University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 1

FACULTY LEARNING IN CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION:
A CASE STUDY OF DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING PEER OBSERVATION

By

Jason C. Robinson
Dissertation Committee: Estela Mara Bensimon (chair),
Julie Marsh, & Peter Robertson

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(EDUCATION)
December, 2017
2
Acknowledgments
This dissertation would have not happened without the support of several people. First, I
would like to offer my most sincere gratitude to the CTE faculty and administrators at
Millennium College, who allowed me into their world and willingly shared their thoughts and
opinions with me. It was an honor to work with all of them.
Second, I would like to thank my committee members for the patience they have
demonstrated in reading my work and the graciousness with which they have shared thoughts
and insights about how to make it better. In addition to insightful feedback, I am grateful to
Peter Robertson for providing me with a model of what effective pedagogy and instruction looks
like in a higher education classroom. I am grateful to Julie Marsh for the kindness and support
she has provided to me across the last two years. Our meetings always resulted in my work
being improved and my sense of confidence renewed. I am especially grateful to my advisor
Estela Bensimon, whose intellect and insightfulness are unmatched. Her willingness to take me
on as a student four years ago meant a great deal to me, and I will be forever appreciative for all
that I have learned from her.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to the many friends and colleagues from the
Center for Urban Education, including: Alicia Dowd, Lindsey Malcom-Piqueux, Keith Witham,
Megan Chase, Deanna Cherry, Jordan Greer, Debbie Hanson, Paloma Saenz, Emily Ogle-Nally,
Kari Alire, Cheryl Ching, Maxine Roberts, Eric Felix, Román Liera, Dayna Meyer, Daniel
Galván, Cynthia Villarreal, and Adrian Trinidad. I am particularly thankful for the
encouragement they have provided during the last few months of writing this dissertation.
Many of the ideas reflected within this dissertation were enhanced through feedback from
some incredibly smart people. In particular, I would like to thank Cheryl Ching, Keith Witham,
3
Rebecca Cox, Alicia Dowd, Eric Felix, and Susan Bush-Mecenas for reviewing drafts and/or
taking the time for long conversations on the phone when I needed to talk it through. I am also
immensely grateful to my friends from outside the PhD program—Stephen Graham, Frances
Hensley, Sacha McVean, Timber Monteith, Grant McKinnon, and Tanya Voth—who always
offered their support and welcomed distractions.
Of course, my deepest gratitude and praise is reserved for family. I am grateful to the
Hung (Bong, Diana, Ellie, and Jett) and Broyles (Jimmy, Daisy, Easton, and Hudson) families
for overlooking my absence at some family dinners and for always letting me know they cared. I
am also forever appreciative for the encouragement I received from the Canadian crew: Todd,
Brenda, Elaina, Lexi, Ally, Tammy, Brent, Brady, Brea, and Abby. My parents, Bonnie and
Sandy, have been my greatest teachers in life. More so than others, they have taught me what it
means to work hard, have integrity, and be kind. While it is hardly enough, I dedicate this
dissertation to them.
Without a doubt, the person other than myself who has suffered the greatest throughout
the writing of this dissertation is my partner, Danny Lee. I am immensely grateful for the
patience, sense of humor, and balanced temper he has demonstrated these last four years. These
traits, along with his love and friendship have kept me afloat.
Last but not least, I am grateful to Shiloh, our beautiful and loyal Jindo, who stuck beside
me each and every hour it took to write this dissertation.

4
Table of Contents

Table of Contents 4

List of Tables 6

List of Figures 6

Abstract 7

CHAPTER I: Introduction 9
Statement of the Problem 11
Purpose of the Study 13
Study Interest 15
Insights from Previous Research at Millennium College 16
Study Significance 20
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of Dissertation 23

CHAPTER II: Review of Relevant Literature 24
CTE Pedagogy and Instruction 24
Learning Related to Pedagogical and Instructional Practice 37

CHAPTER III: Theoretical Framing 53
Sociocultural Perspective on Learning 53
Conceptual Framework: A Summary 68

CHAPTER IV: Research Design and Methodology 71
DBIR As A Larger Research Agenda 71
Case Study 74
Site Selection and Access 76
Participant Selection 77
Data Collection 78
Data Analysis 84
Trustworthiness 89
Ethical Considerations 91
Researcher Positionality 92

CHAPTER V: Overview of Millennium College and the PD Intervention 95
Historical and Sociocultural Context 95
CTE Team 102
PD Intervention 108

CHAPTER VI: Learning Along the Personal Plane 120
What was Learned? 122
Ways in Which PD Intervention Shaped Learning Along the Personal Plane 194
5

CHAPTER VII: Learning Along the Interpersonal Plane 226
What was Learned? 226
Ways in Which PD Intervention Shaped Learning Along the Interpersonal Plane 247

CHAPTER VIII: Discussion of Findings, Implications, and Conclusion 278
Summary of Major Findings 279
Lessons Learned From Millennium College 280
Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research 294
Limitations and Possible Directions for Future Research 301
Conclusion 304

Bibliography 306

Appendices:
A: Data Collection Overview 325
B: Sample Interview Protocol 326
C: Observation Protocol 331
D: Code List 333
E: IRB Information Sheet 338
F: Peer Observation Protocol – Iteration #1 340
G: Peer Observation Protocol – Iteration #2 341

6

List of Tables

Table 1. Discrete Pedagogical and Instructional Practices in the Workshop 27
Table 2. Embedded Case Instructors 78
Table 3. Information About CTE Team Members 103
Table 4. Overview of Activities Occurring Each Month of PD Intervention 110
Table 5. Participants’ Predominant Identity Trajectory 124
Table 6. Overview of Transformations in Practice for Instructor D 130
Table 7. Overview of Transformations in Practice for Instructor A 151
Table 8. Overview of Transformations in Practice for Instructor E 173
Table 9. Summary of Transformations in Practice Within Each Identity Trajectory 194
Table 10. Overview of Means of Assistance Provided to Participants Within Activity Types 195
Table 11. Challenging Aspects of Pedagogy/Instruction & Corresponding Inquiry Questions229
Table 12. End-of-Intervention Orientations Towards CTE Team’s Stated Goal 232
Table 13. Variant forms of Student Engagement Invoked by CTE Team 237
Table 14. Data Pertaining to Student Involvement in Lessons/Labs 255

List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual framework 69
Figure 2. Two phases of DBIR examined in this study 73
Figure 3. Calculating percentage point gap and lost course completions 116

7
Abstract
This dissertation addresses the issue of low and inequitable student success rates among
community college students in the United States through a focus on career and technical
education (CTE) faculty and their learning related to pedagogy and instruction and the ways in
which pedagogy and instruction are linked with equity in student success. Building upon prior
scholarship on CTE pedagogy and instruction, and practitioner learning in higher education and
K-12 settings, this study makes two important contributions. First, the study sheds needed light
on a topic that has been largely neglected in the literature: CTE faculty learning and, relatedly,
how CTE faculty practice might be remediated so that CTE students’ success rates are improved
and become more equitable across racial/ethnic lines. Considering that CTE is increasingly
promulgated as a vehicle for individual and state/national economic advancement and has thus
become a central component of many reforms seeking to improve community colleges, this
contribution is both significant and timely.
The second contribution this study makes is through its application of design-based
implementation research (DBIR; Penuel, Fishman, Haugan, Cheng, & Sabelli, 2011) that
involves researchers and practitioners collaboratively and iteratively designing and implementing
practice-based tools that are aimed at a persistent problem. In this study, that problem is low and
inequitable student success rates, and the co-designed tool is a peer observation protocol and
process. That the DBIR approach has not been extensively applied within higher education, this
study’s documentation of the iterative co-design and implementation process, and the learning
that resulted through it, represent an informative and unique contribution.
Through a single case study design, this study investigates the learning of a group of CTE
faculty at one college who were engaged in the above-described co-design and implementation
8
of a peer observation protocol and process. In this study, that joint work is conceptualized as a
professional development (PD) intervention. Drawing on data collected through interviews,
observations, and document review; and employing a conceptual framework that pulled on
various theoretical threads from within the sociocultural learning perspective; this study
examined what, if anything, was learned through participation in the PD intervention and how
such learning was shaped by participation in the PD intervention.
The findings of this study are laid out in respect to the personal and interpersonal planes
of learning. Along the personal plane, learning occurred within the context of various identity
trajectories that participants seemed to invoke, and was represented by their transformation in
conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction and/or their framing of the
racial/ethnic equity gaps in student success rates at the college. Participation in the PD
intervention shaped learning along the personal plane through the various means of assistance
(e.g., feedback) made available within the PD intervention. Along the interpersonal plane, this
study’s participants fine-tuned their joint understanding of their stated goal and appropriated new
representations or resources for negotiating meaning related to pedagogy and instruction and
how they are implicated in student success. Participation in the PD intervention shaped learning
along the interpersonal plane through: practical and conceptual tools that triggered the
negotiation of meaning process within the group, the provision of assistance (e.g., questioning),
and a form of community maintenance that fostered a sense of safety seemingly needed for the
critical examination of practice at the group level.

9
CHAPTER I:
Introduction
Community colleges enroll 46% of the nation’s post-secondary students (American
Association of Community Colleges, 2015) and serve as the gateway to higher education for the
majority of historically underserved students (Bragg, 2011; Dowd, 2007; Dowd & Bensimon,
2015). Recognizing the important role these institutions serve at the individual, community, and
national levels, policy makers, scholars, and practitioners have increasingly focused attention on
the persistently low and inequitable student success rates observed at community colleges. For
example, the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES; 2015) reported that only 20% of
full-time, first-time students who entered a public community college in 2010 completed a
degree by the end of 2013. Even more troubling, while 22% of Whites and 27% of Asians/
Pacific Islanders from this cohort completed a degree by 2013, only 11% of Blacks, 16% of
Hispanics, and 15% of American Indian/Alaska Natives attained this same outcome.
Recent reform efforts have taken a comprehensive approach to improve these low and
inequitable student success rates. Achieving the Dream (ATD; involves 200 community
colleges) and Completion by Design (CBD; involves 17 colleges) are two examples. Even
though these reforms have benefited from extensive financial and human-resource support,
1

initial results are mixed. The official report outlining ATD’s first five years in operation stated:
“trends in student outcomes [at participating colleges] remained relatively unchanged, with a few
exceptions” (Rutschow et al., 2011, p. iii). Initial findings from the first four years of CBD are
more positive, showing initial gains across many of the reform’s key-performance indicators

1
ATD was initiated in 2004 and currently involves 57 funding organizations, 100 coaches and advisors, and 15 state
policy teams, and reaches 4 million students (ATD website, 2016). Approximately 100 million dollars were invested
in ATD, during its first five years of operation (Rothkopf, 2009). Completion By Design is a 35 million dollar
program funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, involving 9 colleges in three states.
10
(CBD, 2016). With only 17 colleges involved, however, the scalability of this model has yet to
be evidenced. In short, neither reform seems poised to “move the needle” on national
completion rates any time soon.
One of the most striking aspects of these recent reform initiatives is not their initial lack-
luster results, but rather their failure to emphasize pedagogy and instruction. The ATD report
(Rutschow et al., 2011) noted that just one-fourth of reform strategies attempted across the 200
ATD colleges focused on classroom instruction. In the CBD report (2016), only four sentences
in the entire 60-page document explicitly reference classroom pedagogy and instruction. This
apparent “invisibility” of pedagogy and instruction is also reflected in the community college
literature. As the twentieth century came to a close, Grubb and associates (1999) noted that
“[t]here’s almost no information about what teaching looks like in the ‘teaching college.’
Teaching is invisible…it has never been the subject of sustained description, or any analysis of
what happens, or why it looks as it does” (p. 11).
While this seemingly core aspect of community colleges has received some additional
attention in the literature since the time of Grubb and associates’ statement (e.g., Bain, 2004;
Cox, 2009; Perin, 2011), it has not been extensive. This lack of emphasis on pedagogy and
instruction, and how it is implicated in student success, is problematic for three reasons. First,
from an organizational theory perspective, teaching and learning are arguably the core
technology (Woodward, 1958) of community colleges. While the ways in which this technology
actually functions remain largely “unclear” (Birnbaum, 1988), “teaching, learning, and
classroom practices,” without a doubt, represent the “core academic processes” of higher
education institutions (Gumport & Chun, 1999, p. 4). On that account, any effort directed
towards improvement that does not consider how teaching and learning are produced seems
11
misconceived. Second, classrooms are the settings where students spend the bulk of their on-
campus time, especially at community colleges, which remain predominantly non-residential,
commuter institutions. Thus, what happens in these classrooms (i.e., pedagogy and instruction)
should be a focus of any research and reform centered on improving student success. Third,
research in K-12 (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Marzano, Pickering & Pollock, 2001) has clearly
established that pedagogy and instruction are linked to student success. While community
college settings are no doubt different from those found in K-12, there is reason to suspect that
this link exists in both environments.
Statement of the Problem
Given the importance of pedagogy and instruction, it is critical to understand the
processes by which those tasked with their delivery—i.e., faculty members—come to understand,
learn, and improve upon their practices. Thus, following suit with Bensimon (2007), I turn
attention to faculty practice and specifically suggest that the issue of low and inequitable success
rates among community college students is a problem of practitioner learning and the
organizational capacity needed to support such learning. In framing the problem this way, I am
not suggesting that faculty ought to be held solely responsible for persistently low student
outcomes. On the contrary, viewing the problem from this angle is intended to highlight the
agency faculty members have in respect to this issue of persistently low and inequitable student
success rates.
While the problem of low and inequitable student success outcomes is a problem for all
community college faculty, I focus this study specifically on CTE instructors for four reasons.
First, CTE faculty are charged with teaching the majority of sub-baccalaureate students (i.e.,
those pursuing a certificate or associate’s degree). For example, in 2011-2012, 73% of
12
credential-seeking sub-baccalaureate students sought a credential goal in a CTE occupational
field
2
(NCES, 2015). Second, CTE faculty are responsible for the learning of our most under-
served/least-academically-prepared students. When compared to non-CTE sub-baccalaureate
students, CTE sub-baccalaureate students typically have parents with relatively less education;
are from lower performing high schools, and achieved lower performance in those high schools;
earned lower scores on achievement/placement tests; and are more likely to be first-generation
college students and recipients of financial aid (Levesque et al., 2008).
3

Third, CTE faculty members typically have had the least preparation in regards to
effective pedagogical and instructional strategies (Achtenhagen & Grubb, 2001; Bartlett, 2002;
Twombly & Townsend, 2008). This sometimes leads them to rely on their own “folk theories”
of effective teaching that typically reflect the ways they themselves were taught (Keck, 1995).
Moreover, the professional development opportunities afforded to CTE faculty rarely focus on
the “how to” of teaching (Achtenhagen & Grubb, 2001). And while industry experience seems a
relevant knowledge base for effective instruction, CTE faculty may still lack explicit theoretical
understanding of their practice, or may have forgotten the various stages of understanding they
moved through to achieve their current learned state (Achtenhagen & Grubb, 2001).
Fourth, CTE is promulgated as a vehicle through which greater individual and
state/national economic advancement can be achieved and, as a result, is receiving increasing
policy attention (Hansen, 2016). At the federal level, the Carl D. Perkins CTE Act (2006) has
called for increased integration of academic and technical content in CTE programs and allocates

2
CTE occupational fields include: agriculture and natural resources; business management; business support;
communications and design; computer and information sciences; education; consumer (or personal) services (e.g.,
cosmetology, culinary arts); engineering, architecture, and science technologies; health sciences; manufacturing,
construction, repair, and transportation; marketing; protective services (e.g., fire protection, corrections); and public,
legal, and social services.
3
There are noted differences between certificate-seeking CTE students and associate’s-degree-seeking CTE
students. I do not report those differences here due to space limitations.
13
$1.3 billion, annually, to support CTE programs. In California, the governor’s 2016-17 budget
included a new $200-million Strong Workforce Program to expand access to CTE (Ewers, 2016).
Taken together, these factors provide the basis for a study focused specifically on CTE faculty.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to shed needed light on the topic of CTE faculty learning. In
this study, I situate CTE faculty learning in the context of a PD intervention at Millennium
College
4
that primarily involves co-designing and implementing a peer observation protocol and
process. This co-design and implementation work at Millennium is part of a larger ongoing
research and development agenda that employs an approach known as DBIR (Penuel et al.,
2011). The goals of this larger agenda are to engage with CTE faculty in the iterative co-design
and implementation of tools/processes aimed at: (a) addressing low and equitable student success
rates through a focus on pedagogy and instruction, (b) building knowledge and theory related to
CTE faculty learning, and (c) developing practitioners’ capacity for achieving and sustaining
change related to the focal problem.
5
In this current study, I utilize a theoretical framework that
pulls on threads from various streams within the sociocultural paradigm, that allow me to probe
into what might have been learned through participation in the PD intervention and how that
learning might have been shaped by participation in the PD intervention.
In light of the above, I aim to answer two overarching research questions in this study.
My first question focuses on the what of learning. In this study, I am interested in understanding
what is learned through participating in this PD intervention, particularly in relation to pedagogy
and instruction, and the link between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic equity in student
success. Therefore my first research question is:

4
In this dissertation, pseudonyms are used for the name of institution and all participants. In addition, all statistics
related to the college have been slightly adjusted to maintain anonymity.
5
DBIR is described in full in Chapter IV.
14
1. What, if anything, is specifically learned through participating in this PD intervention?
I pursue this question at two levels of analysis: the personal and the interpersonal (Rogoff, 1995).
Within the sociocultural perspective learning along the personal plane is not conceived of as
possessing or acquiring discrete knowledge, instead the focus is on the “active changes” one
moves through while participating in an unfolding activity (Rogoff, 1995, p. 10). Therefore, I
pose the following sub-question to guide my analysis along the personal plane:
a) In what ways do participants transform their individual practice through participating in
this PD intervention?
Along the interpersonal plane, learning occurs when the group refines dimensions of their social
practice (Wenger, 1998). Therefore to guide my analysis along the interpersonal plane, I pose
one additional sub-question:
b) In what ways does practice, at the group level, evolve as the intervention progresses?
My second overarching research question focuses on the how of learning. More
specifically, I am interested in understanding the ways in which participating in this PD
intervention shaped the learning process along both the personal and interpersonal planes
(Rogoff, 1995). Therefore my second research question is:
2. How does participating in this PD intervention shape participants’ learning?
Although focused on only one group of CTE faculty at one community college, through
this study I aim to uncover initial insights related to the broader matter of how the pedagogical
and instructional practice of CTE faculty might be remediated so that more CTE students achieve
success (i.e., attain a certificate, degree, or transfer eligibility), particularly those belonging to
racial/ethnic groups who historically have been under-served.

15
Study Interest
Pedagogy and instruction, and an individual’s learning in relation to them, is a topic I
have been curious about across my 17-year career in education. My interest in pedagogy and
instruction was initially sparked when pursuing my teaching certificate at Simon Fraser
University. In methods classes, such as one designed for elementary mathematics teachers, I
became intrigued with the ways in which different strategies such as small-group learning or the
use of manipulatives/tools (e.g., base ten blocks) supported my grappling with foundational
concepts. During the nine years of teaching that followed, I continued to think about and
experiment in my own classroom with an array of pedagogical and instructional practices, but it
was not until I became an elementary vice-principal charged with supervising other teachers that
I really began to seriously consider how pedagogical and instructional improvement might be
supported on a broader scale. At about the same time I made this transition into school
leadership, I became involved with an organization called the School Reform Initiative (SRI).
SRI seeks to improve the educational experiences of students, particularly those from historically
under-served groups, through the fostering of critical friends groups among teachers. Through
the culmination of these two experiences—becoming a vice-principal and working with the
SRI—emerged a keen interest in exploring how practitioners come to understand, learn, and
improve upon their pedagogical and instructional practice, and how these related processes can
be supported in an educational setting.
Four years ago, I left the world of K-12 school leadership to train as a scholar of higher
education. Soon after making this transition, I noticed that while higher education scholarship is
undoubtedly focused on improvement, pedagogy and instruction is not featured as a centerpiece
in that discourse, at least not in the same way I had observed it to be in K-12. With a few
16
exceptions (see Bensimon, 2007; Cox, 2009; Grubb 1999), the topic is largely glossed over in the
higher education literature. Similarly, once I entered the field as a research assistant for the
Center for Urban Education (CUE), I observed that pedagogy and instruction were not topics of
great discussion in the institutions where we were conducting our work. When these topics were
mentioned, the conversation usually remained somewhat superficial, drawing statements such as:
“Faculty need to employ innovative instructional practices.” These statements, however, were
rarely elaborated upon and almost never questioned or unpacked. In sum, these observations of
scholarship and practice left the impression that pedagogy and instruction are simply “a given” in
the classrooms of two- and four-year institutions.
My wondering about pedagogy and instruction, and learning in relation to them,
intensified in July 2014 when I began work on a CUE project at Millennium College.
Employing a developmental evaluation approach (Patton, 2011) this project involved
documenting and studying the college’s implementation of a comprehensive pathway reform,
while simultaneously supporting those efforts through the provision of ongoing timely feedback
that enabled mid-course enhancements to implementation. Because initial implementation was
focused on establishing CTE pathways, much of CUE’s work in this project involved CTE
faculty. Still holding onto my interests in pedagogy and instruction, I found myself wanting to
learn more about how these particular individuals, who had notably different backgrounds than
their non-CTE colleagues, learned about and enacted pedagogy and instruction.
Insights from Previous Research at Millennium College
During CUE’s developmental evaluation at Millennium College, I served as lead
researcher and worked in close collaboration with Dr. Estela Bensimon, the Principal
17
Investigator for the project. Through my involvement,
6
I acquired a foundational understanding
of the context for CTE faculty at Millennium, which I briefly describe below in accordance with
four key themes: silence around pedagogy and instruction, crude understanding of pedagogy and
instruction, need for professional development, and limited opportunities for coordinated
professional development.
Silence Around Pedagogy and Instruction
My previously stated observation that there is minimal talk about pedagogy and
instruction among practitioners of community colleges holds true at Millennium. This finding
was noted in various reports/memos that CUE produced as a vehicle for providing feedback to
the college’s senior leadership team about their facilitation of the pathway reform’s
implementation. For example, one of the first rapid-feedback memos shared with the senior
leadership team, stated: “The prevailing theme(s) around student success focuses on structural
issues…and there is very little talk about academic practices” (CUE, 2015a, p. 1). This
sentiment was later echoed in CUE’s culminating report, which noted that pathway reform
implementation “has essentially paid no attention to developing the instructional practices of
faculty” (CUE, 2015b, p. 2-3).
Even when college leaders did attempt to initiate a conversation about pedagogy and
instruction, their attempts often failed. This was the case during one academic council meeting,
when the VP of Academic Affairs suggested that student success was not just dependent upon
providing counseling and tutoring, but also required “changes in teaching in the classrooms.”
She invited committee members to share “best practices” and “ideas for improvement.” Even
though she had specifically specified classroom teaching as the focus of the discussion, none of

6
This project drew on data collected through: interviews of 44 faculty, administrators, and staff; observations of 61
events/meetings (110 hrs.); five surveys; and three questionnaires. I was extensively involved in collecting these
data and in their subsequent analysis.
18
the responses offered were about what instructors actually do in the classroom. Instead, the ideas
put forward centered on related duties that some faculty were apparently failing to execute in
accordance with college policy (e.g., publishing a course syllabus, setting appropriate times for
office hours, attending department meetings, reading and responding to emails, and maintaining
industry-required certification). Perhaps most surprising, no one in attendance—not even the VP
of Academic Affairs—pointed out how these ideas were not directly related to teaching in the
classroom.
Faculty’s failure to engage in conversations about classroom teaching might have been
partly due to how they conceived of the role of an instructor. For example, during one interview
conducted during CUE’s developmental evaluation, a CTE faculty chair shared that his
department had articulated a vision statement to guide their work. In essence, this statement
proclaimed that “everyone here is committed to making sure that what we train to is as current as
we can keep it, as relevant as we can keep it, and will lead [the students] to the best types of jobs
that they can get.” In other words, the department was committed to focusing on what specific
curriculum they teach, but not how they teach, or who the students are (i.e., their various cultural
backgrounds and knowledge, educational and career goals, etc.).
Crude Understanding of Pedagogy and Instruction
A second theme related to pedagogy and instruction at Millennium College was that
some CTE faculty members maintained an over-simplistic understanding of pedagogy and
instruction, and how they were implicated in student success. For example, one instructor
described teaching within the CTE context as a very linear process:
It’s like you give them the project. You give them a demo on how it’s gonna work. They
work on it. You go over there and tell them, ‘That doesn’t go this way. It goes that way.’
19
Right then, you’re giving them their feedback, and they go on. When they produce the
product at the end, it’s either done right or it’s done wrong. There’s not a lot of gray area.
During his interview, this instructor also shared that only 12-20 out of 40 students were typically
retained from first to second semester in one of his department’s programs (this equates to an
attrition rate of 50-70%). When asked why this happens, he posited that “the math is tough on
them…the reading, the workload, their life, I guess, gets in the way.” Not until he was prompted
to do so by the interviewer, did he consider the connection between these retention rates and the
pedagogical and instructional practices of the faculty who teach these students. Even then, his
understanding of this link seemed limited in that the solution he proposed was to assign the first
semester cohort of students to a faculty member who demonstrated more of a “willingness to try
something new.”
Need for Professional Development
In contrast to the faculty member just discussed, other instructors at Millennium College
recognized a need for PD, particularly in topics related to pedagogy and instruction. For
example, one CTE faculty member stated:
I feel that in the areas of CTE, we hire faculty based on industry experience. That
doesn’t necessarily mean that they know how to teach. How do you hire a faculty
member and expect them to develop this great student, or a great product, without them
themselves maybe having those core competencies that are necessary from the teaching
standpoint, or from a pedagogical standpoint? It’s almost like we need an [improvement]
reform for our faculty.
Along a similar vein, during one academic council meeting, a department chair suggested that
“faculty need development in topics such as: how to motivate students, and how students learn.”
20
When asked if others in the group agreed, the majority of people in the room raised their hand in
agreement. No definitive planning unfolded to establish such PD opportunities, however, and
the conversation slowly evolved towards a new topic.
Limited Opportunities for Coordinated Professional Development
Faculty and staff at Millennium were protected under comprehensive collective
bargaining agreements. As a result, there were few contexts within which appointed (i.e., VP’s
and deans) and elected (i.e., department chairs) leaders could facilitate coordinated professional
development for faculty about matters related to pedagogy and instruction. While department
meetings were perceived to be a key site for such improvement efforts, the collective bargaining
agreements that had been negotiated only required faculty to attend those meetings if
accreditation matters were being discussed. There existed even less opportunity to discuss
pedagogy and instruction with adjunct faculty who, in many departments, constituted a high
portion of the teaching faculty. For example, one CTE pathway/department at Millennium had
26 full-time faculty and 85 adjuncts. At one of their department meetings that took place during
the time of CUE’s developmental evaluation, only 4 of the 85 adjuncts were in attendance.
Study Significance
This study has the potential of generating new knowledge relevant to policy, practice, and
research. Currently there exists limited empirical evidence related to CTE faculty learning, and
subsequently little is known about the ways in which CTE faculty practice might be remediated
so that more CTE students achieve success (i.e., attain a certificate, degree, or transfer eligibility).
My study promises to shed needed light on this subject by examining, in depth, the learning of
one group of CTE faculty at one community college, who are participating in a PD intervention
that involves collaboratively designing and implementing a peer observation protocol and
21
process. While I do not intend to examine how study participants’ participation in this
intervention and their related learning is linked with student success outcomes, I do seek to
explore the ways in which their involvement influences changes in practice. Providing such
empirical evidence would thus offer policy makers who are interested in improving student
success rates insights related to the effectiveness of this particular strategy as a tool for PD.
In respect to generating knowledge relevant to practice, the larger ongoing approach to
research and design of which this current study is a part (i.e., DBIR) involves collaborating with
practitioners to address a local problem of practice (i.e., low and inequitable student success rates,
framed as a problem of practitioner learning related to pedagogy and instruction). Therefore, in
addition to producing knowledge about CTE faculty learning for the broader research and policy
audiences, this study also incorporates building local system capacity at Millennium College.
That is, this approach engages in building CTE faculty’s ability to address the low and
inequitable student success rates observed at Millennium.
The DBIR approach allows for research and development to occur simultaneously. This
approach, however, has not been extensively applied within higher education. Consequently,
this study’s documentation of the iterative co-design and implementation process, and the
learning that resulted through it, represent an informative and unique contribution in that it can
serve as a model for other scholars who are eager to see their research activity have a more
expedited and direct impact on practice.
Definition of Terms
Pedagogy and Instruction
In educational discourse, pedagogy and instruction often appear to be used
interchangeably. However, according to Hyun (2006), these two terms do represent different
22
notions and/or aspects of teaching.
7
Instruction refers to “teacher’s passing content
knowledge…or (pre)existing contents on to learners” (p. 141-142). Referencing Eisner (1994),
Hyun (2006) states that “[f]rom the standpoint of instruction, educationally desirable practice
individualizes instruction by altering the teaching method, content, and goal to fit well with
particular [students’] needs,” but this might overlook “several forms of pedagogical adaptations,”
such as considering students’ differing motivations, and/or the types of examples that will be
effective for different learners (p. 139-140; italics in original). Pedagogy “exceeds instruction”
(p. 137), as it “stresses the building of relationships among teacher, learner, [and] learning
experiences…that lead to more than [the student] repeating existing content knowledge” (p. 142).
Moreover, it involves sharing power between teacher and learner, and includes “the possibility of
uncovering learners’ unknown capabilities” (p. 142). I adopt Hyun’s delineation, and use both
terms together as a set. I do this to convey my perspective that: (a) both matter for learning
(although for differing reasons), and (b) they are distinct, but related, aspects. I also use both
terms in this dissertation for the sake of coherence, as some of the literature I cite refers to only
one, and not the other.
Career and Technical Education
Career and technical education (CTE) has had different labels across time, including:
vocational education (first used in the early 20
th
century), occupational education (came to
prominence in the 1970s), and workforce preparation (emerged in the 1990s) (Bragg, 2001). As
Bragg (2001) notes, while these terms have slightly different intents, they are no doubt related in
that they all refer to educational programs and training that aim to prepare students for the
workplace. In this dissertation, I use the label CTE because it reflects terminology used in recent

7
To articulate this delineation, Hyun draws primarily on the work of Dewey (1902, 1938), Eisner (1994), Freire
(1997), and Giroux (1988, 1992, 1997).
23
federal legislation (i.e., Carl D. Perkins CTE Act, 2006). While CTE takes place in secondary,
and all levels and sectors of post-secondary education (i.e., four-year, two-year, and less-than-
two-year institutions in public, private not-for-profit, and private for-profit sectors), this
dissertation focuses on literature related to CTE in public community colleges, as that is the
specific CTE context examined in this study.
8

Organization of Dissertation
This dissertation is laid out as follows. In Chapter II, I present a review of research
related to CTE pedagogy and instruction and CTE faculty learning. Since that literature remains
thin, I extend my review to include studies in higher education more broadly and K-12. In
Chapter III, I present sociocultural learning as the theoretical framework guiding this study, and
outline the specific theoretical strands upon which I draw. In Chapter IV, I outline the study’s
research design and methodology, and in Chapter V provide an overview of the historical and
sociocultural context at Millennium College (i.e., the research site) as well as the PD intervention
upon which this study is focused. I present this study’s findings related to learning along the
personal and interpersonal planes in Chapters VI and VII, respectively, and then conclude in
Chapter VIII with a discussion of those findings as well as the implications and limitations of
this study about CTE faculty learning.

8
To illustrate the breadth of CTE in public community colleges, Levesque and associates (2008) report that 98% of
the 1,143 two-year public institutions in the US offer CTE courses and/or programs; in California specifically, there
are 112 two-year public (Title IV eligible) institutions offering CTE courses and/or programs.
24
CHAPTER II:
Review of Relevant Literature
This dissertation examines CTE faculty learning, particularly in relation to pedagogy and
instruction and the link between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic equity in student
success. Therefore this review examines literature pertaining to CTE pedagogy and instruction
and CTE faculty learning. Because both of these bodies of literature are thin, I extend my review
of both to include studies from higher education more broadly, and K-12.
CTE Pedagogy and Instruction
While CTE is garnering greater attention in the policy arena, the literature on CTE
remains largely descriptive in nature, and the specific topic of pedagogy and instruction in CTE
has been almost entirely ignored. In this section, I review the literature on CTE pedagogy and
instruction that does exist, first outlining two broad approaches to teaching that are described:
conventional and progressive. Next, I delineate two instructional and pedagogical methods that
are prominently featured: lecture-workshop and contextualization, paying particular attention to
evidence of their effectiveness.
Two Broad Approaches to Teaching
Grubb and his colleagues (1999) lay out two broad approaches to teaching to help qualify
the various pedagogical and instructional methods they found operating within the community
colleges in their study. The two approaches they articulate are informed by the work of
educational theorists, as well as the findings from their own observations of the 257 instructors
they observed. The authors note that very few instructors exclusively followed one approach or
the other, but rather some combination of the two. I begin with a brief description of these
25
approaches, as they serve as a helpful lens for examining the more specific pedagogical and
instructional methods discussed later in this section.
The first approach to teaching can be labeled as conventional, behaviorist, passive,
teacher-centered, or didactic (Grubb et al., 1999). For ease of reference, from here on, I refer to
this approach as conventional. In the conventional approach, conceptions of good teaching
include possessing up-to-date knowledge, conveying knowledge to students in a “part-to-whole”
(p. 29) and/or simplest-to-more-difficult format, being well prepared for class, and reinforcing
course content through repetition. Here, the instructor operates as “the primary source of
authority and knowledge” (p. 30). The conventional approach reflects the assumption that
intelligence is fixed, as opposed to malleable (Dweck, 1989). Accordingly, students take on a
performance rather than learning orientation; and instructors tend to hold deficiency perspectives
of students who do not meet performance standards. In sum, the conventional approach is
concerned with coverage of content and efficiency. As a result, it is sometimes described as the
“factory model” of teaching because it upholds core scientific management principles advanced
by Taylor (1911) in the early 20
th
century.
The second broad approach to teaching is also known by a variety of labels, including
progressive, meaning-making, constructivist, active, student-centered, or holistic (Grubb et al.,
1999). For ease of reference, from here on, I refer to this approach as progressive. In the
progressive approach, conceptions of good teaching include: emphasizing mastery of
competencies (occupational and non-occupational) needed for success in “real world” settings;
conveying a “whole-to-part” (p. 31) orientation towards knowledge construction; modulating
instruction to fit with students’ interests and backgrounds; enabling collaborative learning among
students; and creating opportunities for them to become autonomous learners. In this approach,
26
the instructor serves as “more of a guide as students create their own knowledge, relying on
expertise from a variety of sources” (p. 32). Grubb and associates (1999) maintain that while
there exists “very little” (p. 43) evidence in the literature about the effectiveness of these two
broad approaches, the evidence that does exist seems to support the progressive approach.
Lecture-workshop as a common method in CTE. The primary pedagogical and
instructional method in CTE classrooms is the lecture-workshop (Achtenhagen, 2001; Grubb et
al., 1999).
9
This method “exemplifies the Deweyan precept of ‘learning and doing’” (Grubb et
al., 1999, p. 100; italics in original), and is likely the method that most people envision when
they think about CTE pedagogy and instruction. It includes theoretical classroom-based learning,
in addition to “practice in manipulative skills” within a workshop setting (Achtenhagen & Grubb,
2001, p. 615).
A skilled application of the classroom component involves the instructor delivering
content information and posing questions that transition from “simple recall to causal analysis to
counterfactual analysis to problem solving” (Achtenhagen & Grubb, 2001, p. 615). The
workshop component frequently serves as the hub of this method (Grubb et al, 1999, p. 101), and
typically involves students working independently or in small groups on projects similar to what
one might see in that occupational field. During this time, the instructor circulates and carries
out a number of discrete practices simultaneously (Achtenhagen & Grubb, 2001; Grubb et al.,
1999). These are outlined in Table 1, below.

9
A slight variation of this method is: lecture-workshop-discussion, which allows for the extraction of learning from
the doing (Grubb et al, 1999).
27
Table 1
Discrete Pedagogical and Instructional Practices in the Workshop

• Engaging students (the workshop setting demands active participation)

• Showing and doing (instructors model how to complete tasks and students mimic those
actions; this practice reflects the conventional approach)

• Fostering students’ development of non-cognitive abilities (i.e., kinesthetic, visual,
auditory, and perceptual skills; this practice may or may not be explicit)

• Fostering students’ development of problem solving, teamwork, and communication
skills (this practice may or may not be explicit)

• Making the invisible visible and diagnosing errors (accessing and assessing students’
cognitive processing; this practice reflects the progressive approach)

• Carrying out one-on-one instruction (i.e., differentiation; this practice can reflect the
conventional and/or the progressive approach)

• Developing complex teaching-learning environments (e.g., computer-based simulations
and case studies in occupational fields that don’t maintain a workshop setting, such as
business; this practice can reflect the conventional and/or the progressive approach)

• Conducting authentic assessment (i.e., performance-based; this practice can reflect the
conventional and/or the progressive approach)

Effectiveness of lecture-workshop. In light of the above list, the workshop can be a
“pedagogically sophisticated place,” but “this complexity [can have] its own costs” (Grubb et al,
1999, p. 119). In order for the instructional benefits of the workshop to emerge, they must be
appropriately executed, which necessitates the instructor maintaining some understanding of the
pedagogical principles that underlay these practices. One potential problem that can arise is
instructors over emphasizing practice and under emphasizing the theory that grounds that
practice. Hull (1993) found this to be particularly true of short-term CTE programs (i.e., job-
training). Grubb and associates (1999) also observed that even though the workshop can be an
information-rich environment, students rarely took notes during their activity. Thus, he and his
28
team concluded that although the workshop seems to exemplify application, “it is quite possible
for a class to be hands-on and [still] be as didactic, passive (on the student’s part),
decontextualized, and skills-oriented as any grammar or multiplication drill” (p. 103). To
prevent this from happening, and to more fully actualize the potential learning benefits of the
workshop environment, Achtenhagen and his colleagues (Achtenhagen, 1994; Achtenhagen, et
al., 1992) assert that instructors need to act with pedagogical expertise.
In regards to the lecture component of this method, one study from Great Britain (Harkin
& Davis, 1996) found that the CTE instructors observed were not particularly successful in
transitioning their questions (i.e., recall, causal analysis, counterfactual analysis, then problem
solving). Instead, these instructors relied more heavily on a directive approach to teaching when
in the classroom. In contrast, Grubb and his associates (1999) observed that CTE instructors in
their study were particularly adept at shifting to “more demanding questions,” particularly
“diagnostic questions” (p. 103). These instructors were not, however, as skilled at responding to
questions. In these instances, the instructors tended to reply to students “immediately and
directly, based either on textbook material or on their own experience,” but they seldom
encouraged students to develop their own hypotheses or elaborations (p. 104). As a result, these
instructors missed an opportunity to encourage students to “think for themselves” (p. 104). In
sum, it seems that the lecture-workshop method is not innately effective or ineffective. Instead,
its effectiveness rests on how instructors carry out this method, which, as noted previously,
seems to depend upon pedagogical expertise (Achtenhagen and Grubb, 2001).
Contextualization as a common method in CTE. Another pedagogical and
instructional method featured prominently in the literature is contextualization (Grubb et al.,
1999; Karweit, 1998; Mazzeo, Rab, & Alssid, 2003; Perin, 2011; Stone, Alfeld, Pearson, Lewis,
29
& Jensen, 2006; Wachen, Jenkins, & Van Noy, 2011; Weinbaum & Rogers, 1995; Wisely, 2009).
This method represents a set of strategies intended to “more seamlessly link” learning of
foundational skills with the content of CTE (or non-CTE) courses “by focusing teaching and
learning squarely on concrete applications in a specific context that is of interest to the student”
(Mazzeo, Rab, & Alssid, 2003, p. 3-4). The theoretical underpinnings of this method assume
that contextualizing learning promotes: (a) better transfer of learning and retention of
information (Karweit, 1998; Weinbaum & Rogers, 1995), and (b) increased motivation as a
result of learning within one’s area of interest (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Perin (2011) makes a
distinction between contextualized and integrated instruction, proposing that “contextualized
instruction is employed by instructors of reading, writing, and mathematics, whereas integrated
instruction is the province of [CTE] instructors” (p. 271). Within the CTE classroom, then,
integration holds the disciplinary content as the focus but incorporates some foundational
academic curricula to enhance critical thinking about CTE content (Perin, 2011).
10

Effectiveness of contextualization/integration. There remains mixed evidence of the
effectiveness of contextualization/integration. Jenkins, Zeidenberg, and Kienzl (2009) and
Zeidenberg, Cho, and Jenkins (2010) examined the effects of the Integrated Basic Education and
Skills Training (I-BEST) program in Washington state. This program employs an elaborate form
of contextualization/integration, requiring basic-skills and CTE instructors to both be present for
at least 50% of instructional time. Using quasi-experimental methods (regression, propensity
score matching, difference-in-difference approaches), these two research teams found that I-
BEST students were more likely than other basic-skills students to enroll in subsequent credit-
bearing courses, earn credits, persist to the next year, demonstrate general gains in basic skills,

10
Contextualization is often referenced as a mechanism for accelerating students’ overall progression through their
academic program (e.g., Nodine, Dadgar, Venezia, & Reeves Bracco, 2013).

30
and complete a program of study. One limitation of this evidence is students self-selected into
the program, making it difficult to ascertain if the observed outcomes were actually the result of
participating in I-BEST or other factors (e.g., student motivation).
Wachen, Jenkins, and Van Noy (2011) conducted a follow-up study to investigate the
implementation of I-BEST. They found that the model requires instructors to dedicate a
significant amount of time and effort. This likely explains why most partnerships observed were
found to only have achieved “partially integrated instruction” (p. 149). Of particular relevance to
my topic of inquiry, this study found that contextualization/integration requires CTE instructors
to: (a) develop new strategies for effectively teaching students who are “on average more
educationally and economically disadvantaged,” and (b) adjust their values so that such an
endeavor is perceived to be an imperative (p. 151).
Perin’s (2011) review of contextualization studies offers additional evidence on the
effectiveness of contextualization/integration. In total, she analyzed 61 studies (34 descriptive
and 27 quantitative) that included post-secondary, K-12, and adult-literacy settings. Five of the
included studies that focused on the integration format considered the extent to which students’
CTE outcomes were influenced as a result of their participation in the integration intervention.
In three of the studies, an improvement in CTE outcomes was observed. This was not true of the
other two studies (both from K-12 settings). While Perin acknowledges that these mixed
findings are disappointing, she does not speculate as to the reasons for their occurrence. In sum,
contextualization/integration is similar to lecture-workshop, in that its effectiveness seems to turn
on the ways in which it is executed. Here too, further empirical investigation is needed.

31
Gaps in the CTE Literature
In addition to lacking clear evidence about the effectiveness of the lecture-workshop and
contextualization methods, there are two other significant gaps in the CTE literature. First, it
falls short in explicating the full range of knowledge and actions required to carry out the various
practices identified within the lecture-workshop and contextualization methods. For example,
“engaging students” is one aspect of lecture-workshop, but what specifically must an instructor
know and be able to do in order to accomplish this practice? Second, the CTE literature fails to
outline specific practices involved in creating a learning environment that draws on the
experiences of and supports the success of students from historically marginalized and
underserved racial/ethnic groups. Considering that students from these groups constitute a large
portion of CTE students in the United States, and that these student groups experience ongoing
disproportionate inequities in various measures of student success,
11
this is a significant
oversight. While a review of all the higher education and K-12 literature specifically related to
these two gaps is beyond the scope of this dissertation, a discussion of a few key works is
warranted.
More fully explicating knowledge and actions of pedagogy and instruction. Drawing
on findings from his 2004 study of more than 60 instructors from across multiple disciplines in
higher education, Bain proposes that the discourse about “effective” pedagogical and
instructional practice ought to move past the conventional vs. progressive debate. He claims that
his findings “speak to a higher set of considerations” (p. 192), and more effectually convey what
good teaching looks like. In particular, he found that effective instructors: (a) understand their
subjects well and “can do intellectually, physically, or emotionally” the things they expect their
students to do (p. 16); (b) begin their planning by thinking about what students need to know,

11
Specific statistics to support these two claims were outlined in the previous chapter.
32
what they can do as the instructor to help develop those abilities, and how they as the instructor
will monitor students’ progress; (c) maintain high standards and convey their trust in students’
ability to reach those standards; (d) select topics and tasks that are of interest to students and then
emphasize critical thinking about those topics and tasks; and (e) have a system for assessing their
own performance and making needed changes. These findings help to shed light on what CTE
instructors need to know (i.e., deep knowledge of subject matter and genuine understanding of
students’ interests and current capabilities) and do (i.e., maintain high standards; convey trust in
students; engage in ongoing reflection about what one does, its impact on student learning, and
ways to improve) to effectively operationalize lecture-workshop, contextualization, or other
methods. They are limited, however, in that they still maintain a somewhat “balcony view” of
what effective pedagogical and instructional practice entails.
In the K-12 literature, a variety of frameworks have been articulated to more clearly
illustrate the full range of knowledge and actions characterizing the teaching-learning enterprise.
The common assumption undergirding these frameworks is essentially that: “teaching is complex
[and] it is helpful to have a road map through the territory,” (Danielson, 1996, p. 2). One
prominent exemplar is Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching (FFT), which was updated
in 2007, 2011, and again in 2013. The FFT draws on empirical and theoretical research
delineating the relationship between specific pedagogical and instructional practices and
improved student learning. Thus, its contents “seek to define what teachers should know and be
able to do in the exercise of their profession” (p. 1).
The 2013 version of Danielson’s FFT encompasses four broad domains—planning and
preparation, the classroom environment, instruction, and professional responsibilities—that are
further divided into components (22, in total), which themselves are split up into elements (76, in
33
total). Various validation studies (Gallagher, 2004; Kimball et al., 2004; Milanowlski, 2004;
Milanowski, Kimball, & Odden, 2005) have shown that teachers who scored high on the FFT
rubric also had students who demonstrated greater gains in student achievement.
12
In addition to
these formal studies, Danielson (1996) posits that the framework’s components are further
validated when instructors collaboratively study and discuss the various components and
consider their relevance in respect to the local setting.
In 2016, Danielson presented an alternative format of the framework that has the
knowledge and actions of effective teaching arranged into six “generic clusters.” This
reformatting was motivated by the recognition that the FFT’s “level of detail…makes it
cumbersome for everyday use” (Danielson, 2016, p. 1). Presenting the framework as six clusters
represents “an attempt to distill the ‘big ideas’ of the FFT’s four domains and 22 components
into an efficient tool (composed of six large concepts)” (p. 1). In addition to providing a
narrative description of each generic cluster, Danielson has included a rubric that outlines what
each cluster looks like in its unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished form. While she
supports the use of these generic clusters for evaluating teacher performance, Danielson
emphasizes that they, or the original FFT, can be employed as a tool for self-reflection and peer
coaching, or as a “roadmap” for novice teachers (Danielson, 1996, p. 6). Although research
suggests a substantial portion of instructors have found the FFT tenable and useful for
developing their pedagogical and instructional practice (see Heneman, Milanowski, Kimball, &
Odden, 2006), it is not currently known how modifications, such as adapting it for the CTE
setting, might influence its overall efficacy.

12
Worth noting, Goe, Bell and Little (2008) found that there was variation across these studies in the degree to
which raters were trained in the rubric’s use, the relationship between raters and observed teachers, and the number
of observations conducted.
34
While the Danielson (1996) framework, and others like it, seek to explicate the full range
of knowledge and actions that characterize teaching and learning, generally speaking, another
branch of literature from K-12 emphasizes that such knowledge and actions are at least
somewhat domain specific. This latter notion is perhaps best captured in Schulman’s (1986,
1987) idea of pedagogical content knowledge. Schulman (1986) explained that such knowledge
is represented in the instructor’s capacity for “representing and formulating the subject [in ways]
that make it comprehensible to others” (p. 9). This knowledge includes understanding what a
good example looks like, anticipating which specific topics or concepts students will have
difficulty with, and choosing representations that will help convey the essence of key topics and
concepts. Although this concept of pedagogical content knowledge maintains empirical
grounding and also holds intuitive appeal, its application to CTE writ large is obviously limited.
CTE is composed of multiple disciplines that range from culinary arts, to digital media, to
plumbing. Therefore, the pedagogical content knowledge for CTE as a whole cannot be clearly
delineated. For studies such as this one that seek to explore pedagogy and instruction within all
of CTE, the frameworks that treat the topic of pedagogy and instruction more broadly—like
Danielson’s (1996) FFT—seem to hold greater relevance.
Creating an effective learning environment for all students. The CTE literature also
fails to outline specific practices involved in creating a learning environment that draws on the
experiences of and supports the success of students from historically marginalized and
underserved racial/ethnic groups. By overlooking this aspect of pedagogical and instructional
practice, this body of literature essentially takes the stance that methods such as lecture-
workshop and contextualization are automatically equally efficacious for all students, regardless
of those students’ cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives. An examination of
35
other research from within higher education, however, suggests that such a perspective is
inadequate. For example, through an “inside out” examination of pedagogy and instruction in
community colleges, that included data from 120 student interviews and multiple classroom
observations, Cox (2009) found that the success of specific pedagogical strategies was not linked
to the strategies themselves, but instead to students’ perceptions about the instructor. As Cox
explains:
success did not result from the use of these specific strategies [but rather] success resulted
from students’ perceptions of the instructors’ attitude and classroom environment. And
for these students, recognizing and addressing the high degree of anxiety they felt [i.e.,
“the fear factor”] was the crucial element in instructors’ approach to shaping their
students’ perceptions (p. 134; italics in original).
In response to these findings, Cox suggested that instructors should take into account individual
students’ goals and expectations “thoughtfully and systematically as they structure the learning
environment in their classrooms” (p. 163-164). Rose (2012) draws a similar conclusion in his
qualitative study of the experiences of non-traditional (i.e., adult) students at one urban
community college. He states that “the bottom line for students remains: is this a safe place and
do I feel respected?” Rose posits that when students believe these conditions are in place, they
will be more willing to participate, ask questions, and take chances, but he adds that this outcome
is only possible when instructors truly learn about and respond to students’ individual needs.
While neither Cox (2009) nor Rose (2012) set out to exclusively document and examine
the experiences of students of color, both authors note that this group comprises a growing
proportion of the community college student population in America, and that their findings
36
highlight the importance of fostering faculty members’ willingness and ability to adjust their
classroom practices in response to this shifting demographic.
Culturally-inclusive and culturally–responsive teaching. The move to develop more
inclusive pedagogical and instructional practices has perhaps received greatest attention in the K-
12 literature, starting as early as the mid-1990s. Moll and Gonzalez’s (1994) seminal work that
involved teachers conducting research in the homes of their Mexican American and Mexcana/o
students showed that these students possessed funds of knowledge, or “historically accumulated
and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for household or individual
functioning and well-being” (p. 133), that could serve as a resource for both teachers and
students within the teaching-learning enterprise. Similarly, Ladson-Billings (1994) drew on her
body of research with teachers of Black students to develop the concept of culturally-inclusive
pedagogy, which calls for fostering each student’s academic achievement, cultural competence
(i.e., maintaining one’s one cultural heritage while also learning how to access a more dominant
one), and sociopolitical consciousness (i.e., developing students’ critical awareness of social and
political issues and their agency for addressing observed inequities).
Perhaps most applicable to this study is Gay’s (2002) research that prompted her
development of the concept of culturally responsive teaching. This approach to pedagogy and
instruction uses the “cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse
students as conduits for teaching them more effectively,” and “it is based on the assumption that
when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and frames of
reference for students, they are more personally meaningfully, have higher interest appeal, and
are learned more easily and thoroughly” (Gay, 2002, p. 106). Gay identified five elements
involved in culturally responsive teaching: (a) developing a knowledge base about cultural
37
diversity, (b) including ethnic and cultural diversity content in the curriculum, (c) demonstrating
care and building learning communities, (d) communicating with ethnically diverse students, and
(e) responding to ethnic diversity in the delivery of instruction.
13

Summing Up Pedagogy and Instruction in CTE
Based on the literature reviewed here, there is a general lack of empirical evidence (or, at
times conflicting evidence) pertaining to the effectiveness of pedagogical and instructional
methods observed in CTE. Moreover, the CTE literature falls short in (a) explicating the full
range of knowledge and actions required to carry out the various practices identified within the
two dominant methods (i.e., lecture-workshop and contextualization), and (b) outlining specific
practices involved in creating a learning environment that draws on the experiences of and
supports the success of students from historically marginalized and underserved racial/ethnic
groups who represent a significant portion of CTE students in the US. While useful insights
related to these gaps can be drawn from other research in higher education and the K-12 setting,
empirical investigation into their applicability to CTE settings is needed.
Learning Related to Pedagogical and Instructional Practice
The underlying issue driving my study is low and inequitable student success rates that I
frame as a problem of faculty learning related to pedagogy and instruction and the organizational
capacity needed to support such learning. Therefore, in addition to uncovering what we know
and do not know from existing research about current pedagogical and instructional practices in
CTE, this review of the literature must also take account of what we know and do not know

13
Relevant to this discussion is Neumann and her colleagues’ (2012) theoretical model for culturally anchored
liberal education. While not presented alongside empirical data, their model and its core principles reflect a
pedagogical turn that also seems applicable to CTE. In essence, a culturally anchored pedagogy calls attention to
the person, “who the learners are, what they know, need, and seek” (p. 3). Neumann and her colleagues posit that if
instructors are able to foster such an environment, students will be afforded the opportunity to modify their prior
knowledge.
38
about CTE faculty learning. As a starting point, one can look to the previously discussed studies
by Grubb and his associates (1999) and Perin (2011). Although they did not set out to
specifically study faculty learning, Grubb and his colleagues (1999) observed that participants in
their study primarily learned through trial and error, and/or talking with colleagues. The authors
concluded, however, that neither of these approaches was very effective for realizing large-scale
educational improvement.
14
Accordingly, Grubb and his colleagues proposed that college
leaders ought to focus on creating more opportunities for faculty to: (a) conduct inquiry into their
practice—through processes such as peer observation, and (b) collaboratively reflect upon and
discuss the teaching-learning enterprise. In the concluding section of her synthesis of the
contextualization literature, Perin (2011) laid out essentially the same set of recommendations
for supporting faculty learning. She emphasized that professional development ought to be
ongoing in nature and include teachers visiting each other’s classrooms and discussing their
educational philosophies and pedagogical and instructional techniques. While these ideas put
forth by Grubb and his associates (1999) and Perin (2011) are intuitively appealing, they
represent only propositions about how CTE faculty learning can be supported. In this section, I
review the extant CTE literature to uncover the extent of empirical support for these propositions.
Due to there being limited literature focused specifically on CTE faculty learning, I again extend
my review to higher education more broadly, and K-12, to establish a more robust picture of how
practitioner learning
15
is supported.

14
Grubb and his associates (1999) noted that learning through trial and error is time consuming, and only some
faculty engage this task due to heavy teaching loads and multiple initiatives that compete for their attention and
time. Moreover, they found that in most colleges the “defining aspect of instructors’ lives…is their isolation,” and
thus learning through conversation with colleagues was also not typically achieved (p. 49).
15
I use “practitioner learning” as it is more broadly representative of both faculty learning (i.e., CTE and higher
education) and teacher learning (i.e., K-12).
39
CTE Faculty Learning
There is some evidence that inquiry into, and collaborative reflection about, the teacher-
learning enterprise supports CTE faculty learning related to pedagogy and instruction. For
example, Hoekstra and Crocker’s (2014) study reports on the design, implementation, and
evaluation of an ePortfolio program for CTE instructors at a technical college in Canada. The
portfolio, which was intended to serve as both a performance evaluation tool and a mechanism
for practitioner learning, involved participants collecting data through various means (e.g., peer
observation, student surveys, etc.), compiling it in an ePortfolio, reflecting on that data, setting
professional learning goals, and then sharing the ePortfolio with their supervisor. Drawing on
data from 26 interviews and 68 surveys, Hoekstra and Crocker found that most participants
collected more and/or different types of data related to their practice than they had previously,
and that they also reflected on and learned from that data. They also observed that non-favorable
reports about the portfolio process were commonly related to lack of time to complete the
portfolio (due to competing priorities) and ineffective facilitation of the overall process by the
faculty chair (i.e., chairs were not focused on the portfolio as a learning tool, but rather
operationalized it with an emphasis on compliance). In sum, these findings suggest that inquiry
into one’s practice, in the form of an ePortfolio, may offer the possibility of learning, but its
effectiveness partly hinges on whether the process is orchestrated to work in conjunction with
participants’ other commitments and is facilitated in a way that lead participants to conclude
their efforts were worthwhile.
In 2000, Grubb published findings from a study he conducted in Great Britain that
provided empirical support for his prior hypothesis pertaining to the potential significance of
peer observation. In this study, Grubb documented how collaborative classroom observations
40
influenced pedagogical and instructional improvement within Great Britain’s college system.
16

He found that the observation process prompted conversations within the observed college about
teaching and the mechanisms in place (and not in place) to support instructors’ learning related
to teaching. He also found that the individuals who conducted the observations further
developed their own pedagogical and instructional practices as a result of observing the practices
of peers. While this study is limited in that one is unable to assess the extent to which Great
Britain’s “further education” college closely resembles CTE settings in the US, it does provide
some empirical reinforcement for Grubb and his colleagues’ (1999) earlier proposition about
fostering CTE faculty learning through peer observation.
Practitioner Learning
Other than within the above two studies—which contain only partial treatments of the
topic—CTE faculty learning has not been a focus of empirical investigation. As a result of this
gap in the CTE literature, no clear image currently exists of how CTE faculty learning occurs
and/or how it might be supported. There are, however, insights about this phenomenon that can
be drawn from the literature within higher education more broadly, and K-12. While informative,
this larger collection of studies is expansive in size, and a full review of them is beyond the
scope of this dissertation. Instead, I present a synthesis of the evidence that seems most relevant
to my study about CTE faculty learning. This synthesis is laid out as factors that support
practitioner learning, which I delineate as: (a) learning communities, (b) peer observation, (c)
iterative and systematic design of processes and products related to practice, (d) analysis of
student data, and (e) knowledge-centered environments. Importantly, these factors can and/or do
work interdependently. Therefore, my attempt to organize them into discrete factors is

16
Each observation team consisted of external inspectors, subject-area experts from within the local system, and
faculty from the observed institution.
41
somewhat problematic, as clear crossovers are apparent (e.g., peer observation may be part of a
study that I have located under the heading of learning communities). My hope, however, is that
presenting the evidence in this more structured way promotes better clarity about what can be
gleaned from this literature in regards to key insights about practitioner learning.
Learning communities. The first key insight drawn from this larger body of literature is
that joint work carried out within designated groups can support practitioner learning about
practice. In the literature, these groups are sometimes not provided a formal label (e.g.,
Bickerstaff & Cormier, 2014), and at other times they are named: evidence teams (Bensimon,
2012), inquiry teams (Peña, 2012), or professional communities (Grossman, Wineburg, &
Woolworth, 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001).
In a multi-year qualitative study, Bickerstaff & Cormier (2014) examined the
implementation, adaptation, and scaling of four instructional innovations within developmental
education (in community colleges). They observed that the types of questions posed by faculty
evolved across the implementation process. Faculty questions were first focused on the reform’s
effectiveness, and then on logistics related to implementation. Eventually, the questions centered
on instructional materials and pacing, and last on student learning and effective strategies for
achieving it. Importantly, Bickerstaff and Cormier found that faculty members who were
charged with facilitating professional development events often had difficulty “addressing
questions about classroom practice” due to their own “lack of experience engaging in discussions
about teaching” (p. 5). Conversations that did achieve in-depth discussions of practice, and
which subsequently had significance for learning related to pedagogy and instruction, seemed to
occur as a result of: (a) the critical examination of course materials and/or student work, and (b)
42
longer-term participation in groups that enabled team members to “develop trust and rapport,
which likely supported…critical self-reflection” (p. 6).
Another collection of studies from higher education that explores how learning is
supported through collaborative inquiry and reflection are those that document and examine
implementation of the Equity Scorecard (ES; Bensimon, 2012). The ES is an action research
process developed and facilitated by the Center for Urban Education (CUE), and it has been
implemented at various community colleges in several states.
17
The ES process involves a CUE
facilitator leading a campus-based evidence team (i.e., group of about ten faculty, staff, and
administrators) through a series of inter-related processes that includes: examining their own
student-outcome data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, identifying areas of inequity, conducting
inquiry into the practices related to those equity gaps, adapting those practices in ways necessary
for removing the gaps, evaluating the effectiveness of those applied changes to practice, and
reporting the entirety of these efforts (and subsequent results) to the larger college community
(Bensimon & Hanson, 2012). In short, the ES process situates practitioner learning in the
context of organizational change. Below, I expand on two studies that specifically examined
how faculty learning unfolded within the ES process.
Using field notes and interview data, and drawing on Tharp and Gallimore’s (1988)
theory of assisted performance, Bensimon and Harris (2012) explored the means of assistance
that helped teams at two community colleges meet their goals in an Equity Scorecard project.
They found that the ES process “served to ‘remediate’ learning that had already taken place
about racial inequities in student outcomes at their institution” through five mediational means:
“(a) equity-minded discourse, (b) guided analysis of data on educational outcomes, (c) criteria

17
A comprehensive description of the Equity Scorecard’s historical development, various processes, and completed
projects can be found in Dowd & Bensimon (2015).
43
for composition of the campus teams, (d) artifacts and tools, and (e) activity settings” (p. 225).
While study participants learned how to recognize inequity in data, and received ongoing
modeling of equity-minded talk from CUE facilitators, they themselves did not transform their
practice to reflect equity-minded talk or actions. Bensimon and Harris posit that this might have
been due to the short duration of the study and/or inadequate scaffolding.
Peña’s (2012) qualitative case study examines how five individuals’ participation in an
inquiry-based professional development opportunity, that took place within the context of an ES
project, influenced their understanding about students who were experiencing inequitable student
outcomes on campus and subsequently promoted their self-change. This specific professional
development opportunity included faculty conducting student interviews and then discussing
their findings as a collaborative inquiry team. Ultimately, Peña found that participants
“encountered critical incidents of learning about students’ racialized experiences and reflected on
their own deeper, underlying assumptions about race and ethnicity that unconsciously guided
their decisions” as instructors (p. 79). As a result of this learning, some participants reported
making changes in their practice. She also noted that the inquiry team’s more learned
participants (which in this case was the more critically conscious participants) significantly
influenced the depth of critical reflection achieved within the inquiry team through their
modeling of equity-minded explanations.
McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) present an in-depth analysis of research conducted during
the 1990s aimed at understanding how the context that surrounded high-school teachers
influenced their professional practice. In particular, the authors sought to uncover what
contextual factors enabled teachers to be successful in their teaching of underprepared and
culturally diverse students, and how did participation in a professional community influence
44
teachers’ pedagogical and instructional practice. In essence, McLaughlin and Talbert found that
professional communities mediate “taken-for-granted traditions of teaching—routine teacher-
centered pedagogy, static bodies of subject knowledge, receptive student roles—to construct
distinctive communities of teaching practice” (p. 62). Weak professional communities led to
teachers maintaining individual values and beliefs, traditional pedagogical and instructional
methods, and an individual approach to innovation. Strong professional communities led to
teachers developing a “culture of practice” that either functioned to strengthen and thus reinforce
traditions, or one that promoted “teacher learning communities” that “collaborate[d] to re-invent
practice” (p. 62). In the latter occurrence, teachers came to conceive of teaching as a collective
enterprise and sought each other out as resources for improving teaching practice.
Grossman et al.’s (2001) study revealed some of the complexities involved in forming
community in an educational setting. They present findings from the first 18 months of a project
in which university researchers partnered with English and history teachers from an urban high
school to review literature, discuss teaching and learning, and design an interdisciplinary unit of
study. Although the underlying goal of the project was to support the development of a
professional teacher community, they found that endeavor more difficult to achieve than was
anticipated. Some of the challenges they outlined were: (a) participants already knew each other
and brought their prior relationships with them into the group; (b) participants’ identity was
anchored in the subject matter they taught, which meant individuals from these two disciplines
operated from within different sociocultural understandings, and (c) participants were not
accustomed to having to work in collective settings where diverse perspectives are abound.
While these difficulties existed, the authors chart out some of the “markers of community
formation” (p. 2) that were illustrative of the group they studied.
45
Taken together, these studies show that joint work within a designated group can
mediate—or remediate—learning at both the individual and group level. They also suggest that
such learning communities can be a setting in which various means of assistance are provided
(e.g., assistance analyzing data, assistance engaging in critical reflection, or assistance improving
instructional practice). Importantly, these studies reveal that certain factors influence this joint
work, including: the focal object of joint work (i.e., artifacts of practice, such as course materials
and/or student work), membership of the group (e.g., cross-disciplinary tensions can arise, prior
relationships shape group dynamics), degree of trust within the group (trust is needed for in-
depth discussions related to practice), and duration of group’s existence (i.e., longer term
duration is likely needed to transition changes in knowledge to changes in practice, and people
need time to learn how to work together). Ultimately, the above studies underscore that while
practitioner learning can be supported within a learning community that typically does not
happen quickly and it can be mediated by multiple factors.
Design-based implementation research. The second key insight drawn from the
literature is that practitioner learning can be supported through the iterative and systematic
design of products and processes related to practice. Design-based implementation research
(DBIR) is one such approach, which specifically involves collaboratively conducting cycles of
inquiry and design around a pressing problem of practice (Fishman, Penuel, Allen, Cheng, &
Sabelli, 2013). Edwards, Sandoval, and McNamara (2015) provide a comprehensive explanation
of how DBIR was used in the redesign of the Carnegie Foundation’s Pathways Faculty Support
Program, an initiative aimed at supporting faculty’s development of the knowledge, skills, and
46
beliefs necessary for teaching two math pathways: Statway™ and Quantway™.
18
The authors
describe how they collaborated with developers and instructors in a process of redesign,
implementation, and program evaluation that employed various improvement science tools and
methods (e.g., “How Might We? Statements). Although Edwards and her colleagues do not
explicitly report on the extent to which the DBIR process was effective for fostering faculty
learning in this case, they contend that DBIR’s emphasis on collaboration among stakeholders
and iterative cycles of inquiry and design, aligns with recommendations from other studies on
faculty learning that emphasize how PD ought to be ongoing in nature and embedded in faculty
practice.
Voogt and associates (2015) conducted an analysis of three cases of collaborative design,
one of which specifically employed the DBIR approach. For this DBIR case, the authors sought
to uncover how faculty members’ learning was influenced by participation in the iterative and
systematic design of a PD model intended to help university instructors develop more
participatory instructional techniques. They found that the participants involved in this DBIR
case quickly established themselves as a community “and found a routine” for conducting their
work (p. 268). They also observed that participants gradually assumed greater responsibility for
directing the group’s overall design efforts. Through interview data, Voogt and colleagues found
that participation in the DBIR process enhanced individual and collective agency in relation to
instruction and pedagogy, and promoted deep understanding of how to integrate participatory
instructional techniques into classroom practice. In short, these studies examining DBIR
processes suggest that design can be a powerful context for practitioner learning, at both the
individual and group level.

