tasked with releasing their summer
collection of shirts and which dye is the best to use that won’t wash off and comparing red, blue
and yellow.” I then modeled again the types of thinking Omar should be doing by redirecting
him to think about his purpose for the learning target when I said, “so in this lesson it seems that
you’re doing both, interactions and introducing covalent bonding so you can say type and
strength of bonding that occurs [in the learning target].” Omar used that cue to recognize a
misunderstanding he had about the evidence targets, which are aspects of the DCI that are broken
118

down further than what is written on the standard. He realized he was stuck on how to use the
evidence targets appropriately to come up with a learning target for this lesson and demonstrated
how he was thinking through this dilemma when he said, “the NGSS standard follows this, but
then looking at the evidence targets here say everything, do I need to use all of these?” After, I
clarified that he only needed to pick one for this lesson, he s again mimicked similar thinking
that I had previously modeled in determining which was best to choose when he said,
So, with this piece, planning an investigation, it would fall under here [points to 1
evidence target on the standard]. Yes. I want them to understand that there is a covalent
bond that is occurring and the red dye had a stronger attraction to the material and
looking at rf values and comparing and analyzing data.
In this statement he both decided the evidence target to use and further elaborated his thinking by
explaining how the content he wanted students to understand matched best with that evidence
target, thus mimicking the types of thinking and reasoning that I had done (Tharp & Gallimore,
1989) during Cycle 2 when faced with a similar dilemma. Essentially, mimicked how I had
talked about the content and what I hoped students to learn to then make decisions about the
language of the guiding question and learning target. Omar then demonstrated his reasoning for
choosing an investigative phenomenon that he thought would be culturally responsive and
relatable to students when he said,
So, they can do the r values and the little papers represent their “t-shirts” so they are
dying the t-shirts and then run it in the water, as the washer [smiles]. So, I want to them
to relate to it. Ok students now that you dyed let’s run it in the washer. I thought of all of
that to make it culturally relatable.
119

This statement demonstrated that he was thinking about how students should explore phenomena
before explaining science concepts when he said, “the little papers represent their “t-shirts,” so
they are dying the t-shirts and then run it in the water, as the washer [smiles],” which mimicked
the thought process I made explicit in the planning session prior and further demonstrated his
understanding that students need to have an opportunity to explore first before explaining science
concepts. He then was able to demonstrate his understanding of how all the Es in the 5E lesson
sequence connected by describing the flow of learning, which again was a topic that I had guided
him through by modeling my thinking of how to consider the flow of ideas to sequence a 5E
lesson when he said,
At the end I’m going to have them figure out and evaluate or identify the number of
types of bonds and lone pairs in the dyes so connecting that piece at the end. So, first
lesson is what has the strongest affinity during the stationary phase, So. on the third day
end with the types of bonds and lone pairs that exist within molecules and then an
assessment for that.
Later in our planning session I then said,
J: Let’s keep looking at what you have for your lab, notice you want them to look at
molecules right in the Engage.
O: I’m thinking about doing the molecules in the second lesson for an Engage. I
don’t want to show them the molecules yet, so that will be Engage in second
lesson after they’ve already learned that. Now that we understand that yellow had
more affinity to the stationary phase then look at structures and what you notice
and wonder. Then after structures why are these structures the way they are? Then
go into the building blocks of molecules. I want them to see that the nitrogen have
120

single bonds and double bonds and make those comparisons between molecules.
Why is it bonding to three molecules versus two molecules?
J: I was just thinking that order is better too we don’t need to show molecules on
first lesson.
O: So, for Engage-dyes and then lab for Explore, collect data and after they collect
their data and then phet simulation for Explain and then Elaborate is making sense
of the information with a science talk instead. Making sense of data and values
they gathered and giving each other feedback and that’s the practice and close off
on Monday. Then they submit their CER [claim-evidence-reasoing], which dye
would be best for our summer t-shirts, evidence from lab and then reasoning what
is happening with dye and paper and water. I’m giving them the terms mobile and
stationary phase. So, I don’t give terms until after the lab and I’ll give rf factor.
J: So that’s now your Explain with vocab terms, nice.
Omar further demonstrated his thinking around planning decisions when he described why he
moved his initial Engage about structures from the first lesson to the second lesson when he said,
“I’m thinking about doing the molecules in the second lesson for an Engage. I don’t want to
show them the molecules yet, so that will be Engage in second lesson after they’ve already
learned that.” This was a direct imitation of my thinking during the last planning session in Cycle
2 where I explained my reasoning for moving around the order of learning experiences to better
match each E in the 5E lesson sequence. Finally, Omar ended the exchange by further mimicking
similar thinking and reasoning processes I modeled to him previously in both Cycles 1 and 2 by
explaining the importance of having the investigative phenomenon weave throughout the 5E
sequence when he said, “Then they submit their CER [claim-evidence-reasoning], which dye
121

would be best for our summer t-shirts, evidence from lab and then reasoning what is happening
with dye and paper and water.” This indicated that Omar was thinking about how students would
use information from each E to write their final CER in the Evaluate. They would get their
evidence from exploring the dyes in the phenomenon during the Explore and their reasoning
from the science concepts introduced in the Explain. He further elaborated his reasoning to wait
to introduce scientific vocabulary after students explored the phenomenon and during the
Explain portion of the 5E lesson sequence, another topic I had assisted him in understanding
through both modeling and questioning during the first two cycles when he said, “I’m giving
them the terms mobile and stationary phase. So, I don’t give terms until after the lab and I’ll give
rf factor.” Through this exchange, Omar made his thinking visible and showed that he had
internalized important concepts related to inquiry-based and culturally responsive lesson design.
He demonstrated how he was now thinking about using the standards to create learning targets,
including a relevant phenomenon, weaving that phenomenon throughout each E of the 5E lesson
sequence, and introducing science vocabulary and concepts after students explored the
phenomenon as a way to make sense and explain the phenomenon (Brown, 2021). All of these
examples were concepts that I had previously modeled my own thinking on during the first two
cycles. Omar had demonstrated that he had internalized how to think, reason, and justify his
planning decisions, thus showing that he was able to use his epistemic knowledge through my
assistance in questioning and modeling to develop a phronesis (Loughran & Berry, 2005) around
how to design inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons. Despite this, it remained
unclear if Omar had recognized my modeling and intentionally mimicked this in his process of
thinking. Since revising and evaluating the lessons took much longer than expected, I was not
122

able to engage Omar in metacognitive reflection as I had hoped to see the extent to which he had
recognized how he had grown and internalized his thinking around planning.
Finding 2: My Personal Growth in Becoming a Teacher Educator
I grew in understanding and enacting my role as a teacher educator in supporting Omar’s
growth in planning inquiry-based and culturally responsive lessons. First, I grew in
acknowledging and understanding my role as a teacher educator by viewing Omar as a learner
who would need my assistance rather than a knower, or someone who already had all the tools
and skill sets needed to engage in co-collaboration (Zeichner, 2005). Zeichner (2005) cautions
that a pitfall for many teacher educators is that they desire for a novice teacher to become
reflective in their practice without reflecting on how their own actions and behaviors support or
inhibit growth in novice teachers. During most of Cycle 1, I did not view myself as a teacher
educator and failed to act as one nor reflect on my own actions. I grew in recognizing that I
should act as a teacher educator through conversations with my advisor and written reflections
where I was able to pause and learn to see how my own behaviors and actions were contributing
to Omar acting as a passive recipient (Rodgers, 2002).
During most of Cycle 1, I did not realize that my interactions with Omar reflected an
underlying belief that Omar and I were equals, akin to colleagues now simply lesson planning
together. Mezirow (1991) suggests that our underlying beliefs manifest in repetitive interactions.
I thought because I had identified him as a self-authoring knower (Drago-Severson & Blum-
DeStefano, 2017) I could break down the power differential, thus having us be at an equity state
that I desired. I believed that to achieve this equity state meant to interact with Omar as a
colleague or peer during planning rather than viewing him as a learner. I did not realize that I
would have to provide him with basic tools and understanding about the lesson design process,
123

