University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Transformative Learning:
Action Research Disrupting the Status Quo in Literature in Classrooms
by
Ava Gilani Jacobs

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

May 2021

© Copyright by Ava Gilani Jacobs 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Ava Gilani Jacobs certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Akilah Lyons-Moore
Artineh Samkian
Julie Slayton, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
The purposes of this action research study were to: investigate the ways I was able to support my
students’ self and social transformation through their analysis of the inequities in the literature
and unearth how I used my leadership role to promote and foster conditions necessary for a
teacher in my grade level to adopt culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP). This study took place
over the course of the Fall 2020 semester at the elementary school where I am a fifth grade
teacher, Public School 921 (PS 921). PS 921 is located in an affluent suburb of Los Angeles, and
the majority of the students, faculty, and staff are White. The components of my study included:
formal and informal observations, critical reflections, and interviews. My research questions, in
conjunction with the pillars of my conceptual framework, were used to conduct in and out of the
field analysis. At the conclusion of my research, students experienced self and social
transformation because they were now able to name the inequities in the literature and,
sometimes, their relation to it. I grew in my ability to become present to the space I was
cultivating and how to support my students in their co-construction of knowledge. As it relates to
my effort to lead another teacher to adopt CRP, due to external factors and my lack of being
present to this research question, I was unable to fully answer it. However, leadership acts were
enacted and recently, the teacher adopted CRP into her teaching practices.

v

Dedication
To my father-in-law, Jeff Jacobs:
To Be Present
Verb
1. The act by a teacher—fueled by their energy and curiosity—of bringing together two
qualities (i.e., love and passion) in order to exhibit a wide-open acceptance of others that
is free of judgment, and also a passion for the subject matter and for learning (Rodgers,
2002).
My father-in-law, Jeff Jacobs, taught me what it meant to be present. His seemingly effortless
ability to be completely immersed within each moment, attention undivided, is something I
consistently aim to make progress towards. Jeff exemplified what it meant to be an educator—
both in his personal and professional life. His innate love for the subject matter and for the
“human endeavor of learning” (Rodgers, 2002, p. 237) conveyed how Jeff understood what it
meant to teach with passion. My father-in-law’s inherent curiosity about the world allowed him
to perceive more and respond in a way that was intentionally thoughtful. This way about him
resulted in those around Jeff to feel understood. Accepted. Loved. Therefore, it is because of him
that I was able to begin looking at this dissertation as a process—one that can only be
experienced if you are present to the nuances within each section. It is because of these reasons
that I dedicate this study to him.

vi

Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication .................................................................................................................................. v
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................... viii
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Historically Entrenched Inequity ..................................................................................... 4
The Context .................................................................................................................... 6
Role and Expectation ...................................................................................................... 8
Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 10
Critically Reflective and Adapative Leadership ............................................................. 13
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy ....................................................................................... 17
Meaningful Learning ..................................................................................................... 19
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 20
Research Methods .................................................................................................................... 21
Participants and Settings ............................................................................................... 24
Actions ......................................................................................................................... 27
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols .................................................................... 30
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 34
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 38
Credibility and Trustworthiness..................................................................................... 39
Ethics ............................................................................................................................ 40
Findings.................................................................................................................................... 41
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................... 42
Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................... 95
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 102

vii

Afterword ............................................................................................................................... 103
Out of the Field: Steps Forward ................................................................................... 104
Retrospective Idea ....................................................................................................... 107
Implications ................................................................................................................ 110
References .............................................................................................................................. 114

viii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 11

1

Introduction
I am the daughter of immigrant parents who chose to marry outside of their families’
religious affiliations and who ran away from a regime change in their homeland, desperate to
find a new home in the States. While my parents had conveyed to me that diversity was an asset,
the intersections of my identity—fully Persian, half-Jewish, and half-Muslim—created two very
different worlds for me. Thus, at the young age of 10, I too found myself running away. I was
running away from the parts of my identity that did not align with the identity of those around
me within the educational system. It was in fifth grade when I first remember hearing my
classmates and teachers freely speak about their heritage, as many frequented the same churches
or temples. Their heritage not only encompassed a Jewish, Christian, or Catholic upbringing, but
also one augmented by European or Russian ancestry. Hoping they would not discover that I was
not as familiar with most of their traditions, I attempted to hide solely behind my Jewish
birthright and gave up on other aspects of my background. This, I believed, would help me
camouflage into the fabric of the dominant population—a context that not only had a strong
culturally Jewish presence, as over half of the student population was Jewish, but one that I
believed held Judaism in higher regard than Islam. However, this attempt to stand in the
background was not sustainable.
In my early-teen years, much like many of my peers, I was struggling—for me,
continuing to struggle—to understand who I was. However, unlike my classmates who seemed
more grounded in their identities, my struggle manifested differently. It produced a back and
forth pattern of wanting to convey my truth, but also attempting to continue to hide it from my
school community. As a middle school student, I threw myself into attending more Judaic-based
events, in a desperate hope to “fit in.” While this transpired and my calendar began being filled
2

by these gatherings, I also found myself unable to suppress my Muslim roots to the same extent
as I had before. Due to this, and because I was not getting access to it at home, my curiosity
regarding this side of my family caused tension to bubble inside of me. It was during a
discussion on religion, in a seventh-grade history class, where I released that tension and
exclaimed my religious affiliations to my teacher and classmates. During that one second of
courage, I had the capacity to explain my complex lineage for the first time. Unfortunately, that
empowerment did not last long.
One year after making my dual religions known to my peers and teachers, one event—
September 11, 2001—not only changed the face of our nation, but also changed how others
viewed me. I was immediately labeled with the title of Muslim by my teachers and classmates, as
if my Jewish and Persian lineages that I also communicated the year prior, suddenly had
disappeared. This caused a domino effect of me wanting to push my truth further. In various
school assignments and presentations to my classmates and teachers, I tried to assert my identity
and push back on the false narrative that was being constructed about me. I had hoped that this
series of actions would help them better understand the intersections of my marbled identity.
However, this only resulted in them ignoring its complexity. My educators, specifically, in both
of my secondary and higher education experiences, chose to focus exclusively on my Islamic
heritage. They would insist that I speak for all Muslims. Classmates, as well as an English
professor I had in college, would simply question my relation to those who committed the
horrific crimes. In addition, the classroom literature, which was already filled with White
supremacist ideologies, began to shine a light and a one-sided look on Islamic practices. This
lens reframed the religion to only hold extreme and radical ideas, instead of one built on peace.
Rather than exploring these biases and paving a way for students to critically analyze the text,
3

teachers and the college faculty member seemed to support the stereotypes the text portrayed—
an action that almost seemed to give students permission to follow their model. It was due to my
school community’s expression of their dominant and uninterrogated ideologies, that I believed
my thoughts were not valid and did not matter anymore. Therefore, it had finally reached a point
in early college that the fight became too challenging, so I stopped and succumbed to
internalizing the status quo—my Muslim identity was only seen as something negative.
My story, while not unique, is my driver to create change in my pedagogical approach,
and in the future, the pedagogical approach of others. It is only now, upon reflection, I see that
my experience is similar to other students who have identities that do not overtly align with the
majority. I have also come to realize that my teachers were not aware of the opportunities to
confront the reproduction of marginalization and stereotyping, due to their role in a system that
had been setup to have them perform this way. The current educational system needs to
transform, so that teachers are able to model and support their students in analyzing the dominant
ideologies written in the curriculum and to connect those narratives to students’ daily lives.
When teachers are not encouraged to disrupt this status quo, schools will continue to utilize
curriculum that supports a White normative lens (Cooper, 2013; Milner, 2017). Further, when
educators lack cultural humility and sociocultural consciousness, it will continue to result in the
creation of lived stories, such as mine, to be pushed to the sidelines.
In the remainder of this section, I first illustrate and elaborate on this historically
entrenched inequity. Next, I examine how this inequity was expressed in my context at the time I
undertook this study, and finally, I describe my role in relation to it. It was through this
understanding that I was able to examine the following research questions: (1) How do I foster
meaningful learning, aimed toward raising my students’ sociopolitical consciousness, in order to
4

support their self- and social transformation through the analysis of the inequities that are
implied and explicit in the literature that perpetuate the status quo? (2) How, through my role as
a teacher leader, do I promote and foster conditions necessary for the teacher in my grade level to
investigate her practices with an eye towards adopting culturally relevant pedagogy?
Historically Entrenched Inequity
Over the last decade, White students went from being the majority in California public
schools, to being outnumbered by their non-White peers. During the 2018-2019 school year, for
example, the National Center of Education Statistics reported that only about 12% of all the
state’s students were White (NCES, 2019). Yet, the current educational system fails to recognize
the lived experiences of all of the students that are part of their system. A reason why this occurs
is due to the teachers, who are predominantly White, thus creating a cultural mismatch,
projecting their assumptions of what students need and who they are onto their students (Ball,
2009; Paris & Alim, 2014). Teachers who continue to utilize this approach in their instruction are
unable to cultivate sociopolitical consciousness within their classrooms or adopt culturally
responsive curricula that can disrupt this agenda (Ball, 2009; Milner, 2017). Instead of being
guided by their teachers to analyze the White supremacist narratives that are presented in the
literature, students continue to consider these oppressions as the norm.
Simultaneously in the United States, Lewis (2001) noted that most White students attend
mostly White schools and many of them do not recognize their own roles in blocking the growth
of social justice. Therefore, students are inadvertently engaging in the marginalization and
reproduction of these oppressions because of the worlds in which they are living, both inside and
outside of their school context. In the classroom and through the use of the curriculum, students
are projected the biased messages that are reflected in the dominant narrative they are learning
5

from daily—or as Lewis (2001) described it, the “hidden curriculum of race” (p. 782). Due to
these biased messaged, the educational system maintains the status quo that disadvantages non-
White and low income students. More specifically, by maintaining the status quo, schools will
continue to be highly racially segregated. This segregation fosters two things: 1) It will foster
White students who do not see how they are actors who stand as road blocks to further progress
for racial justice and more importantly, 2) it will also cultivate differing academic outcomes for
non-White students who do not have access to a stronger education because of racial lines
schools create (Lewis, 2001)—outcomes that lead towards unequal access to higher education,
racism and discrimination in the workplace (i.e., hiring and promotions), unequal access to loans
and housing, etc. Ultimately, what ends up transpiring is that society continues to marginalize
and discriminate against historically minoritized and marginalized groups (Lewis, 2001; Paris &
Alim, 2014). Therefore, to counteract the hidden curriculum being used in predominately White
educational institutions, a pedagogy aimed towards social justice needs to be enacted. Otherwise,
future generations of students will continue to be bound by White supremacist instruction (Paris
& Alim, 2014).
Due to this trend and the recognition of the problematic tensions that arise, researchers
have turned to Ladson-Billings’ culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) as a way to begin
building the blocks required to promote a more meaningful learning experience (Paris & Alim,
2014). CRP is a paradigm in which a teacher must understand their positionality and worldview,
as they create a classroom environment built on the demonstration of cultural competence,
setting and holding of high expectations, and sociopolitical consciousness. With this knowledge,
students are scaffolded to develop their ability to connect to one another and the texts in order to
bring to light social inequities (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Matsumura et
6

al., 2008). Therefore, CRP provides non-White students the opportunity to succeed academically
in safe learning space (Paris and Alim, 2014). Additionally, when CRP is re-environed so that it
leverages the tenet of sociopolitical consciousness and promotes ideological clarity, White
students, along with their educators and school leaders, can address and work to stop the social
reproduction of hegemonic assumptions (Bartolomé, 2004).
The Context
The context in which this inequity—historically minoritized and marginalized groups
having limited access to a strong education—was expressed was my school site, Public
School 921
1
(PS 921). PS 921 is located in an affluent suburb of Los Angeles. The median
household income in 2018 was $119,926 and the average home value in 2019 was $1,042,000
(U.S. Census, 2019). While the school predominately served students in the local community, it
also admitted a number of permitted students from the surrounding area (SUSD, 2020). Students
at PS 921 ranged from transitional kindergarten to fifth grade, with a total population of
approximately 579 students. Although the overall academic performance, as presented in
the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CASSPP) in the areas of math
and ELA declined recently, PS 921 was still considered a high-achieving California school (CA
Dashboard, 2019).
PS 921 students were predominantly White or 78.2% of the total population, with the
remaining 21.7% being composed of Asian, African American, American Indian, Latinx,
Filipino, and Pacific Islander students. Only 7.6% of PS 921’s students were “socioeconomically
disadvantaged” (CA Dashboard, 2019). The teacher demographic at PS 921 was mostly White,
with two teachers of the 30 teachers being of Asian descent and one teacher being Latinx. On

1
A pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the school site, as well as the names of the participants.
7

average, the PS 921 teachers were employed by the district for 15 years (SUSD, 2020). Due to
this unequal balance of both race (within the teacher and student population) and socioeconomic
status (SES) (as it related to the students) within the school, the teachers and students appeared to
have an inability to recognize the realities of all students at PS 921—students who do not meet
the normative standard (i.e., White and affluent) of the school’s context (Milner, 2010). These
actions created an environment which fed into the reproduction of the status quo and was
resulting in classroom teachers reflecting a colorblind and context-neutral approach. Through a
variety of platforms (i.e., my personal reflections, the English language arts (ELA) curriculum,
lesson plans, observations of the teachers and students, faculty/team meetings, and other school
interactions), it become clearer to me that teachers were continuing to use ELA instructional
materials and pedagogical moves that did not disrupt the PS 921’s dominant ways. When
analyzing the text as a class, for example, the text conveyed a White supremacist narrative that
was not being identified, causing PS 921 students to be unable to make connections between
what the text’s biased message was and how that message was transferred into their everyday
lives. Further, students were not able to use this platform to develop their own voice in a positive
learning space rooted in meaningful learning. With regards to my reflections prior to my
research, I saw how the dominant narrative I internalized as a student had carried over into my
teaching before my action research had started. Like my formative years in the educational
system, my current school context was been setup to allow me to only hear from the dominant
voices, due to the positionality of those in charge. However, while the district administrators
were mostly White men, my positionality of being a White woman, did more or less align to
dominant group and had projected my biases onto my students. This brought me to a crossroads
8

and a desire to position my current and future students and grade level teacher(s) to disrupt the
status quo.
Role and Expectation
At the time of this study, within my organization, I was a fifth grade teacher with almost
10 years of experience. In my tenure, I aimed to create a classroom where all students had the
opportunity for academic achievement/learning and where sociocultural consciousness and
cultural competence were at the forefront for the students. However, through critical reflection of
my own practice, it has become evident that prior to this school year, I did not create the full
classroom experience I had convinced myself that I was doing. As a White teacher, one who
was resistant in confronting the dominant ideologies that were presented in the school culture
and curriculum, I inadvertently silenced specific student populations and supported my grade
level teacher(s) to do the same.
Due to this critical praxis that I was engaged in prior to this study, it was apparent that I
did not know my students as fully as I once believed. With my current knowledge and doctoral
research, I have and will continue to commit to raising my students’ sociopolitical consciousness
and recognizing their lived experiences, as well as find ways to bolster my grade level teacher(s)
to follow suit. In order to change the practice I had prior to this study, so that it reflected an
asset-based pedagogy, I needed to recognize the psychological dimensions of my students and
teammate(s) and try to meet them where they were. By seeing how they were positioned in
relation to the context, I was able to cultivate a space, through critically reflective and adaptive
leadership strategies, where my learners were seen as individuals, able to contribute to the larger
goal. I have worked to ensure that my grade level teammate understands that we are on equal
footing, as I am not in an actual position of power. Strategies I utilized during this process, as it
9

related to both my students and my peer, included, but were not limited to, regulating distress
and hearing the voices of those below. These strategies not only assisted with equity, but also
supported in the promotion of a safe learning environment (Northouse, 2016).
As it related to my students specifically, they were provided encouragement that
explicitly emphasized prosocial values and class collaboration (Valenzuela, 1999), as well as
been given academic support via Tharp and Gallimore’s six means of assisted performance. This
intersection allowed each learner to be capable of reaching their full cognitive development and
thereby engage in critical thinking (Mathews & Lowe, 2011; Tharp & Gallimore,
1988). Students’ learning was centered on active learning experiences, based on the use of
authentic projects, to not only allow them to make personal and collective meaning of the text,
but to have the agency to construct knowledge and understanding on their own (Lyons-Moore,
2014). Through rigorous class discussions and teacher modeling, students engaged in
transformative learning as they assumed roles which promoted discovery of self and social
constructs (Matsumura et al., 2008; Milner, 2010). Similar to the pedagogical moves I utilized
with my students, I instilled those strategies during grade level meetings with my colleague.
There, I provided linking moves, where I was able normalize her experiences and encourage her
to reflect on her somewhat context neutral lens (Horn & Little, 2009). By taking my teammate
through the zones of teacher proximal development, I was able to begin to support her self-
reflection and professional growth (Warford, 2010). This combination, I believe, fostered
conditions where a change in practice was possible.
In this section I conveyed the marginalization I experienced within the educational
system and how my experiences similarly mirror how non-dominant students are currently
navigating their educational journey. I also documented how this entrenched inequity is
10

presented in my context and a general plan I used in my research to confront it. In the remainder
of this document I present my conceptual framework and my methods for my action research.
The conceptual framework describes the reciprocal relationship between my learners (i.e.,
students and grade level teammate) and myself. Its purpose is to convey how my
pedagogical/andragogical moves, coupled with my learners’ moves, fostered and produced a
transformative learning environment. Next, the methods section explains the qualitative approach
and precise plan of action I enacted within my research. It uses my conceptual framework and
research questions as frames to convey how I worked with my learners and used my learners’
actions to inform subsequent pedagogical/andragogical moves. Following the methods section, I
address my findings for both research questions. Embedded in this portion, I will also speak to
my areas of growth, as well as limits in this study. Finally, my afterword will illustrate the steps I
have enacted since leaving the field, my retrospective takeaway from completing my
dissertation, and the steps I plan to take in the future.
The Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is “the system of concepts, expectations, beliefs, and theories
that supports and informs your research” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). My original framework—one
that has since evolved and will be the framework I use moving forward—guided my action
research and was built on three pillars. Consistent with Coughlan (2019), each pillar of my
conceptual framework supported my ability to gain insight into my systematic patterns of
thinking, as well as facilitated my construction of new meanings that informed my methods, data
collection, analysis, and findings. These pillars of my conceptual framework, as represented in
Figure 1, are critically reflective and adaptive leadership, culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP),
and meaningful learning. To begin with critically reflective and adaptive leadership—a
11

pillar with overlapping ideas as CRP and also facilitated the construction of meaningful
learning—challenged me to interrogate my ideologies and power that I held and brought into the
(child- and adult-based) classroom. By disrupting my biases, I was better positioned to see where
the learners (i.e., my students and grade level teammate) in my study were, as it came to how
they were available to learn, and how my assumptions about them positively and/or negatively
influenced that. This process then better situated me to have the necessary tools to create a
positive and learner-centric classroom climate. Next, CRP and specifically the tenet of raising a
learners’ sociopolitical consciousness, provided the framework to understand the ways that I, as
a teacher/teacher leader cultivated a safe space where learners were able to interrogate their
assumptions, as it related to the academic material, in order to reach ideological clarity.
Finally, meaningful learning provided the framework to couple a learners’ prior knowledge to
my authentic care practices, aimed towards creating an active learning environment that was
strongly influence by their metacognitive knowledge, intentional learning, and mental effort.
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

12

I contend that each pillar leveraged aspects of the others to generate conditions that
fostered and supported my ideal state of transformative learning. Mezirow (1997) described
transformative learning as the “process of effecting change in a frame of reference” (p. 5). These
frames define the experiences we have. However, not until we intersect defining our experiences
with our tendencies within them, will transformative learning emerge. Further, Camangian
(2015) explained that self-and social transformation allows students to develop a deeper sense of
entrenched inequities by triggering an emotional response that will motivate students toward
self-transformative. In doing so, students can then be inspired to develop the collective
consciousness, thus cultivating social transformation. By creating a transformative learning
environment—one that incorporated critically reflective and adaptive leadership, CRP, and
meaningful learning—my learners were able to analyze the status quo embedded in the academic
literature and its intersection into their lives and/or—as it came to my grade level teammate—
begin to integrate new understanding into her pedagogy. My grade level colleague was also, to
an extent and mostly after my data collection concluded, able to begin the process to engage in
self-transformation, as she started to interrogate and revise her previous practice, so that she can
now start to disrupt the marginalization that occurs in the classroom, community, within the
academic material, and her role in it. Thus, while my teacher leader role while in the field was
not something that could be fully demonstrated, I still propose the following to be accurate, to be
applied throughout the duration of my study, and to be discovered in a future endeavor. Below, I
will first describe how I contextualize critically reflective and adaptive leadership, followed by
culturally relevant pedagogy, and meaningful learning. Within this portion, I will also address
anywhere my conceptual framework changed (i.e., from prior to being in the field to the
experiences I had in the field). This will be followed by a short conclusion of final thoughts.
13

