University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A case study of one Teach For America corps member's use of equity pedagogy

(USC Thesis Other)

A case study of one Teach For America corps member's use of equity pedagogy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A CASE STUDY OF ONE TEACH FOR AMERICA CORPS MEMBER’S
USE OF EQUITY PEDAGOGY

by

Lindsay Anne Kwock Hu

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2009

Copyright 2009 Lindsay Anne Kwock Hu
ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study would not have been possible without the support of many individuals.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincerest thank you to my committee chair
Dr. Etta R. Hollins for her wisdom, guidance, patience, and the countless hours of time
she invested in me and this dissertation. Her guidance was invaluable. I am also grateful
for the care and insight provided by the other members of my committee, Dr. Anthony
Collatos who first encouraged me to confront the status quo and take action and Dr.
Alexander Jun who challenged me to look deeper into the life of my participant.
The support of my family also made this journey possible. My parents
exemplified commitment to social justice. My mother, Dorothy Kwock, taught me the
principles of equity and social justice. My father, John Kwock, modeled the principles of
equity and social justice during his forty years as a doctor who served low income
communities. I am extremely grateful to Mike, my understanding husband, for his moral
support and his willingness to give up his wife for countless months while I completed
my dissertation. Words cannot express the debt of gratitude that I owe him for his loving
support and encouragement through this entire process.
I am indebted to the participant in this study who generously shared her time and
insight. She was also gracious in allowing me unlimited access into her classroom. My
thanks to her for the numerous lunches, recesses, and before and after school times she
willingly gave to me in order to answer all my probing questions about her personal and
professional life.
iii

Finally, I am grateful to my South Los Angeles elementary students. They taught
me far more than I taught them. My time with them inspired this doctoral journey. My
hope is that this dissertation study will inspire teachers in their community to continue to
seek ways to help make the students’ dreams a possibility.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements

List of Tables

Abbreviations

Abstract

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Problem Statement
Purpose of the Study
Research Questions
Significance of the Study
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Study

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Learning
The Literature on Equity Pedagogy
Tools of Power and Access
Culturally Relevant Instructional Practices
Supportive Classroom Environments
Critical Pedagogy
Summary of the Literature Review

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Design of the Study
Context of the Study
Teach for America
The District
The School
Participant Description
Background
Classroom Description
Data Sources
Interviews
Classroom Observations
Planning Session Observations
Data Analysis
Limitations and Delimitations
Trustworthiness of the Data
ii

vi

vii

viii

1
2
3
4
4
5
6

8
9
15
15
23
27
33
38

41
42
43
43
46
46
48
48
49
50
50
51
52
53
56
57
v

Ethical Considerations
Conclusion

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND
INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS
Tools of Power
Academic Language
Protocols for Social Discourse
Academic Conventions for Thinking and Processing
Knowledge
Culturally Relevant Instructional Practices
Supportive Classroom Environment
Relationship with Students
Participant Structures
Critical Pedagogy
Conclusion
School Site Factors
Culturally Relevant Instructional Practice
Critical Pedagogy
Conclusion

CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE
FINDINGS
Summary of the Research Findings
Implications for Policy and Practice
Mentorship
Peer Collaboration
Developing Student Knowledge
Recommendations for Further Research
Conclusion

REFERENCES

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: BACKGROUND INTERVIEW
APPENDIX B: PRE-INTERVIEW
APPENDIX C: POST-INTERVIEW
58
60

61

62
63
65
68

70
73
74
75
77
81
83
84
87
89

92

92
93
94
95
96
97
100

102

110
110
111
112
vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: TFA Summer Curriculum (2008)
Table 2: TFA Institute Programmatic Structures (2008)
Table 3: Baker Street Elementary (K-6) Enrollment by Ethnicity
(2007-2008)

Table 4: Baker Street Elementary (K-6) Special Programs
(2007-2008)

Table 5: Themes and Indicators
44
45
47

47

55

vii

ABBREVIATIONS
CM Corps Member
EO English Only
IFEP Initially Found English Proficient
NCLBA No Child Left Behind Act
PD Program Director
SARC School Accountability Report Card
TFA Teach For America
viii

ABSTRACT
This study investigates equitable practices used by a Teach For America (TFA)
corps member (CM) in her second year of teaching low income, minority students. This
study’s conceptual framework is based on a contemporary conceptualization of equity
pedagogy that includes: (a) tools of power and access (Delpit, 1988); (b) culturally
relevant instructional practices (Hollins, 2008); (c) supportive learning environments
(Hollins, 2008); and (d) critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989). In this study, equity
pedagogy refers to the application of knowledge about the learner, learning, and subject
matter in ways that connect with and build upon the students’ personal experiences and
prior academic and informal learning, thus providing equitable access to classroom
learning for previously underserved students.
This study investigates the instructional and curricular practices of one second
year Teach For America corps member. Using a case study design, data from participant
interviews, classroom observations, and planning session observations were analyzed and
coded for instances of contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy and for
school site factors impeding the full implementation of equity pedagogy.
Recommendations for teacher education and support programs are based on a
sociocultural perspective of learning and include mentoring, peer collaboration, and
developing a cultural knowledge base. This study raises critical questions about the
recruitment, selection, and training practice of the Teach For America program and
introduces recommendations for further research.

1
CHAPTER ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
As a result of her study of eight exemplary teachers of African American children,
Ladson-Billings (1994) concluded that the knowledge base educators, policymakers, and
researchers draw from to understand effective teaching must come directly from those
teachers who successfully engage learning for low income, minority students. Research
based upon teachers’ implementation of equity pedagogy is essential for helping to
develop, understand, and make improvements to the existing effective teaching literature.
Given the disparity in achievement levels between low income, minority students and
their mainstream counterparts, achieving equitable practice is an issue that can no longer
be neglected. As a result of his 4 year longitudinal study of two teachers, Powell (1996a)
also suggested that research look at how the contextual factors of school sites impact
teaching for those teachers who attempt to provide equitable classroom environments for
their students. Weiner (2002) further suggested that research questions specifically
examine how the contextual elements of urban classrooms influence teachers’ practice.
The literature on effective teaching (Au, 1980; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lee, 1995;
Lipka, 1991; Moses, Kamii, McAllister, Swap, & Howard, 1989) has focused on teachers
who have provided equitable environments for students. However, based on a review of
the literature there are few studies to date that have examined teachers who have been
purposefully selected and trained (Haberman, 1995) to teach in low-income, minority
areas.
2

Problem Statement
Educators across the United States are confronted with the task of ensuring that
every child is equipped with the academic and critical thinking skills to be a self-
directing, contributing member of a democratic society. But this challenge is met with
the fact that children perform poorly in core content areas (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2007). Of even greater concern is that a considerable portion of low-income,
minority students do poorly in these content areas in disproportionate numbers (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2007). Since Lyndon B. Johnson first declared a “War on
Poverty” in 1964, outlining the nation’s failure to provide equitable learning
environments for minority students, the government, along with numerous educational
organizations (see The Education Trust, 2008) have expressed the need to significantly
improve the quality of instruction for all students, particularly low-income, minority
students. Most recently the introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) has
shifted educational focus to increased accountability for student achievement. NCLBA
provides a vision for significantly improving learning opportunities for students of high
poverty, high minority schools.
In response to NCLBA’s call to significantly improve the quality of instruction,
the Curriculum and Instruction Branch of the Marylebone Unified School District, the
district in which the present study is conducted, revised its content based curricular
frameworks to include instructional and curricular practices that explicitly challenged the
ubiquitous notion that only some students were capable of achieving at high levels. The
instructional and curricular recommendations included “be[ing] knowledgeable” and
3

“build[ing] on the strengths of students.” Other recommendations include
“differentiating” and “using multiple assessment strategies” to facilitate instruction. And
while these recommendations offer promise, this general language fails to provide
specifics for how to “build on the strengths of students” and “use multiple instructional
and assessment strategies” to support learning. Given the pervasive low achievement of
students in this district, there is little evidence to suggest teachers are effectively using
these recommended strategies to support students. A better understanding of the explicit
pedagogy successful teachers use to adequately meet the needs of low income, minority
students is vital for both a school district and a school struggling to support learning.
Confronted with the challenge to significantly improve student achievement,
Baker Street Elementary has elicited the help of Teach For America (TFA) to address the
low academic performance among students. Baker Street Elementary partnered with
TFA to place CMs at this school site for at least two years hoping to significantly
improve the learning outcomes of its students.
This study describes the extent to which one CM teaching at Baker Street
Elementary actualizes her commitment to social justice and engages in equity pedagogy.
This study also describes the school-based constraints that limit this CM from fully
enacting equity pedagogy. The names in this study have been replaced with pseudonyms.
Purpose of the Study
Teach for America purposefully selects academically talented graduates of elite
colleges and universities who espouse a commitment to social justice and who are willing
to commit time to teaching in high poverty, high minority schools and provides these
4

teacher candidates with a few weeks of training. This study investigated how a teacher
who completed this process actualized her commitment to social justice in urban
classrooms, identifying the extent to which this teacher engaged in equity pedagogy as
part of her commitment. The study also investigated the specific school-site factors that
inhibited the implementation of equity pedagogy.
Research Questions
This qualitative case study will examine the instructional and curricular practices
used by a CM who was purposefully selected and trained to teach low income, minority
students and will describe the school-site factors that inhibited the implementation of
such practices. Specifically, this study posed the following research questions:
1. To what extent do the learning experiences and curriculum content planned by
a teacher who completed the TFA program reflect contemporary
conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?
2. What are the school-site factors that inhibit these teachers from fully
implementing contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?
Significance of the Study
This study may be relevant to educators, policymakers, and researchers. It
will add to the limited research on teachers purposefully selected and trained to
teach in low-income minority areas and the impact of school-site contextual
factors on teaching effectiveness. This study should also prove useful to
administrators and educators of Marylebone Unified School District, specifically
at Baker Street Elementary, by adding to their understanding of equitable
5

strategies used by teachers to support low-income minority students and the
school-site factors that inhibit the full implementation of such practices.
Definition of Terms
1. Commitment to social justice: The key role teachers play in facilitating positive
social change in their classroom, school, community, and society at large (Darling-
Hammond, 2002).
2. Corps member (CM): Corps members are active members of the Teach For
America corps in the first or second year of their teaching commitment.
3. Equity pedagogy: For the purpose of this study, equity pedagogy refers to the
application of knowledge about the learner, learning, and subject matter in ways that
connect with and build upon the students’ personal experiences and prior academic and
informal learning, thus, providing equitable access to classroom learning for previously
underserved students.
4. High minority and high poverty schools: High minority schools are those in
which “50% or more of the students are nonwhite” and high poverty schools are those in
which “50% or more of the students are eligible for free or reduced price lunch”
(Education Trust, 2008).
5. Low-income student: Low-income students are those students who qualify for
free or reduced price lunch (Education Trust, 2008).
6. Minority student: Minority students are those students traditionally underserved
by the school system including African American and Hispanic/Latino students (The
Education Trust, 2003).
6

7. Teach For America: Teach For America is an organization that purposefully
selects (Haberman, 1995) and trains academically talented college graduates who espouse
a commitment to social justice to teach for two years in hard-to-staff schools. TFA’s
ultimate mission is to ensure that all children across the nation will have access to an
equitable education. Newly recruited teachers are placed in diverse areas across the
United States, giving them an opportunity to live in a new region for at least two years.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation study is divided into five chapters. Chapter One has introduced
the study, the problem statement, the purpose of the study, research questions, the
significance of the study, and the definition of terms.
Chapter Two presents a review of the pertinent literature with respect to equity
pedagogy. The following topics are discussed: (a) tools of power and access in the
society including academic language, protocols for social discourse, highly valued
knowledge, and academic conventions for thinking and processing information (Delpit,
1988); (b) the deliberate and intentional use of approaches to instruction that scaffold
knowledge for underserved students including the use of culturally valued knowledge,
culturally based representations of concepts and ideas, and culturally appropriate social
situations for learning (Hollins, 2008); (c) consistent monitoring and maintenance of a
classroom environment that is comfortable and supportive for all students (Hollins,
2008); and (d) awareness of inequity and inequality in the society and approaches to
corrective action (McLaren, 1989). These four areas provide the conceptual framework
that guides this study.
7

Chapter Three presents the methodology of the study. This chapter also describes
the procedures for data collection, protocol for data analysis, limitations and
delimitations, and ethical considerations.
Chapter Four discusses the findings and analysis of the data in light of each
research question.
Chapter Five presents a summary of the findings from the present study, a
comparison to other studies discussed in the literature review, and recommendations for
further research.
8

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) challenges schools to raise the
achievement levels of all students. Meeting the nation’s rigorous educational goals
requires that teachers teach every student effectively. It is within this climate that the
notion of equity pedagogy has begun to gain greater attention (NCATE, 2008).
Administrators from high-minority, high-poverty schools have struggled to attract and
retain teachers equipped with the skills and strategies necessary to raise student
achievement, particularly for low-income, minority students (Peske & Haycock, 1996).
Some schools have turned to alternative teacher preparation programs, such as Teach For
America (TFA). TFA recruits academically talented graduates of elite colleges and
universities who espouse a commitment to social justice and who are willing to commit
time to teaching in difficult to staff schools and provides these teacher candidates with a
few weeks of training.
Researchers, educators, and policy makers are beginning to look at the specific
instructional and curricular strategies of teachers who successfully teach low income,
minority students. This review of the literature will explore contemporary
conceptualizations of equity pedagogy grounded in a socio-cultural perspective on
learning. The following section first discusses perspectives on socio-cultural learning
theory and provides examples of the interrelationship among the social, cultural, and
cognitive aspects of learning. An example of how a literacy lesson is enacted in two
different classrooms demonstrates how social, cultural, and cognitive aspects are used
9

and applied to curriculum and instruction. Following this discussion, four key areas with
respect to equity pedagogy will be discussed: (a) the explicit teaching of the tools of
power and access in the society including academic language, protocols for social
discourse, highly valued knowledge, and academic conventions for thinking and
processing information (Delpit, 1988); (b) the deliberate and intentional use of
approaches to instruction that scaffold knowledge for underserved students including the
use of culturally valued knowledge, culturally based representations of concepts and
ideas, and culturally appropriate social situations for learning (Hollins, 2008); (c)
consistently monitoring and maintaining a classroom environment that is comfortable and
supportive for all students (Hollins, 2008); and (d) promoting an awareness of inequity
and inequality in the society and approaches to corrective action (McLaren, 1989). This
review supports the finding that any instructional and curricular strategy that draws and
builds upon knowledge of the learner, learning, and the subject matter provides equitable
educational opportunities for all students.
Socio-Cultural Perspectives on Learning
The socio-cultural perspective takes into consideration the interrelationship
between the social, cultural, and cognitive aspects of learning based on the work of Jean
Piaget (1962) and Lev Vygotsky (1978). In this study, cognitive processing is viewed
through a constructivist paradigm based on Piaget’s work. The understandings obtained
from culturally based activities are organized into schemas, or mental representations. A
person’s schema is disrupted when confronted with new information that fails to fit into
an existing schema. To eliminate this disequilibrium, Piaget offered two conceptions to
10

explain how people use and adapt their schemas: assimilation and accommodation.
Assimilation consists of interpreting new events in light of pre-existing cognitive
schemas. For example, babies have a grabbing schema for holding their bottles. When
babies come across a new object such as their mother’s brush, they have no trouble
transferring this schema, or “assimilating” the new information in order to grab the item.
Accommodation involves changing one’s existing schema to incorporate a new object or
phenomenon. When babies encounter a ball, they may try to grab it using the same
schema. When this does not work, babies develop a new grabbing schema by holding the
ball with both hands. In this sense, the babies have just changed their grabbing schema to
“accommodate” information for holding a large object. According to Piaget, learning
results from reacting to one’s environment followed by assimilating or accommodating
the new information. The learner constructs new knowledge and develops personal
meaning through this experience.
Though this notion is useful for understanding cognitive development, Piaget
does not acknowledge the social aspect of learning. The social aspect of the socio-
cultural perspective is based on Vygotsky’s conceptualization of learning. According to
Vygotsky, learning first occurs on the social, interpsychological plane before being
internalized in the cognitive, intrapsychological plane. The interpsychological plane
refers to the external social interaction that occurs in the environment. As participants
collaboratively engage in a process of co-constructing knowledge, each participating
member brings cultural tools and artifacts to this new situation. With contributions from
each participant, a new understanding of the activity is developed. This context specific
11

generated understanding is important because a different understanding can be generated
if the participants of the activity differ. This generated understanding is highly dependent
on the participants and the context in which is it developed. Mental processes are
subsequently restructured to accommodate or assimilate this new information. The
intrapsychological plane refers to the abstract space where an individual internalizes the
understanding derived from the activity. The individual becomes more adept at using
these mental processes, which is tied directly to the cultural or social context in which
learning occurs (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) is defined as the distance
between what the learner can do independently and what the learner can do with
assistance from a more knowledgeable individual. It is in the ZPD where children learn
the skills of the particular culture through collaborative participation in goal-directed
activities. This is the point of critical intervention for underserved students. It is at the
ZPD where the adult guides the learning activity by providing the appropriate scaffolds to
support learning. As the novice meets the objective of that particular learning activity,
the ZPD shifts and the scaffold is adjusted to produce appropriate understanding of the
learning objective for the learner at their particular level of understanding (Vygotsky,
1978). Thus, the extent to which the teacher provides appropriate support for scaffolding
learning determines the extent to which the learner will succeed academically.
For a teacher to identify an appropriate scaffold, a student must be able to
demonstrate their existing knowledge accurately without any imposed artificial
constraints that potentially distort this display of knowledge (Moll & Diaz, 1987).
12

