University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

(USC Thesis Other)

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Critical Pedagogy as a Means for Student Learning and Empowerment
by
Susana Melanie Santa Cruz

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

December 2020

© Copyright by Susana Melanie Santa Cruz 2020
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Susana Melanie Santa Cruz certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Alan Green
Jennah Jones
Paula M. Carbone, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2020

iv

Abstract
In an effort to address persistent opportunity gaps for students of color, this study explored the
practices and perceptions of three secondary school teachers who self-identify as enacting critical
pedagogy. The following research questions guided the study: (1) How do teachers who
identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their teaching practices? (2) How do
teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their impact on their
students? Critical pedagogy framed the position and analysis of this study. This study used a
qualitative design to capture the three teachers’ ideologies, instructional practices, and
perceptions of how their enactment of critical pedagogy impacts their students. Data sources in
this study included classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and researcher memos.
This study informs the teaching practice by helping teachers move beyond reductive and
disempowering pedagogies that merely serve to transfer knowledge towards a more empowering
pedagogy that helps develop critical consciousness in students about their world and their
position in it. This study can shed light on how, through critical pedagogy, teachers can raise
student achievement and empower students to become agents of change.
Keywords: critical pedagogy, critical consciousness, dialectical process, praxis,
emancipatory education

v

Dedication
To my sons, Jonathan and Kenneath Santa Cruz. You are my everything! Thank you for the
absolute miracle of existing and for the joy of loving you. I hope that I have inspired you to
dream big, to work hard to reach your goals, and to make the world a better place for your sake
and that of others.
To my parents, Eugenio and Reina Castillo, who always reinforced the value of a good education
and who gave tirelessly throughout my life so that I could always shine. Above all, thank you
for your endless unconditional love and for being the wind beneath my wings. I couldn’t have
done this without you.
To all my loved ones, family and friends, who have at any point in my life, given me love and
support. Thank you for believing in me and for all the love and laughter you have added to my
life.
To my students. Thank you for your inquisitiveness, your sweetness, and for teaching me so
much.
To all of you…Ubuntu. I am because you are.

vi

Acknowledgements
Thank you to my wonderful family for their endless love and support. Thank you for so
many years of supporting my dreams and caring for Tatan and Kenito so that I could keep on
going to school. Thank you for always working around my schedule, which is always crazy and
for staying up all night and spending entire weekends with me at the library. Thank you for
hundreds of hours of conversations about what good teaching and learning really means. Thank
you for always believing in me and inspiring me to keep on going.
I would like to acknowledge my dissertation chair, Dr. Paula M. Carbone: Thank you for
your guidance, support, and encouragement. Your confidence in me always commanded
excellence and kept me going despite challenges, both the ones that come with this journey, as
well as unforeseen ones. I am eternally grateful for you believing in me.
To my committee members Dr. Alan Green and Dr. Jennah Jones: Thank you for your
encouragement and support. Thank you for inspiring me to look deeper into other ways of
knowing and for inspiring me to lead with creativity. I absolutely loved your classes.
I express special acknowledgement for Dr. Guadalupe Montano and Dr. Christopher
Mattson for their expedient editing, which helped bring this dissertation to completion.
I would like to express much love and gratitude for my dear BABs: Gricelda Espinoza,
Tamara Quinn, and Sarina Fierro. I am forever grateful for us sharing friendship, laughs,
insights, successes, and struggles. You are all truly amazing. LEAD ON, BABs!
I would like to thank the three teacher participants in this study. Thank you for allowing
me to observe your teaching. The teaching and learning that I observed in each one of your
classes was beyond phenomenal. I commend you for your teaching; it was truly inspiring.
Thank you for your participation in the interviews. I value your experiences and insights; they

vii

added so much value to this study and will forever inspire me. Thank you for your courage to
break through the status quo.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
Chapter One: Overview of the Study ............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 10
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 11
Limitation and Delimitations ............................................................................................ 12
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 13
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 14
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ....................................................................................... 16
Critical Theory .................................................................................................................. 17
Critical Pedagogy .............................................................................................................. 19
Classroom Practices .......................................................................................................... 35
Teacher Reflection and Self-Critique ............................................................................... 44
Critique of Critical Pedagogy ........................................................................................... 55
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Three: Methodology ....................................................................................................... 60
Review of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 60
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 62
Design of the Study ........................................................................................................... 62

ix

Setting ............................................................................................................................... 63
Participants and Context of the Study ............................................................................... 64
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 66
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 70
Reliability and Validity ..................................................................................................... 71
Researcher Positionality .................................................................................................... 73
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 73
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................ 75
School Background ........................................................................................................... 76
Teacher Background and Ideology ................................................................................... 77
Context for Critical Pedagogy .......................................................................................... 80
Research Question One ..................................................................................................... 83
Research Question Two .................................................................................................... 92
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 98
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................. 99
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 99
Review of Methodology ................................................................................................. 100
Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 100
Implications ..................................................................................................................... 106
Recommendations and Future Research ......................................................................... 108
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 110
References ................................................................................................................................... 112
Appendix A: Consent Sheet ....................................................................................................... 125

x

Appendix B: Observation Protocol ............................................................................................ 129
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................ 133
1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
“Knowledge emerges only through invention and re-invention, through the restless, impatient
continuing, hopeful inquiry [we] pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other.”
-Paulo Freire
Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 1970
Education can function as an instrument to integrate the younger generation into the
workings of the present societal system and to bring about conformity, or it can serve as a tool to
liberate people by preparing them to deal critically with their realities so that they may discover
how to transform their world (Freire, 1970). The majority of people who have attended schools
in America sit year after year in very traditional classrooms in which the teacher employs highly
reductive pedagogical approaches to deliver information from a hegemonic curriculum (Apple,
2005b). These reductive approaches do not stimulate critical thinking and potentially encourage
conformity. As a result, students may take on the role of passive recipients of information
derived from a curriculum that privileges the majority and alienates members from already
marginalized backgrounds. Such a curriculum enacted using teacher-centered practices inflicts
the values and beliefs of the dominant group and overlooks the backgrounds, experiences, and
contributions of minoritized groups; yet it is prescribed as “core knowledge.” This study sought
to address this problem of practice in education in order to advance educational opportunities for
traditionally marginalized students through the lens of pedagogical approaches.
Background of the Problem
Achievement disparities between students of color and their White counterparts, which
can be traced to persistent opportunity gaps (Milner, 2010), continue to be imminent in the
current era of high-stake testing and accountability. Milner (2010) argues that opportunity gaps,
2

which he defines as gaps in circumstance or situation, exist in all levels of education. He argues
that they are based on processes, social identities, structures and systems and that they can lead
to detrimental outcomes. The term opportunity gap acknowledges that there are still structural
issues such as institutionalized racism, disparate educational opportunities, and different
treatment of students of color, which result in undesirable student performance outcomes.
The 2018 California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) data
showed that 32.27% of African American students and 39.16% of Latinx students met or
exceeded proficiency in the English language arts assessment, while 64.85% of White students
met or exceeded proficiency. In the mathematics assessment, 19.74% of African American
students and 26.65% of Latinx students met or exceeded proficiency, while 53.57% of White
students met or exceeded proficiency. Repeated studies on academic attainment demonstrate
similar disparities among White students and students of color. Reardon, Kalogrides, and Shores
(2019) estimated academic attainment disparities in several school districts across the United
States. They used the results of roughly 200 million standardized mathematics and reading tests
administered to public school students from 2009 to 2013 and found that academic attainment
disparities vary significantly, with factors such as socioeconomic status, demographics, school
segregation, and schooling characteristics explaining roughly three-quarters of the variations.
Inequities in educational attainment tied to race and socioeconomic status are not new.
For example, the 1968 East Los Angeles Walkouts, or Chicano Blowouts, resulted from protests
to inequitable access to courses, resources, and restrooms. Students of color protested for their
right to have access to rigorous college-preparatory curriculum and instruction as well as for
their right to use their native language during instructional time (Jiménez, 2004). Kozol (1991)
described the striking differences in funding and resource availability between New York public
3

schools servicing students of color in urban settings and their more affluent counterparts in more
suburban settings. Suburban schools were characterized by accessibility to a more rigorous
curriculum that included Advanced Placement courses and enrichment, abundant resources, less
crowding, and safer and cleaner facilities, all of which impact educational attainment and life
opportunities for students of color.
American schools aim to provide all students, irrespective of background, with a quality
education so that they can be college and career ready and so they can thrive nationally and
globally. Achievement data, however, show an ongoing opportunity gap between students of
color and their White counterparts (Milner, 2010). In an effort to close the opportunity gap
among minoritized students, legislation such as No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001
called for common standards and high-stakes testing. The rise in high-stake testing and
accountability placed public school teachers in a vulnerable position when it came to their input
on curriculum design and classroom instruction (Kincheloe, 2002b). According to Vinovskis
(2009), teachers have voiced that their scope of teaching has been significantly limited as a result
of the test preparation demands placed on them by legislation like NCLB (2001) and The Every
Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015). NCLB (2001) placed standardized testing as the key to
college readiness, which led all schools, even the low-performing ones, to focus more on
instruction related to test preparation. Focusing more on content directly related to one test as
opposed to multiple disciplines that can stimulate students’ creativity and intelligence places
students who have traditionally been marginalized at an even greater disadvantage (Carter &
Welner, 2013). In addition, NCLB (2001) promoted English-only instruction even in cases
where such instructional approaches did not meet students’ linguistic needs (Rueda, 2005).
4

These requirements overlooked the needs of students who were already struggling in K-12
schools and significantly disempowered both teachers and students.
In an effort to improve NCLB (2001), ESSA (2015) followed. It modified but did not
eliminate provisions related to high-stake testing and attempted to enhance the nation’s
commitment to bring educational equity to all students through increased action and
accountability. Despite these efforts, schools have continued to struggle to produce acceptable
student outcomes, which is evidence that education legislation and reforms do not necessarily
succeed at narrowing, and much less at closing, the opportunity gap (Ladd, 2017). Instead, a
narrow hegemonic curriculum, reductive pedagogy, and legislation and education reforms in this
era of high-stake testing and increased accountability have perpetuated the existence of
opportunity gaps and further contributed to the ongoing marginalization of diverse student
populations (Del Carmen Salazar, 2013).
In the United States, schools have a history of being institutions that harbor
institutionalized racism against students of color (Pérez -Huber, Johnson, & Kohli, 2006).
Although movements such as Black Lives Matter and hate-filled political rhetoric have led to an
increase in public discourse about racism, outside of scholarly research, attention is rarely given
to mechanisms of racial oppression embedded in America’s education system (Kohli, Pizarro, &
Nevárez, 2017). Consequently, efforts to solve problems in America’s education system
typically consist of looking for causes that may lie within teachers and students and their families
rather than for causes that may exist as a result of persistent opportunity gaps that are rooted
deep in discriminatory ideologies and practices (Bartolomé, 2007). Although accountability
efforts have led to an increase in the attention given to K-12 opportunity gaps, for the most part,
5

there is still a failure to acknowledge the racism in K-12 schools that students of color
experience.
Racism is the creation or maintenance of a racial hierarchy, supported through
institutional power (Solórzano, Allen, & Carroll, 2002). Institutional racism is characterized by
the existence of systematic policies and practices within institutions that effectually disadvantage
certain racial or ethnic groups (Kohli, 2014). It can only exist in institutions where the power to
create and enforce policies is held by the dominant group and often goes unnoticed or
unquestioned because it tends to be covert unlike more overt acts of bigotry or racial bias.
Through institutional racism, racial inequality has become normalized and even accepted in
America’s schools (Jones, 2000). Key studies in education over the past decade have exposed
some of the mechanisms by which schools racialize and marginalize students of color. Pérez-
Huber and colleagues (2006) connect institutional racism to historical and contemporary school
experiences in three fundamental components of schools: curriculum, teachers, and resource
disparities. They argue that institutionalized racism embedded in each of these components has a
deep psychological impact on students of color.
Being that curriculum is an important framework for academic learning, curriculum
content can perpetuate the ever-present force of racism in American society (Orlowski, 2011). In
many U.S. schools, curriculum often ignores the histories and voices of traditionally
marginalized student populations and reinforces the hierarchical status quo that places Whites in
a superior position in relation to other groups. This can significantly impact how students
perceive themselves and the world around them (Pérez-Huber et al., 2006). According to Nieto
(2002), the narrow curriculum teachers use in the classroom does not support the needs of
ethnically and linguistically diverse students. She argues that, despite efforts to make textbooks
6

more inclusive and representative of diversity, they still lack appropriate content and critical
perspectives about the knowledge they present, leaving the history and culture of many students
overlooked. This narrow and hegemonic curriculum combined with pedagogical methods that
treat students as mere recipients of information do more harm than good (Apple, 2004).
Although many factors such as curriculum contribute to students’ academic achievement,
including individual characteristics and family experiences, among school-related factors,
research shows that quality teachers influence student learning the most (Opper, 2012). Teachers
significantly affect student learning, and they also play a significant role in how students develop
their sense of self. They are ultimately the ones who deliver instruction to students. Therefore,
the role of the teacher is critical to student achievement and empowerment, especially for
culturally and linguistically diverse students (Bartolomé, 2007).
Research suggests that learning occurs when multiple components of motivation and
meaning work together (Schunk, Meece, & Pintrich, 2014) and that learning that is relevant and
meaningful to students creates optimal learning experiences that afford students opportunities to
gain a strong sense of self, better understand their world, and question the status quo (Kailin,
2002). Therefore, when teachers enact critical pedagogy that shifts their instructional practices
from reductive pedagogical approaches to pedagogical approaches that facilitate their students’
critical thinking about themselves and their world, they have the potential to address persistent
inequities in education by affording their students both awareness of their world and a voice.
Gay (2010) asserts the importance of students’ lives outside of school and posits that their lived
experiences are vital stories that have a place in their educational journey. Gay argues that
diverse student bodies envelop histories that include stories of unrest, strife, resilience, and
success that need to be part of students’ educational experiences.
7

According to Darder (2012), the question of how education can serve to create a more
equitable society has long inspired educators and scholars. Darder and other critical theorists
such as Michael Apple, Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, and bell hooks, among others, have
proposed critical pedagogy as a means to combat hegemonic ideologies and empower
traditionally marginalized student groups. Critical pedagogy is fundamentally committed to an
emancipatory process of schooling. By supporting a “politically emancipatory and humanizing
culture of participation, voice, and social action” (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009, p. 10),
critical pedagogy supports the cultural integrity and language rights of students from traditionally
marginalized populations.
Critical pedagogy attempts to expose inequalities by presenting issues to students such as
hatred, racism, colonization, oppression, bigotry, and sexism. It aims to provide students with
learning experiences that unearth the histories of traditionally oppressed groups. The goal is to
help students gain consciousness of the multiple forms of oppression that exist so that they can
take steps towards changing them (McLaren, 2015). Critical pedagogy involves using students’
experiences, background, culture, and language to set up a counter argument to the dominant
educational ideology. A teacher who enacts critical pedagogy values reflection and dialogue over
lecture and repetition. In such classrooms, students and teachers both play an active role in
negotiating the teaching and learning space. As a result of critical pedagogy, students are
empowered because they are allowed to think critically about their world rather than just being
asked to “learn” narrated curriculum and periodically restate the right answers thought to be
possessed by teachers and found in curricular texts (McLaren, 2015).
Despite increased spending, ongoing reforms, and increased accountability, inequities
persist in America’s schools, which disproportionately affect linguistically and ethnically diverse
8

student populations. Students and their teachers spend time in classrooms with the illusion that
they are indeed engaging in powerful learning that prepares them for participation in a free and
just democracy. However, the reality in many schools is that students’ critical thinking is
compromised and that their voices are silenced. Traditional methods of instruction in which
students are passive recipients of information do not empower students to think critically and
challenge the status quo. Freire (1970) used the term “banking model of education” to describe
and critique the traditional educational system in which instruction typically consists of the
teacher narrating information derived from a hegemonic curriculum to obedient recipients, the
students. This information is transmitted to students formally through content as well as through
the workings of school and classroom life (Milner, 2010) and does little to empower traditionally
disenfranchised students.
According to this model, the teacher “fills” students with information that is
compartmentalized, static, and often completely detached from students’ realities. This
information is loaded with unstated norms, values, and beliefs that lack experiential, cultural, and
linguistic meaning for students. This type of narration leads to recording, mechanical
memorization, and repetition and, therefore, has no transforming power (Freire, 1970). It turns
students into “containers” that are there to be filled by the teacher, and the more students permit
themselves to be “filled,” the better students they are perceived to be. These pedagogical
approaches are not only outdated, but dangerously disempowering (Del Carmen Salazar, 2013).
Critical pedagogy, which is defined as education that aims to liberate historically
oppressed populations (Freire, 1970), offers hope in providing equitable educational
opportunities, irrespective of students’ backgrounds. It recognizes that students must be granted
opportunities to produce their own knowledge so that they can recognize and question injustices
9

and challenge the status quo and contends that education is the means of granting students such
empowerment (Darder et al., 2009).
The six guiding principles of critical pedagogy are: Knowledge, Dialectical Theory,
Praxis, the Economic System, Cultural Politics, and Hegemony/Power in Schools (Apple, 2005b,
Darder, 2002; Freire, 1974; Giroux, 2005). Nieto (2002) and Darder (2002) argue that classroom
teachers must engage in a process of reflection and self-critique that leads to authentic teaching
and a deeper understanding of their role in the education system:
Teachers need to use their authority to create the conditions for a critical transformation
of consciousness that takes place in the process of interaction of teachers, students and
the knowledge they produce together. (Darder, 2002, p. 110)
Darder (2002) argues that teachers must consider how culture and power impact their
pedagogy and how their pedagogy impacts students’ academic achievement within the education
system in which they operate. As a result, to empower students, teachers need to recognize these
critical principles and address them. These principles of critical pedagogy will be further
discussed in detail in Chapter Two.
Consensus exists in the research literature that teachers who enact critical pedagogy are
capable of challenging constraints within the education system by reflecting on their practices
and negotiating their practices within a restrictive system. Thus, critical pedagogy places the
teacher as an active political agent and the classroom as the place to struggle against oppression
(McLaren, 2003). To expand opportunities for marginalized students, this study sought to
understand the practices of such teachers.
10

Statement of the Problem
This study addressed the persistent opportunity gap that has continued to rise for
ethnically and linguistically diverse students in California as a result of numerous educational
reforms and increased accountability that resulted in classroom teachers integrating curriculum
and instruction that is not supportive of the ethnolinguistic needs of the many diverse students
they serve (Bartolomé, 2007; Darder, 2002; Gee, 2015). This study highlighted the persistent
disparity in academic attainment between students of color in California public schools and their
White counterparts and called attention to the fact that, despite numerous educational reforms
and increased accountability, the academic needs of these student populations are still not being
met (Ladd, 2017). This problem is important to address because, amidst increases in reforms and
accountability, the illusion persists that standards, curriculum, pedagogy, and student–teacher
relations may all be working in favor of all students; however, this may not always be the case
for students of color who have traditionally been marginalized even by the schools that contend
they support their educational achievement (Milner, 2010). As a result, these students continue
to be victims of oppressive conditions in schools as well as in society at large.
Purpose of the Study
Through qualitative research, this study set out to examine the practices of teachers who
enact critical pedagogy. The goal was to provide information on the use of critical pedagogy as a
means to address the persistent opportunity gap discussed above. This study examined how
teachers who self-report as using critical pedagogy perceive their pedagogical approaches and
the impact of their practices on their students. It documented the manner in which these teachers
enacted critical pedagogy in the classroom to support culturally and linguistically diverse
students as well as how they negotiated their practices considering the structural constraints of
11

high-stake testing and limited curriculum choices. This research study sought to answer the
following two research questions:
1. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their
teaching practices?
2. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their
impact on their students?
The intent of this study was to add to the research base on instructional practices to
illustrate what critical pedagogy looks like across different secondary classroom contexts.
Although there is extensive educational literature on the theoretical aspects of critical pedagogy,
there are fewer empirical studies that document its enactment, especially in the K-12 classrooms
(Darder, 2012). It is quite possible that the complex nature of critical pedagogy contributes to
the limited research available on what it looks like in classrooms. Darder and colleagues (2009)
propose that, since the manner in which critical pedagogy should be enacted depends largely on
contextual factors such as students’ backgrounds and experiences, researchers might be reluctant
to prescribe specific attributes to it. Nevertheless, it is important to further explore the practices
of teachers who enact critical pedagogy, especially considering its empowering nature. If non-
prescriptive models of what critical pedagogy looks like in classrooms are limited, teachers are
left with only theory and no support on how to apply it in their classroom contexts (Hytten &
Bettez, 2011).
Significance of the Study
Education reforms will have only a minimal impact if teachers remain culturally
disconnected from their students (Irizarry & Raible, 2011). This study continues the discussion
of how critical pedagogy can influence curriculum design and instructional practices to empower
12

students who have been traditionally marginalized. Critical pedagogy calls for teachers to use
students’ experiences in the classroom in a manner that validates their identity and empowers
them to question the world around them, particularly when it comes to social injustices. It calls
for teachers to connect with their students so that they can become partners in the learning
process and co-construct knowledge (Dewey, 1916; Freire, 1970) that is meaningful and relevant
to their current and future lives. Understanding the impact critical pedagogy has on students can
help us understand how to better serve the needs of underprivileged students and may lead to
more studies on the relevance that this theory has on teaching practices and student achievement
and empowerment.
The expected benefit from this study is to provide information on how to move teachers
away from both traditional textbook-centered approaches that support hegemonic constructs of
knowledge and teacher-centered approaches such as banking pedagogy. These approaches have
failed to produce favorable outcomes among marginalized students (Milner, 2010). The hope is
to add to the research base on the characteristics of critical pedagogy in classrooms and its effect
on student achievement. Findings from this study have the potential to impact research, policy,
professional development, and instruction, which all impact student outcomes. Findings from
this study can also impact student–teacher relationships. They can help teachers develop a better
understanding of how to work with students who represent diverse backgrounds that may be
different from their own and who have traditionally been victims of oppression. Finally, this
study can shed light on the importance of blending theory with practice.
Limitation and Delimitations
There are some limitations that this researcher must acknowledge. First, the limited
amount of time allotted to conduct this study limited the amount of data that could be collected,
13

which ultimately affected the findings. Another limitation of this study was finding effective
teachers enacting critical pedagogy because it is not a well-established pedagogical approach in
U.S. public schools. Identifying effective teachers also carries an inherent bias since the process
can be highly subjective. Yet another limitation is that critical pedagogy is highly dependent on
context. Since contexts vary significantly from classroom to classroom, the findings from this
study were not necessarily the same as would arise with different teachers in different contexts.
There were also delimitations in this study. One delimitation was the size of the sample.
Since the sample was small, participants did not represent the views of a broad group of teachers.
Another delimitation is that convenience sampling was used to obtain the sample of teachers in
this study. Since teachers were chosen based on whom I thought would be interested in
participating and who ultimately volunteered for the study, there may be an inherent bias since
the participants were selected through convenience sampling.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation contains five chapters. Chapter One introduces the study. It provides an
overview of the problem being addressed, describes the purpose of the study and its significance,
and provides an overall description of the work along with a brief mention of limitations and
delimitations of the study. Chapter Two will present scholarly literature on critical theory and its
link to critical pedagogy’s six guiding principles: knowledge, dialectical theory, praxis, the
economic system, cultural politics, and hegemony/power in schools. The role of the teacher in
the enactment of critical pedagogy, the development of critical consciousness, and teacher–
student relationships within the framework of equity, along with a critique of critical pedagogy
will also be discussed in this chapter.
14