18
Edwards and her colleagues (2015) do not explicitly name their approach as DBIR (they label it a “user-centered
design process”), but the methodology clearly reflects DBIR. Moreover, other reports about this same project (e.g.,
Dolle, Gomez, Russell, & Bryk, 2013) explicitly name DBIR as the approach employed.
47
Peer observation. A small branch of the higher education literature specifically explores
peer observation as a tool for faculty learning. Martin and Double (1998) outline a three-phased
approach to peer observation (i.e., pre-observation meeting, observation, and feedback meeting),
and report findings from a pilot implementation in a chemical engineering department. Although
the study is limited in that the methods for collecting and analyzing data are not fully outlined,
Martin and Double posit that peer observation had learning benefits for both the observers and
the observed. The specifics of this experience are not fully probed, however, and instead
evidence of learning is assumed through participant comments such as: “I learned something
about presentation of a particular topic” (p. 167). While the authors do not acknowledge the
superficiality of participants’ claims, they do acknowledge that the absence of some mutually
recognized standard of effective practice left the participants to draw upon their “own experience
and value judgments” when providing and/or discussing observation feedback (p. 168).
Consequently, they recommended adopting some standard of practice to anchor the overall peer
observation approach. While this study only reports on the pilot implementation of peer
observation, the authors argue that the benefits to be realized through this approach are
proportional to the number of times participants move through the three-phased cycle.
The notion that peer observation can be a useful tool for faculty learning is not an
uncontested perspective within the higher education literature. For example, Cosh (1998) takes
the position that teachers are the primary instigators of their own development and thus feedback
from peers, who may not be qualified to offer it, will be of little use. Moreover, he claims that
the entire peer observation process can undermine collegiality and trust by calling on individuals
to make judgments about others’ practice. Based on these assertions, Cosh argues for
implementing the peer observation as a means for supporting the learning of the observer only,
48
and refraining entirely from utilizing it as a vehicle for supporting the learning of the observed.
In other words, the observer should not provide feedback to the observed.
Shortland (2004) takes issue with Cosh’s (1998) assertion that peer feedback is of little
use to individual learning. To support her argument, Shortland (2004) draws on findings from
her two-year case study of a trio of observing peers, showing that feedback discussed in early
rounds of peer observation did, in fact, get incorporated into practice. Shortland does, however,
raise her own questions about peer observation. Specifically, she points out that peer observation
can give rise to issues of power, particularly if the observer positions him/herself as more expert
than the observed. Consequently, she emphasizes the importance of trust-filled partnerships and
recommends that observing partners select each other rather than be assigned to each other.
Together, this literature on peer observation suggests that it can be an effective vehicle
for supporting practitioner learning. And, while it was only a recommendation, adopting a
standard of practice to serve as an anchor for the peer observation process makes sense when
considered along side the earlier discussion about the usefulness of teaching frameworks, such as
that from Danielson (1996).
Analysis of student data. A further insight revealed in the higher education literature is
that the analysis of student data can support practitioner learning. In their study examining the
ES process at Loyola Marymount University, Robinson-Armstrong, Clemons, Fissinger, and
Sauceda (2012), found that examining student data, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, resulted in
the ES team having factual awareness of racial/ethnic equity gaps, as opposed to only anecdotal
information about their existence or lack of existence. This condition resulted in at least one
skeptic within the team being transformed into a believer about the existence of racial/ethnic
inequity at the university. The authors also found that having factual awareness of racial/ethnic
49
equity gaps was empowering for the team members because it equipped them with evidence they
could draw upon during conversations about the topic of equity/inequity, and because it
legitimized their efforts to address racial/ethnic inequity.
More recently, Dowd and colleagues (2017, forthcoming) presented evidence from a two-
year case study of five of the 14 universities within the Pennsylvania State System of Higher
Education (PASSHE). While the examination of student data as a tool for practitioner learning
was not the exclusive purpose of this study, they do report on findings related to this topic. One
key finding was that when practitioners analyzed student data that was close enough to their
practice, that data “[came] to life,” and as a result these individuals were able to find “the
‘actionable N’ in those data (p. 12). As the authors explain, accountability data (i.e., data
compiled for the purposes of internal or external reporting) can have a “synthetic” quality for
practitioners, and therefore often needs to be broken down to find the “actionable N.”
In sum, these findings from higher education suggest that analyzing student data can
support practitioner learning through providing factual evidence of racial/ethnic inequity that can
compel skeptics and empower believers. They also highlight that data closer to practice assists
practitioners find where their actions are connected to student outcomes, thus enhancing their
ability and willingness to respond.
Knowledge-centered environment. The final key insight that can be drawn from this
larger collection of literature is that practitioner learning is supported through the provision of a
“knowledge-centered environment.”
19
Based on their comprehensive review of evidence from
empirical studies in cognitive psychology, social psychology, neuroscience, and such, Bransford,

19
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2000) also emphasize the significance of environments that are learner-centered
(i.e., focused on the individual’s learning interests and needs), assessment centered (i.e., allow individuals to test
their learning and receive feedback), and community centered (i.e., encourage a collaborative approach to learning).
The studies related to practitioner learning that I have already reviewed in this chapter reflect these three qualities in
various ways.
50
Brown, and Cocking (2000) propose that learning environments ought to include a focus on
“what” is being learned, by drawing attention to why this learning is important and clearly
outlining what mastery would look like. One key insight related to this objective is that deeper
understanding of a topic can be achieved when a conceptual framework for that topic is provided.
A second key insight related to this objective is that learning is supported when metacognitive
strategies for monitoring one’s thinking are emphasized.
20

The ideas outlined by Bransford et al. (2001) are reflected in Grossman’s work
(Grossman et al., 2009; Grossman, 2011) on how the practice of teaching can be taught—or
learned. Grossman and her colleagues (2009) explain that novice teachers have a tendency to
underestimate the complexity of teaching due to their familiarity to this practice that was
acquired through years of being a student. Drawing on their findings from a three-year study
examining how teaching and other “professions of improvement” (Cohen, 2005; i.e., preaching,
and therapeutic counseling) prepared their novice practitioners, the authors present a framework
for teaching practice. This framework lays out three key concepts for understanding how a
practice can be taught (or learned/developed): representations, decompositions, and
approximations.
Representations encompass “all the different ways in which the work of practitioners is
made visible to novices during professional education,” including: stories from the field,
published case studies, and videos of practice (Grossman, 2011, p. 2837). Grossman and her
associates acknowledge that while representations can be a useful tool for learning, no
representation fully captures all aspects of a practice. For example a video of practice does not

20
In reference to teacher learning, specifically, the authors suggest that a knowledge-centered environment implies a
focus on developing pedagogical content knowledge. In my study, however, which focuses on CTE learning across
a variety of content areas (e.g., design, transportation, sciences, etc.), a more appropriate focus is pedagogical and
instructional practice more broadly.

51
reveal the preparation for, or the later reflection about, what is observed in the video. Moreover,
novices might not know what all to look for within a given representation, or how to interpret
what they have observed. Decomposition helps to address some of the above issues.
Decomposition “break[s] down a complex practice into its constituent parts for the
purposes of teaching and learning (Grossman, 2011, p. 2839). In order to decompose a practice
in this way, however, one must first have a framework or “grammar of practice” that names the
constituent parts and articulates how they are connected to each other (p. 2839). An example of
such a framework in teaching is Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching. Having such a
framework in place allows one to develop a “disciplined perception of practice” or lens for
“interpret[ing] the world in discipline-specific ways” (Stevens & Hall, p. 111). In other words,
novice practitioners can focus on one component of the larger practice “and work on a more
discrete set of moves or strategies” (Grossman, 2011, p. 2839).
The final concept that Grossman and her associates (2009) outlined is approximations of
practice. In this form of learning, participants “engage in practice that is related, but not
identical, to the work of practicing professionals” (Grossman, 2011, p. 2840). In the K-12
context the most commonly form of approximation is the student teaching practicum.
Taken together, this collection of studies suggests that practitioner learning can be
supported through the provision of a knowledge-centered environment. One manner in which
this can be achieved is introducing a conceptual framework for understanding the constituent
parts of a particular topic (e.g., Danielson’s (1996) FFT for understanding pedagogical and
instructional practice) and providing strategies that support reflective thinking related to that
topic.

52
Summing Up Learning Related to Pedagogical and Instructional Practice
In summary, the literature on CTE learning related to pedagogy and instruction is thin. A
broader review of literature from higher education and K-12, however, suggests that practitioner
learning is supported through participation in: (a) learning communities, (b) peer observation, (c)
iterative and systematic design of processes and products related to practice, (d) analysis of
student data, and (e) knowledge-centered environments. While this sheds needed light on what
likely matters for CTE learning, further empirical investigation is needed to substantiate whether,
in fact, these conditions hold for the CTE setting.

53
CHAPTER III:
Theoretical Framing
The purpose of this dissertation study is to develop a deeper understanding about CTE
faculty learning. More specifically, I seek to examine how CTE faculty members’ participation
in the co-design and implementation of a peer observation protocol and process—which in this
study I conceptualize as a PD intervention—shapes their learning related to pedagogy and
instruction and how pedagogy and instruction are implicated in student success. In this chapter, I
present sociocultural learning as the theoretical framework guiding this study. First, I provide a
brief overview of the sociocultural paradigm. I then move to outlining various theoretical
streams from within the sociocultural paradigm that help to illuminate learning at different levels
of analysis, and which together serve as a generative conceptual framework for a study of CTE
faculty learning.
21

Sociocultural Perspective on Learning
The sociocultural framework
22
assumes that human development, learning, and the mind
“must be understood in, and cannot be separated from” the historical, cultural, and social context
(Rogoff, 2003, p. 50). Vygotsky (1962, 1978; Wertsch, 1985) is largely acknowledged as the
primary theorist of learning in this tradition, and was the first to advance the notion that: “the
social dimension of consciousness is primary in time and in fact,” while “the individual
dimension of consciousness is derivate and secondary” (Vygotsky, 1979, p. 30). Although the
sociocultural framework extends past Vygotsky’s ideas, they serve as the bedrock upon which
this perspective rests. There are a number of theoretical streams within the sociocultural
framework, including: cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT; Cole & Engeström, 1993;

21
Worth noting, in this study, my theoretical framing serves two purposes. First, it informs the design of the PD
intervention upon which this study is focused and, second, it serves as a guide for data collection and analysis.
22
This approach is also labeled socio-historical or cultural-historical (Rogoff, 2003).
54
Engeström, 1987; Leont’ev, 1981; Roth & Lee, 2007); assisted performance (Tharp & Gallimore,
1988); communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998); and guided participation
(Rogoff, 1990, 1995, 2003). While existing research illustrates that each of these streams of
theorizing can, in its own right, serve as a useful framework for analysis, I opt to employ a
conceptual framework that pulls on theoretical threads from across these various streams.
23

More specifically, my framework draws attention to the ways in which learning is mediated by:
(a) participation in a community of practice that is defined by its mutual engagement, joint
enterprise, and shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998); (b) assistance that is provided by others and/or
one’s self (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988); and (c) tools that are created or used within a group (such
as a community of practice) while pursuing its joint enterprise (Brown, Collins, & Daguid, 1989;
Wenger, 1988). My conceptual framework also keeps in view the key sociocultural idea that
analysis of learning ought to consider the personal, interpersonal, and institutional/cultural planes
(Rogoff, 1995).
Participation In A Community of Practice
The communities of practice theory was largely born out of the work of Jean Lave (an
anthropologist) and Etienne Wenger (a computer scientist). Generally speaking, this theory
focuses on the joint processes of: (a) learning through active participation in communities that
are socially and historically situated, and (b) forming an identity in relation to those communities
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). From the communities of practice perspective, then,
learning is conceived of as occurring within practice and not as an activity that is separate and
outside of practice. As Wenger (1998) explains: “engagement in practice—in its unfolding,
multidimensional complexity—is both the stage [for] and the object [of learning]” (p. 95).

23
My reasoning for this choice was based on initial insights that have emerged from time spent at Millennium
College.
55
Wenger (1998) outlines three dimensions of practice that provide coherence for a
community of practice (COP): mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire.
Mutual engagement implies a shared activity that clearly delineates a group from the larger
social arena. The relations within this mutual engagement are expected to reflect “the full
complexity” that presides when individuals act together (i.e., collaboration, conflict, pleasure,
dissatisfaction, etc.) (Wenger, 1998, p. 77). To help coordinate across this complexity, Wenger
theorizes that communities of practice engage in “community maintenance” (p. 74; i.e., building
and sustaining a sense of community among members that supports their ability to do joint work),
and he asserts that this is an intrinsic and essential aspect of the work of mutual engagement.
Joint enterprise is the community’s negotiated response to their ongoing situation, and thus is
not exactly their stated goal, but rather what gets worked out by community members in their
pursuit of that stated goal. Importantly, this joint-enterprise produces a sense of mutual
accountability among members that incorporates: “what matters and what does not, what is
important and why it is important, what to do and not to do, what to pay attention to and what to
ignore, what to talk about and what to leave unsaid” (Wenger, 1998, p. 81). The shared
repertoire of a community of practice includes the resources that, across time, they create to aid
their negotiation of meaning (Wenger, 1998). These can include representations, tools, artifacts,
routines, stories, and so on.
24

These concepts of mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared repertoire help to
guide analysis of CTE faculty learning by focusing attention on: (a) the new ways of working
together that the CTE faculty creates or adopts, and/or the forms of community maintenance that
occurs that helps them coordinate across the complexity of mutual engagement; (b) their

24
Wenger (1998) emphasizes that the term repertoire not only implies the availability of resources, but also their
quality of having been already previously “rehearsed” in practice (p. 83).
56
emerging short and long-term goals that emerge in response to their stated objective; (c) the new
representations, tools, routines, concepts, and such that they construct or appropriate for
achieving their goals, and (d) when and under what conditions these dimensions of practice shift.
Negotiation of meaning. The communities of practice framework posits that learning
occurs when a COP: (a) establishes new forms of mutual engagement; (b) develops deeper
understandings of, and fine-tunes their enterprise; and (c) enhances their repertoire of shared
routines, tools, and actions. The central mechanism driving this learning is the negotiation of
meaning that takes place among community members (Coburn & Stein, 2006).
25
Multiple
elements (i.e., social, cultural, and historical) are expected to influence this process, but this
process also shapes these elements as it unfolds (Wenger, 1998).
The negotiation of meaning in the communities of practice theory specifically involves
the interaction of two processes: participation and reification (Wenger, 1998, p. 52). Here,
participation implies “both action and connection” (p. 55), and thus involves: “doing, talking,
thinking, feeling, and belonging” (p. 56). Participation is not restricted only to actual
engagement, but rather is ongoing outside moments of engagement. Wenger (1998) describes
reification as “the process of giving form to our experience by producing objects that congeal
this experience into ‘thingness’” (p. 58), but contends that these reifications “are only the tip of
an iceberg” that represent “larger contexts of significance realized in human practices” (p. 61).
26

For example, the COP of CTE faculty at Millennium College may design a peer observation
protocol that articulates components of effective pedagogical and instructional practice that their
experience as instructors affirms to be true. The communities of practice theory holds that these
reifications, such as the observation protocol, shape experience by focusing attention onto

25
Wenger (1998) suggests that negotiation implies both a “gradual achievement” (e.g., similar to negotiating a
price) and a process of sustained “give-and-take” (e.g., similar to negotiating a curve while driving).
26
Reification can refer to both the produced object and the process through which it was created.
57
specific elements during the ongoing negotiation of meaning (i.e., it introduces new language,
calls for new interactions, etc.). In the case of the CTE instructors’ the implementation of a new
observation protocol might lead to changes in the very words these individuals use when
describing pedagogy and instruction.
In sum, the duality of participation and reification “is a fundamental aspect of the
constitution of communities of practice, [and] of their evolution over time” (Wenger, 1998, p.
65). On the one hand, as practice unfolds in a community of practice, members must produce a
record of their work together, in the form of reifications, to ensure there is “enough material to
anchor the specificities of [ongoing] coordination” (Wenger, 1998, p. 65). On the other hand, as
reifications emerge within a community of practice, members must “appropriate them into
ongoing practice” (Coburn & Stein, 2006, p. 29) otherwise they lose their connection with the
meaningful social process from which they were created. In this light, these two concepts serve
as useful analytic tools for my study of CTE faculty learning at Millennium College as they offer
the helpful reminder to examine how meaning is negotiated through both: (a) what participants
do, say, and think (i.e., their practice), as well as (b) the reified artifacts they produce or
appropriate to capture the aspects of experience (i.e., their reifications).
Identity. As members of a COP learn through the negotiation of meaning, they are, in
essence, negotiating their identities. As Wenger (1998) explains, “because learning transforms
who we are and what we can do, it is an experience of identity…a process of becoming” (p. 215).
In this light, motivation for learning is tightly linked with identity. One can be intrinsically
motivated to participate in—and identify with—a community of practice because of the sense of
belonging this provides (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
To help conceptualize the role of identity, Wenger (1998) offers the constructs of identity
58
trajectories and reconciliation. He theorizes that learning something new within a community of
practice represents one incident falling within a much broader trajectory of identity development.
Subsequently, the meaning of this incident, and its implications for one’s engagement in practice,
are negotiated in terms of the identity that is being developed within that broader trajectory.
Wenger acknowledges, however, that identity is more than just one trajectory. It ought to be
conceived of as “a nexus of multimembership” (p. 159). Thus, individuals must reconcile
“different ways of engaging in practice…that reflect different forms of individuality” (p. 160).
Sometimes this reconciliation process can lead to resolution, but at other times it implies ongoing
struggle. In the case of CTE faculty at Millennium, this might involve reconciling one’s
membership in the COP focused on pedagogical and instructional improvement with their
membership in a department that might be committed to maintaining the status quo. These
theorizing about identity assist analysis of CTE faculty learning by drawing attention to the ways
in which an individual’s participation transforms through participation in the PD intervention,
and how those transformations are influenced by his/her identity trajectory that emerges from
ongoing reconciliation work.
Assisted Performance
In their theory of assisted performance, Tharp and Gallimore (1988) conceive of learning
as a transition from assisted performance to unassisted performance. This transition occurs
within the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which Vygotsky (1978) described as:
the distance between the actual development level as determined by individual problem
solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving
under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. The zone of proximal
development defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of
59
maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in an embryonic state
(p. 86; italics in original)
In essence, learning is measured as the progress one makes through the four stages of the ZPD,
which include: (a) stage one: assistance is provided by more capable others, (b) stage two:
assistance is provided by one’s self, (c) stage three: the given task has become internalized and
assistance is no longer needed, and (d) stage four: revision of the automated state becomes
necessary and this subsequently requires cycling back to previous stages.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) identify various means through with assistance is provided
in the ZPD, including: modeling, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive
structuring. Modeling, involves providing an example that can be imitated by others. Different
factors have been shown to determine the effectiveness of modeling, such as the model and
observer being of the same age/gender (see Bandura, 1977). Importantly, modeling includes a
cognitive aspect (i.e., coding) and is not just a physical mimicking of behavior.
27
Feeding back
occurs when someone else, or the self, reflects back information pertaining to one’s performance.
In order for this information to operate as feedback, there must exist a standard towards which
performance can be assessed. Instructing involves calling for a specific action, and it can serve
as a sort-of pre-cursor to the self-regulating voice that later operates in the learner during stage
two of the ZPD. Questioning occurs when a more learned partner elicits a linguistic response
from a more novice partner. It assists thinking by prompting it in one direction or another.
Cognitive structuring is a form of assistance that involves providing “a structure for
thinking and acting” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 63) that organizes elements and helps to
delineate the relationships among them. In this case, assistance occurs as the provision of
“explanatory and belief structures that organize and justify” (p. 63). Worth noting, cognitive

27
Modeling is similar to Rogoff’s (1995) concept of guided participation.
60
structuring will occur regardless of whether or not there is assistance in this form, but the
presence of cognitive structuring can help to correct “idiosyncratic or unreliable” structures that
might already be operating (p. 67). The types of cognitive structures provided can include
“structures of explanation,” which foreground thinking, or “structures for cognitive activity,”
which foreground action (p. 65). In basic terms, cognitive structuring “organizes the raw stuff of
experience” (p. 65).
The assisted performance theory is useful for explaining learning in a traditional sense
when there is a designated expert (teacher) assisting a designated learner (student), but it is not
limited to this application. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) expanded their theory to take fuller
account of the social world. In this rendering of the theory, the learning environment is sketched
out according to the various lines of influence that exist in a school. For example, at a base line,
the principal has influence over a teacher, and the teacher has influence over his/her student. The
principal’s influence over the teacher, however, is not limited simply to the sharing of his/her
own expertise with the teacher. The principal’s influence is also operationalized when he/she
connects that said teacher with non-supervisory others who can provide assistance (e.g., other
teachers, an external consultant, etc.). In line with the four stages of the ZPD, this more fully
sketched out social world also recognizes that assistance can come from one’s self (e.g.,
instructing and/or questioning one’s self). Therefore, according to Tharp and Gallimore,
assistance to a teacher, in any given situation, can flow from the principal, non-supervisory
others, and/or the self.
In discussing how this theory of assisted performance plays out in respect to teacher
learning in K-12 schools, Tharp and Gallimore (1988) note that teachers often hold greater
influence over each other than does their supervising principal. In order to provide assistance,
61
“the assistor must be in close touch with the learner’s relationship to the task” (p. 42), which they
argue is likely more often the case between teachers than it is between a principal and a teacher.
Moreover, in most learning settings, “participants are not divided sharply into expert and
trainees.” Instead, “the various members will have different competencies, and one will offer the
assistance of modeling and guidance to others in one’s own areas of greatest development” (p.
90). In other words, at any given moment, teacher A can operate as an expert providing
assistance to teacher B, in respect to their joint work on task X. A few moments later, however,
teacher B can operate as an expert providing assistance to teacher A, in respect to their joint
work on task Y. In sum, this theory of assisted performance helps to guide analysis of CTE
faculty learning by focusing attention on the ways in which participants’ learning might be
supported (either by others or self).
Brokering and boundary objects. As noted previously, individuals who reside outside
the learning environment of a school can also “provide interactions with profound developmental
consequences” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 84). For example, an external facilitator of a COP
can operate as a broker (Wenger, 1998) by introducing COP participants to new ideas and/or
tools (from other communities) that may then influence their joint enterprise and learning
(Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001; Honig & Rainey, 2014).
28
Wenger (1998) labels
this particular type of ideas/tools as boundary objects. Brokering is a complex task as it involves
translating and coordinating across boundaries, and thus requires that a broker possesses enough
legitimacy to “mobilize attention” and “address conflicting issues” (p. 109). As brokers, and the
boundary objects they carry, make their way across the boundaries of communities of practice,

28
The context for learning in Wenger’s (1998) communities of practice theory is a community of practitioners.
Tharp and Gallimore (1988), however, conceptualize the context for learning as an activity setting within which
“collaborative interaction, intersubjectivity, and assisted performance” occur (p. 72). While the activity setting is
conceptually distinct from a COP, Stein and Brown (1997) assert that their learning processes are similar.
62
“discontinuities” and “interruptions” unfold, which in turn can spark the negotiation of new
meanings and thus learning (Coburn & Stein, 2006, p. 30; Wenger, 1998).
29
In respect to my
study, brokering and boundary objects draw attention to the various external ideas, documents,
processes, and such that get introduced to the CTE faculty at Millennium College, and the ways
in which these shape learning.
Tool Use
Sociocultural learning theorists conceptualize tools as particular types of materials or
processes (Ikemoto and Honig, 2010) that can either enable or constrain thinking (Barley, 1986;
Brown & Daguid, 1991; Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998) or prompt new action and subsequent
reflection (Barley, 1986; Wertsch, 1998).
30
These tools “help users deepen their engagement
with particular ideas,” (Ikemoto & Honig, 2010, p. 95) and “specify the parameters of acceptable
conduct” (Brown & Daguid, 1991, p. 33). Because a tool is only a reification of a much larger
significant experience (and not the experience itself), they inevitably “trigger” the negotiation of
meaning process within a COP (Brown & Daguid, 1991). For example a peer observation
protocol, that delineates specific aspects of pedagogy and instruction, is only a representation of
the much more complex practice of being an instructor. As a result, it prompts members of a
COP who are using this observation protocol to collectively reflect upon its usefulness and
meaning related to pedagogical and instructional practice, as they know it.
Grossman, Smagorinsky, and Valencia (1999) delineate two different types of tools:
conceptual and practical. Conceptual tools foreground thinking and typically appear in the form
of principles or frameworks that individuals can use as “heuristics” to guide an array of decisions

29
In empirical research, these two analytic tools have been applied to help examine the ways in which research-
practice partnerships function (Coburn & Stein, 2006).
30
Enabling in the sense that they can “liberate” thought, or constraining in the sense that “their historical uses may
preclude new ways of thinking” (Smagorinsky, Cook, & Johnson, 2003, p. 1407).

63
related to their practice (p. 14). For example, Danielson’s (1996) Framework for Teaching can
be considered a conceptual tool, because it can guide practitioners thinking about what effective
instruction entails in a variety of situations. Practical tools also seek to prompt thinking but they
do so through foregrounding action first. Instead of operating as broad frameworks that guide
multiple decisions, these tools typically appear in the form of practices or strategies “that have
local and immediate utility” (p. 13). For example, the practice of peer observation might be
considered a practical tool, because it first engages practitioners in the immediate actions of
observing a peer’s classrooms and collecting data about that person’s instructional practice. That
activity, however, is intended to promote reflection about pedagogy and instruction, both broadly
and in respect to his/her own individual practice. Thus, in ways similar to Wenger’s (1998)
notion of reification and participation, these ideas about conceptual and practical tools help to
guide analysis of CTE learning by focusing attention on the materials and processes used within
the COP, and more specifically how they affect the negotiation of meaning process.
Rogoff’s Three Planes of Analysis
Rogoff (1995) presents a framework that conceives of learning as occurring along three
planes: institutional/cultural, interpersonal, and personal. These planes are not to be considered
as separate or hierarchical, “but as simply involving different grains of focus with the whole
sociocultural activity” (Rogoff, 1995, p. 2-3). Thus, an examination of learning through this
framework does not focus solely on one plane to the exclusion of the others. It instead requires
focusing on each plane, in turns and, when doing so, always holding the other two planes in the
background. To help illustrate learning at the institutional/cultural, interpersonal, and personal
planes, Rogoff offers three different concepts: apprenticeship, guided participation, and
participatory appropriation, respectively.
64
Apprenticeship along the institutional/cultural plane. Rogoff’s model of
apprenticeship extends beyond the expert-novice dyad that other socio-cultural theorists have
conceptualized (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). Her version of apprenticeship focuses on the
“institutional structure and cultural technologies” within which a group of people carry out
“culturally organized activity,” and “apprentices become responsible participants” (Rogoff, 1995,
p. 4). An analysis of learning on the institutional/cultural plane, then, would need to consider:
the college’s mission (e.g., career-focused vs. transfer-focus), their values related to the
appropriate means for realizing this mission (e.g., contextualization is better than lecture),
cultural constraints and resources (e.g., professional norms, unions, etc.), and cultural tools (e.g.,
instructional handbook). In short, analysis on this plane considers the cultural, historical, and
institutional contexts of the college to which the activity of CTE faculty is related (Rogoff, 1995).
Guided participation along the interpersonal plane. For analysis along the
interpersonal plane, Rogoff (1995) offers the concept of guided participation, which does not
represent a particular type of interaction, but rather a perspective from which to view
interpersonal interaction during activity. Rogoff explains that “guided” alludes to the guidance
provided by socio-cultural values and other activity partners, and participation refers to both
hands-on involvement in and observation of activity. Guided participation can exist in different
forms (e.g., tacit or explicit, incidental or deliberate, face-to-face or more distal interaction) but,
regardless of its form, all manifestations either promote or restrict particular sorts of involvement
(Rogoff, 1995). Rogoff asserts that understanding a group’s purpose, as well as observing the
communication and coordination processes at play, and the resources and constraints that shape
these processes, are all relevant to the analysis of guided participation.

65
Participatory appropriation along the personal plane. For analysis along the personal
plane, Rogoff (1995) offers the concept of participatory appropriation—“a process by which
individuals transform their understanding of and responsibility for activities through their own
participation” (p. 9). Appropriation (shorter form of the term) is a constituting aspect of ongoing
events within a setting, in that a person changes in ways that make a difference—for themselves
and others—in subsequent events (Rogoff, 1995). On this plane, then, the central focus of
analysis is how do individuals participate in the said sociocultural activity, and how does their
participation evolve from being more peripheral to more centrally responsible for the overall
facilitation of the activity. In their discussion of what constitutes teacher learning, Russ and her
colleagues (2016) contend that it is not only practices that can be appropriated but also tools.
Moreover, they cite evidence suggesting that appropriation is not limited to just the personal
plane (as Rogoff has conceived of it), but is rather a process that can occur at both the personal
and interpersonal level. An example of the latter case might be when a group of faculty
members appropriate a new tool, representation, or routine to help them conduct their joint work.
Advantages of a Sociocultural Framework
The sociocultural framework affords three advantages for understanding CTE faculty
learning related to pedagogy and instruction. First, the components and mechanisms of the
sociocultural framework provide a robust theoretical representation of what constitutes CTE
faculty learning and how it might occur. It therefore serves as useful means through which to
examine the topic of this study: what might have been learned through participation in a
specified PD intervention and how might that learning have been shaped by participation in that
PD intervention. Second, the sociocultural framework facilitates the study of pedagogical and
instructional practice, by theorizing practice as a unit of analysis situated across individual,
66
group and organizational levels. This supports a more comprehensive documentation of the
various processes involved in learning and the social and also possibly the organizational
conditions (e.g., department and/or union membership, tenure process and/or performance
evaluation, etc.) that support and constrain these processes (Stein & Brown, 1997). A third
advantage of the sociocultural framework is that it is particularly generative for the study of
interventions that involve research-practice partnerships and/or design research.
31
This particular
applicability is illustrated in Borko and Klingner’s (2013) discussion of their two projects within
K-12. They outline the ways in which they have employed sociocultural tenets (e.g., using
teacher’s own classrooms as a context for learning, creating supportive professional communities
to enhance learning, etc.) within the context of DBIR that is aimed at bringing the districts’
professional development models to scale.
32

Limitations of a Sociocultural Framework
The sociocultural framework maintains certain limitations. First, this perspective does
not place significant analytic attention on the ways in which social practice, and hence learning,
might be influenced by power and/or micro-politics (Roberts, 2006). Indeed, theory (Blasé &
Björk, 2009, Malen, 1994) and empirical research (Marsh 2012) suggest there is good reason to
expect the context of social practice is not immune to issues of power. While the analytic tools
of the sociocultural framework may not bring these phenomena into the spotlight, Wenger (1998)
contends this is not entirely a theoretical oversight. He states that “power—benevolent or
malevolent—that institutions, prescriptions, or individuals have over the practice of a community
is mediated by the community’s production of its practice” (p. 80). Thus, while the sociocultural

31
This is relevant, as my study incorporates both of these aspects. A more thorough discussion of my study’s
methodology/design is provided in Chapter IV of this dissertation.
32
Ikemoto and Honig’s (2010) application of the sociocultural framework to examine the types of tools (i.e.,
materials and processes) that enable and constrain practitioners’ engagement with, and enactment of, research-based
ideas within the context of a research-practice partnership serves as further evidence here.
67
framework may not draw specific attention to power, it does not preclude one from paying
attention to power and the ways in which the group mediates it.
The sociocultural framework is also limited in that it does not explicitly draw out the
various ways in which an individual’s prior knowledge, values, and emotions might be
implicated in the learning process. Prior empirical research in K-12 suggests that these aspects
can play an important role in teacher learning (e.g., Ball, 1993; Coburn, 2005; Cohen, 1990;
Lampert, 1990; Spillane, 2000). As Naidu and Bedgood (2012) have articulated, people come to
understand things differently, and by examining individuals’ prior knowledge, experiences, and
such, these differences can be more readily identified and explained. Considering the diverse
contexts of CTE (e.g., auto mechanics, culinary arts, business, etc.), being able to map these
different paths to learning seems relevant. To get past this limitation, I draw heavily on
Wenger’s (1998) concept of identity trajectory. In applying this theoretical concept, I am able to
draw on participants’ prior experiences and their values, and in turn at least partially examine
how these factors influence their learning.
A third limitation of the sociocultural perspective relates to its conception of learning as
occurring in the fields of social interaction (Hanks, 1991), which subsequently entails certain
challenges in identifying “what” is actually being learned (Stein & Brown, 1997). Within a
cognitive approach, which conceives of learning as “primarily a process of active cognitive
reorganization” (Cobb, 1994, p. 13), identifying what is being learned (or not learned) is perhaps
somewhat less abstract. To move through this limitation, I follow suit with other scholars (e.g.,
Stein & Brown, 1997) who focus on participants’ transformations in practice as the analytic tool
for identifying “what” was actually learned. For example, in this study about CTE faculty
learning related to pedagogy and instruction, application of this analytic tool draws attention to
68
the changes in social practice across time. In essence, “what CTE faculty do” is the index of
“what CTE faculty know.”
Conceptual Framework: A Summary
My conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1, below. The blue triangle, at the top
of Figure 1, represents the PD intervention in which this study’s participants were engaged. In
addition to symbolizing the actual activity that participants will carry out (i.e., the collaborative
design and implementation of a peer observation protocol and process), this triangle also
symbolizes the various aspects of sociocultural learning theory that have been intentionally
woven into the design of this PD intervention. These were identified through my review of
empirical evidence—from the CTE, higher education, and K-12 literatures—related to how
practitioners learn about pedagogy and instruction (see Chapter II). They are identified in Figure
1 as: participation in a community of practice (Wenger, 1998), assisted performance (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988), and tools use (Grossman et al., 1999).
The three green concentric circles represent the learning that is expected to take place
through participation in the PD intervention. Drawing on Rogoff’s (1995) work, I have
articulated this learning along three planes: the personal, interpersonal, and institutional/cultural.
By illustrating these planes as concentric circles, I am attempting to convey that they are
“inseparable,” “mutually constituting,” and non-hierarchical planes of learning (Rogoff, 1995).
The arrangement of planes so that institutional/cultural is the most inner circle and interpersonal
and personal take up the second and third most outer circles, respectively, is intended to
communicate the notion that the institutional/cultural plane is the most difficult to penetrate,
while the personal and interpersonal planes are more readily accessible.

69

Figure 1. Conceptual framework
Personal Plane
Interpersonal Plane
Institutional /
Cultural Plane
1. Participation in a community of practice (Wenger, 1998)
2. Assisted performance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988;
3. Tool use (Grossman, Smagorinsky, & Valencia, 1999)
Potential Outcomes
✦ Transformation of practice
• new or adapted conceptions (related to pedagogy/instruction or their link with racial/ethnic equity in
student success outcomes)
• new or adapted actions (related to pedagogy/instruction or their link with racial/ethnic equity in
student success outcomes)
Potential Outcomes
✦ New forms of working together
✦ Fine-tuned orientation towards stated goal
✦ Refined repertoire of resources
Potential Outcomes
✦ New or adapted policies
✦ New or adapted organizational
routines
Mechanisms
➡ appropriation
➡ negotiation of meaning
➡ assisted performance (i.e.,
questioning & instructing)
➡ support in community
maintenance
Mechanisms
➡ appropriation
➡ assisted performance (i.e., cognitive
structuring, modeling, feedback, &
diverse ideas)
Mechanisms
➡ negotiation
➡ enculturation
THREE PLANES OF LEARNING
(Rogoff, 1995)
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT INTERVENTION
(i.e., the collaborative design and implementation of a peer observation protocol and process)
70
Within each of the three planes, there is a bulleted list of what might be learned (i.e.,
potential outcomes). For example, on the personal plane learning is expected to include: new or
adapted conceptions and/or actions. Also articulated for each learning plane are the mechanisms
through which learning is expected to occur. For example, on the interpersonal plane this
includes: appropriation, negotiation of meaning, assisted performance (i.e., questioning and
instructing), and support in community maintenance. Finally, the black dotted arrows that flow
between the blue triangle and the three green concentric circles represents the nature of the larger
research agenda within which this study is situated (i.e., DBIR). To be more specific, I
anticipate that: (a) the PD intervention will shape participating CTE faculty members’ learning
related to pedagogy/instruction and/or the link between/pedagogy and racial/ethnic equity in
student success outcomes, and (b) CTE faculty members’ learning in this regard will influence
the iterative co-design and implementation of the PD intervention. Worth noting, my study
primarily focuses on developing an understanding of learning on the personal and interpersonal
planes.

71
CHAPTER IV:
Research Design and Methodology
This study addresses the issue of low and inequitable student success rates among
community college students in the United States through a focus on faculty learning related to
pedagogy and instruction and how pedagogy and instruction are implicated in student success.
Concentrating specifically on career and technical education (CTE) faculty, my study seeks to
examine what if anything was learned through participation in a PD intervention that primarily
focused on the co-design and implementation of a peer observation protocol and process, and
how that learning was shaped through participation in said intervention. In this chapter, I first
describe the larger ongoing research agenda in which this study is situated. Next, I explain why
this site and group of participants were selected. I then lay out my data collection and analysis
activities, and the various strategies I employed to facilitate trustworthiness of findings. I
conclude the chapter with discussions of ethical considerations and researcher positionality.
DBIR As A Larger Research Agenda
My study rests within a larger ongoing research agenda aimed at building knowledge and
theory related to CTE faculty learning through an approach known as design-based
implementation research (DBIR; Penuel et al., 2011).
33
Four guiding principles organize DBIR:
(a) a focus on persistent problems of practice from multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, (b) a
commitment to iterative, collaborative design, (c) a concern with developing theory related to
both classroom learning and implementation through systematic inquiry, and (d) a concern with

33
DBIR descends from the pragmatic tradition of American educational philosophy (Penuel et al., 2011). From this
philosophical tradition, the world exists both subjectively in the mind and objectively independent of the mind
(Creswell, 2014). Knowledge evolves through inquiry (conducted within daily practice) that is directed towards a
particular problem (Biesenthal, 2014). The pragmatic worldview is concerned with inquiry and application, and it
conceives of truth as “what works at the time” (Creswell, 2014, p. 11). Pragmatism allows for different
methodological approaches, but holds that all research occurs within historical, cultural, and social contexts and thus
typically employs theoretical frameworks that reflect this viewpoint (Creswell, 2014).
72
developing capacity for sustaining change in systems (Fishman et al., 2013, p. 142-143).
Through attending to these four principles, research and development are not accomplished in
chronological sequence (i.e., researchers produce knowledge and then practitioners put that
knowledge to use), but rather carried out simultaneously (Penuel et al., 2011).
The research-practice partnership is a core aspect of the DBIR process, and it rests on
three assumptions. First, including practitioners—and their knowledge of practice and the local
setting—in the design process is expected to result in interventions that are more effectively
suited to the context for which they are intended (Fishman et al., 2013). Second, due to their
intimate involvement in designing interventions, practitioners will be more apt to implement
these interventions, and be better able to productively adapt them over time (Fishman et al.,
2013; Kirshner & Polman, 2013; Penuel et al., 2011; Russell, Jackson, Krumm, & Frank, 2013).
Third, through engaging practitioners in the inquiry-design process, local capacity can be built
through the fostering of (a) more cohesive networks among those practitioners, and (b) routines
and coordinating mechanisms that enable the intervention to spread more readily throughout
those networks, and beyond (Penuel et al, 2011). In respect to my study, this research-practice
partnership is represented in the ongoing formal (i.e., contractual) relationship that exists
between Millennium College and CUE, where I serve as research assistant.
34

DBIR seeks to not only identify “what works,” in relation to a persistent educational
problem, but rather “what works for whom, when, and under what conditions” (Fishman et al.,
2013, p. 149). To accomplish such a goal, the DBIR approach stretches across five loosely
delineated phases of research and development: exploratory (the research-practice team is
formed and the focal problem is negotiated), design and development focused on co-designing

34
The partnership between CUE and Millennium College formally began in July 2014 and will continue until at
least December 2017.
73
(the team determines what tools to design and then begins prototyping them), design and
development focused on early implementation (the team implements their designed tool,
documenting how implementers use it to refashion their practice, and/or how they adapt the tool
to better suit their context), efficacy (the designed tool’s impact on teaching and learning is
measured, and key mediating factors are determined), and effectiveness and scale up (the
supports needed for implementation are identified, along with conditions for sustainability)
(Penuel, 2016). Recognizing that the totality of the five phases is beyond the scope of a
dissertation, my study at Millennium College centers primarily on examining phases two and
three of the DBIR approach: design and development focused on co-design of a peer observation
protocol and process, and design and development focused on early implementation of that peer
observation protocol and process (see Figure 2).
35

Figure 2. Two phases of DBIR examined in this study

Professional Development Intervention
For my study, I conceptualize the co-design and implementation of a peer observation
protocol and process as a professional development—or learning—intervention (PD
intervention) for the CTE faculty participating in this joint work. Conceiving of design work as
professional development is supported by research (see Edelson, 2002; Voogt et al., 2015) that

35
The exploratory phase took place during an earlier project at Millennium, CUE’s developmental evaluation of the
college’s pathway reform. The focal problem that emerged out of that project was essentially: How can pedagogical
and instructional practice in CTE be remediated, so that more CTE students are successful (i.e., attain a certificate,
degree, or transfer eligibility), particularly those belonging to historically marginalized and underserved racial/ethnic
groups.
!
Exploratory Design &
development -
focused on co-
designing
Design &
development -
focused on early
implementation
Efficacy Effectiveness &
scale up
DBIR Five Phases of Research & Development
74
has found such work can produce learning related to teaching and learning, and the local context
(Edelson, 2002). In my study, the co-design and implementation process took place across a ten-
month period, and occurred within two iterations (i.e., cycles). Iteration #1 took place during
months one through five of the study, and because it represented the CTE team’s first
engagement with designing and implementing a peer observation protocol/process it remained
somewhat exploratory in nature. Iteration #2 took place during months eight through ten. It was
more comprehensive in nature, and thus served as the “main act” of the PD intervention.
36
A
more thorough description of the PD intervention is provided in Chapter V.
Case Study
I adopt a case study design to investigate CTE faculty learning in the above-described PD
intervention. Case study can be understood as an inquiry into “the particularity and complexity
of a single case, coming to understand its activity within important circumstances” (Stake, 1995,
p. xi), as “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in
depth and within its real-life context” (Yin, 2014, p. 16), or as “an in-depth description and
analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 37). This focus on coming to
understand a phenomenon, and all of its complexities, within a given context or bounded system
makes case study a suitable methodology for my study. In this case, the phenomenon and
context that I seek to understand is the learning of a group of CTE faculty members from
Millennium College, who were all involved in the co-design and early implementation of a peer
observation protocol and process.
That the phenomenon I seek to understand has clearly marked boundaries is one reason
case study is a suitable methodology for this inquiry at Millennium College. As Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) explain, what you are going to study needs to be “fenced in” (p. 38). Stake (1995)

36
Due to summer break, no activity related to this study occurred during months six and seven.
75
suggests that a case is bounded by time and activity, while Creswell (2007) proposes time and
place are the conditions for defining the “bounded system” (p. 28). In my study I seek to
examine the learning of one group of CTE faculty at one college, over a period of two semesters.
Therefore, the study is bounded by all three conditions: activity, place, and time.
Case study is also an appropriate methodology for my inquiry into CTE faculty learning
at Millennium because it allows for multiple levels of analysis. In my study, I employ a single
embedded case study design (Yin, 2014) that supports shifting the level of analysis from the case
(i.e., the team of CTE faculty) to the sub-units of the case (i.e., the individual CTE team
members), and then back to the case again. The need for a methodology that enables multiple
levels of analysis is reflected in my conceptual framework (i.e., personal, interpersonal, and
institutional/cultural planes of learning). Moreover, Yin points out that such a research design
can enhance the insights that are drawn about the phenomenon under investigation.
Finally, although my study is focused only on the learning of one group of CTE faculty at
one college, this case study serves an instrumental purpose because I also seek to “provide
insight into an issue” of broader interest and/or importance (Stake, 2005, p. 445). In this case,
that broader issue is: how might the pedagogical and instructional practice of CTE faculty be
remediated so that more CTE students achieve success (i.e., attain a certificate, degree, or
transfer eligibility), particularly those belonging to historically marginalized and underserved
racial/ethnic groups. Or, more specifically, in what ways does involvement in this type of
professional development (i.e., co-design and early implementation of a tool relevant to practice)
shape CTE faculty learning related to pedagogy and instruction and how pedagogy and
instruction are implicated in student success. The persistently low and inequitable student
76
success rates observed within community colleges across the nation highlight the significance of
this issue.
37

Site Selection and Access
As previously noted, my study was conducted at Millennium College. Millennium was
chosen through purposeful sampling (Patton, 2015), which Maxwell (2013) describes as “a
selection strategy in which particular settings, person or activities are selected deliberately in
order to provide information that can’t be gotten as well from other choices” (p. 88). Four
primary reasons served as the basis for selecting Millennium College as the site for my
investigation into CTE faculty learning. First, a long-term research-practice partnership had
been established between Millennium College and CUE. I serve as research assistant with the
latter. Most recently, the work of the partnership centered on: (a) documenting and supporting
the college’s ongoing implementation of a comprehensive pathway reform, through use of a
practitioner-inquiry approach (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004); and (b)
identifying, inquiring into, and then addressing racial/ethnic equity gaps in student success
outcomes. This effort was carried out within three evidence teams,
38
each focused on a distinct
area of the college: onboarding/orientation, math and English, and CTE. The latter of these
teams, CTE, was specifically focused on supporting implementation of the pathway reform
through improving pedagogy and instruction, and it thus served as a most fitting setting for my
study. In addition to the CUE-Millennium partnership providing access to an appropriate context
for examining CTE faculty learning, my two-plus years of involvement at the college also
enabled me to establish a high level of trust among the faculty, administrators, and staff that
subsequently situated me as part of “the team” at Millennium. As a result of this insider position,

37
Statistics illustrating these low and inequitable student success rates were provided in Chapter I.
38
CUE’s practitioner-inquiry approach involves creating “evidence teams” at the college that consist of local faculty
and administrators and CUE researchers.
77
I was well positioned to establish deeper insights related to CTE faculty learning than what
might have been garnered in other sites where such a level of trust would not have existed.
The second reason Millennium was an ideal site for this inquiry into CTE faculty learning
was that the college maintains an explicit focus on CTE. Unlike other community colleges,
Millennium specifically articulates the provision of top quality technical education as a core
objective throughout much of its public documentation and promotional materials. This focus on
CTE is reflected in the fact that the college awards close to 60 different technical/professional
certificates.
That student success rates at Millennium are persistently low and inequitable (i.e., the
underlying issue driving my investigation into CTE faculty learning) is the final reason the
college is a suitable site for this study. For example, in fall 2014, the course completion rate
within CTE was only 72% (Millennium College website, 2016), and disaggregating that statistic
along racial/ethnic lines showed that African Americans’ experienced a rate of only 66% and
American Indians just 62%. In short, these statistics reflect those observed nationally. Thus, by
locating my study at Millennium, there is a likely chance that the findings emerging from the
study will hold relevance for a broad array of other community colleges.
Participant Selection
The primary participants in this research study were the faculty members participating on
the CTE team (N=9).
39
Preliminary information about these participants is provided in Table 2,
below. Permission to conduct this study at Millennium College was obtained through the IRB at
the University of Southern California, and through the appropriate channels at Millennium. All
participants were informed of the study and invited to participate, and all agreed.

39
One of the participants (Instructor I) on the CTE team only participated during the first iteration of co-design and
implementation.
78

Table 2
Embedded Case Instructors

Instructor Gender Race/Ethnicity*
A Male Person of color
B Male White
C Female White
D Male White
E Female Person of color
F Male Person of color
G Male Person of color
H Male Person of color
I Male Person of color
Note: *I use “person of color” as opposed to more specific racial/ethnic identifiers to maintain
the anonymity of participants. Of the six persons of color participating in the study, four were
Latino/a, and two were African American/Black.

Data Collection
Pursuant with case study methodology, I applied multiple methods for collecting data,
including: interviews, observations, and documents (Yin, 2014). Patton (2002) explains,
“multiple sources of information are sought and used because no single source of information
can be trusted to provide a comprehensive perspective” (p. 306). Appendix A lays out an
overview of all data collection, and illustrates the various times across the study when each of
these types of data was collected. Below, I provide greater detail about each of the data
collection methods employed in this study.
Interviews
The purpose of interviewing participants is to “find out from them those things we can’t
observe” (Patton, 1987, p. 196). In this study, that included information about participants’: (a)
conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction, (b) conceptions related to students and student
performance (e.g., what an effective student does or does not do); (c) sense of identity (e.g.,
79
identifies as a teacher, a trade professional, etc.); and (d) interpretations of their experience
participating in the work of the CTE team (e.g., their experience giving/receiving feedback,
conducting joint work during CTE team meetings, etc.). I conducted three rounds of interviews,
and all participants were interviewed in each round.
40
The three interview protocols were semi-
structured, and a sample can be found in Appendix B. All interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed. I also created a set of notes, following each interview, to record my thoughts about
the tone of the conversation and discussion points that seemed particularly significant or striking,
as well as any information that was shared after the recorder was turned off.
Interview #1. These interviews took place after the team had already completed their
first iteration of co-design and implementation, but before the second iteration of co-design and
implementation began (i.e., during month eight of the study). The purpose of interview #1 was
to gather information about participants’: (a) prior experience and background (e.g., where they
attended high school and college, prior employment, etc.), (b) current experience (e.g., the
courses they currently teach, perspectives about their own pedagogical/instructional strengths,
and perceptions of their students), (c) vision of effective teaching and learning (e.g., conceptions
of what effective pedagogy/instruction looks like, and conceptions about how people learn), (d)
information related to learning about teaching (e.g., opportunities they have had to learn about
teaching, formal and informal PD opportunities that exist at the college, and perceptions about
what effective professional development looks like), and (e) identity as a teacher (e.g., groups on
campus within which they feel most themselves, why they transitioned to teaching, and how they
think of themselves as instructors). Since iteration #2 functioned as the “main act” of the PD
intervention, and interview #1 took place prior to iteration #2 commencing, participants’
responses from interview #1 served as a pseudo baseline for establishing what, if anything, was

40
Instructor I was an exception. He was only interviewed during the first round.
80
learned through participation in the co-design and implementation of a peer observation protocol
and process (i.e., the PD intervention). The duration of each interview was approximately 60
minutes, and all of them were conducted in person.
Interview #2. These interviews took place at the conclusion of the post-observation
debriefs that were a part of iteration #2. Accordingly, they were not as extensive in length as
interviews #1 and #3. The purpose of this interview was simply to gather information pertaining
to the participants’ experiences—observing or being observed—and, in particular, what they had
perceived themselves to learn through their participation in this recently transpired peer
observation. All of these interviews were conducted in person, and in all cases took place within
24 hours of the peer observation (most took place within three hours of the peer observation).
Interview #3. These interviews were conducted at the conclusion of the second iteration
of co-design and implementation (i.e., months 11 and 12 of the study), and were preceded by a
one-hour observation of the participant’s classroom or workshop. The purpose of this interview
was broadly to gather information about what, if anything, had been learned through
participation in this PD intervention, and also the ways in which participation in the PD
intervention had shaped participants’ learning experience. Accordingly, some of the same
interview prompts used in interview #1 were also used in this interview. The topics for interview
#3 included: (a) the lecture/workshop observed immediately preceding the interview (e.g.,
discussion of observed practices, etc.), (b) vision of effective teaching and learning (e.g.,
conceptions of what effective pedagogy/instruction looks like, and conceptions about how people
learn), (c) identity as a teacher (e.g., how they think of themselves as instructors, whether this
changed through participation in the PD intervention), and (d) experiences in the CTE team (e.g.,
81
activities that were particularly meaningful to their experience, etc.). The duration of each
interview was approximately 60 minutes, and all of them were conducted in person.
Observations
Observations allow for a “firsthand encounter with the phenomenon of interest”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 137). In my study, that phenomenon is CTE faculty learning. In
the first iteration of design and implementation, I observed the CTE team’s monthly meetings
(N=4) and conducted observations in three of the participants’ classrooms/workshops (i.e.,
Instructors A, D, and H). During the second iteration of design and implementation, I conducted
observations of: the CTE team monthly meetings (N=3), participants’ classrooms/workshops
(N=16), and peer-observation debriefs conducted within the observing partnerships (N=8).
Drawing on Gold’s (1958) typology, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) lay out four possible
stances from which observations can be conducted. In my study, I transitioned between two
stances: participant as observer and observer as participant. Merriam and Tisdell describe the
participant-as-observer approach as one in which “the researcher’s observer activities…are
known to the group [and] are subordinate to the researcher’s role as a participant” (p. 144). This
description is most like the stance I took during my observation of the CTE team meetings and
post-observation debriefs. Yin (2014) notes one challenge with this stance is it lessens the
researcher’s capacity for capturing information, and indeed I experienced exactly this throughout
iteration #1. Thus, to overcome this challenge in iteration #2, I audio-recorded all of the CTE
team meetings and post-observation debriefs.
41
In the observer-as-participant stance, “the
researcher’s observer activities are known to the group [and] participation in the group is

41
Field notes from CTE team meetings and post-observation debriefs were drafted in two steps. I first wrote up my
notes immediately following the meeting/debrief, outlining the tone of the conversation and any initial insights that
seemed interesting and/or pertinent. I then transcribed the audio recording of the meeting (approximately half of the
meetings/debriefs I transcribed myself, and the other half I had professionally transcribed).
82
definitely secondary to the role of information gatherer” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 144-145).
This description is most like the stance I took during my observation of participants’
classrooms/workshops.
CTE team meetings. The general structure for the CTE team’s activity was provided
through the larger partnership work between CUE and Millennium College. This structure
included: monthly evidence team meetings facilitated by (or in partnership with) a CUE
researcher; the introduction of new information related to the topic of equity; examination of
institutional student data, disaggregated by race/ethnicity; and engagement in inquiry to better
understand how practices are implicated in the institutional data observed. Within the CTE team,
I served as the CUE facilitator of the group. In addition to information about equity, the CTE
team was also exposed to information about pedagogy and instruction (e.g., Charlotte
Danielson’s (2016) The Framework for Teaching: Six Clusters Supporting Higher Level
Learning). The institutional data examined by the team was CTE course completion data, and
the inquiry strategy we employed was peer observation. Greater detail about the CTE team’s
activities is provided in the next chapter.
In my study, a primary purpose of observing the CTE team meetings was to gather
information about learning along the interpersonal plane (Rogoff, 1995). In general, I sought to
document the substance of participation, including information about: (a) What exactly does the
team focus their discussion on? And/or what do they convey to be their goal or purpose?; and (b)
In what ways, does the team draw on available resources (i.e., tools, artifacts, representations,
etc.) to accomplish their joint work?. The observation protocol I used is located in Appendix C.
Peer observations and post peer-observation debriefs. During the first iteration of co-
design and implementation, I did not attend any of the peer observations conducted by the CTE
83
team members. During the second iteration, I attended all of the peer observations and post-
observation debriefs they conducted. The purpose for attending these during iteration #2 was
two fold: (a) to gather information about participants’ pedagogical and instructional practice (i.e.,
Rogoff’s (1995) personal plane of learning); and (b) to gather information about what the
observing partners focused their discussion on during the post-observation debrief, and the
resources they drew upon to accomplish this joint work (i.e., Rogoff’s (1995) interpersonal plane
of learning). To accomplish (a), I used the protocol that was co-designed during iteration #2, and
to accomplish (b), I used the protocol located in Appendix C.
Classroom/workshops. In the first iteration of design and implementation I conducted
four observations (approximately 90-120 minutes in length) in the classrooms/workshops of
three CTE team members. No specific observation protocol was used. During the second
iteration of design and implementation, I conducted two one-hour observations of each CTE
faculty member’s classroom/workshop (i.e., one hour as part of the peer observations, and one
hour preceding interview #3). The purpose of these observations was to gather information
about participants’ pedagogical and instructional practice (i.e., Rogoff’s (1995) personal plane of
learning). I used the protocol that participants co-designed in iteration #2 to guide these
classroom/workshop observations.
Documents
In addition to observations and interviews “documents can be a rich source of
information contextually relevant and grounded in the context they represent” (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, p. 277). For this study, I collected a variety of documents, including: completed peer
observation protocols (from both iterations of co-design and implementation), the agenda for
Millennium College’s recently developed New Faculty Academy (approximately 20-hour
84
workshop that is typically facilitated across one semester), numerous forms and policy
documents related to faculty evaluation (e.g., classroom observation checklists, evaluation
summary template, etc.), program review data packets for all programs of study represented in
the CTE team, the college’s accreditation self-study report, curriculum materials associated with
the classes I observed, and minutes from campus-wide committees (e.g., committee charged to
oversee matters related to student success).
Data Analysis
Data analysis involves “organizing and interrogating data in ways that allow researchers
to see patterns, identify themes, discover relationships, develop explanations, make
interpretations, mount critiques, or generate theories” (Hatch, 2002, p. 148). In my study, I made
use of various data analysis strategies, including: coding, memoing, creating visual displays of
data, and asking analytic questions of the data. Due to the emergent and ongoing nature of
qualitative research approaches like that of case study, data collection and analysis occur
simultaneously (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Luker (2008) describes, “the process of [data]
reduction and analysis is really an ongoing one that begins the first night you come home from
gathering data or even the very first day you start your project” (p. 199). Indeed, this was the
approach taken in this study. To help facilitate my analysis, I stored and managed all data in
QSR International’s NVivo for Mac (2014). This was a particularly useful tool throughout all
phases of analysis, as it enabled me to: (a) search and retrieve specific data (e.g., all data within a
particular code) and test out emerging hunches with relative ease, (b) efficiently reorganize my
codebook as analysis progressed (e.g., collapse codes together, and/or create hierarchical
arrangements of codes).

85
Phase One of Analysis
The first phase of analysis took place as the PD intervention and data collection were
unfolding. This analysis was more informal in nature and involved reviewing observation notes
(e.g., from CTE team meetings) and drafting reflective notes about initial insights related to the
ways in which participants talked about pedagogy and instruction, the peer observation protocol,
and/or the co-design and implementation process. This first phase of analysis also included
coding the completed peer observation protocols, so the CTE team could collectively analyze
these data in a collated (and anonymous) format. Coding is “a data condensation task that
enables [the researcher] to retrieve the most meaningful material, to assemble chunks of data that
go together, and to further condense the bulk into readily analyzable units” (Miles, Huberman, &
Saldaña, 2013, p. 73). The insights drawn through this first phase of data analysis informed the
design of the iteration #2 peer observation protocol and process, and also prompted me to adjust
my data collection methods (e.g., audio-recording CTE team meetings).
Phase Two of Analysis
The primary purpose of this second phase of analysis was organizing and categorizing the
data. It commenced once the PD intervention had concluded, and began with the coding of data
from interview #1. I began by applying a set of deductive codes to just two transcripts.
Deductive codes are generated a priori by the researcher and are based on what he/she expects to
find in the data (e.g., Miles et al., 2013). These codes included: “knowledge and beliefs about
pedagogy and instruction,” “knowledge and beliefs about race and equity,” “knowledge and
beliefs about students,” “knowledge and beliefs about how to learn about pedagogy/instruction,”
“pre-instructor experience,” “identity,” and “sociocultural and historical context.” As I applied
these deductive codes to the first two transcripts, I also marked any subsets of data that struck me
86
as significant but did not fit neatly within this initial coding scheme.
42
In NVivo, these notes can
be placed directly onto the transcript as annotated comments. Once I had completed my coding
of these first two transcripts, I reviewed all of the annotated comments I had made and drew on
them to draft a set of initial inductive codes, which are defined as codes that “emerge
progressively through data collection” (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013, p. 81).
43
These
initial inductive codes were: “practices at beginning of intervention,” “prior professional
development,” “beliefs about one’s own effectiveness,” “doing better,” “reflection,” and “values.”
At this point, I drafted a definition for all of the codes included in the set, and then tried them out
with another two transcripts to ensure they captured the recurring patterns in my data corpus.
After this testing with two new transcripts, I revised the definition of one code (i.e. “identity”),
and also collapsed a couple of the codes together (i.e., “reflection” was subsumed in “knowledge
and beliefs about how to learn about pedagogy/instruction” and “doing better” was subsumed in
“beliefs about one’s own effectiveness”). I then coded the remaining interview #1 transcripts.
After I had completed coding interview#1 transcripts, I transitioned to coding interview
#2 transcripts. For this set of data, I maintained the same coding scheme used for interview #1,
but added three additional deductive codes: “experience being observed and/or receiving
feedback,” “experience observing and/or giving feedback,” and “negotiating meaning.” After
testing these codes out on two transcripts, I drafted definitions for these new deductive codes and
proceeded with my coding of the remaining interview #2 transcripts.
I followed a similar process with interview #3 transcripts to the one used with interview
#1 transcripts. I began coding with a set of a priori codes. This included all codes already in my
coding scheme (from my coding of interview #1 and #2 transcripts), plus two additional

42
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) identify this strategy as open coding.
43
This process I describe of folding annotated comments together into a set of inductive codes is sometimes referred
to as axial coding (Charmaz, 2014; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016).
87
deductive codes: “practices at end of intervention,” and “intervention described (ID).” I also
included four additional deductive sub-codes: “ID related to facilitation,” “ID related to goals,”
“ID related to processes/tools,” and “ID related to his/her participation.” As I tested these codes
with the first couple of interview #3 transcripts, I marked any subsets of data that struck me as
significant but did not fit neatly within this initial coding scheme. This revealed three more
inductive sub-codes: “ID related to other group members,” “ID related to new/diverse ideas,”
and “ID related to feeling safe/comfortable.” At this point, I drafted a definition for the new
deductive and inductive codes and then coded the remaining interview #3 transcripts. Appendix
D provides an overview of all codes, their definitions, and sample quotations, along with when
they were added to the coding scheme. Once all of the interview data had been coded, I
transitioned to coding the CTE team meeting transcripts and observation field notes. I applied
the same coding scheme described above, but also coded for embedded cases (e.g., Instructor A).
While coding, I wrote analytic memos to capture insights that were emerging through my
analysis. Analytic memos are “brief or extended narrative[s] that document the researcher’s
reflections and thinking processes about the data” (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). I opted
to maintain my analytic memos within one document that reflected that of a running “analysis
log.” The following excerpt (dated January 17, 2017) helps illustrate the types of ideas captured.
The socio-cultural and historical context is not the same for all of my participants.
Instructor A is heavily involved in committees (interview #1, 11:11). Many of these
committees are focused on program development, planning, and institutional
improvement. He’s therefore part of a dialogue about these types of efforts. It is not a
stretch to imagine that because of this focus on planning, development, and improvement,
that he would: (a) bring a different “mind” to the topics covered in our CTE group, and
88
(b) that he would convey messages to the group about a joint inquiry that is directed more
towards institutional change, as opposed to just individual change.
Here, I noted an insight about Instructor A’s unique degree of involvement at the college level,
and the ways in which that involvement might have shaped his participation in the CTE team,
particularly related to its joint enterprise. This insight actually continued to surface during my
analysis, which subsequently led me to identifying this interest in college-level improvement as a
predominant identity trajectory for both Instructors A and C.
Phase Three of Analysis
In the third phase of data analysis, I returned to my theoretical framework to help me
identify broader themes stretching across my data. To assist with this more substantive stage of
analysis, I employed two other strategies in a combined format: analytic questions and visual
displays of data. Neumann and Pallas (2015) describe analytic questions as a tool to “scoop out”
data that is relevant to the larger research question(s) (p. 166). Visual displays of data are used
to condense data and organize it in a manner that supports analysis (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña,
2013).
44

Employing these two strategies involved creating a series of matrices in which the
embedded cases (i.e., participants) were placed along the y-axis, and analytic questions were
placed along the x-axis. For example, one of the matrices had the following analytic questions
along the x-axis: “What were this participant’s early-intervention (i.e., pre-iteration #2) ideas
about pedagogy/instruction?;” “What were this participant’s late-intervention (i.e., post-iteration
#2) ideas about pedagogy/instruction?;” “What is new/different about his/her late-intervention
ideas?”; and “What new actions seem to have been appropriated?” In applying this particular
analytic structure to my coded data, I was able to examine what was learned along the personal

44
Visual displays of data can include matrices, graphs, charts, networks, and such.
89
plane of learning, which was one of my research questions. This same strategy was used to
examine the ways in which participation in the various activity types (e.g., peer observation,
reviewing frameworks/concepts from literature, etc.) seemed to shape participants’ learning
experience, which was my other research question. Examining the data in this way not only
helped me identify the broader themes, but also disconfirming cases. Once broader themes were
identified, I then relied on the constant comparative method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016)
45
to help
me pull apart the nuances within these themes.
Trustworthiness
Trustworthiness, also referred to as validity (Maxwell, 2013) or validation (Creswell,
2007), references “an attempt to assess the accuracy of the findings” (Creswell, 2007). To
facilitate trustworthiness of this study’s findings, I carried out a series of strategies. First, I spent
an extended period of time in the field. Maxwell (2013) and Creswell (2007) both assert that this
is one strategy for enhancing validity of findings as it allows the researcher to gather a richer
collection of data and also check inferences as they emerge. While data collection for this study
began in February of 2016, I actually had been conducting research at Millennium since July of
2014, as part of the research-practice partnership between CUE and Millennium. Although my
earlier research activities at the college were not explicitly linked with this study, they helped me
to build a deep understanding of the Millennium context. Once this study commenced, I was at
the Millennium campus approximately two times per week. These frequent visits enabled me to
keep closely connected with participants, as well as get their feedback related to some of my
emerging findings.

45
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe the constant comparative method as simply comparing two segments of data
to identify their similarities and differences.

90
Stake (2005) asserts that the credibility of findings is gained through “using multiple
perceptions to clarify meaning” (p. 454). The two most common strategies for accomplishing
this task are triangulation and “procedural challenges to explanations” (Stake, 2005, p. 454).
Maxwell (2013) defines triangulation as: “collecting information from a diverse range of
individuals and settings, using a variety of methods” (p. 128). In my study at Millennium, I
achieved triangulation by collecting data through: (a) observations of CTE team meetings, peer-
observation debriefs, and participants’ classrooms/workshops; (b) interviews with all CTE team
members; and (c) a range of documents. To ensure my inferences were challenged, I
purposefully analyzed my data for discrepant evidence (e.g., disconfirming cases) and assessed
whether these required me to alter my conclusions.
Once data analysis had been completed, I also conducted a member check (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) with a group of my participants (Instructors A, B, D, F, and H).
During this session, which lasted for approximately one hour, I shared an overview of my
findings related to learning along the personal and interpersonal planes.
46
As I progressed
through this overview, I continuously stopped to solicit their feedback. The responses largely
reflected agreement with my interpretations of their experiences participating in the PD
intervention, and often elaborated on what I had shared. There was only one instance when a
slightly different interpretation was offered.
47

46
During this member check, I did not expound on my findings from the three case studies described in Chapter VII.
My reasoning was that doing so would have made it impossible to maintain the anonymity of these three cases.
Since some aspects of the case study findings were critical in nature, I concluded the team setting to be an
inappropriate venue for such in-depth sharing of them. Also, one of the participants represented in those case
studies (i.e., Instructor E) was not in attendance at this member check, and would thus not have been able to provide
feedback.
47
Instructor A reported that at the beginning of the PD intervention the CTE team likely conveyed their joint
enterprise as being focused on students because they did not know any other way to “frame” it. While he seemed to
wonder if this was a different interpretation than the one I had made, I maintain that it was very similar.

91
Two final strategies helped to facilitate the trustworthiness of my study. First, to ensure
an “external check on my research process,” I recruited another CUE researcher to act as a “peer
reviewer” (Creswell, 2007, p. 208) or “critical friend” (Herr & Anderson, p. 98-99) throughout
various stages of the study. Creswell asserts that a peer reviewer “keeps the researcher honest;
asks hard questions about methods, meaning, and interpretations” (p. 208), thus enhancing
validation of the findings. Finally, I kept a research journal in which I recorded details related to
my timeline of research activities (Yin, 2014), decisions I made related to the study, and
emerging thoughts about what I was finding.
Ethical Considerations
Stake (2005) stresses that “[q]ualitative researchers are guests in the private spaces of the
world. Their manners should be good and their code of ethics strict” (p. 459). My commitment
to upholding ethical standards was sustained throughout this project. At the most basic level,
and as previously noted, this study received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the
University of Southern California (USC) and from the appropriate offices at Millennium College.
To ensure participants were clear about the purpose of the study, the details of involvement, and
their rights to withdraw participation, I ensured an Information Sheet about the project was
distributed to all study participants. This Information Sheet can be found in Appendix E.
In addition to these formal steps, I also maintained ethical standards through my
interaction with all members of the Millennium community. I greeted people, remembered
names, and showed a friendly and gracious disposition when on campus. For those individuals
participating in the study, I kept them protected from my own judgments when a perspective was
shared that was in conflict with my own personal viewpoint. I also maintained confidentiality
and anonymity throughout duration of the study by ensuring that no connections could be drawn
92
between the participants and the verbal/written comments they had shared with me directly (i.e.,
interviews) or indirectly (i.e., peer observation forms).
Finally, in exchange for the access I received at Millennium College, I offered my
services and/or support when doing so was appropriate. As Lofland, Snow, Anderson, and
Lofland (2005) point out, “you cannot forego the helper role altogether: It is your trade-off for
access” (p. 60). At Millennium, this included sharing additional resources related to pedagogy
and instruction with interested study participants, and facilitating a professional development
session (unrelated to this study) during the college’s new faculty orientation.
Researcher Positionality
I take the stance that the researcher is “multiculturally situated” and “approaches the
world with a set of ideas…that specifies a set of questions,” which are then examined in
“specific ways” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 21). As Peshkin (1988) explains this “subjectivity
operates during the entire research process” (p. 21), and it is only through a monitoring of the
self that one can become attuned to “where self and subject are intertwined” (p. 20). My efforts
to monitor the self began at the beginning of the research project when I identified two sets of
my perspectives that were clearly connected to the topic of this study. First, I come into this
study with my own thoughts about pedagogy and instruction, and practitioner learning, that are
largely based on my years of experience as a K-12 teacher and school leader. I also come into
this study with my own thoughts about racial/ethnic equity that are grounded in my experience as
a researcher at CUE, where racial/ethnic equity in education is the core mission.
Once the study commenced, the monitoring of these perspectives looked different at
various points, predominantly due to the fact that this study was situated within a larger research
93
agenda (DBIR) that requires the researcher to maintain both an insider and outsider position.
48

Thus, when functioning as an insider (e.g., during the co-design process), I drew on these
perspectives because doing so was an expected and necessary part of my role at that point in time.
In other moments of the study, when functioning as an outsider (e.g., when interviewing or
observing a CTE team member), I did my best to keep aware of how these perspectives might be
influencing what I was paying attention to, and/or what sense I made of comments/observations
(this was particularly true during data analysis). Keeping a research journal, and later an analysis
log, helped me to monitor my insider/outsider status and my subjective perspectives, as the study
progressed.
Challenge of Insider-Outsider position When Considering the Interpersonal Plane
As noted above, the larger DBIR approach within which this inquiry rested required me
to take on both insider and outsider roles throughout the study. In addition to functioning as a
“traditional” researcher (e.g., when recording field notes), I was also involved as a partner (e.g.,
during co-design) and as a consultant (e.g., when facilitating the team’s review of new
concepts/frameworks from literature).
49
These latter two types of involvement meant that I was
a part of a good portion of the group’s joint activity. Consequently, there were some data related
to the team’s joint work that I was unable to consider during analysis, due to my own
involvement in those particular instances of the team’s activity. This is not to say that the CTE

48
Herr and Anderson (2015) provide a helpful discussion of the insider and outsider position. Described in
reference to action research, the authors depict insider and outsider positions along a continuum that conveys the
degree to which researchers’ are fluid in how they position themselves in accordance with these two roles
throughout their research projects. While DBIR has not been labeled explicitly as action research, I argue that it
reflects many of the same tenets (e.g., focused on a local problem, concerned with including various stakeholders
perspectives, etc.), and thus these tools/ideas of action research have utility for DBIR studies.
49
I drew on Kemis and McTaggart’s (2000) delineation of first-, second-, and third-person standpoints in research to
help orient my work across these three forms of involvement. The first-person standpoint takes an “us” perspective
and assumes that the purpose of research is to “change practice, practitioner, and practice setting” (p. 585). The
second-person standpoint takes a “you” perspective and recognizes the research purpose as one of “educat[ing]
practitioners” (p. 585). The third-person standpoint represents the more traditional approach observed in social
sciences. It takes a “them” perspective and assumes that the purpose of research is to “modify and improve”
practice (p. 584).
94
team never operated with any agency over their joint work, because there were times in which
they did (e.g., during team meetings, when working in two- or three-person groups around a
particular task). It is to say, however, that when analyzing the team’s joint activity to investigate
learning along the interpersonal plane, I sought only to include joint activity that unfolded more
organically—and without significant orchestration from me—as that seemed most appropriate
for the purposes of this study.
To help further manage this challenge related to the interpersonal plane, I included data
collected during interviews to substantiate my analysis of learning along the interpersonal plane.
Taking such an approach subsequently provides for a somewhat limited portrayal of what was
learned along the interpersonal plane because it tends to convey that interpersonal learning as the
aggregate of individual learning and does not fully expose the “interactional” (Wenger, 1998, p.
102) component that is expected to be part of interpersonal learning.

95
CHAPTER V:
Overview of Millennium College and the PD Intervention
50

Historical and Sociocultural Context
Millennium College is located near the downtown core of a large urban center in the
western United States. Based on 2011 statistics, the college’s service area is predominantly
Hispanic (60%) and African American/Black (20%), and it maintains the lowest median income
compared to all other service areas in the larger community college district of which it is part.
Educational attainment is also low within Millennium’s service area. The college’s website lays
out educational attainment statistics for the service area (in comparison to the larger urban center
in which it is situated), and these show that 40% of the service area population have attained less
than a high school diploma (compared to 22% in larger urban center), 21% have high school
diploma or equivalent (compared to 20% in larger urban center), 21% have some college or an
Associate’s degree (compared to 28% in larger urban center), and only 16% have attained a
bachelor’s degree (compared to 28% in larger urban center).
The college’s central location in relation to the downtown core allows students to access
the campus via two rail lines and/or a series of bus lines. The campus takes up a space that is
approximately 25 acres in size and while there are some open green spaces, the campus
maintains a definite urban feel. A couple of the newer buildings on campus rise a number of
stories up, and the streets that form the campus boundaries remain busy with both vehicle and
pedestrian traffic throughout the day. While there are a few newer structures on campus, most of
the facilities appear quite dated. The college has been at its current location for the past 50 years,
and some of the buildings do not look like they have changed much across the years. This is also

50
Unless noted otherwise, all data and statistics presented in this section were found on Millennium College’s
website. Also, as noted in Chapter I, statistics related to the college have been slightly adjusted to maintain
anonymity.
96
true for many of the classrooms inside of these buildings, particularly those used for CTE. The
following excerpt from my field notes provides a window into what these physical spaces look
like.
The room reminded me of the Science lab [in my high school]. There were six visible
stations at each of the three large black-top counters running from left to right across the
lab. Much of the equipment in the lab was quite dated (looked like it was from the 60s or
70s), and this made me think of the one “challenging aspect” of pedagogy/instruction that
[the CTE team] had identified: lack of effective resources. (July 7, 2016)
Millennium College has been in existence for almost 100 years. Its founders believed
that the local economy could be advanced with increased access to vocational education in the
region. Although the college has since expanded its offerings to include the Associate’s Degree
and recognized transfer programs, Millennium has maintained a focus on vocational education,
now more commonly referred to as CTE. In fact, Millennium College is somewhat unique
compared to other community colleges in that it specifically references CTE throughout much of
its public documentation and promotional materials. Indeed, even with the more than 100
certificate, associate, and transfer programs on offer at the college, nearly 80 percent of
associate’s degrees awarded by the college are in occupational areas.
Student and Faculty Demographics
Student demographics at Millennium have evolved significantly across time. In 1972, the
study body was: 40% African American/Black, 35% White, 15% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 5%
Other. In the late 1970s, a larger number of Hispanic students began enrolling at the college and
the demographics began to shift. This trend continued through the 1980s and 1990s, and by
2000, Hispanic students accounted for over 50% of the college’s population (District’s
97
Institutional Research Office and State Chancellor’s office). In Fall 2016, Millennium enrolled
nearly 13,000 full-time equivalent students (FTES), of which: 60% identified as Latino, 20% as
African American/Black, 8% as Multi-ethnic, 5% as White, 3% as Other, and 4% as Asian.
In Fall 2016, approximately 50% of Millennium’s student body was over the age of 25
years, and unlike many other institutions of higher education in the US, 52% of those students
were male and 48% were female. Millennium’s higher enrollment of males is accredited to the
large number of CTE certificate and degree programs offered at the college. In fact, of this same
Fall 2016 cohort, 34% identified their educational goal as CTE, while 36% identified a goal of
transfer, 13% identified a goal of Associate’s Degree, and 17% indicated they were undecided.
Many of the students who enroll at Millennium to pursue one of these various goals arrive with
low levels of academic preparedness. For example, in 2015, the college reported that the
majority of new students place two levels below college-level English and three levels below
college-level Math. In addition, more than 10% of new students did not possess a high school
diploma or GED.
While the student body at Millennium is largely composed of individuals of color, the
largest racial/ethnic group within the faculty is white. The college’s website reported that in Fall
2014, 40% of full-time faculty, and 48% of adjunct faculty, were White. In comparison, only
23% and 26% of full-time and adjunct faculty, respectively, are African American/Black; and
only 25% and 18% of full-time and adjunct faculty, respectively, are Hispanic/Latino.
Policy Context
The particular problem on which this study is focused is low and inequitable student
success rates in higher education, and indeed this is an issue that Millennium College has
continuously faced. For example, only 10% of the college’s 2008 cohort of students had
98
completed a degree six years later, and only 6% had transferred to a four-year institution. It was
statistics such as these that motivated college leaders to develop a pathways initiative in hopes
that it would better streamline the student experience and improve the number of students who
left the college with a certificate or degree in hand. After spending a year collecting input from
various stakeholder groups (i.e., faculty, staff, students, and administrators), the college fleshed
out a design for their reform, and in 2012 Millennium’s academic senate adopted the initiative as
part of the college’s strategic plan.
Pathway reforms are grounded in the idea that community colleges exist in silos—i.e.,
academics, student services, assessment, financial aid—and that this structure does not make
sense to students or function effectively for them. Therefore, the guiding principle of pathway
reforms is to integrate these historically compartmentalized sectors of the community college and
organize them along the lines of occupational fields, such as: transportation, applied sciences,
and such. Millennium’s pathway reform is somewhat unique. Where most colleges have taken
up the pathway idea by designing and implementing one or two pathways that then reside within
an otherwise traditional college structure, Millennium’s model seeks to eventually reorganize all
of the college’s departments and programs into discrete career pathways.
Although implementation had begun previously, it was not until Fall 2014 that significant
changes started to take shape at Millennium. At that time, the college launched six pathways,
which involved the following explicit actions: moving one counselor to the physical areas of the
campus where each of those pathways was housed, and clearly articulating schedules of courses
students within each pathway could take to achieve their certificate or associate’s degree. It was
at this point in implementation that CUE first became involved at Millennium.

99
Millennium-CUE Partnership
The first phase of CUE’s work with Millennium employed a developmental evaluation
(Patton, 2011) approach that aimed to both document and support implementation of the pathway
initiative. To conduct this work, CUE researchers, of which I was the lead, engaged in a
continuous cycle of: data gathering (i.e., interviews, observations, surveys/questionnaires) and
synthesizing to identify key emerging insights, feeding back to the college summaries of these
data and related insights, and facilitating change laboratories (Engeström et al., 1996)
51
within
which these insights could be collaboratively examined with Millennium practitioners. This type
of research and development required CUE researchers to essentially embed themselves into the
daily fabric of the college, and often times make in-the-moment contributions to the ongoing
development of the pathway initiative. Because of this deep involvement, CUE researchers
came to be perceived as part of the Millennium team and subsequently earned a great deal of
trust from the faculty, staff, and administrators who worked most closely with us.
The second phase of the Millennium-CUE partnership began in Spring 2016. This phase
carried forward a primary goal from phase one: build practitioners’ capacity for ongoing
improvement, but by taking a slightly different approach. For this phase of the partnership, three
evidence teams were organized to conduct inquiry into the policies and practices at Millennium.
This structure was a more traditional alignment with CUE’s theory of change (Bensimon, 2012),
and subsequently focused more explicitly on racial/ethnic equity in student success, within the
context of the pathway reform being implemented at Millennium. The three inquiry teams
established to carry out this second wave of collaborative work were the: onboarding team (i.e.,

51
Change laboratories were structured spaces within which CUE researchers and Millennium faculty, staff, and
administrators conducted joint activity related to the college’s pathway initiative and/or its implementation.
100
orientation), Math and English team, and CTE team. The latter of these three is the setting for
this current study.
The work of the CTE team (as well as the other two teams) was grounded in the problem
of racial/ethnic equity gaps in student success at Millennium. Of particular interest were the
equity gaps (i.e., inequitable outcomes across racial/ethnic groups) in course completion rates,
which are defined as: the ratio of the number of credit courses that students, by population group,
complete (i.e., earned an A, B, C, or credit) compared to the number of courses in which students
in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term. In Fall 2014, the all-students course
completion rate in CTE was 72%. However, disaggregating this statistic along lines of
race/ethnicity, showed equity gaps for: African American/Blacks (66%), American
Indian/Alaska natives (62%), and Individuals of more than one race (64%). An even finer-grain
analysis reveals that these equity gaps in course completion rates have persisted across time. For
example, in one of the college’s CTE programs, the course completion rates among White
students, across the past five years were: 81%, 78%, 78%, 75%, and 79%. In this same program,
and across the same five-year period, the course completion rates among Latino/a students were:
62%, 62%, 63%, 59%, and 61%, and for African American students they were: 52%, 49%, 49%,
49%, and 52% (Millennium College website, 2016). When one considers that whites represent
the largest racial/ethnic faculty group at Millennium, and that students of color represent the
largest contingency of students at Millennium (see above), these persistent equity gaps in student
success rates experienced by African American and Latino/a students are even more concerning.
To guide the CTE team’s engagement with this problem I drew on core ideas from
CUE’s theory of change (Bensimon, 2012) and DBIR (Penuel et al., 2011).
52
Those ideas

52
From DBIR (Penuel et al., 2011), this included the idea: problems of practice can be addressed through
researchers and practitioners engaging together in a process of iterative co-design related to that problem of practice.
101
translated to the following goals which were presented to the CTE team for discussion/adoption:
(a) prepare and analyze relevant institutional data (e.g., course progression and certificate/degree
completion by race/ethnicity), (b) conduct inquiry into faculty’s instructional and pedagogical
practices, and the ways in which students experience those practices, (c) design and implement
interventions to refine aspects of instruction and pedagogy needing improvement, (d) further
develop team members’ capacity for leading instructional and pedagogical improvement efforts,
and (e) further develop team members’ capacity for reading and using data in decision-making
processes.
Important to note, the larger evolving context of the Millennium-CUE partnership shaped
the current study in two significant ways. First, it provided some of the participants with prior
knowledge of the core principles underlying this study’s design. For example, while
interviewing instructor F, he implied that his expectations related to joining the CTE team had
been influenced by previously hearing CUE’s director (Dr. Estela Bensimon) explain the concept
of inequity. In her presentation, she shared a cartoon that illustrated three individuals of different
heights, each standing on a box of equal size, all attempting to look over a fence. Clearly the
image’s message was not lost on Instructor F, as months later he still drew reference to it.
Another example occurred when I was delivering instructions on how to conduct inquiry, and
shared the idea that inquiry involved trying to “make the familiar unfamiliar.” Instructor I asked
if that was the same as “strangefy,” that he had heard during a previous CUE-related
workshop/event where inquiry had been discussed.

From CUE’s theory of change (Bensimon, 2012), this included the ideas: (a) becoming best practitioners (i.e.,
addressing pressing problems through a continuous cycle of data analysis, inquiry, design, implementation, and
evaluation) can be more impactful than simply implementing pre-packaged best practices (CUE, 2016), and (b) an
equity-mindedness approach can help to remediate racial/ethnic equity gaps in student success rates.

102
The second significant way in which the larger Millennium-CUE partnership shaped this
current study is that it enabled me to enter the CTE team as a trustworthy facilitator. Although
approximately half of the participants (N=5) had not met me prior to the CTE team’s first
meeting, the other half (N=4) had. Importantly, these latter individuals maintained significant
positional and/or social power at the college (e.g., pathway/department chair, senate members,
union representatives, etc.), and they all maintained positive feelings towards the college’s
partnership with CUE. For example, one of these individuals (Instructor C) commented: “Not to
kiss up or anything but I have been impressed with the work that we've done with CUE. So I
think I was willing to be involved with anything with you that I thought was gonna help.” In
short, setting out with a solid amount of trust likely had impact on what we were able to
accomplish as a group.
CTE Team
As illustrated in Table 3, members of the CTE team (i.e., this study’s participants)
reflected racial/ethnic and gender diversity as well as a range of backgrounds and years spent as
full-time instructor. Worth noting, only three of the team members had completed some form of
teaching training, and four of them were previous graduates of Millennium programs in which
they now currently instruct.
53

53
Additional information about the participants of this study is provided in Chapter 6.
103
Table 3
Information About CTE Team Members

Instructor Gender Race/Ethnicity* Years as FT
Instructor
Experience Prior to FT Instructor
A Male Person of color 5-10 Some teacher training; Teaching
Assistant in K-12 and higher education;
Adjunct; Field-related work
B Male White 1 or less Adjunct; Field-related work
C Female White 10 or more Some teacher training; Adjunct; Field-
related work
D Male White 1 or less Adjunct; Field-related work
E Female Person of color 5-10 Field-related work
F Male Person of color 1 or less Adjunct; Field-related work
G Male Person of color 5-10 Some teacher training; Adjunct; Field-
related work
H Male Person of color 1 or less Adjunct; Field-related work
I Male Person of color 10 or more Adjunct; Field-related work
Note: *I use “person of color” as opposed to more specific racial/ethnic identifiers to maintain
the anonymity of participants. Of the six persons of color participating in the study, four were
Latino/a, and two were African American/Black.

Prior to the launch of the PD intervention upon which this study is focused, members
knew each other to varying degrees. Three of the team members (Instructors A, C, and I) knew
each other through their involvement in various college committees. There existed less
familiarity, however, with and among the other team members. Some of these latter members
were individuals who had been recently hired at the college as full-time faculty (Instructors D, F,
and H). The remaining team members (Instructors E and G) were individuals who had been
teaching at the college for a few years, but had not been actively involved outside of their own
program of study.
Being A CTE Instructor at Millennium College
Two years prior to this study, the college leadership team launched a new-faculty
academy at Millennium. This idea was born out of the recognition that many full-time
instructors being hired had little to no previous training in pedagogy and/or instruction, and these
104
leaders sought to provide some initial professional development. The four-day training covers a
variety of topics, including: Millennium’s history, mission, strategic plan (i.e., the pathway
reform), and shared governance structure; an introduction to learning theories; course syllabus;
learning outcomes and assessments; effective communication; conflict management;
instructional technology; and campus resources. While pedagogy and instruction are featured in
this agenda, the broad range of topics covered suggests that little depth is achieved in the four-
day training. That the three CTE members who had completed the new faculty academy only
referenced it a couple of times throughout the 12-month duration of this study seems to be
evidence supporting this conclusion.
In addition to a 15- to 20-unit teaching load, CTE instructors at Millennium are also
expected to maintain office hours (2-5 hours, depending on assignment) and participate in one
college-wide committee. While to differing extents, CTE fields often evolve rapidly thus
requiring CTE instructors to constantly keep abreast of changes in industry. Indeed, when the
CTE team members participating in this study were asked to share about recent professional
development experiences, most described industry-based trainings.
Rogoff (1995) suggests that to better understand sociocultural context one can look to the
various cultural resources and constraints and professional norms that exist for a group. At
Millennium, one of the more influential cultural resources/constraints among CTE faculty,
particularly those new to the full-time role, seemed to be the evaluation/tenure process. For
example, Instructor H shared how participating on the CTE team was “one of the best things”
that had happened to him. He then explained: “I am on probation, and I'm going to be
evaluated…now I have a better sense of what they’re actually looking at when I’m actually
trying to [teach].” Thus, for Instructor H, through participating in the CTE team, he seemed to
105
gain access to new information that alleviated some of the confusion and/or stress related to the
evaluation/tenure process. Although there were likely other factors that contributed to him
experiencing the CTE team as “one of the best things,” his identification of this one factor seems
telling.
Instructor B also made reference to the evaluation/tenure process. He shared how he
believes the current process holds less- and more-experienced instructors to differing degrees of
accountability. He explained:
There are some faculty who've been doing this for a long time who are still willing to
experiment and try something different. But I would say if new faculty come in…they're
more open to trying new things and quite frankly, there's so much higher level
accountable for new faculty. If you're tenured, there's no external force pushing you to
change you just have to want to do it.
From Instructor B’s perspective then, new faculty are “more open” to experimenting, because
they are eager to improve and perform well in the evaluation/tenure process. Tenured faculty
members have already moved through this process and therefore have less motivation towards
improvement.
Another apparent constraint is the college’s lack of attention on pedagogy and instruction.
This was illustrated when Instructor F responded to a question about whether or not he has
conversations about teaching with other instructors and/or administrators. He replied:
“Unfortunately, every discussion, conversation, meeting that I’ve had with administrators [or]
other professors…it’s policy.” When asked to elaborate on what he meant by policy, Instructor F
shared:
106
The last two or three years, almost every meeting that I’ve been involved in is about the
accreditation and the effectiveness [of] the new system that they’re trying to implement
[i.e., the pathways initiative]. So, it’s really policy based. ‘This is where we wanna go.
This is how we want to do things.’ So, there isn’t a lot of discussion on particular
teaching. It’s very administrative management policy.
Thus, while the college seems to have clearly articulated goals, the administrators’ (and/or the
community’s) lack of attention to teaching has conveyed a message that teaching—and its
improvement—is not the valued means for achieving those goals, rather policy is.
The comments made by this study’s participants also reveal certain professional norms
that seem to characterize the CTE faculty experience at Millennium. One of those norms is
isolation. Instructor G referenced this when he was describing which groups at the college he
feels most comfortable with. He stated: “The only time I see other instructors is if I’m on a
committee or something like that. We’re kind of self contained, almost, over here.” Instructor E
described a similar experience. She shared: “It’s interesting because I really don’t get involved
at school. If it’s not happening in this department...[and] even in this department [I don’t get
involved] because there’s just a lot of personalities and nonsense.” She then added: “That’s why
I stay up [in my classroom], I don’t even teach down here ‘cause it just is too much.” So, while
Instructor G’s isolation seems to be the result of being physically contained in one spot on
campus, Instructor E’s isolation seems self-imposed. In both cases, however, the reality of
isolation is the same: limited opportunity to discuss matters related to pedagogy and instruction.
Worth noting, this norm of isolation reflects other findings in the literature (see: Grubb et al,
1999).
107
One other norm that seems to characterize the larger sociocultural experience for at least
some of the CTE faculty at Millennium is: civility is valued while engaging in more critical
discussion about each other’s pedagogical and instructional practice is not. This sentiment is
illustrated in Instructor A’s descriptions of the types of conversations he typically had with his
colleague (Instructor F) prior to participating in the CTE team, in comparison to the type he had
while participating in the CTE team. He stated: “For example, when we had the post-
[observation] debriefing with [Instructor F]…he said, ‘I like the fact that you brought the
students…’ Him making that statement…[Instructor F]…not that easy. He would have never
said that to me [before].” When asked what Instructor F might have said, Instructor A
responded: “I’d say [something like], ‘Oh, good job. You’re doing a good job. I think your class
is cool. They participate.’ And that’s what I would [have said] to him.” Thus, prior to the CTE
Team, conversations between Instructor B and F would have been civil (i.e., included polite
remarks such as: “Oh, good job.”), but they would not have engaged a more critical analysis of
what each other does as part of his/her pedagogical and instructional practice.
Comments from Instructor H suggest, however, that the above-described norms of
isolation and civility may not dominate across all pathways/departments. Instructor H teaches in
an environment where there exists a norm of collaboration, as his following remarks indicate:
When we started last semester, one instructor came up with an idea and sent [all of us
other instructors in the department] an invitation to his class. He [then gave us] a class on
[the specific topic he teaches]. And then at the end... he told us, “Well, I believe that if we
learn from one another, we could be better at teaching our students.” [...] So we started
doing that. We had just a couple of sessions and then we came up with the idea that every
instructor should do that. [...] So, [for example,] everybody would have an idea of the
108
things I’m doing and how am I doing it, [and] they could have an idea whether I need to
change something or improve it.
While these different instructors did not explicitly articulate how these various professional
norms shaped their experience in the CTE team, one can likely expect that they had some impact
on the openness with which they approached the joint productive work carried out within the
team.
In summary, Millennium has a long history of emphasizing CTE programs. The college
serves communities with higher degrees of poverty and lower levels of educational attainment
than that observed in other communities within the larger urban area within which it is situated.
While the student body at Millennium is predominantly Hispanic/Latino/a and African
American/Black (80%), whites account for the largest racial/ethnic group within the faculty. In
an attempt to improve completion rates, college leaders developed a pathways reform that seeks
to transform the entire college into career pathways. Millennium developed a partnership with
CUE in 2014, and since that time, CUE researchers have been intimately involved with the
college’s ongoing implementation of the pathway reform, particularly in relation to matters of
racial/ethnic equity. In the most recent phase of this partnership, evidence teams were formed
and one of those was the CTE team, which is the group upon which this study is focused. An
initial analysis of the larger sociocultural context for CTE faculty at Millennium revealed that the
evaluation/tenure process was a particularly influential factor, in addition to professional norms
of isolation and civility.
PD Intervention
At the heart of this PD intervention was the task of co-designing and implementing a peer
observation protocol and process that could later be scaled for broader use at Millennium College.
109
In addition to this primary task, the CTE team members also engaged in a series of supporting
activities that can be categorized into the following types: analyzing disaggregated student-
success data, reviewing frameworks or concepts described in literature, and participating in an
externally facilitated CTE team. In this section, I present an overview of how the PD
intervention was structured, and provide a brief description for each activity type.
The PD intervention was carried out within the setting of the CTE team, which was
composed of this study’s participants, myself as the facilitator, and one other support person
from CUE. Two iterations of co-designing and implementing a peer observation protocol
anchored the team’s work. Iteration #1 occurred during months two through four, and Iteration
#2 occurred during months eight through ten. The co-design of the observation protocols,
practice sessions in using them, and mid-implementation check-ins all took place during monthly
meetings of the CTE team. The actual work of observing was conducted in the periods of time
between meetings, in accordance to the participating instructors’ schedules. All of the other
supporting activities also occurred during the CTE team’s nearly monthly meetings. Table 4
provides an overview of how all of this joint work was strung together within the ten-months that
constituted the PD intervention.

110
Table 4
Overview of Activities Occurring Each Month of PD Intervention

Activities Occurring Each Month of PD Intervention

Month #1: February • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

Month #2: March • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting
• Analysis of disaggregated student data
• Peer observation – Iteration #1

Month #3: April • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting
• Peer observation – Iteration #1

Month #4: May • Peer observation – Iteration #1

Month #5: June • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting
• Peer observation – Iteration #1 (analyzing compiled peer observation data)

Months #6-7: July & August

Summer Break
Month #8: September • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting
• Peer observation – Iteration #2
• Review of frameworks/concepts from literature

Month #9: October • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting
• Peer observation – Iteration #2
• Analysis of disaggregated student data
• Review of frameworks/concepts from literature

Month #10: November • Externally facilitated CTE team meeting
• Peer observation – Iteration #2 (analyzing compiled peer observation data)
• Review of frameworks/concepts from literature

Peer Observation – Iteration #1
The CTE team’s first iteration of the peer observation protocol was essentially a shorter
version of CUE’s Classroom Observations for Equity-Minded and Culturally Inclusive Practices
(CUE & Gray, 2016).
54
Here, the co-design process simply included the team members and

54
This observation protocol is intended to “facilitate critical reflection on classroom content, instruction, and student
engagement,” and prompt discussions about “the extent to which a classroom incorporates equity-minded and
culturally inclusive practices that help historically underrepresented African American, Latino, and Native American
students succeed in college” (CUE & Gray, 2016, p. 1). Worth noting, the protocol was originally created for use in
community college math classrooms.
111
myself collaboratively reviewing and discussing the prompts in the named protocol, and
identifying those that seemed most appropriate for the team’s purposes and the CTE context.
The selected prompts covered three aspects of the teaching-learning context: student
demographics, classroom culture, and the instructor’s moves, and these are outlined in Appendix
F. Once the design of the first observation protocol had been determined, the CTE team moved
through a brief training in using the protocol. This involved the team observing a video
(approximately 10 minutes in length) of a culinary arts lesson and documenting their
observations in relation to the protocol prompts. During a post-practice debrief, I encouraged the
team members to try and focus more on capturing descriptive observations during the time they
would actually be in the classroom, and then their interpretive comments after the observation
had ended. I also suggested that they approach the task of peer observation through a student
lens (i.e., How might students be seeing these classroom events?), rather than through their
instructor lens.
The data collected by participants during the first iteration included both descriptive (e.g.,
“When class started only 6 [out of 20] students were present”) and interpretive (e.g., “The class
was well organized from beginning to end”) observations. Important to note, however, of the
data points documented, only four referenced “Latino/Hispanic,” two referenced “African
American,” just one referenced “Asian,” and no data point referenced “white.” Six data points
referenced gender (three references each of “female” and “male”). In compiling all of the
collected data, I completed an initial round of analysis, sorting them into six broad themes (e.g.,
student participation/engagement), and also made sure no data point could be linked to any
specific instructor. Before presenting this compiled data to the CTE team, I provided them with
a brief explanation of how qualitative data analysis is conducted. The team members worked
112
first in partnerships and then as a whole group, conducting their analysis in accordance with a set
of guiding questions provided to them. Due to time restrictions, the team only analyzed data
within four of the six themes.
The decision to iterate the peer observation protocol and process was motivated by three
primary factors. First, I recognized that much of the data collected by participants reflected only
a surface-level interrogation into their pedagogical and instructional practices. For example, one
team member’s interpretive observation: “The class was well organized from beginning to end,”
was not accompanied with adequate descriptive observations that would have enabled the CTE
team to collectively assess the validity of this interpretation. Subsequently, without more
substantive descriptive observations, the team’s analysis of the collected data also remained
surface-level. For example, Instructor A’s comment: “Students seem to feel comfortable,” which
was made during the team’s analysis of collected data, was not accompanied with discussion
about which groups of students seemed comfortable. Essentially, the team had not captured the
data needed for that depth of analysis. The second reason for iterating the peer observation
protocol and process was that the CTE team demonstrated a lack of knowledge, and/or language,
that I perceived to be needed for a more in-depth interrogation into the various aspects of their
pedagogical and instructional practice. Last, the protocol and process for peer observation had
not included an opportunity/structure for observing partners to provide feedback to each other
based on what they each respectively observed in the other’s classroom. This seemed like a lost
opportunity for meaningful learning.
Peer Observation – Iteration #2
With the above factors in mind, I drafted a new observation protocol for the CTE team’s
review. In this redesign, I sought a protocol that would: (a) better capture the types of data
113
needed to support more rigorous interrogation into how the CTE team’s pedagogical and
instructional practices might be experienced across the different racial/ethnic groups of students
represented in their classrooms; and (b) focus more explicitly on just one aspect of pedagogical
and instructional practice to support the team’s deeper learning in respect to that one part of their
practice, rather than a more surface learning across many different parts. I first reflected on the
results of a survey of the CTE team members, about which aspects of pedagogy/instruction they
found most challenging at Millennium College.
55
Next, I consulted the literature on teaching
frameworks. Because I was unable to identify any framework within the higher education
literature that delineates the various aspects of pedagogy and instruction, I turned to Danielson’s
(1996) Framework for Teaching, and specifically her 2016 format of the framework that
arranges the knowledge and actions of effective teaching into six “generic clusters.” In
considering Danielson’s six clusters, and the CTE team’s feedback about those aspects they find
most challenging, I identified student engagement as an appropriate focus for the new protocol.
In addition to a more specified focus, the new observation protocol also included a
significant change in structure/format. Rather than consisting of a series of prompts to which
observers would attach their descriptive and interpretive observations, the new protocol centered
more exclusively on the collection of descriptive data (e.g., documenting which students were
responding to instructor’s questions). The new protocol also dictated to the observer how he/she
would spend their time observing (e.g., directing the observer to spend the next ten-minute
interval of time, only recording information about the questions being asked by the instructor).

55
At their very first CTE team meeting, the members had identified a list of challenging aspects, which included:
engaging students, pacing delivery of curriculum, teaching without needed resources, transitioning from being an
industry professional to an educator, teaching different learning styles, overcoming students’ lack of preparation,
and monitoring and adjusting classroom practice. This survey asked each team member to identify two of those
aspects they believed were of highest concern/priority. ‘Engaging students’ and ‘overcoming students’ lack of
preparation’ tied in receiving the greatest number of votes.
114
One final change in the new protocol was the addition of a post-observation debriefing guide.
This guide called for the observed instructor to share: (a) whether during the lesson/lab he/she
had been focused on a particular strategy related to student engagement, and (b) how he/she felt
the lesson/lab had gone. The guide then directed the observer to share (a) two specific things
about the lesson/lab that he/she “appreciated,” and to provide specific data collected during the
observation to substantiate these two statements, and (b) one “wondering” about the lesson/lab,
and again provide specific data collected during the observation to substantiate that wondering.
For this second iteration of peer observation, the co-design process included the
surveying of CTE team members to determine which aspect of pedagogy and instruction they
found most challenging, and then discussing with them the degree to which ‘student engagement’
matched with the survey results. It also included reviewing the new protocol and inviting team
members to “tune” it in accordance with the following criteria: (a) serves as a helpful learning
tool for both the observer and the observed, and (b) functions as a user-friendly tool that can be
easily operationalized. The CTE team’s second-iteration protocol is included in Appendix G.
Once the design for the new observation protocol had been set, the CTE team again
moved through a brief training session, which involved practicing with the protocol while
observing a short video of a CTE classroom. It also included me modeling how to carry out the
new post-observation debrief. During the following two months (months eight and nine), team
members worked in observing partnerships that enabled each of them to be observed once and to
observe once. Similar to the first iteration, once all observations had been completed, I compiled
the collected data and facilitated an analysis activity.

115
Analyzing Disaggregated Student-Success Data
Analyzing student-success data that has been disaggregated by race/ethnicity is a core
feature of projects facilitated by CUE. Since the CTE team was part of a larger CUE initiative at
Millennium College, and because the goals of the PD intervention included shining a light on the
link between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic equity in student success outcomes, this
activity was adopted as part of the PD intervention. The type of student success data that the
CTE team analyzed was CTE course completion rates.
56
To analyze course completion rates
along the lines of race/ethnicity the CTE team employed the percentage point gap (PPG) method.
This method involves first identifying a comparative group (often this is the “all students” rate of
course completion), and then subtracting the course completion rate of this comparative group
from the course completion rates of each of the various racial/ethnic groups represented. If for
any racial/ethnic group, the difference is a negative number, then that group is said to be
experiencing an equity gap. To make further sense of any identified equity gap, one can
calculate the “lost” course completions that this equity gap represents. This is done by
expressing the equity gap of a given racial/ethnic group as a decimal point (e.g., -8% equity gap
would be expressed as 0.08), and then multiplying that decimal by the number of courses that
students from within that racial/ethnic group were enrolled in on census day of the term. To help
convey these somewhat complex ideas to the CTE team, the images illustrated below in Figure 3
were used.

56
I define course completion rate as: the ratio of the number of credit courses that students, by population group,
complete (i.e., earned an A, B, C, or credit) compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are
enrolled on the census day of the term.

116

Figure 3. Calculating percentage point gap and lost course completions
USC Rossier School of Educa3on
USC Rossier School of Educa3on
USC Rossier School of Educa3on
CTE Course Completion Rates:
Fall 2014

USC Rossier School of Educa3on
Calculating Lost “course completions”
117
The CTE team conducted two rounds of this disaggregated data analysis related to CTE
course completion rates, once during month two of the study and once in month nine. The first
round involved an analysis of Fall 2014 course completion rates for all CTE courses at
Millennium College. The second round involved each CTE team member analyzing 2014-2015
course completion rates for the specific program of study within which they taught.
57

Reviewing Frameworks or Concepts from Literature
The CTE team reviewed frameworks and concepts from a variety of sources, including:
Estela Mara Bensimon’s (2012) The Equity Scorecard Theory of Change, Bransford &
Cocking’s (2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School, Charlotte
Danielson’s (2016) The Framework for Teaching: Six Clusters Supporting Higher Level
Learning, Geneva Gay’s (2002) Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching, and Barbara
Gross Davis’s (2009) Tools for Teaching. Across the team’s review of these sources, two
concepts were continually highlighted: student engagement and equity-mindedness
• Student engagement in the lecture/lab: Students are more successful when they take an
active role during all learning activities, in both the lecture and lab. Various strategies
can be employed to enhance student engagement (e.g., questioning techniques, building
personal rapport with students, etc.)
• Equity-mindedness (Bensimon, 2012): Policies, practices and mindsets are equity-minded
when they are: (a) informed by disaggregated data and/or qualitative inquiry findings; (b)

57
For this latter round of disaggregated data analysis, I provided the CTE team with program-of-study level data that
team members had seen before. These data were actually exact copies of the “data packets” that had been
distributed during the college’s program review process, four months prior. As part of that initial review process,
faculty members had been asked to reflect on their program’s course completion data and: (a) assess their success in
respect to Millennium’s internal “set standard” for student achievement (which for CTE had been set at 70%), and
(b) identify “the most important findings from the data” (Millennium College 2015-2016 program review template).
In examining the completed program review reports from all programs represented on the CTE team (N=7), I found
only one report in which examination of course completion data had included an analysis across racial/ethnic groups.
That was the report from Instructor A’s program of study.
118
pay attention to whether students from historically underserved racial/ethnic groups are
participating, feel welcome, and succeed; (c) focus on the institution’s and/or
practitioner’s actions rather than only on students’ actions; (d) recognize and counteract
structural racism; and (e) aim to eliminate racial/ethnic inequity.
To help facilitate the team’s review of these frameworks and concepts, I provided mini
lessons on their core attributes, and/or employed a variety of text protocols (e.g., Final Word
from the School Reform Initiative, 2016). These two facilitation approaches were intended to
guide both participants’ thinking about the frameworks and concepts being introduced, as well as
their joint discussion of those ideas.
Participating In An Externally-Facilitated CTE Team
Beyond the above three types of activities, participants in the PD intervention also
participated in an externally facilitated CTE team. This group setting was the space within
which the participants’ conducted almost all of their joint work related to peer observation,
disaggregated data analysis, and reviewing frameworks and concepts. The CTE team met seven
times throughout the duration of the study. All of those meetings were two hours in length, with
the exception of one meeting (month eight) that lasted four hours. I was the lead facilitator for
all CTE team meetings. Instructor B served as co-facilitator.
58
The structure for meetings was
kept relatively consistent throughout the duration of this study. A typical meeting agenda was
structured as follows:

58
Instructor B, and not one of the other participants, served as co-facilitator because he had previously held an
administrative position at the college and was therefore well positioned to liaison between the senior leadership team
at Millennium, our CTE team, and myself as a CUE representative. The manner in which the two of us shared
facilitation was as follows: I produced a draft agenda and set of activities for a given meeting. Instructor B and I
met (usually via phone) to discuss and revise these plans. Here, the focus was on tailoring initial design ideas to
better suit the Millennium and/or CTE context. At the meeting, Instructor B facilitated the first segment of the
team’s work together (i.e., warm-up; review of agenda, norms, and previous topics discussed). I then facilitated the
main activities set for that meeting. Instructor B closed the meeting by asking the group to debrief about the
meeting.
119
• Warm-up (Each person taking turns sharing his/her response to a question that was
typically related to the CTE instructor role)
• Review of meeting agenda
• Review of norms (These were agreements about how the team members would work
together, and they were drafted during the team’s first gathering)
• Review of previous topics discussed
• Main activities (e.g., preparing for peer observation, reviewing literature, etc.)
• Debrief about the meeting (i.e., What about this meeting worked well for you? What
about this meeting did not work well for you?)
Summary of PD Intervention
Co-designing and implementing a peer observation protocol and process that could later
be scaled for broader use at Millennium College was the primary task of the PD intervention. In
addition, CTE team members also engaged in a series of supporting activities such as analyzing
disaggregated student-success data, reviewing frameworks or concepts described in literature,
and participating in an externally facilitated CTE team.
120
CHAPTER VI:
Learning Along the Personal Plane
The purpose of this case study was to shed needed light on the topic of CTE faculty
learning. In this study, I situate CTE faculty learning in the context of a PD intervention at
Millennium College that primarily involved co-designing and implementing a peer observation
protocol and process. To guide my analysis, I utilized a theoretical framework that pulls on
threads from various streams within the sociocultural paradigm. I employed the following
research questions to guide my study:
1. What, if anything, is specifically learned through participating in this PD intervention?
2. How does participating in this PD intervention shape participants’ learning?
To answer these questions, I analyzed qualitative data, including interviews, observations, and
documents, that were collected across 12 months of fieldwork (February 2016 through January
2017).
59
In this chapter and the one proceeding, I lay out my findings.
The sociocultural perspective conceives of learning as occurring along three planes:
institutional/cultural, interpersonal, and personal (Rogoff, 1995). These three possible levels of
analysis are not assumed as separate or hierarchical, “but as simply involving different grains of
focus with the whole sociocultural activity” (Rogoff, 1995, p. 2-3). Since the duration of the PD
intervention was shorter than what is expected necessary for significant learning to take place at
the institutional/cultural level, I focus my analysis on the personal and interpersonal planes. In
this chapter, I investigate learning along the personal plane. I begin by first examining what, if
anything, was learned through participation in the PD intervention, and then transition to how
that learning was shaped through participation in the PD intervention.

59
The PD intervention took place across a period of ten months, but data collection was extended across two
additional months.
121
I define learning along the personal plane as a process in which individuals “transform
their understanding of and responsibility for activities through their own participation” (Rogoff,
1995, p. 9; italics added). From the sociocultural perspective, participation does not imply only
“doing,” but also “talking, thinking, feeling, and belonging” (Wenger, 1998, p. 56). In this study,
then, to uncover what, if anything, was learned along the personal plane calls for an analysis of
the ways in which a given team member, through participation (i.e., doing, thinking, and talking),
transformed his/her understanding and actions related to pedagogy and instruction and/or the
ways in which they are implicated in the racial/ethnic equity gaps observed at the college.
From the sociocultural perspective, learning is intricately linked with identity (Wenger,
1998), in that it is conceived of as “a process of becoming” (p. 215). That is, “we accumulate
skills and information, not in the abstract as ends in themselves, but in the service of an identity”
(p. 215). To help convey this idea, Wenger offers up the concept of trajectories. Importantly,
because a person maintains more than one form of individuality (e.g., female, African American,
instructor, etc.), identity is not conceived of as one linear trajectory, but rather as a nexus of
membership in multiple trajectories, which is actively reconciled on an ongoing basis. In the
context of a community of practice—like that of the CTE team—this reconciliation work
involves members finding ways to make the forms of individuality that surface through
participation in a new interpersonal setting coexist with their other various forms of individuality
(Wenger, 1998). Thus, to make better sense of learning along the personal plane in this study, I
also identify the various identity trajectories that seem to emerge from this reconciliation work
and examine how these trajectories serve as context for participants’ transformations in
understanding and actions.
122
In this chapter, I also examine how participation in the PD intervention shaped learning
along the personal plane. To accomplish this endeavor I draw on the sociocultural idea that
learning can be conceived of as a transition from assisted performance to unassisted performance
of a specified learning objective (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978). In the PD
intervention upon which this study is focused, the intended learning objective was: transforming
one’s practice related to pedagogy and instruction and/or the link between pedagogy and
instruction and racial/ethnic equity in student success outcomes at Millennium College. Tharp
and Gallimore (1988) identify various means of assistance that can be provided to learners,
including: modeling, feeding back, instructing, questioning, and cognitive structuring. Thus, of
particular interest in this study is whether participants’ descriptions of their experiences in the
PD intervention reveal that these or other means of assistance were provided, and the ways in
which these means of assistance supported participants’ shift towards unassisted transformations
of practice.
What Was Learned?
In this section, I examine what, if anything was learned along the personal plane through
participation in this PD intervention. I begin by identifying three identity trajectories that
seemed to serve as the contexts for participants’ personal learning. Then, in turns, I take up a
comprehensive analysis related to each one of those identity trajectories. First, I lay out evidence
showing how specific participants invoked the said identity trajectory. Then, I offer an in-depth
case study of one of those participants and his/her learning. This includes a description of the
participant’s personal background, and then an examination of his/her transformation in: (a)
conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction; and (b) framing the problem of
123
racial/ethnic equity gaps, and in particular its link with pedagogical and instructional practice.
60

Ultimately, I show that while the specific substance of learning was unique for each of the three
participants grounded in the three identity trajectories, all of them demonstrated some
transformation in both their thinking and actions related to pedagogy and instruction, and in their
expressed understanding of the equity problem at Millennium College. Only two of the
participants (Instructors A and D), however, demonstrated a change in actions related to the latter.
Predominant Identity Trajectories
The participants within this study entered the CTE team with various forms of
individuality, including: race/ethnicity, gender, occupation, experience/tenure, political
affiliation, religious affiliation, organizational membership, departmental membership, and such.
In addition, within the CTE team, new forms of individuality were made available to these
participants.
61
They could become “best practitioners” (i.e., individuals who analyze
disaggregated data, recognize problems in that data, do inquiry to uncover what is causing the
problem, address the problem by designing interventions that are informed by prior inquiry
efforts, document and evaluate the interventions, and then repeat this cycle) and/or “equity-
minded” practitioners (i.e., individuals who are informed by disaggregated data and/or
qualitative inquiry findings; pay attention to whether students from historically underserved
racial/ethnic groups are participating, feel welcome, and succeed; focus on the institution’s
and/or practitioner’s actions rather than only students’ actions; recognize and counteract

60
Because ideas related to student engagement (e.g., participating in class discussion is a sign of engagement) and
equity-mindedness (e.g., a faculty member’s pedagogical and instructional practice is linked with racial/ethnic
equity gaps) were focal topics throughout the CTE team’s joint activity, and can therefore be considered as the
aspects of the intended “substance” of learning within the PD intervention, these two topics were hypothesized to
feature prominently in participants’ transformations in practice.

61
These new forms of individuality were initially introduced to participants during the first CTE team meeting (via
PowerPoint presentation and supporting materials/activities), and then served as constant touchstones throughout the
PD intervention.
124
structural racism; and aim to eliminate racial/ethnic inequity), both of which are grounded in
CUE’s theory of change (Bensimon, 2012). Although a comprehensive analysis of participants’
process for reconciling these existing and new forms of individuality was not a primary focus of
this study, identifying the predominant identity trajectories that seemed to be invoked as a
product of this reconciliation work is relevant, particularly since learning within the sociocultural
perspective is perceived to be intricately linked with who a person is seeking to become.
An analysis of participants’ comments and actions while participating in the CTE team’s
joint work, and/or their retrospective reflections about how they experienced that joint work,
reveal the emergence of three predominant identity trajectories that seemed to serve as the
broader contexts for participants’ participation/learning in the PD intervention. These identity
trajectories were: (a) an instructor seeking to improve his/her own pedagogical and instructional
practice, (b) an instructor aspiring to make a difference not only in the lives of those he/she
teaches but also in the lives of all students at Millennium College, and (c) a person of color
overcoming a world of subtle racism. Table 5 outlines these three identity trajectories and the
respective participants that invoked each of them.

Table 5
Participants’ Predominant Identity Trajectory

Predominant Identity Trajectory A B C D E F G H
An instructor seeking to improve his/her own pedagogical and
instructional practice.

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔
An instructor aspiring to make a difference not only in the lives of
those he/she teaches but also in the lives of all students at
Millennium College.

✔

✔

A person of color overcoming a world of subtle racism.
✔

125
Trajectory #1: Seeking to Improve One’s Own Pedagogical and Instructional Practice
For five of the participants in this study (Instructors B, D, F, G, and H), personal learning
in the PD intervention seemed to be grounded in the identity trajectory of an instructor seeking
to improve his/her own pedagogical and instructional practice. That is, their transformations in
understanding and actions occurring through participation in the PD intervention were in service
of this broader identity trajectory. Although there seemed to be a somewhat unique set of factors
behind each participant’s invocation of this identity trajectory, at a more general level this group
of instructors continuously conveyed messages to suggest this was the broader goal in which
their participation was situated.
At the time of the PD intervention, Instructor F had just taken on a teaching assignment
that was in a relatively unfamiliar subject area. Perhaps as a result, Instructor F seemed
continuously focused on being a “more effective” instructor throughout his participation in the
intervention. At an early phase, he stated: “I wish I could be more effective… That is really,
really my goal…to be able to be better at presenting ideas, especially very complex ideas.” This
broader trajectory of becoming an instructor who was more effective in his pedagogical and
instructional practice remained predominant for Instructor F, even at the end of the intervention
when I asked him whether participating in the CTE team had changed his image of himself as an
instructor. He responded:
Well, I think it has changed me in terms of who I wanna be. I do, and I think I've
mentioned this before, I do want to be effective. I wanna be good at this. I want to be able
to get to students. And that's who I wanna be. I don't wanna just throw it out there, and
whoever grabs it [grabs it]...I want 100% retention. I want every single student here to
walk out of here, going, ‘You know what? Man, I got that,’ or ‘This was good. This
126
was... I can use this.’ And I want every single student here to get a certificate, to
graduate. I want every [chuckle] single student to get a job. I mean...I really do wanna be
that person.
Thus, being an effective instructor was the goal, and for Instructor F this meant developing
pedagogical and instructional strategies that would enable all students to retain course content,
and come to value that knowledge as they achieved academic (i.e., certificate) or career
success.
62

Instructor H was in his first year of full-time teaching during the time he participated in
the PD intervention, and likely as a result, his participation was also primarily grounded in the
goal of developing his own pedagogical and instructional practice. This focus on self-
improvement was apparent in his remarks to the college president, who happened to stop and
chat with a couple of team members and myself at the end of one of our meetings. The president
asked Instructor H how things had gone that session, and he responded: “You know, actually I
have been learning a lot. This is my first year full-time, and this is my third year teaching here at
[Millennium]. So, I came straight from the industry and the transition from working in the
industry to teaching…it’s a big difference.” He then added: “When I got hired, I went through
the teaching academy which gave us a little insight into how the college works…but actually
getting this information [in the CTE team] it gives you a better idea of how to teach…and how to

62
Prior to my final interview with Instructor F, I was reflecting on why he was so preoccupied with this aspect of the
teaching-learning experience (i.e., disseminating content and having students retain it), and I was reminded of an
idea I had heard when I was teaching in the K-12 space. When people first begin teaching they are focused on what
they are teaching (i.e., the content). Once they get a hold of that, they shift attention to how to teach that content
(i.e., strategies). Finally, they evolve to focusing on whom they are teaching (i.e., the students). I decided to share
this idea with Instructor F, during his final interview, to see if it resonated with him and to hear his thoughts on this
idea. He replied: “Yes. Yes. Yes…That makes perfect sense.” He then explained that because this was the first
time teaching the course that he had been teaching, and because it was not content he was especially familiar with,
all of his time and energy had been focused on the what. He suggested that the next time through the course, he
imagined he would be more focused on the how, and he was looking forward to that. He did not mention the who.

127
give that information to students…this has helped me a lot.” Thus, here Instructor H revealed
how his participation and learning within the intervention was grounded in a goal of developing
“a better idea of how to teach,” which he felt was needed due to the difficulties involved with
transitioning from industry to the classroom.
Similar to Instructor H, Instructor B never taught full-time prior to the start of the PD
intervention and he thus identified himself as a “new instructor.” Throughout his participation in
the CTE team, Instructor B consistently made comments that also revealed the ways in which his
participation was grounded in a broader goal of developing his own pedagogical and
instructional practice. In the early phase of the intervention, Instructor B noted: “Even though I
know we're still in the earlier phases of [the CTE team], just some of the best practices that we've
implemented [and] some of the things that you've encouraged us to observe have really opened
my eyes a lot.” He then added: “I really am happy that I'm involved in it, and especially at this
phase right now. I'm just going into teaching, [so] it's really, really helpful.” In other words, the
things Instructor B had learned were perceived to be “helpful” to him, as he was just beginning
his tenure as an instructor.
Although Instructor G was a more veteran instructor than those already discussed, his
participation in the PD intervention seemed to also be predominantly grounded in an identity
trajectory focused on improving his own practice. For Instructor G, however, this focus seemed
to be at least partially due to his lack of interest in being involved at the college in a broader
capacity. When I asked during the first interview who at the college he identified with,
Instructor G responded: “When I get out of my car this [classroom/laboratory] is where I come.
Hardly ever do I go over to the other [i.e., administrative] building. There's no reason to. My job
is here.” For Instructor G, this focus on his own classroom, and apparent disinterest in college-
128
level issues, was well justified. “There’s a lot of things going on, [when] trying to make my
program what it is.” “I’m kinda engulfed in what I’m doing here,” he explained, adding that all
of the work that needs to be done is “challenging.” Instructor G elaborated on this sentiment in
the final interview when he shared: “You wanna be better. You're always trying to be a better
instructor. It's like, I try to evaluate myself after every semester on how well I presented things,
and should I change this or should I add more or less [of something]. So I'm always going
through a self-evaluation.” In sum, even if partly due to his lack of interest in matters at the
college-wide level, Instructor G also conveyed a sense that his participation in the PD
intervention was largely grounded in a goal of further improving his own practice.
Instructor D’s participation in the PD intervention also reflected a desire to improve his
individual pedagogical and instructional practice. Indeed, there were a number of times when
Instructor D conveyed a hunger for feedback that would reveal to him “the right way” of doing
things and subsequently put him closer to realizing his goal of self-improvement. This sentiment
was perhaps most apparent when in our final interview I indicated to Instructor D that the CTE
team was likely going to shift away from our focusing on learning to a focus on planning (i.e.,
designing different ways for scaling the team’s activities/learning to the rest of the college).
After hearing this plan, Instructor D responded: “I guess I'd be sad that we’ve got some stuff but
we’re not...I'm sad we’re not gonna be continuing on with this [learning] part, too.” He then
pondered out loud: “Do I feel like I’m gonna stop thinking about what I could do more in my
classroom by trying to build something that the whole college can incorporate? But maybe that’s
just...” Thus, for Instructor D, this proposed shift in the team’s focus left him feeling
disappointed because it signaled the end of an opportunity for learning about the ways in which
he could become a better instructor.
129
In summary, for Instructors F, H, B, G, and D, participation in the PD intervention
seemed grounded in a primary identity trajectory of improving individual pedagogical and
instructional practice. For all of these individuals (with the exception of Instructor G), this was
largely due to the fact that they were new to either the full-time instructor role, and/or to the
classes they were charged with teaching. In the proceeding sub-section, I offer a more in-depth
analysis of learning within this identity trajectory by laying out a case study of Instructor D’s
transformation in practice that occurred through participation in the PD intervention. I selected
Instructor D over the other participants within this identity trajectory to achieve diversity (i.e.,
race/ethnicity, gender, years of full-time experience, and such) across the three in-depth case
studies featured in this chapter.
The case of Instructor D. This case study begins with a description of Instructor D’s
personal background, and then examines his transformations
63
in: (a) conceptions and actions
related to pedagogy and instruction; and (b) framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps,
and in particular its link with pedagogical and instructional practice (see overview in Table 6). I
conclude the case study with a brief examination of the significance of these transformations as
related to Instructor D’s identity trajectory.

63
Throughout the sociocultural literature (e.g., Coburn & Stein, 2006; Rogoff, 1995; Stein & Brown, 1997; Wenger,
1998), the word “transform,” “transformative,” or “transformation” is frequently used to characterize learning. For
example, Coburn and Stein (2006) define learning as “the ways in which communities gradually transform their
practices” (p. 29, italics added), Rogoff describes it as a process in which individuals “transform their understanding
of and responsibility for activities through their own participation” (p. 9, italics added), Stein and Brown (1997) note
that learning “is measured by transformations in participation patterns” (p. 165, italics added), and Wenger (1998)
states that “education [or learning] is not merely formative – it is transformative” (p. 263, italics added). While it is
not entirely clear in these definitions the degree of change required to qualify a given learning outcome as
transformative, they all seem to convey “transformation” as a gradual process that occurs across time, through
ongoing participation. Considering this, I do not conceive of “transformation” in this dissertation as solely a
significant instance of change that occurs in one discrete moment or situation, but also any and/or all of the more
minute shifts, modifications, adaptations, reshaping, and such that occur across time, and which at some juncture
might collectively be taken together to reflect a more significant change.
130
Table 6
Overview of Transformations in Practice for Instructor D

Identity
Trajectory
Transformation in
conceptions/actions related to
pedagogy and instruction
Transformations in framing of equity
problem at Millennium

Seeking to
improve his/her
own
pedagogical &
instructional
practice
• Maintained previous conceptions,
and appropriated new ones that
emphasized student engagement.
• Appropriated new actions related to
student engagement, and reported
focusing on them even when not
being observed.
• Maintained some aspects of a
student-deficit perspective but
these became paired with aspects
of a practitioner-oriented
perspective (i.e., pedagogy and
instruction are linked with equity
problem in that they might
contribute to the problem and
function as part of the solution)
• Appropriated new actions (i.e.,
paying attention to racial/ethnic
participation patterns, reflecting
on how to reach students, and
reflecting on racial/ethnic biases)

Personal background. Instructor D had not been involved in the earlier projects that
CUE had facilitated at Millennium, so I had not met him prior to the start of this PD intervention.
Instructor D was a middle-aged White male and reflected the image that most people would
likely ascribe to a CTE professional. Although Instructor D exuded a somewhat gruff persona, a
more sensitive side became apparent even after speaking with him for just a short while. As he
put it, when discussing how his students likely perceive him: “if they really know me, I think
they would describe me as someone who's pretending to be tough but not.”
About one year after graduating with his BA, Instructor D learned of an adjunct position
at Millennium College. He decided to apply and was eventually hired. Instructor D worked as
an adjunct for more than five years before finally being hired as a full-time instructor. That
transition to full-time instructor occurred the year prior to this study. Instructor D recalled how
when he first began teaching at the college, he would create lesson plans that would sometimes
take less time to get through than what he had anticipated. Feeling like he had “run out of things
131
to talk about,” Instructor D would just “dismiss the class early.” In reflecting on those early
teaching experiences, he remarked: “I felt really uncomfortable with any kind of dead time in the
classroom. I felt like I needed to be performing at all times. I still do a little bit.” When
reflecting on how he actually learned to teach, he shared that he probably learned by first just
thinking about, and then emulating many of the things that his previous teachers had done. He
also noted that on at least a few occasions he visited a veteran instructor’s classroom within the
same pathway/department.
Even though Instructor D did not emanate a deep confidence in his own effectiveness as
an instructor, teaching was a significant aspect of his identity. In my first interview of Instructor
D, when I asked whether he identified more as a professional in his field or as an instructor, he
responded: “A teacher.” He then added: “More and more of my identity has [become about]
teaching. And it's one I'm scared of losing too.” When I asked why this was the case, he replied:
“Because, if I couldn't teach anymore I'd feel like I was missing something.” In essence, since
teaching was such a prominent aspect of Instructor D’s identity, the thought of not being able to
do it was envisioned as a loss. Thus, for Instructor D, there was a kind of urgency (or at least
great deal of seriousness) driving his need to become a good instructor, and thus driving his
participation in this PD intervention. If he could achieve perceived success, his teacher identity
would remain in tact, but if he did not succeed then losing this part of his identity would remain a
threat.
64
Consequently, this intent focus on improvement served as the context for the
transformations in practice that Instructor D demonstrated through his participation in the PD
intervention, a topic I turn to next.

64
Although Instructor D did not explain the origin of his fear about “losing” his teacher identity, one might
speculate that having to wait as long as he did to receive a full-time position might have caused him to see such an
appointment as tenuous. Alternatively, this extended time as an adjunct might have caused him to develop a
heightened appreciation for his full-time instructor role, and relatedly a heightened fear about losing it.
132
Transformation in conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction. A
comparison of Instructor D’s conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction in the early and
later phases of the PD intervention reveals that some of his early ideas about this topic persisted.
Near the end of the intervention, however, these initial ideas were accompanied with a set of
seemingly new actions that suggest student engagement had become a pedagogical/instructional
priority for Instructor D. What was additionally striking about Instructor D’s appropriation of
these actions was that he also admitted to thinking about their implementation even when he was
not participating in an intervention-related activity (i.e., he was thinking about them even when
not being observed by another CTE team member).
Early conceptions and actions. In the early phases of this PD intervention, Instructor D’s
conceptions of pedagogy and instruction portrayed effective instructors as those who show
charisma, maintain authority, demonstrate knowledge about the content they are charged with
teaching, and monitor students’ learning. Instructor D shared that the person who came to mind
when he thought about effective teaching was a retired instructor from Millennium. Instructor D
had gone to observe this instructor on a few occasions, and one of the first qualities he admired
about this person was his “charisma.” Instructor D stated that when this instructor told stories,
they “drew” everyone in. He then added: “[This guy] doesn't stand at the board and just lecture.
He doesn't read out of a book. So, he’s up there. He’s got his pen. He’s moving around. He’s got
this kind of action.” Although Instructor D did not directly state it, this charisma was significant
because it helped keep students’ attention. Having “good discipline” was the second trait this
other instructor demonstrated. “If someone [was] not doing, not acting the way they should in
his class, he’d be right on it.” Instructor D described this as a “no-nonsense” approach to
managing the learning environment, and while this was perceived as a positive attribute
133
Instructor D also acknowledged that he would not want to be “so authoritarian [in his own
classroom] that people have to raise their hands.”
The third quality of effective pedagogical and instructional practice that Instructor D
identified in the early stage of the PD intervention was being knowledgeable about the subject
that one is teaching. Although Instructor D did not believe than an instructor needs to “know all
the answers,” it should be clear that he/she is “talking about something that [he/she] really
knows.” As Instructor D further described this trait, however, it seemed to imply more than just
knowing the subject area. It also seemed to include all of the actions an instructor carries out to
help convey that “knowing” to students.
Effectively monitoring students’ understanding was the final action in which Instructor D
perceived effective instructors to be engaged. According to him, one method for accomplishing
this was by simply addressing all of the students’ questions. Instructor D suggested that “if one
person is willing to raise their hand and ask a question, there’s 10 other people sitting around
[who] don’t know the answer either.” In addition to addressing questions, Instructor D also
indicated that he sometimes tries to “look at [students’] eyes” to see “if somebody’s got that
‘What's-he-talking-about?’ look.” And while he recognized there are other “techniques” to
assess students’ understanding, he admitted: “I don't use enough of [those other] techniques.”
What these “techniques” were and how they functioned, however, was not explained.
While perhaps only tangentially related, Instructor D conveyed his sense that the two
learning contexts typically characterizing CTE programs—i.e., the classroom and the
laboratory—call for different sets of pedagogical and instructional approaches. Instructor D
explained that he “likes to make [the classroom] more safe.” As he put it: “Nobody should be
harassed in this room. Nobody should be made fun of. And, I should respect and talk to [the
134
students] in a decent tone.” In fact, he acknowledged that sometimes he will even let a student
sleep at his/her desk. “I figure you’re paying…it’s college, you’re an adult.” Once students
enter the lab, however, his expectations of them shift. Instructor D believed this latter setting
ought to be more like “a real world situation.” He remarked: “[I] raise my voice and yell. That
way, they get used to that […] In a real world situation a lot of the people I worked for would
cuss you out if you made a mistake.” In essence, Instructor D felt that it was important to
“thicken [students’] skin up,” so they would be ready for that real-world setting.
Latter conceptions and actions. At the end of the PD intervention, when asked to share
his ideas related to effective pedagogy and instruction, Instructor D referenced the same
individual he had spoke about earlier (i.e., previous Millennium instructor). Again, he pointed to
a set of traits similar to those outlined previously. He emphasized how this instructor was
“animated” (i.e., charismatic) and kept students guessing about what was coming next. He also
noted this instructor’s “good knowledge” of the subject matter, and how he believes having
lesson plans would help him achieve such mastery in his own subject area. This time around,
Instructor D commented that this particular instructor’s management of the learning environment
was a bit “rigid,” and that he himself prefers a “more flexible” approach in which students can
freely comment and ask questions without having to first raise their hand. As he put it, “It’s nice
when you have multiple students all trying to ask questions at once.” Although he did not
directly state it, he presumably liked this because it signaled that students were engaged in the
lecture/lab.
While the above comments reflect little evolution in Instructor D’s conceptions related to
pedagogy and instruction, further analysis indicates that he did demonstrate some shift in his
actions, which might also imply a shift in conceptions. During my final visit to Instructor D’s
135
classroom I observed that he was calling on individual students in a way he had not done
previously. Four times throughout the observed lecture, he called on a specific student and in
three of those instances he used the student’s name. Worth noting, both of these strategies were
outlined in the literature that the CTE team reviewed, and also were the focus of significant
discussion during our team meetings. In the final interview, when I asked Instructor D about his
use of these two strategies, he acknowledged that these were actions he had been more
consciously trying to implement.
I feel like that’s a strategy I got from our [CTE team’s] time together...I haven’t gotten
good at it yet, but I’ve been trying. Usually it’s just a...it’s a question to the class and then
I probably answer it too fast. So, I was trying to not answer as much and try to ask direct
questions to individuals.”
When I asked Instructor D if he thought the strategy of calling on individual students had been
helpful in any way, he replied: “I think it is... It’s more personable.” He then elaborated: “I see
more relationship [benefits coming] out of it. I feel like they would feel more invested if I used
their name...I feel like there’s something there. I feel like they’d be more invested...They’d feel
like I was more invested in them by personalizing a little bit.” Thus, at this point in the
intervention, Instructor D had come to see that calling on an individual student and using his/her
name when you do it helped to convey one’s investment in that student’s learning. This in turn
then fosters in that student a greater degree of investment in his/her own learning.
During the same visit to Instructor D’s classroom, I also documented his use of another
new pedagogical/instructional strategy: employing wait-time after asking a question. During the
final interview, Instructor D brought up his adoption and use of this strategy before I even had
the chance to ask him about it. He shared: “When I ask a question, I’ve been trying to do that
136
suggestion: wait enough time to let them process it instead of just filling in the question ‘cause of
the dead air.” He then remarked: “Even when you’re not here, I’ve been thinking about it. I
[also] told my students [that] I need to do it more [chuckle].” That instructor D admitted to
thinking about it even when he was not being observed, and that he shared this goal with his
students, suggests that he maintained a relatively significant commitment to this strategy.
Although there is evidence that Instructor D appropriated the above strategies through his
participation in the CTE team, he did not maintain an open mind to every idea/strategy
introduced in that space. For example, he remained unconvinced that the proposed strategy of
small-group discussion would be effective in his class, because it might take too much time away
from achieving the primary goal of covering the material.
I guess I don't feel like I have an organized plan to have a discussion. We’ve talked about
that in our [CTE] meetings where you could have a time for students to meet together in
groups about something. I don’t know if I feel like I have the expertise or the gumption to
design that. ‘Cause it sounds like something that would slow the classroom down to
me…I feel like I have a need to get through the material. But, I could see that there are
some things that I might wanna find some time to have more discussion in the groups
about stuff.
Thus, in addition to potentially taking away needed time from covering the curriculum,
Instructor D did not believe he had the capacity or motivation needed to make this idea happen.
In summary, Instructor D demonstrated a shift in his actions related to pedagogy and
instruction, and this seemed to be accompanied by a simultaneous shift in his conceptions related
to these two phenomena. Importantly, in addition to showing evidence of appropriating new
137
strategies for fostering student engagement, he also admitted to thinking about and carrying out
those strategies even when not being observed as part of the PD intervention activities.
Transformation in framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps. An analysis of
Instructor D’s framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps in the early phases of this PD
intervention in comparison to his framing of this problem near the end of the intervention,
reveals the development of a more complicated perspective. While some of Instructor D’s
student-deficit ideas persisted at the end of the intervention, they were accompanied with a
deepening awareness about the ways in which this equity problem might be linked with
particular aspects of his own practice.
Early framing of the problem. When asked at the beginning of the PD intervention why
African American/Black students were experiencing an equity gap in course completion, one of
the first factors Instructor D mentioned was this group’s lack of preparation for college. “Well, I
suppose I could say that they don't come as well prepared as other groups of students.” To
explain this perspective, Instructor D shared a range of observations he has made of students
from this group, beginning with some success stories. “Some of my best students were [those]
who had [fallen] on some hard times and did some things wrong and decided they were gonna
change themselves…I have two really good success stories [of students who] came out of prison,
came here, and they were gonna do things differently.” These success stories, however, were
tempered by other instances when he had observed African American/Black students
demonstrate behaviors that he perceived to be negative, such as being consistently late for his
7:00 a.m. class.
When people don't show up for class on time, after I asked them to, that really frustrates
me. And I don’t feel like...I’m probably not gonna interact with them as much. It doesn’t
138
matter what color they are. If they won’t show up on time then I get a little mad. And I
feel like I’m wasting my time, so...I don’t know if that has anything to do with anything.
Even though Instructor D seemed to imply in this latter scenario that his own response to the
student’s tardiness might be at least partially connected to the success/failure this student
ultimately experienced, he still held the student primarily responsible. Thus, in both the positive
and negative examples, Instructor D accorded students in his classes a great degree of influence
over the success they experience. If they “decide” to “change themselves,” they are choosing to
be successful and likely will be a success. If they demonstrate negative behaviors, such as
showing up late to class every day, they are seemingly choosing to not be successful and likely
will be unsuccessful.
Instructor D also revealed how his perceptions of his African American/Black students
were being shaped by racial stereotypes. For example, at one point in this first interview,
Instructor D expressed his wondering about whether or not there was a “culture clash” between
African American/Black students and the profession for which he is preparing students. “Do I
see a culture clash…between some Black students [and my CTE profession]? Yeah, when they
wear their pants too low, and they dress to impress girls on the corner and not to come here and
[work]. But, [then] there are some that are here to [work] and learn [too].” Thus, while
Instructor D noted that “some” African American/Black students are at the college to learn, those
who wore their pants “too low” (and any other students who did the same) were stereotyped as
individuals who were only interested in “impressing girls on the corner,” and not in learning or
working.
Even in light of the above viewpoint of African American/Black students’ success,
Instructor D acknowledged early in the PD intervention that racism exists, and he shared some
139
wonderings about the ways in which he might be contributing to this problem. “At some point,
when I was younger, I felt like I’m not racist. But, now I feel like I’m in a racist system and
maybe I’m contributing to racism, unwittingly [or] unknowingly.” One way that Instructor D
felt he might be contributing to this system was through his differing interactions with Hispanic
and African American/Black students. He reflected: “I have a better relationship with the
Hispanic students, most of the time, than some of the Black students. Especially when the Black
students don’t participate, and disappear [from class].” When I asked Instructor D to elaborate
on this apparent pattern of behavior among Black students, he shared that he has wondered if it
could be something about him that’s leading these individuals to not participate or drop out of his
class.
I’m not sure if it’s [them], or if it’s me. I grew up in a white and Hispanic town [with] a
very low percentage of African Americans…There was [only] one African American on
our football team. So, I don’t know if it’s just that I’m not used to interacting with them
as much [or some other factor]. I suppose when I first came here, I was a little
apprehensive about that part. I grew up with Hispanics. And my dad, when he
taught…school, most of his class was Hispanic. So it just seemed...But I don’t know,
there could be something there.
Here, Instructor D recognized that his background (i.e., growing up in a predominantly white and
Hispanic community) had likely left him feeling less comfortable with, or at least “a little
apprehensive” about, interacting with African American/Black students. Recognizing this in
himself, he wondered if it was perhaps this aspect of him that was actually causing African
American/Black students to not participate in his class, as opposed to some aspect of these
students. Ironically, even though Instructor D wondered if he might be at least partially
140
contributing to this systems-level racism, he failed to recognize the way in which he had
stereotyped African American/ Black males who dress in a particular way.
That Instructor D had been grappling with this tension—i.e., on one hand feeling
bothered by the way that some African American/Black students were seemingly not respecting
the rules/expectations of his profession, and on the other hand not wanting to contribute to a
racist system—was made even more clear when he shared one of his earlier ideas to promote a
“blue-collar culture” within his classroom/lab. In recalling this story, Instructor D first
articulated his preference for a more colorblind approach to teaching, stating: “I'd like to think of
this classroom, and not think of it as colors.” In lieu of that wish, he came up with a close
alternative: everyone could be blue, since they are all part of a blue-collar culture.
I tried to bring that up. But see it’s...if you have a culture, and that’s how everybody
dresses, then I’m trying to inflict my culture on you, it doesn’t seem right. So I’m
conflicted by that. It feels wrong to try to...But, they’re here to be [professionals in this
trade], so at some point, I guess, maybe they do need [to act more the part]. I want to give
them every advantage they can have when they go out there and…get that first job. I used
to wear overalls. And that’ll get you a job just by wearing the clothes. You don’t even
have to know anything [laughter]. It’s about looking like you know what you’re doing
sometimes.
Thus, after contemplation (and/or possibly feedback from others), Instructor D came to feel
“conflicted” about his idea of instilling a blue-collar, or colorblind, culture on his students. On
the one hand, his own prior experience told him that if a person dresses more in line with a blue-
collar culture (i.e., wears overalls) he/she would be more likely to realize success in the work
place. As such, it is perhaps not a bad idea to push African American/Black students away from
141
their own cultural forms of identity to adopt a more blue-collar culture. On the other hand, it did
not feel right to try and make someone take on a new culture that was not representative of the
one with which they identify. Worth noting, at no point in his reflection on this story did
Instructor D question his own assumptions that: (a) a blue-collar culture represented a colorblind
culture and was not just a proxy for white culture, and (b) that because society seemed to be
more accepting of manifestations of blue-collar culture (e.g., overalls) and less accepting of
African American/Black manifestations of culture, African American/Black students should
mold themselves to be more in line with the former.
In sum, the above remarks illustrate that at the beginning of the PD intervention,
Instructor D: (a) maintained some student-deficit ideas about the cause of the equity gap in
course completion that African American/Black students were experiencing (e.g., lack of
preparedness, lack of motivation and/or respect for the profession); (b) had some sense that
structural racism existed; and (c) was contemplating if he was perhaps contributing in one way or
another to this said racist structure, but was yet unable to recognize some of the ways in which
he in fact was likely doing just that (i.e., racial stereotyping).
Latter framing of the problem. At the end of the PD intervention, while Instructor D
maintained some of his student-deficit ideas related to the equity problem at Millennium, he also
shifted his thinking about this problem. More specifically, while his earlier framing reflected a
willingness to consider the idea that his own practice might be implicated in these inequitable
student success rates, his latter framing showed evidence of more productive reflection and
subsequent awareness about some of the specific ways through which this might be occurring.
When the topic of equity gaps in CTE course completion rates was first addressed during
my final interview with Instructor D, he replied: “There was a number of reasons you could have
142
an equity gap [that] we discussed, but the one we were really talking about is at the institutional
level…That’s the one we’re focusing on. Nothing else matters in this, right?” Once I told him
that I wanted to hear what his honest thoughts were about the causes of this equity gap being
experienced by African American/Black students, he responded with a similar explanation to the
one he had previously provided. “Some of [this] population doesn’t seem prepared for school.
They don’t seem prepared for the math. They don’t seem prepared for the study habits. [...] So I
think some of it is that.” Instructor D then added: “They’re not getting their regular work done. I
think that puts them behind. It could be that they gotta go out and make a living. ‘Cause some
people come here and they got kids. I don’t know how they do it.” Thus, based on this initial
response, it seems that Instructor D maintained many of his student-deficit ideas related to this
equity problem at Millennium.
In regards to how the institution might be contributing to this problem, Instructor D
initially remarked that he couldn’t think of anything that might be going on “in [the] school
itself.” So, I asked Instructor D to think about his own classroom. I inquired if on the first day
of the semester, when watching African American/Black or Hispanic students enter his
classroom, did he ever think about how he would need to be with these students. “Do you have
thoughts like that ever,” I asked. Instructor D replied:
I suppose there are thoughts like that. If a student comes dressed in some kind of clothes
to go out and impress a female into my [CTE] class, that’s a negative. As they walk
through the door I’m looking at them like ‘What the heck is the matter with you? This is
a [CTE] class not [a] go-meet-girls-after-school class. But...I feel like any race can dress
inappropriately for my [CTE] class.
143
Thus, Instructor D’s initial reflection on how the institution might be linked with the equity
problem at Millennium stirred up ideas he had previously espoused (i.e., racial stereotypes based
on the way an African American/Black male student is dressed). As my conversation with him
proceeded, however, he revealed a more substantive set of thoughts related to how his own
actions might be connected with the equity gaps at the college. With a questioning tone in his
voice, Instructor D reflected:
But, do I think about how am I gonna reach this guy? [Student A], I feel like he’s really
involved and he’s paying attention, he’s asking questions. I don’t feel like he’s got any
problems. [Student B], who sits in the back directly across from [where] you [sat]. Like I
said, during the lectures, I’ve never asked him a question. And even in the lab, I feel like
our interactions are a little less. But he’s in a group of five people and I talk to the group
of five people about what I want ‘em to do, and he’s there, he’s working. He seems like
he’s paying attention, but as far as where he’s at, I'm not sure.
Here, Instructor D revealed his awareness about the various participation levels of the African
American/Black students in his class, and also at least an emerging understanding that he should
likely be doing something to “reach” these students and find out “where [they’re] at.”
Later in this final interview, Instructor D outlined some explicit actions that extended
beyond just increased awareness that he could take to help address the equity gap in course
completion rates observed at Millennium. First, he noted the need to more rigorously examine
his biases towards various racial/ethnic groups. He shared: As a result of participating in the
CTE team, “I’m looking at myself more critically. Looking for things that I might...I don’t
know...Do we call it racism when you don’t know what you're doing? You still call it that right?"
I replied, asking if he was referring to the idea of bias. Instructor D then responded: "Bias. Bias.
144
I'm looking for bias. I am looking at myself more critically…‘Cause I don’t wanna contribute to
the problem. I’d like to be the solution. But I might have to look at myself even more critically to
really find these biases.” Thus, even though this intervention has prompted him to look “more
critically” at his own practice, he recognized that further reflection is needed, particularly to
uncover any racial/ethnic biases he might possess, and how those might be contributing to the
problem of inequity at Millennium College.
The second action Instructor D noted he could take was paying closer attention to his
own student success data, and also what is happening in the classroom while he instructs. He
shared that prior to this point in time, he had not known there was an equity gap and
subsequently just paid attention to “the individual student’s accomplishments.” He reported,
however, that this has now changed.
Now, when I do my grades and I look through who got what…I might look at it like
where is it? Is there an equity gap here in what I've done, [in] what I've created? And as I
teach, it's there. Maybe it's not in the very front but it's in the back somewhere. If it stays
in the back too far, then I don't know if anything would change. So, it needs to migrate
more towards the front still, I think.
In the above comment, Instructor D not only indicated his intent to conduct disaggregated data
analysis of his classroom-level data, he also revealed a belief that his own
pedagogical/instructional practices would be implicated in racial/ethnic equity gaps he might
find. Significantly, Instructor D also suggested in the above comments that all of these ideas
related to racial/ethnic equity “are there” even as he instructs, indicating that he had not only
developed strategies for looking retrospectively at his practice (i.e., disaggregated data analysis),
145
but had also begun to develop some strategies for reflecting on his practice in action.
65
Equally
significant, Instructor D noted that he has not yet fully developed these latter strategies and
suggested that he would likely require further or ongoing support to ensure they happen.
The third action Instructor D identified for addressing racial/ethnic equity gaps extended
past just “paying attention” to the experiences of students from within different racial/ethnic
groups, it also included reaching out to them in more explicit ways. He explained:
Everyone is gonna say [equity] starts out there [i.e., outside the college]. But, [while] it
might start out there…there're things that we can do here to promote equity, by paying
attention to groups that don’t show, or are not meeting the equity standard that we set for
ourselves. We could try to reach out to them. We could try more techniques, more
different ways. We could talk to ‘em more. We could bring them in. We could ask them
to come in for office hours to meet with us and we could try to find out is this something
that we have no control over? Is there something that we could do to help?
In other words, once an instructor has identified an equity gap, he/she ought to “reach out” to
that student by inviting him/her to office hours, for example. This way, the instructor can find
out if there is something he/she can do “to help.”
In summary, Instructor D’s framing of the racial/ethnic equity problem at Millennium
was transformed in some ways through his participation in the PD intervention. As he explained:
Before I started this I had no idea that the people felt like the institution had some
responsibility in this. I guess I felt like if we went back 50-60 years the institution would
really have something to do [with it], but I felt like here at this school…the institution

65
Schon (1983) delineates between “reflection in action” (which occurs while the individual is practicing) and
“reflection on action” (which occurs after the fact). In this case of Instructor D, he described carrying out both
forms of reflection.
146
would have nothing to do with that. But, I feel now that it does…because we haven’t
fixed it all. I don't know if we’ve scratched the surface on fixing these problems.
Thus, in contrast to what he used to think, Instructor D reported that he now realized there were
things going on inside of Millennium that were contributing to the observed racial/ethnic
inequity at the college.
66

Putting Instructor D’s transformation of practice into context: A summary. As the
above case study illustrated, Instructor D transformed his practice in various ways through
participating in the PD intervention. More specifically, he appropriated new conceptions and
actions that emphasized student engagement (and reported focusing on them while instructing),
and he came to more clearly recognize the ways in which instructors can contribute to and
address racial/ethnic equity gaps (this included appropriating new actions for addressing said
gaps). To better understand how Instructor D’s identity trajectory served as context for these
transformations in practice, one can consider the question: What significance did these
transformations have for Instructor D, as related to his identity trajectory?
The identity trajectory that Instructor D seemed to invoke was that of an instructor
seeking to improve his/her own pedagogical and instructional practice. Based on this trajectory,
one would expect Instructor D’s participation in the PD intervention to reflect that of a person
who was open and eager to learn various means through which he could become a better

66
One final caveat about Instructor D’s transformation in framing of the equity problem at Millennium College is
that the lack of data close to his own practice (Dowd et al., 2017) seemed to impede Instructor D’s emerging
understanding about the ways in which pedagogical/instructional practice are implicated in racial/ethnic inequity in
student success. When looking at the disaggregated course completion data for his pathway/department, Instructor
D noted: “I'm not sure if I know my part in this yet. 'Cause this is first semester teachers, second semester, third
semester, and the two part-time teachers…So, I do feel like, if I could look at my own numbers, I would see a
different picture there.” In other words, for Instructor D to better know how he himself might be contributing to the
observed equity gaps at Millennium, he would need to have access to data that is specific to his own classroom
practice. Worth noting, Instructor A reported a similar experience, and this is discussed below in the context of a
case study about his learning in the PD intervention.

147
instructor. Indeed, this is what Instructor D’s participation reflected. For example, on two
separate occasions, Instructor D sought out one-on-one feedback from me related to a specific
incident, or his pedagogical and instructional practice more generally. No other participant did
this during the study. Moreover, as noted earlier, when Instructor D found out that the CTE team
was going to shift its focus from one of learning to one of planning, he remarked: “I'm sad we're
not gonna be continuing on with this [learning] part, too.” Based on these two insights, it seems
that Instructor D perceived of his participation in the PD intervention and related learning (i.e.,
transformations in practice) as significant because they supported his move towards becoming a
more effective instructor, and that was perceived as necessary to Instructor D’s identity as a
teacher. Thus, for Instructor D, his transformations in practice seem both motivated by and
symbolic of this deeper, more meaningful goal related to his identity.
Trajectory #2: Aspiring to Make A Difference for All Millennium Students
For two of the participants in this study (Instructors A and C), personal learning in the PD
intervention seemed to be grounded in the identity trajectory of an instructor aspiring to make a
difference not only in the lives of those he/she teaches but also in the lives of all students at
Millennium College. That is, their transformations in understanding and actions occurring
through participation in the PD intervention were in service of this broader identity trajectory.
Instructor C’s desire to help a “broader range of students,” beyond those represented in
her classroom, was made clear at various points throughout the PD intervention. Presumably this
goal was the driving force behind her extensive involvement at the college, which included
leading or participating in a number of committees and improvement initiatives. Sometimes, this
larger goal manifested itself as an expressed interest in improving the pedagogical and
instructional practices of other faculty members. This was a markedly different focus than that
148
demonstrated within the previous identity trajectory where instructors’ attention was focused on
their own practices. One instance in which Instructor C’s focus on other faculty was clearly
demonstrated occurred as the CTE team prepared to review an excerpt from Davis’ (2009) Tools
for Teaching. After hearing about the book from which this reading originated, Instructor C
questioned: “So, the two of you [i.e., Instructor B as co-facilitator, and myself] have looked at
this book a little bit, and since so many of our instructors are coming from industry to teach,
would this be a valuable book for us to recommend that they read from start to finish?” In
essence, Instructor C recognized the challenges that many CTE faculty face when transitioning
from being an industry professional to an instructor, and she was interested in identifying a
resource that might help these individuals make a more effective transition.
Another way in which Instructor C’s focus on other faculty was demonstrated was
through her specific interest in the learning of other CTE team members—individuals she
perceived as being at the beginning of their career as instructors. In my final interview with her,
Instructor C reflected on her affinity for some of the other team members, and specifically their
apparent commitment to students. “So really, I was impressed with them…Yeah, I just was
impressed with some of their feedback, and [the] kind of stuff that they’re attempting to do. And
I feel good about...They’re young guys, they just started and what not, so I feel good about the
future and stuff like that.” She then added: “I guess I look at it from a different perspective
because I am at the other end [of the experience continuum], so I just wanna make sure that what
they're seeing [is what we want faculty to see] and hopefully that is gonna be able to be
transmitted to the rest of the faculty and make a difference.” Based on these remarks, Instructor
C seemed focused on “making sure” that others are on the right track with their learning about
149
pedagogy and instruction, and that they will develop the skills and/or confidence needed to
“transmit” their learning to “the rest of the faculty,” and thus “make a difference.”
Throughout the PD intervention, Instructor A’s participation seemed to be intricately
linked with the goal of helping students. During my first interview with him, he asserted: “I
wanna have students learn from my classes. I want them to get something out of there that's
gonna help them in their education pathway to their future.” While this goal was not entirely
different than that possibly held by the group of instructors who were grounded in the previously
discussed identity trajectory, in Instructor A’s case this goal of helping students was linked with
a significant degree of involvement at the college level. Instructor A mentioned at least four
committees and/or initiatives with which he was involved (and in some cases this was in a
leadership capacity). This broad involvement at Millennium, along with his goal of helping
students, at least partially suggests that Instructor A’s participation in the PD intervention was
grounded in an identity trajectory that was not only concerned with his own classroom/lab of
students, but also the students in all of the other Millennium classrooms/labs.
Instructor A’s broader focus was also apparent throughout the intervention, in instances
when he would raise the question of how the CTE team might share their activities and/or related
learning with other faculty at Millennium. The following statement, delivered during a CTE
team meeting, demonstrated this desire.
So…engagement seems to be positive for students. So, would the recommendation be
professional development type things to get faculty...or, how do we resolve this or push
forward? I mean, we're talking about this in a small group, but how do we get a campus
[to push forward on this issue]?
150
In this instance, the team was discussing the significance of student engagement for learning and
the degree of student engagement one ought to expect in a CTE classroom at Millennium. As
Instructor A’s remarks indicate, he was not only interested in how this conversation related to his
own practice, but also how the team’s learning about student engagement could be “push[ed]
forward” to all other faculty at the college.
In summary, for Instructors A and C, participation in the PD intervention seemed
grounded in a primary identity trajectory of aspiring to make a difference in the lives of all
students at Millennium College. In both of these cases, this broader goal was seemingly linked
with their extensive involvement in a variety of committee and improvement initiatives at the
college, and seemed to manifest itself as a more intent focus on other faculty members’
pedagogical and instructional practice (as opposed to a focus solely on their own practice). In
the proceeding sub-section, I offer a more in-depth analysis of learning within this identity
trajectory by laying out a case study of Instructor A’s participation in the PD intervention.
The case of Instructor A. This case study begins with a description of Instructor A’s
personal background, and then examines his transformations in: (a) conceptions and actions
related to pedagogy and instruction; and (b) framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps,
and in particular its link with pedagogical and instructional practice (see overview in Table 7). I
conclude the case study with a brief examination of the significance of these transformations as
related to Instructor A’s identity trajectory.

151
Table 7
Overview of Transformations in Practice for Instructor A

Identity
Trajectory
Transformation in
conceptions/actions related to
pedagogy and instruction
Transformations in framing of equity
problem at Millennium

Aspiring to
make a
difference in the
lives of all
Millennium
students

• Maintained previous conceptions,
but reasoning underlying them
shifted to reflect a greater emphasis
on student engagement.
• Became more intentional about
implementing actions related to
student engagement, and
appropriated a more explicit form
of reflective practice in relation to
those actions.
• Maintained some aspects of a
student-deficit perspective but
these became paired with aspects
of a practitioner-oriented
perspective (i.e., pedagogy and
instruction are linked with equity
problem in that they might
function as part of the solution)
• Appropriated new action (i.e.,
paying attention to racial/ethnic
participation patterns when
teaching)

Personal background. As a well-known and well-respected member of the Millennium
community, Instructor A was one of the CTE team members who had been involved in CUE’s
prior projects at the college. Instructor A was a male, middle-aged, person of color, with a quiet
and humble presence. Although some might describe him as shy, when it came to matters of
student success, Instructor A never seemed afraid to share his opinions. When he did speak
about this topic, he typically came off as someone whose interests were both deep and genuine.
Instructor A graduated from a high school in one of the communities serviced by
Millennium College. During the time that he was pursuing his undergraduate degree, he worked
as a teaching assistant in an elementary school. He claimed that this is when the teaching seed
was first planted. “I enjoyed myself through that experience,” he recalled. “It was definitely
beneficial, too. I recommend people that want to become teachers, they should definitely try
being a TA. It gets your feet wet, exposes [you] to what you’re gonna see in the future.” After
graduating and spending some time in the field, Instructor A completed another stint of teaching
152
in the K-12 sector before transitioning to the community college context. After working as an
adjunct for one year at two different colleges, Instructor A received an adjunct assignment at
Millennium. Shortly following his hiring, a full-time faculty member went on a one-year leave
and Instructor A was hired as the full-time substitute. When that leave expired, the other
instructor did not return and Instructor A was eventually appointed as the permanent replacement.
At the time of this study, Instructor A had been at Millennium College for more than five years.
Transformation in conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction. A
comparison of Instructor A’s conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction in the early and
later phases of the PD intervention reveals that many of his initial ideas persisted. What did
change, however, was the reasoning Instructor A drew upon to explain the significance of these
ideas. More specifically, as the PD intervention unfolded, his reasoning became more centered
on student engagement and the importance of fostering it within lectures/labs. In addition to this
transformation in his conceptions of pedagogy and instruction, at the end of the intervention,
Instructor A also seemed to have become more intentional about carrying out a set of actions
related to fostering student engagement and relatedly had become more reflective about their use
and efficacy.
Early conceptions and actions. In the early phases of this PD intervention, Instructor A’s
conceptions of pedagogy and instruction portrayed effective instructors as those who: (a) make
students feel comfortable so they do not become overwhelmed by challenging subject matter; (b)
develop students’ understanding of the content material, and particularly their ability to solve
problems; and (c) guide students towards their personal goals. In conveying his thoughts about
the first of these ideas, Instructor A claimed that, “what works in a class [is] not so much
techniques, [it] is more of how you interact with the students.” He then explained:
153
I try to encourage them to ask questions and at the same time, I tend to wanna joke with
them so they could feel at ease. Because [for] many of the students, I think that's one of
the biggest challenges, especially in science courses. They just feel overwhelmed, or they
feel like they can't get the material. So I think if they feel at ease, I think it helps them
open up, feel comfortable, and try to understand the material. So I don't try techniques, I
think if you know it, you'll know it.
Thus, if students are “comfortable” or “feel at ease” they will not become “overwhelmed” by the
challenges of learning new or challenging material, like that often encountered in science classes.
To help them feel comfortable, Instructor A noted that he encourages students to ask questions
and he also sometimes jokes with them.
In addition to encouraging questions and joking with students, Instructor A also indicated
that he initiates one-on-one “conversations” when such opportunities with students emerge (e.g.,
during the lab portion of his class), as a means of building their comfort level. In these more
intimate conversations, Instructor A reported asking the students “normal” questions, like: “Why
are you taking this class?” He shared that sometimes this leads the students to ask questions of
him and his experiences. Instructor A noted that if a student confesses to finding his class
difficult, he shares his own experience with this subject area. Instructor A actually did poorly in
this subject area during high school, and as a result, completely avoided it until his final year of
college when he had no choice but to return to it. Ironically, Instructor A discovered that he
actually enjoyed this subject area, and was good at it. Instructor A noted that after sharing this
story he always tells students: “[So,] even if you don’t understand it [now], then it’s okay.
Probably at this time in your life, [this subject area] is not for you.” Instructor A expressed that
his hope in talking to students about his own experience is that they will identify with it and no
154
longer feel intimidated. He remarked, “At least [if] they don’t feel intimidated…they potentially
could think they may [try the course] at another time.”
Instructor A stated that another one of his primary goals as an instructor was promoting
student understanding of content material, and a key strategy he employed was teaching students
“how to attack [subject-area] problems.” Indeed, during an observation of Instructor A’s
classroom in the early phase of this PD intervention, I noted that he dedicated significant time in
his lecture to problem solving. At times, this included pointing out general strategies to students,
such as “re-read the question” and “draw a picture if you have to.” At other times it involved
working through a sequence of related problems, at the whole-group level. In these latter
instances, Instructor A would facilitate the group’s step-by-step solving of the problem by
delivering guiding prompts, which would prompt various students to call out their ideas.
Occasionally, he would deliver a specific question to an individual student but this latter strategy
was typically employed with only the most vocally engaged students.
Although Instructor A did not explicitly mention student engagement when discussing
the way he facilitates problem solving in his class, I got the sense when observing him that
student engagement was on his mind. This was apparent in the moves he chose at various
instances in the lecture/lesson (e.g., electing to call on one specific student versus delivering a
question to the whole group). That a good portion of the class was engaged throughout these
problem-solving components of his lesson/lecture serves as further evidence that this was an
aspect of pedagogy and instruction he was relatively skilled at executing, even if it was not being
done explicitly. Indeed, during my first interview with Instructor A, he acknowledged that he
155
sometimes “reflects on his lectures” when he has observed that students looked bored during one
of his classes.
67

The final objective implied in Instructor A’s description of an effective instructor was
that of helping students move towards their personal goals. In his discussion of this, Instructor A
clearly distinguished the role of the instructor as that of a “guide” and not a “gatekeeper.” “I
wanna make taxpayers, right? I think they should go out there and be able to provide for their
families. So, I'm not the gatekeeper. I'm just somebody that’s going to guide them, hopefully in
that direction.” He then further elaborated on this distinction.
[The instructor’s] job…I feel, is to guide [students] to get to [their desired] program;
that’s the goal. […] You don’t know [all of] their skills. They may not have the skills in
your class, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have the skills elsewhere that makes them
[qualified]. Your class is not gonna make ‘em or break ‘em at the professional level.
You’re not the gatekeeper…you’re supposed to guide them to the next level. You’re
supposed to take them to the door and let the real gatekeeper for that program decide who
they want. It’s not [up to] you.
Thus, from this perspective, a student’s demonstrated skillset in a given class does not
necessarily reflect their full/potential skillset, and therefore any decisions about a student’s far-
off future should not be based on this one said class. In short, instructors ought to focus on
guiding, not screening students.
In summary, during the early phase of the PD intervention, Instructor A conceived of
pedagogy and instruction in ways that described effective instructors as those who make students

67
Worth noting, Instructor A’s focus on developing students problem-solving skills was not accompanied with a
focus on students’ development of reading and study skills. Even though Instructor A had himself observed that
students struggle with reading comprehension and studying, he reported never having employed activities that
directly aimed at fostering students’ development in these two areas.

156
feel comfortable, develop students’ understanding of content through the fostering of problem-
solving skills, and guide students towards their individually-held goals. Also apparent, is that
even in this early phase, Instructor A demonstrated a relatively robust ability for promoting and
monitoring student engagement in his classroom, even though he did not explicitly describe
significant intentionality related to this action.
Later conceptions and actions. Near the end of the PD intervention, Instructor A’s
conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction were linked with some of the same
ideas he had previously mentioned, but the reasoning underlying these ideas had shifted slightly.
More specifically, his reasoning during the later phase of the intervention reflected a more
explicit reference to student engagement and the importance of fostering it within the classroom.
In this later phase of the intervention, Instructor A maintained that effective instructors
are those who make students feel comfortable. This time around, however, his explanation
seemed to more explicitly highlight student engagement. He posited that the way to get students
feeling comfortable is to involve them in the lecture/lab (i.e., get them to ask questions or
respond to those delivered by the instructor). When an instructor does this, it “empowers” the
students by fostering a sense of self-efficacy for learning. As he put it: “Again, it goes back to, if
you get them involved, then...I think you empower the students, in my opinion, for their own
education. Because if you get ‘em to be...Get ‘em to that comfortable level, like, [they then feel]
‘Oh, okay, I could learn this,’ then it’s on them.” When comparing these sentiments to those
previously stated, which did include one reference to “getting students to ask questions” (but also
an extensive discussion about one-on-one conversations with students) these later ideas seem to
place a more significant focus on student engagement during lectures/labs. Thus, while
Instructor A’s earlier and later reflections on this matter of students feeling comfortable are
157
somewhat related, they also reflect a subtle transformation. That is, his rationale for this action
that he was already carrying out became refined to incorporate a student engagement bent.
The notion of student engagement was a prominent theme throughout Instructor A’s latter
conceptions of pedagogy and instruction, but he referred to it as “student involvement.” In my
final interview with him, Instructor A asserted that in a high-quality instructional environment,
he would “expect to see student involvement,” and then elaborated by saying: “even if the lecture
is not necessarily exciting, I would expect the students to feel comfortable to raise their hands up
or ask a question.” While he acknowledged that all instructors have their own “style of teaching,”
and that sometimes the material being taught dictates the amount of student interaction one can
expect to see, he maintained that a more interactive teaching style “is probably a better
[instructional] style.”
When pressed to describe the types of things that effective instructors do to foster such
student involvement, Instructor A suggested that, “They should be surveying the classroom,
seeing who [is paying attention].” They are also “asking questions…posing open-ended
questions, and then maybe guiding [the class] through questions. But, they should be getting the
students involved in the lecture.” While Instructor A recognized that some faculty members are
more naturally talented in getting and holding students’ attention, he noted that those who are not
as talented “should definitely work on that skill.” He added that if “[the faculty member] is not
getting [the students] involved in the lecture, then I don’t think the students get as much out of it,”
and therefore the instructor is not being effective. Together, these comments about student
involvement suggest that Instructor A perceived an effective instructor as one who: (a) monitors
and is reflective about which students are and are not involved in the lesson/lecture; and (b) takes
158
deliberate actions to get students involved, such as employing a variety of questioning techniques,
so that they get the most out of the lesson/lecture.
In addition to “student involvement” being a prominent theme across Instructor A’s
conceptions of pedagogy and instruction, in this later phase of the intervention, he also reported
it to be an explicit focus of his classroom practice. One of Instructor A’s strategies for building
student involvement is “taking advantage of the more active students.” This involved taking
their responses to questions that had been posed to the whole class, directing specific questions
to them to see how responsive they would be, and “joking around” with them to create a sense of
“fun” in the learning environment. Another strategy he reported employing was “just allowing
[students] to talk, sometimes.” For example, after asking a challenging question or posing a
more perplexing problem, Instructor A shared that he often just lets the students informally strike
up small conversations about the given problem with their nearby peers. “I like that,” he stated.
“I think that’s when they’re actually trying to learn. So…the more I see that interaction, the more
I do to let it go purposefully.” The final strategy Instructor A mentioned was calling on people
in the back of the room, because those are the students he feels are often “dozing off, or not
paying attention.” Calling on them is his attempt to “get them back in” the lesson. My
observations of Instructor A at the end of the intervention confirmed that he did in fact employ
each of these strategies described above. What was not entirely clear, however, is whether he
was in fact employing these practices to a significantly greater degree at the end of the
intervention, or if he had just become more conscious of his employment of them.
68

In summary, what is particularly striking about Instructor A’s transformation in
conceptions and practices related to pedagogy and instruction is that some of the core themes did

68
I did observe Instructor A early in the intervention, and other than perhaps “taking advantage of the more active
students,” I did not document his extensive use of these named strategies.
159
not change through his participation in the PD intervention (e.g., students need to feel
comfortable). What transformed, however, was Instructor A’s reasoning underlying these
conceptions (i.e., it placed greater emphasis on student engagement and its importance during
lectures/labs). Instructor A also seemed to transform his actions related to pedagogy and
instruction. More specifically, he exercised a greater degree of: (a) intentionality employing
strategies to support student involvement, and/or (b) conscious reflection about his use of them.
The profundity of this latter transformation in action was evidenced in the following remarks that
Instructor A shared during his final interview. “I'm actually now thinking about [my practice].
Before, it was just happening. But now, because of our meetings and stuff, I go, ‘Oh, okay. I
guess I may be doing something that is already known [to be effective]. Before, I was just doing
it, so now I'm more conscious about that.”
Transformation in framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps. An analysis of
Instructor A’s framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps in the early phases of this PD
intervention, as compared to his framing towards the end, reveals the development of a more
nuanced understanding. While Instructor A maintained aspects of a student-deficit perspective,
these became paired with aspects of a practitioner-oriented perspective that showed an emerging
awareness and/or acknowledgement about the ways in which institutional policies and
pedagogical/instructional practice might be linked with the observed equity gaps at the college.
Early framing of the problem. In the early phase of the PD intervention, Instructor A
offered two possible reasons for inequitable course completion rates across various racial/ethnic
groups at the college: (a) students lack the foundational skills or academic preparation for
college; and (b) students originate from communities that no longer conceive of education as an
160
opportunity for success, and even if students themselves conceive of it as an opportunity, their
other life responsibilities frequently get in the way.
In describing this problem, Instructor A noted that African American students, one of the
groups who were experiencing an equity gap in CTE course completion rates, accounted for only
a small portion of those enrolled in the transfer-level courses in his pathway (he estimated 10%).
There was, however, higher enrollment of African American students in the applied courses
within his pathway, and he posited that this is “because [this group of students is] interested in
the workforce.” Instructor A taught in both of these sectors within his pathway, and he
maintained that for those African American students who genuinely try to succeed but end up
failing, it is because “their skills are not there.” In particular, he has found that these students do
not have “foundational skills” such as “understanding how to study,” or how to read and
complete mathematical problems in this subject area.
According to Instructor A, lack of foundational skills was not the only cause of this
problem of racial/ethnic inequity in student success. He believed it was also closely linked with
geography and socio-economic status. “It’s obviously where they grew up,” he stated, “[and
their] socioeconomic [status].” Having spent his own childhood in the same area of the city from
which many Millennium students originate, Instructor A spoke with striking sincerity when he
shared that “the opportunities are there [for these students] but not [in the same way].”
My view on this is society just doesn’t care enough about education, and therefore they
always have a Band-Aid for education; ‘the next lesson plan is gonna change this.’ And
that’s not gonna work because the people in these areas don’t believe that they’re gonna
be successful, and so they stopped caring about their education. The potential’s there,
obviously they could be successful. But I just don’t think they believe they can, so they
161
do other things other than pursue education. And [then later] when they’re interested,
several years have gone by.
From Instructor A’s perspective, then, society has left the college’s surrounding communities
behind, particularly with respect to their education. As a result, the people within those
communities have lost hope that they can ever be successful, not because they don’t believe in
their intellectual capacity, but because they don’t believe education will bring them increased
opportunity. In those cases when a person from these communities comes to think more
optimistically about their educational potential, it is often late in the game and this makes it ever
more challenging for them to actually attain that educational potential.
Relatedly, Instructor A indicated that a student’s family situation could also be a
contributing factor in the observed inequity gaps at Millennium. He shared that he always tells
students: “If you wanna be successful in college, you have to learn how to sit on your butt and
study for long periods of time so you know how to do the material.” He then reflected,
I’m sure [the students] realize [this is true]…[but,] the students who we have that are
working, they don’t have the time. Even if they wanted to, they have a job, they have
families…And so a lot of them say, ‘Oh, I have to put my kids to bed, then I start
studying.’ At that point, it’s responsibilities. So, they’re not able to develop their skills,
their abilities, their potential, because they don’t have the time, it’s a time issue at that
point.
In other words, Instructor A believed that the Millennium students themselves likely realize they
need to dedicate a certain amount of time to studying, but because of their job or family
responsibilities they are unable to make it happen. This then serves as another obstacle to their
success.
162
In summary, although Instructor A alluded to structural racism as a contributing factor
(i.e., society’s lack of investment in education in urban communities surrounding the college),
his early-intervention framing focused primarily on students and their deficiencies (e.g., lack of
academic preparedness, lack of faith in educational opportunity, inability to commit needed time
due to family/financial obligations, etc.). In short, Instructor A’s perspective on the problem
could be described as largely student-deficit.
Later framing of the problem. In the later phase of the PD intervention, Instructor A
espoused many of his previously stated ideas about the observed racial/ethnic inequity in student
success rates at Millennium College. However, while his previous framing of the problem made
no reference to the ways in which the institution and/or practitioners might be linked with this
inequity, his later framing revealed an emerging acknowledgement of the role these factors could
play in remediating racial/ethnic inequity at Millennium.
When this problem of inequity first arose in conversation in the final interview, Instructor
A provided an explanation of its causes that generally aligned with what he had claimed earlier
in the intervention.
Oh, they’re just not prepared…it’s back to their...where they’re growing up, their
socioeconomic status, their neighborhoods. Obviously, they go to local high schools
where it’s...I grew up in those high schools, so all these students are just not prepared,
when they graduate high school, to go to college or university. So that makes perfect
sense that they’re actually...that they’re not performing as they should. The potential is
there, but they’re not prepared to be students, so therefore, they kinda...they have lower
success rates.
163
Thus, similar to his earlier remarks, Instructor A continued to consider the racial/ethnic equity
gap to be the result of students’ low socio-economic status and lack of preparedness that resulted
from attending low-resourced high schools. Again, Instructor A noted that this was “a society
issue,” stating: “That’s how I see it. We haven’t fixed that. It’s a big problem.”
Instructor A also continued to emphasize that students themselves shape their own
success, and that the degree to which they value education and are committed to it remain key
factors in that success equation. “You can tell that the Latinos or African-American kids that
have realized that their education is important, they’re performing exceptionally well.” He then
offered up a story about a current student to support his claim.
I have a student, right now, she’s…Hispanic. She’s acing [my class]. She just got her
score back and she was disappointed in herself. She’s still getting an A, [but she said]
‘Oh, but it dropped!’ […] She’s a mother, wife…but she knows she needs to get to the
next level. She realizes her potential. She knows that she could do well in school, and
she’s gonna maintain that A no matter what it takes, and so she studies. And [the other
students] could do that as well.
Instructor A’s focus on this one student’s dedication and subsequent success seems to convey a
belief that Millennium’s inequity problem could be solved by getting more students to be like
her. Although he did not explain how that could be accomplished or who was responsible for
making it occur, he seemed to imply that students maintain a great deal of influence over this
problem.
In addition to the above remarks, which were largely student-deficit in nature, Instructor
A also shared a seemingly new set of ideas related to the equity problem at Millennium which
were markedly different in nature, and which suggest the emergence of a more complicated
164
perspective on the issue. First, Instructor A acknowledged that the institution maintained some
influence over these equity gaps. In order to see their influence materialize, however, he asserted
that the college would need to carry out an explicit and expanded effort in this direction, stating:
“We could attend to [this problem], if it becomes a priority for the institution, [so] I’m not saying
we can’t solve it.” Instructor A then elaborated: “That’s where the [pathway reform] comes in.
We [i.e., college leaders] realized that [student success is] an issue, and that’s why we’re going
to [the pathway] model.” While Instructor A’s comment did not necessarily make clear his
thinking about whether or not the institution was contributing to the observed racial/ethnic
inequity gaps, they did convey a belief that the college can at least take action to help remediate
the problem. In his opinion, the recent pathway reform adopted by Millennium represents a
move in that direction.
Instructor A also indicated that faculty’s pedagogical and instructional practices were
linked with this equity problem at Millennium. For example, during one of the final CTE team
meetings, Instructor A asked if the group could make the CTE team experience into a
professional development experience for other CTE faculty. The reason Instructor A raised this
idea was because he believed some of the CTE team’s activities would help faculty members
reflect on their practice and subsequently remind them that their primary goal ought to be student
success. This line of reasoning was made more clear during my final interview with Instructor A,
when he stated:
I think some of the stuff we’ve done here…could have an impact if we expose the
campus to it little by little. I think the [peer] observation with some of the techniques of
questioning and with follow-up discussions…could potentially help some of our faculty
think about why they’re in the classroom rather than they’re just there for the money or
165
getting the check or their perception is just, ‘This is what I’ve always done.’ So, I think
this [PD intervention] potentially could be very helpful.
Based on the above comments, it seems that by the end of the PD intervention Instructor A came
to recognize that faculty have some influence over the equity gaps at Millennium, and that he
believed others at the college would arrive at a similar conclusion if they were also able to
participate in the same type of experiences the CTE team had moved through.
One of the ways in which Instructor A demonstrated his increased understanding that a
faculty member’s pedagogical and instructional practice was linked with the equity problem at
Millennium was in his end-of-intervention descriptions of how he monitors and facilitates the
engagement of African American/Black students in his classroom. “So, if they're [i.e., African
American/Black students] participating, I’m glad they are…[And if they are not] I’m gonna try
to force ‘em to participate by asking ‘em questions…‘Cause I know they have a need. [light
chuckle] I know that inequity is there.” Instructor A then added: “I don't know if I’m thinking
about it. I just know it’s what we have.” Here, Instructor A explained that when teaching he
does pay attention to student participation along the lines of race/ethnicity, but acknowledged
that when he is doing this he was not sure if it is because he is, in that moment, acting out of his
conscious awareness of this group’s equity gap.
69

Important to note, Instructor A’s understanding of the link between faculty practice and
the observed equity gaps was similar to his understanding of the link between the institution and
the observed equity gaps. That is, he seemed to understand that both of these entities (i.e.,
faculty and the institution) are connected with Millennium’s equity problem in that they both

69
Worth noting, Instructor A did at one point somewhat contradict these sentiments about paying attention to
race/ethnicity when teaching. He stated: “I guess I don’t purposely say, ‘Pick them [i.e., African American/Black
students] out,’ other than...I’m gonna see if I could try to help ‘em if they need help…But in the classroom, as I say,
I’m lecturing, I don’t purposely pick on one ethnicity over the other.”

166
could have a part to play in remediating it. This understanding, however, did not take into
account the ways in which these two entities might actually be contributing to the equity problem
observed at Millennium. While one cannot be sure what prevented Instructor A from developing
a more cut and dried perspective about the ways in which faculty might actually contribute to the
problem of racial/ethnic inequity, a few of his comments did shed some light. First, Instructor A
suggested that the data the team analyzed might not have been “granular” enough to reveal the
extent of the relationship between pedagogical/instructional practice and student success. As
Instructor A commented: “Those numbers you’ve shown me are for the entire
[pathway/department]. Now, if you get [more] granular, maybe I have the same [rates as other
instructors], maybe worse.” According to Instructor A: “You have to compare my success rates
to others [and to the average]... then we could answer the question: Is what I’m doing in the
classroom helping [with inequity]? So comparing those two, then we could get into that
conversation [about the instructor’s role].” Thus, based on this explanation, disaggregated data
at the program level did not seem close enough to practice (Dowd et al., 2017) for Instructor A to
fully accept the notion that he (as an instructor) might be contributing to the equity gaps
observed at Millennium.
In addition to not having granular enough data, Instructor A’s failure to take up a more
cut and dried perspective about the ways in which faculty are implicated in the equity gaps at
Millennium might have been associated with his partial reluctance to consider student success
along the lines of race/ethnicity, and instead his seeming proclivity for thinking about this
phenomenon along the lines of minority and non-minority status. Pointing to the fact that the
college’s student body is predominantly of color, Instructor A asserted that essentially all
Millennium students are minority students, and therefore examining the differing ways that
167
various minority groups (e.g., African American/Black) are experiencing pedagogy/instruction at
the college might not be as pressing of an issue as examining minority students’ experiences at
the aggregated level. These sentiments were reinforced when in the final interview he glanced at
the course completion rates for his own pathway/department, and remarked: “At this point, I
didn't know these inequities were there, and so I haven't sat down, really sat down, and reflected
on…how we're gonna improve [that], other than we need to improve all the students, because
they all have the deficiencies and the potential.” Thus, based on these two sets of reflections,
Instructor A was not fully convinced that paying attention to any particular group was as
important as paying attention to the experiences of all minority students (i.e., Latino/a, African
American/Black, etc.), since they all have “deficiencies” and “potential.”
While one cannot be certain why Instructor A may have maintained this partial reluctance
to consider student success along the lines of race/ethnicity, one possible explanation is worth
mentioning. Although I did not detect it as a reoccurring trend, I did observe one incident early
in the intervention whereby Instructor A may have demonstrated a bias towards his own
racial/ethnic group. This scenario involved two females of color from a different racial/ethnic
group than Instructor A, and two females of color from the same racial/ethnic group as Instructor
A. These four students were supposed to be sharing lab equipment. During the activity, the
students with similar race/ethnicity to Instructor A had the equipment in front of them, and were
not making any attempts to include the other two females in their use of it. At the same time,
these other two females (of different race/ethnicity from Instructor A) were making no effort to
get involved. When Instructor A dropped by to answer a question that one of the students with
similar race/ethnicity to him had posed, he noticed the divide in the group and asked the two
non-participating females: “Are you guys participating?” He then said to the whole group (but
168
with a slightly more directed focus towards the two females who were of different race/ethnicity
to him): “You need to work together.” After providing some additional instructions related to
the initial question posed, Instructor A again reminded the group that they needed to work
together and share the equipment. After he left the group, nothing changed among these four
students. The two students who were of the same race/ethnicity as Instructor A continued to sit
very closely together, somewhat hunched over the device, making no efforts to involve the other
two students. The two females who maintained a different race/ethnicity from Instructor A also
made no effort to get involved. Instructor A did not return to the group and/or comment again on
their divide. While this incident seemed to suggest a possible preference for students from the
same racial/ethnic group, there also might have been other factors at play that had nothing to do
with racial/ethnic preference (e.g., perhaps the two students with a different race/ethnicity had
been demonstrating a pattern of non-participation throughout the entire course).
In summary, Instructor A’s framing of the inequity problem at Millennium became more
nuanced through his participation in the PD intervention. Although this transformation in
framing seemed to maintain some aspects of a student-deficit perspective (e.g., students are
under-prepared for college), these were later paired with aspects of a practitioner-oriented
perspective that revealed an emerging awareness and/or acknowledgement about the ways in
which the institution and practitioners might be linked with the observed equity gaps at the
college. Moreover, while Instructor A more clearly articulated his belief that the institution and
its faculty could function as part of the solution to this equity problem, he conveyed less
understanding about the ways in which these two entities might actually be contributing to the
production of this problem at Millennium.
169
Putting Instructor A’s transformation of practice into context: A summary. As the
above case study illustrated, Instructor A transformed his practice in ways different to that of
Instructor D (from the previous identity trajectory). More specifically, he maintained his
previous conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction, but shifted his reasoning behind them
to more closely reflect the concept of student engagement (he also became more
intentional/reflective about his previously-appropriated actions related to student engagement).
In addition, he came to more clearly recognize how instructors might address racial/ethnic equity
gaps (and appropriated a new action related to this), but did not convey clarity about how they
might actually be contributing to them. To better understand how Instructor A’s identity
trajectory served as context for these transformations in practice, one can consider the question:
What significance did these transformations have for Instructor D, as related to his identity
trajectory?
The identity trajectory that Instructor A seemed to invoke was that of an
instructor aspiring to make a difference in the lives of all Millennium students. Based on this
trajectory, one would expect Instructor A’s participation in the PD intervention to reflect that of a
person who was eager to uncover various means through which the pedagogy and instruction of
all Millennium faculty might be improved, and perhaps less concerned about how his/her own
practice might be improved. Indeed, this is what Instructor A’s participation reflected. To
qualify this observation, there was no point in the intervention when Instructor A appeared
disinterested in participating in the activities or conveyed a sentiment that he personally had
nothing to learn. Instead, the impression Instructor A did convey was that his individual
improvement was less of a pressing concern than the improvement of others from the college.
From this vantage point, the significance of Instructor A’s transformations in practice in relation
170
to his identity trajectory was as follows: If participating in the PD intervention led to real
learning for him (and/or he could contribute to the intervention’s refinement), then there was a
good chance this initiative could have a positive effect for other faculty, if scaled. The dual
focus (i.e., thinking about his own learning and the potential learning of others) was reflected in
the following reflective comment from Instructor A, shared during the final interview.
I'm gradually getting more comfortable. And I'm trying to open up more […] And that's
one of the keys, I think, to be successful, to make us a better campus. We say we're a
family, but obviously, you should be able to tell your family what they're doing wrong.
They yell at you, but then they still come back [chuckle].
In sum, for Instructor A, the improvement in his own pedagogical and instructional practice
would enable him to better understand how he might support a similar outcome at a broader scale,
which in turn would then likely lead to improved learning for all Millennium students, an
outcome that was in clear alignment with his broader identity trajectory.
Identity Trajectory #3: Overcoming A World of Subtle Racism
Unlike the other participants in this study, the predominant identity trajectory that seemed
to serve as context for Instructor E’s participation in the CTE team was being a person of color
who seeks to overcome a world of “subtle” racism. While race and racism were not always
functioning as the most central aspect of her focus, they did seem to consistently influence the
sense she made about: (a) her roles and responsibilities as an instructor; and (b) the CTE team
and its activities, and her experiences in relation to this group and their joint work.
As a teacher, Instructor E expressed a hope that her students of color would come to see
possibilities for their future that were different than those typically conveyed to them in today’s
world. She shared: “I understand how they [students of color] feel. And I want them to feel
171
included, and I want them to know that, yes, I was the first [person of color], youngest [person of
color]...Yes, it can be done. Don't let someone tell you, you can't do it.” In essence, Instructor E
felt that she understood her students of color in a way that other faculty might not, and she
wanted to share aspects of her own experience to ensure these students knew that their potential
was not fixed as a result of their racial identity.
That Instructor E, herself, had to continuously navigate the social realities of race is
reflected in the following remarks about being invited to participate in the CTE team. At the
beginning, “I knew [this initiative] was going to be [about] race. And I'm like, ‘Did they pick me
cause I'm black?’” She then added:
You have to understand what goes on in my head, I'm gonna be very frank with you.
Then I'd think maybe it's good they picked me 'cause I'm black, because no one is gonna
have the same kind of feelings that I'm gonna have. I don't know. [...] But yeah, I am
curious why people choose me to do things. I'm not obviously shy about how I feel, and
maybe that's what they were looking for, but I don't know why they didn't pick one of the
other instructors.
When asked if, at the end of the intervention, she still wondered if this was the reason she was
asked to participate, she replied: “It could be, but…I think it's more because I'm not afraid to try
something new or just say what I think.”
That Instructor E’s participation in the CTE team was grounded in this identity trajectory
of a person of color seeking to overcome a world of “subtle” racism was further evidenced in our
final interview. After asking her what she believed to be the causes of the equity gap that
African-American/Black students were experiencing, she replied: “My answer is going to be
totally different than if you were to ask [Instructor C] or someone else, ‘cause…Because I
172
understand.” Instructor E then laid out her explanation and, in doing so, pointed to various forms
of “subtle” racism that pervade our world. As she reflected further on these observed equity
gaps at Millennium, she expressed how meaningful and, at the same time, discouraging it was to
see student success data in this disaggregated format. “I've never looked at [the data] like this.
So when I see that [African American/Black] is negative...I feel a certain kind of way about that.
I feel, in 2016, really, we're still here? I feel a certain kind of way about it. So, yes, this is
meaningful.” Instructor E then remarked: “Yes, every time I see you, I'm gonna be seeing this
exact page with this number right here. It's gonna bother me.” For Instructor E, then,
participation in the PD intervention was deeply grounded in her identity as a person of color and
her ongoing experiences navigating the social realities of race and “subtle” racism.
The case of Instructor E. Here again, I begin with a description of Instructor E’s
personal background, and then move to an examination of her transformations in: (a) conceptions
and actions related to pedagogy and instruction; and (b) framing of the problem of racial/ethnic
equity gaps, and in particular its link with pedagogical and instructional practice (see overview in
Table 8). I conclude the case study with a brief examination of the significance of these
transformations as related to Instructor E’s identity trajectory.

173
Table 8
Overview of Transformations in Practice for Instructor E

Identity
Trajectory
Transformation in
conceptions/actions related to
pedagogy and instruction
Transformations in framing of equity
problem at Millennium

Overcoming a
world of subtle
racism
• Maintained previous conceptions
but shifted thinking related to their
purpose (i.e., became more care
centered). Also appropriated new
conceptions that emphasized
student engagement.
• Appropriated new actions related to
student engagement.
• Established a more elaborate
explanation of the equity gaps due
to an increased capacity to
identify and talk about the
dimensions of the problem, and/or
an increased willingness to more
fully expose true beliefs about the
underlying cause (i.e., subtle
racism).
• No explicit evidence of
appropriation of new actions.

Personal background. As with Instructor D, I had not met Instructor E prior to the CTE
team’s formation. Instructor E was not on the frontlines of Millennium’s pathway initiative, and
therefore had not participated in CUE’s previous work at the college. Instructor E was a middle-
aged female of color, who had been teaching full-time at Millennium for more than five years.
While Instructor E exuded a certain strength and confidence, there was also a sensitivity or
gentleness in the way she engaged with others. This duality was continually observed during our
CTE team meetings. At times, Instructor E would be quite talkative, while at other times more
quiet and guarded. In the classroom, however, Instructor E tended to exude strength and
confidence in greater measure than sensitivity and gentleness, and this translated to a mood in
that environment that could be characterized as more serious and traditional.
Instructor E grew up in one of the more suburban areas of the larger urban center in
which Millennium College is situated. She received both her certificate and Associate’s degree
at Millennium and then spent several years working in the field before returning to the college as
174
a full-time instructor. Unlike most of the other members of the CTE team, Instructor E
transitioned straight into a full-time position without first working as an adjunct.
Instructor E indicated that she learned to teach primarily through trial and error and
watching some of the veteran instructors in her program. At the beginning, “oh my god, I had
lots of ideas…it was like pulling tricks out of a hat,” she recalled. “And you do that until you
find the ones that work.” Subsequently, Instructor E maintained that her teaching now is
“probably much more streamlined, than [it was back] then.” In those early days, she admitted, “I
was just trying to figure out how I [could] get [the students’] attention and how I [could] break
this [subject] down so it makes sense. Now I know how to do it, so it’s a little bit different.”
Transformation in conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction. A
comparison of Instructor E’s conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction in the early and
later phases of the PD intervention reveals that she maintained some of her initial ideas but, like
Instructor A, transformed her reasoning about the significance of these ideas. Evidence also
suggests that Instructor E appropriated a set of entirely new ideas related to student engagement,
and then fitted those to her previous knowledge and experience. Moreover, through participation
in the PD intervention, Instructor E also seems to have appropriated a new set of actions related
to fostering student engagement in the classroom.
Early conceptions and actions. In the early phases of this PD intervention, Instructor E’s
conceptions of pedagogy and instruction portrayed effective instructors as those who: (a) make
the subject interesting and exciting by “sharing about their own experiences,” and (b) make
“everyone feel comfortable” and therefore more ready for learning. In regards to the former,
Instructor E explained that she believes effective instructors are those who do more than just
teach to the book. “If you're just really [only] gonna go by the book, why do I need to take your
175
class? I can read the book myself. But if you're gonna break it down and make it current for me
in a way that I can understand it and think it's exciting, then I'm interested.” From Instructor E’s
perspective, one way this could happen was if the faculty member shared about his/her
experiences in industry. She posited, “[As a student,] I'm interested in your experience…in the
industry, in life…I'm excited about that because you are bringing something personal to the class
that's still teaching me about [this subject, but it is something] that I'm not getting from the book.”
According to Instructor E, this sharing of one’s experiences with students is important, because
the students are “gonna work in the real world, and the more experience you can give [them]
about how it was at your job—like what you did that's not in the book—that's why [they are
really] coming [to class].” In essence, she believed that students’ primary goal is a job in
industry, and therefore they are most interested in learning about what that lived experience
might be like. Instructor E also suggested that this sharing of experiences ought to be a two-way
street. “I rely on the students a lot to bring me information, and I think that that's important
[too].” Her perspective was that involving students in this way, helps to keep them engaged,
because it creates a sense that they are “contributing to the class and helping everyone learn.”
Instructor E’s early conceptions of pedagogy and instruction also held that effective
instructors are those who function in ways that help make students feel comfortable. She stated
that being comfortable is important, because that's when people are “more likely to open up and
be vulnerable, and that's when we all learn.” Using students’ names, getting to know students
through one-on-one conversations, and demonstrating patience towards students were three
actions Instructor E described to be effective for producing this sense of comfort within students.
Interestingly, Instructor E suggested she was not particularly consistent in her accomplishment of
these actions. For example, while she expressed that it is beneficial to use students’ names,
176
Instructor E admitted to struggling with this task. In fact, she shared that only once has she been
able to learn the names of all the students in her class. “That's a skill I do...[chuckle] I do not
have and [yet I know] it makes the person feel worthy. It’s like, ‘Okay you remembered me, I
must be important.’” As a means of overcoming her lack of skill in this area, Instructor E
referenced a strategy of using a cheat sheet as she circulated around the room, so that she would
be able to incorporate students’ names more often when consulting with them. In respect to
getting to know students through one-on-one conversations, Instructor E claimed to have had
better success. “I [do] try and do that one-on-one [strategy]. If I know a student has a…show or
did something exciting I'll ask them to talk about it so we all can ‘whoop whoop’ and all that
great stuff.” Similar to her use of students’ names, Instructor E acknowledged having been
inconsistent in demonstrating patience towards students. While she believed doing so was
“important,” Instructor E indicated that she typically only extended patience to students who she
perceived to be applying effort. “I'm pretty patient when you are trying. It's when you're not
trying that I'm not patient,” she remarked.
When reflecting on these various ways to make students feel comfortable, Instructor E
shared that a couple of students had told her that she actually made them feel “uncomfortable.”
In speculating why this might be the case, she posited:
It could be for lots of reasons, [like] they just never do their work and I just stop paying
attention. It could [also] be...somebody said I'm intimidating and I can see that, but
they…mistake meanness, with sternness. ‘Cause I don't think I'm mean, but I am strict.
[…] If I tell you [the project is] due at 7:00 and you come at 7:01, I'm not gonna to take it.
[The students are] not used to that at all. That's devastating. I get tears, I get nasty stuff,
177
but I feel like if I can teach you that [lesson] now, [then] you're not gonna go get fired
when you go to work. ‘Cause really if you do that at work you're gonna get fired.”
This line of reasoning drawn by Instructor E was supported by an experience she once had with a
student at Millennium. In that particular situation, the final project was due at 2:00pm, and one
student who showed up late to submit her work was incredibly upset when Instructor E told her
that she would not accept it. “She had her jacket and she cried and bawled and asked if she
could turn it in, and I said, ‘Sorry, no.’ I was really stern. So, she had to take the [whole] class
again.” Instructor E then explained that even though the student remained mad for some time, at
the end of her second cycle through the class this student told Instructor E: “I wanna thank you
so much for making me retake the class.” For Instructor E, the student’s acknowledgement
legitimized her previous decision to be tough on students. “To me, it was all worth it,” Instructor
E remarked. “Even though she hated me…at the end she understood, so I was like, ‘Yeah, that
made me feel good,’ ‘cause I’m not being stern for no reason, I’m just trying to [do the right
thing].”
Interestingly, Instructor E noted that she is particularly focused on being tough on those
students who don’t seem to have strong support networks. As she explained:
I hear they call me ‘Mean Mrs. [BLANK]’ sometimes, which really cracks me up.
Because I'm not at all mean, but I am very stern…I feel like my job is to help you get a
job…And so, I'm hard on them, and the ones that I feel don't have any support... ‘Cause
you can kinda tell by the second week…[those] are [the] students I kinda take under my
wing, not to baby them, but [to be] even harder on them. Because I can tell that no one's
pushing them or motivating them.
178
Based on this comment, it seems that at this early point in the PD intervention, Instructor E’s
sense of how to help students with no support networks was to be “even harder on them,” so that
they would be more motivated to succeed. And while she recognized that these students often
have “a lot of baggage,” she indicated that she does her best to “not to get all involved in their
personal stuff.”
Later conceptions and actions. Near the end of the PD intervention, Instructor E’s
conceptions of pedagogy and instruction alluded to some of the same ideas she had previously
mentioned, but these ideas were characterized in different ways. For example, at the end of the
intervention, Instructor E maintained that effective instructors are those who share about their
own work experiences, but her reasoning for why instructors ought to do this had shifted slightly.
At the end of the intervention, Instructor E seemed to suggest this sharing was a necessary
pedagogical task because it let students know that we are all human, and thus experience both
ups and downs. The following comment from Instructor E reflects this shifted line of reasoning.
I always talk about places where I've worked and my likes. I like instructors that tell
personal stories...I don't want [my students] to think that I've never been fired, [that] I've
never made a mistake, [that] I've never gone a night with no sleep, [that] I've never
missed a deadline, ‘cause that's just not reality. So, when they miss a deadline I can tell
them, ‘This is what happened to me, this was my worst day of work.’ I can share all those
things with them and they know I'm human, I'm no different than [they are].”
Here, Instructor E conveyed that she wanted students to realize that sometimes it is hard to meet
industry expectations, even for her, and sometimes when one can’t meet those expectations there
are consequences. Even so, if one persists, he/she will move past that “worst day of work,” just
like she did.
179
Instructor E’s end-of-intervention conceptions of pedagogy and instruction also
continued to underscore that instructors ought to function in ways that make students feel
comfortable. While learning students’ names and getting to know them through one-on-one
conversations remained key strategies for accomplishing this task, Instructor E’s ideas about
these two strategies shifted. Early in the PD intervention, Instructor E noted that the practice of
using a student’s name makes that individual feel “important.” This time around, her
explanation conveyed a somewhat deeper understanding for why using a student’s name makes a
difference. She stated: “I think [using students’ names] makes them feel like I know who they
are and that they're not just student [number] three sitting at the desk…It makes them feel
included in the group.” To help explain her thinking, Instructor E drew on an exchange that her
and I had shared a few days previous (I had remembered something about her family and
inquired into it). “The other day you’re like, ‘Oh, you have two daughters...’ You remembered
[that about me] and you [were] letting me know you remember. That’s letting me know you care.”
Thus, in this later interpretation, Instructor E seemingly came to see that knowing and using
students’ names does not simply make students feel “important,” it also sends the message that
the instructor cares, and that he/she wants the said student to know that he/she cares.
By the end of the PD intervention, it seemed that Instructor E had also enhanced her
commitment to the idea of getting to know students through one-on-one conversation. Indeed,
during the CTE team’s last meeting, Instructor E reported that this was a strategy on which she
was going to focus greater attention. Since it was always the same students who were early to
class, and this is when these one-on-one conversations occur, she shared her idea of including an
activity right after class commenced that would enable these more personal exchanges to take
place with all of her students. During my final interview with Instructor E, when I asked how
180
this idea had been unfolding, she reported that she had been making greater effort to incorporate
the strategy. Worth noting, while I did observe Instructor E implementing this action and the one
previously discussed (i.e., using students’ names) I did not find evidence to suggest they were
being implemented to a greater degree. Also important, Instructor E’s expanded notions about
using students’ names and connecting on a one-on-one level remained tempered with the same
trepidation she had expressed early in the intervention regarding getting too close to students.
In addition to expanding some of her previous conceptions of pedagogy and instruction,
Instructor E also seemed to appropriate entirely new ideas as a result of her involvement in the
PD intervention. A compelling illustration of this occurred in the final interview when I first
asked Instructor E to describe effective pedagogical and instructional practice. The very first
aspect that Instructor E mentioned was student engagement. Since Instructor E had not directly
discussed this idea in her earlier conceptions of pedagogy and instruction,
70
it suggests that this
idea arose through her participation in this PD intervention.
Perhaps because it was a relatively new idea, it is not surprising that a good amount of
Instructor E’s reflection about student engagement seemed to reveal an attempt to negotiate how
it fit with her previous beliefs and experiences. Within the intervention, this new idea about
student engagement stressed all students’ actively participating in their learning through actions
like asking questions, responding to instructor’s questions, and sharing ideas with peers. During
one meeting in which the CTE team was discussing student engagement and contemplating what
portion of students should be engaged in a given classroom, Instructor E stated: “If I get half [of
my class] engaged and asking me questions, I think that's good. I don't know if it's good that I

70
In her early conceptions of pedagogy and instruction, Instructor E made one indirect reference to the idea of
student engagement. She noted that one particular strategy (i.e., having students share about their experiences)
“helps to keep [students] engaged,” but she did not describe engagement as a primary goal of pedagogy/instruction
like she did in these later conceptions.
181
think that that's good. But, for me, that seems like a high number. I think that if I’m looking at
everything, it’s probably [more likely] around 25% [that are engaged].” Even during our final
interview Instructor E maintained that engagement does not necessarily mean students need to be
talking during class. “I think people can be engaged without being verbal,” she noted. When I
asked her what exactly that looks like, she replied: Students who are “focused on what the
instructor is saying.” She then added: “What I’ve learned is sometimes those students that don't
speak at all, they take in the most information. ‘Cause then when you go and do the project and
you see their work, they blow you away. And you didn’t even realize it was in there.” Here, it is
possible that Instructor E might have recognized her previous failure to emphasize student
engagement, and consequently pointed to evidence suggesting that it does not have to unfold in
the exact way discussed within the literature and within the CTE team meetings. While there
might have been some legitimacy to Instructor E’s comment, it lacks an acknowledgment of the
ways in which the student may have been even more successful had they been encouraged to
speak up and voice their questions/ideas. For example, through being encouraged to speak up
the student may have developed a sense that their input was a valued aspect of the learning
environment and this might have lead to enhanced self-efficacy beliefs. Moreover, in prompting
this student to speak up more, Instructor E would have likely acquired useful information for
assessing what this student knew and if he/she was struggling in his/her learning, long before the
end-of-class project. Also missing from Instructor E’s expressed understanding is the
recognition that other students might have benefited as a result of hearing this student’s
questions/ideas shared out loud.
In addition to appropriating new ideas related to student engagement, Instructor E also
appropriated two new strategies for enhancing student engagement. The first was directing some
182
of her questions to specific students rather than always directing all questions to the whole group.
In her reflection about this new practice, Instructor E referenced a discussion she had with
Instructor F during a pair-share activity at one of the CTE team meetings. “We were talking
about the names and [Instructor F] was asking me, ‘Does it seem like when you call students
names like you’re singling them out, do they feel picked on?’ And I said, ‘I don't know, but
that’s really the main reason why I didn’t do that [in the past].’” She then elaborated by drawing
on her own experience as a student. “When I was in school, I hated for the teacher to call on me
by name. Off guard, out of the blue, I’m thinking of what am I gonna be doing when I get out of
the class and they’re like, ‘[Instructor E].’ It made me very uncomfortable and anxious, and I
know that’s why I don't do it.” Instructor E then explained: “So, [now] when I do it, I am trying
to pick a topic that I know they know the answer to, not like a test. Because when they don't
know and you're calling on them and everyone’s looking and waiting, then it makes you feel
small.” Instructor E shared that it was really after seeing Instructor C use a “light” application of
this strategy and noticing its positive effects that she began wondering about incorporating it into
her own practice. It seems that seeing it work in Instructor C’s classroom prompted her to
consider: “How can I do it differently? How can I call on them directly, but do it in a manner
where they can’t answer incorrectly? Or be wrong or feel bad or be anxious?” Based on this
reflection, it seems that Instructor E discovered through participating in the PD intervention that
calling on individual students was beneficial for the purposes of engaging students, and that it
could be carried out in low-stakes ways. As a result, she appropriated a “light” version of the
strategy for her own classroom/lab.
Another new strategy for improving student engagement that Instructor E appropriated
through participating in the PD intervention was asking more targeted questions, rather than
183
overly-generalized questions such as: “Does that make sense?” Her appropriation of this
strategy seemed to be rooted in Instructor E’s participation in the post-observation debrief that
occurred during the CTE team’s second iteration of peer observation. During that debrief, one
other instructor (Instructor C) and myself were providing Instructor E with feedback from our
observation of her class, and specifically how our observations were linked to a particular
instructional problem with which she had been struggling—i.e., students not communicating
their lack of understanding when she asked them if they understood. In the following excerpt
from that meeting, Instructor E first described her sense that she had been asking more specific
questions during this class. Next, I illuminated that perhaps this was not the case by drawing her
attention to a particular question used frequently throughout the observed lesson. I then
explained how that question cannot be characterized as “specific,” and provided Instructor E
with some alternative questions that might be worth trying.
Instructor E: I’ve been working on really trying to ask more specific questions ‘cause I
really do say all the time, ‘Do you need help?’ or ‘Is there any questions?’
So now I might ask, ‘Do you have a question about how to join this?’ or I
try to make it a little more specific. This class is really challenging. I’m
really tired when it’s done because they don’t talk, and they don’t say
anything, and then...I’ll say, ‘Are you okay? Do you need help?’ And I
kind of get a blank stare, or they’ll say, ‘Yes. [I’m ok]’ and then I come
back and it’s like upside down.
Jason: Okay, so here's my wondering…so you feel like they aren’t getting it to
the extent that they should be getting it at this point in the class…One of
the questions that you asked a lot was, ‘Does that make sense?’ And...
184
Instructor E: That’s my other go-to question. [laughter]
Instructor C: Me too!
Jason: Which is…not only is it a closed question, but the response that kept
coming [to you] was, ‘Yes, [that makes sense].’ But clearly your
observations are telling you that they’re not getting it.
Instructor E: They’re not getting it.
Jason: So, that question isn’t…it’s not peeling back the layers to expose the
information you need to figure out what you could do to help them get it
better.
Instructor E: Yeah, that makes sense.
Jason: So my wondering would be... And it might not be [that you] never ask that
question, but...I'm wondering if you could be really intentional about
asking a question that’s not that. It could be related to that, it could be like,
‘What about what I just said makes sense to you? Tell me something that
you got from what I just said.’ Or, ‘Tell me back what I just said [to you]’
Or ‘I just told you that we have to do A, B, and C. Why? Why would we
do A, B, and C?’ [So, you want to] check to make sure that they get it, and
if they don’t then you can correct it right...
Instructor E: Right there on the spot.
Jason: Yeah.
Instructor E: That’s my other go-to.
Instructor C: Me too.
185
Indeed, when I observed Instructor E at the end of the PD intervention, I saw that her
questioning during the lecture components of the lesson had become at least somewhat more
specified (e.g., “What does that mean?” “What does that look like?”) than what I had previously
documented. When I shared this observation with Instructor E during our final interview, and
asked her to talk to me about this apparent change in practice, she replied:
So I was very conscious about that, because I know they don’t know what the
[vocabulary] words mean. So me asking them if they understand, I already know they
don’t understand, and me just going over the words, without actually giving them a visual
thing to look at is not gonna help them. So, the [BLANK] was the last thing we did, so I
tried to pull the last thing we did and have them identify the vocabulary words in [relation
to] that assignment, and I don’t normally do that. But I think it was very helpful.”
Here, the line of reasoning that Instructor E provided pertaining to the use of specific questions
was strikingly similar to the one I had shared during her post-observation debrief. This, along
with the fact that Instructor E acknowledged that asking such specified questions was not
something she “normally” did, suggests that participation in the PD intervention might have been
what led her to appropriate this particular strategy.
In sum, the above analysis suggests that through participating in the PD intervention
Instructor E transformed both her understanding and actions related to pedagogy and instruction.
More specifically, it seems that Instructor E: (a) transformed her thinking about the purposes of
particular practices (e.g., sharing one’s previous work experiences so that students will be more
inspired to persist through their mistakes/obstacles, using students’ names to communicate they
are cared for, etc.); (b) appropriated new ideas related to student engagement and fitted them to
her previous knowledge and experiences (e.g., student engagement was key, but this does not
186
mean all students have to speak during lecture/lab); and (c) adopted new strategies (i.e., calling
on specific students and asking more specific questions). Considering this, it is not surprising
that what Instructor E reported to ultimately learn in the PD intervention was “different teaching
styles and techniques, and how people handle different experiences with their students.”
Transformation in framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps. An analysis of
Instructor E’s framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps in the early phases of this PD
intervention, in comparison to her framing of this problem near the end of the intervention,
reveals the development of, and/or willingness to share, a more robust explanation of the
problem. More specifically, this latter explanation emphasized the ongoing forms of racism that
exist at the college and in society more broadly. Moreover, while Instructor E came to
acknowledge herself as part of the equity problem at Millennium, she did not seem to establish
full clarity about what pedagogical and instructional actions she could take in response.
Early framing of the problem. In the early stages of the PD intervention, Instructor E did
not offer a definitive explanation for the equity gap in course completion rates that African
American/Black students were experiencing at Millennium College. At one point, she
suggested: “It has to do with where [the students] come from.” Later in that same conversation,
however, she noted that she has not really observed any patterns of student success along the
lines of socio-economic status. “We have students that come from a pretty affluent area, and
they’ve been in charter schools their whole life. Then, we have students that come from maybe a
low-income [area]. But, I can’t say that the ones that have money do better than the [ones that
don’t]...‘Cause I’ve seen both.” Instructor E did suggest in her early-intervention framing that
racism was a factor in producing the observed equity gap at Millennium, stating: “We all know
187
racism plays a big part in everything, opportunities, and education.” No elaboration, however,
was provided on how exactly this racism takes shape at Millennium.
At this early point in the intervention, Instructor E proposed that the best way to address
this problem of equity was to try and treat everyone the same. She noted: “I really try and just be
the same with everybody. But if I do see potential [in one of these students of color], and they're
just struggling…like they just need a push, then I really try and be that push.” Thus, in the early
stages of the PD intervention, Instructor E seemed to hold that the best way to address this
particular equity gap was to try and treat all students the same, and if one of the students
experiencing this equity gap seems to be struggling, the instructor ought to “push” him/her
harder towards success.
Later framing of the problem. Near the end of PD intervention, Instructor E provided a
more elaborate explanation for the cause of this equity gap in course completion rates
experienced by African American/Black students at Millennium. First, she remarked that “in her
opinion” the equity gap at the college confirmed that African American/Black students were
feeling “isolated” in the classroom, and that this was likely how the students have felt throughout
their educational journey. Instructor E then shared the following personal story to help explain
this proposition.
When I was in seventh grade we were in history class…and I didn’t know what the word
‘meekly’ meant. They were talking about the slave trade…when slaves were taken, and
the word meekly was used. Someone asked what that [word] meant, and the definition
[provided to us] was ‘unwilling.’ Well, that’s not what I learned in my house, it wasn’t
[just that they were] only unwilling. They were kidnapped and tortured and raped…But
[the conversation in our classroom] didn’t go further than [‘unwilling’]. So to me that
188
was just like, that’s a lie, how do you just not even address this whole thing that’s
happened? So, [this equity problem], it’s not just college. [...] A lot of those things, [like
the slave trade], were not being addressed at school. They [had to be] addressed at home.
[…] Now we’re getting [these students at] the end of [their education]…so all of those
feelings [of being isolated] are already there.
Here, Instructor E drew on her own experience of how the slave trade was taught to her in
seventh grade to help illustrate the ways in which the full history and experience of African-
Americans had been disregarded by society, particularly within the educational setting, and how
this likely prompted African-American/Black students to arrive at college with deep-rooted
feelings of isolation.
Instructor E also shared an example to illustrate how she believed this isolation became
further reinforced once students arrive at a college such as Millennium. “If I’m talking about the
most influential [individuals] of the hip-hop community, and they’re all white, what does that
say? I’m not doing anything racist, but I’m not telling the whole story [either].” Instructor E
noted that this type of thing “happens all the time” at Millennium, but that she doesn’t believe
the instructors are doing it “consciously.” So, while “it’s not like an in-your-face kinda
thing…you’re like, ‘Gosh, well, why don’t they ever talk about…something I can relate to?’”
Thus, by not including curriculum topics and materials that African American students can
“relate to,” their sense of isolation grows.
While Instructor E did not explicitly attach the label of racism to the above two stories,
she did use the term when sharing about some of her interactions with other Millennium faculty
members. “There’s so much racism,” she stated, “but it’s subtle.” For example,
189
I had an instructor who came from a school in [a different area of the city]. [...] We were
talking, and he just casually said, ‘Oh you know, the students here are like [those at] my
other school. They don’t have jobs, their parents don’t work, they’re all on welfare...’ It
was just this big...He just was grouping everyone at the school [who is] of color in this
one category.
She then elaborated:
It’s happened to me so many times that it’s not a shock when someone says something
crazy like that to me. So he was saying that the students here are basically beneath him.
[That] is what he was saying, in a very subtle way. [...] [And] even if I had said, ‘Well,
you know what? I went here, I came from a middle-class family, I graduated here, I
worked in the industry for [several] years.’ His answer probably would’ve been, ‘Well,
you’re not like them.’ ‘Cause if you only knew how many times somebody said that to
me, you’d be shocked...I’d be wealthy [if I had a dollar every time someone said that to
me].
For Instructor E, this other instructor’s “grouping” of all students of color into “one category,”
was a clear example of the “subtle” forms of racism that are pervasive at the college. While she
finds these statements “crazy,” they are so common that she is no longer shocked to hear them.
Instructor E explained that she believes this form of subtle racism persists because “people have
preconceived ideas about race, based on their [prior] experience,” and she implied that because
these ideas are deeply rooted in experience they are hard to change.
At the end of the intervention, Instructor E’s willingness and/or capacity to reflect on the
ways in which her own practice might be implicated in the observed inequity at Millennium was
less clear than her ability to reflect on how other faculty members’ practice was implicated. This
190
is well illustrated in the following set of paradoxical remarks that she shared. First, at one of the
final CTE team meetings during a discussion about equity gaps in course completion rates within
her own program of study, Instructor E stated: “I’m looking at this and I understand it, but when
I teach my class, and let’s say the first day I have 45 people, and then…by week six, let’s say I
have 25 people…I’ve always looked at it [as]: ‘What is my overall retention? How many people
actually stayed in the class.’” She then added: “And even though I’m looking at the overall, I’ve
never in my mind done this. Like, what groups [have an equity gap]…I’m just looking at
[overall] numbers. ‘Ok, I have, you know 40% left, or 50 or 60% left,’ but I never really looked
at it…looked at it like this closely.” In other words, Instructor E acknowledged that she had
never considered how different racial/ethnic groups were experiencing completion success in her
classes. In stark contrast to this example, when asked during the final interview how it felt to
pay attention to race as she conducted observations of her peer’s classroom, Instructor E stated:
“I think I do that anyway, ‘cause I’m sensitive to it. So, I don’t know how to not do that.” Thus,
while instructor E maintained a clear sense about the racialized experiences of her African
American/Black students, she had not previously considered examining how that might be
unfolding in her own classroom (e.g., looking at course completion rates in her classroom,
disaggregated along the lines of race/ethnicity). In essence, race/ethnicity and its implications
for educational experiences, was at the same time visible and invisible to Instructor E.
It is difficult to ascertain whether Instructor E’s more elaborate explanation of the
inequity observed at Millennium is due to an increased capacity to recognize and talk about the
dimensions of the problem, or an increased willingness to more fully expose her true beliefs
about the underlying cause (i.e., subtle racism), or a bit of both. Regardless of the exact
explanation, there seems little doubt that at the end of the PD intervention Instructor E
191
recognized the link between Millennium’s equity gap and faculty’s pedagogical and instructional
practice. Indeed, at the end of our final interview when I asked Instructor E if she saw herself as
part of this equity problem at Millennium, she responded: “I think everyone has to see
themselves as part of this problem or this problem doesn’t get fixed.” As already noted, however,
Instructor E seemed less sure about the exact lines along which this link exists. “I could talk
about this [equity] gap, but I don’t know I could instruct on how to lessen the gap.” Thus, even
at the end of the PD intervention, Instructor E was still unsure of specific actions she could take
to remediate her own pedagogical and instructional practice and become part of the solution.
Putting Instructor E’s transformation of practice into context: A summary. As the
above case study illustrated, Instructor E transformed her practice in various ways. Like
Instructor A, she maintained previous conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction, but
shifted her thinking about their purpose to more closely reflect the concept of student
engagement. Like Instructor D, she appropriated new conceptions and actions related to
pedagogy and instruction, but in contrast to him did not appropriate them wholesale but rather in
a constrained format to fit better with her previous beliefs. Unlike either of the other two
instructors, she established a clear explanation for racial/ethnic equity gaps that pointed to subtle
racism as the primary cause, but ironically did not appropriate any new actions related to this
problem of inequity. To better understand how Instructor E’s identity trajectory served as
context for these transformations in practice, one can consider the significance these
transformations had for Instructor E, as related to her identity trajectory.
The identity trajectory that Instructor E seemed to invoke was that of an individual
overcoming a world of subtle racism. Based on this trajectory, one would expect Instructor E’s
participation in the PD intervention to reflect that of a person who was intently focused on
192
matters related to race/ethnicity. As noted previously, Instructor E’s focus was more measured
than perhaps expected within this identity trajectory. At times her transformations in practice
seemed to be deeply grounded in an awareness of matters related to race/ethnicity (e.g., her
reframing of the equity problem), and at other times seemed race/ethnicity neutral (e.g.,
appropriating action of calling on individual students). That said, even when Instructor E did not
explicitly link some of her transformations in practice to matters of race/ethnicity, one got the
impression that they perhaps were indirectly linked. For example, her shift in thinking about the
purpose of some of her conceptions related to pedagogy and instruction (e.g., sharing one’s
professional experiences with students) seemed to reflect a sentiment of care (i.e., sharing so that
students will be more inspired to persist through their mistakes/obstacles) that was at least
partially similar to that described in one of the CTE team’s readings about culturally responsive
teaching (Gay, 2002). Considering this, it is likely that Instructor E’s transformations in practice
were significant to her identity because they enabled her to find new ways of empowering her
students, specifically her students of color, so that they might be able to better navigate the subtle
racism existing both inside and outside of the college.
Summary of What Instructors D, A, and E Learned Within Their Respective Trajectories
Table 9 provides an overview of the transformations in practice (i.e., transformations in
conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction, and transformations in framing of
the equity problem at Millennium) that occurred for these three participants (Instructors D, A,
and E) within their respective identity trajectories. In respect to transformation in conceptions
related to pedagogy and instruction, Instructor D’s early conceptions seemed more pliable than
those of the other two instructors. He also appropriated new actions, embracing them in a largely
wholesale manner, and reported reflecting on the implementation of these actions while
193
instructing. Instructor A did not appropriate any new actions, and while Instructor E did, she did
not report reflecting on them. With regards to transformations in framing of equity problem,
while Instructors D and A both maintained some student-deficit ideas pertaining to the equity
problem, Instructor D demonstrated a more significant shift in his reframing of the problem. He
came to more fully recognize that faculty both contribute to racial/ethnic equity gaps and are
responsible for addressing them, while Instructor A seemingly only came to recognize the latter
(i.e., faculty are responsible for addressing equity gaps). Instructor D also appropriated (or
predicted he would appropriate) more new actions related to this problem than did Instructor A.
Instructor E also demonstrated a significant shift in her framing of the equity problem, pointing
to subtle racism as the primary cause. She, however, did not appropriate any new actions related
to this problem. In the next section, I transition to an examination of the ways in which
participating in the PD intervention shaped learning along the personal plane.

194
Table 9
Summary of Transformations in Practice Within Each Identity Trajectory

Identity
trajectory
Transformation in conceptions/actions
related to pedagogy and instruction
Transformations in framing of equity
problem at Millennium

Seeking to
improve his/her
own
pedagogical &
instructional
practice

(Instructor D)
Conceptions about pedagogy and
instruction seemed to be pliable, in that
Instructor D’s transformation in practice
involved appropriating entirely new
conceptions and embracing them
wholesale. This transformation also
included the appropriation of new actions
and ongoing conscious reflection about
their implementation.

Significant reframing of the equity
problem occurred. Instructor D came to
more clearly recognize the ways in which
instructors contribute to racial/ethnic
equity gaps and how they can address
them. Relatedly, Instructor D
appropriated (or suggested he would
appropriate) multiple new actions to
address this problem in his practice.

Aspiring to
make a
difference in the
lives of all
Millennium
students

(Instructor A)
Conceptions about pedagogy and
instruction seemed to be more set in
stone, in that Instructor A’s
transformation in practice did not include
the appropriation of any new
conceptions. What was pliable, however,
was the reasoning underlying these
conceptions. This transformation also
included more intentional/reflective
implementation of actions appropriated
prior to PD intervention.

Moderate reframing of the equity
problem occurred. Instructor A came to
more clearly recognize the ways in which
instructors can address racial/ethnic
equity gaps. A recognition that
instructors contribute to these
racial/ethnic equity gaps was not clearly
conveyed. Relatedly, Instructor A
appropriated one new action to address
this problem in his practice.

Overcoming a
world of subtle
racism

(Instructor E)
Conceptions about pedagogy and
instruction were only somewhat pliable,
in that Instructor E’s transformation in
practice included the appropriation of
some new conceptions but these were
constrained to fit better with her
previously held beliefs and therefore not
embraced wholesale. This transformation
also included the appropriation of new
actions.

Significant reframing of the equity
problem occurred. Instructor E
established an explanation of the equity
problem that pointed to subtle racism as
the primary cause. This reframing of the
problem was not accompanied by the
appropriation of any new actions to
address the problem in her practice.

Ways in Which PD Intervention Shaped Learning Along the Personal Plane
To guide my analysis of how participation in the PD intervention shaped learning along
the personal plane, I draw on the sociocultural idea that learning can be conceived of as a
transition from assisted performance to unassisted performance of a specified learning objective
195
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Vygotsky, 1978), and that various means of assistance can be
provided to learners to support this transition. In the PD intervention upon which this study is
focused, the intended learning objective was: transforming one’s practice related to pedagogy
and instruction and/or the link between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic equity in
student success outcomes at Millennium College. As noted previously, I adopt Wenger’s (1998)
definition of practice, which includes “doing, talking, thinking, feeling, and belonging” (p. 56).
In this section, I lay out evidence showing the extent to which this PD intervention was effective
for providing participants with assistance that supported the intended transition in practice.
Ultimately, I show that three forms of assistance anticipated through my conceptual framework
(i.e., cognitive structuring, modeling, and feeding back) were provided to participants, as well as
one form of assistance that was not anticipated (i.e., diverse ideas). Table 10 provides an
overview of the activities through which these various means of assistance were provided, and
the specific instructors who reported experiencing them.
Table 10
Overview of Means of Assistance Provided to Participants Within Activity Types

Peer Observation Analyzing
Disaggregated
Data
Reviewing
Frameworks and
Concepts
Participating in
CTE Team
Cognitive
Structuring
Instructors:
B, D, and H
Instructors:
B and G
Instructors:
A, D, E, and H

Modeling

Instructors:
D, E, F
Instructors:
B
Feedback Instructors:
A, B, C, E, F, G, and H

Diverse Ideas Instructors:
E
Instructors:
C, E, F, G, and H

Cognitive Structuring
Some participants’ descriptions of their experiences reveal that participation in the PD
intervention provided access to cognitive structuring as a form of assistance. Cognitive
196
structuring is defined here as the “provision of a structure for thinking and acting” (Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988, p. 63). Three types of activities within the PD intervention enabled cognitive
structuring: peer observation, analysis of disaggregated student-success data, and the review of
concepts and frameworks from literature.
Peer observation – Iteration #1. Some participants’ (Instructors B and H) descriptions
of their experiences during the first iteration of peer observation suggest that the protocol’s
prompts structured their attention onto aspects of pedagogy and instruction that they previously
had not taken into account. For example, Instructor B stated:
I do think [that] what's been enlightening to me about working with the CTE team is the
questions that we're asking and the way we're going through this observation process. It's
forced me to look at the way I teach and the way I interact with my students. And it's
actually forced me to look at myself and see if I'm engaging in behaviors that may or may
not encourage or discourage people from interacting or from being engaged.
Based on these remarks, the protocol’s prompts caused Instructor B to consciously examine his
pedagogical and instructional practices, and particularly how his interactions with students might
“encourage or discourage” their engagement. That he labeled this process “enlightening”
suggests it provided a new structure for seeing and thinking about his practice.
For Instructor H, being encouraged to approach peer observation through a student’s lens
led him to recognize that there's more to think about in the learning environment than just the
instructor and his/her actions, there are also students and their responses to the instructor and
his/her actions. In the following series of comments, Instructor H shares about this realization
that came through his participation in the first iteration of peer observation.
197
When we started doing our inquiry…then I started putting myself in the shoes of the
students and looking at the instructor in a different way. Because there’s different ways
that you can approach students…you cannot approach all the students in the same way. I
[hadn’t] thought of that before.
Here, Instructor H noted how a particular prompt outlined to the team during their training with
the observation protocol (i.e., put yourself “in the shoes of the students”) led him to recognize
that perhaps a one-size-fits-all approach to instruction was not appropriate. Instructor H then
elaborated to further explain how, even though he had previously observed other classrooms, he
had never considered this perspective until it was presented to him within the CTE team.
Because before we started doing our inquiry [in] our team, I was crashing different
instructor's classes in my spare time and I was looking at the way they were
teaching…and I was just observing the things they were...how were they teaching. [I was]
trying to improve my skills in a certain way. But I never thought of the student and
instructor interaction, ever. I was just thinking fully [about the instructor].
Thus, for Instructor H, observing in the first iteration of peer observation led him to think about
his instructional practice in an entirely new way. He moved from conceiving of the work of
instruction as a one-directional activity (i.e., instructor to student) to a two-directional activity
(instructor to student and student to instructor). Thus, in ways similar to Instructor B, Instructor
H’s participation in the first iteration of peer observation provided him with a new structure for
seeing and thinking about his practice.
While the above examples illustrate how participating in the first iteration of peer
observation provided cognitive structuring that enabled participants to reflect on their
pedagogical and instructional practice in new ways, other evidence suggests this cognitive
198
structuring was not effective at focusing specific attention on the ways in which
pedagogy/instruction and racial/ethnic inequity at Millennium College are linked. This latter
failure was revealed in some of the participants’ remarks pertaining to how they found it
challenging to observe across racial/ethnic groups. Various team members indicated that this
was difficult because they do not “see” students, or shape their treatment of them, in accordance
to race/ethnicity. For example, Instructor A commented that he did “the same thing” during the
observation that he does in his own classroom: he sees all of the students as one group. In
essence, Instructor A suggested that he does not see race/ethnicity when he looks at a student,
and he therefore operates through a color-blind perspective, at will. Similarly, Instructor C
stated: “I don’t see them [i.e., students from different racial/ethnic groups] differently,” and then
posited that all students are the same, in that “they’re all here to learn.” While Instructor C,
seemed to at least acknowledge that she did indeed see race/ethnicity, she claimed to not see
these groups “differently” since they all share a common goal: to learn. Instructor F shared a
similar sentiment, hypothesizing that while instructors might see race/ethnicity, and perhaps
might even see them differently, they do not treat students from these various groups differently.
In sum, while these comments from participants show that the peer observation activity did
surface the notion that race/ethnicity is something to consider when thinking about
pedagogy/instruction, it seemingly did not provide adequate cognitive structuring for participants
to conceive of their pedagogical and instructional practice as being linked with racial/ethnic
inequity at the college.
Peer observation – Iteration #2. Similar to the first iteration of peer observation, the
protocol implemented during the second round structured some participants’ (Instructors B and
D) attention onto aspects of pedagogy and instruction that might have otherwise been overlooked.
199
For example, Instructor B shared how, as an observer, the protocol prompts helped shed light on
aspects of the teaching-learning environment that he might not have otherwise noticed. He
described the protocol as being “very much about collecting observable data…[like] mark down
this, [and] count the number of these.” As he explained, “instead of making kind of broad
judgments, based on my feelings about what I observed, I was able to look at the data, and that
actually caused me to come up with different types of observations.” He added that in his
previous role as an administrator he had acquired quite a bit of experience conducting
observations, and that “that process was not so much driven by data but just [his] own
interpretation of whether or not the class was going well, [and whether] the instructor was
effective.” This second-iteration protocol, however, “because it was data driven and it was
things that were observable and measurable and quantifiable, [it] actually took it in a different
direction, [such] that I don't think I would have necessarily made the same observations [without
these specific prompts].” Thus, for Instructor B, the protocol enabled him to see and document
teaching and learning in a classroom in ways that he had not previously experienced, even during
Iteration #1 of peer observation.
For Instructor B, the cognitive structuring provided to him as observer was also
influential when being observed. He described how he was “more conscious” of certain things
that he was doing during the observation, as a result of the various prompts in the protocol.
During his post-observation debrief, Instructor B indicated the following.
I mean, there were some things that today I did because...I'm just being honest with
you...you guys were in the room and I was like, ‘I better pay attention to this today,’ ya
know, whereas other days, I may have let something slip, or I might see someone who's
not paying attention and just go to this side of the room where I know the students know
200
the answer. So [being observed] actually made me a better instructor [laughs]…If you
guys could come back tomorrow [laughs] […] But I, as a result, I would say that
sometimes that's good to be reminded of what you need to do and for me it was a very
positive experience.
Based on the above comments, it seems that being aware of the types of things the observers
would be looking for, caused Instructor B to act in ways that addressed those aspects. And while
he acknowledged that he might not have made all of those pedagogical and instructional moves
during a typical lesson, being prompted to make them in this observed lesson seemed to serve as
a reminder of their significance more broadly.
Instructor D described how conducting peer observation lead him to be reflective about
the relationship between his pedagogical and instructional practices and the observed
racial/ethnic inequities in CTE course completion rates at Millennium. He explained:
I think going into some of those classrooms and looking for equity…I guess I feel like
[that] is a great starting point to make you start thinking about the process. Because like I
said, I came in thinking you guys [i.e., CUE] needed to prove to me that there's
something that I could do [about equity] first of all. […] [But then,] before you go to
observe somebody else's class, you start thinking about...well you look at the form [i.e.,
observation protocol]. You see ‘Okay, wait a minute. This is stuff that I'm having a
problem [with]...Am I not promoting equity in my own classes?’ So you do think about
that by doing the observing in other people’s classes. Especially while you’re sitting in
the class and you’re writing down the information, you’re also thinking about your own
stuff. So I think that's [the] great part of it.
201
Here, Instructor D first acknowledged that he entered the CTE team skeptical about the ways his
practice might be linked with racial/ethnic inequity observed at the college. Through use of the
observation protocol, however, he realized that some of the issues he had been struggling with in
his own classroom (or at least pondering) were reflected in the protocol prompts. Thus, simply
reviewing the protocol led Instructor D to reflect on how racial/ethnic inequity might in fact be
linked with his pedagogical/instructional practice. He also indicated that this self-reflection was
enhanced when he actually carried out the observations. In sum, these comments from Instructor
D suggest that, through the experience of observing, the second-iteration protocol was effective
in structuring his attention on the link between pedagogical/instructional practice and
racial/ethnic inequity at the college.
Similar to Instructor B, the cognitive structuring provided via the protocol prompts was
influential not only when observing, but also when being observed. Although Instructor D did
not identify a specific strategy that he incorporated because of the protocol prompts, he did share
that his actions were guided by the topics discussed during the CTE team meetings. These were,
in fact, the very same ideas reflected in the protocol prompts, including questioning techniques
and such. He stated: “I think [being observed] is a benefit. I don't know that it's necessarily about
the [debrief] afterwards, it's the fact that they're coming in to observe you that you really start
thinking ‘Okay, we learned this in this class [i.e., CTE team]. We learned this in class. I wanna
start [using this].’” Instructor D then added: “It [i.e., being observed] makes you use the tools
that were given in [our meetings], I think.” Even though Instructor D did not provide a specific
example, he indicated that being observed structured his actions, thereby causing him to at least
think about how he might “use the tools” that had been discussed during the CTE team meetings,
and which were reflected in the observation protocol itself.
202
Considering the above evidence, the activity of peer observation provided Instructors B,
D, and H with cognitive structuring that assisted their learning about pedagogy and instruction
and/or the link between pedagogy/instruction and racial/ethnic inequity at Millennium College.
When comparing the degree of cognitive structuring made available within the first and second
iterations of peer observation, the second-iteration protocol seemed to provide these participants
with more access to this form of assistance. First, its support of these participants’ learning
seemed to be present when both observing and being observed. Second, it seemed to more
effectively focus at least one participant’s attention (i.e., Instructor D) on the ways in which
pedagogy and instruction are implicated in the racial/ethnic inequity observed at Millennium
College. Neither of these outcomes was reported in respect to the first-iteration protocol.
Analyzing disaggregated student-success data. Some participants’ (Instructors B and
G) descriptions of their experiences indicated that the CTE team’s analysis of disaggregated
student-success data served as a form of cognitive structuring, in that it enabled: (a) an expanded
“mindset” about what an instructor ought to be thinking about, or (b) an intelligible way to make
sense of data disaggregated along the lines of race/ethnicity. For example, Instructor G
explained: “It's good to know the data. A lot of times, as instructors, we don't get into the
graduation rates and the equity gaps. Our mindset is instruction, and we spend a lot of time on
that.” He then added: “I'm not saying this [i.e., analyzing disaggregated data] is bureaucracy or
anything like that, but I leave certain things to there [i.e., the administration].” When asked why
it was “good to know this data,” or how knowing it was useful for him, Instructor G offered the
following response:
As far as the equity gap, like I said, looking at the African American [group], it's like we
just don't get a lot of African Americans in here. So that's what I notice more of. It's not
203
about, ‘Are they graduating or not?’ We can get 'em to graduate, we just gotta get 'em
here. That's the thing for me. It's not about how many are graduating, it's about let's get
'em in here, then we can up those numbers and do whatever we need to do to help 'em.
Interestingly, while Instructor G noted the benefit of having greater awareness about equity gaps
in course completion rates, his explanation for why this was the case was somewhat perplexing.
In essence, Instructor G suggested that enrolling more African American students was really the
goal, not remediating this group’s equity gap in course completion rates. This suggests that
either Instructor G did not maintain a solid understanding of the concept of equity gaps (i.e., that
they are proportionally based), or he did not buy into the idea that the policies of the college
and/or practices of the instructors working at the college might be implicated in those equity
gaps; instead it was about enrollment. His statement: “We can get ‘em to graduate,” suggests
that it is perhaps the latter of these two explanations.
71
Thus, while Instructor G reported that the
analysis of disaggregated student-success data provided cognitive structuring in the form of an
expanded “mindset” about what he ought to be considering as an instructor, that structuring was
not entirely substantive because in the end he seemed to maintain an inaccurate understanding of
what was implied by the equity gaps revealed in that data.
Instructor B reported that the CTE team’s specific methods for analyzing disaggregated
student-success data provided a more intelligible way to make sense of those statistics. He
explained that the method the CTE team used (i.e., percentage point gap method; PPG) was
different than what he had seen applied at Millennium College during prior campus meetings,
stating:

71
Worth noting, Instructor G’s belief that increasing enrollment is the needed fix for racial/ethnic inequity at the
school is not just an espoused belief, but rather one that is propelling him to also act in this direction. During a
different part of my conversation with Instructor G, he shared that he is planning on working with non-profit
organizations to do “pre-education type training,” to try and interest more African American students in his trade.

204
The [course completion] data was a revelation to me. Not that I wasn't somewhat aware
and I hadn't seen some of this data before, but really talking about it and digging into it
was [new]. [...] We had looked at equity data before, but we used a different method. It
was all based around a score of one. And that... I'm not trying to critique what they [i.e.,
campus administrators] did, but it doesn't stand out the way this [PPG method] does.
Because what it does is it just shows everything being a slight variation from one. […]
Anyway, this stood out to me more and made me realize, okay, there's an issue.
Instructor B’s remarks suggest that the team’s application of the PPG method, which included
both “digging in” and “talking about it,” allowed for the inequity “issue” to “stand out more.”
When I probed into what he meant by this last statement, Instructor B responded: “The equity
gaps are pretty glaring, when you look at it like this [i.e., with PPG method]. [The other way]
was too statistical and I think, for whatever reason, the equity gaps were not as apparent.” In
essence, he conveyed that, unlike the prior method he had seen applied at Millennium, the PPG
method is more commonsensical in that a deep statistical understanding was not needed to
extract substantive meaning from the data. Because of the clarity with which inequity could be
observed, Instructor B “sensed that people were bothered by [the data]”. He remarked: “Just
looking around the room…I saw some reactions on people's faces that looked a little bit
disturbed.” Thus, from Instructor B’s perspective, the use of the PPG method to analyze
disaggregated data enabled one to more easily see and understand racial/ethnic inequity in
Millennium’s student-success data, and this was the experience he believed others on the team
also had.
Reviewing frameworks and/or concepts from literature. Some instructors’
(Instructors A, D, E, and H) descriptions of their experiences in the PD intervention suggest the
205
CTE team’s review of frameworks and/or concepts from literature provided various forms of
cognitive structuring that assisted learning. Although Instructor E had been teaching full-time
for nine years, she shared that she had never intended to become an instructor and therefore
completed no formal training for this role. As a result, the readings served as a meaningful part
of her learning experience because they provided a theoretical explanation of various aspects of
pedagogy and instruction she had already become familiar with on a practical level. She
explained: “I’ve never read a book about being a teacher, [so] a lot of these words that you all
use, because you are in a teaching discipline, go right over my head until I read it [myself].
[Then, I’m] like, ‘Oh I get that.’” Instructor E then acknowledged that “it's a different perception
for me to read about something I may be doing or I may not be doing.” Thus, for Instructor E,
the readings seemed to provide a different perspective—i.e., a more theoretical one—through
which she could think about her pedagogical and instructional practice.
For Instructor A, the readings seem to have provided needed additional theoretical
backing for pedagogical/instructional practices he had been contemplating (e.g., small-group
discussions). The following comments were shared during a CTE team meeting, while the group
was having a structured conversation about a text that laid out various strategies for enhancing
student participation during class discussion (Gross Davis, 2009). Instructor A’s remarks
illustrate his expanded thinking about small-group discussions, particularly in respect to the
potential challenges their full implementation might present.
One of the things that caught my attention was divide students into small groups. The
reason [that stuck out to me] is my [one] class is a smaller class, and I [recently] decided
to give an impromptu quiz and I said: ‘You can use whatever you want [as a resource].’
Some of the students used each other, so I thought: ‘Okay, they seemed like they were
206
having a good interaction.’ So, I [am now thinking] maybe that's a technique that is
maybe useful. The only issues I would have is that it may take too long, especially for a
lecture. ‘What is a small group?’ would be the next question. Then we might get the
situation where one of them is a more active participant and the other one is just copying.
Those are the concerns I would have with dividing into small groups, but it seemed
interesting to potentially try if your class is small enough.
Based on his remarks, it seems that Instructor A’s prior experience of seeing students effectively
working together had already opened up his mind to this idea of small groups. Although he does
not state it explicitly, the reading seems to have provided some validity for this strategy.
Moreover, the CTE team’s structured discussion about the text prompted him to expand his
thinking about this strategy, and specifically some of the issues he would need to consider if he
actually decided to more fully fold this strategy into his pedagogical/instructional repertoire.
The same reading (i.e., Gross Davis, 2009) also enabled Instructor D to expand his
thinking about student engagement in his classroom. During the CTE team’s discussion of the
text, he stated: “I have some students that I haven't asked a question [to] nor answered a question
[from] all semester.” In reading the text, Instructor D had become drawn to the basic idea of
“trying to get more questions and more answers from the group.” He stated: “I’d like to try to
reach out to the quieter students and to try to get more [of their] participation.” “I feel like maybe
this is my opportunity.” When reflecting about a particular challenge that he might have to
overcome, Instructor D explained that, as a third-semester instructor in a cohort program, there
might already be established norms among the student group, pertaining to whose voice is valued
and whose is not. He explained:
207
How I pass the buck on this if it doesn't work is I [have] a third semester group. It's a
cohort and they've been through first and second [semester], so they might have [already]
developed some of the things they've talked about in the reading. If a student gets by in
first semester not answering any questions and [also] second semester, then I might have
to really break the mold. That might be my challenge. So, some students might resist
being drawn into the discussion, because even though they are in the group together, if
you ask a dumb question and they laugh at you in first semester, then you're not going to
do that in second and third [semesters] anymore. So, that might cause resistance to what I
want to try to do.
Thus, for Instructor D, this reading and the CTE team’s structured conversation about it seemed
to have focused his attention more explicitly on an aspect of his classroom practice (i.e., failure
to engage some of the students) of which he was already aware, and provided him with a
broadened sense of agency that “maybe this is [his] opportunity” to practice differently.
Instructor H also reported that the readings were a source of new ideas that broadened his
sense about how to address particular problems he was experiencing in his classroom. He first
acknowledged: “We do have, at times, students that are always quiet and maybe not talking to
other classmates. And getting different ideas of how to engage students, get involved, that helped
me a lot.” Instructor H then explained more specifically how the readings provided him with new
ideas about questioning techniques and different ways for responding effectively to students’
questions/comments. Interestingly, Instructor H also reported that the protocols the CTE team
used to engage this and other readings provided a new framework for approaching an unknown
text. He explained:
208
And also, [with] our readings, there were times that just understanding the instructions
[i.e., content] was sometimes kind of difficult. [...] [One] of the questions you [i.e., the
facilitator] always asked was, ‘Is there anything that struck you, anything that kinda
stands out?’ I had never looked at things like that [before]. I would just read and just try
to follow the instructions [that the reading described]. But I had never looked at it in
different ways like that, like if there's anything that's really affecting me in a certain way,
that pushes me to [want to make] a comment or...ask a question. I never thought of it that
way. So now, I'm a little bit more open minded whenever I'm reading something.
Here, Instructor H is referring to one of the protocol questions: ‘What struck you…?’ and the
accompanying facilitation that asked team members to pay attention to their emotional response
while reading (i.e., What aspects were causing them to feel affirmed? What aspects were
bothering them?). Based on his comments, it seems that in being introduced to this protocol
prompt, Instructor H appropriated a more meta-cognitive method for examining texts, an
approach he described as “being more open minded.”
In contrast to the above examples illustrating how the readings provided various forms of
cognitive structuring that assisted learning, there was at least one incident when a concept or
framework intended to have a given outcome was introduced to the CTE team but it did not
produce such an effect. Instructor F’s discussion of a mini-lesson I facilitated on the significance
of prior knowledge in learning illustrates this phenomenon. In the said mini-lesson, I was
attempting to convey the idea that an instructional/pedagogical approach relying almost
exclusively on lecturing, with minimal student engagement, is likely problematic for student
learning as such a scenario does not enable the instructor to access students’ prior knowledge and
assess how the new information is being fitted with that prior knowledge. To convey the
209
important role that prior knowledge can have, I alluded to a children's storybook called Fish is
Fish (Lionni, 1970). In this story, a tadpole grows up to become a frog, goes out to explore life
on land, returns to the water and tells his friend, a fish, about the things he had seen on land. The
storybook illustrates the thought bubbles of the fish while he is listening. Within these thought
bubbles, birds, cows, and people are imagined as fish with fins, because fish are all he has ever
known.
72
As Instructor F reflected on his experience hearing this mini-lesson, he shared the
following:
Well that pretty much confirms that someone's past, someone’s experiences, someone's
background, does play a role in the learning process. And that's why the instructor, if he
has an understanding of the students, hopefully...he does a better job at describing the tree,
so that they don't see the fish. They actually see the tree.
What is striking about Instructor F's comment is that he seems to have appreciated this mini-
lesson because it provided confirmation for something he already knew/believed: that it is
important for instructors to understand a student’s “background.” However, he seems to have
missed the key point of this mini-lesson, which is that learning is a conserving process in which
the learner converts the unfamiliar to the familiar. Instead, he seems to have perceived the key
point as being that teachers ought to develop an understanding of their students’ “background.”
In essence, Instructor F did exactly what the storybook was warning against. He transformed the
unfamiliar information (i.e., student engagement is necessary for accessing prior knowledge and
assessing how students are fitting new information to that prior knowledge) into familiar
information (i.e., an instructor ought to learn about a student’s background). Thus, in this case,

72
The idea to use the Fish is Fish (Lionni, 2970) story to convey the role of prior knowledge in learning came from
Bransford & Cocking (2000).
210
while the review of this concept from literature was intended to provide cognitive structuring
around the role of student engagement in the learning process, it did not achieve that outcome.
In sum, for most of the above participants, reviewing concepts and frameworks from
literature provided cognitive structuring through the broadening of their understanding of
particular topics (i.e., student engagement) or enabling the appropriation of entirely new
ideas/methods pertinent to their practice (e.g., metacognition). In some cases, however, this
cognitive structuring (through the review of concepts and frameworks) did not achieve its
intended impact.
Modeling
Some participants’ descriptions of their experiences reveal that participation in the PD
intervention also provided access to another form of assistance: modeling. Tharp and Gallimore
(1988) define modeling as providing an example that can be imitated by others. Importantly,
modeling includes the cognitive aspect of coding. That is, “through watching others…a person
can form an idea of the components of a complex behavior and can begin to visualize how the
pieces could be assembled and sequenced in various other settings” (p. 48). In this study, the
two venues through which modeling was provided include peer observation and the externally
facilitated CTE team meetings.
Peer observation. There is evidence suggesting that a form of modeling was provided to
some participants (Instructors D, E, and F) through their participation in peer observation. In
essence, alternative pedagogical and instructional practices were modeled for these individuals
when visiting a peer’s classroom/lab and, subsequently, these observing instructors were
prompted to think about how they might replicate those practices in their own classroom/lab.
211
Instructor D remarked that there were certain questions he was thinking about, while he
was observing Instructor G during the second iteration of peer observation. These included:
“Well, how would I do it? Would I do it like him, or would I do it differently? Am I being as
effective as him?” He also provided a specific example focused on Instructor G’s use of
questioning during the observed lecture. Instructor D commented: “I was thinking, ‘Do I fire off
as many questions as he does, or am I too busy talking about something sometimes? And should
I be firing off more questions like that?’” Thus, after seeing how Instructor G “fired off”
questions (i.e., modeled a more robust practice of questioning), Instructor D was prompted to
think about whether he himself could/should be asking more questions during his lessons.
Instructor F experienced peer observation in a similar way. He stated: “It [i.e., observing]
gives you maybe ideas of what you can use, maybe what you don't particularly like, how this
person’s doing it, how you would do it differently. I believe that’s very valuable. And the only
way you can [get] that is if you actually see people in action.” During a post-observation debrief
with Instructor A and myself, Instructor F shared more specifically about one “take away” from
observing Instructor A. He commented:
I think it's important to try to come up with these questions [i.e., open-ended questions]
so that you can have some kind of ‘banter [among the students],’ as you [i.e., Instructor
A] put it. I think the only way to get [the students] to engage is to have them give you
back some feedback. So doing the problems, especially doing the problem and you're just
listening to what they're saying, and then having them recognize that what they're
doing...that it's wrong, I think that's a good thing. So definitely [that is] something I'd take
away from [observing this lesson].
212
Based on this comment, it seems that after seeing it modeled by Instructor A, Instructor F
recognized that providing students with a problem to collectively discuss, and then allowing
them to struggle through “wrong” approaches with only minimal intervention from the instructor,
was an effective way to build student engagement, and one that he would “take away” into his
own practice.
For Instructor E, observing an instructor from a different pathway/department was
described as a “refreshing” experience. When talking about this, there was almost a tone of
surprise in Instructor E’s remarks. She stated: “everyone doesn’t do the same thing the same
way.” Instructor E then provided an example of this, by describing her visit to Instructor H’s
classroom where she observed his use of a novel strategy (i.e., he had students pass a box around
amongst themselves to determine who would respond to the next question/prompt). She
remarked: “So there’s lots of ways to kinda just keep the conversation moving and I’m always
looking for new ideas. […] I like to keep the students stimulated. Four and a half hours every
day…is a long time, if you don’t like it. If you like it, it goes by like that.” Thus, for Instructor E,
her visits to other instructors’ classrooms/labs resulted in novel strategies being modeled for her.
After seeing those “new ideas” enacted, and noting their effectiveness, she claimed to “steal
them” for her own classroom/lab, believing that their newness would help to keep her own
students “stimulated,” or engaged.
Instructor E also had the opportunity to see a practice modeled by Instructor C, which
subsequently prompted her to not only reflect upon this particular practice but also to appropriate
it into her own practice. In this situation, the practice was one she had previously disregarded as
ineffective. In her description of this experience, Instructor E first referenced a discussion with
Instructor F that occurred at one of the CTE team meetings. She reflected: “We were talking
213
about [using student] names and he was asking me, ‘Does it seem like when you call students
names like you’re singling them out, do they feel picked on?’ And I said, ‘I don't know, but
that’s really the main reason why I didn’t do that.’” She then explained:
When I was in school, I hated for the teacher to call on me by name. Off guard, out of the
blue, I'm thinking of what am I gonna be doing when I get out of the class and they're like,
‘[Instructor E].’ It made me very uncomfortable and anxious, and I know that’s why I
don’t do it. Because sometimes, you’ll call on someone and all eyes are on them. And
you see them instantly just freeze. So [now] when I do it, I am trying to pick a topic that I
know they know the answer to, not like a test. Because when they don't know and you’re
calling on them and everyone’s looking and waiting, then it makes [them] feel small.
Instructor E then remarked how it was really after seeing Instructor C use a “light” application of
the strategy that she started to wonder about incorporating it into her own practice. Observing it
work in Instructor C’s class got her thinking: “How can I do it differently? How can I call on
them directly, but do it in a manner where they can’t answer incorrectly? Or be wrong or feel bad
or be anxious.” Based on the above comments, it seems that her previous experiences of being
called on as a student left her believing that such a strategy was ineffective. However, after
seeing Instructor C effectively model this practice of calling on individual students in ways that
seemingly did not make the students uncomfortable, Instructor E reflected further and eventually
opted to appropriate this previously disregarded strategy into her own practice.
Externally-facilitated CTE team. Instructor B characterized team meetings as a space
in which “best practices” for the classroom were modeled. As he explained: “I would say that
the exercises we did in the [CTE team meetings] that were sort of modeling what we could do in
the classroom were really helpful to me.” This included, “having an agenda that laid out exactly
214
what we would do each time, [and moving through] a review of what we'd discussed in previous
[meetings].” Instructor B explained that, in addition to the above two practices, he also
appropriated an activity called ‘Final Word,’ after seeing it modeled at a CTE team meeting.
When reflecting on his appropriation of this activity, Instructor B described some of the thinking
he had to do before implementing the ‘Final Word,’ and how the prospect of being observed
actually encouraged him to try out the activity in his own class.
To actually be observed…it encouraged me to try something different, to try this exercise
which I had been toying around with in my head for a while. But I was trying to figure
out the right way to present it, because…I mean a lot of what we do is lab...[it’s] very
hands on, very much lab work, so there isn't necessarily a lot of time for reading and
discussion and reflection and things like that, so I was trying to find some way to
integrate that into what they were doing.
In essence, after Instructor B saw this activity modeled and had spent time reflecting on its
applicability, he was prompted to integrate a version of it during one of the lessons in which he
was observed. Thus, for him, while the CTE team meeting served as the venue in which new
practices were modeled, peer observation seemed to provide the impetus to actually test out these
new ideas in his own practice.
Feeding Back
Some participants’ descriptions of their experiences reveal that participation in the PD
intervention provided access to feedback that operated as an additional means of assistance for
learning. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) define feedback as information pertaining to one’s
performance that is reflected back by someone else or the self (or in this case, also via data). In
215
this study, peer observation was the primary venue through which feedback was provided to
these participants.
Peer observation. Some instructors (Instructors A, B, E, G, and H) described receiving
influential feedback from other CTE team members during the peer observation debriefs that
were part of iteration #2. Instructor B spoke about this type of feedback in general terms,
highlighting how the opportunity to receive feedback from someone who he recognized as a
“good teacher” is what made the experience valuable. He shared: “It's great to have someone
who's a really good teacher, who I respect, come in and watch me teach and offer me feedback. It
helps tremendously.” Although these comments from Instructor B suggest that he received
feedback that was helpful, and they provide insight into a possible condition of effective
feedback (i.e., from a respected other), no specifics are provided to help illuminate the various
contours of this phenomenon.
Some participants provided more specific examples of receiving feedback. In some of
these latter cases, one consistent theme was that received feedback provided positive
reinforcement related to the use of a specific pedagogical or instructional practice. For example,
Instructor A shared that he appreciated receiving positive feedback about his intentional efforts
to get students involved in the lesson, particularly the practice of having students “get in front of
the class” and work through a problem on the board, and the practice of calling on students
seated in the back of the room. He stated: “I appreciate the observation of [me] getting students
up at the [white] board. I always try every class and I do tell them, ‘I think it's important you
should get in front of the class.’” Instructor A then explained: “[In this class] I picked on some
students in the back and if I know they're quiet or they're not comfortable then I just pick on
them, but then if I see that they don't respond, then I go on. But again, I tried so... I like that you
216
observed that, ‘cause I do try to incorporate students.” Considering Instructor A’s comments, it
seems that he had been making concerted efforts to get students involved in his lessons,
including some less-traditional ways (i.e., having students come to the front and work through
problems on the board; calling on students in the back of room), but perhaps had doubts about
whether these practices were as effective as he thought they might be. That he characterized one
of these practices as “picking” on students suggests he might have been casting these practices as
possibly even detrimental to overall student learning. The feedback that Instructor A received,
however, seemed to provide affirmation that his practices were appropriate. This analysis is
further supported by Instructor A’s later comment that he thinks the CTE team’s entire peer
observation enterprise is “a tool to help us realize how we are doing in the classroom,” and that
that’s “the value of something like this.”
Instructor H described a somewhat similar experience, although in his case the feedback
provided positive reinforcement around an aspect of his practice that he had not been consciously
tuned in to. When reflecting on this, Instructor H commented:
I got some feedback about the patterns that I'm using when I'm teaching, the way I
actually try to engage students, the type of questions I ask, and...that I do maintain the
same pattern throughout the whole lecture. So, that's very good for me to know that I'm
not always just doing things randomly. That I do have a specific pattern. Before, I didn't
even know that I had a pattern. So [now I am] like, ‘Oh, okay, so I do have a pattern that
is working.’
For Instructor H, it seems that receiving positive feedback was helpful because it enabled him to
learn about an effective aspect of his practice that he had not previously recognized (i.e.,
delivering open-ended questions every so often throughout the lesson, to keep students thinking
217
about the applicability of the specific topics being taught). That is, he is not just acting randomly
but rather employing “a pattern” in the way he engages students. Although he did not directly
state it, as a relatively new instructor this peer feedback likely served to foster Instructor H’s
self-efficacy beliefs about his pedagogical and instructional practice.
A related theme in participants’ descriptions of the feedback they received is the ways in
which it provided them with constructive criticism. Instructor G spoke generally about this,
stating, “The feedback is good because, like I said, you never know if what you're doing is
something where...[I'm] not saying it's wrong how you're teaching things, but it's like…‘Okay, if
you did it from a different angle, or a different approach, that may work better.’” Instructor G
then elaborated:
Constructive criticism is always good. And that's something that I make part of my class
also...Because a lot of times, you're gonna get constructive criticism when you get out
there [in the field], and it's not something to look at as being something negative. It's
always a learning... It's a learning process for instructors too, and it's good to get it from a
peer.”
Thus, from Instructor G’s perspective, without an objective (outside) viewpoint one may never
truly know if what he/she is doing is as good as it could be. Subsequently, he conceives of
feedback as “a learning,” and a natural part of being a professional. His comments, however, do
not include a specific example of constructive criticism that he received during the PD
intervention, and the ways in which that feedback might have influenced his practice.
While Instructor E shared comments suggesting that she too received constructive
criticism, her experience was more specific in nature. During her post-observation debrief with
Instructor C and myself, Instructor E stated: “I like that you said that I was asking [that
218
particular] question over and over and over again, because to hear someone else tell me that, I
don’t always even hear [myself say it], it’s like a knee jerk [reaction].” Here, Instructor E was
referring to our observation of her extensive use of the question: ‘Does that make sense?’ and its
ineffectiveness for overcoming a persistent problem she was having with her students—i.e., them
responding that they understood the focal topic when she questioned them during lecture and
then demonstrating in their lab work that they in fact did not understand. Receiving this
feedback was valuable for Instructor E, because it helped her identify a problematic aspect of her
pedagogical/instructional practice that she apparently otherwise had not recognized.
While most of the participants’ descriptions suggest that received feedback had some
form of impact on their practice, there is also evidence to suggest that in some situations the
feedback provided to an instructor had limited effect on that receiving instructor’s thinking
related to pedagogy and instruction. For example, during the debrief with Instructor H,
Instructor B provided this piece of feedback: “In terms of a wondering, one thing that I noticed
was that a lot of the responses were dominated by one student. […] And so, it just led me to
wonder if possibly calling on more specific students might be a possible way of sort of getting
some of the students who didn't speak as much [more] engaged.” Although Instructor H agreed
that this one student was dominating, and that it would be good to have more students engaged,
he did not seem to embrace the idea of “calling on more specific students.” This was evidenced
by his statement later in the debrief: “Sometimes I have a variety of students, most of them
participating, sometimes you only have one. But when you have that, how can I try to get them
more engaged without calling out names? […] I need to come up with a different strategy on that
part.” One cannot be certain as to why Instructor H was so adamant about not calling on
219
individual students during lecture, but the below comments shared during the final interview
suggest that perhaps it had something to do with his own experience as a student.
Because, as a student, when I'm taking a class, sometimes I might not understand the
question that I'm [being asked]. And sometimes I might answer something totally
different, not related, because I didn't understood the [question], so it makes me feel
kinda uncomfortable at that point. So I always try to remember as me, myself, as a
student. […] One of the challenges that I have is that since English is my second
language, sometimes the translation is slightly different, or [it] may delay [me] a couple
of seconds. So trying to figure out what they're asking…I just don't want my students to
feel uncomfortable. And [instead] I try to allow my students to gain that confidence with
me, and just be able to just ask any questions [one on one].
Thus, even after having been part of the CTE team’s discussion of the potential benefits of
calling on individual students (as opposed to only asking questions to the whole class), and after
receiving peer feedback suggesting this strategy as the fix for a particular problem he was
experiencing in his classroom, Instructor H’s own prior experience as a student prevailed as the
more compelling evidence upon which to base his decision about this aspect of
pedagogy/instruction.
Compiled peer observation data. In some cases (Instructors C and F), participants
described receiving feedback not from other individuals but rather from the compiled peer-
observation data. For example, Instructor C explained that in reviewing the compiled peer
observation data, the CTE team received a form of feedback that showed they were “leaving out”
a particular racial/ethnic group. She first stated: “We really got to see who asked, who didn't ask,
who was involved, [and] who wasn't involved. You really got to see that. Even though it was all
220
of us, I mean it was pretty telling.” When I asked her what it was specifically that the team saw
in these data, she replied:
If I remember correctly, I did see that a lot of the African American [students]...they were
not engaged at all. I mean it wasn't just them but I guess I was paying more attention [to
the fact] that they weren't engaged at all, and/or didn't ask questions or whatever but I
thought this was...To see it in print I thought was…valuable. I would have to believe that
everybody that cared enough about their class to want to engage everybody would see
that there was a group of people that we were leaving out.
Based on her comments, it seems that the data served as a form of feedback, revealing that one
particular group of students—African American/Black students—had been “left out” during
those segments of instruction that were captured by the team’s observations.
As we continued to discuss this situation, I asked Instructor C if this realization she had
just described would cause her to change what she does as an instructor. She responded:
Well I think being involved [in the CTE team] already has, because of the fact that I will
spend special attention [looking at this phenomenon]. I don't know if it's really special,
but I'll just make it a point to make sure that I look out for my African American students.
I don't know that I can make a difference ‘cause it is a give and take. I just have to make
sure that they know that I'm there for them, and that it's not a problem for them to ask me
questions, but…the learning process…is a two-way street, but a lot of the... It has to
come from both ways. I can only help so much; I can’t do it for you. I can only be there
to answer all your questions and stuff like that. So I think it has made a difference there.
Instructor C’s response suggests that through receiving this particular feedback from the data—
and perhaps through participating in the CTE team more broadly—she has become more aware
221
of her African American students. More specifically, she claimed to recognize the importance of
making sure they know that she’s “there for them,” and that they can ask questions if they need
help. What also comes across in her response, however, is that she still seems to allocate a
certain portion of responsibility for this disengagement to these students themselves. Although
she did not complete the statement: “the learning process is a two way street but a lot of the…,”
one can likely assume that she was going to suggest that many African American/Black students
don’t do their part, and thus she can “only help so much.” In sum, while the compiled peer
observation data seemed to help Instructor C recognize the link between
pedagogical/instructional practice and the existing equity gaps at Millennium College, and
prompt her to be more reflective about the extent to which she is attending to African
American/Black students (i.e., practitioner reflection), it might not have fully diminished her
previously held idea that this group of students needs to do more/better.
Similar to Instructor C, Instructor F also indicated that the compiled peer-observation
data collected by the CTE team served as a form of feedback. He stated that in seeing the
patterns of participation across the different racial/ethnic groups of students, “it just gives you an
idea of who are the ones that are going to speak more, [and] therefore it allows you to try to
encourage those [other groups of students] that are not [speaking up as much]. He then
elaborated: “If you come in the room and you know that the majority of the boys in the class, or
it’s the boys that speak the majority of the time, then you can use that information and try to pull
out the girls. That's the kinda data that you can get out of this. And I see that as almost equally as
valuable [as the CTE course completion data].” Thus, for Instructor F, the feedback provided
through the compiled peer observation data was considered valuable because of its usefulness for
222
instructors who wish to pay attention to pedagogical/instructional aspects, such as student
engagement across gender groups.
In sum, most of this study’s participants reported receiving feedback, either from another
instructor or through data, and this feedback seemed to assist the participants in a number of
different ways (i.e., positive reinforcement, constructive criticism, useful information, and such).
In at least one case, however, received feedback was not fully absorbed, presumably because the
individual’s prior experience was not in alignment with it.
Diverse Ideas
Some participants’ (Instructors C, E, F, G, and H) descriptions of their experiences reveal
that participation in the PD intervention provided access to diverse ideas that subsequently
served as an additional means of assistance for learning. For example, Instructor F shared that
through participating on the CTE team, he has “gotten to hear other opinions and other ways of
looking at things that [he] probably would not have thought about” on his own. Similarly,
Instructor C acknowledged that having various disciplines represented on the CTE team provided
constant access to diverse ideas that she would otherwise not have had. She explained:
You got plumbing, you got automotive, you’ve got the science guys and you got us. […]
So you got the arty people, you got the plumbers and you got all these different people,
but we all have the same problem […] So whatever, maybe, somebody’s doing in a
classroom, [it] is gonna help to bridge that [equity] gap [in CTE course completion] that
we [all] have.
In other words, team members represented different branches of the college and maintained
different sets of expertise, and therefore potentially had different ideas that they could share with
223
one other in relation to their shared problem (i.e., racial/ethnic inequity in course completion
rates).
Instructor E conveyed a similar sentiment. She shared that the CTE team members were
“all different, with different backgrounds, different upbringings, [and] different ideas,” and also
that the core function of the CTE group seemed to be “sharing [these] ideas.” In discussing how
this impacted her and/or other participants, she noted that when attending team meetings and
conducting peer observations in the other members’ classrooms, she “take[s] something from
each person.” Having this degree of access to diverse ideas is likely at least part of the reason
that Instructor E described the CTE team as a “nurturing environment,” in that it was a place
where she could access new ideas.
Instructor G provided somewhat contradictory remarks about having access to diverse
ideas. He first stated that participating in the CTE team provided “some better insight” into
“how I am as an instructor,” and “how other instructors do their job.” He specifically pointed to
the importance of being exposed to pedagogy and instruction in other disciplines. “It’s good to
get that perspective, especially from someone who is teaching a totally different discipline than
what I’m doing,” as they “may have different approaches.” In being exposed to these different
approaches, Instructor G recalled thinking to himself: “Okay, I can use that,” or “I can’t use that,”
or “[That] doesn’t work here, or “That would work here.” At another point, however, he
suggested that these ideas were not any different than what one would find in other “professional
development” experiences.
You learn something every meeting…[but] I wouldn’t say that it’s like I came running
out of there, came back over here, and [was] like ‘Oh, imagine that.’ No, it’s nothing like
that. It’s positive. It’s professional development, is how I look at it. It’s something
224
where it’s helping me professionally, and that’s how I view most of the committee
meetings we go to.
Thus, while Instructor G found the ideas shared within the CTE team to be helpful to him, his
latter comments suggest they may not have been particularly novel.
While most of the team members reported acquiring their new ideas or information
through direct interaction with another CTE team member (i.e., Member A receives idea X from
Member B), Instructor H described two instances when he acquired new ideas or information
through a third party (i.e., Member C receives idea X from Member B, who originally received it
from Member A). One of these instances happened during a team meeting when one member
was sharing about his experiences conducting peer observation. Instructor H recalls that this
member was sharing how he had observed that one of the other instructors employs a practice of
beginning each lesson with a review of problems covered during the previous lesson. This
member who had observed the practice in action had noted its apparent effectiveness and was
discussing with the CTE team the possibility of adopting a similar practice in his classroom. In
hearing this other team member’s reflection, Instructor H thought: “Hey, no, that makes sense,”
and as a result he applied a variation of the strategy in his own teaching. He now looks for
“patterns” in students’ daily lab assignments and begins the following class with a review of
problems that seemed particularly problematic for them.
Summary of How Learning Was Shaped by PD Intervention
The above analysis shows that learning on the personal plane was shaped through the
provision of three forms of assistance anticipated through my conceptual framework (i.e.,
cognitive structuring, modeling, and feedback), and one that was not (diverse ideas).
Additionally, all four forms of assistance were provided during various aspects of the peer
225
observation activities. During the disaggregated data analysis and the reviewing of
frameworks/concepts activities, assistance was provided in the form of cognitive structuring.
During the CTE team activities, assistance was provided in the forms of modeling and diverse
ideas. Worth noting, an examination of this data in accordance to the three identity trajectories
discussed in the preceding section reveals the following. Instructors within the identity
trajectory: an instructor seeking to improve his/her own pedagogical and instructional practice,
reported on average three instances of receiving assistance. Instructors within the identity
trajectory: an instructor aspiring to make a difference not only in the lives of those he/she
teaches but also in the lives of all students at Millennium College, reported on average two
instances of receiving assistance. Finally, Instructor E who was within the identity trajectory: a
person of color overcoming a world of subtle racism, reported four instances of receiving
assistance. While one can only speculate about these patterns, two interesting trends stand out.
First, regardless of years of teaching experience, all participants reported receiving assistance
during the PD intervention. This seems to suggest that learning among CTE instructors is an
ongoing phenomenon and assistance can be provided/received even later in one’s tenure as an
instructor. Second, those with less teaching experience reported receiving more assistance
during the PD intervention (Instructor E was the exception). This seems to suggest that CTE
faculty who are relatively new to the role may require and or benefit from a greater amount of
assistance.

226
CHAPTER VII:
Learning Along the Interpersonal Plane
The sociocultural perspective conceives of learning as occurring along three planes:
institutional/cultural, interpersonal, and personal (Rogoff, 1995). In this chapter, I investigate
learning along the interpersonal plane. I begin by first examining what, if anything, was learned
through participation in the PD intervention, and then transition to how that learning was shaped
through participation in the PD intervention.
What Was Learned?
To guide my analysis of what was learned along the interpersonal plane, I focus attention
on Wenger’s (1998) dimensions of practice: mutual engagement, joint enterprise, and shared
repertoire. Wenger posits that learning along the interpersonal plane occurs when a community
of practice: (a) evolves for itself, new forms of working together that enhances its collective
performance (i.e., mutual engagement); (b) fine-tunes short- and/or long-term goals (i.e., joint
enterprise); and (c) refines its shared resources for negotiating meaning (i.e., shared repertoire).
Since I functioned as the CTE team’s primary facilitator throughout the duration of the PD
intervention and was therefore largely responsible for orchestrating the group’s mutual
engagement, I do not include an analysis of the CTE team’s evolution with respect to this
dimension of practice as there was limited time and/or space for it to evolve independent of me.
I do, however, focus analytic attention on their joint enterprise and shared repertoire. Ultimately,
I show that the CTE team: (a) fine-tuned their joint enterprise by shifting their orientation related
to the team’s stated goal, and (b) refined their shared repertoire of resources by appropriating
student engagement as a key element for understanding pedagogical and instructional practice,
227
and student success as a phenomenon that occurs along racial/ethnic lines and not just in the
aggregate form.
Fine-Tuned Joint Enterprise
One of the ways that learning along the interpersonal plane can be indexed is when a
community of practice, such as the CTE team, fine-tunes their joint enterprise across time
(Wenger, 1998). As Wenger explains, joint enterprise is not exactly their stated goal but rather
what gets worked out by community members in their pursuit of that stated goal. Importantly, it
incorporates: “what matters and what does not, what is important and why it is important, what
to do and not to do, what to pay attention to and what to ignore, what to talk about and what to
leave unsaid” (Wenger, 1998, p. 81). Thus, to shed light on whether the CTE team fine-tuned
their enterprise, I examine what they paid attention to (and relatedly what they did not pay
attention to) while pursuing their stated goals, in both the early and late phases of the PD
intervention. Ultimately, I show that the CTE team fine-tuned their enterprise from one that was
largely centered on improving student success through a focus on students, to one that was
centered on improving student success through including a more explicit focus on faculty.
Beginning of PD intervention. At the first meeting of the CTE team, I provided an
overview of the following three core ideas within which the CTE team’s work would be
grounded. First, problems of practice can be addressed through researchers and practitioners
engaging together in a process of iterative co-design related to that problem of practice (i.e.,
DBIR; Penuel et al., 2011). Second, becoming best practitioners (i.e., addressing pressing
problems through a continuous cycle of data analysis, inquiry, design, implementation, and
evaluation) can be more impactful than simply implementing pre-packaged best practices (CUE,
2016). Third, an equity-mindedness approach can help to remediate racial/ethnic equity gaps in
228
student success rates (Bensimon, 2012). In light of these three core ideas, I proposed the
following set of objectives to guide the group’s joint work:
• Prepare and analyze relevant institutional data (e.g., course completion data)
• Conduct inquiry into faculty’s instructional and pedagogical practices, and the ways in
which students experience those practices
• Design and implement interventions to refine aspects of instruction and pedagogy
needing improvement
• Further develop team members’ capacity for leading instructional and pedagogical
improvement efforts
• Further develop team members’ capacity for reading and using data in decision-making
processes
Last, I explained that the team’s focus would be on CTE faculty practice and its relation to
student learning experiences and outcomes, and clarified that the group’s ultimate goal was to:
improve student success at Millennium College and make it more equitable across racial/ethnic
lines.
Once the above groundwork had been laid, I facilitated an activity in which CTE team
members (working in triads) were asked to: (a) identify the most challenging aspects of CTE
pedagogy/instruction, (b) explain what those challenges looked like when they were unfolding in
the classroom, and (c) draft an inquiry question one could ask to potentially expose new insights
related to those challenging aspects of pedagogy/instruction. Table 11 illustrates the products of
this small-group activity.

229
Table 11
Challenging Aspects of Pedagogy/Instruction & Corresponding Inquiry Questions

Instructors Most challenging
aspects of
instruction/pedagogy

What it looks like
in classroom
Possible inquiry
question we
might ask
Alternative
practitioner-focused
inquiry question
(I proposed to the team)
GROUP 1

(Instructors
B & E)
Engaging students and
encouraging
participation
Students withdraw
from class
activities, and if
left alone, will not
succeed.
Why don’t
students
participate
actively in class
activities?
What are faculty doing,
or not doing, in the
classroom that seems to
lead students towards
disengagement?

Managing time to
ensure all
competencies are
acquired
Students come up
against unforeseen
barriers and there
is not ample time
to adjust.

Why are students
struggling to gain
course
competencies in
the time allotted?
What are faculty
members who are not
experiencing this
problem doing to avoid
it?

Keeping the whole
group moving
Students are at
different skill
levels; some may
feel the class is
moving too
quickly and others
may feel it is
moving too
slowly…both may
not stay engaged.
Why are students
achieving
competencies at
different rates?
In what ways do faculty
members differentiate
their instruction to
accommodate all of the
different learners in
their classrooms?
GROUP 2

(Instructors
G, H, & I)
Lack of resources,
such as training
equipment
Having to find
creative ways to
help students
understand and
visualize subject
content.
How are
successful faculty
members
overcoming this
problem?

Same as proposed
Transitioning from
being an industry
professional to being
an educator
Lesson planning,
instruction,
assessment, etc.
How can the
college better
prepare/support
new faculty?
What aspects of
classroom
instruction/pedagogy
are new faculty
members finding most
challenging in their first
week, month, year?
GROUP 3

(Instructors
A & C)
Overcoming students’
lack of preparation;
having to incorporate
basic skills instruction
Students cannot
perform tasks, are
slow to turn in
work, achieve low
grades, are absent,
and/or don’t
participate.

How can the
college prepare
students for the
rigor of courses?
In what ways do faculty
members with
consistently high course
completion rates seem
to be overcoming this
problem?
230

The inquiry questions outlined in the above table show that, early in the PD intervention,
the CTE team’s attention was largely focused on students and their actions, rather than on faculty
members (or, the institution more broadly) and their practice. For example, Group one
identified: “engaging students and encouraging participation” as a challenging aspect, and their
corresponding inquiry question was: “Why don’t students participate actively in class activities?”
An alternative faculty-focused inquiry question might have been: What are faculty doing, or not
doing, in the classroom that seems to lead students towards engagement and/or disengagement?
Thus, even after having just reviewed the objectives intended to guide the team’s joint work—
which clearly established faculty members as the focal group—the members collectively
negotiated a joint enterprise that could have been articulated as: In order to improve student
success rates and make them more equitable, we need to figure out why our students (and in a
couple of instances, our institution) are not working in the ways we think they should be, and
then get them to fix themselves.
End of PD intervention. To determine whether the CTE team refined its joint enterprise,
one needs to understand the group’s negotiated joint enterprise at the end of the PD intervention,
and whether it signaled a shift from the group’s joint enterprise reflected at the start of the
intervention. Because there was not an activity at the conclusion of the intervention that
mirrored the one facilitated at the beginning (i.e., the activity that is illustrated in Table 11), I
instead turn to participants’ comments shared during the final interview. In particular, I consider
those comments shared while participants were reflecting on an artifact from the team’s joint
work (i.e., a document illustrating the equity gaps in CTE course completion rates at Millennium
College). In doing so, I theorize that these individual orientations are an appropriate proxy for
231
the team’s orientation towards the CTE team’s stated goal (i.e., improve student success rates
and make them more equitable).
73

In the previous chapter of this dissertation, I provided in-depth case studies of learning
along the personal plane for three members of the CTE team (i.e., Instructors A, D, and E). For
each of those individuals I showed evidence that through participation in the PD intervention
they generally moved from focusing solely on the ways in which students were responsible for
the observed equity gaps at Millennium (e.g., they were underprepared because of where they
grew up, they lacked motivation to dress/act professionally, etc.), to an emerging recognition that
faculty members also maintained some responsibility (i.e., faculty’s practices contributed to
these equity gaps, and/or ought to be remediated to eliminate this inequity). The degree to which
these three individuals’ demonstrated this shift in orientation across the PD intervention,
however, was not the same. While Instructor E’s orientation became almost exclusively focused
on faculty, Instructors A and D paired this notion with strands of their previously held student-
deficit perspectives.
An analysis of data related to the remaining five team members reveals a similar pattern.
First, all of these remaining participants demonstrated a general shift in orientation from one
focused largely on students to one that incorporated a focus on faculty. Second, the degree to
which these remaining team members demonstrated this shift in orientation seemed to be similar

73
Based on Rogoff’s (1995) description, participation at the interpersonal level “requires engagement in some
aspect of the meaning of shared endeavors, but not necessarily in symmetrical or even joint action” (p. 7). For
example, a student who is working independently in the library, while referring to artifacts (e.g., class handout)
and/or thinking about the lecture she attended earlier in the day, is considered to be participating along the
interpersonal plane (of the class to which her activity is connected). Relatedly, an instructor on the CTE team can be
participating in the CTE team when thinking about the activity of this group and/or interacting with any of its
artifacts. Both of these conditions (i.e., thinking about the CTE team’s activity, and interacting with artifacts) were
aspects of the final interview in this study. See Chapter IV for a full description of this study’s methods.

232
to either that of Instructor E, or that of Instructors A and D. Instructor G was the exception. See
Table 12 for an overview.

Table 12
End-of-Intervention Orientations Towards CTE Team’s Stated Goal

Almost exclusively
focused on faculty
Focused on faculty, but
maintained some focus
on students (and their
deficits)
Focused on faculty,
but maintained some
focus on institution,
and students (and
their deficits)
Instructors featured in case
studies (Chapter VI)
E A & D
Instructors NOT featured
in case studies
B & F C & H G

At the end of the PD intervention, Instructors B and F maintained orientations towards
the team’s stated goal that was similar to Instructor E (i.e., almost exclusively focused on
faculty). When asked in the final interview why the equity gaps at Millennium exist, Instructor
B indicated that he believes faculty members are “not doing enough to reach out to those
students [who belong to the groups experiencing an equity gap].” He then remarked: “It’s
difficult to talk about in ways…particularly to talk about my colleagues, that doesn’t sound like
I’m passing judgment on them, or the way they do their work, or the way they approach the
students.” Instructor B then added:
I don’t believe that anyone is consciously making an effort to [make this happen]...I mean,
I don’t. I don’t. That’s not to say it doesn’t happen from time to time and that there aren’t
the occasional bad apples who harbor racist attitudes, but I think there is something else
here that maybe they’re not conscious of.
Thus, at the end of the intervention, Instructor B’s orientation towards the team’s stated goal was
clearly centered on faculty, and in particular the ways in which their unconscious practices
prevent them from reaching students from within those groups experiencing an equity gap.
233
Instructor F’s response to this same question in the final interview (i.e., What is the cause
of Millennium’s equity gaps?) revealed that he too demonstrated a shift in orientation to one that
almost exclusively focused on faculty. He remarked: “I’d have to say it’s everything inside the
college…I think it’s me. I think it’s the instructor.” Instructor F then explained that students
from within the groups experiencing an equity gap are sometimes perceived by faculty as either
threatening or disrespectful. Threatening because of the way they look/dress or the way they
engage socially, and disrespectful because they might not attend every class or sometimes show
up late. As a result of these attributes, instructors are less likely to see that these students are
“here for a reason,” and how just their presence at the college represents a significant
attempt/effort on these students’ part. Moreover, because instructors perceive these students as
threatening and disrespectful, rather than as individuals who are making a big effort, they
demonstrate less “tolerance” for these students and their lack of “background knowledge,”
“[self-]discipline,” and perfect attendance. It is at this point, Instructor F remarked, “[that] you
have a problem.” This explanation from Instructor F clearly illustrated that his orientation
towards the CTE team’s stated goal at the end of the PD intervention was one that was focused
on faculty, and in particular their misinterpretation of student attributes/behaviors.
At the end of the PD intervention, Instructors C and H maintained an orientation towards
the CTE team’s stated goal that was more similar to that of Instructors A and D (i.e., focused on
faculty, but with some remaining strands of a student-deficit perspective). For example, in the
final interview, when asked how she might apply what she had learned through her participation
in the CTE team, Instructor C replied:
I’ll just make it a point to make sure that I look out for my African American students. I
don’t know that I can make a difference ‘cause it is a give and take. I just have to make
234
sure that they know that I’m there for them, and that it’s not a problem for them to ask me
questions, but…the learning process…is a two-way street, but a lot of the... It has to
come from both ways. I can only help so much; I can’t do it for you. I can only be there
to answer all your questions and stuff like that.
In other words, while Instructor C’s orientation towards the team’s stated goal reflected a focus
on faculty practice (i.e., she needs to “look out for” her African American students), it also
maintained a student focus (i.e., “it has to come from both ways”).
At the end of the intervention, Instructor H reflected a similar orientation towards the
CTE team’s stated goal to that of Instructor C. When asked about the cause of the equity gaps at
Millennium, he stated: “Part of it could be also the instructor. Part of it could be the way he’s
teaching his class.” However, he also explained that sometimes an equity gap could be occurring,
not because that particular racial/ethnic group is having a common experience that results in the
equity gap, but rather because individual students in that group are navigating personal issues
(e.g., family troubles, etc.) that might lead to their group collectively experiencing an equity gap.
Thus, he concluded: “So it comes down to the students, the instructor, personal life...It’s a
combination of literally everything.” In essence, Instructor H’s orientation at the end of the
intervention included a focus on faculty practice, but also with strands of a student focus.
Instructor G was somewhat unique from all of the other instructors in that he maintained
an orientation at the end of the intervention that included a focus on faculty, the institution, and
students. On the one hand, he shared how being introduced to disaggregated data analysis has
broadened his perspective to consider the impact his practices can have on student success. “The
[disaggregated data analysis] brought to my attention…It’s like, ‘Okay, how is my training
affecting certain ethnic groups?’” He then elaborated:
235
The equity chart theory, I think, is something that caught my attention. That’s something
that I learned that I didn't really know about, how the discrepancies were there…Actually,
what it’s doing is giving me a broader perspective on teaching, not just teaching how to
fix something, but it’s like, ‘What kinda impact am I having?’
On the other hand, Instructor G implied that the equity gaps experienced by African American
students were at least partially due to the college’s failure to enroll students from this group,
stating: “As far as the equity gap, like I said, looking at the African American [group], it’s like
we just don’t get a lot of African Americans in here. So that’s what I notice more of. It’s not
about, ‘Are they graduating or not?’ We can get ‘em to graduate, we just gotta get ‘em here.”
74

Finally, Instructor G also stated that students themselves play a role in producing these outcomes,
due to legal issues, family issues, and such. In noting this, he commented that faculty “don’t
have any control over the things that are going on outside of school.” Thus, Instructor G’s
orientation towards these equity gaps was distributed across faculty, students, and the institution.
In summary, while the activity conducted at the beginning of the intervention illustrated
that the CTE team maintained an orientation towards the CTE team’s stated goal (i.e., improve
students success, and make it more equitable) that was largely vacant of a focus on faculty
practice, their end-of-intervention orientations all reflected some degree of focus on this aspect.
This evidence therefore suggests the CTE team fine-tuned their enterprise, which subsequently
illustrates one aspect of what was learned at the interpersonal level.
Refined Repertoire
Another way in which learning along the interpersonal plane can be indexed is when the
said group has, across time, refined their shared repertoire of resources for negotiating meaning

74
This idea that the college was perhaps not doing all that it should to recruit African American/Black students was
more explicitly stated by Instructor G at a separate time during this same interview.
236
(Wenger, 1998). As Wenger explains, this refinement can involve a range of activities,
including: “renegotiating the meaning of elements,” and/or creating or appropriating new
“representations.” Throughout the PD intervention, a variety of new resources were introduced
to the CTE team. Some of these resources took the form of reified (Wenger, 1998) concepts,
such as: student engagement (e.g., Danielson’s 2016 “Student Intellectual Engagement”), and
student success (e.g., data tables illustrating course completion rates disaggregated by
race/ethnicity). Once introduced to the CTE team, these resources/reifications existed as artifacts
that were part of the interpersonal plane of learning. One way of getting a read as to whether or
not the CTE team appropriated any of these resources/reifications is through examining the
degree to which individual team members invoke them when discussing pedagogy and
instruction and/or student success, at both early and later phases of the intervention. In analyzing
the data along these lines, I show that the CTE team: (a) renegotiated the meaning of student
engagement, and ultimately appropriated it as a key element for understanding pedagogical and
instructional practice; and (b) appropriated a new representation of student success as a
phenomenon that occurs along racial/ethnic lines and not just in the aggregate form.
Student engagement as a key component of teaching and learning. Early in the PD
intervention, student engagement was not an explicit focus of CTE team members’
characterizations of effective teaching and learning. During the first interview, when describing
what effective pedagogical and instructional practice looks like, four of the team members
(Instructors A, C, D, and F) made no significant reference to student engagement. Two others
(Instructors E and H) mentioned it once or twice, but only in a superficial manner (e.g., “I try to
engage everyone”). The two exceptions to this trend were Instructors B and G, who both
included more substantive references to student engagement in their descriptions. For example,
237
Instructor G spoke about “active learning” as a core aspect of effective instruction; and Instructor
B noted that effective instructors “are not just engaging with a few but with all of the students,”
and he implied that engagement is an aspect of practice about which an instructor ought to be
intentional. Examining participants’ characterizations of effective teaching and learning at the
end of the PD intervention, however, reflects broad invocation of the concept of student
engagement as a more central element for understanding pedagogy and instruction, thus
signaling the appropriation of this resource into the CTE team’s repertoire.
Importantly, as Wenger (1998) has explained, when a community of practice appropriates
any resource as part of its repertoire, it is that tool’s inherent ambiguity that enables it to function
as a mechanism for negotiating meaning within that community. In other words, appropriation
of a tool at the group level does not imply shared meaning among all members. Indeed, this was
true of the CTE team’s invocation of the concept of student engagement. Even though it came to
occupy a more central position in all team members’ descriptions of teaching and learning, a
variety of interpretations were implied (see Table 13 for an overview).

Table 13
Variant forms of Student Engagement Invoked by CTE Team

Student engagement is
explicitly invoked, but
the stance taken is that
not all students need to
be “actively” engaged.
Student engagement is
not explicitly invoked,
but some of its core
principles are.
Student engagement
is explicitly invoked
as are many of its
core principles.
Instructors featured in case
studies (Chapter VI)
E D A
Instructors NOT featured
in case studies
F C B, G, & H

In the case studies outlined in Chapter VI, I laid out evidence illustrating the ways in
which Instructors A, D, and E transformed their understandings and activities related to
238
pedagogy and instruction through participation in the PD intervention. In short, these three cases
reflected appropriation of the concept of student engagement in different forms, and those three
forms are similar to the variations invoked by the remaining five CTE team members, at the end
of the PD intervention. For example, like illustrated in Instructor E’s case study, Instructor F
referenced student engagement in his description of effective pedagogy and instruction, but
asserted that only “half” of the students ought to be actively engaged while the others “follow
along.” He asserted: “It’s almost impossible to expect 100% participation. Matter of fact, 100%
participation [chuckle] would be almost disruptive. So, if you can get half of the students, you’re
doing a good job then. [...] The other half are just listening. The other half are absorbing it.”
The case study of Instructor D revealed that he did not make extensive explicit references
to student engagement when characterizing pedagogy and instruction in the final interview.
Instead, his discussion pertaining to the new actions he was taking in his classroom invoked
some of the concept’s core principles (e.g., calling on individual students and implementing wait
time after delivering a question). Similarly, in Instructor C’s final interview, she too did not
explicitly name student engagement when asked to characterize effective pedagogy/instruction.
Instead, she invoked some of its core principles in her descriptions of the instructional techniques
(i.e., broad student participation, instructors asking questions, etc.) that were seemingly missing
in a classroom she had just observed (not a CTE team member’s classroom). Thus, both of these
team members (Instructors D and C) invoked student engagement when either discussing their
own actions, or when assessing the actions of others. Interestingly, however, they did so without
significant explicit naming of the concept.
The remaining instructors (B, G, and H) invoked the concept of student engagement in
ways similar to that depicted in the case study of Instructor A. For these four instructors, their
239
characterizations of effective teaching and learning explicitly named student engagement, as well
as substantively described many of its core principles. For example, after being asked in the
final interview how he would determine if an instructor was effective, Instructor H immediately
replied: “By looking at the engagement of the students.” He then implied that one can evaluate
an instructor’s entire “system,” by examining whether that instructor “encourage[s] some
students to, at times, talk among themselves…[and/or] try to answer questions.” He added: “I
believe that looking at the instructor response to the students gives you an idea of whether
[he/she is] actually doing the job properly or not.” In essence, for Instructor H, the core of an
instructor’s success seemed to hinge on the degree to which he/she engaged the students in the
classroom, via a variety of strategies.
Instructor B’s invocation of the concept of student engagement was also deeper in that it
reflected his comprehensive understanding of the principles undergirding it. In his final
interview, Instructor B first described student engagement as a “high level of interaction between
students and the instructor, or the students and other students,” and noted that it is something the
instructor ought to take explicit actions to make happen. It was Instructor B’s further reflection
about this concept, however, that signaled his deeper understanding of it. He implied that some
students, good students, don't voluntarily engage in class discussion and the instructor needs to
take specific actions to reach out to those students “who are hiding” by directly asking them
questions. He remarked:
I don’t think anyone comes here with the intention of not being involved. I think it comes
from a feeling of maybe not feeling welcomed, or not feeling like you have the... I don't
know if ‘agency’ is the right word, but feeling like you don’t... I used to use the word
‘comfort’…that they don’t feel comfortable talking, but I don’t think it’s comfort. I think
240
it’s actually, I think it’s something a little deeper. It’s like a powerlessness. That’s why I
feel like, when students are empowered, then they feel like they can engage. They feel
like they can be involved.
Instructor B then added that when instructors get students involved in class discussion, it gives
them “affirmation,” because it “let[s] them know that their opinion and their voice is valuable to
the conversation.” Thus, instructor B’s invocation of the concept of student engagement was not
only about getting students more involved in their learning, it was also about providing them
with opportunities to feel affirmed and empowered, like they had a sense of agency.
Instructor G also demonstrated this deeper invocation of the concept of the student
engagement concept. After noting that it would be one of two things he would look for to assess
the effectiveness of an instructor (the other was degree of overall learning by students), he
explained what exactly it would look like in its effective form.
So I think…the most important thing, in my eyes, is just that, that camaraderie that’s
happening. ‘Cause when I teach a class, I like it to be where they feel that I’m one of
them. And I don't normally stand behind my desk when I talk. I like to come out around,
and be among them. If you ever come to one of my labs, I’m in there with them. It’s
almost like we’re on the roof working together. [...] Once that [trust is] established, you
just have a better environment [for learning]. [...] I [try to] break that barrier [between me
and the students] very quickly. My students call me by my first name. They don’t call me
professor or anything like that. First name, ‘cause I wanna make sure that, ‘Hey, I'm there
with you. I’m here to show you, I was where you were years ago...I learned, so I’m gonna
pass on what I learn to you.’ And I [have learned that] they’re more open [then] and
they’re not afraid to ask questions.
241
Thus, for Instructor G, student engagement also did not conceptually hang on simply asking
and/or responding to students’ questions. Instead, it was conceived of as developing
“camaraderie” and “trust” within the teaching-learning enterprise that would enable students to
see themselves in the instructor and ultimately feel comfortable to ask questions and engage in
more open ways that in turn would support their learning. In essence then, for both Instructors B
and G, their invocation of student engagement reflected a more pedagogical bent (i.e.,
highlighted building of relationships and students’ motivations) than an instructional one (i.e.,
highlighted content and its effective delivery), like that demonstrated by Instructors C, D, and H.
Appropriating a new representation of student success. Team members described
their pre-intervention engagement with student success data as being primarily focused on
aggregate-level statistics (Instructor B was an exception). Indeed, an analysis of the previous
semester’s program review reports from each program of study represented in the CTE team
showed that only one of the seven reports (i.e., the report from Instructor A’s program of study)
included an analysis/discussion of data disaggregated along the lines of race/ethnicity. The PD
intervention upon which this study is focused emphasized disaggregated data analysis. More
specifically, as part of their joint activity, the CTE team analyzed course completion rates
disaggregated by race/ethnicity, and used the percentage-point gap (PPG) method to identify
racial/ethnic equity gaps. In essence, these types of activities introduced a new representation of
student success as a phenomenon that occurred along the lines of race/ethnicity, rather than only
in the aggregate. Examining individual team members’ reflections related to student success
during the latter phase of the intervention reveals that they all invoked this latter representation
of student success (i.e., as a phenomenon occurring along the lines of race/ethnicity), thus
signaling the team’s appropriation of this resource into their repertoire.
242
In some cases, individual team member’s reflections illustrating this appropriation of a
new representation for student success unfolded during CTE team meetings. For example,
during the team’s month-nine meeting when members were analyzing the same data packets (i.e.,
course completion rates at the program level) that had been distributed to all Millennium faculty
just four months prior as part of the college’s program review process, Instructor A described
how the CTE team’s analysis activity had enabled a more nuanced understanding of these data.
He remarked: “…our [i.e., the college’s] focus is what it’s not supposed to be. It’s more on the
general…doing an exercise like this, at least it makes you think of what’s happening in the
numbers, right?” Here, Instructor A conveyed his belief that in the absence of this type of data
analysis (i.e., using PPG to identify equity gaps in disaggregated data), faculty at Millennium
College had been primarily focused on “the general” (i.e., aggregate) rate of student success. In
using the PPG method, he implied, it “makes you think” more specifically about how that
success is occurring along lines of race/ethnicity.
During this same meeting, Instructor C shared comments that seemed to affirm Instructor
A’s above sentiments. She stated: “I don’t think I really saw anything [the first time I looked at
this data]…I don’t know, I guess…or maybe I just didn't really look at it. But seeing it right here,
all concise like this? Yeah…it’s startling for me…to see this.” She then elaborated: “I
mean…you know, you…you…you make assumptions, but you don’t necessarily…I mean here
it’s…it’s right there in black, white, and flesh.” These remarks from Instructor C revealed that
her previous engagement with these data had not caused her to recognize the existing equity gaps.
The CTE team’s engagement with the data, however, led her to a “startling” realization that in
fact a certain student group (i.e., African American/Black students) was experiencing a relatively
significant equity gap. Considering that she had previously overlooked this inequity in the data,
243
and that her subsequent discovery of it provoked such a strong emotional response, one can
likely presume that going forward her representation of the concept of student success continued
as that of an aspect that occurs along lines of race/ethnicity, and not only in the aggregate.
Instructor E delivered a similar reflection during this same CTE meeting. Instead of
reflecting about her previous engagement with these particular data packets, however, Instructor
E shared about how she previously had looked at course completion, more generally, across her
tenure at the college.
I’m looking at this and I understand it, but when I teach my class, and let’s say the first
day I have 45 people, and then… by week six, let’s say I have 25 people…I’ve always
looked at it that way: ‘What is my overall retention? How many people actually stayed in
the class.’ And even though I’m looking at the overall, I’ve never in my mind done this.
Like, what groups…I’m just looking at [overall] numbers.
Thus, for Instructor E also, the CTE team’s data analysis activity caused her to see beyond the
“overall” statistic. In so doing, she appropriated a new representation for the concept of student
success that took into account “which [racial/ethnic] groups” were being retained, not just how
many “overall.”
The remaining CTE team members invoked this new representation of student success
during the final interviews conducted in the study. For example, Instructor F stated: “I think
what I’ve learned are the facts...the differences in the data [...] It’s the data that I see now. And
before, it was just hearsay...but now you could see the data.” Here, Instructor F implied that
prior to participating in the intervention he had heard others speak about racial/ethnic inequity at
the college, but without actually seeing it in the data this conclusion was only “hearsay.”
Instructor F remarked that his own realization, about the differences in the data, was important,
244
“because people can sometimes just…generalize things, and I like to see evidence…[and] I think
I saw a lot of evidence.” He then added:
…knowing a little bit more about how the data’s swaying…allows me to kind of direct
the way I think, or the way I teach…The ones with the bigger differences, I feel they can
use...[or] need maybe a little more help. I’m thinking now: ‘What can I do to improve the
situation?’
Thus, Instructor F came to recognize student success data—analyzed along lines of
race/ethnicity—as the mechanism through which racial/ethnic inequity at the college could be
evidenced. His appropriation of this representation of student success (i.e., as occurring along
lines of race/ethnicity) was reflected in the way he now thinks about and carries out his teaching,
in that he directs pedagogical/instructional attention not just at the aggregate level, but also along
lines of race/ethnicity.
In the final interview, Instructor G shared that even though he prefers not to think about
his students’ ethnicity, the data analysis activities conducted within the CTE team have caused
him to think differently about this. He reflected:
I think more of the equity as far as…I try not to look at that ‘cause I try not to look at
things from an ethnicity standpoint, but it’s brought to my attention. It’s like, ‘Okay, how
is my training affecting certain ethnic groups?’
He then added: “The equity chart theory, I think, is something that caught my attention. That’s
something that I learned that I didn’t really know about, how the discrepancies were there. So I
can [now] talk a little bit about that.” Thus, prior to participating in this PD intervention,
Instructor G actually refrained from thinking about student success along lines of race/ethnicity.
Like his team members, however, through participating in the intervention’s data analysis
245
activities, he came to realize that “discrepancies were there.” Consequently, this realization has
led him to think about the ways in which his pedagogical/instructional practice affects different
racial/ethnic groups, and he claimed to be able to understand it enough to be able to “talk” about
it. Thus, he too appropriated a representation of student success as a phenomenon occurring
along lines of race/ethnicity.
Instructor D shared a similar experience. He reflected that prior to the intervention, “not
knowing that there was an equity gap,” he probably would have just “look[ed] at the individual
student’s accomplishments.” He then asserted: “But now, when I do my grades, and I look
through who got what…I might look at it like where is it? Is there an equity gap here in what
I’ve done, what I’ve created?” As a result of participating in the CTE team, and recognizing that
racial/ethnic equity gaps existed at the college, he is likely to think about the different
experiences of various racial/ethnic groups of students in his class. For example, he might
consider the assessment results from his class along the lines of race/ethnicity to determine if he
has “created” inequity. Thus, based on these remarks, Instructor D also appropriated a
representation of student success as a racialized phenomenon.
It is not as clear whether Instructor H appropriated this new representation of student
success to the same degree that the other instructors did. In his final interview, he did imply the
need to continuously examine student data to identify if there are “gaps,” but one cannot say for
certain if he meant racial/ethnic gaps. He commented:
…sometimes there are instructors that get into a comfort zone, and they don’t change.
They’ve been doing it for years, and they think ‘I’ve been doing it for years, and it has
worked for me.’ ‘Okay, it has been working for you, but has it been working for the
students?’ ‘Cause that's where we come out, ‘Okay, look at our results. There’s a big gap
246
in our completion [rates] because there are some things that we’re not doing correct and
we need to identify them.
In another section of the interview, Instructor H explained his belief that even though
racial/ethnic equity gaps do exist at the college, one cannot make generalized conclusions based
on that data. He reflected:
So we have a certain amount of students that are of a certain race that are not completing
as much. But I believe that...it’s kind of hard to generalize. [...] I don’t look at my class
that way. So, it’s kind of hard for me to try to figure out exactly why do we have a huge
gap between these two types. Because [for example,] the way I run my class during lab
work, I have groups with different types of ethnicities working together. […] [So,] I
believe it’s kinda hard to generalize ethnicity, because we all go through different
problems sometimes, and that sometimes has a huge effect on our school.
Here, Instructor H revealed that, even after participating in the PD intervention, he maintained a
belief that individual-level analysis is really the best way of understanding why a student is or is
not successful. “Generalizing” student success along the lines of race/ethnicity might not be
entirely accurate.
In the case of Instructor B, it was not that he failed to appropriate this new representation
of student success, but rather he already had largely appropriated it prior to participating in the
PD intervention. That said, through exposure to a new method for identifying racial/ethnic
equity gaps (i.e., PPG), Instructor B’s representation of student success as occurring along lines
of race/ethnicity was enhanced. After stating, “the course completion data was a revelation,”
Instructor B shared the following: “Well, we [i.e., the college] had looked at equity data before,
but we used a different...method…It was all based around a score of one. And that...doesn’t stand
247
out the way this does…It just shows everything being a slight variation from one and one was set
as the average for all students.” He then added: “…this stood out to me more and made me
realize, okay, there’s an issue here…The equity gaps are pretty glaring, when you look at it like
this.” Based on these remarks, the CTE team’s use of the PPG method caused him to see the
gaps at Millennium more clearly. In essence, participation provided him with a more effective
tool for seeing and understanding student success as a disaggregated phenomenon. In sum, all of
the CTE team members’ invoked a notion of student success as a phenomenon that occurs along
the lines of race/ethnicity (Instructor H possibly to a lesser degree), thus suggesting the
appropriation of this particular representation of student success at the team level. What is not
clear from this evidence, however, is whether the CTE team appropriated the practice of
disaggregating data along the lines of race/ethnicity.
In summary, the above analysis related to the CTE team’s repertoire shows that they
refined their shared resources for negotiating meaning (Wenger, 1998) through (a) renegotiating
the meaning of student engagement, and ultimately invoking it as a key element for
understanding pedagogical and instructional practice; and (b) appropriating a new representation
of student success as a phenomenon that occurs along lines of race and ethnicity and not just in
the aggregate form. Together, these refinements represent another aspect of what was learned at
the interpersonal level.
Ways in Which PD Intervention Shaped Learning Along the Interpersonal Plane
To guide my analysis of how participation in the PD intervention shaped learning along
the interpersonal plane, I draw on two sociocultural ideas. First, conceptual and practical tools
(Grossman et al, 1999) employed within a community of practice, like that of the CTE team, can
trigger the negotiation of meaning process, which is the primary mechanism for learning within
248
that group. The second sociocultural idea guiding my analysis of the ways in which the PD
intervention shaped learning along the interpersonal plane is that a community of practice’s
capacity for conducting joint work can be enhanced through efforts that Wenger (1998) labels as
“community maintenance” (p. 74). Here, I define community maintenance as building and
maintaining a sense of community and carrying out coordination efforts that support joint work.
Employing Tools That Trigger Negotiation of Meaning Process
Wenger (1998) theorizes that both reification (e.g., conceptual tools) and participation
(e.g., practical tools) are needed for the negotiation of meaning process, and they therefore
function as a duality. Because the PD intervention at Millennium College was created with this
duality in mind, both conceptual (e.g., frameworks or concepts described in literature) and
practical tools (e.g., co-designing and implementing a peer observation protocol and process, and
analyzing disaggregated student-success data) were included in its design. In this section, I
examine the ways in which these tools in the PD intervention triggered the negotiation of
meaning process—related to pedagogy and instruction and/or the ways in which pedagogy and
instruction are implicated in racial/ethnic equity in student success rates at Millennium
College—by examining the CTE team’s in-the-moment engagement with one conceptual tool
(i.e., a text about student engagement) and one practical tool (i.e., analysis of compiled peer
observation data). Ultimately, I show that these two tools triggered the negotiation of meaning
process. More specifically, this analysis reveals that in this case the process unfolded primarily
as participants: (a) building upon each other’s voiced ideas and experiences to create more robust
interpretations of relevant phenomena such as student engagement, and (b) surfacing their
previously held ideas (e.g., beliefs about student engagement and its link with low and
inequitable student success rates) for more conscious and critical examination. Significantly, the
249
degree to which the intervention’s conceptual and practical tools were effective for triggering the
negotiation of meaning process was itself shaped by the facilitation, or assistance (i.e.,
questioning and instructing), with which these tools were coupled. Important to note, although
the negotiation of meaning process produced by each individual tool in this intervention was
indeed unique, these two examples were selected for discussion here because they are generally
reflective of the processes that unfolded within the CTE team when these two types of tools were
brought into use.
Conceptual tool: A text about student engagement. During month eight of the PD
intervention, I introduced the CTE team to a text about student engagement, taken from Charlotte
Danielson’s (2016) The Framework for Teaching: Six Clusters Supporting Higher Level
Learning. The topics addressed in this reading, included: students being “intellectually active”
during a lesson (i.e., students, not instructors, doing much of the work/thinking; p. 11), students
engaging in “productive struggle” (i.e., the idea that learning is not always smooth and easy; p.
11), students being metacognitive in respect to their learning, and instructors facilitating “rich
learning tasks” that are matched with students’ levels of knowledge and ability (p. 11). To
facilitate the team’s review of this reading, I employed a text protocol known as Final Word
(School Reform Initiative, 2016) that involved participants first independently reading the text
and identifying a section/idea they found particularly striking. Participants then met in triads to
share and discuss these striking ideas they had identified in the text. Last, participants engaged
in a whole-group discussion about: (a) how an instructor can promote the types of student
engagement described in the reading, and (b) what one would need to look at within a
classroom/lab to assess whether the types of student engagement described in the reading were
250
actually occurring. The following excerpt reflects a portion of the CTE team’s collective
response to the latter of these two prompts.
Instructor I: What kind of works well is when there’s actually group work and you see
the students kind of going back and forth and kind of sharing ideas or
trying to…you know…present their case, if you will, to their
solution…among them, among their own peers.
Jason: Ok, so the student interaction or dialogue when they are in groups. Ok.
[…] Somebody said participation. Is that right? So, what would we look
for, specifically about participation?
Instructor I: I mentioned participation. I thought it was…well that’s part of the
participation there [pointing to the list of ideas being drafted on chart
paper]…the other thing is if they’re not doing group work and he’s
lecturing, is the class like…you know…engaged. Is he asking questions,
are they responding, are they even…
Instructor E: Paying attention.
Instructor I: Yeah.
Jason: Ok, so I heard a couple of things. So, we would need to pay attention to
the instructor’s questions, and…you said: ‘are they engaged?’ What does
that look like though?
Instructor I: That looks like umm…a couple of things. Number one, if you walk into a
classroom and…let’s say that the instructor is asking questions and maybe
there could be one student responding to the question, but you can really
tell when students are kind of chit-chatting amongst themselves trying
251
to…they’re talking about what they’re looking at versus their latest
Facebook posts, right? It’s…you kind of can see that. So, even though
there may be…you can kind of see when the class…when the majority of
students are really really captured by what’s being taught.
Jason: Ok. So, student attention is focused or captured.
Up until this point, one team member was articulating his ideas about what effective student
engagement looks like (e.g., groups of students “going back and forth and kind of sharing
ideas”), and thus what one would want to pay attention to if attempting to assess student
engagement in a given classroom/lab (e.g., Is the instructor “asking questions,” and “are [the
students] responding”). As Instructor I shared these ideas, I, as the facilitator, was assisting him
by asking questions to either redirect his attention to the intended focal topic of this conversation
(e.g., “So what would we look for, specifically about participation?”) or to prompt him to
provide greater specificity in his descriptions to the other team members (e.g., “What does that
look like though?”). As the conversation continued, other members began responding to
Instructor I’s remarks.
Instructor A: There’s a comfort level by the students when he is talking about them
chatting…they feel comfortable in the class. They are not quiet, or to
themselves. They are engaged in the activities in the classroom.
Jason: So, in this case, their comfort level is apparent by the fact that…they’re
feeling free to say something.
Instructor A: Yeah…to say something.
Jason: Ok…
252
Instructor F: Yeah, I think a sub-component of that is they are sharing their experiences
and telling you what they think about the concept and the examples.
Jason: Ok. Sharing ideas. Anyone wanna put up anything else?
Instructor I: I would just say that, you know, in terms of the students being
comfortable…you know something that’s very telling of whether students
are constantly being engaged in the class is not only how comfortable they
are with the instructor, but also with each other. Because, when good
engagement and good teaching is happening, students do become not only
engaged with the faculty, but they also get to be more engaged with their
own peers. So, sometimes when you walk in there…and if you can kind of
get a sense for, you know…that, you know, what would I call that…
Instructor C: The camaraderie.
Instructor I: Yeah…between em, you know?
Instructor C: Mmhm.
In the latter segment of this excerpt from the CTE team’s conversation, two members
(Instructors A and F) responded to what they heard Instructor I say, and in both scenarios, these
comments built upon what Instructor I had just stated. Instructor A remarked: “when he [i.e.,
Instructor I] is talking about them chatting…they feel comfortable in the class.” Here, Instructor
A was adding his hypothesis about why the students are chatting. That is, because they feel
comfortable enough to do so. Instructor F then added: “I think a sub-component of that [i.e.,
Instructor A’s idea about students feeling comfortable]…is that they are sharing their
experiences.” In other words, students get comfortable in a classroom through contributing their
ideas, thus suggesting this phenomena of sharing ideas and feeling comfortable are reciprocal in
253
nature. After hearing these comments from Instructors A and F, Instructor I then shared his
thinking that seems to have been in response to what he had just heard. He noted that if one is
trying to assess the degree to which students are engaged in a given class, he/she can look at
whether students seem comfortable with each other. As he wraps up his line of reasoning, he
struggles to come up with the exact phenomenon he is describing, but Instructor C, who has
clearly been following along, is quick to respond with the correct label he was looking for:
“camaraderie.”
The above example illustrates how this Danielson (2016) text introduced to the CTE team
functioned as a conceptual tool. It presented a reified or “congealed” image of the complex
experience of student engagement (Wenger, 1998, p. 59), but because reifications “are only the
tip of an iceberg” that do not fully capture the “larger contexts of significance realized in human
practices” (p. 61), its engagement necessitated interpretation by the CTE team. Put more simply,
the text foregrounded thinking about the experience of student engagement, and prompted the
negotiation of meaning process within the team in respect to what this phenomenon actually
looks like when it is unfolding in its more optimum form. In this example, that negotiation of
meaning process occurred primarily as participants building upon each other’s voiced ideas and
experiences to create a more robust interpretation of student engagement (i.e., in it’s optimum
form, student engagement involves the instructor asking questions, students sharing their ideas in
small or whole-group contexts, and all of this at least partly happening because students feel
comfortable with both the instructor and their peers), and it was accompanied by assistance in the
form of questioning.
While this example of the CTE team’s engagement with the Danielson (2016) text is
reflective of their engagement with the frameworks and concepts presented in the other texts that
254
were included in this PD intervention (i.e., they all triggered a negotiation of meaning process),
there were some differences in the precise degree to which each of these various conceptual tools
was successful at prompting this process in direction of the actual goals of the intervention. For
example, the CTE team did partially reject the text about culturally responsive teaching (Gay,
2002). Although they bought into the general idea suggested in this reading (i.e., instructors
ought to demonstrate a sensitivity in their pedagogy and instruction to the various racial/ethnic
groups in their classroom), they largely did not approve of the ideas and strategies recommended
for accomplishing this endeavor (e.g., Gay’s suggestion to pay attention to ethnic codes).
Essentially, they felt that many of the strategies proposed could be described as stereotyping.
Thus, while this latter text did prompt the negotiation of meaning process, it ultimately did not
advance the group towards a deeper recognition of the link between pedagogy and instruction
and the link between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic equity in student success
outcomes at Millennium College.
Practical tool: Analysis of compiled peer-observation data. Upon conclusion of the
second iteration of peer observation (month ten of the PD intervention), all of the CTE team’s
collected data was compiled into a series of tables to facilitate their analysis of it. Table 14
illustrates the exact format through which the compiled data pertaining to students’ involvement
in lessons/labs was presented to the CTE team. These data include information about: (a) the
race/ethnicity and gender of students in the observed lessons/labs, (b) the number of responses to
instructors’ questions that came from each of the various racial/ethnic groups, (c) the number of
unprompted questions/comments that came from each of the various racial/ethnic groups, (d) the
number of times a student in each of these various racial/ethnic groups appeared to be
255
disengaged, and (e) the number of students in each of these racial/ethnic groups who did not
speak out loud during the observation periods.
Table 14
Data Pertaining to Student Involvement in Lessons/Labs

Who were the students in attendance?

American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American
/Black
Hispanic/
Latino/a
White Unknown TOTAL
Female 2 11 32 4 2 51 (33%)
Male 1 4 22 69 7 1 104
(67%)
Trans 1 1 (0%)
TOTAL 1 (1%) 6 (4%) 33 (21%) 102
(66%)
11
(7%)
3 (2%) 156
(100%)
How many RESPONSES to an instructor’s question/prompt came from these various groups?

American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American
/Black
Hispanic/
Latino/a
White Unknown TOTAL
Female 3 12 17 3 4 39 (34%)
Male 2 3 15 52 1 2 75 (65%)
Trans 1 1 (1%)
TOTAL 2 (2%) 6 (5%) 27 (23%) 70 (61%) 4 (3%) 6 (5%) 115
(100%)
How many unprompted QUESTIONS/COMMENTS came from these various groups?

American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American
/Black
Hispanic/
Latino/a
White Unknown TOTAL
Female 5 10 2 1 18 (24%)
Male 4 6 3 43 2 58 (76%)
Trans 0 (0%)
TOTAL 4 (5%) 6 (8%) 8 (11%) 53 (70%) 4 (5%) 1 (1%) 76
(100%)
How many TIMES did a student from within these groups appear to be disengaged?

American
Indian/Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American
/Black
Hispanic/
Latino/a
White Unknown TOTAL
Female 0 (0%)
Male 10 18 28
(100%)
Trans 0 (0%)
TOTAL 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 (36%) 18 (64%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 28
(100%)
256
How many STUDENTS from these various groups did not ever speak aloud during the observation
period (i.e., did NOT respond to instructor’s questions/prompts or independently volunteer a question/comment)?

American
Indian /Alaskan
Native
Asian/Pacific
Islander
African
American/
Black
Hispanic/
Latino/a
White Un-
known
TOTAL TOTAL*
Female 1 14 15
(19%)
15
(29%)*
Male 14 44 4 62
(81%)
62
(60%)*
Trans 0(0%) 0(0%)*
TOTAL
0 (0%) 0 (0%) 15 (19%) 58
(75%)
4 (5%) 0 (0%) 77
(100%)
---
TOTAL*
0 (0%)* 0 (0%)* 15
(45%)*
58
(57%)*
4
(36%)*
0
(0%)*
--- ---
* These percentages represent the portion of students who were recorded as having not spoken (during the
observation period), from the total number of students who were in attendance within each of these various groups.

Prior to distributing the above compiled data, I again reviewed with the CTE team the
concept of equity-mindedness (i.e., a conceptual tool). This was an idea that had been
introduced to the team during their first meeting, and then frequently resurfaced throughout their
tenure together. The following ideas, all of which are taken from Bensimon (2007), were shared
with the team prior to commencing analysis:
• The “dominant paradigm” of student success views the “student as an autonomous and
self-motivated actor who exerts effort in behaviors that exemplify commitment,
engagement, self-regulation, and goal-orientation…Success [within this student-deficit
paradigm] is understood as an outcome of [the student’s] individual efforts” (p. 447).
• Within an equity-minded paradigm, practitioners “reflect on how practices—their own
and the institution’s—are implicated in producing unequal educational outcomes” (p.
456).
• “Framing the solution [to low/inequitable student success] in terms of practitioner self-
change creates a sense of empowerment and possibility for the practitioner and the
researcher. While there is no question that minority students’ chances for success are
257
severely constrained by their K-12 educational experiences, socio-economic background,
and the extent to which they and their families possess [knowledge about college], the
reality, frustrating as it may be, is that these conditions, once students are admitted, are
beyond the control of college practitioners” (p. 456).
In addition to the above, I also reviewed Hatch’s (2002) definition of qualitative data analysis
75
,
and highlighted the limitations of these data collected by the CTE team.
76

The CTE team then commenced with analysis. Working initially in partnerships, and
then as a whole group, the following three questions were laid out to guide the team’s analysis:
(a) What (if any) patterns of participation can you identify in these data (consider race/ethnicity
and/or gender)? (b) Are these patterns problematic? If yes, how so? And, (c) What hunches do
you have about why these patterns might be occurring?
77

As the conversation about this sub-set of the data progressed, the CTE team began to
express their ideas and/or wonderings related to student engagement. For example, while
discussing the data related to: ‘How many times did a student from within each of these groups
appear to be disengaged,’ Instructor A stated: “There’s trends…I mean, a certain percentage of
people will be disengaged and a certain percentage of people will be engaged.” Here, Instructor

75
This definition states that qualitative data analysis involves “organizing and interrogating data in ways that allow
researchers to see patterns, identify themes, discover relationships, develop explanations, make interpretations,
mount critiques, or generate theories” (Hatch, 2002, p. 148).
76
These data maintain two limitations. First, students’ did not self identify into these racial/ethnic groups, but rather
were categorized into these racial/ethnic groups based solely on the instructors’ subjective assignments of
race/ethnicity. Second, the data about: (a) the number of responses to an instructor’s question/prompt, (b) the
number of unprompted questions/comments, and (c) the number of times a student appeared to be disengaged all
report on the number of “instances” of this behavior occurring and not the number of individual students who
demonstrated these various behaviors. For example, 12 responses to instructors’ questions/prompts came from the
group: African American/Black females. This does not, however, imply that 12 different African American/Black
females responded to an instructor’s question/prompt; in reality, it could be that all 12 of these responses came from
just 3 students. As a result of these limitations, no definitive conclusions about the apparent patterns in these data
could be drawn, and thus only speculations were possible.
77
These three questions (x-axis) and the various subsets of data to be analyzed (y-axis) were laid out as a matrix
(Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013) and presented in the form of a worksheet. An exemplar response for each of
these questions was included on the worksheet to offer guidance about the types of things team members might look
for in their analysis.
258
A seems to be advancing the idea that one should likely expect to see some disengaged students,
as that is reflective of reality.
Instructor C presented a different line of thinking. She alluded to the specific link
between this data pertaining to student involvement and an entirely different set of data, CTE
course completion rates, that the team had spent significant time examining during their tenure
together. Instructor C shared:
The only thing I wonder is because the Hispanic, the Latina/Latino…[because] they’re
pretty close to being what the norm is in the overall [course completion] success…I
wonder if the questions...because it appears as if they answered and they weren't afraid to
ask…So, I wonder if that has something to do with their [course completion] success rate.
Does it add to their success rate because they ask questions?
Recognizing that this question could not be definitively answered with the peer observation data
in front of them, Instructor A replied: “You'd have to identify the individual [students] to make
that assessment.” Even though this was a fair line of reasoning, I prompted the team to take a
closer look at the data set related to ‘How many students from each of these groups did not speak
aloud during the observation period.’ The following excerpts capture my comments to the team,
and their initial responses.
Jason: This table, I think, is more telling. This is the very last table on page two.
Here we can talk about students to students. Sixty-four percent of African
American black males did not speak during the time that student
engagement was being documented. Sixty-four percent that's a lot, I think.
It's the same percentage for Latino Hispanic males did not speak during
the time student engagement was being documented and 44% of Latina
259
students didn't speak during the time student engagement was being
documented. If we all feel, like what [Instructor C] is bringing up about
this idea of not being engaged versus being engaged and how that
connects to student success. If we take the stand that we feel being
engaged in the class is an indication or is supportive of a student
experiencing success then we have a good portion of students who, for
some reason, don't feel that… they don't have the supports they need to
participate, or they don't feel safe to participate. There is something
happening for them that is holding them back. And, again, our lens is what
is it about our practice that could assist in this.
Instructor C: It would be interesting to note [which] folks are asking questions, [and
what is] their age difference. It seems to me that some of the students that
come right out of high school are not as afraid to ask a question as some of
our older students. And, I think some of our older students are
embarrassed to ask a question [because] if they're wrong in front of
somebody else, then it's an issue for them. I could be wrong.
Instructor F: My question is, is how feasible is it that everybody in the class be
engaged? Is that feasible? I was thinking about let's say a classroom
scenario at Stanford, at Harvard, at one of the Ivy League schools. If we
were to access one of those classrooms would we see everybody
engaging?
Instructor E: You mean like 100% participating?
260
Instructor F: Right. Would everybody in that classroom offer something consistently?
And, is that viewed as interrupting the lecture over time?
In the above excerpt, after noting the high percentages of African American/Black and
Latino/a students who did not speak during the observation periods, I pushed the CTE team to
grapple with how these numbers might be linked with student success at the college and how
their pedagogical and instructional practice could serve as an intervening factor in this
relationship. This seemed to have prompted Instructor C to think about her own classroom, and
particularly her anecdotal observations that one sub-group (i.e., mature students) might be
experiencing that environment differently than the comparative sub-group (i.e., students fresh out
of high school). For Instructor F, my comments seemed to have sparked resistance in that he
questioned the feasibility of having all students engaged, and even went so far as to question if
100% of students being engaged might actually be an interruption to learning. Important to note,
none of the above statements are yet expressing conceptions of student engagement as something
over which the instructor has influence. Instructor C is connecting student engagement to a
student trait (i.e., age/experience), and Instructor F is speaking about it as a macro-level variable
for which there is a normal or ideal magnitude.
Later, as the team’s conversation proceeded, team members shared reflections about their
own practice and/or questioned the validity of the importance of student engagement.
Instructor E: I understand that you [i.e., Jason] don't have [research/statistics] off the
top of your head, but 100% just seems not realistic. I don't want to be
negative, but am I...
Jason: I didn't say 100%. My question would be: What do we think it should be?
261
Instructor F: If we think that 64% is not acceptable, what is acceptable? That's your
question…30%, 50%, 10%?
Jason: I did say that I think 64% [being disengaged] is too high. It's my personal
opinion though.
Instructor F: Yeah. Yeah.
Instructor G: Sometimes I can get a class where I have half the students or more who
are working in the evening in the trade, but they come to school during the
day and engagement is real high. If I get a set of students right out of high
school it's different. If you teach a night class where they're working
during the day and coming to [class at night]... It's a relevance type thing.
They are more engaged. This semester I've got four or five guys who are
working on swing shift. Those are the ones who are really...
Jason: I remember we talked about this in your post-observation debrief. That the
one guy in the back corner you said works nights and then comes to class
at seven in the morning. What's going to happen? He's going to sit and
take in information? How difficult is that? So, I totally agree that there are
these things. They are valid and they have impact. What we want to try to
do is to not get ourselves stuck on that and free ourselves of that. We can't
control those things. We're going to have all those things in our students.
But, are there things that we could do to try and help or to assist, to make
it different to a certain degree?
Instructor A: It could also be a combination when we are talking CTE. I would have to
say the most engaged students, taking a wild guess, are the ones that have
262
prior knowledge, right. Whereas the ones that are least engaged are the
ones that are learning everything. They are either less comfortable or
insecure. But nonetheless, they are still learning, they’ll still be successful,
but maybe they won't be as engaged as somebody with prior knowledge,
work knowledge, expertise.
In the above excerpt, Instructor E shared thoughts similar to those of Instructor F. She
questioned whether 100% student engagement is “realistic.” Instructor F again seemed to
suggest that there was a predetermined “acceptable” rate of student engagement, and he
questioned if that was what I was attempting to get the group to identify. Instructors G and A
then both shared their hypotheses about the types of students that are typically engaged and the
types that are not. For Instructor G, “it’s a relevance thing,” such that those who are already
working in the field engage more because the material is more relevant to them. From Instructor
A’s perspective, it is prior knowledge that matters. If a student does not have that, they will feel
“less comfortable or insecure,” and therefore less willing to guess at an answer or engage in
other ways. Thus, still at this point in the conversation, none of the team members are
expressing ideas that conceive of student engagement as an aspect that is within the control of
the instructor.
In this final segment of the team’s conversation about the collected peer observation data,
a slight shift occurred. Team members began to question their previously held ideas related to
student engagement.
Instructor E: I think it's high [i.e., the rate of student engagement that she seems to think
the team is considering as acceptable], but I'm trying to think about [it] in
a classroom where I feel like I'm getting a lot of engagement and a lot of
263
participation. I don't know that it's really ever been over 50%. If I get half
that are engaged and asking me questions, I think that's good. I don't know
if it's good that I think that that's good. But, for me that seems like a high
number. I think that if I'm looking at everything, it's probably around 25%.
Jason: Can I ask a question? Because, what you were saying made me think of a
question. How could we expect to do different than what we currently get
if we only continue to do what we normally do?
Instructor E: True.
Jason: So, I'm wondering if you could get even more students by like adding one
thing or changing the way you do one thing. Then maybe you could get a
higher number. So, that’s like the whole point of: “What control do I have
over this?” I agree with [Instructor G]. We don't have 100% control over
this, but we have some control.
Instructor A: We do [this] for labs. We try to be psychologist as well, don't we? At least
I do in that some of the students that seem more quiet and [only]
occasionally interact…we know they are okay working on their own [so]
we don't interact with them as much. So…but, I don't know if that's good.
But, I know the person that’s shy, I'm not going to pick on that person and
ask questions.
Instructor E: I do the same thing.
Instructor C: I pick on all of them.
Instructor A: I do too occasionally. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
What percentage of that…
264
Instructor C: You know, for me, I think if you create a safe enough environment and the
mood in the classroom is comfortable enough, then it's okay to draw
everybody out. But, I think you have to set the stage first. You have to let
everybody know that if you mess up you mess up. It's no big whoop. I
think that's the important thing. It helps to get them involved.
Jason: [Instructor G], were you going to say something.
Instructor G: I was going to say like in a lab environment a lot of students pick their lab
partners, people they feel comfortable with. A lecture is like everybody is
on their own. In a lab they are working together and they interact more. It
seems like you get more engagement there. […] I’ve just noticed that that
makes them feel more comfortable [when they have] their friend. They're
busy working on a project, but they feel a bit more comfortable and a bit
more apt to ask questions like why is this and why is that happening. So,
the environment totally changes it.
Instructor A: Jason, so…speaking of that…engagement seems to be positive for
students. So, would the recommendation be professional development type
things to get faculty... or, how do we resolve this or push forward? I mean,
we're talking about this in a small group, but how do we get a campus..?
Jason: Right. That's a great question. I want to address it, but can I address it a
little later. It comes in a little later.
In sharing about the lack of student engagement in her own classroom, Instructor E seemed to
recognize that her acceptance of this as normal might not necessarily be a “good” thing, and she
subsequently acknowledged that perhaps her thinking is inaccurate. Similarly, while speaking
265
about his own practice of not “picking on” “shy” students, Instructor A seemed to recognize that
this might not be the most effective way to support the learning of these particular students, and
he subsequently admits to being unsure about the effectiveness of this practice. That Instructor A
recognized a need to perhaps rethink his current practices was further evidenced by his final
comment that “engagement seems to be positive” and his desire to have others learn about this.
In sum, while it is difficult to ascertain all of the ways in which this activity (i.e., use of a
practical tool) may have shaped the team’s learning about pedagogy and instruction and/or how
pedagogy and instruction are implicated in student success, it did seem to prompt the negotiation
of meaning process about student engagement in their own classrooms/labs. Moreover, there is
some evidence to suggest that for at least two of the instructors (E and A) this conversation
enabled the surfacing of preconceived ideas related to student engagement and subsequently a
deeper critical reflection about the validity of those ideas. Significantly, this example also
illustrates the ways in which the CTE team’s negotiation of meaning process, prompted through
this activity, was accompanied by assistance in the form of questioning (e.g., “My question
would be: What do we think it should be?”) and instructing (e.g., “And, again, our lens is what is
it about our practice that could assist in this.”). Although each of the practical tools included in
this PD intervention did prompt its own unique negotiation of meaning process, they were all
generally reflective of the one described above.
Supporting Community Maintenance
In addition to introducing conceptual and practical tools that prompted the CTE team’s
negotiation of meaning, the PD intervention also provided norms/conditions that supported
“community maintenance” (Wenger, 1998, p. 74). As Wenger explains, mutual engagement
within a community of practice, like that of the CTE team, “requires work,” such as building and
266
maintaining a sense of community and carrying out coordination efforts to support joint work (p.
74). An analysis of team members’ descriptions of their experiences in the CTE team shows that
a sense of safety that helped balance out the risk of critically examining practice in a social
setting was one norm/condition within the PD intervention that supported community
maintenance, and subsequently the team’s mutual engagement.
Tools enable a sense of safety. CTE team members described a variety of ways in
which a sense of safety was achieved within the group. In some cases, this occurred through the
qualities of the tools introduced to the CTE team. For example, Instructor H suggested that the
presentation of compiled peer observation data in a format that maintained each instructor’s
anonymity helped to create a sense of safety within the team when they were analyzing that data
(during Iteration #1 of peer observation). In reflecting on this, he remarked that he initially felt a
bit “weird” about the idea of being observed, because he believed he was in some way going to
be personally evaluated. When he learned, however, that there were no data points in the
compiled peer observation data examined that revealed any of the instructors’ identity, it “took
some pressure off,” and subsequently enabled him to engage in the data in a way that he was not
expecting. His following remarks capture these sentiments.
‘Okay, so we’re not pointing out to certain instructors. This is what you’re doing.’ So it’s
just like, ‘Okay, this instructor’s doing this, [but] we don’t know who is it.’ [So, then] we
started getting more information, we could actually [start to build] some feedback [i.e.,
analytic statements about what was happening in the data], like ‘This is what’s going on.
I believe this is what’s happening.’ But being anonymous, it took a little bit of pressure
off that point. Like, ‘Oh, okay, so [it’s] alright. They don’t know I screwed up’ [laughter].
267
Thus, from Instructor H’s perspective, by maintaining instructors’ anonymity in the data, a sense
of safety was established that prevented participants from feeling like they were being personally
evaluated. As a result, this enabled them to “get more information” or see the data in a different
way. This, in turn, seemingly opened the team members’ minds to more freely consider potential
patterns in the data.
Some instructors’ (Instructors B and F) descriptions of their experiences in the second
iteration of peer observation suggest that the highly structured nature of the tools used in this
latter round enabled a sense of safety for participants. For example, Instructor B noted how the
protocol was “very much about collecting observable data…[like] mark down this, [and] count
the number of these,” rather than “making kind of broad judgments, based on [one’s] feelings
about what [was] observed.” Presumably, these clearer boundaries along which participants
could collect data, particularly in regards to race/ethnicity, enabled a greater sense of objectivity.
In not having to make “broad judgments,” participants such as Instructor B seemingly
experienced a greater sense of safety when probing into a sensitive matter like that of students’
racialized experiences in the classroom/lab.
Relatedly, Instructor F shared how the specificity of prompts in the post-observation
debriefing guide that accompanied the second iteration protocol was also helpful for providing
safety. In essence, this specificity enabled both the observer and the observed to know in
advance what the boundaries of feedback would be. As a result, Instructor F shared that the
prompts made giving and receiving feedback “more comfortable because [both people are] on
the same page.” As he explained: “I'm not coming up with something that may or may not be
part of the scope.” In essence, by providing “a scope” for giving and receiving feedback about
268
practice, an enhanced sense of safety for learning through feedback was provided in that
participants knew both what they ought to say and what they ought to expect to hear.
The following remarks from Instructor A (i.e., Instructor F’s observation partner) help to
illustrate the ways in which this safety that was enabled through the provision of clear feedback
parameters shaped learning within this particular partnership. Instructor A recalled that
Instructor F’s feedback was something along the lines of: “I like the fact that you brought the
students [up to the board].” Instructor A then remarked: “Him making that
statement…[Instructor F]?…not that easy. He would never have said that to me.” When asked
what Instructor F might have previously said if in a similar feedback scenario, Instructor A
replied: “I’d say [something like] ‘Oh, good job. You’re doing a good job. I think your class is
cool. They participate.’” And Instructor A followed up by admitting: “And that’s what I would
say to him.” Reflecting further, Instructor A stated: “I think you [i.e., the protocol] took him out
of a comfort level…You [i.e., the protocol] put him in a position that now he had to think about
it at a different level.” In this case, “thinking about it at a different level” meant not just
identifying empty affirmations to shower on the observed partner, it meant identifying with
greater specificity what the observed partner actually had done during the given lesson/lecture.
Importantly, while the protocol may have taken Instructor F out of his comfort level, the
parameters for providing feedback enabled him to feel a sense of safety doing so.
Counterbalancing the above perspective, some participants’ reflections suggest that
perhaps the structure of the tools used during iteration #2 led to too much safety, which
subsequently resulted in feedback that was inadequate for learning. For example, Instructor C
described receiving feedback that had limited effect on her thinking about pedagogy and
instruction. She remarked that the feedback was “too nice” and she would have liked to hear
269
more “I wonders” (i.e., statements intended to prompt reflection about some aspects of the
person’s practice that appeared problematic). It is likely that Instructor C experienced the tool in
this way because her observing partner actually did not provide any “wonderings” during her
post-observation debrief. During that part of the post-observation conversation when these “I
wonders” were to be delivered, Instructor C’s partner (Instructor E) stated: “I didn’t really have
any of those, because [all of the students] seemed like they were engaged in [the activity].”
Instructor E then proceeded to outline a series of positive aspects related to Instructor C’s
pedagogical and instructional practice observed during the lecture, but said nothing about any
wonderings she had. That I had also observed this same class and had noted some worthwhile
“wonderings,” suggests that Instructor E’s failure to provide any wonderings was not actually
due to not having observed any. Instead, it is likely that Instructor E was reluctant to provide
“wonderings” about Instructor C’s practice due to power issues in their relationship. Instructor C
is Instructor E’s department chair, and having to provide this type of feedback to a supervisor is
understandably a complex endeavor, and one that Instructor E likely wanted to avoid. This
finding seems to suggest that it matters whom one partners with for peer observation. More
specifically, observing partnerships ought to be constructed of individuals who maintain similar
positional power (e.g., two faculty members, and not a faculty member and a chair).
Instructor D also questioned if the structure of the tools used during iteration #2 enabled
too much safety. Like Instructor C he shared that he would have preferred to have received more,
or at least more specific, feedback during the post-observation debrief. He stated: “Well, it’s
really generalized...I’m wondering am I doing...If I am doing something wrong, am I gonna get
that [feedback]? If I could be reaching somebody else, am I gonna get that [feedback] from here?”
Instructor D then posited: “We’ve made it safe, which means…I don’t know…is it too safe?”
270
Based on his comments, Instructor D seemed to be anticipating more specified feedback that
would have helped him identify particular aspects of his practice in need of attention, especially
those related to student engagement. It could be that Instructor D questioned this aspect of the
tool due to the fact that his partner (Instructor G) delivered a “wondering” about an issue he
himself had been pondering (i.e., how to deal with late students), rather than a “wondering”
specific to Instructor D’s pedagogical/instructional practices that we had observed. One irony of
this reflection from Instructor D is that after serving as the observer, he shared how he liked the
debriefing prompts, because otherwise one would “feel like you can stick your foot in your
mouth.” Thus, for Instructor D, the structure of the tools in iteration #2 may have provided too
much safety for the observed instructor who was seeking specific feedback on his/her practice,
but an appropriate amount for the observing instructor who was seeking not to offend.
Rituals and facilitation enable a sense of safety. Some participants’ (Instructors A, B,
C, D, E, and H) descriptions of their experiences in the PD intervention suggest that there were
particular conditions/norms within the externally facilitated CTE team meetings that enabled a
sense of safety. For example, Instructor B expressed his belief that various rituals carried out
within the CTE team (i.e., icebreaker at beginning of each meeting, debriefing at end of meeting
about what worked and did not work during that session, etc.) created “a sense of camaraderie”
and helped to make the group “seem like a more friendly environment.” When pressed further
about what effect these feelings might have had on him and/or the group, he replied:
'Cause people need to feel that they're amongst friends when they're discussing things
like this that quite frankly are sensitive. Because this is about our own teaching practices
and it’s the very heart of what we do and it requires a lot of hopefully introspection and
being reflective and looking at things that we’re doing, that we’re not doing very well.
271
In other words, Instructor B (and he believes other participants too) experienced the CTE team as
a group of comrades, and that was necessary because the topics being addressed were so
sensitive that in order to genuinely engage them in a group setting, and learn from that
conversation, individuals needed to feel a degree of safety similar to that which one would feel if
with friends.
Similar to Instructor B’s experience in this setting, Instructor A reported feeling
“comfortable” within the CTE team meetings, and suggested that it was how the group was
facilitated that caused him to feel that way. He stated: “Even with us, we had different opinions
and you kinda brought it in. You didn't take sides. You made us feel comfortable. So you, as an
instructor [chuckle], a facilitator, made the group feel comfortable enough to share.” Thus,
through facilitation that allowed for differing opinions to be considered, Instructor A asserted
that the group felt “comfortable” enough to share. Instructor H provided a similar example. He
shared how allowing for small-group conversations before moving into a whole-group
discussions helped to support his deeper participation.
I’m the type of student that always stays quiet [laughter]... And even though I’m in a
class that I know the subject matter...I’m always quiet, and I’m not participating as much.
But [breaking into smaller groups first] is helpful. You [i.e., the facilitator] say, ‘Hey, it’s
okay, you can speak up. It’s just a conversation. You’re not wrong by saying what you’re
thinking.’ So that’s helped me a lot.”
Based on the above remarks, breaking into smaller groups prior to having whole-group
conversations seemed to remove some of Instructor H’s worries about saying the “wrong” thing.
Instructor D described the CTE group as having a “circle of trust,” and while he was the
only participant to explicitly reference trust, it seems that the positive experiences discussed
272
above were at least partially the result of participants maintaining a sense of trust in the other
CTE team members (and me, as the facilitator). Trust is a key aspect for developing the depth of
mutual engagement within a community of practice. As Wenger (2000) explains, members
“must trust each other, not just personally, but also in their ability to contribute to the enterprise
of the community, so they feel comfortable addressing real problems together and speaking
truthfully” (p. 230). In sum, then, some of the team’s rituals and particular moves of the
facilitator helped to produce a sense of trust in the group and establish the CTE team as a safe or
“comfortable” environment. This, in turn, nurtured team members’ more free and authentic
participation in the group’s ongoing learning.
Disconfirming evidence of a sense of safety. In contrast to the above experiences, there
was at least one aspect of the CTE team’s first iteration of peer observation that seemed to have a
negative impact on the safety some participants experienced. This aspect was the unstructured
manner in which the first protocol called on participants to document race/ethnicity in their
observations. This problematic aspect came to light during the team’s analysis of their compiled
data. During this conversation, Instructor E commented that: “every time race was pointed out in
the data, it was jarring.” The data point she specifically referenced was: ‘The one African
American male student appeared to be sleeping.’ While she admitted to understanding that
paying attention to race/ethnicity was “what we were here for,” she explained that when race is
called out in this way, “it feels like racial profiling.”
As outlined previously, there were very few direct references to race/ethnicity in the first-
iteration compiled data. More specifically, “Latino/Hispanic” was referenced four times,
“African American” was referenced twice, and “Asian” was only referenced once. Moreover, no
data point referenced “white.” Significantly, both of the references to African American were
273
linked with ‘undesirable’ student behaviors (i.e., sleeping in class, not asking questions), while
all of the remaining references to racial/ethnic groups were linked with mostly ‘desirable’
student behaviors (e.g., actively listening and participating in class).
During my final interview with Instructor E, she reflected on this incident and provided
further details about the impact this had on her, and how those subsequent feelings left her
pondering her continued participation in the group.
Instructor E: When we talked about the equity gaps, I knew that that was an issue. I had
a feeling, but I had never seen it in numbers and percentages. [But] one of
those meetings where we were over there and someone was like: ‘The two
black students were doing this...’ and I was like, ‘Whoa. Whoa.’ I was
like, ‘Whoa, [laughter] is this how it’s gonna be the whole time? Is that
what we’re supposed to do?’ It was just kind of jarring…to be honest it
was a little jarring. And I don’t know what I expected, but I wasn't
expecting that. […] I understand why we have to look at it that way ‘cause
we’re just trying to get to the down and dirty…like we need numbers,
facts, solutions, and all of that, but it was a little jarring at first. And I got
really emotional at first and I was like, ‘I don't know if I can do this every
week. They’re not gonna wanna hear my sob story.’ I don't know when
I'm talking if they’re like, ‘Oh, my god, she’s talking again.’ I don’t know
what they’re feeling, so I got kinda quiet after. I was like, ‘Let me just
kinda feel out what’s happening in this room.’
Jason: So what jarred you?
274
Instructor E: It was such a negative comment. It wasn't like, ‘Oh, Suzy was disengaged,
or uninterested or bored. Suzy was sleeping and’…It was just like, ‘Whoa,
wow.’
Jason: Are you saying it would’ve felt different for you had it been ‘two African
American/Black students in the back were following the instructor and
taking notes,’ if it said something like that? …
Instructor E: I'm not sure that it mattered that what they were describing was positive or
negative, I felt like, ‘Why are you only watching them? You don't have
anything to say about anyone else but them?’ […] They were singled out
[…] but the other interesting thing is that in my brain I already do that,
because I already shove those kids really hard. But to hear someone else
do it in such a... It was kind of like a cavalier kind of statement. [It] was
like somebody was scratching a chalkboard or something.
Thus, based on the above retelling, this incident clearly produced a strong negative emotional
experience for Instructor E. She was unable to make sense of why the group was focusing so
intently on one group (i.e., African Americans) while not paying equal attention to others (e.g.,
white students). This subsequently caused her to reconsider both her understanding of what the
CTE team was supposed to be doing, and her participation in that work. She continued:
[At that meeting,] I could tell people were like, ‘Oh, she’s really feeling this,’ because I
know I got emotional. That was not my intention at all. I did not know I was gonna go
there. I did not know in starting to speak that it was gonna take me to that place, and I
didn’t want to make people uncomfortable, so I was like, ‘Oh, I kinda need to back off.
I’ll just not say anything,’ but I'm naturally a talker. So, after a while, I started
275
participating more [in meetings again]. But for a while, I was like, ‘Okay, I’ll just sit and
observe and see.’ Because I just didn’t know. You don't know how people feel about you,
or what you’re saying, and [when] we’re gonna be together doing this for this amount of
time, I certainly don’t wanna walk into the room and everyone’s uncomfortable every
time they see me, or they have a negative kind of feeling […So,] I just got over it.
In sum, then, this “jarring” experience caused Instructor E to have a negative emotional
experience and this subsequently led her to question whether or not she wanted to continue in the
group, and whether or not others would want her to continue in the group. But, because she is
somebody who naturally engages in social settings she continued to participate, and after not
encountering any other similar events she “got over it” and the negative emotions and concerns
stemming from the initial incident dissipated. Although Instructor E does not explicitly state it,
one can likely assume (based on the quality/depth of her subsequent participation) that the loss of
safety in this activity was re-established in the other intervention’s activities that followed this
one.
Perhaps not surprising, this event described by Instructor E also had a negative emotional
effect for the team member who had written this specific “jarring” data point (even though his
identity was never exposed to the group). In his reflection on the incident, Instructor D shared
how the situation left him feeling “guilty,” and “like he had hurt her.” He explained: “I really
felt directly responsible for that [event] […] I know I didn’t do anything wrong but I still felt
guilty. I felt like I hurt her […] I felt for her. I didn’t want her to feel anything from this but what
I’d written did that so...” He then elaborated: “Obviously, we’re looking to improve the two
groups, the Latinos and African Americans. So the data is gonna be there and she expects it, but
maybe just not...‘I saw this guy sleeping in class, but I didn’t see anybody else sleeping in
276
class.’” Instructor D also sought to clarify that there was probably good reason the student was
sleeping in class, and that it happens in many classes, including his own. He stated: “And that
kid sleeping in class probably works the night shift and comes in and if the class is... maybe it's
for review…they sleep in my class too. It doesn’t matter what ethnicity, it happens.” He
concluded by stating: “I just felt like we’re calling it [i.e., race/ethnicity] out and then all of a
sudden, I felt like I hurt somebody or caused them distress, I guess.” From his perspective, this
is the reason the CTE team adopted a different protocol for the second iteration of peer
observation. “I think that [that protocol] was taken away, so that wouldn't happen anymore.”
Thus, in ways related to Instructor E’s experience, Instructor D did not achieve a sense of safety
in this activity. While he also did not make it explicit, one can posit that his comment about the
removal of that protocol seems to imply that his safety was restored afterwards.
78

In sum, the above analysis of team members’ descriptions of their experiences in the CTE
team shows that: a sense of safety that helped balance out the risk of critically examining
practice in a social setting, was one norm/condition within the PD intervention that supported
community maintenance, and subsequently the team’s mutual engagement. Important to note,
this community maintenance was primarily enabled through the tools introduced during the
intervention and the rituals and facilitation moves orchestrated by myself, as the external
facilitator.

78
Unfortunately, at the time of this incident described by Instructors E and D, I myself had not yet recognized the
differing ways in which race/ethnicity was characterized in the compiled data. It was not until I was well into the
analysis phase of this study that I made this realization. Had I been operating with greater reflexivity, I might have
noticed this issue prior to presenting the data to the team, and could have subsequently facilitated a conversation that
might have prompted the team’s deeper reflection about the ways in which teaching and learning, and the CTE
team’s exploration of these phenomena, are themselves racialized experiences.

277
Summary of How Learning Was Shaped by Intervention
Participation in the PD intervention shaped learning along the interpersonal plane in two
ways. First, the use of conceptual and practical tools within the CTE team triggered the
negotiation of meaning process. More specifically, that process unfolded primarily as
participants: (a) building upon each other’s voiced ideas and experiences to create more robust
interpretations of relevant phenomena (e.g., student engagement), and (b) surfacing their
previously held ideas (e.g., beliefs about student engagement and its link with low and
inequitable student success rates) for more conscious and critical examination. Importantly, the
degree to which the intervention’s conceptual and practical tools were effective for triggering the
negotiation of meaning process was shaped by the facilitation, or two additional forms of
assistance: questioning and instructing. The second way in which participating in the PD
intervention shaped learning along the interpersonal plane was through the provision of
community maintenance. More specifically, the PD intervention enabled a sense of safety that
helped balance out the risk of critically examining practice in a social setting which ultimately
supported the team’s mutual engagement.

278
CHAPTER VIII:
Discussion of Findings, Implications, and Conclusion
This dissertation study sought to address the issue of low and inequitable student success
rates among community college students in the United States through a focus on faculty and their
learning related to pedagogy and instruction and the ways in which pedagogy and instruction are
linked with equity in student success. Concentrating specifically on career and technical
education (CTE) faculty, my study sought to examine: (a) what, if anything, was learned through
participation in a PD intervention that centered primarily on co-designing and implementing a
peer observation protocol and process that could later be scaled for broader use, and (b) how
such learning was shaped by participation in that PD intervention. To accomplish this endeavor,
I conducted a single case study of a group of CTE faculty at Millennium College who engaged in
such co-design and implementation work within the context of an ongoing research-practice
partnership the college had with CUE. I employed a conceptual framework that pulled on
various theoretical threads from within the sociocultural learning perspective, including:
communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), assisted performance (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988), tool
use (Brown et al., 1989; Grossman et al., 1999; Wenger, 1988), and planes of sociocultural
activity (Rogoff, 1995), to guide my analysis of learning within the PD intervention at both the
individual (i.e., personal plane) and group (i.e., interpersonal plane) levels.
79

This chapter is laid out in four sections. I first provide a brief summary of major findings
from this dissertation study. Next, I draw out from these findings the key lessons learned and

79
In this study, I did not intend to examine how participants’ participation in the PD intervention and related
learning impacted student success outcomes at Millennium College. I instead focused analytic attention on how
participation in the PD intervention was linked with transformations in practice among the CTE faculty participants.
In studying PD and teacher change, Guskey (2002b) found that changes in practice resulting from participation in
PD precede changes in student learning outcomes. Moreover, Guskey (2002a) suggests that examining the existence
of the link between PD interventions and student outcomes is best reserved for summative evaluations occurring
after the intervention has been fully implemented and adequate time has been allowed for the targeted teacher
learning to take hold.
279
discuss their connection with prior empirical research in CTE and/or practitioner learning and the
theoretical framework guiding this study—sociocultural learning. I then outline implications for
policy, practice, and research, and conclude with a discussion of this study’s limitations and
possible directions for future research.
Summary of Major Findings
Ultimately, along the personal plane I found that CTE team members’ learning seemed to
occur within the context of one of three identity trajectories: (a) an instructor seeking to improve
his/her own pedagogical and instructional practice (Instructors B, D, F, G, and H), (b) an
instructor aspiring to make a difference not only in the lives of those he/she teaches but also in
the lives of all students at Millennium College (Instructors A and C), and (c) a person of color
overcoming a world of subtle racism (Instructor E). Through in-depth case studies I found that
what was learned by a CTE team member associated with each of these identity trajectories was
evidenced in their transformations in conceptions and actions related to pedagogy and instruction
and/or their framing of the problem of racial/ethnic equity gaps at Millennium College.
Generally speaking, while there were similarities, these transformations looked somewhat
different within each of the identity trajectories. In addition to uncovering what was learned at
the individual level, I also found that participation in the PD intervention shaped team members’
personal learning through the various means of assistance made available within the PD
intervention, including cognitive structuring, feedback, modeling, and diverse ideas.
Along the interpersonal plane, I found that what the CTE team learned through
participation in the PD intervention was indexed by changes in two dimensions of their social
practice: joint enterprise and repertoire of resources. In regards to the former, the CTE team
demonstrated a shift in orientation towards their stated goal (i.e., improve student success at
280
Millennium College and make it more equitable across racial/ethnic lines) from one that largely
centered on improving student success through a focus on students and their actions, to one that
was at least partially centered on faculty and their pedagogical/instructional practice. The team’s
refined repertoire was evident in their renegotiation of the meaning of student engagement, and
their subsequent appropriation of it as a key element for understanding pedagogical and
instructional practice. Their refined repertoire was also reflected in the team’s appropriation of a
new representation of student success, one that conceived of it as a phenomenon occurring along
racial/ethnic lines and not just in the aggregate form.
In addition to uncovering what was learned, I also found that the PD intervention shaped
the CTE team’s learning along the interpersonal plane through the employment of conceptual
(i.e., reification) and practical (i.e., participation) tools that triggered a negotiation of meaning
process within the CTE team. Significantly, the degree to which these conceptual and practical
tools were effective for triggering the negotiation of meaning process was itself shaped by the
assistance (i.e., questioning and instructing) with which these tools were coupled. The PD
intervention also shaped learning along the interpersonal plane by supporting community
maintenance through the fostering of a sense of safety that helped balance out the risk of
critically examining practice in a social setting.
Lessons Learned From Millennium College
As outlined in Chapter II, there exists minimal research related to CTE faculty learning.
As a result, this study’s findings offer valuable insights into the topic of CTE faculty learning,
particularly in respect to: (a) what might be learned within a PD intervention that is
predominantly focused on the co-design and implementation of practice-related tools, and (b)
how participation in such an intervention might shape that learning. In this section, I draw out
281
from this study’s findings what factors seemed to matter for CTE faculty learning at Millennium
College and discuss their connection with prior empirical research on CTE faculty and/or
practitioner learning, and the theoretical framework guiding this study (i.e., sociocultural
learning).
Grounding PD Intervention in Participants’ Practice Mattered for Learning
Prior research related to CTE faculty learning (Grubb, 2000; Hoekstra & Crocker, 2014)
and practitioner learning more broadly (Bickerstaff & Cormier, 2014) has shown that
professional development grounded in participants’ own practice (e.g., collecting data about
local pedagogy/instruction, discussing local pedagogical/instructional practices and artifacts,
etc.) can foster learning along the interpersonal plane. Findings from this current study support
this prior research and extend it.
Peer observation. Like Grubb (2000), this study specifically shows that grounding PD
in peer observation prompted a negotiation of meaning process at the interpersonal level. My
findings, however, reveal greater detail about what that negotiation of meaning process can look
like for a group of CTE faculty engaged in peer observation activities. For example, during
iteration #2, when the CTE team was examining their compiled peer observation data, some of
the CTE team members publicly surfaced their previously held ideas about pedagogy and
instruction—particularly those related to student engagement and its role in student success—for
more conscious and critical examination. This is a significant insight to have surfaced
considering that remediation of practice typically implies unlearning “entrenched knowledge,”
an outcome not easily achieved (Bensimon, 2007). The surfacing and more critical examination
of prior beliefs within the CTE team, that was prompted by their analysis of data from within
their own practice, seems to reflect this unlearning process, and thus highlights the potential
282
influence of PD experiences that are grounded in practice through activities such as peer
observation.
Analysis of student data. In Chapter II, I outlined findings from an Equity Scorecard
study (Bensimon & Harris, 2012) that included a group of higher education practitioners
analyzing local student success data, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Although Bensimon
and Harris (2012) did not explicitly draw out the ways in which this activity type alone shaped
their participants’ learning, it was identified as one of the mediational means through which prior
understandings about racial/ethnic inequity in student success was remediated. This current
study provides additional support for this earlier finding. For example, Instructor G described
the data analysis activities employed in this study as having expanded his “mindset” related to
what an instructor ought to be thinking about, and Instructor B noted that the specific method
used to analyze disaggregated data (i.e., percentage-point gap) provided a more intelligible way
to make sense of the racial/ethnic equity gaps observed at Millennium.
In the earlier study, Bensimon and Harris (2012) also found that recognizing inequity in
local student data did not translate to equity-minded practice (i.e., thinking or acting in an equity-
minded manner). Findings from this current study, offer some insights into why recognizing
racial/ethnic inequity in local data may not always translate to transformation in practice. As
noted in Chapter VII, Instructors A and D both questioned the degree to which their own
pedagogical and instructional practices were implicated in the course completion data analyzed
by the CTE team. This data was at the college and program-of-study levels, and not at the
classroom level. In essence, they asserted that perhaps the equity gaps observed in the college
and program-of-study data were the result of the practices of other CTE or program-of-study
instructors, respectively, and not the result of their practice personally. This seems to suggest
283
that data closer to practice (Dowd et al, 2017 forthcoming), such as that from one’s own
classroom, might be needed to promote greater transformation in faculty practice.
Iterative co-design and implementation of practice-related tools. Broadly speaking,
the iterative co-design and implementation of a peer observation protocol and process (i.e.,
DBIR) was the core means through which the PD intervention at Millennium was grounded in
participants’ practice. Previous studies (Voogt et al., 2015) that have examined how the DBIR
approach shaped learning have found that it fostered deep understanding of the focal topic (e.g.,
integrating participatory instructional techniques). My study’s findings seem to support this
prior evidence and also reveal that an additional benefit of the DBIR approach is how it models
for participants a method to engage in continuous improvement within their own
institution/system. Continuous improvement is a guiding principle of the DBIR approach
(Fishman et al., 2013), and one that Instructor B recognized in the following remark:
This is the first time in this process, even though we’ve talked about how the inquiry
process involves piloting things and then going back and revisiting and assessing and
evaluating…this is the first time where I feel like we put that into practice, where we
actually took our observation protocol…and, as Jason observed, there were some things
where he thought it could be improved and so I appreciate that we are doing that [now].
We are looking at our methodology and trying some new things.
That Instructor B raised this point during a CTE team meeting suggests that all of the other
participants were also at least partially cognizant of how the CTE team’s joint work modeled a
process for engaging in continuous improvement. If one acknowledges that eradicating low and
inequitable student success rates likely calls for such a continuous approach, participants’
increased recognition of how to carry it out within their own practice seems significant.
284
Incorporating Conceptual Tools Mattered for Learning
In respect to learning along the personal plane, previous research in CTE faculty learning
(Grubb, 2000; Hoekstra & Crocker, 2014) has also shown that increased awareness pertaining to
pedagogy and instruction, and subsequent learning in the form of adaptations in one’s practice,
can occur through PD that is grounded in participants’ own practice. This study’s findings offer
further support to this prior research, and also provides deeper insight into how this “increased
awareness” might be achieved. More specifically, my findings reveal the influence that
incorporating conceptual tools had on CTE faculty learning within a PD intervention that was
grounded in practice.
Through application of the sociocultural lens, my analysis revealed that participants’
observation of the pedagogical and instructional practice of peers led to increased awareness of
pedagogy and instruction via the support of cognitive structuring, or the “provision of a structure
for thinking and acting” (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988, p. 63). This cognitive structuring was
provided in the form of prompts connected to an observation protocol (e.g., put yourself in the
shoes of students, document whether student-student interaction was fostered, etc.), and it
resulted in some CTE faculty team members focusing their attention onto aspects of pedagogy
and instruction of which they had previously not taken full account, such as instructor-student
interactions.
That engagement with both types of tools (i.e., practical and conceptual) was more
supportive of learning than engagement with just practical tools alone was further evidenced by
the differing transformations in practice at the end of iteration #1 and iteration #2. During
iteration #1, participants engaged almost exclusively with practical tools (i.e., peer observation).
Other than the overview of equity-mindedness and CUE’s theory of change that took place
285
during the CTE team’s first meeting, no conceptual tools were included in iteration #1. During
the CTE team meeting that concluded iteration #1, I documented members struggling to talk in
substantive ways about: (a) pedagogy and instruction, and (b) how pedagogy and instruction may
be linked with inequitable student-success rates at the college. While I do not maintain that it
was solely the inclusion of conceptual tools that lead to the CTE team members demonstrating
deeper transformations in their practice by the end of iteration #2, I am of the mind that
conceptual tools played a role. This is supported by the fact that at the end of the PD
intervention all members of the CTE team invoked student engagement—one of the core
conceptual tools introduced during iteration #2—as a key element for understanding pedagogy
and instruction.
This finding that suggests conceptual tools, and not just practical tools, mattered for CTE
learning is supported by prior empirical research I reviewed in Chapter II (Bransford et al., 2000;
Grossman et al., 2009; Grossman, 2011) that outlines the importance of including a knowledge-
centered component to PD interventions. Moreover, from the sociocultural theory perspective,
the two types of experiences prompted by practical and conceptual tools are reflective of the
duality of reification and participation, which Wenger (1998) argues is necessary for learning.
Conducting Joint Work as Part of A Community of Practice Mattered for Learning
In Chapter III, I outlined various strands of sociocultural theory (Rogoff, 1995; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1988; Wenger, 1998) that illuminate learning as a social phenomenon, and in Chapter
II, I laid out evidence spanning higher education (Bensimon & Harris, 2012; Peña, 2012) and K-
12 (McLaughlin & Talbert 2001) highlighting the ways in which participation in a community of
practice can shape learning by providing access to various forms of assistance. The findings of
this current study provide further support for this prior research, and shed additional light on
286
some of the core mechanisms through which assistance can flow within a learning community
like that of the CTE team.
Modeling provided assistance in learning. This current study’s findings align with
prior findings (Bensimon & Harris, 2012; Peña, 2012) that suggest that modeling is a form of
assistance made available within in a community of practice. As noted in Chapter II, however,
this past research produced somewhat different conclusions about the degree to which modeling
can influence learning. While Bensimon and Harris (2012) found that modeling equity-
mindedness was not sufficient to support transformation in practice (i.e., participants did not
appropriate equity-minded talk or actions), Peña (2012) found that such modeling did produce
transformations in practice (e.g., attempting to increase eye-contact with students of color).
This current study’s findings align with those of Peña’s. For example, when Instructor E
observed Instructor C, she noticed Instructor C’s effective use of a pedagogical/instructional
strategy (i.e., calling on individual students) that she herself had previously believed to be
ineffective and/or possibly detrimental to learning. However, after seeing Instructor C model
this strategy in an effective fashion, Instructor E was compelled to implement it in her own
classroom. In another example, Instructor B described how, after seeing them modeled during
the CTE team meeting, he appropriated strategies such as posting an agenda at the start of class,
beginning each lecture with a review of the previous one, and using discussion protocols to foster
student-to-student interaction during his lectures.
While Bensimon and Harris (2012) and Peña (2012) do not provide a specific discussion
of factors that may have affected the degree to which modeling was impactful in their studies,
Tharp and Gallimore (1988) suggest two factors that are likely relevant: relationship between
actors and reinforcement. In the case of Instructor E receiving modeling from Instructor C, their
287
relationship likely was a factor. Instructor C is Instructor E’s pathway/department chair.
Moreover, throughout the study I observed a close-knit and collaborative dynamic between these
two participants. In the case of Instructor B, reinforcement was likely a factor. The practices he
observed were not modeled only once, but consistently at every CTE team meeting.
Feedback provided assistance in learning. In Chapter III, feedback was defined as
receiving information pertaining to one’s performance that is reflected back by someone else or
the self (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Findings from this study show that participants received this
type of assistance from others through participation in the CTE team, and that it supported their
transformations in practice. These findings support earlier findings of Martin & Double (1998)
and Shortland (2004), and extend them by specifying some of the types of feedback (i.e., positive
reinforcement, constructive criticism) that have the potential to remediate practice among CTE
faculty. For some participants in this study, feedback provided positive reinforcement around
the use of effective pedagogical/instructional strategies that led to the feedback recipients being
more intentional about implementing these strategies (e.g., Instructor A’s more intentional
implementation of calling on students in the back of room after receiving feedback from
Instructor F and myself). For others, feedback functioned as constructive criticism about how
employed strategies could be improved that led to the feedback recipients taking corrective
action related to those strategies (e.g., Instructor E curbing her use of the question “Does that
make sense?” after receiving feedback from Instructor C and myself).
It is worth considering the above findings—which suggest that the feedback enabled
through peer observation can shape learning—within the context of a debate in the literature
about whether feedback from the observer to the observed ought to be part of peer observation
activities. Cosh (1998) argued that peer observation should not include providing feedback to
288
the observed as doing so is likely to undermine collegiality and trust. Instead, he asserted that
peer observation should only be implemented as a support for the observer’s learning, with no
feedback exchange included. While Shortland (2004) acknowledged that the exchange of
feedback can raise issues of power (particularly if the observer becomes positioned as an
“evaluator” of practice quality), she drew on her own empirical findings to support the claim that
feedback can inform the observed partner’s practice without incurring the consequences
suggested by Cosh (1998). Shortland (2004) did, however, recommend that to help mediate
potential power dynamics, partners ought to select each other and have time to establish trust in
each other.
This study’s findings are aligned with those of Shortland (2004), and her assertions about
the factors that enable observing partners to share and implement feedback also seem relevant.
In this current study, participants did indeed choose their partners for peer observation, and in
most cases this resulted in partnerships of individuals from within the same
pathway/department.
80
As a result of opting for within-pathway/department partnerships, there
were two cases of cross-role partnerships (i.e., a faculty member and a department chair). In one
of these cases, I did document an instance when power dynamics may have shaped the feedback
between partners.
81

In respect to Shortland’s (2004) other recommendation of providing time for trust to be
established within these partnerships, various components of the PD intervention more broadly
may have assisted in achieving such a condition. First, each CTE team meeting included a set of
rituals intended to foster a sense of community and trust among all participants (e.g., facilitating

80
The partnership between Instructors B and G was the one exception.
81
As noted previously, during the peer-observation debrief following Instructor E’s observation of Instructor C,
Instructor E did not provide any “I wonder” feedback to Instructor C, even though the protocol called on her to do
so. While she claimed to not have any wonderings, I got the sense it was more due to her discomfort with the idea
of giving feedback to her supervisor.
289
an icebreaker at the beginning of each meeting to help participants get to know each other better
and/or reconnect). Second, direct instruction was provided to the CTE team on how to give and
receive feedback, and various supporting materials (e.g., worksheets, guiding principles, imagery,
etc.) were reviewed. Third, a highly structured protocol was provided to guide the post-
observation debrief (i.e., the setting in which feedback was exchanged). This protocol included
prompts that called on the observers to build their feedback based on specific data they collected
during the peer observation, rather than based solely on their opinions of what they observed. It
also provided exemplars of both what to say, and what not to say, when offering feedback.
While this study’s findings do not make certain the degree to which any of these various efforts
helped to foster trust within the peer observation partnerships, evidence laid out in Chapters VI
and VII suggest they may have been generally effective towards this end (e.g., Instructor B’s
description of how the CTE team’s rituals helped to create a feeling of “camaraderie,” Instructor
D’s and F’s comments about the usefulness of the prompts in the protocol used during the peer-
observation debriefs, and Instructor D’s description of the CTE group as a “circle of trust”).
Facilitation Mattered for Learning
Prior research (Bickerstaff & Cormier, 2014) in practitioner learning has found that the
quality of facilitation mediates the effectiveness of PD interventions incorporating joint work.
For example, Bickerstaff and Cormier (2014) found that when local faculty members facilitated
professional development events, they often had difficulty “addressing questions about
classroom practice” due to their own “lack of experience engaging in discussions about teaching”
(p. 5). The findings from this study support this earlier evidence that facilitation matters. For
example, along the interpersonal plane, various forms of community maintenance (Wenger,
1998) were found to support the CTE team’s learning, and some of this was enabled specifically
290
through facilitation moves, that included: ensuring the team’s compiled peer observation data
maintained all members’ anonymity, generating and maintaining meeting rituals that helped to
create a sense of “camaraderie” (e.g., opening each meeting with an icebreaker), and promoting
open and honest communication among team members during group dialogue. Relatedly, in at
least one instance, this study’s findings also revealed how lack of effective facilitation moves
negatively influenced learning (e.g., Instructors D and E both experienced diminished safety due
to my failure, as facilitator, to recognize and subsequently address that the team’s data depicted
the behaviors linked to African American/Black students as negative and those linked with all
other racial/ethnic groups as positive).
At a more core level, facilitation shaped CTE faculty learning in this study simply
because of the high degree of influence the facilitator role maintained over the architecture of the
PD intervention itself. Even though Instructor B operated as a partial co-facilitator, and all team
members had input on the iterative designing of the peer observation protocol/process, I (as
external facilitator) carried out all of the following actions: (a) drafting the initial designs of the
peer observation protocol/process, (b) selecting the course completion data to analyze and
designing the tools to support that activity, (c) selecting the concepts and frameworks from
literature to review and designing the tools to support that activity, (d) creating the agenda for all
CTE team meetings, and (e) leading the majority of activities within each CTE team meeting.
In light of the fact that a good portion of the tools and practices employed were either
adapted from or informed by previously published CUE materials, and that I was functioning at
Millennium as a CUE researcher (and not a CTE faculty member from Millennium), the tools I
introduced to the group can be conceived of as boundary objects and my position as external
facilitator as one of a broker (Wenger, 1998). Wenger (1998) has theorized, and Coburn and
291
Stein (2006) have empirically demonstrated, that when boundary objects make their way into a
community of practice (such as that of the CTE team) and a facilitator then brokers attention
around them, discontinuities and interruptions unfold which in turn can spark the negotiation of
new meaning and thus learning. This study’s findings seem to align with this prior research, in
that the above-described collection of boundary objects, and my facilitation of the CTE team’s
engagement with them, interrupted aspects of CTE faculty practice at Millennium. For example,
the introduction of literature related to the concept of student engagement prompted an ongoing
negotiation of meaning process related to what student engagement ought to look like in a
classroom/lab at Millennium. While the team did not adopt, wholesale, all of the ideas presented
in this literature, they did appropriate the concept of student engagement as a key element
through which pedagogy and instruction could be understood. The introduction of the concept of
equity-mindedness and the CTE team’s related appropriation of student success as a
phenomenon that occurs along racial/ethnic lines (rather than only in the aggregate) reflects yet
another interruption to CTE faculty practice at Millennium College.
Participants’ Identity Trajectories Mattered for Learning
In their study examining the formation of a learning community within a K-12 setting,
Grossman and her colleagues (2001) found that participants’ identities were anchored in the
subject matter they taught, and subsequently these participants did not all operate from within the
same sociocultural understandings. Findings from this current study reflect those of Grossman
and her associates in that participants’ identities were also not all anchored in the same identity
trajectory. Consequently, learning along the personal plane was not the same for all CTE team
members, because the context from within which they each participated entailed different
292
sociocultural understandings. In contrast to the findings from Grossman and her associates,
however, the different trajectories represented at Millennium were not disciplinary in nature.
Another difference between the findings of Grossman and her colleagues and this study is
that in the former, the presence of differing identity trajectories was found to challenge the
formation of an effective learning community. In this current study, however, the presence of
different identity trajectories did not seem to have this same negative impact. While it is difficult
to ascertain the reason for these different findings, two explanations seem possible. First, the
lack of negative impact on learning community observed in this current study could be due to a
common strand across all three identity trajectories that provided some form of coherence among
the participants. For example, addressing racial/ethnic equity gaps was a feasible goal for all
three instructors featured in the case studies. For Instructor D, pursuing this goal would help him
be a better instructor. For Instructor A, pursuing this goal would help him achieve campus-wide
improvement for students. For Instructor E, pursuing this goal might help her overcome the
various forms of subtle racism she had observed at the college. At an even more basic level,
perhaps the fact that all participants identified as CTE was enough to provide a sense of
coherence within the CTE team.
82

A second possible explanation for these conflicting findings between the earlier study and
this current one is that the CTE team at Millennium may not have yet developed past what
Grossman and her associates (2001) labeled as “pseudocommunity.” In a pseudocommunity,
members might have diverging opinions but they pretend they agree out of their mutual need for

82
Some higher education scholars (e.g., Cohen and Brawer, 1989) highlight the philosophical and cultural
differences that exist between CTE and non-CTE sectors of the community college, while others (Twombly &
Townsend, 2008) underscore the “status tensions” that can exist between these two groups (p. 17).

293
civility. Ultimately, had the current study been extended, greater clarity around these conflicting
findings might have been possible.
Time Mattered for Learning
In their discussion of why participants in their study did not achieve transformations in
practice in the form of equity-minded talk and/or actions, Bensimon and Harris (2012) posited
that duration of the PD intervention was likely a mediating factor. Based on their findings that
illuminated the complexities of forming a teacher community capable of supporting practitioner
learning, Grossman and her colleagues (2001) also noted duration of PD interventions as a factor.
Findings from this current study also hint at support for these earlier conclusions. While there is
much evidence in this study to show that transformations in practice occurred, some of that
learning likely existed in what Vygotsky (1978) labeled an “embryonic state” (p. 86). Although
I have already shared the following comment from Instructor D, I include it here again as it
seems to capture the fragility that Vygotsky was referencing, and because it likely reflects the
nature of CTE faculty learning that unfolded through the PD intervention at Millennium.
I guess I'd be sad that we’ve got some stuff but we're not...I'm sad we’re not gonna be
continuing on with this [learning] part, too. Do I feel like I’m gonna stop thinking about
what I could do more in my classroom by trying to build something that the whole
college can incorporate? But maybe that’s just...”
In these remarks, Instructor D reflected on whether or not his learning would endure once the
CTE team shifted its attention towards scaling the intervention. While the final few words of
this statement seem to imply his sense that perhaps this was an inevitability, one wonders how
Instructor D’s learning—and that of the entire CTE team—might have further evolved had the
PD intervention at Millennium maintained its learning (as opposed to scaling) focus.
294
Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research
In light of the limited empirical evidence related to CTE faculty learning—and relatedly
how CTE faculty practice might be remediated so that CTE students’ success rates are improved
and become more equitable across racial/ethnic lines—this study represents a significant
contribution through its examination of CTE faculty learning within the PD intervention at
Millennium College. This contribution is noteworthy, not only because of the insights offered in
respect to the types of activities and conditions that can support learning among CTE faculty, but
also because it reveals that organizational change within community colleges might be pursued
and realized through a focus on personal and interpersonal learning rather than primarily through
a focus on structural reorganization that much of the current community college reforms
promulgate (e.g., the pathway model emphasized within initiatives such as Completion by
Design, which I described in Chapter I). A second contribution of this study is its detailed
depiction of how the DBIR approach was used within a higher education setting to
simultaneously accomplish both research and development. In this section I expand on the
significance of these contributions by outlining their implications for practice, policy, and
research.
Practice and Policy
If policy makers and practitioners acknowledge that CTE classrooms/labs are a primary
setting within which low and inequitable student success rates take shape,
83
then understanding
the types of PD activities that can enhance CTE faculty members’ learning about pedagogy and
instruction, and subsequently support the remediation of practice, is crucial. The findings of this

83
In Chapter I, I laid out an argument for why classrooms/labs ought to be recognized as a key setting in which
student success takes shape. In particular, I noted that teaching and learning are the core technology of community
colleges, classrooms/labs are the spaces where community college students spend most of their on-campus time, and
research from K-12 had already clearly established a link between pedagogy/instruction and student success.
295
study offer some initial insights into this matter. First, similar to prior research on practitioner
learning, my findings suggest that grounding PD within CTE faculty’s practice through activities
such as peer observation and disaggregated data analysis supports learning. In particular,
constructing PD that includes the iterative co-design and implementation of tools for practice can
serve as a model for how to engage in continuous improvement, an approach which is likely
needed to fully address a persistent problem such as low and inequitable student success rates.
Second, my study’s findings demonstrate that CTE faculty learning is enhanced when conceptual
tools (e.g., reviewing concepts from literature) are incorporated into the architecture of PD
interventions, as they can provide needed assistance in the form of cognitive structuring. Since
many CTE faculty have not had the opportunity to study some of the core tenets of pedagogy and
instruction, or equity, this form of assistance may be particularly significant. Third, this study’s
findings suggest that CTE learning is supported through PD interventions that involve joint work
in a community of practice such as that of the CTE team. In such settings, CTE members can
gain access to assistance for learning in the form of modeling and feedback.
In addition to the types of activities that practitioners and policy makers may want to
include in their PD intervention designs, this study’s findings also reveal certain factors that can
mediate the success of those interventions among CTE faculty. First, this study’s findings echo
those of prior studies on practitioner learning (Bensimon & Harris, 2012; Bickerstaff & Cormier,
2014; Grossman et al., 2001; Grubb et al., 1999; Perin, 2011) which suggest that learning does
not occur quickly. Indeed, even after approximately one year of relatively intensive involvement
in the PD intervention at Millennium College, this study’s participants had not fully adapted their
pedagogical and instructional practice to reflect all of the tenets of student engagement
(Danielson, 2016) and equity-mindedness (Bensimon, 2012), two concepts that were reinforced
296
throughout the PD intervention. For example, even though the CTE team appropriated student
engagement as a key element for understanding pedagogy and instruction, not all members fully
adopted all of the ideas related to student engagement (e.g., Instructor D maintained that small
group activities would not be suitable for the lecture portion of his class). Also, even though the
CTE team fine-tuned their enterprise to include a greater focus on faculty and their actions, they
did not entirely abandon some of their previous student-deficit ideas (e.g., at the end of the
intervention, Instructor A still perceived students’ lack of preparation and commitment as
primary reasons for the equity gaps at Millennium). Thus, the time needed to realize significant
transformations in practice is clearly even more than this intervention’s ten months. This
suggests that a PD intervention that aims to address low and inequitable student success rates in
CTE by remediating the pedagogical and instructional practice of CTE faculty should likely be
structured in an ongoing format.
This study’s findings suggest that PD aimed at remediating CTE faculty practice may
require external facilitation (at least initially, or intermittently). Indeed, the sociocultural
learning perspective conceives of learning within a community of practice, such as the CTE team,
as being mediated by three aspects of their practice: the objective they perceive for themselves,
the repertoire of resources available to them, and their existing forms of social engagement. If
the substance of these three aspects of social practice within a given institutional setting have
shown to be inadequate for or misaligned with the problem of low and inequitable student
success rates (e.g., the CTE faculty have limited resources in the form of lack of understanding
of how to foster student engagement and/or monitor racial/ethnic equity), then new substance
(i.e., through boundary objects and brokering) might be required to remediate these three aspects
of social practice. One context within which this external facilitation might be made available is
297
that of a research-practice partnership, such as the one between Millennium College and CUE in
which this study was situated. Another possibility might include implementing an instructional
coaching model similar to those that are currently receiving credence within the K-12 sector.
These coaches could take on the task of facilitating a variety of learning communities within a
given campus, and incorporating into them the types of activities and conditions that this study’s
findings suggest are important for CTE faculty learning.
This study’s findings also revealed that the learning of CTE faculty seemed grounded in
various identity trajectories, and relatedly that PD can have differing degrees of influence upon
learning within each of these trajectories. For example, the participant who invoked the identity
trajectory of an instructor seeking to improve his/her own practice (i.e., Instructor D) seemed
particularly open to new ideas about pedagogy and instruction and the link between pedagogy
and instruction and racial/ethnic equity. Significantly, four of the five CTE team members
within this particular identity trajectory were new to the full-time instructor role, suggesting a
link between the degree of full-time instructor experience and openness to considering new ideas
related to pedagogical and instructional practice. One implication of this finding is that colleges
might want to especially focus on the learning of new faculty members, to leverage this seeming
openness to learning. This might involve establishing incoming cohorts of new faculty as
learning communities that meet on an ongoing basis, and engage with both conceptual (e.g.,
concepts/frameworks related to teaching and learning) and practical (e.g., peer observation) tools
related to pedagogy and instruction and the link between pedagogy and instruction and
racial/ethnic equity in student success.
In slight contrast with the above insight, this study’s findings also revealed that
participants reported receiving assistance in learning from a variety of others, not just from those
298
who invoked a similar identity trajectory. Indeed, within the CTE team this assistance flowed
across lines of pathway/department, years of teaching experience, race/ethnicity, gender, and
organizational role. This seems to imply that professional development interventions for CTE
faculty can and perhaps ought to be facilitated within learning communities whose membership
reflects the full diversity of the institution’s faculty.
In sum, the above findings shed light on the types of activities and some of the supporting
conditions that can lead to transformations in practice among CTE faculty. Unfortunately, these
activities and conditions are not reflective of those typically observed within community colleges.
Indeed, during the time of this study, the more typical PD experience at Millennium College
entailed faculty members fulfilling the minimum number of annual “flex” hours (i.e., 33.5 hours
for individuals with a full-time assignment) in a PD activity of their choosing. Moreover, if this
study’s participants’ reports about their pre-CTE team PD involvement are reflective of larger
trends at the college, then this typical PD experience was also enacted at the individual level (e.g.,
a CTE faculty member attends on his/her own a recertification workshop in their field) and
maintained almost no explicit focus on topics such as: pedagogy and instruction, the link
between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic equity, or strategies that support continuous
improvement of practice. This disconnect between what this study’s findings suggest is effective,
and what currently takes place within community colleges, highlights the need for significant
policy changes related to PD for CTE faculty.
This study’s findings also hold policy implications that reach beyond that of PD for CTE
faculty. Program review is one such example. As part of the PD intervention at Millennium, the
CTE team re-examined student success data they had previously considered during the college’s
program review process. During this second round of engagement with the data, the participants
299
used tools that supported a more reflective analysis along the lines of race/ethnicity (e.g., using
PPG to identify equity gaps, etc.). Significantly, as a result of this re-examination, participants
reported a deeper understanding of racial/ethnic inequity and relatedly demonstrated a more open
orientation towards considering the ways in which their own practice might be linked with those
outcomes. This suggests that policy makers who are interested in addressing racial/ethnic
inequity in student success within community colleges might consider revamping program
review policies that currently do not prioritize rigorous analysis of student data along the lines of
race/ethnicity to ones that do prioritize it.
At an even broader level yet, this study’s findings reveal that the problem of low and
inequitable student success rates can be addressed through a focus on personal and interpersonal
learning. Even though this study does not show the link between CTE faculty learning and
improved student outcomes, it is expected that the former proceeds the latter (Guskey, 2002b)
and thus also serves as one of its predictors. While pursuing the improvement of low and
inequitable student success rates through a focus on personal and interpersonal learning is not an
entirely new idea, it is one that is significantly underemphasized in current community college
reform (see Chapter I for a discussion). Recent initiatives instead tend to prioritize the structural
changes needed within community colleges (e.g., the pathway reform). While I do not disagree
fundamentally with many of the ideas underlying this structural focus (e.g., colleges are
organized as silos that are not easily navigated by students), I maintain that such an emphasis
runs the risk of drawing needed attention away from pedagogical and instructional practice, and
learning related to how that practice is implicated in student success. Considering that teaching
and learning are thought to be the core technology of community colleges, this study’s approach
to change through personal and interpersonal learning is significant. Further research is now
300
needed to determine whether or not, and/or how, personal and interpersonal learning can
translate to learning at the institutional/cultural level.
Research
As outlined in Chapter V, this study rests in a larger research agenda that aims at building
knowledge and theory related to CTE faculty learning through an approach known as DBIR
(Penuel et al., 2011). Since research and development occur simultaneously within the DBIR
approach, I was able to build knowledge pertaining to CTE faculty learning while at the same
time helping to build participants’ capacity for engaging in continuous improvement. For
researchers who are eager to see their research efforts have a more expedited and direct impact
on practice, such an approach has much to offer. While the more direct inclusion of practitioners
at times entailed its own set of challenges (see proceeding section), I maintain that it also opened
the door to deeper understanding about CTE faculty members’ perceptions of and experiences
with pedagogy and instruction, and the link between pedagogy and instruction and racial/ethnic
equity in student success. This inclusion of practitioners also attends to the inequity in
participation characteristic of most traditional forms of research (Severance, Penuel, Leary, and
Sumner, 2015), and thus serves as a mechanism for democratizing research (Kirshner & Polman,
2013).
Of particular significance is this study’s documentation of a smaller-scale application of
DBIR, within a higher education setting. To date, most DBIR projects have occurred (or are
occurring) within the K-12 sector; and/or have also frequently involved large teams that include
multiple researchers, designers (e.g., curriculum designers, instructional-technology
integrationists, etc.), and practitioners. I did not have such a large team for this study at
Millennium College, and thus had to serve across all of these roles. This in turn produced certain
301
challenges. To help overcome these, I drew heavily on tools and ideas from more traditional
forms of action research, such as Herr and Anderson’s (2015) delineation of insider and outsider
positions, and Kemmis and McTaggart’s (2000) first-, second-, and third-person standpoints
within research (see section titled: “Research Positionality,” in Chapter IV for a discussion). In
documenting these efforts, this study provides deeper insights into how one might accomplish
DBIR within smaller-scale projects without the support of a larger team.
Limitations and Possible Directions for Future Research
This study maintains at least four limitations. As noted above, even though this study
examined CTE faculty learning for a period of almost one year, additional insights could likely
have been drawn had the study extended for a greater period of time. For example, extending the
study would have enabled me to examine whether the documented transformations in practice
that occurred through participation in the PD intervention held across time. Along the
interpersonal plane of learning, extending the study would have allowed me to analyze how the
CTE team’s learning evolved as greater control over their joint work was transferred to them.
The second limitation of this study is that my findings might have been strengthened had
I collected additional data during the earlier phases of the study. For example, although I
included classrooms observations as part of my data collection during the first half of the study
(i.e., iteration #1), I was only able to visit four classrooms/labs. Relatedly, I also did not audio
record the CTE team meetings during the first half of the study. Had I done so, I likely would
have been able to analyze with greater precision the ways in which the CTE team’s joint
enterprise and repertoire of resources evolved across the PD intervention.
An additional limitation of this study is that my theoretical framework likely did not draw
out issues of power in an adequate manner. While my analysis did surface power dynamics
302
along the lines of organizational role (e.g., Instructor E’s apparent reluctance to provide feedback
to Instructor C, who was her supervisor) and race/ethnicity (e.g., Instructor E’s loss of a sense of
safety during one CTE team meeting when she recognized that all of the behaviors attached to
students from within her own racial/ethnic group were negative in tone), my framework did not
focus analytic attention on the phenomenon of power and thus likely failed to reveal all of the
various ways in which it shaped CTE faculty learning experiences during the PD intervention.
Future studies of CTE faculty learning, particularly those involving an examination of joint work,
would likely be strengthened by conceptual frameworks that include theories capable of
capturing issues of power.
The final limitation of this study is related to the larger research agenda of which this
study was a part (i.e., DBIR). This approach is grounded in the idea of collaborating with
practitioners in the systematic and iterative designing of tools related to practice. Although this
approach affords certain advantages to a study about CTE faculty learning, achieving equal
contribution of researchers and practitioners in a co-design process is challenging, and perhaps
unrealistic. It was, at least, in this project. The CTE faculty at Millennium did not engage in the
drafting of initial protocol designs. Being presented with a draft and providing feedback was
essentially the form of co-design operationalized in this study, and it was that degree of
involvement this study’s participants seemed to desire. This might have been the result of them
having limited time to throw at such endeavors, or because they did not feel they had the needed
knowledge or expertise to do so. My sense is that it was likely a bit of both. Regardless, future
studies that seek to incorporate the DBIR approach, or some other methodology that involves co-
designing tools, ought to maintain awareness of this potential tension.
303
In addition to ideas already mentioned, there are a few avenues along which future
research could move. The first of these is to continue the larger research agenda in which this
study was situated. This would entail: (a) continuing to document and examine any further
iterations the CTE team makes to the peer observation protocol and process; (b) documenting
and examining the completed tool’s impact on CTE faculty learning as it is fully implemented at
Millennium, and identifying the key mediating factors of that learning; and (c) conducting an
effectiveness and scale up study to determine the types of supports needed for implementation
and the conditions supporting sustainability.
This dissertation study took place as part of a larger research-practice partnership
between Millennium College and CUE. As outlined in Chapter V, this partnership shaped the
study in two significant ways. First, some of the study’s participants were already familiar
and/or comfortable with some of the core principles underlying this study, such as equity-
mindedness. Second, this ongoing partnership enabled me to enter the CTE team as a known
ally and as a recipient of a certain degree of trust. To more fully understand how such a
research-practice partnership shapes learning within a PD intervention like that examined in this
study, future research might include a multiple case study (Yin, 2014). In such a study, two
cases could be examined, one that involves a research-practice partnership and one that does not.
One other question coming out of this study is: In what ways is CTE faculty learning
different from that of other community college faculty? Broadly speaking, the CTE team at
Millennium delivered minimal push back throughout the duration of the PD intervention. Based
on experiences with non-CTE faculty at Millennium and other community colleges (through my
work as a CUE researcher) this willingness to “go along” with the program seems somewhat
atypical. While this could have been more an outcome of the trust that had been established
304
through the ongoing partnership between Millennium and CUE, it could also have something to
do with the very different contexts of CTE and non-CTE. CTE fields are continuously evolving
and thus so must their practitioners be. For example, ten years ago an auto mechanic likely had
to maintain minimal understanding about electrical cars, but today that is not the case. In
contrast, non-CTE fields, such as English, math, humanities, and such do not seem to evolve in
the same manner. As a result of these differing contexts, perhaps CTE faculty are more open to
learning and becoming different people (Wenger, 1998) than are their non-CTE counterparts.
Here, a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2014) to the question would also be potentially
informative.
Conclusion
Recognizing that CTE faculty members typically have had the least preparation in
regards to pedagogy and instruction (Achtenhagen & Grubb, 2001; Bartlett, 2002; Twombly &
Townsend, 2008), I entered this study questioning the degree to which CTE faculty would
embrace an initiative focused on fostering pedagogical and instructional improvement. On one
hand, I wondered if their lack of preparation in pedagogy and instruction might make them eager
to learn as much as they could about the topic. On the other hand, I wondered if their lack of
preparation might prevent them from seeing the value in learning about pedagogy and instruction
and in particular how it is implicated in student success. This study’s findings are significant as
they clearly show that, for at least this one group of CTE faculty at Millennium, pedagogy and
instruction can be a welcomed topic of PD among CTE faculty. Even more significant, these
findings demonstrate that in taking up such a topic, this group of CTE faculty transformed their
practice and did so in ways that reflected an increased focus on the problem of low and
inequitable student success rates. While these findings hold promise, to truly move the needle on
305
low and inequitable student success rates will require significantly larger numbers of CTE
faculty participating in these or similar types of PD that have the potential to support learning at
the individual, group, and institutional/cultural levels.

306
Bibliography
Achtenhagen, F. (1994). How should research on vocational and professional education react to
new challenges in life and in the workplace? In W. J. Nijholf & J. N. Streumer (Eds.),
Flexibility in training and vocational education (pp. 201-247). Utrecht: Lemma.
Achtenhagen, F., & Grubb, W. N. (2001). Vocational and occupational education: Pedagogical
complexity, institutional diversity. In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research on
teaching (pp. 604-639). Washington, DC: AERA.
Achtenhagen, F., Tramm, T., Preiss, P., seemann-Weymar, H., John, E. G., & Schunck, A.
(1992). Lernhandeln in komplexen situationen [Learn-acting in complex situations].
Wiesbaden: Gabler.
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary
school mathematics. The elementary school journal, 373-397.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an occasion for structuring: Evidence from observations of
CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 78-108.
Bartlett, I. I. (2002). Preparing, licensing, and certifying postsecondary career and technical
educators. Journal of Vocational Education Research, 27(1), 109-130.
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, E. M. (2012). The equity scorecard: Theory of change. In E. M. Bensimon & L.
307
Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity
scorecard in theory and practice (pp. 216-246). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bensimon, E. M., & Hanson, D. A. (2012). The Equity Scorecard process: Tools, practices, and
methods. In E. M. Bensimon & L. Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus:
Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice (pp. 159-190). Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bensimon, E. M., & Harris, F. III. (2012). The meditational means of enacting equity
mindedness among community college practitioners. In E. M. Bensimon & L. Malcolm
(Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in
theory and practice (pp. 216-246). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D., Bauman, G., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing research that
makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.
Bickerstaff, S., & Cormier, M. S. (2014). Examining faculty questions to facilitate instructional
improvement in higher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 1-7.
Biesenthal, C. (2014). Pragmatism. In D. Coghlan & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The Sage
Encyclopedia of Action Research (pp. 1-6). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Blasé, J., & Bjork, L. (2009). The micropolitics of educational change and reform: Cracking
open the black box. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.),
Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 237-258). Springer:
Netherlands.
Borko, H., & Klingner, J. (2013). Supporting teachers in schools to improve their instructional
308
practice. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112 (2), 274-297.
Bragg, D. D. (2001). Opportunities and challenges for the new vocationalism. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 115, 5-16.
Bragg, D. D. (2011). Examining pathways to and through the community college for youth and
adults. In P. J. C. Smart, M. B. (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and
Research (Vol. 26, pp. 355-393). The Netherlands: Springer.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school (expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Daguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning.
Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:
Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization science, 2(1),
40-57.
Carl D. Perkins CTE Improvement Act of 2006. (2006). The Library of Congress. Retrieved
from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/sectech/leg/perkins/index.html
Center for Urban Education. (2015a). Rapid Feedback Memo #2. Rossier School of Education,
University of Southern California.
Center for Urban Education. (2015b). Internal Culminating Report. Rossier School of Education,
University of Southern California.
Center for Urban Education, & Gray, J. (2016). Classroom observations for equity-minded and
culturally inclusive practices. Rossier School of Education, University of Southern
California.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
309
Cobb, P. (1994). Where is the mind? Constructivist and sociocultural perspectives on
mathematical development. Educational researcher, 23(7), 13-20.
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of
reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476-509.
Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2006). Communities of practice theory and the role of teacher
professional community in policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.) New directions in
education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 25-46). Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American community college (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, D. (2005). Professions of human improvement: Predicaments of teaching. In M. Nisan &
O. Schremer (Eds.), Educational deliberations (pp. 278-294). Jerusalem: Keter.
Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
Cole, M., & Engeström, Y. (1993). A cultural-historical approach to distributed cognition.
Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations, 1-46.
Completion by Design. (2016). Building guided pathways: Practical lessons from Completion by
Design colleges. Completion by Design.
Cosh, J. (1998). Peer observation in higher education: A reflective approach. Innovations in
Education and Training International, 35(2), 171-176.
Cox, R. D. (2009). The college fear factor: How students and professors misunderstand one
another. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design choosing among five approaches
310
(2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: The
Danielson Group LLC.
Danielson, C. (2016). The framework for teaching: Six clusters supporting high level learning.
Princeton, NJ: The Danielson Group LLC.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-44.
Davis, B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp.
1-32). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi Lecture Series. New York:
Collier/Macmillian.
Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Russell, J. L., & Bryk, A. S. (2013). More than a network: Building
professional communities for educational improvement. National Society for the Study of
Education Yearbook, 112(2), 443-463.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving beyond the
access “saga” toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 1-13.
311
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the race question: Accountability in U.S.
higher education. New York, NY: Teacher College Press.
Dowd, A. C., Witham, K., Hanson, D., Ching, C., Liera, R., & Castro, M. F. (2017, forthcoming).
Bringing data to life: How savvy college leaders find the "actionable N" to improve
equity and sustainability in higher education.
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold and R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a
psychology of education (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal
of the Learning sciences, 11(1), 105-121.
Edwards, A. R., Sandoval, C., & McNamara, H. (2015). Designing for improvement in
professional development for community college developmental mathematics maculty.
Journal of Teacher Education, 1-16.
Eisner, E. (1994). The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school
programs (3
rd
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., & Poikela, R. (1996). The change laboratory
as a tool for transforming work. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 10-17.
Ewers, J. (2016, April 7). California business leaders push for workforce training support in state
budget. California Economic Summit. Retrieved from
http://www.caeconomy.org/reporting/entry/california-business-leaders-push-for-
workforce-training-in-state-budget
Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, AR., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based
312
implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of
research and practice. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112
(2), 136-156.
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. Myra B. Ramos. New York, NY: Seaview.
Gallagher, H. A. (2004). Vaughn Elementary’s innovative teacher evaluation system: Are
teacher evaluation scores related to growth in student achievement? Peabody Journal of
Education, 79(4), 79-107.
Gay. G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education,
53(2), 106-116.
Giroux, H. A. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the
modern age. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Giroux, H. A. (1992). Border crossing: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New
York: Routledge.
Giroux, H. A. (1997). Pedagogy and the politics of hope: Theory, culture, and schooling.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Chicago: Aldine.
Goe, L., Bell, C., & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research
synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217-223.
Grossman, P. (2011). Framework for teaching practice: A brief history of an idea. Teachers
College Record, 113(12), 2836-2843.
Grossman, P., Compton, C., Igra, D., Ronfeldt, M., Shahan, E., & Williamson, P. W. (2009).
313
Teaching practice: A cross-professional perspective. Teachers College Record, 111(9),
2055-2100.
Grossman, P., Smagorinsky, P., & Valencia, S. (1999). Appropriating tools for teaching English:
A theoretical framework for research on learning to teach. American Journal of
Education, 108(1), 1-29.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community.
Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1012.
Grubb, W. N. (2000). Opening classrooms and improving schools: Lessons from inspection
systems in England. Teachers College Record, 102(4), 696-723.
Grubb, W. N., Worthen, H., Byrd, B., Webb, E., Badway, N., Case, C., Goto, S., & Villeneuve,
J. C. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gumport, P. J., & Chun, M. (1999). Technology and higher education: Opportunities and
challenges for the new era. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford
University, School of Education.
Guskey, T. R. (2002a). Does it make a difference? Evaluation professional development.
Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.
Guskey, T. R. (2002b). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 8(3/4), 381-391.
Hanks, W. F. (1991). Foreword. In J. Lave & E. Wenger (Eds.), Situated learning: Legitimate
peripheral participation (pp. 13-24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Hansen, M. (2016, April 15). The next steps for career prep: Career and technical education
314
might be the new policy dujour, but policymakers need to invest in it for the long term.
US News & World Report. Retrieved from: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-
bank/articles/2016-04-15/invest-in-career-and-technical-education-policies-for-the-long-
term
Harkin, J., & Davis, P. (1996). The communications styles of teachers in post-compulsory
education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 20, 25-34.
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Heneman, H. G., Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., & Odden, A. (2006). Standards-based teacher
evaluation as a foundation for knowledge- and skill-based pay (CPRE Policy Briefs No.
RB-45). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from:
http://www.cpre.org/images/storeis/cpre_pdfs/RB45.pdf
Herr, K., & Anderson, G. L. (2015). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and
faculty (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Hoekstra, A., & Crocker, J. R. (2015). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an ePortfolio
approach to support faculty development in vocational education. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 46, 61-73.
Honig, M. I., & Rainey, L. R. (2014). Central office leadership in principal professional learning
communities: The practice beneath the policy. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1-48.
Hull, G. (1993). Critical literacy and beyond: Lessons learned from students and workers in a
vocational program and on the job. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 24, 373-
396.
Hyun, E. (2006). Transforming instruction into pedagogy through curriculum negotiation.
Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 3(1), 136-164.
315
Ikemoto, G. S., & Honig, M. I. (2010). Tools to deepen practitioners' engagement with research:
The case of the Institute for Learning. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds.) Research
and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 93-108). Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Jenkins, D., Zeidenberg, M., & Kienzl, G. (2009, May). Educational outcomes of I-BEST,
Washington State community and technical college system’s Integrated Basic Education
and Skills Training Program: Findings from a multivariate analysis (CCRC Working
Paper No. 16). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community
College Research Center.
Karweit, N. (1998). Contextual learning: Review and synthesis. In A. M. Milne (Ed.),
Educational reform and vocational education (pp. 53-84). Washington, DC: National
Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning.
Keck, A. (1995). Zum Lernpotential kaufmünnischer Arbeitssituationen [Learning potential of
commercial work situations]. Göttingen: Seminar für Wirtschaftspädagogik der Georg-
August-Universität.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 567-605). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Kimball, S. M., White, B., Milanowski, A. T., & Forman, G. (2004). Examining the relationship
between teacher evaluation and student assessment results in Washoe County. Peabody
Journal of Education, 79(4), 54-78.
Kirshner, B., & Polman, J. L. (2013). Adaptation by design: A context-sensitive, dialogic
316
approach to interventions. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2),
215-236.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer:
Mathematical knowing and teaching. American educational research journal, 27(1), 29-
63.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the Development of the Mind. Moscow: Progress.
Levesque, K., Laird, J., Hensley, E., Choy, S. P., Cataldi, E. F., & Hudson, L. (2008). Career
and technical education in the United States: 1990 to 2005 (NCES 2008-035).
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008035.pdf
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications
Inc.
Lofland, J. Snow, D. A., Anderson, L., & Lofland, L. H. (2005). Analyzing social settings: A
guide to qualitative observation and analysis. Scarborough, ON: Wadsworth Publishing.
Luker, S. (2008). Salsa dancing into the social sciences: Research in an age of info-glut. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Malen, B. (1994). The micropolitics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power
relations in school polities. Journal of Education Policy, 9(5), 147-167.
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and Utopia. New York, NY: Harvest Books.
317
Marsh, J. (2012). The micropolitics of implementing a school-based bonus policy: The case of
New York City’s compensation committees. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
34(2), 164-184.
Martin, G. A., & Double, J. M. (1998). Developing higher education teaching skills through peer
observation and collaborative reflection. Innovations in Education and Training
International, 35(2), 161-170.
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications Inc.
Mazzeio, C., Rab, S. Y., & Alssid, J. L. (2003). Building bridges to college and careers:
Contextualized basic skills programs at community colleges. Brooklyn, NY: Workforce
Strategy Center. Retrieved from:
http://www.workforcestrategy.org/images/pdfs/publications/Contextualized_basic_ed_re
port.pdf
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Milanowski, A. (2004). The relationship between teacher performance evaluation scores and
student achievement: Evidence from Cincinnati. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4),
33-53.
318
Milanowski, A., Kimball, S. M., & Odden, A. (2005). Teacher accountability measures and links
to learning. In L. Stiefel, A. E. Schwartz, R. Rubenstein, & J. Kabel (Eds.), Measuring
school performance efficiency: Implications for practice and research (pp. 137-162).
Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Millennium College website. (2016).
Moll, L., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 23-41.
Naidu, S., & Bedgood, D. R. Jr. (2012). Learning in the social context. In N. M. Seel (Eds.)
Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning (pp. 1923-1925). New York, NY: Springer.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Career/Technical Education (CTE) Statistics.
Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ctes/tables/p127.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). Graduation rate at 2-year post-secondary
institutions. Retrieved from:
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_326.20.asp
Neumann, A., Castillo, M., & Bolitzer, L. A. (2012). Culturally anchored liberal education. In J.
A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 536-541). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Neumann, A., & Pallas, A. M. (2015). Critical policy analysis, the craft of qualitative research
and analysis of data on the Texas Top 10% law. In A. M. Martinez-Aleman, B. Pusser, &
E. M. Bensimon, (Ed.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 153-
173). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
319
Nodine, T., Dadgar, M., Venezia, A., & Bracco, K. R. (2013). Acceleration in developmental
education. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation (2
nd
ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance
Innovation and Use. New York: Guilford Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Peña, E. V. (2012). Inquiry methods for critical consciousness and self-change in faculty. The
Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 69-92.
Penuel, W. R., (2016). Advice for developing a research design that employs design-based
implementation research. Research and Practice Collaboratory. Retrieved from:
http://learndbir.org/resources/Developing-a-DBIR-Research-Plan-FINALRR.pdf
Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and
development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational
Researcher, 40(7), 331-337.
Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating student learning through contextualization: A review of evidence.
Community College Review 39(3), 268-295.
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—one’s own. Educational Researcher, 17-21.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2004). Practice and the human sciences: The case for a judgment-based
practice of care. Albany: State University of New York Press.
320
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3),
623-639.
Robinson-Armstrong, A., Clemons, A., Fissinger, M., & Sauceda, M. (2012). The diversity
scorecard at Loyola Marymount University: An exemplary model of dissemination. In E.
M. Bensimon & L. Malcolm (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing
the equity scorecard in theory and practice (pp. 75-95). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing,
LLC.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation,
guided participation, and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch, P. Del Rio, & A. Alvarez
(Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp. 139-164). Cambridge, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Rose, M. (2012). Back to school: Why everyone deserves a second chance at education. New
York, NY: The New Press.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. J. (2007). "Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity
theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Rothkopf, A. J. (2009). Courageous conversations: Achieving the dream and the importance of
student success. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 41(1), 24-41.
Russ, R. S., Sherin, B. L., & Sherin, M. G. (2016). What constitutes teacher learning?. In D. H.
321
Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5
th
ed., pp. 391-438).
Washington, DC: The American Educational Research Association.
Russel, J. L., Jackson, K., Krumm, A. E., & Frank, K. A. (2013). Theories and research
methodologies for design-based implementation research: Examples from four cases.
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112 (2), 157-191.
Rutschow, E. Z., Richburg-Hayes, L., Brock, T., Orr, G., Cerna, O., Cullinan, D., & Martin, K.
(2011). Turning the tide: Five years of Achieving the Dream in community colleges. New
York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation. Retrieved from
http://www.mdrc.org/publications/578/full.pdf.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
School Reform Initiative. (2016). Final word. Retrieved from:
http://schoolreforminitiative.org/doc/final_word.pdf
Shortland, S. (2004). Peer observation: A tool for staff development or compliance?. Journal of
further and higher education, 28(2), 219-228.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
Smagorinsky, P., Cook, L. S., & Johnson, T. S. (2003). The twisting path of concept
development in learning to teach. Teachers College Record, 105(8), 1399-1436.
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policy-makers and the
322
reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Stake, R. E. (2005). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Stein, M. K., & Brown, C. A. (1997). Teacher learning in social context: Integrating
collaborative and institutional processes with the study of teacher change. In E. Fenema
& & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 155-191). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stevens, R., & Hall, R. (1998). Disciplined perception: Learning to see in technoscience. In M.
Lampert & M. L. Blunk (Eds.), Talking mathematics in school: Studies of teaching and
learning (pp. 107-149). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, J. R., III, Alfeld, C., Pearson, D., Lewis, M.V., & Jensen, S. (2006). Building academic
skills in context: Testing the value of enhanced math learning in CTE (Final study). St.
Paul, MN: National Research Center for Career and Technical Education. Retrieved
from: http://136.165.133.102/UserFiles/File/Math-in-CTE/MathLearningFinalStudy.pdf.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harper Brothers.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Twombly, S., & Townsend, B. K. (2008). Community college faculty: What we know and need
to know. Community College Review, 36 (1), 5-24.
Voogt, J., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. (2015).
Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2),
259-282.
323
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Soviet
Psychology, 17, 3-35.
Wachen, J., Jenkins, D., & Van Noy, M. (2011). Integrating basic skills and career-technical
instruction: Findings from a field study of Washington state’s I-BEST Model. Community
College Review, 39 (2), 136-159.
Weinbaum, A., & Rogers, A. M. (1995). Contextual learning: A critical aspect of school-to-work
transition programs. Washington, DC: Academy of Educational Development.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Wisely, W. C. (2009). Effectiveness of contextual approaches to developmental math in
California community colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the
Pacific, Stockton, CA.
Woodward, J. (1958). Management and technology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Zeidenberg, M., Cho, S. W., & Jenkins, D. (2010). Washington State’s Integrated Basic
324
Education and Skills Training Program (I-BEST): New evidence of effectiveness (CCRC
Working Paper No. 20). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College,
Community College Research Center.

325
Appendix A
Data Collection Overview

Action / Event Data collected
Month #1: Feb. Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes
• Data from posters (brainstorm about
challenging aspects of instruction)

Month #2: March Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes

Month #3: April Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes
• Completed peer-observation
protocols

Month #5: June Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes

Month #8: Sept. Interview #1 • Interview transcripts

Month #8: Sept. Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes
• Meeting transcript

Month #9: Oct. Peer observation / Interview #2

(I attended all observations and
debriefs)

• Completed peer observation protocols
• Observation field notes
• Interview (partner debrief) transcripts

Month #9: Oct.

Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes
• Meeting transcript
• Documents (e.g., program review
data packets)

Month #10: Nov. Peer observation / Interview #2

(I attended all observations and
debriefs)

• Completed peer observation protocols
• Observation field notes
• Interview (partner debrief) transcripts

Month #10: Nov. Externally facilitated CTE team meeting

• Observation field notes
• Meeting transcript

Months #11 & 12:
Dec. & Jan.
Interview #3 • Interview transcripts
• Documents (e.g., materials used
during class)

326
Appendix B
Sample Interview Protocol
This guide serves as a semi-structure for interviews with faculty at a community college engaged
in efforts to improve pedagogical/instructional practice. This interview is intended to take
roughly one hour and will be digitally recorded for transcription.

Introduction

Thank you for taking time to meet with me today. The purpose of this interview is to learn about
your experiences as an instructor at this college. I am particularly interested in hearing about
your current teaching practices, how you learned these practices, what your thoughts and ideas
are about effective teaching, how your learning about teaching is supported by what occurs at
the college, and your experience participating in the CTE inquiry team.

I have identified this college for study, because of its ongoing efforts to improve student success
outcomes (e.g., implementation of the pathway model). I am interested in hearing about the
things you have learned about effective pedagogical/instructional practice, as a result of being
involved in various activities at the college (i.e., participation on the CTE inquiry team). During
this interview I will therefore sometimes be asking you to provide me with specific information
about how you go about your work as an instructor/teacher, what you actually think about this
work, and the things you are learning about how to do this work even more effectively. But at
other points, I believe it would be valuable to hear your own personal perceptions and opinions
about the goals and outcomes of instructing/teaching, based on your experience at this college.

It is important to emphasize that your participation in this research is completely voluntary, and
that all of your responses to these questions will be completely confidential and anonymous. At
any point, you are welcome to say that you prefer not to answer any of my questions or that you
wish to stop the interview altogether.

With your permission, I will be digitally recording this interview so that I can accurately
transcribe it later on.

Do you agree to the interview being recorded?

Do you have any questions before we begin?

327

Reflection on Observed Lecture/Workshop
I’d like to begin by talking about the lecture/workshop I just observed.
1. Could you please explain how this class that I just observed fits into the unit you are
currently working on?
a) What have the students experienced prior to today’s lesson?
b) What will they experience next?
2. What was the specific purpose (learning outcome) of today’s class?
3. How do you feel about the way the class played out?
a) Was there anything that went differently than what you were expecting?
b) Do you think the students gained what you had intended for them to gain? What
makes you think this?
4. How did you decide what topics/skills/activities to concentrate on in this specific class
(Probe into importance of the following: SLOs, PLOs, upcoming assessment; textbook;
industry standards; personal experience; previous teaching of this class; previous
professional development)?
5. I saw you use BLANK practice/strategy (e.g., turn and talk)… [PICK TWO OR THREE
KEY PRACTICES/STRATEGIES HE/SHE USED]
a) How frequently do you do this?
b) Do the students typically respond to this strategy in the same way they did today?
c) What do you like about this method?
d) What is challenging about using this strategy?
6. What strategies were you using to monitor student learning? [PROBE FOR: whether this
approach included analysis of groups by race/ethnicity, gender, etc.]
a) Can you give a specific example from today’s lesson when you were doing this?
b) How did you learn this strategy and its relevance?
7. Can you walk me through how you prepared for this specific class?
a) What are the things you thought about (students, learning outcomes for the class,
activities, assessment techniques, equipment needed, etc.)?
b) What resources did you use (PLOs/SLOs; textbooks; course syllabus; etc.)? Were
these resources already designated for this course, or did you seek them out
yourself? If the latter, how did you decide which materials to use?
c) Were there any challenges you thought you might bump up against, that you tried
to attend to in your planning?
8. How will you assess what these students learned from today’s lesson?
9. How, if at all, has anything that we just discussed changed from the way you did things a
year ago?
a) What specifically motivated these changes? What was significant about those
activities/events/etc.? [PROBE FOR: Ways this is connected to the PD
intervention]
Effects of Having an Observer in the Room
I am curious to hear your thoughts about the observation process. My next few questions are
328
about this topic.
10. Do you feel that having people observe influenced what happened in the classroom?
a) Did the students behave in any ways different than what they normally do?
b) Did you do anything different than what you normally do?
c) Why do you think this happened?
11. Thinking about the times when you were observed, what were you feeling going into the
observation? Why were you feeling this way?
a) During the observation? Why were you feeling this way?
b) During the post-observation debrief? Why were you feeling this way?
12. Thinking about the times when you were the observer, what were you feeling going into
the observation? Why were you feeling this way?
a) During the observation? Why were you feeling this way?
b) During the post-observation debrief? Why were you feeling this way?
Vision of Effective Teaching and Learning
Next, I’d like to revisit some questions I have asked you before about what effective teaching
looks like.
[PROBE FOR SPECIFICITY (e.g., If participant mentions student engagement, ask: “engaged
in what?” Or, If participant says teacher should be asking questions, ask: “what kinds of
questions, for what purpose, to the whole class or a small group or…?”)]
13. If you were asked to observe another (INSERT occupational field) instructor’s classroom
for one or more lessons, what would you look for to decide whether the teaching is high
quality?
a) What are some of the things you would expect to find the instructor actually doing
in the classroom for instruction to be of high quality?
b) What are some of the things you would expect to find the students doing in the
classroom for instruction to be of high quality?
c) Can you please describe what classroom discussion would look and sound like if
instruction were of high quality?
d) Is there anything else you would look for? If so, what? Why?
14. What is your theory about how people learn?
15. Data show that African American students at BLANK college experience lower course
completion rates than average. What are your thoughts about the causes of this?
[PROBE FOR: source of problem he/she describes]
a) Have you, personally, done anything to try and address these issues you
mentioned? [PROBE FOR: ways they have adjusted their
pedagogical/instructional practice]
Learning About Teaching
In this section of the interview, I’d like to ask you some questions about your own learning
329
related to teaching.
16. How often do you have informal conversations with other instructors or administrators
about topics/issues related to teaching?
a) When, how often, with who?
b) What are some of the specific topics you have discussed? Can you give me an
example of a conversation you had recently?
c) What, if any, learning has occurred through those conversations?
17. What factors differentiate worthwhile professional development experiences from those
that are not worthwhile?
18. What, if anything, would help you improve as an instructor? [PROBE FOR WHETHER
IT IS: additional teaching experience, additional knowledge, additional resources,
alternative structures for PD than currently exist]
Identity as A Teacher
In this section of the interview, I’d like to ask you some questions about your identity as an
instructor at BLANK college.
19. With what groups on campus do you feel most comfortable or most yourself (e.g.,
department; other instructors of same race/ethnicity, age, level of experience, etc.)?
a) What is it about these groups that cause you to feel comfortable?
b) Do you get the sense that these different groups are open to talking about
pedagogical and instructional practice at the college? Why or Why not?
c) Have you spoken to anyone from these groups about your participation in the
CTE inquiry team? If so, what did they say and how did that make you feel. If
not, why haven’t you and what do you expect they might say if you did talk to
them about it?
20. When you think about your work here at BLANK college, do you think of your self more
as a (INSERT occupational field), or as an instructor, or as some other role (e.g.,
foreman, boss, etc.)?
a) Have you had this vision of yourself the whole time you have been at BLANK
college, or has this evolved through time?
b) What led to changes?
c) Why was that significant enough to prompt changes?
21. How would you describe yourself as an instructor (e.g., metaphors such as coach,
conductor, boss, customer-service agent, team member, etc.; or qualities such as caring,
strict, fair, etc.)?
a) Is t?
22. How do you think your students would describe you?
a) Why do you think they would say this?
23. How, if at all, has participating in the CTE inquiry team changed your perceptions about
yourself?
a) If yes, in what ways has it changed your perceptions?
Experience in the CTE Evidence Team
330
I’d like to ask you some questions about your experience participating in our CTE inquiry team.
24. Can you think back to just before our first CTE inquiry team? What were some of the
thoughts or expectations you had about participating in this project?
a) Were those thoughts/expectations proven true or false? In what ways?
25. When you think about this experience you had participating in the CTE inquiry team,
what, if anything, do you feel was learned? [PROBE FOR: specificity/details of learning
about teaching, doing inquiry, and working with colleagues…at individual and group
level]
a) How/when was this learned?
b) Why was this learning significant?
c) To what extent have you been able to apply this learning to own your practice in
the classroom/lab/workshop, or outside this setting? [PROBE FOR:
specificity/details]
d) If you have not yet implemented this into your practice, what do you think has
prevented you from doing so?
26. When you think about the CTE inquiry team, what, specific
activities/processes/strategies, do you think were particularly helpful to you or to the
group as a whole?
a) What was it about these activities/processes/strategies that made them helpful?
b) Why was that so significant?
27. What, if anything, would you say has been rewarding about this experience participating
in the CTE inquiry team? [PROBE FOR: specificity/details]
a) Why is this significant?
b) What was it specifically about the CTE inquiry team that enabled this piece to
occur? How exactly were those aspects helpful?
28. What, if anything, has been challenging about this experience participating in the CTE
inquiry team (designing protocol; observing; being observed; post-observation debriefs;
team discussions of pedagogy/instruction, racial/ethnic inequity, etc.)
a) What specifically made this aspect challenging?
b) What, do you think, could have been done differently to address this challenge?
29. What additional support or experiences would help you to apply more of your learning to
your teaching?
a) Probe for specific examples and details
b) What else could the college provide to assist you?

That wraps up my questions. Thank you again for your time and participation in this research.
Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or concerns or other input you’d
like to provide.

331
Appendix C
Observation Protocol (field notes)
This guide serves as a structure for observations of collaborative activities at Millennium
College related to CTE faculty learning. Some observations will be audio-recorded (e.g., CTE
evidence team meetings). This protocol is adapted from Nicolini (2009a) and from an
observation protocol developed by A. Dowd for EDUC 725 at the Rossier School of
Education at USC.

GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR OBSERVATION:
a) What is the objective that participants seem to be pursuing?
b) Who is participating, and in what ways does this shift throughout the activity? What seems to prompt these shifts?
c) What, are some of the resources (concepts, images, frameworks, processes, etc.) they draw upon when working
together (i.e., to help negotiate meaning, to help accomplish their tasks, etc.) and how do these resources shape what’s
going on?
d) In what ways do participants provide assistance to each other during the activity?
e) What do participants seem to be learning?

RESEARCHER’S NAME
TIME PERIOD/TASK
Date:
Time:
Event/Activity:

PARTICIPANTS
• Who is present?
• Who is absent?
• Who is late?
• Note hierarchies apparent
through modes of interaction
among the participants

OBJECTIVES/TASKS/INFORMATION
• Note any stated objectives or
goals of activity
• Note recurring issues mentioned
by participants
• Note any information being used
or presented and any artifacts
being used or distributed by
individuals or the group as a
whole (e.g., documents)

MOOD/ATMOSPHERE
• Note initial and/or periodic
observations about the mood in
the room; physically conveyed or
verbally articulated attitudes
towards participation in the
setting
• Note modes of interaction and
communication styles: are there
formal rules of order, a clear tacit
knowledge about process and

332
form, who talks, when and how
they gain control of the
conversation. What
communicative tactics are
displayed?
• PROVIDE EVIDENCE to
substantiate observations
SETTING LAYOUT
• Draw a sketch of the physical
layout of the room, noting the
placement of furniture and other
objects and the placement of
individuals.

PRACTICE OBSERVATIONS
• In the left column, note speaker
and actual phrases or questions
as close to verbatim as possible
• In the right column, note verbal
and non-verbal (i.e., physical
bodily movement, facial
expressions) or participants.
Include name(s).
• In the right column, also note any
responses you observe in
yourself.

SAYING

RESPONSE (verbal & non-verbal)

333
Appendix D
Code List

Code
type
Code Definition Sample quotation

The following codes were used to analyze interview #1 data

Deductive K&B-pedagogy
& instruction
Knowledge and beliefs
about pedagogy and
instruction, including
what an effective
instructor does.
“If you call students by name, they’re more likely
to be engaged with you, just in terms of feeling
comfortable talking to you and asking
questions.”
Deductive K&B-race &
equity
Knowledge and beliefs
about race/ethnicity,
particular racial/ethnic
groups, or equity/inequity.
[Why are African American students
experiencing an equity gap in course
completion?] “A lot of the problem...is
attendance. Not showing up, coming in late.
And that frustrates a lot of people. Frustrates
the teachers that they have and then they have a
tendency to not help them because they were late
or they were absent and stuff like that. I hear
that. I don’t necessarily subscribe to that but I
hear that a lot.”
Deductive K&B-students Knowledge and beliefs
about current students, or
what an effective student
does.
“The students that we have that are working,
they don’t have the time. Even if they wanted to
they have a job, they have families. And so a lot
of them say, ‘Oh, I have to put my kids to bed
then I start studying.’ At that point, it’s
responsibilities, so they’re not able to develop
their skills, their abilities to their potential
because they don’t have the time, it’s a time issue
at that point.”
Deductive K&B-how to
learn about P&I
Knowledge and beliefs
related to how one learns
about or improves
pedagogical and
instructional practice.
“No one taught me how to teach, so I was basing
it on my own experiences. And fortunately, I
guess, I was close enough to having been a
student that I had things to draw on that were
either effective or not effective.”

Deductive Pre-instructor
experience
Education, work, or
relevant life experiences
prior to becoming a full-
time instructor.
“When I transferred, actually I was a TA for
BLANK Elementary, in the second grade
and…That was my thought [at the time]. I was
interested in possibly becoming a high school
teacher.”

Deductive Identity References to how he/she
identifies (e.g., ‘as a
person of color’), the
groups with which he/she
identifies, or how he/she
perceive of him/herself.
“No, more and more of my identity has been
teaching. And it's one I'm scared of losing too.”
[Why?] “Because, if I couldn't teach anymore I'd
feel like I was missing something.”

334

Deductive Sociocultural and
historical context
at Millennium
References to the
college’s mission, what
the colleges values in
respect to the means for
achieving that mission, or
any cultural
constraints/resources.
“The last two or three years, almost every
meeting that I’ve been involved in is about the
accreditation and the effectiveness and the new
systems that they’re trying to implement. So it’s
really policy based like, ‘This is where we wanna
go, this is how we want to do things.’ So there
isn’t a lot of discussion on particular teaching.
It’s very administrative management policy.”

Inductive Practices-
beginning of
intervention
Pedagogical and
instructional practices
he/she employed in the
classroom prior to, or in
beginning phases of, PD
intervention.
“I’ve found that there are students who engage
very actively in my classes and others who don’t.
And I sometimes rely on those students, I find
myself relying on the students as a crutch
because they’re so actively engaged that they
help me keep the conversation going and keep
the class moving forward. And sometimes, I’ll
notice that there are other students who I haven’t
heard from and I’m not... I need to figure out a
strategy to help make sure that it’s more
inclusive that way.”

Inductive Prior PD Professional development
experiences (related to P
& I) he/she participated in
prior to this PD
intervention.
“The New Faculty Academy. And so, I
participated in that as an instructor, actually
helping with some of the technology components,
but that’s something that I’ve had the
opportunity to sit in on a few times. It’s a little
technical. Not technical, but it covers a lot of the
bureaucracy of what you have to do, which of
course is absolutely necessary. They do get into
some things about pedagogy but it’s a whole...
There’s just so much to study there.”

Inductive Beliefs-own
effectiveness
Beliefs related to his/her
own effectiveness as an
instructor.
“Well, yeah, sometimes I don’t know if I’m
reaching everybody. The feedback that I do get
from the classes, I look out and I look at their
eyes and I try to... If somebody’s got that ‘what's
he talking about’ look, I try to go over it some
more. But I don't use enough of the techniques to
do other things. I'm pretty sure I don’t.”

Inductive Values Deeply rooted ideas that
are important to him/her
and/or guide his/her
actions.
“I’m only interested in people working with me
that work harder than I do and that’s really hard
to find... You have to bring something to the table
I don’t have or you have to be able to outwork
me, physically. So, I believe in hard work and I
believe in playing hard. I have a ‘work hard,
play hard’ [philosophy].”

335

The following codes were added to analyze interview #2 data

Deductive Experience-being
observed &
receiving
feedback
Descriptions of one’s
emotions or thought
processes related to being
observed or receiving
feedback
“Well, certainly, being observed made me much
more conscious of what I was doing, as an
instructor. I mean, there were some things that
today I did because...I’m just being honest with
you...you guys were in the room and I was like, ‘I
better pay attention to this today,’ ya know?
Whereas other days, I may have let something
slip, or I might see someone who’s not paying
attention and just go to this side of the room
where I know the students know the answer. So
that actually made me a better instructor
(laughing) to have people watching me. If you
guys could come back tomorrow (laughs).”

Deductive Experience-
observing &
giving feedback
Descriptions of one’s
emotions or thought
processes related to
observing or giving
feedback
“Yeah, I was thinking about my teaching. I was
thinking, ‘Do I fire off as many questions as he
does, or am I too busy talking about something
sometimes? And should I be firing off more
questions like that?’ You know?”

Deductive Negotiating
meaning
Instances when
participants are appear to
be collectively making
sense of something (e.g.,
concept or data).

(NOTE: Related samples are excerpts of
dialogue between two or more participants and
are thus too long to include here.)

The following codes were added to analyze interview #3 data

Deductive

Practices-end of
intervention
Pedagogical and
instructional practices
he/she employed in the
classroom during, or near
end of, intervention (i.e.,
“new” practices).
“But now, when I do my grades, and I look
through who got what, and who at the end of the
semester, I might look at it like where is it? Is
there an equity gap here in what I’ve done, what
I’ve created? And as I teach, it’s there. Maybe
it’s not in the very front but it’s in the back
somewhere. If it stays in the back too far, then I
don’t know if anything would change. So, it
needs to migrate more towards the front still, I
think.”
Deductive Intervention-
described (ID)
General descriptions of
the PD intervention, or
his/her experience in it.
“Then I started trying to figure out, we’re
looking at this information, and then it seems
that we’re gonna do this for over a year, or
maybe more. This is gonna take a long time. I
still couldn’t figure out what we were gonna be
looking at. But now, I think it’s one of the best
things that have happened to me, because I am
on probation, and I’m going to be evaluated. I’m
being evaluated, and now I have a better sense of
336
what they’re actually looking at when I’m
actually trying to [teach]...So it gave me a good
idea of what’s going on, what they’re looking at,
but it mainly it helped me personally to become a
better instructor.”
Deductive

ID-Facilitation Descriptions of the
facilitation that occurred
within this PD
intervention.
“Even with us, we had different opinions. And
you kinda brought it in. You didn’t take sides
[chuckle]…you made us feel comfortable. So
you, as an instructor, [chuckle] a facilitator,
made the group feel comfortable enough to
share.”

Deductive

ID-Goals Descriptions pertaining to
their understanding of the
goals of this CTE group.
“So…speaking of that…engagement seems to be
positive for students. So, would the
recommendation be professional development
type things to get faculty...or, how do we resolve
this or push forward? I mean, we're talking
about this in a small group, but how do we get a
campus [to push forward on this issue]?

Deductive

ID-
Processes/tools
Descriptions of the
processes or tools that
were used within the PD
intervention.
“So one, I would say that the exercises that we
did in the CUE workshops that were sort of
modeling what we could in the classroom were
really helpful to me. So the last word, the final
word [activity], that was helpful to me. Just some
of the best practices that were modeled in terms
of having an agenda that laid out exactly what
we would do each time, that we would do a
review of what we’d discussed in previous
[sessions], that was all helpful to me in terms of
reinforcing those best practices, and I did try to
employ that in my instruction.”

Deductive

ID-His/her
participation
Descriptions of one’s
thoughts related to his/her
participation in this PD
intervention.
“I’m the type of student that always stay quiet.
[laughter] I always stay quiet. And even though
if I’m on a class that I know the subject matter,
cause sometimes I go to all day trainings, and
I’m going to a class, I’m always quiet, and I’m
not participating as much. But this is helping you
say, ‘Hey, it’s okay. You can speak up. It’s just a
conversation. You’re not wrong by saying what
you’re thinking.’ So that’s helped me a lot on
that particular part.

Inductive

ID-Other group
members
Descriptions of other
group members, and/or
their effects on this
participant’s experience
of this PD intervention.
“You got plumbing, you got automotive, you’ve
got the science guys and you got us. […] So you
got the arty people, you got the plumbers and
you got all these different people, but we all have
the same problem […] So, whatever, maybe,
337
somebody’s doing in a classroom, [it] is gonna
help to bridge that [equity] gap [in CTE course
completion] that we [all] have.”

Inductive

ID-New/diverse
ideas
Descriptions of gaining
access to new/diverse
ideas through
participation in this PD
intervention
“It’s good to get that perspective, especially
from someone who is teaching a totally different
discipline than what I’m doing, [as they] may
have different approaches.”
Inductive

ID-
Safe/comfortable
Descriptions of feeling
safe/comfortable during
participation in this PD
intervention.
“I think the fact that we always open with some
kind of an ice breaker and that we close with... It
just makes the... It just creates a sense of
camaraderie and it makes it seem like a more
friendly environment…’Cause people need to
feel that they’re amongst friends when they’re
discussing things like this that quite frankly are
sensitive. Because this is about our own teaching
practices and it’s the very heart of what we do
and it requires a lot of hopefully introspection
and being reflective and looking at things that
we’re doing that we’re not doing very well.”

Note: No additional codes were added to analyze CTE team meeting transcripts, observation data, or
collected documents.

338
Appendix E
IRB Information Sheet

Page 1 of 2

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall, Suite 702
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Jason Robinson at the Rossier
School of Education, University of Southern California. Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon, Professor of
Higher Education at Rossier School of Education and Director of the Center for Urban Education,
is the faculty advisor for this study. Research studies include only people who voluntarily choose
to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should ask questions about
anything that is unclear to you.

Your participation is voluntary.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to document and examine the ways in which career and technical
education (CTE) faculty learn to improve their pedagogical/instructional practice.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in some or all of the
following:

• Complete a survey at various points of the project
• Allow researchers to conduct observations during professional development events,
faculty/staff planning meetings, and instruction of classroom learning activities;
• Participate in up to three interviews. The interview(s) will be audio-taped with your
permission.
• Submit documents that are related to the purposes of the study.

If you choose not to participate, you can inform the researcher(s) and no information about you
will be recorded.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate in this study. Your relationship with the college in which you
are employed, or USC, will not be affected should you elect not to participate in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your responses will not be linked to any identifiable information. All data will be coded with
false names. These pseudonyms will be used in the transcriptions, as well as in all presentations
and publications that result from this study.

The data will be stored on a secure laptop. You have the right to review/edit audiotapes of your
interview(s). Audiotapes will be used only to ensure that we correctly document the information
you provide and for writing reports based on the interview. Not all audiotapes will be transcribed;
the tapes will be maintained for three years after the study has been completed and then destroyed.
339

Page 2 of 2

The remaining data will be maintained at the discretion of the researcher and may be used in future
research studies. If you do not want your data used in future studies, you should not participate in
this study.

All data (participants and institution) will be coded with false names. These pseudonyms will be
used in the transcriptions, as well as in all presentations and publications that result from this
study.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects
Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies
to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Jason
Robinson at 213-740-5202, or write to him at the Center for Urban Education, The University of
Southern California, Rossier School of Education, Waite Phillips Hall, Suite 702, Los Angeles,
CA 90089-4037.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu
340
Appendix F
Peer Observation Protocol – Iteration #1

Prompts For Observation

Participants were asked to provide both ‘descriptive’ (i.e., descriptions about what is going on in
the classroom, including numerical data) and ‘interpretive’ (the meaning one can derive from
what is going on) observations related to the following prompts:

a) Student demographics (total # of students; # of male/female students; # of students in
various racial/ethnic groups; and age range of students)
b) Classroom culture
• How does the instructor interact with the students on an individual level?
• Does the instructor exhibit a pattern of calling on some students over others?
• Is it possible for a student to ‘hide’ from the instructor?
• How does the instructor attempt to be inclusive of all students?
• What are the verbal and nonverbal messages given that suggest students belong?
• Does the curriculum represent the classroom population?
• Who is most frequently called upon (race/ethnicity, gender)?
• Who participates freely (race/ethnicity, gender)?
• Who interrupts whom (race/ethnicity, gender)?
• Which students were actively listening, participating, or taking notes (race/ethnicity,
gender)?
• Which students appeared unengaged, bored, or doing something unrelated to the
course during class (race/ethnicity, gender)?
c) Instructor’s moves
• The instructor is able to ‘read’ the class to identify moments when students (either
individually or collectively) begin to lose focus.
• The instructor is able to reengage students.
• When students appear to lose focus, does it seem related to difficult or abstract
content, a presentation that is difficult to follow, materials that cause confusion (as
opposed to the content) etc.
• There is a clear beginning to the class. Both instructor and students arrive before
class starts and are ready for work when it does start.
• There is a clear ending to the class. All students leave the class understanding what
is expected before the next class.

341
Appendix G
Peer Observation Protocol – Iteration #2

Prompts For Observation

Part I
1. Sketch a rough seating chart to illustrate where all students are sitting.
2. Record each student’s race/ethnicity (African American/Black, American
Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latino/a, White, or Unknown)
3. Record each student’s gender (Female, Male, or Trans)
4. Does the instructor explicitly communicate the primary topic or objective for this
lesson/lab?
(a) If YES, what does he/she say the topic/objective is?
(b) If NO, what do you think the lesson/lab is about?
5. Does the instructor provide an agenda of what will take place during this lesson/lab
(either written or spoken)?

Part II
6. For the next 10 minutes, focus on the questions being asked by the instructor, and
record the following information:
(a) What is the question?
(b) If it is directed at one student: Is the student called on my name? What is the
student’s gender? What is the student’s race/ethnicity?
7. Generally speaking, does the instructor allow for wait time after asking a question (i.e., 3
or more seconds of uninterrupted silence)?

Part III
8. For the next 10 minutes, focus on the students. Use the seating chart you created in Part
I to record the following information:
9. When a student responds to a question/prompt from the instructor (can be a
question directed at this specific student or at the whole class), put a tally (I) in the spot
on your seating chart that represents that student.
10. When a student asks a question or makes a comment (at the classroom level) that is
UNPROMPTED by the instructor, put an asterisk (*) in the spot on your seating that that
represents that student.
11. At the end of this 10-minute interval, scan the room and observe students’ body language
and facial expressions. Put an “X” in the spots on your seating chart that represent those
students who appear NOT engaged.

Part IV
Repeat Part II (for 10 minutes)

Part V
Repeat Part III (for 10 minutes)

342
Part VI
12. How would you describe the instructor’s affect, attitude, or energy level towards the
topic(s) they are instructing about?
13. During the lesson/lab, did the instructor ever pause his/her explanation and invite
students to speak directly with each other about a specific question or some element of
the larger topic being addressed in the lecture/lab?
(a) If yes, describe what the instructor said to set up this instance of student-to-student
talking, and also record how students responded to, and carried out, this instance
of student-to-student talk time.
14. After receiving a comment or question from a student, did the instructor ever ask another
student to respond to the first student’s comment/question?
(a) If yes, what does the instructor say to facilitate this, and how did the two students
respond to this instance?
15. Return to your data collected in Part II and Part IV. Calculate the following:
(a) How many questions are closed-ended (i.e., yes or no question, or a question that
can be answered with one or two words and do not invite much thinking)?
(b) How many questions are open-ended (i.e., require a response that is more than
one or two words, and therefore invite thinking)
16. Did it seem as if the lesson/lab had a recognizable structure (e.g., beginning, middle, and
end), or did the topics/activities seem somewhat disconnected from each other? Provide
a couple of specific details to help explain why you perceived the lesson/lab in this way?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation addresses the issue of low and inequitable student success rates among community college students in the United States through a focus on career and technical education (CTE) faculty and their learning related to pedagogy and instruction and the ways in which pedagogy and instruction are linked with equity in student success. Building upon prior scholarship on CTE pedagogy and instruction, and practitioner learning in higher education and K-12 settings, this study makes two important contributions. First, the study sheds needed light on a topic that has been largely neglected in the literature: CTE faculty learning and, relatedly, how CTE faculty practice might be remediated so that CTE students’ success rates are improved and become more equitable across racial/ethnic lines. Considering that CTE is increasingly promulgated as a vehicle for individual and state/national economic advancement and has thus become a central component of many reforms seeking to improve community colleges, this contribution is both significant and timely. ❧ The second contribution this study makes is through its application of design-based implementation research (DBIR

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college- and career-ready

PDF

Faculty learning and agency for racial equity

PDF

Embedding and embodying a Hispanic-serving consciousness: a phenomenological case study of faculty hiring experiences

PDF

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

PDF

The role of superintendents and district administrators in developing career technical education programs to assist students in becoming college‐ and career‐ready

PDF

Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction

PDF

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

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Mission dissemination: a multi-case study of the research university mission

PDF

Assessment and teaching improvement in higher education: investigating an unproven link

PDF

Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in school-level goveranance and decision making

PDF

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

PDF

Faculty perceptions, experiences, and outcomes implementing universal design in higher education

PDF

State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college

PDF

Improving pilot training by learning about learning: an innovation study

PDF

A case study: school-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing, high poverty urban schools

PDF

AB 705: the equity policy – race and power in the implementation of a developmental education reform

PDF

Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment

PDF

The allocation of resources for career technical education programs that improve college and career readiness

Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study

PDF