University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

(USC Thesis Other)

Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content REMEDIATING ARTIFACTS: FACILITATING A CULTURE OF INQUIRY
AMONG COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY TO ADDRESS ISSUES OF
STUDENT EQUITY AND ACCESS

by

Cristina Salazar-Romo

____________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2009

Copyright 2009 Cristina Salazar-Romo

ii
DEDICATION
To my parents, Phillip and Luvina Salazar,
and to my husband, David Romo
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many people encouraged me along this educational journey, and there are so
many to thank.
I would first like to acknowledge my parents, Phillip and Luvina Salazar, for
being the best teachers I have ever had. Without your unconditional love and
support, this would not have been possible. Not only have you inspired me to strive
toward my educational goals, you have influenced me to live a life of integrity and
humility. I love you both very much.
I share the honor of my degree with my husband, David Romo. I feel that this
is not my accomplishment alone, but one for which we strived and now share. For all
of the times you supported me, held me, and wiped my tears, thank you. For all the
times you danced the robot, organized banzai road trips, and prepared Russell St.
happy hour, thank you. I love you.
I would like to thank my sisters and brothers, Mari, Luvi, Felipe, and Martin,
for keeping me laughing. Thanks for making fun of my school; it’s kept me
grounded.
I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to my dissertation chair,
Alicia Dowd. I am grateful for your collegial spirit and high expectations. Thank you
for providing me with an experience that I will never forget.
I am grateful to the members of my dissertation committee, Estela Bensimon
and Brock Klein. Thank you for your support and expertise. Brock, you really went
out of your way to help me navigate through this experience.
iv
Many thanks to my friends in my dissertation group: Martha Enciso, Seema
Gaur, and Roberto Gonzales. Years down the road when I look back on this
experience, I will think of the laughs and good times we shared. Your friendship has
made this adventure worthwhile.
I must acknowledge Edlyn Vallejo Peña and Ilda Jimenez y West of the
Dissertation Support Center at USC. You both carried me when I was about to give
up. When I think of the term “institutional agent,” I am reminded of both of your
smiling faces. I truly admire and respect you both tremendously. Thank you also to
Linda Fischer of the DSC for being a great writing advisor and cheerleader at
Operation Dissertation Acceleration.
Thank you to my friends and colleagues at Pasadena City College for
supporting me throughout this endeavor: Cathy Johnson, Angela McGaharn, Kirsten
Ogden, Steve Pell, Nancy Rutzen, and Ted Young.
Thank you to my friends who have always supported me: Sarah Aguiñaga,
Suzette Campos, Vanessa Del Rio, and Sonia Torres. Thank you to mi familia:
Abuelitos Salazar, Abuelita Rendón, Martin “Beef” Sanchez, Angela “Cousin”
Salazar, Tia Ana, Tia Lulu, Tia Tech, Familias Salazar, Juarez, Ruiz, López, Romo,
and Saldivar.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Statement of the Problem
Project Under Study
Purpose of the Study
Research Question
Significance of the Study

1
2
5
9
16
17
17

CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Institutional Agency
Culturally Responsive Teaching
Reflection
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
Summary and Relationship among Concepts

19
20
26
29
35
39
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
History of Project
Activity
Data Collection
Position of the Researcher
Rigor
Ethical Concerns
Analysis
Presentation of the Interview Data
Limitations

41
41
44
48
52
53
54
55
56
56
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Inquiry Group Activities Analyzed through CHAT
Background of the Participants
Key Findings
Discussion

58
59
66
67
92
vi
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Summary of Findings
Recommendations for Future Research
Conclusion

97
98
107
108

REFERENCES 111
APPENDIX A 116
APPENDIX B 119
APPENDIX C 121

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1: Faculty Knowledge to Shared Faculty-Student Knowledge 64
Table 4.2: Remediating Artifacts 73
Table 4.3: Recognizing the Complex Lives of Basic Skills Students 81
Table 4.4: Remediating Practice 91

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Engeström’s Model of the Structure of Human Activity 36
Figure 4.1: An Application of Engeström’s Model of the Structure of
Human Activity to the Inquiry Project
61

ix
ABSTRACT
This study explores the experiences of three faculty members from English as
a Second Language, English, and Reading departments who were involved in an
action inquiry project at an urban community college. Participants in the study, along
with the action inquiry group, engaged in a series of self-assessment activities to
examine the inequitable educational outcomes in basic skills coursework in their
institution. The purpose of this study was to understand the ways in which faculty
members who engaged in an action research project learned about cultural
responsiveness through their discussions about a key pedagogical tool: course
syllabi. The learning that took place influenced the participants to change their
beliefs, practices, and attitudes toward basic skills students and motivated them to
become advocates of their students’ success.
1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Norma awoke for her first day of class alert and excited to begin her first fall
semester at Cal College. She had difficulty in high school and, unlike some of her
peers, struggled to write her term papers and book reports in high school. Now she
was enrolled in English 099, a pre-transfer course at Cal College. She knew she
needed help with her writing and was open to taking a basic skills writing course to
hopefully help her reach her educational dream: to transfer one day to a university
and study child development.
After many failed attempts at finding parking and walking into the wrong
classroom, Norma finally sat down, opened her notebook, and set out her pen ready
to take notes. Her professor walked in a few minutes later, followed by a trail of
students trying to add the course. They were told to sit down because add slips would
not be given out until after class.
The professor wrote her name on the board, which Norma carefully copied
into her notebook, welcomed the students, and asked them to take out a number 2
pencil. The professor then took out a wrinkled manila folder full of multiple choice
grammar tests with green Scantron answer sheets and distributed them to students.
The professor explained that they were “diagnostic” tests to see what they knew.
Norma did not know what the word “diagnostic” meant but did not ask because she
did not want to look stupid on the first day of class.
The students were told to complete the diagnostic test and pick up a
“syllabus” before leaving. Norma thought to herself, “What’s a syllabus? I never
2
had that in high school.” Norma completed the exam the best she could, picked up
the pink syllabus sheet from the instructor’s desk, and placed it in her notebook.
Norma did not return to class on Wednesday.
Background of the Study
Historically, community colleges have been the vehicles by which many
underrepresented
1
students enter higher education. At many community colleges,
however, a significant number of incoming students are not prepared for college-
level courses. National data from fall 2000 show that 42% of first-year students at
two-year public schools enrolled in at least one remedial course, compared with 20%
at public four-year schools and 12% at private four-year schools (Zeidenberg, 2008).
The situation in California is even more dire. According to 2008 data, of
those students enrolled in California Community Colleges in the 2006-2007
academic year who were assessed, 70% to 85% of students placed into a basic skills
course in one or more of the basic skills areas (Center for Student Success, 2008).
These data roughly estimate that 1.82 million to 2.08 million students in the
California Community College System are basic skills students (Center for Student
Success, 2008). The statistics paint an even more daunting picture for students of
color. Compared to White and Asian students, students of color are overrepresented
in basic skills courses. For example, while African-American students represent 7%

1
The term underrepresented student is used to define racial and ethnic groups that
have the lowest degree attainment: namely, African-American, Native-American,
and Latino (Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban American,
Central or South American) students.
3
of students in the California Community College system, they represent 11% of
enrolled students in credit basic skills courses.
The challenges faced by the 109 California Community Colleges (CCC),
including serving the large and growing number of underprepared students, are
addressed in the CCC’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education. Its multiple
missions include “academic and vocational instruction at the lower division level to
both younger and older students, including those persons returning to school”
(California Education Code, 2005). Other missions include workforce training,
English as a second language (ESL) instruction, adult noncredit instruction, and
community service courses and programs (University of California Office of the
President, 2006). California Community Colleges (CCC) enroll roughly two-thirds of
all California college students and nearly one-fourth of all community college
students in the nation (Horn & Lew, n.d.).
One of the community colleges’ major missions, student transfer to a four-
year institution for the purposes of completing a bachelor’s degree, is not being
realized for many students of color (Shulock & Moore, 2005). One of the reasons for
this phenomenon is that students of color are overrepresented in “basic skills”
courses and are not able to progress through these courses, also known as
developmental, remedial, and college preparatory education, in order to advance to
college-level courses (Center for Student Success, 2008); thus, the goal of
transferring is out of reach for many underrepresented students.
4
Of particular concern are the Latina/o students, who represent the largest
ethnic minority group in the California Community College system. Latina/o
students also enroll in basic skills courses in both credit and noncredit coursework
more than any other ethnic group represented. Compared to the 29% of Latina/o
students in the California Community College system, 41% are enrolled in credit
basic skills courses. An even higher percentage of Latina/o students, 44%, are
present in noncredit coursework. Meanwhile, White students enroll at lower rates in
basic skills coursework, whether credit or noncredit (Center for Student Success,
2008).
In addition to being overrepresented in basic skills coursework, students of
color have lower successful completion rates. Completion rates are based on the
completion of a degree, obtaining a certificate, or transferring to a university. Data
released in 2008 (Center for Student Success, 2008) show the outcomes of students
who were enrolled in basic skills coursework in 2001-2002: 20% of Latina/os earned
a degree, certificate, or transferred. Of the ethnicities in the data, Latina/o students
fared worst in student progress toward an AA degree, certificate or transfer to a four-
year college or university. African American students followed closely behind with
just 30% earning a degree, certificate, or transferring to a 4-year institution.
A possible reason for students not attaining a degree, certificate, or
transferring to a university stems from students not succeeding in English courses.
Approximately 75% of incoming California community college students are
underprepared for college-level English, and nearly 15% of those entering at the
5
underprepared level never go on to complete a transfer-level course (Center for
Student Success, 2008). In order for students to complete one of the six competency
requirements for the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum
(IGETC), students must show success in English Communication (Area 1)
(University of California, 2008). Failure to complete any of the Area 1 requirements,
which include transfer-level English coursework in composition and critical
thinking, will hinder students from transferring to colleges and universities.
The overrepresentation of Latina/o students in basic skills coursework and
their underrepresentation in the group of students who actually transfer deserves
attention. In this chapter, I have provided a narrative that frames the problem. The
next section includes the statement of the problem, which is tied to current
accountability measures. The third section provides an overview of external
accountability initiatives relevant to community colleges. The fourth section explores
a different way of holding community colleges accountable for basic skills success
by describing a practitioner-as-researcher model facilitated by action research and
action inquiry projects conducted by the University of Southern California’s Center
for Urban Education. The fifth section provides the purpose of this study as well as
the research question to be answered. Lastly, the significance of the study is
presented.
Statement of the Problem
The crisis in basic skills outcomes in California Community Colleges has
received attention from educators, researchers, and state officials in ways that put
6
pressure on institutions to be accountable for community college student
performance. To improve basic skills outcomes in California, the state has
implemented several important accountability initiatives that require institutions to
assess their students’ academic performance. For example, Student Equity Plans,
required by California Code of Regulations (5 California Code of Regulations
[CCR]§ 54220), were implemented in 1993 to “promote student success for all
students, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, or economic circumstances.” The
purpose of student equity plans is to address campus based research, goals for access
and retention, and degree and certificate completion to promote student equity for
ESL, basic skills completion, and transfer (CCR).
In another accountability effort to assess student degree attainment, the
California Community Colleges supported passage of Assembly Bill 1417 in 2004.
The legislation and budget action authorized the California Community Colleges
System Office (CCCSO) to design and implement a comprehensive performance
system, which has become known as the Accountability Reporting for the
Community Colleges (ARCC). ARCC includes six college-level performance
indicators for California Community Colleges, which are all relevant to assessing the
basic skills issue: (a) student progress and achievement; (b) completion of 30 or
more units; (c) fall to fall persistence; (d) vocational course completion; (e) basic
skills course completion; (f) and basic skills course improvement. A report of
institutional performance against peer institutions is available through the California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, and administrators may view the public
7
information to see how their institution performs against peer group institutions
(CCSO). ARCC data, however, do not disaggregate according to race or ethnicity—a
valuable component which would highlight disparities in degree attainment and
completion of varied underrepresented student populations. The data alone, however,
are not meaningful unless analyzed and placed into context by specific institutions.
In yet another movement to hold community colleges accountable for student
success in basic skills, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
commissioned the Center for Student Success (CSS) in 2006. CSS, which is
affiliated with the Research and Planning (RP) group, crafted a literature review and
self-assessment tool on effective practices in basic skills education. The document,
often referred to as the Poppy Copy for its bright cover page, includes a review of
basic skills literature; a self-assessment tool, to help colleges “examine the scope
and efficacy of current practices”; and a cost/revenue model for developmental
education programs (CCSO, 2008). California Community Colleges have been asked
to use this document to assess the extent to which they are meeting the needs of basic
skills students.
While these initiatives are presumably well-intended and bring attention to
the problems of inequitable student outcomes, they may be limited because they are
imposed upon institutions and practitioners. Many faculty and administrators view
external accountability measures as a threat to their academic freedom, which
protects the rights of faculty to pursue their research and teaching and supports their
political goals outside the institution (McPherson & Schapiro, 1999). Furthermore,
8
external accountability initiatives pose a threat to faculty members’ trust of those to
whom they are accountable. Trow (1996) contends that “accountability is an
alternative to trust; and efforts to strengthen it usually involve parallel efforts to
weaken trust.” External accountability does little to motivate faculty members from
autonomously seeking solutions to their local problems because their activities are
becoming mandated by legislation. Such external accountability measures are not
democratic (Dowd & Tong, 2007) and devalue practitioner knowledge and
experience. Imposed reform is not likely to be effective because faculty expertise is
neglected and professional experience is ignored.
One of the major limitations of current attempts to hold institutions
accountable is that they are not structured in ways that help faculty members become
knowledgeable and reflective about facilitating the success of students of color in
basic skills courses. Current assessment practices, for example, do little to improve
faculty cultural competency or support faculty in becoming change agents for
underrepresented students. The assessment tools can be useful in gathering data, but
data without a culture of inquiry, characterized by professionals who “identify and
address problems through purposeful analysis of data about student learning and
progress” (Dowd, 2005), will not effect change. At present, there are few structured
settings for faculty members to gather, analyze, discuss, and reflect on data
disaggregated by race and ethnicity. A model that places ownership back in the
hands of practitioners may prompt faculty to take ownership of the problem of
9
inequitable educational outcomes for students in basic skills. The practitioner-as-
researcher model addresses that void.
The strategy of the practitioner-as-researcher model is for practitioners to
become researchers, and researchers to become facilitators and consultants
(Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004). Instead of the researchers
structuring a study, the practitioner-as-researcher model strives “to bring about
change at individual, organizational, and societal levels” (Bensimon et al., 2004, p.
108). External researchers work with practitioners “in a process of collecting data
and creating knowledge about local problems as seen from a local perspective” in an
effort to help the practitioner-as-researchers become more aware of what is
happening at their institutions and to encourage them to embrace and enact change
(Bensimon et al., 2004, p. 108). The practitioner-as-researcher model is a form of
professional accountability because it empowers faculty members to make use of
their professional experience and knowledge to initiate change on their own
campuses through various self-assessments.
A project that enacts the practitioner-as-researcher model will next be
discussed. The project is of interest because it engages faculty members as
practitioner-researchers into the problem of basic skills outcomes for students of
color.
Project Under Study
Typical assessments of basic skills outcomes are limited and problematic
because little is done with the data that is culled (Dowd, 2005). A new type of
10
assessment that engages faculty members in learning and sense-making about
basic skills is needed so that their new knowledge can inform their practice in
working with underrepresented students. The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at
the University of Southern California has identified a need, which served as the
impetus to implement several action research projects.
Several CUE projects worked with faculty, administrators, and student affairs
professionals to recognize areas of inequality and inequity, particularly achievement
gaps of underrepresented students, on college and university campuses. Most
projects involved faculty and administrators, acting as “inquiry teams,” who worked
collaboratively to examine institutional data (Dowd & Tong, 2007). As a
consequence, the inquiry teams may have expressed different attitudes and beliefs,
which may have resulted in learning to enact institutional change. Early projects
included the Equity Scorecard and Diversity Scorecard Projects, which asked
administrators, faculty members, counselors, and other researchers to examine their
own institutional data and evaluate the state of equity on their campus. An essential
component of both the Equity Scorecard and Diversity Scorecard Projects was the
disaggregation of institutional data by race and ethnicity of student matriculation,
enrollment, pass/fail, and graduation rates. The disaggregation of data highlights
gaps in academic performance, thus encouraging institutional actors to respond.
Another project entitled Equity for All: Institutional Responsibility for
Student Success focused on four institutional areas to examine student inequities
within a college: academic pathways; persistence and retention; transfer readiness;
11
and excellence. An inquiry team was developed which used the “Equity
Scorecard” to determine whether the institution was adequately serving its
underrepresented student population.
The act of collecting and analyzing the data for the Equity for All project
exposed many disparities in the underrepresented student population, so another
project and partnership was established between an inquiry group and researchers at
USC. The project was entitled the Missing 87 Project, which references a “transfer
gap and choice gap” in the number of students who were transfer ready yet did not
transfer. The team engaged in a cultural and resource audit and discovered
institutional barriers toward student success and offered solutions to correct them. A
similar project in Wisconsin, called the Wisconsin Transfer Equity Study, is aimed to
reach the national average in higher education attainment.
Yet another project that stemmed from CUE’s research was an action inquiry
project, which I will refer to as the Inquiry Project. The Center for Urban Education
sought the participation of three surrounding community colleges to pilot equity-
based assessment practices before bringing them to additional college participants in
the project. One of the goals of the Inquiry Project was to enhance institutional
effectiveness and equity by assessing institutional practices to improve basic skills
performance. The project was designed to set goals for increasing successful course
completion rates from term to term (performance benchmarking); diagnosing
successful instructional, administrative and counseling strategies by investigating
effective practices within colleges (diagnostic benchmarking) and among peer
12
colleges (process benchmarking); and developing implementation and evaluation
plans to analyze effectiveness by race and ethnicity on an ongoing basis.
The Inquiry Project aimed to “increase transfer rates, develop an evidence-
based model of assessment to improve college effectiveness, and utilize practitioner
expertise to produce equitable transfer outcomes.” This action research project
studied the everyday activities in which practitioners engage. In keeping with the
practitioner-as-researcher model, inquiry teams were formed at surrounding
community colleges in Southern California. The inquiry teams, which worked
collaboratively to examine institutional data (Dowd & Tong, 2007), were composed
of faculty, administrators, and counselors who conducted research on their own
campus and found inequitable educational outcomes in basic skills coursework. As a
result, they decided to conduct on-campus assessments of their “benchmark” (or
transfer-level) courses and “gateway” (or developmental) courses to understand in a
deeper, more focused way the problem of not meeting the needs of their students.
Among the community colleges involved in the CUE projects, one was Cal
College, which provided the research setting selected for this study. Cal Community
College (a pseudonym) is a one-college district with two separate physical campuses
in the metropolitan Los Angeles area. Latina/o students make up the largest ethnic
majority at 35%. The inequitable outcomes Cal College discovered are particularly
problematic given that the college is a designated Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI).
Cal College receives funding as an HSI to “improve and strengthen the academic
quality, institutional stability, management, and fiscal capabilities” (U.S. Department
13
of Education, 2008) of the institution. To receive an HSI designation, two- and 4-
year colleges and universities must have 25% or more total undergraduate Hispanic
full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollments (Laden, 2001). Therefore, inquiring into the
ways that Cal College is serving its large Latino/a population is relevant to this
study.
To address this problem, one of the self-assessment instruments developed by
CUE, acting as external facilitators, involved inquiry team participation in
collaborative learning activities. In an effort to understand the team’s findings, they
developed a set of preliminary hunches, as CUE’s researchers called them, to explain
the inequitable outcomes found in the data. CUE researchers and members of the
inquiry team organized their hunches into four categories: (a) institutional policies
and practices; (b) academic and student services; (c) faculty; and (d) students.
The inquiry team designed two important inquiry activities to explore their
hunches: a syllabus reflection exercise and a student learning assessment. During the
syllabus reflection exercise, team members reviewed faculty syllabi against equity-
conscious indicators established by CUE, which included cultural responsiveness.
According to Gay (2002), Culturally responsive pedagogy is defined as using the
cultural “characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse students
as conduits for teaching them more effectively” (p. 106). It is based on the
assumption that when academic knowledge and skills are “situated within the lived
experiences and frames of reference of students, they are more personally
meaningful, have higher interest appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly”
14
(p. 106). The syllabus reflection exercise serves as a lens for inquiry groups to
analyze one of the first documents that is given to students. As suggested by the
opening vignette, the syllabus is a powerful artifact, which establishes the instructor-
student dynamic. Team participants review syllabi for basic skills students from their
own college based on the following: a) the material document itself (completeness
and clarity, testing and grading, pacing, professional appearance); and b) indicators
for equity conscious practices (communication of high expectations, incorporation of
rigorous learning activities, consideration of students’ needs and aspirations,
provision of multiple resources for academic assistance, connection to students’
cultural and historical backgrounds, promotion of academic transformation and
empowerment) (see Appendix A for Syllabus Reflection Protocol).
Another of the inquiry protocols utilized by CUE was the I Learn Best
exercise. The I Learn Best assessment asked students to share the most effective and
least effective classroom activities that help the students learn. The last question asks
students to share other experiences that previous instructors have implemented that
have helped them learn. The purpose of these activities was to highlight teaching
practices and classroom culture that promote student success for basic skills students.
For the purposes of this study, I will examine a single institutional case to
analyze how the team at Cal College undertook self-assessment practices to promote
student success. For example, the team organized a campus-wide workshop to help
instructors reflect on their own syllabi and provide suggestions for making them
more effective in promoting equity. Team members shared their hunches with the
15
participants and also shared their own reflection experiences. Team members also
shared the disaggregated data with which they started to encourage a dialog on
serving basic skills students.
The work at the Center for Urban Education at the University of Southern
California aims to facilitate the process of developing practitioner knowledge by
examining the practices that affect student outcomes. The syllabus self-reflection
activity is different from mandated assessments because it places ownership in the
hands of practitioners, thereby aiming to empower them to reflect on their own
practices and attitudes to enact change. I believe that the more widespread use of
self-assessment activities such as the syllabus review activity will encourage faculty
members to consider their current classroom practices and shift towards ones that are
more culturally responsive, thus becoming institutional agents for underrepresented
students.
Following the practitioner-as-researcher mode, team members themselves
initiate most of the activities while CUE often takes responsibility for developing
agendas and materials for team meetings. There is not much information about how
effective this kind of assessment opportunity is in fostering changes in learning and
behavior in faculty members who teach basic skills. Can inquiring into basic skills
by completing campus assessments change the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of
faculty members to improve success in basic skills?

16
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand the ways in which faculty members
who engage in an action research project learn about cultural responsiveness through
their discussions about course syllabi. The ways that participants change their
beliefs, practices, and attitudes and become advocates for their students through this
reflective, collaborative process is of particular interest. Furthermore, the way faculty
enact culturally responsive pedagogy to support students toward success is central to
this study. The intent of my analysis is to inform ways in which institutions can use
practitioner knowledge (Bensimon, 2007), the knowledge, beliefs, experiences,
education, sense of self-efficacy, to address basic skills outcomes and transfer
inequities. The impact of this project may prompt policy-makers to support and
encourage practitioner-as-researcher models for faculty and institutional
development.
I investigated faculty in the School of Language Arts at Cal College,
particularly the English, English as a Second Language, and Reading Departments.
The English department is responsible for teaching coursework in composition,
creative writing, journalism, literature, and reading. English as Second Language
(ESL) curriculum is primarily for students for whom English is a second language.
These courses are aimed at international students or long-term immigrants, who have
lived in linguistic enclaves where English is not the primary language for
communication. Reading coursework has been taught in the English department, but
steps are being taken to make Reading its own department. At present, Reading
17
coursework is designed to help students improve comprehension, reading rates,
vocabulary and critical thinking. The primary emphasis of this investigation is on
pre-transfer coursework; that is, developmental writing courses that are needed
before transfer-level curriculum.
Research Question
I aim to answer the following in this study: How does faculty members’
participation in a research project focused on racial and ethnic equity promote
culturally responsive teaching?
Significance of the Study
The potential knowledge gained from this study is significant because it
addresses an alternative approach to improving underrepresented student success.
The study has provided insight that can lead to the improvement of practice by
examining how faculty members learn how to be culturally conscious, especially
through the analysis of their course syllabi. The study has also provided an example
of how the structured practitioner-as-researcher model can inform instructors and
change their beliefs and practices through professional accountability rather than
external, bureaucratic accountability (Burke, 2004). Lastly, the study has illustrated
the inner workings of action research in a community college, which may influence
the use of this method.
This study will contribute to the growing body of knowledge about self-
assessment activities conducted through participation in an action research project in
a community college setting (see Bauman, 2005). While this study focuses on one
18
institution, the results could inform the use of self-assessment and inquiry groups
at other colleges with the intent to improve faculty performance.
19
CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The purpose of this dissertation is to examine how faculty members’
awareness of culturally responsive practices is enhanced through participation in an
action research study that focuses on underrepresented student progress in basic
skills education. According to Kemmis and McTaggart (2000), the tradition of
participatory action research claims that practitioners can be researchers who, by
reflecting on practice, “can yield evidence and insights that can and do assist in the
critical transformation of practice” (p. 593). Within the scope of this project, of
specific interest is how faculty members learn to become culturally responsive agents
through self-assessment activities. I see the problem of inequitable educational
outcomes in basic skills education and subsequent low transfer rates as a lack of
practitioner knowledge.
In this chapter, I will first discuss concepts and empirical studies that explore
the development of “institutional agency,” being responsible for introducing students
to the intricacies of higher education, and culturally responsive teaching as a means
for faculty members to enable students to close the achievement gap in basic skills.
Next, I will explore the concept of reflection, which is needed to bring about agency
and culturally responsive teaching. Then I will examine cultural-historical activity
theory, which provides a way of viewing the activities of the inquiry group. Lastly, I
will synthesize and provide a commentary on the crucial interrelationships among
the concepts listed above.

20
Institutional Agency
Stanton-Salazar (1997) points out that students do not just stumble upon
information in social support networks; rather, information is disseminated through
institutional agents, “individuals who have the capacity and commitment to transmit
directly, or negotiate the transmission of, institutional resources and opportunities”
(p. 6). At the level of higher education, institutional agents can be in the shape of
counselors, instructors, mentors, and other successful students who have previously
navigated the higher educational system. Institutional agents act like bridges by
introducing students to the workings and successes of college life. One of the
important goals of the Center for Urban Education is to inspire institutional agency
in faculty members to redress unequal outcomes in basic skills.
In an effort to provide a framework of how information is disseminated in
educational settings, Stanton-Salazar introduces the concept of institutional support:
the ways in which students enter the mainstream curricula. Social capital represents
relationships with institutional agents who acculturate students to institutional
support, and social capital is the potential for students to use the institutional support,
thus positioning them to achieve their desired goals. Stanton-Salazar introduces six
key forms of institutional support: (a) providing “various funds of knowledge” to
navigate the educational system; (b) bridging, by acting as a contact to gatekeepers
(obstacles in the educational system); (c) advocacy, by speaking up on behalf of
underrepresented student groups; (d) role modeling, by providing a representational
21
model to how a student acts; (e) and providing emotional and moral support
(1997, p. 11).
Stanton-Salazar elaborates on the first form, providing various funds of
knowledge, and delineates seven principal forms of institutionally based funds of
knowledge: institutionally sanctioned discourses; academic task-specific knowledge;
organizational/bureaucratic funds of knowledge; network development; technical
funds of knowledge; knowledge of labor and educational markets; and problem-
solving knowledge. Institutionally sanctioned discourses include the various ways in
which people communicate that are socially accepted. Academic task-specific
knowledge refers to information that is specific to a discipline, for example, the
language used to describe mathematical equations. Organizational/bureaucratic funds
of knowledge convey the knowledge of how bureaucracies operate. Network
development deals with the knowledge of networking and maintaining relationships
with key institutional agents. Technical funds of knowledge include computer test-
taking and time management skills. Knowledge of labor and educational markets
encompass job and educational opportunities and ways in which to enter
marketplaces that may prove challenging. Lastly problem-solving knowledge include
integrating the six previous knowledge forms into a framework for “solving school-
related problems, making sound decisions, and reaching personal or collective goals”
(1997, p. 12). The ability to integrate the six knowledge forms, according to Stanton-
Salazar (1997), affect students’ ability for success in education.
22
Of the forms of knowledge included in the seven principal forms of
institutionally based funds of knowledge, Stanton-Salazar elaborates most on the
first, institutionally sanctioned discourses, and defines discourses as the “socially
accepted ways of using language and engaging in communicative behavior” (1997,
p. 12). For example, the language of a college or university includes words like
“transfer, units, Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum,” and
students’ success is dependent on their ability to navigate the system with the
language of the academic discourse community. This is particularly critical for
students of color because the language of academia is rooted in “the foundations of
White, middle-class, community-based cultural and linguistic knowledge,” which
may put underrepresented students at a disadvantage in the academic discourse
community. Successfully navigating educational organizations requires these
students to decode the system, having much less to do with their scholastic ability
than “acquiring and exhibiting the dominant Discourse in social interaction” (1997,
p. 13).
While Stanton-Salazar’s work focuses primarily on elementary and middle
school youth, his framework allows emerging researchers to interpret the roles of
institutional agents, institutionally sanctioned discourses, and funds of knowledge to
higher education settings. Empirical studies that incorporate Stanton-Salazar’s
framework, however, use different terms to express the notion of agency. For
example, the concept of agency can be expressed through the practice of faculty-
student mentoring. In a community college classroom, the interaction between a
23
student and instructor in and out of the classroom is one of the most important
relationships fostered. For instance, Campbell and Campbell (1997) evaluated a
faculty/student mentor program that was evaluated for its effects on student
academic performance and retention. The mentoring program served as a retention
effort at a large metropolitan university on the West Coast of the United States. The
purpose of the mentoring project was to facilitate personal contact between faculty
and students in an effort to help students succeed in reaching their academic goals
and in graduating from the university.
The participants were recruited during the summer prior to entering the
university, and “target students” (namely underrepresented ethnic minorities) were
mailed program information and invited to participate. Faculty participants were
recruited through university-wide program distributions. About 10% of the entire
faculty volunteered to mentor one to four students for an academic year.
Mentors and students were encouraged to meet regularly throughout the year
but were not required to follow a particular structure in their mentoring relationship.
Furthermore, the mentoring programs organized activities to create opportunities for
mentors and students to spend time together. Six workshops throughout the academic
year offered mentor an introduction to learn about mentoring styles, campus
resources, and career network development.
The research study aimed to address five hypotheses: (a) students in
mentoring programs will achieve a higher level of academic performance as
measured by grade-point average and will complete more units of credit; (b)
24
mentored students will have a higher retention rate at the university and will
graduate at a higher rate; (c) academic performance and retention will be unrelated to
gender of mentor or protégé; (d) academic performance and retention will be
unrelated to ethnicity of mentor or protégé; and (e) the number and duration of
mentor-protégé contacts will be positively correlated with GPA and negatively
correlated with retention rate (Campbell & Campbell, 1997, p. 730).
The results showed a higher GPA for mentored students (2.45 vs. 2.29), more
units completed per semester (9.33 vs. 8.49), and a lower dropout rate (14.5% vs.
26.3%). The amount of faculty/student contact was positively correlated with GPA.
Lastly, academic achievement and retention were unrelated to gender and ethnicity
of the mentor, the protégé, or the gender and ethnic math between the two (Campbell
& Campbell, 1997, p. 727). Overall, the study provides evidence that mentoring
relationships improve college student academic achievement. Specifically, through
the process of mentoring, instructors show their commitment to ensuring that their
mentees acquire the resources and opportunities that directly impact their success.
While the work of Campbell & Campbell (1997) highlights academic
achievement, little is said about how students adjust to college life and become
connected to their institution. The work of Larose, Tarabulsy, and Cyrenne (2005)
extends previous research by suggesting that the quality of mentoring relationships
facilitates college students’ social adjustment and institutional attachment.
Larose, Tarabulsy, and Cyrenne’s (2005) quasi-experimental design study
investigated the efficacy of a 10-hour teacher-student mentoring relationship on the
25
academic adjustment of at-risk college students. The participants were from a
private college located Quebec City, Canada and were invited to participate in
mentoring activities based on their poor grades in high school and language
background (all students were either native French speakers or sufficiently fluent).
There was a team of five teacher mentors: two men and three women, who ranged in
age from 27 to 56 years. Under the mentoring program, the teachers received one
day of initial training on common difficulties college students encounter, along with
subsequent weekly meetings with a coordinator.
There were three student groups involved: a comparison group, a high
relatedness/autonomy group, and a low relatedness/autonomy group. Various data
collection procedures included the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment, which
evaluated emotional experiences; an adapted version of the Children’s Report on
Parent Behaviour Inventory, which assessed perceived autonomy in mentoring; the
Student Adaption to College Questionnaire, which assessed students’ adjustment to
college and includes personal adjustment, academic adjustment, social adjustment,
and institutional attachment; students’ high school weighted academic average and
cumulative standardized general mean to evaluate academic performance; and the
Network Orientation Scale, which was used to evaluate general support expectations
(Larose, Tarabulsy, & Cyrenne, 2005).
Overall, the study showed that the quality of mentoring relationships
facilitates college students’ social adjustment and institutional attachment. This
finding aligns with Stanton-Salazar’s theoretical work, which maintains that students
26
need to be introduced to various funds of knowledge through bridging, advocacy,
and role modeling (all important components of successful mentoring) in order to
navigate the higher educational system.
Culturally Responsive Teaching
While the literature contends that institutional support and agency (Stanton-
Salazar, 1997; Campbell & Campbell, 1997; Larose, Tarabulsy, & Cyrenne, 2005)
are essential to student success, it is also imperative for faculty members, acting as
institutional agents, to be sensitive to the diverse cultures in their classrooms.
Because student populations in urban community colleges are so diverse,
practitioners and administrators need to consider ways of adapting traditional
curricula to meet the needs of their diverse students.
Culturally responsive teaching in basic skills requires practitioners and
administrators to (a) implement a curriculum that “capitalizes on students’ cultural
backgrounds” by using materials, examples, and strategies drawn from the students’
various cultural backgrounds (Abdal-Haqq, 1994, pp. 33-43); (b) be socioculturally
conscious (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (c) have an affirming attitude toward students
from culturally diverse backgrounds (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (d) encompass the
commitment and skills to act as agents of change (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (e) learn
about students (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (f) reflect an understanding and application
of the various cultural perspectives on the relationships of students to students and
students to faculty (McCarty, Lynch, Wallace, & Benally, 1991); (g) demonstrate the
knowledge and expertise to recognize the racialized nature of the collegiate
27
experience for African-American and Latino students and adjust practices
accordingly (Bensimon, 2007).
Culturally responsive teaching theory takes a variety of forms in practice.
Instructors who implement it provide a curriculum that capitalizes on students’
cultural backgrounds by using materials, examples, and strategies drawn from their
students’ various cultural backgrounds and may provide books written by diverse
writers. Activities might also reflect the students’ ethnicities and interests. A
socioculturally conscious perspective may include an awareness of the varied
dynamics that culture plays on underrepresented students. Practitioners who have an
affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds view culture
as an asset, not as a deficit. This might include hosting programs and activities that
affirm culture and ethnicity as an integral part of one’s identity and success in
college. Practitioners who encompass the commitment and skills to act as agents of
change understand their importance as institutional agents; they work to introduce
students to the discourses of academia and facilitate the college experience for
underrepresented students. Practitioners who conduct research in their own
classrooms learn about students and look for ways to increase transfer rates to four-
year universities among underrepresented populations.
Researchers argue that an empathic disposition is defined by an increased
sensitivity to diverse cultures and has been identified as a key characteristic in being
effective in urban schools. McAllister and Irvine’s (2002) qualitative study describes
34 practicing teachers’ beliefs regarding the role of empathy as it relates to
28
effectiveness in teaching culturally diverse students. All of the teachers
participated in a multicultural professional development program geared to foster
culturally responsive practice. The professional development seminar called
CULTURES, Center for Urban Learning/Teaching and Urban Research in Education
and Schools, led instructors through a 40-hour cohort program of 14-18 teachers.
Each cohort reflected the diversity of the county and city school systems, grade
levels, teaching experiences, gender, and race. The teachers were of diverse ethnic
and teaching backgrounds: of the 34 teachers, six percent were Latina; 18% White
female; 2% White Male, 74% African-American female. Twenty-nine percent of the
teachers had 0-5 years of teaching experience; 18% with 6-10 years; and 53% with
more than 10 years in the classroom.
The data sources to evaluate teacher attitudes included teachers’ applications
to the project; teachers’ final projects; their exit interviews; and the CULTURES
project report. Three of the sources, final project, exit interviews, and the
CULTURES report, provided self-reported data from teachers.
McAllister and Irvine (2002) found that all of the 34 teachers in the study
believed that empathy was an important factor in working effectively with diverse
students. Most teachers used different words to refer to empathy: sensitivity,
patience, respect, tolerance, acceptance, understanding, flexibility, openness, and
humility were a few of the descriptors that encompass the topic of empathy. Fifty-
nine percent of the teachers attributed changes in their classroom interactions with
their students to the fact that they were using more empathic behaviors. Fifty-six
29
percent of the teachers were concerned about their classroom environments and
reflected on how culturally diverse students might feel in their classrooms. One
participant commented “I must provide a supportive and affirming environment for
students so that they will feel comfortable with their differences instead of ostracized
and frustrated” (p. 441). Sixty-two percent discussed their learning experiences from
CULTURES to show how they shifted their curriculum to focus on students’
interests and embraced a student-centered classroom. Only 3% of the teachers
focused on institutional factors that might perpetuate racism or inequity. Such
disparity in focusing on factors that might perpetuate racism or inequity may inform
the current study because of the focus on institutional learning to aid basic skills
students.
The CULTURES study highlights strategies and contexts that educators can
use to foster empathy among their students and illustrates programs that promote
self-reflection and learning in professional development. The data and findings also
suggest a relationship between culturally responsive teaching and the impact that it
has on the development of institutional agents. Empathy, a condition of culturally
responsive teaching, is necessary if practitioners are to commit to agency.
Reflection
The manner in which educators learn and process information is essential to
serving their student population. Rodgers (2002) builds on McCrary’s work on the
nature of attention and shares the fourfold reflective cycle; the reflective cycle
includes the ability “to discern, differentiate, and describe the elements of (that)
30
learning, to analyze the learning and to respond” (p. 231). The ability to slow
down practitioner thinking in an effort for powerful analysis is an important element
of the reflective cycle. Rodgers (2002) contends that the goals of using the reflective
cycle with educators include (a) developing observation and thinking skills to think
critically and (b) beginning to act on the understanding that manifests from such
reflective thought. Instead of providing outside stakeholders with decision-making
power, the reflective cycle values practitioner knowledge as connected to student
learning. Rodgers supports this point by emphasizing, “Teachers’ classroom practice
must be seen as an integrated, focused response to student learning rather than as a
checklist of teaching behaviors” (2002, p. 233). Therefore, it is advantageous for
instructors to develop themselves as reflective practitioners to “see” how their
students learn.
Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle includes the following phases: (a) presence
in experience; (b) description of the experience; (c) analysis of the experience; and
(d) experimentation. The first phase, presence in experience, focuses on the
instructors’ “presence” to student learning. Presence, according to Rodgers, connotes
an understanding of the way in which an educator perceives student learning and acts
out of sensitivity to the classroom dynamic. Some researchers liken presence to
mindfulness, noting the importance of recognizing the present moment and
approaching such moments with awareness and concentration. Presence, like
mindfulness, allows an educator “to observe what the learner is doing and responds
31
in a way that serves the continuity of that learning” (2002, p. 236). Such
observations allow an instructor to be truly student-centered.
The second phase, description of the experience, is the process of naming an
experience in the absence of bias and judgment. The description phase is the most
difficult of the reflective cycle stages, for it asks educators to “withhold
interpretation of events and postpone their urge to fix the problems” (2002, p. 238).
This stage calls for the practitioners to articulate as many descriptive details as
possible, forcing educators to focus on their thought processes. Rodgers also presents
the distinction between description verses interpretation; description includes the
details of what one sees while interpretation suggests imposing meaning to what one
sees (2002, p. 238). Rodgers cautions the reflective practitioner against negative
generalizations because of the depersonalization of students’ diverse needs. She
states that comments like “They just don’t care” relegate students to the “other” and
allow for teachers to dismiss student voice in the classroom. Within the second
phase, Rodgers introduces the importance of feedback, both ongoing and structured,
in the reflective practitioner’s classroom. Ongoing feedback includes teacher-student
interaction on a daily basis within a classroom setting. Structured feedback places
learning in the hands of students, and educators facilitate this by asking students
questions about their learning processes. The importance of seeing learning through
the students’ eyes allows teachers and students to “become partners in inquiry” (p.
243).
32
The third phase, analysis of the experience, asks reflective practitioners to
make meaning from the description accumulated in the previous phase. Within the
analysis of the experience, Rodgers introduces four sub-phases: (a) grounding
analysis in experience; (b) developing a common analytical language; (c) unearthing
assumptions; and (d) using frameworks. Grounding analysis in experience asks
practitioners to explain why they think the way they think. Developing a common
analytical language cites the importance of having a shared language about teaching
and learning amongst practitioners. According to Rodgers, teachers and
administrators need to communicate in regards to defining terms and words that are
assumed to be “commonly understood” (p. 247). Unearthing assumptions includes
initiating a discussion amongst professional peers to rid assumptions that may affect
action. Lastly, using frameworks highlights the network and hierarchy in which
learning operates. Rodgers cites Hawkins’ “I, Thou, and It” paradigm, which
connects “’I’ as the teacher, the ‘Thou’ as the learner, and the ‘It’ as the subject
matter” which reveal complex relationships.
The last phase of the reflective cycle includes experimentation. Rodgers
(2002) contends that experimentation takes place only after description and analysis,
and the first step towards action occurs within the group in the form of generative
questions: questions like “’What would happen’ if I tried…” would be common at
this step. Reflective practitioners would then carry out their hypotheses that are
based on the iterative phases of the reflective cycle for action in their classrooms.
33
The cycle would then continue, continued with the knowledge, successes, and
failures learned in the reflective cycle.
While Rodgers’ (2002) reflective cycle provides a framework for reflection
in action, an empirical study is absent. McAlpine, Weston, J. Beauchamp, Wiseman,
and C. Beauchamp (1999) provide a metacognitive model of reflection with an
empirical study that applies the model in a higher educational setting. The
researchers draw on the work of Dewey and Schön in developing a model for
professionals to understand and improve professional practice. The model consists of
six components: (a) goals; (b) knowledge; (c) action; (d) monitoring; (e) decision
making; and (f) corridor of tolerance. The model represents an ongoing “iterative
process involving both thought and action” (1999, p.106) and may be conceived of
as an ongoing conversation linking past, present, and future thought and action.
The idea of goals represents a linking between knowledge and action
whereby goals represent the instructor’s intentions for a course or lesson. Although a
goal may remain constant for quite some time, certain feedback may alter goals
(McAlpine et al., 1999). Monitoring and decision making is a two-step process; in
the first step, the instructor monitors the external environment to impact knowledge.
In the second step, the new knowledge influences action, thus the act of decision-
making. Monitoring and decision making function to “maintain, initiate, adjust, or
terminate” (1999, p. 108) a proposed plan. Corridor of tolerance includes how
instructors “read” their classes; that is, if external cues fall within the expected
“reading,” little or no change is made.
34
The researchers then empirically studied their prospective model by
analyzing professors’ recall of their teaching. Six professors participated in the study.
Three had been trained as teachers and three had no educational training but training
in their respective discipline. There were two women and four men, all having taught
in a university a minimum of eight to ten years. The age of all of the participants was
at least 45 years of age. For this particular study, all of the professors taught
undergraduate introductory level math courses. During the study, professors
participated in pre- and post-course interviews, and one-third of the 39-hour courses
were videotaped. Professors were also interviewed while watching the video tapings.
The researchers asked questions that elicited goals, instructional strategies, and
progress from the participants. In their reflective episodes on goals, professors
attended the most to the teaching goals of method (33%), content (24%), student
understanding (26%), and student participation (16%) (McAlpine et al., 1999).
According to the researchers, the most striking finding was that all professors
frequently evaluated student cues: more than 74% of all cues monitored. A limitation
of this study, however, is that not all students show obvious cues, especially when
considering the concept of culture.
The above theoretical and empirical studies are relevant to the current study
to provide an additional lens from which to interpret how faculty and administrators
use reflection to improve how they teach and interact with students.
Now that the importance of agency and culturally responsive teaching and
their subsequent consciousness through reflection have been reviewed, it is worth
35
noting that little is known about how to develop knowledge and behaviors
necessary for effective practitioners. The next chapter explores a project that has the
potential to foster the development of agency and cultural responsiveness in faculty
members who interact with basic skills students. I will use cultural-historical activity
theory (CHAT) as a lens to understand the ways in which these activities can foster
learning. Next, I will describe the background and assumptions of CHAT.
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
Cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) stems from the learning research
and writings on activity theory from Vygotsky. Derived from principles in
sociocultural theory, the theory argues that “human mental functioning is
fundamentally a mediated process that is organized by cultural artifacts, activities,
and concepts” (Ratner, 2002). An assumption of this framework includes the notion
that people use existing cultural artifacts to create new ones that allow them to
regulate and change their behaviors (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). In education, CHAT
is used most often with research on computer-supported collaborative learning
(Koschmann, 1996), human-computer interaction (Kuutti, 1996), and computer-
mediated activity (Kaptelinin, 1996) in which the computer is the artifact in question.
However, the theory works well in the analysis of an object facilitating learning.
Whereas Vygotsky favored the sign or “semiotic mediation” as a single
method of analysis, proponents and researchers of CHAT argue that a more global
view of the activity is needed along with an examination of how the different parts
work collectively (Roth & Lee, 2007). That is, CHAT researchers are interested in
36
learning to see how all parts involved in the learning process inform and affect one
another. The idea of studying the multiple parts as a whole serves as the means by
which new knowledge about the activity being examined becomes apparent
(Engeström, 1987). Engeström (1987) developed a model to present the various
elements of an activity system as shown in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1 Engeström’s (1987, p. 78) Model of the Structure of Human Activity
The Activity Triangle Model or activity system offers a visual representation of
the various components of an activity system viewed as a unified whole. Participants
in an activity are depicted as subjects interacting with objects to achieve desired
outcomes. In the meanwhile, human interactions with each other and with objects of
the environment are mediated through the use of tools, rules and division of labor.
Mediators represent the nature of relationships that exist within and between
participants of an activity in a given community (Engeström, 1987).
37
In activity systems, the most important unit of analysis is activity (Jonassen
& Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). The primary focus of activity systems analysis is the
production of some object, which is represented by the top triangle. The production
of any activity requires a subject, the object of the activity, the tools that are used in
the activity, and the actions that influence an outcome (Nardi, 1996).
The subject of any activity is the individual of group of individuals that are
involved in the activity. For example, in an educational context, the subject may be a
single teacher or a team of teachers. The object of the activity is the physical or
mental product that is desired (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). The object is
acted on by the subject. The object and the intention it carries motivates the activity.
For the educational context example, the object may be a curriculum design or
presentation.
Tools can be anything used in the transformation process (Jonassen & Rohrer-
Murphy, 1999). Tools shape the way people act and think and include anything that
is used to transform the object. For example, in an educational context, the tools may
consist of any software production tools, paper, or pencils.
The community consists of the individual parts, which make up the whole.
Within the educational context, departments and disciplines are part of the
community. The rules, norms, and traditions guide the actions or activities based on
what is acceptable to the community. For example, in an educational context where
collegiality is expected, collaboration and cooperation would be important. Lastly,
the division of labor is established by the specialization of the individuals within the
38
group. The outcome is the “form of instruction that is developed and
implemented” (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 64).
Educational practices can be interpreted through the activity system by
focusing on the “activities that constitute them (practices) and in relation to the
institutional contexts they constitute” (Gutiérrez, 2002, p. 314). The lens of CHAT is
helpful in describing constructivist learning environments from which human
activity is analyzed (Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999). CHAT focuses on the
interaction of human activity and consciousness within its environmental context
(Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy, 1999).
Activity theory focuses on the dynamic relationship between consciousness
and activity (Nardi, 1996). Rather than knowledge being transmitted from one
individual to another, it is socially constructed in activity settings “based on the
intentionality, history, culture, and tool mediation used in the process” (Jonassen &
Rohrer-Murphy, 1999, p. 64). The process of achieving socially constructed
knowledge is uneven and disjointed rather than linear and smooth. That is, learning
only evolves after disagreements and dissent that takes place within a group setting.
Furthermore, not all subjects involved in the activity necessarily understand the
object (motive) or even recognize the overall goal. It is in these disjunctures,
however, that norms are questioned, thus availing subjects to rethink and learn new
ways of knowing how to act as institutional agents that recognize culture.

39
Summary and Relationship among Concepts
To understand how faculty members are influenced to be culturally
responsive and aware of their role as institutional agents, it is worthwhile to
investigate faculty members who work with basic skills students and participate in
action inquiry. In regards to the present study, little is known about how practitioners
are motivated toward institutional agency through inquiry practices.
Stanton-Salazar (1997) provides a framework that theorizes how information
is disseminated through the concept of institutional support and social capital.
However, institutional agency without a recognition and validation of students’
cultural backgrounds does little to improve success for underrepresented students.
Villegas and Lucas (2002) note the importance for faculty members to have an
affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds and to
encompass the commitment and skills to act as agents of change. Furthermore,
McAllister and Irvine (2002) support the importance that empathy plays in working
with diverse students. An understanding of institutional agency coupled with a
recognition of cultural responsiveness has the potential of influencing how faculty
members think about serving their students.
For faculty members to think about how they are affecting change, Rodgers’
(2002) suggests that they reflect on how they are (or are not) being institutional
agents while encompassing culturally responsive practices. The goals of Rodgers’
(2002) reflective cycle include developing observation and thinking skills in an effort
to think critically and beginning to act on the understanding that comes from such
40
reflective thought. Rodgers (2002) names one of the steps toward achieving
reflective thought, “presence in experience.” To summarize the concepts discussed in
this chapter, faculty members who have internalized the concepts of institutional
agency and culturally responsiveness and are committed to acting as change agents
should show “presence in experience.” The ability of faculty members to
demonstrate such presence is likely to increase the chances of their becoming
advocates for their students’ success.
In my study, faculty members are influenced to think about their own agency
and culturally responsive practices through the analysis of the classroom syllabus
and the activity of the syllabus reflection. Thus, in the language of activity theory,
the outcome would be subjects (faculty) who are committed to enhancing student
equity by assessing institutional and classroom practices that improve basic skills
student performance.
Because of the gap in the literature on CHAT theory in higher education, this
study contributes to scholarship by examining participation in an action research
study focused on race and ethnicity through an activity theory perspective. Chapter 3
places the Inquiry Project within the context of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
and presents the methodology of how the study will be investigated.
41
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
In the previous chapter, the concepts which informed my analysis of the
faculty members who participated in an action research project were discussed.
Because the goal of this study and project is to understand the complexities behind
faculty learning, a qualitative approach was selected as an appropriate and valid
method. Specifically, I used the case study method to examine how the activities of
the Inquiry Project influenced four Cal College faculty members (two in English as a
Second Language, one in English, and one in Reading) to become culturally
responsive agents.
In this chapter, the specific research procedures I used to conduct this study
are presented. In the first section, I provide the history of the Inquiry Project. The
second section includes a detailed description of the participant selection and data
collection processes and ethical concerns. Finally, the third section describes the
strategies I utilized for data analysis.
History of Project
The Inquiry Project was intended to enhance effectiveness, efficiency, and
equity at Cal College. The foundation of institutional effectiveness, efficiency, and
equity, according to project documents, is excellence in basic skills and a strong
transfer culture. The goals of the project included increasing the number of students,
particularly African-American and Latino students, who successfully completed their
first transfer-level course after beginning college in basic skills level courses (and
ultimately increase transfer rates); developing an evidence-based model of
42
assessment to improve college effectiveness; and harnessing untapped practitioner
expertise to produce equitable transfer outcomes. Faculty members from math,
English, reading, ESL, and philosophy, and administrators and staff from academic
services, articulation, research and student service areas were appointed by Cal
College’s Superintendent-President in the summer of 2007.
I became involved in the project as a graduate student researcher who
observed the inquiry team meetings and attended team activities along with lead
investigators from the Center for Urban Education. The lead investigators believed
action research methodology was an appropriate method because it was in alignment
with their theory of empowering practitioners-as-researchers. While there is an
expectation in social science that trained professionals should be hired to observe the
setting and apply scientific principles to “solve the problem,” in this action research
setting, the practitioners were empowered to study “the complex dynamics of the
contexts in which they work” (Stringer, 2007). The daily lives of practitioners and
the knowledge of their setting make them the “experts” to formulate effective
solutions to problems that permeate their institutions (Stringer, 2007; Bensimon,
2007).
The action research process is systematic in that it asks practitioners to reflect
on a sequence of events: (a) a problem or issue to be investigated; (b) a process of
inquiry; and (c) explanations that enable individuals to understand the nature of the
problem (Stringer, 2007). Research, in this case, is an extension of the activities that
practitioners engage in every day. Action research methodology was appropriate for
43
this project because the methods in the study were created specifically to fit the
context of the situation. While other forms of research begin with a theory and apply
that theory to a concept, action research is based on the concept that “generalized
solutions may not fit particular contexts or groups of people and the purpose of
inquiry is to find an appropriate solution for the particular dynamics at work in a
local situation” (Stringer, 2007, p. 5).
While the larger project was conducted using the theoretical framework of
action research, for the purposes of my study at Cal College, I selected case study
methodology for its ability to “uncover the interaction of significant factors
characteristic of the phenomenon” (Merriam, 1998, p. 29). Analyzing the events and
activities that took place within the site was an essential component in this case study
at Cal College. While using case study methodology, selecting individuals who can
provide noteworthy responses from which to illuminate the topics under study is
imperative. I selected three faculty members because of their representation in three
related disciplines (English, ESL, and Reading), the reliability of their attendance,
and the quality of their frequent interaction. Furthermore, the sampling of
participants informs the problem of students who do not complete the English
Communication (Area 1) in the Intersegmental General Education Transfer
Curriculum (IGETC), which includes transfer-level English coursework in
composition and critical thinking (University of California, 2008). The ways in
which these faculty members evolved through participation in the larger action
research project was of interest.
44
Activity
Beginning in August 2007, the inquiry team analyzed data that highlighted
student basic skills migration through course sequences in math, composition,
reading, and English as a Second Language. The migration tables were an example
of a self-assessment activity provided by the Center for Urban Education intended to
remediate the norms, rules, and traditions that existed among the team members and
to motivate for remediation in their tools. The team examined course completion
data, disaggregated by race and ethnicity, in pre-transfer and transfer-level
curriculum maps to understand the lack of student success in basic skills coursework.
The inquiry group probed data that showed that about 40% of students enrolled in
the basic skills course English 999 (one level below transfer-level English) were
unsuccessful and more than half of the students enrolled in Reading 900 were
unsuccessful (two levels below transfer-level Reading). The team was also made
aware of the fact that African-American and Hispanic students were overrepresented
in basic skills courses compared to their counterparts and that they experience the
highest rates of attrition. Nearly 40% of the overall student population at Cal College
seeks to earn a Bachelor’s degree, the data suggested that it may be a challenge for
African-American and Hispanic students because of their overrepresentation in basic
skills coursework and subsequent confinement in the basic skills pipeline. The
activity provided the team with new terminology, such as race and ethnicity, which
were added to their existing discourse. Such statistics provided a common
45
understanding for the team members and served as a catalyst for their continued
inquiry activities.
The team then engaged in a collective brainstorming exercise during which
time they questioned the low numbers of student progress into transfer-level courses.
In the exercise, the inquiry team identified a list of hunches, assumptions to explain
their data, which provided the context for the team’s investigation. The team
organized their hunches into four categories: institutional policies and practices,
academic and student services, faculty, and students. Among the hunches explaining
low course success and migration-to-transfer rates for the targeted population, the
team identified the following factors: faculty do not address student anxiety about
writing; they are inaccessible to students; they fail to match teaching styles to
students’ learning styles; faculty members lack innovation; they are unaware of the
unique needs and profile of basic skills students; and they are unaware of available
resources for students.
The event that followed the brainstorming exercise was the activity under
study. The inquiry group reviewed basic skills syllabi and identified recurring
elements that promoted or hindered student learning. Meanwhile, the role of
researchers from the Center for Urban Education was to facilitate the activities by
structuring the team meetings through an organized agenda based on the team’s
previous responses and needs. The team reviewed syllabi from basic skills
coursework in which any identifying faculty information was removed. The
documents were distributed to the team members out of a larger collection. The
46
researchers from CUE developed a protocol based on two sets of criteria: the
information and organization of the document and indicators for equity conscious
practices. Using the first set of criteria, the document itself, the team analyzed syllabi
for completeness and clarity, testing and grading, pacing, and professional
appearance. Using the second set of criteria, indicators for equity conscious
practices, the team identified communication of high expectations, incorporation of
rigorous learning activities, consideration of students’ needs and aspirations,
provision of multiple resources for academic assistance, connection to students’
cultural and historical backgrounds, and promotion of academic transformation and
empowerment. For the purposes of my study, I investigated how participation in the
syllabus review activity and syllabus protocol activity prompted faculty members to
be culturally responsive agents. In other words, did the “remediation” of a key
pedagogical artifact change behavior?
The syllabus reflection activities in the Inquiry Project can be examined
through the lens of the activity triangle model (Engeström, 1987), described in
Chapter 2. First, the subjects of the syllabus self-assessment activity were the faculty
participants from the inquiry team who engaged in the project; for the purposes of
this study, the subjects are participants from the English, English as a Second
Language, and Reading departments.
The object of the subjects’ actions was to generate new knowledge about
effective practices for basic skills students. The outcome for this activity was the
47
increase of success rates of these students through the dissemination of that new
knowledge.
The instrument or tool that represented the subjects’ knowledge was a crucial
pedagogical artifact, the course syllabus. The Center for Urban Education was
involved in remediating the instrument or tool by providing participants with an
equity-minded perspective in the form of a Syllabus Reflection Protocol (Syllabus
Reflection Protocol, Appendix A). The rules for the syllabus activity included both
explicit and implicit guidelines for communication among professionals with
professionals and professionals with students. Within the context of the syllabus self-
assessment activity, there were explicit guidelines: a) be descriptive in your analysis;
b) keep the student in mind; and c) connect your reflection to your own expertise and
practice (Syllabus Reflection Protocol, Appendix A). Further implicit rules were
those that were understood by the professional community within the inquiry group.
The community involved Cal College administrators who were not directly tied to the
project, but were connected to the greater community by representing the institution.
The division of labor included the role of the faculty member and her
responsibilities. The Center for Urban Education employed action research
methodology, which led to the shared creation of the syllabi review protocol. CUE
researchers sought to intervene in an effort to reorganize how faculty members
viewed their own division of labor and to reshape their labor in the form of teaching
practices.

48
Data Collection
I selected three full-time faculty members who participated in the Inquiry
Project and the Syllabus Workshops at Cal College as rich cases to explore the
meaning of these activities. In addition, all were English, English as a Second
Language, and Reading instructors who shared disciplinary context, language,
content, and teaching methods. The data collection phase of this study consisted of
three activities: observations, document review, and interviews.
Observations
By observing team meetings over an academic year and the syllabus
workshop during the latter half of the project, I took note of how individuals acted
through their interest and participation in the Inquiry Project. An advantage that I
had throughout the meetings was that I was physically positioned in the back of the
room, quietly observing the meeting as though it were a large stage with all of the
various actors playing their respective parts. The naturalistic observations (Patton,
2002) that took place at Cal College had their advantages. As Patton (2002) notes,
direct observations allow the inquirer (a) to better understand and capture the context
within which people interact; (b) to be open, discovery oriented, and inductive; (c) to
see things that may routinely escape awareness among the people in the setting; (d)
to learn things that people would be unwilling to talk about in an interview; (e) to
move beyond the selective perceptions of others; and (f) to draw on personal
knowledge during the formal interpretation stage of analysis (pp. 263-264).

49
Document review
The principal documents used for analysis in this study include symposium
notes, the interim and final report to the President, example syllabi, and participant
responses from the syllabus reflection exercise.
During the October 2007 team meeting, the individual participants reflected
on a sample syllabus and evaluated it based on two criteria: the document itself and
indicators for equity conscious practices. The Center for Urban Education’s Syllabus
Reflection Protocol (Appendix A) outlined several content areas: completeness and
clarity; testing and grading; pacing; professional appearance; communication of high
expectations; incorporation of rigorous learning activities; consideration of students’
needs and aspirations; provision of multiple resources for academic assistance;
connection to students’ cultural and historical backgrounds; and promotion of
academic transformation and empowerment. Their individual responses were
recorded and included in the document analysis.
Interviews
This research study included individual interviews of three participants. Each
individual was interviewed twice with possible follow-up communication via
electronic mail and telephone for clarification. Before beginning the interview, I
presented the participant with USC’s Center for Urban Education Informed Consent
for Non-Medical Research and awaited the participant’s signature. After answering
any informational questions the participant had, I used the Center for Urban
50
Education’s Faculty Interview Guide (Appendix B) and the Follow-up Interview
Protocol (Appendix C) for investigating instructional practices and assessment.
The first interview protocol, CUE’s Faculty Interview Guide, consisted of
four sections, which included questions about faculty roles and responsibilities,
instructional views and practices, the context for basic skills/ developmental
education and equity, and the impact of assessment and evaluation (see Appendix B).
The first set of questions under faculty roles and responsibilities sought to provide a
context for the individual participant. The second set of questions under instructional
views and practices prompted for specific examples of participant activities and
projects, which demonstrated (or not) institutional agency. The third set of questions
under the context for basic skills/ developmental education and equity strived to
reveal participant perceptions and attitudes on the issue of basic skills students. The
questions also elicited follow-up probes which asked about participant’s commitment
(or not) to addressing the outcomes of basic skills students. The last set of questions
on the topic of impact of assessment and evaluation was intended to capture
participant’s learning as a result of the syllabus renewal activity.
The second interview protocol (Appendix C) aimed to elicit richer responses,
which supported and built on the themes obtained from the first interview. Of
particular interest was how participation in the Inquiry Project influenced (or not) the
way the participant approached the following semester. Furthermore, the second
interview protocol sought to gather information about how participants’ showed
51
socioculturally consciousness, commitment to acting as change agents, and
empathic practices.
The individual interviews took place on the Cal Community College campus,
primarily in each participant’s respective office. Upon consent, interviews were
audio recorded with subsequent notes taken after the meetings. The interviews lasted
between 60 to 90 minutes and took place in May 2008 and January 2009. Audio files
were then personally transcribed.
For the purposes of this study, I combined the standardized open-ended
interview with the informal conversational interview (ethnographic interviewing)
(Patton, 2002). The protocol developed by the Center for Urban Education
(Appendix B) supplied a list of questions, as explained above, and probing issues to
be explored during the interview. The interview guide approach may have
compensated for my developing skills as a research interviewer (Patton, 2002).
Furthermore, Patton delineates advantages to using standardized open-ended
interviews: (a) the instrument may be made available for those reading the findings
of the study; (b) the focus of the interview respects the participant’s time; and (c)
analysis is facilitated by making responses easily comparable (Patton, 2002, p. 346).
These objectives facilitated analysis by allowing me to compare answers among
participants.
In addition to the standardized open-ended interview, I employed Patton’s
(2002) informal conversational interview manner, which allowed me the flexibility
to probe additional information as themes emerged during interviews. According to
52
Patton, data gathered from informal conversational interviews will be different for
each person being interviewed (2002). Interviews that use the informal
conversational interview will change while new themes are uncovered, building on
information previously shared. Patton asserts that the strengths of the informal
conversational method offer “flexibility, spontaneity, and responsiveness to
individual differences and situational changes” (2002, p. 343). Thus, the
conversational interviewer must “go with the flow” (Patton, 2002).
Position of the Researcher
I have worked in the California Community College system for six years as
an instructional faculty member of English and English as a Second Language. I am,
therefore, acquainted with the functions of English and ESL and familiar with the
professional organizations that govern professional practice. I also participated in
monthly Inquiry Project meetings at Cal College, which familiarized me with the
intricacies of administrative and instructional issues pertaining to institutional
challenges in serving Cal College’s unique underserved student population.
My familiarity with the study setting may have provided a significant
advantage in knowing both the professional and social structure of the institution as
well as the individuals within the Inquiry Project. This familiarity with the
community college system, however, could have been a disadvantage in that I might
have been so embedded in the system and overlooked certain aspects that a
newcomer to a community college setting would have observed. Furthermore, my
ethnic background as a Latina and educational background as a community college
53
transfer student may further bias my perspective. For that reason, as much as
possible, I adopted “empathic neutrality” (Patton, 2002) to observe the actions and
thought processes of the subjects involved; an empathically neutral inquirer “will be
perceived as caring about and interested in the people being studied, but neutral
about the content of what they reveal” (Patton, 2002, p. 569). Therefore, I tried to
observe and analyze my data in a reflective manner attentive to the influence of my
own experiences.
Rigor
In an effort to establish that the research conducted was trustworthy, I
adopted Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) four procedures that assess (a) credibility; (b)
transferability; (c) dependability; and (d) confirmability.
To establish credibility in this study, I employed prolonged engagement,
persistent observation, triangulation, and member checking. The double interview
process and communication through electronic mail showed that participants had
ample opportunities to express their experiences and thought processes. Having
observed the inquiry group for seven months, I observed events and activities that
took place over a sustained period of time, thus satisfying the persistent observation.
I enhanced the credibility of the study through multiple sources (interviews,
document analysis, and observations), thus following methodological triangulation
(Stake, 1995). Upon completion of a thorough Chapter 4 draft, I asked the three
participants to review my account of their words and actions, thus providing a
member check. According to Stake, member checking asks the participant to “review
54
the material for accuracy and palatability” (1995, p. 115) and may encourage the
participants to alter and reword some of my claims that may have been erroneous in
a previous draft. Although Stake (1995) claims such member checks may be
“routine,” such evaluation strengthened my analyses and findings and added
important nuances to my assertions.
The outcomes of this case study may be relevant to other community colleges
that are trying to improve instructional and institutional measures to serve basic
skills students, thus demonstrating transferability.
The dependability of this study is strong because all research procedures were
defined and research instruments were provided.
Confirmability was established because I had an audit trail (Stringer, 2007),
which included instruments, field notes, audio files, and other artifacts related to the
study. These items supported the reliability of this study and provided evidence for
deeming this study trustworthy.
Ethical Concerns
As a researcher involved in graduate level research, an awareness of ethical
concerns is paramount. Before commencing any interviews, a consent form was
distributed along with an informational guide outlining the mission of the Inquiry
Project. Out of respect for the privacy of the participants and for the participating
institution, pseudonyms were used for all participants and any identifying resources.

55
Analysis
The data analysis followed a two-phase process. First, I categorized
participant comments from observations and interviews according to general themes
taken from my conceptual framework. These included the concepts of agency,
reflection, and empathy. Through this initial analysis, I took notes in a separate
journal in which I recorded initial themes as findings. The analysis also allowed me
to refine the focus for the second set of interviews.
I also established three working hypotheses based on the literature of my
conceptual framework. The first hypothesis posited that faculty members need an
awareness of agency to become culturally responsive. To address this hypothesis, the
second interview guide included questions about how faculty members introduce
students to support services and develop activities that welcome students to college
life.
The second hypothesis assumes that faculty members need to show empathy
towards their students. Therefore, the interview guide included questions about how
faculty members “put themselves in their students’ shoes.” Several of the follow-up
probing questions asked for specific classroom examples.
The third hypothesis postulates that faculty members can use reflection as a
tool to think about changing their practice to better serve their diverse students. The
second interview guide, therefore, included questions about how faculty thought
about altering their class curriculum and course content.
56
To categorize the data from the second set of interviews, I started with the
first three codes: agency, reflection, and empathy, and added four more: activity,
tools, race, and equity. The first two, activity and tools, are taken from the literature
of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. The notion of equity is central to the research
out of the Center for Urban Education. After this determination of codes, all
transcripts were categorized under the codes and organized using Microsoft Word.
Presentation of the Interview Data
To support my research question and to account for the particular setting in
which events transpired, I decided to present the data through thematic coding.
Statements within quotations marks show the language of the faculty member.
Statements without quotation marks were parsed to convey an important idea or
thought. Any identifying information, such as faculty and institutional names, were
replaced by pseudonyms that were presented in italics. Verbal fillers, such as “uh”
and “um” were omitted to enhance readability.
In addition, I present my thematic findings through a “thick description”
(Geertz, 1973), a rich, detailed, and concrete description of people in such a way to
understand their process of understanding.
Limitations
While I observed participants’ during team meetings and have documentation
of their awareness of culturally responsive teaching, this study may be made richer
by an observation of classroom practices and how instructors adjusted their
curriculum and presentation based on the discussions during inquiry meetings.
57
Furthermore, the interview data used in this study includes self-reported practices,
beliefs, and attitudes, which may be inaccurate. It would be valuable to observe the
instructors in a classroom setting to witness their practices first-hand.
Secondly, because of the various interventions in which the participants
attended, I cannot be certain if the participants were influenced to strive toward
advocacy solely based on the Inquiry Project. Other conferences, workshops,
readings, and professional development opportunities may have also contributed to
the practitioners change in beliefs, attitudes, and practices.

58
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
In my research, I maintain that accountability measures for community
college faculty are not structured in ways that help instructors become
knowledgeable and reflective about facilitating the success of students of color in
basic skills courses. Current assessments do little to address faculty cultural
competency or support faculty in becoming change agents for underrepresented
students. Another model of assessment, but not often utilized, involves inquiry.
Activities that facilitate a culture of inquiry, characterized by professionals who
“identify and address problems through purposeful analysis of data about student
learning and progress” (Dowd, 2005), allow faculty members to gather, analyze,
discuss, and reflect on data disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
The activities and events that stemmed from the Inquiry Project allowed for
the participants at Cal College to review and reflect upon instructional practices and
practitioner attitudes that affect underrepresented student success. To understand the
extent to which faculty members were influenced as a consequence of their
reflection, this case study aims to answer the following question: How does faculty
participation in a research project focused on racial and ethnic equity promote
awareness of culturally responsive teaching? The results in this chapter show the
degree to which participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and practices were altered as a result
of participation in the Inquiry Project.
In this chapter, I use Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) to explore
the activities that informed participant growth during the Inquiry Project. As
59
presented in Chapter 2, an assumption of CHAT includes the notion that people
use existing cultural artifacts to create new ones that allow them to regulate and
change their behaviors (Lantolf & Thorne, 2006). Using CHAT has allowed me to
interpret my findings in a more comprehensive manner while considering how
mediation influenced participant beliefs and practices. In order to best convey the
information for this case study, I decided to present my thematic findings through a
“thick description” (Geertz, 1973), a rich, detailed, and concrete description of
people in such a way to understand their process of understanding.
In this chapter, I first provide the context for the activities in the Inquiry
Project and use Cultural-Historical Activity Theory to examine them. Then, I
introduce the participants I investigated. Lastly, I present results and findings based
on the themes that arose from the data analysis: moving from identifying the problem
to modifying the curriculum, sharing struggle, recognizing the complex lives of basic
skills students, embracing the advocate role, and remediating practice.
Inquiry Group Activities Analyzed through CHAT
As expressed in Chapter 3, the Inquiry Project facilitated practitioner inquiry
through a series of activities. The project remediated the rules, norms, and traditions
(guidelines for communication) by allowing the subjects (faculty members) to reflect
on another tool (a syllabus) through lenses of cultural responsiveness and agency.
The activity enabled the faculty members to understand the importance of empathy
and agency, which led the faculty members to remediate their own syllabus. Through
60
a change in tone and content, the subjects altered the artifact of the syllabus
through reflecting, empathizing, and acting as agents.
The object (new knowledge gleaned from participation in workshops) led to a
change in the labor (role) of the faculty member. For example, participants
implemented study skills into their curriculum while acknowledging the importance
of a personal connection (empathy) with their students. Such modifications led to
changes in the classroom community by equipping students with the resources to
succeed in college through their use of support services and participation in campus
activities (i.e., campus field trips and scholarship opportunities). The effect of these
activities on the overall outcome, increasing the success rates of basic skills students
through the dissemination of that new knowledge, is not yet evident and would
require additional, longitudinal research.
61

Figure 4.1 An Application of Engeström’s Model of the Structure of Human Activity
(1987, p. 78) to the Inquiry Project
Figure 4.1 shows an application of Engeström’s Model of the Structure of Human
Activity (1987, p. 78) to the activities of the Inquiry Project. The activities of the
project can be examined through the Activity Triangle Model because it offers a
visual representation of the various components of an activity system viewed as a
unified whole.
Before the meeting with Cal College, members at the Center for Education
prepared a brief outline of proposed activities and topics for the upcoming workshop
series. According to the proposed outline from CUE, workshop one was to introduce
aspects that included faculty members as agents of change and equity-minded
Mediating Artifact:
e.g., syllabus
Faculty
Members
New knowledge about
effective practices for
basic skills students
Increase of success rates
Guidelines for
communication
Greater
community
Faculty role(s)
62
practices. Workshop two was to present components of culturally responsive
pedagogy, assessing student learning, and constructing the ideal syllabus. Lastly,
workshop three was to address active learning and a continuation of constructing the
ideal syllabus.
The learning objectives that CUE introduced included learning how equity-
conscious syllabi can enhance student success; learning the components of the
equity-conscious syllabus, understanding the role, and power, of faculty members in
transforming basic skills instruction; connecting the importance of well-constructed
syllabi in meeting the objectives of (Cal College’s) student success plan; and
understanding how to make the syllabus responsive to the students’ needs. Included
in the proposed plan for workshop were indicators of equity-minded practitioners:
being color conscious (as opposed to color-blind) in an affirmative sense; being
aware of racially-bounded beliefs, expectations, and practices; being able to
demonstrate “authentic caring” (Valenzuela, 1999); being willing to assume
responsibility for the elimination of inequality; and being data-oriented for
assessment.
While the intent of CUE was to introduce the action inquiry team at Cal
College to components of equity-minded syllabus, during a follow-up team meeting,
certain team members felt that the term “equity-minded” sounded “loaded” and may
“turn people off.” In general, the team members were concerned with alienating
faculty members from hearing the goal of their message—improving student success.
Furthermore, when members from CUE referred to Cal College as an Hispanic-
63
Serving Institution (HSI), several faculty members were not aware of the federal
designation of their own campus and found the label repelling.
At the following team meeting, some team members expressed that “best
practices” sounded better than “equity.” For example, one team member suggested
they focus on best practices to “bring all groups up to average as opposed to just
African-American students.” Another team member shared that she “can’t get over
the labels and characterizes it as a “slap in the face.” She finds them “offensive.” In
the team meeting, it seemed as though the team had digressed from the initial focus
of equity-mindedness and changed to include, what they called, the “nuts and bolts”
of creating a syllabus as opposed to the influence it can have on the classroom.
As a result of CUE and the Cal College action inquiry team working together,
they decided on a series of workshops entitled “Promoting Student Success Through
Your Syllabus.” Some of the initial recommendations from CUE remained in the
outline, such as acknowledging “faculty as agents,” but the team preferred the
terminology “faculty as agents of student success.” The team disregarded the initial
idea of “equity-minded practices” and opted for “academic know-how and cultural
resources.” To increase participants’ awareness of the differences between their own
college experience and those of their students, Cal College team members moderated
a cultural knowledge inventory. During the inventory, participants were mindful of
their knowledge of succeeding in college and later reflected on how that knowledge
could be shared with their students. For example, Table 4.1 explores how
participants translated their own knowledge to knowledge to be shared with students.
64

Table 4.1
Faculty Knowledge to Shared Faculty-Student Knowledge
Academic Know-How and Cultural
Resources our Students Need
Ways of Sharing our Academic Know-
How and Cultural Resources with
Students
Learn how to study for an exam Provide practice sessions; provide mock
exams; provide review sessions, etc.

While Workshop one focused on having participants think of themselves as
agents of student success, workshop two provided an example of one particular team
member’s evolution of a syllabus. The team member shared how in the beginning,
his readings and essay assignments did not take into consideration student interest
and background. His later assignments included using current popular novels,
custom texts, and electronic texts to engage students. Just as the participants omitted
initial CUE themes from workshop one, the participants likewise altered the content
of workshop two. Omitted topics included components of culturally responsive
pedagogy and assessing student learning. A possible reason for the exclusion may
relate to the conversation that emphasized “best practices” over “equity” in fear of
participants’ disapproval.
As initially suggested by CUE, workshop three was to address active learning
and a continuation of constructing the ideal syllabus. The action inquiry team
focused on active learning through introducing a digital ethnography project that
highlighted today’s “net Generation” or “Millennial” students (as defined by being
65
born between 1980 and 1994, smart but impatient, prefer to learn by doing, have
friends from diverse backgrounds, communicate most frequently using text
messaging or blogging, submit coursework electronically, get feedback on
information electronically, see Howe & Strauss, 2003). A conversation then followed
on how to engage students using resources with which they are familiar and
comfortable, such as online course management systems.
The conversation from workshop three then progressed into a larger discussion
on learning styles and asking faculty to connect active learning to recognizing
different ways of learning. The team emphasized rethinking student learning and
providing alternative activities, projects, and readings as part of course curriculum.
For example, one member of the syllabus workshop noted that students “have been
in front of a computer their whole lives” and instructors should “catch their
attention… [with] constant stimulus.” Another member shared how she creates
games, such as “The Price is Right” or “Let’s Make a Deal” to engage her fashion
students.
The exchange between CUE and Cal College’s action inquiry team is an
example of the process of achieving socially constructed knowledge. According to
Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, socially constructed knowledge is uneven and
disjointed rather than linear and smooth. Learning evolves after disagreements and
dissent that takes place within a group setting. At first, researchers from CUE
introduced indicators of equity-minded practices as a tool to reshape the way
members of the action inquiry team thought about their beliefs, attitudes, and
66
practices toward working with basic skills students. However, the action inquiry
team was resistant to this concept because of the rules, norms, and traditions, which
are acceptable (or unacceptable) to the Cal College community. The reaction of the
action inquiry team showed that discussing equity-minded practices was not
acceptable and, in turn, the team reevaluated their focus to recognize student success
through the artifact of the classroom syllabus.
I will now introduce the participants in my research project and present how
their individual beliefs, practices, and attitudes were influenced as an outcome of
their involvement in the Inquiry Project.
Background of the Participants
The three participants in this case study are from the English, Reading, and
English as a Second Language departments. They are all full-time faculty members
with three to five years of teaching experience at Cal College. They actively
participate in professional organizations, including the National Academy of
Education (NAED), the College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA), and
California Teachers of English as a Second Language (CATESOL). They have also
played a role in Cal College’s student success and basic skills committees and the
college’s supplemental instruction (SI) program.
When “Leslie” first started teaching at Cal College, she developed a fondness
for her developmental students because the students “tend[ed] to be a little bit more
open” as opposed to transfer-level students. Her fondness for developmental students
67
led her to participate in the Inquiry Project, during which time she made
significant strides to modify her English curriculum to better meet the needs of her
students.
“Joanna” was greatly influenced by her participation in the syllabus reflection
exercise. One of the outcomes of her participation includes the addition of a diversity
paragraph to her syllabus, which serves to welcome students and establishes a tone
of reciprocal respect that begins on the first day of the semester.
“Cindy” promoted student services to her students by bringing campus fliers
to campus and announcing transfer and career fairs. She also encouraged some of her
students to participate in a campus essay competition.
Key Findings
Five key findings emerged from the results of this study as discussed below:
these are categorized by the themes “moving from identifying the problem to
modifying the curriculum”; “sharing of faculty struggles”; “recognizing the complex
lives of basic skills students”; “embracing the advocate role”; and “remediating
practice.” The process of identifying the problem explains how the participants came
to terms with the basic skills success and retention predicament, and modification of
the curriculum reveals how the participants remediated their classroom artifacts to
address the problem they had identified. Sharing of faculty struggles illustrates how
faculty members communicated their own efforts to overcome troublesome courses
in their own experiences as a student. Recognizing the complex lives of basic skills
students relates how faculty members demonstrated empathy in working with their
68
diverse students. Embracing the advocate role provides insight into how
participants adopted a proactive approach to supporting their students’ success.
Lastly, remediating practice shows how faculty members revised their own
classroom practices and curriculum to better equip students with practical study
skills to promote their students’ success.
Moving from Identifying to Modifying: Remediating Artifacts
In the third syllabus workshop, entitled Promoting Student Success through
Your Syllabus, a member of the action inquiry team facilitated a discussion that
reminded team members and other faculty members in attendance about how today’s
students learn. The participant shared a digital ethnography, “A Vision of Students
Today,” which demonstrated how students of the millennial generation learn. A
conversation then followed about how faculty members should take into
consideration various types of student learning. During the workshop, while on the
topic of incorporating diverse learning methods, Leslie commented that she realized
she was not addressing learning styles in her syllabus and subsequent course
activities: “How are we using learning styles? I look at my own syllabus and realize
that it’s not as diverse [as I thought]. Maybe we should [look at own syllabus]?” This
type of introspection prompted Leslie to evaluate whether or not she was being
effective in addressing the diversity of her students through various learning
activities. She also brought this issue up during a team meeting, thus prompting the
team to think about the degree to which they engage in diverse teaching approaches.
69
Later in the semester, during an interview, Leslie communicated how the
Inquiry Project helped her to think about revisiting her practice:
I think a lot of what we covered as far as basic skills students, ill-prepared
students. I spent a lot of time over the summer thinking about how best do I
help these students out, and I noticed that I was getting more and more
frustrated as the semester has progressed because my students were not doing
what I thought they should be able to do at college level, and I thought two
things were happening. One, I was getting incredibly frustrated which was
not making me a very helpful presence in the classroom, and two, they
weren’t getting much out of it when we just kept going through and saying,
“Well you need to know these things, you need to know these things.”
The frustration that Leslie encountered, in this case, is not uncommon for teachers of
developmental students (Almeida, 1991); however, the way she managed her
frustration moved from a mindset of apathy toward that of agency:
I started thinking about, and I was really irritated and frustrated at the end of
last semester, in a sense, that I thought, “I don’t know if I can keep doing
this.” I don’t feel like anything I’m doing is making much of a difference. I
feel like my students are not really wanting to be there. You know the
attrition rate in developmental classes is so astronomical and it’s easy to kind
of get discouraged. I kind of pulled myself up and I said, “You can either get
discouraged or you can do something about it” and so I wanted to do
something about it.
Leslie’s thought processes on how she went from apathy to agency are evident in her
self-questioning:
“What’s bothering me?” or “where do I see where my students are
struggling?” So I tried to break it down from that which was “I think they’re
struggling with the fact that they’re even in this class and finding any
meaning in that” and so it was a matter of deconstructing the class itself. And
even though they’re still writing and they’re still writing essays and they’re
still learning how to do that, I think the process I went through was really
kinda starting at square one. You know, “what do I want them to focus on?
How do I achieve that?”

70
In this scenario, Leslie was grappling with the problem and striving to seek
solutions. She mentioned a process for her thinking (“starting at square one”) to help
her identify and confront the struggles that her students were experiencing. In the
case of Leslie, the project gave her a new way to think about teaching her students.
Joanna shared a similar experience to that of Leslie’s during the same third
syllabus workshop. During the conversation of diverse learning styles, Joanna
claimed that teachers teach in the learning style that is comfortable for them: “That’s
really a problem…if I do what I’m comfortable [with]. [It’s] not good for students to
learn through only one learning style.” She expressed that this may be problematic
for students with different ways of learning.
Joanna experienced a similar manner of self-questioning that Leslie did as
well: “’What’s the matter here?’… So when we talk about fixing the teachers, which
is what we’re talking about, we’re talking about our responsibility as educators. We
can’t change the students’ life experience.” Joanna thinks about the problem and
reframes it in a way in which she accepts responsibility for the problem.
An important outcome that resulted from Joanna’s thinking took the form of
considering and including a paragraph on diversity in her syllabus after the syllabus
reflection activity and syllabus workshops. She felt that although there was always
an implication of an appreciation of diversity, it was never clearly articulated:
I’ve created a very specific diversity paragraph because I felt like I was just
implying that appreciation of our diversity and eagerness to incorporate their
[students’] life experiences. I think that was probably very much in my head
and not apparent to them. So if I’m going to be a big syllabus promoter, then
I need to make it clear. And so I did. And so I wrote a paragraph that I’m
now going to put in all of my syllabi to say that look around us: we have
71
different ages… and ethnicities, races, combinations of races, and life
experiences, and if we collectively welcome that, we’re going to have a rich
welcoming experience. I certainly welcome you as an individual and you as
part of our class with all these features. And I felt pleased to have been made
aware that that had to be clearer.

The recognition of classroom diversity was for Joanna a significant addition to a
syllabus in terms of analyzing a tool through the lens of culturally responsive
teaching; however, she adamantly denied race and strived to see her classroom as
color-neutral:
I think about these statistics [disaggregated by race and ethnicity] and I
wonder how the outcomes of success for various ethnicities ought to
influence me. I continue to want to work to see individuals in my group, but
it is a group and it’s a diverse group, but I really want to treat people equally,
yet with sensitivity to what I perceive as their background. But I may not
know their background. And certainly I’m not going to plant their
background on them by the color of their skin—I’m not gonna do it!

Joanna’s reflection led her to include a paragraph, which affirmed ethnic and racial
diversity, thus affecting her classroom practice. Even though Joanna tried not to use
cultural background to inform her approaches with students, the addition of the
diversity paragraph in her syllabus was an important one. It was a symbolic gesture,
no matter how small, that told the students that they were all welcome.
Cindy’s experience after the syllabus reflection exercise and syllabus
workshop prompted her to question her own practices and to make changes to her
syllabus. In her analysis of a sample math syllabus during the earlier syllabus
reflection exercise, she observed that the tone of the text was “condescending and
punitive” and did not bring the students into the course (“There is only one mention
of ‘we’ in the syllabus”).
72
Through her experience in the syllabus workshop and syllabus reflection
activity, Cindy thought about her own ESL syllabus using the indicators expressed in
the syllabus reflection protocol:
I basically looked at everything. I looked at how it was formatted. I looked at
the text. I looked at the fonts. I looked at the tone that I was taking. I looked
at the type of information I was including. I wanted to be more inviting.
Cindy expressed her thought process, which took place after the syllabus workshop
and syllabus reflection activity, and shared how she was influenced to change her
syllabus because of it. She mentioned that one of the advantages of having attended
and participated in the syllabus workshop included the generation of ideas regarding
effective practices with students: She continually asked herself, “Why don’t we do
this?” to improve her practice.
Table 4.2 shows an overview of how participants’ reflected on the problem
and moved towards changes in beliefs and practice:

73
Table 4.2
Remediating Artifacts
Leslie “I was getting more and more frustrated as the
semester has progressed.”
“You can either get discouraged or you can do
something about it.”
Joanna “What’s the matter here?”
Cindy “I basically looked at everything… how it was
formatted… the text… the fonts… the tone… I wanted
to be more inviting.”
“Why don’t we do this?”
From the data presented in this section, it appears that all three participants
experienced a process of encountering the problem of serving basic skills students,
with some level of emotional attachment, to working out a solution toward
remedying the situation. For Leslie, encounter appeared in the form of frustration (“I
was getting more and more frustrated as the semester has progressed”), yet her
emotional attachment to her students led her to a proactive process of embracing
change (“You can either get discouraged or you can do something about it”). For
Joanna, encounter emerged in the form of coming to terms with the problem
(“What’s the matter here?”) to reflecting on what changes she could make by
changing the text of her classroom syllabus (“I’ve created a very specific diversity
paragraph?”). Cindy’s process was similar to Joanna’s in that she encountered the
74
problem through the artifact of a math colleague’s syllabus (the text was
“condescending and punitive”) and decided to address the situation by altering her
own ESL classroom syllabus (“I basically looked at everything… how it was
formatted… the text… the fonts… the tone… I wanted to be more inviting”).
Cindy’s questioning-- “Why don’t we do this?”-- may also prompt her to make more
global changes concerning how her department addresses serving basic skills
students’ needs.
The participants’ positions can be interpreted through Rodgers’ (2002)
reflective cycle to illuminate how they experienced changes in their beliefs and
practices. For example, all three participants experienced the first phase of the
reflective cycle, presence in experience, because the participants encountered a
recognition of the problem. This situation, according to Rodgers (2002), parallels the
concept of mindfulness: allowing an educator to observe… and focusing on ways to
respond.
The second phase, description of the experience (Rodgers, 2002), is the
process of naming a reflective experience without bias or judgment. At the beginning
of Leslie’s experience, she did not withhold judgment for the lack of study skills her
students’ have (“You need to know these things”) and, at times, blamed high school
and familial experiences as a lack of students’ knowledge about how to succeed in
college. Leslie’s remark about the lack of study skills her students’ have, however, is
not consistent with the other participants as evidenced in the data collected. Neither
75
Joanna nor Cindy showed evidence of naming the reflective experience (Rodgers,
2002).
The third phase, analysis of the experience (Rodgers, 2002), took place
throughout the team meetings and syllabus reflection exercise. For example, the
participants were presented with data disaggregated by race and ethnicity to
understand the problem of inequitable outcomes for basic skills students. This
activity allowed the participants to share a point of reference to the problem. The
participants, however, did not interpret their own classroom situations from a lens of
race and ethnicity. In fact, the topic of race seemed to be a taboo topic and was not
confronted.
The last phase, experimentation (Rodgers, 2002), are the first steps towards
action and is evidenced by generative questioning. Questions like, “What would
happen if…” are common during this phase. Leslie asked herself several questions
during the course of the project: “How are we using learning styles?”; “What’s
bothering me?”; and “Where do I see where my students are struggling?” Joanna,
likewise, expressed a great deal of self-questioning: “What’s the matter here?” is a
comment that appeared throughout the data collected. Cindy mentioned that after the
project was over, she continually asked herself, “Why don’t we do this?” in an effort
to think about changes, individual and institutional, that need to be made.
Of the four phases, it seems as though the participants experienced more from
phase one, presence in experience, and phase four, experimentation rather than
phases two and three. This finding suggests that the participants identified the
76
problem and were eager to explore a solution to enact change. These findings are
also consistent with rethinking the ways in which the participants’ teaching, or labor
in the language of Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, was altered. The syllabus
reflection activity and subsequent discussions during syllabus workshops challenged
the practitioners to rethink their practice in ways that can better serve their basic
skills students.
Sharing Struggles
In this section, I will explore how faculty shared their own educational
struggles to connect to their students and act as advocates interested in their student
success.
Leslie reported to me that she makes it known to her students that they are
welcome to talk to her, despite the inherent power dynamic between instructor and
student:
I always try and tell them please come and talk to me. And I try to give them
some of my personal experiences often times… about how I was really
intimidated by my instructors when I was in college. And I try and tell them
that I went to community college also.

In the busy setting of a community college, Leslie communicated the
importance of providing opportunities for students seeking help to ask questions. She
further shared experiences of her own struggles and failures as a community college
student:
I want them to see that I’ve gone through a lot… I tell them that their
English class is what math class was for me because even though I wasn’t,
even though I don’t tell them, in developmental English, I was certainly in
developmental math like nobody’s business. I even tell them that I had to
take a class that wasn’t even a transfer level class three times before I finally
77
passed it. And I think by saying that, it kind of makes them feel like, “Oh,
okay. She’s human, she’s not perfect. And she struggled. I want them to see
that people who struggle can still be successful.” People who are successful
are not born successes. You have to work at it.

Similar to Leslie, Joanna recognized that a successful basic skills instructor
is one who “ideally, really, is a teacher who has had a lot of trouble him or herself.”
While she did not provide a narrative of her own failure, she did share an experience
of how her friend’s struggles in a developmental math class encouraged Joanna to
engage her students instead of lecturing to them and disregarding their individual
experiences.
In a similar vein, Cindy shared stories of her own troublesome experiences
with economics:
Sometimes telling personal stories, I find that my students kind of perk up a
little bit when they find out that I hated my economics class, and it was
awful… just making it seem like I’m human… that I didn’t get the best
grades and for every class I walked into, that there were things I struggled
with, so letting them know that.

While sharing stories of failure may possibly be interpreted as spreading a
pedagogy of failure, in these scenarios, failure is a way of sharing the notion of
persistence and the potential positive impact that persistence can have on students’
lives. According to Cindy, “Stories of failure aren’t really shared. Stories of success
are… I’m willing to share with my students my failings, which makes me, I hope, a
little bit more human.” In the expression of struggle and storytelling among the three
participants, empathy is displayed as affirming the students’ experiences and
communicating that their trouble need not stifle their success.
78
The sharing of struggle that faculty members reported is consistent with
two of Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, p. 11) forms of institutional support: role modeling,
by providing a representational model to how a student acts, and providing emotional
and moral support. The faculty members used their own experiences to show how
they overcame obstacles and the resources they needed to persist in their educational
endeavors. Furthermore, the sharing of struggles shows emotional and moral support
by allowing the instructors to display their awareness of their students’ struggles and
serves as a bridge of shared struggle between faculty and students.
In addition, the sharing of struggles can be examined through the practice of
faculty-student mentoring (Campbell & Campbell, 1997). The interaction between a
student and instructor in a community college classroom is one of the most important
relationships fostered. The personal communication between faculty and students
may help students succeed in reaching their academic goals.
Recognizing the Complex Lives of Basic Skills Students
While stories of struggle are one way in which these participants expressed a
connection to their students, they also recognized the diverse backgrounds and
experiences that their students bring to their classrooms. Leslie recognized that while
she received familial support for her college experience, few of her basic skills
students feel that same level of support: “I think their lives are incredibly, incredibly
complex. I think for a lot of them they don’t get the support all the time from home.
So there’s not a whole lot of flexibility… They’re so diverse.” It is in recognizing the
lack of support students receive at home that Leslie realized her role as a basic skills
79
educator: to prepare her students for the challenges they will face and need to
overcome in college to be successful.
Discussions with her students have also informed Leslie of how students have
been previously treated in their academic life. During a classroom discussion on an
essay that discussed a student coming to terms with being called stupid by his
teacher, Leslie was shocked that an overwhelming majority of her students were not
surprised. After asking her students whether or not a teacher would really call a
student ‘stupid,’ she recounted her students’ comments:
Other people chimed in like, “Oh my gosh, of course,” and I think they
thought it was funny because I literally had my jaw on the floor. [I thought]
“No, nobody would really say that.” [And the students responded,] “I’ve had
people tell me that.” I was so appalled, and it really opened my eyes to the
fact I have no idea sometimes what they’re walking in with and sometimes I
think “oh, that person has such a chip on their shoulder.” And it’s not a chip
on their shoulder. It’s like a defense mechanism… Doing these types of
activities opens my eyes to what they need. They need somebody who truly
believes that they can do something. I think for a long time they’ve been told,
“you’re not going to amount to anything.”…I think what could potentially
happen is that I’m planting a seed somewhere that along the way they’ll kind
of start to get it… at least there’s a little more positivity.

Through this description of her class, it is evident that Leslie was not entirely
aware of the complex experiences of her students. However, her participation in the
workshop discussions led to a commitment to her students’ success, and she
introduced a text that she would not have previously. As a result, she became aware
of the emotional and personal circumstances that basic skills students bring to the
classroom. Through this awareness, one hopes that Leslie will continue to connect
emotionally to her students and affirm their experiences.
80
Another example of participant awareness of the emotional and personal
circumstances surrounding basic skills students was expressed by Joanna during a
team meeting in which members of the project were discussing the upcoming
syllabus reflection activity. While brainstorming what a successful syllabus should
look like, Joanna reiterated the importance of understanding where students “are
coming from”: “The culture of basic skills students is that they already have so much
on their plate and plenty to do and they want to be rewarded for whatever work they
have already done.”
In a later interview after the project had been completed, Joanna affirmed her
students’ previous negative experiences and spoke of an empathic disposition in how
she communicated with them:
You just need to back off with the ‘should’ and just see what they need. They
may not get to where they have to be by the end of the semester but if you
can connect, then you can at least help them do what they can do if they’re
willing to if you can help them grow as far as they’re willing to grow… Even
the ones with bad behavior, I try to just mellow out to see if we can improve
that, that they’ll not be so defensive and to trust me.

From the previous scenario, it is evident that Joanna valued learning with her
students and took into consideration their needs before those prescribed by herself,
the faculty member. There was an affirmation of the connection between faculty and
student and the value of reciprocal trust.
Cindy, likewise, expressed a connection to her students by recognizing that
they may be new to college (and in the case of ESL students, new to the country) and
are making adjustments in their personal lives:
81
Life happens. [And it is important] to acknowledge that they are human,
and they need to take care of who they are right now and, being twenty, or
twenty one, or twenty five is hard enough. So, acknowledging just that they
have lives.

In this particular situation, it is evident that Cindy recognized the intricacies
of being a college student, especially when students are also experiencing the natural
stressors of also being a young adult.
Table 4.3 shows an overview of participant responses:
Table 4.3
Recognizing the Complex Lives of Basic Skills Students
Leslie Their lives are “complex” and that they may not get
“the support… from home.”
Joanna “You just need to back off with the ‘should’ and just
see what they need.”
Cindy “…to acknowledge that they are human, and they need
to take care of who they are right now.”

Through these examples, empathy, one of the measures of culturally
responsive teaching, is expressed through the consideration of students’ needs and
aspirations. In the participant examples, the importance of affirming students’ needs
and aspirations before those of the instructor is a consistent theme.
Culturally responsive teaching in basic skills is demonstrated when
practitioners (a) implement a curriculum that “capitalizes on students’ cultural
backgrounds” by using materials, examples, and strategies drawn from the students’
82
various cultural backgrounds (Abdal-Haqq, 1994, pp. 33-43); (b) are
socioculturally conscious (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (c) have an affirming attitude
toward students from culturally diverse backgrounds (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (d)
encompass the commitment and skills to act as agents of change (Villegas & Lucas,
2002); (e) learn about students (Villegas & Lucas, 2002); (f) reflect an understanding
and application of the various cultural perspectives on the relationships of students to
students and students to faculty (McCarty, Lynch, Wallace, & Benally, 1991); and
(g) demonstrate the knowledge and expertise to recognize the racialized nature of the
collegiate experience for African-American and Latino students and adjust practices
accordingly (Bensimon, 2007).
From the scenarios presented in this section, it appears that all three
participants demonstrated some components of culturally responsive teaching. One
of the most consistent findings in the section is the sharing of participants’ own
shortcomings in their educational experiences: Leslie struggled with math and Cindy
with economics. Although Joanna did not report struggling as a student, she also
recognized the value of teachers’ sharing their educational struggles with their
students. This finding is consistent with cultural responsiveness by affirming the
students’ difficulties with their own education as legitimate and part of the process of
education. Likewise, it is reflective of the commitment faculty must have to
understand the cultural backgrounds of their students.
All participants recognized the complexities behind the diverse backgrounds
of basic skills students. For example, Leslie acknowledged that her students’ lives
83
were “complex” and that they may not get “the support… from home” to succeed
in higher education. Leslie also shared a revelatory experience from which she
learned that many of her students have been called “stupid” in pervious educational
experiences (“I was so appalled… it really opened my eyes”). This finding is
consistent with Villegas and Lucas’ (2002) assertion that “Teachers also need insight
into how their students’ past learning experiences have shaped their current views of
school and school knowledge” (p. 26), thus fulfilling the indicator of learning about
students. Through the experience, Leslie realized that while sometimes students may
enter courses with a “chip on their shoulders,” it is because previous experiences
have led students to demonstrate detachment as a “defense mechanism.”
The findings for Joanna and Cindy are consistent with the indicators of
demonstrating an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse students
and reflecting an understanding and application of the various cultural perspectives
on the relationship of students to faculty. For Joanna, listening to her students’ needs
is more important than having them fulfill the expectations of the course curriculum
(“You just need to back off with the ‘should’ and just see what they need”).
Similarly, for Cindy, acknowledging that students are human and experiencing life
stressors is part of being a good instructor (“…to acknowledge that they are human,
and they need to take care of who they are right now”). The examples described
above indicate that the participants were socioculturally conscious (Villegas &
Lucas, 2002) and demonstrated the knowledge and expertise to recognize the
84
racialized nature of the collegiate experience for African-American and Latino
students and adjust practices accordingly (Bensimon, 2007).
However, although the participants recognized the importance of adjusting
their practices as a result of their participation in the inquiry activities they
consistently avoided talking about race within the context of African-American and
Latino students. For example, during an October team meeting in which the team
members were discussing a handout on equity-conscious practices, the team
members, in general, were uncomfortable with discussing the concept of equity-
mindedness and directly confronting the issue of race. Leslie feared the language in
the document, such as “cultural predisposition” sounded “loaded” and wishes to
change the phrasing to “cultural attributes.”
Similarly, during the same team meeting during the discussion of equity-
conscious practices, Joanna expressed her disdain of using terminology that isolates
race; she stated that she “can’t get over the labels” and characterizes them as a “slap
in the race” of equality and “offensive.”
During the same team meeting, Cindy talked about how she does not
incorporate readings that appeal to students’ diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds
and experiences. She uses readings that are considered “American classics” and does
not include readings on the immigrant experience because she does not consider it to
be an “American experience.”
85
Later during our first interview, Leslie shared that she incorporates
readings by diverse authors and mentioned how students repeatedly connect to
readings from authors of similar cultural backgrounds:
It’s just so fascinating to me…We’ll read Judith Ortiz Coffer’s essay on …
when they [her family] moved from Puerto Rico to New Jersey. You know
it’s so interesting on how almost all of my Latino students will choose that
one [to write their essays]… I have an Amy Tan essay… a lot of the Asian
students pick that one [to write their essays as well].

It seems as though Leslie is encountering the positive responses by implementing
diverse authors into her classroom, yet has a difficult time discussing race and equity
with her fellow group members as in the previous example.
Furthermore, Joanna refuses to discuss race as evidenced in the above
example (she “can’t get over the labels”) and also reported to me during our
interview that she is adamant about not making judgments about race:
I think about these statistics [shared during team meetings] and I wonder how
the outcomes of success for various ethnicities ought to influence me. I
continue to want to work to see individuals in my group, but it is a group and
it’s a diverse group, but I really want to treat people equally, yet with
sensitivity to what I perceive as their background, but I may not know their
background. And certainly I’m not going to plant their background on them
by the color of their skin—I’m not gonna do it!

Through this example, it is evident that Joanna struggles between seeing diversity
and treating her students equally. However, as expressed in the section Moving from
Identifying to Modifying: Remediating Artifacts, after the activities in the syllabus
reflection and workshop, Joanna added a diversity paragraph to her syllabus that
welcomes the backgrounds and life experiences of students entering her classes.
86
While symbolic as an addition this may be, perhaps Joanna’s belief system had not
been altered.
While Cindy’s comments about including American authors in her courses
may not have encompassed the indicators of culturally responsive teaching, she
recognized student diversity through language. She continuously questioned whether
all of her students received adequate and appropriate support depending on their
language background: “We have the problem with the fact that we have a large
population of Spanish speakers, and we have a Cambodian population that speaks
Khmer. Counseling doesn’t have the support in the way that we need it.”
The references to race, culture, and equity above suggest that the participants
were socioculturally conscious (Villegas & Lucas, 2002) and demonstrated the
knowledge and expertise to recognize the racialized nature of the collegiate
experience for African-American and Latino students and adjust practices
accordingly (Bensimon, 2007) yet expressed difficulty in discussing issues of race
and ethnicity within their team setting. The participants may have implemented
practices that could be interpreted as socioculturally conscious, yet they appeared to
be uncomfortable with the topics of race and ethnicity.
Embracing the Advocate Role
In preparation for one of the syllabus workshops presented by the entire Cal
College action inquiry team, my graduate student colleagues and I composed a short
case scenario that included fictitious students with real problems that developmental
students often experience. In the presentation of the problem during a team meeting,
87
the participants’ role was to “troubleshoot” the service that would best match the
student’s need. Some of the faculty members were surprised that there were
specialized centers at Cal College for re-entry students and free books through the
Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS).
The participants’ new knowledge from this experience was shared with other
faculty members during the first syllabus workshop, during which time a team
member made a presentation of the various services on campus. In a team meeting,
Leslie shared the need for faculty to know what services are available before sharing
them with students. In our interview together, Leslie shared how the information
from the workshop influenced her to add student services information to her
syllabus:
I think I’ve definitely learned to put more of the services on my syllabus
probably. I think what I really learned to do was to talk about those services
beyond the first day of class. You know, sometimes they’re just on the
syllabus, and then, I talk about them on the first day. I think often times the
information, however, goes in one ear and out the other because there’s such
a wealth of information presented. So I think to constantly go back, and hit
on what’s on that syllabus, is something I’m really going to try and make a
concerted effort to do more of since having that workshop.

Leslie changed the text of her syllabus and reported to me that references to
Cal College student services throughout the semester were part of her common
practice. In addition to the change in information on the classroom artifact, the
syllabus, she also reported using classroom opportunities to remind students of their
value, thus possibly influencing the students’ value and use of such services. She
later added, “I mean, we have all these services for students on campus… I think
88
having a place where students can see that, okay, this is something that I could
actually use would be beneficial for them.” Leslie felt that the inclusion of services
would change students’ interest in them and enable them to see their benefit.
Similarly, Joanna shared a “big list of places to go” for help with her
students. In previous reading coursework syllabi, she had referenced services briefly,
but decided to add to her “juicy” syllabus after the first syllabus workshop by adding
a list “of places to go, for what reason, and the phone numbers at each [main or
community education] campus.”
Likewise, Cindy thought the syllabus workshop informed her of helping her
students by “being a little bit more conversational in the syllabus and providing them
with maybe a sheet or a pamphlet of helpful resources that they [the students] should
know about.” However, during a team meeting, she questioned why such resources
were predominantly in English, thus considering her multi-lingual ESL students. In
addition to student services, Cindy also shared campus news, such as transfer days,
college field trips, and essay contest opportunities:
The notices that we received during the semester saying we have a transfer
day… a college is coming down to visit us, or there’s a field trip this
Saturday to go to this college if you want to transfer. Or there’s this contest
for a scholarship, and it’s an essay… I brought those into the classroom more
than I ever did before. I’m also really paying attention to the college culture...
It excited my students a little bit more. They actually benefitted from that…I
talked about a job fair, if you want a summer job, there’s a job fair to go to.

Through this information, it is evident that Cindy was making sure she shared
campus resources with her students. In fact, she said that the information actually
made them excited about the various college opportunities available at Cal College.
89
Through this example, it is evident that Cindy was sharing “various funds of
knowledge” with students to navigate the educational system. The guidance that she
shared about the essay competition proved to be successful for four of her ESL
students:
I had four students submit essays, and four students won money. They were
the only four students that submitted the essays. And so it was just like, the
scholarship is going to go to someone. If you don’t try then you’re not going
to get anything. And it really boosted the confidence of the student who got
the most money because she had not passed my class the semester before and
now she had won an essay contest.

In all three of the situations shared by Leslie, Joanna, and Cindy, the syllabus
workshop influenced how they presented student services to students through the
course document of the classroom syllabus. In the language of culturally historical
activity theory, the participants in these three cases remediated a primary teaching
tool to influence the outcome of improving student success, and this resulted in a
change in their labor (teaching practices).
Remediating Practice
The syllabus reflection activity influenced how the participants altered their
curriculum and instruction. For example, instead of focusing solely on the rhetorical
modes and structures of writing, Leslie began to incorporate study skills and
successful college strategies into her instruction:
I brought in some readings on procrastination, some case studies and things
like that. There was another case study about just students making strange
choices, dropping classes out of the blue, things like that. We’ve done a lot of
talking and investigating about how can you be successful, and on the one
hand it has been frustrating because I think these are the things they should
be doing in a counseling class or a study skills class… I think also to make
90
them more successful, you know maybe they have heard it before and it
just didn’t register.

Leslie chose to add study skills and successful college strategies to her
curriculum to help her students. While she recognized that including information on
study skills was not necessarily her role, Leslie chose to add it to the curriculum to
help her students succeed. She also addressed personal issues which may interfere
with academic success:
What do you need to do? What in your life might need to give a little bit in
order for you to achieve that goal? And we’re going to come back and revisit
that again because it’s been a few weeks since they wrote about that, and I
can tell that they’re starting to slide already. So there’s this constant—yes,
it’s for me because I do get frustrated, but it’s also I think teaching them to
take on more responsibility for themselves.

Through this description, Leslie shared how she was not only interested in
her students’ success in her class, but any other subsequent classes and academic
experiences they may encounter. Joanna also reported addressing study skills in her
course by including readings and discussions about student success. She stated,
“There’s a lot about self-esteem and making wise choices… we did one [reading]
called the ‘wise choice process’ where we did a ‘goal setting.’” Similar to Leslie,
Joanna told me that she restructured her traditional reading curriculum to encompass
themes that have shown to help students succeed in college.
Cindy also changed her curriculum by including readings about college life
and student success. In a text she was piloting for her ESL course, the first seventeen
pages included “things to do for good students. And so that was one of the first
reading assignments that the students had to do. This has nothing to do with
91
composition. This just has to do with being successful at school.” Just like Leslie
and Joanna, Cindy was introducing students to the discourse of college, apart from
her traditional curriculum:
I mean the very first reading was how can you be successful in college. And
there’s an essay in that text about how to be successful and [I] question them
about that…which is basically designed to get them more engaged in the
school, more engaged in using the resources we have available.

Table 4.4 shows an overview of how participants remediated their practice to
facilitate student success:
Table 4.4
Remediating Practice
Leslie “I think I’ve definitely learned to put more of the
services on my syllabus… to talk about those services
beyond the first day of class.”
Joanna Provided a “big list of places to go”
Cindy “Providing them with a list of resources that they [the
students] should know about”
From the scenarios presented in this section on agency, it appears that the
three participants, Leslie, Joanna, and Cindy, demonstrated components of
institutional agency. Stanton-Salazar’s (1997) framework acknowledges six key
forms of institutional support: (a) providing “various funds of knowledge” to
navigate the educational system; (b) bridging, by acting as a contact to gatekeepers
(obstacles in the educational system); (c) advocacy, by speaking up on behalf of
underrepresented student groups; (d) role modeling, by providing a representational
92
model to how a student acts; and e) providing emotional and moral support (1997,
p. 11). All three participants took on the role of providing students with various
funds of knowledge to navigate the educational system by introducing support
services to their students. For Leslie, Joanna, and Cindy, participation in the Inquiry
Project influenced them to add student services information to their syllabi (Leslie:
“I think I’ve definitely learned to put more of the services on my syllabus… to talk
about those services beyond the first day of class”; Joanna: “big list of places to go”;
and Cindy: “providing them with a list of resources that they [the students] should
know about”).
Leslie, Joanna, and Cindy also worked to bridge students by introducing
strategies for navigating the academic discourse of higher education and to provide
emotional and moral support by changing their curriculum to address goal settting.
Leslie incorporated study skills documents and other readings on procrastination to
help students reach their fullest potential; Joanna included readings on making wise
choices and building self-esteem to motivate students; and Cindy began her semester
by talking about how to be a good student and being successful in college.
Discussion
Shifting from Frustration to Advocacy
All three participants shared a great level of frustration and discomfort in
participating in a project focused on racial and ethnic equity and basic skills students.
For Leslie, reflecting on data disaggregated by race and ethnicity prompted her to
question her role in the classroom. She continually asked herself, “I don’t know if I
93
can keep doing this. I don’t feel like anything I’m doing is making a difference.”
Joanna experienced a similar manner of self-questioning by asking herself, “What’s
the matter here?” in regards to students at Cal College not succeeding. Cindy began
questioning her own syllabus and even projected her inquiry to issues of her
department and asked, “Why don’t we do this?”
The frustration experienced by the participants, however, had an effect on
how they perceived their own role as educators. The participants’ reflection allowed
the participants to reevaluate what their purpose and role was in the classroom. The
concept of reflection, as presented in Chapter 2, is an important step in order to
understand how faculty members think about interacting and communicating with,
and teaching underrepresented students. Rodgers (2002) asserts that the reflective
cycle allows practitioners “to discern, differentiate, and describe the elements of
[that] learning, to analyze the learning and to respond” (p. 231). Slowing down
practitioner thinking for powerful analysis is an important component of the
reflective cycle (Rodgers, 2002).
The analysis that stemmed from the participants’ reflective cycle allowed the
participants to reevaluate and remediate their practices by altering their syllabi,
changing their classroom content, and modifying their curriculum. Of particular
interest is how the participants began employing study skill, goal setting, and time
management activities, although not a part of their departmental curricula.
Furthermore, the participants began using storytelling of their own struggles with
college coursework and the ways in which they overcame them as a way to connect
94
to students. This result of the Inquiry Project activity setting has adjusted the
division of labor (Engeström, 1987) towards ones that are more culturally responsive
because their individual roles have shifted. In addition to being content specialists in
their respective fields, they are also working as a bridge to give students the tools to
be successful in academia. In this regard, the participants were successful in
becoming institutional agents for their basic skills students. According to Stanton-
Salazar (1997), the practice of agency is evident when “individuals [who] have the
capacity and commitment to transmit directly, or negotiate the transmission of,
institutional resources and opportunities” (p. 6). Through the activities in the project,
the participants were influenced to embrace the role of agency in an effort to
improve their students’ success.
Through the use of study skills, storytelling, and introducing students to
support services, the participants were creating a mentoring environment with their
students. Although not a traditional model of one-on-one mentoring, the students of
the participants were experiencing a complex and dynamic classroom environment
where students were given the tools to succeed in reaching their academic goals.
These results are consistent with Campbell and Campbell (1997) and Larose,
Tarabulsy, and Cyrenne (2005) who assert that mentoring relationships improve
college student academic achievement. Specifically, through the process of
mentoring, instructors show their commitment to ensuring that their mentees
(students) acquire the resources and opportunities that directly impact their success.

95
Employing Culturally Responsive Practices
The three participants shared their process of employing culturally responsive
practices. For example, just as storytelling served as a change in role for the
participants, it also served as a way for the participants to show that they are human
and have experienced stories of failure just as their current students may experience.
In addition, all three participants recognized the importance of realizing the home
and life experiences of their students. As illustrated by Leslie’s recollection of
finding out some of her students had been called ‘stupid’ in previous courses, the
participants have made efforts to understand their students by including works of
literature and/or activities that share about their home experiences. The storytelling
opened a dialog with students about future challenges and potential successes.
Furthermore, Joanna’s experience of “back[ing] off with the ‘should’ and just
see[ing] what they need” is an important finding that fits into how the participant
was influenced on the topic of culturally responsive teaching. This is further
exemplified in Cindy’s affirmation of “acknowledging (just) that they have lives.”
Through these examples, the Inquiry Project activity setting has influenced the rules,
norms, and traditions (Engeström, 1987) of the faculty members because their
guidelines for communication have been altered to encompass ones that embrace an
empathic disposition. Empirical works in relation to culturally responsive teaching
(McAllister & Irvine, 2002) demonstrate the importance that empathy plays in
working with diverse students.
96
It is worth noting that while the participants reported employing classroom
attitudes, beliefs, and practices that influenced their classroom rules, norms, and
traditions (Engeström, 1987), their guidelines for communication as a team were not
influenced as evidenced by the denial of race and ethnicity during team meetings.
For example, the participants’ knowledge of the institutional culture prompted them
not to discuss race and ethnicity directly. The team members, however, were able to
discuss equity-conscious indicators through the tool of the Center for Urban
Education’s Syllabus Reflection Protocol, which included indicators for a connection
to students’ cultural and historical backgrounds (Appendix A): (a) instructor values
the diversity of students’ cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic experiences and
backgrounds; (b) curriculum and classroom activities include materials that are
culturally inclusive (e.g., readings and activities incorporates issues of gender,
race/ethnicity, language, sexuality, and disability to show diversity of perspectives
and lived experiences); (c) instruction is experiential in nature and starts from what is
real and common in students’ experiences, and builds upon students’ experiences
and provides opportunities to expand learning repertories and skills; (d) explanation
of how instruction and course objectives are relevant to students’ socio-cultural
realities is provided. The syllabus reflection protocol was an effective mediating tool
for allowing the participants to reflect on ways to be more equity-conscious. The
participants did not, however, feel comfortable to continue the dialog about culture,
equity, and race within a group context. Implications for this phenomenon will be
addressed in Chapter 5.
97
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
Professor Green was bored. She had conducted the first day of class the same
way for many, many years: write her name on the board, welcome students, ask them
to take out a number 2 pencil, distribute diagnostic grammar tests and Scantron
sheets, and ask students to pick up a syllabus on the way out. It was dull and
monotonous. She thought if she was bored, her students might be bored too.
That same semester, Professor Green was asked to participate in an inquiry
group project. At first, she was hesitant because she didn’t want any more work than
she already expected from teaching four basic skills writing courses. She later
decided to take part in it anyway because her office mate coaxed her into it. She
attended, she listened, and she bickered with her colleagues. ‘What did I get myself
into?’ she thought. Things started to change for Professor Green, however, when the
inquiry team began evaluating course syllabi. ‘My syllabus isn’t very welcoming,’
she thought. ‘That’s not good. My syllabus is all about me—not my students.’
Professor Green began rethinking her syllabus, and, as a result, her
curriculum and interaction with her students. ‘I want them to actually want to be
here. Most importantly, I want them to learn how to be successful college students.’
The following semester, Professor Green changed her course reader to include
writings from diverse authors; she experimented by using a blog to update her
students on class content and procedures; she shared electronic copies of course
handouts and readings; and she reframed her position in the classroom from one of
98
indifference to a commitment to her students’ learning. She threw her old
grammar exams in the recycling bin and vowed to never give a test on the first day of
class.
While Professor Green is still in the middle of her semester, she feels better
about the work she’s doing. She’s no longer bored in class, and she thinks her
students are engaged as well. She still has a lot of work to do, but she now
understands that she can learn a lot from discussions and activities with her
colleagues as well as by reflecting individually about who her students are and what
they need.
Summary of Findings
The Inquiry Project, mediated by researchers at the Center for Urban
Education at USC, provided a setting for faculty members to gather, analyze,
discuss, and reflect on data disaggregated by race and ethnicity. The researchers
from USC implemented the practitioner-as-researcher model to enable faculty
members to take ownership of the problem of inequitable educational outcomes for
students in basic skills. The Inquiry Project provided a forum for faculty members to
consider their current classroom practices and shift towards ones that are more
culturally responsive, thus becoming institutional agents for underrepresented
students.
In Chapter 4, I sought to answer the following: How does faculty
participation in a research project focused on racial and ethnic equity promote
awareness of culturally responsive teaching? Did the “remediation” of a key
99
pedagogical artifact (syllabus) change faculty members’ behavior? I found that the
remediation of the course syllabus influenced faculty members’ behavior in the
following ways: they moved from identifying the problem to modifying the
curriculum; shared their own academic struggles with their students; recognized the
complex lives of basic skills students; embraced the advocate role; and remediated
their practices.
Agency and Advocacy
The themes above suggest that the participants changed their instructional
practices to provide key forms of institutional support (Stanton-Salazar 1997). In
addition to teaching subject matter content, they began to provide their students with
“funds of knowledge” to navigate the educational system. Through participation in
self-assessment and action inquiry activities, the faculty participants were reminded
of their essential role in sharing funds of knowledge (Stanton-Salazar, 1997) with
students. Specifically, in the Cal College case study, the participants moved toward
sharing the funds of knowledge Stanton-Salazar terms institutionally sanctioned
discourses, academic task-specific knowledge, organizational/bureaucratic
knowledge, and technical funds of knowledge.
For example, team members recognized the need to share critical information
about services that facilitate students’ success, such as tutoring services, support
centers, financial aid information, and campus transfer days. The faculty members
also acted as bridges by giving students the necessary language of academic
discourse to participate in academic dialog. Faculty members were motivated toward
100
advocacy by recognizing the inequitable outcomes in basic skills attainment
through reflecting on data disaggregated by race and ethnicity and participating in a
conversation with their peers. While some commented on feeling overwhelmed by
the initial problem, they embraced the role of advocacy and sought to remediate their
curriculum, instruction, and belief systems to address the basic skills predicament.
The results of this study provide support for the assertion, grounded in the tenets of
cultural-historical activity theory, that, by “remediating” key artifacts of educational
practice, action researchers can remediate educational practices for greater
responsiveness to learners in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms.
The faculty participants also showed evidence of the last three forms of
institutional support: advocacy, by speaking up on behalf of underrepresented
student groups; role modeling, by providing a representational model to how a
student acts; and providing emotional and moral support (1997, p. 11). Faculty
members showed a commitment to advocacy by sharing the various funds of
knowledge with students. Faculty members used role modeling to show their
students how to navigate the higher educational system and achieve their goals. In
this particular case study, participants used stories of their own academic struggles as
a form of informal mentoring to show students how they managed to move through
the system by communicating with counselors and instructors, using appropriate
support services, and setting attainable goals. Lastly, participants provided emotional
and moral support to their students through empathic practices. For example, the
participants in this case acknowledged the complex lives of basic skills students and
101
modified instruction and curriculum accordingly. These results demonstrate that
action researchers can influence faculty to adjust their practices toward advocacy
through equity based inquiry activities.
At the end of Chapter 3, I delineated three working hypotheses based on the
literature of my conceptual framework. The first hypothesis posited that faculty
members need an awareness of agency to become culturally responsive. The results
of the study involving the Cal College Inquiry Group provide strong evidence that
when faculty members engage in inquiry based in equity perspectives, they will be
prompted to act in ways that are more culturally responsive. In other words, their
commitment to advocacy motivated them to act in ways that were also respectful of
the students’ backgrounds.
The second working hypothesis assumed that faculty members need to show
empathy toward their students. Because of the diverse backgrounds of basic skills
students, and all community college students for that matter, empathy is an essential
component for faculty-student interaction. As explained in Chapter 2, empathy is a
component of culturally responsive teaching.
The third hypothesis postulated that faculty members can use reflection as a
tool to think about changing their practice to better serve their diverse students. In
the Cal College Inquiry Project, reflection played an important role in allowing team
members to internalize and act upon information presented in team meetings.

102
Empathy as a Prerequisite to Agency
Empathy, an important precursor to agency, was revealed in this study as a
necessary component for faculty members to embrace advocacy. While Stanton-
Salazar’s (1997) theoretical framework highlights the advantages of teachers sharing
funds of knowledge with students, little is said about the impetus for teachers to do
so. That is, what prompts instructors to act as institutional agents? What inspires
instructors to move toward advocacy? I maintain that in order for faculty members to
act toward agency, they must empathize with the experiences of their diverse
students. As faculty participants in my case study reflected on their own practices
and attitudes through various self-assessments and inquiry activities, they altered
their instruction and curriculum to include attention to their students’ needs and
diverse backgrounds.
The findings of my study concerning the learning that took place as a result
of the Inquiry Project extend the work of McAllister and Irvine (2002) by showing
how empathic practices can be developed. As expressed in Chapter 2, McAllister and
Irvine’s (2002) work identifies an empathic disposition as a key characteristic in
being effective in urban schools. In their qualitative study in a multicultural
professional development program geared to foster culturally responsive practices,
the researchers found that all of the teachers in the study believed that empathy was
an important factor in working effectively with diverse students.
Little is said, however, of how empathy can be developed or stimulated
among instructors. My study shows how empathy can be stimulated and also how it
103
acts a prerequisite for advocacy. Through team inquiry meetings, conflict among
peers, and benchmarking practices, participants became conscious of empathic
practices to facilitate student success. It is worth noting, however, that empathic
practices do not guarantee equitable outcomes of underrepresented students in basic
skills curricula. They may be a step in the right direction, but the efficacy of the
remediated practice would require longitudinal research to investigate its effect.
Fighting Against Dominant Racial Frames
While several small strides have been made at Cal College to address the
inequitable student outcomes in basic skills coursework, the institutional culture at
Cal College did not allow for the Inquiry Project to proceed in the manner in which it
was initially intended. The goals of the project included increasing the number of
students, particularly African-American and Latino students, who successfully
completed their first transfer-level course after beginning college in basic skills level
courses and ultimately increasing transfer rates. Towards that end, CUE introduced
the Inquiry Project based on color- and equity-conscious inquiry perspectives that
included an analysis of data disaggregated by race and ethnicity to highlight
inequitable student outcomes.
Furthermore, the initial syllabus protocols were based on equity-conscious
language. However, other than the initial data disaggregated by race and ethnicity,
prepared by researchers at the Center for Urban Education, the team did not discuss
or address race or equity-based issues. Rather, the team embraced the monikers of
the “basic skills student, first-generation student, and underprepared student” to
104
address the problem first posed by CUE. This is especially confounding
considering that Cal College is an Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) and receives
funding to “improve and strengthen the academic quality, institutional stability,
management, and fiscal capabilities” (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
The dominant racial frames that existed, and still exist, on the campus of Cal
College inhibited true inquiry from taking place. These results indicate a complete
institutional paradigm shift that moves from “color blind” to “color based”
(Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, & Harris, 2007) would be critical to improving the
outcomes for the success of underrepresented students.
Team Setting and Joint Productive Activity
The findings of this study provide evidence that the team setting of the
Inquiry Project is vital in the joint knowledge production of team members. The
nature of the group setting at Cal College was one of achieving socially constructed
knowledge through various activity settings. Jonassen & Rohrer-Murphy (1999)
contend that the “intentionality, history, culture, and tool mediation used in the
process” (p. 64) of socially constructed knowledge are significant in knowledge
production. In the case at Cal College, the dominant racial frames of not recognizing
and speaking directly to the issue of race and ethnicity are part of the institution’s
history and culture. The Center for Urban Education, working as co-investigators,
sought to remediate that dominant frame by introducing various tools to alter the
rules, norms, and traditions of Cal College’s faculty members.
105
While the dominant racial frame was not modified, individual faculty
practices were. A new understanding of practices that facilitate student success
emerged from the various discussions that took place during inquiry meetings. The
equity conscious indicators and color-conscious theories that the Center for Urban
Education introduced caused a disruption to the history and culture of Cal College’s
rules, norms, and traditions. It was in this disruption that dissent and disagreement
emerged. The dissent that took place within the group setting actually enabled new
ideas to materialize and is consistent with learning that is uneven and disjointed
rather than linear and smooth. The learning that emerged from the Inquiry Project
included personal changes for individual instructors, not institutional changes or
cultural shifts.
The team setting was essential to the situated learning that took place among
the inquiry group. The disagreements that took place facilitated the discussion of
new ideas with which the team members eventually agreed. Without the initial
disruption of history and culture as mediated by the tools that CUE introduced on
racial and ethnic equity, however, socially constructed knowledge that was even
somewhat unacceptable to the rules, norms, and traditions of Cal College would not
have come forth. That is, the team considered the rules, norms, and traditions of their
institution and created new knowledge that they viewed as fitting in with the
dominant frame of their institution.

106
Impact on an Observing Faculty Member
In Chapter 3, I shared that while I was involved in this action research
Inquiry Project as a developing researcher, I was simultaneously a full-time English
as a Second Language instructor at a community college. As I observed the inquiry
activities and self-assessments in which the team members participated, I was,
likewise, prompted to reflect on my own instruction, curriculum, and belief system
and adjust my practice to be more conscious of the diverse backgrounds and
experiences of my students.
When I reflected on the syllabus that I distribute the first day of class, I
thought about the equity-conscious indicators that the team members used during the
syllabus reflection activity: communication of high expectations, incorporation of
rigorous learning activities, consideration of students’ needs and aspirations,
provision of multiple resources for academic assistance, connection to students’
cultural and historical backgrounds, and promotion of academic transformation and
empowerment. I recognized that while I communicated high expectations,
incorporated rigorous learning activities, considered students’ needs and aspirations,
and connected to students’ cultural and historical backgrounds, I did not provide
information on the multiple resources available for academic assistance and needed
to improve on transforming and empowering my students.
To develop my commitment to advocacy, I began taking walking tours of my
own campus and gathered pamphlets, brochures, and fliers of the various support
services available to students. Instead of mentioning the services available in class,
107
as was my previous practice, I began giving students materials and walking them
to the location on campus as needed. For example, one of my students asked me if I
could help him get financial aid for the following academic year. Prior to the Inquiry
Project, I would have given him a website to look up and left him to follow the
directions. When he asked for help, however, I saw it as an opportunity to embrace
my own commitment to advocacy and responded differently. After class, we walked
together to my office where I proceeded to give him the various pamphlets I had
gathered on my walking tours. Because of his low language ability, I deciphered
much of the highly academic vocabulary into language of which he was familiar.
Then I walked him through the process of filling out the Free Application for Federal
Student Aid (FAFSA). When I saw him in class the following week, I followed up
with him informally and asked how everything went.
Just as my participants responded that such individualized attention to
students is “not in their job description,” I also recognized that I was not
contractually obligated to help him get financial aid. Rather, I saw, and continue to
see, my role as a community college educator as one committed to seeing her
students succeed. Educators who embrace their role as advocates and institutional
agents for their students will wear multiple “hats” to ensure their students are
receiving the support they need.
Recommendations for Future Research
An interesting finding that emerged from this research was the sharing of
faculty individual struggle with their own education to connect to basic skills
108
students. Future research might include surveying how the sharing of individual
faculty educational failure serves as a conduit between faculty and student. That is,
in what ways does the sharing of failure influence basic skills students? A possible
research study may include members who have participated in an Inquiry Project and
qualitative research that includes observations and interviews that give examples of
their sharing of individual educational struggles.
A follow-up study may also include how individual faculty members’
identity plays a role in how they conduct their courses. While this study focused on
situated learning and social construction of knowledge, an area for future research
may include how individual instructor identity influences their attitude and
dissemination of course content.
Lastly, another follow-up study may include how future researchers
communicate with administrators to receive an endorsement of color and equity-
conscious activities in an inquiry project. It might be worthwhile to investigate how
the support of the institutional administration affects the institutional culture and how
faculty members are encouraged (or hindered) to employ color and equity-based
teaching practices.
Conclusion
For many underrepresented students, the community college system is the
first step toward higher education. Nevertheless, national data from fall 2000 show
that 42% of first-year students at two-year public schools are enrolled in at least one
remedial course (Zeidenberg, 2008). California data for the 2006-2007 academic
109
year show that 70% to 85% of students placed into a basic skills course in one or
more of the basic skills area (Center for Student Success 2008). These data translate
to 1.82 million to 2.08 million students in the California Community College System
are basic skills students (Center for Student Success, 2008).
One of the community colleges’ major missions, student transfer to a four-
year institution for the purposes of completing a bachelor’s degree, is not being
realized for many students of color (Shulock & Moore, 2005). A reason for this
phenomenon is that students of color are overrepresented in “basic skills” courses
and are not able to progress through these courses to advance to college-level courses
(Center for Student Success, 2008). For many underrepresented students,
unfortunately, the goal of transferring is out of reach.
Practitioners in community college settings must recognize this disparity of
unequal educational outcomes for students of color. This study represents a case
study that influenced how practitioners became aware of culturally responsive
practices through an action research project. The practitioners involved in this study
learned about the inequities for basic skills students at Cal College through artifact
remediation and self-assessment practices. Furthermore, this study shows how
altering the rules, norms, and traditions of participants can influence practitioners to
be institutional agents who are aware of their students’ home and life experiences.
This study shows how a change in practitioner practices, attitudes, and beliefs can
contribute to addressing the need for change in the basic skills predicament.
110
Without attention to the degree completion and success of students of
color, the statistics for Latina/o and African American students will continue to
decline. Inquiry projects that are focused on improving faculty members’
commitment to their Latina/o and African American may help to redress unequal
outcomes in basic skills classrooms.

111
REFERENCES
Abdal-Haqq, I. (1994). Culturally responsive curriculum: ERIC digest. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education, Washington, D.C.
[ED370936]

Almeida, D. A. (1991). Do underprepared students and those with lower academic
skills belong in the community college? A question of policy in light of the
“mission.” Community College Review, 18(4), pp. 28-32.

Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to
achieve equity in educational outcomes. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational
learning in higher education (No. 131, 23-35). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge
in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education,
30(4), 441-469.

Bensimon, Estela Mara, Donald E. Polkinghorne, Georgia L. Bauman, and Edlyn
Vallejo, 2004. “Doing research that makes a difference.” The Journal of
Higher Education, 75/1, (Jan./Feb. 2004), pp. 104 – 126.
Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability,
equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan Universities
Journal, 18(3) 28-45.

Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

California Community Colleges System Office. (2008). Report on the system’s
current programs in English as a Second Language (ESL) and basic skills.
Retrieved from http://www. cccco.edu

California Community Colleges System Office. (2007). Accountability reporting for
the community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.cccco.edu

California Education Code, Title 3, Part 4, Art. 3, § 66010.1-66010.8 (2005)

Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects
on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education,
38(6), 727-742.

112
Center for Student Success. (2007, February). Basic skills as a foundation for
success in California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from
http://www.cccbsi.org/publications

Center for Urban Education. (2009). About CUE. Retrieved from www.usc.edu

Dowd, A. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry
to assess community college performance. Minneapolis: Lumina Foundation
for Education Research Report.

Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V.P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the scholarship
of “best practice”. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher Education (Vol.
22, pp. 57-119): Springer Publishing.

Engeström, Y. (1987): Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to
developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53, 106-116.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.

Gutiérrez, K. D. (2002). Studying cultural practices in urban learning communities.
Human Development, 45, pp. 312-321.

Horn, L., & Lew, S. (n.d.). Unexpected pathways: Transfer patterns of California
Community College Students. MPR Research Brief. Retrieved January 14,
2008, from
http://www.mprinc.com/products_and_publications/pdf/MPR_Research_Brie
f_2.pdf

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2003). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new
generation on campus. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Collegiate Registrars.

Jonassen, D. H. & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework for
designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 47(1), 61-79.

Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: Implications for human-computer interaction.
In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-
computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

113
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K.
Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 567-
605). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Koschman, T. (1996). Paradigm shifts and instructional technology: An introduction.
In T. Koschman (Ed.), CSCL: Theory and Practice (pp. 1-23). Mahway, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kruse, S. D., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Teacher teaming in middle schools: Dilemmas
for a schoolwide community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33(3),
261-289.

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human computer
interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness:
Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17-44). Cambridge,
MA: The MIT Press.

Laden, B. V. (2001). Hispanic-serving institutions: Myths and realities. Peabody
Journal of Education, 76(1), 73-92.

Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and second language
learning. In B. VanPatten, & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language
learning (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Larose, S., Tarabulsy, G., & Cyrenne, D. (2005). Perceived autonomy and
relatedness as moderating the impact of teacher-student mentoring
relationships on student academic adjustment. The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 26(2), pp. 111-128.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2002). The role of empathy in teaching culturally
diverse students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(5), 433-443.

McAlpine, L., Weston, C., Beauchamp, J., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (1999).
Building a metacognitive model of reflection. Higher Education, 37, 105-
131.

114
McCarty, T. L., Lynch, R. H., Wallace, S., & Benally, A. (1991). Classroom
inquiry and Navajo learning styles: A call for reassessment. Anthropology &
Education Quarterly, 22(1), 42-59.
McPherson, M.S., & Schapiro, M.O. (1999). Tenure issues in higher education. The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 85-98. Retrieved January 23, 2007,
from JSTOR database.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nardi, B. (1996). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action
models, and distributed cognition. In B. Nardi (Ed.), Context and
consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 35-52).
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York: Plenum.

Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: teacher change and the role of
reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.

Roth, W. M. & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: cultural-historical
activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.

Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2005). Diminished access to the Baccalaureate for low-
income and minority students in California: The impact of budget and
capacity constraints on the transfer function, Educational Policy, 19(2),
418-442.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding
the socialization of racial minority youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1)
1-40.

Stringer, E. T. Action research (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Trow, Martin. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A
Comparative perspective. Center for Studies in Higher Education, University
of California, Berkeley.
115
University of California. (2008). Planning to transfer—IGETC. Retrieved from
www.universityofcalifornia.edu

University of California Office of the President. (n.d.). Major Features of the
California Master Plan for Higher Education. Retrieved February 12, 2008,
from www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm

U.S. Department of Education. A test of leadership: Charting the future of higher
education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.

U.S. Department of Education. Developing Hispanic-serving institutions program—
title V. Retrieved from www.ed.gov

Villegas, A. M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Preparing culturally responsive teachers:
Rethinking the curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 53, 20-32.

Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (2000). Unobtrusive
measures; revised edition. Sage Publications Inc.

Zeidenberg, M. (2008). Community Colleges Under Stress. Retrieved December 19,
2008 from Columbia University, Community College Research Center Web
site: http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu

116
APPENDIX A
USC Center for Urban Education Syllabus Reflection Protocol Guidelines &
Protocol for Syllabus Reflection Exercise

The syllabus reflection exercise is intended to generate dialogue about how a
standard classroom document can serve as an instrument that promotes equity-
consciousness in one’s teaching practices. The purpose of this exercise is not to
judge or assess the value of particular syllabi styles. Instead, the exercise is meant to
encourage self-reflection on what characterizes an equity-conscious syllabus. Your
reflections will help us in our efforts to build a model of the best teaching practices
on your campus.

While completing the reflection exercise please keep the following guidelines in
mind:

Be descriptive in your analysis. Try to avoid harsh or condemning language.
Instead, provide honest, specific and constructive feedback.
Keep the student in mind. In your reflection, focus on how the document serves
students’ learning needs and educational trajectories.
Connect your reflection to your own expertise and practice. When writing your
comments think about the issues that arise in your classrooms and with your
students.

The outline for the exercise is as follows:
Part I: The Document Itself
Completeness and Clarity
Testing and Grading
Pacing
Professional Appearance
Part II: Indicators for Equity Conscious Practices
Communication of High Expectations
Incorporation of Rigorous Learning Activities
Consideration of Students’ Needs and Aspirations
Provision of Multiple Resources for Academic Assistance
Connection to Students’ Cultural and Historical Backgrounds
Promotion of Academic Transformation and Empowerment
PART ONE: THE DOCUMENT ITSELF
I. Completeness and Clarity
A. The syllabus has each of the following (if applicable):
1. Goals and objectives of the course
2. Instructor information and accessibility
117
3. Information on course readings
4. Description of assignments and due dates
5. Calendar of class activities
6. Policies on grading, academic misconduct, late work, absences, safety issues,
accommodation for special needs
7. Support services available
B. The syllabus is clearly written.
C. It is consistent with college policies.
D. It describes responsibilities and consequences for students.
II. Testing and Grading
A. The students have frequent opportunities for feedback.
B. The grading policies are fair and appropriate for the goals.
III. Pacing
A. The course calendar is realistic
B. The instructor has selected a reasonable amount of content for the time allotted.
C. The dates for assignments are distributed well.
IV. Professional Appearance
A. No grammatical punctuations issues noted.
B. No formatting issues noted.
C. Tone is respectful and encouraging.
PART TWO: INDICATORS OF EQUITY-CONSCIOUS PRACTICES
I. Communication of High Expectations
The syllabus conveys the following.
A. ALL students are expected to succeed in the course. Student success will be a
collaborative effort between students, peers and instructor.
B. Belief that ALL students (regardless of their stated intentions) are working toward
transfer eligibility to a 4-year institution.
C. Clear communication of the goals and objectives of course, including descriptions
of how students are expected to meet and excel at these goals and objectives.
D. All students are expected to actively participate in classroom discussions and
activities.

II. Incorporation of Rigorous Learning Activities
The syllabus is characterized by the following:
A. Encourages critical thinking and creates opportunities for students to debate
issues that arise in classroom discourse and texts.
B. Incorporates of a wide-variety of instructional techniques and resources.
C. Requires higher-order thinking tasks such as analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.
III. Consideration of Students’ Needs and Aspirations
118
The syllabus contains the following:
A. Sensitivity to students’ skill level and possible past-experiences in inequitable and
poorly resourced schools.
B. Assistance in developing students’ study skills. Modeling examples should be
provided on issues such as: note-taking (while in-class and reading texts), how to
read and synthesize texts, and how to develop and maintain peer study groups.
C. Assistance with students’ development of basic writing skills. Provision of
resources/
instructions on proofreading, writing critically and building arguments, etc.
D. Information provided about where to locate additional resource outlets on campus
(e.g., library assistance, tutoring, counseling, transfer office).
E. Discussion of how class and course objectives will benefit students’ future
academic trajectory and goals.

IV. Connection to Students’ Cultural and Historical Backgrounds
The syllabus indicates the following:
A. Instructor values the diversity of students’ cultural, linguistic, and socio-economic
experiences and backgrounds.
B. Curriculum and classroom activities include materials that are culturally inclusive
(e.g., readings and activities incorporates issues of gender, race/ethnicity, language,
sexuality, and disability to show diversity of perspectives and lived experiences).
C. Instruction is experiential in nature. It starts from what is real and common in
students’ experiences, and builds upon students’ experiences and provides
opportunities to expand learning repertories and skills.
D. Explanation of how instruction and course objectives are relevant to students’
socio-cultural realities is provided.

V. Promotion of Academic Transformation and Empowerment
The syllabus contains the following:
Encourages students to develop skills and values that help them become reflective
thinkers and social critics.
119
APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol (1)
I. Roles and Responsibilities
a. What is your current position/title?
i. How long have you been in this position? Are you full-time or
part-time?
ii. What courses do you teach? Generally, how many students do you
instruct in your courses?
II. Instructional Views & Practices
a. Suppose I am a student in your _______ class. What would my first day
of class be like?
b. In your experience, what practices do you implement in your classroom
that effectively promote student success in your courses?
c. What background do you think one needs to effectively serve basic skills
students?
d. Where do you think new instructors should get this background?
e. How is this “background” addressed on campus? In what ways does the
administration address professional development? What types of
activities?
f. Can you give me an example of a situation of a student who had trouble
in your class? How did you address the situation?
g. How do you know when a student is learning?
i. How did you come to learn/understand that?
III. Contextualizing Basic Skills/ Developmental Education and Equity
a. How do you view the problems of student success in basic skills
education at your campus?
b. What institutional factors do you feel help you do your job?
c. What institutional factors create barriers for student success?
d. The notion of “equity” in educational settings can have many different
interpretations.
i. What does it mean to you?
ii. How would you explain achieving equity on your campus to
someone in your department?
IV. Impact of Assessment and Evaluation
a. Recently, a syllabus renewal activity occurred at your campus.
i. Were you involved in the syllabus renewal activity? [If yes,] how
so? What did you learn from participating in the activity?
ii. What was the purpose of the syllabus renewal activity?
iii. What do you see as the connection between the syllabus renewal
activity and student success?
120
b. How did you learn about the syllabus renewal activity?
i. How has information about the syllabus renewal activity been
disseminated in your department/ Across your campus?
ii. What information/training did you receive about the syllabus
renewal activity?
c. How has the syllabus renewal activity made a difference in how you think
about your work?
i. What practices have you done differently since the activity?
ii. How have you incorporated these practices in your instruction in
ways that impact students’ experiences in your classroom?
d. What would you say are three things that still need to occur to improve
student success in basic skills education at your campus?

121
APPENDIX C
Revised Interview Protocol (2)
1. Now that you’re in the ( ) week of instruction for the fall semester, how has
participation in the Inquiry Project influenced (or not) the way you approached
this semester?
a. Probe for beliefs &
i. Are socioculturally conscious
ii. Are committed to acting as agents of change
iii. Believe empathy is connected to student success
b. and classroom practices
i. Implement a curriculum that uses materials and examples from the
students’ various cultural backgrounds
ii. Have an affirming attitude toward students from culturally diverse
backgrounds
iii. Demonstrate “authentic caring”
iv. Enact classroom assessment to evaluate student progress
2. How did you select the texts/textbook for this semester? What was your thought
process?
a. Probe: For example, one of the indicators which you investigated during
the syllabus reflection exercise was implementing “curriculum and
classroom activities that include materials that are culturally inclusive
(e.g., readings and activities incorporate issues of gender, race/ethnicity,
language, sexuality, and disability to show diversity of perspectives and
lived experiences.” In what ways did this influence your own decision
making process?
3. What discussions/activities/ materials did you introduce as part of your first week
meetings with students that were new for this semester?
a. What influenced your decision-making? For example, during our action
inquiry meetings, we talked a lot about introducing/using support services
and study skill tips. Did you (or not) distribute a brochure and/or add a
page on support services? Did you have a discussion in class about the
support services? Did you take students on a walking tour of important
buildings/areas?
b. How are the new materials working? How do you know they are
working? How have your successes (or challenges) influenced they ways
you now think about your teaching beliefs/practices?
4. We spoke at length during action inquiry meetings about introducing student
services to students. In what ways do you share information about student
resources?
a. Have you added or changed any of the practices you do since your
involvement in the Inquiry Project?
122
5. I was struck by your comments on connecting with students by putting
yourself in their shoes. Would you mind defining what this connection (or
empathy) is? If you had to define it for a novice instructor, what would you say?
a. When did you first start to consciously implement this practice?
b. For what purpose do you do this? Why do you feel it is important? What
types of results does it have in the classroom?
c. Did your participation in the Inquiry Project impact how you “connect”
with students? How so or How not?
6. One of the goals of the Inquiry Project was to develop an evidence-based model
of assessment to improve effectiveness, and some of you conducted an “I Learn
Best” assessment in your classrooms. Have you conducted the same or additional
assessments in your classroom?
a. What have you learned from the assessments?
b. Can you describe the assessment to me? Can you give an example of an
instance where your assessment taught you something about your
students?
7. In our last meeting, you shared that you were going to start meeting to discuss
relations between ESL and English. What was the impetus for these meetings?
a. When did you come to a realization that these issues needed to be
discussed?
b. What are goals of these meetings?
c. How would meeting be different than what you did in the Inquiry Project
meetings? How would it be similar?
d. What do you feel is the general perception in how these two programs
think about basic skills?
e. What are the practices that you want to discuss? How do you think these
meetings will impact your practices? Why?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study explores the experiences of three faculty members from English as a Second Language, English, and Reading departments who were involved in an action inquiry project at an urban community college. Participants in the study, along with the action inquiry group, engaged in a series of self-assessment activities to examine the inequitable educational outcomes in basic skills coursework in their institution. The purpose of this study was to understand the ways in which faculty members who engaged in an action research project learned about cultural responsiveness through their discussions about a key pedagogical tool: course syllabi. The learning that took place influenced the participants to change their beliefs, practices, and attitudes toward basic skills students and motivated them to become advocates of their students’ success.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college

PDF

Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities

PDF

Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment

PDF

Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors

PDF

How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning

PDF

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

Faculty learning and agency for racial equity

PDF

Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change

PDF

The responsive academic practitioner: using inquiry methods for self-change

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

Reframing the role of transfer facilitators: using action research methods for new knowledge development

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes

PDF

Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university

PDF

Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents

PDF

The “lost boys” of higher education: African American males from basic skills through university transfer

PDF

An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project

PDF

Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution

PDF

Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

Asset Metadata

Creator Salazar-Romo, Cristina (author)

Core Title Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/14/2009

Defense Date 04/29/2009

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag access,Cultural Historical Activity Theory,cultural responsive teaching,equity,inquiry,institutional agency,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Bensimon, Estela M. (committee member), Klein, Brock (committee member)

Creator Email cristinasalazar@mac.com,cxsalazar@pasadena.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m2361

Unique identifier UC1272013

Identifier etd-SalazarRomo-3135 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-406097 (legacy record id),usctheses-m2361 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SalazarRomo-3135.pdf

Dmrecord 406097

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Salazar-Romo, Cristina

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu