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
/
How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning
(USC Thesis Other)
How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
HOW COMMUNITY COLLEGE BASIC SKILLS COORDINATORS
LEAD ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
by
Celena Alcala
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
August 2012
Copyright 2012 Celena Alcala
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents. Mom, thank you for your continuous
love and support. Dad, I am comforted in knowing that you would be proud of my
accomplishment.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I extend my deepest gratitude to my dissertation chair Dr. Estela Mara Bensimon
for holding me accountable to her high standards for practitioner research. Under her
guidance, I learned how to connect theory to practice. I am grateful for the opportunity to
study under her supervision. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Alicia Dowd and Dr.
Barbara Jaffe, my dissertation committee members, for guiding my research and ensuring
that it has implications beyond the California's Basic Skills Initiative.
Thank you Dr. Linda Fischer for providing a study space and connecting me to
my study group. I would like to extend a big thank you to my study group and dear
friends, Dr. Evelyn Felina Castillo, and soon-to-be Drs. Elizabeth Pringle-Hornsby, and
Monica Morita for your camaraderie during the long nights that we spent writing and
rewriting our dissertations. Thank you, Dr. Joyce Perez, for generously agreeing to read
my dissertation and provide your feedback.
I must acknowledge my boss and dear friend Betsy Regalado for demonstrating
on a daily basis the professional lessons that I cannot learn in any classroom or book. I
am grateful to have you as my mentor.
I will forever be thankful for the friendship and editing assistance of my dear
friend, Janice Marie Love, who carefully read each word in this dissertation. Thank you
for painstakingly reading and rereading countless drafts of this document.
I would also like to acknowledge all of my friends (particularly Tracee, Nandini,
Sukhie, and Holly) for their support and encouragement throughout my doctoral
experience. Thank you, Lucia, for always putting things in perspective for me.
iv
I am thankful for the support and encouragement of my family (particularly my cousin
Dr. Leanor Johansen for paving the way by earning her doctorate).
I am eternally grateful for the support of my mother. Thank you for always
allowing me to find my own path. And thank you Diva, the best dog ever, for your
companionship.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1 The Problem And Its Underlying Framework ............................................1
Basic Skills Funding .....................................................................................................2
Accountability ...............................................................................................................4
Background of the Problem...........................................................................................4
Statement of the Problem ..............................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study .....................................................................................................9
Research Questions .....................................................................................................12
Significance of the Problem ........................................................................................13
Organization of the Study ...........................................................................................15
CHAPTER 2 Review of the Literature ...........................................................................16
Culture of Inquiry ........................................................................................................16
Organizational Learning ..............................................................................................19
Sensemaking................................................................................................................27
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................38
CHAPTER 3 Research Methodology .............................................................................41
Sample and Population ................................................................................................41
Verde College. ........................................................................................................47
Plaza College. .........................................................................................................48
Sunrise College. ......................................................................................................49
Metropolitan College. .............................................................................................49
Instrumentation............................................................................................................51
Document review of basic skills artifacts. ..............................................................51
Interviews. ...............................................................................................................78
Observations. ..........................................................................................................84
Field notes. ..............................................................................................................85
Data Collection ............................................................................................................85
Data Analysis ..............................................................................................................86
Verification..................................................................................................................87
Ethical Concerns .........................................................................................................89
vi
CHAPTER 4 Results.......................................................................................................91
Tina, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Verde College ..................................................91
Taking on the role of the basic skills coordinator. ..................................................92
Tina‟s academic status. ...........................................................................................93
Tina‟s perceptions of the BSI self-assessment and planning process. ....................94
Tina‟s development into a basic skills “best practice” practitioner. .......................95
Tina as a collaborative leader. .................................................................................96
An example of Tina‟s innovation. ...........................................................................99
Tina solidified her authority. .................................................................................100
Tina in action. .......................................................................................................101
Tina‟s access to and sharing of information. .........................................................103
Verde uses experiential knowledge to change practices. ......................................104
Summary. ..............................................................................................................104
Carrie, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Plaza College ...............................................105
Taking on the role of basic skills coordinator. ......................................................106
Carrie lacked academic credentials. ......................................................................107
Basic skills v. Plaza‟s transfer identity. .................................................................108
Carrie‟s perception of the Basic Skills Initiative at Plaza. ....................................109
Carrie‟s development into a basic skills leader. ....................................................110
Carrie as a collaborative leader. ............................................................................111
An example of Carrie‟s use of strategies. .............................................................114
Carrie‟s social awareness and passion. .................................................................115
Carrie‟s leadership style. .......................................................................................115
Summary. ..............................................................................................................119
Rain, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Sunrise College ..............................................119
Rain‟s perception of the BSI self-assessment and planning process. ...................120
Rain‟s reflection on the self-assessment process. .................................................121
Rain‟s academic status. .........................................................................................122
Taking on the role of the basic skills coordinator. ................................................122
Challenges as a new basic skills coordinator. .......................................................122
Rain as a collaborative leader. ..............................................................................124
Learning the basic skills coordinator role. ............................................................125
Obstacles Rain faced. ............................................................................................126
Haphazard training. ...............................................................................................129
Challenges at the state level. .................................................................................131
Confusion over leadership of the BSI. ..................................................................131
Basic skills a priority for senior management. ......................................................131
Examples of Rain bringing back knowledge. .......................................................132
Rain‟s power and influence. ..................................................................................135
Rain‟s opinion of the budget cuts..........................................................................136
Rain‟s basic skills committee meetings. ...............................................................136
Summary. ..............................................................................................................136
vii
Doug, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Metropolitan College....................................137
Doug‟s background. ..............................................................................................139
Challenges as the New Basic Skills Coordinator. .................................................139
Administrative turnover and its effect on the campus culture. .............................140
Doug Struggled with the Lack of Formal Processes. ............................................141
Basic skills was stigmatized..................................................................................143
Doug‟s challenge getting diverse faculty involvement. ........................................144
Doug‟s academic status. ........................................................................................146
Doug questions the self-assessment process at Metropolitan. ..............................147
Doug raises the cultural competency gap in the BSI. ...........................................147
Metropolitan‟s English Department enhances program as a result of inquiry. .....149
How Doug brought back knowledge to Metropolitan. .........................................151
Doug as a collaborative leader. .............................................................................152
Doug‟s reflection. .................................................................................................152
Summary. ..............................................................................................................153
Conclusion .................................................................................................................154
CHAPTER 5 Discussion ...............................................................................................155
Important Findings ....................................................................................................155
Coordinators led organizational learning. .............................................................158
Coordinators perceived administrators‟ support instrumental. .............................162
Coordinator‟s professional status influenced how they were received by teaching
faculty. ..................................................................................................................164
Academic faculty resisted participating in the Basic Skills Initiative. .................165
Coordinators were building a culture of evidence. ...............................................167
Limitations ................................................................................................................171
Implications for Practice ...........................................................................................172
Basic skills coordinators‟ academic rank may affect how they are received by
teaching faculty. ....................................................................................................172
Community colleges require tools for organizational learning. ............................175
Recommendations for Practice..................................................................................177
Train leaders in organizational learning techniques early on. ..............................178
Move further along the culture of evidence/inquiry spectrum..............................178
Utilize non-teaching faculty or provide more support for teaching faculty. .........179
Recommendation for Future Research ......................................................................181
Conclusion .................................................................................................................182
REFERENCES .............................................................................................................184
viii
APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................190
Appendix A: Regional Coordinator Telephone Interview Template ........................190
Appendix B: Matrix ..................................................................................................191
Appendix C: Recruitment Letter ...............................................................................192
Appendix D: Pre-Interview Survey for Basic Skills Coordinators ...........................193
Appendix E: Interview Protocol ................................................................................195
Appendix F: Coordinator‟s Use of Huber‟s (1991) Organizational Learning
Practices ....................................................................................................................202
Appendix G: Basic Skills Coordinators and the Culture of Evidence/Inquiry
Spectrum....................................................................................................................203
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: College Characteristics .....................................................................................47
Table 2: Profiles of Basic Skills Coordinators ................................................................51
Table 3: BSI Highlights from the Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010) ...................74
x
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study examines how basic skills coordinators at four California
Community Colleges lead organizational learning at their campuses as part of the
statewide Basic Skills Initiative (BSI). The BSI is a component of the California
Community College Chancellor‟s Office Strategic Plan and addresses the goal of student
access and success. Through benchmarking, planning, institutional self-assessment, and
collaborative professional development, the BSI lays the foundation for organizational
learning of effective basic skills practices. The BSI has measures in place to increase
organizational learning at the system-wide, regional, and campus levels. The person
central to facilitating organizational learning at the campus level is the basic skills
coordinator, a role that did not exist at most California Community Colleges until after
the creation of the BSI. Face-to-face interviews with basic skills coordinators and
observations of campus basic skills meetings were used to develop four case studies that
demonstrate how basic skills coordinators lead the BSI consistent with Huber‟s (1991)
four constructs of organizational learning. This study explains how four basic skills
coordinators acquired new knowledge, distributed information to others, interpreted
information, and utilized techniques to increase organizational memory. This study also
describes how basic skills coordinators relied on collective sensemaking to learn and
carry out their roles. Each case study reveals how basic skills coordinators lead an
initiative framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence and how they
modified their role in response to organizational constraints.
1
CHAPTER 1
The Problem And Its Underlying Framework
In the United States, there is a rising concern about the high number of students
who are entering two and four-year colleges without the literacy and mathematical skills
necessary for college level work. It is well documented that a large proportion of
students in this country are not prepared for college level coursework as they lack the
basic skills needed to be successful in college. A shift in how American colleges serve
students is required to address the influx of under-prepared students. In California, this
deficiency in basic skills is of major concern, particularly in the community college
sector where approximately 90% of first-time community college students who take the
placement test assess below college-level reading and writing (Moore, Shulock, Ceja, &
Lang, 2007). It is reported that 84 percent of incoming California Community College
students do not qualify for college level mathematics classes and more than 70 percent do
not qualify for the college level English courses that count toward a four-year degree
(Esch, 2009). These students are not eligible to enroll in college level mathematics or
English courses until they pass through a sequence of basic skills courses.
Reports by the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy show that a
very small percentage of students who begin college enrolled in basic skills courses are
retained, and very few ever transition to the college level curriculum (Moore & Shulock,
2009; Moore, Shulock, & Offenstein, 2009; Moore, et al., 2007; Shulock & Moore,
2007). The problem related to basic skills at the college level is so great that in 2006-
2007, basic skills funding was doubled for California Community Colleges. The Basic
Skills Initiative, a grant funded collaborative project with the goal of improving student
2
access and success, was initiated in response to the California Community College
Chancellor‟s Office strategic planning process (CCCCO, 2006).
Basic Skills Funding
The budget for the California Community College system includes “growth for
apportionment” funds that are set aside for enrollment growth. The Chancellor‟s Office
uses an allocation formula to determine the amount of growth funding available for each
district. This allocation formula includes a “cap” – or ceiling – on the number of full
time equivalent students (FTES) that will be funded. A district‟s cap on “growth for
apportionment” is linked to the total number of students the state will fund each fiscal
year. Districts that grow faster than their growth apportionment are considered “over
cap” and risk not receiving FTES funding for those students. An exception was made for
districts that experienced “over cap” growth in basic skills and pre-collegiate courses. A
categorical program to fund basic skills students “over [a district‟s] cap” was created and
available to qualifying districts.
No districts enrolled students above their enrollment caps in 2004-2005 and 2005-
2006 so over cap funds were not distributed those years (LAO, n.d.). The 2006-2007
budget redirected over $30.7 million in reapportioned 2005-2006 over cap funds for the
Basic Skills Initiative to be used as one-time funding. The $30.7 million reapportionment
was provided in addition to the $33.1 million California Community Colleges received in
over cap funds that year.
Of the $30.7 million reapportionment, the majority of these funds ($29.9 million)
were allocated to California Community Colleges in proportion to their share of statewide
basic skills enrollment (i.e., FTES) and could be used for a variety of purposes such as
3
providing counseling and tutoring, purchasing instructional materials for basic skills
classes, and curriculum development (LAO, n.d.). In order to receive a portion of the
money set aside for their districts, colleges were required to conduct a self-assessment on
the extent to which their current practices aligned with the effective practices identified
during the process (Boroch et al., 2007). Colleges were also required to submit a plan
directly to the Chancellor‟s Office of how they intended to use the basic skills funds. A
smaller portion of these funds ($750,000) was set aside for the Chancellor‟s Office to
facilitate research and training on improving basic skills education and for development
of a literature review of effective basic skills practices (LAO, n.d.). Between the over
cap funds and the reapportionment allocation, California Community Colleges received a
total of $63 million dollars in state funding to build the capacity of California Community
Colleges to improve basic skills outcomes (Dowd, Lord, Bensimon, & Kutz, 2009).
According to the Legislative Analyst‟s Office (Hill, 2008, p.8): “The 2007-08
budget package converted this one time funding into an annual ongoing program for
basic skills. Chapter 489, Statutes of 2007 (AB 194, Committee on Budget), allocated a
total of $33.1 million to the CCC system.”
Due to California‟s unstable budget, basic skills funding has decreased over the
years. In 2009-2010, funding for basic skills decreased to $21.3 million of which $20
million was allocated for community college districts to improve student outcomes in
basic skills and $1.3 million was allocated for faculty and staff development related to
basic skills. In 2010-2011, this funding was reduced further to slightly over $20 million
of which $19.06 million was allocated for community college districts to improve student
success outcomes in basic skills and $969,000 was allocated for faculty and staff
4
development. California Community Colleges received the same allocation of funds for
basic skills in 2011-2012 as they received in the prior year.
Accountability
As a result of the 2008-09 state budget, the Chancellor‟s Office was required to
work in consultation with the Legislative Analyst‟s Office (LAO) and the Department of
Finance (DOF) to develop performance indicators for evaluating the progress and success
of the Basic Skills Initiative. The Basic Skills Accountability Framework for the
California Community College System report was presented in November 2008. The
framework was produced through a collaborative effort that included participation by “a
technical advisory workgroup dedicated to the Accountability Reporting for Community
Colleges (ARCC)” and the LAO and DOF. The latter two groups are mandated to work
with California Community Colleges (CCCCO, 2009, p.3). ARCC advisory group
members included “representatives from the Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges, researchers from different community colleges, and technical/research/program
personnel from the Chancellor‟s Office” (CCCCO, 2009, p. 3).
Background of the Problem
The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP
Group) was contracted under the California Community Colleges System Office to
respond to the basic skills component of the system's strategic plan. The RP Group
assists California Community Colleges in their ability to “gather, analyze, and act on
information in order to strengthen student success” through professional development and
research efforts (RP Group, n.d.). In 2007 the RP Group‟s Center for Student Success – a
research and evaluation division of the RP Group that incorporates the perspectives of
5
college researchers, faculty and administrators – produced a book length report entitled
Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges
(Boroch et al., 2007), which is commonly known in California Community Colleges as
the “poppy copy” due to its poppy colored cover and will be referred to as the Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) throughout this dissertation. The Basic Skills Report
(Boroch et al., 2007) was listed as a source for strategies for addressing the goal of
student success and readiness in the California Community Colleges System Strategic
Plan (CCCCO, 2006). The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) consists of three
parts: 1) an extensive review of the literature on basic skills including strategies
employed at 33 California Community Colleges, 2) a self-assessment tool to help
colleges reflect on their current basic skills practices, specifically in comparison to the
effective practices discussed in the literature review, and 3) a cost/revenue model for
developmental education programs.
The Basic Skills Report includes directions on how colleges should implement the
self-assessment tool (Boroch et al., 2007, pp.98-104) and how the assessment information
should be incorporated into the planning matrices for improving basic skills programs
and outcomes (Boroch et al., 2007, p.100). For example, campuses are advised to
conduct meetings for an inclusive discovery process consisting of representatives from
faculty, student support services, and administration (Boroch et al., 2007, pp.105,114,120,
and 127) and use the discovery process to respond to the self-assessment tool. In a study
of California‟s Basic Skills Initiative (BSI), Dowd, Lord, Bensimon, and Kutz concluded
that the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) had aspects that could be beneficial for
organizational learning such as the expectation for practitioner inquiry, use of data, and
6
professional dialog, but that it relied too much on the assumption that the self-assessment
would lead to practitioner inquiry (Dowd et al., 2009).
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) recommends how to implement the
self-assessment process (e.g., holding regular meetings, emphasizing data, collaborative
inquiry and reflection), which represent methods associated with theories of
organizational learning (Huber, 1991; Bauman, Bustillos, Bensimon, Brown II, & Bartee,
2005; Boyce, 2003), even though the report does not focus on organizational learning.
The purpose of my study is to examine the practices of coordinators of basic skills
programs and the ways in which these practices reflect key principles of organizational
learning. This study draws upon Huber‟s four constructs of organizational learning (i.e.,
knowledge acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and
organizational memory) (Huber, 1991). It will also draw upon sensemaking (Coburn,
2001; Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Honig & Coburn, 2008; Spillane, 2000; Weick, 1995), a
process by which individuals assign meaning to ideas, experiences, and their
environments (Weick, 1995).
Statement of the Problem
Basic skills remediation is considered a significant and nationwide problem
within higher education; consequently, many institutions, organizations and private
foundations have made the reform of basic skills instruction a priority (e.g., Lumina
Foundation for Education, Carnegie Foundation, and Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation). In response to persistent low levels of basic skills success by its students,
the California Community College Chancellor‟s Office first redefined the situation and
then took action. Student deficiencies in basic skills were redefined from a remedial
7
problem to a developmental charge. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) made
a clear distinction between remedial and developmental education. Remedial education
assumes that students enter higher education with a deficit in their English and/or
mathematics skills. In other words, the term remedial education holds a negative
connotation, an implication that something is “wrong” with the student that must be
corrected (Boroch et al., 2007). The remedial education label was replaced with
developmental education, which does not imply a negative judgment of students or their
past educational experiences:
Instead, it views the current educational process as transformational,
taking the student from one state and developing his or her abilities
into those of a more capable, self-confident, and resourceful learning. Similarly,
the assessment of basic skills programs and services needs to be viewed as
developmental. We are not correcting something that is wrong. We are trying to
transform the way we provide programs and services to make them more effective
in producing the desired outcomes for students. (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 9)
In 2006, the Chancellor‟s Office unveiled a system-wide strategic plan that
identified basic skills as a statewide priority. In 2007, the RP Group in collaboration with
faculty, staff, and administrators from colleges throughout the state created the Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), a vital report related to the Basic Skills Initiative.
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) called for colleges to report their basic
skills metrics and current efforts targeted at basic skills student success and to submit a
formal plan of their future efforts to the Chancellor‟s Office. California Community
Colleges were being asked to respond to the basic skills crisis using strategies that are
associated with organizational learning (Dowd et al., 2009), reflection and inquiry
(Bauman, 2002; Bustillos, 2007; Dowd, 2005), communities of practice (Dowd, Lord, et
al., 2009), and evidence-based decision-making (Honig & Coburn, 2008; Park, 2008).
8
The approach of organizational learning/sensemaking is different from the typical
community college practitioners‟ approach with its characteristics of action and
compliance. Moreover, the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) does not clearly
outline how to conduct an inquiry or organizational learning approach. At best, the Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) makes a few recommendations such as the inclusion
of educational leaders (e.g., lead faculty members in developmental education programs,
the matriculation dean, and the institutional researcher) in discussions related to
completing the self-assessment. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) also
recommends that colleges report on disciplines other than basic skills (e.g.,
developmental mathematics, English, ESL, and study skills), provide course specific data
(e.g., intermediate reading and composition) to the Chancellor‟s Office and that colleges
verify their participation by submitting the names and job titles of the people who
completed each section. Nevertheless the expectation was that the self-assessment
process would be an opportunity for collective learning and reflection on actual practices
compared to effective practices discussed in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007).
Based on various studies and reports authored by researchers at the University of
Southern California‟s Center for Urban Education it has been established that
organizational learning occurs when several conditions are present: practitioners are
guided by researchers (Bauman, 2002; Bensimon, 2004; Harris III & Bensimon, 2007),
members of the group are connected and meet frequently (Bensimon, 2004; Harris III &
Bensimon, 2007), and members engage with each other to accomplish tasks (Bauman,
2002; Bensimon, 2004; Harris III & Bensimon, 2007). Furthermore reflection is
promoted when group members view data from multiple perspectives (Bauman, 2002;
9
Bensimon, 2004), ask questions (Bauman, 2002; Bauman et al., 2005; Bensimon, 2004),
and move beyond their personal beliefs (Bauman, 2002; Bauman et al., 2005; Bustillos,
2007). Expert facilitation was a common factor in achieving these results.
California‟s Basic Skills Initiative is not in a position to provide expert facilitators
to support the practices of organizational learning due to limited funding. Instead –
through the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), a basic skills handbook, online
resources, and professional development events – it provides instruments and advice to
foster reflection. The self-assessment tool, for example, calls for a variety of educators to
meet and take part in the inquiry and planning activities. In an effort to review a
college‟s basic skills program comprehensively, the self-assessment tool requires colleges
to record metric data, describe how their efforts match effective practices, and to
document future plans. Given the ambitious vision of the Basic Skills Initiative‟s
architects to foster organizational learning and change, it created a new and unspoken set
of expectations for basic skills coordinators. Essentially it steered basic skills
coordinators towards creating the new structures, practices, and contexts in facilitating
organizational learning independent of expert leadership. Without such leadership it
would be very difficult for basic skills committees to fulfill the expectations in the Basic
Skills Initiative.
Purpose of the Study
The architects of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) designed it to
encourage basic skills coordinators to promote a culture of inquiry within community
colleges that would facilitate reflection on data to frame problems, use process
benchmarking, and create plans to promote student success in basic skills. The implied
10
role of the basic skills coordinator requires organizational leadership skills (e.g.,
communicating with the major constituents on campus and leading systematic change)
that go beyond traditional logistical activities such as holding regular meetings,
facilitation, and presentations. In order to foster a culture of inquiry, one must have the
knowledge and skills to do so. Prior experience, values, and the ability to reflect are
necessary components of the ability to foster a culture of inquiry. To foster this culture,
the basic skills coordinator will likely draw on “hard skills” to run meetings, analyze
data, and meet deadlines as well as employ “soft skills” to read the campus culture,
accommodate personality differences, and negotiate change.
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) guides basic skills coordinators
through the process of creating a culture of inquiry through collective sensemaking.
Basic skills coordinators are implicitly charged with fostering a culture of inquiry for
student success in basic skills. The charge of fostering a culture of inquiry transforms the
logistical role of the coordinator into a leadership role. Basic skills coordinators,
however, assume their roles under diverse conditions that affect their ability to assume
leadership roles. Campus culture plays a role in how the coordinator was chosen. A
coordinator at one college may have been hired specifically for the role, while another
may have been appointed by senior management or a shared governance committee.
Still, another basic skills coordinator may have won the role through a competitive
process. Furthermore, they may have existing or previous leadership assignments and
may serve on campus-wide shared governance committees. The extent to which basic
skills coordinators view themselves in leadership roles could be affected by these factors.
11
Dowd and Tong‟s research on benchmarking practices in higher education offers
insight on behaviors consistent with effective practices that basic skills coordinators
might adopt in an attempt to foster a culture of inquiry (Dowd & Tong, 2004). Data
collection efforts encompassing examination, focus groups, surveys, and observations are
mentioned. The focus of effective benchmarking practices incorporates learning, but
sharing effective institutional practices is equally critical to the process. When evidence
(or site visit) teams share what they have learned, it provides the foundation that
“professional conversations” develop upon (Cohen, Raudenbush, & Ball, 2003).
Professional conversations are characterized as ones in which participants share what
they learn from others and develop a basis for rigorous evaluation (Cohen et al., 2003).
According to the researchers, when committees are explicitly developed to fulfill
accountability purposes, they foster ordinary knowledge (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979) or
practical wisdom (Polkinghorne, 1988) at the college. Using Dowd and Tong‟s (2004)
distinctions of effective practices, it is clear that collective sensemaking and fostering of a
culture of inquiry also occur outside of meetings.
In fulfilling their roles as envisioned by the architects of the Basic Skills
Initiative, basic skills coordinators are expected to not only facilitate meetings and guide
committee members through reflective conversations to complete the self-assessment tool
but also to share information with the campus community regarding basic skills and
professional development opportunities that will improve campus community services to
basic skills students (Boroch et al., 2007; Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a). This is consistent
with Coburn‟s findings in which collective sensemaking occurred outside of the
professional development venues that were designed to foster it (Coburn, 2001).
12
In addition, I am interested in understanding how the basic skills coordinator‟s
actions impact collective sensemaking. Other behaviors/actions to explore include:
accessing, understanding and using data (Bauman, 2002; Dowd & Tong, 2004); working
with and forming working committees; facilitating discussion in meetings (Weick, 1995);
and presenting the committee‟s work to decision making bodies. These actions/behaviors
are consistent with organizational leadership characteristics.
There are several factors that might inhibit basic skills coordinators from fostering
a culture of inquiry. For example, coordinators might hold a traditional view of the role
of coordinator and, thus, not view their role as one which is charged with creating a
culture of inquiry. Coordinators may not know how to solicit or may be unwilling to
entertain minority opinions. It is therefore important to understand whether their
perceptions are consistent with the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). The role of
the basic skills coordinators is critical to the success of the Basic Skills Initiative at the
campus level. However, this role is relatively new for most California Community
Colleges and was created largely in response to the BSI. Therefore, although the Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) addressed how the campus community should
approach fostering a culture of inquiry and organizational learning, it does not address
how the person ultimately responsible at the campus level would achieve this result. This
study will examine how basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning at the
campus level.
Research Questions
The overarching research question of this study is: In what ways do basic skills
coordinators lead organizational learning?
13
Questions that guide this study are:
How do basic skills coordinators lead an initiative framed by the
principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence?
What organizational constraints are encountered by basic skills
coordinators?
How do basic skills coordinators modify their roles in response to the
organizational constraints they encounter?
Significance of the Problem
This research is significant because it will help educators, researchers, and policy
makers understand how policy is interpreted into practice at the community college level.
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) is important to California Community
Colleges because it provides a solid framework for the logistical tasks colleges must
engage in, yet it is deficient with respect to the role of basic skills coordinator in that it
fails to provide a solid foundation for basic skills coordinators to carry out their roles.
Two years after the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), the BSI introduced regional
and statewide professional development trainings for basic skills coordinators as well as a
comprehensive handbook that guides community college practitioners on how to carry
out the Basic Skills Initiative at the campus level. This study will examine how basic
skills coordinators utilize these resources to lead organizational learning at the campus
level.
First, this study will analyze the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007)
document and explore how basic skills coordinators work around the deficiencies of role
definition. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) provides specific details on
14
effective practices, reflective processes, and matrices for reporting and planning. The
report also provides instructions for holding regular meetings to foster a shared
understanding and direction. Yet, the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) falls short
of defining exactly who should foster organizational learning and change. In response to
the issuance of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), accountability measures
were introduced and the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges pushed
colleges to designate a person to coordinate basic skills efforts at the campus level. In
response, most California Community Colleges introduced the position of basic skills
coordinator, a role that was not mentioned in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al.,
2007).
This study will provide insight into whether basic skills coordinators enact their
roles consistent with the Basic Skills Report‟s (Boroch et al., 2007) implicit
recommendations that they create a culture of inquiry and lead organizational learning.
This study will provide insight on how basic skills coordinators lead an initiative that is
framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence.
Second, this study will link theory and practice by evaluating the concrete actions
and behaviors basic skills coordinators may engage in to create a culture of inquiry.
Using Huber‟s (1991) and Dowd and Tong‟s (2004) research as a guide for benchmarking
practices in higher education, this study will examine the observable actions basic skills
coordinators use in fostering a culture of inquiry. These actions describe what a culture
of inquiry might look like for practitioners.
15
Third, this study will shed light on organizational constraints encountered by
basic skills coordinators and how coordinators modify their roles in response to the
constraints.
Finally, because the Basic Skills Initiative is a relatively new policy, this study
will add to the sparse literature on basic skills coordinators, basic skills committees,
committee decision making, organizational learning, and sensemaking in community
colleges.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 of the study presents the introduction, the background of the problem,
the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the questions to be answered, and
the significance of the study. Chapter 2 provides a review of relevant literature. This
chapter addresses the following topics: culture of inquiry, organizational learning, and
sensemaking. Chapter 3 presents the methodology used in the study including the
research design, population and sampling procedure, and research instruments. Chapter 3
concludes with a description of the data collection and analysis procedures used in this
study. Chapter 4 presents the research findings in the form of case studies and includes
four basic skills coordinators‟ stories developed from analysis of interview data.
Although each story is unique, the stories build on the themes that are discussed in the
following chapter. Chapter 5 consists of a discussion of the major themes in relation to
the research questions, the theoretical framework, and the practical implications for
community colleges.
16
CHAPTER 2
Review of the Literature
To review, the overarching research question of this study is: In what ways do
basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning? The questions that guide this study
are: 1) How do basic skills coordinators lead an initiative framed by the principles of
inquiry, collaboration, and evidence?; 2) What organizational constraints are encountered
by basic skills coordinators?; and 3) How do basic skills coordinators modify their roles
in response to the organizational constraints they encounter?
The first section of the literature review discusses a culture of inquiry, which is
important for this study because basic skills coordinators are leading an initiative that is
framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence. The second section
consists of a discussion on organizational learning. Huber‟s four constructs of
organizational learning – knowledge acquisition, information interpretation, information
distribution, and organizational memory – and their relevance to the BSI are discussed
(Huber, 1991). This section also includes discussions of the conditions for organizational
learning, organizational learning and equity, and the practitioner‟s role in fostering equity.
The third section consists of discusses sensemaking and examines its relation to the role
of the basic skills coordinator. How a basic skills coordinator makes sense of their
environment is important for understanding not only how they approach their role, but
also how they modified their role in response to organizational constraints encountered.
Culture of Inquiry
This section of the literature review consists of a discussion of a culture of
inquiry, which is important for this study because basic skills coordinators are leading an
17
initiative framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence. The Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) instructed campuses to reflect on their basic skills
practices. This was later conceptualized as fostering a “culture of inquiry” in
Constructing a Framework for Success: A Holistic Approach to Basic Skills,which this
study refers to as the Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a). Culture of
inquiry differs from a culture of evidence, a term previously used in the literature with
reference to “data-based decision-making,” (Dowd, 2005, p. 1) because the former relies
on the inquiry process while the latter relies on the data itself.
According to Dowd, a culture of inquiry is dependent on the dispositions and
behaviors of those who are closest to the data (Dowd, 2005). In a culture of inquiry,
campus-based practitioners use data to create knowledge (Dowd, 2005) – that is,
practitioners rely on their professionalism to “identify and address problems through
purposeful analysis of data about student learning” (Dowd, 2005, p. 5). Thus a culture is
dependent on “the capacity for insightful questioning of evidence and informed
interpretation of results” (Dowd, 2005, p. 5). A culture of inquiry is dependent on
practitioners.
Dowd, Lord, et al. (2009) performed a content analysis of Basic Skills Initiative
self-assessment and planning documents and found that practitioner knowledge was
viewed as stemming from the inquiry, plans, and collaboration among basic skills
practitioners charged with responding to the action plans. The authors provide a
comprehensive timeline of the Basic Skills Initiative, including funding the initiative
which was threatened with budget cuts by the California governor because it lacked
meaningful accountability measures (Dowd et al., 2009). The multi-million dollar
18
funding was reinstated after the California Community College Chancellor‟s Office
required that colleges file a report indicating they “had completed the self-assessment
planning process” (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 4). Funding was guaranteed to colleges that
certified that they would complete a self-assessment and submit an action and
expenditure plan for funds received. Colleges received the funds regardless of the quality
of their assessment report with no mention of future reporting or compliance
requirements at the time.
The authors found the strengths of the Basic Skills Initiative were its expectation
of inquiry from campus practitioners, the use of data, and its encouragement of
professional dialogue to address problems (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 5). Its weakness was its
reliance on what the authors call a “logic model” in which the architects envision that
self-assessments would lead institutions to practitioner inquiry (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 5).
Practitioner inquiry, however, relies on individuals‟ voluntary actions such as “systematic
questioning, reflection, and acquisition of knowledge” (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 5). The
Basic Skills Initiative‟s “logic model” holds true for campuses in which individuals are
passionate about basic skills students, co-construct knowledge, and have a willingness to
challenge existing practices, however, the “logic model” might not hold true for
campuses that are characterized by committee members who do not want to serve “those
students,” insist that they already know what the problem is and how to fix it, or do not
want to change how they serve basic skills students because they lack openness to other
possibilities. Dowd, Lord, et al. concluded:
[T]he BSI did not provide the mechanisms by which practitioners could adapt the
methods of inquiry and apply them to the self-assessment process in a manner that
would enable them to interrogate their practices-in-use. For example, in order to
19
determine why they might not be working or why they work for some instructors
or for some students but not others, how they could be more effective, or whether
they should be discarded or replaced. (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 34)
Drawing on Argyris and Schon‟s (1996) distinction of single versus double-loop
learning, Dowd, Lord, et al. (2009) argued that the Basic Skills Initiative was designed to
promote double-loop learning, which is characterized by drawing attention to the root
causes of a problem through reflection rather than a “revision of existing practices or the
development of new ones” (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 11) which is a characteristic of single-
loop learning. The authors reasoned that the “fine-grained prompts and questions”
(Dowd et al., 2009, p. 20) found in the assessment were characteristic of inquiry that
would lead to double-loop learning. However, fostering a culture of inquiry is dependent
on the extent to which the prompts are used by practitioners.
Dowd and her colleagues (2009) revealed that half of the 26 effective practices
listed in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) credited the practitioner rather than
the techniques, program, or strategies used. Practitioners were the “underpinning of
effective practices” (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 23). The emphasis of the Basic Skills Initiative
on the self-evaluation benchmarking process was found to be consistent with double-loop
learning. Furthermore, the authors credited the Basic Skills Initiative because it not only
encouraged practitioners to share information, but also shifted “responsibility for
improvement onto the institution” (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 30).
Organizational Learning
The second section of the literature review consists of a discussion on
organizational learning. Huber‟s (1991) four constructs of organizational learning –
knowledge acquisition, information interpretation, information distribution, and
20
organizational memory – and their relevance to the BSI are discussed. Each construct is
presented below with a discussion of how it relates to the Basic Skills Initiative. This
section of the literature review also includes discussions of the conditions for
organizational learning, organizational learning and equity, and the practitioner‟s role in
fostering equity.
Knowledge acquisition. According to Huber (1991), knowledge acquisition
refers to the process by which information is obtained. Organizational self-appraisal
allows members of an organization to attain knowledge about an organization. Huber
(1991) drew on Argyris and Schon‟s distinction of single versus double-loop learning to
emphasize that some self-appraisals stress learning while others do not (Argyris, 1982;
Argyris & Schon, 1974, 1978). Through the use of reflective questions, the Basic Skills
Initiative‟s self-evaluation tool was designed to promote organizational learning through
double-loop learning.
