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
/
Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model
(USC Thesis Other)
Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES TO IMPROVE AFRICAN
AMERICANS’ DEVELOPMENTAL ENGLISH OUTCOMES AT AN URBAN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE USING GAP
ANALYSIS MODEL
By
Alice A. Young-Singleton
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
(EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP)
December 2014
Copyright 2014 Alice Young-Singleton
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES iv
Dedication
Throughout my life, I have been blessed to have love, support, and
encouragement of family, teachers, and friends. All of them have inspired and
motivated me to strive to be my best self. I have also been fortunate to receive
wise instruction and correction from strong women who steered me to this
academic path—two, in particular, are my maternal and paternal grandmothers—
Alice Annie Mae Nellum and Oree Early Young. Both of them were wise
teachers who modeled, inspired, and instilled in me principles of faith (in God and
in myself) and reverence to the almighty power of the Holy Spirit. Hence, it is
because of you and to all of you that I dedicate this work.
Because of You
Because of you,
nature and nurture formed a bond to teach, guide, protect, care, and love me.
Because of you,
the spirit, drive, faith, and determination of ancestors light my path—challenging
and empowering me to fulfill God’s purpose for my life.
Because of you,
I embrace the trials and triumphs in my life as lessons, as divinely ordained
opportunities to grow—for “if there is no struggle, there is no progress.”
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES v
Because of you,
I see touching and positively influencing the lives of others not as a charitable act
but rather a responsibility bestowed and a commitment to pursue faithfully and
lovingly, without fanfare.
Because of you,
I have learned “to lift as I climb,” humbly forging new pathways.
Because of you,
I am not indefinitely paralyzed by the circumstances of my existence. The scars
and traumas of a nomadic childhood, and often an inability to feel truly
connected, are not scorched in my soul like a scarlet letter—defining who I am or
what I am capable of being.
They are rites of passage, markers that I carry in my spirit and which I humbly
share to demonstrate that “one is more than the sum total of the labels ascribed or
of the balance in a bank account.”
Because of you,
failure, quitting, or doing less than my best was not an option.
Your faith, encouragement, support, and love helped me to persevere.
Because of you—my village—I am here, with you. And together, we celebrate
this accomplishment.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES vi
Acknowledgements
My journey completing this dissertation has been wrought with challenges
and opportunities to learn about myself and my support system. I would like to
express my deep gratitude to Dr. Melora Sundt, my committee chair, for taking
the lead and helping me refine my study question and identify a new
methodological approach. Her patient guidance, enthusiastic encouragement and
useful critiques of this study project were invaluable. I would also like to thank
Dr. Kenneth Yates, my second committee member, for his direction, advice,
patience, and assistance tackling this gap analysis study. I am very grateful for
his periodically checking-in with me to ensure that I kept on course. Also, I want
to thank the third member of my committee, Dr. Patricia Tobey, whose faith in
my ability and positive feedback is greatly appreciated.
My completion of this project could not have been accomplished without
the support of my village of former teachers and mentors. I am thankful to
Yvonne Divans Hutchinson for facilitating the introduction that lead to my
securing access to my project study site. I am deeply grateful to Sharlene Mello
for arranging weekend writing retreats which enabled me to dedicate undivided
attention to this project and for being a phone call away when I needed feedback
on sections or entire chapter drafts. Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. Mello served as my
sounding board, editors, and motivational duo at each stage of the writing process.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES vii
They, along with Dr. Susan and Michael Frisbie, Dr. John Davis, Janet Muscio,
Dr. William “Bill” McCraw, and Dr. Barbara Rhodes—members of my village—
provided needed encouragement, guidance, and support when my journey was
cloudy and rough. I am thankful to all of you.
Finally, to my caring, loving, and supportive husband, Marc: my deepest
gratitude. His encouragement during the rough times is much appreciated and
duly noted. Also, I want to thank my children, Maya, Aaron, Morgan, and Alyssa
for understanding and supporting my educational goal. Dr. Mom is available,
now.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES viii
Abstract
Using the Gap Analysis problem-solving framework (Clark & Estes, 2002), this
study examines problems of practice as they pertain to and influence student
outcomes in developmental English at Hurston Community College. The purpose
of this study was to examine teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
challenges concerning teaching and learning in light of the gap in student
outcomes for developmental English and to identify solutions that may be
implemented at Hurston Community College to steadily improve these outcomes.
A mixed method research design was used to address the two study questions,
“What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational challenges English
instructors must address in order to effectively move students through the
developmental English course sequence?” and “What are the recommended
solutions to meet the knowledge, motivational, and organizational challenges
English faculty encounter?” Fourteen (14) instructors completed a 45-item Likert
survey, eight (8) of them participated in a 60-minute interview, and three (3)
allowed the researcher to observe a session of their developmental English class.
Study findings illuminated gaps with regard to teachers’ knowledge and skills,
motivation, and the organizational context which impacted teachers performing
their jobs well. Based upon the findings, evidence-based solutions are presented
that Hurston’s English department may implement to steadily improve
performance outcomes. The methodological approach in this study can be used to
identify and address gaps at other institutions having the same problem.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES ix
Table of Contents
Dedication iv
Acknowledgements vi
Abstract viii
List of Tables x
List of Figures xi
List of Appendix Tables xii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 28
Chapter Three: Methodology 85
Chapter Four: Validation of Causes 128
Chapter Five: Solutions and Implementation 181
Chapter Six: Discussion 213
References 222
Appendices
A: Credit English Writing Basic Skills 248
B: Hurston College English Course Sequence 249
C: Pass Rate for Sequence of Developmental English 250
D: English Instructor Appraisal Inventory 251
E: Hurston College Student Learning Outcomes Matrix Table 255
F: Classroom Observation Report 256
G: Developmental English Instructors Individual Interview
Protocol Form 257
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES x
List of Tables
Table 1.4: ARCC 2012 Report:
Hurston College Level Indicators 15
Table 2: Evidenced-based Assumed Causes of
Teaching Challenges 84
Table 3.1: Presumed Causes of Low Student Outcomes in
Developmental English 109
Table 3.2: Demographics of Teacher Participants 112
Table 3.3: Discontinuous Rating Scale: Knowledge and Skills 115
Table 3.4: Discontinuous Rating Scale: Self-efficacy and Motivation 116
Table 3.5: Research Question Grid 124
Table 4.2: Results for the Presumed Knowledge/Skill Causes 133
Table 4.3: Percentage of Faculty Adhering to Master Syllabi
for English 21 148
Table 4.4: Results for the Presumed Motivational Causes 158
Table 4.5: Results of Presumed Organizational Causes 169
Table 4.6: Summary of Validated KMO Causes 180
Table 5.1: Summary of Validated KMO Causes 183
Table 5.2: Summary of Validated Knowledge Causes 185
Table 5.3: Summary of Validated Motivation Causes 195
Table 5.4: Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Solution
Implementation 206
Table 5.5: Organizational, Cascading, and Performance Goals
for Developmental English 208
Table 5.6: Hurston English Teachers’ Performance Goal 210
and Measurement
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES xi
List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Gap Analysis Process 87
Figure 3.2. Stakeholder Goals 90
Figure 4.1. Teaching Experience for English Faculty
Survey Respondents 130
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES xii
List of Appendix Tables
Table 1.1: Credit English Writing Basic Skills by Volume,
Percentage and College 248
Table 1.2 Pass Rate for Sequence of Developmental English
Through College English for Fall 2005 – Spring 2008
Cohort 250
Table 1.3: Pass Rate for Sequence of Developmental English
Through College English for Fall 2008 – Spring 2011
Cohort 250
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of the Problem
Changes in higher education are driving interest in teaching and learning,
with a microscopic view on developmental education (Gurung & Schwartz,
2009). College instructors are being held accountable for the effectiveness of
their teaching (Gurung & Schwartz, 2009). Nowhere is the interest in teaching
and learning more prominent than in the community college system, specifically
with regard to students enrolling in developmental education. At community
colleges nationwide, students academically unprepared to perform college level
English are placed into a developmental English coursework sequence geared to
prepare them for college level English (Bailey, 2008; Bailey, 2009; Bailey & Cho,
2010; Perin, 2002). However, the success rates for students enrolling in these
courses reveal that few make it through the course sequence, let alone complete
college English (Attewell, Lavin, Domina & Levey, 2006; Bailey, 2008; Bailey &
Cho, 2010; Bahr, 2010; Mattice, 1983). As a result, colleges are implementing
numerous interventions focused on remediating students’ academic deficiencies,
which are producing mixed results (Bailey, 2008; Dowd, 2007; Perin, 2002).
Rarely are the intervention strategies to improve student academic success
geared to address or improve problems of practice (Graham, MacArthur, &
Fitzgerald, 2007; Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 2009). Instructional
knowledge and skill coupled with the structure and alignment of developmental
English coursework may contribute to low student success rates (Bailey, 2008;
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 2
Bailey, 2009; Perin, 2002). According to Grub and Associates (1999), the
practice of teaching is often thought to be an individual activity; however, it need
not be seen that way. For the ways instructors teach are profoundly influenced by
the students who come to them, the resources at their disposal, their own
education, their preparation specific to teaching, the networks of peers they create
(or fail to create) and the culture and incentives of their colleges (Grubb , 1999).
As a result of these numerous influences, some research scholars assert
that there is a “great divide” within community colleges with regard to
institutional influences and instruction (Dowd, 2007; Grubb, 1999). Grubb
(1999) asserts institutions can influence teaching on their campuses but many do
not. In fact, Grubb (1999) concludes after a lengthy study that many “community
colleges as institutions pay little attention to teaching: They fail to use their
institutional resources to enhance the quality of instruction, so that good teaching
emerges only in isolated and idiosyncratic ways” (p. 2). Gurung (1999) attributes
the lack of focus on practice to the low status remedial education has in the
hierarchy of postsecondary education and to the even lower status of faculty who
teach developmental courses. Hence, problems of practice associated with
developmental English encompass individual (instructor), departmental, and
institutional factors and challenges, and the individual problems of practice are
the main focus of this study.
Besides the numerous problems associated with practice, several studies
have illuminated challenges associated with the design and implementation of
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 3
developmental education programs (Bailey, 2008; Moore & Shulock, 2009; Perin,
2002). One of the barriers to opportunity Bailey (2008) cites for students
enrolling in California community colleges is California’s voluntary
developmental education policy, which in effect allows students to enroll in
college-level courses even if their scores on an assessment test suggest that they
are not adequately prepared. In addition, current policies and practices for
developmental English often require that students enroll in co-requisite
instructional labs connected to the specific developmental course in the sequence
(Bailey, 2008). The co-requisite instructional lab may be managed and
instructionally delivered by faculty in the English department or it may be offered
through an academic support unit of the institution with little to no direct
involvement of the English department faculty (Boroch, Fillpot, Hope, Johnstone,
Mery, Serban, & Gabriner, 2007; Perin, 2002). These two divisions may not have
shared curriculum, standardized learning objectives, and instructional faculty; yet,
they are charged with achieving a common goal: prepare academically
unprepared students to complete college level English.
Context of the Problem
The research site for this case study was assigned a pseudonym to
maintain confidentiality. The pseudonym for the site is Hurston Community
College, and its community college district is Western Community College
District. Publically available information and artifacts pertaining to the case study
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 4
site and community college district are encoded to ensure ethical protection of the
study participants.
Though the problems of practice are prevalent and serious at every level of
the educational system, the community college system plays an unusually
complex role in postsecondary education and is charged with closing the divide
for a large segment of the population (Dowd, 2007; Gurung & Schwartz, 1999;
Martinez-Wenzl & Marquez, 2012). One such institution is Hurston Community
College; it is one of a number of institutions that make up the Western
Community College District (WCCD). Hurston has the lowest annual student
enrollment of all of the campuses in its district yet according to state basic skills
data has the largest percentage of students enrolling in basic skills; the percentage
of enrollment has grown over 15 percent in five years (detailed Tables in
Appendix A). Moreover, Hurston is a comprehensive institution, located in an
urban, low-income, highly dense, metropolitan city. Seventy percent of the
students enrolled at the college are African American, and more than half of the
students who attend the college are first-generation college students. Nonetheless,
per the campus’ stated mission, it is committed to providing “accessible and
affordable educational opportunities and services that promote the discovery and
application of knowledge, including university transfer, technical, and lifelong
learning programs” (Hurston College website).
The Western Community College District drafted a strategic framework
for improving preparatory instruction and student achievement district-wide. The
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 5
document delineates seven key principles underlying the districts’ framework for
student success. Individual campuses are expected to use the document to “guide
and not to direct” educational reform across the district (WCCD Framework).
Organizationally, the district aims to improve student success by making reforms
to developmental education matriculation, instruction, institutional integration,
and K-16 partnerships. The district views developmental education
comprehensively and espouses “Teaching the fundamental academic skills is not a
process that ends when students enter college or after completion of a preparatory
course sequence” (WCCD website). Additionally, the district advocates that its
colleges help students move through the preparatory course sequences and into
the regular curriculum as quickly as possible, and that teachers’ instruction
reinforce key academic competencies by contextualizing basic skills development
and linking instruction to relevant, real-world social and career-related problems
and issues.
In 2006, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office adopted a
basic skills initiative geared to reforming developmental education across the 112
multi-district system. The goal of the state chancellor’s basic skills initiative is to
increase student outcomes in developmental education. Individual districts have
been charged with aligning their developmental education program to meet state
accountability mandates and student outcome goals (http://www.cccbsi.org/).
Western Community College District is one of the 112 districts in California.
Eight-five percent of the student population in the district is from underserved
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 6
populations with a large percentage of this segment beginning their matriculation
in developmental education (WCCD website).
Mission and Organizational Problem
The Mission of Hurston College is to provide an environment for quality
learning to enrich the lives of its diverse community (Hurston website).
Achieving the mission is a challenging task to accomplish considering the low
numbers of students successfully moving through the developmental English
sequence (see Appendix B for description of Hurston College’s course sequence).
If the organizational and instructional goal is to move students through the
developmental English sequence to college level English, Hurston College is not
successfully meeting its objective. Preliminary state progress tracking data on the
success rate for students enrolling in developmental English at Hurston for
cohorts 2005 and 2008 (see Appendix C) show that over a three-year period
approximately 6.5% and 5.2% of the students who began three levels below
college English during this time frame successfully made it to and through college
level English. Students are failing to persist through the English sequence.
Organizational Goal
In order to accomplish its mission, Hurston College has established the
following organizational goals:
Goal 1 (Access): Expand educational opportunity & access.
Goal 2 (Success): Implement strategies for student success.
Goal 3 (Excellence): Support student learning & educational excellence.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 7
Goal 4 (Accountability): Foster a college-wide culture of service and
accountability.
Goal 5 (Collaboration & Resources): Cultivate and maintain new
resources and external partnerships.
Goal 6 (Career & Technical Education): Participate in regional workforce
and economic development.
Hurston’s organizational problem of moving students through the developmental
sequence to college level English directly jeopardizes its success in achieving
goals 1-3. For if Hurston established a measurable performance goal to have
100% of the students successfully complete the English sequence through to
college level English, the preliminary state data suggest that Hurston College has
a performance gap of 93% and 95% respectively. The rate of performance for the
predominant population—African Americans—completing the developmental
sequence at Hurston College is 6.3% during 2005-2008 and 2.7% during 2008-
2011, suggesting that the gap in performance is 93% and 97% respectively. With
either interpretation of the rate of student completion, Hurston College faces the
challenge of developing institutional policies and practices to improve outcomes
for its under-prepared students.
Stakeholders. At Hurston College, the stakeholders are students,
instructors, academic support staff, and administrators. Over 6000 students
annually attend Hurston College. These students are predominantly African
Americans and have attended or graduated from one of the low performing
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 8
secondary schools demographically situated in the economically distressed
community encompassing the institution. The students enroll to pursue and
achieve short or long-term academic, vocational, and personal goals under the
direction of a diverse group of instructors. Students enrolling unprepared to
complete college level English are placed in an English course along the
developmental English sequence.
Instructor stakeholders at Hurston College include 75 full-time faculty
members and 150 adjunct instructors from all areas of expertise and industry
(Hurston website). English department faculty and two units of staff housed in
the college’s English Writing Center and Academic Success Center directly
contribute to the achievement of the organizational mission of “providing an
environment for quality learning to enrich the lives of our diverse community”
(Hurston website). The total number of stakeholders who contribute to Hurston’s
goal of moving students through the developmental English sequence is 30; they
include eight (8) full-time faculty and 18 adjunct instructors housed in the
English, basic skills, and Developmental Communications departments and four
(4) full-time and part-time staff in the learning support center.
Hurston’s English Writing Center (EWC) and Academic Success Center
(ASC) are where developmental writing students enrolled in English 21 and
English 28 and Basic Skills 2CE, respectively, complete the required lab co-
requisite component of the courses. Both centers provide tutors on site to help
students with class assignments and online lab assignments. The lab assignments
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 9
are designed to follow what students are learning in class and allow them an
opportunity to get extra practice, information, and assistance. Students are
expected to attend the lab weekly to receive full credit. In addition to the required
lab, the English Department provides the opportunity for each instructor to have a
supplemental instructor in his/her class. The supplemental instructor attends the
core class and then is trained to run small group study sessions outside of class
time that emphasize the underlying skills and abilities needed to be successful in
the course.
The administrator stakeholder group includes middle, senior, and
executive administrators who are responsible for the operation and management
of Hurston. The English department chairperson performs a dual role: instructor
and administrative management. Hence, when the department is required to
comply with changes in campus policies and practices in response to external
accountability mandates, the directive is prescriptive and standardized. The
president of Hurston is viewed as the head of the hierarchical structure, for he/she
is the ultimate recipient of all information that flows from the bottom of the
organization to the top, and he/she is the ultimate decision maker and initiator of
all directives (Kezar, 2005). Senior administrators are viewed as having the same
authority with respect to their organizational subunits.
Stakeholders for the study. Developmental English teachers (DET) are
the stakeholder group who participated in this study. English instructors deliver
developmental English in their respective classes and often may provide
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 10
assistance to students enrolled in the required co-requisite writing lab.
Understanding these stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
challenges in meeting the performance goal of moving students from one level of
the developmental English sequence to the next level until students reach college
level was critical in determining areas of need and for identifying evidence-based
strategies that may be adopted to help achieve Hurston’s mission.
To achieve the organizational goal in quantifiable measures for
developmental English, 100 percent of the English teachers must have knowledge
of the content standards, effective instructional practices, and assessment
measures to effectively teach and move students through the developmental
English sequence in three years. Not having a campus-wide understanding of
these stakeholders’ role in meeting this goal, especially among English teachers,
could impact Hurston’s ability to demonstrate progress towards this objective.
Moreover, if teachers do not have the knowledge, skill, motivation, or
organizational support to achieve the latter objective, the present gap in student
outcomes for developmental English will remain an insurmountable problem.
Background of the Problem
The heart of the problem which this study addressed concerned issues of
practice as they pertain to and influence student outcomes in developmental
English. Students requiring developmental education are steered to and
overrepresented in the nation’s community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 1989;
Perin & Charron, 2006). Approximately three million students are enrolled in
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 11
public two-year community colleges in California (JBHE, 2003), and 16 percent
of these students are African Americans (JHBE, 2003). Effectively serving
students requiring developmental English has been and continues to be a
challenge for all sectors of the postsecondary education system—public and
private institutions, four-year and two-year colleges; however, recent legislation
and mandates have made developmental education the primary responsibility of
community colleges in postsecondary education systems (Attewell et al, 2006;
Bailey, 2008; Bailey & Cho, 2010; Bahr, 2010; Boroch et al, 2007). In
California, for example, assertions in an article by Offenstein and Shulock (2011)
suggest that California continues to face challenges reforming developmental
education. Citing a study that claims California has a preparation problem
(Moore & Shulock, 2009), they conclude that the number of poorly prepared
students creates a problem for postsecondary education and degree attainment.
At community colleges, the preparation problem may be caused by the
disjointed and varied nature of the developmental English programs (Perin, 2002,
2002b). Some institutions adopt a single approach to deliver remediation
programming that is either centralized or mainstreamed, while some other
institutions utilize a hybrid approach where both program structures operate
within the institution (Perin, 2002, 2002b). Students enrolling in the sequence of
developmental English coursework are taught and expected to achieve a specific
set of learning objectives by English department faculty but must enroll in a co-
requisite instructional lab that is housed in a separate academic unit of the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 12
institution with instruction delivered by learning support staff who have a
different set of learning objectives than the English department faculty. The
outcomes for the varied program structures are mixed. Consequently, the
organizational structure and performance of college remedial education programs
have become the center of much debate (Dowd, 2007; Oudenhoven, 2002). Perin
and Charron (2006) argue that “access through an open-admissions policy is,
however, only one step toward educational equity” (p. 155).
A critical challenge for students and community colleges is overcoming
the second hurdle—preparing academically underprepared students to
successfully complete college level English through developmental education.
Approximately one-third of all students in California community colleges
enrolled in credit or noncredit ESL and basic skills courses during the 2006-2007
academic year (California Community College Strategic Plan Update, 2008). Of
this population, African-American and Hispanic students are overrepresented
(relative to their representation in higher education) in basic skills programs
(Bennett, 2001; Dowd, 2007; Ladson-Billings, 1990; Stiff-Williams, 2007), and
enrollment data projections suggest that these numbers will continue to grow
(Levin, Catlin, & Elson, 2010; Milliron & de los Santos, 2004). A pervasive
problem with this growing enrollment is the high rate of attrition in pre-collegiate
sequences (Attewell et al, 2006; Bailey, 2008; Bahr, 2010; Mattice, 1983).
The National Center for Education Statistics NCES longitudinal studies
reveal that a disproportionate number of these students are not successfully
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 13
moving through the prescribed sequence (Attewell et al, 2006; Bailey, 2008;
Bahr, 2010; Mattice, 1983). A 2007 report by the Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy (IHELP) found that African American students had the
lowest completion rate (15%) when compared to Hispanic/Latino (18%), white
(27%), and Asian students (33%). It has been found that the more levels students
must take, the less likely they are to ever complete college English or persist
toward the attainment of a degree (Attewell et al, 2006; Bailey, 2008; Bahr, 2010;
Mattice, 1983). “Less than one quarter of community college students who enroll
in developmental education complete a degree or certificate within eight years of
enrollment in college” (Bailey & Cho, 2010, p. 1).
While several research studies suggest that the environmental forces that
have historically and systematically produced significantly marginal results in
providing developmental education to unprepared students lie in the
organizational structure of the community colleges system, other research studies
illuminate factors related to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that attribute the
major influence in remedial placement at the community college level to a
number of student academic and personal risk factors that are associated with low
rates of persistence and achievement (McClenney, 2006). Some policy and
research studies have attributed non-standardized institutional policies, non-
uniform voluntary placement procedures, and misalignment in curricular content
and assessment between high schools and postsecondary institutions as causes
perpetuating the challenges in improving student outcomes in developmental
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 14
education (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho, 2010; Moore & Shulock, 2010; Boroch et al, ,
2007; Venezia, Bracco & Nodine, 2010).
Stiff-Williams (2007) condemns the one dimensional behavior and attitude
of policy makers, administrators, and educators who approach remediation reform
efforts from a deficit and pathological view in which the students are identified as
the major problem while institutional policies, practices, pedagogical, and
curricular approaches that may impede and perpetuate inequitable outcomes in
student learning are ignored. Regardless of the causes, these views of
developmental education severely influence and impact its effectiveness, for the
“Research about the effectiveness of remedial education programs has typically
been sporadic, underfunded, and inconclusive” (Merisotis & Phipps, 2000, p. 75).
Hence, this study employed gap analysis to examine English teachers’ perceptions
of their knowledge, skills, motivation, and organization in developmental English
to improve student success outcomes. Current state data on Hurston’s
performance outcomes in relation to its peer institutions demonstrate the need to
examine its developmental English program from the perspective of practice.
The Accountability Report for Community Colleges (ARCC) purports to
provide statistics regarding success and progress through basic skills courses to
the California Legislature. Table 1.4 provides an overview of the college’s
performance on key level indicators in relation to peer institutions for each
college level indicator.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 15
Table 1.4
ARCC 2012 Report: Hurston College Level Indicators
Indicator College’s
Rate
Peer
Group
Peer
Group
Low
Peer
Group
High
Peer
Group*
A
Student Progress and Achievement Rate 38.8 43.3 25.0 54.8 A6
B
Percent of Students Who Earned at Least
30 Units
65.3 69.7 57.8 80.0 B1
C
Persistence Rate 54.4 61.2 35.8 72.0 C1
D
Annual Successful Course Completion
Rate for Credit Vocational Courses
67.5 73.3 64.0 88.3 D1
E
Annual Successful Course Completion
Rate for Credit Basic Skills Courses
57.2 52.2 46.7 57.2 E6
F
Improvement Rate for Credit Basic Skills
Courses
48.6 52.8 32.6 67.3 F1
G
Improvement Rate for Credit ESL Courses 51.4 24.1 70.2 G3
*The Peer Group Column provides a code identifying the Peer Institution for each college level indicator.
For the two areas that are the focus of this study—completion rate in credit basic
skills courses and improvement rate for credit basic skills courses, Table 1.4
suggest that Hurston College is performing at or near their peer institutions.
However, the data reflects an aggregate of all basic skills; it is not disaggregated
by discipline. Boylan (2002) reported that the total number of students from all
disciplines thrown in together will never result in anything but the average
success rate – with little opportunity to show improvement and little use
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 16
diagnostically to identify needs for improvement. In addition, a disclaimer in the
ARCC report acknowledges that there are problems with these data statistically as
well. Compounding the problem in reporting outcomes for developmental
English is the variety in course levels coding.
There is little uniformity between campus’ levels due to a lack of a well-
defined rubric for coding. For example, a course coded at College A as 2 levels
below can be vastly different than the same 2-levels-below-coded course at
College B. This makes equivalency and comparability between campuses and
their eventual ARCC metrics unreliable. Another large issue is the difference
between how campuses deliver basic skills curriculum with a more finely
segmented level gradation. Regardless of how the levels are locally defined, well-
established and mutually-identifiable levels that locals can “map” to that create a
system wide set of comparable levels for these basic skills disciplines must occur
in order for the accountability of basic skills students and expenditures to be
accurate.
Despite the latter problems, the data for Hurston College seem to suggest
and support the literature demonstrating that students who begin two or three
levels below college English have low success outcomes. Data for African
American students enrolling in the developmental English sequence at Hurston
suggest that they are dropping out or failing each course in the course sequence.
As noted, fewer than 5% successfully complete transferable college level English
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 17
and recent institutional data reveals that Hurston has experienced a 3% widening
of the gap in students successfully completing the English course sequence.
Instructionally and operationally, Hurston’s English teachers and
academic support unit are experiencing a crisis with regard to achieving it mission
for developmental English students. Though there is some clarity with regard to
Hurston’s developmental education mission and the instrument used to measure
its progress, it appeared that teachers did not have standardized curriculum and
assessment measures nor did they have a definite timeline to evaluate their
progress in meeting the organizational mission. Hurston’s current developmental
English program suggested a disjointed structure, where the developmental
English coursework is offered through the English and basic skills departments
while the co-requisite instructional lab is delivered by the learning support staff
housed in either the academic support center, learning support center, or another
division of the institution. The developmental English program appeared to have
some shared oversight by the English department chair while also appearing to
lack shared learning objectives, instructional practices, and shared instructional
staff.
The pressing question from a teacher’s perspective was “What may be the
instructional, pedagogical, or organizational causes for students not making it to
or through college level English?” Instructionally and pedagogically, the 21
st
Century Learning suggests a cause while embedding a strategy to address the
cause: “Teachers should be able to make relevant and useful choices about when
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 18
and how to teach them [students], and whether or not students are making
progress toward their personal demonstration of accomplishment. Rethinking
what we teach must come before we can rethink how we teach.” (WCCD website;
emphasis mine). In light of the proposed strategy, follow-up questions to identify
issues of practice that may contribute to the problem of low student outcomes are
“Do teachers know what must be taught? Do they know how to identify
appropriate pedagogical and instructional approaches to ensure that 100 percent of
the course content (what is taught) aligns with the content standards? Do they
know if the methods employed to deliver the content are 100 percent effective for
all student learners in the course?” Is ensuring that course content align with
student learning objectives even a teacher’s (or school’s) goal at the onset of an
English course? For, although instructors are expected to teach all students and
support their success, many instructors do not enter the classroom with the
knowledge or skills required to properly support students of differing cultures
(Gallien, 2005; Smitherman & Villanuva, 2003).
Many community college instructors are not trained in graduate programs
to utilize diverse pedagogical methods (Gurung & Schwartz, 2009). According to
Grubb (1999) English instructors possessing training in teaching methods as
opposed only to content knowledge is rare, and few have experience examining
and refining their classroom practice (Grubb, 1999; Bickerstaff & Edgecombe,
2012). When instructors are hired, they are expected to provide effective
classroom instruction (Gurung & Schwartz, 2009). Smitherman & Villanuva
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 19
(2003) assert that many English instructors do not have the knowledge, training,
or appropriate attitude to address students’ linguistic diversity. These instructors,
according to Grubb (1999) are not trained as teachers but rather are hired for their
subject matter expertise. As such, Gurung and Schwartz (2009) assert that new
teachers are often faced with the overwhelming task of preparing course material
for courses they have never taught before, often focusing on the content that must
be covered rather than the way in which the content is taught.
Because of their lack of pedagogical preparation, new and untrained
teachers often employ a “skills and drills” approach which is disconnected from
students’ real-world experiences and does not reach students who are already
disaffected and discouraged by poor high school experiences (Stiff-Williams,
2007). Conversely, seasoned instructors are often comfortable with their teaching
methods, which they believe passed the test of time and therefore may be reticent
to adopt new pedagogical approaches (Gurung & Schwartz, 2009). Gallien
(2005) similarly concludes, “very few professors possess the cultural, historical,
or pedagogical backgrounds that are congruent with the dominant learning styles
and background of many African Americans, especially those who come from
majority black schools and urban areas whose community has minimal cultural
contact with majority communities and educational environments” (p. 7). In
April 2000, the Academic Senate reaffirmed the vital role of professional
development in the California Community College System. Noting that lack of
funding is a chronic problem, the Academic Senate nevertheless supports and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 20
reinforces the spirit of AB 1725, in which it is pointed out that faculty must have
“authority over the substantive direction of the programs and courses in which
they work, through the quality of their relationship with the college
administration, and in the quality of their interactions with the communities of
students they teach” (Faculty Development: A Senate Issue, 2000, p. 2).
A collective effort, which includes state policymakers, non-profit
organizations, and individual colleges have attempted to address the problems of
instruction, curriculum, practice, and outcomes in developmental English through
developmental reforms that vary in both structure and scale (Bickerstaff &
Edgecombe, 2012). A recent publication of the Scaling Innovation Project (2012)
asserts that no innovation can result in significant student gains without
continuous attention to the process employed in diagnosing, identifying, creating,
refining, and implementing an intervention. Hence, efforts at restructuring
require a focus on institutional and teacher reform measures (Stiff-Williams,
2007).
Importance and Significance of the Problem
Community college English faculty members are responsible for teaching
literacy (writing) skills to an increasing number of students (Kroll, 2012).
Teaching and acquisition of literacy skills should be the community college’s first
curriculum goal, according to the Commission on the Future of Community
Colleges (cited in Kroll, 2012). Yet, Smittle (2003) indicates effective teaching in
developmental education is one of the most challenging jobs in the college
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 21
teaching profession. Hence conducting research about how community college
faculty members teach and what student outcomes occur because of their teaching
approaches would seem critical. With the concern for accountability and the
realization that there are established strategies and techniques for instruction,
examining the circumstances that influence the effectiveness of teaching
developmental English is critical.
The role and influence of teachers in mediating and facilitating students’
success in developmental writing is central to remediation reform. Effective
teaching matters as student achievement is tied to teachers’ knowledge and skills
in assessing and matching his or her instructional choices to students’ level of
development (Englert, Marriage, & Dunsmore, 2006). Perin and Charron (2006)
assert that “the existence and outcomes of community college remedial programs
affect the ability of the United States to achieve educational access and equity
goals”(p. 155). The ability and outcomes of specific ethnic and socioeconomic
groups in urban cities are most vulnerable (Perin & Charron, 2006). Although
African-Americans are not the only group that encounters difficulty with
remediation at Hurston College, their opportunity to advance and obtain
certifications and degrees at the postsecondary education level are jeopardized
when considering their rate of participation and poor success with regard to
developmental education (Allen, Jayakumar & Franke, 2009; CPEC, 2007;
Horne, 2009).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 22
Recognizing that numerous studies purport that all individuals do not learn
best via the same pedagogical methods and strategies, corrective measures to
address students’ low-performance in writing and in academia in general, demand
that teachers develop a variety of means to accomplish learning outcomes that
reflect the cultural and learning style preferences of a wide variety of groups and
individuals (Rovai, Gallien & Stiff-Williams, 2007). To accomplish the latter,
instructors need a bridge between research and practice to enhance their teaching
and students’ learning (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett, Dipietro & Norman, 2010).
Hence, an examination of Hurston’s institutional policies and practices with
regard to developmental English, specifically, was warranted to improve African
American achievement. Developmental English serves as the gatekeeper for a
vast range of students who arrive possessing cognitive, academic, linguistic, and
affective learning needs (Allen et al, 2009; Bailey, 2008, 2009; Dowd & Tong,
2007).
This study examined the challenges of teaching and learning from the
instructional perspective with the goal of contributing evidence-based solutions to
improve instructional effectiveness and ultimately student outcomes. For African
American students, the quality of an opportunity in a California community
college and the effectiveness of its developmental education program strongly
correlate with the type of institution to which they have access; the institution’s
awareness of its cultural context (Richardson and Bender, 1991); and the
institution’s effectiveness in monitoring and improving remedial education
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 23
programs and institutional policies (Bailey & Morest, 2006; Bensimon & Dowd,
2006; Desai, 2011; Graham et al, 2007; Martinez-Wenzel & Marquez, 2012).
Consequently, this study is significant because it utilizes a systems approach that
seeks to provide immediate and meaningful evidenced-based strategies to address
the problem. Further, it is also significant because this approach may be adopted
to examine institutional and instructional effectiveness for developmental English
at other colleges in the Western Community College District. Additionally, the
study has many implications for developing policies, practices, and interventions
to address the increasing population of minority students, in general, and African
American students in particular, entering community colleges across the nation.
Purpose of the Study and Guiding Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine teachers’ perceptions,
knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges concerning the gap in
student outcomes for developmental English and to identify solutions that they
may implement at Hurston to steadily improve these outcomes. The questions
that guided this study were:
1) What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges
English instructors must address in order to effectively move students
through the developmental English course sequence?
2) What are the recommended solutions to meet the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational challenges English faculty encounter
and how would one evaluate them?
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 24
There have been earlier studies examining developmental course
sequencing, student characteristics, retention and persistence at urban community
colleges (Bailey, 2008; Bailey & Cho, 2010; Jaggars & Hodara, 2011; Moss &
Yeaton, 2006). Very few, however, addressed the topics in relationship to the
knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) of developmental English
programs, specifically as they pertain to policies, procedures, and instructional
practices as contributing to low student outcomes at a predominantly African
American community college.
Methodological Framework. This study utilized gap analysis (Clark &
Estes, 2002) to understand the KMO layers of complexity at Hurston College in
order to assist English faculty to improve their policies, interventions, and
instructional practices. As an assessment process, gap analysis enables
organizations to diagnose the “human causes behind performance gaps” through
an examination of motivation, knowledge/ skill, and organization (Clark & Estes,
2002, p. 21). Clark and Estes (2002) define performance goals as descriptive
“tasks or objectives that individuals and teams must accomplish according to
specific deadlines and criteria” (p. 22). The process begins with an organization
identifying a specific performance goal and then measuring “the gap between
current achievement and desired performance goal levels” (Clark & Estes, 2002,
pg. 21). An essential component of the process that Clark and Estes (2002)
recommend is that stakeholders spend a significant part of their time investigating
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 25
at the onset the problem that needs to be solved, how to solve it, and how to
measure the effectiveness of the solution.
Definitions
The following terms are used consistently throughout this study. Whereas
some may have multiple definitions in research and practice, the terms are defined
as follows for the purpose of this study:
1. College Readiness Skills: the use of strategies that lead to effective study,
problem solving, and thinking critically, in order to progress satisfactorily
through college level coursework (Dzubak, 2007).
2. Co-requisite: a non-degree-credit required academic course that must be
completed in conjunction with another course
3. Developmental English learning support staff: individuals who provide
direct tutorial assistance and academic support to students enrolled in co-
requisite developmental English coursework through an institution’s
learning support center/lab, basic skills department, or another academic
unit.
4. Developmental or remedial courses: Courses at this level are often
referred to as remedial or developmental because they signal work that
does not receive transfer-level credit. The California Basic Skills Initiative
(BSI), a statewide effort that aims to increase the ability to address basic
skills and English as a Second Language needs through education on
effective practices and professional development, defines basic skills as
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 26
“foundation skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and English as a
Second Language, as well as learning skills and study skills, which are
necessary for students to succeed in college-level work” (see http://
www.cccbsi.org/effective-practices).
5. Developmental English Sequence: Hurston College’s developmental
English sequence includes four levels below college level English; the
course numbers in the sequence are Basic Skills 2CE (0 units Non Credit),
English 21 (3 unit NDA), and English 28 (3 units).
6. Open-access institutions: without an admissions process requiring
academic qualifications.
7. Non-Degree Applicable (NDA): Basic skills courses that may be required
through developmental education that are not applicable towards fulfilling
degree requirements nor transferable.
8. Sequence: a process that begins with initial assessment and referral to
remediation and ends with completion of the highest level developmental
course—the course that, in principle, completes the student’s preparation
for college-level studies (Bailey et al, 2010, p. 1; Bailey, Jeong & Choo,
2009).
9. Successful Performance in Subsequent Courses: defined as the percentage
of students who, having successfully completed the Basic Skills course or
program, subsequently enroll in and achieve a passing grade of “C” or
better in the next level course of basic skill or college course.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 27
10. Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s): the competencies and skills expected
of students as they complete a course, program or institution.
11. Unprepared: students whose academic skills fall below those determined
to be necessary for college success and/or students whose “college
readiness skills” do not adequately prepare them for the rigors of college
study and learning (Dzubak, 2007).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into six chapters. The first chapter
introduces the topic and gives an overview of the research problems and the
purposes of the study. The second chapter provides a detailed literature review
while the third chapter outlines the methods of data collection and the sources of
data. The fourth chapter presents the results and an analysis in relation to the
research questions. Chapter Five offers evidence-based recommendations for
addressing the validated knowledge, motivation, and organization causes and an
implementation plan for integrating the recommendations. The sixth chapter
presents an evaluation plan that may be considered for implementation by key
stakeholders to address the KSMO gaps and study limitations and conclusions.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 28
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
In surveying the literature, there is a wealth of research on known
effective strategies for teaching developmental English in community colleges.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, there is a plethora of studies examining the
challenges of teaching developmental English, and developmental education in
general, in community colleges. Some questions that arise concerning both ends
of the spectrum include: Are the effective instructional strategies applicable to all
institutional environments and student demographics, or just some? Are they
being adopted and consistently applied in developmental English instruction? If
they are not being adopted and consistently applied, then why are they not
adopted? What are the challenges and barriers that English instructors encounter?
Consequently, this chapter presents and frames an investigation of known
effective developmental English instructional policies and practices against
research exploring known challenges English instructors encounter in moving
students through the developmental English course sequence. Both the known
challenges and effective strategies served to establish a rationale for this study
while simultaneously framing the conceptual approach under-taken to help faculty
stakeholders at Hurston College address gaps in outcomes for developmental
English.
The effective instructional strategies presented are organized into four
large categories of practice based on Boylan’s (2002) work and subcategories
based upon its direct relevance to teachers.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 29
The four large categories include: 1) Program Structures, 2) Instructional
Interventions and Academic Support Services, 3) Faculty Knowledge and
Development, and 4) Program Evaluation.
Program Structures
A major strategy that frames the instructional effectiveness of
developmental education is the structure of community colleges’ developmental
education programs (Boylan, 2002; RPG, 2007; Shulock, Ceja, & Lang, 2007).
According to several studies, organizational strategies for developmental
education programming can make a difference in teaching and learning (Boylan,
2002; Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997; RPG, 2007; Shulock et al, 2007). These
organizational strategies involve the location of developmental education within
the system (centralized verses decentralized) and the use of learning communities.
Centralized vs. Decentralized
Centralized programs, those characterized by developmental education
departments, seem to correlate with greater student success than decentralized
programs, those in which developmental instruction and support services are the
responsibility of separate disciplines or offices (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997).
But Boylan, Bliss, and Bonham (1997) stress that it is the high degree of
coordination and communication typically found in centralized programs that is
the key factor. They suggest that decentralized programs, which are most
common in community colleges, can be equally successful if the program
structure requires high levels of communication and coordination. They also
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 30
suggest that forming basic skills committees comprised of counselors, tutoring
personnel, reading and writing center staff, and administrators with
responsibilities for developmental English and holding regular meetings might
produce high levels of communication and coordination. The charge of these
committees should include drafting a mission statement, goals and objectives for
basic skills, and a clearly defined evaluation process and criteria to measure
program and student success (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997).
Perin (2002b) offers a detailed critique of the advantages and
disadvantages of mainstreamed versus centralized developmental education
program structures. She notes that mainstreamed programs (programs in which
remedial or developmental courses are offered within academic departments) are
more likely to have better alignment between remedial and college level course
content and greater dialogue and communication between instructors who teach
remedial and college level courses than centralized programs. The mainstreamed
programs also tend to have less of a stigma in the eyes of students who may
consider centralized programs as isolated and inferior in terms of social status
(Perin, 2002b).
On the other hand, centralized programs may be superior in terms of
teacher motivation and experience because these instructors have chosen to
devote their careers to developmental education. Also centralized programs may
be more likely than mainstream programs to offer high quality support services
such as tutoring and academic advising. Perin (2002b) concludes her critique
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 31
with a number of recommendations for incorporating the “best of both worlds,”
whichever model a college adopts. She suggests that centralized programs may
be most beneficial to students with the lowest level of skills, especially those with
reading difficulties. Conversely she argues, students with higher-level skills, with
perhaps only one area of academic difficulty, may thrive in mainstreamed
programs where they get the help they need but still feel a part of the mainstream
life of the college.
Learning Communities
The way curriculum is designed and delivered is also important. Research
overwhelmingly supports the use of learning communities (Levine, 1999;
McKusik & McPhail, 2012). While there are a number of different models,
learning communities share some critical defining features: a cohort of students,
two or more linked courses, and a focus on active learning and collaboration
(Levine, 1999). Smith (1991) points out that “restructuring efforts around
learning communities are guided by assumptions about rethinking organizational
practices and structures” (1991, p.42). She defines learning communities as
…a variety of curricular models that purposefully restructure the
curriculum to link together courses or coursework during the same quarter
or semester so that a group of students finds greater coherence in what
they are studying and experience increased intellectual interaction with
faculty members and other students. In learning communities, students and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 32
faculty members experience courses and disciplines as complementary and
connected enterprises. (p. 42)
Many learning communities are interdisciplinary and involve team teaching.
Faculty members who teach in learning communities meet frequently to
collaborate on making curricular connections and to discuss the needs of the
students they share. Hence, learning communities are increasingly being used as
an alternative to traditional basic skills remediation.
Beyond presenting the definition and structure of learning communities,
McKusick and McPhail (2012) address from the instructional perspective the
importance of learning faculty communities and enumerate strategies that a
learning-centered community college may adopt to close the achievement gap for
students. Positing that faculty must understand and promote cognitive learning
preferences that often differ according to a learner’s culture, the authors advance
strategies that include: a) providing professional development to faculty and staff,
b) delivering responsive, culturally-mediated instruction, c) utilizing culturally
attuned methods for academic preparation, d) customizing student support
services, and e) implementing a hospitable institutional climate. In addition to
adopting these strategies, McKusick and McPhail (2012) imply through the
description of a community college who utilized these strategies that in order for
institutional or instructional effectiveness to occur, community colleges must shift
their perception of who and what is responsible and, importantly, their role in
rectifying the achievement gap.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 33
As an example, describing the process and actions taken by the
Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC), McKusick and McPhail
(2012) suggest that institutions must be prepared to do more than provide “lip
service” to the widening achievement gap in developmental education; they need
to “walk the talk” (p. 150). They describe that CCBC’s commitment to action
began with an institutional shift in philosophy that is evident in the title of their
initiative-- LearningFirst. The college’s LearningFirst philosophy asserts “until
all learners are successful, the institution has not yet made good on the promise of
access and opportunity” (p. 141). The institutional philosophy reference to all
demonstrates the CCBC’s awareness and acknowledgement of the performance
gaps of two intersecting populations—African American students and
developmental students. Hence, the institution’s target audience for training and
implementing the intervention was faculty through professional development—a
topic discussed later in the chapter.
Integrated Reading and Writing Curriculums
Just as learning communities seek to lessen the fragmentation of the
college curriculum, integrated reading and writing curriculums increasingly strive
to reunite the “language arts.” As McLaughlin, Price and Shoultz (1992) point
out, “for several decades, researchers and theorists in language and literacy have
maintained that reading and writing should be taught as complex, interactive
processes instead of as an accumulation of discrete skills” (p. 29). They agree
with Tierney and Leys when they assert, “having to justify the integration of
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 34
reading and writing is tantamount to having to validate the nature and role of
literacy in society” (as cited in McLaughlin et al., 1992, p. 29). Nevertheless,
most colleges continue to offer separate courses in reading and composition. Of
course, reading courses include writing, and composition courses include reading.
However, the usual curricular structure does not allow most teaching faculty to
take advantage of the inherent connections between the two at more than a
cursory level.
As Troyka notes, reading and writing are “reciprocal meaning-making
activities; one is diminished without the other” (as cited in McLaughlin et al.,
1992, p. 29). For readings to be more than just springboards to writing, and for
writing to be more than a brief summary or response to reading, the two activities
need to be presented to students in ways that allow for depth and interaction at
increasingly complex levels. One model for such a structure is advanced by
Bartholomae and Petrosky (1986). In a course designed for underprepared
students at the University of Pittsburg, the authors reject a “constituent skills”
pedagogy in favor of an integrated approach that they believe helps students “re-
imagine themselves as readers and writers” (p. 8) in an academic setting.
Students are taught to view reading as an act of composition, and composition as
the act of establishing authority to speak. While Bartholomae’s and Petrosky’s
(1986) work sets forth a compelling rationale for the integration of reading and
writing from a theoretical perspective, their course model may not easily transfer
to a community college setting because it requires extensive training in their
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 35
philosophy and methodology. Their approach also requires departmental
commitment to strategies such as having student work comprise the main text for
the course.
An alternative approach to consider is that taken by the Minnesota
Community College System (1992-94) in a publication entitled “Community of
Classrooms: A Handbook for Preparing Students for Reading and Writing in
College.” This is an assessment focused, outcomes-based model developed by
thirty-five reading and writing faculty representing all twenty-one colleges in the
Minnesota Community College System (1992-94). In this publication, sample
curriculum and assessment guides are offered for both separate and integrated
developmental reading and writing courses. Faculty who participated in this
project taught in colleges that maintained separate courses in reading and writing
but felt compelled to move toward more integrated approaches. They saw this
change as a paradigm shift that presented many challenges but also held out
promising solutions. By means of this paradigm shift, teachers experienced
growing pains with regard to their beliefs, perceptions, and practices in teaching
writing, redesigning curriculum and working with colleagues. They were able to
form learning communities and see their own students build learning
communities.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 36
Instructional Interventions and Academic Support Services
A second strategic area of organizational interventions to increase
instructional effectiveness concerns the type and degree of support services
offered outside of classroom instruction to enhance developmental education
outcomes. These closely linked interventions include supplemental instruction,
learning laboratories, and technology.
Supplemental Instruction
To enhance instructional effectiveness, an ancillary intervention known to
facilitate student learning and instructional topics is supplemental instruction.
Developed in 1973 at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, supplemental
instruction targets “high-risk” courses, courses that typically have high failure
rates, rather than targeting individual students, as tutoring does (Arendale, 1997).
The supplemental instruction is designed to meet the following objectives:
increase retention within targeted historically difficult courses; improve student
grades in targeted historically difficult courses; and increase the graduation rates
of students (Center for Supplemental Instruction,
http://www.umkc.edu/asm/si/overview.shtml#.).
Procedurally and operationally, supplemental instruction is offered to all
students enrolled in the course-- not just those having difficulty, is led by a former
student who did well in the course, and is recommended by his or her instructor,
and is conducted in small group study sessions outside of class time (Arendale,
1997). Supplemental instruction leaders emphasize the underlying skills and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 37
abilities needed to be successful in the course (Arendale, 1997). Supplemental
instruction leaders are required to attend all class sessions and serve as model
students demonstrating the qualities of active learning, critical thinking, and
effective study skills (Arendale, 1997).
Research conducted by the University of Missouri at Kansas City
consistently shows a statistically significant lower rate of failing grades and
higher average course grades for those who participate in Supplemental
instruction sessions. “Supplemental instruction is the only program validated by
the U.S. Department of Education as improving student academic achievement
and graduation rates” (Center for Supplemental Instruction, University of
Missouri-Kansas City, 2000. p. 1).
Learning laboratories
Learning laboratories are another traditional support for basic skills
programs. Unfortunately, many are not well coordinated with the courses they are
intended to support, with lab personnel only marginally connected to instructors
and curriculum. To increase instructional effectiveness in developmental courses,
Boylan (2002) enumerates strategies that link the learning lab with the core class.
He states, “The integration of classrooms and laboratories appears to be an
essential component of successful developmental programs” (p. 64). He defines
integrated programs as programs in which (a) lab coordinators and faculty
collaborate in course design, articulating how lab activities will support classroom
instruction and how these activities relate to course goals and objectives; (b)
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 38
students are required to complete lab activities which are a part of their course
grade; and (c) labs are located near the instructional areas they support.
Technology
Technology is playing an increasingly significant role in basic skills
programs. According to a study by the American Association of Community
Colleges (Shults, 2000), 95% of community colleges reported using computers in
at least one subject area (p.1). However, a CQIN/APQC (2000) benchmarking
study advises caution, particularly with regard to the overuse of technology.
Boylan found that “instructors at best-practice institutions used technology only to
provide supplementary assistance, tutoring, or individual drill and practice outside
of class. They did not rely on technology as a primary instructional delivery
system” (Boylan, 2002, p. 81). Boylan (2002) recommends using technology in
moderation to support and supplement course instruction. From the research on
program structures, it is clear that the establishment of ancillary research-based
interventions to complement and align developmental education can enhance
instructional effectiveness and lead to greater student learning outcomes.
Faculty Knowledge and Development
A third category of practice that aids in increasing instructional
effectiveness is faculty members’ knowledge of the subject content, of instruction,
and of learning. Teaching developmental English, like teaching writing in
general, must begin with knowledge of what writing is and how writers go about
writing. That is, teachers of writing should know how to teach writing or how to
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 39
engage students in the writing process (Rueda, 2011). The teaching of writing
begins with experience and training in its fundamentals and progresses to methods
of using these processes for a variety of purposes and audiences and to techniques
for analyzing its dynamics. Faculty members who teach developmental writing
should be prepared to address what students need to know and do in order to
achieve specified course learning goals (Rueda, 2011).
Teaching Developmental Writing
In his exploration to define what constitutes college-level writing, Sullivan
(2003) noted that any meaningful dialogue about “teaching writing at a
community college, or how to best serve our developmental students, must
proceed from a broadly shared consensus about standards related to ‘college-level
work’” (p. 384)—the “what” of teaching writing. There are no commonly shared
standards as to what constitutes college-level writing. Consequently, the teaching
of developmental writing does not adhere to a commonly shared set of standards.
As a result, standards for teaching developmental writing at open-access
institutions ultimately are local, determined in part by instructors’ understanding
and knowledge of the complex realities of the communities served by the
institutions and the students’ teachers find themselves teaching (Sullivan, 2003).
On the contrary, Shaughnessy (2001) suggests that the teaching of developmental
writing is founded upon a core set of basic skills standards that aim to prepare
students for a special kind of college writing—exposition. She defines exposition
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 40
as a semiformal analytical prose in which the connections between sentences and
paragraphs surface in the form of conjunctive adverbs and transitional sentences.
In addressing some new approaches toward teaching developmental
English, Shaughnessy (2001) cites a fundamental contradiction in the assumptions
with regard to teaching the subject—that “there is a place to begin learning to
write, a foundation from which the many special forms and styles of writing rise”
(p.2). Hence, she advocates that teachers should consider the connections and
distinctions among speech, writing, and reading in order to understand the nature
of writing, how it may be taught, and to identify the skills that are implied in the
ability to write. To achieve the latter, Shaughnessy (2001) concludes her
discussion by reiterating the responsibilities in teaching developmental English
and recommending a list of topics teachers should cover—the what—to help
students learn to write in an expository style. The list provides a range from
highly controlled to free assignments.
1. Paraphrase
2. Summary
3. Exegesis of a passage
4. Theme in which topic sentence and organizational pattern are given
5. Theme in which topic sentence is given (include the examination
question which is usually an inverted topic sentence
6. Theme in which subject is given
7. Theme in which form is given—description, dialogue, argument, etc.
8. Theme in which only the physical conditions for writing are given—
journal, free-writing, etc.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 41
Pedagogy
Though not discounting Sullivan’s (2003) argument concerning a lack of
standards for teaching developmental English, Graham et al (2007) also presents
recommendations on how to teach writing and concludes that there is “enough
[information on writing interventions] and effective instructional practices”
available for teachers to enhance their teaching to “help students become
strategic, knowledgeable, and motivated writers who have mastered basic
transcription and sentence construction skills” (p. 6). The caveat is that their
recommendations offer an alternative strategy than that proposed by Shaughnessy.
Their intervention strategies combine the “what” and “how” of teaching writing,
requiring writing teachers to adopt instructional approaches that help students to:
a) be more strategic when planning, drafting, or revising; b) constructing a
supportive writing environment in which such processes are valued; c)
developing instructional arrangements where students work together to
support their writing efforts; c) setting clear and specific goals for writing
tasks; d) using word processing and supporting software; e) teaching
increasingly sophisticated sentence construction via sentence combining;
f) involving students in inquiry activities centered on the process of
writing; g) using good models of writing to enhance students’ knowledge;
and h) teaching basic text transcription skills such as handwriting and
spelling. (p. 6)
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 42
To address both the cognitive and sociocultural domains of writing,
Pritchard and Honeycutt (2007), based upon their review of the literature on
process writing, report that teachers need to implement “all the stages” associated
with teaching the process approach to writing in order for students to fully “build
a repertoire of writing strategies.” These stages involve six major areas of
composing that also combine the what and how of teaching writing:
1) dealing with the emotions surrounding writing, 2) developing students’
understanding of the writing process, 3) modeling and teaching self-
regulation processes, 4) training and monitoring peer response partners
and groups, 5) guiding writing development through targeted strategy
instruction that addresses ideas and content, organization, voice, word
choice, sentence fluency, and conventions…, and 6) developing a writing
vocabulary. (p. 31).
Gay (2000) admonishes teachers to learn how to recognize, honor, and
incorporate the personal abilities of students into their teaching strategies.
Similarly, MacArthur, Graham, and Fitzgerald (2008) require that such efforts be
drawn from what is known about writing, its development, and effective
instruction. The latter is echoed by Graham et al. In their research, their overall
recommendation is that teachers do a better job teaching writing and that
instructional efforts on writing be informed by what is known about the factors
that foster writing development, particularly what is known to be effective for
culturally diverse learners. However, Lovejoy (2003) asserts that in order to meet
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 43
the challenge of diversity requires that teachers rethink their pedagogy and
become reflective practitioners, learning to take risks in the classroom in
responsible, productive ways.
Other studies have enumerated several challenges and obstacles that may
impact teachers’ ability to adopt Lovejoy’s (2003) recommendations. While
pointing out the creativity and beauty that may be found in writing, Shaughnessy
acknowledges its challenge:
For most people, speech is easy and writing is difficult; the one is
inevitable, the other acquired, generally under conditions that seem to
violate rather than use the natural learning abilities of people. Because of
this violation, learning to write requires almost as much undoing as doing,
whether one is involved with those skills implies in the encoding process
itself (handwriting, spelling, and punctuation) or those skills that are
carried over from speech to the page (making and ordering statements (p.
3).
Her recommended approach to help students improve writing is simply to have
them write. Having “imaginative writing texts, thoughtfully designed
assignments, elaborate rationales for teaching writing this way or that is merely
part of the effort to get writing started and to keep it going” (p.3). Accordingly,
she concludes that the central goal of a writing course should be to help students
learn how to “make his own mess” and to lead them to an awareness of their
power to make choices that bring them closer and closer to their intended
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 44
meaning. Consequently, she argues that a teacher’s responsibility, as facilitator,
is to know what skills are implied in the ability to write what is called
developmental English in order to understand and identify the difficulties students
have with each of them, i.e. difficulties in handwriting, spelling and punctuation,
making sentences, ordering sentences, and grammatical correctness.
The skills and content taught in developmental reading and writing
classrooms should be specifically related to those that students will later
encounter in their subject-matter classrooms. From a cognitive perspective, close
alignment of developmental and college-level instruction should promote
students' generalization of learning beyond remediation to the college-level
classroom. Transfer from learning to application is one of three major types of
cognitive generalization (Simons, 1999) and is a central goal of education
(Bereiter, 1995). An important factor in the transfer of learning is the
reinforcement of students' original learning through the use of multiple examples
in numerous contexts. As Haskell (2001) states, "Teaching that promotes
transfer...involves returning again and again to an idea or procedure but on
different levels in different contexts, with apparently 'different' examples." (pp.
26-27). The remedial classroom is where academic skills are learned and the
various college-level classrooms that the student attends as he or she moves
through the discipline program are the settings in which these skills are applied.
Transfer of skill is more likely if learning and application occur closely in time.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 45
Through the research presented, one can see that there is no clear guide for
teaching developmental writing. Research has shown that there are different
opinions concerning what and how the teaching of writing should be approached.
Consequently, it goes without saying, a lack of a clear cut approach to teaching
writing is perplexing for teachers because there is not just one clear standard.
Hence, simply knowing effective instructional strategies may not be enough; they
may need to be framed within a theoretical construct and directly linked to a clear
set of objectives. To understand the teaching dynamics and challenges at Hurston
College, questions surrounding the course curriculum and instructional
approaches were part of the data collection instruments.
Designing or Revising a Course
Davis (2009) provides new and experienced faculty tested strategies for
addressing all major aspects of college teaching, from planning a course through
assigning final grades. An important tool for teaching presented in the work
addresses creating a syllabus. Two tools presented in the work address designing
or revising a course and creating a syllabus—both of which have been determined
to be effective instructional practices.
According to Davis (2009), when designing or revising a course, faculty
must consider what material to teach, how best to teach it, and how to ensure that
students are learning what is being taught. Quite often, many instructors attempt
to include too much material in a course, which suggests that the course may be
designed in deference to standardized student learning objectives established for
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 46
the course (Davis, 2009). As a result, Davis (2009) provides a list of suggestions
to help teachers consider the content of their course, structure and sequence of
activities and assignments, the identification of learning outcomes, and the
selection of instructional resources. The general strategies recommended include:
a) letting the decision be guided by what students are expected to accomplish, b)
applying principles that will enhance students’ learning and intellectual
development, c) utilizing the principles of universal design to construct the
course, and d) aiming for alignment of course elements. Similarly, while
emphasizing the integral role the course description and institution-given goals
are in designing a course, Greive (2001) states that all courses must have
appropriate course objectives and that teachers’ success depends on their ability to
develop and implement course objectives (Greive, 2001).
Implementing course objectives is “the major component of the
teaching/planning process” (Greive, 2001, p. 56). He indicates that the
development of course objectives is not complex. The complexity arises for
teachers because they have a tendency to “write more objectives than can be
covered in class,” and those objectives are not clear to students (p. 25). To
overcome the latter problems, he recommends that teachers: a) write objectives in
alignment with the course goals delineated in the course description, b) use
appropriate directive descriptors that enable the objective to be measured, such as
write, solve, contrast, compare, compose, describe, compute, identify, list, attend,
and c) follow the course outline to ensure that the major topics are addressed
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 47
during the course. Grieve cites that many institutions require instructors to
develop course objectives based upon Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational
Objectives. Developing objectives utilizing Bloom’s hierarchy of objectives
ensures that teaching and learning extends beyond information recall to include
competencies in the application, analysis, and synthesis domains (Greive, 2001).
In addition, Greive (2001) indicates “more active teaching styles will incorporate
the higher order objectives that ensure students are able to reach the objectives
described” (p. 59).
Course Syllabus
Course objectives present the conceptual overview of a class, and the
course outline enables the teacher to distill the details of the entire course (Greive,
2001). Course syllabus help teachers organize their course and set their schedule.
It also enables teachers to describe to their students what they will need to know
and do to succeed in a class (Davis, 2009). The syllabus is the official document
of a course and is defined as “a concise statement of the main points of a course
of study or subject” (Greive, 2001, p. 62). According to Greive (2001), course
syllabus can create confusion for faculty members who do not have a shared
understanding of the term concise—some faculty members may interpret concise
as being the use of broad topical areas that will be covered in a course while
others may understand it to be the incorporation of the major point followed by
complete sentences.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 48
Often faculty members experience confusion with regard to developing
their syllabi because they do not have access to sample course syllabi.
Nevertheless, Greive (2001) describes the major parts that should be included in a
good syllabus:
• The complete name of the course, including the course number and
catalog description
• The name and title by which the faculty member wishes to be
addressed
• The faculty member’s office hours
• The text(s) and other materials required
• The course objectives
• The student assignments and projects
• The course requirements and grading standards
• A complete listing of resources, outside readings, and field trips
• The evaluation plan
Encouraging teachers to develop their syllabus with the students in mind, Davis
(2009) expands the major parts of a good syllabus. She suggests that teachers
develop their syllabus anticipating the general questions that may be in the minds
of students, meaning that teachers should:
• include more rather than less material,
• use a simple layout for the hard-copy syllabus handout,
• indicate any instructional technology requirements,
• clarify the conceptual structure used to organize the course,
• schedule time for gathering feedback from students,
• provide space for names and contact information of two or three
classmates, and
• end the syllabus in a positive, upbeat fashion.
Davis (2009) suggests that teachers review their syllabus against a checklist,
Exhibit 2.1, which summarizes the key components of a comprehensive syllabus.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 49
Student Learning
Having knowledge of subject content and pedagogy is only part of
effective instruction. According to McKusick and McPhail (2012), the learning
domain distinguishes itself from the instructional domain in ways that are
important to serving the needs of diverse learners. Instructors also should be
knowledgeable of how learning works. Ambrose Bridges, Lovett, DiPietro and
Norman (2010) argue “any conversation about effective teaching must begin with
a consideration of how students learn” (p. 1). Adapted from Mayer (2002),
Ambrose et al (2010) define learning as “a process that leads to change, which
occurs as a result of experience and increases the potential for improved
performance and future learning” (p. 3).
Learning involves change in knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes,
and the change takes place over time; it should have a lasting impact on students’
thinking and behavior (Ambrose et al, 2010). Consequently, teachers facilitate
students’ learning through meaningful instruction; goal-directed practice that
focuses on an appropriate level of challenge and is of sufficient quantity and
frequency; targeted, timely feedback that explicitly addresses aspects of students’
performance relative to specific target criteria and that delineates strategies and
suggestions to help them fulfill those criteria (Ambrose et al, 2010). Moreover,
teachers are responsible for evaluating and inferring learning through students’
class work products and performance.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 50
Ambrose et al (2010) implores instructors to develop conscious awareness of
these elements in order to help students learn more effectively.
Ambrose et al (2010) provide seven research-based principles to enable
instructors to gain an understanding of student learning. These principles provide
instructors with an understanding of student learning that may help them: “(a) see
why certain teaching approaches are or are not supporting students’ learning, (b)
generate or refine teaching approaches and strategies that more effectively foster
student learning in specific contexts; and (c) transfer and apply these principles to
new courses” (Ambrose et al, 2010, p. 2). They state that these principles are
transformative and applicable to all segments of education (K-12 and higher
education) as they have been found to be: domain-independent, experience-
independent, and cross-culturally relevant. Although the seven principles are
aimed to help teachers understand how learning works in order to improve
instructional effectiveness, the text skews heavily towards the students’
perspective when addressing the topic of motivation. Consequently, the following
discussion focuses on the application of these principles as they concern how
teachers may build on students’ prior knowledge.
Building on Prior Knowledge
To provide effective instruction, teachers should understand that students
do not enter their courses as blank slates (Ambrose et al, 2010). Students enter
courses with knowledge that influences how they filter and interpret incoming
information. As a result, a major reflective exercise that is endorsed by the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 51
authors to enhance instructional effectiveness and student learning is to connect
course content to prior knowledge and experiences, being careful not to
overestimate students’ prior knowledge. Overestimating students’ prior
knowledge can hinder learning as new knowledge is being built on a shaky
foundation (Ambrose et al, 2010). The authors state, “Although, as instructors,
we can and should build on students’ prior knowledge, it is also important to
recognize that not all prior knowledge provides an equally solid foundation for
new learning” (p. 13). They offer a set of strategies to help instructors: a)
“determine the extent and quality of students’ prior knowledge, relative to the
learning requirements of a course”; b) “activate students’ relevant prior
knowledge”; c) “address gaps in students’ prior knowledge”; d) “help students
avoid applying prior knowledge in the wrong contexts”; and d) “help students
revise and rethink inaccurate knowledge” (p. 27).
a. Gauge the Extent and Nature of Students’ Prior Knowledge
To gauge the extent and nature of students’ prior knowledge, the authors
recommend that teachers perform applicable approaches from the following list:
1) talk to colleagues; 2) administer a diagnostic assessment; 3) have students
assess their own prior knowledge; 4) use brainstorming to reveal prior knowledge;
5) assign a concept map activity; or 6) look for patterns of errors in student work.
b. Methods to Activate Accurate Prior Knowledge
Because it is well documented in the research that students learn most
effectively when they connect new knowledge to prior knowledge, Ambrose et al
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 52
recommend that teachers begin a lesson by asking students what they already
know about the topic in question. They assert that this approach may be
completed by explicitly linking new material to knowledge from previous courses
and to prior knowledge from your own course; use analogies and examples that
connect to students’ everyday knowledge; and ask students to reason on the basis
of relevant prior knowledge. Similarly, Shaughnessy (2001) recommends that
teachers have students generate a list of three to five rules that they have already
learned about writing and then compile the separate lists into one long list that
may be distributed to the entire class. To active students’ prior knowledge, she
provides the following questions as a starting point:
• Is there more than one way of stating the same rule?
• Are some rules more difficult to understand than others?
• Which of the rules seem contradictory?
• Which rules seem helpful?
• Are there writing situations in which these rules may be broken?
• What are the consequences of breaking the rules?
• What are the choices that writers can make about how to compose
their writing?
c. Methods to Address Insufficient Prior Knowledge
As presented, students’ prior knowledge lays the groundwork for new
learning. Consequently, teachers’ awareness and understanding of the impact
prior knowledge has on new learning and in turn instructional effectiveness are
significant. If students have gaps in their prior knowledge or apply prior
knowledge incorrectly, a teacher’s ability to build new knowledge to achieve
specified learning objectives is jeopardized. Hence, to be effective, Ambrose et al
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 53
(2010) strongly advocate that instructors “assess what students know and believe
so that [they] can build on knowledge that is accurate and relevant, fill in gaps and
insufficiencies where they exist, help students recognize when they are applying
prior knowledge inappropriately, and help students revise inaccurate knowledge
and form more accurate and robust mental models” (p. 39).
According to Ambrose et al (2010), the first step toward addressing gaps
in students’ prior knowledge is recognizing where those gaps may reside. In
order to do so, teachers will need to be mindful and aware of the knowledge that
students will need to have to perform effectively in their course, which requires
forethought concerning course assignments. Ambrose et al (2010) indicate that
teachers often “stop short of identifying all [emphasis mine] the background
knowledge students need” (p. 34). They recommend that teachers ask themselves
questions until they have fully identified the knowledge requirements needed,
including being sure to “differentiate declarative (knowing what and knowing
why) from procedural knowledge (knowing how and knowing when)” (p. 34).
Teachers having students responsible for simply knowing facts, concepts, or
procedures does not mean that they will know how to use them or what they are
doing or why (Ambrose et al, 2010). The authors recommend additional
strategies to remediate students who have insufficient prerequisite knowledge that
involve assigning individualized learning tasks to help students fill gaps in
prerequisite knowledge; devoting instructional time to reviewing important
prerequisite material; asking a teaching assistant to conduct a review session
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 54
outside of class time; or revising the course altogether. The latter two suggestions
may not be institutionally or departmentally sanctioned or feasible practices in
community college developmental English programs.
d. Methods to Help Students Recognize Inappropriate Prior Knowledge
To help students understand when it is and is not appropriate to apply
prior knowledge, the authors recommend having teachers highlight conditions of
applicability through a classroom exercise. The teachers are encouraged to
present students with a range of problems and contexts and then ask them to
identify whether or not a given skill or concept is applicable and to explain their
reasoning. Other strategies suggested are to provide students with heuristics to
help them avoid inappropriate application of knowledge, explicitly identify
discipline-specific conventions, and demonstrate where analogies break down.
e. Methods to Correct Inaccurate Knowledge
Related to the former strategy of recognizing inappropriate prior
knowledge, the final method provides suggestions to help students’ correct
inaccurate knowledge. These approaches require teachers to ask students to make
and test predictions, to justify their reasoning, provide multiple opportunities for
students to use accurate knowledge with sufficient time. Since inaccurate
understanding and misconceptions about knowledge can take a long time to
correct, it is critical that teachers give students sufficient opportunities and time to
modify their knowledge and beliefs.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 55
As noted, few community college English instructors receive adequate
graduate training in the practice of teaching or preparation for the unique
challenges of teaching in a community college (Grubb, 1999; Gurung &
Schwartz, 2009; Smitherman & Villanuva, 2003). The teaching practicum
offered within the typical graduate program introduces students to teaching
freshmen reading and composition courses through teaching assistantships within
the University. Very few offer practicum for graduate students aspiring to teach
at the community college level in community college environments, where the
majority of students’ academic preparation requires enrolling in pre-college
English courses (courses one or more levels below freshmen reading and
composition). As a result, new and untrained teachers often focus on what they
are required to teach rather than how to effectively deliver the content that will be
taught (Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 2009; Smitherman & Villanuva, 2003).
These teachers often have limited understanding and experience of learning
theory or its application to enhance teaching practices. Their methods of teaching
developmental English combine approaches of how they were taught with
utilization of “trial and error” (Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 2009;
Smitherman & Villanuva, 2003).
The current criteria for graduate preparation programs and community
college hiring and recruitment policies are graduate students’ mastery of the
content in the discipline. Instructors are hired for their content knowledge and
possess limited experience teaching, diagnosing, constructing lessons, and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 56
assessing their instructional effectiveness for the diverse learning and
demographic populations enrolled in community colleges. Consequently, the
need for community colleges to provide new and untrained faculty professional
development to enhance their knowledge and to ensure effective classroom
instruction is critical.
Faculty Development
Synthesizing the works of Boylan, Bohan, & Bliss, (1993) and Boylan,
Saxon, White, & Erwin, 1994 on the subject, McKusick and McPhail (2012)
argue that effective professional development is the first tool that institutions can
use to build a coalition for change. They go on to assert that at the very
minimum, all learners, regardless of level, need faculty who have adequate
experience, subject-matter expertise, and classroom effectiveness. Therefore, it is
incumbent upon institutions to provide opportunities for faculty to grow in their
understanding of the effects of race and culture on teaching and learning
(McKusick and McPhail, 2012). Building on the work of Banks, Cookson, Gay,
Hawley, Irvine, Nieto, Schofield, and Stephen (2001), McKusick and McPhail’s
suggest that this faculty development should include faculty mentoring and
training in pedagogical techniques to address the varied learning styles of a
diverse student body, and instruction in revamping the curriculum so that it is
relevant to a multicultural society (McKusick and McPhail, 2012).
In a similar vein, Boylan (2002) cites several studies that highlight the
impact of professional development and training on student success. He
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 57
concludes, “No matter what component of developmental education was being
studied, an emphasis on training and professional development improved its
outcomes” (p.46). Another important factor that improved outcomes, according
to Boylan (2002), is the ratio of adjunct faculty to full-time faculty teaching
developmental courses. Best practice institutions do not have more than 50% of
developmental courses taught by adjunct faculty, and those adjunct faculty who
do teach developmental courses are considered an invaluable resource, carefully
selected and systematically trained (Boylan, 2002). Boylan (2002) makes several
suggestions for enhancing the success of adjunct faculty in developmental
programs including formal mentoring, resource manuals, inclusion in department
meetings, and staff development activities.
The evidence is clear, according to Boylan (2002). Successful
developmental education programs make staff development a priority, and make
sure that adjunct faculty members participate in professional development
activities. In addition to encouraging adjunct instructors to engage in professional
development as an instructional effectiveness strategy, Boylan (2002)
recommends ongoing, long-term programs over “one-shot” approaches and a
combination of discipline-specific and overall instructional/learning strategy
topics. Similarly, the National Association for Developmental Education
(NADE) (Boylan, Shaw, Saxon, Materniak, Clark-Thayer & Rodriguez, 2001)
lists the following topics in rank order as important for those teaching in the field
already possessing a Master’s degree:
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 58
1. Instructional strategies
2. Assessment
3. Curriculum Design
4. Teaching/Learning Styles
5. Adult Learning Theory
6. Content Specialty
7. Educational Psychology
8. Program Evaluation
9. Instructional Technology
10. Research Methods
Nowhere is professional development more imperative than in the design
and delivery of basic skills education. Grubb (1999) is critical of the “skills and
drills” approach that historically has dominated remedial coursework. He refers to
this as a behaviorist approach, and agreeing with the philosophy espoused by
Bartholomae and Petrosky, states that “implicitly instructors in this tradition
assume that literacy and numeracy are individual skills, following a set of
formulaic rules, rather than forms of social communication and practices where
individuals must have a deeper understanding of the purposes of reading, writing
and mathematics in different settings” (Grubb, 1999, p. 3).
The latter he refers to as constructivist approaches that are student-
centered and meaning-centered. In the absence of structured opportunities to
engage in dialogue about good teaching practices and to construct coherent
philosophies of teaching that emphasize meaning-making, individual instructors
are more likely to turn to conventional approaches with which they are most
familiar. He states
Thus the very absence of discussions about pedagogy within a college and
the absence of any institutional mechanisms to prepare developmental
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 59
instructors (especially part-timers) are indications that instruction has
veered in the direction of skills and drills. Instead, community colleges
that want to improve the quality of their developmental programs need to
have explicit discussions about pedagogy, explicit agreements and
mechanisms to move those agreements into practice. (p.4)
Faculty participation in strategies such as learning communities obviously
requires a serious commitment to professional development. Rethinking
curricular structures necessitates sustained dialogue on the purposes and processes
of education. Faculty engaged in collaboration, be it team teaching or just
ensuring that the curriculum of one class “links” to that of another class, are
forced to consider new approaches and perspectives. The closed door of the
individual classroom is opened up and teaching enters the realm of the communal.
Grubb (2001) supports this open sharing, asserting that it takes us beyond
“idiosyncratic good teaching,” which cannot sustain institutional improvement in
the quality of teaching. Smith (1991) expresses a similar theme in referring to
learning communities as “associative structures” –structures that bring individuals
together in a common cause. Smith (1991) quotes Katz as saying, “Continuous
learning on the part of the faculty seems to be a prerequisite for the needed
transformation of teaching” (p. 47). Building on this principle, Smith says,
“Associative structures that support continuous learning on the part of groups of
faculty seem to be a prerequisite for the needed transformation of our colleges”
(Smith, 1991, p. 47).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 60
Program Evaluation
Several studies (e.g., Boylan, Bliss & Bonham, 1997; Rouche & Rouche,
1999) provide evidence that comprehensive and systematic program evaluation is
a critical component of successful developmental education programs. Boylan
asserts that most programs do collect evaluative data, but do so in a fragmented
way with no particular purpose or audience in mind. He defines systematic
evaluation as evaluation that is done at regular intervals, is part of an overall plan,
includes both formative and summative activities, uses a variety of measures, and
is shared with a variety of audiences.
Formative evaluation efforts are those activities that are designed
specifically with the goal of program improvement in mind. Boylan (2000) refers
to these efforts as the “grassroots” of outcome assessment, with instructors on the
“front-line.” He states,
If formative evaluation is to result in program improvement, it must be
shared, reviewed, and analyzed by those people who can have the most
impact on developmental education. This includes the administrators,
faculty and staff who work with developmental education. These
individuals should be the ones to plan program revisions based on
evaluation results. (p. 45)
Summative evaluation is defined by Stake as “aimed at giving answers about the
merits and shortcomings of a particular curriculum or a specific set of
instructional materials” (as cited in Boylan, Bonham, White, & George, 2000, p.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 61
371). Summative evaluation should not be implemented during initial stages of a
new curriculum or program. Programs need adequate time to refine and revise
their methods and processes (through formative evaluation) before evaluations are
appropriate and valid. In fact, Boylan (2002) stresses that many innovative and
promising programs are squelched in formative stages by pre-mature efforts at
summative evaluation. He recommends that data be collected at three levels:
1. Primary Level: descriptive data such as the number of courses, number of
students served, hours of tutoring – data that gives a picture of what is
actually happening- services offered, numbers of students receiving
services.
2. Secondary Level: data on short-term outcomes such as completion rates of
developmental courses, grades in courses, performance in the next level
course, and semester to semester persistence.
3. Tertiary Level: data on long-term outcomes such as grade point averages,
long-term retention, and graduation rates. (p. 40)
In addition, he recommends surveying students’ satisfaction with
developmental courses and support services, and surveying faculty’s satisfaction
with students’ skills as they progress through developmental sequences. Boylan
emphasizes that evaluation plans be developed with maximum input by those who
will use the results, and should be disseminated to key campus administrators
with an executive summary to highlight conclusions and recommendations.
Boylan supports the use of institutional and behavior variables (e.g., course
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 62
completion, persistence, and retention) as well as longer term outcomes, such as
student success in a related transfer-level or occupational course.
To keep the needs of culturally diverse learners at the center of
restructuring while diminishing the deficit ideology associated with community
college remediation reform, many studies recommend that efforts at restructuring
include a focus on institutional and teacher reform measures. This includes
creating conditions for optimal learning: focusing on collaborative learning and
infusing the curriculum with multicultural perspectives; diversifying faculty and
staff; providing dialogic instruction that is within a learner’s zone of proximal
development; and designating transfer as a high institutional priority (Bennett,
2001; Gallimore & Tharp, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). What begs questioning,
though, is how prominent are the training, instructional practices, perceptions, and
beliefs of teachers in the interventions designed to address the problems
associated with remediating students at the postsecondary level. Considering
what is known to be effective instructional and institutional policies and practices
that can lead to successful learning outcomes, are these effective instructional
strategies being employed in developmental English courses? What challenges
and barriers impact teachers’ ability to implement these strategies?
The findings and recommendations from many studies insist that new
analytical tools and research methods be applied to further explore each of these
areas delineated and to examine the results (Boylan, 2002; Graham, 2007; RPG,
2007; Shulock, Ceja, & Lang, 2007). Therefore the focus of my research is to
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 63
understand to what extent these challenges are due to English teachers’ lack of
knowledge or awareness of these evidence-based strategies; teaching philosophy;
adoption of a mono-cultural traditional pedagogical approach to teaching; or
perceptions and beliefs of teaching development writing and in turn those who
enroll. One or many of these factors may hinder teachers’ open-mindedness and
acceptance of current best practices associated with teaching the subject.
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization
Applying Four Types of Knowledge
A formula purported to be used to design, measure, and recognize high
quality instruction is Anderson’s and Krathwohl’s (2011) taxonomy for teaching,
learning, and assessing. Their taxonomy, an adaptation of Bloom’s Taxonomy
(1956), has been a staple of teacher preparation programs because it is a helpful
tool used to classify learning objectives within education into four domains of
knowledge: factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge,
and metacognitive knowledge (as cited in Rueda, 2011). Rueda (2011), touting
the use of different instructional approaches, offers a similar response, noting,
“while all types of knowledge are important in learning, some types are more
critical to the kinds of goals schools ideally would try to promote” (p. 31).
Admittedly, whether teachers are untrained or highly skilled, teaching
developmental English in community colleges is complex and challenging
(Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 1999).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 64
Knowledge and Skills Challenges
Lack Graduate Preparation for Effective Teaching
Although it is easy to blame students for poor academic performance,
Seymour and Hewitt (1997) found that poor teaching, characterized by inadequate
organization, lack of faculty accessibility, and ineffective presentations are
common student complaints. Poor teaching characteristics may be because many
faculty members receive little or no formal training in teaching, and they rely on
informal training such as observing their own professors’ teaching methods as
students (Colbeck, Cabrera, & Marine, 2002). Despite the need for extensive
preparation in addressing the multifaceted learning needs of diverse adult
students, researchers such as Grubb (1999) and Kozeracki (2002, 2004) indicate
that there is no defined path for preparing or training community college English
faculty.
The minimum requirement to teach English in the community college
system is possession of a master’s degree in the discipline, which may be a degree
in English literature, composition and rhetoric, or linguistics. Faculty teaching
developmental English courses come from disparate backgrounds with regard to
their training and professional experiences, and they enter institutions that offer
varying levels of professional support. Knowledge of the science of instruction or
of adult learning theory is not mandatory. Hence, many teachers enter teaching
environments lacking adequate knowledge of pedagogy, course design and
assessment, principles of learning, and the relationship and importance of content
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 65
standards to instructional practice—those known effective instructional strategies
presented in the first half of this literature review. Grubb (1999) and Gurung and
Schwartz (1999) noted that usually community college instructors were not
trained as teachers and tend to discount the study of pedagogy because institutions
emphasize and hire instructors for mastery of content knowledge, the only
prerequisite for good teaching (Gurung & Schwartz, 1999).
Lack knowledge of Pedagogy
According to Grubb (1999), an emphasis on mastery of subject matter
content as the only prerequisite for good teaching in community colleges results
in teachers lacking several other essential skills that may aid in meaningful
student learning. Those skills are related to the use of authentic activities and
multiple instructional delivery models, and multiple ways of assessing student
learning. Faculty members who rely on traditional teaching strategies may not
stimulate effective learning for diverse learners. Not having knowledge of the
latter skills leads new faculty to develop their own teaching methods by trial and
error, often patterned after their own college faculty’s teaching methods or the use
of a “skills and drills” approach to teaching writing (Alexander, Karvonen, Ulrich,
Davis, & Wade, 2012; Grubb, 1999).
It is well documented that the “skills and drills” approach is prominent
among teachers with lesser knowledge of pedagogy and who design instructional
curriculum that emphasize discrete types of knowledge rather than the intersection
of the four types of knowledge, an approach to instruction common in urban
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 66
schools. According to Rueda (2011) and Grubb (1999), poorly prepared teachers
are found in urban schools with large number of students who are poor, English
learners, immigrants, and from diverse racial and ethnic background.
Underprepared students require more than a “skill and drills” approach in
teaching developmental English; they need high quality instruction because such
students may not be able to acquire the literacy competencies independently
through other courses (Gallien, 2005; Graham, 2007; Gurung & Schwartz, 1999).
Alexander et al (2012) asserts that further complicating the lack of initial
preparation for teaching at the college level is a lack of professional development
in pedagogy after being hired. Since community colleges may not emphasize the
development of pedagogical skills over content knowledge, instructors often
choose professional development related to their content area rather than new
teaching methodologies (Grubb, 1999). Hence, new teachers without any
pedagogical preparation lack knowledge and skills to teach diverse learners using
appropriate instructional techniques (Alexander et al, 2012).
Lack Knowledge to Identify and Diagnose Learning Issues
As a consequence, Grubb (1999) states “many instructors find it difficult
to answer questions about their teaching; they have neither the time nor the
reasons to discuss teaching, and they lack colleagues with whom to do it” (p. 25).
Regardless of teachers’ pedagogical knowledge (or lack thereof) and best efforts
to use different instructional approaches, particularly for the academically
underprepared students entering community colleges, Grubb (1999) asserts that
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 67
the conditions of the community college classroom cause teachers to revert to a
skill and drill, lecture, or discussion format. Grubb’s (1999) assertion suggests
that teaching practices may be only part of the problem. An additional influence
on community college teaching is knowledge of the principles of learning. In
recognizing the complexities of teaching in a community college environment, it
is critical to conduct additional research to determine what teachers themselves
identify as the challenges they encounter and to determine the type of support
they require to achieve course learning goals.
Lack Knowledge of Linguistic Diversity
Community college English instructors’ knowledge of pedagogy is only
one area of concern when it comes to teaching and learning. Teachers often enter
classrooms culturally, racially, and ethnically incompetent (Milner, Flowers,
Moore, Jr., Moore III, & Flowers, 2003, p. 63). Though the Conference on
College Composition and Communication (CCCC also referred to as the four C’s)
drafted and passed policies to address concerns about the teaching practices and
lack of academic preparation in sociolinguistic issues, their survey results reveal
that many of today’s college composition teachers (and high school English
teachers for that matter) do not have the knowledge, training, or appropriate
attitude to address students’ linguistic diversity (Smitherman & Villaneuva,
2003).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 68
According to a study conducted by Stiff-Williams (2007), teachers not
only evaluated students on the basis of language cues but also consistently judged
students along a two-dimensional model: “confidence-eagerness and ethnicity-
nonstandardness.” By comparison with Caucasian children, African American
and Latino/Latina children were ranked low in both dimensions, and the teachers’
academic expectations correlated with the rankings of the children’s speech. It
has been found that teachers are able to appreciate that various European and
Asian languages have grammars which are different from English, but they are
unable to regard Africanized English or Ebonics, the language of many African
American students and people, as a linguistic system in its own right (Ryan,
1999). According to Gallien (2005), “very few professors possess the cultural,
historical, or pedagogical backgrounds that are congruent with the dominant
learning styles and background of many African Americans, especially those who
come from majority black schools and urban areas whose communities have
minimal cultural contact with majority communities and educational
environments” (p. 7). Yet, college students’ ability to improve competencies in
writing is influenced by faculties’ knowledge of culture, language, and diverse
pedagogical strategies in addressing different learners.
Teachers are often inculcated by society, educational training, and
educational literature to adhere to this negativity while having a quite different
perception and appreciation of other groups (Ryan, 1999). However, “the
attitudes concerning the specifics of teaching make it clear that…a simple
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 69
knowledge of the diverse linguistic history of English does not appear to translate
sufficiently into classroom practice…” (Smitherman & Villanueva, 2003, p. 4).
Nonetheless, Gallien (2005) asserts that the reason for professors’ lack of
awareness or culturally responsive pedagogy lies, ultimately, in their belief that
“it is the student’s role to accommodate to their [professors’] teaching methods”
(p. 7). Though this study will not focus on the issues and controversies
surrounding Ebonics, it is important to acknowledge it as a factor that may
contribute to why the problem exists. Previous research has attributed the failure
of African Americans to learn in current educational systems to the negative
expectations and perceptions teachers had of this group of students with regard to
language and culture (Ryan, 1999).
Motivational Challenges
Lack Motivation to Improve Instructional Practices
Just because English teachers know “what” and “how” to teach
developmental course content does not necessarily translate it to their actually
teaching it or even wanting to teach it (Rueda, 2011)—there’s a difference
between theory and practice. They have to be motivated in order to effect change
in student performance. Motivation is defined as “the process whereby goal-
directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Meece, Pintrich, & Schunk, 2009, p.
4). Meece, Pintrich, & Schunk (2009) enumerate in practical terms, three critical
attributes that may be applied to examine and understand motivation: self-
determination as reflected in an individual’s active choice, persistence, and effort
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 70
towards a task; values, beliefs, and perceptions concerning a task; and self-
efficacy. In addition, engagement—the level of involvement and immersion in an
activity or task—figures prominently with regard to indicating the degree to
which a teachers are motivated (Rueda, 2011). Consequently, when teachers
“make choices, persist, or quit a task or activity, or exert effort, motivational
variables are assumed to be the driving dynamic” (Rueda, 2011, p. 38).
Lack Self-determination
According to Self-determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1987), when
individuals perceive themselves as autonomous (given choice and freedom in
their work) they experience greater well-being and put forth greater effort and
performance (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Active choice is evident by one deciding to
select one activity over another (Rueda, 2011). Persistence is demonstrated by
one committing to pursue an activity over time despite external distractions or
challenges (Rueda, 2011). Effort is described as the mental work needed to
generate new learning and knowledge (Rueda, 2011). Similarly, when individuals
perceive themselves as competent (capable) in their work, they put forth effort
and engage more fully in work-related tasks (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A third
element of self-determination, relatedness (the degree to which individuals feel
interpersonally supported by supervisors and peers), also predicts job performance
and satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The need for autonomy and control are
part of multiple needs-based theories (Wallin, 2003), and these theories
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 71
particularly apply to skilled adult professionals (Latham, 2007) and to the
population of English teachers in this study project.
Lack Active Choice, Persistence and Effort
The challenges enumerated for teaching developmental English in a
community college environment factor significantly on motivation. However, a
perusal of the literature yielded few studies that focused on community college
teachers’ motivation, specifically. Grubb and Associates’ (1999) study indirectly
reveals how the motivational variables of active choice, persistence, and effort
influence community college instructors’ teaching and learning environment. In
describing the isolation and lack of institutional commitment to create
collegiality, Grubb and Associates (1999) present approaches that community
college teachers take to mitigate isolation and to create learning communities
within and outside their institutions. Grubb and Associates (1999) characterize
different teachers’ behaviors and pedagogical approaches in the face of
challenges, categorizing individual teachers as “good” or “bad.” The researcher
disagrees with this categorization, particularly given the context in which Grubb
and Associates use qualitative data to illustrate different teachers’ behavior; it is
the researcher’s contention that the data illustrate motivational variables. For
example, after framing the environmental context as isolating and the act of
teaching as individualistic, they state:
In the absence of any institutional commitment…, a few instructors do so
in small groups. A few participate in learning communities…The most
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 72
active and innovative instructors create their own communities of like-
minded individuals, both inside and outside the college…while really bad
teachers were generally alienated from their peers. They were sometimes
burned out, or isolated…or hostile to the college’s nontraditional students
and out of step with the orthodoxy of student support, but they were
uniformly distant from other faculty and hostile to the
administration…But those most in need of improvement…tend to isolate
themselves from their peers and their institution (p. 52).
The behavior described by Grubb and Associates (1999) illustrates all three
motivational variables: some teachers make an active choice and exert the mental
effort necessary to manage and persist in improving their pedagogical practice, in
spite of their academic training and institutional conditions. While in contrast,
some other teachers make an active choice not to engage in the specific activity or
to exert the mental effort or persistence necessary to improve their teaching and
learning. They may be distracted by their prior academic preparation or by the
institutional conditions. In either case, Grubb’s characterization does not account
for the motivational variables that may be at work. Instructors’ behavioral
decisions, as reflected by this excerpt, suggests that additional motivational
principles such as self-efficacy, attributions, value, and goals may also be factors
in their teaching and learning. Hence, additional research is needed to understand
and present their perspectives without judgment or bias. Even though Grubb’s
study applies to the focus of the research, it does not go far enough in addressing
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 73
the motivation for teachers’ approaches to improve their teaching practices or to
describe how they cope with the isolation in community colleges. In fact, it
misclassifies teachers’ behavior and does not directly consider the motivational
factors that researchers indicate influence human agency.
Low Value, Perceptions, and Beliefs
Value refers to how worthwhile or important a person perceives an
activity to be, for individuals who find personal meaning or importance in
engaging in a behavior will be more likely to internalize that behavior (Kauffman
& Dodge, 2009). Cochran-Smith and Fries (2005) describes a motivational
challenge linking to value when citing a teacher problem with regard to their
consciously or subconsciously neglecting to utilize what is “known about the
diversity of classrooms as cultures” and the importance of knowing and drawing
upon students’ own diverse experiences, cultures, and ways of knowing to
promote effective and relevant classroom learning environments (p. X).
Similarly, Hardre (2012) asserts that value and relevance are key factors in faculty
attending and engaging in teaching and professional development.
Understanding teachers’ perceptions and beliefs is important because
teachers, heavily involved in various teaching and learning processes, are
practitioners of educational principles and theories (Jia, Eslami & Burlbaw,
2006), and they have a primary role in determining what is needed or what would
work best with their students. Findings from research on teachers’ perceptions
and beliefs indicate that these perceptions and beliefs not only have considerable
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 74
influence on their instructional practices and classroom behavior but also are
related to their students’ achievement (Grossman, Reynolds, Ringstaff & Sykes,
1985; Hollon, Anderson & Roth, 1991).
Several studies (Bain, 2000; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001) suggest that the
way teaching is conducted in higher education is dependent upon the educational
beliefs and presumptions of academic staff and that there may be consequences
for the nature of learning that results. Samuelowicz and Bain (1992) conducted a
study to classify the ways academics conceptualize teaching and learning. In
2001, the authors reassessed the study, evaluating the adequacy of the belief
dimensions using a larger sample size of 39 academics from a range of
disciplines. The respondents were asked about the teaching and learning in which
they usually engaged and how they constructed such activity. They found that
whenever teachers’ instruct they implicitly convey their beliefs about knowledge
transfer.
Teachers assume not only a certain knowledge base on the part of students
but also an ability on the students’ part to bring that knowledge to bear on new
instructional situations. Gallien (2005) asserts that the reason for professors’ lack
of awareness or culturally responsive pedagogy lies, ultimately, in their belief that
“it is the student’s role to accommodate to their [professors’] teaching methods”
(p. 7). Smitherman and Villanueva (2003) state “the attitudes concerning the
specifics of teaching make it clear that…a simple knowledge of the diverse
linguistic history of English does not appear to translate sufficiently into
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 75
classroom practice…” (p. 4). In addition, teachers’ beliefs about their own
effectiveness, known as teacher efficacy, underlie many important instructional
decisions which ultimately shape students’ educational experiences (Soodak &
Podell, 1997). Teacher efficacy is believed to be strongly linked to teaching
practices and student learning outcomes. Hence, research is lacking to understand
the motivational factors that may be at work.
Low Self-efficacy
Self-efficacy is an individual’s perceived ability to take on and complete
tasks and accomplish goals, even in the face of challenges (Bandura, 1997).
Task-specific self-efficacy predicts positive motivation and achievement
including persistence and performance (Bandura, 1997). Knowing the
perceptions and beliefs of teachers enables one to make predictions about
teaching and assessment practices in classrooms. Teachers’ sense of efficacy can
potentially influence both the kind of environment that they create as well as the
various instructional practices introduced in the classroom (Bandura, 1997).
Furthermore, teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are confident that even
the most difficult students can be reached if they exert extra effort; teachers with
lower self-efficacy, on the other hand, feel a sense of helplessness when it comes
to dealing with difficult and unmotivated students (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). The
literature widely documents the pervasive influence of self-efficacy beliefs and
corroborates social cognitive theory that places these beliefs at the roots of human
agency (Bandura, 2001). However, very few studies have included self-efficacy
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 76
among motivational characteristics of teachers in community colleges as a factor
in their teaching and learning (Hardre, 2012). Yet, self-efficacy with regard to
supportive culture predicated faculty motivation for teaching, general well-being,
and overall faculty success (Hardre, 2012). Hence additional research is needed
in this area.
Organizational Challenges
The organization and setting of the community college system poses
significant teaching challenges, which therefore may be the major contributing
factors for issues teachers face (Alexander, Karvonen, Ulrich, Davis & Wade,
2012; Kozeracki, 2005; Murray, 2001;). Alexander et al (2012) assert “factors
that complicate teaching in community colleges are primarily related to the
community college mission and the students served” (p. 851). Hence, the
teaching challenges are magnified in the community college setting as they
concern the mandate to remediate underprepared students through developmental
education curricula. The latter mandate, juxtaposed with the multiple missions of
community colleges, frames the context for understanding the teaching and
learning environment.
Lack Theoretical Framework and Standardized Approach
A major criticism of developmental education is its lack of a shared
theoretical framework (Chung, 2005; Collins & Bruch, 2000; Stratton, 1998),
particularly given that many institutions couple developmental courses with co-
requisite laboratory instruction. Chung (2005) asserts that developmental
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 77
education’s lack of a theoretical base make it an easy target of scrutiny—include
budget cuts in times of scarcity and ridicule during periods of educational
accountability. Chung claims that developmental education will continue to be
undervalued and vulnerable as long as it operates without a shared theoretical
framework from which practitioners may operate. Chung agrees with Boylan’s
statement “The most successful programs are theory based. They don’t just
provide random intervention; they intervene according to the tenets of various
theories of adult intellectual and personal development” (Stratton, 1998, p. 33).
Yet, Chung suggests even after adopting a suitable foundation and framework for
the intervention, “the real challenge is getting practitioners to embrace and apply
these theories” (p. 2).
Higbee, Arendale and Lundell (2005) state “Although numerous studies
have shaped the practice of developmental education, there are a number of areas
in which further research is necessary before definitive judgments can be made
about its effectiveness” (p. 11). During an address at the American Educational
Research Association, Cochran-Smith (1997) posited one cause of the problem to
be a misconception concerning the work of teachers, arguing that their work is
more than possessing a level of competency in pedagogy:
Teachers work is not simply about skills and techniques, or what people
narrowly refer to as ‘how, when, and where’ to do things. Rather, it is
about interpretations, ideologies, and practices and the ways that these are
interdependent with, and informed by each other. Practice shapes, but is
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 78
also shaped by, ideologies. It cannot be understood as models of effective
teaching, or as sometimes referred to in the current reform literature as
‘best practices.’ Given all that we know about the diversity of teachers’
and students’ cultures, experiences, and ways of knowing, and all that we
know about the diversity of classrooms themselves as cultures, it is
extremely unlikely that there will ever be specific effective practices that
are transportable full blown and whole, from one classroom site to
another.
Cochran-Smith’s (1997) assessment of teachers’ work and her skepticism of the
transportability of best practices, particularly given increasing diversity in public
educational institutions, remain valid arguments and a likely significant reason
why the problems of remediation continue to exist. Consequently, there does not
appear to be a definitive standardized approach to meet these challenges.
Lack Operative Organizational Mission and Setting
The community college, although regulated and partly funded by the state,
is governed by the local district board and provides most of its support (Master
Plan for Higher Education in California 1960-1975). The California Community
College (CCC) operates under a bureaucratic system in which state and system
policies create the conditions under which the community colleges operate
(Offenstein & Shulock, 2011). In this tri-parte system comprised of the
University of California, the California State University, and the California
Community Colleges, the lines of authority and communication flow up the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 79
hierarchical ladder in report form to the president and through the president to the
board (Birnbaum, 1988); directives are made and then sent downward. When
campuses are required to change the policies and practices of an academic unit or
student support service in response to external accountability mandates, the
directive is prescriptive and standardized (Kezar, 2005). In such a bureaucratic
environment, the various constituent members, (the president, administration,
faculty, staff and students) of the community college fulfill different roles and
interpret their experience in this environment differently.
The emphasis on rules and regulations guides the behavior of the decision-
makers and is intended to increase organizational certainty and efficiency
(Birnbaum, 1988). However, Dowd and Tong (2007) state “political concern for
the productivity, efficiency, and quality of higher education is shaping the ways in
which academic and institutional researchers evaluate the effectiveness of
collegiate programs and institutions” (p. 58). They argue that the “accountability
standards tend to emphasize the importance of quantitative indicators of student
learning outcomes and de-emphasize the need to understand educational
processes and institutional contexts” (p. 58). Citing that this current scholarly
methodological approach to document and demonstrate institutional student
outcomes “is not sufficient in itself,” Dowd and Tong (2007) proposed an
alternative system that involves “evidence based inquiry councils (EBICs) as a
central feature of a comprehensive accountability system designed to integrate
knowledge of institutional context, educational processes, and learning outcomes
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 80
for the purpose of increasing the educational effectiveness of colleges and
universities” (p. 58).
Lack System for Faculty to Interact - Faculty Isolation
Systemic to the bureaucratic model is the absence of a communal
environment where faculty and administration work closely to resolve issues. As
a result, teachers are unable to form learning communities with their department
colleagues or within the institution (Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 1999).
The structure of community colleges tends to be isolated, in that the hours of
instruction do not conform to the K-12 system. Teachers are expected to
individually teach a series of classes at various times of the day, evening,
weekend, or online, and they have infrequent engagement with colleagues in their
discipline, usually during monthly committee or department meetings (Grubb,
1999). Seldom do community colleges offer opportunities for teachers to teach
collaboratively or engage in interdisciplinary team-teaching.
According to Grubb (1999), it is natural for teachers to reach out to their
peers and administrators to create a community of practice for themselves.
However, in community colleges, “there are few discussions about instruction, no
forums where the special pedagogical problems of community college can be
debated and resolved, and no ways to bring problems to the attention of
administrators” (p. 55). The isolation that teachers experience impacts their
pedagogical approaches and often results in a “skill and drill” approach to
instruction. Consequently, in light of this hierarchical structure, one primary area
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 81
for this study to examine will be the dynamics and communication between
constituent members at the campus concerning developmental English program
policies, goals, and pedagogical practices and its applicability to their student-
body, for research suggests that limited participation of key stakeholders at the
service-delivery or recipient level stifles organizational learning (Birnbaum,
1988).
Lack of Consistency in Applying Policies and Regulations
Another structural factor that has been determined to perpetuate teaching
challenges in community colleges is inconsistent implementation of remediation
policies. According to Offenstein and Shulock (2011), the goal of all public
policies should be to create an environment that is most conducive to achieve
desired student success outcomes. However, some current policies governing the
CCC act as barriers by either limiting the preparation of entering students or by
limiting or slowing the progress of new students. A specific policy, the Seymour-
Campbell Matriculation Act of 1986, directly related to this study, stipulates
matriculation policies and regulations serving community colleges with regard to
the assessment, placement, and the establishment of prerequisites and co-requisite
courses. In California, state policies do not have a single college readiness
standard for each subject that can be applied consistently at all colleges; it is an
ambiguous term with multiple, subjective interpretations (Offenstein & Shulock,
2011). Moreover, the standard developmental English education policies and
procedures for assessment and placement applies only upon students’ initial
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 82
enrollment (Bahr, 2010; Bailey et al 2010; Hughes & Scott-Clayton, 2010) and
are not consistently adhered to across the community college system.
The policies in place are intended to ensure students receive appropriate
services to succeed. Yet, they have acted to diminish the chance of success for
students who need developmental education and the overall teaching and learning
environment in that not all students are required to take an assessment test, and
placement into recommended courses based upon assessment results cannot be
mandated—it’s against the law (Offeinstein & Shulock, 2011).
Beyond the latter policies associated with assessment and placement, as
previously noted, the practice of evaluating integrated writing and reading
instruction within respective remedial sequences is not standardized across
community colleges (Bahr, 2010; Bailey, 2008). Consequently, the number of
course “levels” below college composition (or transferable English) varies among
the colleges. Therefore, the definition and standard of college readiness and
exams for assessing those standards vary, hurting high school students’
preparation for college-level coursework (Offenstein & Shulock, 2011). A
consequence of the ambiguities in college readiness is that some high school
students form inaccurate assumptions and expectations about matriculating at
community colleges.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 83
Summary
Developmental education literature present numerous strategies that data
show increase instructional effectiveness. However, the effective practices
delineated promote very different approaches to improving instruction. Some
recommend directing the focus of improving instruction on individual teachers
while others call for expanding attention beyond the individual teacher to address
the school context in which teachers work. Hence, the goal of this literature
review has been to identity evidence-based effective instructional practices and
known challenges English instructors encounter in order to demonstrate why
additional research is needed to address the problem. The review was presented
according to the KMO factors deemed necessary by Clark and Estes (2002) to
enable successful goal attainment and are summarized in Table 2.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 84
Table 2
Evidenced-based Assumed Causes of Teaching Challenges
Knowledge Motivation Organizational processes
A. Lack knowledge and graduate
preparation to effectively teach
developmental courses (Grubb,
1999; Kozeracki, 2005, Murray,
2001)
B. Lack knowledge of the science of
instruction – pedagogy (Graham,
2007; Rueda, 2011)
C. Lack knowledge of the content
standards (Shaughnessy, 2001)
D. Lack knowledge to identify and
diagnose learning disabilities (Gay,
2000)
E. Lack knowledge of course design
(Davis, 2009; Greive, 2001)
F. Lack knowledge with regard to
applying four types of knowledge:
factual, conceptual, procedural and
metacognitive (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
G. Lack knowledge of the principles of
learning (Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett,
DiPietro, & Norman, 2010)
H. Lack knowledge that the ways
students learn and engage in
classrooms have shifted (Dzubak,
2007; Gay, 2000)
I. Lack of understanding as to how
culture impacts learning and
different student experiences
(Noguera, 2001)
A. Lack motivation to
improve instructional
practices (Grossman et al,
1985; Hollon et al, 1991;
Morine-Dershimer, 1983;
Prawat & Anderson,
1988; Wilson &
Wineburg, 1988)
B. Lack efficacy about their
own effectiveness
(Soodack & Podell, 1997)
C. Low self-efficacy with
regard to helping students
(Gibson & Dembo, 1984)
D. Lack of self-efficacy,
active choice, and
persistence as related to
teaching (Bandura, 1977;
Clark & Estes, 2002;
Rueda, 2011)
E. Lack engagement (Rueda,
2011)
F. Lack supportive culture
for teaching and
relatedness (Hardre,
2012)
A. Lack clearly defined
evaluation process to
measure program
outcomes (Boylan, 2002,
2000)
B. Lack clearly defined
instructional standards
C. Lack operative
organizational mission and
setting and to effectively
provide developmental
education (Alexander et al,
2012; Grubb, 1999;
Kozeracki, 2005;
McLaughlin et al, 1992)
D. Lack opportunity to
participate in professional
development (Boylan,
2002; McKusick &
McPhail, 2012; Smittle,
2001)
E. Lack a system for faculty
to interact and discuss
processes that require
specialized knowledge,
skills, and motivation to
operate successfully (Clark
& Estes, 2002)
F. Lack of consistency in
applying developmental
education policies and
regulations (Bailey, Jeong
& Choo, 2009; Chung,
2005; Dzubak, 2007; Perin
& Charron, 2006; Moore
& Shulock, 2007;
Weissman, Silk &
Bulakowski, 1997)
The next chapter will describe in detail the methodology that was used to
conduct this study project.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 85
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to present the methodology that was used to
examine teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about the challenges and barriers they
face in moving students through the developmental English sequence at Hurston
College. The questions that guided this study are:
1. What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
challenges English instructors must address in order to effectively
move students through the developmental English course
sequence?
2. What are the recommended solutions to meet the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational challenges English faculty
encounter?
Though many causal factors are linked to remediation, including those
linked to students’ prior preparation and varying learning styles (Bailey, 2008;
Bailey & Cho, 2010; Bailey, 2009; Shulock, 2007), few studies focus on factors
attributed to knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers (KMO) of faculty
as strategies in remediation reform at a community college (Boroch et al, 2007).
This study sought to determine those challenges, including those challenges that
may be linked to English teachers’ knowledge or awareness of evidence-based
strategies; skill and motivation to adopt different pedagogical strategies to fulfill
developmental English course learning objectives; motivation to teach
developmental English courses; perceptions and beliefs about institutional
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 86
policies governing the developmental English program; organization and
coordination of developmental English support services between departments and
units at Hurston; and attitude and belief about the level of administrative support
for faculty, availability and quality of professional development opportunities.
A mixed method research design employing the Gap Analysis approach
was used to address the study question; specifically, the “human causes behind
performance gaps” was studied through an examination of motivation,
knowledge/skill, and organizational and cultural barriers (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.
21). An analysis of information from these three major areas was collected and
included multiple sources: individual interviews, organizational documents and
records, course assignments and syllabus, and observations.
Two frameworks, Clark and Estes (2002) and Rueda (2011), provided a
methodological framework to diagnose why there may be gaps between what is
known to be effective instructional strategies and what may actually be adopted or
inconsistently applied to address developmental English instruction at Hurston.
Clark and Estes (2002) enumerate six steps in their process model to diagnose and
solve performance problems. They include: Step 1: Identify key business goals;
Step 2: Identify individual performance goals; Step 3: Determine performance
gaps; Step 4: Analyze gaps to determine causes; Step 5: Identify knowledge/skill,
motivation, and organizational process and material solutions and implement; and
Step 6: Evaluate results, tune system and revise goals (22). Figure 3.1 below
illustrates the Gap Analysis model.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 87
Figure 3.1. Gap Analysis Process (Clark & Estes, 2002)
The Gap Analysis process begins with an organization identifying a
specific performance goal and then measuring “the gap between current
achievement and desired performance goal levels” (Clark & Estes, 2002, pg. 21).
An integral part of closing a performance gap is to accurately identify the cause of
the gap both at an individual and group level (Clark & Estes, 2002), and Clark
and Estes (2002) assert that the three major causes of performance gaps are linked
to “people’s knowledge and skills; motivation to achieve the goal (particularly
when compared with other work goals they must also achieve); and organizational
barriers such as a lack of necessary equipment and missing or inadequate work
processes” (p. 43). All three of these factors must be in place and aligned with
each other for successful goal achievement.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 88
Building on Clark and Estes (2002), Rueda (2011) applies gap analysis as a
methodological tool that may be used to identify, examine, and solve educational
problems specifically.
To improve the organizational and programmatic effectiveness of Hurston
College’s developmental English program, gap analysis was used to consider the
knowledge and skill of English faculty; examine their motivation levels to achieve
the performance goal; and break down organizational barriers that promote
ineffective performance outcomes. This methodological approach was an ideal
because it afforded a comprehensive “concrete system” to examine quantitative
and qualitative data “for analyzing and repairing performance gaps” (Clark &
Estes, 2002, p. xv). Additionally, utilizing the gap analysis framework was best
because it required the researcher to examine the study problem in relation to an
established measurable goal in stages prior to identifying and implementing
specific solutions.
An examination of the assumed causes—the first stage of the gap analysis
process—was followed by an examination of the presumed knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes of the performance gap in developmental
English at Hurston College. The assumed causes were identified through
informal interviews with stakeholders, the researcher’s professional knowledge
and experience, learning and motivation theory, and a review of the literature on
the topic. These assumed causes were validated and classified as root causes
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 89
during subsequent stages of the gap analysis process and the results are presented
in Chapter Four.
Step 1: Identify Multilevel Goals
The mission of Hurston College is to provide an environment for quality
learning to enrich the lives of its diverse community. Embedded within the
College’s mission is the unarticulated organizational goal that all learners’
progress through development English. During the 2008-2009 academic year,
Hurston developed a student success plan that delineated student, department, and
organization level goals and objectives to achieve both its institutional mission
and to improve teacher effectiveness and performance. In order to achieve the
specified study goal of moving students through the developmental English
sequence to college level English, the following individual stakeholder goals were
created and must be achieved.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 90
Figure 3.2. Stakeholder Goals for Hurston College
Stakeholder goals. To determine each stakeholder goal, the researcher
examined state, district, and institutional data on developmental English student
outcomes in relation to the mission of the developmental English program at
Hurston College. The researcher relied on California state accountability
mandates and policies governing developmental education; district and campus
websites; student learning outcomes (SLO) for English classes; and policies for
developmental English. California’s accountability mandates and policies include
a central student performance driven progress tracking data system to measure
institutional effectiveness for developmental English on six indicators and enables
institutions to measure their performance against self-identified peer institutions
(http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice.aspx).
Students
All students will
move through the
developmental
English course
sequence as
effective,
confident writers.
Mission
Hurston College is committed to providing an environment for quality learning
to enrich the lives of our diverse community.
Administration
All administrative
staff will foster
and lead a
seamless,
comprehensive
strategy for
student success.
Teachers
All teachers will
teach 100 % of
the content with
100% effective
methods.
Organization Goal
All learners progress through the developmental English sequence.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 91
Beyond the state accountability mandate, Hurston utilizes a process to
monitor teachers’ adherence to an institutional goal requiring that all courses
integrate at least two student learning outcomes, and a schedule of data collection
on course outcomes to track the assessment process (Hurston document artifact).
However, it is unclear as to how Hurston utilizes the data to evaluate and improve
teachers’ performance and effectiveness in moving students through the
developmental English sequence. Moreover, the English department does not
appear to proclaim a quantifiable goal linked to the organizational goal of moving
students through developmental English within a specified period of time. Given
the stated mission of Hurston College, the multilevel teacher goal is to have
English teachers teach 100 percent of the content standards using 100 percent
effective methods in three years.
Step 2: Quantify the Current Performance
Preliminary state progress tracking data on the success rate for students
enrolling in developmental English at Hurston for cohorts, 2005 and 2008 reveals
that approximately 6.5% and 5.2% of the students who began three levels below
college English during this time frame successfully made it to and through college
level English.
To quantify the goal for Hurston’s English instructors, this study created
an assumed goal that teachers teach 100 percent of the student learning outcomes
using 100 percent effective methods.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 92
Step 3: Determine the Gap in the Current Performance
Since the English department does not appear to have a stated measurable
goal for tracking teachers’ progress towards the goal of moving students through
the developmental English sequence to college level English, the current teacher
performance gap is unknown. However, the rate of performance for the
predominate population—African Americans—completing the developmental
sequence is 6.3% during 2005-2008 and 2.7% during 2008-2011, suggesting that
the gap in performance is 93 % and 97% respectively.
For instructors, this study created an assumed goal that teachers teach 100
percent of the student learning outcomes using 100 percent effective methods.
The gap in meeting the goal is also unknown; however, it is assumed to be
between 0 and 100 percent.
Step 4: Hypothesize and Empirically Validate Causes
Chapter Two includes a table of the assumed caused that influence
teachers moving students through the developmental English sequence. These
influences concern such factors as lack of knowledge and preparation to
effectively teach developmental courses, lack knowledge of appropriate
instructional practices and the principles of learning, and lack knowledge and skill
to identify and diagnose learning disabilities; lack motivation to improve
instructional practices and self-efficacy with regard to active choice, and
persistence as related to teaching; and organizational barriers with regard to
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 93
lacking clearly defined instructional standards, evaluation processes, and
opportunities to participate in professional development.
Clark and Estes (2002) advocate collecting employees’ beliefs and
perceptions about the barriers they face in attempting to close a gap and achieve
their goal, for “perceptions of reality control performance” (p. 42). Since
different people can have very different perceptions about problems and solutions
even when they share the same performance goal, utilizing gap analysis was an
effective instrument to illuminate teachers’ perceptions (Clark & Estes, 2002).
However, researchers assert that often causes for performance gaps are assumed
and not validated. Making assumptions about the causes for performance gaps
often lead people to misdiagnose and oversimplify the solutions to address the
performance gap (Clarke & Estes, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Individuals utilize folk
knowledge to arrive at causes and solutions to address performance problems.
Frequently, the presumptions lead to overlooking or ignoring other potential
causes for performance gaps. Consequently, the process advocates conducting a
comprehensive examination of the assumed causes of a performance gap that
include information from three sources: (a) personal knowledge and informal
interviews with stakeholders; (b) learning, motivation, and organizational cultural
theory; and (c) review of the literature on the specific topic in question.
Personal Knowledge
The researcher provided her personal knowledge of the challenges
encountered teaching developmental English. Having obtained an advanced
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 94
degree in English literature, the researcher conducting this study has been an
adjunct English instructor in the community college system for sixteen years. The
researcher has taught developmental to advanced level English courses and has
acquired personal knowledge of the teaching and learning challenges. As such,
the research also included her experiences as a component of the informal
interviews.
Informal Interviews
To identify the assumed causes for low student outcomes in teachers
moving students through the developmental English sequence, the researcher
conducted an environmental scan which included informal conversations with
English faculty at one of the nine campuses in the WCCD as well as probed
colleagues involved in English education, in general, and developmental English
instruction specifically.
Six individual informal telephone interviews were conducted with the
researcher’s colleagues who have experience teaching English at the secondary
and postsecondary levels to investigate potential knowledge, skill, motivation, and
organizational causes for why students were not moving through the
developmental English sequence. In addition, the researcher contributed a list of
causes based upon professional knowledge and experience teaching various
sections of developmental English in community colleges. The collective
perspectives of these stakeholders as to the potential causes are categorized and
described under the knowledge, motivation, and organization barriers.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 95
The potential causes were be used to construct an appropriate instrument to
validate those causes.
Knowledge and skills. As previously noted, Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001) provide a taxonomy listing four types of knowledge to enable teachers to
define, instruct, monitor, and evaluate learning based upon course content
standards. The four types of knowledge are factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). These knowledge domains are
organized and categorized into a framework along a continuum that seeks to help
teachers understand and promote learning of course content standards, write
objectives and assessment instruments. The informal interviews and the
researcher’s personal knowledge and experience teaching developmental English
revealed that teachers attribute multiple knowledge dimensions as causes,
including: (a) lack knowledge of different instructional approaches (strategic
knowledge); (b) do not feel adequately prepared to teach linguistically diverse
learners (factual, strategic, conceptual and procedural); (d) lack recognition of
student deficiencies and training to properly identify and deal with students
problems (strategic, procedural and metacognitive); and (e) lack knowledge of
literate instruction (procedural and metacognitive). Consequently, the taxonomy
was used to identify teachers’ understanding and application of the four types of
knowledge to instruct and design course materials.
Informal interviews and research literature suggest a potential cause of the
gap as teachers’ knowledge as it pertains to the expected content standards for
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 96
developmental English courses and determining what is most important for
students to learn and proficiently perform within a specified period of time. Five
teachers interviewed stated that rather than teaching course content based upon a
core set of learning objectives or standardized curriculum, they believed that
teachers taught course content in response to standardized test or common
department exams administered to students by the English department. Also,
respondents attributed teachers’ lack of factual knowledge of a shared goal for
moving students through developmental English and of the standard learning
outcomes for each course in the sequence as potential causes for the performance
gap. In addition, all of the teachers interviewed believed that many of their
teacher colleagues based student grades on oral demonstration of content
knowledge (intellect) rather than actual writing skills (literacy) and that the
teachers lacked adequate skill to help students make the connections to prior
knowledge, especially for students who lack certain kinds of context knowledge
due to culture and economic status. The respondents also indicated that teachers
lack adequate procedural knowledge to assess when students have acquired
competency to move to the next level of English in the course sequence; one
respondent admits, “I do not know how to determine when students should move
forward to the next course in the sequence.”
Having insufficient knowledge as to the learning objectives for each
course and standardized measures to evaluate students’ progress contributes to
teachers not knowing whether students are prepared for the next course. Three
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 97
respondents believed that teachers needed to have an understanding of their
knowledge and skill to move students through the developmental English
sequence, especially to improve instruction. All the respondents questioned
believed that teachers were unable to adequately address students’ with linguistic
differences and to help students understand that language barriers have nothing to
do with intelligence or ability. The researcher’s personal knowledge and
experience suggested that instructors were disconnected from the type of adult
learners enrolling in their courses and that they lack sufficient knowledge of adult
learning theory to effectively engage students. The researcher believed that
teachers continued to teach the way they were taught and to design course
curriculum based upon their individual interests and perspective. Hence, the
researcher explored whether these enumerated causes and challenges occurred for
English teachers at Hurston College.
Motivation. Clark and Estes (2002) characterize human beings as
possessing two unique yet collaborating psychological systems—knowledge and
motivation. The authors report that the three commonly accepted motivational
indexes that influence a work environment are (a) active choice, which is “when
people choose (or fail to choose) to actively pursue a work goal”; (b) persistence,
which is “when people have many goals and distractions and so are tempted not to
persist at a specific goal;” and (c) mental effort, which is when people have
chosen a goal and are persisting at it in the face of distractions, but have to decide
how much mental effort to invest in achieving the goal” (Clark & Estes, 2002, p.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 98
80). These motivational indexes are linked to individuals’ self-determination and
self-efficacy.
Teachers’ knowledge and understanding of motivation as it relates to
learning is important because it contributes to student achievement and because of
its importance as an outcome of itself. In reviewing student success and strategic
planning documents developed by Hurston College English department faculty, it
appears that the stakeholders have actively chosen to address the gap in students
moving through the developmental English sequence. The planning documents
demonstrated collective mental effort by the stakeholders to identify
organizational and instructional causes for the performance gap and a level of
committed persistence to improve the performance problem. The preliminary
analysis of institutional and departmental artifacts also revealed that Hurston
College had undergone a redesign of their developmental education policies and
structure, examining and adopting developmental education best practice research
tools and strategies that they believed were applicable to their environment and to
their student demographic. However it is unclear as to the extent to which
individual faculty were aware of the English department’s strategy and
interventions to address the performance gap nor was it clear as to their level of
self-determination and efficacy to contribute to improving the performance gap.
In general, the teachers interviewed indicated that many teachers felt that
English departments perpetuated an atmosphere of inequity among faculty with
regard to engaging in decision making on issues of course curriculum, assessment
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 99
measures, and professional development. The imbalance seemed to privilege and
value full-time faculty members’ participation over part-time faculty members in
all areas of teaching and learning. An example given to substantiate the latter
perception was the schedule for holding departmental meetings and curriculum
committee meetings—the majority of these meetings are held in the middle of the
weekday. Seldom are the minutes of these meetings available for teachers who
were unable to attend, and rarely are these meetings held at a different time to
accommodate faculty who teach during that meeting time or those who teach in
the evening. With regard to choice, three of the six respondents believed faculty
(especially adjunct instructors) are pressured to have high student evaluations
which may lead to grade inflation and that teachers did not have sufficient
opportunities to participate in professional development in order to stay abreast of
departmental policies, changes in the field of practice, or to develop instructional
techniques. Hence, the latter may have influence on these stakeholder’s choice,
mental effort, and persistence toward the stated goal.
Though motivation is not synonymous with achievement, and teachers’
motivation cannot necessarily be inferred by looking narrowly at student
outcomes, some research suggest that practices that serve to increase immediate
achievement may actually have the effect of diminishing students’ interest in
learning as well as their long-term involvement in learning (Ames, 1990).
However, all the respondents believed that some problems students face as they
attempt to move through the developmental English sequence are out of the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 100
teachers’ control. Moreover, the respondents indicated that the external mandates
associated with testing have restricted and stifled teachers’ ability to use different
instructional approaches to determine “what sticks” for students and their
opportunity to provide meaningful instruction; one respondent stated, “writing
teachers across the educational system over-emphasize teaching the five
paragraph essay”— process writing. The respondents conveyed a belief in
education and a concern that if teachers placed a value on developing a
motivation to learn in students and were concerned with whether students initiated
learning activities and maintained an involvement in learning as well as a
commitment to the process of learning, they would be effective. For, effective
schools and effective teachers are those who develop goals, beliefs, and attitudes
in students that would sustain a long-term involvement and that would contribute
to quality involvement in learning.
Clark and Estes (2002) indicate that the first and most important concept
to understand about the motivation process is how much it is impacted by an
individual’s experiences, beliefs, and prospects for being effective. Bandura
(1977) argued that a person's beliefs about his/her prospects for being effective or
self-efficacy may change from task to task. An English teacher, for example,
could have high efficacy for some tasks and low efficacy for others. Two of the
six respondents believed that teachers needed to know how to rely on this
knowledge to deal with issues that involved motivational concerns and when
making instructional decisions. In addition, with regard to active choice and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 101
persistence, three of the respondents believed that teachers lacked the motivation
to get all students through the course and were more motivated to just get
themselves through the course. Another presumed cause proposed by responders
was a belief that teachers perceived that students could not read so they did not
motivate them to read.
Organization. Organizationally, as an institution within the California
community college system, Hurston operates under a bureaucratic system. The
academic community is decentralized but bureaucratic, as well. Coordination is
achieved by the standardization of skills. As noted, systemic to the bureaucratic
model is the absence of a communal environment where faculty and
administration work closely to resolve issues, particularly with regard to teaching
and learning issues within departments (Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 1999).
Teachers have infrequent engagement with colleagues to create a community of
practice. The lack of a communal environment was cited as a cause during the
researcher’s informal interviews. Grubb (199) also describes teachers
experiencing a lack of communal environment and the isolation that community
college instructors endure. In such a bureaucratic environment, the various
constituent members, (the president, administration, faculty, staff and students) of
the community college fulfill different roles and interpret their experience in this
environment differently. In correspondence from a member of Hurston’s English
faculty, a faculty member inferred that a lack of communal environment existed
through a description of the divided roles and responsibilities faculty served
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 102
within the institution. Hurston has eight full-time members in the English
department but when factoring their out-of-classroom responsibilities, the full-
time equivalency is reduced to five. Consequently, the isolation that faculty
members experience may have influenced their knowledge and adoption of
departmental reform strategies for the teaching of developmental English courses.
In addition to the latter organizational barriers, five respondents’ linked
factors associated with the structure and implementation of developmental
English as causes; the areas cited included: (a) lack of departmental and
institutional support for faculty development; (b) lack of opportunities to engage
with colleagues concerning curriculum, instructional strategies, and assessment;
(c) in-adequate instructional time to help students two or three levels below
college English; (d) in-sufficient frequency of instructional class time for
developmental English coursework sequence; and (e) negative perception of
institutional support for adjunct instructors professional development. The
organizational barriers that such a structural system may cause for developmental
English programming coupled with the potential perceived negative perceptions
of adjunct instructors were numerous. Consequently, one primary area for this
study to examine involved the dynamics and communication between constituent
members at the campus. Studies suggest that little participation of key
stakeholders at the service-delivery or recipient level stifles organizational
learning. Conversely, Kezar (2005) indicates that studies suggest within
organizations operating under a decentralized system and where learning is
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 103
encouraged, organizational learning can occur. The responders suggested that the
organizational structure of developmental English programs fostered a
dysfunctional system for organizational learning to occur within and across the
Western Community College District and thereby may have impeded its’ (and its
stakeholders’) ability to accomplish the organizational goal for developmental
English.
Learning and Motivation Theory.
To be effective, it is essential for teachers to be consciously aware of
students learning processes and motivation and how learning works. Keenly
understanding the learning domain enables instructors to serve the needs of
diverse learners. Major learning and motivation theories also inform the assumed
causes associated with teachers’ moving students through the developmental
English sequence.
Knowledge and skills. The major learning and motivation theories that
addressed causes associated with teacher’s moving students through the
developmental English sequence to college level English involved their
knowledge, skill, and motivation. Ambrose et al (2010) claim that any
conversation about effective teaching must begin with a consideration of how
students learn and for teachers to evaluate and infer learning through students’
work products and performance. They implore instructors to develop conscious
awareness of the elements in order to help students, providing principles to help
teachers understand student learners. Cultural and organizational barriers are also
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 104
an influence in teachers’ ability to achieve Hurston’s organizational mission for
developmental English.
Motivation. To assess the motivational factors of English instructors in
moving students through the developmental English sequence, several cognitive
factors were considered, including teachers’ self-perceptions, self-determination,
interest and value, self-efficacy, engagement and competence. Ormrod (2006)
defines value as “the belief that an activity has direct or indirect benefits” (G-8).
Ormrod (2006) contend that teachers must provide students with reasons why
they should expect to succeed at classroom tasks; to foster this level of value,
teachers need to provide resources, support, and strategies that will enable
students to do so and help them find value in school activities. The higher an
individual values an activity, the more likely that person will engage in it. Self-
efficacy refers to personal beliefs about one’s ability to be successful in tasks
(Bandura, 1977). Competence refers to the beliefs one has about his or her
abilities, or how well one expects to do on a task (Rueda, 2011). The important
principle, according to Rueda (2011), is that “individuals with higher self-
efficacy, greater belief in their own competence, and higher expectancies for
positive outcomes will be more motivated to engage in, persist at, and work hard
at a task or activity” (p. 41). Another motivational belief that needs to be
considered is teachers’ belief concerning engagement. According to Rueda
(2011), “motivational beliefs and processes largely drive engagement,” yet they
receive little attention in schools and classrooms (p. 22).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 105
Organization. Clark and Estes (2002) indicates organizational causes for
performance gap is a lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes
and material resources. They argue that inadequate processes and materials can
prevent the achievement of performance goals even when stakeholders possess
high motivation and exceptional knowledge and skills. Moreover, they contend
an organizational culture impacts and influences stakeholders’ attempts to
improve performance. As a result of this dynamic, Clark and Estes (2002)
provides a method for developing a cultural profile of any organization. There are
several principles that are assumed, including a lack of collaboration, how the
organizational stakeholders respond to critical incidents, the process and
procedures required to make changes to developmental English education
policies, and the formal statements of individual stakeholders. The method
developed by Clark and Estes (2002) was used to assess the organizational culture
barriers for stakeholders at Hurston to advance its developmental English
performance goal.
Review of the Literature.
The literature on the subject of developmental education sequencing and
developmental English specifically suggest a ray of causes. A summary of the
specific causes for this study derived from the literature are categorized under
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization.
Knowledge and skills. The research suggests that teachers have a
responsibility to increase their knowledge and skill to provide subject matter
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 106
content and to continually evaluate and refine their instructional approaches for
diverse learners and classroom environments. Specifically, Rueda (2011) states
that learning and knowledge involves both “knowing what people should know or
how people learn” and “knowing how to help them to learn” (p. 33). Rueda cites
Mayer who asserts that teachers should know “which instructional methods work
for teaching which kinds of knowledge to which kinds of learners under which
kinds of circumstances” (Mayer, 2011, p.3). Hence, this project sought to
validate the causes associated with teachers’ knowledge of instruction, learning,
pedagogy, assessment, and developmental writing content standards.
Motivation. As previously noted, the challenges enumerated for teaching
developmental English in a community college environment factors significantly
on motivation. When teachers “make choices, or persist, quit a task or activity, or
exert effort, motivational variables are assumed to be the driving dynamic”
(Rueda, 2011, p. 38). Their engagement and beliefs concerning their efficacy
about their own effectiveness, processes undertaken to improve instructional
practice, and perceived level of support to achieve stated learning objectives are
suggest and reflect their degree of motivation. Therefore, the causes that were
examined to ascertain motivational influences focused on teachers’ (a) lack
motivation to improve instructional practices (Grossman et al, 1985; Hollon et al,
1991; Morine-Dershimer, 1983; Prawat & Anderson, 1988; Wilson & Wineburg,
1988); (b) lack efficacy about their own effectiveness (Soodack & Podell, 1997);
(c) lack of self-efficacy, active choice, and persistence as related to teaching
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 107
(Bandura, 1977; Clark & Estes, 2002; Rueda, 2010); and (d) lack of engagement
(Rueda, 2011).
Organization. Developmental education is complex and confusing – the
policies, regulations governing assessment, placement, pedagogy, staffing,
completion, and eligibility for enrollment vary from state to state, college to
college, and program to program (Bailey, Jeong & Choo, 2009; Chung, 2005;
Moore & Shulock, 2007). Structurally, research studies purport that the
developmental sequence is too long, and that institutions are not using data on
students, institutional effectiveness, and student outcomes to inform policies,
instruction and support services for developmental education. At the other end of
the spectrum, Bailey, Jeong & Choo (2009) attribute the problem to a simplistic
view of developmental education where institutions overlook the extensive
diversity of services that are available or overuse of the label of developmental
education. Similarly, a few studies suggest a lack of shared theoretical framework
- among developmental English programs, English departments, faculty
instructional practices, and learning assistance professionals (Boylan, 2002;
Chung, 2005). Consequently, the organizational causes that were validated
concerned: (a) lack clearly defined evaluation process to measure program
outcomes (Boylan, 2002, 2000); (b) lack opportunity to participate in professional
development (Boylan, 2002; McKusick & McPhail, 2012; Smittle, 2001); (c) lack
a system for faculty to interact and discuss processes that require specialized
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 108
knowledge, skills, and motivation to operate successfully (Clark & Estes, 2002);
and (d) lack clearly defined instructional standards.
Summary. Table 3.1 provides a summary of the presumed causes
attributed to low student outcomes from the researchers’ personal knowledge,
informal scanning interviews, learning and motivation theory, and the research
literature categorized by the four components of the Gap Analysis framework.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 109
Table 3.1
Presumed Causes of Low Student Outcomes in Developmental English
Causes Knowledge Motivation Organizational processes
Personal
Knowledge
A. Lack knowledge of
instructional practices for
dev. Engl.
B. Lack opportunity for adjunct
instructors to engage in
professional dev. to increase
instructional knowledge
C. Lack training to teach dev.
Engl.
A. Low self- efficacy to
engage students
effectively
B. Low internal locus of
control to help students
overcome writing
problems
C. Low perception of
departmental and
institutional support for
adjunct faculty
A. Lack of curricular alignment
across educational system
B. Lack of centralized system for
addressing dev. Engl.
C. Lack of cohesiveness in
curriculum and learning
expectations among faculty
and co-requisite learning
support center
D. Lack clearly defined
assessment and evaluation
process to measure progress
Scanning
Interviews
D. Lack knowledge and skill
to teach diverse learners
using appropriate
instructional techniques
E. Lack knowledge of student
learning objectives for dev.
Engl. courses
F. Lack time and opportunity to
provide meaningful
instruction
D. Lack active choice,
mental effort, and
persistence to help
students achieve
learning goals
E. Low self- efficacy to
achieve developmental
English program goal
E. Lack of organizational
knowledge with regard to
extent of time for intervention
required for students
possessing academic gaps
F. Lack cohesive dev. Engl.
program
G. Lack cohesive, seamless bridge
between and among K-16
levels of education
Learning
and
Motivation
Theory
G. Lack knowledge of the
science of instruction
(Graham, 2007; Rueda,
2011)
H. Lack knowledge with
regard to applying four
types of knowledge:
factual, conceptual,
procedural and
metacognitive (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001)
I. Lack knowledge of the
principles of learning
(Ambrose, Bridges, Lovett,
DiPietro, & Norman, 2010)
F. Low self-efficacy,
active choice, and
persistence as related
to teaching (Bandura,
1977; Clark & Estes,
2002; Rueda, 2010)
G. Lack a system for faculty to
interact and discuss processes
that require specialized
knowledge, skills, and
motivation to operate
successfully (Clark & Estes,
2002)
Literature I. Lack training to teach dev.
Engl., incl. to identify and
diagnose student learning
problems (Gay, 2000)
J. Lack knowledge that the
ways students learn and
engage in classrooms have
shifted (Dzubak, 2007)
K. Lack knowledge of linguistic
diversity (Smitherman, 1997;
Stiff-Williams, 2007)
H. Lack of engagement
(Rueda, 2011)
I. Lack supportive
culture for teaching
and relatedness
(Hardre, 2012)
J. Lack of consistency in applying
developmental education
policies and regulations
(Bailey, Jeong & Choo, 2009;
Chung, 2005; Dzubak, 2007;
Perin & Charron, 2006; Moore
& Shulock, 2007)
K. Lack of a shared theoretical
framework for developmental
education (Boylan, 2002;
Chung, 2005)
Note: The presumed causes in bold type are the foundational challenges that will be validated.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 110
Validation of Causes of the Performance Gap
During the spring 2013 academic semester, multiple sample data was
collected from the stakeholders referenced and from state, district, department,
and institutional websites. The sample artifacts included strategic planning
documents; developmental English and SLO committee and department minutes;
English course outlines, instructors’ class syllabus, and assignments, and
assessment instruments.
The degree to which the presumed causes delineated in Table 3 are factors
for the gap in teachers moving students through the developmental English
sequence at Houston College was validated during the collection and analysis of
the research data and the results are presented in Chapter Four. The remaining
section of the methodology employed will be described and organized by study
questions.
Sample and Population
Since developmental English represents a significant portion of the course
offerings, the target sample population for this project was the entire English
Department faculty at Hurston College—eight full-time faculty and 25 adjunct
instructors. A stratified sampling (Creswell, 2005) of faculty members who have
taught developmental writing in the last three years was performed. The sampling
process involved identifying faculty members through the college course
schedules who have consistently taught at least one developmental English course
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 111
in the last five years. Also, since the aim of the study was to have a diverse
representative sample proportionate to the total number of faculty members who
teach developmental English courses, an integral component of the selection
process also involved snowball sampling (Creswell, 2005).
Selection Criteria
The primary variable used to identify the candidates contacted to participate
in the second phase of this gap analysis process was whether they had taught
English 21 or 28 during the spring 2013 term and whether they were scheduled to
teach one of these courses during the fall 2013 term. Additional variables
considered as important to the project were their gender, ethnicity, experience,
rank, and hiring classification. Faculty members who participated in the project
were asked to recommend and refer colleagues. Hence, the sample population for
this study self-selected to participate or was encouraged to participate by faculty
colleagues.
Sample selected. Fourteen instructors completed a 45-item Likert survey
and of this population, eight teachers participated in a 60-minute interview. Three
teachers allowed the researcher to observe a session of their developmental
English class. Table 3.2 provides descriptive statistics on the demographic
information for the population in the study, including faculty rank, ethnicity,
gender, and employment classification (e.g. full-time or part-time).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 112
Table 3.2
Demographics of Teacher Participants
Variable Levels
# of Subjects
% of Subjects
Gender
Female
Male
No response
8
5
1
57.1%
35.7%
7.1%
Ethnicity
African-American
White
Hispanic
No response
5
5
3
1
35.7%
35.7%
21.4%
7.1%
Rank
Adjunct Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
No response
5
5
2
1
1
35.7%
35.7%
14.3%
7.1%
7.1%
FTE or % Position
Assigned
50%
100%
Less than 50%
No response
2
5
3
4
14.3%
35.7%
21.4%
28.6%
Tenure Status
Tenured
Tenure track
Non-tenure track
No response
3
3
7
1
21.4%
21.4%
50%
7.1%
Sample issues. As articulated in Creswell (2005), an important concern in
selecting study participants was sample size. In order to reduce the likelihood of
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 113
sample error, the researcher relied on snowball sampling. Since a significant part
of the data collection involved snowball sampling and voluntary participation, the
sample design may have been influenced by objectivity, judgment, or political
agenda of the faculty participants or English department chair. Another issue of
concern was the participants’ motivation. Also, factors such as permission,
access, time constraints, and over-representation of adjunct faculty were of
concern and influenced the size of the sample.
Instrumentation
This study employed a mixed methodology, utilizing both quantitative and
qualitative means in order to determine the performance barriers and offer a richer
data set that can be triangulated. Creswell (2005) asserts that utilizing a
combination of both methods “provides a better understanding of a research
problem than one type of data alone” (p. 53). Both data were linked to integrate
and connect subjects’ opinions, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and experiences with
regard to the study questions.
The protocol instruments created to address the study questions were
aligned with the assumed causes and derived from the literature delineated in
Chapter Two. The Clark and Estes (2002) Gap Analysis model served as a
diagnostic tool and conceptual frame to present the knowledge, motivational, and
organizational barriers that exist for teachers moving students through the
developmental sequence. The instruments used for the study project are located
in the appendices, including the English Instructor Appraisal Inventory (Appendix
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 114
D), Developmental English Instructors Individual Interview Protocol (Appendix
H) derived from previous research studies and rubrics designed to evaluate
teacher effectiveness, Classroom Observation Checklist and Report (Appendix
G), and document analysis rubrics (Appendix D).
Surveys
Following USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, a forty-five (45)
item Likert questionnaire (found in Appendix D) was placed on Survey Monkey,
an online survey system, and electronically distributed to all the respondents
identified in the sample population using a URL. A mass email from the English
Department chair encouraging teachers’ participation in this project study and
their completion of the survey on SurveyMonkey was sent to the entire faculty in
May 2013. Due to low response, a separate follow-up email with a personal
appeal to faculty to share their knowledge and experience teaching English was
sent to each faculty member in the department in August 2013. The survey was
accompanied with a brief description of the purpose and goals of the study; a
request that he/she participate in the study by completing the survey; and included
questions concerning faculty educational and professional background, with
emphasis upon the teaching of developmental writing. A week before the
deadline, a second email was sent to each faculty member reemphasizing the
request for them to share their knowledge and experience teaching developmental
English.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 115
Surveys are useful instruments because they enable researchers to describe
trends in a large population of individuals (Creswell, 2005). It is used in
quantitative research to identify trends among a small group of people (Creswell,
2005). Utilizing a survey enables the researcher to pose questions to subjects
concerning their attitudes, beliefs, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics without
experimental manipulation (Creswell, 2005; Nation, 1997). To determine and
understand the challenges Hurston College’s English teachers encounter in
moving students through the developmental English sequence, a 45-item Likert
survey was constructed.
To limit the range of possible responses, the survey contained structured
items. Structured items force the respondent to select only one of several answers
provided by the investigator (Nation, 1997). Respondents answered questions
concerning their knowledge and skills and organizational support along a six-
point discontinuous rating scale, anchored by two extremes (Nation, 1997). This
approach enabled the research to evaluate the perceived level of agreement to
items in the survey. Table 3.3 presents the discontinuous table that was used to
assess teachers’ knowledge and skills.
Table 3.3
Discontinuous Rating Scale: Knowledge and Skills
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly Agree
1 2 3 4 5 6
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 116
Sample items include the following:
• I know how to teach diverse learners using appropriate instructional
techniques.
• I know the student learning objectives for the developmental English
courses that I teach.
• I know how to identify student learning problems.
• I know the current research-based instructional practices for teaching
developmental English.
• I work in an environment that enables me to interact and discuss with colleagues
instructional, curricular, and/or behavioral processes so that I may be a successful
teacher.
In addition to questions concerning teachers’ knowledge and skills, there were
questions created to understand their self-efficacy and motivation to teach
developmental English. Table 3.4 presents the discontinuous table that was used
to assess teachers’ self-efficacy and motivation.
Table 3.4
Discontinuous Rating Scale: Self-efficacy and Motivation
Cannot do
at all
Can do
only
rarely
Can do
occasionally
Can do
often
Can do almost
always
Can do always
1 2 3 4 5 6
• It is important that all my students achieve their learning goals
• Achieve the developmental English program goals
• Obtain institutional support for adjunct faculty who teach developmental English
• Use a variety of assessment strategies in my developmental English course
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 117
• Implement alternative instructional strategies when a certain strategy does not
work
As reflected by a sample of the survey questions, the length on of the survey items
were short and simple to ensure that respondents did not have difficulty following
the intent of the item (Nation, 1997). The last section of the survey contained
demographic questions concerning teachers’ gender and ethnicity, levels of
education and credentials earned, years and experience teaching, including years
teaching developmental English at Hurston College; and their rank; full time
equivalent status, and tenure status.
The self-efficacy items in the survey instrument were based on Bandura’s
work and used to validate the assumed causes at Hurston College. Bandura
(1997) pointed out that teachers’ sense of efficacy is not necessarily uniform
across the many different types of tasks teachers are asked to perform or across
different subject matter. In response, he constructed a 30-item instrument with
seven subscales: efficacy to influence decision making, efficacy to influence
school resources, instructional efficacy, disciplinary efficacy, efficacy to enlist
parental involvement, efficacy to enlist community involvement, and efficacy to
create a positive school climate. Each item was measured on a 9-point scale
anchored with the notations: “nothing, very little, some influence, quite a bit, a
great deal.” This measure attempts to provide a multi-faceted picture of teachers’
efficacy beliefs without becoming too narrow or specific.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 118
Individual Interviews
The second instrument was an open-ended interview questionnaire to
address the study questions. Faculty members who completed the survey were
contacted to participate in a 60-minute one-on-one interview to help the
researcher get a sense of the underlying issues influencing the developmental
English program. They were also encouraged to refer additional faculty to
complete the survey and to participate in an interview. The interviews allowed
for a more personal understanding of the barriers (knowledge/skills, motivation,
and organizational culture) unique to the faculty members being interviewed. Of
the group that completed the survey, eight (8) members, 57% of the faculty
surveyed, participated in a one-on-one semi-structured 45 minute interview. The
interviews were conducted during the second and third weeks of September 2013.
The interview participants allowed the researcher to tape record the session, so in
addition to writing copious notes of nonverbal observations on the questionnaire
during the interview, the interviews were recorded.
The instrument also included descriptive closed ended demographic data
questions. The conceptual framework and questions for the instruments were
grounded and derived from the scanning interviews, personal knowledge, and the
literature cited in Chapter Two. The interview protocol contained questions based
on KMO and assumed causes in order to triangulate the data from the surveys and
content analysis. The interview questions that were used to address the research
study questions are found in Appendix H.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 119
Classroom Observations
According to Nation (1997), observations provide a means of directly
indexing behavior, with no attempt to elicit a reaction from the participant. The
behavior is noted as it occurs and is documented as part of an aggregate profile
established over time by subjects (Nation, 1997). For this study project,
classroom observations were conducted to further understand the degree to which
teachers’ stated knowledge and skills and motivation was demonstrated in their
instructional practice of developmental English. The purpose of the observations
was to gain an understanding of how developmental English teachers carry out
instruction, their use of the adopted curriculum, materials, implemented within
and across levels, their level of engagement with their students, and their use of
technology and diverse instructional practices to achieve the student learning
objectives (SLOs) for their developmental English course.
An observational framework instrument was constructed based upon the
effective instructional strategies delineated in Chapter Two and the institution’s
instructor evaluation form. The Instructional Observation Checklist was used to
record the activities and instructional practices in the classrooms. To describe the
observations, a written report was constructed to accompany the observation
checklist.
As the literature indicates, observations are "short, focused, yet informal
observation…There is no intent to evaluate the teacher; rather it is a time to gather
information about curricular and instructional practices and decisions teachers are
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 120
making" (Downey, 2004, p. 2). Consequently, to triangulate the survey and
interview data, naturalistic classroom observations were conducted during the
beginning of the semester. At the conclusion of the interviews, faculty members
were asked permission to observe a session of his/her developmental English
class. Since it was important for classroom observations to be collected during
the first three weeks of the semester, three faculty members’ schedules allowed
for classroom observations. Immediately following two of the interviews,
classroom observations were conducted. The third classroom observation was
conducted the week following the interview. The aim of this type of data
collection procedure is to observe behavior as it unfolds naturally in a workplace
or routine environment (Nation, 1997)—in this case, the classroom. To be
unobtrusive, the researcher sat at the back of the class and recorded observations.
The duration of each classroom observation was between 45-90 minutes—
facilitated seeing teachers’ demonstrated knowledge of the topics covered and
delivery method. During this time, interval recording of classroom observations
was performed of each of the three classrooms. According to Nation (1997), in
this procedure, a specific observation period is designed before recordings begin
and records of responding typically index only the presence or absence of the
behavior up to a maximum of once per interval. The length of the interval is
dictated by the nature and base frequency of the behavior being studied, and the
investigator (Nation, 1997).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 121
Documents
Creswell (2005) indicates that a valuable source of information in
qualitative research can be documents. They are public and private records that
are obtained about a site or participants in a study and include such items as
minutes of meetings, official memos, archival material, website data, and records
in the public domain (Creswell, 2005). Documents are valuable pieces of
information that aids qualitative researchers as they are in the “language and
words of the participants, who have usually given thoughtful attention to them”
(Creswell, 2005). Consequently, factual information available to the public was
collected to understand the central phenomena at Hurston College (Creswell,
2005). According to Cohen and McKeachie (1980) “Since no single instructional
method or set of materials can be considered the most appropriate for a specific
course, an important task would be to determine the degree to which the method
and materials facilitate course goals” (150). During the preliminary research of
the topic, the researcher gathered documents and artifacts pertaining to the
research question for future analysis. These documents included state, district,
and college documents and artifacts, including course syllabus for each English
course in the developmental sequence.
The syllabus is a description and plan for a course and, if well written, may
be a tool that improves student learning, facilitates faculty teaching, improves
communications between faculty members about their courses, and assists with
monitoring program quality (Habanek, 2005; Diamond, 1998; Johnson, 1995;
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 122
Davis, 2009; Grunert, 1997; Slattery, 2005). Altman and Cashin (1993) state that,
“The primary purpose of a syllabus is to communicate to one’s students what the
course is about, why the course is taught, where it is going, and what will be
required of the students for them to complete the course with a passing
grade.” Additionally, Parkes, Fix, and Harris (2003) suggest that the syllabus
serves as a contract between the instructor and the learner. Typically focused on
the learner, well-written syllabi communicate to students what is expected to
succeed in a course and what competencies must be mastered (Diamond, 1998;
Johnson, 1995). Thus, syllabi assist faculty members with communicating with
their learners and help learners understand what is expected of them. Hence,
determine gaps in faculty knowledge and skills with regard to course design,
mandated course learning objectives for developmental courses, principles of
learning, and adherence to the English department’s master guide course syllabus
were collected and analyzed. The researcher secured the instrument used by
Hurston’s English department and district to examine stakeholders’ course syllabi.
The instruments used to understand the phenomena in the documents were created
based upon the effective practices delineated in Chapter Two and categorized by
KMO.
The instruments delineated and protocols designed are framed upon the
research presented in Chapter Two and are geared to answer the research
questions. Table 3.5, the Research Question Grid, illustrates the linkage between
the research question and the instrument employed for this study project. Sample
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 123
questions for each instrument are included to provide a general overview;
however the complete protocol for each instrument is located in the appendices.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 124
Table 3.5
Research Question Grid
Research
Questions
Instruments, Sample Questions, and Protocols Assumed Causes
What are the
knowledge and skills
challenges English
instructors must
address in order to
effectively move
students through the
developmental
English sequence?
Survey – Appendix D
• I know how to teach diverse learners using appropriate
instructional techniques.
• I know how to guide cognitive processes during learning.
• I know how to situate abstract tasks in authentic contexts, so
that students understand the relevance of the work.
Individual Interviews – Appendix H
• What are the English department’s goals as they relate to
developmental English?
• What is the strategy at this institution for improving teaching,
learning, and assessment for developmental English courses?
Classroom Observations – Appendix G
• Describe the method(s) of instruction
• List the specific course topics and learning objectives
addressed by the instructor.
Artifacts (Documents, state, district, campus Websites, etc.) –
• Review state, district, and campus websites to determine
what the standard learning outcome goals are for
developmental English
• Department SLOs for developmental English courses
• Course Syllabus
A. Lack knowledge of instructional
practices for developmental
English
B. Lack opportunity for adjunct
instructors to engage in
professional development to
increase instructional knowledge
C. Lack clearly defined assessment
and evaluation process to measure
progress
D. Lack knowledge and skills to
teach diverse learners using
appropriate instructional
techniques
E. Lack knowledge with regard to
applying four types of knowledge
F. Lack knowledge of the principles
of learning
What are the
motivational
challenges English
instructors must
address in order to
effectively move
students through the
developmental
English sequence?
Survey - Appendix D
• I know how to motivate students who show low interest in
my course.
• I can help students overcome writing problems.
• I like teaching developmental English.
Individual Interviews– Appendix H
• To what extent are teaching-related activities evaluated at
your institutions? . . . in your department?
• What specific new teaching or assessment practices have you
implemented in your classes?
• What motivates you to participate in instructional
development programs on campus?
Artifacts (Documents, state, district, campus Websites, etc.)
G. Low self-efficacy to engage
students effectively
H. Low perception of departmental
and institutional support for
adjunct faculty
I. Lack of self-efficacy, active
choice, and persistence as related
to teaching
J. Lack of engagement
K. Lack supportive culture for
teaching and relatedness
What are the
organizational
challenges English
instructors must
address in order to
effectively move
students through the
developmental
English sequence?
Survey – Appendix D
• I work in an environment that enables me to interact and
discuss with colleagues instructional, curricular, and/or
behavioral processes so that I may be a successful teacher.
• There is a process within the district for English faculty to
address and share developmental English program practices
across all the campuses.
Individual Interviews– Appendix H
• What resources are available to faculty for improving
teaching and assessment techniques for developmental
English courses?
• What kinds of networks do you see developing surrounding
teaching/learning reforms?
Artifacts (Documents, state, district, campus Websites, etc.)
L. Lack of cohesiveness in
curriculum and learning
expectations among faculty and
co-requisite learning support
center
M. Lack cohesive developmental
English program
N. Lack a system for faculty to
interact and discuss process that
require specialized knowledge,
skills, and motivation to operate
successfully
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 125
Data Analysis
Survey
After the deadline for responding to the online survey closed, the data was
downloaded into an excel spreadsheet. Each respondent’s questionnaire was
coded for each item based upon the six-point discontinuous rating scale and
entered into the spreadsheet (Nation, 1997). Once the entire sample data was
coded, it was then rechecked for accuracy. Next, descriptive statistics was used to
calculate how many people selected each response. Tables and graphs were
created to display the data. Finally, the data was analyzed in aggregate to identify
general trends (Creswell, 2005) and to determine if there were variations among
the sample for individual items and groups of items and then categorized by KMO
causes.
Because of the small sample size, it was statistically insignificant to break
the data into subcategories in order to run correlations or to employ inferential
statistics (Creswell, 2005)—it would have been misleading. Hence, those items
that directly validated assumed causes—mainly those with the lowest aggregate
scaled-score—and those that appeared contrary to the individual interview data
were deemed significant and discussed in Chapter Four.
Individual Interviews
The interview data was used to triangulate and interpret the data gathered
from the survey. The researcher listened to the tape recordings after the
interviews and documented additional observations and analysis of the session.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 126
The interviewee’s responses were analyzed and categorized per the principles of
gap analysis, highlighting common patterns and themes. A table categorizing the
responses was developed in order to enable the researcher to explain the variances
in responses based upon stakeholders’ years of experience, demographics, years at
the institution, and attitude. The intent with this process was to develop a
research design that considered and anticipated the kinds of arguments that lent
credibility to the study as well as the kinds of arguments that might be used to
attack the findings (Patton, 2003). Moreover, by employing this methodology,
the researcher was able to triangulate the data, “to test for consistency,” as
“different kinds of data may yield somewhat different results because different
types of inquiry are sensitive to different real-world nuances” (Patton, 2003, p.
248).
Classroom Observations
Although there are advantages associated with using the observational
method, there are also unique opportunities for error (Nation, 1997). Because
observational methods involve humans, mistakes in interpretation and recording
are possible due to errors by the observer or from inadequate design
considerations (Nation, 1997). Nation (1997) indicates that the process of
observing behavior in a natural habitat requires that one attend to those behaviors
identified as relevant; in this case, the teaching behaviors of faculty. Therefore,
he recommends the development of a recording methodology that allows for
reports on nonparticipants. Hence, the observation report form enabled the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 127
researcher to record the teachers’ instructional behavior enumerated on the
checklist and the nonparticipants’ reactions to that behavior. Due to time
constraints, only three observations were conducted. As a result, analysis of
classroom observations served a lesser role in validating results than the surveys,
individual interviews, and document analysis.
Document Analysis
The benefits of documents are that they are “ready for analysis without the
necessary transcription that is required with observational or interview data”
(Creswell, 2005, p. 219). The drawback with documents is that they may not be
complete or accurate (Creswell, 2005). In this case, the documents examined
were complete and included strategic plans to restructure Hurston’s
Developmental English program. The strategies delineated in the documents
were grounded in current state research-based practices and reform-initiatives.
Hence, an analysis of course syllabus and curricular materials was performed to
identify teachers’ knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers. The
documents were examined to understand the extent to which course objectives,
course syllabi, and institutional policies align with the organizational mission of
moving students through the developmental English sequence. Although there
was an instrument created based on the literature to analyze documents, the
researcher relied heavily upon WCCD and departmental policies, procedures, and
guides to interpret and analyze teachers’ knowledge and behavior.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 128
CHAPTER FOUR: VALIDATION OF CAUSES
Far too few students are moving through the developmental English
sequence to college level English in community colleges. Understanding what
Hurston English instructors ascribed to be their knowledge, motivational, and
organizational (KMO) causes for low student success is important for the
development of effective evidence-based solutions to address the problems at
Hurston College. Consequently, the purpose of this study was to examine
teachers’ KMO challenges concerning issues of practice in order to lessen the gap
in student outcomes for developmental English and to identify solutions that may
be implemented at Hurston to steadily improve these outcomes. The questions
that guided this GAP analysis study were:
• What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational challenges
English instructors must address in order to effectively move students
through the developmental English course sequence?
• What are the recommended solutions to meet the knowledge,
motivational, and organizational challenges English faculty encounter?
Presumed causes as to these challenges at Hurston College are delineated in
Chapter Three and are categorized by KMO causes.
Multiple sources of data (quantitative and qualitative) were collected to
validate the assumed causes, specifically: survey, interview, observation, and
artifact data. The results of this data collection are presented in this chapter.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 129
Following the demographic discussion of the English faculty that participated in
this study, this chapter presents the findings and a synthesis of the results
categorized by KMO.
Demographics
Of the English Department population, fourteen (14) department faculty
members, or 42 % of the department, completed the survey. Eight (57 %) of the
respondents were female, five (36%) were male, and one (7%) respondent
declined to answer the questions pertaining to demography. The ethnic
composition of the respondents is as follows: five (36%) were African American,
five (36%) were Caucasian, and three (21%) were Hispanic. All of the
respondents possessed the minimum required masters of arts degree in the
discipline to teach English at a community college, with three of them having
earned a doctorate in English or education. Figure 4.1 presents the demographics
of the population who completed the survey with regard to their teaching
experience. Six members are full-time tenured or tenure tracked faculty: one
achieving the rank of full professor, two as associate professors, two as assistant
professors, and one declining to state his/her rank. Eight members are non-tenure
tracked adjunct faculty and are classified at the instructor level.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 130
Figure 4.1. Teaching Experience for English Faculty Survey Respondents
As the graph illustrates, the respondents’ total number of years teaching ranged
from seven (7) months to twenty-four years, with nine (9) possessing more than
12 years and four (4) possessing less than five years of experience—one having
less than a year. Their years of experience teaching developmental English,
specifically, ranged from seven months to sixteen years, with six respondents less
than five years and three more than ten years; the six remaining respondents have
been teaching developmental English between five and ten years. While the
majority of the faculty members have been at Hurston College less than five
years, five faculty members have been teaching at the college for over five years,
with three being there for a minimum of ten years.
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Teaching Developmental English
Teaching English
Hurston College English Instructors' Teaching Experience
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 131
The findings from the data collection are presented, synthesized, and
organized by each study question and by the three KMO domains as prescribed
for a GAP analysis study.
Report of the Findings
Study Question 1: What are the knowledge, motivational, and organizational
challenges English instructors must address in order to effectively move students
through the developmental English course sequence?
In this section, an analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected
in connection to Question One (1) is discussed. Tables of Assumed Causes and
Results are presented identifying and validating the primary challenges English
department faculty encountered with moving students through the developmental
English sequence at Hurston College. A comprehensive table of the assumed
causes and corresponding survey questions are provided in Table 3.3. Theses
tables juxtaposed against interview, observation, and artifact data was synthesized
to report the overall findings for each guiding study question.
Study Question One Results – Knowledge/Skills
Surveys. Since survey items in the 45-question Likert survey fall within
multiple categories with regard to the KMO causes, inferential statistics were not
possible or appropriate to analyze the data. Instead, descriptive statistics
addressing the mean, or average total of all scores for each category, were
calculated to interpret the findings from the survey (Salkind, 2008). A number for
each item on the six-point Likert scale was assigned for each choice of response
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 132
to calculate the mean: Strongly Agree and Can do always were assigned six (6)
points; Agree, and Can do almost always, were assigned five (5) points;
Somewhat Agree and Can do often were given four (4) points; Somewhat
Disagree and Can do occasionally were assigned three (3) points; Disagree and
Can do only rarely were given two (2) points; and Strongly Disagree and Cannot
do at all were assigned one (1) point.
The scores represent teachers’ collective perceptions of their knowledge
and skill teaching developmental English, specifically (a) faculty members’
knowledge and skill in teaching diverse learners using appropriate instructional
techniques; (b) knowledge of student learning objectives for developmental
English courses; (c) training to identify and diagnose student learning problems;
(d) knowledge of current research-based instructional practices for developmental
English; (e) knowledge with regard to applying four types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive; (f) knowledge that the ways students’
learn and engage in classrooms have shifted; and (g) understanding how culture
impacts learning and different students’ experiences. The scores are not a
measurement of their knowledge and skill.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 133
Table 4.2
Results for the Presumed Knowledge/Skill Causes
As reflected by the mean score in Table 4.2, the survey findings reveal
that faculty members have a very high perception of their knowledge and skill in
applying the four types of knowledge (factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive) and of current research-based instructional practices for
developmental English. Their responses also suggest that they perceive
themselves as possessing a high level of knowledge and awareness about the shift
in the ways students learn and engage in classrooms. Moreover, the survey
findings show that teachers’ have high perception of their knowledge and skill to
teach developmental English to diverse learners using appropriate instructional
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5
5.1
5.2
Presumed Knowledge/Skill Causes
Results for the Presumed Knowledge/Skill
Causes A) Use Appropriate
Instructional Methods
B) Learning Objectives
C) Identify & Diagnose Std
Learning Problems
D) Current Research-Based
Instructional Practices
E) Four Types of Knowledge
F) Shift in Ways Stds Learn
& Engage in Classroms
G) Culture's Impact on
Learning & Std Experiences
Can almost
always do
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 134
techniques as well as a keen understanding of the student learning objectives for
developmental English courses and an awareness of how culture impacts learning
and different student experiences. The table indicates that teachers’ appear to
have moderate knowledge and skill to identify and diagnose student learning
problems when compared to their scaled score in the other knowledge and skill
domains. Collectively, the survey results suggest that teachers’ understand what,
why, and how to teach developmental English. It also suggests that there is
uniformity among faculty as to when to utilize different instructional strategies
effectively.
Lack knowledge with regard to applying four types of knowledge. Though
the self-reported survey results indicate teachers’ possess a high perception of
their knowledge and skill in all areas, closer examination of individual responses
reveal a slight discrepancy with regard to specific statements about their
knowledge and skill. Overall, teachers’ individual responses reveal an
inconsistency in teachers’ understanding and ability to apply conceptual and
procedural knowledge to effectively teach developmental English. The data show
contradictions with regard to teachers’ uniformity and consistency in
understanding and applying the four types of knowledge. At this point, it is
unclear as to whether this lack of understanding and ability are due to gaps in
knowledge or an organizational cause.
Seventy-one (71%) percent of the instructors indicate that they can almost
always achieve the learning objectives; yet, 48% state they only can often help
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 135
students achieve learning goals. While 78% of the teachers surveyed indicate
they can almost always “help students overcome their writing problems,” more
than 50% of them somewhat disagree about their having sufficient time to help
students who possess academic gaps with their writing. Moreover, 71% of the
teachers indicate that they can almost always improve students’ academic gaps in
writing and admitted, they can often “increase student success rates in
developmental English courses.” In addition, with regard to acquiring new
knowledge and skills for teaching developmental English or providing culturally
responsive teaching to help diverse students, 100% of the respondents strongly
agree with the statement “acquiring new knowledge and skills to teach
developmental English is something that interests [them];” however, 36% of the
respondents indicate that they only can often or can occasionally use the new
knowledge in their instruction of developmental English or to “make the process
of writing meaningful for all students.”
Interviews. During the interviews, teachers were asked open-ended questions
to further clarify incongruences revealed from the analysis of survey data. The
interviews enabled the opportunity to probe respondents’ knowledge of (a) the
student learning objectives and goals for the courses in the developmental
sequence; (b) instructional methods and individual evaluation of teaching; (c)
individual and common pedagogical practices (instructing, assessing and
evaluating); and (d) institutional and departmental strategies and initiatives geared
to address developmental English, including professional development activities.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 136
The interviews illuminated and confirmed the inconsistencies in teachers’
understanding and application of the four types of knowledge. Moreover, the
interviews revealed potential causes for the lack of uniformity among teachers.
Most striking, the interviews revealed a disparity in what teachers know and are
able to do (skills) and what they actually do with regard to teaching
developmental English.
Lack knowledge of instructional practices for developmental English. The
minimum academic qualification to teach a discipline at community colleges is a
masters’ degree. For faculty teaching English, a masters’ in English literature,
rhetoric and composition, or comparative literature is acceptable. Despite
meeting the minimum qualifications, two faculty members acknowledge having a
lack of knowledge and skill to teach basic writing because it wasn’t a part of their
graduate coursework: “I had only one course in grad school that focused on
composition…I was a lit major…I’m not prepared to teach basic writing. If I plan
to remain an instructor, I need to get more training.” Another faculty member
echoed the sentiments of these faculty members; the respondent indicated that
recent graduates of masters programs in literature do not have the composition
background to effectively teach developmental writing, citing
that’s the thing [as an institution] adjuncts, sometimes we get desperate and
we’re pulling people in…I sympathize with adjuncts…it’s horrible to be
bouncy, bouncy, bouncy, but it also seems like, they really need to take the
time to hire instructors for 21 and 28…that’s part of the problem, just taking
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 137
students right out of MA’s and most of them are lit oriented. They don’t have
the composition background that would allow them to successfully engage the
students.
In varying degrees, other respondents expressed the need for additional
education to improve their instructional practices. Two faculty members
indicated that they were pursuing advanced degrees either in education or teacher
preparation to increase their knowledge and skills, while four others indicated that
they engaged in professional development opportunities offered by the college
and through the district to enhance their knowledge and skills. Yet, the survey
findings suggest that teachers’ perceive themselves as possessing a high degree of
knowledge and skill teaching and assessing developmental English students; this
perception is reinforced in many of the individual interviews.
Lack clearly defined assessment and evaluation process to measure
progress. A recurring observation among the faculty interviewed was that there
was a lack of consistency with regard to faculty evaluation. When asked about
formal evaluations of their instruction, recently hired adjunct faculty and full-time
faculty who previously served as adjunct instructors, indicate that they lack
knowledge as to their effectiveness in delivering instruction or constructing
assessment instruments aligned to the appropriate course learning objectives
because they had not received a formal evaluation. Faculty members who have
been teaching at Hurston between one and four years reveal that they have not
received evaluations of their instruction. New adjunct faculty expressed a desire
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 138
to have and welcomed the opportunity to receive feedback on their instruction and
assessment instruments because they felt that they lacked sufficient knowledge,
skill, and pedagogical tools. They indicated that they utilize a “trial and error
method” or “learn as you go” approach to teaching developmental English.
Conversely, those faculty members who are being considered for tenure in the
near future recall having received frequent formal and informal evaluations
through classroom observations from the department chair and from summative
student evaluations administered each semester.
They also stated that they consistently revised their course syllabi in order
to engage students and to incorporate their new knowledge of pedagogical
strategies and curriculum. One instructor in describing her method of assessment
indicated using multiple assessment measures to determine whether students
understood the materials covered, including oral assessments, quizzes, essays, and
in-class activities to get students to engage to learn whether students understood
the materials. However, the instructor also stated, “in-class writing is a major
component of my class [and the English 21 course design, in general] because
students get too much help outside of class.”
Though the department and institution have adopted guidelines and
programming to maintain uniformity and continuity for developmental English
programming, questions geared to understand teachers’ awareness of the “what,”
“why,” “how,” and “when” of institutional and departmental strategies and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 139
initiatives for teaching uncovered a lack of awareness as to the overall direction
and goals for improving teaching and learning outcomes.
The department is undergoing structural changes, which included adding a third
developmental English course—lower than English 21 and which merges reading
and writing with a co-requisite reading course. Many faculty members
interviewed are opposed to the department adding another developmental English
course; however, they did acknowledge that they did not know the rationale for
incorporating another course. All of the faculty members employed as either full-
time or part-time instructors for less than three years described varying degrees of
clarity as to the goals for improving developmental English, the basis for the
strategies adopted to standardize curriculum and teaching practices, what
resources were available, and how to effectively access them. However, those
who were aware opposed some strategies, including the decision to add more
remedial classes to address academic gaps. In general, some instructors’ lack of
knowledge as to the adopted policies and practices combined with their feelings
of being left out of the decision-making may be causes for the resistance to follow
said procedures.
Lack knowledge and skill to teach diverse learners using appropriate
instructional techniques. The findings reveal that teachers lack knowledge and
skill to teach diverse learners using appropriate instructional techniques. As a
result, one respondent stated that some faculty members do not know how to
identify and design appropriate assignments to ensure student success. To
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 140
substantiate these assertions, the respondent explained “too students in English
21, 28 need to be able to summarize and apply and can they bring in something
else” and then shared the following English 21 midterm exam assignment
(Artifact 1):
Please choose one of the following questions about our reading and
answer it in at least 400 words. Your answer should coherently argue a
solid thesis, be unified in theme, well-organized into paragraphs, and
adequately supported with facts, examples, and details from our reading.
1. James Baldwin writes, “Language reveals the private identity, and
connects one with, or divorces one from, the larger public, or
communal identity.” What does he mean by this and what
consequences does it have? How does Amy Tan’s writing on her
mother’s language relate to these same ideas? Do you think they
would agree or disagree and why? Do you agree with him or disagree
and why?
2. What were the ideas behind the Oakland Black English Program?
Why did it start such a controversy? What were some of the
perspectives taken by supporters and opponents of the program? How
would James Baldwin or Amy Tan feel about the program? Who do
you agree with and why?
3. Matt Mason argues that the remix changes what we think of creativity
and originality. What is the remix? How does it make these changes?
Are there any downsides to the remix? Do you think the positives
outweigh the negatives?
Reacting to the exam, the teacher voiced “Under one question, I think there are
too many little questions under one thing.” The respondent also indicated
“doesn’t that [the exam questions] draw people out… intimidate them
[students]…these are remedial classes and we need to empower the students.”
According to the faculty member, these three exam questions contained multi-part
complex questions that are inappropriate for the lowest level developmental
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 141
English course. The respondent also stated that “the second question was more
appropriate for [intermediate English students enrolled in] English 28, and the
first question “for college level students enrolled in English 101.” The respondent
expressed that these questions contained too many sub-questions—which may
contribute to low student success—and reiterated how many new adjunct faculty
lack knowledge and preparation to teach developmental English: “when I saw that
I thought of you [researcher] and your survey…see the department has a syllabus
and recommended textbooks for English 21 and 28…pretty much we do
foundations first and write essays at the appropriate level.”
Similarly, the sample midterm exam, Artifact 1, presented during a one-
on-one interview illustrates an inconsistency in faculty members adhering to the
standards. In addition, the exam reveals that the instructor is not in-tune to the
capabilities of his/her students or the department and district requirements for the
course. In contrast to the sample midterm exam, one instructor provided a sample
weekly discussion and writing question activity (Artifact 2) given to students
enrolled in English 21. The activity included the following three questions on an
excerpt of Malcolm X’s novel, entitled, “A Homemade Education.”
1. Explain the freedom Malcolm X experienced from reading books.
2. List any of Malcom X’s techniques for learning that you would be
willing to try yourself. Why would the techniques you mention be
effective for you?
3. Paraphrase the main idea of “A Homemade Education.” Do you agree
with Malcolm X’s point? Why or Why not?
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 142
Unlike the midterm exam questions, these questions are clear, concise, and
focused to assess specific learning and knowledge domains; the questions also
include directive verbs (explain, list, paraphrase) that have been defined and
explained during the course of the semester (evident in the instructor’s course
syllabi). The questions are not too complex for the students; they may enable
students to demonstrate their knowledge, skill, understanding, and application of
the reading. From an instructional perspective, the questions directly assessed
student learning objectives reflected in the course syllabi and aided the instructor
in assessing students while also enabling authentic reflection with regard to
teaching or re-teaching specific topics. In addition, the questions appear to be
appropriate learning expectations for the students enrolled in the course.
Lack training to identify and diagnose student learning problems. In
addition to some faculty lacking knowledge with regard to appropriate
assignments or texts, another faculty member expressed a lack of knowledge and
skill to address certain psychological issues in relation to education: “some of the
statements addressed assessment [referring to the study questionnaire]… others
focused on educational psychology.” The survey statements triggered the faculty
member’s recall of an incident where he/she lacked knowledge and ability to
assess or comment on certain psychological issues in relation to education: “I had
hit a wall with a student and realized that I did not have the knowledge or skill to
help the student; but through time and experience, I have been able to direct
students to the appropriate resource.”
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 143
The discussion of appropriate syllabi reminded the teacher of his early
experiences teaching at community colleges:
I’ve used books for English 28 and 101 and the students struggled with
it…Our sample syllabi…there are many out there…the one they gave me
had them reading Mien Kampf, little bits of it…it didn’t really break down
what the lessons were for each class period so I put it in but was then told
that, oh, we want you to do it this way…so I do not think there are
consistent good examples out there and good consistent examples of
assignments.
The respondent indicated that there was an apparent lack of knowledge with
regard to not only designing appropriate assessments but also identifying texts for
fundamental and intermediate English courses. There were instances where the
respondent had seen textbooks assigned for English 21 or 28 that were actually
geared for college-level or advanced level English (English 101 or 103) students.
The students struggled with those texts, stated one respondent. Although the
department provided a master syllabus for teaching English 21 and 28, according
to one faculty member, the syllabi were too general and did not break down the
topics that should be covered for each class period. The overall sentiment of four
faculty members is that many recent graduates, new adjuncts, have not been
provided consistent examples or procedures for teaching assigned topics and were
not provided good examples of assignments to ensure student success.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 144
Observations. To gain a deeper understanding of individual faculty
challenges and approaches to move students through the developmental course
sequence, classroom observations were conducted of two English 21 sections and
one section of English 28. Specifically, the observations were geared to describe
the pedagogical practices faculty used to deliver the developmental English
content; their use of the adopted curriculum, materials, implemented within and
across levels; their level of engagement with their students; and their use of
technology and diverse instructional practices to achieve the student learning
objectives (SLOs) for their developmental English course.
Observational findings show that all three teachers utilized active and passive
modes of instruction, including the most common passive traditional lecture
method for approximately two-thirds of the observation time; they interspersed a
mix of open and close-ended questions to elicit student engagement. The
“traditional” approach emphasizes students copying the actions of the instructor
who in turn breaks complex practices into component skills and directs drills on
the mastery of these sub-skills (Grubb and Associates, 1999). After the lecture,
two instructors asked students to breakup into groups to complete an activity on
the lecture topic and then monitored groups’ progress by walking around the
classroom and answering questions. This second fundamental approach to
delivering instruction centers on enabling students to create meaning or
interpretation for themselves. Students were encouraged to be active creators of
knowledge rather than passive information-recipients from instructors. Hence,
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 145
with regard to instructional knowledge and pedagogical practice, the teachers
observed appeared to be comfortable utilizing either approach—though there was
heavy emphasis on traditional lecture.
Lack Knowledge of the principles of learning. The observations were
conducted during the third week of a 16-week semester. The three instructors
observed utilized minimal instructional methods to engage or address students’
prior knowledge (Ambrose et al., 2010). One instructor made reference to the
topics covered in the previous class session. However, the instructors, as a whole,
did not perform applicable approaches delineated by Ambrose et al. (2010) geared
to gauge or activate students prior knowledge of the topic, including such
approaches as administering a diagnostic assessment, having students asses their
own prior knowledge, or use brainstorming and generating a list of rules that they
already learned about writing. However, two of the instructors encouraged their
students to participate in supplemental instruction activities linked to the course.
The limited number and duration of observational data made it difficult to
draw substantive correlations or conclusions with regard to what was observed in
class to findings uncovered in survey and interview data.
Artifacts. To triangulate the data, the major artifact collected to understand
the knowledge dimension was instructors’ course syllabus. According to the
Center for Urban Education (2008), the syllabus is a cultural artifact that mediates
student learning, provides information about the instructor and the course, and
what will be expected of students; it establishes the blueprint for the instructional
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 146
activities of the course. Grieve (2001) enumerates the major general pieces of
information that should be included in a good syllabus, and Davis (2009) expands
on the latter by incorporating suggested information that is geared to student-
mindedness. Course level assignments were also collected from faculty during
interviews in order to gain a deeper understanding of their knowledge of
appropriate assignments for courses in the sequence in relation to the standard
learning outcomes.
In addition to the individual instructor artifacts collected, institutional and
departmental artifacts were examined to address the study question. The English
Department at Hurston College has a master syllabus that is framed upon the
general major components of a good syllabus (Greive, 2001) and a lab curriculum
guide for English 21 and 28, which delineates the guidelines for each course.
According to the Hurston Master Guide, the objective in providing the master
syllabus is to maintain consistency in practice across classrooms. Since primacy
was extended to recognize and honor the localized teaching standards and
complex realities of the communities served (Sullivan, 2003), the syllabi collected
were examined against institutional and departmental policies and mandates as to
what should be included in the course syllabus. Seventeen course syllabi were
collected: eight (8) from instructors who teach English 21—Basic English (the
lowest level in the course sequence) and nine (9) from instructors who teach
English 28—Intermediate English (the course below college level English). To
interpret and report the findings in the syllabus, a scale was created and number
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 147
assigned to evaluate teacher’s adherence and conformity to the departmental
policies for the course syllabi: “Present and adhered to policy/conformity” was
assigned two (2) points; “Present and non-adherence to policy/conformity” was
assigned one (1) point; “Incomplete” sections were assigned a quarter point (.25);
and “Not present” was assigned zero (0) points. Table 4.3 depicts the range of
adherence to the departmental master syllabus and guidelines for the examination
of eight sections of developmental English 21 courses.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 148
Table 4.3
Percentage of Faculty Adhering to Master Syllabi for English 21
Master Syllabi Guidelines for Course
Syllabus for English 21
Percentage of
Syllabi—Present
and adhered to
policy/
conformity
Percentage of
Syllabi—
Present and
non-adherence
to policy/
conformity
Percentage
of Syllabi—
Incomplete
Percentage
of Syllabi—
Content
Not present
Course purpose/description- either verbatim
from the course outline or an abridged version
that references the course outline
75% 25%
Course goals/approved student learning
outcomes: what will stds be expected to know or
do at the end of the course; what competencies,
skills, knowledge will stds be expected to
demonstrate at the end of the course as specified
in the course outline of record at the college
37.5% 62.5%
Grading scale and method (incl 40% for
participation and final exam- Engl 28; 50% for
participation, final, and lab portfolio - Engl 21):
how many and place, date, and time of final
exam
100%
Assignments: type, length, and due date; how
stds are to turn in assignments (electronic, hard
copy, etc.)
37.5% 62.5%
Required texts and supplementary materials 62.5% 32.5%
Time schedule/course plan: Landmark events,
assessments, and due dates
75% 25%
Three in-class essays 150-300 words 75% 25%
How learning will be assessed: Results of a
failing grade (allow stds to revise at least two
papers)
25% 37.5% 37.5%
How learning will be assessed: Grading
procedure and criteria: method of evaluating
stds progress toward course objectives include
method by which final grade is determined
100%
Basic Information: Course title/number, section
number and unit value
100%
Basic Information: Prerequisites/co-requisites
(lab) and/or advisories for the course
62.5% 25% 12.5%
Analysis of course syllabus and assignments confirmed the inconsistent
implementation of standard learning objectives for developmental English courses
as described by teachers. Table 4.3 illustrates that for the syllabus collected, there
is an inconsistency in faculty members adhering to those standards; many faculty
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 149
members do not follow the master syllabus with regard to the purpose and
description of the course, standard learning outcomes, grading scale, assignment
type and length, the required textbook, and the mandated number of writing
assignments that should be completed in class. In addition, the majority of the
syllabus did not contain 100% of the required basic information for a good
syllabus.
Moreover, in reviewing the assignments provided by respondents during
the interviews, it was determined that though the assignments distributed at the
second and third week of the semester related to and emphasized a specific
learning objective, each assignment directly reflected the instructor’s unique
theme, values, and cultural perspective. Two of the four artifact assignments
seemed to coincide with stated standardized teaching and learning objectives set
forth in the master syllabus and reflected the common textbook assignments for
the course. Consequently, the examination of the course syllabus artifacts
reinforces the information provided during the individual interviews pertaining to
some faculty members’ resistance to departmental reforms of developmental
English. The documents also confirm that there is a lack of knowledge with
regard to syllabi development, particularly as it relates to student mindedness.
Synthesis of the knowledge and skills data. The surveys, interviews,
observations, and artifacts exposed inconsistencies with regard to teachers’
knowledge and skill teaching developmental English and with regard to adhering
to departmental guidelines and student learning outcomes for the courses in the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 150
sequence. Though teachers expressed possessing knowledge of the student
learning outcomes for each course in the sequence and of the standardized course
syllabus, they expressed having moderate knowledge and skill to identify and
diagnose student learning problems. The data also brought to light that some
teachers lacked knowledge and skill to teach diverse learners using appropriate
instructional techniques: specifically, how much time should be devoted to each
topic in order to help students possessing academic gaps with their writing and
how to design and assess appropriate course-level assignments. In essence,
despite teachers indicating that they know what, why, how, and when (four types
of knowledge) to do something that is necessary to teach English, the data
suggests that teachers lacked consistency or effectiveness with regard to applying
said knowledge and skill. In addition, the data illuminates an overall lack of
consistency in department-initiated teacher evaluations to assess teachers’
knowledge and skill, pedagogical practices, and in the academic preparation and
experience among development English instructors. Moreover, the data shows
that faculty members want to be involved in the decision-making process or to at
least have their input considered when making decisions concerning the
development of course curriculum, selection of textbooks, and the general
direction of developmental English programming.
Summary of Validated causes. In sum, the assumed causes that were
validated by the data concerned teachers’ preparation, understanding and
appropriate utilization of the four types of knowledge, specifically, factual,
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 151
conceptual and procedural knowledge confirmed a lack of training to teach
developmental English, including knowledge and skills to teach diverse learners
using appropriate instructional techniques; a lack of knowledge to identify and
diagnose student learning problems; and a lack of knowledge of the principles of
learning. The assumed causes that were not validated by the data were lack of
knowledge of student learning objectives for developmental English courses and
lack of understanding as to how culture impacts learning and different student
experiences. New causes in knowledge and skills were discovered, and include:
lack of knowledge about best practices or instructional approaches shared among
faculty. Potential solutions to the most significant gaps in knowledge and skills
will be discussed in Chapter Five.
Study Question One Results – Motivation
According to Yair (2000), motivation is significantly determined by
structural and contextual factors. The structural and contextual factors for English
instructors at Hurston may have caused faculty member’s motivation to wane,
specifically those validated knowledge and skill challenges related to teachers’
understanding and utilization of the four types of knowledge and concerning
departmental inconsistencies both in evaluating faculty and in providing
opportunities to share knowledge and instructional approaches. Hardre´ (2012)
indicates that many community college faculty members often find themselves
divided between what they want to do and what they can do. Teachers’
motivation is a force that energizes and directs behavior toward a goal (Eggen &
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 152
Kauchak, 1994). Consequently, Hurston English teachers, who are not provided
evaluative feedback on their teaching performance, may have encountered
inconsistency in their teaching behavior. Specifically, their knowledge as to what,
why and how to teach may be impacted and interrelated with the three strands of
motivation theory: intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, self-determination and
social support, and self-efficacy.
Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
are two different types of reasons for acting that predict valued outcomes across
life stages and work contexts (Deci, 1995; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996; Sansone &
Harackiewicz, 2000).
Motivation is intrinsic when an individual engages in an activity because
of interest and enjoyment of the activity itself or valued outcomes connected to it
(Hardre´ & Sullivan, 2008). Both the survey responses and interview data
suggests that many faculty members are intrinsically motivated to enhance their
knowledge and skills to teach English; all of them indicated enjoyment in
teaching English and expressed commitment to achieving student success
outcomes. In fact a few faculty members have incorporated curricular activities
geared to helping students improve academic success skills, such as study and
time management. Faculty members participating in this study demonstrate
behavior and attitudes about teaching that are in stark contrast to the
characteristics and behavior of individuals who are extrinsically motivated. This
conclusion is drawn based upon analysis of course syllabi and interview data
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 153
concerning faculty members’ continued engagement in group grading of the exit
exam on their own time and without compensation—in opposition to the English
department’s leadership’s political stance.
Motivation is extrinsic when the individual engages in the activity because
of incentives or external pressures from others (Deci, 1995; Sansone &
Harackiewicz, 2000). In both learning and work-based studies, intrinsic
motivation predicts greater effort, engagement, enjoyment, and achievement than
extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1987; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996).
Self-determination and social support. According to self-determination
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1987), when individuals perceive themselves as
autonomous (given choice and freedom in their work) they experience greater
well-being and put forth greater work effort and performance (Deci & Ryan,
2002). Similarly, when individuals perceive themselves as competent (capable) in
their work, they put forth effort and engage more fully in work-related tasks
(Ryan & Deci, 2000). A third element of self-determination, relatedness (the
degree to which individuals feel interpersonally supported by supervisors and
peers), also predicts job performance and satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
The resistance and non-conformity to departmental reform initiatives
described in the knowledge and skill section, including the refusal to adopt
required textbooks and conform to the master syllabus, are echoed in the results of
the motivation section. Some tenured teachers’ apathy along with some new
teachers’ lack of knowledge and experience teaching developmental English
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 154
coupled with inadequate and inconsistent departmental structures have produced
conflicts about what is worth doing, how to do it, and the expected outcome. This
ambivalence may be linked to faculty members’ self-determination or their
perceptions of the level of social support provided by departmental and
institutional leadership.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is an individual’s perceived ability to take on and
complete tasks and accomplish goals, even in the face of challenges (Bandura,
1997). Task- specific self-efficacy predicts positive motivation and achievement
including persistence and performance (Bandura, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs are
also excellent predictors of individual behavior (Bandura, 1997), and it has been
determined that faculty beliefs are reflected in teaching practices and therefore
impact classroom activities (Bandura, 1989). The inconsistency in English
faculty’s knowledge and skill to perform teaching objectives within the time-
frame allotted or to develop appropriate assignments to accomplish standard
learning objectives suggests disparate levels of self-efficacy. In addition their
level of self-efficacy may explain some English faculty members’ instructional
decisions.
Some instructors actively choose to structure their developmental course
sections with a heavy emphasis on grammar instruction and less on composition
and literacy. Could it be because they may believe that they can succeed in
grammar instruction tasks or does it reflect instructors’ perception and beliefs
about the students’ enrolled in their course? In worst case scenarios, Rueda and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 155
Dembo (2006) indicate that teachers’ response to low levels of student academic
underachievement is lowered expectations and an instructional approach
dominated by low-level practice and drill.
Hurston College English teachers’ efficacy as to the extent to which they
believed that they could control the outcomes for students enrolling in their
developmental English courses could reinforce their actions and was a critical
component of this study. For whether teachers viewed control of reinforcement
as lying within the teachers themselves or in the environment may help to
categorize the myriad challenges faculty encountered moving students through the
developmental English sequence and also to identify solutions to address these
challenges.
The literature indicates that student motivation and performance were
assumed as major sources of reinforcement for teachers, while information about
teacher expectations for student learning are conveyed to students through their
interpretations of the teaching-learning situation (Maehr, 1984). Hence, teachers
who believed that they could influence student achievement and motivation were
seen as assuming that they could control the reinforcement of their actions thus
having a high level of efficacy. In turn, these beliefs affect how much effort
people expend, how long they will persist in the face of difficulties, their
resilience in dealing with failures, and the stress they experience in coping with
demanding situations (Bandura, 1997). Motivation of employees (in this case,
teachers) is affected by how those in positions of leadership and influence frame
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 156
policy (Wallin, 2003) and communicate values and contingencies (Bland, Center,
Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Motivation is also
influenced (supported or thwarted) by the explicit or implicit social norms of a
group (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Assumed causes for gaps in motivation. According to data gathered
from informal scanning interviews, the assumed causes for gaps in teachers’
successfully moving students through the developmental English sequence were
primarily attributed to their lack of knowledge as to what, why, how and when to
teach the English course rather than whether or not teachers value the work or
value the students enrolled. The informal scanning interviews also suggested that
contextual and structural factors at the departmental level contribute to teachers’
lack of knowledge and ambivalence with regard to their behavior, specifically in
their lack of active choice, mental effort, and persistence to help achieve
developmental English program goals.
Surveys. Despite teachers admitting weaknesses in knowledge and skills, the
survey results confirmed faculty members’ motivation and commitment to
teaching. Seventy-eight (78%) of the respondents strongly agreed with the
statement: It is important that all my students achieve their learning goals.
Low perception of departmental and institutional support for faculty. The
prominent perceived cause identified as to why teachers were not consistently
effective in meeting their goal was attributed to the organizational culture and
structure of the department—an external locus of control. Both in the survey
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 157
results and individual interviews, teachers cited contextual or structural factors at
the department, campus, or district levels. Overall, the data gathered reveal
deficits in group efficacy and mood among faculty in the English department,
though survey results shows individual self-efficacy among faculty members is
high. According to Ormrod (2008), group efficacy (also called collective
efficacy) is “a function not only of people’s perceptions of their own and others’
capabilities but also of their perceptions of how effectively they can work together
and coordinate their roles and responsibilities” (139). Ormrod (2008) indicates
that the influence of high group efficacy may be exhibited in teachers’ choices,
goals, effort, and persistence.
Deficits in group efficacy are evident by instructors actively choosing not
to adopt the master syllabus, required textbooks, attend departmental meetings,
and political stance on group grading of the common exit exam but is also
confirmed in the motivational survey results.
As Table 4.4 illustrates, when asked statements about faculty members’
perception of institutional support, the perceptions were low.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 158
Table 4.4
Results for the Presumed Motivational Causes
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
Strongly
Disagree
36. I work in an
environment that enables
me to interact and discuss
with colleagues
instructional, curricular,
and/or behavioral
processes so that I may be
a successful teacher.
7.14% 0% 42.86% 28.57% 14.29% 7.14%
1 0 6 4 2 1 14
37. Adjunct instructors are
provided an opportunity to
engage in professional
development to increase
their instructional
knowledge.
7.14% 0% 14.29% 42.86% 35.71% 0%
1 0 2 6 5 0 14
39. There is a process
within the district for
English faculty to address
and share developmental
English program practices
across all the campuses.
7.14% 28.57% 42.86% 21.43% 0% 0%
1 4 6 3 0 0 14
Can do
only
rarely
Can do
occasionally
Can do
often
Can do
almost
always
Can do
always
Total
Cannot
do at all
19. Obtain institutional
support for adjunct faculty
who teach developmental
English
7.69% 15.38% 30.77% 46.15% 0% 0%
1 2 4 6 0 0 13
Faculty members surveyed also indicated having a low perception of departmental
and institutional support for faculty who teach developmental English in general,
and adjunct instructors specifically; 52% of the respondents indicated that they
can only rarely or can do occasionally obtain institutional support. When asked
question about their efficacy in enhancing collaboration between English teachers
and among the English department, approximately 43% indicated that they either
can do only rarely or can do occasionally accomplish this task. In addition, the
survey results suggest that faculty have a low perception of departmental and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 159
district commitment to improving teaching and learning among developmental
English instructors. Specifically, 50% of the respondents somewhat disagreed
with the statement that they worked in an environment that enabled them to
interact and discuss with colleagues instructional, curricular, and/or behavioral
processes so that they could be successful teachers. An even stronger consensus
was indicated with regard to faculty being able to engage in discussions
concerning developmental English across the district. Seventy-one (71%) of the
fourteen respondents disagreed with the statement, There is a process within the
district for English faculty to address and share developmental English program
practices across the campuses.
Faculty members surveyed perceived themselves as possessing a high
degree of self-efficacy, active choice, mental effort, and persistence to help
students achieve learning goals; a high ability to achieve the developmental
English program goals; to engage students effectively and to help students
overcome writing problems. Specifically, 86% of the survey respondents agreed
or strongly agreed with statements concerning their enjoyment of teaching and
expressed satisfaction in teaching developmental English. However, the survey
reveals only part of the motivational dynamics.
Interviews. The knowledge and skills results revealed that Hurston English
faculty members demonstrated an interest and enjoyment in collegial department-
initiated professional development activities such as the annual group grading of
the exit exam; they described both intrinsic and extrinsic benefits gained from
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 160
engaging in faculty dialogues about instructional strategies and assessment
practices. Some faculty indicated that they are motivated to incorporate new
strategies and techniques because they want to engage students and because they
recognize that the way students learn now is quite different than when they were
students. In speaking about the culture of teaching and motivation, one faculty
member stated, “learning can be exciting but too often we present it as a chore,
technology has opened up a lot of possibilities for teaching and learning, so
instructors need to be responsive to these new technologies.” Hence, the
respondent presented a perception of internal locus of control. Similarly, two
other faculty members who recognized a gap in their knowledge and skills for
teaching actively choose to enroll in advanced courses, again exhibiting an
internal locus of control as well as persistence in attaining a goal.
Low internal locus of control to help students overcome writing problems.
The institutional and contextual factors coupled with students’ literacy rates were
used to explain and justify teachers’ actions with regard to non-compliance and
resistance to departmental guidelines and overall instructional approach or
philosophy to teach sections of the developmental English curriculum.
Specifically, one teacher indicated having experienced little value-added in
students writing when there was a heavy emphasis on grammar instruction in
developmental English because “it’s [the approach] no longer effective…there are
too many dialects and people from other regions of the world coming with
different language structures…can’t be so stringent.” In a similar line of thought,
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 161
another respondent described the motivational dynamics and covert resistance to
developmental reforms as “a tendency to do what you’ve always done;” so “new
faculty [who enter the departmental culture with new ideas] have a difficult time
[because seasoned faculty are not accepting of a fresh idea or approach] because
the ideas on a campus tend to be the ideas that they’ve already done.” Hence,
some of the interview data suggest that faculty maintain an external locus of
control when explaining motivational challenges teaching developmental English.
As a whole, they also revealed a number of institutional and contextual factors
as key motivational challenges during interviews—challenges that would be
considered an external locus of control. Another external locus of control
described as playing a significant role in the achievement of learning outcomes
was students’ literacy level. Assessment data indicates that students are entering
the college with 4
th
, 6
th
, and 8
th
grade reading levels. Several teachers described
the literacy gap as being too large to overcome in a semester or even in a year,
particularly for students exhibiting 4
th
and 6
th
grade reading and comprehension
skills.
Lack of engagement. Despite instructors’ keen knowledge of the group
grading activity and their drive to obtain information to enhance teaching,
recently hired faculty seemed unaware of broader departmental or institutional
initiatives geared to increasing outcomes for developmental English. A resource
available to them is campus-based professional development. The one drawback
to campus-based professional development, according to three instructors, is that
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 162
it is optional or voluntary, “so normally I see the same instructors because they
are motivated to learn new techniques. Unfortunately, sometimes
[you/institutional leaders] can’t get people to attend the professional development
opportunities and to see the new options and new methods. So, the biggest
challenge is motivating teachers to attend the PD. There’s a push through
Achieving the Dream (AtD) to improve teaching and learning; AtD conducts an
annual faculty academy geared specifically for teaching and learning versus
procedural tasks.” Yet, these PD opportunities are in jeopardy due to lack of
attendance, said one instructor.
Several faculty members attributed this lack of participation and sharing to
apathy among members of the department and that “we’re [departmental faculty]
waiting for them to retire.” Rather than utilizing monthly departmental meetings
to address the English discipline and to present or discuss departmental or
institutional strategies geared to increase teachers’ knowledge and ultimately
student success, they were considered “gripe sessions” or administrative
compliance meetings. As a result, the departmental meetings have been described
as being “poorly attended,” uninformative, and unproductive with regard to issues
of teaching or the promotion of resources available to faculty.
All of the respondents indicated that they were knowledgeable of the
student learning objectives for their respective developmental English course—
English 21 and 28—and of the textbooks and standardized course syllabi. In fact,
one respondent indicated that the department “specifically hired me to close the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 163
achievement gap that exists for students of color and low income students as
quickly as possible” and conveyed the strategy that was adopted to improve
teaching and learning over the last two years, which included
incorporation of required 18 hour lab that provides a set curriculum that is
geared to coincide with the instruction and materials covered in the
developmental English courses… [with] the lab requirement [being] included
in the grading breakdown for the developmental course…faculty may not give
the same percentage…may be within 5% of one another…students are
informed at the beginning of the semester that the lab is required and that they
cannot pass the course by not attending the lab…faculty are expected to use
the common textbooks and common syllabus to maintain consistency across
the courses.
However, the instructor stated that “the department has encountered resistance to
these reforms.” In addition to the latter strategy, the department has made a
commitment to use student work as exhibits to teach writing (Bartholomae &
Petrosky, 1986). Each semester, teachers are encouraged to have students submit
their writings for publication in the department’s annual anthology, Say the Word.
The anthology is a required textbook for the developmental English courses. The
department’s aim in producing and incorporating this anthology into the
curriculum is to “incorporate student-centered writing into the classroom and
build students’ writer identity.” One faculty member who is actively involved
with the coordination and development of Say the Word stated “So, here, with the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 164
teaching guide and so on, there is some correspondence among instructors and
sections with some shared common readings, and often the students who were
published are invited into classes as guest speakers, so it can be very empowering
and inspirational.”
Lack importance value in departmental activities. An alternative reason
stated for one faculty member’s resistance was philosophical; the respondent
expressed an overall disagreement with the adopted strategy for teaching
developmental English—grammar versus literacy. The faculty member stated
“the problem is that students do not have anything to say,” so rather than having
students spend time completing grammar exercises, “I spend more time
discussing the readings…try to engage students, get them to talk about the subject
and then write complete sentences.” Along the same line of thought, two other
faculty members expressed that colleagues and the department, in general, needed
to shift their teaching and learning emphasis when teaching developmental
English. One respondent indicated “the technology as to what students engage
dictates the necessity for teachers to shift parameters and to do more multimodal
types of assignments and to try to shift from the hard core textual approach.”
According to the faculty member, the traditional one-dimensional approach to
teaching and learning “will go away” and “you [teachers] can’t be so stringent.”
Collectively, respondents described a general apathy or resistance to
change that prevailed among faculty members, and this apathy was communicated
as potentially stifling the individual motivation and value the respondents
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 165
believed they could contribute to the departments’ overall achievement goals for
developmental English students as well as their academic freedom at Hurston,
specifically when presenting recommendations or wanting to implement new
approaches for developmental English to colleagues. One described the dialogue
exchange between the respondent and other colleagues in the department: “But
it’s like, we’ve [the department] always done this or do it this way… but that way
is not working, so why would I duplicate that way, but then there’s the pressure to
‘let’s get something done’ so then that pressure turns into duplication and not
progressiveness.” The instructor became frustrated describing the challenges
encountered at trying to bring fresh ideas to colleagues and when the faculty
member described perceived unequal opportunities to participate in off-campus
professional development. Like many of the new faculty members, the full-time
faculty member attributed some of the causes of his/her perception of low
departmental support to being new to the institution, not knowing the culture, or
to the general pecking order for faculty with regard to the seniority system.
The contextual and structural conflicts described within the English
department illustrate a general deficit in group-efficacy as instructors do not
appear to be willing to experiment with new ideas and teaching strategies and
assigned tasks that suggest low expectations and goals for students. In addition,
their lack of effort to attend departmental meetings may even suggest a lack of
confidence in the direction and leadership.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 166
Observations. Recognizing the limited number, frequency and duration of
the observations conducted, the primary data gathered and evaluated to ascertain
results for the motivational domain of this study are survey, interview, and artifact
data.
Artifacts. The course syllabus data revealed some faculty members’ active
choice to non-comply with the departmental guidelines for course curriculum;
they also illustrated to a small degree faculty self-efficacy. Three faculty
members’ course syllabi showed a willingness to work toward the program goals,
including the adoption of the campus-wide novel, and to experiment with new
ideas and teaching strategies to help students learn. Three other faculty course
syllabi revealed a mixed-bag with regard to course-level expectations: some
higher than required and some lower than required. One faculty members’ course
syllabi exhibited a belief and intrinsic interest in student learning with the
inclusion of student success strategies, including hints and recommendations to
complete course objectives.
Synthesis of motivation data. Overall, the survey and interview data results
provided additional clarity as to potential causes of faculty members’ resistance to
departmental curricular guidelines and standards for the developmental English
program while confirming many of the observations and conclusions presented in
the knowledge and skills results section. The data also showed that English
teachers are intrinsically motivated to teach English. The gaps in motivation
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 167
stemmed primarily from perceived contextual and structural factors that may
significantly impede overall group efficacy.
Validated causes. The motivational cause that was partially validated by
the data is low importance value in departmental activities. It is considered
partially validated because the presumed cause specified adjunct faculty, a faculty
sub-group; however, in general, both the survey data and faculty interviews
revealed respondents’ varyingly low perceptions of departmental and institutional
support for English faculty. The new motivational cause discovered during the
data analysis concerns the low level of group efficacy within the English
department.
Study Question One – Organization
In describing the organizational dynamics at work, Harmon (2009)
stresses the significant role the college administration and its organizational
structure play in creating a supportive environment where students with basic
skills/developmental education needs and faculty who teach developmental
courses may flourish. Harmon (2009) goes on to describe that while faculty
develop curricular structures, sequences, and pedagogical processes that enable
students to succeed educationally, administrators develop the college structures,
cross-functional processes, and timing dynamics that enable the work to be
developed and accomplished by empowered faculty and staff. Often when the
organizational structure is not supportive or conducive to successfully
administering developmental education interventions, all stakeholders
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 168
(instructors, students, administrators) are adversely impacted. Clark and Estes
(2002) indicates organizational causes for performance gap is a lack of efficient
and effective organizational work processes and material resources. They argue
that inadequate processes and materials can prevent the achievement of
performance goals even when stakeholders possess high motivation and
exceptional knowledge and skills.
Results of survey, interview, and artifact data for both the knowledge and
skills and motivational domains show a recurring theme of contextual and
structural factors at the organizational level. What begs the question is “Are these
factors primary causes for the challenges teachers encounter in moving students
through the developmental English course sequence?” The results of
organizational data gathered portray a broader view of the causes and suggest that
the dynamics at work are more complex.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 169
Table 4.5
Results of Presumed Organizational Causes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewh
at
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Total
36. I work in an
environment that enables
me to interact and discuss
with colleagues
instructional, curricular,
and/or behavioral
processes so that I may be
a successful teacher.
7.14% 0% 42.86% 28.57%
14.29
%
7.14%
1 0 6 4 2 1 14
38. There is curricular
alignment across the
district for the
developmental English
program.
0% 14.29% 42.86% 21.43%
14.29
%
7.14%
0 2 6 3 2 1 14
39. There is a process
within the district for
English faculty to address
and share developmental
English program practices
across all the campuses.
7.14% 28.57% 42.86% 21.43% 0% 0%
1 4 6 3 0 0 14
40. There is cohesiveness
in the curriculum and in
the learning expectations
for each course in the
developmental English
sequence and co-requisite
lab.
0% 21.43% 7.14% 21.43%
42.86
%
7.14%
0 3 1 3 6 1 14
Surveys. The knowledge and skills and motivation domains showed that
English faculty had a low opinion of the level of organizational support at
Hurston College as reflected in Table 4.5, specifically with the cohesiveness of
the developmental English program.
Lack cohesive developmental English program. The organizational
survey results indicate that 58% of the respondents believe that Hurston’s English
department lacks cohesiveness in the course curriculum and the co-requisite
writing lab for each course in the developmental sequence, thereby confirming the
data results for the other domains. In addition, forty-three (43%) of the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 170
respondents “somewhat disagree” with the statement, I work in an environment
that enables me to interact and discuss with colleagues instructional, curricular,
and/or behavioral processes so that I may be a successful teacher. The survey
data also suggest that faculty perceive that the organization lacks a centralized
system for addressing developmental English and for faculty to interact and
discuss processes that require specialized knowledge, skills, and motivation to
operate successfully. However, to a degree, the organizational data gathered do
not support these assertions.
Interviews. Interviews with the faculty validated multiple organizational
assumed causes.
Lack cohesive developmental English program. During the interviews, all of
the instructors described the departmental policies and procedures in place to
maintain consistency in instruction, expectation, and outcomes for developmental
English (i.e. the adoption of standardized learning objectives, curriculum,
textbooks, syllabus, etc.). One of the recently hired full-time faculty members
and all of the adjunct instructors interviewed claimed to be unaware of the
structural changes underway for the developmental English program. While
another seasoned instructor appeared knowledgeable of changes taking place,
he/she viewed them skeptically—“the new fad,” void of sustained impact on the
complex dynamics at work for addressing students’ underachievement. Three
faculty members who were peripherally aware of structural changes planned for
developmental English conveyed frustration with regard to the non-collaborative
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 171
manner decisions were made for the program, insinuating that “a select few” were
involved in the strategizing and designing process.
Lack of cohesiveness in curriculum and learning expectations among
faculty and co-requisite learning support center. Several instructors described a
conflict within the department with regard to what the learning objective should
be and how they should be achieved. Teachers who indicated their awareness of
the department strategy and course goals expressed their refusal to comply and
even allowed students to write outside of class. Two teachers interviewed stated
that they elected not to adopt the standardized textbooks nor to place as much
emphasis on grammar instruction as they believed other faculty have done in their
instruction of the course because they did not necessarily agree with the approach
adopted by the department to remedy the problems that students experience. In
answer to a probing question to understand why the instructor chose not to adopt
the departmental textbooks for English 28, the instructor stated, “The texts are too
basic. They do not challenge or encourage thoughtful or meaningful writing.”
The respondent further indicated that the department had some “grammar Nazis”
that spent too much time on grammar in English 21: “that approach to instruction
doesn’t work anymore.” Instead, the respondent stated, “[we] just need to get
students to write” and advocated a return to the pedagogical approaches of Peter
Elbow and Daniel Murray where students were encouraged to write; “that is the
approach and structure of the curriculum in the writing lab,” and according to the
faculty member “it’s working… the looser approach seems to work for the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 172
population of developmental English students.” While another faculty member
indicated not knowing how much time should be devoted to each topic because
the students required “so much remediation.”
Faculty members who adhered to the instructional framework developed
for the English program recognized the curricular alignment between the course
and the writing lab as well as across the developmental sequence, despite the
decentralized nature of the intervention program (Boylan et al, 1997). Three
faculty members described their involvement in developing and assessing the
curriculum and indicated that there was consistent coordinated communication
among the instructors. “I helped write the lessons in the lab and construct the
master course guide... and I know through student assessments that it’s working.”
The visible improvements in students’ writing are credited to the alignment of the
core course with the supplemental writing curriculum offered in the labs. One
teacher voiced initial concern about the tax on students’ time but “they are
expected to attend class, complete 18 hours of lab, and participate in supplemental
instruction on top of their other responsibilities… but over the last two years of
working with some of these students in English 21 and then again in English 28…
it’s working.” Another respondent echoed this sentiment and remarked “students
who complete the lab are successful.” In part as a result of the role developmental
English instructors played in the writing lab. Three adjunct instructors stated that
they devoted three hours per week in the writing center—they were compensated
for their time.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 173
Yet, half of the faculty members also stated that many instructors (new and
seasoned) in the department actively choose not to adhere to the developmental
programming. Two instructors indicated, “Faculty who refused to comply with
departmental initiatives is a major challenge for the department.” One teacher
inferred that as a result of this challenge, the department is not adequately meeting
its goal of closing the achievement gap that exits for students of color and low-
income students. The interviewee went on to state “the most important thing that
the department can do is work together, keep programs and courses consistent to
where a student no-matter the instructor can get identical instruction, with
identical expectations, and identical outcomes.” However, rather than working
together or even complying with the standardized curriculum and programming, it
was cited that some faculty go as far as not allowing supplemental instructors in
their courses: “faculty want to do their own thing.” Probing questions to explore
possible reasons as to why some instructors did not allow supplemental
instructors in their classrooms was not explored. However, the literature suggests
a cause for their behavior that could be remedied by a centralized program
structure over the present decentralized structure — a centralized developmental
English program may lead to greater teacher motivation because the teachers have
chosen to devote their careers to helping underprepared community college
students (Perin, 2002).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 174
Lack a system for faculty to interact and discuss processes that require
specialized knowledge, skills, and motivation to operate successfully. In
addition to the lack of knowledge with regard to their effectiveness in delivering
and assessing developmental English, faculty members employed for at least one-
year described having a lack of opportunity to engage in department-driven
professional development and to build knowledge. The department once
conducted annual collaborative grading of developmental English common exit
exams. However, the common grading activity was discontinued due to budget
cuts. All eight faculty members interviewed described the knowledge previously
gained from engaging with their colleagues in common assessment activities for
developmental English courses. One respondent indicated, “[group grading] is a
good learning process as it helped me to see how my grading of students enrolled
in English 21 was on par with some of the experienced teachers at the campus,
and [I] found that I was actually too hard in some instances with respect to
grading practices than others.” Consistently, faculty interviewed indicated that
the group grading of the exit exam was a beneficial learning experience as it
enabled faculty members to understand what (learning objectives) needed to be
taught for each course; share strategies as to when and how to effectively teach
those topics; and how to assess students’ progress in meeting the learning
objectives.
According to several faculty interviewed, some full-time and part-time faculty
members continue to engage in group grading of the exit exam on their own time
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 175
and off-campus despite the fact that the practice of meeting to perform this
activity on or off-campus, without appropriate remuneration from the
institution—especially for adjunct instructors—is discouraged by the department.
Besides the annual group grading activity, the majority of the instructors
interviewed indicated that little knowledge about best practices or instructional
approaches was shared among faculty, so they had to seek it out on their own.
Four instructors indicated that they consulted their colleagues to update course
syllabi and to learn different approaches to teach their courses.
Learning communities. According to several faculty members, Hurston
College does not have a program or strategy specifically geared to helping
developmental English teachers improve their teaching and learning of
developmental English courses but rather a holistic professional development
approach through the faculty teaching academies offered by the campus and the
district focused on helping all faculty incorporate different methods to engage
students at all levels. They also indicated that the campus encouraged faculty to
use multimodal methods to engage students. In addition, they described how the
institution has incrementally responded to stated teaching and learning needs of
faculty through semi-annual professional development workshops during flex
days.
Faculty academy offered by the campus focuses on pedagogy, gives
opportunity to have a safe environment to talk about teaching with other
faculty and the focus is on the students enrolled, not so much on teaching
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 176
developmental English but teaching in general…however, it is in jeopardy due
to low participation and so cost is not justified.
Also, due to a lack of consensus and agreement concerning the learning
objectives and course goals for developmental English courses, the English
department operates in deference to the learning community literature. There was
a general consensus as to the ineffectiveness of the department’s monthly faculty
meetings. One teacher described the environment and outcomes thusly, “[we] do
not do anything except listen to monthly reports—[faculty members] do not talk
about what we do at monthly meetings.”
Departmental and institutional support for faculty. To varying degrees,
instructors provided examples of departmental and institutional support for
faculty and improving teaching and learning specifically. They referenced the
institution’s recent partnership with Achieving the Dream (AtD) and the district’s
Faculty Teaching and Learning Academy. Through AtD resources, the institution
has been able to provide supplemental instructors in every developmental English
classroom—for those teachers who allow access; fully staff the English
department’s writing center; and launch a reading center in 2012—to serve as a
companion intervention to the writing center. In addition, with AtD support, the
department was able to enforce more stringent requirements and programming
with regard to the writing lab. As interventions in the infancy stage, participation
in supplemental instruction and in the reading center is voluntary. Students are
required to complete 18 hours of lab instruction, as previously stated, and the lab
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 177
curriculum is aligned to the class content for each course in the sequence. Some
instructors, though, voiced concern about the mandated lab and the voluntary
supplemental instruction. One stated that the institution “over-instructs students”
and that over-instruction “must pull on the drop-out rate;” while others indicated
that they had not “truly bought in to the co-requisite writing lab requirement” but
had seen significant improvement in students’ writing.
Interview data show that the writing instructors have stated that the biggest
challenge in teaching writing for students enrolled in their courses is students’ low
reading and comprehension proficiency. In response to students’
underachievement, Hurston College elected to establish a developmental reading
center and hire a professional expert; this new intervention was recently added to
the English department, so the curriculum and full-strategic scope of the center is
evolving. Currently the reading program is seen as separate by members of the
department, but the leadership is considering how the reading and writing courses
may be merged to enhance student learning and ability to perform in
developmental English. The courses are currently being designed and taught
separately; though in the previous structure, students with low reading and
comprehension proficiency were directed to complete non-credit basic skills
courses that were geared to prepare them for developmental English.
Artifacts. Strategic planning documents and committee meeting minutes
reveal that there is institutional support and commitment to improving teaching
and learning. The strategies that the college adopted were implemented over a
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 178
six-year period with the involvement of various institutional stakeholders. In
examining the artifacts, it appears that several of the stakeholders involved in the
structural and organizational changes have been assigned a different responsibility
within the college, retired, or transferred to another college within the district.
Hence, the organizational challenges enumerated by new faculty members may be
a result of their lack of knowledge of the reform efforts that have been underway
at the college. The college’s commitment is also evident in preliminary and
progress reports from AtD. However, the artifacts also illustrate and support the
result findings that the college appears to lack cohesiveness with regard to faculty
implementing the developmental English program.
Lack of cohesive developmental English program. Findings after reviewing
the syllabus artifacts for English 28 against the master syllabus showed a lack of
consistency in practices with regard to course descriptions, required textbooks,
assignments and grade breakdown, as well as student learning outcomes (SLOs).
The most dramatic differences are the length of the compositions assigned and the
type of assignments. According to the SLO, at the end of the course students
should be able to write 300-500 word compositions. However, three of the eight
syllabi required students to write four essays of 500-900 words along with a 1250-
1500 word research paper. Requiring students to write a research paper is not
consistent with the course description provided in the master syllabus or with the
student learning outcomes. Also, in reviewing the schedule of assignments, some
instructors appeared to emphasize one SLO over another: “Recognize and apply
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 179
rules for edited English sentences, grammar, and word choice and begin to
incorporate stylistic techniques into his or her writing” (SLO number one)—
rudimentary identification and application of sentence rules—over having
students “Understand and participate in diverse discourse communities within the
academic or broader social setting” (SLO number three)—discussing, articulating,
and applying concepts to create and express ideas.
Synthesis of organizational culture. A synthesis of the organizational data
shows that the causes that may be at work are more complex than they appear.
Though faculty perceived contextual and structural problems as primary causes
for the challenges they encounter achieving course learning goals, the data also
suggest that the causes reflect their lack of collegial participation in institutionally
adopted strategies geared to improving student outcomes.
Validated causes. The assumed cause that was validated by the data is lack a
system for faculty to interact and discuss processes that require specialized
knowledge, skills, and motivation to operate successfully and lack of consistency
with regard to evaluating faculty. Solutions to the gaps in organizational culture
will be discussed in Chapter Five.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 180
Summary of Validated Causes
A summary of validated KMO causes, which will be validated in Chapter
Five, are listed in the Table 4.6.
Table 4.6
Summary of Validated KMO Causes
Knowledge,
Motivation,
Organizational
Domains
Validated Causes
Knowledge • Lack of training to teach dev. Engl., incl. to identify
and diagnose student learning problems
• Lack of knowledge of the principles of learning
• Lack of knowledge and skills to teach diverse
learners using appropriate instructional techniques
Motivation • Lack importance value in department activities
• Lack of engagement
Organization • Lack of consistency with regard to evaluating
faculty
• Lack a system for faculty to interact and discuss
processes that require specialized knowledge, skills,
and motivation to operate successfully
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 181
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION
Currently, fewer than five percent of the students who enroll in
developmental English at Hurston College successfully move through the course
sequence to college level English. The assumed causes as to the challenges
Hurston English instructors experience moving students through the
developmental English sequence were validated in Chapter Four and categorized
under knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) challenges. It should be
acknowledged that Hurston College has made significant strides over the last six
years in standardizing their developmental English program curriculum and
learning objectives. Despite operating under centralized and decentralized
programs (Boylan, Bliss, & Bonham, 1997) – centralized for students with the
lowest level of skills (Perin, 2002) and decentralized programs for students with
higher-level skills – they have attempted to accommodate their diverse student
body. Consistent with the effective practices enumerated in the literature
(Bartholomae & Petrosky, 1986), they have developed a master guide for
instructing the lowest levels of English and have published an anthology of
students’ writing for teaching and inspiring students to improve their writing. The
efforts of Hurston’s English department faculty should be commended. Given
their improvements, there are additional improvements needed.
Beginning with a brief summary of key findings, this chapter will present
research-based solutions to close the identified gaps for the validated causes
enumerated in Chapter Four followed by a recommended implementation and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 182
evaluation plan. They will be organized and categorized within the framework of
the Gap Analysis (Clark & Estes, 2002) model KMO validated cause solutions.
Therefore, this chapter focuses on research question two:
• What are the recommended solutions to meet the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational challenges English faculty encounter?
Validated Causes Selection and Rationale
The results delineated in Chapter Four revealed and validated causes
associated with teachers’ understanding and appropriate utilization of the four
types of knowledge, predominately, the factual, conceptual, and procedural
knowledge domains. In addition, data show that the gaps in motivation stem
primarily from perceived contextual and structural factors that may significantly
impede overall group efficacy. With regard to the organizational domain, the data
reveal causes that reflect teachers’ lack of collegial participation in institutionally
adopted strategies geared to improving student outcomes. Table 5.1, presented at
the end of Chapter Four, is, again, illustrated in this section because solutions for
the entire list of validated causes will be addressed in the remaining sections of
the Chapter.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 183
Table 5.1
Summary of Validated KMO Causes
Knowledge,
Motivation,
Organizational
Domains
Validated Causes
Knowledge • Lack of training to teach dev. Engl., incl. to identify and
diagnose student learning problems (factual and procedural)
• Lack of knowledge of the principles of learning (conceptual)
• Lack of knowledge and skills to teach diverse learners using
appropriate instructional techniques (factual and procedural)
Motivation
• Lack importance value in department activities
• Lack of engagement
Organization • Lack of consistency with regard to evaluating faculty
• Lack a system for faculty to interact and discuss processes
that require specialized knowledge, skills, and motivation to
operate successfully
As the research suggests (Ramos-Beal, 2013), to close the performance gap the
proposed solutions should take into account whether the tasks should be
completed in a particular order. Therefore, the proposed solutions and
implementation plan to address the validated causes are presented in sequence of
importance with regard to effective processes, i.e. the order that tasks must be
completed to incrementally improve the stakeholder goal of moving students
through the developmental English sequence.
The following solutions echo many recommendations found in the
Effective Strategies section of the literature review in Chapter Two. These
effective practices were compiled through joint efforts of the Academic Senate for
California Community Colleges and the Chancellor’s Basic Skills Advisory
Committee and are recommended for adoption and enhancement of existing
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 184
programs to improve basic skills instruction in California (Survey of Effective
Practices in Basic Skills, Spring, 2003). These practices are described as effective
by the California community colleges that adopted them because they produced
measurable outcomes with regard to their impact on students, the number of
students affected, and the quality of evidence to support the results that were
claimed (Boylan, 2002; Survey of Effective Practices in Basic Skills, Spring,
2003). Hence, the recommendations for English faculty at Hurston College are
derived from best practices literature, theoretical principles of learning,
motivation, and organization, and empirical evidence with the goal of producing
similar improvements in student outcomes for developmental English (Survey of
Effective Practices in Basic Skills, Spring, 2003).
Solutions for Knowledge and Skills Causes
As noted, the surveys, interviews, observations, and artifacts exposed
inconsistencies with regard to Hurston teachers’ knowledge and skills teaching
developmental English and with regard to adhering to departmental guidelines
and student learning outcomes for the courses in the sequence. Although teachers
expressed possessing knowledge of the student learning outcomes for each course
in the sequence and of the standardized course syllabus, they expressed having
moderate knowledge and skill to identify and diagnose student learning problems.
The data also brought to light that some teachers lacked knowledge and skill to
design and assess appropriate course-level assignments. In essence, despite
teachers indicating that they know what, why, how, and when (four types of
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 185
knowledge) to do something that is necessary to teach English, the data suggest
that teachers lacked consistency or effectiveness with regard to applying said
knowledge and skills.
Table 5.2 presents the validated causes under the knowledge domain,
which are inter-related and interdependent. As such, the solutions to address
these areas involve three knowledge types: factual, conceptual, and procedural.
Table 5.2
Summary of Validated Knowledge Causes
Knowledge • Lack of training to teach dev. Engl., incl. to identify and
diagnose student learning problems (factual, procedural)
• Lack of knowledge of the principles of learning (conceptual)
• Lack of knowledge and skills to teach diverse learners using
appropriate instructional techniques (factual, procedural )
To address the aforementioned knowledge and skills domains, Clark and Estes
(2008) suggest four strategies that may be used to enhance and support the
achievement of performance goals. These enhancements are information, job
aids, training, and education. The knowledge gaps that prevent Hurston English
teachers from achieving performance goals require solutions geared to enhance
their information, job aids, and training.
Factual knowledge. According to Anderson and Krathwohl (2001),
factual knowledge is what one must know with regard to a specific subject or
discipline; it involves knowledge of terminology, specific details, and elements
that are needed to solve specific problems in a given area in that discipline.
Essentially, factual knowledge is the “what” of a given discipline.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 186
Having a keen understanding of factual knowledge with regard to the
discipline of teaching, in general, and the subject of English, specifically, is
critical. Every teacher needs a thorough understanding of pedagogy as well as a
versatile and comprehensive repertoire of instructional strategies – classic and
innovative – to draw from in planning and providing instruction so they can
match teaching approaches with learning objectives, subject matter, and targeted
learners. However, the data validated the cause that Hurston English teachers
lack knowledge and skills to teach diverse learners using appropriate instructional
techniques. Hence, to increase their factual knowledge concerning “what” to
teach, it is recommended that Hurston’s English Department faculty modify its
current Master Teaching Guide for English 21 and 28 to include evidenced-based
strategies and lessons that may be used by instructors to prepare students for
reading and writing—similar to the manual constructed by the Minnesota
Community College System (1992-94) and advocated in the work of Alexander et
al., (2012), which included the use of authentic activities and multiple
instructional delivery models. The guide could contain sample curriculum and
assessment guides for separate and integrated developmental reading and writing
courses.
McKusick and McPhail (2012) advocate the use of learning communities,
particularly to restructure curriculum. When teachers collectively work towards
rethinking organizational practices and structures, they are able to make
connections to their colleagues and ultimately with their students. The activity
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 187
helps to promote cognitive learning (McKusick & McPhail, 2012) that benefits
both the teacher and the learner.
As evidenced in the Minnesota Community College System (1992-94), there
was a paradigm shift when teachers underwent the collaborative process to create
their teaching handbook, “Community of Classrooms: A Handbook for Preparing
Students for Reading and Writing in College.” The English department faculty
engaged in active learning, building consensus, and problem solving to produce a
standard instructional guide. According to the research findings, the English
faculty members cited experiencing growing pains during the redesign of course
curriculum and teaching practices. After engaging in the process, Minnesota
Community College faculty members learned to think about their teaching from a
different vantage point—part of a whole interconnected to a larger whole. They
were able to break the literal and figurative isolation of classroom teaching
because of the collaborative exercise of developing the Handbook. The process
enabled them to establish learning communities. Consequently, recommending
the latter process to address the knowledge and skills domains for Hurston
English teachers is a viable solution, which may produce a similar outcome.
A second ancillary recommendation to increase teachers’ factual knowledge
of teaching is to provide information to new teachers as to the common set of
competencies that they should have to effectively teach developmental English
courses at Hurston College. To encourage periodic self-reflection of teachers’
factual knowledge, particularly, new teachers, the department could have
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 188
instructors maintain a teaching reflection journal to address key topics of teaching
and learning. The department could encourage faculty to share their reflections,
highlighting what they have learned and need to know to improve their
instructional practices with regard to meeting the learning objectives and specific
student demographics via a departmental blog or at designated department
meetings (Alexander et al., 2012). With this approach, the guide would serve
multiple objectives with regard to promoting information, serving as a job aid,
and training document—three of the strategies enumerated by Clark and Estes
(2002) —to improve teachers’ performance.
Conceptual knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) indicate that
conceptual knowledge comprises knowledge of categories, classifications,
relationships between and among them, schemas, mental models, and implicit or
explicit theories in different cognitive psychological models. The authors assert
that “these schemas, models, and theories represent the knowledge an individual
has about how a particular subject matter is organized and structured, how the
different parts or bits of information are interconnected and interrelated in more
systematic manner, and how these parts function together” (p. 48).
The data validated that Hurston English teachers’ lack knowledge of the
principles of learning. The learning domain, as noted in Chapter Two, is
important in serving the needs of diverse students. Having knowledge of subject
content is only part of effective instruction; it is equally important to know and
honor how students learn, particularly with regard to building knowledge.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 189
Building knowledge requires teachers to recognize that students enter courses
with pre-existing knowledge, skills, and competencies that influences how they
filter and interpret incoming information (Ambrose et al., 2010). Teachers need
to be knowledgeable about how learning works and to connect course content to
students’ prior knowledge and experiences (Ambrose et al., 2010; Davis, 2009;
Mayer, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Consequently, the solutions provided to address
Hurston College English teachers’ lack of knowledge are framed from effective
strategies for gaining an understanding of student learning delineated in Chapter
Two and are reinforced in the first recommendation of having Hurston faculty
members improve upon their Master Teacher Guide.
To increase teacher’s knowledge and application of learning principles, it
is recommended that Hurston English teachers conduct a prior knowledge
assessment to target an appropriate challenge level (Ambrose et al., 2010). By
incorporating an assessment tool to gauge the extent and nature of students’ prior
knowledge, Hurston English teachers can measure students’ strengths and
weaknesses in order to better target their practice at the appropriate level of the
learners in their classes rather than on where they expect students to be. With this
knowledge, the teachers can devise lessons and performance assessments that can
aid in determining what students actually know or can do. The latter solution is
grounded in the principles of information processing, which involves a focus on
internal cognitive events and processes during learning (Rueda, 2011). Moreover,
this approach addresses the longstanding concern that Rueda (2011) describes
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 190
with regard to the instructional dimension, emphasizing how to teach more so
than what should be taught and how it should be assessed.
Procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge means knowing how to
do something, including the process, sequence, or series of steps, and the criteria
used to determine when to use various procedures (Anderson & Krathwohl,
2001). It is the knowledge of procedures, which collectively includes: skills,
algorithms, techniques, and methods (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
Since the data validated the cause that Hurston English teachers lack
training to teach developmental English, including to identify and to diagnose
student learning problems and to teach diverse learners using appropriate
instructional techniques, it is recommended that English faculty receive training
in these areas.
Currently, the department’s Master Teacher Guide and annual publication
of Say the Word are used to introduce teachers to “what” should be taught for
each course in the developmental English sequence. Components of the Guide
and Say the Word are grounded in best practices research (McKusick & McPhail,
2012; McLaughlin et al, 1992). Say the Word is an anthology of students work to
teach and evaluate writing, is on par with the literature and should be universally
adopted by faculty. Theoretical and best-practices research have hypothesized
that certain pedagogical techniques—such as active, or constructivist learning, in
which students play a critical role in facilitating and evaluating their own
learning—provide promising methods for classroom instruction.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 191
Since the literature revealed that there are no commonly shared standards
as to what constitutes college-level writing (Sullivan, 2003), the benefit of using
the anthology is that it enables inexperienced and new teachers the opportunity to
form learning communities surrounding localized writing challenges of students
enrolling at their institution and the ability to develop commonly shared sets of
standards. In addition, it would enable teachers to understand how to teach
writing and how to engage students in the writing process (Rueda, 2011),
considering the connections and distinctions among speech, writing, and reading
in order to understand the nature of writing: how it may be taught and to identify
the skills that are implied in the ability to write.
To demonstrate the effectiveness of the latter solution while also helping
some teachers’ increase their procedural knowledge, it is recommended that the
English department faculty identify additional research-based strategies that can
be used to help teachers identity and apply specific strategies – the “how”—to
teach the content. Hurston English teachers need to receive specific training on
said strategies. Clark and Estes (2002) suggest that when people need to know
how to do things or demonstration, training is appropriate. Rueda (2011) suggests
that the training not only address how to do things but also why and when with
regard to specific instructional strategies. Consequently, it is also recommended
that the training provided to Hurston English teachers include discussions on the
conditions for which specific recommended strategies are appropriate for the
diverse student learners and demographics enrolling at the institution.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 192
Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory posits that people learn from one
another via observation, imitation, and modeling. A significant principle of
Bandura’s theory is that the highest level of observational learning is achieved by
first organizing and rehearsing the modeled behavior symbolically and then
enacting it overtly. As a result, when people are shown how to do something via
modeling, they are more likely to replicate it; the more it is replicated results in
better retention than simply observing (Bandura, 1977). Ambrose et al. (2010)
suggest that when people are given multiple opportunities to practice and receive
feedback, they are likely to increase their knowledge and skills. “Goal-directed
practice coupled with targeted feedback [is] critical to learning” (Ambrose et al.,
2010, p. 125).
Thus, the solution for Hurston is that their English teachers be given
training and multiple opportunities to practice in order to build their expertise. By
engaging in this activity, inexperience and seasoned Hurston College English
instructors will be exposed to techniques grounded in the principles of social
cognitive theory, whereby the focus will be on reciprocal determinism, or
dynamic interactions of person (beliefs, values, attitudes, cognitions) (Rueda,
2011). They can use instructional faculty and effective sample lessons as credible
models to help inexperienced and stagnant teachers cope with teaching and
learning problems. Also, through this exercise, inexperienced teachers in the
department can employ observational learning and acquire accurate and task-
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 193
specific feedback (Rueda, 2011) with regard to their practice of identifying and
building knowledge from experienced members of the department.
In their empirical studies on faculty as learners, Eddy and Mitchell (2011)
and Johnson (2012) found benefits in having teachers work in teams to identity
and address gaps in their curriculum as it relates to student learners moving
through course topics in a subject sequence. They found that providing teachers
opportunities to collaboratively plan, experiment, review, and discuss students’
work resulted in greater achievement gains. Johnson (2012) concludes that
enabling teachers to work closely with teams of teachers afforded teachers the
chance to learn, grow, and contribute to a school.
Solutions for Motivation Causes
The literature indicates that people seek out optimal stimulation and
challenging activities and find these activities intrinsically motivating because
they have a basic need for competence (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It also asserts that
intrinsic motivation is maintained only when people feel competent and self-
determined (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Overall, the survey and interview data results
support these latter theoretical statements and show that Hurston English teachers
are intrinsically motivated to teach English, in general. They also value
opportunities to engage with colleagues on issues related to teaching, learning,
and assessing developmental English. In fact, many of them exert extra effort to
build connections and learning communities within their department.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 194
The data results also provide additional clarity as to potential causes of
faculty members’ resistance to departmental curricular guidelines and standards
for the developmental English program while confirming many of the
observations and conclusions presented in the knowledge and skills results
section. As a result, the gaps in motivation stem primarily from perceived
contextual and structural factors that may significantly impede overall group
efficacy, namely due to respondents’ varyingly low perceptions of departmental
and institutional support for English faculty. The new motivational cause
discovered during the data analysis concerns lack of engagement within the
English department.
Based upon motivation theory and research, the recommended knowledge
and skills solutions will go a long way towards improving the motivational
domains of English instructors, particularly with regard to their lack of
engagement. The knowledge solutions that involve collaboration help to dispel
faculty isolation and inclusion in decision-making as they concern developmental
English: curriculum, course design, textbook selection, instruction, and
assessment; they also embed training and professional development for new and
inexperienced teachers. Creating the opportunity to have teachers actively
participate in developing, monitoring, and assessing developmental English
programs could increase their level of competence, well-being, and relatedness—
thereby increasing their level of effort and persistence to achieve tasks. However,
Rueda (2011) asserts that the causes of performance issues do not rest solely on
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 195
what teachers know or do, and therefore it is important that when solutions are
offered to address issues of motivation, it is recognized that “motivation issues
can be due to a variety of causes, and should not be seen as a one-dimensional
phenomenon” (p. 48). Consequently, it is anticipated that the solutions
recommended to address the validated motivational dynamics at Hurston College
will produce incremental change. Table 5.3 presents a summary of the validated
motivational causes.
Table 5.3
Summary of Validated Motivation Causes
Motivation
• Lack importance value in department activities
• Lack of engagement
Goals Motivate and Direct Teachers. A goal is “something that the person
wants to achieve” (Rueda, 2011, p. 43). Goals play a role in motivating behavior,
particularly with regard to their characteristics.
According to Rueda (2011), goals motivate and direct teachers just as they
do students. Consequently applying the principles of Ambrose et al. (2010) to the
act of teaching, one concludes: teaching, like learning, is best fostered when
teachers engage in practice that focuses on a specific goal or criterion, targets an
appropriate level of challenge, and is of sufficient quantity and frequency to meet
the performance criteria. Having a specific goal enables one to engage in practice
as well as monitor one’s progress to achieve said goal (Ambrose et al. , 2010).
Social cognitive theory characterizes goals by how current (proximal), concrete
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 196
(specific), and challenging they are (Locke & Latham, 2002 as cited in Rueda,
2011). As a result, people may give up on pursuing their goal because the goal is
too vague, they are unclear as to what needs to be done to make progress towards
it, or because the goal seems too difficult to accomplish as a whole (Rueda, 2011).
To address the validated motivation cause concerning teachers’ low
perception of departmental and institutional support, it is recommended that the
English department and college educate the faculty concerning its mission and
objectives for improving developmental English outcomes—provide clear goals.
Once the goals for developmental English are disseminated, a concrete
institutional and departmental plan can be communicated with regard to the
resources and support available to help ensure instructors can accomplish the
goals.
The educational efforts could include publicizing and promoting the
opportunities available for faculty to engage in professional development through
a grant from Achieving the Dream (AtD) and Faculty Learning Academy
(Hurston College English Department artifact). English faculty who participle in
these professional development opportunities could share what they learned at
department meetings, highlighting and explaining how the information and
strategies presented at a given professional development event could be used to
help the department and campus achieve its developmental English program
objectives and mission.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 197
By adopting the latter solution, Hurston English faculty members will be
applying design principles of motivation with regard to goal-directed behavior.
Two such design principles that are incorporated in this recommendation as cited
from Rueda (2011, p. 40), include:
• Use organizational and management structures that encourage
personal and social responsibility and provide a safe, comfortable,
and predictable environment
• Use cooperative and collaborative groups to allow for
opportunities to attain both social and academic goals
The recommended approach to address the validated motivational cause will
enable Hurston College to be context-specific with regard to the specific situation
and dynamics currently at work at the college (Rueda, 2011), and specifically to
improve teacher perceptions. The data show that some English teachers operate
to encourage personal and social responsibility with regard to creating a learning
community around the common exam and participate in department and campus
organized opportunities geared to support individual and collective growth. As
Rueda (2011) states “…Two people experiencing the identical conditions or
events can have very difference perceptions with resulting motivational
consequences” (p. 48). Hence, the latter is ideal because it does not “solve” a
motivational problem but rather addresses a perceived condition (Rueda, 2011).
The data validated a second motivational cause with regard to lack of
engagement, and the recommended solution provided to address the first validated
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 198
motivational cause is appropriate to address the level of engagement. As stated in
the engagement literature, the level of involvement and immersion in an activity
or task figures prominently with regard to teacher motivation (Rueda, 2011).
Solutions for Organization Causes
A synthesis of the organizational data shows that the causes that may be at
work are more complex than they appear. Though faculty perceived contextual
and structural problems as primary causes for the challenges they encounter
achieving course learning goals, the data also suggest that the causes reflect their
lack of collegial participation in institutionally adopted strategies geared to
improving student outcomes. There was a general feeling among Hurston English
teachers that they are not included in the decision-making process or are not
knowledgeable of the instructional decisions for developmental English courses.
In addition, the literacy level of students enrolling at the institution was described
as playing a significant role in the achievement of learning outcomes. There are
varying levels of motivation and mental effort on some instructors’ part to seek
and understand the what, how, when, and why of teaching English at Hurston
College. The assumed causes that were validated by the data are lack of
consistency with regard to evaluating faculty and a lack of a system for faculty to
interact and discuss processes that require specialized knowledge, skills, and
motivation to operate successfully.
Although effective teaching is essential, it is not sufficient to maximize
achievement for all students. Research supports what most of us see as common
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 199
sense: what goes on between the teacher and each student is central to high‐ level
learning. Nevertheless, all teaching is more effective when effectively supported.
Consequently, achieving the goal of improving instruction requires a supportive
and aligned system to move students through the developmental English
sequence. This system requires that teachers be supported by instructional and
organizational leadership to consistently develop, maintain, and enhance effective
instruction (Murray, 2001).
Recognizing that community colleges, themselves, have the responsibility
for supplementing inadequate graduate training programs, the professional
development opportunities needed to support the learning environment for
Hurston English teachers are huge and will not be met with traditional workshops
or unfocused staff development days (flex days). Therefore, it is recommended
that Hurston English instructors collaboratively modify the Master Teacher
Guide, re-examining established learning objectives, selected textbooks for each
course in the sequence, and shared instructional practice standards. The
recommended exercise will ensure that Hurston English teachers understand and
teach to specified developmental learning outcomes for each course in the
sequence and will also introduce inexperienced teachers to effective instructional
practices.
Research has shown that when faculty members are able to make
connections and participate in the design and implementation, the programs are
more effective (Murray, 2001). In addition Eddy and Mitchell (2011) found that
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 200
when encouraging and creating opportunities for faculty members to collaborate
helped reinvigorate faculty members in the conduct of their teaching, bring back
passion to their work.
Hurston English teachers, particularly new and inexperienced instructors,
will need time and a safe environment to practice and develop the skills of
effective instruction. They will need time for reflection with their peers in order
to make the best practices part of their repertoire of skills. Fortunately, most of
them value, expect, and welcome meaningful professional development that is
directly related to their work, is based on current research and best practices, and
meets their individual needs (Eddy & Mitchell, 2011; Murray, 2001).
Faculty interaction and discussions leads to faculty growth and
development (Eddy & Mitchell, 2011; Kozeracki, 2005). Since it has been
documented in the literature and at Hurston College that department staff
meetings are business-oriented—often not well-attended—and do not allow for
discussions of pedagogy, faculty development discussions are more likely to take
place at dedicated sessions, such as organized roundtables, or through meetings of
instructors who teach the same course. These workshops or roundtables
developed by instructors and presented to their colleagues can be extremely useful
(Kozeracki, 2005). In the secondary school system, it has been determined that
using authentic online classroom teaching demonstrations to expose faculty to
different instructional strategies, including culturally responsive and constructivist
teaching has produced measurably growth in teachers’ instructional practices.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 201
Hence, the latter activity coupled with the collaborative exercise of Hurston
English faculty members enhancing the Master Teacher Guide can lead to
changes in instruction as well as in the cultural dynamic at work within the
English Department.
Another recommendation is to provide departmental support for faculty-
led group grading of Hurston’s developmental English common exams as an
activity in lieu of a regular departmental meeting. By encouraging this type of
activity to be scheduled once or twice a semester, the department will not only
foster professional development but also foster an environment where effective,
coherent, focused, and relevant faculty development may occur (Eddy & Mitchell,
2011; Murray, 2001). These activities may also support and boost faculty morale
as they are linked to institutional and departmental priorities (Eddy & Mitchell,
2011; Murray, 2001). In addition, it is recommended that the department reward
and acknowledge faculty members’ past efforts to maintain it. The common
grading activity was described as a valuable and worthwhile professional
development opportunity that enabled instructors to reflect on their individual
expectations, instructional approaches, and assessment skills in relation to their
colleagues. Moreover, the activity was credited with helping instructors align
their instructional expectations and behavior with that of their colleagues and to
the standard learning outcomes.
Kozeracki (2005) asserts that professional development activities like the
one described are highly regarded by new faculty, though they tend not to be
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 202
scheduled regularly. Murray (2001) contends that if faculty development is to be
successful, instructors must have primary responsibility for the programs.
Consequently, it is also recommended that the department and the college survey
its faculty to learn about their development needs and then to support and
encourage faculty to participate in local conferences sponsored by university or
college consortia (Kozeracki, 2005). These low-cost sessions provide faculty
with opportunities for networking and gaining fresh perspectives. Murray (2001)
found that intentionally focused professional development was more effective
than randomly grouped collections of activities.
Implementation
As noted, performance goals can be achieved through enhancements to
education, training, job aids, and information. Ideally the aforementioned
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational solutions would be
implemented independently and in sequential order to improve the job
performance of Hurston English instructors in moving students through the
developmental English sequence. The implementation plan would begin with the
knowledge and skills solutions, particularly the enhancements to the Hurston
English Department Master Teacher Guide followed by faculty training on the
Guide. Training on the Guide would be performed over the summer in order for
implementation of the Guide to occur during the academic year: pilot testing of
the enhanced Guide in the fall semester and full launch of it in the spring
semester. The latter activity would be followed by intentionally focused training
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 203
and learning community workshops conducted throughout the academic year that
are orchestrated and facilitated by faculty teams involved in modifying the Guide.
However, since faculty members do not receive compensation for work over the
summer, implementing the recommended solutions would have to take place over
the academic year through institutionally scheduled professional development
events and a pre-planned departmentally themed schedule of events geared to
improve developmental English outcomes.
To kick-off the implementation of the solutions proposed in Table 5.4, it is
recommended that English faculty at Hurston Community College begin
integrating the KMO solutions during the campus’ semi-annual flex day. Flex
days are special days in the academic calendar designed exclusively for
professional development activities (Hurston website). Usually Flex Days are at
the beginning of each semester. They include one or more days of workshops and
one day of convocation and division/department gatherings each semester. All
full-time and adjunct faculty members have a Flex obligation. The Flex
obligation is the total number of hours that must be spent participating in
professional development activities. Attendance at convocations and
division/department gatherings that follow convocations are mandatory for full-
time faculty only. For all other staff, attendance is encouraged but not
mandatory.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 204
Flex day is ideal because it encourages and promotes opportunities for
teachers to actively participate in discussions, training, and workshops linked to
the instructional and departmental mission of improving student success
outcomes. Hence, the motivational and organizational implementation of the
following solutions would be significantly helped during a single flex-day event:
• Create opportunities for teachers to actively participate in developing,
monitoring, and assessing developmental English programs (motivation)
• Communicate to English faculty concerning institutional and departmental
mission and objectives for improving developmental English outcomes
(motivation)
• Publicize and promote the opportunities available for faculty to engage in
professional development (motivation)
• Organize dedicated departmental meetings for English instructors to
discuss pedagogy (organization)
Several times during each semester—at coordinated campus and
department meetings and in campus newsletters and departmentally published
communications, leadership stakeholders could acknowledge and showcase
faculty who are participating in campus-sponsored professional activities
designed to improve instructional expertise, curriculum, and student outcomes
for developmental English. Initially and ideally, the communication could be
disseminated at key milestones in teachers’ collaborative development and
implementation of the Master Teacher Guide. With this approach, the needed
communication concerning institutional and departmental mission and
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 205
objectives for improving developmental English outcomes could be conveyed
and reemphasized to all stakeholders.
Since the findings indicate that Hurston English instructors enumerated
significant teaching and learning benefits from participating in collaboratively
administering and grading common developmental exams, the implementation
plan includes a re-launch of this activity. Hurston College could support
teachers’ effort and commitment to engage in this activity by acknowledging
and showcasing them in campus communications, as well.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 206
Table 5.4
Summary of Causes, Solutions, and Solution Implementation
Knowledge & Skills Motivation Culture/Context/
Capital/Policy
Causes
• Factual: identify and
diagnose learning problems
• Factual: appropriate
instructional techniques
• Conceptual: principles of
learning
• Procedural: training to teach
dev. Engl.
• Low perception of dept. and
institutional support
• Lack of engagement
• Lack of consistency with
regard to evaluating faculty
• Lack a system for faculty to
interact and discuss
processes that require
specialized knowledge,
skills, and motivation to
operate successfully
Solutions
• Job aids
• Training
• Information
• Help increase teachers’ level
of competence
• Provide clear and attainable
goals
• Use cooperative and
collaborative groups to allow
for opportunities to attain both
social and academic goals
• Promote group efficacy and
value
• Promote a supportive and
aligned system to help
teachers move students
through the developmental
Engl. sequence
• Provide time and a safe
environment for Engl.
instructors to reflect with
their peers and to develop
the skills of effective
instruction
• Create a professional
development plan that
utilizes job aids, training,
and information
• Provide support for Engl.
instructors to participate in
common grading activities
Implementation
• Create job aid: Modify
Master Teacher Guide for
Engl. 21 and 28
• Provide information on
evidence-based strategies and
common set of competencies
to effectively teach dev.
Engl. courses at Hurston
• Develop sample curriculum
and assessment guides,
including a prior knowledge
assessment tool to gauge
students’ prior knowledge
• Provide information
concerning conditions for use
of recommended
instructional strategies
• Train inexperienced teachers
in order to build expertise
• Provide accurate and task-
specific feedback
• Create opportunities for
teachers to actively participate
in dev. Engl. programs
• Communicate to English
faculty concerning
institutional and departmental
mission and objectives for
improving dev. Engl.
outcomes
• Publicize and promote the
opportunities available for
faculty to engage in prof. dev.
• Acknowledge and showcase
faculty who participate at
department meetings, having
them highlight instructional
benefits of participating in PD
with regard to dev. Engl.
program objectives
• Organize dedicated
departmental meetings for
Engl. instructors to discuss
pedagogy
• Support faculty in their
efforts to engage in group
grading of common
developmental exams
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 207
English Instructor Cascading and Performance Goals
In order for Hurston English instructors to improve outcomes in moving
students the developmental English sequence, the aforementioned solutions will
need to be translated into performance goals. Performance goals are clear,
concrete, current, and challenging objectives that a stakeholder may achieve in a
relatively short time. As noted, data validated gaps in teachers’ knowledge and
skills to design and assess appropriate course-level assignments to meet student
learning objectives. Consequently, even when the teachers are knowledgeable of
the learning objectives, they lacked consistency or effectiveness with regard to
applying said knowledge and skills. Therefore it is important to focus on four
concrete goals and to set intervals that can be monitored to measure progress.
Goals that can be completed within days or weeks are more likely to be
accomplished than goals that require months or years (Meece, Pintrich, & Schunk,
2009). Hence, long-term goals that require several months or years to complete
need to be broken down into short-term daily or weekly task-goals in hierarchical
order to ensure a greater likelihood of being accomplished. Based upon the
proposed implementation plan and Hurston College’s organizational goal, Table
5.5 present a sampling of Hurston English teachers cascading and performance
goals.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 208
Table 5.5
Organizational, Cascading, and Performance Goals for Developmental English
Hurston College’s Organizational Goal for Developmental English
• All learners progress through the developmental English sequence
Stakeholder Cascading Goal I
• All teachers will teach 100 % of the content with 100% effective methods
Stakeholder Cascading Goal II
• English teachers collaboratively modify the Master Teacher Guide for
English 21
Stakeholder Cascading Goal III
• English teachers participate in training on purpose and effective use of
Teacher Guide
Stakeholder Cascading Goal IV
• English teachers will use strategies in the Teacher Guide, sample lessons
and assessments, to provide content-area instruction
As the table illustrates, Hurston College’s organizational goal for
developmental English is that “all learners progress through the developmental
English sequence.” To meet the organizational goal, the departmental goal of “all
teachers will teach 100% of the content with 100% effective methods” would
need to be met, as well. In order to accomplish both organizational and
departmental goals, intermediate goals would need to be achieved that correspond
with the implementation plan, specifically with regard to the development of the
Master Teacher Guide. It is anticipated that the modifications to Hurston’s
current Master Teacher Guide would take be completed over two-months through
bi-weekly three-hour working group meetings. Participants could be assigned
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 209
tasks, such as developing sample unit lessons and assessment instruments outside
of the work-groups. The sample curriculum would then be brought to the
working group sessions for discussion with regard to evidence-based strategies
and competencies needed to effectively teach the unit, conditions for use of
recommended instructional strategies, and accurate and task-specific feedback on
the curricular unit and assessment guide.
Once the Master Teacher Guide has been finalized, the English faculty
working group would need to commence training colleagues on the purpose and
use of the Guide at regularly scheduled departmental meetings for the remainder
of the semester, approximately two months.
During the spring semester, all developmental English instructors will be
expected to use strategies in the Teacher Guide, sample lessons and assessments,
to provide content-area instruction. By having all developmental English
instructors utilize the Teacher Guide, the English department will be able to
measure and monitor its performance towards its developmental English goal.
Table 5.6 provides a break-down of short-term task-goals of the
developmental English performance goals and their unit of goal measure.
Utilizing the performance goals and its corresponding goal measure will enable
on-going monitoring opportunities to determine Hurston’s progress toward its
developmental English goal.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 210
Table 5.6
Hurston English Teachers’ Performance Goal and Measurement
Developmental English Teachers’
Performance Goal
Goal Measure
• Teach 100 % of the student learning
outcomes by the 12
th
week of the
semester
• Utilize evidenced-based strategies
and lessons
• Master Teacher Guide
• Lesson Plans
• Course Syllabi, including
schedule of assignments
• Formulate course-specific (English
21/28) faculty learning
communities at fall Flex day that
meets twice a month during the fall
semester of the academic year
• Conduct bi-weekly roundtables to
enable teachers to engage in follow-
up discussions geared to build
expertise and address teaching and
learning concerns
• Student outcomes
• Teachers’ Journal Reflections
• Sample lessons created as a
result of the faculty learning
communities and implemented
in the classroom
• Students’ evaluation/feedback
concerning the lessons
• Implement at least one 30-minute
assessment tool to gauge and build
upon students’ knowledge to better
target instruction
• Assessment activities
• Master Teacher Guide
• Students’ evaluation/feedback
concerning the assessment
• Student outcomes on
assessment reports
• Conduct bi-weekly assessment of
developmental English topics
covered during weeks 2 through 10
• Student outcomes as the relate
to course student learning
outcomes (SLO)
• Master Teacher Guide
• Administer departmental common
exam for developmental English
during week 13 of the semester
• Group grading
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 211
After the Master Teacher Guide has been developed and all instructors
have been trained to use the Guide, the following task goals will serve to ensure
effective implementation and monitoring of the department’s progress. To
monitor English instructors’ progress in teaching 100% of the student learning
outcomes by the 12
th
week of the semester, the working group team(s) could first
determine if all the developmental English instructors are utilizing the Master
Teacher Guide. To do so, the working group could examine a sampling of
instructor developed instruments, including course syllabi, lessons plans, and
schedule of assignments. In addition during the proposed follow-up bi-weekly
roundtables, instructors could report student outcomes with regard to course
SLOs, complete surveys concerning their use of the sample lessons, assessments
for weeks 2 through 10 topics, and recommended evidence-based strategies
provided in the Master Teacher Guide; further details concerning the use of the
survey to measure the latter performance goal is presented in Chapter Six.
The incremental tasks enumerated in Table 5.4 will culminate in the
administering of the departmental developmental English exam during week 13 of
the semester followed by English faculty members coming together to perform
the group grading activity.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 212
Summary
Chapter Five provides evidence-based solutions to address the validated
causes enumerated by Hurston College English instructors in moving students
through developmental English. Towards this end, the chapter addressed
solutions and presented an implementation plan to improve instructors’
knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational culture. If these
recommendations are adopted, measureable improvements in student success
outcomes should be evident in developmental English at Hurston College. In the
next chapter a method to evaluate the results of the implementation is proposed.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 213
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this mixed-method study project was to understand
Hurston Community College English instructors’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational challenges with regard to moving students through the
developmental English sequence. After examining and synthesizing the findings
enumerated by instructors, the second purpose of this study was to identify
solutions that instructors may implement at Hurston to steadily improve student
success outcomes. The research questions were:
1) What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges
English instructors must address in order to effectively move students
through the developmental English course sequence?
2) What are the recommended solutions to meet the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational challenges English faculty encounter
and how would one evaluate them?
The focus of this final chapter is to present a proposed evaluation and
discussion of this study project. Specifically, this chapter will provide a plan to
evaluate the recommended solutions using research-based evaluation strategies
followed by a description of the strengths and weaknesses of the study methods
and gap analysis framework as applied to addressing teachers’ moving students
through the developmental English sequence at Hurston College. In addition, the
chapter will describe the limitations of this study, provide ideas for future
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 214
research in order to address the challenges that community college English
teachers encounter.
Recommendations for Evaluation
While this study focused on English instructors at Hurston College, the
findings suggest that ultimately student outcomes will be a significant indicator in
measuring the implemented solutions. The implementation of the solutions
delineated to address the challenges Hurston English teachers encounter will help
to close the gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization. It is
recommended that the suggestions are implemented as soon as practically
possible, since none of the policies or procedures are new.
Kirkpatrick (2006) provides a four-level framework that may be used to
help Hurston College’s English department evaluate the effectiveness of the
solutions. Kirkpatrick’s (2006) model consists of four levels: reaction, learning,
behavior, and results.
Level 1: Reaction. This level evaluates reactions participants have
towards implementing a recommended solution. Consequently, Hurston English
instructors will be asked to complete a short Likert survey at specified intervals
during the semester, possibly at the third, ninth and twelfth weeks of the pilot
semester. The purpose would be to ascertain their reaction to working
collaboratively to modify the Master Teacher Guide for English and its impact on
teaching and learning. The survey would contain questions that measured their
motivation, values, emotional reactions, persistence and the overall impact of the
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 215
activity on their practice. The survey could also be administered after each
instructional day to evaluate whether they are using the Guide. Hence, the survey
would also include open-ended questions geared to understand what evidence-
based strategies the instructors are drawing on and how confident they are in
applying them in their instruction. If the solutions offered are being effective, the
survey results will indicate positive feedback from the instructors.
Level 2: Learning. The second level evaluates learning and
performance, specifically, the increase in knowledge and skills while the solutions
are being implemented. Hurston English instructors will be asked to identify
what they have learned through collaborating on the redesign of the Master
Teacher Guide and teaching topics using the sample lessons. They will also be
expected to adopt the standard learning outcomes, textbooks, assessment
instruments, and instructional approaches recommended in the Guide. The most
effective way to measure learning is through direct assessment rather than self-
report assessment (Rueda, 2011). To informal observations during the training
and brown bag workshop sessions could be used to infer learning. If the solutions
offered are effective, they will be evident in instructors’ course syllabus,
assignments, and assessment instruments produced during the collaborative work
meetings.
Level 3: Transfer. This level measures whether the recommended
solution transfers to practice. Even if the collaborative activity of modifying the
Master Teacher Guide is successful and learning occurred, will Hurston English
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 216
instructors utilize the Guide in their instruction? It is important to measure
behavior in intervals, because even when the instructors embrace a practice
wholeheartedly, their persistence can fade over time. To evaluate learning,
instructors will be asked to submit lessons that they have created on their own,
modeling the samples in the Guide, and to engage in practice demonstrations
during the workshops showing how they would deliver the lessons to students. If
the solutions offered are effective, there will be observable and measureable
differences evident in instructors’ knowledge and skills in designing lessons and
assessments and in their instructional practices.
Level 4: Impact. This level measures whether the organization makes
progress towards their organizational goal. This is how Hurston College’s English
department, and the college in general, determines if the solutions offered helped
close the gap in moving students through the developmental English sequence. If
the solutions offered are effective, Hurston College should see improvement in
student outcomes for developmental English.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Gap analysis as a methodological approach has strengths and weaknesses.
The strength of gap analysis is that it enabled the researcher to examine root
causes of teachers’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and the organizational
culture utilizing a clear, sequential, and comprehensive process. The approach
requires the researcher to employ a mixed-methodological approach to identify,
analyze and synthesize data from the perspective of a single stakeholder. This
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 217
helped the researcher to appropriately apply knowledge, motivation, and
organizational theories and principles to understand and address the validated
causes in order to recommend evidence-based solutions to address the problems.
Since gap analysis requires a comprehensive approach to address a
problem, there are weaknesses in the approach with regard to implementing the
solutions proposed for Hurston College. Implementation would require all
stakeholders to be involved and committed to address an identified performance
gap. Often, organizations are not willing to make the effort. Having diagnosed
root causes and proposed solutions, the critical question is whether the
organizational stakeholders, including union organizations, have the knowledge,
motivation, and resources to implement them.
District compensation policies and community college teacher union
contracts impact when English instructors can participate in paid curricular
development activities. As noted in the validated findings, the district and
department has cut the budget for English teachers to conduct group grading of a
departmental exam. Hence, instructors may not have significant support to
implement the major recommendation of collaboratively modifying the Master
Teacher Guide. Also, due to constraints in time and human resources, the English
instructors who most need to engage in the collaborative exercise of modifying
the Master Teacher Guide may not be able to consistently participate. In addition,
depending on the time that the activity is scheduled, participation of adjunct
instructors may be excluded from the process entirely. Consequently, the amount
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 218
of time and human resources required to effectively address, adopt, and monitor
progress may not be realistic. In addition, the findings may require solutions that
require Hurston College to commit greater investment in training and professional
development that may not be financially feasible for the institution to adopt or
sustain.
Limitations
This descriptive study is limited to an examination of one community
college within the Western Community College District, and therefore, is
generalizable only to the extent that it reflects similar problems that the readers of
this study perceive for their own institution. Additionally, academic preparation,
pedagogical training, and general knowledge and experience of the instructors,
along with the socioeconomic status, academic preparation, and ethnic diversity
of the students in the WCCD, may produce a unique study sample and thereby
limit in general the explicit patterns discovered. Given the tremendous variation
among institutions in terms of size, population served, and geographic location,
this approach makes sense. On the other hand, the localized nature of the research
makes it difficult to generalize findings across institutions and states or to assume
the transferability of findings in the case of qualitative research findings.
The researcher for this study is a member of the English faculty at a
community college within WCCD. Hence, the researcher needed to be sensitive
to his/her personal experiences and presumptions concerning how teachers
function in their ordinary pursuits. In addition, the researcher made assumptions
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 219
about the research sites’ compliance with the WCCD’s protocol for the adoption
of course curriculum and student learning outcomes for each course within the
developmental English sequence.
A major limitation for the researcher during this study was time. During
the analysis phase, the researcher discovered questions that could have been asked
during interviews to ascertain additional information concerning instructors’
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization. Hence, the researcher
uncovered flaws in the interview instrument. Also, due to the sequence of data
collection and time constraints, flaws in the observation protocol resulted in
missed opportunities to capture data that could have been incorporated to
effectively triangulate and validate knowledge and motivation domains.
Consequently, this study could be improved by incorporating additional time to
engage in follow-up activities. Specifically, after the researcher has transcribed
and analyzed portions of interview data and documented observations, the
researcher should schedule a follow-up meeting with participants to probe using a
supplemental set of questions geared to validating KMO causes and to clarify
observational notes.
Future Research
As noted, effective teaching in developmental education is one of the most
challenging jobs in the college teaching profession. Previous research findings as
well as findings in this study reveal that teaching college English requires
knowledge and skills beyond subject matter knowledge (Grubb, 1999; Bickerstaff
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 220
& Edgecombe, 2012). Therefore, conducting research about how community
college faculty members acquire the requisite knowledge and skills to teach and
what student outcomes occur because of their teaching approaches requires
further study. With the concern for accountability and the realization that there
are established strategies and techniques for instruction, examining the
circumstances that influence the effectiveness of teaching developmental English
is critical.
Community college teachers face challenges unique to their setting in an
open-access institution and unique to the demographics of the student population.
As a result, they need to enter the classroom prepared to teach developmental
English using effective instructional and assessment practices. Hence, further
research is needed to examine graduate preparation programs that prepare
instructors to teach in community college environments (Alexander et al., 2012;
Grubb, 1999). Also, more research is needed to examine the communal
environment where faculty and administration work closely to resolve issues,
particularly with regard to teaching and learning issues within departments
(Grubb, 1999; Gurung & Schwartz, 1999). Finally, further research is needed to
evaluate Hurston College’s implementation of the recommended solutions.
Conclusion
Hurston Community College is a comprehensive institution, located in an
urban, low-income, highly dense, metropolitan city. As noted, Hurston has the
lowest annual student enrollment but has the largest percentage of students
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 221
enrolling in basic skills in its district and the percentage of enrollment continues
to grow. These students are not successfully moving through the developmental
English course sequence to college level English. There is a need to figure out
how to help these students. Therefore, this study was conducted to understand the
challenge of practice. Specifically, the study employed gap analysis to identify
root causes as they relate to teachers’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational challenges with teaching English in such an environment. Even
though this study represents a single institution, the methodological approach can
be used to identify and address gaps at other institutions having the same problem.
It is the hope of the researcher that Hurston College will take the information and
suggestions in this study to heart and other institutions with similar problems will
do the same.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 222
References
Adelman C. (1996). The truth about remedial work: It’s more complex than
windy rhetoric and simple solutions suggest. Chronicle of Higher
Education 43: 56.
Adelman C. (1998). The kiss of death?: An alternative view of college
remediation. National Crosstalk 6: 11.
Alexander, A., Karvonen, M., Ulrich, J., Davis, T., Wade, A. (2012). Community
College Faculty Competencies. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 36: 11, 849-862, DOI: 10.1080/10668926.2010.515511
Allen, W. R., Jayakumar, U. M., & Franke, R. (2009). Till victory is won: The
African American struggle for higher education in California. CHOICES,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Altman HB, Cashin WE. IDEA paper No. 27: Writing a syllabus. Report No. HE
029 193. Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Manhattan Center for
Faculty Evaluation and Development in Higher Education; 1992. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 395- 539.
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M.W., Lovett, M.C., DiPietro, M., Norman, M.K. (2010).
How Learning Works: 7 Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ames, C. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. The Teachers College
Record, 91(3), 409-421.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 223
Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching,
and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives.
New York, NY: Longman Publishing.
Arendale, D. (1997). Supplemental Instruction (SI): Review of Research
Concerning the Effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-
Kansas City and Other Institutions from across the United States.
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED457797
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New Evidence on
College Remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 886-924.
Bahr, P. R. (2010). Revisiting the efficacy of postsecondary remediation: The
moderating effects of depth/breadth of deficiency. The Review of Higher
Education, 33(2), 177-205.
Bailey, T. (2008). Challenge and Opportunity: Rethinking the Role and Function
of Developmental Education in Community College. CCRC Working
Paper No. 14. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Bailey, T. (2009). Rethinking Developmental Education in Community College.
CCRC Brief No. 40. Community College Research Center, Columbia
University.
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of
developmental education in community college. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 2009(145), 11-30.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 224
Bailey, T., Jeong, D. W., & Cho, S. W. (2010). Referral, enrollment, and
completion in developmental education sequences in community
colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 255-270.
Bailey, T., & Morest, V. S. (2006). Defending the Community College Equity
Agenda. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2715 North Charles Street,
Baltimore, MD 21218.
Bain, J. D. (2000). Celebrating good teaching in higher education: Putting beliefs
into practice. In Biennial Conference of the Queensland branch of
HERDSA. HERDSA.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual
review of psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Banks, J. A., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W. D., Irvine, J. J., Nieto, S.,
Schofield, J.W, & Stephan, W. G. (2001). Diversity within unity: Essential
principles for teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Phi Delta
Kappan, 196-203.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 225
Bartholomae, D. & Petrosky, A. (1986). Facts, artifacts and counterfacts:
Theory and method for a reading and writing course. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook Publishers.
Bennett, C. (2001). Genres of research in multicultural education. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 171-217. Emphasis on 171-176.
Bensimon, E.M. & Dowd, A. (2007) Developing advising capacity for
Institutional transfer effectiveness. A proposal submitted to the William
and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
Bereiter, C. (1995). A dispositional view of transfer. Teaching for transfer:
Fostering generalization in learning, 21-34.
Bettinger E., Long B. T. (2005). Remediation at the community college: Student
Participation and outcomes. New Directions for Community Colleges 129:
17–26.
Bickerstaff, S., & Edgecombe, N. (2012). Pathways to Faculty Learning and
Pedagogical Improvement. Inside Out. Volume 1, Issue 3. Community
College Research Center, Columbia University.
Bland, C. J., & Risbey, K. R. (2006). Faculty development programs. Effective
Practices for Academic Leaders, 1(7), 1-16.
Boroch, D., Fillpot, J., Hope, L., Johnstone, R., Mery, P., Serban, A., & Gabriner,
R. S. (2007). Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in
California Community Colleges. Research and Planning Group for
California Community Colleges (RP Group).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 226
Boylan, H. R. (2002). What works: Research-based best practices in
developmental education. Boone, NC: Continuous Quality Improvement
Network with the National Center for Developmental Education.
Boylan, H. R., Bliss, L. B., & Bonham, B. S. (1997). Program components and
Their relationship to student performance. Journal of Developmental
Education, 20(3), 2-8.
Boylan H. R., Saxon D. P. (1999a). Remedial Courses: Estimates of Student
Participation and the Volume of Remediation in U.S. Community
Colleges. Boone, North Carolina: National Center for Developmental
Education.
Boylan, H. R., Saxon, D. P., White, J. R., and Erwin, A. “Retaining Minority
Students Through Developmental Education.” Research in Developmental
Education, 1994, 11(3), 1–4.
Boylan, H., Bonham, B., White, R., & George, A. (2000). Evaluation of college
reading and study strategies programs. In R. Flippo & D. Caverly (Eds.)
Handbook of college reading and study research (pp. 365-402). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
Boylan H. R., Saxon D. P. (1999b). Outcomes of Remediation. Boone, North
Carolina: National Center for Developmental Education.
Boylan, H. R., Saxon D. P., Boylan H. M. (1999). State Policies on Remediation
at Public Colleges and Universities. Boone, North Carolina: National
Center for Developmental Education.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 227
Boylan, H. R. Saxon, D. P., (2005). What Works in Remediation: Lessons from
30 years of Research.
http://www.ncde.appstate.edu/reserve_reading/what_works.htm.
Boylan, H.R., Shaws, G., Saxon, D. P., Materniak, G., Clark-Thayer, S., &
Rodriguez, L. (2001). Topics for training and professional development:
Report of a NADE survey, part II. Research in Developmental Education
16(4), 1-4.
Chung, C. J. (2005). Theory, Practice, and the Future of Developmental
Education. Journal of Developmental Education, 28 (3), 2-6, 8, 10, 32-33.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American Community College. The
Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 350
Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1997). “Knowledge, Skills, and Experiences for Teaching
Culturally Diverse Learners: A Perspective for Practicing Teachers.” In
J. Irvine (Ed.) Critical Knowledge for Diverse Learners and Teachers.
Washington: AACTE.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1999). Relationship of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. In A. Iran-Nejad & C. D. Pearson
(Eds.), Review of research in education (Vol. 24, pp. 249-306).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 228
Cochran-Smith, M., & Fries, K. (2005). Researching teacher education in
changing times: Politics and paradigms. Studying teacher education: The
report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education, 69-109.
Cohen, P. A., & McKeachie, W. J. (1980). The role of colleagues in the
evaluation of college teaching. Improving College and University
Teaching,28(4), 147-154.
Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., & Marine, R. J. (2002). Faculty Motivation To
Use Alternative Teaching Methods.
Collins, T, & Bruch, P. (2000). Theoretical frameworks that span the disciplines.
In D. B. Lundell & J. L. Higbee (Eds.), Proceedings of the first intentional
meeting on future directions in developmental education (pp. 19-22).
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education and Urban
Literacy.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). 2
nd
Ed. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting,
and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New Jersey:
Pearson Merrill
Davis B. G. (2009). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of
personal autonomy. GP Putnam's Sons.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of
behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 53(6), 1024.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 229
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination
research. University Rochester Press.
Diamond, R. M. Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical
guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1998. pp. 191–202.
Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Epaloose, G., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Standards
Performance Continuum: Development and validation of a measure of
Effective pedagogy. Journal of Educational Research, 96 (2), 78-89.
Doherty, R. W., Pinal, A. (2002, November). Joint productive activity, cognitive
reading strategies, and achievement. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the National Council of Teachers of English, Atlanta, GA.
Dowd, A. C. (2007). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving
beyond the access" saga" toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational
Review, 77(4), 407-419.
Dowd, A.C. & Tong, V.P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the
scholarship of “best practices”. Higher Education Handbook of Theory
and Research, Vol XXII, 57-119 (J.C. Smart, Ed). Springer.
Downey, C. J. (Ed.). (2004). The three-minute classroom walk-through:
Changing school supervisory practice one teacher at a time. Corwin
Press.
Dzubak, C, M. (2007, September). What Skills and Whose Standards: Why are
Students Underprepared? The Facilitating Newsletter of the Association of
the Tutoring Profession.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 230
Eddy, P. L., & Garza Mitchell, R. (2012). Faculty as learners: Developing
thinking communities. Innovative Higher Education, 37(4), 283-296.
Advance online first publication November, 2011. DOI: 10.1007/s10755-
011-9202-z
Edgecombe, N. D., Cormier, M. S., Bickerstaff, S. E., & Barragan, M. (2013).
Strengthening developmental education reforms: Evidence on
implementation efforts from the Scaling Innovation project.
Englert, C. S., Mariage, T., & Dusnmore, K. (2006). Tenets of socio-cultural
theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, &
J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The handbook of writing research (pp. 235-247). New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Estrada, P. (2000, October). Pedagogy, professional development and reading
performance in six linguistically diverse classrooms. Paper presented at
the UC ACCORD First Annual Conference on Education & Equity:
Research, Policy, & Practice, San Jose, CA.
Gallien, L. B. (2005). The historical and cultural context of educating African
American college students. Instructing and mentoring the African
American college student: Strategies for success in higher education,
3-15.
Gallimore, R., Goldenberg, C. (2001) Analyzing cultural models and settings to
Connect minority achievement and school improvement research.
Educational Psychologist, 36, 45-56. (Elaboration).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 231
Gallimore, R., Tharp, R. G. (1995). Teaching mind in society: Teaching,
schooling, and literate discourse. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and
education: Instructional implications and applications (pp. 175-205).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: theory, research, and practice.
New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct
validation.Journal of educational psychology, 76(4), 569.
Glau, G. R. (1996, March). Bringing them home: Arizona State University's new
model of basic writing instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Conference on College Composition and Communication,
Milwaukee, WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED403558).
Glau, G. R. (1996, March). Bringing them home: Arizona State University's new
model of basic writing instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Conference on College Composition and Communication,
Milwaukee, WI. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED403558).
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Fitzgerald, J. (2007). Best Practices in Writing
Instruction. New York: The Guilford Press.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 232
Greive, D. E. (2001). Adjunct/part-time faculty: A look at the future. Adjunct
Info: A Journal for Managers of Adjunct and Part-Time Faculty, 10(1),
1-3.
Grossman, P., & Reynolds, J. A. Ringstaff. C., & Sykes. G.(1985). From English
major to English teacher: New approaches to an old problem.
Grubb, W. N. (Ed.). (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in
community colleges. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
Grubb, W. N. (2001). From Black Box to Pandora’s Box: Evaluating
Remedial/developmental Education. New York, New York; Community
College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Grubb, N. (2001, April). Basic Principles for Basic Skills: Criteria for
Exemplary Approaches in Community Colleges. Paper presented at a
meeting of the Community College Cooperative, University of California,
Berkeley.
Grunert J. (1997). The course syllabus: a learning-centered approach. Boston:
Anker Publishing Co.
Gurung, R. A., & Daniel, D. (2006). Evidence-Based Pedagogy: Do Text-Based
Pedagogical Features Enhance Student Learning?. Best practices for
teaching introduction to psychology, 41.
Gurung, R. A., & Schwartz, B. M. (2009). Optimizing teaching and learning:
Practicing pedagogical research. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 233
Gurung, R. A., & Wilson, J. H. (2013). Advancing Scholarly Research on
Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Teaching and
Learning, 2013(136), 1-6.
Habanek D. V. (2005). An examination of the integrity of the syllabus. Col
Teach. 53:62–4.
Hardré, P. L. (2012). Community college faculty motivation for basic research,
teaching research, and professional development. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 36(8), 539-561.
Hardré, P. L., & Sullivan, D. W. (2008). Teacher perceptions and individual
differences: How they influence rural teachers’ motivating
strategies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2059-2075.
Haskell, R. E. (2001). Transfer of learning: Cognition, instruction and
reasoning. San Diego: Academic Press.
Higbee, J. L., Arendale, D. R., & Lundell, D. B. (2005). Using theory and
research to improve access and retention in developmental education. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2005(129), 5-15.
Hollon, R. E., Anderson, C. W., & Roth, K. J. (1991). Science teachers'
conceptions of teaching and learning. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in
Research on Teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 145-186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on
inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273-286.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 234
Hughes, K. L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2010). Assessing Developmental Assessment
in Community Colleges: A Review of the Literature. CCRC Working
Paper No. 19. Community College Research Center, Columbia University.
Jaggars, S., & Hodara, M. (2011). The opposing forces that shape developmental
education: Assessment, placement, and progression at CUNY community
colleges.
Jenkins, D. (2007). Institutional Effectiveness and Student Success: A Study of
High- and Low- Impact Community Colleges. Community College
Journal of Research and Practice, 31:12, 945-962.
Jia, Y., Eslami, Z. R., & Burlbaw, L. M. (2006). ESL teachers' perceptions and
factors influencing their use of classroom-based reading
assessment. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(2), 407-430.
Johnson G. R. (1995). First steps to excellence in college teaching. 3rd ed.
Madison, WI: Manga Publications, Inc; pp. 15–24.
Johnson, S.M. (2012). Having it both ways: building the capacity of individual
teachers and their schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82(1), 107-122.
Kaufman, A., & Dodge, T. (2009). Student perceptions and motivation in the
classroom: Exploring relatedness and value. Social Psychology of
Education,12(1), 101-112.
Kezar, A. J. (2005). Consequences of radical change in governance: A grounded
theory approach. The journal of higher education, 76(6), 634-668.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 235
Kozeracki, C. A. (2002). ERIC Review: Issutes-jin Developmental
Educarion.Community College Review, 29(4), 83-100.
Kozeracki, C. A. (2004). The socialization of community college instructors who
teach developmental English classes (Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles).
Kozeracki, C. (2005). Preparing Faculty to Meet the Needs of Developmental
Students. New Directions For Community Colleges, (129), 39-49.
Kroll, K. (2012, December). The End of the Community College English
Profession. TETYC. National Council of Teachers of English. Pp. 118-
128.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006).
What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Retrieved
March 25, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/npec/papers/asp.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1990, Spring). Culturally relevant teaching: Effective
instruction for Black students. College Board Review, 155, 20-25.
Latham, G. P. (2007). Work motivation: History, theory, research and practice.
Thousand Oaks , CA : Sage.
Levin, H. M., Catlin, D., Elson, A. (2010). Adolescent literacy programs: Costs of
implementation. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Levin, H. M., Calcagno, J. C. (May 2007). Remediation in the community
college: An evaluator’s perspective. Community College Research
Center, Working Paper No. 9. New York: Teachers College.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 236
Levin, H. M., & Calcagno, J. C. (2008). Remediation in the Community College
An Evaluator's Perspective. Community College Review, 35(3), 181-207.
Levine, J. H. (Ed.). (1999). Learning communities: New structures, new
partnerships for learning. (Monograph Series No. 26) Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resources Center for The First-
Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Lovejoy, K. (2003). Practical pedagogy for composition. In G. Smitherman &
V. Villanueva (Eds.). Language diversity in the classroom (pp. 89–108).
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of
writing research. Guilford Press.
Martinez-Wenzl, M., & Marquez, R. (2012). Unrealized promises: Unequal
access, affordability, and excellence at community colleges in southern
California.
Mattice, N. (1983). The Course-taking Patterns of Community College Students.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and
Theses database.
Mayer, R. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. Psychology of Learning and
Motivation, 41, 85-139.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Learning and instruction. 2
nd
Ed. New Jersey:
Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 237
McCabe R. H. (2003). Yes We Can!: A Community College Guide for
Developing America’s Underprepared. Phoenix, Arizona: League for
Innovation in the Community College.
McIntyre, E., Rosebery, A., Gonzalez, N. (2001). Classroom diversity:
Connecting curriculum to students’ lives. Westport, CT: Heinemann.
McIntyre, E., & Stone, N. J. (1998). Culturally contextualized instruction in
Appalachian-Descent and African-American classrooms. National
Reading Conference Yearbook, 47(1), 209-220.
McLaughlin, M. A., Price, P. T., & Shoultz, G. R. (1992). Whole language,
critical literacy and accountability. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 25(1), 29-39.
McClenney, K. M., & Marti, C. N. (2006). Exploring Relationships between
Student Engagement and Student Outcomes in Community Colleges:
Report on Validation Research. Working Paper. Community College
Survey of Student Engagement.
McKusick, D., McPhail, I.P. (2012). Walking the Talk: Using Learning-
Centered Strategies to Close Performance Gaps. In R. Hodges, M.L.
Simpson, & N.A. Stahl (Eds). Teaching Study Strategies in Developmental
Education: Readings on Theory, Research, and Best Practices. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 138-152.
Meece, J., Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2009). Motivation in education: theory,
research, and applications (3 uppl.).
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 238
Merisotis J. P., Phipps R. A. (2000). Remedial education in colleges and
universities: What’s really going on?. Review of Higher Education 24:
67–85.Milliron, M. D., & De Los Santos, G. E. (2004). Making the most
of community colleges on the road ahead. Community College Journal of
Research & Practice, 28(2), 105-122.
Milliron, M. D., & De Los Santos, G. E. (2004). Making the most of community
colleges on the road ahead. Community College Journal of Research &
Practice, 28(2), 105-122.
Milner, H. R., Flowers, L. A., Moore, E., Moore, J. L., & Flowers, T. A. (2003).
Preservice teachers' awareness of multiculturalism and diversity. The High
School Journal, 87(1), 63-70.
Minnesota Community College System. (1992-1994). Community of
Classrooms: A Handbook for Preparing Students for Reading and Writing
in College. A collaborative effort by reading and writing instructors
Minnesota Community Colleges. St. Paul: Minnesota Community College
System.
Moore, C., and Shulock, N. (2007). Beyond the open door: increasing student
success in the California Community Colleges. Institute for Higher
Education Leadership & Policy.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2009). Student progress toward degree completion:
Lessons from the research literature. California State University,
Sacramento, Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 239
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided We Fail: Improving Completion and
Closing Racial Gaps in California's Community Colleges. Institute for
Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
Moss, B. G., & Yeaton, W. H. (2006). Shaping policies related to developmental
education: An evaluation using the regression-discontinuity
design. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 215-229.
Murray, J. P. (2001). Faculty Development in Publicly Supported 2-Year
Colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 25: 487-
502.
Nation, J. R. (1997). Research Methods. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Noguera, P. A. (2001). Racial politics and the elusive quest for excellence and
equity in education. Education and Urban Society, 34(1), 18-41.
Offenstein, J., Shulock, N. (2011). Political and Policy Barriers to Basic Skills
Education in the California Community Colleges. American Behavioral
Scientist, 0002764210381872.
Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners. 5
th
Ed.
New Jersey: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Oudenhoven B. (2002). Remediation at the community college: Pressing issues,
Uncertain solutions. New Directions for Community Colleges 117: 35–44.
Padron, Y. N., Waxman, H. C. (1999). Classroom observations of the Five
Standards of Effective Teaching in urban classrooms with English
language learners. Teaching and Change, 7 (1), 79-100.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 240
Parkes J., Fix T. K., Harris, M. B. (2003). What syllabi communicate about
assessment in college classrooms. J Excell Col Teach. 14:61–83.
Patton, M., Q. (2002). 3
rd
ed. Qualitative research and evaluation methods.
California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Perin, D. (2002, April). The organization of developmental education: In or out
of academic departments? Community College Research Center Brief
(14).
Perin, D. (2002b). The location of developmental education in community
colleges: A discussion of the merits of mainstreaming vs.
centralization.Community College Review, 30(1), 27-44.
Perin, D. (2006). Can community colleges protect both access and standards? The
problem of remediation. The Teachers College Record, 108(3), 339-373
Perin, D., and Charron, K. (2006) “Lights Just Click on Every Day. In Bailey,
Thomas W. (Editor); Morest, Vanessa Smith (Editor). Defending the
Community College Equity Agenda. Baltimore, MD, USA: Johns
Hopkins University Press, p 155-194.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uscisd/Doc?id=10188457&ppg=172
Perin D., Keselman A., Monopoli M. (2003). The academic writing of community
College remedial students: Text and learner variables. Higher Education
45: 19–42.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 241
Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a
process approach to teaching writing. In Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., &
Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.).Best practices in writing instruction, 28-49.
Rendón, L. I. (2000). Fulfilling the promise of access and opportunity:
Collaborative community Colleges for the 21
st
century. New Expeditions:
Charting the Second Century of Community Colleges. Issues Paper No. 3.
American Association of Community Colleges: Washington, D. C. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 440 670).
Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the
study of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton
(Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt.
Richardson, R. C., Jr., & Bender, L. W. (1991). Fostering minority access and
Achievement in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Rovai, A. P., Gallien, L. B., & Stiff-Williams, H. R. (Eds.). (2007). Closing the
African American achievement gap in higher education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding
the right solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 242
Rueda, R., & Dembo, M. (2006). Rethinking learning and motivation in urban
schools. In J.L. Kincheloe, K. Hayes, K. Rose, & P.M. Anderson (Eds.),
The Praeger Handbook of Urban Education, Vol. 2. (pp. 217-226).
Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.
Roueche J. E., Roueche S. D. (1999). High Stakes, High Performance: Making
Remedial Education Work. Washington, D.C.: American Association of
Community Colleges.
Rovai, A. P, Gallien, L. B., Jr., & Stiff-Williams, H. R. (Eds). (2007). Closing
the African American achievement gap in higher education. (pp. 1-19).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Ryan, J. E. (1999). Schools, race, and money. Yale Law Journal, 249-316.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation
of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
psychologist, 55(1), 68.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (1992). Conceptions of teaching held by
academic teachers. Higher Education, 24(1), 93-111.
Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics' beliefs about
teaching and learning. Higher education, 41(3), 299-325.
Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (Eds.). (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance.
Academic Press.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 243
Saxon D. P., Boylan H. R. (2001). The cost of remedial education in higher
education. Journal of Developmental Education 25: 2–8.
Seymour, E., & Hewitt, N. M. Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave
the sciences, 1997. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Shaughnessy, M. (2001). Some new approaches toward teaching. In S. N.
Bernstein. Teaching Developmental Writing: Background Readings.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2-14.
Shulock, N., Moore, C., Ceja, M., & Lang, D. M. (2007). Beyond the open door:
Increasing student success in the California community colleges.
California State University Sacramento, Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy.
Simons, P. R. J. (1999). Transfer of learning: Paradoxes for learners.
International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 577-589.
Slattery J. M., Carlson, J. F. (2005). Preparing and effective syllabus: current best
practices. Col Teach. 53:159–64.
Smith, B. L. (1991). Taking structure seriously: The learning community model.
Liberal Education 77(2), 42-48.
Smitherman, G. (2003). The Historical Struggle for Language Rights in
CCCC." Language Diversity in the Classroom: From Intention to
Practice, ed. Geneva Smitherman and Victor Villanueva (Carbondale, IL:
Southern Illinois University Press, 2003), 7-39.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 244
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (Eds.). (2003). Language diversity in the
classroom: From intention to practice. SIU Press.
Smittle, P. (2001, October). Using research from successful developmental
education programs to develop successful developmental education
teachers. Paper presented at the 3
rd
National Conference on Research in
Developmental Education, Charlotte, NC.
Smittle, P. (2003). Principles for Effective Teaching. Journal of Educational
Research, 26 (3), 10-16.
http://ncde.appstate.edu/sites/ncde.appstate.edu/files/Principles%20for%2
0Effective%20Teaching.pdf
Soar, R. S. (1978). Problems in analyzing process-product relationships in studies
of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research, 160(4), 96-
116.
Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1997). Efficacy and experience: Perceptions of
efficacy among preservice and practicing teachers. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 30(4), 214-221.
Southard, A.H., Clay, J. "Measuring the effectiveness of developmental writing
courses". Community College Review. FindArticles.com. 02 Oct, 2010.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_2_32/ai_n8689907/
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 245
Sprouse, M., Ebbers, L. H., King, A. R., (2008). Hiring and Developing Quality
Community College Faculty. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 32:12, 985-998.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10668920701831159.
Stiff-Williams, H. R. (2007). The African American Achievement Gap. In
Rovai, A. P, Gallien, L. B., Jr., & Stiff-Williams, H. R. (Eds). Closing
the African American achievement gap in higher education. (pp. 1-19).
New York: Teachers College Press.
Stratton, C. B. (1998). Transitions in developmental education: Interviews with
Hunter Boylan and David Arendale. Developmental education: Preparing
successful college students, 25-36.
Sullivan, P. (2003). What Is" College-Level" Writing?. Teaching English in the
two-year college, 30(4), 374-90.
Tharp, R. G. (1994). Research knowledge and policy issues in cultural diversity
and education. In B. McLeod (Ed.), Language and learning: Educating
linguistically diverse students. (pp. 129-167). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and
principles for practice (Research Report No. 1). Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics and Center for Research on Education, Diversity,
and Excellence.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 246
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching
transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tharp, R. G., Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning,
and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Townsend, B. K., & Twombly, S. B. (2007). Community college faculty:
Overlooked and undervalued. Jossey-Bass Inc Pub.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing
and elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 783-805.
Venezia, A., Bracco, K. R., & Nodine, T. (2010). One shot deal? Students’
perceptions of assessment and course placement in California’s
community colleges. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Vogt, L. A., Jordan, C., Tharp, R. G. (1992). Explaining school failure,
producing school success: Two cases. In E. Jacob & C. Jordan (Eds.),
Minority education: Anthropological perspectives (Vol. 18, pp. 53-66).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
psychological processes (M. Cole & V. John-Steiner & S. Scribner & E.
Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallin, D. L. (2003). Motivation and faculty development: A three-state study of
presidential perceptions of faculty development needs. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 27(4), 317–335.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 247
Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1997). Classroom instruction and learning
Environment difference between effective and ineffective urban
elementary schools for African American students. Urban Education, 32
(1), 7-44.
Yair, G. (2000). Reforming motivation: How the structure of instruction affects
students’ learning experiences. British educational research
journal, 26(2), 191-210.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 248
Appendix A
Credit English Writing Basic Skills
Table 1.1: Credit English Writing Basic Skills by Volume, Percentage and
College
2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
College Total
Credit
Sections
Total
Credit
Basic
Skills
Sections
Percentage
of Basic
Skills
Total
Credit
Sections
Total
Credit
Basic
Skills
Sections
Percentage
of Basic
Skills
Total
Credit
Sections
Total
Credit
Basic
Skills
Sections
Percentage
of Basic
Skills
1 331 3 0.9% 362 3 0.8% 337 80 23.7%
2 452 140 31.0% 443 156 35.2% 308 101 32.8%
3 269 48 17.8% 237 37 15.6% 196 31 15.8%
4 164 62 37.8% 155 56 36.1% 130 45 34.6%
5 383 87 22.7% 393 88 22.4% 306 76 24.8%
6 359 161 44.8% 251 116 46.2% 159 69 43.4%
7 396 94 23.7% 377 84 22.3% 278 66 23.7%
8 -
Hurston
166 52 31.3% 154 58 37.7% 147 71 48.3%
9 220 30 13.6% 188 32 17.0% 173 43 24.9%
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 249
Appendix B
Hurston College English Course Sequence
BASIC SKILLS 2CE
Basic English Skills -
(Formerly Dev Com 21 & 23)
0 Units Non Credit
ENGLISH 101
College Reading & Composition 1
–
(Write short essays of 500 to 1000
words)
3 Units
ENGLISH 21
English Fundamentals –
(Write short essays of 150 to 300
words)
(NDA= Non Degree Applicable)
3 Units NDA
ENGLISH 28
Intermediate Reading &
Composition –
(Write short essays of 300 to 500
words)
3 Units
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 250
Appendix C
Pass Rate for Sequence of Developmental English
Table 1.2: Pass Rate for Sequence of Developmental English through College
English for Fall 2005- Spring 2008 Cohort
2005
Starters
2005
Repeaters +
Starters Completers Percentage Percentage
English-Writing Total
308
366
20
6.5% 5.5%
African Americans 252 24 16 6.3% 4.4%
American Indian/Alaskan
Native 2 1 0 0.0% 0.0%
Asian
2 1 1 0.3% 0.3%
Hispanic
43 3 3 1.0% 0.8%
Unknown
9 2 0 0.0% 0.0%
Table 1.3: Pass Rate for Sequence of Developmental English through College
English for Fall 2008-Spring 2011 Cohort
2008
Starters
2008
Repeaters +
Starters Completers Percentage Percentage
English-Writing Total
401 463 21 5.2% 4.5%
African Americans 335 392 9 2.7% 1.9%
American Indian/Alaskan
Native 1 1 0 0.0% 0.0%
Asian
135 155 8 2.0% 1.7%
Hispanic
26 27 1 0.2% 0.2%
Unknown
34 37 2 0.5% 0.4%
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 251
Appendix D
English Instructor Appraisal Inventory
This questionnaire is designed to help us gain a better understanding of developmental English
teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational challenges concerning the gap in student outcomes
for developmental English and to identify solutions that they may implement to steadily improve these
outcomes. Your answers will be kept strictly confidential and will not be identified by name.
Please rate yourself on the following knowledge from 1 to 6 using the scale below:
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. I know how to teach diverse learners using appropriate
instructional techniques.
2. I know the student learning objectives for the developmental
English courses that I teach.
3. I know how to identify student learning problems.
4. I know the current research-based instructional practices for
teaching developmental English.
5. I know how to motivate students who show low interest in my
course.
6. I know how to give constructive feedback to help students with
their writing.
7. I know how to explain by examples.
8. I know how to guide cognitive processes during learning.
9. I know how to foster learning strategies.
10. I know how to foster problem-solving strategies.
11. I know how identify the processes of the task and make them
visible to students.
12. I know how to situate abstract tasks in authentic contexts, so
that students understand the relevance of the work.
13. I know how to incorporate a variety of instructional practices in
my classroom so that students can transfer what they learn.
14. I know the ways students learn and engage in classrooms have
changed.
15. I know how to provide culturally responsive teaching to help
diverse student learners.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 252
Please rate your degree of confidence by recording a number from 1 to 6 using the scale given
below to the following:
Cannot
do at
all
Can
do
only
rarely
Can do
occasionally
Can
do
often
Can do
almost
always
Can do
always
16. Help students achieve learning goals
17. Achieve the developmental English program goals
18. Help students overcome their writing problems
19. Obtain institutional support for adjunct faculty who teach
developmental English
20. Make the process of writing meaningful for all students
21. Help students appreciate the potential benefits associated with
my writing course
22. Use a variety of assessment strategies in my developmental
English course
23. Provide alternative explanations or examples when my students
are confused
24. Craft good questions for students in my class
25. Implement alternative instructional strategies when a certain
strategy does not work
26. Keep students on task on difficult assignments
27. Gauge students’ comprehension of what has been taught
28. Enhance collaboration between English teachers and among the
English department
29. Improve the understanding of a student who is failing
30. Adjust my lessons to the proper level for individual students
31. Improve students’ academic gaps in writing
32. Increase student success rates in developmental English courses
33. Use culturally responsive strategies to explain difficult concepts
to students
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 253
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements
about your professional and institutional environment and resources.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
34. I have sufficient time to help students possessing
academic gaps with their writing.
35. I have sufficient time and opportunity to provide
meaningful instruction.
36. I work in an environment that enables me to interact and
discuss with colleagues instructional, curricular, and/or
behavioral processes so that I may be a successful teacher.
37. Adjunct instructors are provided an opportunity to
engage in professional development to increase their
instructional knowledge.
38. There is curricular alignment across the district for the
developmental English program.
39. There is a process within the district for English faculty
to address and share developmental English program
practices across all the campuses.
40. There is cohesiveness in the curriculum and in the
learning expectations for each course in the developmental
English sequence and co-requisite lab.
Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somwhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
41. It is important that all my students achieve their
learning goals.
42. Acquiring new knowledge and skills to teach
developmental English is something that interests me.
43. I can help students overcome writing problems.
44. Teaching developmental English is satisfying.
45. I like teaching developmental English.
46. Gender (M/F) and Ethnicity (Ethnic Codes: AM = American Indian/Alaskan Native, AS =
Asian/Pacific Islander, BL = Black non-Hispanic, HI = Hispanic, WH = White): ______________
and _________________
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 254
47. In the following table, please list in Column A the title of each degree that you earned at the
bachelor’s level and higher, as well as any formal certificates that you have earned; and in
Column B, the field or major of your degree or certificate.
Degree or Certificate
Title Example: Master of
Arts in Teaching
Field or Major Example:
Secondary English
48. Please provide in the table below your teaching experience and faculty position:
How many years have
you been teaching?
How many years have
you been teaching
developmental writing?
How many years have
you been teaching
developmental writing at
your institution?
Rank (Instructor,
Assistant, Associate,
Full)
FTE or % Position
assigned to department
Tenure Status/codes: T =
Tenured, TT = Tenure
Track, NTT = Non
Tenure Track
Please provide your contact information if you are available to answer additional questions for
my study.
Name:
Campus Phone:
E-mail:
Best Time to Contact
You:
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 255
Appendix E
HURSTON COLLEGE STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES MATRIX
Course/Program/Institutional Title: English 28_______________
Faculty/Staff Participants:_______________________
The student will…
(outcome)
As measured
by the
following
method….
(assessment
strategy)
And, if
applicable,
scored by the
following
learning rubric.
(provide
attachment)
Results are
examined to
determine if the
outcome is
achieved. Include
planned or actual
assessment date.
(results &
evaluation)
Recommendations to improve
teaching and learning.
(modifications)
1. Write a 300-500 word
composition/essay
reflecting coherent and
well-organized ideas that
competently addresses the
topic with no more than 7
varied error types.
2. Recognize and apply
rules for Standard English
sentences, grammar, and
word choice and begin to
incorporate stylistic
techniques into his/her
own writing.
3. Understand and
analyze various texts
from traditional academic
and
more current media
sources and write about
them at an acceptable
level to take more
advanced courses in
English and other
disciplines.
SLO REVIEW, 10/17/09,
GY
1. Final exam
essay
2. Final
exam essay
3 Final exam
essay
Rubric shown
in addendum
5 sections were
assessed.
Pass=93; Fail=53
Pass Rate=64%;
Fail Rate=36%
We did not meet
our target pass rate
for English 28
We have decided to eliminate
the common textbook used
for all sections of English 28
and instead allow instructors
to choose textbooks which
are more suited to their
individual teaching styles to
avoid the inefficiency of a
single teaching methodology
to fit all students.
Additionally, we have begun
a Supplementary Instruction
program to provide tutoring
and supplementary
instruction to select (Fall
2011) and all (Spring 2012)
sections of English 28.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 256
Appendix F
Classroom Observation Report
Instructor Observed (Fictitious
Name)_____________________________________________________
Number of students present __________ Course ________________________________
Time of Course: _______________ Date____________
Note: The Observation Report will be used in conjunction with the Instructional
Observation Checklist to describe the activities and instruction in the classrooms.
1. Describe the method(s) of instruction.
2. List the specific course topics and learning objectives addressed by the instructor.
3. How clear and well organized is the presentation?
4. Describe the form and extent of student participation.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 257
Appendix G
Developmental English Instructors Individual Interview Protocol Form
Faculty Interview Protocol
Interviewee (Title and Initials for First and Last Name):
______________________________________
Interviewer: _____________________________________________________
Survey Section Used:
_____ A: Interview Background
_____ B: Institutional Perspective
_____ C: Assessment
_____ D: Department and Discipline
_____ E: Teaching and Learning
_____ F: Demographics (no specific questions)
Other Topics Discussed:____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Documents Obtained: _____________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Post Interview Comments or Leads:
________________________________________________________________
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Interviews
Introductory Protocol
To facilitate our note-taking, we would like to audio tape our conversations today. Please sign the
release form. For your information, only researchers on the project will be privy to the tapes
which will be eventually destroyed after they are transcribed. In addition, you must sign a form
devised to meet our human subject requirements. Essentially, this document states that: (1) all
information will be held confidential, (2) your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any
time if you feel uncomfortable, and (3) we do not intend to inflict any harm. Thank you for your
agreeing to participate.
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 258
We have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. During this time, we have several
questions that we would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to interrupt
you in order to push ahead and complete this line of questioning.
Introduction
You have been selected to speak with us today because you have been identified as someone who
has a great deal to share about teaching, learning, and assessment on this campus. This research
project seeks to understand English instructors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
challenges in moving students through the developmental English course sequence to college level
English. This study does not aim to evaluate your techniques or experiences. Rather, the goal is to
learn more about the challenges and barriers in order to and to identify solutions that teachers may
implement to help steadily improve student outcomes in the developmental English program on
campus.
A. Interviewee Background
How long have you been …
_______ in your present position?
_______ at this institution?
Interesting background information on interviewee:
What is your highest degree? ___________________________________________
2. What are the English department’s goals as they relate to developmental English?
3. What motivates you to use innovative teaching and/or assessment techniques in your teaching?
B. Institutional Perspective
1. What is the strategy at this institution for improving teaching, learning, and assessment for
developmental English courses?
Probes: Is it working – why or why not?
Purpose, development, administration, recent initiatives
2. What resources are available to faculty for improving teaching and assessment techniques for
developmental English courses?
3. What rewards do faculty receive from the institution for engaging in innovative
teaching/learning and assessment strategies?
Probe: Do you see a widening of the circle of participants here on campus?
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 259
4. What is changing about teaching, learning, and assessment on this campus?
Probe: What is being accomplished through campus-based initiatives?
What kinds of networks do you see developing surrounding teaching/learning reforms?
5. Have you or your colleagues encountered resistance to these reforms in your department? . . . on
campus?
C. Assessment
1. How do you go about assessing whether students grasp the material you present in class?
Probe: Do you use evidence of student learning in your assessment of classroom strategies?
2. What kinds of assessment techniques tell you the most about what students are learning?
Probe: What kinds of assessment most accurately capture what students are learning?
3. Are you involved in evaluating teaching, learning, and assessment practices at either the
department or campus level? How is this achieved?
4. How is the assessment of student learning used to improve teaching/learning in your
department? …. on campus?
D. Department and Discipline
1. What are some of the major challenges your department faces in attempting to change teaching,
learning, and assessment practices for developmental English courses? What are the major
opportunities?
Probes: How can barriers be overcome?
How can opportunities be maximized?
2. To what extent are teaching-related activities evaluated at your institutions? . . . in your
department?
Probe: How is “good teaching” rewarded?
3. To what extent is teaching and assessment valued within your discipline?
E. Teaching and Learning
1. Describe how teaching, learning, and assessment practices are improving on this campus
Probe: How do you know? (criteria, evidence)
EXAMINING FACULTY CHALLENGES 260
2. Is the assessment of teaching and learning a major focus of attention and discussion here?
Probe: why or why not? (reasons, influences)
3. What specific new teaching or assessment practices have you implemented in your classes?
Probe: What has been the result (outcome, or impact)
4. Are there any particular characteristics that you associate with faculty who are interested in
innovative teaching/learning initiatives?
5. What types of faculty development opportunities do you see emerging on your campus that
focus on teaching and learning strategies for the classroom? (Institutional or disciplinary?)
Probes: What motivates you to participate in instructional development programs on campus?
How frequently do you attend such programs?
How are these programs advertised to faculty?
E. Teaching and Learning
1. At the beginning of each semester, what is your process for determining students’ prior
knowledge and preparation for your course?
2. Based upon your experience, describe effective strategies that you use in your course to teach
developmental English.
Probe: Are your instructional approaches more suitable for some students than for others?
3. How do the student outcomes for your course compare to those for other sections of the same
course?
Probe: What do you attribute to the differences in student outcomes?
4. What are some common course level practices shared among you and your department
colleagues?
F. Demographics
Post Interview Comments and/or Observations:
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Service provider compliance with regional center service agreement: a gap analysis
PDF
Examining teachers' roles in English learners achievement in language arts: a gap analysis
PDF
Addressing the challenges for teachers of English learners in a California elementary school using the gap analysis approach
PDF
An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: central office leadership factors
PDF
An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Picturesque Park
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Kailuana National Park
PDF
Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach
PDF
Using technology to drive high academic achievement
PDF
An examination of barriers to effective supervision from the perspective of employees within a federal agency using the GAP analysis framework
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction within the National Park Service: Casa Linda National Park
PDF
Gap analysis of employee satisfaction at a national park: Round Hill Park
PDF
A gap analysis of employee satisfaction for the National Park Service: Camp Moxie site
PDF
A case study in student retention at a Northern California private Jewish day school: a gap analysis
PDF
A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement
PDF
Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach
PDF
A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English language learners at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model
PDF
Increasing student persistence at a community college from a faculty perspective
PDF
Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach
Asset Metadata
Creator
Young-Singleton, Alice A.
(author)
Core Title
Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
10/29/2014
Defense Date
10/07/2014
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
African-Americans,Community colleges,developmental English,gap analysis,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Sundt, Melora A. (
committee chair
), Tobey, Patricia Elaine (
committee member
), Yates, Kenneth A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
a-singleton@att.net,youngsin@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-510306
Unique identifier
UC11288019
Identifier
etd-YoungSingl-3039.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-510306 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-YoungSingl-3039.pdf
Dmrecord
510306
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Young-Singleton, Alice A.
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
African-Americans
developmental English
gap analysis