regardless of his typology. As a result, I did not view myself as a teacher educator, and was not
reflective about how my behaviors and actions potentially caused Omar to become a passive
recipient rather than an active contributor when discussing lesson plans together. Instead, I
reinforced a hierarchical structure where I centered myself by doing most of the thinking, talking
and decision making (Garrett, 2008) that disempowered Omar as a learner and prevented him
from becoming an authentic collaborator during out conversations.
The second major area I grew in was my ability to enact my role as a teacher educator by
recognizing Omar’s ZPD (Warford, 2011) and providing appropriate assistance (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1989). Once I understood my role was to act as a teacher educator and take
responsibility for Omar’s learning (Zeichner, 2005), I was then able to respond by providing
appropriate forms of assistance to support Omar in moving through his ZPD from an epistemic
understanding of inquiry-based and culturally responsive lesson design to developing a phronesis
(Loughran & Berry, 2005). As mentioned in Finding 1, two main forms of assistance I used were
questioning and modeling. I grew in my ability to recognize Omar’s ZPD and provide these
forms of assistance appropriately for Omar to improve his performance (Tharp & Gallimore,
1989).
In sum, my reflections and conversations with my advisor helped me to acknowledge the
power differential between Omar and me and use it in a way to support Omar’s learning by
viewing my role as a teacher educator and Omar as a learner. By doing this, I was then able to
enact my role as a teacher educator (Zeichner, 2005) by pausing, reflecting (Rodgers, 2002) and
then choosing the appropriate form of assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1989) to respond and
support Omar in moving through his ZPD to develop a phronesis around lesson design.
124

Recognizing and Understanding How to Be a Teacher Educator
During Cycle 1 I was driven by a sense of urgency and the unconscious pressure to get
lesson plans completed in a way that I had envisioned or deemed worthy to present to students in
my classroom. I failed to see my role and responsibility as a teacher educator (Zeichner, 2005) to
support Omar in learning this new skill set of how to design lessons. Throughout four out of the
five planning sessions during Cycle 1, I operated from a teacher centered approach by “telling”
and “showing” Omar what to do during planning. As a result, Omar said very little or simply
agreed with me during our interactions. I was not purposeful about what I wanted to portray to
Omar, nor did I use Rodgers’s reflective cycle to stop, pause and be intentional (Rodgers, 2002)
about the types of thinking and reasoning I wanted Omar to internalize. Mezirow (1991) states
that an adult learner grows in their ability to think and reason through the discourse process with
a knowledgeable other. Rather than engaging Omar in discourse so that he could learn and grow,
I had a misguided belief that I could eradicate the inherent power differential between us as
mentor and resident teacher. I thought that by treating him as a peer during lesson planning, that
he could automatically be able to collaborate with me.
The combination of trying to get the task done along with my misguided assumption that
Omar did not need anything from me led me to ignore the inherent power differential between
us, causing me to create a space that stifled discourse and reinforced rather than dismantled these
power dynamics. I had incorrectly assumed that our identities and positionalities would not affect
our ability to engage in discourse around lesson design. Brookfield (2017) suggests that a lack of
critical reflection can lead to a failure in acknowledging that one’s identity and positionality
always play a role in a person’s own behavior and how their behavior impacts others. Eventually
during Cycles 2 and 3 I was able to engage in critical reflection through perspective taking by
125

identifying how my behaviors and actions were intertwined with power differentials related to
my identity and positionality as a White woman with several years of education supporting
Omar, a Latino man and resident teacher (Brookfield, 2017). I was then able to realize that by
pretending a power dynamic did not exist rather than addressing it and up taking my role as a
teacher educator, I was reproducing traditional hegemonic structures in my interactions with
Omar rather than disrupting them. I had been silencing Omar’s voice while elevating my own.
Below are exchanges and reflections that demonstrate how I operated prior to viewing Omar as a
learner and myself as a teacher educator to shifting my thinking and understanding to address the
power differential and take responsibility for Omar as a learner.
During the first three planning sessions out of five during Cycle 1, I failed to
acknowledge that I was a teacher educator and reflect on how my actions affected Omar’s
behavior during our interactions (Rodgers, 2002; Zeichner, 2005). Below is evidence of our
interactions during the second of five planning sessions during Cycle 1 that show how I failed to
recognize my role as a teacher educator by centering myself and focusing on the curriculum
rather than Omar as a learner (Zeichner, 2005), thus reinforcing traditional hegemonic structures
of power between us (Brookfield, 2017). I was the main authority and decision maker and did
not invite him to engage in a conversation while also unintentionally stifling his voice through
my actions. During this planning session, Omar and I were revising a unit plan related to periodic
table trends and chemical bonding from last year to adjust it for in person classes instead of
distance learning. At the beginning of our planning session, Omar and I were looking at the unit
plan that we had started to revise the day before. We were trying to figure out what our anchor
phenomenon for the unit could be.
126

J: Yeah. Our challenge is going to be, how do we interweave? [the anchor
phenomenon throughout the unit]. I think this case study phenomenon is good.
We should probably keep it. But our challenge is then weaving this case study in,
when we now have labs, right? Like I’m thinking labs should be kind of the driver
of the learning and then maybe there’s a ton of formatives in this unit that I
created that kind of do some of the abstract structural part.
O: Okay.
When I responded to my own question, “Our challenge is going to be, how do we interweave?”
by saying, “I think this case study phenomenon is good. We should probably keep it,” consistent
with Garrett’s (2008) description of acting teacher centered, I was making the decision about
what to do, did not offer wait time or invite his input. It also demonstrated my lack of awareness
that Omar was my learner. Consistent with Zeichner’s (2005) caution to not fall into the trap of
assuming the novice teacher already has the knowledge and skills, I assumed that Omar already
had what he needed to engage with me. I was driven by the task and moved to the next item
rather than explaining or sharing my thinking and reasoning to help Omar understand how the
case study could be a good option to help interweave the phenomenon throughout the unit. I
continued to not take responsibility as a teacher educator (Zeichner, 2005) when I gave my
opinion without explaining to Omar again when I said, “Like I’m thinking labs should be kind of
the driver of the learning and then maybe there’s a ton of formatives in this unit that I created
that kind of do some of the abstract structural part.” In both instances, I failed to recognize Omar
as a learner and Omar’s response as “Okay” indicated how I was silencing him as a learner, and
reinforcing his marginalization in the interaction (Brookfield, 2017). I moved on without
127

