University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research

(USC Thesis Other)

Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

RE-MEDIATING PRACTITIONERS’ PRACTICE FOR EQUITY IN HIGHER
EDUCATION: EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTION RESEARCH

by

Erin Vines

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2012

Copyright 2012 Erin Vines

ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Russell and Patricia Vines. To my
brothers and sisters who sometimes took the role of parents and cared for me when
necessary. To all whom I call family for molding me.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my late father for instilling a strong work ethic in me. I
would like to thank my mother for never thinking my dreams were too big or
unattainable. She only encouraged me and told me I could. To my sisters and brothers,
Lorraine, Scott, David, Melinda, and Paul, I have never stopped looking up to you all.
I would like to thank Mrs. Moore, my high school Spanish teacher who was there
for me from day one and continues to support me. I thank her for the edits. I thank her
for showing me equity-mindedness before I had the language to articulate what she
demonstrated for so many students.
I would like to thank my dissertation committee chair, Dr. Alicia Dowd for her
unbelievable amount of support that she provided me throughout the dissertation process.
I could not keep up with the tremendous amount of support that she provided. Her high
expectations overwhelmed me, but it always came with support. She always made me
feel as though she cared about my success and sincerely wanted to make me a better
researcher and writer.
I want to thank my dissertation committee member Dr. Estela Bensimon for her
willingness to serve on my committee and the research that she offers our profession. I
want to thank Dr. Ed Bush for going out of his way to serve and for the work that he is
doing to address equity.
I want to thank my thematic group Rashitta, Lorena, Chelvi, Christiane, Peggy,
Tomas, Lee Anne and Svetlana for all of their support and friendship.
I want to thank my A2MEND brothers for encouraging me and supporting me
throughout the process. They inspired me to earn my doctorate. A special thanks to Dr.

iv
Amanuel Gebru for letting me crash on his couch after class countless times and taking
me to the airport many times. He never once made me feel like I was a burden.
To my northern California 1
st
year commute buddies Sean Howland and
Carndenas Shakelford, thank you for the encouragement and fun times. Lincoln Johnson
and Sean Howland, thanks for making class and after class so much fun.
I want to thank the students, faculty, staff, and administrators at Solano
Community College who took time out to encourage me and offered to assist me in any
way so that I can focus on my studies.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

ABSTRACT ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
Inequities in Higher Education 1
Societal Consequences of Inequity in Higher Education 5
Higher Education Initiatives to Address Inequities 8
Strategies for Organizational Change 13
Research Questions 16
Importance of Study 17

CHAPTER TWO: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 19
Action Research 21
Inquiry Teams 25
Race and Ethnicity Influence on Practitioners 32
Designing New Forms of Educational Activities Concepts of CHAT 35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 41
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change 41
Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection Procedures 48
Ethical Concerns 50
Recruitment 51
Organization of Procedures 51
Data Collection Methods 57
Cognitive Interviews 60
Document Analysis 61
Focus Groups Interviews 62
Standards of Review 69
Credibility 69
Transferability 74
Dependability and Confirmability 76
Limitations 77
Reporting Results 79

vi
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 82
Overview 82
Institutional Context: Moving Towards Equity 90
CUE’s Action Research Activities: Facilitated Inquiry 92
Getting Started: Negotiated Ground Rules for Social Interaction 98
Planning Meeting 98
Workshop I 100
Accountability for Equity 102
Diversion from Race and Ethnicity 106
Structural Racism 108
Campus Participation in Equity Efforts 109
Workshop II 110
Who helped you Through College? 110
Context Mapping 112
Workshop III 113
Transfer Data Analysis BESST Workshop: Defining the Problem using Data 113
Overstating Latino Student Success 118
Workshop IV 120
Workshop V 122
Discussion 126

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 129
Summary of findings 129
Recommendations 131
CUE and other Action Researchers: Develop Accountability Artifacts 131
Recommendation for Practitioners: Increase accountability 135
Recommendation for CUE and other Action Researchers: Clearer
Expectations to avoid Diversion 136
Recommendation for Practitioners: Adopt a willingness to take center
stage and advocate for a focus on race and ethnicity 138
Recommendation for CUE and other Action Researchers: Develop
strategies for broader campus participation 139
Conclusion 141

REFERENCES 145

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Dear Colleague Letter 150
Appendix B: CUE’s Developmental-Evaluation Study—At a Glance 152
Appendix C: Researcher Notes 153
Appendix D: Cognitive Interview Protocol: Las Flores Community College
Evaluations January, 2012 155

vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Research Questions and Sub Questions 47

Table 3.2: Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study 56

Table 3.3: Summary of Data Collection Methods 58

Table 3.4: Deductive Data Analysis Codes 65

Table 3.5: Data Analysis and Summary Sheet for Analyzing CUE’s Tools 66

Table 4.1: Deductive Counts from Inquiry Cycle: 94

Table 4.2: Confirming and Disconfirming Theme Data: 94

Table 4.3: Quotes Illustrating Data Coded as Confirming or Disconfirming
Students: 95

Table 4.4: Transfer Ready and Non-Transfer Ready Data by Ethnicity: 118

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Developmental Evaluation Methods Inform Multiple
Modes of Research 44

Figure 3.2: Reflective Practice (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial and Ethnic Equity in
Postsecondary Outcomes 46

Figure 3.3: Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection 50

Figure 3.4: An Activity Setting (CHAT) Framework 63

Figure 4.1: IPEDS Degree/Certificate Completion by Ethnicity 91

Figure 4.2: Cycle of Inquiry: Engagement 93

Figure 4.3: Illustration of Deficit-Minded Knowledge: 105

Figure 4.4: BESST for LFCC Evidence Team Meeting: 115

ix
ABSTRACT
This study examines the influence of action research on California community
college practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, and behavior using the Center for Urban
Education’s (CUE) Equity Scorecard tools and process. This developmental evaluation
study began March 2011 and concluded April 2012. The pseudonym of the field site
studied is Las Flores Community College (LFCC), which is located in a suburban area in
northern California. The CUE tools utilized in this study were the Benchmarking Equity,
and Student Success Toolkit (BESST) and Vital Signs. The findings suggest that
practitioners received new knowledge during the inquiry process when addressing equity.

1
CHAPTER ONE:
INTRODUCTION
Inequities in Higher Education
Higher education has not produced racial and ethnic equity in student success and
degree completion in the United States (Moore & Shulock, 2010). Higher education may
benefit from organizational change and the institutionalization of practices that lead to
equity for all students through action research. Statistics show that traditionally
underserved racial and ethnic populations continue to have lower success and completion
rates than White dominant culture students (NCES, 2011). Without clear accountability
measures in place in higher education, practitioners at colleges and universities may not
engage in practices and organizational change that are necessary to achieve equitable
outcomes. Many initiatives call for higher education to take a variety of approaches to
improve degree completion and equity in outcomes. These include Inclusive Excellence,
California Basic Skills Initiative, Compass, Leap, CSU Graduation Initiative, Complete
College America, Association of United States Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U)
High-Impact Educational Practices, Compete to Complete, and The Center for Urban
Education (CUE) Equity Scorecard. The aforementioned national and state
initiatives/strategies overarching focus is on degree completion, diversity, and equity in
outcomes.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education issued a landmark
report titled “Nation at Risk” which called for greater reform in United States schools
because of concerns that the nation’s schools were failing (NR 1983). This report also
exposed the need for accountability in higher education (Grubb & Badway, 2005).

2
Western Association for School and Colleges (WASC), the legitimizing accrediting
agency for private, federal and state funding for higher education, subsequently began to
place a greater emphasis in accountability, which resulted in institutions being required to
focus on outcomes (CHEA). This was demonstrated when WASC began to expect
institutions to conduct program reviews as well as implement student learning outcomes
(Grubb & Badway, 2005). One way institutions are addressing racial and ethnic equity in
outcomes is by calling on researchers from outside their campuses such as CUE. Unlike
many interventions that higher education practitioners implement on campuses, CUE’s
approach is driven by facilitated action research. In addition, CUE’s approach with the
Equity Scorecard tools and processes focuses on the practitioner’s practice, not deficits
some practitioners believe the students arrive on campuses with (Bensimon & Malcom,
2012), in press). Like some interventions, Equity Scorecard tools disaggregate data and
assist practitioners in discovering practices that are detrimental to the success of racial
and ethnic students. For the purposes of this study, the researcher has chosen to evaluate
action research involving CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and process. The purpose is to
determine if practitioners’ practices improve when working with traditionally
underserved students.
Racial and ethnic inequities are prevalent in all sectors of higher education in the
United States. In this study, racial and ethnic inequities were examined closely at the
community college level, which provides access and opportunity for traditionally
underserved students in higher education (Dowd, 2007) and opens the doors to all who
will come. However, access alone will not result in equitable outcomes for all students at
the community college level. While community colleges have served as a gateway and/or

3
gatekeeper to bachelor’s degrees, there is not equity in outcomes for traditionally
underserved populations (Dowd, 2008). Furthermore, students who matriculate into
universities from high school or transfer from a community college are also not obtaining
successful outcomes or completing degrees equitably (NCES, 2011).
Higher education is being examined at the national and state level, which has
inspired both private and public initiatives for the purpose of addressing the low rates of
student success, degree completion and inequity (NGA & NCES, 2011). Along with
degree completion measures, some argue there is a need for a national assessment
movement to measure student outcomes in higher education. Grubb and Badway (2005)
argue that developing such a national assessment in order to measure student outcomes
would be challenging because of the wide range of institutions, especially community
colleges. Community colleges have an array of missions amongst themselves, such as
transfer, vocational, and job training. The mission of community colleges, open access in
particular, will make national assessments challenging in terms of accurately measuring
student learning outcomes. Another challenge with a national assessment is that many
community college students do not commit to a single campus, but enroll in classes
wherever it is convenient, which makes accountability challenging.
Hentschke and Wohlstetter (2004) state that in order to have accountability a
“contract” must exist between two or more parties. However, the “contract” the
California Community College Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), to use an example
relevant to this study, engages in with the 112 colleges does not address equitable
outcomes in a way that encourages practitioners to participate in practices that improve
the outcomes for traditionally underrepresented students. The CCCCO accountability

4
measures are simply to report the data. Professional accountability does exist taking in
that success rates pertaining to how students perform, disaggregated by race and
ethnicity, are made available to the public on the CCCCO website (Goldberg &
Morrison, 2003). However, instructors, administrators and colleges are not given
consequences when students perform poorly. Bureaucratic accountability exists in that
CCCCO requires institutions to submit racial and ethnic data. If colleges do not submit
their college data to the CCCCO on time, the college may be fined. This is the extent of
the accountability of public institutions in California when it comes to equitable racial
and ethnic student success and degree completion outcomes.
Burke (2004) argues that colleges and universities are accountable to state
priorities, academic concerns and market forces. In addition, university tends to be
market driven by ratings such as U.S. News & World Report which rewards prestige, not
outcomes in student success or degree completion. One of the criteria in determining
ranking of universities is the Standardized Achievement Test (SAT) which Freedle
(2003) argues is culturally and income biased. Although strong evidence exists
supporting the fact that standardized assessments are culturally and income biased,
universities use these false predictors in admissions, leaving little motivation for
institutions to focus on student outcomes. Most top prestigious universities knowingly
continue to take part in contributing to the equity issue because of their concern with
improving ranking (Freedle, 2003). The fact that high school grades and class ranking
are better predictors of college success has not influenced the way many universities
view the SAT (Perez, 2002). The way universities are ranked may motivate them to

5
place resources in areas that increase the institution’s ranking, rather than applying
resources and attention to equity in student outcomes.
Societal Consequences of Inequity in Higher Education
Colleges and universities, as well as society, will experience devastating
economic impact if there are not major improvements in the degree completion rates
amongst racial and ethnic groups that are completing the fewest degrees, particularly
Hispanics because of their growing population (Museus & Quaye, 2009). Degree
attainment from 4 year institutions in a six year period by racial and ethnic groups is as
follows: Asian/Pacific Islander, 67 percent; White, 60 percent; Hispanic, 48 percent;
African American, 42 percent; and United States Indian/Alaska Native, 40 percent
(NECS, 2011). As the data states, underrepresented racial and ethnic college students
have a low degree completion rate when compared to the overall student population
(Moore & Shulock, 2010).
The equity gaps are of great concern in higher education and society due to the
fact that less than half of African American and Hispanic students will graduate from a
four-year institution within six years once they matriculate into college (Carey, 2008;
Kelley, Schneider, & Carey, 2010). The gap continued to increase between African
American and Whites from 12 to 18 percent and the gap between Whites and Hispanics
increased from 14 percent to 25 percent from 1971 to 2009 (NECS, 2011). The disparity
in degree attainment gaps improves drastically at the graduate school level with most
racial and ethnic groups. In 2009, master’s degree attainment by race and ethnicity was 9
percent for Whites, 4 percent for African Americans and 2 percent for Hispanics.
However, Asians/Pacific Islanders earned master’s degrees at a significantly higher rate

6
of 21 percent, creating the only substantial gap from other groups (NECS, 2011). Moore
and Shulock’s (2010) key findings in the Divided We Fail report were that, after 6 years
of enrolling in a CCC, approximately 75 percent of degree seeking African American
students and 80 percent of Latino students did not transfer to a university or earn a degree
or a certificate. They also found that, even after Latino students reached the 30 unit
milestone of completed college level units, a point when completion rates typically
increase drastically, Latino students had the lowest rate in completion at 47 percent
compared to 60 percent for Whites. In addition, they found that Latino students
transferred at a rate of 14 percent, which is less than half that of White students, whose
rate of transfer was 29 percent.
A number of factors illustrate the importance of racial and ethnic equity for all
students. One factor is that the demographics of our population continue to shift to a
minority majority country. By 2050, over half of the U.S. population will be minority
(U.S. Bureau of the Census). In 2007, the rates of attained baccalaureate degrees by race
and ethnicity were: Whites, 36 percent; African American, 20 percent; and Hispanics, 12
percent (NECS, 2011). If the college going-rates and completion rate amongst minority
students do not improve, our nation will fall far behind in higher education. This will
require United States companies to recruit international students to remain in the United
States or to recruit internationally to keep up with professional needs, most importantly in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) (Kuenzi, 2008). As many
argue, the alternative is for higher education in the United States to educate the students
we do have equitably. Although a population shift is inevitable, historically ethnically
underrepresented students and low-income students attended college at lower rates than

7
their White and higher income student counterparts (NECS, 2011). In 2009, the race and
ethnic enrollment rates in higher education at degree granting institutions in the United
States were 62.3 percent for Whites, 14.3 percent for African Americans, 12.5 percent for
Hispanic, 6.5 percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders, 1.0 percent for United States
Indian/Alaska Natives, and 3.4 percent for Nonresident alien (NECS, 2011).
The benefits of educating all students are realized by citizens in many ways.
When society becomes more educated, productivity increases, which leads to higher
earnings and, ultimately, a tax base increase at the local, state, and federal levels (Hill,
Hoffman & Rex 2005, Jerald et al., 2009). Sudarkasa (1988) states, “We must be willing
to spend the money and provide the human capital necessary to create genuinely equal
educational opportunities for citizens of all races, ethnic groups, and income levels”
(Sudarkasa, 1988, p. 25).
Another important racial and ethnic statistic that affects society is the
demographic shift as it relates to the working population. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, by 2050, racial and ethnic minorities will make up 55 percent of the working-age
population. The specific racial and ethnic subgroups are projected to be made up of 30
percent Hispanics, 12 percent African Americans, and 8 percent Asian. Therefore, some
would argue that these populations need interventions focused on equity and their
particular needs (Cooper, 2010). The consequences of not making an investment are
severe, “Excellence with equity is expensive, but the costs of welfare, mediocrity,
unemployment, and crime are even higher” (Sudarkasa, 1988, p. 26). Hill, Hoffman and
Rex (2005) state that societies benefit from highly college educated communities because
they have lower crime rates and higher rates of civic participation. The societal benefits

8
from equity in education are substantial considering the statistics mentioned earlier.
Many underrepresented groups are first generation college students and when a
generation attains a college degree, there is a high probability that a future generation
will also attain a degree (Hill, Hoffman & Rex, 2005). Other societal and personal
benefits from a college education are higher salaries, improvements in health, increase in
community involvement, and less need for welfare and other social services (Baum &
Payea, 2007).
Higher Education Initiatives to Address Inequities
Many higher education practitioners argue that students entering higher education
are not academically prepared, particularly African American and Hispanic students.
Nationally, 80 percent of African American students and 84 percent of Hispanic students
are in need of developmental, basic skills or remedial course work (Long & Riley, 2007).
The reason for such poor performance is often viewed from a student deficit mindset,
leaving little expectation of improvement on the practitioners’ practice. On the other
hand, Bensimon (2007) states that inequity exists because “practitioners lack the
specialized knowledge and expertise to recognize racialized nature of the collegiate
experience for African American and Latina/o students and adjust their practices
accordingly” (p. 446) .
Concerns over racial and ethnic student success outcomes and degree completion
rates in higher education at the national and state level have led to initiatives and
strategies for improvements s mentioned earlier. There are many common characteristics
about each of the initiatives/strategy, but the most common thread is student success and
degree completion in higher education. Inclusive Excellence, COMPASS, LEAP,

9
Compete to Complete, and Achieve the Dream are all national initiatives and strategies.
The California Basic Skills Initiative and the CSU Graduate Initiative are State
initiatives, but, like many of the other initiatives, they draw on similar initiatives and
strategies. For example, LEAP and CSU Graduation initiative promotes and draws on
the practices of Inclusive Excellence and High Impact Practices. CUE emphasizes equity
while some focus on diversity in higher education. CUE, BSI, High Impact Practices,
and Inclusive Excellence emphasize a change in practitioners’ practices and others such
as Compete to Complete are focused on accountability in higher education with an
emphasis on degree completion in general.
The first initiative to be discussed in greater detail is “Inclusive Excellence,”
which the AAC&U explains as a national initiative that was developed to guide colleges
and universities to integrate diversity, equity, inclusion, and educational quality into their
mission and operations. Inclusive Excellence calls on institutions to uncover inequities
in student success and employ the best educational practices and implementing those
practices into institutions. The focus is oriented around the areas of learning, teaching,
student development, institutional functioning and engagement in local and global
communities (AAC&U). AAC&U speaks of developing “equity-minded practitioners”
of all faculty, staff and administrators to strategically address inequity in hopes of leading
to improvements in students’ learning outcomes. AAC&U draws on CUE’s definition of
Equity-minded as a “demonstrated awareness of and willingness to address equity issues
among institutional leaders and staff” (Bensimon, 2007, p. 443). The inclusion
previously mentioned strives for institutions within higher education to intentionally
engage in diversity in all aspects of the learning experience. These experiences could be

10
curriculum, co-curriculum or any other aspect which an individual can connect to the
institution.
A national initiative that President Barack Obama signed into law was the Health
Care and Educational Reconciliation Act of 2010. The signing of Health Care and
Educational Reconciliation Act greatly improved the Pell Grant Program by giving
greater support to community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCU) and other Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) (HR 4872). The community
college support is particularly vital to access, degree completion and equity as this system
serves the highest number of minority students in the nation. Considering a quarter of the
nation’s community college students are enrolled in a California Community College
(Moore & Shulock, 2010), CCC becomes a significant player in the initiatives. HBCU
and MSI make up nearly one-third of all degree granting institutions and enroll nearly 60
percent of all undergraduate minority students in our nation (HR 4872). Moore and
Shulock (2010) state in the “Divided We Fail” report that minority students in California
who attend a community college are more likely to enter college at a disadvantage as
they are likely to be of a lower socioeconomic status, have attended an over-crowded
low-income segregated school with fewer qualified teachers, counselors, and fewer
opportunities to engage in rigorous college prep curriculum. In addition, these students
are more likely to have a higher percent of unmet financial need than White students,
which typically results in lower educational attainment (Long & Riley, 2007).
Complete to Compete is a national initiative which is sponsored by the National
Governors Association (NGA). Complete to Compete is designed to increase the college
degree attainment rate in each state. The governors’ goal is to move college attainment

11
rate in United States from number twelve back to number one in the world to maintain
the nation’s economic engine (NGA).
The CCCCO introduced the California Community College Basic Skills Initiative
(CCCBSI) to address students who are performing below college level. CCCBSI is an
effort to bring about the ability to address basic skills and English as a Second Language
(ESL) on California Community College campuses. The objective is to improve basic
skills by effective practices, to have professional development on how to address basic
skills and ESL and to provide the financial resources to carry out these efforts. CCCBSI
defines basic skills as “foundation skills in reading, writing, mathematics, learning skills,
study skills, and English as a Second Language which are necessary for students to
succeed in college-level work” (BSAR, 2009, p.2)
The CCCCO issued the 2010 Basic Skills Accountability Report which describes
basic skills as “the ability to read, write, and speak in English as a second language
(ESL), and to be able to compute and solve problems presented in employment and
society” (p.1). During the academic years of 2006/07 through 2008/09, Hispanic students
made up 41 percent of basic skills students. The second largest racial and ethnic group
was White students at 21 percent, followed by 13 percent Asian and 11 percent African
American (BSAR, 2010, p. 9). Of the students who enter into basic skills courses, many
do not reach transfer level. Of students who assessed at the mathematics basic skills
level, approximately 14 percent successfully completed a transfer-level mathematics
course. Of students who assessed at the basic skills level in English, approximately 39
percent of students successfully completed transfer level English. It is important to note
that the racial and ethnic make-up of students who attended a California Community

12
College (CCC) during 2007-2008 was as follows: White 34 percent, Hispanic 30 percent,
Asian 12 percent, and African American 7.5 percent, which highlight the importance of
equitable outcomes.
Another national initiative, funded by the Lumina Foundation for Education,
“Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count” focuses on the success of
community college students, particularly traditionally underrepresented students. The
organization is heavily engaged in research, policy, and is an advocate for data-driven
change. The principle concepts of the Achieving the Dream initiative are “the belief that
broad institutional change, informed by student achievement data, is critical to
significantly improving student success rates” (Achieving the Dream, 2011).
Divided We Fail, a communications and advocacy initiative, spearheaded by
Campaign for College Opportunities and authored by Moore and Shulock (2010) was
created to improve completion and close racial gaps in CCC. The authors argued, as did
Cooper (2010), that it is imperative that we increase our degree attainment for the Latino
students because the working population in California is projected to grow to 50 percent
Latino by 2040. Moreover, there is an urgency to improve the equity in outcomes of
students because California is preparing far too few people to fill jobs that require higher
education by not keeping up with the needs of the labor market (Moore & Shulock,
2010). The authors go on to express the same sentiments that Kuenzi (2008) conveyed,
which were that, given the shortages in STEM, if equity does not come to fruition, we
will not produce the degrees needed to keep up with the demands of the nation in these
fields.

13
California State University (CSU) system also responded to the concerns of
equity and degree completion by developing an Early Start Program policy change,
Executive Order No. 1048, as a way to assist students who have not demonstrated entry-
level proficiency in math and English before they enter the fall term of their first year.
The order requires the students to begin taking the remedial courses the summer before
their first term. Furthermore, all students are required to be proficient at the college level
by the end of their first year (Executive Order No. 1048).
The CSU Graduation Initiative is a systems plan for the 23 campuses to reach
goals of graduation and equity by 2015-2016. The first goal is to raise the graduation
rate amongst CSU students by 8 percentage points. Another goal is to reduce the degree
attainment gap of under-represented minority students by half in this same time frame.
Each campus is expected to set targets to reach the top quartile of the nation’s similar
universities. The CSU system’s office takes ownership of students’ success by stating,
“We face a moral imperative to serve our students better by helping more of them
complete the college educations that prepare them for full and productive lives” (CSU
Website).
Strategies for Organizational Change
Moore and Shulock (2010) introduced a model for improving student outcomes
through institutional practices and state/system policies. In this model, they suggest, as
do Bensimon and Dowd (2009), Bensimon and Malcom (2012), and Dowd and Tong
(2007), it is necessary to analyze student data, quantitative as well as qualitative, through
particular milestones disaggregated by race and ethnicity to inform decisions in
organizations. The goal is to determine why students are not meeting benchmarks.

14
Dowd and Tong (2007) and Bensimon and Dowd (2009) state that performance
indicators and disaggregating test scores by race and ethnicity are evidence of creating
organizational change in higher education accountability. However, they argue that
change will come about when creating a culture of inquiry for organizational change by a
transformation in attitudes, beliefs and knowledge within the practitioners. They also
suggest that, once institutions make organizational changes based on data, they share
their discoveries of effective practices as well as barriers with other institutions. Moore
and Shulock’s (2010) model then examines the outcomes from the state/system
perspective and suggests that stakeholders compare current performance levels with
desired performance to identify whether the policies are supportive of or barriers to
student success. These findings are then brought to the governor, legislator, and CCC
Board of Governors for potential policy change.
High-Impact Practice is another strategy that Kuh (2008) explains as when
institutions adopt teaching and learning practices that have been proven to be successful
with a wide range of students from varied backgrounds. These high-impact practices are
found to increase student engagement and retention. Some of these high-impact practices
are First-Year Seminar and Experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning
communities and community based learning (Kuh, 2008).
Lastly, CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and process are implemented using action
research to bring about organizational change in colleges and universities. Action
research is a systematic approach in tackling the complexities in practitioners’ learning to
improve their practices in higher education (Stringer, 2007). To assist institutions and
practitioners in re-mediating practices, CUE developed several tools to help measure

15
equity when working with campuses. These tools are Self-Assessment Inventories (SAI)
and data investigation protocols such as the Equity Scorecard, the Benchmarking Equity,
and Student Success Toolkit (BESST), the Transfer Access Self –Assessment Inventory,
the Equity Based Toolkit, the Organizational Learning Inventory (OLI) and the
Interactive Learning Module (ILM). These tools help faculty, staff and administrators
develop equity mindedness when making decisions (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). The
Transfer Access Inventory (SAI) focuses on the resources, practices and policies that
promote transfer from community colleges to universities. The Benchmarking Equity
and Student Success Toolkit (BESST) is designed to guide practitioners in examining
successful course completion rates, persistence rates, and entering student cohort
migration rates from basic skills classes to transfer classes, disaggregated by race and
ethnicity. The Transfer Self-Assessment Inventory is designed to help community
colleges assess their policies that promote or prohibit transfer from community college to
university.
Bensimon and Dowd (2009) explain that the Equity Scorecard tools are designed
to guide inquiry teams in the examination of disaggregated student outcomes by race and
ethnicity in order to learn more about the inequities in academic pathways, persistence,
transfer readiness and excellence. The module encourages practitioners to dialogue about
equity on their campus using intuitional disaggregated data. Through professional
development, CUE “aims to increase the capacity of colleges to carry out action inquiry
for equity by convening practitioners from different functional areas to engage in
collaboration assessment activities” (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009, p. 9). To address the
issue of inequities in degree completion and success in higher education, practitioner’s

16
(faculty, staff and administrators) learning must be the focus at the colleges and
universities because they are the most consistent point of contact with students
(Bensimon, 2007). Although the practitioners are the most consistent point of contact,
the White normative cultural model prevails, which, it is argued, will negatively affect
students of color in higher education (Bergerson, 2003). CUE aims to bring to light the
racial and cultural challenges in higher education. This study examined the effectiveness
of tools the Center for Urban Education utilizes to facilitate action inquiry when working
with practitioners.
Research Questions
The research questions are: 1) What influence does action research have on the
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of faculty, staff, and administrators using CUE’s Equity
Scorecard tools and process when examining racial and ethnic equity student outcomes
in higher education?; 2) What influence does action research have in promoting the
inquiry cycle with faculty, staff, and administrators when examining racial and ethnic
equity in higher education; 3) What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts
designed for use in “remediated” social learning environments are associated with
changes in postsecondary educators’ social interactions, behaviors, and educational
practices in regard to equity in postsecondary education?
This study examined whether action research using CUE’s Equity Scorecard
tools, process, and equity-oriented artifacts designed to remediate practitioners’ practice
has an effect on their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. In addition, it analyzed what
specifically facilitates the changes in the practitioners if change is to occur.

17
Importance of Study
This study is particularly important because United States’ higher education has
not reached equitable outcomes, specifically in race and ethnicity. The inequities are
contributing to the United States’ falling further behind in the degree completion
necessary to keep up with the nation’s economic and STEM needs. Current educational
practices are not working in higher education for African American and Latino students,
creating a significant disproportion in the number of degrees completed and successful
academic outcomes in higher education. Furthermore, racial and ethnic communities of
color are falling further behind economically while, educationally, these populations are
increasing, especially Latinos.
This study evaluates CUE’s Equity Scorecard action research to determine if the
tools are able to assist practitioners in becoming and practicing equity-mindedness. The
evaluation is a developmental design methodology consisting of data collection from
observing CUE workshops, interviewing workshop participants and asking practitioners
to share documents after engaging in document analysis from an equity perspective, such
as a syllabus review.
Developmental design is appropriate when used in a complex, dynamic
environment and when there is an interest in developing innovative and responsive
processes that will function well in those environments.
This study uses developmental evaluation to investigate and examine the manner
in which practitioners become aware of their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values as
they participate in action inquiry to bring about organizational changes. Through the
developmental evaluation method, the researcher also explored how practitioners

18
recognize the notion of deficit mindedness, at the individual and institutional level, which
contributes to underachievement of minority students at institutions of higher education.
Developmental evaluation was selected as the methodology since developmental
evaluation seeks to establish social and personal interactions that encourage cooperative
relationships amongst the participants involved in the project. Secondly, developmental
evaluation seeks to provide transparency, whereby all participants seek to agree on the
processes and procedures related to the project and how they will determine the kinds of
information necessary to move the project along. Lastly, developmental evaluation
encourages all participants to continuously work towards establishing an on-going
process of observation, reflection and action and then evaluation of the plan (Stringer,
2007).

19
CHAPTER TWO:
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The purpose of this study was to determine if action research improves
practitioners’ learning while working to achieve equitable outcomes in higher education.
The Center for Urban Education (CUE) uses the Equity Scorecard in action research
when working with community colleges and universities to address inequity in outcomes.
Bensimon and Dowd (2009) explain The Equity Scorecard is designed to have inquiry
teams examine disaggregated student outcomes by race and ethnic groups to learn more
about the inequities in academic pathways, persistence, transfer readiness and excellence.
Bensimon and Malcom (2012) describe the theory that CUE uses when addressing equity
in higher education from an organizational learning perspective.
CUE’s approach focuses on what the practitioners are doing or not doing to bring
about outcomes that are equitable in their communities of practice. Bensimon and
Malcom (2012) state, “the Equity Scorecard process theory of action draws on principles
of learning and change derived from socio-cultural activity setting theory, organizational
learning theory, practice theory, and critical theories of race” (p.14). The Equity
Scorecard operates under the principles of social learning theory in that learning is social,
facilitated by assisted performance that is responsive, mediated by cultural tools and
artifacts (physical environment, social environment, technology, language, overt
behaviors, symbols), and learning takes place in communities of practice (Bensimon &
Malcom, 2012).
The goal of this approach is to help practitioners move towards equity for all
students. Historically, both community colleges and universities place much of the

20
blame for low achievement amongst minority students on the students themselves, and
this blame comes from instructors as well as institutions. Educators, along with society,
have also blamed parents, cultures, environments, motivation, employment, and prior
educational experiences for the lack of equitable outcomes by minority groups such as
African Americans, Latinas and Latinos and Native Americans (Bensimon & Malcom,
2012); Margolis et al., 2008).
Rarely are practitioners in higher education held accountable for the outcomes of
their students, and they are not generally expected to make changes in order to address
the inequities that are prevalent at most colleges which have a large population of
minority students (Bensimon; Carey, 2007). Although the mission of the community
colleges clearly intends to have open access to all potential students regardless of
academic capabilities, now there is a level of accountability with less attention to the
input and more on the output (Dowd, 2008). The universities continue to hold great
value on the input; however, they, too, have greater concerns on outcome (Dowd, 2008).
Action research encourages practitioners to learn more about their practices while taking
ownership of the inequities in student outcomes. The inequities in student success by
race and ethnicity and low degree attainments in higher education have led to a social
movement in United States. Contributing to this movement are researchers who have
found that the United States workforce is not producing enough degrees to keep up with
the economy (Kuenzi, 2008). Bensimon and Dowd (2009) argue that remediating the
practitioner’s practice through action research will give the practitioner’s the funds of
knowledge to better serve underrepresented students and would result in an increase of
degree attainment to serve the economy.

21
Action Research
Noffke (1997) defines action research “as a social movement, it is fundamentally
about emergent meanings of both action and research, as well as the relationship between
them” (p. 306). Action research is designed to allow practitioners to learn in their own
environment, with their own data personalizing the learning experience, and with a group
of ideas emergent in various contexts which leads to a greater learning (Bensimon &
Malcom, 2012; Greenwood & Levin, 2005; Noffke, 1997). Data analyses are conducted
on student success in order to build institutional responsibility, rather than practitioners
explaining inequities as student deficits (Dowd, Malcom, Nakamoto, & Bensimon, in
press).
The focus in action research is on problem-solving at the local level within
institutions on a very practical level and suited for adult learners (Noffke, 1997).
Greenwood and Levin (2005) and Noffke (1997) suggest that action research aims to
solve problems through democratic inquiry while collaborating with professional
researchers and local stakeholders to solve the problems. Greenwood and Levin (2005)
state, “action research is the key to the needed fundamental transformation of the
behaviors engaged in by social scientists” (p. 54). The researchers contribute the research
methods and the local stakeholders offer the extensive and long-term knowledge of the
problem (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). Action research teams can be conceptualized as a
large family with different beliefs and relationships (Noffke, 1997).
There are three interconnected dimensions in action research that have power and
control strongly embedded in the variables typically involved: (a) professional; (b)
personal; and (c) political. Many action researchers see their research as a professional

22
neutral process to acquire and accumulate knowledge; yet they acknowledge that social
goals may be apparent as they see the method of science as transcending the political
landscape (Noffke, 1997). The professional dimension is often demonstrated in
preservice and in-service, reviewing curriculum, theorizing on their own experiences, and
adjusting to demographic changes. Action researchers who see the practice as personal
do not give attention to whether the research is political or generates professional
knowledge, but rather see it as an opportunity to gain self-knowledge or deeper
understanding of one’s own practice, personal development and learning about their own
practice. The personal dimension gives practitioners the opportunity to explore inner
conflicts, to become more productive as professionals, and to make change in the
practitioner. The political dimension is one that often partakes in social activism or
justice issues and can be seen clearly when addressing racial and gender inequities. The
political dimension is a constitutive element, nearly inseparable, especially in education
(Noffke, 1997). This is because taxpayers’ dollars are tied to public education;
therefore, politicians keep education tightly coupled with politics.
Noffke (1997) maintains critiques of action research exist when looking at the
personal dimension, specifically the limited ways in which social justice has been
addressed in the practitioners as the researcher model. The author finds “few examples
of practitioners engaged in efforts to link their practices with efforts focused on gender
and racial inequality” (p.330), which contributes to the criticism of lack of social justice
in action research. The way in which the facilitation of action research is conducted,
using the practitioner as the researcher, also contributes to critiques because of the way
the funding typically works. Funders are more likely to grant loans to top down research

23
approaches, rather than the practitioner as the researcher model (Noffke, 1997). Another
critique of the personal dimension in action research is that it seemed to be too narrowly
focused on the classroom and on personal growth. The author argues that teachers are
less concerned about the politics that highlights the public sphere, and more on their
responsibility to their children. The professional dimension criticizes educators due to
the tendency to focus on excellence while losing site of the images of equity (Noffke,
1997). Many educators may feel they are sacrificing excellence if they were to strive for
equity because many practitioners hold on to the deficit mindedness idea.
For many practitioners, embracing CUE’s concepts when using action research
while addressing equity in higher education requires a paradigm shift. Bensimon
describes the paradigm CUE works from when doing action research as “rather than
starting out with students’ characteristics and poor academic preparation as the culprit for
inequity in education outcomes, we frame inequity as an indeterminate problem of
practice” (p.28). When using action research, Bensimon and Malcom (2012) argue that
it is important to redirect the expectation for solutions to achieving equity to the
practitioner’s practice and institutions as they work to re-mediate how colleges educate
previously underserved student groups. This approach clearly puts the expectations for
outcomes on the practitioners’ focusing in on what they themselves can do to improve
student’s outcomes.
Gutierrez et al. (2009) explain re-mediating as “learning in robust ecologies, as
opposed to ‘fixing’ the individual. Here, re-mediation of the learning ecology involves
the reorganization of the activity system, including the social organization of learning,
the social relationships, the division of labor, and the artifacts in use” (p. 217). Re-

24
mediating the practitioners practice can happen through action research examining the
inequities as practitioners look for institutional barriers that are standing in the way of
racial and ethnic underserved students. The artifacts and division of labor that Gutierrez
et al. write of are discussed later in this chapter. Re-mediating practitioners’ practice
involves a complete change in the college or university culture (Bensimon & Dowd,
2009; Gutierrez et al., 2009). The practice of re-mediating the practitioners and
institutions is a paradigm shift for many educators in higher education who oftentimes
place the expectations for equitable outcomes on factors they cannot change rather than
accepting accountability on the factors they can change. Gutierrez et al. (2009) reference
the socio-historical influences on students and development which is contrary to many
normative ideologies of remediation and learning. Socio-historical theory states that
learning or not learning is associated with historical and social conditions, not any
particular characteristic of one racial and ethnic group or individual.
Another theoretical perspective when addressing equity in higher education from
an organizational learning perspective is the practice of double-loop learning. Reason
(1994) defines double-loop learning as “the capacity of individuals to reflect on and
amend not only their strategies, but also the governing variables behind these strategies”
(p. 332). The single-loop learning approach focuses on fixing the problem, the student’s
deficiencies, which does not particularly examine the practitioner’s practice to find
effective teaching strategies. The single-loop learning approach tends to reach outside
the practitioners practice for answers when aiming to improve student’s outcomes
placing the responsibility on the student’s themselves. Bensimon and Malcom (2012)
stated that the single-loop learning approach is often deficit minded and institutions “look

25
to compensate for those deficiencies in programs such as Puente, TRIO, MESA, which
does not challenge norms, internal values and beliefs” (p.15). Similarly, Gutierrez et al.
(2009) states the idea that inequities are due to individual student deficiencies results in
programs to correct deficiencies rather than correcting the practitioner’s practice.
Practitioners viewing inequities in educational outcomes as a failure of practice
goes against academic culture in higher education in the United States. The culture of
higher education is not typically one that is open to situational learning about themselves
using action inquiry (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012). This is because of the deficit minded
approach mentioned early, as well as the potential for many practitioners to engage in
what Reason (1994) describes as defensive theory, which limits action inquiry. The
author describes defensive theory as happens when a practitioner/actor’s objective is: “(a)
to achieve the purpose as the actor defines it; (b) to win, not to lose; (c) to suppress
negative feelings; and (d) to emphasize rationality.” Without the implementation of
action research, it is less likely that practitioners will reflect on their practice and those of
their colleagues for organizational change. The sociology of practitioners is that their
allegiance is to one another (Greenwood & Levin, 2005), not to re-mediating and being
constructively critical of their practices.
Inquiry Teams
The approach of participatory action research is conducted by engaging higher
education practitioners such as faculty, administrators, institutional researchers, and staff
in a systematic process of problem identification, collecting and analyzing data ,
reflection, decision making and action in an activity setting (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009;
Dowd et al., in press a). Although the team members are made up of faculty and staff,

26
the authors, as does Tharp and Gallimore (1988), recommend a facilitator from an
external source for the following reasons:
(a) practitioners do not always see their own social (ecocultural) context; (b)
supervisors and those with bureaucratic authority mistakenly focus on assessing
rather than assisting performance; (c) Practitioners face real perceived constraints
on professional development and learning from authorities in their professional
life; (d) Habits of interaction (“interaction scripts”) are unconscious, deeply
embedded in professional culture, and taken as a given; (e) Errors or weakness are
not well tolerated as opportunities for everyday professional life; and (f) In-house
training programs may simply perpetuating the existing culture and strengthen
counter-productive entrenched knowledge (Dowd et. al., in press b, p.28).
Dowd et al. (in press b) strengthen the argument that inquiry places the
practitioners, not data, at the center of change efforts, as would a culture of evidence.
They argue that inquiry teams hold great value in creating equity-mindedness in
institutions by “creating strategic intelligence about the problems of racial and ethnic
inequities in student outcomes” (Dowd et al., in press b, p.4). Reason (1994) discusses
co-operative inquiry teams which reflect the characteristics of inquiry teams by their
influences as well as the different roles members will take within the team. The author
found benefits to outcomes, such as strategic intelligence which was created when
findings were applied to their own professional practice. In addition, the findings and
recommendations from inquiry teams were written in common language then used by
other practitioners, which is an example of the outcome of action inquiry.
The goals of the inquiry teams are to “examine disaggregated student outcome
data to learn about the nature and extent of racial and ethnic student outcome” (Bensimon
& Dowd 2009, p.2). When practitioners disaggregate the data, it is only the first step in
addressing the equity issues. Some practitioners may experience shame when data is
disaggregated by race and ethnicity and will be motivated for change because of
professional pride which may not be long lasting (Dowd, et al., in press a). It will be

27
necessary for practitioners to look at the data through an institutional lens, not a personal
one, so that the change efforts will be sustained.
Bensimon and Dowd (2009) state that inquiry teams should be made up of
members from functional areas around campus facilitated by outside researchers. The
authors state that using tools that are embedded in social learning theory guide
practitioners to equity-mindedness. Tharp and Gallimore’s theory is applicable because
they have synthesized a large body of social-cultural, psychological, and cognitive
research to describe effective teaching practices (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009).
Sociocultural theories are rooted in the work of Vygotsky, and are explained as an
“articulated view of culture not only as a system of meaning carried across generations,
but also as constantly being created and recreated in local contexts” (Nasir & Hand,
2006, p. 458)
When working on such theory, Bensimon and Dowd (2009) state CUE adopted
four expressions used when working with practitioners on professional development
focused on equity. The authors explained the expressions were derived from Tharp and
Gallimore (1988) and conceptualize learning in four stages: I. Assistance provided by
more capable others; II. Assistance provided by the self; III. Internalization,
Automatization; and IV. Deautomazation: Recursiveness through prior stages. CUE
expressions are: I. Guided Learning described as learning assisted by more capable
others. In a professional setting, people teach and learn from one another with less
concern of authority. II. Self-Guided Learning is when individuals are knowledgeable
enough to guide their own learning. III. Established Knowledge which allows individuals
to act automatically, without conscious effort. IV. Un-learning and Renewed Cycle of

28
Learning is when learners in professional development realize their automated
knowledge and unconscious competencies are not effective, triggering a new learning
cycle relying on guidance from others. Unlearning and Renewed Cycle of Learning is
when practitioners experience the learning of new practices that are equity-minded,
which is a remediation of their practices (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009).
These professional development practices are what institutions engage in when
accepting accountability for student outcomes. When institutions do not accept
accountability of racial-ethnic inequities, the inequities are much easier to normalize and
seem natural. Margolis et al. (2008) discuss how instructors blamed the students’
cultures as the reason for the lack of success or interest in computer technology class,
normalizing the deficiencies. Many well-intended campus leaders, institutional
researchers, and policy makers are not equipped with the knowledge to confront inequity
in a productive way. This is because institutions are not required to address the inequities
within their organizations at this time, nor are they trained to do so. Dowd and Bensimon
(2009) state that these individuals often lack the theoretical knowledge, practical
experience, and the tools that are necessary to foster organizational learning regarding
how to improve equity in institutions. Furthermore, when the inequities are addressed
without a theoretical approach, institutions and practitioners tend to take a single-loop
learning approach, as mentioned earlier (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012).
Another explanation for why many institutions do not embrace the challenges of
equity is a lack of funds of knowledge. Bensimon and Malcom (2012) define funds of
knowledge as historically developed and accumulated strategies (e.g., skills, abilities,
ideas, practices) or bodies of knowledge that practitioners draw on, mostly

29
unconsciously, in their everyday actions as they decide what to pay attention to, what
decisions to make, or how to respond to particular situations. The accumulated strategies
are what practitioners need to remediate through approaches such as action research. It is
then that they acquire the funds of knowledge that may lead to equitable outcomes.
The author states that the practitioner’s funds of knowledge are inadequate for
minoritized populations, which has been demonstrated by CUEs’ work with many
campuses that have implemented the Equity Scorecard. Bensimon, Rueda, Dowd and
Harris (2007) explain how adopting new practices can improve outcomes for underserved
populations “practitioners can make a marked difference of the education outcomes of
minoritized students if they recognize that their practices are not working and participate
in design situational learning opportunities to develop the funds of knowledge necessary
for equity- minded practice” (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012, pp.18-19). This is especially
difficult for higher educators because they are not required to study research or have
training in instructional pedagogical practices, nor are the institutions required to achieve
standards such as No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
Most often, research by social scientists is not applied in higher education in a
professional development manner, nor does it lead to solutions for several reasons. First,
many institutions do not apply current research due to the fact that social science
typically lacks the absolute factor that is commonly found in the natural sciences and
engineering fields, and the research is written in ways that are not easily understood
(Greenwood & Levin, 2005). When participatory action research is applied, the results
are written by the practitioners in a language they understood (Reason, 1994).
Greenwood and Levin (2005) also state that the social sciences are linked politically

30
through taxpayers, national and state funders, private funders, and surrounding
communities among other entities. However, many public educators give little attention
to the fact they are the beneficiaries of such public subsidies. Action research aims to
mitigate these challenges by including the practitioners in action inquiry methods, which
can be easily understood by practitioners. The inclusive method allows practitioners to
make sense of the research and apply what is learned in a very practical way.
The data gathering practices in higher education is another element that needs to
be remediated when engaging in action research while addressing equity. In some cases,
institutional researchers will not take on the advocacy role for an equity minded campus;
however, other team members do and can compensate when data is clearly provided to
support such conversations of equity. When working with inquiry teams, it is not
uncommon for the team to work on the institutional researcher’s equity-mindedness, as
the studies demonstrated. On many campuses, the researcher is viewed as administrative,
“in terms of the knowledge and technical skills required, institutional context,
organizational functions, contracts, and needs, and strategies for improve” (Dowd, et al.,
in press b, p. 8). CUE’s desire is for the inquiry team members, as designed by the
project, to serve as the institutions researchers and become equity minded change agents
(Dowd et al., in press b).
The researchers’ personal opinions may surface on occasions, as they are the data
gatherers and, at times, may expose their objections. One research finding illustrates this
with the case of “Brian,” an institutional researcher at one of the community colleges
CUE worked with and which was striving to bring about organizational change by
reducing the racial and ethnic inequities. The goal was to shift from a deficit minded

31
approach to an institutional responsibility approach (Dowd, et al., in press b). Brian’s
following statements are an example of his objection, “It’s pretty clear. I’ve done a very
thorough job of answering all these questions, and there are lots and lots of data, but in
every data set African Americans are the low achievers in any outcome” (Dowd, et al., in
press b, p. 14). The authors go on to state that Brian explained the disparities with a
deficit minded responses calling on culture and student preparation as the reason for the
outcomes. Brian’s thinking can be is an example of “multivariate thinking” which is
rooted in traditional social science research meaning when a person explains away the
disparities in student outcomes rather than acknowledges the problematic nature of the
disparities (Dowd, et al., in press, b). Brian demonstrated multivariate thinking when he
made the project challenging at times as he tried to, consciously or unconsciously,
undermine the equity focus from the inquiry team, not wanting to disaggregate data by
race and ethnicity. He also pointed out when he believed the data sets were large enough
to use as evidence for equity. The inquiry team was able to demonstrate the possibilities
of inquiry effectively, even with the challenges of the institutional researcher posed for
the project (Dowd et al., in press, b).
Another challenge inquiry teams experience is when members subscribe to the
culture of poverty theory. Gutierrez et al. (2009) describe the culture of poverty theory
as one that blames individuals or groups for shortcomings on deficits in their cultures and
refers to this as the default explanation. Therefore, with this theory, when a student fails,
it is because of his/her cultural shortcomings, which works against the idea for
practitioners to believe there is a need to improve their practices. These cultures tend to
be people who are of a lower socioeconomic status and are perceived as suffering from

32
cultural deprivation. Obviously, such theories are not grounded in equity mindedness
and compare the student’s cultures to the very different dominant normative cultural
model. Furthermore, Gutierrez et al. (2009) state “differences are never just differences;
they are always understood, defined, and ranked according to dominant cultural norms,
values, and practices” (p. 218). Theories of this nature perpetuate the deficit minded
thinking, drawing for solutions with the idea of fixing the student, not the practice.
The American education systems have shifted the blame of failure further from
the practitioners and institutions by labeling students with such terms as “at-risk” or “low
achievers” declaring the learner as the problem (Gutierrez et al., 2009). These labels are
within special education programs such as Resource Class or Special Day Classes, as
well as English as a Second Language programs, declaring their distinction from
mainstream or “the norm.” These programs tend to be segregated by race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status and reinforce deficit views of students and their communities
(Gutierrez et al., 2009). The authors proceed to explain the detriment of comparing the
home literacy practices of English learners to school-based practices emphasizing how
students may interpret their home practices as being incorrect and in need of repair.
When basic skills, underprepared or remedial students arrived on campus, college and
universities created programs and centers that attempted to give the deficit students one
last chance to remove traces of their educational and cultural background (Gutierrez et
al., 2009).
Race and Ethnicity Influence on Practitioners
Although action research may provide an approach to remediate practitioners’
practice, it is entirely possible to lose sight of the role race and ethnicity play in people

33
and organizational structures. Jones (2000) provides a theoretical framework
contextualizing what takes place from a social perspective when dealing with healthcare,
which mimics the very same complexities there are in education as it relates to inequities.
Racial makeup does not reflect innate differences, but our social construct captures the
impacts of racism, which leads to inequities in outcomes. There are three levels of
racism: institutionalized, personally mediated and internalized. Institutionalized racism
is explained as being differential access to goods, services and opportunities by race.
Institutionalized racism is normally deeply embedded in the structural operations of
campuses and will seem normal as well as accepted by institutions. Institutional racism
requires the re-mediating and acquisition of funds of knowledge to strive for equity-
mindedness. Personally mediated racism is when a person has assumptions about the
abilities, motives, and intentions of others according to their race and differentiates
actions according to a person’s race. Personally mediated racism can be intentional or
unintentional. Internalized racism is when a minority person internalizes the negative
messages about his/her own race and projects those views on others who are of their very
own race (Jones, 2000). When minority people have the mindset of the old analogy “the
White man’s ice is colder,” it demonstrates personally mediated racism.
Bensimon and Dowd (2009) argue that institutions can leverage the framework of
racism that Jones (2000) writes of by shifting to an “equity-mindedness” approach so that
racial and ethnic inequities do not remain normalized in our colleges. This approach
contradicts the explanations many practitioners have for inequities with deficit minded
reasoning, such as low aspirations, poor academic preparation, and family values
opposed to higher education (Dowd, et al., in press b). These ideas are usually targeted at

34
non-dominant culture students. Equity mindedness is a characteristic that can take shape
in an organization as well as within individuals. An example of an institution’s
demonstrating equity mindedness is the disaggregation of data by race and ethnicity
which Bensimon and Dowd (2009) claim leads to changes in practices or policies.
Individual equity-mindedness can be displayed by what one does with the disaggregated
data (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009).
Researchers use different perspectives to explain why inequities remain in our
educational system when there have been great advancements in opportunities for all
minorities. The book Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, race, and computing, by
Margolis et al. (2008) uses the metaphor “shallow end” of the title to compare how pre-
civil rights era African Americans were not allowed to use public swimming pools and
today many African Americans disproportionately still cannot swim. To illustrate the
theoretical perspective of institutional, personally mediated and internalized racism, the
author describes the consequences of African Americans not having access to swimming
opportunities and how the effects remain to this day. African American children are
three times more likely to drown than White children, yet African Americans remain
disproportionately non-swimmers even after opportunities to access pools have improved
in most communities. The authors then correlated the pre-civil rights concept of access
to swimming opportunities and consequences to pre-civil rights education opportunities
and consequences, more specifically students in computer classes in high school.
Although structures have changed in our society, allowing more opportunities, beliefs
that are detrimental to racial and ethnic students remain.

35
Margolis et al. (2008) conducted three studies at Los Angeles high schools
pointing out a lack of diversity in the computer classes influenced by the myths that
African American students cannot excel in computers and are not interested in computer
courses. The myths were held by both students and faculty as they pointed out that
Asians and Whites are “just better” at the computer sciences. The authors explain that the
historical lack of access to computers and education drive such myths. Following the
same concept, the author compared this idea to the myth that African Americans have a
higher bone density and therefore have a difficulty with swimming, hence the title of the
book, Stuck in the Shallow End. The authors’ findings were that there was inadequate
curriculum, which explained the lack of interest. They also found that some faculty
marginalized the students, expressing they were not likely to be interested in computer
class because they were not Asian or White. The authors articulated how the
consequences of pre-civil rights era in education are still experienced today by many
minority groups. Dowd et al. (in press a) argue that using cultural historical activity
theory (CHAT) assists remediation of practitioners practice by changing artifacts,
structures and practices of higher education.
Designing New Forms of Educational Activities Concepts of CHAT
CHAT’s frame of reference in “cultural” learning is that “all learning takes place
in settings that have particular sets of cultural and social norms and expectations and that
these settings influence learning and transfer in powerful ways” (Ogawa et al., 2008, p.
83). Learning takes place in the context of every aspect of culture, as our thoughts and
decisions are influenced by the values, norms, assumptions and expectations of the
cultures, and affects our lens of the environment (Dowd et al., in press a). Ogawa et al.

36
(2008) explains learning with CHAT as “the process which people master and
appropriate cultural tools and meaning while engaging in activities” (p. 85). The
significance of the CHAT approach to this study is that racial and ethnic student
outcomes in higher education are not equitable, and the non-dominant group often has a
different cultural learning context than the practitioners, which is the platform in
learning. Although demographics have made significant changes, as mentioned earlier,
the historical academic construct of learning remains the same.
The “historical” in CHAT encompasses the idea that an individual’s culture is not
only made up of current culture and how we interact with them, but also our legacies of
prior generations (Dowd et al., in press a). In essence, the “historical” is a culture of
social inheritance for life (Gutierrez, et al., 2009). Therefore, to remediate practitioners
practice, it is necessary to take notice of the historical and cultural artifacts of
practitioners to determine if they are effective learning platform for the current student
population.
The activity system (“setting” in some literature) is described by Ogawa et al.,
(2008) as being composed of six inseparable elements: (a) object; (b) subject; (c)
mediating artifacts; (d) community; (e) rules; and (f) a division of labor. In defining the
elements of an activity setting, this study draws on the work of Dowd et al., (in press a)
and Ogawa et al., (2008) and Roth and Lee (2007). The object of an activity system is
the purpose behind the activity, which evolves during the course of an activity. The
subject is the groups working towards an object; mediating artifacts are tools which
connect subjects to others in their context, thus mediating social interaction,
communication, action, and ultimately activity. Community is the social and cultural

37
practices, characterized by mutual engagement of the members, joint enterprise, shared
repertoire of resources, language, and action. Rules are “generalizable” procedures
applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life. The rules can be informal and not
always conscious. Division of labor legitimizes certain actions of subjects, as they are
positioned and coordinated relationships structurally united by a common object. Dowd
et al. (in press a) argue this approach leads to the division of labor in knowledge. The
division of labor “legitimizes certain actions of subjects as they are positioned in
coordinated relationships structurally united by a common object” (Ogawa et al., p. 87).
The activity is longitudinal, “not to be equated with relatively brief events with definite
beginnings and end points” (Roth & Lee, 2007, p. 198). CHAT provides the opportunity
to examine the social construction of practice holistically and in historical perspective,
focusing on activity settings (Dowd et al., in press a).
CHAT is a way to learn new information via shared mutually engaging activity,
when all have input (Bensimon et. al., in press; Roth & Lee, 2007). Roth and Lee (2007)
emphasizes that CHAT is heralded as the best kept secret in education research due to the
potential for practitioners to “overcome some of the most profound problems that have
plagued both educational theorizing and practice” (p.186). CHAT is a guided framework
which allows for a questioning of the structural determinations of current educational
practices in today’s colleges and universities (Dowd et al., in press a). Roth and Lee
(2007) state “when stakeholders have opportunities to participate in determining their
teaching in learning settings, it permits greater control of aspects over their life
conditions and the expansion of action possibilities in personally relevant ways” (p. 217).
The authors also warn that one should expect significant resistance, as a shift will occur

38
on many campuses from a top-down approach to decision making to a collective
approach. However, CHAT and social learning theory offer valuable and practical
guidance for designing effective assessment activities. The design of accountability
activities based on these theories will increase the likelihood of positive professional
development, organizational learning, and public accountability for higher education
(Dowd et al., in press a).
For example, the institutional researchers did not all come to the inquiry team
equity-minded, as researchers desired. Brian, the institutional researcher from one of the
campuses mentioned earlier, continued to interpret the data from a student character and
deficit minded perspective even after being guided to view the data as an institutional
shortfall. Researchers, or any other inquiry team members, who struggle to shift their
behaviors to equity mindedness and focus on student shortfalls slow down the desired
learning. Gutierrez et al. (2009) state that the disparity in successful outcomes in
institutions “could not be attributed to the problems and technologies of everyday life or
the home; rather, the focus should be on rethinking the social organization of education
and its effects: Searching for specific ‘incapacities’ and ‘deficiencies’ are socially
mischievous detours” (p. 213).
Gutierrez et al. (2009) explain the benefits of cultural-historical approaches’
reliance on theory-practice methodology, cultural modeling systems, social design
experiment, and social practices views of literacy and found that learning across these
practices actually amplifies the students’ cultural repertoires. In fact, learning and
knowledge are situated within the context and culture, and activity cannot occur in a
separate process (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Furthermore, Gutierrez et al. (2009) found that

39
theory-practice methodology, cultural modeling systems, social design experiment, and
social practices approaches make the practitioners and students active agents in the
learning process. These approaches are not in any way deficit minded, which Gutierrez
et al. (2009) state continues to fail in the educational system. The social-cultural
approaches address the importance of the learners’ activities and how they draw on
artifacts and tools from all cultures, whether it is African American, Latino, Native
American or White (Bensimon & Malcom, 2012; Gutierrez et al., 2009). Therefore,
when culture is included in the tools for learning, students will have higher achievement
levels (Nasir & Hand 2006).
Dowd et al. (in press a) explained while CUE worked with Long Beach
Community College, the inquiry team identified transfer information mediating artifacts
that were deemed not effective for all students, and more so for members of minority
racial and ethnic group. The authors introduced mediating artifacts as things that are
valued, accepted, celebrated, what is communicated visually in signs, and what is absent.
The inquiry team introduced the language of racial equity in transfer, pointed out that,
although LBCC was a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI), the campus did not reflect such
in artifacts and culture. They also noted that there was an absence of racially explicit
language which one would think would be present at a HSI. This absence encourages
colorblindness when color consciousness is needed to address inequity. Dowd et al. (in
press a) stated artifacts are designed to reflect the desired dominant culture.
The normative model of academic success equates students’ success to self-
motivation, effort, parents, cultures, environments, hours of employment and prior
educational experiences. Bensimon (in press) argues the challenge in higher education is

40
for the practitioner to look at inequity from the perspective of inadequate practices being
employed rather than from the hopelessness of deficit mindedness. This paradigm shift is
a major cultural and intellectual challenge for many practitioners.
The first step for institutions is to know themselves by examining data. However,
Dowd and Bensimon (2009) remind us that “data alone will not bring about equity.
Accountability data are like a thermometer they show the temperature. But just
thermometer cannot change the temperature, data are not self acting” (p. 9). Evidence
that institutions are practicing equity mindedness can be seen by the resource allocation
of funds, race and ethnic disaggregated data, color consciousness in public documents,
administrative and instructional practices (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009). Bensimon and
Dowd (2009) argue that practitioners who participate in action inquiry will begin to
speak the language of equity in all institutional planning, and make equity minded
decisions using disaggregated data. The data collected in the study determined if action
research was an effective way to change the practices, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of
practitioners in becoming equity-minded.

41
CHAPTER THREE:
METHODS
The previous chapter discussed several concepts that established the reasons
unequal structures at institutions of higher education are prevalent and how these unequal
structures contribute to a large number of minority students’ not persisting from 2-year
community colleges to 4-year institutions or completing requirements to attain a college
degree. This chapter presents the specific research procedures and methods used to
conduct this study. The first part of this chapter details the use of developmental
evaluation to investigate the impact of action research and how it was instrumental to
organizational change. The second section includes detailed description of data collection
procedures and methods, the sample and field site of this individual study as well as of
the larger collective study of which this study is a part, and data analysis procedures. The
third section addresses standards of review, including credibility and limitations, and
reporting of results and findings.
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change
The researcher used developmental evaluation to investigate and examine the
manner in which practitioners become aware of their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and
values as they participate in action inquiry to bring about organizational changes.
Through the developmental evaluation method, the researcher also explored how
practitioners recognize the notion of deficit mindedness which contributes to
underachievement of minority students at institutions of higher education and exists at
the individual and institutional level. Developmental evaluation was selected as the
methodology since it seeks to establish social and personal interactions that encourage

42
cooperative relationships amongst the participants involved in the project. Secondly,
developmental evaluation seeks to provide transparency, whereby all participants seek to
agree on the processes and procedures related to the project and how they will determine
the kinds of information necessary to move the project along. Developmental evaluation
involves authentic participation. Lastly, developmental evaluation encourages all
participants to continuously work towards establishing an on-going process of
observation, reflection and action and then evaluation of the plan (Stringer, 2007). In this
instance, it has the potential to inform institutions of higher education about how to
incorporate action research into the assessment of institutional effectiveness and equity
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2009; Patton, 2011). Developmental evaluation helps evaluators to
fully participate in all aspects of the evaluation process in “decision making, discussing
how to evaluate the project, interpreting findings, analyzing implications and applying
the next stage of development” (Patton, 2011, p. 20).
Developmental evaluations aid innovators to bring about “systems change under
conditions of complexity” (Patton, 2011, p. 20). In developmental evaluation, the goal is
to provide avenues for further inquiry by asking evaluative questions, using evaluation
logic, and gathering data from these questions, which then makes on-going decision-
making possible (Patton, 2011). The primary function of developmental evaluation is to
elicit discussions that bring about data-based decision-making. The reservoir of
knowledge that practitioners bring to the table can then be used to design new social
innovations (Patton, 2011). Practitioners can then evaluate the effectiveness of
institutional programs as they continue on-going assessments of the programs. The field
setting for this study and the larger collective study consists of colleges and universities

43
involved in action research projects conducted by CUE. Therefore, CUE researchers and
other higher education researchers involved in inquiry projects were the primary group of
practitioners who benefitted from the results of this study because the findings informed
better designs of action research tools and process.
CUE’s research involves understanding how practitioners can incorporate the
“language of equity and the characteristics of equity-mindedness” as they create
institutional assessment tools that can be used to purposefully design collaborative
activities that address the problems of equity existing at two- and four-year colleges. The
study specifically examined the impact of CUE’s action research tools that facilitate
inquiry into the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and practices of a small sample of faculty,
counselors, and administrators at a single institution. The findings were drawn from
pooled data collected by collaborating researchers at other field sites during the same
period of study.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the relationship of this study, which uses developmental
evaluation methods, in relation to other types of research conducted by CUE researchers.
Developmental evaluation informs the development of CUE’s action research tools,
which are designed to foster equity among racial and ethnic groups in higher education
experiences and outcomes. Developmental evaluation methods inform multiple modes of
research. First, the activity setting is made up of institutional (campus–based) participants
who collaborate on a joint activity to identify and address an institutional problem. Next,
action inquiry is conducted by the campus-based participants themselves. Participants
become action researchers themselves as they look from the outside at the problem that
exists within their institution, as they propose to change the system within as well as

44
enact changes in practices within their immediate control. Additionally, developmental
evaluation allows for a third-person perspective whereby an outside observer, not one
involved in the action inquiry or in action research as a facilitator, can study the activity
setting and its action research operations as institutional practitioners create tools to
remediate practices. Finally, numerical data collected through evaluation questionnaires
was analyzed through correlational analysis by an additional collaborating researcher
who has not been involved in facilitating the action research activities or in collecting
observational data.
Figure 3.1: Developmental Evaluation Methods Inform Multiple Modes of Research

As shown in Figure 3.2, CUE conducts action research to facilitate practitioner
inquiry. As action researchers, CUE creates activity settings with the aim of remediating
educational practices that are harmful to racial and ethnic equity. CUE’s focus relies on
the tenets that learning and knowledge are constructed and co-constructed in

45
collaborative activities. During the inquiry process, specific discourse can occur to bring
about acceptances and disagreements which then lead to a shared understanding of the
problem. The inquiry process promotes contradictions between participants’ views about
their personal beliefs, assumptions and values. These contradictions may motivate
participants to gather data that reveal the beliefs, assumptions, and values held by
participants in the setting. CUE seeks to conduct its action research projects at a “critical
point of intervention.” This critical point of intervention begins a cyclical process that
involves purposeful social interactions that allows for the exchange of knowledge and
beliefs in specific cultural contexts. During the interactions, the knowledge that the
participants espouse may reveal their beliefs, assumptions, and values, which, in turn,
will provide for reflection amongst the participants. The reflection will then allow for
problem identification which is conducted through data analysis. Once the problem has
been identified, problem solving can begin through action implementation. Evaluation of
the implemented plan will call for further evaluation and assessment of the intervention
(Stringer, 2007). CUE’s action inquiry process emphasizes how as well as when
practitioners apply knowledge obtained through participatory inquiry and may have an
impact on the way instruction and other educational practices improve equity and
effectiveness.

46
Figure 3.2: Reflective Practice (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial and Ethnic Equity in
Postsecondary Outcomes

This study contributed to the efforts by institutions of higher education as they
address state and federal accountability and assessment measures. Action research
provided practitioners tools to combine the inquiry process with the available
accountability data as they learn how their personal beliefs, assumptions and values may
contribute to the underachievement of their minority students. Through the use of
assessment processes and tools, practitioners were brought together in a social setting to
collect, observe, interpret, and make meaning of institutional data that fostered reflection,
problem identification and action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). CUE’s equity model seeks
to provide practitioners tools showing how external and internal mediating outcomes
affect equitable outcomes. The cycle of inquiry is, therefore, not static and continues to
evolve as state and federal policies challenge institutional structures and instructional
practices (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a).
Institutional
Structures
Instructional
Practices
Equitable
Student
Outcomes
CUE EQUITY MODEL: IMPACT
Intervention
Point
Mediating
Outcomes
Ultimate
Impact
State Policies
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection

47
The difference between traditional evaluation processes and developmental
evaluation is that developmental evaluation allows innovators to understand the problem
as they experience it. Unlike traditional program evaluation, developmental evaluation
develops measures and tracking mechanisms as outcomes emerge and these measures can
be modified along the way as changes emerge. The evaluator controls traditional
evaluation programs, and input from other stakeholders is limited; however, in
developmental evaluation, the evaluator collaborates with all stakeholders and, together,
they co-create evaluations that reflect institutional goals (Patton, 2011, pp. 23-26).
Table 3.1 illustrates the list of research questions and sub questions that are
guiding the collective developmental study.
Table 3.1: Research Questions and Sub Questions
Research Questions
1. What influence does action research have on the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors
of faculty, staff, and administrators using CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and
process when examining racial and ethnic equity in student outcomes in higher
education?
2. What influence does action research have in promoting the cycle of inquiry with
faculty, staff, and administrators when examining racial and ethnic equity in
higher education?
3. What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“remediated” social learning environments are associated with changes in
postsecondary educators’ social interactions, behaviors, and educational
practices in regard to equity in postsecondary education?
Sub-Questions
a. What are practitioners’ attitudes towards action inquiry as a strategy for equity-
oriented organizational change?
b. What beliefs do practitioners hold about racial and ethnic equity?
c. What are practitioners’ beliefs about action inquiry for the purposes of equity-
oriented organizational change?
d. How do practitioners behave in social interactions where attention is given to
racial and ethnic inequities?
e. What artifacts (language, media, tools) mediate attention to racial and ethnic
inequities?
f. What social interactions (roles, rules/norms, communities, division of labor,
power relations, racial relations, ethnic relations) mediate attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors related to racial and ethnic inequities?
g. What environmental factors mediate social interactions, behaviors, and
educational practices related to racial and ethnic inequities?

48
The researcher used the list of questions in Table 3.1 and further narrowed these
questions down to the research questions listed below. As a practitioner, the researcher
has attended meetings where faculty and administrators express their views about their
underrepresented students and hold these students accountable for their own failures.
Faculty, staff, and administrators also claim that they have done all that they can do to aid
student success; they do not believe that any institutional change can remedy the problem
of student underachievement. Based on personal experiences and future opportunities to
act on what is learned through this study, the researcher was particularly interested in
examining the following questions:
1. What beliefs do higher education practitioners, especially faculty, hold about
underrepresented student’s success?
2. How does the impact of educational practices on underrepresented students’
success influence those beliefs?
3. How do those beliefs influence their engagement in action inquiries to improve
student outcomes and program quality?
4. How does participation in action inquiry influence practitioners’ willingness to
engage in behavioral changes and their self-efficacy to bring about organizational
changes?
Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection Procedures
The data collection phase of this design study revolved around action research
activities conducted by CUE. The methods for data collection consist of document
analysis, interviews with CUE researchers (expert interviews), pre-workshop cognitive
interview with activity setting participants, observations in activity settings, workshop

49
evaluation questionnaires, post-workshop cognitive interview with activity setting
participants, member check with activity setting participants and focus group with
activity setting participants. Researches practiced each of the data collection methods
prior to official data collection to ensure a smooth reliable process.
The data collection methods chosen in this study revealed whether the
practitioner’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors concerning equity in postsecondary
education have changed. The methods allowed for a pre- and post-observation as well as
for analyzing of data so that it was possible to determine the impact of the equity-
oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in “remediated” social learning environments.
The methods allowed the emergence to be determined individually (Patton, 2011).
Figure 3.3 below is a timeline snapshot of the design experiment, data collected, and the
types of activities that took place in the Transfer Study at LFCC from the planning stages
to the data analysis. The researcher was present as an observer collecting data during all
of the activities shown in the timeline below except the March Inquiry meeting. Data
from this meeting was gathered using documents that were produced by the Evidence
Team.

50
Figure 3.3: Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection
Activity Dates CUE Tool Data
Collected
No. of
Participants
Facilitator Role of the
Researcher
Planning
Meeting
December
2011
BESST Observation 3 CUE Observer
Transfer
Study
Kick-off
Orientation
January
2012
Defining
Equity
Tool
Observation 21 CUE Observer
Transfer
Study
Orientation
January
2012
CUE
Action
Research
Protocol
Observation 13 CUE Observer
Define the
Problem
February
2012
BESST Observation 12 CUE Observer
Post-
workshop
Cognitive
Interviews
February-
March
2012
Cognitive
Interview
Protocol
Cognitive
Interviews
3 XXXX Interviewer
Inquiry March
2012
BESST Documents 8 Transfer
Study
Leadership
Faculty
Not
Present
Inquiry
Group
Report
Out
April
2012
No official
tools used
Observation 8 LFCC Observer

Ethical Concerns
In research, ethical concerns are very important. In qualitative research,
participants may give very personal responses, and their privacy and rights are important
(Patton, 2002). The rights and privacy of the participants in the study were protected in a
number of ways. Interviewees were provided the “Dear Colleague” letter (Appendix A)
to inform them about the study and provide contact information. Pseudonyms were used
to protect the privacy of the participants and throughout the study to protect the
individuals and their respective institutions. In order to ensure human subject protection,
all researchers completed Institution Review Board (IRB) training and the study proposal
was submitted and approved before the research began.

51
Recruitment
In spring 2011, as part of a research team, the researcher was assigned a field site,
Las Flores Community College (LFCC) for this study. Like others in the collective study,
this particular field site was chosen because several of the team’s participants had
attended previous CUE workshops. This college was one of thirteen community colleges
and two California State Universities whose practitioners had attended workshops with
CUE during Spring 2011. These institutions of higher education had shown interest in
CUE’s action research projects and wanted to continue further inquiry and were thus
recruited for this study. To begin this study, the first process in the action research project
was to have all participants gather information related to the problem that they
investigated. The participants expounded on how they viewed the problems they see
through their personal experiences and perspectives so they can make sense of the
problems in their own way (Stringer, 2007, p. 65) based on their beliefs, assumptions and
values.
Organization of Procedures
The basic process that was used in the action research project was:
1. Gather data, and then, based on the data, identify the problem.
2. Analyze what is happening and theorize why the problem exists.
3. Develop a plan, implement the plan and then evaluate if the plan has
successfully addressed the problem (Stringer, 2007).
The data sources reviewed in the summer and fall of 2011 and spring 2012 were
documents that contain institutional policies, discourse, espoused beliefs, and

52
environment factors that relate to the institution. The documents reviewed included, for
example:
1. Organizational/Administrative Practices of the 2010-11 ESL/Basic Skills
Action Plan
2. LFCC’s accreditation report
3. LFCC vision and goals for the district, accountability reporting for the
community colleges (ARCC)
4. The LFCC’s recent Strategic Plan
Following the observation workshops, cognitive interviews (Appendix D) with
activity setting participants were scheduled after fall workshops. Cognitive interview
questions were developed by CUE’s staff and PhD students, who have captured what
practitioners have learned from their experiences during their engagement in previous
workshops. Data collected from these cognitive interviews represented the attitudes,
beliefs, self-reported practices, and knowledge of the activity setting participants.
Criterion sampling, a predetermined criterion, was established in the study. In
this study, for example, establishing that all participants’ institutions were committed to
participate in BESST workshops in the spring and were interested in further inquiry
activities with CUE is an example of criterion sampling. The unit of analysis was higher
education practitioners (faculty, staff, and administrators) who engaged in action inquiry
facilitated by CUE’s BESST and Syllabus Review at the practitioner’s institutions. The
participants all participated in CUE workshops and planning meetings. Since
developmental evaluation builds on the idea of innovation or evolving to new ideas and
adapting to emergent and dynamic realities in a consistently changing environment, the

53
initial BESST workshop initiated further inquiry as participants asked evaluative
questions, used evaluation logic, and gathered data from these questions, which then
brought about on-going decision making. The sample size per institution was
approximately 5-20 participants.
Individual campuses became activity settings, and CUE’s research team presented
disaggregated data by race and ethnicity to faculty, staff, and administration. For the
purposes of this study, the design experiment included workshops using CUE’s BESST
and Syllabus Review workshops. The BESST was designed to guide practitioners in
examining successful course completion rates, persistence rates, and entering student
cohort migration rates from basic skills classes to transfer classes, disaggregated by race
and ethnicity (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009). The data used at the BESST workshop showed
trends in existing disparities in transfer rates and placement in basic skills courses for all
students. Using the BESST tool, respective campuses had data from a 5-6 year period
that identifies potential problems in transfer pathways or degree completion. Since data
informs understanding in activity settings and can inform action research, practitioners at
field sites used information from CUE’s research team to assess campus cultures,
policies, and practices. This initial data tool permitted the workshop participants to
contextualize and define institutional problems by asking questions and deciding what
other data needed to be analyzed to answer their questions.
The BESST is an interactive display that shows cohort data for students based
upon a specific course and is disaggregated by race and ethnicity. This tool developed by
CUE assisted workshop participants in determining where barriers exist in student
success; it also permitted workshop participants to explore “what-if” scenarios and help

54
them determine short and long-term benchmark goals focused on racial and ethnic equity.
After prioritizing intervention points, the workshop participants used the Self-Assessment
Inventories to collect qualitative data based upon observations, document analysis, and
interviews to contextualize the issues of inequality that surround the barriers. From these
efforts, the workshop participants led by CUE to establish the self-assessment tool of the
Equity Scorecard. This “report card” helped to establish a culture of assessment at the
college since the Equity Scorecard was used annually to measure the college’s progress
toward equity. This is achieved because the Equity Scorecard is designed to help teams
establish modest short-term goals through achievable actions that produce long-term
equity goals. The final tool was to disseminate templates that the workshop participants
used to make others in the campus community become aware of equity issues. These
templates were used to share knowledge as well as communicate the goals of equity and
standards by which the institution plans to improve the rates of success for all students.
Similarly, the Syllabus Review tool helped evidence teams to review the first
document most students receive on their first day of class. Through this tool, practitioners
were able to explore the extent to which course syllabi communicate the expectations of
the instructor and how the course will meet students’ needs (CUE).
This study was part of CUE’s larger action research and evaluation agenda that is
based on the five major research and action initiatives began in 2004. The projects
conducted by CUE were the Diversity Scorecard, Equity for All, the Study of Economic,
Informational and Cultural Barriers to Community College Transfer Enrollment at
Selective Institutions, the “Missing ‘87’”: A Study of Transfer Ready Students Who Do
Not Transfer, the California Benchmarking Project, the Institute for Equity and Critical

55
Policy Analysis, and the Wisconsin Transfer Equity and Accountability Study (Dowd &
Bensimon, 2009a).
Thirteen community colleges and two state universities provide field sites for the
collective CUE developmental evaluation study. Table 3.2 presents the pseudonyms for
each institution and indicates which of CUE’s tools were used at the workshops that were
held involving participants from that particular institution. The majority of these colleges
are designated by the federal government as Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) because
their Hispanic enrollment meets or exceeds the HSI designation threshold of 25 percent
of the student body. Two additional colleges (Las Flores Community College and
Amarillo Community College) are given individual pseudonyms because leaders at the
colleges have volunteered to engage in more extensive planning and inquiry processes
with CUE during Fall 2011 and Spring 2012.
The following is data intended to give background information on four of the
field sites and familiarize the reader with site demographics: The one California State
university, Monarch State University, is selective and has a predominantly white and
Asian student body. Monarch State University is a four-year degree granting university
offering bachelors and master degrees that is located in a small city. It serves just fewer
than 20,000 students. In 2009, there were 12 percent Hispanics and 1 percent Black
students enrolled at Monarch State University. The racial and ethnic breakdown in the
region where Monarch State University is located is as follows: White, 91 percent;
Hispanic 20 percent; Asian, 3 percent; and Black, 2 percent (US Census). South County
State University is also a four year degree granting university offering bachelors and
master degrees located in a small city and serves just over 14, 000 students. The racial

56
and ethnic breakdown of the service area of South County State University is as follows:
Hispanic, 45 percent; Asian, 24 percent; Black, 18 percent; and White, 6 percent (City
Data).
Las Flores Community College is a two-year institution that offers certificates
and associate degrees. In 2009, LFCC enrollment was just under 17,000. The racial and
ethnic breakdown at LFCC was as follows: White, 32 percent; Hispanic, 27 percent;
Black, 18 percent; and Asian, 10 percent (Data Mart). The colleges’ services area
population was just over 65,000. The racial and ethnic makeup of LFCC’s service area
was as follows: Hispanic, 41 percent; White, 21 percent; Black, 18 percent; and Asian, 16
percent (US Census).
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
Amarillo Community
College
Community college
Defining Equity CUE
Modules; Benchmarking
Equity and Student Success
Tool (BESST);
Dynamic Community
College
Community college with
federal designation as an
Hispanic Serving
Institution
CUE Modules;
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST); Syllabus
Reflection Protocol
Las Flores Community
College
Community college with
federal designation as an
Hispanic Serving
Institution
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST); Action Planning
Tool; Equity Scorecard
Report; Vital Signs
Monarch State University
(MSU)
Selective state university
with emphasis on science
and technology education
and a predominantly white
and Asian student body
CUE Modules:
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST); Action Planning
Tool

57
Data Collection Methods
The data collection methods consisted primarily of participant in focused activity
settings. Methods encompassed interviews with CUE researchers, observations during
workshops at LFCC, and interviews with the workshop participants—either within focus
groups or individually. Data collection consisted of compiling information from action
research activities that include observational, cognitive interviews and focus group data.
At each field site, an observer was present to record dialogue between the action
researcher (CUE) and the expert (practitioner). Table 3.3 illustrates the variety of data
collection methods used and how the different forms of data provided evidence to answer
the study’s research questions. Data to examine the impact of action research on learning
and change among higher education practitioners was collected from the participants
involved in the BESST and Syllabus Review workshops.

58
Table 3.3: Summary of Data Collection Methods
Data Source Data Represents When Data Was
Collected
How Data Was
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
(Summer/Fall 2011)

Deductive and
thematic analysis;
Numerical tables and
text (mode, range,
strength and
direction of impact)
Workshop
evaluation
form
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-
reported)
Immediately after
workshop
(Summer/Fall 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
(Summer/Fall 2011)
Categorical
summaries;
Summary tables and
text

59
Table 3.3, continued
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
Focus group
with activity
setting
participants
Changes in practices
(self-reported)
Environmental factors
Social interactions
Norms
Discourse
Changes in discourse
2 to 3 months
following workshop
(Fall 2011/Spring
2012)
Descriptive text and
thematic summaries

The project design consisted of workshops and subsequent team meetings. At the
first workshop, the team met and examined student success data from LFCC that was
disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Student success was tracked at specific milestones
and transitions as an indicator of institutional progress and effectiveness. The team
required LFCC to establish performance benchmark goals for these specific milestones
and transitions. Through the use of diagnostic and process benchmarking, the team was
able to develop an action plan that supports student success.
Patton (2002) describes program evaluation as “the systematic collection of
information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make
judgments about the program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions
about future programs” (p. 10). Evaluative –based research and measurement of the
effectiveness and impact of action research on learning and change among higher
education practitioners was conducted through the use of multiple data collection
procedures. Reflections took place following each stage of the activity settings. In
addition to reflection, evaluation of the effectiveness of the project and its goals were

60
measured at regular intervals. When changes in the process were necessary, extended
dialogue and inquiry occurred among practitioners and CUE’s research team to modify
documents and procedures.
Cognitive Interviews
Cognitive interviews took place with the workshop participants from LFCC. The
interviews were conducted in the offices of the participants and were thirty to forty –five
minutes in length. The purpose of cognitive interviews was to “probe respondents to see
if they understand the closed-ended questions on a survey in the intended manner; to
observe how they work through the items; to assess if a response category was
appropriate for the item; and to see if rephrasing the item made it clearer” (Quimet et al.,
2004, p. 238). In this study, cognitive interviews were used to support or dispute the data
that was collected from observations and documents analysis. The cognitive interviews
were used to assess participants’ beliefs about equity and the impact of action research
activities.
Cognitive interviews were designed based on the process described by Willis
(2005). The procedure used encompassed (1) developing a testing plan; (2) creating a
cognitive testing protocol that includes both target and probe questions; (3) setting up
interview times with members of the LFCC team; (4) utilizing appropriate cognitive
interviewing patterns (cognitive probes and subjects thinking aloud as they answered
questions); (5) documenting and reviewing notes, with the subject’s consent; (6) writing
a test report; (7) reviewing results and making modifications as needed; and (8) carrying
out more testing and then reevaluating the questionnaire form.

61
Concurrent probing and retrospective probing was used during the cognitive
interview process. Concurrent probing was a part of the actual interview and occurred
while the interview was taking place. Retrospective probing occurred at the end of the
actual interview. The format for the cognitive questions (Appendix D) was modeled after
Willis (2005). The cognitive interview protocol was designed to evaluate the analytic
objectives of the evaluation protocol and, by extension, of the action research processes
and protocols themselves. Several steps were taken to identify the analytical objectives.
First, the objectives were based on observations made during the spring 2011 workshops.
Second, the objectives were derived from CUE’s publications. Third, theories in Chapter
Two provided the basis for the kinds of questions to formulate. Extensive notes were
taken during the interview to be sure to capture vital details. Immediately after the
interviews, the notes were transcribed and analyzed for common themes.
Document Analysis
By studying documents and records, researchers gained a significant amount of
information (Stringer, 2007). Documents for analysis in this study were of two types.
First, the documents included meeting notes and agendas from the BESST and Syllabus
Review workshops and team planning meetings. Additionally, worksheets were used by
participants during the workshops. The worksheets were added to the audit trail and are
instrumental to supporting the integrity of the research process. Also, the revised syllabus
itself was used to assess impact. Both the worksheets and revised syllabus represent
cultural artifacts as CUE’s tools were intended to produce new cultural characteristics.
These documents became beneficial because relevant data about the participants and their
roles can be made available that cannot be accessed through observations or cognitive

62
interviews alone. Patton (2002) states that “documents prove valuable not only because
of what can be learned directly from them but also as stimulus for paths of inquiry that
can be pursued only through direct observation and interviewing” (p. 56). Analysis of the
documents included the language used in the meeting descriptions and whether agendas
were followed in regards to presenters and topics. By analyzing the documents, evidence
pertaining to the institution as well as what is valued about the project itself can be
gathered.
Focus Groups Interviews
According to Stringer (2007), “focus groups provide another means of acquiring
information and might be characterized as a group interview” (p. 73). Focus groups are
typically made up of 6-10 people and the session usually lasts 1-2 hours (Patton, 2002).
During a focus group session, it is important that everyone is given a chance to speak
about the experience, offer his/her perspectives and discuss issues openly. When
facilitating a focus group, Stringer (2007) states that the following steps should be taken:
(1) set and discuss ground rules; (2) carefully explain procedures; (3) provide
opportunities for feedback and clarification; (4) combine analysis; and (5) plan the next
steps. Each session will have a facilitator and a recorder (Patton, 2002). Facilitators made
sure that everyone had a chance to talk, keep the discussion focused on the topic, be
aware of the time, and assisted in summarizing everyone’s viewpoints. Recorders kept
notes and record outcomes through the use of summarizations.
A focus group for this study was selected from the original inquiry team made up
of faculty, staff, and administrators from LFCC. The information acquired from the focus

63
group was completed through a group interview. Notes were taken during the focus
group meetings so that vital details were not left out.
Figure 3.4: An Activity Setting (CHAT) Framework

This study used observational data to analyze cultural artifacts such as language
to examine the beliefs attitudes and behaviors of practitioners and their impact on equity-
oriented practices. Scholars believe that the use of language shapes practitioners’
understanding about equity mindedness. Figure 3.1 and 3.3 illustrate the learning and
change model informing CUE’s action research methods. This model guided the data
analysis. The model is informed by the theoretical frameworks described in the previous
chapter, and includes practice theory and concepts of 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. CHAT

64
emphasizes the role of social interaction and cultural artifacts in shaping practices.
Following each workshop, all notes were transcribed and analyzed for common themes.
In order to analyze the transcripts, shared categories were used in an effort to
determine major themes. The transcripts were coded according to eight different
deductive codes: workshop participants’ attitudes/beliefs (A/B), knowledge (K), social
interaction (SI) in activity settings, reflection (R), problem identification (PI),
experimentation/problem solving (EXP), action (inaction)/ experience (A/E), or other
(not coded above) (Table 3.4).
According to Participatory Action Theory (PAR), the community or institutional
plane emphasizes the historical dynamics that involve “language, rules, values, beliefs,
and identities which are institutionalized artifacts that disclose the institution’s culture,
beliefs, assumptions and values that practitioners bring to the activity setting” (Rogoff,
1994 as cited by Nasir & Hand, 2006, p. 459; Schein, 1985). When there is social
interaction, participants learn that their beliefs may contradict the next person’s and that
this dissonance may lead to an awareness of the differences. Through dialogue and
inquiry, participants were able to arrive at the problem, which then enabled them to
collaboratively formulate solutions. Therefore, the codes listed in Table 3.4 enabled the
researchers to classify and code qualitative data that supports the conceptual theory
discussed in the previous chapter. Any behavioral change that is documented may
indicate that CUE’s tools contributed to the change.

65
Table 3.4: Deductive Data Analysis Codes
Code Category Examples
Attitudes/ Beliefs (A/B) I do not think we have that type of leadership at the campus
at this time.
Knowledge (K) A large number of students 4 and 5 do not need transfer
math to get an AA.
Social Interaction (SI) We need to all look at what we are not doing well when
African Americans are not doing well.
Reflection (R) That is just what I saw happening the last time, individuals
wanted to have a plan before we went through the process
and I see it happen again.
Problem Identification
(PI)
We have these programs where you get space if you are
tapped into a specific program like Puente, Umoja or Mesa.
There is not space for the general student.
Experimentation/Problem
Solving (EXP)
We can ask students why they are not transferring when
they are transfer ready.
Action (Inaction)/
Experience (A/E)
We can offer more sections and offer less of others.
Other (not coded above)

The quantitative analysis included counting each code found in all the data
collected. Proportions were calculated to inform CUE’s research team of the most
frequent areas of impact. Qualitatively, all codes that were utilized presented evidence of
impact of design experiment using the action research tool. The constructs represented by
the codes characterized as weak or strong based on the frequency of code count relative
to the total code count at each field site. The direction of impact was analyzed as being
negative, positive or neutral based on the proportion of the data exhibiting positive
correspondence with the general hypothesis. Codes for each document were qualitatively
described.

66
Table 3.5: Data Analysis and Summary Sheet for Analyzing CUE’s Tools
Attitudes/Beliefs (A/B)
CODE CATEGORIES

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

The analytic objectives of CUE researchers include the examination of
practitioner beliefs. Practitioner beliefs towards the project were revealed through their
attitudes and behavior. Practitioner beliefs are shaped by the knowledge that they hold. If

67
practitioners have knowledge that a problem exists, then they will be willing and
motivated to change their “practices and agency to change institutional norms” (Seo &
Creed, 2002, p. 237). This study focuses on the disproportionate numbers of minority
students graduating from community colleges, transferring to four- year institutions or
earning four-year degrees. If practitioners do not have knowledge about their beliefs, then
they will not be willing to change their practices and agency in bringing about
institutional changes as they address the achievement gaps that exist at their institutions.
At each field site, practitioner’s attitudes toward action inquiry were examined as
the project reveals beliefs about the legitimacy of action inquiry and perceptions of self-
efficacy and collective efficacy to carry out projects. It is important to measure beliefs
and changes in beliefs because beliefs are important drivers of behavior (Fishbein, 2000;
Patton, 2011). The previously discussed framework was utilized to examine practitioners’
behavioral beliefs (beliefs surrounding the consequences, positive or negative or a
behavior), normative beliefs (perceived norms or the expected approval or disapproval
from others), and control beliefs (beliefs about personal perceived self-efficacy and
environmental factors that may aide or hinder the ability to carry out a behavior). If there
are no incentives or motivation for practitioners to change their behavioral beliefs, they
will continue the same practices of blaming students for their own shortcomings or
failures. Also, there are situations whereby practitioners, because of institutional policies
or because they feel that they are not capable of introducing change, may refrain from
changing their behavior. Finally, pressure from others at the institution may also stifle
practitioners from changing practices because of a fear of reprisal. Thus, even if

68
practitioners are aware that they can do more to narrow minority achievement gaps, they
may still reframe from making changes.
After compiling information from planning meetings and cognitive interviews,
analytical memos were created to summarize results from revealed emergent themes,
tensions, and unresolved issues that were gathered through the code categories in Table
3.5. Additional themes were added as part of the deductive process and were used to
categorize themes that arose during the data analysis that were not a part of themes
previously established by CUE. The researchers proposed a hypothesis based on the
literature which suggests that equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“remediated” social learning environments influence educator’s beliefs, attitudes and
behaviors in regard to equity in postsecondary education. The theory of developmental
evaluation examined and analyzed relationships between activity settings, practitioners
and CUE’s researchers. With CUE’s research team presenting institutional data, campus
practitioners sought to determine whether they engaged in a cycle of inquiry that
encompasses moving from problem identification to problem solving and whether action
inquiry methods prompted practitioners to examine existing knowledge and beliefs.
Using action research methodology, CUE examines institutional artifacts, such as
language and discourse, which shape practitioners understandings, interactions and
ability to take purposeful action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009). The language and discourse
that practitioners used demonstrated how their beliefs, assumptions and values hinder
institutions from implementing polices that promote equitable outcomes. CUE’s central
tenet is for practitioners to learn through social interactions in joint productive activities.
The learning and change model were used to inform CUE’s action research methods

69
(Figures 3.2 & 3.6). As practitioners engage in action inquiry, existing knowledge and
beliefs were examined and reconstructed through social interaction and reflection (Dowd
& Bensimon 2009). The work of Dewey (1958) suggests that individual learning cannot
take place without reflecting on our interactions (Dewey, 1958 as cited in Schön, 1988).
The study investigated if social interaction prompted reflections and conversations to
identify problems of equity, which, in turn, led to new opportunities for practitioner
learning and experimentation with new educational practices.
The evaluation form analysis included basic descriptive statistics characterizing
(non-identifiable, pooled, site-and activity specific) respondent experiences and impact
(strength, direction, mode, and range) obtained from collaborating researchers.
Participant responses to evaluation questions indicated receptiveness to new concepts
such as equity mindedness, action inquiry and performance benchmarking.
Standards of Review
Credibility
Social constructivists are aware of the bias that exists in the world and therefore
seek multiple perspective in understanding how things work and do not rely on a single
truth or perspective (Patton, 2002). Social constructivists consider it important to
understand the operations of particular contexts and setting without generalizing over
time and space. Their focus is on dialogue and interaction that reveals the world as
people see it. The focus is to understand how each person’s view or perspective is based
on his/her experiences and background and that it is through these differences that he acts
in everyday life. This phenomenon also includes how individuals act in inquiry (Patton,
2002). Furthermore, Patton (2002) states that “Quality and credibility are connected in

70
that judgments of quality constitute the foundation for perceptions of credibility” (p.
542), which means that if one does not find the study to be of high quality, then it will
cause one to question the study’s credibility.
Action researchers argue that generalizable knowledge through scientific
research fails to provide remedies or solutions to the problems that individuals
experience. Action researchers argue that generalized solutions cannot be applied to all
situations and that the dynamics of inquiry leads to finding solutions that can be applied
in particular contexts or settings. Therefore, the primary purpose of systematic inquiry is
for individuals to experiment with solutions and to collect data to reflect and improve in
the cycle of inquiry that can help solve the problems individuals face. At the same time,
the inquiry led to evaluating the effectiveness of the tool in use.
Action researchers believe that, “the quality of the study has to be derived from
credibility, impartiality, and independence of judgment; confirmability, consistency and
dependability of data; and explainable inconsistencies or instabilities” (Patton, 2002, p.
93). Credibility is established when the researcher takes a neutral stance to the
phenomenon that is being studied. Therefore, as a qualitative researcher, the study
involves gathering data as it emerges and reporting the findings with no regard to an
ultimate conclusion. To prepare for data collection, the research team practiced observing
the process of action research as practitioners from varies institutions participated in
BESST and Syllabus Review workshops. Additionally, credibility is reached when the
researcher carefully reports data as it unfolds, whether it supports or contradicts the
study’s hypothesis. Establishing systematic data collection procedures, rigorous training
of observers and interviewers involved in the study, collection of multiple data sources,

71
and triangulation of sources added to the credibility of the study (Patton, 2002; Stringer,
2007). When action researchers do not take a neutral stance, they bring their own
perceptions and interpretations to the problem that is studied. This may lead to issues of
trustworthiness in the researcher. To avoid this problem, the researcher must state his/her
preconceived notions about the problem ahead of time and return to the data frequently to
establish that his prior perceptions and interpretations are not clouding the study’s
findings (Patton, 2002).
Triangulation of data sources is required to increase credibility of findings
(Patton, 2002). Patton believes that the greater the triangulation of the data sources, the
more rigorous the supporting evidence, which then validates the study. Triangulation of
multiple data sources and the use of diverse sources increase the credibility of the study
by avoiding bias and distortion during data analysis (Patton, 2002; Stringer, 2007).
Triangulation can be accomplished using both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Four types of triangulation exist that can establish credibility of a study: data
triangulation; investigator triangulation; theory triangulation; and methodological
triangulation.
Data triangulation involves the use of multiple data sources using the same
method. The data that was collected at different times or in different settings are cross-
checked for consistency. Cross-checking was conducted comparing observation and
interview data; comparing what participants see in public and in private; comparing what
was said over a period of time; comparing data collected from different stakeholders who
have different perspectives; and comparing for consistency between interviews and
documents or other written evidence (Patton, 2002). Investigator triangulation provided

72
credibility through the use of a number of researchers or investigators who gathered data.
Multiple observers and/or interviewers were involved in gathering data so as to reduce
bias that could occur if only one person observed or conducted interviews for a study.
Similarly, there is analyst triangulation whereby several different people independently
analyze the data to arrive at findings. Analyst triangulation allowed researchers to see
data from multiple perspectives, without seeking consensus. A variation of this form of
triangulation is team triangulation which compares the results of a goals-based team with
a goal-free team. The goals-based team assesses the outcomes of a particular program,
and the goals-free team gathers data related to the problem and then compares the data as
it relates to the program. Action researchers use goals-free concepts as they work off of
hunches. The researcher is not evaluating an existing problem but why those involved in
the problem are unaware of what is causing the program to fail. The goals-based
approach assesses the stated outcomes or effectiveness of the program; this is summative
in nature (Patton, 2002). Developmental evaluation is focused supporting on-going
decisions that are made when changes are needed; it involves thinking and acting as new
reactions or discoveries are made by participants in an activity setting. There is
continuous and on-going development and rapid feedback involved in developmental
evaluation (Patton, 2011). Therefore, triangulating data gathered from a goals-based team
data and a goals-free team can improve the credibility of the study.
Theory triangulation entails the use of multiple lenses or perspectives to interpret
data. Theory triangulation helps in understanding how different assumptions and
perspectives affect the findings and interpretations of the findings (Patton, 2002). Two
figures, figure 3.1 and 3.2 provide a visual representation of how theory triangulation

73
occurs. Figure 3.1, the developmental evaluation methods model, allows for various ways
to look at what is being studied. For example, the activity setting in the figure identifies
the culture that exists at the setting. Figure 3.2, the reflective practice model, shows that a
particular culture at the setting will produce social interactions which create different
results depending on the knowledge and belief systems of the participants.
Finally, methodological triangulation uses multiple methods to study the problem
(Denzin, 1978). Usually, a study can be studied either quantitatively or quantitatively or
as a combination of both. Multiple methods triangulation complements the data or shows
divergence in data, which provides additional insights to the qualitative researchers. My
study used quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative data were
collected through evaluations questionnaires, and qualitative data were be gathered
through cognitive interviews and observations.
Credibility can also be attained through referential adequacy whereby the study’s
results are drawn from the participants’ or stakeholders’ experiences and perspectives
and not interpreted from existing theoretical knowledge. Therefore, when concepts or
ideas in the study are supported, the evidence reflected the participant’s perspective and
not what has already been grounded in the form of a theory (Stringer, 2007, p. 58). After
observation data was collected, follow-up cognitive interviews were conducted to
strengthen evidence that what was observed during the workshops is in fact what the
participants truly felt about workshop and is objective.
In qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument in the inquiry. Therefore,
essential information about the researcher and his/her training and the purpose for the
research study is required to establish credibility. As a researcher in CUE’s action

74
research study, training on how to complete observations and cognitive interviews was
critical before actual research began. Training on how to conduct and use the observation
and cognitive interview protocols was conducted prior to field site visits. Several practice
sessions, three cognitive interviews, were required before actual field site visits were
scheduled. Additionally, practice on how to document and complete observations were
completed at two different field sites. Access to the field sites were initiated by CUE’s
staff who communicated with site participants who have attended other workshops
conducted by CUE. Arranging workshops at new field sites were less challenging owing
to the rapport that has been established between CUE’s staff and the field site
administrators who have attended prior workshops. The field site administrators were
tasked to select the project team’s participants based on institutional goals
Member check or debriefing involves participants being provided the
opportunities to verify that the data that has been gathered is accurate and if additional
information is required to make the data collection complete. Furthermore, when
participants are given the opportunity to clarify information, it allows them the
opportunity to deal with emotions and feelings that may cloud their initial interpretations
of the workshop and the purpose of the study (Stringer, 2007). This, too, establishes
credibility in the study as the participants were not coaxed or pressured to reveal
incorrect information. Through the probing technique involved in cognitive interviews,
member check and debriefing confirmed that the data collected are accurate.
Transferability
Nationally, higher education policy makers are concerned that the number of
minority students that they enroll and the number of minority students who earn degrees

75
or transfer from two- year institutions to four-year is disproportionate. Similarly,
California community colleges are beginning to address the problem that a large number
of minority students are enrolled in basic skills courses. The persistence and retention
rates for these students to progress on to college-level work or transfer to four-year
institutions has prompted community colleges to seek solutions to improve the inequities
that minority students experience. Many of these institutions are taking measures to
address these inequities by implementing action inquiry projects to study their transfer
and completion policies. Action research studies that have been conducted can be used to
provide these institutions the ability to extrapolate the findings from one study to another
context or group. Extrapolation allows for speculation that findings from one study can
possibly be applied to other similar situations which may not have identical conditions.
Therefore, findings from one study, even though they are contextual, may provide
potential for best practice applications. Transferability of findings from one context to
another can be achieved through descriptive narratives. The information-rich samples and
designs that were gathered in the study can then be used to target other similar research
studies at other institutions. This study involved documenting and describing all data
collection methods and procedures, including summarizing observations and cognitive
interviews. Data analysis procedures and reporting mechanisms were also described for
transferability purposes.
For example, the tools used in this study, CUE’s Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST) and Syllabi Review tools, involve using individual
institutional data to facilitate dialogue and decision making amongst institutional
practitioners. The data that were shown at the BESST workshop at LFCC were used to

76
identify the number of students who have or have not taken the placement tests, or have
been placed in basic skills Math and English classes. Based on this data, the various
pipelines of cohort students were easily seen. In the case of the Syllabi Review
workshop, the practitioner’s syllabus was reviewed using a protocol template. At the
conclusion of the workshop, participants completed evaluation questionnaires to reflect
on the Syllabus Review workshop. When vivid descriptions and details are available,
other institutions can use this information-rich sample to begin their inquiry projects. The
setting too can be replicated since the study can be conducted in any educational
institution, as long as the required institutional information is available to begin the
process of inquiry. The inquiry process will aid institutions of higher education to begin
their assessments on student outcomes and address the accountability issues that stems
from the low student outcomes. Similarly, the participants were involved in the inquiry
process at LFCC can be found in any institution. At LFCC, the participants who were
involved in the workshops hold many roles and responsibilities and the data collected
from their interactions during the workshops may provide other practitioners insights on
how they too can begin the inquiry process at their own institutions.
Other similar inquiry projects conducted by CUE that can be used for
transferability purposes are Bridging Research Information and Culture (BRIC), Basic
Skills Initiative (BSI) and Research and Planning Group’s Bridging Research. These are
three of the action research projects that CUE is actively facilitating (http://cue.usc.edu/).
Dependability and Confirmability
Dependability of a study can be attained when a systematic approach to data
collection is conducted. This systematic approach can be completed using an inquiry

77
audit where the procedures are described in detail and the processes and procedures are
documented and available for review. Confirmability suggests that an audit trail is
present to show that all documents pertaining to the research study have been compiled
and are readily available to support the procedures that were actually conducted.
Audit trails essentially have a two-fold purpose. One is to establish the rigor of
the fieldwork and the second is to confirm that the data collected is accurate and that,
based on the data collected, bias can be reduced in presenting the findings. The audit trail
also improves accuracy and removes the researchers’ personal perspectives, which, in
turn, provides grounded empirical findings (Patton, 2002). Transparency, another manner
to establish dependability and confirmability, can be attained when all documents, data
and other evidence are compiled and available to support the validity of the study.
Documentation of the methods used and its rigor show that a high-quality study was
carried out.
Limitations
Several limitations existed within the study. At the time of the study, the
researcher had only recently been involved in field of inquiry and action. The
researcher’s participation in the action research was limited to five workshops. As a
researcher, credibility can be acquired through training and experience. Role playing in
workshops, as a participant and an observer, provided additional insight to action
research. To overcome limited involvement in the field of action inquiry, extensive
reading on literature involving action and participatory research was conducted.
Another limitation to the study was the observation data source. Participants in
the workshop, even though their activities were not recorded, may have felt

78
uncomfortable when unfamiliar faces are present in the setting. Therefore, they may not
have conducted themselves in a typical manner, and the data that were collected may not
be accurate. Sampling, too, may be another limitation in the case of my one community
college case study. Limited sampling may affect the credibility of the study since small
or limited samplings as in the one community college case study or the limited selection
of participants may seem bias for those who may not understand the reasons for the
intended design (Patton, 2002). However, the multiple member participants interviewed
compensated for the one case study sampling. Time was another constraint when
coordinating interviews with the action research participants. Educators have busy
schedules teaching classes and attending to other faculty obligations like serving on
committees and participating in campus-wide meetings. They may not have the time to
participate in cognitive interviews after their participation in the workshops.
Additionally, administrators too have many additional responsibilities on and off campus
that they are committed to that, too, limited their availability to be interviewed. Still
others possibly could have been afraid to be interviewed due to believing that the
interviews may force them to divulge information that they are not comfortable revealing
and resulting in them not agreeing to be interviewed.
Best practices and evidence based practices work best when implemented to
simple problems. However, in this case study, the research surrounds the belief systems
that exist with practitioners. In cases where practitioners are unaware that their belief,
values and assumptions affect the success of their students, there cannot be a simple best
practice that can be applied to address the problem. The context of the study leads the
reader to understand the problem being studied and the reasons for the study, and the

79
reader is then able to interpret meanings to the study and how it can be significant to
his/her context (Patton, 2002; Denzin and Lincoln, 2000).
Finally, the credibility of findings relate closely to the credibility of the
researcher. If the researcher is not trained in the process and procedures used in data
collection and in the process developed to analyze the data to lead to the findings, then
the credibility of the findings will be diminished (Patton, 2002). If methodological rigor
is absent from the findings, credibility then becomes an issue. Methodological rigor
includes the methods used in fieldwork data collection and the systematic and consistent
method of data analysis. The method of coding establishes a classification system that the
researcher can use to carefully record all findings based on established themes which can
be easily verified and explained. If the method for data analysis were absent or not
clearly defined, the study would lack credibility. Additionally, credibility limitations
exist when fieldwork data derived from purposeful sampling are not systematically
analyzed to answer the research questions.
Reporting Results
Field notes were collected by the researcher and transcribed. Reporting the
results took a variety of forms, including descriptive text, tabular summaries focused on
categorical data, and thematic analysis based on emerging issues/new themes revealed by
the data. Typical and atypical data were reported, including the range of participant
experiences. The observational data were collected from a variety of activity settings that
provide a contextual view of the campus and was then narrowed to a core group of
stakeholders. The contextual view of the LFCC activity setting was obtained through
presenting the BESST tool and Reflection Protocol, reviewing college policy documents,

80
attending to the discourse of the participants, and tabulating the evaluations of workshop
participants. They are the Vital Signs and the BESST. These tools helped in triangulating
data. The Vital Signs tool helps the workshop team gather evidence to investigate the
college’s basic institutional measures—access, retention, and completion—disaggregated
by race and ethnicity.
These categories reflected distinct views or thought processes that the workshop
participants experienced while they worked with a CUE developed tool, namely the
BESST. For the first category, attitudes/beliefs, it is vital to identify the attitudes and
beliefs expressed through emotive comments made by the workshop participants. Their
knowledge was made explicit since they verbalize it. Their social interaction in the
activity setting was established in the way they interact with each other, their use of non-
CUE mediating artifacts (e.g., reports), the nomenclature used, the apparent roles, the
cultural rules and norms the workshop attendees adhere to, the community itself, and the
division of labor. The next classification was that of reflection which is often, but not
always, exhibited in the form of questions. CUE’s tools are designed to encourage the
workshop participants ask “what if” and reflective statements are essential for the next
two categories to occur—problem identification and experimentation/problem solving.
These final steps focused on the comments participants made which exhibit they
contextualized institutional problems and established steps to solve the issues. The
penultimate category is that of action (/inaction) experience where short narratives
express prior attempts or non-attempts to address problems. The final category pertains to
statements that are not coded, which were an array of actions and statements that may

81
reveal some shared themes and issues, such as leadership as well as policies of the
institution, state or nation.
From these categories, the researcher tabulated the number of each category and
determined the proportion to summarize the evidence regarding the (a) strength and (b)
direction of the impact. In regards to strength, these classifications were determined by
the frequency of the code count relative to the total code count for a particular activity
setting.

82
CHAPTER FOUR:
FINDINGS
Overview
This chapter presents detailed results of the data analysis and thematic findings to
address the research questions. This study examined the influence of action research (as
implemented in CUE’s action research and design experiments) on practitioners’ beliefs,
attitudes, and behaviors, particularly with regard to the development of equity-
mindedness among faculty, staff, and administrators. In this case, the study took place at
Las Flores Community College (LFCC), the site of the fieldwork. Findings emerged
based on the triangulation of data and analysis of cognitive interviews, observations of
various activity settings of inquiry teams, and evaluation questionnaire results. Using the
conceptual frameworks of inquiry, CHAT, and Fishbein and Azjen’s reasoned action
model, the researcher interpreted the data and generated themes to answer the research
questions of my study. To strengthen the interpretation of data, at times the researcher
compared results with the findings from other field sites obtained by the research team in
the collective developmental evaluation study. One other member of the research team
also collected data at LFCC, although from a group of respondents different from those
here.
During the period of this study, LFCC engaged in a collaborative effort to
conduct a Transfer Study facilitated by CUE, examining the equity gaps in student
success outcomes disaggregated by race and ethnicity. This study was a second phase of
inquiry at LFCC, the first phase dating to 2006. The goal of the inquiry-based transfer
study was to identify institutional barriers that create racial and ethnic equity gaps among

83
students who transfer to four year colleges and universities. As a member of the
developmental evaluation team, the researcher first observed the LFCC College
Commitment for Equity (CCE) committee leadership team. In subsequent meetings, the
researcher observed meetings of the Equity Scorecard Evidence Team and Critical
Friends. The Critical Friends were different from the Evidence Team in that they were
not fully committed to participating in the study and had not joined the Evidence Team.
The genesis of the Critical Friends came out of conversations with LFCC after Phase I
work with CUE previously mentioned. Critical Friends consisted of people on campus in
positions of power who the Evidence Team needed support from but who were not likely
to join the team due to time constraints or a lack of interest. Critical Friends were invited
to the workshops in an empowering role so they could see themselves as invested and not
as critics. Only during the first Workshop were Critical Friends observed participating
equally in the activity settings at LFCC, which is explained in more detail later in this
chapter. The Evidence Team and Critical Friends consisted of faculty, staff, and
administrators from functional areas around campus. Evidence Team members
participated in inquiry while the Critical Friends were in a support and advising role to
the inquiry process.
This design study examined whether practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, and
behaviors regarding racial and ethnic equity were influenced by action research using
CUE’s action research tools and processes. The researcher interpreted the actions of the
CUE facilitator using concepts from CHAT, such as social interaction, using mediating
artifacts, and creating a new division of labor and roles to influence organizational
change. The findings document how CUE facilitated social interactions as a starting

84
point for a cycle of inquiry. For example, practitioners from LFCC first identified lead
faculty to plan activities with the CUE facilitator prior to meeting with the inquiry team.
CUE sought to remediate educational practices through active use of the concepts of
equity. The CUE facilitator repeatedly explained CUE’s approach to racial and ethnic
equity in higher education by focusing on practitioners’ practices, not perceived student
deficits. The CUE action research process also relies explicitly on data. Engaging in the
inquiry cycle, the team used the BESST to examine milestone data for students who
completed 60 or more units and took at least one transfer level English or math class.
The team looked for patterns in success at each milestone between the students who were
transfer ready and the students who were not transfer ready. These activities can be
understood from the perspective of inquiry as engaging in problem framing through data
analysis.
Overall, the evidence from this study shows how CUE assists an inquiry process
focused on equity by altering a group when they are diverging from a focus on equity and
by providing the capacity to make it clear when social norms encouraging broader
discussions of diversity divert the focus from race. The data showed how CUE’s action
research and process guided the inquiry of practitioners as they took responsibility for
racial and ethnic equity and provided evidence of equity-mindedness. The data showed
how CUE’s action research and process assisted an inquiry process focused on equity by
altering a group The social learning that took place was particularly powerful in
maintaining the focus on race and ethnicity because this was the single most challenged
issue of the study.

85
The tools and artifacts used in the inquiry activity settings were valuable for
participants to reflect on current practices and their roles in closing racial and ethnic
equity gaps. The tools are helpful in that the CUE facilitator initiated activity settings by
encouraging practitioners to reflect on roles, rules, and norms. In this respect, the
evidence provides support for the interpretation that CUE’s tools and processes are
effective. However, there was also level of frustration among some Evidence Team
members involved in the action research process, particularly when participants
attempted to divert the inquiry to focusing on other important social dynamics in addition
to race and ethnicity. These results demonstrate the challenge and limitation of using
action research as a strategy to improve equity. For example, although there was success
with guiding participants to focus on race and ethnicity, time was spontaneously diverted
to discuss other topics (GLBT, social-economic differences) which, in turn, left less time
than planned for some CUE activities. The CUE facilitator, along with participants,
refocused the inquiry team when this happened, but, nonetheless, time was lost.
This chapter begins with a description of LFCC institutional context as it relates
to racial and ethnic equity, based on a review of institutional documents and data in the
federal IPEDS database. Then, this chapter describes CUE’s action research activities,
tools and artifacts as they were used at activity settings created by CUE’s facilitator at
LFCC. It describes a planning session and five activity settings in detailed narratives,
explaining how the action research process was designed to stimulate inquiry. These
settings include a planning meeting, a kick off meeting, two Evidence Team meetings,
defining the problem meeting, and an inquiry meeting. As these narratives are presented,
there is reference to the steps of the cycle of inquiry, starting with social interaction and

86
reflection, then moving to problem identification with data, and then discussing aspects
of inquiry intended to promote experimentation and problem solving. In presenting these
detailed narratives, themes that emerged from the data analysis are highlighted. The
following themes provide nuances of interpretations to answer the research questions:
The design study and the participants’ involvement offered insight to the research
questions and related to the findings. As noted in Chapter Three, the first research
question was: What influences does action research have on the attitudes, beliefs and
behaviors of faculty, staff and administrators using CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and
process when examining racial and ethnic equity in student outcomes in higher
education? The first theme answers the research question by showing that action
research influences accountability for racial and ethnic student success outcomes. In
regard to the first research question, it shows the influence of action research when using
the cultural artifacts utilized by CUE at LFCC (asset mapping, reflecting, defining a clear
definition of equity, defining roles, BESST) on social learning and new knowledge
leading to changes in practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviors related to
accountability for student success. The data supports social interaction that offers new
knowledge and reflection on when a participant was diverting form the focus on race and
ethnicity by trying to move the focus to LGBT issues, and another in participant social
interaction made the divert reflect. The diverter appeared to absorb and reflect on the
comments made. She then thanked the participant for his perspective and commented,
“It’s ok to move forward, I get it.” The second theme emphasizes the desire practitioners
had for campus participation in equity and diversity discussions as influenced by the
action research process. The participants spoke highly of the process and hoped for

87
greater participation from the campus community emphasizing that it is up to the
practitioners to improve outcomes.
The second research question was: What influence does action research have in
promoting the cycle of inquiry with faculty, staff, and administrators when examining
racial and ethnic equity in higher education? The third theme highlights the challenges
posed by attempted diversions from focusing on race and ethnicity, but shows that the
attempts to divert were unsuccessful because of the cycle of inquiry that took place. The
social interaction, new knowledge, reflection, and data analysis refocused each attempt to
divert from the focus on racial and ethnic equity. This finding supports the idea that
action research promotes the cycle of inquiry for practitioners when examining racial and
ethnic equity in higher education.
The last research question, What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural
artifacts designed for use in “remediated” social learning environments are associated
with changes in postsecondary educators’ social interactions, behaviors, and educational
practices in regard to equity in postsecondary education, was answered in part by the
first theme accountability for racial and ethnic student success outcomes. A more
complete answer emerges through the narrative description of such tools and artifacts as
the cartoon slide, equity-minded slide, and student deficit slide. An example is the
characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in “remediated” social
learning environments associated with changes in the cartoon tool by the framing of
institutional racism and how the advantages and disadvantages affect communities for
generations. When the facilitator explained the cartoon slide, there was a pause and then
participants nodded their heads in agreement. These tools assisted practitioners in social

88
interaction, influenced behaviors, and educational practices. The last theme, overstating
Latino success, was not related to the research question, but it does serve as a subtheme
to accountability.
The four themes reflect the findings of the study and illustrate how the Evidence
Team and Critical Friends’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors with regards to race and
ethnicity were influenced by CUE’s process and artifacts. The first finding, which is well
supported through observation, evaluation questionnaire and interview data, highlighted
the participants’ sense of accountability for racial and ethnic student success outcomes.
This theme is overarching and the other findings are understood in this context.
Although there was, at times, a diversion from focusing on race and ethnicity or an
inability to look deeply at available data (as in the case of Latino outcome) a desire
remained among participants to be accountable for student outcomes, including when
looking at race and ethnicity. The theme of greater campus participation in the
discussion of race and ethnicity related to the accountability concept in that the belief was
the campus needed to take part in the discussion for the campus to improve student
outcomes.
All themes were related to one another in that they all reflected ways the
participants accepted accountability for equity in student success. The theme
Accountability for racial and ethnic student success was evident in the data, with
participants stating, “If we do not improve our own skills, we will not be able to do this
work” and “I like action research so that LFCC can take responsibility for outcomes.”
The theme Attempts to divert from focusing on race and ethnicity on the surface may
appear as if there was a lack of accountability. However, the data did not suggest that

89
LFCC refused to take accountability, but some participants wanted to broaden the focus
of accountability to other social issues. One participant stated, “Not to get away from
race, but gender in particular is an area to look at.” This shows that, although there was
an attempt at diversion, accountability was still welcomed by the participants.
The theme Desire for campus participation in equity and diversity discussions
related to accountability because the data showed that the Evidence Team wished more
of the campus were involved in the discussion of equity and diversity. They perceived
that others were waiting for the students to solve the equity issue. Participants shared
that typically the same practitioners participate on topics related to racial and diversity.
Evidence Team members had a desire for more practitioners on the campus to take part
in the inquiry process to offer a different approach to improve the practitioners’ practice
with regard to equity.
The last theme Overstating Latino student success was related to accountability
because the Evidence Team did not relinquish accountability; they believed that the
Latino students did not have an equity gap. Therefore, the focus and accountability in
the Transfer Study was exclusively on African American students. Although LFCC
overstated the success of Latino students and did not think there was a need to focus on
this particular group in this study, this was due to the belief that there was not a gap and
not due to their diverting the accountability elsewhere. The Evidence Team continued
to accept accountability for the only group they believed to have a gap. The findings
indicate the participants wanted to be accountable for the African American student
transfer rate of transfer readiness.

90
Institutional Context: Moving Towards Equity
FCC’s mission states that the institution provides quality educational
opportunities in the diverse community it serves. This artifact implies that the college’s
intent is to serve all stakeholders in the community. The mission statement also commits
to focusing on student learning building on abilities and competencies. The district’s
core value statement asserts that learning, and student successes are focal points of the
college. Moreover, a number of documents emphasize equity and multiculturalism.
LFCC’s Equity Plan set goals to increase the success rates of underserved racial and
ethnic minorities. The Basic Skills Plan declares that all courses below transfer level will
apply culturally responsive teaching theory and practices. LFCC standing CCE
committee’s charge is to create a culture that values and promotes equity, inclusion, and
social justice. The examples above suggest that the campus is deeply committed to
success for all students.
There is additional information gathered from documents collected in this study,
such as artifacts of institutional culture, to suggest that LFCC has an ongoing pursuit of
racial and ethnic equity in student success. The campus took the initiative of writing a
Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) grant, and, in 2010, was awarded $3 million over a
five-year period. This was the second HSI grant that the campus had received. The first
grant focused on giving specific attention to Latino students, increasing their enrollment,
persistence, transfer and certificates, and the number of students in ESL classes. The
purpose of the second grant was to expand the educational opportunities, to expand and
enhance academic offerings, to enhance program quality, and to further institutional
stability while increasing transfer rates for Hispanic students. Specifically, the grant

91
focused on the students who intended to transfer once they matriculated into the college
and the number who actually completed the transfer process successfully. LFCC
allocated some of the grant dollars to continue work with CUE to close racial and ethnic
equity gaps in student success in transfer.
The LFCC IPEDS data below indicates such efforts are needed. Figure 4.1 below
represents full-time, first time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates graduating
within 150% of normal time to completion. Although this data includes certificates and
does not represent transfer, it is important to note that, with the recent passage of SB
1440, California Community College students will be able to transfer to California State
Universities (CSU) with a specified associate’s degree. Institutions must have 100
percent of associate degrees articulated by 2014. SB 1440 will increase the transfer
ready equity gap immediately at LFCC.
Figure 4.1: IPEDS Degree/Certificate Completion by Ethnicity

Source: IPEDS, Degree Completion Survey, 2012
The graph above represents percentage of full-time, first-time students who began their
studies in fall 2007 and graduated within 150 percent of "normal time" to completion for
their program.

92
Visiting the campus, the researcher noticed the students seemed to reflect a level
of social consciousness as it relates to race and ethnicity and culturally inclusive
practices. The campus student newspaper displayed a front page article explaining the
campus’ achievement gap with many LFCC students commenting in the article from a
personal perspective. The Debate Team posted advertisements campus-wide inviting
students to attend an immigration debate. Student Life posted invitations around campus
for students to attend a film series, which offered films that represented many races,
ethnicities, and cultures. Each time the researcher visited the campus, there was evidence
to support the interpretation that students at LFCC were conscious of the diversity in race
and ethnicity on campus and appeared to make efforts to acknowledge the diversity.
CUE’s Action Research Activities: Facilitated Inquiry
Figure 4.2 illustrates the cycle of inquiry as described in Chapter Three, annotated
to indicate how the activities of CUE’s action research at LFCC were intended to
promote inquiry. Here, the aspects of the cycle of inquiry that took place during each
activity setting are annotated with reference to the CUE tools used in various activities.
At the point of social interaction, the following tools were used

93
Figure 4.2: Cycle of Inquiry: Engagement

As designed, CUE used tools to engage participants in social interaction and facilitated
inquiry while analyzing data. The purpose was to bring about new knowledge and
reflection from the Evidence Team. The cycle of inquiry is helpful in prompting
practitioners to examine existing knowledge and beliefs while changing attitudes, beliefs,
and behaviors. The cycle of inquiry is also helpful because it emphasizes that knowledge
and expertise are not static. They continue to evolve, allowing for movement of ideas. It
helps the shaping of opportunities for practitioner learning and experimentation with new
educational practices.
Table 4.1 represents deductive codes that were used to analyze qualitative data
from cognitive interviews, observations of activity settings and surveys. This process
allowed for the materialization of themes generated by the prevalence of responses or
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Experimentation/
Problem Solving
Social
Interaction
Action/Experience
Beliefs
Problem Identification
Through Data Analysis
Reflection
CUE Tools for
Promoting New
Knowledge
• Student Deficit
framework
• Equity-minded
framework
• Racist cartoon
• Vital Signs
CUE Activity
Settings
• BESST
workshops
• CUE
Facilitator
• Evidence Team

CUE Data Tools
• Benchmarking
Equity and
Student
Success Tool
• Vital Signs

94
behaviors highlighted across the codes: Five codes that represent main aspects of cycle of
inquiry are listed in column 1. Column 1 has data from workshops and column 2 has data
from interviews. These themes integrate the evidence of the influence of CUE’s tools
and process using action research.
Table 4.2 summarizes the numbers of statements in the coded data interpreted to
develop each theme. This data was collected in interviews and observations. Column 1
represents confirming data to support the theme. Column 2 represents disconfirming data
that does not represent the theme.
Table 4.1: Deductive Counts from Inquiry Cycle:
Las Flores Community College (LFCC)Frequency Counts and Proportions
Across Data Codes

Workshops Interviews Total # Total %
Attitudes/Beliefs 149 80 230 63%
Knowledge 41 2 44 11%
Reflection 22 9 31 8%
Problem
Identification
27 5 30 8.4%
Experimental/
Problem Solving
14 7 20 5.4%
Total: 356
Table 4.2: Confirming and Disconfirming Theme Data:
THEME

Confirming Disconfirming No Data
Accountability: for racial and
ethnic student success outcomes
10 3 18
Accountability Latino Success 5 4 22
Attempted diversion from
focusing on race and ethnicity
4 3 24
Campus participation in equity
and diversity discussion
4 0 27

95
Table 4.3 below represents the themes and samples of the qualitative data that
support the themes that emerged from interviews and observations. Column 1 represents
the four themes and column 2 is actual samples of confirming statements from
participants. Column 2 also represents the disconfirming statements that participants
made that do not support the theme.
Table 4.3: Quotes Illustrating Data Coded as Confirming or Disconfirming Students:
THEME

Accountability: for racial and
ethnic student success outcomes

Confirming Statements

If we do not improve our own skills, we will not be able to do this
work.

If African American students are not doing well, the question is
what are we not doing well.

If you are a first generation, it is not your fault that you do not have
the social capital to navigate the system… Do you blame the
students for not coming prepared? Or are we taking responsibility
to teach students?

We have never looked at the teachers over time to see what they are
doing if they are successful; it is a very touchy subject, but we
never had that next step.

We are challenging things that we ourselves have benefited from,
there is natural fear and denial.

I like action research so that LFCC can take responsibility for our
outcomes.

It is an institution gap. The systems were designed to serve a
specific group of the population and did it well.

What are we doing as an institution? That is what we need to be
looking at.

Something that was profound is getting away from the student
deficit model. We all have the perception of k-12, nuclear family;
but what can we do with the student we have?

96
Table 4.3, continued

Too sensitive of a topic for people to admit that they are
somehow contributing to the problem and ignorant of
how to do something about it even if they wanted to.

I see it as the canary in cave metaphor where African
American students are like the baby in the river, then the
next one, then the next. Why can’t we keep them out of
the river in the first place?

Accountability for Latino Student Success
Confirming
White students are on the same rate as Latino students so
it reflects we are closing the gap.
I think we need to focus on African American students.
Looking at the success rate of Latino students, they are
not doing as bad.
Data shows that Latino students are doing as well as
White students.
Looking at Latino students, it looks like they are
achieving equity

We debunked Latinos closing the gap as soon as we saw
the data.

Amazing we were able to do this and then question
ourselves

We have Latino students persisting faster, but some
people didn’t want to look at that.
Disconfirming
If we look at English, the African American and Latino
students are not doing as well.

When you look at our African American and Latino
students’ outcomes, it is atrocious.
Disconfirming Statement

Students come here 17, 18, 19 fumble around drop out
and then come back and they are more serious. I do not
know if that is true, but that is my hunch.

97
Table 4.3, continued

I work with many Hmong students and after their first
year they
are getting married…There may be cultural issues at
these ages between 17-19.

I think about our international students who are Asian
and, if they are ESL, it may take extra time to transfer

Attempts to divert from focusing on race
and ethnicity
Confirming Statements

We always talk about race and gender; we never talk
about socioeconomic levels, students with disabilities or
GLBT.

Not to get away from race, but gender in particular is an
area to look at”
It’s frustrating that, when we talk about equity, we only
talk about race. We never talk about the culture on this
campus and whether it is supportive of LGBT...we never
talk about religion.
The lesbian and gay issues can help us understand; I
know that
CUE’s purpose is race and ethnicity.

We should look at disabilities and sexual orientation
Disconfirming Statement

We do not need to lose our focus on race.. obviously race
and class go together

If we have African Americans outcomes so inequitable,
we should do more inequitably for them

I know this is about race and ethnicity and I support it
fully

Desire for campus participation in equity
and diversity discussions

Confirming
I see many people from the choir in this room. We need
more people who are not committed to equity.
The institution is not conscious
The math and science mindset is not that they are not
interested; they just think differently...they are not anti-
equity; they just look at things differently.
The same faculty members are around the table when it
comes to discussing diversity issues. We have 100 more
that don’t overtly participate in discussion
Disconfirming Statement

98
Getting Started: Negotiated Ground Rules for Social Interaction
This section discusses the answer to the research question What characteristics of
equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in “remediated” social learning
environments are associated with changes in postsecondary educators’ social
interactions, behaviors, and educational practices in regard to equity in postsecondary
education. The design study using action research and CUE’s tools and process offered
the participants equity-oriented cultural artifacts for use in a social setting. The
researcher examined these interactions, and this section features detailed descriptions of
the five activity settings where data was collected as part of the developmental evaluation
design study.
Planning Meeting
The activities began with a four hour planning meeting preparing for the
workshops. This planning meeting included the LFCC CCE leadership team (made up of
three faculty members) whose interactions were facilitated by a professional facilitator
affiliated with CUE. The lead faculty member and the CUE facilitator coordinated the
meeting. Of the three faculty members, two were intimately involved with the Phase I
Basic Skills inquiry work that previously took place with CUE. As noted in Chapter
Three, the researcher’s role was as an observer collecting data. The meeting took place
in a conference room on campus, which was comfortable for the small leadership team.
The tables and chairs were situated in a half-square along the length of the room and
participants sat next to each other on the left side while the facilitator stood in front of the
room utilizing the lectern. The facilitator also used a laptop and projector for a
PowerPoint presentation and an interactive display of the BESST.

99
The goal of this meeting was to plan for the Phase II Transfer Study. Everyone
appeared to be excited about engaging in Phase II. However, there was a hint of
apprehension due to a concern that the team may not be prepared to move forward. One
leadership team member said, “I am excited. However, I do not want to kick start this
work unless we are ready so that it will work.” It was evident that the leadership team
was fully engaged and committed to the study, having voiced the importance of the
Transfer Study being a success. The group discussed potential problems and concerns as
they worked to mitigate foreseen issues, which they identified as participants leaving
early, not following the agenda, not being prepared, not being committed to ground rules
and not following the process.
The team discussed what they learned from the Phase I Basic Skills work, often
discussing what to avoid for a smoother Phase II. One statement that seemed to
command a lot of discussion was one regarding participants’ taking the focus away from
where the Phase I team intended to concentrate. They found that some participants had a
difficult time leaving the investigative stage, which delayed action, and others were
concentrated on their personal agendas. One team member stated, “I have seen so many
people spend so much time trying to find the problem and we do not get anything done.
Then, those are the same people who have a pet project that they try to make work any
way possible.” As the team members reflected on Phase I, there appeared to be a great
fear of this concern being repeated. This led to further dialogue of how to avoid this
behavior. On many occasions, the Leadership Team members brought up concerns
regarding which data to utilize as they anticipated what the Evidence Team and Critical
Friends would say to critique the data. The team members showed a strong desire to use

100
the BESST data in a way that they all could stand by it without any unintentional
misleading information.
The CUE facilitator presented the college’s transfer data using the BESST. The
team was familiar with the tool from previous work. This particular tool was helpful by
providing the College’s data disaggregated by race and ethnicity in a cohort. It also
allowed the inquiry team to look at each milestone to analyze the data. The flexibility of
the tool allowed for many scenarios to be examined.
At the beginning of the meeting, they discussed which milestone the team would
present to the team members in the Transfer Study. On a couple of occasions during the
planning meeting, the team again critiqued the data anticipating what may be questioned
or perceived as misleading by the Transfer Study Evidence Team and Critical Friends.
Examining the data, the team noted that the Latino students have the same success
outcomes as the White students. This observation led to a discussion of how some in the
campus community tend to debunk campus data by claiming it must be inaccurate. As
indicated by findings presented below, questions of data accuracy arose in a number of
activity settings when the Evidence Team was asked to frame problems of equity using
their institutional data. At the conclusion of the planning meeting, there was a plan to
move forward and address many of the anticipated questions in the workshops regarding
the data in the Transfer Study. This plan created momentum towards experimentation
for problem solving.
Workshop I
Workshop I, the first of five for the Transfer Study, included the Evidence Team
and Critical Friends, amounting to over 20 participants representing faculty, staff, and

101
middle and senior management from LFCC. The teams met in a large conference room
with a lectern in the front of smart classroom. The participants sat around the tables that
were in the shape of a half square. The inquiry team ate lunch as members were
convening for the 4.5 hour workshop. The Transfer Study lead faculty updated everyone
on the status of those who were not in attendance, stating that two participants would be a
little late. Specifically, this protocol was helpful and designed to address concerns that
emerged during the planning session regarding the campus community’s culture when
dealing with commitment to meetings. The lead faculty opened the workshop by asking
the participants about their understanding of the project. This allowed for clarity of the
objective of inquiry. Then, the CUE facilitator welcomed everyone before leading the
group into introductions. The facilitator reviewed the agenda before engaging the team
in an icebreaker. The icebreaker was an asset mapping activity, which entailed the CUE
facilitator sharing a Prezi presentation titled “Roles we Play on an Evidence Team.” This
tool was designed to help subjects understand the roles which they are asked to play
throughout the project. The participants wrote their names down on a paper that was
posted on a wall next to the roles they believed they would be most interested in
contributing. The participants’ social interaction increased in the activity setting as
subjects reflected on experiences and comments made by the Evidence Team. This
interaction led to problem identification, problem solving ideas, new knowledge, as well
as changes in beliefs. Evidence of these finding is provided later in this chapter. This
activity began the cycle of inquiry for the newly convened (Phase II) Evidence Team.
The lead faculty members discussed the vision for the Transfer Study as well as
the grant parameters. The lead faculty then walked the group through the process and

102
outcomes of the Phase I Basic Skills Study and the lessons learned. The CUE facilitator,
with assistance from one of the faculty leads, discussed the structure of the Transfer
Study, schedule, outcomes, and roles of the Evidence Team and Critical Friends as well
as of CUE. A PowerPoint presentation was shared informing participants about the
Transfer Study’s vision and how it aligns with the HSI grant that was also discussed.
Accountability for Equity
Data collected from three cognitive interviews, five inquiry team observations
with up to twenty one participants, and seven survey results presented the theme that
practitioners take responsibility for racial and ethnic equity in student success outcomes
on their campus. Although there were only seven respondents, and three cognitive
interviews, the collective developmental evaluation study provided additional survey and
cognitive interview results that were similar to those here. The survey results (N=7) from
the question “I have a strong sense of my own personal responsibility surrounding racial
and ethnic issues on my campus” indicated that all respondents agree to some extent that
they have a personal responsibility. There were 57% who indicated they “definitely”
agree with the statement, 43% “somewhat” agree, and there were not respondents who
responded “not at all.” Although this item supports the interpretation that the inquiry
team had strong to moderate personal responsibility for accountability for racial and
ethnic equity in student success outcomes, the results from interviews and observations
indicated that participants believed that this attitude is not held campus wide.
An example of a participant’s attitude about accountability was the comment
made by a faculty member, “If you are a first generation, it is not your fault you do not
have the social capital to navigate the system…do you blame the student for not coming

103
prepared or are we going to take responsibility to teach students?” This statement was
asked as a question, but the faculty member clearly intended to convey that it was the
responsibility of the instructor to teach and not to blame students for not having the social
capital to make it on their own. Data collected through observations and interviews over
the course of the study provided strong evidence that there was institutional
accountability for equity in racial and ethnic student learning outcomes among the team
members at LFCC. Example quotes that support this theme can be found in the first
section of Table 3.4. In all, it excerpts eleven quotations interpreted in support of this
theme and quotations than suggest otherwise were coded as disconfirming. One
participant stated, “If we are looking at English and African American and Latino
students are not doing well, I push the agenda and ask are we only teaching classes from
a Eurocentric perspective. Do we have multicultural content as opposed to Eurocentric?
It has nothing to do with the students; it is the institution’s achievement gap.” Another
participant said, “Intentionally we can change the equity gap, like offering courses in
African American lit or Hispanic lit.”
The results from the cognitive interviews supported the theme of accountability.
One interviewee stated, “I see it as the canary in cave metaphor where African American
students are like the baby in the river, then the next one, then the next; why can’t we keep
them out of the river in the first place?” The interviewee reference of “we” indicated the
respondent is suggesting that it was the responsibility of the institution and not of the
student.
The theme of accountability first surfaced during the planning meeting, which
only included the leadership team, but clearly carried over throughout all activity

104
settings. Similar statements supporting this finding emerged when the inquiry team met.
Some of the statements were “If we cannot improve our own skills, we will not be able to
do this work” and “This kind of addresses the equity minded piece; if our African
American students are not doing well, we are not doing well.” As noted above, there was
strong data that confirmed participants’ commitment to accountability for racial and
ethnic student outcomes. The descriptive data collected through observations gives a
sense of how CUE influences these beliefs.
As shown in the observations’ data, the participants were comfortable using
CUE’s language in conversation, which suggests the influence of the artifacts. An
environment was created where practitioners appeared to be authentic in placing
responsibility for student outcomes on themselves and the institution. There were two
times when participants mentioned student deficit-mindedness. One was when the
facilitator asked “What are some reasons students are not successful in college?” Only
when the deficit-minded knowledge tool in the PowerPoint was presented and the
facilitator asked for the team to add to the deficit-minded slide was there anyone who
added student deficit minded input. The second time was during one of the workshops
and the CUE facilitator asked the participants for some explanations as to why the group
of 82 students did not transfer in the cohort.

105
Figure 4.3: Illustration of Deficit-Minded Knowledge:
USC Rossier School of Education
Deficit-Minded Knowledge
Motivation
Engagement
Interaction with Faculty
Study Skills
Commitment
Discipline
Direction
LACK OF…

The facilitator showed the PowerPoint slide in Figure 4.3 and the Evidence Team
and Critical Friends discussed student deficits from a deficit-minded framework. The
purpose was for participants to actively develop the capacity to reframe from the deficit-
minded framework of what is wrong with the students to a more equity-minded approach.
This tool was helpful and led to changes in attitudes, an interpretation strongly supported
through observations, evaluations, and interviews. The participants anticipated that the
LFCC faculty, staff and administrators not participating in the Transfer Study might have
some of the following student deficit-minded thoughts: lack of money, lack of proper
manners, not enough time to study, not enough family support, lack of preparation from
the high schools, nutrition, consumed with Facebook, Twitter, video games, lack of
authorship and advocacy, low literacy levels, lack of social capital. This particular
activity, from the participants’ reactions, led the researcher to believe that they

106
themselves did not necessarily operate with these notions, but that they perceived their
colleagues on campus operate from the student-deficit mindset.
The CUE facilitator asked the group what equity meant at LFCC. A couple of
participants referenced equity as having an equal opportunity for academic success. The
role of CUE was to make certain that everyone was operating from a similar definition of
equity as it related to successful student outcomes disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
As an example, the CUE facilitator provided a PowerPoint slide of a pie graph showing
fictitious racial and ethnic enrollment and the transfer rate by percentages. This tool
illustrated the equity gaps, framing how CUE views equity. One participant stated, “The
social construct is incredibly complex; in general, our access equity is pretty good with
race, but our outcomes are not so good.” As participants discussed equity, it was clear
that the participants understood equity in a way that is consistent with CUE. The cycle of
inquiry, as shown in Figure 4.2, started with theses interactions. The findings indicate
the tools used to facilitate these interactions influenced beliefs.
Diversion from Race and Ethnicity
In the activity settings, during cognitive interviews and in the survey, some
inquiry team members suggested broadening from race and ethnicity to include other
interest such as students’ sexual orientation, disabilities, and socio-economic status.
Section 3 of Table 4.3 shows evidence of this finding. In all, it excerpts four quotations
interpreted in support of this theme and there were not any quotations that suggest
otherwise. One respondent stated, “We always talk about race and gender; we never talk
about socioeconomic levels, students with disabilities, or GLBT.” The respondent went
on to talk about the importance of focusing on such issues and how focusing on other

107
issues may help participants understand and relate to the race and ethnic issues, stating,
“The lesbian and gay issues can help us understand; I know that CUE’s purpose is race
and ethnicity... We don’t have to bring in those issues... but we have to talk about it.”
Some inquiry team members were persistent in making sure that the team stayed focused
on race and ethnicity. One participant stated the reason people were having difficulty
staying focused on race was because of the level of discomfort talking about race. The
respondent stated, “You can muddy the water by the issues of other groups; if we are
talking about race and we talk about other stuff, it’s because we don’t want to talk about
race.... White people feel safe talking about other stuff.” Another team member stated,
“My feeling is, when we start talking about race, there is an interest to expand it to other
things because people are uncomfortable talking about race and want to talk about other
things.” The survey (N=7) indicated that 57% of the respondents from the workshop
believed that the workshops should focus on other areas of student issues aside from race.
The topic of discussing other issues besides race and ethnicity also came up
during the cognitive interviews. When asked how the interviewee felt about the
discussion of including sexual orientation, the respondent stated it overtook the task at
hand. One respondent explained during a cognitive interview, “I feel frustration when
we talk about equity and we only talk about race. We never talk about the culture on this
campus and whether it is supportive of LGBT or other social issues.” Additional
statements were made to disconfirm the need to broaden the focus from race and
ethnicity to other issues. These statements can be found in section 3 in Table 4.3. On a
couple of occasions, comments were made to support the focus on race and ethnicity with

108
participants stating, “We do not need to lose our focus on race... obviously race and class
go together.”
Structural Racism
After the asset mapping activity to clarify Evidence Team roles, the CUE
facilitator introduced a tool to illustrate structural racism and how the historically White
dominant culture has benefitted in society and people of color have not. This tool
intended to add knowledge on how CUE views inequity in society and an opportunity to
reflect. The first slide of the cartoon was of a character named “Bob,” and it explained
how his great-grandparents arrived in the United States. The slide shows what appears to
be a politician stating, “Our immigration laws should make it easier for the right kind of
people to immigrate. The second slide shows Bob’s grandparents becoming homeowners
as they are approved for a mortgage loan while a couple of color are being told “sorry we
can’t help you.” The third slide illustrates how Bob’s dad began his career as the
employer tells him “you seem like one of us. We’re offering you a foot in the door.”
Behind the scene a person of color is told “sorry, the position is filled” at the very same
time. The fourth slide is of Bob becoming a homeowner as the real estate agent informs
Bob that they only show homes in this neighborhood to the “right sort of people.” Bob
and his wife comment on how lucky they were that their parents were able to help with
the down payment. The fifth slide tells how Bob got through his teen years. The slide is
an illustration of a police officer telling Bob that he is letting him off a drug offense with
a warning, and, in the background, the slide illustrates a girl of color being arrested for
the same offense. The last slide is of Bob emphatically stating “I have never benefitted
from racism.” Due to limited time to discuss the cartoon, this tool did not command the

109
type of interaction during the workshop to make it a focus of conversation or reflection.
After the workshop, the four respondents agreed or somewhat agreed with the survey
question “The comic strip highlighted the ways individuals benefit from structural racism
added a necessary dimension to our discussion.” Conversely, one participant disagreed
and one somewhat disagreed with the survey question. One participant commented
during a cognitive interview:
We have such a range of folks on the team; the point was to highlight
institutional racism. We have a range of understanding of privilege and
oppression. I think there were a number of folks who were like, ‘yeah, I
get it;’ but my hunch is that it was eye-opening for them, but they didn’t
say much. There is a huge educational component to action research. For
some in the group, it wasn’t necessary. There were a number of folks who
said, yeah, I get it`, but the concept is central to the work we are doing.

During another cognitive interview a respondent stated, “It [comic strip] made it explicit
how CUE is viewing race in student outcomes… it [comic strip] put people in a place to
understand.” Another respondent stated, “The comic strip shows that it is possible for
individuals to not be racist from an ethical stand point….staff have indirectly benefited
from the racism in the cartoon.” The tool helped participants understand the position that
CUE had taken as it related to societal racism and its effect on society.
Campus Participation in Equity Efforts
Several of the team members were vocal about their perception that other
members of the campus were not involved in the efforts to close race and ethnicity equity
gaps in student success. A participant commented, “I see many people from the choir in
this room.” Participants also described that, at meetings that have anything to do with
equity, the participants consist of the same people. The person went on to say that there
was a need to have people taking part in the Transfer Study who were not committed to

110
equity in student outcomes so that they could benefit from the study. Another participant
commented that the institution was not conscious about racial and ethnic equity and was
more concerned about transfers in general. There were also comments that the same
people seemed to have the interest in equity, but there were more on campus that did not
overtly participate in the conversation. CUE’s intent in inviting the Critical Friends was
to address this particular concern, bringing members from the campus community to
work with the Evidence Team.
Workshop II
During Workshop II, the inquiry team met for a seven-hour meeting which
included lunch and breaks. The workshop took place in the same location as the previous
meeting with a similar seating arrangement; however, the Critical Friends were instructed
to sit on the outside of the half square where a table and chairs were situated behind the
Evidence Team. The reason for this design was to create a division of labor and so that
the Critical Friends could recall their role to help bring the Evidence Team’s study to the
broader campus community. Three of the eight Critical Friends who attended the first day
workshop were present.
Who helped you Through College?
Three activities took place after lunch. One activity was to promote social
interactions among the group and the other two were intended to initiate action planning,
a feature that recurred to connect the group activities to problem solving that was
expected to come later. The activity to promote social interaction entailed the CUE
facilitator’s conducting an icebreaker interactive activity. The activity was: “Who helped
you through college,” which was to frame the institutional agent concept discussed in

111
Chapter Two. During this activity, inquiry team members reflected on institutional
agents who were instrumental in their success in college. One participant spoke
enthusiastically of her experience, “I was completely lost at Cal coming from a small
school. I found Chicano studies; I found my peers, meeting people who were going
through the same experience, Chicano and African American students…they were very
supportive.” An African American who attended a prestigious University of California
campus stated, “I could not point to anyone who was helpful to me. I was raised in a
White environment so it taught me how to cope.”
A Latino participant spoke of the connections he made prior to his first semester
in college. “I connected with all these Chicanos and African Americans at Summer
Bridge…I hooked up with MECha (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano/a de Aztlan). When
I got there, I didn’t see anyone like me. There was this African American instructor that
kind of looked like me… he had a PhD.; he kind of mentored me.” Another experience
was of an African American participant who attended a Historically Black College and
University (HBCU) who stated that there was a high level of support saying, “When I
was in undergrad, it was people at the school, I went to an HBCU. They were guiding
me.” A Latino participant stated, “It was a calculus instructor and two graduate TA’s
from Mexico.” Nearly all of the participants of color brought up the race and ethnicity of
the students and/or institutional agents on campus who were there for them in college.
Although the intent of this activity was to shed light on how institutional agents are
critical for student success, the facilitator mentioned that it was unusual to have some
participants not to have an agent on campus, but a brother, mother or peers.

112
The reason CUE facilitates this activity is to provide the team a chance to get to
know each other better and also to allow the participants to engage in social learning of
how many students gain advantages because of the kinds of support they are provided by
institutional agents. This remediating activity allowed for practitioners to reflect and
hear just how integral institutional agents are to students. The objective is to motivate
behavioral interventions for faculty, staff, and administrators to step outside their formal
roles to build the capacity of students to succeed.
Context Mapping
Next, the CUE facilitator reviewed the agenda for the second half of the day,
discussed ground rules for the activity, and discussed hopes and concerns of engaging in
the Phase II Transfer Study. The CUE facilitator led a discussion an activity called
context mapping to map out who at LFCC has an impact on transfer and who should be
the audience for the study. The structure of the Transfer Study was discussed. This
included schedule and desired outcomes, the roles of the Evidence Team and Critical
Friends, as well as the overall role of CUE. The CUE facilitator asked what equity
means to LFCC. In addition, there was a discussion on why structure is necessary and
how to manage resistance. Finally, there was a discussion on benchmarking goals.
Figure 4.2: Cycle of Inquiry: Engagement above illustrates how this ongoing
cycle allows for learning opportunities. This starts by creating social interaction with
participants regarding transfer as the group discussed hopes and concerns. Then, they
moved into problem identification as the group reviewed data and gained an
understanding of the institutional context. The discussion, defining equity, generated
knowledge of participants’ beliefs and the facilitator shared how CUE defines equity.

113
Workshop III
Transfer Data Analysis BESST Workshop: Defining the Problem using Data
The cycle of inquiry includes analyzing data for problem framing. In this aspect
of inquiry, CUE attempts to use action research to reach problem framing from the
reactions and experiences of the participants as they conduct analysis of their own
college data. Workshop III was conducted in the same location as the previous two
workshops, and it lasted three hours. By design, this workshop had significantly lower
attendance (11) in comparison to the previous two workshops. In attendance was the
Evidence Team, CUE facilitator, a guest from a college in the same district and as the
researcher, and me as the researcher. Missing were the Critical Friends, who chose not to
join the Evidence Team. The facilitator reviewed the agenda and ground rules, and there
was a review of notes from the previous meeting. The tools used in the design study
addressed concerns during the planning meeting prior to Workshop I regarding staying
on task as well as participants’ pushing personal agendas. One of the ground rules
“staying on task” was achieved with the assistance of a timekeeper, which proved to be
helpful. The timekeeper moved the team along when topics began to broaden and moved
further away from the agenda. The timekeeper stated, “I do not think we are coming to a
consensus so I am pulling my time keeper card.” The time keeper also assisted others
who were on task, but interrupted by participants and slightly going of task by making
statements like, “I would really like him [the institutional researcher] to finish the slides
because there are really good …” The notes kept the participants going in the agreed
direction. Also, included in the review was a discussion on the definition of success
when filtering that came about through the need to decide on the data cohort of students.

114
The group then analyzed the BESST data and discussed milestones to focus on for the
study.
The team discussed at length who represented the selected cohort for each
milestone. The team spent time discussing whether the particular milestone of focus had
a large enough sample to be relevant to the study. One participant requested to remove
the orange bar representing the unsuccessful students in the cohort on the BESST
milestones because it caused some confusion. During the break, there was discussion of
whether a decision was made on which milestone to follow during the planning meeting,
prior to the Evidence Team’s involvement. The planning team explained that they had
decided on the particular milestone because of previous CUE work and the parameters of
the HSI grant. The planning team explained the rationale for choosing the cohort, which
was time, age, and HSI grant parameters. The Leadership Team asked if the participants
agreed to study milestone #4. This represented 158 students who had completed at least
60 or more transferable credits with at least a 2.0 and had completed any transfer level
English and math with grades A, B, C, P, or CR. The cohort ages ranged from 17-19 and
did not include special admissions students (students currently enrolled in both K-12 and
at LFCC). The Leadership Team stated that Milestone #4 was the second most
significant drop-off point. The Leadership Team asked if there was an agreement to
move forward, which there appeared to be with apprehension.
The purpose of this earlier planning meeting was to make sure that the leadership
team agreed on the best way to move forward so that the workshops would be productive.
In addition, it was important that everyone on the leadership team fully understood the

115
data in order to be better prepared during the process. The team used this time to
anticipate potential concerns of the Evidence Team and Critical Friends.
Figure 4.4: BESST for LFCC Evidence Team Meeting:

Figure 4.4 shows a cohort of students from 2005 to 2011 who Completed 60 plus units
with a cumulative GPA 2.0 or better and have successfully completed both transfer level
math and transfer level English. The blue numbers represent success in moving on to the
next milestone and orange represents that the number of students shown were not
successful. As shown in Figure 4.4 at M4 (milestone 4), of the 158 students, 114 were
transfer ready, and 44 of the 158 were not transfer ready after five years. During the
workshop, the CUE facilitator asked questions to encourage the inquiry team to analyze

116
student progression towards different milestones as they accumulated credits towards
transfer using the BESST.
One participant expressed, “We are working with CUE and it is expensive. All
these people around the table for 44 students who are not transfer ready…I think the
sample size is too small.” There was a suggestion to find out more about these students
by looking at transcripts and interviewing the students, considering the numbers were
manageable. A participant supported the idea. “I am thinking we could find out from
them directly what is going on. I talk to many students; I have my assumptions.”
Another participant reminded the team that the cohort started with 756 in this cohort so
anything learned from the 44 non-transfer ready students would be valuable to the larger
group. One participant pointed out “We are talking about 60 transferable units; I can tell
you what I learned: that these are persistent students. When you have a sample size of
50, the data is supposed to be statistically significant.” The consensus was that the
participants could find value in using the milestone with only 44 non-transfer ready
students although they wished the sample size were larger. The desired problem framing
was hampered by the fact that the cohort size in the study was limited.
The facilitator asked the participants what were some explanations as to why the
group of 82 students did not transfer. Inquiry team members shared some explanations
based on students’ behavior and some based on educational practice at the college. The
inquiry team offered several explanations such as that the basic skills pipeline takes too
long, that students were not able to get classes needed due to budget cuts, that students
stopped once they got to English or math, that students transferred to private colleges
early, that students’ goals were to earn an associate’s degree, that students ran out of

117
financial aid, that students were ESL, that students were international, and that students
took English and math at another college. There was also a statement suggesting cultural
practices interfering with transfer; “I work with a lot of Hmong students, and, after their
first year, they are getting married…that may be what is happening to them. There may
be cultural issues at these ages between 17-19 [years old].” This was the only point in
the activity setting that participants mentioned student-deficits.
Inquiry team members commented on whether M4 was the best milestone to
focus on as several concerns were raised. One of the inquiry team members stated, “We
may be missing a cohort of students who are not in this group like the 21 and over who
come in with the same background. I think it is important to get both sets of data, I want
to know what you consider traditional.” There was no response to the indirect question
of who was a traditional student. The facilitator shared that the BESST offers flexibility,
which could accommodate other suggestions and asked for permission to move on,
stating she would document the suggestions and revisit the request later. The CUE
facilitator then discussed Table 4.4 below which shows disaggregated race and ethnicity
transfer data representing the cohort of 158 students:

118
Table 4.4: Transfer Ready and Non-Transfer Ready Data by Ethnicity:

Ethnicity Number Percentage Number Percentage
African
American
7 6% 8 18%
Asian 6 5% 3 7%
Filipino 9 8% 2 5%
Hispanic 37 32% 10 23%
Pacific Islander 0 0% 3 7%
White 53 46% 14 32%
Other/
Unknown
2 2% 4 9%
Total 114 100% 44 100%
Source: LFCC Institutional Data
Once Table 4.4 was shown, a member of the inquiry team questioned whether or
not the fact that only seven African American students who transferred was worthy of
studying, considering the sample size. A team member stated, “Great tools! The fact that
we only have seven African American students, I wonder if we are really doing them
justice. Are we looking at a good representation by only looking at those seven that may
be different from the mass?”
Some of the Evidence Teams were concerned that, with so few African American
students in the study, there may not be enough data gathered to learn from to make the
examination useful. They were concerned that having so few African Americans who
transferred may not give enough data to accurately identify problems that could be
consistent with the majority of African Americans on campus and to use that data to
accurately represent all in this group.
Overstating Latino Student Success
Early on in the observation process, participants of the Transfer Study commented
on several occasions that LFCC Latino students have closed the equity gap. While many
gaps in outcomes of successful students exist for Latino students, the focus in the

119
Transfer Study seemed to narrow down to African American students exclusively.
Current IPEDS data and state Data Mart data for LFCC indicate that significant gaps
remain in graduation rates and course success rates. As mentioned above, SB 1440 will
allow students with an associate’s degree to transfer to CSUs and, considering the equity
gap that Latino students currently have in graduation rates, a gap will persist.
Table 4.4 explains why some participants commented on focusing only on
African American students and not on Latino students. Despite the fact that equity gaps
remain, the general perception was that the gaps did not exist with Latino students.
Comments were made such as “White students are on the same rate as Latino students, so
it reflects we are closing the gap” and “Data shows that Latino students are doing as well
as White students.” It is important to note that on some measures, Asian students at
LFCC are outperforming all racial and ethnic groups. These statements faced little, if
any, scrutiny; however, at times there was disconfirming statements such as, “When you
look at our African American and Latino students’ outcomes, it is atrocious.”
Participants seemed to show involvement in the data from the beginning to the
end. There were various ideas on how to sort and present the data into cohorts. On a few
occasions, participants commented on how the fact that the data was disaggregated by
race and ethnicity made the conversation much easier. A White participant stated, “This
is emotional for me to talk about, it has been difficult for me to talk about racism or
equity in the face of resistance. So it really helps to have institutional data specific to the
people here, done by the people here.” Based on the discussion, the researcher gathered
that race conversations were difficult for many people, and the data depersonalized the
conversation for some people. Another participant stated that having such data

120
disaggregated by race and ethnicity helped with difficult discussions situated around race.
Another commented that this sort of approach encouraged ownership of the data.
Workshop IV
Workshop IV took place in the same location with the same logistics. This
meeting included Evidence Team members and the CUE facilitator. During the activity
setting, the inquiry team analyzed the BESST data to develop hunches about structures,
policies, data practices, and special programs that may have created barriers to the 44
non-transfer ready student with 60 or more transferable units. Some of the policies
discussed dealt with placement, prerequisites, enrollment management, financial aid,
registration priorities, how courses are cut, which teachers teach the basic skills classes,
and assessments practices/polices. Structural concerns emerged in the inquiry relating to
the math lab as well as to the lack of support for students to interpret the math scores.
There was discussion on how students experience an overwhelming amount of “red tape”
when navigating from assessment to courses. In order to promote problem framing, the
following questions emerged:
 Does the math faculty know what transfer students look like?
 Does the math faculty discuss and encourage students to transfer?
 Who decides which math class students will take and does the math faculty have
input?
 Why are there only two transfer math options?
 Are adjuncts teaching one level below transfer in math and is it a disadvantage
because they do not have office hours?
 Can increasing equity be linked to funding?
 Do successful students have mentors?
 How many of the 44 non-transfer ready students in comparison to the 114 transfer
ready are taking classes in the evening and are there course limitations, in math in
particular?
 Is there a tone in the transfer level curriculum that is discouraging students from
taking classes?
 Did the students in the 44 non-transfer ready meet with a counselor regularly in
comparison to the 114 transfer ready?

121
 Are counselors too quick with students and is the advice given unevenly?
 What is the outcome difference, if any, for students who participate in special
programs like EOPS, Honors, Puente, Umoja et.?
 Do students have unclear goals?

The problem framing that resulted from the inquiry team analyzing the institutional data
raised important questions to address equity concerns, which led to the next steps of the
inquiry plan.
Next, the team engaged in problem solving. They reviewed the asset map
previously described and questioned where they could learn more about the equity gaps,
and what questions should be answered first. This allows for a questioning of the
structural determinants of current educational practices (Dowd, et al., in press a). The
asset mapping and problem framing provide avenues for further inquiry by asking
evaluative questions, using evaluation logic, and gathering data from these questions,
which then makes on-going decision making possible (Patton, 2011). Resulting from the
inquiry, the team decided to develop a plan and to create subgroups to address six
activities of experimentation/problem solving:
1. Red Tape Map–Was an activity with the purpose of analyzing what students
experience as institutional barriers when in route to transfer level English and
math courses as well as meeting necessary requirements to move along the basic
skills pipeline. The Evidence Team subgroup that participated in this activity
believed that this mapping process would help determine if the paperwork or
onerous processes are barriers for students who would otherwise become transfer
ready. The Evidence Team subgroup responsible for this activity planned to talk
with counselors as well as to navigate through the English and math enrollment
process as a student would from start to finish. During this process, they hoped to

122
discover if there were barriers that were contributing to the reason the 44 students
were not transfer ready in the BESST cohort they had analyzed.
2. Data on Math Assessment to Enrollment–to determine if those who are transfer
ready and those who are not transfer ready have different math course-taking
patterns. This Evidence Team subgroup examined dates of enrollment, GPAs,
and grades in particular math courses.
3. Enrollment in Special Programs–to determine if the non-transfer ready group had
different patterns of enrollment in special programs (EOPS, Umoja, Puente et.).
4. Education Plans– to determine if the 44 non-transfer ready group had different
education plan patterns than the 114 transfer ready group.
5. Research data collection-to determine which office pulls data on students who are
nearing transfer ready status, when is it collected, and what it was used for.
6. Counselor visits– determine how frequently and when students in the 144 versus
the 44 visit with a counselor.
Workshop V
Workshop V included the Evidence Team and the researcher as the observer.
This was the first Transfer Study inquiry meeting that did not include a CUE facilitator.
Although leadership team members have led activities throughout the study, this
workshop was the first where the two leadership team members facilitated the workshop
on their own, which demonstrated a sign of re-mediation of the practitioners’ practice. It
is important to note that the transfer data was not disaggregated by race and ethnicity on
the reports generated, which also shows that their practice was not fully remediated.
Disaggregating the data was discussed and a couple of participants commented that, if the

123
data were disaggregated, the numbers might be too low to have statistical value for
analyzing. Using CUE’s tools and process, such as agenda, review of notes, and ground
rules, the inquiry team was able to continue the action research without the assistance of
CUE’s facilitator. The inquiry team reviewed the notes from Workshop IV to address the
planning team’s concern of staying on task. The team reported on the red tape map, the
education plan data of the 144 transfer ready and 44 non-transfer ready students, and the
math transcript data of the 44 non-transfer ready students.
The inquiry team first discussed the education plan review by trying to determine
significant patterns between the 114 who were transfer ready and the 44 who were not.
A participant stated, “My hunch is that, if a student is a part of the 114, then they are
more likely to have an education plan, make their education plan earlier, and probably get
the plan updated more often.” Data from the sub group of evidence team members who
looked at data on transfer ready and non-transfer ready students with and without
education plans, how often the education plans were updated, and the number of
education plans for each student was shared. After reviewing the data, one of the inquiry
team members stated, “There is not much of a difference whether they had an education
plan or not. There is only a 7% difference.” There was a discussion on whether the 7%
was statistically significant and what was useful from this information. Because the
design study includes multiple field sites, data from multiple sites can be used to support
findings. A follow-up statement was “Should we even look at education plans because is
there little difference if a student had one or not?” Another comment from reading the
data was, “If they had an education plan in their first year, they were three times more

124
likely to have it updated three or more times.” The analyzing of the data and the
discussion that followed was informative for the group as good questions emerged.
The team’s inquiry raised many questions, such as how are students getting the
information regarding transfer if they are not seeing counselors, but still completing 60 or
more transfer units and many are transferring. A problem framing with data statement
was made as to whether the education plan even matters between milestones 4 and 5,
suggesting the length of the education plan may matter. The nature of the problem
defining and solving task seems to be taking on more nuances; becoming more specific
and informed by the data.
Student-perceived deficits emerged a couple of times from the same one
participant who made statements such as, “Life’s issues for someone who is 18-
24...things happen, an education plan does not fix that…kid gets married.” Each time the
participant raised the student deficits concern, members from the inquiry team quickly
went back to look at what they could do to influence the graduation rate for students. An
example was a team member stating, “Looking at the number of failures the first year, I
wonder if it is saying something pedagogically about our ability to work with a student
right out of high school,” putting the focus back on the practitioners. This member went
on to analyze the data stating that no matter what level students assess in their first year,
they struggle, and suggested there may be a cultural capital gap. There was a finding that
the students that were transfer ready had more education plans in general. There was also
a lot of discussion on the length of the education plans and if it was beneficial to have a
multiple education plan similar to the educational plans that EOPS’ students receive.
This was an example of problem solving/experimental in the inquiry cycle.

125
Next, the inquiry team analyzed the transcript data of the 44 students who did not
transfer looking particularly at math courses. This Evidence Team subgroup displayed a
five-year chart that outlined the semesters the students took math, the actual course taken,
their grades, and their majors. One of the first discoveries from a math faculty member
was that he assumed that part of the reason students did not do well in math was because
they delayed taking math until they finished other general education requirements and
were losing much of what they had learned in high school. The math faculty framed the
problem by stating, “Before doing this exercise, I thought students did not start math
right away. This is not the case; they are not blowing math off the first two and half
years. I have been preaching that for years; they are actually taking math sooner than I
thought.” There was a suggestion to look at the African American students who became
transfer ready and to attempt to get qualitative data from them on how they were
successful at LFCC.
Finally, the “red tape” Evidence Team subgroup engaged in problem framing
through remediated social interactions by creating a skit to address symbols/artifacts,
which represented practices that otherwise may have remained invisible. The subgroup
posted paper labeled A&R, Assessment, Financial Aid, Counseling, EOPS, DSPS, and
Other representing different areas in student services. They asked participants to write
down anything they saw as “red tape,” while the Evidence Team subgroup performed a
skit representing the journey of a first time student’s experiences at LFCC. Each time a
lead of the subgroup heard what was perceived as “red tape” for the participant playing
the student, she explained that she would place red tape on the student. This activity
allowed for problem framing in student services through social interaction. When the

126
skit was over, the lead playing the student had red tape all over her and there was plenty
of writing on the student services area paper on the walls. The skit was received very
well. However, there were a couple of participants who questioned how it affected the 44
non-transfer ready students between milestone 4 and 5. The conclusion was that some of
the experiences would affect the identified group, but not so much that the study would
continue to look at all the areas mentioned. Because the skit of the student’s journey was
so informative, there was a suggestion to present it at Flex Cal for all faculty.
Discussion
The research conducted examined whether action research using CUE’s Equity
Scorecard tools and processes had an influence on faculty, staff and administrators’
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors when aiming to close racial and ethnic equity gaps in
transfer rates at LFCC. Practitioners were engaged in inquiry throughout the study,
suggesting that CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and process facilitated social learning in
the activity setting where influence was possible. This also suggests that participants
were willing to entertain the idea of receiving new knowledge, which could influence
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.
Findings showed that using the CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and process,
practitioners acknowledge accountability for racial and ethnic student success outcomes
in transfer of LFCC students. CUE’s facilitator used artifacts that framed equity-
mindedness and student deficit mindedness, which led to several examples of
practitioners’ taking accountability for closing racial and ethnic equity gaps.
Practitioners made statements such as, “It is profound getting away from the student
deficit model. We have the perception that it is K-12, nuclear family; but [the question

127
is] what can we do with the students we have.” I also found that practitioners Overstated
Latino student success. This finding emerged from inquiry when participants stated that
there was not an equity gap for Latino students and other participants stated there was a
gap in certain courses.
Findings highlighted that, when practitioners engaged in the activity setting, there
were attempts to divert the racial and ethnic focus to other meaningful social justice
issues. However, the evidence from this study shows how CUE assists an inquiry
process focused on equity by altering a group when they are diverting from a focus on
equity and providing the capacity to make it clear when social norms encouraging
broader discussion of diversity divert the focus from race. Also, the social learning of
participants, racial and ethnic disaggregation of the data and the preliminary planning
prior to the workshops assisted in refocusing these attempts.
The findings also show that there was a desire for campus participation in equity
and diversity discussions due to the team’s satisfaction with the inquiry that was taking
place. Many of the participants commented favorably on the workshops and how the
disaggregation of data made discussing race and ethnicity easier and that the rest of the
campus needed to be present. Observations, interviews and surveys also support that the
participants believed that others on the LFCC campus did not operate from an equity-
minded frame.
Action research, using CUE’s Equity Scorecard tools and process provided the
activities from which themes emerged. The tools and process also allowed for attitudes,
beliefs and behaviors to be influenced within the team meetings, but less so in regards to
the problem solving phase where the team had not reached a point of taking action. The

128
reoccurring themes that emerged from observations, cognitive interviews, and surveys
warrant further inquiry and discussion. There were also challenges in using action
research, which will be discussed with recommendations in Chapter Five.

129
CHAPTER FIVE:
CONCLUSION
Summary of findings
Higher education has not produced racial and ethnic equity in student success and
degree completion in the United States (Moore & Shulock, 2010). Higher education will
benefit from organizational change and the institutionalization of practices that lead to
equity for all students through action research. Traditionally underserved racial and
ethnic populations continue to have lower success and completion rates than the White
dominant culture students (NECS, 2011). Society will experience devastating economic
impact if there are not major improvements in degree completion rates amongst racial
and ethnic groups that are completing the fewest degrees, in particularly Hispanics
because of their growing population (Museus & Quaye, 2009). The equity gaps are of
great concern in higher education and society due to the fact that less than half of African
American and Hispanic students will graduate from a four-year institution within six
years once they matriculate into college (Carey, 2008; Kelley, Schneider, & Carey,
2010).
This study was part of a larger collective design study that included community
colleges and universities. The purpose of this design study was to determine the
influence of action research, using the Center for Urban Education’s (CUE) Equity
Scorecard, on practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors when addressing racial and
ethnic equity in higher education. CUE aims to reframe the framework under which
practitioners practice from being student-deficit to equity-minded. Findings indicate that
action research is effective in influencing the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of

130
practitioners when addressing equity issues. The field site for this study was Las Flores
Community College (LFCC). Prior to this study, LFCC worked with CUE dating to
2006. LFCC chose CUE’s action research approach because of inequitable student
outcomes on their campus. The data in the collective studies support findings that
answered my research questions.
To summarize, CUE facilitated the action research process analyzing racial and
ethnic student outcomes. The inquiry team participated in CUE’s workshops, which
included asset mapping, institutional agent activity, defining a clear definition of equity,
defining inquiry team roles, and the BESST. During the inquiry focused workshops,
participants engaged in social learning, reflection, knowledge building, problem
identification, analysis, action and planning. The data gathered through observation,
cognitive interviews and surveys support the findings that practitioners who utilize action
research remediate their practices. This remediation is due to the influence action
research has on practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward equity. The data
collected supports that the practitioners took on an equity-minded framework in
accepting accountability for equity at LFCC when engaging in action research.
Specifically, findings demonstrate that, when practitioners participate in action
research using CUE’s Equity Scorecard, their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are
influenced. Findings suggest that practitioners accept accountability for inequitable
student outcomes. However, there is evidence that the participants in the study believed
that there was not an equity gap for Latino students; therefore, they did not include
Latinos in the Transfer Study. Findings show that, when participating in action research,
participants’ desire for other practitioners from around campus to also participate in

131
equity efforts on campus. Findings also suggest that, when discussing race and ethnicity
in action research, some participants in this case study, White participants, attempt to
divert the focus to other social issues.
Recommendations
The recommendations in this chapter are informed by the findings and suggest
directions for CUE and other action researchers in higher education as well as
practitioners on campuses aiming to close racial and ethnic equity gaps.
CUE and other Action Researchers: Develop Accountability Artifacts
Many higher education practitioners have blamed cultures, environments,
motivation, employment, and prior educational experiences for the lack of equitable
outcomes by minority groups such as African Americans and Latinos (Bensimon &
Malcom, 2012; Margolis et al., 2008). However, the accountability the practitioners
expressed on the inquiry team at LFCC reflected a different set of beliefs. Findings
presented here strongly support that, by using action research, CUE was able to increase
accountability amongst practitioners. Having practitioners accept accountability is vital
in order to move from a student deficit-mindset to one of equity-mindedness, which
impacts the practitioners’ practices. Tools like the cartoon, the student-deficit
framework, the equity-minded framework, and the process utilized in inquiry led
practitioners to discuss inequity in student transfer from an equity-minded framework.
This accountability was demonstrated by participants’ taking responsibility for equity in
student outcomes, which is not typical in higher education (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009).
The findings indicate, however, that the influence of action research on campuses
is limited to the inquiry team and their actions thereafter. There are limitations to the

132
observations in terms of seeing what happens outside the Evidence Team and after the
data is collected. Theoretically, the inquiry team’s action will lead to organizational
change. However, changing the institutional culture, which consists of practitioners’
practices, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors on a campus, is a slow process
when moving to equity-mindedness because so few institutional actors participate in the
action research. To have a greater impact, it is necessary to broaden the culture of
accountability on campuses where action research is taking place to include practitioners
who are not on the inquiry team. Considering that the inquiry teams are limited in
numbers, a recommendation is that CUE and other action researchers create materials
like a workbook with tools that lead practitioners to accept accountability.
The design of the workbook should allow the tool to be completed independently
so that it does not require facilitation initially. The facilitation and social interaction
should come later from the faculty leads who participated in CUE’s workshops. This
will give the practitioners who did not participate in the inquiry a framework to begin
organizational change. The tools in the workbook should include institutional agent
concepts, suggested literature on equity, deficit-minded framework, equity-minded
framework, and the cartoon. A workbook will allow non-inquiry team members a
tangible and convenient way to engage in equity work, which will help facilitate equity-
mindedness campus wide. This will strengthen the opportunity for organizational change
to include those who are not on the inquiry team. Then, this group would be more
receptive to organizational change and better prepared to join future inquiry teams.
A second recommendation is that the materials that are created be used with new
employees in districts that have committed to student equity, so that they will understand

133
the culture of the campus from the very first day. New employees should be expected to
complete the workbook during their orientation at a time when they are expected to learn
about the institution. This workbook could be used as a tool to begin the cycle of inquiry
(Figure 4.2). New knowledge could be gained from the material, beliefs could be
influenced, reflection could occur, problem identification through data analysis could
occur, and problem solving and action could take place. Social interaction and deeper
inquiry should take place in that the inquiry team faculty leads facilitate discussions
using the workbook as a point of reference. The inquiry meetings should take place
during mid-year professional development, which most colleges participate. This gives
the new employee an opportunity to have their own experiences on the campus and feel
more comfortable prior to social interaction and more in-depth inquiry.
To encourage dialogue, it is recommended that an ongoing equity committee be
created, like the Equity Task Force or the Equity Planning group, if one does not exist.
The purpose of this group would be to focus on equity issues on campus. This group
should then schedule a meeting during mid-year professional development days to
engage in inquiry with new employees regarding equity after reading the material and a
semester of experience. Creating artifacts will give practitioners who are not
participating on the inquiry team opportunities at organizational learning and the idea of
double-loop learning. This will give them the opportunity to acquire the funds of
knowledge to become accountable. This will also help practitioners move away from
the single-loop learning approach, which is often student-deficit minded. The workbook
would cultivate a new norm of equity in the campus long after CUE leaves.

134
Campuses need buy-in at a broader level so that equity dialogue and action are the
norms in the organization. CHAT’s frame of reference in “cultural” learning is that “all
learning takes place in settings that have particular sets of cultural and social norms and
expectations and that these settings influence learning and transfer in powerful ways”
(Ogawa et al., 2008, p. 83). Learning takes place in the context of every aspect of
culture as our thoughts and decisions are influenced by the values, norms, assumptions
and expectations of the cultures, and affects our lens of the environment (Dowd et al., in
press a). Ogawa et al. (2008) explain learning with CHAT as “the process which people
master and appropriate cultural tools and meaning while engaging in activities” (p. 85).
This tool would be active in the setting where cultural, social norms and expectations are
established for the college. Integrating equity campus-wide by involving all new
employees and non-inquiry team members using tools created by action researchers will
lead to greater institutional organizational change.
Another recommendation for CUE and other action researchers is to develop a
pre- and post-action research survey to determine the level of influence action research
has on the practitioners’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors from their perspective. The
questions should gauge attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. For example:
1. I believe racial and ethnic equity gaps in student outcomes exist because students
from some racial and ethnic backgrounds and cultures are not interested in
education.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

2. I believe that some racial and ethnic groups and cultures are better learners than
others.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

3. I believe equity in racial and ethnic student success is my responsibility.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree

135
4. I believe that as an institution we should target racial and ethnic equity gaps and
develop strategies to close the gaps.
Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
It is recommended that the pre-survey be given to the entire campus in a controlled
setting, such as a division meeting. The post-survey should then be given to practitioners
who participated in the action research study. The data should be collected and returned
to the action researchers to be analyzed to determine the influence of action research on
participants in comparison to practitioners who have not participated in action research.
The data will give CUE and other action researchers in higher education valuable
information on their influence compared to not those on campus who have not
experienced action research. The data results should also be used to support the research
method.
Recommendation for Practitioners: Increase accountability
Using CHAT concepts, all learning takes place on campuses with cultural and
social norms and expectations. It is recommended that, as a norm and expectation, the
practitioners use the previously recommended artifacts created by CUE and other action
researchers for non-inquiry team members. This will broaden the scope of equity-
mindedness and remediate more than just the inquiry team. The inquiry team lead
faculty should facilitate analyzing of the data each semester in each division meeting
with all faculty. Analyzing disaggregated data once a semester needs to be an ongoing
activity. Without this process, the non-inquiry team members will not reflect on their
practices.
It is recommended that LFCC broaden their scope of study where equity gaps
exist disaggregating the certificate and degree completion data to see if there is

136
specifically a degree equity gap with Latino students. If the gap remains, there will be a
transfer gap considering AB 1440 Transfer Model Curricula (TMC). AB 1440 will allow
students to transfer to CSUs with an approved California community college associates
degree. All California community colleges will be expected to have 80% of the degree
programs that offer an associate’s degree in place by Fall 2013 and 100% by Fall 2014.
Recommendation for CUE and other Action Researchers: Clearer Expectations to
avoid Diversion
The phenomenon of White practitioners diverting the focus from race and
ethnicity to other social issues is explained in Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT states
that many White people consider Whiteness the norm and that neutrality is equivalent to
whiteness (Bergerson, 2003). This notion suggests that the practitioners may feel that
they are addressing all ethnicities by focusing on broader issues that touch every group
when, in fact, the White dominant norm would be the lens through which the issues are
being examined. Culp (1994) stated that not focusing on race allows for the opportunity
to avoid difficult conversation without discussing the moral system which needs
dialogue. In this case, the moral systems include attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of
practitioners when examining equity in student outcomes. Bergerson (2003), citing
Sleeter, explains the reason for White people to divert the focus from race:
The underlying problem is that whites do not want to consider race and
racism as everyday realities, because doing so requires them to face their
own racist behaviors as well as the privilege that comes from being white.
According to Sleeter to discuss “White racism challenges the legitimacy
of White people’s very lives” (p.14).

My findings illustrate how White participants can step up to “center stage” and
attempt to divert the focus to other social issues. In this instance, a non-White male

137
stepped up in response and shared the importance of focusing on race and ethnicity.
Although the dialogue was open to the entire group, Bergerson (2003) suggests that:
Part of our white privilege was our placement at the center of inquiry. So
strong is this expectation of holding center stage that even when time and
place are specifically designated for members of the non-privilege group
to be central, members of the dominant group will often attempt to take
back the pivotal focus.

Sleeter writes, “we [whites] nevertheless get in the way and deflect attention away from
primary concerns of people of color” (p.5).
From the onset of the first workshop, the facilitator stated that CUE’s focus is on
race and ethnicity in student outcomes. Throughout the first couple of workshops, a few
of the White participants attempted to divert the conversation by suggesting that the
focus also be on other social issues such as student’s socioeconomic levels, disabilities,
and sexual orientation. During a cognitive interview, a White participant stated, “It’s
frustrating that, when we talk about equity, we only talk about race. We never talk about
the culture on this campus and whether it is supportive of LGBT...we never talk about
religion. The lesbian and gay issues can help us understand.” The social learning process
and the CUE facilitation were successful in redirecting the focus to race and ethnicity, but
time was lost.
From the beginning, the facilitator of the workshops should inform participants
that there is a natural desire to include other important social issues on which to focus,
but this work focuses on race and ethnicity. It is recommended that the facilitator spend
40 minutes allowing participants to share other important social issues not race related
that affect equity in higher education. The facilitator should explain that this is the
opportunity to express other concerns before delving into the focus on race and ethnicity

138
exclusively. The facilitator can record this information on a posted piece of paper
labeled “LFCC Important Issues to Discuss.” A box symbolizing confinement could be
used to place the social issues in after all suggestions are included. The facilitator could
then ask the group for a leader to commit to discussing the issues at a later time and not
during the CUE workshops. Each time a participant diverts, s/he should be reminded that
the issue is in the “LFCC Important Issue to Discuss” box. If the attempt to divert is a
new issue and not in the box, it should be placed there before moving forward. This will
make participants feel heard and validate that their issue deserves time for dialogue. The
facilitator should continue the remind participants until it is very clear to all participants
of the focus. It is also recommended that CUE develop tools to help participants acquire
the funds of knowledge so that practitioners can take center stage advocating for the
focus on race and ethnicity when their colleagues attempt to divert the conversation.
Recommendation for Practitioners: Adopt a willingness to take center stage and
advocate for a focus on race and ethnicity
The findings illustrated a case where, while observing a White participant
attempting to divert the conversation, a non-White participant explained the importance
of focusing on race and ethnicity and the uniqueness of the issue. He explained that the
racial issue is, in fact, different than the other social issues the participant wanted to focus
on. The participant who advocated for the focus on race and ethnicity did so effectively
and actually brought the diverter around to the point that she thanked him for his
explanation. During social interaction, to return the focus back to race, he stated, “You
are not judged morally when you are Black, or because of economic status nor a person
who is first generation. Poor White people can make it to college and they made it. For

139
Blacks and Latinos, they will always have the racism issue.” She stated that she now
understands the importance of staying focused. It is unclear how successful the diverter
would have been or how much additional time would have been lost in attempts to divert
if the advocate for the focus on race and ethnicity had not convincingly stated his
position. It is recommended that, when participating in action research focused on
equity, practitioners take center stage and advocate for the focus on race and ethnicity
when their colleagues attempt to divert to other social issues. A guiding question could
be, “Are the experiences of students of color different from the White dominant culture?”
Most, if not all, practitioners would agree on the answer. At this point, it would be
necessary to advocate for examining the equity issue from a non-normative White
perspective. It is important to share with participants that “Part of White privilege is the
sense that Whiteness is normal or neutral (Bergerson, p.59). Additional questions that
can be raised to de-center stage are, “How do you imagine a person of color (Latino,
African American) would answer this question?” Also, asking people of color if they are
comfortable providing a different perspective if one exists would assist in re-centering.
These questions bring the focus back to a non-neutral perspective.
Recommendation for CUE and other Action Researchers: Develop strategies for
broader campus participation
Observational data from the inquiry teams, cognitive interviews, and the survey
results suggest that participants in the Transfer Study have a desire for greater campus
participation in equity. Participants commented that the same people on campus
participate in equity conversation and there needs to be a broader discussion. It is
recommended that CUE and other action researchers develop an institutional process that

140
includes the entire campus. As accreditation commissions are addressing equity issues
with their recommendations to institutions, campuses may be more inclined to accept
campus-wide initiatives regarding equity. The accreditation commission for higher
education addresses equity in student outcomes in higher education more than at any
previous time. The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
(ACCJC) placed Amarillo Community College, a field site in the design study, on the
sanction “warning” and recommended the following:
In order to meet the standard, the team recommends that the College expand its
data collection, analysis and planning related to meeting the needs and fostering
the success of an increasingly diverse student population. Student and staff
equity and diversity plans should be fully integrated with the College’s planning
process

ACCJC provides standards that all accredited colleges and universities must follow. The
following standards are the guiding principles that ACCJC referenced in the
recommendation above:
The institution identifies and seeks to meet the varied educational needs of its
students through programs consistent with their educational preparation and the
diversity, demographics, and economy of its communities. The institution uses
delivery modes and teaching methodologies that reflect the diverse needs and
learning styles of its students. The institution researches and identifies the
learning support needs of its student population and provides appropriate services.
The institution demonstrates through policies and practices an appropriate
understanding of and concern for issues of equity and diversity. The institution
subscribes to, advocates, and demonstrates integrity in the treatment of its
administration, faculty, staff, and students.
The ACCJC standards and guiding principles direct institutions to have equitable
outcomes and, if the institution does not have equitable outcomes, then they must
demonstrate through policies and practices that they address equity. ACCJC’s standards

141
related to addressing equity should provide the necessary momentum for equity
initiatives on campuses.
It is also recommended that CUE and other action researches offer ideas to
inquiry teams on how to broaden the conversation campus-wide. They might generate a
list of activities campuses participate in like equity committees, equity as a measurement
for institutional strategic planning, or integrate equity goals into the Education Master
Planning.
It is recommended that practitioners make an effort to recruit their colleagues who
are willing to be active in addressing equitable student outcomes. It is also recommended
that practitioners become a voice on campus to encourage dialogue. It is recommended
that practitioners make an effort to incorporate equity in all aspects of the campus, such
as institutional strategic planning, Basic Skills Initiatives, Education Master Plan and
department discussions.
Conclusion
Like most colleges in the United Sates, California community colleges are facing
enormous racial and ethnic equity gaps in successful outcomes. The federal government,
state governments, and private entities have led initiatives to address degree completion
and serious equity issues. Some of these initiatives are Inclusive Excellence, California
Basic Skills Initiative, Compass, LEAP, CSU Graduation Initiative, Complete College
America, Association of United States Colleges and Universities’ (AAC&U) High-
Impact Educational Practices, and Compete to Complete.
There has not been a unified effort to address racial and ethnic equity in higher
education. This study is evidence that action research is effective in influencing

142
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of practitioners when addressing racial and ethnic equity
in student outcomes in higher education. When attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors change
towards equity-mindedness, organizational change takes place leading to remediation of
practitioners’ practice.
As a practitioner studying action research using CUE’s tools and process, I
learned how to frame racial and ethnic equity in higher education as a national concern in
the United States to the practitioners on my campus. I have shared with my campus the
societal consequences if higher education does not improve degree completion equitably.
I have learned the benefits of sharing state and federal initiatives to improve degree
completion and equity, which is that practitioners become aware of the collective effort
in higher education nationally. Framing the inequity in higher education and
consequences from a national perspective has decreased some of the defensiveness on my
campus.
When aiming for organizational change to address racial and ethnic equity gaps, I
have learned the importance of approaching the topic skillfully, which minimized
defensiveness. Using data to create ownership, I have learned to institutionalize the data
to my campus, but not individuals. I have learned that utilizing action research with the
practitioners as the researchers creates involvement in solving inequity. Also, I have
learned that using a facilitator from outside the college where the research is taking place
is vital. An outside facilitator helps those within the activity setting navigate around
institutional culture that may be counterproductive to organizational change in regards to
racial and ethnic equity. I also learned that an outside facilitator can help surface

143
conscious or unconscious biases that individuals may have, which could divert from the
purpose of the study.
The findings in my research helped me understand that when there are attempts at
diversion from race and ethnicity, I should not take the behavior personally. I now
understand that the diversion may be a reaction due to some practitioners may not have
the knowledge or a feeling of comfort to tackle this sensitive topic. As I am leading my
campus update of our Student Equity Plan (SEP), I lean on what I have learned regarding
diversion often. I have also provided the committee with Title 5 SEP guidelines, which
help me facilitate the group in staying focused on the work at hand.
The knowledge I gained in my research has provided me with the language and
expertise to write institutional grants that led to funding for professional development
concerning equity issues on my campus. The knowledge gained from my research also
provided me with the language to engage in conversations regarding equity in a skillful
way that was neither threatening nor accusatory. I did this by using disaggregated data,
along with literature on equity. The knowledge that I gained also built my confidence to
voice thoughts and opinions on how my campus should move forward when addressing
equity. Prior to my research, I had the desire to voice ideas, but never had the confidence
to fully advocate for action. My research has helped my campus because I have the
knowledge and confidence to speak freely about racial and ethnic equity. As a result,
other practitioners on campus are also speaking freely about the topic that was once
avoided. During institutional planning meetings, I now hear others asking the question,
“Well, what is the impact on racial and ethnic equity?” More often practitioners on
campus are digging deeper asking the institutional researcher for more information on

144
data sets dealing with race and ethnicity. Most importantly and unequivocally, I learned
that attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors can be influenced by action research when aiming
for racial and ethnic equity.

145
REFERENCES
Achieving the Dream. (2011). Guiding Evidence-Based Institutional Change. Retrieved
April, 17, 2011, from http://achievingthedream.org/
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U)
http://www.aacu.org/compass/inclusive_excellence.cfm
Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education Pays 2010: The Benefits of Higher
Education for Individuals and Society. College Board Advocay & Policy Center.
P. 1-56.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in
the scholarship of student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-
469.
Bensimon, E. M., Rueda, R., Dowd, A. C., & Harris III, F. (2007). Accountability,
equity, and practitioner learning and change. Metropolitan, 18(3), 28-45.

Bergerson, A., A, (2003). Critical race theory and White racism: is there room for White
scholars in fighting racism in education? Qualitative Studies in Education. 16 (1),
51-63.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. (2003). College rankings and ratings: The test of reputation. In
E.G. Bogue & K. Hall (Eds.), Quality and accountability in higher education:
Improving policy, enhancing performance (pp. 51-75). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public,
academic, and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of
accountability (pp. 1-24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
California Community College Basic Skills Accountability Report, 2009.California
Community College Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO).
California State University Graduation Initiative http://graduate.csuprojects.org/.
Carey, K. (2008). Graduation Rate Watch: Making Minority Student Success a Priority.
Education Sector, p. 36.
Cooper, M. A., (2010). Investing in Education and Equity: Our Nations Best Future.
Diversity & Democracy; Civic Learning for Shared Futures, 13 (1), 1-4.
http://www.diversityweb.org/DiversityDemocracy/vol13no3/index.cfm.
Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
Denzin, N. K., (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. 2
nd
ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, NK. (1978). Sociological Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

146
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S., (2000). Handbook of qualitative research.. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
Dowd, A. C. (2008). The community college as gateway and gatekeeper: Moving beyond
the access “saga” to outcome equity. Harvard Educational Review, 77(4), 407-
419.
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2009). CUE frameworks for action, research, and
evaluation. Los Angeles: 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.
Dowd, A. C., Malcom, L.E. Nakamoto, J. & Bensimon, E.M. (2012). Institutional
researchers as teachers and equity advocates: Facilitating organizational learning
and change. Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the Equity
Scorecard in theory and practice. E. M. Bensimon and L. Malcom. Sterling, VA,
Stylus Publishing.
Dowd, A. C., R. Bishop, E. M. Bensimon, & K. Witham (2011). Accountability for
equity in postsecondary education. Urban education: A model for leadership and
policy. K. S. Gallagher, R. Goodyear, D. J. Brewer and R. Rueda. New York,
Routledge: 170-185.
Dowd & Tong (2007). Dowd chapter on Accountability Assessment and Best Practices.
Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. pp.57-199 Vol. XXLL.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned
action approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Freedle, R O. (2003). Correcting the SAT's ethnic and social-class bias: A method for
reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 1, 1-43.
Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Leveraging promise and expanding opportunity
in higher education. Albany: SUNY Press.
Goldberg, B., & Morrison, D. M. (2003). Co-Nect: Purpose, accountability, and school
leadership. In J. Murphy & A. Datnow (Eds.), Leadership lessons from
comprehensive school reforms (pp. 57-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Grubb, W. N., & Badway, N. N. (2005). From compliance to improvement:
Accountability and assessment in California 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: Sage Publications.

147
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, Vol 33, 2009, 33, 212-245.
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.
Hill K., Hoffman D. & Rex T.R., (2005) The Value of Higher Education: Individual and
Societal Benefits. www.wpcarey.asu.edu/seid/.
Hentschke, G. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2004). Cracking the code of accountability.
USCUrban Ed. Los Angeles: University of Southern California: Rossier School
of Education
Jerald, C. D., Haycock, K., & Wilkins, A. (2009). House of Representatives (HR) 4872.
Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c111:H.R.4872:. Fighting for quality and equality, too: How state
policymakers can ensure the drive to improve teacher quality doesn't just trickle
down to poor and minority children. K-12 Policy Education Trust.
Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener's tale.
American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215.
Kelly, A. P., Schneider, M., & Carey, K. (2010). Rising to the Challenge: Hispanic
College Graduation Rates as a National Priority. American Enterprise Institute for
Public Research; P.99.
Kuenzi, J. (2008). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
Education: Background, Federal Policy, and Legislative Action. Congressional
Research Service. P. 1-30.
Kuh, D., G. (2008). High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has
Access to Them, and Why They Matter. AAC&U.
Long, B. T., & Riley, E. (2007). Financial Aide: A Broken Bridge to College Access?
Harvard Educational Review, 77(1), 39-63Margolis, J. (2008). Stuck in the
shallow end: Education, race, and computing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we Fail: Improving Completion and Closing
Racial Gaps in California’s Community Colleges. Institution for Higher
Education Leadership and Policy. 1-22.
Museus, S.D., Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an Intercultural Perspective of Racial and
Ethnic Minority College Student Persistence. Review of Higher Education,33 (1),
67-94.
Museus, S. D., Nichols, A. H., & Lambert, A. D. (2008). Racial differences in the effects
of campus racial climate on degree completion: A structural equation model.
Review of Higher Education, 32(1), 107-134.

148
National Governor’s Association (NGA) (2011). Retrieved February 18, 2011, from
http://www.subnet.nga.org/ci/1011/.
Nation at Risk (NR) (1983). Retrieved December 10, 2010, from
http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race,
culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449-475.
Noffke, S. E. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research.
Review of Educational Research, 22, 305-343.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to
enhance innovation and use. New York: The Guilford Press.
Perez, C. (2002). Different tests, same flaws: Examining the SATI, SATII, and ACT.
Journal of College Admission, 172, 20-25.
Ouimet, J. A., Bunnage, J. C., Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Kennedy, J. (2004). Using
focusgroups, expert advice, and cognitive interviews to establish the validity of a
college student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45, 233-250.
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:
Sage Publications.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-L. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural-historical
activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Schein, E. H. (1985). How Leaders Embed and Transmit Culture. In Organizational
Culture and Leadership (pp. 223-243). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (in press). A social capital framework for the study of institutional
agents and the empowerment of low-status youth. Youth and Society.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

149
Sudarkasa, N. (1988). Can we afford equity and excellence? Can we afford less?
Academe, 74(5), 23-26.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The
Condition of Education 2010 (NCES 2010-028).
Willis, Gordon B. (2005) Cognitive Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.
Wright, J. (2011, December 2). Equity gap persists in transfer. Las Flores Community
College News, pp.A1, A3.

150
Appendix A
Dear Colleague Letter

February 4, 2012

Dear Colleague,

The Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California is currently conducting a
developmental self evaluation study. The study has three 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; second, to improve our effectiveness in conducting action research for the
purposes of improving equity in higher education; and third to use the results to share what we learn with
our action research partners.
The purpose of this letter is to let you know that as a participant in a CUE workshop or Equity Scorecard
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.
Participation is strictly voluntary.
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 multiple
participants on your campus or aggregated across different field sites to communicate themes or issues
that are pertinent in your setting.

151
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

University of Southern California • Rossier School of Education • Waite Phillips Hall, Suite 702
Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037 • T 213.740.5202 • F 213.740.3889 • http://cue.usc.edu

152
Appendix B
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 meeting in which you
were a participant (approximately 15 minutes)
• Complete an on-line questionnaire utilizing a web-based link (approximately 15 minutes)
• Participate in one or more individual telephone or in-person interviews following a
workshop or team meeting (approximately 30-40 minutes each)
• Participate in a focus group (approximately 1.0 hour 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.

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.

Developmental evaluation is neither formative nor summative evaluation; just as the name implies, it
is used specifically to aid in the ongoing development of materials and processes that are by nature
dynamic, interactive, and innovative.

Q. Who else is involved in this study?
Currently, faculty, administrators, and counselors at three community colleges, one state university,
and two liberal arts colleges (all in California) have been invited to participate. We anticipate having
10 to 30 participants per site, 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.

1
See Patton, M. Q. (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use.
New York: Guilford Press.

153
Appendix C
Researcher Notes
TIME PERIOD/TASK
December 8, 2011
10:30-5:30
(#)
Las Flores Community College
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)

Site

Mood

Task

Social Context
Participants were:

Behavioral Intentions

154

Behavioral Intentions
(expressed next steps,
plans, norms)

Environmental
Constraints
(expressed concerns or
hopes, perceived
limitations of self, team or
resources)
Reflection/Analysis

155
Appendix D
Cognitive Interview Protocol: Las Flores Community College Evaluations January, 2012

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 at the Kick-off meeting, 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 30 to 40 minutes, unless I run out of thing to ask you
before then.
7. Do you have any questions before we begin?

156
Cognitive Interview Protocol

Date: Interview # : Interviewer initials:

Start Time of Interview:

1. The comic strip highlighting the ways individuals benefit from structural racism added a
necessary dimension to our discussion.
Disagree to Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

If you agreed, what type of dimension was added? If you disagreed, why?

Additional notes:

157
2. The workshop provided me with “take aways” that I will apply in my work.
Disagree to Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

In your opinion, what aspects might you or your colleagues apply to your/their work and how?

Additional notes:

3. At my institution, significant changes surrounding ethnic/racial equity are...
Unnecessary to Extremely Necessary

158
Probes:

What do you believe is meant by “ethnic/racial equity”?

At your institution specifically?

What do you believe is meant by “significant changes”?

Additional notes:

4. At my institution, the changes needed to improve racial/ethnic equity are…
Not under my control to under my control

159
Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

What changes would you feel are under the control of you or your colleagues?

What changes do you feel are not?

What are possible constraints for these types of changes on your campus?

Additional notes:

160
5. At my institution, motivating individuals toward a culture of equity is...
Useless to Useful

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

What do you believe is meant by “a culture of equity”?

What would “motivating individuals” in this context look like to you?

Additional notes:

161
6. My institution’s culture surrounding racial/ethnic equity is reflective of my own beliefs.
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree

Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

How and to what extent could one’s institutional culture reflect or not reflect one’s beliefs
surrounding equity?

Additional notes:

7. My colleagues at my institution engage in behaviors surrounding racial and/or ethnic
equity that reflect my own.
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree

162
Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

What type of equity behaviors do you believe this item is referring to?

At your institution, are these type of behaviors monitored by individuals?

Do you feel the behaviors of colleagues drive the behavior of others’ in this context? If so, in
what ways?

Additional notes:

163
8. At my institution, I try to gauge the beliefs of those around me before speaking to issues
of race or equity.
Never to Always
Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

How might individuals, such as yourself, be able to gauge these types of beliefs of individuals at
your institution, i.e. what are the cues?

In your opinion, what are some reasons individuals might choose to monitor themselves in this
context?

In your experience, would this monitoring be more indicative of institutional culture or individual
beliefs, or both?

164
Additional notes:

9. My institution’s culture strongly encourages conformity around institutional practices
dealing with racial/ethnic student issues.
Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree
Probes:

How did you arrive at your answer?

In your opinion what type of institutional practices is this item referring to?

How might an institution’s culture encourage conformity in this context?

165
What type of cultural cues might individuals in this context be picking up on?

Additional notes:

Lastly, is there anything else you can remember regarding your own thinking processes while
completing the evaluation?

During the Kick-off meeting, what was your reaction to (BLANK: fill-in an incident, context,
etc., from your observational notes)?

What was your own thinking during this incident/activity/etc?

166
Is there anything else you would to share regarding your own processing during the workshop?

(Paraphrase if you prefer) Thank you for taking the time to help CUE improve our work with Los
Medanos. Do you have any further questions or concerns?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examines the influence of action research on California community college practitioners’ attitudes, beliefs, and behavior using the Center for Urban Education’s (CUE) Equity Scorecard tools and process. This developmental evaluation study began March 2011 and concluded April 2012. The pseudonym of the field site studied is Las Flores Community College (LFCC), which is located in a suburban area in northern California. The CUE tools utilized in this study were the Benchmarking Equity, and Student Success Toolkit (BESST) and Vital Signs. The findings suggest that practitioners received new knowledge during the inquiry process when addressing equity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's action research processes and tools on practitioners' beliefs and practices

PDF

Equity for students of color through practitioner accountability

PDF

Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change

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

Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM

PDF

Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions

PDF

Making equity & student success work: practice change in higher education

PDF

Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices

PDF

Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges

PDF

Language and identity in critical sensegiving: journeys of higher education equity agents

PDF

Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors

PDF

Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process

PDF

Addressing a historical mission in a performance driven system: a case study of a public historically Black university engaged in the equity scorecard process

PDF

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

PDF

The Transfer Academy: providing community college students with the informational, structural, relational, and cultural resources to transfer successfully to a four-year college

PDF

The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college

PDF

How community college basic skills coordinators lead organizational learning

PDF

Institutional agents' impact on tranfser student success through the avenue of social capital

PDF

Reframing the role of transfer facilitators: using action research methods for new knowledge development

Asset Metadata

Creator Vines, Erin (author)

Core Title Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/09/2012

Defense Date 07/18/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag action research,CUE,equity,Ethnicity,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,Race

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Dowd, Alicia C. (committee chair), Bensimon, Estela Mara (committee member), Bush, Edward (committee member)

Creator Email evines20@gmail.com,vines@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-108140

Unique identifier UC11289107

Identifier usctheses-c3-108140 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-VinesErin-1275.pdf

Dmrecord 108140

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Vines, Erin

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