Revised chapter 3
1
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON
STUDENT LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN
AMERICAN SCHOOLS
by Darlene Grayson
A Capstone Presented in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
South College, Knoxville, TN
Graduation 2026
APPROVED BY:
Dr. Matthew Johnson, Ed.D., Capstone Chair
2
Table of Contents CHAPTER 3: DATA COLLECTION PLAN..............................................................................3
Overview..................................................................................................................................... 3
Research Design......................................................................................................................... 4
Site (or Setting)...........................................................................................................................8
Participants...............................................................................................................................10
Researcher Positionality..........................................................................................................13
Interpretive Framework..........................................................................................................13
Philosophical Assumptions.................................................................................................... 18
Researcher’s Role...................................................................................................................23
Procedures................................................................................................................................ 24
Permissions.............................................................................................................................25
Recruitment............................................................................................................................ 27
Data Collection Plan................................................................................................................ 29
Data Collection Approach #1: Classroom Observations........................................................29
Data Collection Approach #2: Semi-Structured Interviews or Focus Groups....................... 34
Data Collection Approach #3: Document or Artifact Review............................................... 39
Data Collection Approach #4: Researcher Reflective Journal...............................................41
Data Synthesis.......................................................................................................................... 43
Data Organization and Preparation........................................................................................ 43
Coding and Theme Development...........................................................................................44
Analysis of Student Engagement and Culturally Responsive Teaching................................ 45
Comparison Across Data Sources.......................................................................................... 46
Interpretation and Action Research Reflection...................................................................... 47
Trustworthiness...................................................................................................................... 48
Credibility...............................................................................................................................49
Transferability........................................................................................................................ 51
Dependability......................................................................................................................... 52
Confirmability........................................................................................................................ 54
Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................ 55
Areas of Concern for Chair Review....................................................................................... 58
3
CHAPTER 3: DATA COLLECTION PLAN
Overview
This chapter details the method by which the researcher will explore culturally responsive
teaching (CRT) and student engagement in a diverse middle school classroom. The chapter
begins by developing a rationale for the proposed study, informed by the problem of practice in
Chapter One and the supporting academic background in Chapter Two. Specifically, it will
describe how the study will investigate the practice of CRT and its influence on the behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive engagement of students. The chapter will explain how the choice of
methodology is informed by the recognition that pedagogical practice is a context-specific
process, situated within classroom relationships, cultural identities, learning experiences, and
institutional factors (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021b; Osher et al., 2020). It will then detail
the ways in which this chapter’s purpose connects to its approved research questions and
qualitative action research design, including a description of how the study will collect its data.
An action research approach is well-suited to investigate a concern of practice, as it
involves the systematic collection of data, alongside an analytical and reflective process, to
inform improvement in the setting in which the concern was identified (Mertler, 2024; Stringer
& Aragón, 2020). This aligns with the research gap described in the literature review in Chapter
2, which identified the need to understand how teachers enact CRT, including adaptations they
make to better meet the needs of their students (Anyichie et al., 2023; Franco et al., 2024), as
well as how the students experience instruction in the classroom (Aguayo et al., 2024). The
chapter will then proceed to detail the research design, location and participants, researcher
positionality, permissions and recruitment, and proceed to describe the proposed data collection
4
methods, as well as the organization, examination, and synthesis of findings. Particular attention
will be given to the value of classroom-based evidence and participants’ insights as sources of
information to understand student engagement in an educational and cultural context (Aguayo et
al., 2024; Mertler, 2024). The chapter will also describe how trustworthiness, including
credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability, as well as ethical responsibilities,
particularly where minors are concerned, inform the study’s conduct. Collectively, these
elements will allow for this chapter to fulfill its purpose, while also adhering to the principles of
action research as a cyclical process that informs improvement and further investigation through
reflection (Lewin, 1946; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Research Design
This study will employ a qualitative action research design to investigate how culturally
responsive teaching (CRT) practices are enacted and experienced in a culturally and
linguistically diverse middle school classroom and how they relate to student engagement. The
decision for this design emerges from the practice-based nature of the research problem stated in
Chapter One and the research gap established in Chapter Two. While previous scholarship has
provided an in-depth understanding of the principles, benefits, and challenges of implementing
CRT, further research is needed to explore how teachers enact, interpret, and adapt CRT practices
in practice-based classrooms (Anyichie et al., 2023; Franco et al., 2024). The qualitative action
research design is appropriate to investigate this research problem because it facilitates
systematic examination of a practice-oriented concern while simultaneously integrating the
research process and reflective improvement process (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
The design is appropriate for this study since this research problem focuses on
pedagogical practices, classroom interactions, and interpretations of experiences. Student
5
engagement is a concept that goes beyond behavioral aspects of class participation and
performance and encompasses affective and cognitive engagement dimensions, which means that
simply observing the extent of a student’s participation in classroom activities may not be
sufficient to understand the factors that influence their involvement (Fredricks et al., 2019; Wang
et al., 2020). For instance, while a student may complete in-class activities, they may not feel a
sense of belonging that would motivate them to actively participate in classroom discussions,
while another student may feel encouraged to engage but fail to complete the assigned activities.
Investigating the factors that influence such disparities requires in-depth exploration of the
meanings and understandings that students attribute to their experiences, relationships, and
opportunities (Eccles & Roeser, 2023; Osher et al., 2020). This justification supports the
appropriateness of a qualitative research design.
Action research is characterized by a cyclical nature and emphasizes the researcher’s
responsibility to contribute to the improvement of the situation being investigated. This design is
different from other research methodologies because it views the research site as a participant in
the research process and encourages researchers to adopt a reflective stance while investigating
the research problem (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). Its theoretical basis can be
traced back to Lewin’s (1946) seminal work and thought about the necessity for researchers to
connect research and action, specifically by viewing social problems and scientific inquiries as
interconnected phenomena. Specifically in educational settings, this design emphasizes the
educator’s responsibility to recognize a concern, investigate it, interpret the results of the
investigation, contemplate potential interventions, contemplate the implications of these
interventions, and evaluate how new interventions affect the research site (Mertler, 2024). The
6
exact sequence and number of cycles will need to be determined according to the research
project approval, site-specific considerations, and timelines.
This study’s design fits the conceptual basis of CRT explicated in Chapter Two.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy prioritizes learning outcomes while simultaneously emphasizing
the role of culture in promoting empowerment, voice, and opportunities, which means that the
focus of this study will be compatible with the design due to its orientation towards investigating
teacher agency and interactions (Ladson-Billings, 2021b). Sociocultural Learning Theory
focuses on the role of social interactions and cultural tools in learning, which fits this study since
it will analyze teaching practices, classroom interactions, and learning opportunities as
interconnected phenomena (Vygotsky, 1978). Overall, this design is appropriate to analyze how
teachers enact CRT practices and how student engagement is influenced by their learning
opportunities, interactions, classroom experiences, and the context in which these experiences
occur (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021b).
The contextual emphasis is particularly important because culturally responsive teaching
cannot be disentangled from the conditions under which the individuals under study work.
Curriculum requirements, available instructional resources, professional learning, school
expectations, and educators’ assumptions may inform how CRT is understood and practiced
(Chang & Viesca, 2022; Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Likewise, students’ responses to
instruction may be influenced by interactions among cultural identity, peer relationships,
classroom climate, and opportunities to exercise meaningfully in learning (Gay, 2018; Osher et
al., 2020). The study will therefore focus on CRT and engagement within the educational context
rather than attempting to separate classroom experiences from the social and organizational
conditions framing them. This approach will ensure that the complexity of the participants’
7
experiences is preserved and avoid treating cultural or linguistic diversity as a cause of
disengagement.
The reflective and iterative stance of action research is another reason for choosing that
design. CRT demands that educators consider whether their instructional choices acknowledge
students’ knowledge and experiences, facilitate meaningful participation, and foster conditions in
which learners feel respected and included (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021b). Reflection can
support practitioners to interrogate their assumptions, decipher classroom evidence, and ponder
whether alterations are needed. When linked to systematically gathered evidence, reflection can
become more than an impression of whether a lesson worked; it becomes a basis to interrogate
the practice and make reasoned decisions to enhance it (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón,
2020). Nevertheless, any interpretation of change must still remain in line with the evidence
gathered and the scope of the project. A qualitative action research study can provide deep
contextual understanding, but it must not automatically assume that the changes observed were
caused exclusively by a particular instructional practice.
The design will also focus on the relationship between teacher practice and the different
aspects of student engagement. Behavioral engagement can be demonstrated through
participation and involvement in learning activities; emotional engagement concerns students’
interest, connections, and belonging; and cognitive engagement concerns their investment in
understanding, thinking, and learning (Fredricks et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2020). Although the
aspects are interrelated, they are not interchangeable, so their evidence must be interpreted
carefully. Considering classroom practices and participants’ perspectives can yield a more
nuanced account of students’ experiences than only one source of evidence (Aguayo et al., 2024;
Franco et al., 2024). The specific sources and procedures used to develop this account will be
8
identified in the sections concerned with data collection, once they are verified within the study
plan.
Overall, qualitative action research offers a coherent methodological approach to address
the study’s practice-oriented purpose. It fits the identified need to interrogate how CRT is
practiced and refined within an authentic middle school classroom and how students experience
that practice in terms of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement (Franco et al., 2024;
Mertler, 2024). The design will guide the decisions about the setting, participants, researcher
role, procedures, evidence collection, analysis, trustworthiness, and ethical safeguards.
Maintaining fidelity among the approved research questions, the gathered evidence, and the
interpretations will be key to methodological rigor. Consequently, the study will use action
research as a process of contextual investigation and reflection rather than a tool to ensure that
any particular instructional strategy will result in uniform outcomes across students or contexts
(Gay, 2018; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Site (or Setting)
The proposed study will be set in a middle school educational context within the U.S.,
involving students who represent diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This setting is
pertinent to the problem of practice, which centers on varying levels of culturally responsive
teaching (CRT) practices and their implications for student engagement in middle school
classrooms. The school will be described sufficiently to establish the context of the study without
providing information potentially identifying the institution, educators, or students. Consistent
with ethical research practice, the final description will use a pseudonym for the school and
refrain from including details that might reasonably identify the organization (Stringer &
Aragón, 2020).
9
The setting will reflect the instructional, cultural, linguistic, and organizational
characteristics that are pertinent to the research questions. These might include the grade levels
served by the school, the demographic composition of the student body, classroom instructional
configurations, and the school’s broader educational context. Particular figures, such as
demographic percentages, enrollment information, or institutional characteristics, will be
provided only if relevant to the study and appropriate to the level of detail needed. The
descriptive information is pertinent for establishing the context within which culturally
responsive instruction takes place, which involves the interactions between educators and
students, the classroom relationships and conditions, and students’ cultural knowledge (Gay,
2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021b).
The middle school context is of particular interest because students in this developmental
period are navigating emerging identities, friendships, academic expectations, and feelings of
belonging. Such considerations have been linked to students’ responses to classroom practices
and opportunities for connecting learning with their interests and experiences
(Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). Thus, the study will adopt a multifaceted
understanding of student engagement that looks beyond behavioral indicators or task completion
to include emotional and cognitive components as complementary means of interpreting
students’ responses to instruction in the classroom (Wang et al., 2020).
The setting will also be examined as an educational context within which school
expectations, curriculum requirements, resources, and professional practices may converge to
influence CRT practices. Investigating CRT entails considering the organizational factors that
may mediate or moderate teachers’ instructional practices (Anyichie et al., 2023;
Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). The study will therefore look at classroom practices and
10
conditions without concluding that student engagement discrepancies necessarily arise from
cultural or language differences on the part of the students.
The choice of the educational context is aligned with the method of action research
because the approach entails investigating a concern within the environment in which it emerges.
Action research prioritizes context-specific considerations and evidence that can inform
professional practice while avoiding the separation of the concern from its everyday context
(Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). By focusing on CRT within the classroom, the study
will be able to integrate instruction and engagement practices in its considerations.
Prior to data collection, the final version of the manuscript will highlight the approved
site using an appropriate anonymous description and specify the contextual features pertinent to
interpreting the findings. Access to the setting and permission to conduct the research as well as
any approvals from relevant institutional or school-district personnel must be obtained prior to
recruitment and data collection procedures. These steps will ensure adherence to ethical research
practice and confidentiality protocols while ensuring the feasibility of the study within the
educational context (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Participants
Participants will be selected purposely because the study requires those who can offer
relevant information about culturally responsive teaching and student engagement in the selected
middle school classroom. Purposeful sampling reflects the qualitative focus on participants who
may best inform the research question rather than aiming to select a representative sample from a
defined population (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The selection process, therefore,
will focus on those who have direct experience of the classroom practices and learning
experiences addressed by the approved research questions.
11
The potential participant groups might include the classroom teacher responsible for the
relevant practices and the students who experience instruction in that classroom. The teacher’s
experience may provide insight into instructional planning, use of culturally responsive strategies
and professional reflection, and contextual considerations that influence implementation. The
students’ experience may provide insight into how they experience classroom relationships,
cultural representation, participation opportunities, and learning relevance. To include these
perspectives, where approved and ethically feasible, would align with scholarship on the
importance of centering student experiences in examining culturally responsive classroom
practices (Aguayo et al., 2024; Anyichie et al., 2023). Nevertheless, the participant groups must
be confirmed in relation to the approved research questions and project scope and permissions
prior to proceeding with the study.
For the teacher participant, the proposed inclusion criteria might include responsibility
for teaching the selected class, regular involvement in planning or delivering instruction, and
willingness to participate in the approved research activities. These criteria would ensure the
teacher can provide informed accounts of the instructional decisions and classroom conditions
being examined. For the student participants, the proposed criteria might include enrollment in
the selected class during the study period and having sufficient experience of the classroom
instruction to provide relevant perspectives. Student participation will be voluntary, and will not
affect grades, access to instruction, relationships with school personnel, or other educational
opportunities. The inclusion criteria will be stated precisely when the participant groups and
research procedures have been approved.
Since middle school students are often minors, their involvement in the study requires
additional safeguards. Where students are to be included, the study will follow applicable
12
institutional review requirements and school policies concerning parental or guardian permission
and student assent. Information about the study will be provided in age-appropriate language,
explaining its purpose, the nature of participation, confidentiality limits, and the right to decline
or withdraw without penalty. Any required consent and assent processes must be completed
before data collection from students takes place. These protections are particularly important in
school-based research, where differences in age, authority, and institutional relationships may
influence students’ free decision-making capacity to engage in the study (Mertler, 2024; Stringer
& Aragón, 2020).
The number of participants will be determined by the scope of the study, the selected
classroom context, and the types of evidence required to address the research questions. Instead
of setting an arbitrary sample size, the researcher will aim for a manageable group capable of
providing sufficiently detailed and relevant information for contextual analysis. The sample
should be proportionate to the practical demands of action research and the time available for
gathering, organizing, and interpreting evidence (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The
final manuscript will include the actual number of participants and the rationale when these
decisions have been made.
To protect participants’ identities, pseudonyms or participant codes will be used in
research notes, transcripts, and reports. Identifying details will be excluded or generalized when
providing examples of classroom practices, and all records containing personal information will
be managed according to the approved data-protection procedures. The researcher will also be
attentive to the possibility that students may have different experiences of the same instructional
practice; no participant’s perspective will be presented as representative of an entire cultural or
linguistic group (Aguayo et al., 2024; Gay, 2018). The purposeful selection, precise inclusion
13
criteria, voluntary nature of participation, and care in protecting confidentiality will enable a
participant approach consistent with the qualitative and reflective purposes of the proposed
action research study.
Researcher Positionality
Researcher positionality recognizes the influence of a researcher’s background,
experiences, values, assumptions, and relationship to the research setting on the research process
and interpretation of findings. In this qualitative action research study, positionality will be
considered in investigating culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and student engagement in
culturally and linguistically diverse middle school classrooms. Qualitative inquiry requires
interpretation of participants’ experiences in the context of their social and educational
environments. Therefore, the researcher will critically examine his assumptions and remain open
to views that challenge his initial ideas (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Action research calls for
reflexivity to ensure that decisions, interpretations of evidence, and the researcher’s role in
investigating classroom practices and student engagement are recognized (Mertler, 2024;
Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Interpretive Framework
This study will follow an interpretive paradigm that recognizes the significance of
students’ and teachers’ experiences, interactions, and contexts in the investigation of culturally
responsive teaching and practices. An interpretive approach is founded upon the idea that
educational phenomena are best understood through subjective analyses and perceptions. This
paradigm views teachers and students as active agents of classroom interactions who bring
meaning to the relationships, actions, and contexts that surround learning. Interpreters
acknowledge that particular behaviors, interactions, and contexts may generate varied
14
perceptions, perspectives, and meaning among participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018). For
instance, a researcher may be inclined to analyze engagement as a particular pattern of conduct
that predicts students’ academic performances, but practitioners must recognize that students and
teachers may analyze the same conduct differently depending on their interactions, contexts, and
lived experiences (Wang et al., 2020). The choice of using an interpretive framework is informed
by the fact that culturally responsive teaching and learning are dynamic processes that entail not
only teaching techniques but also negotiating cultural awareness and building pedagogical
connections (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021). In addition to the analysis of teachers’
practices, the study will entail examining students’ perspectives on learning contexts and
interactions to determine their engagement patterns. This paper will discuss how an interpretive
philosophy applies to this study and guides the research design, methods, and analysis.
An interpretive paradigm will help facilitate the examination of student engagement as a
multidimensional concept. Student engagement is a complex phenomenon that encompasses
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of learning (Wang et al., 2020). The three
components are intertwined but must be analyzed separately and holistically to identify the
factors that influence them. For example, the behavioral element entails participation,
persistence, and involvement in learning tasks, whereas the emotional dimension focuses on
students’ feelings and sense of belonging (Wang et al., 2020). In turn, the cognitive aspect
comprises students’ perceptions of their learning experiences and the extent to which they invest
effort in completing tasks. These three components and their interactions contribute to the
general levels of engagement that can inform the interventions for improving learning quality.
Nonetheless, the analysis of engagement should not be deterministic, which means that the
presence or absence of one aspect cannot predict the status of another component. For instance, a
15
student’s low verbal participation in class discussions cannot be used to conclude that the
individual is not emotionally or cognitively engaged in learning altogether. Similarly, active
participation does not guarantee that a student is emotionally connected to the subject or
cognitively invested in the learning process. A similar rationale applies to cultural
responsiveness, wherein students’ low levels of participation may indicate that they do not
perceive the material as relevant to them. However, the determination of students’ engagement
patterns requires considering behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions alongside contexts
and interactions occurring in the classroom (Wang et al., 2020). The interpretive paradigm will
help guide the analysis of student engagement in middle-school settings and support
understanding of how students negotiate their interactions.
An interpretive approach will also help guide the examination of student engagement
within a sociocultural context. This study will explore students’ participation in classroom
interactions and their connections with teachers and peers to identify the factors that promote
engagement and learning quality. This paradigm is informed by the idea that student engagement
is a construct that emerges from interactions, relationships, and contexts (Wang et al., 2020). For
instance, a teacher may attempt to increase student participation through specific verbal prompts,
but students’ responses may depend on their perceptions of the teacher’s intentions and their
experiences in the classroom. In addition to analyzing overt interactions, an interpretive approach
will help consider students’ lived experiences and the cultural contexts that shape their
perspectives on learning. Students’ cultural backgrounds and their orientations towards education
can be significant predictors of their engagement levels. However, a culturally responsive
framework will help ensure that the study does not adopt deficit-minded approaches and analyze
students’ conduct through the lens of perceived inadequacy (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021).
16
Instead, an interpretive approach will facilitate examining how classroom contexts, interactions,
and practices contribute to engagement levels and allow for identifying areas for improvement
(Wang et al., 2020). This approach will also entail analyzing how students’ experiences and
cultural backgrounds shape their perceptions of teachers’ practices. For instance, students may
view prompts and verbal cues differently depending on their sociohistorical contexts, which may
influence their willingness to participate actively in learning (Gay, 2018). Therefore, the
interpretive paradigm will help guide the examination of student engagement in a sociocultural
context and ensure that this study adheres to the principles of cultural responsiveness.
In addition to the analysis of interactions, contexts, and influences, an interpretive
approach will inform the researcher’s role in the investigation in terms of analyzing the evidence
and determining the conclusions. An interpretive study relies on the researchers’ responsibilities
to analyze the evidence gathered from participants and determine the meanings that can be
generated from these findings. As such, an interpretive approach entails examining the provided
information in terms of the perspectives, assumptions, and beliefs that led to these conclusions.
For example, a researcher may conclude that a particular teaching method increased student
participation in the classroom based on the provided evidence. However, a different researcher
may determine that no specific method predicted participation levels based on the same findings.
As such, the choice of conclusions to pursue must be guided by the researcher’s analyses of the
evidence. This study will follow this principle to ensure that it adheres to the interpretive
philosophy. For instance, the analysis of student engagement and behavioral prompts will entail
determining how students negotiated their interactions and whether they perceived the prompts
as relevant to them. In addition, the researcher will take these findings and determine how they
can contribute to improving student engagement in the long run (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The
17
choice of concluding statements to pursue will rely on the researcher’s analyses of the evidence
provided by participants in terms of their experiences, interactions, and contexts. At the same
time, the conclusions made by this study should not override the participants’ statements and
experiences, which must be considered as significant contributors to the final findings and
recommendations. For example, a researcher may attempt to identify general trends across all
participants interviewed, but the analysis of a single person’s experiences can provide more
insight into their perspectives and challenges than a general trend inferred from the experiences
of many (Creswell & Poth, 2018). As such, the final interpretations and conclusions will rely on
the analysis of evidence in terms of participants’ perspectives and experiences.
The interpretive paradigm will guide this study by acknowledging that the investigator is
not a passive observer of the phenomenon under analysis. Instead, the researcher must recognize
that their perspectives and assumptions can influence the study’s findings and contribute to its
final conclusions. As such, an interpretive study relies on reflexivity, which involves examining
these factors and becoming aware of how they may affect the research process. This paradigm is
well-suited for this study since it entails analyzing teachers’ and students’ experiences in
identifying the approaches that improve student participation. The findings of this study will rely
on the evidence gathered from participants, but the researcher will have to acknowledge that
their own assumptions about classroom interactions can influence the analyses and conclusions.
For instance, an investigator may assume that students’ active participation always predicts high
levels of engagement, regardless of their emotional and cognitive investment in the learning
process. This assumption can lead to biased findings and limit the scope of this study to a single
aspect of engagement. This study will rely on reflexivity to ensure that it follows interpretive
principles and adheres to the researchers’ responsibilities in conducting this type of investigation.
18
For instance, the researcher will have to critically assess their expectations for this study at the
beginning of the research process to determine how these expectations may affect the findings.
At the same time, the investigator will have to acknowledge the importance of considering all
factors influencing student engagement (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). As such,
maintaining an interpretive approach, following the principles of reflexivity, and becoming
aware of the potential influences on this study will be fundamental.
The interpretive framework will provide the philosophical and analytical orientation for
examining culturally responsive teaching and student engagement in the selected middle school
context. An interpretive paradigm views students and teachers as active participants in the
learning process who bring meaning to their interactions and experiences. This approach allows
for examining the complexities of student engagement and identifying the factors that contribute
to it within the context of culturally responsive practices. This philosophy considers students’
perspectives, interactions, and contexts in the investigation of their engagement levels. In
addition, an interpretive approach emphasizes the researcher’s responsibilities in terms of
analyzing the evidence and determining the final statements. This paradigm acknowledges that
investigators are not passive observers of the research process and that their assumptions can
influence the findings. As such, the philosophical underpinnings of this study will facilitate a
comprehensive review of the concepts under investigation, recognize the significance of student
perspectives, and rely on the researcher’s responsibilities to ensure credible findings.
Philosophical Assumptions
The philosophical assumptions underpinning this study will inform how culturally
responsive teaching, student engagement, and the participants' classroom experiences will be
understood and interpreted. Qualitative research requires researchers to take their assumptions
19
into consideration when designing an inquiry since these worldviews guide what questions will
be asked, what evidence will be gathered, and how participants' stories will be interpreted
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). This study will unveil its ontological, epistemological, and axiological
assumptions in order to provide a comprehensive background for the investigation of CRT in a
culturally and linguistically diverse middle school setting. These assumptions are particularly
important in examining students' educational experiences since classroom experiences are
informed by social relationships, cultural backgrounds, teaching practices, and institutional
expectations. An interpretive approach to this study necessitates a focus on participants'
viewpoints rather than taking for granted that there is a single explanation of why students are
engaged or how teachers design their lessons (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Wang et al., 2020).
The ontological assumption refers to the nature of reality and whether a phenomenon is
objectively real or has different meanings depending on individuals' realities in specific contexts
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). This study will be based on an interpretive ontology which
acknowledges the possibility of multiple realities for classroom teaching and engagement.
Students may have varied perspectives of the same classroom engagement or instructional
practice since their past educational experiences, relationships with educators, cultural
backgrounds, and sense of belonging in school may differ. Likewise, teachers' expectations,
beliefs, and lived experiences may motivate them to use different practices when implementing a
culturally responsive lesson compared to how students engage with it. It is not necessarily the
case that one group's perspective represents the truth while the other's is false; rather, these views
arise out of particular social realities and may therefore be valued as different. Studies of student
engagement are increasingly acknowledging the importance of taking learners' developmental
and sociocultural contexts into account rather than examining engagement in isolation (Wang et
20
al., 2020). As such, this study will interpret participants' explanations of engagement as situated
knowledge and consider their perspectives as contributors to understanding how CRT is
implemented in a middle school setting.
This ontological position also calls upon the researcher to be careful in interpreting
observable behaviors as reflections of students' engagement with the lesson. While such
indicators as participation and persistence are informative, they should not be conflated with
students' emotional and cognitive reactions to the lesson. Emotionally, students can be indifferent
or even hostile towards a lesson, even if they perform the expected tasks. As for cognitive
engagement, it is distinct from emotional engagement but can inform it, as well as be produced
through instruction that supports students' thinking processes (Wang et al., 2020). In addition,
students' cultural backgrounds and the languages they speak should not be used as
interchangeable proxies for their approaches to learning. Culturally responsive teaching focuses
on instruction that acknowledges students' cultural backgrounds, whereas culturally relevant
pedagogy emphasizes the outcomes of learning, particularly developing cultural competence and
critical consciousness (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021). This study will accordingly interpret
engagement in terms of classroom practices as well as participants' perspectives rather than
taking students' cultural backgrounds to be synonymous with their educational experiences.
The epistemological assumption relates to how knowledge is created and how the
researcher can come to understand the experiences under investigation (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
In line with the interpretive paradigm, the researcher will adopt the stance that knowledge
concerning CRT and engagement is created by means of inquiry into participants’ perspectives
and the educational contexts which give rise to the experiences being explored. The researcher
will not take the position that understanding can be disentangled from interpretation; instead, the
21
meanings to be drawn from the inquiry will hinge on the evidence to be generated, the context in
which it will arise, and the reasoning which will be applied to interpret it. Qualitative inquiry
permits such an approach to understanding experiences by virtue of its focus on how people
come to make sense of their experiences, rather than seeking to reduce such experiences to
predefined explanations (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Participants’ perspectives will provide
evidence to support an understanding of classroom experiences, while the researcher’s analysis
will focus on how these perspectives relate to the study’s approved research questions and
conceptual bases.
The epistemological position will also acknowledge that participants may supply
divergent or contradictory accounts of the same classroom event. A teacher, for instance, might
understand an instructional activity as an effort to incorporate students’ cultural knowledge,
whereas students may have divergent views about whether their experiences were meaningfully
represented. Rather than taking contradictory accounts to be a point of contention in favor of the
researcher’s preferred position, these differences should be explored in order to determine the
nature of their differences. Action research encourages a systematic examination of practice and
reflection on evidence to support the creation of professional understanding (Mertler, 2024;
Stringer & Aragón, 2020). Accordingly, the researcher will take care to distinguish between what
participants are saying, what the collected evidence says, and what can legitimately be concluded
based on analysis. Claims about changes in engagement will be made with due proportion to the
evidence, and the researcher will not assume that participants’ perceptions establish a causal link
between CRT and student outcomes.
The axiological assumption addresses the role played by values and ethical commitments
in research. The qualitative researcher should recognize that their values and experiences may
22
affect the focus of the inquiry and the interpretations which can be derived (Creswell & Poth,
2018). In the study at hand, the focus on culturally responsive teaching reflects an interest in
understanding how classroom practices recognize students’ experiences and facilitate inclusion
in the classroom. This orientation corresponds to scholarship which seeks to understand the links
between culturally informed instruction, students’ experiences, and educational opportunities
(Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021). Nonetheless, a commitment to understanding CRT should
not lead the researcher to assume from the outset that every practice described as culturally
responsive will be received positively and will positively impact engagement. Keeping an open
mind to divergent findings is important in order to make sure that the inquiry examines the
evidence rather than testing an a priori hypothesis (Mertler, 2024).
In terms of addressing the influence of values and assumptions, the researcher will apply
reflexive practices throughout the inquiry. These practices will entail examining initial
expectations, documenting decisions made during interpretation of evidence, and entertaining
alternative explanations for patterns identified. Reflexivity is particularly important in
interpreting cultural experiences because the researcher’s understanding of a participant’s
account may differ from the meaning the participant intended to communicate. Action research
focuses on reflective examination of practice, which facilitates the questioning of assumptions
and reconsideration of interpretations as evidence emerges (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón,
2020). If differing perspectives emerge, the researcher will attempt to represent them accurately
rather than viewing discrepancy as an impediment to be resolved. The study will also avoid
portraying cultural or linguistic diversity as a deficit and will consider the role of instructional
and institutional conditions in participants’ experiences (Gay, 2018).
23
Taken together, the ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions will
provide the researcher with a coherent philosophical basis for the proposed study. The
ontological position will entail recognition of the fact that participants may experience classroom
practices in differing ways; the epistemological position will focus on interpretation based on
evidence and context; and the axiological position will require explicit acknowledgment of the
researcher’s values and assumptions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). These assumptions will apply to
action research in that they will entail the contextual nature of inquiry, reflective examination of
evidence, and evidence-informed reconsideration of educational practice (Mertler, 2024; Stringer
& Aragón, 2020). Their application will aid in maintaining consistency between the study’s
philosophical orientation, approved research questions, data collection procedures, and analysis.
Ultimately, the goal will be to generate a contextually informed understanding of how culturally
responsive teaching is experienced in the context of student engagement, while taking due
account of the value and limits of evidence.
Researcher’s Role
The researcher will take up the role of an inquirer who will organize the research, collect
and analyze data, and interpret the results while focusing on the study’s objectives, questions,
and qualitative action research design. Action research calls for a reflective approach where
professionals investigate their practices and develop an improved perspective (Mertler, 2024;
Stringer & Aragón, 2020). As such, my role and that of participants will be described clearly
while addressing my responsibilities in the research process, professional relationships, and
power differential in interactions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). At the same time, I will continually
exercise reflexivity by constantly asking myself how my understanding of culturally responsive
teaching (CRT) guides my research. Since students’ engagement is determined by their social
24
relations and education experiences, I will focus on how participants interpret the meaning rather
than what I see in classroom instructions (Wang et al., 2020). Similarly, I will embrace a
reflexive approach to investigate how teachers practice CRT to understand different perspectives,
including students’ views (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
I will apply reflexivity to recognize how my thoughts, values, assumptions, and roles
influence the research and impact the participants’ perspectives. Keeping reflective notes will
support this approach while assisting in recording details and questions that demand attention
when analyzing the research findings. Reflexivity will also help generate alternative ideas,
challenge some assumptions, and identify various ways of addressing the research questions and
objectives (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). As a researcher, I will uphold ethical
integrity while avoiding the generation of overly generalized conclusions regarding cultures and
languages (Gay, 2018). Through such an approach, I will meet my role as an inquirer who
engages in a reflexive research process while developing an understanding of how CRT
influences student engagement.
Procedures
The procedures for this study will establish a clear process for addressing culturally
responsive teaching (CRT) and student engagement of a culturally and linguistically diverse
middle school. The researchers will first submit and acquire the institutional, school site, and
ethical approval required for the proposed research study, and recruit participants in accordance
with the approval and inclusion criteria. Procedures are especially important in qualitative
studies since they define how access to the research site is gained and participants are recruited
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). In addition, and in line with the attributes of action research, the
25
procedures will guide the extent and manner in which the researcher documents the conduct of
the study (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Permissions
Prior to recruitment and data collection activities, the researcher will seek institutional
and ethical approval for the proposed study. Institutional approval is critical in educational
research due to the interpersonal nature of the practice and the sensitivity of information related
to students’ academic and social lives (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The researcher will submit the
proposal to South College in accordance with the relevant approval process and determine
whether approval from an institutional review board or other independent body is necessary. The
researcher will not commence study activities prior to receiving the required approval and
authorization to conduct the study. This process will establish an ethical framework for
investigating CRT practices and student engagement in the selected middle school (Mertler,
2024).
In addition to institutional approval, the researcher will seek permission from the school
district, school administration, or other relevant authority, as applicable. The researcher will
determine the scope of the requested permission in accordance with the requirements of the site
and the proposed procedures. Permission from the school site will confirm that the activities of
the study can be conducted within its premises and specify any restrictions that may apply to the
recruitment and research activities of the study. The nature of the requested permission will
depend on the policies of the district and school and the specific procedures of the study, which
the researcher will determine prior to recruitment. As an action research study, the researcher
will take into account the implications of the study for the research site and communicate with
the relevant authorities to confirm the terms of the study. In particular, the researcher will
26
determine the availability of access to classrooms, staff, student participants, and other materials
necessary for conducting the study (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The researcher
will comply with all the requirements identified during the permission process in designing the
procedures for recruitment and data collection.
The researcher will also seek informed consent from the study participants and, where
applicable, parental or guardian permission and student assent. Informed consent is a key ethical
guideline, reflecting the principle of respect for persons, and requires that potential participants
are provided with adequate information about the research, including its purpose, procedures,
potential risks and benefits, and the right to decline or withdraw at any time (Creswell & Poth,
2018). In the case of student participants, the researcher will abide by the requirements for
parental or guardian permission and student assent, as applicable. In accordance with federal
regulations, studies involving children require additional safeguards to protect the rights and
welfare of student participants (Protection of Human Subjects, 2025). The specific requirements
applicable to this study will be determined during the approval and permission process. The
researcher will determine the procedures for obtaining informed consents and assent in
accordance with the requirements of the relevant institutional review board, rather than basing
them on generic information.
The researcher will ensure that participants are free to choose whether to participate in
the study and will inform them that they can decline or withdraw at any time without penalty or
negative consequences. This is especially important in the case of the researcher’s supervisory
role with respect to potential participants, as the power differential between the researcher and
students may create an obligation to participate, even if not explicitly stated (Creswell & Poth,
2018). In designing the recruitment procedures and consent process, the researcher will take
27
steps to mitigate any potential conflict of interest and ensure that potential participants
understand that their decision to participate or not will have no impact on their academic or
working relationships with the researcher.
Confidentiality and data protection measures will be established before collecting
information. The researcher will describe how they will handle identifying information, who will
have access to research records, and how they will report their findings without disclosing any
participant’s identity unnecessarily or compromising the school’s confidentiality. Pseudonyms or
participant codes will be used when appropriate, and identifying information will be removed
from research reports whenever possible. The data will be stored and maintained in accordance
with the approved protocol and relevant institutional guidelines. Notably, participants may share
insights regarding interpersonal interactions, practices, or experiences they may not want
attributed to them directly (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Finally, the researcher will retain records of the approvals obtained, consent and assent
processes, site-specific details, and any modifications made to the research plan that have been
approved. Whenever a change in recruitment, participants’ groups, or data collection procedures
is considered, the researcher will request the necessary approvals before making any changes.
The documentation will provide a record of the procedures used in the study and help establish
the trustworthiness of the study design (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). Accordingly,
recruitment and data collection activities will commence after approvals have been obtained.
Recruitment
The recruitment of participants will start after obtaining the necessary institutional,
ethical, and site-specific permissions. The researcher will identify potential participants based on
the inclusion criteria specified in the approved research protocol and the target of the study –
28
culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and student engagement. The rationale for using purposeful
sampling is that qualitative studies recruit participants based on their knowledge or experience
with the phenomenon investigated (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The final recruitment decision will
be made in accordance with the approved groups of participants and will not exceed the
inclusion criteria.
The recruitment documents will contain information about the study, its goals, and
general requirements for participation. Additionally, the documents will state that participation in
the study is voluntary and will outline the confidentiality measures. Prospective participants will
be informed that they can withdraw their consent at any time without negative consequences, and
all the procedures in which they will participate. The rationale behind providing this information
is to ensure that individuals understand the research procedures and determine whether they
qualify to participate in the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The documents will also state the
contact information of relevant parties that the prospective participants can contact with
questions or concerns before deciding to participate in the study.
If the study involves minors, additional measures will be taken to ensure that the
participants’ rights are not violated. When the study’s target population includes children,
documentation will be signed based on the ethical principles for protecting research participants’
welfare. In accordance with the Protection of Human Subjects’ ethical principles, parental
permission and student assent will be obtained before the study is administered to minors
(Protection of Human Subjects, 2018). The researcher will use age-appropriate language when
communicating the terms of the agreement, as well as inform the children about their right to opt
out. If the researcher can control the recruitment process, they will ensure that the process does
not induce pressure on the minors to participate (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The recruitment
29
documents and procedures will be kept confidential, and only those who meet the inclusion
criteria and sign the consents and assents forms will participate in the study. These measures will
help conduct the recruitment process ethically and in accordance with the approved research plan
(Mertler, 2024).
Data Collection Plan
The Data Collection Plan will detail how the evidence will be collected to investigate the
phenomena of culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and student engagement in the selected
middle school setting. Classroom observations will generate context-specific evidence on the
characteristics of teaching and the nature of the classroom interaction, with interpretation
focusing on the limitations of the potentially gathered evidence. Notably, while recent studies
recommend using classroom observations to explore CRT, inconsistencies in the measurement of
observations and the associated validity threats should be acknowledged (Franco et al., 2024;
Lavigne et al., 2022). The data collection procedures will be guided by the approved research
questions and protocol, and observation results will be interpreted in context-specific ways.
Data Collection Approach #1: Classroom Observations
Classroom observations will be used as a proposed method of data collection to generate
an in-depth understanding of how CRT practices play out in the middle school setting.
Observations are suitable for this purpose because they can generate evidence on contextual
factors and classroom interaction that would require participants’ retrospection to reconstruct
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). In studies investigating CRT, observations have been found to generate
valuable data on teaching practices that are not fully captured by the conventional process of
measuring general pedagogical quality (Lavigne et al., 2022). In a similar way, recent studies
argue that observation-based tools can be used to explore CRT practices and their connection to
30
classroom engagement, although the relationship should not be considered causal (Franco et al.,
2024a). Therefore, this study will use observations to gather data on relevant classroom
phenomena and interactions without making assumptions about the presence or absence of
specific CRT practices beforehand.
The focus of observations will be guided by the conceptual framework of this study,
which is informed by the CRT strategy, culturally relevant pedagogy (CRP), and the
sociocultural theory. Specifically, CRP highlights the importance of academic success, cultural
competence, and critical consciousness, which provides a useful perspective for advancing a
comprehensive understanding of how learning and engagement are related in this setting
(Ladson-Billings, 2021). Along similar lines, Gay (2018) argues that effective teaching should be
informed by cultural knowledge and understanding, which can help in choosing the most
appropriate pedagogy (Gay, 2018). Sociocultural theory highlights the role of interpersonal
interactions in students’ learning and engagement, which can help in focusing on classroom
interactions (Wang et al., 2020). Therefore, the following aspects of classroom interactions will
be examined: engagement-enhancing instructional examples, opportunities for students to share
their knowledge and the teacher’s reactions, and other relevant interactions. Notably, the
presence of any individual engagement-enhancing interaction cannot be automatically used as
evidence of CRT or an effective middle school pedagogy because the usefulness of the particular
strategy depends on the specific context (Ladson-Billings, 2021).
Using observations to address the research question will also involve analyzing
classroom interactions that can be used to infer factors influencing student engagement. Notably,
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive dimensions of engagement can be useful in understanding
how students interact with the learning process (Wang et al., 2020). Behavioral engagement can
31
be directly observed and analyzed based on the students’ responses during the observations, such
as their level of enthusiasm or attempts to participate (Wang et al., 2020). Emotional engagement
is also likely to be observable as emotional expressions are usually displayed overtly (Wang et
al., 2020). With regard to cognitive engagement, inferences about students’ interest, focus, and
investment in the learning process can be made based on their observable reactions to specific
aspects of the classroom activities (e.g., materials, explanations, and classroom dynamics) (Wang
et al., 2020). However, to avoid making unwarranted inferences about students’ psychological
processes, evidence from observations will be reported as objective descriptions of what was
seen and heard during the observations. For instance, while a student’s lack of contribution to
classroom discussions can be reported as an observed fact, it will not be interpreted as a sign of
disinterest in the topic or the class in general. This is because there is no objective way of
determining students’ affective and cognitive responses based on their observable reactions (Gay,
2018; Wang et al., 2020).
Attention will be paid to instruction practices and classroom contexts that could shape
engagement opportunities. Examples may include how teachers present content and tasks, relate
information to students’ experiences, involve students, respond to questions, promote
cooperation, and address misinterpretations. The observation record will also include whether
students are afforded opportunities to explain their ideas, apply their backgrounds, access their
linguistic resources, or engage with perspectives in the lesson. Research on culturally responsive
teaching practices highlights the value of attending to specific behaviors rather than general
impressions of pedagogy (Franco et al., 2024a; Lavigne et al., 2022). Still, the examples will
serve as sensitizing concepts rather than a checklist of behaviors that the observed classrooms
need to exhibit. Their relevance to each lesson and approved observation plan will be determined
32
by the course of study and research questions. An observation guide can be created or adapted
for approval that will reflect the conceptual framework of the study and approved research
questions while allowing the researcher to record unexpected behaviors or contexts that may be
pertinent to engagement. A rationale for careful operationalization is provided by Franco et al.
(2024b), whose systematic review of culturally responsive classroom practice measures revealed
the uneven distribution of supporting evidence for different tools and the limitations of
single-informant designs. The review similarly supports the need to specify what is being
observed and avoid overstating conclusions based on the available information. If an existing
observation instrument is considered, its applicability to the study’s middle-level context,
conceptualization, and purpose will require examination rather than assuming its readiness for
use. The final observation instrument and procedures will only be decided after the research
protocol is approved.
Field notes will be used to record the observation process, with the approval of the study
design. They will include descriptive notes that will convey the context and content of the lesson,
teacher prompts, student responses, engagement patterns, classroom setup, and other interaction
aspects. At the same time, reflective notes will include questions, emerging patterns, and
tentative interpretations that the researcher wants to explore further (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Distinguishing between the two will help ensure that interpretation does not precede
documentation of observable phenomena. Additionally, the researcher will note context-specific
aspects affecting participation, such as the nature of the task, engagement opportunities,
interruptions, or other factors. Describing the process in detail will help capture the nuances of
classroom dynamics better. It will be consistent with action research’s intent to examine
33
educational practices in the settings in which they occur (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón,
2020).
The number, duration, timing, and frequency of observations will be determined by the
approved research design and the context of the study site. They will only occur with the
required permissions and after addressing the applicable consents and assents. The researcher
will take care not to disrupt the flow of the class and avoid collecting more information than
needed. The use of audio or video recording devices will not be assumed, with such tools only
employed if the protocol is approved, and the necessary consents and permissions granted
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). Such considerations are especially important when reviewing the
records of lessons with minors, where confidentiality and privacy concerns may arise.
After each observation, the researcher will review the field notes to ensure that all
important aspects were captured and clarify any confusing entries based on the recollection.
Tentative interpretations and patterns noted in the reflective notes will be explored further to
determine whether they represent plausible evidence. In particular, observations of engagement
will be considered in terms of how they relate to participation structures and opportunities. At the
same time, emerging patterns will not be considered conclusive evidence but rather the
researcher’s initial impressions. They may also be limited by alternative explanations, including
different understandings of the observed phenomena by various participants (Creswell & Poth,
2018; Wang et al., 2020). The observation notes will be analyzed in conjunction with other data
collection methods also approved for the study. This approach will allow qualitative analysis that
examines the connections between classroom events and participants’ perspectives rather than
focusing on the researcher’s viewpoint. It will be helpful in determining the role of engagement
in fostering or hindering the learning process (Franco et al., 2024b).
34
In general, classroom observations will generate contextual evidence that can support the
description of how CRT practice is implemented and the nature of student participation in the
lessons. Notably, the value of observations will be to record events and interactions to achieve an
objective understanding of the phenomenon under study. Thus, the researcher will not assume
that process data equals understanding students’ lived experiences or that observing engagement
practices will confirm their effectiveness (Lavigne et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2020). By
emphasizing descriptive notes, specifying the focus of observation, and acknowledging the
limitations of the approach, the researcher will be able to produce trustworthy evidence in the
context of the study’s conceptual framework and action research design (Mertler, 2024; Stringer
& Aragón, 2020).
Data Collection Approach #2: Semi-Structured Interviews or Focus Groups
Semi-structured interviews and focus groups will offer the opportunity for the researcher
to investigate the perspectives of participants on culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and
student engagement in a particular middle school. While observations will offer insights into the
strategies used by educators and students, interviews address the meanings that participants
attribute to what they experience (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Interviews can elicit in-depth
descriptions of experiences, and focus groups allow participants to build on each other’s
responses and reflect diverse perspectives (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The work conducted by
Aguayo et al. (2024) illustrates the value of using focus groups to understand student
perspectives on teachers’ use of culturally responsive practices. The authors investigated middle
and high school students’ perspectives on how teachers respond to their needs in terms of
culture, and they identified several themes reflecting classroom experiences that students find
inclusive or excluding. Since the article directly addresses the population in which the proposed
35
study will be conducted, it offers a solid foundation for formulating research questions.
Specifically, the findings highlight culturally responsive teaching practices that students report as
effective, such as inclusive curriculum and nonjudgmental attitude, as well as experiences of
racism that may challenge learning in CRT-focused classes.
Semi-structured interviews will supply qualitative data addressing the research questions
approved by the faculty. Such interviews allow the researcher to follow-up on the information
provided by participants, thus exploring it in more detail, while the presence of guiding questions
will prevent the conversation from becoming unfocused (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The questions
will be generated based on the research questions and related concepts of CRT, such as cultural
relevance, classroom relationships, and student engagement (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021).
They will concern the participants’ descriptions of lessons they perceive as culturally responsive,
highlighting the particular experiences they find meaningful. In addition, participants will be
asked about their perceptions of how teachers address their diverse perspectives in class and
what classroom environments encourage or discourage student engagement. The line of
questioning will be developed to address aspects of engagement that the participants identify as
significant to their learning experiences. Furthermore, probes will be used to ask for clarification
and examples of explanations and experiences described by participants. This strategy will
enable the researcher to remain flexible and avoid making assumptions about the meanings
participants attribute to their experiences.
Focus groups are another method of gathering qualitative data, and this type of inquiry
will be included in the study if the analysis of interviews does not yield sufficient data or if the
research design requires addressing specific questions. Focus groups allow participants to share
and compare their perspectives, and thus, they complement the information obtained from
36
individual interviews (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The study by Aguayo et al. (2024) provides an
example of using focus groups for investigating student perspectives on CRT in high school. The
authors reported that students identified several aspects of teachers’ practices which they found
either helpful or harmful. This finding is relevant to the proposed study because it considers the
inclusion of middle-school participants and examines the components of CRT that students
identify as contributing to or hindering their engagement. It would be beneficial to investigate
the participants’ perspectives on similar aspects of culturally responsive teaching and learning.
Specifically, the focus groups could be used to explore the students’ perspectives on the
inclusiveness of the classroom environment, the relevance of the curriculum, the relationships
they establish with the educators, and their ability to engage in class. However, it is also possible
that the participants may not wish to share their perspectives openly or report experiences that
could be considered unpleasant or even traumatic. Therefore, the decision to include focus
groups in the study will be made based on the approval of the research design and the
characteristics of the target population.
The questions included in the interview protocol will be developed with reference to the
framework of concepts pertaining to the study, namely, the three domains of student engagement.
Specifically, the researcher will use the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive domains as a guide
for investigating how students engage in learning experiences in CRT-focused classes. The
students’ perspectives will be explored through questions eliciting their definitions of behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive engagement and the extent to which they identify with each of these
aspects. In addition, the participants will be asked to describe specific examples of classroom
activities or situations in which they demonstrated behavioral engagement, such as active
participation in class, or when they faced challenges related to behavioral engagement.
37
Furthermore, the students will be asked about activities and interactions that allowed them to
demonstrate cognitive and emotional engagement and share their perspectives on how educators
can promote such engagement in class. Thus, the questions will address the components of
student engagement identified in the literature (Wang et al., 2020) as well as the themes of CRT
practices that have been found to promote engagement (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021). The
three engagement domains will be referred to specifically in the questions, but the participants
will not be limited to these aspects when describing their experiences. Instead, they will be
encouraged to discuss all elements of their experiences that they find relevant to the topic of the
study.
The wording of questions will be open-ended, unbiased and appropriate for the age and
role of the participants. Questions will not lead participants to view CRT positively or consider
cultural and linguistic differences as negative factors to be overcome. Instead, participants will
be asked to report positive, negative and mixed experiences with CRT in their own words. The
decision to base questions on participants’ experiences reflects a focus on their interpretations
rather than the researcher’s assumptions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). If both educators and students
will be in approved participant groups, questions will be asked in a way that differentiates their
experiences while addressing the central phenomenon of interest. Educators could report on
decisions and limitations related to CRT, while students could discuss how they experience CRT
practices in class. The reported accounts offer contrasting views that can be used to evaluate how
instruction intended to promote engagement actually affects participants (Aguayo et al., 2024).
Interviews or focus groups will be organized according to the approved research protocol,
with specific details about the purpose, duration, rights and confidentiality provided to
participants. Voluntary participation will be respected, with questions designed to avoid eliciting
38
responses that involve potentially sensitive topics and cultural or family-specific information. If
students who are minors will be interviewed, permission from parents or guardians and verbal
assent from students will be obtained. When interviews or focus groups will include both
students and educators, methods will be used to accommodate power differentials and reduce
social desirability bias (Creswell & Poth, 2018). The exact design of the interview or focus
groups will depend on the final participant groups and the specific authorization from the chosen
institution and school.
With the permission of participants and authorization from the institution and school,
interviews or focus groups will be recorded to ensure accurate transcription and analysis. If
recording will not be approved or a participant will refuse to be interviewed, alternative
procedures for documentation will be utilized. Transcripts will be reviewed for accuracy, with
any identifying information redacted, coded or replaced with fictitious names, if needed. The
protections for confidentiality of information provided by participants will be discussed, while
also stating that confidentiality of records cannot be guaranteed due to the involvement of other
focus group participants. Such procedures will be followed to ensure ethical conduct of the
research and minimize the risks to participants (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stringer & Aragón,
2020).
After conducting the interviews or focus groups, the researcher will review the transcripts
or notes for emerging themes and differing perspectives related to the research questions.
Preliminary themes might include experiences of belonging or exclusion, culturally responsive
teaching practices of educators, difficulties with CRT implementation or varying perspectives on
CRT. Such categories will be used as starting points for analysis, without prejudging the
responses and incorporating new themes as needed (Creswell & Poth, 2018). If the protocol
39
includes both interviews/focus groups and classroom observations, notes from these
conversations will be compared to observations to identify similarities and contradictions. Both
sets of information might be thematically analyzed to address the research question, with neither
source being used to prove the findings of the other. This process would be consistent with the
principles of action research that emphasize analyzing observations and participant accounts
together (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Semi-structured interviews or focus groups will enable the collection of diverse
perspectives on CRT and its relationship to engagement. They will contribute to the analysis by
providing participants’ accounts of their experiences, which might be different from what I
observe in the classrooms. The decision to use interviews or focus groups, recruit specific
participant groups, ask particular questions and record the conversations will be based on the
approved research protocol. By utilizing open-ended questions, ensuring voluntary participation
and carefully interpreting results within the context of education and culture, I aim to report on
participants’ experiences without overstating my own conclusions (Gay, 2018; Mertler, 2024).
Data Collection Approach #3: Document or Artifact Review
Document or artifact review will yield supporting information about instruction planning,
activities, and culturally responsive teaching (CRT). In qualitative studies, documents contribute
to understanding how educational practices are shaped, presented, and negotiated in a particular
setting (Creswell & Poth, 2018). For this action research, relevant classroom artifacts will be
evaluated to elicit the researcher’s ideas about how teachers address students’ cultural and
linguistic backgrounds in instruction and learning activities. However, the presence of CRT
elements in documents will not necessarily indicate how students perceive and respond to the
40
addressed educational practices. This data source will be cross-considered with others approved
for this study rather than used as a standalone piece of evidence (Mertler, 2024).
Artifacts to be reviewed include lesson plans, teaching resources, activities, teachers’
reflections, and other classroom materials that address the research questions. The selection will
be made based on accessibility, relevance to the study, and inclusion in approved research
instruments. CRT strategies acknowledge the role of students’ cultures in learning and advocate
for using this diversity as a resource for education (Gay, 2018). Therefore, document
examination will focus on how the presented materials address cultural and linguistic diversity,
integrate students’ backgrounds into activities, and promote inclusive education. However, this
information will be evaluated in context and not applied as criteria for judging teachers’ CRT
levels (Ladson-Billings, 2021).
The process of reviewing documents will be started by selecting the materials to be
analyzed. All of them will pertain to the subject under investigation and be available with the
necessary permissions. An evaluation of the retrieved artifacts will be conducted to identify
elements related to planning, integration of cultural competence, and considerations for English
as a second language. This list is not exhaustive, but these components will provide a solid basis
for the document analysis. The process will be student-centered, and the researcher will remain
open to finding information that does not fit the expected findings (Creswell & Poth, 2018;
Mertler, 2024). For example, the reviewed materials may reflect the teachers’ concerns about the
limitations of CRT in education, the need for culturally responsive pedagogy, or the necessity of
considering factors beyond culture when educating multilingual and diverse classrooms (Aguayo
et al., 2024; Franco et al., 2024b).
41
Document analysis will be combined with observations and interviews to build a reliance
on one’s perceptions when triangulating data. While a teacher’s lesson plan may reflect
intentions to implement CRT practices, the actual activities may not have been adopted.
Conversely, documents may demonstrate effective strategies, while classroom observations
confirm their ineffectiveness in practice. Student perception data will be essential in such cases
to explain the observed educational outcomes (Aguayo et al., 2024; Franco et al., 2024b). The
chosen instruments will supplement each other, and their similarities and differences will be
taken into account when analyzing the findings (Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Confidentiality and ethical considerations will be respected when reviewing documents.
Materials that contain student information, teacher data, or other confidential details will not be
included in this study. If such artifacts are identified, they will be excluded from research or
analyzed with special attention to confidentiality. The researcher will also limit the collection of
personally identifiable information when examining the chosen documents. This approach will
align with the ethical guidelines for conducting educational research with CRT themes (Stringer
& Aragón, 2020). The analysis of artifacts will be focused on classroom observations and student
interviews as two other instruments for this study. Document analysis will expand the basis for
observations by providing additional insights and contexts for consideration.
Data Collection Approach #4: Researcher Reflective Journal
A researcher’s reflective journal will include significant observations, assumptions,
questions, methodological decisions, and emerging interpretations during the inquiry. A
reflective journal is appropriate for action research because this approach involves studying one’s
actions and using interpretations to improve practices (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
42
Specifically, my reflective journal will focus on understanding and interpreting CRT practices
with regard to student engagement in middle school culturally and linguistically diverse settings.
The reflective journal entries will be made after observations, interviews or focus groups,
document reviews, and other research activities approved by the researcher. Each journal entry
will involve separating observations and statements that the researcher has made as well as
questions and confusions that need clarification. For example, the researcher may write about
specific interactions observed during classroom visits and how these interactions may be linked
to engagement, separating these notes from thoughts about possible explanations that need
verification before finalizing conclusions. In this way, the reflective journal will help ensure that
interpretations are not prematurely assumed as facts (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
The reflective journal will also include assumptions about culture, teaching, belonging,
and student engagement. Since CRT is context-specific, making reflexive entries will help me
rethink and revise my ideas about engagement to avoid making premature conclusions (Gay,
2018). For example, the researcher must remain objective when noticing how students participate
because such practices may mean different things in different interactions (Wang et al., 2020).
By adding questions, the reflective journal will become a tool for investigating student
engagement in culturally diverse settings rather than asserting that practices are the same
regardless of context.
Journal entries will be used to track shifts in thinking, recurring questions, and decisions
for the study. The reflective journal will help to store and display interpretations, clarify areas of
confusion, and revisit decisions during data collection and analysis. At the same time, the journal
should not replace interviews, observations, and document reviews identifying the role of CRT in
student engagement. Similarly, my reflective journal is not a method of discovering or proving
43
that CRT works but analyzing how practices are understood and used in specific interactions.
Using this tool will help analyze my contribution to the research question and limit the influence
of personal factors during the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Data Synthesis
Data synthesis will entail organizing, examining and interpreting evidence collected via
classroom observations, interviews or focus groups, document or artifact review, and the
researcher’s reflective journal, as applicable in the approved research protocol. The purpose of
the process will be to generate a contextualized understanding of how culturally responsive
teaching (CRT) is practiced and perceived with regard to student engagement within culturally
and linguistically diverse middle school classrooms. Qualitative analysis demands systematic
exploration of evidence alongside attending to the meanings participants attribute to their
experiences and the circumstances in which these arise (Creswell & Poth, 2018). As such, data
synthesis will be focused on identifying recurring concepts, relationships, differences, and
themes, instead of culminating in observations or predetermined conclusions.
Data Organization and Preparation
The initial stage of organizing and preparing the evidence for analysis will entail
compiling collected evidence into clearly identified, secured records. Observation notes,
interview or focus group transcripts or notes, relevant classroom documents, and reflective
journal entries will be labeled according to the source and point of collection. Where recordings
and transcription are approved, transcripts will be verified for accuracy prior to analysis. If
recording is not approved or participants do not consent to recording, then the researcher will
rely on notes and other records permitted in accordance with the approved protocol. Such
44
procedures will ensure fidelity in maintaining a link between the presented evidence and the
interpretations emerging from the analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
The researcher will become acquainted with the evidence through a process of reading
each source and recording observations, questions, and potential patterns. During the stage,
preliminary impressions will be regarded with tentativeness. Repeated reading may aid
qualitative researchers in identifying potentially meaningful ideas, while also remaining in tune
with the broader context in which statements and interactions take place (Braun & Clarke, 2022).
For the current study, attention will be devoted to instructional practices, classroom relationships,
cultural representation, belonging, opportunities for participation, and students’ reported
experiences of learning. Those areas are pertinent, as student engagement may encompass
behavioral, emotional, and cognitive components that are not necessarily equally present or
evident in the classroom (Wang et al., 2020).
Coding and Theme Development
Following the process of familiarization, the researcher will employ a coding procedure
to identify meaningful segments of the evidence that pertain to the focus of the study. Coding
will involve labeling statements, observed interactions, document features, and reflective
observations with concise designations that indicate potentially relevant meanings. For instance,
instances of evidence that indicate opportunities for students to connect classroom content to
their cultural experiences may receive a preliminary code pertaining to cultural connection.
Accounts of whether students feel respected, represented, or comfortable contributing may be
coded in accordance with belonging, emotional safety, or participation. The examples serve to
illustrate potential analytical directions, as opposed to predetermined conclusions.
45
The coding procedure will balance between attending to concepts established in the
literature and exercising openness to ideas emerging from the evidence. Deductive coding may
be informed by the focus of the study on CRT and the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
components of engagement as concepts. Such notions can serve as an initial framework for
evidence exploration, without necessitating that each observation or participant account conform
to a specific category (Wang et al., 2020). Inductive coding, in turn, will enable the researcher to
identify unexpected experiences, contextual influences, or explanations that are not captured by
the initial framework. Combining both procedures can facilitate analysis that is theoretically
informed while also being attuned to participants’ perspectives (Braun & Clarke, 2022; Creswell
& Poth, 2018).
Following the initial coding procedure, related codes will be compared and regrouped
into broader categories. The researcher will assess whether the identified categories pertain to
distinct classroom experiences or whether they overlap and, thus, require refinement. Potential
themes may pertain to relationships between instructional representation and participation, the
role of teacher-student interactions in students’ sense of belonging, or differences between
intended culturally responsive instruction and students’ reported experiences. The themes will
only be retained if they are supported by the collected evidence. Qualitative themes should
pertain to meaningful patterns that are relevant to the research purpose, rather than merely
replicating the topics included in interview questions or observation forms (Braun & Clarke,
2022).
Analysis of Student Engagement and Culturally Responsive Teaching
The analysis will explore CRT and student engagement as related but separate points of
inquiry. Evidence on CRT may concern differences in representations in materials, connections
46
to students’ experiences, and recognition of cultural and linguistic differences. These areas are
relevant to culturally responsive teaching scholarship that seeks to connect instruction to
students’ cultural backgrounds and experiences (Gay, 2018). However, the presence of a specific
practice will not be interpreted as evidence that all students engaged positively with it or that it
resulted in increased levels of engagement.
Student engagement will be reviewed in terms of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
engagement. Evidence of behavioral engagement concerns actions that concern participation and
involvement in the classroom. Emotional engagement may be explored through descriptions of
belonging or interest, relationships and feelings about participation (Wang et al., 2020).
Cognitive engagement may concern accounts of effort and investment, persistence with
challenging tasks, and perceived relevance. These dimensions will guide interpretation but not
necessarily treated as interchangeable. For example, the absence of verbal participation will not
be seen as a sign of disengagement since students may show cognitive investment in ways that
an observer is not aware of.
The analysis will explore contextual considerations that may affect how CRT is practiced
and experienced. Curriculum requirements, classroom relationships, language requirements, and
opportunities for contribution may affect how students respond to specific practices. Culturally
responsive practice is therefore to be interpreted in relation to the classroom context rather than
the presence of specific materials or activities (Gay, 2018). The researcher will not attribute
engagement differences to students’ cultural backgrounds or linguistic backgrounds without
evidence. Instead, the analysis will explore how decisions, relationships, and conditions may
contribute to the experiences described by participants.
47
Comparison Across Data Sources
An important component of synthesis will be to compare evidence between the approved
data sources. Classroom observations may show how a particular practice is performed, while
interviews or focus groups may identify how participants perceive it. Documents will identify the
teacher’s intentions, while reflective journals may aid in identifying the assumptions that the
researcher is making while interpreting the data. Comparison across sources can allow for a more
complete understanding of experiences than could be obtained by using only one (Creswell &
Poth, 2018; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
The analysis will look for convergence as well as divergence across sources.
Convergence may be seen in instances where different evidences lead to a similar interpretation.
For example, a lesson plan may incorporate multiple perspectives, an observation may record the
participation in such practices, and participants may describe the inclusion of these materials as
relevant for learning. Such convergence may add credibility to the interpretation but does not
necessarily establish that any particular practice benefits all students. Research examining
culturally responsive classroom practices emphasize the need to explore students’ experiences of
instruction and relationships, rather than only relying on the teacher’s design or observer
evaluations (Aguayo et al., 2024).
Divergence will be explored with equal focus. A teacher may describe an instructional
activity as inclusive, while students may report feeling that they were not represented or that they
felt uncomfortable. Observations may show differences in participation from students’
descriptions of their level of interest or understanding. Divergence will not be simply dismissed
as sources of error but can instead point to differences in how practices are experienced between
individuals or how observed behaviors do not represent students’ perspectives (Aguayo et al.,
48
2024; Wang et al., 2020). The researcher will record these contradictions and identify potential
explanations that are supported by the evidence while being careful not to make unwarranted
assumptions.
Interpretation and Action Research Reflection
The final step will be to review and revise themes to construct an interpretation that
fulfills the study’s purpose and the approved questions. The researcher will assess whether each
theme is supported by enough evidence, whether contradictory cases have been evaluated, and if
the interpretation reflects the evidence from the records. Reflexive journal entries will assist in
noting shifts in thinking and when the researcher’s assumptions or professional ideals may have
affected coding decisions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This process is aligned with action research
practice that emphasizes the exploration of practice through evidence and the use of research as a
mechanism to improve professional skills (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
The findings may identify practices, relationships, or conditions that require
consideration for improvement but will remain proportionate to evidence. The study will not
conclude that a specifically CRT practice will uniformly influence students or determine
causation on the basis of qualitative accounts and classroom observations. Instead, the synthesis
will describe how participants describe and experience classroom practices, how these accounts
relate to observations and documents, and where further questions may arise. With iterative
coding, comparison across sources, and reflective interpretation, evidence synthesis will enable a
clear view of the relationship between culturally responsive teaching and student engagement in
this particular setting.
49
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness will be addressed through credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability, four criteria commonly used to evaluate rigor in qualitative inquiry (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). These criteria will guide examination of how evidence will be collected,
interpreted, and presented in this action research study of culturally responsive teaching (CRT)
and student engagement. The trustworthiness will be especially important because qualitative
findings are informed by interpreting student experiences and interactions in the educational and
social context (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Triangulation will be used to compare evidence gathered
through classroom observations, interviews or focus groups, document or artifact review, and the
researcher’s reflective journal, which are included in the approved protocol. Such comparisons
will contribute to identifying patterns, clarifying inconsistencies, and capturing classroom
experiences in multifaceted ways (Creswell & Poth, 2018). For instance, the use of instructional
materials will illustrate teachers’ intentions for integrating cultural considerations into the
curriculum, whereas observations and participant accounts may offer additional insights into the
meaning-making processes during classroom interactions. Similarities across sources will lend
support to interpretation, whereas differences will allow considering various facets of students’
CRT-related engagement, although the agreement will not be used to prove that all participants
interpreted the same practices in similar ways.
The researcher will be making documentation of data collection processes, coding
decisions, emerging themes, and changing interpretations to establish trustworthiness through a
transparent audit trail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Reflexive journaling will also promote critical
awareness of the researcher’s assumptions and alternative explanations when interpreting
classroom interactions (Mertler, 2024). Trustworthiness will not be achieved by attempting to
50
eliminate subjectivity from the inquiry. Instead, the analysis will recognize the interpretive nature
of qualitative research and will demonstrate that the findings are informed by evidence,
procedural transparency, and considerations of alternative perspectives (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Thus, these strategies will promote credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability
in this study of CRT practices and student engagement.
Credibility
Credibility will focus on the extent to which the interpretations represent accurately the
evidence collected in the study. In qualitative research, credibility is related to addressing
questions of interpretation and context as researchers make decisions about analyzing data to
ensure that the evidence collected reflects adequately the research phenomenon (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). In this study, credibility will be especially concerned with how CRT practices and
student engagement are interpreted in the context of culturally and linguistically diverse middle
school classrooms.
Triangulation will be used to improve credibility by comparing observations of
instructional practices, participant accounts, relevant documents, and reflective journaling, as
appropriate for the approved protocol. Each source of evidence will contain multiple examples
reflecting different aspects of teachers’ use of CRT and student engagement. For instance,
observations will illustrate the opportunities for participation, whereas interviews will provide
more insight into the ways such opportunities influence students’ affective and cognitive
engagement during classroom interactions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Triangulation will not be
used to determine if one account is correct and the other is not but will support recognition of the
differences that may arise due to the varied perspectives of participants or researchers.
51
If allowed by the research protocol, member checking will be used to support credibility
by asking participants if the researcher’s interpretation reflects their perspectives. Participants
will be able to specify the meaning of their statements or experiences for their CRT-related
engagement and clarify the researcher’s reflections. Member checking will help ensure that the
interpretations are accurate and that the students’ voices are heard throughout the analyses,
although participant input will not be used to override the researcher’s professional judgment
when addressing ethical concerns and responsibilities in the field of education (Creswell & Poth,
2018).
Credibility will also be addressed by reviewing coded evidence in comparison to the
original records and applying researcher’s questions to the data to identify limitations in
interpretations, such as assuming that opportunities for participation equal engagement in
learning. The researcher will avoid such misconceptions as engagement is a multifaceted concept
that also involves emotional and cognitive aspects of students’ classroom experiences (Wang et
al., 2020). Reflexive journaling will also contribute to credibility by recognizing alternative
perspectives of CRT-related engagement (Mertler, 2024). Thus, these procedures will help ensure
that interpretations will be grounded in the gathered evidence and will be made transparent to the
readers.
Transferability
Transferability will be achieved by including sufficiently detailed descriptions of the
research setting, participants, classroom context, data collection processes, and relevant
conditions for interpreting the findings. In qualitative inquiry, transferability differs from
statistical generalizability because the focus is not on showing whether findings apply to a larger
52
population. Rather, providing detail allows readers to evaluate whether the insights might be
relevant to comparable settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
For this study, contextual descriptions will include those relevant features of the selected
middle school context and the culturally and linguistically diverse classroom context.
Descriptions may involve the educational setting, grade levels represented, relevant instructional
practices, and the circumstances under which observations and participant accounts are collected
where authorized and appropriate. The description will avoid unnecessary identifying details
about the school, individual participants, or other members of the educational community.
Ensuring confidentiality will be of paramount importance when determining which contextual
information can be reported (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
The study will also describe the conditions surrounding the implementation and
interpretation of culturally responsive teaching (CRT). This context is important because
culturally responsive practices are enacted in particular instructional, relational, and institutional
circumstances rather than in isolation (Gay, 2018). Similarly, student engagement may take
different forms depending on the learning activity, classroom relationships, and students’
experiences (Wang et al., 2020). The study will provide contextual detail to assist readers to
consider whether the reported patterns might be relevant to comparable middle school contexts.
Since the study focuses on understanding and improving practice within a particular
context, the findings will not be presented as universally applicable conclusions (Mertler, 2024;
Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The study will instead provide a transparent account of the practices
and experiences investigated, the evidence supporting the interpretations, and the limitations of
the setting and data collected. Readers will then be able to assess the potential relevance of the
findings to their educational contexts. This approach will assist in the responsible use of the
53
findings without assuming that experiences in one context necessarily represent those of all
culturally and linguistically diverse students or schools.
Dependability
The focus will be on maintaining a clear and consistent record of the research process,
enabling readers to understand how the study was conducted and methodological decisions
evolved. In qualitative research, dependability is achieved by documenting procedures
transparently and allowing for methodological adaptability, rather than suggesting that an inquiry
must be completely static regardless of what is learned during data collection (Lincoln & Guba,
1985). This is particularly pertinent to action research, which emphasizes systematic reflection
and responsive examination of practice (Mertler, 2024).
The researcher will maintain records of the approved research procedures, data collection
activities, document selection decisions, coding processes, and development of analytical
themes. If changes are necessary, the researcher will document the reasons for each change and
obtain any necessary institutional or site-level authorization before making them. The record will
distinguish between planned procedures and those actually undertaken, thus avoiding the final
report implying that activities took place when they did not (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
An audit trail will provide an organized account of how the evidence evolved from
collection to interpretation. It may also include dated methodological notes, coding records,
versions of analytical categories, reflective entries, and explanations for decisions to combine,
revise, or separate themes. These materials will assist in demonstrating how the researcher’s
understanding evolved and how interpretations were applied to the collected evidence (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985). The audit trail will be maintained securely and will exclude unnecessary
identifying information about participants.
54
Dependability will also be achieved by maintaining alignment between the approved
research questions, the study’s qualitative action research design, the selected data sources, and
the analytical approach. Data collection activities will be used to the extent that they contribute
appropriately to the purpose of the inquiry and are permitted by the approved protocol.
Systematic coding and repeated comparison of evidence will enable the researcher to apply the
analytical approach consistently while being open to unexpected findings (Creswell & Poth,
2018; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). Through these procedures, the study will provide a transparent
account of how evidence was collected, examined, and interpreted. Being dependable will not
mean that another researcher must reach identical conclusions; rather, it will entail that the
research process has been sufficiently documented and coherent for others to evaluate the basis
of the findings.
Confirmability
Confirmability will discuss how far the study’s interpretations are based on evidence
collected rather than the researcher’s assumptions, preferences, or expectations. Qualitative
research acknowledges that the researcher participates in the interpretation of the evidence
collected. Therefore, the process of reaching conclusions based on the study’s findings needs to
be documented, and how the researcher’s views may affect the research process examined
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Confirmability will help ensure the interpretations made about
culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and student engagement relate to the experiences or
classroom practices evidenced.
The researcher’s reflective journal will aid confirmability by allowing them to document
observations, assumptions, questions, and shifts in interpretation throughout the research process.
Observations in the journal can be distinguished from the researcher’s interpretations. When
55
noting observations, such as a lack of verbal participation, the researcher will avoid making
immediate interpretations, such as a lack of engagement. They will analyze the evidence and
note if participant statements or other observations support this interpretation. This distinction is
important as the behaviors observed cannot reflect every aspect of the students’ emotional or
mental engagement (Wang et al., 2020).
Triangulation will provide another source of evidence examining how far the
interpretations rely on the evidence collected. This strategy will involve comparing the
observations, participant statements, and any relevant documents or the researcher’s reflections.
By comparing these sources, the researcher will determine if a theme’s presence has been
supported in more than one piece of evidence or if it is reliant on the statements of a particular
person or the researcher’s beliefs (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Where differences are identified, the
researcher will note this rather than trying to force the evidence to align. The comparison will
identify if the researcher sees the same issues across different types of evidence, and it will
inform how they interpret themes in their study.
An audit trail will aid confirmability by providing documentation of the choices the
researcher makes when coding observations and statements, generating themes, and making
changes to methods. The audit trail will allow the researcher to review the interpretations they
have made and ensure that they are supported by the evidence (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Reflexive examination will also encourage the researcher to question if their ideas about cultural
responsiveness affect their interpretations (Mertler, 2024).
Confirmability will therefore demonstrate the transparency and evidence-based nature of
the researcher’s interpretations. Through reflective examination and audit trails, the researcher
will ensure their interpretations consider the evidence collected and that they recognize how their
56
research process influences their conclusions. The strategies will not remove the influence of the
researcher’s opinions on interpretations of CRT. However, they will allow the researcher to
recognize their potential effects and ensure that they document how the study’s findings are
supported by the evidence collected.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations will be a part of the proposed action research study. The study will
be conducted according to the applicable institutional review requirements and school-site
procedures and protocol before recruitment of participants or data collection. Ethical qualitative
research has several responsibilities for the researcher, including protecting the participant’s
autonomy, dignity, privacy, and welfare during the research process (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
This is especially relevant during educational research in culturally and linguistically diverse
groups of middle school students where the power dynamics and relationships with educators
could affect participation.
The issue of informed consents and assents will be addressed when establishing the
participants of the study. For adult participants, the information about the research will be
provided, including the purpose, procedure, degree of involvement, potential risks,
confidentiality, and voluntary participation. In the case of students under the age of 18, parental
permission and, if applicable, student assent will be obtained in accordance with the applicable
institutional review and legal requirements (Protection of Human Subjects, 2018). Information
provided to students will be adapted to their level of comprehension so that they understand the
impact of their decision and will be able to engage in the informed decision-making process.
Federal regulations governing research with children provide additional safeguards for children
57
in research, including requirements for parental permission and child assent, as applicable to the
study.
Voluntary participation will be ensured throughout the study. The participants will be
informed that they may refuse to answer certain questions or withdraw from the study at any
time in accordance with the approved protocol without adverse effects. Special measures will be
taken to prevent coercion, particularly in cases in which the researcher has a professional
relationship with students, teachers, or school personnel. Students will be told that their
participation or lack thereof will have no effect on their grades, educational opportunities,
relationships with educators, or standing within the school. Such considerations are necessary
because different levels of authority and status can impact the degree to which a person may feel
compelled to participate in research (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Confidentiality and privacy will be ensured through proper data management and
reporting practices. Pseudonyms will be used when noting down observations in the research and
final notes, and all identifying information for the participants, the school, and other individuals
mentioned will either be omitted or generalized as necessary. Since classroom observations and
discussions in groups may involve information about others beyond the participants, data
collection procedures will be designed to limit the recording of unnecessary personal
information. Additionally, participants in focus groups will be made aware that the researcher
cannot guarantee that the other group members will maintain confidentiality outside the
discussion.
Research information will be stored securely and in a manner that is in line with
institutional requirements and the approved protocol. Access to the information will be limited to
authorized individuals, and it will be stored and disposed of in a manner that aligns with
58
institutional policies. The limits to confidentiality, including instances when information may
need to be disclosed per legal or institutional requirements, will be disclosed to participants prior
to seeking their consent for the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Protection from harm will be achieved by ensuring that unnecessary inconveniences,
emotional discomfort, and risks to the participants’ educational relationships are avoided.
Questions will be tailored to explore classroom observations and practices instead of forcing
participants to share information that they may find embarrassing. The participants will not be
unduly influenced to provide information that they do not wish to give, and any concerns noted
during the data collection will be addressed per the approved procedures. Additionally, reports
will be generated in a manner that is respectful to participants and does not involve
deficit-oriented descriptions of culturally and linguistically diverse students. The study will limit
the information reported to that which is relevant to its research questions while still respecting
the dignity and privacy of the participants. By doing so, it will aim to achieve its objectives of
studying culturally responsive teaching and student engagement while still fulfilling ethical and
professional duties to participants (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
Areas of Concern for Chair Review
Two areas require the chair review prior to finalizing the research design and data
collection procedures. The first involves the quantity and combination of data collection
approaches. The proposed research plan incorporates classroom observations, interviews or focus
groups, document or artifact reviews, and a researcher reflective journal. While these sources
could be used to yield complementary perspectives, the inclusion of four approaches might
impose large demands on the researcher’s time, access to the school, participant availability, data
management, and analysis. The qualitative research design entails a coherent relationship among
59
the purpose of study, research questions, data sources, and available resources (Creswell & Poth,
2018). The chair’s guidance is required on whether all four will be appropriate to the scope of the
EdD capstone or whether a more focused combination will be sufficient to yield the evidence
while remaining practical. It is also required to clarify whether interviews or focus groups would
be more appropriate for the intended participants and research questions.
The second area concerns student participation and ethical approval. Since the proposed
setting involves middle school students, the researcher must clarify whether students will be
direct participants, whether teachers or other adults will also participate, and what permissions
will be required for each group. If minors are recruited, the relevant requirements for parental or
guardian permission and student assent must be established prior to recruitment initiation. The
chair’s guidance is requested regarding institutional review, school-site authorization,
recruitment procedures, confidentiality protections, and any additional requirements that govern
research with children in the selected setting (Protection of Human Subjects, 2018).
Further clarification will be required concerning the researcher’s relationship with the
school and potential participants, particularly whether that relationship could create perceived
pressure to participate. These questions should be resolved prior to finalizing recruitment
materials, consent and assent documents, observation procedures, or interview protocols. Chair
review will assist in ensuring that the study is ethically appropriate, methodologically coherent,
and feasible within the capstone’s scope (Mertler, 2024).
60
References
Aguayo, D., Herman, K. C., Debnam, K. J., McCree, N., Smith, L. H., & Reinke, W. M. (2024).
Centering students’ voices in the exploration of in-classroom culturally responsive
practices. Journal of School Psychology, 105, Article 101317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101317
Anyichie, A. C., Butler, D. L., & Nashon, S. M. (2023). Exploring teacher practices for
enhancing student engagement in culturally diverse classrooms. Journal of Pedagogical
Research, 7(5), 183–207. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1411779
Chang, W. C., & Viesca, K. M. (2022). Preparing teachers for culturally responsive/relevant
pedagogy (CRP): A critical review of research. Teachers College Record, 124(2),
197–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221086676
Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020). Implications
for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied
Developmental Science, 24(2), 97–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2018.1537791
Franco, M. P., Bottiani, J. H., Debnam, K. J., Bonifay, W., Pandey, T., Karras, J., & Bradshaw, C.
P. (2024). The CARES classroom observation tool: Psychometrics of an observational
measure of culturally responsive practices. Journal of School Psychology, 107, 101381.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2024.101381
Franco, M. P., Bottiani, J. H., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2024). Assessing teachers’ culturally
responsive classroom practice in PK–12 schools: A systematic review of teacher-,
student-, and observer-report measures. Review of Educational Research, 94(5), 743–798.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543231208720
61
Gay, G. (2018). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.).
Teachers College Press. press. https://doi.org/10.65528/9780807776704
Ladson-Billings, G. (2021b). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Asking a different question. Teachers
College Press. https://doi.org/10.65528/9780807779859
Lavigne, A. L., Henrichs, L., Feliz, J. A. A., & Shao, S. (2022). Cultural responsivity and
common conceptualizations of “good” teaching in culturally and linguistically diverse
elementary classrooms in the US and the Netherlands. Teaching and Teacher Education,
118, 103812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103812
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34–46.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Mertler, C. A. (2024). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators. SAGE.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/download/56076/pdf/0
Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. pt. 46, subpt. D (2018).
Osher, D., Cantor, P., Berg, J., Steyer, L., & Rose, T. (2020). Drivers of human development:
How relationships and context shape learning and development. Applied Developmental
Science, 24(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398650
Sarkar, R., & Kalita, L. (2026). Positivist, interpretive, and constructivist approaches: Research
paradigms. In Innovative Approaches to Social Research Challenges (pp. 71-138). IGI
Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-6410-0.ch004
Stringer, E. T., & Aragón, A. O. (2020). Action research (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
62
Wang, M. T., & Eccles, J. S. (2013). School context, achievement motivation, and academic
engagement: A longitudinal study of school engagement using a multidimensional
perspective. Learning and Instruction, 28, 12–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.04.002
White, M. G. (2020). Why human subjects research protection is important. Ochsner journal,
20(1), 16-33. https://doi.org/10.31486/toj.20.5012
- CHAPTER 3: DATA COLLECTION PLAN
- Overview
- Research Design
- Site (or Setting)
- Participants
- Researcher Positionality
- Interpretive Framework
- Philosophical Assumptions
- Researcher’s Role
- Procedures
- Permissions
- Recruitment
- Data Collection Plan
- Data Collection Approach #1: Classroom Observations
- Data Collection Approach #2: Semi-Structured Interviews or Focus Groups
- Data Collection Approach #3: Document or Artifact Review
- Data Collection Approach #4: Researcher Reflective Journal
- Data Synthesis
- Data Organization and Preparation
- Coding and Theme Development
- Analysis of Student Engagement and Culturally Responsive Teaching
- Comparison Across Data Sources
- Interpretation and Action Research Reflection
- Trustworthiness
- Credibility
- Transferability
- Dependability
- Confirmability
- Ethical Considerations
- Areas of Concern for Chair Review