Page 127 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 127 of 231 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
118
on the standards-based culminating performance task. This event occurred following
meetings between the Westside University on-site representative, the administrative
staff, and the content literacy coach. However, it is important to note that not all
teachers participated in the dialogue.
The research team observed that some teachers were passive participants of
the discussion. Each course group contained approximately four to five teachers. At
least one teacher from each course group withdrew from the conversation or had
minimal participation. The non-participants contributed to the discussion only in
response to a direct question. Within the World History group, there were some
disengaged members, including Mr. Diamond, who offered very little to the
dialogue. Although in his interview with the researchers he expressed a belief in co-construction,
in this instance, he instead was typing on his computer and
occasionally contributed when asked for feedback of ideas from another member of
the group. His behavior during the professional development is in strict contrast
with observations of him in other meetings. For example, during a Ford Grant
meeting, which took place in February of 2011, he was very much involved in the
dialogue regarding the potential use of funds and how the grant would be a benefit to
each SLC on campus. However, the participants of that meeting were different from
those in the professional development; the Ford Grant meeting group contained
members of the partnership who typically promoted dialogue. Each group member
took into consideration the need to ask every person at the table about their feelings
and opinions regarding the various topics of discussion. Thus, there was a level of
Object Description
| Title | Co-constructing community, school and university partnerships for urban school transformation: Year two |
| Author | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Author email | SavinaW@aol.com; savinaw@gmail.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Education |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Education (Leadership) |
| School | Rossier School of Education |
| Date defended/completed | 2011-03-22 |
| Date submitted | 2011 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2011-04-19 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Rousseau, Sylvia G. |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Stowe, Kathy Huisong Marsh, David D. |
| Abstract | Community-school-university partnerships represent a new model of urban education reform that incorporates the overlapping spheres of influence in the transformation process. Co-constructed relationships between communities, schools and universities have the potential reshape organizational hierarchy and enable all partners to develop a new cultural model capable of transforming K-12 urban schools. This study the second and third year of one co-constructed community-school-university partnership that attempted to transform the cultural model of one urban high school.; The aim of this study is to identify and analyze the extent to which a community-school-university partnership is able to sustain elements of co-construction and other ongoing processes that are beneficial to the partnership. Also, the study will identify the persistent barriers to co-constructions and effective strategies to overcome those barriers within a community-school-university partnership. This study expands on the research conducted during the first year of the partnership’s operation and will offer insight as to the sustainability of the co-constructed processes between the community-school-university partnership. This study will also identify the methods in which the community-school-university partnership can develop a new cultural model for parental engagement in the interest of school transformation. |
| Keyword | partnership; co-construction; urban school; transformation; parental engagement |
| Geographic subject (state) | California |
| Geographic subject (country) | USA |
| Coverage date | 2000/2010 |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m3759 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Woodyard, Savina M. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Woodyard-4509 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume62/etd-Woodyard-4509.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 127 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 118 on the standards-based culminating performance task. This event occurred following meetings between the Westside University on-site representative, the administrative staff, and the content literacy coach. However, it is important to note that not all teachers participated in the dialogue. The research team observed that some teachers were passive participants of the discussion. Each course group contained approximately four to five teachers. At least one teacher from each course group withdrew from the conversation or had minimal participation. The non-participants contributed to the discussion only in response to a direct question. Within the World History group, there were some disengaged members, including Mr. Diamond, who offered very little to the dialogue. Although in his interview with the researchers he expressed a belief in co-construction, in this instance, he instead was typing on his computer and occasionally contributed when asked for feedback of ideas from another member of the group. His behavior during the professional development is in strict contrast with observations of him in other meetings. For example, during a Ford Grant meeting, which took place in February of 2011, he was very much involved in the dialogue regarding the potential use of funds and how the grant would be a benefit to each SLC on campus. However, the participants of that meeting were different from those in the professional development; the Ford Grant meeting group contained members of the partnership who typically promoted dialogue. Each group member took into consideration the need to ask every person at the table about their feelings and opinions regarding the various topics of discussion. Thus, there was a level of |
