i ABSTRACT Diane Lau-Yee, LEAP FOR JOY: AMPLIFYING JOYFUL LEARNING FOR CHINESE ELL STUDENTS (Under the direction of Dr. Matthew Militello). Department of Educational Leadership, December, 2023. In this qualitative study using participatory action research (PAR), educators explored how to understand and implement culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy (CLRP) and joyful learning strategies to support Chinese ELLs. In PAR project and study over 18 months, we focused on building teacher capacity in working with Chinese ELLs in math instruction to elevate joyful learning. As we engaged in professional learning, I worked with a Co-Practitioner researcher (CPR) group, conducted PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act) cycles of inquiry, and supported teachers to select and implement CLRP joyful learning teacher practices for Chinese ELLs. I collected and analyzed data from the field notes, observations, post-observation conversations, and reflective memos. We co-developed an evidence-based observation tool for joyful learning practices. As a result of the study, we gained more insight for educators on how to improve equitable joyful learning experiences and better support Chinese ELLs. First, creating a sense of belonging and gracious space through coaching and peer relationships was a critical step in our ability to cultivate teacher capacity. Teachers transferred their sense of belonging and learning in a gracious space to cultivating relational trust with and among students in a safe and welcoming classroom environment. Secondly, joyful learning strategies and CLRP practices included more opportunities for peer dialogue and choice; teachers promoted student agency for independent learning. As a result, teachers and leaders in schools and districts can benefit from our tools and study findings. The processes we used for professional learning are transferable to multiple contexts. ii i LEAP FOR JOY: AMPLIFYING JOYFUL LEARNING FOR CHINESE ELL STUDENTS A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Educational Leadership East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership TITLE By Diane Lau-Yee December, 2023 Director of Dissertation: Matthew Militello, PhD Dissertation Committee Members: Lawrence Hodgkins, EdD Carrie Morris, EdD Lynda Tredway, MA Monica Headen, EdD ii COPYRIGHT ©Copyright 2023 Diane Lau-Yee iii DEDICATION for Leona, Remington, Terilyn, Gordon, Garrett, and Grant. Always take the leap: learn, lead, and live with joy! May you have the courage and determination to show those who have felt “unseen,” they are seen, known, and valued. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS When I started this process over three years ago, I had no idea how entering and completing this doctoral program would change my life. The intellectual stimulation, knowledge, leadership growth, and deep relationships formed with colleagues and rooted in equity are life- long gifts I could not predict nor ever repay; they are now a part of who I am. I could not predict the healing this process brought to me as a woman leader of color nor the healing it brought to those I lead and will lead in the future. This process empowered my voice and mind to push forward on behalf of students and adults who have often felt unseen. I deeply thank the leaders of the Project I4 program and my teachers throughout, Matthew Militello, Jim Argent, Ken Simon, Lawrence Hodgkins, Carrie Morris, and Lynda Tredway, for believing in my potential and helping me to realize that potential; I will carry that forward in how I see those around me. Thank you for selecting me to participate in this program. I especially thank Lynda for her keen wit, discernment, and her many sleepless nights devoted to supporting me through the thinking and writing process, always with encouragement and a gracious sense of humor. I sincerely thank my coach, friend, and leader throughout this dissertation process, Monica Headen. Her insight, compassion, and perseverance kept me going, especially during the most challenging times. She never gave up on the belief that I could complete this leg of my journey; she is a beautiful example of a gracious and courageous leader. To the amazing women leaders in my coaching group, Deborah, Mimi, and Rashida, thank you for the laughter, the tears, and the sharing of dreams. We are a force that cannot be shaken. To the Glamour Girls of SFUSD, Dina, Fowzigiah, Rosina, and Mimi (yes, again!), thank you for holding me up and being great companions. You stood by side through the most v challenging times of my personal and professional journey; I am so grateful for your friendship, laughter, heart, and souls. What milestones will we experience together next? To my CPR group, Leona, Remington, and Terilyn, thank you for your friendship, time, effort, and desire to make the world a better place through your teaching and integrity with which you live your lives. Keep going! Thank you to my personal Family Village: my sisters, brothers-in-law, sister-in-law, father in-law, nieces, nephews, and cousins. Thank you for understanding through the many family dinners, events, and vacations when I participated in webinars, reading, and typing instead of fully being with you. To my parents, Mary and Gordon, thank you for being my first and lasting example of love, integrity, leadership, and justice. Gordon, Garrett, and Grant, my three sons, thank you for your support and encouragement and for continually telling me to go for it. Your excitement for me to experience this new frontier pushed me to finish, and it is my hope that it will inspire you to “go for it” too. Last, but certainly not least, to my husband and best friend, Jon, who hates the limelight but will stop at nothing to support me in every endeavor, thank you for helping me become my best self, each and every day. I love you! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE ............................................................................................................................................... i COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1: NAMING AND FRAMING THE FOCUS OF PRACTICE ................................... 1 Rationale .............................................................................................................................. 2 Focus of Practice: Assets and Challenges ........................................................................... 4 Micro Assets and Challenges .................................................................................. 5 Meso Assets and Challenges ................................................................................... 6 Macro Assets and Challenges .................................................................................. 7 Significance ......................................................................................................................... 8 Context ..................................................................................................................... 8 Practice, Policy, and Research ............................................................................... 10 Connection to Equity ......................................................................................................... 11 Psychological Frame of the Focus of Practice ....................................................... 11 Sociological Frame of the Focus of Practice ......................................................... 12 Political-Economic Frame of the Focus of Practice .............................................. 14 Participatory Action Research Design ............................................................................... 17 Purpose Statement, Research Questions, and Theory of Action ........................... 17 vii Project Activities ................................................................................................... 18 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations ....................................................................... 19 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 20 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 23 Joyful Learning .................................................................................................................. 23 Definition of Joyful Learning ................................................................................ 23 Neuroscience ......................................................................................................... 27 Social-emotional Learning (SEL) .......................................................................... 32 Sense of Belonging .................................................................................... 33 Growth Mindset ......................................................................................... 34 Chinese English Language Learners ................................................................................. 35 Chinese Culture: Ways of Thinking ...................................................................... 36 Chinese Culture: Ways of Learning ...................................................................... 38 ELL Barriers .......................................................................................................... 39 Stereotype Threat ....................................................................................... 41 The Model Minority .................................................................................. 42 The Perpetual Foreigner ............................................................................ 44 Culturally Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy (CLRP) ...................................... 45 Definition of CLRP ................................................................................... 45 Development of CLRP .............................................................................. 47 Using CLRP in Schools ............................................................................. 48 Barriers to CLRP ....................................................................................... 49 Professional Learning for Adults ....................................................................................... 52 Communities of Practice ....................................................................................... 52 viii Adult Learning Theory .......................................................................................... 53 Summary ................................................................................................................ 56 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 57 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ........................................................................................... 59 Research Design: Participatory Action Research .............................................................. 60 Participatory Action Research and Activist PAR .................................................. 61 Improvement Science and PDSA Cycles .................................................. 62 Community Learning Exchange ................................................................ 65 Role of Praxis ............................................................................................ 66 Research Questions ................................................................................................ 66 Action Research Cycles ......................................................................................... 67 Participants, Data Collection, and Analysis ...................................................................... 68 Participants ............................................................................................................ 68 Co-Practitioner Researcher (CPR) Group ................................................. 70 Other Participants ...................................................................................... 70 Data Collection ...................................................................................................... 71 Reflective Memos ...................................................................................... 71 CLE Artifacts ............................................................................................. 71 Observations and Post-Observation Conversations ................................... 73 Other Documents ....................................................................................... 73 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................... 73 Study Considerations: Limitations, Validity, and Confidentiality and Ethics .................. 74 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 74 Validity .................................................................................................................. 76 ix Internal Validity ......................................................................................... 77 External Validity ........................................................................................ 78 Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations ........................................................... 79 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER 4: PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH PRE-CYCLE .................................... 81 Participatory Action Research Context ............................................................................. 81 Context: Place ........................................................................................................ 83 Context: The People .............................................................................................. 86 PAR Pre-Cycle Process ..................................................................................................... 89 Activities ................................................................................................................ 89 Coding ................................................................................................................... 91 Emergent Categories .......................................................................................................... 92 Learning in a Social Context ................................................................................. 92 Cultivating Relationships .......................................................................... 92 Collaboration ............................................................................................. 95 Sense of Belonging .................................................................................... 96 Freedom of Expression .......................................................................................... 98 Student Choice ....................................................................................................... 98 Kinesthetic Hands-On learning ............................................................................. 99 Experiential Learning ............................................................................................ 99 Curiosity .............................................................................................................. 100 Reflection and Planning ................................................................................................... 101 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 103 CHAPTER 5: PAR CYCLE ONE ............................................................................................... 105 x PAR Cycle One Process .................................................................................................. 105 Activities .............................................................................................................. 106 Data Collection and Analysis .............................................................................. 112 Emergent Themes ............................................................................................................ 113 Student Access to Content ................................................................................... 113 Teacher Reinforcement ............................................................................ 116 Nonverbal Cues ....................................................................................... 117 Pushing Rigor .......................................................................................... 118 Student Dialogue ..................................................................................... 120 Sense of Belonging .............................................................................................. 121 Cultivating Relationships ........................................................................ 121 Creating Gracious Space ......................................................................... 122 Leadership Reflection and Action Steps for PAR Cycle Two ........................................ 124 Cultivating Relationships .................................................................................... 124 Use of Wait Time and TWPS .............................................................................. 124 Facilitation of CPR and CLE Meetings ............................................................... 125 CHAPTER 6: PAR CYCLE TWO AND FINDINGS ................................................................. 128 PAR Cycle Two Process .................................................................................................. 128 Analysis of PAR Cycle Two Data ................................................................................... 134 Student Access to Content ................................................................................... 137 Joyful Learning Strategies ................................................................................... 139 Sense of Belonging .............................................................................................. 141 Findings ........................................................................................................................... 143 Teacher Experiences Transfer to Student Learning ............................................ 144 xi Gracious Space ........................................................................................ 146 Cultivating Relationships ........................................................................ 147 Sense of Belonging .................................................................................. 148 Teacher Experiences Transfer to Classrooms ......................................... 149 Building Teacher Capacity to Enact Joyful Learning ......................................... 151 Regular Observation and Conversations ................................................. 152 Teacher Discovery ....................................................................... 153 Teacher Experimentation ............................................................. 155 Changes in Teacher Practice .................................................................... 156 Creating Opportunities for Student Access to Content ........................... 157 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 161 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS ............................................................... 163 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 167 Teacher Learning Precedes Student Learning ..................................................... 167 CLE Axioms Light the Way .................................................................... 169 Gracious Space ........................................................................................ 170 The Importance of Relational Trust ......................................................... 172 Building Teacher Capacity Opens New Doors for Student Access .................... 174 Joyful Learning as Learning Theory ....................................................... 175 Joyful Learning as a Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Practice 176 Influential Theoretical Concepts and a New Framework .................................... 180 Review of Research Questions ............................................................................ 183 Implications ..................................................................................................................... 186 Practice ................................................................................................................ 187 xii Policy ................................................................................................................... 188 Research ............................................................................................................... 190 Limitations ........................................................................................................... 191 Leadership Development ................................................................................................. 193 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 196 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 198 APPENDIX A: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER ....................... 213 APPENDIX B: CITI TRAINING CERTIFICATE ..................................................................... 214 APPENDIX C: SFUSD LETTER ............................................................................................... 215 APPENDIX D: CONSENT FORM: ADULT ............................................................................. 217 APPENDIX E: CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM .......................................................... 220 xiii LIST OF TABLES 1. Research Cycles and Key Activities ........................................................................................ 69 2. Research Questions, Data Collection, and Triangulation ........................................................ 72 3. Co-Practitioner Researcher (CPR) Group ............................................................................... 87 4. Emergent Categories with Codes ............................................................................................ 93 5. PAR Cycle One Activities and Data ...................................................................................... 107 6. Emergent Themes with Categories and Codes ...................................................................... 114 7. PAR Cycle Two Activities and Data ..................................................................................... 130 8. Themes with Categories and Codes ....................................................................................... 135 9. Key Activities: Three PAR Cycles of Inquiry ....................................................................... 166 xiv LIST OF FIGURES 1. Assets and challenges for focus of practice on joyful learning for Chinese ELL students ....... 9 2. Teachers can create experiences that include these components of creativity. ....................... 26 3. The limbic system controls emotional responses and supports or interrupts learning. ........... 28 4. Parts of the brain are directly connected to language learning. ............................................... 29 5. The Heywood Quadrant describes the ways of supporting rigor in the classrooms. ............... 31 6. Summary of literature review topics and sub-topics. .............................................................. 58 7. Illustrates the PDSA cycle and three driving questions. ......................................................... 64 8. Qualitative data coding process is iterative over three cycles of inquiry. ............................... 75 9. A picture of the Sunset District circa 1936. ............................................................................. 82 10. A photo of the back of the school in the 1960s. ...................................................................... 84 11. Emergent themes, categories, and codes. .............................................................................. 115 12. PAR Cycle Two themes. ....................................................................................................... 138 13. Data across the PAR cycles to determine findings. ............................................................... 145 14. PAR Pre-Cycle: Teacher created student access to content .................................................. 158 15. PAR Cycle One: Teacher created student access to content ................................................. 159 16. PAR Cycle Two: Teacher created student access to content ................................................. 160 17. A framework for amplifying joyful learning in classrooms .................................................. 184 CHAPTER 1: NAMING AND FRAMING THE FOCUS OF PRACTICE It is the supreme art of the teacher to awaken joy in creative expression and knowledge. --Albert Einstein As a young girl, I remember the thrill of going to school, seeing my friends, eating in the cafeteria, and feeling the authentic enthusiasm I had for daily discoveries. I loved being a student; I loved going to school. It was a safe and joyful place and, even as a young child, I had an unspoken expectation and confidence that I could and would learn something every day. The love of learning, instilled in me from my first foundational years in school, stuck with me, propelled me, and kept me motivated. However, as academic content became more challenging, teachers appeared disinterested; and that and other pressures started to chip away at the joyful learning experiences I deeply treasured as a young learner. As an educator for over 25 years, I have observed that some students embrace learning and enjoy school while others are withdrawn and disengaged. Why is it that some students exhibit joyful learning characteristics and some dread or dislike school? What is the role of the teacher in either situation? As described by the Joyful Learning Network, joyful learning is “engaging, empowering, and playful learning of meaningful content in a loving and supportive community. Through the joyful learning process, a student is always improving knowledge of self and the world” (http://www.joyfullearningnetwork.com/what-is-joyful-learning.html, 2021). With this definition in mind, educators in every school should commit to amplifying joyful learning experiences for students as a way to empower and offer a safe place to learn and discover. During a meeting at my school in which we analyzed school data, we realized that although we had high academic test scores, our social-emotional learning (SEL) indicators fell below the district average. Students rated themselves low on their annual SEL student survey in growth mindset, self-efficacy, and sense of belonging. Additionally, teachers rated students low 2 in social-emotional categories on the report cards, particularly in the area of “approaches challenges as learning opportunities.” This data prompted me to investigate this discrepancy between high academic achievement and low SEL scores. Our demographic, mostly Asian students (77.5%), with 76% of the total ELL population being Chinese English Language Learner (ELL) students, strove to achieve academically but rated much lower on social and emotional indicators. Were we promoting academic success without considering the importance of creating safe and joyful learning environments in which to thrive? Nachmanovitch (1990) warns, “schools can nurture creativity in children, but they can also destroy it, and all too often do” (p. 116). Achieving perfect or high academic scores leaves little room for making or learning from mistakes if the emphasis is on the final product. Were students pushed to achieve high test scores and good grades instead of the motivation of joyful learning experiences? Joyful discovery during the learning process must be allowed and encouraged so that students can continue to find motivation and fulfillment. The Focus of Practice (FoP) of this study centered on building teacher capacity in implementing culturally and linguistically responsive joyful learning strategies for English Language Learners in math classes. In this particular context, the demographic of English Language Learners was specific to Chinese English Language Learners. In this section, I discuss the rationale for the Participatory Action Research (PAR) and the FoP, the assets and challenges from micro, meso, and macro lenses, the significance of the project and study to practice, policy, and research, and the PAR emphasis on implementing equitable practices to reach ELLs. Rationale I chose the FoP for the PAR project and study because I observed a disparity in equitable access to joyful learning experiences between Chinese English Language Learners (ELLs) and 3 their native English-speaking peers. ELLs must adjust to a new country while navigating a new culture, language, and community. Being new to any context takes energy and effort to acclimate. During weekly Coordinated Care Team meetings, we discussed focal students; we often discussed students who withdrew, struggled to engage in class, and had attendance problems, many of whom were ELLs. It was our responsibility as educators and the receiving community to foster culturally responsive joyful learning so that students could connect with adults, peers, and school, finding motivation to learn and persist in school. We observed an increase in “internalizers”, students who do not display their emotions and behaviors, and we witnessed an increase in selective mutism (Di Maria, 2020; Toppelberg et al., 2005). Some ELL students experience trauma from being forced to speak in front of a whole class, with all attention directed at them as they navigate a new language. All of the selective mutes at the school were Chinese students, and they were identified under the Special Education category of Emotional Disorder for anxiety which is often accompanied by withdrawal. We recognized that schools were over-identifying language learners for special education (Artiles, 2018). Instead of identifying more of our ELL students as students with special needs, we needed to examine the teaching practices we used to engage ELL students. Too often, teachers had little or no expectations that ELL students could learn rigorous content and produce work requiring higher-level thinking. As the poet Ocean Vuong (2016), a Vietnamese immigrant ELL, commented: “Normally, my poor writing abilities would excuse me from such assignments, and I would instead spend the class mindlessly copying out passages from books I’d retrieved from a blue plastic bin at the back of the room” (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/06/ocean-vuong-immigrating-into-english). I observed teachers struggling to provide ELLs with rigorous content instruction; instead giving 4 them basic worksheets to complete while their peers engaged in more interesting work. This response can lead to humiliating experiences that rob students of joyful learning and deter them from school altogether. Schools should ensure that ELLs have equal opportunities to experience joy and rigorous expectations in classrooms. Next, I discuss the assets and challenges at the micro level, the meso level, and the macro level. Focus of Practice: Assets and Challenges The purpose of this PAR project was to build teacher capacity in understanding and articulating culturally and linguistically joyful learning for Chinese ELLs. Once we built teacher capacity, we then had the ability to select and implement salient CLRP joyful learning strategies that amplified joyful learning experiences for ELL students in math. I conducted the research study at Sunrise Elementary School (name changed for anonymity) in the San Francisco Unified School District. The PAR project’s participants included a group of elementary school teachers and the principal in a Co-Practitioner research (CPR) group. Additional project participants included other staff members invited to Community Learning Exchanges (CLEs) during the project. Leaders and teachers in the CPR identified and co-created the needed staff professional development, strategies, and tools for culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy (CLRP) and joyful learning mindsets in order to amplify CLRP joyful learning experiences for ELLs. In analyzing the assets and challenges of the FoP, we became more aware of the assets we had and the challenges we faced. To determine the assets and challenges, I held a meeting with new teachers and a mentorship support team. The purpose of the team was to help support new teachers and develop their instructional and professional practices. The team consisted of six first- and second-year teachers, two tenured teacher mentors, and two administrators. At the meeting, we discussed the 5 school’s assets and challenges in creating meaningful and joyful learning experiences for ELL students. Some assets included 30 minutes per day for leveled English Language Development (ELD) and a continued commitment to meeting the needs of focal groups. Some challenges were lack of teacher cultural and linguistic parity with the student population, the discrepancy in achievement and SEL scores, and the need for more teacher professional development in culturally linguistically responsive teaching and implementation of ELL strategies. Micro Assets and Challenges One asset of the school was that we diligently taught designated English Language Development (ELD) for 30 minutes per day. In addition, teachers obtained proper ELD certification. We had a large ELL population, specifically Chinese ELLs, so students had peers they could relate to, and they were less inclined to feel isolated. In addition to designated ELD instruction, there were bilingual peers in their homeroom classes that could assist ELL students throughout the day in their native languages when the need arose. As previously stated, although the school scored above the district average for ELLs on academic standardized tests, the SEL indicators for the school were significantly lower than the district average. Specifically, the SEL indicators revealed that ELL students lacked (a) a strong sense of belonging (sense of acceptance, value, inclusion, and welcome by teacher and peers in all school settings); (b) growth mindset (effort as necessary for success, embrace challenges, learn from criticism, and persist in the face of setbacks); (c) self-efficacy (achieving a goal/confidence in their own ability to control or manage their motivation, behavior, and environment; and (d) social awareness (the ability to empathize with others from diverse backgrounds and cultures, to understand social norms for behavior, and to recognize resources and supports) (Panorama Education 3600 Survey, n.d.). 6 In addition, teachers did not always realize who the ELL students were because the ELL students phenotypically looked like their peers. Another challenge was that the teaching staff did not have parity with our 77.5% Asian/Chinese students; 68% of our teaching staff was White. The teachers did not know the dominant culture and language of the students and families; lack of knowledge and use of culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy (CLRP) exacerbated the challenges of working with diverse populations. In addition to CLRP professional development, teachers needed ongoing professional development (PD) in language acquisition, academic discourse, and ELL strategies. The PAR project and study proved crucial because of the need for meaningful PD and curriculum implementation for ELLs. From my experience teaching ELLs and observations of the teachers at the school, teachers needed adequate support in English Language Development (ELD) instruction, materials, curriculum, and on-going professional development in order to be equipped and successful with ELL children and their families. I tried to provide needed support for the staff in the years I served as principal, but the process was difficult because of the number of educational initiatives vying for our energy and resources. Using the PAR process, the collaborative work of a small research group focused on selecting and implementing strategies so that our Chinese ELL students could access the math curriculum in a joyful learning environment. Joyful learning experiences serve as motivation for students to continue learning and not disengage in middle or high school when the content gets more challenging. Meso Assets and Challenges The SFUSD represented the meso level in the study. One major asset of the district was its commitment to equity and access. District officials purchased an ELD curriculum, and they performed site walk-throughs aligned to ELL practices to observe compliance. Our district 7 invested in technology programs for ELLs, and it promoted family engagement through English Language Advisory Councils (ELACs) at school sites and within the district (DELAC). One major challenge was that the district stopped funding on-going district-wide professional development (PD) for ELD instruction. The district provided optional PD as a teacher of teachers model of PD for ELD, but there was a lack of rigorous PD for teachers in ELD instruction. A district ELD curriculum existed, but teachers did not receive training to help them comprehend the curriculum deeply and meaningfully. Teachers were expected to read through the curriculum and make sense of it on their own, but the documents were often overwhelming and complex. Macro Assets and Challenges The macro level in the study was represented by the policies and programs of the state and federal government. The 1974 Lau vs. Nichols Supreme Court case ruled that ELL students deserved a meaningful education with meaningful support. This opened the door for bilingual education, EL support, and prohibited the sink or swim approach to learning English and language acquisition. Safeguards were put in place to ensure ELL students had equitable access, teachers were required to have ELD credentials or certification, and state and federal funds were allocated to sites for ELL support. The Lau Plan was the vehicle for accountability for many years and ensured that every school site provided resources and instruction for ELLs. However, with the district’s release from the Lau Consent Decree on June 30, 2019, the district no longer fell under this federal oversight. The district needed to establish new and effective accountability measures without state and federal monitoring to ensure that equitable access and outcomes were provided for ELL students at all sites. Without the accountability of 8 the Lau Plan in place, schools and district could overlook the needs of ELL students unless intentional and strategic plans for ELL students were not crafted and followed with fidelity. For these reasons, this FoP was significant in continuing the equity work for Chinese ELLs as an identified focal group in the school and district and promoting the implementation of effective CLRP joyful learning strategies for Chinese ELLs in math (see Figure 1 for the assets and challenges for supporting Chinese ELL students at the micro, meso, and macro levels). Significance Through this FoP, I aimed to amplify culturally linguistically responsive joyful learning for Chinese ELLs in my school community. This proved significant to the context and had significance to policy, practice, and research at the school and district level. The analysis of the FoP assets and challenges guided the PAR study. Context The PAR project was crucial because 33% of students and their families were English Language Learners. Although ELLs at the school scored above the district average academically, an achievement gap between ELL student data and their native peers still existed; as Valdés (2020) indicates, this gap creates a border that constitutes mis-education of language learners by focusing on assessment and classification instead of strategies that might honor their languages at the same time they learn English. While achievement data were useful, what was more important was co-creating the conditions for learning. The school scored significantly lower than the district average on SEL data, which included sense of belonging, growth mindset, self- efficacy, and social awareness. These SEL measurements were tied to students’ feeling acceptance, self-confidence, ability to achieve one’s goals with effort, and empathy needed for persistence in school. SEL scores improved when we started to focus on schoolwide SEL Micro: School Level Meso: District Level (SFUSD) Macro: State and Federal Level (California) A s s e t s ● Bilingual peers serve as strategic partners in classrooms ● Daily ELD instruction ● Small ELD classes ● ELL students and families are our largest focal group. ● School is focused on meeting the needs of focal group for years ● Wonders Curriculum provided for all ELL students ● Digital platforms and programs provided by the district for ELD ● District provides interpretation and translation services to families ● District English Learners Advisory committee (DELAC) ● Data provided by Research Planning Assessment Dept. ● Principal participates in PD for equitable math practices ● District has a commitment to equity and building an Anti-Racist Framework ● All CA teachers obtain a Cross Cultural, Language, and Academic Development (CLAD) certificate with their teacher credential. ● Lau Plan was in place for 45 years to ensure services for ELL ● Additional state funds allocated to schools for EL students C h a l l e n g e s ● Teacher racial groups do not match student racial demographics. ● PD in language acquisition and integrated ELD strategies ● Time for integrated and designated ELD PD and calibrating ELD lessons ● Opportunities for student conversation during the school day ● Relationships between staff and students ● Limited PD provided by Multilingual Pathways Dept ● No coach available to support teachers ● Not adequate curriculum available to support ELL students at all levels ● Curriculum implementation needs to go beyond sentence frames ● Parent engagement ● No active monitoring by CDE DOJ ● State/Fed assessments do not accurately capture ELL potential and understanding of content because it relies heavily on English proficiency in reading and writing Figure 1. Assets and challenges for focus of practice on joyful learning for Chinese ELL students. 9 10 instruction; however, our ELL students still scored lower than their native English-speaking peers in both academic and SEL scores. The teaching staff was 68% White; however, the student body was 78% Asian. SEL faced the risk of becoming “white supremacy with a hug” if we did not apply an anti-oppressive, antiracist lens (Madda, 2019; Simmons, 2019). The SEL curriculum and skills taught were written from a White dominant cultural lens and have not incorporated culturally linguistically responsive pedagogy. Practice, Policy, and Research The PAR was significant to practice in two ways—teacher instructional practices and principal leadership practices. Teacher instructional practices—how teachers instruct and relate to students—influence student experiences in the classroom. Building relational trust, creating joyful and inclusive classrooms, and selecting and implementing teaching strategies all fall under the category of teacher practice, and there has to be time and guidance for teachers to continually build and refine their practices. Principal leadership practices include how principals develop professional learning opportunities, set up collaboration structures, and work with teachers to teach effectively. These practices can directly affect staff capacity to amplify joyful engagement in the math classroom for English Language Learners. The research closely examined existing leadership decisions, teaching strategies, and professional development that directly affect ELLs. The PAR study was significant to school, district, and state policy. For the past 45 years, the mandates imposed by the Lau Plan informed district and state policy on English Language Learner instruction and student engagement. On June 30, 2019, SFUSD was released from the Lau Consent Decree. However, SFUSD was still responsible for providing equitable learning opportunities for nearly 16,000 ELL students, roughly 28% of all students in SFUSD. As a district, SFUSD continued to improve upon its comprehensive system of support and effective 11 practices for English Learners, and as the district moved from compliance to commitment, this specific PAR project aimed to inform new district policies and provide tools for teachers and leaders districtwide. Connection to Equity The FoP was rooted in equity as it related to three frames: psychological, sociological, and political. Culturally and linguistically diverse students learn and acquire language differently from their American born counterparts. Differentiated teaching strategies, cultural understanding, relationship building, and growth mindset all contribute to amplifying joyful learning experiences for ELLs. The following segments discuss the three different frameworks— psychological, sociological, and political-economic—and how they play a part in influencing the focus of practice and creating urgent work as it relates to equity for ELLs. Psychological Frame of the Focus of Practice Due to the historical and political inequalities in supporting Asian students, the lack of proper ELL support has been detrimental to ELL students psychologically. Asian ELL students experience identity contingencies (Steele, 2010) because of their identity as immigrants. Some teachers have a lack of understanding of their students’ true capacity and make assumptions that new immigrants cannot tackle rigorous academic content. Teachers often give ELL students worksheets while their peers attempt a more rigorous and engaging curriculum. Barton and Tan (2020) cite a student expressing that they can feel that some classrooms “don’t want you there” and how students perceive that the English Language Learners are not seen or acknowledged for their ideas and thinking “because my friends don’t speak English, they don’t count. I see it everywhere…” (p. 433) This is debilitating to students when treated as sub-par classroom citizens. 12 Many students who are learning a new language may choose not to speak at first because they are in the receptive stage of language acquisition. This does not determine intellectual capacity or cognitive understanding. According to Hammond (2015), For culturally and linguistically diverse students, their opportunities to develop habits of mind and cognitive capacities are limited or non-existent because of educational inequity. The result is their cognitive growth is stunted, leaving them dependent learners, unable to work to their full potential. (p. 13) Many teachers use ELL engagement strategies that emphasize talking as a priority; however, we needed to examine and implement other engagement strategies that would still give ELL students the opportunity to participate in classroom activities while building confidence and a growth mindset. In order to identify effective teaching strategies, we needed to provide training for our teachers in culturally and linguistically responsive approaches because “Being listened to and having our thoughts valued is important at all ages. Moreover, the skill of valuing other people’s thoughts is highly beneficial in life” (Zwiers & Crawford, 2011, p. 23). Teachers needed to have a solid understanding of how students acquire a new language, how students learn, and how to approach learning with a culturally and linguistically responsive approach. Sociological Frame of the Focus of Practice In many Asian cultures, assimilation to the American culture has been embraced as a way to seek a sense of belonging. However, Kendi (2019) describes a “dueling consciousness” when one “looks at oneself through the eyes of another racial group” and believes “to be American is to be White” (p. 29). As some students lose their sense of cultural identity and their ability to maintain their primary language, their ability to communicate with parents and grandparents can be impaired, resulting in a loss of intergenerational relationships. Therefore, it is important for 13 the schools to encourage students to embrace their cultural identities and cultural heritage with pride by creating gracious spaces in the classrooms for authentic student engagement. It is crucial for educators to understand culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy in order to amplify joyful learning in the ELL classrooms. When students feel confidence and pride in their identity, they find a sense of belonging that allows them to embrace joyful learning as their authentic selves, without fear of ridicule, reprimand, rejection. In Caste, Wilkerson (2020) describes a “hostile and alien territory” for those not in the dominant society or caste, “where they would have to learn to subjugate their upright bearing and submit to the humiliations of the social order, knowing that any slip up could cost them their lives” (p. 245). She indicates that “their lives depended upon obeying the rules they had come to study and proving themselves loyal to the caste in which they were ascribed” (Wilkerson, 2020, p. 248). As a school team, we worked closely with ELL and newcomer populations. ELL and newcomer students experienced entering foreign, alien, and at times, hostile territory where opportunities were not made as readily available to them as to students of the dominant language and culture. Some of the students were undergoing the trauma of culture shock as a result of needing to learn a new language, environment, and often a new social status in this country. Some teachers made comments such as “Asian students are too quiet” and “They need to talk more.” This was a value judgement, an assumption that student engagement and even intelligence is based on the amount of talking students produce. Our work in the FoP examined authentic engagement that brought joyful learning to ELL students and allowed for a safe environment for ELL students to bring their thoughts and ideas to the class, using multiple modalities for participation. 14 Relationships are the first point of contact in the learning process, and storytelling and conversation are the mediating tools. If the climate, spirit, and interaction between participants, facilitator, and/or their environment are not inviting and safe, it is difficult for sustainable and public learning to take place (Guajardo et al., 2016). I identified and introduced relevant socio- cultural frames into our community that supported teachers in understanding the relationship of the immigrant experience and learning. We fostered deeper relational trust between students and staff in order to promote joyful learning and classroom engagement. Political-Economic Frame of the Focus of Practice Chinese immigrants came to America with expectations and aspirations of a better life; however, the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Acts and other anti-Chinese sentiments had a negative impact onto Chinese communities, their sense of belonging, and their opportunities for a safe and joyful learning experience (Tian, 2010). In 1885, Mamie Tape was denied access to Spring Valley Elementary School, one of only seven public schools in San Francisco, due to the existing school-board policy against admitting Chinese children. Her family fought the ruling, and, in the case of Tape vs. Hurley, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mamie Tape to attend public school and to allow desegregation. However, San Francisco opened a “separate but equal” school for the children of Chinese and Mongolian descent named the Chinese Primary School (Hinnershitz, 2020). The name was later changed to the Oriental School, which is currently the site of Gordon J. Lau Elementary School. Gutiérrez (2013) asserts that “political conocimiento involves understanding how oppression in schooling operates not only at the individual level but also the systemic level” (p. 10). In order for Mamie Tape to attend school with White classmates, teachers and administrators would have needed to stand against the status quo and challenge the deficit thinking that Chinese children were less deserving than their White peers in accessing the 15 current school systems and resources that existed. Instead, she was forced to go to an isolated school for “Oriental” children. Only 60 years ago, Chinese students were not allowed to attend desegregated public schools in San Francisco due to red-lining neighborhoods and segregated communities. Chinatown was the only space allowed for Chinese people to have business and community hubs. In the 1970s, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) introduced busing students across neighborhoods in order for students of different racial backgrounds to integrate schools. In 1971, the Supreme Court case of Lee v. Johnson integrated 2,856 Chinese students into SFUSD public schools; however, only approximately 1,000 of those students were provided supplemental English instruction. The others were either placed in Special Education classes or were retained, having potentially lasting negative effects on the students’ confidence, self- esteem, and academic access. This is the deficit thinking and systemic school oppression that Gutiérrez warns against and fights to upturn. The 1974 Lau vs. Nichols Supreme Court case determined that ELL students warranted a meaningful education with meaningful support such as bilingual education, ELL support, and other appropriate scaffolds for language acquisition. This ruling acknowledged cultural and linguistic differences and required educators to consider those difference when educating diverse students by using meaningful and relevant support. The one- size-fits-all approach to learning English was dismantled, replaced by bilingual and ELD strategies as viable supports for ELL students in the classrooms. This allowed for culturally and linguistically responsive learning strategies in classrooms. Unfortunately, Prop 227 passed in 1998, changing how the English language was to be taught in public schools. This Proposition nearly decimated bilingual education and required English Only in the classrooms, requiring a parent waiver if students required bilingual 16 instruction. English language learner supports, such as Newcomer pathways or special ESL classes, were limited to one year. Prop 227 prioritized assimilation over multiculturalism and was met with controversy around issues of race, immigration, and socio-economic status. Immigrants would need to assimilate to language (and culture) in an accelerated fashion. Moreover, severe budget cuts contributed to challenges concerning ELD instruction and teacher PD. The staffing for the elementary ELD and multilingual department in SFUSD dwindled to one supervisor and eight teachers on special assignment, only two being Chinese bilingual teachers. Although a large sum of money was spent on a new ELD curriculum adoption in 2018, the district devoted limited PD or training related to its implementation. Therefore, we urgently needed sustained commitment to building teacher capacity around best practices for ELL instruction. At the time of this project, there was only one newcomer school for Chinese students, and it was located in Chinatown, disregarding the fact that a large concentration of our Chinese immigrant population lives in the Sunset District, across town from SF Chinatown. The inapt location resulted in low enrollment, and the district even considered closing this newcomer school. There was a huge need for ELL support, specifically for Chinese ELLs in our school, neighboring areas, and entire district, yet we remained at limited capacity to move student progress and close the achievement gaps between ELLs and their native English-speaking peers. In summary, looking at SFUSD as a microcosm of the larger educational system, historical inequities persisted in the perception and treatment of Asian immigrant students from the 1880s Tape vs. Hurley, 1970s Lau vs. Nichols, 1998 passing of Prop 227, to current inequities in the 2020s. Leaders needed to be explicit in framing expectations, decisions, and short-term and long-term work with an equity framework and lens. Positive changes in leading for equity invoked equity language and engaged the teachers, students, and families in positive 17 changes. The FoP and PAR project discussed in the next section addresses the need to amplify joyful learning experiences for Chinese ELLs in math. Participatory Action Research Design Participatory Action Research (PAR) is a form of qualitative research that supports the lead researcher as an active participant with other participants close to an issue, “insiders in an organization or community... Action research is oriented to an action or cycle of actions that organizational or community members have taken, are taking, or wish to take to address a particular problematic situation” (Herr & Anderson, 2015, p. 24). In this section, I discuss the purpose of the PAR project, the overarching and research sub-questions, the theory of action, and focus of practice (FOP). This section includes the timeline for three PAR cycles and the overview of the research. Purpose Statement, Research Questions, and Theory of Action The purpose of this PAR project was to co-create ELL strategies that would amplify joyful learning experiences in math. The overarching question of this focus of practice was: How does a group of teachers amplify joyful learning experiences in math classrooms for Chinese ELLs? In the PAR, I conducted a study to respond to these sub-questions: 1. To what extent do teachers articulate the characteristics of culturally and linguistically responsive joyful learning? 2. What factors of joyful learning do teachers use to co-design an observation tool for joyful learning of Chinese ELL students? 3. To what extent do teachers select and implement culturally and linguistically responsive joyful learning strategies for Chinese ELL students? 4. How does participation in the PAR study influence my leadership growth? 18 As lead researcher, I worked with a small group of teachers to seek answers to these guiding questions as we conducted the PAR, and these questions formed the basis for our theory of action (ToA). The theory of action for the PAR project and study was: If teachers build capacity in articulating joyful learning for Chinese ELLs, then they can implement culturally and linguistically responsive joyful learning strategies for Chinese ELL students in math classes. Ultimately, these strategies and pedagogical practices extended to school-wide expectations and professional development. Project Activities The PAR project and study occurred over a series of three iterative inquiry cycles termed Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. In preparation for the PAR, in the winter of 2021, I officially invited members to join the CPR group. I devised the CPR structure, selected the readings, and scheduled all proposed meeting dates. The CPR group read seminal pieces of literature and excerpts from books during the winter 2021 PAR Pre-Cycle to ground our work. Selected pieces included excerpts from Hammond (2015), Boaler (2016), Kendi (2019), Freire (1970), and Nachmanovitch (1990). The CPR group identified and discussed pedagogies that aligned with culturally and linguistically responsive joyful learning and engagement for Chinese ELL students and created a sense of belonging and community. In addition, the CPR group co-created an observation tool to collect data on teachers’ implementation of culturally linguistically responsive joyful learning ELL strategies in the classroom. We used CLE pedagogies in our CPR group. The data from these meetings and reflective memos guided next steps for the CPR group in selecting and implementing strategies that amplified joyful learning experiences for Chinese ELL students. 19 During the Fall 2022 PAR Cycle One, the CPR group implemented teaching strategies that amplified ELL joyful learning experiences. I analyzed data from this first PDSA cycle to share with the CPR teachers, and together we made decisions about next steps. This assessment determined the design or redesign of strategies to implement during the Spring 2023 PAR Cycle Two. During PAR Cycle Two, teachers continued to implement strategies, and I continued to collect and analyze data through evidence-based observations. We shared our learning with a CPR team from another school at the conclusion of PAR Cycle Two in a Community Learning Exchange (CLE). Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations I was approved by the ECU Institutional Review Board (see Appendix A) and completed Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative (IRB CITI) certification in January 2021 in order to adhere to the ethical regulations pertaining to human research (see Appendix B). I made a formal request to conduct the study with my school district’s Research Department and received a district letter (see Appendix C). Before the project’s inception, each prospective CPR member received a personal invitation to voluntarily join the CPR group. I met with each member individually to listen and collect their thoughts on participation in this PAR project. Each member received a consent form to sign and agree to participation. From my perception, I had trust with each member and worked with most of them in the context of instructional, cultural, social-emotional, and other leadership teams. The CPR members used reflective memos to gather their thoughts, reactions, and ideas. Being aware of, disclosing, and sharing our biases with the group served as an additional safeguard against biased outcomes. 20 We took great responsibility for the serious obligation of securing our data collection and for maintaining the confidentiality of the participants. We maintained confidentiality through the following measures (Creswell & Creswell, 2018): 1. Securing important and personal papers and other data in locked cabinets. 2. Using password protection for all electronic forms of data collection. 3. Requiring signed confidentiality form agreements from each CPR member regarding data used for reflection, planning, and action steps. I stored the data in a secure location, and I will destroy the data after three years. Whenever appropriate, I used pseudonyms or initials instead of full names to protect confidentiality. In compliance with the IRB process, participants (n=3) signed consent forms for their voluntary participation in the project (see Appendix D). I obtained an approval from my supervisor and an approval letter from our district before the inception of the project. Finally, the completion of the CITI certification ensured that we understood the precautions needed to protect the vulnerability of human subjects. In Chapter 3, I further discuss other study limitations, including validity and limitations. Summary In Chapter 1, I introduced the FOP and PAR project. The PAR utilized the Project I4 Framework (Tredway et al., 2019), emphasizing culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy to elevate the teaching practices of our CPR group as we selected and implemented rigorous, responsive, and effective math strategies that promoted joyful learning for Chinese ELLs. The concepts of CLRP (Hammond, 2015), joyful learning (Nachmanovitch, 1990), and growth mindset in the math classroom (Boaler, 2016) supported the work of the FoP and PAR. Furthermore, as I connected the PAR to equity, I considered psychological, sociological, and political-economic frames that affected the project. Gutiérrez (2013) states “political 21 conocimiento assumes clarity and a stance on teaching that maintains solidarity with and commitment to one’s students” (p. 10); thus, deep knowledge of the subject assumes that we then use our collective power to address inequities. It is this commitment to students and families that required us to examine and embed rigor in all categories. Creating structures that built opportunities for rigorous experiences and engagement mitigated the deficit stereotypes that Gutiérrez warns against and provided motivation for joyful learning to take place. We urgently needed to create joyful learning opportunities for ELLs in the math classroom. They deserved to experience lessons and classrooms that promoted student engagement and equitable access. They deserved teachers well-prepared in culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy and invested in building relationships to understand possible cultural pressures and influences that encouraged or hindered joyful learning. They deserved teachers who continued to foster a growth mindset, inquiry, and discovery in the math classroom to develop lifelong joyful learners. Lastly, they deserved teachers that upheld high levels of academic rigor and believed all students could learn by using asset thinking instead of deficit thinking towards students and families. As I worked with a team of teachers to understand pedagogy, culture, mindset, and students’ academic and social-emotional emotional skills, we implemented strategies and professional learning to help teachers provide joyful learning experiences for ELLs in the math classroom. Ultimately, these strategies and pedagogical practices extended to school-wide expectations and professional development, and we plan to share these with other schools and our district as they may be of use to others. In Chapter 2, I review relevant literature related to the study, using a range of readings to collect and analyze theoretical, normative, and empirical works as they pertained to the PAR. In 22 Chapter 3, I discuss the methodology, the research design, and the proposed activities in more detail. In Chapter 4, I share how I collected, coded, and systematically analyzed contextual qualitative evidence during the Pre-Cycle. In PAR Cycle One, I analyzed evidence to determine emergent themes for Chapter 5, and in PAR Cycle Two, I used the analysis to determine findings that I present in Chapter 6. I discuss the completion of the PAR project and the findings in Chapter 7, the final chapter. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW In the Participatory Action Research (PAR) project and study, I explored how a group of teachers collaborated to implement ELL strategies in math classes that amplify culturally and linguistically responsive joyful learning. In this chapter, I define joyful learning and review studies on social emotional learning, sense of belonging, growth mindset, and motivation. Next, I examine the research on culture and Chinese ELL identity, how Chinese ELLs learn, and what culturally and linguistically responsive theory and practice is. Finally, I define communities of practice and analyze the importance of systems and structures that improve teacher practice through professional learning and collaboration. Joyful Learning What does joyful learning truly look like? Does it include spontaneous laughter erupting from classrooms, active dialogue and problem-solving among students, or silent concentration where students are taking risks to find innovative answers to familiar and new problems? It can include all of the above, depending on how the adults in the building structure learning, classroom environments, and student expectations for the classroom community. In this section, I discuss the meaning of joyful learning, how neuroscience contributes to our understanding of enhancing learning, and the connection between joyful learning and social emotional learning. Definition of Joyful Learning The Joyful Learning Network (2021) defines joyful learning as: “Engaging, empowering, and playful learning of meaningful content in a loving and supportive community. Through the joyful learning process, a student is always improving knowledge of self and the world…. joy is experienced individually and… context matters a great deal” (http://www.joyfullearningnetwork.com/what-is-joyful-learning.html, 2021). Joyful learning is 24 promoted though play, social interaction, experiential learning, discovery, risk-taking, and problem solving in order to overcome student barriers to learning (Anggoro et al., 2017; Nachmanovitch, 1990; Sandseter, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). Joyful learning is the result of creating the optimal learning experience so that students can feel a sense of flow. In a flow experience, they are intrinsically motivated, abandon self-consciousness, and are fully engaged in a task that pushes them to think and act (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). He identified key elements that help to establish and maintain an experience of flow: (1) identify clear goals at every step; (2) give immediate feedback; (3) be clear about connection between action and awareness; (4) exclude distractions; (5) eliminate fear of failure (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) As a result, students should then abandon self-consciousness about experimenting and making errors, a sense of time disappears because they are totally engaged; and the activity takes on a life of its own, leading to a sense of confidence in achievement. Similarly, Heywood (2005) defines joyful learning not as an epiphany or exciting experience, but the joy that comes from persistence and personal achievement. She indicates that joy is difficult to measure in classrooms, but the nature of productive struggle, particularly in mathematics, is an element of joyful learning. That implies that teachers must be able to successfully assess the zone of proximal development and arrange the learning activities so that productive struggle is present, but not overwhelming (Pasquale, 2016; Vygotsky, 1978). Characteristics of joyful learning include high engagement, curiosity, interest, excitement, having a sense purpose, and allowing for playful discovery (Conklin, 2014; Udvari- Solner, 2012). As Dewey (1938) indicates, however, teachers must structure experiences for maximum learning carefully so that the degree of freedom, choice, and flow can emerge. Joyful learning may occur spontaneously in classrooms but can be engineered through the use of 25 specific active and collaborative instructional strategies” (Udvari-Solner, 2012, p. 223). Thus, teachers need to create experiences for students that engender these qualities in students; they have a responsibility to design lessons that promote curiosity and interest. All children have the potential to think and be creative (Land & Jarman, 1993). Many young children enter school with curiosity and creativity with a penchant for discovery. However, after years of schooling, “peer pressure drives conformity, [and] education focuses on the regurgitation of facts rather than on gathering new experiences” (Vint, 2005, p. 21). Starting in 1968, Land and Jarman designed a longitudinal study to understand how children over time (ages 5-15) begin to conform to schooling expectations. Their results indicate that children tended to diminish their sense of curiosity and creativity; they concluded that non-creative behavior is learned (Land & Jarman, 1993). Instead of joyful discovery, children become experts at finding and espousing the right answers. However, educators have the power to encourage the exhilaration of joyful learning and discovery, or they have the ability to stunt or destroy curiosity (Land & Jarman, 1993; Nachmanovitch, 1990). In a meta study of creativity for adults, Power et al. (2004) found that several elements intersect to make creative learning possible. While their research focuses on adults, the intersection is relevant for educators who want to enhance the learning process for students — educators must nurture and encourage playful wonder and discovery. Encouraging children to use humor or engage in a playful state of mind creates a better mindset for learning (Conklin, 2014; Gray, 2013). In this project and study, our intention was to reinstate joyfulness and play as an intrinsic practice in math classrooms to examine how we could better engage language learners (see Figure 2). 