Chapter Three lays out the research framework. It will explain the research design,
participants, methodology, data collection, and methods of data analysis used in the study.
Chapter Four will present the findings from the observations and interviews and will synthesize
patterns and themes that emerge from the data collection. The patterns and themes will be
presented as they relate to the conceptual framework that was presented in Chapter Two.
Chapter Five presents the conclusion of this study along with implications and recommendations
for future study and practice in the area of teaching and critical pedagogy.
Definition of Terms
• Assimilation is the process whereby a minority group gradually adapts to the customs and
attitudes of the prevailing culture (Milner, 2010).
• Critical Pedagogy is a teaching approach that attempts to help students question and
challenge domination and the beliefs and practices that dominate; a commitment to
empower the powerless and transform inequalities and injustices (Darder, 2002; Freire,
1974; McLaren, 1998; Shor, 1992).
• Critical Theory: critical theorists maintain a view of schooling as a cultural and historical
process in which a select group are positioned within asymmetrical relations of power on
the basis of specific race, gender, and class groups, rather than a process that is value-free
and neutral. Its political dimensions are sharply defined within the argument that schools
often operate with the intent to reproduce the values and privileges of the dominant
culture (McLaren, 1998).
• Hegemony is a form of ideological control in which dominant beliefs, values, and social
practices are produced and distributed throughout a whole range of institutions such as
schools, the family, and mass media (Giroux, 2005).
15

• Hidden Curriculum: The unstated norms, values, and beliefs that are transmitted to
students through the underlying structure of meaning and in both the formal content and
the social relations of school and classroom life. A crucial component of the “learning”
experience is that of “unlearning” the hidden curriculum (Milner, 2010).
• Institutional Racism is a form of racism characterized by the existence of systematic
policies and practices within institutions that effectually disadvantage certain racial or
ethnic groups (Kohli, 2014).
• Meritocracy is the belief that student performance is primarily a function of hard work,
ability, skill, intelligence, and persistence; and that success and failure is deserved
because it is earned (Milner, 2010).
• Minoritized is used to refer to those students who, as a result of their gender, race,
religion, socioeconomic status, gender identity, sexual orientation, or other identifying
culture or group, are stigmatized and/or marginalized as a group outside of a theoretical
majority (Benitez, 2010).
• Opportunity Gap refers to the deficiencies of foundational components of societies,
schools, and communities that produce significant differences in educational outcomes.
Educational disparities highly correlate with skin color, ethnicity, linguistic and social
class status (Carter & Welner, 2013).
• Racism is the creation or maintenance of a racial hierarchy, supported through
institutional power (Solórzano et al., 2002).
• Transformative Intellectual: person who possesses the knowledge, skills, values, and
attitudes to question, understand, interrogate and eventually act as change agents of
structural inequities in their place of employment (Giroux, 1988).
16

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
-Albert Einstein
This study focused on the persistent achievement disparities between traditionally
marginalized groups and their White counterparts, which can be traced to persistent opportunity
gaps (Milner, 2010). This problem is significant because opportunity gaps reinforce
institutionalized racism, disparate educational opportunities, and different treatment of students
of color, all of which result in undesirable student outcomes and the continued oppression of
students from already marginalized groups.
The purpose of the study was to gain insight into the instructional practices of teachers
who enact critical pedagogy as well as to gain insight into how they perceive their practices
impact their students. The goal was to gain information on the use of critical pedagogy for its
role in addressing the opportunity gap that culturally and linguistically diverse students
traditionally experience. This study also sought to understand how teachers who enact critical
pedagogy negotiate their practices amidst structural constraints such as high-stake testing and
limited curriculum choices that are characteristic of education in U.S. public schooling. Two
research questions guide the study:
1. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their
teaching practices?
2. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their
impact on their students?
The purpose of the research questions was to gain knowledge about the enactment of
critical pedagogy in secondary classrooms as well as of teachers’ perceptions of how their
17

instruction impacts their students. The goal is to add to the research base on both the
characteristics and impact of critical pedagogy. The study has the potential to move teachers
away from traditional pedagogical methods that are often restrictive and that have failed to
produce favorable outcomes for traditionally marginalized students (Milner, 2010). Findings
from this study have the potential to impact future research, policy, professional development,
classroom instruction, and student–teacher relationships, all of which impact student
achievement.
The number of empirical studies documenting the enactment of critical pedagogy is
limited compared to the more abundant studies on its theoretical aspects. Therefore, one of the
intents of this study was to document the practices of teachers who enact critical pedagogy. The
hope was to provide more models of what critical pedagogy looks like in the classroom,
especially considering its empowering nature.
This chapter will provide an overview of the existing literature on critical theory and
critical pedagogy, including its six guiding principles: knowledge, dialectical theory, praxis,
hegemony/power relations, cultural politics, and the economic system. The development of
critical consciousness in students as a means to help them think critically about their world so
they can question and work to change injustices in their lives will be discussed. Also, the
teacher–student relationship in the classroom where critical pedagogy is enacted will be explored
with emphasis on care and radical love. The chapter will end with a discussion of the critique of
critical pedagogy.
Critical Theory
Fundamentally, critical theory is a philosophy that promotes an examination and critique
of society (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011). The practical intent of this theory is the expression of
18

an emancipatory vision that can serve to liberate and empower students who have been
disenfranchised by oppressive education systems that are focused on upholding the values of the
dominant culture, thereby working against the interests of those who are not part of the dominant
group (Freire, 1970). It was conceptualized by theorists Theodore Adorno, Herbert Marcuse,
Max Horkheimer, and Jurgen Habermas at the University of Frankfurt in an attempt to reevaluate
and reconstruct the economic and political realities of society that were occurring at the time as a
result of the changing nature of capitalism and the domination that was being brought about as a
result of a constantly expanding market that demanded an expanding pool of cheap labor
(Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011). This large cheap labor force ensured ongoing production for the
rapidly growing market and increasing profit for the few who held economic power.
Traditional theories attempt to understand and make sense of the world. Critical theory,
however, attempts to change the world. Horkheimer (1972) and Habermas (1970) argued the
need for critical theory in order to interpret the world, understand it, and bring about change
where needed. Horkheimer and the Frankfurt school theorists hoped that their work would help
establish a critical social consciousness that would give them the ability to question existing
ideologies, envision a better society, and take action so that society can be different (Held, 1980).
Horkheimer (1972) proposed that critical theory must meet three criteria. The theory
must be simultaneously explanatory, practical, and normative in order to facilitate critique of
society as well as social transformation. The theory aims to analyze and critique society by
unearthing systems that prohibit social change (Held, 1980). The very nature of the language of
“unearthing” implies that systems have to be critiqued deeply to uncover what typically remains
hidden. Leonard (1990) sets forth that, for a theory to be considered “critical theory,” it must be
informative, political, and emancipatory. A “critical theory” must inform in the sense that it
19

should locate the sources of domination and oppression in actual social practices. Politically, it
must project an alternative vision of life free from such oppression. In the emancipatory sense, it
must take action to free the oppressed. Critical theory holds that regardless of acknowledgement,
failure to carry out an emancipatory project will result in continued oppression and further
removal of the issues from the concerns of society.
Critical theory aims to reduce domination or power of a dominant group (Held, 1980)
through self-reflective knowledge. It promotes discovery and understanding of emancipatory
interests through heightened awareness and critique. Critical theorists, for example, recognize
that schools are places that need to be critiqued to unearth systems of racism, subjugation, and
inequity. According to Giroux (1988), schools can become institutions that empower rather than
suppress if students are taught to think critically about knowledge, values, and social relations so
that they can critique society and act upon injustices. In this sense, the goals of critical theory,
which include critiquing lived social and political realities, transfer to critical pedagogy, which
also aims to decrease inequity in education by critiquing educational institutions (Kincheloe,
2008).
Critical Pedagogy
Critical pedagogy is a radical approach to education that seeks to identify and transform
oppressive social structures through democratic and activist approaches to teaching and learning
(Darder et al., 2009; Freire, 1973, 1974). Paulo Freire is regarded as the inaugural philosopher
of critical pedagogy for his work on recognizing the relationship between education, politics,
imperialism, and liberation (McLaren, 2000) although numerous educators, revolutionaries,
scholars, and philosophers have contributed to the evolution of critical pedagogy (Darder, 2012).
20

For example, Karl Marx, the German philosopher, believed that politics and economics
played a crucial part in shaping society’s education system (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2011). Marx
proposed that social criticism was indispensable to attaining a democratic society. Other
educational reformists, such as George Counts and John Dewey, whose viewpoints were
progressive, also aimed to transform education in order to empower people (Darder, 2012). Top
education philosophers from Frankfurt School also applied objectives of critical social theory,
social analysis of society and acknowledgement of its drawbacks to education, marking the
beginnings of what would become critical pedagogy (Freire, 2005).
According to Darder (1991) and Bartolomé (2007), critical pedagogy in the classroom is
a method for encouraging and empowering students in the public school system. Critical
pedagogy aims to eliminate the hegemonic and collective standards and paradigms that govern
education. According to McLaren (2015), critical pedagogy aims to investigate, question, and
change the relationship among different factors such as classroom teaching, school structure, and
teacher–student relations in the learning experience. In this sense, critical pedagogy
encompasses an array of pedagogical approaches and practices that depart from traditional
approaches and practices of education.
A fundamental premise of critical pedagogy is that education systems in modern society
function, in part, to maintain and reproduce a system of capitalism that exploits those who are
not members of the dominant group in power (Apple, 1990; McLaren, 2003). Specifically,
critical pedagogy attempts to liberate people by saving them from being objects of an education
that merely treats them as recipients of information. Freire (1970) refers to a “banking concept
of education” that treats students as mere containers that are to be filled by only what the teacher
supplies them. In such a system, students are told what to learn, making them mere information
21

recipients. Freire critiques this system since students are denied opportunities to engage in
critical thinking skills due to the fact that most of what is required of them revolves around
lower-level thinking skills such as recall of facts and rote reproduction of simple procedures. As
a result, these highly restrictive traditional pedagogies limit students’ abilities to experience
learning that is relevant and meaningful.
For decades, education reformers have sought to change the grammar of schooling,
insisting that it is irrational, narrow in aim, antiquated, and harsh in effect (Tyack & Cuban,
1995). Such a system is criticized for adherence to traditional pedagogical approaches still in use
from the 19
th
century, such as teacher lecturing, which is used as a primary source of transmitting
information to students, recitation asking for on-demand recall from students, and testing for
facts and main ideas. These methods limit students to remembering rather than learning. Freire
(1970) views these approaches as counterproductive to student learning and empowerment and
argues that instead, students should be regarded as valued participants in the learning process by
placing them at the center of their learning.
Darder (2002), Freire (1974), Apple (2005a), and Giroux (2005) consider knowledge,
dialectical theory, praxis, the economic system, cultural politics, and hegemony/power in schools
as the guiding principles of critical pedagogy. Darder argues that these principles need to be
carefully examined by teachers and woven into their pedagogical decisions so that they may be
better able to empower culturally and linguistically diverse students who are traditionally
marginalized. Through these principles, critical pedagogy seeks to transform relations of power
that are oppressive and that lead to the systemic oppression of people (Kincheloe, 2008). The
following subsections examine each of the guiding principles of critical pedagogy: knowledge,
22

dialectical theory, praxis, the economic system, cultural politics, and hegemony/power in
schools.
Knowledge
The first tenet of critical pedagogy is knowledge. In most societies, the concept of
knowledge is linked to power and control. As a result, critical theorists are concerned with the
creation and legitimization of knowledge as well as with who benefits from the production and
reproduction of knowledge (Apple, 2005b). These theorists argue that, in the context of what
constitutes knowledge, years of oppression and power differentials between colonizers and the
colonized cannot be ignored, since such dynamics led to the creation of unjust social structures
and hierarchies of human worth (Kincheloe, 2008). Foucault (1977) for example, defines
knowledge as an arbitrary “truth” that is produced by virtue of multiple forms of constraint and
that induces the effects of power. Apple (2005a) also poses a definition of knowledge within the
context of power relationships:
They allocate individuals to their “proper places” within the hierarchical divisions of
labor and distribute the dispositions, norms, and values (through the hidden curriculum)
that are required by workers for their effective participation on their particular rung of the
occupational ladder. For human capital theorists, “owning” some knowledge leads to
great personal power in the economic arena. For allocation theorists, schools are
mechanisms that distribute norms and dispositions which reinforce and reproduce
economically based class positions. (p. 78)
Apple (2005a) contends that the distribution of knowledge is just as important as the
legitimization of knowledge since both processes contribute to asymmetrical power relations in
society. Historically, it cannot be denied that those who create knowledge have the power to
23

dominate different aspects of societies’ social, political, and economic hierarchies (Bowles &
Gintis, 1976).
Anyon (1981) conducted a case study on school knowledge in five elementary schools in
contrasting social class settings in two school districts in New Jersey. Finding revealed several
similarities in curriculum topics and materials among the schools, noting they were all subject to
the same state requirements. However, both subtle and dramatic differences in the distribution of
knowledge were also revealed among the schools. In the “working-class schools,” teaching
basic skills in math, fact-oriented history that left out neighborhood struggles, and assessment
based on recall were common, while, on the other end of the spectrum, at “executive elite”
schools, logic, discovery, and problem solving were common and modes of assessment were
varied. Anyon theorized that students were taught for the jobs they were expected to take—
menial jobs for working-class students, where following directions was important , and executive
jobs for those in the highly stratified other school, where leadership was essential.
Four decades after Anyon’s (1981) study, such differences in knowledge distribution in
schools still hold true. For example, in the standardized education that dominates American
public schools, students are taught to view the world as a mechanical entity that is governed by
fixed and predictable laws (Kincheloe, 2009). Such teaching approaches result in the teacher
narrating reality as if it were static and predictable, leaving little, if any room for critical thought
or for students to embrace their own knowledge and experiences as meaningful. In addition,
teachers are often confined by a heavy focus on testing and predetermined notions of how
students should be taught and how students learn. This adherence to a knowledge base that is not
only static but also determined by the dominant group serves to further marginalize students
24

from traditionally oppressed groups by invalidating their significant knowledge forms and
experiences (Darder, 2002; Nieto, 2002; Valencia, 2002).
To combat this form of oppression, critical pedagogy holds that teachers need to be aware
and critical of what constitutes knowledge, who determines its legitimacy, and who benefits from
it. Teachers need to be critical of their role as conveyors of knowledge. Critical pedagogy calls
for teachers to negotiate information and co-construct knowledge with students so that they may
help their students engage in a critical analysis of the world (Bartolomé, 2007; Freire, 1974).
This requires teachers to critique curriculum and textbooks to evaluate key ideologies presented.
Teachers who examine the forms of knowledge that are taught in their classrooms and question
how that knowledge functions to support the interests and values of the dominant society are
beginning to enact critical pedagogy (Darder, 2002).
As part of their commitment to critiquing what constitutes knowledge, teachers need to
consider how the knowledge presented relates to their students’ past, current, and future lives. In
collaboration, teachers and students can engage in a process of inquiry that leads to key questions
regarding what constitutes knowledge, who benefits from it, and whether it serves to undermine
or empower people. In addition, as part of this analysis on knowledge, teachers and students can
work together to consider alternative forms of knowledge that may encompass other ways of
seeing the world. The following subsection examines dialectical theory as a way of
understanding the relationship between society and an individual.
Dialectal theory
The second tenet of critical pedagogy, dialectical theory, is based on Adorno’s (as cited
in Young, 1990) definition of reflection. According to Adorno, critical reflection grows out of
principles of negativity, contradiction, and meditation. These principles work together to evoke
25

interrogation of universal truths and social practices that go unquestioned. Dialectical thought
employs deep reflection and thoughtful questioning to understand social contradictions such as
the ones that occur in schools, but which go unquestioned (Giroux, 2005; McLaren 1998).
Hence, it plays a critical role in uncovering truths.
Dialectical theory’s process of questioning and ongoing reflection has the potential to
reveal that human knowledge and human action are not only key to one’s existence but also
inseparable. Upon understanding this, individuals understand that, to exist meaningfully and be
connected to society, they need to engage in deep reflection so that they may be able to question
society’s contradictions and the manner in which such contradictions impact their lives
(McLaren, 1998). It is through this reflection and inquisitive stance that individuals become
aware and begin to understand the asymmetrical power relations that exist in their world.
According to Freire (1974), teachers can spark authentic thinking in their students by
collaborating with them in a process of open and thoughtful questioning and reflection. He
warns, however, that the dialectical process should not be reduced to mere recitation. Freire
(1974) argues that, instead, this process should focus on creating interaction between students
and teachers so that they may collaboratively become involved in a process of problematizing
knowledge. This problematizing is what brings the awareness process in motion. Freire (1974)
and Shor (1992) argue that incorporating students’ life experiences and voices into their daily
learning is central to raising their critical consciousness. They argue that, through self-reflection,
self-critiquing, and deliberate incorporation of students’ life experiences and voices, teachers
have the potential to empower their students.
Darder (2002) argues that this dialectical process is also essential for teachers to engage
in when thinking about their pedagogical practices. Through this process, teachers can question
26

their teaching practices and begin to understand the impact their practices have on their students.
Nieto (2002) posits that this process allows teachers to question their daily teaching practices,
how they facilitate student engagement, and how they encourage student voice in their
classrooms. She argues that this type of reflection is critical since teachers and students are
distanced due to current classroom instruction shaped by heavy test preparation and high
demands to meet performance benchmarks. By engaging in a dialectical process, teachers can
better understand their students’ lives as well as how their pedagogical practices can impact
them. The subsection below examines praxis, the union of theory and practice (Freire, 1970).
Praxis: union of theory and practice
Praxis, the third tenet of critical pedagogy, refers to the application of knowledge into
practice in order to transform society (Freire, 1970). It involves the intermingling of theory,
which is abstract and practice, which involves action. Freire maintains that praxis involves both
reflection and action. One of the key issues pertaining to critical pedagogy is its implementation
(Estes, 2004; Keesing-Styles, 2003). Critical pedagogy has been slow to move from a theory of
practice to actual classroom practice. The theory informs teachers about the principles that
should govern their work, but it says little about what those principles look like in practice
(Osborne, 1990).
Freire (1974) posits that praxis is an essential process that is critical to unearthing
contradictions that cause oppression and that such a process of critical consciousness can
facilitate intellectual critique that can lead to unearthing one’s reality. He argues that it is only
through the development of critical consciousness that oppressed students can begin to realize
and understand their life situations and accept their situations as challenging conditions that only
they can change through awareness and action. Freire poses that critical questioning should be
27

an ongoing part of one’s learning experiences because there is no final act of knowing since
absolute knowledge can never truly be attained. If that were the case, the possibility of knowing
would disappear. Since knowledge is always in the process of being, there is always a place for
critical questioning and problem solving within any system.
Praxis begins with an abstract idea (theory) or an experience and, through reflection,
moves toward purposeful action. Because there is often a disconnect between theory and
practice, praxis is important, especially when the goal is action and change. According to Freire
and Macedo (1987), praxis can take place through the dialectical process and democratic social
relations. Through both these processes, people can reflect upon the oppressive conditions and
take action so that those conditions are transformed.
Since praxis is reflective, socially constructed, purposeful, and active, it is suitable for
teachers to question their pedagogical approaches so that they can change existing conditions
that may be contributing to the disempowerment of their students. Ultimately, teachers deliver a
curriculum within an education system that perpetuates dominant ideologies that pay little, if any
regard to the contributions of diverse student populations. By enacting praxis, teachers can
reflect on their own beliefs and on how they instruct their students. They can then move on to
consider alternative teaching and learning practices that better serve their students.
Although teachers are faced with curricular constraints and high demands to meet
performance benchmarks on standardized tests, their actions have the potential to transform
pedagogy and conditions in the classroom in order to empower their students (Darder, 2002;
Ladson-Billings, 2000; Giroux, 2005). When teachers enact praxis in the classroom, they have
the opportunity to critique important factors such as instruction, assessment, and student labeling
and tracking. Doing so can help ensure that oppressive practices found in society are not
28

reproduced in the classroom. The subsection below examines the relationship between the
economy and the educational system through the lens of critical theory.
Schools and the economic system
The fourth tenet of critical pedagogy involves schools and the economic system. Critical
theorists place schooling as a process that positions groups asymmetrically based on race, class,
and gender. These asymmetrical power relations have a history of being systematically
embedded into the schooling process and mirror the power asymmetry that characterizes society.
According to Marx (in Young, 1990) and Hegel (in Young, 1990), the emergence of capitalism
led to the division of classes in society. These critical theorists consider power structures in
economic systems to be forces that strip individual freedoms of the working class by turning
them into objects whose main purpose is to help advance the interests of those in power.
Apple (2005b) and Carlson (2002) further build on the analysis of Marx and Hegel (as
cited in Young, 1990) regarding the impact the economy has on the social reproduction of
knowledge. They argue that, in many Western societies, meritocracy, which is a social system in
which success and status in life theoretically depend primarily on individual talents, beliefs, and
efforts (Milner, 2010), is highly valued. This social system perpetuates the belief that anyone
can become successful with hard work and dedication despite widespread evidence that,
regardless of hard work and dedication, ongoing systems of oppression and structural inequities
limit opportunities for people based on race, class, gender, ability, and other social markers.
Apple and Carlson argue that institutions, including schools, utilize meritocracy to maintain
social and economic hierarchies that continue to limit opportunities for traditionally marginalized
groups. Darder (2002) supports the position taken by Apple and Carlson and argues that students
who are versed in the dominant culture’s versions of truth and knowledge are considered to
29

possess the individual merit that is required to access upward mobility in the United States, while
those who are not are labeled and tracked into oppressive systems. America’s education system
values the myth of meritocracy by celebrating high performers on standardized tests and labeling
low-performing students as “limited” and “at-risk.” Adherence to this myth perpetuates
inequities since curriculum, instruction, and opportunities are often different for the “limited”
and “at-risk” students. In this sense, teachers may be perpetuating oppressive conditions for their
students (Bonilla-Silva, 2014).
Consequently, as part of empowering students, teachers need to evaluate the manner in
which students are assessed, labeled, and tracked to ensure that the classroom is not a place that
replicates the system of meritocracy found in society. Teachers need to be the voice of those
students who often fall victim to labels and tracking, such as those students who do not meet
benchmarks on standardized tests as well as English learners, by employing diverse methods of
assessing student achievement (Darder, 2002; Ochoa, 2006; Olivos, 2006; Valencia, 2002).
For example, English learners are repeatedly labeled as underperforming solely based on their
performance on a standardized test that is given in English (Gandara & Rumberger, 2009). In
addition, English learners’ linguistic assets are overlooked. Linguistically, their primary
language is undermined and deemed a deficiency (Nieto, 2002; Valencia 2002). Rather than
being celebrated for attempting to achieve bilingualism, English learners are labeled and tracked
into a system that limits their success in school, and, therefore, their social and economic
mobility in life. These are the types of practices that teachers who enact critical pedagogy set out
to critique and change. The subsection that follows examines the role of cultural politics within
the six tenets of critical pedagogy.
30

Cultural politics
The fifth tenet of critical pedagogy involves cultural politics. Critical theorists are
concerned with the control, legitimization, and reproduction of culture in society. They affirm
that schools are institutions that perpetuate dominant ways of knowing and behaving, thereby
deeming the culture of others inferior. The works of Habermas (as cited in Young, 1990)
suggest that it is an individual’s right to value and honor their own culture. Habermas (1970)
argues that a critique of society’s institutions is necessary in order to comprehend contradictions
between the dominant group’s values and the ideology and those of individuals not in power.
Both Habermas (as cited in Young, 1990) and Freire (1974) affirm that cultural
oppression must be acknowledged and contested in order to achieve liberation. Freire
emphasizes that a cultural invasion of a group is a product of injustice and hegemony. He
defines cultural invasion as a method used by those in power to control the intellectual capacity
of marginalized groups. Freire adds,
In this phenomenon, the invaders the cultural context of another group, in disrespect of
the latter’s potentialities; they impose their own view of the world upon those they invade
and inhibit the creativity of the invaded by curbing their expression. (p. 150)
Schools do more than provide instruction; they also serve to provide the norms and
principles of conduct associated with the dominant group who controls the material and symbolic
wealth of society (Giroux, 1997; McLaren, 2003). According to Darder (1991), schools are
institutions where, for the most part, cultural differences are denied and not considered a
legitimate construct that should be incorporated into the schooling process. As a result, when
individual differences do surface, they tend to get labeled as individual phenomena. Darder adds
that efforts to address cultural differences and bring them to the forefront of an individual’s
31

educational experience are often viewed as suspect and divisive and that such responses to
cultural differences reflect assimilationist views of American education which value enlightening
minoritized groups with notions of American identity and culture.
Darder (2002) emphasizes that teachers must examine what constitutes the legitimization
of culture in public schools:
Critical pedagogy must seriously address the concept of cultural politics by both
legitimizing and challenging cultural experiences that compromise the histories and
social realities that in turn compromise the forms and boundaries that give meaning to the
lives of students. (p. 77)
Giroux (2005) supports the position taken by Darder and affirms that educators must evaluate
cultural reproduction. He outlines two critical actions that can help integrate and affirm the
culture of all students. First, teachers need to analyze how cultural production is organized
within asymmetrical power relations in schools. Second, teachers need to construct spaces for
informed and active participation designed to promote more inclusive and democratic
approaches in schools.
Critical theorists acknowledge that all students possess cultural and linguistic assets but
that such assets are often devalued in U.S. public schools. They also argue that schooling in
America has served to maintain the status quo in social class relations and power and that this is
accomplished by undermining the strengths and contributions of those not in power. In the case
of how American schools have historically dealt with educating English learners (ELs), this
seems to be the case. For example, ELs’ primary language is addressed as a “problem” or a
“deficit” that is to be “corrected” in order to provide “equal” opportunity and the “right” to
access English.
32

Ladson-Billings (2000) stresses that, to empower students, teachers need to evaluate how
the schooling system perpetuates oppression by failing to affirm the culture and language of
those not in power. She argues that teachers need to take action by validating their students’
cultural and linguistic backgrounds. ELs and children of immigrants are prime examples of
students whose cultural and linguistic contributions have historically been deemed insignificant.
By reflecting on the cultural politics of the American schooling system, teachers can counter the
dominant discourse about ELs that has traditionally been loaded with misconceptions and
stereotypes that label them as a vulnerable group that is lacking in some way. Teachers can
respond by countering these types of deficit-based narratives and by setting up safe spaces in
which their students can affirm their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Kincheloe (2002b)
asserts that without this process, there is no democracy. The next subsection examines the
concepts of hegemony and power.
Hegemony/Power Relations
The sixth tenet of critical pedagogy is related to hegemony and power relations. One of
the aims of critical pedagogy is to expose inequities by making students conscious of the various
institutions and practices that facilitate and perpetuate systematic forms of oppression.
Gramsci’s (1971) work examines the manner in which political power and cultural ideology
result in the domination of subordinate groups. He refers to this process as hegemony, a process
by which the dominant culture maintains its dominant position through the use of institutions, the
employment of bureaucracy, and the inculcation of their values and ideology on subordinate
groups. According to Gramsci, the ruling class stays in power not only because of their
economic power but also because of the ideological power that they hold. This ideological
33

power refers to the power they have to impose ideas and beliefs that justify their interests on
members of subordinate groups.
Gramsci (1971) sees the capitalist state as being made up of two overlapping spheres: a
political society and a civil society. His work emphasizes that capitalistic societies utilize both
spheres as forms of hegemonic control. The first type involves the political society ruling
through direct force or threat of force. The second type involves the civil society ruling through
consensual control resulting from individuals voluntarily adopting the worldview of the
dominant group.
According to McLaren (1998), it is through this context of hegemonic control that the
dominant group produces ideas, visions, and beliefs that get passed on to non-dominant groups
as natural and commonsense. McLaren extends the definition of hegemony and posits that “the
dominant culture is able to manufacture dreams and desires for both dominant and subordinate
groups by supplying terms of reference (stories/ideals) against which all individuals are expected
to live their lives” (p. 174).
McLaren also identifies four different modes of domination associated with hegemony:
1. Legitimization: domination that is perpetuated through power relationships as
legitimate.
2. Dissimulation: domination that is concealed, denied or obscured.
3. Fragmentation: domination maintained primarily through the fragmentation of
groups that places them in opposition to one another.
4. Reification: domination that occurs as a result of transitory historical states of affairs
being presented as permanent, natural, and commonsensical, as if they were frozen or
fixed in the passage of time. (p. 99)
34

Several critical theorists pose that knowledge construction is the mechanism that
dismisses non-Western epistemologies and silences the histories of those not in power. Foucault
(1977) emphasizes that power is created, legitimized and reproduced by societies’ political and
or social order. Therefore, the influence that subordinate groups have to transform asymmetrical
power relations is limited as a result of the very nature of how knowledge and truth are
legitimized by those in power. Apple (2005a) and Carlson (2002) support Foucault’s (1977)
view and argue that it is the dominant group who produces and legitimizes knowledge, thereby
controlling political, economic, cultural, and social aspects of society. Kincheloe (2002b) echoes
these views by arguing that political power and the education system are closely tied and states,
Discursive practices the tacit rules that define what can and cannot be said will always
reflect political relationships in the society, in the classroom; fields of knowledge will
take their forms as a result of the power relations of discursive practices. (p. 39)
To transform asymmetrical power relationships, such relationships must be examined and
deconstructed so that new forms of knowledge can be introduced into society, including schools.
Habermas (1970) and Adorno (in Young, 1900) address the issue of hegemony during their
individual and particular time period and point out that social practices and dogmas prevail and
impact society because no critique is offered. Apple (2005a) echoes this sentiment by pointing
out that it is a challenge to uncover hegemonic practices in society due to people’s passivity. He
attributes the persistence of hegemony in society, including schools, in the following manner:
We live through a crisis in legitimization and accumulation-where the productive and
reproductive apparatus of society (including schools) are driven with tension, where the
very essence of continued reproduction of the conditions necessary for the maintenance
of hegemonic control is threatened. This is especially difficult in education where the
35

ameliorative ideology and the immense problems educators already face leave little time
for thinking seriously about the relationship between educational practices and the
reproduction of inequality. (p. 5)
In addition, according to Zeichner and Liston (2013), teachers are not encouraged to engage in
political participation; therefore, there is a need for them to take the initiative to become aware of
their political identity and of how they can become agents of change.
Giroux (2005) and McLaren (1998) also emphasize the need to recognize that power
relations correspond to knowledge disseminated in schools and that such knowledge often
distorts the truth. It is, therefore, imperative that both teachers and students engage in a process
of dismantling racism. To do so, both teachers and students must be cognizant of the role power
relations play in society. Teachers, particularly, need to engage in critical reflection and then take
proactive steps to understand the power relations that are typically at play in classroom settings
in order to implement changes to equally distribute power in the classroom. By doing so,
teachers can promote critical rethinking of hegemonic norms and thereby, empower their
students.
Combined, these guiding principles facilitate critical thinking about teachers’ pedagogical
approaches and the impact these have on their students.
Classroom Practices
The treatment of critical pedagogy has been largely theoretical. Therefore, the question
remains, “How is success measured?” As important and powerful as the goals of critical
pedagogy are, they are abstract and elusive. The theory provides guiding principles that should
govern the work of teachers, but it does not provide concrete examples of actual classroom
practices that align with the guiding principles of critical pedagogy. The review of the literature
36

in this study revealed some practices that align with the guiding principles of critical pedagogy:
generative themes, counter-storytelling, youth participatory action research, photovoice, and
critical autobiography. These practices will be discussed below.
Generative Themes
Generative themes are based on co-construction of knowledge between teachers and
students. The use of generative themes refers to topics and questions raised by students which
become classroom topics for joint investigation and discussion. Souto-Manning (2010) posits
that generative themes are the personal conflicts in students’ lives that are parts of larger social
patterns. According to Freire (2005), the study of these generative themes has the potential to
increase learners’ engagement and their commitment to become involved in a struggle for
freedom.
In their work teaching a seminar titled “Special Topics in the Sociology of Education” as
part of an annual collaboration between a local university and surrounding school districts,
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008) relied on generative themes. The seminar, designed for
entering average- to low-performing juniors and seniors, introduced students to critical social
theory, research related to urban education and sociology, and qualitative research methods. At
the center of the seminar was a collaborative, critically informed research project.
Collaboratively, teams of students generated themes, created questions, designed a study,
collected and analyzed data, and wrote a report to share with university faculty and community
activists. To assist students, Duncan-Andrade and Morrell (2008), outlined “vehicles of
engagement” such as basketball, hip hop music, and films that interested students as possible
launch pads for students’ research projects. The following is an excerpt from the students’ final
report:
37

The Sociology of Education is a field of study that seeks to explain how forces of social
reproduction help to maintain inequality in educational achievement. Sociologists of
Education also explore ways to enable teachers, students, parents, and communities to
alter or disrupt these forces. For example, the powerful elite, which are less in
population, have power over the masses, which are overflowing in population. Social
Reproduction is the way that the powerful elite have control over the masses. It refers to
the ways in which dominant institutions (like school) promote social inequality. This
allows a small dominant group (oppressors) to maintain control over a much larger
subordinated group (oppressed). (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2003, p. 20)
The four students in the Hip-hop Project centered their work on social reproduction theory and
critical literacy. They read works from MacLeod (1987) and Bourdieu (1973) to explore
connections between inequities in urban schooling and inequities in society at large. Over the
six-year history of the seminar, students generated research featured in national and local media
outlets and in political arenas.
Duncan-Andrade and Morrell’s (2008) work used popular culture as a tool for student
engagement and to “gear” students’ learning toward social justice. Teachers’ willingness to
inject generative themes such as love, hate, community, and justice into the curriculum leads to
joint investigation of the world between teachers and students. However, it is important to be
cognizant of the fact that sometimes, even though teachers and students can identify themes
and/or problems worthy of investigation, the tools to further analyze the problems may be
lacking, as the solutions might also be. Despite this, engaging students in the study of generative
themes offers a more humanizing education for students as well as new forms of empowerment.
38

Counter-Storytelling
Decolonial education is the recovering of repressed and latent knowledges and
epistemologies (knowledge systems) that have been colonized and silenced (Zavala, 2016). It
generates new ways of seeing and being in the world by valuing ways of knowing and being that
go beyond colonialism and capitalism. Three major methodologies or strategies in decolonial
education projects include counter/storytelling, healing, and reclaiming (Zavala, 2016). Counter-
storytelling allows students to examine alternative perspectives that may be completely omitted
or significantly underrepresented. It involves the practices of naming and remembering. This
naming is often framed as a counter-storytelling that challenges the master storylines of
Modernity, Eurocentrism, and colonialism (Zavala, 2016).
Constructs like racism and oppression exist in the world, and, therefore, should be named
and acknowledged. According to Solórzano and Yosso (2002), people’s stories acquired through
interviewing can be used as theoretical, methodological, and pedagogical tools to challenge
racism, sexism, and classism embedded in “master narratives.” They concur with Montecinos’
(1995) ideology that racism creates, maintains, and justifies the use of a “master narrative” in
storytelling. The author asserts,
The use of a master narrative to represent a group is bound to provide a very narrow
depiction of what it means to be Mexican-American, African-American, White, and so on
. . . A master narrative essentializes and wipes out the complexities and richness of a
group’s cultural life . . . A monovocal account will engender not only stereotyping but
also curricular choices that result in representations in which fellow members of a group
represented cannot recognize themselves. (Montecinos, 1995, pp. 293–294)
39

Solórzano and Yosso (2002) contend that through critical race methodology in education,
experiences of people of color can be brought to light. They argue that counter-stories and even
poetic modes of expression can serve as vehicles to empower the marginalized.
To create counter-stories, Solórzano and Yosso (2002) use Strauss and Corbin’s (1990)
theoretical sensitivity and Delgado Bernal’s (1988) cultural intuition. In addition, they gather
data from the following sources:
1. The research process itself (e.g., interviews and observations)
2. Literature on the topic(s)
3. Professional experiences
4. Personal experiences
Once data were compiled, the researchers created composite characters to engage in real and
critical dialogue about the findings. The dialogue that emerged from the characters involved
listening, sharing, challenging, and reflecting. As the dialogue progressed, the researchers
inserted related data from the findings, which served to fuel additional dialogue. All this resulted
in excerpts of counter-stories.
Solórzano and Yosso (2002) argue that, if methodologies have been used to silence and
marginalize people of color, then methodologies can also be used to give voice to and empower
those who have traditionally experienced marginalization. Through their research on counter-
stories as an alternative methodology in education, they demonstrate how purposeful dialogue
can expose a wide range of viewpoints that may be missing from people’s knowledge repertoire.
One way to expose students to counter-narratives is to provide them with opportunities to
have conversations with people whose lives have been impacted by social injustices and whose
voices have been silenced (Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). This can be accomplished by giving
40

students opportunities to interview family members and members of their community who
represent diverse backgrounds and experiences. They can also explore literature on key topics
such as race, gender, and class, and can also turn to their own experiences. It is up to the
classroom teacher to set up these conditions for learning and safe spaces for students. As
students explore and analyze the experiences and perspectives of people that may differ from the
traditional narrative they are exposed to, they can begin to challenge stereotypical assumptions
and learn to validate the identities of others as well as their own.
Youth Participatory Action Research
Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) is an innovative approach to youth and
community development that is based on social justice principles (Scorrza, Mirra, & Morrell,
2013). YPAR trains youth to become critical researchers who acknowledge problems, identify
transformative research questions, and gain mastery of research instruments. Its mission of
social justice helps urban youth think differently about the nature of the problems they face. It
trains them in identifying and employing solution-oriented approaches so that they may become
agents of change in issues that directly impact them.
An analysis of two long-running intervention projects that employed YPAR as an
academically empowering approach, the Council of Youth Research (1999–2011) and the Black
Male Youth Academy (2006–2011), was conducted (Mirra, Garcia, & Morrell, 2015). These
programs were implemented in two critical learning communities in Southern California with the
goal of positioning urban youth as both public intellectuals and change agents. Data from
multiple sources, such as field notes, conversations with those who engaged the youth in the
study, student work products, and student reflections were analyzed in an attempt to understand
the role of critical pedagogy, enacted through YPAR, across three domains: critical literacy
41

development, empowered identity development, and civic engagement for social change (Mirra
et al., 2015). The positive effects of YPAR were evidenced in the shift in sociopolitical
identities of youth who participated in the programs. For example, previously disengaged
students prepared in-depth cases supported with evidence gathered through their research and
took the initiative to speak to stakeholders from parents to teachers to public officials regarding
the problems at hand and recommended solutions.
This problem-posing education also serves as a vehicle for learning since its relevance
increases student engagement and its rigor increases student learning. Students’ experiences in
focused and structured research go beyond test-taking and basic literacy development. Through
YPAR, students employ critical research methodologies to enact research on their own
experiences. Students are engaged in critical thinking through academic activities such as
interviewing, transcribing, writing, and teaching (Scorrza et al., 2013). Students also create work
products such as PowerPoint presentations, blogs, essays, speeches, documentary films. In doing
so, students begin to alter the educational discourse.
In both these programs, the Council of Youth Research and the Black Male Youth
Academy, YPAR transformed the traditional learning space into one that allowed students to
connect to their histories and use their voice as tools to navigate the sociopolitical contexts that
surround them.
Photovoice
Photovoice is a participatory study approach that integrates photography, discussion,
writing, and outreach for people to investigate their experiences and collaborate for change
(Cabañes, 2017). Through photovoice, students can examine and document their local
environments. The process allows students to identify, represent, and enhance their community
42

through images (Wang & Burris, 1997). As a participatory methodology, photovoice functions
as a needs-assessment with three main goals: to enable people to record and reflect their
community’s strengths and concerns, to promote critical dialogue and knowledge about
important community issues through large and small group discussions of photographs, and to
communicate concerns with policymakers (Wang & Burris, 1997).
Before embarking on an in-depth study of their neighborhoods, students select research
themes to guide the study of their neighborhoods. Common themes include diversity,
integration, segregation, safety, crowding, access, and resources. These research themes then
guide the investigations of their communities. Through an array of images, students tell the story
of their communities from the perspective of the research themes they selected. Students record
their favorite and least favorite places. They describe their ideal places and suggest ways their
communities could be improved. Emotions felt and behaviors experienced throughout this
process also become part of critical discussions. These experiences not only raise awareness but
also bring to light students’ voices, thereby empowering them to effect change in their
communities and their lives.
Critical Autoethnography
Identity is a reflection of how people view themselves within the social structure (Darder,
2015). Often times, identities become mirror images of what is defined by society’s norms and
values. According to Ramsey (2004), identities often go unquestioned, even more so under
oppressive conditions. This can have a significant impact on youth of color in urban schools.
Camangian (2010) argues that humanizing education is possible for youth of color when
urban teachers utilize nontraditional instructional approaches that focus on texts that are relevant
to their students’ lived experiences. One such approach is engaging students in writing critical
43

autoethnographies. Writing a critical autoethnography involves students writing personal
narratives that critically explore external factors influencing their lives. Critical experiences in
life provide fertile starting points to motivate students to discuss, read, write, learn, and possibly
effect change. This process involves more than narrating a list of events in one’s life. It is more
about describing one’s experiences critically within the context of identity and social justice
(Brisk, 1998). Furthermore, sharing critical autoethnographies and engaging in discourse about
them offers opportunities to incorporate the voices of subordinated groups as forms of analysis
(Ramsey, 2004).
Freire and Macedo (1987) believe that “reading does not consist merely of decoding the
written word or language; rather, it is preceded by and intertwined with knowledge of the world”
(p. 29). Critical autoethnographies serve as a powerful tool for students to engage in critical
thinking, speaking, reading, and writing and also affords them opportunities to dive into and
analyze their life circumstances. Through critical autoethnographies, students come into
awareness about their identity and begin to acquire awareness of conditions in people’s lives that
require attention and change (Brisk, 1998). As students become more aware of circumstances in
their lives, they also begin to understand that their stories are unique and important even if they
do not align to the dominant narratives they are typically exposed to. Students begin to realize
that problems they or their families may be facing may be a result of social factors rather than
personal shortcomings as some narratives suggest. In this sense, critical autoethnographies
support the wider view of literacy to read “the word and the world” (Freire & Macedo, 1987).
Ultimately, critical pedagogy is not a set theory accompanied by a list of practices.
Instead, it is a set of experiences that need to be told and retold and written and rewritten in order
44

to continue to account for new sets of circumstances and the ever-changing complexities of
teaching and learning. Writing autoethnographies allows students to engage in such a process.
Teacher Reflection and Self-Critique
Nieto (2002) and Darder (2002) argue the importance of teachers engaging in a process
of reflection and self-critique. They argue that teachers’ engagement in such a process can lead
to not only a deeper understanding of their roles in the education system but also to more
authentic teaching. Through self-reflection, teachers can come to understand their position and
the effects of their authority in the classroom, which can lead to teachers understanding their
potential to critically craft instructional experiences that can empower their students (Kincheloe,
2002a). Although the education system deems teachers as all-knowing authority figures whose
role is to disseminate knowledge to students, critical pedagogy calls for them to question the
legitimacy of knowledge as well as whom it benefits (Apple, 2005b). By reflecting and
engaging in self-critique, teachers can begin to question their motives, purposes, ideologies, and
pedagogical approaches in order to better understand how to empower their students.
The following sub-sections will discuss the critical pedagogues’ commitment to adopt
emancipatory roles as educators, foster student voice, act as transformative intellectuals, engage
in problem-posing education, and build strong teacher-student relationships.
Adopt Emancipatory Role
Ramirez and Castañeda (1974) and Nieto (2002) posit that the role of a teacher must be
emancipatory. Within the classroom where critical pedagogy is enacted, teachers have an
emancipatory view of education, and they reject being mere depositors of knowledge and,
instead, adopt a role of co-constructors of knowledge along with their students (Bartolomé, 2007;
Cummins, 2000; Darder, 2002; Nieto, 2002; Valencia, 2002). Such teachers do not view
45

themselves as mere disseminators of information that students should passively absorb and
repeat when asked. Teachers who enact critical pedagogy understand their emancipatory and
empowering role as teachers. They are cognizant of the power they have in the classroom and
actively seek to share that power with their students.
Foster Student Voice
Freire (1974) posits that, because of its humanizing nature and its potential to lead to
action, developing student voice is a critical part of education. In America’s education system,
however, student voice has been largely overlooked. This is especially true for students who
have traditionally been marginalized. Constraints within the education system, such as increased
school accountability, a heavy focus on high-stake testing, teacher pacing guides, and the
watering down of the curriculum, all contribute to teachers overlooking the need to develop
student voice (Apple, 2005b; Darder, 1991).
Freire and Macedo (1987) posit that teachers’ potential to empower students by helping
them develop their voices is key to the enactment of critical pedagogy. They affirm that, without
authentic student voices in the education system, there is no democracy. According to Giroux
(2005), voice encompasses a multifaceted and interlocking set of meanings through which
students and teachers engage in meaningful dialogue with one another. Furthermore, Freire
(1974) states,
Democracy requires dialogue, participation, political and social responsibilities, as well
as a degree of social and political solidarity. Before it becomes a political form,
democracy is a form of life, characterized above all by a strong component of transitive
consciousness. (p. 89)
46

Hence, being democratic and advocating for democracy requires both reflection and action. It
requires a certain level of responsibility to ensure that what is said is not contradicted by what is
done. In the critical pedagogy classroom, where teachers strive to help students develop political
and social responsibilities, teachers need to be critical and intentional about the curricular and
pedagogical choices they make in order to afford students the opportunity to be democratic.
According to Darder (1991) when teachers are able to be critical and can use their voice
to question inequities, they are more likely to encourage students to also use their voices to
question inequities and develop critical consciousness of their own:
Bicultural educators who have found their own voice can provide an effective bicultural
mirror, which may validate, support, and encourage students through this process during
moments of cognitive disequilibrium, and help them discover a language that accurately
describes the feelings, ideas and observations that previously have not fit into any of the
definitions of experience provided by the dominant educational discourse. (Darder, 1991,
p. 69)
This is particularly important for marginalized students since their voices have been silenced as a
result of oppressive practices that undermine their backgrounds, experiences, and assets. Giroux
(2005) argues that student voice is critical because students represent their identity via their
voice. He states that the concept of voice represents the unique instances of self-expression that
allow students to affirm their own class, culture, and racial and gender identities.
Giroux (1997) also argues that student voice humanizes education because it permits
students to be active intellectuals about matters that are relevant to their lives and that student
voice is humanizing for students because it makes them active participants of the world. He
states,
47

A student’s voice is necessarily shaped by personal history and distinctive lived
engagement with the surrounding culture. The category of voice makes ourselves
understood and listened to and defines ourselves as active participants in the world.
(Giroux, 1997, p. 90)
To truly be empowered, students need to be able to question conditions in which they
live, especially if such conditions are oppressive. To accomplish this goal, it is important for
classroom teachers to create a learning environment for students in which they can critique and
freely express their experiences, beliefs, and attitudes about their world. It is up to the teacher to
create an environment in which both teachers and students can engage in critical thought and
questioning of oppressive conditions (Duncan-Andrade, 2007; McLaren, 1998; Nieto, 2002).
Only by being immersed in a safe learning environment that promotes, encourages and validates
student voice and ongoing reflection can students truly examine social inequalities and
asymmetrical power relations.
Teachers as Transformative Intellectuals
Giroux (1997) argues that, when teachers combine scholarly reflection with practice to
train students to be responsible citizens concerned about social justice, they are acting as
transformative intellectuals. Such teachers play a central role in attempts to reform public
education. As transformative intellectuals, teachers can empower students by raising their
awareness of the workings of societal institutions and inequities within such systems (Kincheloe
& McLaren, 2011).
For teachers to assume the role of transformative intellectuals who empower their
students, certain conditions have to be in place when it comes to both their instructional practices
and the conditions present at their school sites. Teachers who enact critical pedagogy can only
48

do so if they understand their empowering role and are well-grounded in their pedagogical
approaches. Giroux (2005) asserts that, for teachers to deliver a pedagogy of literacy and
empowerment, they need to know what and how to teach as well as how to maneuver their way
around constraints placed by the education system in which they operate. In other words,
teachers need to be cognizant of content and pedagogy that perpetually ignores the needs of
students and, instead, take deliberate action to make the learning process more active and
meaningful for students. According to Horton and Freire (1990), teachers who enact critical
pedagogy honor the subject matter they teach, but also recognize and act upon their authority
over their subject matter by being open to deep examination, questioning of the status quo, and
commitment to take action where needed. Degener (2001) suggests that, through a dialogical
process, a critical teacher can elicit student opinions about curriculum and program structure.
They can also gauge the levels of critical thinking and dialogue that are occurring in their classes
and make adjustments as necessary to ensure that all students are afforded a safe and student-
centered environment where ongoing reflection and questioning are part of daily learning.
Teachers as Problem-Posing Educators
Dewey (2004) asserts that students understand their lived experiences best and take on a
more active role in determining their positionality within society when they have authentic
opportunities to learn via problem solving and when they are afforded opportunities to apply
acquired knowledge in their search for solutions. Therefore, a key role of teachers who enact
critical pedagogy is to be problem posers for students so that they may begin to think critically
about the world.
Freire (1974) suggests problem-posing education via a dialectical process to foster
heightened critical consciousness, or conscientization, among students. He argues that this type
49

of problem-posing education is both student-centered and inquiry-based. It involves teachers
and students modifying the traditional teacher–student relationship so that they can feel secure to
collectively document problems, analyze their causes, and act upon them to effect change. This
process allows students to begin to critically perceive the causes of social, political, and
economic oppression. This process of conscientization allows them to begin to gain the drive to
take action against such oppression. According to Freire (1998), teachers should facilitate
classroom experiences that encourage students to become active agents in their own education.
Freire (1970) argues that teachers need to push against a system in which problem-posing
education is unpopular because “[it] does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressor. No
oppressive order could permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?” Despite challenges,
Freire argues that teachers need to provide a problem-posing curriculum for students, since it is
only through this process that students can begin to evaluate the validity, fairness, and authority
that operates within their educational and living situations. Bigelow and Petersen (2005) suggest
that providing a problem-posing curriculum grounded in critical pedagogy gives students
opportunities to also question traditional curriculum and transform it to be more representative of
people and ideas that have traditionally been excluded from it.
Foster Strong Teacher-Student Relationships
Research has shown that student–teacher relationships play a critical role in student
learning outcomes, both short-term and long-term (Martin & Dowson, 2009; Murray &
Malmgren, 2005). Consequently, central to the enactment of critical pedagogy is strong teacher–
student relationships. Research shows that teachers who enact critical pedagogy thoroughly
understand the value of authentic teacher–student relationships and deliberately take steps to
build strong relationships with their students through trust, affection, and nurturance (Mortari,
50

2016). Yet, according to Valenzuela (1999) and Duncan-Andrade (2007) the teacher–student
relationship is an important construct that often gets overlooked in the education system.
Although the education system strives to prepare teachers so that they can build strong
relationships with their students, teacher–student relationships are not always strong. The high
number of students whom teachers serve, the dynamics of a busy classroom, and increased
accountability when it comes to student outcomes often make these relationships very
impersonal. Constraints such as a heavy focus on raising test scores creates a high-stress and
toxic environment in the classroom and adversely impacts teacher–student relationships
(Bartolomé, 2007; Darder, 2002; Nieto, 2002; Valencia, 2002).
According to Freire (1970), the traditional teacher–student relationship is one in which
the teacher is the all-knowing authority figure in the classroom who acts upon the student who is
the object of the classroom. The teacher assumes the role of authority figure in the classroom
where students are expected to follow rules and comply with requests in order to be considered
cooperative and well-behaved. This traditional relationship between teachers and students
teaches students very early on how to comply with the requests made by those in positions of
power and strains the teacher–student relationship.
According to Shor (1992), authentic relationships between teachers and students begin
when teachers are willing to let go of their authoritative role in the classroom and instead focus
on the life experiences of their students. As part of a liberating and empowering education, Shor
and Freire (1987) propose a teacher–student relationship in which the teacher shares power with
the students, giving the students opportunities to learn content from multiple perspectives and to
construct knowledge as part of their life experiences. Although maintaining strong teacher–
student relationships in order to facilitate productive academic exchanges is important, the
51

opportunity gaps that students of color experience often requires a teacher–student bond that
goes beyond the academic realm. Valenzuela (1999) and Duncan-Andrade (2007) assert that, for
teacher–student relationships to be genuinely strong, they must extend beyond the classroom and
academic dynamics and must be built on trust and affection (cariño).
The following subsections discuss trust, affection, and radical love and their role in
building strong teacher–student relationships in the classroom.
Trust and cariño. Duncan-Andrade (2007), Morrell (2004), and Valenzuela (1999)
contend that trust between teachers and students is essential to students’ self-confidence and
academic success. Trust is defined by Duncan-Andrade (2007) as an authentic collaboration
between teacher and student that arises when the teacher is willing to connect with his/her
students by seeking to understand and embrace their lives and experiences.
Duncan-Andrade’s (2007) study draws from three years of research in the classrooms of
four highly effective teachers in South Los Angeles. Data gathered from observations during
classroom visits, video lesson study, group discussions, and formal interviews of these teachers
revealed five pillars of effective teaching practice in urban classrooms, one of them being trust.
This trait pertained to these teachers’ unwavering commitment to build trust with their students.
Evidence of their commitment to earn their students’ trust was clear in their classroom
management, teaching approaches, and even in their grading practices. In addition, Duncan-
Andrade’s (2007) findings indicate that teachers who were committed to building strong
relationships with their students exhibited characteristics such as the following:
1. They wanted to work with underperforming and struggling students.
2. They were risk takers with students, with the curriculum, and with their pedagogy.
52

3. They engaged with the community by building relationships with parents and other
community members.
4. They associated their teaching with the “struggle” for human dignity and justice.
Duncan-Andrade also found that teachers who developed trusting relationships with their
students viewed student failure as their own failure. These teachers were indignant about student
failure and were committed to helping their students and to holding them accountable. When
teachers create a bond with their students, they set up conditions in which their students are
willing to learn. Students understand that their teachers have high expectations for them and are
more willing to “buy in” to such expectations and take ownership of their learning.
Prominent researchers in the field of education identify teacher–student relationships and
the care students perceive from their teachers as the foundation of an effective learning
environment (Dewey, 2004; Freire, 1996; Vygotsky, 1980). The prevalence of care in high-
performing schools and its absence in low-performing schools calls for all teachers, especially
those who aspire to improve student outcomes through their enactment of critical pedagogy to
infuse authentic care (cariño) into their teacher–student relationships. Two case studies
conducted across eight urban high schools found that the highest performing schools had
effectively implemented structures designed to meet students’ academic and social learning
needs (Rutledge, Choen-Vogel, & Roberts, 2015; Tichnor-Wagner & Allen, 2016). Another
study of three urban schools over seven years found that integrating care into interpersonal
relationships within classroom communities positively impacted students’ demonstration of
empathy, self-esteem, motivation, engagement, and even reading comprehension (Battistich,
Solomon, Watson, & Schaps, 1994). Therefore, if teachers are to build strong relationships with
their students and engage them in meaningful discoveries about their world, they should infuse
53

care into their teaching practice. In this manner, trust and cariño become key to the enactment of
critical pedagogy.
Radical Love. Central to Freire’s conception of the development of a critical
consciousness was the idea of radical love (Freire, 1970). His notion of love stands out among
the various social, cultural, and spiritual definitions of love that exist. He asserts that “love is an
act of courage, not fear…. A commitment to others and to the cause of liberation” (Freire, 1970,
p. 78). It is this inherent power of love that makes the notion of radical love key to the
enactment of critical pedagogy. Freire (1993) asserts the inherent power of love when it comes
to teaching and learning about the world:
Dialogue cannot exist…in the absence of a profound love for the world and for people.
The naming of the world, which is an act of creation and re-creation, is not possible if it
is not infused with love. Love is at the same time the foundation of dialogue and
dialogue itself. (p. 89)
This strengthens the need for bringing in content that is relevant for students. If students find
relevance in what they are learning, they will be more likely to increase their commitment to
learn more about their world.
Cunningham’s (2004) definition of “real love” supports Freire’s (1970) notion of radical
love. She distinguishes between “false love” and “real love,” which she suggests involves
radical action. She adds that, when people choose “real love,” they do not necessarily play by
the rules and refuse to work within the established systems; they are comfortable with going
against established norms and the status quo even if they face adversity. Cunningham (2004)
posits,
54

Once we begin to remove the superficial measures of beauty, success, and what’s
considered ‘good and normal’ from our lives, we start to move towards accepting people
in all their flawed glory. Real love can be as simple as a glass of water. (pg. 37)
Teachers who embrace this type of radical love-infused commitment when it comes to their
teaching facilitate their students’ journeys toward self-acceptance. This is important since self-
acceptance is critical for people to love themselves and their world, and, according to Freire
(1974), true learning cannot exist without love. He posits that dialogue that is critical to learning
cannot exist if there is no profound love for the world. Self-acceptance, thus, becomes inspiring.
According to Douglas and Nganga (2015), radical love is both a means and an end to education.
They argue that radical love can light the fire for people to become part of efforts to lean into
vulnerability and struggle, solidarity and liberation, and organization and action.
Darder (2002) also asserts that radical love is powerful and that it can be an anti-
oppressive force used to resist exploitation. She asserts that radical love is worthy of
consideration when it comes to teaching, especially for the teacher who enacts critical pedagogy
because a profound love for humanity, as well as love of the subject matter being taught must be
present in order to truly inspire students. In other words, empowering teaching requires a love
for people and a love for the world (Darder, 2002; Freire, 1993, 1998).
All teachers can empower students by being proponents of radical love. Freire’s (1970)
radical love requires the willingness to take risks as well as an unwavering commitment to
dialogue to benefit students. Teachers who enact critical pedagogy understand that radical love
demands that dialogue be used as a means of subverting dominant positionalities, since love
“cannot exist in a relation of domination” (Freire, 1993, p. 89).
55

In this respect, radical love provides hope and a promise for action to combat oppressive
conditions. Freire (1993) argues that, although infusing radical love into teaching is
diametrically opposed to traditional conceptions of schooling, it can have a profound effect if
teachers are willing to truly humanize their teaching and empower their students.
Critique of Critical Pedagogy
Critical pedagogy has been critiqued for its lofty goals of challenging oppression.
Particularly, it has received criticism due to its broad perspective of democracy. Critics contend
that, despite critical pedagogy’s claims of emancipation and equality, its heavy focus on
democracy can shift attention away from classroom interactions and dynamics that are important
to student learning. Since teachers are the ones who initiate the critical process for students in
their search for democracy, critics ask the question of who really benefits from the critical
process. Gore (1993) admits that the critical process unfolds through teacher directive that is
rationalized because it is believed that challenging oppressions necessitates a directive approach.
Giroux and McLaren (1986) state that teachers are justified through emancipatory authority
based on the moral and political referents for authority they assume. According to Gore (1993),
the emancipatory authority role of the teacher becomes legitimized in order to teach students
their participatory roles for democratic change. This in itself is loaded with bias because it
reflects the teacher’s interests, not necessarily the students’ interests, and can result in silencing
students rather than empowering them. Giroux (1988) states,
On the one hand teacher voice represents a basis in authority that can provide knowledge
and forms of self-understanding allowing students to develop the power of critical
consciousness. At the same time, regardless of how politically or ideologically correct a
teacher may be, his or her voice may be destructive for students if it is used to silence
56

them. Emancipatory authority can serve ―the interests of the teacher who is able to
exercise a great deal of power in deciding who should have a voice, which voices are in
the interests of democracy, and so on (as cited in Gore, 1993, p. 100)
Ellsworth (1992) questions how a teacher can be better situated to project knowledge about
particular situations more than the student him/herself. She argues that the teacher often uses his
or her position of privilege in a quest for democracy.
Another criticism of critical pedagogy revolves around its goal of student empowerment.
Critical pedagogy attempts to empower students by helping students acquire critical
consciousness so they can engage in meaningful dialogue and questioning about their world. As
much as the goal to empower students is desirable, it is loaded with ambiguity. The idealistic
goal of empowering all students involves challenges that are not removed simply through raised
awareness and dialogue since, to begin with, dialogue is not equal among students based on both
power differentials as well as individual differences. Critics argue that equity when it comes to
dialogue in its conventional sense is impossible in the culture at large because, at this historical
moment, power relations between raced, classed, and gendered students and teachers are unjust
(Ellsworth, 1992, p. 108). As a result, the opportunity to speak or share experiences equally in
the critical classroom cannot be guaranteed based on a myriad of reasons.
Ellsworth (1992) states that empowerment is a key to critical pedagogy, but that caution
must be exercised with a concept such as empowerment. Critics argue that the questions of how
and where to channel student empowerment when attained often remain unanswered (Ellsworth,
1992). Critics argue that ambiguity leads to students’ striving for some common good that is
vague and, therefore, may be misunderstood and lack true meaning in students’ personal lives.
In cases where attempts have been made to conceptualize student empowerment, it has been
57

defined in the broadest humanistic terms possible and its conceptualization has often been
reduced to ahistorical and apolitical abstractions. This can be problematic in the sense that it can
prevent students from challenging actual social or political views, institutions, and/or groups that
merit being challenged in their lives (Ellsworth, 1992).
Yet another criticism is that not enough attention has been given to the teacher–student
relationship; therefore, it has not been contextualized in a manner that can facilitate change.
Given the heavy emphasis on teacher–student relationships for facilitating change in the
democratic classroom, this can be a setback to goal attainment in the classroom where critical
pedagogy is enacted. Critics argue that theorists of critical pedagogy have not put forth a
concrete plan or program that reformulates the institutionalized power imbalances between
teachers and students. In the absence of such a plan or program, it is difficult to transform power
imbalances in the classroom. Critical pedagogy’s strong commitment to shared power and
dialogue between teacher and students gives the illusion of equality while often leaving the
authoritarian nature of the teacher–student relationship intact. (Ellsworth, 1992).
Summary
Despite its highly ambiguous nature, critical pedagogy provides a framework to help
students strengthen their identities and employ their voices as a tool to navigate social and
political barriers in their lives. This is particularly important for urban youth who have
traditionally been marginalized. However, in an era of standardization and increased
accountability, critical pedagogy is seen as a subversive practice by many, including educators
(Kincheloe, 2009). This ongoing skepticism has contributed to its slow movement from theory
to practice.
58

This literature review defined critical pedagogy and its six guiding principles:
knowledge, dialectical theory, praxis, the economic system, cultural politics, and
hegemony/power in schools. Despite these guiding principles, the review of the literature
revealed that the ambiguity surrounding the enactment of critical pedagogy makes it difficult to
implement in the classroom. This is compounded by the fact that there is much diversity even
among critical pedagogues regarding what constitutes critical pedagogy. Therefore, promising
practices in the field are not only few but also vary significantly.
A common theme in the literature was the need for teachers to deconstruct dominant
narratives that overlook the backgrounds, contributions, and assets of those who are not from the
dominant group. The literature stresses the need for teachers to situate various non-dominant
narratives as legitimate (Giroux, 2000). Another common theme across the literature was the
need to take action to change unjust conditions. The literature emphasizes problem-posing
education beginning with the immediate learning environment and then expanding into
communities. It calls for teachers to help students become public intellectuals who can effect
change in both their academic and social contexts (Scorza et al., 2013).
This literature review also discussed some teacher practices that align with the guiding
principles of the theory: generative themes, counter-storytelling, YPAR, photovoice, and critical
autobiography. All of these practices revolve around developing student identity, voice, and
agency for change. Examining at these practices is important because they may provide insight
into effective approaches for teaching underprivileged students across different contexts.
The future of critical pedagogy depends heavily on teachers’ willingness and ability to
engage in critical self-reflection (McLaren, 1998). Engaging in critical reflection regarding their
personal beliefs and professional practices drives teachers to gain a deeper understanding of
59

themselves, their students, and of the impact their curriculum and pedagogy have on their
students. Without this reflection, regardless of teachers’ intentions to implement emancipatory
pedagogical practices, little can be done to help students combat oppressive practices that may
surround them (Gay & Kirkland, 2003).

60

Chapter Three: Methodology
“All human activity consists of action and reflection, or praxis. And as praxis, all human
activity needs theory to illuminate it. This interface between theory and practice occurs, for
example, at the point where oppressed groups come together and raise fundamental questions of
how they may assist each other, and how- through such an exchange in views – an action might
emerge in which all groups might benefit”
- (Freire, 1974, p.77)
The purpose of this study was to examine the practices and perceptions of teachers who
enact critical pedagogy in order to gain insights regarding the perceived effects of such
approaches on student engagement and empowerment. Qualitative research is used to make
sense of and interpret phenomena in terms of the meaning people bring to them (Denzin, 2000);
therefore, qualitative research best suited this study. In this study, the pedagogical practices and
perceptions of teachers who enact critical pedagogy in secondary Social Studies and English
classrooms will be documented. This study will document teaching practices that align with the
guiding principles of critical pedagogy as well as teacher-student relationships in the classrooms
where critical pedagogy is enacted. This chapter provides a description of how the study was
developed, the research design, the context and setting of the study, the participants, data
collection, data analysis, and how the data was reported.
Review of the Problem
Persistent opportunity gaps continue to rise for students of color in public schools in
America. Numerous educational reforms and increased accountability efforts have resulted in
teachers integrating both curriculum and instruction that is not supportive of diverse student
populations and their needs (Bartolomé, 2007; Darder, 2002). This study calls attention to the
61

fact that despite numerous educational reforms and increased accountability, the academic needs
of students of color are still not being met (Ladd, 2017). Increased efforts to improve education
gives the illusion that multiple factors are finally working in favor of all students; however, this
is not the case as is evidenced by academic disparities between students of color and their White
counterparts.
The goal of this study was to understand the pedagogical practices of teachers who enact
critical pedagogy and to gain insights about how they perceive its enactment impacts their
students. Information gathered from this study has the potential to improve instructional
practices and student learning. Gaining insight into the instructional practices of teachers who
enact critical pedagogy can potentially help move teachers away from traditional text-centered
approaches that support hegemonic constructs of knowledge and which do little to validate the
experiences and contributions of students from traditionally marginalized groups. In addition,
gaining knowledge about the enactment of critical pedagogy in the classroom can help move
teachers away from traditional practices that place students as mere recipients of information and
instead help teachers facilitate conditions for their students to become more active participants in
their own learning. These traditional approaches have failed to produce favorable outcomes
among marginalized students (Milner, 2010); therefore, findings from this study can potentially
foster positive student-teacher relationships, which significantly impact student outcomes.
Understanding characteristics of critical pedagogy in classrooms and its effect on student
achievement can help teachers develop a better understanding of how to work with students who
represent diverse backgrounds and who have traditionally experienced multiple opportunity gaps
in their education.

62

Research Questions
The research questions of this study were the overarching questions that guided the study.
The questions were deliberately planned to allow for more data to be collected from the
responses. For example, questions that begin with ‘why’ should be avoided as they elicit cause
and effect thinking or suggest that the researcher has a hidden agenda, while questions that begin
with ‘how’ or ‘what’ are more open-ended (Creswell, 2014). In order to allow for a wider scope
of data collection, the research questions for this study are open-ended and begin with ‘how’ or
‘what.’
This study answered the following research questions:
1. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their
teaching practices?
2. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their
impact on their students?
Design of the Study
Qualitative research is primarily exploratory and provides insights through interpretation
of themes and concepts that emerge during the research (Corbin & Strauss, 2008); therefore,
capturing the complexities of critical pedagogy is something that qualitative research can capture
best (Maxwell, 2013). The goal of this study was to gather data from teachers, specifically, their
instructional practices and perceptions in order to build concepts and hypotheses about what
works in the context of the enactment of critical pedagogy in secondary Social Studies and
English classrooms. In this study, I as the primary research instrument sought to understand
what teaching practices constitute critical pedagogy as well as how teachers who enact critical
63

pedagogy perceive their impact on their students (Merriam, 2009). I conducted both
observations and interviews of the three participants.
Observations are a tool that allow for first-hand encounters with the phenomenon of
interest, while interviews are a tool that allow the researcher to gather data in order to understand
how people make meaning of their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Through data
derived from both observations and interviews, this study offers rich description of critical
pedagogy enactment in the classroom. The data captured can help readers contextualize,
interpret, and apply findings in their own professional contexts.
My purpose for conducting this study was to achieve professional and personal goals. As
a lifelong learner and educator, I have experienced first-hand empowerment as a result of
education, but I have also witnessed disempowerment and vast numbers of children struggle to
make gains in a system that is disconnected to their needs and that often perpetuates their
marginalization. A central goal for me is to promote a socially just education system in which all
students can thrive and gain the tools necessary to pursue a promising future. Critical pedagogy,
which seeks to empower students by challenging them to examine power structures and patterns
of inequity within the status quo, offers promise in the search for a socially just education
system. The findings of this study were complex due to the unique experiences of participants
(Merriam, 2009). This complexity and uniqueness support the complex nature of critical
pedagogy.
Setting
Equity Academy (EA), a pseudonym, is a public magnet high school in Los Angeles that
served as the setting for this study. The school serves a population of nearly 900 students in
64

Grades 9-12
th
who represent diverse racial, ethnic, and socio-economic backgrounds. A total of
three classrooms were observed within the magnet school.
According to Merriam (2009), inquiring into a case requires the researcher(s) to attempt
to understand the context in which given phenomenon take place. Therefore, part of my role in
this study was to learn as much as possible about the school site. Since the school site in this
study is a magnet school, it is important to understand some of the background of magnet
schools. In the early 80s, urban school districts in California were under pressure to take
meaningful steps to integrate students. Magnet programs were designed in response to these
pressures and were designed to promote the integration of students from diverse racial, ethnic,
and socio-economic backgrounds. EA was established as a magnet school committed to
delivering an integrated, interdisciplinary, and stimulating curriculum that explores diverse ideas,
while continually providing the best academic preparation for college-bound students. The
magnet school is committed to furthering humanities education and is a model school for
interdisciplinary, thematic humanities instruction for urban students.
Participants and Context of the Study
For this study, I was looking for teachers who self-identify as enactors of critical
pedagogy. A total of three participants volunteered to take part in the study. I located my
participants through a mixture of both convenience and network sampling (Merriam, 2009).
Convenience sampling refers to selecting participants based on location and availability.
Network sampling refers to selecting participants who have established relationships with other
participants in the study (Merriam, 2009). I was initially referred to one participant through
professor recommendation. This one participant then recommended the other two participants
whom she shared a strong professional network with. All three participants taught at the same
65

school site, and each of the participants identified themselves as enacting critical pedagogy. Two
of the participants are secondary English teachers. The other participant is a secondary Social
Studies teacher. Each of the participants was assigned a pseudonym for the entire study in order
to protect their identity.
An essential part of a study’s methods is how the researcher initiates and negotiates
relationships with participants (Maxwell, 2013). In this study, I employed overt observation,
which involved me, as the researcher, clearly declaring to potential participants what the research
entailed as well as gaining their permission from the beginning of the study. Bogdan and Biklen
(2007) stress the importance of making your research interest known to your participants;
therefore, I was transparent and thorough about my background, the purpose of my study, and
my role as a researcher. I shared that I was their colleague and that I was looking to learn from
their practice and expertise.
According to Merriam (2009), building positive relationships with your participants is
essential for a productive working relationship. To build trust, I shared that I was a teacher
seeking to conduct research to find promising instructional practices in order to improve student
learning outcomes. Sharing the goal of my research helped create trust because as teachers, a
fundamental part of their practice is also to find promising instructional practices to improve
student achievement. This approach played an important role in my research study because a
major goal of my study was to gain information from the participants on promising pedagogical
practices so that other educators may apply them to their classroom contexts.
By being transparent, I ensured that participants understood their role in the study and the
value they would be adding to the study, and ultimately, to the larger field of education. My
commitment to establish positive relationship with the participants allowed me to operate
66

ethically as a researcher in order to gain the information I needed to answer my research
questions (Maxwell, 2013).
The small size of my sample facilitated a more in-depth analysis. Having three
participants in the study was a viable sample size because data from both observations and
interviews in this study were intended to yield a substantial amount of information. Despite the
small sample size, the large volume of data collected allowed me to delve deeper into the study
and use thick description to interpret my findings (Merriam, 2009).
It is important to note, that with this insider status, came biases. As a researcher, it was
my ethical duty to acknowledge my biases in order to control for them. I foresaw difficulties
arising due to my positionality as an insider in this study (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013), so I
was able to keep biases under control by searching for disconfirming evidence in order to gain
high quality data.
Data Collection
Qualitative methodology was selected for this study because it allows for interpretation of
data via themes and concepts that surface, which might go unnoticed when using quantitative
methodology (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study employed observations and interviews of
three teachers who enact critical pedagogy in order to explore those teachers’ instructional
practices as well as their perceptions of the impact such practices have on their students. In
addition, to enhance the reliability of my study I recorded additional researcher memos following
each observation setting without speaking to anyone (Merriam, 2009). These memos served to
further enhance my data collection. Maxwell (2013) stated that completing these memos
immediately after every episode of data collection would help the researcher engage in
meaningful reflection and analytic insight. All three participants were given a consent sheet
67

which made them aware of the purpose of the study and which ensured their confidentiality (see
Appendix A).
According to Merriam (2009), there are three stages of data collection through
observation: entry, data collection, and exit. In the entry phase, I ensured transparency in order
to maximize participants’ experiences as well as mine as the researcher. I did this by clearly
explaining my role and my purpose and indicating that in no way was it evaluative. Being that
all three participants are teachers and that observations are often conducted for evaluative
purposes, I needed to ensure that my role was not evaluative. It was important for me to confirm
that I was looking for promising teaching practices to enhance my own learning and to share
with others in the field so that they may implement them in their own teaching and learning
contexts.
Observations
Observations were a critical part of my study. Unlike interviews, which provide a
second-hand account of an experience, observations provide a first-hand account (Merriam,
2009). In the observations, I was the instrument whose role was to observe promising practices
of critical pedagogy enactment. As the sole instrument, it was very important for me to consider
my biases, so I made sure to use my research questions to ground my observations. I drafted an
observation protocol to guide my notes during my observations (see Appendix B). During my
observation, I made sure to carefully observe the setting, participants, activities, interactions, and
my own behavior (Merriam, 2009). Specifically, I took notes on the room environment
(posters/pictures/bulletin boards), desk arrangement, media usage, student and lesson materials,
and what the teacher wrote on the board (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007).
68

Bogdan and Biklen (2007) stress the importance of being an unobtrusive observer
considering that the researcher’s presence is enough to alter the dynamics within the setting.
This is important in order to capture as close as possible the normal day-to-day interactions. By
committing to being a strict observer and as unobtrusive as possible, I was able to stay focused
on my research questions. Observations made it possible for me to record behaviors and
interactions in a natural setting. All observations were voluntary, and each participant was
observed once in their classroom.
Interviews
A semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix C) was used to interview the
participants. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), semi-structured interviews work well to
capture participants’ worldviews as well as new information. The questions were predetermined
and were selected and arranged to align with the research questions. Some of the questions were
more open-ended in order to allow opportunities for participants to elaborate. I began by asking
background questions and proceeded into the heart of the interview, which consisted of the
interview questions that aligned to the overarching research questions. I ended with a closing
question that gave participants the opportunity to share additional insights. The open-endedness
of this last questions was certainly intentional to allow for additional data capturing (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
The ongoing problem of underachievement among students of color guided this study. In
an attempt to address this problem, many researchers have investigated factors that contribute to
the problem of persistent underachievement for traditionally marginalized students. However,
many studies on the underachievement of students of color have focused on potential student
deficits and the potential limitations of the teachers who teach them (Abedi, 2008). In order to
69

move away from the deficit mindset that places the blame on students and teachers, this study
aimed to gain insights from exceptional teachers who enact critical pedagogy through research
questions that asked them about their instructional practices and the perceptions they have of
their students’ learning. Also, the research questions in this study merit investigation because the
existence of persistent opportunity gaps among traditionally marginalized students constitutes an
issue of equity. Consequently, the interview protocol is key to capturing accurate and
meaningful data that could potentially lead to solutions for this problem of practice.
My primary method of gathering data was to conduct interviews. A key purpose of
interviewing is to allow us into the other person’s perspective. It assumes that the perspective of
others is meaningful in some way and should be made explicit in order to be captured (Patton,
2002). The interview protocol; therefore, is a key instrument for capturing meaningful data. For
this reason, the interview protocol must be carefully aligned to the research questions and
purpose of the study.
Data was collected during scheduled interviews with each participant. The interviews
were held separately. Once the participants were identified, I contacted them to determine a time
for the interview. All interviews took place over the phone. Extensive notes were taken during
the entire duration of each interview. Immediately following the interviews, I also wrote memos
in order to have more information that I could cross-reference. According to Maxwell (2013),
writing notes immediately after data collection can facilitate the researcher’s reflection and
analytic insight. Each of the three interviews was transcribed within one week of the time the
interview took place. Participants were interviewed individually.
70

Data Analysis
Critical pedagogy guided the frame and analysis of this study. Specifically, the guiding
principles of critical pedagogy were used as a tool for analysis of the data collected. The data
analysis for this study consisted of collecting data from a total of three observations, one of each
participant; three interviews, one with each participant; and researcher memos. The observations
and interviews were analyzed extensively in order to find meaningful data (Maxwell, 2013). As
part of the analysis, data from the observations and interviews were transcribed, coded, sorted
and analyzed for emerging themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In addition, I took careful
measures to cross-reference observation notes, interview notes, and my researcher memos.
Cross-referencing the data was helpful. Being that I am the main instrument in this qualitative
study, I wanted to ensure the integrity of my data analysis as much as possible (Merriam, 2009).
According to Harding (2013), a priori codes are categories that arise from the literature
review before the research has begun. For this study, these categories are derived from the six
guiding principles of critical pedagogy: knowledge, dialectical theory, praxis, the economic
system, cultural politics, and hegemony/power in schools. Other a priori categories are student
voice, generative themes, teacher-student relationships, trust, and radical love. Meanwhile,
empirical codes arise from reading and sifting through the data that are collected. Key empirical
codes for this study include teacher ideology, teacher autonomy, teacher collaboration,
metacognition, criticality, student dialogue, enhanced curriculum, social justice, and trust. The
data in this study were coded using both a priori and empirical codes, which were then combined
into categories. Once all the data was reviewed and coded line by line, themes emerged
(Maxwell, 2013). The emerging themes ensured that my conclusions were based on collected
and coded data and allowed me to relate my conclusions to theory. This process also allowed me
71

to better understand the enactment of critical pedagogy and its impact on student learning from
the perspective of my participants (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Comparing participants’
pedagogical approaches, experiences, and perceptions helped me uncover different dimensions
of critical pedagogy.
For the duration of this study, I was careful to maintain the confidentiality of the
participants. I assigned pseudonyms to the participants as well as to the sites that they
represented. Pseudonyms were used throughout the study due to the Institutional Review
Board’s (IRB) process that was established to protect human subjects. I ensured that the
information was all kept in a password-protected computer file. All interview transcriptions and
researcher notes were scanned and kept in a password-protected file. Any hard copies of data
were also filed, and only I had access to them. For the duration of this study, the data was stored
in my home office to ensure its protection.
Reliability and Validity
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the best strategy to support the internal validity
of a study is through triangulation. Triangulation in this study occurred by cross-referencing of
observation notes, interview transcriptions from audiotapes, researcher notes following the
interviews, and member checking.
To aid in the reliability of this study, I engaged in the practice of writing an additional set
of memos as quickly as possible after leaving my observation sites (Merriam, 2009). In these
memos, I recorded my immediate reactions and interpretations, which also became part of my
data. I also committed to listening to the audiotaped interviews as quickly as possible after
completing the interview. Next, each interview was accurately transcribed. I then compared the
recorded data to my notes in order to ensure accuracy. These multiple referents – observational
72

field notes, interview transcriptions and memos all served to help me draw meaningful
conclusions.
In order to strengthen the credibility and trustworthiness of my study, member checking,
which refers to the systematic request for feedback from participants in order to minimize
misinterpretation of the data, took place. According to Maxwell (2013), member checking is the
most effective way of eliminating misinterpretation of the data. Within one week of the
interviews, the data was transcribed in order to allow adequate time for member checking. As
part of this process, I reached out to participants, on an as needed basis, for either confirmation
or clarification of answers (Merriam, 2009).
According to Merriam (2009), credibility, consistency, and transferability are constructs
that affect the rigor of a study. Credibility refers to the confidence in the accuracy of the data.
Consistency refers to the extent to which the findings of a study can be replicated, while
transferability, also known as generalizability, refers to the extent to which findings from one
study can be applied to other studies, (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). Through triangulation,
steps were taken to check for all these constructs.
Finally, it is important to not overlook researcher bias since it can affect credibility,
consistency, and transferability. As the researcher, I was aware of my biases. I knew that since I
shared the same profession as the participants in the study, I had preconceived notions of school
and classroom dynamics, especially pedagogy. Therefore, I made a strong effort avoid such
biases when it came to me drafting the interview protocol, conducting the interview, asking for
clarification, and analyzing the data.
73

Researcher Positionality
I was not an insider to the individual sites in this study; however, I was an insider to the
study because of the previous knowledge I had coming into the study. As a teacher, I share the
same profession as the three participants in the study. This afforded me some advantages such as
understanding students’ needs and strengths, pedagogical approaches, and the dynamics of
student teacher relationships (Merriam, 2009). This knowledge afforded me an emic perspective
throughout my study, which allowed me to develop a trusting relationship with the participants.
Since I am a teacher, they viewed me as a peer who was part of their culture and on their level
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I was not viewed as someone who came in with an evaluative
agenda and whom they had to be cautious about.
This gave me an emic perspective into the setting (Merriam, 2009) and afforded me
critical insight into the teacher and student dynamics. It gave me insights into the pedagogical
practices that teachers employ in order to meet the needs of the diverse populations served at
these school settings. However, having an insider perspective also had some limiting effects on
me as a researcher because of the preconceived notions I had about classroom contexts and
pedagogy. In order to overcome the inherent bias brought about by having an insider
perspective, I acknowledged the bias and made every effort to acknowledge disconfirming
evidence during my analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Summary
This chapter outlined how this study used a qualitative design to capture the instructional
practices and perceptions of teachers who enact critical pedagogy. Qualitative research was ideal
for this study because it captures specific situations and/or people and emphasizes rich
descriptions (Maxwell, 2013). In order to fulfill my goal of educators to empower students
74

through the enactment of critical pedagogy in their classrooms, it is imperative that my research
capture as clearly as possible the practices and perceptions of such teachers. Qualitative research
was chosen for this study because it can best capture the practices that constitute the enactment
of critical pedagogy as well as its perceived benefits (Maxwell, 2013).
The setting of this study was a public high school in an urban area of southern California.
My study included three volunteer participants who self-identified as enactors of critical
pedagogy, one secondary English teacher and two Social Studies secondary teachers. As the
researcher, I was the main instrument in data collection (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I analyzed
the data using an inductive approach and looked for patterns and assigned codes and categories
in order to categorize my findings into themes (Maxwell, 2013). This study’s participants,
setting, and findings were richly described in order to strengthen and expand the applicability of
the findings. Through rich descriptions and triangulation of the observations and interviews that
were conducted, this study can allow readers to contextualize, interpret, and apply the findings to
their own professional practice.

75

Chapter Four: Findings
“Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the
real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction. … The function of education, therefore, is
to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. … Intelligence plus character – that is
the goal of true education.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr. (1947, paras. 4, 5, 7)
The purpose of this study was to gain understanding of the practices that constitute the
enactment of critical pedagogy in secondary classrooms, as well as how teachers who enact it
perceive its impact on their students’ engagement and empowerment. Curriculum and pedagogy
both have the power to tap into students’ lived realities and identities (Gomez, 2008); yet
dominant educational frameworks and pedagogical approaches often overlook the backgrounds,
experiences, and contributions of students from marginalized backgrounds, further alienating
them from meaningful schooling experiences (Apple, 2005a). In an effort to provide more
equitable educational opportunities for students via more student-centered pedagogy, this study
sought to understand the enactment of critical pedagogy and its perceived impact. The first three
chapters of this dissertation offered an introduction to the problem surrounding traditional
teaching approaches which place the teacher as the all-knowing disseminator of information and
students as passive recipients to be filled with information a review of the literature surrounding
critical pedagogy, and the methodological design utilized for this study. This chapter will now
present the findings that emerged from the data collected and analyzed.
This qualitative study employed a descriptive case study methodology with data collected
from observations and interviews (Yin, 2018; Merriam, 2009). Pseudonyms were assigned to the
76

school site and participants in order to ensure participant confidentiality. The findings will be
presented in relation to the following research questions (Yin, 2018):
1. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their
teaching practices?
2. How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their
impact on their students?
The data collected yielded highly descriptive, nuanced, and detailed, information about the
enactment and perceived benefits of critical pedagogy.
Data gathered from teacher participant interviews pointed to the enactment of critical
pedagogy resulting from a pre-established commitment to social justice. Each of the
participants, through different experiences, possessed an ideology highly centered in social
justice. All three participants viewed critical pedagogy as a vehicle to empower their students by
exposing them to alternative narratives and encouraging them to be critical thinkers about the
world around them.
School Background
Following the 1954 landmark Supreme Court case Brown vs. the Board of Education,
there was still unwillingness on the part of many White parents to integrate Black and White
children in schools. A proposed alternative was to create programs with specialized curriculum
catered to different student interests in order to encourage parents to voluntarily integrate
schools. Under such efforts, EA was established as a magnet high school.
EA is one of the highest achieving magnet schools in the district. It is a leading
secondary school for the study of Humanities. One of the school’s core beliefs is that knowledge
is best learned when presented holistically. Teachers at the school feel that knowledge becomes
77

richer, more comprehensible, and more meaningful when educational disciplines are taught
holistically in a manner that allows for them to enhance each other, rather than by teaching them
in isolation. The school’s website notes that classes are writing-based and interdisciplinary,
particularly, the literature, social studies, art history, and philosophy classes. Currently, the
school serves a student population close to 900 in Grades 9-12 who represent a broad range of
racial, ethnic, and socio-economic diversity. Since its creation, the school has been a marker of
educational excellence both for its specialized curriculum and its diversity. Through its
specialized curriculum and diversity, the school has been able to foster an environment of
community involvement and social awareness while maintaining the status of one of the highest
achieving magnet schools in the district.
Teacher Background and Ideology
Bartolomé (2004) posits that in order for teachers to increase opportunities for academic
success for their students, they need to develop political and ideological clarity. She argues that
through political and ideological clarity, teachers can place themselves in a better position to
identify and interrogate ideologies and practices that can potentially hinder rather than advance
student progress. By doing so, teachers can adopt more critical pedagogical principles to
increase the opportunities for success for their students. At EA, all three participants possess a
strong commitment to social justice and to helping students develop criticality so that they may
better understand their world.
Participant 1 completed her four years of high school at EA and later returned as a
teacher. She stated that because of the rich experiences she was afforded in high school, she
always had tremendous love for her teachers, and that inspired her to want to become a teacher at
a very young age. She loved her schooling experience- the teachers, the curriculum, and the
78

learning spaces that were provided for her. She stated that she wanted to emulate her teachers
and that her experiences shaped her into a life-long learner. She considers EA her home, and she
is proud to be able to continue to be a part of the growth and success of the Magnet Program
there. In addition to teaching, she carries out leadership roles and responsibilities within her
department.
Participant 2 has been a teacher for 16 years and taught at multiple schools prior to
teaching at EA. Her interest in the field grew from her immigrant family background. She
shared the challenges that she and her family experienced being in a country where the culture
and language were very different from that of their own. She stated,
In school, every year was tough for me. It wasn’t until seventh grade that my teacher was
special. I saw the power of her teaching, and I was inspired by it. I became ignited by
her passion.
She emphasized that her unwavering commitment to critical pedagogy stems from her immigrant
experiences and from her connection with her father who talked to her so much about history.
Later in life, her college experience further ignited her passion for history. She stated,
Later in college, I understood the power of history and how much I did not know about
my own history as well as the history that I was taught in the U.S. I wondered how to go
through life not knowing? How do I make decisions? How do we make sure to not
repeat the things in history that have been wrong?”
Aside from teaching, Participant 2 also assumes additional leadership responsibilities within her
department and sponsors several clubs at the school. She added that these additional roles give
her different lenses which allow her to look at people, experiences, and places with more clarity
and understanding.
79

Participant 3 also began her time at the school site as a Freshman student. She quickly
realized that EA was the right school for her. She stated that since she was a little girl, she knew
that she wanted to become a teacher. For example, she shared memories of her watching her
mother work diligently as a teacher and a principal, and she referred to her high school years as
amazing years due to her inspiring teachers. She credited these combined experiences for
inspiring her and motivating her to become a critical educator.
As a result, she is grateful to have had the opportunity to return to EA as a teacher. Aside
from her teaching assignment at the school, she carries out additional leadership roles within her
department and also serves as an advisor for different student clubs.
Data gathered from all three participants shed light on some key commonalities. All
three participants possess a strong commitment to social justice. Therefore, they genuinely
believe that education should improve not only the lives of their students, but also of the well-
being of their communities and the world. Also, common among the participants was that since
childhood, they knew they wanted to become teachers, and to this day, they are all happy with
the career choice that they made. They all stated that they enjoy teaching because of the
opportunity it affords them to empower students. Finally, all three participants experienced
powerful and influential teaching via critical pedagogy during some point in their secondary
and/or post-secondary years as students.
For all three participants, teaching is more than a job; it is a calling. They all firmly
believe in the importance of passion and purpose. As part of their teaching journeys, they all
shared that they had acquired deep appreciation for diversity and had learned the importance of
an individual’s voice early in their lives.
80

In terms of challenges, all participants mentioned operational challenges such as constant
mandates disconnected to students’ needs and discrepancy between funding and needed
resources, as well as instructional challenges. The key instructional challenges they mentioned
were maintaining student engagement and successfully teaching in a way that empowers
students. Participant 3 stated, “One of the biggest challenges is providing students with an
education that truly gives them the skills to be critical thinkers and problem solvers in the true
sense of the word.” This commitment to foster criticality in students is one of the central goals of
critical pedagogy (Freire, 1974).
Context for Critical Pedagogy
Teacher autonomy was found to be essential for ensuring a safe and engaging learning
environment that truly addresses youth’s diverse needs. Each of the three participants credited
the teacher autonomy they experience at EA, particularly in the Magnet Core, as one of the
reasons they are able to enact critical pedagogy in their classrooms. For example, Participant 1
revealed that there is total freedom and trust about the curriculum that is delivered in the Magnet
Core. They each shared that teacher autonomy and focused collaboration are what allow them to
deliver a curriculum that is relevant, meaningful, and empowering for students.
Overall, the culture at the school is that there is a significant amount of freedom for
teachers in the Magnet Program when it comes to curricular and instructional decisions. The
teachers are highly trusted and do not have to follow a prescribed curriculum, which according to
all three participants, allows them to be highly selective in the themes and concepts they focus on
as well as in the resources they select to support their teaching. Participants did mention that in
order to acquire this autonomy, the magnet school had to apply for a waiver with the district.
81

They had to prove that the teaching and learning taking place at the school either was up to par
or exceeded district standards. Upon review, EA was granted the waiver for which they applied.
Teacher Collaboration
In addition to instruction, teacher autonomy also impacts teacher collaboration. At EA,
teachers meet with different content teachers and work together extensively to maintain the
integrity of the magnet school’s specialized curriculum. All participants engage in extensive
backwards planning in teams; they do not plan in isolation. They meet weekly during a common
preparation period, or other personal time. As stated earlier, the magnet school values teaching
the different disciplines holistically; therefore, teacher collaboration from all disciplines is key to
their enactment of critical pedagogy.
As coordinator/co-coordinators within their discipline and at varied grade levels, all
participants play a key role in the teacher collaboration process at the school. They all shared
their great appreciation for the passionate and dedicated community of teachers at the magnet
school. Participant 3, for example, stated that working with such passionate and dedicated
colleagues facilitated a learning community that allowed her to experience the transformative
power of education on a daily basis. Participant 2 shared the following about collaboration:
We are very task-oriented. For example, we meet to plan instruction, make a decision, or
to plan an approach for a decision that has already been made. Maybe we need to talk
more about the how. We know that collaboration is more methodical than people think.
It is deeper. I have found that I need to know the purpose of our collaboration first if I
am expecting the group I lead to know and understand the purpose. In order to succeed at
this, I need to build rapport, respect, and trust with the teachers. I also love that due to
our teacher autonomy and collaboration, I truly get to see theory being put into practice.
82

According to all three participants, this high level of collaboration helps validate and support
their efforts to enact critical pedagogy since it is not enacted schoolwide.
Professional Development
Participants all shared that the school provides a significant amount of professional
development (PD); however, none of it is really connected to critical pedagogy. They stated that
any professional development related to critical pedagogy is PD that they have to find on their
own and attend on a volunteer basis. All three participants mentioned a conference held every
summer at Columbia University, “Reimagining Education: Teacher and Learning in Racially
Diverse Schools.” It is a week-long conference specifically tailored for teachers who enact
critical pedagogy in diverse population districts. Through colleague recommendation, the
participants learned of this conference and continue to attend every summer. Participant 3 stated:
I really enjoyed going. I was so shocked to see that other people are doing the same thing
that I am doing. Sometimes it gets very lonely when you are the only or one of the few
teachers who is enacting critical pedagogy, and no one else even knows what it is. It is
also great because you learn new ways of doing things and you acquire even more lenses.
All three participants considered the conference transformational and stated their ongoing
commitment to attend each year because it aligns so well with their commitment to social justice
and student empowerment.
Despite the lack of PD connected to critical pedagogy, the high level of teacher autonomy
at the EA magnet school allows each of the participants in this study to make curricular and
pedagogical decisions that foster the creation of critically oriented classrooms so that learners
may begin to become more aware and skeptical about the systems, policies, and practices in the
83

world around them. Each of the participants credited the teacher autonomy they are afforded as a
key aspect that facilitates their ability to enact critical pedagogy in their classrooms.
The focused collaboration that occurs among the teachers at EA magnet school also
creates a forum in which the participants and other teachers can think outside conventional
curricular and pedagogical constraints. Through their collaboration, they are able to bring in
multiple sources that provide multiple perspectives for students to think deeply about alternative
narratives, which is a key goal of critical pedagogy (Kincheloe, 2008). As a result of their
collaboration, the participants are also able to jointly reflect on their pedagogical practices and
the impact their practice have on their students.
Research Question One
How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their
teaching practices?
Participants’ Theoretical Understanding of Critical Pedagogy
Demonstrate strong commitment to social justice. All three participants demonstrated
a strong commitment to social justice, which supports critical pedagogy’s goal of exposing
inequities in society. This commitment guided their curricular and instructional choices. Each
of the participants provided students with learning experiences that unearthed the histories of
traditionally marginalized groups. They also addressed issues that create and perpetuate
oppression such as racism, colonization, bigotry, sexism, among others. Through these
approaches centered around social justice, the participants hoped to provide learning experiences
for students that would allow them to gain awareness of the multiple forms of oppression, both
overt and covert, that permeate their world so that they can contribute to changing such
conditions (McLaren, 2015).
84

Reject mechanistic approach to knowledge. Darder (2002) and Ladson-Billings (2000)
argue that despite curricular constraints and high demands, classroom teachers have the potential
to empower their students through their pedagogy and the classroom conditions they create.
Kincheloe (2008) also argues that scholarly and well-organized teachers have the ability to go
beyond the traditional mechanistic view of knowledge and towards a more critical pedagogy.
All participants in this study are aware that they are constrained by highly scripted curricula,
pacing demands, and expected performance benchmarks; yet they make every effort to ensure
that their pedagogical practices stretch beyond scripted curricula that is often far removed from
their students’ experiences.
All three participants in this study shared that they reject traditional teaching approaches
that place the teacher at the center of instruction as the all-knowing adult whose role it is to fill
students with information according to highly scripted curriculum and rigidly predetermined
pacing plans. Participant 2 stated,
The traditional way of teaching involves multiple-choice tests and a lot of pettiness…you
did not mark the “right” answer. Education should not be about merely filling students
with facts that they should simply regurgitate in order to prove that they have learned
something; it should be about figuring things out.
All three participants in this study refuse to accept highly scripted and standardized curricula as
the sole source of knowledge in their classrooms. Rather, they value knowledge as a complex
entity; therefore, they make every effort to expose students to the complexities of knowledge
production across disciplines. They design instructional experiences that allow their students to
search for meaning outside of the constraints of scripted curricula.
85

Participants’ Enactment of Critical Pedagogy
All participants in this study agreed that they have to make careful curricular and
pedagogical decisions, create adequate learning spaces, and allocate sources for students to truly
benefit from their enactment of critical pedagogy. They stated the importance of ensuring that
the integrity of standards, learning objectives, and the enactment of critical pedagogy are
preserved. The following practices were considered by participants to support the enactment of
critical pedagogy.
Exposure to counter narratives. Teachers who enact critical pedagogy foster critical
frameworks that allow student to become aware of, analyze, and challenge power and oppression
in the world (Kincheloe, 2008). In a classroom where critical pedagogy is enacted, educators
seek to identify and demystify the dominant narratives about the workings of complex social
systems. They also illuminate ways of knowing and experiences of traditionally marginalized
groups. Critical teachers facilitate a learning environment in which students are able to question
dominant narratives as well as policies and practices that perpetuate oppression and inequity.
They understand that although these concepts are abstract, they are of high importance in
students’ educational journeys. All three participants in this study stated that they manifest this
key goal of critical pedagogy by fostering critical frameworks that allow students to become
aware of, analyze, and challenge power and oppression in the world.
According to participant 1, “traditional approaches do not necessarily facilitate critical
thinking about the world, of the school, or of the teacher.” She shared that being critical and
placing students at the center of all curricular and pedagogical choices are at the core of her
enactment of critical pedagogy. She further explained that this facilitates student inquiry and is a
good way to get students to engage in meaningful conversations. However, she did mention that
86

it is up to the teacher to provide adequate guiding questions and make content applicable to
students’ lives. She stated that concepts and themes such as race, class, and gender that provide
ongoing possibilities for inquiry are key to her enactment of critical pedagogy.
Participant 2 stated that in order to foster criticality in her students, she also enhances the
curriculum in ways that will expose students to different narratives. She explained that she
follows the standards, as all teachers do, but that she adds, cuts, and moves things around as
needed. For example, she shared,
I teach colonization as well as decolonization. In other words, I expose students to
narratives that have been omitted. Not history in its traditional Eurocentric sense.
During my schooling, I never saw people like me in my learning of history. The more I
realized that not everyone was represented the same way, the more I became determined
to research, find silenced voices, and understand why they are important. As a teacher, I
always ask myself what is missing and how not knowing will impact my students. What
will they be lacking if they don’t get this? I am not trying to be revolutionary; I just think
this is really important.
All three participants stated that enacting critical pedagogy is a way of analyzing systems,
particularly oppressive systems. To accomplish this, participants provide students with carefully
selected sources that bring to light multiple narratives, particularly those traditionally silenced.
Facilitation of dialectical process. McLaren (1998) argues that through a dialectical
process of questioning and ongoing reflection, individuals can begin to understand that deep
reflection is indeed necessary in order to find meaning in one’s life and to be connected to
society. Through this type of dialectical process, students begin to question the working of
87

society, which might be at odds with their personal experiences, as well as how such
contradictions impact their lives.
The three participants in this study agree that in the traditional way of teaching, there is
little, if any, opportunity for students to engage in meaningful inquiry and discourse, which
denies them genuine opportunities to recognize what they understand, and even more important,
what they do not understand. Participant 2 stated,
there is so much learning that can take place when one recognizes that there are things we
may still not understand even after we have been taught something. It is important that
sometimes learning occurs only on a superficial level.
To ensure students get opportunities to engage in the dialectical process, all three participants
explained that they are committed to diving deep into topics that often go unexplored and into
issues that often get ignored. They also commented on the importance of creating classroom
conditions for students to successfully and safely engage in this dialectical process. For
example, each of the participants stated that they explicitly teach dialogue for inquiry, dissent,
and acceptance of opinions. They stated that doing so helps build confidence in students and
raises the level of discourse in their classrooms.
According to Participant 1, student dialogue and participation fuel the classroom. She
states that it is important to hear what students have to say because if only the teacher talks, there
is not much learning going on. Participant 1shared that she tries to give her students multiple
opportunities to share in small groups, whole groups, and pairs. She noted that some students are
silent in large groups, but they are more willing to open up in small groups. Considering the
complexity of the content of many of the discussions, participant 1 shared it is necessary to
provide students with guiding questions, key vocabulary, sentence stems, and discussion
88

protocols. She stated that these scaffolds are very helpful to students since often the hardest part
for them is getting the discussion started.
Foster criticality. Freire (1974) posits that through critical consciousness, or reflective
awareness, students can engage in intellectual critique that can lead to unearthing their reality,
understanding their place in the world, and taking action to evoke social change. All three
participants believe that one of their main roles as critical educators is to ignite critical
consciousness in their students so that they may analyze their world and their place in it. They
believe that a key aspect of enacting critical pedagogy is to raise this type of awareness in their
students by providing them with various critical lenses so that they may better understand their
world and their position in it in order to truly become advocates of social justice and agents of
change.
Participant 1 shared that she was herself a student who reaped the benefits of critical
pedagogy. She shared that being an alum of EA, exposed her to teachers who taught through a
social justice lens. However, she emphasized that as a student, she never heard this approach to
teaching being called critical pedagogy. She mentioned that her teachers pushed critical thinking
as well as looking closely at social issues. She added that not only was she invested in this
approach as a high school student, but in her undergraduate and credential classes, she was also
exposed to critical pedagogy. When asked to explain her understanding of critical pedagogy, she
stated:
Critical pedagogy is education that pushes students to be critical thinkers about the world
around them, to look at race, gender, and class through a critical lens. It is education that
aims to help students think about the ways traditional power structures have affected
people and institutions in the world. It is education that enables students to critically
89

evaluate dominant narratives so that they can think about other possibilities. Critical
pedagogy gives students the lenses to be critical and to ask questions.
She added that this type of critical thinking aimed at closely examining and questioning issues
pertinent to race, class, and gender and how they impact society is central to her teaching.
Participants 2 and 3 explained that enacting critical pedagogy means being critical about
teaching, not just teaching for the sake of teaching. They believe it is not just about teaching
students a prescribed set of skills, but that teaching is more of a service and a democratic duty.
For example, participant 2 described her role as a teacher who enacts critical pedagogy as
follows:
I have to be critical about how I teach if I am to really empower my students. It means
me scaffolding tough questions and engaging in tough conversations with them. For
example, my students ask me what I think about race, gender, etc… As teachers, we do
take a position. We are human beings, after all. However, as teachers we have to be
cautious so that we allow students to take their own position also. Students do take
positions on different matters; we need to merely give them critical lenses through which
they can study the world as well as tools to support them.
When observed, students in each of the three classrooms demonstrated heightened awareness and
inquiry related to racism, biases, and stereotypes. They engaged in conversations in which they
identified and questioned hidden agendas in politics, warfare, and even the media. In a Social
Studies class, students questioned ulterior motives for countries involvement in wars and how
their involvement impacted the lives of people.
Use of generative themes. In classrooms where critical pedagogy is enacted, topics and
questions raised by students become generative themes used for joint investigation and
90

discussion. According to Freire (2005), the study of these generative themes has the potential to
increase learners’ engagement and their commitment to become involved in a struggle for
freedom. Freire (2000) posits that learners need to be able to tap into their own personal
experiences as part of their learning journey. He argues that students shared experiences,
especially those that are compelling and controversial can be used to generate instructional
content in the classroom (generative themes).
The three participants in this study stated that they derive instructional topics from their
students’ knowledge and lived experiences. Their goal is to increase instructional relevance and
to elicit both interest and commitment from their students.
For example, participant 2 stated the importance of concepts and themes. She mentioned
a year-long theme, Understand Who You Are theme, which she believes is key to preparing
students to view the world and their lives critically, especially since identity encompasses key
facets like the ones covered in the critical pedagogy classroom such as race, ethnicity, gender,
age, religion, and more. She also explained that when studying a United States History unit, they
not only focus on historical events and dates, but also on concepts such as culture, systems of
power, universal beliefs, and biases. People’s actions & motives, resistance, rising from
oppression, and maintaining traditions in a rapidly changing world were additional themes that
she mentioned are central in other units she teaches.
Careful selection of sources. All participants said that they use a number of resources to
support their enactment of critical pedagogy. They shared that they are constantly searching for
additional resources. Participant 1 stated that she provides her students with sources from the
Internet and from professional publications such as, Rethinking Schools and Facing History &
91

Ourselves. She also shares that she selects topics and special readings from syllabi she
researches from different Sociology classes.
Several other sources were also used by all three participants, especially since they do not
rely on a textbook. They collectively shared that they use additional sources such as handouts
adopted from other sources, primary and secondary source documents, books, films, and
documentaries. They also use TED talks, guest speakers, and community resources to bring
relevant and controversial topics into the classroom. According to all participants, what makes
these sources unique is that they stretch beyond the curricular confines of textbooks. Darder
(2012) argues that traditional curriculum focuses heavily on highlighting “great men who have
shaped our country, and in doing so often feature events far removed from students’ realities.
She argues that instead, teachers should facilitate learning that helps students understand history
as a social process that includes mainstream political, social, economic, and cultural forces as
well as any opposing forces that push against the status quo.
All three participants in this study stressed their efforts to provide their students with
sources that reveal rather than conceal critical historical understandings. They engage their
students in deconstructing events of the past so that they can begin to understand how their world
is impacted by political, social, and economic forces.
In addition to stressing the importance of allocation of sources to support their teaching,
all three participants expressed the importance of how their instructional day is structured. For
example, all participants shared that reflection, dialogue, and writing are daily non negotiables.
Participant 1 stated that she usually starts with a reflection that is connected to a reading or
activity from the previous day in order to ground students in the lesson for the day. They also
use Quick Writes, which typically involve a personal reflection, writing about an experience, and
92

personal opinions that revolve around topics such as race, gender, equity, biases and stereotypes,
and power. They do this to help foster reflection in students since it is a good way to help them
become aware of their own perspectives and of those around them.
Research Question Two
How do teachers who enact critical pedagogy perceive their impact on their students?
Perceived Benefits of Critical Pedagogy
Strengthened teacher-student relationships. Participant 1 shared that her enactment of
critical pedagogy strengthens her relationships with her students. She feels students see her as
someone who learns along with them, not just someone who passes information to them. She
stated,
Our students feel empowered. We are giving them tools to combat the world. They
appreciate this. They appreciate the classroom space, especially if they had not
experienced learning like this before, so I think that allows them to trust us and helps us
build stronger teacher-student bonds.
Participant 2 also stated that her enactment of critical pedagogy strengthens her
relationship with her students. She feels that because of her commitment to social justice, her
students know that she truly cares about them and their world. Since she is constantly engaging
in reflection, she is constantly looking out for the best interest of her students. She asks herself
daily how she can continue to raise critical consciousness in her students as well as tolerance for
other people’s perspectives. She said, “I am honest with them and allow myself to become
vulnerable; this helps strengthen our relationships.”
Participant 3 agreed that critical pedagogy strengthens her relationship with her students.
She believes it leads students and teachers to experience an even stronger connection. She
93

recalls feeling this type of connection with her teachers when she was a student at EA. She
explained,
First and foremost, teaching the way I do, humanizes me. It is important for my students
to see that I am just as human as they are. I am just as much a learner as they are. I do
not want them to see me as just an authority figure or the one who fills them with
information and then tests them. I want them to see that I am on the journey with them,
and that builds trust. They start to trust me, and as a result, they are more willing to
become vulnerable- to put themselves out there. At the end of the day, I am a woman of
color. I am a teacher. I am a mother. They know this.
All three participants experienced strong relationships with their own teachers, which
they credit for their academic success. Now, as teachers they are all committed to replicate
similar experiences for their students.
Strengthened student-student relationships. All participants agreed that student to
student relationships are also positively impacted by the enactment of critical pedagogy. They
stated that student dialogue is integral to learning and plays a key role in keeping the momentum
going in any classroom, especially in the classroom where critical pedagogy is enacted.
Participants 1and 2 stated that the level of conversation between students is so elevated that you
could feel the energy in their classes. They commented that this heightened level of discourse
sparks increasing trust between students, which strengthens their relationships. They stated that
students also demonstrate more respect towards each other’s differences and appear to be
genuinely interested in hearing perspectives that differ from their own.
Participant 3 said that students learn to trust and respect each other more. She explained
that she understands that they are not all friends, but inside the class, there is definitely respect
94

going on. She said that she observes students listen attentively when others are speaking and that
they ask questions of each other respectfully, often in the same fashion in which they question
historical narratives. Her impression is that as a result of having so many conversations about
culture, backgrounds, and perspectives, students truly want to know about each other. She said,
I also spend a lot of time creating an environment that truly supports a community of
learners. By the time I get them again in 11th grade, I am so impressed; their level of
understanding and critique is quite sophisticated.
Each of the participants emphasized the importance of not only the teacher-student relationship,
but also of student-student relationships. They each take pride in the safe learning environment
they have created which they state is evident in the positive rapport that they observe among
their students.
Raised critical consciousness and social justice awareness. All three participants
identified several strengths they have observed in their students as a result of their exposure to
critical pedagogy. Participant 1 shared,
Students are able to read the world. They learn to not take everything at face value.
They gain a filter lens through which they can see the world so that they can make better
choices in life.
She believes exposing students to this type of learning impacts students’ choices of college
majors, sometimes whether or not they go to college, their summer volunteerism, choices of
what they read, and even their college essay topics. She commented that many students ask if
they will continue to learn the same way in college because they find their experiences at EA
transformational.
95

When speaking about the strengths she perceives her students gain from being exposed to
critical pedagogy, participant 2 chose to share comments from the end-of-year evaluation that
students are given each year. She said that students report they:
• Feel passionate about things
• See the connectedness between things
• Are more critical
• Use different lenses to view things
• Reflect
Participant 3 stated that one of the strengths her students gain is the ability to think
critically. She stated that students become more aware about issues and are also more
determined to engage in social justice activism. She said,
For example, regarding everything that is going on with Black Lives Matter, I have
received a lot of student emails, both from my current as well as my former students.
They want to discuss these issues. They are looking at things with a critical eye; they are
talking about social injustices, persistent racism, social unrest, the pandemic, the
economy, the election- it's almost like they really want to do something about it. Also,
they do not take anything for face value.
Another strength that she perceives her students gain is that students become more empowered.
She said students realize they have a voice that matters, so they begin to use them. She stated
that she notices students begin to stand up for what's right and that they are more comfortable
talking to adults. She added,
96

My students are not just walking around saying “because I said so” or “because I think
so.” They are actually able to backup things with evidence. That is great! It is a life-long
skill.
All three participants pointed out that the fact that students have been taught to support things
with evidence enhances their ability to make their perspectives known and sustained through
sound argument.
Perceived Challenges Enacting Critical Pedagogy
All three participants shared some areas that they perceive their students struggle with
when it comes to being students in classrooms where critical pedagogy is enacted. For example,
participant 1 shared that sometimes discussions lead students to feel defensive, but that as they
increase dialogue and collaboration, the defensiveness subsides. She also said that sustaining
meaningful dialogue among students is also an ongoing challenge. She explained that Covid-19
pandemic has highlighted the importance of interaction and shared dialogue. Now due to
instruction taking place virtually, and with so many unknowns ahead, students have lost the safe
classroom space they were already accustomed to. She said, “We no longer have that safe
classroom space. Even though we are online and sometimes share, student privacy is a big
concern- what they say, their home space, etc…”
Another concern shared among all three participants is that in a Magnet program, not all
students are confident to speak in class since so many students come in thinking that academic
intelligence is the only intelligence, so if they feel that they are not the strongest in academics,
then they do not speak. Participant 2 explained that since EA is a magnet school, students want
results fast; they do not understand incremental growth that happens with learning. She stated
that this can be frustrating for students as well as teachers. In addition, she shared that there are
97

students who have to deal with substantial things outside of the classroom and that can really get
in the way of them immersing fully into the active student role. She said, “Some students still
feel their voices are not heard; they feel dominated by certain voices, so they choose to remain
silent because they may come from non-safe spaces and are preconditioned to fear authority.”
Finally, participant 3 stated that what she perceives her students to struggle with the most
is that they often have a difficult time reckoning how they saw the world previously, and how
they start to see it through various critical lenses. She said,
It's almost like they feel they were blindfolded, and all of a sudden, the blindfold is off.
They come to me as 8th graders and of course, you only know what you know, so it's
quite jarring to all of a sudden, realize that there is so much more to things, so many
things they do not know.
She explained that as students move up through the grades, this feeling eases up and they
become more comfortable with other people's perspectives, as well as with the continual
evolution of their own perspectives. She comments,
A lot of my students come to me and ask for advice. They ask me things like, “how do I
talk to my parents, how do I talk to my grandparents or other family members? They
don't believe what I believe, or they don't feel like I feel.” It is almost as if they have one
foot in the “ask questions” world and another foot in the “do not ask questions” world.
It's almost like a juggling act for them. But they do come around.
Despite the challenges the participants face in getting their students to dialogue, they all believe
their role is to help their students become comfortable with having their voices heard. Due to
ongoing reflection and their student-centered approaches, all participants notice significant
improvement in this area as the academic year progresses.
98

Summary
This chapter presents how teachers who enact critical pedagogy perceive their
instructional practices, as well as how they perceive its enactment impacts their students. The
data collected pointed to a strong commitment to social justice which stemmed from participants’
upbringing as well as their positive schooling experiences. It is important to note that
participants made shared that their enactment of critical pedagogy is possible due to the high
level of teacher autonomy and trust they have been privileged to experience. The findings were
discussed and pedagogies and practices that emerged were highlighted. The data supporting
these findings were discussed using the six guiding principles of critical pedagogy, knowledge,
dialectical theory, praxis, the economic system, cultural politics, and hegemony/power in
schools, as well as the following themes found through data analysis: teacher ideology, teacher
autonomy, teacher collaboration, metacognition, criticality, student dialogue, enhanced
curriculum, social justice, and trust.
The next chapter will revisit key findings and offer some recommendations to encourage
and support the enactment of critical pedagogy in the classroom. Suggestions for future research
will also be discussed.

99

Chapter Five: Discussion
“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate the person who has
learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who feels pride. You cannot oppress the
people who are not afraid anymore.”
-César Chávez, (1984, paragraph 1)
In this study, instructional practices of teachers who identify themselves as enacting
critical pedagogy were examined, as well as their perceptions about how their practices impact
their students. Despite numerous reforms, increased resources, and widespread accountability
efforts, opportunity gaps and achievement disparities among students of color continue to exist.
Critical pedagogy offers hope as a pedagogy that raises critical awareness in students so that they
may become informed participants of society. This study was intended to enhance the
understanding of critical pedagogy in secondary classrooms as well as its potential impact on
student learning and empowerment so that teachers may apply aspects of it to their curricular and
pedagogical decisions.
Statement of the Problem
Despite increased efforts to reform education, persistent opportunity gaps continue to
exist for ethnically and linguistically diverse students. In response to reforms, classroom
teachers deliver curriculum and instruction that is often not supportive of the ethnolinguistic
needs of the many diverse students they serve (Bartolomé, 2007; Darder, 2002; Gee, 2014). The
goal of this study was to gain understanding of what practices constitute enactment of critical
pedagogy and the perceived impact of such practices on students. Findings from this study can
inform both curricular choices and instructional practices so that teachers can steer away from
hegemonic curricula and reductive pedagogical practices that hinder rather than promote student
100

achievement and empowerment, particularly for students of color (Freire, 1974; Darder, 2002).
This is important because as a result of increased reform and accountability efforts, the illusion
often remains that curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher-learner relationships are working in favor
of all students, but this is not always the case for students of color who have been traditionally
marginalized, even by institutions that operate to support them (Milner, 2010).
Review of Methodology
This study used a qualitative design (Creswell & Creswell, 2018) to capture the
instructional practices of teachers who enact critical pedagogy in three secondary classrooms, as
well as their perceptions of how their practices impact their students. Data sources in this study
included observations, semi-structured interviews, and researcher memos. Data was triangulated
in order to facilitate validation of the data (Patton, 2002). An inductive approach was used when
coding data, which led to the themes and findings of this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The rich data gathered helped contextualize an interpret the findings.
Discussion
The study focused on finding promising instructional practices to address the persistent
opportunity gaps and academic disparities that continue to impact students of color. Specifically,
the study looked at how critical pedagogy impacts teaching and learning. This discussion will
begin with an overview of the research questions and the findings that emerged for each one.
This section will be followed by a discussion on implementation and promising practices.
Research Question One
• How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their
teaching practices?
101

The first question sought to identify how teachers who self-identify as enactors of critical
pedagogy describe their teaching practices. This question looked at teachers’ theoretical
understanding of critical pedagogy as well their instructional practices.
Theoretically, all three participants understand critical pedagogy to be about empowering
students and working towards social justice by recognizing, analyzing, and questioning power
differentials in society. They all maintain that students should study the world around them and
what has shaped them by carefully analyzing and questioning dominant narratives and how those
narratives impact various aspects of their lives. All three participants believe that by raising this
type of awareness and criticality in their students, they are helping combat inequity by helping
students become more informed and active participants in the workings of society.
All three participants in this study self-identified as teachers implementing critical

pedagogy in their classrooms. Data collected from this study show the participants’ commitment

to issues of social justice, which they attribute to their upbringing and school experiences. This

was evidenced through their lessons which focused on examining dominant narratives,
stereotypes, biases, and deep-rooted injustices. As part of their pedagogy, each of the
participants facilitated analysis and comparison of dominant and alternative narratives. Although
there were nuances in the way each participant approached content, they all provided students
with alternative perspectives outside of the dominant Western approaches to curriculum and
content.
Data also revealed that all participants fostered critical frameworks for students. Each
participant ensured that the curricular choices they made and the sources they allocated for their
students were ones that allowed students to become aware of multiple perspectives, become
more critical, and make more informed choices and decisions in their lives.
102

In alignment with the practice of critical pedagogues (Freire, 2005), each of the
participants also devised generative themes that arose from their students’ experiences and
interests. This was reported by them during their interviews and was also evident during
classroom observations. For example, in one class, students were engaged in a lesson on the
historical and social construction of Middle Easterners. The goals listed by the teacher were to
1) uncover how the categorizations of Middle Easterners and South Asians have been historically
and socially constructed 2) examine stereotypes, omissions, and distortions of Arabs, Middle
Easterners, Muslims, and South Asians 3) understand how the ladder of oppression (stereotypes,
prejudice, and discrimination) operates, and 4) understand how 911 created a racialized
experience for many people. The students watched a documentary titled What is the Problem
with Apu? and read an article titled Whitewashed. Throughout the lesson, the teacher engaged
the students in deep discussion about race, racism, identity, oppression, perpetual foreigner,
humility, boldness, and courage. Per the teacher, this unit supported student interest in how the
media contributes to the stereotyping and discrimination of others. By honoring students’
experiences, interests, and the political, economic, and social contexts in which they live, all
three participants apply aspects of critical pedagogy (Giroux, 2000).
One of the main aims of critical pedagogy is to expose inequities by raising students’
awareness of the different institutions and practices that that facilitate and perpetuate systematic
forms of oppression (Apple, 2005b). Each of the teachers in this study helped students
understand that knowledge is aligned to power and control and that it is important to analyze it
through various lenses. For example, in one class, students read and discussed the two different
lenses through which the author depicted Africa- the depiction of Africa that highlights its rich
culture and the struggles of Africa as a result of colonization, extending the discussion by noting
103

how the author intentionally kept it dark. Students engaged in a discussion about how the two
lenses the author used to describe Africa were representative of two very different mindsets.
They also referred repeatedly to oppression and its long-lasting effects as well as to what it
means to be truly free. These in-depth discussions all revolved around power differentials and
how it affects how knowledge is presented and distributed, which aligns with the enactment of
critical pedagogy.
In another class, the teacher engaged the students in a review from a previous lesson on
Asian Americans and the model minority. Students shared what that means to them and gave
concrete examples found in the media as well as its impact. The teacher then began a lesson on
civil wars and the role of world powers that get involved in these types of wars. With her
students, they explored the concept of the American contradiction and discussed how although
we value and commercialize liberty, we do not always uphold it. Students discussed and asked
numerous questions about a video they watched in class about America’s involvement in the
Vietnam, Laotian, and Cambodian civil wars. Another major topic of discussion that was woven
in was America’s treatment of immigrants.
Data gathered from the observations revealed common themes across the classrooms.
For example, a major theme in all classes was how important it is to hold ourselves as well as our
country accountable when it comes to the narratives we portray and absorb, as well as how we
view and treat others. In fact, each of the teachers spoke about the detrimental effects of
“othering,” the viewing and treating of others as intrinsically different and inferior from oneself.
In each of the lessons observed in the classrooms, the three teacher participants presented
narratives as well as counter narratives for students to contemplate. By doing so, they helped
students identify and demystify dominant narratives that they are traditionally exposed to.
104

Freire (1974) posits that by collaborating with students in an ongoing process of open and
thoughtful inquiry and reflection, teachers can help students raise their critical consciousness
about matters in their world that affect them. Data gathered from the observations revealed that
each of the teachers had turned their classrooms into places of inquiry and discussion where
student voice was at the center of learning. For example, in each of the lessons observed,
students’ voices guided the lesson, with the teacher serving as a facilitator of learning, not
merely a disseminator of information (Freire, 1970).
Data gathered also revealed that all three participants critically allocated sources that
extend beyond scripted curricula and that support their instruction. Each teacher explained that
they have to search for sources on their own to ensure that they support concepts being
addressed, student interest, and student critique, while
at the same time maintaining the integrity of the Common Core State Standards.
The practices mentioned above may appear as practices that are not unique to the critical
pedagogy classroom, but more like practices one would, and should, find in a typical classroom
setting. The fact that at the center of critical pedagogy is a heavy reliance on critical analysis
tends to lead to confusion about critical pedagogy being merely the same as critical thinking.
Although there are similarities such as both promoting critical thinking, there are some important
differences. The primary concern of critical thinking is the application of skills of logic and
conceptual analysis to supplant illogical or distorted thinking with reliable procedures of inquiry
(Burbules & Berk, 1999).
Although critical pedagogy also relies heavily on critical analysis, it is highly
preoccupied with identifying power differentials in society. At its core lies an unwavering
commitment to social justice and how to transform institutions that perpetuate oppression and
105

inequity (Burbules & Berk, 1999). In this sense, critical pedagogues are specifically concerned
with knowledge, beliefs, practices, and institutions that legitimize and perpetuate an unjust status
quo. The goal of critical pedagogy thus is more than reliable inquiry; it is fostering criticality in
people so that they may resist such power differentials.
Each of the participants in this study was observed to enact aspects of critical pedagogy
through their selection of concepts and themes pertinent to power, oppression, and resistance
such as race, culture, knowledge, bias, and stereotyping. All participants also facilitated the
dialectical process for their students by creating a safe, student-centered forum for discussion in
their classrooms and by explicitly modeling and teaching dialogue for inquiry, consensus, and
dissent. For example, each of the observations demonstrated deep level inquiry and co-
constructing of meaning between the teachers and their students. Students asked questions in
class such as who is making certain assertions, why, and who do those assertions ultimately
benefit. Finally, all participants were critical about the sources they allocated to support their
instruction and did not shy away from topics of deep controversy nor from presenting different
ways of knowing and narratives students are not typically exposed to.
Research Question 2
• How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their
impact on their students?
The second question sought to understand how teacher participants perceive their
enactment of critical pedagogy impacts their students. All three participants strongly believed
that critical pedagogy served to increase student inquiry, critical thought, and reflection, as well
as their commitment to social justice. Specifically, the participants commented on students’
increased interest in doing volunteer work in their communities. They also notice an increase in
106

students’ interest regarding issues currently pressing society. Finally, participants notice that
students’ heightened awareness and multiple lenses often influence their college choices, essay
topics, and even choice of college majors.
Each of the participants also perceived critical pedagogy as having a positive impact on
teacher-student relationships and student-student relationships. Specifically, all participants
shared that their enactment of critical pedagogy strengthened their relationship with students in
two ways: by establishing trust and by creating partnerships in learning. According to the
participants, engaging in a journey of deep inquiry and self-discovery alongside their students
allows students to trust them. It also gives them the confidence to know that they are part of a
learning space where they are valued as human beings and learners, not just as students who are
to sit and receive information from an all-knowing authority figure.
All three participants also stated that they perceive critical pedagogy to benefit student
learning by enhancing student-student interactions. Although initially they claimed it can be
uncomfortable for students to engage in such in-depth discussions, they shared that they
eventually learn to value differing opinions and even voice their appreciation for their right to
have their voices heard.
Combined, these perceived benefits of critical pedagogy increase student engagement and
commitment. All three participants reported that as a result of this increased engagement and
commitment, they observe gains in student achievement as well as in students’ sense of self.
Implications
The research questions in this study focused on gaining insights about what constitutes
enactment of critical pedagogy in secondary classrooms as well as its perceived impact on
students. Although there is no prescribed set of rules governing what critical pedagogy must
107

look like, it is evident that it moves away from traditional pedagogies and reframes teaching and
learning as a process in which teachers and students act as co-constructors of knowledge (Freire,
2000). The data revealed that in order to enact critical pedagogy, certain conditions have to be in
place.
First and foremost, the data revealed that a high level of teacher autonomy is necessary so
that teachers may experience the freedom to steer away from highly scripted curricula and pacing
deadlines. Findings also point to the need for high levels of teacher collaboration in order for
teachers to be able to enact critical pedagogy. All three participants stated that collaboration was
a challenge and cited feeling very lonely in their enactment of critical pedagogy. They also
mentioned having to collaborate during their own time since professional development at the
school was never tied to critical pedagogy.
Data also revealed that all three participants possessed a strong commitment to social
justice and a genuine desire to become teachers, which they credit came from a combination of
upbringing, positive schooling experiences, and exposure to critical pedagogy during their high
school years and/or in their post-secondary years. All three participants stated that they took
some classes in college that addressed critical pedagogy, but that it wasn’t until their teacher
preparation classes that they came across critical pedagogy in depth.
These findings highlight the need for school principals to support the enactment of
critical pedagogy by allowing more teacher autonomy, increasing professional development tied
to critical pedagogy, and facilitating more collaboration time. In addition, the findings also
support the need for teacher preparation programs to explore, alongside their students, what
enactment of critical pedagogy entails as well as its potential benefits. Both school principals
108

and teacher preparation programs are able to influence teachers by helping them realize the
transformative power of critical pedagogy.
Recommendations and Future Research
This study investigated promising practices and perceptions of secondary school teachers
who self-identify as enactors of critical pedagogy. Several recommendations for future research
arise from this study.
Despite the insightful results that resulted from this study, numerous questions still
remain about what truly constitutes the enactment of critical pedagogy. Part of the reason for
this is that although tenets of critical pedagogy exist that serve to guide its implementation, for
the most part, there is no prescribed set of rules on how to implement it. In fact, what critical
pedagogy looks like varies significantly from context to context. To attempt to confine its
enactment to a prescribed set of rules would limit its potential benefits. Therefore, future
research on its enactment across broader contexts and with more diverse students could prove to
be beneficial.
This study revealed that all three participants came to the teaching profession with pre-
established commitments to social justice, which played a key role in their decisions to pursue
and enact critical pedagogy. Future studies on the role teacher preparation programs play in
infusing critical theory, social justice, and non-traditional pedagogies into teacher preparation
could be beneficial because they could shed light on promising ideologies that facilitate critical
teaching.
Teachers who enact critical pedagogy believe their teaching positively impacts their
students in the classroom as well as into their adult lives. Therefore, a variety of longitudinal
studies on differences in perceptions and commitment to social justice between students who
109

were exposed to critical pedagogy and those who were not could serve to prove or disprove its
perceived long-term benefits.
The literature shows that critical pedagogy, if enacted at all, exists primarily in secondary
and post-secondary grades. Research on potential ways to begin critical pedagogy enactment in
pre-secondary grades could yield promising practices, while still maintaining age-
appropriateness when it comes to the concepts and issues discussed. For example, what would
social justice awareness, criticality, and the dialectical process look like in middle school?
Findings could potentially inform instruction in earlier grades.
Each of the participants credited high levels of teacher autonomy for being a factor that
allowed them to enact critical pedagogy. Granting high levels of teacher autonomy is not the
norm in the field. Therefore, future research that looks at autonomy models, principal-teacher
trust, and the role between teacher autonomy, accountability, and best practices could inform
state, district and school leaders, as well as teachers. Despite the high level of autonomy that the
participants in this study were granted, they all expressed concerns about the lack of professional
development related to critical pedagogy, or simply critical teaching. They also expressed
concern with limited time to collaborate since planning for instruction that upholds the goals of
critical pedagogy requires far more time. Future research on how to best support teachers to
facilitate their enactment of critical pedagogy could benefit teachers already enacting critical
pedagogy as well as those interested in becoming critical pedagogues.
Yet another research recommendation arises from the unprecedented conditions the world
is facing during the current COVID-19 pandemic. As a result of this pandemic, most schools
have shut down and adopted online learning. All stakeholders have pivoted and made numerous
changes to try to meet the demands of the “new normal” in education. Despite impressive gains,
110

school closures have highlighted inequities more than ever. One major concern looms which
directly ties to both the problem of practice addressed in this study and to the enactment of
critical pedagogy- student dialogue. Although virtual classes are in full gear, it is undeniable that
millions of students have lost the safe classroom spaces that they may have been accustomed to.
This raises a concern because it is highly likely that many students, not all, will revert to being
passive learners and will be reluctant to engage in critical conversations online. Being that
engagement in a dialectical process is key to the enactment of critical pedagogy, future research
on how to facilitate it during the new learning conditions could inform the field.
Finally, this study used a small sample of three secondary teachers who self-identify as
enactors of critical pedagogy. Due to the small size of the population, it is difficult to generalize
findings to a larger population. Future research that studies larger and more diverse teacher
populations could reveal even more promising practices.
Conclusion
This study adds to the scarce body of research on how critical pedagogy can influence
curriculum design and instructional practices to empower students who have been traditionally
marginalized. The data revealed that factors such as a positive learning experiences during the
participants’ schooling as well as their genuine desire to become teachers predisposed them to
become critical teachers. The participants also shared a strong commitment to social justice as
well as a teaching ideology that revolved around teaching to empower and liberate (Freire,
1970).
In addition, factors such as teacher autonomy and ample opportunities for collaboration
facilitated the participants’ ability to enact critical pedagogy in their classrooms. However, the
data revealed that aside from their small grade level/content area cohort, the participants operated
111

in isolation since critical pedagogy was not a focus at the school. Although the school provides
significant professional development, little, if any, was tied to critical pedagogy.
This study was of a personal nature to me because over the course of my 23-year teaching
career, education reforms have swept our nation in an effort to address student
underachievement. However, such reforms have had only a minimal impact on teaching and
learning. Research points to the importance of the teacher-student relationship. Critical
pedagogy calls for teachers to connect with students by validating their identity so that they may
become partners in the learning process and co-constructors of knowledge with their teachers
and peers (Dewey, 2004; Freire, 1970). Yet, traditionally, schools have been highly teacher-
centered and have failed to bring in students’ assets and experiences. Even if we choose to
downplay the inequities in education, the current state of affairs in our nation in regard to race
and opportunity, and the persistent underachievement of our urban schools, calls for a more
critical approach to teaching and learning. Critical pedagogy offers the possibility of awakening
the critical consciousness of students so that they may better understand themselves, their world,
and how they are affected by it. In doing so, they gain the desire and courage to effect change to
improve their livelihoods and that of others. This is what education should truly be about.
112

References
Abedi, J. (2008). Classification system for English language learners: Issues and

recommendations. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 27(3), 17-31.

Anyon, J. (1981). Social Class and School Knowledge. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 3-42.
Apple, M. (2005a). Doing things the “right” way: Legitimating educational inequalities in
conservative times. Educational Review, 57(3), 271–293.
Apple, M. (2005b). Education and Power. New York, NY: Routledge.
Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge.
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Bartolomé, L. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 31(1), 97-122.
Bartolomé, L. (2007). Chapter 15: Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing
prospective teachers. Counterpoints, 299, 263–286.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M., & Schaps, E. (1994). Students and teachers in caring
classroom and school communities. Schools as Communities: Recent Investigations.
Symposium Conducted at the Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association. New Orleans.
Benitez, M., Jr. (2010). Resituating culture centers within a social justice framework: Is there
room for examining Whiteness? In L. Patton (Ed.), Culture centers in higher education:
Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice, (pp. 119–134). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bigelow, B., & Peterson, B. (2005). Rethinking globalization: Teaching for justice in an
unjust world. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
113

theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2014). Racism without racists color-blind racism and the persistence of
racial inequality in America (4th edition). Rowman & Littlefield Pub.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.),
Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Education, inequality, and the meritocracy. Schooling in
capitalist America: educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. (pp.
102-124). New York: Basic Books.
Brisk, M.E. (1998). Bilingual Education: From compensatory to quality schooling. Mahwah,

N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations,
differences, and limits. In T. Popkewitz & L. Fendlers (Eds.). Critical theories in
education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp.45-65). New York &
London: Routledge.
Cabañes, J, V. A., (2017). Migrant narratives as photo stories: on the properties of photography
and the mediation of migrant voices. Visual Studies, 32(1), 33-4.
Camangian, P. (2010). Starting with self: Teaching autoethnography to foster critically caring
literacies. Research in the Teaching of English, 45 (2), 179–204.
Carlson, D., (2002). Leaving safe harbors: Toward a new progressivism in
American education and public life. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Carter, P., & Welner, K. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give
every child an even chance. Cary, NC: Oxford University Press, USA.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures
114

for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, Calif.: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire.

Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Cunningham, V. (2004). Radical love. Off Our Backs. May-June, 36-37.
Darder, A. (1991). Culture and power in the classroom: A critical foundation for Bicultural

education. NY: Bergin & Garvey.

Darder, A. (2012). Culture and power in the classroom: Educational foundations for the
schooling of bicultural students. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Darder, A. (2015). Culture and power in the classroom: Educational foundations for the

schooling of bicultural students. Routledge.

Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paolo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. D. (Eds.). (2009). The critical pedagogy reader (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Degener, S. (2001). Making sense of critical pedagogy in adult literacy education. In J.
Comings, B. Garner, & C. Smith (Eds.), Review of adult learning and literacy (pp. 26-
62). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
115

Del Carmen Salazar, M. (2013). A humanizing pedagogy: Reinventing the principles and
practice of education as a journey toward liberation. Review of Research in Education,
37(1), 121–148.
Delgado-Bernal, D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research.
Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555-583.
Denzin, N.K. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. Courier Corporation.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York, NY: The Free Press.
Douglas T. M. O., & Nganga, C. W. (2015). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating

identity, pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. International Journal of

Critical Pedagogy, 6(1), 58-82.

Duncan-Andrade, J. (2007) Urban teacher development to change classrooms, curriculum and

achievement, in: Teacher education with an attitude: preparing teachers to educate

working-class students in their own self-interest (New York, SUNY Press).

Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2003). E’race’ing, enabling: Toward a critical media

pedagogy in secondary literacy classrooms. Teaching and researching across color lines:

literacies, pedagogies, and the politics of difference. Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield.

Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: possibilities for
moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Ellsworth, E. (1992). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive
116

myths of critical pedagogy. In C. Luke & J. Gore (Eds.), Feminisms and critical
pedagogy (pp. 90-119). New York: Routledge.
Estes, C. (2004). Promoting student-centered learning in experiential education.
Journal of Experiential Education, 26(2), 141-160.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95, S. 1177, 114th Cong. (2015).
Foucault, M. (1977). Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings. New York:

Panthean Books.

Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. London: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1973). Education: The Practice of Freedom. London: Writers and Readers.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage. Landham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the city. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1996). Pedagogy of the oppressed (revised). New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1970/2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition, M. B. Ramos,
Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. (Original work published 1970).
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. South Hadley,
MA: Bergin & Garvey.
Gándara, P., & Rumberger, R. W. (2009). Immigration, language, and education: How does
language policy structure opportunity. Teachers College Record, 111(3), 750-782.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Teachers College.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection
117

in preservice teacher education. Theory into Practice, 42(3), 181–187.
Gee, J. (2014). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. 2nd edition. New York:
Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2015). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (5
th
ed). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Giroux, H. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling A critical

reader. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Giroux, H. (2005). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Democracy’s promise and
education’s challenge. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Giroux, H. A. (2000). Stealing innocence: Youth, corporate power, and the politics of culture.
New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning.
Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1986) Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case
for democratic schooling. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 213–239.
Gómez, D. S. (2008). Women’s proper place and student-centered pedagogy. Studies in

Philosophy and Education, 27(5), 313-333.

Gore, J. M. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes
of truth. New York: Routledge.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. Edited and translated by Q. Hoare
& GN Smith. New York: International Publishers.
Habermas, J. (1970). Knowledge and interest. In Sociological theory and philosophical

analysis (pp. 36-54). Palgrave Macmillan, London.

118

Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: From start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkeimer to Habermas. CA: University

of California Press.

Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical Theory: Selected Essays. New York: Herder & Herder.

Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and

social change. Temple University Press.

Hytten, K., & Bettez, S. (2011). Understanding education for social justice. Educational
Foundations, 25(1-2), 7–24.
Irizarry, J., & Raible, J. (2011). Beginning with “el barrio”: Learning from exemplary teachers
of Latino students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(3), 186–203.
Jiménez, C. M. (2004). The Mexican American heritage. Berkeley, CA: TQS.
Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: a theoretic framework and a gardener's tale. American

Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212.

Kailin, J. (2002). Antiracist education: From theory to practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
Keesing-Styles, L. (2003). The relationship between critical pedagogy and assessment in
teacher education. Radical Pedagogy, 5(1), 1-20.
Kincheloe, J. (2009). Critical complexity and participatory action research: Decolonizing

“democratic” knowledge production. In Education, participatory action research, and

social change (pp. 107-121). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Kincheloe, J. (2008). Critical pedagogy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing
Inc.
119

Kincheloe, J. (2002a). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. (2002b). Towards a critical politics of teacher thinking: Mapping the
postmodern. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2011). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
Key Works in Critical Pedagogy, Bold Visions in Educational Research (32), 285-326.
Kohli, R. (2014). Unpacking internalized racism: Teachers of color striving for racially just
classrooms. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 17(3), 367–387.
Kohli, R., Pizarro, M., & Nevárez, A. (2017). The “new racism” of K-12 schools: Centering
critical research on racism. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 182–202.
Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools (1st ed.). New York,
NY: Crown.
Ladd, H. (2017). No Child Left Behind: A deeply flawed federal policy. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 36(2), 461–469.
Ladson–Billings, G. (2000). The dream keeper. San Francisco: Jossey –Bass Publisher.

Leonard, S. T. (1990). Critical theory in political practice (pp. 3-7). Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

MacLeod, J. (1987). Ain't no makin'it: Leveled aspirations in a low-income neighborhood.

Westview Press.

Martin, A. J., & Dowson, M. (2009). Interpersonal relationships, motivation, engagement, and
achievement: Yields for theory, current issues, and educational practice. Review of
Educational Research, 79(1), 327-365.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
120

Angeles: Sage Publications.
McLaren, P. (2000). Che Guevara: Paulo Freire and the pedagogy of revolution. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield.
McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M.
Baltodamo, & R. Torres (Eds.), A critical pedagogy reader (pp. 193–223). New York,
NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of
school. New York, NY: Longman.
McLaren, P. (2015). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of
education. New York, NY: Paradigm.
Merriam, S. B., (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.).
San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. (2010). Start where you are, but don’t stay there: understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Mirra, N., Garcia, A., & Morrell, E. (2015). Doing youth participatory action research:

Transforming inquiry with researchers, educators, and students. Routledge.

Montecinos, C. (1995). Culture as an ongoing dialogue: Implications for multicultural teacher

education. In C.E. Sleeter & P.L. McLaren (Eds.), Multicultural education, critical

pedagogy, and the politics of difference (pp. 291-308). Albany, NY: SUN V Press.

Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

121

Mortari, L. (2016). For a pedagogy of care. Philosophy, 6(8), 455-463.

Murray, C., & Malmgren, K. (2005). Implementing a teacher–student relationship program in a
high-poverty urban school: Effects on social, emotional, and academic adjustment and
lessons learned. Journal of School Psychology, 43(2), 137-152.
Nieto, S. (2002). Language, culture and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new Century.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 107-334, 20 U.S.C § 6301 et seq. (2001).
Ochoa, A. (2006). Ochoa paradigm: Models of cultural pluralism policy studies in language

and cross-cultural education. Unpublished manuscript. San Diego State University.

Olivos, E. M. (2006). The power of parents: A critical perspective of bicultural parent

involvement in public schools. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.

Opper, I. M. (2012). Teachers matter: Understanding teachers’ impact on student
achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Orlowski, P. (2011). Teaching about hegemony race, class and democracy in the 21st century.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Osborne, K. (1990). Is there a democratic socialist pedagogy? In D. Henley & J. Young
(Eds.), Canadian perspectives on critical pedagogy (pp. 43-73). Winnigeg, Manitoba,
The Canadian Critical Pedagogy Network with Social Education Researchers in Canada.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Pérez -Huber, L., Johnson, R. N., & Kohli, R. (2006). Naming racism: A conceptual look at
internalized racism in U.S. schools. Chicano-Latino Law Review, 26, 183-206.
Ramirez, M. III, & Castañeda, A. (1974). Cultural democracy, bicognitive development and

122

education. New York: Academic Press.

Ramsey, A. P. (2004). Teaching and learning in a diverse world (4th ed.). New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.

Reardon, S., Kalogrides, D., & Shores, K. (2019). The geography of racial/ethnic test score
gaps. American Journal of Sociology, 124(4), 1164–1221.
Rueda, R. (2005). Searching for the Grand Unifying Theory: Reflections on the field of LD.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 168–170.
Rutledge, S. A., Cohen-Vogel, L., & Roberts, R. L. (2015). Understanding effective high
schools: Evidence for personalization for academic and social emotional learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1060-1092.
Schunk, D., Meece, J., & Pintrich, P. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and
applications. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Scorza, D., Mirra, N., & Morrell, E. (2013). It should just be education: Critical pedagogy
normalized as academic excellence. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(2),
15-34.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education: Critical teaching for social change. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation. Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey
Publishers.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as
an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
123

Solórzano, D., Allen, W., & Carroll, G. (2002). Keeping race in place: Racial microaggressions
and campus racial climate at the University of California, Berkeley. Chicano Latino Law
Review, 23, 15–111.
Souto-Manning, M. (2010). Teaching English learners: Building on cultural and linguistic
strengths. English Education, 42(3), 248-262.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage publications.
Teachers Matter: Understanding Teachers’ Impact on Student Achievement. (2012). RAND
Corporation.
Tichnor-Wagner, A., & Allen, D. (2016). Accountable for care: Cultivating caring school
communities in urban high schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1-42.
Tyack, D. B., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Harvard University Press.

Valencia, R. (2002). Chicano school failure and success: Research and policy agenda. New

York: Falmer.

Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of

caring. New York: SUNY Press.

Vinovskis, M. (2009). From a nation at risk to No Child Left Behind: National education goals
and the creation of federal education policy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
Harvard University Press.
Wang, C., & Burris, M. A. (1997). Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for
Participatory Needs Assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3), 369–387.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research: Design and methods (6
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
124

Sage.
Young, R. (1990). A critical theory of education: Habermas and our children’s future. New

York: Teachers College Press.

Zavala, M. (2016). Decolonial methodologies in education In Peters M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

educational philosophy and theory (pp. 361–366).

Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (2013). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Routledge.

125

Appendix A: Consent Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

INFORMATION SHEET FOR EXEMPT RESEARCH
STUDY TITLE: Critical Pedagogy as a Means for Student Learning and Empowerment
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Susana M. Santa Cruz
FACULTY ADVISOR: Dr. Paula M. Carbone
INTRODUCTION
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This
document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is
unclear to you. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form. A copy of the
signed form will be provided to you for your records.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to gain information on the characteristics and use of critical
pedagogy in the classroom. This study also seeks to gain information on how teachers who enact
critical pedagogy perceive their practices impact their students. We hope to learn effective
classroom practices in order to better address the persistent opportunity gap among students of
color. You are invited as a possible participant because you have been recommended as an
effective educator who enacts critical pedagogy as part of your instruction.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you decide to take part, you will be asked to commit to one classroom observation during one
of your instructional blocks at your school site. You may select a date and time that is best
126

suited for you and your students. The observation will last between 50-minutes to 90-minutes,
depending on the duration of your instructional block that is being observed. You will also be
asked to commit to participate in one semi-structured interview that will last approximately one
hour and an informal 30-minute debriefing meeting. You may select the date, time, and location
for the interview and debriefing meeting, both of which need to occur outside of assigned work
hours.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation.
PRIVACY/CONFIDENTIALITY
The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional
Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
All information gathered in this study will be kept confidential. Your name will not be shared
with anyone outside the research team. The data for this study will be compiled into a report,
and while what you say may be reported as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly
attributed to you. Pseudonyms will be used to protect your confidentiality and you will be de-
identified from all data that is gathered. All data collected will be kept in a password protected
computer. All hand-written notes will also be carefully secured. Both computer-stored and
hand-written data will be destroyed upon completion of the study and report of findings, which
will extend no further than six months from when you begin participation.
I intend to record our interview. The purpose of the recorder is to ensure that your perspectives
are accurately captured. The recording is solely for accuracy of data collection and will not be
shared with anyone outside the research team, with the exception of transcribers. However, your
127

confidentiality will be maintained since there will be no identifying information in the recordings
that can link you to the study. You have the right to review and/or edit the recordings. The
recordings, like all other data collected, will be kept for no longer than six months and then will
be erased.
A report of the findings will be shared via an infographic with the Los Angeles Unified School
District. However, the infographic will contain no information that links your identity to any
part of the study. The study’s findings will be shared with the district named here in order to add
to the research base on the characteristics of critical pedagogy and its effect on student
achievement. Understanding the impact critical pedagogy has on students can help improve
teaching and ultimately student outcomes.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
It is your choice whether or not to participate. If you choose to participate, you may change your
mind and leave the study at any time. Refusal to participate or stopping your participation will
involve no penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.
If you stop being in the research, already collected data may not be removed from the study
database. You will be asked whether the investigator can continue to collect data from your
records. If you agree, this data will be handled the same as the research data. No new
information or samples will be collected about you or from you by the study team without your
permission.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions, concerns, complaints, or think the research has hurt you, contact the
study investigator, Susana M. Santa Cruz, at smsantac@usc.edu. You may also contact the
faculty advisor for this study, Dr. Paula M. Carbone, at paula.carbone@rossier.usc.edu.
128

This research has been reviewed by the USC Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a
research review board that reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and
welfare of research participants. Contact the IRB if you have questions about your rights as a
research participant or you have complaints about the research. You may contact the IRB at
(323) 442-0114 or by email at irb@usc.edu.
STATEMENT OF CONSENT
I have read (or someone has read to me) the information provided above. I have been given a
chance to ask questions. All my questions have been answered. By signing this form, I am
agreeing to take part in this study.
______________________________________________________________________________
Name of Research Participant Signature Date and Time Signed

Person Obtaining Consent

I have personally explained the research to the participant using non-technical language. I have
answered all the participant’s questions. I believe that the participant understands the
information described in this informed consent and freely consents to participate.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Name of Person Obtaining Informed Consent Signature Date and Time Signed

129

Appendix B: Observation Protocol
Participant: Date: Start time:
Finish time:
Location: Grade Level:

Physical Space:

People/Participants
Who are the
participants?

What are their
roles?

130

Demographic
Information:
Race
Ethnicity
Gender

What is the
physical
environment
like?

What are the
participants
doing? How
many are
involved in:
- Group
interaction
- Individual
actions
- Passive
participants

131

What is being
discussed?

What
strategies are
observed?

Sequence of Events
Beginning:

Observer Comments

132

Middle:

End:

Observer Role
Describe some of my interactions with other participants throughout the observation, if any.

How did my interaction/presence affect the observation participants?

Other
• Biases
• Final comments
133

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction:
It’s great to see you, again! First, I’d like to thank you again for agreeing to participate in my
study. I appreciate the time that you set aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we
last spoke, the interview should take about an hour. Does that time frame still work for you?
Before we get started, I want to provide you with an overview of my study and answer any
questions you might have about participating in this interview. As you know, I am a doctoral
student at USC, and I am conducting a study on the teachers who enact critical pedagogy. I am
interested in the instructional practices implemented by those teachers. I am also interested in
understanding how those teachers perceive their enactment of critical pedagogy impacts their
students.
I will be asking questions in order to learn more about the instructional practices currently
implemented as they pertain to critical pedagogy. I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing
the hat of researcher today. This means that the nature of my questions is not evaluative. I will
not be making any judgments on what you report regarding your performance as a teacher. This
interview is also confidential. This means that your name will not be shared with anyone outside
of the research team. I will not share any contents of our interview with other teachers, the
principal, or any other district personnel.
The data for this study will be compiled into a report. In that report, I do plan on using some of
what you say as direct quotes; however, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will
use a pseudonym for your name and your school site to protect your confidentiality and will try
my best to de-identify any of the data I gather from you. As stated in the Study Information
Sheet that I shared with you, all the data I collect will be kept in a password protected computer.
134

The data will be destroyed after three years. If you are interested, I am more than glad to provide
you with a copy of my final paper.
I have brought a recorder with me today so that I can accurately capture what you share with me.
The recording is solely for my purposes and will not be shared with anyone outside the research
team. As I said, earlier, I want to make sure I capture your perspectives accurately; therefore, I
may stop you occasionally to make sure that I have a clear understanding of your responses. The
recordings will not be shared with anyone outside my research team. Do I have your permission
to record our conversation?
II. Setting the Stage
I’d like to start by asking some questions about your background as an educator.
1. Could you tell me a little bit about your background in education?
a. How long have your worked in the field of education?
b. How did you become interested in the field?
c. What was your first teaching assignment?
d. Aside from your teaching assignments, are there any other duties you perform at
the school? If so, what are they?
e. What is your favorite part about being a teacher at this school, if anything?
2. What interested you in becoming a social studies teacher?
a. During your entire teaching career, how long have you taught social studies?
b. Tell me about your role as a social studies teacher.
III. Heart of the Interview
Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about the instructional practices that you implement
as part of your enactment of critical pedagogy in your classroom (RQ).
135

3. How do you define critical pedagogy?
4. What are your reasons for enacting critical pedagogy in your classroom?
5. What teaching approaches do you utilize that address educating students through critical
pedagogy?
6. How are your teaching practices different from traditional pedagogical approaches?
7. What role does student dialogue and student participation play in your classroom?
8. What do you do to get the silent voices in your classroom to become active?
9. Describe what a typical instructional day looks like for you.
a. What are some of the most effective instructional practices that you implement as
part of your enactment of critical pedagogy?
b. When enacting critical pedagogy, what do you struggle with the most?
10. In what ways do you use the prescribed curriculum as a part of your pedagogical
practice?
a. Have you made any changes to the prescribed curriculum as part of your
enactment of critical pedagogy?
11. How do you ensure balanced literacy instruction while promoting critical pedagogy?
12. Please describe any professional development (PD) you have received in the last two
years related to the enactment of critical pedagogy, if any.
a. How did you hear about this PD?
b. If the PD was voluntary, what motivated you to attend?
c. Walk me through a typical PD session related to critical pedagogy?
Now, I’d like to ask you some questions about your perceptions about how your enactment of
critical pedagogy impacts your students’ learning (RQ).
136

13. What reflective practices do you engage in with respect to you enacting critical
pedagogy, if any?
14. How do you believe critical pedagogy strengthens your relationship with your students, if
at all?
15. How do you believe critical pedagogy affects student to student interactions?
16. What strengths do you perceive your students gain as a result of your enactment of
critical pedagogy, if any?
17. What aspects of critical pedagogy do you believe your students struggle with, if any?
18. Overall, how do you perceive the enactment of critical pedagogy impacts your students?
19. In your opinion, what academic challenges do your students still face?
IV. Closing Question
20. What other insights would you like to share about our conversation today regarding the
enactment of critical pedagogy in your classroom and your perceptions of how your
instructional practices impact your students, if any?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract In an effort to address persistent opportunity gaps for students of color, this study explored the practices and perceptions of three secondary school teachers who self-identify as enacting critical pedagogy. The following research questions guided the study: (1) How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy describe their teaching practices? (2) How do teachers who identify themselves as enacting critical pedagogy perceive their impact on their students? Critical pedagogy framed the position and analysis of this study. This study used a qualitative design to capture the three teachers’ ideologies, instructional practices, and perceptions of how their enactment of critical pedagogy impacts their students. Data sources in this study included classroom observations, semi-structured interviews, and researcher memos. This study informs the teaching practice by helping teachers move beyond reductive and disempowering pedagogies that merely serve to transfer knowledge towards a more empowering pedagogy that helps develop critical consciousness in students about their world and their position in it. This study can shed light on how, through critical pedagogy, teachers can raise student achievement and empower students to become agents of change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Ethnic studies as critical consciousness and humanization

PDF

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Multimodal composing and teacher preparation

PDF

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

PDF

Teacher identity and culturally Responsive pedagogy

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Critical media literacy in K-5 classrooms: three teachers' commitment to equity and access

PDF

A critical worldview: understanding identity and sense of belonging of underrepresented students' participation in study abroad

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

The effects of being a voluntarily childless female educator

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

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

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

Immigrated Latino/a students' general education teachers' mind frames and pedagogy

PDF

Online graduate-level student learning and engagement: developing critical competencies for future leadership roles: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Santa Cruz, Susana Melanie (author)

Core Title Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 12/12/2020

Defense Date 11/17/2020

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

Tag critical consciousness,critical pedagogy,dialectical process,emancipatory education,OAI-PMH Harvest,praxis

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Carbone, Paula M. (committee chair), Green, Alan (committee member), Jones, Jennah (committee member)

Creator Email dotmelanie428@gmail.com,smsantac@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-409599

Unique identifier UC11668913

Identifier etd-SantaCruzS-9203.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-409599 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SantaCruzS-9203.pdf

Dmrecord 409599

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Santa Cruz, Susana Melanie

Type texts

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

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA