Chapter 3 revision
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
The 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).
This focus on the context is important, as it is not possible to separate culturally
responsive teaching (CRT) from the context in which the individuals studied work. The
understanding and practice of CRT can be influenced by curriculum requirements, available
instructional resources, professional learning, school expectations, and educators' assumptions
(Chang & Viesca, 2022; Darling-Hammond et al., 2020). Likewise, a student's learning
opportunities and involvement in the classroom might be related to the interactions between
cultural identity, peer relationships, classroom culture, and meaningful access to learning
opportunities (Gay, 2018; Osher et al., 2020). Hence, this study will analyze the CRT practices
and student engagement in relation to their educational context, which is not understood as
being disengaged from the social and organizational context in which these experiences take
place. This will help to maintain the richness of the experiences of the participants and prevent
cultural/linguistic diversity being seen as a barrier to engagement.
7
Another reason for this design being chosen is the reflective and iterative process of
action research. CRT invites educators to consider the extent to which they are clear that they
are teaching from where their students are, ensuring that students can make meaningful
contributions to the classroom, and creating classrooms that are respectful and inclusive (2018,
Gay; 2021b, Ladson-Billings). Reflection provides practitioners with the opportunity to look at
their own beliefs, analyze classroom evidence, and reflect on the need for instructional
differences. Reflection is more than just a personal judgment of the success of a lesson; it is a
basis for critically evaluating practice and making decisions about improvements that might be
made (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). However, any interpretation of the changes
observed should be in line with the evidence gathered and the project's scope.
A qualitative action research study can offer a detailed description of the experiences,
practices, and patterns of student participation in an educational setting. While the study will not
assume that the observed changes in engagement are only due to the use of the CRTs, it will
acknowledge that this is the primary reason for such changes. Findings will, however, be
considered in terms of the methods of teaching used, the context factors identified, and the
evidence collected during the research.
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
8
be 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 study will take place in a 6th through 8th grade middle school in [approved school
pseudonym] in [approved city, state, or region] in the United States. The school provides a
school environment in which culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms and culturally
responsive teaching (CRT) practices can be analyzed from the perspective of students enrolled in
grades [insert grade levels]. These contextual factors relevant to the school are the grade-level
structure, the student body, the instructional arrangements, and the organizational environment of
the school. To ensure the anonymity of the institution and its community, the school is
anonymized and potentially identifying information is omitted from the description (Stringer &
Aragón, 2020).
A context for understanding teachers-student’s interaction in the classroom is provided by
the school's instructional and organizational context. These are the cultural and linguistic
9
diversity of students, classroom instructional models, curriculum expectations, learning resources
available to students and school-wide learning practices. These characteristics are taken into
account when addressing the research questions since culturally responsive instruction requires
teachers to acknowledge students' learning, experiences and perspectives of culture and to
provide opportunities for students to participate and learn (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021b).
The setting is thus explored as an individual school setting, rather than as an abstract illustration
of middle schools generally.
The middle school context is especially relevant as students at this developmental stage
are experiencing the emergence of their identities, peer relationships, academic expectations, and
issues of belonging. The developmental and social experiences are relevant to the understanding
of students' engagement in classroom learning. Engagement will be viewed as a
multi-dimensional phenomenon and not just about observable behaviour or whether tasks are
completed (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). This view facilitates, without
making any assumptions, exploration of students' classroom experiences and reactions to
instructional practices that will lead to a particular engagement outcome.
There are also issues about the organizational environment of the school that need to be
taken into account when seeking to understand the interpretation and practice of CRT. How
teachers engage in culturally responsive instruction (CRE) can be influenced by the curriculum
requirements, instructional resources, professional learning opportunities, school expectations,
and professional practices of the teachers (Anyichie et al., 2023; Darling-Hammond et al., 2020).
For this reason, the study will focus on the classroom practices and conditions within the
classroom, without assuming that variations in student engagement are caused by students'
cultural or linguistic backgrounds. Caution needs to be taken to address these contextual factors
so as to maintain the richness of classroom experiences and to facilitate interpretations based on
the evidence gathered.
The choice of this setting is in line with the qualitative action research design, which
10
focuses on a problem of practice in the context of the setting. This entails: context-specific
investigation, systematic reflection, and using evidence to guide professional practice (Mertler,
2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020). Discussions of the practices of the CRT and student
engagement in the approved school will give insight into how the practices are enacted and
understood in this specific educational setting. The findings will be interpreted based on the
setting and evidence collected and not generalized.
Prior to recruitment of participants and data collection, access to the research setting and
permission to conduct the study will be secured, using the proper institutional and school-district
procedures. The study will also adhere to all relevant institutional review procedures and
confidentiality procedures to safeguard the privacy and integrity of the participating educators
and students. Details of the setting will be described in such a way that the setting is congruent
with the approved school but anonymous and only includes details relevant to the research
problem (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.
The potential participant groups might include the classroom teacher responsible for the
relevant practices and the students who experience instruction in that classroom.
11
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 may be minors, there are extra precautions to be taken
when they participate in this study. The study will comply with institutional review procedures
and school policy for parental/guardial permission and student assent. There will be information
available in age-appropriate language about the study, explaining its purpose, the nature of
participation, how information will be kept confidential and that participation can be refused or
withdrawn without penalty. Prior to data collection with students, any consent and assent
procedures will be completed. Given age, authority, and institutional disparities, students might
12
not be able to make voluntary decisions about participating, especially in the context of
school-based research (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
The study will focus on approximately 12-15 students from the selected middle school,
as approved by the site and as per the final inclusion criteria. The expected sample will consist
of about 6-8 educators teaching or supporting students in the classroom setting of interest and
6-7 students with classroom experiences that relate to the research questions. Final distribution
will be determined by approved criteria for participation in the study, availability of potential
volunteers, and the ability to secure necessary permissions and consent. Participants will be
selected purposely as a result of their ability to share relevant and detailed information on
culturally responsive teaching (CRT) practices and student engagement in the research context.
This expected sample is suitable for a small-scale study of a qualitative nature that is of
an action research type since it allows for a limited number of participants to be used for the
collection and analysis of detailed contextual data and the researcher's consideration of both
educators' and students' perspectives. The goal of the sample is not to be statistically
representative but to gain a deeper understanding of the problem of practice in the context of
education that is to be sampled. The suggested range also takes into account the pragmatic needs
of conducting action research in school settings, such as recruiting participants, obtaining
consent, gathering, organizing, and analyzing data within the timeframe required (Mertler, 2024;
Stringer & Aragón, 2020). The sample will be judged to be adequate in terms of the questions
being addressed in the research, evidence gathered and the range of the project.
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
13
linguistic group (Aguayo et al., 2024; Gay, 2018). The purposeful selection, precise inclusion
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 be conducted using an interpretive paradigm that acknowledges the
importance of students' and teachers' experiences, interactions, and contexts in the study of
culturally responsive teaching (CRT) and student engagement. An interpretive approach is
predicated on the belief that education phenomena are best explained by understanding how
people interpret and give meaning to their experiences. In this way, teachers and students are
active actors in the classroom and have their own ideas, experiences, and understandings. Thus, a
similar classroom act or practice could mean different things to other participants based on prior
experiences and context (Creswell & Poth, 2018). This framework is suitable for discussing
14
CRT, as culturally responsive practice extends beyond just instructional practices to include
cultural awareness and relations, and connections between instruction and students' experiences
(Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings, 2021). Research design, data collection, and analysis will be
guided by the interpretive paradigm, which will focus on participants’ perspectives and the
meanings they give to the classroom experiences.
Student engagement will also be discussed as a multi-dimensional concept using an
interpretive paradigm. Student engagement is a construct with three components, behavioral,
emotional, and cognitive, which offers complementary perspectives on the students' learning
experiences in the learning environment (Wang et al., 2020). Behavioral engagement is made up
of participation, persistence, and involvement in learning activities. Emotional engagement
relates to students' ideas of belonging, interests, and feelings, and cognitive engagement relates
to students' perceptions of learning tasks, ideas of belonging, and effort. These dimensions can
be used to understand the ways and the experiences of engagement in the classroom. Instead of
focusing on engagement as one unique, observable action, in this study different students'
engagement will be viewed as different ways of demonstrating and describing engagement in
learning.
The meaning of 'engagement' will not presume that one dimension explores the other. For
instance, little verbal involvement in a classroom discussion is not necessarily a sign of
emotional disconnection or of cognitive disconnection. In the same way, high rates of
involvement do not always indicate a sense of belonging and/or meaningful learning for students.
When considering culturally responsive instruction, these differences are relevant, as students'
expression of understanding, interest, and involvement may be different. The interpretive
framework will thus enable a contextual analysis of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive
engagement, and the researcher will be able to draw on the classroom evidence and participants'
explanations of their engagement in this context (Wang et al., 2020).
The interpretive approach will also facilitate a discussion of students' engagement in their
15
sociocultural context. Classroom interactions take place in a relationship, cultural context,
teaching context, and wider learning context that influence the interpretation of learning
experiences. For instance, verbal cues could be used to prompt participation, but students'
interpretations would vary according to their relationships with the teacher, past experiences in
the classroom, and their views of what had happened there. These interactions need to be
analyzed not only in terms of what is observed in the classroom but also the significance
attributed to the interactions by both the participants and the classroom observer. Any cultural
knowledge and experiences that are demonstrated by students will be taken as relevant
components of their views and experiences, not as a justification for their lack of participation.
This orientation aligns with culturally responsive teaching, in which students' experiences and
cultural understandings are valued as essential parts of learning (Gay, 2018; Ladson-Billings,
2021).
The framework will also be used to examine the understanding of culturally responsive
practices by teachers and students in the chosen middle school context. Teachers can explain
what they do when teaching in relation to curriculum expectations, experiences as a professional,
their relations with their classroom, and how they work to acknowledge students' backgrounds.
Students can then describe their experiences of instructional activities, classroom discussions,
and opportunities for learning to be connected with what they know and are interested in. These
viewpoints can overlap or be different and can offer valuable insights into the understanding and
application of CRT in the classroom. These accounts will be explored for these questions, but it
is not intended that any specific instructional practice will result in any specific level of
engagement. Instead, participants' descriptions, classroom conditions that were identified, and
patterns that emerged from the evidence collected will be examined.
In addition to recognizing the importance of the researcher in gathering and creating
evidence, an interpretive paradigm also acknowledges the importance of the researcher in
interpreting evidence and drawing conclusions. The researcher then has to take the time to
16
analyze participants' accounts of the event, taking into account the effect of their own personal
assumptions, experiences, and expectations on the analysis. For instance, if a student participates
in class a lot, it may be assumed that they are involved. But accounts by participants and other
evidence in the classroom might show that participation does not fully represent emotional
and/or cognitive experiences. Being aware of the possibility of alternative interpretations will
help the researcher to not only keep their mind open for different interpretations but also avoid
basing their initial interpretation on their first impression or initial assumption. The focus of the
study will thus be on the perspectives of the participants, and interpretations based on the
available evidence will be formulated that are consistent with the research questions and the
scope of the study (Creswell & Poth, 2018).
Reflexivity will be an important component of this process. Reflexivity is the process of
questioning assumptions, decisions, and the role of the researcher in the research process. Since
this study is focused on culturally responsive teaching and student engagement, the researcher
will have to reflect on his or her own expectations of effective teaching, class participation,
cultural responsiveness, and student behavior. These expectations can influence the experiences
that are chosen in the classroom and how participants' accounts are understood. Reflexive
awareness will help the researcher recognize the possible biases, think about alternative
explanations, and differentiate between participants' comments and the researcher's
interpretations. This process aligns with action research, which involves continuous reflection
and the study of professional practice in a systematic manner (Mertler, 2024; Stringer & Aragón,
2020).
The interpretive model also is reflective and context-specific, which is the qualitative
characteristic of action research. Action research involves reflecting on a problem of practice in
the context in which it is happening and examining it with evidence to inform reflective thinking
and professional decision-making. The researcher in this study will analyze classroom
experiences, instructional practices, and individual participants' accounts for patterns that are
17
linked to CRT and student engagement. It can be useful for educators to reflect on their results,
to think about how their practice is perceived by the students and to discuss what additional
investigation they should make. But this study will not imply that the observed difference or
change is solely due to a specific teaching method. Interpretations will stay with the evidence
gathered and recognize the context that may be relevant to the participants' experience (Mertler,
2024; Stringer & Aragón, 2020).
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
into consideration when designing an inquiry since these worldview guides will propose 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
18
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 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
19
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
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.
20
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
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).
21
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). As the researcher, 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
22
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
23
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
24
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 take steps to ensure that all participants are made aware of the
voluntary nature of participation and their right to decline or withdraw from the study at any
time without penalty or negative consequence. This is especially crucial if the researcher has a
supervisory or evaluative relationship with students, as power differential may lead students to
feeling under pressure to participate (Creswell & Poth, 2018). To prevent this, when the
researcher has a supervisory or evaluative relationship with potential participants, recruitment
materials and a description of the study will be provided by a person who has no supervisory or
evaluative role for the participants and who is an unbiased third party. The third party will
25
explain the nature of the study, distribute recruitment information, and accept interest in
participation. The researcher will not use a supervisory relationship to encourage participation or
influence a decision to participate. When possible, the third party will conduct preliminary
consent procedures and report to the researcher only when a participant agrees or declines
participation so that participation decisions are separate from any supervisory responsibility.
Financial, educational, or professional advancement will not be based on participation or
non-participation. In case of execution of the proposed research, the process of recruiting and
obtaining consent will be carried out per relevant institutional and school guidelines prior to the
onset of data collection.
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.
26
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 of
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.
When studying minors, the researcher will respect their rights and free will. For students,
the researcher will gain permission from a parent or legal guardian and, if school guidelines
require, assent from the student according to IRB and school procedure. Explaining the purpose,
procedures, limits to confidentiality, and the right to decline and withdraw without consequence
will be clear to invite participation (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Classroom observation will adhere
to the approved procedure. Lack of parental consent or non-accent will result in them being a
nonparticipant. No information that could identify them will be observed. If observation of the
classroom means that the nonparticipants’ behavior cannot be reliably discounted, then either
27
only the consenting participants will be observed, or the observation will be delayed until an
approved method can be negotiated. The activity of nonparticipants will not be recorded in field
notes, analyzed, quoted, or reflected in the conclusions. Prior to observing, the researcher will
specify to the school and on the IRB how nonparticipants will be handled and adhere to approved
permission and restrictions. All recruitment documents, consent forms, and research data will be
kept in a safe location and accessed only by researchers. Participants who qualify and sign
permission and assent forms will be eligible to participate (Mertler, 2024).
Data Collection Plan
The Data Collection Plan will describe 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
28
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).
29
Behavioral engagement can 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).
A researcher-constructed classroom observation instrument will also be used to record
the practices and engagement of CRT in the middle school. The instrument will be organized to
correspond to the research questions and the conceptual framework. It will be provided in the
appendix. The domains will be: (a) instructional presentation and task design; (b) connections
between lesson content and student experience; (c) participation and explanation opportunities;
(d) teacher response to student questions and errors; (e) peer collaboration; (f) recognition of
student cultural knowledge and linguistic resources; (g) classroom interactions and conditions;
and (h) behavioral engagement, including participation and persistence. The domains will serve
as a focus of attention but not as a checklist. Unexpected events and details concerning the
contexts relevant to the research questions will be recorded as well. Field notes will record
observation of actions separately from inquiry questions and theories. The guide will not be used
to interpret a student’s feelings or thinking from observed behavior. Interpretations will be
placed in context with accepted evidence and a participant’s voice. This is based on the
30
requirement to operationalize observable practice and limit over-interpreting by limited samples
of evidence (Franco et al., 2024a, 2024b; Lavigne et al., 2022).
The research guide and procedures will be submitted for institutional review prior to
recording of data. The six observations (one per week for a six-week period) will be
approximately 30–45 minutes long in a normal lesson at the middle school where the researcher
would be observing, varying according to the middle school timetable and following the
research protocol. This will give several opportunities to record classroom practice and
engagement with minimal disturbance.
The researcher will observe using the approved observation guide and field notes for
each observation. Descriptive notes will include the setting of the lesson, the instruction, teacher
prompts, student responses, participation opportunities, interactions, and any observable
environmental conditions. Reflective notes will include any questions the observer has, patterns
observed, and preliminary interpretations of the context for further consideration (Creswell &
Poth, 2018). Isolating the description from the reflection will keep what is observed distinct
from the interpretation.
The researcher will record contextual variables influencing the child’s participation, such
as task complexity, disruption, chances to contribute, and classroom modifications. Only items
allowed within the framework of the study protocol will be noted; behaviors of nonparticipants
will not be observed. The frequency and length of observations are specific enough to provide
defined data collection guidelines while remaining unobtrusive to classroom learning activities,
as action research emphasizes the natural site of practice (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
31
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).
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
32
& 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
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
33
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.
Another means of collecting qualitative data that offers participants the chance to
discuss and contrast their views will be focus groups. With this project, focus groups will be
used in conjunction with individual interviews to delve into shared classroom experiences and
competing views of CRT (Creswell & Poth, 2018). In a study investigating students’
perspectives of CRT in a high school classroom, Aguayo et al. (2024) found value in using focus
groups and the resulting data in identifying teaching practices that students thought supported or
challenged them.
The focus groups will examine students’ experiences of classroom inclusiveness, how
well curriculum content resonates with students, their relationships with teachers, and their
experiences of engaging with learning. Classroom observations will observe behaviors,
instructional exchanges, engagement opportunities, and contextual factors that influence
engagement. Observation alone cannot show students’ affective and cognitive engagement but
will be supplemented by evidence from interviews and focus groups about student feeling states,
awareness and interest in the learning, and how these compare to observable engagement
behaviors.
Given the potential participants may be reluctant to share negative experiences among
their peers, participation will be voluntary. Informed consent and assent will be obtained for all
minors before focus groups are conducted. Students will be informed of the limits of
confidentiality (e.g., other participants may reveal the information they share)..
34
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.
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
35
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
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
36
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
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
37
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).
38
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).
39
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 researchers should conduct their work impartially and base conclusions
on evidence. 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
40
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
41
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.
42
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
43
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.
44
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.,
45
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.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness will be addressed through credibility, transferability, dependability, and
confirmability, four criteria commonly used to evaluate rigor in qualitative inquiry (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985).
46
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
47
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.
48
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
population. Rather, providing detail allows readers to evaluate whether the insights might be
relevant to comparable settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
49
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
50
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.
51
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 noting
observations, such as a lack of verbal participation, the researcher will avoid making immediate
interpretations, such as a lack of engagement.
52
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
them. The research process influences their conclusions. The strategies will not remove the
influence of the researcher’s opinions on interpretations of CRT.
53
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 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.
54
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
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.
55
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 issues warrant further exploration before the research design and data collection
procedures are settled. These are the number of data collection approaches and their specific
combination. While the plans to use classroom observation, individual interviews or focus
groups, document or artifact analysis, and researcher reflective journal each may seem to
contribute unique perspectives, their inclusion would necessarily require considerable time and
resource expenditure in terms of data collection, data storage, and analysis. A qualitative
research design should theoretically integrate research questions, data sources, the nature of the
study, and resources (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Further thought might therefore be given to the
rationale for including all four approaches or to whether a narrower number of approaches could
serve to answer the research questions. This examination might also consider whether individual
interviews or focus groups are more appropriate for the planned participant population and for
eliciting the types of data desired.
The second area concerns ethical considerations if the proposed study is implemented.
56
Since the setting involves middle school students, future implementation would require careful
consideration of participant eligibility, school-site authorization, recruitment procedures,
confidentiality, and applicable institutional review requirements. If students aged under 18 were
to be recruited, the researcher would also need to ask for the corresponding parent's or guardian's
permission and the student's assent in line with any relevant requirements and any school
requirements. The researcher would need to consider whether pre-existing relationships with the
school or teachers or students could be perceived as coercive (Protection of Human Subjects,
2018).
By contemplating these problem statements, the potential EdD capstone study will be
more methodologically sound, ethically studied, and feasible for implementation (Mertler, 2024).
57
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
58
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.
59
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
- CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON STUDENT LEARNING EXPERIENCES IN
- CHAPTER 3: DATA COLLECTION PLAN
- Overview
- Research Design
- Participants
- Researcher Positionality
- Philosophical Assumptions
- Researcher’s Role
- Procedures
- Permissions
- Data Collection Plan
- Data Collection Approach #1: Classroom Observations
- Data Collection Approach #2: Semi-Structured Interviews or Focus Groups
- 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
- Credibility
- Transferability
- Dependability
- Confirmability
- Ethical Considerations
- Areas of Concern for Chair Review
- References