Vicarious learning, or the process of acquiring second-hand experience, was
identified by Huber (1991) as an organizational learning strategy. Inclusion of effective
basic skills practices from California Community Colleges and other colleges as well as
the questions on the self-assessment tool, which prompted colleges to compare their basic
skills practices to the effective practices identified in the literature review, are ways in
which the Basic Skills Initiative encouraged vicarious learning. The Basic Skills
Initiative also encouraged vicarious learning through the 3CSN regional networks and
statewide trainings.
Huber (1991) identified performance monitoring – the process through which
organizations formally and routinely assess how well they are meeting established
21
standards – as a process that encourages organizational learning. Accountability
Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) data and annual reports that are used to
measure progress toward reaching long-range outcomes are examples of performance
monitoring and a way in which the Basic Skills Initiative promoted double-loop learning.
Information distribution. Information distribution refers to the process by
which information from different sources is shared and leads to new information or
understanding (Huber, 1991). Huber described the process of information distribution as
one in which organizational components develop new information by piecing together
information obtained from other organizational components (Huber, 1991). The
instructions for completing the self-assessment tool encouraged information distribution
by suggesting that a cross-section of campus members meet to complete the assessment.
The self-assessment tool encouraged college practitioners to gain a comprehensive
understanding of where effective strategies occur.
Information interpretation. Huber defines information interpretation as the
“process by which distributed information is given one or more commonly understood
interpretations” (Huber, 1991, p. 90). Sub-processes or constructs associated with
information interpretation include cognitive maps and framing as well as media richness.
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) redefined (or reframed) basic skills from
remedial to developmental education. The 3CSN website, regional and statewide
trainings, Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) and Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks &
Alancraig, 2008a) are examples of media messages that the Basic Skills Initiative
distributed to California Community Colleges.
22
Organizational memory. Organizational memory, according to Huber, is the
means by which knowledge is stored for future use (Huber, 1991). Organizational
memory is stored in the minds of the organization‟s members, but it also exists in
concrete forms such as policies and procedural manuals or reports. Huber described
computer-based organizational memory as an effective tool for organizational learning
(Huber, 1991). The Basic Skills Initiative utilizes the 3CSN, RP Group, Academic
Senate for California Community Colleges, and other websites, electronic forms of
organizational memory, to ensure that basic skills information is available to the entire
organization (i.e., California Community Colleges).
Conditions for organizational learning. The Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks &
Alancraig, 2008a), which is essentially the how-to of implementing the Basic Skills
Initiative at the campus level, cited Bauman‟s (2005) conditions for organizational
learning (Alancraig et al., 2009). This section of the literature review will expand on
Bauman‟s studies (Bauman, 2002, 2005). In her qualitative study of 14 colleges
implementing the Diversity Scorecard Project, Bauman identified three conditions that
existed when organizational learning occurred: “the presence of new ideas, the cultivation
of doubt in existing knowledge and practices, and the development and transfer of
knowledge among institutional actors” (Bauman, 2005, p. 25).
In Bauman‟s study, each college consisted of teams of faculty, staff, and
administrators assembled by a Center for Urban Education researcher to observe how
they utilized “factual, existing institutional data” to answer questions about inequities in
student success (Bauman, 2005, p. 24). The basic skills committee assembled with a
similar purpose as the Diversity Scorecard Project. In this case it was to use pre-existing
23
and ARCC data, the college‟s equity plan, and benchmark data from effective practices,
and employ reflective practices to answer questions on the self-assessment tool.
Although similar in purpose, there were major differences between the Diversity
Scorecard Project and the Basic Skills Initiative, the most significant being that the Basic
Skills Initiative did not employ trained facilitators or observers at the individual
campuses to encourage group learning as the Diversity Scorecard Project did.
Bauman‟s study related to the Diversity Scorecard Project provides details on
high and low learning groups which inform the present study (Bauman, 2002). High
learning groups were defined as those that had a sense of the inequities on their campus
from the beginning of the study. Furthermore, many high learning group committee
members felt that it was the institution's responsibility to respond to and address those
inequities. The high learning groups utilized data in a collaborative process with
researchers from the Center for Urban Education. Through analysis of the data, new
ideas emerged, including the willingness to test “campus mythologies and give
precedence to the data over their experiential knowledge, even when the knowledge was
contradicted” (Bauman, 2002, p. 92). High learning groups tended to further investigate
the data and chose to look at broad indicators rather than outcomes indicators.
Bauman defined the characteristics for low learning groups (Bauman, 2002). The
first major difference between high and low learning groups was data usage. Low
learning groups rarely, if ever, used data with the Center for Urban Education researchers.
According to Bauman, low learning groups “never examined data as a group during the
first year of the project” (Bauman, 2002, p. 119). The second major distinction Bauman
noted was a lack of purpose in low learning group meetings. Their committees were
24
distinguished by unresolved discussions as well as unfocused information sharing.
Bauman reported that the new questions involving data were “treated as rhetorical
questions” (Bauman, 2002, p.120). In addition, the low learning groups prioritized their
experiential knowledge over everything else – by accepting anecdotal information as fact,
for example.
The distinctions between high and low learning groups provide insight into the
meeting methods and actions basic skills coordinators might adopt to increase learning in
the Basic Skills Initiative. First, the basic skills coordinator could spend time developing
their data skills so that they are comfortable talking about data. Second, the basic skills
coordinator could create a meeting environment where committee members have an
opportunity to analyze data as a group. Third, the basic skills coordinator could ensure
that there is time to discuss data in basic skills meetings. Fourth, the basic skills
coordinator could encourage discussion about data. Fifth, the basic skills coordinator
could test committee members‟ assumptions with data. Sixth, the basic skills coordinator
could use committee members‟ questions or comments to facilitate discussions that delve
further into data. Finally, the basic skills coordinator could encourage the use of other
types of data (e.g., focus groups, surveys, exit interviews).
The Basic Skills Initiative puts the responsibility of meeting facilitation, inquiry,
leadership of the self-assessment and, consequentially, group/organizational learning in
the hands of the basic skills coordinator. Therefore it is the basic skills coordinator‟s
responsibility to ensure that this knowledge is transferred across the institution (Bauman,
2005). To fulfill the vision of fostering a culture of inquiry articulated in the Basic Skills
25
Report (Boroch et al., 2007), it is important that basic skills coordinators create an
environment that allows committee members to contribute to organizational learning.
In order for organizational learning to take place, it is important that basic skills
coordinators are aware of actions and behaviors that are not only consistent, but also
inconsistent with organizational learning. The ability to recognize the actions or behavior
of others that is consistent with organizational learning is important for the basic skills
coordinators because this skill allows the coordinator to draw upon the support of those
who display these actions. Likewise, the ability to recognize actions or behaviors
inconsistent with organizational learning allows the basic skills coordinators to address
the issue with the person displaying the actions. Examples of inconsistent actions include
responses such as “We already do that” when presented with the results of brainstorming
sessions, blind acceptance to the belief that the institution‟s basic skills services already
serve students well, and refusal or inability to construct or share new knowledge.
Organizational learning and equity. Bensimon‟s article “Closing the
Achievement Gap in Higher Education: An Organizational Learning Perspective”
(Bauman et al., 2005), was cited in the Basic Skills Handbook (Alancraig et al., 2009) as
an example of how organizational learning could be used to close the achievement – or
equity – gap. The inequality in educational outcomes of historically underrepresented
groups was analyzed through an organizational learning perspective (Bauman et al.,
2005). Bensimon (2005) asserts that inequality in educational outcomes is a learning
problem of institutional actors rather than students. She states that there is a difference in
the cognitive frames of deficit and equity minded individuals in which deficit minded
individuals attribute differences in unequal student outcomes “to cultural stereotypes,
26
inadequate socialization, or lack of motivation and initiative on the part of the students”
(Bensimon, 2005, p. 102) whereas equity-minded individuals focus intentionally on
educational results or outcomes and “are prone to notice and question patterns of
educational outcomes, and they are more likely to consider the context of a history of
exclusion, discrimination, and educational apartheid” (Bensimon, 2005, p. 103).
Bensimon found that those who focus their attention on the root causes of a problem
engage in double-loop learning. Specifically, when evidence teams were responsible for
collecting data on student learning outcomes disaggregated by race, they dug deeper into
the data, asked questions about the data, and requested additional data to clarify the
extent of inequities on their campuses. These practitioners were found to be equity-
minded and engaged in organizational learning (Bensimon, 2005).
The practitioner’s role in fostering equity. Bensimon and her colleagues
(2004) relied on the “practitioner-as-researcher” model in facilitating the Diversity
Scorecard Project at 14 urban colleges in Southern California. In this model,
“practitioners take the role of researchers, and researchers assume the roles of facilitators
and consultants” (Bensimon, Polkinghorne, Bauman, & Vallejo, 2004, p. 108). Within
this model, “the purpose of inquiry is to bring about change at individual, organizational,
and societal levels” (Bensimon et al., 2004, p. 108) and the process is characterized as
“collecting data and creating knowledge” (Bensimon et al., 2004, p. 108). The authors
assert that the researcher should be trained in the research design as well as how to
maintain personal relationships. This is important because the Basic Skills Initiative
called for a practitioner-as-researcher model, but did not provide training to the
27
facilitators on how to carry out the research design or maintain personal relationships
with colleagues when the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) was first introduced.
Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd, and Harris III (2007) analyzed the role of the
practitioner in “Accountability, Equity, and Practitioner Learning and Change,” a report
based on the Center for Urban Education‟s institutional intervention, Equity for All,
which focused on achieving equity in student success measures. The process steered by
practitioners included sub goals:
(1) to develop awareness of race-based inequalities in educational
outcomes; (2) to learn to interpret race-based disparities in academic
outcomes through the lens of equity; (3) to view inequalities in
outcomes as a problem of institutional accountability that calls
for collective action. (Bensimon et al., 2007, p. 30)
To achieve these goals, practitioners relied on data to promote inquiry. Equity for
All focused on racial inequalities in educational outcomes of students. Its goals,
however, could be broadened to articulate the goals of organizational learning and
developing a culture of inquiry in the Basic Skills Initiative. In this case, the goals would
be: 1) to develop awareness of inequalities in educational outcomes of basic skills
students, 2) to learn to interpret disparities in outcomes for basic skills students through a
lens of equity in student outcomes, and 3) to view inequalities in basic skills student
success as a problem of institutional accountability. The premise of the Equity for All
project is simply: practitioner inquiry can lead to organizational learning and change.
Sensemaking
The third section of the literature review discusses sensemaking and how it relates
to the role of the basic skills coordinator. How a basic skills coordinator makes sense of
their environment is important for understanding not only how they approach their role,
28
but also how they modified their role in response to organizational constraints
encountered. Recent studies on sensemaking are discussed in this section of the literature
review (Coburn, 2001; Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Honig & Coburn, 2008; Spillane, 2000).
Sensemaking is based on collaborative efforts of individuals who, based on their
roles and experience, have particular ways in which they view their environments. When
people perceive the world to be different than their expectations, they attempt to
understand their surroundings and look for “reasons” to make sense of things (Weick,
Sutcliffe, et al., 2005). These reasons help people make sense of the gaps in their
knowledge. It takes mutual agreement for organizations to decide what is real and
important (Birnbaum, 1988) because “[w]hen faced with ambiguity, organizations cope
by filling in gaps based on what they know, expect, and want” (Bolman & Deal, 2003, p.
32).
The process of negotiating agreements about reality or “making sense” is the
process of organizing (Birnbaum, 1988; Weick, 1995). In this respect, new information
(or evidence) is pieced together so sensemakers can separate what is important from what
is not. In doing so, they are able to organize the importance of the evidence and construct
new knowledge.
In order to foster a culture of inquiry, the basic skills coordinator must model it
(Alancraig et al., 2009; Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). People in different roles have
viewpoints that are unique to their roles (Birnbaum, 1988). People in an institution will
agree on some things; but the differences in their roles, background, training, and
experience result in their viewing the organization through different lenses (Birnbaum,
29
1988). The ability to look through a wider lens will benefit the basic skills coordinator in
leading organizational learning.
People rely on their past experiences as a foundation for understanding and
responding to their current environment (Bolman & Deal, 2003). Fulfilling the goal of
the Basic Skills Initiative requires in-person meetings because these frameworks – or
theories of how people see the world – are narrow and block them from seeing their
errors (Birnbaum, 1988). Until they engage in a dialog and construct reality, people
understand the world based on their internal maps (Bolman & Deal, 2003).
Meetings provide a venue for individuals to express their understanding of the
Basic Skills Initiative. The basic skills coordinators are responsible for fostering a
culture of inquiry by holding regular meetings in a manner that allows committee
members to express their personal thoughts, ideas, and interpretations of basic skills
education and student success. To make sense of their environment, members of the
college need a shared language (Weick, 1995). The process of defining and naming
elements – or developing a shared language – permits colleges to make sense of, talk
about, and make experiences socially “real” (Birnbaum, 1988; Weick, 1995). A shared
language is important because it binds a group together while reinforcing the group‟s
unique values and beliefs (Birnbaum, 1988). A shared language allows group members
to communicate more effectively, lessens misunderstandings within the group, and
reflects the group‟s culture (Bolman & Deal, 2003; Weick, 1995).
In this section of the literature review, recent studies of sensemaking in the K-12
system are discussed. The literature on sensemaking in K-12 institutions is used in this
study because there are few studies on sensemaking in community colleges (Chadwick &
30
Pawloski, 2007; Eddy, 2003). The two that existed when this study was conducted are
not applicable to this study. Chadwick and Pawlowski (2007) conducted the most recent
study on sensemaking of service learning on community college campuses. Eddy (2003)
studied sensemaking on college campuses and looked specifically at college presidents.
Both studies provide a unique way of understanding sensemaking at the community
college level – one examines the chief leadership position (Eddy, 2003) and the other
study focuses on a program at the community college level (Chadwick & Pawloski, 2007)
– but neither inform the present study. The K-12 sensemaking articles are applicable to
this study because they relate to how reform measures are interpreted at the intervention
level and the role of professional communities (Coburn, 2001), how conceptions of
evidence are influenced by one‟s role in the organization (Coburn & Talbert, 2006), how
evidence and local knowledge are used (Honig & Coburn, 2008), and how reform
measures are understood and implemented (Spillane, 2000). Therefore, the lack of
relevant community college sensemaking studies and the prevalence of relevant K-12
sensemaking studies lead to the sensemaking articles discussed in this study.
Understanding reform messages. Sensemaking of reading instruction reform
messages might mediate role clarity (Coburn, 2001). Coburn‟s (2001) in-depth case
study of one California elementary school focused on the way in which California
teachers interpreted and responded to a major change to the state‟s reading instruction
curriculum. Through observation and in-depth interviewing, Coburn examined the
processes used by first and second grade teachers to construct and reconstruct multiple
policy messages about the reading instruction curriculum (Coburn, 2001). In her article,
Coburn (2001) found that formal networks and informal connections among teachers
31
shaped the sensemaking process and carried implications about how messages from the
policy environment influenced their classroom practice. Teachers relied on others to
make sense of how to implement change at the classroom level. School leaders play a
role in shaping the sensemaking process for others (Coburn, 2001).
Coburn (2001) suggests that sensemaking is social in two respects. First, it is
collective in the sense that it is rooted in social interaction and negotiation as people
develop “shared understandings.” Second, it is deeply situated in people‟s embedded
contexts. Teacher‟s actions were based on their sensemaking – this is how teachers
noticed or selected information from their environment, made meaning of the
information, and acted on their interpretations (Coburn, 2001).
Coburn (2001) found that teachers engaged in three sub processes as they
constructed and reconstructed their meanings of policy messages. First, teachers
constructed their understanding through interpersonal interaction. Second, teachers
engaged in what she refers to as “gatekeeping” – a cognitive filtering process individuals
engage in when they are presented with what appears to be too much information to
process. Third, teachers negotiated technical and practical details to gain a better
understanding. All three sub processes were influenced by the teachers‟ “worldviews,
preexisting practices, and shared understandings” (Coburn, 2001, p. 152).
Gatekeeping, or rejecting information, occurred for many reasons. Coburn (2001)
posits that the teachers in her study rejected new information for the following reasons:
belief that the information did not apply to the grade level that they were teaching, belief
that the strategies were too difficult for their students, philosophical opposition to the new
information, the new information was outside their limits of comprehensibility, belief that
32
the new information was not a right “fit,” belief that the new strategies were
unmanageable, and lack of understanding of the information. The concept of gatekeeping
is important for this study because the Basic Skills Initiative presents many new ways for
practitioners to think about basic skills programs and services. Colleges were provided
with a new definition of basic skills, instructed to reflect, engage in open exploration, and
initiate a discovery process of their existing practices – all of which could be embraced or
rejected based on individual participants' inclination to engage in gatekeeping.
Teachers discussed the messages that they had not dismissed through gatekeeping
and worked out the details involved in implementing reform changes (Coburn, 2001).
This process was crucial in the teachers‟ ability to translate abstract ideas into concrete
action. The types of conversations teachers engaged in were dependent on whether or not
they saw connections between the activities and their classrooms (Coburn, 2001). When
teachers were able to make a connection, they engaged in what Coburn refers to as “in-
facing,” conversations in which teachers chose to engage in conversation to carefully
consider how the activity related to their classroom. When they were unable to make a
connection, teachers engaged in “out-facing” conversations, which were characterized by
superficial dialogue, signaling the use of appropriate language and symbolic
interpretations. These findings are important to the present study because the Basic Skills
Initiative uses ideas practitioners might not fully understand (e.g., reflection, open
exploration, discovery process), which may cause practitioners to engage in gatekeeping
or out-facing conversations.
In his study of Michigan K-12 district leaders‟ response to mathematical reforms,
Spillane found that district leaders tended to hold piecemeal understandings of reform
33
measures which led to piecemeal changes (Spillane, 2000). Employing a theoretical
sampling strategy to select districts which had a reputation for instructional innovation,
Spillane (2000) focused on 80 interviews in which all interviewees were selected for their
involvement in their district‟s mathematics education efforts.
The districts varied on geographical location within the state, district size and
urbanicity, as well as social and ethnic representation of the student population.
Interviewees were composed of 29 district administrators or curriculum specialists, 25
school administrators, 21 classroom teachers, and five school board members. Interviews
ranged from 45 minutes to two hours in length. In phase two of the study, the researchers
interviewed 25 of the phase one informants as well as 25 new informants (Spillane,
2000).
There were four major findings in Spillane's study. First, district leaders were
aware of state and national reform measures and responded by revising or creating new
district-wide policies. Second, district leaders needed to interpret reform policies before
they could act on them (Spillane, 2000), which emphasized the importance of language.
Third, district leaders relied on local understandings – that is, they interpreted reform
policy through their existing schemas (Spillane, 2000). District leaders also focused on
the type of mathematics reform rather than their intended purposes. District leaders
generalized reform across subjects, but had understandings that de-emphasized
mathematics (Spillane, 2000). Finally, Spillane (2000) argued that district leaders'
understanding of reform policy was key to implementation. Spillane‟s study is important
for the present study because basic skills coordinators understanding of the Basic Skills
Initiative may affect implementation (Spillane, 2000). If basic skills coordinators do not
34
fully understand the expectations of the Basic Skills Initiative and the Basic Skills Report
(Boroch et al., 2007), it may result in piecemeal implementation.
Conceptions of evidence use. Conceptions of evidence have been found to
vary among central office and frontline administrators (Coburn & Talbert, 2006). In their
two-year study at a large urban K-12 school district, Coburn and Talbert (2006) found
that conceptions of valid evidence, evidence use, and research-based practice varied
widely across the system. The variation was due to the nature of the individuals‟ work in
different parts of the organization (i.e., central office or frontline administrators) and with
their past involvement in district wide reform measures. Through this study, the authors
demonstrated that individual conceptions of evidence are found in and comprised by
organizational and institutional contexts (Coburn & Talbert, 2006). “Over time,
individuals who work with one another in sub-units, work groups, or task forces develop
shared ways of thinking” (Coburn, 2001; Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Kennedy, 1982; Porac,
Thomas, & Baden-Fuller, 1989; Vaugh, 1996). That is, when members of an institution
work closely together, they develop shared lenses, schemas, frameworks, and/or social
cognitions. As a result, subcultures are likely to develop within faculty, administrator,
and other community college groups (Coburn & Talbert, 2006). Personal and
professional networks, particularly those that connect educators to reform movements,
are organizational subcultures that are critical for creating and sustaining new ideas of
evidence (Coburn & Talbert, 2006). This is important for the present study because the
job held by a basic skills coordinator prior to assuming the role may influence the types
of evidence that they would consider. Furthermore, their prior leadership and/or reform
experience may also shape their conceptions of evidence.
35
Use of evidence. Honig and Coburn (2008) conducted a review of existing
literature on district central office administrators‟ use of evidence and evaluated the
types, purposes, and factors that influenced evidence use. There were three major
findings in Honig and Coburn‟s study (2008). First, the authors found that central district
office administrators relied on multiple sources of data, but used local knowledge as a
key source of information (Honig & Coburn, 2008). Central office administrators were
less likely to dismiss local knowledge and engage in gatekeeping because it was familiar
to them and discussed in their social circles.
Second, Honig and Coburn (2008) also found that evidence use is not a singular
activity in itself because it also involves searching for and deliberately incorporating (or
not) evidence for decision making. The decision to search for, incorporate, or exclude
evidence relies on past experience and current social cognitive factors (Honig & Coburn,
2008). During the sense-making process, individuals fit new information into preexisting
understandings or cognitive and cultural frameworks (Honig & Coburn, 2008). People
may look for data to confirm their beliefs (Bauman, 2002) or deliberately exclude data
because it might make the institution look unfavorable.
Third, several factors influence evidence use. Honig and Coburn (2008)
discussed eleven factors that influence evidence use. First, features of the evidence – or
the nature of the evidence itself – influence evidence use. Second, evidence that is not
easily available may not be used for decision making. Third, when evidence is not in an
easily accessible form, it may not be used for decision making. Fourth, educators
respond to ambiguous evidence differently. For some, ambiguous evidence may delay or
impede decisions whether or not it is used. Others are enabled by ambiguous evidence
36
because they can infer what it means. Fifth, educators may judge the credibility of
evidence based on the source of the information. District administrators, for example,
have viewed external sources of data less credible than data reported internally. Sixth,
working knowledge mediates evidence use, which is often interpreted through pre-
existing beliefs. The authors cautioned that when educators rely on their interpretations
of data rather than the data itself, they may over rely on their schemas. Seventh – social
capital – or educator‟s internal and external ties such as degree of trust, shared norms, and
expertise that characterize those ties – influence evidence use. Eighth, district and central
office administration – or the volume of responsibilities and limited time to complete
work – curbed evidence use. Ninth, educators respond to normative influences – that is,
they were more likely to use evidence when the culture, norms, and professional practice
encouraged it. Tenth, political dynamics either hindered or supported evidence use.
Some were frustrated by political debates, while others were inspired by the possibility of
coalition building. Finally, state and federal policies may influence evidence use directly
by establishing systems that increase access to and use of information.
Data use in community colleges. As a result of direction from the Basic Skills
Report (Boroch et al., 2007), basic skills coordinators are in a position to foster a culture
of inquiry through collective sensemaking. Their leadership position implicitly charges
them with fostering a culture of inquiry for student success in basic skills by utilizing the
self-assessment tool. The self-assessment tool guides basic skills coordinators through
effective practices and prompts college committees to benchmark their current practices
against the effective practice models that allow an examination of institutional barriers to
37
student success (Boroch et al., 2007); however recent research (RP Group, 2009)
suggests that faculty may not be in a position to analyze data for decision making.
A recent study by the RP Group (2009) provides insight of how data is used at
community colleges. The RP Group‟s (2009) Basic Skills Outcomes Capacity (BOSC)
study focused on data availability and the use of data at California Community Colleges
(RP Group, 2009). Community colleges are data rich, but information poor, with
administrators using and reporting greater access to data than faculty who are at the
intervention level (RP Group, 2009). Colleges have the capacity to track student success
metrics, but do not always have “the capacity to analyze the data and use them to inform
decision making” (RP Group, 2009, p. 3). Research findings from the study suggest that
patterns of gaps in the use of data and evidence across community colleges may be
inhibiting institutional learning, specifically:
Colleges are data rich, but information poor;
Colleges might be focusing on the wrong data;
Much of what is needed to support good decision making lies
beyond the current grasp of our institutional databases; and
Progress over the last decade has been in gathering and utilizing
data at the institutional level rather than intervention level (RP
Group, 2009).
The Basic Skills Report‟s (Boroch et al., 2007) emphasis on data and evidence use
may be unfamiliar to basic skills coordinators. Each campus had its own process for
selecting its basic skills coordinator. As a result, basic skills coordinators have unique
backgrounds and varying levels of experience working with data (RP Group, 2009).
38
Those basic skills coordinators who use data frequently are likely to feel comfortable
analyzing, talking about, and requesting additional data (RP Group, 2009). It is more
likely that they would have a high degree of self-efficacy in their ability to fulfill their
role in relation to data. Those who rarely receive, analyze, or discuss data with others
(RP Group, 2009), may have low self-efficacy in their ability to fulfill their role of
fostering a culture of inquiry through data.
The literature regarding data use practices at community colleges is important to
this study because it suggests that basic skills coordinators may lack experience and
familiarity with data for various reasons. They may lack access to data because it may be
limited to certain people or streams on the campus (Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2009). The
coordinators might be unfamiliar with the process of submitting requests for data or
might not understand how data requests could be tailored to extract more information
about their students, teaching methods, and exam questions. For the basic skills
coordinators who are familiar with data, there may still be a gap in their use of data for
decision making (RP Group, 2009). It is also possible that they are relying on limited
data sources, which do not provide a comprehensive picture of the problems nor offer
insight into possible solutions (RP Group, 2009).
Conclusion
Meetings provide opportunities for people to make sense of data through a
collaborative process (Weick, 1995). They also provide opportunities for people with
different roles and opinions to come together and shape reality. The discussions that
occur at meetings are important because each person has a lens – or filter – through
which they see the world and these cognitions are shaped socially in meetings (Weick,
39
1995). Meetings are vital to sensemaking because they “assemble and generate the
minorities and majorities, and in doing so, create the infrastructure that creates sense”
(Weick, 1995, p. 144). In this context, majorities refer to those individuals who share the
majority opinion and minorities refer to those individuals who hold the minority view.
Minority opinions are key in developing new understandings because they have the
potential to foster critical thought – not only in the meeting itself, but also when the
listener is alone and has more time to examine his or her judgments and responses
(Weick, 1995). Meetings therefore provide an important venue for the minority opinion
to influence others. A basic skills coordinator‟s openness to listening to – or even
soliciting – the minority opinion, particularly for the benefit of the basic skills committee,
could result in a cultivation of doubt (Bauman, 2002, 2005) that provokes professional
conversations (Cohen et al., 2003).
The basic skills coordinators‟ role is to not only improve student success rates in
basic skills courses, but to guide constituents‟ learning through a process that involves
reflection, open exploration, and planning. In addition, this process was designed to
bring about organizational change. Inquiry and dialogue provide the setting for
organizational members to examine their assumptions and create, plan for, implement,
and sustain change.
The literature points to many factors that have important implications for
professional practice. First, it suggests that coordinators with reform experience may
have more social circles and experience with data (Coburn & Talbert, 2006; Honig &
Coburn, 2008). Both are important for fostering a culture of inquiry. Second, the
literature suggests that coordinators are in leadership positions through which they have
40
influence in shaping reform messages for others (Coburn, 2001). Third, the literature
suggests that practitioners who do not understand what their role is with respect to reform
will engage in out-facing conversations and/or gatekeeping (Coburn, 2001). Fourth,
parties engage in collective sensemaking to mediate policy messages (Coburn, 2001).
This is accomplished though meetings, professional trainings, or side conversations.
Fifth, individuals also draw on their own cognitive understanding (based on their
experiences) to mediate policy messages (Coburn, 2001). Experiences are unique to each
individual, but they are also shaped by their former positions and previous experience in
reform measures. Consequently, it is in the best interest of the college if the basic skills
coordinator has previous reform and/or leadership experience. Sixth, the literature also
suggests that it is important for basic skills coordinators to construct and reconstruct
language with their committee so that they can ensure that they are discussing the same
issues (Weick, 1995). Once the committee defines the relevant terms, data should be
used to measure these terms. Finally, leading committee members on benchmarking site
visits encourages learning among participants and increases the likelihood that
professional conversations between those that go on the site visits and other campus
constituents will develop (Cohen et al., 2003).
41
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology
The purpose of this study is understand how basic skills coordinators lead
organizational learning at the campus level. To review, the overarching research question
of this study is: In what ways do basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning?
The questions that guide this study are: 1) How do basic skills coordinators lead an
initiative framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence?; 2) What
organizational constraints are encountered by basic skills coordinators?; and 3) How do
basic skills coordinators modify their roles in response to the organizational constraints
they encounter?
The design of this study was based on principles and methods of qualitative
research. According to Merriam (1998), qualitative research enables researchers to
understand and explain socially constructed meanings which individuals generate of
social phenomenon. Therefore, qualitative research is best suited for a study designed to
understand and explain how basic skills coordinators understand their role and lead
organizational learning.
Sample and Population
Basic skills coordinators within the California Community College system are
primarily faculty members assigned the leadership position of implementing the Basic
Skills Initiative at the local level (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). In order to explore how
basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning, it is vital for the researcher to go to
the source. There are 112 community colleges that reside within the system‟s 72 districts.
42
In order to narrow the sample of basic skills coordinators I used in this study, I employed
purposeful sampling, which “focuses on selecting information-rich cases whose study
will illuminate the questions under study” (Patton, 2002, p. 230). The research questions
for this study focus specifically on the experiences of basic skills coordinators who led
the Basic Skills Initiative at their campus. These questions explore their role in leading
organizational learning as well as the constraints experienced by basic skills coordinators.
These were questions that only basic skills coordinators could answer in their own words.
To select participants for this study, I used combination purposeful sampling
(Patton, 2002) consisting of criterion and maximum variation sampling. To select a
sample that was representative of the entire California Community College system, I
sought the advice of regional basic skills coordinators. Regional coordinators of the
California Community College Success Network (3CSN), a BSI grant, are charged with
building a knowledge base for practitioners in their region, providing regional
workshops, and facilitating the Basic Skills Initiative Leadership Institute (BSILI)
training which instructs basic skills coordinators and community college professionals on
how to implement the BSI. With their leadership capacity in the BSI and familiarity with
local practices, the regional basic skills coordinators are knowledgeable sources for
information on effective basic skills coordinators in their region.
There were eight 3CSN regional networks when I conducted my initial analysis.
Of the eight, four were created at the beginning of the 3CSN grant and referred to as the
inaugural networks. The inaugural regional network coordinators had the longest history
with the 3CSN grant and their regions, so I concluded that they would be the most
appropriate for providing leads on effective basic skills coordinators throughout the state.
43
To gain an understanding of how the BSI was implemented statewide, my research design
consisted of a sample size of four – one basic skills coordinator from each of the
inaugural networks. I sought the advice of the inaugural 3CSN regional coordinators in
choosing basic skills coordinators who have successfully led the Basic Skill Initiative on
their campuses and who could potentially provide rich data for the study. I did this by
calling regional coordinators (Appendix A) and asking:
1) What do you consider the characteristics of effective coordinators? Please
list them.
2) Can you think of basic skills coordinators in your region who meet those
characteristics? Which coordinators? Which colleges do they work for?
3) Can you describe what makes them effective basic skills coordinators?
Please give specific examples.
Each regional coordinator identified two to three effective basic skills
coordinators in their region. (One regional coordinator initially mentioned five
coordinators, but ultimately recommended two basic skills coordinators in her region.)
Fourteen basic skills coordinators were mentioned during the telephone calls, eleven of
which were highly recommended for this study.
To analyze the data collected from the regional coordinators, I created a matrix
that captured the names of the inaugural network and the regional coordinator, and their
responses. Next, I visited college websites and recorded notes about each college (e.g.,
college size, single or multiple district college) and basic skills committee (e.g., presence
of agendas, minutes, and reports) in a notes column that I added to the matrix (Appendix
B).
44
Once this information was collected, I reduced the sample size through criterion
sampling, a process in which the researcher reviews and studies “all cases that meet some
predetermined criterion of importance” (Patton, 2002, p. 238) before selecting the final
sample. The criterion that I used to reduce the sample was:
1. Basic skills coordinators who had experience in their role were preferred
over new basic skills coordinators with the assumption that experienced
coordinators would provide richer data.
2. The sample was limited to one basic skills coordinator in each of the
inaugural regions. (This criteria was used to make the final decision after
the second purposeful sampling procedure described below).
After speaking with the inaugural regional coordinators and conducting a search
of the college websites, several basic skills coordinators emerged as possible subjects for
this study. However because the BSI is a statewide initiative, I felt it was important that
the basic skills coordinators that I chose for this study were employed at California
Community Colleges that are representative of the various colleges throughout the
system. Therefore, instead of including basic skills coordinators from four homogeneous
colleges, I chose to purposefully sample for basic skills coordinators from heterogeneous
colleges.
The second purposeful sampling approach used in this study was maximum
variation – or heterogeneity – sampling, which “aims at capturing and describing the
central themes that cut across a great deal of variation.” The research design
predetermined the sample size (N=4) by including one basic skills coordinator from each
of the four inaugural regional networks. Next, to maximize variation in a small sampling,
45
I identified “diverse characteristics or criteria for constructing the sample” (Patton, 2002,
p. 235). California‟s 112 community colleges are very diverse with respect to four major
categories. Salient ways in which California Community Colleges vary are in terms of:
1) district size (i.e., single or multi-college), 2) surrounding community (i.e., rural, urban,
and suburban), 3) geographical location (e.g., there are ten defined geographical regions
within the California Community Colleges), and 4) student enrollment (i.e., with
“headcount” under 10,000 students categorized as small, between 10,000 and 20,000
medium, and over 20,000 categorized as large). Using these criteria to maximize
variation in a small sample would allow me to “describe the uniqueness of each sample”
and “look for common themes that cut across sites” (Patton, 2002, p. 235). “Any such
themes take on added importance precisely because they emerge out of great variation”
(Patton, 2002, p. 235). According to Patton, the maximum variation sampling strategy
converts the apparent weakness of having to find variation in a small sample into a
strength; he added (Patton, 2002, p. 235):
Thus, when selecting a small sample of great diversity, the data collection and
analysis will yield two kinds of findings: (1) high-quality, detailed descriptions of
each case, which are useful for documenting uniqueness, and (2) important shared
patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance from having emerged
out of heterogeneity. Both are important findings in qualitative inquiry.
I used the regional coordinators‟ responses and college characteristics to choose
the sample. I invited basic skills coordinators from colleges that were representative of
the 112 colleges within the California Community College system to participate in this
study. I extended an invitation to one basic skills coordinator from each of the inaugural
regions (i.e., the last criteria in the criterion sampling method described above) based on
46
their college‟s district size, surrounding community, and headcount size. I contacted the
basic skills coordinators and invited them to participate in the study (Appendix C).
The California Community College System consists of 112 colleges throughout
the state. According to the Chancellor‟s Office Data Mart system (CCCCO, n.d.), from
fall 2000 to fall 2010, the system‟s colleges have experienced a 19% increase in basic
skills credit FTES. When comparing fall 2000-2001 to fall 2010-2011 student headcount
by ethnicity, the system‟s colleges have experienced an increase in Hispanic students
(over 9%) and a decreases in White students (approximately 7%) and students of
unknown ethnicity (approximately 1%). Because the California Community College
system covers a large geographical area, differences throughout the state are expected.
Taking the system‟s many colleges into consideration, I chose to interview basic
skills coordinators from Verde, Plaza, Sunrise and Metropolitan Colleges. The basic
skills coordinators invited to participate in this study were employed at a single college
district and three multi-college districts. Their colleges were located in four different
types of communities: Verde College is located in a rural community; Plaza College is
located in a suburban/urban community; Sunrise College is located in an urban/suburban
community; and Metropolitan College is located in an urban community. Furthermore,
their colleges varied in their fall 2010 semester headcount, including one small college
with less than 10,000 students, two medium colleges that had between 10,000 and 20,000
students, and one large college with over 20,000 students, which reflected the variation in
enrollment among California‟s community colleges. Table 1 displays the variations
between the four colleges in matrix form.
47
Table 1: College Characteristics
College Verde Plaza Sunrise Metropolitan
District Single Multiple Multiple Multiple
Surrounding
Community
Rural Suburban/
Urban
Urban/
Suburban
Urban
Fall 2010
Headcount
Size*
Medium Large Medium Small
*Small = <10,000, Medium = 10,000-20,000, and Large = >20,000 as reported by the
California Community Chancellor‟s Office Data Mart and Reports
(http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartand
Reports/tabid/282/Default.aspx)
The basic skills inaugural regional network names and California Community
College region numbers (i.e., I through X) could be used to identify the colleges and
consequently the identities of the basic skills coordinators; therefore, they are not
disclosed. However, I am at liberty to disclose that the basic skills coordinators included
in this study are employed at colleges from each of the inaugural networks and their
colleges are representative of four California Community College regions.
Descriptions of each college are provided below, followed by the descriptions of
the basic skills coordinators who agreed to participate in this study.
Verde College. Verde College, which is a single college district, is the only
community college included in the sample that is located in a rural community.
According to the Chancellor‟s Office Data Mart system (CCCCO, n.d.), from fall 2000 to
fall 2011, Verde‟s basic skills credit FTES increased by approximately 32%. Verde‟s
overall headcount from 2000-2001 to 2000-2011 is down by approximately 3,500
students. The most significant changes in student headcount by ethnicity are Hispanic
(increased approximately 2%) and White (decreased by more than 3%).
48
Verde College‟s coordinator Tina – a Caucasian female non-teaching faculty
member – was recommended as a participant in this study because her regional
coordinator considered her to be open-minded and willing to listen. According to her
regional coordinator, Tina had a strong vision for the basic skills program and guided
Verde‟s faculty and leaders by that vision.
Plaza College. Plaza College, which is part of a multi-college district, is located
in a community that is mostly suburban (i.e., residential), but local businesses in the
community warrant the classification of suburban/urban. According to the Chancellor‟s
Office Data Mart system (CCCCO, n.d.), between the fall 2000 and fall 2011 semester,
Plaza‟s basic skills credit FTES has increased by less than 1% – the smallest increase in
the study‟s sample. Plaza‟s headcount from 2000-2001 to 2010-2011 increased by
approximately 2,000. During the same period, student headcount for Hispanics increased
(more than 13%), whereas the headcount percentages decreased for Asians (about 4%),
Whites (approximately 4%), and students of unknown ethnicity (approximately 2%).
Carrie‟s regional coordinator described Carrie – a Caucasian female administrator
– as a dynamic, well organized, upbeat, and positive coordinator who led a large basic
skills committee that had involvement from the entire college community. She was also
known as someone who listens well, has a high tolerance for ambiguity, and could handle
many tasks at once. Carrie was also viewed as being thick skinned, flexible to work with,
but not willing to compromise on her standards. Through her sense of humor, she was
able to motivate people to try new methods related to basic skills, yet she was strategic in
what initiatives she was willing to fund. Carrie was not interested in pet projects, but in
projects that would fit into the overall basic skills plan.
49
Sunrise College. Sunrise College, which is part of a multi-college district, is
located in a community that is mostly urban, but has a local residential community that
would classify it as urban/suburban. According to the Chancellor‟s Office Data Mart
system (CCCCO, n.d.), between the fall 2000 and fall 2011 semester, Sunrise‟s basic
skills credit FTES had the largest increase of the sample – nearly 60%. Between 2000-
2001 and 2010-2011, Sunrise‟s headcount increased by approximately 5,000. The
student headcount for Hispanic students increased by over 13%, whereas the headcount
percentages decreased for African American (approximately 4%), White (approximately
4%), and students of unknown ethnicity (about 2%).
Rain‟s regional coordinator described Rain – a Caucasian female faculty member
– as having the ability to coordinate major projects while affecting campus culture. She
was depicted as an effective facilitator with good ideas who would also collaborate with
people to fine tune and develop plans to implement projects. Rain had the ability to share
ideas with her committee in a non-intrusive way, which demonstrated to her regional
coordinator that she understood her college‟s culture. Rain was described as someone
who worked well with her team, incorporating their ideas about campus projects.
According to her regional coordinator, Rain listened to her team‟s ideas, but did not
expect them to develop the project on their own. Instead, she gathered ideas from team
members, summarized them in a draft document and presented it back to them for
confirmation. Rain‟s regional coordinator described Rain as having more support from
her college community than did the other Basic Skills Coordinators in the region.
Metropolitan College. Metropolitan College, which is part of a multi-college
district, is located in an urban community. According to the Chancellor‟s Office Data
50
Mart system (CCCCO, n.d.), between the fall 2000 and fall 2011 semester,
Metropolitan‟s basic skills credit FTES increased by nearly 50%. Between 2000-2011
and 2010-2011, Metropolitan‟s headcount increased by approximately 5,000.
Metropolitan College‟s White students increased (over 7%) and African American
students increased (nearly 2%). Although Hispanic students more than doubled in total
headcount during this period, Hispanic students decreased as a percentage of the student
body (approximately 5%), as did Asians (approximately 1%), and students of unknown
ethnicity (2%).
Doug – a non-Caucasian male faculty member – was described by his regional
coordinator as knowledgeable about the needs of students, as well as having the capacity,
ability, and incentive to build out the basic skills program. He was considered to be a
strong leader and communicator, possessing the ability to identify leaders willing to
support student needs, and demonstrating a strong awareness of what happens in and out
of the classroom. Doug was also viewed as successful in providing direction to the entire
basic skills program (not just his own discipline) because he came across as sincere in his
efforts, knowledgeable, and credible.
Of the basic skills coordinators included in this study, two are teaching faculty,
one is non-teaching faculty, and one is an administrator. Furthermore, three are
Caucasian females and one is a non-Caucasian male. Table 3 displays the variation
among the four basic skills coordinators in matrix form.
51
Table 2: Profiles of Basic Skills Coordinators
Tina
(Verde College)
Carrie
(Plaza College)
Rain
(Sunrise
College)
Doug
(Metropolitan
College)
Gender Female Female Female Male
Ethnicity Caucasian Caucasian Caucasian Non-
Caucasian
Status Non-teaching
Faculty
Administrator Teaching
Faculty
Teaching
Faculty
Each coordinator agreed to participate in this study and was sent a pre-interview
survey for basic skills coordinators (Appendix D).
Instrumentation
I relied on a combination of document review, interviews, observations, and field
notes as sources of data for this study. Face-to-face interviews were the primary research
instrument. However, in order to develop the interview protocol, a thorough
understanding of resources available to basic skills coordinators was necessary. To that
end, each instrument used in this study is discussed below.
Document review of basic skills artifacts. I performed a document review of
the basic skills artifacts – or resources –that the Basic Skills Initiative created to assist
California Community Colleges in fulfilling the goals of the BSI. The first BSI artifact
reviewed was Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community
College, which this study refers to as the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). The
second BSI artifact reviewed was Constructing a Framework for Success: A Holistic
Approach to Basic Skills, which this study refers to as the Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks
& Alancraig, 2008a). The third BSI artifact reviewed was Student Success in Community
52
Colleges: A Practical Guide to Developmental Education (Boroch et al., 2010). The last
BSI artifact reviewed in this study was the Basic Skills Website.
Basic skills report. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) was the result
of a collaborative effort by the RP Group, as well as faculty, staff, and administrators
from colleges throughout the state to address the goal of student success and readiness in
the California Community Colleges System Strategic Plan (CCCCO, 2006). This section
of the literature review will provide information about two major sections of the Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) that inform this study: the Review of the Literature &
Effective Practices and the Assessment Tool for Effective Practices in Basic Skills. These
two components provide educators with insight into which basic skills practices work
across the state and how to measure the effectiveness of practices. In the discussion of
the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), explicit instructions and implied actions
will be reviewed. The Basic Skills Report‟s (Boroch et al., 2007) implicit instructions
and implied actions are vital for this study because they provide a point of comparison to
determine whether or not basic skills coordinators‟ actions are consistent with the Basic
Skills Report‟s (Boroch et al., 2007) goal of fostering a culture of inquiry that leads to
organizational learning.
Review of literature & effective practices. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al.,
2007) begins with a comprehensive review of the status of basic skills education
nationally and in California. Basic skills and effective practices are defined in this report.
The Basic Skills Report‟s (Boroch et al., 2007) definition of basic skills moves away
from the remedial and developmental definition and defines it as foundational skills
needed to succeed in college-level work. Effective practices refer to activities validated
53
by research and literature sources related to developmental education at highly successful
programs in organizational, administrative, instructional, or support activities (Boroch et
al., 2007). The review of literature and effective practices is divided into four major
sections which are explored below.
Organizational and administrative practices. The first section of the Basic Skills
Report (Boroch et al., 2007) literature review is Organizational and Administrative
Practices. This section provides an overview of effective institutional practices related to
the structure of basic skills program and the overall effectiveness of programs focused on
developmental education. Several effective practices are outlined in this section – each
containing corresponding research findings.
Program components. Basic Skills Program Components is the focus of the
second section of the Basic Skills Report (2007) literature review. This section includes
sub-sections that are characteristic of effective developmental education programs as well
as the research findings of each component.
Staff development. The third section of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al.,
2007) literature review focuses on staff development. This section highlights the
importance of comprehensive training and development. Effective staff development
practices are highlighted and research findings are provided for each practice.
Instructional practices. The topic of the final section of the Basic Skills Report
(Boroch et al., 2007) literature review is Instructional Practices. The Basic Skills Report
(Boroch et al., 2007) identified key instructional practices effective in achieving student
success in developmental programs.
54
The literature review in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) identified 26
effective practices and served as the basis for the self-assessment tool, which will be
described thoroughly in the following section.
Assessment tool of effective practices in basic skills. The Self-Assessment Tool is
comprised of six components: 1) a matrix of baseline measures, 2) four broad sections
that mirror the literature review (Organizational and Administrative Practices, Program
Components, Staff Development, and Instructional Practices), 3) effective practices
related to basic skills, 4) suggested strategies for achieving the effective practices
described in the literature review
1
, 5) questions designed to assist colleges with
evaluating their relationship to the prompts
2
, and 6) a cumulative planning matrix to use
at the end of each section
3
.
1
For example, in Section B “Program Components,” Effective Practice B.2 “Regular
program evaluations are conducted, results are disseminated widely, and data are used to
improve practice” has five suggested strategies related to effective practices (Boroch et
al., 2007, p. 116). For Strategy B.2.5, “Data obtained from course/program evaluation
are disseminated and used for future planning and continuous improvement” (Boroch et
al., 2007, p.116). The self-assessment tool asks respondents to describe where the
strategy occurs at the college. Respondents were instructed to answer “does not occur,”
“institution-wide” or list where it does occur (e.g., department or program level) (Boroch
et al., 2007, p, 116).
2
Prompts for the five strategies under Effective Practice B.2 (Regular program
evaluations are conducted, results are disseminated widely, and data are used to improve
practice) include questions such as “What evidence exists to support the efficacy of this
practice? and “What barriers/limitations exist to implementing or enhancing this
practice?” (Boroch et al., 2007, p.116).
3
Colleges are directed to use the planning matrices to plan for changes, enhancements,
and modifications. Each section matrix corresponds to the last question of the effective
practice subsections: “How might this practice be advanced or expanded upon in the
future?” The matrices record the college‟s planned actions, effective practice strategies,
the status of the planned action (e.g., new, change, or expansion), the start date, current
55
The purpose of the self-assessment is reflection and understanding – colleges are
instructed to use the self-assessment tool to better understand the institution‟s current
practices and reflect on their effectiveness (Boroch et al., 2007). The self-assessment tool
was designed to encourage “institutions to examine the scope and efficacy of their current
practices” (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 98). The architects envisioned that the reflective and
planning processes would be guided by meetings involving campus-wide constituents
(Boroch et al., 2007, p. 99):
The reflection and planning processes should incorporate a variety of college
constituents who will need to meet to discuss the various effective practices
included in the tool. Open exploration of how various areas of the college can
contribute to and improve success rates of developmental students is essential,
and these meetings are a crucial venue for an inclusive discovery process.
Responses to the assessment tool should flow directly from these meetings. Each
section begins with a list of suggested participants. Upon completion of each
section, the college should identify who contributed to that portion of the
college‟s self-assessment.
How the self-assessment tool is used at the campus level. First, colleges were
asked to complete the baseline measures on the Data for Developmental Education matrix
(Boroch et al., 2007), which was designed for colleges to report their “aggregate data on
all developmental education students, course offerings, and staffing” (Boroch et al., 2007,
p. 101). It was also designed to collect optional measures at the discipline level (e.g.,
developmental mathematics, English, reading, writing, ESL, and study skills) so that
college constituents would reflect on current practices that affect student success in their
basic skills classes. Next, the institutions assessed their current practices using the self-
assessment of effective practices and related strategies (Boroch et al., 2007, pp. 105-138).
measures of effectiveness (baseline), projected measures (benchmark), the date for the
projected measure, persons responsible, budget requested, and priority.
56
Finally, the institutions completed the four planning matrices (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 113,
119, 126, 138).
The second part of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) self-assessment
was designed to allow each college to assess current practices using the self-assessment
of effective practices and related strategies. The California Community College
Chancellor‟s Office required that California Community Colleges certify that they would
complete the self-assessment, action plan, and expenditure plan in order to receive BSI
funds. To fulfill this requirement, colleges were asked to compare their current practices
with the effective practices listed in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 100).
After colleges reported where the strategies existed, they were instructed to assess their
effective practices. Each college was asked to respond to four major prompts designed to
lead the institution to their priorities for change. Institutions were prompted for a
description of how effective practices occur and exist. Then they were asked to identify
existing evidence to support the efficacy of those practices. Next, institutions needed to
identify barriers and limitations to incorporating effective practices. The last prompt
asked how effective practices might be advanced or expanded upon in the future (Boroch
et al., 2007, p. 100).
The final component of the self-assessment is comprised of planning matrices
(Boroch et al., 2007, p. 100). Completing the matrices required colleges to first decide
which actions to include and then to prioritize them. The Basic Skill Initiative‟s self-
assessment tool was designed to capture the results of open exploration, reflection, and
planning processes of basic skills practices at the local level.
57
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) was designed by research, planning,
and assessment professionals with the help of faculty, staff, and administrative
constituents from various community colleges throughout the state of California. The
team used quantitative and qualitative data to frame the problem, design performance
metric tools, and report basic skills best practices within several California Community
Colleges and at nine colleges nationwide.
4
The self-assessment tool advocates for regular
meetings involving campus-wide constituents (Boroch et al., 2007). Using the tool,
campus-wide constituents are instructed to discuss and engage in dialogue with one
another to analyze how their efforts compare with effective practices highlighted in the
Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007).
Explicit instructions and their implied actions. Explicit instructions and their
implied actions are vital in understanding the goal of fostering a culture of inquiry that
leads to organizational learning. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) explicitly
directs campus constituents to engage in novel ways to address problems at the local level
such as with reflection and open exploration. These activities carry special meaning in
organizational learning and sensemaking literature.
The architects of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) addressed the
report broadly to all college constituents and did not explicitly mention who would be
ultimately responsible for overseeing the completion of the components. That is, the
4
Massachusetts Bay Community College, MA; Community College of Denver, CO;
Greenville Technical College, SC; Metropolitan College, NE; Normandale Community
College, MN; Queensborough Community College, NY; Schoolcraft College, MI;
Valencia Community College, FL; and The Kellogg Institute, Appalachian State
University, NC.
58
architects did not clarify who would be responsible for ensuring that the baseline data in
the Data for Developmental Education matrix, the 26 Effective Practice inventories, and
the four Planning Matrices were completed according to the directions provided in the
Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). College constituents were explicitly told to
engage in open exploration (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 99) and reflection (Boroch et al.,
2007, p. 6, 98, and 99). These explicit instructions translate implicitly into creating and
maintaining a culture of inquiry. The architects of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al.,
2007) gave directions to the colleges that were consistent with past practices. The Basic
Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) provided information and funding, but left the who
and the how-to up to the individual colleges. In essence, the design of the Basic Skills
Report acknowledged that there are 72 community college districts and 109 individual
community colleges in the system (at the time) and that each institution operates in a
unique manner.
The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) offered some guidance to colleges
on the implementation of the self-assessment tool, but did not discuss the role of basic
skills coordinator at the campus level or provide details regarding the future activities
once the self-assessment process ended. The inclusion of planning matrices was evidence
of the Basic Skills Report‟s (Boroch et al., 2007) intention that individual colleges
develop and carry out their individual plans developed from the exercise, but the report
lacked post-assessment activities. The instructions provided with the self-assessment tool
described activities that needed to occur during assessment – such as holding regular
assessment meetings, answering questions, completing the matrices, and planning – but
the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) disregarded post-planning steps and more
59
importantly, lacked details regarding other activities the basic skills coordinator would
have to engage in to carry out in their role. More importantly, the role of basic skills
coordinators was not mentioned in the report.
The intent of the self-assessment tool was reflection (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 98):
The purpose of the self-assessment tool is to allow colleges to reflect on how their
current practices fit with and reflect the findings from the literature regarding
effective practices for basic skills students. The reflection encourages institutions
to examine the scope and efficacy of current practices.
Each section of the self-assessment tool contained the same instructions (Boroch
et al., 2007, pp. 106-137):
The following strategies were cited in the literature review as promoting this
effective practice. Determine the extent to which your institution uses these
strategies by completing the table below. Specify ALL levels at which the
strategy is exists/occurs by listing the programs and/or departments which employ
the strategy. If the strategy is employed consistently throughout the institution,
indicate “institution-wide.” If the strategy is not currently employed by your
institution, simply indicate “does not occur.”
Four probes encouraged reflective discussion by asking respondents to: 1) briefly
describe how each practice occurs/exists at the institution, 2) provide existing evidence
that supports the efficacy of the practice, 3) explain existing barriers/limitations to
implementing each practice, and 4) infer how the practice might be advanced or
expanded upon in the future (Boroch et al., 2007, pp. 106-137). These explicit
instructions contain implied instructions for educators to think critically about their
current practices and how they measure up to effective practices provided in the literature
review. As part of this process, they were required to consider the shortcomings of
current basic skills practices. They were also required to consider what additional steps
the college could take to serve basic skills students better. The expectation was that they
60
would be specific about the ways in which their college serve students, fail to serve
students and that they would identify where potential exists for improving student
services.
The architects of the report suggested that a variety of college constituents
participate in the self-assessment. “Open exploration of how various areas of the college
can contribute to and improve success rates of developmental students is essential, and
these meetings are a crucial venue for an inclusive discovery process” (Boroch et al.,
2007, p. 99). It was, therefore, important that the college self-assessment was not
conducted in isolation. Meetings were critical in conducting an accurate self-assessment
of how the college‟s current basic skills practices measure up to effective practices
identified in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). It was suggested that multiple
meetings take place in answering the self-assessment tool. Anyone in the delivery of
services to basic skills students should be included in these meetings. The explicit
instructions implied that educators who took part in the discovery process consider how
the delivery of services to basic skills students could be improved.
In 2007, when the self-assessment tool was introduced to California Community
Colleges, the Basic Skills Initiative was a single year activity. In order to receive BSI
funding, the Chancellor‟s Office required that each community college submit a self-
assessment and planning matrix in response to the effective practices in the literature
review. The Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) did not mention the role of basic
skills coordinator or that the BSI would be a long-term effort. Explicit instructions
necessary for fostering a culture of inquiry to complete the self-assessment and planning
process were consequently implied instructions of how to carry out the initiative once it
61
became a multi-year effort. When the role of basic skills coordinator was suggested by
the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges to community colleges (Fulks
& Alancraig, 2008c), the role was also charged with fostering a culture of inquiry at the
campus level. (The expectation of this role was explicit in the handbook (Fulks &
Alancraig, 2008a) and guide (Boroch et al., 2010), which will be explored as part of
document analysis in this study.)
Summary. According to the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) learning
from peer institutions and holding regular meetings are critical self-assessment steps.
Learning from peer institutions and regular meetings allow for inquiry and reflection to
occur. Both activities are social and provide opportunities for understanding the extent of
institutional problems and opportunities. The literature review and self-assessment tool
provide colleges with resources that aid the process of learning from peer institutions.
Exploring the basic skills activities of other colleges is important for self-evaluation
because it allows colleges to learn alternative ways through which educators approach
basic skills reform. Visits to other colleges are important for two reasons. First, they
allow the committee site visit members to learn from these other college. Second,
committee members who make site visits can play a key role in fostering “professional
conversations” with members of the college community who did not attend the site visits
(Cohen et al., 2003). It is these professional conversations that may lead to accepted
systematic change.
Meetings are a potential solution for role clarity because they provide a venue for
committee members to respond to an assessment socially. According to the Basic Skills
Report (Boroch et al., 2007), meetings are integral to the process because they “are a
62
crucial venue for an inclusive discovery process” (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 99). Actions
such as taking the time to understand the best practice models, comparing a college‟s
basic skills response to the effective practice models, encouraging minority opinion, and
encouraging committee members to participate in site visits are consistent with actions a
basic skills coordinator might take to fulfill their role as defined by the Basic Skills
Report (Boroch et al., 2007). Basic skills coordinators who exhibit these actions are
leading inquiry/organizational learning consistent with the Basic Skills Initiative.
Basic skills handbook. The Constructing a Framework for Success: A Holistic
Approach to Basic Skills handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a), which I refer to as the
Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) throughout this dissertation was
introduced after the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). The Basic Skills
Handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) was published by the Academic Senate for
California Community Colleges as a resource for faculty, student services personnel, and
administrators. The handbook provides more direction on the how-to of implementing
the Basic Skills Initiative at the local level and on the role of the basic skills coordinator.
This section of the literature review will discuss two chapters of the Basic Skills
Handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) that provide direction on developing a culture of
inquiry and on the role of the basic skills coordinator.
Developing a culture of inquiry. The second chapter of the Basic Skills Handbook
(Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) is entitled Overview: Planning for Success and Developing a
Culture of Inquiry (Alancraig, Fulks, & Pacheco, 2009). The chapter was developed for
basic skills coordinators and constituents interested in creating a culture of inquiry related
to basic skills. This chapter of the Basic Skills Handbook (Alancraig et al., 2009) is
63
comprised of an introduction on planning for the successful establishment of a culture of
inquiry, a quiz, instructions for the creation of a culture of inquiry at the local level,
including information about modeling, creating inquiry teams, organizational learning
and equity, as well as organizational learning and how it relates to the Basic Skills
Initiative. This chapter also includes a case study that allows colleges to practice the
skills needed to create a culture of inquiry
5
prior to attempting to create it on their
individual campuses. The chapter concludes with a sample action plan, equity plan, and a
basic skills research agenda from three community colleges.
Chapter two of the Basic Skills Handbook (Alancraig et al., 2009) begins with a
description of the most significant problem that most colleges experience with
developmental education: the “lack of a coordinated, focused, and systematic effort”
(Alancraig et al., 2009, p. 2). The authors did not focus on the lack of preparedness of
students but instead agreed with the Academic Senate for California Community
College's finding that institutions are under-prepared to address the needs of basic skills
students (Alancraig et al., 2009). This chapter defines a “culture of inquiry” as a culture
where all constituents are interested in questioning their assumptions about student
learning.
The authors cited Bauman‟s findings that organizational learning occurs when
three conditions exist. The three conditions are that colleges must be willing to: 1)
collect new knowledge about an issue, 2) question and explore existing ways of
5
The sample case includes an executive summary of a fictitious community college
including data, ARCC data, equity plan and data, a completed 5 year plan, and an action
plan and expenditure plan.
64
conducting business on the campus, and 3) create teams that share and disseminate new
knowledge gained through asking questions, hypothesis testing, and analyzing results
(Bauman, 2005, pp. 23-56). Effective leadership is critical for creating a culture of
inquiry because leaders must be willing to recruit other campus leaders (Alancraig et al.,
2009) to learn how to improve the existing basic skills program.
Accountability and Report for Community Colleges (ARCC) data and measures
are discussed in this chapter. Chapter two of the Basic Skills Handbook (Alancraig et al.,
2009) also includes a listing of suggested initial pieces of evidence – and their
descriptions – that campus constituents could use to begin a culture of inquiry. The list
includes the basic skills action plan, ARCC data, a student equity plan and other college-
wide data on student success, retention, SLOs and assessment.
Basic skills coordinators. Chapter eighteen of the Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks
& Alancraig, 2008b) – More on Basic Skills Coordinators: Sustaining the Architect – is
dedicated to the role of the basic skills coordinator. The authors of this chapter (Fulks &
Alancraig, 2008b), discuss the role of the basic skills coordinator in relation to two sets of
data: the results of a study by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
and information obtained from facilitated regional training events.
In 2008, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges emailed a
Basic Skills Coordinator/Leader Survey to academic senate presidents and previously
identified basic skills coordinators at 109 community colleges (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b
; Fulks & Alancraig, 2008c). The survey consisted of 21 questions. The first survey
question asked if the college had a basic skills coordinator. If the respondent answered
affirmatively, they were asked to respond to nine additional questions about the position.
65
All respondents were asked to respond to the remaining 11 questions whether or not their
college had a basic skills coordinator. These were general questions about the
knowledge, skills, ability, and education/experience the respondents felt were necessary
for the basic skills coordinator to possess. Respondents were asked to evaluate the status
of their campus with regard to a variety of basic skills efforts on a Likert scale.
Numerical values were associated with the following responses: not yet begun, beginning
to develop, developed on most of the campus, developed campus-wide, and well
developed and integrated into campus decision-making. Respondents were also asked to
give their recommendation on a list of training strategies that would benefit the basic
skills coordinator, to comment on other types of support that would benefit the
coordinator, and to prioritize a list of training opportunities that would assist the basic
skills coordinator.
The statewide academic senate received responses from 42 different California
Community Colleges (or approximately 40% of all colleges in the system). Of the 42
colleges, 18 colleges reported having a designated basic skills coordinator position.
Fulks and Alancraig (2008b, p. 3) added:
Extrapolated to the entire system, this would indicate that 43% or less than
half of the colleges have a person designated to coordinate this effort. (It
may be higher than this if colleges that did not respond failed to do so
because they had no coordinator to answer the specific details included in
the questionnaire.)
The survey results revealed that a variety of models for coordinating basic skills
efforts exist at the campus level with several colleges having no central or institutional
wide basic skills effort (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). The overwhelming majority (over
93%) of basic skills coordinators were faculty. One college had a faculty coordinator
66
who received 100% reassigned time, one college had an administrator who served as the
coordinator, and another college split the basic skills duties between a faculty chair for
the student success committee and a coordinator who was an administrator.
The basic skills coordinators obtained the position in many ways. Among the 18
basic skills coordinators identified in the survey, five were appointed by an administrator,
three were appointed by their local academic senate, three were hired through an official
hiring process, two were appointed by a committee, two were appointed “in conjunction
with an administrator and Senate,” two were transferred from another committee
position, and one volunteered to fill the role (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b, p. 7). The study
also found that 15 of 18 coordinators had input, oversight, or control of the basic skills
categorical budget (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b).
The study revealed that the majority of the basic skills coordinators (13) held the
position for one and a half years or less. Six coordinators held the position for one
academic term or less, three held the position for two to four years, and two held the
position for five to six years. Of the 18 basic skills coordinators who responded to the
survey, eight – or approximately 44% – did not know how long their assignment would
last, one coordinator was permanent, three coordinators held the position for a one to one
and a half year academic term, and two coordinators served in the position for two years.
The results of this survey also revealed that most of the coordinators‟ positions (66.7%)
were funded through the basic skills funding, however some colleges leveraged other
resources to fund the position. Of the 18 survey respondents, two (one faculty and one
administrator) held an 100% assignment as basic skills coordinator, four received 50-75%
reassigned time, four coordinators received 25-50% reassigned time, one received less
67
than 25% reassigned time, one received an (unspecified) overload assignment, two
received stipends at $1,500 per academic term, and four did not receive reassigned time.
Survey comments from faculty coordinators indicated that when reassigned time is
limited, faculty have insufficient time to carry out the role. Basic skills coordinators
revealed that the uncertainty over the position‟s duration was problematic.
6
The goals of
the Basic Skills Initiative are long term and would require systematic change at some
colleges. Creating systematic change is not possible for a coordinator who holds the
position for a short duration and/or has limited or no release time to carry out the work.
The faculty basic skills coordinator. The Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks &
Alancraig, 2008a) identified the coordinator role as one of leadership; however survey
comments stressed that the responsibilities of the role cannot be accomplished on top of a
full-time teaching load (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). The leadership position requires
developing relationships with campus-wide constituencies and getting buy-in from
discipline faculty (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). The authors argued that the basic skills
coordinator role is “a good fit for faculty” due to the importance they “play in
development and review of curriculum and programs” (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b).
“Defining the role as a faculty position allows the leadership to bubble up and occur
closer to the student” (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). While the authors acknowledged that
“successful coordination has occurred through administrative basic skills coordinators,
and integrated administrative leadership is essential,” they cautioned that administrative
basic skills coordinators could give the “appearance of top-down leadership and must be
6
Some job descriptions did not have end dates, while others were advertised for a single
academic term.
68
carefully considered with relation to the college culture” (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b, p.
6).
The survey results also revealed that the majority of respondents (16 to 23
respondents depending on the question) felt that their campus had begun to develop
twelve of the fourteen basic skills areas listed on the survey (planning process,
implementation of basic skills as a program, and coordinating counseling services to
basic skills for example). Seven to fourteen respondents (depending on the question)
revealed that their colleges had not yet begun work in the following six areas: 1) outreach
to potential unidentified basic skills students, 2) orientation to basic skills students, 3)
coordinating counseling services to basic skills, 4) integration of ESL program with basic
skills support, 5) organization of basic skills study classes, 6) monitoring student progress
through basic skills, and 7) coordination of basic skills program with other existing
programs and services. Furthermore, the majority (15) responded that their campus had
developed a process for identifying basic skills students and coordinating tutoring
services for basic skills students.
Knowledge of current issues and opportunities in basic skills for California
Community Colleges, skills in preparing effective written reports and correspondence, as
well as the ability to motivate faculty, staff, and colleagues to continually improve
programs and services and establish and maintain effective working relationships were
identified by over 90% of survey respondents (36 to 38 respondents depending on the
question) as important for the basic skills coordinator to possess. An overwhelming
percentage of respondents (94.9%) indicated that basic skills coordinators required a
“commitment to provide instruction for students with diverse abilities and interests”
69
along with the “[p]ersonal qualities to work effectively and sensitively in a multicultural
academic environment” (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b, p. 30).
The surveys provided valuable information regarding the types of training that
were important for basic skills coordinators. Shortly after, seven BSI regional trainings
sessions were conducted. Facilitated discussions provided additional data on basic skills
coordinators and coordination. Feedback from the regional Basic Skills Initiative
trainings revealed that some colleges experienced difficulties accessing the previous
year‟s basic skills budget, some budgeting occurred “without adequate institution-wide
discussion” and “funding and budgeting of basic skills allocations” was not well
understood by some colleges (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b, p. 7).
The Basic Skills Initiative Summer Leadership Institute (BSILI) is a statewide
conference offered by the Basic Skills Initiative to basic skills coordinators and
individuals involved with basic skills programs. The BSI holds workshops and trainings,
and maintains a support network for basic skills coordinators and others involved in the
Basic Skills Initiative. In August 2008, 21 of the 27 people who attended the breakout
session identified themselves as basic skills coordinators (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b).
This level of representation of basic skills coordinators at BSI events reflects the recent
trend of colleges creating and funding basic skills coordinator positions (Fulks &
Alancraig, 2008b). The BSILI provides opportunities for basic skills coordinators to
share information and learn from one another. A focus of the August 2008 breakout
session was related to the role of the coordinator. Attendees at the breakout session
identified four core challenges in carrying out their role: 1) creating buy-in, 2) involving
part-time faculty, 3) creating useful strategies for distributing funding, and 4)
70
communicating issues related to basic skills across the college. Break out session
participants produced a list of solutions to the identified core challenges that included
activities that basic skills coordinators could utilize. Solutions included soliciting
feedback from students, defining basic skills for the campus, and communicating basic
skills knowledge across campus.
Student success in community colleges. In 2010, Jossey-Bass released Student
Success in Community Colleges: A practical guide to developmental education, which I
will refer to as the Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010). The authors who produced
the guide (Boroch et al., 2010) include the RP Group and two authors who wrote the
Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). The Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010) is
an “integrative review of literature in the field of developmental education as it relates to
community colleges” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 2). The guide employs the American
Educational Review Association‟s (2006) definition of integrative review of literature as
one that (American Educational Review Association, 2006 as cited in Boroch et al., 2010,
p. 2):
[P]ulls together the existing work on an educational topic and works to understand
trends in that body of scholarship. In such a review, the author[s] describe how
the issue is conceptualized within the literature, how research methods and
theories have shaped the outcomes of scholarship, and what the strengths and
weaknesses of the literature are.
Effective practices refer to “[o]rganizational, administrative, instructional, or
support activities engaged in by highly successful programs, as validated by research and
literature sources relating to developmental education” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 3). The
Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010) was written for community college practitioners,
but a section entitled “Beyond California” suggests it had a broader reach.
71
There are striking similarities between the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al.,
2007) and the Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010); however there are also noticeable
differences. For instance, the Basic Skills Guide has two parts rather than three (Boroch
et al., 2010): effective practices and tools for planning. The Basic Skills Guide (Boroch
et al., 2010) expanded the four subject areas mentioned in the Basic Skills Report
(Boroch et al., 2007) into five subject areas. Effective instructional practices found in the
Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) were divided into two areas (instructional
practices and student support services and strategies) in the guide. The section on
effective staff development in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) was renamed
as professional learning and development. In addition, effective strategies were
renumbered in the guide (e.g., C.5 in the report – Faculty development is clearly
connected to intrinsic and extrinsic faculty reward structures – became 5.4 in the guide).
Another difference between the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) and the Basic
Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010) was that the section on brain-based research, that
informs instructional design, was added as an effective instructional practice. (This topic
was discussed in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), but not listed as an
effective strategy.)
The Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010) provides a historical understanding
of the Basic Skills Initiative, which is particularly helpful for understanding the
developmental stages of the initiative. In the subsection that follows, I provide a
condensed version of the history of the initiative found in the Basic Skills Guide (Boroch
et al., 2010).
72
Basic skills initiative. Three events led to the development and funding of the
Basic Skills Initiative. First, the Board of Governor‟s (BOG) adopted a new strategic
plan for California Community Colleges, which included a goal for strengthening student
success and readiness for college-level courses. Second, the BOG approved raising the
state minimum English and mathematics graduation requirements for students earning
associates degrees. Under the new standards that went into effect in fall 2009, students
earning an associate‟s degree are required to demonstrate a minimum level of proficiency
in freshman English composition and complete intermediate level algebra. Finally, “a
coalition of statewide organizations collaborated on a plan to address the needs of
developmental education in CCCs” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 6). This coalition, that was
composed of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, chief
instructional officers, chief student services officers, and the RP Group, “developed the
Basic Skills Initiative with the objective of balancing a concerted effort to improve
outcomes in developmental education with the increased requirements of the new
graduation standards” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 6). “This plan was embraced and funded
by the CCC chancellor‟s office, initially with a planning grant and eventually with a
combination of funding for the statewide and local initiatives” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 6).
There were three phases of the Basic Skills Initiative.
The first phase of the Basic Skills Initiative was led by the RP Group with
guidance from the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, chief
instructional officers, and chief student services officers. After the Basic Skills Report
(Boroch et al., 2007) was produced, the self-assessment tool was piloted at 12 community
colleges before the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) was finalized.
73
In the second phase of the BSI, a statewide steering committee composed of CCC
stakeholders was formed to provide guidance to the BSI. In this phase of the BSI, efforts
were focused on familiarizing CCCs with the literature review, the self-assessment and
planning process, and the reporting requirements for the use of categorical BSI funds.
Workshops and technical assistance were provided to all CCCs. By spring 2008, all
CCCs had conducted a self-assessment, developed major objectives, and submitted an
annual action plan to the Chancellor‟s Office.
In the third phase of the BSI, additional literature reviews were commissioned on
the topics of: 1) equity and diversity challenges and strategies, 2) high school to college
transition, and 3) the transition from non-credit to credit program and services. Regional
workshops were offered on: 1) the integration of student services and counseling into
basic skills courses and programs, 2) strategies and training for local BSI coordinators,
and 3) the use of outcomes assessment tools. Matrices were developed for identifying
and clarifying pre-collegiate course levels in mathematics and English. Additionally, a
centralized data collection resource on effective practices, strategies, and programs was
initiated in this third phase. The database, which is housed on the California Community
Colleges Chancellor‟s website, includes in-state and out-of-state submissions and can be
searched by “effective practices from the 2007 literature review using key words,
targeted populations, and college demographics” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 7). Table 4
below provides the highlights of the Basic Skills Initiative by phase.
74
Table 3: BSI Highlights from the Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010)
Phase I Phase II Phase III
RP Group led with
guidance from the
Academic Senate for
California Community
Colleges, chief
instructional officers,
and chief student
services officers
Produced Basic Skills
as a Foundation for
Student Success in
California Community
Colleges
o Assessment
tool was piloted
at 12
community
colleges before
revisions were
made
Statewide steering
committee was formed
to provide guidance
Initiative focused on
orienting colleges across
the state to the literature
review, the self-
assessment and planning
process, and the
reporting requirements
for the use of
categorical BSI funds
Workshops and
technical assistance
were provided to all
CCCs
By spring 2008, all
CCCs had conducted a
self-assessment,
developed major
objectives, and
submitted an annual
action plan to the
Chancellor‟s Office
Additional literature
reviews commissioned
on: 1) equity and
diversity challenges
and strategies, 2) high
school to college
transition, and 3) the
transition from non-
credit to credit
program and services.
Regional workshops
on: 1) the integration
of student services and
counseling into basic
skills courses and
programs, 2) strategies
and training for local
BSI coordinators, and
3) use of outcomes
assessment tools.
Matrices were
developed for
identifying and
clarifying pre-
collegiate course levels
in mathematics and
English
Searchable database on
effective practices was
initiated
According to the Guide (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 7):
Phases I through III were all funded by one-year grants from the CCCCO.
Although each phase was informed by the work on the previous phase, there was
no long-range plan for institutionalizing the initiative as a core component of the
state and local programs and services. In the spring of 2007, a small group of
community college professionals began discussing the need for long-term,
ongoing resources for identifying, evaluating, and sharing effective practices and
professional development designed to prepare faculty and staff to implement
those practices.
75
As a result of these conversations and under the umbrella of the RP Group, grants
were secured from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the San Francisco
Foundation, and the Walter S. Johnson Foundation “to support a planning process during
the 2007-08 academic year that brought together representatives of the principal
constituencies that originally had formulated the BSI” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 7).
Representatives of the Chancellor‟s Office, experts, and experienced college practitioners
joined the original BSI constituents and “developed a basic plan for a permanent
infrastructure to support the BSI” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 7). The plan called for a multi-
year effort rather than yearly programming of individual phases. “In transition to the
more permanent infrastructure, the BSI would continue to provide workshops,
consultants for local initiatives, and complete the work initiated in the previous three
phases” (Boroch et al., 2010, pp. 7-8).
Priority was given to expanding “individual colleges‟ capacity to provide
productive, effective, student outcomes-oriented professional development opportunities
for faculty, administrators, and staff” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 8). Mentoring and
consultation services as well as regional and online networks were created for capacity
building. The regional networks played a role in connecting faculty and staff from local
colleges. The online network would allow colleges throughout the state to link with
colleges that shared similar characteristics or “initiatives across regional barriers”
(Boroch et al., 2010, p. 8). The networking opportunities would serve the function of
“ongoing knowledge building and sharing” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 8). An
“implementable-friendly” electronic database – or “knowledge base” – would serve as a
“knowledge loop” for CCC practitioners by connecting in-person regional networks with
76
virtual networks. To bridge any “gap between the data provided by the research staff and
the ability of faculty and staff to understand the use of that research to improve teaching
and support programs and services,” the BSI also addressed building the “capacity for
usable research” (Boroch et al., 2010, pp. 8-9):
Therefore, an essential component of the knowledge-building process would be
developing practitioners‟ ability to use quantitative and qualitative data as
evidence of effectiveness. Training faculty “data coaches” and creating bridges
between research offices and instructional programs and services would be crucial
to success. This culture of evidence would demonstrate the effectiveness of local
initiatives and document the overall progress of the Basic Skills Initiative and its
impact on student equity.
Finally, the BSI plan called for the development of the summer leadership
institute, an intensive training for faculty and administrators in “leadership skills, the use
of data to improve programs and services, models of effective practices, and resources for
professional development” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 9). The guiding principle behind this
network was “all effective professional development is local” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 9).
Therefore, the core function of the network was to build the capacity of CCCs to evaluate
and implement change stimulated at statewide and regional activities. According to the
plan, a central office would be charged with overseeing grant activities, including the
network. Regional coordinators would oversee regional networks. According to the
Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 9):
Initially the coordinators would be involved in an assessment of needs and
available resources for each college in their region, identifying the types of
support that would be most useful for each college, and documenting the
successful programs and services at each college with an eye for expanding the
knowledge base of the network.
The project director‟s responsibilities would include providing “leadership for
building the infrastructure, developing statewide activities, creating partnerships with
77
external professional development resources, developing specific programs and services,
overseeing the work of the regional coordinators, and developing the knowledge base”
(Boroch et al., 2010, p. 9). Under the plan, the statewide leadership and regional
coordinators would be responsible for creating and promoting a research agenda for the
BSI which includes “using metrics on student outcomes and student equity that
demonstrate the effectiveness of programs and services” while documenting “the
relationship of individual professional learning and institutional learning to student
learning” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 10). In 2008, the Chancellor‟s Office released a request
for proposals to lead the plan‟s activities. In December 2008, the Los Angeles
Community College District was chosen to lead the BSI in “2009 and beyond…guided
by a five-year renewable grant designed to continue the work initiated in Phases I, II, and
III while developing a statewide regional network” (Boroch et al., 2010, p. 10). (The
grant is named the California Community College Success Network and is referred to as
3CSN.)
Analysis of the basic skills website. The Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges (ASCCC) created a website for the Basic Skills Initiative that
includes a database of effective practices. The database allows queries on staff
development, student success programs, BSI components included in the literature review
and self-assessment tool, and links to effective practices (ASCCC, 2009). The website
can also be used by basic skills coordinators to submit information directly to the
Chancellor‟s Office.
The Basic Skills Initiative website includes five major sections: events, effective
practices, partners in success, resources, and publications (ASCCC, 2009). The events
78
section provides coordinators or other interested parties access to the events calendar,
regional meetings, archives of regional meetings, and other conferences. The website
allows basic skills coordinators to stay connected to the initiative even if they are unable
to attend regional or other basic skills related meetings (ASCCC, 2009). The effective
practices section consists of the Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a),
effective practices of the four components, the literature review, and the basic skills
effective practices database. The partners in success section includes links and
descriptions of Basic Skills Initiative partners: the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges, the Bay Area Workforce Funding Collaborative, the Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, the Career Ladders Project, and the
Community College Research Center. The resources section includes other sources of
information, including a description of the Basic Skills Initiative project, a guide for
noncredit accountability, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges online
resource list, resources from colleges, and various articles. The publications section
includes the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), the Basic Skills Handbook (Fulks
& Alancraig, 2008a) and two issues of the Basic Skills Initiative Newsletter. The website
provides basic skills coordinators and interested parties with online access to basic skills
information.
Interviews. Qualitative interviews were chosen as the primary research
instrument to allow the basic skills coordinators to express their perspectives of their
experience leading the Basic Skills Initiative in their own words (Taylor & Bogdan,
1984). Interviews allow researchers to “enter into the other person‟s perspective”
(Patton, 2002, p. 341). The role of the researcher in qualitative interviews transcends the
79
duty of collecting data: “the interviewer, not an interview schedule or protocol, is the
research tool” (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 77). Qualitative interviewing “begins with the
assumption that the perspective of others is meaningful, knowable, and able to be made
explicit” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). The interview is an opportunity for the researcher to
enter the interviewee‟s minds and collect their stories. Interviewing was well suited for
this study because the research interests were clear and defined, and the focus of the
research involves past events (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984).
The role of listening and asking appropriate follow-up questions is critical. If a
researcher is not clear about the type of information that will answer the research
questions, the researcher could miss an opportunity for a frank response by the informant.
It is for this reason that Patton cautions that researchers “must learn how to listen when
knowledgeable people are talking” (Patton, 2002, p. 341) because “[t]he quality of the
information obtained during an interview is largely dependent on the interviewer”
(Patton, 2002, p. 341). The interviewer‟s role “entails not merely obtaining answers, but
learning what questions to ask and how to ask them” (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984, p. 77).
Interview protocol. The interview protocol (Appendix E) was developed over a
couple of months, was critiqued in class, and tested during a mock interview with a basic
skills coordinator who was not included in this study. The mock interview provided me
with an opportunity to test questions. It also provided me with an opportunity to debrief
the interview with my chair prior to finalizing the interview protocol. The final interview
protocol consisted of a heading, instructions, research questions, and probes (Creswell,
1994). The interview questions focused on the basic skills coordinator‟s background, the
coordinator role, their college's basic skills committee as it existed and operated during
80
the self-assessment process and meetings, the impact of basic skills on the campus
culture, and basic skills education in the future. The interview protocol was five pages in
length with the interview questions grouped into ten sections.
The first section of the interview protocol consisted of an introduction. In this
section, I introduced myself and the purpose of my study. I informed the subjects of their
rights and my responsibilities to uphold their confidentiality as the researcher. I
explained to the interviewees that the interview would last approximately 90 minutes.
The second section, Background, focused on questions that sought to determine
how basic skills operated and was organized at the colleges before the BSI. In addition, I
asked the coordinators if they had a programmatic budget, to describe the current
environment at the college, and whether basic skills was a priority of the senior
management of their college. These questions were designed to obtain an overview of
the basic skills environment at each college as well as give an overview of the level of
support that basic skills was given at their college. I also inquired about the basic skills
budget because budget issues were identified as a challenge for basic skills coordinators
(Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b).
The third section, Learning the Role of the Coordinator, focused on how the
interviewee was selected as the basic skills coordinator and how they learned to perform
the role. Respondents were asked questions about their involvement in their regional
network. They were asked to provide examples of what they learned at workshops, what
information they brought back to their campuses, how they shared information with
others, and what resulted from their sharing. I also asked them about the obstacles that
they faced as new basic skills coordinators.
81
In the fourth section of the interview protocol, Basic Skills Committee: The Self-
Assessment, I asked the interviewees to think back to when the Basic Skills Initiative
introduced the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) and each college was asked to
evaluate their practices. I provided each interviewee with a description of what was
asked of each college and clarified whether or not the respondent was the basic skills
coordinator at the time and whether or not they were involved in the activity. If the
respondent was involved in the self-assessment activity, I asked them to describe what I
would have seen and heard if I had been in the room during the self-assessment activity.
I also asked the respondents to describe the decision making processes of the committee
for prioritizing its basic skills practices. If the respondent was not involved in the self-
assessment process, I asked them to explain whether or not the basic skills committee
already existed when they first became involved in their basic skills committee, what the
college learned from the self-assessment process, and how the committee developed their
plan. This set of questions was designed to understand the inquiry activities that took
place when the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) was introduced. These
questions also served as a mechanism for understanding the extent of the basic skills
coordinator‟s involvement at their campus since the Basic Skills Initiative was
introduced.
In the fifth section of the interview protocol, Trainings, I followed up with more
questions regarding the types of information that the respondents have obtained from
their regional and statewide trainings as well as what information or practices they have
brought back to their colleges to share with others.
82
In the sixth section, Basic Skills Coordinator Role, I asked the respondents to
describe their typical day, asked them to define what inquiry meant to them as basic skills
coordinators, and to describe an inquiry activity in which they engaged faculty. The
questions in this section of the protocol were intended to understand how the basic skills
coordinator defined inquiry and what inquiry looked like at their college. The questions
were designed to understand what a culture of inquiry looks like at a community college
campus in relation to basic skills. This section of the protocol asked basic skills
coordinators to describe what inquiry meant to them and discuss an inquiry activity that
involved faculty. I asked respondents to describe a time when data led to a specific
change in instruction or in how basic skills are provided.
In the seventh section, Basic Skills Committee Meetings, I asked respondents
several questions about the composition of the basic skills committee, how often they met
and the length of the meetings. Respondents were asked to describe their most recent
meeting and discuss the agenda items and materials that they typically brought to the
meetings. I asked the coordinators to describe what I would experience I were on the
basic skills committee. I also asked if there were subcommittees and, if so, what was the
focus of these subcommittees. I inquired about how the committee evaluates its
effectiveness and whether data, if included in those evaluations, has surprised any of the
committee members. In this section of the protocol I also asked each coordinator what
they knew about the basic skills students at their college.
In the eighth section, Obstacles that you Face and how you Address Them, I asked
the respondents to describe the most difficult aspect of filling the role of basic skills
coordinator and to discuss obstacles that they experienced in using data or asking
83
questions about data. I also asked questions about the level of authority they held, what
skills and characteristics are needed to be an effective basic skills coordinator, and what
enabled them to influence people or get their attention. This section of the protocol was
created because basic skills coordinators across the state had previously identified four
major challenges they faced in fulfilling their roles (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) and I
wanted to explore whether or not these were still common obstacles – and if other
obstacles existed to effectively performing the role of basic skills coordinators. I added
the known obstacles (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) into the probes, but also asked for the
obstacles that each basic skills coordinator faced as a general question so that I could
capture the data in their own words. The questions about power and influence were
added as a result of Dowd et al.‟s article (2009) in which the authors identified that half
of the effective practices listed in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) credited
the practitioner rather than the techniques, programs, or strategies used. Practitioners
were the “underpinning of effective practices” (Dowd et al., 2009, p. 23), therefore,
questions in this section of the interview protocol were included to explore how the basic
skills coordinators viewed their power and influence.
In the ninth section of the interview protocol, Basic Skills Education in the
Future, I asked respondents how their experience serving as the basic skills coordinator
would impact their future approach to basic skills as well as how they felt the delivery of
basic skills would change in the future. Both questions touched on what the basic skills
coordinator had learned in the role and how the experience had changed them.
In the tenth and final section of the interview protocol, Concluding
Remarks/Questions, I informed the interviewees that my list of questions was exhausted
84
and asked them if there was anything that they would like to add about their experience
as the basic skills coordinator, their college, or the Basic Skills Initiative. I also added
one last question: “Are there any questions that I should have asked but didn‟t?” This
section of the protocol was added to allow the basic skills coordinator to provide
additional information that the questions did not cover but they deemed to be important.
The interview protocol was designed to capture an estimated 90 minutes of data.
The protocol provided a summary of the respondent‟s rights and the researcher‟s
responsibilities. Background questions about the Basic Skills Initiative and their
background provided a foundation for understanding the culture at each community
college. Questions about the self-assessment and trainings allowed respondents to
discuss their college‟s basic skills progress. And questions about the coordinator‟s role,
basic skills committee, and obstacles that the coordinator faced and how they addressed
them allowed me greater insight into their experiences.
Observations. Due to the importance the Basic Skills Initiative places on
collaborative practices, my research methodology included an observation of one basic
skills meeting at each coordinator‟s campus. Although the unit of analysis for this study
is the basic skills coordinator, the BSI‟s focus on collaborative practices resulted in my
choosing a holistic observational approach.
My research design included a plan to observe each basic skills coordinator
chairing a basic skills meeting. However, I was only able to observe two of the
coordinators‟ meetings due to the following circumstances: I was not able to view a basic
skills meeting at Metropolitan College because the college no longer held basic skills
committee meetings and I chose not to observe the basic skills meeting at Sunrise College
85
because the coordinator was on sabbatical. Although another person was serving as the
basic skills coordinator at Sunrise College in the coordinator‟s absence, I chose to
interview Rain based on my sampling methods, so I did not feel that it was appropriate to
observe another person serving as the coordinator in Rain‟s absence.
Field notes. Written field notes were part of the methodology plan. Specifically,
I would take minimal notes during the interviews, take thorough notes during
observations of basic skills meetings, and would write out additional notes immediately
after interviews and observations.
Data Collection
One-on-one face-to-face interviews took place between January and February
2011. Face-to-face interviews allowed participants to provide a personal account of their
experiences as the basic skills coordinator and a historical background of basic skills at
their college (Creswell, 1994). In-person interviews were chosen as a method of data
collection to allow observation of the participants‟ facial reaction, body language, and to
allow a more natural flow of conversation. Interviews took place in a variety of campus
locations, different for each basic skills coordinator, including a private office, conference
room, faculty lounge, and classroom. All interviews lasted at least 90 minutes and were
audio recorded and transcribed.
My primary sources of data were transcriptions from the interviews with basic
skills coordinators – each transcript was over 39 pages and included the questions asked,
the respondents‟ answers, as well as notes on hesitations, laughter, and diction changes.
My second sources of data were observation notes of basic skills meetings. I tried to be
as unobtrusive as possible during the meetings and focus my attention on the dynamics of
86
the meetings. In my observations, I drew a quick map of the room and participants,
including where the basic skills coordinator and I sat. I recorded which handouts were
collected and took notes during the meetings. After the meetings, I typed up my notes
and considered them as I developed codes and the stories contained in the following
chapter.
My third sources of data were audio and written recordings of my reactions to the
campus environment, the interview, and observations. Although I had planned on writing
field notes, I found that I could capture more data by recording my thoughts. These
recordings were captured prior to and after my interviews with the basic skills
coordinators and observations of the basic skills meetings. For example, before the
interviews, I described the campus environment and after the interviews or observations,
I recorded my thoughts. The audio recordings were recorded in a stream of
consciousness pattern. Shortly after these recordings, I typed up a summary of my notes.
Data Analysis
“In qualitative analysis several simultaneous activities engage the attention of the
researcher: collecting information from the field, sorting the information into categories,
formatting the information into a story or picture, and actually writing the qualitative
text” (Creswell, 1994, p. 143). In the early stage of data analysis, I found myself
returning to the audio recordings so that I could listen to how the respondent answered
questions. For me, it was a way of reliving the interview experience. I found it helpful to
return to the audio recordings periodically until I learned how to rely on the transcripts as
my primary source for data analysis. I read the transcripts immediately after the
interviews, underlined important sections, and began writing notes. Next, I listened to
87
the audio recordings in conjunction with the transcribed interviews to ensure that they
were accurate. After gaining a holistic understanding of the data, I returned to the
literature review and created a list of topics.
I proceeded by choosing one interview as my starting point for grouping
information into categories (Tesch, 1990). I went through the interview and reviewed my
field notes (i.e., written notes and summaries of audio recordings) and wrote emerging
categories in the margins. I repeated this process for the remaining three interviews.
Next, I created a list of all categories based on my notes from the interviews and
observations. I used the list to cluster similar topics together before creating code names
(i.e., abbreviated topics), which I grouped by research question. I returned to the
transcribed interviews to apply the codes. I imported the interviews into Atlas.ti
(qualitative data analysis software) and used the software to code the data, which I used
to respond to the research questions.
Verification
The researcher is the main instrument of data collection in qualitative studies and
therefore mediates the types of data collected and the manner in which they are analyzed.
To ensure that my research was trustworthy, I took measures to ensure internal and
external validity. Internal validity, the accuracy of the data and whether it matches
reality, is used to measure the credibility of the study.
Multiple sources of information were used to triangulate the data. First, the basic
skills artifacts were used to triangulate the intent of the BSI and to develop the interview
protocol. Next, I relied on face-to-face interviews, observations of basic skills meetings,
and field notes to present case studies and a cross case analysis of the findings.
88
External validity of a study refers to whether or not the results of the study could
be generalized or transferred to other settings. The intent of qualitative research is not to
establish generalizability, but instead to provide unique interpretations. However, thick,
detailed descriptions are provided so that anyone interested in transferability will have a
framework for comparison (Merriam, 1988).
There are limitations to replicating this study. While the selection procedures
outlined in this chapter could be followed by another researcher, there is no guarantee
that the researcher would select the same sample. And if the same sample was selected,
there is no guarantee that the basic skills coordinators would respond to the questions
with the same responses they provided in this study.
To ensure the trustworthiness of results, the researcher‟s subjectivity,
assumptions, and biases must be disclosed. In addition to being a doctoral student, I have
worked in the CCC system in management positions for eleven years. During six of
those years, I served as Title V Hispanic Serving Institutions Director at two community
colleges and was involved in piloting personal development, basic skills English, and
basic skills mathematics courses. I served one year as a matriculation coordinator during
which I increased my awareness of many of the issues related to basic skills such as
retention, persistence, and inequitable outcomes among students of color. As a student
services administrator, I am aware of issues colleges experience related to student
enrollment patterns, including students not taking placement exams that determine their
college entrance mathematics and English levels, not enrolling immediately after taking
the placement exam, and not taking the next basic skills course in the sequence after they
89
have completed one. I am equally aware that most colleges do not have enough basic
skills classes to offer students if they were to change these enrollment patterns.
I have been employed at three California Community Colleges and know from
experience that some educators have negative perceptions of community college basic
skills programs. I am equally aware of educators who are passionate about serving basic
skills students. I currently work as a community college administrator in student
services. In this capacity, I serve on several committees, including enrollment
management, student services council, program review, an accreditation subcommittee, a
shared governance committee to identify and prioritize full-time probationary faculty
positions, and the data team for the Achieving the Dream initiative. During summer
2010, I was also a member of my college‟s basic skills think tank. Through my
experience in project management and on committees, I have a great deal of access to
data (and to a data coach for Achieving the Dream). While there are faculty members on
these committees who also have access to data, I agree that most faculty do not have
access to data and/or may not know where to access the data (Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2009;
RP Group, 2009). I assumed that most basic skills coordinators would also be teaching
faculty members (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). I also concluded that those who had prior
reform or current leadership experience would make effective basic skills coordinators.
Ethical Concerns
Prior to the interviews, I articulated verbally and in writing the objectives of the
research to ensure that the informants understood the scope of the study as well as what
was asked of them; including how I would use the data. I secured the informants‟ written
permission of their participation prior to proceeding with the interviews. The
90
interviewees‟ rights, welfare and wishes were upheld when I made choices regarding the
reporting of data. Most importantly, I guaranteed that the interviewees' identities would
remain confidential. Participation was voluntary. Study procedures were reviewed and
approved by the University of Southern California‟s Institutional Review Board to ensure
ethical considerations of the subjects were met.
To respect the confidentiality of the research subjects, pseudonyms were used for
all participants. Also, I chose to present college characteristics in a broad rather than
narrow manner. Two examples of this are: 1) rather than reporting the actual number of
FTES, I presented increases over the last ten years and 2) rather than presenting the exact
student headcount by ethnicity, I presented the change in percentage of students.
Maximum variation sampling yields two types of findings: descriptions of each
case and shared patterns (Patton, 2002). The results of this study are presented in two
chapters. Detailed descriptions of each case study are presented in Chapter 4. In Chapter
5, I present the shared patterns which cut across the cases.
91
CHAPTER 4
Results
The previous chapter described the qualitative research design of this study and
explained the selection of maximum variation sampling. This strategy yields descriptions
of each case and shared patterns (Patton, 2002). The results of this study are presented in
two chapters. This chapter presents detailed descriptions of each case study. The
following chapter presents the shared patterns that cut across the cases.
To review, the overarching research question of this study is: In what ways do
basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning? The questions that guide this study
are: 1) How do basic skills coordinators lead an initiative framed by the principles of
inquiry, collaboration, and evidence?; 2) What organizational constraints are encountered
by basic skills coordinators?; and 3) How do basic skills coordinators modify their roles
in response to the organizational constraints they encounter?
The research focused on examining four community college basic skills
coordinators to determine how they led the Basic Skills Initiative at the local level. The
four case studies investigate how coordinators make sense of their roles, relationships,
and experiences. Interview transcripts, observations, and supplementary notes, along
with an understanding of the interviewees' experiences, contribute to the stories in this
chapter.
Tina, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Verde College
Tina had a long history at Verde College and with the Center for Academic
Success (CAS). Her experience began 18 years ago when she worked as a tutor during
her first semester as a Verde student. Tina was later hired as the center‟s secretary. After
92
earning a master‟s degree, she continued to work in the center in non-teaching faculty
positions. In the five years leading up the Basic Skills Initiative, Tina held the leadership
position of faculty coordinator for the CAS, a non-teaching position (Black, 2000).
During her tenure as the faculty coordinator, Tina gained experience facilitating meetings
as the chairperson of the Center for Academic Success advisory committee.
In 2005, shortly before assuming the basic skills coordinator role, Tina was
elected to the Academic Senate. Holding the position of senator increased Tina‟s
visibility in the college‟s governance structure. Tina also became active on other campus-
wide decision making bodies. She joined a steering committee in which she worked with
other campus stakeholders to bring professional development to Verde. In addition, Tina
was appointed to an advisory board for categorical programs in student services.
Together, these campus leadership positions transformed Tina from a leader of a campus
center to a campus-wide leader.
Taking on the role of the basic skills coordinator. In 2006, Tina took on the
role of basic skills coordinator, and her campus-wide leadership experience continued to
increase. Tina became a member of a college wide committee that makes decisions about
faculty assignments. She was also appointed to another advisory committee for student
support services. These roles reinforced Tina‟s image as a campus leader who bridged
the student services and instructional components of the college. This was particularly
important because of her new role as the basic skills coordinator, Tina‟s reporting
structure changed and she was moved from student services to instruction. Even though
she “moved” from one division to another, Tina remained on a student services leadership
team, which allowed Tina to serve as a liaison for basic skills projects.
93
Tina’s academic status. Tina believes that her long work history at Verde
College, particularly her time managing an academic success program, contributed to her
appointment to the basic skills coordinator position. Tina attributes “the fifty percent
law” as another reason she was chosen for the basic skills coordinator position. The 50%
law, defined in Education Code Section 84362, requires that community college districts
spend at least half of their “current expense of education” for salaries of classroom
instructors” (commonly referred to as “teaching faculty”). She recalled how the college‟s
leadership “was trying to cut back on reassigned time” for teaching faculty and wanted to
hire someone with non-teaching faculty status
7
as basic skills coordinator because the
hiring “would not count against them.” She obtained the position because she had the
experience, visibility, and her employee status allowed the college to be in compliance
with state regulations.
Within California Community Colleges, there are two types of faculty positions
(teaching and non-teaching). Even though they are both faculty positions, there is often a
status difference between the two positions with teaching faculty commonly perceived to
have a higher standing than their non-teaching counterparts. While Tina believed that her
status as a non-teaching faculty member contributed to her appointment as the basic skills
coordinator, she perceived that her non-teaching status and lack of experience in an
“academic teaching discipline” created a problem with the teaching faculty. Tina sensed
that because her background lacked teaching experience, it diminished her authority as
the basic skills coordinator among her teaching colleagues. In her words, “some people
7
Also referred to as “non-classroom” faculty status.
94
do not see me as an authority in instructional methods for basic skills.” She found it to be
challenging “getting around people‟s image [of] that‟s not who I am or [what] my
expertise is.”
Tina knew that her status as a non-teaching faculty who lacked teaching
experience in an academic discipline at Verde was an obstacle in fulfilling her role as
basic skills coordinator. Although she was aware that “some people” did not see her as
an authority in basic skills, during the interview Tina displayed a sense of pride in the fact
that the curriculum for her master‟s degree in English as a Second Language was “more
applicable to basic skills than a lot of what [her criticizers had] learned” in their
curriculum. Perhaps this sense of pride allowed her to overcome the image that she
lacked authority to serve as the basic skills coordinator.
Tina’s perceptions of the BSI self-assessment and planning process. Early
in Tina‟s role as coordinator, the self-assessment process of the basic skills program had
already been initiated. She recalled that the questions, probes and indirect methods of
questioning resulted in the committee being “introspective” in taking a “cohesive in-
depth look” at which services were offered to basic skills students across the campus.
Responding to the questions and probes led committee members to a comprehensive
understanding of services offered. Committee members completed “homework”
assignments to gather information about services across the campus. Tina‟s role required
that she compile information gleaned from the assessment process. The process was new
and unfamiliar for Tina, “I don‟t think [the inquiry process] had ever been done before.”
The information obtained indicated that Verde offered many effective practices, but in
pockets throughout the campus. This knowledge resulted in an action plan for a
95
coordinated campus-wide effort to address the needs of basic skills students. Although
California Community Colleges were granted basic skills funds simply for completing
the plan, Verde‟s action plan was later recognized as a regional model.
Tina’s development into a basic skills “best practice” practitioner. Tina
entered her new role as Verde College‟s basic skills coordinator with some knowledge of
basic skills from her service as faculty coordinator and working on the self-assessment
and action plan, but she acquired the essential skills needed to implement the Basic Skills
Initiative at Verde College through her attendance at multiple professional development
activities throughout the state. Tina took part in numerous trainings, workshops, and
conferences hosted by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, the
statewide initiative, and its affiliates (i.e., the RP Group). Tina‟s eagerness to learn the
new role resulted in her being one of the first coordinators to be trained at the Academic
Senate for California Community College‟s basic skills facilitator training. Due to this
training, Tina became involved in the statewide academic senate. In her words:
I went around the state and I helped [the statewide academic senate] facilitate. I
was one of their effective practices. …In that phase of basic skills, we would go to
other campuses and they would do a big basic skills presentation. We would
break out into our own classrooms and we would present our effective
practices...And then we met with teams from their colleges as groups and we
facilitated discussions around what they had learned.
Through this experience, Tina was connected to the statewide initiative as well as
professional contacts throughout the state. By presenting at other colleges, Tina may
have been an exemplar of a highly effective coordinator. Tina evolved from a
coordinator who was perceived by some faculty to lack the expertise to run the Basic
Skills Initiative at Verde to a respected basic skills coordinator throughout her region.
96
Tina‟s actions showed faculty at Verde that she was not only connected to the statewide
initiative, but was also an important resource for other colleges.
Tina continued to learn about her role by taking advantage of local and statewide
professional development activities for the next two years, but Tina credited the Basic
Skills Initiative Leadership Institute (BSILI) in 2009 as providing her with
comprehensive training on the skills that she needed to carry out her role. Tina described
the weeklong training as “excellent professional development” that exposed her to
“faculty inquiry and accelerated classes.” She recalled presentations on successful
programs “about collecting data, analyzing outcomes for our own projects, and having us
get on the computers and share some of the tools that they were using.” She particularly
found the BSILI helpful because it included time for attendees to share information and
tools with one another. She credited the BSI with including opportunities for basic skills
coordinators to share information about basic skills with colleagues.
Tina as a collaborative leader. Tina‟s collaborative leadership style was
evident in her choice of language. Tina consistently used the word “we” when discussing
student success committee projects and rarely used the word “I” to the point that I as the
researcher found it difficult to determine what Tina was responsible for and what the
committee members were responsible for. I found that Tina‟s repeated use of the word
“we” demonstrated her collaborative leadership style and may be an indication of a
collaborative culture within the committee and/or college.
Tina understood the power of a strong social network. She referred to herself as
“more socially connected” than many of her colleagues at Verde. These social
connections stemmed from her attendance at professional development activities and
97
from her personal growth as a basic skills leader. Tina knew the importance of having the
right people on the student success committee and, thus, handpicked committee members
with her dean (who is also her co-chair). As long time employees at Verde, they both
knew which of their colleagues possessed information that would benefit the collective
group. From my observation of the meeting, committee members were largely regarded
as “coordinators” of the activities. Tina and her co-chair, therefore, utilized their
colleagues‟ talent by giving them responsibilities associated with Verde‟s basic skills
action plan.
Tina found other ways to harness the talent of her colleagues. Tina attended
conferences that benefited the program in various ways. For example, Tina took a small
team to a researchers‟ conference organized by the RP Group, the entity responsible for
the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) and instrumental in the Basic Skills
Initiative. The team was comprised of Tina and two faculty members who are “really big
on data and outcomes.” The conference exposed the team to “data coaching,” a process
where a faculty member instructs other faculty members in the use of data in an attempt
help faculty get comfortable using it. The team became energized by the experience and
brought data coaching to Verde College as a result. Tina continued to explain that data
coaching was “a goal that [her team] brought back” to Verde because the team was
impressed with the concept of encouraging people “to know where to look [for data],
taking the time to look, and using [it] to inform their practice.” As a result, one of her
fellow team members eventually became a data coach of the student success committee
meetings. In this role, he tries “to weave in” information about data “without forcing” it
on the committee members.
98
The Verde College data coach reminds his colleagues of the location of reports on
the campus portal and brings unusual data findings to the attention of the committee.
According to Tina, his reports have triggered thoughtful discussion about the campus‟
basic skills students and the extent to which the committee felt that Verde College served
the needs of these students. With the help of a data coach, Tina‟s committee engages in
thoughtful discussion of their practices and their effect on students without the crutch of
the self-assessment tool and its probes. And while not every presentation of data from
Verde College‟s portal ignites rich discussion, the committee members have become
accustomed to the continual exposure to data reports. Conferences and workshops
contributed to the establishment of a basic skills culture of evidence at Verde College.
The “data coach” plays a critical role in the student success committee meetings.
As Verde‟s academic senate vice president, the data coach is also a visible faculty leader
and English faculty member. Tina likely gains a sense of legitimacy as the basic skills
coordinator by having him play a key role in the meetings. Therefore, Tina draws on the
talent of a respected faculty member who serves as data coach.
I witnessed a data coaching session during my observation of a student success
committee meeting. In the meeting, the coach demonstrated how to use existing
resources and answered questions from committee members. As a witness, I found the
presenter displayed high energy in his presentation and it appeared that he enjoyed
sharing information about data with his colleagues. By tapping into his skill and
enthusiasm for sharing information about data, Tina was able to rely on him as the data
coach to meet their basic skills action plan goal of “training faculty to use existing data.”
99
Tina encouraged the use of focus groups to “guide [the student success
committee‟s] discussions.” She indicated that “hard data” – such as retention rates and
student learning outcomes assessment results – should be viewed “side-by-side” with
focus group reports for a comprehensive understanding of the basic skills program. Tina
also drew on the talent of another colleague (a sociology instructor) who was considered
an expert on conducting focus groups. Tina offered the instructor a stipend for
conducting multiple focus groups. The instructor created reports and presented her
findings to the student success committee. By drawing on the talent of her colleague,
Tina was able to incorporate qualitative data in the student success committee meetings.
An example of Tina’s innovation. Basic skills coordinators lead college wide
efforts of the Basic Skills Initiative, but many coordinators faced challenges in involving
adjunct faculty in their efforts (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). Tina‟s creative leadership
style was evident in her ability to find ways to involve adjunct faculty in the Basic Skills
Initiative. The only way to hire adjunct faculty at the time was to pay them hourly, but
Tina knew that an hourly pay was inflated for the duties that they would be responsible
for. Since there was no other way to hire adjunct faculty, Tina collaborated with the part
time faculty union and district to create a Memorandum of Understanding that details the
duties adjunct faculty are responsible for as well as their compensation package. In
creating this solution, Tina was able to overcome a common obstacle faced by basic skills
coordinators (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). Although involving part time faculty in Verde‟s
basic skills program was originally an obstacle, Tina was persistent and worked within
the confines of her district‟s bureaucratic structure. By involving the district and union,
100
Tina was able to cut through the bureaucracy and develop a solution for involving part
time faculty in the Basic Skills Initiative.
Tina solidified her authority. The action plan developed from the self-
assessment process was used to secure a federal Title III grant. When Verde College‟s
administration received word that their proposal was funded, they appointed Tina to be
the coordinator of the grant. This made Tina a more visible and powerful leader on
campus. By controlling more resources, her authority became more solidified, but there
was a downside to her new leadership role. At the time Verde College received the grant,
California Community Colleges were in danger of budget cuts. Daily email updates from
the President/Executive of the Community College League of California and other
sources documented the roller coaster ride of events that occurred before the state
adopted its final budget. Tina‟s colleagues were frightened by the worst case scenarios
for Verde College‟s budget. She described her colleagues as “scared” and “anxious” over
the budget cuts, “especially [the] associate faculty” who were “backfilling” positions,
some of which were already “frozen” due to the unstable budget environment. For these
faculty, their jobs were “up in the air” until the budget was settled. Colleagues with
knowledge about the federal funding told others to “ask Tina” to pay for their budget
requests “because she has the Title III money.”
Tina viewed the resulting constant requests for funding as an obstacle to fulfilling
her role as Basic Skill/Title III Coordinator. She said, “The idea that people think you
have money for everything is an obstacle.” It was her experience that people
misunderstood her budget status as having an “endless pot of money.” In response to the
countless requests “many times each week,” Tina had to explain the grant, action plan
101
objectives, and the types of activities that would qualify as BSI/Title III projects to those
who requested money. She also explained that if their ideas were “not feeding into the
outcomes” that her money was “not discretionary.” Tina worked with her colleagues
when she could collaborate on BSI projects, but she felt particularly taxed when she had
to explain what she already explained to her colleagues, but in doing so she also took the
time to share BSI/Title III successes. Tina used opportunities such as funding requests to
fulfill her duty as BSI Coordinator by sharing information about the BSI with campus
constituents. Tina had staff to help with basic skills duties, which was a circumstance
unique to non-teaching basic skills coordinators. Her staff member, a secretary, helped
Tina keep track of the budgetary paperwork.
Tina in action. In my observation of a student success committee meeting in
January 2011, Tina used many of the practices she developed as basic skills coordinator.
Tina appeared competent and confident in her role. Her meeting agenda ensured that the
two-hour monthly meeting was productive and served as an environment for learning.
She provided freshly baked biscuits at the morning meeting to lure committee members.
The time committee members spent eating allowed her to model effective practices she
acquired from professional developments activities.
Tina learned about two online resources through her professional development
experiences and modeled them at the meeting. Specifically, Tina presented two online
resources and how they could be used. The online rubric tool was geared for faculty to
clearly explain the relationship between student learning outcomes and grading to
students. Tina also demonstrated how students could access, edit, and create electronic
102
flashcards. By incorporating these demonstrations into her meeting, she effectively
shared knowledge that she acquired through professional development.
Tina viewed her meetings as a learning opportunity for her committee members.
The initial time Tina spent sharing her knowledge gave her committee members an
opportunity to settle into the meeting and focus their attention on the BSI for the next two
hours. The remainder of the meeting was comprised of project updates by activity
coordinators (e.g., first year program, learning communities) and campus feedback from
a recent professional development activity that featured a guest speaker. The agenda
prominently displayed upcoming professional development opportunities as well as the
agenda items that would be covered at the following meeting. Although the agenda was
structured, the collegial environment among the committee members encouraged
dialogue.
During the interview, Tina revealed that she considers the student success
committee meetings as her “classroom” where she shared information and modeled
effective practices. However, Tina was not what many would consider to be a traditional
teacher who lectures students. When she was at the front of the room, she was interactive
with her committee members and demonstrated tools that could benefit basic skills
students. However, Tina was not at the front of the room for the majority of the meeting:
the activity coordinators were. As a result, everyone learned from each other. She
planned out her curriculum (i.e., meeting agenda) by meeting with committee members
between monthly meetings to discuss whether or not they had new knowledge that might
benefit the entire committee. Tina encouraged committee members to share relevant
information and engage in professional conversations about new knowledge and how it
103
might be applied at Verde. As committee members shared their experiences and Tina
modeled effective practices, they also become teachers in the “classroom” (i.e.,
meetings). Furthermore, as committee members considered modeling their services
based on an effective practice elsewhere, they discussed how to “filter out what would
work” at Verde.
Tina explained that she tries to build “interactive” activities into the meetings that
promote professional discussions. She said that she has frequently thought an agenda
item was “just going to take five or ten minutes,” but that she allowed committee
members to discuss it at length because she didn‟t “want to lose” the “rich discussion” by
moving to the next agenda item. By allowing productive conversations to develop in lieu
of following a strict agenda, Tina demonstrated her flexibility by sacrificing less pressing
agenda items for professional conversations. She commented that unless there is a guest
or a presenter lined up, she allowed discussion to flow because the members “have really
thoughtful reactions and responses to each other.” She described committee members as
“very supportive of each other” and felt that the “intellectual stimulation” was the reason
why many of the members said that the student success committee meeting was “their
favorite meeting” at Verde College. She described a strong sense of community among
committee members. By making the student success committee meeting her classroom,
Tina establishes the practice of collaboration and knowledge sharing.
Tina’s access to and sharing of information. As a senator of the academic
senate and co-chair of the student success committee, a recognized subcommittee of the
academic senate, Tina used the senate meetings to share knowledge about basic skills
with other faculty. Her tie to the senate allowed her to place basic skills issues on the
104
agenda with ease and helped her stay connected to key faculty members on campus. Tina
viewed her relationship with the academic senate as “crucial” for her success as a basic
skills coordinator because the bi-monthly meetings provided her with “broad exposure.”
She confidently said, “anytime I want to be on the [senate] agenda to discuss anything,
they‟ll put me on.”
Tina models transparency regarding Verde College‟s basic skills program and
ensures that information is shared. The BSI/Title III website provides access to
information about basic skills projects (e.g., agendas, minutes, the action plan, and year-
end reports). In addition, Tina invited one of her colleagues from her BSI professional
network to be the keynote speaker at Verde‟s Student Success Conference, which is
designed to expose campus members to the college‟s basic skills efforts. Tina utilizes her
network to bring new knowledge to Verde.
Verde uses experiential knowledge to change practices. Tina and the
student success committee found a way to create programs that “reach out” to students
and address their needs. Nearly half of Verde‟s students enroll for classes but “don‟t
show up on the first day of school.” To address the issues of “no shows,” Verde, a rural
college “out in the middle of nowhere,” the committee designed a peer mentoring
program to welcome new basic skills students. Peer mentors contact basic skills students
“the week before school starts” and offer to meet them and take them on a tour of the
campus and available services. Peer mentors also contact students “in their language” if
they are English as Second Language students.
Summary. Although faculty were skeptical of Tina‟s ability to lead the Basic
Skills Initiative at Verde, Tina took advantage of professional development opportunities
105
and used the knowledge that she acquired from the activities to build her leadership
repertoire. Tina grew her social network through her attendance at these activities and
drew on her professional contacts to strengthen the Basic Skills Initiative at Verde. By
tapping into the talent of a data coach, the focus group leader, and hand selecting
committee members who had important knowledge to share, Tina created a structure for
learning in the student success committee meetings. Tina used her meetings as a venue
for committee members to share information with each other and engage in professional
conversations.
Carrie, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Plaza College
Much like Tina (the basic skills coordinator at Verde), Carrie also held a long
history with the college that she would ultimately serve as its basic skills coordinator.
Carrie‟s first job at Plaza College was as a student worker in the late 1990s. She left
Plaza when she graduated with her associate‟s degree and returned two years later with
her bachelor‟s degree to serve as a program coordinator for the Center for Academic
Success (CAS). She worked as program coordinator for the CAS for three years while
she earned a master‟s of social work degree.
After Carrie was awarded a master‟s degree, she began teaching learning skills
classes at Plaza through the community services program. During this time, Carrie also
was employed through a distance learning grant. Carrie‟s next step at Plaza was serving
as a faculty leader over three grants (both state and federal), which she did for two years
prior to assuming the role of basic skills coordinator at Plaza College. Carrie‟s
experience also includes serving as a basic skills instructor for three and a half years at a
nearby college. Through these positions, Carrie gained experience managing Plaza‟s
106
Center for Academic Success, overseeing state and federal grants, teaching basic skills
classes, and working with basic skills students. In the months leading up to obtaining this
position, Carrie also became a member of the student success committee. She was
familiar with Plaza‟s culture, student population and its basic skills courses when she
applied for the basic skills coordinator position. It is likely that these factors made her a
top candidate when she applied for the position.
Taking on the role of basic skills coordinator. When the Basic Skills
Initiative was instituted at Plaza College, a basic skills coordinator was not hired.
Although basic skills funds had been distributed to California Community Colleges a few
years before, Plaza College did not use the funds and they were about to expire. Thus, an
interim administrative position was created in 2009 because the college needed someone
to “champion” the Basic Skills Initiative and coordinate the spending of this large
surplus. Carrie explained that the college justified the hiring of an administrator because
they had a “huge surplus otherwise they could never had hired an administrator.”
The interim administrative position was a promotion for Carrie. She worked in
positions funded by soft funds during her entire career, so she was not afraid to take the
risk of applying for a one year interim position and “working once again on that uncertain
basis.” She was proud of her career transition into administration, but she quickly
learned that not everyone accepted her new role. She described how she learned of “the
hostility between faculty and administration.” When she received notice that she was
appointed to the basic skills coordinator role, Carrie excitedly shared the news with
someone she had “great rapport” for a number of years. The response she received to her
news that she would “be the new associate interim acting dean” was “Oh, you‟re one of
107
those now.” That comment made her aware of the division between the academic and
administrative cultures at Plaza. She was surprised by the overt separation. “I never
looked on administrators as evil or heartless,” Carrie explained. In her new
administrative role, Carrie viewed Plaza‟s faculty culture as characterized by their distrust
of administration. She understood that there was a general faculty view at Plaza College
that administrators were not to be trusted and, thus, she felt self-conscious in her position
as a newly hired administrator.
Carrie lacked academic credentials. In addition to being “one of them,”
Carrie had another challenge. She believed, like Tina, that her lack of academic
credentials was a hindrance to faculty‟s acceptance of her as coordinator of the basic
skills program. She had taught learning and basic skills courses rather than academic
courses, such as English or mathematics, which she considered as holding higher status
with the faculty at Plaza College. Carrie‟s experience with programs that served
underserved populations (i.e., CalWorks, learning skills, and programs for high school
non-completers) gave her the impression that they were marginalized in comparison to
the academic disciplines, which she perceived to be more valued in community colleges.
She emphasized the low ranking of technical education in the college hierarchy when she
described it as the “dirty step child” of community colleges. Although she went back to
college to earn a master‟s degree in social work “to solidify [her] career as a coordinator
for underserved populations,” she was keenly aware of the stigma associated with the
populations she served. She was cognizant that there was a line of demarcation between
programs required for a degree or transfer and those that did not. The division between
108
career tech/basic skills courses and the academic programs was very strong at Plaza
College due to its identity as a transfer college.
Basic skills v. Plaza’s transfer identity. Carrie described Plaza as a college
that viewed its primary mission as the preparation of students for transfer to four-year
universities. Although she described a change in Plaza‟s culture over the last five years,
there was a time in which “it was actually a struggle to get [the college‟s first learning
skills] course established because Plaza “had a culture where you come to [Plaza
College] ready or you don‟t come to [it] at all.” Carrie added that she‟s heard the college
referred to as “lily-white” because people perceived it to be a white college. For some
faculty, the importance the college places on its identity as an institution that prepares its
students for transfer to four-year institutions was inconsistent with the amount of
resources invested in basic skills programs. These faculty resisted remediation
coursework being offered at Plaza because of a long standing belief that “it is a college”
and that students should enter prepared for college level coursework.
At Plaza College, preparation of students for transfer to four-year institutions was
valued more than basic skills coursework which further complicated Carrie‟s role as the
basic skills coordinator. She was also hobbled by the perception that basic skills
coursework is not considered a legitimate academic subject. Some faculty questioned
whether the initiative was related to academics and held negative views of remediation
because it was inconsistent with their view of the college as a transfer institution. When
probed about Plaza‟s transfer reputation, Carrie responded that is “an accurate statement,
but I think it‟s also a very skewed statement,” she went on to add:
109
To say that we have a high transfer rate is great. And it‟s true, but a high transfer
rate means what exactly? I mean, just because everybody else is more pathetic
does not mean that we‟re good. And I think that‟s where people get tripped up
because they hear that we have a higher transfer rate than other colleges so they
get excited – overly stimulated. But I think people are shocked when they hear
exactly what that means.
In this statement, Carrie was referring to the fact that, although Plaza is
recognized as a transfer college and the college community identifies itself as such, not
every student would ultimately transfer to a four-year college. While Plaza is known for
its success in transferring students in larger numbers than many other community
colleges, Carrie was familiar with the data and knew that transfer was not the outcome
achieved by most of its students. “I don‟t think people understand that we‟ve got 22,000
students on this campus and maybe 2,000 of them will transfer.” With 90% of Plaza
College‟s students testing “into below transfer level English or math or both,” Carrie
commented that when she hears faculty make comments such as “well, this is a college”
that she has “some sympathy for that perspective,” but she also believed “that this is an
open access college and we can‟t limit the students who come here.”
Carrie’s perception of the Basic Skills Initiative at Plaza. When Carrie was
appointed to the role of basic skills coordinator at Plaza College, she was aware of the
negative perception of basic skills courses and its students. In addition, the initiative
lacked respect with faculty because of skepticism about special initiatives. During our
conversation Carrie shared that people were “inherently distrustful of” new initiatives
because of previous experiences of how soft funds come and go on their campus. Some
faculty considered short lived initiatives as “another swing of the pendulum” and wanted
no part of it. They didn‟t want to get “too involved because when it goes away, it goes
110
away.” They had already “survived through” other “swings of the pendulum” and
consciously decided to “wait [the Basic Skills Initiative] out…until it blows over.”
Since Carrie's position was funded through soft funds, faculty might also have
considered the establishment of the BSI to be another “swing of the pendulum.” If the
initiative were to go away, the position associated with it could also go away. Therefore,
holding an interim position may have initially reduced her authority in the minds of
faculty who saw the initiative as temporary.
Carrie’s development into a basic skills leader. Once Carrie obtained the
interim position, she and her vice president established a simple goal: to “endear” Carrie
to the faculty and the campus. The logic behind this was simple, if the faculty found
Carrie endearing, they would likely be in support of institutionalizing the associate dean
position. Aware that some faculty viewed her background, the BSI, and her temporary
administrative assignment with suspicion, Carrie adopted a non-threatening collaborative
approach. She perceived that the source of power at Plaza was the academic faculty and
in response she exhibited a collaborative style that left the decisions to the student
success committee.
Carrie relied on a different approach to administer the BSI at Plaza. Her logic for
this approach was two-fold. First, she wanted the faculty to take ownership of the BSI
activities such as accelerated basic skills classes, summer bridge, and learning
communities. For instance, rather than presenting information to the committee herself,
Carrie tried to “do as little presenting as possible and [tried] to get other people to do the
presenting.” By having the faculty present their activities, Carrie found that they would
assume an active role, which meant that she would not be left with full ownership of the
111
activity. Second, Carrie recognized that “community colleges don‟t work within formal
power structures,” where management has all the power. She understood that “people
have an inherent distrust of administrators and they didn‟t need to hear it coming from
[her],” particularly since she was an administrator. Recognizing the faculty‟s power in
educational settings, she insisted, “It needs to come from the faculty.”
Carrie as a collaborative leader. Carrie perceived her background working
with soft funds and serving underserved populations as not being central to Plaza‟s
academic/transfer identity and that her acceptance of an administrative assignment meant
distrust. Rather than let it inhibit her effectiveness, Carrie employed a number of
strategies to overcome resistance. One strategy was to work cooperatively with Plaza‟s
faculty and staff in an effort to model her collaborative style. Carrie‟s goal was to
prevent the appearance of directing people because she perceived that no one would
listen. Carrie explained “I don‟t do anything without asking people first.” Instead of
telling people what they needed to do, she “presented the broccoli,” her analogy for how
she repeatedly presents information in a low key manner, and left the decision making to
the committee. When her ideas were met with opposition, she presented them again at a
later time. By being collaborative, going out of her way to be responsive to the faculty
and not do anything that confirmed their distrust of administrators, Carrie made herself
accepted.
Another strategy Carrie relied on as the basic skills coordinator was the use of
drafts. Carrie considered drafts as her “secret to influence” decisions. She found it
important to approach people with ideas to start with, a beginning point for discussion
purposes. In her words:
112
Don‟t come to people and say, “What do we do?” They‟re just going to stare at
you. But if you come to people with something and say “This is what I‟ve
created. What should we do differently?” Generally, what‟s going to happen,
people will say “…change this word and… invert these two items” and more or
less you can get what you need done, while still allowing people to be a part of
the decision making process. So when I need something done, that‟s how I do it.
I come with a draft and let people tweak it.
Documents clearly marked with the word “draft” provided committee members
with something tangible to consider, reject or modify. The word “draft” symbolized that
no decision had been reached yet. Such strategies communicated that she was not
presenting a finished product and that she was willing to listen and valued her
committee‟s participation in the decision making process.
Carrie demonstrated her competency to lead the BSI at Plaza College through her
willingness to collaborate with faculty on their ideas. People typically approached her
with an idea or a problem. And her job was to “share the lit and share the data.” She
described:
So generally people come to me with their ideas, I tell them what I know about
that area and then I‟ll do an inquiry… I‟ll do a literature review. I‟ll look at
what‟s in the poppy copy. I‟ll look and see what‟s on the Eric database… what do
we know about best practices.
Carrie ensured that her committee members were knowledgeable about the Basic
Skills Initiative by building time into the student success committee meetings for
committee members to introduce discussion items at the meeting. She would ask
committee members to review a chapter of the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007)
and present their findings to the entire committee.
Carrie adopted a collaborative style to overcome organizational constraints and
maintained a high level of preparation for meetings. She provided a structure for
113
committee members to present their ideas, provided a framework for research, and
distributed a draft of ideas submitted. This collaboration was also demonstrated in
decisions about the budget. Carrie did not “make decisions unilaterally on how to spend
the money.” Everything was a “committee decision.”
Carrie collaborated well with her superiors. Senior administration‟s support helps
Carrie facilitate her job. Senior administration listened and she received “tons of
support” from them. She provided me with a concrete example of their support. Plaza
had historically offered a variety of classes during the winter intersession, but was only
able to offer a limited selection of courses due to the budget cuts. “The only [courses]
that were protected were English, math, and speech.” She credited senior management‟s
enrollment management decision to preserve English and math classes during the winter
intersession when she stated “its enrollment management decisions like that that really do
need to come from the top that really place institutional priority on basic skills.” Carrie‟s
seniority at Plaza also worked in her favor. She was able to easily identify who could get
things done at Plaza. She knew who the willing players were and felt that she had
“massaged” her relationships with them to the point where she could influence them to
“get things done.”
Carrie told me that she was working on “becoming too big to fail.” She learned
from her colleagues at another college to “scale [up] as quickly as possible, so when the
rug gets pulled out from under” them she could use her evidence to point to the success
of basic skills so that the activities would be picked up from the operating budget. She
had a plan to use her evidence to save basic skills when the money ran out. She explains:
114
I want to make us like a tick. I want to get under the skin of Plaza College such
that they can‟t get [basic skills] out. Not only [do] I want to work on developing
these values, but I also want to work deliberately on shifting the formal funding
structures over to [the operating budget], like getting this position funded. My
next step will be tutors.
During the interview, Carrie explained how the college was in the process of
institutionalizing her position. She informed me that over the next four years, the funding
for her position would shift from the basic skills budget to the college operating budget in
increments of 25 percent each year until the position was fully funded through the
operating budget. As a result of the college‟s commitment to institutionalize her position,
Carrie was already working on ways to institutionalize activities that were funded under
the basic skills budget.
An example of Carrie’s use of strategies. During the interview, Carrie
described a program evaluation rubric developed by her 3CSN region at a BSILI
workshop. Carrie “presented the broccoli” by sharing the rubric with the student success
committee when she returned from the BSILI, but they did nothing with it at the time. A
year and a half later, budget cuts forced colleges to be more strategic in their spending, so
Carrie “presented the broccoli” again by re-introducing the rubric at the student success
committee's January meeting as a possible method for the committee to base its funding
decisions. During the interview, she mentioned that the committee was now in favor of it
and that it would be on her February agenda. I observed Carrie during the February
meeting. She included a draft program evaluation rubric for the committee to discuss
implementing. She distributed hard copies of the rubric with the agenda and had an
electronic version displayed on a large screen at the front of the room. She asked the
committee to break off into pairs and discuss the rubric in a dyad fashion prior to
115
reviewing it with the entire committee. After discussing it with their peers, several
committee members offered new language (i.e., “tweaks”) as well as questions that
clarified the language on the rubric. The questions, comments, and discussion that
followed allowed for greater clarity of the rubric. Carrie and her student worker captured
many of the changes offered by the committee on the large screen at the front of the
room. She then announced that she would bring the revised rubric back (another draft) to
the committee at the next meeting.
Carrie’s social awareness and passion. Carrie exhibited a social awareness of
the demographic differences between Plaza College's student population and that of its
faculty and staff. Only two percent of her college's faculty are Latino compared to more
than 30 percent of the Plaza student population. She viewed this statistical fact as a
“huge disconnect” magnified by the fact that “the program success for Latino students
has been limited” despite Plaza College's Title V and STEM grants. She commented that
Plaza did not have strong cohort based programs for Latinos such as Puente, an academic
preparation focused on improving college enrollment and graduation rates for
disadvantaged students, and that Plaza has not yet learned how to serve Latino students.
Her awareness of Plaza College's low representation of Latino faculty compared to the
percentage of Latinos in the student body and the college‟s limited success rates for
Latino students served as a reflection of her social awareness. She wanted to help Plaza
“understand the role of Latino students” and “how to effectively serve the students.”
Carrie’s leadership style. Carrie performs a literature review when faculty
approach her for advice on how to proceed on their ideas. She facilitates the Basic Skills
Initiative by being knowledge oriented. She would “present the broccoli” to the student
116
success committee and would not make a big deal about it if they did not digest it.
Rather than trying to convince committee members to accept the information, Carrie
simply continued to present it as an option, allowing them to come to terms with whether
or not they would accept it. As time goes by, she acquires more knowledge about the
literature. As she explained, “The days are becoming fewer and further between where
somebody comes to me with an idea that I‟ve never heard of before.” Carrie‟s knowledge
of basic skills activities in the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007) as well as
throughout the state made Carrie the institutional expert on basic skills.
As part of her duties as basic skills coordinator, Carrie attended many professional
development events. She described a time in which she brought back knowledge from a
Strengthening Student Success Conference that showcased accelerated courses in
English. At the time, mathematics acceleration courses were already taught at Plaza and
were successful but there was skepticism about whether or not they would work for
English courses. During the conference breakout session, the presenter broke down the
numbers showing why it made sense to offer accelerated English courses. Carrie realized
that accelerated programs not only produced stronger results for the courses, but also
reduced the number of students who did enroll in a subsequent course the following
semester. The data was “very powerful” for Carrie and energized her to meet one-on-one
with the English Department Chair. In that meeting, Carrie broke down the logic for the
chair, “presented the broccoli” of how it could work for English, and said “I really think
that we should do this for English” to which the chair responded affirmatively.
Therefore, the knowledge that Carrie acquired through professional development led to
the development of a new program at Plaza when she shared the knowledge.
117
Carrie serves as a resource for faculty by presenting drafts and data, sharing
information with them, and connecting people who think alike. She establishes her
authority by being more knowledgeable about basic skills than other staff and faculty.
Knowledge is a source of expertise and power, particularly in an academic institution.
Carrie develops power not only by attaining knowledge, but by sharing it as well.
Unlike the other basic skills coordinators, Carrie had a long history working with
data. Her comfort level using data was evident as she easily recited statistics relating to
the college‟s demographics and basic skills population. She explained that her history as
an employee on “soft funds” meant that she had to show proof of her progress through
strong data. As a result of this experience, Carrie was data-driven, but she realized that
some faculty relied on anecdotal evidence for decision making. She described one such
example of this reliance on anecdotal evidence as faculty repeating a class activity just
because students appeared to enjoy it. She felt faculty either did not understand how to
use data or they were afraid that “bad data” would be used against them causing them to
lose funding for their activities. She knew she needed to lead the initiative in a non-
threatening way, especially in relation to data because faculty were not comfortable using
data. She found faculty did not have a “culture of evidence” because they were not
familiar with how to use it. As a result, it had to be “drilled” through professional
development. So when faculty approached her to create a new activity, in addition to
researching the topic, she also worked with them to create an evaluation plan. She knew
that the evaluation of activities sponsored by the BSI was important because she included
the information in her program evaluation and her annual program plan, so nothing was
done without an evaluation plan.
118
Carrie understood that some people were “threatened by data,” that people feared
others would judge their program as “bad” if they were not producing good numbers.
She disclosed that some people felt that their jobs were at stake if they produced bad data.
To alleviate these fears, Carrie made the argument to faculty that the collected data would
be used as formative evaluations, used for the purpose of improvement, versus
summative evaluations, used for the assessment of faculty. She made it clear the data
was for formative evaluation purposes because she would continue working with people
who had “bad” data. These actions allowed people to develop more trust using data.
Requiring evaluation plans also served as a mechanism for faculty to get past their barrier
of subjective measurement.
The use of program evaluation was part of Carrie's strategy to facilitate funding
for basic skills activities. Since she worked on soft funds in the past, Carrie had a history
of documenting results to keep her job and maintain funding for her activities. She knew
that BSI funds were limited and that senior administration would need to justify the
continuation of BSI activities under the operating budget once the guaranteed funding
ends. “Strong data,” as she called it, would be needed for presentation to administration.
Therefore, when I interviewed her, Carrie was already using data to build a case for
future funding. Carrie collected quantitative data as well as qualitative data. She favored
collecting evidence regarding what was learned versus what students liked. She
combined Likert-scale questionnaires that she referred to as “smile sheets” with
quantitative data for a thorough evaluation of the program.
Although Plaza College experienced turnover in senior administration throughout
her term as the basic skills coordinator, they remained supportive of basic skills. When I
119
interviewed Carrie, she mentioned that she was meeting with her vice president and
president so they were “very familiar with [the] strong data.” In doing so, Carrie also
assumed the role of facilitator. She knew that BSI funds would not last forever and those
basic skills activities would ultimately have to rely on the college‟s operating budget if
they were going to continue when BSI funds exhaust.
Summary. Carrie‟s collaborative style did not mean that she was unprepared and
expecting others on the student success committee to do the work. In fact, she provided a
structure for their ideas. Rather than asking her committee members to present their
ideas, she provided them with a framework. Furthermore, in creating drafts and
including people in the decision making process, she could get things done.
Carrie did not attempt to overcome organizational constraints by direct
discussions or obvious campaigning to those opposed to or less than supportive of the
basic skills program and its activities. Carrie served as a resource and facilitator to the
committee by conducting literature reviews, preparing drafts, and providing structure.
She displayed cooperative behavior to allay distrust of administration, organized
meetings to wordlessly communicate a collaborative style, presented data in a repetitive
and non-threatening manner. She established authority and credibility by obtaining and
sharing knowledge. Furthermore, she was instrumental in ensuring that the interim basic
skills position was institutionalized.
Rain, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Sunrise College
Unlike Tina and Carrie, Rain was a relatively new employee at Sunrise College
where she would ultimately serve as the basic skills coordinator. Shortly after she was
hired as a full-time English faculty member in 2006, she volunteered to assist with
120
completing the BSI self-assessment and plan. At the time, another faculty member was
serving as the faculty basic skills coordinator. A few years later, Rain responded to a job
announcement for the basic skills coordinator position with a letter of interest. She
interviewed before a panel that included the Vice President of Instruction as well as
representation from the academic senate. As a result of that process, Rain was chosen as
basic skills coordinator in Spring 2008 and received 40 percent release time from her full-
time teaching position to carry out the duties.
Rain’s perception of the BSI self-assessment and planning process. Rain
recalls being involved in the self-assessment and planning process at Sunrise. The
faculty coordinator at the time “asked for people to volunteer” to work on the self-
assessment. Rain volunteered and became a member of the Program Component
subcommittee in which committee members discussed their responses to the self-
assessment tool and were assigned tasks to collect more information. Her committee
members made “a real effort to figure out what [they] were being asked to do.” Their
responses to the self-assessment questions resulted in a “meaningful discussion” about
the barriers in the application process, mandatory orientation and assessment. The
counseling faculty were “adamant” that students be subject to mandatory assessment,
while the instructional faculty expressed concerns that it did not make sense to make
assessment mandatory for all populations. The need for improving the new student
orientation process and focusing it on “specific populations instead of a generic
orientation” was also discussed. Through “a combination of meetings, emails, and
talking to people outside of the committee,” the Program Component's subcommittee
members reached consensus and created a draft self-assessment. This was sent to the
121
basic skills coordinator who compiled the information from all of the subcommittees and
sent it out to the campus community for feedback that was integrated into the finished
product.
She discovered that there were a lot of good efforts on campus, but that they were
fragmented and not well advertised. Rain articulated that the self-assessment process
revealed that Sunrise had “a lot of good things going on in pockets,” yet they were
missing “the glue that connects” them across campus. A common discovery was that
“there‟s a good program over there that can really be helping the students over here, but
they may never find out about it.” As a consequence, the committee realized the need
“for a broader effort” for basic skills to connect campus-wide efforts “so that people have
more knowledge about what the campus is doing.”
Rain’s reflection on the self-assessment process. For Rain, the self-
assessment and planning process “felt a little repetitive” of the previous summer's basic
skills activities. She had attended a “campus-wide retreat that was organized by the basic
skills leadership.” At the retreat, approximately fifty members engaged in brainstorming
and conducted their “own evaluative process.” Furthermore, “there had been another
planning process that had gone on at the district level.” Therefore, when the college
joined together to fulfill the self-assessment and plan “as a requirement for basic skills,”
they struggled with trying to figure out how they should “combine what [they] did in
[their] process” with the new requirement. There were “many processes with the same
purpose” and the challenge was how to “integrate,” “document,” and “make meaning”
out of them.
122
Rain’s academic status. Unlike Tina and Carrie, Rain was a faculty member
from an academic teaching discipline and, thus, did not experience resistance from her
colleagues when she was appointed to the position. Her acceptance in this new role could
also be a reflection of a more positive environment at Sunrise. Rain portrayed Sunrise
College as having a “very positive culture.” She affirmed that “you can feel it in the
campus culture.” “[The faculty] love the student population here and we have a good
overall relationship with administration. It‟s a very supportive environment.”
Furthermore, when she spoke of her academic department (English), she represented it as
a “very collegial department” where “there‟s no tension between” English, transfer, and
basic skills English faculty.
Taking on the role of the basic skills coordinator. When Rain first took over
as the basic skills coordinator, she and the Vice President of Student Services were paired
as co-chairs of the basic skills committee and worked closely together in learning their
roles. Although the previous faculty basic skills coordinator had been paired with an
administrator, Rain‟s pairing was with the Vice President of Instruction rather than the
Vice President of Student Services because the administrative co-chair had essentially
“shifted back and forth over the years” from instruction to student services. So Rain and
her co-chair were both new to their roles when they became the co-chairs of the basic
skills committee.
Challenges as a new basic skills coordinator. The new co-chairs quickly
realized they needed to create processes, particularly because there was a lot of confusion
over the budget leftover from their predecessors. She explained, “If somebody needed
funds for something, they would usually talk to the Vice President of Instruction, who
123
was leading the committee at the time, and it would often just be an agreement.” Rain
found that the informal process led to a “haphazard allocation” of funds and it took time
for her to gain understanding of how the money had been allocated.
When they first took over their new roles, Rain and her co-chair had to figure out
what they wanted basic skills to look like organizationally. The first year, they spent
their energy “cleaning up and establishing processes.” They set up a meeting schedule,
solicited members for the steering and subcommittees, as well as people who would “be
willing to go out to their respective constituents” to gather information that would be
used to update the action plan.
Rain experienced several challenges in her new role of basic skills coordinator.
“The first obstacle was the way that the initiative had been run previously.” She and her
co-chair were approached by their colleagues for money they said was promised to them.
“We kept running into people saying [that] so-and-so promised” basic skills funding to
them. The co-chairs also “would find out (that there was) something being charged to the
basic skills” budget that did “not really fit with basic skills, but it was approved.”
A new process for making decisions about the budget quickly became “one of
[their] first priorities.” They agreed to share the decision making power with the basic
skills committee, thus, they invited existing members “to continue participating.” They
considered “where [they] might have gaps” in the committee membership and
approached the deans to fill the gaps. Once a new committee had been formed, they
established a formal process for allocating basic skills funds through a call for proposals.
The co-chairs created a budget subcommittee which was charged with reviewing
proposals, ranking them, and submitting their recommendations to the basic skills
124
committee. These recommendations were based on project evaluations as well as the
project‟s history of funding.
Rain as a collaborative leader. One of the challenges Rain faced as the new
basic skills coordinator was the uncertainty of basic skills funding at the beginning of the
Basic Skills Initiative. She recalled a threat that BSI funds were going to be “suspended
and used for another purpose.” Worried the work of the Basic Skills Committee could be
derailed by the budget cuts, Rain turned to the academic senate president. Together they
approached the college president about their concerns and sought reassurance that their
efforts would not be halted if the college was not granted basic skills funds. As a result
of their conversation with the president, Rain and the academic senate president were
assured that they “didn‟t have to alter [their] plans” and that they “should go forward with
what the committee had recommended.” Rain‟s strategy to involve the academic senate
president is an example of how she tapped into the expertise of others. As a full time
faculty member and member of campus-wide decision making bodies, Rain was aware
that the academic senate president was a source of great political power. By tapping into
this political power, a private meeting with the administrative and faculty leadership
solidified the fate of basic skills at Sunrise.
Eventually, Rain and the basic skills committee “knew that they were going to
receive significantly less funding” due to budget cuts. The steering committee and
budget subcommittee discussed how they would adjust the basic skills budget
accordingly. After weighing their options, they chose to set aside funding for
professional development and coordination of the BSI. They decided against creating “a
new competitive process” for basic skills proposals and opted to focus on the projects the
125
basic skills committee was currently funding. The budget subcommittee members
suggested “reductions and recommendations based on the previous year‟s projects.”
They proposed reducing the budget by eliminating completed projects and those that
could receive funding under a different program. These recommendations were
suggested to the steering committee, which made the final decision.
Learning the basic skills coordinator role. As a new basic skills coordinator,
Rain learned her role “on the job,” by referring to the job description and by consulting
with the previous basic skills faculty co-chair. Soon after she began serving in her new
role, Rain took advantage of professional development opportunities in basic skills. She
attended the BSILI training shortly after she assumed the role and found the experience to
be helpful, particularly a workshop on new basic skills coordinators. It was through the
workshop that Rain and other basic skills coordinators co-created their roles. She
explains:
I think [the conference planning committee members] were surprised at how
needed and popular that strand was. But there were many of us that really felt
[that] we got these roles and we‟re not exactly sure what that means. I think a lot
of us developed the role because or through interaction with other coordinators
and via the basic skills professional development grants and activities.
She also indicated that the BSILI “was critical” because she developed close
relationships with her colleagues and learned how to access resources. She added, “Just
having that supportive relationship has been great since I‟ve started” the job. The BSILI
provided a space for Rain to interact with other coordinators, an experience that she
found valuable. As a basic skills coordinator who was not the original coordinator, Rain
empathized with newly hired coordinators. She felt that continuous “training for
coordinators as they become coordinators,” mentoring, or statewide/regional trainings
126
would be helpful for new coordinators to understand “what [they could] expect” as they
took on the role.
Obstacles Rain faced. Rain spoke of three major challenges she faced as basic
skills coordinator. One of the biggest challenges was “figuring out how to get people
interested,” “keeping the momentum going and keeping the faculty engaged and working
together.” The second obstacle she faced was the “compartmentalization of basic skills.”
She voiced frustration with faculty viewing the initiative as only for basic skills students
or departments that dealt with basic skills students. She found it to be “a constant
challenge” trying to keep the initiative broad while others viewed it as narrow. She
hinted that part of the reason the BSI is perceived as only for certain students and
departments might stem from the name “basic skills.” Unlike Plaza and Verde Colleges,
where the basic skills committee was renamed “student success committee,” the
committee at Sunrise was named “basic skills committee.” She recognized that other
colleges had named their committee “student success committee because they don‟t want
it to be just basic skills.” Yet Rain was concerned that broadening the committee name
could lead to “losing the focus.”
Rain‟s final challenge in her role as the basic skills coordinator was related to the
use of data. While the basic skills committee used data, Rain felt somewhat limited in
this regard. She was on 40 percent reassigned time from teaching to fulfill her duties as
the basic skills coordinator and did not have clerical support for “tabulating data or
designing instruments” such as survey questionnaires. For Rain, the biggest obstacle to
using data was the “availability of the researcher and what she [could] physically do.”
Rain was an English professor by profession and expressed that data collection and
127
analysis was not something that came natural for her. She explained, “I am from English.
[Data] is not something that I naturally came to. So I think we would all benefit from
increased understanding of data – what it can do and what it can‟t do.”
Through multiple trainings, Rain‟s self-efficacy in using data increased, but it was
still something new for her. She stated, “I‟m more educated and trained than a lot of
people, but it‟s still fresh for me…I didn‟t do this at graduate school.”
Rain met regularly with the basic skills faculty regarding their progress and how
they planned on evaluating their projects. The basic skills committee established a
culture in which people knew they were “going to be asked to report” on their progress.
Rain “work[ed] with them in developing an evaluation plan” to assist them with the
process. She attempted to have someone available who could assist faculty in evaluating
the data because she knew they were not accustomed to doing so. Presentation of data to
the basic skills committee by members was accompanied by discussion. The campus
based researcher also presented data that sparked discussion. Each year the researcher
presents a comprehensive report on basic skills data at the committee meeting. The
reports were not “just a presentation of data,” because the researcher also facilitated a
discussion about the data. Rain believed that the committee should look at data together
more often and that discussing “specific parts of the report” together would be beneficial
once she returned from sabbatical.
Rain described her experience reviewing data with the basic skills committee.
According to Rain, the basic skills report the campus based researcher brought to the
committee the previous semester contained data which revealed “a huge gap between
retention and success” in the math courses. The committee was surprised at “how much
128
better [their] basic skills math students were doing in being retained, but that was not
translating to more success,” said Rain. She stated, “Somehow we did something really
right in getting them to stay, but what‟s happening? Why aren‟t they passing?” The data
spurred discussion about the way that the mathematics department conducts their math
finals. It prompted questions regarding whether the final exams should be revised or
weighted differently. To explore options, the researcher first met with the dean regarding
mathematics issues and then “followed up with the math department.”
Rain described the challenge of balancing her role as the basic skills coordinator
and as teaching faculty. She found it to be difficult “teaching and coordinating because
teaching [took] so much” of her time even with “a reduced load.” “Teaching is a
profession that will take as much as you can give.”
Unlike the other basic skills coordinators I interviewed for this study, Rain was on
sabbatical when I interviewed her. I found she engaged in more reflection than the other
coordinators regarding the state‟s implementation of the BSI. I posit that Rain's time
away from the position was the reason that she was particularly reflective. In this
section, I will share Rain‟s refection regarding the Basic Skills Initiative.
Looking back at how the Basic Skills Initiative was executed, Rain explained it
would have been more effective if the funding had not been tied to first completing the
self-assessment. Rain recalled “doing the action plan at the same time [they] were doing
the self-assessment.” Since Sunrise had “already received basic skills funding” the
college completed the assessment out of a sense of obligation. She said, “I know we
already had the money” so they completed the assessment “because we had to.” “It felt
129
very strange because we were already making decisions about how to spend the money
and we hadn‟t assessed yet.”
She felt the state should have slowed the process down so that the colleges could
engage in a “meaningful self-assessment” over “a semester or a year.” By slowing down
the process, they could have received more involvement and commitment from the
college community in “looking at data that [they] had available at the time” making it a
“much more meaningful process from the beginning.” It was her belief that if they
participated in a slower process, the self-assessment would have been viewed as more
than a “rubber stamp” activity.
Rain reflected on how the Basic Skills Initiative could have been restructured for
greater benefit. She stated that in terms of what they had “learned over the course of time
about planning, how to look at data, how to do logic modeling or gap analysis” it would
have been more beneficial if colleges were able to hire their coordinators, train them so
they could bring knowledge back to their colleges and receive funding “specifically for
doing the needs analysis.” By focusing efforts on “two or three areas” rather than “trying
to do everything,” the process may have resulted in greater acceptance from the campus.
Haphazard training. Rain stressed the importance of the BSI trainings when
she explained that newly hired basic skills coordinators often feel they have “to start
doing things rather than learning what the best models are, learning about [their] campus
culture” and determining how to assess their culture in a strategic manner. Rain saw over
the “course of the last few years, people [had] come and gone” resulting in “haphazard”
training through the various workshops that they attended to learn their role.
130
Rain was not sure if the basic skills leadership had considered that new basic
skills coordinators would begin their positions throughout the initiative. She credited the
week long BSILI as being the primary source of training for basic skills coordinators, but
she did not agree with the manner in which coordinators had to choose which week long
track they would attend. “If you were a new college you went to Basic Skills Leadership
One, but if you were a returning college – even if you personally haven‟t been to One –
you went to Two,” Rain complained. It is my understanding this model of attendance
was based on the assumption all the first year attendants would become the returning
attendees the following year or that knowledge from the first conference would be passed
on to the attendees of the conference the second year. I believe the goal of the conference
organizers was to give each college basic training once regarding the initiative, making
them ready for advanced training. Rain‟s point, however is valid. Some colleges might
not be ready for advanced training [Two] if the leadership of the basic skills coordinator
had changed since they attended the last training.
Furthermore, Rain pointed out that the conference only occurred once a year, so if
a coordinator was not able to attend, they missed out on the training. Rain also stated that
some direction from the state in terms of standardizing “how much reassigned time
coordinators” should get would be beneficial for colleges because reassigned time varied
widely “from campus to campus” with some coordinators having full time assignments
and others not receiving any reassigned time. In looking back, Rain voiced the opinion
that it would have been more effective if the coordination of the BSI had been “written
in” so it was standardized across California Community Colleges and the budget could
have been “taken off the top.”
131
Challenges at the state level. In her interview, Rain also discussed challenges
at the state and regional levels. There was “conflict between what [her region] thought
[they] could do as a region and what [they were] being told [they] needed to do from the
state wide leaders.” This led to frustration in her region because they thought they were
making progress, but later realized what they were doing “came in conflict with what [the
state‟s] vision was.” Sunrise also had challenges in ensuring what they were doing
matched their district‟s expectations as it appeared that Sunrise‟s basic skills efforts were
subject to the approval of the district, region, and state.
Confusion over leadership of the BSI. Rain recalled a sense of confusion
about the leadership of the statewide Basic Skills Initiative. She remembered the BSI
was first part of the statewide academic senate and then it transitioned to the California
Community College Success Network (3CSN), but the academic senate continued its
work on the initiative. She shared with me that the connection between the statewide
academic senate and the 3CSN was unclear for her as a basic skills coordinator. She
hinted others might also have been confused as well when she stated, “I think everybody
was kind of feeling there‟s that transition from academic senate to 3CS[N]. And then
[the] academic senate still continued to do things at the same time.” She added, “What‟s
the connection?” She felt the unclear connection might have “diluted the effectiveness
that could have been there.”
Basic skills a priority for senior management. It was Rain's opinion that
basic skills had the support of Sunrise‟s senior management. Evidence for this opinion
was that her co-chair‟s (the Vice President of Student Services) was an active member of
the basic skills committee. She also believed there was a certain amount of “awareness
132
that administration” brought to basic skills, particularly through their active involvement
on “different committees” on campus. Basic skills was contained in the college‟s mission
statement, which signified to Rain it was a core value for the college community and
senior management. Senior administration‟s support of the basic skills committee in
“developing [their] own budget for basic skills” and seeking “faculty‟s input on major
decisions related to scheduling” signified to Rain that basic skills was supported by
senior administration.
Rain suggested the basic skills program would be stronger at Sunrise if it had
broader support from the campus. She indicated she would like for more departments to
recognize they had a stake in basic skills and could benefit from the Basic Skills
Initiative. Rain felt she could use assistance from the campus leadership in articulating
the importance of the Basic Skills Initiative to the faculty:
I feel like I can appeal, appeal and appeal but I don‟t have the clout in some
departments. They may not even know who I am or may not care that much. But
if it‟s coming from their department chair or their deans as something that‟s really
vital and important, I think that would make it stronger.
Although Rain represented the Basic Skills Initiative on the “master planning
committee, the research committee, and other key committees,” she did not know every
faculty member at Sunrise. “More leadership from administration and deans” would
make the Basic Skills Initiative more effective across the campus.
Examples of Rain bringing back knowledge. Similar to Tina and Carrie,
Rain took advantage of many professional development opportunities related to basic
skills such as the BSILI, workshops by the 3CSN and LINKS, and “all of the regional
meetings.” “The idea of and commitment to making professional development more
133
ongoing and meaningful” was “hammered” and “modeled” at the conferences. Rain
followed this model by ensuring the basic skills committee members were aware of
upcoming professional development opportunities. Before finalizing the basic skills
committee agenda, she obtained information from her regional basic skills office so she
could include flyers for workshops and conferences. Additionally, Rain made it a point to
connect with department chairs and administrators for agenda items.
During the interview, Rain discussed how she acquired and shared the knowledge
she was exposed to during the first BSILI she attended. After returning from the
conference, Rain shared the idea of faculty inquiry with her colleagues and eventually
“set up a workshop on inquiry for faculty.” The workshop was facilitated by speakers
that Rain was exposed to at the BSILI.
The weeklong BSILI was also the first time that Rain “heard about acceleration”
of basic skills courses. Acceleration “wasn‟t the focus of any of the presentations,” but it
was discussed in a workshop about inquiry. The presenters offered data about
acceleration and “raised some challenging questions” that “sparked [her] curiosity.” Rain
understood that her colleagues might not be open to the idea, so she introduced
acceleration “informally by just talking with” English, ESL, and math faculty “one-on-
one because [it was] a scary idea.” As time went on, she “started to share” articles and
information from workshops on acceleration with her colleagues” before they eventually
decided to try it at Sunrise. “After some discussions, faculty had questions about [it] and
decided that was an area that they wanted to learn more about” so it was “brought up in
basic skills meetings.” Rain helped organize a workshop on acceleration at Sunrise “as a
way for faculty to explore the possibility” of piloting it. The workshop “galvanized about
134
five [English] faculty members” who met on a “bi-weekly basis to share ideas around
acceleration and trying out some of the techniques in the classrooms, bringing up new
ideas, and sharing them.” The small group of English faculty piloted their first course in
Spring 2010 and their second the following spring. When I met with Rain, the campus
researcher was evaluating course data and “the process to make it a regular course [was]
underway.” She saw acceleration as “possibly changing the whole program structure” for
English.
“There was a lot of suspicion and concern” about acceleration when it was first
introduced, but because faculty had “several opportunities either [at Sunrise] or at other
campuses” to learn about acceleration which helped alleviate their fear. As an English
faculty member, Rain witnessed faculty‟s fear of acceleration courses lessen once they
were exposed to the idea. In her words, “people who were more suspicious at first are
now feeling more comfortable” with the idea. She concluded that the collegial
relationship between the department faculty members is what allowed Sunrise faculty to
pilot acceleration courses. She depicted the culture of the English department as one in
which even faculty who were unsure about a new initiative would not try to prevent them
from piloting it out of respect for their colleagues.
Rain spoke about the importance of “using a reflective practice” and being open
to improving programs. She defined inquiry as “a spirit” for reflection and openness.
She recognized the need for “constantly looking to see [that a program] is still responding
to the need that prompted its creation.” Through the inquiry process, her committee was
“looking at what‟s happening in the classroom with [the] students.” They were
investigating “ways to capture” more data such as “getting the student voice into the
135
mix.” She indicated, “We need other tools to evaluate and assess what‟s going on at the
classroom level.” Although Rain acknowledged that inquiry could occur at the individual
level, it was her opinion that it was best for groups to dialogue. The English acceleration
courses serve as an example of how inquiry led to a new course at Sunrise.
Rain’s power and influence. Rain was aware of her power to influence the
basic skills committee. As the basic skills coordinator, she had the “power of speaking
for a larger group” in shared governance meetings and was cognizant her role as the basic
skills coordinator carried a strong voice on campus as “an advocate for basic skills
students across campus.” She acknowledged there was a level of “respect” that came
with managing funds. Rain drew from her involvement “outside of campus” through the
basic skills regional meetings and professional development opportunities as an
additional source of power. It was evident she understood her knowledge base was a
source of power when she proclaimed, “I think honestly a lot of it comes down to what I
choose to bring back to campus.” She added, “Where I put my energy does influence a
lot of where the energy” goes. Another measure of her power was that, as co-chair of the
basic skills committee, Rain “pretty much set the agenda.”
Aware her words carried influence with others, Rain was cautious about how she
approached people and introduced subjects. She “tried to balance making her point, but
not trying to dominate [others] or come on too strong.” It was important for others to
“feel comfortable talking” to her and they felt “that they‟ll be heard.” Rain consciously
created a comfortable environment for others “so that when [she did] make a point,”
others would listen. She did not view herself as a “top down person,” but rather as one
136
who was “organized in terms of setting agendas, priorities and bringing people together.”
She portrayed herself as “proactive, but not aggressive.”
Rain’s opinion of the budget cuts. Sunrise was “feeling the strain of the
budget cuts,” particularly since there was a “hiring freeze among faculty.” According to
her, faculty were “stretched” and the “quality of professional life” for many was
suffering. For example, as a result of the unstable budget situation, faculty positions
were going unfilled after retirements and other faculty lost some of their reassigned time
for non-teaching assignments, with some receiving 20 percent reassigned time when they
previously received 40 percent. This resulted in “some fatigue” among faculty. Budget
cuts were “inspiring [the committee] to continue to inquire” about their practices. Rain
explained that, “because of restrictions, we have to be more selective” about allocating
money.
Rain’s basic skills committee meetings. Because Rain was on sabbatical
when I interviewed her, I was unable to observe her as chair of a basic skills meeting.
She described the typical basic skills meeting as one that included progress reports on
funded projects and discussions in which some professional development activities were
questioned or defended. In these meetings, administrators would often request data.
Faculty often drew connections between what was “going on in their classroom” and
“particular parts of the basic skills plan.” In response to anecdotes about their students,
“the campus based researcher frequently made connections with the data.”
Summary. Through her exposure to BSI professional development workshops,
Rain acquired new knowledge and shared it with her colleagues. She recognized some of
the concepts might be controversial for her fellow colleagues, so rather than present the
137
information all at once to a large group, she presented it in a one-on-one fashion and over
time. Although the committee did not look at data together often, when they did, the data
presented was comprehensive. Rain knew her colleagues were uncomfortable with data
so she tapped into the expertise of her campus based researcher to tie together how the
data supported the faculty‟s anecdotal experiences that they shared in the basic skills
meetings. Furthermore, Rain relied on the political expertise of her academic senate
president to dispel rumors that the basic skills committee‟s efforts would be in vain if the
basic skills budget was cut.
Rain was an academic discipline faculty member and did not experience any
resistance to being chosen as the basic skills coordinator. The time away from her role as
basic skills coordinator while on sabbatical may have prompted Rain‟s reflection on
implementation of the statewide initiative. Regardless of whether they were prompted by
her sabbatical, Rain‟s experiences provide insight for the state to consider for future
initiatives.
Doug, the Basic Skills Coordinator at Metropolitan College
Similar to Rain (the basic skill coordinator at Sunrise), Doug was a relatively new
employee at Metropolitan College when he began his service as basic skills coordinator.
In 2007, he was hired as the college‟s first basic skills English instructor in response to
the changing needs of the student body. He described the last ten years as a time when
the college experienced a dramatic change in both student demographics and the number
of students attending Metropolitan. It was Doug‟s recollection that in 2007 the college
had 2,500 full time equivalent students (FTES). Each year thereafter that number
continued to increase until it reached the approximately 4,000 FTES that existed when I
138
interviewed him 2011. He emphasized the rapid rise in the number of students
Metropolitan College served when he claimed, “We just grew at the seam really fast.”
With the growth in enrollment, the college‟s identity as “the white college” in the district
was rapidly changing. As the college expanded, the number of students of color grew
tremendously and their educational needs were consistent with the state and national
trends: they required remediation. These circumstances are what prompted Doug‟s hire
as the first English basic skills instructor in 2007 and as the basic skills coordinator in
2009. Prior to the Basic Skills Initiative, he described the college community having
“philosophical clashes” and confusion about “who [is] Metropolitan College.” At the
time, the faculty “didn‟t necessarily have a [formal] platform to advocate [for basic skills
students]” although several faculty were “pretty adamant” in voicing their concerns.
These student advocates were considered “the renegades” because they didn‟t have a
formal seat at academic senate or other meetings. The BSI, however, gave the renegades
“an institutional seat” on committees and that change resulted in “a lot more leverage” to
“bolster [their] advocacy.”
Using a strategy similar to the one employed by Verde College, Metropolitan
College used its basic skills practices to write a Title III grant. All of the components
“that were part of the Basic Skills Initiative were also part of the Title III proposal.”
When Metropolitan College was notified they would receive the grant the following
fiscal year, “Title III and BSI basically ran parallel.” During the first year of the Title III
grant, the college streamlined the two programs by eliminating the BSI name and the BSI
committee. Doug disclosed:
139
Last year we received the Title III grant, so almost all of the efforts of the Basic
Skills Initiative have been dovetailed into the Title III [grant]…they're almost
synonymous. The director of Title III is also the administrative director for the
Basic Skills Initiative. I still serve as coordinator for the Basic Skills Initiative.
As a result of the campus culture, stigma, and “discomfort with basic skills,” the
college was trying to deter the college community from using the term “basic skills.”
When I interviewed him, Doug‟s energy was focused on completing the prior year‟s basic
skills activities, but he was no longer holding basic skills meetings. He was active on the
Title III committee, the statewide Basic Skills Initiative, and a local initiative to mobilize
students against further budget cuts.
I asked Doug if he considered the BSI to be institutionalized into the Title III
grant. After hesitating, he responded, “Yes. I would say that it‟s institutionalized by the
Title III grant, but then the question that‟s begged is „Is the Title III grant
institutionalized?‟” Because Metropolitan was one year into a five year grant, there was
no definitive answer yet.
Doug’s background. Although he was a relatively new employee at
Metropolitan, Doug was the first basic skills English faculty member at the college.
Since his hire, he has been actively “involved in a little bit of everything.” In 2009, he
became the basic skills coordinator.
Challenges as the New Basic Skills Coordinator. When Doug became the basic
skills coordinator, a job description did not exist for the position. He learned his role
“through the [basic skills] handbook.” He found that the handbook “laid out some of the
ground work,” particularly in regards to “the campus culture.” It was Doug‟s opinion that
the culture at Metropolitan College served as the largest constraint to implementing the
140
Basic Skills Initiative. As the student population and their needs increased, the college
experienced a great deal of administrative turnover, which affected the college culture.
Administrative turnover and its effect on the campus culture. Metropolitan
College underwent significant administrative changes during Doug‟s tenure at the college.
He recollected, “In the seven years that I've been here, we've had four presidents. We had
seven, if not eight, academic vice presidents. We don't have any [academic] deans right
now.”
Due to high turnover in administration, the college hasn‟t had “any formal
structure of shared governance.” He added, “We‟ve had bodies of shared governance,
but we haven't necessarily had any kind of formal procedure of shared governance.”
Extensive administrative turnover has served as a major barrier for the governance
structure at Metropolitan College. The lack of consistent leadership at the college has
also backlashed in a stronger faculty presence. The “fluctuation in administration”
resulted in “faculty assert[ing] themselves that much more.” Metropolitan has become
what Doug described as “really faculty driven.” The history of the political power
structure at Metropolitan College is important because in the absence of a strong
administration, faculty created an even stronger presence on campus. Although Doug is
himself a faculty member at the college, he recognizes that faculty have a “strong sense
of entitlement” and rose in power by “asserting themselves” while there was a fluctuation
of administration.
Administration has since stabilized at Metropolitan. In fact, according to Doug, it
was the steadiest it had ever been when I interviewed him: “This is the most stable it's
141
ever been on the [top] floor, but they still have [the faculty driven culture] to contend
with.”
Doug Struggled with the Lack of Formal Processes. Due to the lack of a
stable administrative team, the college lacked an established shared governance process
when the Basic Skills Initiative was implemented at Metropolitan College.
Consequently, Doug struggled with Metropolitan‟s “unclear decision making process.”
The basic skills committee had an agenda, but he found institutionalizing it was a
challenge at his college because there was no clear process. He remembered taking the
plan to the Academic Senate but only getting “a signature there.” He also met with the
Vice President of Student Services, but got stuck with trying to figure out where they
should go next. He explained that, “Administration never told us what path” to take,
describing the process as “an intellectual exercise.”
At the time, Metropolitan College lacked a formal decision making body and
formed what was supposed to be a shared governance committee. The committee‟s
membership consisted of the president, “instructors from different departments,” and
student services.
Doug considered his experiences with this committee unproductive and his
frustration was clear as he described his experience with it. He presented the action plan
to the committee, but as the semester continued, he “realized that bringing something to
the [committee] didn‟t necessarily mean it was a check to approve an issue or program.”
Doug assumed the committee had more power than it did when it was installed. From his
description of his interaction with the committee, he obviously thought he was following
appropriate process. As he went through the motions of a reporting relationship, he
142
learned the committee lacked formal power. The committee “turned out to be very
informal” because “it didn‟t have any teeth.” As a result, the college “created another
committee that would take the recommendations” from the academic senate, the
classified union, and the original shared governance committee. The new committee
“would be the decision-making committee.”
It was clear from my interaction with Doug he felt he had put in a good faith
effort to take the college‟s Basic Skills Initiative through a formal process, but was
stymied by administration‟s lack of response. He painted a picture of himself tangled in
the red tape of emerging committees. It is my interpretation that he saw the new
committee as more red tape when he informed me he “started checking out” when the
college introduced the second committee. He found his experience to be “really
disappointing because everybody [on the basic skills committee] came in really charged,
but when [they] started navigating through” the maze of Metropolitan‟s decision making
process, they realized that there was “no set way [for them] to hold the institution
accountable” to the basic skills plan. As he looked back on his experience, he stated, “It
was really discouraging.”
Doug compared his confusion over senior administration‟s stance on basic skills
to a time in his life when he was sure about his organization‟s mission. When Doug
served in the military, he was clear about his CEO‟s mission. As he recalled, “everybody
knew what our CEO‟s mission was” because it was articulated down the chain of
command.” Because he knew his military CEO‟s mission, he could ask for what he
wanted by embedding his request into the mission. He stated, “If you wanted something,
you had to at least put it in the language of his top things in order to get it.” He wished
143
he had a president who would take a stance on basic skills so that even if he had to “tap
dance around” to try to get what he needed, he could “at least frame it and contextualize
it with basic skills.” In the absence of a formal stance on basic skills from his
administration, he compared his experience to a child being told, “Go out there and see if
you can find that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.” To which, Doug was responding
“I found it! What can I do with it now?” And that administration‟s response appeared to
be, “Oh. You may want to put that back.” He affirmed, “I‟ve hit my head so many times,
sometimes [the process for implementation] seems maliciously not in place.” He
reasoned that if the administration did not commit to a process to institutionalize basic
skills then nobody would be able to “figure out how to get a decision.”
Doug did not consider basic skills to be a priority of senior management. While
he did not view basic skills as a priority for either the college president or the
instructional vice president, it was his experience that his vice president was
“comprehensive” and at least viewed basic skills as “one other part of the big puzzle”
versus “a small part of the puzzle.” He showed his acceptance of his vice president‟s
stance by stating, “I‟m fine with that because I‟m used to [basic skills] being a small part
of the puzzle.”
According to Doug, he experienced unlimited platforms for speaking about basic
skills, but the college lacked a process for institutionalizing it. During my interview with
Doug, it was clear he wanted the administration to provide a detailed map for getting
basic skills recognized as an institutional priority.
Basic skills was stigmatized. The college community prides itself on
transferring students to their local University of California campus and as a result “[basic
144
skills] was not the focus of the campus and many people would say that it felt like that
this lack of focus on basic skills was dragging the campus down [and] keeping the
campus from moving forward.” It was his experience the term “basic skills” carried a
stigma and served as a dividing line at Metropolitan College. If an event or meeting was
labeled BSI, faculty who did not teach basic skills classes concluded their attendance was
not required. It was his understanding that faculty justified their non-attendance by
rationalizing that “it was only for those students, only for those classes, [and] only for the
teachers who teach those classes.” My impression was faculty members at Metropolitan
College could be divided into two categories: those who identify themselves as basic
skills instructors and those who do not. The faculty who identify themselves as basic
skills instructors would attend workshops and meetings where basic skills was discussed,
whereas the faculty who did not identify themselves as basic skills instructors would not.
Aware of these faculty attitudes, the newly formed Title III committee (of which Doug
was a member) attempted to change the faculty culture by hosting BSI sponsored
meetings and events without labeling them “sponsored by BSI.‟” Doug reasoned, “I
think losing the name, BSI kind of helped out.”
Doug’s challenge getting diverse faculty involvement. Involving diverse
faculty in the Basic Skills Initiative was a challenge for Doug. He pointed out a
difference in faculty involvement between departments when he stated, “In the English
department everybody‟s involved. Every English instructor.” This was, however, not the
case for the mathematics faculty. Even though the mathematics department “had a math
instructor who was hired as a basic skills math instructor,” according to Doug, there was
a time in which the mathematics faculty did not attend the basic skills meetings. It was
145
not until Doug worked with his 3CSN regional coordinator to bring colleagues from other
colleges to his campus that the mathematics faculty at Metropolitan College became
involved in BSI efforts. Then Metropolitan‟s mathematics faculty attended the
workshops because their math colleagues from other California Community Colleges
were on campus to share information. Doug considered the strategy of having other
mathematics faculty at his college a success. He stated, “It was really important for us to
get people from outside to come and have these conversations so that [Metropolitan math
faculty] could be „tricked‟ into coming in the room.”
In a workshop featuring an outside “mathematician speaking about summer
bridge,” Doug found the basic skills committee was able to get more “traction from the
math department” because the speaker “resonated more with the math department than if
[he] had” suggested what they should do. The outside speakers showed Metropolitan
mathematics instructors how they could “navigate the system” outside of their
department. He was pleased his mathematics faculty went to the workshop. He stated,
“it got [the basic skill committee‟s] foot in the door in a department that [it had] been
trying to get into for a while.” He recognized some of the reluctance on part of the
mathematics faculty to attend BSI workshops was because, although he was the basic
skills coordinator, his colleagues in the mathematics department “[viewed] him as an
English instructor.”
Doug‟s 3CSN regional coordinator conducted a logic modeling training, which
Metropolitan College used to create its action plan. He considered his regional
coordinator‟s assistance to be “invaluable” with helping him create an evaluation plan for
the action plan. With the help of its 3CSN regional coordinator, Metropolitan held a
146
scaffolding workshop featuring faculty presenters from other campuses. They extended
invitations to other campuses, which resulted in “people from departments on campus
who [didn‟t] come to the BSI meetings [going]” to the workshop.
In addition, as a result of attending a University of Southern California‟s Center
for Urban Education presentation that his regional coordinator arranged, Doug learned
about the importance of “different types of advocacy.” He used the knowledge to
construct Metropolitan‟s basic skills committee. Doug explained, “When I got the
committee together, I was thinking specifically about [the different types of advocacy].”
His logic for picking the committee members resulted from information gleaned at the
Center for Urban Education‟s presentation. As a result of that training, he handpicked
colleagues who he felt were strong programmatically, in the classroom, and in negotiating
the institution.
Doug’s academic status. Like Rain (the basic skills coordinator at Sunrise),
Doug originated from an academic teaching discipline (English), so he did not encounter
resistance when he was named the basic skills coordinator. As the first English basic
skills instructor at Metropolitan College, faculty did not question his credentials to serve
in his new role. Doug speculated he also had credibility with non-basic skills faculty
because he taught both basic and non-basic skills courses. He stated, “I think I have
some credibility mostly because I don't only teach basic skills classes. So I think my
experience with students outside of basic skills classes lends a little credibility.” He
added his reputation “as a pretty rigorous instructor” who had “high expectations” of his
students and kept “a tight ship” made him credible to his non-basic skills colleagues.
147
Doug questions the self-assessment process at Metropolitan. Doug was
hired specifically to work as a basic skills faculty member, yet he did not recall any
faculty involvement in the self-assessment activity. It is Doug‟s opinion that the self-
assessment process “never happened.” Metropolitan‟s self-assessment tool was
submitted to the state, but he speculated “somebody turned [it] in as a silo [because] it
never went to faculty. And because it never went to faculty, the self-assessment process
“was either done by the district or by [Metropolitan] administrators.”
Knowing that neither he nor his colleagues were part of the self-assessment or
planning process earlier in the Basic Skills Initiative, he wanted to engage in the exercise
shortly after he became the basic skills coordinator. He approached the vice presidents
over student services and instruction and informed them of his desire to implement the
self-assessment and planning process and involve their staff. He asked them what would
be “the best way for [him] to do the exercise,” but he received “no response.” In absence
of a response, it appeared that it was Doug‟s perception that he did not have
administration‟s support. Doug attributed the administrators‟ lack of response to their
newness and the possible perception that he was pushing his own agenda.
Doug raises the cultural competency gap in the BSI. Cultural competency
and equity were important to Doug, but he felt they were lacking in the BSI. He
reflected, “There‟s a cultural competency part [of the BSI] that to be honest was missing
in the whole poppy copy… I don't think they talked about equity minded instruction.”
Over the last seven years while Metropolitan‟s student population was rapidly
increasing, the college also experienced a dramatic shift in its student demographics. The
college, which was once known as the “white college” in the District, experienced a surge
148
of ethnic minority student enrollment in their basic skills programs. He described
instructors who taught “outside of the basic skills classes” as not “having too much
interaction with people of color.” As an instructor who taught both basic skills and non-
basic skills courses at Metropolitan College, Doug was confident he could “walk into a
classroom blindfolded” and when the blindfold was removed, he would know whether
the class “was a basic skills class or not.” In the basic skills class, there would be more
males and students of color, particularly more “men of color.” In Metropolitan‟s transfer
courses, however, there were “very few men of color.” He spoke of his experience
teaching two back-to-back courses in the same room. One was the “lowest level [English
course] in the sequence” and the other was “the highest level English” course in the
sequence. He recalled his classroom demographics transforming over a ten minute
period as mostly male students of color from the lowest level course left the room and
mostly white female students entered the room for the highest level course. He used his
experience as an instructor of both basic skills and transfer courses as an example of how
most of the faculty at Metropolitan did not have interaction with students of color
because they did not teach basic skills classes.
Doug gave another example of Metropolitan‟s faculty‟s inability to deal with
students of color. Because certain departments did not have course prerequisites, “some
of the other discipline instructors feel that all of their black students are basic skills
students so they treat them all like basic skills students.” As a result, “even the ones who
are not basic skills students end up dropping the class or not engaging” in class. As a
result of his interaction with Metropolitan‟s faculty and staff, Doug hypothesized, “I think
149
our students are threatening to people here.” Doug sensed the campus community was
afraid to deal with its racial issues and argued:
If the campus isn't ready to deal with its racial issues and ready to have real
genuine conversations about race, ready to have conversations that mean
something and move and get beyond fears and discomfort around race, BSI –
whatever you name it – is only going to go so far. It's only going to go so far.
During the interview, Doug described a time in which the college considered
collaborating with the University of Southern California‟s Center for Urban Education.
Ultimately, the college decided against the project due to the expense and time involved,
but Doug offered “those [reasons] were shields” for the larger issue of how much did they
“want to open [themselves] up to race.” He was concerned that basic skills was “colored
by color.” It was his experience that race often went “unspoken” or “the conversation
[was] in such a way that it [made] someone who [was] timid that much more afraid and
less likely to engage” in the conversation.
Metropolitan’s English Department enhances program as a result of
inquiry. During his interview, Doug revealed that the basic skills committee never
looked at data together during their meetings. While the basic skills committee had not
reviewed data as a group, the English Department had and changed their practices as a
result of that inquiry. For Doug, inquiry was a process of “how to make the data
meaningful to faculty members.” Data analysis should “move people‟s hearts as well as
their minds” so they approach data “in a way that is really going to help students rather
than as a way to just understand what is going on.” He described how the English
department used inquiry to improve their English course sequence. As the faculty
reviewed their student learning outcomes data, they became aware that the research
150
project was the “weakest area” for their English students. This fact was difficult for them
to absorb because it “was the biggest project of the semester” for their [composition and
reading] students. As the English department considered the data and discussed ways
their students could improve their research skills, they concluded the students needed
more research practice. Consequently, the department changed the curriculum so it
consisted of three smaller research papers to allow students to build their research skills
over time.
Changes to the English curriculum did not stop there. As the faculty considered
which learning outcomes they wanted students in the lower level English courses to
attain, they concluded they needed to expose them to research also. Thus, a course that
prepares students to take the composition and reading course, now has multiple research
assignments. The difference between the different English levels is that in the higher
level course, the students are required to submit three research papers with two “peer-
reviewed, peer-edited sources [from] scholarly journals” and in the course below it,
students must submit only “one peer-reviewed, peer-edited” article. Doug informed me
that as a result of these changes students were doing better and the faculty reasoned that it
did not make sense to have the students take a similar class all over again.
The English Department also made changes to their evaluation model. In the new
model, all students are required to submit a portfolio, which is “graded blindly” by other
English faculty using a departmental rubric. If a student who is taking the course that
prepares students for reading and writing receives scores of “three or higher” on each of
the assignments, they receive credit for [the composition and reading course]. The new
process was Metropolitan‟s English Department‟s approach at “acceleration without
151
changing [their] curriculum or changing [their] class structure.” Through the new
process, even students who are enrolled in their lowest English level “have the
opportunity to test out of [composition and reading] as well.” Doug commented that the
rubric is helpful for students, regardless of whether they skip to the next level, because
they get feedback on the area(s) that they need to work on.
Additional changes to curriculum came from the ESL Department after asking
their former students two questions. The first was “what they had learned that had helped
them the most in their [composition and reading course]?” The second was “what they
wished they had more exposure to in their ESL classes to prepare them for their
[composition and reading course]?” The project involved a couple of focus groups which
they recorded.
How Doug brought back knowledge to Metropolitan. As mentioned earlier,
Doug utilized his 3CSN regional coordinator to hold professional development
workshops at Metropolitan College. The workshops resulted in the mathematics
department getting involved in the basic skills committee‟s efforts. He found his regional
network instrumental in getting beyond “personality driven conversations.”
Aware that not every college is connected to their regional network, Doug
believed that basic skills coordinators might not know how to use their networks or even
understand the role of the regional network. He speculated that some basic skills
coordinators, who are reluctant to connect to the network, may feel the network
participants serves as evaluators who might publicly point out the mistakes of others with
regard to basic skills administration.
152
Doug gave another example of how he brought back knowledge to his campus
when he described a professional development event in which a leader, who is involved
with the Community College Survey of Student Engagement, presented information on
ways to analyze the survey‟s results. Metropolitan College had completed the survey two
years before as part of their accreditation. Doug recalled the college “didn‟t do much
with it” besides presenting it in their narrative report. However, after being exposed to
different ways of analyzing the data through the workshop, the experience helped him
talk about the data in a new way. When I interviewed him, the college was creating a
“data team” that would not only look at data, but question its meaning.
Doug as a collaborative leader. The basic skills committee made budget
decisions together. According to Doug, the committee members engaged in logic
modeling by first defining what they wanted their “end product” to look like and worked
backwards from there. Doug also collaborated highly with his regional coordinator and
colleges in his region.
Doug’s reflection. Doug questioned why his college is not making basic skills
the most important part of their mission. He pondered:
How can you look at the state of things where we are and not say that [basic
skills] is the most important part of our mission? And to me the only way you can
answer that is you don't like the people that you‟re supposed to be working for or
for some reason you feel that working towards this mission is a threat to your
position at the college.
Doug went on to describe the ways in which making the Basic Skills Initiative the
college‟s top priority might be perceived as a threat. He said people have a “zero-sum
mentality” and making basic skills a top priority could be perceived as a threat by faculty
in other departments.
153
Summary. Doug experienced many challenges in his role as the basic skills
coordinator. His college culture was characterized by fear. For many faculty, serving
basic skills students competed with their college‟s identity as a University of California
transfer college. Years of high administrative turnover coupled with a lack of a formal
shared governance process hampered his progress and demoralized his spirit. Despite
these challenges, Doug exemplified a great passion for basic skills students. His
interview was characterized by inquiry in that he asked his own questions and speculated
on the answers. He shared distinct thoughts about what it means to be an educator and it
was clear from his responses to some of his own questions, that passion was a
prerequisite. He stated, “[education] should be a profession of reflection…why don‟t we
reflect more?” Although Doug did the majority of talking during our interview, I felt I
was involved in an honest discussion about our profession. But our conversation was
about more than just about our profession or about basic skills: it was about race. Race
was an important factor in the conversation due to the way in which race and basic skills
were intertwined. Yet Doug found it difficult to address these issues because of the
reluctance of white faculty to acknowledge race.
Although the college decided to eliminate the term “basic skills” when it merged
its efforts with the Title III grant, Doug was successful in bringing new knowledge to his
campus. In taking advantage of professional development workshops offered through the
BSI, he was exposed to best practices. Doug tapped into the presenters‟ knowledge by
inviting them to Metropolitan to share information with his college faculty and colleagues
from his region. With the help of his regional coordinator, Doug was successful in
getting the mathematics department involved in basic skills.
154
Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented case studies that described how four basic skills
coordinators enacted their roles. In the next chapter, I synthesize the findings and discuss
the implications for practice.
155
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
This chapter begins with a discussion of the important findings from this study,
followed by a discussion of the research questions. Specifically, I discuss how basic
skills coordinators lead an initiative framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration,
and evidence. I also discuss the organizational constraints experienced by basic skills
coordinators and how they modified the coordinator‟s role. Next, I discuss the
implications for practice followed by my recommendations for practice and future
research. The chapter ends with an overview of the limitations of this study and
concluding remarks.
To review, the overarching research question of this study is: In what ways do
basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning? The questions that guide this study
are: 1) How do basic skills coordinators lead an initiative framed by the principles of
inquiry, collaboration, and evidence?; 2) What organizational constraints are encountered
by basic skills coordinators?; and 3) How do basic skills coordinators modify their roles
in response to the organizational constraints they encounter?
Important Findings
The primary finding of this study was that basic skills coordinators used
collaborative practices to lead the Basic Skills Initiative. As a result of the basic skills
coordinator position not being addressed until the initiative was already underway, the
role was largely undefined. Workshops on the role of the coordinator, information on
how to create a culture of inquiry, and how to approach data were not introduced until
after the initiative began. The coordinators who I interviewed discussed the need to
156
define the role themselves. They gained an understanding of their roles by speaking with
other coordinators and attending professional development events that highlighted
effective practices in basic skills. These events promoted a collaborative learning
environment where coordinators served as a resource for one another to make sense of
their roles and the Basic Skills Initiative. Basic Skills professional development events
fostered collaborative environments where coordinators learned from each other. To
make sense of their relatively new positions, coordinators discussed their roles and
practices among themselves. Their learning was ingrained by social interaction and they
developed shared understandings of basic skills as well as ways to lead change. The
collaborative spirit of the Basic Skills Initiative was modeled at the state level and
replicated at the regional and campus levels. Coordinators convened in their regions in
professional networks to share effective practices and discuss challenges with each other.
At the campus level, the coordinators modeled collaboration by involving committee
members in decisions, listening to their committee members, and assisting faculty in their
research and data analysis. There were five key findings. First, I will discuss two
findings in response to how basic skills coordinators lead an initiative that is framed by
the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence. Then I will discuss the final three
findings in response to the organizational constraints basic skills coordinators
encountered and how they modified their roles in response to these constraints. The
following findings emerged from this study:
157
1. Coordinators led organizational learning through knowledge acquisition,
information distribution, information interpretation, and served as
facilitators for building organizational memory.
2. Coordinators perceived that having the support of their administrators was
instrumental to the success of the Basic Skills Initiative.
3. The professional status of the basic skills coordinator influenced how they
were received by the teaching faculty, at least initially. Coordinators who
did not hold the position of teaching faculty had the extra burden of
legitimizing their authority.
4. Some academic faculty resisted participating in the Basic Skills Initiative.
5. Basic skills coordinators were building a culture of evidence on their
campuses.
Leading an initiative framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and
evidence. The overarching research question of this study is: In what ways do basic
skills coordinators lead organizational learning? The first question that guides this study
is: How do basic skills coordinators lead an initiative that is framed by the principles of
inquiry, collaboration, and evidence? Below, I present two findings related to this
research question. First, coordinators led organizational learning through knowledge
acquisition, information distribution, information interpretation, and served as facilitators
for building organizational memory. Second, coordinators perceived that having the
support of their administrators was instrumental to the success of the Basic Skills
Initiative.
158
Coordinators led organizational learning. Basic skills coordinators played a
critical role in organizational learning through their ability to acquire knowledge and
distribute information to their committees and the campus at large (Huber, 1991). The
coordinators actions reflected Huber‟s (1991) four constructs of organizational learning
in their leadership roles. Appendix F contains a table representation of each basic skills
coordinators‟ use of Huber‟s (1991) organizational learning practices. Each construct of
organizational learning is discussed below.
Knowledge acquisition. According to Huber (1991), knowledge acquisition
refers to the process by which information is obtained. The BSI‟s focus on statewide and
regional professional development encourages basic skills coordinators and their
committees to share their experiences with each other. Workshops, trainings, and
websites promote borrowing effective practices from other institutions. As a result,
coordinators and other practitioners who acquired new knowledge engaged in vicarious
learning or acquired second-hand experience (Huber, 1991). Coordinators assisted each
other by explaining the lessons learned and providing others with tips on how to design
successful projects. Coordinators spoke of adapting practices from other colleges and
piloting them on their campuses.
Basic skills coordinators relied on each other and basic skills professional
development events to acquire new knowledge for their committees. The coordinators
attended professional development events and encouraged their committee members to
do the same. They used their basic skills meetings as venues for distributing information
to others. Doug was faced with the absence of mathematics faculty members at his basic
skills meetings, so he invited an instructor from another college, whose mathematics
159
summer bridge program was successful, to share effective practices with Metropolitan
faculty. As a result, the mathematics faculty at Metropolitan acquired new knowledge.
Conference attendance by Tina‟s committee members also triggered knowledge
acquisition at Metropolitan. After the conferences she would schedule one-on-one
meetings with attendees to determine what new knowledge had been learned. If the new
knowledge was something she believed the entire committee could benefit from, she
asked the conference attendee to present their new knowledge at the next student success
committee meeting.
Additionally, coordinators helped their committee members acquire new
knowledge about data. They attended professional development events that included
sessions regarding evidence, data use, and data analysis. Committee members developed
new skill sets that allowed them to discuss data with their committees.
Information distribution. Information distribution refers to the process by
which information from different sources is shared and that sharing leads to new
information or understanding (Huber, 1991). The basic skills committee meetings,
reports at academic senate and other committee meetings, and internal workshops served
as venues for distributing information to campus-wide constituents. Furthermore, basic
skills websites allowed information to be distributed to a wider audience. The act of
distributing information to committee members, at committee meetings, and at campus
workshops ensured that the college community was knowledgeable about basic skills.
Carrie had particularly innovative methods of sharing information with her committee
members. She “presented the broccoli” (e.g., new information) for them to consider and
if they were not ready to digest the new information, she waited until they were. She also
160
presented drafts of her ideas to her committee members for them to consider. She found
her committee members were more likely to offer suggestions when the idea for
consideration was presented in written form and the committee members knew it was still
in a draft format. Tina and Carrie both spoke of using an additional strategy for
distributing information. That strategy involved encouraging their committee members
to do as much presenting of information as possible so that they took ownership of the
initiative. In my observation of Tina‟s student success committee meeting, several
committee members with coordinator titles gave updates and reports on their progress in
reaching the objectives in the action plan.
Information interpretation. Huber (1991) defines information interpretation as
the process by which distributed information is given one or more commonly understood
interpretations. The interpretation of information is a social process (Weick, 1995) and
commonly referred to as collective sensemaking (Coburn, 2001). Basic skills
coordinators created meeting environments that encouraged the interpretation of
information. Coordinators allotted time during meetings for professional discussions to
take place. These discussions were prompted by shared readings and often occurred
spontaneously. In the student success committee meeting I observed at Plaza, Carrie
presented a draft of a rubric for making decisions about funding to her committee
members. She asked them to discuss the rubric in pairs before she led a discussion of the
rubric with the entire committee. When the committee members reported out on what
they had discussed in pairs, it was clear that the small groups had focused on different
cues in the rubric. Their interpretations of the rubric varied somewhat, but became more
similar as they discussed how they would judge a proposal using the rubric. Therefore,
161
the time allotted during the meeting for the committee members to consider a draft rubric
also served as an opportunity for committee members to make sense of the rubric.
Organizational memory. Organizational memory, according to Huber (1991),
is the means by which knowledge is stored for future use. The Basic Skills Initiative
modeled improving organizational memory through its use of the 3CSN and other basic
skills websites. The websites, which retained effective practices, stored organizational
memory on computers (Huber, 1991). Coordinators replicated this model by developing
their own basic skills websites, which stored agendas, minutes, reports, data, and other
information about basic skills. And in addition to these storage methods, which Huber
refers to as computer-based organizational memory (1991); information about basic skills
is also stored in the minds of the organization‟s members.
Human memories can be a possible resource for preserving organizational
memory, but Huber (1991) cautioned that human memories are often less than
satisfactory for preserving organizational memory due to reasons such as personnel
turnover and members not anticipating that they will need information in the future.
Huber identified other variables that were likely to influence the ongoing effectiveness of
organizational memory. These variables include: 1) membership attrition, 2) information
distribution and organizational interpretation, 3) the norms and methods for storing
information, and 4) the methods for locating and retrieving stored information (Huber,
1991).
While the Basic Skills Initiative does not address membership attrition, it does
address the remaining three variables that influence the ongoing effectiveness of
organizational memory. As discussed above, information distribution and organizational
162
interpretation are central to the Basic Skills Initiative. Instructions given for gathering
organizational leaders across the campus to complete the self-assessment tool and
planning matrices are early examples of the initiative‟s focus on information distribution.
Tina and Rain both recalled that as a result of the self-assessment process they held a
greater knowledge of which programs and services existed on their campuses and which
services appeared to be duplicated. The self-assessment tool and planning matrices
provided an opportunity for organizations to reflect on the scope and efficacy of their
current practices in basic skills. Therefore, they served as a tool for organizational
interpretation.
Huber also noted that the norms and methods for storing information as well as
the methods for locating and retrieving stored information influence the ongoing
effectiveness of organizational memory. The BSI‟s focus on computer-based
organizational memory allows organizations to locate, retrieve, and store information on
websites. Minutes from basic skills meetings, reports, presentations, and videos stored on
the institution‟s website and shared on the 3CSN and other websites increase the
likelihood that the organization‟s members will be able to retrieve the information when
needed. Faculty and staff can also retrieve information which they have stored in their
minds. A discussion with a fellow committee member about the BSI, for example, would
likely trigger a faculty member‟s memory.
Coordinators perceived administrators’ support instrumental. Basic skills
coordinators perceived senior administration‟s support important to the success of the
Basic Skills Initiative at their campuses. Three of the basic skills coordinators in this
study reported that they had the support of their senior administration. Tina felt
163
supported by her vice president because he often attended the student success committee
meetings and spoke highly of their work. Carrie also indicated that she felt supported by
her senior administration. She met with them regularly to share basic skills data.
Furthermore, when her senior administration decided to offer mathematics and English
courses as part of Plaza‟s reduced winter offerings, Carrie expressed the opinion that their
enrollment management decisions placed an “institutional priority on basic skills.” Rain
felt supported by her senior administration because they allowed the basic skills
committee to develop its own budget for basic skills and they sought the “faculty‟s input
on major decisions related to scheduling.” She did, however, also believe that “[m]ore
leadership from administration and deans” would make the BSI more effective on
campus.
Unlike the other basic skills coordinators, Doug did not express that his
administration was particularly supportive of basic skills efforts at Metropolitan.
Through years of administrative turnover, the college had become faculty-driven. But
Doug respected the positional power of senior administration so he approached them with
a request for support to make basic skills an institutional priority (e.g., Effective Practice
A.1 in the Basic Skills Report). He was stymied by their lack of response. Later, senior
administration introduced a shared governance body, but Doug quickly realized the
committee lacked power. His enthusiasm for attending shared governance committee
meetings deflated when senior administration added a second shared governance
committee. Unlike the other three coordinators who had the support of their senior
administrators, Doug described his experience as one in which he was tangled in red tape.
While he met with his senior administrators, Doug‟s relationship with them appeared less
164
collaborative than the relationships the other basic skills coordinators had with their
senior administrators.
Organizational constraints. To review, the overarching research question of this
study is: In what ways do basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning? The
research questions that guide this study in relation to organizational constraints are: What
organizational constraints are encountered by basic skills coordinators? – and – How do
basic skills coordinators modify their roles in response to the organizational constraints
they encounter?
In this study, basic skills coordinators experienced three organizational constraints
that modified their role. First, non-teaching basic skills coordinators perceived that they
lacked the professional status in the opinion of some faculty to serve in the leadership
role. Second, faculty resisted basic skills. Finally, faculty resisted using data, which
resulted in coordinators having to build a culture of evidence.
Coordinator’s professional status influenced how they were received by
teaching faculty. This study offered insight into how teaching faculty responded to the
professional status of the basic skills coordinators. Non-teaching coordinators perceived
their professional status mattered to faculty, at least initially. Tina and Carrie were
cognizant of academic cultural expectations in which some faculty believed they did not
have the academic qualifications to serve as basic skills coordinators and, thus, invested
effort into gaining the faculty‟s trust. They were cautious not to offend anyone or
generate further rejection. They invested time listening to their committee members,
sharing the floor at committee meetings, and assisting individual faculty. These non-
threatening behaviors made it clear to the faculty that the basic skills coordinators would
165
not embark on rapid change without faculty input. The non-teaching coordinators
compensated for their lack of academic status by being particularly collaborative.
While all coordinators used collaborative practices to lead the initiative, the non-
teaching coordinators made the effort to appear more deliberate in their actions and to
ensure that decisions came from the faculty. Therefore, they modified their role by
relying on a collaborative and transparent leadership style to diffuse resistance and
establish their legitimacy. They chose to build consensus over making a name for
themselves as change agents. Through their collaborative approaches, they earned the
respect and consensus of the faculty.
Academic faculty resisted participating in the Basic Skills Initiative.
Although the Basic Skills Initiative reframed basic skills as “developmental, not
remedial” (Boroch et al., 2007, p. 9), according to the basic skills coordinators, some
faculty held negative views of basic skills. Coordinators described basic skills as being
viewed from a deficit framework by teaching faculty not involved in the Basic Skills
Initiative. For example, Carrie described that some of Plaza‟s faculty prioritized
preparing students to transfer to a four year institution as the college‟s goal rather than
providing remedial education. They were also “inherently distrustful of” new initiatives.
A common reason for gatekeeping, the process of filtering out ideas and
information, occurs when people view something outside the bounds of
comprehensibility (Coburn, 2001). In this case, the coordinators reported that some
academic faculty filtered out the idea that their college, which had an identity for
transferring students to four-year institutions, should offer basic skills courses.
Coordinators also described faculty filtering out the concept that the Basic Skills
166
Initiative affected them because they taught college level (e.g., not basic skills) courses.
Coordinators described faculty as holding a compartmentalized view of basic skills. And
Doug of Metropolitan described some faculty as believing that “[basic skills] was only
for those students, only for those classes, [and] only for the teachers who teach those
classes.”
Faculty resistance toward basic skills appeared strongest at Plaza and
Metropolitan, the two colleges that held an image as transfer colleges and historically
served white students in their districts. At Metropolitan, basic skills students were
largely minority males, while non-basic skills students were predominantly white. At
Plaza, Carrie described the faculty‟s resistance to basic skills in relation to the college‟s
transfer image. At Metropolitan, however, Doug implied that the faculty‟s resistance had
more to do with race because the college‟s influx of basic skills students also changed the
demographics for the campus. He also expressed that some faculty at his campus were
uncomfortable talking about the implications of race that basic skills embodied.
Coordinators believed they faced barriers in reaching a broader faculty audience
because a perception existed that basic skills did not apply to faculty who taught
academic subjects. Some colleges named their committees “student success” rather than
“basic skills,” perhaps to create an inclusive environment that would attract more faculty
to the meetings. When Metropolitan was awarded a Title III grant, they eliminated the
basic skills committee and opted to label their events as student success events.
According to Doug, this resulted in faculty from non-basic skills disciplines attending the
events. At Sunrise, Rain wondered if changing the name of the basic skills committee to
student success would result in a diluted focus on basic skills.
167
Coordinators were building a culture of evidence. The lack of a culture of
evidence served as a major obstacle for all four basic skills coordinators. Specifically,
the coordinators revealed that the faculty did not use or resisted using data and often
relied on anecdotal evidence, local understandings (Spillane, 2000) or local knowledge
(Honig & Coburn, 2008) instead. Some faculty resisted using data because they feared
the consequences of “bad data.” This suggests that faculty were not comfortable with the
inquiry process in which they would consider the underlying reasons behind “bad data.”
As a result of this resistance, the basic skills coordinators exposed their committees to
data in non-threatening ways.
Three of the coordinators attempted to overcome this anti-data culture by
exposing the basic skills committee members to data. Tina relied on her faculty data
coach to embed data lessons into the basic skills meetings. She also relied on a sociology
instructor to conduct focus groups on Verde‟s students. By depending on the expertise of
others, Tina exposed basic skills committee members to quantitative and qualitative data
on student success. Carrie focused “attention to the collection and analysis of data”
(Birnbaum, 1988, p. 113) and made evaluation plans a requirement for funding requests.
She worked one-on-one with faculty in developing their plans which helped them
understand the types of data that were relevant. When data was available, Carrie
demonstrated her managerial effectiveness by meeting with senior administration to share
the data and gain their support for the committee‟s efforts (Birnbaum, 1988). By sharing
data with decision makers, she modeled that data was meaningful. Her plan was for
senior administration to use her “strong data” for decision making in the future (Honig &
Coburn, 2008). Rain relied on the campus based researcher to thoroughly explain data to
168
the basic skills committee members. The researcher would tie in anecdotal information
that the faculty offered to make the data meaningful to them. Thus, the researcher found
a common ground with the faculty by not just looking at numbers but validating their
experiences. Each coordinator used different methods to build a culture of evidence at
their college. These practices focused on exposing committee members to data and how
it could be used to measure program effectiveness.
It is important to note Carrie was the only basic skills coordinator in this study
who was also an administrator and she also appeared to be the most confident in using
data. Her assurance in her data skills was consistent with the RP Group‟s findings which
indicated administrators used and reported greater access to data than faculty (RP Group,
2009). Carrie‟s reliance on data in the past as a manager of soft funds was unique
compared to the other basic skills coordinators. Tina, who held a managerial role over
the Center for Academic Success at Verde, appeared the next most confident in her data
skills. Although she relied on a faculty data coach and the institutional researcher in her
meetings, Tina appeared comfortable analyzing multiple types of data, including the
results of surveys and focus groups. Rain relied on her campus based researcher to lead
discussions about data annually. She was trained on using data, but expressed that
trainings among all faculty were needed because working with data was still “fresh for
[her].” Doug revealed he had not reviewed data with his basic skills committee.
However, he mentioned that Metropolitan was creating a committee to analyze data and
that he was on the committee. Doug‟s involvement with the emerging data team is
consistent with Honig and Coburn‟s (2008) finding. Social capital – or the educator‟s
internal and external ties such as degree of trust, shared norms, and expertise that
169
characterize those ties – influence evidence use (Honig & Coburn, 2008). Educators
respond to normative influences and are more likely to use evidence when the cultural,
norms, and professional practice encourage it (Honig & Coburn, 2008). Through
regional and statewide trainings, the Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007), Basic
Skills Handbook (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008a) and Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al.,
2010), the Basic Skills Initiative has increased basic skills coordinators‟ social capital
while encouraging evidence use in professional practice.
Non-teaching coordinators displayed greater confidence in data use, which
suggests that data may be limited to certain people or streams on campus (Jenkins &
Kerrigan, 2009; RP Group, 2009). By exposing their committees to data, coordinators
were building a culture of evidence at their campuses.
Culture of Evidence v. Culture of Inquiry. In terms of cultures of evidence
and inquiry, I view the two on a larger spectrum. (See Appendix G.) At one end of the
spectrum is the absence of data or evidence because data is not used or available (RP
Group Report, 2009; Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2009). A little further along the spectrum
would be the sporadic use of evidence such as committee members infrequently
reviewing the same data. Committees that look at data together more frequently would
be further along the spectrum. A committee that monitors FTES, for example, would
look at similar data each time they met. A committee that uses data for decision-making
would be further along the spectrum than one that simply monitors data. I would
consider a committee that frequently uses data, monitors benchmarks, or metric data to
embody a culture of evidence. Data use would vary depending on the committee, so a
culture of evidence would likely lie at the mid to three-quarters point on the spectrum.
170
Further along this spectrum (beginning at the three-quarters point) would be inquiry
practices. A culture of inquiry transcends frequency of data use and instead focuses on
the extent to which inquiry activities foster organizational learning. A culture of inquiry
in an academic setting as defined by Witham and Bensimon (2012, p. 47):
(1) reflects the unique culture of academic institutions by involving faculty and
campus practitioners in iterative processes of inquiry, (2) uses data as a jumping-
off point for intentional and critical analysis of equity in outcomes, (3) fosters
reflection on practices and a process of practitioner self-change, and (4) shifts
focus to institutional responsibility, rather than student deficits, when devising
solutions.
A committee that uses evidence to investigate their practice for organizational
learning would fall into the last quarter of the spectrum. Semi-annual or yearly inquiry
activities would fall closer to the third-quarter mark, whereas a committee that uses data
to engage in inquiry activities monthly or more frequently would fall closer to the end of
the spectrum.
Coordinators‟ evidence use (and consequently committees‟ evidence use) also
varied along the spectrum. At one end of the spectrum, Doug did not use data in his basic
skills committee meetings. Further along the spectrum, Rain relied on her institutional
researcher to discuss data with the committee annually. Carrie built a strong culture of
evidence at her campus. She also employed literature reviews and “inquiry” searches for
additional data. Tina relied on her data coach to keep data on the minds of her committee
members during committee meetings; she also relied on another faculty member to
conduct student focus groups. While Tina did not appear as confident in her data skills as
Carrie, by using others to carry out the data coaching and focus groups, Tina exhibited
more practices consistent with leading a culture of inquiry.
171
Basic skills coordinators who held non-teaching positions appeared to exhibit
more practices characteristic of leading cultures of evidence and inquiry than their
teaching counterparts. Tina and Carrie, who held basic skills coordinator positions as
non-teaching faculty, relied more heavily on evidence than Rain and Doug, the basic
skills coordinators who were hired as teaching faculty.
Limitations
The first limitation of this study is that my research focused on the experiences of
basic skills coordinators at only four of the 112 California Community Colleges. I made
a conscious effort to interview basic skills coordinators from colleges that were
representative of the entire California Community College system by choosing
coordinators from small and large colleges; urban, suburban, and rural colleges; and
single and multi-college districts.
A second limitation to this study was that I only observed basic skills committee
meetings at two colleges. One college was no longer holding basic skills meetings
because the BSI was folded into their Title III grant. The other college‟s basic skills
coordinator was on sabbatical and not actively chairing the basic skills meetings.
A final limitation to this study was that only one of the basic skills coordinators
completed and submitted the pre-interview survey. After the interviews, I contacted the
other three coordinators to request their resumes so that I could provide a thorough
background for each coordinator. I received one resume in response to my email.
Therefore, the backgrounds of two coordinators were not described in detail.
172
Implications for Practice
There are two primary implications for practice. First, the basic skills
coordinator‟s academic rank may affect how they are received by teaching faculty.
Second, community colleges require tools to foster organizational learning. These
implications for practice are discussed below.
Basic skills coordinators’ academic rank may affect how they are
received by teaching faculty. Teaching faculty do not feel that non-teaching
coordinators have the credentials to serve as the basic skills coordinators, as experienced
by Carrie and Tina. Both had the additional burden of having to legitimize their
authority. They were conscious of how they might be perceived by faculty and
compensated by listening to and serving as a resource for faculty. They emphasized
collaboration and consensus and led in an unobtrusive manner. Their approach worked
for two reasons. First, their approach matched the collaborative spirit of the Basic Skills
Initiative. Second, their approach respected the faculty culture, characterized by collegial
interaction and decision making. Their approach signified they understood that faculty
are not only at the core of the college, but they are also the chief interventionists for basic
skills students. It was critical for these coordinators to earn the respect of the faculty
because they needed the faculty‟s involvement in the Basic Skills Initiative on their
campuses.
Although the non-teaching coordinators experienced obstacles to their
professional status and had to legitimize their authority, is does not necessarily mean that
non-teaching faculty or administrators should be disregarded for the role. Teaching
faculty appeared to have a smoother transition into their roles because their credentials
173
were not questioned by other teaching faculty (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b), but it is
possible that non-teaching coordinators might have a more comprehensive view of the
basic skills program because they are less likely to think of basic skills in silos (of
English, mathematics, and ESL) and more likely to hold a global perspective of the Basic
Skills Initiative. Their lack of expertise in a particular teaching subject may result in a
non-teaching coordinator to be more open to adapting teaching concepts from different
disciplines.
It is conceivable that English faculty would make stronger coordinators in the area
of English and mathematics faculty would make stronger coordinators in mathematics
related projects. One could argue they would likely excel in coordinating programs in
their own subject, but might face challenges coordinating programs in an area they lack
subject matter expertise. Equally important, they might lack authority with the faculty of
the other discipline(s) (Fulks & Alancraig, 2008b). Doug, a teaching faculty from the
English discipline, for example, struggled with getting the mathematics faculty involved
in the BSI at his campus. It was not until he invited mathematics basic skills faculty from
other community colleges to his campus that the mathematics faculty from his campus
got involved in BSI efforts. The mathematics faculty at Metropolitan, therefore,
responded more to their mathematics colleagues from another college than to a colleague
from within their college but from another discipline. Fortunately Doug strategized with
his regional coordinator to reach the mathematics faculty on his campus by holding
workshops at Metropolitan. The workshops featured effective basic skills practices in
mathematics and drew mathematics faculty from other colleges to Metropolitan, which in
turn drew Metropolitan mathematics faculty to the workshops. It is possible that teaching
174
faculty might need to take similar measures to reach out to faculty outside of their
discipline.
One could also argue that a coordinator of English or mathematics might have
difficulty coordinating new projects in their area of expertise because they are ingrained
in the way things have always been done in that department. They might, for instance,
have difficulty leading the inquiry process due to a belief that “you can‟t fix what is not
broken.” They might blame students for not being prepared for college level course work
rather than looking at alternative reasons why students are not successful in class. They
might write students off as lazy or unmotivated rather than questioning what more they
could do to enhance student learning. Alternative reasons for students‟ lack of success
such as looking at institutional policies, practices, and soliciting feedback directly from
the students may not take place if the coordinator and the committee already believe that
they know the answers.
It is also likely a teaching faculty coordinator could have difficulty leading
colleagues from their own department. Existing cultures and personalities within a
department might have an effect on the coordinator‟s ability to lead change. Department
members may not be open to taking direction from a colleague, particularly if the
coordinator‟s teaching philosophy or style varies significantly from their own.
Long standing instructors might not take direction easily from a faculty member
whose experience does not match their own. Although newly hired teaching faculty
members have the academic credentials to serve as basic skills coordinators, long
standing faculty might still question their qualifications due a perception that they lack
expertise due to their short tenure.
175
Some faculty, particularly those who have been exposed to recent teaching
methods, might not take direction easily from a faculty coordinator who has not changed
their teaching style in years. While they might respect their years as an instructor, it is
foreseeable that some instructors might consider their teaching methods antiquated.
Above, I outlined possible challenges that might affect a coordinator‟s ability to
lead the Basic Skills Initiative on their campus. Coordinators may or may not be faced
with these challenges on their campuses. They could be faced with other challenges or
with no challenges at all. The challenge itself is not important. What is important is that
basic skills coordinators are in leadership roles and their leadership style matters to the
faculty and college community. Regardless of whether the coordinator is a teaching
faculty, non-teaching faculty or an administrator, basic skills coordinators are leading an
academic initiative and their leadership style should respect the academic culture. As a
result, basic skills coordinators should adopt a collaborative leadership style with their
committee members and the college community.
Community colleges require tools for organizational learning. Research
suggests that community colleges do not have the tools to engage in organizational
learning practices without expert facilitation (Harris III, Bensimon, & Bishop, 2010;
Jenkins & Kerrigan, 2009; RP Group, 2009). “Colleges do not always have the capacity
to analyze the data and use them to inform decision making” (RP Group, 2009, p. 3).
Patterns of gaps in the use of data and evidence across community colleges may inhibit
institutional learning (RP Group, 2009). Even when practitioners know how to analyze
data, their cognitive frames may inhibit organizational learning.
176
In their research that focuses on the cognitive frames of practitioners, the
University of Southern California‟s Center for Urban Education researchers:
learned that higher education institutions lack the tools, structures, practices, and
expertise to view low rates of academic success, retention, or graduation as
problems of practice. Instead, institutions of higher education often view these
patterns as problems of student preparation, motivation, and self-efficacy, leading
to the design of programs to compensate for the deficiencies attributed to
students” (Harris III, Bensimon, et al., 2010, p. 302).
Practitioners often implement programs and interventions “without fully
examining why these problems persist in the local institutional context” (Harris III,
Bensimon et al., 2010, p. 303). A common response is for practitioners to create
solutions before a full understanding is achieved. “Investing time and resources toward
deeply understanding the problem before implementing solutions and interventions is
thus both necessary and wise” (Harris III, Bensimon, et al., 2010, p. 303). Therefore, the
Center for Urban Education recommends that the initial charge of campus committees or
task forces first “understand [ ] the problem rather than prematurely identifying and
implementing solutions” (Harris III, Bensimon et al., 2010, p. 303).
In light of this recommendation, it becomes evident that the yearly funding
initially tied to the BSI contradicted notions of reflective practices because the funding
was short lived. Specifically, rather than community college practitioners reflecting on
their practices and how they aided or inhibited student success in basic skills,
practitioners were asked to compare their practices with effective strategies in the
literature review and create a plan that incorporated the identified effective strategies
Basic Skills Report (Boroch et al., 2007). Essentially, through the use of the self-
assessment tool and planning matrices, community college practitioners were guided to
177
“implementing solutions and interventions” from the literature review without first
“[i]nvesting time and resources toward deeply understanding the problem” (Harris III,
Bensimon et al. 2010, p. 303). Deadlines for completing the self-assessment tool,
planning matrices, and spending funds reinforced the practitioners‟ approach of action
and compliance despite the BSI‟s intention to promote practitioner inquiry.
The intent behind that Basic Skills Initiative was for community college
practitioners to understand how their curriculum and services impact student success in
basic skills. Through use of the literature review of effective practices, self-assessment
tool, and planning matrices, community college practitioners would understand how their
community college impacted student success and the ways in which they could improve.
However, because these tools were tied to funding and compliance deadlines; they
encouraged practitioners to be reactive rather than reflective. It was not until the Basic
Skills Initiative secured multi-year funding, that organizational learning practices
including reflection and inquiry were encouraged. By this phase in the BSI, however,
community colleges had already submitted their plans based on “implementing solutions
and interventions” (Harris III, Bensimon, et al., 2010, p. 303).
Recommendations for Practice
I have three recommendations for practice. First, leaders who are charged with
fostering organizational learning should be trained on the principles of organizational
learning when they are new to the role. Second, I have recommendations on actions that
basic skills coordinators could take to move further along the culture of evidence/inquiry
spectrum. Finally, because the non-teaching faculty basic skills coordinators exhibited
more practices consistent with fostering organizational learning on their campuses, I
178
recommend that colleges either utilize non-teaching faculty as basic skills coordinators or
provide teaching basic skills coordinators with more support.
Train leaders in organizational learning techniques early on. My
recommendation to the California Community College Chancellor‟s Office (and other
system offices) is that leaders who will be responsible for fostering organizational
learning on their campuses first be trained on organizational learning before they involve
the rest of the college in activities that are designed to promote organizational learning.
This training should focus on organizational learning, inquiry, and reflective practices.
As a result of this lesson, basic skills coordinators should be able to engage in in-ward
facing (rather than out-facing) conversations about organizational learning (Coburn,
2001).
Once the practitioners have a solid understanding of organizational learning, they
should be taught how to facilitate discussions that lead to organizational learning. The
focus of this training should be on deficit and equity minded cognitive frames (Bensimon,
2005; Bensimon, Rueda et al., 2007). I recommend that basic skills coordinators take
self-diagnostic surveys (pre and post instruction) to measure their understanding of their
cognitive frames. Practitioner instruction should include watching and critiquing videos
of group discussions that include deficit minded comments from participants and equity
minded facilitation. As the result of this training, participants would be able to identify
and respond to deficit statements while facilitating discussions.
Move further along the culture of evidence/inquiry spectrum. Earlier in
this chapter, I discussed how I view the culture of evidence/inquiry spectrum. In order
for basic skills coordinators to move further along the spectrum, inquiry must take place.
179
Basic skills coordinators should encourage inquiry over action and compliance.
Coordinators should utilize resources that are available to them such as institutional
researchers to review data with committee members, faculty members who serve as data
coaches during committee meetings and/or facilitate focus groups, and should share
coordinating responsibility with their fellow committee members. Basic skills
coordinators should work with their committees to develop a practice of using data and
seeking evidence. In order to move further along the culture of evidence/inquiry
spectrum, the basic skills coordinators must create conditions for organizational learning
to take place such as modeling that committee members could learn from “bad data.”
Utilize non-teaching faculty or provide more support for teaching faculty.
Basic skills coordinators who held non-teaching positions appeared to exhibit more
practices characteristic of leading organizational learning than their teaching
counterparts. The coordinators who were not in the classroom (Tina and Carrie)
appeared to exhibit more practices characteristic of leading organizational learning on
their campuses than the other two coordinators who held primarily teaching positions.
While there could be many reasons for this, I speculate that a primary reason was that
Tina and Carrie had more experience working with data. As CAS Director, Tina was
responsible for her department's student learning outcomes data. She also had reporting
requirements as part of the Title III grant she managed. And because Carrie was
historically funded by soft funds, providing evidence to maintain her job was ingrained in
her. As a result, she established a strong culture of evidence for the student success
committee at Plaza.
180
Another possible reason why the non-teaching basic skills coordinators exhibited
more practices leading to organizational learning is that the coordinators who did not
have teaching assignments also appeared to have greater support from their senior
administration. Carrie, an administrator, met with senior administration to share her data
as a strategy for securing future funding from the operational budget if basic skills
funding were to become no longer available. She described her senior administration as
highly supportive of the basic skills program. During my interview with Carrie and
observation of her student success meeting, I learned about and witnessed the ways in
which Carrie's student worker assisted her with basic skills. For example, Carrie's
student worker took notes during the meeting and pieced together a preliminary summary
of the meeting notes by using Carrie's notes. As the director of CAS and the Title III
grant, Tina not only felt highly supported by her vice president, but she also had the
support of staff. Tina was grateful for the secretarial and budgeting assistance her staff
provided. Rain and Doug, the teaching basic skills coordinators, did not mention the
support of student workers or classified staff. While each received release time from
their teaching assignments to coordinate basic skills on their campuses, they appeared to
lack the personnel resources that their non-teaching basic skills coordinators had.
Where non-classroom basic skills coordinators held management positions in
which they could focus their attention on the management of the initiative, classroom
faculty split their time between teaching and managing the grant without a staff. Rain,
who had 40% classroom release time to manage the initiative voiced that it was difficult
to do both simultaneously. Doug revealed that his basic skills committee never used data
when they met. Rain relied on her institutional researcher to explain the data annually.
181
While she attended training on data use and her self-efficacy in using data increased, data
use was still new for her.
While faculty basic skills coordinators were recommended for the role in the
Basic Skills Guide (Boroch et al., 2010), my findings suggest that individuals in non-
teaching positions achieved higher levels of organizational learning practices (Huber,
1991). There could be many reasons for this; however I speculate that Tina and Carrie's
experience (past and current) in management and working with data, the ability to focus
on the broad goals of the initiative, and support staff were the primary reasons.
Consequently, I recommend that the role of the basic skills coordinator be filled as a non-
teaching position. While classroom faculty have the innate authority to lead basic skills
initiatives, they require more support from their administration to lead organizational
learning.
Recommendation for Future Research
In this study, I examined how four basic skills coordinators within the California
Community College system led an initiative framed by the principles of inquiry,
collaboration, and evidence. As part of my research, I analyzed organizational
constraints experienced by basic skills coordinators and how they modified the
coordinator‟s role. The interviews and observations were instrumental in understanding
how the coordinators led a collaborative initiative. Inquiry and evidence proved to be
more difficult to measure without shadowing the coordinators or observing multiple basic
skills meetings. In order to truly understand how coordinators lead an initiative framed
by the principles of inquiry and evidence a longitudinal study of basic skills coordinators
and their committees is recommended. A greater understanding of this topic could be
182
gained by a multi-year examination how basic skills coordinators lead inquiry activities
among faculty.
Conclusion
Although California Community Colleges have multiple missions including
workforce training and transfer preparation, basic skills education became a core
responsibility of the system‟s community colleges in 2006 when the Chancellor‟s Office
unveiled a system-wide strategic plan that identified basic skills education as a statewide
priority. As the only open access public higher education option for California students,
the California Community College system appeared to be a logical solution for educating
basic skills students. The overwhelming majority of California Community College
faculty, however, were trained in their respective disciplines and not in providing basic
skills instruction. As a result, California Community Colleges were unprepared to
educate the magnitude of students entering their colleges who lacked the fundamental
skills necessary for success in college level coursework.
The architects of the Basic Skills Initiative recognized that in order for California
Community Colleges to respond to the needs of basic skills students, California
Community Colleges must first learn how to teach basic skills students. The leaders of
the BSI adopted an organizational learning approach by providing tools for California
Community College practitioners to use in evaluating their existing practices (e.g., the
self-assessment tool) and future planning (e.g., the planning matrices). This
organizational learning approach was also central to how the Basic Skills Initiative
structured the BSILI as well as state and regional trainings.
183
Collaborative learning was emphasized through professional development and
professional networks. As a result, basic skills coordinators in this study relied on each
other to co-construct their roles, share best practices and ideas with one another. They
sent teams from their colleges to professional development events, engaged in
professional conversations during meetings, and shared decision making with their
committees. They invested time and energy into enhancing their professional
development and encouraged their committee members to do the same. Basic skills
coordinators encouraged their committee members to take ownership of their activities by
holding them accountable for their research findings. In doing so, they also ensured that
multiple members of the college community attained the skills necessary to measure
program effectiveness. These practices were effective because members of the institution
learned new information and contributed to the development of their organization‟s
memory.
Through the collaborative design of the BSI, basic skills coordinators played a
key role in organizational learning at the system-wide, regional, and college levels. The
initiative created a phenomenon in which community college practitioners across the
state are exposed to similar ideas and speak a shared language. The BSI has invested in
the professional development of community college practitioners and created a safe
learning environment in which basic skills coordinators and community college
practitioners can learn how to use data and create effective practices. The ultimate goal
of BSI, preparing practitioners to deal with the unique challenges of basic skills students,
is critical for the California Community College system because it serves more than 2.5
million students per year, making it one of the largest in the world.
184
REFERENCES
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (2009). Basic skills initiative
website. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from http://cccbsi.org/
Alancraig, M., Fulks, J., & Pacheco, B. (2009). Overview: Planning for success and
developing a culture of inquiry. In J. Fulks & M. Alancraig (Eds.), Constructing a
framework for success: a holistic approach to basic skills (pp. 1-80). Sacramento,
CA: California Community Colleges: Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/Chapter_2_Overview_F2.pdf
Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San
Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bauman, G. L. (2002). Developing a culture of evidence: Using institutional data to
identify inequitable educational outcomes. (Doctoral disseration). University of
Southern California. Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI Number: 3094304
Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to achieve
equity in educational outcomes. New Directions for Higher Education, 131(Fall),
23-35. doi:10.1002/he.184
Bauman, G. L., Bustillos, L. T., Bensimon, E. M., Brown II, M. C., & Bartee, R. D.
(2005). Achieving equitable educational outcomes with all students: The institution‟s
roles and responsibilities. Association American Colleges and Universities.
Retrieved from http://www.cs.uwec.edu/~wick/asdac/Bauman_et_al.pdf
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). The diversity scorecard: A learning approach to institutional
change. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 31(1), 44-52. Retrieved from
http://heldref-publications.metapress.com/index/e5h1212p26444130.pdf
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., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G. L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing
research that makes a difference. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-126.
185
Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability, equity,
and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan Universities: Visions for the
future of urban universities, 20. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/fharris/7/
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Black, R. (2000). “Salaries of classroom instructors” contained in education code section
84362: The “fifty percent law.” (Legal Opinion O 00-14). Retrieved from
http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/Legal/opinions/attachments/00-14.pdf
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Boroch, D., Fillpot, J., Hope, L., Johnstone, R., Mery, P., Serban, A., Smith, B., et al.
(2007). Basic skills as a foundation for student success in California community
colleges. System (2nd ed., pp. 1-154). Sacramento, CA: Center for Student Success:
Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/Lit_Review_Student_Success.pd
f
Boroch, D., Hope, L., Smith, B., Garbinder, R. S., Mery, P. M., Johnstone, R., & Asera,
R. (2010). Student success in community colleges: A practical guide to
developmental education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass higher and adult
education series.
Boyce, M. (2003). Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change
in higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 28(2), 119-136. Retrieved from
http://www.springerlink.com/index/U2446T77M5351286.pdf
Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: A
collaborative inquiry approach. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern
California. Retrieved from ProQuest. UMI Number: 3261848
CCCCO (2006). Education and the economy: Shaping Callifornia’ s future today
(California community college system strategic plan). Sacramento, CA. Retrieved
from http://wlac.edu/masterplan/documents/WLAC-CCC_StrategicPlan.pdf
CCCCO (2009). California Community Colleges Chancellor’ s Office. Basic skills
accountability report (pp. 1-29). Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/Reports/Basic Skills Acct_Sept 2009.pdf
CCCCO (n.d.). California community college chancellor‟s office data mart and reports.
Retrieved April 10, 2012, from
http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMar
tandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx
186
Chadwick, S. A., & Pawloski, D. R. (2007). Assessing institutional support for service-
learning: A case study of organizational sensemaking. Michigan Journal of Service
Learning, 13(2), 31-39. Retrieved from
http://quod.lib.umich.edu.libproxy.usc.edu/cgi/p/pod/dod-
idx?c=mjcsl;idno=3239521.0013.203
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate
reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 23(2), 145-170. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594127
Coburn, C. E., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Conceptions of evidence use in school districts:
Mapping the terrain. American Journal of Education, 112(August), 469-495.
Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and
research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142.
doi:10.3102/01623737025002119
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dowd, A. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of inquiry to
assess community college performance. Culture (pp. 1-46). Indianapolis: IN.
Retrieved from http://folio.iupui.edu/handle/10244/261
Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V . P. (2004). Benchmarking for accountability and productivity in
higher education: Evolution towards evidence-based inquiry councils. Boston: MA:
University of Massechusetts: Community College Student Success Project.
Dowd, A. C., Lord, L., Bensimon, E. M., & Kutz, E. (2009). Performance funding for
practitioner inquiry in California: A model for improving institutional effectiveness?
Manustript in preparation.
Eddy, P. L. (2003). Sensemaking on campus: How community college presidents frame
change. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(6), 453-471.
doi:10.1080/10668920390190619
Fulks, J., & Alancraig, M. (2008a). Constructing a framework for success: A holistic
approach to basic skills. Sacramento, CA: Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges. Retrieved from http://www.cccbsi.org/basic-skills-handbook
187
Fulks, J., & Alancraig, M. (2008b). More on basic skills coordinators: Sustaining the
architect. In J. Fulks & M. Alancraig (Eds.), Constructing a framework for success:
a holistic approach to basic skills (pp. 1-36). Sacramento, CA: California
Community Colleges: Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.
Retrieved from
http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/Chapter18_Basic_Skills_Coordin
ators.pdf
Fulks, J., & Alancraig, M. (2008c). Who coordinates your campus-wide basic skills
efforts? Effective organizational practices in basic skills. Retrieved April 15, 2012, c
from http://www.asccc.org/content/who-coordinates-your-campus-wide-basic-skills-
efforts-effective-organizational-practices-bas
Harris III, F., & Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The equity scorecard: A collaborative approach
to assess and respond to racial/ethnic disparities in student outcomes. New
Directions for Student Services, 120(Winter), 77-84. doi:10.1002/ss.259
Hill, E. G. (2008). Back to basics: Improving college readiness of community college
students (pp. 1-16). Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst‟s Office. Retrieved from
http://inside.redwoods.edu/basicSkills/documents/ImprovingCollegeReadinessofCC
Cs.pdf
Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district
central offices: Toward a policy and research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4),
578-608. doi:10.1177/0895904807307067
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organization Science, 2(1), 88-115. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634941
Jenkins, D., & Kerrigan, M. R. (2009). Faculty and administrator data use at achieving
the dream colleges: A summary of survey findings. Culture of Evidence Series,
Report, 3, 1-33. New York: NY . Retrieved from
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath
=c:%5CWebsites%5Cccrc_tc_columbia_edu_documents%5C332_671.pdf&fid
=332_671&aid=47&RID=671&pf=ContentByType.asp?t=1
Kennedy, M. M. (1982). Working knowledge and other essays. Cambridge: MA: Huron
Institute.
Legislative Analyst's Office (n.d.). Legislative Analyst‟s Office Analysis of the 2007-08
budget bill: education. Retrieved April 14, 2012, from
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis_2007/education/ed_22_6870_anl07.aspx
Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social
problem solving. New Haven: CT: Yale University Press.
188
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2009). Student progress toward degree completion: Lessons
learned from the research literature. Institute for Higher Education Leadership &
Policy (pp. 1-20). Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Student_Progress_Toward_Degree_Completion.
pdf
Moore, C., Shulock, N., & Offenstein, J. (2009). Steps to success: Analyzing milestone
achievement to improve community college student outcomes. Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy (pp. 1-24). Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Steps to success_10_09.pdf
Moore, C., Shulock, N., Ceja, M., & Lang, D. M. (2007). Beyond the open door:
Increasing student success in California community colleges. Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy, (August), 1-72. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Beyond_Open_Door_08-07.pdf
Park, V . (2008). Beyond the numbers chase: How urban high school teachers make sense
of data use. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California. Retrieved
from ProQuest. UMI Number: 3331180
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Polkinghorne, Donald E. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany:
NY: State University of New York Press.
Porac, J. F., Thomas, H., & Baden-Fuller, C. (1989). Competitive groups as cognitive
communities: The case of Scottish knitwear manufacturers. Journal of Management
Studies, 26(4), 397-416. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1989.tb00736.x
RP Group (2009). Basic skills outcomes capacity (BOSC) project: A study on the use of
evidence in California community colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.rpgroup.org/css/BSOC.html
RP Group (n.d.). What we do: PR‟s mission, vision, strategic plan, and annual report.
Retrieved April 14, 2012, from http://www.rpgroup.org/about/what-we-do
Shulock, N., & Moore, C. (2007). Rules of the game: How state policy creates barriers to
degree completion and impedes student success in the California community
colleges. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy, (February), 1-16.
Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Rules_of_the_Game_02-07.pdf
189
Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and
the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141-179.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3233866
Taylor, S. J., & Bogdan, R. (1984). Introduction to qualitative research methods: The
search for meaning. Wiley.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and software tools. New York: NY:
Falmer.
Vaugh, D. (1996). The challenger landing decision: Risky technology, culture, and
deviance at NASA. Chicago: IL: University of Chicago Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Witham, K. A., & Bensimon, E. M. (2012). Creating a culture of inquiry around equity
and student success. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus
cultures: Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 46-67).
New York: Routledge.
190
APPENDIX A
Regional Coordinator Telephone Interview Template
Name: ___________________________ Region: ____________________________
Email address: _____________________ Phone: _____________________________
1) What do you consider the characteristics of effective coordinators? Please list
them.
2) Can you think of individuals who meet those characteristics? Which
coordinators? Which colleges do they work for?
3) Can you describe what makes them effective basic skills coordinators? Please
give specific examples.
191
APPENDIX B
Matrix
Inaugural
Network /
Regional Basic
Skills
Coordinator
Characteristics
of effective
basic skills
coordinators
Names of
effective basic
skills
coordinators in
the region /
College name
What makes
this coordinator
effective? My notes
192
APPENDIX C
Recruitment Letter
Dear [Name],
My name is Celena Alcala and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. I have worked in the California
Community College system for nine years and currently work as a community college
administrator. Throughout my tenure in the CCC system, I have taken an interest in basic
skills and student success. My dissertation is focused on how basic skills coordinators
lead the Basic Skills Initiative at the college level. As part of my study, I am
interviewing and observing experienced basic skills coordinators and I would like to
include you in my study.
Participation would require one face-to-face interview estimated to last 90 minutes and
observation of a basic skills committee meeting. The interview would consist of
questions regarding how you lead the Basic Skills Initiative at your college, the
challenges that you have faced in carrying out the initiative, and the progress that your
college has made in regards to student success in basic skills. I would also like to
observe one basic skills committee meeting.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study. Interviews will take place at your
college in a place of your choosing where we can have a private conversation.
I will contact you to answer any questions and determine your interest in participating in
my study. I am flexible about times and days to conduct the interview. If you have any
questions, please contact me at (Email address) or (cell phone number).
Thank you,
Celena Alcala
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
193
APPENDIX D
Pre-Interview Survey for Basic Skills Coordinators
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study on how basic skills coordinators lead
the Basic Skills Initiative at the local level. The goals of this study are to develop an
understanding of how basic skills coordinators understand and enact their roles. I am
particularly interested in learning how you understand the Basic Skills Initiative, your
progress in meeting the goals of the initiative at the college level, and the organizational
constraints that you face in your role.
I would like to ask you a few questions about your background prior to our interview.
When you complete the pre-survey, please send your response to me in the self-addressed
stamped envelope or send an electronic copy to (email address).
Sincerely,
Celena Alcala
Doctoral Candidate
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Participant‟s Name: ____________________________________ Date: ______________
Position: ________________________________________________________________
College: ________________________________________________________________
1. What subject(s) do you teach?
__________________________________________________________________
2. How long have you taught basic skills courses?
__________________________________________________________________
3. How long have you served as the basic skills coordinator?
__________________________________________________________________
4. Do you have any prior administrative experience? If yes, what positions?
Title College Dates of service
(ex: Assistant Dean Your Community College Fall 99-Spring 03)
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
194
5. Please list committees that you are currently involved with.
Name of Committee Your Role Dates of service
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
6. Please list the committees that you served as the chairperson.
Committee Name Dates of service
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
195
APPENDIX E
Interview Protocol
Interview Guide for Basic Skills Coordinators
The overarching research question of this study is: In what ways do basic skills
coordinators lead organizational learning?
Questions that guide this study are:
1) How do basic skills coordinators lead an initiative that is framed by the
principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence?
2) What organizational constraints are encountered by basic skills
coordinators?
3) How do basic skills coordinators modify their roles in response to the
organizational constraints they encounter?
Interview Protocol
Participant‟s Name: _____________________________________ Date: _____________
Position: ________________________________________________________________
College: ________________________________________________________________
Introduction
I would like to interview you because I believe that you have information that would be
valuable to my dissertation study. As a current community college administrator and
former director of two Title V grants, I am aware of the challenges that faculty and staff
face in serving basic skills students. Basic skills education is a major challenge in
California and I feel that the role of basic skills coordinator is an important role. The
goal of this study is to develop an understanding of how basic skills coordinators lead the
Basic Skills Initiative at the local level. I am particularly interested in learning how you
understand the Basic Skills Initiative, your progress in meeting the goals of the initiative
at the college level, and the organizational constraints that you face in your role.
This interview will take approximately one and a half hours. You can stop the interview
at any time. If we run short of time, I may need to interrupt you in order to get your
196
responses to all the questions that I’d like to ask. To facilitate note-taking, I would like to
audio record our conversation today. Only I and my dissertation chair will have access
to the recordings. The recordings will be transcribed and destroyed within three years. I
will need your signature on the consent form to meet USC’ s human subject requirements.
Please check the boxes allowing me to observe you during a basic skills meeting and
create field notes based on my observations as well as allowing me to audio record this
conversation. Essentially, the document says that: (1) I will keep confidential any
information that you share with me, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop
the interview at any time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) I do not intend to inflict any
harm.
If you have any questions or concerns about this interview or the study, you can discuss
them with Dr. Estela Bensimon, by calling (213) 740-5969.
Background
I would like to first begin by asking you some background questions.
What did basic skills education look like at your college before the Basic Skills
Initiative?
How is basic skills currently organized at your college?
Probe: Under one department? ESL/ENL together or separate? Reporting
structure?
Do you have a budget?
Probe: How are decisions made about basic skills funds?
Probe: You? Dean? President? Academic Senate? Basic Skills Committee?
How would you describe the current environment at the college?
Probe: What are people concerned or talking about on campus?
Is basic skills a priority of senior management? How do you know?
197
Learning the Role of the Coordinator
The next set of questions will focus on your role as the basic skills coordinator.
How were you selected as the basic skills coordinator?
How did you learn your role?
Probe: Job description? Trainings? Past leadership experience?
I understand that the Basic Skills Initiative is a statewide initiative with regional networks
that provide technical assistance. Have you participated in any of the activities?
I would like to ask you a few questions based on the information that you provided in
your pre-interview survey. What did you learn at _____________________________
(name of workshop/conference/training)?
Probe: Did you bring anything back to your campus?
Probe: Did you share the information with others? How? What resulted from
your sharing?
What obstacles did you face as the new basic skills coordinator?
Probe: Getting faculty buy-in? Involving part-time faculty? Red tape?
Basic Skills Committee: The Self-Assessment
Up until this point, you have discussed your background and role as the basic skills
coordinator. In this next set of questions, I will ask you to think back to the time when the
Basic Skills Initiative introduced the Poppy Copy. Each college was asked to self-
evaluate their basic skills practices.
Were you the coordinator when the poppy copy came out in the first year of the Basic
Skills Initiative?
The Assessment Tool for Effective Practices in Basic Skills had three parts. First, it
consisted of collecting baseline data on developmental education. Second, it asked for
strategies related to effective practices found in the literature under Effective Practices
for Basic Skills Organizational and Administrative Practices, Program Components, Staff
Development, and Instructional Practices and asked each college to describe where the
strategies occurred at their campus. Finally, it asked for a planning matrix for each
section detailing the college’ s planned actions, effective practice and strategies, baseline
and benchmark measures, and who would be responsible for each item.
198
The poppy copy gave recommendations of which leadership positions the college should
include in the conversations and asked for verifications on who participated in each
section of the self-assessment.
Were you involved in the self-assessment of the college‟s basic skills practices?
IF YES:
If I had been in the room while the committee completed the self-
assessment, what would I have observed?
What did you observe while the basic skills committee completed self-
assessment?
What kind of decision processes did the committee go through in
prioritizing its basic skills practices?
IF NO:
When did you first get involved with the basic skills committee?
When you became the coordinator, did the committee already exist?
Probe: Who decided on the committee members? Who was on the committee?
What did the college learn from the self-assessment?
Probe: Strengths? Weaknesses?
How did the committee decide on the plan?
Trainings
This set of questions focuses on trainings that you have been involved in during the last
two years.
Have you gone to the summer leadership institute (BSILI) for basic skills coordinators?
Probe: What do you do there? Did you take anything back to your campus?
Probe: What did you learn? How have you incorporated what you learned into
the basic skills program?
199
Basic Skills Coordinator Role
The next set of questions will be about your leadership role as the basis skills
coordinator.
Tell me about your typical day.
The BSI is about becoming inquiry oriented and using data. As the Basic Skills
Coordinator, what does inquiry mean?
Probe: Can you describe for me an inquiry activity that you were involved
with/engaged the faculty with? Explain it to me.
Describe a time when data led to a specific change in instruction or providing of services
in basic skills.
Probe: Who was involved in the decision? How was the decision reached?
Basic Skills Committee Meetings
The next set of questions will focus on the basic skills committee meetings.
Tell me about the makeup of the committee. Who is on the basic skills committee
meeting?
Probe: Which departments are represented on the basic skills committee?
Probe: Can you give me an example of how these departments work together?
How often does the basic skills committee meet? How long do the meetings last?
Tell me about your last meeting. When was it? What was on the agenda?
Probe: What materials did you bring to the meeting?
If I was a committee member, what would I do in the meeting?
If I walked into the room where the basic skills committee meets, describe to me what I
would see and hear.
Probe: What are some of the comments committee members make in the basic
skills committee meetings?
How does basic skills committee evaluate the effectiveness of the basic skills program?
Probe: Data? What are they looking at? Which data do they consider?
Are there any basic skills subcommittees? What are they working on?
What do you know about basic skills students at _______________ (college name)?
200
Probe: How do you know this?
Probe: Did you rely on data to reach this conclusion?
If yes: Which indicators did you use?
How were these indicators chosen?
Did the data surprise any of the committee members?
If yes: Did anyone have trouble accepting the findings?
If yes: Why? What did they have trouble accepting?
Do they accept it now? What made them change their perspective?
How do you prepare for the basic skills meetings?
What do you do after the basic skills meetings?
Obstacles that you face and how you address them
This set of questions focuses on the obstacles that you face as basic skills coordinator and
how you address them.
What is the hardest thing about being the basic skills coordinator?
What kind of power do you have?
What do you think you would need in order to be an effective coordinator of basic skills?
What are some of your obstacles to using the data or asking questions about the data?
What enables you to influence people or get them to listen to you?
201
Basic Skills Education in the Future
We are near the end of the interview. In wrapping up, I would like to ask you to reflect on
your experience as the basic skills coordinator and answer some questions about the
future of basic skills.
Based on what you know, how will the delivery of basic skills change in the future?
How will the experience of serving as the basic skills coordinator impact the way you
approach basic skills in the future?
Concluding Remarks/Questions
We have completed the list of questions. Is there anything else that you would like to add
about your experience as the basic skills coordinator, your organization, or the Basic
Skills Initiative? Are there any questions that I should have asked but didn’t?
202
APPENDIX F
Coordinator‟s Use of Huber‟s (1991) Organizational Learning Practices
Knowledge
Acquisition
Information
Distribution
Information
Interpretation
Organizational
Memory
Tina
Verde
• Academic
Senate & RP
Group
trainings
• BSILI,
statewide &
regional
trainings
• Focus groups
• Modeling effective
practices
• Committee
members
• Data coach &
focus group
facilitator
• Face to face
• Allotted time
in meetings
for
professional
conversations
• Website
• Coordinators
• Campus-wide
conference
• Academic senate
meetings
Carrie
Plaza
• BSILI,
statewide &
regional
trainings
• Student
Success
Conference
• Conducting
literature
reviews
• Strong data
collection
practices
• Presenting the
Broccoli
• Drafts
• Committee
members
• Shared data and
literature reviews
• Face to face
• Allotted time
in meetings
for
professional
conversations
(Rubric)
• Committee
discussed
literature
• Scaling up
• Institutionalizing
practices
• Campus-wide
conference
• Website
Rain
Sunrise
• BSILI,
statewide &
regional
trainings
• Created
processes
• Face to face
• Subcommittees for
decision making
• Institutional
researcher for
data
interpretation
• Shared
governance
meetings
Doug
Metro
• Handbook
• BSILI,
statewide &
regional
trainings
• Hosting events
• Hosted
professional
development
events
• Attended “shared
governance”
meetings
• Activities in
English
(restructuring
curriculum)
and ESL
(student
inquiry)
• Remains to be
seen – BSI was
now part of a
Title III grant
203
APPENDIX G
Basic Skills Coordinators and the Culture of Evidence/Inquiry Spectrum*
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This qualitative study examines how basic skills coordinators at four California Community Colleges lead organizational learning at their campuses as part of the statewide Basic Skills Initiative (BSI). The BSI is a component of the California Community College Chancellor's Office Strategic Plan and addresses the goal of student access and success. Through benchmarking, planning, institutional self-assessment, and collaborative professional development, the BSI lays the foundation for organizational learning of effective basic skills practices. The BSI has measures in place to increase organizational learning at the system-wide, regional, and campus levels. The person central to facilitating organizational learning at the campus level is the basic skills coordinator, a role that did not exist at most California Community Colleges until after the creation of the BSI. Face-to-face interviews with basic skills coordinators and observations of campus basic skills meetings were used to develop four case studies that demonstrate how basic skills coordinators lead the BSI consistent with Huber's (1991) four constructs of organizational learning. This study explains how four basic skills coordinators acquired new knowledge, distributed information to others, interpreted information, and utilized techniques to increase organizational memory. This study also describes how basic skills coordinators relied on collective sensemaking to learn and carry out their roles. Each case study reveals how basic skills coordinators lead an initiative framed by the principles of inquiry, collaboration, and evidence and how they modified their role in response to organizational constraints.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
The experiences of African American students in a basic skills learning community at a four year public university
PDF
The “lost boys” of higher education: African American males from basic skills through university transfer
PDF
Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment
PDF
Achieving equity in educational outcomes through organizational learning: enhancing the institutional effectiveness of community colleges
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
PDF
Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
The Transfer Academy: providing community college students with the informational, structural, relational, and cultural resources to transfer successfully to a four-year college
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
PDF
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
AB 540 community college students in Southern California: making connections and realizing dreams
PDF
State policy as an opportunity to address Latinx transfer inequity in community college
PDF
Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college
PDF
Students in basic skills mathematics: perceptions and experiences of community college progress and help-seeking
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
Asset Metadata
Creator
Alcala, Celena
(author)
Core Title
How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/27/2012
Defense Date
05/01/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
basic skills coordinators,basic skills initiative,California Community Colleges,culture of evidence,culture of inquiry,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational learning,sensemaking
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bensimon, Estela Mara (
committee chair
), Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee member
), Jaffe, Barbara (
committee member
)
Creator Email
celena_alcala@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-73036
Unique identifier
UC11290237
Identifier
usctheses-c3-73036 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AlcalaCele-1046.pdf
Dmrecord
73036
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Alcala, Celena
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
basic skills coordinators
basic skills initiative
California Community Colleges
culture of evidence
culture of inquiry
organizational learning
sensemaking