University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Teacher identity and culturally Responsive pedagogy

(USC Thesis Other)

Teacher identity and culturally Responsive pedagogy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Running head: IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 1

TEACHER IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY
by
Stephine Jackson

__________________________________________________________________

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

August 2018
Copyright 2018 Stephine Jackson

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 2
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my family. Without your support, I would not
have been able to reach this goal. My husband has encouraged me--sometimes needing to
nudge me along the way--to follow through. My mother has stepped in to help me co-
parent and keep our household running throughout this time-intensive process. My father
has been watching me from above and is probably chuckling at the fact that his daughter
is now a doctor. And lastly, this dissertation is dedicated to my eight-and-a-half year old
daughter, Ella, who has been so proud to tell people that her mama is going to be a
doctor. Your surprise Post-It note that you left on my laptop was the reason I pushed
through.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 3
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge my co-worker and dear friend, Aileen Yoshida, who
has willingly immersed herself into my research and been a sounding board throughout
this journey. I am sure that our ‘dissertation talks’ will continue even when this study is
done. This experience would not have been as rich and meaningful without you by my
side.
I would also like to acknowledge the team that I studied for this research and the
way that they opened up their world to me as an outsider coming in. They showed
vulnerability, humility and courage with their honesty and candor. We muttled our way
through some uncomfortable learning moments that were raw and real. The team helped
me face some of my own biases and misconceptions. Thank you for that.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 4
Table of Contents

Dedication
Acknowledgements
Abstract
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Study
Limitations
Conclusion
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Individual Identity
Collective Identity
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Conceptual Framework
Summary
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
Sight Selection
Population and Sample
Data Collection and Instruments
Interviews
Observations
Data Analysis
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Position as a Researcher
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Delimitations
Ethics
Conclusion
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
A Review of the Participants
Participant 1
Participant 2
Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5
Participant 6
Nature and Discursive Identities
Affinity Identities
Institutional Identities
Summary
2
3
4
7
8
10
10
11
12
13
13
15
17
18
19
21
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
29
29
30
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
46
49
54

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 5

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
Discussion of Findings
Recommendations for Future Research
Conclusion
CHAPTER SIX: EPILOGUE
References
Appendix A: Adult Consent Form
Appendix B: Interview Protocol, Interview #1
Appendix C: Interview Protocol, Interview #2

56
57
58
59
60
66
74
75
77

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 6

Abstract
The pedagogical decisions that teachers make have a profound impact on learning.
Historically, teachers have held the individual power in making many of the decisions as
to which texts are taught, what lenses those texts are viewed and the learning experiences
that go along with it. And while classrooms in the United States are growing more and
more diverse every year, the teaching population continues to be made up primarily of
white, middle class females. This study examined the ways in which teacher identity
manifests itself in culturally responsive pedagogy. Using an identity framework, the
researcher interviewed, observed and analyzed a case study of six high school English
teachers working collaboratively to make pedagogical decisions. The findings suggested
that identity plays a crucial role in the decision making process. The data suggested that
teachers tap into many different forms of identity–including nature, institutional,
discursive and affinity identities–as they negotiate what they will teach and how they will
teach it. The research revealed the impact of the team’s strong affinity identity and the
ways in which this identity resulted in more culturally responsive pedagogy. It also
suggested that discursive identities can reinforce and further perpetuate practices that are
learner-centered. And finally, the data suggested a connection between institutional
identities and power dynamics within the team and the way in which that impacted the
extent to which team members were able to make their voices heard. The last chapter
contains journal excerpts from the researcher documenting her own transformation
throughout the research.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 7
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
“In our society, being literate opens doors--and opens them wide,” (Ferrandino &
Tirozzi, 2004, p. 29). The ability to read, write and talk not only allows for access and
opportunity, but it also results in higher earning power (Kahlenberg, 2004). Writing sets
up students in the professional world and oftentimes, “determines who gets the grant, the
job, or the promotion” (Schmoker, 2006, p. 62). In addition, research has shown the
powerful benefits of writing as a tool to help marginalized populations overcome
adversity and help them take control of their lives (Bolton, 1999).
Research statistics show that literacy rates in California and in the United States
are a serious problem, with approximately 32 million Americans unable to read and 21
percent of adults reading below a fifth grade level (National Assessment of Adult
Literacy, 2003). Adults who cannot read or write are more likely to earn less money in
their lifetime and rely more on social services, such as unemployment checks, food
stamps and government housing. Schmoker (2006) points to education as the ticket to
moving into middle class status and literacy as the key component to a good education.
Not only does literacy bring economic power, it also profoundly impacts one’s
future as a member of our society. The Department of Justice points to the link between,
“...academic failure and delinquency, violence and crime is welded to reading failure.”
According to “Begin to Read,” (2017) 85 percent of juveniles entering the court system
are illiterate. In addition, the majority of prison inmates are illiterate. In sum, “Authentic
literacy, rightly acquired, profoundly affects students’ life and career options, their
understanding of the world, their facility with concepts and ideas” (Schmoker, 2006, p.
52). This study examined the pedagogical decisions that teachers made and the ways in

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 8
which their own identity impacted these decisions as they designed literacy experiences
in the high school setting.
Statement of the Problem
A number of researchers have concluded that the quality of teaching in the
classroom has a life-changing impact on students. Haycock & Huang (2001) found that
the very best teachers in a school site have a six times as much impact on student learning
than teachers in the bottom third. Marzano (2003) found that effective teachers have a
profound impact on students, just as ineffective teachers can have a significant impact on
impeding learning. Schmoker (2006) found that, “Instruction itself has the largest
influence on achievement” (p. 10).
As such, we must look more closely at the teacher’s role in making pedagogical
decisions and the ways in which educators reflect upon themselves and their students to
design culturally responsive learning experiences. Much of the power in the classroom
remains controlled by the teacher (Pirnhai-Illich, Pete & Martin, 2017). Teachers,
oftentimes left alone to develop and implement curriculum, use their own personal
schooling experience to make decisions that impact their students. This control and
power is largely left unquestioned by parents, administrators and society in general
(Pirnhai-Illich, Pete & Martin, 2017).
Meanwhile, the teaching workforce will likely remain predominantly white as the
student population grows increasingly more diverse (Howard, 2006). In 2016, 82 percent
of public elementary and secondary educators in the United States were white (United
States Department of Education).This trend in white dominance and ideology is one that
should be brought to the surface, examined and challenged (Banks, 1996; Cochran-Smith,

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 9
2004). “The sheer number of White people in the teaching field in a country marked by
racial inequality has implications for the role White teachers play in creating patterns of
racial achievement and opportunity” (Picower, 2009, p. 197). Since the beginning of
schooling in the U.S., school policies, including curriculum development, has largely
been dominated by the Eurocentric image (Pirnhai-Illich, Pete & Martin, 2017). In the
study, Schools and Staffing Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, 85
percent of educators believe they have some control over the content, skills and topics
that they bring into the classroom setting and 84 percent believe that they have some say
in the textbooks and materials that they use (Loewus, 2017).
As diversity within classrooms increases, educators must look within themselves
and begin to question the role that their identity plays in the instructional decisions that
they make in the classroom. Because education is not neutral culturally, we must look to
the person in power who makes decisions about what instructional practices will be used
in the classroom. Historically it is the teacher who holds that privilege to decide what gets
priority (Battiste, 2013). Drawing from Gee’s (2001) identity framework, this study
examined the link between a teacher’s identity and the decisions that he or she made in
pedagogy. This study also examined the collective identity of a group of educators
working in a professional learning community and the ways in which roles within the
group impacted the decisions that they made. It also examined the relationship between
affinity identity and culturally relevant pedagogy. The researcher in this study grounded
the research questions and interview questions in a theoretical framework based on
previous research on individual and group identity. This research built upon these
concepts and examined links between these concepts and culturally responsive pedagogy.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 10
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to better understand the ways in which teacher
identity manifests itself in culturally relevant pedagogy. The researcher used Gee’s
(2000) identity framework to look at how the different aspects of identity contribute to
designing more culturally relevant learning experiences.
Significance of the Study
In order to address the needs of all learners, educators must first come to terms
with the biases and assumptions that they bring to the table formed through their own
identity, personally, professionally and academically (Bullough, 1997). They must also
seek to better understand who their students are, what cultural capital they bring to the
table, and what they valuable and relevant in order to create learning experiences that
transform their lives and empower them to seek social justice (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
In order for teachers to provide transformative learning experiences for students,
they must first engage in the process of reflection (Larrivee, 2000). This study used an
identity framework to look to the individual and the group as perhaps an entry into more
culturally responsive pedagogy. The purpose of this study was to uncover the ways in
which a teacher team examined their own identity, and that of their students, to make
pedagogical decisions that are learner-centered and culturally relevant to students.
Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
● How does a teacher’s identity impact the pedagogical decisions that they make in
the high school setting?
● How does identity and culturally relevant pedagogy interrelate?

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 11
This study examined the different identities and filters that educators brought into
decision making process as they sought to create learning experiences that support social
change and empower students to create a more just society (Cochran-Smith & Lytle,
1999). This research could help to inform educators at multiple levels. From a teacher’s
perspective, information from this study could shed light on how one’s own identity
impacts the decisions that they make in the classroom (Larrivee, 2000). By unpacking
and analyzing identity in multiple contexts, teachers could better understand how who
they are influences not only what they teach, but how they teach it (Conley & Cooper,
2013). The specificity of this case study could serve as a model for other school sites
striving to incorporate more culturally relevant teaching into their teaching practices.
Finally, with the projected influx of English language learners over the next
several years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), state officials could look to this study to
understand the needs of our diverse learners and how to make literacy experiences more
relevant and powerful to all students.
Limitations
Although this research was carefully planned and designed, there were some
unavoidable limitations. First, this case study focused on a small population size at one
single school site. Ideally, having a larger representation with multiple school sites in
diverse areas would have broadened the scope of the findings (Merriam, 2009).
Next, the study was limited to just eight weeks of observations and interviews.
Not only was the timeframe very short, it also occurred during the beginning of the
school year. Because the start of the school year is typically a time when teachers are
setting routines, it may have been more beneficial to conduct the research midway