noticing the quality of his response. I did not stop to see or reflect (Rodgers, 2002) if Omar did
understand. I simply assumed his “Okay” meant that he was following me.
Later in our planning session I said,
J: What else are we trying to do here? Because it’s not just the evidence of reaction,
we do want to get into balancing, a little bit of the forces of attraction now that we
saw with the reading and this concept of a binary reaction, and how like things are
combining. So, you’re adding more mass.
O: Yeah.
By answering my own question when I said,
we do want to get into balancing, a little bit of the forces of attraction now that we saw
with the reading and this concept of a binary reaction, and how like things are combining.
So, you’re adding more mass,
and not providing wait time, I failed to create space to allow Omar to think, process, and share
his thinking, thus acting in a teacher centered approach (Garrett, 2008). When Omar said
“Yeah,” I assumed he was following and because I saw him as a self-authoring learner (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017), I believed that I did not have to make my thinking explicit
(Loughran, 2013). I failed to recognize that my own actions were teacher centered and I was not
explaining my thinking so that Omar could learn how to approach lesson design (Mezirow,
1991). I was also demonstrating to Omar that only my ideas and thoughts mattered, thus
reinforcing the power dynamic between us rather than disrupting it (Brookfield, 2017). Again, I
failed to see my role as a teacher educator and in the position of power to actively invite Omar
into the conversation (Brookfield, 2017). I assumed that his “Yeah” meant that he was ready to
128

move on to the next step of planning, and I failed to take responsibility for his learning as a
teacher educator (Zeichner, 2005).
Later in our planning session I then said,
J: I think we have steel wool, but if not, we can buy this at the store. I think I forgot
to put it in the lab slides, but this is something we could easily just pick up and we
have vinegar, right? Do we have vinegar?
O: Yeah.
When I said, “I think we have steel wool, but if not, we can buy this at the store. I think I forgot
to put it in the lab slides, but this is something we could easily just pick up and we have vinegar,
right? Do we have vinegar?” I demonstrated to Omar that logistics was the most important thing
in planning and was focusing on the product rather than process. I asked him a technical question
about if he saw vinegar in a cabinet. Brookfield (2017) cautions that without critical reflection,
your seemingly benign actions could have a very different impact on the receiver. I reinforced
our power dynamic by making it clear that I would make the decisions and invite him into the
conversation when I needed his help with logistics, but not anything that mattered in the actual
act of designing plans. I did not realize the potential impact of my actions by engaging with
Omar in a superficial way, thus reinforcing my hierarchical power over him (Brookfield, 2017).
When he said “Yeah,” I just moved forward because I had gotten the affirmation I was looking
for. I was not taking the time to stop and see how my actions (Rodgers, 2002) were
disempowering Omar and making it difficult for him to engage in conversation in a meaningful
way.
Later in our planning session I said,
129

J: Again, they could work in a group of four and one group could burn it. One group
could put it in vinegar because it is a simple combustion reaction as well if you
burn it. Okay?
O: Yeah.
When I said, “Again, they could work in a group of four and one group could burn it. One group
could put it in vinegar because it is a simple combustion reaction as well if you burn it. Okay?” I
was centering myself and the curriculum rather than Omar as a learner (Garrett, 2008),
reinforcing the idea of making decisions when planning to be efficient, rather than a process of
learning, which I needed to teach him how to do (Mezirow, 1991). I quickly glossed over an
important aspect of planning that a teacher should think through how students will engage in an
activity. I misinterpreted that Omar could learn independent from my help and guidance because
I presumed he was a self-authoring knower. I assumed that he understood why I would choose to
structure groups in the way I suggested, thus abdicating my role as a teacher educator by not
explaining my reasoning (Zeichner, 2005) for choices I was making during lesson design. I also
simply ended with “Okay?” signaling that planning is about making a series of decisions to then
move on to get to a final product. I did not realize the unintentional messages I was sending to
Omar nor the lack of valuing his voice (Brookfield, 2017) as an integral part of our planning
process together. I was reinforcing my power and maintaining control over all aspects of
planning without giving him the thinking tools he needed to understand why thinking through
how to set up groups of students and assigning specific tasks for each group to do was important.
Doing this would have helped him move from epistemic knowledge to phronesis (Loughran &
Berry, 2005). I ignored the power differential and by doing so, further reified traditional
hegemonic interactions (Brookfield, 2017) since Omar did not have the tools to engage in a
130

conversation with me. Omar’s “Yeah” implied to me that he understood. I did not see or
recognize that I was not creating a space where he could be open and honest to let me know if he
needed me to slow down or explain what I was saying or doing so that he could participate
(Rodgers, 2002). I accepted the “Yeah” as participation without thinking about the repercussions
of unintentionally signaling to him my expectation that he should already know what to do and I
should not have to provide support to help him learn how to do it (Loughran & Berry, 2005).
Towards the end of the planning session I said,
J: And then we could do more practice, like practice activities with like what were
the trends that we learned on valance electrons? What do those ions mean? What
does [pause] you know what I mean? Like which elements of the periodic table do
the positive versus the negative? This is introducing the trends a little bit so I kind
of do like this. I could see how this could work for coming back.
O: Yeah. Then if they have another reading, it’s just going to help them also with
again, with their literacy skills.
When I said,
And then we could do more practice, like practice activities with like what were the
trends that we learned on valance electrons? What do those ions mean? What does
[pause] you know what I mean? Like which elements of the periodic table do the positive
versus the negative?
I assumed that Omar had the knowledge and skills from his program and that I did not have to
explain my reasoning to him (Zeichner, 2005). I reinforced this thinking and my lack of taking
responsibility as a teacher educator when I said, “You know what I mean.” By saying, “You
know what I mean,” I was also signaling to him that he should know what I mean, thus
131

furthering his position as a subordinate to me (Brookfield, 2017). He then answered by trying to
contribute to planning when he said, “Yeah. Then if they have another reading, it’s just going to
help them also with again, with their literacy skills.” However, I did not acknowledge this and
just moved to the next topic. This was another missed opportunity to slow down and be present
(Rodgers, 2002) to Omar and engage him in his thinking. I assumed he did not need to do this as
a learner and reinforced the idea of getting something done rather than slowing down and
meaningfully engaging Omar in his process of learning (Rodgers, 2002).
At the end of the planning session I said,
J: Oh, so this could help us with our exit ticket questions. That’s a great review. Oh,
and see, this is the burning. She took videos of it to show them. Okay. Maybe they
do the acid one and we do this one as a demo.
O: Yeah.
When I said, “Oh, so this could help us with our exit ticket questions” and “Okay. Maybe they
do the acid one and we do this one as a demo,” I was signaling to Omar that I was the one
making the decisions and it did not matter what he thought about it. This was another form of
reinforcing our power dynamic (Brookfield, 2017) and failing to see him as a learner (Zeichner,
2005) by failing to explain my thinking around how to sequence different parts of the 5E lessons.
I wrote a reflection after this planning session and then discussed what I noticed with my
advisor. Through our discussion, I slowly started to become aware of the unintended
consequences of my actions of ignoring the inherent power dynamic between us. I also started to
see that I was not viewing Omar as a learner, and I assumed that he had the tools he needed to
engage in a conversation with me (Zeichner, 2005). I started to become aware that my role as a
teacher educator was to slow down and make my thinking explicit as well as actively engaging
132

