This dissertation investigates how early career teachers' orientations of students and their mathematical activity, as surfaced their experience in a simulation, can reveal when their well-intentioned decisions might negatively impact traditionally underserved students. Three early career teachers engaged in two online simulations where they could speak, write, or select a response to a classroom scenario described with text and images, where their choices impact what part of the scenario they engage with next. The simulations were designed to elicit a tension between the teachers' intended positive orientations about students and their decisions made in the simulations. A narrative analysis (Slocum-Bradley, 2010; Wortham, 2001) of the participants' choices in the simulations, and their rationale behind those choices, revealed multiple instances where the teachers aligned themselves with the same orientations but sometimes positioned their role as teachers in conflict with that orientation. The narratives that emerged regarding these specific moments, the teachers' interpretation of that moment, and their decisions in the simulation showed multiple ways the rationalization of decisions can conflict with their intention. This dissertation informs how making sense of the narratives early career teachers make when engaging with simulations could help teachers' interpretations and actions better align with their intentions. Therefore, teacher learning could shift from focusing on content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical choices to the continual attention and decision-making around the interpretation that supported that decision. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]