26 Note. https://hbr.org/1998/09/how-to-kill-creativity. Figure 2. Teachers can create experiences that include these components of creativity. 27 Neuroscience The explosion of our knowledge about how the brain works helps us understand how the limbic system is directly connected to joyful learning and classroom environments that can contribute to effective information processing and long-term memory storage (Hammond, 2015; Willis, 2007). The limbic system of the brain is directly connected to processing information; however, emotional responses can interrupt the cognitive function of the processing and decrease the learner’s ability to be attentive or to process (Hammond, 2015). The amygdala is the emotional control center of the brain and impulses can cause neural pathways to send emotional regulation or distress signals. The thalamus produces a chemical response of norepinephrine, which supports alertness. Any anxiety, particularly related to a student’s identity issues can compromise learning as the student is unable to fully attend (Steele, 2010). Secondly, in ELL classrooms, the brain functions to access and learn language, and the brain stores the language learning in the same area as the native language. Particularly in language learning, the hippocampus in the limbic system is an essential connection as that is the area of the brain where language is processed. Any interaction with stress signals from the amygdala has an effect on the hippocampus and thus language acquisition (see Figures 3 and 4 for graphic representation of limbic system location in the brain and limbic functions). When classrooms allow for discussion and free exploration, the affective stress filter in the amygdala lowers, and students can achieve higher levels of cognition, make connections, and experience the euphoria of joyful learning and discovery (Willis, 2007). Neuroimaging reveals that learning happens when attached to strong positive emotion, and conversely, when stressful conditions are present, learning is blocked from entering the brain’s long-term cognition and storage functions. Learning can be increased when the tasks involve rigor. According to neuroscience, the brain is 28 Note. Queensland Brain Institute. Figure 3. The limbic system controls emotional responses and supports or interrupts learning. 29 Note. https://theconversation.com/what-brain-regions-control-our-language-and-how-do-we- know-this-63318. Figure 4. Parts of the brain are directly connected to language learning. 30 hard-wired to allow rigorous tasks to pass through the reticular activating system (RAS) in the brain more readily than dull and tedious tasks (Khon, 2004; Tekkumru-Kisa 2020; Willis, 2007). In the past, I saw teachers give ELL students work with a lowered academic expectation and low rigor, sometimes relegating them to the back of the class with a worksheet while the other students engaged in more interesting rigorous tasks and learning. Equitable access opportunities must be created to have high expectations for all students. High expectations come in the form of rigorous tasks. Gorski (2013) states, “The inalienable right to equitable educational opportunity includes the right to high expectations, higher-order pedagogies, and engaging curricula” (p. 25). The Heywood (2005, p. 39) quadrant was useful for re-examining how we approached learning; obviously we wanted high challenge and high support classrooms (see Figure 5). Thus, the importance of creating safe and joyful environments and learning opportunities for students cannot be overestimated (Hammond, 2015). The limbic layer of the brain or “emotional brain” decides what circumstances to engage in and what potential threats to shun. Neuroscience research confirms that creating a safe and pleasant learning environment directly affects information processing, memory system, and the brain’s ability to receive or shut down information (fight or flight) (Hammond, 2015). Understanding how to create safe and stimulating learning environments is key. It is not enough to provide non-threatening classrooms; if the environment is unwelcoming or not engaging and relevant to learners, the brain will not create enough oxytocin, and this can produce anxiety (Hammond, 2015, p. 45). Additionally, teachers need to understand how the brain, neurons, and dendrites worked together. Continuous practice and opportunities to repeat and embed learning cause neurons to continually “fire,” creating more dendrites and connections, physically changing the make-up of the brain. Without carefully crafted lessons that incorporate strategic learning opportunities and rigor, dendrites will not be 31 HIGH CHALLENGE Toxic Environment Promotes defensiveness and constriction leading to withdrawal LOW SUPPORT Exciting Environment Promotes interest and achievement leading to vital engagement HIGH SUPPORT Alienating Environment Promotes isolation leading to despair Boring Environment Promotes devitalization leading to disassociation. LOW CHALLENGE Note. (Heywood, 2005). Figure 5. The Heywood Quadrant describes the ways of supporting rigor in the classrooms. 32 reinforced and soon disappear without practice (Hammond, 2015). Therefore, creating joyful learning environments and engaging activities are critical for the human brain to process. Social-emotional Learning (SEL) The Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL) defines social-emotional learning (SEL) as the “process through which children acquire and effectively apply the knowledge, attitudes, and skills necessary to understand and manage emotions, formulate and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions” (https://casel.org/fundamentals-of-sel/, 2021). SEL curriculum and initiatives equip students with social-emotional skills to navigate the world in the 21st century, and students who possess these skills experience a greater sense of joyfulness in learning. Focusing on SEL competencies can be a useful means to lower anxiety filters, create a sense of belonging, and foster a growth mindset for optimal learning to happen if implemented with all students in mind and what they need. In 2020, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) revised their working definition of SEL to incorporate an equity frame: “SEL advances educational equity…to establish learning environments and experiences that feature trusting and collaborative relationships, rigorous and meaningful curriculum and instruction, and ongoing evaluation...” (CASEL, 2020). However, Simmons (2019) asserts that social-emotional learning (SEL) by itself is insufficient. Educators must be culturally and linguistically responsive in order to challenge bias, discrimination, and oppression. Teachers must acknowledge and address the stress and anxiety stemming from racism or inequity in order to teach how to alleviate that same stress and anxiety. Simmons promotes what she calls an antiracist approach to SEL. If not, we are in danger of SEL in schools becoming "white supremacy with a hug." Understanding and acknowledging some of 33 the emotions that face ELL students is crucial in understanding what SEL may look like for ELLs. Producing oral language in front of the class or expressing emotions will differ culturally and linguistically for different demographics of students. Finding out what might trigger anxiety or other emotions for ELLs in school will help in addressing them with appropriate scaffolds. Being unaware may cause teachers to inappropriately address issues with strategies that may be insensitive or disrespectful, causing a sense of unacceptance or alienation. For example, insisting that an ELL speak up in class and engage in talking with a partner may produce anxiety and contribute to other existing challenges. ELLs in San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) consistently fell below the district average for all students in positive SEL data and positive Culture and Climate data for 4th and 5th grade students. This data implied that ELL students district-wide did not feel as safe and accepted as their dominant culture counterparts. Two major categories in SEL, sense of belonging and growth mindset, are areas that affect ELLs and their experiences in a dominant mainstream culture classroom. Understanding these categories and how they affect ELLs helped address and disrupt inequities in creating safe and joyful learning spaces and experiences for all students. Sense of Belonging Sense of belonging refers to a sense of acceptance, value, inclusion, support, and welcome by the teacher and peers in all school settings (Panorama Education, 2021). A sense of belonging can combat feelings of anxiety, depression, and loneliness (Baumeister & Tice, 1990; O’Keeffe, 2013). By lowering feelings of anxiety, our brain systems are ready for learning and will not automatically react with fight or flight responses (Hammond, 2015). 34 Sense of belonging is an integral human need (Maslow, 1943), and sense of belonging for students is in the school context because that is where students spend most of their time (Goodenow, 1993). Students who feel acceptance and a sense of belonging in their school contexts are prone to achieve better academic, social, and psychological results. Positive relationships influence and determine a sense of belonging (Lambert et al., 2013). Fostering positive interpersonal relationships between students and teachers contributes to a healthy sense of belonging in school. When students “feel known” by their teachers, they feel a sense of acceptance and positive motivation (Bouchard & Berg, 2017). This undergirds the importance of teachers needing to know individual students but also the importance of teachers’ knowledge of cultures and ways of thinking. Growth Mindset Another critical factor in creating a joyful learning environment is teaching and promoting a growth mindset in the classroom culture. Growth mindset is defined as effort necessary for success, embracing challenges, learning from criticism, and persisting in the face of setbacks (Dweck, 2019). It is based on the idea that intelligence can be developed over time through effort, sound strategies, and collaboration, and support from others (Dweck, 2019). This mindset is not fostered by merely encouraging students to “try hard;” teachers must strategically and thoughtfully change instructional classroom practices to encourage and guide persistence and allow students time and opportunity for productive struggle while teaching strategies for problem-solving. Effort coupled with guidance, good strategies, and sound classroom practices is the recipe for fostering a growth mindset. “Understanding how to foster human potential” (Dweck, 2019, p. 24) and successful nurturing of a growth mindset contributes to creating joyful classroom environments where problem-solving and persistence lead to mastery and proficiency. 35 With a growth mindset, making mistakes is embraced as a part of the process. Mistakes are seen as opportunities for learning and actual conditions in which the brain physically develops, changes, and grows. “When we make mistakes, our brains spark and grow” (Boaler, 2016, p. 12). Individuals with a growth mindset are alert to mistakes as a form of learning, and form habits to self-correct. This is significant because it removes any shame or expectation that students must perform or answer questions the right way. It reduces pressure and allows for joyful discovery to take place when the anxiety from making mistakes is removed and instead, mistakes are viewed as valuable components to learning. Sense of belonging and a growth mindset contribute to joyful learning environments and encourage student motivation. When students believe that their teachers feel positively about them and their abilities, they are motivated to improve and attain higher levels. Encouraging students to take risks without fear of failure puts a value on effort and productive struggle, which, in turn, motivates students to find solutions and persist, even if they initially experience failure (Boaler, 2016). Incorporating culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy can contribute to a sense of belonging and provide motivation for students. Chinese English Language Learners In this section, I examine the research on Chinese English Language Learners, their cultural identity, the barriers that Chinese ELLs may face, including the stereotypes that they encounter, and value of culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy (CLRP) as a means of teaching. One-third of our school community is comprised of English Language Learners (ELLs), over 70% of our student population is Asian, predominantly Chinese immigrants and/or Chinese American-born students, and most of the teaching staff is not of Chinese cultural 36 background. Understanding Chinese culture and ways of thinking can help teachers connect with their students. Chinese Culture: Ways of Thinking Understanding the differences between collective and individualistic societies can influence and change teaching practices to address the needs of Chinese ELL students. As discussed in the previous section regarding sense of belonging, a student’s identity and desire to fit in can affect student performance and achievement. Chinese immigrant students and families may have ways of thinking very different than Western ways of thinking (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017; Li, 2012; Pan et al., 2013; Rošker, 2020). Because of the different philosophical context, culture background, and sociopolitical environments between West and East, there are many differences between Chinese and Western systems of thinking, concepts, and approaches. These differences also exist in their problem-solving process when they apply systems thinking. (Pan et al., 2013, p. 1,028) The Eastern way of thinking may include valuing the group and engaging in holistic approaches (collectivism) instead of the Western/American value of independence and self-inflation (individualism). Confucius’ teaching emphasizes relationships “obligations...between emperor and subject, parent and child, husband and wife, older brother and younger brother, and between friend and friend” (Nisbett, 2004, p. 6). By contrast, “the dominant way of thinking in many Western cultures can be described as analytic...East Asians [pay] ...strong attention to context and to relationships...each section is connected to the rest” (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017, p. 783). The United States’ dominant culture promotes the Western ideals of individualism, self-agency, and personal freedoms whereas Chinese culture embraces collectivist values of harmony and 37 relationships (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017; Hammond, 2015). These ideas are embedded in the Chinese culture and affect students’ ways of thinking and problem-solving. Chinese cultural values, such as self-improvement and adaptability, passed down from parents to children, may affect school achievement (Chen & Uttal, 1988). Academics and scholastic achievement are linked with future opportunities and access. The growth mindset exists in China in this way: “According to the Chinese perspective, innate ability may determine the rate at which one acquires new knowledge, but the ultimate level of achievement is attained through effort” (Chen & Uttal, 1988, p. 354). Diligence, persistence, the potential for change, and motivation for self-improvement are instilled through Confucian values. The belief that anyone can self-improve and achieve through consistent effort versus innate ability serves as motivation for individuals to better themselves. Furthermore, the Chinese collective mindset attributes academic responsibility and achievement to the entire family or community. Parents may pass down their attitudes and values to their children (Chen & Uttal, 1988). Parents attitudes toward joyful learning may influence how students approach learning. Chen and Uttal’s (1988) study revealed that Chinese mothers and their satisfaction with school did not have much correlation with if their children enjoyed school. However, American mothers’ satisfaction with school was directly related to whether their children enjoyed school or not. This begs the question of how Chinese ELL students view motivation and joyful learning, and how their parents’ involvement and opinion weigh heavily on the importance of academic achievement. However, their research revealed that most Chinese parents reported their children as genuinely enjoying school, not relying on the extrinsic motivation of good grades or high praise but instead relying on the intrinsic motivation of self-improvement and the rewards of their efforts. This counters the stereotype that Chinese students are extrinsically motivated by 38 fear of bad grades and consequently parent disappointment but rather by intrinsic motivation and drive of self-improvement. Loh (2017) states the importance of cultural influences on students’ learning styles cannot be underestimated. Loh notes that many scholars presume that Chinese and/or Asian students are passive learners in class, rarely participating in whole group discussions. However, Loh (2017) recognizes different learning styles due to culture. Despite not speaking up in class, Chinese students are still mentally alert and attentive, actively listening, and rehearsing and processing new information. They may be more comfortable engaging in smaller group discussions or office hours/individual sessions with the teacher. The student-teacher relationship is valued, highlighting the need for teachers to reach out to students and build trust. Instead of labeling Chinese ELLs as passive learners, they should be regarded as reflective learners, reflecting on what the teacher says and asking clarifying questions to make meaning of the material (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Loh, 2017). Understanding Chinese identity, culture and ways of thinking help educators to adjust their teaching practices to align with student learning needs. Chinese Culture: Ways of Learning Understanding how people learn and constructivist learning theory are key in understanding the Chinese learning process. According to Thakkar (2011), instead of believing the stereotype that Chinese students are quiet, passive, and memorize and regurgitate rote facts, the Chinese way of learning embraces constructivist learning, making meaning of the lectures and textbooks after carefully but actively listening and digesting information from the teacher and books. Chinese students are actively taking part in their learning. By listening to the teacher instruct and by taking notes from textbooks or the board, students are rehearsing and building schemata (Hammond, 2015). Drills and rote memorization are used to create meaning and 39 encode information; they help construct knowledge but are not an end to the means. Drills and memorization are just a “pathway to more critical thinking” (Thakkar, 2011, p. 53). Furthermore, Huang (2005) reports 66.8% of Chinese ELL students accredit stress and anxiety to overuse of questions and discussion. Without understanding the constructivist learning theory and the cultural nuances that affect Chinese students, “this can lead to mismatched pedagogy, teaching styles, and evaluative beliefs of White educators in American schools who are attempting to educate Chinese students” (Thakkar, 2011, p. 52). In other words, without full teacher understanding of how Chinese students learn, teachers cannot design effective learning environments or use appropriate teaching strategies for their Chinese ELL students. Boaler (2016) reported the characteristics of Chinese math instruction to be the opposite of math instruction in the United States. Instead of focusing on “speed and drill...The [Chinese] teachers taught ideas...through an inquiry orientation” (Boaler, 2016, p. 190). In fact, the math teachers in the United States were the ones that focused on procedural questions and accepted single possible answers. In China, the teacher did not ask “fill-in-the-blank” questions but facilitated and pushed student learning and understanding through questions that caused the students to make connections, see relationships between concepts, and apply problem-solving strategies. ELL Barriers Chinese English language learners (ELLs) may face additional barriers or challenges to success in American classrooms. These barriers may include feeling unwelcome, having inexperienced teachers in proper English Language Development (ELD) professional development or understanding of the culture, and navigating learning a new language (Bostad et al., 2015). Additionally, parents may feel unvalued by the school’s lack of inclusivity or 40 outreach, and parents’ lack of familiarity with the new language, culture, and US school system. Parents highly value their children’s education but may find it difficult to enter into the school environment and systems. Copeland (2007) indicated that “barriers that may prevent involvement of parents of ELLs have been identified as language, cultural differences, work schedules, and lack of transportation” (p. 18) and “parental involvement in school...is not a universal expectation” (p. 67). This explains a possible ELL parent perspective of teaching as solely the teacher’s job, and interference or communication would be disrespectful of the teacher’s role (Copeland, 2007; Vera et al., 2012). Chen and Uttal’s (1988) study supports this belief, stating “66% of Chinese mothers believed that the teacher was more important than the parents” (p. 356), an attitude that prevails in current circumstances. Thakkar (2011) contributes to the research on cultural contexts of Chinese learners and suggests strategies for American educators working with Chinese ELL students: Several common themes that emerge from current literature about the context of education in the Chinese culture suggest that Chinese learners emphasize the Confucian value of effort over ability, that they thrive under an authoritarian parenting style, and that they follow a constructivist learning style. (p. 51) Therefore, strategies that highlight effort and constructivist learning may serve as guidelines to help American educators create relevant and appropriate learning environments for their Chinese ELL students. Hard work prevails over the innate ability to find success (Gay, 2000; Huang & Rinaldo, 2007; Wu, 2008). Wu (2008) conducted a cross-cultural study of 20,000 Chinese American elementary students and discovered two reasons that most of the students worked hard: the Confucian value of effort and parental expectations. Chinese parenting, while characteri