Omar into the conversation rather than allowing him to be a passive recipient (Loughran &
Berry, 2005). I did not yet critically reflect on how my actions reinforced power dynamics
between us (Brookfield, 2002), though I attempted to think in terms of power in the excerpt from
the reflection below. Overall, I was starting to become more aware that I was centering myself
and not being present to Omar and his needs as a learner during our interactions (Rodgers. 2002),
thus failing to act as a teacher educator (Zeichner, 2005). The reflection was titled, “What role
does power play in affecting Omar bringing his authentic self?” I wrote,
I noticed hesitancy from Omar and I’m wondering if my positional power, identity as a
White woman in education for many years may cause him to wait for my response to
agree with rather than feeling comfortable to share his own ideas. I was recording the
information and leading the agenda, and he hasn’t really had the opportunity to do that
at all so far in his program. I evaluate him every week, and he is constantly looking to
me to see what I think and what he should do. Planning is very personal and having
open trust with each other is important. I know that he trusts my authority and trusts my
competency, however, I don’t think he trusts himself yet in decision-making processes.
So, when we start to plan and I try to hand him more authority, it may be comforting to
fall back into getting verification from me that what he’s thinking is ok and acceptable
to do. I’m wondering how I can step away, provide more space for silence to help build
trust and breakdown the power differential since there is an expectation that I’ll have an
opinion or response to what is being said. I may need to respond less and make space
for active listening to his ideas so that I can communicate nonverbally that his ideas
matter and he doesn’t need permission or justification from me before voicing them.
133

When I asked myself the question “What role does power play in affecting Omar bringing his
authentic self?” to our planning session. I answered by writing a descriptive reflection and
hypothesized why Omar was not bringing his authentic self to planning rather than thinking
critically about my actions. I was aware that something was wrong between our dynamic when I
said, “I noticed hesitancy from Omar.” I did attempt to think about power in relation to my
identity (Brookfield, 2017) and how that may have contributed to Omar’s hesitancy when I said,
“I’m wondering if my positional power, identity as a White woman in education for many years
may cause him to wait for my response to agree with rather than feeling comfortable to share his
own ideas.” I also showed an awareness of how I was taking control of the planning sessions
when I said, “I was recording the information and leading the agenda, and he hasn’t really had
the opportunity to do that at all so far in his program.” I became aware that I had not given him
opportunities to engage, however, I did not interrogate how my actions of controlling the agenda,
doing all the talking and recording what I deemed as important during the session were forms of
how I was exhibiting my power and authority over Omar. I did not stop to think about how these
actions were signaling to Omar that he had no real and authentic role in planning and reinforcing
his role as a subordinate to me (Brookfield, 2017). Instead of taking ownership for my own
actions, I hypothesized why Omar was not engaging or simply agreeing with me during planning
by taking myself and my role as a teacher educator out of the conversation (Zeichner, 2005) and
looking towards Omar as the reason when I said,
however, I don’t think he trusts himself yet in decision-making processes. So, when we
start to plan and I try to hand him more authority, it may be comforting to fall back into
getting verification from me that what he’s thinking is ok and acceptable to do.
134

This showed a lack of awareness that I was dominating the conversation and not allowing him to
engage (Brookfield, 2017) as well as a continued misperception that I did not need to support
him as a teacher educator (Zeichner, 2005). Rather, it was something about him that needed to
change. My thinking focused on how I could support his confidence. I removed any critical
reflection upon how my actions actively pushed him out of the conversation and reinforced
hegemonic structures of power (Brookfield, 2002) by centering myself as the knower and
decision maker (Garrett, 2008). I was also abdicating my responsibility as a teacher educator by
not providing him the thinking and reasoning tools to learn the process of lesson design
(Zeichner, 2005).
I began to show some awareness that my underlying belief that my actions did not affect
Omar was not true (Mezirow, 1991) when I said, “I’m wondering how I can step away, provide
more space for silence to help build trust and breakdown the power differential since there is an
expectation that I’ll have an opinion or response to what is being said.” However, I failed to
make the connection that my actions would have to change in setting up an environment where I
was listening actively (Mezirow, 1991). I was starting to think about trust, however, not yet in
the way that it may have mattered. I was holding on to the misunderstanding that I should break
down the power differential between us by continuing to ignore it rather than actively addressing
it and viewing Omar as a learner so that I could provide the tools he needed to engage in
discourse with me (Zeichner, 2005). Ultimately, when I came to realize this later through
conversations with my advisor and then acted on it, it was a form of showing and building trust
between us. I began to empathize with him as a learner so that we could engage in more
productive discourse (Mezirow, 1991). Finally, in the last sentence of the reflection, I began to
recognize more specifically how my nonverbal behaviors affected Omar’s responses when I said,
135

“I may need to respond less and make space for active listening to his ideas so that I can
communicate nonverbally that his ideas matter and he doesn’t need permission or justification
from me before voicing them.” I was beginning to see and describe (Rodgers, 2002) the
relationship between my actions and Omar’s responses. However, I still did not recognize that I
needed to empower Omar by providing him tools to engage in discourse (Mezirow, 1991). After
discussing with my advisor, I was able to see that I was silencing Omar’s voice and
disempowering him by doing so (Brookfield, 2017). I shared with my advisor that my hope was
for Omar not to need me when he was planning and that he could just use the knowledge he
already has to apply to the lesson design. My advisor helped me to see that was not the goal of
my research. She also helped me to see that by ignoring the inherent power differential and not
providing Omar with assistance and scaffolds, I was only disempowering rather than
empowering him to eventually become autonomous in planning on his own. I immediately
shifted how I communicated during planning with Omar in our next session. I realized that I
needed to act as a teacher educator by actively engaging Omar in the conversation. I needed to
ask him questions and explain my thinking when I shared an idea to help him learn the process.
The day after the fifth and final planning session during Cycle 1, Omar shared unsolicited
feedback with me about a change he noticed in how I was interacting with him during our
planning sessions. Omar noticed that I stepped back and allowed more processing time for him to
engage with me. This occurred after I had a conversation with my advisor and realized that I
needed to view Omar as a learner and take responsibility as his teacher to help him learn the
process of planning. In turn, by becoming more intentional about acting as a teacher educator
(Zeichner, 2005), I was able to shift my focus to be more learner centered during our
conversations (Garrett, 2008). I was able to pause and reflect in the moment (Rodgers, 2002) to
136

take ownership of my role as teacher educator and invite Omar into the conversation through my
use of questioning and was more intentional about modeling my thinking process. Below is a
descriptive reflection I wrote to capture the feedback Omar had given to me where he described a
shift in how we were in interacting. The reflection was titled, “Descriptive Reflection following
Omar’s Feedback.” I wrote,
This morning Omar approached me and told me that he noticed that yesterday I was
using teacher moves that were really helpful for me. He said that he saw me step back
and let him process which helped him to do this on his own and then I asked probing
questions when needed, and clarified by asking this is what I heard, is this accurate. He
said that by me doing that he realized that he sometimes was like oh no, that’s not what I
meant to say. He said it made him think about how he can do this as well for students in
class when they’re trying to make sense of something since he saw how much that helped
him out. It was nice to hear that Omar noticed a difference in my actions. I realized that I
was not viewing him as a learner and not providing opportunities for him to think and
engage during planning conversations. It’s hard for me not to just jump and try to get the
task done or take control. However, just like I am with students, I need to be intentional
about what I say and do during our planning sessions. I can’t leave it for chance or how I
feel in the moment or else I’ll rush into things and not allow Omar the time and space he
needs.
Omar revealed a shift he noticed in my actions and shared how that impacted his responses.
When Omar told me “He saw me step back and let him process,” he indicated that I was
providing the thinking and processing time that he needed to engage in a conversation
(Zeichner, 2005). When Omar told me, “Then I asked probing questions when needed, and
137

clarified by asking this is what I heard, is this accurate,” I was validating and showing Omar
that his voice and contributions were important (Brookfield, 2017) and that I wanted to hear
them, thus breaking down the power differential between us and empowering Omar to share his
thoughts. When Omar told me,
he said that by me doing that he realized that he sometimes was like oh no, that’s not
what I meant to say. He said it made him think about how he can do this as well for
students in class when they’re trying to make sense of something since he saw how
much that helped him out
I was enacting my role as a teacher educator by allowing him an opportunity to think through
and clarify his own thoughts as well as modeling how to respond and encourage students to
share and elaborate on their ideas in our classroom (Zeichner, 2005). In my final reflection, I
recognized a shift in my behavior to a more learner centered approach by providing Omar
thinking and processing time (Garrett, 2008) when I said,
however, just like I am with students, I need to be intentional about what I say and do
during our planning sessions. I can’t leave it for chance or how I feel in the moment or
else I’ll rush into things and not allow Omar the time and space he needs.
I acknowledged my weakness of being teacher centered when I said, “It’s hard for me not to just
jump and try to get the task done or take control,” however I did not interrogate further what
this need for control was and how that manifested in my interactions with Omar by reifying my
positional power and elevating my voice (Brookfield, 2017). Nonetheless, by viewing Omar as
a learner (Zeichner, 2005) and changing my behaviors during our interactions by becoming
more present to his needs (Rodgers, 2002), I was beginning to empower rather than disempower
Omar to engage in discourse in the process of learning lesson design. I will demonstrate this
138

growth in being able to support Omar from Cycle 1 to 3 when I discuss how I started to
recognize Omar’s ZPD during planning sessions and provided appropriate forms of assistance.
I had shifted the way I approached our planning sessions by recognizing that Omar did
not have all the knowledge and tools he needed already to engage in planning, but that I would
have to act as his teacher in supporting him with that (Zeichner, 2005). However, I still had not
addressed directly to Omar the hierarchical power dynamic between us that was affecting our
ability to engage in authentic discourse with each other (Brookfield, 2017). At the beginning of
Cycle 2, I did attempt to address the power dynamic and acknowledge my own weakness in
doing most of the thinking, talking, and planning while not directly engaging Omar. Below is an
exchange that Omar and I had during the first of four planning sessions during Cycle 2. I shared
with Omar that I noticed that he was simply agreeing with me and not talking much during our
planning sessions in Cycle 1. I asked if he noticed the same and what he had thought about that
and how it made him feel.
J: After looking through my data, I noticed that, wow I did a bad job in helping you
through learning the process of planning. I did so much talking with very little
explaining and I noticed that most of the time you were just agreeing with me if
you talked at all. I’m really sorry, for ugh, doing that. I know it’s my weakness
and in haste to try to get things done I just was talking a lot, and that’s not, it’s
not what I wanted. I really want you to feel comfortable with telling me what you
think. I don’t want it to be all my ideas. I know that there were parts that were
logistical and I just wanted to show you, but there were many more times I could
have asked for you thoughts or I had hoped you would share if you disagreed.
I’m afraid that you think you have to agree with me or that the plans have to be
139

what I want. It’s ok for us not use something I created last year. I want you to
change it and make it your own or if you find something else. I just thought it
would be easier for you to see that we have something to start from and not from
scratch.
O: Thank you for saying that, Jill. I did notice it too. I was agreeing with you a lot,
but not because I didn’t agree but I wasn’t sure what to say. I was like just, like
taking it all in you know. It was a lot coming at me and I was trying to process. I
appreciate you showing me everything though, I needed to see that. I thought
we’d just be googling stuff. I was so scared to start planning because I thought
it’d be hours of googling and putting things together. It was nice to see oh this is
the unit plan, here is where we think about essential questions and write LT’s
[learning targets] and here are plans we can go off so we’re not starting from
scratch. I’m so relieved we’re not starting from scratch and now like I see things
better. Last semester when I wasn’t part of planning I didn’t know where to find
things or how they connected, but now I see oh this is back template and this is
where everything is going. It makes more sense now. I know what you mean by
me not talking much, but I think I needed to just see everything and try to
process and I didn’t have that much to say, but I agree though Jill, in the next
session I do want to do more planning like um take the reigns more.
J: It’s kind of you to say that and I’m glad you got something out of it, but I
realized that many times I was just saying a lot of stuff and not explaining it and
it could be confusing and I really want you to be a part of this. I’m wondering,
when I didn’t ask you what you thought and just kept talking and moving
140

forward, like how did that make you feel?
O: Well, I was stressed a little at times and wasn’t really sure what direction we
were going in, but I think that’s because I didn’t yet know how everything
worked. No Jill, it’s ok, I appreciate you saying that, but I’m new to this too.
We’re all learning, you did good. I think I needed some of that as a starting
point.
I addressed how I failed to be present to Omar (Rodgers, 2002) and view him as a learner
during planning sessions when I said, “I noticed that, wow I did a bad job in helping you
through learning the process of planning. I did so much talking with very little explaining and I
noticed that most of the time you were just agreeing with me if you talked at all.” I
acknowledged that I was doing most of the talking and not being attentive to Omar’s needs as a
learner. I then acknowledged how I unintentionally exerted my power (Brookfield, 2017) over
Omar during planning by my words and actions indicating only my ideas matter when I said,
but there were many more times I could have asked for your thoughts or I had hoped
you would share if you disagreed. I’m afraid that you think you have to agree with me or
that the plans have to be what I want.
I acknowledged how I had exerted my power as the mentor teacher and main decision maker
when I did not ask for his thoughts and I believed that he had to “agree with me or that the plans
have to be what I want.” I attempted to break down the inherent power differential between us
(Brookfield, 2017) by explicitly letting Omar know that I wanted him to make planning
decisions even though he was still learning when I said,
It’s ok for us not to use something I created last year. I want you to change it and make
it your own or if you find something else. I just thought it would be easier for you to see
141

that we have something to start from and not from scratch.
Omar recognized not being able to partake in the conversation and welcomed the changes I
suggested when he said,
Thank you for saying that, Jill. I did notice it too. I was agreeing with you a lot, but not
because I didn’t agree but I wasn’t sure what to say. I was like just, like taking it all in
you know. It was a lot coming at me and I was trying to process
and when he said, “but I agree though Jill, in the next session I do want to do more planning like
um take the reins more.” Omar verified that he needed me to slow down and view him as a
learner (Rodgers, 2002) so that he could process and move from episteme to phronesis
(Loughran & Berry, 2005), which he could not do on his own. I then attempted to break down
the power differential again by being vulnerable about my mistakes (Brookfield, 2017) and
indicating to Omar that I valued him as a person and wanted to know how my actions were
making him feel (Brookfield, 2017) during our conversations when I said,
but I realized that many times I was just saying a lot of stuff and not explaining it and it
could be confusing and I really want you to be a part of this. I’m wondering, when I
didn’t ask you what you thought and just kept talking and moving forward, like how did
that make you feel?
I showed growth in my willingness to pause and take time to reflect and listen (Rodgers, 2002)
to how he was feeling during this process rather than ignoring it or just continuing with the
agenda as I had during Cycle 1.
Recognizing and Providing Forms of Assistance Within Omar’s ZPD
As already described above, during Cycles 2 and 3 I started to view myself as a teacher
educator (Zeichner, 2005). I became intentional about recognizing Omar’s ZPD and providing
142

the appropriate scaffolds (Warford, 2011) so that he could contribute as a collaborator during
planning conversations. During most of Cycle 1 I was not intentional about using andragogical
moves such as questioning and modeling (Tharp & Gallimore,1989) to provide Omar with the
tools necessary to engage in inquiry-based and culturally responsive lesson planning. Instead, I
confused Omar with my monologues and asked multiple questions at once which made it
difficult for him to follow and truly engage in a conversation. Loughran and Berry (2005)
describe that telling, showing, and guiding practice does not allow a new teacher to develop
perceptual understanding needed for phronesis in the way that hearing and discussing differing
perspectives can. Once I started to recognize Omar’s ZPD, I was better able to use andragogical
moves such as questioning and modeling described in finding 1 better. Below is an example of a
typical exchange we had when planning during Cycles 2 and 3. This exchange occurred during
the first of four planning sessions during Cycle 2 where I demonstrated my growth in being able
to recognize Omar’s ZPD and model my thinking as well as provide scaffolded questions to help
Omar stop, reflect, and think through an appropriate guided question that he could ask students
for this lesson.
O: I was looking at questions that were there [in the original lesson Omar was
revising], but I want to tailor questions more based on students and what they
bring to classroom and to tie in personal experiences with these videos
J: I wonder if the Engage is what do you know about acids or what experiences have
you had with acids?
O: How do we take or use acids or something connected to the community, or your
experiences getting burned, harsh chemicals, or acne salicylic acid or mechanics
when they spill something, hmmm.
143

J: Think like a student what do you think would engage the students the most?
O: Growing up I struggled with acne and Neutrogena, it burned my face. I’ve heard
girls and boys and how they talk about it in class too so it relates to them, but a
question, hmmm [expressive, talking with hands, calm and relaxed tone, then long
pause].
J: Maybe putting it on, does it burn or not? Are there products that work for you or
don’t work for you?
O: That’s what I’m thinking, let me go ahead and put that in there.
J: Looking back at learning target and your question, I see how this is a question for
the whole case study, but are they doing this in this lesson?
O: I noticed that, so I was thinking I need to change that because I asked myself that
question. I need to tailor this so the question is what actually happens in the
lesson. So, I’m trying to think about this, let me take a look at the readings again
and exactly what I’d want to do with that.
J: You read my mind, that’s what I was just thinking would be a good thing to do.
O: So, if I am going to have them explain, then they can explain using patterns,
instead of predicting, or let me see what do I want to decide for them to do for the
guided instruction [looking through materials, reading, hand on his chin]. So, for
the reading, I want them to understand why would the HCl react with the body. I
want them to come up with the idea that they are forming the ions and reacting in
the body. This chemical is reacting in your body based on molecular interactions
and to ultimately fulfill the octet rule.
J: So, it could work making a question for that or you might want to say the trend
144

you want them to think about.
O: It can be I can use patterns [pause]. I can use valence electron patterns to explain
basically why the acid reacting in the body. So, it goes back to the clearisol in the
body, why does that happen? Ok its ve [valence electrons] and H and F are 1 and
1. I want them to see that not only H can bond with F but also Li, Mg, and K.
J: And are these also still in the body or are these other things they can bond with?
O: Yeah, like sodium, like salt in the body.
J: Ca in the bones, Mg, alkali metal ions, like K is responsible for muscle
contractions and electrical pulses in your heart.
J: I’m hearing that you want to relate HF to how it might relate to skin care, and
other elements in the body that can be affected, is that true?
O: Yeah. How can I use patterns from the periodic table to predict how elements
found in the body interact with harmful acids?
When I responded to Omar’s comment by saying, “I wonder if the Engage is what do you
know about acids or what experiences have you had with acids?,” I had recognized that
Omar noticed that the questions in the Engage part of the lesson should change and that
he did not yet understand how to change them. I moved within Omar’s ZPD (Warford, 2011) by
inquiring using the words “I wonder” and then modeling my own thinking when I gave a
suggested open-ended question we could ask students with the intention to probe his thinking of
what the actual question could be. By inquiring while providing a sample question, I was
indicating to Omar that he should come up with a question and not just use what I said. Omar
understood this when he came up with ideas for a question that was not quite fully developed, “
How do we take or use acids or something connected to the community, or your experiences
145

getting burned, harsh chemicals, or acne salicylic acid or mechanics when they spill something,
hmmm.” I continued to move through his ZPD to push him to become more precise with his
question when I asked, “Think like a student what do you think would engage the students the
most?” Omar was able to elaborate that he wanted to ask students something more specific and
relatable to them, but still did not formulate a question. I noticed that he was struggling with
coming up with the wording he could use, though his ideas were there. I moved through his ZPD
(Warford, 2011) again by modeling sample questions that could work when I said, “Maybe
putting it on, does it burn or not? Are there products that work for you or don’t work for
you?” Omar said that was what he was “thinking” indicating that my modeling likely allowed
him to put his thoughts into words. When he still was thinking of a question, I then asked a more
specific question to assist his thinking when I said, “I see how this is a question for the whole
case study, but are they doing this in this lesson?” I wanted to see how well Omar was able to
take his epistemic knowledge and apply it appropriately in this lesson (Loughran & Berry, 2005).
This question also allowed me to uncover his ZPD so that I could then push his thinking more
after. He indicated that he noticed that his guiding question was not appropriate for the lesson.
He made his thinking visible, which showed that he had started to internalize some of the
questions and thought processes he should undertake during planning when he said, “I noticed
that, so I was thinking I need to change that because I asked myself that question. I need to tailor
this so the question is what actually happens in the lesson.” I recognized that Omar not only
noticed he needed to make the change, but that he had internalized and asked himself this
question on his own and based on his current ZPD that he was ready to now answer it without
my assistance. Omar responded by showing how he was thinking about asking a question that
had to do with “explain” and “patterns.” I provided assistance in making my thoughts explicit to
146

Omar as my learner (Loughran & Berry, 2005) in what he should think about to come up with a
question when I said, “or you might want to say the trend you want them to think about,” and
then followed with a guiding question to help him move through his ZPD (Warford, 2011) to
come up with a question when I said, “is there a specific pattern?” We then had a short exchange
where Omar further solidified his thinking to come up with a guiding question that would be
appropriate for this lesson. I noticed that he was close, but not yet able to demonstrate a
phronesis (Loughran & Berry, 2005) by coming up with an appropriate question. I recognized
that based on his ZPD he probably needed something explicit from me (Loughran & Berry,
2005) again, so I restated what he said for him to hear the words aloud to come up with a
question for the students when I said, “I’m hearing that you want to relate HF to how it might
relate to skin care, and other elements in the body that can be affected, is that true?” This also
was a way of validating Omar’s thoughts and showing that I was actively listening, thus
supporting breaking down the power differential between us so that we could engage in
discourse (Brookfield, 2017). This was just enough assistance to help Omar unstick himself and
come up with a question for students when he said, “how can I use patterns from the periodic
table to predict how elements found in the body interact with harmful acids?” By being present
and actively listening (Rodgers, 2002), I was able to assess Omar’s ZPD in the moment and help
him move through his ZPD (Warford, 2011) so that he could apply his epistemic understanding
in practice (Loughran & Berry, 2005) as part of the lesson design process. It also showed that
valued Omar and believed that he could come up with a question with my support rather than
assuming he already knew or jumping in too quickly to give my ideas. By acting more as a
teacher educator, I was also breaking down the traditional hegemonic interactions we were
having during Cycle 1 where I held all the decision-making power (Brookfield, 2017).
147