Constructing a learning environment that enables a student to acquire new knowledge and
also display the true extent of their existing knowledge is a central task to equity
pedagogy.
Because children are different across all contexts, the strategies used to support
learning will differ according to the perspective of socio-cultural learning theory. To
demonstrate how such meaningful learning environments are constructed, two studies are
discussed to demonstrate how literacy is taught in two culturally different classrooms
(Herrero, 2006; Lee, 2006).
Lee’s (2006) Cultural Modeling in Literature curriculum documents the way
culturally relevant curriculum, concepts, language, and participatory structures interact to
create a nexus of supportive learning for African American high school students. The
expectation of the Cultural Modeling in Literature curriculum is that students use
culturally developed intellectual resources to critically analyze literature.
The Cultural Modeling in Literature curriculum capitalizes on students’ culturally
developed intellectual resources, causing students to link their everyday experiences with
the metacognitive process used to decode culturally familiar material. During instruction,
the teacher highlights the thinking processes students routinely use to make sense of the
symbolism embedded in the lyrics of a familiar song. First, this process is modeled by
the teacher. Then students’ tacit knowledge of lyric interpretation is publicly discussed.
Metacognitive language is provided to help students understand the problem-solving
process used to make sense of the lyrics (e.g. “So you’re using prior knowledge”).
Finally, students practice this thinking process under the supervision of their teacher.
13

The teacher guides students through the process of generalizing these problem-solving
strategies so students are able to apply this process to any curricular material.
Modes of culturally familiar participatory structures also support learning. Lee
(2006) noticed students were most deeply engaged in literature discussions and debates
when they are able to utilize the culturally based linguistic tool based on the African-
American Rhetorical Tradition. This mode of communication is characterized by call
and response patterns, sermonic tones reminiscent of traditional Black church rhetoric,
imagery and metaphor. She argued that the presence of these features created a
discursive and participatory environment students were accustomed to which enabled
students to successfully apply this thinking process to classroom literacy discussions.
In the second literacy study, Herrero (2006) investigated how social, cultural, and
linguistic resources were capitalized upon to raise the literacy achievement of junior high
school Latino students. Culturally relevant material was used to engage students in
higher level literacy discussions; specifically, students collected historical narratives from
their families. As a discursive stimulus (Vygtosky, 1962), this material permitted students
to draw from their prior knowledge in order to participate in critical literacy discussions.
Students engaged in discussion freely, building upon one another’s answers through their
own participatory initiation. The teacher further supported this process by enabling
students to draw upon their own linguistic resources (Spanish) to comprehend and
analyze the literature. Moreover, students wrote, presented, and critiqued their own
cultural narratives. Herrero (2006) credits students’ linguistic, cultural, and cognitive
resources for enabling the discussion and composition of these cultural narratives noting
14

that such culturally based resources “fostered pride, participation, and commitment and
success” among students who prior to this were characterized as low achievers.
There are three findings common to the work of Lee (2006) and Herrero (2006):
(1) teachers’ belief that students could achieve high levels of literacy; (2) culturally
familiar material; and (3) culturally based participation structures. The belief that all
students were capable of achieving higher literacy levels was evident in the deliberate
and intentional use of students’ cultural, linguistic, and cognitive resources to facilitate
instruction. To ensure students acquired the critical and academic skills, teachers used
curricular and instructional strategies grounded in student characteristics in order to
extend their prior knowledge. This meaningful context was created through the use of
culturally familiar material. In both examples, this not only enabled students to use their
prior knowledge but it also served as a discursive stimulus (Vygotsky, 1962).
Additionally, the culturally based participatory structures provided a familiar context for
learning. This context enabled students to spend more time developing academic and
critical thinking skills (Au and Kawakami, 1985). The objective of each literacy lesson
was to help students achieve higher forms of literacy analysis. The way teaching
materialized in each classroom was unique because students’ characteristics were
explicitly used to formulate curricular, instructional, and participatory strategies.
In sum, a contemporary notion of equity pedagogy uses a socio-cultural
perspective of learning. The dynamic between the individuals, the purpose of the
learning activity, and the cultural tools and artifacts mutually contribute to the context
through which learning is facilitated. This is grounded in the social, cultural, and
15

cognitive aspects of learning based on the work of Piaget (1962) and Vygotsky (1978).
Vygotsky’s early conception of the ZPD is seen as the critical point of intervention where
a teacher applies an appropriate scaffold. This appropriate culturally and socially based
scaffold is the point where new information presented is either accommodated or
assimilated in order to facilitate learning. In the following section, tools of power
(Delpit, 1988), culturally relevant instructional strategies (Hollins, 2008), supportive
learning environments (Hollins, 2008), and critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989) will be
discussed to further explicate how teachers use equity pedagogy to facilitate learning for
low income, minority students.
The Literature on Equity Pedagogy
Tools of Power and Access
Seldom do people participate exclusively within the confines of a single social
context. Rather, they participate in multiple social contexts that operate as self-contained
units with a unique body of rules and norms that guide members to successful
functioning. For novice participants, successful navigation of these social contexts is
aided by “institutional agents” who bear the capacity to directly teach or facilitate access
to those who can teach socially sanctioned rules and norms (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Within a school context, it is the teachers who primarily act as distributors of these tools
of power and access, including academic language, protocols for social discourse, highly
valued knowledge, and academic conventions for thinking and processing information
(Delpit, 1988). The extent to which teachers provide equitable access for underserved
students is influenced by whether or not a teacher is able and willing to provide the social
16

and academic protocols needed to be successful in a school context. Access, however, is
provided on the condition that students concurrently maintain their own cultural and
linguistic identity.
Academic language. Demonstrated use of academic language can be seen as a
key mediator to negotiating membership into an academic community. Within an
academic community, members share certain ways of thinking, using language, and
communicating ideas. Membership and participation require an individual to be familiar
with major concepts of the subject area in addition to the academic language used to
describe these concepts. Thus, teachers bear the responsibility of facilitating students’
acquisition of academic language.
Teachers traditionally teach academic language concomitantly with teaching the
academic concept itself. It is generally believed that teaching academic language is
synonymous with teaching for conceptual understanding. This method limits the
conceptual depth needed to successfully appropriate academic language (Brown, 2004).
To circumnavigate these effects, researchers advocate an initial instructional focus on
conceptual development prior to introducing academic language (Brown, 2006).
Employing this method to teach academic language accomplishes two things: (1) students
acquire deep conceptual understanding, also referred to as high status knowledge (Delpit,
1988) and (2) students then learn to appropriate academic language. Robert Moses
developed an excellent example of this method, “The Algebra Project.” The Algebra
Project is a curriculum designed to help African American middle school students
achieve higher levels of mathematical understanding (Moses et al., 1989). Moses et al.
17

(1989) suggested that the introduction of academic language follow a series of scaffolds
that initially introduces the concept in concrete terms and then gradually increases in
abstraction. Conceptual understanding is first grounded in a familiar experience. Once
conceptual understanding is achieved, acquisition of academic language then becomes
the focus. The following example demonstrates this process:
Students initiate this process with a trip on the Red Line of Boston’s subway
system (the physical event). This experience provides the context in which a
number of obvious questions may be asked: At what station do we start? Where
are we going? How many stops will it take to get there? In what direction do we
go? These questions have obvious answers, forming the basis for the
mathematics of trips. When they return, students are asked to write about their
trip, draw a mural or construct a three-dimensional model, make graphs for trips
that they create, and collect statistical data about them. The purpose is to fuse in
their minds the two questions: ‘How many?’ and ‘Which way?’ Students then use
this process to explore the concept of equivalence, in the broad cultural context of
everyday events such as cooking, coaching, teaching, painting, and repairing.
They explore any concept in which an object A is substituted for another object B
to achieve a certain goal. They conclude the discussion of equivalence in subway
travel with open-ended constructions of equivalent trips, leading to an
introduction of displacements as ‘trips that have the same number of stops and go
in the same direction. (Moses et al., 1989, pp. 433-434)

In this example, the first scaffold introduces students to the concept through a familiar
anchoring experience that serves to connect students’ prior knowledge. This allows
students to see the concept enacted in their own environment. The trip on the Boston Red
Line allows students to consciously experience an algebraic concept, laying the
foundation for further conceptual development. Students then construct models of the
experience and practice describing the concept in their own words. Silva, Moses, Rivers,
and Johnson (1990) reasoned this description was important because it enabled students
to discuss the mathematical concept at a conscious level. Following this, students then
18

describe the concept in Standard English. Once students are able to articulate this
description, academic language is subsequently introduced. The introduction of
academic language is a secondary priority to conceptual development. In this process
students learn to appropriate academic language and acquire highly valued knowledge
(Delpit, 1988).
Consequently, teaching methods that introduce academic concepts concurrent
with academic language may obviate successful application of both concepts and
language for novice learners (Brown, 2004). Research suggests that students must
develop a conceptual understanding before learning academic language (Moses et al.,
1989). Establishing conceptual understanding means providing students with a familiar
anchoring experience prior to introducing academic language for a particular discipline
(Moses, et al., 1989). Fundamental to this idea is the leveraging of students’ cultural
understanding to make meaningful connections between their pre-existing knowledge and
academic knowledge.
Protocols for social discourse. Just as there are rules for appropriating academic
language, there are also rules for using social discourse. These rules are initially
developed within the primary context of family. This discourse makes it possible for
family members to engage in discussion. If these family-based discursive structures
mirror those used in schools, students are able to make a seamless transition into the
classroom. For example, in observing the participatory patterns of Warm Springs Indian
children, Philips (1972) concluded that the Eurocentric turn-taking protocol, a protocol
that has little to do with academic learning, impacted students’ willingness to participate
19

in the classroom discussion. When individually called upon, children appeared quiet and
uncomfortable. Au (1980) found that one teacher’s adherence to the one-person-
speaking-at-a-time protocol decreased the amount of time spent on instruction during a
literacy lesson with Native Hawaiian students. The teacher spent more time managing
the discussion because the discursive expectation of the lesson contrasted with students’
typical method of engaging in discussions. In these examples, the protocols of social
discourse used in these classrooms make learning inaccessible to children because they
are unfamiliar with the discursive protocols required in the classroom. This is not to
suggest teachers should always defer to the culturally based discourse protocol. Teachers
have at least two choices: (a) use the protocol for discourse that is familiar to the
children, or (b) teach the children the new protocol for classroom discourse. Pursuing
either of these options is acceptable, contingent on the teacher explicitly articulating this
discursive expectation as a pattern to be used only in their classroom. This is not to
suggest other patterns of discourse are inappropriate, simply that in their classroom
students are expected to engage in a particular pattern of discourse.
Teachers are ideally positioned to facilitate this acquisition process by modeling
when and how to use these discursive expectations. This is particularly true for
Eurocentric patterns of social discourse because teachers have access to the dominant
group within schools and are familiar with these protocols. Howard (2001) agrees with
this and argues that teachers are responsible for providing instruction to those students
unfamiliar with these protocols. They are responsible for both encouraging students to be
knowledgeable about when and how to use certain discursive practices, and encouraging
20

students to maintain their own linguistic integrity. They validate students’ home
discursive forms by using the discourse themselves and encourage students to utilize
these resources if it aids them in participating in classroom activities (Howard, 2001, p.
90). Thus, students’ home discourse patterns are not perceived as negative but are
validated as an important cultural, linguistic, and cognitive resource. Learning different
discursive patterns while maintaining one’s own culturally based discursive structure is
encouraged.
Academic conventions for thinking and processing knowledge. The best way
to facilitate the use of academic conventions for thinking and processing knowledge is to
provide ample opportunities to model and practice these conventions. Teachers facilitate
these academic conventions by engaging students in two different practices: (1) using
culturally familiar materials to stimulate the development of these processes (Herrero,
2006; Lipka, Sharp, Brenner, Yanez, & Sharp, 2005) or (2) showing students how these
conventions are routinely used in their home environments and transferring such skills to
the schooling context (Lee, 1995).
Using culturally familiar materials provides students with a familiar base they can
build upon in order to develop academic conventions. Herrero (2006) investigated the
use of cultural and community-generated oral narratives to raise literacy performance for
Dominican junior high school students. The narratives helped extend students’ thinking
about literature and writing concepts; they regularly used analysis and evaluative
cognitive skills when discussing this literature. In another example, Lipka et al. (2005)
used Yup’ik parka patterns to stimulate mathematical understanding for Yup’ik students.
21

This required students to use analysis and evaluative processes when studying Yup’ik
parka patterns. Additionally, students created their own mathematical patterns. Lipka et
al. (2005) concluded that the use of this culturally based material was one factor that
aided Yup’ik students’ mathematical development. In both examples, students’
development of academic conventions for thinking and processing were stimulated
through the use of culturally familiar material.
Mahiri and Sablo (1996) claim developing these conventions for thinking and
processing information begins with teachers acquiring a deeper understanding of how
students routinely use these processes in their home environments. Studies have shown
that academic conventions for thinking and processing knowledge may simply be a case
of teaching students to transfer these skills to school contexts. For example, Lee (1994)
investigated the use of signifying, an African American metaphorical form of discourse,
to scaffold high level literacy analysis. According to Lee:
Signifying as ritual insult may involve what has traditionally been called “the
Dozens”: “Yo mama so dumb she thought a quarterback was a
refund.”…Signifying (in its many forms) almost always includes double entendre
and a play on meanings. Language is to be interpreted figuratively, not literally.
(1995, p. 614)

Lee (1994) hypothesized that African American students use the same cognitive skill to
interpret signifying dialogue as expert readers use to interpret figurative language in
narrative texts. Using a cognitive apprenticeship model, the teacher demonstrated ways
students already used these cognitive skills to decode a signifying dialogue. As students
became more adept at using these skills under the guidance of the teacher, they
transferred this understanding to contemporary African American works of literature.
22

Thus, identifying how such cognitive skills are routinely used in students’ own
environment serves as a scaffold to appropriate the same skill in a different environment.
Teachers are ultimately responsible for ensuring students learn tools of power and
access, including academic language, protocols for social discourse, highly valued
knowledge, and academic conventions for thinking and processing information (Delpit,
1988). Teachers must explicitly construct opportunities for students to build upon and
extend their knowledge in order for students to acquire these tools. Students’ culture
must be perceived as a cognitive and linguistic resource rather than a hindrance. Brown
(2004) and Moses et al. (1989) both suggest that acquisition of academic language is
introduced once students demonstrate they have acquired conceptual understanding (see
also Delpit, 1988). Moses et al. (1989) further suggests that in order to acquire
conceptual understanding, students must anchor this understanding first in a familiar
experience and then build upon this using their everyday language; only then is academic
language introduced. Protocols for social discourse can either be derived from students’
cultural background or from the teacher’s. Either social discourse protocol is appropriate
as long as students are not forced to relinquish their linguistic identity (Howard, 2001).
Academic conventions for thinking and processing are stimulated either through the use
of culturally familiar material (Herrero, 2006) and experiences (Moses et al., 1989) or by
bringing to students’ conscious awareness ways they routinely use these cognitive
processes in their own environments (Lee, 1994). Teachers who utilize culturally
relevant strategies use instructional and curricular strategies drawn directly from
students’ backgrounds in order to facilitate learning. These teachers possess a depth of
23

student cultural knowledge that typically exceeds that used by most teachers. In the next
section, culture and how it is used to facilitate understanding of academic content is
discussed.
Culturally Relevant Instructional Practices
Teachers who practice contemporary notions of equity pedagogy value the skills
and knowledge children bring with them to school (Ladson-Billings, 1994). This value is
reflected in the deliberate and intentional use of approaches to instruction that scaffold
and build knowledge for previously underserved students. In the following study
McCarty, Lynch, Wallace, and Benally (1991) offer an excellent example of the cogent
role culture plays in the learning process, demonstrating how (a) culturally valued
knowledge; (b) culturally based representations of concepts and ideas; and (c) culturally
appropriate social situations for learning (Hollins, 2008) are used to facilitate learning for
Native American students living on the Rough Rock Reservation. The curriculum is
developed based on the cultural concept of the k’e and is intended to extend and validate
the knowledge students bring with them to the classroom. The individual lessons
designed to support this concept also contain cultural elements that support student
learning.
Application of these three cultural elements is best demonstrated in the following
lesson where Native American students traditionally characterized as quiet and passive
by their teachers engage in learning:
Using an initial activity in the “Our Community” series, the teacher-demonstrator,
a former Rough Rock teacher and consultant to the project, conducted the lesson
in English. As students studied photographic posters depicting local scenes, the
24

teacher-demonstrator asked them to suggest items in the pictures they needed in
their community. Several students quickly jumped from their seats, calling out:
“Houses!” “Sheep!” “Grazing (grass)!” “The school!” “Clinic” “Chidas
(automobiles)!” “Your relatives!” Though he periodically requested clarification,
the teacher-demonstrator accepted all responses. Within minutes, students had
volunteered so many ideas that he ran out of chalkboard space to write them all
down.
Next, he asked students to group similar items from the list, and to explain
the reasons for their groupings. Discussion was lively as students debated points
in small groups and in front of the class. Eventually they reached a consensus,
identifying “things we need” and “things we like to have in our community.” The
concepts of needs and wants became the basis for a generalization developed later
in this class, that “Rough Rock is a community because people work together to
meet their needs and solve mutual problems.” (McCarty, Lynch, Wallace &
Benally, 1991, pp. 48-49)

To account for these observed changes in student response and engagement levels,
McCarty et al. (1991) argue that this lesson facilitates learning by tapping directly into
the lived experiences of the Native American children. Rather than treating students’
culture as a deficit, teachers capitalize on it in order to facilitate learning through that use
of: (a) culturally based representations of concepts and ideas; (b) culturally valued
knowledge; and (c) culturally appropriate social situations to support learning (Hollins,
2008).
The K-12 curriculum is organized around the Native American concept of k’e,
which relates to kinship, clanship, and balance and harmony with nature. Each lesson
included in this curriculum is framed by this conceptual understanding. Students develop
various academic skills within the context of culturally based lessons as they compare
and contrast, debate, analyze, and synthesize information. Furthermore, this lesson
supports the notion that acquiring knowledge is a fundamental application of the k’e.
According to this philosophy,
25

Knowledge is more prized than material possessions, since it can be endlessly
expanded and it neither diminishes, nor can it be taken away. Because of its
value, knowledge is meant to be both shared and protected. It cannot be given to
another or passively received. To learn something of value requires that
individuals actively seek that knowledge. In doing this they not only take control
over their learning, they also assume ownership over what is learned. Knowledge
acquired is intended to be shared and used, for good or valued ends.” (McCarty et
al., 1991, p. 51)

The interactions that transpire between teacher and student in this lesson are undergirded
by this concept. Framing “learning new knowledge” through this conception creates a
meaningful context for the students of the Rough Rock Reservation. This is because the
learning acquired from this lesson is viewed as an indispensible process from the
standpoint of the cultural concept of the k’e.
Similar to culturally based concepts, culturally valued knowledge reflects, values,
and extends the knowledge students bring with them to the classroom (Rickard, 2005).
Students develop academic and cognitive skills by using culturally valued knowledge. In
the case of the Rough Rock Reservation, photographs of local scenery increased
participation among students traditionally characterized as quiet. Thus, the material
served as a discursive stimulus, which Vygotsky (1962) explicitly connects to cognitive
development. According to Vygotsky (1962), “the true direction of the development of
thinking is not from the individual to the socialized, but from the social to the individual”
(p. 20). From this perspective, the collaborative public discourse students engage in
becomes indispensible to the development of thought process as aggressive responses
mark the initial phase of cognitive development.
26

The interactions that transpired within this lesson were also consistent with the
way students engaged in learning outside of school. This included an inquiry-based
learning structure where a more capable member facilitated rather than directed learning
for the novice learner. McCarty et al., 1991 concluded
These types of learning experiences on the one hand encourage children to test
their hypotheses and assumptions in an environment that supports and indeed
expects experimentation. They also presuppose an active, interactive learning
process—one in which children build increasingly sophisticated and realistic
understandings incrementally, by ordering and extending their own observations.
(pp. 50-51)

Building on the familiar experiences of the students laid the groundwork for developing
higher order cognitive skills. Furthermore, these familiar learning structures also
supported the way learning transpires between novices and experts on the Rough Rock
Reservation.
In summary, culturally based representations of concepts and ideas, culturally
valued knowledge, and culturally appropriate social situations for learning collectively
provide a meaningful context for learning. The teacher creates a meaningful learning
environment by deliberately leveraging culturally based concepts, knowledge, and
appropriate social situations to build and extend students’ knowledge. It is important to
note that this culturally relevant context enables students to develop higher order thinking
skills, which defies the conventional belief that low-income, minority communities lack
the academic and social resources to do so.
In the next section, establishing a supportive classroom environment is discussed
as a significant factor in successfully implementing contemporary notions of equity
27

pedagogy. Supportive learning environments are critical to student learning. Teachers
who practice contemporary notions of equity pedagogy will make establishing such a
learning environment a priority. With a deep understanding of their students, these
teachers draw from such knowledge in order to create an environment most conducive to
student learning. The next section will explore the characteristics of the supportive
learning environments they build for their students.
Supportive Classroom Environments
Teachers who practice contemporary notions of equity pedagogy place a premium
on establishing a classroom atmosphere in which all students feel unconditionally
supported. Unconditionally supportive classroom environments are characterized by: (a)
positive and supportive relationships that exist between the teacher and the students, and
among students and (b) participation structures that support student learning.
Relationships. Positive relationships between a teacher and their students are
seen as imperative to the learning process (Ladson-Billings, 1994). To achieve this, these
teachers rely on building high levels of personal and cultural knowledge about their
students (Collinson, 1999). Building these high levels of knowledge about students
provides a teacher with more information to formulate their instruction (Powell, 1996a).
There are several possible ways a teacher can acquire this knowledge. For one,
teachers share personal knowledge and demonstrate empathy for students’ experiences.
These efforts build commonalities between teacher and students in addition to
humanizing the relationship between them. This is particularly important for children
who have consistently been subjected to hostile relationships with teachers in the past.
28

Lynn (2006) noted the effects such relationship building experiences had on students in
his descriptive study of African American male teachers in South Los Angeles. He
concluded that not only did students feel more connected to their teachers as a result, but
that students typically characterized as underperformers were also more willing to
participate in classroom activities. The teachers in Ladson-Billings’ (1994) and Powell’s
(1996) study also consistently sought out opportunities to interact with their students
outside of the classroom. This included attending community functions, organizing out
of classroom opportunities (e.g. Saturday lunches), and conducting home visits. The
varying strategies these teachers engaged in to build relationships with students share the
following characteristics: (1) assuring students of their importance and value and (2)
building commonalities between teacher and student. These teachers exploit multiple
opportunities to acquire high levels of cultural and personal knowledge of their students
(Collinson, 1999). Initiating such opportunities creates a sense of worth and respect for
students. This is epitomized in the fundamental nature of their pursuit to know and value
their students as individuals they desire to help succeed academically.
Students who feel a sense of psychological safety are more likely to engage in
learning activities (Ladson-Billings, 1994). Students who feel the information they
contribute is valuable to the classroom discussion are also more likely to participate in
learning activities. Producing psychological safety may also require teachers to
specifically craft experiences where students are made to feel successful, even in
instances where this success may not seem obvious. For example, McCollum (1989)
observed the lessons of an English-speaking teacher in Chicago and a Spanish-speaking
29

teacher in Puerto Rico. The Spanish-speaking teacher implemented a more
conversational format in which students initiated their own participation, contributed
information even when it did not directly relate to the academic conversation, and offered
personal insight. McCollum (1989) observed that student initiations did not always have
to be relevant to the topic of the lesson and that such contributions would result in what
would appear to an outsider to be off-topic information. The teacher would then
incorporate this off-topic information into the academic discussion. Psychological safety
is created when judgment about whose information is considered appropriate or
acceptable is removed. Therefore, each student knows the insight they share will be
considered valuable to the classroom discussion. No discrimination occurs with respect
to whose knowledge is deemed acceptable. This is because the teacher deems all student
contributions as necessary to building the collective classroom knowledge base.
As positive and supportive relationships exist between teacher and students,
cultivating these relationships among students is also important. Classroom teachers who
practice contemporary notions of equity pedagogy believe in fostering a spirit of
cooperation and interdependence among students. Research suggests that teachers who
tend to employ these learning environments generally do so with the belief that students
themselves are capable of sharing the instructional process. The view that students are an
integral, active part of the learning process contrasts the passive conception of students as
“empty vessels” (Freire, 1972) typically associated with the student role (McCollum,
1989). For example, Lipka (1991) observed a Yup’ik teacher who intentionally chose to
engage culturally congruent learning structures by insisting that students actively
30

participate in the learning process. Throughout the lesson students were expected to help
one another rather than the teacher serving as the sole authority in the classroom. The
autonomy and shared instructional responsibility employed in this classroom were taken
directly from the students’ home culture. Also inherent in this shared responsibility is the
acknowledgement that students are capable of assuming an active role in the learning
process. Furthermore, they learn to depend and trust one another’s skill because the
teacher has explicitly created a context for this.
Participation structures. Participation structures also contribute to a supportive
and positive learning environment. This is important because it provides the context
through which students productively engage in conversation with each other and the
teacher (Philips, 1972). When a teacher provides a culturally congruent participation
structure, managing the discussion is not necessary because both the teacher and students
tacitly understand the rules of engagement (Au and Kawakami, 1985). Thus, more time
is allotted for learning (Au, 1980).
Studies suggest that participatory structures that are culturally incongruent such as
“turn-taking” are dysfunctional. This is because this participatory structure is
Eurocentric, but often presumed by most teachers to be universally accepted across all
classrooms. In one classic study, Philips (1972) identified differences in the classroom
behavior of Warm Springs Indian children when studying four different participatory
structures. She found, as did Au (1980) and Dumont (1972), that students were most
reluctant to participate in front of the whole group, especially when participation was not
voluntary. When called upon by the teacher, student dialogue was limited to a few words
31

and they rarely solicited the teacher for her attention in front of their class members. In
contrast, students were much more comfortable initiating private conversations with the
teacher. The most participation occurred in the final structure, where students had
opportunities to interact with one another. In this example, certain structures limited
student participation because the teacher bore a narrow understanding of what constituted
appropriate classroom interaction; from her viewpoint, a belief that assessment of student
knowledge could occur only in whole group teacher-student interactions essentially
limited student learning, students’ willingness to demonstrate that knowledge, and her
assessment of student knowledge as a result.
Researchers of Native Hawaiian children in the Kamehameha Elementary
Education Program (KEEP) have also studied how instructional arrangements within
literacy lessons impact student performance. For example, Au and Mason (1981)
compared the instructional formats of two teachers: one who had low contact (LC) with
Native Hawaiian children and one who had high contact (HC) with Native Hawaiian
children. In the LC teacher’s lesson the teacher spent more time managing the discussion
and restricting discursive behavior, which also limits cognitive development (Vygotsky,
1962). In contrast, the instructional format the HC teacher employed differed in content
and structure:
Instruction was initiated quickly and proceeded smoothly. In the open turn
structure, she did not nominate any one child to speak; rather the children were
allowed to negotiate for turns of speaking among themselves, without waiting for
the teacher to decide who should answer. Teacher HC was not bothered when
several children shared a turn of speaking, even when their speech overlapped her
own. (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 143)

32

The success of this instructional lesson is attributed to the degree it mirrors “talk-story,”
the conversational structure of Native Hawaiian culture (Au and Kawakami, 1985). Au
and Mason (1981) further attribute the observed success of the HC teacher’s lesson to the
teacher’s ability to balance the rights of both the teacher and students within the lesson.
While the teacher maintains control over the topic of the discussion (reading
comprehension), students maintain control over their own participation. They are also
able to collaborate with one another during academic discussions. Thus, culturally
congruent participation structures enhance the amount of time to be spent on instruction
by providing a familiar participatory context (Au & Mason, 1981). This demonstrated
comfort is visible in the significant changes made to students’ behavior when engaging in
a culturally relevant participatory structure.
Unconditionally supportive learning environments are a necessary precursor to
learning for a teacher who practices contemporary notions of equity pedagogy. This is
accomplished by placing priority on establishing positive relationships between teacher
and students as well as among students (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Powell, 1996a).
Emphasizing collaboration among students also enhances the supportive learning context
of the classroom (Lipka, 1991). Furthermore, participatory structures are drawn directly
from students’ homes. Using culturally congruent participatory structures increases
academic engagement because students are familiar with the structure (Au & Mason,
1981).
The social and political goals associated with the use of equity pedagogy conflicts
with the assimilationist goals of schools in the present form. Advocates for critical
33

pedagogy have been highly critical of the assimilationist goals of schools and have called
for a major reform in school practices related to equity and social justice. The discussion
of critical pedagogy that follows will present the basic tenets of this argument and will
provide insight into the social and political goals that advocates of critical pedagogy wish
to make explicit in school practices.
Critical Pedagogy
Critical theorists (McLaren, 1989) argue that the goal of school as it presently
exists is to maintain the status quo. It is further argued that intellectually and socially
prestigious bodies of knowledge, including critical thinking and creativity, are selectively
rationed for higher status groups while lower status groups receive an education in
obedience, control, and lower order thinking skills (Anyon, 1980). Apple (2004) claims
the hidden curriculum, or the values and beliefs that undergird such observable classroom
practices, also serves to preserve the status of different social groups. Indeed, Bowles
and Gintis (1976) as well as other critical theorists and researchers would argue that
schools intentionally endorse hegemonic practices that prepare students to fulfill certain
roles in society, perpetuating inequality.
Giroux (1985) argues teachers are ideally positioned to help low-income minority
students subvert the practices and ideologies that serve to preserve their low status.
According to Giroux (1985), “[teachers] should be viewed as free men and women with a
special dedication to the values of the intellect and the enhancement of the critical powers
of the young” (p. 378). Thus, teachers can work to redress the social imbalance by
intentionally utilizing pedagogy that helps students engage in corrective action. He
34

further argues that such action not be viewed as defiant action; this action is rooted in the
critical pursuit to fundamentally transform society. Treating students as critical agents,
helping them to develop a critical vernacular, and providing a space for students to
question the knowledge schools expect them to learn are all examples of ways teachers
can exploit their positions of power to help students learn the ideologies and practices of
a society that seeks to sustain the status quo (Giroux, 1985). For teachers who practice
critical pedagogy, developing students’ critical conscious happens through (1) real-world
connections and (2) literature.
Real-world connections. Critical perspectives are developed when teachers
choose to embed opportunities into the academic curriculum that explicitly connect
learning to students’ contexts. In one study, Collatos, Morrell, Nuno, and Lara (2004)
examined the impact of the Futures Project, a program designed to help prepare students
for college throughout their four years in high school. Over the course of the project,
students were immersed in scholarly activities, including an “educational (in)equity and
access” course and a critical sociology course. The intention of this course was to help
students develop the language and tools that critical sociologists use in their work,
specifically to change the status quo. Thus, the researchers immersed students in a course
designed to explicitly help them develop their qualitative research skills and analyze
issues pertaining to inequality within their school and community. Findings from
students’ analysis were then presented to various education and community stakeholders
as a culminating experience. These activities were designed to help students create new
pathways to college access.
35

In another example, Tate (1995) described the pedagogical practices of one
middle school teacher who used an Afrocentric mathematical approach that empowered
students to analyze real-world situations from a mathematical perspective. This teacher
utilized a three-step approach that involved students identifying a community problem,
researching the identified problem and developing strategies to resolve the problem, and
engaging in corrective action by applying these strategies to the problem itself. At the
conclusion of a unit that involved an investigation of the liquor stores located near the
school, stricter policies were enforced by local governing bodies based on the corrective
action pursued by students.
These studies by Collatos et al. (2004) and Tate (1995) share several
commonalities. In each case, the instructors focused extensively on providing
opportunities for students in their classrooms to analyze, evaluate, engage in critical
discussions, generate alternative solutions, or develop critical viewpoints in order to
disrupt the status quo. This disruption occurred by engaging students in critically
analyzing their immediate surroundings and issues their school and community faced. In
addition, the development of these skills occurred within a context that was deeply
connected to the lived realities of students. This meaningful connection gave students the
opportunity to take an active role in determining the outcome of their future and
disrupting the status quo. Each teacher also took on a much more “intellectually” critical
approach to their work (Giroux, 1985). From this perspective, these participants were
critical of the curriculum and school practices prevalent throughout. By exploiting their
own position of power by virtue of their teaching profession, they rejected such
36

hegemonic practices by reconceptualizing the school curriculum and practices to reflect
these critical beliefs. Students discussed and analyzed power relationships within and
between schools and the curriculum and reflected on the norms and practices imposed
upon them by schools. Thus, each teacher’s actions were fundamentally rooted in an
intention to transform society. By providing the space that enabled students to develop
their own critical voice and act upon the injustices imposed within the society, these
teachers challenged status quo ideologies and practices designed to maintain their
students’ social status.
Critical literature. Literature also offers a way of engaging in such critical
discussions. Carefully chosen literature, particularly in English and social studies
courses, offers teachers the opportunity to discuss challenges and conflicts across history
(Athanases, 2006). Purposefully selecting literature that illustrates a particular critical
topic provides students the opportunity to critique the situation reflected in the literature
(Kersten, 2006). Pierce (2006) found that when she selected children’s literature with
critical themes, elementary school children had an opportunity to develop critical
vernacular. Children’s verbal responses to literature, as well as their illustrations and
written responses, evidenced their perception and opinion of the unfair treatment of the
characters they studied.
Such curricular texts send a clear message regarding the official knowledge of the
school, demonstrating power relationships, and indicating whose stories warrant
particular attention (Apple, 2004). The teacher has significant impact on legitimizing this
knowledge, serving as a knowledge gate-keeper by choosing what literature, what school
37

texts, and what critical issues to expose students to. In some cases, teachers who practice
critical pedagogy may feel compelled to reject the curricular texts and literature by
collaborating with the students to expose the subversive practices of the school. Kersten
(2006) found this to be true and she explicitly provided the space to enable students and
teachers to discuss these critical issues within the classroom. The researcher-teacher used
an elementary social studies curriculum to spark discussions about the insular way
historical accounts of certain minority groups were represented in the mandated
curriculum. She and students concluded that the school-sanctioned social studies text
inadequately represented the stories of various diverse groups.
To summarize, the central objective of critical pedagogy is to encourage students
to develop their own ability to critically analyze the social structures that surround them
in order to redress inequality and ultimately transform society. The use of real-life
experiences and literature encourages students to develop their critical voice. Using the
research process and critical dialogues, students have the opportunity to develop higher
order critical and academic skills within a meaningful social problem. Teachers’ explicit
rejection of traditional school practices, literature, and curriculum not only enhanced
students’ academic achievement in each of these cases, it served the larger purpose of
empowering students to disrupt the status quo within their schools and in the larger
society. Engaging in critical pedagogy, a practice not typically endorsed by schools is the
responsibility of the teacher (Giroux, 1985). Teachers therefore are seen as the sole
architects of classroom spaces (Giroux, 1985) that enable students to develop a critical
38

voice and collaboratively engage in critical action that seeks to redress social inequity in
order to transform society (McLaren, 1989).
Summary of the Literature Review
The purpose of this section was to review the literature on contemporary notions
of equity pedagogy. Contemporary notions of equity pedagogy involve an application of
knowledge about the learner, learning, and the subject matter in ways that connect with
and build upon the students’ personal experiences and knowledge from the home culture,
and provide equitable access to learning. The literature revealed that some teachers
possess an acute understanding of students’ culture and how to create a supportive
learning context. The dynamic of these two elements invariably facilitates learning for
their low-income, minority students. The extent and depth of cultural knowledge these
teachers possessed exceeded the extent of knowledge possessed by most teachers.
Curricular content, participatory structures, patterns for social discourse, and methods for
developing academic language and thinking protocols were derived from this cultural
understanding. There was no presumption that certain protocols and curriculum were
appropriate for their students, rather, the instructional and curricular strategies they
selected were fundamentally prefaced on an evaluation of which instructional and
curricular practices would most likely enable students to learn academic content.
These teachers also engaged in critical pedagogy. By using strategies not
typically endorsed by schools, these teachers were seen as part of a social and political
movement that critiques the structures that traditionally maintain students’ low status.
They refused to accept the belief that low-income, minority students were not capable of
39

learning high critical levels and challenged traditional ways of thinking in which
instruction is typically disconnected from culture. By equipping students with content
knowledge and higher critical thinking skills, students were able to engage in critiquing,
analyzing, and evaluating the social structures that seek to preserve the status quo within
schools and the larger society. These teachers constituted a critical movement that sought
to fundamentally transform society as it presently exists.
The literature reviewed in this chapter has focused on studies that have been
conducted on a small scale, looking at the instructional and curricular practices of
teachers who had been identified as engaging in effective teaching. This literature
revealed that none of these teachers viewed students and their cultural backgrounds as a
barrier to learning. Instead, they viewed students as capable individuals and leveraged
such cultural information to create learning experiences that resulted in high levels of
learning. By creating an environment laden with high expectations and using methods
based on students’ cultural background, these teachers upheld the tenets of equity
pedagogy and ultimately, social justice.
It is this element of social justice that informs the goals of the Teach For America
program. This organization endeavors to recruit, select, and prepare their participants to
utilize equitable practices in the classroom and, collectively, eliminate the achievement
gap. While some literature has studied student-learning outcomes of TFA participants
(see Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Raymond, Fletcher, & Luque,
2001), there is a deficit of literature available that has closely examined the daily
instructional practices of a participant who has completed the TFA preparation program.
40

This study will add to the literature on equity pedagogy by examining the instructional
and curricular practices of a single CM at one school site. By focusing on the
instructional and curricular practices used by this CM, the study will document ways this
CM integrates the background of her students, her knowledge of learning, and her
knowledge of the content area to create a supportive learning context for her second
grade students. It is hoped that researchers, policy makers, educational organizations,
and educators, specifically within the Marylebone Unified School District, will gain a
deeper understanding of the instructional and curricular practices of a CM and the school
site factors that may impede success. The following chapter discusses the specific
methodology that will be employed in this study.

41

CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the design, context of the study, data collection and
analysis procedures, limitations and delimitations, trustworthiness of the data, and
presents the ethical considerations of the proposed study. In the last chapter the pertinent
literature was reviewed as a means to understand how teachers use equity pedagogy to
facilitate learning for low-income, minority students. From this review, a framework was
presented for understanding these practices through a contemporary conceptualization of
equity pedagogy that includes: (a) tools of power and access (Delpit, 1988); (b) culturally
congruent instructional and participatory practices (Hollins, 2008); (c) supportive
classroom environments (Hollins, 2008); and (d) critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989).
The literature revealed that teachers who engage in equity pedagogy strategically utilize
knowledge of their students, learning, and the content area to make instructional and
curricular decisions. This provided the impetus for the selected research design. This
study explores the extent to which a Teach For America (TFA) corps member (CM)
actualized her commitment to social justice in an urban classroom by applying
contemporary notions of equity pedagogy at one school site. Specifically, this study
sought to answer the following questions:
1. To what extent do the learning experiences and curriculum content planned by a
teacher who completed the Teach For America program reflect contemporary
conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?
42

2. What are the social and cultural school-site factors that impede implementing
contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?
In the following sections, I will discuss: (1) design of the study, (2) context of the study,
(3) data sources, (4) limitations and delimitations, (5) trustworthiness of the data, and (6)
ethical considerations.
Design of the Study
A qualitative case study was selected because this enabled the study of a
particular phenomenon in greater depth and detail (Merriam, 1998). Furthermore,
qualitative researchers believe human behavior is significantly influenced by the setting
in which it occurs; thus, behavior must be studied in context (Marshall & Rossman,
2006). A qualitative case study was chosen in an attempt to capture the complex and
varied ways a CM engaged in equitable instructional and curricular practices and the
school site factors that impeded full implementation of these practices. In light of
Marshall and Rossman’s (2006) findings, the elementary school classroom was the only
setting that would lend itself to understanding how a CM applied knowledge of students
to curricular and instructional decisions.
Qualitative researchers typically focus on relatively small samples to provide an
in-depth perspective of the phenomena being studied (Patton, 2002). The original
intention was to study a group of CMs at a single school site. Initially, after permission
was acquired from both TFA and the principal of the proposed school site, all second
year CMs at the school site were contacted by email. Of the three CMs solicited, only
43

one volunteered to participate in this study. Therefore, this qualitative case study
involved one CM who taught second grade at Baker Street Elementary.
Context of the Study
Teach For America
Teach For American (TFA) is a non-profit organization that recruits, selects, and
prepares talented college graduates who commit to teaching two years in some of the
nation’s highest need classrooms. With a current national corps of over 6,000 CMs, the
organization maintains a presence in 29 rural and urban areas profoundly affected by the
achievement gap; collectively, CMs impact over 400,000 students each year. Since the
organization’s inception in 1990, the TFA alumni network has grown to more than
14,000 members who have impacted over 3 million students in the process.
Summer institute. Despite the fact that the organization’s teacher preparation
program remains a controversial one, adequately preparing CMs for the classroom
remains a priority for TFA. The intention of the 5-week summer training institute is to
prepare CMs to be successful teachers in their own classrooms as well as raise the
academic performance of the children in their summer school classrooms. Entering CMs
participate in a five-week summer institute conducted in six different regions across the
United States. Under the close supervision of local veteran teachers and TFA staff
members, CMs participate in a number of clinics and courses to build their knowledge of
teaching and apply this knowledge to a classroom context.
Institute curriculum. At the core of the summer institute is the institute
curriculum, which is provided to CMs prior to beginning their training. Based on the
44

research and evaluation of the organization’s most successful CMs, the summer institute
curriculum is designed to create a foundation of teaching knowledge used throughout
their Institute training experience and during the subsequent two year teaching
commitment. A summary of the summer institute curriculum appears in Table 1.
Table 1: TFA Summer Curriculum (2008)
Coursework Description of Coursework
Teaching as leadership Focuses on the overarching approach of
successful teachers in high-minority, high-
poverty communities.
Instructional planning and delivery Presents a goal-oriented, standards based
approach to instruction, including
diagnosing and assessing students, lesson
planning and instructional delivery.
Classroom management and culture Teaches how to build a culture of
achievement to maximize student learning.
Diversity, community and achievement Examines diversity-related issues new
teachers may encounter.
Learning theory Focuses on learner-driven instructional
planning.
Literacy development Explores elementary and secondary
methods for teaching literacy.

Note: Reprinted from “Elements of Institute Coursework” by Teach for America.
Copyright 1996-2009 by Teach for America. Retrieved from
www.teachforamerica.org/corps/training.htm.

Programmatic structure. In addition to the institute curriculum, CMs are
engaged in a number of teacher activities as part of their training. A typical summer
institute training day is described in Table 2.
45

Table 2: TFA Institute Programmatic Structures (2008)
Programmatic Structure Programmatic Description
Teaching CMs teach summer school students for
approximately two hours each day, under
the supervision of experienced teachers.
For the first hour, most CMs work directly
with four to five students to build skills in
math and literacy, which also builds the
teacher’s skills for facilitating student
group work. For the second hour, CMs
lead a full class lesson.
Observations and feedback TFA instructors observe every CM several
times each week, provide them with written
feedback, and engage in debrief
conversations.
Rehearsal sessions In small groups CMs rehearse the delivery
of upcoming lessons and to respond to
management challenges.
Lesson planning clinics CMs develop objectives, determine the
assessments that will be used to evaluate
student progress, select the appropriate
instructional methods to meet the
objectives, and flesh out their plans in
greater detail.
Curriculum sessions TFA instructors present essential material
that all new teachers need to know to be
effective, which is an extension of the
written curriculum.
Reflection sessions CMs reflect on student achievement data,
student work, and the feedback and
observations of TFA instructors, veteran
district teachers, and other CMs.

Note: Reprinted from “Components of the Summer Training Institute” by Teach for
America. Copyright 1996-2009 by Teach for America. Retrieved from
www.teachforamerica.org/corps/training.htm.

46

Collectively, these activities form the TFA summer institute. The purpose of the summer
institute is to provide CMs with tools and strategies that will enable them to be successful
in high-minority, high-poverty schools.
The District
Located in one of the most diverse areas in the United States, Marylebone Unified
School District currently serves over 15,000 students. Forty-two percent of the students
are considered English Language Learners, 100% represent a minority group (e.g.
African American, Hispanic/Latino), and 78% receive free or reduced price meals. This
diverse population is also reflected in the overall student composition at Baker Street
Elementary
1
which currently serves over 500 students. Of the 12 elementary schools
within the district, Baker Street Elementary is one of the lowest performing. During the
2007-2008 school year, the school reported only 19% of its student population performed
at or above proficient according to results from the California Standards Test for English
Language Arts (California Department of Education, 2008).
The School
Baker Street Elementary is a traditional tracked school with kindergarten through
sixth grade located in Marylebone Unified School District. Tables 3 and 4 depict
demographic information for Baker Street Elementary.

1
The original name of the school has been changed.
47

Table 3: Baker Street Elementary (K-6) Enrollment by Ethnicity (2007-2008)
% of Total Enrollment
Ethnicity Enrollment
School District
American Indian 1 .2 0
Asian 0 0.0 .1
Pacific Islander 0 0.0 .2
Filipino 3 0.6 2.3
Hispanic/Latino 498 95 62.4
African American 19 3.6 9.6
White (not of Hispanic origin) 0 0.0 15.4
Multiple/No Response 3 0.6 1.8
Total 524 100.0 100.0

Adapted from 2007-2008 Profile of School, by Ed-Data, Education Data Partnership.
Copyright 2009 by Education Data Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us.

Table 4: Baker Street Elementary (K-6) Special Programs (2007-2008)
% of Total Enrollment
Special Population Class School District County State
English Learners 52` 44 28.7 24.7
Free/Reduced Price Meals 89 85 58.4 49.7
Compensatory Education 75.6 56 69.6 51.5

Adapted from 2007-2008 Profile of School, by Ed-Data, Education Data Partnership.
Copyright 2009 by Education Data Partnership. Retrieved from http://www.ed-
data.k12.ca.us.

48

Currently, there is one administrator on staff at Baker Street Elementary. According
to the 2007-2008 School Accountability Report Card (SARC), there were 29 teachers
teaching at Baker Street Elementary, with 72% of the staff identified as fully
credentialed. About 17% of the staff holds an internship credential (for teachers who are
currently completing their teacher training program) while the statewide average is 2%.
About 10% of the staff holds an emergency credential; the statewide average is 2%. The
teaching staff is about 44% Hispanic, 27% African American, 17% White, 3% Filipino,
and 9% other.
Participant Description
Rita, a 25 year old White woman who grew up in a middle class home in a diverse
urban neighborhood is the focus of this investigation. After meeting to discuss the
proposed study, Rita volunteered to participate, anticipating this process would provide
an opportunity to better understand and improve upon her own teaching practice.
Background
Over the course of her K-12 experience, Rita went to a combination of private and
public schools. She described school as a primarily positive experience and credited
many of her teachers throughout her high school career for supporting her pathway to
college.
Rita admitted that she was keenly aware of the discrepancy between the quality of
educational opportunities provided to her, an identified honors student, and her diverse
counterparts who were tracked into mainstream courses. Her diverse peers’ courses were
“much less challenging,” according to Rita. She recalls this situation with some sadness:
49

Even though the stuff I got in honors was not that challenging, I couldn’t believe how
little my friends got in their classes. At least in my English class I got Shakespeare.
They were barely reading stuff that would probably be considered below grade level.
But it didn’t mean my friends were less capable. I just don’t think anybody expected
them to read Shakespeare.

These educational observations inspired her career pursuits after high school. Upon
graduating from college, Rita became a labor organizer. She credited this “non-stop 24
hour experience” with equipping her with the tenacity and desire to create more equitable
environments for “those with less opportunity”. Compelled to direct her advocacy efforts
towards education, Rita next decided to work with TFA. The mission of the organization
indicated she would have an opportunity to create equitable environments for “those with
less opportunity.”
Classroom Description
Currently, Rita teaches a classroom of 20 diverse students at Baker Street
Elementary. Six students are identified as Initially Found English Proficient (IFEP), the
remaining students are designated English Only (EO), and each student is on the free or
reduced lunch program. In order to achieve a highly structured, rigorous learning
environment, Rita was intent on maintaining order and structure in her classroom.
Students were placed in four or five person groups around the room. At the center of
each group a box of communal pencils and crayons were placed. Daily schedules were
always written on the board and routines, procedures, rules, and consequences were
clearly defined. When students did not meet expectations, they were quickly informed.
Only student work and the most essential instructional tools hung on the walls of
Rita’s classroom. Alphabet letters and corresponding sounds were posted clearly above
50

the chalkboard. Instructional posters created during lessons were posted around the
room. During lessons, Rita would reference the posters. For every bulletin board
featuring student work, the correlating standard and objective was also posted. Posters
tracking classroom and individual academic progress (e.g. math facts and sight words)
were clearly posted on cabinets. Most of the back wall of the classroom was reserved for
the classroom library.
Data Sources
In qualitative research, the use of multiple data sources provides a comprehensive
perspective that enables triangulation of the data (Patton, 2002). The data sources used in
this study included (a) participant interviews (b) classroom observations (c) planning
session observations.
Interviews
The purpose of conducting an interview is to collect information about the
participants’ feelings, opinions, emotions, or ways of making sense of a particular
phenomenon (Patton, 2002). For each interview conducted, an interview guide was used
to provide consistency. I used an interview protocol developed by Hollins (2008), which
was designed for student teaching coordinators’ use in directing student teaching
feedback discussions. The biggest concern in conducting the interviews was to avoid
communicating any expected response to the participant. It was important for the
participant to honestly describe the strategies she intended to use without being
influenced in any way. Prior to data collection, I field-tested the interview questions from
the pre- and post- interview with student teachers I’d previously worked with in my
51

capacity as a student teaching coordinator. I audio recorded these pre- and post-
conversations between my student teachers in order to reflect on my own delivery of the
interview questions.
All interviews accommodated Rita’s schedule to ensure minimal disruption of her
daily classroom routine. A total of thirty semi-structured pre- and post- interviews were
conducted. I used a notepad and pen to record my notes. The interview was audio
recorded and transcribed the same day. Although the interview questions were
predetermined, spontaneous questions designed to pursue related topics were also used.
During the pre-interview, Rita had the opportunity to comment on specific teaching
strategies she anticipated would support students’ learning in the context of the lesson
observed. Post lesson discussions occurred either during recess or at the end of the
school day. During post lesson discussions, I asked Rita to comment on whether or not
the strategies she identified did in fact support learning. If strategies did not support
learning, I asked her to reflect on what factors she believed prevented the success of the
articulated strategy.
Additionally, a 60 minute background interview was conducted. I used this
interview to gather information on her personal teaching philosophy and details about her
background prior to teaching.
Classroom Observations
Rita was observed once a day using a structured observation protocol, totaling 15
lesson observations lasting approximately 60-120 minutes each. The structured
observation protocol required notes to be taken on the classroom activities as well as
52

student responses to the activities. Marshall and Rossman (2006) suggest that researchers
should avoid assuming a contrived role of researcher and should try to not to disrupt the
dynamic of the context. To avoid this disruption, researchers (e.g. Dillon, 1989; Ladson-
Billings, 1994) have spent time as participant-observers working both as a researcher and
a “teacher’s assistant.” My role as a participant-observer stemmed from these studies.
I began by spending two weeks as a teacher’s assistant in order for Rita and her
students to authentically engage in learning while being observed. During this period my
intention was to establish rapport with both the CM and her students so my presence
would not be perceived as a disruption during the formal data collection stage. Time
spent as a teaching assistant also allowed me to better understand the overall learning
environment. For example, I had the opportunity to understand the working relationship
Rita had with her colleagues, her students, and the parents. I accompanied her to grade-
level planning sessions, and attended school-wide assemblies and professional
development sessions. I used a notebook to summarize the observations and impressions
from each day.
Rita volunteered her daily reading comprehension lessons for observation. To
ensure accuracy, audiotapes of each lesson were recorded. This enabled verification of
each occurrence of equity pedagogy. After each lesson I would also record my initial
thoughts.
Planning Session Observations
Planning sessions were used to understand the way Rita designed, selected
material, and prepared the instructional experiences she used to facilitate learning.
53

Planning sessions formally occurred once a week with her grade level. Rita would also
independently plan lessons after school. These sessions were also recorded and
transcribed. During these sessions, I looked specifically at how she selected material for
the upcoming lesson and the justification she provided for using the selected material. My
intention was to better understand the way she made decisions using student data, state
curriculum, and the personal information she knew about her students.
Data Analysis
Qualitative case studies are designed to place researchers in the field to observe
activities, to record what happens, and to analyze and the information gathered. This
researcher’s goal was to collect data and to systematically analyze the data in order to
provide a description and interpretation of the meaning of the case study.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) stipulate that the qualitative researcher reaches new
meanings through the systematic analysis of specific instances until something can be
said about them as a whole. The data analyzed for this study were limited to the
instructional and curricular strategies Rita used during classroom observations, formal
and informal conversations, and planning sessions in order to develop an understanding
of the extent to which Rita applied equity pedagogy.
Strauss and Corbin (1998) describe the process of coding data where observations
are classified into categories. Transcripts of the interviews and classroom observations
were reviewed in order to identify the themes that emerged. Contemporary
conceptualizations of equity pedagogy framework were used to analyze the data
collected. To answer the research question, “To what extent do the learning experiences
54

and curriculum content planned by a teacher who completed the Teach For America
program reflect contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?” the four
categories of equity pedagogy described in Chapter Two were used to create a table;
these four categories are the table headings. Within each category, there were specific
curricular and instructional practices I looked for derived directly from the literature I
reviewed. For example, when Rita stated she believed in using certain participation
structures, I highlighted the word “think-pair-share.” To answer the second question,
“What are the social and cultural school-site factors that impede implementing
contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?” I looked for reoccurring themes
across all data pieces. The words and actions of the participant were analyzed line by
line. After the initial coding was completed, I analyzed the identified words and
behaviors and coding information. This process revealed three different categories.
From these three categories, I considered patterns of response and behavior within each
category for the case study. Correspondence across data sources was sought for the
purpose of triangulation. Data were visited, revisited, and examined as I formulated my
interpretations.
55

Table 5: Themes and Indicators
Themes Indicators
Research Question #1: To what extent do the learning experiences and curriculum
content planned by a teacher who completed the Teach For America program reflect
contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?
Tools of power and access (Delpit, 1988) Concepts taught through familiar
experience
Listening and responding to classmates
Speaking in complete sentences
Speaking behavior
Reading is thinking
Model thinking
Culturally relevant instructional practices
(Hollins, 2008)
Collaboration
Positive reinforcement
Use of cultural knowledge
Making connections
Student background
Supportive classroom environments
(Hollins, 2008)
Facilitator
Emphasis on the learning process
High expectations
Students treated as knowledge producers
Students initiate their own participation
Positive classroom culture
Scaffold thinking
Positive reinforcement
Turn to your partner
Collaboration
Progress
Critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989) Academic and critical thinking skills are
explicitly developed
Social problem solving
Corrective action
Critical view of knowledge
56

Table 5, Continued

Research Question #2: What are the social and cultural school-site factors that inhibit
these teachers from implementing contemporary conceptualizations of equity pedagogy?

Standardized curricular practice Green, red, blue section
Reservation
Time Standardized test
Worried about test
Instructional scheduling decisions Skills practice
Test prep

Limitations and Delimitations
The study is limited to a case study of a CM who teaches second grade at Baker
Street Elementary in the Marylebone Unified School District. Data collection was
limited to a 5-week period during the Spring 2009 semester. Confined to open-ended,
semi-structured interviews and observations, the case study approach was designed to
examine the degree to which the participant applied knowledge of her students to the
instructional and curricular decisions made within each classroom. This case study also
explored the school-based factors that limited the implementation of equity pedagogy.
Several factors could not be controlled for in this study, including the quality of
professional development at the school-site. This includes the content and frequency of
grade-level meetings and school-wide professional development activities. Furthermore,
the resources made available to this teacher could also influence the results. For
example, the participant was limited to a maximum number of homework and classwork
copies per month, which affected the content of the learning experiences provided in the
57

classroom. Given this, the results of this study may not be generalizeable to CMs in
different settings and the findings may be subject to other interpretations.
Trustworthiness of the Data
Because qualitative research is based on an interpretation of the data, it is
important that a researcher take the appropriate steps to ensure that the participant’s voice
and teaching practices are adequately represented. One way to establish this is through
the triangulation of data sources which strengthens the findings (Patton, 2002). For this
purpose I used interviews, classroom observations and lesson planning sessions. To
establish trustworthiness, I employed several strategies. Based on the work of Dillon
(1989), who took measures to ensure the data analysis and interpretations generated were
valid and reliable, my daily data analysis consisted of reading and rereading field notes;
listening to the audiotape; reviewing the audiotape transcription; looking for patterns in
the data; reflecting on the patterns emerging from the data; and checking my
interpretations with the participant and outside parties. Central ideas emerging from the
interviews, my reactions, informal conversations, and field notes from Rita were
identified and placed within the appropriate equity pedagogy category: (a) tools of power
and access (Delpit, 1988); (b) culturally valued knowledge, concepts, and social
interactions (Hollins, 2008); (c) supportive classroom environments (Hollins, 2008); and
(d) critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989). These categorical identifications were visited and
revisited throughout data collection and analysis to ensure the concepts were placed in
the best category. The end goal of this analysis was to understand whether or not the
58

strategies identified by Rita supported student learning in addition to identifying the
school site factors that impeded equity pedagogy.
For the interview questions, the goal was to design questions that enabled the
participant to freely discuss viewpoints rather than leading towards predetermined
responses. The questions were tested in two ways. First, the pre- and post-interview
protocol was used with student teachers who were not participants in the study. These
conversations were audio taped and reviewed to ensure student teachers were allowed to
freely respond to the questions. Adjustments were made and potential probing questions
identified.
Another way trustworthiness was assured was by testing the initial interpretation
of the data with a fellow doctoral student unassociated with the study and with my
doctoral advisor. During these sessions, as expected, the initial findings were challenged
which led to clarification and elaboration of my ideas. Member checks also occurred
throughout the data collection process. Since data collection and analysis occurred
concomitantly in this study the initial interpretations were shared with Rita to ensure the
findings accurately reflected her perspective, as well as the researcher’s.
Ethical Considerations
One of the things I was most concerned about was developing rapport and trust
with Rita early on. Shelly Xu (2000) studied her preservice teachers’ practices during
their student teaching and was concerned because she served as her student teachers’
professor. In light of the fact that Rita’s Program Director (PD) would be aware I was
collecting data from her classrooms, that I would share the results of the study with TFA
59

Los Angeles, and that I was her former elementary methods instructor, I was concerned
Rita would feel obligated to provide a socially acceptable answer rather than
authentically describing how she believes she supports her students’ learning. To avoid
this early on, I built rapport by openly sharing my own frustrations and the positive
experiences I had as a CM teaching in South Los Angeles. Furthermore, I shared my
interpretation of Rita’s teaching practice throughout the data collection process. I
listened to her feedback and made adjustments accordingly.
My awareness of ways my experiences and beliefs may have influenced the
interpretation of the data was critical. I am a Chinese American female and former TFA
Los Angeles CM who is deeply committed to providing equitable learning opportunities
for low-income and minority students. During my TFA commitment, I worked with
urban, inner-city children who I believe embody the intellect, sensitivity, and creative
potential they are too infrequently given credit for. From this experience I came to
believe it was my responsibility to create a positive and supportive learning environment
for every child. I believe in “doing whatever it takes” in order to ensure children are
successful in the classroom; this is consistent with TFA’s mission. Too often classroom
teaching is casually linked to student learning. Blame is then placed on students who fall
short of academic expectations. Yet teachers teach the same curriculum and use the same
pedagogical practices year after year despite the fact that the students differ in their
classrooms. When teaching practice is seen as separate from the students, equitable
learning opportunities are denied. Equitable learning opportunities means employing
the best instructional or curricular strategy that supports the development of critical
60

thinking and academic content so that students are able to be independent, productive,
and contributing members of society. These experiences and my strong beliefs may have
influenced the way I interpreted the data. Therefore I shared the findings with my
advisor and another doctoral student unassociated with the study in order to obtain their
objective feedback.
It is easy to observe and critique the current educational environment. In engaging
in this study, I also reflected on my own inadequacies as a student teaching coordinator
preparing student teachers to teach low-income, minority children. This dissertation
study was part of my professional development in learning how to better support
teachers to teach low income, minority students.
Conclusion
A qualitative study that seeks to understand how a CM applies learner
characteristics to curriculum and teaching strategies and the school site factors that inhibit
the full implementation of these strategies is absent from the current literature. While
educators, researchers, and policymakers can agree that equitable learning opportunities
and equitable opportunities for all children is the desired end result, they know relatively
little about how CMs who have been purposefully selected and trained to work in high
poverty, high minority schools facilitate learning for children attending these schools.
Teacher educators, researchers, and policymakers, especially those at Baker Street
Elementary would benefit from the information produced from this study.

61

CHAPTER FOUR
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AND INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS
With the NCLBA there is unprecedented pressure to ensure that teachers are
prepared to provide equitable learning opportunities for all students. Researchers,
educators, and policymakers have struggled to define strategies that support learning for
all students, particularly low-income, minority students. This remains especially true for
Baker Street Elementary where district-wide content frameworks have failed to provide
specific descriptions of what equitable instructional strategies look like in the context of
the classroom.
Chapter four presents an analysis of the data collected from one Teach For
America (TFA) corps member’s (CM) attempt to actualize her espoused commitment to
social justice in an urban classroom. A qualitative case study methodology was used to
collect data in one CM’s classroom in a high-poverty, high-minority K-5 school in Los
Angeles. This chapter describes the participant’s application of contemporary
conceptualizations of equity pedagogy and the school-site factors that essentially
impeded full implementation.
For the purpose of this study, contemporary conceptualizations of equity
pedagogy included: (a) tools of power and access (Delpit, 1988); (b) culturally relevant
instructional practices (Hollins, 2008); (c) supportive learning environments (Hollins,
2008); and (d) critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989). Tools of power and access (Delpit,
1988) are the social and academic protocols students need to successfully participate in
school learning. Culturally relevant instructional practices reflect the extent to which a
62

teacher incorporates the skills and knowledge students bring from their home culture into
the curriculum (Hollins, 2008). Supportive learning environments are characterized by
the positive relationships a teacher purposely builds among students and with students, in
addition to the participation structures employed in the classroom (Hollins, 2008).
Critical pedagogy provides students with the critical and academic thinking skills to
engage in corrective action within school and within the larger society (McLaren, 1989).
In the following section, a description of the extent to which the learning experiences and
curriculum content implemented by the CM reflect equity pedagogy is provided and the
results of this study are described, including the extent to which the CM engaged in
equity pedagogy and the school-site factors that impeded it.
Tools of Power
Within the school context, teachers are ideally placed in a position to teach tools
of power (Delpit, 1988). The extent to which a teacher provides access to these socially
sanctioned rules and norms determines the extent to which a student successfully
participates in the classroom context (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). While these tools are
taught with the intention of increasing student success within the classroom context,
teachers who practice equity pedagogy also acknowledge and respect that students have
brought with them a set of tools that enable them to successfully participate in their home
culture. Rather than expecting students to relinquish the culturally based tools of power,
these teachers expect students to maintain the tools of power they bring with them while
learning the tools required to be successful in the classroom context. The utility of either
set of tools is not judged. Rather, developing an understanding for when and how to use
63

these tools is what is most important. These socially sanctioned rules and norms include
academic language (Moses et al., 1989), protocols for social discourse (Delpit, 1988;
Howard, 2001), and academic conventions for thinking and processing knowledge
(Herrero, 2006). A discussion of how Rita uses tools of power in her classroom follows.
Academic Language
Acceptance into an academic community requires members to demonstrate
conceptual understanding of the academic content area. Individuals must be familiar
with both concepts and the academic language associated with that particular content
area. Teachers who successfully facilitate the acquisition of academic language do so by
initially grounding students’ conceptual understanding in a familiar experience prior to
the introduction of academic language (Moses et.al., 1989). Similarly, Rita used a three-
step approach to initiate conceptual understanding, which was followed by the use of
academic language. Rita’s three-step approach involved: (1) grounding conceptual
understanding in an experience familiar to students, (2) requiring students to describe the
concept in their own words, and (3) incorporating the academic language into their daily
academic discussions.
To develop conceptual understanding, Rita first capitalized on experiences that
were familiar to the students. During an introductory lesson on the fossilization process,
Rita introduced the concept of dissolve:
What does dissolve mean? This is a very complicated word here. Dissolve is
actually another way for saying fall apart. How many of you have actually seen
Alka-Seltzer medicine? You know when you take a white chalky thing and you
put it in the water and then it starts to fizzle away and it falls apart right in the
water? We call that dissolve. How many of you have ever eaten hard candy?
64

Anybody? Tootsie roll? Lollipop? Hard candy? Jolly Ranchers? Yup, most of
you! Okay, when you put the candy in your mouth and you suck on it for a long
time it goes away. How many of you suck on it and you pull it out and it’s
smaller than it was before? (Every student raises their hand.) That’s what we call
when it starts to dissolve. So, this is what we mean when we say the carcass of
the dinosaur begins to dissolve, or goes away over time.

To demonstrate the meaning of dissolve, students’ conceptual understanding was
anchored (Moses et.al., 1989) in an experience Rita knew would resonate with her
students. Using this example enabled students to make an immediate connection between
a familiar experience and the academic content. Linking conceptual information to a
familiar experience provided the academic foundation students subsequently used to
build upon later in the lesson.
In the next step, Rita asked students to apply this familiar experience to the
academic context by having them describe the concept in their own words. This
particular lesson culminated in a sequencing task that required students to describe the
fossilization process in their own words. It was important for students to discuss the
concept from a familiar language perspective, which enabled students to experience the
concept at a conscious level. In subsequent fossilization discussions, students effectively
incorporated academic language into their daily science discussions. In other words,
initial conceptual development via a familiar experience, followed by an opportunity to
describe the academic concept in their own language, enabled students to ultimately
appropriate academic language. This process ensured students developed their
understanding of the academic concept from a familiar perspective prior to establishing
academic language. Inherent in the use of familiar cultural experiences is a belief that the
65

experiences students bring with them to the classroom are both valuable and necessary to
leverage in order to build academic understanding. Not only did Rita leverage students’
experiences to facilitate the acquisition of academic language, she also held a particular
expectation for social discourse in the classroom.
Protocols for Social Discourse
Just as there are rules for developing academic language, there are also rules of
engaging in social discourse in the classroom. Teachers who teach tools of power
(Delpit, 1988) establish expectations for social discourse to ensure classroom time is
committed to developing academic understanding rather than managing behavior. These
teachers concurrently place value on the protocols for social discourse students bring with
them from their home culture (Howard, 2001). In Rita’s classroom, she expected
students to adhere to certain discourse patterns that she defined for the classroom; yet,
she failed to acknowledge that students brought with them culturally rooted discourse
practices.
Rita expected her students to consistently speak in complete sentences during
classroom discussions. In other words, one word answers were not acceptable in Rita’s
classroom. Students understood that speaking in complete sentences framed every
academic conversation that ensued within the classroom. Even a correct one word
answer elicited a mid-answer request from Rita to provide the answer in a complete
sentence. In the event a one word answer would be provided, students would backtrack
and reformulate their answer to address this discourse expectation. Any time a student
did not meet this expectation, Rita pointed to a sign posted above the center of the
66

chalkboard that read: “We speak in complete sentences here.” According to Rita, this
discursive expectation enabled students to successfully participate in class and prepared
them to participate in mainstream culture. In reinforcing this discourse pattern Rita
missed opportunities to model speaking in complete sentences. Rather than waiting for
students to complete their answers, Rita interrupted them in the midst of their answers
and thought processes. If she had elected to wait for students to completely articulate
their answers, she could have modeled both the correct answer and the language pattern
she expected, thereby enhancing the extent to which students internalized this
information.
Rita also taught students the discourse patterns associated with speaking in
complete sentences by requiring students to engage in active listening and responding
which meant students should have their eyes on the speaker and should refrain from
talking. Students had to raise their hands to request permission to participate, followed
by an acknowledgement of the request, and then make a declaration as to whether or not
they disagreed with their classmate. Disagreeing with a classmate required students to
explain why they disagreed. After a lesson on adjectives, I asked why she insisted that
students adhere to such discourse patterns:
They [students] don’t speak standard American English. They speak like a much
more relaxed kind of English as opposed to incredibly proper academic English.
But what we consider academic English, they don’t speak—which most people
actually don’t speak in any case. Rather they speak in some kind of vernacular.
This is the only time [in school] anyone could ever expect them to do this. You
have to teach them how to use this. I spend time talking with my students about
the difference between what I call formal English—what we use at work and in
the classroom—and informal English, how we speak to friends…. This process
[active listening and responding] helps students listen to each other. It affirms
67

students who participate and facilitates other students who would otherwise not
participate. It tells me they’re really listening to what each other is saying and
this is an important skill beyond the classroom. You have to demonstrate active
listening and that you’re actually listening and responding appropriately.

Rita felt personally responsible for preparing her students to successfully participate in
professional and classroom contexts. The distinction between “how we speak to friends”
and “what we use at work and in the classroom” communicated that different contexts
have different discourse expectations (Delpit, 1988). But this belief seemed to be
inconsistent with Rita’s actions in the classroom. Although “how we speak to friends”
and “what we use at work and in the classroom” generally require different discursive
protocols, Rita did not appear to identify these differences for students. This omission
seemed to suggest students’ cultural linguistic patterns and the behavior associated with
such were expected to be relinquished in lieu of adopting a discourse expectation that
from her perspective constituted a normal classroom interaction. In doing so, she seemed
to reinforce these social discourse patterns as universal truth. Her universalist
perspective, a perspective grounded in a narrow belief that there are defined, appropriate
ways of interacting in a classroom, suggests she may have devalued or was unaware of
other culturally based social protocols. By teaching protocols of social discourse in this
manner, Rita may have fulfilled her responsibility to teach the discourse protocols of her
classroom but she failed to see the value of students’ culturally based linguistic
backgrounds or lacked the cultural knowledge necessary to effectively incorporate such
culturally based discourse patterns. Concurrently, she effectively reinforced the status
quo by legitimizing the practice of such tools she mistakenly perceived as natural.
68

Academic Conventions for Thinking and Processing Knowledge
Teachers who explicitly teach academic conventions for thinking and processing
knowledge not only provide ample opportunities for students to practice but also are
strategic in helping students acquire these skills. A teacher can develop these academic
conventions by using culturally familiar material (Herrero, 2006) and by showing
students how such conventions are routinely used in their own environment (Lee, 1994).
Culturally familiar material provides a familiar context that students can use to
build upon in developing critical thinking skills (Herrero, 2006). Using culturally
familiar material reduces the amount of time a teacher must use to explain the content
and enables teachers to commit the majority of class time to developing academic
conventions for thinking and processing knowledge. In Rita’s classroom, she leveraged
culturally familiar material in developing such conventions. After reading a passage
from Sheila Rey the Brave, Rita used the familiar situation of walking home alone to
develop students’ analytical and inferential skills. Because students related to both
“Sheila Rey,” the character and the situation she found herself in, this provided the
familiar base needed to focus on the task of analyzing and drawing inferences. Students
already understood the concept of walking home. Rita was able to focus her instructional
efforts on helping students develop the academic conventions.
Designing an appropriately structured lesson is equally important. The structure
of the lesson should support the development of a particular convention at the level
students bring with them to the classroom (Lee, 1995). Following each modeled skill,
Rita provided a “thinking map” for students to use to scaffold their understanding of the
69

identified skill. Thinking maps “organize their thoughts” and provide students with a
frame to practice applying the skill. For example, developing comparing and contrasting
thinking skills involved the use of a venn diagram. A structured sentence frame Rita
provided to help students verbally demonstrate proficiency in using the skill further
supported this. For example, analyzing two characters might require the sentence frame
“The differences between these characters are . . .” These three appropriately scaffolded
strategies (modeling, thinking maps, and sentence frames) enable students to develop
their understanding of such a convention and to practice applying the strategy. As
students become more adept at applying these academic conventions, this scaffolded
process helps students become self-regulating learners who are able to compare and
contrast independently.
The literature review revealed that teachers who practiced equity pedagogy were
intentionally helping students develop tools of power (Delpit, 1988), which include
academic language (Moses et al., 1989), protocols for social discourse (Delpit, 1988;
Howard, 2001), and academic conventions for thinking and processing knowledge
(Herrero, 2006; Lipka, et al., 2005). Furthermore, teaching tools of power (Delpit, 1988)
was ultimately a matter of personal responsibility from the teacher’s perspective because
this enabled students to successfully participate in the classroom context and focus on
developing academic understanding. In teaching academic language and academic
conventions for thinking and processing and knowledge, Rita’s use of culturally
appropriate situations (e.g. dissolving candy and walking home), thinking maps, and
sentence frames appeared not only to enhance students’ learning, but also encouraged
70

students to develop the skills necessary to become self-regulating learners. The teaching
strategies described in these instances demonstrate how Rita was able to identify the
appropriate scaffold to further her students’ learning. Her students’ cultural background
was not taken into consideration when she established the social discourse protocols for
her classroom. Rita was deliberate and intentional in teaching various discourse patterns
and she expected these patterns, including “speaking in complete sentences,” “[keeping
your] eyes on the speaker,” and “[keeping your] mouths closed” to guide classroom
interactions. Her preconceived belief was limiting and impeded the cultural linguistic
patterns that students brought into the classroom. This limited understanding of culture
reflected a belief that her understanding of “the way school works” was one to be taken
as unanimously true across all school contexts. The purpose of teaching tools of power
can also be perceived as a means to disrupt the status quo. Using culturally based
discourse protocols signifies that mainstream discourse protocols typically believed to be
universal are not universal. If Rita had rejected the use of such mainstream practices in
lieu of her students’ culturally based discourse patterns, she may have created a
classroom environment in which students were free to focus on academics as opposed to
having to control their behavior, concurrently disrupting the status quo. As we will see in
the next section, this lack of cultural understanding also limited the extent to which Rita
was able to engage in culturally relevant instructional practices.
Culturally Relevant Instructional Practices
A teacher who uses culturally relevant instructional practices understands the
cogent role culture plays in the learning process (Hollins, 2008). This understanding is
71

demonstrated by incorporating culturally valued knowledge, culturally based
representations of concepts and ideas, and culturally appropriate social situations to
facilitate learning (Hollins, 2008). Implicit in the use of culturally relevant instructional
practices is the value teachers place on the skills and knowledge children bring with them
to school (Ladson-Billings, 1994). The following section discusses the extent to which
Rita leverages students’ cultural knowledge by using such knowledge to enhance
learning.
Culturally relevant content builds on the values and culturally relevant
experiences of students while enabling them to succeed academically (Ladson-Billings,
1994). Because standardized curriculums typically provide generic learning experiences,
Rita purposefully recreated the curricular examples embedded in the standardized
curriculum to reflect her students’ backgrounds. These isolated culturally relevant
examples enabled Rita to build on students’ prior knowledge to provide an adequate
context for learning. During a lesson about adjectives, Rita demonstrated how she built
on students’ prior knowledge to explain the concept of adjectives.
R: So an adjective will tell you “What kind is it?” “Which one is it?” and “How
many?” If you do not have an adjective and your mom asked you to go in the
kitchen and you walk and you open the refrigerator and there’s like three different
kinds of milk—one is chocolate, one is regular, one is strawberry. What are some
different ways she can describe to you which type of milk to get?
S: You would say ‘Which kind of milk do you want?’
R: Okay. Or she might say ‘I want the one in the middle.’ You would say?
E: How many do you want?
R: Right. So by describing the type of milk or where the milk is this makes it
easier.

72

Leveraging this culturally relevant activity of retrieving milk from the refrigerator, Rita
effectively demonstrated the importance of using adjectives. This isolated example
served as a discursive stimulus which subsequently enabled students to deepen their
academic understanding. The level of the dialogue indicated students not only
understood what an adjective was, but also revealed students’ keen understanding of the
principles of using adjectives. In collaboration with Rita, students were able to identify
principles related to the use of adjectives: to describe placement or type.
Culturally relevant material was not consistently used. While this was a method
Rita used for some lessons, other lessons reflected the use of a standardized curriculum
that did not work as well for her students. After delivering one unsuccessful standardized
lesson on division, she expressed her frustration: “I feel like I’ve taught this lesson so
many times already and they still don’t get it!” As a beginning teacher, this instructional
admission suggested Rita either did not have the skill or knowledge to understand the
importance of making connections between students’ prior knowledge and the new
information or that she may simply have lacked the content knowledge. Simply
providing repeated exposure without further considering how the material builds from
students’ prior knowledge inhibited students’ learning. In this sense, “contextualizing
school” (Lipka, et al., 2005) or making a more meaningful connection between school
and community seemed to be a challenge Rita struggled to overcome.
The use of culturally relevant material enhances learning opportunities for
students (Rickard, 2005). This strategy provides students with a foundation to draw from
in developing conceptual understanding (McCarty et.al., 1989). Although Rita used
73

culturally relevant information to design isolated examples to introduce concepts, this
method was inconsistently used throughout her lessons. Reliance on the standardized
methods suggested Rita did not yet value how instruction directly related to one’s ability
to build upon and extend students’ prior knowledge. Her frustration with identifying the
appropriate scaffold to facilitate an understanding of division also exposes her lack of
student background knowledge. Possessing a deeper understanding of how students think
about the concept or identifying a familiar experience to build a connection between
concrete and abstract (Moses et.al., 1989) may have helped Rita better identify a more
meaningful instructional or curricular strategy to support her students’ learning. This
lack of knowledge also seemed to impact the extent to which she was able to build a
supportive learning environment for her students. While Rita valued the relationships she
built with students, the supportive classroom she hoped to provide was limited by the
artificial participatory interactions she imposed upon students. The following section
describes the extent to which Rita was able to provide a supportive learning environment
for her students.
Supportive Classroom Environment
The relationship between the student and the teacher has a very powerful
influence on the extent to which the student feels comfortable and supported in the
classroom (Hollins, 2008). The degree to which a student feels supported by his or her
teacher will also influence the extent to which a student engages in learning (Hollins,
2008). A teacher who builds a supportive classroom environment does so through the
relationships built among and with students and the participation structures utilized.
74

Relationships with Students
“You have to have a good relationship with your kids. Then they will do things
that ordinarily they wouldn’t do for others,” explains Rita. In this sense, Rita makes
building positive, supportive relationships with her students a priority. The following
section discusses how Rita builds positive and supportive relationships with her students
by using strategies such as: (1) using scaffolding questions to support learning and (2)
emphasizing academic progress. This builds a sense of psychological safety (Ladson-
Billings, 1994) as Rita works to communicate to her students that she cares about their
learning.
McCollum (1989) suggests that teachers who practice equity pedagogy
purposefully create situations where students are made to feel successful even in
instances where success may not be so obvious. In this sense, Rita builds positive,
supportive relationships with students by creating opportunities where students are
assured academic success. For example, whenever a student struggled to answer a
question in front of the whole group, Rita intervened and used a number of scaffolding
questions to guide the student towards the correct answer. Though she would not provide
the correct answer, students were never marginalized for failing to know the answer. The
supportive scaffold she provided whenever students appeared to struggle communicated a
sense that she cared enough to support and enhance students’ academic development.
This supportive relationship was also communicated through the value she placed
on academic progress. She communicated this by publically tracking individual student’s
progress on brightly colored charts. Rita found that the charts “motivate my kids to know
75

that it’s their work that they put into learning. It’s like a concrete reminder.” These
publicly displayed tracking charts enable Rita’s students to explicitly see the academic
progress they make over time. She intentionally communicated that the number of sight
words read or math facts passed did not matter. What is most important is the academic
progress achieved over time and the hard work that goes into accomplishing that
progress. This enabled Rita to celebrate every student’s accomplishments, not simply
those who achieved high marks.
Participation Structures
Use of a culturally congruent participation structure adds to a supportive learning
environment (Au and Kawakami, 1985). When social situations are familiar to students,
this enables them to focus more effectively on the academic task at hand rather than
trying to remember the tacit rules of participation (Au and Kawakami, 1985). The
participatory structures Rita used in her classroom reflected two elements: (1) an
understanding of the structures students appeared to be most comfortable with and (2) the
participatory expectations she imposed on students. In the first participation structure,
Rita encouraged her students to interact with one another and incorporated these
opportunities into her lessons. To signal this participation structure, questions posed to
the whole group were immediately followed by a request to discuss the answer with a
partner prior to sharing with the larger group. In using this strategy, Rita explains her
rationale:
I think they [students] just feel more comfortable when they have an opportunity
to try their answers out before sharing with the whole group. They also just like
being social. And this is one way to make sure they’re using that in a useful way.
76

Thus, participatory productivity is driven by her observation that students “like being
social.” Rita applies this observation by providing students an opportunity to exercise
their social skills in class. Once a question is posed in class, students are encouraged to
initially discuss their answer with their partner. However, the freedom to interact with
one another did not dominate classroom interactions. Most discussions were guided by a
set of rules for social discourse which stipulated that requests to participate needed to be
indicated by a raised hand. Contributions to the discourse were thus directed by Rita;
violating such rules for participation resulted in previously agreed upon consequences as
indicated by a consequence chart posted in the back of the classroom. When the
participatory structure was disregarded, Rita applied a consequence to the unsolicited
answer in order to restore the teacher-directed conversation. This artificially imposed
expectation seemed to contradict her intention for creating a supportive learning
environment. Rather, it emphasized her desire to maintain order and conformity as she
expected the Eurocentric turn-taking protocol to be used. Rita allowed her previously
held conception of appropriate school structures to override her decision-making in the
classroom. Rather than being open to different culturally based discursive patterns, she
decidedly implemented this turn-taking protocol without considering the turn-taking
protocols her students may have been more accustomed to using. Consequently this
inhibited student learning; students now had to focus on an unfamiliar discursive protocol
while concurrently developing their academic understanding.
77

To build a supportive learning environment Rita communicated that she cared
about her students’ learning by building positive relationships with her students. Her use
of scaffolding questions and her emphasis on academic progress suggests a desire to
maintain positive relationships with her students. Her observation that “students enjoyed
being social” and her subsequent use of partner discussions also seemed to support these
intentions. However, the Eurocentric participatory structure of turn-taking, reinforced by
the use of a consequence chart appeared to emphasize her belief that order and
conformity were necessary to maintain most classroom discussions. Rita never
questioned her reliance on a consequence chart to reinforce this participatory structure;
nor did she stop to consider how such an artificially imposed structure inhibited students’
learning. Such structures were presumed appropriate in light of her desire for student
success in “life beyond the classroom.” Again, we see where Rita’s limited knowledge of
students’ culture as well as a narrowly defined conception of the classroom inhibited her
creation of a consistently supportive learning environment. These ideas of order,
conformity, and assimilation also contradict the goals of critical pedagogy. In the next
section, the extent to which she executed critical pedagogy is discussed.
Critical Pedagogy
Many teachers who practice contemporary notions of equity pedagogy do so by
also engaging in critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1985). This method includes the deliberate
development of critical and academic thinking skills while concomitantly enabling
students to assume the critical responsibility of analyzing, challenging, and acting upon
the social ideology that preserves their low status (Arce, 2004). While Rita espoused a
78

desire to prepare students for “life beyond the classroom,” her instructional and curricular
actions appeared to prepare students to assimilate into the status quo.
One critical method a teacher may draw upon is reconceptualizing the school
curriculum to provide students with critical opportunities to act upon social injustices
imposed upon them. Examples of this include engaging in critical discussions (Arce,
2004), analyzing school curriculum (Kersten, 2006), using specifically chosen literature
to discuss critical themes (Pierce, 2006), or analyzing and solving community based
problems through content related activities (Tate, 2005). Rather than redressing this
curriculum to include these experiences, Rita chose to adhere primarily to the content of
the school curriculum. The literature she used was especially problematic. Rita missed
critical opportunities to select literature that addressed both academic and critical
expectations. During one particular planning session, Rita worked with her colleagues to
evaluate the literature in an upcoming science unit on dinosaurs:
Rita: That one has no story and it’s sooo boring. I say skip Monster Tracks
because Monster Tracks is really hard to understand unless they can do it hands
on.
T2: Okay.
Rita: And to do the whole “making of something” is a whole extra effort and time
which we won’t have especially if this story comes up the same time we have a
state test.
T2: The state test we’ll be starting “Courage.” So we’re not going to do
[inaudible].
T1: Well if we pick that one then at least you can do a quick CD read we can play
the CD so at least they’re exposed to it.
T2: But is it going to be on the test?
Rita: This looks good. This looks way better than Monster Tracks.
T2: Should that one be so for Look Again or should Camouflage go first? All of
the words? This is the unit where [inaudible].
T1: Dinosaur books they can look at.
79

Rita: This is the unit though you gotta be prepared going in. It leaps up. It’s like
darn near third grade.
T2: Yup, especially Why Did the Animals and the Dinosaurs Disappear? That’s
the hardest one!
Rita: So I say we just skip Monster Tracks because there’s no story and just
directions. And even though they do need directions for the state test I feel we
can find a better way to cover it. I mean do people disagree with me?

In this example, it is clear that literature is evaluated based on its utility towards the state
test, the degree to which it engages students, and the time constraints the teachers faced
in using certain pieces of literature. If Rita had evaluated such literature through a critical
lens, she may have challenged the premise of the literature provided, challenged the
cultural perspective presented by the author, questioned whether or not students could
relate to the book, or sought to include more books from authors students could relate to
(Athanases, 2006). Absent from this dialogue was any criticism of the themes,
perspectives, or content of the literature itself. Rather, the literature was accepted as
verifiable truth. Based on this, Rita may not have even been aware such an allegiance to
a curriculum’s literature and learning experiences potentially promote the status quo
ideology that works directly against her goal of helping students be successful in “life
beyond the classroom.”
Rita also seemed to be uncritical of the classroom practices she promoted. For
example, Rita’s favor towards teacher-directed conversation and a consequence chart
seem to suggest reliance on a method that promotes order and conformity, a theme that
critical theorists would argue work against the social and political goals of critical
pedagogy. Thus, it was not the practice but rather, the uncritical stance that Rita assumed
that was most problematic. Rather than teaching the turn-taking protocol as a practice
80

intended to be used in the context of her classroom, Rita presented the protocol as a
universally accepted truth. In other words, her actions reflected a belief that the turn-
taking protocol guided all other classrooms and she unquestionably expected students to
adhere to such a protocol. Furthermore, she did not question reliance on a consequence
chart to reinforce this behavior. If Rita was utilizing a critical perspective, she would
have questioned this classroom practice, she would have been open to using a discourse
protocol drawn from students’ cultural backgrounds, and she would have rejected the
ideology promoted through the use of a consequence chart.
Overall, Rita’s actions seemed to suggest she made instructional and curricular
decisions through an uncritical lens. Rita did not incorporate reflective or critical
questions and discussions (Arce, 2004); students did not analyze and solve meaningful
community problems (Tate, 1995); Rita did not incorporate additional literature that
would help students develop a critical perspective (Athanases, 2006; Pierce, 2006); nor
did students question power relationships and status quo norms imposed upon them by
school practices (Arce, 2004). Rita seemed to operate from a perspective that presumed
the school curriculum and practices she promoted were unproblematic and as a result she
inadvertently perpetuated the status quo. By choosing to accept and promote such
practices, Rita accomplished the opposite intention of a critical pedagogue: she facilitated
the assimilation of her students into the low status position originally intended for them.
This suggests that Rita lacked the critical knowledge necessary to evaluate her own
classroom beliefs and actions and the consequences of such beliefs and actions. These
findings raise an important question with respect to Rita’s teacher preparation program.
81

Similar to the responsibility Rita bears as a teacher preparing her students to achieve
academic success, what responsibility do teacher preparation programs such as TFA,
traditional teacher education programs, and other teacher support programs bear in
preparing their teachers to engage in equity pedagogy and social justice?
Conclusion
Based on the literature review and my understanding of equity pedagogy the
findings of this study were somewhat unexpected. As expected, the study found that Rita
explicitly taught tools of power (Delpit, 1988). The scaffolding strategies Rita used were
intentionally selected to develop students’ self-regulatory learning behavior. For
example, her expectation that students explain concepts in their own words, in addition to
her use of sentence structures, were strategies utilized specifically to enhance learning.
The degree to which students could develop these skills was limited by the discourse
protocols Rita reinforced in the classroom. To be successful in Rita’s classroom, students
were expected to adhere to these expectations despite the fact that it interfered with their
learning. From her perspective, the establishment of such a discourse structure appeared
to be based on a previously held conception of what constituted appropriate classroom
interactions. If she had operated from an equity pedagogy conception, then Rita would
have pursued developing a deeper understanding of the discourse structures that students
brought with them to the classroom and leveraged this structure in order to make learning
more accessible to her students.
Rita’s limited understanding of students’ cultural knowledge was apparent in the
content and instructional strategies she employed. While Rita did utilize culturally
82

relevant examples to introduce concepts, this happened inconsistently. Her inconsistent
application of such culturally based learning experiences suggests she either did not have
the depth of knowledge required to fully implement culturally relevant instructional
strategies, did not value students’ cultural background as a resource for learning, or did
not fully understand how such a practice was directly linked to student outcomes.
The practices Rita engaged also limited the extent to which she could create a
supportive learning environment. While she described relationship building as a priority,
emphasized students’ academic progress, and used appropriately scaffolded questions to
support students’ learning, the instructional and curricular decisions she made
contradicted this intention. Most classroom conversations followed Eurocentric
classroom protocols where students would initiate a request to participate by raising a
hand. Furthermore, the protocol was reinforced, requiring students to relinquish their
culturally based identities in order to successfully participate in classroom discussions.
From her limited perspective, these protocols constituted typical classroom interaction.
In addition, Rita’s use of a consequence chart suggested a desire to establish a rigid and
controlling classroom structure, directly contrasting the goals of critical pedagogy. Rita
failed to critically evaluate the school curriculum and practices she utilized and thus
inadvertently prepared her students for assimilation into society according to the status
quo.
While Rita espoused a commitment to providing an equitable learning
environment predicated on social justice, her preconceived beliefs of what constituted
appropriate classroom instruction, her unquestioning allegiance to the provided content,
83

and the expected discourse interactions hindered the extent to which she could achieve
this goal. Rather than drawing on the background knowledge of her students to design
curriculum, create learning experiences, engage discourse, and subsequently achieve her
goal of creating an equitable learning environment, she actually limited learning.
Whether she was aware of this or not, the practices Rita felt so strongly bound to actually
reinforced the hegemonic practices of the status quo. Rather than creating an equitable
learning environment, she created a classroom environment based on conformity and
order derived from a universalist perspective that remained unchecked and unchallenged
by Rita, TFA, or the elementary school site administrators. Rita’s belief regarding what
constituted an equitable classroom was not the only constraining factor that subsequently
limited the extent to which she could engage in equity pedagogy. Rita also struggled to
manage various school-site elements. The following section discusses the school-site
factors that limited the implementation of equity pedagogy in Rita’s classroom.
School-Site Factors
The second research question asks what school site factors impeded the full
implementation of equity pedagogy in Rita’s classroom. Standardized curricular
practices, standardized schedules, and restricted resources are all factors that potentially
impede the full implementation of equity pedagogy. These factors influence instruction
only to the extent allowed by the teacher. Analysis of the data suggested Rita struggled
to implement elements of culturally relevant instructional practices (Hollins, 2008) and
critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989). Teachers who engage culturally relevant
instructional practices use cultural information to design instructional experiences
84

(Hollins, 2008). Critical pedagogy (McLaren, 1989) suggests the end goal of instruction
ultimately empowers students to collectively act upon the imposed beliefs and structures
that serve to preserve their low status. Teachers who engage in critical pedagogy provide
the space to enable students to pursue such action (Collatos et al., 2004). In this sense,
both elements of equity pedagogy rely on students’ prior knowledge, interests, and needs
being incorporated in order to appropriately structure instructional experiences. Rita’s
consistent deferral to traditional school practices limited the extent to which she could
enact culturally relevant instructional practices and critical pedagogy. The following
sections discuss the school-site factors that influenced the extent to which Rita could
enact identified elements of equity pedagogy.
Culturally Relevant Instructional Practice
Successful implementation of culturally relevant instructional practice is
contingent on the extent to which a teacher utilizes students’ background to build upon
and extend this knowledge in order to facilitate learning (Hollins, 2008). The academic
content, the learning experiences, and the participation structures used in class are based
on students’ cultural backgrounds (Hollins, 2008). The implementation of this form of
equity pedagogy was limited because Rita felt constrained by the standardized curricular
practice and the amount of time necessary for covering the required content knowledge.
Standardized curricular practice. Rita limited the application of cultural
information to isolated academic examples within lessons used to demonstrate an
academic concept. These isolated culturally-based examples provided a familiar context
which helped students develop conceptual understanding. Culturally relevant
85

information appeared limited in the design of instructional units. Instructional units
provide an overarching framework which connects a series of lessons to accomplish a
particular instructional goal. For example, a math unit with an overarching instructional
goal of “finding an area” may involve isolated lessons on measurement and
multiplication. Framing instructional units through a cultural perspective not only
validates student background knowledge, but also facilitates the acquisition of academic
skills (Lipka, et al., 2005). Rather than drawing from a cultural perspective, Rita
defaulted to the curricular units provided by the standardized curriculum. Her concern
for electing to adhere to the standardized curriculum is salient:
This is the only reflection they [administration] have of me if I’m doing my job or
not. And so the things that I’m doing that go ‘off the reservation’, the things I
want to do I can’t. She’s going to look at my scores and say you know what your
scores aren’t reflecting that you need to go back on the reservation.

From Rita’s perspective, this instructional decision was justified—pursuing a curricular
unit that “went off the Open Court reservation” was not an option available based on the
stipulations mandated by her administration to use the standardized curriculum. Thus, to
defy this expectation in lieu of pursuing a curricular unit based on students’ cultural
background presented a risk Rita was unwilling to take: “I need to do stuff just to keep
my boss happy. I mean, I like my job.” For her, binding instructional and curricular
decisions about the curriculum were dictated by professional and personal desires.
Time. Teachers who desire to enact culturally relevant instructional methods
inherently take time to learn about students’ background. This may require teachers to
explicitly build or seek out opportunities in and out of the classroom to better understand
86

cultural information in order to design appropriate learning experiences (Ladson-Billings,
1994). Though Rita expressed a desire to understand her students’ background, she
struggled to successfully collect this information outside of the context of the classroom.
Collecting cultural knowledge ideally occurs during school, after school, and before
school. And though there were opportunities for Rita to pursue this knowledge, she
constantly felt obligated to spend this time engaged in bureaucratic activities stipulated
by her administration. For example, some occasions required Rita to complete “check off
lists” after school during which she had to verify certain items posted in her classroom
(e.g. standards and learning objectives) and turn the list in to her administration. This is
not to suggest such administrative responsibilities are not valuable. However, it did
constrain the extent to which Rita could engage students and their families outside of the
classroom because she struggled to manage her time. Despite the fact that Rita believed
deepening her understanding of students would positively affect her instruction, electing
to ration her afterschool time to completing administrative work was ultimately reflective
of the way she chose to prioritize her instructional responsibilities.
An over-reliance on standardized curriculum contradicts the notion of culturally
relevant instructional strategies. Because this method requires student-based information
to formulate instructional experiences, teachers must have a deep understanding of the
students’ backgrounds. Though Rita demonstrated she was able to use this during
isolated classroom examples, she failed to use this cultural information to design
cohesive academic units that blended both the academic goals of the classroom and
students’ culture. Rita also felt particularly constrained by the mandates imposed by her
87

administration to adhere to the standardized curriculum. She feared the consequence of
deviating from the curriculum more than the consequence of her students potentially
failing to learn a particular concept. Lack of time also proved to be a constraining school
site factor. Much of her free time, time that potentially could have been relegated to
engaging students and their families outside of the classroom, was used to satisfy
administrative responsibilities. By doing this, Rita chose to limit her cultural
understanding of her students in the classroom context.
Critical Pedagogy
The defining expectation of critical pedagogy is to enable students to pursue
action in order to challenge the ideology and practices imposed upon them by the status
quo; they not only pursue this action for themselves, but on behalf of others (McLaren,
1989). Though Rita espoused a desire to prepare students for “life beyond the
classroom,” critical pedagogy was constrained by standardized curricular practices and
instructional scheduling decisions she made.
Standardized curricular content. Her reliance on the literature and learning
experiences of the standardized curriculum constrained the extent to which students could
pursue critical action. For example, during a language arts unit, one learning goal
stipulated that students should be able to compare and contrast story characters at the
conclusion of the unit. With this, the lessons Rita subsequently planned supported the
acquisition of that defined learning goal. While Rita’s end goal was to equip students
with the academic skill of comparing and contrasting, this skill was limited to the content
provided by the curriculum. Rita could have purposefully selected literature to fulfill
88

both the academic and critical requirements. Selecting literature that met these critical
intentions would have provided Rita’s students with the opportunity to perhaps critique
the author’s perspective, critique the plot of the story, discuss cultural representations
(Athanases, 2006), or even attempt to solve a meaningful social problem (Tate, 1955).
Instead, her uncritical perspective led her to presume that the content provided by the
standardized curriculum was appropriate. This consistent deferral suggested that Rita
might not have been aware of such critical perspectives even though she espoused a
belief in social justice.
Instructional schedule. In addition to a reliance on the standardized curriculum
content, Rita’s instructional intentions were also driven by the state standardized test.
Because Rita’s end-of-year goal was to ensure her students performed well on this state
exam, instructional time was consistently allocated to daily test preparation drills and
lessons executed from the standardized curriculum. These decisions failed to include
time to pursue critical social action. For example, every morning began with a “checking
skills review” during which students were provided with a set of grammar and math
review questions. A portion of instructional time was also dedicated to isolated skills
practice made to simulate an actual state test. And while such an exercise enabled Rita to
assess students’ application of such critical and academic thinking skills, no opportunity
existed for students to develop their critical conscious. For her, adequate fulfillment of
her instructional responsibility rested on her ability to prepare her students to be
successful on the state standardized test. Rita believed that this ability was limited to
89

standardized curricular lessons and test taking preparation skills which failed to support
critical action.
Indeed, Rita’s overreliance on the content of the standardized curricular units and
her instructional scheduling decisions limited opportunities for students to pursue critical
action. Furthermore, Rita chose to allot instructional time to executing standardized
lessons or test preparation drills, which also reduced the opportunities for students to
independently pursue social action.
Conclusion
Using contemporary notions of equity pedagogy, I presented a case study of a
single CM in her second year that detailed the extent to which she implemented equity
pedagogy in her classroom. I discussed the extent to which she implemented: (a) tools of
power and access (Delpit, 1988); (b) culturally relevant instructional practices (Hollins,
2008); (c) supportive learning environments (Hollins, 2008); and (d) critical pedagogy
(McLaren, 1989) and also looked at the constraining effects of certain school site factors.
While I believe Rita’s intention to teach her students was genuine and grounded
in a social justice belief, the instructional and curricular practices she engaged in did not
consistently support this. Instead of accomplishing her espoused social justice goal,
Rita’s instructional and curricular actions promoted an assimilationist goal as she
immersed students in classroom practices predicated on two conceptions: (1) her
narrowly defined conception of the classroom and (2) her limited understanding of
culture. The narrow conception Rita held of the classroom was reflected in what she
believed constituted an “effective classroom.” This “effective classroom” included
90

Eurocentric patterns of discourse, teacher-directed protocols, and an inconsistent use of
cultural examples. She presumed these practices to be universally accepted, failed to
question the ideology she promoted when reinforcing such classroom practices, and
subsequently validated her use of such practices in an effort to prepare her students for
“life beyond the classroom.”
This narrowly defined conception was evident in the curricular experiences she
elected to pursue. As Rita planned her learning experiences, she deferred to the content
of the standardized curriculum. Using standardized curriculum is not necessarily
problematic; yet the uncritical perspective Rita assumed was problematic. For example,
Rita failed to utilize literature that encouraged the development of students’ critical
dialogue, she failed to incorporate opportunities to discuss critical social issues, and she
never questioned the skill-based learning experiences she often limited students to.
Instead, Rita evaluated the curriculum based on its usefulness in state test preparations
and whether or not such experiences worked within the time constraints she faced on a
daily basis.
The lack of equity pedagogy and critical pedagogy used could also be attributed
to Rita’s limited knowledge of students’ culture. As Moll et al. (1992) suggest,
developing this knowledge base may require lengthy time commitments outside of the
classroom. Rita was constantly challenged by time limitations. She clearly had difficulty
balancing the rigors of her instructional and administrative responsibilities and often
relied solely on the content of an unexamined standardized curriculum, even when such
learning experiences failed to yield the learning outcomes she desired. Rita did not make
91

developing this cultural base was a priority, which suggests Rita may not have
understood the connection between culture, the learning experience provided, and the
learning outcomes acquired. Based on findings from this study, it remains unclear as to
whether Rita understood the tenets of equity pedagogy, critical pedagogy, or social
justice. TFA may have selected her for her espoused commitment to social justice but
based on these findings, Rita was inconsistent in implementing equity pedagogy and did
not appear to understand the negative consequences of perpetuating the hegemonic
classroom practices she chose not to question. Given her permeable understanding of
equity pedagogy and social justice, was Rita as successful at raising student achievement
as TFA hoped? And if she was, what is the greater consequence to our society if we
allow such classroom practices to persist? While student achievement was not the focus
of this investigation, this question remains an important one to consider.
These findings also raise important questions surrounding the TFA selection
process and training program. If Rita was purposefully selected based on her espoused
commitment to social justice and equipped with the strategies deemed by TFA necessary
for raising student achievement, is the TFA program effective at selecting and helping
CMs develop an understanding of social justice? Does TFA have a developed
understanding of social justice? If Rita was responsible for teaching her students, what
role does TFA bear in ensuring she was able to successfully engage equity pedagogy?
These questions, in addition to the implications from this study are discussed in the
following chapter.

92

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The central problem addressed in this qualitative case study was that of preparing
teachers for teaching traditionally underserved low-income and ethnic minority students,
and determining the extent to which a teacher who espouses a commitment to social
justice and equity pedagogy, in fact, applied the principles of equity pedagogy in the
classroom. The teacher participating in this study was prepared through Teach for
America (TFA). Teach for America is a program that selects high performing college
students with a commitment to social justice who are willing to make a two-year
commitment to teaching in high needs schools, and provides minimal teacher preparation
followed by placement as teachers in high needs schools. This study did not seek to
determine the extent to which the application of the principles of equity pedagogy
facilitated student learning, but rather, the extent to which the teacher consistently applied
the principles of equity pedagogy. Based on the review of the literature, it was assumed
that providing culturally relevant instruction, one aspect of equity pedagogy, would
increase access and opportunities for learning for underserved students. In the following
section, I present a summary of the research findings, provide recommendations for
policy and practice, and conclude with recommendations for further research.
Summary of the Research Findings
The findings from this study revealed that the participant, Rita, did not
consistently apply the principles of equity pedagogy and the goals of critical pedagogy
were not apparent in her classroom practices. Instead, Rita vacillated between a student-
93

centered and a teacher-directed participation structure in the classroom, was inconsistent
in the use of culturally-based examples to facilitate conceptual understanding, favored
Eurocentric patterns of social discourse, and felt constrained by the traditional curriculum
and the time needed to cover the required content. In conversation, Rita expressed caring
and concern about her students’ learning and their future. She talked about the
importance of using aspects of culturally relevant pedagogy, building supportive
relationships with and among students, and helping students acquire the tools of power
and access. However, the practices in Rita’s classroom were not consistently congruent
with her conversation. Although Rita desired to raise the achievement of her students she
did not have a developed understanding of how student experience and classroom
practice are directly connected to learning. Furthermore, she did not question certain
classroom practices that appeared to promote a classroom based on conformity and order,
nor did she question the implications of expecting students to unquestionably comply.
Based on the theoretical perspective of socio-cultural learning, she may have benefitted
from learning experiences that provided her the opportunity to both observe, dialogue,
and co-construct knowledge that would serve to enhance this connection. These findings
have implications for the TFA preparation program which are discussed in the following
section.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings from this study suggest Rita might have benefitted from additional
learning experiences that would help her to develop a better understanding of equity
pedagogy, critical pedagogy, and social justice. The sociocultural theoretical perspective
94

on learning suggests that Rita might have benefitted from more interaction with
experienced teachers, peers, and students during her professional preparation. The
following discussion details recommendations for the Teach For America program in
addition to other teacher preparation and support programs which include: (1)
mentorship, (2) peer collaboration, and (3) developing student knowledge.
Mentorship
Findings from this study indicate that Rita might have benefitted from interactions
with teachers with expertise in equity pedagogy and critical pedagogy. Rita could have
spent time observing a mentor teacher engaging in equity pedagogy and critical
pedagogy. These observations could have included opportunities to observe and co-plan
student learning experiences. The dialogue between Rita and the mentor teacher might
focus on the way the mentor teacher applied their understanding of students to the
learning experiences developed. In the event the learning experience failed to yield
positive learning outcomes, the subsequent dialogue might focus on why the mentor
teacher believed the learning experience failed and how one might revise the learning
experience. This would provide Rita with a concrete understanding of how to evaluate
the literature used to develop both academic thinking skills and a critical perspective.
Mentor teachers who effectively engage critical pedagogy and equity pedagogy could
help Rita by scaffolding her conversation about equity pedagogy to practice. Through
guided teaching events monitored by the mentor teacher, Rita would practice executing
equity pedagogy and critical pedagogy and receive invaluable feedback.
95

The findings from this study also indicated Rita struggled to manage her time and
was overreliant on the standardized curriculum to provide the learning experiences she
elected to use. Observing and planning with a teacher who expertly engages equity
pedagogy and critical pedagogy well would enable her to consider how a teacher
manages such school site factors. Practical skills such as managing after school time,
creating an instructional schedule, and grading procedures could be gleaned from this
experience. Having a better understanding of how to manage these factors would
increase Rita’s ability to focus on equity pedagogy and critical pedagogy once she
entered her own school site.
Peer Collaboration
The socio-cultural theoretical perspective on learning also seems to suggest
participating in dialogue with peers would support the co-construction of knowledge
about student learning and pedagogical practices. Rita might have benefitted from
working with other corps members or teachers from her grade level which would have
provided her with the opportunity to discuss challenges specific to her classroom. To
maximize the effectiveness of this co-collaborative dialogue, conversations could be
specifically structured to lead teachers through a dialogue that enables them to discuss
their knowledge about student learning and pedagogical practices and develop a solution
to the challenge posed. Evaluation of the solution could be based on the learning
outcomes achieved at the conclusion of the learning experience. If the learning outcome
is not positive, then this co-collaborative cycle would be revisited until the pedagogical
strategy devised effectively yields positive learning outcomes. This cyclic dialogue with
96

peers places responsibility on the teachers for student learning rather than students when
instructional lessons are unsuccessful.
Developing Student Knowledge
Findings from this study highlight the lack of student cultural knowledge Rita
possessed. Rita’s narrow conception of the classroom was evident in her inconsistent use
of culturally-based examples to facilitate conceptual understanding, teacher-directed
participatory structures, and the reliance on Eurocentric patterns of social discourse.
Such a classroom was presumed to be acceptable in any context. Talking with students
would help Rita understand their background experiences and how they might be linked
to classroom learning experiences. During the summer institute experience, Rita could
have engaged her students and families before, during, or after school, or during
community events in order for Rita to understand how to acquire cultural information
once in her own classroom. An understanding of how to apply this knowledge to a
learning experience could be further supported through work with a mentor teacher and
peer collaboration. In sitting down to individually plan or co-plan with others, she could
use this information to plan learning experiences specifically structured for her students.
Therefore, TFA needs to explicitly build such background collecting opportunities into
the summer institute schedule.
These recommendations are provided based on the findings from this study and
have been made based on the socio-cultural theoretical perspective on learning. This
theory on learning suggests that observing and dialoging with a mentor teacher who
effectively engages equity and critical pedagogy may have benefited Rita. Furthermore,
97

co-collaborating with peers may have enhanced Rita’s understanding of equity pedagogy
as the group might have collaborated to define a specific solution to a challenge Rita
faced within her classroom. Finally, the tenets of equity pedagogy and critical pedagogy
suggest a deep understanding of students’ cultural background would have been
beneficial in shaping the learning experiences Rita provided. Therefore, she would need
structured opportunities during the summer institute to collect such information and to
plan learning experiences using this information. These recommendations constitute a
stronger training experience through which Rita may have been better prepared to engage
equity pedagogy and critical pedagogy.
While Rita would probably have benefited from the support described in this
section, it is important to keep in mind that Rita was also selected based on her espoused
commitment to social justice. Thus, the findings from this study raise important
questions regarding teacher recruitment, selection, and preparation, specifically with
respect to the Teach For America program. The following section provides
recommendations for further research.
Recommendations for Further Research
Findings from this study raise questions about Teach for America’s practice of
recruiting and selecting individuals with a commitment to social justice and providing
them with minimal professional preparation.
First, what meaning and depth of understanding of social justice as it relates to
oppression in the larger society is held by those recruited and selected into the program?
TFA’s intention is to select and recruit individuals who espouse a commitment to social
98

justice. However findings from this study suggest Rita did not have a developed
understanding of this concept. It is possible this lack of understanding was limited to this
particular participant. Thus, information collected from a greater number of CMs is
necessary to make a complete evaluation of the social justice intentions of the CMs. TFA
may also need to reevaluate how they define social justice and the methods they use to
select individuals who espouse a social justice commitment. Interview questions, case
study questions, and essay prompts that are written specifically to uncover a potential
participant’s definition of social justice are a few examples that can aid the organization
in better understanding an individual’s espoused social justice intention. Following up on
the effectiveness of such recruitment and selection tools would be necessary.
Second, to what extent do participants link injustices in the larger society to
school practices? Are participants even aware the classroom practices they may intend to
implement are potentially linked to a perpetuation of the status quo? Information
gathered after summer institute teacher preparation seminars and other learning
experiences is needed to better understand the extent to which such experiences
successfully inform a participant’s understanding of this connection. Also, to what extent
do participants alter their own classroom practices once they realize such practices to be
oppressive? This information is particularly important to understand before CMs enter
their own classrooms.
Third, how do participants make sense of the connection between students’ home
culture, classroom practices, and learning outcomes for all students, including
underserved students? Luis Moll’s (1992) work has focused on helping teachers use
99

qualitative research practices that can be used to understand how home practices can
inform classroom learning experiences. Continued research in this area is needed so that
participants can better understand how to make this connection.
Fourth, how do participants view the teacher’s role and responsibility related to
learning outcomes for all students, including underserved students? More research is
needed that focuses on the how participants respond to school site factors once they enter
the classroom. Also, what happens when a participant provides a learning experience and
students do not favorably respond to it? Does this participant pursue a different way of
teaching the material or does this participant place blame on students? Answers to these
questions, in addition to a better understanding of the supportive interventions that can
help participants successfully manage such potential challenges is necessary.
Finally, how do participants learn to actualize their understanding of social justice
and equity pedagogy in the classroom? What are the results of the learning experiences
TFA provides during summer institute? One way of understanding this may be to assess
participants’ social justice disposition after the summer institute using a case study that
requires participants to respond to a “teacher-directed conversation,” for example. These
questions are important and warrant further study if we are to understand the value of a
commitment to social justice in recruiting and selecting candidates for preservice teacher
preparation.
Finally, for this study to have greater value and especially for applicability to
other schools and school districts, the study should be conducted on a larger scale with
several schools within one school district. A study across TFA placement cities would
100

also be reasonable, especially if trying to determine the extent to which such a study
could be used to help TFA improve their own teacher preparation program. This same
method of studying CMs instruction and curricular practices across different school sites
is also advisable to help both TFA and other school districts improve professional
development focused on the application of equity pedagogy. From a sociocultural
perspective, looking at additional support mechanisms, such as mentoring, coaching, and
peer collaboration would be helpful in designing learning experiences that help CMs,
preservice teachers and inservice teachers who have completed traditional forms of
teacher education develop and apply equity pedagogy. In broadening the scope of the
study, I would also recommend that grounded theory be considered. The intention of a
grounded theory approach would generate a systematically developed hypothesis,
allowing for a stronger substantiation of the findings.
Conclusion
The results of this study highlight the challenge of recruiting, selecting, and
preparing teachers to engage in equity pedagogy and social justice. I had hoped my
findings would add to the literature on effective teaching, particularly for the purpose of
better informing educational practitioners in Marylebone Unified School District. What
is understood more clearly from this study is that even though a teacher espouses a
commitment to social justice and may be explicitly selected to provide this, the teacher
may find it difficult to follow through with this commitment when confronted with the
challenge of managing school-site factors.
101

In closing this study, I am reminded of the basic task of equipping all children
with the critical and academic thinking skills necessary to be self-directing, contributing
members of this democratic society. On one hand, I am disappointed by the achievement
statistics that demonstrate we as practitioners are not adequately doing our job to educate
all students, particularly low income, minority students. Yet, I am encouraged by the
direction of current research (Howard, 2001; Lee, 2003) that is illuminating practices that
will help us provide equitable education. My hope is that in reading this study others will
recognize the necessity of “doing whatever it takes” to empower and enable teachers to
provide equitable learning environments with the ultimate goal of raising student
outcomes.

102

REFERENCES
Athanases, S. (2006). Deepening teacher’s knowledge of multicultural literature through
an university-schools partnership. Multicultural Education. Summer 2006. 17-
23.
Anyon, J. (1980). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. Journal of Education,
162(1). 67-92.
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. London: Routledge.
Arce, J. (2004). Latino bilingual teachers: The struggle to sustain an emancipatory
pedagogy in public schools. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 17(2), 227-246.
Au, K. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children:
Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91-115.
Au, K. & Kawakami, A. J. (1985). Research currents: Talk story and learning to read.
Language Arts, 62(4), 406-411.
Au, K. & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organization factors in learning to read: The
balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115-152.
Banks, C. A & Banks, J. A. (1995). Equity pedagogy: An essential component of
multicultural education. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 152-158.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of multicultural education. Review of Educational Research,
71(2), 171-217.
103

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and
the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, B. A. (2004). Discursive identity: Assimilation into the culture of science and its
implications for minority students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
41(8), 810-834.
Brown, B. A. (2006). “It isn’t any slang that can be said about this stuff”: Language,
identity, and appropriating science discourse. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 43(1), 96-126.
Collatos, A., Morrell, M., Nuno, A., & Lara, R. (2004). Critical sociology in K-16 early
intervention: Remaking Latino pathways to higher education. Journal of
Hispanic Higher Education, 3(2), 164-179.
Collinson, V. (1999). Redefining teacher excellence. Theory Into Practice, 38(1), 4-11.
Darling-Hammond, L, French, J., and Garcia-Lopez, S.P. (2002). Learning to teach for
social justice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who
they are: A micro ethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track
English reading classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 227-
259.
104

Dumont, R. V. (1972). Learning English and how to be silent: Studies in Sioux and
Cherokee classrooms. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions
of language in the classroom (p. 370-394).
Education Trust. (2006). Teaching Inequality. Retrieved from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/010DBD9F-CED8-4D2B-9E0D-
91B446746ED3/0/TQReportJune2006.pdf.
Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum International
Publishing Group, Inc.
Giroux, H. (1985). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social Education, 49(5),
376-379.
Haberman, M. (1995). Star teachers of children in poverty. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa
Delta Pi.
Herrero, E. A. (2006). Using Dominican oral literature and discourse to support literacy
learning among low-achieving students from the Dominican Republic. The
International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9(2), 219-238.
Hollins, E. (2008). Culture in school learning (2
nd
ed.). New York: Lawrence Earlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Howard, T. C. (2001). Powerful pedagogy for African American students: A case of four
teachers. Urban Education, 36(2), 179-202.
Kersten, J. (2006). “Why’s everyone White?” Moving toward critical pedagogy in an
elementary classroom. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 2,
31-38.
105

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children (1
st
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching African
American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 608-630.
Lee, C. D. (2006). ‘Every good-bye ain’t gone’: Analyzing the cultural underpinnings of
classroom talk. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(3),
305-327.
Lipka, J. (1991). Toward a culturally based pedagogy: A case study of one Yup’ik
Eskimo teacher. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22(3), 205-225.
Lipka, J., Sharp, N., Brenner, B., Yanez, E. & Sharp, F. (2005). The relevance of
culturally based curriculum and instruction: The case of Nancy Sharp. Journal of
American Indian Education, 44(3), 31-54.
Lynn, M. (2006). Education for the community: Exploring the culturally relevant
practices of Black male teachers. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2497-2522.
Mahiri, J. and Sablo, S. (1996). Writing for their lives: The non-school literacy of
California’s urban African American youth. The Journal of Negro Education,
65(2), 164-180.
Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designing qualitative research (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
106

McCarty, T. L., Lynch, R. H., Wallace, S., Benally, A. (1991). Classroom inquiry and
Navajo learning styles: A call for reassessment. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 22(1), 42-59.
McCollum, P. (1989). Turn-allocation in lessons with North American and Puerto Rican
students: A comparative study. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 20(2), 133-
156.
McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the
foundations of education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education
(2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Moll, L. C. and Diaz, S. (1987). Change as the goal of educational research.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18(4), 300-311.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., and Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory
into Practice, 31(2), 132-141.
Moses, R. P., Kamii, M., McAllister Swap, S., and Howard, J. (1989). The algebra
project: Organizing in the spirit of Ella. Harvard Educational Review, 59(4),
423-443.
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). NAEP reading grade 4. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/viewresults.asp.
107

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (2008). Professional standards
for the accreditation of teacher preparation institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.ncate.org/documents/standards/NCATE%20Standards%202008.pdf.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Peske, H. G. and Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority
students are shortchanged on teacher quality.
Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs
children in community and classroom. In C. B. Cazden, V. P. John, & D. Hymes
(Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (p. 370-394).
Pierce, K. M. (2006). Recognizing and resisting change: A teacher’s professional
journey. Language Arts, 83(5), 427-437.
Powell, R. R. (1996a). “The music is why I teach”: Intuitive strategies of successful
teachers in culturally diverse learning environments. Teaching & Teacher
Education, 12(1), 49-61.
Powell, R.R. (1996b). Epistemological antecedents to culturally relevant and
constructivist classroom curricula: A longitudinal study of teachers’ contrasting
world views. Teaching & Teacher Education, 12(4), 365-384.
Rickard, A. (2005). Constant perimeter, varying area: A case study of teaching and
learning mathematics to design a fish rack. Journal of American Indian
Education, 44(3), 80-100.
108

Silva, C. M., Moses, R. P., Rivers, J., and Johnson, P. (1990). The Algebra project:
Making middle school mathematics count. The Journal of Negro Education,
59(3), 375-391.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Tate, W. F. (1995). Returning to the root: A culturally relevant approach to mathematics
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 166-173.
Teach For America (2007). Our placement regions. Retrieved from
http://www.teachforamerica.org/corps/placement_regions/placement_regions.htm.
Teach For America (2008). Summer curriculum. Retrieved from
http://www.teachforamerica.org/corps/training.htm.
Teach For America (2008). TFA institute programmatic structures. Retrieved from
http://www.teachforamerica.org/corps/training.htm.
The Education Trust. (2003). African American achievement in America. Retrieved from,
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/9AB4AC88-7301-43FF-81A3-
EB94807B917F/0/AfAmer_Achivement.pdf
The Education Trust. (2003). Latino achievement in America. Retrieved from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/7DC36C7E-EBBE-43BB-8392-
CDC618E1F762/0/LatAchievEnglish.pdf
109

The Education Trust (2008, October). Raising achievement and closing gaps: Lessons
from on the performance frontier. Retrieved from
http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/B80E9D7B-3D91-4767-9161-
778963341293/0/mdannapolisceasom2008.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Executive summary of the No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Language and thought. Cambridge, MA: John Wiley and Sons,
Inc.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiner, L. (2002). Evidence and inquiry in teacher education: What’s needed for urban
schools. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(3), 254-261.
Xu, S. (2000). Preservice teachers in a literacy methods course consider issues of
diversity. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(4), 505-531.

110

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

BACKGROUND INTERVIEW

- I am interested in getting to know a little about your background and experiences
prior to coming to TFA. Can you tell me a little about yourself?
- Why do you think you were (un)/successful at school? What would you attribute
this to?
- What is your personal teaching philosophy?
- What do you believe effective teaching looks like?
- What do you believe drives success and failure in school?
- What do you do to ensure that each student is academically successful?
- Is there a relationship between students’ experiential background and successful
teaching and learning? If so, can you describe this relationship?

111

APPENDIX B

PRE-INTERVIEW
(Adapted from Hollins, 2008)

- What will students be learning about in today’s lesson?
- What do you know about your students’ background experiences within and
outside of school that might support learning the subject matter or skills that will
be presented? What special considerations might be important?
- What do you know about the subject matter or skills that support meaningful
learning for your students?
- What should be the specific goals or outcomes for learning?
- In this lesson, what pedagogical approaches or tools best support learning given
what you know about your students, the subject matter or skills they will learn,
and your objective of the lesson?
- What is the best context for learning the subject matter or skills (i.e. within or
outside the classroom, pair-shares, small groups, or individual, etc.)?
- What particular sequence of learning experiences might be the most productive in
this situation?
- What is the best approach to determining the extent to which learning goals or
outcomes have been accomplished?
- Is there anything you would like to add?

112
APPENDIX C

POST-INTERVIEW
(Adapted from Hollins, 2008)

- To what extent were learning outcomes realized?
- To what extent were the pedagogical approaches and tools you identified were
used to facilitate learning appropriate for the learners in this particular
situation? What is this assessment based on?
- Is there anything you would have done differently? Why?
- Is there anything you would like to add?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study investigates equitable practices used by a Teach For America (TFA) corps member (CM) in her second year of teaching low income, minority students. This study’s conceptual framework is based on a contemporary conceptualization of equity pedagogy that includes: (a) tools of power and access (Delpit, 1988)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Civic engagement of Teach For America alumni in Los Angeles

PDF

The importance of the implementation process to achieve equity in the classroom through culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

An investigation of culturally responsive teaching using James Banks' Five dimensions of multicultural education: a case study

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Developing a critical consciousness toward culturally responsive teaching through critical reflection: A professional development curriculum for elementary teachers

PDF

21st century skills as equity pedagogy to teach academic content standards: a socioeconomically diverse district's implementation

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

Reflecting Asian American students in our social studies curriculum through culturally relevant pedagogy: a gap analysis

PDF

The impact of programs, practices, and strategies on student academic performance: a case study

PDF

A curriculum for faculty implementation of culturally relevant instruction in a community college classroom

PDF

Culturally responsive pedagogy: a curriculum for secondary education teachers

PDF

A world of education: the influence of culture on instructional style and perceived teacher effectiveness

PDF

Exploration of STEM teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and the organizational influences of culturally inclusive teaching practices

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

Making change: understanding executive nonprofit leadership approach to systemic change – a case study on Teach For America

PDF

Goal orientation of Latino English language learners: the relationship between students’ engagement, achievement and teachers’ instructional practices in mathematics

PDF

Developing equity-mindedness in the face of whiteness: White educator perspectives of race

PDF

Pluralizing leadership education for multicultural inclusion: a case study of the Women's Leadership Initiative at St. James Catholic College

PDF

Coaching for equity: deconstructing whiteness in suburban classrooms

Asset Metadata

Creator Hu, Lindsay Anne Kwock (author)

Core Title A case study of one Teach For America corps member's use of equity pedagogy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2009-12

Publication Date 09/25/2009

Defense Date 06/15/2009

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

Tag culturally relevant pedagogy,equity pedagogy,OAI-PMH Harvest,Teach For America

Place Name USA (countries)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hollins, Etta R. (committee chair), Collatos, Anthony (committee member), Jun, Alexander (committee member)

Creator Email lhu@buildingexcellentschools.org,lindsay.k.hu@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2617

Unique identifier UC1275531

Identifier etd-Kwock-3287 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-256273 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2617 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Kwock-3287.pdf

Dmrecord 256273

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Hu, Lindsay Anne Kwock

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu