Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
(USC Thesis Other)
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
CREATING AN EQUITY STATE OF MIND: A LEARNING PROCESS
by
Augusta Maria Pickens
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2012
Copyright 2012 Augusta Maria Pickens
ii
Dedication
This study is dedicated to my loving family and friends who
traveled this journey with me. My mother, Myrtle, Sisters,
Nieces and Nephews, and my three “Best Friends Forever”, I
could not have completed it without your prayers, support,
encouragement, and love!
A special thank you to my Chair, Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon
and the USC Center for Urban Education staff for your
support and patience.
iii
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Statement of the Problem 1
Key Elements of the Diversity Scorecard Project 4
The Study 9
Chapter Two: Literature Review 12
Organizational Learning 13
Types of Learning 19
Facilitators and Inhibitors 30
Chapter Three: Methodology 37
Methods for Developing the Study 38
Field Notes 40
iv
Advantages of the Data 42
Method of Analyses 44
Chapter Four: Findings 54
Project Participants 55
UC Transfer 65
Placement and Remediation 73
Retention and Success 79
Chapter Five: Discussion 88
Reactions to the Data 89
Learning equity-mindedness 93
Limitations of Study 96
Implications for Recommendations for Practice 97
Conclusion 101
References 102
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Harrison College Student Population 8
Table 2: Learning and Cognitive Frames 24
Table 3: Schedule of Meetings 39
Table 4: Team Member Descriptions 56
Table 5: Retention and Success 61
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: UC-CSU Transfer by Ethnicity 58
Figure 2: English and Math Placements 60
vii
Abstract
The Diversity Scorecard Project evaluated in this
study was created by the University of Southern
California’s Center for Urban Education. It was designed to
create awareness among institutional members about the
state of inequities in educational outcomes for
underrepresented students. The Diversity Scorecard Project
facilitators’ aimed to encourage equity-mindedness in the
way campus members made sense of unequal outcomes and the
role they played in eliminating the inequities. The purpose
of the case study was to evaluate the evidence team
members’ response to the data, their interpretation of the
inequities, and to determine whether the team members’
explanations of the inequities changed because of their
participation project. As a result of this study, I
determined that despite the team members increased
awareness of the inequities, they did not change how they
viewed the inequities among underrepresented students and
therefore did not develop equity-mindedness.
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Diversity in higher education represents difference or
individuality and equity symbolizes fairness, justice, and
impartiality. Many colleges and universities use these
distinctive terms to guide their mission to attract
students from a broad array of races and ethnicities,
particularly underrepresented minorities
i
(African American
and Latino/a). Educational organizations attempt to portray
a diversified student body based on enrollment, and
achievement based on graduation rates. Traditionally,
institutions do not track minority student performance and
outcomes using fine-grained measures such as enrollment in
remediation courses, the pass rates in gateway courses,
their graduation grade point averages, or the rates of
admission to graduate school. Although diversity and equity
may be apparent on the surface, an intense scrutiny of the
numbers reveal the opposite is true; institutions are not
successfully achieving equitable outcomes for all students.
In the year 2000, the Center for Urban Education at
the USC Rossier School of Education launched a project
2
called the Diversity Scorecard (DSP) in 14 two and four-
year, public, and independent colleges in Southern
California. The purpose of the Diversity Scorecard Project
was to create awareness among institutional members about
the state of inequities in educational outcomes for
underrepresented students. The project was derived from a
framework based on Kaplan and Norton’s' balanced scorecard.
The balanced scorecard is a framework adopted by many
organizations to improve their performance measurement
systems (Kaplan & Norton, 1996). Comparatively, the premise
of the DSP is to improve institutional performance measures
in educational outcomes and “to help campuses assess their
effectiveness in providing historically underrepresented
students with the credentials they will need to gain
economic, social, and political power”(Bensimon, 2004, p.
46).
To attain this goal, the project utilizes a
practitioner-as-researcher model. Simply put, this means
the project abandons the traditional mode of conducting
research, which usually results in papers and reports that
describe patterns of inequities and recommend solutions.
3
Although classic scholarly research is important in higher
education, it is often too far removed from the immediate
context of practitioners, making its applicability less
apparent. In the practitioner-as-researcher model, the
roles reverse, that is, the practitioner becomes the
researcher, and the researcher assumes the role of
facilitator and consultant. Accordingly, the project
engages the participants in the hopes that an understanding
of the educational outcomes, disaggregated by race and
ethnicity, will instill a sense of ownership for the
problem of inequities and a desire to bring about change.
The participants
ii
, called evidence teams, primary roles are
to “hold a mirror up to the institution that reflected
clearly and unambiguously the status of underrepresented
students with respect to basic educational outcomes”
(Bensimon, 2004, p. 46). In order to develop and intensify
their awareness the scorecard creators involved the
evidence team members in creating equity measures and
benchmarks in order to identify the issues relevant to
their institution and establish the appropriate objectives.
4
Key Elements of the Diversity Scorecard Project
The Diversity Scorecard model is an action inquiry
type of research that examines practice and whose purpose
of inquiry is to effect change at the individual and
organizational levels (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, &
Vallejo, 2004, p. 108). The project’s objective is to “make
a difference at the very site where inequities in
educational outcomes exist” (Bensimon et al., 2004), p.
112). In order to effect change, institutions must be aware
of the problem before they are motivated to act. Therefore,
the aim of the Diversity Scorecard project is “to shed
light on what previously had been obscured”, to enable each
campus to see as clearly as possible the true dimensions of
the inequities at their institution” (USC CENTER for URBAN
EDUCATION, 2004, p.6).
Disaggregating data is a key component of the
scorecard’s approach to revealing institutional inequities.
The project’s use of disaggregated data, based on race and
ethnicity, provides awareness through tangible data on both
institutional performance and the academic achievement and
performance of minority students. The scorecard consists of
four perspectives that guide the development of indicators
5
that are essential for the achievement of equity: access,
excellence, institutional receptivity, and retention. The
access perspective provides information for institutional
leaders to ascertain how well underrepresented students
gain access to and take advantage of the institution’s
programs and resources and their access to four-year
colleges through transfer. The excellence perspective
focuses on traditional measures of quality of
underrepresented students. For example, what percentage of
African American students graduate with a grade point
average of 3.5 or higher and at what rate are they eligible
for graduate study? The institutional receptivity
perspective examines the level of institutional support
that creates an affirming and responsive campus
environment, promoting “a sense of belonging” for
underrepresented students. In addition, it calls attention
to the racial and ethnic diversity in the campus community
among faculty, staff, and administrators and whether there
is equitable representation of race and ethnicity between
the faculty and student body. The retention perspective
compares retention rates of underrepresented students by
program and looks at how successfully, depending on the
6
institution, the population completes basic skill courses
and programs leading to a certificate/credential,
associate, or baccalaureate degree.
To construct the scorecard at each institution, the
evidence teams collect data to establish baseline
indicators for each perspective. Baseline data, defined as
the historic or current status of the measure, shows how
far or how close the target student group is from reaching
equity, thus providing the criteria for measuring progress
toward equity and closing the equity gap. The participating
team members, appointed by the institution’s president,
included deans, vice presidents, counselors, assistants to
the presidents, and faculty members in disciplines such as
English, mathematics, psychology, ethnic studies and
philosophy.
To summarize, the Diversity Scorecard project’s
intended goal is to enable institutional actors to see for
themselves the patterns of unequal educational outcomes
with the expectation that they will be encouraged to take
responsibility for the problems and ideally come to see
their role as agents of change on behalf of equity. Through
a dialogical approach to analyzing and interpreting data,
7
the scorecard creators hope to construct a social context
that is conducive to learning and change. Simply put, the
goal is to create a structure that will invite reflection
of individual and collective values, beliefs, and attitudes
about the academic performance of underrepresented
students. Furthermore, the scorecard team encourages
campuses to view equity in educational outcomes as a
process of institutional accountability and performance, as
opposed to a problem of student preparation, motivation, or
culture.
The institution.
The institution in this study, which I will identify
as Harrison College, is a large urban community college
located in Southern California, with an overall student
population of approximately 18,000 in fall 2000. Table __
shows the student body percentages, disaggregated by
ethnicity, with the changes in ethnicity trends from fall
1996 to fall 2000.
8
Table 1: Harrison College Student Population
Source: Harrison College President’s Report 2002
The data from the Harrison College Fact Book showed
that of the 633 students that transferred to a UC or CSU
during 2000-2001, 141 transferred to a UC and of the 141
only 28 were Hispanic and seven African American, which
revealed the underrepresentation of African-American and
Hispanic students. Based on these statistics, the Harrison
College Diversity Scorecard Team determined their
established goal would be to increase the number of African
American and Hispanic students who transfer to the
University of California (UC) or the California State
University (CSU) systems. The institutional data for this
9
project revealed a disparity in the UC transfer rate
between underrepresented minorities and other groups.
The study.
I plan to examine field notes for one institution,
Harrison College, derived from the project meetings
spanning 48 months. I will analyze four team members, the
Associate Dean of Research and Planning, two counselors,
and the Associate Dean of Student Services, and treat them
as a single case study. The purpose of this study is to
determine how the individual project participants
interpreted the inequity of educational outcomes for
African American and Hispanic students at their institution
and whether they changed over time. Participant observation
is the process by which the DSP staff directly observed and
interacted with the team members in order to formulate a
qualitative analysis of the setting and to record and
interpret their experiences in the form of field notes.
Although there are many ways to approach a case study,
an interpretive framework will guide these studies. Greene
(1994) contends the key values promoted in this framework
10
are pluralism, understanding, diversity, and solidarity and
views social reality as “based on a constant process of
interpretation and reinterpretation of the meaningful
behavior of people, including researchers” (Greene, 1994,
p. 536). Comparatively, Woods (2001) describes the primary
characteristics of interpretivism as, 1) researchers seek
to understand phenomena and to interpret meaning within the
social and cultural context of the natural setting, 2)
reality is constructed through human interaction, and, 3)
the relationship between the knower and the known is
interrelated and dialogic.
These ideological frameworks also represent the
principles of the DSP as it seeks to challenge the team
members’ attitudes, practices, and beliefs through
interactions and reflective dialogue with the overall
objective to transform their perceptions about the inequity
in educational outcomes for minority students.
An interpretive evaluation typically asks a question
such as, how is the program experienced by various
stakeholders. Comparatively, the analysis of the field
notes will address learning and change among the
11
participants of the Diversity Scorecard Project (DSP)
evidence teams. Accordingly, the research questions that
will substantiate this are: 1) in what way did the team
members react to the data? 2) Did the team members become
more equity minded over time?
To respond to these questions I will create a case
study, which will serve as the basis for my interpretation
of the team members’ experience during their participation
in the Diversity Scorecard Project. The interpretive
analysis of the field notes will provide the foundation for
my narrative.
This study, divided into five chapters, includes
chapter 1, the introduction, chapter 2, a review of the
literature on organizational learning, diverse types of
learning, and the factors that facilitate or inhibit
learning and change. In chapter three, I explain the type
of study, the methods used for developing the study, and
the methods of analyses. Chapter 4 reports the analysis of
the data and resultant findings of the study and chapter 5
will contain the conclusion, including implications for
practice and research.
12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
The creators of the Diversity Scorecard Project
believe that the development of equity thinking represents
a form of learning that organizational theorists, namely
Argyris and Schon (1996), have labeled “double loop
learning.” The basis of the Diversity Scorecard Project’s
process is learning and the outcomes are grounded in
learning theory.
In this chapter, I will review the literature on how
scholars define organizational learning, the various types
of learning, including single and double loop, high, medium
and low learning. I will also explore what facilitates and
inhibits the learning process within organizations and
among individuals.
Organizations and institutions are comprised of
individuals from diverse backgrounds and various types of
learners. Learners have unique characteristics that define
how they approach problems and the kind of solutions they
develop. For example, single-loop learners are those “who
are prone to externalize problems by attributing them to
forces that are beyond their control” (Bensimon, 2004, p.
13
26). They develop solutions that focus on the external
symptoms of the problem and leave the values and norms
unchanged. Conversely, double-loop learners look beyond the
external factors of a problem and focus on the root causes,
examining the practices, attitudes, and beliefs of
individuals that must change in order to improve minority
student outcomes. Learning also occurs among individual
members of groups at varied levels, such as high, medium,
and low. The difference between these learning levels is
how the members react to new information and whether the
new information elicits further inquiry into the inequity
in educational outcomes.
We can think of learning as having different levels of
complexity. The goal of the Diversity Scorecard is to
foster double-loop learning and thus create equity
mindedness.
Organizational Learning
A primary goal of the Diversity Scorecard Project is
to promote awareness of inequitable educational outcomes
and to encourage institutional actors to take
responsibility for the problem of inequity and become
agents of change. According to the project leaders, in
14
order to become agents of change, the institutional team
members must re-frame how they view minority students and
their own role in producing equitable outcomes. The
Diversity Scorecard Project’s guiding principles suggest
that people learn by being involved in a joint activity and
that through their interactions and reflective dialogue
they may experience a transformation of their attitudes,
practices, and beliefs.
Organizational learning defined.
A review of the existing literature reveals a range of
definitions for the concept of organizational learning. For
example, Argyris (1977) describes organizational learning
as “a process of detecting and correcting errors, errors
which are a feature of knowledge that inhibits learning”
(p. 116). Argyris and Schon (1996, p. 16) suggest that
organizational learning occurs “when individuals within an
organization experience a problematic situation and inquire
into it on the organization’s behalf.” What the DSP has
done is create the problematic situation by having evidence
teams look at ordinary data in a different way and become
aware of inequities previously concealed by the
presentation of data in aggregated form.
15
Daniel Kim’s premise on organizational learning posits
that organizations ultimately learn via their individual
members. He contends that since organizations are composed
of individuals, understanding theories of individual
learning is crucial in order to comprehend organizational
learning (Kim, 1993, p. 37). Kim defines learning as
“increasing one’s capacity to take effective action” (Kim,
1993, p. 38). He suggests individual learning is a cycle
that consists of two levels, the conceptual, and the
operational. The conceptual is the know-why, and implies
the ability to articulate an understanding of an
experience; thinking about why things are done in the first
place; the operational, the know-how, involves the physical
ability to produce an action; learning at the procedural
level, as in steps to complete a task Kim (1993). Kim
bridges the role of individual learning to organizational
learning by asserting that individual learning affects
learning at organizational level through their influence on
the organizations’ shared mental models. As Kim states, “an
organization can learn only through its members, but it is
not dependent on any specific member, however individuals
can learn without the organization; although individuals
16
are constantly taking action and observing their
experience, not all individual learning has organizational
consequences.”
Tagg (2007, p. 37) believes there is a learning gap
within organizations, he states, and “the most fundamental
problem with colleges is that the people within them don’t
learn very well.” He suggests that this applies not only to
students but to the faculty, staff, and administrators as
well. He contends that the learning gap in colleges and
universities can be attributed to the way in which the
individuals within the organizations behave and the factors
that govern their behavior.
Factors that influence individual behavior and
learning are mental models. To explain how mental models
affect individual learning, Kim referenced Senge’s
description of mental models, which states that, “mental
models represent a person’s view of the world and provide
the context in which to view and interpret new material and
they determine how stored information is relevant to any
given situation (Kim). Simply put mental models play a role
in what an individual sees and does.
17
To further elaborate on the of behavior, Tagg draws on
Argyris and Schon’s notion that people’s behavior in
organizations is often governed by an unstated but
systematic and logical set of rules, a theory-in-use, which
can differ a great deal from what the same people would be
willing to defend, their espoused theory. Argyris (1977)
said, “It is as if they are compulsively tied to a set of
processes that prevent them from changing what they believe
they should change.” While many theorists contend that
organizational learning represents change in awareness or
practice among its members, Huber challenges this narrowly
defined concept of organizational learning. First, he
contends that learning does not always increase a learner’s
effectiveness, or even potential effectiveness (Huber,
1991, p. 89). Next, he suggests that learning need not
result in observable changes in behavior; learning may
result in new and significant insights and awareness but
may or may not dictate any behavioral change. For Huber,
the crucial element is awareness of differences and
alternatives with less focus on an entity or individual’s
change in behavior, but the change in one’s cognitive maps
or understanding (Huber, 1991). He also argues that more
18
organizational learning occurs when organization members
obtain knowledge that it recognizes as potentially useful
to the organization (Huber, p. 89). Although Huber’s view
may be valid in some instances, observable changes in the
Diversity Scorecard Project participants’ attitudes and
behavior about the inequitable outcomes of minority
students are necessary components to create organizational
change and alleviate the problem.
Social scientist have used terms such as funds of
knowledge, background knowledge, and cognitive frames to
describe the bodies of knowledge that practitioners or
individuals draw upon in their everyday actions, as they
decide what to pay attention to, what decisions to make,
and how to respond to particular situations (Bensimon,
2012). As Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, and Harris (2007) noted,
the premise of Equity Scorecard process is that
practitioners can make a marked difference in the
educational outcomes of minority students “if they
recognize that their practices are not working . . . and
develop the funds of knowledge necessary for equity-minded
practice.” The funds of knowledge practitioners’ use do not
encourage reflection on how their practices and beliefs may
19
exacerbate or contribute to the unequal outcomes. These
bodies of knowledge play an important role in organization
learning. According to Davenport and Prusak (1998),
knowledge contained in the minds of individual knower’s
guides our values and how we interact with others and we
use it to interpret and evaluate new experiences. Obtaining
new knowledge coupled with the distribution of information
is crucial and leads to broad based organizational
learning.
There is a link between individual and organizational
learning in that learning at the individual level affects
learning at the organizational level. Therefore, in order
to advance learning within an organization, we must first
understand the various types of individual learning and the
ways in which learning can help individuals reframe
problems.
Types of Learning
Instrumental versus Transformative
According to Mezirow, instrumental learning involves
“learning to control and manipulate the environment or
other people, as in task oriented problem solving to
20
improve performance” (Mezirow, 2000). For example, an
institution attempting to solve the problem of students
having difficulty with a particular math course would
implement a “tutoring program” to improve student
performance. This resolution is a task oriented effort to
improve performance but does not consider reframing the
problem to include an examination of teaching methods.
Transformative learning focuses on how individuals
learn to negotiate and act on their own purposes, values,
feelings, and meanings rather than those they have
uncritically assimilated from others. Transformative
learning refers to transforming a problematic frame of
reference and to redefine or reframe the problem we seek to
solve. For example, the Diversity Scorecard Project’s goal
is to change how institutional team members defines
diversity, to move them beyond defining it based on
enrollment numbers to including the educational outcomes of
minority students as a basis for achieving equity.
Transformative learning may occur through objective or
subjective reframing. Objective reframing involves critical
reflection on the assumptions of others in task-oriented
problem solving (Mezirow, 2000). This concept is similar to
21
action learning, which entails learning in small groups by
examining and taking action on meaningful problems, which
is the purpose of the institutional team members of the
Diversity Scorecard Project. Conversely, subjective
reframing involves a critical reflection of one’s own
assumptions about an organization or workplace – as in
Argyris’ “double loop learning.” A transformative learning
experience requires that the learner decide to act on
his/her newly developed insight, such as acting on the
problems revealed by the disaggregated data.
Researchers suggest that transforming individuals’
frames of reference, mental models, and points of view are
crucial for promoting both individual and organizational
learning and change.
Single versus Double Loop Learning
Bensimon (2004), based on the work by Argyris (1977),
describes single loop learners as “those who externalize
the problem by attributing it to forces and circumstances
that are beyond their control and resort to compensatory
strategies as treatment for problems that are perceived as
dysfunctions” (p.26). Single loop learning characterizes
initiatives informed or motivated by the desire to
22
stabilize the organization’s systems. Single loop learning
happens when errors, viewed negatively as disturbances or
disruptions, cause organizational actors to rush to solve
or eliminate the undesirable disturbances. For example,
single loop learning is evident at the DSP institutions
when team members seek to explain the root cause of the low
transfer rates of minority students based solely on
external factors. A college counselor may contend that the
low minority transfer rate is due to the student’s lack of
motivation or college preparation, turning the focus away
from their beliefs or the institution’s practices, to the
student. This type of assessment also described as deficit
thinking, attributes unequal results to genetics, cultural
deprivation and/or poverty. Here the solutions focus on
external manifestations of the problem and leave internal
values, norms, and beliefs intact.
Double loop learning focuses on the root cause of the
problem to change the attitudes, values, and beliefs of the
learner in order to bring about long-term change (Bauman,
2002). Argyris and Schon (1996), connect double loop
learning to theories of action. They posit that theories of
action are differentiated between what is espoused and what
23
is actually done. In double loop learning the learner
changes how he/she interprets problems and looks internally
for solutions. Kim describes two types of double loop
learning, individual and organizational (Kim, 1993). He
defines individual double loop learning (IDLL) as the
process that affects individual mental models.
Organizational double loop learning (ODLL) denotes a change
incorporated into the organization’s mental model. Coupled
with the characteristics of double loop learning are those
of equity mindedness. Bensimon (2012) identifies the
qualities of equity-minded individuals as:
• Being color-conscious, as opposed to color-blind
• Being aware that beliefs, practices, and expectations
can have can have racially disadvantageous outcomes
• Being willing to assume responsibility for the
elimination of inequality
• Being aware that while racism is not always over,
racialized patterns permeate policies and practices in
higher education institutions
Table 2 illustrates the two types of learning, single and
double-loop and the corresponding characteristics of
deficit thinking and equity mindedness. These cognitive
24
frames represent two opposing views on the unequal outcomes
of minority students for which the participants articulated
during the DS project. Deficit thinking practitioners are
more likely to focus on the shortcomings or circumstances
that are associated with the student, while equity-minded
practitioners are willing to assume responsibility for the
elimination of inequality (Bensimon, 2008, p. 6).
Table 2: Types of Learning and Cognitive Frames
Accepting institutional and individual responsibility for
the inequitable outcomes of minority students is an example
of double loop learning among the team members of the DSP.
Single Loop
Learning
Deficit
Thinking
Double Loop
Learning
Equity
Mindedness
*Task-oriented
problem
solving to
improve
performance
*Externalizes
the problem
*Circumstances
beyond the
individual or
organization’s
control
Inequality is
attributed:
* To cultural
stereotypes
* To
inadequate
socialization
* To lack of
motivation
and self-
initiative
* To external
causes beyond
the control
of
practitioners
* Focuses
on root
cause of
problem
* Change in
learner’s
beliefs
through
reflection
* Reframing
of problem
Inequality is
viewed as:
* Unnatural
* A problem of
institutional
accountability
* As a product
of unconscious
racism in
practices and
beliefs
* Solvable by
practitioners
25
Acknowledging that institutional practices and teaching
methodologies also affect student outcomes is necessary to
achieve double loop learning. The Diversity Scorecard
Project creators intended to bring about double-loop
learning, which would transform how the team members think
about the problem of inequity.
Lorenz contributes to the literature on learning types
in her chapter on Scorecard Teams (Bensimon and Malcom
2012) where she describes three learning group types, high,
medium, and low. In her study, Lorenz used the term “group
learning” because the group, not the organization, served
as the unit of analysis. She defines group learning as,
“the new recognition that results from the introduction of
new information” (Lorenz, 2012, p. 55). Group learning
involves the change in understanding that takes place
between the understanding held by the team members before
the introduction of new information, precondition, and the
understanding held by the team members after the
introduction of new information, post condition (Lorenz).
Within these learning types, the roles of data focus,
experiential knowledge, and what the group learned were
factors that determined the group’s level of learning. In
26
Lorenz’s assessment of the teams’ learning levels, she
identified characteristics of each learning type. The high
learning teams experienced the highest level of learning
because they considered the data as the primary source for
interpreting the inequities and their experiential
knowledge as less significant. The medium learning teams,
did not consider the data as the preeminent source, instead
they expected the data to confirm their experiential
knowledge. Low learning teams experienced the very little
learning about the inequities in educational outcomes
primarily because 1) the committees did not examine the
data during the first year; 2) experiential knowledge was
the only source of information used in the evaluation of
the unequal outcomes (Lorenz, 2012).
Similarly, the Diversity Scorecard Project utilized the
disaggregated data as the source for introducing new
information to the teams and through the joint examination
of the disaggregated data, the facilitators aim was to help
the team recognize that utilizing experiential knowledge
and the current practices were not producing successful
results for minority students.
27
Action Learning
Yorks and Marsick (2000) examine action learning as a
strategy that can produce transformative learning for
individuals, groups, and organizations. What evolves from
this literature is the idea that groups can learn in a way
that goes beyond individual learning within the group.
Action learning has emerged as an intervention to foster
organizational learning. Action Learning is highly
participatory, and designed to advance learning from
experience through cycles of action and subsequent
reflection on that action (Yorks & Marsick, 2000). Although
action-learning programs vary in design, overall structure
includes the formation of a team, selected by a senior
manager who presents the project team with a particular
challenge that is real and has significant performance
implications (Yorks & Marsick, 2000). In addition, the
project teams consist of individuals with diverse
backgrounds, chosen intentionally in order for the team
members to “learn to draw strength from these different
frames of reference” (Yorks & Marsick, 2000).
The Diversity Scorecard Project utilizes some aspects
of the action-learning program design in that the President
28
chooses a small group of institutional team members, which
includes institutional actors from various departments. The
problem they examine, the inequitable educational outcomes
of underrepresented students, is one that has significant
performance implications for both the students and the
college.
Yorks and Marsick describe four theoretical schools of
action learning, Tacit, Scientific, Experiential, and
Critical Reflection. Although each school shares common
elements, they differ in their assumptions about learning.
For example, the Tacit School “assumes that significant
learning will take place so long as participants are placed
together, team building takes place, and information is
provided by experts” (Yorks & Marsick, 2000, p. 258). The
learning involves problem solving, implementation of
solutions, and elaborating existing frames of reference. In
this instance, the reflection process is incidental and
often individual as opposed to collective.
Unlike Tacit, the Scientific, Experiential, and
Critical Reflection schools most closely resemble the
characteristics of learning that the DSP sought to
accomplish. The focus of the Scientific School is solving
29
the problem facing participants but goes a step further
than the Tacit School in that it includes problem
reframing, problem resetting, and creating new meaning
schemes. Here the reflection is group oriented and tends to
focus on the content of the project. The Experiential
School emphasizes personal development goals and learning
about learning styles. The group focuses on both problem
solving around the project and managerial and interpersonal
competencies. The reflection process involves content and
process, which they contend increases the possibility of
transformation of meaning schemes.
Lastly, the Critical Reflection School is an
accumulation of the Tacit, Scientific, and Experiential
schools but also incorporates a strong emphasis on personal
and organizational transformation. The author’s contend
that this particular action-learning program provides a
greater potential for personal learning through
transformation of points of view and habit of mind (Yorks &
Marsick, 2000).
Understanding the various types of learning is
essential for institutional actors involved in college or
university intervention plans; however, to develop the
30
ethos of change agents within colleges and universities,
practitioners need to be aware of factors that facilitate
and inhibit learning.
Facilitators and Inhibitors of Learning and Change
The current literature presents divergent views on
what facilitates and inhibits learning. These views are
important for practitioners who are responsible for
implementing or participating in an intervention program.
Factors that facilitate learning include dialogue, finding
agreement, welcoming difference and reframing or
transforming a point of view or habit of mind. A lack of
communication and an inability to shift or reframe mental
maps or habits of mind are elements that inhibit learning.
These aspects of the learning process can assist
individuals in developing programs that will facilitate
learning and possibly alleviate some of the barriers
inherent in the learning process.
Change, by definition, requires the individual or
institution become different, by altering, modifying, or
transforming current practices, beliefs, or norms. Several
researchers believe there is a link between the learning
process and change. For example, according to Kezar and
31
Eckel (1999, p. 6) “change is a learning process; so the
way to accomplish change is through encouraging employees
to learn.” Eckel, Hill, and Green (1998) define change as a
transformation that alters certain underlying assumptions,
behaviors, and processes, is deep and pervasive, and occurs
over time. These characteristics encompass both individual
and institutional change, however deep change, which
implies a shift in assumptions and behaviors, requires
individuals to think and act differently. Transforming the
way individuals think and act requires the learner shift
their frames of reference or cognitive frames, as Kim
suggests, challenging the existing mental models, which
lead to new frameworks in the mental models (Kim, 1993).
Facilitators.
A learner may use discourse as they seek to understand
their particular belief system. The definition of discourse
is “a specialized use of dialogue devoted to searching for
common understanding and assessment of the justification of
an interpretation or belief” (Mezirow, 2000, p.10). As
noted by Mezirow, discourse in not based on winning
arguments, but utilizes five key points, finding agreement,
welcoming difference, considering other points of view,
32
looking for commonalities among contradiction, and
searching for reframing. For example, the first task of the
DSP evidence teams was to decide what types of data they
would examine in the four perspectives on institutional
performance, access, retention, institutional receptivity,
and excellence. Next, they were to create the scorecard by
selecting goals and measures for each perspective. The DSP
evidence teams utilize several aspects of discourse
including 1) agreeing on what types of data they will
examine, 2) using open-mindedness as they select the goals
and measures, 3) identifying the improvement targets, and
4) determining the point at which equity would be achieved.
Each facet of this process is designed to promote the team
members ability to reframe the problem of inequity.
In Lorenz’s (2012) chapter on Scorecard Teams as High
Learning Groups, she refers to Garvin and Weicks’ view that
a joint examination of data is a catalyst for learning.
They contend that organizational learning is facilitated
by, a) the presence of new ideas, b) the cultivation of
doubt in existing knowledge and practices, and c) the
transfer of knowledge among institutional actors in groups.
33
Argyris (1977) examines the key elements and
strategies that facilitate the transformational change
process. The results of the study reveal that changing
private assumptions involves assisting individuals to
become aware of these internal maps; helping them
understand how their present assumptions are
counterproductive for the kind of learning they need to
effectively change.
Inhibitors.
The literature describes several factors that can
prevent learning, for example, one theorist posits that
individuals are often unaware that they do not use the
theories they openly advocate to carry out their actions
(Argyris, 1977). Argyris’ Model I assumptions describe the
four basic values these individuals strive to satisfy, (1)
to define in their own terms the purpose of the situation,
(2) to win, (3) to suppress everyone’s feelings, (4) be
rational not emotional. Such characteristics do not promote
open communication and therefore inhibit learning. The
Model I theories of action are difficult to correct as they
blind people to their weaknesses. There is a consensus
among researchers regarding the use of games, control, and
34
deception that all have an adverse effect on learning. For
instance, Argyris and Schon (1996) reiterate how people
learn to maintain the patterns and actions that inhibit
learning when they respond to errors by using scapegoats,
games of one-sided control or avoidance, disguising their
intentions, and establishing schemes that suppress the
discussion of critical issues. The use of scapegoats in the
Model I theory is similar to the single-loop learner
externalizing the problem and turning the focus away from
self to others. These methods, according to Argyris and
Schon, inhibit the kind of learning that yields reframing
values for improved performance.
Cognitive frames are the way in which individuals
understand situations. These frames determine the type of
questions they ask, the information collected, how they
define problems, and what actions to take (Bensimon, 2005).
Factors that inhibit individual change include an inability
to shift or reframe their mental maps, habits of mind or
points of view. For example, institutional actors guided by
a deficit cognitive frame will attribute educational
inequities of minority students to their cultural, socio-
economic, and educational backgrounds. The institutional
35
actors tend to blame the inequities on the student and do
not believe the institution or the professors share the
responsibility for solving the problem of inequity. A
failure to modify this form of thinking prevents individual
change. Determining whether individual learning and change
transpired among the DSP team members is vital for the case
study evaluation process.
Other factors that stand in the way of learning and
change include protecting the status quo. Kim (1993)
references Argyris and Schon’s theory that most
organizations have shared assumptions that protect the
status quo. For example, one assumption that many
institutional practitioners share is that minority students
lack the motivation necessary to be successful in college.
This shared belief creates a status quo that can preclude
others from challenging those who accept this idea as true.
However, by not challenging this assumption, practitioners
provide a form of assent, which inhibits inquiry and
dialogue and precludes learning. Lorenz’s shares the idea
that protecting a status quo is an impediment to learning.
The use of institutional data as a source for new ideas, to
promote doubt in existing knowledge or practices, or as a
36
means to transfer knowledge among actors can facilitate
organizational learning. However, according to Lorenz
(2012, p. 53), “actors in higher education resist using
data, in order to protect the status quo and prevent airing
of dirty laundry”.
Practitioners and researchers throughout American
higher education are confronted with inequitable outcomes
of minority students and seek to undertake the problem
using various strategies. However, closing the equity gap
requires a shift in focus, from what students can’t do to
what institution can do. It requires a closer look at the
institutional practices, policies, and structure that
perpetuate the problem.
In the next chapter, I describe how I will incorporate
these theories of learning into the analysis methods I used
to study this phenomenon and the data I chose to use as the
subject of this study.
37
Chapter Three: Methodology
In this chapter, I discuss the project team members,
which serve as the subjects for this study and the methods
used to analyze and make sense of the field notes. The
purpose of the study is to conduct an analysis of the field
notes for one institution that covers the period from March
2001 through December 2004. The overarching purpose of the
DSP project was to create awareness among academic
communities about the true state of inequities in
educational outcomes for underrepresented students. In this
study, I will examine the text from the DSP project of the
Harrison College team members and determine whether the
field notes suggest or provide evidence of the team
members' learning or change during their participation in
the DSP project. In this chapter, I will describe the type
of study, the methodologies used to develop the case study,
and the methods of analyses.
Type of Study
The type of study I will conduct is a case study
described by Merriam as “an intensive, holistic description
38
and analysis of a single instance, phenomenon, or social
unit” (Merriam, 1998, p. 27). I selected this type of study
because it provides the framework, a bounded system, to
investigate the phenomena within its real-life context. A
case study uses text to describe and analyze situations,
illuminate the readers’ understanding, and the product is a
rich description of the phenomena under study. The
descriptive and heuristic features of the case study design
will be instrumental in determining whether learning and
change took place among the institutional team members who
participated in the Harrison College Diversity Scorecard
Project (DSP).
Methods for Developing the Study
For this study, I began by acquainting myself with the
college through a review of the website and statistical
databases such as the California Postsecondary Education
Commission. Next, I developed a case study of the four
participating team members who served as the unit of
analysis. Overtime there were eight members, some stable,
and some newcomers. I will only consider the newcomers if
they played a critical role in the learning context.
39
The case study drew on the data from 11 meetings that
took place between March 2001 and January 2003.
Table 3: Schedule of Meetings
The Center for Urban Education researchers produced
field notes from the participant observation of the team
meetings. The field notes will serve as the main source of
analysis, addressing the following questions: 1) In what
way did the team members react to the scorecard 2) Did the
team members become more equity minded over the course of
the project?
40
Field notes.
The field notes were created from the meetings, which
included the team members and at least two members of the
DSP project staff. At each meeting, project staff members
would perform a particular role, as either a facilitator or
a note taker. The research assistant note taker kept field
notes for the meeting in which they captured, verbatim,
what each team member said during the discussions. The
meetings were not video or audio taped, therefore the
project staff acted as the recorder of the meeting events.
The field notes included a detailed description of what the
project staff observed and their own observations,
reflections and reactions to the team member’s behavior or
attitudes. For example, in the following de-briefing
excerpt, a project staff member observed the team’s
behavior:
“The group has become much more comfortable with one
another and don’t bother with formalities like
handshaking. The level of comfort has risen. Prior to
this project, Connie didn’t know the counselors, now
41
the three of them know each other and are getting
along” (Meeting #4, 9/27/01).
The field notes contained the seating arrangements for
each meeting, which provided a visual context for the
reader. The first set of field notes were constructed
around eight questions developed to organize and guide the
project staff’s analysis however they discontinued this
format and began to document the contents chronologically
as they unfolded. It was evident in the field notes that
the project staff improved their note taking skills as the
later notes contained more details, were controlled less by
the pre-determined questions, and were more narrative in
nature. The field notes also included a de-briefing
session, held by the project staff, which served as a
method to record their personal feelings and observations
of the day’s events at the time they occurred. In addition,
the note taker typed the field notes promptly after the
meetings in order to avoid a loss of memory.
42
Advantages of the data.
There are several advantages to using field note data
derived from participant observation for this study. First,
the project staff was better able to understand and capture
the context within which the team members interacted.
Second, through firsthand experience with the team members
and being in the setting, the project staff was able to
rely on their own conceptualization of the phenomena and
not have to rely on prior perceptions from written
documents or reports. A third advantage is that the project
staff had an opportunity to learn things that the team
members may have been unwilling to discuss with strangers
in an interview. The fourth was the ability to get close to
the team members in the natural setting, which allowed the
project staff to draw on personal knowledge during the
interpretation stage of the analysis. Lastly, the project
staff took the field notes in real time, as the meetings
happened, which enhanced their ability to capture the
experience as it occurred as opposed to having to recollect
the events and construct the field notes later.
43
Ethics.
As with any research study, we must consider issues of
ethics. Bauman (2002) states that according to Spradley
(1980), regardless of how unobtrusive and safe a study may
seem the researcher always pries into the lives of
informants. Merriam (1998) contends that in qualitative
studies ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge with regard
to the collection of data, the dissemination of findings,
and in this particular study, the researcher-participant
relationship.
A primary concern for the researcher-participant
relationship is how much privacy and protection from harm
is the participants afforded. In order to guarantee the
confidentiality of the participants and to safeguard the
information received from the DSP staff, I reviewed and
signed a confidential disclosure agreement. The document
outlined: 1) do not reveal the name of the institution that
will be the subject of my case study evaluation to anyone.
2) At all times I will refer to the institution by its
designated number. 3) I will maintain the field notes is a
secure place that only I can access. 4) I will keep printed
44
copies of the field notes in a secure place that only I can
access. I agreed and complied with each of these
statements. In order to protect the institution and
participant’s identity, I created a pseudonym for the
institution and each project participant as follows: 1)
institution, Harrison College, 2) participating team
members, Anita, Raymond, Connie, and Fred, 3) intermittent
participants, the President Beverly, Guest 1, and Guest 2.
In the next chapter, I discuss the finding and learning
outcomes of the study.
Method of analyses.
I will begin the field note analysis by developing a
set of codes based on the literature review on learning and
change in the previous chapter. I will use these codes as I
read the notes for each meeting and will apply each of them
as I proceed from meeting to meeting. In this study, my
primary focus will be on the individual team members of the
team and I will therefore treat each participant as a
bounded case study. My analysis will begin by looking for
occurrences in the field notes that indicate the
originating stage of the team members' learning, for
45
example, did the team member begin the DSP at the
instrumental learning stage. Next I will look for instances
in the field notes that denote a transformation from the
initial stages of learning to a more progressive stage
(transformative). I will also look for occurrences of
transformative learning based on the team member’s
attitudes about the DSP and their awareness and
interpretation of the inequities in educational outcomes
for minority students presented by the disaggregated data.
I will then use a narrative analysis to describe my
interpretation of the team member’s experiences. Nancy
Zeller describes narration as “a kind of discourse that
answers the question, what happened” (Zeller, 1995, p. 75).
Each individual case study will address what happened based
on the research questions for the study. The narrative
analysis structure will contain the five basic elements
described by Martin Cortazzi (1993) as shown in table__.
The abstract, which initiates the narrative, will provide
the general intention that the narrative will illustrate.
The abstract of this study describes what each meeting was
about according to the field notes. The orientation will
46
include the details of time, persons, place, and
situations. Here I will describe the meeting date, place,
and the case study team member. The next element, the
complication describes the problem, crisis, or turning
point of the narrative, the “then what happened.” I will
use this to describe and examine the team member’s type of
learning as discussed in the literature review chapter. The
evaluation, the “so what” element, conveys how the events
should be interpreted. I will utilize this component to
communicate the importance of the team members learning and
change as it relates to awareness of the inequities of
educational outcomes of minority students. Lastly, the
results describe the resolution and illustrate what finally
happened. For purposes of this study, the resolution will
respond to the research questions based on the team
member’s reactions described in the field notes (Cortazzi,
1993, p. 44).
47
Table Four: Five Basic Elements of Narrative Analysis
Categories for Field Note Analysis
Categorizing is a method used in data analysis to
represent labels that illustrate themes, recurring
practices etc. The codes related to the themes are
awareness of inequities, reflection/introspection,
attitudes about the DSP and participation, interpretation
(inequities) and team member and institutional
responsibility. During my analysis of the field notes, I
will focus on two categories of learning, single-loop
(SLL), that include statements typifying deficit thinking,
and double-loop (DLL), which comprise the characteristics
of equity mindedness. Next, I will look for factors that
facilitated and inhibited the learning process.
Abstract Illustrates Intent
Orientation Who, When, Where
Complication What Happened?
Evaluation So What
Results Resolution
48
Single-loop Learning
This analysis includes looking for text in the field
notes that suggest the team members are seeking to solve a
problem through task-oriented efforts. For example, when
the issue of minority students not taking advantage and
fully utilizing the various programs available to them
Anita and Connie stated,
“Harrison College has developed a card that students
will have to slide when utilizing one of the services
offered on campus. The purpose of this will be to
monitor the use of these services and identify which
services are being utilized most as well as which
students are utilizing them”(Meeting #1, 3/27/01).
Here the solution is single-loop based as it looks to solve
the problem by employing a system that tracks how often
students use various services. However, it does not
consider reframing the problem to include an examination of
whether the programs or services offered are actually
meeting the student’s needs.
I will also look for text that demonstrates a team
member’s externalization of the problem, suggesting the
49
problem is due to circumstances beyond their control. The
following excerpt is an example of the single loop learning
stage of one team member (Raymond), as he explained why
minority students do not transfer at a higher rate:
“One of the issues that many of the Latino and
African American students come in with is their lack
of preparation; many of their students need
remediation” (Meeting #1, 3/27/01).
This is evidence of single-loop learning because the team
member is externalizing the student's transfer rate
problem, forces beyond his/her control. It also
demonstrates a “blame the student” mentality ignoring the
possibility that the problem may be due to their beliefs or
the institution’s practices.
Double-loop Learning
This stage of learning will include text that
indicates a team members’ reframing of the problem or frame
of reference about inequitable outcomes or equity gaps. For
instance, during a discussion about closing the equity gap,
50
Raymond said:
“It’s hard to reduce the gap once they hit campus.
They get here and they have so many classes just to
catch up. We have to go back to the high schools and
maybe even middle schools . . . to rectify the
problems” (Meeting #7, 02/08/02).
Here the team member has developed some level of
transformation, although he has not completely reframed his
thinking to include an examination of his own beliefs,
practices and values, he did change his frame of reference
from blaming the gap on the students to looking at the
institutional practices within the middle and high school
educational systems.
In addition, double-loop learners demonstrate a
reframing of the beliefs or newly developed insights, for
example, when the team members review the data with the
Harrison College’s president, Beverly at the college
administrator’s presentation. The discussion focused around
the state of the math and English success and retention of
minority students. The disaggregated data stimulated many
51
comments. One comment illustrates a newly developed insight
for Connie:
“At-risk students etc. are those groups we need to
target. The gap needs to change between ethnic groups.
We have retention; we now need to focus on
achievement” (Meeting #6, 01/07/02).
As with most levels of learning, there are factors
that facilitate and inhibit the process. I will look for
any factors that may affect the participant’s ability to
learn during the DSP.
Facilitators
The categories that indicate the facilitation of
learning include, dialogue, agreement, welcoming
difference, reframing or the process of reframing,
transformation. The field note excerpt that best
demonstrates open dialogue, considering other points of
view and reframing happened during a meeting about the
revised scorecard project framework. The members were
addressing the institutional receptivity goal and were
discussing faculty representation in comparison to the
student population. Connie said, “The faculty used to be
52
representative of our students, but the population is
always changing. Are we supposed to get rid of white
faculty? Then she said, over the last 3 years they have
increased diversity in their hiring when compared to
previous years, “so we’re doing better.”
Fred responded saying, “We don’t need all Latinos to
teach all Latinos . . . I would rather see
diversification of the curriculum. They have cut women
and religious studies . . . The English department
should introduce Latino writers and not just use the
Western paradigm.”
Anita commented saying, “This may require sensitivity
training or faculty development.”
Fred said, “There is the possibility of recommending
new books.” He suggested they look at books ordered by
the bookstore for courses. This discussion led to the
members agreeing to send the project staff member a
list of the books for English 28 and English 101.
Connie asked if they should replace the faculty goals
with the book goals. The members concluded to keep
both ((Meeting #7, 02/08/02).
53
Inhibitors
Traits that best signify the inhibitors of learning
are lack of communication; inability to shift or reframe
mental maps not understanding the data and lack of
participation. This was evident during the facilitators de-
briefing when they acknowledged that one of the team
member’s attitude could inhibit learning. Both Michelle and
Pamela agreed that Raymond’s somewhat pessimistic attitude
toward students might stifle learning within the team
(Meeting #2, 07/11/01).
The facilitators agreed the issue he is dealing with
might be "real"; however, what was missing was a discussion
of possible solutions to these problems. They state that
without this “the group is unlikely to learn and make
change” (Meeting #2, 07/11/01).
54
Chapter Four: Findings
To recapitulate, the Diversity Scorecard Project’s
(DSP) purpose was to create awareness, among institutional
members, about the state of inequities in educational
outcomes for underrepresented students at their
institution. This was accomplished by involving a team of
practitioners in close examination of educational outcomes
disaggregated by race and ethnicity. In the process of
reviewing educational outcome data, the participants
offered a variety of interpretations. In some cases, the
team members’ said the data confirmed what they already
knew about the minority student inequities and there were
instances in the field notes that indicated the team
members were concerned about the results of the data.
I constructed the study results based on the data
from the field notes that showed inequities for Blacks
iii
and Latinos in transfer to four-year colleges; the high
concentration of Blacks and Latinos in pre-collegiate
remedial courses, and Blacks and Latinos failure to
complete the basic skills courses. I present these findings
by describing the team members’ perceptions about the
55
meaning of the data and the circumstances that give rise to
the inequities. To provide contextual background for the
study I briefly describe the data that elicited the team’s
reactions.
This chapter interprets the findings in relation to
two research questions: 1) In what ways did the
participants react to the data, and 2) Did the team members
become more equity minded over the course of the project?
Project Participants
I analyzed four team members, Anita, Raymond, Connie,
and Fred. Anita, Raymond, and Connie began the project
together in its first year, whereas Fred joined the project
in the second year. Anita and Raymond contributed a student
services perspective to the team as they had daily
interaction with the Harrison College students. Connie
provided the statistical information necessary to complete
the Diversity Scorecard. The data Connie supplied served as
a means to impart knowledge and create awareness about the
inequitable outcomes for minority students. Fred
contributed a management perspective as one responsible for
managing the resources and services for the students at
56
Harrison College. Table 4 provides a description of the
team members and their respective positions.
Table 4: Team Member Descriptions
Diversity Scorecard Project Meetings
Developing the Scorecard
Each member of the team brought a different level of
experience and knowledge to the group. The levels or bodies
of knowledge are the practices, skills, ideas, and
abilities that practitioners draw on to respond to,
interpret problems, and make decisions in their daily
actions. Connie appeared to have an understanding of the
value of the DSP and its use of disaggregated data because
of her expertise as a researcher. Anita and Raymond’s
perspective was more experiential because of their
Team Member Team Member Position
Anita Student Services Counselor
Raymond Student Services Counselor
Connie Institutional Researcher
Fred Student Services Administrator
57
interactions with the various day-to-day challenges the
Harrison College students faced. According to the CUE
researchers, initially the team members did not express a
positive or negative attitude about the project or whether
the DSP would lead to institutional change. They were all
aware of the problem areas that the scorecard could address
and had some hunches about the larger institutional issues.
Anita, Raymond, and Connie concluded that the Diversity
Scorecard could be of use in identifying the gaps in
educational outcomes from the disaggregated data. Although
it was too soon to pinpoint any specifics, they understood
the DSP project would be a learning process.
The Fact Book data identified three key data points
that illustrated the inequities in educational outcomes for
minority students and elicited most of the participants’
discussions, low transfer rates, disproportionate
placement/remediation, and low retention and success rates.
First, Latino and Black students transferred to the UC at a
lower rate than their White counterparts did. As shown in
Figure 1, of the 141 students that transferred to a UC
there were 32 Hispanics and 7 African Americans. The
combined UC (141) and CSU (492) transfer data showed that
58
of the 633 transfers, fewer Hispanics transferred than in
the overall student population. Although the CSU transfers
were more representative of the overall Harrison College
population, the UC transfer data revealed that African
American and Hispanic students were underrepresented
(Harrison College President’s Report, 2002).
Figure 1: UC & CSU Transfers from Harrison College by
Ethnicity
Source: Harrison College President’s Report 2002
Next, minority students were failing to complete the
English and Mathematics basic skills courses at the same
rate as their White counterparts, which affected their
ability to transfer. The results of the students’ placement
examinations established their first eligible course in the
sequence and the progression to reach the transferrable
course levels. To elucidate the course progressions, Table
5 shows the course sequences for English and Mathematics
59
and identifies the courses that are eligible for transfer
to the UC and CSU systems.
Table 5: English and Math Course Sequences
Accordingly, the placement
1
data, disaggregated by
ethnicity, revealed the disparity in results between
minority students and their White counterparts. Figure 2 is
a diagram of the placement data for English 33 and Math
105, the first courses in each sequence. The data showed
that a larger percentage of Latino and African American
1
Placement – determined based on the results of the English
and/or Math assessment tests. Levels include remedial (three or
more levels below transfer level courses)
60
students placed in the remedial levels for both English and
Mathematics compared to their White counterparts.
61
Conversely, minority students represented a lower
percentage that placed in the higher-level transferrable
English 101(17 % Latino, 5 % African American) and Math 265
(12 % Latino, 1 % African American) courses.
Figure 2: English 33 and Math 105 Placements by Ethnicity
Harrison College President’s Report, 2002
The third data point, retention
2
and success
3
, showed
Latino and African American students had difficulty
remaining enrolled and successfully passing the English 101
transferrable course and Math 105 basic skill course.
2
Retention indicates a student remained in the course throughout
the semester regardless of whether or not they received an “F” or a
“no pass”
3
Success indicates a student received a “C” or better or a
“passing” grade
62
Table 5 is an illustration of the disparity between Latino
and African American students’ retention and success rates
compared to Whites.
Table 5: English 101 and Math 105 Retention and Success
English 101 – Retention and Success
Retention Overall Latino Black White
81% 76% 78% 85%
Success Overall Latino Black White
69% 60% 63% 78%
Mathematics 105 – Retention and Success
As described previously, the Diversity Scorecard Project
consists of four perspectives that guided the development
of indicators that were essential for the achievement of
equity: access, retention, excellence, and institutional
receptivity. The access perspective provided information
for institutional leaders to ascertain how well
underrepresented students gain access to the institution’s
Retention Overall Latino Black White
74% 74% 67% 85%
Success Overall Latino Black White
47% 45% 36% 53%
63
programs and resources and their access to four-year
colleges through transfer. The excellence perspective
focused on traditional measures of quality of
underrepresented students. The institutional receptivity
perspective examined the level of institutional support
that creates an affirming and responsive campus environment
to underrepresented students In addition, it calls
attention to the racial and ethnic diversity in the campus
community among faculty, staff, and administrators and
whether there is equitable representation of race and
ethnicity between the faculty and student body. The
retention perspective compared retention rates of
underrepresented students by program and looks at how
successfully the population completes basic skill courses
and programs leading to a certificate/credential,
associate, or baccalaureate degree.
The development of Harrison College’s scorecard
required the team members to work together by examining the
data, assessing the results, determining the goals for each
perspective, and recommending appropriate interventions.
Their teamwork resulted in the completion of the Harrison
College’s scorecard as follows: First, the goal in the
64
access perspective was to increase the representation of
Hispanic and African-American students by 2% each semester
in higher-level placements of English and Mathematics.
Second, tied to the access perspective was the retention
perspective, the goal was to increase the four-year fall
average for the success, and retention rates in English and
Mathematics of Hispanic and African-American students by 5%
each year. Next, was the institutional receptivity
perspective, which consisted of two goals: to increase the
diversity of the full and part-time faculty by 5% each year
for Hispanic and African American faculty, and to diversify
textbooks to include more Hispanic and African American
authors. Lastly, the excellence perspective goal was to
increase the percentage of Latino and African American
students who transfer to the UC system to match the overall
student population (Harrison College President’s Report,
2002).
Using the field notes, I examined this collaborative
process and in the findings that follow, I will show how
the team members reacted to and interpreted the transfer,
placement, and retention data. The discourse between the
65
project participants and CUE facilitators provided the
answers to the research questions presented in chapter one.
UC Transfer
The Harrison College data on minority transfer showed
that the California State University (CSU) system transfer
rates was more representative of the overall student
population compared to the University of California (UC)
system transfer rates. Although the data revealed the
transfer inequity, the team would have to delve deeper to
determine the causes that created the inequity in minority
transfer to the UC system. In the first year of the
project, the team members’ had diverse interpretations of
the UC transfer problem and they each attributed the
inequities to the students and the institution.
At the March meeting, the discussion began with the
team seeking to determine why students chose the CSU as
opposed to the UC. Initially, Connie was the only team
member that reacted to the disparities. She said, “Based on
the most recent transfer data, the CSU look better, but the
UC are still bad.” Connie later directed the team’s efforts
to establish what their goal should be with respect to
creating equity in transfer rates. She shared with the team
66
that, “there will always be people on either side of the
average; our goal should be to raise everyone’s rates.”
Connie suggested that they might find the five-year
averages of Hispanic students and then see if they can beat
their own averages. Anita and Raymond recommended using the
national report on transfer rates at the community colleges
as a benchmark. Connie said, “Preview College had higher
overall and UC transfer rates than Harrison College.
Raymond said that, “looking at benchmarking within their
geographic area would be important.” Connie agreed and said
that, “it has a lot do with SES [socio-economic-status].”
Surprisingly Connie and Raymond suggested that a students’
ability to transfer was a function of their socio-economic
status (SES). Connie also said, “Preview has more white
students and serves Wilson Heights (a more affluent
community, implying higher SES).” Anita did not share their
perception about the impact of SES on transfer rates; she
added another viewpoint. She said, “Sumner Community
College (SCC) had a very diverse population from varied
high schools, but still had high transfer rates.” Connie
also thought that advertising contributed to Preview
College’s successful transfer rates. She said, “When I
67
visited the Preview College campus I saw at least seven
transfer banners, but you don’t see it here; it’s a goal
but it’s not marketed.” Connie’s statement indicated that
she believed Harrison could do more to improve their
transfer rates by increasing the visibility of transfer
information and options similar to the efforts that she
observed at Preview College. Next, the team members
identified two additional factors they believed exacerbated
the UC transfer disparity, location, and lack of financial
support.
68
Location and Financial Support
At the first meeting, the team members discussed the
access perspective and some of the reasons Harrison College
students transfer to the CSU’s instead of the UC’s. Connie
said, “I believe one of the reasons Harrison College
students transfer to the CSU rather than the UC’s is
because of location, the CSU campuses are closer to
Harrison than the UC’s.” Anita agreed with Connie, but she
suspected that the Latino family dynamics might also play a
role. She said, “This may be a bigger issue for Latino
students because of pressure from their families to stay
close to home.”
Anita, Raymond, and Connie conceptualized their own
theories about the impact financial aid had on the transfer
process. This topic provoked a more animated dialogue
between the participants. The consensus among them was that
there were two reasons students were experiencing
difficulty obtaining financial aid: 1) they lacked adequate
information about the various funding options, 2) for those
who were aware of their options, the application process
was too arduous to complete. Anita and Raymond reported
that their daily interactions with students confirmed that
69
students were not aware of the available information on
financial support and expressed their opinions about
whether the student or the institution was at fault.
At the March meeting, Raymond interpreted the UC
transfer inequities as the students’ fault. First, he
addressed the financial aid process. He shared that he
teaches a career development course and said, “Financial
aid is a deep-rooted problem. The process takes such a long
time. There is no instant gratification.” He said, “He went
through the steps in class and the students said, ‘this is
so hard.’ “They need to keep pushing, but the students
don’t push; it’s not in their background, the international
students get financial aid; they push and persist.” He also
implied that students who received financial aid were not
fiscally responsible; he said, “Students who do receive
financial aid also face difficulties due to money
management issues.” He recognized the financial aid process
was a problem but he continued to blame the student,
suggesting that students had to be coaxed because they were
not motivated to seek out the necessary information or make
the effort to apply. Raymond’s pessimistic interpretations
of the financial aid issue continued throughout the first
70
meeting. He spoke about students’ lack of motivation and
negative attitudes saying, “I work with a lot of athletes
and many of them don’t want to go through the process of
applying for financial aid. My biggest headache is the
athletes. They don’t want to do anything. Students have a
"gimme" attitude. They want free money [financial aid] but
they do not want to pay it back.” Thus far, Raymond
believed that students lack initiative, which may or may
not substantiate his attitude about them, however, he
missed was an opportunity to discuss solutions or reflect
on his beliefs and beliefs.
Through out the project Raymond blamed students for
their inability to obtain financial aid; however, for the
first time at the September meeting, he acknowledged that
the college should improve their efforts to disseminate
financial aid information to its students. He said, “Most
students know that financial aid exists. We have to go out
and grab them. It’s not like the university, we have to be
more assertive.” Pamela, the CUE facilitator, asked how do
students typically receive financial aid information,
Raymond said, “word of mouth, high-school outreach; we do a
ton of outreach to all of our feeder schools and we do it
71
at all of our orientations, so, it’s out there.” Michelle,
another facilitator asked, “How do we know that lack of
information is the problem?” Anita suggested surveying
students and Michelle said that, “maybe a goal could be to
increase the number of workshops.” Raymond did not think
this would resolve the problem because students were
apathetic about attending financial aid workshops, He said,
“Not many attend. It is hard to force students to do
anything. They just don’t understand.” He also said he
talked to the athletics coaches and arranged for workshops
for them but not one showed. “The coaches didn’t get their
athletes there.” Several other questions came up about the
time of the workshops and how they could increase the
numbers who participate. Anita did make a positive
suggestion for the DSP goals that could alleviate the
problem with disseminating financial aid information. She
said that, “one of their goals should be to determine where
students get information on financial aid and transferring
in order to determine how to make it more accessible to
more students.”
Anita also suspected the financial aid process played
a role in students’ reluctance to apply. First, she
72
mentioned that the application procedure was too arduous
according to a student she worked with. She said, “The
student doesn’t know what to do.” Anita attributed the
problem to institutional practices and not to student
motivation. Although the length of the application was a
problem, she went on to explain that once the application
was completed and filed, the packaging and check processing
timeline had improved. The team believed that very few
students knew about the financial aid resources available
to them but they had no idea what percentage of students
this affected. Anita raised another issue, how Latino
students perceive financial aid. She said, “Two Latino
students shared with her that they considered receiving
financial aid as an indicator that they are lower class.
There is a stigma attached to it.” Connie replied, “Maybe
it’s cultural.” Connie shared that the data supported their
contention about the stigma, “when I reviewed the data on
who received financial aid, a lower percentage of Latino
students got financial aid than the percentage represented
in the student population.” Anita and Connie based their
explanations on cultural barriers, attributing the problem
to the student. Neither participant addressed the
73
institutional practices nor whether there was anything
could they have done to alter the students’ perceptions.
Raymond interjected saying, “because there were so many
Latino students on campus it might be more likely that more
of them are middle class than the African Americans.”
Raymond presumed that the socio-economic-status affected
which students applied for financial aid. Anita, Raymond,
and Connie interpreted the transfer data and attributed the
problem to the student. They cited reasons such as cultural
dynamics, lack of ambition, and socio-economic-statuses,
all of which conveyed that these were circumstances beyond
the team member or institution’s control. They also
expressed that minority students’ failure to secure
financial aid was an obstacle that prevented them from
remaining enrolled and completing required courses, which
ultimately affected their educational outcomes.
Placement and Remediation
At Harrison College, new students are required to
complete placement examinations to determine their English
and Mathematics basic skill levels. Depending on the
results, students are “placed” in specific classes
according to their scores, some of which fell below the
74
required levels for transfer to the CSU’s or UC’s. After
examining the data, the team identified two issues that
they believed exacerbated the problem, minority students
were academically unprepared to enroll in the higher-level
basic skill courses, and therefore, they were required to
take disproportionate numbers of remedial courses. In the
following sections, I will illustrate how the team members
interpreted the students’ lack of preparation and to whom
or what they attributed the problem.
Lack of Academic Preparation
Raymond, Anita, and Connie thought that minority students
were not academically prepared to enroll in the
transferrable basic skill English and Mathematics courses
when they arrived at Harrison. Raymond blamed the disparity
on the high school’s failure to prepare students for
college level curriculum. He said, “It’s hard to reduce the
gap once they hit campus. They get here and they have to
take so many classes just to catch up. We have to go to the
high schools and maybe even middle schools to rectify the
problem.” He also blamed the high school for misadvising
students. He said, “High school counselors misinform these
students about courses at college that these students think
75
they can take.” Although this may have been an accurate
assessment, Raymond did not mention whether there was
adequate institutional support at Harrison or what
proactive steps he could take to assist students with their
enrollment options. In a subsequent discussion about
preparedness, Raymond again externalized the problem and
said, “One of the issues that many of their Latino and
African American students come in with is their lack of
preparation; many of their students need remediation. As a
result, when they are encouraged to transfer, many are not
willing to put in the work necessary to do so.” Raymond
equated their unpreparedness to a lack of motivation. The
CUE facilitators said Raymond still did not see the
institution as having a role in their [minority students]
development or teaching them how to be a successful
student.
Anita expressed her concern after reviewing the
placement data and thought that minority students were
underprepared when they enrolled at Harrison. Like Raymond,
Anita attributed the inequity to the high school curriculum
and considered the role of high school counselors to be an
integral part of the problem. She explained, “High school
76
counselors’ direct students to courses they cannot take or
are not eligible for.” She also thought that minority
students’ low placement scores coupled with their need for
excessive remediation prevented them from participating in
many of Harrison College’s specialized programs. She said,
“One of the problems they have seen with Latino students in
particular is that they have to take so many prerequisites
before they are eligible to utilize programs such as T.A.P.
(Transfer Alliance Program), which is intended to help
students who plan to transfer. In order to be eligible for
these types of programs a student must enter with a 3.0 GPA
from high school or place in English 101 on the placement
examination and by the time many of these students get into
English 101, they have enough units to transfer but have
not successfully completed the basic skills courses.”
Connie explained the low placement scores from a
broader perspective. She said, “These are nationwide
problems, so it [placement scores] didn’t surprise us. The
trend is that students are placing lower and lower every
year; this is why Harrison had to add lower level remedial
courses.” At a subsequent meeting, where Connie presented
the scorecard draft for the access perspective, she
77
addressed whether there was anything Harrison could do to
affect the placement scores for incoming students. She
said, “Can we really change these numbers? I don’t think we
can because this is the time when they first step onto
campus.” Fred, who joined the project in the second year,
gave his explanation for the lack of preparedness. Like
Anita and Raymond, Fred attributed the low placement to the
high school’s inability to prepare students. He said, “High
school Mathematics does not prepare students for college
level math. There is a disparity between high school exit
and college entrance skills. For example, students can
graduate from high school with three years of math but
still have no exposure to college algebra.” During the
discussion about ways to increase the representation of
Latino and African American students in higher-level
placements of English and Mathematics, a member asked if
there were any ongoing efforts underway to address this
problem. Anita mentioned working with the feeder schools in
the area and Fred suggested having more dialogue with the
high school English and Mathematics faculty about students’
exit skills and college placement scores.
78
Raymond, Anita, and Fred faulted the high schools for
students’ low placement scores but they did not ask what
they or Harrison College could do to improve the inequity
once students matriculate.
Disproportionate Remediation
A consequence of low placement scores is that students
are required to complete additional lower level classes
before enrolling in the higher-level courses. Based on the
placement data, the team concluded that Latino and African
American students required a disproportionate level of
remediation. Anita, Raymond, and Fred believed that there
were both student and institutional factors, such as
limited course offerings and lack of motivation that
prevented minority students from completing their
remediation and enrolling in the transfer level courses.
First, Anita shared with the team that she felt Harrison
College was not providing enough remedial classes necessary
to meet their enrollment needs. She said that, “When she
counsels students and see their placement scores she
notices that a lot of them who place into [English] 33
don’t take it because there aren’t enough classes.” Fred
concurred with Anita, as he was also aware of the course
79
shortage. He said, “We found that we assess students and X
percentage of students place in the lower levels, but we
only offer a limited amount of courses.” Both team members
acknowledged that the institutional practices created
obstacles for minority students to progress toward the
transfer courses. Raymond thought the excessive remediation
affected minority students’ outlook. He said, “Some of
these students may need two or three years of remediation
in order to even begin taking courses that are
transferrable and this discourages many students.” Fred
thought there were ways to alleviate minority students’
excessive remediation. He said, “We want to assess them in
their junior year so that they can do their remediation in
their senior year; and then they are ready when they get
here [Harrison]”. Although Connie and Fred did not blame
the minority students for their disproportionate
remediation, they externalized the problem and blamed the
high schools for inadequately preparing students for
college level curriculum.
Retention and Success
The retention and success data, defined as remaining
in a course throughout the semester regardless of whether
80
or not they passed and receiving a “C” or better or a
“passing” grade, respectively, revealed that minority
students were struggling with the basic skill English and
Mathematics courses required to transfer to a four-year
college. According to Michelle, a CUE facilitator, this
data seemed to confirm Raymond and Anita’s hunches about
which students were or were not successful or retained.
They responded to the results on English 101 and
Mathematics 105, which showed Hispanic and African American
students’ percentages lower than Whites did and below the
average. The data did not surprise Raymond because he
stated, “I knew what this would look like, but this proves
it.” Conversely, Anita was a bit surprised. She said, “I
thought Hispanics would be lower.” This statement suggested
that Anita expected Hispanic students would have more
difficulty passing or remaining enrolled in the English 101
course. Connie remarked that during fall 2000, students’
retention and success rates in English 101 improved. She
attributed it to Harrison’s new policy that required
prerequisites for certain higher-level courses. She said,
“We [Harrison} are finally doing what most universities do,
preventing students from taking courses for which they are
81
not prepared.” Although there had been improvements, Connie
acknowledged that there continued to be the gaps in the
success rates. However, she said, “Retention is actually
more equitable, but success is worst . . . and that’s
[success] what’s indicates your ability to move on, getting
a C or better.” Although they acknowledged the
institution’s efforts to improve retention, the team did
not consider their role in improving the problems.
At the presentation to the Harrison’s President and
administrators, Connie showed the data on the state of
English and Mathematics success and retention disaggregated
by race and ethnicity. Despite the college’s efforts with
implementing interventions to improve success and
retention, the disparity continued. One administrator,
although exasperated with the success data said, “She felt
a sense of relief because at least students are staying.”
Connie said, “At-risk students, etc. are those groups we
need to target. The gap needs to change between ethnic
groups. We have retention; we now need to focus on
achievement.”
At the eighth meeting, the team established the goal
for the retention perspective to increase the retention and
82
success rates of Latino and African American students by
five percent each year. In order to reach this goal, the
team would have to determine the factors that precluded
minority students’ academic success. After the team cited
two factors that caused the low retention and success,
insufficient minority support services/programs and low
faculty of color representation.
Insufficient Minority Support Services and Programs
Anita, Raymond, and Fred alleged that inadequate
support services exacerbated the low retention and success
rates for minority students. During a discussion about
minority students’ inequitable outcomes, Pamela, a CUE
facilitator, asked whether there were specific programs on
campus that served Latino or African American students.
Anita, replied that, “they do offer various programs such
as tutoring, counseling, etc. but that many of the students
did not take advantage of these services.” She explained
that, “this might be due to the fact that many students are
not aware that these services exist.” Raymond’s response to
Pamela’s question was to blame the student for not
utilizing the available services. Raymond’s response
indicated he attributed it to their apathetic attitudes. He
83
said, “The fact that underrepresented students do not fully
utilize these services could also be due to the negative
attitude many of these students have toward school in
general. Many of the students do no value education
intrinsically but rather as a means to acquire a good-
paying job and some students are embarrassed to use these
services while others do not see the relevance of such
services to their educational success.”
Fred, who was also concerned with identifying the root
cause of minority students’ retention and success
inequities, reacted strongly to what the data revealed. A
question came up about using federal or state funds for
targeted programs to improve minority student outcomes. The
issue was twofold, whether this practice was legal, and did
minority students that participated in these programs do
better than the general population. Fred recommended the
team look at the disaggregated data of Latinos in the
Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOPS) and other
similar programs to determine if they perform better than
the general population. Connie said that they “always do
perform better.” Fred said, “That’s an assumption.” He went
on to comment about Harrison’s inadequate support programs.
84
He said, “This is diversity and we’re the UN and we’ll help
everyone, but the gap still persists. To level the playing
field we need targeted programs. What we do for African
American students on this campus is dismal. In a
department, we might have one faculty member . . . there is
no community. You have to feel like you are part of
something to succeed. We know if we treat everyone the
same, treat everyone like White people, it doesn’t work.”
In this instance, Fred did not fault the student; he blamed
the college for the inadequate response to minority
students’ needs.
Low Faculty of Color Representation
Increasing Hispanic and African American faculty
representation and diversifying the textbook usage to
include more Hispanic and African American authors were two
of Harrison’s scorecard goals for the institutional
receptivity perspective. As I mentioned earlier, in fall
2000, Hispanics were the largest student population but the
faculty was predominately white. This demographic may have
been acceptable when there was congruence between the
student and faculty representation; however, over time the
Harrison College student population changed significantly
85
but the faculty did not. Connie asked, “Does this mean we
are supposed to get rid of white faculty? Over the last 3
years, we have increased the diversity in hiring when
compared to previous years, so we’re doing better.” Fred
responded saying, “We don’t need all Latinos to teach all
Latinos . . . I would rather see diversification of the
curriculum . . . they have cut women’s studies, religious
studies . . . all of these are getting smaller and smaller.
The English department should introduce Latino writers and
not just use the Western paradigm.” Harrison’s faculty
hiring practices also provoked comments from the team.
Raymond said, “The new hiring practices are weird. In the
past, a selection committee would have to make adjustments
before interviewing if the pool was not very diverse and
now they don’t.” Fred explained a situation that occurred
in the theatre department. “The employment office told the
search committee they needed to have a diverse pool,
diversity among the final candidates, etc. They [the
theatre department] told the employment office they were
interviewing a German, an Irishman, etc. and called that
diversity.” The team reacted with exasperation, but not
surprise.
86
Connie, Fred, and Raymond all purported that
integrating institutional level support for minority
students and diversifying the faculty and curriculum would
play a critical role in eliminating the disparity in
retention and success.
Conclusion
The Diversity Scorecard Project (DSP) team at Harrison
College was a dedicated group of individuals that examined
the transfer, placement, retention and success data,
disaggregated by race and ethnicity, in order to uncover
the root causes of the inequitable outcomes for African
American and Latino students. The four-member team, along
with the USC Center for Urban Education (CUE) facilitators,
examined the data, identified where the inequities existed,
the root causes, and then developed a scorecard intended to
alleviate the problems. The study’s focus was to determine
how, through the process of “mining” their institutional
data, the participants interpreted the data and to what
factors they attributed the inequities in UC transfer
rates, low placement scores, disproportionate remediation,
and low retention and success in basic skill courses. The
87
findings in this study based on the field notes, showed
that the team members believed the students were apathetic
about education, and were unprepared for college level
curriculum, evidence that the team members externalized the
inequities by blaming the students and the high schools.
The team did acknowledge that some of Harrison College’s
practices failed to eliminate the transfer and success in
basic skills problem, however, the team failed to identify
individual practices, assumptions, and beliefs about
minority students, which may have exacerbated the
inequities.
In chapter five, I will discuss the findings of this
qualitative study and provide recommendations for research
and implications for practice.
88
Chapter Five: Discussion
The goal of the Diversity Scorecard Project (DSP) was
to develop awareness among the institutional members about
the status of inequities in educational outcomes for Latino
and African American students. The project facilitators
aimed to encourage equity-mindedness in the way campus
members made sense of unequal educational outcomes and the
role they played in eliminating them (Bensimon, 2006).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the team
members’ response to the data, to explain how the team
members interpreted the minority student inequities and to
determine whether the team members’ explanations of the
inequities changed over time. Using an interpretive
framework, I will discuss how the team members’ learning
types and cognitive frames influenced the way they viewed
and interpreted the disaggregated data and the minority
student inequities.
Two significant findings emerged from the study of
Harrison College’s Diversity Scorecard Project team
members:
89
1. The team members attributed the patterns of
inequities in the transfer outcomes and success in
basic skills courses to the students.
2. Although there was gradual change in the team
members’ interpretations of the inequities, they did
not achieve equity mindedness.
This chapter consists of three sections, first a
discussion of the findings that answer the two research
questions: 1) in what ways did the team members react to
the data, 2) did the team members become more equity minded
over time. Next, I will present the implications for
practice, and the final section will provide the
conclusion.
Summary of findings
Reactions to the Data
Despite what the data revealed, the team members’
reaction to the data did not result in the generation of
new questions or ideas. The team members relied on their
practical knowledge as the source of information when
discussing the inequities, and they did not use the data to
promote doubt in their existing beliefs or experiential
knowledge.
90
Upon learning that there were differences in the
transfer outcomes and success of basic skills course, the
primary causes identified by the participants were related
to deficiencies in the students or the high schools they
came from. There was limited evidence that the team members
learned to view the inequities revealed by the scorecard
data as a problem created or exacerbated by institutional
practices, structure, or culture. Their reactions suggested
that inequities were the fault of the individual, a lack of
effort. Rarely did the data stimulate self-reflection about
the ways in which the team members themselves facilitated
student success. Additionally, the team members rarely
doubted their own knowledge, a condition that Lorenz (2012)
identified as a characteristic of high learning teams. In
fact, based on Lorenz’s typology of team learning, this
team seemed to have many of the attributes of both medium
and low learning groups. Medium learning groups treat the
anecdotal statements made about inequities as data. The
team members of the Harrison College DSP held on to their
explanations of inequitable educational outcomes even
though the data did not support their contentions.
Similarly, in Lorenz’s study, low learning groups’
91
practical knowledge outweighed the data focus, such as with
this team, the practical knowledge served as the primary
source of information they relied on when discussing the
unequal outcomes (Lorenz, 2012).
Furthermore, two of the team members, Anita and
Raymond, focused on the implementation of diversity-related
workshops and programs on campus that were designed to
improve student deficiencies in transfer and basic skills.
The team did not connect that their assumptions about
African American and Latino students’ lack of motivation
were not supported by data but driven by the team members’
cultural dispositions.
Moreover, Lorenz (2012) asserted in her study that
examining institutional data and asking questions provides
new ideas and information. Although at each meeting the
team members discussed the data, they did not effectively
use the data as a means to generate new questions and
ideas. Instead of recommending workshops and programs as a
solution to the low transfer rates, the data should have
triggered the team members to ask, why are our students
unable to get the information they need to transfer; are we
creating the obstacles that exacerbate the problem? Because
92
the participants relied on experiential knowledge rather
than the data, the learning process was inhibited. Like the
members of the medium and low learning groups in Lorenz’s
study, Anita, Raymond, and Connie consulted the data, but
expected it to confirm their assumptions about the
inequities. Their reliance on personal and experiential
knowledge hindered further inquiry about their assumptions,
which stifled learning. If the team members had
acknowledged the data as the primary source of information,
they would have been less likely to rationalize the
inequities by attributing the problem to student
motivation, poor academic preparation, and familial and
cultural dispositions.
Although the data provided evidence of the transfer
and success in basic skills inequities, the team did not
react to the data as a failure of practice but as a student
deficit. The failure of practice, whether at the
institutional or individual level, is perpetuated by the
practitioners’ lack of requisite knowledge to create
successful outcomes for minority students (Polkinghorne,
2004). To suggest that the inequities may be a problem of
failed structures, policies, or practices is generally not
93
the way academic leaders view the problem. In higher
education, practitioners are more inclined to blame the
student because of their preconceived notion that students
should inherently know the rules and behavior of how to be
a successful student. For example, in one meeting, a team
member suggested that students should be able to navigate
the financial aid and transfer processes because the
information is accessible at various places on campus and
provided in class and workshops. Therefore the team member
attributed the problem to their lack of motivation. These
assumptions represented the team members’ interpretations
of the inequities based on their funds of knowledge, which
are guided by the commonly accepted beliefs held by some
higher education professionals about student deficits.
Learning equity-mindedness
Regrettably, even after their participation in the
Diversity Scorecard Project, there was no evidence that the
Harrison College team members learned equity-mindedness.
Several factors prevented the team members’ from learning
equity-mindedness. First, the team members responded to the
inequities by using negative assumptions about minority
students’ as a scapegoat for the inequities. There was
94
little evidence that they turned their focus to self or the
institution. Using scapegoats inhibited learning because it
suppressed inquiry into the institution or their
responsibility for the inequities.
The team’s tendency to protect the status quo also
inhibited their learning process. The team members’ shared
belief that Latino and African American students lacked the
necessary motivation to be successful in college created a
status quo. No one on the team challenged the stereotypical
statements about minority students that were made during
the meetings. The team members’ failure to challenge the
assumptions represented a form of corroboration, which
prevented them from openly discussing the legitimacy of the
presumptions and inhibited their learning equity
mindedness. Another factor that impeded their ability to
learn equity mindedness was that the team members never
questioned their own efficacy. To question their
effectiveness as professionals would have challenged how
they viewed themselves; to consider that the institutional
or individual practices may have solved the inequity
problem would have gone against their tendency to blame the
student (Bensimon, 2012). For example, Anita attributed
95
cultural dynamics, that Latino students wanted to stay
close to home, as the reason Latino students did not
transfer to the elite institutions, unfortunately for the
team she missed the opportunity to initiate a discussion
about whether there were other factors that inhibited their
transfer, nor did she question whether her assumptions
about Latino students affected the way she counseled them
about their transfer options. In addition, there was no
evidence of the teams’ acknowledgment that the current
institutional and individual practices were not working. In
fact, the teams’ reluctance to question whether the current
practices were meeting the institution’s expected goals
prevented them from reframing the problem from what was
wrong with the student to the inadequacy of institutional
practices. During the course of the project, there was no
indication in the field notes that the participants ever
discussed discrimination or the institutional racism that
throughout history has been embedded in institutional
practices and negatively impacted minority students’
outcomes.
Based on this study, neither the disaggregated data
that revealed the inequities or the continued discourse
96
among the team members, created an environment capable of
developing agents of change. The team members’ were unable
to relinquish their preconceived ideas about minority
students and question their efficacy, which precluded their
ability to assume the characteristics of equity minded
practitioners.
Limitations of Study
One of the limitations of this study was the reliance
on the CUE facilitators’ field notes without the benefit of
directly observing the team members. The CUE facilitators
derived the field notes from the participant observation
process. This method afforded the facilitators the ability
to observe the team members’ responses to questions, their
interactions with one another, and non-verbal
communications between the individual team members and the
team members and observers. The participant observation
method would have provided me with an additional
perspective for which to interpret the team members’
reactions and interactions with each other, a personal
observation. Although the disaggregated data was the
catalyst for initiating the dialogue about Harrison’s
97
inequitable outcomes for minority students, encouraging
more reflection and dialogue about the team members’
practices, assumptions, and how their beliefs contribute to
the problem could have expanded their focus and prompted
more self-reflection and made a greater impact on the
project participants.
Implications for Recommendations for Practice
As previously noted, changing how we view and interpret
inequities in minority student outcomes is a learning
process. Being willing to look at the inequities as a
result of failed institutional or individual practices,
policies or structures is critical if we are to develop the
characteristics of equity mindedness and become agents of
change. The findings of this project are important because
they reveal to educational leaders and faculty the
importance of utilizing institutional data and the
significance of how we interpret the data and the
inequities. The consequences of interpreting inequities
that focus on “fixing the student” work in the short term
but do not create the lasting change in the institutional
98
or individual practices that are necessary to eliminate
inequities.
Learning takes place in a variety of ways; customarily
it happens in the classroom. Student affairs professionals
are educated and trained in preparation programs designed
to provide instruction and services outside of the
classroom. The theories of student development, counseling
process, the history and foundations of higher education,
and the management of college student services are the
basis for developing advisors, directors, vice presidents,
and presidents. The key to meeting the needs of students
and ensure their educational success, requires that we
understand the people we serve.
Student affairs practitioners interact with students
daily and are often the first to observe any difficulties
they may be experiencing. How we respond to the problems
both as individuals and as an institution reflects how we
view our role as administrators, faculty, and support
staff. Viewing minority student inequities as a student
problem is not conducive to creating successful educational
outcomes for minority students.
99
The Diversity Scorecard Project serves as the primary
source for introducing the concepts of equity-mindedness
and stressing the importance of utilizing institutional
data. However, I contend that incorporating the concepts of
equity mindedness in courses as part of the aforementioned
student affairs preparation programs would afford
practitioners the opportunity to learn new ways of thinking
about students, inequities in educational outcomes, and the
prominent role we play in securing student success. To
reach the current higher education practitioners, I
recommend professional development workshops that bring to
light the importance of developing equity-mindedness and
becoming agents of change. As a student affair
professional, this case study has affected how I approach
the development of services and programs for students, how
I view institutional practices, and the role of data in
decision-making. As a result, I have become more conscious
of how I view remediation, support services, and
specialized programs that focus solely on the student
deficit. I question more critically whether I am
contributing to the discriminatory and exclusionary
100
practices and policies that are inherent in higher
education and how can I create awareness among my
colleagues and institutional leaders. The concepts of
equity mindedness can be learned and adopted by individuals
in order to make a difference in the minority students’
college experience and contribute to improving the
educational outcomes of minority students.
101
Conclusion
The team members of the Harrison College Diversity
Scorecard Project, with the guidance of the CUE
facilitators completed the development of a scorecard whose
purpose was to indentify, through the inquiry process and
examining the data, disaggregated by race and ethnicity,
the source of the unequal outcomes for minority students.
In the process, the team members were made aware of the
inequity in minority student outcomes by examining the
disaggregated data, but failed to learn how the dysfunction
in institutional and individual practices, policies and
structures exacerbated the problem. Although the team
members did not develop equity mindedness, their
participation in the project created a sense of awareness
that could, in time, further the team members’
transformation from deficit thinking to equity mindedness.
102
References
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations.
Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115-125.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning
II: Theory, Method, and Practice. New York: Addison-
Wesley.
Bauman, G. L. (2002). Developing a culture of evidence:
using institutional data to identify inequitable
educational outcomes (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 2002). Dissertation
Abstracts International, 64, 1991.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The Diversity Scorecard: A learning
approach to institutional change. Change, 2004, 46-52.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in
higher education: an organizational learning
perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131,
99-111.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Equality as a fact, equality as a
result: A matter of institutional accountability.
Monograph commissioned by the American Council on
Education, 1-31.
103
Bensimon, E. M. (2008). Equity for All at USC. Lumina
Foundation Lessons, 5-11.
Bensimon, E. M., Colyar, J., Pena, E.V. (2006). Contextual
problem solving: Learning to think and act. Liberal
Education, 92(2), 48-55.
Bensimon, E. M., & Malcom, L. (Eds.)(2012). Confronting
equity issues on campus: Implementing the Equity
Scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA:
Stylus.
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G. L., &
Vallego, E. (2004). Doing research that makes a
difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1),
104-126.
Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris, F.,III
(2007). Accountability, equity, and practitioner
learning and change. Metropolitan, 18(3), 28-45.
Cortazzi, M. (1993). Narrative analysis. Washington DC:
Falmer Press.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge:
How organizations manage what they know. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
104
Doe, J. (2006). Creating community, collaboration and
change in higher education. The Academic Workplace New
England Resource Center for Higher Education, 17(1),
1-18.
Eckel, P., Hill, B., & Green, M. (1998). En route to
transformation. On change: an occasional paper series
of the ACE Project on leadership and institutional
transformation (120). Washington DC: American Council
on Education.
Greene, J. C. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation:
Practice and promise. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln
(Eds.), In Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln (Eds.).
Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 533-544).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: the
contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88-114.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the Balanced
Scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard
Business Review, 1-85.
105
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (1999). Balancing the core
strategies of institutional transformation: toward a
"mobile" model of change (143). Montreal: American
Educational Research Association.
Kim, D. H. (1993). The link between individual and
organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35,
37-50.
Lorenz, G. L. (2012). Scorecard teams as high learning
groups: Group learning and the value of group
learning. In E.M. Bensimon & Lindsey Malcom (Eds.),
Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the
Equity Scorecard in theory and practice (pp. 45-63).
Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study
Applications in Education. San Fransicso: Jossey-Bass.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult. In J.
Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as
transformation (pp. 3-33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
analysis: an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
106
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation
methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Result: a matter of institutional accountability.
Pena, E. V., Bensimon, E. M., & Colyar, J.
(2006). Contextual problem defining: Learning to think
and act. Liberal Education, 92(2), 48-55.
Polkinghorne, D. E. (2004). Practice and the human science:
The case for a judgment-based practice of care. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Tagg, J. (2007). Double-loop learning in higher education.
Change the Magazine of Higher Learning, July/August,
36-41.
USC CENTER for URBAN EDUCATION. (2004). Why equity matters:
Implications for democracy [Brochure]. Los Angeles:
Bensimon.
Woods, M. (2001). Linking interpretive theory to practice:
examining an underused research tool in agricultural
education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(2),
68-78.
107
Yorks, L., & Marsick, V. (2000). Organizational learning
and transformation: critical perspectives on a theory
in progress. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.),
Learning as transformation (p.23-283). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Zeller, N. (1995). Narrative strategies for case reports.
In J.A. Hatch & R. Wisniewski (Eds.), Life and history
of (Pena, 2006) narrative (pp. 75-88). Washington DC:
Falmer Press.
i
For this study “underrepresented minority or minority are used
to describe African American and Latino/a students.
ii
The terms project participants, participants, and team members
are used interchangeably to describe the Harrison College’s Diversity
Scorecard Project evidence team.
iii
The terms Black, African American, Latino/a, and Hispanic are
used interchangeably.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The Diversity Scorecard Project evaluated in this study was created by the University of Southern California’s Center for Urban Education. It was designed to create awareness among institutional members about the state of inequities in educational outcomes for underrepresented students. The Diversity Scorecard Project facilitators’ aimed to encourage equity-mindedness in the way campus members made sense of unequal outcomes and the role they played in eliminating the inequities. The purpose of the case study was to evaluate the evidence team members’ response to the data, their interpretation of the inequities, and to determine whether the team members’ explanations of the inequities changed because of their participation in the project. As a result of this study, I determined that despite the team members increased awareness of the inequities, they did not change how they viewed the inequities among underrepresented students and therefore did not develop equity-mindedness.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An evaluation of individual learning among members of a diversity scorecard project evidence team
PDF
Beyond access: an evaluation of attitudes and learning towards achieving equitable educational outcomes in higher education
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process
PDF
Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty
PDF
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Participation in higher education diversity, equity, and inclusion work: a relational intersectionality of organizations analysis
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
PDF
Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM
PDF
The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university
PDF
Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices
PDF
Tempering transformative change: whiteness and racialized emotions in graduate leaders' implementation of equity plans
Asset Metadata
Creator
Pickens, Augusta Maria
(author)
Core Title
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
10/10/2012
Defense Date
03/27/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Diversity Scorecard Project,equity-mindedness,inequitable outcomes,minority students,OAI-PMH Harvest,USC Center for Urban Education
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bensimon, Estela Mara (
committee chair
), Jackson, Michael L. (
committee member
), Lorenz, Georgia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gustapick@sbcglobal.net,mpickens@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-102701
Unique identifier
UC11290270
Identifier
usctheses-c3-102701 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-PickensAug-1243.pdf
Dmrecord
102701
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Pickens, Augusta Maria
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Diversity Scorecard Project
equity-mindedness
inequitable outcomes
minority students
USC Center for Urban Education