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 12
through the school year, after teachers and students were fully engaged in literacy
experiences. Although the timing was early in the school year, some might argue that
conducting this study at the start of the year allowed the researcher a deeper look into
how teachers and departments made pedagogical decisions from the start of the school
year.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the researcher hoped to better understand how a teacher’s identity,
whether personal or professional, individual or group, impacted pedagogical decisions.
This study aimed to uncover connections between teacher identity and culturally
responsive pedagogy. The next part of this paper examines the literature behind teacher
identity and culturally relevant pedagogy.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 13
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
“We teach who we are” (Palmer, 1998, p. 2). Identity is a powerful force that
often determines how one interacts with students and the subject matter that he or she
teaches (Madden & Wiebe, 2014). In addition, one’s own educational experience as a
student often shapes how they teach and what learning experiences they choose to bring
into the classroom (Palmer, 1998). “Who one is as a person affects who one is both as a
learner and a teacher. Life and learning are intertwined” (Olsen, 2016, p. 27).
This study examined the ways in which individual identity and group identity
impacted professional learning communities as educators came together to design and
implement learning experiences. The researcher hoped to uncover the relationship
between teacher identity and culturally responsive pedagogy. As such, this literature
review looks at the empirical research published on individual and collective identity, and
culturally responsive pedagogy.
Individual Identity
In its simplest form, identity is how we see ourselves and how others see us as we
engage in social relations throughout our world (Danielewicz, 2001). While our identity
is ever changing and always evolving depending on the context, it is the discourse of
individuals through social interactions that ultimately shapes and allows one’s identity to
exist (Jenkins, 1996).
Gee (2000) further defined identity as the way in which we act and interact in a
given context that others see as a way of being. His research analyzed identity in four
different aspects: nature, institutional, discursive and affinity.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 14
Nature-identity is categorized as a state of being, or a force that one has no control
over. Institutional-identity, on the other hand, is derived from a set of authorities or
sources of power that determine this position or identity. Rules, laws, traditions and
principles “author” these positions and the rights and responsibilities that go along with
them. Jenkins (1996) found that institutions have a profound impact on one’s identity just
as the people who are part of that institution have a profound impact on the institution
itself.
Discursive-identity exists only because others recognize and respond to the trait,
oftentimes seen as an ascription or achievement. Finally, affinity-identity is defined as a
group of people who share a culture or traits and adhere to specific practices that they
have allegiances and access to. Many of these identities are interdependent on one
another, as in the case with institutional-identities that rely on discourse and dialogue in
order to sustain themselves (Gee, 2000). In our current world, people construct their own
identities and society sustains those identities through informal discourse and dialogue
(Gee, 2000). This study examined the ways in which teachers authored their own identity
and how that identity impacted the decisions that they made in the classroom.
Erikson’s (1968) concept of identity emphasized the context and the
interconnectedness of the individual, as well as the social, cultural and historical
background that all come into play in identity formation. The research from this study
looked at the impact of these factors as teachers made decisions about what they teach
and how they teach it. By examining these factors, the researcher hoped to uncover the
ways in which identity and culturally responsive pedagogy co-exist.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 15
In education, teachers enter the field with their own ideas about what it means to
be identified as a teacher and, “These embedded ideas and images about teaching and
learning form a kind of interpretive frame that we rely on, consciously or not…” (Olsen,
2016, p. 29). The goal of this research was to uncover ways in which teachers constructed
and co-constructed their identities and the ways in which those identities promoted
learning experiences that were culturally responsive and meaningful to students.
Collective Identity
Looking at the historical background of education, teachers have largely worked
in isolation throughout much of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries
(Conley & Cooper, 2013). Even up until the 1960s and 1970s, individualism and
autonomy were seen as a hallmark of the profession and the preferred choice of many
teachers (Little, 1982). Although the 1980s brought about a movement toward
professional learning communities (PLCs), individualism continued to dominate the
profession (Conley & Cooper, 2013). A PLC can be defined as, “An ongoing process in
which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action
research to achieve better results for the students they serve” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker &
Many, 2006, p. 2)
Recent research by a host of individuals, including Hargreaves and Fullan (2012)
have documented the performance of teachers working in collaboration as stronger than
that of teachers who work in isolation. As teachers take collective responsibility for the
learning through PLCs, student learning improves for all learners (Schmoker, 2005).
It is important to note that the PLC model was the district initiative of the school
site in which this research was conducted. The district designated funding to support this

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 16
initiative, including extensive professional learning for teachers on the topic, dedicated
release days for teachers to engage in the work and PLC facilitator coaches at every
school site. With the implementation of this model and the increased collaboration within
departments, collective identities was also examined in order to understand how these
interactions within the group impacted the pedagogical decisions.
Collective identities are those shared by a group of individuals oftentimes within
or around an institution, such as a school site (Danielewicz, 2001). For this particular
study, the members at the school site and within the department acted in affiliation with
one another, therefore forming a collective identity that emerged through social
interactions (Danielewicz, 2001). As group members interacted, one’s power, influence
and importance played an key role in the evolution of that identity (Danielewicz, 2001).
“Power and conflict haunt any human group. Coalitions form around different opinions
and interests. People vie for power. Conflict is a natural consequence. Effective teams
master the skill of good politics: bargaining, negotiating, and facing conflict head on”
(Conley & Cooper, 2013, p. 45). The researcher within this project investigated the ways
in which these power dynamics shaped and influenced the pedagogical decisions that
teachers made as a group, and the degree to which institutional identities may have
impacted those decisions.
How a teacher forms his or her identity is crucial in education because,
“...teaching is testimony” (Patterson, 1991, p.16). Self-knowledge is the first step in
critical reflection because, “...knowing of my students and my subject depends heavily on
self-knowledge. When I do not know myself, I cannot know who my students are”

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 17
(Palmer, 1998, p. 2). The next part of this literature review turns to the empirical findings
on culturally relevant pedagogy.
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
Using the theory of culturally responsive pedagogy, the researcher set out to
discover how teachers make pedagogical decisions that position the learners as,
“...sources and resources of knowledge and skill” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p. 79). As
educators seek to liberate and ignite epistemological curiosity in their students, they must
be willing to make education socially and culturally relevant to their students (Morrell,
2010).
Ladson-Billings (1995; 2014) dubbed the phrase culturally responsive pedagogy
as a way of preserving and celebrating student’s cultural identity. In this way, educators
reject deficit-based thinking and come to the table with the belief that all students--
including those from culturally diverse backgrounds and low-income households--are
capable learners (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
Other researchers in the field have identified culturally responsive teaching as
seeking to understand cultural experiences and frames of reference in order to ensure that
the needs of all students are met (Gay, 2000; Ladson-Billings, 1994). In this way,
teachers explicitly engage and support students not only academically, but also culturally
and socio-politically. Operating under this framework, teachers consider students’ social
and cultural backgrounds in order to create meaningful and relevant classroom practices
(Howard, 2003).
The teacher’s role in this process is critical in creating conditions for culturally
responsive pedagogy. Rychly & Graves (2012) claim that four practices are key in

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 18
teachers creating these conditions. First, they must hold their students to the same
standards as other students by pushing students to show that they care. Secondly, teachers
must be reflective themselves in order to challenge their own misconceptions and biases
of diverse students. Third, they must be able to recognize their cultural frames and be
willing to interrogate how they see the world and how that influences the decisions they
make in the classroom. And finally, teachers must have some knowledge and
understanding of the cultures around them in order to serve the needs of all students.
While many researchers have sought to better understand culturally responsive
pedagogy, “It appears there is a missing piece in applying the knowledge to actual
classroom practices” (Rychly & Graves, 2010, p. 47). This study used Gee’s identity
framework as a starting point in analyzing how teacher identity and culturally responsive
teaching correlate. Howard (2003) stated that in order for teachers to exercise culturally
responsive pedagogy, they must be able to engage in critical reflection that examines
their own positionality and challenges their own views on race, social class and culture.
By asking specific questions of the participants about their background and views, the
researcher hoped to uncover connections between individual and group identity and
culturally responsive pedagogy.
Conceptual Framework
The direct connections between individual and group identity, and culturally
relevant pedagogy set the conceptual foundation for this research (Figure 1).

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 19

Figure 1. Concept Model of Theoretical Frameworks.
Ultimately, the researcher hoped to examine the ways in which educators
questioned and interrogated their own privilege and whiteness in order to provide more
culturally responsive learning experiences for their students and promote educationally
equality that answered to the educational debt (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
Summary
This qualitative study took place in a high performing diverse Southern California
suburban high school with a population of approximately 500 students with 60 percent

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 20
identifying as Asian. Through interviews and observations, the researcher sought to
understand the ways in which identity impacted pedagogical decisions and whether those
decisions were culturally relevant to students. The literature covered in this review sheds
light on the research behind identity and culturally relevant pedagogy. These findings
helped to frame the research design and methodology covered in chapter three.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 21
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This study sought to understand how identity impacted the decisions that teachers
made as they developed learning experiences. It also examined the role of culturally
responsive pedagogy in the process. Because identity is highly complex and
contextualized (Danielewicz, 2001), the researcher used a qualitative approach
incorporating rich description (Merriam, 2009). Using words as data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016), the researcher captured professional and personal information about participants in
order to paint a picture of each individual to capture the essence of his or her identity.
Because this study focused on a single phenomenon in an effort to describe and explain
the characteristics of pedagogical decision making as a team of high school teachers
come together to plan and implement, this case study could provide powerful insights that
could help to advance the field of teaching (Merriam, 2009).
“Research is the most powerful instrument to improve student achievement...”
(McEwan & McEwan, 2003, p. 1). The ultimate goal of this research was to improve the
teaching practices of educators and increase student learning. This research took a critical
stance because it examined power dynamics (Merriam, 2009) between teachers as they
worked together to make decisions about classroom practices. The researcher sought to
understand the ways in which teachers made these decisions and how white privilege--a
direct product of a colonial, Eurocentric system (Pirnhai-Illich, et al. 2017)--did or did
not impact the decisions that teachers made.
Through the use of semi-structured interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the
researcher hoped to uncover the ways in which one’s identity, and the power that goes

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 22
along with it, impacted individual and group decisions as either supporting or oppressing
those around them (Merriam, 2009). Interviews afforded the researcher to look at the how
and why by using detailed questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to examine the ways in
which teachers did or did not challenge their own views and assumptions (Merriam,
2009). In addition, observations during department meeting times provided narrative data
to capture the power dynamics as teachers worked together to make decisions (Merriam,
2009).
Site Selection
This research took place at a high performing high school in a suburban Southern
California school district. Located in a master planned community in one of the fast
growing cities in California, the district served more than 33,000 students with 17 percent
English language learners. Statewide testing scores for the CAASPP in 2016 showed that
79 percent of students in this district met or exceeded statewide English Language Arts
standards. In addition, this district was ranked in the top 100 nationally on Newsweek
magazine’s annual list in 2016, with three high schools in the district taking the top three
rankings in the county.
The researcher chose this site because of the connections she had to the
department chair and because of the willingness of the new team to engage in the
research. Another one of the reasons the researcher chose the newest of the five high
schools in the district was because of the demographics. Of the 396 freshmen opening the
school in the fall of 2016, 60 percent were classified as Asian, with 58 percent speaking
Mandarin. With the shift in the California Common Core Standards and the embedded
English Language Development standards, many teachers are redesigning their

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 23
curriculum to serve the needs of all students (California English Language Arts/English
Language Development Framework, 2014). The trend in more English language learners
in the classroom is statewide (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011) and other districts grappling
with the influx in English language learners could benefit from the research conducted at
this site as a result.
In addition, the researcher chose this site because of the unique staffing
advantages of a new school opening. The department chair was hand selected as a leader
in the district with more than thirty years of experience at the site, district, county and
state level. She served in Sacramento as a member of the Standards Commission
Committee and as a member on the California Framework Criterion Committee. As a
district and county teacher of the year, she took the lead in hiring department members.
In addition, this newly formed staff consisted of many teachers who were within
their first five years of teaching. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
approximately 1.9 million new teaching opportunities are expected between 2014 and
2024. As districts hire in newly credentialed teachers, information from this research
could shed light on ways in which to support teachers as they enter the profession.
Population and Sample
This research included freshman and sophomore English language arts teachers
with a variety of classroom compositions including honors classes, ELD classes, general
education classes and co-teach classes with a special education teacher and a general
education teacher. A total of six teachers were interviewed and observed, including four
white females, one Asian American female and one white male teacher.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 24
Because the goal of this study was to analyze and understand the role that identity
played in pedagogical decisions making, the researcher used a purposeful, unique, non-
probability sampling (Merriam, 2009) to examine the way that newly formed teams of
educators came together to make decisions.
Data Collection and Instruments
In order to ensure consistency and reliability, the researcher used semi-structured
interview guides and observations. This system of triangulation, where the researcher
collects information from multiple sources and multiple formats (Fielding & Fielding,
1986), allowed for validation of information. Both interviews were semi-structured in
order to allow for flexibility, creativity, insight and follow up as interviewees brought
new knowledge into the conversation that may not have been anticipated (Maxwell,
2005). Not only were questions focused on experiences and opinions, but interpretive
questions offered the chance to gather more information and check for understanding
(Merriam, 2009). A detailed description of the process and the rationale of this research
design is included in the section below.
Interviews
A mixture of value and opinion questions (Merriam, 2009) were used during the
initial interview during the first week of the study and for the last interview at the end of
the eight week period. Participants completed consent forms prior to beginning the
interview process and were asked at the start of each interview whether they agreed to be
recorded so that information from the session could be transcribed in order to ensure
accuracy.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 25
The first interview focused on the participant’s identity, mainly focusing in on
nature and institutional identities (Gee, 2000). In the first part of the interview,
participants were asked to describe themselves and to reflect upon their own background
in three different ways: as a person in general; as a teacher; and as a student in high
school. The purpose of these questions was to better understand the experiences that
participants brought into the classroom that may have impacted how they made decisions.
The second half of the first interview focused on the teacher perception of the students in
his/her classroom. The researcher asked questions about the cultural background of
his/her students and to describe learning experiences that appeared to have a powerful
impact on students. These questions directly related back to the conceptual framework,
revealing examples of culturally responsive learning experiences and connections back to
one’s personal background.
The second interview focused in on the group dynamics of the teacher team to
examine the ways in which educators made collaborative decisions. Teachers were asked
to talk specifically about team dynamics and how they worked together to make
pedagogical decisions. In addition, participants were asked to reflect upon power
dynamics within the group in an effort to analyze the role that institutional identities
(Gee, 2001) may have impacted team decisions. Lastly, participants were asked to
comment on the reflective process that the team used throughout the design and
implementation of the curriculum.
Because research is inductive at first and leads to deductive thinking, the
researcher also used the second interview to compare one account to another, to member
check and confirm emerging trends and to look for recurring themes or regularities

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 26
(Merriam, 2009). The researcher described some of the emerging trends and findings
from the initial interview and from observations and asked participants if they agreed
with those themes and why or why not. The interview at the end of the eight weeks
allowed the researcher to cross check the findings and expand upon the observational
data (Maxwell, 2005).
Two interview protocols were used for this research. The first protocol appears in
Appendix A, and was used for the initial interview. The second protocol, in Appendix B,
was used for the final interview at the end of the eight weeks. For both interviews, the
researcher ended by asking participants if they had anything to add as a way of giving
teachers the opportunity to add any final thought that they felt was important to include
(Patton, 2002).
Interviews were conducted in person, lasting approximately 45 minutes to an
hour. With the consent of the participants, all interviews were recorded and later
transcribed using professional transcription software called Temi. Throughout the
interview, the researcher took shorthand notes to capture an outline of the responses so
that she could immediately review the recordings after the interview and begin looking
for trends and patterns in the data (Patton, 2002). All data was stored on a password
protected computer and will be destroyed three years after the research concludes.
Observations
“While interviewing is often an efficient and valid way of understanding
someone’s perspective, observation can enable you to draw inferences about this
perspective that you couldn’t obtain by relying exclusively on interview data” (Maxwell,
2005, p. 94). In as such, observations were another source of evidence for this study.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 27
Observations occured weekly over an eight-week period during department and team
meetings when teachers were designing and discussing curriculum. In an effort to get
close enough to the data and to serve as a reliable guide when interpreting the
information (Locke, Silverman, & Spirduso, 2004), the researcher attended as many
meetings as possible during the eight week span. In total, thirteen meetings were
observed, including three department meetings and ten grade level planning meetings.
The observer used field notes to capture highly descriptive information of the
participants, the setting and the activities (Merriam, 2009). Throughout the team meeting
observations, the researcher protected the identities of teachers by referring to members
as Participants rather than using specific names.
Data collection began in October of 2017 as the researcher began observing and
interviewing teachers. Before this process began, all participants were given an
information sheet that stated the overview of the study and a consent form that spelled
out that participants could refuse to answer any questions or end the interview at any
time. Subsequent interviews and observations continued for the remaining eight weeks.
Data Analysis
The researcher analyzed team meeting observations and teacher interviews
immediately after transcribing the information. As themes emerged, the researcher used
codes to note patterns and trends (Glaser, 1965). These patterns were reviewed and
captured in the form of a matrix and analyzed each week in order to further explore
questions and insights that developed. Once these themes developed individually within
an observation or teacher interview, the researcher looked at whether these same patterns
revealed themselves in observations of other team meetings or interviews with different

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 28
teachers (Merriam, 2009). Some of the codes that appeared includeed II for institutional
identity, NI for nature identity, DI for discursive identity and CRP for culturally
responsive pedagogy.
The final step in analysis was to look at these themes in relation to the theoretical
framework from chapter two. The researcher analyzed the codes from observations of
teacher planning time and teacher interviews to note overarching themes. The themes and
conclusions drawn from this analysis were then presented to teachers in the second
interview as a means of member checking to ensure that information was accurate and
valid.
As it is the researcher’s responsibility to keep data secure and confidential, the
researcher secured paper forms, such as consent forms and observation notes in a locked
cabinet when not in use. Additionally, electronic notes and recordings were stored on a
laptop with a protected password to keep the data confidential. There was also a plan for
the destruction of the data when the study was completed. Three years after the study, the
researcher will properly shred all paper files and permanently delete electronic files on
the laptop used.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Validity and reliability are important concerns both during the collection of data
and during the analysis, interpretation and presentation of the findings (Merriam, 2009),
as is credibility and trustworthiness. Triangulation, as cited before, is one way in which
the researcher worked to ensure that the process was congruent with what is really
happening in the classroom. Observations and interviews validated data and emerging
themes.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 29
Position as a Researcher
Because qualitative research deems the researcher as the primary instrument
(Locke et al., 2004), it is essential to address some of the ethical issues when it comes to
reliability and subjectivity. In this case, not only am I the primary researcher, but I am
also an employee within the school district. Upon entering into department and team
planning meetings, I needed to acknowledge that my position as a teacher on special
assignment at the district level could have an impact on the data (Locke et al., 2004). My
role at the district level is to provide professional learning opportunities for secondary
English language arts teachers in the district. This role puts me in a position of power as
teachers oftentimes see me as a representative from the district and someone who has
experience and knowledge.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
McEwan and McEwan (2003) remind us that, “Qualitative research can be
rendered nearly worthless if researchers fail to disclose their biases, predispositions, and
even connections to the subject of the study” (p. 84). In as such, I strived to be aware of
my own biases and assumptions that I brought into the research (Merriam, 2009) and I
constantly worked to acknowledge when those biases emerged. Acting primarily as an
observer (Merriam, 2009), I had to be aware of my insider’s identity and reframe from
engaging in activities that could have positioned me as someone who had power of
knowledge that could influence the group.
Another limitation to this study was the subjectivity of the researcher (Merriam,
2009). Because I have personal and professional relationships with the participants, I had

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 30
to set those relationships aside and allow the data to tell the story. Although there was
information that unearthed assumptions and biases on the account of the teachers
involved, I had to report the data that emerged to the best of my ability. Merriam (2009)
reminds researchers of their position as a human instrument in qualitative studies. As a
former classroom teacher, I have had my own experiences while making pedagogical
decisions with a team of teachers. As a department chair, I was also in a position of
power and influence, bringing to light another perspective that I worked to keep in check
while conducting the research.
Delimitations
One of the drawbacks to the design of this research was the limitations involving
time and participants. This study offered a snapshot of what it is like for one team of
teachers creating curricular experiences. Because this study focused on just one team,
with their own set of contextual challenges, it made it more difficult to make external
generalizations that would apply to other settings or teams (Merriam, 2009). For this
reason, the researcher in this study looked to Patton’s idea of extrapolating instead of
generalizing. In this theory, researchers make, “modest speculations on the likely
applicability of findings to other situations under similar, but not identical, conditions.
Extrapolations are… problem oriented rather than statistical or probabilistic” (Patton,
2002, p. 125).
Ethics
The researcher in this study submitted a formal application to district personnel in
line with the established protocol and officially received approval in September before
beginning the research. In addition, the researcher contacted the department chair several

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 31
months before submitting the district application to ensure that her department would
consider participation. The researcher also contacted the site administrators ahead of time
to get their approval. The researcher visited during a department meeting in October to
explain the purpose of the study and give an overview of the research questions to all
department members. She also reinforced the voluntary nature of the study and the time
commitment of two interviews per each participating teacher. She then sent an electronic
version of the consent form, which was returned with consent from all members of the
department.
Because no students were interviewed or observed during this study, parent-
student consent forms were not necessary. Any information pertaining to students was
collected through the teachers’ perspective. The researcher took necessary measures to
ensure the confidentiality of the participants by protecting the identities of those who
choose to participate.
Conclusion
The timing of this study could be of direct benefit to many districts across the
state. First of all, according to the California Department of Education, many districts
have started or will be starting the process of adopting new English Language Arts
materials. The selection of classroom materials has a direct impact on student learning
(California English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, 2014).
These materials offer resources that allow teachers to make instructional decisions based
on the needs of their students.
With the shift in local control, local educational agencies now have the power and
responsibility to adopt materials that meet the English Language Arts and English

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 32
Language Development standards (California Department of Education). Some districts
are piloting and adopting publisher-created textbooks, while others are looking to take
pre-existing units and rebuilding them to align with the California Common Core
Standards (Student Achieve Partners, 2016). According to Student Achievement
Partners’ State of Our Classrooms, teachers need more access to transparent, unbiased
information on instructional materials to help them make decisions about what they chose
to bring into the classroom (Fann, 2017). The nature of this research could shed light on
the complexity of making pedagogical decisions and the implications of teacher identity
that come into play during that process. The next section of this paper, reviews the
findings from the research conducted.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 33
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter provides an overview of the findings that address the research
questions. The researcher sought to answer the following two questions:
How does teacher identity impact pedagogical decision making?
How do identity and culturally relevant pedagogy interrelate?
Drawing largely from Gee’s (2000) nature, institutional, discursive and affinity
identity framework, teacher participants were asked questions about their individual
identity and the collective identity as they made decisions about the instruction in the
classroom. The purpose of this study was to better understand how a teacher’s identity,
including his/her background and biases, may impact the decisions that are made in the
classroom. In answering the first research question, how does identity impact decision
making, the data suggested that participants frequently draw from their nature and
discursive identities when they are designing learning experiences in the classroom. For
some, factors such as gender, race and/or ethnicity played a role in making decisions.
Discursive identities were another factor that emerged as participants reflected
upon the ways in which others spoke about them, including their achievements within
their educational past and within their teaching career. In some cases, colleagues noted
which credential programs that their co-workers had come through, and the prestige and
credibility that they viewed that achievement. In other cases, participants referred to the
accolades and achievements of co-workers within their career as a discursive identity that
played a role in who the team often looked to for advice and guidance.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 34
The findings also suggest that affinity identities impacted some of the decisions
that the team made. Having a shared vision amongst the team, including common values
and ideals behind best teaching practices, had an effect on the choices that participants
made about what learning experiences they chose to incorporate into their classrooms.
The final finding in response to the first research question suggested that
institutional identities, and the roles, responsibilities and power that team members
assume, have a strong influence on the decisions that the team made about what they
brought into the classroom. This finding suggested that teachers on the team who assume
leadership roles and have strong discursive identities at the school site and within the
district as high quality teachers have power and influence within the team when it came
to making decisions.
For the second research question—how does identity and culturally responsive
pedagogy interrelate—the data indicated that the affinity identity of the team had a direct
impact on the decisions that they made and that when participants worked together as a
team, there was evidence of culturally responsive pedagogy. Before delving into the data
that supports these findings, the researcher will provide a brief overview of the
participants.
A Review of the Participants
This next section will give the reader a better understanding of the background of
the individual participants. Because identity was a critical component of this study,
understanding how participants viewed themselves was important. In addition, discursive
identity, or how others viewed and responded to a trait (Gee, 2000) was also important to
consider. In as such, participants were asked how they see themselves in terms of

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 35
background and experience, and how they viewed their teammates and how they think
their teammates viewed them. Some of the questions for the initial interview included:
tell me about yourself and your experience as a teacher; and tell me how your co-workers
would likely describe you.
Table 1
Research Study Participants

Participant 1
Participant 1was a second generation Chinese American female with five years
total teaching experience. A student in the same school district when she was in middle
school and high school, she described herself as being proud to be an alumni of the

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 36
district. She commented on her experience as a high school student, “There was so much
value overall placed on being smart and highly academic… to me it was marketed as oh,
this is college level, this is for intellectuals. I bought into that…”
Self-described as positive, caring, bubbly and smart, Participant 1 was serving her
first year at the new school site. She noted her studies at Teachers College Columbia
University, where she believed she developed a large part of her core philosophy on
teaching, including a social justice paradigm. During her first interview, she spoke
specifically about her hesitation to sometimes interject her social justice lens based on her
experiences working with others in her credential program:
Going back to why I’m insecure about bringing it up [social justice], there was so
much push back, in at least my year, my class in teacher’s college. Every time
someone brought up social justice people rolled their eyes. I literally had male,
white classmates saying why are we talking about social justice, if we’re teachers,
we’re naturally socially just… it was like 80 percent white I think and so it was
kind of scarring for me, um that oh wow, my own future colleagues are upset that
we are talking about these things and upset about thinking critically and
questioning our own selves.
Participant 1’s social justice philosophical stance, along with her experience as a
Chinese American, appeared to play a role in some of her suggestions as she worked with
teammates as seen later in this chapter.
Participant 2
Participant 2 was a white female with approximately six years of teaching
experience and is currently a course lead for one of the grade levels. Prior to entering into

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 37
the teaching field, she worked in the corporate world in marketing for four years as a
copywriter. She noted her experiences in her previous career, “I really hated corporate
America and the good old boys club and everything that went along with that was
difficult for me…”
When describing herself in the initial interview, Participant 2 said,
I’m very untraditional in terms of values. I am agnostic. I’ve been with my
boyfriend for nine years and we’re not married because I’m not really sure I
believe in marriage… And I don’t want to have kids and that’s hard for people to
understand… and I’m a big feminist.
Participant 2 recognized the way in which her background differed from that of
many of her students when she said, “Well, I’m white. And I’m often the only white
person in the classroom. The optimistic part of me wants to think that shouldn’t affect it,
like good teaching should be good teaching…” .
The findings below suggested that Participant’s 2’s self identification as a
feminist and her experiences with gender constructs in the corporate world may have had
an impact on some of the curricular decisions in her classroom.
Participant 3
Participant 3 was a white female who recently relocated from San Jose where she
taught for ten years. As a first year teacher at the school site, one of the leadership
positions that she assumed was course lead. She commented on her high school
experience as similar to her students in the “pressure to perform.” In addition, notated the
socio-economic similarities:

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 38
I think I really identify with the bubble of being upper middle class upbringing…
So, yeah, I share a lot of background with my students. I think a lot has to do with
money. Um, culturally, I’m a white American whose family has been here for a
very long time, so I don’t understand that in terms of what that would mean...
In this case, Participant 3 was able to reflect upon the common class status that
she shared with students. She was aware of the fact that her own background as a white
American differed from many of the students in her classroom. She expressed the ways in
which she struggled to understand where her students came from touching on issues of
society and equality (Cochran-Smith, & Lytle, 1999).
She also noted her sexual orientation and her own personal struggle with
accepting herself:
Another really important aspect that I have only just, like in the last couple of
years, have even allowed myself to fully understand because it’s been so difficult
for me has been my sexual orientation. In high school, I knew I was gay but it was
horrible, absolutely horrible to grow up in [this] county and be different. It was so
bad that I basically pretended to be someone else for over a decade. Only recently
has it been something that I recognize my own status as someone who could be
seen as an outsider.
Later, in the findings below, she noted her intentional focus on social justice
issues that address traditionally underserved populations.
Participant 4
Participant 4 was a white male in his second year as special education teacher. His
first year at the school site, he co-taught classes of both 9th and 10th grade and one

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 39
directed studies class with six students. In his initial interview, Participant 4 shared that
he moved around growing up living in places such as the Middle East, Austria and
Maryland before his family settled in California. Like Participant 1, he attended middle
school and high school in the same district that he currently teaches in.
When describing his co-teach role in the department he responded:
I told them [teaching partners] from the beginning that my specialty is lesson
implementation. So you tell me what to do and I’ll throw in a couple of ideas on
how I think I can make it better, not that it needs to be made better… With one of
the co-teachers, I do the social piece. How can we relate it to current events?
As a special education teacher, Participant 4 was invested in looking for ways for
his students to relate to the curriculum and learn social skills in order to thrive outside the
classroom walls. In later findings, his background growing up outside of the United
States and his identity as the only male teacher on the team may have contributed to some
of the decisions that he made in the classroom.
Participant 5
Participant 5 was the department chair and had the most experience of the team
with more than 30 years of teaching experience. A white female, she labeled her socio-
economic status as upper middle class growing up. Throughout the interview, she
referred to herself as politically active with local measures and with the state creation and
implementation of the California Common Core, “In 2010, I became active at the state
level and was on the academic standards commission that adopted the Common Core
Standards and wrote the California version… It was really kind of career shifting in a lot

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 40
of ways.” She has also played a role at the district level, working on curriculum
development and professional learning for a portion of her career.
During the interview, Participant 5 noted one commonality in the students that she
taught and her own children:
“When I say they [my students] are privileged and entitled, I don’t mean to judge
them. I celebrate that for them because the opportunities that they’ve been given… and so
I’d say that that’s a huge goal of mine because my own three children had every
advantage…”
As a white, privileged female, Participant 5 recognized the institutional identity
that many of her students possess because she could identify with that class status. Her
awareness of her own institutional identity appeared to have accounted for some of the
decisions that she noted below in the findings.
Participant 6
Participant 6 was a white female in her first year teaching. Raised in an affluent
community, she commented on her positionality as it related to her students: “I’m very
honest about where I came from because I think it’s important that kids see that I’m
recognizing my privilege and my culture…”
Having recently attended a private university, Participant 6 recognized similarities
of class and privilege amongst herself and her students. When referring to her own
perception of the culture that she came from, she responded, “And this was something I
truly didn’t understand until I got to college. Because for a long time I said I don’t have
culture. I’m a white, privileged female. But that is my culture. That’s where I’m from in
the community.”

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 41
In the data below, it appeared as though Participant 6’s understanding of her own
dominate, white narrative revealed itself as she noted her desire to expose students to
authors of diverse backgrounds other than the traditional white male authors.
The brief descriptions above began to reveal identities of the participants in terms
of nature, institutional, discursive and affinity (Gee, 2000). This study sought to
understand how identities impact the pedagogical decisions that teachers made. Each of
the participants shared aspects of their own identity and ways in which those aspects
contributed to the development of learning experiences. The next section of this paper
looks specifically at the way that identity played a role for each participant.
Nature and Discursive Identities
Each participant in this study answered questions about their personal
background, childhood educational experiences and cultural backgrounds. In all six
cases, participants shared unique ways in which their identity came through when they
made pedagogical decisions. This first section hones in on the ways in which nature and
discursive identities emerged throughout the interviews with participants.
As Participant 1 commented on the lessons that she felt were most powerful for
herself and her students, her nature identity emerged:
The ones (lessons) that I put myself the most into naturally without having to
force it at all is when it comes to talking about social justice and it’s especially
when it comes to talking about race, racism, social justice relating to race… the
most recent thing that we were looking at, um, non-fiction articles about Native
American reservations. And then we were reading contemporary short stories that
had really heartbreaking themes about being displaced, about being helpless

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 42
because of things bigger than themselves because of history, because of the
present, because of the government, because of marginalization… Because so
many of them are Asian American, it resonates with them too, this completely
separate area where being the hyphenated American, are you ever fully American,
what does it mean to be an American.
Having a background as an Asian American, Participant 1 was compelled to bring
in issues of race and social justice into the classroom. In this case, her nature-identity
(Gee, 2000) and the fact that she was born a second generation Asian American played a
role in the way that she made decisions about what she would incorporate into the
classroom. The quote below further reinforced the way in which her nature identity
impacted her decision making:
We were reading a Sherman Alexi’s specifically where he was in an interview
saying, basically talking about not having to wear a white guy mask, but at the
same time, not, at the same time realizing that he shouldn’t feel guilty for not
doing his Native American duties… I think a lot of the Asian American kids, and
myself, relate to that, like I don’t have to live up to the assumptions that people
have about what Asian people should be like, but at the same time, am I trying to
whitewash myself?
In addition to Participant 1’s nature identity, a discursive identity emerged when
Participant 5 noted her collaegue’s social justice stance:
[Participant 1] is really remarkably, um and I noticed this about her in her
interview… she’s all about social justice and education as a platform for social
justice… she’s confirmed the importance of what I believe is important in that

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 43
respect… in terms of representative voices and addressing all students...
[Participant 1] has confirmed what I’ve always valued and that has been a
powerful and important thing for me coming from a young teacher.
In the case above, Participant 1’s identity had a direct impact on the decisions that
the team made in terms of some of the text selections included in the design of the unit
and the lens through which that text was addressed. As Participant 1’s teammate
commented on her social justice paradigm, her discursive identity was reinforced and
further sustained.
Nature identity also appeared to play a role in some of the decisions that
Participant 4 made. For example, one of the topics discussed during a grade level
planning meeting was bringing in rape culture and the #metoo campaign as students were
reading To Kill a Mockingbird. While in the meeting, Participant 4 refrained from
commenting on the possibility of addressing this issue in class, in his interview he
responded:
That topic, I don’t feel it’s appropriate for me to talk about because I come from
an area where it doesn’t affect me. I think that men are not nice when it comes to
how they treat women. I think it’s ridiculous when men say things like she
shouldn’t be wearing that. And that probably comes from the fact that growing up
in Saudi Arabia, some of their laws are so disturbing. If a woman is raped, it’s her
fault because she tempted a man… So I’m kind of on board with them [teaching
partners], but I don’t know if it’s as effective coming from me versus coming
from a female because I can’t say that I’ve ever been treated differently because
of something I’ve worn.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 44
While the team had discussed incorporating rape culture into the upcoming
lesson, Participant 4 was conflicted when addressing this issue because of his nature
identity as a male. Additionally, a discursive identity emerged as Participant 4 noted his
background growing up in areas outside of the United States, and the way in which he
used that identity to relate to his students:
I grew up all around the world and I’ve seen many different cultural backgrounds,
kids who didn’t speak English at all… Growing up in Saudi Arabia, my mom
wouldn’t be able to drive a car. I don’t think kids understand what that’s like…
the kids from the Middle East, I will bring up things like what language do you
speak and if they say Arabic, I’ll say, oh you know, that’s so cool. My dad speaks
Arabic. I used to live in Saudi Arabia… typically people react like, oh, it’s Saudi
Arabia and it’s negative thoughts, so it’s nice to throw in a positive spin.
In this light, Participant 4 sought to connect with students through a discursive
identity by calling attention to his experiences growing up in Saudi Arabia and
intentionally framing his background as a desirable characteristic.
Participant 2 identified herself as a feminist in her first interview. Her nature
identity as a female shaped some of her experiences that she described when she recalled
her previous career in the corporate world:
I went to the women’s march and that’s something that I’m, you know that’s one
of the problems that I had with corporate America is that I’d be in these meetings
with no one just guys and they were kind of awful. They cuss each other out in
meetings and it was just so unprofessional to me. But then I would be told, people

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 45
are saying you are difficult to work with because I was just very straightforward
and I was to the point.
Some of the pedagogical decisions evident in Participant 2’s unit plan for To Kill
a Mockingbird included a focus area on gender constructs in society, including an
examination of rape culture and the #metoo movement. In her interview, she reflected
upon her own awareness of gender constructs and that of her students:
I was surprised that they thought that gender constructs didn’t exist… although I
will say I understand it because I didn’t ever feel like I had been subjected to
gender constructs until I graduated from college because I never felt that way
from my family and I never felt that way from my teachers or in college… I never
felt that way until I went into the business world.
Participant 3’s nature identity also emerged as a contributing factor in the
pedagogical decisions that she made when she referred to her sexual orientation and her
focus on traditionally underserved populations:
Another really important aspect that I have only just like in the last couple of
years have even allowed myself to fully understand because it’s been so difficult
for me has been my sexual orientation. In high school I knew I was gay but it was
horrible, absolutely horrible to grow up in [this] county and be different. It was so
bad that I basically pretended to be someone else for over a decade. Only recently
has it been something that I recognize my own status as someone who could be
seen as an outsider. But who can also pass, perfectly clearly as being someone
who is a part of the majority… Once I allowed myself to understand that I was a
part of a group in society that wasn’t essentially powerful, that I was on the

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 46
receiving end, or could be on the receiving end of hatred and disapproval then my
own world view shifted and I wanted to serve people, because that’s what I grew
up wanting to do, but also serve the traditionally underserved. So there’s
definitely an aspect of social justice that comes with what I do and why I do it.
Within Participant 3’s unit plans, a social justice paradigm emerged with some of
her course questions including: In what way does “voice” equal power?; How is the
ability to write and publish literature a form of power?; What was the Romantic position
on the rights of blacks, women, and indigenous peoples?
Evidence of Participant 3’s social justice stance surfaced again when she spoke
about the importance of using literacy as social capital (Schmoker, 2006):
I want to keep making sure that literature is a part of what we do…The ability to
be able to go to a cocktail party when they get to college and hear a joke about the
star crossed lovers and know what those people are talking about, that enters them
into an entirely different group of people, regardless of their background.
Participant 3’s nature identity as a gay female and her experiences of feeling like
an outsider played a role in her desire to incorporate learning experiences that allow
students to examine issues of power, privilege and race. As participants in this study
tapped into these identities, a pattern emerged of culturally responsive pedagogy. This
trend was even more apparent in the examination of the team’s affinity identity.
Affinity Identities
Throughout the interviews and observations, a strong affinity identity surfaced as
the team shared a vision for best teaching practices and shared values within the English
language arts discipline. Two common values emerged amongst the group: a focus on

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 47
creating relevant learning experiences for students; and a commitment to pair traditional
texts with contemporary texts.
Participant 1 expressed her view on the common values that she shares with her
colleagues:
I think another strength is that we are constantly looking at text in context and
bringing it back to contemporary times… we all agree that it’s so important in
terms of the decisions that these students will be making in the future and their
awareness. Lastly, another strength because we come from so many different
backgrounds, we do actually provide so many extra articles or events,
supplementary material.
Participant 2 responded similarly to the commonly held practice of incorporating
text both classic and contemporary in nature, while making the learning experiences
relevant and meaningful to students: “Now we in so many schools we just teach the
cannon. And I’m like what about what’s happening in literature today? That’s a way to
bring relevance to students’ lives…”
Participant 4 reinforced his goal of making curriculum relevant and meaningful
for students:, “With one of the co-teachers, I do is like the social piece. How can we
relate it to current event… I want my lessons to be applicable to their everyday life,
especially how they interact with people.”
Participant 5 emphasized what she believed to be a core part of her team’s identity
as they develop curriculum in a string of words, “relevance, responsiveness, flexibility…
room to be. Love.” As the founding teacher at the new school site, she, along with other
team members, referred back to a department document titled Course Design Document

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 48
that outlined the department values including diverse text selections and incorporating
contemporary texts. “I thought is was important to have a sort of seminal foundational
document so that we publish to ourselves to be remindful, but also to give to new
people,” Participant 5 responded.
Participant 6 reinforced this value when she said, “We’re very grounded in
contemporary text in addition to the quote on quote classics. And I would say that’s a
core value our department has…” She went on to distinguish the values that she feels
unites the group:
I don’t even have to think twice how I would answer it. We all put our learners
before ourselves. We are all [here] because we want to make the best learning
experiences possible for this unique set of learners and we have that opportunity
here because we aren’t forced to conform to the tradition.
Participant 3 referred back to her own experiences in high school and her drive to
incorporate learning experiences that are meaningful to her students:
I want to create a system where it’s not one worksheet after another of checking
all the boxes. I want the experience to have more connection and humanity in that
process… It’s not that I’m creating these lessons for my students’ future life to be
good. This isn’t practice. This is life. And I want my students to feel like they are
welcomed and accepted in this space, this is a space for creative thinking and
growing.
Ultimately, all participants shared a common value within their affinity group.
This common value was a priority when group members came together to develop
learning experiences. Although team members came from a variety of different

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 49
backgrounds and experiences, having a common vision of best practices appeared to
anchor participants. As suggested in the conceptual framework in Chapter 2, identity--
both individually and collectively—has a powerful impact on the decisions that teachers
make. Ultimately, teachers made pedagogical decisions that were culturally responsive to
students by establishing the common goal of a learner-driven approach.
Institutional Identities
Data from this study suggested that institutional identities have a significant
impact on teachers as they made decisions about classroom practices. The first part of
this section focuses on how a teacher’s institutional identity as white privilege impacted
some of the decisions. The last section looks at how roles and responsibilities, and power
and privilege within the department, may have impacted whose voices were heard within
the team.
Participant 5 and Participant 6 both identified as upper class, white females. They
also both acknowledged the power and privilege that this institutional identity afforded
them. As a result, both expressed a desire to address issues of privilege with their
students. Participant 6 commented:
I think the similarity comes from class and privilege. A lot of these students are
extremely privileged and it reminds me of where I come from and what I know…
I would like to think that I’m different from them [students] and I can give them a
different perspective, but when I think about how I grew up, I’m not really that
different...
Participant 6, a white middle class female, acknowledged her own class and
privilege and her struggle to bring multiple perspectives into her classroom:

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 50
There was this term that I found in my giant anthology called literary nationalism
I was reading about it and a lot of the people who celebrated literary nationalism
were recognizing authors like Hawthorne, and Melville, and Emerson and
Thoreau, and I was telling them this and I said are you noticing a pattern? And of
course they didn’t notice a pattern because they didn’t know who those people
were. And so I said I’ll give you hint, or I’ll give you the answer, they’re all white
guys and I said American literature is historically taught about dead, white guys
and our goal for you this year is to expose you to writers who aren’t just dead
white guys… I think they’ve been numbed to not recognizing the author’s
background, the author’s culture, the author’s experience.
Participant 6 recognized the white dominant narrative in literature and text
selection (Pirnhai-Illich et al, 2017) and sought to challenge this narrative to provide
more culturally responsive experiences for her students.
The final participant, Participant 5, was the department chair and had the most
experience on the team. She self identified as a white, upper/middle class female in her
initial interview. She spoke specifically about raising her own children and how she
viewed many of her students as having similar positionalities:
When I say that they’re privileged and entitled, I don’t mean to judge them. I
celebrate that for them. Because the opportunities they’ve been given… and so I
would say that it’s a huge goal of mine, because my own three children had every
advantage and it was also my parenting goal that they would understand that and
turn that into what they believed, not what I believed, what they believed could

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 51
happen as a result of that advantage and so that’s how I related to the standard
kid…
In her interview, Participant 5 spoke about designing learning experiences
through specific lenses and how those can directly relate to the students’ backgrounds:
What questions we ask, and what lens we choose specifically--race, gender, socio-
economic… religion, region--not indirectly, but pretty directly helping them
recognize how fortunate they are… Always empower the kids to identify and
recognize the degree to which the lens is going to inform experience and to be
able to individuate from that…
In this sense, Participant 5 sought out ways for her students to challenge the
dominant ideology and uncover the hegemony that permeates curriculum design
(Brookfield, 2017). In addition, she spoke about the importance of including the learner
in the process of determining the lens: “[Students] would make the decisions about lenses
based on their own interest and their own research.”
Both Participant 5 and Participant 6 recognized their own institutional identities
and the privilege and power behind those identities. As a result, this identity had an
impact on the decisions that they made within their classrooms.
Institutional identities also appeared to play a role in team dynamics and the
collective decision making. The data suggested that teachers with less experience and
fewer leadership roles were less inclined to participate in meetings for various reasons.
Participant 4, a second year teacher in the district noted and spoke about his experiences
during team meetings:
It’s uncomfortable to be in an uncomfortable situation. So if you know you are

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 52
going to say something and put everyone else in an uncomfortable situation
because you know that you could get a response of, “‘well you’re never here” or
“this is your first year” or “you didn’t build the curriculum” you’re thinking about
that so you’re not going to share what you want to share. Cause you’d rather say
well they are probably going to shoot it down anyway…
Participant 4 felt referred to his lack of experience in teaching as a factor in the
degree to which he spoke up during meetings when members were making pedagogical
decisions.
Similarly, Participant 6 noted her hesitation to speak up when faced with a
classroom dilemma, “I get stage fright almost… there’s a foundation and I don’t want to
rock that foundation more than it needs to be.”
Participant 3 reflected on her experiences in working with one of the grade levels:
I don’t want to come across as being the know it all, like here is the way to do it.
And so I want to be very careful about having all the voices present but I also
recognize that sometimes I default to silence when I could actually be a leader and
I could actually, I’m pretty good at my job. I know how to do this. And maybe I
need to do it and model it, just like I do for my students. That’s a little
uncomfortable for me.
Participant 5, with the most experience on the team, reflected on her influence as
a department chair and the implications of her role:
I was the first one hired. The first one on that planning team. I’m old and
experienced and perceived as someone who is a good teacher and so with that

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 53
package, I think that’s kind of a beast. And I know it… so there’s that. There’s a
lot of power that comes with me…
Later in her second interview, she added, “Yes, I have a huge amount of
influence. And maybe that’s the power that you are talking about. And there’s
nothing I can do about it but it’s problematic for me.”
Participant 5 saw her positionality and institutional identity as an influence and
recognized the way in which her thoughts and ideas may carry a heavier weight within
the group because of her experience, reputation and role in the department and the
district.
In some cases, participants struggled with the group’s pedagogical decisions when
those decisions conflicted with their own identity. For example, in one of the quotes
above, Participant 4 spoke about his dilemma in addressing rape culture in the unit To
Kill a Mockingbird. While observational data during the grade level meeting indicated
that all team members would include this learning experience in the unit, Participant 4
made the decision not to address this issue because of his nature identity as a male
teacher. Similarly, Participant 6 expressed internal conflict in addressing this topic with
her students:
It’s especially difficult for me… I was sexually assaulted twice in college by the
same person and we were dating at the time… So, I don’t know if I’m going to be
able to do it and last a period without reflecting on my own experience and
therefore having some sort of self control… I don’t know if I’ll be able to teach it,
but that being said, I think it would be a disservice to not teach it, knowing that I

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 54
have this information and now I’m withholding it from my freshman students. It’s
an idea that I’ve been negotiating back and forth about. And it’s tough.
In both instances, group members were conflicted in one way or another by the
decisions that the team was making, however these dilemmas were never brought to the
surface or addressed by the team. The researcher noted that participants were able to
express these conflicts during the one-on-one interviews, but not during team meetings.
The data showed the reflective process surfacing as the researcher asked questions as a
nuetral third party. These findings suggest a need for further research into the impact of
an unbiased outsider as a catalyst for supporting this reflective process. In addition,
further research is needed to examine the degree to which power and influence amongst
team members may affect the decisions that the team makes as they collaborate.
Summary
In seeking to answer the first research question--how identity impacts pedagogical
decisions—all four of Gee’s (2000) defined identities played a role. For many of the
participants, nature and discursive identities were a factor in the decisions that they made
in the classroom. All participants ascribed to an affinity identity where they shared values
and vision of the ideal English language arts experience. That affinity identity played a
role in the decisions that the team made about learning experiences and ultimately lead to
more culturally relevant pedagogy. The last finding suggested that institutional identities
have a profound impact on decision making. For some, coming from a background of
white privilege inspired them to seek out learning experiences for their students that
allowed them to interrogate their own background and better understand how privilege
and power play a role in society. For many, the institutional identities within the team

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 55
dynamic played a role in whether or not they spoke up during collaborative time. The
next chapter of this paper will focus on the implications and future research suggested
within these topics.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 56
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to examine the ways in which teacher identity impacts
pedagogical decisions. In the past, teachers have largely been left on their own to make
decisions about what learning experiences they bring into the classroom (Pirnhai-Illich,
Pete & Martin, 2017). With the emergence of professional learning communities and the
research that supports the power of teacher collaboration (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012;
Schmoker, 2005) researchers are left questioning how teacher teams come together to
make decisions as a group when members come to the table with their own unique
backgrounds and perspectives.
The findings from this study showed that nature, institutional, discursive and
affinity identities played a role as teachers designed and implemented learning
experiences. The identities in which participants looked to varied from team member to
team member. Not all participants relied on nature identity when making decisions. Some
were more inclined to draw from institutional identities or discursive identities when
deciding which learning experiences would be best suited for students. Because the
participants on this team worked collaboratively, they were able to tap into one another’s
diverse perspectives allowing them to consider cultural perspectives that they may not
have considered if they were working in isolation. The team’s strong affinity identity may
have contributed to this more culturally responsive approach. Because they had shared
vision and similar values about the ideal learning experiences for students, teammates
were open to considering approaches to the learning that they may not have previously
considered.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 57
Discussion of the Findings
The findings in this study suggested that educators have a better chance of
incorporating culturally responsive teaching practices when they consider the unique
identities of those around them. While some teachers tapped into nature and/or discursive
identities more frequently, institutional identities had a significant impact on the
pedagogical decisions that teachers made. Based on these findings, the researcher has
identified three recommendations.
The first recommendation that emerged from this research was for site
administrators and leaders within an organization to encourage and support a
collaborative model to allow for more teachers to tap into one another’s unique identities.
Data from the research suggested the power of harnessing individual experiences to
create more culturally responsive teaching practices when members of the teaching team
come with diverse backgrounds and identities. The research also suggested the need for
leaders within a school site to create conditions where teachers can work collaboratively,
rather than in isolation, to make pedagogical decisions in order to take advantage of
multiple lenses. This collaborative structure allowed individuals to consider multiple
perspectives and lenses as they developed learning experiences for diverse classrooms.
The second recommendation suggests the need to invite in a neutral third party to
support teachers in independently and collectively bringing issues to the surface when
educators find themselves conflicted by the decisions that are being made as a team and
their own identity. Participants brought these issues to light in the one-on-one setting with
the researcher, however, these dilemmas were never brought back to the group. Bringing
in an outsider to ask questions directly related to the pedagogical decisions being made

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 58
could trigger individuals to bring issues of race, class and privilege to the surface within
the team.
Recommendations for Future Research
In order for teachers to create transformative learning experiences for their
students, they must critically examine their own biases and assumptions (Larrivee, 2000).
While bringing multiple perspectives into a team dynamic increases the likelihood that
teachers will create more culturally responsive learning experiences, critical reflection
could be the key to being more intentional about considering multiple lenses and using
that knowledge to take informed action (Brookfield, 2017). These findings indicate a
need for further research into the ideal conditions that allow for deep critical reflection in
the teaching moment and after that moment has passed (Cochran-Smith, & Lytle, 1999).
In addition, the data suggested a need to further study the impact of institutional
identities on the team and the decisions that they make. Gee (2000) defined institutional
identities as the rights and responsibilities that the institution authors and grants to
individuals based on rules, laws, traditions and principles. For example, the department
chair and course leads of the team have roles and responsibilities that position them as
leaders in the department and at the school site. These leadership positions hold a certain
amount of power, influence and status amongst the team. In addition, the amount of
teaching experience and knowledge of the content appeared to be another aspect of
identity that impacted how the team made decisions. The researcher was left questioning
to what degree these institutional identities impact whose voices get heard during team
collaboration. These findings suggest that institutional identities may have a powerful
impact on how teams work together to make pedagogical decisions. More research is

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 59
needed in this area in order to fully understand the impact of institutional identities within
a team dynamic and how one’s positionality influences others in designing learning
experiences.
Conclusion
The goal of this research was to examine the ways in which identity impacted the
decisions that teachers made in the classroom and whether multiple identities within a
team led to more culturally responsive pedagogy. Data from the findings—including
interviews and observations—revealed the unique ways in which teachers bring different
identities into a collaborative setting. Findings also suggested that teachers who work
collaboratively to design curriculum have a greater chance of representing multiple
perspectives and creating culturally responsive learning experiences.
The data suggested that teachers were able to begin the process of reflection when
prompted by a neutral third party indicating the power of bringing in an unbiased
facilitator to support teams in this work.
Critical reflection--knowing who one is as a person and how that impacts how
they see the world--is a vital component to better understanding the learners in a
classroom and their diverse backgrounds and needs. This dynamic landscape of the
classroom charges educators with the complex task of better understanding themselves
and their students in order to ensure high levels of learning for all.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 60
CHAPTER SIX: EPILOGUE
Vulnerability, Humility and Courage:
A Journal Entry into the Personal Findings of the Researcher at Hand
I’ve included two journal entries below. The first journal entry was written
approximately five weeks into my research. After days of internal conflict and emotional
distress, I made the choice to spend an entire day dedicated to journaling about my
feelings and the dilemmas I was experiencing as a form of thinking through my ideas and
letting it all out. It was therapy writing for me.
The second entry was written after the research was complete as I was reflecting
on the findings and considering the implications of the work I had done. I think both are
important to share because it reflects the transformative thinking that has happened to me
personally throughout this experience. I started this journey thinking that research would
be clinical in general and that data is data--cold, hard facts. But through this experience I
have come to realize how deeply human this process is. Sharing my story is my way of
embracing the vulnerability that the team I studied embodied and recognizing the courage
and humility that goes along with learning about your biases and faults.
December 9th, 2017
This work has been much more emotional than I ever would have anticipated. My
professors warned me about using my own district as a study site. They asked what will
you do if your findings reveal something unexpected and uncomfortable. My response
was that I wanted to do the work within my own organization so that I could use the
findings to make a direct impact in my district. I don’t think I fully understood what my
professors were warning me about back then. I’m understanding more and more now…

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 61
I wonder how I proceed with the information that is emerging. Last week I got a
taste of what it feels like to come in with a bias and realize that you are in fact
influencing others by your own assumptions. I went into a meeting and, listening back to
the recording, facilitated a conversation that resulted in a slanted view on a contentious
topic within the district as to whether high schools should adopt materials created by a
publisher or create their own materials. I slipped from my role as a neutral researcher into
the role of “someone from the district.” I wonder if part of the reason why I slipped into
this role was as a way of protecting the team. As a teacher on special assignment, I had
insider information about the level of work and legal implications of choosing to create
curriculum and it seemed to me that many of the members on the team were not aware of
these factors.
I felt the moral obligation, when asked, to give information about the
requirements and legal implications, which in turn resulted in creating a disorienting
dilemma where team members were left questioning the department chair’s vision of
creating curriculum. Afterward I felt responsible for creating conflict within the team. In
that moment I think I may have unintentionally used my power and institutional identity
to influence others. I didn’t realize it in the moment. I want to believe that it was
unintentional and that I didn’t recognize what I was doing. I thought I was doing
something good, when in fact, I wonder if I was oppressing others by dominating the
conversation with my own biases.
I am struck by the fact that all of us are walking around with biases and
assumptions that we don’t even realize are there. I don’t think it matters how little or how
much experience that you have in this profession or in life, we all carry with us deeply

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 62
rooted beliefs that come out in one way or another. The articles I’m reading talk about
unearthing those biases and recognizing it as we slow down and describe a problem. I
don’t think I would have recognized all of the biases that were there if I hadn’t had the
recording to listen back to. I know I felt unsettled after the meeting but I couldn’t quite
pinpoint why. Had I not slowed down to listen back to the tape and hear what I was
saying and analyze what information I chose to share and what information I did not, I
don’t think I would be having this deep reflection that I’m having right now.
I am also struck by the emotions that I experienced this week as I went through
the process of recognizing my error. At first, I felt unsettled and not sure why. Then I felt
defensive and confused. Then there was guilt and sadness followed by fear and
insecurity. So many deep emotions that had me up in the middle of the night thinking
about what I said, how I said it, the impact that it had and how I was going to move
forward. I was afraid that the department chair had lost her trust in me. I was afraid that I
had sent the team into a dismal descent into a deep black hole. I was afraid that
administration saw me as challenging the vision of the department.
When I think back to the research I’ve done so far, I’m seeing a parallel to my
own experiences and to what I’m seeing as I observe the dynamics between the members
who hold roles and responsibilities that position them with power and influence and the
other department members. A few days after the meeting, the department chair called me
wanting to know more about what was said at the meeting when she was not there. She
mentioned that her team had expressed anxiety and concern over the concept of creating
curriculum and she wasn’t sure where that had come from.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 63
In our phone conversation, she openly said that she had been holding back on
talking to her teammates about the legal implications of designing a text set. Her
reasoning resonated with me--she wanted to protect her team. She wanted to protect them
from feeling overwhelmed at this point. I think I had a similar thought process when I
was in the position of giving them information at the meeting a few days before. I felt the
moral obligation to give them the information. But I think it’s possible that in both of our
cases, we had influence in the situation and we inadvertently made decisions about what
information we would share and what knowledge we would withhold. We are now both
stuck in this uncomfortable, vulnerable place of examining our own biases and
assumptions and working our way through coming to terms with the power and influence
that we both have.
February 10th, 2018
I can look back now and recognize that I crossed the line between researcher and
participant during the meeting described above. At first, I wanted to run away from my
error and just make it go away. But, I couldn't. I was in too deep with the work and my
respect for the team and for the department chair was so profound that I had to face the
conflict head on. I was nervous and scared of publishing my findings. Nervous because I
was going to bring attention to some of the imperfections of team members with whom I
admire and adore. Scared because I didn’t want anyone to walk away feeling badly about
themselves. The more I thought about it, however, the more I realized how this was also
an example of institutional identities silencing voices in the room because of status,
experience and power. If I were to stay silent and not report these findings, I would be
perpetuating the cycle.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 64
And so I made the decision to out myself to the team and to the world. I decided
to talk about it. I shared my story with members on the team even though I had to go to
that uncomfortable place of admitting error and facing my own misconceptions and
biases. It has forced me to consider how influence and power can become the dominant
narrative if not challenged. This experience would not have been nearly as meaningful
and transformative if I had chosen to omit this part of the story. I am a changed teacher, a
changed leader and a changed person from this experience.
I don’t believe that I am the only one who has transformed through this process. I
was sitting in a district-wide coaching training a few weeks after the research had ended
with the department chair from the school site in the study. Sitting in the conference room
amongst nearly fifty of the most influential teachers and administrators in the district, she
raised her hand to share. The speaker was emphasizing the need to empower new
teachers in professional learning communities and tap into their fresh ideas and
perspectives. The department chair countered back the need for veteran teachers to
realize the weight and influence that they may not realize they have in impacting
decisions of the team and to be critical in examining those power dynamics. She then
added that this was a recent insight that came from a colleague who coached her through
this transformative thinking. And then she specifically named me. It was a defining
moment for me and one that I will never forget. She was courageous enough to share her
transformative thinking with a group of people who--when she speaks--listen to what she
has to say.
I end this journal entry and this experience with gratitude and humility. It was not
an easy road. And it was not comfortable. But, I realize that if it wasn’t disorienting and

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 65
difficult, it probably wouldn’t have been transformative. As this chapter closes, I’m
drawn to Brené Brown’s work on belonging in her book, Braving the Wilderness (2017).
And while this study was not directly tied to belonging, it was deeply connected to
identity and understanding who we are and how we fit into the world around us. Her
words ring true for me as I reflect on this journey:
Belonging is the innate human desire to be part of something larger than us.
Because this yearning is so primal, we often try to acquire it by fitting in and by
seeking approval, which are not only hollow substitutions for belonging, but often
barriers to it. Because true belonging only happens when we present our
authentic, imperfect selves to the world, our sense of belonging can never be
greater than our level of self-acceptance (p. 31).

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 66
References
Alsup, J. (2013). Teacher Identity Discourses: Negotiating Personal and Professional
Spaces. New York, NY: Routledge.
Banks, J. A. (1996). Multicultural education, transformative knowledge, and action:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing Education: Nourishing the Learning Spirit. Saskatoon,
Canada: Purich Publishing.
Begin to Read. (2017, May 3). Retrieved from http://www.begintoread.com/
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and
Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, B. (2017). Braving the Wilderness: The Quest for True Belonging and the
Courage to Stand Alone. New York, NY: Random House LLC.
Bullough, R. V. (1997). Practicing theory and theorizing practice. Purpose, passion and
pedagogy in teacher education. London: Falmer Press.
California English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework. (2014).
Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/rl/cf/elaeldfrmwrksbeadopted.asp
Christensen, L. (2009). Teaching for Joy and Justice: Re-Imagining the Language Arts
Classroom. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity and social justice in
teacher education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 67
Conley, S., & Cooper, B. (2013). Moving from teacher isolation to collaboration:
enhancing professionalism and school quality. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Education.
Danielewicz, J. (2001). Teaching Selves: Identity, Pedagogy, and Teacher Education.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). How We Think. New York, NY: D. C. Heath & Co., Publishers.
Dostal, H., & Gabriel, R. (2015). Designing Writing Instruction that Matters. Voices from
the Middle, 23(3), 14-20.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by Doing: A Handbook
for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Bloomington, ID: Solution Tree
Press.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
Fann, J. (2017). State of Our Classrooms: Instructional Materials. Retrieved from
https://achievethecore.org/aligned/state-of-our-classrooms-instructional-materials/
Feistritzer, C. E. (2011). Profile of Teachers in the U.S. National Center for Education
Information.
Ferrandino, V. L., & Tirozzi, G. (2004). Wanted: A comprehensive literacy agenda prek-
12. [Advertisement.] Education Week, 23(24), 29.
Fielding, N., & Fielding J. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: The Continuum
International Publishing Group Inc.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 68
Gee, J. (2000). Identity as an Analytic Lens for Research in Education. Review of
Research in Education 25, 99-125.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Grosfoguel, R. (2011). Decolonizing post-colonial studies and paradigms of political-
economy: Transmodernity, decolonial thinking, and global coloniality.
Transmodernity: Journal of Peripheral Cultural Production of the Luso-Hispanic
World, 1(1), 1-37.
Guerra, C. (2017). Where’d the “Me Too” initiative really come from? Retrieved from
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2017/10/17/alyssa-milano-credits-activist-
tarana-burke-with-founding-metoo-movement-years-
ago/o2Jv29v6ljObkKPTPB9KGP/story.html
Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: transforming teaching in
every school. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Haycock, K., & Huang, S. (2001). Are today's high school graduates ready? Thinking K–
16, 5, 3–17.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher
reflection. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Janks, H. (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Writing Development: Writing - A Critical
Literacy Perspective. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Jay, J., & Johnson, K. (2002). Capturing complexity: a typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education 18, 73-85.
Jenkins, R. (1996) Social Identity. London: Routledge.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 69
Johnson, L., & Eubanks, E. (2015). Anthem or Nah? Culturally Relevant Writing
Instruction and Community. Voices from the Middle 23(2).
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y. C., & Dunleavy, E. (2007).
Literacy in Everyday Life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy. NCES 2007-490. National Center for Education Statistics.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishing
Co.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
American Educational Research Journal 32(3).
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix. Harvard
Educational Review 84(1).
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the Achievement Gap to the Educational Debt:
Understanding Achievement in US Schools. Educational Researcher 35(7) 3-12.
Little, J. (1982). Norms of Collegiality and Experimentation: Workplace Conditions of
School Success. American Educational Research Journal 19(2), 325-340.
Locke, L., Silverman, S., & Spirduso, W. (2004). Reading and Understanding Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Loewus, L. (2017). Education Week. Retrieved from
https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/
08/15/the-nations-teaching-force-is-still-mostly.html
Madden, L., & Wiebe, E. (2014). Multiple Perspectives on Elementary Teachers’ Science
Identities: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 37(3).

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 70
Marzano, R. (2003). What Works in Schools. Translating research into action.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003) Making Sense of Research: What’s Good, What’s
Not, and How to Tell the Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Mayo, P. (2013). Critical Pedagogy Today: Echoes from Freire for a Critically Engaged
Pedagogy. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative Research: A guide to Design and
Implementation.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morrell, E. (2010). Critical Literacy, Educational Investment, and the Blueprint for
Reform: An analysis of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 54(2), 146-149.
Olsen, B. (2016). Teaching for Success: Developing Your Teacher Identity in Today’s
Classroom. New York, NY: Routledge.
Patterson, D. (1991). The Main Scholar: A Journal of Ideas and Public Affairs.
Palmer, P.J. (1998). The courage to teach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 71
Picower, B. (2009). The unexamined Whiteness of teaching: How White teachers
maintain and enact dominate racial ideologies. Race Ethnicity and education,
12(2), 197-215.
Pirnhai-Illich, F., Pete, S., & Martin, F. (2017). Culturally Responsive Pedagogy:
Working Towards Decolonization Indigeneity and Interculturalism. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG.
Professional Knowledge for the Teaching of Writing (2016, February 15). Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/teaching-writing
Rodgers, C. (2002). Seeing Student Learning: Teacher Change and the Role of
Reflection. Harvard Educational Review 72(2).
Rychly, L., & Graves, E. (2012). Teacher Characteristics for Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy. Multicultural Perspectives 14(1), 44-49.
Smagorinsky, P. (2013). What does Vygotsky provide for the 21
st
-century language arts
teacher? Language Arts 90(3).
Schmoker, M. (2005). Here and now: Improving teaching and learning. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements
in Teaching and Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books, Inc.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 72
Sleeter, C., & Grant, C. (1998). Turning on learning: five approaches for multicultural
teaching plans for race, class, gender, and disability. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill.
Stakes, R. E. (2005). Qualitative Case Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stribling, S. (2008). Using Critical Literacy Practices in the Classroom. New England
Reading Association Journal, 11(1).
Student Achieve Partners (2016). Building a New Curriculum From Existing Materials.
Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/aligned/building-a-new-curriculum-
from-existing-materials/
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2016). Retrieved from
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2016
/article/education-jobs-teaching-for-a-living.htm
U.S. Census Bureau (2011). Language Projections 2010 to 2020. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/language/data/acs/Shin_Ortman_FFC2011
_paper.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. (2017). Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739.
Wilfong, L. (2007). A Mirror, A Window: Assisting Teachers in Selecting Appropriate
Multicultural Young Adult Literature. International Journal of Multicultural
Education 9(1).
Yoon, B., & Sharif, R. (2015). Critical Literacy Practice: Applications of Critical Theory
to Diverse Settings. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 73
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 74
Appendix A: Adult Consent Form
The participating district recognizes the value of high-quality research in advancing the
field of education. In our partnerships with educational researchers, we maintain our
primary responsibility to the students, parents and staff whom we serve. This letter
accompanies an educational research study in which you have been invited to participate.
As an adult, any voluntary participation in this study and the related activities implies
your consent to participate. If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact
the principal investigator or your school site administrator.
Date: October 20
th
, 2017
Grade(s): 9
th
& 10
th
Grades
Activity: Interviews and Department/Team Planning Observations
Researcher: Steph Jackson
Researcher Contact Information: stephinj@usc.edu

Summary:
This study examines the ways in which teachers engage in reflection and the role that
personal, professional and group identity plays as teachers work in teams to design and
implement curriculum. In addition to observing team planning time, the researcher
requests a total of two interviews from each participant, each lasting approximately 45
minutes.
If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact the researcher above.

Name: ________________________________________________________________

Date: __________________________

Signature: ______________________________________________________________

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 75
Appendix B: Interview Protocol, Interview #1

Introduction
As you may know, this is a study that looks at the ways in which teacher identity impacts
curricular design. This is the first of two interviews that I will be conducting, both of
which will last about an hour each. For this first interview, I will be asking several
questions about yourself and your students. Please know that all of your responses will be
coded to protect your anonymity. If, at any time, you do not want to answer my questions
or you would like to stop the interview, please just let me know.

Interview #1

Tell me about yourself and your experience as a teacher.

If you had to describe yourself to someone you just met, what words might you use and
why?

How would you say your co-workers describe you?

What words might your family or friends use if I asked them to describe you to me. Why
would they use those types of words?

Would you mind telling me about your cultural background?

Tell me about your own experience as a student.

As a student, what projects or learning experiences stand out to you that were relevant
and meaningful to you?

Do you think that your teachers took into account your background when creating these
experiences?

Tell me about your students’ backgrounds.

What are some of the cultural assets that your students bring into the classroom?

What are the ways in which you learn about your students?

How do you see your personal background differing from that of your students?

Can you tell me a little about the students that you see struggling the most in your
classes? Do you think there is a common thread or common factor for these students?

What are some of the areas that you see these students struggle the most? Do you have
any theories as to why they struggle with this?

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 76
We are now going to transition in talking about how you develop curriculum and learning
experiences in your classroom. Tell me a little about how you go about deciding what
learning experiences you incorporate into your classroom?

Do you use specific criteria? In other words, do you ask yourself specific questions, or
consider certain things when you decide what to bring into your classroom?

When you are designing learning experiences, how do you make decisions about what
could work best for your students? What are the things that you consider?

Have you ever incorporated learning experiences that you felt specifically connected to
your students’ backgrounds? Tell me a little about those activities.

In what ways have you been surprised by the students’ responses to some of the learning
experiences? Have students connected to certain assignments or not connected in ways
that your didn’t anticipate?

How, if at all, has your thinking changed as a result of these surprises?

Based on who you are, do you think that influence the decisions you make about the
curriculum you bring into the classroom? How so?

IDENTITY AND CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE PEDAGOGY 77
Appendix C: Interview Protocol, Interview #2

Last time we talked, we focused on how you develop curriculum individually. Now I
want to shift to talk about how you work in a collaborative environment. I wanted to
remind you that all of your answers and responses will be coded to ensure confidentiality.
Also, if at any time, you do not want to answer a question or you would like to end this
interview, please let me know.

Tell me about the different levels of collaboration at your site. For example, how often do
you meet as an entire department? How often do you work with your grade level team?

Who do you typically design curriculum with? How often do you meet?

Do you and your teammates have similar or different backgrounds? How so?

Tell me about how your team works together on curriculum design.

Do you or your teammates ever have conflicts about curriculum design with the group? If
so, how do you handle that?

Do you and your team discuss the backgrounds of your students? If so, in what ways?

In what ways do you reflect as a team throughout or after you’ve completed a unit?

Does your team talk specifically about students who may have struggled throughout an
assignment or unit? What typically comes up?

Has the reflection resulted in changes in the way you design curriculum for upcoming
units? How so?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The pedagogical decisions that teachers make have a profound impact on learning. Historically, teachers have held the individual power in making many of the decisions as to which texts are taught, what lenses those texts are viewed and the learning experiences that go along with it. And while classrooms in the United States are growing more and more diverse every year, the teaching population continues to be made up primarily of white, middle class females. This study examined the ways in which teacher identity manifests itself in culturally responsive pedagogy. Using an identity framework, the researcher interviewed, observed and analyzed a case study of six high school English teachers working collaboratively to make pedagogical decisions. The findings suggested that identity plays a crucial role in the decision making process. The data suggested that teachers tap into many different forms of identity–including nature, institutional, discursive and affinity identities–as they negotiate what they will teach and how they will teach it. The research revealed the impact of the team’s strong affinity identity and the ways in which this identity resulted in more culturally responsive pedagogy. It also suggested that discursive identities can reinforce and further perpetuate practices that are learner-centered. And finally, the data suggested a connection between institutional identities and power dynamics within the team and the way in which that impacted the extent to which team members were able to make their voices heard. The last chapter contains journal excerpts from the researcher documenting her own transformation throughout the research.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Critical pedagogy as a means for student learning and empowerment

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

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

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy strategies for preservice teachers in urban classrooms

PDF

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

PDF

Culturally responsive pedagogy: a curriculum for secondary education teachers

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Teacher awareness of culturally responsive pedagogy and minority student outcomes

PDF

Teachers' pedagogy and perceptions of technology integration: a mixed‐methods case study of kindergarten teachers

PDF

Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups

PDF

Teachers’ experiences and preparedness to teach in an inclusive environment

PDF

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

PDF

Enacting ideology: an examination of the connections between teacher ideology, classroom climate, and teacher interpretation of student behavior

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

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

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

Cultivating culturally competent educators

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Jackson, Stephine Jean (author)

Core Title Teacher identity and culturally Responsive pedagogy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/24/2018

Defense Date 07/01/2018

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

Tag affinity,culturally responsive pedagogy,discursive,identity,Institutional,Literacy,Nature,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogical decisions,Power,reflection

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Green, Alan (committee chair)

Creator Email smichrina@yahoo.com,stephinj@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-26860

Unique identifier UC11670854

Identifier etd-JacksonSte-6450.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-26860 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JacksonSte-6450.pdf

Dmrecord 26860

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jackson, Stephine Jean

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