Critically Reflective and Adaptive Leadership
Dewey explained that intelligent action was the result of thoughtful reflection (Rodgers,
2002). With this in mind, the development of my conceptual framework began with reflection,
but more specifically, critical reflection, as I believed it was the guiding principle required to
support transformative change in an educational space. As Rodgers (2002) illustrated, the
purpose of a teacher’s reflection cycle was to slow down their thinking process, so they could
observe and describe a moment in detail, analyze it, and then act on it. However, when reflection
became critical reflection, the person engaging in this process was interrogating their
positionality, biases, and power, so that they were able to uncover their assumptions (Brookfield,
2010). Further, when a teacher/teacher leader is critically reflective, they would not only be able
to have a deep awareness of themselves and their context, but how their positionality could
positively and/or negatively influence the learners (Howard, 2003). This would then allow for
the teacher/teacher leader to reframe their pedagogical/andragogical practices so that the learning
environment channeled learners to become critically conscious.
The idea of “taking action” led me to believe that in order for an educator to partake in
any sort of reflective process, leadership had to be incorporated. Heifetz et al. (2009) described
adaptive leadership in a similar fashion as Rodgers: It was an iterative process that, at its end
points were observation and action, but used one’s purpose and the outcomes of one’s actions to
keep the cycle continuous. Using the work of Heifetz et al. (2009) and Northouse (2016), I
discovered that adaptive leaders mobilize their learners to overcome their hurdles in response to
the changing environment. Therefore, blending critical reflection and adaptive leadership
allowed me to see how I was able to better tailor my pedagogy/andragogy to meet the needs of
my learners and focus on this reciprocal relationship between my learners and me. Because this
14

work occurred on multiple levels (self, organization, community, and society) (Northouse, 2016),
the environment had to be built on effective norms. Therefore, I defined and continue to define
critically reflective and adaptive leadership as both a continuous internal and external process.
The internal process allows the teacher/teacher leader to fully understand their biases and
power within and outside of their context, as well as the psychological dimensions of their
students and grade level teachers, so that they are better positioned to
pedagogically/andragogically engage with them. Externally, a critically reflective and adaptive
leader uses these interactions to not only inform their actions, but to also generate a learner-
centered and positive classroom/grade level meeting climate.
I suggested that in order for teachers/teacher leaders to engage in their own critical
reflective process, they had to be aware of their own positionality and worldview. This idea was
then merged with an understanding of knowing where their learners were in their own learning
process. Drawing on Khalifa et al. (2016), I argued that in order to make any sort of change, I, as
the teacher/teacher leader, had to become critically self-aware of how my ideologies worked with
and against me, so I did not reproduce the systematic oppressions in my school site. It also
required that I utilize the adaptive leadership method, as described by Northouse (2016, p. 261),
to “get on the balcony,” so I was able to find perspective and get a clear picture of what was
going on in my context and who my learners were.
Using the critically reflective and adaptive leadership moves listed above also helped me
discover my learners’ Zones of Proximal Development (ZPD) or Zones of Teacher Development
(ZPTD) and their ways of knowing. ZPD was the distance between what a learner could
accomplish alone and what they could accomplish with assistance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998).
While ZPTD is similar, it specifically allowed for teachers to accomplish their goals, as the
15

teacher leader was used as a scaffold to create a catalyst for change (Warford, 2010). I then
coupled ZPD and ZPTD with Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s ways of knowing. Drago-
Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s (2017) constructive development model was a concept that
described how people understood themselves, their work, and the world. By using a
constructivist lens to look at where the learners were in both their ways of knowing and the
ZPD/ZPTD, I was better equipped to create and provide instruction that helped raise their
sociopolitical consciousness and supported their overall learning experience. Additionally, now
that I have left the field, I contend that by incorporating the means of assisted performance,
including paying close attention to the learners’ work and regularly advising learners, I was able
to move my learners within their ZPDs or ZPTDs, as well as moving them towards their
potential growth.
Another one of Northouse’s adaptive leadership moves that were used in this learning
space was “giving work back to the people” (Northouse, 2016, p. 261). As I saw it, this approach
created a more learner-centric classroom, as it promoted equal footing among individual learners
and promoted an avenue where the teacher/teacher leader might draw back from instruction, so
they (the learners) could work autonomously and collaboratively. By promoting an environment
where all learners’ voices were heard, I, as the teacher/teacher leader, also incorporated CRP and
specifically, CRSL. An aspect of CRSL was to mentor the learner and create an inclusive
environment where students were validated (Khalifa et al., 2016). Mathews and Lowe (2011)
explained that when a learner was in control of their own learning, they were more likely to
engage in critical thinking. Therefore, I suggested that a critically reflective and adaptive leader
was not only learner-centered, also embodied elements of CRP and CRSL. As Athanases (1998)
illustrated, this practice might give way for learners to rethink the use of deficit language and
16

transform their points of view. Additionally, Northouse (2016) also described
an adaptive leadership move as “regulating distress” (p. 261). When there was
an adaptive challenge, it was the responsibility of the leader to be able to help others, so that the
work did not become overwhelming. By providing reassurance, the teacher/teacher leader was
able to maintain productive levels of stress, as well regulate their personal distress, so that
transformative learning could occur (Northouse, 2016).
To allow for such learning, specific classroom norms needed to be implemented.
Matsumura et al. (2008) described the relative contributions of a positive classroom climate.
These included the teacher providing clear expectations that emphasized prosocial and respectful
behavior, a respectful and supportive atmosphere (between learners and between the teacher and
the leader), and opportunities for learners to work in collaborative groups—concepts, I argued,
were very similar to CRP. By modeling and scaffolding these behaviors, based on the myriad of
students’ abilities to learn and where they were with their own learning progress, it was found
that the degree of respect teachers showed to their students predicted the students’ behavior
towards one another (Matsumura et al., 2008).
A critically reflective and adaptive leader also used the learners’ ZPD/ZPTD and their
ways of knowing to incorporate assisted performance means. Assisted performance was defined
by what a learner could accomplish with support from their environment, others, and self (Tharp
& Gallimore, 1988). As previously noted, a positive classroom climate is demonstrated by
prosocial self-regulatory behavior (Matsumura et al., 2008). Therefore, in order for this climate
to occur, a critically reflective and adaptive leadership needed to implement specific structures to
support this behavior. This included, but was not limited to the grouping structure and the
pedagogical moves of communicating clear behavioral expectations (Matsumura et al., 2008)
17

and creating opportunities for learners to participate in different roles (Mathews & Lowe, 2011;
Matsumura et al., 2008). These pedagogical moves lived within Tharp and Gallimore (1998)
means of assisted performance (instructing, cognitive structuring, and contingency management).
Communicating clear expectations is an aspect of instructing because the goal of instructing is
for learners to use the teacher’s directives to support their group work. The opportunity to
participate in different roles is an aspect of cognitive structuring and contingency management,
because the groups are intended for students to act and/or think in specific ways that would
nurture their ability to work in collaborative small groups.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy
Drawing on the works of Ladson-Billing (2014), Paris and Alim (2014), Milner (2010;
2017), and Khalifa et al. (2016), I understood at the outset of my data collection that a
teacher/teacher leader built their culturally relevant pedagogical practices based on their self-
awareness, their learners’ psychological dimensions in relation to the content, and the
interactions that occurred within the classroom (i.e., learner-to-learner and teacher-to-learner).
As previously stated, this first began with a teacher understanding their positionality and
worldview—completed through a critically reflective process. This was not only vital when
interacting with others, but it better supported the teacher/teacher leader to scaffold their learners
to develop their own voice and perspective (Milner, 2010). Further and specifically focusing on
teachers/teacher leaders working within a White space, teachers/teacher leaders could raise
learners’ sociopolitical consciousness, by taking learning beyond the classroom, so that their
learners could identity and analyze real world issue (Ladson-Billings, 2014). More specifically,
and as it relates to this study, teachers could raise students’ sociopolitical consciousness by
helping them identify social inequities in the literature and their relation to it (Lewis, 2001). By
18

building their lessons this way, so that it unearthed the hidden narrative written with the
curriculum, teachers in these spaces would then be able to aim instruction towards ideological
clarity. Bartolomé (2004) explained that ideological clarity referred to the continuous process
individuals undertook in order to assume counter-hegemonic positions. Therefore, I previously
defined a culturally responsive teacher/teacher leader as critically reflective. They utilize where
their learners are in relation to the content, as well as their (the learners) classroom behavior to
consistently influence their pedagogical/andragogical moves. A culturally competent
teacher/teacher leader also connects instruction to real world examples, to foster critical
thinking. However, I now argue that a culturally responsive teacher/teacher leader is critically
reflective. They consistently influence their pedagogical/andragogical moves by utilizing where
their learners are in relation to the content. By cultivating a transformational learning
experience, the teacher/teacher leader will then be able to build their learners’ sociopolitical
consciousness and promote ideological clarity.
As I previously noted, CRP incorporated a teacher/teacher leader’s ability to generate
connections between the learners, as well as the learners and their academic material. To do so,
the academic material would be used as a tool for the educator to make authentic connections to
the learners’ lives and to promote inclusion (Khalifa et al., 2016) via the analysis of real word
issues (Ladson-Billings, 2014). This process, I argue, could also make way for teachers to
support students in their self- and social transformation, and ultimately ideological clarity. One
way to do foster transformative learning would be through the incorporation of critical thinking
(Camangian, 2015). Critical thinking facilitated a space where learners not only recognized the
marginalization in the academic material, but how that directly or indirectly connected to their
community (Brookfield, 2010; Camangian, 2015). Without explicitly forming this connection
19

and/or creating the space to do so, students, particularly students in predominantly White
schools, would continue to inadvertently internalize these ideas as normal, causing them to
reproduce the marginalization due to the worlds they are living in (Paris & Alim, 2014).
Therefore, a culturally responsive teacher was willing to guide their learners into conversations
that interrogate their assumptions, as well as address social issues within their school community
(Khalifa et al., 2016). By a teacher/teacher leader possessing the skills to disrupt the biased
messages figuratively woven into the school’s community and curriculum, they are engaging
students in transformative learning. Further, when a teacher/teacher leader cultivated a space
where their students experience self- and social transformation, it will ultimately promote
students to assume counter-hegemonic positions, and thereby move towards reaching ideological
clarity.
Meaningful Learning
Literature (Lyons-Moore, 2014) defined meaningful learning as experience in which a
learner comes to understand a new concept and is able to connect that new concept back to
previous (academic and outside of school) knowledge, thus aiding the learner’s understanding of
the concept further. However, for this to occur, I argued that a precondition to meaningful
learning is the promoting of prosocial behaviors. Prosocial behaviors, as previously noted in my
critically reflective and adaptive leadership pillar, emphasized the positive and respectful
learning environment between students and between the teacher and their students (Matsumura et
al., 2008). Therefore, I argue that only when these moves come together and serve as a precursor
to meaningful learning can a teacher/teacher leader support their students in deepening their
knowledge and possibly disrupt previous notions students knew.
20

Anthony (1996) defined active learning as an intellectual experience where active
intellectual mental effort and intentional learning takes place. This effort and learning, I argue, is
in pursuit of an academically rigorous environment. For that reason, while I previously defined
meaningful learning as the result of combining authentic care and a learner’s prior knowledge,
so that the learners can actively engage in the academic material, I now argue that meaningful
learning takes place when learners are actively engaged in academically rigorous instruction.
Anthony (1996) made explicit connections between meaningful learning and active
learning. She explained that meaningful learning was a component of active learning. Anthony
(1996) goes on to say that meaningful learning is experienced by students’ increased insight and
encompassed cognition. Matsumura et al. (2008) illustrated that for teachers to implement
academical rigorous instruction, they must create connections by utilizing multiple strategies to
support students in their elaboration skills during class discussions. While the idea of authentic
connections lived in both meaningful learning and CRP, I do argue that there is a distinction. It is
within meaningful learning that I contend authentic connections, in conjunction with a teacher
activating a learner’s prior knowledge (academic and outside of school) and using cognitive
strategies, that foster meaningful learning. Some examples of cognitive strategies include:
elaborating, extending, etc. (Mathews & Lowe, 2010). By implementing this approach, a teacher
can promote meaningful learning because they provided their students an opportunity to develop
their understanding and possibly change what they thought they once knew.
Conclusion
My conceptual framework built upon the literature of critically reflective and adaptive
leadership, CRP, and meaningful learning. Together, these concepts generated and supported the
conditions necessary for transformative learning. I illustrated that in order for a teacher/teacher
21

leader’s goal to be transformative learning, the teacher/teacher leader must be undertaken by
critically reflective and adaptive leadership. This included not only acknowledging and
interrogating my positionality and worldview, but also where my learners were in their learning
continuum and how my ideologies influenced the learning environment. This leadership
strategy, while also living in part of the other pillars, also included promoting a learner-centered
and generated a positive classroom climate. Additionally, this information influenced how I
incorporated how meaningful learning and how I re-envisioned CRP in my classroom or grade
level meetings. As such, I utilized the knowledge from my critical reflections, in order to
implement the appropriate scaffolds that would help move my learners’ within their ZPD/ZPTD.
I also suggested that CRP created connections between the learners, the learners and the teacher,
and the learners and the academic material, so that they (the learners) were able to critically
analyze the literature and move toward ideological clarity. Later, I also explained that
meaningful learning was built upon academic rigorous instruction and active learning. Together
these frames created the reciprocal relationship between my learners and me and was contingent
on both my pedagogical moves and my learners’ contribution to develop transformative learning.
Therefore, this framework conveyed the intersections of each pillar and what kind of relationship
was cultivated. While I realized the disruption of a biased narrative in education was a swamp
issue—so there is not easy solution—this conceptual framework provided the big picture of my
theory of action and has evolved based on more data, and will now be the framework I used
moving forward.
Research Methods
This section describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, data collection, analysis,
credibility and trustworthiness, and ethics that I took to conduct this study. The purpose of this
22

study was to examine how I enacted critically reflective and adaptive leadership, CRP, and
meaningful learning in order to create an educational space where my learners were able to
experience transformative learning. I specifically explored the ways I implemented these
pedagogical/andragogical moves in my classroom with my fifth grade students and at meetings
with my grade level teammate, so that I could foster this transformative learning environment.
Further, the reciprocal relationship between my students and me, as well as my peer and me,
continuously informed my instruction. It was through these reciprocal relationships that this
qualitative action research study was informed by the following two research questions: (1) How
do I foster meaningful learning, aimed toward raising my students’ sociopolitical consciousness,
in order to support their self- and social transformation through the analysis of the inequities that
are implied and explicit in the literature that perpetuate the status quo? (2) How, through my role
as a teacher leader, do I promote and foster the conditions necessary for the teacher in my grade
level team to investigate her practices with an eye towards adopting culturally relevant
pedagogy?
As illustrated in my conceptual framework, my students’ and grade level teammate’s
worldviews were built on their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)/Zone of Proximal Teacher
Development (ZPTD) and their ways of knowing. Due to this intersection, my students and
teammate were inadvertently engaging in the reproduction of the status quo. It was through our
curriculum’s construction, implementation of colorblind teaching approaches, and team meetings
where my teammate showed some resistance to immersing herself in conversations that would
challenge our school’s and by extension, the world’s, dominant ideology. Therefore, by not
naming these biases in her instruction, spoke to the role conscious and unconscious biases have
23

in our school’s curriculum and context, and resulted in the reproduction of hegemony in my
teammate’s instruction.
The students, due to their sociocultural context, bought-in and fed into this
marginalization. This could be seen through their participation in whole/small group discourse,
as they did not question, prior to this study, how the social constructs that were imbedded in their
curriculum mirrored their daily lives. Before my study, these students, for example, had laughed
at, judged, and/or been uncomfortable with certain types of characters in their literature who did
not look and/or act like them (i.e., based on racial, ethnic, and/or socioeconomic status, and
sexual orientation, etc.). Students also believed that the stereotypes of specific characters, based
on their backgrounds, were completely accurate. They also demonstrated an inability to
understand that most of the population did not have the same luxuries as they did. It was for
these reasons that my study was framed in a way so as to increase my learners’ transformative
learning opportunities, so that they could not only establish but also transform their points of
view.
My conceptual framework illustrated how my critical reflections informed my instruction
and interactions with my learners. At the outset of my action research, those reflections shined
light on how I was both hesitant and encouraged to begin this work. For instance, in a critical
reflection written at the closing of the 2019-2020 school year, I discussed the moment I first
brought up to my then grade level team the context neutral lens our school site held. Further,
through a series of one-on-one meetings with my dissertation chair, Dr. Slayton, I saw that the
knowledge I gained and literature I read allowed me to make small steps towards this work. As I
continued to immerse myself in a deep and thorough examination of where I am in relation to my
dissertation, I began to better utilize the pedagogical pillars of my conceptual framework to build
24

a transformative learning environment. However, the use of my andragogical pillars are still in
an ongoing process.
Participants and Setting
My dissertation research took place at my school site, PS 921, during the Fall 2020
semester (August–December). Due to the type of research I chose to define my study by—action
research—purposeful sampling was the best approach to accomplish my dissertation goals.
Maxwell (2013) explained that purposeful sampling occurs when the participants are deliberately
chosen to provide rich information to your research question(s). Other sampling approaches,
such as probability or convenience sampling, would not provide the same level of insight or be
appropriate.
Participants
In my study, I engaged with my grade level teammate and, given the nature of my job,
my students. To begin with my team, at the start of this study, I intended to work the two grade
level teachers on my team. One was Erica, a White woman, who was our grade level lead. She
had been teaching for over 20 years, mostly all at PS 921, in a range of elementary grade
levels—most notably, first, second, and fifth grade. The other teacher, Talia, was of South Asian
descent and had been in the field of education for nearly 7 years. She had spent the majority of
her tenure in kindergarten and had recently been reassigned to teach fifth grade. Therefore, the
2020-2021 school year was Talia’s first year teaching fifth grade. These two teachers were
chosen due to our grade level similarity. However, within days of the beginning of the school
year, Erica unexpectedly switched school sites, leaving the fifth grade team to be just Talia and
me. This change caused Talia and me to become co-grade level leads, since my outside of work
commitments prevented me from being able to attend all of the grade level lead meetings.
25

However, with Talia physically attending the meetings, I was in charge of planning out the scope
and sequence for the year.
With regards to Talia’s ways of knowing, at the time of the study, she could be described
as an instrumental knower, but had some with socializing knower traits. Drago-Severson and
Blum DeStefano (2017) defined instrumental knowers as someone who sees the world in black
and White and makes decisions based on perceived outcomes. Socializing knowers have grown
the capacity to co-construct realities and to take responsibility for their own needs, wants, etc.
One way to witness Talia’s ways of knowing prior to this study was her superficial notions of
what CRP was and how to internalize it. For example, she demonstrated a “heroes and holidays”
approach to CRP. Further, Talia, prior to my study, had become a PS 921 ally of mine, as we had
similar upbringing and experiences. For instance, Talia was first in her family to be born in the
United States and has a complicated worldview. Growing up, Talia was a target of systematic
racism. Through these instances, Talia was afraid to address sensitive topics in her PS 921
classroom—such as racism—because she feared risking her job and/or parent disapproval. This
was because of the implicit messaging PS 921 pushed out to the teachers to teach to the
dominant population. However, prior to my study, Talia found a way to teach about racism and
entrenched inequities when someone in a position of power gave her permission to do so.
Due to Talia’s fear and the fact that she was mostly an instrumental knower, my
engagement with her was based on my understanding of the intersections of her identity. Being
that this study would transform our typical interactions, I intended to plan each meeting with
critically reflective and adaptive leadership practices, so I could support Talia in adopting CRP.
However, that was not always the case, as our weekly meeting time became impacted by fifth
grade specific planning—an issue I explain in greater detail later. However, even so, during our
26

meetings I worked towards creating a safe and learner-centric space for Talia. Within my
meetings, I provided multiple opportunities to collaborate, share ideas, and at times, gave explicit
feedback in the pursuit of having her implement CRP into her daily instruction. This could
include, but was not limited to, altering the ways she used our current novels choices, so that she
was pointing out and connecting her students to the biases written in the academic material.
Specifically, I used my authentic experiences to normalize (Horn & Little, 2009) her thoughts
and fears about having to teach about race and/or topics that might be considered “too
controversial” for our context. This was then coupled with me writing a critical reflection about
our meeting, so that I could analyze what was occurring during our meetings and capture
evidence of our growth. With this in mind, my efforts with Talia not only helped me collect data
about my own leadership but, as I explain in my findings, conveyed my inability to be fully
present to this process because of multiple factors.
Due to the nature of my job, my students (approximately 25 students) were also part of
my study. The makeup of my class was, much like the general makeup of PS 921 students,
mostly White and their families had been in the United States for multiple generations. However,
I did also have Latinx, Middle Eastern, and South Asian students that were the first in their
families to be born in the United States. My class, as a whole, was comprised of instrumental
knowers, since they had not developed the capacity to think abstractly. If something did not exist
in their community or did not exist to their knowledge, it was difficult for these students to
understand its existence—something that became obvious in my findings. Further, they were
unable to comprehend the meaning of a stereotype and that not all people fall into this category.
With this in mind, I offered multiple pathways of understanding, through concrete models and
instructional practices built on my conceptual framework. I engaged students in critical and
27

creative thinking, based on real world examples, to disrupt their worldview. Similar to my
experiences with Talia, I collected data from my students that informed my pedagogical moves
that I brought into the classroom. Through this reciprocal relationship between Talia and me, as
well my students and me, I was better able to understand not only Talia and my students’
readiness to learn, but also their growth through this process of transformative learning.
Setting of Actions
Before I began my study, I first needed to seek permission from my site principal to
conduct it. Following the approval, I obtained consent from my students’ parents to record our
classroom interactions. All but one of my students’ parents provided me with their approval;
thus, this particular student was never recorded. Simultaneously, I also sought out Talia’s
permission to be part of my study and to audio record the interviews I planned to conduct with
her. Upon receiving these approvals, I was able to begin my study at PS 921.
Actions
The ideal state, as outlined in my conceptual framework, was to foster and create a
transformative educational space. To do this, I implemented a series of actions over a period of
time. These actions, done through a bilateral and reciprocal relationship, were seen in my
pedagogical/andragogical practices and learner moves. It was only when the three pillars of my
conceptual framework (critical reflective and adaptive leadership, CRP, and meaningful
learning) were working in unison did transformative learning take place.
Actions I made first began with writing critical reflections, prior to entering the field, to
see where I was in this work. The purpose of writing reflections was so I was able to challenge
and be aware of my ideologies, so I could recognize how they lived within me and might work
against me (Brookfield, 2010), especially at was related to instruction and work with my students
28

and teammate. By engaging in this work, I was better positioned to begin my action research and
therefore, see how to navigate the road ahead of me.
To start my data collection in the field, I first needed to have a conversation with Talia
about my dissertation. This conversation took place at a grade level meeting, towards the start of
the school year. During the meeting, I explained that I was initiating an action research project,
focusing on my ability to more explicitly integrate culturally relevant pedagogy into my practice.
Further, I asked if she would be willing to accompany me on this journey/in this process with
me. I then took time to answer any questions she had about my work and the topic. I believed, by
phrasing it this way, it allowed Talia to not feel obligated to participate. Also, by including this
conversation during a grade level meeting, the dialogue was more informal and allowed for more
buy-in. I was also be able to gauge her level of understanding as it came to CRP while we spoke.
At this point, Talia and I then planned out our lessons for the next week, so we would be more or
less in lock step with one another. This, our planning, then gave me the ability to see how she
used our discussions to formulate and influence her teaching, as it related to CRP, when we met
next.
Once I began the work in my classroom and led a series of grade level meetings, I made
teacher/teacher leader moves that were predicated on the previous ones. I used jottings, field
notes/descriptive reflections, video recordings, and interview transcripts to dissect these
moves. For Talia specifically, using interview transcripts, allowed me to see how/if she
implemented any of the strategies I offered to her and her thought process—meaning, did she
illustrate how she might have interrogated her students’ worldviews and how that might/might
not impact her teaching style? Did she convey to me how she used the literature to connect her
students to it, using their (the students’) prior experiences? And if not, why? In the classroom
29

(i.e., with my students), I used video recordings, for example, to see how exactly and to what
extent I implemented various assisted performance methods (i.e., sentence frames, various
instructional materials based on ability, flexible grouping, etc.) (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Using video records also provided me with the knowledge to see how my students responded to
these scaffolds. As it compared to prior year, an adjustment I made to my teaching were related
to the types of questions I would ask students to ponder. These questions would require them to
look beyond themselves and their immediate community. It also required learners to examine the
status quo, its meaning in our context, and how it has stood firm and unquestioned by our society
and by ourselves. Based on their answers, I then saw changes that I needed to make and how to
push them towards transformative learning.
Athanses (1998) and Matsumura et al. (2008) described the positive ramifications that
occur when teachers model expected behavior. Therefore, as it related to critically reflective
adaptive leadership, the actions I took resulted in how I used what I knew about my learners to
model and scaffold my instruction so that my students were able to see how to analyze social
inequities and how to exhibit prosocial and respectful behavior. I then looked to see how/if my
learners exhibited behaviors, as presented in my conceptual framework, to work collaboratively
and autonomously in a way that accomplished my intended goals for the lesson—meaning, were
they asking and answering questions of one another? Were they utilizing the sentence frames I
provided when disagreeing/agreeing with one another? Were they using real world examples
and/or the text to support their thoughts? During this, I also advised learners on their growth
through the use of breakout rooms via Zoom. With respect to meaningful learning, I
implemented the curriculum in a way so that all learners felt included (i.e., welcomed various
forms of learning and backgrounds, by normalizing their experiences in and outside of the
30

classroom). By making these personal connections between learners, between learners and their
academic material, and between the learners and me, the learners were able to build relationships
between one another, the literature, and strive to do their best in the educational space I had built
(Ladson-Billings, 2014; Valenzuela, 1999). Finally, it was through my three conceptual
framework pillars, that I consistently used the information the learners projected to inform how I
interacted with them during the second and third cycles of data collection.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
The purpose of this study was to describe the process of how transformative learning was
fostered in my educational space. As previously stated in my conceptual framework narrative, I
was specifically looking at how the three pillars generated the conditions of this learning
environment and how the learners reacted and grew from my pedagogical/andragogical moves
I implemented. Therefore, as suggested by Maxwell (2013), my role as the principal investigator
included being the primary instrument for data collection and analysis throughout
this work. In this study, I collected data from critical reflections, classroom/meeting
observations, and teacher interviews. Together, these sources of data showed my progress
towards my ideal state of transformative learning.
Additional data I collected were transcripts from classroom observations and interviews. I
generated jottings and descriptive reflections from my daily instruction with my students.
Further, the role of critical reflections also supported me in understanding the reciprocal
relationship between my learners and me. As an educator and one who was taking on an action
research project, critical reflections assisted me in seeing how I perceived my positionality was
positively and/or negatively influencing my learners (Brookfield, 2010; Howard, 2003), and I
then used that information to guide my lessons for my students and grade level teammate. While
31

I wrote critical reflections once I was in the field, the critical reflections I had written the summer
prior to data collection—about 7-10 total—allowed me to witness my level of readiness to take
on this work. They paved the groundwork to navigate my role as a teacher/teacher leader at the
outset of my study. The reflections I wrote during the study, though, showed me how my actions
with my learners were influenced by my biases. By unearthing the reasons why I made those
specific moves, I was better positioned to continue partaking in an ongoing data analysis and
made the necessary changes I needed to do to reach my ideal state.
Critical Reflections
Throughout my study, I kept a standard set of critical reflection questions to refer to, but
also developed and edited those questions as I moved further into this study. Throughout my data
collection, I wrote a critical reflection immediately after each grade level meeting, at the end of
each instructional week (within an hour after the school day being over), and 2, one per research
question, end of each data collection cycle. This resulted in approximately 26 (not including the
7-10 I wrote prior to ending the field) critical reflections in total, about 13 critical reflections per
research question. Writing critical reflections as soon as the meeting or lesson ended allowed me
to uncover my biases, as they are related to instruction, so that I was aware of how my ideologies
fostered or hindered my students’ and/or grade level teammate’s learning experiences (Khalifa et
al., 2016). Further, but completing it so soon after the conclusion of the meeting/lesson, the
events that occurred would be more accurately remembered. Some of the critical reflection
questions that I asked myself included: (1) How did I consider my learners’ perspectives and
experiences during this lesson/meeting? (2) Did my positionality, as a White woman or a Middle
Eastern woman, impact my actions in any way (especially given the large Middle Eastern
population PS 921 has)? And if so, how? (3) How, if at all, did my prior experience and
32

understandings of Talia influence my interactions with them (i.e., having a friendship with Talia,
etc.)? (4) In what ways, if at all, did I use critically reflective and adaptive leadership strategies
throughout this moment (i.e., Did I take a step back to see the bigger picture? Did I make the task
learner-centric)? By partaking in critical reflections, I was better positioned to understand my
learners’ ways of knowing and ZPD/ZPTD and how/why events transpired the way they did
(Northouse, 2016). Further, my critical reflections and the conceptual framework, as well as my
learners’ responses, influenced the lesson plans I created for them.
Interviews
For this study, I interviewed Talia twice—near the start and end of data collection. As it
relates to a qualitative study, interviews provided insight on Talia’s perspectives (Patton, 2002).
Given that I was a co-grade level lead with Talia, I was not in a position of power. However,
there may have been a perceived power differential, because of the dimensions of this research—
meaning, due to my enrollment in a doctoral program and thereby conducting this research, I
have more expertise in this subject area. Further, given my seniority teaching fifth grade, Talia
may believe I am in a position of power. Having said that, I interviewed Talia once at the end of
my first data collection cycle and again at the end of my third/final data collection cycle. Each
interview lasted for approximately 40-45 minutes, resulting in about an hour and half of data. I
used my conceptual framework as a guide for these interviews and employed a semi-structured
format. This format gave me some flexibility as I went through each question (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Questions were broken down into three categories (i.e., the three pillars of my
conceptual framework) and covered topics such as her interactions with me, instructional
techniques and decisions, her understanding of CRP, her current and possible point of view
transformation, etc. Some interview questions included (1) How, if at all, were you able to
33

connect our conversations about CRP and your prior knowledge into your instruction with your
students? (2) Can you point to a time you felt as though your experiences were normalized by
me? The interviews with Talia afforded me the ability to see where she was on her learning
continuum, as well as how my interactions with her promoted her thinking and learning. I audio
recorded these interviews using the phone application Otter.ai, so I could be more attentive
during the interview itself and be able to go back to the recording at a later time to collect exact
quotations. After each interview, I went to the Otter.ai recording and saved the transcription in
the cloud, ensuring names and all forms of identification were removed.
Observations
I conducted a series of formal and informal classroom observations, done in three cycles,
throughout my action research study. As a participant observer in my study, my role was known
to the other participants (i.e., my students) and therefore, my researcher role was secondary to
my role as a teacher (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These observations took place in my virtual
Zoom classroom. Each formal observation lasted about an hour, took classroom place 1 time per
week, and therefore, resulted into 3-4 times per cycle. This resulted in approximately 10 formal
observations (approximately 10 hours of data). During the observations, I wrote field notes to not
only accompany my recorded observations, but to also provide support to my critical
reflections. The field notes included verbal descriptions of the setting, direct quotations, and
were completed through the use of jottings during classroom instruction. I documented what I
heard and did using a variety of methods: video recordings, jottings and memoing during the
observation, and after the observation was over, I wrote a detailed descriptive reflection about
what I saw. During this time, I was also looking for how I implemented the three pillars of my
conceptual framework, observed the learners’ and my actions, my communication between
34

learners and between the learners and me (i.e., did I provide differentiated instruction, modeling,
did I advise the learners and giving feedback), independent and collaborative classroom behavior
(i.e., did the learners exhibit the modeled behavior) group and personal connections to the
academic material (as it relates to the inequities presented in the literature), etc. As it related to
informal observations, these occurred about 3 times a week during ELA instruction, for about an
hour each, resulting in about 9 informal observations per cycle, for a total of about 27 informal
observations or 27 hours of informal observational data across my 3 data cycles. When I wrote
these formal observations, I used jottings about my teaching and interactions with my learners
while I was in the observation and expanded on them in a narrative later. While similar to my
formal observations, as they both required me to write a narrative, informal observations had less
detail about the classroom setting and were not pre-planned. They would fall on the days of the
week where I was not conducting my formal observation, but when I was teaching an English
language lesson based on the concepts of my conceptual framework (i.e., testing days were not
included in my informal observations). At the end of each unit—about 3-4 weeks timespan—I
looked across my data and wrote an end of cycle critical reflection about my experiences and
what I collected. These various methods gave me the data to see if meaningful learning was
occurring, to what extent, and what I needed to do in the future, to produce a transformative
learning environment.
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explained that the purpose of data analysis is to make
meaning out of the data. It is a process used to understand how the dimensions of one’s research
are represented and how those components relate and work with another. Much like how my
conceptual framework pillars allowed for transformative learning to occur, the collected data
35

sources—video recordings of classroom observations, transcripts from teacher interviews,
critical reflections, and field notes (jottings, descriptive reflections, etc.) conveyed whether my
actions and the learners’ responses fostered and created a transformative learning environment.
My dissertation was constructed through the confines of an action research study and as such,
required that I begin data analysis while I was still in the field and through multiple cycles (Herr
& Anderson, 2015). These cycles allowed for continuous analysis that not only informed my
findings but were fed back into my actions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While all cycles took
place during the Fall 2020 semester (3-4-months' timeframe), each individual cycle lasted
approximately 3 weeks and culminated in a critical reflection. After writing a critical reflection
per research question, I spent 2-3 weeks in analyzing both research questions’ data. During this
process, I would look for evidence of how I expected to engage with my learners based on my
conceptual framework and illustrated my findings and what I learned in a memo. For instance,
using the a priori code of learner-centric space, I analyzed how/if I implemented this type of
learning environment. After completing two cycle of data collection, however, I also analyzed
how I grew in between cycles. Finally, I then returned to the field and worked to make the
necessary adjustments I needed to reach my ideal state.
As previously mentioned, the analysis process occurred throughout my study and
informed the instructional decisions I made. Being that this process required me to manage and
analyze data in and out of the field, I needed to rely heavily on continuous jottings, memoing,
and/or reflective journaling. Jottings are “analytical sticky notes” written to serve reflective
remarks and to utilize to expand on field notes. Memos are “reflective narratives to document the
researcher’s thinking process” (Miles et al., 2014, pp. 93-95). The combination of the three
and/or the use of any of these reflective analytic tools allowed for me to organize and document
36

and ongoing thinking, decisions, and actions (Herr & Anderson, 2015). An example of my
ongoing thinking and subsequent action would be when I recognized that during cycle 1’s in the
field analysis, I was not present to the unsafe environment I had cultivated. This was because of
the leading questions I posed. Therefore, I changed how I phrased my discussion questions
moving forward.
I began out of the field data analysis process at the end of my third cycle by creating a
codebook—one that was further developed the deeper I dove into analysis. This codebook was
built on my first round of coding, which included both a priori codes, built on my conceptual
framework (i.e., learner-centric space, connections, etc.), and empirical codes (i.e., focused
presence: respond to students (validate), interrogate student assumptions: race, etc.). Throughout
this first round, I looked closely at my field notes, reflections, interviews, video recordings, and
observation data across and within cycles to construct categories that provided evidence on what
extent I engaged in actions that I had outlined in my conceptual framework. After the conclusion
of this process, for example, I was then able to see how/if my interview questions were framed in
a way provided the answers needed to support my actions. To do this, I used the analytic tool of
various meanings of a word when Talia did not explicitly answer my interview question.
Therefore, I asked the data how each of specific words I said might have caused her to respond
in a way that altered the meaning of the words and/or provided multiple definitions.
Additionally, how in her response, she might have thought that her word choices meant
something it does not. Further, as I analyzed the transcripts, I wrote transcripts using the three
methods Harding (2013) described: summarizing, selecting, and interpreting. Separately, I
looked across unit critical reflections, classroom/meeting observations and recordings, etc., to
identify any patterns and/or themes that arose and fed that information back into my study. For
37

example, I used the making comparisons tool when I examined how my students interrogated the
inequities in the literature. Specifically, I analyzed how they spoke to concepts such as race,
gender, SES, and intellect from one cycle to another, as well within a cycle (i.e., from the
beginning of a week to the end of that same week, within one lesson, etc.). By engaging in this
form of analysis, I was able to differentiate one category from the next and identify how and to
what extent my students’ sociopolitical consciousness grew in those areas.
During the second round of coding, I aggregated my codes into axial codes. These axial
codes (i.e., differentiated instruction: grouping, text-to-history connections: students, etc.) were
constructed by looking across data sets and served as subcategories (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In effort to aim for a more robust analysis, I then performed a third cycle of coding, in which I
generated conceptual themes that aligned to my conceptual framework pillars, as well as allowed
for something else to emerge. Often, these conceptual themes were, but not always, my empirical
codes (i.e., student markers of sociopolitical consciousness, assisted performance methods, etc.).
Although they were at times difficult to achieve, conceptual themes “examine the relationships
between elements of data” and enabled the researcher to construct a theory (Harding,
2013, p. 109). One such tool to support my construction of conceptual themes was how I used
data memos. Harding (2013) described that data memos can be considered as the first step of
producing a conceptual theory. Therefore, and similarly to what I did during my in the field data
analysis, I looked across and within my data collection cycles to see what I learned and how I
grew in between cycles; this process allowed me to identity themes. Following this phase, I used
the Google Doc’s highlight tool to assign each theme a color, so that I could track it across my
data. After completing my data analysis with both research questions, my findings and
arguments were then presented in this narrative.
38

Limitations and Delimitations
Given how I have decided to bound my study, there are specific limitations and
delimitations that constrained my study. Due to the current climate, specifically with COVID-19,
a limitation of this study resulted was the entire structure of my teaching school day/work
calendar and how that looked different from previous school years. At the start of the school year
(i.e., throughout my data collection cycles), all students engaged in distance learning, and our
English language arts block was shorter by an hour than it would have been if we were on
campus. It was not until about 3 months after my data collection completed when my students
returned to campus (March 2020). Further, this pandemic caused the normalcy of a school day to
be impacted by the perceptions the students, teachers, and I brought to school every day, as well
how Talia and I interacted with one another. Being that we were all teaching from home, Talia
and I were not as accessible to one another, as we would have been from campus. Other
limitations included my teaching community changing (i.e., a new team and a newly hired
principal). Lastly, another limitation, while not significant, was that one of my student’s parents
did not allow me to record her daughter, so I moved the Zoom windows around in a way where
this student’s image would not be shown on the recording, as well as shut off the recording when
I called on this student and/or when she chose to participate.
A delimitation of my study is how I decided to focus my study on the English language
arts curriculum. While I still believe this subject provided ample data, it did bind my study to
things that only occurred within the framework of that subject. A second delimitation is who I
chose to be my participants. As Talia was the only member of my grade level team, I believed
our grade level similarity allowed for more opportunities to collaborate within the confine of this
study, and particularly during a time of distance learning. However, the outcome of this study, as
39

it related to my work with Talia, was not what I had intended. A third delimitation is how I chose
not to do formal or informal observations with respect to my second research question. This, I
believe, limited my data collection. Finally, the last delimitation is being a novice in my quality
of instrumentation, data collection, etc.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As an action research researcher, it is necessary to address how I increased and
maintained credibility and trustworthiness within my study. Given that I was studying myself
and my role within my context, there were specific strategies I enacted. One is how I ensured
rich descriptions, adequate data collection, and checking for alternate explanations for outcomes
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, I triangulated my data by comparing
interview transcripts with critical reflections, as well as jottings, video recordings of my
teaching, with my observational field notes/descriptive reflection. I also triangulated with the
different critical reflection lenses as explained by Brookfield (2010). To increase my teaching
awareness, either as a classroom teacher or teacher leader, it was important to look at critical
reflections through multiple viewpoints (Brookfield, 2010). By utilizing these multiple lens (i.e.,
autobiographical, students’ eyes, colleagues’ experiences, and theoretical literature), framed by
the critical reflection questions I posed earlier, I disciplined my subjectivity. This is true because
it forced me to understand and challenge my ideologies with the support of other perspectives
(Brookfield, 2010). The students’ lens, for instance, coupled with theory, created a space for me
to see how my actions were being perceived by the learners and how those perceptions
were/were not supported by the literature. This was done through reading over students’
assignments, journals, and small group work observation. On the other hand, the
autobiographical lens addressed how my positionality influenced my perceptions and actions in
40

the classroom. When combining these four lenses, I was better able to paint a clearer picture of
what was transpiring in the educational environment I created.
As it related to critical reflections, I also maintained credibility and trustworthiness by
engaging in a catalytic validity. Herr and Anderson (2015) describe this form as validity as “the
degree to which the research process reorients, focuses, and energizes participants toward
knowing reality in order to transform it” (p. 117). While this concept overlaps with democratic
validity, it also does cause the researcher, me, to monitor the change in both the participants’ and
one’s understandings of the study’s focus. To monitor this change and catch my internal
response, I documented this in my jottings and critical reflections. These critical reflections, as
well as my other data sets were part of an authentic collaboration process where I had the
opportunity to analyze my reflections, as well as other data sources, with my dissertation chair.
Ethics
Given that I was studying my own practice in relation to others in my work environment,
I needed to attend to those relationships and protect them from risk. One way I minimized the
risk was via my dissertation application submission to University of Southern California’s (USC)
Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB’s role is to avoid or prevent abusive behavior and
violations against the university (Coghlan, 2019). Within my approved application, I discussed
the following ways I attended to ethics in my study. For instance, being that I am engaging in a
benign intervention, there is an intersection between the ethics of learning and the ethics of
researching I needed to be cognizant of and abide by throughout this work. The learners are
byproducts of this study and the act of illuminating them to the notion of where we needed to go
was an ethical act, especially as it related to the organizational culture and my role duality. Due
41

to this tension, I engaged in quest for authenticity as I balanced and weighed inner and outer
dynamics of holding both roles.
As it related to interviews, I had an IRB approved interview protocol which stated the
kinds of questions I asked and how they related to my conceptual framework. I chose to
interview a teacher who I have no actual power over, as we are teammates and co-grade level
leads. However, I did need to be aware of the institutional politics that were activated as the
result of doing this work and identified that Talia was a major stakeholder in this study. That
being said, I needed to engage pedagogy of collegiality as it related to my grade level teammate
and emphasized the mutual dependence we had on one another in our work place. Therefore, an
environment built of trusting relationships and working within and on comfort zones was vital to
proceeding in the work (Herr & Anderson, 2015). This included being transparent with Talia and
explaining how any data I collected was used to support my inquiry, not driving it or the
decision-making process of the school site (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This transparency further
included what the confines of my research were, but not where I want Talia to be on the
continuum of my research question. Secondly, I also made it clear that she may leave the study at
any time, with no risk, as it will not impact our working relationship.
Finally, with respect to confidentiality, all of my data was stored in the cloud drive,
behind a firewall, with a name that will not be identifiable to the average person. Next, whether it
is my field notes or critical reflections, all names (student, teacher, site, district, etc.) were given
pseudonyms to protect the identification of my site and participants.
Findings
In this section I will be presenting what I have found in relation to my two research
questions and provide a conclusion. My first research question was: How do I foster meaningful
42

learning, aimed toward raising my students’ sociopolitical consciousness, in order to support
their self- and social transformation through the analysis of the inequities that are implied and
explicit in the literature that perpetuate the status quo? Within this question I utilized what I
gathered from my informal/formal observations and critical reflections to understand if and how
I fostered transformative learning and promoted ideological clarity for my fifth grade students.
The second research question, one rooted in my leadership capacity, question was: How, through
my role as a teacher leader, do I promote and foster conditions necessary for the teacher in my
grade level to investigate her practices with an eye towards adopting culturally relevant
pedagogy? As it related to this question, I collected data from critical reflections and interviews
to see how/if I cultivated a space for my grade level teammate to incorporate CRP into her
teaching.
Research Question 1: How Do I Foster Meaningful Learning, Aimed Toward Raising My
Students’ Sociopolitical Consciousness, in Order to Support Their Self- and Social
Transformation Through the Analysis of the Inequities that are Implied and Explicit in the
Literature that Perpetuate the Status Quo?
In this section, I will begin by presenting my first research question’s findings. This
section is divided into two categories—My Accomplishments and My Growth. Within the initial
category, I first illustrate how I implemented critically reflective and adaptive leadership moves
to bolster my students’ prosocial and academic self-regulation. Then, I use meaningful learning,
CRP, and ideological clarity to show how/if and to what extent my students experience self- and
social transformation. Finally, within the section of My Growth, I explain how I grew throughout
this data collection, as well as how that growth was limited due to certain conditions.

43

Finding 1: My Accomplishments
The extent to which I fostered meaningful learning by aiming to raise my students’
sociopolitical consciousness in order to support their self- and social transformation varied in
relation to specific concepts within my conceptual framework. I argued in my conceptual
framework that the precondition of fostering meaningful learning is by fostering prosocial
behavior, so that learners can engage in academically rigorous instruction (Matsumura et al.,
2008). Therefore, in order for meaningful learning to occur, I argued that a teacher/teacher leader
must first enact critically reflective and adaptive leadership aimed to promote prosocial behavior
and academic rigor. Matsumura et al. (2008) illustrated that the extent to which a teacher
provided clear expectations and provided models/scaffolds that emphasized prosocial behavior,
predicted how students would behave. Thus, I contended that by utilizing scaffolds aligned with
Tharp and Gallimore’s (1998) means of assisted performance, students would be given the
opportunity to engage in behavioral and academic self-regulation. These included: grouping, the
use of a sentence structure and a cue to co-construct knowledge with their peers, regularly
advising learners, etc. As a result of implementing the grouping structure and the pedagogical
move of regularly advising learners, my students were able to exhibit prosocial self-regulation
while working in small groups. When I promoted the use of a sentence frame, in conjunction
with a cue, to veer students away from always introducing a new point into the class dialogue,
my students grew in their ability to co-construct knowledge with their peers and thereby engage
in academic self-regulation. Therefore, it was through the use of these scaffolds that I was able to
construct conditions where my students were able to exhibit prosocial behavior and active
learning, so that they could engage in an academically rigorous instruction—thereby, doing the
heavy lifting during class discussions.
44

With respect to CRP, I re-envisioned the tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy to support
my students in moving toward ideological clarity (Bartolomé, 2004). Specifically, by raising my
students’ sociopolitical consciousness, I aimed to disrupt the way my students saw themselves
and by extension their social community. By creating connections to the literature my students
were reading, I was able to nurture a space for students to deepen their understanding of the
complexities presented in the literature, as they (the students) named the inequities presented
there and how society reproduces these ideas. By using novels and supplemental resources (i.e.,
videos, NewsELA articles, etc.), I was able to promote conversation aimed towards interrogating
students’ assumptions. As a result, students developed an increased consciousness with respect to
socioeconomic status and intellect. However, as it related to race and gender, students were only
able to recognize the inequities in society, and not able to recognize the relationship between
themselves and the inequity. By unearthing hegemonic assumptions, students made an important
and first step towards ideological clarity (Bartolomé, 2004). Therefore, it was through these acts,
my students had begun self- and possibly, social transformation.
Grouping. As argued in my conceptual framework, a positive classroom climate is
demonstrated by prosocial self-regulatory behaviors, such as cooperation among learners
(Matsumura et al., 2008). For this climate to exist in my classroom, I recognized that I had to
implement a specific structure and forms for assisting performance that would support this
behavior early on in the school year. Thus, within weeks of the first trimester starting, when I
was first getting to know my students, I began to use the structure of grouping and implemented
two pedagogical moves—communicating clear behavioral expectations (Matsumura et al., 2008)
and creating opportunities for my students to participate in different roles (Mathews & Lowe,
2011; Matsumura et al., 2008)—into my teaching approach. Communicating clear expectations
45

and opportunities to participate in different roles live within three of Tharp and Gallimore’s
(1998) forms of assisting performance (instructing, cognitive structuring, and contingency
management). Communicating clear expectations is an aspect of instructing. This is true because
the goal of instructing is for learners to use the teacher’s directives to support their group work.
The opportunity to participate in different roles is an aspect of cognitive structuring and
contingency management, because the groups are intended for students to act and/or think in
specific ways that would nurture their ability to work in collaborative small groups. My use of
the grouping structure can be explicitly seen during cycle one, as students were early on in their
development of prosocial self-regulation. For example, at the start of a week-long discussion
about the differing forms of intelligence (i.e., “book smarts” and “street smarts”) during the first
cycle of my action research project, when I placed students in groups (via Zoom breakout rooms)
to have a discussion regarding this concept, I needed to give them specific directions as to what
to do in those rooms. During this moment I noted,
Students were then placed in heterogeneous groups to come up with an answer, and as I
created the groups, I reminded my class to share their thoughts in number order, so each
person in their breakout group could have a chance to speak and share their ideas. I also
told them that they would be given 4-5 minutes to complete the task, and to name a
spokesperson [to] report back the whole class about what they found.
In this piece of evidence, it is clear that when I placed students in the grouping structure and
utilized the forms of assisted performance mentioned earlier, I promoted my students’ prosocial
self-regulation. My decision to place students in heterogeneous groups, for instance, was
consistent with previous instances in my teaching expression, when I would explicitly
communicate my desire for students to cooperatively work with one another while in small
46

groups (i.e., instructing). I expected that students would join each other in the breakout room,
recognize the variation in their levels of mastery, and work together in response to those
differences. This act supported a positive classroom environment as I provided a scaffold for
students to collaborate with one another. Specifically, this act nurtured students in taking
responsibility for ensuring the group was working together, rather than that responsibility
coming from a more capable other (i.e., their teacher) (i.e., cognitive structuring and contingency
management). Similarly, by reminding students to share their thoughts in number order, I
communicated my expectations that they must work cooperatively (i.e., cognitive structuring and
contingency management). Further, by outlining a time limit and illustrating what to do in that
time—go in number order to share ideas and name a spokesperson—also conveyed clear
expectations intended to foster opportunities for students to take on different roles (contingency
management). These explicit directions that were put in place (i.e., going in numbers, time limit,
naming a spokesperson, etc.) were intended to act as scaffolds to support my students’ growth
throughout their ZPD stages. As a result, by creating conditions that promote prosocial self-
regulation—through the use of the grouping structure and the pedagogical moves of
communicating clear expectations and opportunities for students to collaborate—I promoted the
existence of a positive classroom climate.
By the middle of my second cycle of my action research project, my students exhibited
actions (i.e., following through with clear expectations and cooperatively working with their
peers) that demonstrated they had internalized the scaffolds I had provided to them as they
engaged in prosocial self-regulation. My students displayed that they were in control of their
own learning and were able to do so in a way that encouraged all voices to be heard. These
behaviors also demonstrated the existence of a positive classroom climate. My students’
47

internalization of prosocial self-regulatory behaviors also conveyed they had graduated from the
first ZPD stage to the second (i.e., “where performance is assisted by self” (Tharp & Gallimore,
1998, p. 36)). For example, towards the end of our unit on The Sign of the Beaver novel, when I
asked students to discuss in small groups the novel’s themes and to report back to the whole
group after, the following took place:
Going into one of the [Zoom breakout] rooms, I asked, “How are we doing in here?”
“Good,” the group responded. “We are just finishing sharing our answers, and I am
writing down what everyone said, so we can decide on a final answer after,” Paige
exclaimed. Staying in the room, I watched Ellie give her response, followed by Corey.
Between each person, Paige wrote down their comments and students [who were not
sharing at the time] in the group appeared to listen quietly. After both Ellie and Corey
were done, I heard others [those who were not sharing and listening] in the group say,
“Good job” and “I like what you said about...”
In this example, these students conveyed they internalized the pedagogical moves I implemented
to support their prosocial self-regulation. This was evident as these students were not given
explicit directions as to how to structure their group work; yet they were able to utilize the
structure I put in place earlier in the school year. When Paige said, “We are just finishing sharing
our answers,” she communicated that her group had demonstrated self-regulation by following
through on the expectations I had previously shared (i.e., each student needs to share). Paige’s
actions also reveal that a positive climate was in place, because her group was collaboratively
working (i.e., taking turns to contribute). Paige also expressed her group’s adoption of roles
when she noted, “...and I am writing down what everyone said.” This was followed by Ellie and
Corey each contributing to the discussion, which provided further evidence of this group’s
48

adoption of roles and their peer collaboration. The group members, through Paige’s explanation
of the actions that had taken place before I entered the room, engaged in self-regulatory
behaviors that mirrored the patterns in the positive classroom climate structure I had explicitly
communicated earlier in the semester. These structures included students showing containment
as they listened to one another speak and naming a spokesperson to keep track of and later share
out the group’s ideas. The combination of Paige stating, “[…] so we can decide on a final answer
after that,” and the students listening quietly (i.e., showing their containment), shows they valued
each other’s contributions and gave each other space to contribute. This also shows that students
were building upon the positive classroom climate behavioral expectation—cooperation with
peers—as they complemented one another. Lastly, when non-participatory group members
provided encouraging statements such as, “I really liked what you said about...” after their peers
were done sharing, also exhibited how they valued one another’s contributions. It also showed
they were containing themselves and listening closely to their classmates, since they could
respond with a specific example. Thus, it can be seen that because of the positive classroom
climate I nurtured through the use of the grouping structure and pedagogical moves—
communicating clear behavioral expectations and creating opportunities for my students to
participate in different roles—I implemented earlier in the year, these students had adopted
prosocial self-regulatory behavior.
Regularly Advising Learners. Throughout my action research, I regularly advised
learners while they were in breakout groups to promote their academic self-regulation and
movement within their ZPD—so they were able to work without assistance—in pursuit of a
positive classroom climate. As it relates to academic self-regulation, a positive classroom climate
exists when teachers are scaffolding with clarity (Matsumura et al., 2008). This form of
49

scaffolding is consistent with and can be seen through two of Tharp and Gallimore’s forms of
assisting performance—modeling and feeding-back—and is also addressed in my conceptual
framework. Modeling uses behavior imitation to explicitly guide independent performance
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Feeding-back is done through the use of establishing clear
performance standards that students will observe and then adopt (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998).
Consequently, by regularly advising my learners by coupling feeding-back and modeling, I
fostered a positive classroom climate that was in pursuit of my students’ academic self-
regulation. For example, during my second action research cycle, I had my students work in
breakout rooms to discuss their connections and/or self-determined major moments from the
novel we were reading.
Before going into the next group, my help was requested by Kate. When I came in, Kate
asked me to clarify the directions. As she showed me what she thought she should do, I
then explained that “as a group, each student needs to share what they liked about the
book so far, or what connection they have, etc.” I also said, “As this is happening, one
person needs to keep track of what everyone says. Once everyone has shared, you can
then as a group decide what you want to share out to the whole class.” She (Kate) looked
at me unsure as to how to organize that, since she was the person who would keep track
and would share out. I then shared my screen and used the Zoom whiteboard feature to
explain. I wrote down each person’s name in Kate’s group and also the words
“connections/standouts.” At the bottom, I wrote “group connections/standouts.” Pointing
to the bottom part, I said, “After everyone shares, you can then fill out this part.” Kate
nodded and said she understood it now. Then she turned her attention to her group and
asked, “Can we use a Google Doc, if that’s okay with everyone?” The group responded
50

in the affirmative and Kate began typing out what I instructed. After she was done, she
asked, “Is this what you meant?” “Yes,” I responded.
During this moment, I reinforced the performance standard to promote Kate’s academic self-
regulation by implementing feeding-back and modeling. Starting with feeding-back, I used this
tool a few times during this exchange. First, when Kate asked me to “clarify the directions,” I, in
turn, first asked her to describe for me her interpretation of them. After listening to her
interpretation of the directions, I fed-back by explaining,
...as a group, each student needs to share what they liked about the book so far, or what
connection they have, etc. [and] as this is happening, one person needs to keep track of
what everyone says. Once everyone has shared, you can then as a group decide what you
want to share out to the whole class.
This is an example of regularly advising learners, by way of feeding-back, because I illustrated
to Kate what her group should be accomplishing during this time and did so in a way that was
clearly articulated. I fed-back again at the conclusion of my time with her group when Kate
asked, “Is this what you meant?” and I responded with a “Yes.” This is an example of a positive
classroom climate as a result of feeding-back, since I provided a scaffold to support Kate in her
accuracy and clarity on the assignment directions. My advisement also aided in Kate’s academic
self-regulation, as it was meant to scaffold Kate’s independence (i.e., independent from me).
Secondly, I utilized modeling when I shared my screen with Kate’s group to show them,
specifically show Kate, what they should be working on at this time. This action was intended to
assist in Kate’s cognitive performance by offering a buttress to reinforce performance standards.
By sharing my screen, rather than simply explaining the structure assignment, I was able to
provide a concrete sample of what to do and thereby help Kate in her independent construction
51

of the assignment. Therefore, by implementing these regularly advising learners’ scaffolds aimed
towards nurturing a positive classroom climate, I supported Kate’s academic self-regulation in
completing the task.
Using Sentence Frames to Support the Co-Construction of Knowledge. An
academically rigorous classroom climate, as illustrated in my conceptual framework, is defined
by the degree a teacher is able to implement instruction aimed towards creating an environment
that nurtures students to contribute to the discussion (Matsumura et al., 2008). Students’
participation in the classroom dialogue is done by conveying how they are making sense of the
information, by forming connections with one another’s ideas, to deepen their and the class’
collective understanding of the material (Matsumura et al., 2008). In pursuit of this kind of
learning environment, where students are able to academically self-regulate, I implemented the
scaffold of cueing students to use sentence frames into my teaching approach. The purpose of
these scaffolds was to support my students in their co-construction of knowledge, so that they
could deepen their individual and collective understanding of the literature, and ultimately
internalize and enact them on their own (i.e., academic self-regulation). In retrospect, I now
recognize that my choice to use this scaffold was consistent with the idea of cognitive structuring
and modeling, and that by providing this tool, students were given a more rigorous learning
opportunity (Matsumura et al., 2008; Tharp & Gallimore, 1998).
Towards the end of my first data cycle, I began to cue students to use sentence frames.
The purpose of the scaffold was to provide my students with an approach to deepen in their
understanding of a particular topic we were exploring in the literature, rather than moving on.
Lyons-Moore (2014) describes this move as active learning. Active learning is an aspect of
rigorous instruction, because of its three indicators. The first one is based on elaboration
52

strategies. This pedagogical move supports students in their sense-making of new information,
by modeling how and in what structure students can add details to prior information, and thereby
contribute to the class dialogue. Mathews and Lowe (2011) also explain how, for learners to
think critically (i.e., an attribute of active learning), a teacher must model language, by providing
them with a scaffold, and embed instructional opportunities for students to extend their
knowledge. Therefore, by centering my teaching on promoting active learning, I was able to
reinforce my expectation that they use the frame, so they were able to co-construct knowledge
with their classmates and deepen their collective understanding of the literature. In mid-to-late
October, I promoted this rigorous learning opportunity when I reminded my students the
meaning behind “adding to” or co-constructing knowledge with their peers when I said,
I see a lot of hands, but before I move forward, I want to make sure that if you have
something to add, it is because you are extending [on] a point that someone said before
you, to strengthen your and our class’ understanding of the book. Not bringing up a new
point. So, as a reminder, you can use the sentence frame (this was typed into the chat, so
students could read it), “To add onto student’s name, and then you would explain how
this proves or shows us something deeper in the book.” So, [does] anyone want to add to
that (to what Olivia had previously shared)?
As evident in this example, I reintroduced the sentence frames and question I previously shared
earlier in the semester, so that I could support my students in their co-construction of knowledge.
The sentence frame, “To add onto student’s name, and then you would explain how this proves
or shows us something deeper in the book,” gave my students modeled language to adopt into
their own responses and vocabulary. This elaboration strategy was intended to engage my
students in active learning, as they were being provided a cognitive structure (both orally and
53

written in the chat) that would strengthen their critical thinking skills and move them within their
ZPD. Further, by reminding my students that when they have “something to add, it is because
you are extending [on] a point that someone said…” altered to them that they had to have
listened to the previous comment. Also, when I mentioned, “[…] then you would explain how
this proves or shows us something deeper in the book,” illustrated how they were required to
critically think about their contribution, to further explain the text. Lastly, I provided my class
with an opportunity to extend their knowledge and practice using this tool, when I cued them to
use it. This was seen when I asked, “So, [does] anyone want to add to that (to what Olivia had
previously shared)?” Therefore, by using this scaffold and the cue, I promoted an active learning
environment and aimed to move my student ZPD, so that students were able to co-construct
knowledge with their peers.
Near the end of my action research, my students began to partially demonstrate they had
internalized and were able to use the sentence frame tool, in conjunction with the cue, that
allowed them to co-construct knowledge with their peers. This was seen through recognizing that
when I asked, “(insert student’s name), do you want to add to that?” it was aimed to alert my
students who had their hands up that my expectation was that they use the frame to deepen their
individual and the class’ collective understanding of the current topic, by providing an extension
from it. As students began adopting this language, it demonstrated they had understood what I
wanted and expected from them and they were able to use it under these circumstances. By
elaborating and extending the conversation, students portrayed their engagement in active
learning (Lyons-Moore, 2014). However, when looking across the three cycles of my action
research project, I could determine that students understood and had adopted the sentence frame
pattern, by deploying it for a purpose, but not so they were co-constructing knowledge in an
54

effort to deepen their understanding of the literature. Rather, students had already constructed
their own understanding, independent of the class discussion, but participated in ways that
conveyed they had been listening to the dialogue and could create an obvious connection to a
prior point. For example, when speaking about gender role stereotypes in the novel we were
reading, students were asked to provide how they see these kinds of stereotypes in their
community. During our discussion, a student, Francis, said, “I knew this kid at my old school
that liked pink. And he was bullied for it, because it was stereotyping that only girls should like
pink.” To which Sarah, after being asked if she wanted to add on what was said, responded,
Okay, this is kind of adding on Francis’s, I don’t even get why people think of pink as
girly, since it was originally a color for boys. [...] They originally thought it was stronger
and blue was more docile. And in Sign of the Beaver, Attean stereotyped the girls in his
tribe for not being strong, but we read that they actually were and Attean finally
understood that, so maybe people will eventually understand the pink isn’t just a girly
color.
Here, Sarah used my cue and the language from the sentence frames to “add to” Francis’s
comment. While Sarah did not overtly co-construct knowledge to deepen her understanding of
the literature, she did contribute to the class dialogue by listening to and creating a connection
from what Francis had previously stated. This example showed her personal understanding of
stereotyping. During this conversation, Sarah exhibited active learning, as she added new details
and explanations to prior information (Lyons-Moore, 2014). This was exhibited when she said,
“...I don’t even get why people think of pink as girly, since it was originally since it was
originally a color for boys. [...] They originally thought it was stronger and blue was more
docile,” in response to Francis’s comment, “...And he was bullied for it, because it was
55

stereotyping that only girls should like pink.” This showed Sarah’s internalization of the scaffold
I provided earlier in the semester because she extended and built upon the current dialogue. This
is true because Sarah also relatively quoted the modeled language I used by saying “...this is kind
of adding on Francis’s…” Further, while Sarah demonstrated she had already understood the
meaning of the reading when she said,
And in Sign of the Beaver, Attean stereotyped the girls in his tribe for not being strong,
but we read that they actually were and Attean finally understood that, so maybe people
will eventually understand the pink isn’t just a girly color
it was not dependent on Francis’s comment because Sarah had in fact already understood this
moment in the literature. Therefore, while Sarah did exhibit parts of my purpose to promote the
co-construction of knowledge, this moment did not, nor did most moments across my action
research, fully convey the complexities of its purpose—to promote individual and collective
understanding of the literature.
Finding 2: Ideological Clarity, Meaningful Learning, and CRP
Bartolomé (2004) illustrated that ideological clarity refers to the continuous process
individuals undertake to assume counter-hegemonic positions. Students who demonstrate
ideological clarity in the classroom are able to recognize and have an awareness about their own
experiences and how they are divergent from others who are not as fortunate as they are. Further,
by reaching ideological clarity, students will have experienced transformative learning because
transformative learning (i.e., self- and social transformation) is part of the process towards
ideological clarity (Wergin, 2020). To support this learning process in the classroom, teachers
might utilize meaningful learning to leverage students’ sociopolitical consciousness (Lyons-
Moore, 2014). Athanases (1998) described that one way to raise students’ sociopolitical
56

consciousness is through the use of engaging students with classroom literature. Using students’
prior knowledge as an anchor, in conjunction with cognitive strategies, an educator can engage
students in meaningful learning as they support their students to identify and analyze real-world
problems. This will be the catalyst for learners to unpack and understand social inequities, see
the dominant ideologies in the literature, and how this can be connected back to their own lives
(Ladson-Billings, 2014; Lyons-Moore, 2014). Students are then positioned to engage in critical
thinking and build sociopolitical consciousness, they have made authentic connections to the text
(Athanases, 1998; Milner, 2010). Without an opportunity to engage in critical reflection, students
will continue to inadvertently internalize and reproduce these inequities as the social norm and
accept the dominant narrative’s role in society (Paris & Alim, 2014). Thus, and consistent with
Camangian (2015) I argued that by creating a space where students are building their
sociopolitical consciousness and understanding broader ways of knowing, teachers can begin to
lead in transformative learning. Additionally, by understanding and reframing their own biases,
students, in the long term can counter hegemonic-assumptions and potentially reach ideological
clarity (Bartolomé, 2004).
With respect to meaningful learning and CRP, I leveraged the foundation of meaningful
learning (i.e., active learning and academically rigorous instruction) and re-envisioned the tenets
of CRP, by solely focusing on leveraging students’ sociopolitical consciousness, in order to
promote transformative learning, and start my students’ process towards ideological clarity. By
creating connections with the literature, I was able to nurture a space for students to deepen their
understanding of the complexities presented in the literature, as they (the students) named the
inequities presented there and how society reproduced the inequities. Additionally, by using
novels and supplemental resources (i.e., videos, NewsELA articles, etc.), I was able to promote
57

conversation aimed towards interrogating students’ assumptions, as they understood their
privilege (i.e., (vast majority) being White, a high SES, and/or living in an affluent community).
As a result, students developed an increased consciousness with respect to socioeconomic status
and intellect. This was true because they began to analyze how political, economic, and social
forces shape society, and how that construct reproduces inequities. However, as it related to race
and gender, students were only able to recognize the inequities in society, and not able to
recognize the relationship between themselves and the inequity. Therefore, students were unable
to reach self- and social transformation or ideological clarity, because they were unable to reflect
on their identities and hold each other, their community, as well as themselves accountable to
reproducing the dominant narrative.
Naming Inequities. Meaningful learning, coupled with CRP, supports students in their
ability to foster authentic connections with the literature, but also in their ability to examine its
hegemonic narrative (Athanases, 1998; Lyons-Moore, 2014). This promotion is cultivated by a
teacher leveraging their learners’ prior knowledge to deepen their understanding of the text. By
doing so, a teacher can point out assumptions in the literature that their learners had previously
never questioned (Paris & Alim, 2014). Consistent with Athanases (1998) and outlined in my
conceptual framework, I activated prior knowledge and posted out students’ assumption to not
only support my students in their examination of the text’s underlying inequities, but also their
relationship to it. From the beginning of my action research project I understood that, by helping
my students explore how their actions and/or thoughts might be perpetuating the status quo, I
would thereby raise their sociopolitical consciousness. Now, though, I recognize that supporting
my class in this process, I would also support inching towards ideological clarity (Athanases,
1998; Paris & Alim, 2014). Over the course of my action research, I nurtured a space where my
58

students were able to explore how their actions and thoughts reproduced the status quo.
Specifically, at the start of the second action research cycle, when my students had just started to
read the first chapter (entitled “Kim”) of the book Seedfolks, it became evident that I promoted
meaningful learning because I utilized cognitive strategies to have my student elaborate and
synthesize their thoughts. At the start of the novel, the author depicted the low SES of the
neighborhood. Therefore, and given the level of privilege (i.e., living in an affluent
neighborhood) my students had, I decided to investigate my students’ perception of and relation
to Kim’s neighborhood, so I asked,
T: What kind of neighborhood do you think Kim lives in and how do you know that–
while you may not know for sure, you can make an inference. Do you think it’s
well off, not well off, and what are you using to support your claims?
Walter: [...] there is junk everywhere, so that’s how you know it’s a bad neighborhood.
David: Yea (in response to what Walter said), since no one has picked up the trash, you
know it’s not well off and not safe.
T: That could be, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a “bad” or “not safe”
neighborhood, but it does mean that maybe the city is not as well off—financially.
Even taking it out of this story and connecting it to here, there are parts of our
country, even in Los Angeles, that if the neighborhood isn’t as well off, the trash
collectors don’t come all the time. But in more well-off neighborhoods, like in
Suburbia, the trash collectors come every week.
Olivia: So, are you saying that it’s not that the people in Seedfolks live in a bad
neighborhood, it’s just they don’t have the same things as cities like Suburbia
with more money have?
59

T: Exactly. So, because they don’t have the same resources—like a trash pick-up—
their city ends up being covered in trash—like the lot in this story.
Here, it was clear the one of my students, Olivia, began her path towards ideological clarity—
unpacking the inequities in the literature and actively reframing it—while two of my other
students had not. This was clear when I asked my students to explain the setting of the book and
David’s and Walter’s comments conveyed their internalization that poor equated to “bad” or “not
safe.” This can be seen when David followed up Walter’s comment by saying, “Yea, since no
one has picked up the trash, you know it’s not well off and not safe.” While David was correct
that Kim’s neighborhood was “not well off,” his second description of “not safe” and Walter’s
comment of “bad” was what I wanted to ask students to critically analyze. The reason for
drawing attention the language being used by David and Walter was because it was reproducing
a hegemonic narrative. Therefore, by pushing backing on and unpacking their language and
intentionally modeling for Walter and David, as well as the entire class an alternative
explanation to the one they had offered, I was able to promote a transformative learning space.
By explaining how the finances of a city do result in the resources a city has, but not a city’s
definition of being “bad,” I utilized my students’ prior knowledge to see this contrast—namely,
when I inversely connected the idea of a city’s resource to Suburbia (where most of my students
live). By engaging in this conversation, I also gave my students an opportunity to engage them in
mental exploration of the hegemonic assumptions they held. Further, by giving my class an
opportunity to ask questions, it gave them the space to illustrate their understanding of the
inequities in the literature and their relationship to them. This was evident when Olivia
questioned, “So, are you saying that it’s not that the people in Seedfolks live in a bad
neighborhood, it's just they don’t have the same things as cities like Suburbia with more money
60

have?” Olivia’s question demonstrated how she engaged in CRP because she was able to form
connections between herself and to the book, in order to unpack the social inequities. Further, her
question signaled she was starting self-transformation because she just began to have change in
reference about underfunded neighborhoods. Finally, by providing Olivia confirmation in my
response, when I said “exactly,” I cued that her connection was accurate and aimed to provide
her with the confidence that her understanding of the text was on the right track. Therefore, in
this example I promoted transformative learning where I was helping my students develop the
skills to build their sociopolitical consciousness and possibly reach ideological clarity, through
their engagement with the literature.
Near the end of my action research, during the third cycle of my action research project,
students were able to examine the inequities in the literature on their own, due to the space I had
been nurturing. This—my students’ ability to interrogate their assumptions because of the space I
had cultivated—was true because when students are taught to raise their sociopolitical
consciousness and create connections with the text, they are better positioned to dissect the
hegemony presented there (Athanases, 1998; Lyons-Moore, 2014). Further, by working in this
space, I engaged students in meaningful learning, by using cognitive strategies (i.e., elaborating,
synthesizing, etc.) as well as CRP (i.e., analyzing social inequities) that would ultimately help
them reach self- and social transformation, and possibly also ideological clarity (Bartolomé,
2004; Wergin, 2020). Over the course of my class’s unit on Seedfolks, we continued to have
discussions about socioeconomic status. The purpose of these conversations was to promote
students’ ability to see and analyze how society reproduced social inequities, as well as have an
opportunity to reflect on their privilege. On this particular day, students were asked to
independently form “direct or inverse” connections to the novel, Seedfolks, we just finished. As
61

they came up with ideas, I gave them topics to include in their connections. These topics
included “racism, stereotypes, privilege….” (i.e., concepts consistent to those we had discussions
about all trimester). After giving students time to come up with answers, I first asked if anyone
wrote down a connection related to the city in Seedfolks. This was when Olivia raised her hand
and said,
Olivia: The first one (connection) is a lot of people here (in Suburbia) can afford to have
the trashman come every week while people [in] Seedfolks, they couldn’t.
They...their city, couldn’t afford it for a while, so I guess, and I’m inferring,
people [in Seedfolks] then ended up taking it to the dump after, because no one
was picking it up (from their apartments/homes). The problem is, when everyone
was putting it in the dump, the dump was also not being cleaned, so that’s why
one of the characters...I forgot her name now…umm, Leona, called the city to
complain about it. This is probably why Seedfolks described how run down the
city was, but that’s not their (the people that lived in the city’s) fault.
T: Why is it not their fault? What does the book say or not say?
Olivia: It’s only dirty because their trash isn’t being picked up like in other places, like
here. The book doesn’t talk about that, talk about how much money you have is
how you know if your trash is being picked up every week.
As evident in the example, Olivia not only named the inequity illustrated in the book, but how
that inversely connected to her hometown. By internalizing our conversation from earlier in the
school year, Olivia understood the connection between her affluent community, its city services,
and the money the city has. Moreover, Olivia realized that this was not the case in Seedfolks.
This was clear when Olivia described how Leona called the city to complain about their trash
62

problem. Olivia was able to see how the city’s garbage issue was not because of the people in the
city’s own making. It was because the city did not have the funds to clean it up. In this moment,
Olivia was able to critically analyze this inequity because she reflected upon our class’s ongoing
conversations about privilege and stereotypes, as well as her connection to it. This form of
reflection moved Olivia towards ideological clarity and can be seen when she said,
It’s only dirty because their trash isn’t being picked up like in other places. The book
doesn’t talk about that, talk about how much money you have is how you know if your
trash is being picked up every week.
This statement, fueled by my probing, illustrated how Olivia recognized that Seedfolks only
described the city as “rundown” but did not examine why this might be the case. Therefore,
because Olivia was able to further understand what was occurring in Seedfolks was not
happening near her home, thus, Olivia began to understand the hegemonic narrative present in
the text and began to reframe it. Further, by having Olivia make an authentic connection with the
text (i.e., connecting the city in Seedfolks to her hometown) that changed what she once knew,
she engaged in meaningful learning. Therefore, because Olivia was able to reframe
autonomously, Olivia had reached self-transformation and was reaching towards ideological
clarity.
Interrogating Assumptions. Over the course of my action research cycles, I was able to
promote conversations aimed towards students interrogating their assumptions regarding
socioeconomic status, intellect, race and gender. The purpose of these conversations and what I
came to find was that students increased their consciousness about and relationship to
socioeconomic status and intellect. However, as it related to race and gender, students could only
name the inequities presented in the literature, but not their relationship to those areas. I chose
63

these four domains for the following reasons: 1) I wanted my class to grapple with the image
they have consciously or unconsciously constructed regarding someone’s financial resources and
what they could accomplish in their life (SES). 2) I chose intellect to help students deconstruct
how a person’s level of intellect is equated to their college degree and career path. 3) I wanted
my students to grapple with the colorblindness they carried, given their school and city’s
predominantly White population (Race). 4) I wanted to support my students’ abilities to break
down gender norms—norms frequently reproduced in their communities. Camangian (2015)
illustrated that when a teacher is able to implement CRP and critical reflexivity, they can
mobilize students to have a deeper understanding of oppression and their part in it. Therefore, I
came to realize that, because of the privileged worlds (i.e., being mostly White, having a high
SES, and/or living in an affluent area, etc.) my students were living in, they had internalized
dominant ideologies in each of these domains, as the norm, rather than question these
complexities. Thus, engaging students in meaningful learning, my students were able to cultivate
a deeper understanding of their assumptions, by engaging in and questioning their understanding
of the status quo. As a result of this work, students engaged in transformative learning because
they developed an increased sociopolitical consciousness and a change of reference with respect
to socioeconomic status and intellect. Going through this process, as previously noted, did
ultimately support students in moving toward ideological clarity. However, as it related to race
and gender, students were only able to recognize the inequities in society, and not able to
recognize the relationship between themselves and the inequity. Therefore, they were only able
to increase their sociopolitical consciousness.
SES. The first domain in which I chose to have my students interrogate their assumptions
was SES. The purpose of focusing on SES was to unearth how students constructed the level to
64

which financial status mattered, as well as their context neutral mindset. Milner (2010) explained
that a context neutral mindset refers to someone’s inability to recognize the differing realities
impacting those around them. The purpose of shattering this lens was for students to build a level
of sociopolitical consciousness that would lead them towards critical thinking and understanding
the lived experiences of those who might have had different journeys. By engaging my students
meaningful learning, while raising their sociopolitical consciousness, they were able to actively
engage in an academic rigorous instruction aimed towards disrupting these false notions about
the world. This act is an important first step towards reaching ideological clarity (Bartolomé,
2004). In my classroom, the promotion of this sort of space and discourse can be explicitly seen
at the start of my action research (early September) when my class and I started to read the book
the Sign of the Beaver. During this dialogue, my class and I began to discuss how one of the
main characters, Matt, had lost all his things because a bear had invaded his cabin. This moment,
coupled with its pre-colonial setting and my desire to connect the storyline to my students’ daily
lives, caused this conversation to unfold:
I then asked Francis, as well as the entire class if they think it is easy for Matt to replace
all of his things? A male student called out (unsure who it was, as it was over Zoom, but
it sounded like Mike): Can’t he just go buy more? As he called out, the rest of the class as
a whole shook their heads (indicating they did not agree).
After asking my class to write in the literature notebook about putting themselves in Matt’s
position (i.e., how he does not have the funds to pay for new things), I also told them to think
about how fortunate they were as they wrote. After giving them time to construct an answer, I
then connected the conversation to the varying socioeconomic levels that exist today.
65

I asked my students if they think that exists [people having difficulties getting food]?
About seven students, six of whom were female, raised their hands. This was shocking
for me. I then asked Mike (one of the students who had raised his hand),
T: Why do you think it doesn’t exist?
Mike: I just think that every kid who needs food can get it, since they are kids, like me
and Matt should be able to.
T: While I wish that was true, it’s not. There are many kids and families out there
that are unable to provide for their families the way that a lot of people in our
community can. Not everyone has jobs that can afford to buy weekly groceries,
and not everyone who needs a job has one. So, that is why you will see that
different areas, even if you just go 5 miles down the road, have different living
situations. It’s because of what they can afford and what resources they are given.
And going back to the book, because of the time and the resources Matt had, he
couldn’t afford to easily go out and get what he needed. It wasn’t that simple for
him.
In this example, it is clear that to support my students in their interrogation of their assumptions
regarding Matt’s SES, I drew upon supplemental information (i.e., today’s society) to make the
inequity more real, rather than simply in a historical fictional novel that they presumably could
not easily connect to—thus, creating a meaningful learning opportunity because students were
able to make authentic connections. It is also clear that while I was doing so, my students
appeared to have varying levels of understanding as it related to Matt’s socioeconomic status and
people today. This first had begun when I asked the group if they thought “it is easy for Matt to
replace all of his things?” While most students shook their heads in the negative (left to right),
66

one male student—presumably Mike—questioned why Matt could not just go out and buy more.
This student’s question conveyed how he was unable to understand why some people were
unable to purchase what they needed, like he could. Further, while the shaking heads (left to
right down, signaling no) created the impression that the rest of the class did not think it was
easy for Matt to replace his belongings, it was unclear if that representation was accurate, as I did
not ask them to elaborate on their thoughts. Separately, by seeing that only about a third of my
class believed as though SES inequities exist today, it only reinforced the idea that these
students’ understanding were consistent with the dominant narrative because of what they have
come to believe as “normal.” Using this thought as a guide and in effort to also support Mike,
who I believed to be the same student who called out early, I then began speaking to today’s
inequities and later connected it to the text. The purpose of this was to draw upon students’ lived
experiences to support them in their interrogation of the status quo. Supporting Mike’s
interrogation can be seen when I asked him why he felt as though these inequities do not exist
today. In this moment, Mike portrayed the context neutral lens he believed to exist in the world;
the belief that all “kids” have the same luxuries, so Matt should, too. Leveraging Mike’s
connections, I not only explained the varying SES levels, but how it was not “simple” for Matt
just to go out and get what he needed. Therefore, in this moment, I began the process of
removing Mike’s context neutral lens, by explaining to him about the differing financial
stabilities of those in the story, as well as in our county. Since, in this example, I just began to
promote a meaningful learning opportunity for Mike to interrogate his assumptions and disrupt
his context neutral lens, he did not experience transformative learning or reach ideological
clarity.
67

Near the end of my data collection cycles, students engaged in meaningful learning
because they were able to connect prior knowledge with new knowledge in order to fully
interrogate their assumptions in relation to SES. Literature (Matsumura et al., 2008) and my
conceptual framework described that when students begin to engage in critical reflexivity, they
will be able to raise their sociopolitical consciousness. Further, by looking at real-world issues,
students will be able to build their sociopolitical consciousness, and illustrate their relationship to
socioeconomic oppression (Bartolomé, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 2014). Consistent with
Camangian (2015), this growth was as a result of coupling these factors students can reach
ideological clarity. Therefore, when I asked my students to examine the inequities presented in
the novel and used supplemental resources, I was able to bring these issues to light. Looking
across my action research cycles, I determined that by promoting this sort of discussion and
infusing additional resources into my teaching approach, my students were able to see for
themselves the societal inequities and their role in it. For example, this can be seen when my
class had read an article about an underprivileged school receiving a farm on campus that would
be used to supplement their hot lunches. While the article mostly spoke about the working
opportunities the farm brought the surrounding community, I built a conversation around the
differing opportunities students could have based on their SES.
T: So, think back to the conversation we were having at the beginning about
different opportunities. At that point, we were having a conversation about
opportunities as it comes to education, but now we are talking about food. So,
what do you see in this article about why the farm is important? Olivia?
68

Olivia: Where we live, [...] our hot lunches are healthier, because the district can afford to
do that. Other schools may not have as much money, so they can’t add an apple or
carrots like our lunches, so that’s why it’s good to have the farm.
Walter: And like we have more opportunities to get healthier food because of where we
live and how our families probably have more money to buy healthy food than the
kids in this article. Not everyone does, because they all can’t afford it. So, they
have to buy what they can afford and that’s not always healthy... and that’s not
right that where you live is why you can be healthy.
Here, students were able to connect prior knowledge to our class discussion and interrogate their
assumptions, because they engaged in meaningful learning over the course of my three action
research cycles. This was true because they had raised their sociopolitical consciousness, as well
as their relationship to it. In the data, this can be seen when I asked the question, “So, what do
you see in this article about why the farm is important?” two students were able to see the
inequities in the article, rather than make assumptions about why this school did not have healthy
lunches. Further, because the article mostly spoke about the working opportunities the farm
provided, Olivia and Walter conveyed their deeper understanding of the literature. This was seen
when Olivia stated, “Where we live, [...] our hot lunches are healthier, because the district can
afford to do that. Other schools may not have as much money, so they can’t add an apple or
carrots like our lunches, so that’s why it’s good to have the farm.” This statement demonstrates
how Olivia was able to understand how healthy school hot lunches were as a result of the wealth
of the district. When Walter followed up on Olivia’s comment by first saying, “And like we have
more opportunities to get healthier food because of where we live and how our families probably
have more money to buy healthy food than the kids in this article,” this showed how Walter
69

recognized his privilege and the opportunities he was given because of his parents’ income.
When Walter then said, “Not everyone does, because they all can’t afford it. So, they have to buy
what they can afford and that’s not always healthy... and that’s not right that where you live is
why you can be healthy,” this shows how Walter understood that the level of SES someone
dictated what they could buy for a meal. Thus, it was not always a choice to buy something
healthy. Sometimes that choice was handed to you. Therefore, by Olivia and Walter analyzing
the text and their relation to socioeconomic inequities it presented, they were able to disrupt their
own assumptions, so they did not reproduce a deficit mindset. They saw the inverse connection
between their upbringing and those in the story and realized how the financial resource of a city
is not at the fault of those who inhabit it. Due to this, they had experienced transformative
learning and began the process towards ideological clarity.
Intellect. During each cycle of my action research project, I also supported my students
in their exploration of what it meant to be “intelligent.” My students, due to the worlds they were
living in, had come to believe that “intelligence” translated to someone’s level of education, or,
at the very least, someone’s ability to read and write. Therefore, when first discussing literature,
my students had internalized the assumption that someone who could not read or write and/or
someone who did not have a formal job (i.e., lawyer, doctor, teacher, etc.), for example, was not
“intelligent.” The purpose of disrupting these notions was to help them understand that the
formal educational opportunities were equal across all populations. Further, not all career paths
required formal schooling. Therefore, intelligence was merely someone’s ability to acquire
knowledge, not the school or formal career in which they garnered that knowledge. For students
to reach a point of critical reflexivity that would cause them to question dominant ideologies
presented in the text, Athanases (1998) explained the importance of leveraging learners’ prior
70

knowledge, so that learners can analyze the complexities in the literature and interrogate their
assumptions related to it. This is done by engaging students in meaningful learning by providing
opportunities for them to form connections across the texts and from text-to-self. Therefore, at
the start of my third action research cycle, when I asked students to compare and contrast the
book we were reading, Seedfolks, to a NewsELA article about refugee farmers, I saw how in
order for my students to recognize the inequities in the literature, they had drawn connections
from the text. At one point in the class discussion, I asked students to redefine for themselves
what it means to be educated and/or intelligent and to analyze and illustrate how those in both
texts were or were not educated and/or intelligent. The purpose of this class discussion was to
see how students might have moved away from their initial definitions of intelligence and how
the use of forming authentic connections supported that change. After asking my question,
Nathan chimed in and explained his understanding of intelligence. He said,
N: I think being educated is being knowledgeable in a work field. For instance, if you
want to be a doctor, like my dad, you would need a lot of school until you’re
about 30. But let’s say you wanted to be a farmer, you would probably need
mostly hands-on experience. Those are two opposites, but it doesn’t mean that
you’re dumb. A farmer could be the same exact [level] of smarts. [...] So, really,
the refugee article and the people in Seedfolks are really educated in their field
because of how successful the book and article said their farms were... And I
know at first I thought they weren’t [smart], because they didn’t go to college, but
really, they are. It’s just different than what I am used to thinking.
T: So, why do you think that is what you were used to thinking?
71

N: Because everyone around me is saying that we have to go to college, so I assumed
that was the only way to be smart. But [by] reading Seedfolks and this farming
article, I realized it’s not. You can be smart in all kind[s] of ways. Not just a way
of going to school.
Per the example, Nathan had moved away from his initial assumptions about what it meant to be
intelligent. This was seen through his ability to illustrate how he now thought “being educated is
being knowledgeable in a work field” and how one’s profession may require formal schooling,
while another, like farming “would probably need mostly hands-on experience.” In this moment,
in part because of the real-world scenario presented in the refugee farmers article, Nathan was
able to see the nuances in how to demonstrate intelligence. However, Nathan did make a
connection between being educated and successful when he said, “A farmer could be the same
exact [level] of smarts. [...] So, really, the refugee article and the people in Seedfolks are really
educated in their field because of how successful the book and article said their farms were.”
Meaning, Nathan had now defined intelligence and education as the same thing and he
determined that his definition of intelligence is equal to one’s level of success. In this exchange,
Nathan also conveyed two kinds of connections—text-to-text and text-to-self. First, Nathan was
able to show his connections across texts when said, “So, really, the refugee article and the
people in Seedfolks are really educated in their field because of how successful the book and
article said their farms were.” Second, Nathan was able to make text-to-self connections to his
dad being a doctor, in conjunction to “everyone around him.” These text-to-self connections
provided how Nathan’s community (e.g., family, friends, neighbors, etc.) had caused him to have
these notions about how the world operated. Similarly, my probing further showed why Nathan
thought the way that he did and how it has changed over time. Therefore, through Nathan’s
72

connections to the literature and use of his prior knowledge, it conveyed that I was able to
generate a space where Nathan was able to engage in a reflective act; an act that allowed him to
see himself in relation to something larger. Nathan had developed a consciousness about how
intelligence was not defined by a person’s degree, but by someone’s acquisition of knowledge.
Therefore, Nathan had reached self-transformation because he was able to break his previous
motions and moved towards this space.
Race. Throughout my action research cycles, I interrogated my students’ assumptions
regarding race and gender. However, unlike SES and intellect, my students were only able to
recognize the inequities in society, and not able to recognize the relationship between themselves
and the inequity when it came to race and gender. To interrogate students’ assumptions on race,
Camangian (2015) spoke to the importance of drawing upon CRP and critical literacy to help
students in understanding hegemony and how they might be reproducing these deficit narratives.
In pursuit of this (the interrogation of students’ assumption about race), I fostered meaningful
learning that were consistent with Camangian’s work. Specifically, I cultivated meaningful
learning by using real world scenarios into my teaching approach. This act better suited my
students to understand hegemony, and thereby lead them towards ideological clarity. During my
second action research cycle, my students and I had just started the book Seedfolks. In this
specific chapter, one of the character’s, Ana, was speaking about how, within her community,
different racial and ethnic groups were either segregated in the city, and/or were moving out once
they had the means to move to a wealthier neighborhood. However, even during these
transitional periods, the Black population stayed. This was when I asked the class,
73

T: So, what she’s telling you is that a lot of cultural and racial groups moved in and
others moved out. But throughout this time, the Black community stayed. Why do
you think that is?
Kate: They decided to, maybe?
Gavin: Yea, maybe they liked it there.
T: So, a couple of things to note [...] the Black community, specifically, had and
continues to have, as we spoke about before with Ruby Bridges, be the target of
racism and also had a segregated work experience. What I mean by segregated is,
depending on the time period, they could not even work at the same places as
people who were White. So, because of that, it was more difficult for them to get
a job and make living wages. So, we can infer from what Ana is saying is that
they were not given the same job opportunities as the other people in their
communities, so they couldn’t move out of this poorer neighborhood. [...] Racism
causes the Black population to continue to not be treated fairly. Not be given the
same opportunities for jobs, education, salaries, etc. So that is why, for example,
[...] you see less diversity in upper class neighborhoods, like here in Suburbia. So,
it’s not that the Black community doesn’t like these wealthier communities, it is
because of their history, the racism, and experiences, many times they just can’t
afford it.
Here, it is evident that in part because I did the heavy lifting, at least two students, Gavin and
Kate, were unable to understand the real reason why the Black community stayed in the town
that Ana lived in. Their inability to understand was evident in this example because they thought
the Black community chose to stay in Ana’s neighborhood. By using their responses as leverage,
74

I proceeded to explain to the class that choice was not a factor, as their decision was forced upon
them. Per my response to Gavin and Kate’s statements, I aimed to raise their, as well as the
class’s sociopolitical consciousness by using historical racism and thereby the way that
segregation played a large and important role in why Ana’s Black counterparts were not only
unable to move out of their town, but also how this fact connects to today. I engaged students in
critical literacy by unpacking this realization and explaining how this history is prevalent today.
When I said, “Racism causes the Black population to continue to not be treated fairly. Not be
given the same opportunities for jobs, education, salaries, etc. So that is why, for example, [...]
you see less diversity in upper class neighborhoods, like here in Suburbia,” it was aimed to make
a direct connection between students’ lives and this racial injustice, so they would notice not
only the lack of diversity in their communities, but why that was occurring. Therefore, nurturing
meaningful learning through the use authentic connections and using real world issues, I lead my
students toward a space where they would no longer be colorblind and understood the
marginalization of the Black community—specifically, how the history of the majority my
students’ ancestors and the freedoms they were given diverged from the Black community’s
history. This divergent, thereby, produced inequitable outcomes. By illustrating this fact, I began
to raise my students’ sociopolitical consciousness. However, because I did not discuss the
banking practices and discrimination of real estate agents, for example, I was not able to have my
students reach ideological clarity.
Near the end of my action research project, students were able to partially interrogate
their assumptions as it related to race. I say partial because they were not able to see society
reproduces theses idea and how their parents are a part of the perpetuation of marginalization.
Therefore, when I fostered meaningful learning environment that promoted authentic
75

connections and real world scenarios, so that students interrogate their assumption with respect
to race, they could not. My students, although they began to develop a consciousness around
inequity, they were still unable to comprehend how society played a role in the marginalization.
Consistent with Camangian (2015), I asked students to critically reflect on their identities, so
they were able to see more of the social inequities. By asking students elaboration-like questions
about their perceptions, I aimed to provide them with a framework to see how their actions might
be reproducing a hegemonic narrative. This can be seen near the end of my action research cycle,
when I circled back to the topic of race. Students were asked to share some of their takeaways
and/or things they noticed about book Seedfolks we just finished reading. Leaving it open-ended,
outside of pointing students to a quote in the book where a character compared the story’s setting
to a “cheap hotel” and discussing that, as well as giving them takeaway topic ideas (i.e., race,
stereotyping, etc.), Nick raised his hand and said,
Nick: I noticed that the only White character was Wendell.
T: Yeah. So, what did that make you feel? What did you think?
Nick: It was kind of weird. I mean, on the cover, it looks like…I kind of noticed that he
was like...there’s only like one or two [people who are White]. But yeah, it was
kind of just weird, and then I learned about [how] the different options different
groups of people can have because [of] how they look like.
T: Can you elaborate more on the different options and how that relates to you?
Nick: Because of what people that are Black went through in history [...], it’s like they
always were a step behind. And Seedfolks kind of stereotypes how people that are
not White don’t really live in places that are poor. It’s just messed up.
T: So, how does that relate to you?
76

Nick: I mean, I don’t know. I just feel bad for them.
As evident in this example, while Nick was able to name the racial inequities in the book, he was
unable to recognize his privilege. This was first seen by Nick noticing how only one (of the 12 or
so main) characters in the book was White. Nick then coupled this realization with “[…] it was
kind of just weird and then I learned about [how] the different options different groups of people
can have, because [of] how they look like” and “Because of what people that are Black went
through in history [...], it’s like they always were a step behind.” These statements show Nick’s
growth towards transformative learning, because he named how society is structurally racist, yet
he did not know how. Due to Nick’s engagement in CRP-based lessons, he was able to illustrate
the marginalization of the Black community by stating “Because of what people that are Black
went through in history [...], it’s like they always were a step behind.” I also engaged Nick in
meaningful learning, because when I asked, “Can you elaborate more on the different options
and how that relates to you?”, I used cognitive strategies (i.e., elaboration/probing) to promote
discourse aimed towards helping Nick interrogate his own assumptions. However, when I then
asked him to be more self-reflective, by asking “So, how does that relate to you?” Nick was
unable to demonstrate his connection to the issue. This was evident because Nick said, “I mean, I
don’t know. I just feel bad for them,” Nick’s answer conveyed his inability to see how the
oppression of the Black population continued to be vastly different from his own journey.
Therefore, regardless of my aim towards fostering transformative learning, Nick was not able to
reach ideological clarity as it related to race.
Gender Role Stereotypes. Similar to race, my students were able to name the gender role
stereotype in the book, but not their relationship to it. To support students in discovering the
inequities in the literature, a teacher may leverage their students’ prior knowledge, in conjunction
77

with multiple educational resources, so that their students can analyze the text (Athanases, 1998).
By going through this sort of analysis, students are prompted to rethink stereotypes, as they point
out things they have challenges with in the text. Utilizing Athanases’s (1998) work, I
implemented this form of instruction across all three action research cycles, but it was clearly
evident during my second cycle. During cycle two, I had students unpack the gender roles of the
people in Attean’s—the protagonist in the Sign of the Beaver book we were reading—tribe had.
To complete this work, students were given a series of scaffolds that I recognized would support
their disruption of the assumption. Consistent with Athanases (1998), I had students critically
engage with literature in small groups, so they could construct their ideas of the assigned gender
roles in the tribe, illustrate their dis/agreement with those social constructs, and explain if they
saw gender role stereotypes today. After students had time to collaborate with their peers, they
came back to the whole group, and I called on students to contribute to our whole group
dialogue. About midway through the conversation Corey said,
C: We all thought the same thing, that this is an example of stereotyping because the
girls cooked and cleaned and the boys hunted. I also wrote that anyone in the tribe
should be able to have any role they want.
T: Why do you feel that way?
C: I don’t think it’s fair that in the book they said that only the boys can do some
jobs or learn some things and the girls learned another. Boys and girls are both
able to do the same things, like we learned in one of the NewsELA articles and
talked about in class.
T: Do you think in your community this still happens? Boys tend to have certain jobs and
girls have others?
78

C: No, I think it’s even now. I think in every job there is an even number of girls and
boys.
In this example, it is clear that Corey was able to find the gender role stereotypes that were not
explicitly stated in the book, but not how this was still an issue today. Here, when Corey said,
“We all thought the same thing, that this is an example of stereotyping because the girls cooked
and cleaned and the boys hunted. I also wrote that anyone in the tribe should be able to have any
role they want” conveyed Corey’s traditional understanding of societal roles men and women
tended to have had in history. This statement also showed how Corey saw the importance of
equality across genders. This thought was followed up with
I don’t think it’s fair that in the book they said that only the boys can do some jobs or
learn some things and the girls learned another. Boys and girls are both able to do the
same things, like we learned in one of the NewsELA articles and talked about in class
demonstrated how Corey utilized his prior knowledge (i.e., from the NewsELA articles and class
discussions) to understand how the book did not convey a message of equality across gender
roles. This quotation also illustrates Corey was able to reach this level of consciousness because
of the supplemental resource (i.e., NewsELA articles), something that Athanses (1998) explained
is required to have students rethink stereotypes. However, because Cody was unable to see the
gender role stereotypes were still prevalent today, when he said, “I think in every job there is an
even number of girls and boys,” illustrates how even though Corey engaged in meaningful
learning because he used his prior knowledge from the book and previous class discussion
across, he was unable to see how he and his community connected to this inequity and that this
issue was still prevalent today. Due to Corey inability to recognize how his community in
complicit in the marginalization, I was unable to disrupt Corey’s gender role notions.
79

My Growth
Prior to the 2020-2021 school year, I did not explicitly attend to how my students made
sense of their place in the world. Specifically, I did not speak to the way some, like my students,
were socioeconomically advantaged, while others were disadvantaged, and the inequity this
caused. While my students, at some level, understood their privilege, as it related to “charity” or
“giving back,” but they did not see their complicity in those inequities, nor saw how colorblind
they were to the historicity of them. This is because my students had internalized the two—their
privilege and the inequities of others—as not related and I did not make a conscious effort to
break that notion they held. Throughout my teaching, prior to this school year, I had addressed
these issues as things that only existed “out there” or within the literature. However, leading up
to my Dissertation in Practice (DiP), which also aligned to the start of the 2020-2021 school
year, I began to reframe my teaching approach. Due to this reframe, my thinking had evolved. At
the point of implementation of my DiP, I began to explicitly address entrenched inequities and
used the literature as a platform to do so. To do this work, I was reflective and present to my
teaching and my complicity in the marginalization prior to this school year. Therefore, I was then
able to make a conscious effort in my teaching approach to connect my students, their
communities, and the literature, to the reproduction of the status quo. The purpose of this action
research was so that I could become more intentional with how I could move my students toward
ideological clarity (Bartolomé, 2004).
In spite of being reflective and present to my teaching, at the outset of my DiP, I was
inhibited to speak about entrenched inequities with my students. However, as I grew confident in
my ability to foster discussions surrounding these topics, one way in which I could track my
growth was my ability to intentionally address my students’ use of deficit language. During this
80

time, the action research tools rose to my consciousness. Specifically, while conducting my in
the field analysis of the first cycle of my action research project, my data conveyed that I was
inadvertently cultivating an unsafe space in my classroom. The reason for this unsafe space was
because I felt this sense of urgency to push my students to see their privilege when interrogating
the literature. Therefore, I did not provide my class with scaffolds that would raise their
consciousness when I asked questions to connect themselves to the literature; rather I pushed my
agenda onto them. However, once I conducted analysis, I became more present in my teaching as
I entered action research cycles 2 and 3, and ultimately created a safe space where my students
were supported to analyze the text at their own pace. Across my data, it is evident that there were
specific limits that impeded my growth. The first limit was my reticence to push my students in
specific domains, due to my belief that their parents held power and that I might run afoul of
them. The second limit was how I did not fully grasp how to leverage my conceptual framework
into my teaching approach.
From Inhibited to Gaining Confidence. Throughout the course of my action research
project, I become more confident in my ability to cultivate discussions with my students about
racism and related topics. My students, due to the worlds they were living in, had adopted a
colorblind and context neutral lens through which they view the world. Due to this, and
consistent with Paris and Alim’s (2014) research, my students had internalized this
marginalization as the norm and had been inadvertently reproducing it by using deficit language,
feeding into stereotypes, etc. With this notion and overtime, I engaged in critically reflective and
adaptive leadership acts, so that I became more explicit in targeting and providing feedback to
my students’ deficit language.
81

As I argue in my conceptual framework, elements of CRSL (Khalifa et al., 2016) and
adaptive leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009) come together to form critically reflective and adaptive
leadership. Critically reflective and adaptive leaders mobilize their followers to tackle challenges
and thrive. As it relates to adaptive leadership, this form of leadership is used when change is
happening (Northouse, 2016). While CRSL is used when the change is one that requires the
leader to guide their followers to challenge the status quo, to promote social justice (Khalifa et
al., 2016). With both types of leadership, I argue, requires a level of trust towards the leader’s
vision, so the followers are more apt to step into an unfamiliar space and have their equilibrium
shifted (Heifetz et al., 2009; Khalifa et al., 2016). Therefore, I argue that when a critically
reflective and adaptive leader invokes this kind of change, they must first have an awareness that
their choices will influence those around them, so they can then manage the changing
environment (Khalifa et al., 2016). With that change and management, the leader can promote a
learner centric space, where their followers will be better able to tolerate the shift in their norm
and leaders can regulate their distress (Northouse, 2016). By moving through the process this
way, I contend, all voices will be heard (Northouse, 2016) and a sense of community can be
created (Khalifa et al., 2016). By promoting inclusivity (Khalifa et al., 2016) and a willingness to
guide followers as they change their beliefs (Heifetz et al., 2009), or as Khalifa et al. (2016)
explain, conversations where they interrogate their assumptions, change is possible. Some of the
ways in which a leader could guide their followers is to implement specific leadership behaviors.
These include, but are not limited to: protecting the leadership voices from below, giving work
back to the people, getting on the balcony, etc. (Northouse, 2016).
At the beginning of my action research, I was in a place of being inhibited to correct my
students’ marginalizing language. Rather than naming it and providing feedback for it, I would
82

ignore the comment/word choice and/or correct it in my response yet forgo an explanation.
Consistent with Khalifa et al. (2016) and my definition of a critically reflective and adaptive
leadership, a leader must work to become self-aware, to promote social justice and guide their
learners towards some kind of change in belief. Without this level of awareness, I argue, a
critically reflective and adaptive leader may be inadvertently reproducing oppression. By
understanding how my leadership actions will influence my learners as they go through this
change in their beliefs, and, as a result, a shift in their equilibrium, I contended that specific
adaptive leadership moves must be implemented. Drawing on Northouse’s (2016), the purpose of
these leadership moves is to support students in their changing environment. That being said, at
the start of my first action research cycle, while I was cognizant of what was happening in my
classroom, I was not prepared to create any distress. As a result, I was not ready to give the work
back to my students, so they could understand why I was correcting their deficit word choice.
Therefore, because of these choices, I could not lead my class towards a place of deeper
understanding, aimed towards sociopolitical consciousness. For instance, during a conversation
about connecting different plot points in the novel we were reading, Sign of the Beaver, I asked
Francis,
T: So now, if you want to connect parts of the story, especially now that Matt ended
up back at his cabin, who do you think was actually watching him?
F: The Indians.
T: Yea, the Native Americans were definitely watching.
Here, when Francis, used the word “Indians,” in response to my question, I did not correct her
terminology. Rather, I validated her answer by saying “Yes.” While I did use an asset-based term
in my reply, I did not explicitly model the impact of her words and why I used “Native
83

Americans” in my response, while she used “Indians”' in hers. In this exchange, while short, it
was evident that while I was aware of Francis’s deficit word choice, I was not ready to challenge
Francis’s beliefs and create a level of distress. By not taking the time to show Francis how her
use of “Indians” created the impression that Native Americans were inferior, rather than equal, to
their White counterparts, as well as misclassifying their identity, Francis would continue to
utilize the term “Indians” and consider it the norm. Therefore, without providing Francis with
asset-based language and explanation for its purpose, I was not able to implement leadership
moves that would promote sociopolitical consciousness. Subsequently, because I did not invoke
a change in Francis’s environment, she did not have the opportunity to interrogate the deficit
word choices in the literature, and I did not have an opportunity to engage in leadership moves
that were learner centric. Finally, without being ready to engage in this leadership work, Francis
would ultimately continue her state of equilibrium, and I inadvertently embraced this form of
ethnic inferiority in my classroom.
By the middle of my second action research cycle, I grew in my ability to hold students
accountable to the deficit word choices they were using. As a result of being ready to implement
critically reflective and adaptive leadership moves, I was able to take a pause in my instruction,
so I could address and provide feedback to my student’' use of marginalizing language.
Consistent with Khalifa et al. (2016) and Heifetz et al. (2009), I implemented specific leadership
moves to mobilize my learners towards making change. This change was fueled by an
intentionality to raise their sociopolitical and challenging the status quo (Khalifa et al., 2016), by
having an intentionality around my students recognizing the impact of their language choices.
Therefore, at this point in my action research, I was ready to give the work back to my students
and regulate the level of distress that may come with it, so they could shift their beliefs. During
84

an exchange about the conclusion of the book the Sign of the Beaver, I was taking notes on what
my students contributed to the class dialogue—visible on shared Zoom screen—and said,
T: Before I call on the next person, let’s talk about the things we talked about with
this book. We talked about “book smarts,” “street smarts,” we talked about gender
roles, which was an amazing conversation last week.
Francis: I learned the Indians can be misunderstood.
T: That’s a good one. I am just going to change that to Native Americans, even
though the book uses Indians, since, as we learned that word [Native Americans]
is more appropriate and doesn’t belittle them...Why do you say they were
misunderstood?
Francis: Oh, yea. Because we learned how they, the Native Americans, are also
intelligent. Even though Attean’s family didn’t know how to read or write, that’s
just book smarts. They are street smarts and that is equal [to book smarts].
In this exchange, I not only took a pause in my instruction to explain to Francis the reason to
change her word choice, but Francis also changed her terminology in her response to my follow
up question. Francis, the same student from the previous example, re-used the word “Indians”
when she said, “I learned the Indians can be misunderstood.” This statement conveys that Francis
was guided through a period of distress (i.e., not previously and explicitly taught by me the result
of using deficit terminology), so she could have a change in her language. However, unlike
earlier in the semester, this time I provided intentional feedback to Francis’s word choice, when I
said, “I am just going to change that to Native Americans, even though the book uses Indians,
since, as we learned that word [Native Americans] is more appropriate and doesn't belittle them.”
Rather than merely using asset-based language in my response, it is evident that I was ready to
85

give the work back to Francis, so that I could promote a social justice mindset. By Francis saying
only, “Oh, yea,” in response to my explanation might have, although not clear, might have
signaled a recent memory of this form of feedback to the class during a prior class session and/or
she might have just chosen to appear agreeable. Separately, when Francis said, “Because we
learned how they, the Native Americans, are also intelligent. Even though Attean’s family didn’t
know how to read or write, that’s just book smarts. They are street smarts and that is equal [to
book smarts],” this showed her self-correction, as she proceeded to explain why she thought
Native Americans were misunderstood. Therefore, by growing in my ability and comfortability
to become a critically reflective and adaptive leader, I was able to become more intentional with
my teaching approach, so that Francis could have a shift in her language.
Present to the Type of Space I Was Cultivating. Due to the nature of an action research
dissertation, in conjunction with the pillars of my conceptual framework, I had the opportunity to
engage in critical reflection to understand the nuances presented in my classroom. By engaging
in critical reflection, Brookfield (2010) illustrated, we are able to uncover and research
assumption that effect our communities. Therefore, through this work, I came to realize that the
biases I was carrying about my students disguised my ability to cultivate a safe space for them to
interrogate their assumptions. However, by engaging in in the field analysis between cycles, I
discovered the way my thoughts worked against the environment I was trying to nourish,
therefore, overtime, I became more present to my ideologies and shifted my teaching approach.
In my conceptual framework, I claimed that the purpose of a critically reflective and
adaptive leader becoming reflective is so they are able to have a deep awareness of themselves
and their context, and thereby be present to each moment within their classroom. Leveraging
Rodgers (2002) into my definition of a critically reflective and adaptive leader, Rodgers conveys
86

that for teachers to become more present to their students’ nuanced ways of learning, they must
immerse themselves in the stages of reflection. The goal of this 4-phase reflective cycle—
presence, description, analysis, and experimentation—is to promote teachers to respond more
thoughtfully to their students’ interactions. The first stage of the reflective cycle, presence in
experience, fuels teachers in their ability to see and take intelligent action. The next stage,
description, is the retelling of a story, without interpretation. This stage also allows for the
opportunity to see an experience from multiple perspectives. Third is analysis. Within this stage,
the teacher can create different explanations for what is going on within their classroom, and as I
argued in my conceptual framework, what kind of classroom climate (i.e., safe or unsafe space)
they are cultivating. Finally, when entering experimentation, one can take intelligent action
because they have gone through the previous reflection cycles. Taken together, this reflection
cycle allows for teachers, and by critically reflective and adaptive leaders, to understand student
learning and to take action in a way that promotes a safe learning space.
Unsafe Space. When I first began my action research, I was not present to the space I
was cultivating in my classroom. This lack of recognition caused an unsafe learning environment
to be formed, one which caused my students to align with my biases about their interrogation
process, rather than their own. As defined by Ali (2017), an unsafe learning environment is one
that incites judgement or bias. Therefore, by being guided by biased teaching instruction, I
inadvertently manifested a sense of judgement towards my students. Rodgers (2002) explained
the importance of a teacher being present in their classrooms is so they can make informed
decisions within their teaching practices. This rigorous reflective process requires an educator to
slow down their thinking process to mindfully help their students learn. Therefore, as I argued in
my conceptual framework, a teacher must consistently immerse themselves within the reflective
87

cycle, so they can be present to the un/safe environment they are creating and to their students’
experiences within it. As evident in the following example, I was not present to the unsafe
learning environment my actions had created. During a conversation with my class—very early
in the school year—about how the character in the book we were reading lost all of his things, it
is evident that I inadvertently formed an unsafe learning environment when I asked my class,
[...] if they think it is easy for Matt to replace all of his things? A male student called out
(unsure who it was, as it was over Zoom, but it sounded like Mike): Can’t he just go buy
more? As he called out, the rest of the class as a whole shook their heads (indicating they
did not agree).
After asking my class to write in the literature notebook about putting themselves in Matt’s
position (i.e., how he does not have the funds to pay for new things), I also told them to think
about how fortunate they were as they wrote. After giving them time to construct an answer, I
then connected the conversation to the varying socioeconomic levels that exist today.
I asked my students if they think that exists [people having difficulties getting food]?
About seven students, six of whom were female, raised their hands. This was shocking
for me. I then asked Mike (one of the students who had raised his hand),
In this example, I was not present to my students’ learning, thus creating an unsafe classroom
setting. This is evident when I asked my students to write about how “fortunate” they were. The
reason this question is proof of an unsafe environment is because I forced the notion of their
privilege onto my students, without being present to and reflecting on where they were in their
learning. Without collectively building a lens through which my students could interrogate their
assumptions, they were asked to answer a question with a bias I projected onto them. Therefore,
in this example, rather than going through the first three stages of reflection, I immediately
88

jumped to experimentation. By doing so, my students, because of the negative ramifications the
classroom climate I built, were now pressed not only to try to understand Matt’s position, their
(my students’) positionality, but also tried to understand the varying SES levels that existed.
Rather than first understanding what was occurring in the room and analyzing how I could raise
my students’ sociopolitical consciousness properly, I jumped from one point to another, without
a scaffold for my students to understand what was asked of them. Therefore, it is clear that I did
not slow down my thinking to fully understand my students’ understanding of the topic and
where they were in relation to it. Further, when I asked my class, “...if they think that exists
[people having difficulties getting food]?” and seven students raised their hands, it was difficult
to assess if only seven students did in fact believe it was difficult getting food. The reason it was
difficult to assess is because students might have not raised their hands if they were unsure about
the question and/or how to answer it, especially given how I had previously tried to force them to
believe they were privileged, but without fully understanding why. For these reasons above, it is
clear that because of my lack of presence, I had cultivated an unsafe space for my students.
Safe Space. At the end of my second action research cycle, I became more present to the
classroom climate I was creating and had ultimately created a safe space for my students to
deepen their understanding of the literature. Consistent with Rodgers (2002), by immersing
myself with the reflective cycle, I was able to better understand where my students were, so that
I was able to make informed teaching decisions that would support their learning. Therefore, by
recognizing where my students were in relation to their learning and my place within that, I was
able to create a safe space. This type of space can be seen during a conversation about the racial
and ethnic backgrounds of the characters in the book we were reading, Seedfolks, a student
89

noticed that within Seedfolks’s poor setting, there was only one White character in the book. This
was when I said,
As I spoke about a little bit earlier this week, in more well-off neighborhoods, you see
more people that are White. In suburbs, you see people that are White. It’s a sad norm
that in the inner city and in poorer neighborhoods, you see more people of color.
I asked students to privately chat with me how this makes them feel? I asked if this
something they have observed or paid attention to? I said that I know this can be an
uncomfortable thing to think about and when I was a kid I didn’t even think about or pay
attention to it. I said you can be totally honest, because like I said, I had no idea as a kid.
But this is why we are here, to learn, be more observant about our world, and grow [...]
[As] I went through the chat, I said to my class how much I appreciated their honesty. In
the chat, most students told me that this wasn’t something they had noticed before and
now that they do, it makes them sad, angry, and wished that they had more diversity [in
their city/town/neighborhood].
Here, because of the safe space I had cultivated and being present to what was happening within
my classroom, I was able to meet my students where they were, to guide them through this
lesson. By first providing my class with a reminder about what we spoke about earlier in the
week, it was evident that by being reflective to my teacher, I realized my students would require
some sort of scaffold to my follow up question of “...how this makes them feel? I asked if this
was something they have observed or paid attention to?” Creating this bolster gave my students a
better understanding of how to answer this question and conveyed that I had taken the time to
describe and analyze the nuances in my students’ learning and understanding. Further, by
explaining to them “I said that I know this can be an uncomfortable thing to think about and
90

when I was a kid I didn’t even think about or pay attention to it. I said you can be totally honest,
because like I said, I had no idea as a kid” portrayed not only lack of judgement they would
receive because of their answer, which would give way to a safe space, but also showed how I
was able to see where my students were in their learning. Additionally, because I validated my
students’ honesty, I further solidified the safe space I was trying to create within my classroom.
Therefore, because I was present to where my students were in their learning, I was able to create
a safe space for them.
Constrained by My Reticence. As I argued in my conceptual framework, as well as
mentioned above, a critically reflective and adaptive leader cultivates a learner-centric
environment, one that promotes equal footing, to rethink and possibly transform the learner’s
points of view (Khalifa et al., 2014; Northouse, 2016). Consistent with Khalifa et al. (2014), the
purpose of this work is so the followers can be supported to challenge the status quo. By
implementing the appropriate leadership moves (i.e., getting on the balcony, giving the work
back to the people, etc.) a critically reflective and adaptive leader can address the needs of their
followers (i.e., students, parents, colleagues), as they experience a shift in their equilibrium
(Khalifa et al., 2014; Northouse, 2016). When a critically reflective and adaptive leader is able to
articulate their vision with those around them, they will be able to engage in conversations and
counsel their followers towards supporting the change they are about to experience; thereby
creating a sense of community (Khalifa et al., 2014). However, over the course of my study, I
was not able to create a sense of community because of my perceived power dynamics with my
students’ parents. Further, because I was unable to fully understand and implement my
conceptual framework, I could not adequately articulate my vision for my action research.
91

Perceived Power Dynamics with Parents. Across my action research cycles, my growth
was limited because of my reticence to push my students as it related to my belief that the
parents held power over me. Consistent with my conceptual framework, critically reflective and
adaptive leaders mobilize those around them when challenging the status quo (Khalifa et al.,
2014). By doing this work, a critically reflective and adaptive leader will be able to “get on the
balcony,” so that they can see all of the moving pieces in a given situation clearly and how to
best “regulate the distress” of their followers, as they guide them through a period of disturbance,
but towards progress. Contrary to what I outlined in my conceptual framework I did not mobilize
the parents to go on this journey with me. Rather, I explained to them my dissertation work at the
forefront of my study but did not maintain communication with them throughout or “give the
work back” to them. The reason for this was my own distress about what I imagined their
thoughts would be regarding my teaching approach. Due to this, I became inhibited by a series of
“what ifs” rather than managing my followers and myself a period of disequilibrium, as we
engaged in a shift in my teaching practice; one aimed towards challenging the status quo. Thus,
across my data, specifically in my critical reflections, I would speak to the following,
I didn’t know how I would be met with my teaching tactics. Corrections on whether to
say Native American or Indian. [...] Effort to connect the literature to the students to do
their daily lives and not only their daily lives, but the daily lives of people in the
surrounding county, country, etc. While I knew all these topics were good, I never knew
what the parents would think. So, because of them, I felt as though I didn’t explore the
topics of and relating to entrenched inequities as deeply as I should have.
In this quote, it is clear that I conveyed reticence to push my students because of the power I
believed the parents held over me. Rather than trying to mobilize the parents and open up a line
92

of communication about my study, comments such as “So, because of them, I felt as though I
didn’t explore the topics of and relating to entrenched inequities as deeply as I should have”
appear in my critical reflections. Consistent throughout my action research cycles, I maintained
this level of distress, but never sought to regulate it because I was hesitant to navigate the
disturbance that could come with it. I also illustrated that while “I knew all these topics were
good,” I did not take a moment to step back and instill the leadership behaviors “getting on the
balcony” and “listening to leadership voices from below” (i.e., the parents), so that I could not
only clearly see what is going on, but so that, together, the parents and I could come to an
understanding (i.e., giving the work back). That being said, I now recognized that I had projected
power onto the parents and may not have been what parents actually believed. However, because
of this constraint, I became unable to implement critically reflective and adaptive leadership
strategies as it came to the parents, and, as a result, my growth throughout my work was
inhibited.
Constrained in My Understanding and Implementation of My Conceptual Framework.
As depicted in my conceptual framework, a critically reflective and adaptive leader must engage
in critical reflection. Brookfield (2010) explained that the purpose of critical reflection is to
uncover our assumptions of and as it relates to our relationships, whether this at work, in our
community, etc. Brookfield (2010) also illustrated that the process of going through critical
reflection begins with a disorienting dilemma and can be experienced in five distinct ways. The
first of these five ways is impostorship. Impostorship occurs when one is feeling inauthentic or
not capable of taking on something. This results in a level of heightened anxiety. The second
way critical reflection can be experienced is cultural suicide. Cultural suicide happens when
someone is reinventing themselves in a way that they fear will be too far from the culture that
93

has defined them up until that point. Next is road running. Road running is experienced by an
incremental fluctuation towards progress. Lost innocence is fourth. Innocence in this case is the
notion of one believing that if they work hard enough, they will achieve their goals. Community
is the final form critical reflection is experienced. This hopeful theme is what happens when
someone feels as though they are supported by others who are experiencing what they are going
through.
Throughout my action research, my growth was limited due my understanding of my
conceptual framework. This limit in my growth presented itself within the critical reflections I
wrote on a weekly basis during my action research cycles. Within these reflections and drawing
on Brookfield (2010), I tried to unearth my assumptions and biases. As I entered this critical
reflective process, my weekly writing allowed me to see the gaps in my understanding of my
conceptual framework. Specifically, as it related to two reflective experiences—impostorship
and lost innocence—I was able to see how these notions influenced and constrained my effort to
implement what I set out to accomplish. Further, these interactions resulted in my feelings of not
being capable of completing this work, while my persona may appear the opposite (i.e.,
impostorship). Due to this, I also thought that no matter how much I tried, I would not be
successful (i.e., lost innocence). It is because of these experiences that my ability to implement
my conceptual framework was constrained by my understanding of it. For example, near the end
of my action research, the following was written in a critical reflection.
As this cycle of action research continues, I continue to feel as though I missed the mark.
Yet again. I don’t know where this will go or even if I [have] fully answered my research
question. Everyone around me looks at me as though I know what I am doing—as if this
title of “doctoral candidate” also comes with full knowledge of what to do—but as I sit
94

here, trying to map out my last week of action research, I feel as though no matter what I
try, it won’t be enough.
In this piece of evidence, it is clear that even towards the end of my action research, I was
constrained by how well I understood my conceptual framework. This constraint was cultivated
due the impostorship and lost innocence critical reflection experiences I was having throughout
my study. At the start of this example, when I said, “As this cycle of action research continues, I
continue to feel as though I missed the mark. Yet again. I don’t know where this will go or even
if I fully answered my research question,” conveys my struggle of how to successfully
implement my conceptual framework into my teaching approach, so that I can adequately answer
my research question. What comes next is why I am feeling that way. In this critical reflection I
proclaimed, “Everyone around me looks at me as though I know what I am doing—as if this title
of ‘doctoral candidate’ also comes with full knowledge of what to do..” conveyed a level of
impostorship. This is true because I was convinced as though my title, doctoral candidate,
showed those in my community one thing, while I felt something entirely different. Coupling
that with, “but as I sit here, trying to map out my last week of action research, I feel as though no
matter what I try, it won’t be enough,” portrays how I also entered a stage of lost innocence. This
example shows a lost innocence as it explains how I felt as though the idea stumbling on
universal certainty of earning rewards for all of my efforts (Brookfield, 2010) was no longer a
possibility. Due to my lack of understanding of how to utilize my conceptual framework in my
teaching approach, my critical reflections unearthed the gaps of my learning, and therefore my
growth in this area was limited.
95

Research Question 2: How, Through My Role as a Teacher Leader, Do I Promote and
Foster Conditions Necessary for the Teacher in my Grade Level to Investigate Her
Practices with an Eye Towards Adopting Culturally Relevant Pedagogy?
Entering my DiP, I aimed to answer a question rooted in leadership and CRP. The
purpose of this research question was to leverage and strengthen my abilities as a teacher leader,
as well my interest in culturally relevant pedagogy, so that I could support my team to enhance
their teaching practices. In a school site and district such as mine, there is a certain level of a
context neutral lens and color blindness that exist—not only within the staff and students, but as
well as in our curriculum. Therefore, this action research project gave me the tools and the
platform to combat these forces, to support my colleagues in addressing their, as well as my,
complicity in reproducing the status quo. However, due to a compilation of reasons—the main
one being allowing distance learning to limit my ability to be present—I was unable to fully
answer my research question and thereby give my teammate the opportunity to utilize CRP
within her teaching.
Distance learning brought on many challenges this school year. The memory of teaching
in a classroom had seemed so distant during my action research cycles and becoming a virtual
teacher had become the norm. While I had previous months of experience with distance learning
prior to this school year, March 2020 to June of 2020, then I also had a team whom I had been
working with for years. Therefore, come March of 2020, we adapted what we had always done,
but now for this virtual setting. While there were certainly struggles in this process, we, as a
team, already had an instilled sense of familiarity and routine among the three of us, as well as
the curriculum. During this time, we also had students, and by extension, their families, who
prior to March of 2020, had already developed a sense of trust with us, as we had been working
96

with them since August of 2019. As a result, and in spite of the natural craziness distance
learning brought on at the start of the pandemic, there was a sense of comfort there.
However, in August of 2020 everything had changed. First, my team was uprooted. One
of my teammates received a forced transfer due to their lack of seniority standing at our school,
PS 921, and PS 921’s declining enrollment. The other, Erica, unexpectedly switched sites a few
days before school had started, leaving me to guide the ship of fifth grade, with a new fifth grade
teacher, Talia. While Talia and I had a previous friendship outside of work, the stress of
onboarding someone during such unprecedented times became uneasy. The second thing that had
changed was simply having a new set of students and families, whose level of trust for me as
their teacher or their child’s teacher had not been earned yet. Last was the hiring of a new PS 921
principal for the 2020-2021 school year, who had no elementary teaching experience and had
never been a principal before, only an assistant principal of a high school. This all resulted into
the world of PS 921 seeming to be like nothing more than ships floating in the darkness; unsure
of how to be navigated for the long haul.
Due to this experience and my inability to recognize that I need to step out of it, to
become more present and perceptive as to how to combat each one of its factors, I grew isolated
as I tried to tread water for both Talia and me. This was true because I was unable to ask my
principal for advice, as we were entering new waters for her, too. The lack of physical
accessibility to Talia, resulting in not being able to simply walk over to her classroom and check-
in, became very apparent during the early days of the school year and my DiP. Therefore, day in
and day out, as I sat at home, I planned out Talia and my lessons, illustrated the meaning of these
lessons for her via Zoom, made everything available for Talia and our students in electronic
form, and, simultaneously, I attempted to do all that I could towards my dissertation work and
97

my new employment of adjuncting at a local university. This time, yet filled with so many
voices, only made me more alone in the work. I felt as though I had the weight of the world on
my shoulders, and my only course of action was to become my own backbone. While I had
continued to give every moment of every day to my job and to ensure Talia’s success as a first-
time fifth grade teacher, something had to give, and I realize now that it was my second research
question (RQ). The reason I believe this occurred, rather than it being my first RQ, was because
living within my first RQ was my sense of having control of a state of uncertainty. It was also
where my heart was, as studying culturally relevant pedagogy as it related to my students was
something I had always had an innate interest in. Therefore, it is because of these factors that I
unknowingly, until now, did not collect enough data for this question.
The constraints that emerged in relation to my ability to fully implement my second
research question were related to the multiple factors. The overarching umbrella of these
constraints, though, was an inability to be present to the work required to answer this question.
Due to this, my first limit was my drive to meet the demands of my first agenda, as it related to
my dissertation (i.e., my first research question). This drive, inadvertently, caused my second
research question to not receive the same level of attention. The second limit was the compressed
allotted time that Talia and I had to meet weekly about my study. This compressed time was
because of Talia being a new fifth grade teacher and our available planning time needed to
primarily revolve around me getting her familiar with fifth grade instructional materials (i.e.,
textbooks, core literary novels, and online portals). Therefore, the time towards my second
research question became very minimal.
As I argued in my conceptual framework, I drew from multiple researchers to
conceptualize the meaning of a critically reflective (Brookfield, 2010; Rodgers, 2002) and
98

adaptive leader (Heifetz, 2009; Northouse, 2016). By coupling various resources, I came to
understand that a critically reflective and adaptive leader must be present to the nuances in the
space their followers are stepping into. The purpose of a leader being present is so they are able
to not only manage the shift in their followers’ equilibrium, but also support them to transform
their points of view. By being present, as Rodgers (2002) illustrated, a teacher (i.e., a teacher
leader) will be more likely to make informed instructional decisions as it relates to their students’
(i.e., followers’) learning. Rodgers (2002) went on to say that this intentional act does not only
exist within each moment, but from moment to moment. By aiming to build this level of
mindfulness in the space their followers are stepping into, critically reflective and adaptive
leaders can implement appropriate leadership behaviors (i.e., stepping onto the balcony, giving
the work back, etc.) that are tailored to meet the needs of their followers and/or the situation that
is unfolding. As a result, a critically reflective and adaptive leader will be to further analyze and
reflect on the various components that exist within a given moment in time, their contribution to
it, and what instructional moves to experiment with as they—the teacher leader and the
students/followers—move forward towards progress (Rodger, 2002).
Driven by the Demands of My First Research Question. Across my action research,
my growth was limited because I had inadvertently created a narrowed space where I was only
present to the work required towards my first research question, not my second. Rodgers (2002)
explained that the importance of teachers staying present is so they can perceive more about each
moment and between moments. By engaging in this mindfulness, teachers can then make
informed decisions. Further, I contend—and illustrate in my conceptual framework—that it is the
ability of being present that allows a critically reflective and adaptive leader to “get on the
balcony” and see the full scope of the space they are cultivating. Before beginning my DiP, or
99

rather the beginning of this doctoral program, I had always aimed to utilize culturally relevant
pedagogy into my teaching approach, so that I could raise my students’ sociopolitical
consciousness. Due to this I became hyper focused and consumed by the work related to my first
research question, that my second research question had begun to fall from view. Thus, I had
gone against how I defined a critically reflective and adapted leader to be, as I was not present to
the lack of adequate data I was collecting, nor how to change course. For example, this can be
seen in my end of cycle 1 critical reflection, when I noted,
As much as I feel as though I may be making some sort of progress with Talia, I see how
my students are moving and I don’t see that happening here. Perhaps it’s because of my
confidence in it. Maybe it’s because my heart isn’t in it as much—not that I don’t think
this work is important, because I do. I am not sure what is causing this slow start.
In this critical reflection piece, it is clear that I was not fully present to why my contributions to
my second research question were not quite working and how to resolve it. When I said, “As
much as I feel as though I may be making some sort of progress with Talia, I see how my
students are moving and I don’t see that happening here,” illustrated how I could see the
diverging paths my first and second research question were taking. However, even with this
acknowledgement, I was not mindful of the components that were causing this situation to
unfold. Later, when I said, “Perhaps it’s because of my confidence in it. Maybe it’s because my
heart isn’t in it as much—not that I don’t think this work is important, because I do. I am not sure
what is causing this slow start,” shows my lack of presence to moving pieces and nuances that
contribute to this lack of progress. As a critically reflective and adaptive leader, I was not able to
make any sort of change or shift in Talia’s point of view, as I was not self-aware of the motions
that were currently in place and how they would eventually hinder my work. Additionally,
100

because I had not taken a moment to step away (i.e., getting onto the balcony) and analyze why
my second research question was not meeting the demands I outlined for it in my conceptual
framework, I was unable to fully implement my second research, because I did not have enough
data to support it.
Compressed Time for the Work. Throughout my action research, I was not present to
the multiple moving parts that were required to consider when planning out and working through
my second research question. Drawing on Northouse (2016) and Rodgers (2002) and using my
second research question as I guide—one rooted in leadership—it is evident that I did not meet
the guidelines as to how I outlined a critically reflective and adaptive leader to be. In my
conceptual framework, I explained that a critically reflective and adaptive leader is able to “step
on the balcony” to be present to the space they are cultivating. At the outset of my DiP, the
structure of my team changed. From originally being part of a 3-member team, two of whom
(including me) were seasoned fifth grade teachers, dwindled down to two—Talia, a woman with
mostly kindergarten teaching experience, and me. This shift caused my collaborative time with
Talia to be monopolized by my internal compulsion to support her through this period
familiarizing herself with a fifth grade specific teaching approach, agenda items, etc. Northouse
(2016) spoke to the importance of guiding followers while their equilibrium shifts. However, to
do this work, I argue, the leader must be present to form connections between moments, so they
are able to see the indirect path it will take to make any sort of progress. My level of presence
towards this work, I believe, did not allow me to see what was required when onboarding Talia
and how the time that would be dedicated to my second research question would now be limited.
In a critical reflection I had written during cycle 2, I wrote about this compressed time.
101

I was looking forward to discussing that with her (Talia), [but] truthfully, we didn’t have
time to meet [about my study] yet again. While we met about planning the next week, me
teaching her some of the math lessons she didn’t quite understand, and working on how
to combat 5th grade report cards, there just wasn’t enough time to do all of that and talk
about my research [...] But now that (i.e., I created a to do list) is over, I honestly feel as
though I failed this week. Between both RQs, I didn’t meet the standards of what this
process towards my second RQ is expecting of me. I failed myself and more than that I
feel as though I failed Dr. Slayton. Was this all I could do? Was this all we (Talia and I)
had time for?
Here, it is clear that a theme of Talia and I not being able to meet regularly about my research
question had emerged. At this start of this excerpt, when I said, “I was looking forward to
discussing that with her (Talia), truthfully, we didn’t have time to meet [about my study] again,”
it conveyed this theme making head way—as well as possibly my frustration towards (i.e., using
the words “yet again”). While I was present to my requirement as teacher leader to regulate
Talia’s distress and obvious change in her teaching equilibrium as it came to fifth grade
planning—“While we met about planning the next week, me teaching her some of the math
lessons she didn’t quite understand, and working on how to combat 5th grade report cards, there
just wasn’t enough time to do all of that and talk about my research”—it is apparent that I was
not fully present to how to manage the multiple moving pieces living within and between these
moments. Further, it is evident that I was unsure as to how to solve what was happening. This
had resulted into my own period of disturbance when I exclaimed,
But now that (i.e., I created a to do list) is over, I honestly feel as though I failed this
week. Between both RQs, I didn’t meet the standards of what this process towards my
102

second RQ is expecting of me. I failed myself and more than that I feel as though I failed
Dr. Slayton. Was this all I could do? Was this all we (Talia and I) had time for?
In this statement, it is clear I had not created the space to complete the work of both my first and
second research question, thus the work towards my second research question suffered. This
statement also conveyed how already unsuccessful I felt in this work and reaching what I defined
to be a critically reflective and adaptive leader, because I was not present to the moments that
would contribute to the time limitations, how they connected to one another, and ultimately how
to fix it. Further, because of my worry towards what Dr. Slayton would think, rather than myself,
it is clear that I am still grappling with what it means to be a leader. Therefore, this reality left
Talia unable to adequately learn about CRP or change her point of view, and me unable to grow
in my job as a critically reflective and adaptive leader.
Conclusion
In summary, my findings illustrated to what extent my students engaged in
transformative learning. To begin this process, I implemented critically reflective and adaptive
leadership moves (i.e., scaffolds) to better position my students to exhibit academic and prosocial
self-regulation. After doing so, I cultivated a space where my students naming the inequities in
the literature and interrogated their assumptions as it relates to topics such as race, intellect, SES,
and gender. By understanding the deeper meanings of these concepts, they began to grapple with
how their once lack of recognizing their privilege had contributed to the reproduction of
inequities. Therefore, by promoting ideological clarity, my students, to an extent, experienced
self- and social transformation. While it was not evident that they had reached a counter-
hegemonic stance, Wergin (2020) would convey that they had taken their first, as well as an
important step, towards it. Additionally, my findings conveyed how I grew in this process (i.e.,
103

gaining confidence when teaching about entrenched inequities and being present to the type of
space (i.e., safe or unsafe) I was cultivating), and the limits in my growth. These limits were
described by my reticence to push my students, due to my perceived power dynamics with their
parents, and how I struggled—and continue to struggle—to understand and implement my
conceptual framework in my context. Lastly, and with regards to my second research question,
this section captured how due to both external factors and my inability to be present to my
second research question’s requirements, I was unable to fully answer it. While the external
factors were due to the sudden change in my teaching community, the internal factors came
about due to my desire to meet the demands of my first question and the compressed time Talia
and I had to meet about my DiP.
Afterword
The final portion of this action research dissertation is my afterword. Its purpose is to
convey where I am now that I have left the field and have conducted a deep analysis of my
practice, and where I believe my work (i.e., being present, continuing to make sense of my
conceptual framework, and building my leadership capacity)—both as a teacher and a teacher
leader. My DiP began in late August/early September of 2020. Over the course of 3 and a half
months, I engaged in three action research cycles, including data collection. Upon leaving the
field in mid-December of 2020, I immersed myself in the actual analysis process. Through this
work, as illustrated above, I have discovered and named my findings and limitations. However, it
is at this stage that I would like to address where I currently stand in my teaching approach, as
well as demonstrate some of the reflectional moments I have had about working on my DiP. The
first point I will speak to is the work—in both a fifth grade classroom setting and a university
one—I have been able to complete as a result of my DiP. In this section, I will also address
104

where I see my leadership as a result of this study, and the progress I have made towards
answering my second research question. Next, I will illustrate my retrospective takeaways from
engaging in an action research dissertation. Finally, I will name the implications of this
dissertation and how it will continue to influence my growth as a teacher, as a leader, and also
personally.
Out of the Field: Steps Forward
Throughout my study, I had the opportunity to conduct in the field analysis at the
conclusion of each action research cycle. The purpose of this work was to make tweaks to my
teaching approach as I moved through the subsequent cycles of action. While I had made
progress in my practice because of this type of analysis, it was not until I left the field where the
most growth in my teaching and leadership had occurred. This change manifested in three ways:
(1) With my students, (2) As an adjunct lecturer, and (3) As a teacher leader. First, as it relates to
my students, I am now able to more organically utilize elements of my conceptual framework
into my teaching. As previously noted, I had struggled and continue to struggle, how to
understand and implement my evolving conceptual framework into my teaching approach and in
a way that was aimed towards the overall goal of this study—transformative learning. This was
because I needed to disentangle meaningful learning from climate, CRP from meaningful
learning, and lastly, recognizing the differences and overlaps between ideological clarity and
transformative learning. However, now that I have had time to conduct analysis without the
innate pressure of needing to return to the field and have had the time to discover findings, I am
able to start to see some of the clear factors within each pillar of my conceptual framework. By
finding these distinctions, the gaps in teaching, while a work in progress, became clearer. This,
for example, included raising my own consciousness to my internalized blind spots that I carry
105

within my teaching context. Separately, but related to seeing gaps in my teaching, I was able to
find way to combat how my students were previously unable to see their relationship to topics
such as race, gender, SES, and intellect. By re-envisioning CRP and understanding the full scope
of my students’ colorblindness and context neutral lens, I am now able to further interrogate my
students’ assumptions as it is related to these topics. Additionally, the concept of social capital
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997), in conjunction with the level of privilege that comes from being White
and living in an affluent neighborhood, has now made its way into our class discussions. This
was seen through conversations about the “choice” families have for their children’s education
(Holme, 2002). Further, students have now also understood their complicity in gender roles
stereotypes in a way that was not evident while I was collecting data. This was seen, for instance,
when they saw their own complicity it in and can now recognize discrimination they were
engaging it. This was illustrated in the way they first internalized matching a gender with a
specific job and/or wanting be on a sports team with the same gendered students. However,
recently, students have disrupted traditional boundaries during their games at recess, and in the
way some of my students described the kind of career they would want in the future—one that
has traditionally dominated by the opposite gender. While these are beginning steps towards
ideological clarity, as students are just engaged in the transformative learning process, they have
moved further along in this process than they had at the conclusion of my data collection cycle.
The second thing that became apparent was my growth in supporting my students to co-construct
of knowledge with their peers. As I had noted in my findings, my students had understood what
to do with the cue I presented in whole group dialogue, but not in a way that would cultivate a
conversation that lent itself to co-construction. Therefore, over the last several months, I
explicitly spoke to this dynamic. The combination of the time I have now afforded to this topic
106

and possibly adding that to the fact that my students have returned physically to the classroom,
has resulted in them being able to develop thoughts with the help of their peers. To watch the
way students in my class—albeit not all my students—have been able to develop their
knowledge has been remarkable. I do believe that between my urgency to go through the action
research cycles and the way some students would both figuratively and literally hide themselves
behind a Zoom screen, did impact this growth. Thus, it was not until we had returned to the
classroom and when I was out of the field, where I was able to see a positive movement.
The second area that I have seen change occur was with my work as an adjunct lecturer at
a local 4-year university. It was through the teaching of a course on culture, gender, and equity
this school year that I have been able to have a better grasp on the evolving nature of my
conceptual framework. Throughout these last two semesters, I have been afforded the
opportunity to assign class readings of my choosing, many of which were readings I included in
my dissertation. Therefore, by reading these articles with a different lens than I had prior, my
depth of mastery grew. Separate from, but related to the understanding of my conceptual
framework, I had also had the luxury to implement my conceptual framework in a university
setting. By being able to explicitly see how universal the pillars of my conceptual framework
were, I was more able to see how the combination of meaningful learning, re-envisioning CRP,
and critically reflective and adaptive leadership allowed me to fully take notice of the reciprocal
relationship between my students and me that generated a transformative learning.
The last area is as a teacher leader. After leaving the field and coming to find that I did
not fully answer my second research question, the one rooted in leadership, I discovered why.
Beyond the external factors and unearthing how I was not present to the required work, one thing
that has now become evident is while I did not utilize my conceptual framework to its fullest
107

extent, I did exhibit some of the reflective and adaptive leadership traits within it. For instance,
and drawing on the work of Heifetz et al. (2009) and Northouse (2016), I mobilized Talia to
overcome the hurdles in her changing environment—the change in grade levels. While doing so,
I now recognize that I also noted Talia’s Zone of Proximal Teaching Development (ZPTD) and
her way of knowing when I interacted with her. Using Drago-Severson and Blum-DeStefano’s
(2017) model as a reference, I began to understand that because of how Talia understood herself,
her work, and the world, she was not in a place to learn more about fifth grade than the basics;
nor was I in a place to move her ZPTD far beyond a “heroes and holidays” approach to CRP.
However, now that Talia is more than halfway through her first year of teaching fifth grade, I
contend that she is now more open to adopting CRP into her instruction. Additionally, because I
am more present, I can support Talia in her understanding of CRP and how to leverage it given
the demographic of our students at PS 921. Due to this realization, Talia and I are now meeting
regularly to discuss how to raise our students’ sociopolitical consciousness, in order to promote
ideological clarity, and how to weave that into our lessons. By simply recognizing their privilege
(i.e., being predominantly White and living in an affluent area), students will not reach
ideological clarity, as they have not comprehended why inequities occur or how their parents
contributed to it. Additionally, we also have begun to plan for next year, almost in a way to circle
back to the concepts that I did not adequately address at the beginning of this year/during my
action research project. While this timeline was not the path I had originally envisioned, I am
eager to see what progress Talia and I will make in the future months.
Retrospective Idea
Now that I have completed my DiP, two retrospective big take-aways that I would point
to is to become more present to the process and what it means to have ideological clarity. With
108

this first idea (i.e., being present), I believe, a couple of things are true—by being more present, I
can possibly diminish the urgency I feel towards the completion of a task. Additionally, by being
more present, I can spend more time on my in the field analysis. By engaging in this work, I can
then learn more about my practice while I am immersed in action research, not just after.
Throughout this study, I have come to understand what it not only means to be present,
but what my inability to be present can cause. Rodgers (2002) illustrates that being present is a
mindful act by a teacher that is inclusive of several parts—seeing, differentiating, giving
meaning, and responding—within a given moment and between moments of time. This particular
stance of being, as Rodgers (2002) goes on to say, allows a teacher to perceive more, so they are
then able to have a greater potential for an “intelligent response” (p. 234). Therefore, as I look
back at my work and how that relates to being a scholar-practitioner, it is this idea of being
mindful to the moment and within moments that I struggle with. Rather than working within the
“now” and how that relates to the following step, I have a sense to always look towards the
finished product. While I see how that trait has done me well in parts of my professional and
personal life, it was through the in the field analysis, resulting in what I have come to discover in
my out of the field analysis, where I believe my lack of being present limited my growth. More
specifically, the moments that suffered the most were the moments I, somewhat unconsciously,
rushed through the in the field data analysis, rather than unpacking what was positively and/or
negatively impacting my teaching and/or leadership. By engaging in this hurried approach, I was
unable to respond intelligently to my practice and see the change that would be required for my
learners and me to make progress. That being said, while I do believe I made some growth, I
know there is still work to be done. I will carry this work with me throughout my career, and it
will then support my drive to be more present to what is actually being exhibited in my
109

classroom, not what I believe to be there, and not just so I can reach the finish line. Therefore, I
now understand how vital the in the field analysis is to my work as a practitioner.
Similarly to the process to becoming more present, I have now come to understand how
ideological clarity is also a process, not an end point. While I previously assumed that
ideological clarity was where transformative learning ended and the assuming of a counter-
hegemonic stance was concretely formed, I now recognize my assumption was inaccurate.
Further, I had also once believed that upon reaching ideological clarity, you would be able to
consistently advocate for social justice. Therefore, I believed I had not reached that threshold.
However, I now understand that ideological clarity is an ongoing and intentional effort to
consistently unearth your blind spots about social order. It is a process where you are
interrogating your assumptions, by unpacking how your beliefs may or may not reflect those of
the dominant society and then working to reframe them (Bartolomé, 2004).
As an educational doctoral candidate and one working through an action research
dissertation, it has become ingrained in me that an overarching goal of this degree and by
extension this program is to become a scholar-practioner. Therefore, when taking this ideal state
of a scholar-practitioner a step further and coupling it with studying your own practice, it is the
ability to be present to the process—noting that action research does not have a predetermined
end—that is paramount. Thus, when I am more present, I can then more clearly see the gaps in
my teaching (by analyzing the data within the field), and how to fill them adequately. By
immersing myself into this process, the out of the field analysis, I believe, will result in a deeper
understanding of the influences and repercussions of my teaching. Additionally, by now
understanding that ideological clarity is a journey and not a destination, I can now better support
my learners, as well as myself, to strive towards further critically analyzing social order and our
110

role within in. Furthermore, because of this level of comprehension, those I teach will move
closer towards the goal of my study.
Implications
The implications for me as I move forward lie in three categories—improving my
teaching, improving my leadership capacity, and my personal growth. With regards to my
teaching and as I have previously mentioned, I have now discovered the intentional process I
need to engage in as it relates to being present to my work. Therefore, because action research is
an ongoing progress and requires constant reflection (Herr & Anderson, 2015), I believe that by
continuing to use elements of action research in my practice—whether at the elementary or
collegiate level—will allow me to grow in my ability to become more present. Further, it is by
being present that I will be able to continue to understand the implications of my teaching, so
that I can plan for subsequent cycles of action. Without this level of intentionality, it will hinder
my growth as a practitioner, as well as the growth of my learners.
Within my teaching I also have to continue to invest time in understanding the concepts
written in my conceptual framework and how my conceptual framework is both iterative and
tentative. This idea, especially the week prior to my defense date, is something I have struggled
with, as I had falsely believed that my conceptual framework would more or less stay stagnant.
However, within each phase of my DiP that followed my proposal, I have seen my conceptual
framework change in ways I did not expect. However, the greatest change occurred within this
final week of dissertation writing. As part of understanding this work, I will continue to unearth
and distinguish the differences between sociopolitical consciousness, ideological clarity,
meaningful learning, and transformative learning, so that I better understand how one may lead
to another or how they interact with one another. Finally, with respect to my teaching, I will
111

grapple with whether anti-racist pedagogy would have been a better approach for my context,
rather than re-envisioning tenets of CRP. By immersing myself in this work, I will then be able
to better understand and support my learners towards reaching ideological clarity, because I will
have developed the capacity to do so.
Secondly, as it relates to my leadership capacity, I have now discovered that I need to
trust the process and myself more. Looking back to when I had decided to apply to this doctoral
program in educational leadership, the catalyst behind submitting my application was my
realization of wanting to make a larger impact than what my current job was allowing me to do.
However, over the last decade of my teaching career, through the multiple leadership roles I have
taken on, there have been times where I have felt silenced by louder voices. This idea of “louder
equals better” followed me, even as I entered this program. This was especially true when I took
my first course—leadership. It was because of this internal perception that my insecurities grew
around how, not if, I would qualify myself as a leader and what leadership roles I would
eventually take/apply to in the future. For me, it was never about feeling as though I could not
complete the role or do what was asked of me, it was the fear of doing a less than perfect job and
the repercussions of that. Looking back to that leadership class, though, I now see that this is
why I reverted to not participating often during class discussions or why, with my second
research question, I named my dissertation chair, rather than myself when speaking to the goals
of my work I was not making. Now, it is evident to me that episodes such as these appear
because of the fear I have of not meeting the impossible standards I set for myself, and imagine
others also expect of me, but have never voiced.
While this idea has lingered in my mind for years, I have now seen my leadership grow in
a way that was not present in my leadership class or even a few months ago. I have spent the
112

better part of the last 3 years directly (in the context of my DiP, as well as my numerous papers
in my leadership course defining what it meant to be a leader) and indirectly coming to
understand how I will lead and make the impact I desire. Therefore, as I close this chapter, I
cannot help but to reflect on my growth as a leader and my level of understanding of it. It was
through my leadership course and my DiP, that I learned to carry both my triumphs and my
tribulations with me in my leadership toolbox—a concept I heard often in my leadership class. I
have learned to carry my voice in a way that is reflective of this doctoral experience. It is
because of this program and more specifically, because of the professor who I began and ended
this educational leadership journey with—Dr. Slayton, also my dissertation chair—that I was
able to confront my fear and perception of feeling silenced, as well as the idea of what will
happen if do not meet the arbitrary goal(s) that I have set for myself. It is because of the
leadership I have had the opportunity to experience and learn from over these last 3 years that the
question of how I will become a leader has begun to fade away. Therefore, I have now intently
sought out opportunities to lead in way I have never considered before—teaching others in my
district and surrounding community the topics I have based my DiP on, supporting my school
district in building out a department of equity, etc.—and it is with these future leadership
endeavors that I look forward to the day that I can lead prospective teachers in their growth as
not just educators, but leaders in education.
Lastly, with respect my personal growth, it can only be explained by where this narrative
began—my marbled identity—fully Persian, half-Jewish, and half-Muslim. The intersections of
my identity, and more specifically, my story was, and still is, my driver to create change within
the educational system. Yet, it is within this same system that I find myself still struggling to find
my footing. The reason for this instability, I have come to discover, is a result of decades of not
113

only learning from, but now working in a school community who maintains status quo. It is from
being privileged by being White and more or less blending in, yet also not blending in enough.
Therefore, this tug-of-war with who I am and my place within the educational system had
previously prevented me from uncovering all of my blind spots. However, as a result of this DiP
and the education I have received from USC, I am now better prepared to disrupt the biases and
target the blind spots embedded within White educational spaces, as well as within myself.
Further, by continuing in this work, I will aim to ensure that students’ lived-stories, such as mine,
do not continue to be pushed to the sidelines.

114

References
Anthony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 31(4), 349-369.
Ali, D. (2017). Safe space and brave spaces: Historical context and recommendations for student
affairs professionals. National Association of Student Personnel of Administrators,
2(2017), 1-13.
Athanases, S.Z. (1998). Diverse learners, diverse texts: Exploring identity and difference
through literary encounters. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 273-296.
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education:
A synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1),
163–206.
Ball, A. (2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex
classrooms. American Education Research Journal, 46(1), 45-72.
Bartolomé, (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective teachers.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97-122.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective inquiry. Springer.
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2
nd
ed.). Jossey-Bass.
California School Dashboard (CA Dashboard). (2019). School performance overview: PS 921
[Data file]. Retrieved from
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/19646836110563/2019
Campangian, P. R. (2015). Teacher like lives depend on it: Agitate, arouse, and inspire. Urban
115

Education, 50(4), 424-453.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5
th
ed.). Los Angeles:
Sage Publications.
Cooper, P. M. (2003). Effective White teachers of Black children: Teaching within a
community. Journal of Teacher Education, 54(5), 413-427.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing ground theory (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
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.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Sage
Publications.
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The theory behind the practice, The practice of
adaptive leadership: tools and tactics for changing your organization and the
world (pp. 3-40). Harvard Business Press.
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation (2
nd
ed.).
Sage Publications.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
42(3), 195-202.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2009). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources
for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217.
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership:
116

A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272-1311.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: Remix. Harvard Educational
Review, 84(1), 74-135.
Lewis, A.E. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ideology in an
(almost) all-White school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 781-811.
Lyons-Moore, A. (2014). The intersections of culturally responsive pedagogy and authentic
teacher care in creating meaningful learning opportunities for students of color
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.libraries.usc.edu
Mathews, S. R., & Lowe, K. (2011). Classroom environments that foster a disposition for
critical thinking. Springer Science and Business, 14(1), 59-73.
Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., & Crosson, A. (2008). Classroom climate, rigorous instruction
and curriculum, and students’ interactions in urban middle schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 108(4), 293-311.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for adult and
continuing education,1997(74), 5-12.
Milner, R. M. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we prepare
pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race Ethnicity and Education, 6(2), 193-
117

208.
Milner, R.H. (2010). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom. The Urban
Review, 43(1), 66-89.
Milner, R.H. (2017). Where's the race in culturally relevant pedagogy? Teachers College
Record, 119 (010303), 1-32.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Sage Publications.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2019). Table generator [Data file].
Retrieved from
https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/tableGenerator.aspx?savedTableID=138804
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Introduction. Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.).
SAGE.
Paris, J., & Alim, H.S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining
pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85-100.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Sage Publications.
Rodgers, C.R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of
reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-252.
Santamaría, L.J. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: narrowing gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefiting all learners. Teachers College
Record, 111(1), 214-247.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1) 1–40.
118

Suburbia Unified School District [SUSD]. (2020). SUSD school district permits [Data
file]. Retrieved from https://www.susd.org/permits
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: redefinition of teaching and
schooling. New York: Cambridge University Press.
United States Census Bureau (US Census). (2020). Quick facts [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/calabasascitycalifornia/PST045218
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Chapter 3: teacher-student relations and the politics of
caring. Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring (pp. 61-
111). State University of New York Press.
Warford, M.K. (2010). The zone of proximal teacher development. Elsevier Limited Company,
7(2011), 252-258.
Wergin, J.F. (2020). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purposes of this action research study were to: investigate the ways I was able to support my students’ self and social transformation through their analysis of the inequities in the literature and unearth how I used my leadership role to promote and foster conditions necessary for a teacher in my grade level to adopt culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP). This study took place over the course of the Fall 2020 semester at the elementary school where I am a fifth grade teacher, Public School 921 (PS 921). PS 921 is located in an affluent suburb of Los Angeles, and the majority of the students, faculty, and staff are White. The components of my study included: formal and informal observations, critical reflections, and interviews. My research questions, in conjunction with the pillars of my conceptual framework, were used to conduct in and out of the field analysis. At the conclusion of my research, students experienced self and social transformation because they were now able to name the inequities in the literature and, sometimes, their relation to it. I grew in my ability to become present to the space I was cultivating and how to support my students in their co-construction of knowledge. As it relates to my effort to lead another teacher to adopt CRP, due to external factors and my lack of being present to this research question, I was unable to fully answer it. However, leadership acts were enacted and recently, the teacher adopted CRP into her teaching practices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Engaging school leaders to conceptualize culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

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

PDF

Reimagining professional learning for early childhood educators of color

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Jacobs, Ava Gilani (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-05

Publication Date 05/06/2021

Defense Date 04/30/2021

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

Tag action research,adaptive leadership,critical reflection,culturally relevant pedagogy,elementary school,ideological clarity,leadership,meaningful learning,OAI-PMH Harvest,teaching,transformative learning,White space

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

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

Creator Email agjacobs@usc.edu,ava.b.gilani@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112720049

Unique identifier UC112720049

Identifier etd-JacobsAvaG-9606.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-JacobsAvaG-9606

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jacobs, Ava Gilani

Type texts

Source 20210507-wayne-usctheses-batch-835-shoaf (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