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
/
Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions
(USC Thesis Other)
Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
ENCOURAGING STUDENT SUCCESS:
TURNING ATTENTION TO PRACTITIONERS AND INSTITUTIONS
by
Peggy J. Smith
_______________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2012
Copyright 2012 Peggy J. Smith
ii
DEDICATION
Honestly, I never thought I would be writing a dedication page in a
dissertation. Obviously, this is too big of a project for me alone and this would not
exist without the love and support from my family, friends and faith. My friends
always cared enough to ask me how my school was going? How is my writing
coming along? I am very grateful for their patience and support.
My family has been my true inspiration. Both of my sons have grown up as
big USC fans and have shown such pride in having their mom get her doctorate from
such a prestigious institution. They have always asked questions about various
courses and about my writing, and always comment on the football games. It has
been such fun to send them USC t-shirts, sweatshirts, mugs and even making the
whole family wear matching USC pajamas at Christmas time. They may feel so
proud.
To my husband and best friend, Scott, I do not have the words to express how
much you have done for me and given to me so I could accomplish this dream. You
have handled the finances, cooking and even the laundry. You took me away when I
wanted to go and left me alone when I needed that as well. You celebrated my
milestones. You knew exactly what I needed and when I needed it. You mean the
world to me!
This dedication would not be complete without mentioning T. He may be
just a dog to some people, but to me he has been a true source of unconditional love
and support. He was always right here cheering me on, or at least right here napping,
iii
or begging to be petted or doing his famous biscuit dance. I hope to someday grow
up to be the person my dog thinks that I am.
As for my faith - I can do all things through Christ, who strengthens me
(Ph4:13).
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin by thanking my dissertation chair, Dr. Alicia Dowd.
She went out of her way to make us feel welcome being in her group by having us at
her home and in traveling together to various meetings and workshops. Dr. Dowd
supported, corrected, and gave her input and attention to all of us during this long
process. She sent numerous articles for us to read and review so we would know
well the issues of racial and ethnic equity.
I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Giselle Ragusa from
USC and Dr. Ray Young from CSUF. Dr. Ragusa was generous to give me her time
and attention especially since she did not even know me and I appreciate that. On
the other hand, I have known Dr. Young for over 15 years. He was my first
geography teacher at CSUF and mentored me through five courses that he taught as
well as any other questions while I was a student. Even though I have taught at
CSUF for over 11 years, he will always be “my teacher.”
I do want to thank my cohort for their support and encouragement along this
journey. One of my cohort members, Chelvi, has been a tremendous source of
encouragement for me. From the many meetings at Panera and Starbucks to the trip
to San Luis Obispo, I wouldn’t be at this place without her support. I am so glad to
have had her leading the way and more importantly to call her my friend.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract viii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Conceptual Framework 23
Chapter Three: Methodology 40
Chapter Four: Findings 94
Chapter Five: Discussion and Recommendations 140
References 171
Appendices 183
Appendix A: Recruitment Text and Ethical Commitments for 183
Interactions with Human Subjects
Appendix B: Cue Tool or Workshop Evaluation Questionnaire 186
Sample Module Evaluation Form
Appendix C: Observational Data Collection Template 188
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Protocol (Excerpt: Equity- 189
Mindedness Module)
Appendix E: Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of 197
Culturally Inclusive Practices
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Research Questions and Sub Questions 50
Table 3.2. Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study 53
Table 3.3. Summary of Gender, Position, Focus, and Home Department 61
of Leadership Team
Table 3.4. Summary of Data Collection Methods 63
Table 3.5. Data Analysis Codes and Summary Sheet for Analyzing 77
CUE’s Tools
Table 3.6. Deductive Data Analysis Codes 89
Table 4.1. Number of Statements in the Data Providing Confirming or 100
Disconfirming Evidence for Themes
Table 4.2. Distribution of Tabulated Codes from Data Collected in Three 101
Activity Settings
Table 4.3. Observed Conversation at the Workshop 117
Table 4.4. Confirming or Disconfirming the Need for New Knowledge 122
Table 4.5. Confirming or Disconfirming the Uncertainty of Culturally 126
Inclusive Pedagogy
Table 4.6. Confirming or Disconfirming Competing Agendas 131
Table 4.7. Data Interpreted as Confirming or Disconfirming the Theme 134
of Agency
Table 5.1. The Mini-Doc Analysis Protocol 154
Table 5.2. Common Ground Workshop Series 158
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. An activity setting (CHAT) framework 30
Figure 3.1. Developmental evaluation methods inform multiple modes 44
of research
Figure 3.2. Reflective practice (inquiry) as driver of racial-ethnic equity in 48
postsecondary education
Figure 3.3. Timeline of research study at Monarch State University 57
Figure 4.1. Activity triangle reflects the design project 96
Figure 4.2. STEM faculty focused on part of inquiry cycle 102
Figure 4.3. From data to codes to themes 103
Figure 4.4. An example of the BESST tool displaying data to aid decision 107
making
Figure 4.5. Excerpt from the Document Analysis Protocol 109
Figure 4.6. Cycle of inquiry: steps from inquiry to action 120
viii
ABSTRACT
This study is part of a larger design experiment that involves various
community colleges and universities in California and across the nation. Tools and
processes created by the Center for Urban Education (CUE) enabled practitioners to
develop a systematic process of inquiry which includes observations, reflection,
social interaction, problem identification, experimentation and action in order to
solve problems. The purpose of my study was to focus on how CUE’s tools and
processes use action research to help transform practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs and
behaviors regarding racial and ethnic equity and equity-mindedness.
My study, which included workshops, observations, cognitive interviews, and
member checking, took place at a 4-year public university that focuses on STEM
fields. The twelve-month study revealed that practitioners, who were STEM faculty
members, through social interaction discussed the desire to grow in culturally
responsive knowledge and direction in how to apply it to their courses, syllabi, and
therefore, create a culture of inclusivity. During my observations and interviews,
practitioners stressed that they have a strong sense of agency in their classrooms, but
not at departmental or institutional levels. Several STEM faculty members also
revealed that they feel tension with various administrators and a lack of institutional
support. This study led to several changes in remediating classroom practices using
culturally responsive knowledge to create a more welcoming and culturally inclusive
environment for their students. Implications for further study include developing a
ix
more collegial relationship between faculty and administrators and increasing
institutional agency.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
America may lead the world in many things such as economic output,
geopolitical influence, and popular culture; however, America’s colleges and
universities have a serious and growing problem (Carey, 2004). There are too many
students failing to complete their degree. According to Carey (2005) every year over
a million full-time, degree-seeking students enroll in four-year universities with
goals of succeeding. Yet of these students less than 40 percent will accomplish it in
4 years. That number climbs to 60 percent within 6 years. The percentage is less for
low-income students and students of color. With these troubling percentages, one
may ask where is accountability?
Many national higher education reports, organizations and commissions
assert that accountability is needed in higher education due to low performance in
graduation rates. Yet the debate is what that accountability should look like at
various colleges and universities across the nation. The Spelling’s Commission on
higher education frames accountability in terms of measuring meaningful learning
outcomes by using metrics that measure one institution against others (Mitescu et al.,
2009). Some higher education leaders recommend statewide, standardized
assessments; however, other colleges, universities, and university organizations state
that accountability should be left to the higher education community instead of being
mandated by the federal government (Shavelson & Huang, 2003; National
Governors Association). Burke (2004) asserts that accountability in higher education
2
in the United States has run the gamut from trust and self-regulation, to bureaucratic
rules and stipulations, to performance goals and results, to policy initiatives and
political intrusions and finally, to private markets and government incentives.
Graham, Lyman, and Trow (1995) claim “higher education does not lack
accountability. Rather it lacks enough of the proper kind and is burdened with too
much of an unproductive kind” (p. 4).
Standardized measures are promoted by external accountability, which are
the regulations and incentives decided upon from outside an educational institution
that try to hold the institution responsible for various dimensions of quality
(Bensimon, 2007). Dowd and Tong (2007) maintain that external accountability
measures are not democratic and devalue practitioner knowledge and experience.
The authors also claim that local reform is not likely to be effective because faculty
expertise is neglected and professional experience is ignored. Shulman (2007)
believes that standardized measures are superficial and limited. He states that the
“one-size-fits-all” approach of essentials reduces the diverse missions and goals of
various institutions.
The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC & U) along
with the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) claim that it is the
mission of the individual college or university to achieve excellence and collect
evidence relevant to the outcomes meaningful to each institution (Mitescu et al.,
2005). Locally developed measures may represent an institution’s outcomes more
accurately. The U.S. Government, AAC&U and others have recommended local,
3
self-created instruments that report institution-specific measures (Shavelson, 2007;
Shulman, 2007). Bensimon (2007) states that assessment and accountability provide
certain advantages if the mechanisms are used as internal accountability. She
explains that when institutions develop their own approaches to assessment and
accountability, the process can be changed from one of “mutual hostility to mutual
support” (p. 3). The goal is to get beyond the feeling of resentment in being
accountable to an outside agency and use the conditions of assessment and
accountability for improvement and benefits. Bensimon (2007) argues that the
following conditions will enable accountability to lead to improvement if the
assessment measures are valid and reliable and external accountability is promoted
by agencies in the spirit of support and improvement, rather than punishment,
ridicule or blame. She stresses that it is beneficial to have assessment systems that
are created by institutions or departments themselves rather than having them
imposed by an external agency and that they may extend over a period of time.
Accountability measures need to respect the academic values of colleges and
acknowledge the complexity of the educational process and create mechanisms for
social learning to take place. It is true that colleges face unique pressures that are
complex, interwoven and multidimensional throughout the system (Bensimon, 2009;
Senge et al., 2000).
Engle and Lynch (2009) explain that the changing demography of our
country increases the need for college access and success among “young people who
traditionally have been underrepresented on our campuses and commencement
4
exercises – low-income students, African-American students, Latino students, and
American-Indian students” (p. 2). The authors add that closing the gap in outcomes
by increasing education levels is important to our economic competitiveness, as well
as, our democratic participation, social cohesion, strong families, and healthy
behavior. The Community College League of California declare that while
educational achievement for the purpose of economic growth is important, if it is
disproportionate among certain demographic groups, then a stable society cannot be
maintained. Therefore, the commission is asking community colleges to eliminate
the achievement gap among demographic and socioeconomic groups. The
commission explains that if achievement in the fastest growing communities lags
behind the achievement of other communities, the state will not be able to escape a
future of inequality, political and social instability and sluggish economic growth
(Community College League of California, 2010).
Policies adopted by the California State University (About CSU, n.d.), for
example, reflect a moral obligation to improve graduation rates for all students and
acknowledges the need to reduce the achievement gap. CSU claims that if it meets
these goals, it will lead most other states in improving graduation rates and
narrowing the achievement gap (CSU Graduation Initiative). However, CSU
campuses serve a diverse student population that has various needs and has
experienced barriers to graduation. The CSU Graduation Initiative focuses on four
reasons that students do not complete their degree. The first is student engagement.
The second is that students do not feel a sense of belonging to the university and
5
therefore, do not place enough value over competing priorities. The third reason is
that students are not prepared academically for college-level work and that students
fail to enroll in the right courses. The fourth reason is that students drop out because
they cannot afford to remain enrolled.
While this initiative centers on student deficits or deficiencies, it does not
focus on the problem of inequity due to the practitioners or the institution. This
study takes the view that low graduation rates are as much a problem of educational
practices as student deficits. Some claim that by using action research, faculty, staff
and administrators become practitioner-researchers who analyze disaggregated data,
discuss ideas, reflect over their practices and develop into experts at their institutions
with the capacity to improve student success.
Action research is a process that requires collaboration by participation from
the stakeholders, who are practitioners and researchers. Stringer (2007) emphasizes
that this process provides the means for these stakeholders to engage in systematic
inquiry and investigation to create an appropriate way of accomplishing their goals
and to evaluate their effectiveness.
Inquiry is valued in higher education, e.g. accreditation standards. However,
the effects of inquiry on student outcomes or conditions when effective are not well
known. Therefore this study examines an action researcher the inquiry process and
outcomes. The study will include structured activities that feature action research,
inquiry and the participation of faculty, staff and administrators as practitioners-as-
researchers regarding equity issues at their institutions.
6
Faculty, staff and administrators come to the activity settings with their own
knowledge, beliefs and expertise. The settings are designed to be interactive to
facilitate inquiry and reflection. By analyzing data and listening to different
perspectives and various ways of contextualizing or framing the problem, new
capacities develop for experimentation and problem solving (Dowd & Bensimon,
2009). Dowd and Bensimon (2009) explain that it is rare for practitioners at the
ground level get to engage with data in a substantial way and yet they are in the best
position to do so. Therefore, this form of action inquiry actually transforms inquiry
into practice at an individual level, as well as, contributing to greater effectiveness at
the institution level by becoming collaborative, self-reflective communities of
inquiry (Reason, 1994). Because this form of inquiry involves collaboration and
shared reflection, it leads to new knowledge (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988; Torbert,
1991).
An example of improving student outcomes is at the College of Education at
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and it is called the Pathway to Results.
It is an initiative of the State of Illinois focused on improved learning outcomes
using local inquiry- and equity-focused, continuous improvement process. The
targeted audience is underserved student groups, including racially and ethnically
diverse, low-income, low literacy and first generation college students. Their goal is
to improve access of local inquiry, use data and tools that support data-informed
decision-making and develop continuous improvement.
7
Another example of using action research and inquiry is the Center for Urban
Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California which was established in
1999 to lead socially conscious research for institutions of higher education. The
Center’s goal is to produce equity in student outcomes. Researchers at CUE define
equity as creating opportunities for equal access and success among historically
underrepresented student populations, such as racial and ethnic minority and low-
income students. They target these in three main areas: representational equity,
which is proportional participation at all levels of an institution; resource equity,
which means the distribution of educational resources in order to close the outcome
gaps; and equity-mindedness, which is the demonstration of an awareness of and
willingness to address the equity issues among institutional leaders and staff (About
CUE, n.d.). The Center explains that equity perspectives are evident in language,
actions, problem-framing, problem-solving and cultural practices. This concept
includes being “color-conscious,” which is noticing the differences in experiences
among racial and ethnic groups and being willing to talk about race and ethnicity as a
characteristic of equity (About CUE, n.d.).
CUE uses action research to help colleges and universities around the country
create teams of practitioners to become knowledgeable about the experiences and
outcomes of their students. Their focus is to frame unequal outcomes as problems of
practice. By forming inquiry teams, CUE helps transform data into actionable
knowledge. This encourages practitioners to improve accountability, outcomes and
institutional effectiveness (About CUE, n.d.). In specific activity settings,
8
practitioners are asked to reflect on their practice and become agents for change
dealing with equity issues in their classrooms and on their campuses. This is a
systematic process of identifying the problem, collecting data, reflecting, making
decisions and promoting action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). In effect, it is a cycle of
inquiry.
Statement of the Problem
Due to decreasing rates of graduation, President Obama has challenged
institutions of higher education to increase graduation rates for future Americans and
the health of the American economy, and to return to a position of global leadership
by the year 2020. The presidents and chancellors of public college and university
systems created Access to Success (A2S) Initiative to increase the number of college-
educated adults and ensure the inclusion of low-income and minority students (Engle
& Lynch, 2009). The motive behind A2S is that they believe that a college
education contributes to the health of our democracy. The goal, as pledged by 2015
is that A2S leaders will cut in half the gaps in college access and success for African-
American, Latino, American-Indian and low-income students.
Other initiatives include the California State University (CSU) Graduate
Initiative. The CSU system is instrumental to observe because the university in my
study is a part of this institution. The CSU Graduation Initiative, which strives to
raise the six-year graduation rate by eight percent by 2015. The initiative also aims
to cut in half the existing gap in graduation rates for underrepresented students. This
will involve all 23 CSU campuses, with each one targeting the top 25 percent of
9
national averages for similar institutions. Those campuses that are already in the top
25 percent are committed to increase graduation rates by another six percentage
points. The initiative explains that several CSU campuses have already made
impressive progress to improve their graduation rates and have significantly lowered
their achievement gaps. CSU’s goal is to learn from these successes and build on
them. The Graduation Initiative is unique in that it “focuses on outputs rather than
inputs” (CSU Graduation Initiative, p. 2). Cal State, Sacramento and Cal State,
Northridge have both cut graduation-rate gaps in half. Northridge, who enrolls about
30,000 students have about 40 percent minorities (mostly Hispanic), ranks fifth in
the nation in the number of degrees awarded and ranks first in California. The
factors that drive this success are leadership, data and policy. Also, the
administrators at Northridge do not hesitate to call peers in colleges and universities
that are doing better to find out ways they can improve on student success (Engle &
Theokas, 2010). However, not all the Cal State campuses can say the same.
The Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy states that college
attainment in California has actually been declining with each younger generation.
Gay (2000) asserts that the academic status of Latinos illustrates a serious problem
within the nation: as the knowledge and skill requirements for jobs escalate, the
fastest population of future citizens is experiencing serious academic problems in
schools and in society. Education attainment among the growing Latino population
is particularly of concern. The working age (25-64) Latino population in California
is projected to grow from 34% to 40% in 2020 and to 50% in 2040. Currently 16%
10
of Latino adults in California have college degrees (associate or higher) compared to
African Americans and Native Americans, as groups, are not achieving at the same
rate as Whites and some Asian groups (Gay, 2000). The author does note that there
are high achievers within all racial and ethnic groups.
For students preparing to embark upon work and life in the 21
st
century, a
critical element of a well-rounded education is the ability to understand and to
function effectively in a diverse and increasingly interdependent global society. As
noted in a recent statement from the American Association of University Professors
(AAUP), “the argument for the necessity of diversity is perhaps stronger in higher
education that in any other context. The ultimate product of universities is education
in the broadest sense, including preparation for life in the working world.” In this
regard, it is in the compelling interest of CSU, the state, and the nation to provide our
students with an education that is rich with a diversity of ideas, perspectives, and
experiences. Accountability and assessment have emerged as a way to forward these
interests.
The higher education community including scholars, universities and
university associations that have addressed accountability and assessment in higher
education recommend four key components (Shavelson, 2007; Shavelson & Huang,
2003). These components are presented in Shulman’s (2007) Pillars of Assessment
and Accountability, and the AAC&U (2008) Principles for Student Learning and
Accountability. They include: (1) a conceptual framework in which to locate a
complementary portfolio of multiple studies that assesses relevant process and
11
outcomes; (2) studies and assessments that reflect the missions and goals of each
individual institution; (3) the involvement of faculty and relevant stakeholders from
instrument development through analysis of the data and interpretation of results;
and (4) the integration of the various assessments and studies in a comprehensive
system linked to other databases. These steps require a deliberate conversation with
faculty, administrators and institutional researchers about the goals they have and the
missions of the institutions. The benefits of specifically developed tools are that they
have the capacity to assess what is occurring in outcomes, a specific program or
individual institution. By using action research, the participants are fully involved
throughout this study, including analyzing data and interpreting the results,
collaborating on ideas for solutions that reflect the mission of CSU. Specific tools
will be used that direct the participants in reflecting over their own beliefs, attitudes
and practices.
Action research aims to solve pertinent problems and is the key to
transforming behaviors (Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Professional researchers along
with local stakeholders collaborate and develop knowledge that enables them to take
the appropriate actions to achieve their goals. While conventional social science
research values professional knowledge more than local knowledge, action research
realizes that both forms of knowledge are essential for cogenerative inquiry
(Greenwood & Levin, 1998). Together they work as an inquiry team that analyzes
the disaggregated data in order to understand the problems at their institution and
design the social change interventions to improve the situation. Since knowledge is
12
generated by action and experimentation, a systematic use of the data, inquiry,
collaboration, and reflection lead to assessment. It is this assessment that leads
participants to take actions. Transforming the data into useable knowledge, the role
of both the professional researcher and the local practitioners will improve
accountability, institutional effectiveness and outcomes (About CUE, n.d.).
The concept behind organizing inquiry teams is that the practitioners who
will acquire new knowledge from collaborating with their peers, will be more likely
to change their perspective on inequity and may even change their practices. The
first step is to become aware that this problem with inequities exists and move
through the process of inquiry that results in self-education (Schon, in Bensimon,
2006). The practitioners take on the role of researchers as they inquire into the
issues or problems. This takes place in activity settings where learning and change
are socially constructed and collaboration occurs through different activities. The
practitioners-as-researchers contribute to generating ideas, designing and managing
the study, drawing conclusions, reflecting and making decisions (Reason, 1994).
Data from the institution is used and analyzed. While there is no valid inquiry
without using data, the emphasis must change from data to decision-maker as the
“locus of change” (Dowd, 2005, p. 23). It is the inquiry team members who have to
make sense of the data: they must detect any patterns and themes; they must create
questions and propose hypotheses; and they must transform the numerical data into
useable knowledge (Bensimon, 2006; Reason, 1994).
13
This process of inquiry and the understanding that comes from the process
may become a source of empowerment, motivation and expertise (Bensimon, 2006).
Reason (1994) explains that action inquiry is “consciousness in the midst of action”
(p. 331) and encourages organizations into becoming collaborative, self-reflective
“communities of inquiry” (p. 330). In addition these characteristics contribute to the
transformation of an individual into an agent of change in the classroom and at the
institution.
For example, CUE incorporates equity-based assessment tools and processes
that guide practitioners and institutions through a complete cycle of action research
that involves problem identification, problem contextualization, informed
interventions, experimentation and problem solving (About CUE, n.d.). The tools
are designed to increase institutional accountability in higher education, and create
opportunities to bring about equal access and success among historically
underrepresented student populations. These include racial and ethnic minorities and
low-income students and refer to representational equity, resource equity and equity-
mindedness. Dowd and Tong (2007) argues that a student’s chance of success
depends on the ethnic or racial background and the wealth of the community. She
explains that there are racial and ethnic inequities in higher education and that
greater amounts of resources are needed for students with greater educational need.
The idea is that equal resources are not equitable when the educational achievement
gaps persist. Equity does not mean equal in this sense.
14
The Center for Urban Education has developed tools that allow practitioners
to be involved in action inquiry that assess their own practices in effort to become
agents of change. The objective is to create specific activity settings at the
institution, so practitioners (faculty, staff and administrators) can collaborate and
create a culture of inquiry that focuses on equitable outcomes for historically
underrepresented students. These action inquiry groups discuss issues that influence
inequities for students of color in access, retention, achievement and completion.
Having the data disaggregated plays a key role. Practitioners are encouraged to self-
assess their own practices as well as discuss equity issues on their own campus.
Action research is “designed to integrate knowledge of institutional context,
education processes, and learning outcomes for the purpose of increasing the
educational effectiveness of colleges and universities” (Dowd & Tong, 2007, p. 58).
Purpose of the Study
Those who study action inquiry use the concept of single-loop to refer to
learning focused on identifying the problem and trying to solve it. In single-loop
learning, the organization continues with its present policies or objectives. In
double-loop learning, the individuals or organization question the values,
assumptions, norms or polices that led to the actions in the first place (Argyris &
Schon, 1978). It gets down to the roots of the issues. Therefore, it is necessary to
have a system of teaching tools that promotes change by getting down to the
foundation of the problems. This study examines the effective uses of action inquiry.
This is based on the notion that generalized solutions may not fit all institutions and
15
that the purpose of inquiry is to search for the appropriate solutions for the local
situations (Stringer, 2007).
Action research centers on specific issues and situations and uses participants
who become practitioners-as-researchers to collaborate on solutions. Springer
(2007) explains that while action research may not conform to the rigors of
conventional research, it takes a more democratic, and empowering approach. He
further explains that action research relies on the following strategies: (1)
participants contribute to the inquiry process; (2) participants acquire information
(collect data); (3) analyze and reflect on that information; and (4) apply new
knowledge into action plans for resolution of the problem. While the goal of action
research is that each of the participants has a voice to contribute and the vision is to
maximize that involvement, CUE emphasizes inquiry, practitioners-as-researchers,
and data-driven changes in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding equity issues
and equity-mindedness.
Reason and Bradbury (2001) write that action research is a participatory,
democratic process that develops practical knowledge while in pursuit of human
purposes and knowledge that is useful in everyday functions. According to Dowd
and Tong (2007), before changes can occur in educational practices, practitioners
must view their own knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes towards important issues.
Institutional leaders – faculty, staff and administrators have an influential effect on
students’ success and their cognitive processes can either support or hinder the
advancement of underrepresented students (Bensimon, 2005). Active participation
16
in this endeavor is intended to promote a sense of ownership, develop an awareness
of agency among participants and bridge the knowledge gap between what some are
asked to do, but do not know how (Ellmore, 2002). This study will contribute to the
body of knowledge about self-assessment activities in action inquiry projects. As
faculty members become more culturally conscious by an awareness of what is
occurring in their practices and at their institutions, their beliefs and practices are
challenged through the use of professional development rather than external
accountability (Burke, 2004; Bensimon et al., 2004).
This study examines the effect of action research on practitioners’ beliefs and
practices. CUE’s tools pull teams together that meet specific criteria: knowledge,
leadership, attributes, involvement in decision-making, academic governance and
administration as well as institutional researchers. Together they review and analyze
data to observe the inequality of outcomes in order to discuss strategies they can
implement. The awareness of rationalizing student deficits or cultural predisposition
is interrogated as a as racialized practice (Bensimon, 2009).
Jones (2000) explains that the relationship of socioeconomic status and race
has its beginnings in historical events but the relationship continues due to
contemporary structural factors that continue these injustices. She explains three
types of racism, which include institutional racism, personally mediated racism and
internalized racism. Institutional racism is the power, access and resources available
to students. Personally mediated racism is prejudice and discrimination. Internalized
racism is accepting the negative messages about one’s worth and abilities. Margolis
17
(2008) states that racial and gender stereotypes are so influential that they can
become self-fulfilling prophecies and the irony of always looking at one’s self
through the eyes of others. She reports that it is very common to have African
American students assume that others think they are intellectually incompetent. In
fact, in educational settings these negative beliefs added to structural experiences
chip away at their trust, confidence and persistence. Therefore, it is essential to
address these issues with double-loop learning and get to the causes of inequities in
the institutions.
This dissertation investigates whether action inquiry and CUE’s tools brings
about or shows the potential to bring about organizational learning and change,
improvements in institutional effectiveness, and greater racial ethnic equity in
student outcomes. This study will use cultural historical activity theory and
organizational learning theory to interpret how practitioners learn and change their
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors.
Organizational learning theory focuses more on institutions and practitioners
rather than continuing to focus on student deficits. Institutional researchers, along
with faculty and administrators working as research teams, perform action research
within their institution. These teams will address problems through purposeful
analysis of data about student learning and progress being made (Dowd, 2005).
Proponents of action research claim that this allows faculty to become change agents
for historically underrepresented students, thus creating new communities-of-
18
practice. Brown and Duguid (1991) explain that it is significant to learn from each
other: they claim it is the bridge between working and innovating.
I will be evaluating action research processes and the tools designed by CUE
to bring about organizational learning and change. At the individual level, the goal
of CUE’s work is to change mindsets from deficit-minded to equity-minded. Instead
of thinking that inequities in student achievement are unfortunate but expected
outcomes that influence race-based stereotypes, practitioners are able to use data to
understand what is happening to minority students at their institution. CUE aims to
help practitioners to reframe the discussion of unequal outcomes from an emphasis
on student deficits to a matter of institutional responsibility. They expect that
practitioners who are moved to a sense of responsibility for eliminating these
stereotypes will bring about the desired social and cultural changes at the
institutional level (About CUE, n.d.).
CUE designs activity settings and tools to foster practitioner and institutional
change in higher education dealing with inequities for historically underrepresented
students. This study will examine the use of CUE’s tools in an activity setting that
allows participants to become practitioners in researching disaggregated data at their
own institution. CUE’s action research is based on a view that disaggregating the
data allows each institution to locate the critical gaps in academic performance for
African American and Latino students (Bensimon, 2004). The aim is to transform
data into actionable knowledge. The tools that CUE uses are the intervention and the
goal is for the practitioners to gain deep understanding of the inequities in
19
educational outcomes and commit to addressing their findings. By looking at a
snapshot of where the institution’s practices are, the practitioners can collaborate on
where they need to improve. The design is to construct these practitioners into
experts about the condition of equity on their campuses. By being involved directly
in the process of gathering information and disaggregating it by race and ethnicity,
they will feel more confident in taking on the role of “change agents” (Bensimon,
2004, p. 52).
Research Questions
This dissertation aims to address the following questions about the beliefs,
attitudes and behaviors of faculty, administrators and staff regarding historically
underrepresented students. The group of educators in the sample selected for the
study were asked to become practitioner-researchers studying equity issues at their
institution. Together, they will analyze disaggregated data from their school,
evaluate their syllabi and other documents and reflect on these tools as cultural
artifacts in influencing change in their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The
objective is for them to become agents of change in their institution as a result of
these activities. These are the research questions:
• What beliefs do higher educational practitioners (faculty, staff and
administrators) hold about underrepresented students’ success? How do
these influence their engagement in action inquiry to improve student
outcomes and program quality?
20
• How do changes in knowledge about the impact of educational practices
on underrepresented students’ success influence those beliefs?
• How does participation in action inquiry influence practitioners’
willingness to engage in behavioral changes and their self-efficacy to
bring about organizational changes?
During this study, practitioners will be observed and interviewed to detect
any changes in language and behavior. The participation of the practitioner during
workshops, surveys and interviews will illustrate their perceptions, attitudes and
beliefs regarding equity and equity-mindedness. Working as a team on a particular
goal encourages a culture, community and process of individual learning that
improves the organization (Kezar, 2005). Together using CUE’s tools and
techniques for inquiry, the disaggregated data of the institution, decisions can be
made for organizational change. The question is whether and how well are such
decisions made, under what conditions of inquiry and with what types of results in
terms of changes in educational practices.
Significance of the Study
Since policymakers rely on student outcomes to measure institutional
success, having results that are equitable is important. Practitioners, working at the
institution under study, have the ability to evaluate their own practice as well as the
institution’s role in assisting students through completion. By using action research
the practitioners can reflect on the reasons why low graduation rates may persist at
21
their institution. Once they have disaggregated the data, they can collectively
brainstorm on ideas and interventions. This allows various perspectives to be shared.
Organizational learning is significant in creating a culture of inquiry and
creating opportunities for introducing double-loop learning, which enables
practitioners to work on understanding the foundation of the problems at their
institution. In order to acknowledge any inequities at an institution, practitioners
need to analyze and question existing practices in order to identify the deficiencies
within educational practices (Bensimon, 2005). The effectiveness of this action
research project relies on how the practitioners in this study change their attitudes,
beliefs, and behavior in their classrooms and at their institutions. Bauman, Bustillos,
Bensimon, Brown and Bartee (2005) explain that institutions need to examine the
impacts that traditional higher education practices have on historically
underrepresented students. They stress the concern for these minority groups
because of the persistent gap in student outcomes. These arguments echo the
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) position that
campuses need to understand differences and engage these differences for learning.
It is this deeper understanding and knowledge that bring about real change.
Since this study will evaluate the effectiveness of CUE’s tools in creating
change of attitudes, beliefs and behaviors in practitioners, the type of evaluation
must be an on-going process. The research design will allow researchers to the
opportunity to examine for continuous improvement. Patton (2011) explains that
developmental evaluation is a process that supports programs, projects, and
22
organizational development. He also states that the evaluator becomes part of the
inquiry team whose members collaborate to design and test approaches in an on-
going process of improvement, and intentional change. Developmental evaluation
facilitates creative collaboration, identifies key issues and adapts as interventions
emerge (Patton, 2011). It seems that it will be the best fit for this study.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One is presenting
the problems of inequity and the involvement of faculty, staff and administrators as
practitioner-researchers involved in an action inquiry project. The second chapter is
a conceptual framework and compilation of scholars’ thoughts on organizational
learning theory and cultural historical activity theory. In Chapter Three, I discuss
developmental evaluation methodology, which includes action research,
interventions, and cognitive interviews. I also describe the activity setting that
provides the field site for this study. Chapter Four will be the analysis of the data I
collect from the practitioners at the institution. Finally, in Chapter Five, I conclude
this dissertation with a summary of findings and implications for future research.
23
CHAPTER TWO
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The complexities of the 1960s were a forerunner to the complex, multi-
dimensional issues interwoven throughout our country. Our school systems mirror
this complexity today (Bensimon, 2009). Racial issues still abound in our country
and our schools. Students struggle with different needs such as access to vital
resources, both human, material and financial. Nationally and within the state of
California the struggle is with retention and completion. The percentages of students
who do succeed through to graduation vary depending on race and ethnicity.
Faculty, staff and administrators may value diversity and have positive attitudes
towards increasing minority student participation in higher education, however they
may tend to think the differences in educational outcome for these students have to
do with cultural stereotypes, not suited for academia or lack of motivation and
initiative (Bensimon, 2003). Some educators may also believe that minority students
cannot be expected to overcome the disadvantages of poverty and lack of preparation
so unequal outcomes are expected. This centers on student deficiencies.
Various theories have been created to help explain student development. One
theory on student development is Tinto’s theory of academic and social integration
in which students should adapt themselves to the culture of the institution. Astin’s
theory of involvement describes how students may improve their success by greater
personal involvement as well as institutions taking steps to encourage student’s talent
development. Lastly, Kuh’s model of student engagement, which claims that
24
historically, underserved students benefit more when they participate in
educationally purposeful activities and that the students who earn higher grades are
more likely to persist (2008). While these theories encourage the development of the
student, this paper discusses the theory of student success by focusing on
practitioners and institutions. Instead of concentrating on student deficits such as
low academic performance, lack of discipline, self-efficacy and of motivation, this
study will investigate how student success may be positively influenced by the
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of faculty, counselors, and administrators.
The traditional view of knowledge is generally what can be recorded in
works, numbers and figures. Greenwood and Levin (2005) explains three different
types of knowledge which include: episteme (theoretical knowledge), techne
(pragmatic and context-dependent practical rationality) and phronesis (practical and
context-dependent deliberation about values. However, the author argues about how
techne and phronesis combine the “know-how for organizational change, social
reform and regional economic development” (p. 50). Techne is an action-oriented
knowledge and engages in the analysis of what should be done. Practitioners of
techne engage with stakeholders, experts and others with power to create positive
social change. In this study all the participants collaborate and the goal is to use
these types of knowledge to create change in individuals as well as the institution.
Phronesis is a design of action in attacking problems by collaborative
knowledge building. The professional researcher’s knowledge and the local
knowledge of the stakeholders design and implement the research and actions that
25
address the problem (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). After implementation,
participants evaluate what was done and if they are not satisfied with the results, they
modify their actions to get the desired outcomes. The term comes from Aristotle’s
writings and roughly means practical wisdom (Dowd, 2007). Simply put, it is the
big question: “What works?” In higher education, the various ways instructors and
students interact both inside and outside the classroom and the access to resources
are significant in success. Using collaborative knowledge from the practitioners may
be critical in what works.
Greenwood and Levin (2005) explain that while knowledge is thought of as
an individualistic, cognitive phenomenon created by the ability to capture insight,
this definition is not very useful in the social sciences. Therefore, he states that
knowledge can bridge the gap between social research and the needs of society at
large. Knowledge is the residual from people working together as a cooperative
effort. The idea of working together as a cooperative effort is the key concept of
action research.
Action Research Approaches in Inquiry
Action inquiry and action research are forms of inquiry put into practice to
create cooperative inquiry and allow “various lenses that are able to integrate
multiple perspectives of stakeholder participants simultaneously” (Reason, 1994;
Stringer 2007; Waddock & Spangler, 2000, p. 24). Action Research creates
knowledge through action and experimentation in context and may contribute to the
transformation of organizations and institutions (Torbert, 1991). It is problem-
26
centered and involves participation of faculty, administration, and institutional
researchers. All of those involved in ideas and actions are both researchers and
agents of change as decision makers. They collect and review the disaggregated
data, plan, execute strategies and inspect the results together. Torbert (1991) states
that for an organization to use action inquiry, it requires knowledge of four areas of
human experience: knowledge of the goals in pursuit and what demands attention;
knowledge about strategy; knowledge of the behavioral choices; and knowledge of
the outside world or an empirical knowledge of the consequences of behavior. These
four areas work together to correct incongruities in the mission, strategy, operations
and outcomes of what is trying to be achieved.
After evaluating the practice there is time allotted for reflection. The
participants and the researchers collaborate in identifying specific problems, devising
methods for finding their real causes and then work corporately in developing plans
for coping with them realistically and practically (Greenwood, 2005). Action
research sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for
maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the participant’s system by leaving
the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal
(Greenwood, 2005). It creates mutual learning opportunities and tangible results.
Action research leads to the transformation of values, attitudes and behaviors,
because all of the participants are teachers and learners as well. They all bring
different experiences and perspectives to this arena and make significant
27
contributions (Greenwood, 2005). These key concepts listed above will be included
in my study.
Action research is simultaneously conducting inquiry, in which participants
engage in assessment practices of institutional problems and act as practitioners-as-
researchers to increase the effectiveness of individuals and organizations to become
more capable of self-transformation (Torbert, 1991; Dowd et al., 2007). Stringer
(2007) argues that action research may not conform to the conventional type of
research but he feels strongly that it takes more a more democratic, empowering and
humanizing approach. He also explains that it assists locals to expand their own
understanding of the situations as well as helps them to resolve any problems they
see. Lewin (2008) believes that the motivation to change is strongly related to
action. Therefore, if people are actively participating in the decisions that affect
them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. Together all the practitioners create a
powerful research team. These practitioners act as institutional agents, which are
defined as people who occupy positions of relatively high status and authority.
These individuals are faculty, counselors, mentors, administrators, and others in the
student’s social network that work on behalf of the student. Together they create an
“inquiry team” which is valuable in creating strategic intelligence about racial and
ethnic inequities as they become equity advocates and agents of change. They may
be instrumental in helping students transfer, or gaining other resources that build
their social capital. This concept of social capital is how students gain access to
resources because of relationships with institutional agents and others in authority
28
(Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Decades of research have shown that healthy human
development and success in school depends on supportive relationships with various
significant people across the institutional arenas (Bandura, 1986).
As participants come together to act as practitioners-as-researchers, they
bring their various perspectives and funds of knowledge to collaborate with the
group. If the funds of knowledge are developed through inquiry and action research,
then the practitioners of higher education may be able to reflect and collaborate on
equity issues in their practices and at their institutions.
Funds of Knowledge Regarding Inequities
The goal is to encourage the participants to acquire new funds of knowledge
that will authorize the know-how, self-efficacy and expertise that will influence
equity in student outcomes in classrooms and institutions. The funds of knowledge
are defined by social scientists as historically developed and accumulated practices,
such as skills, abilities, ideas and practices (Bensimon, 2009). Moll, Amanti, Neff
and Gonzalez (2001) explain that the funds of knowledge refer to the historically
accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills essential for
household or individual functioning and well-being (p. 133). Stanton-Salazar (1997)
states that practitioners at colleges and universities have “institutionally based funds
of knowledge” that include academic subjects, career planning and the organization
of educational institutions. These practitioners also understand the specialized
language, relationships and networks of the institutions as well. When they use this
knowledge to help students, they are acting as institutional agents (Dowd, 2011).
29
However, teachers should also realize that students come to school with a variety of
skills and knowledge from their family and community. The concept of funds of
knowledge includes the fact that every household is an educational setting where the
major function is to transfer knowledge from elders to dependents (Greenwood,
2005; Moll et al., 2005).
Knowledge is inherently collective as people work together to develop and
share knowledge as a cooperative effort. The concept of funds of knowledge is not
always to enable teachers to teach students how to do school but to discover the
knowledge and skills the family already has and then put that knowledge to use.
These funds are created during events or activities, so they become the
characteristics of people in an activity.
Engstrom (1999) defines activity theory as a developmental process that
explains changes in human practices over time. Activity theory provides a
framework, which focuses on historical factors and artifact-mediated sets of
relations. Lev Vygotsky first introduced the idea of artifact-mediated action.
Vygotsky was a Russian born psychologist who contributed much to sociocultural
theory and claimed that action consists of a subject, an object and mediated tools.
He argued that the tools could be material or conceptual. Vygotsky also explained
that human development is an active, social process rather than an individual,
cognitive and largely passive one (Foot, 2001). Leont’ev (1978) built on Vygotsky’s
ideas of social processes into activity theory. Engstrom built further on Leont’ev’s
work in developing activity theory into a unit of analysis and added three
30
components to the social structure of activity. These are rules, community and
division of labor. The practitioners in the study will be implementing the funds of
knowledge and the parts of subject, object, mediated artifacts, as well as the rules,
community and division of labor when they become involved with CHAT as
illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. An activity setting (CHAT) framework
The goal is to include what the students bring from their own background
into the classroom by making culturally responsive and meaningful lessons that tap
into this knowledge. This knowledge can challenge the “culture of poverty”
assumptions that low-income families are dysfunctional in their approach to life and
31
that their children require a deficit compensation model of education (Gonzalez,
Moll, & Amanti, 2005).
Praxis-oriented knowing develops from people working together to create
and cultivate knowledge that allows the participants to take the appropriate action to
achieve their goals. Gutierrez (2009) explains the opportunities for educators to
examine their assumptions and to rethink explanations for student performance built
around the mismatched practices of home and school. She also states that by using
ethnography one can identify the local funds of knowledge and social networks that
teachers can pull from home and the community for their classroom projects. This
forms an interaction between home, community and school that allows students to
use their repertoire of practice and in turn gain a broader set of tools and practices.
Constructing Educational Activity Using CHAT
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) illustrates that the concepts of
learning are usually used in children but are still useful in adults especially when
combined with the organizational (institutional) learning theory as it links the
immediate settings in which the learning occurs to the social contexts or
organizations or institutions (Bensimon, 2009; Ogawa, Crain, Loomis, & Ball 2008).
Both CHAT, which developed from sociocultural theory and organizational learning
theory are formative in the nature of change.
Learning is social, encouraged by performance that is responsive, mediated
by cultural tools and artifacts and takes place in settings that have particular sets of
cultural and societal norms (Bensimon, 2009; Ogawa, Crain, Loomis, & Ball, 2008;
32
Roth & Lee, 2008). Bensimon (2009) also states that every thought or decision is
influenced by values, norms, assumptions and expectations of cultures. This may be
by institutions, society or families, all of which we are part. Senge et al. (2000) adds
that all learners build knowledge from scaffolding of their individual and social
experiences, emotions, aptitudes, beliefs, values, self-awareness, purpose, and more.
They explain that if one is learning in a classroom then what he or she is
understanding is determined by how he or she understands things, who he or she is
and what he or she already knows as much as by what is taught and how and by
whom it is taught. Increasing the awareness of these connections will strengthen the
process of learning.
Nasir and Hand (2006) state that family and the classroom culture affect
learning outcomes. However, these factors interact in students to create different
results. The authors state that there is a difference in the way culture is
conceptualized. On one hand, culture is a set of rituals, values, and beliefs, yet on
the other it is created in the moment-to-moment interactions with one another as
individuals participate in cultural practices. Moll and Greenberg (1990) claim that it
is the way of using social, physical, spiritual and economic resources to make one’s
way in the world. It is culture created in moment-to-moment exchanges that may
promote the inclusion of minority ways of doing and knowing in classroom
processes (Moll et al., 1992).
Cultural Historical Activity Theory examines the roles of social and cultural
processes as mediators of human activity and thought (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Lantolf
33
(2001) states that humans use symbolic artifacts to establish a relationship between
the world and ourselves and that human social and mental activity is organized
through culturally constructed artifacts. Lantolf also explained that since we inherit
cultural artifacts from the previous generations, then it makes sense to study these
historically, as Vygotsky had declared. Cole (1998) describes several central themes
to CHAT, such as, development occurs on many levels simultaneously over time and
cultural practices provide understanding to developmental processes. He also argues
that cultural tools and artifacts are fundamental in learning about others, and social
interactions play a key role in learning and development. Cole continues by
explaining that the refinement of sociocultural theory can be found in cultural-
historical activity theory (CHAT).
Roth and Lee (2008) describe CHAT as an integrative road map for
educational research and practice, which has been shown to be effective in analyzing
data and designing change in cultural settings both in formal and informal
conditions. Ogawa et al. (2008) discusses how a person who is engaged in activity is
linked to a complex network that is both social and historical (p. 85). The activity is
a joint pursuit that creates the context for interaction (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
Similarly, an activity setting is the context for collaborative interaction and assisted
performance that include cognitive components as well as social ones. Activity
settings are units of analysis, which include participants who have been selected to
engage in goal-directed action within a framework of cultural assumptions and
expectations (Cole, 1985; Leont’ev, 1981; Wertsch, 1981; Tharp & Gallimore,
34
1988). This study will include activity settings that are made up of workshops,
interviews, and focus groups for the purpose of developing understanding in equity.
According to Cole (1998) and Gutierrez et al. (2009), some of the basic
principles of CHAT are that humans have the need and ability to mediate their
interactions through culture. Culture is defined as a social inheritance and is
embodied in artifacts. Artifacts may be material or symbolic and may include
objects, words, rituals, other cultural practices and must be studied over time.
Artifacts may also represent the relationships of activities to their institutional or
organizational arrangements with a special emphasis on the notion of
multivoicedness, which is represented by the multiple points of view, traditions,
interests that are represented in the community within the activity study (Cole, 1998;
Gutierrez et al., 2009). Cole is also clear in stating that humans are created in joint,
mediated activity and that a culture of social interaction is essential in “normal
human development” (1998, p. 292). This implies that to change educational
practices towards equity-mindedness, colleges and universities must remediate the
artifacts being used on campus. These may include language, wording on
documents, and other cultural practices.
Roth and Lee (2008) claim that CHAT has much potential for instructors
because it is about development and learning while appreciating the communities
involved. The key is that everyone contributes to make the activity productive.
Collective activities increase learning opportunities for students as well as give
opportunities to teach as it develops new actions of practice. This enables mutual
35
understanding for the students and teachers to share cultural and knowledge
resources and may encourage low-achieving students to become involved and
capitalize on these underrepresented funds of knowledge. Organizations operate in
“socially organized environments” that influence action by providing norms, rules
and social definitions and shape these characteristics to conform to institutions
(Ogawa et al., p. 84).
When practitioners see diversity as a resource, they may rethink the ideas of
culture and cultural communities and understand what is truly cultural about what
people do and think (Gutierrez, 2009). The key here is to see differences not deficits
or deficiencies. Comparing an individual or a cultural community against a
dominant norm often leads to deficit-thinking. This has often been the case with
students who do not fit the mold of what American schools consider “normal”
(Deschenes, Cuban, & Tyack, 2001). They often get labeled as underachieving, or
having defects in intellect or even considered a failure. It is common thought or
stereotypical thinking about students who come to be known as problems rather than
a population of people who are experiencing problems in the educational system
(Gutierrez, 2009). Gutierrez and Orellana (2006) state that in a stratified society,
differences are never just differences; they are always understood, defined and
ranked according to dominant cultural norms, values, and practices. Stereotypical
attitudes play an important role in shaping the overall environment in which students
attend college and are significant in understanding academic outcomes (Charles &
Massey, 2003). These attitudes tend to blame the victim which leads to practices in
36
which policies and programs intend to change people rather that the systems in
which people participate. Such beliefs inhibit change or even the recognition that
changes in practice are needed to reduce cultural barriers to the success of cultural
minority students. One of the main goals of this study is to observe any changes in
practitioners’ beliefs, attitudes or behaviors towards equity or equity-mindedness.
Organizational Learning as a Strategy for Change
Senge et al. (2000) argues that if change is to happen, one must first observe
the way the people of an organization think and interact together. Organizations
work the way they do because of the ways people work (Senge et al., 2000). Getting
to know the culture of the organization is critical before any meaningful change can
occur. Change can happen either incrementally or in big leaps but it will never
happen without the commitment from the people involved.
Organizational learning theory differentiates between single-loop learning
and double-loop learning. While single-loop learning looks at problems from the
outside and distinguishes that they are beyond control, practitioners in the activity
will use double-loop learning to focus on the causes of the problem and work on the
attitudes, values and behaviors of individual and organizations (Bauman, 2002).
While single-loop learning repeatedly attempts to solve the same problems,
practitioners will use double-loop learning to attempt to address the larger issues
which require fundamental reorganization to achieve the goal and if it fails, the
methods are modified and tried again or quite possibly the goal is rejected
(Bensimon, 2009; Bess & Dee, 2008). Single-loop learning focuses on the student
37
for deficiencies and treats the symptoms but falls short of the root causes. Single-
loop learning may claim that the student has deficiencies in motivation, discipline, or
self-efficacy and therefore it is up to the student to succeed. These solutions may
work for the short term, but do not lead to change in cultural practices, structures,
power relations, values and other factors that can promote racial inequalities in
educational outcomes (Bensimon, 2009). Practitioners will find that double-loop
learning brings about lasting outcomes by focusing on their attitudes, beliefs,
knowledge and behavior. Through double-loop learning, practitioners will be able to
reflect on and amend their actions, strategies and even policies. Colleges and
universities are interdependent organizations with unique cultures that have multiple
power and authority structures along with shared governance (Kezar, 2005).
Features, such as double-loop learning, should be considered when discussing
organizational change. Taking time to reflect over the situation will allow the
participants to acknowledge their presence and capacity in taking action (Javier,
2009). Reflection also allows one to describe and differentiate the situation, to filter
through the various perspectives in order to form a precise description and make
meaning of it (Rogers, 2002). Rogers (2002) also explains that the more ability to
describe the depth and complexity of the issue or situation is in direct relation to the
ability to reflect. Reflection is an important step in the process of action research.
Conclusion
This dissertation will help to understand whether CUE’s tools enable
conversation about equity and equity-mindedness. An inquiry team will be
38
established at Monarch State University and participate in collaborative learning
activities. After disaggregating data and analyzing the gap in student outcomes at
their institution, the inquiry team will be involved in a design experiment. This
project will allow practitioners to place their documents next to the equity-conscious
indicators established by CUE and reflect over any changes they would like to make
to be more culturally responsive. The design experiment brings awareness to
practitioners that documents given to students on the first day of class introduces the
culture that the teacher has implemented. The syllabus is an artifact, which initiates
the relationship between the instructor and the students. The syllabus is reviewed for
clarity and completeness, testing and grading, pacing, and indicators for equity. The
indicators for equity include consideration of student’s needs, provision of resources
and the connection to the students’ cultural and historical backgrounds. This tool
opens communication, collaboration and a sense of empowerment for the
participating practitioners.
The activity settings will provide time to work collaboratively and use
various funds of knowledge such as techne and phronesis. These types of
knowledge are action-oriented and designed to attack problems together.
Sociocultural learning theory has various means for helping performance, such as,
modeling, feedback, questioning, explanation, task structuring and others. CHAT
uses the knowledge gained by family or community life into meaningful lessons at
school. Organizational learning introduces double-loop learning, which enables the
participants to work on the causes of problems by focusing on attitudes, values and
39
behaviors of all that are involved in student success. Action research uses reflection
as a powerful analytical tool of the data observed, the methods chosen and the
outcomes to improve strategies, practices and knowledge of the environment.
Working collaboratively with experts from different fields, faculty, administration,
counseling, and the institutional researchers creates a community of practice. CUE
uses all of the above in order to create settings suitable for engagement, involvement,
effort and integration in professional development, and activities in workshops that
focus on practitioner’s values, attitudes and behaviors.
State and federal accountability systems often use reporting requirements to
encourage practitioners to focus on educational outcomes. Bensimon (2009)
questions whether this method delivers meaningful data to the practitioners or the
public. At CUE, the use of action research tools and action inquiry activities are
designed to produce meaningful and productive activities in professional settings by
using artifacts designed to bring about meaningful results. Bringing external
researchers to work with faculty, administrators, counselors and staff encourages all
practitioners to see their practices more openly and honestly so as to build on the
positive aspects, reduce the negative ones and to think of diversity as a resource
rather than a problem (Cole, 1998; Bensimon, 2009).
40
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter explored the concepts and theories that will inform the
present study. To review, this study examined the impact of action research on
learning and change among higher education practitioners. Many contemporary
action research facilitators believe in action research’s potential to transform locally
situated understandings and practice (Burns, 2007; Greenwood & Levin, 2005;
McArdle & Reason, 2007; Stringer, 2007). They strongly believe it is
transformational to the individuals and organizations involved. Burns (2007) asserts
that by integrating “learning by doing” with deep reflection, action research
simultaneously informs and creates change. Change is considered an intended
outcome of action research. This change, however, is not revolutionary, but rather
can be characterized as “subtle transformations brought by the … modifications to
existing practices” (Stringer, 2007, p. 208). Greenwood and Levin (2005) pinpoint
action research as an activity that facilitates development and cultivation of
knowledge enabling practitioners to take appropriate actions to achieve their goals.
Finally, McArdle and Reason (2007) provide a precise metaphor when they speak of
action research and organizational development as close cousins.
This study was part of a larger research agenda being carried out by
researchers at USC’s Center for Urban Education (Bensimon et al., 2004; Bensimon
et al., 2007; Bensimon et al., 2010; Bustillos, 2007; Dowd, 2005; Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009; Dowd et al., 2007; Dowd et al., in press; Enciso, 2009; Salazar-
41
Romo, 2009). Specifically, it examined the impact of CUE’s action research
processes and tools, and the facilitation of action inquiry using CUE’s tools on the
attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and practices of a small sample of faculty, counselors
and administrators at Monarch State University where CUE’s tools were used. The
findings were drawn from pooled data collected by collaborating researchers at other
field sites during the same period this study was conducted. The multiple field sites
involved in this collective study were purposefully sampled based on their
relationship with CUE. College and university faculty and administrators at each of
the field sites were engaged in action inquiry facilitated by CUE researchers. The
field site for this study was a public state university in California with selective
admissions practices and an emphasis on science and technology education.
Developmental Evaluation
According to Patton (2002), the best way to decide which type of evaluation
to use is to be clear about the purpose of the study. Once the primary audience was
established, researchers could make a specific design study to gather data and
analyze decisions that address the issues. Summative and formative are the
traditional forms of evaluation. Summative evaluation encapsulates information to
make judgments regarding programs or practices in order to decide whether they
should be continued or not. It is used to determine the program’s effectiveness.
Formative evaluation asks questions that enable researchers to inform decision-
makers about ways of improving effectiveness.
42
This study evaluated the effectiveness of CUE’s tools in creating change of
attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors in practitioners, so the form of evaluation
needs to be an on-going process. This allowed researchers the opportunity to analyze
for continuous improvement. Patton (2011) defines developmental evaluation as the
processes and activities that support programs, projects, products, personnel and/or
organizational development (usually the latter). The evaluator was part of a team
whose members collaborated to conceptualize, design and test new approaches in a
long-term, on-going process of continuous improvement, adaptation and intentional
change. The evaluator’s primary function in the team was to facilitate organizational
discussions and enable data-based decision-making in the process (p. 317).
Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship of this study, which used developmental
evaluation methods, in relation to other types of research conducted by CUE
researchers. Developmental evaluation was used to inform the development of
CUE’s action research tools, which were designed to foster equity among racial-
ethnic groups in higher education experiences and outcomes. More broadly, this
study will inform institutions of higher education about how to incorporate action
research into the assessment of institutional effectiveness and equity.
The unit of study was constituted by the “activity settings,” in which action
research was conducted (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). As illustrated in Figure 3.1, the
activity setting represented the workshop or various other meetings where action
research was conducted. For this study, the meetings included faculty, administrators
and staff who became practitioners researching disaggregated data from their own
43
institution using a variety of CUE’s tools, including, for example, the Benchmarking
Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST) and document analysis protocol (Syllabus
Reflectional Tool and Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of Culturally
Inclusive Practices are examples). The BESST Tool allowed the data to be
manipulated to show how changes in one milestone can influence greater student
outcomes. The Syllabus Reflection Inventory helped faculty members explore and
reflect on their syllabi; thus facilitating their learning to become culturally responsive
agents. The practitioners came to these meetings and used these tools with their own
values, beliefs, and assumptions. Analyzing the data from their institution and using
the tools allowed for social interaction by collaboratively discussing what is needed
for change. This is the 1st person action inquiry stage, where an individual or group
engages in study for reflective practice. CUE engaged higher education practitioners
in that action inquiry process through participatory action research. 2nd person
action research stage in Figure 3.1 represented CUE’s relationship with practitioner
colleagues in this work. As institutional outsiders conducting action research, CUE
researchers “created processes and assessment tools for action inquiry on the part of
institutional insiders, who use them to assess their own practices” with the purpose to
address inequities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009, p. 2). Dowd and Bensimon (2009)
added that from this outsider status Action Researchers can orchestrate a change
process in ways that insiders cannot.
44
Figure 3.1. Developmental evaluation methods inform multiple modes of research
Developmental evaluation was instrumental for social innovators who are
trying to bring about change. In creating agents of change, there was a need to realize
that change does not follow a linear path. There were dynamic interactions,
unexpected, unanticipated divergences, tipping points and the traditional evaluation
approaches did not fit these situations very well (Patton, 2011). Developmental
evaluation tracked any emergent and changing realities using findings in real-time as
well as adapting to complex dynamics rather than trying to impose order and
certainty into an uncertain world. Developmental evaluation was designed to nurture
developmental, emergent, innovative and transformative processes. It tries to make
sense of what emerged under conditions of complexity.
45
In trying to create change, it was necessary to get beyond just identifying the
problem and finding a solution. That is called single-loop learning. Developmental
evaluation allowed participants to dig deeper into the assumptions, policies,
practices, values and system dynamics that led to the problem in the first place and
intervene in ways that involved the modification of the underlying system
relationships and functioning (Patton, 2011). This process allowed practitioners to
examine the effects of their actions and become accountable by reflecting on
important questions such as: Are we walking the talk? Does it work? How do we
know? What are we observing that is different, that is emerging? More questions
posed by Dowd and Bensimon (2009) regarding intervention include: Are these tools
leading individuals to adopt equity-minded perspectives that will allow them to
address the diverse needs of students? Does this work lead campuses to adopt
equity-minded practices? Does it work in helping individuals and institutions
become more effective in educating underrepresented students? Does it work in
producing more equitable student outcomes? While it does depend on the individuals
and institutions that are involved, developmental evaluation allowed assessment to
be an ongoing process. That builds organizational capacity to carry out innovative
work.
Patton (2011) explained that organizations that become involved in
developmental evaluation were usually more willing to ask these difficult questions
and identify their shortcomings and failures. Kruse (2001) explained that the
development of continuous improvement planning that takes place in schools is a
46
form of collaboration centered on student outcomes and that creating a culture of
collaboration leads teachers to engage in problem-solving. Developmental evaluation
is the process that measured and encouraged continuous improvement. In order to
implement change, the organization incorporated ongoing assessment and a solid
evaluation plan (Bensimon, Dowd, Daniel III, & Walden, 2010). Patton (2011)
reiterated, “The concept of developmental evaluation isn’t a model. It is a
relationship founded on a shared purpose: development” (p. 313).
In this respect, Figure 3.1 demonstrates that as a developmental evaluator
conducting 3rd person case study, I was working in relationship with a larger CUE
Evaluation Study Team. The team has two main goals: first, we developed CUE’s
evaluation capacity by improving the validity of the inferences drawn from
evaluation questionnaires. Second, we enhanced CUE’s effectiveness in conducting
action research for the purposes of improving equity in higher education. This case
study has provided CUE researchers with more nuanced understandings of the
experiences of the action inquiry team participants. That meant better understanding
of the reactions, attitudes, reflections, and action steps taken by practitioner
participants in ways that created positive impact in their students’ lives (Bensimon et
al., 2010).
Action Inquiry as Social Learning
CUE uses action research to facilitate practitioner inquiry. For the purposes
of this study it was important to understand the types of changes that might come
about through action inquiry and through what types of activities. As action
47
researchers, CUE created activity settings with the aim of remediating educational
practices that are harmful to racial-ethnic equity. Tharp and Gallimore (1998)
emphasized that problem solving and learning cannot be “understood outside the
complex social context” (p. 91). They went on to explain that designing learning
experiments should include assisted performance activities with peer consultants.
The Center drew on this notion and explained that in CUE projects, “learning and
knowledge are socially constructed through joint productive activities” (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009, p. 13). In joint productive activity settings, the members of a group
were not sharply divided into novices and experts, but rather were a combination of
people with different competencies that work together in a manner where an
individual member assisted others in the group depending on his or her own areas of
knowledge and skill (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Similarly, the CUE research model
theorized that a critical point of intervention in a change process was created by
social activity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). Therefore, the CUE approach used social
activities as a critical point of intervention for organizational change in colleges and
universities. As shown in Figure 3.2, the action research inquiry model was cyclical
in that adaptive expertise was acquired through a social inquiry experience. The first
part of the figure demonstrated the cycle of reflective practice and showed how
practitioners examined their knowledge and beliefs. The social interaction created a
forum for practitioners to be open to “different perspectives and problem framing
through data analysis” and allowed for them to engage in experimentation and
problem solving (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009, p. 6). Action research contextualized the
48
problem and was intended to support a broader range of professional actions and,
therefore, of experiences, which were the source of adaptive expertise. Through the
systematic use of observation and data analysis in this reflective inquiry cycle,
untested assumptions were tested in ways focused on problem- solving.
Experimentation was valuable because it opened up possibilities for new ways of
seeing and acting. (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009, p. 6).
Figure 3.2. Reflective practice (inquiry) as driver of racial-ethnic equity in
postsecondary education
The tenets of practice theory and social learning theory asserted that the cycle
of inquiry created a way for practitioners to examine their beliefs (such as deficit
49
minded beliefs) and in this process they un-learned old modes of thinking and
participated in learning activities that led to new knowledge (Dowd & Bensimon,
2009; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In this study, a social intervention point occurred
during the learning activity where practitioners as a group used CUE tools to
“collect, observe, interpret, and make meaning of institutional data in new ways that
ideally provide impetus for reflection, problem identification, experimentation, etc.”
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2009, p. 13). It was difficult to definitively measure the impact
of equity-based inquiry activities, but Figure 3.2 illustrated the logic model for the
expected impact of this social activity when practitioners used knowledge gained
through the cycle of inquiry to make changes to institutional structures and practices.
If positive change occurred, practitioners created environments that were more
equitable. However, social learning was not the only point of impact on student
outcomes. Figure 3.2 also illustrated state policies and institutional structures and
practices also play a role in changing practitioner behavior, even if it is just as a
reaction to stay in compliance with rules or mandates.
Research Questions
Table 3.1 outlined the research questions of the broader collective study.
Monarch State University was one of several campuses selected as a part of a larger
study that will took place across multiple campuses in California. The larger sample
included California community colleges and state universities. The sample size for
this case study varied, but the larger data set available to me through the collective
study, included respondents from the community colleges and four year state
50
university who participated in the design experiment. These participants were
observed and interviewed across multiple points of interactions.
Table 3.1
Research Questions and Sub Questions
Research Questions
1. What beliefs do higher educational practitioners (faculty, staff and
administrators) hold about underrepresented students’ success and how do
these influence their engagement in action inquiry to improve student
outcomes and program quality?
2. How do changes in knowledge about the impact of educational practices on
underrepresented students’ success influence those beliefs?
3. How does participation in action inquiry influence practitioners’ willingness
to engage in behavioral changes and their self-efficacy to bring about
organizational changes?
Sub-Questions
a. What beliefs do practitioners hold about racial-ethnic equity?
b. What are practitioners’ attitudes and beliefs towards action inquiry as a
strategy for equity-oriented organizational change?
c. How do practitioners behave in social interactions where attention is given to
racial-ethnic inequities?
d. What artifacts (language, media, tools) mediate attention to racial-ethnic
inequities?
e. What social interactions (roles, rules/norms, communities, division of labor,
power relations, racial relations, ethnic relations) mediate attitudes, beliefs,
and behaviors related to racial-ethnic inequities?
51
This case study aimed to contribute to the body of knowledge about the ways
participation in an institutional self-study provides a forum for reflection of
practitioner beliefs, attitudes and behaviors regarding historically underrepresented
students. Participants in the action research project took part in the cycle of inquiry
as shown in Figure 3.2 to further understand how to address issue of equity.
Monarch’s action research project had goals that were set by the institutional team,
with guidance from CUE. However, this dissertation explored the influence of action
research projects on practitioners, as well as identified the characteristics that were
associated with changes in a practitioner's beliefs and practices about equity issue, as
a result in participation in these projects.
The research questions outlined in Table 3.1 served as a guideline about the
collective study. I met with a group of STEM faculty at Monarch State University.
Reports have shown a decline in STEM-related human capital development in
California. The state faces challenges due to the growing number of undereducated
and unskilled labor force. Also, California students’ performance in science and
math is among poorest in the USA. If California does not address this situation, it
may lose its scientific and technological competitive edge. Since the minority
population has grown so much in California, there is a need to expand STEM
educational participation among diverse students. The point person of this study had
been selected and she invited faculty from math, engineering and science to
participate. Purposeful sampling was used to select people on the basis of a
52
particular set of attributes, which was dealing with equity issues and equity-
mindedness in the STEM program.
Sample and Field Site
The sample for my study and for the collective CUE developmental
evaluation study (of which my study was one part) was recruited from among
participants in CUE’s action research projects. Table 3.2 outlines all of the field
sites that were a part of this larger study and detailed the name of the institution, type
of institution, and the tools used at each field site.
This dissertation’s primary focus was on Monarch State University. Monarch
State University is a 4-year public comprehensive university with an undergraduate
population of over 17,500. It is located in a small suburb in California. The Center
for Urban Education is a facilitator of action inquiry projects and works with
individual institutions to set research goals and participate in the cycle of inquiry.
CUE’s mission for over ten years is to lead socially conscious research and develop
tools for institutions of higher education and is committed to closing the racial-ethnic
gap and improving student outcomes in education.
53
Table 3.2
Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study
Pseudonym Type of institution
CUE Tools Used at Workshops
Involving Individuals from this Field Site
in Spring 2011
CUE Alliance Network
Colleges
Eleven community
colleges that participated in
CUE workshops during
Spring 2011, most of
which are Hispanic
Serving Institutions
CUE Modules:
• Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST);
• Action Planning Tool
Dynamic Community
College
Community College
(Hispanic Serving
Institution)
CUE Modules:
• Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST)
• Syllabus Reflection Protocol
Los Flores Community
College
Community college
(Hispanic Serving
Institution)
CUE Modules:
• Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST);
Monarch State
University (MSU)
Selective Public University CUE Modules:
• Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST);
• Action Planning Tool
• Document Analysis Protocol
• The Racism Cartoon
• “Who helped you through
college?”
• Microaggressions informational
handout.
Amarillo Community
College
Community College CUE Modules:
• Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST);
• Defining Equity CUE Module
54
The following information reported is from the Department of Education’s
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), but to avoid reporting the
exact school in the study, statistics are rounded. Monarch’s primary educational
programs award bachelor degrees. The mission statement of the university highlights
a commitment to academic excellence and educational quality. The institution
boasts a 32% admission rate for first time freshman. The university website
highlights high test-scores and grades as a part of the admissions process. In 2009,
transfer students made up 15% of the nearly 4,000 new students that entered that
year.
The university had several trends that set it apart from peer institutions
(institutions that include other California state universities and other public state
universities with similar Carnegie classifications). For one, while peer institutions
reported an average of 30% of students receiving Pell grant aid, Monarch reports
only 10%. Second, compared to the ethnic composition of other university peer
groups, Monarch’s ethnic representation showed marked differences. For instance,
peer institutions on average had a student population that was about 45% white,
while Monarch’s white student population is over 60%. Latinos or Hispanics make
up about 16% of the student population at peer institutions, but only represent 12% at
Monarch. Peer intuitions have Black student populations of about 7% and Asians at
about 5%, but Monarch's percentages are 1 and 11%, respectively. These differences
in ethnic composition highlight a tension that is prevalent in this study. The
institution prides itself on its commitment to educational excellence, which the
55
university has translated as requiring high academic standards. Yet, this focus on
high test-scores and grades in the admissions process, which can be characterized as
a selectivity agenda, may conflict with the pursuing an equity agenda.
Before engaging in an action inquiry project with CUE, many faculty and
staff at Monarch State University were already participating in self-reflective
activities and evaluative research projects that focused on diversity and equity issues
on its campus. For example, the university put together an advisory council made up
of students, administrators, and faculty to exclusively focus on providing
recommendations to the university president about how to improve equity and
diversity in areas such as admissions, retention, curricular development, and the
campus climate. Other initiatives on campus also included a pilot study on improving
teaching and learning in science, technology engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
disciplines as well as a learning experiment involving engagement of engineering
students. Both of these initiatives had implications for diversity in terms of gender
and ethnicity.
Again, Monarch State University was just one of several field sites. Although
one of the field sites in the collective study was engaged in a multi-year action
research project with CUE, the remaining field sites were involved in shorter-term
projects (in duration of one year or less) consisting of a series of planning meetings
and workshops. The workshops were conducted by CUE under a variety of
circumstances consistent with the Center’s mission and typical practices. These
shorter-term projects involved many of the aspects of action research, such as an
56
integrated planning, inquiry, problem framing and solution generation process, but
they were best characterized as design experiments because of their shorter duration.
In effect, they were not full-fledged action research projects, because the time span
was not sufficient to support a complete cycle of inquiry.
Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection
Below is the timeline of the design experiment and data collection, which
began in the Spring of 2011 and concluded in the Spring of 2012. My study moved
from the planning stages to data analysis. As shown in Figure 3.3, data was
collected in different ways. The top level of the figure presents the timeline of
events and data collection. The second level represents the focus of the action
research activities. The third level shows my role and method of data collection.
Lastly, the fourth level indicates the number of participants involved. Throughout
the process of events 15-25 participants, including faculty, staff and administrators
from Monarch State University engaged in CUE conducted settings.
The main focus in the Spring of 2011 was developing and testing the tools
and processes for data collection. During the summer and fall months recruitment of
participants took place. In the community and action planning meetings, which
involved 18 and 15 participants respectively, I was a participant observer. This
meant I observed the participants looking for attitudes, beliefs, perspectives and
behaviors but did not formally collect data. I also noted the meeting rooms, the way
the rooms were set up and how conducive they were to use CUE’s tools and
processes. I began formally collecting data in the Fall of 2011. As indicated in
57
Figure 3.3, I collected observational data at the Document Analysis Workshop and
then conducted cognitive interviews with each of STEM faculty members in my
study group. There were eight STEM faculty members and all of them participated
in the interview process. Evaluation questionnaires were administered by CUE after
each of the activities as well as the workshop. After some time had passed, I
conducted follow up interviews in the form of member checking to obtain more
information regarding their experience and reactions to this series of events in order
to add to the data analysis.
Figure 3.3. Timeline of research study at Monarch State University
58
In October, we conducted the Document Analysis Workshop, which as
illustrated in Figure 3.3 involved 25 participants. This was an opportunity to meet
jointly in various formats including all together as one large group and then into
breakout sessions. After the workshop, I organized and conducted the cognitive
interviews with the eight STEM faculty who had participated, all of whom were
willing to be interviewed. Lastly, the member checking gave me another chance to
connect with the STEM faculty and ask them about any changes they intended or
have carried out in their practices or their syllabi. Five faculty members participated
in the member check interviews. Evaluation Questionnaires were observed but I did
not include this as part of my data collection.
Data Collection
Design Experiments
Cobb et al. (2003) articulates that design experiments entail both
“engineering” particular forms of learning and studying those forms of learning with
the context, subject to test and revision (p. 9). In this study, CUE action researchers
sought to “engineer” the environments where practitioners learned how to counter
institutionalized racism and marginalizing practices in higher education. For Bannan-
Ritland (2003), design experiments are at the front of research efforts constructing
persuasive narratives involving processes of iteration, feedback loops, and other
characteristics of the study of complex educational systems.
Given the definitions provided by various scholars, design experiments could
be summarized as having the following unique features. First, design experiments in
59
education blend empirical educational research with the theory-driven design of
learning environments (the Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). The second
“crosscutting” feature is the highly interventionist nature of the design research
(Cobb et al., 2003, p. 10). The goal was to explore the possibilities for improvement
by bringing about new forms of learning in order to study them.
Third, design experiments were characterized by iterative design (Cobb et al.,
2003; Bannan-Ritland, 2003; The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). This
iterative design process featured continuous cycles of design, enactment, analysis,
and redesign. The fourth feature of design experimentation emphasized focus on
authentic settings and interactions that refine understanding of the learning issues
involved (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003). Finally, in design
experiments practitioners and researchers “work together to produce meaningful
change in contexts of practice” (The Design-Based Research Collective, 2003, p. 6).
The size of the sample and research team as well as researchers’ expertise varied
depending on the purpose and the type of the experiment (Cobb et al., 2003).
The Design-Based Research Collective saw four areas that design
experiments provided the most promise: explored possibilities for creating novel
learning and teaching environments; developed theories of learning and instruction
that are contextually based; advanced and consolidating design knowledge; and
increasing capacity for educational innovation.
60
Participant Recruitment
All participants in this study were provided with a letter that outlined the
study’s ethical commitments for interactions with human subjects (see Appendix A).
The letter provided an overview of the study and explained that all data collected
from the participants will be treated confidentially and anonymously.
Two professors, who served as inquiry project co-facilitators from Monarch
State University, initially recruited study participants in Fall 2010. The composition
of the other team members included deans, faculty, student services personnel, and
college of education graduate students. Departments and colleges represented at the
planning meetings included: School of Education; College of Science and Math;
College of Liberal Arts; College of Engineering; Admissions and Recruitment;
Academic Success Office; Office of Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives. After initial
planning meetings four more leaders were added to the leadership team. Table 3.3
provides a summary of the inquiry team members at Monarch State University. Each
leader had an academic or student services focus area and recruited additional staff
and/or faculty members for their sub- inquiry team. The Monarch State University
team I focused on for this project was faculty with a focus on science, engineering,
math and technology. This team consisted of eight members.
61
Table 3.3
Summary of Gender, Position, Focus, and Home Department of Leadership Team
Gender, Position Focus Home Department
Female, Professor Leadership Team
Co-facilitator
Ethnic Studies/Women’s and Gender
Studies
Female, Professor Leadership Team
Co-facilitator
Materials Engineering (A)
Female, Professor STEM Faculty Materials Engineering (B)
Male, Professor STEM Faculty Physics/Co-Director of CESaME (A)
Male, Professor STEM Faculty Civil and Environmental Engineering
Female, Professor STEM Faculty Biological Sciences
Female, Professor STEM Faculty Industrial Manufacturing Engineering
Male, Professor STEM Faculty Physics/Co-Director of CESaME (B)
62
Data Collection Methods and Instruments
The following described the data collection methods that were used for this
study. Table 3.4 illustrates the variety of data that were used and how the different
forms of data provided evidence to answer the research questions. The first column
of Table 3.4 outlines the range of data sources, which can generally separated into
five categories: (a) observations; (b) evaluation questionnaires; (c) cognitive
interviews; (d) document analysis; and (e) member checks. The second and third
columns illustrate the type of data represented by each source and the timeline when
it will be collected. The majority of the data will be collected in the Summer and Fall
of 2011, with follow up activities occurring in late Fall 2011 and Spring 2012. The
fourth column in Table 3.4 explains how the data collected from the various sources
will be summarized. Most data, with the exception of observations, were
summarized as descriptive text, categorical summaries, and/or tabular summaries.
Observational data was subjected to deductive and thematic analysis.
Coded data was collected and analyzed keeping in mind the hypothesis that
CUE action research has an impact on practitioner attitudes/beliefs, behaviors, and
practices. The theory of planned behavior guided the analysis of the relationships
between attitudes/beliefs and behavior observed in the data. According to the
Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior, behaviors are highly influenced by
intentions, attitudes, beliefs, and a person’s perceived control in performing a given
behavior.
63
Table 3.4
Summary of Data Collection Methods
Data Source Data Represents
When Data Will Be
Collected
How Data Will Be
Summarized
Documents Policies
Discourse
Espoused beliefs
Environmental factors
Throughout study
(Summer/Fall 2011,
Spring 2012)
Descriptive text
Interviews with
CUE researchers
(expert interviews)
CUE analytical
objectives for action
research and
developmental-
evaluation
Prior to CUE
facilitated
Workshops
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Descriptive text;
Tabular summaries of
categories of
analytical objectives
Pre-workshop
cognitive interview
with activity setting
participants
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Prior to facilitation of
action research in an
activity setting (a
“workshop”)
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Categorical
summaries;
Summary tables and
text
Observations in
activity settings
(“workshops)
Behaviors
Social interactions
Norms
Discourse
Knowledge
During workshop
(October, 2011)
Deductive and
thematic analysis;
Numerical tables and
summary text (mode,
range, strength and
direction of impact)
Workshop
evaluation questions
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Immediately after
workshop
(October, 2011)
Bar graphs, line
graphs, counts, means,
tabular comparisons of
means, descriptive text
Post-workshop
cognitive interview
with activity setting
participants
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-reported)
Knowledge
2 weeks after
workshop
(October, November,
2011)
Categorical
summaries;
Summary tables and
text
Member check
interview with
activity setting
participants
Practices
Policies
Behaviors (self-reported)
Behavioral changes over
time (self-reported)
Knowledge
Following data
collection;
During interpretation
and thematic analysis
(Fall 2011/Spring
2012)
Informs revision of
descriptive text for
factual accuracy
64
The data from workshops, cognitive interviews, observations, and member
checking collected by the research assistants and facilitated by CUE provided
practitioners at the Monarch institution with both the opportunity and resources to
use CUE’s tools. As these tools were designed to promote equity, the desired
outcome was to increase equitable outcomes for racial-ethnic groups.
Observations. Observations were an important feature of this study and were
used to record interactions of the study team members and research group.
Observational data provided the researcher with a more comprehensive
understanding of the interactions between study team members in a natural setting
(Patton, 2002). Observations were collected using the Observational Data Collection
Template protocol (see Appendix B) developed by CUE. In accordance with the
protocol, the observational notes included detailed descriptions of Site, Mood of
Participants, “Task” Performance, Social Context, Environmental Constraints and
reflections. Importantly, observations regarding “Task” Performance focused on the
ways in which joint productive activity in the form of social interaction, mutually
negotiated values and goals, and actions bring about learning and change in the
individuals involved (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009; Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Patton
(2002) notes that observation allows the researcher to understand more fully the
program of study “to an extent not entirely possible using only the insights of others
obtained through interviews” (p. 23). Observations occurred at meetings, workshops,
and focus groups where Monarch State University faculty and administrators were
engaged as practitioner-researchers in inquiry activities. In these settings the group
65
was referred to as an inquiry team (Bensimon, Harris III, & Rueda, 2007). Other
factors were noted in the observations such as the physical settings. Some meetings
were held in the conference rooms where all the participants sat around two very
large tables. This allowed everyone to communicate freely within the large group
format. Other meetings were held in various classrooms allowing for different
design formats to occur. This format encouraged the researchers and practitioners to
interact within the various smaller groupings. The participants were asked questions
to reflect upon and given opportunity to share within the smaller group. Sometimes
participants were asked to pair off for certain exercises. These various arrangements
allowed the researchers many ways to observe the practitioners and provide depth to
the data collection. Observations allowed the research team to take descriptive field
notes to observe patterns of behavior and culture through the analysis of verbal and
non-verbal cues and were able to describe the activity setting, how the design
experiment unfolded, and the social interaction involved in using CUE’s tools.
Evaluation Questionnaires. At the end of an inquiry activity, participants
were given an evaluation questionnaire to complete. The evaluation questionnaires
used throughout the study were designed by CUE. The questionnaires asked
respondents to answer questions based on their reactions, beliefs, and experiences
during an activity setting, as well as intended behaviors afterwards. Questionnaires
are a way to capture a respondent's thoughts and feelings at a specific, static moment
in time (Patton, 2002). While the opinion of participants about their experiences in
inquiry activities was important, this dissertation study was also focused on studying
66
more in depth the patterns of change in thoughts and beliefs over a period of time,
therefore questionnaires also served as the reference point for the cognitive
interviews that were conducted.
Cognitive Interviews. Cognitive interviews are a method of data collection
that developers of surveys can use to assess the transfer of information. CUE is
continually developing evaluative surveys and questionnaires to improve the validity
of their conclusions about their effectiveness and impact in carrying out action
research. This process is an example of conducting 3rd person research, as denoted
in Figure 3.1. The cognitive interview is a way to “study the manner in which
targeted audiences understand, mentally process, and respond to materials we
present” (Willis, 2005, p. 3). The cognitive interviews for this study were designed
to prompt participants to think aloud as they answered evaluation questionnaire
items. As they discussed how they arrived at their answers, they shared their
perceptions, beliefs and attitudes. The researchers asked more probing questions to
dig a little deeper. The responses were key in the study. The responses enabled the
researchers to notice any changes in their attitudes and beliefs and if they were likely
to create any changes in their practices.
Traditional surveys where respondents answered questions independently can
produce response errors that occur for any number of reasons including because
questions were difficult to understand, misinterpretation of scales, and respondents
not remembering information presented to them, just to name a few. The cognitive
interview was used to understand how these errors occurred. On a conceptual level,
67
the data from cognitive interviews allowed CUE researchers to assess if the
evaluation questionnaire was measuring what they want to measure in the ways they
wished to measure it. It was difficult to assess changes in practitioner beliefs and
analysis if the survey data did not inform researchers if all responses accurately
represented the learning outcomes the survey designers intended (Ouimet, Bunnage,
Carini, Kuh, & Kennedy, 2004; Willis, 2005). Cognitive interviews helped with
identifying logistical problems with survey items such as wording and flow, but on
an analytical scale it also assessed the clarity in the presentation of information,
practitioner beliefs, and a respondent’s awareness of their cognitive frames.
Using CUE-developed Cognitive Interview protocols (See Appendix C, for
example), the research team interviewed members of the inquiry team. In this
respect, the cognitive interviews assisted CUE with their future correlation analyses,
based on standardized question items, to assess the impact of CUE action research
projects. Relevant to this study, cognitive interviews also provided information on
respondent’s beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral referent groups, perceived norms, and
practices.
Document Collection. Documents are a rich source of cultural and historical
data of institutions and programs (Patton, 2010; Stringer, 2007). Documents provide
the researcher with information that cannot be observed and can “reveal things that
have taken place before the evaluation began” (Patton, 2001, p. 293). Documents
allow for a researcher to get a better sense of processes and culture not readily
evident in traditional fieldwork and may able to provide information to guide the
68
future inquiry paths that can be pursued later through direct observation and
interviewing (Patton, 2002). The document data collected for this study included
meeting notes, institutional reports or newsletters, electronic communications,
website information, syllabi, admissions and student services brochures or handouts,
and other organizational literature. One example of a document that will be reviewed
was the meeting notes from a diversity initiative council meeting. These meeting
notes allowed for a deeper understanding of culture, context, and institutional goals
or decisions that I would not otherwise be privy to (Patton, 2002). Other sample
documents like syllabi were analyzed in terms of language used and as a platform for
self-evaluation and self-reflection during inquiry activities.
Member Checking. Another way of obtaining data is through member
checking. Member checking gave participants a way to describe their experience
and present their perspectives. Member checking “provided all participants with
extended opportunities to explore and express their experience of the acts, activities,
events, and issues related to the problem investigated” (Stringer, 2007, p. 58). The
STEM faculty were called by phone and asked to share their feelings and thoughts
on the Document Analysis Workshop as well as the cognitive interviews. They were
asked if they made any changes in their practices or to their syllabi or if they
intended to make any changes. They were also asked if they had anything else they
wanted to comment on. Member checking allowed for the researcher to get a variety
of perspectives (separate from the problem solving experience of the inquiry team)
69
and also served as another method to increase confidence in previously collected
data (Patton, 2002).
Member checking focused on expanding the understanding of a practitioner’s
realized or intended changes in beliefs, behaviors, and/or practices. Member
checking took place at the culmination of the study and was guided by questions
from initial evaluation questionnaires, observations, and cognitive interviews.
Data Collection Procedures
My introduction to this inquiry project began in Spring 2011. During this
period the main focus of the project was the testing and development of instruments
for data collection during workshops and for cognitive interviews. I was introduced
as a graduate student researcher to the project team listed in Table 3.3 at this time
and my presence at planning meetings was as a participant observer. The majority of
the Spring 2011 semester was spent gaining familiarity with action research
procedures at CUE workshops.
The months of Summer and early Fall of 2011 were used to recruit individual
participants for this study (see Appendix A). The participants in the collective CUE
developmental evaluation study played a variety of roles at their institutions
including faculty, administrators, and staff. The participants in my study were
entirely STEM faculty. Lastly, data was collected at the activity setting, inquiry
team meetings, and CUE workshops in Fall 2011 and Spring 2012.
The data collection included the use of several CUE tools. Along with the
BESST and CUE informational modules, one of the major activities of the inquiry
70
team and CUE meetings in Fall 2011 was the Document Analysis Protocol (also
called Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of Culturally Inclusive Practices
tool). The Document Analysis Protocol process involved each member of the inquiry
team in individually assessing a sample document from their own work and using
CUE created prompts to evaluate the document’s messaging to students in respect to
cultural inclusive practices (See Appendix D). The documents served as artifacts of
culture and their review acted as a way for practitioners to self-reflect and then bring
those reflections to a larger inquiry team to draft an action plan to strengthen
culturally inclusive practices on the campus.
Data Analysis Procedures
Figures 2.1 and 3.3 illustrate the learning and change model informing CUE’s
action research methods. This study was informed by the theoretical frameworks
described in Chapter Two, including practice theory and cultural historical activity
theory (CHAT). Practice theory calls attention to a cycle of inquiry among
individual practitioners, as well as the role of social interactions in shaping
opportunities for practitioner learning and experimentation with new educational
practices. Other inquiry studies often take a constructivist, interpretive approach to
research. These studies focused on meaning making, examining interactions, and
enriching our understanding of social situations. They were rich with descriptions
and provided an understanding of the social realities of individuals and social context
(Phillips, Bain, McNaught, Rice, & Tripp, 2000).
71
Kruse, for example, conducted several constructivist, interpretive studies that
dealt with issues that teachers and administrators encounter in the K-12 education
system. Kruse and Louis’s (1997) study examined interdisciplinary teacher teaming
to investigate if teaming produces opportunities for a professional community (p.
261). They found that while teaming was beneficial for those members within a
team, teams often operated separately, and members formed close bonds with
individuals on their teams but often worked in isolation from other teams. In another
study, Kruse (1997) investigated the “reflective thoughts of teachers,” examining
how teachers use reflection to inform practice. In another constructive interpretive
study, Stillman (2001) examined “factors that support equity-minded teachers to
navigate accountability-driven language arts reform, barriers that impede teachers
from serving marginalized students, particularly, English language learners, and how
particular environmental factors mediate teachers responses to accountability
pressures” (p. 133). Therefore, the data analysis focused on documenting what took
place in the design experiment and understanding the subsequent behaviors and
changes in beliefs.
This study differed from these constructive studies of inquiry. This study is a
mixed methods developmental evaluation study. While some of the methods for
conducting research such as interviews and observations were the same, there were
several dissimilarities in the purposes and methods in this study compared to the
studies conducted by Kruse, Stillman, and Louis. The purpose of this study was to
understand an organizational learning and change process, as catalyzed through
72
action research. The methodologies used to employ these studies also differ. In
traditional studies, researchers’ often act as outsiders, studying the participants. In
this case, CUE researchers simultaneously served as researchers, while working
collaboratively with participants, providing tools developed by CUE to facilitate the
action research process. In traditional studies researchers generally study individuals,
groups or phenomenon; this study required that participants also served as
researchers into their own practices and worked collaboratively with CUE facilitators
to develop the tools necessary for organizational learning, change, and to increase
institutional effectiveness. This process allowed for an inquiry process to occur,
giving practitioners the opportunity to take a deeper look at institutional practices
and policies that could be hindering institutional change.
Cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) calls attention to the role of social
interaction and cultural artifacts in shaping educational practices. Chat emphasizes
the influence that history has on organizations and therefore it focuses on
documenting what took place in the design experiment and subsequent behaviors and
changes in beliefs rather than focusing on the lived experience or co-construction of
meaning through the activity setting. Using CHAT as a framework allowed CUE
researchers and practitioners at the focal institution to examine how the institutions
culture and history may be impeding organizational change. Culture can often be
invisible, Bess and Dee (2008, p. 112) assert that uncovering cultural assumptions
require a joint effort between insiders and outsiders, in this case practitioners at
Monarch State University, and CUE researchers. This study differed compared to
73
the studies conducted by Kruse, Stillman and Louis because unlike their studies this
study examined the organization’s past to understand its present situation.
Data Coding
Data analysis took place once data had been collected from all sources to
triangulate insights from the data. The sources included the community and action
planning meetings as well as the workshop, cognitive interviews and the member
checking. The data were used to provide a better understanding of the structures that
hinder or promote organizational learning and change. Codes for thematic coding
were selected based on prior CUE evaluation studies. Data analysis involved the use
of deductive and generation of inductive themes. Deductive codes were pre-
determined and provided categories for a quantitative analysis. Inductive themes
were qualitative and will be developed based on the data collected. Inductive themes
were generated after the data is examined to identify typical responses and
range/variation in the meaning of the responses. The deductive codes for data
analysis in this study were predetermined and included: attitudes/beliefs, knowledge
and social interactions in activity settings, including non CUE related mediating
artifacts, language, roles, rules/norms, community and division of labor. Reflection,
problem identification, experimentation/problem solving and action experience were
used to analyze the impact of CUE’s tools. These constructs were evaluated based
on the following concepts:
Attitudes/Beliefs. In this study attitudes and beliefs were examined using
Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1975) expectancy-value model. From this framework,
74
attitudes are developed from the beliefs individuals hold about an object or stimuli.
Together attitudes and beliefs influence behaviors and outcomes (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1975). Ajzen (1991) argues that people are more likely to perform an intended
behavior when they have the necessary resources and opportunities to do so. Data
regarding attitudes and beliefs were collected through observing activity settings and
through the verbal and non-verbal language used by during activity settings and from
cognitive interviews. An example of attitude was this statement: “Diversity is the
Achilles’ Heel at Monarch.” This process of collecting data was continued
throughout the member checking.
Knowledge. One of the tenets of CUE’s work is to assist practitioners in
developing the knowledge needed to increase equity for students of color. Even
when practitioners do want to increase the outcomes of students of color, it is
possible that they lack the knowledge necessary to increase outcomes for minoritized
racial-ethnic groups. Knowledge is constructed through collaborative and
“productive activities” (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009). One example of a knowledge
statement was: “There is a lot of room for improvement.” The tools developed by
CUE assisted practitioners at Monarch in the facilitation of developing new
knowledge; therefore, data collected noted knowledge statements.
Social Interaction. Social Interactions refer to how people participate or
choose not to participate and how they interact with others. Social interaction
occurred at three levels; the personal plane, interpersonal, and community/
institutional (Nasir & Hand, 2006, as cited in Rogoff, 1995). “The personal plane
75
included individual cognition, emotion, behaviors, values and beliefs. The
interpersonal plane involved communication, role performances, dialogue,
cooperation, conflict, assistance, and interaction. The third plane,
community/institutional involved, having a shared history, language, rules, values,
beliefs and identities” (Nasir & Hand, 2006). All of these concepts were included to
analyze social interactions. A statement that engaged social interaction was: “The
syllabus is a reflection of you to your students.”
Reflection. Reflection was the thought process that occurred when
practitioners examined their practices. Some argue that reflection is necessary for
individuals to become more skillful (Nasir & Hand, 2006) and it is also needed for
organizational learning and change (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009). The willingness of
practitioners to examine themselves and their institutions critically was a prerequisite
for addressing the problem of inequities based on race/ethnicity (Bauman et al.,
2005). An example that demonstrated reflection was: “I would call it the personal
power to enact change.” A STEM faculty member was defining agency and how it
applies to one’s practice just as Schon (1983) describes reflection as a thought
process that occurs when practitioners examine their own practices.
Problem Identification. Problem identification occurred when practitioners
identified an issue that needed to be addressed at their institution. An example of
this was when CUE used the BESST Tool to show disaggregated data of student
outcomes. This sparked inquiry questions such as, “How many students can we
76
move from column A to column B? What effect does this have on……” Also, an
example was the change in beliefs from deficit-mindedness to equity-mindedness.”
Experimentation/Problem Solving. Experimentation/Problem Solving is
when practitioners began developing solutions to address current issues at their
institution. Various perspectives and framing problems using data analysis as well as
social interaction bring new capacities for experimentation and problem solving
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). Dialogue continued and a sense of collaboration was
developed between the participants.
Action Experience. Action Experience took place when participants related
their own experiences directly or indirectly to the problem at hand. At this point
researchers were able to observe that the practitioners understood at a deeper level.
The Data Analysis and Summary Sheet (shown in Table 3.5) was used to
analyze the data collected through the observations conducted in activity settings.
The Data Analysis and Summary Sheet was divided into two columns. The first
column includes deductive, Attitudes/beliefs, knowledge and social interactions in
activity settings, including non CUE related mediating artifacts, language, roles,
rules/norms, community and division of labor, reflection, problem identification,
experimentation/problem solving and action experience. The second column was
divided into four sections. The first section guided a quantitative analysis of the data.
It called for a numerical summary of the frequency of the use of each code in order
to provide evidence from which to draw conclusions from this study and what is
typical about the areas most impacted by CUE’s tools.
77
Table 3.5
Data Analysis Codes and Summary Sheet for Analyzing CUE’s Tools
Code Categories Attitudes/Beliefs (A/B)
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B)
Knowledge (K)
Social Interaction (SI) in Activity
Settings
(non CUE) mediating artifacts,
language, roles, rules/norms,
community, and division of labor
Reflection
Problem Identification
Experimentation/ Problem Solving
(includes perceived behavioral control;
environmental factors)
Action (Inaction)/ Experience
(includes perceived skills, ability, self-
efficacy)
Other (not coded above)
(1) Frequency, Tally # = the number of times you
have used this code in coding the data from this
particular activity setting ______
(2) Characterize the data…
Based on evidence of impact
[weak/strong, based on frequency of code count
relative to total code count for this activity
setting]
and direction of impact
[negative/positive/neutral, based on proportion of
data in this code exhibiting positive
correspondence with the general hypothesis, i.e.
there is a typical response and it is positive]
(3) Data Excerpts: Typical
Quotes that illustrate the typical meaning of the
data coded in this category (include reference #s
with data note page and line number, e.g. 10.5
means page 10, line 5)
(paste excerpts and let pages flow, retaining the
page breaks)
Insert data excerpts here
(4) Data Excerpts: Variation/Range
Quotes that illustrate the variation and range of
meaning of the data coded in this category
(include reference #s with data note page and line
number)
(paste excerpts and let pages flow, retaining the
page breaks)
Insert excerpts here
Analytical Memo
78
The second section characterized action of the data to summarize the results
of the analysis in regard to the hypothesis that CUE’s tools remediate practice in
ways that bring about “equity mindedness” and practices believed to promote
equitable outcomes for racial-ethnic groups. In sections two, three and four the codes
were summarized categorically and qualitatively described. Section two provided
evidence of the impact of the constructs represented by the codes indicated as weak
or strong based on the frequency of the use of the code. Section three provided space
to enter excerpts from the data of the analysis to demonstrate the typical meaning
captured by the code in use. Section four described language that illustrated the
variation/range of meaning captured by the code.
In the last row of the data analysis codes and summary sheet was a space for
an analytic memo. An analytic memo summarized the results revealed by the coded
data, such as emergent themes, tensions and unresolved issues. The analytic memo
served as an ongoing document to capture and analyze the results of each code
throughout the data collection process. It was used not only for analysis, but also to
inform the following steps.
Uncoded Data
The data analysis was focused on understanding attitudes, beliefs, perceived
control and intent. Throughout the data analysis process, uncoded data was also
analyzed to shed light upon themes for futures codes and analysis, revision of
evaluation forms, changes to the action research tools, and changes to the way the
79
CUE workshops are facilitated. The analytical memos were also referenced to reveal
emergent themes, tensions and unresolved issues.
Evaluation Questionnaire Data
Basic descriptive statistics were observed from the evaluation questionnaires.
The data were non-identifiable, pooled, site- and activity-specific respondent
experiences, and impact obtained from collaborating researcher. Questions were
assessed to evaluate the inferences the researchers gained from the workshop
evaluation forms. These included questions such as: In your own words, what is this
item asking; what do you think is meant by “aware,” in this item; what do you think
is meant by “change?” They were also assessed to analyze the effectiveness of using
action research for the purposes of improving equity in higher education. This data
was observed yet not included in my analysis.
The Action Research Process, Design and Activities
Community and Planning Meeting: Building the Foundation
The initial planning meeting was held at Monarch State University in
February 2011. The co-director of CUE and two co-facilitators from MSU organized
the meeting. This was my first exposure to the project and the participants at their
site. My position was as a participant-observer and I did not formally collect data.
Eighteen individuals from Monarch participated in this event. The composition of
the group included deans, faculty, student services personnel, and college of
education graduate students.
80
The primary goal was to reveal the action inquiry project, which was
collaborated with CUE. The co-director of CUE introduced CUE’s tools and make
packets available to all in attendance. Foundational questions that framed the
meeting were addressed, such as: What types of action inquiry activities are MSU
people interested in participating in? What data are available to support inquiry?
What current planning, inquiry, faculty development activities, assessment or
accountability requirements provide an entry point into this project? Three areas of
interest emerged as outcomes from the meeting: robust systems of support and
resources for students of color; creating welcoming culture for students of color; and
tracking pathways of students of color. After the planning meeting, a conversation
between the co-director of CUE and one of the MSU facilitators led to planning a
data analysis and action-planning meeting. It was designed to use the Benchmarking
Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST) designed by CUE to demonstrate any
gaps in equity issues at Monarch.
Data Analysis using BESST to Define the Problem
The April meeting involved participants that examined equity gaps in student
enrollment, persistence, and degree completion at MSU through the use of the
BESST. The intent of the meeting was to enable participants to self-organize and
assess changes needed for the purpose of greater equity for Latino(a) students and
African American students on MSU’s campus. This meeting was facilitated by the
co-director of CUE and had a group of 15 participants (some were newcomers and
the rest had attended the previous meeting). The BESST demonstrated a snapshot of
81
Monarch’s enrollment, persistence, and degree completion for White, Latino,
African American, and all students in the cohorts of 2005 and 2010. The tool
allowed practitioners to see MSU data in a graphic form and to interact with the data
findings, which allowed them to set short- and long-term equity goals.
The co-director of CUE described the functions of the tool and then
stimulated a conversation among the participants by asking several evaluative
questions: “What if Latinos were selected for admission in Fall 2010 at the same
rate as the group with the highest admission rate? How many more Latinos would
have enrolled?” and “How many more African American students would we need to
bring to reach equity goals?” During this discussion, the co-director of CUE
reframed the focus towards the content and quality of institutional practices that
might produce inequities. The tool enabled participants to think about equity by
presenting the disaggregated data. The tool also stimulated social interaction,
problem framing and solution generation from the perspective of institutional
responsibility.
Document (Syllabus) Analysis Workshop: Self-Assessment Using Inquiry Tool
The Document Analysis Workshop served as the main “activity setting” of
my study. It was organized off campus and involved 25 MSU practitioners – high-
level administrators, student support services professionals, and faculty members.
Some of the practitioners had been involved with the previous meeting, and some of
them came for the first time. The primary goal of the workshop was to initiate self-
82
assessment in the form of inquiry through the Document (Syllabus) Analysis
Protocol.
The workshop began with the “Storyboard Tour,” which discussed what took
place prior to the workshop. Facilitators from MSU explained how the project
originated. They commented that the workshop’s goals aligned with the institution’s
mission and the President’s vision. Co-director of CUE then continued with an
explanation of the book “Stuck in the Shallow End” and revealed the book’s
metaphor on inequities in education. Next an interactive activity, “Who helped you
through college?” enabled small group discussions around the tables. Participants
discussed differences and similarities in their own stories. This process led to
reframing the discussion towards color consciousness and institutional responsibility
for underrepresented students’ success.
Breakout sessions occurred next, which divided the large group into four
smaller groups for deeper discussion. The smaller size of groups enabled inquiry
into their own practices, using the Document Analysis Protocol for Culturally
Inclusive Practices. The participants in my study were all STEM faculty members.
They were asked to use the Protocol with their own syllabus to self-assess and reflect
on their practices, which included documents such as their syllabi, assignments,
handouts, or exams. The Protocol, created by CUE, included nineteen indicators of
culturally inclusive practices. The indicators included: (a) Respect for students; (b)
Desire to help students succeed; (c) Information students need to successfully act on
the information in the document; (d) Validation of racial diversity; (e) Expectation
83
for active involvement with diverse communities, real world problems, and social
responsibility; and others (see Appendix D). The response column asked whether
the culturally inclusive practice represented by the indicator is reflected in the
document, whether it should be, and whether the person completing the review,
would be willing to take steps to change the document if he or she believes changes
are merited.
The facilitator of the breakout session initiated social interaction by asking
participants to reflect and share their experiences after completing the document
analysis. Participants shared numerous examples and ideas on how to strengthen
culturally inclusive practices. Towards the end of the session, participants were
suggested to brainstorm action steps to improve equity at MSU. After the breakout
sessions, all participants met together to share and build on what was learned and
what the next steps would be.
Standards of Review
Credibility
The credibility of a research process, defined as “the plausibility and integrity
of the study,” was a fundamental issue in action research (Stringer, 2007, p. 57).
Credibility of action research was based on the standard of acceptance of the results
of the study by users in the setting and measured by their willingness to act on those
results, “thereby risking their welfare on the “validity” of their ideas and the degree
to which the outcomes meet their expectations” (Greenwood & Levin, 2005, p. 54).
It meant that knowledge co-generated by researchers and local stakeholders was
84
considered as credible and valid if it gave rise to actions or changes in practices or
policies (Greenwood & Levin, 2005).
The users of the present study were twofold: CUE and practitioners in the
field setting. As mentioned previously, the study informed CUE for development of
evaluation questionnaire and for enhancement of its efficacy in conducting action
research. It also informed Monarch State University practitioners and the field of
higher education of the creation of self-assessment activities using action inquiry to
initiate the change process for more equitable outcomes.
The potential audiences who may search for credibility of the present study
include action researchers in general and CUE action researchers in particular, higher
education assessment professionals at similar and different institutions, as well as
higher education accountability policy makers. To meet the expectations of those
audiences, the study established credibility by way of four strategies that are
proposed by Stringer (2007): data triangulation, referential adequacy, researcher
triangulation, and debriefing.
First, the credibility of the study was enhanced using data triangulation
incorporating a range of sources of information available over time. The
observations of research team members during the workshops were a primary source
of data. This study also relied on evaluation questionnaires, cognitive interviews,
document analysis, and data from focus groups. The inclusion of perspectives from
different sources “enables the inquirer to clarify meaning by identifying different
ways the phenomena are being perceived” (Stringer, 2007, p. 58).
85
Referential adequacy was another technique to amplify credibility of the
study. Referential adequacy, proposed by Guba and Lincoln (1986) refers to “an
activity that makes possible checking preliminary findings and interpretations against
archived “raw data” (p. 301). In regard to referential adequacy Stringer (2007) states
that in action research concepts and ideas within the study should reflect the
experiences and perspectives of participating parties and results should be drawn on
their terminology and language. To ensure that the study reflected the perspectives of
participants, I identified a portion of data to be archived (not analyzed) and conduct
analysis on the remaining data to develop preliminary findings. I then will return to
the archived data and analyze it as a way to test the validity of my findings.
Next, peers and CUE researchers, who served as facilitators, were additional
sources of insight in making sense of potential inconsistencies in data. I utilized
researcher triangulation — discussions of diverse interpretations and perspectives in
a larger research team — to establish credibility. In addition, there was debriefing
with focus on obtaining examples of behaviors, actions, attitudes, and beliefs that
have changed. Thus, peers and researchers questioned, challenged, and supported
my interpretations of the data. Finally, the research team shared results with the
inquiry team participants, welcoming their feedback and reactions.
Transferability
In general, action inquiry outcomes are applicable only to the particular
groups and contexts that were part of the study (Stringer, 2007). However, Stringer
argues, that it is not to say that nothing can be generalized to others. In order to
86
enhance transferability of research, he suggests reporting “detailed descriptions of
the context, activities, and events” (p. 59) as part of the research outcomes.
Greenwood and Levin (2005) frame transferability in action research as
“necessitating a process of reflective action rather as being based on structures of
rule-based interpretations” (p. 55). They suggested that the key to transferring
context bound knowledge to a different setting is to understand contextual conditions
under which knowledge was created and those of a new setting.
Given both perspectives, thick descriptions of the action research processes
and tools, setting itself, and social interactions provided in the present study, allowed
its audiences mentioned above to infer relevance for their own practice settings. For
example, the outcomes of this study may be transferable to other public universities
that are interested to improve their instructional and administrative practices to better
serve students from racial-ethnic groups. It is important to understand, however, that
motivational intent of practitioners to adopt knowledge generated in the study was
shaped by their beliefs about the legitimacy of action inquiry activities and their
perceptions of self-efficacy and collective efficacy to carry out similar projects.
Dependability and Confirmability
According to Stringer, “dependability focuses on the extent to which people
can trust that all measures required of a systematic research process have been
followed” (p. 59). Dependability of the study will be strong because a detailed
description of all research procedures was presented. That provided the basis for
judging the extent to which they are dependable.
87
Confirmability, or “ability to confirm that the procedures described actually
took place” (Stringer, 2007, p. 59), was established through an audit trail. It included
the data collected, field notes, instruments, tools, and other artifacts related to the
study. As Kane and colleagues (2002) asserted,
An audit trail provides the reader with evidence of trustworthiness in that she
or he can start with the raw data and continue along the trail to determine for
her- or himself if, in fact, the trail leads to the outcomes claimed by the
researcher. (p. 199)
The items above and the analysis of the inquiry project provided an audit trail, which
made easily accessible for systematic review the evidence to ensure that the study
was trustworthy.
Limitations
Stringer (2007) notes, “human inquiry, like any other human activity, is both,
complex and always incomplete” (p. 179). The study may have several limitations
arising from realities of investigation. First, my participation and experience in
action research, inquiry and developmental evaluation was limited. I have only
acquired training through reading literature, role-playing, and as an observer.
Second, the data from evaluation questionnaires used in the study represented self-
reported beliefs, attitudes, and practices, could have been inaccurate. Third, direct
observations of the practitioners and their practices in the context of their student
services offices or their classrooms could have provided richer data for triangulation.
Participants in the workshop could have felt uncomfortable sharing in front of people
they did not know or felt uncertain of how they would be perceived. Also data were
88
not collected from students, whose experiences also could have suggested evidence
about real changes in the practitioner’s practice.
Fourth, some cognitive interviews were done by telephone, which was not
quite as efficient due to the lack of non-verbal cues. Fifth, the short duration of the
study was another limitation because the inquiry cycle may not have been completed.
Sixth, the study has been conducted under the guidance and recommendations by a
chair, who holds a leadership position in CUE. As a result, it might potentially lead
to a lack of researcher independence and conflict of interest.
Seventh, there are limitations due to the small sample size in my study.
Eighth, time was another constraint to my faculty members. Teachers have busy
schedules teaching classes and other obligations. Coordinating interviews and
member checking took planning and scheduling.
It is significant to point out that no reference is made to the race or ethnicity
of the participants, as it would risk revealing someone’s identity. Therefore, this
creates a limitation in that the results do not speak to “racialized” differences in
views or experiences and do not allow us to explore them. It is critical to maintain
confidentiality especially given that under developmental evaluation the expectation
is to share the results with the field site partners.
Data Reporting
Data will be reported from observations, cognitive interviews, and member
checking, as shown in Table 3.4. Observational data reports included descriptions of
the activity settings and of the CUE tools. Activity settings took the form of CUE led
89
meetings, inquiry team meetings, and breakout team meetings. CUE tools included
the BESST and the Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of Culturally Inclusive
Practices tool. Descriptive texts, tabular summaries based on categorical data were
used to conduct deductive and thematic analysis. Table 3.6 illustrates code categories
from Table 3.5 with examples of data that the codes represent.
Table 3.6
Deductive Data Analysis Codes
Code Category Examples
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B) “Success is entirely possible”
Knowledge (K) “We already know all of this (low
success/transfer)...we’ve known this for three years.”
Social Interaction (SI) “Your questions are so great!”
Reflection (R) “What are we doing wrong in the classroom to help
these students?”
Problem Identification (PI) “We haven’t paid attention to the first generation
students.”
Experimentation/ Problem
Solving (EXP)
“This is nosebleed information...what I want to focus
on is the SLO.”
Action(Inaction)/
Experience (A/E)
“It’s really time to have a cautious
conversation...we’re missing those conversations.”
Other (not coded above)
90
Summarizing Findings
Audiences
Audiences for the findings include Monarch State University, peer colleges
of Monarch State University, CUE researchers, action researchers, and higher
education practitioners, particularly those involved in projects involving:
Assessment, Accountability, Equity, Diversity, Anti-racism and Organizational
Change.
Summary
In summarizing, participants for the activity settings were chosen through
purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is significant when selecting information-
rich cases that will illuminate the questions under study (Patton, 2002). The
workshops and various other activity settings are designed as joint ventures that
allow the practitioners to interact and collaborate on issues including equity (Moll,
2000; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). These settings have become the cultural devices
for thinking and learning (Moll, 2000) in which teaching and assisted performances
occur (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The goals of the activity setting directed the
action and collaborative interaction towards developing a structure that encourages a
common understanding of equity-mindedness.
Dowd (2005) explains that activities that facilitate a culture of inquiry,
characterized by professionals who “identify and address problems through
purposeful analysis of data about student learning and progress,” allow faculty
members to gather, analyze, discuss, and reflect on data disaggregated by race and
91
ethnicity. Various workshops were held at the participating institution featuring
CUE’s tools, such as the BESST Workshop, Document Analysis for Self-
Assessment of Culturally Inclusive Practices and others. The BESST Workshop
allowed participants to become practitioner-researchers who in turn became experts
on the culture and climate of their institution. Analyzing the disaggregated data
permitted the practitioners to see a snapshot of their school. The interactive tool was
able to show, with a few clicks of the mouse, that changes in one place can have
great effect on student outcomes.
The Document Analysis for Self-Assessment of Culturally Inclusive
Practices is a protocol designed by CUE for faculty and administrators to analyze
their syllabus or other documents given to their students. CUE researchers have
created tools that call attention to equity-based indicators of effective practice in
providing course content on a syllabus (Bensimon, Dowd, Daniels III, & Walden,
2010). Students may understand the language differently than was intended by the
instructor. Since language was the cultural artifact that creates meaning, it is
necessary to clarify the information being presented.
The data for this study were collected from triangulation of observation notes
taken from the workshops or other activity settings, document analysis and cognitive
interviews. Observation protocols enabled attention to be paid of the site, including
the room, the set-up, the climate and culture of the participants. Cognitive
interviews were also used to gather information that may give clarification to
information that has been interpreted differently. This procedure offered much more
92
insight into attitudes and beliefs as the practitioners were able to share their opinions
or perceptions on the topic; thereby, addressing any of our working hypotheses.
Three hypotheses are woven throughout the activity settings, observations,
exercises and interviews. These were: (1) when practitioners are engaged in activity
settings using CUE’s tools, their attitudes and beliefs will be challenged and
influenced towards equity-mindedness; (2) participating in action inquiry and
reflection will influence a willingness in behavioral changes; (3) the practitioners,
who have become experts at their institution, will become agents of change regarding
equity in policies and procedures at their institution.
Observation notes collected at workshops and various activity settings were
analyzed and coded. Multiple observations allowed participants to model various
attitudes, moods, comments and behaviors. Data analysis code sheets helped to
assign codes to the observations. At the end of each activity setting an analytical
memo section summarized the overall feel of the meeting. Notations that stood out
were placed here for quick reference at a later date (Table 3.5). The interviews were
analyzed and coded for developing, evolving or emerging trends and patterns. The
codes were analyzed and constructed into themes that reflect on aspects of the
research questions and hypotheses.
The triangulation of observations, document analysis and cognitive
interviews was significant to the credibility and validation of the study. These
methods, especially when combined, helped researchers to observe the attitudes and
beliefs of the practitioners and measure any changes through this process.
93
Developmental evaluation measured any of these changes. It also enabled
researchers to document the actions that were engaged in, short-term results and
consequences of these actions, as well as identifying any emergent outcomes or
processes that arise (Patton, 2010). Emphasis on this change is instrumental because
beliefs are important drivers of behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2010; Patton, 2011).
The activity settings and practitioner-researchers, along with CUE’s tools are the
cultural hearth of a new equity framework for educational change (Gutierrez, 2006).
The findings of this study were not designed to be used as generalizations due to the
nature of action research and by focusing on a specific problem concerning people
and the organization (Patton, 2002). However, this study will contribute to the
understanding of how CUE’s tools enabled practitioners to assess their practices, to
think about changing their practices to better serve historically underrepresented
students, and to advocate for changes towards equity-mindedness in policies and
procedures at their institution.
94
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the results of my data analysis and thematic findings,
which explore the influence of participatory action inquiry on the attitudes, beliefs,
intentions, and the behaviors of STEM faculty in bringing about change in equity
issues and equity-mindedness at Monarch State University. This chapter applies the
conceptual frameworks to analyze the activity settings of CUE’s action research (as
implemented in the design experiments of this field-based study) and presents
themes that emerged about the participants’ experience in this process. The themes
came about through analysis of data collected in the field site from observations,
document analysis, cognitive interviews and member checking by email and
interviews. The activity settings will be further explained while focusing on the
responses from the STEM faculty, which exhibit their attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors. The participants’ beliefs, and changes in these beliefs are recognized in
this process as an important driver of behaviors (Fishbein, 2000; Patton, 2011). The
hypothesis of my study is that by participating in action inquiry, collaboration, and
self-assessment, using equity-oriented activities and artifacts, practitioners change
their perceptions, beliefs, intentions and behaviors regarding equity issues in higher
education. CUE’s tools provided the opportunity to have participants while in a
social interaction workshop, reflect, discuss and collaborate on racial and ethnic
equity at their institution.
95
Given that the research questions entail beliefs of higher education
practitioners and how these influence their practices regarding underrepresented
students, this study will show that participation in action inquiry influences changes
in the practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors as well as their self-
efficacy in bringing about organizational changes.
This chapter will show that the design experiment CUE conducted at the field
site of my study to promote reflection and collaboration influenced practitioners to
work together in order to produce meaningful change in their attitudes, beliefs,
intentions and behaviors in the area of racial and ethnic issues and equity-
mindedness. The design of this project included creating a culture of inquiry by
participants who “identified and addressed problems through purposeful analysis of
data about student learning and progress” (Dowd, 2005). This inquiry-based design
experiment allowed the reflection and development of new knowledge as well as
new practices for the participants. These outcomes are consistent with the theoretical
perspective of the study. CHAT acknowledges that the most successful way to
create new knowledge is in the “context of a shared, mutually engaging activity”
(Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, & Witham, 2012). In this study the mediating artifacts
that CUE used were the document analysis protocol (see Figure 4.1). The subject in
this design experiment is the group of STEM faculty from Monarch State University.
The faculty, along with CUE researchers, used the document analysis protocol to
review their syllabus and bring about change to the norms and traditions affecting
their classrooms. The object was to remediate their practices and syllabi. This led to
96
the outcome, which was racial and ethnic equity and equity-mindedness at Monarch
State University. This new knowledge led to a change in attitudes and beliefs that
influenced behaviors and roles of faculty members from teaching content to
becoming agents of change. One faculty member added another section to her
syllabus after working with the Document Analysis Protocol. She wanted to be more
inclusive by making sure students know they are respected and that their prior
educational experiences as well as life experiences are valued. She also wants to be
sure they know that she believes that all students are capable of attaining their high
education goals. This shows a modification that came about from using CUE’s tools
and can be interpreted using CHAT’s perspective of the change in roles from
teaching content alone to showing students validation, respect and how to succeed.
Figure 4.1. Activity triangle reflects the design project
97
As discussed in Chapter Two, a major premise of CUE’s action research is
that knowledge is socially constructed, influenced by engagement in a joint
productive activity, takes place in communities of practice and is mediated by
cultural tools and artifacts (Bustillos, Rueda, & Bensimon, 2011). In the field site I
studied, three activities were intentionally designed by CUE to prompt social
interaction, reflection and collaboration with a defined purpose of looking at equity
issues at Monarch State University. The three activities included observations,
cognitive interviews and document analysis. Reiterating from Chapter Three, CHAT
has many features, for this study I concentrated on the concepts that: 1) learning is
social; 2) learning is mediated by assisted performance that is responsive; 3) learning
is mediated by cultural tools and artifacts; and 4) learning takes place in communities
of practice (Bustillos et al., 2011).
Those participants involved in the design experiment have been building a
community of practice that is a group that has grown over time through the
involvement in this ongoing purposeful endeavor (Wenger, 1998). The group at
Monarch consisted of faculty, staff and administrators as the larger group that began
meeting a year ago. As noted in Chapter Three, the participants in the Document
Analysis Workshop broke into smaller communities for further discussion and I
observed the discussion of STEM faculty members. The STEM faculty along with
other faculty and administration communities helped define what is valued, and
through collaboration developed new practices that highlight equity issues and
equity-mindedness.
98
After I analyzed and coded data and responses from the different activity
settings and cognitive interviews, the data were categorized according to the
following themes:
• New Knowledge: Racial and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
• Uncertainty About How to Include Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy
• Competing Agendas
• Agency: In the Classroom and at the Institutional Level
These themes were derived from the triangulation of document analysis,
observations, and cognitive interviews and then verified by member checks. Once
faculty began sharing about their practices and their own reflections, some realized
that they wanted to make changes to their syllabi that were more culturally
responsive but felt they did not know how to do so. Lucy commented, “I found I
could not do this…this diversity stuff.” This type of quote suggests a sense of not
having the knowledge and tools to address equity issues at this institution. Other
faculty members added their concerns as well.
Steve added, “Are there invisible barriers? Because when we are successful,
we do not see what is happening. Are we then weeding them out? I fall into this.”
He was referring to the lack of women and minority students in his department and
realizing that it may not be that particular students do not want to be science majors,
but they may not feel included or encouraged to take science courses. Therefore the
gain in new knowledge brought about by action inquiry, reflection and collaboration
has helped faculty grow in new knowledge and cultural inclusiveness. After using
99
the action research tools and processes created by CUE, many of the STEM faculty
have traveled through the cycle of inquiry, made action plans, and put those plans
into practice.
The Competing Agendas theme reveals that there are different approaches
taken by faculty and administration for student success. Several faculty members
said that these differences have promoted tensions, frustration and even
discouragement. Leticia remarked,
I have to say this is a really bad time to ask these kinds of questions about the
University being able to change because I am frustrated about trying to get
some things done. Probably if you had talked tome about six months ago, I
would have been more hopeful or if you talked to me six months from now, I
would be more hopeful. But, right now trying to get the University to make
changes feels pretty much impossible.
Some of the faculty thought that these differences in approaches are the
reasons they do not feel confident to become agents of change at the institutional
level. One faculty remarked that administration is recruiting too many freshman
students and that her department has no control over having so many freshman
students. She feels strongly that they cannot do a good job with this many students
and feels powerless to make changes. She stated,
It can also indirectly affect equity in that if you have that many students you
cannot make time for all of them individually. I feel that it sets us up to do a
worse job. So policies get made without faculty input and then we pay the
price.
100
Table 4.1
Number of Statements in the Data Providing Confirming or Disconfirming Evidence
for Themes (N = 8 participants)
Confirm Disconfirm No Response
New Knowledge: Racial and
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
6 (75%) 2 (25%) 0
Uncertainty About How to Include
Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy
7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) 0
Competing Agendas 4 (50%) 0 4 (50%)
Agency: In the Classroom and at the
Institutional Level
8 (100%) 0 0
These themes were derived from the triangulation of document analysis,
observations, and cognitive interviews and then verified by member checks. The
confirming responses suggest the validity of the theme. The disconfirming responses
regarding new knowledge and including culturally inclusive pedagogy in the
classroom are because these individuals are already knowledgeable about the issues
of equity. One faculty member is including these practices in her classes now.
I have clarified and summarized the data collected from the various activity
settings. They have been coded, tallied, and analyzed using the frameworks of
CHAT and Fishbein and Azjen. I have totaled the frequency of the various codes in
each activity setting and shown the process of using collected data from the
observations, cognitive interviews and document analysis and analyzed it using the
101
frameworks of CHAT and Fishbeing and Azjen to recognize recurring as well as
emergent themes.
Table 4.2
Distribution of Tabulated Codes from Data Collected in Three Activity Settings
Workshops
2011
Cognitive
Interviews
Total
Frequencies
Total
Percentage
Attitudes/ Beliefs 33 33 66 26%
Knowledge 23 19 42 17%
Social Interactions 18 4 22 %9
Reflection 16 12 28 11%
Problem Identification 22 18 40 16%
Problem Solving 8 0 8 2%
Action 12 5 17 6%
Role 1 6 7 2%
Community 12 5 17 6%
Norms 8 13 21 8%
Table 4.2 displays the way that I coded the data using the deductive codes.
More data was collected that reflected attitudes and beliefs than problem solving and
action. This was due to the nature of the activities CUE conducted. The STEM
faculty was asked to engage in discussion at the workshop not to take particular
102
actions or to engage actively in problem solving. Figure 4.2 highlights in red the
parts of the Inquiry Cycle that my study focused on. STEM faculty spent most of the
time at the Document Analysis Workshop on these characteristics within the Inquiry
Cycle.
Figure 4.2. STEM faculty focused on part of inquiry cycle
The nature of the Document Analysis Workshop was to feature social
interaction that engaged faculty members in reflection and collaboration and
bringing about new knowledge and changes in beliefs. The STEM faculty used this
time at the workshop to reflect over their practices and discuss their use of CUE’s
tools in this process.
103
Figure 4.3 shows a visual representation of how these themes were derived
from the triangulation of document analysis, observations and cognitive interviews
using the frameworks of CHAT and Fishbein and Azjen, and then verified by
member checks.
Figure 4.3. From data to codes to themes
Collected
Data
Document
Analysis
+
Workshop
Observations
+
Cognitive
Interviews
CHAT and Fishbein
& Azjen CODES
1. Attitude/Beliefs
2. Knowledge
3. Social Interaction
in activity
Settings:
Mediation
artifacts,
Language, Roles,
Rules/Norms,
Community and
Division of Labor
4. Reflection
5. Problem
Identification
6. Experimentation/
Problem Solving
(behavioral
control/
environmental
factors)
7. Action (Inaction)/
Experience
(perceived skills,
ability, self-
efficacy)
Themes
1. New Knowledge:
Racial and
Culturally
Responsive
Pedagogy
2. Uncertainty
About How to
Include Culturally
Inclusive
Pedagogy
3. Competing
Agendas
4. Agency: In the
Classroom and at
the Institutional
Level
104
Institutional Context: Making Strides on Monarch’s “Achilles’ Heel”
The CUE researchers asked participants at MSU to discuss and collaborate on
issues of racial and ethnic equity. By using action research, CUE intends to involve
participants in action inquiry drawing on evaluative questions that lead to reflection
and collaboration. This enabled participants to become the “best practitioners,”
which CUE describes as individuals who are trained to use data to uncover equity
gaps, identify ineffective practices that hinder student success and distinguish the
practices and interventions that address the unique needs for student success at their
institution (CUE website, n.d.). Monarch State University has been involved in self-
reflective activities and evaluative research projects that focused on diversity and
equity issues before and they did not hesitate to get involved with CUE. Monarch
State University’s mission statement boasts about students and faculty being partners
in discovery and that MSU values inquiry, cultural and intellectual diversity, mutual
respect, civic engagement and social and environmental responsibility. Yet Monarch
also realizes that even though they fare well in student and faculty diversity in
comparison with the 15 peer institutions across the country, they do not adequately
reflect California’s diversity. Therefore the design experiment led by CUE was
timely.
Participants in my study were all STEM faculty. There was a diversity of
faculty members representing science, including physics, biology, chemistry, various
types of engineering, and mathematics. The five female and three male faculty
members have been teaching at this campus from 10-20 years and have been
105
involved in numerous outside activities. STEM is very significant at MSU.
Monarch began over a hundred years ago as a polytechnic high school. Then it
expanded and offered community college courses and grew into the four-year
university that it remains today.
The President of Monarch, in a 2011 speech to the MSU community affirmed
that the institution would remain committed to STEM. The speech addressed the
critical shortage of STEM graduates and added that while it is the STEM disciplines
that distinguish Monarch’s role in the state system, there are graduation gaps that
must be narrowed. The shortage of minority students at MSU has driven many
industry partners to stress that Monarch’s relative lack of diversity is the institution’s
‘Achilles’ Heel.’ The President reiterated the need to grow in diversity as he stated,
“Our students cannot learn to succeed in today’s multicultural society if they don’t
have some similar real-world experiences while on campus.” He added, “Our
students cannot be truly successful in an increasingly diverse society and in an
increasingly complex, global economy unless they experience as students what it
takes to function in the real world.” He argued that Monarch needs more California
students of color, more out-of-state students and more international students in order
to bring in broader perspectives and he added that this is more than just checking
boxes on gender and ethnicity. He boasts about the campuses’ STEM’s “learn by
doing” philosophy. These words suggest that the campus culture is consistent with a
culture of inquiry. The “learn by doing” style and reflection as well as action inquiry
is what action researchers claim brings about change in existing practices. CUE asks
106
participants to support practitioner inquiry and reflection as a means of bringing
about learning and changes in equity issues. Patton (2011) states that change does
not always follow a linear path. I was aware of this as I observed social interactions,
dynamic conversation and emerging themes in the activity settings.
CUE’s Action Research at Monarch State University
BESST Workshop
Monarch’s data was disaggregated by race and ethnicity to initiate discussion
for more equitable outcomes for historically underrepresented students (Bensimon,
2011). The idea was to present a snapshot of Monarch to show what is and what is
not happening regarding equity issues. Bensimon (2004) contends, “individuals
must see, on their own, and as clearly as possible, the magnitude of inequities” (p.
46). This interactive tool allowed changes to be implemented and displayed what the
outcomes of those changes could look like. The CUE representative made a
relatively small change with the tool and the participants watched how it influenced
changes in other areas. These visible changes reflect short- and long-term goals.
The tool also displayed institutional data in graphic form that represent specific
intervention points, such as the number of students who applied, students who were
selected and the students who enrolled. The tool is intended to allow participants to
ask questions about the data, reframe assumptions into more questions and monitor
their progress, which at Monarch was to add more students of color especially into
the STEM disciplines. Figure 4.4 is an example of how the BESST Tool appears
107
with various indicators and milestones, which enabled participants to reflect on the
access and success of historically underrepresented students.
Figure 4.4. An example of the BESST tool displaying data to aid decision making
The BESST Tool enabled the participants to discuss possible next steps,
which included what actions could one take to bring about equity at Monarch and
discuss possible intervention points such as a workshop in the fall and the self-
assessment inventories. This led to the discussion of self-assessing faculty
108
documents such as the syllabus. At this time, a point person was asked to contact
various STEM faculty to see if they would be interested in getting involved with the
design experiment. The design involves Monarch, who is partnering with USC’s
Center for Urban Education, to facilitate a study with an increased focus on equity
and inclusivity. She explained that the project included participating in a self-
assessment of their syllabi and attending the Document Analysis Workshop in the
fall of 2011.
CUE’s Document Analysis Protocol as a Self-Assessment Inventory
The inventories are assessment tools created by CUE that are designed to
facilitate self-assessment into the ways that colleges and universities use or could use
culturally inclusive practices in order to assist historically underrepresented students.
The inventory is one of a series of steps that guide the practitioners through their
syllabus or other assignment-type documents. These documents are used to
communicate with students and are considered artifacts of culture. This process
enabled faculty and administration to look at their own practices. Using the
indicators designed by CUE, they could identify what types of assumptions they
present on their syllabus or other document. My group was entirely made up of
STEM faculty that used the Document Analysis Protocol (see Appendix B) with
their own syllabus. This brought about questions and concerns that prompted action
in taking steps to planning a workshop with CUE researchers. In showing this data
to the participants, they discussed the ideas of self-assessing their syllabi before the
109
fall workshop in order to facilitate discussion and collaboration regarding their
classrooms, departments and the institution.
Affirming Attitude:
1. Respect for students from all
backgrounds.
2. Desire to help students from
all backgrounds succeed
Reflections:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Next Steps:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
High Expectations:
1. Expectation that students
from all backgrounds are
capable of obtaining high
educational goals and
expected to succeed. Student
success will be a
collaborative effort among
the student, peers, faculty,
administrators, counselors,
students’ families, and
communities.
2. Expectation that students
from all backgrounds will
actively participate in
different aspects of their
educational experience.
3. Information and resources
students need to be
successful are available in
the document.
Reflections:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Next Steps:
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
_________________________________________
Figure 4.5. Excerpt from the Document Analysis Protocol
110
This excerpt from the Document Analysis Protocol demonstrates the types of
indicators that CUE has designed to help faculty look for any culturally inclusive
practices. The entire STEM faculty in my group agreed to assess their syllabi as an
artifact of culture in communicating with their students what is valued, accepted and
to be striven for (Dowd et al., 2012). They were looking for any cultural
assumptions they may possess and then planning to share with the group about what
they learned at the workshop.
The Document Analysis Workshop
The next activity setting was the Document Analysis Workshop in the fall of
2011. A research team was formed from STEM faculty, other faculty, and
administration from MSU that intentionally selected participants using purposeful
sampling to look outside of the usual suspects to find participants they felt would be
interested enough to become change agents. These selected participants became
involved in the project and were the subjects of the collective study. Prior to
meeting at the Document Analysis Workshop, each faculty and staff member along
with administrators was asked to do a document analysis activity and then reflect on
what they learned or contemplated while conducting the review. The conversation at
the Document Analysis Workshop came from the reflection of these documents.
As an activity setting, the Document Analysis Workshop was designed to
encourage participants to cultivate inquiry that brings about actions in order to
achieve their goals. The workshop was held near Monarch State University at a
community center. The building had plenty of room for the larger group as well as
111
the various breakout sessions. Having the setting for the fall workshop off campus
met with some resistance. Some were disappointed it was not on campus yet others
were glad it was not on campus. The idea behind having it at a community center
was to incorporate the feeling of neutrality, which helped to even the weight of every
participant’s voice. This was intended to give everyone the freedom to be included
in the conversation. The framework of CHAT states that individuals come together
around a shared activity, an activity in which they all have some input (Roth & Lee,
2007). The Document Analysis Workshop enabled faculty, administrators and
researchers to have input in this activity. CHAT also explains how new knowledge
occurs within a setting that is constrained by its “historical legacies and the language
and objects present within its culture” (Dowd et al., 2012). The participants
collaborated and negotiated their roles while inquiring and trying to solve the issues
of equity at Monarch. CHAT acknowledges that learning and understanding takes
place in context of culture. The faculty’s beliefs, which are part of their culture,
were reflected in what they said, how they acted and their non-verbal actions.
Given that knowledge and beliefs influence how people behave in social
interactions, the goal of CUE was to bring about understanding that the problem was
a problem of practice. This was needed to motivate the practitioners not only to
make changes in the classroom but to become agents of change at the institution as
well. Because beliefs can also lead to changes in behavior, three types of beliefs
were witnessed. These beliefs included: (1) behavioral, which related to
consequences of their behavior; (2) normative beliefs were the social norms they
112
shared about experiencing at their institution; and (3) control beliefs were the
personal and environmental factors that either encouraged or hindered their
behaviors. As these beliefs and behaviors were reflected on and sorted out, the
actions of the faculty became more understandable. CHAT acknowledges that this
learning and understanding takes place in the context of culture.
Their beliefs, which are part of their culture, were reflected in what they said,
how they acted and their non-verbal actions. Examples of this included giving
attention to each other, sitting forward in their chairs, making eye contact and even
laughing were all signs of ease and eagerness to dig in and get started. Each
participant eagerly chimed in with responses and reactions to what was
communicated. The leader of the faculty group asked if everyone had worked on
their document analysis and everyone responded that they had so we moved right
into discussion. I observed their responses and noted the characteristics referring to
attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, reflection, social interaction, problem identification,
problem solving and action/inaction (see Figure 4.3). The activity settings provided
plenty of opportunity for dialogue and interaction.
Observing the Participants at the Workshop
At the beginning of the Document Analysis Workshop, we all gathered at
several round tables. Each table had from six to eight participants, which consisted
of faculty, staff and administrators conversing and enjoying the social interaction.
The CUE facilitator began disclosing the timeline of our progress leading up to this
workshop. She used various storyboards to illustrate how and when various
113
participants became involved in the on-going project. Some had been involved since
the beginning and others had joined along the way. The storyboards allowed
everyone to catch up with what had already been done and what direction we were
going. Participants were asked to discuss the question “Who helped you through
college?” and then were given a few minutes to discuss it. My table had three
administrators and two faculty members. I observed that some participants at the
table said their parents were instrumental in their attending college, while others said
they had certain teachers that had encouraged them to continue. Some even stated
that it was expected in their family that they would attend and graduate from college.
CHAT explains that our actions are constrained not only by the present state of our
cultures or our current forms of participation but also by the histories of those
cultures and legacies of prior generations (Dowd et al., 2012). This activity was to
enable faculty to remediate their attitude, if necessary, by acknowledging that no one
accomplishes a college degree just by himself or herself and that each one of our
students needs role models to encourage their success as well.
As we divided into smaller breakout groups for continued discussion, the
members in my group greeted each other warmly. They have known each other
since they were all in the STEM field at Monarch, yet it was obvious they do not get
a chance to meet with each other often. In fact, they shared that they do not often
have this opportunity to meet together even though they profess themselves to be a
close-knit community that works together for student success. Each one of them
explained his or her busy schedules with all of the various involvements.
114
They made the time to use the Document Analysis Tool assignment. The
document analysis tool encouraged faculty to look at their syllabus with the aid of a
protocol that had them looking for specific language that related to cultural
responsiveness. Using this tool led the participants into a series of steps that directed
inquiry, reflection, social interaction, and action planning. Other questions on the
protocol asked STEM faculty to refer to various indicators of culturally inclusive
practices and to consider whether their documents could be characterized as
communicating respect for students and validation of racial diversity, gender, age
and socioeconomic status. Then they were asked if they thought they should
communicate these characteristics and how could they revise their documents to do
so? One STEM faculty member commented, “I have never read my syllabus from
the perspective of a student. My syllabus has evolved so much over the years that it
was useful to take the time to go over it.”
Just as the group began taking their seats, a faculty member asked the first
comment. She asked, “So does anyone have more than a few maybe’s and no’s for
all the rest?” She was referring to the Document Analysis Protocol, and the answers
to questions designed to assess culturally inclusive practices that would assist
underrepresented students. There was a bit of laughter, as they acknowledged
agreeing with her. Although it was universal that STEM faculty teach science, math,
technology and engineering and simply do not see how ethnicity and racial issues fit
into their coursework, the opening comments put everyone at ease. Discussing their
reactions to the prompts on the document analysis tool engaged the participants in
115
conversation. One faculty member stated that she used to put so much on the
syllabus and students would not read it. Another faculty member said, “I say it in
class but does not put it on the syllabus, or maybe I think I say it…” This remark
demonstrated how the document analysis led her to remediate her practice even
beyond the immediate activity. She noticed a problem with her practice and looked
at it differently to try to correct herself. A third faculty member replied by asking,
“Are we open to other ways of knowing? Or do we see how closed we are? We
think we are open-minded, but we are really not.”
While it was apparent that the STEM faculty has not included the
characteristics of diversity and equity into their classrooms and documents, the
attitudes they expressed began to change during this discussion. When one faculty
member questioned, “So students feel like they belong here it they are more aware of
their differences than their lack of… Would this be included in the syllabus? How
would you do this in science, math, and engineering? Or maybe we are not focusing
on the right things in science, math and engineering….” Throughout the
conversation, it was noticeable that attitudes were beginning to change from the
attitude of not including equity issues to asking how can they include these issues
and discussions in their courses.
Conversation continued for quite a time regarding the tension over what to
include on the syllabus. One STEM faculty member said, “The syllabus is a
reflection of you to your students.” Another STEM faculty member shared that
everything he put on the syllabus, the students could hold him to as a contract. This
116
started a heated discussion on the concept of “just what is a syllabus, and what
should be included?” The text in Table 4.3 reflects some of the conversation that
occurred as recorded in my observational data. F-STEM refers to female STEM
faculty member, 2F-STEM refers to a second female STEM faculty member, M-
STEM refers to male STEM faculty member, and so on, in the table below.
This conversation shows how people feel differently about putting
information on their syllabus. It led to further discussion on how students perceive
what they read on the syllabus. One STEM faculty remarked, “I have standards.
You work hard and I know that you do. I do not like the idea that if I do well,
someone has to do poorly.” The other participant responded, “I don’t enforce this.”
Another questioned, “But do the students get that message?” They were questioning
the idea that while they are sending out something, the students could be reading it as
something else. This exchange of dialogue enabled the group to reflect on their own
practices and how they unintentionally could be marginalizing students. They asked,
“What messages do we want to send to our students?”
117
Table 4.3
Observed Conversation at the Workshop
F-STEM Do you use the word contract?
M-STEM Yes, but I am not holding the students to the contract. I am telling
them that they can count on me to hold up my end of the contract.
(He was quick to say that a syllabus means different things to
different people.
M-STEM He also brought up that he puts the GPA from the last semester on
his syllabus. The group asked why and he stated that it explained
what the students can expect.
2F-STEM What do you expect the students to hear when they see this? How
does this affect the students? Do they feel like getting a 69%is ok
because it is average?
F-STEM I am not clear on the intent of putting the GPA on your syllabus.
2M-STEM We tell students that they are going to learn and do well. They need
to realize that if they get a C, it is ok. It is the college average.
3F-STEM We need a rubric to explain that a C means this and an A means
that, but don’t impose certain distributions.
4M-STEM We want to be rigorous.
F-STEM That is really crazy.
4M-STEM It just means this is all very statistical. You cannot have classes
with all 3.5s.
F-STEM Why can you not have all 3.5s?
M-STEM You will level the class mixture of students. You cannot have ¾ of
your students have 3.5. Not everyone performs. It is a whole
different pedagogy. You are ignoring that.
F-STEM Oh am I?
118
A Question of Agency
When asked how likely it was that he would make changes surrounding
equity at his institution, one faculty member’s response was that he felt if it is
institution-wide, than he would say unlikely. If it were department-wide, he would
say closer to likely. Asked to say more about why he could not affect institution-
wide change, he immediately responded that the primary hindrance was, “calcified
institution systems and calcified bureaucracy.” This process allowed me to
understand more about each one’s beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and understanding
of race and ethnicity issues and equity-mindedness. Their responses suggested the
norms of their department, and their roles as individuals. This leads me to believe
that the STEM faculty members that participated in action inquiry and reflection
have gained new knowledge and changed some of their perceptions and beliefs about
equity issues.
Action Inquiry Tools Lead to Themes
The workshop served as an activity setting where learning and knowledge are
constructed through joint productive activities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). The
discussions guided the construction of the new knowledge of equity-mindedness as a
more positive approach for their practices. Inquiry took place at each of the activity
settings in that participants analyzed their own syllabus to reflect and make meaning
of it regarding equity issues and equity-mindedness. CUE presented evaluative
questions that stimulated conversation. These questions enabled the participants to
understand the situation as a problem of practice. This permitted the faculty
119
members to ask “what if” type questions about their practice and about their
syllabus. A few of them questioned how they would make room in their practice or
their syllabus for including culturally responsive pedagogy. One faculty member
even showed concern that she would have to take some content out of her
coursework to include anything about equity issues. These discussions allowed me
to observe their responses and questions that kept the inquiry and collaboration
active.
The participants were reflective in their analysis as they admitted some
shortcomings they noticed on their syllabus and opened up for discussion and
collaboration at the workshop in the fall. All eight of the STEM faculty members
were engaged in listening to one another and joining in the conversation. One
faculty member shared that she sends out an email before each semester begins. She
includes her syllabus with a brief assignment that includes reading the entire syllabus
and answering questions. However, she felt as if her instructions could be
misinterpreted to sound deficit-minded and that was not her intention. Reflecting on
her process of emailing the students and then questioning the way she has always
done this practice showed that using the document analysis tool could be effective in
remediating her practice. This reflective and humble remark encouraged others to
make the conversation authentic as well.
Action research projects are designed to use social interaction to promote a
cycle of inquiry. The purpose is to bring about reflection and new knowledge that
will influence practitioners’ beliefs and practices. As shown by the results above, the
120
STEM faculty at MSU engaged in an inquiry process during the activities CUE
designed. To some extent, this may be due to the fact that collaborative, social
interaction and reflection were not new to them. Two of the leaders in the design
experiment had previously met with CUE and knew how the tools and processes
designed by action research worked.
Figure 4.6. Cycle of inquiry: steps from inquiry to action
Learning initiatives on improving teaching and learning in the STEM fields at
Monarch have been on going as well, according to the Mathematics and Science
Excellence in Education (MSEE). Enlisting CUE’s action research methodology
brings a new way of looking at remediating the artifacts of professional practices in
121
higher education to achieve equity in racial and ethnic outcomes (Dowd et al., 2012).
This design experiment utilizes CHAT which calls attention to the cultural and
historical use of language and practices. CUE is already engaged with several higher
education institutions. Some are multi-year action research projects and others are
shorter-term projects called design experiments. Due to this limitation in time at
MSU, the ongoing project is considered a design experiment and the entire cycle of
inquiry may not be completed.
Seeking New Knowledge: Racial and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy
When asked in interviews, all eight of the STEM faculty in this study agreed
that Monarch State University has plenty of room to improve in equity issues and
equity-mindedness. As the STEM faculty gathered in the breakout portion of the
Document Analysis Workshop, discussion opened right away with the comments
about filling in the document analysis protocol with several No’s and more N/A’s.
Observing them, I could see that most if not all agreed, which not only meant they
answered in a similar manner but also that they really did not even think of filling it
in any differently. Therefore, I inferred that the faculty members were not using
culturally responsive pedagogy in their classrooms or documents.
However, once the meeting got going, the conversation morphed into one of
questioning how they could each include race and ethnicity issues and equity into
their courses, classrooms and syllabi. Since the discussion was quick to revert back
to the feeling of being overwhelmed at the thought of not being able to discuss these
issues in a meaningful way, it was evident they were not comfortable delving into
122
this topic. Six out of eight participants felt they needed to know how to go about
making relevant changes within their classroom. The following questions and
comments exemplify the inquiry.
Table 4.4
Confirming or Disconfirming the Need for New Knowledge (N = 8 Participants)
Confirming
Seeking New
Knowledge:
Racial and
Culturally
Responsive
Pedagogy
Steve: How would you do this in science, math and engineering?
Charley: Maybe we are not focusing on the right things in
science, math and engineering?
Lucy: What do we do with this when it is not actually a part of
the course?
Amy: If it is missing, we think we are being neutral. Yet it is
filtering them out. It is not really neutral at all.
Jack: I do not really think people are getting engaged in social
concerns or social justice but it is perhaps more selfish in
attaining funding.
Ellen: There seems to be an issue of what people write on their
syllabus, it may be heard differently.
Disconfirming
Kelsey: I was hired to be really involved in these discussions
because I have expertise on gender, race, science and
technology.
Leticia: She promotes these types of dialogues but does not see
a lot happening.
123
One female STEM faculty member stated that:
Faculty have a strong sense of discomfort in bringing up various issues in
their classrooms on race and ethnicity. They have not had the training or the
opportunity to reflect on gender issues or the books or articles that explain
how to have that discussion as a class.
Another female STEM faculty member stated, “I found I could not do this – this
diversity stuff.” Then one of the male STEM faculty members added, “I find that I
can work it into lectures by teaching on the history of science. Who contributes?
Who is written about?” Another replied, “This does not go into my syllabus but it
does go into the class context.” Another female STEM faculty member responded
by saying, “There has been more discussion recently than in the past.” She added,
“I’ve been here for a while now. It used to be very unusual but the last couple of
years there have been some very well known and disturbing incidences that made
people realize that we need to talk about this.” So, she expresses that it is currently
not unusual to have discussions about racial issues at Monarch State University.
Another faculty member commented on the conversations he has heard on campus.
“I do not think the issues or race and ethnicity are discussed enough,” he
commented. “I know the conversation is going on. My concern is that the
conversation comes up because of accreditation reports and is not genuine and
authentic concern of the issues.” He continued by saying:
I do not really think people are getting engaged in social concerns or social
justice but its perhaps more selfish and more about the appearance or to get
more funding, or to make the university look better especially at accreditation
time.
124
He shared that some of the more traditional faculty members, think that since it is a
polytechnic school, they should be engineer-focused. In other words, they do not
want to talk about it. “That is not to say that there are not people out there having
genuine conversations,” he concurred, “However, there are some who are good at
their field, but are not concerned with social justice. It is just not on their radar.”
Another authentic reaction came from one of the female STEM faculty
members when she said, “I have the ability to, but that is different from actually
doing something. I guess knowing how, like training or having a background in it or
how to do it effectively.” She added, “And having a support structure which ties into
what we were talking about, having people to go to if you have questions or someone
directing it.” “I am an underrepresented gender in Engineering. I have agency as a
mentor, spokesperson and storyteller. Yet, I am not sure what to do or how to
address race and ethnicity equity issues.” The faculty felt that it is difficult to have
these discussions. They want more opportunities to have discussions but they don’t
really know how or when to have them.
Faculty came to the activity settings with a range of understanding and
competencies (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988) and discussed how to implement the issues
of race and ethnicity into their courses, classrooms and syllabi. At first it seemed as
if the STEM faculty was not interested in applying equity issues into their
coursework. But through reflection and collaboration of the document analysis tool,
many of the faculty members began considering how to put diversity or racial/ethnic
considerations into their coursework or on their syllabi. This showed how attitudes
125
and beliefs change through knowledge and social interaction when working to a
common goal. Yet, even though there is some growth in the faculty members
regarding new knowledge, there was still a thread of frustration going on with one
faculty member because she shared that she promotes these types of dialogues but
does not see a lot of things happening.
Uncertainty about How to Include Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy
All of the participants agreed that Monarch State University has plenty of
room for improvement in regards to racial and ethnic equity and equity-mindedness.
One faculty member stated that what comes into his thoughts on this issues is how
many African Americans have applied and have been accepted and then how many
have shown up. He argues that there is quite a difference in the number of African
American students accepting and showing up. He feels that in looking at those
members it shows access but not success and that Monarch needs to find a means to
decrease the gap in numbers of underrepresented students.
Another faculty member agrees that students of color are being accepted, but
are not matriculating at the same rate; she questions if this has to do with the
institution’s location and reputation. She remarked “Students of color have more
police interactions around town both on campus and off. If that type of information
is circling, then students may not want to come here.”
As shown in Table 4.5, seven out of eight of the faculty members confirmed
the uncertainty of culturally inclusive pedagogy. Several of the faculty members
remarked that while it is at times common to have discussions like, “diversity is
126
lacking,” the conversations never develop into discussion on how to effect change.
One faculty member commented, “Monarch is impoverished with the lack of
diversity.” She went on to say:
It is completely invisible to us how hostile our culture is, and it is hostile
towards women. If we cannot get change for women and they make up 50%
of the population, what hope do we have in making change for 10%, 11%, or
12%?
Table 4.5
Confirming or Disconfirming the Uncertainty of Culturally Inclusive Pedagogy
(N = 8 Participants)
Confirming
Uncertain about
how to include
culturally
inclusive
pedagogy
Lucy: I found I could not do this – this diversity stuff.
Leticia: So, how do I do it in a meaningful way in my class
Charley: I do not think the issues of race and ethnicity are
discussed enough.
Jack: My concern is that the conversation comes up because of
accreditation reports and is not genuine and authentic concern
of the issues.
Amy: Faculty has a strong sense of discomfort in bringing up
various issues in their classrooms on race and ethnicity.
Ellen: Faculty has not had the training or opportunity to reflect
on gender issues and how to have that discussion in class.
Steve: Different ethnic groups may choose not to come here
because they know what it is like or they have heard about it
from other students.
Disconfirming
Kelsey: I was hired to promote these types of dialogues.
127
However, one faculty member had something different to share. He
explained how he had known the population in the physics department was lacking
women and minority students. He had just assumed that various minority students
along with most women were not interested in physics or any of the other hard
sciences for that matter. “Maybe, they think the subject is too hard,” he commented.
However, he stopped by a lecture that was going on his campus. It was an author
named Jane Margolis who was sharing her book, “Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women
in Computing.” She co-authored this book with Allan Fisher and was discussing
how culture and society link interest and success with computers to boys and men.
She went on to say that curriculum and teachers’ expectations along with culture
reflect boys’ pathways into computing and accept assumptions of male excellence
and women’s deficiencies in the field (Margolis & Fisher, 2003). Margolis and
Fisher (2003) explained that computer science education can be seen as a microcosm
of how a realm of power can be claimed by one group and then it relegates the others
to outsider positions. As they discussed changing computer science into a field that
is engaging and interesting to a much larger and more diverse group of students, this
faculty member took note and thought about how the physics department could use
some similar changes.
At Monarch State University, the Mathematics and Science Excellence in
Education (MSEE) was developed to improve STEM education, teacher education
and professional development. MSEE’s goal is to cultivate collaboration among
students and staff on campus as well as relationships with students and staff from
128
preschool through 12
th
grade, community colleges, and those from business,
government and foundations. Their vision is to be a state and national leader in
science and mathematics education in order to improve the STEM program. One of
their goals is to assist in the development and implementation of programs that
promote STEM student success and career choices, including those focused on
women and minority students. MSEE documents indicate emphasis on collaboration
as the best approach to addressing critical gaps in educational achievement. The
directors of MSEE both attended the Document Analysis Workshop and shared that
they would like to continue working in collaboration with CUE.
Moll and Gonzalez (2004) and Nieto (2010) demonstrate the idea that a
culturally inclusive pedagogy gives hope and guidance to practitioners who are
trying to improve the success of historically underrepresented students. The idea is
that the cultures of their homes and communities are different from the culture of the
school. The STEM faculty discussed their concerns about not knowing how to
include culturally responsive pedagogy. Seven out of the eight of the members
confirmed that they want help in this matter. In fact they want to know what to say,
but they want to keep it authentic, so they are struggling with how to go about this.
One of the faculty members decided to make a digital recording of herself that she
sends out in an email to her students before the quarter begins. She welcomes them
and briefly tells her history and her educational background and relates that her
culture at home and growing up was different than the culture at the university and
129
knows that some of her students may feel the same way. Her goal is to encourage
her students to feel more comfortable with the course and in the classroom.
Critical aspects of culturally responsive pedagogy include caring,
communicating, curriculum, and instruction (Gay, 2010). The STEM faculty has
already shown that they care about equity issues in coming to the workshop and
participating in the activity of remediating their practice and their syllabi. The
faculty’s involvement with inquiry, reflection and collaboration suggests their
interest in the matter.
Competing Agendas
The STEM faculty in this study has been working on racial and ethnic equity
using action inquiry, reflection and collaboration to discuss access and success for
historically underrepresented students. Four out of eight of the STEM faculty
members confirmed responses that they feel there is a difference of approaches
between the faculty and administration in student success. They feel that there is
tension between the different approaches for student success and do not know if they
can make a greater sphere of influence then in their classrooms and departments.
This was confirmed when a faculty member reported that at Monarch there is a
strained relationship between the systems of the faculty and the administration.
These two systems create the complexities that Patton (2011) describes as the
“muddled middle.” Patton (2011) describes the differences in top down and bottom
up approaches as not a battle between good and evil, but a battle between competing
“goods” (p. 186). In this description one can see that administration and faculty are
130
both well intentioned and committed to their service, yet they see things differently.
This complexity in the middle zone is why Patton (2011) explained that
developmental evaluation is a good approach for navigating, and adapting these top
down and bottom up approaches.
CUE’s design experiment with Monarch has used a bottom up approach.
Using action research to design the processes and tools enable participants to
understand the barriers that affect students of color in access and success. The tools
are designed to help higher education professionals change their practices. The tools
are most effective when they are used by a team of people at the college or
university, including faculty, student affairs, STEM program, institutional research,
transfer and academic affairs (CUE website, n.d.). Having this mix of various
stakeholders involved can lead to campus-wide change.
While administration is often guided by institutional objectives, system
objectives and external pressures this may create competing agendas and tension in
interactions and negotiations with faculty. Only four STEM faculty members
confirmed this theme of converging agendas, yet they felt strongly about it. One
STEM faculty member was specifically asked to be part of the Multicultural
Assessment Team and as a group, they had created and were now finalizing a report
for the Provost. As reported by the faculty member, they worked diligently on this
report every week for two years including both summers. As they were finishing the
report, the Chair of the group asked the Provost when he needed the information.
The faculty member perceived disinterest on part of the Provost. The committee had
131
also done focus groups, run the data, and made rubrics to score them. This faculty
member is very frustrated by this. “In essence,” she stated, “It is like writing a
dissertation that she was asked to do and then having them just be not interested.”
She added that, “Lots of time and lots of emotion went into this project and now it is
just very frustrating.”
Table 4.6
Confirming or Disconfirming Competing Agendas (N = 8 Participants)
Confirming
Competing
Agendas
Ned: Constant drive for more excellent students. The drive is to
keep our elite ranking.
Amy: Deeply held beliefs of faculty, staff and administrators, these
beliefs are hidden to them yet have the status of truth to them.
Kelsey: Now, they are just not interested.
Liz: Right now, trying to get the University to make changes feels
pretty much impossible.
Disconfirming
No Responses
Another example of tension is when the campus mandated via the academic
senate that the syllabi say a particular thing. “They made this edict from on high,” a
faculty member stated, “And I will tell you right now that people ignore it
everywhere.” She then explained how her experience is that even though the US has
132
institutionalized cultural pluralism; the prejudice resides in the heart of the people.
She clarified that the bigger impediment to change is the daily practice or non-
practice of reflection.
Also a faculty member explained her frustration with recruitment problems.
She said, “They let so many freshman students enroll that faculty have no control
over so many students.” She felt that faculty cannot do a good job with this many
students and that she felt completely powerless in this situation. She added, “It also
indirectly affects equity, in that if you have that many students you cannot make the
time for them individually.” She felt strongly that this sets her up to do a worse job
and that when policies are made without faculty input then she pays the price. One
faculty member commented that it is hard to have centralized control, especially
when there are six independent worlds, each department, represented here at
Monarch. She questioned, “If we want diversity discussed at the top level, how can
we get different departments involved?”
This is quite contrary to what one administrator brought forward to our
workshop. He stated that, “Most of the students who get accepted to this institution
are also accepted at UC Berkeley and UCLA.” He stressed that this is a selective
university just as the others. He added that transferring to Monarch is very
competitive as well. Making another point that MSU only takes the best students.
Then he said, “Now there is constant drive for more excellent students. The drive is
to keep our elite ranking.” He implied that there must be some serious ways to think
about whether we continue that way of thinking. He shared that right now it feels
133
beyond our reach, but we are getting a new leader and that may change. He
remarked, “We have been a top elite institution for so long. I would not want to be
the leader that lets that reputation drop.” A faculty member was quick to reveal that
the deeply held beliefs of faculty, staff and administrators, are hidden to them yet
have the status of truth to them. CUE’s tools can help remediate attitudes, beliefs,
behaviors and the institutional culture.
A female STEM faculty member stated, during my interview that now is
really a bad time to ask her questions about support from the university. She said she
is frustrated about trying to get some things done. She remarked, “Right now trying
to get the university to make changes feels pretty much impossible.” Another
member commented, “The kind of resistance we are getting on our campus is
amazing. You know, advisors, other faculty resisting, and not letting students take
classes with us. It is incredible, truly incredible.”
Agency: In the Classroom and at the Institutional Level
Monarch State University is a selective university. It uses high grade point
averages and high SAT scores to serve as the gatekeeper of the school. This process
has made MSU the very competitive institution that it is today. However, a STEM
faculty member posed another view when she argued,
When you look at the criteria we are using to get students to come here, it is
heavily weighted towards SAT’s, Honors Courses, AP classes. If those
students didn’t have the opportunity to be involved because they weren’t
offered at their schools, they are very much at a disadvantage. Also, students
get points if they have work experience, of course, some students have the
luxury of having those experiences or the connections to make those happen.
134
Therefore, this process of selection has left faculty to serve a student
population who are primarily from high-status communities. Since Monarch is a
“gate keeping” institution, the individual agents are more familiar with providing
service and support to those who exhibit the dominant cultural discourse and to those
who demonstrate merit and ability. Seven out of eight of the STEM faculty in this
study confirmed that they feel a sense of agency in their classrooms and in their
practice but not at the departmental or institutional level.
Table 4.7
Data Interpreted as Confirming or Disconfirming the Theme of Agency
(N = 8 Participants)
Confirming
Agency in the
classroom but not
at the Institutional
Level
Steve: Strongly agree on a personal level…I would like to
say we are going to make an impact but we are limited in
human resources and time.
Lucy Agency implies that I am capable of making changes
but it also implies how hard I am working at it.
Amy: I am aware but I am not always acting on it.
Ellen: In my class I would say it is possible.
Jack: I feel that I have control over my classroom.
Charley: I am not sure of my role as professor how much I
can do. Institution-wide, I would say unlikely, department-
wide I would say closer to likely.
Disconfirming
Kelsey: I was hired to be involved in these discussions yet I
do not see a lot of things happening.
135
One faculty member commented,
I am not sure that equity issues are at the forefront of people’s minds. I think
there are some people here who are very conscious of equity issues and I
have a dean who is conscious and really wants to make a difference in terms
of equity in a very real sense. I think that certainly some faculty would not
object to equity but they do not see it as a problem. They are unaware of
there being issues surrounding equity.
A faculty member and program advisor explained,
Access is about… well it is more than just about providing courses and
admitting students. It is about having materials and professors accessible.
There is institutional bias in our society. I think more needs to be done
intentionally to mentor the underrepresented groups simply because they
have had less. From a student program perspective, each faculty or each
administrator has many opportunities to make experiences better for all
students. Yet at an institutional level perspective, there are many
opportunities as well. There are financial scholarships, and housing options
that can make Monarch more accessible.
It is apparent that most of the STEM faculty members know what agency is
and are involved as agents in their classrooms even though they feel less able to be
agents at the institutional level. They have also been honest about their busy
schedules and having a hard time fitting everything they want to be a part of into
their schedule. One member admitted, “So theoretically I may have the power to do
something, but I am not putting in the time to actually do it.” Lack of time is a
hindrance for all of them, including one who said, “There are only so many hours in
my day. I have particular things I am hired to do and I cannot do everything.”
Going Full Circle with the Cycle of Inquiry
The cycle of inquiry (Figure 4.6) illustrated the process that practice theory
enables the engagement of the practitioners. This process also included social
136
interaction to further discuss problem identification and problem solving, which
encouraged practitioner learning as well as experimentation with new practices.
CHAT also uses social interaction and cultural artifacts to enable the practitioners to
use their new knowledge in changing their practices. The practitioners were very
willing to self-assess their documents, reflect on any portions that may hinder their
students and collaborate on addressing the issues of racial and ethnic equity in their
practices and on their syllabi. Furthermore, as I proceeded with the member check,
several participants had taken that new knowledge and put into action new ideas to
address equity in their classroom. One faculty member has created a digital
recording that introduces herself, her history in education and engineering and how
she will approach teaching their course. In this way she is trying to make a more
welcoming culture where her students feel free to share their experiences and
concerns as well.
Another faculty member co-founded a Faculty Equity Team (FET) with the
purpose of expanding and strengthening efforts to foster a culture of equity, diversity
and inclusivity in STEM. The idea is that fostering a welcoming and inclusive
environment is everyone’s responsibility. This group is using action research to
allow the participants to explore, develop, enact and analyze the successes and
failures of one or more of the changes they have tried in their classrooms. Sixteen
members have joined and are actively engaged in reading and discussions. They are
planning to put into practice their new knowledge in several ways that are still being
discussed next quarter.
137
A third faculty member has made changes to her syllabus. She added a new
paragraph to encourage her students and show them respect. She intends to validate
their differences in educational experiences, life experiences, and believes that all
students are capable of obtaining high educational goals. She has created a tone in
her syllabus that is more supportive to all students. She has now joined FET to
continue growing in cultural awareness and knowledge. A fourth faculty member
told me about Monarch’s plan to reestablish their relationship with the neighboring
community colleges to discuss transferring students and a mentoring program. Plus
they are even talking about reaching out to local elementary and high school students
in order to make them aware of the need for STEM professionals.
After reflecting over the document analysis and listening to their peers, new
knowledge was created and it appears to be changing the attitudes and beliefs among
the practitioners. Bustillos et al. (2011) argue that knowledge takes place in
communities of practice and is mediated by cultural tools and artifacts. Also CHAT
states that within the context of a shared activity, new knowledge becomes easier to
understand and attain. CUE’s design of social interaction along with the
collaboration from peers has prompted these practitioners to put into action plans and
remedies that will bring about changes in their practices and perhaps their institution.
Discussion
This study was designed to show that participation in action inquiry
influences attitudes and beliefs therefore, affecting behavioral change in the
classroom and on syllabi as well as beginning to branch out to the institutional level.
138
The design was to remediate change by creating a culture of inquiry. STEM faculty
at Monarch engaged themselves into this cycle of inquiry and participatory research
where they acquired new knowledge. Reflection on data and collaboration with
colleagues led to transformation of their understanding of equity issues and equity-
mindedness. Due to the discussion the new knowledge and understanding led
several of the STEM faculty to plans that they put into action. By taking the time
needed to reflect and in working together, they disproved social myths or norms of
their institution, misconceptions and misrepresentations, which allowed for more
constructive analysis and self-examination (Stringer, 2007).
An example was the dialog between the two faculty members that went back
and forth to dig deeper into an issue that was considered a norm in one department
and being questioned or challenged by the other. This allowed both faculty members
as well as the others get outside of their own perspective and interpretation as they
listened to each other and pondered their own actions. Therefore, showing that some
thought of their syllabi as more of a contractual agreement and did not recognize that
it can be a cultural artifact that conveys the attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of
practitioners as well as the institution. After the social interaction at the Document
Analysis Workshop, several of the STEM faculty have since taken steps to make
changes in their syllabi and their practice.
The participants eagerly shared their diverse thoughts, knowledge and
experiences regarding their syllabi analysis and equity questions. This not only led
to new knowledge which helped to shape their action plans, it also improved their
139
sense of community by allowing everyone’s “voices to be heard” at intellectual,
social and cultural levels (Stringer, 2007, p.11). The themes that emerged reveal that
participating in action research, that consists of using the cycle of inquiry and social
interaction in which faculty used their syllabi as cultural artifacts, brought about
change in attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. These themes could also lead to further
inquiry. Recommendations will be addressed in Chapter Five.
140
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
This study was part of a larger design experiment that the Center for Urban
Education (CUE) has developed with various community colleges and universities in
the state of California as well as across the nation. CUE conducts socially conscious
research using a variety of methods, which includes participatory action research and
the creation of tools that help remediate practitioners’ practices. Two of the previous
projects that CUE has conducted were Equity for All: Institutional Responsibility for
Student Success, which took place in 2005-2006 and involved nine community
colleges in California, and the Missing ’87: A Study of Transfer Ready Students Who
Do Not Transfer conducted in Long Beach, California (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009).
CUE reframes the problems of study at each institution in order to focus on equity
and develops the research designs, interactive activities and measurement
instruments to facilitate inquiry at the local level. CUE helps institutions to create
inquiry teams that include faculty, staff and administrators. Through action research
CUE enables these participants to begin their own systematic process of inquiry,
which includes observation, reflection, social interaction, problem identification,
experimentation, and action in order to solve problems. My study was part of a
design experiment to improve CUE’s tools and processes that use action research to
help in the transformation of participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding
racial and ethnic equity and equity-mindedness.
141
Action Research and Internal Accountability Lead to Change
According to Greenwood and Levin (1998), action research is the key to
transforming behaviors. Tharp and Gallimore (1988) and Torbert (1991) contend
that inquiry involving collaboration and shared reflection leads to new knowledge.
Reason (1994) also adds that action inquiry transforms inquiry into practice at the
individual level and promotes greater effectiveness at the institution level by creating
self-reflective communities of inquiry. CUE further asserts that transforming the
data into useful knowledge, in turn, leads to actions that will improve accountability,
outcomes, and institutional effectiveness (About CUE, n.d.). All of the participants
in my study demonstrated a willingness to become a self-reflective community that
used the inquiry cycle to promote changes in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. They
indicated such compliance by engaging in the activity, reflecting over their practices,
and sharing in conversations their ideas, thoughts and even their shortcomings.
Action research enables practitioners to engage in a cycle of inquiry brought
about by social interaction in an activity setting. Joint productive activities in those
settings bring about learning and change with those who are engaged in the process
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2009; Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). It has been asserted that
using inquiry allows participants to turn their assumptions into questions to reframe
the specific problem. In my study, the practitioners initially stated that they did not
have time to devote to creating a sense of inclusivity for their students and felt that,
since they taught STEM courses, they should not be expected to do so. Yet, it was
shortly after being involved in the design experiment that they recognized the
142
significance of creating a sense of inclusivity. They realized that they could do this
learning and applying new culturally responsive knowledge that would promote
racial and ethnic equity in their courses and syllabi. After using the Document
Analysis Protocol with their syllabi, and participating in the workshop, they became
engaged in the inquiry process. This led to reflection, discussion, and prompted
several of them to develop new capacities for experimentation and problem solving
at their institution. Greenwood and Levin (1998) argue that action research aims to
solve contextual problems and is the key to transforming behaviors. At institutions
of higher education faculty, staff, and administrators can become self-reflective
communities of inquiry, which enables them to transform their own practices as well
as the institution. CUE uses action research to develop tools that help institutions of
higher education create teams of practitioners who become knowledgeable about the
experiences and outcomes of their students. This is a systematic process of
analyzing data, reflection, identifying the problem, and then making decisions that
promote action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). The inquiry model is based on the
premise that new knowledge is created by action and experimentation. A systematic
use of data, inquiry, collaboration and reflection leads to assessment. (About CUE,
n.d.).
The findings of this study were that faculty in STEM disciplines at Monarch
engaged in action inquiry in meaningful ways. The STEM faculty came into the
activity setting with previously held attitudes and beliefs regarding student deficits
and equity issues at their institution. Through the use of the Document Analysis
143
Protocol, they viewed their own syllabus as a cultural artifact that communicates the
tone and culture of their course and themselves. In the activity setting they
participated in discussion with other STEM faculty to discuss their reflections
regarding their syllabi. It was through this conversation and collaboration that
faculty began the process of thinking about making changes to their own syllabi and
practices. This time of discussion enabled the participants to reveal any concerns or
shortcomings they perceived while using the protocol. During this time, most of
them shared that they lacked the culturally responsive knowledge and the expertise
in how to include culturally inclusive pedagogy into their syllabi and their practices.
This was reiterated during the cognitive interviews where I collected additional data
that I utilized in framing my themes. The findings that emerged from the themes of
my study revealed a relationship as the participants wanted new knowledge
regarding culturally responsive pedagogy and then direction in how to implement
that new knowledge to promote inclusivity in their syllabi, courses, and departments.
The STEM faculty realized that it would be beneficial to their students if they
included language that encouraged and empowered students, especially those at
Monarch who are historically underrepresented. Most of the faculty felt a strong
sense of agency in their classroom, as they are able to provide support to their
students, but not at the department or institutional level. They felt that administrators
have more influence at these levels. Therefore, if the focus is on building a more
collaborative and collegial relationship with administrators, along with acquiring
new culturally responsive pedagogy, then the STEM faculty would feel more
144
confident to act as what Stanton-Salazar calls “empowerment agents” to counter
institutional racism. This relationship would enable faculty to access more resources
and institutional support in order to empower students of color with a “critical
consciousness” and the means to transform themselves (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 7).
In order to develop institutional agency, I am recommending the following: 1)
obtain and utilize culturally responsive knowledge to develop a sense of inclusivity;
2) to move from competing agendas to finding common ground; and 3) develop a
bigger sphere of influence through intentional investments in collective agency.
Implications for Practice
This study has several implications for practice with regards to using CUE’s
action research tools and processes to bring about change in practitioners’ attitudes,
beliefs, perceptions, and behaviors towards racial and ethnic equity and equity-
mindedness. The following are implications for further practice:
Obtaining and Utilizing Culturally Responsive Knowledge
This study demonstrates that by participating in a cycle of inquiry all of the
faculty members were engaged in reflecting and collaborating with each other. CUE
designed the activity settings to enable social interaction using participatory action
research. At MSU, the inquiry process enabled participants to view their own syllabi
using the Document Analysis Protocol to see if they might remediate their practice
by revising the syllabus to include culturally inclusive indicators such as
communicating respect to students, validating racial diversity, and expressing the
145
desire for their students to succeed. The conversation allowed participants to listen
and engage in dialogue about what each one of them puts onto their syllabus.
The faculty members shared various perspectives regarding their syllabi
including that some want to keep it brief to make sure their students read it. Other
STEM faculty members refer to the syllabus as a contract. As presented in Chapter
Four, a couple of faculty members got into a discussion about putting grade point
averages from the previous semester onto the syllabus. While this practice was a
norm for one department, a faculty member from another department did not regard
it as a standard practice. It is important for the participants to ensure that each
practitioner is heard as “authentic and legitimate rather than just a hypothetical
norm” (Stringer, 2007, p. 206). Another faculty member sends her syllabus out as an
email and designs an assignment that goes along with reading it. After working with
the Document Analysis Protocol, she has made changes that show her students how
capable they are of obtaining their higher education goals. Her added words will
encourage all the students in her classes that it will be a collaborative effort and that
she will be available for them. In essence, she is moving towards a more culturally
responsive pedagogy in which the characteristics include caring, communication,
curriculum and instruction (Gay, 2010). Teachers play a pivotal role in these
interactions with their students and thus set the tone and culture of their classroom.
If participation of different viewpoints is desired to bring about creative
solutions to racial and ethnic equity issues, then creating a culture of inquiry is a
significant addition to MSU as well as other institutions of higher education. This
146
has enabled STEM faculty at MSU to examine their practices as well as those of the
institution regarding racial and ethnic equity issues. The self-assessment of their
syllabi along with meeting together in the activity setting demonstrated how in
creating a culture of inquiry, the faculty members examined the issues of equity in
their practices and at their institution. Several STEM faculty members have moved
to the next position on the inquiry cycle and are experimenting with changes they
have put into motion. In the beginning of the design experiment, most of the STEM
faculty in my study felt less than adequate about discussing racial and ethnic equity
issues in their classrooms or syllabi; however, a few have already put various
culturally responsive plans into action. This implies that in using CUE’s tools and
processes, practitioners who participate in reflection and social interaction change
their attitudes, beliefs and perceptions regarding racial and ethnic equity issues.
From Competing Agendas to Finding Common Ground
Administration and faculty use different approaches in aiding student
success. University administrators are often guided by different objectives than
faculty including institutional objectives and external pressures
1
. One administrator
at the workshop stated that administration is concerned with numbers of students
enrolling, and maintaining high standards for students to gain acceptance at MSU,
such as grade point averages and SAT scores. Keeping the University’s elite ranking
as a selective institution that competes with UCLA and UC Berkeley is very
1
Thanks to Dr. Ray Young, administrator at California State University, Fullerton, for sharing this
insight.
147
important at institutions like MSU. Participants in my study disclosed their feelings
of frustration and discouragement because of these differences in concerns. The
faculty remarked that they have felt at times undervalued, and resentful of not having
their concerns heard. Better communication and understanding of each other’s roles
and responsibilities should help establish a more collegial relationship between
administrators and faculty members.
CUE’s tools have shown themselves to be instrumental in driving inquiry,
reflection and self-assessment. With further steps, the use of action research along
with developmental evaluation may initiate bringing the two competing agendas of
faculty and administration into more of a complementary role. This is more likely if
the problems were to be reframed into questions that both groups can work on with
the purpose of finding common ground. Using the CHAT framework to determine
the elements of this design experiment enables attention to the tools that will be
needed to support the co-created knowledge that encourages communication
regarding the needs of these two groups. Since CHAT states that all learning takes
place in the context of culture, every thought and decision is influenced by the
norms, values and assumptions of the cultures. Then it would be necessary for these
two groups to understand which cultural factors facilitate or hinder actions in relation
to issues regarding racial and ethnic equity at Monarch State University by either
group.
In my study several of the STEM faculty grew in knowledge of the culture of
their institution more thoroughly by using the Benchmarking Equity and Student
148
Success Tool (BESST). Through the reflection and self-assessment process
regarding their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, several faculty members have already
imposed changes in their practices. Being involved in social interaction, they
realized that they want more culturally responsive knowledge and direction in how to
apply it in their courses. However, the STEM faculty members in my study were
clear in stating that they felt limited in their sense of agency at the institutional level
and it is their desire to increase their sphere of influence as institutional agents.
A Bigger Sphere of Influence (Agency)
The university in my study is a selective university. It could be called a “gate
keeping” institution because of the use of high grade point averages and high SAT
scores for admittance. Therefore, the practitioners at this institution and others like it
may be more familiar with providing resources and support to those who exhibit the
dominant cultural discourse and demonstrate merit and ability (Stanton-Salazar,
2010). Yet there is a need to develop and empower underrepresented students
including those of lower social status. Faculty, staff and administrators can become
institutional agents by directly providing resources and support that will significantly
enable all students to navigate and empower themselves over their principal
environment (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Institutional agents who occupy relatively
high positions can provide key forms of social and institutional support to all youth
within schools and communities (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
Seven out of eight of the STEM faculty in my study feel a strong sense of
agency in their classroom and within their courses, yet not at the departmental or
149
institutional level. The discussion at a workshop conducted during my fieldwork and
through various interviews enabled me to see that they understood the concept of
agency from various perspectives. One faculty member mentioned that she may
have the power to do something, but she may not be putting in the time to actually do
it. Another faculty member remarked, “Equity is providing courses, materials and
having professors available.” He added,
There is institutional bias in our society. From student services or student
program perspective, each faculty or each administrator has many
opportunities to make experiences better for all students. At an institutional
level perspective, there are many opportunities as well.
With this in mind, if the practitioners realize these opportunities and want to
create a larger sphere of agency for STEM faculty from outside the classroom to
institutional agency, then it is necessary to build a more culturally responsive
knowledge and create a culture of inclusivity for historically underrepresented
students. Institutional agents understand the need for providing services and
institutional support to those who are not part of the dominant culture and who
demonstrate merit and ability in ways not recognized in conventional admissions
practices (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). The need is to change admissions and assessment
norms by providing services and support to historically underrepresented students. It
is usually the committed institutional agents who through social service agencies or
special educational programs, have relationships with students of lower social status
and offer institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). If faculty and administrators
realize that the key components to becoming agents of change include developing
150
academic success with resources and support services, and simultaneously enabling
the development of the cultural identity of ethnically diverse students then modifying
teaching and learning processes at the level of their component parts generates
greater academic success than generalized global pedagogical reforms (Gay, 2010).
The modification of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors is a significant way of bringing
about changes in faculty practices. CUE’s tools and protocols are designed to assist
faculty members reflect on their own practices and make changes as they see fit.
Creating a professional learning community on campus that offers support to faculty
members will enable the development of a culture of equity, diversity, inclusivity
and a larger sense of agency at MSU. As one STEM faculty member said, “Agency
is the mission of education.”
Recommendations
The findings of my study show that the protocols used at the Document
Analysis Workshop and the activities that followed provided a co-creation of new
knowledge that led to changes in faculty practices. Action inquiry provided a way of
clarifying problems and formulating new ways of envisioning that led to social
interaction, which in turn, drives discussion and collaboration. Developmental
evaluation works well with action inquiry, as it is an on-going approach in
development, adaptation, and experimentation (Patton, 2011). Since institutions of
higher education are complex and dynamic these two approaches work well together
in bringing about reoccurring and emerging findings.
151
Recommendations for CUE and other Action Researchers
The goal in using action research is that everyone participates and that
change is an intended outcome (Stringer, 2007). This participation enables the
evaluators to analyze the participants’ attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding
equity issues. CUE has created tools and processes that enable colleges and
universities to reflect on their practices at the institutional level as well as individual
actions and behaviors (Bensimon, 2005). The findings of this study indicate that
certain conditions are necessary to achieve true collaboration with a problem solving
focus. These include: 1) willing participation; 2) self-assessment and reflection of
practices, and 3) action research and developmental evaluation. The willing
participation of a variety of faculty members and administrators, who are key
stakeholders at Monarch, were enabled to be involved in learning about racial and
ethnic equity. Each member of my STEM faculty group participated in a document
analysis of their syllabi using cultural indicators as a guide. This process of
analyzing and assessing their own document led to reflecting on their practices and
enabled their willingness to participate in discussion. Action research enables
practitioners to become researchers and experts regarding their campus climate and
issues regarding equity. Developmental evaluation is an on-going assessment of
change. Therefore, when facilitating design experiments, it is important to develop
these conditions at each participating institution.
A recommendation for CUE and other action researchers is to enable all of
the participants to understand the language used in the tools, processes, and during
152
the social interaction. Language is important when promoting equity (Henze &
Arriaza, 2006). Participants became involved at different times in our design
experiment and it would have been helpful to have a list of definitions for terms that
were frequently used. Faculty members were making sense of specific terms by
relating them to their previous knowledge and this may or may not have been as
accurate as it could have been. One STEM faculty asserted,
In any field there is a certain language or terminology specific to that field. I
think there were certain terms that I wasn’t familiar with in that way. I mean,
I know what the words mean in other contexts. That made the opaqueness. I
know the word but not in that context.
Since each participant was given a packet of information, this could have been
included.
Another recommendation is that CUE’s literature states that the tools are
most effective when they are used by a team of people representing different sectors
of a college: faculty, student affairs, STEM programs, institutional research, transfer,
and academic affairs. This type of collaboration encourages organization learning,
which can lead to campus-wide change (CUE website, n.d.). However, in our design
experiment at the workshop, we divided our breakout groups into STEM faculty,
non-STEM faculty, administrators and leadership teams. It did not follow the
recommendation that CUE argues is the most effective, yet it enabled a cohesive
conversation in my group, which was the STEM faculty. Perhaps the perspectives
may have been more diverse due to differing agendas or frames of reference with a
mixed team of people in each group. However, having a group made up of STEM
153
faculty enabled the individuals to feel that they could express themselves freely and
that they were understood more fully because they were peers from STEM
departments.
A concern of many of my participants was how to apply this new culturally
responsive knowledge in their classrooms and on their syllabi. CUE and other action
researchers could develop tools or process that enable faculty members to apply this
knowledge. It would have to be designed sensitively so as to not reduce the problem
of racism by giving simple or quick solutions in order to quickly move past
discussions or race and ethnicity (Martin, 2009). It would entail assessing
practitioners’ practice, beliefs, and social interaction. Different perspectives would
be presented from peers. Reflecting over problems reframed using data analysis
along with reading selected books would bring about deeper understanding regarding
education and cultural identity (Martin, 2009). With a deeper understanding of racial
and ethnic equity, actions could be discussed and collaborated upon. The inquiry
team would continue to discuss changes they made to their syllabi and reflect over
their assignments, exams, projects and student handouts to continue bringing about
equitable outcomes for all students. If the faculty wants to continue this process of
including culturally responsive indicators to other assignments, a fairly simple
addition to the Document Analysis Protocol would be the Mini-Doc Analysis
Protocol. The Mini-Doc Analysis Protocol is designed for faculty to continue self-
assessing the other documents they use in their courses during the quarter or
semester. This shortened version enables practitioners to use culturally inclusive
154
practices that assist underrepresented students, particularly African Americans and
Latinos(as).
Table 5.1
The Mini-Doc Analysis Protocol
Cultural Indicators Assignment characteristics Applicable Steps
Does the assignment show respect
for students?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does the assignment show the
desire to help student succeed?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does the assignment validate
racial/ethnic diversity?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does the assignment show the
belief all students can succeed?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Is the assignment challenging yet
attainable?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does the assignment give students
the information needed to be
successful?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does this assignment connect
general, major and field-learning
contexts?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does the assignment value life
and educational experiences?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
Does this assignment build on
students’ experiences to expand
student learning?
Yes/No/Somewhat If yes, how?
If no, why not?
155
According to my study, all STEM faculty participants used the Document
Analysis Protocol and several of them made changes in their practices soon after. If
using the Document Analysis Protocol brought about several changes, then the Mini-
Doc Analysis Protocol will enable STEM faculty to assess other documents,
continue to use critical thinking, and make changes accordingly.
The Mini-Doc Analysis Protocol (Table 5.1) does not have all the categories
for answers listed as the DAP did, however, if faculty are familiar with the DAP,
then this abbreviated form will trigger authentic responses to the culturally inclusive
indicators. As faculty members make changes or draft action plans to create
changes, this will strengthen culturally inclusive practices on campus.
MSU and Other Institutions of Higher Education
Since all of the STEM faculty members in my study agreed that Monarch
State University has plenty of room for improvement regarding equity issues, they
were very engaged in the workshop, activities, times of reflection, and social
interaction. This reiterated the need to redirect the focus of academic success and
failure from entirely the students’ responsibility, which is a common belief. Rather,
faculty members need to ask themselves what they can do as practitioners to improve
academic success. This change of emphasis enables practitioners to approach the
issues regarding racial and ethnic equity as a problem of professional practice
(Bensimon, 2005).
The workshop and other activities were beneficial to the faculty members at
Monarch State University. However, according to the findings of my study, the
156
STEM faculty members were clear about wanting more culturally responsive
knowledge and direction in applying this new knowledge into their practices. In
addition, they all agreed that their sense of agency stopped at their classroom level
and they would like to see an increase in their sphere of influence to a more
institutional level. Also several participants revealed the tension they feel between
themselves and various administrators at their institution. Therefore, I am
recommending a series of workshops to be held over the course of one or two terms
with the purpose of building more collegial relationships between faculty and
administrators and then focusing on equity and diversity issues as a way of
developing common ground and increasing institutional agency.
As previously stated, learning is social and the openness between participants
comes from being willing and open to others’ experiences and perspectives. This
series of joint productive activities provides learning opportunities. Knowledge that
a problem is a problem of practice is needed to motivate a willingness to change
one’s own practice as well as agency to change institutional norms (Seo & Creed,
2002). Professional communities of practice need learning that only comes from
their own members as faculty colleagues and administrators who are in the best
situation to understand a particular context (McDonald, Mohr, Dichter, &
McDonald, 2007).
The workshop series will follow a format similar to the design experiment at
my field site, which involved action research and developmental evaluation.
Enabling participation of the entire group proved to be significant in bringing about
157
different perspectives and potential actions and solutions to racial and ethnic equity.
Developmental evaluation will assesses the progress and emerging developments
after each workshop and interview in this new series as well. Each workshop will be
designed as an activity setting with the purpose of establishing common ground
between faculty and administrators in developing collegial relationships and
increasing institutional agency. The participants must get to know each other before
they can build collegial relationships. Some may know each other professionally but
to really know and understand someone takes time and carefully designed protocols
can assist in this process. These protocols are directed to call attention to reflection,
discussion and feedback just as those used in prior workshops. Participants learn
from experts but they gain real benefit when they dare to put their own expertise in
the arena of their peers for feedback (McDonald et al., 2007). Diverse viewpoints
from the participants during collaboration can lead to creative solutions.
The Workshop Series
A series of workshops with specifically designed protocols will structure the
conversations so that everyone involved has time to speak and to listen in an honest
and respectful manner. Protocols are useful in directing self-assessment, challenging
norms among participants, and exploring complex problems such as racial and ethnic
equity issues in higher education. Protocols also have the ability to accelerate the
development of facilitative leaders that will promote participation and build trust.
Table 5.2 lists the following protocols that will be used during the four-sessions of
the workshop series I am recommending.
158
Table 5.2
Common Ground Workshop Series
Workshop 1 Activities
A. Concerns and Hopes Protocol
B. Previous Experiences Protocol
• Share any concerns (apprehensions)
and hopes (desires) for these
workshops.
• Participants will share their previous
experiences and interactions with the
other group.
Workshop 2 Activities
A. Mission Statement Protocol • Sharing perceptions and meanings of
words, ideas, core concepts, sense of
purpose and vision of the future.
Workshop 3 Activities
A. Diversity and Equity Protocol
B. Defining Articles Protocol
• Identifying with various terms and how
that has shaped their professional life.
• Reading and sharing perspectives on
various articles regarding racial-ethnic
equity issues in higher education.
Workshop 4 Activities
A. Case Studies Protocol
B. Time for reflection
• Experts will write specific case studies
that are based on real situations in order
to discuss and collaborate on possible
solutions.
• Leave time for reflection and
comments regarding what was learned.
159
The Featured Protocols
The protocol that is appropriate to open the series of workshops is labeled
“Concerns and Hopes.” The idea is that most people are a little nervous or
apprehensive when beginning something new. So this protocol enables the
participants to express their concerns, both positive and negative, about the
workshops. McDonald et al. (2007) argue that when participants are encouraged to
share their concerns, they become much more open and receptive to the workshops.
Participants are asked to write down their greatest concerns about the workshop
series. Then they write about their greatest hopes for the workshop series. Next they
are asked to work in pairs, or small groups and share their concerns and hopes. After
the groups reflect and discuss their various concerns and hopes that have been
shared, they can have a volunteer from their group disclose their responses. The
facilitator then lists them just as they are expressed. This enables the facilitator to
move from the concerns that have been shared to the hopes for the workshop series.
This opportunity enables participants to feel ownership of the learning during these
activity settings. This protocol can be short in duration, yet it sets the tone for
participation and being heard.
The second protocol used in the first workshop would enable participants to
share about any past experiences, positive or negative, they have had with
administrators or faculty members at their institution. Fifty percent of the STEM
faculty members in my study said that they have had negative experiences with
administrators on campus. This protocol will enable the participants to share while
160
others in the small groups listen. Then the listener reflects back: “What I heard you
say is…” or “Am I hearing you right?” Clarifying and probing questions bring about
deeper understanding. The active listening encourages the one who is sharing, as
they feel they are being heard. Within time, the participants will understand the
presenter better and the presenter will learn from the others’ interpretations of what
he or she has said and to correct any misinterpretations (McDonald et al., 2007). The
facilitator may add that listening and reflecting back is to acknowledge the diverse
perspectives on complex problems. In this way, the protocols are leading the group
of participants towards deeper understanding and more collegial relationships.
The second workshop features only one protocol to allow more time for
discussion. The Mission Statement Protocol can use a statement from the
institution’s mission statement or a quote from the president for reflection and
dialogue. The idea is to use this statement as a sensitizing concept that offers a
useful focus: an idea that provides direction and vision to the desired change but the
meaning of which is still emergent (Patton, 2011). Once the statement or quote is
handed out at the workshop, the participants will reflect on what this statement
means to them and share their perceptions while they discuss the meanings they
associate with the words and concepts presented. This allows everyone to see the
multiple ways these words can be interpreted. It also enables clarification of
definitions in order to build a communal understanding by gaining new insight from
all of the participants. These new insights help participants to reexamine their own
161
perspectives and attitudes and changes in attitudes and perspectives may lead to
changes in behaviors (McDonald et al., 2007).
The third workshop will feature two protocols. The first one is called the
Diversity and Equity Protocol, which enables each participant to identify with
various terms and discuss how they have shaped their professional life. This
protocol can start off with participants dividing into groups according to identifiers
that are called out by the facilitator. At first the identifiers may be where they grew
up, their gender or what is their birth order? Then the identifiers can become more
challenging as they become focused more on issues related to diversity and equity.
After each identifier is called out and the participants are in their new group, they are
asked to discuss the impact on their professional lives related to this particular
identifier. The facilitator may reiterate during the protocol that the identifiers are
purposefully vague and that participants will have to define them in their own way
(McDonald et al., 2007). This protocol enables participants to become aware of
connections to others in the groups that they did not realize existed. Also, the
participants can be asked how they felt as they moved from one group to another and
then asked what they have learned from this activity about diversity and how it has
affected their professional experiences.
If time allows during this third workshop, the Defining Articles Protocol may
be used. Participants will be given various articles to read and discuss at the
workshop. If not enough time is left; this can carry over to the fourth workshop.
The discussion is beneficial in providing different interpretations and viewpoints that
162
can challenge the participants’ perspectives on various issues. These articles can
bring about issues of racial and ethnic equity or other complex issues in higher
education. Specific articles can be given to the whole group and when time to discuss
the group can be broken down into smaller groups to allow more conversations and
growth in listening skills. While in small groups, participants can reflect back what
they think they heard the presenter saying but not adding their own perspective.
Taking time to reflect back is significant in feeling heard and builds a more collegial
relationship between participants.
The fourth and final workshop of the quarter or semester is based on case
studies. Experts in the field of higher education will write specific case studies that
are based on real situations. The Case Study Protocol will enable the participants to
understand the complexities of the problems that faculty and administrators face at
their institution. The point of this protocol, as in other protocols from this series of
workshops, is to gain the benefit of others’ perspectives and draw on others’ creative
resources and thereby informing and replenishing one’s own perspective (McDonald
et al., 2007). This process not only brings clearer perspectives on their own
problems but also helps participants to become better consultants to others.
Participants will realize that most of the learning in these workshops comes from the
sharing and collaboration from other participants. Kruse (2001) asserts that people
learn more in professional communities. The ultimate purpose of the protocols used
in this series of workshops is finding and developing common ground on which to
build more collegial relationships as well as increasing institutional agency.
163
Practices that Have Already Changed
Though I collected data over the relatively short span of time of 12 months,
some participants of my study had already initiated equity-minded improvements in
their practices. One faculty member added changes to her syllabus that encourages
and enables all of her students to succeed in her course. She specifically wanted to
change the tone of her syllabus to be more supportive. The second faculty member
produced a digital recording of herself sharing her family history growing up as a
multiracial child and her educational background as a female in a STEM field. The
idea was to encourage her students in feeling welcome and a sense of belonging that
they may not have felt before. In essence, she communicated with her students,
which was an example of changing a norm of what has been accepted and valued at
the institution by using oral language as a mediating artifact of culture (Dowd et al.,
2012).
A third STEM faculty member from my study joined a faculty member from
a different study group to form a faculty equity team (FET) to strengthen and expand
efforts to foster a culture of diversity, equity, and inclusivity in STEM education.
This team met during the winter quarter and had discussions enabling participants to
gain awareness of their role in creating a welcoming learning environment. They
read articles on dialogues and faculty learning communities. Then they planned their
workshops on participant-created items such as assignments and course syllabi along
with teaching innovations and strategies. The group met again for a series of
meetings in the spring quarter. Their goals are to have a safe place to have
164
conversation that brings about culturally responsive knowledge and helps facilitate
changes in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of the members in order to aid racial and
ethnic equity issues on campus and in the neighborhood.
CHAT states that the best way to learn new information and especially new
methods of action is in the framework of a shared, mutually engaging activity (Dowd
et al., 2012). In these joint engaging activities, the members of the group have a
combination of competencies that work together in a manner where one member
assists others in the group depending on his or her own areas of knowledge and skill
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). A challenge that faculty faced is that in creating a
culture of increased diversity, equity, and inclusivity too often they felt isolated
within their departments. Therefore, throughout the workshop series over the next
one or two terms, participants will work together, strengthen relationships, and have
more social interaction that will lessen the feeling that they are in this alone. While
growing in areas through book discussions, dialogue, resources, student retention,
group projects, and promoting social identities, they are promoting a culture of
increased diversity, equity and inclusivity in STEM disciplines at Monarch State
University.
Another one of FET’s goals is to reestablish relationships with the nearby
community colleges. They would like to help the community colleges set up
mentoring and tutoring opportunities as well as help them reach out to elementary
and high schools. While these changes are specifically designed and utilized by the
faculty at Monarch, they can be used as models at other higher education institutions.
165
These changes are representative of the possible scale in which changes can be
made. Small changes in language and tone on a syllabus and emailing a digital
recording do not take away from class time, which was of concern to the STEM
faculty. Belonging to FET does take a time commitment but it should meet a
requirement for release time or flex time or a small stipend. This would let the
faculty know that the university appreciates their work and would help FET to be
sustainable. Developing a community of learners who analyze the institution’s data,
reframe the issues into problems of practice, reflect and use social interaction to open
the conversations on racial and ethnic equity is a vital goal for any higher education
institution. Benchmarking the best principles and best practitioners at MST would be
useful to other institutions.
Recommendations for the Field of Higher Education
CUE uses action research tools and processes to facilitate social interaction
that promotes problem identification, experimentation in action planning and
problem solving regarding racial and ethnic equity. The Community College League
of California and the California State University Graduation Initiative recommend
eliminating the gap in achievement among rates for all students. Yet the CSU
initiative focuses on student deficits and does not focus on the practitioners or
institutions. The approach at the center of this study is different in that it focuses on
practitioners and institutions regarding issues of equity and equity-mindedness. The
equity-minded tools and processes have influenced several of the participants in my
study to change their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. These changes should reveal
166
positive outcomes that will be meaningful to Monarch and other higher education
institutions.
Bensimon (2007) contends that standardized measures including regulations
and incentives are promoted by external sources of accountability. Other researchers
say that external accountability uses a “one-size-fits-all” approach that does not
value practitioner knowledge and expertise (Shulman, 2007; Dowd & Tong, 2007).
Therefore, internal accountability is needed to reveal the outcomes that are
meaningful to each institution. Bensimon argues that when assessment and
accountability are internally designed, they can be beneficial by respecting the values
of colleges and acknowledge the complexities of the institutions (2007). As I
experienced at Monarch, including faculty and administrators in the action research
project promoted accountability in the local context. This should enable the process
to go from mutual hostility to one of mutual support (Grubb & Badway, 1998).
Various initiatives have been designed to improve the number of college
graduates, including Access to Success and California State University’s Graduation
Initiative. Accountability systems have been created to disclose information on
higher education’s performance. Yet the results are not favorable. Graduation rates
for low-income and historically underrepresented students are even more disquieting.
The findings of my study provide support for reframing the problem and focus on the
practitioners and institutions. Action research is significant in this process. CUE
uses action research to develop research designs that transform data into useful
knowledge, which leads to actions that improve accountability. This accountability
167
is internally driven, which acknowledges the complexities of the institution. The
research design is created specifically for one institution and includes the systematic
process of inquiry, along with personal reflection and collaboration that leads to
change in attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Yet the principles can be useful to other
institutions of higher education.
Limitations
The limitations in this study are due to the complexities in higher education.
Institutions are difficult to comprehend and manage (Bolman & Deal, 2008). In
complex situations there is a high level of uncertainty and social conflict (Patton,
2010). There are many factors and variables interacting due to the different
personalities and the roles of participants. While the bottom up approach is desirable
in this study, support is usually needed from the top to be successful (Bolman &
Deal, 2008).
This study used data from MSU that was disaggregated to show racial and
ethnic inequities. The data must be understood correctly before discussion on equity
issues can begin. Therefore, if any participants missed out on seeing and hearing the
explanation of the institution’s data by joining the group later, there can be
misinterpretations. Clarity of communication is necessary and written explanation
may be helpful to those participants joining late.
Time pressure and constraints are a problem for faculty members. The
design experiment was created to last one year. This may not be enough time to
develop and use the entire cycle of inquiry. Faculty and administrators are stretched
168
with various roles and responsibilities. Therefore, release time or a small stipend
would encourage their participation and inspire them knowing that the institution
supports and values their efforts. Applying for a federal STEM grant as a special
project training faculty to work with underrepresented students may be an option for
funds as well as checking with the grant department on campus. Developing a
professional learning community could sustain the efforts for change and spark
interest in additional members the following year.
Organizational change is a complex systems undertaking (Bolman & Deal,
2008). It alters power relationships and challenges traditional ways of doing things.
When change is taking place, “the organization’s social tapestry begins to unravel”
and prevailing traditions, norms and cultural values are threatened (Bolman & Deal,
2008, p. 378). Therefore, using action inquiry allows every participant’s voice to be
heard. Also finding common ground should enable faculty and administrators to
build a more collegial community.
Conclusion
If this ongoing situation of racial and ethnic inequity in higher education was
a simple matter, then just following a recipe of best practices would suffice. Given
the situation is more complicated, a more sophisticated remedy is required. The
situation regarding equity issues and equity-mindedness in higher education
institutions is complex. The stakeholders are diverse and have different attitudes,
beliefs, and perceptions, which enable dynamic interactions but have not advanced
very far in terms of promoting equity.
169
As an evaluator, my primary function was to shed light on the CUE processes
and tools and investigate how they engage practitioners in inquiry, reflection, and
collaboration in order to change attitudes and beliefs. These modifications in attitude
and beliefs led to changes in behavior regarding equity issues. My study tracked the
changes through ongoing data-based decision-making in this developmental process
through observations during the workshop and the subsequent interviews (Patton,
2011). I believe that the knowledge produced through inquiry and brought about in
this design experiment is practical and effective in directing changes.
While the changes in behavior that I observed through this study have taken
place at a particular university, these ideas and systematic plans can be implemented
in other institutions of higher education. The workshops at my field site served as
activity settings where learning and knowledge were constructed through joint
productive activities (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). Using data that has been
disaggregated by race and ethnicity enabled participants to see clearly the student
population at Monarch State University. This visual enabled discussion on turning
away from student deficits and led faculty, staff and administrators to focus on their
own practices that may hinder racial and ethnic equity. Participants reflected on
their practices and were involved in social interaction that enabled discussion and
collaboration regarding actions and experiences that centered on new knowledge that
was co-created using culturally responsive indicators.
The series of action inquiry workshops are designed to create a culture of
inquiry, find common ground and develop collegial relationships between faculty
170
and administrators, and increase institutional agency. Collegial relationships take
time to build. As Casey Stengel, hall-of-fame baseball manager said, “Getting good
players is easy. Getting them to play together is the hard part” (Barth, 2006).
Collegial relationships are about learning to play together. Researcher Judith Warren
Little explains that a precondition for doing anything to strengthen one’s practice and
improve a school is to develop a collegial culture in which professionals talk about
practice, share knowledge, and observe and root for the success of another (Barth,
2006). A goal of the workshops is developing a professional learning community
that builds collegial relationships as a foundation or core driver for meaningful
inquiry and more joint productive activities in the future.
171
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Retrieved on June 24, 2011.
www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht/Theory%20clusters/Health%20Com
munication.
Argyric, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. Website home page. Retrieved
on March 14, 2011. http://www.aacu.org
Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. In W. G. Tierney (Ed.),
Assessing academic climates and cultures (pp. 61-68). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, C., Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., & Kleiman, L. (2011). Measuring
student success. In R. B. Head (Ed.), Institutional effectiveness. New
directions for community colleges, 153, 77-88.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human behavior 4 (pp. 77-81). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003) The role of design in research: The integrative learning
design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
Barth, R. S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Improving
Professional Practice, 63(6), 8-13.
Bauman, G. L. (2005). Promoting organizational learning in higher education to
achieve equity in educational outcomes. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational
learning in higher education (Vol. 131). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bauman, G. L., Bustillos, L. T., Bensimon, E. M., Brown, & Bartee (2005). What
are the challenges to creating a diverse and inclusive campus? Retrieved on
June 24, 2011. http://www.arizona.edu/diversity/what-are-challenges-
creating-diverse-and-inclusive-campus
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Organizational
learning in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
172
Bensimon, E. M. (2006). Learning equity-mindedness: Equality in educational
outcomes. The Academic Workplace, 1(17), 2-21.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). From compliance to improvement: Accountability and
assessment in California community colleges. The Review of Higher
Education, 30(4).
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner
knowledge in the scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher
Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Bensimon, E. M. (2009). Accountability for equitable outcomes in higher education.
Paper presented at Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs,
University of Minnesota.
Bensimon, E. M. (2012). The equity scorecard: Theory of change. In E. M.
Bensimon & L. Malcom (Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus:
Implementing the equity scorecard in theory and practice. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Alford, H., & Trapp, F. (2007). Missing 87: A
study of the “transfer gap” and “choice gap”. Long Beach and Los Angeles,
CA: Long Beach City College and the Center for Urban Education,
University of Southern California.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Daniels III, J. E., & Walden, D. (2010). Long-term
partners for serving Los Angeles’ African American and Latino students:
USC’s Center for Urban Education and Los Angeles Southwest College. In
College bound: Strategies for access and success for low-income students
(pp. 34-45). Los Angeles, CA: USC Office of Government and Civic
Engagement.
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G. L., & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing
research that makes a difference. Journal of Higher Education, 75(1), 104-
126.
Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R. , Dowd, A. C. & Harris III, F. (2007). The mediational
means of enacting equity-mindedness among community college
practitioners. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, November 2007, Louisville, KY.
173
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university
organizations: Theories for effective policy and practice. Sterling, VA:
Stylus Publishing.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-
practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation.
Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57.
Burke, J. C. (2004). The many faces of accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.),
Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic
and market demands. San Francisco, CA; Jossey-Bass.
Burns, D. (2007). Systemic action research: A strategy for whole system change.
Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Bustillos, L. T., Rueda, R., & Bensimon, E. M. (2011). Faculty views of
underrepresented students in community college settings: Cultural models
and cultural practices. In P. R. Portes & S. Salas (Eds), Vygotski in 21st
century society: Advances in cultural historical theory and praxis with non-
dominant communities (pp. 199-213). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
California Polytechnic University (n.d.). Inclusive Excellence at Cal Poly.
Retrieved on May 24, 2011, from http://www.inclusiveexcellence.calpoly.edu
California State University (n.d.). Graduation Initiative. Retrieved on May 24,
2011, from http://graduate.csuprojects.org/
Carey, K. (2004). A matter of degrees: Improving graduation rates in four-year
colleges and universities. Retrieved on June 28, 2011, from
http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/research-analysis-reports/matter-
degrees-improving-graduation-rates-four-year-colleges-and-universities
Carey, K. (2005). One step from the finish line: Higher college graduation rates are
within our reach. Retrieved on June 28, 2011, from
http://sparkaction.org/node/29147
Charles, C. Z., & Massey, D. S. (2003). How stereotypes sabotage minority
students. Chronicle of Higher Education, January 10, 10-11.
174
CHEA Update (2008, September 19). Accreditation and the Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 2008. Washington, D.C.: Council for Higher Education
Accreditation. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from
http://www.chea.org/Government/HEAUpdate/CHEA_HEA45.html
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design
experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
Cole, M. (1998). Can cultural psychology help us think about diversity? Mind,
Culture and Activity, 5(4), 291-304.
Community College League of California. (2010). Department of Education’s
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Sacramento, CA:
Community College League of California.
Deschenes, S., Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. B. (2001). Mismatch: Historical
perspectives on schools and students who didn’t fit them. Teachers College
Record, 103(4), 525-547.
The Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging
paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5-8.
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of
inquiry to assess community college performance. Lumina Foundation for
Education Research Report. Retrieved on June 27, 2012 from
http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/datadontdrive2005.pdf
Dowd, A. C. (2008). Community colleges as gateways and gatekeepers: Moving
beyond the access ‘saga’ toward outcome equity. Harvard Educational
Review, 77(4), 407-419.
Dowd, A. C. (2011). Improving transfer access for low-income community college
students. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in
higher education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and
culture. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009). CUE frameworks for action, research and
evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Urban Education.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009). The social learning theory and tools
underlying CUE’s facilitation of action inquiry for equity. Los Angeles, CA:
Center for Urban Education.
175
Dowd, A. C., Bishop, R., Bensimon, E. M., & Witham, K. (in press). Re-mediating
accountability. In K. Gallagher, R. Goodyear, & D. Brewer (Eds.),
Introduction to urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowd, A. C., Bishop, R., Bensimon, E. M., & Witham, K. (2010) Accountability for
equity in postsecondary education. In K. Gallagher, R. Goodyear, D. Brewer
& R. Rueda (Eds.), Urban education: a model for leadership and policy.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L. E., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009). Benchmarking the
success of Latino and Latina students in STEM to achieve national
graduation goals. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.
Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L. E., Nakamoto, J., & Bensimon, E. M. (2012).
Institutional researchers as teachers and equity advocates: Facilitating
organizational learning and change. In E. M. Bensimon & L. E. Malcom
(Eds.), Confronting equity issues on campus. Sterling, VA: Stylus
Publishing.
Dowd, A. C., & Tong, V. P. (2007). Accountability, assessment, and the
scholarship of “best practice.” In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Handbook of Higher
Education (Vol. 22, pp. 57-119). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The
imperative for professional development in education. Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved April 14, 2011 from
http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/Bridging_Gap.pdf.
Engestrom, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In
Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen, & R. L. Punamaki-Gitai (Eds.), Perspectives on
activity theory: Learning in doing (pp. 19-38). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Engle, J., & Lynch, M. (2009). Charting a necessary path: The baseline report of
public higher education systems in the access to success initiative. The
Education Trust. Retrieved on June 16, 2011 from
http://www.edtrust.org/sites/edtrust.org/files/publications/files/NASH-
EdTrust.BaselineReport.pdf
Ensicso, M. (2009). The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group
participants in promoting equity at a community college. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Rossier School of Education, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA.
176
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned
action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Foot, K. (2001). Cultural-historical activity theory as practice theory: Illuminating
the development of conflict-monitoring network. Communication Theory,
11(1), 56-83.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gibson, M. A., & Ogbu, J. U. (1991). Minority status and schooling: A
comparative study of immigrant and involuntary minorities. New York, NY:
Garland Publishing.
Gonzalez, N., Moll, C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.) (2005). Funds of knowledge:
Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, P. A., Lyman, R. W., & Trow, M. (1995). Accountability of colleges and
universities: An essay. New York, NY: Columbia University.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research: Social
research for social change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2005). Reform of the social sciences and of
universities through action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1986). Effective evaluation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey- Bass.
Gutierrez, K. (2006). Culture matters: Rethinking educational equity. New York,
NY: Carnegie Foundation.
Gutierrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Remediating literacy:
Culture, difference, and learning for students from nondominant
communities. Review of Research in Education, 33(33), 212-245.
Gutierrez, K. D., & Orellana, M. K. (2006). The “problem” of English learners:
Constructing genres of difference. Research in the Teaching of English,
40(4), 502-507.
177
Gutierrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew:
Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 100-117.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of
the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging.
Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324-345.
Javier, M. G. (2009). Math faculty as institutional agents: Role reflection through
inquiry-based activities. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of
Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener’s tale.
American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215.
Kezar, A. J. (Ed.) (2005). Organizational learning in higher education: New
directions for higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kober, N., Chudowski, N., Chudowski, V., & Dietz, S. (2010). Improving
Achievement for the Growing Latino Population is Critical to the Nation’s
Future. Washington, D.C.: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved June 28,
2012 from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=133
Kruse, S. D. (1997). Reflective activity in practice: Deliberative work. Journal of
Research and Development in Education, 31(1), 46-60.
Kruse, S. D. (2001). Creating communities of reform: Continuous improvement
planning teams. Journal of Educational Administration, 39(4), 359-383.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year
college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-
563.
Lantolf, J. P. (2001). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. In R.
Kaplan (Ed.), Handbook of applied linguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lewin, K. (2008). In W. Warner Burke (Ed.), Organizational change: Theory and
practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
178
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation. American
Educational Research Journal, September 21 (19), 325-340.
Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Holme, J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the
shallow end: Education, race, and computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Margolis, J., & Fisher, A. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: Women in computing.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martin, D. B. (2009). Does race matter? Teaching Children Mathematics, 16(3),
134-139.
Martin, D. B. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College
Record, 111(2), 295-338.
Martin, D. B., Gholson, M. L., & Leonard, J. (2010). Mathematics as gatekeeper:
Power and privilege in the production of marriage. Journal of Urban
Mathematics Education, 3(2), 12-24.
McArdle, K. L., & Reason, P. (2007). Action research and organizational
development. In T. C. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McDonald, J. P., Mohr, N., Dichter, A., & McDonald, E. C. (2007). The power of
protocols: An educator’s guide to better practice. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Mitescu, E., Ludlow, L., Pedulla, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Cannady, M., Chappe, S.,
Hu, J., Enterline, S., Loftus, F., & Cantor, D. (2009). Building an
Institution-Specific Higher Education Accountability System. Paper
presented at American Educational Research Association Annual
Conference, San Diego, CA, April 14, 2009.
Moll, L. C. (2000). Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic experiments in education.
In D. D. Leer & P. Smagorisky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy
research (pp. 256-268). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for
teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms.
Theory into Practice, XXXI(2).
179
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilites: Coming social
contexts for instruction. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education:
Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology
(pp. 319-348). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, C. & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and
closing racial gaps in California’s community colleges. Sacramento, CA:
California State University Sacramento, Institute for Higher Education
Leadership & Policy. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from
http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Div_We_Fail_1010.pdf
Moore, C., Shulock, N., Ceja, M., & Lang, D. M. (2007). Beyond the open door:
Increasing student success in the California community colleges. California
Sacramento, CA: California State University.
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race,
culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449-475.
National Educators Association Office of Higher Education. (2004). Institutional
graduation rates. NEA Update, 10(3). Retrieved June 27, 2012 from
http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/vol10no3.pdf
National Governors Association. (2002). Higher expectations: Second in a series of
essays on the future of higher education. Retrieved June 27, 2012 from
http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/041503HIGHERED.pdf
Noffke, S. E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action
research. Review of Educational Research, 22, 305-343.
Offenstein, J., Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Advancing by degrees: A
framework for increasing college completion. Washington, D.C.: The
Education Trust.
Ogawa, R., Crain, R., Loomis, M., & Ball, T. (2008). CHAT-IT: Toward
conceptualizing learning in the context of formal organizations. Educational
Researcher, 37(2), 83-95.
Ouimet, J. A., Bunnage, J. B., Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Kennedy, J. (2004).
Using focus groups to establish the validity and reliability of a college
student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45, 233-250.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
180
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Evaluating complexity concepts to
enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Phillips, R., Bain, J., McNaught, C., Rice, M., & Tripp, D. (2000). Handbook for
learning-centered evaluation of computer-facilitated learning projects in
higher education. Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1963-64.
Volume 1, entry 357, pp. 704-707. Washington D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1965.
Reason, P. (1994). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y.
S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 324-339).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2001). Handbook of action research. London, UK:
Sage Publications.
Reason, P., & Rowan J. (Eds.) (1981). Human inquiry: A sourcebook of new
paradigm research. New York, NY: J. Wiley Publishers.
Rogers, C. R. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and
reflective thinking. Teachers College Record, 104(4), 842-866.
Roth, W. M., & Lee, Y. L. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-
historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Salazar-Romo, C. (2009). Remediating artifacts: Facilitating a culture of inquiry
among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and
access. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rossier School of Education,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A.
(2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators,
parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York, NY:
Doubleday Dell Publishing.
Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis and
institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management
Review, 27(2), 222-247.
181
Shavelson, R. J. (2007, January/February). Assessing student learning responsibly:
From history to an audacious proposal. Change. Retrieved March 25, 2011
from http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/January-
February%202007/abstract-assessing-responsibly.html
Shavelson, R. J., & Huang, L. (2003). Responding responsibly: To the frenzy to
assess learning in higher education. Change, 35(1), 10-19.
Shulman, L. S. (2007, January/February). Counting and recounting: Assessment and
the quest for accountability. Change. Retrieved March 25, 2011 from
http://www.changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/January-
February%202007/full-counting-recounting.html
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school and
kin support networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Columbia
University.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of
institutional agents and the empowerment of low-status youth. Youth and
Society, 43(3), 1066-1109.
Stillman, J. (2011). Teacher learning in an era of high-stakes accountability:
Productive tension and critical professional practice. Teachers College
Record, 113(1), 133-180.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning,
and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Torbert, W. (1991). The power of balance: Transforming self, society, and scientific
inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Waddock, S. A., & Spangler, E. (2000). Action learning in leadership for change:
Partnership, pedagogy, and projects for responsible management
development. In F. Sherman & W. Torbert (Eds.), Transforming social
inquiry, transforming social action: New paradigms for crossing the
theory/practice divide in universities and communities (pp. 207-228).
Boston, MA: Kluwer.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
182
Wersch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated
action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Willis, G. B. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire
design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
183
APPENDIX A
RECRUITMENT TEXT AND ETHICAL COMMITMENTS FOR
INTERACTIONS WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS
Dear Colleague,
The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California is
currently conducting a developmental evaluation study. The study has two main
goals. First to develop our evaluation capacity by improving the validity of the
inferences we draw from our workshop evaluation forms and other evaluative
processes and, second, to improve our effectiveness in conducting action research for
the purposes of improving equity in higher education. Therefore, we are interested
in gaining a more nuanced understanding of the experiences of workshop
participants and Equity Scorecard evidence team members who engage with us in
action research projects.
As a participant in a CUE workshop or evidence team, you may be asked to take part
in an interview or a focus group conducted by a doctoral student who is part of the
CUE Evaluation Study research team. The doctoral students will also collect
observational data at workshops and team meetings. You can decline to participate in
an interview or a focus group, or request to be omitted from the data collected during
workshop and team observations.
That said, I am hopeful you are willing to support and contribute to CUE’s
developmental evaluation study and our goal of better understanding you and your
colleague’s reactions, experiences, reflections, and action steps and the extent to
which these were facilitated through our action research processes and tools.
In conducting this study, we make the following commitments:
• To respect your professionalism and privacy by conducting the study in a
confidential and ethical manner.
• To use your time wisely and well, and to minimize the “response burden” on
any one individual.
• To report findings anonymously to external audiences, for example in
dissertations or evaluation reports.
• To share findings with you and your colleagues in ways informative to your
learning process. We will not report findings in ways that would reveal the
experience of any one individual (for example based on his or her race,
ethnicity, gender, or position). Instead, we will draw on findings from
184
multiple participants on your campus or aggregated across different field sites
to communicate themes or issues that are pertinent in your setting.
Should you have any questions or concerns, or should any arise as we conduct this
study, please contact me by phone or email: 213.740.5202, alicia.dowd@usc.edu.
Thank you for your consideration!
Yours sincerely,
Alicia C. Dowd
Associate Professor
Co-Director
Center for Urban Education
CUE’s Developmental-Evaluation Study—At a Glance
Q. If I participate in this study, what would I be asked to do?
A. You would be asked to do one or more of the following:
• Complete an evaluation form at the conclusion of a workshop or evidence
team meeting in which you were a participant (approximately 15 minutes)
• Participate in one or more individual telephone or in-person interviews
following a workshop or team meeting (approximately 40 minutes each)
• Participate in a focus group (approximately 1.0 to 1.5 hours long)
• Provide non-confidential materials from your work to illustrate professional
practices on your campus (e.g. a syllabus, an application form, an assessment
form, a campus report) and changes that take place over the course of the
study.
Q. What if I participate in one of the activities indicated above, but don’t want to
participate in the others.
A. That is fine. You may decline to participate at any time.
Q. What methodology are you using?
A. Our study is best characterized as developmental evaluation[1], a methodology
that is appropriate when the organization conducting the study operates in a complex,
dynamic environment and is interested in developing innovative and responsive
processes that will function well in those environments.
185
Developmental evaluators use a variety of methods, data, and analysis techniques.
We will triangulate data from evaluation forms, observations, interviews, focus
groups and documents. The interviews will take a particular form called “cognitive
interviewing.” These are “think aloud” interviews where you explain how you
interpreted and answered the questions on the evaluation form. This will enable us to
improve the quality of the data we collect from this simple and quick evaluation tool.
Q. Who else is involved in this study?
Currently, faculty, administrators, and counselors at twelve community colleges, two
state universities, and two liberal arts colleges (all in California) are being invited to
participate. We anticipate having 10 to 30 participants per site at 10 of these sites,
with the number depending on the total number of participants in CUE workshops or
evidence teams. It is not necessary for everyone who has participated in a workshop
or team meeting at a particular campus to participate in the evaluation study.
186
APPENDIX B
CUE TOOL OR WORKSHOP EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE
MODULE EVALUATION FORM
187
188
APPENDIX C
OBSERVATIONAL DATA COLLECTION TEMPLATE
TIME PERIOD/TASK (#)
Site
(room temp, equipment, environment,
“artifacts”)
Mood
(emotions, general attitudes, personality traits)
“Task” Performance
(CUE Tools; knowledge base for engagement
with presentation or tool; expressed attitudes
towards or beliefs about tool; e.g. use or value
or design)
Social Context
(Who is there (social markers), positions/
authority relations; race relations; interactions,
who talking)
Behavioral Intentions
(expressed next steps, plans, norms)
Environmental Constraints
(expressed concerns or hopes, perceived
limitations of self, team or resources)
Reflection/Analysis
189
APPENDIX D
COGNITIVE INTERVIEW PROTOCOL (EXCERPT: EQUITY-MINDEDNESS
MODULE)
The purpose of this template is to guide the data collection process through the
cognitive interview. Please watch the attached module and review the following
evaluation form, analytic objectives, and cognitive interview protocol. Attached is an
annotated version of the Fishbein and Ajzen model for further theoretical grounding
of the analytic objectives. Complete two to three cognitive interviews with friends or
colleagues using the “think-aloud” and verbal probing techniques:
• First, play the module for your interviewee.
http://cue.na5.acrobat.com/cogframe/
• Second, conduct a cognitive interview using the cognitive interview protocol.
Write a brief report summarizing the effectiveness of the evaluation form according
to the analytic objectives. Include your cognitive interviewing findings using one or
more of the major categories of outcomes that emerge from cognitive testing. For
example, describe ways in which to improve the evaluation form’s items (e.g.,
change wording of item 4 to improve clarity) and/or survey instrument, overall,
considering the analytic objectives (e.g., survey does not adequately address the
second analytic objective). Attached are examples of cognitive interview findings
from Willis (2005) for further guidance.
Analytic Objectives
Practitioner Beliefs
CUE researchers have recognized an emphasis on measuring beliefs and changes in
beliefs because beliefs are important drivers of behavior (Fishbein, 2000; Patton,
2011). Beliefs are closely informed by but distinct from attitudes and knowledge.
Practitioners’ attitudes towards action inquiry projects will be shaped by their beliefs
about the legitimacy of those activities and their perceptions of self-efficacy and
collective efficacy to carry out the projects. Knowledge and beliefs influence how
people behave in social interactions. Knowledge that a problem is a problem of
practice is needed to motivate willingness to change one’s own practices and agency
to change institutional norms (Seo & Creed, 2002). Beyond knowledge of a
problem, beliefs shape behavior. Utilizing Fishbein & Ajzen’s (2010) framework,
three types of beliefs shape behavior (see attached annotated version of the model).
Behavioral beliefs are beliefs surrounding the consequences, positive or negative, of
190
a behavior. For example, I may plan to study for 10 hours for an exam because I feel
that it will improve my grade in a class. Second, normative beliefs entail perceived
social norms or the expected approval or disapproval from others, if one was to
perform a behavior. For example, I may study for 10 hours for an exam because I
feel that my faculty expects this behavior of me and I believe my classmates will do
the same. Lastly, control beliefs are beliefs about personal (i.e., perceived self-
efficacy) and environmental (e.g., policies) factors that may aide or hinder the ability
to carry out a behavior. I may choose not to study for my exam because I feel that I
will fail regardless of the amount of time I spend reviewing. Control beliefs are
shaped by emotions such as doubt, fear and guilt because these are invoked in
matters of professional competence, including activities involving attention to race
and racial inequalities. See attached annotated version of the Fishbein and Ajzen
(2010) model.
Informed by these theories and perspectives, the analytic objectives of the evaluation
protocol are:
Clarity in Presentation of Information
1. Assess the module’s effectiveness in introducing the general concepts of
equity-mindedness, deficit-mindedness, and cognitive frames to practitioners.
Beliefs
2. Assess practitioner respondents’ personal beliefs regarding the causes of
unequal outcomes: student-level vs. institutional/structural-levels
responsibilities.
Knowing
3. Evaluate the ways in which respondent practitioners now understand
cognitive frames (i.e. attitudes) surrounding unequal outcomes in institutional
data.
4. Evaluate improvements in respondents’ awareness of their own cognitive
frames and/or beliefs, and those of others (i.e. normative beliefs), when
conceptualizing unequal institutional outcomes (e.g. how these cognitive
frames develop).
5. Test for an increased understanding of how student focused explanations for
unequal outcomes are incorrect and harmful to students and society as a
whole.
191
Self-Reflection surrounding beliefs and behaviors
6. Evaluate increased self-reflection around the ways in which altering
practitioner beliefs and behaviors can lead to significant institutional change
(i.e. behavioral and control beliefs).
The Cognitive Interview
Cognitive interviews focus on detecting problems in survey questionnaires, including
the cognitive processes respondents use to answer survey questions: comprehension,
recall, decision and judgment, and response processes (Willis, 2005).
Instructions for Interviewer (Willis, 2005):
1. Review the questionnaire to make sure you can “get through it” and
determine probes to ask.
2. To start the interview, read the instructions to subject either verbatim or
paraphrased.
3. When you start, make sure to enter the start time.
4. Make sure the subject isn’t reading the questionnaire as you administer it
(i.e., make sure he or she is only listening to you).
5. If you do not complete your protocol in the allotted time, mark where you
ended. If something is difficult to administer or you can’t figure out exactly
how to read a question, make a comment to the effect that it is a problem, and
ask it the best you can.
6. Use the suggested probes that are written in and other probes you can think
of. Don’t feel you need to probe every question extensively.
7. Enter comments, under each question, about problems or issues that come up.
Try to make them readable because they will be used as data.
8. When you are done. Enter the end time.
9. Look back over the questionnaire and add other comments as appropriate.
10. Save each commented protocol so that later you can pool these into one
version that covers all the interviews you conduct.
192
Instructions to be Read to the Participant (Willis, 2005):
Either read these instructions in their entirety or paraphrase them, however include
elements from each item.
“Thank you for taking the time to talk with me today. Let me tell you a little
more about what we will be doing today.”
1. We’re evaluating the survey items you completed regarding the equity-
mindedness and cognitive frames module, as well as your experience
throughout this process.
2. I’ll ask you questions and you answer them, just like a normal survey.
3. However, my goal here is to get a better idea of how the questions are
working. Therefore, I would like you to think aloud as you answer the
questions, in other words tell me everything you are thinking about as you go
about answering them.
4. At times I’ll stop and ask you more questions about the terms or phrases in
the questions and what you think a question is asking about. I will also be
taking notes.
5. Please keep in mind that I want to hear all of your opinions and reactions. Do
not hesitate to speak up whenever something seems unclear, is hard to
answer, or doesn’t seem to apply to you.
6. Finally, we will do this for 20 to 30 minutes, unless I run out of thing to ask
you before then.
7. Do you have any questions before we begin?
Cognitive Interview Protocol
Date: Interview # : Interviewer initials:
Start Time of Interview:
“For each following statement, you were asked to circle the response that best
reflects your opinion and experiences. Please try and ‘think aloud’ this time, as
you answer each question. The response options for each item were: Completely
Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Completely Agree.”
193
1. The Cognitive Frames & Equity-Mindedness module described equity-
mindedness clearly.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
Additional notes:
2. The module presented the concept of cognitive frames effectively.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term effectively, in this item?
Additional notes:
3. The module demonstrated the concept of deficit-mindedness with clarity.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
Additional notes:
4. Prior to watching this module, I was aware of the negative impact of deficit-
minded perspectives.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by “aware,” in this item?
Additional notes:
194
5. Prior to watching the module, I believed in institutional responsibility for
changing unequal outcomes for underrepresented students.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by “believed in institutional responsibility,” in this
item?
Additional notes:
[CONTENTS OMITTED FROM EXCERPT TEXT PRESENTED HERE IN
APPENDIX]
What do you think is meant by “more aware?”
Additional notes:
16. After watching the module, I intend to be more aware of my own cognitive frames
surrounding student success.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by “intend to be,” in this item?
What do you think is meant by “more aware?”
What do you think is meant by “student success?”
Additional notes:
195
17. After watching the module, I plan to be more reflective of my own behaviors as
an equity-minded practitioner.
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by “more reflective of my own behavior?”
What do you think is meant by “an equity-minded practitioner?”
Additional notes:
“That will complete the interview. Thank you again for your time. This has
been very helpful in informing our evaluation process.”
End Time of Interview:
Cognitive Interview Analysis
Major categories of outcomes that emerge from cognitive testing (Willis, 2005):
1. Item-specific recommendations for changes to working (cognitive,
logical/structural, culturally oriented defects).
Were there any items found to have consistent deficits across respondents?
Across a single respondent, however valid and helpful? Based on this
feedback what changes would you recommend in order to improve the
survey? (e.g., specifying the term “success” to mean graduation).
2. Need for further specification of objectives or the manner in which the
questions satisfy them.
Referring back to our analytic objectives of our evaluation, how well did the
questions map onto these objectives? Were the items too vague (e.g. items
focusing on societal issues when the focus should be focusing on institutional
issues)? Were they comprehensive, in other words, cover the span of the
objectives? Were any items outside of parameters of the analytic objectives?
If so, do they add to the data, or are they off base? What do you recommend
surrounding their inclusion or removal?
196
3. Problems related to ordering (or items, sections, and so on) and other
interactions between survey questions.
Do you feel that the order of the items negatively affect how the respondents
process the overall instrument? Does one item lead to a possible bias for a
later item? Critical items and more specific items covering the same concepts
should be included first. Is this the case? If not, what do you recommend in
terms of changing the order? Why?
4. Problems related to reduction in overall instrument length or burden.
Did you get the sense that the instrument was too long for your respondents?
Did they lose interest and attentiveness by the end of the process? If so, how
do you recommend shortening it? If so, in what ways could the instrument be
less cognitively demanding on your respondents?
5. Limitations on what can be asked of survey respondents using the intended
procedures.
Are the topics reviewed in the module too dense or abstract it would require
an unreasonable number of items in order to adequately collect the data?
Were your respondents able to process the information in the module or
recall the information enough to legitimately answer the survey items? If not,
what do you recommend (e.g. remove items).
[1] See Patton, M. Q. (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity
Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: Guilford Press.
197
APPENDIX E
DOCUMENT ANALYSIS FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF
CULTURALLY INCLUSIVE PRACTICES
Purpose: This document is designed for individual and collective use to facilitate
self-assessment into the ways a college or university uses (or could use) culturally
inclusive practices
2
to assist underrepresented students, particularly Latinos, Latinas,
and African Americans (who are not represented among college graduates to an
extent proportional to their representation in the U.S. population), succeed in college.
It is designed to be used as part of a series of steps involving administrators, student
affairs professionals, and faculty in inquiry, self-assessment, and action planning.
At many campuses, this document analysis will follow a review of student
persistence and success at key milestones in a matriculation process (e.g. application,
assessment testing, admissions, placement in a curriculum) or in a curriculum (e.g.
gateway courses, credit accumulation, courses required for a major or degree
completion, timely graduation). A group of people in varying roles (e.g.
admissions/matriculation, administration, faculty, student affairs) agree to assess a
sampling of the documents they use in communicating with students as “artifacts of
culture,” in other words to look at the sampled documents “with fresh eyes” to
consider what kinds of cultural assumptions they hold. The group can be convened
within a functional area (e.g. admissions office, academic department, or student
service program) or be cross-functional.
The process involves each participant first in individually assessing a sampling of
their own documents of educational practice using the indicators in the table below
and then in talking with the group about what they learned or contemplated while
conducting the document review. The response columns alongside each of the
indicators asks whether the culturally inclusive practice represented by the indicator
is reflected in the document, whether it should or could be (if not already), and
whether the person completing the review would be willing to take steps to change
the document if she or he believes changes are warranted. Drawing on these
reflections, each participant volunteers ideas to draft an action plan to strengthen
culturally inclusive practices on the campus.
2
Term derived from concepts adapted from culturally responsive, culturally relevant, or culturally
inclusive pedagogy. See, for one key reference, Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of
culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
198
Getting Started
1. Collect a sampling of materials that reflect your educational practices and
that communicate expectations and information to students; for example:
a. For admissions and enrollment professionals: Application forms, program
recruitment brochures, web pages, financial aid forms
b. For faculty: syllabi, handouts from class, assignments, assessments of
student learning, course or personal web sites (if provided to students)
c. For program administrators and institutional leaders: descriptions of
student eligibility, mission statements and program goals, speeches,
PowerPoint presentations, newsletters and e-blasts
2. Keep in mind that printed materials are only one important way that you and
your campus communicate with students. Individual discussions, in class
presentations or group discussions, campus gatherings, artwork and the
physical space are other important forms of communication. (The Center for
Urban Education offers other protocols for self-assessment of practices
represented in other types of media and settings.)
3. Scan the materials to re-familiarize yourself with their contents.
4. With the materials at hand, proceed to complete the worksheet provided by
the table below.
199
Self-Assessment using Indicators of Culturally Inclusive Practices
Use the indicators in the first column to reflect on the sample of materials you have
collected. Then, use the second column to jot down your notes based on your
reflections prompted by the indicators. Finally in the third column, note steps you
would be willing and able to take to make changes to the documents, in those cases
where you believe change is warranted.
Refer to the following
indicators of culturally
inclusive practices and
consider whether the
documents in your
sample could be
characterized as
communicating…
Based on your review of the
sampled documents, would
you say that they can be
characterized by the
indicator in the first
column?
Would you be willing
and able to take steps
to make changes to
the materials you
reviewed, if you
believe changes are
warranted?
1. Respect for students
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
200
2. Desire to help
students succeed.
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
3. Information students
need to successfully
act on the information
in the document.
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
201
4. Validation of racial
diversity
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
5. Validation of
diversity in terms of
ethnicity (shared
ancestry, language,
national heritage,
religious beliefs,
community norms)
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
202
6. Validation of other
forms of diversity,
such as:
Gender
Socio-economic status
Sexual orientation
Immigration status
Age
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
7. Validation of the
value of differences in
prior educational
experiences
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
203
8. Validation of the
value of differences in
prior life experiences
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
9. Expectation that
student success will be
a collaborative effort
among the student,
peers, faculty,
administrators,
counselors, students’
families and
communities
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
204
10. Belief that all
students are capable of
obtaining high
educational goals.
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
11. Expectation that
students will be
empowered as agents
of social and
community well being
through their education
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
205
12. Expectation that the
educational community
will engage in
respectful discussion of
the history and
contemporary
experiences of
discrimination, racism,
and marginalization
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
13. Recognition that
aspects of the
educational experience
are challenging but
attainable
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
206
14. Expectation that
learning takes place in
with authentic
application to and
engagement with real-
world problems
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
15. Expectation that
education starts from
students’ experiences
and builds upon those
experiences to expand
student learning
Yes / No/Somewhat
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
207
16. Expectation that
broad integrative
learning will take place,
focused by engagement
with big questions, both
contemporary and
enduring
3
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
17. Expectation that
analytical, applied and
integrative learning will
occur across all major
fields, both
preprofessional and
liberal arts and sciences
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
3
Indicators 16-18 are adapted from indicators of High Impact Practices from AAC&U’s LEAP
Campus Toolkit, available at http://leap.aacu.org/toolkit/
208
18. Expectation for
active involvement
with diverse
communities, real
world problems, and
social responsibility
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
19. Expectation of
milestone and
culminating
experiences that
connect general, major,
and field-learning
contexts
Yes / No/Somewhat
If Yes or Somewhat,
How do they?
If No, Should they?
Yes / No
If Yes, How could they be
revised to communicate this?
Yes / No
If Yes, how?
Note possible steps:
If No, Why not?
209
Group Discussion and Action Planning
After group members have had a chance to assess their sampling of documents, the
group gathers to discuss their insights and to share possible action steps. These are
collected and displayed in the categories of “within reach,” “with a stretch” and
“beyond reach” and mapped to key milestones in a student’s educational progress at
the institution. Milestones where racial-ethnic groups experience substantial
differences in progress and success will be highlighted as potential intervention
zones for focused action by the group.
During Group Discussion, Keep in Mind:
• Self-assessment differs from evaluation in that it is focused on problem-
framing, experimentation, and solution generation, not on evaluating your
performance or the performance of your colleagues.
• In discussing any document or statement, use the same language you would if
your intent were to provide constructive feedback to a colleague sitting next
to you.
• To support your interpretations, point to specific language in the sampled
documents to provide “data” for your interpretation.
• Refer to specific language as revealing or suggesting that the document
communicates something rather than inferring that the original creator of that
document (if you yourself did not create it) intended to communicate
something. The communication intent of the author may differ from your
interpretation of what is communicated.
• Documents communicate educational practices that are shaped by campus
cultures and often communicate campus norms.
• The things that most surprise you about documents may be those things that
run counter to prevailing cultural practices.
• Printed and electronic media represent only one component of a wide variety
of communications with students. They may have characteristics similar or
dissimilar to other forms of communication.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study is part of a larger design experiment that involves various community colleges and universities in California and across the nation. Tools and processes created by the Center for Urban Education (CUE) enabled practitioners to develop a systematic process of inquiry which includes observations, reflection, social interaction, problem identification, experimentation and action in order to solve problems. The purpose of my study was to focus on how CUE’s tools and processes use action research to help transform practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviors regarding racial and ethnic equity and equity-mindedness. ❧ My study, which included workshops, observations, cognitive interviews, and member checking, took place at a 4-year public university that focuses on STEM fields. The twelve-month study revealed that practitioners, who were STEM faculty members, through social interaction discussed the desire to grow in culturally responsive knowledge and direction in how to apply it to their courses, syllabi, and therefore, create a culture of inclusivity. During my observations and interviews, practitioners stressed that they have a strong sense of agency in their classrooms, but not at departmental or institutional levels. Several STEM faculty members also revealed that they feel tension with various administrators and a lack of institutional support. This study led to several changes in remediating classroom practices using culturally responsive knowledge to create a more welcoming and culturally inclusive environment for their students. Implications for further study include developing a more collegial relationship between faculty and administrators and increasing institutional agency.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Equity for students of color through practitioner accountability
PDF
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices
PDF
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM
PDF
Faculty learning and agency for racial equity
PDF
Globalization, internationalization and the faculty: culture and perception of full-time faculty at a research university
PDF
Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education
PDF
Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution
PDF
Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
A multi-perspective examination of developmental education: student progression, institutional assessment and placement policies, and statewide regulations
PDF
How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?
PDF
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
PDF
Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Culture, politics, and policy implementation: how practitioners interpret and implement the transfer policy in a technical college environment
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
Asset Metadata
Creator
Smith, Peggy J.
(author)
Core Title
Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
07/13/2012
Defense Date
04/04/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
action research,developmental evaluation,equity,Ethnicity,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee chair
), Ragusa, Gisele (
committee member
), Young, Ray (
committee member
)
Creator Email
peggysmi@usc.edu,pegysmith@aol.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-56676
Unique identifier
UC11289485
Identifier
usctheses-c3-56676 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-SmithPeggy-944.pdf
Dmrecord
56676
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Smith, Peggy J.
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
action research
developmental evaluation
equity