Overall, I grew in my ability to be present and respond appropriately (Rodgers, 2002) to
support Omar through the lesson planning process. I started to view myself in the role as a
teacher educator and understand that I needed to engage Omar in authentic discourse to allow
Omar to work through difficulties in planning instead of telling or showing him how to do it
(Loughran & Berry, 2005). Once I became more attuned to Omar as a learner, he was able to
gain a perceptual understanding to develop a phronesis around lesson design (Loughran & Berry,
2005). Although he was able to engage in conversation and I encouraged him to make decisions
during planning, I believe by not directly addressing my wrongdoing in how I interacted, Omar
continued to look for me and take the suggestions that I offered during future planning sessions.
Despite my efforts to invite Omar into a conversation and break down the power differential
once I was aware of it, it was unclear if Omar ever felt comfortable disagreeing with me or
taking ownership in planning.
Afterword
My understanding of my role as a mentor changed after analyzing the data I collected
during the three action cycles. I became more cognizant of how my actions were interpreted by
Omar. Like the process Zeichner described (2005), I discovered my responsibility to act as a
teacher educator so that I could assist Omar as he continued to design and critically reflect on
lessons for our class.
Changes in How I Viewed my Role as a Mentor
Through conversations with my advisor during data analysis and then in writing my
findings, I started to critically reflect more on how my actions pushed Omar away rather than
inviting him into learning how to plan. This allowed me to become more empathetic to seeing
Omar as a learner rather than a knower. I started to meet Omar within his ZPD rather than
148

operating outside of his ZPD. One example of this was when I started to empathize with Omar as
a learner when he was completing his edTPA for his teaching credential while also working on
an action research group project for school. He was having difficulty keeping pace with his
schoolwork and the demands of lesson planning in our classroom. I was frustrated at first
because I wanted Omar to show what he had internalized by creating at least two more 5E
lessons for the end of the year. However, I realized that this was an unreasonable expectation to
ask of a novice teacher who was also juggling a heavy course load. I was operating outside of his
ZPD by trying to push him to an unrealistic goal of planning independent from my support. I was
able to recognize this through critical reflection so that I could then step into his ZPD and create
experiences of constructive disorientation that could lead to deeper learning when we had the
chance to plan or reflect on lessons together. I started to interact with Omar in a way that allowed
him to start thinking more critically about design choices and the impact on students. As a result,
Omar was able to grow much more in his internalization and understanding of the lesson design
process. Omar demonstrated what he had internalized and learned during his Master’s Oral
Comprehensive exam when he was awarded passing with accolades specifically for his ability to
provide examples of culturally responsive teaching practices integrated into NGSS science
lessons.
Moving Forward With a Resident
I will not have a resident teacher next year. However, I did spend some time thinking
about what I had learned from this action research about myself that I did not know prior and
plan to enact if I do have a resident teacher in the future. I plan to act as teacher educator from
the start. I will slow down and be present to my resident teacher and mindful about recognizing
their current ZPD and moving within it rather than outside of it. I will critically reflect on my
149

own words and actions more and the impact that they may have on my resident teacher and
whether I am supporting or stifling their growth. I realize now that even if a resident does have
experience teaching, I need to always be attuned to my positional power and act as a teacher
educator rather than abdicate this responsibility to them. It is only in doing this that I will truly
be able to support a resident so that they can grow in their practice.
Moving Forward With Peers
I will be joining a new teaching community next year. I plan to still act in similar ways as
a teacher educator when collaborating now with peers. I realized that I assumed that others
understood what I was thinking without explaining my thinking. I plan to be mindful about what
I am saying so I can be explicit about my thinking process when collaborating with others. I also
will be working with two teachers at my new school whom I formerly coached at a different
organization. Although they will not be a resident teacher within my classroom, I need to be
mindful of how they may perceive me as a former coach. Through this process, I learned that
past interactions do matter, and we will need to learn how to interact in a new way. I can still be
attuned to their ZPD when collaborating and as Cochran-Smith and Lytle (2015) describe, taking
an inquiry as stance approach as we work together as colleagues. By taking this approach, it will
allow me to be more present to them while breaking down the former power differential that we
once had.
I also realize now identity and positionality are always present and impact interactions.
There are two colleagues I will be working with closely who are also White women. I am unsure
of their knowledge and experiences in integrating culturally responsive practices. I would like to
use the tools I have learned about actively listening and being present to recognize their ZPD and
provide suggestions or alternative perspectives for how to approach a topic that may be different
150

than the way it may have been taught in the past. I would like to continue critically reflecting on
my actions and behaviors and how I may be helping or hindering the team in thinking deeply
about their design choices. For example, I could ask the team to think about if lesson plans
prioritize students use of everyday language to make meaning of conceptual ideas, student
choice, and discourse opportunities over memorization of facts and scientific vocabulary. To do
this, I will need to hold myself and others accountable. I hope to develop a critical friends group
to engage in conversations where we can honestly talk to each other about how we show up at
meetings as well as how we are supporting the uptake of culturally responsive practices within
the department. I can start by discussing these topics with the two co-workers who I once worked
with since we already have a relationship with each other. I can be vulnerable to them asking for
honest feedback about how I show up in my interactions with others in the department and with
them. I can do the same for them and we can act as a support network checking ourselves on if
and how our actions align with the belief and desire to enact inquiry-based and culturally
responsive practices to engage students in meaningful learning.
I also am more aware of how positionality can impact authentic collaboration, especially
when working with people for the first time. I can learn a lot from one colleague I will be
collaborating with as it is my first-year teaching eighth grade and I will be at a new school.
However, I do have twice as much teaching experience, and I need to be conscious of how she
might interpret any suggestions, questions, or feedback I give. I want to be sensitive to the
potential power dynamic that may be at play and not ignore it. On the flip side, I am conscious of
my own feelings of inadequacy and nervousness in collaborating with the physics teacher who
has both more experience teaching and teaching physics than I do. I am more aware in general
that nothing is ever neutral when coming into a planning situation and that I will need to be
151

mindful of how I present myself to others by asking what they need from me and being honest
about what I need from them to collaborate.
In sum, I believe my role in acting as a teacher educator and leader will always be present
no matter what my position. Although in this study I did have positional power over my resident,
more subtle power dynamics will continue to play out with the new colleagues I will be working
with. I will need to be mindful about how I respond and use what I know as a teacher educator to
be present and welcome others that may feel less empowered by their identity or positionality as
well as be explicit about what I need when I feel less empowered. This can allow for mutual
respect where it can be more likely to operate from inquiry as stance to allow all of us to grow in
our practice.
Future Research
This study was limited to studying my actions as a teacher educator supporting a resident
teacher’s growth in learning how to design inquiry-based culturally responsive lessons. Having
an intentional and thoughtful plan is the first step so that during implementation students have
the potential to experience meaningful learning. Although, this is only one aspect of acting as
and supporting a novice teacher in learning how to become an effective teacher in the classroom.
In the future, I would like to also collect data on the quality of feedback that I provide as a
teacher educator to a novice teacher during and after implementation. The final step would be to
collect conversational data and student work from the students to analyze if and how
implementation of the plans led to meaningful learning and how I acted as a teacher educator in
supporting novice teachers in making future adjustments to lesson design and/or implementation
in the future.

152

References
Andersen, L., & Ward, T. J. (2014). Expectancy-value models for the STEM persistence plans of
ninth-grade, high-ability students: A comparison between black, hispanic, and white
students: STEM Persistence. Science Education, 98(2), 216–242.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21092
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Introduction: Beyond the Fog of Ideology. Counterpoints, 319, IX–

XXIX. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42979848

Barton, A. C. (2003). Kobe’s story: Doing science as contested terrain. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(4), 533–552.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000099534
Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2009). Funds of knowledge and discourses and hybrid space. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 46(1), 50–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20269
Bogden, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon Boston,
MA.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. John Wiley & Sons, 307.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random
House.
Brown, B. A. (2021). Science in the city: Culturally relevant STEM education. Harvard
Education Press.
Bybee, R. W., Taylor, J. A., Gardner, A., Van Scotter, P., Powell, J. C., Westbrook, A., &
Landes, N. (2006). The BSCS 5E instructional model: Origins and effectiveness.
BSCS, 5, 88–98.
153

Carter, P. L. (2013). Student and school cultures and the opportunity gap. Closing the
Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, 143–
155.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next
generation. Teachers College Press.
Drago-Severson, E. (2008). Pillars for adult learning. Journal of Staff Development, 29(4), 60–
63.
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
Dumas, M. J., & Ross, K. M. (2016). “Be real black for me”: Imagining blackcrit in education.
Urban Education, 51(4), 415–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916628611
Duran, L. B., & Duran, E. (2004). The 5E instructional model: A learning cycle approach for

inquiry-based science teaching. Science Education Review, 3(2), 49–58.

Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Garrett, T. (2008). Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study
of three elementary teachers. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 34–47.
German, S. (2019). Using the anchoring phenomenon routine to introduce a science

unit. Science Scope, 42(5), 32–35.

Gravel, B., Tucker-Raymond, E., Olivares, M., Millner, A., College, O., Wright, C. G., Cellitti,
J., Likely, R., Miller, M., Watkins, J., Radoff, J., Sohr, E. R., Gupta, A., & de Royston,
M. M. (2020, June 19–23). Centering relationships in STEM disciplines: A sociopolitical
154

lens on teacher learning. International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Nashville,
TN. https://www.isls.org/event/icls-2020/
Hammond, Z. (2014). Culturally responsive teaching and the brain: Promoting authentic
engagement and rigor among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Corwin Press.
Jiang, S., Simpkins, S. D., & Eccles, J. S. (2020). Individuals’ math and science motivation and
their subsequent STEM choices and achievement in high school and college: A
longitudinal study of gender and college generation status differences. Developmental
Psychology, 56(11), 2137–2151. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001110
Jones, C. (2018, May 22). Latino, African-Americans have less access to math, science classes,
new data show. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2018/latino-african-americans-have-
less-access-to-math-science-classes-new-data-show/598083
Kumar, R., Zusho, A., & Bondie, R. (2018). Weaving cultural relevance and achievement
motivation into inclusive classroom cultures. Educational Psychologist, 53(2), 78–96.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1432361
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751
Loughran, J. (2013). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching &
learning about teaching. Routledge.
Loughran, J., & Berry, A. (2005). Modelling by teacher educators. Teaching and teacher

education, 21(2), 193–203.

155

Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education,
1(1), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541344603252172
Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). Maestro, what is quality?:
Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1014
Olayemi, M., & DeBoer, J. (2021). Enacting Culturally Relevant Pedagogy for
Underrepresented Minorities in STEM Classrooms: Challenges and Opportunities. 2021
CoNECD.
Patel, L. (2016). Pedagogies of resistance and survivance: Learning as marronage. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 49(4), 397–401.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1227585
Patton, L. D. (2016). Disrupting postsecondary prose: Toward a critical race theory of higher

education. Urban Education, 51(3), 315–342.

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
Ravitch, Sharon M., and Nicole Mittenfelner Carl. Qualitative research: Bridging the
conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage Publications, 2019.
156

Robinson, K. A., Perez, T., Carmel, J. H., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2019). Science identity
development trajectories in a gateway college chemistry course: Predictors and relations
to achievement and STEM pursuit. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 56, 180–192.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.004
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of reflection.
Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230.
Sahin, A., & Kulm, G. (2008). Sixth grade mathematics teachers’ intentions and use of probing,
guiding, and factual questions. Journal of mathematics teacher education, 11(3), 221–41.
Sengupta-Irving, T., & Vossoughi, S. (2019). Not in their name: Re-interpreting discourses of
STEM learning through the subjective experiences of minoritized girls. Race Ethnicity
and Education, 22(4), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1592835
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling

in social context. Cambridge University Press.

Tyson, K. (2013). Tracking segregation, and the opportunity gap. Closing the Opportunity Gap:
What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, 169–180.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008
Wergin, J. F. (2019). Deep learning in a disorienting world (1st ed.). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108647786
Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2020). Ambitious science teaching. Harvard
Education Press.
Zeichner, K. (2005). Becoming a teacher educator: A personal perspective. Teaching and teacher
education, 21(2), 117–124.
157

Zeidler, D. L., Sadler, T. D., Simmons, M. L., & Howes, E. V. (2005). Beyond STS: A research-
based framework for socioscientific issues education. Science Education, 89(3), 357–377.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20048
Zeidler, D. L. (2016). STEM education: A deficit framework for the twenty first century? A
sociocultural socioscientific response. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 11–
26.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study was an action research self-study that examined my role as a teacher educator supporting a resident teacher in learning how to design inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons. I explored my own growth in understanding how to act as a teacher educator to provide appropriately scaffolded support to promote learning for a resident teacher in understanding the lesson design process. A single research question guided my study: How do I support a resident teacher in internalizing, articulating, and designing inquiry-based culturally responsive science lessons that provide opportunities for students to engage in meaningful learning? I collected transcripts, field notes, descriptive and critical reflections related to collaborative planning conversations I had with a resident teacher. I found that I was able to support my resident teacher in internalizing and articulating how to design inquiry-based culturally responsive lessons by asking scaffolded questions and modeling my thinking and reasoning during the lesson design process. I also uncovered the ways that I both supported and hindered learning for my resident teacher by examining my behaviors and actions during our interactions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Developing cultural competence in relation to multilingual learners

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A multi-case study on teaching practices and how teachers use technology to support scientific inquiry in 1:1 classrooms

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

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

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Mayorga, Jill Mary (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 09/08/2022

Defense Date 08/18/2022

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

Tag action research,culturally responsive teaching,inquiry-based science lessons,OAI-PMH Harvest,science teaching,Teacher Education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Freking, Frederick (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email jill.mayorga@gmail.com,jmayorga@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111764649

Unique identifier UC111764649

Legacy Identifier etd-MayorgaJil-11188

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mayorga, Jill Mary

Type texts

Source 20220908-usctheses-batch-978 (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