The notion of a teacher is an archaic, dynamic, and diverse concept that is embedded in and therefore revealed in the various complex and coexisting cultural and national contexts, ways of teaching and learning, and the entanglements with beings in multiple worlds. However, under the fundamental impacts of westernization, coloniality, and modernization in the Anthropocene, the concept of a teacher has been endowed with narrow colonial, human-centric, politicalized, as well as vocationalized and secularized connotations. It has been oversimplified to a profession, while other possible interpretations have been omitted and marginalized at the same time. My dissertation questions the implications of the gradual narrowing down of the concept over time and reexamines the concept of a teacher with the aim of ontologically broadening the scope of different connotations and embracing more diverse and inclusive forms as well as contexts of being a ‘teacher.’ In response, this dissertation traces the history, evolution, and cultural contexts of the notion of a teacher in ancient and modern China. It explores the concept of a teacher ontologically through multiple historical and theoretical frames, including decolonial theory in comparative education and several conceptual constructs in Taoism, Confucianism, and posthumanism. Guided by these frames, I introduce innovative (post)qualitative methodologies in data generation and collection, referring to collective re-membering activities, reanimating sense, and speculative fabulation experiences (Haraway, 2013) in terms of “teaching without words/actions,” “sitting and Wu,” and “Ge wu zhi zhi.” This dissertation is designed as a multi-scenario, multi-sense, and multispecies ethnography, and the fieldwork was conducted over three months of summertime in 2022 in a small town and a modern supercity in China. Using a diffractive analysis of memories, stories, and experiences with multiple participants, I attempt to broaden the concept of a teacher by presenting a variety of coexisting conceptualizations of the term and bringing into focus multiple ways of teaching, learning, and being a teacher.

In this mixed-methods study, I sought to design and develop a test delivery method to reduce linguistic bias in English-based mathematics tests. Guided by translanguaging, a recent linguistic theory recognizing the complexity of multilingualism, I designed a computer-based test delivery method allowing test-takers to toggle between English and their self-identified dominant language. This three-part study asks and answers research questions from all phases of the novel test delivery design. In the first phase, I conducted cognitive interviews with 11 Mandarin Chinese dominant speakers and 11 Spanish speaking dominant undergraduate students while taking a well-regarded calculus conceptual exam, the Precalculus Concept Assessment (PCA). In the second phase, I designed and developed the linguistically adaptive test (LAT) version of the PCA using the Concerto test delivery platform. In the third phase, I conducted a within-subjects random-assignment study of the efficacy the LAT. I also conducted in-depth interviews with a subset of the test-takers. Nine items on the PCA revealed linguistic issues during the cognitive interviews demonstrating the need to improve the linguistic bias on the test items. Additionally, the newly developed LAT demonstrated evidence of reliability and validity. However, the large-scale efficacy study showed that the LAT did not appear to make a significant difference in scores for dominant speakers of Spanish or dominant speakers of Mandarin Chinese. This finding held true for overall test scores as well as at the item level indicating that the LAT test delivery system does not appear to reduce linguistic bias in testing. Additionally, in-depth interviews revealed that many students felt that the linguistically adaptive test was either the same or essentially the same as the non-LAT version of the test. Some participants felt that the toggle button was not necessary if they could understand the mathematics item well enough. As one participant noted, “It's math, It's math. It doesn't matter if it's in English or in Spanish.” This dissertation concludes with a discussion about the implications for test developers and suggestions for future direction of study.

The dissertation study is a mixed method sequential explanatory study which focuses on the use of a digital tool to assess argumentation as a mediator of teacher argumentation professional vision. The study is driven by an experimental randomized control trial to determine the relationship between the professional vision components and the use of the DiALoG (Diagnosing Argumentation Levels of Groups) tool and followed with a qualitative analysis using a grounded theory approach. A measure of professional vision was created to utilize with the quantitative analysis which is reported on herein. A hierarchical multiple linear regression was utilized which showed significant results with DiALoG predicting the development of professional vision in the Management and Argument components. Out of the qualitative analysis, an initial theory was formed which asserted that the level to which teachers articulate their noticings of the elements of argumentation signal a developing professional vision. The integration of the two methods is shared to inform how each method supplemented and complemented the other. Limitations and implications for future research centered around issues that arose due to the abrupt conclusion of the study due to COVID-19 and the continuation of developing the Measure of Argumentation Professional Vision (MAPVis) under different conditions and contexts.

Over the past 20 years in the United States (U.S.), teachers have seen a marked

shift in how teacher evaluation policies govern the evaluation of their performance.

Spurred by federal mandates, teachers have been increasingly held accountable for their

students’ academic achievement, most notably through the use of value-added models

(VAMs)—a statistically complex tool that aims to isolate and then quantify the effect of

teachers on their students’ achievement. This increased focus on accountability ultimately

resulted in numerous lawsuits across the U.S. where teachers protested what they felt

were unfair evaluations informed by invalid, unreliable, and biased measures—most

notably VAMs.

While New Mexico’s teacher evaluation system was labeled as a “gold standard”

due to its purported ability to objectively and accurately differentiate between effective

and ineffective teachers, in 2015, teachers filed suit contesting the fairness and accuracy

of their evaluations. Amrein-Beardsley and Geiger’s (revise and resubmit) initial analyses

of the state’s teacher evaluation data revealed that the four individual measures

comprising teachers’ overall evaluation scores showed evidence of bias, and specifically,

teachers who taught in schools with different student body compositions (e.g., special

education students, poorer students, gifted students) had significantly different scores

than their peers. The purpose of this study was to expand upon these prior analyses by

investigating whether those conclusions still held true when controlling for a variety of

confounding factors at the school, class, and teacher levels, as such covariates were not

included in prior analyses.



Results from multiple linear regression analyses indicated that, overall, the

measures used to inform New Mexico teachers’ overall evaluation scores still showed

evidence of bias by school-level student demographic factors, with VAMs potentially

being the most susceptible and classroom observations being the least. This study is

especially unique given the juxtaposition of such a highly touted evaluation system also

being one where teachers contested its constitutionality. Study findings are important for

all education stakeholders to consider, especially as teacher evaluation systems and

related policies continue to be transformed.

An explanatory sequence mixed methods design was used to examine the effects of choice on the writing performance and motivation of college students (n = 242). The randomized control trial was followed by semi-structured interviews to determine the perceptions students (n = 20) held on the experiment as well the importance of choosing writing topics in college writing assignments. The effects of choice were tested as part of a real writing assignment that was included in nine sections of an introductory special education course. Results from hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses found choice had a statistically significant negative effect on holistic writing quality, number of words written, and intrinsic writing motivation. Findings from the semi-structured interviews provided context for understanding the unexpected quantitative results.

In this study, I investigate how secondary reclassified ELLs use the Learning Management System Schoology in three secondary English classrooms. Particularly, I focus on the digital literacy practices reclassified ELLs use as they navigate Schoology to complete a multi-page research paper. In examining the digital literacy practices of secondary reclassified ELLs who have recently exited the language development program, I add to research in the fields of New Literacies and Multiliteracies, sociocultural approaches to learning, and identity studies.

In this qualitative study, I employed ethnographic techniques (i.e., data collection, participant observation, interviewing, and collection of archived material and digital artifacts stored in Schoology). I drew from communities of practice and identity frameworks to examine focal participants' literacy practices when participating in the online space of Schoology and provided screenshots to showcase this participation. I examined email exchanges that were co-created by teacher and student that demonstrated their reliance on a digital tool to continue the teaching and learning processes. I exhibit screenshots of focal participants' engagement with the revision process as they used Schoology’s and Microsoft Word's digital editing tools. Finally, I examined focal participants' participation in Schoology's online discussion forum to highlight how they revealed aspects of their identities and performed these identities in a mainstream-learning environment as well.

My analysis establishes that focal participants' access to an LMS like Schoology and other digital spaces (e.g., email) supports the language learning and literacy practices of reclassified ELLs. In addition, my analysis of focal participants' digital and communication practices shows that they contributed to their agency, positioned themselves as empowered and knowledgeable learners, and performed the role of "peer as mentor" when providing feedback to their peers. Finally, in my analysis of focal participants' inventories of digital literacy practices, I discovered that their engagement in Schoology for the purposes of learning and communication reinforced their language learning, both traditional and digital literacies, and overall academic achievement. Findings of this study emphasizes the importance of technology integration at the secondary level so that all students have equal access to digital and multimodal ways of learning in today's digital age.

This study explores the relationships and implications of Foucault's genealogical analytic, his most recently published course, The Punitive Society and its connections to Discipline and Punish through an analysis of productive power, and the potential offerings for educational research. The purpose of this study is to clarify Foucault's genealogical approach in making it more accessible to educational researchers, to investigate the applications and significance of Foucault's most recently available lectures to education, and to analyze Foucault's reimagining of the notion of power as it is developed throughout the lectures and fully realized in Discipline and Punish to better develop an analytic lens from which to interrogate relations of power in pedagogical practices.

This study examines ninth graders’ negotiation of meaning with one canonical work, Romeo and Juliet. The study’s sample was 88% Latino at a Title I high school. The study adopts a sociocultural view of literacy and learning. I employed ethnographic methods (participant observation, data collection, interviews, and focus groups) to investigate the teacher’s instructional approaches and the literacy practices used while teaching the canonical work. With a focus on students’ interpretations, I examined what they said and wrote about Romeo and Juliet. One finding was that the teacher employed instructional approaches that facilitated literacy practices that allowed students to draw on their cultural backgrounds, personal lived experiences, and values as they engaged with Romeo and Juliet. As instructional approaches and literacy practices became routine, students formed a community of learners. Because the teacher allowed students to discuss their ideas before, during, and after reading, students were provided with multiple perspectives to think about as they read and negotiated meaning. A second finding was that students drew on their personal lived experiences, backgrounds, and values as they made sense and negotiated the meaning of Romeo and Juliet’s plot and characters. Although the text’s meaning was not always obvious to students, in their work they showed their growing awareness that multiple interpretations were welcomed and important in the teacher’s classroom. Through the unit, students came to recognize that their own and their peers’ understandings, negotiations, and interpretations of the canonical work were informed by a variety of complex factors. Students came to find relevance in the text’s themes and characters to their experiences as adolescents. The study’s findings point to the importance of allowing students to draw from their cultural backgrounds and experiences as they negotiate meaning with texts, specifically canonical ones, and to welcome and encourage multiple meanings in the English classroom.

Employing Queer Intersectionality, this study explored how undocuqueer activists made sense of, interacted and worked within the intersection of their LGBTQ and undocumented experience. Participants ascribed three overarching self-meanings: Vulnerability, Complexity, and Resilience. These self-meanings describe the ways participants perceived the interplay of their gender, sexuality and immigration status within the current sociopolitical context of the U.S. Recognizing their vulnerability within a state of illegibility, participants described a sense of exclusion within spaces of belonging, and wariness managing relationships with others; opting for more complex self-definitions, they resisted simplistic conceptions of identity that rendered their social locations invisible (e.g., homonormativity, heteronormativity, DREAMer); and describing themselves as resilient, they described surviving societal as well as familial rejection even when surviving seemed impossible to do so. Interacting and working within the intersection of gender, sexuality and immigration status, participants described identity negotiation and coming out as a form of resistance to institutionalized oppression, and resilience amidst simultaneous anti-immigrant, xenophobic and heterosexist power structures. Participants learned to live in multiple worlds at the same time, and embrace the multiplicity of their undocuqueer identity while seeking to bridge their communities through stories, activism and peer education. This study has implications for further understanding the way that queer politics and identity interact/ relate with various axes of inequality.