Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices
(USC Thesis Other)
Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF CUE’S EQUITY SCORECARD TOOLS
ON PRACTITIONER BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
by
Tomás A. Aguirre
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 Tomás A. Aguirre
ii
DEDICATION
This study “es para mi familia.”
To my wife Cara, for believing in me when I did not believe in myself. To my
eldest son Diego, for teaching me how to be a better student. To my middle son Zavier,
for sacrificing so much yet still loving me. To my baby daughter Paloma, your beautiful
smile and endless joy got me over the finish line.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are so many people that I would like to thank for making this journey
possible.
No one played a more significant role than my family. To my Dad who taught
me the value of hard work. I miss you and know that you would be proud. To my Mom,
for being the best teacher possible. I love learning because of you. To my siblings,
Anthony, Juan, Ti and Francie. Each of you inspired me in so many different ways.
What helped me through was your unfaltering love and support. To my cousin Oliver,
for being the first doctorate in the family. You inspired me to dream “big.” To my
brother-in-law Nick. You told me that I couldn’t come back to Texas without my
doctorate. I look forward to celebrating with you soon. To my nephews and niece, you
inspired me to do something that hopefully someday will inspire you.
To my dissertation chair Dr. Dowd. You gave me an opportunity and never gave
up on me. Hopefully I helped to narrow the equity gap in more ways than one.
To my committee members Drs. Rueda and Borrego. Dr. Rueda you encouraged
me to finish something I started ten years ago. If everyone could only be so lucky to
have an “institutional agent” like you. To Dr. Borrego for reminding me that the
doctorate is only important in the sense that it makes one a better practitioner. I promise
to make a difference like you have.
To my dissertation cohort, especially Chelvi, Peggy, Lee Ann and Christiane.
Hopefully I was able to help all of you as much as you helped me.
iv
To my writing team Annemarie Perez and Sara Henry. You were my guides
when I could not see. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
To the many mentors I have been privileged enough to have over the years. To
Dr. Dembo for showing me that learning can be fun. To Dr. Janet Eddy, for helping me
to understand that I learn differently. To Jean Marie Scott for being so generous of your
time and spirit. You will always be my “skipper.”
To all of my dear friends. To Joe and Heath for being there for me throughout
the years. This journey would never have begun without the two of you. To Karl, Leo
and all the other students I have had the privilege to work with over the years. You were
the catalyst that made me want to be a better teacher. To Matt and Kelly for paving the
way, and to Debbie, for giving me something to write about. To Keoki and Shannon, my
“Two Amigos” and friends for life.
Finally to my new family at Humboldt State University. Your love, patience and
support through these last three months have been critical. I would like to give a special
thanks to Randi, Peg, Karen, Kate and Kay. Thanks Jacks!
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 1
Introduction of the Problem 8
Strategies that Attempt to Address Educational Inequities 10
Accountability in Higher Education 13
Methods of Accountability 14
Assessment 17
National Strategies that Promote Student Success 18
State Strategies that Promote Student Success 20
Center for Urban Education 23
Purpose of the Study 24
Research Question 25
Importance of the Study 25
Organization of the Dissertation 26
Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework 27
Using Action Research to Change Interpersonal Relationships,
Institutional Structures and Practitioner Beliefs 29
Using Socio-cultural Learning to Remediate Artifacts and Social
Interactions 32
Social Constructivism 36
Remediating Artifacts and Social Interactions with CHAT 38
Action Inquiry as a Strategy of Organizational Learning and Change 41
Summary 45
Chapter 3: Methods 48
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change 51
Data Collection Procedures 59
Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection 61
Data Collection Methods 65
Document Analysis 65
vi
Cognitive Interviews 66
Observations in Activity Settings 71
Workshop Evaluation Form 73
Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study 75
Ethical Concerns 78
Data Analysis Procedures 78
Standards of Review 84
Credibility 84
Transferability 89
Dependability and Confirmability 91
Limitations 92
Reporting Results 94
Summarizing Findings 96
Chapter 4: Results 99
Overview 99
Institutional Context and Setting at ACC 107
Institutional Context and Setting at LFCC 109
CUE’s Action Research Tools at ACC and LFCC 112
Summary of Data Coding 117
Comparison of ACC Results to LFCC
120
Emergent Themes related to CUE’s Tools 122
Creating a Knowledge Base for Purposeful Interaction 130
The Importance of Creating a Personal Connection. 134
A Sense of Urgency: Moving from Problem-framing to solutions. 137
Problem identification through data analysis. 138
Ready for action 140
Providing the Elements of Sustained Inquiry 141
Building relationships 142
Negotiating agendas 144
Providing leadership 146
Discussion 148
Chapter 5: Discussion 154
Introduction 154
Summary of Findings 157
Recommendations 160
Conclusion 166
References 172
Appendix A 181
vii
Appendix B 182
Appendix C 184
Appendix D 187
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Research Questions and Sub Questions of CUE’s Research Agenda 58
Table 2: Summary of Data Collection Methods 60
Table 3: Data Collection Timeline at Amarillo Community College and Las 61
Flores College
Table 4: Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study 77
Table 5: Deductive Data Analysis Codes 81
Table 6: ACC - Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis 118
(Frequency Counts)
Table 7: LFCC – Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis 119
(Frequency Counts)
Table 8: LFCC – Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis 120
(Frequency Counts)
Table 9: Confirming and Disconfirming Data 123
Table 10: Sample Quotes Illustrating Data Coded as Confirming or Disconfirming 124
Statements
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Developmental Evaluation Methods Inform Multiple Modes of 54
Research
Figure 2: Reflective Practice (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial-Ethnic Equity in 56
Postsecondary Outcomes
Figure 3: An Activity Setting (CHAT) framework 79
Figure 4: Annotated Cycle of Inquiry Model - Used to Support Racial- 104
Ethnic Equity at ACC and LFCC
Figure 5: Annotated CHAT Activity Triangle 112
Figure 6: Asset Mapping Activity Diagram (Wall Chart) 116
x
ABSTRACT
This study examines the experiences of a number of participants from urban
community colleges with high percentages of students from underrepresented
populations in Central California. The participants were involved in action research with
the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California. The
purpose of the study is to explore whether action inquiry used by CUE brings about, or
shows the potential to bring about, organizational learning and change, improvements in
institutional effectiveness, and greater racial-ethnic equity in student outcomes. Over the
course of eleven months between March, 2011 and April, 2012, developmental
evaluation was used to investigate the impact of action research at Amarillo Community
College and Las Flores College.
1
CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Background of the Problem
Education is often referred to as the “great equalizer.” Therefore in 2011,
President Barack Obama set a goal for America to increase the number of college
degrees granted by 2020. Nationally, data describes a graduation gap between
African American and Latino students and their white peers (Bensimon, 2005).
While higher education has increased access and support to students from
underrepresented populations, these same students are 17% less likely to graduate
within six years from a four-year institution than are white students (Museus &
Quaye, 2009). More minority students are being admitted to institutions of higher
education than ever before, yet the number of these students that actually graduate is
proportionately less than white students. The data suggests that while access has
improved for students from underrepresented populations, equity in regards to
persistence and graduation has yet to be reached.
Historically when solutions have been explored to correct inequitable
outcomes in higher education, the focus has most often been on the shortcomings of
the individual student (Barajas, 2001). This external way of thinking by some
university faculty and staff may influence the fashion in which students from
underrepresented populations are supported in college, and could ultimately serve to
reinforce the problems of inequity rather than correcting them. According to
Bensimon (2005), the responsibility for creating equity in higher education rests with
2
faculty and administrators. This internal way of thinking focuses on institutional
practices and policies, rather than on the individual student.
In 2009, national graduation rates were 10% lower for Latinos and 20%
lower for African American students, when compared with White students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Despite increased access and minority student
support, students from underrepresented populations are 17% less likely to graduate
from a four-year institution than White students (U.S. Department of Education,
2010). While progress has been made in admitting more students from
underrepresented populations to four-year institutions, these same students are still
graduating at disproportionate numbers when compared to students from represented
populations.
While the lack of achievement equity in education has been addressed at the
national, state and local levels, only the 2001 No Child Left Behind legislation (and
this solely at the K-12 level) requires data to be disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
At the postsecondary level, there have been no accountability systems addressing
inequities in educational outcomes by measuring institutional performance (Dowd,
2003). While accountability systems have been able to effectively measure
institutional performance, few have generated data that can be used to improve
educational outcomes. According to Shulock and Moore (2005), these accountability
systems operate as “monitoring mechanisms” to track institutional performance
while doing little to improve institutional outcomes. As a result, over the last thirty
years numerous accountability and evaluation systems have been created to support
3
student success, yet the number of minority students graduating from two- and four-
year institutions continues to remain proportionately lower than that of White
students. By using state and federal accountability data to shape institutional policy,
universities and colleges have attempted to create a universal approach to solving a
problem which differs from institution to institution. Thus, the unique structure and
mission of a particular institution is overlooked, as well as other components critical
to student success (e.g., transfer access and degree completion).
To better understand institutional performance in terms of minority student
transfer and graduation, it may help if the institutional data is disaggregated by race
and ethnicity. If institutional practices are to be improved upon, the availability of
disaggregated data may help practitioners determine if their own practices or
institutional culture are contributing to the inequitable outcomes at that particular
institution. The use of federal and state data to improve student outcomes is difficult
because the data is not disaggregated, and it is generally only available to researchers
and administrators. To create equitable outcomes, efforts should be made to improve
outputs, rather than solely focusing on inputs (e.g., selective recruitment and
increased access).
By making disaggregated data available to faculty, they are able to evaluate
how their beliefs, assumptions and values contribute to student success. Giving
faculty access to this data may also help them realize that they have a key role in the
educational process, and motivate and empower them to be more active. This process
of inquiry refocuses the attention on the practitioners, and through a culture of
4
inquiry, organizational change can occur (Dowd, 2005). A culture of inquiry may
increase social interaction and dialogue, which will lead to deeper reflection,
planning, implementation, and assessment. However in order for this change to
occur, behaviors and beliefs must be transformed. If a practitioner is not willing to
engage in institutional change, then change is less likely to occur.
This study focuses on Latinos in California as they are the fastest-growing
minority group in the United States. It focuses on community colleges in California
because over the last decade, Latinos in the state have approached parity with non-
Hispanic whites, now numbering 14 million or 37.6% of the state population (Mehta,
2011). Due to recent budget cuts, many English as second language learners will not
be able to receive additional language acquisition practice during their K-12 grades.
This means that more Latino students will be testing into basic skills courses when
they arrive in college, and that the gap in minority student persistence and retention
may continue to grow.
As institutions of higher learning continue to focus more resources on
eliminating achievement gaps for students from underrepresented populations, it is
important to use data to drive the decision-making process. One way to generate data
that can be used to change an institutional culture into one of inquiry is through the
use of action inquiry research. According to Greenwood and Levin (2005), action
inquiry research is the study of the different parts of the institution, focusing on how
these different parts interact with each other to generate and create institutional
practices, policies and procedures. Funding based research alone does not effectively
5
create institutional change (Greenwood & Levin, 2005). Instead, research based on
human affairs or “praxis” provides a window for institutions to effectively analyze
and assess how their interactions and relationships may improve the overall
distribution of knowledge. Through the use of action research, institutions of higher
learning use data generated through self-reflection to study their mission and
purpose, with the hope of improving educational outcomes for students from
underrepresented populations (Dowd, 2005). The current study seeks to explore
whether action inquiry brings about or shows the potential to bring about
organizational learning and change in institutions of higher learning.
In the next section of my paper I examine how access to higher education has
been used to determine equity. I then introduce three other lenses through which we
can observe equity: college preparation, educational milestones, and transfer.
Through this research I attempt to show that, although access for student from
underrepresented populations has increased over the last thirty years, there continues
to be gaps between students from underrepresented populations and White students
in the areas of college preparation, the attainment of educational milestones, and
transfer from two- to four-year institutions.
By welcoming all students interested in pursuing a postsecondary education,
community colleges are considered the most democratic of all institutions of higher
learning. Community colleges have “open-door” policies, and are the only
institutions of higher education that are inclusive and equitable for everyone (Grubb
& Badway, 2005). Students enter community colleges with many different
6
objectives, ranging from acquiring a certificate, transferring to a four-year institution
or just learning for the sake of enjoyment. Yet while America’s community colleges
educate almost 50% of our college students, recent research suggests that half of the
students will drop out before their second year and only 25% will attain their
educational goals in three years (Horn & Neville, 2006).
Defining equity in terms of equal access to the institution (Grubb, Badway &
Bell, 2003) is but one way to observe equity within a community college. According
to Bailey and Smith Morest (2006), equity can also be observed in college
preparation, success in reaching college goals or milestones, and transfer to four-year
institutions. Equitable outcomes can be measured by studying a number of key
indicators within the institution including graduation rates, degree attainment across
majors, and honors and awards (Bensimon, 2005, p.5). It is important for inequities
in these areas to be identified since they limit the success of students and impede the
achievement of their goals. While student outcomes and success are measured at the
community college levels, the data is not disaggregated by race and ethnicity. This
means that the institution may be perpetuating the causes of these inequities rather
than eliminating them.
One area in community colleges where students from underrepresented
populations are experiencing inequitable outcomes is in college preparation. Coming
out of high school, a student’s level of academic preparation is the strongest
indicator of college success and degree completion (Adelman, 2006). Students
entering a two-year institution generally have lower levels of academic preparation
7
than students enrolling in four-year institutions (Adelman, 2006). The effect of this is
that in order to be successful, two-year college students will need additional support
to “remediate” once they are in college. In 2005-2006, over 70% to 80% of students
in California Community Colleges needed work in developmental mathematics and
English courses (Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, 2009). Of
these students only 25% of the students who enrolled in developmental reading
courses enrolled in transfer level courses, and only 10% of the students that enrolled
in developmental math courses enrolled in transfer level math courses.
Another area in community colleges where inequitable outcomes are
occurring for students from underrepresented populations is in reaching college
goals. A college goal that students hope to achieve may be thought of as an
educational milestone. Students reach educational milestones when they earn a
certain number of credits or finish a certain percentage of their program
(McCormick, 1999). These milestones are important because students that fail to
reach them in a timely manner are less likely to transfer into four-year programs
(Calcagno, Crosta, Bailey, and Jenkins, 2007). In California, of the students that
entered community college in 2004, only 35% of Latino students and only 28% of
African American students earned 30 college-level credits or more (Moore &
Shulock, 2010). Thirty college credits is the minimum number needed for education
to show a significant economic benefit for the student. Looking at these same two
populations after six years, only 25% of African American students had completed a
8
certificate or degree while only 20% of Latino students had (Moore & Shulock,
2010).
Another student goal that can be used to measure equity is student transfer.
According to Horn and Lew (2007), the transfer process involves the completion of
courses which allow a student to transfer to a four-year institution. These
requirements are determined by written agreements between the community college
and university, or state laws that govern the transfer of credits. This procedure can be
both lengthy and complicated, especially if the student is unfamiliar with the process.
According to Moore and Shulock (2010), Latino students were only half as likely as
White students to successfully transfer of credits.
Introduction of the Problem
Between 1998 to 2008, the number of Latino and African American high
school graduates was less than the number of White graduates. For example, of the
African American and Latino students who enrolled in college, more enrolled in non-
degree credit (“basic skills”) courses (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). During
this same time period, more White students earned bachelor and doctoral degrees
than Latino and African American students. Examination of the bachelor degrees
awarded shows that White students were more likely to receive them in high demand
majors (i.e. STEM) (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). While progress has been
made in terms of enrollment, the percentage of Latino and African American
students that graduate from two- and four-year colleges is proportionately less than
that of White students.
9
Current population trends support the need to understand and address these
inequities. Between 2010 and 2025, the proportion of Latino school age children is
expected to increase from 20% to 30%, making them the fastest growing racial or
ethnic group in the United States (Fry & Passel, 2009, cited by Center on Education
Policy, 2010a). Within this population, 27% come from families living below the
poverty line, while 33% live at the poverty line (Center on Education Policy, 2010a).
Like Latino and Latina students, the majority of school-age African American
students are also within the lower economic bracket (Center on Education Policy,
2010b). As these numbers continue to grow, the achievement gaps will widen unless
adequate measures are taken to address these inequities.
The next part of my chapter reviews some of the strategies that have been
used to address the educational inequities that exist in higher education including
Basic Skills, access, student support, curriculum reform, teaching styles, and
pedagogy. I focus on Community Colleges because they are such important sites of
higher education access.
A key part of President Obama’s college completion plan was access to
affordable, open-enrollment community colleges. To support this plan, A Community
College Challenge Fund was developed to help community colleges improve
instruction, build stronger relationships with businesses in their local community,
and make any additional changes needed to achieve the plan by the prescribed
deadline. To increase graduation numbers, community colleges developed plans to
increase course offerings, better align community college transfer courses with four-
10
year institutions, and offer dual enrollment status for students still enrolled in high
school (“Rising costs could push college out of reach,” 2008). However, budget cuts
at both the local and national levels accompanied by rising tuition costs and the
decreased availability of financial aid will make any plan to raise graduation rates
difficult to attain (“Rising costs could push college out of reach,” 2008).
While some of these strategies have made a difference, inequitable outcomes
in higher education presently still exist. It is not my intent to discount these efforts
but more to suggest that they might not be enough to achieve hoped for equitable
outcomes in higher education.
Strategies that Attempt to Address Educational Inequities
Educators and researchers claim that more and more students are entering
college without the basic skills needed to achieve academic success. In the California
State University (CSU) system, many students are ill-prepared for college level
work, especially at institutions located in urban areas (Weiss & Nguyen, 1998). In
2006-2007 approximately 600,000 students received basic skills instruction in
California Community Colleges. In these classrooms, Students of color were over-
represented in comparison to their White peers with
40 percent of students receiving basic skills instruction being Latino (in
comparison to an overall enrollment share of 30 percent), 20 percent being
Asian (compared to 16 percent), and 10 percent being African-American
(compared to 8 percent). (Dowd, Bensimon, Watford, Malcom, Bessolo,
Bordoloi, Chase & Malagon, 2008)
11
Basic skills are defined 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” (Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges, 2009). Once their basic skills courses are complete, students
may begin to enroll in college level courses. Yet taking these basic skills courses
does not always ensure persistence or retention.
Similar to basic skills, access alone does not result in higher degree
completion for students from underrepresented populations. Dowd (2003), states that
access does not result in equitable outcomes for Latino and African American
students, especially at the community college level. Similar patterns exist at the CSU
levels. While CSUs have achieved more diversified student populations over the last
thirty years, students from underrepresented populations continue to graduate at rates
that are disproportionate when compared to graduation rates for White students. For
access to be considered a success, students from underrepresented populations need
to graduate at the same rate that they were admitted. Access fails if it is not
accompanied by persistence and graduation (Grubb et al., 2003).
In addition to access, institutions of higher education have attempted to
address inequitable outcomes through minority student support. Student development
literature shows that supporting environments for students from underrepresented
populations raises persistence, retention, and reduces attrition (“The Progress of
African American Student Enrollments at the Nation’s Highest-Ranked Colleges and
Universities,” 2006). Examples of institutional support for minority students include
12
special interest housing and ethnic support centers like El Centro Chicano or the
African American Student Center. Yet despite the implementation of these equity
plans and programs, the data does not show a narrowing of the achievement gap in
regards to persistence, retention, transfer, and degree attainment. While equity plans
and programs support racial and ethnic diversity, these programs do not create
equitable outcomes. Instead, the data demonstrates that Latino and African American
students continue to graduate at lower percentages than White students (Dowd,
2003).
When institutions of higher education define diversity solely in terms of race
and ethnicity they fail to recognize students of color’s different social and cultural
experiences as well as their academic strengths and weaknesses. Without addressing
these other factors, inequitable outcomes in graduation rates may continue to occur.
Curriculum reform is another tool that institutions of higher learning use to address
inequities in student outcomes. Bennet, Cole and Thompson (2001) state that
curriculum reform involves incorporating the culture and history of minority students
into the current curriculum which, for the most part, has been based on a traditional
Anglo Eurocentric perspective. Similar to curriculum reform, there has been an effort
to make teaching styles and pedagogies more culturally inclusive. When faculty
incorporate more culturally inclusive practices and pedagogies, additional learning is
both stimulated and promoted (Grant & Sleeter, 1987). Social change is difficult
unless one’s culture and experiences are incorporated into the learning process
(Tierney, 1999). If students from underrepresented populations are going to fully
13
participate in the learning experience, their histories must be recognized and
acknowledged. This requires a shift in practice, and the re-identification of the
practitioner as change agent rather than the student. Yet even when curriculum,
teaching styles and pedagogies are reformed, the gap between students from
underrepresented populations and White students remains wide in regards to
retention, persistence, and graduation.
Despite these interventions, inequities in higher education continue to exist.
In the next part of my chapter, I review how policies have attempted to hold higher
education accountable for student outcomes at both the national and state levels. I
also discuss how these accountability measures have refocused from inputs to
outputs, and how this shift has shaped many of the accountability measures that we
use today.
Accountability in Higher Education
Since the 1990s, the focus of accountability in higher education at the
national level has shifted from how much we spend on higher education to what
higher education actually produces. An emphasis on outputs such as graduation rates
and contributions and services to the community as a whole has emerged over the
past three decades (Burke, 2005). Before this time, many institutions of higher
learning were focused on “bureaucratic rules” and “provider-enterprises” with the
perceived value of an institution of higher education being based on its material
resources, students, research and faculty.
14
According to Alexander (2000), the cause behind this shift in focus from
inputs to outputs was "the 'massification' of higher education systems and limitations
of public expenditures for higher education." This "massification" was clearly
evident from 1970 to 2000, when student enrollments at United States colleges and
universities increased by over 70% (Digest of Education Statistics, 1997, cited by
Alexander 2000). During this same time period, state government funding for higher
education decreased while tuition and fees increased (Alexander 1998, cited by
Alexander 2000). Yet despites these shifts at both the national and state levels, most
institutions of higher education continued to resist these demands for increased
accountability (Burke, 1999 & McGuinness, 1995, cited in Burke, 2003).
Methods of accountability.
Alexander (2000) states “accountability is the public presentation and
communication of evidence about performance in relation to goals.” In order for
there to be accountability, “evidence about performance must be defined in the
context of institutional goals that reflect a public agenda and that evidence must be
communicated in a way that is broadly accessible, rather than in the language of
educational insiders” (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004). Over the last three
decades, the call for increased accountability for higher education has been heard at
both the federal and state levels. The economy continues to struggle, resulting in
fewer jobs, while student enrollments continue to grow and change by both ethnicity
and race. Funding at both the national and state level continues to decrease and there
have been calls in both the media and legislature for increased educational
15
productivity and the “deinstitutionalization” of higher education (Business-Higher
Education Forum, 2004).
Accountability can come from either within or outside of the institution
(Burke, 2005). One example of external accountability is accreditation. In the United
States, there are two kinds of accreditation. The first one is regional accreditation,
which evaluates the institution as a whole. This type of accreditation utilizes
evaluative tools that are qualitative in nature, and focuses more on general attributes
such as the fulfillment of the institution’s mission and goals. Utilizing quantitative
methods, specialized accreditation associations evaluate specific academic programs
within a particular institution. Standards utilized by an accrediting organization are
determined by its institutional members.
According to Baker (2002)
regional accrediting commissions expect each accredited institution to define
its mission, set goals that lead to the fulfillment of the mission, identify
indicators of goal achievement, develop and implement methods of assessing
its effectiveness, evaluate the results of the assessments, and demonstrate that
assessments and evaluations are used in an ongoing cycle of planning and
evaluation.
While an evaluation of the educational quality of the academic institution has
historically been a central part of accreditation, Baker (2002) states that, “quality
must not be determined solely on the basis of economy, productivity and
efficiency.” While resources, processes, and how an institution fulfills its mission
and goals are all important in the accreditation process, outputs like graduation are
now being scrutinized with more intensity.
16
The recent focus on institutional outputs is something new to the
accreditation process. It stems from external stakeholders, who in recent years have
become more output oriented, and are now demanding that colleges and universities
be held accountable. As a result, within the last fifteen years, accreditation
organizations have become more focused on institutional outputs. Whether this shift
in focus has caused institutions of higher education to modify their practices and
efforts to create more equitable outcomes is a subject which requires more
investigation.
Grubb and Levin (2005) define internal accountability as “the responsibilities
of individuals within institutions to one another.” This includes responsibilities
among all stakeholders such as faculty, staff and administrators. Internal
accountability, along with distributed leadership and the knowledge, skills, and
resources regarding work which must be done, are all components of institutional
capacity, which reflects the ability of an institution to respond to external demands.
This type of internal accountability locates power in the hands of the practitioners
themselves and therefore these individuals are expected to work to identify problems
and solutions. Typically these individuals are the ones that are working directly with
students. Some argue this method shares and distributes power amongst a number of
individuals and empowers those that have the knowledge, skill, and resources to
needed to get the job done (Dowd, Bishop, Bensimon, & Witham, (in press); Grubb
& Levin, 2005, Stringer, 2007).
17
Assessment
One example of internal accountability is that of assessment. Assessment in
higher education is used to document beliefs, skills, knowledge, and attitudes. It may
focus on different levels within higher education including the individual student, a
class or learning community, the institution, or an entire educational system like a
state college system or community college district. According to Grubb and Badway
(2005) there are two types of assessment: student and institutional. Student
assessment can be divided into three parts. The initial student assessments includes
the skills and abilities with which the student enters college. Intermediate student
assessments incorporate the grades and learning outcomes that a student achieves
while they are still in course work. Lastly, final student assessments are the learning
outcomes that a student reaches when they complete their program of study. Student
assessment occurs in a multitude of ways including quizzes, tests, and papers.
Similar to student assessments, institutional assessments vary from external
sources like accreditation agencies to internal methods of assessment such as faculty
evaluations. An institutional assessment focuses on organizational learning. An
example of institutional assessment in higher education is that of Inclusive
Excellence. Williams (2007) defines “inclusive excellence” in four parts:
(1) a focus on student intellectual and social development,
(2) a purposeful development and utilization of organizational resources to
enhance student learning
(3) attention to the cultural differences learners bring to the educational
experience and that enhance the enterprise, and (4) a welcoming
community that engages all of its diversity in the service of student and
organizational learning.
18
Other examples of assessment in higher education include P-16 collaborations and
alignments, the measuring of student engagement, a regional accreditation focus on
student learning outcomes, a number of state accountability reports, and improved
federal data and research (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2004).
National Strategies that Promote Student Success
In response to this new focus on outputs rather than inputs, a number of
initiatives and policies at both the national and state level have been put in place to
improve student success. At the national level, President Obama included The
College Access and Completion Fund in the 2009-2010 budget. Over a five-year
period this program will spend $2.5 billion on supporting state efforts to boost the
college completion rates of low-income students. Funds would be used to support
student progress and retention through scholarships, the creation of learning
communities and improved instructional practices for faculty (U.S. Department of
Education, 2011b). In the spring of 2011, Vice President Biden offered his own
initiative titled the “College Completion Toolkit.” The “toolkit” introduces seven
“low- or no-cost strategies” for state governors to increase college completion rates.
These steps include developing an action plan with specific goals, incorporating
performance based funding, aligning high school standards with college entrance
standards, simplifying the student transfer process, using data to drive decision
making, reducing costs and speeding up learning, and targeting adults with some
college experience but no degrees (U.S. Department of Education (2011c). The
19
proposal includes a $20 million grant that plans to increase graduation rates by 50%
by 2020. A key goal of this proposal is college completion. Financially, federal
efforts continue to support the community college student while they either seek to
earn their degree or transfer. This assistance comes in the form of increased Pell
Grants and college tax credits, and some further efforts have been made to reform the
student loan and Perkins loan programs.
Nationally, organizations like the Ford and Lumina Foundations continue to
support student success through specific initiatives. Funded by the Ford Foundation,
the 2008 Bridges to Opportunity Program makes six recommendations to ensure that
“(1) federal programs serving adults will be utilized in a manner that increases
effectiveness, efficiency, and availability of such programs and (2) literacy skills of
adults will be strengthened thereby improving their opportunities for transitions to
postsecondary education and employment” (U.S. Department of Education (2011a).
The program stresses increased accountability and the need for better coordination
across state agencies. Another national initiative designed to help more community
colleges students succeed, particularly students of color and low-income students, is
the Achieving the Dream organization. Sponsored by the Lumina Foundation, this
national nonprofit advances community college student success by transforming
community colleges, influencing policy, developing new knowledge, and engaging
the public (http://www.achievingthedream.org).
20
State Strategies that Promote Student Success
At the state level, research suggests that California Community Colleges
should focus on outputs, making student success and graduation a priority (Moore &
Shulock, 2007). As recently as 2010, only 30% of all community college students in
the state of California who were seeking to complete a degree or certificate actually
did so, and transferred to a four-year institution. Moore and Shulock (2007)
recommend that California Community Colleges maximize student resources,
identify student skills and resources that facilitate success, and study students’
enrollment and course-taking patterns.
Another strategy involves the use of data to direct organizational change.
Presently, California Community Colleges do not report the intermediate goals that
students reach while on the path to graduation (Moore, Shulock & Offenstein, 2009).
Research tells us that reaching milestones in a timely manner is important because
when students fail to do so they are less likely to complete their program (Moore &
Shulock, 2007). In 2009 only 40% of California community college students earned
30 credits, which according to Moore and Shulock (2010) is the minimum number of
units needed to result in an economic gain for the student. This information, along
with graduations rates, should be reported.
In addition to the increased research focus in this area, certain professional
organizations, equity plans and recent legislation have attempted to address the
current gap in student success regarding transfer and degree attainment at California
Community Colleges. One such organization is the Research and Planning Group for
21
California Community (RP). This professional organization applies an “action-
oriented cycle that includes gathering information and conducting analyses,
disseminating and interpreting findings, and promoting action and ongoing
evaluation of practice” (http://www.rpgroup.org/about/what-we-do). In 2007, this
organization released a report called the Poppy Copy. This report and its companion
self-assessment guide were used by California Community Colleges to develop
strategies for meeting the needs of basic skills students. In 2010, a new version was
released titled "Student Success in Community Colleges: A Practical Guide to
Developmental Education." Both of these reports contain literature that help
community colleges develop their own self-assessment tools as they seek to improve
student outcomes in retention and student graduation (Boroch, Hope, Smith,
Gabriner, Mery, Johnstone & Asera, 2010).
An additional approach within California involves student equity plans. In
1993, the California Code of Regulations (California Education Code, 2005) were
passed to “promote student success for all students, regardless of race, gender, age,
disability, or economic circumstances.” The student equity plans accomplish these
goals by requiring California Community Colleges to conduct campus based
research and to set goals for access and retention. They also help community
colleges to create plans to promote student equity for ESL, basic skills completion,
and transfer to four-year institutions (CCR).
A further plan used within the state of California comes from the
Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC). This partnership
22
involved the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCO) and the
“system’s colleges and advisory structure, a panel of national experts, the Legislative
Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, and the Secretary of Education”
(California Community Colleges System Office, 2007). The ARCC provides
beneficial information to policy makers including data on the market value of a
community college degree, enrollment rates, transfer rates to four-year institutions,
and the system’s contribution to California’s workforce (California Community
Colleges System Office, 2007). However, the accountability data that ARCC
provides to institutions of higher education is not disaggregated by race or ethnicity.
The report only describes total number of students that transfer or graduate. Student
data regarding persistence, degree attainment, or retention rates is not broken down
by race or ethnicity. This missing data is important if institutions of higher education
hope to improve student success amongst minority students.
Another example of a state policy that is designed to ensure access can be
found in state law and the Master Plan for Higher Education. Community colleges
within the state of California must function as “open-access institutions” (California
Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011a). This means that any person who is above the
age of 18 can enroll in a community college. This is very different from the state’s
four-year institutions where only the top 30% of high-school graduates are eligible to
attend (California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2011a).
Finally, Senate Bill 1143 (Liu), passed on September 28, 2010, mandates that
the Board of Governors for the California Community Colleges create a task force to
23
identify the most effective strategies for promoting and implementing student
success (California Community Colleges System Office, 2012). For a year, the
Student Success Task Force will identify best practices for achieving student success
here within California Community Colleges and throughout the rest of the country
(California Community Colleges System Office, 2012). The task force will consist of
community college staff, faculty, administrators, researchers, and trustees (California
Community Colleges System Office, 2012).
Center for Urban Education
While many of these national and state initiatives focus on the role that
students play in inequitable outcomes, one approach that focuses on institutional and
practitioner roles and responsibilities comes from the Center for Urban Education
(CUE) at the University of Southern California. The Equity Scorecard (formerly
known as the Diversity Scorecard) is “an ongoing initiative designed to foster
institutional change in higher education by helping to close the achievement gap for
historically underrepresented students” (Benismon, 2004). While equity is valued at
institutions of higher education, very few systems are in place to actually measure it
in terms of student outcomes, especially given that it is “[a] factor that contributes to
the invisibility of unequal college outcomes for underrepresented minorities is the
failure to disaggregate student outcome data by race and ethnicity” (Bensimon,
2005). For practitioners to be able to analyze their own practices and beliefs and their
possible impact on inequitable outcomes, they must be able to see the inequities for
themselves. Once they are able to observe these inequities, then the process to
24
address them can hopefully begin. With the Equity Scorecard, institutions can
reevaluate their mission and determine what steps need to be taken to improve
retention and persistence.
Ultimately, institutions of higher education must seek equitable outcomes for
all students, regardless of race and ethnicity. One strategy that institutions of higher
education can use to narrow this gap is the development of a culture of inquiry that
uses data to drive decision-making. According to Greenwood and Levin (2005), a
culture of inquiry, which stems from action research, is the study of the different
institutional components. Collectively these components make the institution work.
Dowd (2005) states that through action research institutions use self-reflection to
study their mission and purpose and generate data that will help decrease the inequity
gaps in student outcomes that exist at their particular college or university. Based on
the current data, it appears that state and federal initiatives are not effectively
decreasing the educational inequities that currently exist in higher education.
Therefore, it is important that institutions of higher education take on a stronger role
in addressing the inequitable outcomes that currently exist within their student
populations.
Purpose of the Study
This study explores whether action inquiry used by CUE either brings about,
or demonstrates the potential to bring about, organizational learning and change,
improvements in institutional effectiveness, and greater racial-ethnic equity in
student outcomes. This study is important for a number of reasons. First, it involves
25
individuals at different institutions of higher education who are participating in
practitioner-as-researcher inquiry teams. By participating in this process, these teams
may be able to work towards creating equitable educational outcomes for students.
Second, the study observes how the participants understand equity and issues of
equity, as related to their respective institution, as an outcome of participating in this
project. The settings for this study are California Community Colleges where
practitioners are using CUE’s action research tools to study their own beliefs,
assumptions and values that may hinder organizational change.
Research Question
The central research question for this study is:
1. What is working and what is not working when action research tools are used
to remediate educational practices for the purpose of promoting racial-ethnic
equity in postsecondary education?
Importance of the Study
Programs and projects involving action research may address inequitable
outcomes for students from underrepresented students in institutions of higher
education. Through the use of CUE’s tools, institutions of higher education may
begin to narrow the equity gaps through the development of a culture of inquiry.
With the use of disaggregated data, faculty, staff, and other practitioners begin the
inquiry process that allows them to observe the equity gaps that exist at their
particular institution. CUE’s tools may then assist them in turning this data into
26
valuable information that can be used to improve institutional effectiveness,
institutional accountability, and student outcomes (http://cue.use.edu).
This research is focused on a number of urban community colleges with high
percentages of students from underrepresented populations. The focus will be on
members of teams comprised of researchers, administrators, faculty, and student
affairs professionals from different community colleges who have been involved in
action research with CUE at the University of Southern California. I will focus on
whether the attitudes, beliefs and educational practices of the participants changed
after they participated in action research and whether action research tools work or
do not work to improve the practice of action research for the purpose of promoting
racial-ethnic equity in postsecondary education.
Organization of the Dissertation
My dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter One introduces the
problem of inequities in graduation rates in higher education, particularly for African
American and Latino students. Chapter Two provides an explanation of Action
Research, Socio-Cultural Theory, Social Constructivism, Cultural Historical Activity
Theory, and the conceptual framework used in this study. Chapter Three describes
my research design which includes the case study and action research, as well as the
description of the coding used for my analysis. Chapter Four consists of my results
and Chapter Five discusses the results and makes suggestions for future research.
27
CHAPTER 2: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Students from underrepresented populations persist and graduate from two-
year community colleges at a lower rate than White students. In the past, strategies
have attempted to address these inequitable outcomes by focusing on the student.
Examples of this approach include focuses on student readiness and college
preparedness. Despite these efforts, the graduation gaps between Latino and African
American students compared to White students continue to exist and, at some
institutions, have even widened. Recently, research has taken a different approach to
eliminating these inequitable outcomes by focusing on institutional practices and
policies. One organization that utilizes this approach is the Center for Urban
Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of action research
to create more equitable structures and belief systems at a community college.
Specifically, this study explores what is working and what is not working when
action research tools are used to remediate educational practices for the purpose of
promoting racial-ethnic equity in postsecondary education. By examining data
gathered though observation and interviews from individuals participating in action
research with CUE, this study anticipates increasing understanding regarding how
institutional change takes place through the “remediation” of artifacts and social
interactions. In the context of this study, to “remediate” means to change the process
based on the rules, norms, and goals of the institution and how the roles of labor are
divided and assigned (Dowd et al., in press).
28
At the University of Southern California, CUE conducts research and
develops tools with the hope of assisting institutions of higher education to create
equitable outcomes for all students. CUE’s research team developed a multi-
disciplined inquiry approach that attempts to assist higher education institutions
throughout the country in becoming more accountable to students from underserved
racial and ethnic communities. Using action research to remediate artifacts and social
interactions is a promising approach because it allows democratic involvement,
encourages collaboration, creates agency and develops both “techne” and “phronetic
knowledge”. Dunne (1993) defines “techne” knowledge as “craftsman or art” and
“phronetic knowledge” as “wisdom or intelligence.”
The theoretical frameworks inform the study in the following ways: (a) they
allow the reader to critically evaluate the theoretical assumptions, (b) they connect
the researcher to the knowledge that forms the foundation of the hypothesis and
research methods, (c) they articulate the theoretical assumptions and force us to ask
questions that allow us to move from description to generalization, and finally (d)
they allow us to recognize the boundaries of these generalizations, and through
deeper analysis we are able to identify the key factors that influence the focus of the
study.
This chapter begins with an overview of action research and participatory
action research. Research suggests that the use of action research and participatory
research can facilitate changes in interpersonal relationships, in the structure of an
institution, and in one’s own beliefs and behaviors. While this review will describe
29
how action research can remediate artifacts and social interactions, it will also
address the concern that they do not address racism, inequities or cultural change.
The second part of this chapter attempts to attenuate this concern by reviewing socio-
cultural learning theory, social constructivism, and cultural historical activity theory.
This chapter concludes with an introduction to the action inquiry project and a
summary.
Using Action Research to Change Interpersonal Relationships,
Institutional Structures and Practitioner Beliefs
In the social sciences, the application of traditional research may not always
produce the best results. When studying human behavior, the use of experiments,
quasi-experiments, and case studies can be ineffective because they do not predict or
control individual or social behavior very accurately (Stringer, 2007). The use of
these methods often result in generalized solutions which are not always the best fit
for a particular problem nor are they able to address the needs of a specific group of
individuals. On the other hand, action research can create change at the interpersonal,
institutional and individual levels. Reason (1994) argues that the use of action
research is a more effective method because it involves the tailoring of a customized
and local approach to addressing a particular problem. By using a practitioner-as-
researcher model, the practitioner becomes the central participant within the activity
setting, thus enabling them to influence change through the act of collecting data
within the inquiry process. When faculty and administrators participate in action
research they not only study the problem, they learn how they might interact with
30
and potentially influence the problem. Additionally, action research is very versatile.
It offers a systematic approach to addressing problems in a variety of settings, and
the ability to customize more generalized approaches to fit more unique problems.
Institutions of higher education are very different from each other, each serving a
unique population of students. Rather than take a more generalized universal
approach, action research allows faculty and staff to “custom-fit” the solutions for
the unique problems existing at their institution. By contrast, traditional research
typically culminates in a report or other type of publication, while in action research
the end product are the results themselves.
Action research facilitates interpersonal change through democratic
involvement and collaboration. It is democratic because it involves a “participatory
process” that allows everyone who has a vested interest in solving the problem to be
a part of the investigative process and ultimate solution. In higher education, upper-
level administrators and policy makers typically make decisions for the rest of the
institution, although these same “decision-makers” are rarely in direct contact with
students themselves. In action research, the subjects are the participants in the
research process. Individuals work toward solving their own problems rather than
having someone else decide the problems’ solution. Action research is collaborative
in nature, a process which empowers the participants as they attempt to solve
specific problems (Reason, 1994). Through collaboration, practitioners share their
different perspectives, and are therefore able to see the problem through a variety of
viewpoints. Traditional research is typically carried out by a smaller group of people
31
and then applied in a very generalized manner. Today’s colleges and universities
have problems which are very complex, sophisticated, and also case specific. Action
research offers a grass roots approach that focuses on solving specific problems at
the localized level. It “attempts to produce knowledge and action that is directly
useful to a particular group of people” (Reason, 1994) and allows practitioners to
create solutions that are designed to address specific problems in their immediate
world and customize their approach to solving problems in the environment that they
live in.
Action research also promotes institutional change through the development
of “techne” knowledge. “Techne” knowledge” is defined as the knowledge that one
has regarding one’s “craft” or “art.” When compared to more traditional research
methods, the use of action research in the social sciences shows great promise
because it is a democratic process that promotes the development and acquisition of
“techne” knowledge which stems from the process itself. (Stringer, 2007). As
participants collect and analyze the data they develop a greater understanding of the
problem that they are studying. This process stimulates the development of “techne
knowledge,” encouraging institutional change, and subsequently promotes
“phronetic knowledge,” encouraging change in individuals’ beliefs (Stringer, 2007).
As faculty and staff learn more about a particular problem, this new-found
knowledge changes the way that they address the problem, and this in turn changes
the way that they think. An example of this in higher education would be when
action research is used to “build the language to discuss race, the ability to inquire
32
into the causes of the inequity, and explore potential solutions” (Dowd et al., in
press). This change is accomplished through the use of structured settings where
participants meet to investigate and discuss student inequities, and explore ways to
take ownership of student outcomes rather than placing the responsibility entirely on
the students themselves. Yet, even though action research may be more effective
than traditional methods of research in the social sciences in promoting change at the
interpersonal, institutional and individual levels, it may not decrease the gap in
educational outcomes in higher education because it does not take into account race
or ethnicity.
Using Socio-cultural Learning to Remediate Artifacts and Social Interactions
The following section reviews the work of Lev Vygotsky and socio-cultural
learning theory. Unlike action research, socio-cultural learning theory takes race and
ethnicity into account by drawing attention to cultural practices and activity systems,
culturally constituted activities, cultural artifacts, rules and norms, and hidden
assumptions and contradictions. Socio-cultural perspectives on learning and
professional development are important because they provide a particular lens to
explore whether and under what conditions practitioners develop new beliefs or
practices with regard to educational outcomes. By studying the conscious and
unconscious choices that individuals make when using tools to mediate how and why
they behave, an individual’s cognitive thought process can be better understood
(Roth and Lee, 2007). A person’s belief system influences the way one behaves and
carries oneself, and the development of this belief system is influenced by one’s
33
interaction with other individuals (Vygotsky, 1987). These interactions then form the
basis for one’s culture and subsequent view of the world.
While culture is typically defined from generation to generation, socio-
cultural theorists believe that culture can also be “created and recreated” locally by
specific groups at particular points in time (Nasir and Hand, 2006). This is important
when attempting to achieve equitable outcomes for all students because it implies
that a culture that supports inequitable outcomes may be transformed into one that
supports equity through the use of socio-cultural learning. Nasir and Hand (2006)
have identified four broad themes within socio-cultural theories, each of which may
help remediate artifacts and social interactions possibly resulting in equitable
outcomes:
(1) concurrent, multilevel development of culture of learning
(2) cultural practices as units of analysis
(3) cultural tools and artifacts
(4) key roles which individuals and their interactions play in the learning
and developmental process
According to socio-cultural learning theory, learning and knowledge occur
within the framework of culture and activity. Nasir and Hand (2006) state that this
activity is influenced by social, historical and cultural factors, which in turn direct
the learning that takes place through the use of tools and artifacts. These tools and
artifacts are used to convey what individuals are thinking, and these daily
interactions fundamentally influence learning and development. They are the
34
“mediators of psychological processes” (Nasir & Hand, 2006). An example of an
artifact would be a course syllabus. If a syllabus does not support equity, then by
changing it, a more equitable outcome might occur. By using these tools and artifacts
to determine thought, they themselves become a part of the thoughts, and thus evolve
into something that is cultural in nature. If it is possible to change the artifacts, it
may then be possible to change the culture and the way people think. This is
especially important if practitioners or institutional policies are contributing to
inequitable outcomes at a particular institution. By changing the artifacts one can
theoretically change the culture and thereby achieve equity.
One method of remediating social interactions is through the multilevel
development of culture and learning. According to Vygotsky, the four planes of
development are “microgenetic, ontogenetic, cultural/historical change, and
evolutionary development” (Nasir and Hand, 2006). During an individual’s lifetime,
one of the most significant levels of development is microgenetic. During
microgenetic development, changes to the person occur during instances of moment-
to-moment learning. For administrators and faculty in higher education, this
development occurs in their day-to-day lives. If the culture at a particular institution
supports inequitable outcomes, then that culture may influence one’s microgenetic
development while he/she is immersed in it. This experience may shape an
individual’s beliefs and practices, which in turn will influence the culture of learning
which exists with his/her students.
35
A second way to remediate social interactions is through the analysis of
cultural practices. By defining cultural practices as a unit of analysis, scholars have
tried to bring the concept of multiple levels of life development to their research
(Nasir & Hand, 2006). Through this practice, researchers study the different levels of
human development. This theory of life development is borrowed from
anthropological and psychological research traditions. Activity theorists have
modified and built upon this idea to create a process by which “goal-directed activity
unfolds and gives rise to cognition” (Nasir & Hand, 2006). This theory offers a
blueprint to the ways in which activity directs human thought and development, as
well as the various levels of analysis that can be considered in the observation of the
activity. When faculty and practitioners act in an equitable way, they are more likely
to think equitably and ultimate create equity.
The final theme in socio-cultural theories which may play a role in
remediating social interactions is through the key roles individuals and their
interactions play in the learning and developmental process. There is extensive
research focusing on the critical role of social others in development and learning.
These findings support the theory of “cognition as in part consisting of an
interpersonal process” (Nasir & Hand, 2006). Examples of this in higher education
would include the roles teachers and others play in the ways in which students
participate and ultimately learn. An additional example would include scaffolding,
which is a process where help from others can increase a student’s performance and
learning. By fostering equitable relationships between faculty and students, equitable
36
results are more likely to occur. On the other hand, if the practices in the classroom
are not equitable, then the gaps that currently observed in students from
underrepresented populations will continue to occur.
In summary, socio-cultural theory provides perspectives on how to remediate
artifacts and social interactions through
(1) development that occurs at the same time at different levels
(2) the use of cultural practices as units of analysis
(3) the identification of cultural tools and artifacts
(4) the roles that individuals and their interactions with others play in the
learning and developmental process.
Social Constructivism
Based the work of Vygotsky and Bruner, and Bandura’s social cognitive
theory, social constructivism is a type of cognitive constructivism that focuses on the
collaborative nature of learning. Vygotsky argued that cognitive functions occur
through, and are therefore products of social interactions. According to Vygotsky
(1978), “learning is not simply the assimilation and accommodation of new
knowledge by learners, it is a process by which learners are integrated into a
knowledge community.” Every function in a child’s cultural development first
appears at the social level (interpsychological) and, later on, at the individual level
(intrapsychological). All higher functions, including knowledge, learning, and
motivation, develop through social interaction and our relationships with others.
37
Social constructivism is grounded in certain beliefs regarding reality,
knowledge, and learning. In social constructivism, reality is built through social
interaction. Group members within an activity setting co-construct the “realities” of
their world. Reality is not discovered, because it does not exist prior to its creation by
the members of the group. In social constructivism knowledge is also a product of
human relationships. Through their interaction with each other and their
environment, individuals construct knowledge both socially and culturally. Learning
is also a social process. It is not a passive process that occurs within the individual or
as a result of external forces. Meaningful learning happens when individuals are
actively engaged in social activities.
An important feature of social constructivism is the intersubjectivity of social
meanings. According to Rogoff (1990), intersubjectivity is a sense of agreement that
members of a group possess whose interactions are built on mutually shared interests
and beliefs that form the foundation for their communication. Interaction and
communication influence individual perceptions within the group, as well as social
norms and rules of behavior. Development of social meanings and knowledge
involve intersubjectivity, and are built on the negotiation and communication that
occurs within the group. The intersubjectivity of the group influences the
experiences that group members use to develop personal meaning. Intersubjectivity
also supports the co-construction of new knowledge amongst group members
through the interactions that occur through personal communication and participation
38
in joint activities (Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1987). The development of new
knowledge is also influenced by historical and cultural factors within the group.
The following section discusses cultural historical activity theory (CHAT)
and how it can be used to remediate artifacts and social interactions. Similar to socio-
cultural theory and social constructivism, CHAT is based on culture, history,
activity, and mediating artifacts. By addressing race, it may be more effective in
reducing educational inequities than traditional social science methods.
Remediating Artifacts and Social Interactions with CHAT
Like socio-cultural theory and social constructivism, cultural historical
activity theory (CHAT) has its origins in the works of Vygotsky. CHAT is based on
different concepts that together form a framework or general conceptual system
(Roth & Lee, 2007). These concepts include culture, history, activity and mediating
artifacts. The first, and arguably most important concept is culture. According to
CHAT, all learning must be observed within the context of one’s culture. How the
human mind is developed and shaped can only be understood within the greater
context of its interaction with other people and their environments. CHAT theory
would therefore argue that if institutions of higher education are to reduce inequities,
then one must first consider whether the system’s culture is compatible with the
students’ learning culture. By contrast, if the context of students’ culture cannot or
does not fit within the greater culture of the institution or that of the faculty, then
equity gaps are likely to occur.
39
As applied through CHAT, the sense of the “historical” implies actions are
not only determined by culture, but by that activity’s implicit history. Activities
change over time making it important to research their developmental history in
order to understand their current condition. In essence, one must not only know
where one is, but also how one got there. People are “object-oriented,” meaning they
live in a world that is, in a broad sense, objective (Roth & Lee, 2007). By creating a
culture of inquiry, practitioners and institutions are able to assess their condition and
its past. On the other hand, if individual practitioners in higher education do not
collectively reflect on their practice, it is difficult for them to assess their activities
and the impact their actions may have on student success.
In CHAT, the identification of activity is the basic unit of analysis. An
"activity" is defined as an action taken towards achieving a certain purpose, allowing
that the individual or group may be involved in more than one activity at a given
time. CHAT further suggests that people are active learners, learning best through
their learning with others. Therefore, when faculty and administrators meet on a
regular basis and reflect on their practices they are able to not only learn from each
other, but they also learn by teaching each other. CHAT identifies activities as either
internal or external, yet while the internal and external are different they may not be
studied separately because each transforms into the other.
In CHAT each activity is defined as having a three-level hierarchical
structure: the activity level, the action level, and the operation level. The activity is
the overall objective and may be related to work, trade, and professions (i.e. building
40
a house). The actions are the tasks that are involved in accomplishing the activity
(i.e. fixing the roof). Finally, the operations are what are executed to accomplish the
task (i.e. using a drill). Through this process social interactions can be increased and
even redefined.
Mediating artifacts are defined as the “values, ideals, cultures and traditions
that are communicated at a particular institution” (Dowd et al., in press). In CHAT,
these instruments and artifacts mediate human activity. Further, they are socio-
cultural specific, shaped and dependent on one’s own experiences and knowledge.
Through the introduction of new knowledge or a different experience, artifacts can
be changed. If these artifacts support inequitable outcomes, then in order for the
outcomes to change, the artifacts must be changed. Once these artifacts have been
remediated, human activity can begin to support equitable educational experiences
for all students.
Once artifacts have been remediated, practitioners may begin to observe
diversity as something of value, rather than a deficiency or deficit. When individuals
compare a person or peoples to a prevalent norm, they experience what is called
deficit-minded thinking. When using this lens to view the world, individuals below
the norm are identified as underachievers or failures. These stereotypes can play a
significant role in higher education in regards to access, retention, transfer and
graduation, especially in regards to students from underrepresented populations.
Along these lines, Gutierrez, Morales and Martinez (2009) state that cross-cultural
research is important because current methods of inquiry focus primarily on deficit
41
views of the community. When attempting to identify the methods and problems
within our schools, researchers should focus on the social organization of education
and its effects, rather than the problems and technologies of students’ everyday lives
or their homes. Doing so recognizes that different educational experiences result in
different functional learning systems.
The CHAT model is important to this study because it can be used to frame
and categorize changes in formal and informal cultural settings (Roth and Lee,
2008). CUE creates activity settings that include workshops, interviews, focus
groups, and modules with the purpose of raising awareness and building knowledge
regarding equity. Activity settings allow participants to make connections to a
network through social interaction (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Activity settings
include cognitive components such as collaboration and scaffolding. The activity
setting is the unit of analysis. Participants are selected and participate in activities
that are intentional and goal-directed (Cole, 1998; Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). These
activity settings can be observed, and any changes can be measured and further
analyzed. The CHAT model allows us to observe any changes in practitioners’
beliefs, attitudes or behaviors towards equity or equity-mindedness, which is a key
component of this study.
Action Inquiry as a Strategy of Organizational Learning and Change
As stated in the introduction, at USC, the Center for Urban Education (CUE)
conducts research and develops tools to assist institutions of higher education in
creating equitable outcomes for all students. Using participatory research, CUE
42
researchers work with higher education practitioners, including faculty,
administrators, counselors, staff and institutional researchers in action inquiry (Dowd
& Bensimon, 2009a). This process includes problem identification, data collection
and interpretation, collective decision-making, action and solutions. Assessment
tools and processes developed by CUE are then used by the participants to evaluate
their own practices and other institutional specific organizational policies and
procedures.
At CUE, researchers define equity as providing opportunities of equal access
and success for students from underrepresented populations. CUE’s work focuses on
representation equity, resource equity, and equity mindedness. Representational
equity is the proportional representation and participation within all levels of an
institution. Resource equity refers to the required resources needed to address equity
gaps in higher education. Equity-mindedness is an awareness and willingness
amongst higher educational staff, faculty and administrators to address issues of
equity within their institution. CUE states that perspectives and beliefs regarding
equity can be found in problem identification and problem solving, language,
actions, and cultural practices. CUE also uses the term “color-conscious,” which
suggests a willingness to not only notice differences in experiences among racial and
ethnic groups, but to also discuss them in regards to equity.
Changes in organizational settings may be facilitated through the use of a
new social design experiment, which is built on the co-constructed knowledge
gained by participants through their participation in the action research process
43
(Gutierrez and Vossoughi, 2010). Through the use of action research, CUE’s tools
help practitioners reflect on their own experiences by means of collaboration and
relationship building in order to effect change within their specific institution. Using
action research, CUE helps teams of practitioners at institutions of higher education
become more aware of student experiences and outcomes. CUE’s focus is on
inequitable outcomes as a result of institutional practices, policies and procedures.
Through the formation of inquiry teams, CUE uses data to stimulate the co-
construction of new knowledge, which in turn remediates participants’ practices and
beliefs. Through participation in CUE created activity settings, participants become
agents of change able to address issues of equity on their campuses through a cycle
of inquiry that includes data collection, reflection, problem identification, problem
solving, and continued reflection. As participants gain a deeper understanding of the
historical and cultural practices existing at their institution, new knowledge is
generated. Then the participants –those directly involved with the situation-- rather
than waiting for someone from outside to solve the problem, become the experts
themselves. In this new culture of inquiry, participants learn from each other as they
seek to create institutional change.
Using action research, CUE has developed a number of tools that allow
practitioners to assess and evaluate their practices in an effort to become change
agents. Through the use of CUE created activity settings, participants can collaborate
and develop a culture of inquiry that focuses on equitable outcomes for all students.
In these activity settings, participants study student data that has been disaggregated
44
by race and ethnicity. Using action inquiry, these groups discuss the issues that
influence and contribute to racial-ethnic inequities in regard to student access,
retention, transfer, and graduation. Participants are encouraged to evaluate
institutional policies and procedures, as well as their own practices within and
outside of the classroom.
One tool used by CUE is the Equity Scorecard. This process centers on the
belief that student success is the responsibility of the institution and, therefore, if
practitioners are to support equitable outcomes for their students, they must possess
race-conscious expertise (Bensimon, in press). Socio-cultural theories of learning
inspired four key principles of change that underlie this process (Bensimon, 2007):
1) Practitioners learn and change through their engagement in a joint
productive activity (socio-cultural theories of learning).
2) Inequity in educational outcomes is characterized as an indeterminate
situation produced by a failure of practice.
3) Practitioner-led inquiry is a means of developing awareness of racial
inequity and self-change.
4) Equity-minded practitioners become race-conscious.
As individuals go through the Score Card process they become more equity-
minded and, ideally, develop the following attributes (Bensimon, 2007):
1) a color consciousness in an affirmative sense
2) an awareness that beliefs, expectations, and practices assumed to be
neutral can have outcomes that are racially disadvantageous
45
3) a willingness to assume responsibility for the elimination of inequality
4) an awareness that even though racism is not always overt, racialized
patterns in policies and practices permeate higher education
institutions and maintain hierarchies despite increasing diversity.
Another tool used by CUE is the Benchmarking Equity and Student Success
Toolkit (BESST). This tool was designed to build institutional commitment to
address the problem of poor retention and student success, especially for students
from underrepresented populations. The BESST process guides practitioners in an
examination of their college data and helps them set long- and short-term goals to
achieve equity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009b). The colleges in the sample study for this
research used the BESST during their action research with CUE.
In theory, through the process of collaboration, new knowledge is produced
and participatory decision-making takes place. While relatively little empirical
research currently supports these assertions, by remediating artifacts and social
interactions, equitable outcomes may be observed. Therefore, this study investigates
what is working and what is not working when action research tools are used to
remediate educational practices for the purpose of promoting racial-ethnic equity in
postsecondary education?
Summary
If education is the “great equalizer’ then the community college level is
where this equity must occur. Today community colleges are admitting
unprecedented numbers of students, but unfortunately remain more focused on inputs
46
than on outcomes. Dowd (2008) describes community colleges as both “gateways”
and “gatekeepers.” The term “gateways” points to community colleges as
inexpensive and as open to all applicants. Yet, the term “gatekeepers” describes their
enrolling the majority of students in higher education, and, by consequence, their
keeping student enrollments down at four-year institutions. For the American
consumer, both of these roles have appeal. As Dowd (2008) states, this process is
“democratic” (gateway) because everyone has access to an education, and “fiscally
conservative” (gatekeeper) because underachieving students are given a place to
develop skills that will help them enter directly into the workforce.
However, the current socioeconomic and academic stratification of higher
education puts more pressure on community colleges to hold themselves accountable
(Dowd, 2008) due to higher enrollments and decreased funding. This is evident in
the recent enactment of “transfer, remedial education, and other ‘accountability’
policies which have placed the performance of community colleges under increased
scrutiny” (Dowd, 2008). At the same time, traditional social science research
methods like experiments, quasi-experiments, and case studies are not effective
because they do not predict or control individual or social behavior very accurately
(Stringer, 2007). Additionally, the use of action research does not guarantee that it
will address cultural change or racism. To address inequitable outcomes in higher
education, more research must be carried out.
The following chapter describes the methodology used to analyze the use of
action research and socio-cultural learning theory through CUE’s tool in order to
47
understand whether cultural and social factors impact the success of students from
underrepresented populations. The cultural and socio-economic elements that
influence and shape individuals expectations, beliefs, and values are observed as the
study examines and investigates the process by which practitioners become aware of
their own values, cultural beliefs, and assumptions as they start to make
organizational changes at their institution.
48
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
The previous chapter reviewed the concepts and theories that will inform the
present study. The chapter began with an overview of action research and
participatory action research. Research suggests that the use of action research and
participatory research can facilitate changes in interpersonal relationships, in the
structure of an institution, and in one’s own beliefs and behaviors. The chapter
described how action research can remediate artifacts and social interactions, and it
also addressed the concern that action research does not address racism, inequities or
cultural change. The second part of Chapter 2 reviewed socio-cultural learning
theory, social constructivism, and cultural historical activity theory and concluded
with an introduction to the action inquiry project and a summary.
Chapter 3 presents the specific research procedures and methods used in
conducting this study. The introduction to the study details the use of developmental
evaluation to investigate the impact of action research and how this research will be
instrumental to organizational change. The second section includes a detailed
description of data collection procedures and methods. It discusses the sample and
field site of the individual study, as well as the larger collective study of which this
study is a part, and the data analysis procedures used. The third section addresses the
standards of review, including credibility and limitations, and reports the study’s
results and findings.
This study is part of a larger research agenda being carried out by researchers
at USC’s Center for Urban Education (Bensimon et al., 2004; (Bensimon, Rueda,
49
Dowd & Harris III, 2007); Bensimon et al., 2010; Dowd, 2005; Dowd & Bensimon,
2009; Dowd et al., in press; Salazar-Romo, 2009). Specifically, it examines the
impact of CUE’s action research processes and tools, and the facilitation of action
inquiry using CUE’s tools on the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and practices of a
small sample of faculty, counselors and administrators at Amarillo Community
College (ACC) and Las Flores College (LFCC) where CUE’s tools were used. It is
important to note that this study only focused on one segment of the overall action
research tools and processes used by CUE. The multiple field sites involved in this
collective study were purposefully sampled based on their relationship with CUE.
College and university faculty and administrators at each of the field sites were
engaged in action inquiry facilitated by CUE researchers.
Criterion sampling, using a predetermined criterion, was established for the
selection of the multiple field sites. That the participants from ACC participated in
two workshops with an action research design and expressed interest in further
inquiry activities with CUE offers an example of criterion sampling. The unit of
analysis was the activity settings in which higher education practitioners (faculty,
staff and administrators) engaged in action inquiry facilitated by CUE’s action
research tools. Because developmental evaluation builds on the idea of innovation or
evolving to new ideas, their application to sequential workshops, where one is
intended to initiate further inquiry as participants asked evaluative questions, used
evaluation logic, and gathered data from these questions with the intention to inform
on-going decision making, is appropriate.
50
The CUE research team conducted design experiments at the multiple sites.
Design experiments engineer specific learning opportunities and forms of learning in
order to systematically study these contexts of learning. (Cobb, Confrey, diSessa,
Lehrer & Schauble, 2003). The design experiments allowed practitioners and
researchers to bridge both theory and educational practice (Design-Based Research
Collective). As suggested in Cobb et al. (2003), the research team needs to have a
clear understanding of the learning pathways, and also establish an ongoing
committed relationship with the practitioners, to support the emphasis on reciprocal
learning. According to CHAT (as discussed in Chapter 2), in this sense learning
takes place when people create new artifacts from existing artifacts which then
change and regulate their previous behavior (Dowd et al., in press; Salazar-Romo,
2009; Lantolf & Thorne, 2006).
By means of action research, the study sought to “engage higher education
practitioners --faculty, administrators, counselors, and institutional researchers-- in
‘action inquiry,’ a systematic process of problem identification, data collection,
reflection, decision making, and action” (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). Data was
gathered and analyzed with application to the experience of participatory action
research, using concepts from CHAT theory for analysis. Developmental evaluation
methods (see Table 2) permitted an examination of how activity settings are
impacted by action inquiry and research.
For the purposes of this study, the design experiment focused on workshops
and settings where practitioners were exposed to or used CUE’s action research
51
tools. Individual campuses became the sites of activity settings as CUE’s research
team presented disaggregated data by race and ethnicity to faculty, administration,
and staff or discussed concepts intended to promote reflective practice around equity.
Developmental Evaluation in Organizational Change
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 this developmental evaluation method, the study also explores how
practitioners recognize the notion of deficit-mindedness, which contributes to
underachievement of minority students at institutions of higher education.
Developmental evaluation was used for this study because the method seeks to
establish social and personal interactions which encourage cooperative relationships
amongst the participants involved in the project. Secondly, developmental evaluation
seeks to provide transparency, whereby all participants attempt 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 forward. Finally, developmental
evaluation encourages all participants to continuously work towards the
establishment of an on-going process of observation, reflection and action and,
ultimately, evaluation of the plan (Stringer, 2007). 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). In
52
this instance, the use of developmental evaluation has the potential to inform
institutions of higher education of how they may incorporate action research into the
assessment of institutional effectiveness and equity (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a;
Patton, 2011).
Developmental evaluations aids innovators in bringing 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 of this study, and the larger collective study, consisted of
colleges and universities involved in action research projects which were being
conducted by CUE. Therefore, CUE and other higher education researchers involved
in the inquiry projects are the primary group of practitioners who benefit from the
results of this study to the extent which the study’s findings inform better designs of
action research tools and process.
CUE’s research involves understanding how practitioners incorporate the
“language of equity and the characteristics of equity-mindedness” as they create
53
institutional assessment tools. These tools may then be used to purposefully design
collaborative activities addressing the problems of equity existing at two- and four-
year colleges. This study specifically examines the experience of CUE’s action
research tools which facilitate inquiry into the attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and
practices of higher education practitioners and their potential influence on a small
sample of faculty, counselors, and administrators at several different institutions.
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship of this study, which uses developmental
evaluation methods, to its relationship with the 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-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 guided
by CUE using CUE’s action research tools to identify and address an institutional
problem. Second, action inquiry is conducted by the campus-based participants who
themselves are involved in the activity. On Figure 1 these boundaries are not fixed.
Participants themselves become action researchers; they look from the outside at the
problem existing within their institution and propose to change that system, as well
as enacting changes in practices within their immediate control. In addition,
developmental evaluation allows for third-person perspective, whereby an outside
observer such as myself (who was not involved in the action inquiry or in action
research as a facilitator) can study the activity setting and its action research
54
operations as institutional practitioners and create tools to remediate practices. The
third person evaluative role is not limited to case study or qualitative data. It is also
possible for numerical data to be collected through evaluation questionnaires and
analyzed with correlational statistics and tests of significance. However, correlational
analysis was not conducted in this study because CUE researchers were still focused
on developing the reliability and validity of the evaluation questionnaire items.
Figure 1. Developmental Evaluation Methods Inform Multiple Modes of Research
As shown in Figure 2, CUE conducts action research to facilitate practitioner
inquiry. As action researchers, CUE creates activity settings with the aim of
remediating educational practices harmful to racial-ethnic equity. CUE’s focus relies
on the tenets that learning and knowledge are constructed and co-constructed through
55
collaborative activities. During the inquiry process, specific discourse may occur,
bringing about acceptances and disagreements which then lead to a shared
understanding of the specific problem. The inquiry process makes room for
contradictions between participants’ personal beliefs, assumptions and values. These
contradictions may then motivate participants to gather data revealing their beliefs,
assumptions, and values. CUE seeks to conduct its action research projects at what it
calls a “critical point of intervention.” This critical point of intervention begins a
cyclical process involving purposeful social interactions, allowing for the exchange
of knowledge and beliefs within specific cultural contexts. During these interactions,
the knowledge that the participants espouse reveals participants’ beliefs, assumptions
and values, which in turn provide opportunities for reflection amongst the
participants. The reflection then allows for problem identification, conducted through
data analysis. Once the problem is identified, problem solving through action
implementation can begin. Evaluation of the implemented plan will call for the
interventions further evaluation, and assessment (Stringer, 2007). CUE’s action
inquiry process emphasizes that when practitioners apply knowledge obtained
through participatory inquiry, it may affect the way instruction and other educational
practices improve equity and effectiveness.
56
Figure 2: Reflective Practice (Inquiry) as Driver of Racial-Ethnic Equity in
Postsecondary Outcomes
This study contributes to efforts made by institutions of higher education in
their addressing of state and federal accountability and assessment measures. Action
research provides practitioners tools to combine the inquiry process with the
available accountability data, as practitioners learn how their personal beliefs,
assumptions, and values may contribute to the underachievement of minority
students at their institutions. Through the use of assessment processes and tools,
practitioners come together in a social setting to collect, observe, interpret, and make
meaning of institutional data which fosters reflection, problem identification and
action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). CUE’s equity model seeks to provide
practitioners with tools demonstrating how external and internal mediating outcomes
57
affect equitable outcomes. Therefore, the cycle of inquiry is not static; it continues to
evolve as state and federal policies challenge institutional structures and instructional
practices (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a).
The difference between traditional evaluation processes and developmental
evaluation is that developmental evaluation allows practitioners to understand the
problem as they themselves experience it. Unlike traditional program evaluation,
developmental evaluation allows the creation of measures and tracking mechanisms
as outcomes emerge. These measures, in turn, may be modified as changes evolve. In
traditional evaluation, programs are controlled by the evaluator and input from other
stakeholders is limited. However, in developmental evaluation, the evaluator
collaborates with all stakeholders and together they co-create evaluations which
reflect institutional goals (Patton, 2011, p. 23-26).
The larger research questions and sub-questions of this collective study listed
in Table 1 were further narrowed down to the research questions below. As a
practitioner myself, I have attended meetings where faculty and administrators
express their views about their underrepresented students and hold these students
accountable for the student’s failures. Those same faculty and administrators further
claim (and no doubt, believe) they have done all that they can do to aid student
success; they, therefore, do not believe that any institutional change can remedy the
problem of student underachievement. Based on my own experiences and future
opportunities to act on what I learn through this study, I examined the following
questions:
58
1) What beliefs do higher education practitioners, especially faculty,
hold about underrepresented students’ success?
2) How do those beliefs influence their engagement in action inquiries to
improve student outcomes and program quality?
3) How does participation in action inquiry influence practitioners’
willingness to engage in behavioral changes and their self-efficacy to
bring about organizational changes?
Table 1
Research Questions and Sub Questions of CUE’s Research Agenda
Research Questions
1) What influence does equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“remediated” social learning environments have on postsecondary
educators’ beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors in regard to equity in
postsecondary education?
2) What characteristics of equity-oriented cultural artifacts designed for use in
“remediated” social learning environments are associated with changes in
postsecondary educators’ beliefs and attitudes in regard to equity in
postsecondary 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?
59
Table 1 Continued
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-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-ethnic inequities?
e) What artifacts (language, media, and tools) mediate attention to racial-
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-ethnic inequities?
g) What environmental factors mediate social interactions, behaviors, and
educational practices related to racial-ethnic inequities?
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection phase of this study (see Table 2) centered around action
research activities conducted by CUE. The methods for data collection consisted of
document analysis, observations in activity settings, workshop evaluation
questionnaires, and the use of modules as prompts during cognitive interviews.
These modules were test piloted by CUE and were not regularly used during their
action research activities.
60
Table 2
Summary of Data Collection Methods
Data Source Data Represents When Data Will
Be Collected
How Data Will Be
Summarized
Documents Policies Discourse
Espoused beliefs
Environmental
factors
Throughout study
(Summer / Fall
2011, Spring 2012)
Descriptive text
Observations
in activity
settings
(“workshops)
Behaviors
Social interactions
Norms
Discourse
Knowledge
During workshop
(Fall 2011, Spring
2012)
Deductive and
thematic analysis;
descriptive text
Workshop
evaluation
form
Attitudes
Beliefs
Practices (self-
reported)
Immediately after
workshop
(Spring 2012)
Deductive and
thematic analysis;
descriptive text
Cognitive
Interviews
Attitudes
Beliefs
Spring 2012 Deductive and
thematic analysis;
descriptive text
To improve equity in higher education, CUE focuses on the design of
accountability systems which enable higher education policy makers to establish
student eligibility and selection processes, data collection and practices, reporting
and use of data, resource allocation and policy adoption. As a national leader in
action research methodology, CUE further focuses on how higher education
institutions establish evaluation processes to assess their campus’s equity. CUE has
developed an integrated participatory action research and evaluation agenda which
focuses on developing “tools for defining, solving and evaluating problems of racial-
61
ethnic equity” (http://cue.usc.edu). CUE collaborates with two- and four-year
colleges, universities and systems offices to bring about inquiry into institutional
practices which affect student outcomes.
Timeline of Design Experiment and Data Collection
Below are the timelines of the design experiment and data collection as my
study moved from the planning stages to data analysis at ACC and LFCC (Table 3).
Table 3
Data Collection Timeline at Amarillo Community College and Las Flores College
August, 2011 Early February,
2012
Late February,
2012
March, 2012
Keynote Address
@ ACC
Defining Equity
Module @ ACC
Defining Equity
Module @ LFCC
BESST Workshop
@ ACC
My role/
participant
observer
My role/
interviewer
My role/
interviewer
My role/
participant
observer
70 participants
facilitated by CUE
6 Cognitive
Interviews
6 Cognitive
Interviews
12 participants
facilitated by CUE
In spring 2011, as part of a USC CUE research team, I was assigned Amarillo
Community College (ACC) as my primary research study field site, and Las Flores
Community College (LFCC) as my secondary research study field site. LFCC was
added to obtain reactions to the module from six individuals who had engaged in
inquiry guided by CUE action research design over a longer period of time and who
were asked to engage in a much more varied array of inquiry activities. Both sites
were recruited for this study because they had shown interest in CUE’s action
research projects and wanted to continue further.
62
At ACC, observational data was collected during a CUE researcher’s
Keynote Address at ACC in the fall, 2011, which had an audience of approximately
70 ACC practitioners; at the Planning Workshop in late fall, 2011, which involved 8
participants (in two sessions); and the BESST Workshop in Spring, 2012, which had
12 participants. These data were utilized to characterize participants in CUE’s action
research projects actions and experiences (Table 3).
At the beginning of the study, the initial process in the action research project
was having all 70 participants view or gather information related to the problem they
planned to investigate, which in this case was issues of racial-ethnic equity and
student success. Using their personal experiences and perspectives, the participants
were asked to articulate how they viewed these problems in order to make sense of
them based on their individual beliefs, assumptions and values (Stringer, 2007, p.
65). The process was similar to the cycle of inquiry found in many action research
projects, which typically ask participants to:
1) Gather data.
2) Utilize the data to identify the problem.
3) Analyze what is happening and theorize why the problem exists.
4) Develop a plan, implement the plan and then evaluate if the plan has
successfully addressed the problem (Stringer, 2007).
Within the period of my data collection, the first three steps were underway at ACC
and all four had already taken place at LFCC, although LFCC’s plan had not yet
been fully implemented.
63
The data collection sites consisted primarily of participant focused activity
settings. As discussed below, the data collection methods, which included document
analysis, cognitive interviews and observational data, were designed to compile
information about specific action research activities, conducted as part of a series of
design experiments to support CUE’s larger action research project designs. These
activity settings were the primary unit of analysis. Data examining the impact of
participation in these activities on learning and change among higher education
practitioners was collected from the participants involved in the BEEST workshop at
ACC and from ACC and LFCC practitioners who viewed CUE’s Defining Equity
module and reflected on their views about equity. Six ACC practitioners viewed the
module after a keynote address by a CUE researcher at their college’s all campus
gathering and after the BESST workshop described below. Six LFCC practitioners
reflected on the meaning of equity and the quality of the module subsequent to their
participation in a much lengthier action research project with CUE, after several
months had passed.
The project design at ACC that I observed in my study consisted of two
workshops and the viewing of the Defining Equity module. (A third workshop was
also planned and was to be held subsequent to the period of my data collection.) At
the first workshop, the “planning workshop,” the participants met and familiarized
themselves with CUE and specifically CUE’s BESST tool. The BESST was
designed to guide practitioners in examining successful course completion rates,
64
persistence rates, and entering student cohort migration rates from basic skills classes
to transfer classes, disaggregated by race and ethnicity (Bensimon & Dowd, 2009a).
At the second workshop, the “BESST workshop,” the participants met and
examined ACC student success data, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Student
success was examined at specific milestones and transitions as an indicator of
institutional progress and effectiveness. The BESST is an interactive display that
shows cohort data for students based upon a specific course and is disaggregated by
race/ethnicity. The data that was 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, ACC workshop participants were presented with
institutional cohort data collected over a five to six year period which identified
potential problems in transfer pathways or degree completion. This tool was intended
to assist workshop participants in determining where barriers exist in student
success. In addition, it permitted them to explore “what-if” scenarios and practice
benchmarking short- and long-term goals focused on racial and ethnic equity.
The CUE researchers asked ACC to establish performance benchmark goals
for these specific milestones and transitions. The intention was that subsequent to
performance benchmarking the participant group would use diagnostic and process
benchmarking, develop an action plan which supported student success and
addressed success or equity gaps observed in the data.
Patton (2002) describes program evaluation as “the systematic collection of
information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make
65
judgments about the program, improve program effectiveness, and/or inform
decisions about future programs.” 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. In addition to reflection, evaluation of the project’s effectiveness and its
goals were 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.
That said, the scope and intensity of action research activities at ACC was
relatively limited (a keynote address and two half-day workshops) and the data
collected from LFCC participants, who had engaged in a more intensive and lengthy
action research process, was limited in my study to the collection of retrospective
reflections about and understandings of equity, in response to viewing CUE’s
Defining Equity module. At LFCC, I only conducted cognitive interviews with
members of the leadership team after they viewed the Defining Equity module.
Data Collection Methods
Table 2 illustrates the variety of data collection methods used for this study
and how these different forms of data provided evidence answering the study’s
research questions.
Document Analysis
By studying documents and records, researchers gain a significant amount of
information (Stringer, 2007). A type of document that was analyzed for this study
66
included the meeting notes and agendas from the BESST workshops and team
planning meetings. These documents were added to the audit trail and were
instrumental to support the integrity of the research process. These documents were
beneficial to the study because they made available relevant data about the
participants and their roles. This information could not be accessed through
observations or cognitive interviews alone. Patton (2002) states “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.” Analysis of these documents included reading and understanding the
language which was used in the meeting descriptions and determining whether
agendas were followed with regards to presenters and topics. By analyzing the
documents, evidence pertaining to the institution, as well as what is valued about the
project, was gathered.
The data sources I reviewed in the summer and fall of 2011, and the spring,
2012 were documents containing institutional policies, discourse, espoused beliefs,
and environmental factors which related to the institutions CUE was studying.
Cognitive Interviews
Cognitive interviews were carried out with six of the workshop participants
from ACC and six members of the action inquiry leadership team at LFCC. Thirty to
forty –five minute telephone interviews were conducted with these respondents after
they viewed CUE’s Defining Equity module. The purpose of cognitive interviews
generally is to
67
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 is appropriate for the item; and to see if
rephrasing the item will make it clearer” (Ouimet et. al., 2004).
In this study, cognitive interviews were used for this general purpose and also to gain
an understanding of the meanings respondents attribute to the term “equity” as
utilized in CUE’s Defining Equity module and in CUE’s action research designs.
Specifically, the cognitive interviews were used to assess participants’ beliefs about
equity and the impact of action research activities on their professional practices.
These data were triangulated with data from other sources to support or dispute the
interpretations of the data collected from observations and documents. Cognitive
interviews were designed based on the process described by Willis (2005). The
procedure used included
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 ACC and LFCC
leadership teams
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
Concurrent and retrospective probing were used during the cognitive
interview process. Concurrent probing was a part of the actual interview, occurring
68
while the interview took place. Retrospective probing occurred following the actual
interview. The format for the cognitive questions (Appendix C) was modeled after
Willis (2005). The cognitive interview protocol was designed to evaluate the analytic
objectives of the module and, by extension, 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 fall 2011 workshop
at ACC. Second, the objectives were further derived from CUE’s publications. Third,
theories for this study (presented in chapter 2) provided the basis for the kinds of
questions formulated. Extensive notes were taken during the interview in order to
capture vital details. Notes were transcribed immediately after the interviews and
analyzed through deductive analysis.
As shown in Table 3, in early spring, 2012, the BSI coordinator from ACC
identified members of the leadership team, all of whom were members of ACC’s
Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) planning committee who might participate in the study
and shared their names with me. I then contacted them and invited them to view the
Defining Equity module and participate in a short thirty-minute survey and cognitive
interview. Of the nine members that I contacted, six chose to participate. The
members of the ACC BSI planning committee included faculty from the math and
English departments, as well as several deans and upper-level administrators. Prior to
the BESST workshop at ACC, these six members of the BSI planning committee
individually watched a three-minute online module titled “Defining Equity”
(http://cue.na5.acrobat.com/defineequity/). The three-minute module presented
69
CUE’s definitions of equity, equal outcomes, and diversity. It also gave an example
each of equity and inequity. After observing the module, practitioners participated in
a thirty-minute survey and cognitive interview. The survey asked participants about
their knowledge of the terms presented in the module. Examples of these types of
questions included:
1) The module described equity clearly.
2) The defining equity module presented the concept of equal outcomes
effectively.
3) The defining equity module demonstrated the concept of diversity
with clarity.
As part of the survey, participants were asked to think their answers out loud. During
the interview participants were also asked about the impact of equity beliefs on their
practice. That is, would the participants remediate their practices based on the
knowledge they had newly acquired from the modules. Examples of these types of
questions included:
4) I intend to think more about the concept of equity.
5) I plan to be more aware of diversity in my daily practice.
6) I intend to be more aware of how equal outcomes might impact
student success at my institution.
7) I plan to be more reflective of my own behaviors and identify
“inequities” as indicators where I could focus my own efforts to
70
address the higher education attainment between racial and ethnic
groups.
Finally, the interview asked if there was anything else they would like to learn about
the concepts of equity, equal outcomes or diversity.
Along with notes taken during the cognitive interviews, I also took reflective
analytical notes upon the completion of each interview. Each instrument increased
my ability to triangulate the data and added to the trustworthiness of the study. Each
cognitive interview question was designed to address one or more of the research
questions and was supported by concepts studied in the research’s literature review.
The data collected from these interviews represented the attitudes, beliefs, self-
reported practices, and knowledge of the activity setting participants.
In mid spring, 2012, the BSI coordinator from LFCC identified members of
the leadership team and shared their names with me. These individuals at LFCC
were purposefully sampled because CUE’s Equity Scorecard action research process
had been conducted at LFCC under the auspices of the BSI committee. I contacted
those who had been recommended and invited them to view the Defining Equity
module and participate in a thirty-minute survey and cognitive interview. Of the nine
members that I contacted, six chose to participate (the same number who had agreed
to participate in cognitive interviews from ACC). The members of the leadership
watched the same three-minute online module titled “Defining Equity”
(http://cue.na5.acrobat.com/defineequity/) as the LFCC respondents had. After
observing the module, practitioners participated in the interview. The members of the
71
LFCC leadership team also included math and English faculty, as well as a few
deans and upper-level administrators.
Notes were taken during the cognitive interviews. After each interview I also
took reflective analytical notes. Each of the cognitive interview questions was
designed to address one or more of the research questions and was supported by
concepts studied in the literature review. Like ACC, the data that I collected from the
interviews at LFCC represented the attitudes, beliefs, self-reported practices, and
knowledge of the activity setting participants.
Observations in activity settings
Observations were an important feature of this study, used to record
interactions of the study team members and the research group. Observational data
provided the researcher with a more comprehensive understanding of the interactions
between study team members in a natural setting (Patton, 2002). In the planning
workshop and the BESST workshop at ACC, I observed the participants, looking for
attitudes, beliefs, perspectives and behaviors. I also noted the meeting rooms, the
way the rooms were set up and how conducive they were to using CUE’s tools and
processes. Observations were collected using the Observational Data Collection
Template protocol (see Appendix A) developed by CUE. In accordance with the
protocol and CHAT theory, the observational notes included detailed descriptions of
Site, Mood, “Task” Performance, Social Context, Environmental Constraints and
Reflections. Importantly, observations regarding “Task” Performance focused on the
ways in which joint activity, in the form of social interaction, mutually negotiated
72
values and goals, and actions brought about learning and change in the individuals
involved (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a; Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Patton (2002)
notes that observation allows the researcher to understand more fully the program of
study “to an extent not entirely possible using only the insights of others obtained
through interviews” (p. 23).
Observations occurred at the activity settings, in this case meetings and
workshops, where ACC and LFCC faculty and administrators were engaged as
practitioner-researchers in inquiry activities. In these settings the group was referred
to as an inquiry team (Bensimon et al, 2007), because they were engaged in some
aspect of the cycle of inquiry described above as foundational to action research.
Other factors were noted in the observations, including the physical settings.
Meetings were held in various classrooms, allowing different design formats to
occur. The classroom format encouraged the researchers and practitioners to interact
within various smaller groups. The participants in these smaller groups were asked to
reflect on questions and given opportunity to share within their group. Sometimes
participants were asked to pair off for certain exercises. These various arrangements
allowed the researchers many circumstances in which to observe the practitioners
and provided depth to the data collection. These observations allowed me to take
descriptive field notes and observe patterns of behavior and culture through the
analysis of verbal and non-verbal cues. These data provided the basis on which I
could describe the activity setting, how the design experiment unfolded, and the
social interactions among participants involved in using CUE’s tools.
73
Information from the BESST workshop held at ACC in the spring, 2011
helped to contextualize the selection of this site as the field site for this study. The
participants in the study were provided with their institution’s data regarding student
success rates and how many of their students persisted to earning an associates’
degree and / or completed enough credits to transfer to a four-year university – that
is, how many could be seen as moving through the higher education “pipeline.” The
study participants were given the opportunity to manipulate the BESST tool for
action planning by using baseline numbers and then adjusting the numbers to
determine how many students could be moved on through the pipeline. I documented
verbal and relevant non-verbal communication during the workshops using
observational protocol (Appendix A). Observational data collected from the
workshops represented behaviors, social interactions, norms, discourse, and
knowledge of the activity setting participants. The observations at these workshops
took approximately four hours, including breaks and lunch. The observational
protocol captures and reflects CHAT inquiry concepts to study how the introduction
of CUE’s action research artifacts may have influenced the relationship between the
participants (subjects) and their objectives (object), as well as community norms,
roles, and division of labor.
Workshop evaluation form
Following each workshop, each participant was asked to complete an
evaluation questionnaire. This evaluation tool, which was created by the CUE
research team, was used to gather quantitative data revealing participants’ behavior,
74
opinions, feelings, and other kinds of knowledge, which included participants’
motivation in becoming involved in the inquiry project. The workshop evaluation
questionnaire was used to gather data reflecting participants’ beliefs and their self-
reported practices. The workshop evaluation questionnaire (Appendix B) consisted
of twenty items set on a Likert scale with the following response categories: Strongly
Agree, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.
Examples of questions used to analyze the effectiveness of the workshop included:
1) As we conclude today’s activities, my feelings about participating in
this workshop can best be described as (Circle all that apply) Excited,
Content, Satisfied, Tired, Dissatisfied, Curious, Interested, Indifferent,
Disinterested, Bothered, Nervous, Concerned, Angry, Other (Please
indicate)
2) Overall, I felt engaged throughout this workshop
3) I expect my engagement would have been higher if ...(fill-in below)
4) I have a clear understanding of the steps my institution can take to
improve equity in student outcomes
5) As I apply what I learned here today, I expect it will be valuable for
my institution
The questionnaire provided information to the research team which could not be seen
through observations. In alignment with the main goals of the study, the workshop
evaluation form was used to inform action research practices within the Center for
75
Urban Education. The estimated sample size at ACC was approximately 5-10
participants.
Field Sites of the CUE Developmental Evaluation Study
This research study is part of CUE’s larger action research and evaluation
agenda based on the five major research and action initiatives which 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 Policy Analysis, and the Wisconsin Transfer Equity
and Accountability Study (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a).
Three community colleges and one state university provided field sites for the
collective CUE developmental evaluation study. Table 4 presents the pseudonyms
for each institution and indicates which of CUE’s tools were used at the workshops
held involving participants from that particular institution. Two 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% of the student body.
The following data gives background information on the four field sites and
familiarizes the reader with each site’s demographics. The three California
Community colleges included in this study offered both certificates and associate
degrees. Amarillo Community College’s (ACC) is located in a small city with over
76
100,000 residents with enrollment was just under 18,000 students. ACC’s service
area racial-ethnic breakdown in 2010 was: White 40%, Hispanic 20%, Asian 12%
and Black 12% (US Census Bureau, 2010). The racial-ethnic breakdown of the ACC
campus was: White 32.0%, Black or African American 17.6%, Hispanic/Latino
15.8% and Asian 13.9% (IPEDS).
Both Dynamic Community College (DCC) and Las Flores College (LFCC)
are HSIs. Dynamic Community College has 31,000 students and is located in a large
city. The racial-ethnic student breakdown of DCC was: Hispanic 42%, White 31%,
Asian 11% and Black 2% (IPEDS). Las Flores Community College is a two-year
institution which offers certificates and associate degrees. In 2009, LFCC student
enrollment was just under 17,000. The racial and ethnic breakdown at LFCC was:
White 32%, Hispanic 27%, Black 18%, and Asian 10%. The colleges’ services area
population was just over 65,000. The racial and ethnic makeup of LFCC’s service
area was: Hispanic 41%, White 21%, Black 18%, and Asian 16%.
Monarch State University is a four-year degree granting university, located in
a small city, offering bachelors and master degrees. It serves just fewer than 20,000
students. In 2009, there were 12% Hispanics and 1% Black students enrolled at
Monarch University. The racial-ethnic breakdown in the region where Monarch State
University is located is as follows: White 91%, Hispanic 20%, Asian 3% and Black
2% (US Census, 2010).
77
Table 4
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
Module; Benchmarking
Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST);
Dynamic Community
College
Community college with
federal designation as a
Hispanic Serving
Institution
CUE Modules;
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST); Syllabus
Reflection Protocol
Los Flores Community
College
Community college with
federal designation as a
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
Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool
(BESST); Action Planning
Tool; Document Analysis
Protocol The Racism
cartoon “Who helped you
through college;”
Microaggressions
informational handout
78
Ethical Concerns
In conducting research, ethics and concerns about them are very important.
When conducting qualitative research, participants may give very personal
responses, and their privacy and rights are must be considered and protected (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
D) to inform them about the study and provide contact information. Pseudonyms
were used to protect the privacy of the individual participants and also used
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 begins.
Data Analysis Procedures
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 illustrates the activity
setting model which informs CUE’s action research methods, a model which guided
this study’s data collection and analysis. This model is associated with the “social
context” section of the observational protocol and joint productive activity. The
model is informed by the study’s theoretical frameworks (described in Chapter 2)
79
and includes practice theory and cultural historical activity theory (CHAT). Practice
theory calls attention to a cycle of inquiry among individual practitioners, as well as
the role of social interactions play in shaping opportunities for practitioner learning
and experimentation with new educational practices. CHAT emphasizes the role of
social interaction and cultural artifacts in developing practices. Following each
workshop and cognitive interview all notes were transcribed and analyzed for
common themes.
Figure 3. An Activity Setting (CHAT) framework
In order to analyze the notes, shared categories were used in order 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),
80
experimentation/problem solving (EXP), action (inaction)/ experience (A/E), or
other (not coded above) (see Table 5).
According to Sociocultural Learning Theory, the community or institutional
plane, emphasizes the historical dynamics involving “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 their beliefs may contradict the next
person’s and further, that this dissonance may lead to an awareness of 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 4 allowed the researcher to classify and code qualitative data which
supported the study’s conceptual theory (discussed Chapter 2). Any documented
behavioral change may indicate CUE’s tools contributed to that change.
81
Table 5
Deductive Data Analysis Codes
Code Category Examples
Attitudes / Beliefs (A/B) If the module was more interactive like the
interview it might be more effective.
Knowledge (K) For example with faculty, they are either tenured or
less experienced or someone is less invested in their
position or their students.
Social Interaction (SI) I found myself focusing more on what the other
people in my group were doing.
Reflection (R) I thought about how diversity means so much more
to me than just “skin color.”
Problem Identification (PI) Sometimes in the classroom I feel overwhelmed
because so many things happen at the institutional
level that are out of my control.
Experimentation /
Problem Solving (EXP)
One question I always have is what are we going to
do with the data?
Action (Inaction) /
Experience (A/E)
Until our president buys into it things will continue
to remain status quo.
Other (not coded above) This is definitely an area I would like to spend more
time on.
The analytic objectives of CUE researchers included an examination of
practitioner beliefs. Practitioner beliefs are shaped by the knowledge that they hold.
If 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). Practitioner beliefs towards the project were revealed through the
practitioners’ attitudes and behavior. This study focused on the disproportionately
82
low numbers of minority students graduating from community colleges and
transferring to four- year institutions. If practitioners do not know their beliefs, then
they will not be willing or able to change their practices and agency in bringing
about institutional changes as they address the achievement gaps which exist at their
institutions.
It is important to measure beliefs and changes in beliefs because beliefs are
important drivers of behavior (Fishbein, 2000; Patton, 2011). Fishbein and Azjens’
(1975) framework was utilized to examine practitioners’ behavioral beliefs (beliefs
surrounding the consequences, positive or negative of 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
practitioners are aware that they can do more to narrow minority achievement gaps,
they may still refrain from making changes. At ACC, practitioner’s attitudes toward
action inquiry were examined as the project revealed beliefs about the legitimacy of
83
action inquiry and perceptions of self-efficacy and collective efficacy to carry out
projects.
Themes were added as part of the deductive process and were used to
categorize themes arising during the data analysis which were not a part of the
themes previously established by CUE. Based on the literature, I proposed 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 methodology of developmental evaluation was used
to examine and analyze relationships between activity settings, practitioners and
CUE’s researchers. With CUE’s research team presenting institutional data, I sought
to determine whether they engaged in a cycle of inquiry which included 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 created artifacts such as language and discourse. These
shaped practitioners understandings, interactions and ability to take purposeful action
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). The language and discourse practitioners used
demonstrated how their beliefs, assumptions and values hindered institutions from
implementing polices which promote equitable outcomes. CUE’s central tenet is for
practitioners to learn through social interactions in joint productive activities. In this
study, as practitioners engaged in action inquiry, existing knowledge and beliefs
were examined and reconstructed through social interaction and reflection (Dowd &
Bensimon 2009a). The work of Dewey (Dewey, 1958 as cited in Schön, 1988)
84
suggests that individual learning cannot take place without reflecting on our
interactions. This study investigated whether 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.
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). What social constructivists
consider important is to understand the operations of particular contexts and setting
without making generalizations across time and space. Their focus is on dialogue and
interaction which reveals the world as people see it. The social constructivist focus is
to understand how each person’s view or perspective is based on his or her
experiences and background. They believe it is through these differences that he or
she acts in everyday life. This phenomenon includes how individuals act in a state of
inquiry (Patton, 2002). Furthermore, Patton (2002) states that “Quality and
credibility are connected in that judgments of quality constitute the foundation for
perceptions of credibility” (p. 542). In other words, 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 individual’s
85
experience. Action researchers argue that generalized solutions cannot be applied to
all situations and that the dynamics of inquiry leads to finding solutions which 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 in order to help solve the problems
individuals face. At the same time, the inquiry leads 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 which 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 this study’s data
collection, I practiced observing the process of action research as practitioners from
various institutions participated in the BESST workshops. Additionally, credibility
may be reached when the researcher carefully reports data as it unfolds, whether it
supports or contradicts the study’s hypothesis, something I paid attention to as I
prepared my research. By establishing systematic data collection procedures,
rigorously training observers and interviewers involved in the study, collecting
multiple data sources, and the triangulation of sources added to the credibility of the
study (Patton, 2002; Stringer, 2007). When action researchers do not take a neutral
86
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, it is clear that the researcher must state his 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 are 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, increasing trustworthiness. 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. Data collected at different times or in different settings are cross-checked
for consistency. In this study, 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 credibility through the use of a number of
87
researchers or investigators who gathered data. In the case of this study, 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.
Figure 1 offers visual insight into the developmental evaluation methods
model which allows various ways to look at elements of this study. For example, the
activity setting in Figure 1 identifies the cultural model that exists at the setting. In
Figure 2, the reflective practice model shows that a particular culture and 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 examined either quantitatively or
quantitatively or as a combination of the two. Multiple methods triangulation either
complements the data or shows divergence in it, which provides additional insights
to the qualitative researchers. My study used quantitative and qualitative data
collection methods. Quantitative data was collected through evaluations
questionnaires, and qualitative data was gathered through cognitive interviews and
observations.
Credibility is also 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 reflects the
88
participant’s perspective and not what has already been grounded as a theory
(Stringer, 2007, p. 58).
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 research study, before actual research began, receiving training on
completing observations and cognitive interviews was critical. Training conducting
and using observation and cognitive interview protocols was conducted prior to field
site visits. These included several practice sessions and multiple mock cognitive
interviews which were conducted before actual field site visits were scheduled.
Additionally, practice on documenting observations was completed at two different
field sites. Access to the field sites was initiated by CUE’s staff who communicated
with site participants who had attended other workshops conducted by CUE.
Arranging workshops at new field sites was made less challenging owing to the
rapport which had been established between CUE’s staff and the field site
administrators who had attended prior workshops. The field site administrators were
tasked to select the project team’s participants based on institutional goals
Member check, or debriefing involved participants, provided opportunities to
verify that the data that was gathered was accurate and to see if additional
information was required to make the data collection complete. Furthermore, when
participants were given the opportunity to clarify information, it allowed them the
opportunity to deal with emotions and feelings which may have clouded their initial
89
interpretations of the workshop and the purpose of the study (Stringer, 2002). This
too established 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 checks and debriefing helped to confirm that the data
collected was accurate.
Transferability
Nationally, higher education policy makers are concerned that the number of
minority students that they enroll compared with the number of minority students
who earn degrees 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 which 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 which have been conducted are used to provide
these institutions with the ability to extrapolate the findings from one study to
another context or group. Extrapolation allows speculation that findings from one
study may 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. This study involved documenting and
90
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. Transferability of
findings from one context to another can be achieved through descriptive narratives.
Likewise, the information-rich samples and designs which were gathered in this
study can be used to target other similar research studies at different institutions.
For example, the tools used in my study, CUE’s Benchmarking Equity and
Student Success Tool (BESST) and Defining Equity module tools, involved using
individual institutional data to facilitate dialogue and decision-making amongst
institutional practitioners. The data which was shown at the second BESST
workshop at ACC was used to identify the number of students who had or had not
taken the placement tests, and / or had been placed in basic skills math and English
classes. Based on this data, the various pipelines of cohort students were easily seen.
At the conclusion of the workshop, participants completed evaluation questionnaires.
In situations like this, when vivid descriptions and details are available, other
institutions can use this information- rich sample to begin their own 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 in
beginning institution specific assessments on student outcomes and also in
addressing the accountability issues which stem from low student outcomes.
Similarly, participants who will be involved in the inquiry process can be found in
91
any institution. At ACC, the participants who were involved in the workshops held
many different roles and responsibilities. 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 which may be used for transferability purposes are the Bridging
Research Information and Culture (BRIC), Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) and Research
and Planning Group’s Bridging Research (http://cue.usc.edu/).
Dependability and Confirmability
Dependability of a study can be attained when a data is collected via a
systematic approach. This systematic approach can be completed using an inquiry
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 that the correct procedures were
actually conducted.
Essentially, audit trails have a two-fold purpose. One is to establish the rigor
of the fieldwork. 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 with which to establish dependability and confirmability, can be
achieved when all documents, data and other evidence are compiled and available to
92
support the validity evidence for the study. Documentation of the methods used and
its rigor will demonstrate that a high-quality study was carried out.
Limitations
The credibility of the findings related closely to the credibility of the
researcher. If the researcher was not trained in the process and procedures used in
data collection and the process developed to analyze the data to lead to the findings,
then the credibility of the findings were diminished (Patton, 2002). If methodological
rigor was absent from the findings, credibility then became an issue. Methodological
rigor included the methods used in fieldwork data collection and the systematic and
consistent method of data analysis. The method of coding established a classification
system that the researcher used to carefully record all findings based on established
themes that were easily verified and explained. If the method for data analysis was
absent or was not clearly defined, the study would lack credibility. Additionally,
credibility limitations existed when fieldwork data derived from purposeful sampling
was not systematically analyzed to answer the research questions.
Several limitations existed within the study. First, I have only recently been
involved in the field of inquiry and action. My participation in the action research
was limited to four workshops. As a researcher, my credibility was increased through
further training and experience. Role-playing in workshops, as a participant and an
observer, provided additional insight to action research. To overcome my limited
involvement in the field of action inquiry, I conducted extensive reading on literature
involving action and participatory research.
93
Another further limitation to the study involved the observation data source.
Participants in the workshop, even though their activities were not recorded, may
have felt uncomfortable with unfamiliar people present, making the setting less
“natural.” Therefore, they may not have conducted themselves in a typical manner
and the data which was collected may not be accurate. Sampling too may be another
limitation, especially in the case of my two community college case study. Limited
sampling may affect the credibility of the study since small or limited samplings or
the limited selective participants may seem biased to those who may not understand
the reasons for the intended design (Patton, 2002). However, the multiple member
participants interviewed may help to compensate for the two case study sampling.
Time was another constraint. Educators have busy schedules, teaching classes as
well as needing to attend to other faculty obligations such as serving on committees
and participating in campus wide meetings. They may not have had time to
participate in cognitive interviews after their participation in the workshops.
Likewise, administrators have many additional responsibilities, which include on and
off campus commitments which may have limited their availability to be
interviewed. Still others may have been afraid to be interviewed since they believed
that the interviews would have forced them to divulge information that were not
comfortable revealing.
Best practices and evidence based practices work best when implemented to
address simple problems. However, in this case study, the research surrounded the
belief systems held by practitioners. In cases where practitioners were unaware that
94
their beliefs, values and assumptions affected the success of their students, there was
not a simple best practice that could be applied to address the problem. The context
of the study led the practitioner to understand the problem being studied and the
reasons for the study, and the practitioner was then able to interpret meanings of the
study and how it could be significant to his or her specific context (Patton, 2002;
Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
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 (see Table 2). Typical and atypical data were reported, including
the range of participant experiences. The observational data were collected from a
variety of activity settings, which provided a contextual view of the campus, but was
then narrowed to a core group of stakeholders. The contextual view of the ACC and
LFCC activity settings were obtained through presenting the BESST tool, reviewing
college policy documents, attending to the discourse of the participants, presenting
the Defining Equity module, and tabulating the evaluations of workshop participants.
The following tools helped in triangulating data: the Vital Signs, the Benchmarking
Equity and Student Success Tool (BESST), Self-Assessment Inventories,
Dissemination Templates, and the Equity Scorecard. The Vital Signs tool also helped
the workshop team gather evidence to investigate the college’s basic institutional
measures—access, retention, and completion—disaggregated by race and ethnicity.
95
These categories reflected distinct views or thought processes that the
workshop participants experienced while they worked with a CUE developed tool,
namely the BESST or Defining Equity Module. For the first category, attitudes /
beliefs, it was vital to identify the attitudes and beliefs expressed through emotive
comments made by the workshop participants. Their knowledge could be explicitly
known because it was verbalized. Their social interaction in the activity setting was
established through their interactions with each other, through their use of non-CUE
mediating artifacts (e.g., reports), the nomenclature used, their apparent roles, the
cultural rules and norms the workshop attendees adhered to, the community itself,
and the division of labor. The next classification was reflection, which was often, but
not always, exhibited in the form of questions. CUE’s tools were designed to
encourage the workshop participants to ask “what if.” Reflective statements were
essential for the next two categories -- problem identification and experimentation /
problem solving. These final steps focused on the comments participants make that
exhibited they were contextualizing institutional problems and establishing steps to
solve the issues. The penultimate category was that of action (inaction) / experience,
where short narratives expressed prior attempts or non-attempts to address problems.
This final category was for un-coded statements, which were an array of actions and
statements, revealing some shared themes and issues, such as leadership as well as
policies of the institution, state or nation.
The findings were drawn from descriptions of ACC’s own institutional
practices and were summarized by deductive data analysis based on the quotes.
96
Quotes were categorized as either typical or atypical. A number of the themes were
then discarded through induction from all data sources.
Summarizing Findings
Audiences for this study’s findings include Amarillo Community College,
Las Flores Community College, peer colleges of both ACC and LFCC, CUE
researchers, action researchers, and higher education practitioners, particularly those
involved in projects involving assessment, accountability, equity, diversity, anti-
racism and organizational change.
In summary, participants for the activity settings were chosen through
purposeful sampling. Purposeful sampling is significant when selecting information-
rich cases that illuminate questions under study (Patton, 2002). The workshops and
various activity settings were designed as joint ventures which allowed the
practitioners to interact and collaborate on issues including equity (Moll, 2000;
Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). These settings became the cultural devices for thinking
and learning (Moll, 2000) in which teaching and assisted performances occurred
(Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). The goals of the activity settings directed the action and
collaborative interaction towards developing a structure that encouraged a common
understanding of equity-mindedness.
Dowd (2005) explains that activities which facilitate a culture of inquiry,
characterized by professionals who “identify and address problems through
purposeful analysis of data about student learning and progress,” allowing faculty
members to gather, analyze, discuss, and reflect on data disaggregated by race and
97
ethnicity. Two workshops held at ACC featured the BESST tool. Analyzing the
disaggregated data permitted the practitioners to see a snapshot of their school. The
Defining Equity module is a protocol designed by CUE for faculty and
administrators to analyze their knowledge and understanding of equity, equal
outcomes, and diversity.
The data for this study was collected from the triangulation of observation
notes taken from the workshops or other activity settings, document analysis and
cognitive interviews. Observation protocols allowed the study to focus on the details
of the site, including the room, the set-up, the climate and culture of the participants.
After observing the Defining Equity module, cognitive interviews were used to
gather information which gave clarification to the information previously interpreted
differently. This procedure offered much more insight into attitudes and beliefs, as
the practitioners were able to share their opinions or perceptions on the topic, thereby
addressing my working hypotheses.
Observation notes collected at workshops and through various activity
settings were analyzed and coded. Multiple observations allowed participants to
model various attitudes, moods, comments and behaviors. Data analysis code sheets
helped to assign codes to the observations. At the end of each activity setting, an
analytical memo section summarized the overall feeling / mood of the meeting. The
interviews were analyzed and coded for developing, evolving or emerging trends and
patterns. The codes were analyzed and constructed into themes that reflected on
aspects of the research questions and hypotheses.
98
The triangulation of observations, document analysis and cognitive
interviews were significant to the credibility and validation of the study. These
methods, especially as combined with each other, helped researchers to observe the
attitudes and beliefs of the practitioners and measure any changes through this
process. Developmental evaluation measured any of these changes. It also enabled
researchers to document the actions engaged in, short-term results and consequences
of these actions, as well as identifying any emergent outcomes or processes that
arose (Patton, 2010). Emphasis on this change is instrumental, because beliefs are
important drivers of behavior (Patton 2011). The activity settings and practitioner-
researchers, along with CUE’s tools, are the cultural hearth of a new equity
framework for educational change (Gutierrez, 2006). The findings of this study were
not designed to be used as generalizations due to the nature of action research,
instead focusing on a specific problem concerning people and their organization
(Patton, 2002). However, this study contributes to the understanding of how CUE’s
tools enable practitioners to assess their practices, to think about changing their
practices to better serve historically underrepresented students and to advocate for
changes towards equity-mindedness in policies and procedures at their institution.
99
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Overview
The focus of this study was to investigate whether action inquiry conducted
by the Center for Urban Education brings about or demonstrates the potential to
bring about organizational learning and change, improvements in institutional
effectiveness, and greater racial-ethnic equity in student outcomes. This
developmental evaluation study is motivated by the expectation, supported by theory
and prior research that CUE’s action research tools and processes bring about
organizational learning and change by remediating artifacts and social interactions.
The context of using CUE’s tools to do equity work at Amarillo Community College
(ACC) and Las Flores College (LFCC) is twofold: (a) the colleges struggle with
issues of racial-ethnic equity; and (b) the colleges have expressed a desire to dedicate
time and resources in an effort to narrow the equity gaps among participants existing
on the ACC and LFCC campuses.
The Defining Equity module was designed by CUE to address a knowledge
gap in CUE’s Equity Scorecard processes. The module and other tools, such as
PowerPoint materials and presentations, intended to promote knowledge about
equity issues are the subject of this study. In CHAT, tools and artifacts mediate
human activity. The tools and artifacts are socio-cultural specific and are shaped by
one’s own experiences and knowledge. The role of the Defining Equity module in
CUE’s research design is to invoke the creation of new knowledge or a different
experience, so that participants will be motivated to change cultural practices and
100
artifacts that contribute to inequitable outcomes. The module was not used in
isolation; it was presented to college practitioners who were participating in or who
had participated in workshops or meetings with CUE where they were asked to
interact around student or college-level data to construct an understanding of equity
issues on their campus and to make a plan of action to address those issues.
CUE’s tools were used at ACC and LFCC. These tools initiated collaboration
between administrators, staff and faculty during the action inquiry processes. While
they were participating in action inquiry processes, the participants reflected on
student-level data. Through the use of CUE’s tools, practitioners were provided the
opportunity to collectively think about and inquire into issues of equity at ACC and
LFCC.
Through the triangulation of data collected from interviews, observations,
and document review, I generated themes to answer my research questions: “What is
working and what is not working when action research tools are used to remediate
educational practices for the purpose of promoting racial-ethnic equity in
postsecondary education?” By examining participants’ reactions to and experiences
with the Defining Equity module and BESST workshops, I found that CUE’s action
research design, as implemented at ACC, leaves inadequate time for practitioners to
work together in small groups. The aim of small group work is to promote
opportunities for participants to connect to each other and to the subject of equity in
a personal manner. Personal connectedness appears to be a missing piece in CUE’s
design. Participants expressed interest in greater opportunities for social interaction.
101
This reaction emerged particularly in response to the materials utilized to promote
knowledge construction, the Defining Equity module, the PowerPoint presentations
during the BESST workshops, and the keynote addresses at ACC’s all-college
convening. While watching the module and during the workshops, participants stated
that they were unable to make a “personal connection” with the data and definitions.
Their comments suggested that the process was too “impersonal.”
While participants enjoyed collaborating with other faculty and staff, their
statements suggested that outside of these CUE created activity settings, there were
few if any opportunities to collaborate and work with others, especially if they taught
in another department or worked in another office. The findings of this study indicate
that CUE’s action research design, as implemented through a series of workshops,
left inadequate time for social interaction in activity settings designed to promote
equity and did not foster new forms of social interaction outside the workshops. As
indicated by the conceptual framework of this study, greater opportunities for social
interaction may increase understanding and motivate participants to learn from their
peers, foster mutual cooperation and emotional support, and encourage review and
reflection.
The findings show that a challenge remains as to how to best utilize time in
group work to encourage social innovations and the co-construction of knowledge to
successfully address equity issues. During the BESST workshops, participants stated
that the pace of the process was either too fast or too slow. Participants expressed
feelings that if they had similar knowledge and content levels, the pace of the inquiry
102
process would be more consistent. The findings from LFCC, where the time
allocated to CUE’s action research processes was much longer, support this
interpretation. Although the data collection was more minimal at LFCC (my
secondary field site) the respondents there also noted that the pace was either too
slow or too fast. The findings of this study highlight the necessity of customizing the
content to match the participants’ knowledge levels in activity settings designed to
promote equity.
Despite the shortcomings in these design elements, using action research to
remediate artifacts and social interactions to promote equity is a promising approach.
At ACC and LFCC, because of the CUE facilitated inquiry, participants became
more cognizant of their roles as agents of change and how important these roles were
in the change process. The results of my study support the findings that CUE’s action
research processes and tools impact participants’ beliefs and behaviors. Participants
believed that these types of activities needed to be ongoing and sustained in order to
truly make a difference. The participants expressed the need for structures to
promote active problem solving. The findings of this study highlight the necessity for
sustaining activity settings designed to promote equity.
Figure 5 demonstrates how adaptive expertise is gained through action
inquiry. As practitioners engage in action inquiry, their knowledge and beliefs are
observed and reconstructed through social interaction and reflection. Social
interactions provides opportunities for experimentation and problem solving which
in turn support a wider spectrum of professional actions and experiences, which are
103
the precursors of adaptive expertise. This “cycle of inquiry” engages practitioners in
a cycle of learning and “unlearning” which leads to the co-construction of new
knowledge (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a).
As noted in Chapter 3, the Annotated Cycle of Inquiry Model (Figure 4)
offers a roadmap illustrating how the BESST workshops and the Introducing Equity
module were used to support racial-ethnic equity at both ACC and LFCC. The action
research design that CUE used at these sites involved the Defining Equity module
and the BESST workshop. At ACC, the design involved three workshops and a
presentation over a 1-year period. At LFCC, it involved work that was conducted
over a three-year period including Equity Scorecard workshops in 2009, followed by
numerous follow-up meetings and inquiry group observations.
104
Figure 4: Annotated Cycle of Inquiry Model - Used to Support Racial-Ethnic Equity
at ACC and LFCC
Adaptive
Expertise
Knowledge
Beliefs
Social
Interaction
Reflection
Problem
Identification
through Data
Analysis
Experimentation
/Problem Solving
Action/Experien
ce
Keynotes at
Workshops
PowerPoint
Presentations
at Workshop
Defining
Equity Module
ACC
- unequal access
- unequal
progressions
through pathways
- unequal transfer
LFC
- Artifacts that do
not support equity
- Limited resources
BESST
Workshop
- Keynote
BESST
Workshop
- Breakout
Sessions
105
From the perspective of the conceptual framework of the Inquiry Model, the
Defining Equity module, PowerPoint presentations in the workshops, and a keynote
speech at a plenary session of a collegewide assembly were designed to present
knowledge and data so participants could co-construct new knowledge (Figure 4).
The Defining Equity module conveyed information and knowledge to the
participants for the purpose of encouraging the acquisition of new knowledge. At the
BESST workshops, the CUE researcher used a PowerPoint presentation to present
artifacts, tools, and an action research design. Slides used during the workshops
included graphs and diagrams used to convey information and required action from
the participants when they looked at the data. In CHAT, instruments and artifacts
mediate human activity. Through the introduction of new knowledge or a different
experience, artifacts can be changed (Roth & Lee, 2007).
Also from the perspective of the conceptual framework of the Inquiry Model,
the workshops were designed to create activity settings where social interaction
could occur. At ACC there were two workshops, one in fall, 2011, and one in spring,
2012, a Planning Workshop and a BESST workshop, respectively. In a culture of
inquiry, increased social interaction and dialogue may lead to deeper reflection,
planning, implementation, and assessment. When participants looked at data during
the workshops, new knowledge was generated through social interaction. These
findings support the idea that cognition is part of interpersonal processes. Nasir and
Hand (2006) state that tools and artifacts are used to convey what we are thinking
106
and that these social interactions may fundamentally influence our learning and
development and are the “mediators of psychological processes.”
Finally, from the perspective of the conceptual framework of the Inquiry
Model, the workshops were designed to create activity settings where problem
identification could occur through data analysis (Figure 4). At the workshops,
institutional data was disaggregated by race and ethnicity and analyzed by the
participants. Through the use of assessment processes and tools, practitioners are
brought together in a social setting to collect, observe, interpret, and make meaning
of institutional data that will foster reflection, problem identification, and action
(Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). Through data analysis, participants collectively
engaged in problem identification, such as equity gaps in persistence, transfer and
graduation.
The findings of this study support the assertion that CUE’s action research
processes allow for the generation of new knowledge, social interaction, and problem
identification. Concepts important to the equity process like diversity and equal
outcomes were introduced through the Defining Equity module and the BESST
workshops. Additionally, social interaction occurred at the workshops that led to
deeper reflection, planning, implementation, and assessment. Through self-
reflection, participants were encouraged to remediate the ways they thought about
equity and how they went about addressing equity gaps. Through the creation of a
social setting, participants were able to collect, observe, interpret, and make meaning
of institutional data that, in turn, fostered reflection and problem identification.
107
This chapter first shares my findings, demonstrating that an inquiry process
occurred. Following that, I discuss the themes arising from my coded interview and
observational data. These themes represent the barriers to intentional and actual
behavioral changes that emerged during practitioner participation in the action
inquiry process. I then explain how these themes are reinforced by the outcomes that
resulted from the inquiry process. In addition, I examine how the Defining Equity
module was experienced by the participants at both Amarillo Community College
(ACC) and Las Flores College (LFCC). I also compare the results from my
fieldwork at my primary site, ACC, and secondary site, LFCC. Finally, I discuss
whether CUE’s tools were adequate for the task of promoting racial-ethnic equity at
ACC and LFCC. In Chapter 5, I make recommendations on how to improve CUE’s
tools and suggest the creation of a new tool.
Institutional Context and Setting at ACC
ACC serves over 60,000 students, 71% of whom come from
underrepresented populations. ACC has been actively involved with its community’s
large Hispanic population through outreach, active recruitment, and support. As an
institution, ACC provides outreach to K-12 enrolled Hispanic students through
programs such as Upward Bound and TRIO. College documents indicate that ACC
actively recruits Hispanic students by targeting predominately Hispanic high school
campuses and building relationships with advisors and counselors. ACC also offers a
“Preview Day” for students from underrepresented populations. Preview Day allows
students to visit campus for one day in the fall. While on campus they can attend
108
certain classes, meet with counselors, and take tours of the campus. Once they have
enrolled, Hispanic students receive support from offices like EOP, the Academic
Support Center, and the Multicultural Center. Despite these efforts, the percentage of
Hispanic students at ACC is disproportionately lower than the percentage of
Hispanic residents living in the surrounding county. Members of the BSI committee
at ACC believe that Hispanic student enrollment is being underreported. A campus
committee is currently working to increase the number of students that identify as
Hispanic, partly with the goal of the college receiving Hispanic Serving Institution
(HSI) status. However, as was evident from scheduling difficulties, efforts to bring in
equity supporting organizations such as CUE have been challenged during the period
of my field work, due to limited financial resources and competing interests within
the campus community.
ACC receives an annual Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) grant from the
Chancellor’s Office in order to improve student access and success. The grant is
allocated to practitioners from the college in the form of mini-grants. Faculty, staff
and administrators from ACC are eligible to apply for BSI mini-grants. It was
through an ACC BSI mini-grant of $30,000 in spring of 2011 that ACC was able to
contract with CUE to facilitate an inquiry process involving a keynote and three
workshops.
109
The following documents highlight ACC’s commitment to improve student
success and how ACC’s involvement in the inquiry process is aligned with its long
term goals:
the Educational Master Plan – May, 2007
the Matriculation Plan - June, 2005
the Strategic Plan – February, 2010
the Student Equity Plan – June, 2004
the Three Year Plan – 2005 thru 2008.
The data from these documents, which were identified as artifacts in this study,
reveal an institution that is focusing formal college initiatives to address equity and
student success. The ACC Strategic Plan – 2010, highlights its pledge to maximize
student access and success. The goals outlined in the 2004 Student Equity Plan
include increasing the enrollment numbers for Latinos and African Americans at
ACC, improving their success rates, and increasing their transfer rates to four year
colleges and universities. These documents were selected for data collection because
they outline clear goals for faculty, staff and administrators. ACC is demonstratively
dedicated to supporting developmental education processes and strategies that will
improve student transfer numbers and other student success statistics.
Institutional Context and Setting at LFCC
Los Flores Community College (LFCC) is a two-year institution that offers
certificates and associate degrees. In 2009, LFCC enrollment was just under 17,000.
68% of who come from underrepresented populations. The racial and ethnic makeup
110
of LFCC’s service area was as follows: Hispanic 41%, White 21%, Black 18%, and
Asian 16%.
LFCC’s mission statement articulates its desire to provide quality educational
opportunities to the diverse community that it serves. This artifact suggests that the
college’s intent is to serve all of the stakeholders in the community. The mission
statement also communicates a commitment to developing students’ abilities and
competencies and a focus on student learning. The core values of the district mirror
LFCC’s mission statement, and assert that learning and student success are the focal
points of the college. In addition, a number of documents emphasize a commitment
to equity and multiculturalism. LFCC’s Equity Plan set goals to increase success
rates of underserved racial and ethnic minorities. LFCC standing CCE committee’s
charge is to create a culture that values and promotes equity, inclusion, and social
justice. The Basic Skills Plan declares that all courses below transfer level will apply
culturally responsive teaching theory and practices. LFCC receives an annual Basic
Skills Initiative (BSI) grant from the Chancellor’s Office in order to improve student
access and success. These funds are distributed by a BSI committee at LFCC.
Faculty, staff and administrators from LFCC are eligible to apply for small grants
from the committee on an annual basis. The examples above suggest that the campus
is formally committed to success for all students.
Other information gathered from documents collected in this study suggests
that LFCC is in ongoing pursuit of racial-ethnic equity in order to support student
success. In 2010, LFCC wrote a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) grant and was
111
awarded $3 million over a five-year period. This was the second HSI grant that the
campus received. The first grant focused on, with specific attention to Latino
students, increasing enrollment, persistence, transfer and certificates and number of
students in ESL classes. The purpose of the second grant is to expand the educational
opportunities, expand and enhance academic offerings, program quality, and
institutional stability while increasing transfer rates for Hispanic students.
Specifically, this grant will focus on the students who intend to transfer once they
matriculate into the college and the number who actually complete the transfer
process successfully. LFCC allocated some of the grant dollars to continue work
with CUE to close racial-ethnic equity gaps in student success in transfer. LFCC is
demonstratively dedicated to supporting developmental education processes and
strategies that will improve student transfer numbers and other student success
statistics.
ACC and LFCC’s participation in the BESST workshops and willingness to
review and provide feedback on the Defining Equity modules reflect their intentions
and efforts to accomplish these goals. In the next section, I will use CHAT to explain
the purpose of the action research tools used by CUE at ACC, which was my
primary field site, and at my secondary field site, LFCC. These tools included
planning meetings, a keynote address, two workshops introducing and utilizing
CUE’s BESST tool, with breakout sessions, the Defining Equity module at ACC,
and Equity Scorecard evidence team meetings and workshops at LFCC.
112
CUE’s Action Research Tools at ACC and LFCC
CHAT is especially useful as a lens in qualitative research methodologies.
CHAT describes activity settings that support purposeful interaction, problem
identification and analysis, and the co-construction of new knowledge. The activity
system includes the object, subject, mediating artifacts, rules, community, and
division of labor (Figure 5). In CHAT, the tensions and contradictions within the
elements of the system create the motivation for the activity.
Figure 5: CHAT Activity Triangle
In August, 2011, CUE presented a one-day Planning Workshop at ACC titled
“Moving from Equity Aspirations to Equity Outcomes.” During the workshop,
several activity settings were created with the intent of creating a cycle of inquiry.
During this collaborative inquiry project participants identified gaps in educational
113
outcomes, inquired into instructional and academic support practices, made
purposeful changes in practices based on the results of systematic inquiry, and
evaluated the effectiveness of these changes.
Before the morning presentation, one of the staff members from the BSI
committee told me he felt that ACC had a lot of work to do to support student
success. He stated, “We know that there’s a problem but we just don’t know how to
make a difference.” He then added, “At the same time most of us are willing to do
anything to improve student retention and transfer, especially for students from
underrepresented populations.” This comment suggests that the object of the group,
or at least of this individual, was to learn how to create equitable outcomes at ACC.
The morning presentation lasted approximately two hours and was conducted
for over 50 participants. These participants represent the subject in the CHAT
Activity Triangle. The presentation was given in a large auditorium with theatre style
seating. During the morning session, a CUE researcher, acting in the capacity of a
keynote speaker, showed a PowerPoint presentation with over fifty slides that
included key terms, definitions, graphs, and statistical data. Practitioners were
engaged and asked questions, which reflect norms.
In the afternoon the BESST was presented in two breakout sessions. These
sessions were attended by 20 – 25 participants and held in classrooms with
traditional rowed seating. As stated previously in Chapter Three, the BESST is a web
based interactive tool that displays institutional data in a graphic form. During the
breakout sessions, mock data was disaggregated by race and ethnicity and used to
114
represent student outcomes at ACC. The CUE researcher was able to set different
transfer percentages and manipulate data to set potential equity goals. For example,
one BESST graph displayed aggregated data for graduation and persistence rates.
After disaggregating the data, Latino students dropped by nearly 10% while African
American students dropped by almost 5%. After further manipulation of the BESST
tool, participants discussed strategies that might narrow the equity gaps at their
institution. The participants discussed practices as well as mediating artifacts. For
example, participants discussed factors that might be supporting equity gaps at ACC
like the lack of tutoring and financial aid. The participants for the morning
presentation and afternoon breakout sessions included faculty, staff and
administrators. From an organizational standpoint the workshop was disorganized
and there were a number of technical challenges. Student success data was not
available from ACC, and the CUE researcher was forced to use “dummy” data. ACC
did not have a point person for the event, and it was difficult for the CUE researchers
to coordinate their efforts with ACC personnel. A number of participants made
statements during the workshop that appeared combative and suggested that they did
not want to be there. There were also no feedback forms available so it was difficult
to assess the effectiveness of the event.
In early spring, 2012, participants at both ACC and LFCC viewed an online
module titled “Defining Equity.” At ACC the group consisted of members of the BSI
committee, as well as a number of college deans and upper level administrators. At
LFCC, the group was comprised of respondents that had participated in a one year
115
action research process with CUE that involved Evidence Team meetings where the
team members reviewed data in the form of Vital Signs and were asked to gather
data on educational practices using inquiry tools designed by CUE.
In March 2012, members of the ACC leadership team and some newcomers
to the process participated in a second workshop, in which participants now
examined ACC’s own institutional data. The workshop lasted four hours and
included both a presentation and breakout sessions. During the presentation, the
BESST tool was used again, but this time with actual student data from ACC, as
opposed to the “dummy data” that had been presented to illustrate the tool’s features
during the Planning Meeting. Afterwards, during the breakout sessions, participants
were able to use the BESST tool on laptops, through the use of worksheets that were
provided by the CUE researcher. These worksheets included exercises that taught the
participants how to use various tabs, set baseline levels for students, and manipulate
student success rates for different milestones.
The last activity of the workshop was an introduction to a process called Asset
Mapping. This exercise consisted of participants identifying the team’s focal effort
and writing it down in the middle of a chart (Figure 6). Participants then identified
campus resources that might have an impact on their focal effort. These assets were
categorized under the following five categories: Data Practices, Structures, Policies,
Educational Core, and Special Programs. This CUE tool is used to facilitate the
inquiry process and is intended to allow participants to “peel the layers” of their
practices, investigating and probing both academic and administrative structures on
116
their campus, as well as examine their policies and practices from a perspective of
equity.
Figure 6: Asset Mapping Activity Diagram (Wall Chart)
As noted in Chapter 3, at the conclusion of my data collection, the leadership
team was planning the third and final CUE workshop. They initially were attempting
to coordinate the event with the deadline for the Basic Skills Initiative mini-grants
applications that are intended to increase the transfer rates of students from
underrepresented populations to four-year institutions.
The next section discusses the analysis of the data that I collected from the
workshops and cognitive interviews regarding participant responses to experiences
with CUE’s tool and activities at ACC and LFCC. I also summarize the results of my
analyses according to the coded frequency counts and the proportions across data
117
codes. Finally, I highlight the themes that emerged from the coded evidence at both
ACC and LFCC and share any statements that either confirmed or disconfirmed
those themes.
Summary of Data Coding
Tables 6, 7 and 8 summarize the data I collected and coded as to how
participants reacted and behaved during the action inquiry process at ACC and
LFCC. The results collected from both the cognitive interviews and workshop
observations at ACC were compared with the results from the secondary field site of
my study, LFCC. Based on data I collected and data collected by a collaborating
researcher, the interactions and conversations of each were recorded and categorized
into identified categories. Table 6 summarizes the data that was collected from ACC
through the Defining Equity module and BESST workshops, and Table 7
summarizes the data that was collected from LFCC through interviews concerning
the Defining Equity module. The LFCC respondents of the collaborating researcher
are not the same respondents as in this study. Table 8 summarizes the data that was
collected at LFCC by another CUE researcher through the BESST workshop. The
tools were associated with a set of codes whose distribution was consistent with the
aspects of a cycle of inquiry. Overall they indicate that an inquiry process had
occurred.
At ACC, after observing the Defining Equity module, the most frequent code
was “Knowledge” (40%), followed by “Reflection” (19%) and “Problem
Identification” (12%). “Attitudes/Beliefs” (10%), “Experimental Problem Solving”
118
(10%) and “Action (Inaction)/Experience” (9%) were coded similarly, with “Social
Interaction” being coded least (0%) (see Table 6).
For the workshops at ACC, “Problem Identification” (27%) was coded the
highest followed by “Experimental Problem Solving” (20%) and “Social Interaction”
(16%). “Reflection” (8%) and “Action (Inaction)/Experience” (4%) were coded the
least.
Table 6
ACC - Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis (Frequency
Counts)
Amarillo Community College (ACC) Frequency Counts and Proportions Across
Data Codes
Defining Equity
module
Interviews %
Workshop
s %
Attitudes/Beliefs 25 10% 42 12%
Knowledge 105 40% 44 13%
Social Interaction 0 0 52 16%
Reflection 50 19% 26 8%
Problem Identification 31 12% 92 27%
Experimental/ Problem
Solving
26 10% 66 20%
Action (Inaction)/
Experience
24 9% 12 4%
Total 261 100% 334 100%
119
At LFCC, after observing the Defining Equity module, the most frequent
code was “Knowledge” (33%), followed by “Reflection” (25%), “Attitudes/Beliefs”
(20%), “Experimental Problem Solving” (11%) and “Problem Identification” (9%).
“Action (Inaction)/Experience” (1%) and “Social Interaction” (1%) were coded the
least (see Table 7), as is expected given that the module was designed to
communicate knowledge and the interview protocol was designed to collect data on
the cognitive responses.
Table 7
LFCC – Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis (Frequency
Counts)
Las Flores Community College (LFCC) Frequency Counts and Proportions Across
Data Codes
Defining Equity
module Interviews Total %
Attitudes/Beliefs 50 20%
Knowledge 81 33%
Social Interaction 3 1%
Reflection 63 25%
Problem Identification 22 9%
Experimental/ Problem
Solving
28 11%
Action (Inaction)/Experience 3 1%
Total 250 100%
120
For the workshops at LFCC, “Attitudes/Beliefs” (60%) was coded the
highest, followed by “Knowledge” (16%) and “Problem Identification” (10%).
“Social Interaction” (0%) and “Action (Inaction)/Experience” (0%) were coded the
least (Table 8). This was expected seeing that the workshops provided minimum
opportunities for action or social interaction.
Table 8
LFCC – Summary of Codes Assigned through Deductive Data Analysis (Frequency
Counts)
Las Flores Community College (LFCC) Frequency Counts and Proportions Across
Data Codes
Workshops Total %
Attitudes/Beliefs 147 60%
Knowledge 38 16%
Social Interaction 0 0%
Reflection 20 8%
Problem Identification 25 10%
Experimental/ Problem
Solving
13 5%
Action (Inaction)/Experience 0 0%
Total 250 100%
Comparison of ACC Results to LFCC
When comparing the data collected from the Defining Equity module and
BESST workshops at ACC and LFCC, some similarities and differences emerge.
121
Observing the data collected during the cognitive interviews at ACC (Table 8),
“Knowledge” (40%) was coded the most frequently, followed by “Reflection” (19%)
and “Problem Identification” (12%). “Attitudes/Beliefs” (10%), “Experimental
Problem Solving” (10%) and “Action (Inaction)/Experience” (9%) were coded
similarly, with “Social Interaction” being coded least (0%). The data collected from
the cognitive interviews at LFCC reflected similar percentages with “Knowledge”
(33%), followed by “Reflection” (25%), “Attitudes/Beliefs” (20%), “Experimental
Problem Solving” (11%) and “Problem Identification” (9%). “Action
(Inaction)/Experience” (1%) and “Social Interaction” (1%) were coded the least (see
Table 9). The results from both sites are very similar with “Knowledge” and
“Reflection” ranking the highest, and “Attitudes and Beliefs”, “Experimental
Problem Solving,” and “Problem Identification” changing in order by only a few
percentage points. This makes sense because the design was the same, as well as the
purpose or facilitation of the tools.
The significant differences in coded frequency of data at ACC and LFCC
resulted from the workshop observations. At ACC “Problem Identification” (27%)
had the highest frequency, while at LFCC it was “Attitudes and Beliefs” (60%). One
possible reason for this difference may be the manner in which each developmental
evaluator assigned the coding labels, contributing to the difference in coding
frequency. Another cause of the difference in coding frequency could be attributed to
the difference between the specific observed groups at ACC and LFCC. At ACC the
observed group had already participated in a BESST workshop, while at LFCC, the
122
observed group had not. Another factor which may have contributed to the coding
discrepancy were the workshops themselves. At ACC, participants were familiar
with CUE’s action inquiry tools, and as a result of this prior knowledge, they spent
more time working with the actual tools, which might have resulted in a higher
frequency of “Problem Identification.” At LFCC, most of the participants had not
participated in a CUE workshop before, and the design was different, as well as the
intended purpose and facilitation of the tools.
Despite the differences in code frequency, the summary of data coding
supports the assertion that an inquiry process began as a result of the CUE
workshops at both ACC and LFCC. It is less clear, given the lower frequency of
coding for Problem Identification and Experimental/Problem Solving in LFCC’s
data, whether the inquiry process extended beyond initial steps in the inquiry cycle.
The condensed data for LFCC show that even though there is evidence that inquiry
took place, follow up interviews are needed to determine if remediation of
educational practices has taken place.
Emergent Themes related to CUE’s Tools
Coding my interview and observational data revealed barriers to intentional
and actual behavioral changes such as attitudes/beliefs, knowledge, social
interaction, reflection, problem identification, experimental/problem solving, and
action (inaction)/experience. Through the triangulation of observations, interviews,
and evaluation survey responses, themes emerged. As summarized in Tables 6, 7,
and 8 the data was categorized over the steps of the inquiry process. This process
123
resulted in a number of themes of findings that highlight the barriers mentioned
above. These findings were consistent with the inquiry process and my conceptual
framework. Confirming and disconfirming statements further support the themes that
emerged from the coded evidence at ACC as shown in Table 9.
Table 9
Confirming and Disconfirming Data
Respondents (12) Providing Confirming and
Disconfirming Data
THEME Confirming Disconfirming No Data
Creating a Knowledge
Base for Purposeful
Interaction
7 5
The Importance of
Creating a Personal
Connection
6 6
A Sense of Urgency:
Moving from Problem-
framing to Solutions
5 4 3
Providing the Elements of
Sustained Inquiry
7 5
Table 10 provides a summary of specific quotes collected during the
interview phase of the study from ACC and LFCC respondents. For example, for the
first theme, “Creating a Knowledge Base for Purposeful Interaction,” there were 7
participants who made statements that suggested one’s knowledge base was
124
important to purposeful interaction. On the other hand, 5 participants made
statements that inferred that one’s knowledge was not important to purposeful
interaction. The data from both sites are mixed in this table and in the reporting of
results, and the observational data was coded to inform the development of these
themes.
My last section, applies the concepts and theories from Chapter Two which I
used to analyze my results to summarize my findings and I also explore whether I
was able to answer my research question. Finally I preview the discussion in my
Chapter Five.
Table 10
Sample Quotes Illustrating Data Coded as Confirming or Disconfirming Statements
THEME
I. Creating a Knowledge Base for
Purposeful Interaction
Confirming Statements
ACC ADMIN A - I hope we don’t spend too much time on
this during the workshop. Even though it was only mentioned
briefly during the three-minute module it still felt like too
much.
ACC ADMIN A - These days it seems like it means
something different to everyone and for some it’s just the
norm and they don’t even think about it. How did other
respondents answer this question?
ACC ADMIN B - I felt like the module reinforces that race is
just black and white. This would have been a great discussion
topic.
ACC ADMIN C - Most definitely faculty and staff and
probably in that order. Students definitely not as much. It
would be interesting to discuss as a group.
ACC ADMIN C - Very dependent on the person and what
stage they are at. For example with faculty, they are either
tenured or less experienced or someone is less invested in their
125
position or their students.
ACC ADMIN C - Because of the work I do, no. For someone
who does not do this type of work, maybe. The module feels
like more of a starting point. I think a person will probably
need more than just a 3-minute module.
ACC ADMIN C - Maybe if the module was used in
partnership with training like a BESST workshop, but even
that might not be enough. To really be effective it has to
become an ongoing process…kind of like a long-term
investment.
ACC FAC A - If the module was more interactive like the
interview it might be more effective.
ACC FAC B - I would be interested to know how equity can
be accomplished when students have different goals and
objectives to begin with. I am curious to know how other
participants responded to this question.
ACC FAC C - Really liked the visuals. Focusing on the data
in a disaggregated form is very helpful. Wanted to start a
conversation with the moderator and I remembered it was just
a recording. (laughs)
LFCC ADMIN A - I think that it really depends on the group.
One thing that is very difficult is how to assess where people
are at the beginning of a process like this.
LFCC ADMIN C - Again, it depends on their level of
knowledge and expertise. This type of module would be great
at participants that were entry-level and without advanced
degrees. Mid-level managers might need something else,
while upper level administrators something completely
different. Throwing everybody into the same pot with the
same ingredients just did not seem to work for me.
LFCC FAC A - I thought about how aware I am of this now.
Before I for the most part just thought about the input. That’s
one thing I really liked about the workshop is that we had the
opportunity to discuss concepts like this.
LFCC FAC B - I found myself focusing more on what the
other people in my group were doing. I wanted to observe
how others were reacting to it, especially those that were not
people of color.
LFCC FAC C - In reality, this is something that we could
spend 3-minutes on or 30 hours.
Disconfirming Statements
126
LFCC ADMIN A - I was so familiar with it that at times I
realized that I wasn’t paying attention as closely as could have
been. What might help would be a pre-conference assessment.
LFCC ADMIN B - I like the fact that the module was brief,
short and clear. I appreciated the content. This is something
that works well for someone that just needs a refresher and I
did not see any reason why we had to cover this in a larger
group.
LFCC ADMIN C - I thought about how this would be very
helpful to people that were participating in the workshops that
had a very rudimentary understanding of the equity. By
viewing this module it might help them to better understand
this concept.
LFCC FAC B - Our group observed the tutorial center. As a
team we had similar skill levels and experiences, so it felt very
doable. It wasn’t too sophisticated or lofty.
LFCC FAC C - No. I really like the module. I believe that it
accomplished what it intended to do.
II. The Importance of Creating a
Personal Connection
Confirming Statements
ACC ADMIN A - Why do our Latino and Black students not
graduate? Too far, not fun, too cold. Distance is a key factor.
These are the harsh realities that are hard to describe with
simple data.
ACC ADMIN B - Not exactly. I was somewhat taken aback
that people used the two terms interchangeably. I also did not
feel that the term diversity was adequately defined. It felt very
impersonal to me.
ACC FAC C - I thought about how diversity means so much
more to me than just “skin color.” It could also mean religion,
sexual orientation, and so forth. The slide came up really short
on this concept.
LFCC ADMIN C - The language, some of the graphics, etc. It
was really hard for me to make a connection to.
LFCC FAC B - I mean how hard is it to add some friendly
pictures and include some welcoming words.
Disconfirming Statements
ACC ADMIN C - Equal outcomes is pretty clear to me. I like
data and this is where I would go to get this type of
information.
ACC FAC A - The graphic was very helpful. I am a numbers
person, and data makes sense to her. “Equal outcomes” means
127
what comes in must come out (proportionately speaking).
ACC FAC B - My present reality as an administrator is that I
focus on the data. I kept thinking about the graphs and data
that I have been collected in my particular department.
LFCC ADMIN A - I think that the module did a very good job
presenting a complex concept in a visual way that everybody
could understand clearly.
LFCC ADMIN B - I like how CUE separates diversity out. I
enjoyed the charts and images that the module used to describe
this concept.
LFCC FAC C - That the words and graphics were very clear,
concise, simple, and easy to understand.
III. A Sense of Urgency: Moving
from Problem-framing to
solutions
a. Problem identification
through data analysis
b. Ready for Action
Confirming Statements
a. ACC FAC A - One question I always have is what are we
going to do with the data? Talking about the problem and
defining the problem is not what I want. I want to talk about
the solutions.
a. ACC ADMIN C - Again, I felt some anxiety and frustration.
It felt like we spent a lot of on some really basic terms and
principles.
b. ACC ADMIN A - Diversity can sometimes become such a
discussion item that it keeps people from the most important
piece…action.
b. ACC ADMIN B - Well, I don’t think that it just means to
ponder it. I really think that it has to be about application. We
already do too much thinking on campus. We need to take
action
b. ACC FAC C - We can’t start working on solving the
problem until people get up to speed and start focusing on the
problem.
Disconfirming Statements
a. LFCC FAC C - People for the most part were already at that
level and equity was something that we were already talking
about and very cognizant of.
b. LFCC ADMIN B - So happy to be doing this in community
and did not feel rushed. Wanted it to last even longer.
b. LFCC FAC A - I also remember feeling very rushed when
we covered this concept. It seemed like everyone got it but
me. I wanted to raise my hand and ask a question. I didn’t
want to look stupid
128
b. ACC FAC B - This is definitely an area I would like to
spend more time on. I hope that the workshop goes into this in
more depth.
IV. Providing the Elements of
Sustained Inquiry
a. Negotiating agendas
b. Providing leadership
c. Building
relationships
Confirming Statements
a. ACC ADMIN B - Equal outcomes must occur at all levels.
If certain staff only focus on equal outcomes while other
faculty focus on something else it will never happen. We must
all have the same goals in mind.
a. ACC FAC A - Different faculty have different agendas
depending on what courses they teach in the sequence.
Someone teaching entry level math might have a different set
of objectives than a faculty member teaching transfer level
courses.
a. ACC FAC B - As practitioners we need to make sure that all
of our students feel equally welcome. I can’t say that all of
our students’ share this experience. This is largely the result
of the many different agendas that exist on our campus.
a. ACC FAC B - I’m also not very sure how we are going to
really get into this if we only are meeting for one day.
a. ACC FAC C - Regarding the concept of equity, the question
made me think about other offices on campus and how some
of them focus more on diversity while others focus on equity.
We should all be focusing on the same thing.
a. ACC FAC C - We have to dedicate ourselves to creating a
culture of inquiry that is long-lasting and not just the “flavor of
the day.”
a. LFCC ADMIN A - They don’t realize that without the skills
that Program A teaches, learning the coursework would not
even be possible for a lot of students. If we could connect
more frequently for activities such as these people might get a
better understanding of Program A and more importantly
equity
a. LFCC ADMIN B - Needs to be long term but also needs to
have some continuity as far as implementation and
participation.
b. ACC ADMIN A - Sometimes in the classroom I feel
overwhelmed because so many things happen at the
institutional level that are out of my control.
b. ACC ADMIN B - Leadership needs to set a tone (directive).
For example, it has to be more than just a professional
development day.
129
b. ACC FAC A - Learning about equity through the module or
some workshop will never be enough. Until our president
buys into it things will continue to remain status quo.
c. LFCC ADMIN C - It definitely strengthened them a lot.
Some of these relationships only resulted from my position as
Dean. For others some sort of ongoing process would have
probably been better.
c. LFCC FAC A - I still have pretty strong relationships with
some of the faculty that I worked with at the workshop. I wish
we could have continued to meet.
Disconfirming Statements
a. LFCC FAC B - Everyone worked really well with each
other. It did not matter where you worked or how high up you
were, everyone bought into it and fully participated.
a. LFCC FAC C - For the most part, I knew and work with
most of the members that I collaborated with on this project.
Still, it was nice to work with them on something different and
the more practice the better.
c. LFCC ADMIN A - It definitely helped, especially in respect
to access to the Deans and Department Heads. They might
have been harder to access if it had not been for this workshop.
c. LFCC ADMIN B - I remember focusing more on the
outcomes vs. inputs. It all felt sort of revolutionary to me. I
loved it. Here I was connecting with people that I had never
connected with before. There was great synergy in room.
c. LFCC FAC A - I loved how so many people from different
parts of the university were brought together from faculty to
staff and administrators.
The themes emerged from my data analysis, which involved the triangulation
of data collected from the BESST workshops, responses to the Defining Equity
module, and CUE’s PowerPoint presentations. From the coded evidence at ACC and
LFCC, confirming and disconfirming statements emerged that supported these
themes.
130
Creating a Knowledge Base for Purposeful Interaction
The BESST workshops are intended to support social innovations through the
co-construction of knowledge, but this process is hindered when the knowledge and
experience gaps between participants are too great. While the Defining Equity
module is designed to fill these gaps, it is not adequate for the task. Gutierrez and
Vossoughi (2010) state that co-constructed knowledge can facilitate changes in
organizational settings. When doing equity work with institutions like ACC and
LFCC two challenges exist: (a) participants often have different knowledge levels
regarding concepts like equity and diversity; and (b) participants have varied
experiences working on issues like equity. Both of these challenges may cause some
participants to understand and comprehend CUE’s tools faster or slower than others.
Senge et al., (2000) states that learners co-construct knowledge from “scaffolding of
their individual and social experiences, emotions, aptitudes, beliefs, values, self-
awareness, purpose, and more.” One challenge is scaffolding to accommodate
variations in knowledge and experience levels.
In activity settings created by CUE, new knowledge is created for purposeful
interaction. An example of this process occurred at LFCC. Participants were
assigned to inquiry teams that observed different offices on campus. Afterwards they
made recommendations to these offices as to how they might improve their practices
to support equity at LFCC. Teams were comprised of participants with varying skill
and experience levels. Teams were very diverse and included faculty, staff, as well
131
as mid- and upper-level administrators. Team members reflected on this activity after
watching the Defining Equity module.
LFCC FAC B stated:
Our group observed the tutorial center. As a team we had similar skill levels
and experiences, so it felt very doable. It wasn’t too sophisticated or lofty.
His statement suggests that he felt like the task was something that his team could
easily accomplish because of their similar levels of expertise and experience. When
he made this statement, he raised his voice and sounded very excited. His response
suggested that he felt a sort of synergy when he was able to collaborate with other
practitioners who shared similar strengths and experiences. Other observations made
during the LFCC cognitive interviews support this finding, but in a different way.
When asked about his experience in the Equity Scorecard workshop, LFCC ADMIN
A stated, “I was so familiar with it, that at times I realized that I wasn’t paying
attention as closely as could have been.” Here is an example of what can happen
when the knowledge or experience level of a participant does not match that of the
content, or the participants around you. If a participant is not engaged, interaction
may be limited and participatory decision-making may not take place.
Another source of data for my analysis were the evaluations that were
completed by participants after the second BESST presentation at ACC. Comments
made in response to the question asking for “recommendations” included “most of
the data is telling me nothing I did not already know” and “less PowerPoint, more
work with data.” These comments suggest that the participants were familiar enough
132
with the content to move forward, and that the pace of the presentation might not
have been fast enough for them. Another comment taken from the evaluations
suggested the opposite when the participant stated, “I felt pressed for time, and
worried about lack of clarity on how or when to move forward.” This participant’s
statement suggests that they had not mastered the material, and that the pace felt too
fast. During the BESST workshop the CUE researcher facilitates the process, but he
or she does not dictate the speed at which the participants work through the
problems. This dynamic highlights a tension between the need that some participants
have for better understanding and clearer problem framing with the data while others
are ready to move to action planning and solutions.
Other examples of this tension were also observed during the first BESST
workshop at ACC. When the CUE researcher presented the “retention and transfer”
slide that included disaggregated student success data, a number of participants
raised their hands to ask questions. The CUE researcher answered all of their
questions, but during this time I made a number of observations that suggested that
some audience members did not understand the slide. A few participants stated, “I
don’t understand” or “this doesn’t make sense.” I observed other participants
engaged in small discussions with their neighbors while a few other participants
started using what appeared to be their smart phones. After the CUE researcher
attempted to explain the slide for the fourth time, I observed members of the
audience attempting to explain the concepts on the slide to other members of the
group. One participant stated, “The proportion of colors on the retention and transfer
133
charts should look similar.” After spending few more minutes trying to explain the
slide, a number of participants made statements that suggested that the group needed
to move forward because they were running out of time. One participant stated, “If
we spend all day on this we will never get to the action part.” These observations
support my finding that because of the different experiences and levels of expertise
amongst participants, the co-construction of knowledge was challenging.
One tool that I observed that was designed to fill in this knowledge gap was
the Defining Equity module. By introducing key concepts like equity, diversity and
equal outcome, the module attempts to fill in the participants’ knowledge gaps before
they participate in the BESST workshops. Observations made of participants after
they watched the Defining Equity module suggest that sometimes the tool worked,
while other times it did not. When asked if he learned more about equity after
observing the module, ACC ADMIN C stated, “The module feels like more of a
starting point. I think a person will probably need more than just a 3-minute
module.” When other participants were asked this same question they responded
with comments like “this type of module would be great for participants that were
entry-level” and “if the module was more interactive like the interview it might be
more effective.” These comments could be a reflection of their mastery of the
content, or a result of their experience in the first BESST workshop at ACC. Either
way, they highlight that if the content is either too basic or too advanced, participants
may have difficulty co-constructing knowledge and promoting social innovations. If
participants feel like the knowledge and experience gaps between group members are
134
too wide, they might have difficulty attempting to co-construct knowledge and
promote social innovations.
The Importance of Creating a Personal Connection.
A second theme based on the findings of this study underscores the
importance of building personal connections between the participants and the data in
activity settings designed to promote equity. Making the content of CUE’s equity
tools more personable encourages review and reflection. A challenge when doing
equity work at ACC and LFCC is that the tools often present concepts and data in a
way that is impersonal and difficult for the participants to relate to. Stringer (2007)
states that participants are less likely to make the personal commitments required of
well-founded inquiry if they are unable to connect with the concepts of the study.
As mentioned earlier in Chapter 2, CUE’s action research tools have been
developed and designed to promote equity among racial-ethnic groups in higher
education experiences and outcomes. As practitioners participate in CUE’s activity
settings they learn through the introduction of data, new knowledge and engagement
in joint productive activities. This results in an increased awareness of racial inequity
and self-change, and ultimately moves participants towards race-consciousness
(Bensimon, 2007). Two examples of this process occurred at ACC during the
Defining Equity module and the PowerPoint presentation portion of the BESST
workshops. During both of these processes, participants were introduced to concepts
like equity, diversity and equal outcomes. These equity-related concepts were
presented online through the module, and by a CUE researcher acting as a keynote
135
speaker at the workshops. The meaning of these concepts were defined and visually
represented in the form of graphs, charts and other images. They were also presented
from both a national and institutional perspective.
The first tool whose use I studied was the Defining Equity module. Members
of the BSI committee from ACC observed the module between the first and second
BESST workshop. Despite these differences, the observations that I made during this
study between the two groups were very similar. LFCC ADMIN C stated, “The
language, some of the graphics, etc. It was really hard for me to make a connection
to.” Other participants made similar statements suggesting that it was difficult for
them to review and reflect upon the data. One participant asked, “how hard is it to
add some friendly pictures and include some welcoming words,” while another
participant stated that “it felt very impersonal” to her. These observations suggest
that the participants had difficulty understanding the data because they were unable
to connect with it. Stringer (2007) talks about “referential adequacy” which refers to
the principle that concepts and ideas within a study should be developed from and
based on the experiences and perspectives of participating stakeholders. If the
concepts and ideas presented in CUE’s tools are not “relatable” to the participants in
terms of experiences and perspectives, than the process may not stimulate the review
and reflection required for action research.
A second example of this process was observed during the PowerPoint
presentations that occurred during the BESST workshops. Similar to the Defining
Equity module, concepts like equity, diversity, and equal outcomes were presented in
136
the forms of definitions, images, graphs and charts. Unlike the module, this
presentation was facilitated by a CUE researcher acting in the capacity of a keynote
speaker. After observing the PowerPoint presentation,
ACC ADMIN A stated:
Why do our Latino and Black students not graduate. Too far, not fun, too
cold. Distance is a key factor. These are the harsh realities that are hard to
describe with simple data.
His statement suggests that while he wants to review and reflect at a deeper level, he
is unable to because the data is too “simple.” Other observations made during the
PowerPoint presentation support this finding. When the CUE researcher first
presented the definition of “Equity” during the PowerPoint presentation a number of
participants raised their hands and one person asked “I don’t understand what you
mean.” When the CUE researcher attempted to explain the concept in greater detail,
a number of participants continued to talk amongst themselves, and I observed other
participants making facial expressions that suggested that they were confused. Then
the CUE researcher explained the concept of “equity” by sharing a story of her
experience as a community college student. At this point I observed a number of
participants nodding their heads in agreement and smiling, and almost all of personal
conversations stopped. These observations suggest that the group was now refocused
on the presentation, and understood what the CUE researcher was trying to explain.
Stringer (2007) states “the nature of any process of inquiry means that we enter
cultural settings that are interactional, emotional, historical, and social.” By sharing
the story of her community college experience, the activity setting shifted from being
137
just about the data to being more about an experience. These observations suggest
that participants will review and reflect when they are able to personally connect
with the data. Based on the findings of the study, the research design of the Defining
Equity module did not allow participants to make a personal connection to the data
which may have inhibited participant review and reflection. The PowerPoint
presentation did allow for this connection to occur, but only when the CUE
researcher shared a personal story. Personal connections support review and
reflection which are important parts of action research.
A Sense of Urgency: Moving from Problem-framing to solutions.
The findings of this study highlight the necessity of allowing opportunity for
group work in activity settings designed to promote equity. In addition, they point to
the need for a shared knowledge base about equity issues to enable purposeful
interactions among groups of practitioners, where knowledge about equity motivates
an interest in learning from one’s peers and becoming more cognizant of one’s own
understandings of equity. The cycle of inquiry model suggests that social interaction
increases understanding and motivates participants to learn from their peers.
However, this may not be the case if participants have very different understandings
of equity. In a culture of inquiry, increased social interaction and dialogue may lead
to deeper reflection, planning, implementation, and assessment (Dowd, 2005). One
of the challenges of doing equity work at ACC and LFCC is that the tools do not
always present the opportunity or enough time for participants to gain an
138
understanding of each other’s knowledge or understandings and therefore the
interactive component is not as productive as it might be.
As stated in Chapter 2, the development of CUE’s action research tools are
designed to foster equity among racial-ethnic groups in higher education experiences
and outcomes. Through the use of assessment processes and tools, practitioners come
together in a social setting to collect, observe, interpret, and make meaning of
institutional data which fosters reflection, problem identification and action (Dowd
& Bensimon, 2009a), moving from problem-framing to solutions. How individuals
frame a problem can have a profound influence on the decisions that they make and
any possible solutions that they might collectively propose. Two sub-themes, titled
“problem identification through data analysis” and “ready for action,” exist within
this theme.
Problem identification through data analysis.
A key component of action research is problem identification through data
analysis. CUE states that perspectives and beliefs regarding equity can be found in
problem identification and problem solving, language, actions, and cultural practices.
As participants gain a deeper understanding of the historical and cultural practices
existing at their institution, new knowledge is generated and practitioners become
“color-conscious.” One example of this process occurred at ACC during the BESST
presentations in August 2011 and March 2012. During the BESST workshops,
participants were introduced to concepts like equity and diversity by the CUE
researcher. They also observed student success data that was disaggregated by race
139
and ethnicity. During the workshops, participants had the opportunity to ask
questions. Participants also interacted with each other, with the CUE researcher
acting as a facilitator. When asked about their experience in the first BESST
workshop,
ACC FAC A stated:
One question I always have is what are we going to do with the data?
Talking about the problem and defining the problem is not what I want. I
want to talk about the solutions.
This statement suggests that the participant wants to analyze the data and move
towards problem solving. The statement also suggests that problem identification is
something that the participant feels that they spend too much time on. While the
participant may know what the problem is in a general sense, it is through the
process of action inquiry that participants analyze, dissect, and interpret the meaning
of institutional data allowing for a deeper level of reflection that allows for problem
identification and ultimately action (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). Looking and
attempting to understand a problem as complex as inequitable outcomes in higher
education from the surface level alone might not produce the desired results. Another
participant made a similar statement regarding problem identification. ACC ADMIN
C stated, “I felt some anxiety and frustration.” and “we spent a lot of on some really
basic terms and principles.” Similar to the other participant, the comments of this
individual suggest that they felt like their time was spent focusing on concepts that
they felt were very “basic.” While there might be cause for concern when
participants experience feelings such as “anxiety” and “frustration,” these emotions
140
may be of value by creating tensions within the activity setting that support the co-
construction of new knowledge.
Ready for action
A second tool whose use I studied was the Defining Equity module. The tool
introduced new knowledge and allowed the participants to reflect during the
subsequent cognitive interview. When asked about their understanding of concepts in
the module like equity, diversity and equal outcomes, participants made statements
that suggested that they were “ready for action.”
ACC ADMIN B stated:
Well, I don’t think that it just means to ponder it. I really think that it has to
be about application. We already do too much thinking on campus. We need
to take action.
Similar to the findings in the previous sub-theme, this observation suggests that the
participant wants to move from data-analysis to problem solution. While action is an
important step in action inquiry, it may be misdirected if the appropriate amount of
reflection and analysis required of problem identification is not carried out. Other
responses to this question during the cognitive interviews support this finding. ACC
ADMIN A stated, “diversity can become such a discussion item that it keeps people
from the most important piece…action” and ACC FAC C stated, “we can’t start
working on solving the problem until people get up to speed and start focusing on the
problem.” Based on the findings of the study, the research design of the Defining
Equity module and BESST workshops did not allow some participants to progress to
problem solving and action as quickly as they would have liked. While problem
141
solving and action are important steps in action research, they may be misdirected if
sufficient levels of analysis, reflection, and problem identification do not precede
them. At the same time, the tensions that are created when some participants want to
speed up while others slow down may help support the co-construction of new
knowledge within the activity setting and are an important part of action research.
Providing the Elements of Sustained Inquiry
The findings of this study underline the importance of designing activity
settings that provide the elements of sustained inquiry. Action research, as designed
by CUE is intended to support a culture of inquiry. CUE’s data tools are intended to
create opportunities for problem identification through data analysis, data collection
and interpretation, collective decision-making, action and solutions. However, Dowd
(2005) states that a culture of inquiry depends on the willingness of higher education
faculty, staff and administrators to “engage in sustained professional development
and dialogue about the barriers to student achievement,” and the professional
development CUE facilitated at ACC was not sustained. Even at LFCC, where
CUE’s work unfolded over four years, individual participants were only involved in
some activities and not others. Within the theme of “Providing the Elements of
Sustained Inquiry,” three sub-themes were identified based on the findings of this
study including (a) “building relationships,” (b) “negotiating agendas,” and
“providing leadership.” These three sub-themes each sustain inquiry, albeit in
different ways. Learning may be enhanced through social interaction and thus may
be improved through relationship building and the social interaction that stems from
142
negotiating agendas, while providing leadership may or may not sustain these social
interactions.
Building relationships
The findings of this study underline the importance of including opportunities
for participants to build relationships in activity settings designed to promote equity.
Learning is in part “consisting of an interpersonal process” (Nasir & Hand, 2006).
Carrying out equity work at ACC and LFCC was difficult because CUE’s processes
do not always provide opportunities for participants to build relationships with other
participants. If participants do not feel connected amongst themselves or with others
on their campus, an action inquiry process will be challenging to implement and
maintain. Relationship building is an important aspect of action research, and can
foster mutual cooperation and emotional support thus making projects more
sustainable (Stringer, 2007).
Through the use of action research, CUE’s tools help practitioners reflect on
their own experiences through collaboration and relationship building in hope that
change will occur within their institution. In CUE created activity settings,
participants interact, collaborate and engage in problem identification and problem
solving. According to Stringer (2007), “participants build a supportive network of
collaborative relationships that provide them with ongoing resources.” At ACC an
example of this process occurred during the breakout session of the second BESST
workshop in March, 2012. After viewing a presentation of the BESST tool, small
groups of practitioners worked collaboratively on institutional data from ACC. The
143
groups consisted of faculty from different departments as well as a blend of
administrators and staff members. Together they manipulated institutional data with
the BESST tool and experimented with student enrollment numbers, success rates at
specific milestones, and transfer percentages. After exploring the institutional data
with the BESST,
LFCC ADMIN B stated:
It all felt sort of revolutionary to me. I loved it. Here I was connecting with
people that I had never connected with before. There was great synergy in
room.
The participant suggested that this activity setting allowed her to build relationships
with practitioners that she had never worked with before. She also described the
experience as producing “synergy,” or cooperation or collaboration. LFCC FAC A
expressed a similar sentiment after the breakout session when she stated; “I loved
how so many people from different parts of the university were brought together,
from faculty to staff to administrators.” Her statement suggests that these types of
interactions are of value because they allow different practitioners to collaborate and
work together. She also suggested that this practice happens infrequently at ACC.
After observing the Defining Equity module, participants also referred to the
value of building relationships.
LFCC FAC A stated,
I still have pretty strong relationships with some of the faculty that I worked
with at the workshop. I wish we could have continued to meet.
Other participants referred to the barriers that exist between different practitioners on
144
campus and how these obstacles prevent relationship building amongst practitioners.
LFCC ADMIN C stated, “some of these relationships only resulted from my position
as Dean,” and LFCC ADMIN A stated, “they might have been harder (upper level
administrators) to access if it had not been for this workshop.” While the statements
of both of these participants suggest a desire for relationship building amongst
practitioners at ACC, they also infer that participants do not build relationships with
practitioners outside of their immediate circle of responsibility or influence. Reason
(1994) states that collaboration empowers participants as they attempt to solve
specific problems. Cooperation and emotional support are an important part of action
research because they link participants “so that they may attain viable, sustainable,
and effective solutions to problems that affect their work or community lives”
(Stringer, 2009).
Negotiating agendas
A second sub-theme supported by my findings is that of “negotiating
agendas.” The findings of this study underline the importance of including
opportunities for participants to negotiate agendas in activity settings designed to
promote equity. In social constructivism all higher functions, including knowledge,
learning, and motivation, develop through social interaction and our relationships
with others (Rogoff, 1990). Carrying out equity work at ACC and LFCC was
difficult because CUE’s processes do not always provide opportunities for
participants to negotiate agendas with other participants. This may be directly related
to the previous sub-theme, “building relationships.” In absence of collegial
145
relationships, the interaction and communication required to negotiate conflicting
agendas might be challenging. “At the base of a productive set of relationships is
people’s ability to feel that their ideas and agendas are acknowledged and that they
can make worthwhile contributions to the common enterprise” (Stringer, 2007).
When relationships amongst practitioners are weak or non-existent, the ability to
negotiate agendas might be challenging.
At ACC an example of this process occurred during the cognitive interviews
after the first BESST workshop at ACC. When asked about the concept of equity,
ACC FAC C stated:
Regarding the concept of equity, the question made me think about other
offices on campus and how some of them focus more on diversity while
others focus on equity. We should all be focusing on the same thing.
This statement refers to the practitioner’s belief that different agendas regarding
equity and diversity exist at ACC, and at times they might conflict with each other.
Statements by other participants made similar suggestions. When asked about
possible barriers to student success,
ACC ADMIN B stated:
Equal outcomes must occur at all levels. If certain staff only focus on equal
outcomes while other faculty focus on something else it will never happen.
While this practitioner appeared to have identified a potential problem at ACC, they
were not able to offer a solution when asked by the interviewer. Whether negotiating
agendas is occurring because of a lack of opportunity (building relationships) or a
lack of knowledge merits further investigation.
146
A third tool that was observed were the data worksheets used during the
breakout sessions at the second BEEST workshop at ACC. At the end of the
breakout session, members of the BSI planning committee attempted to determine
the content and schedule for the third and final CUE workshop. Despite having
representatives in attendance from the various colleges, including faculty and deans,
consensus was not reached on either issue. One participant asked, “How hard is it to
schedule one day?” In this case, the opportunity to negotiate agendas was there, but
even with many of the key players present in the room, a decision could not be
reached. This finding suggests that negotiating agendas may require a certain set of
skills or experiences. Could this type development happen through additional action
research activity settings or is there a gap in the current research design?
Providing leadership
A final sub-theme within this group was that of “providing leadership.”
Action research emphasizes “leadership roles that help and support people rather
than direct and control them” (Stringer, 2007). At ACC an example of this process
was observed during the cognitive interviews that were conducted after participants
viewed the Defining Equity module.
ACC FAC A stated:
Learning about equity through the module or some workshop will never be
enough. Until our president buys into it things will continue to remain status
quo.
This statement reflects a belief that without the support of institutional leadership,
changes regarding equity will not occur. ACC ADMIN B expressed similar
147
sentiments when they stated, “Leadership needs to set a tone (directive)…it has to be
more than just a professional development day.” Working to address inequitable
outcomes at a particular institution is challenging within itself, but if practitioners do
not feel supported by campus leadership, the challenge could feel much greater.
ACC ADMIN A supported this finding when they stated “sometimes in the
classroom I feel overwhelmed because so many things happen at the institutional
level that are out of my control.” ”Leadership is defined according to its function of
facilitating organizational and operational processes, rather than defining and
controlling them” (Stringer, 2007). Facilitation and leadership are both important
parts of an action research project.
The theme “Providing the Elements of Sustained Inquiry” is supported by the
sub-themes of “building relationships”, “negotiating agendas, and “providing
leadership.”
According to Stringer (2007):
Action research is a “collaborative approach” that attempts to “build positive
working relationships” in order to “provide a climate that enables disparate
groups of people to work harmoniously and productively to achieve a set of
goals.”
The findings of this study suggest a direct relationship between “building
relationships” and “negotiating agendas.” The foundation for any “productive set of
relationships is people’s ability to feel that their ideas and agendas are
acknowledged” (Stringer, 2007). The findings of this study also suggest that
“providing leadership” is critical to building relationships and negotiating agendas.
148
Whether it is the practitioner researcher, or a member of the institutional leadership,
it is important for someone to provide direction to the other participants and
stakeholders that are involved in the research project. While the BESST workshops
offered some limited opportunities for “relationship building” and “negotiating
agendas,” based on the findings of this study, it appears that the participants did not
fully engage in these processes. If “relationship building” skills where added to the
research design, it might help improve this process. Opportunities for leadership
development either within the workshops or outside may also be helpful. During the
workshop, the CUE researcher provides leadership, but once the process is over, it is
up to someone at the institution to take the lead. The Defining Equity module did not
provide any opportunities for “building relationships,” “negotiating agendas,” or
“providing leadership.”
My last section, discusses the concepts and theories from Chapter Two which
I used to analyze my results. I also summarize my findings and summarize in relation
to my research question. Finally I preview the discussion in my Chapter Five.
Discussion
My research explored what is working and what is not working when action
research is used to remediate educational practices for the purpose of promoting
racial-ethnic equity in postsecondary education. This process included participants
viewing the Defining Equity module, reflection on data presented at the BESST
workshops, the development of strategies to address the equity gaps at both ACC and
149
LFCC, presentation to the BSI committees at both ACC and LFCC, and continued
assessment of future remediation.
As stated earlier in this chapter, the purpose of this study was to examine
whether action inquiry conducted by the Center for Urban Education brings about or
demonstrates the potential to bring about organizational learning and change,
improvements in institutional effectiveness, and greater racial-ethnic equity in
student outcomes. This developmental evaluation study was driven by the belief,
supported by theory and previous research, that CUE’s action research tools and
processes bring about organizational learning and change by remediating artifacts
and social interactions.
Through the triangulation of data collected from interviews, observations,
and document review, I produced themes to answer my research questions: “What is
working and what is not working when action research tools are used to remediate
educational practices for the purpose of promoting racial-ethnic equity in
postsecondary education?” In response to my research question, the data from this
study supports the following findings.
While inquiry did take place, the action research design of the Defining Equity
module, PowerPoint Presentations and Keynote speakers, as implemented in
this design experiment, did not provide sufficient opportunities for purposeful
interaction.
The finding of this study show that CUE’s action research design, as
implemented at ACC, leaves insufficient time for practitioners to work together in
150
small groups. Work within small groups is intended to create opportunities for
participants to make personal connections with each other and to the subject of
equity. During this study, participants made comments that suggested a desire for
increased opportunities for social interaction. These reactions frequently emerged in
response to the materials utilized by CUE to promote knowledge construction.
Another finding of this study shows that CUE’s action research design, as
implemented at ACC, makes it challenging for participants to work with colleagues
from other areas within the institutions for extended periods of time. While
participants enjoyed collaborating with other faculty and staff, their statements
suggested that outside of these CUE created activity settings, there were few if any
opportunities to collaborate and work with others, especially if they taught in another
department or worked in another office.
Finally, the findings of this study indicate that CUE’s action research design
leaves inadequate time for collaboration in activity settings designed to promote
equity in the short term. As indicated by the conceptual framework of this study,
greater opportunities for collaboration may increase understanding and motivate
participants to learn from their peers, foster mutual cooperation and emotional
support, and encourage review and reflection.
The action research design of the Defining Equity module, PowerPoint
Presentations and Keynote speakers would be improved if they invited
participants to make personal connections to the content.
151
The finding of this study suggest that the research design of the Defining
Equity module did not allow participants to make a personal connection to the data
which may have inhibited participant review and reflection. The PowerPoint
presentation and Keynote speaker did allow for this connection to occur, but only
when the CUE researcher shared a personal story. Personal connections support
review and reflection which are important parts of action research. Making the
content of the Defining Equity module, PowerPoint presentations and Keynote
speakers more personable encourages review and reflection. Stringer (2007) states
that participants are less likely to make the personal commitments required of well-
founded inquiry if they are unable to connect with the concepts of the study.
The action research design of the Defining Equity module, PowerPoint
Presentations and Keynote speakers invite frustration for those who want to
move quickly to problem solving.
The findings of this study highlight a challenge as to how to utilize time spent
in group work to best support the transition from problem-framing to solutions
amongst participants. During the BESST workshops, participants stated that the pace
of the process was either too fast or too slow. Participants expressed feelings that if
they had similar knowledge and content levels, the pace of the inquiry process would
be more consistent. The findings of this study highlight the necessity of customizing
the content to match the participants’ knowledge levels in activity settings designed
to promote equity. At the same time differences amongst participants in knowledge
and content levels may create tensions that support the construction of new
152
knowledge. More research is recommended to determine the appropriate limits of
those gaps.
The action research design of the Defining Equity module, PowerPoint
Presentations and Keynote speaker do not provide the elements of sustained
inquiry.
The findings of this study underline the importance of designing activity
settings that provide the elements of sustained inquiry. Action research, as designed
by CUE is intended to support a culture of inquiry. CUE’s data tools are intended to
create opportunities for problem identification through data analysis, data collection
and interpretation, collective decision-making, action and solutions. However, Dowd
(2005) states that a culture of inquiry depends on the willingness of higher education
faculty, staff and administrators to “engage in sustained professional development
and dialogue about the barriers to student achievement.” The findings of this study
suggest that sustained inquiry is directly related to relationship building, negotiating
agendas and providing leadership.
Despite the limitations in these design elements, using action research to
remediate artifacts and social interactions to promote equity shows promise,
especially in settings of higher education.
Through CUE facilitated inquiry, participants at ACC and LFCC became
more aware of their roles as agents of change and how critical these roles were in the
change process. The results of my study support the finding that CUE’s action
research processes and tools impact participants’ behaviors and beliefs. The
153
participants expressed the need for structures to promote active problem solving and
believed that these types of processes needed to be continuous and sustained in order
to truly have an impact. The findings of this study point out the need for sustaining
activity settings designed to promote equity through relationship building,
negotiating agendas and leadership.
The identified themes that emerged from the observed and analyzed data
highlight relevant findings that merit additional inquiry and discussion. These
recommendations will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Five.
154
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Introduction
My research study was part of CUE’s greater action research and evaluation
agenda that has been developed over time through a number of major research and
action initiatives undertaken since 2004. Since then, CUE has helped over sixty
universities and colleges create institutional Equity Scorecards that focus on analysis,
inquiry, problem-solving and assessment in which “data and institutional practices
are addressed by a representational team of campus practitioners”
(http://cue/use/edu). During the 2011-2012 developmental study, all participating
institutions were public higher education campuses located in the state of California.
The design experiment of this study was part of a larger developmental
evaluation study of action research that was carried out at four field sites including
one California State university and three California community colleges. The
research conducted at these field sites contributed to the greater agenda of CUE.
Researchers from CUE introduced action research tools and activity settings to
practitioners at Amarillo Community College (ACC) and Las Flores Community
College (LFCC). ACC and LFCC were chosen because both have struggled with
equity issues in the past, and also because they were willing to participate in action
research in order to address those past inequities.
The main groups of higher education professionals that will benefit from the
results of this study are CUE and higher education researchers who are engaged in
projects involving action research that focus on remediating ethnic and racial
155
inequities in higher education. The results from this study will help action
researchers design better tools and processes that promote collaboration, reflection
and inquiry. A third group of higher education professionals that will benefit from
the results of this study are practitioners that are attempting to narrow the current
achievement gaps that exist amongst students from underrepresented populations in
California community colleges. The results of this study will also provide higher
education practitioners insight into how action research and inquiry can create new
opportunities for professional accountability.
This study supports CUE’s research agenda by attempting to address
institutional accountability for transfer and graduation rates for students from
underrepresented populations. It seeks to help institutions of higher education in their
efforts to reduce achievement gaps between students from represented and
underrepresented populations and reinforces research that supports the use of action
research to change behavior and self-efficacy, which in turn promotes organizational
change. This study includes documentation and descriptions of all data collection
methods and procedures and also includes a summary of all observations and
cognitive interviews. For the sake of transferability, a detailed description of my data
analysis and reporting mechanisms were included. It is my hope that the findings of
this study may be helpful to institutions of higher education that are attempting to
meet state and federal accountability standards. It is possible that other institutions of
higher education may use the detailed description of this study’s design to inform
similar research studies. Finally, the results of this study may provide a guide on how
156
to conduct an inquiry process at institutions of higher education that are creating new
initiatives to support student success and equity.
The purpose of this study was the investigation of the effectiveness of action
research in creating more equitable structures and belief systems in a community
college setting. Specifically, this study explored what is working and what is not
working when action research tools are used to remediate educational practices for
the purpose of promoting racial-ethnic equity in postsecondary education.
It is important to note that CUE is not the only organization in higher
education to facilitate action research inquiry. Two examples of inquiry-based
initiatives used to help meet state and national accountability standards are Pathways
to Results (PTR) and Bridging Research, Information and Culture (BRIC). PTR uses
evaluation and research to improve practices, programs and policies to support
diverse learners during key transitions from high school to community colleges to
four-year institutions to professional careers
(http://occrl.illinois.edu/projects/pathways). BRIC focuses on evaluation and
research to help California community colleges create a culture of inquiry and
collaboration through analysis of institutional practices and data
(http://www.rpgroup.org/projects/BRIC.html).
The sampling used in this study provided us with robust data that allowed
exploration of my research questions. Through their participation in action research,
practitioners developed skills with the potential to remediate equity-prohibitive
157
policies and practices at their particular institutions. These newly acquired skills
included:
Reflection
Problem identification and solving
Opportunity to collaborate with others
Construction and co-construction of new knowledge.
Despite the documented success of action research, it is still rarely used in the field
of education and the other social sciences.
Summary of Findings
In summary, through the introduction of the Defining Equity Scorecard,
practitioners explored the concepts of equity, equal outcomes and diversity. This
model was used as a framework to examine practitioner assumptions, behaviors and
beliefs. Through the experience of the Equity Scorecard, practitioners were able to
construct new knowledge regarding these concepts and reflect on ways that they
might remediate practices and policies at their institution. With the BESST
workshops, CUE researchers created activity settings that allowed participants to
work together to collectively investigate issues of racial-ethnic equity. This study
determined that action research processes and tools such as the Defining Equity
module and BESST workshops demonstrate the potential to bring about
organizational learning and change by remediating artifacts and social interactions in
higher education.
158
Developmental research seeks to establish social and personal interactions
that encourage cooperative relationships amongst the participants involved in the
project. This method also seeks to provide transparency, whereas all participants
collectively attempt to agree on the processes and procedures related to the project,
and how they identify the necessary information needed to move forward. Finally,
developmental evaluation encourages all participants to develop an on-going process
of observation, reflection, action and evaluation of the plan. Through the use of
developmental evaluation, I investigated and examined the manner in which
practitioners became aware of their cultural beliefs, assumptions, and values as they
participated in action inquiry in order to bring about organizational change.
Using developmental evaluation, I sought evidence for the following
assertions and generated the following results:
1) In activity settings, learning and knowledge can be collaboratively
constructed and co-constructed through the use of action
research. The results of the study provide evidence that as
practitioners engaged in problem identification and problem solving,
knowledge and beliefs were examined and reconstructed.
2) Participation in inquiry processes based on action research
reveals tensions between participants’ views about their personal
beliefs, assumptions and values, and these tensions may motivate
participants to gather data that reveal the beliefs, assumptions,
and values held by participants in the activity setting. The data
159
from my study provides evidence that when participants engage in
collective reflection, they became more aware of color-consciousness,
which is one of the precursors to equity-mindedness.
3) During the interactions that occur within the action research
activity settings, the conversations that participants engage in
may reveal their beliefs, assumptions and values, which in turn
will provide for reflection amongst all of the participants. This
reflection will then allow for problem identification, conducted
through data analysis. As participants at ACC actively engaged in
the BESST workshops, there statements reflected color
consciousness. Participants were willing to examine how beliefs,
expectations, and practices they had assumed to be neutral may have
outcomes that are racially disadvantageous. As they attempted to
manipulate the equity gaps at ACC through the use of the BESST
tool, they demonstrated a willingness to assume responsibility for the
elimination of inequality at their institution.
4) Action inquiry processes emphasize that when practitioners apply
knowledge obtained through participatory inquiry it may impact
the way instruction and other educational practices improve
equity and effectiveness. At ACC, further investigation is needed in
order to determine whether instruction and other educational practices
have been remediated in a way that better supports diverse student
160
population and promotes racial-ethnic equity in relation to student
success.
Recommendations
The following recommendations are for the Center for Urban Education and
the redesign of the Center’s action research tools, higher education practitioners and
leadership, as well as organizations that support equity in higher education.
Related to Action Research Tools: Change the Defining Equity Module into a
Webinar
The findings of this study highlight the necessity of allowing time for group
work in activity settings designed to promote equity. Group work increases
understanding and motivates participants to learn from their peers. When participants
viewed the Defining Equity module, they were able to develop knowledge that could
help them support racial-social equity at their institution. At the same time, however,
the design of the module did not allow them to interact socially. Nasir & Hand
(2006) state that cognition consists of an interpersonal process. In action research,
social interactions are important because they allow democratic involvement,
encourage collaboration, and may develop both “techne” and “phronetic
knowledge,” while creating agency (Stringer, 2007).
In action research, practitioners not only study the problem, they learn how to
interact and collectively influence the problem. Transforming the module into a
webinar would allow practitioners to participate and interact from remote locations
via the Internet. This real-time event would occur before the BESST workshops and
161
help fill the knowledge gaps that may exist amongst participants (see third
recommendation). It would also allow multicast communication from one sender to
many receivers. It could also include the use of text-based messages, and
simultaneous video chat. Most importantly, a webinar would allow participants to
interact socially.
Related to Higher Education Practitioners: Develop “Micro-Institutional
Teams” at Institutions of Higher Education
The findings of this study support the need for the formation of “micro-
institutional teams” in activity settings designed to promote equity. Similar to
learning communities, “micro-institutional teams” foster mutual cooperation and
emotional support. Dowd and Bensimon (2009a) discuss the existence of “silos” and
the importance of creating inquiry teams that include “faculty, administration,
student affairs, and institutional research.” These “cross-functional teams” are
important because they “bring different perspectives and experiences to negotiate the
meaning and values of equity” (Dowd & Bensimon, 2009a). Data from this study
suggest that practitioners do not always exchange information with other related
systems within their organization. While practitioners might work closely with others
within their own department, few opportunities for cross-institutional collaboration
exist at their respective institutions. Equity and cultural inclusivity are much harder
to foster and develop when practitioners are acting independently of each other
(Stringer, 2007). Even if practitioners are implementing culturally inclusive practices
162
at their institution, a lack of uniformity throughout the institution may actually
impede change.
Data from this study also suggests that through collaboration, practitioners
can generate knowledge that helps them identify and solve problems. Micro-
institutional teams would operate similar to mini-learning communities which
Dufour and Eaker (1998) state can foster mutual cooperation, emotional support,
personal growth, and a synergy of efforts. Through the development of micro-
institutional teams, practitioners from different areas and levels of the campus
community can collectively reflect and review their policies and practices, share
ideas, and develop strategies that promote racial-ethnic equity.
Currently, CUE uses “evidence teams” with the Equity Scorecard. Similar to
“micro-institutional teams,” these groups may include faculty members, diversity
officers, student support services personnel, transfer coordinators, institutional
researchers, and administrators. The difference between the two groups, is that while
“evidence teams” only work together during the Equity Scorecard, “micro-
institutional teams” are long-term, and continue to work together on a year to year
basis, even after the relationship with CUE has ended.
Related to Workshop Activities: Incorporate “Storytelling” into the BESST
Workshops.
The findings of this study stress the importance of incorporating
“storytelling” into activity settings designed to promote equity. “Storytelling” builds
a personal connection between the participants and the content and encourages
163
review and reflection. Data collected from the participants suggested that the module
and workshops felt impersonal and sterile. Participants sometimes felt overwhelmed
by the complexity of the data and concepts and were unable to make a personal
connection with the bigger picture. Participants felt that they were motivated by their
desire to help their students and stated that they could have made a stronger
connection with the data if it had been presented in a more personal manner. Pfahl
and Wiessner (2007) state that storytelling can be used as an effective strategy to
motivate adult learners. “[t]he strategy progresses through six narrative processes:
fostering a trusting learning environment, making space and time for story, reflecting
on and examining options, identifying strategies for better scripts, developing action
plans, and sustaining momentum” (Pfahl & Wiessner, 2007). In CHAT, artifacts,
tools and signs mediate culture and activities. Through the use of storytelling, CUE
researchers would be able to bring the data to life, which in turn would motivate
practitioners to feel better connected with the material and make the necessary
changes to support equity at their particular institutions.
“Storytelling” is currently being used by the Office of Community College
Research and Leadership (OCCRL) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. One of their programs, Pathways to Results (PTR), attempts to improve
transitions to colleges and careers. This program is made up of five phases: (a)
Engagement and Commitment, (b) Outcomes and Equity Assessment, (c) Process
Assessment, (d) Process Improvement, and (e) Review and Reflection. Phase five
uses “storytelling” to encourage participants to review and reflect. “Storytelling”
164
encourages review and reflection (Denning, 2001; Feldman, 1990, as cited by Office
of Community College Research and Leadership) and learning (McDrury & Alterio,
2003, as cited by Office of Community College Research and Leadership,
http://occrl.illinois.edu/).
Related to Workshop Activities: Administer a Self-Assessment to Participants
Before the BESST Workshops.
The findings of this study highlight the importance of participants co-
constructing knowledge in activity settings designed to promote equity. Through the
co-construction of knowledge, social innovations may be promoted. Patton (2011)
states that “the reservoir of knowledge that practitioners bring to the table can be
used to design new social innovations.” Data collected during my study reflected
varying degree of skills and knowledge regarding equity amongst the participants at
both ACC and LFCC. Some participants thought that the workshop moved too
quickly, while others found it too slow. By administering a self-assessment to
participants, CUE could determine the skill set and knowledge level of practitioners
regarding equity before they participate in the workshops. This would allow CUE to:
1) Design specialized paths that participants could self-place through the
webinar depending on their knowledge base and skill sets.
2) Customize the BESST workshop to more adequately match the needs of
the participants.
3) Create customized breakout groups comprised of participant with varying
degrees of knowledge and different skill-sets, that participants would self-
165
place into allowing for scaffolding as well as moving through the
workshops at a more consistent pace.
A challenge with scaffolding is when the knowledge and experience gaps
between participants are too wide. Administering self-assessment to participants
would allow CUE to customize their tools to better match the needs of the
participants. By “leveling the playing field,” CUE’s tools may be more effective at
remediating artifacts and social interactions in activity settings designed to support
equity.
Recommendations for CUE and Higher Education Leadership: Development of
a “CUE Academy”
The findings of this study support the need for sustained inquiry in activity
settings designed to promote equity. Sustained inquiry results in increased
opportunities for problem identification and problem solving. If institutions of higher
education wish to implement long-lasting change, inquiry must be established and
sustained over time.
CUE is currently working with 14 public comprehensive universities (part of
the same state system), one private non-profit comprehensive university, one private
non-profit liberal arts college and University of Wisconsin System (UWS). CUE has
previously worked with both the 2-year and 4-year campuses of another state system.
As demand for their services grow, current resources and staff may become stretched
beyond capacity. By establishing a CUE Academy, practitioners from participating
institutions could attend a multi-day seminar and learn how to facilitate and train
166
their colleagues at their respective institutions. As CUE-trained researchers, they
could then hold training sessions at their institution and facilitate and manage
ongoing projects. By “training the trainers,” participants could better assist their
colleagues to implement and sustain long-term change at their particular college or
university.
Cobb et al. (2003) states that the research team needs to establish an ongoing
committed relationship with the practitioners, with supported emphasis on reciprocal
learning. In CHAT, learning takes place when people create new artifacts from
existing artifacts which then change and regulate their previous behavior. A CUE
Academy would support the development of a culture of inquiry by training
practitioners to become CUE researchers. This would allow equity-related work to
be carried out over an extended period of time that would increase the number of
opportunities for problem identification and problem solving.
Conclusion
In 2012, President Barack Obama’s budget request for the Department of
Education was 2.5% over the previous year’s request, which was the largest increase
proposed for any domestic government agency (U.S. Department of Education,
2012b). Despite this funding request, national data continues to reflect a graduation
gap between African American and Latino students and their white peers (U.S.
Department of Education, 2012a). At the same time, California Community
Colleges, the site of this study, have experienced a 6.8% budget reduction since 2010
equaling approximately $400 million dollars (California Community Colleges
167
System Office, 2012). As a result of this budget cut, approximately 200,000 students
will lose access to classes (California Community Colleges System Office, 2012).
Currently the California community college system is being funded for only 2.5
million students, but enrollment demand is so high that over 600,000 students will
not be served (California Community Colleges System Office, 2012). With
decreased funding, one can only assume that the equity gaps that exist in California
Community Colleges will only continue to grow.
Current accountability measures at both the state and national levels are not working.
Students from underrepresented populations continue to transfer and graduate at
lower rates than their white counterparts. Current strategies in practice like selective
student recruitment, increasing access through tuition subsidies and “open”
admission policies, and other universal solutions have not created equity for all
students in higher education. As our student population continues to diversify in
regards to ethnic and cultural backgrounds and varying levels of college preparation,
these equity gaps may continue to grow. Through the establishment of a culture of
inquiry, practitioners in higher education may be more prepared to address these
potential challenges and improve minority student success through their ability to
implement organizational change. Current and commonly used assessment plans and
accountability structures are not effective at promoting racial-ethnic equity in higher
education.
Despite increased access and support for students from underrepresented
populations, transfer and graduation rates continue to be disproportionately lower
168
than for students from represented populations. Many students from
underrepresented populations come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, which
may put them at an academic disadvantage before they even arrive on campus.
Through a culture of inquiry, practitioners in higher education become researchers
within an inquiry process which enables them to better support all students in their
attempts to experience academic success.
The number of minority students who graduate or transfer from two-year
institutions to four-year institutions continues to be disproportionately smaller than
the number of White students who earn degrees or transfer from the same institutions
(Dowd, 2003; Shulock & Moore, 2005). In California, community college
practitioners and leaders are concerned because a high number of minority students
are enrolled in basic skills courses. Because the persistence, retention and transfer
rates for many of these same students are low, community colleges are using new
approaches to reduce these gaps.
Over the last 30 years, institutions of higher education have shifted their
focus from inputs to outputs. Despite these shifts, the number of students from
underrepresented groups graduating from four-year institutions is fewer than their
White counterparts (Shulock & Moore, 2005). Indicators such as course completion,
transfer rates, and graduation rates are used by organizations including accreditation
agencies and state and federal education departments to hold institutions of higher
education accountable for their students’ success. This same student success data
was used to inform the practitioner inquiry observed in this study.
169
To meet these accountability standards at both the state and national levels,
some institutions of higher education are utilizing action research to gain a better
understanding of how their institutional policies, practices and procedures impact
retention, transfer and graduation (Bensimon, 2007). Participation in these types of
action research projects improves both institutional knowledge and academic
expertise. In this study, I attempted to determine what is working and what is not
working when action research tools are used to remediate educational practices for
the purpose of promoting racial-ethnic equity in postsecondary education.
“Action research is a systematic approach to investigation that enables people
to find effective solutions to problems they confront in their everyday lives”
(Stringer, 2007). It allows practitioners, acting as researchers, to develop customized
solutions for problems that are unique to their campus. Through social interaction
and the use of structured activity settings, action research projects promote inquiry,
reflection and collaboration. Action research can support equity in higher education
through the development of a culture of inquiry, where practitioners identify local
problems and solutions, rather that attempting a more generalized approach, usually
developed by someone that does not even work at that particular institution. The
results of this study will help improve existing action research tools and processes,
and create new opportunities for professional accountability.
The design and findings of this study support the use of action research in
higher education. It can inform and guide higher education practitioners as they
design new solutions that support student success through collaboration and inquiry.
170
The results of this study can provide a blueprint for institutions of higher education
as they embark on an inquiry process designed to support student retention, transfer,
and graduation. Action research encourages practitioners to become engaged in a
reflective process where they become active participants in a cycle of inquiry.
The results of this study confirm that when practitioners engage in inquiry
through action research projects, they generate new knowledge that may help them
decrease the equity gaps that exist at their respective institutions. As a result of the
collective inquiry process practitioners are better equipped to identify institutional
problems that might support these inequities, and more importantly develop both
localized and institution specific solutions. Finally, based on the findings of this
study, we know that when institutional stakeholders assume a culture of inquiry, they
are able to analyze and evaluate student outcome data and create action plans that are
intended to decrease the achievement gaps for students from underrepresented
populations.
In Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village,” she discusses the impact that
individuals and groups outside of the immediate family have on the well-being of a
child. In regards to the college student, a new title might read “It Takes a University
Community.” Action research creates unique opportunities for faculty, staff, and
administrators to collaborate outside of the “silos” that exist in so many institutions
of higher education. Numerous times during my research, I observed faculty, staff
and administrators sitting at the same table, collectively identifying problems,
collaborating on solutions, and analyzing their effectiveness. Once a culture of
171
inquiry has been created, individuals work towards solving the problem in a
proactive manner, rather than waiting to react to the problem. One additional step
that I suggest practitioners consider, is inviting the student to the table. In regards to
their success they know the barriers that exist and what resources are available to
them. If we are going to become truly reflective of our own practices, their voices
must be heard. While data gives us a fairly comprehensive picture of the challenges
we are faced with in higher education, it will never completely capture the student
experience.
As a Student Affairs professional, I must also state that the success of the
student is not limited to the classroom experience. Every day I witness student
attrition that is non-academic, including financial hardship, mental health, or even
homesickness. Now more than ever, all University employees must frame their work
in terms of student success from the President to the groundskeeper, both within and
outside of the classroom. In Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire (1970) states
that “The teacher must be a student, and the student a teacher.” Everyone who works
in higher education is both a teacher and student, and thus focused on student
success. Action research based projects provide the perfect platform for this
collaboration to occur, and thus offer a promising future for true change to happen.
172
REFERENCES
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (2009). Basic skills as a
foundation for student success in California Community Colleges. Retrieved
from http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/BasicSkills_
booklet-2.pdf.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, CD: National Center for Educational
Statistics.
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability. Journal of Higher
Education, 71(4), 411.
Bailey, T., & Smith Morest, V. (eds.) (2006). Defending the community college
Equity agenda. The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Baker, R. L. (2002). Evaluating quality and effectiveness: regional accreditation
principles and practices. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 28(1/2),
3-7.
Barajas, H.L. (2001). Is developmental education a racial project? Considering race
relationships in developmental education spaces. In D.B. Lundell & J.L.
Higbee (Eds.) Theoretical perspectives for developmental education.
Minneapolis, MN: Center for Research on Developmental Education.
Bennett, C. I., Cole, D., & Thompson, J.-N. (2001). Preparing teachers of color at a
predominantly White university: A case study of Project TEAM. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 16, 445–464.
Bensimon, E. M. (2004). “The Diversity Scorecard: A Learning Approach to
Institutional Change.” Change, 2004, 36(1), 45–52.
Bensimon, E. M., Polkinghorne, D. E., Bauman, G. L. & Vallejo, E. (2004). Doing
Research That Makes a Difference. Journal of Higher Education, 75(1),
104-126.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Higher education as a
learning organization: Promising concepts and approaches (Vol. 131). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
173
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). The meditational
means of enacting equity-mindedness among community college
practitioners. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher
Education.
Bensimon, E. M., Dowd, A. C., Daniels III, J. E. & Walden, D. (2010). Long-term
partners for serving Los Angeles’ African American and Latino students:
USC’s Center for Urban Education and Los Angeles Southwest College.
College bound: Strategies for access and success for low-income students.
(pp. 34-45). Los Angeles: USC Office of Government and Civic
Engagement.
Bensimon, E. M. (in press) Chapter 2: The Equity Scorecard: Theory of Change,
Stylus Press.
Boroch, D., Hope, L., Smith, B., Gabriner, R., Mery, P., Johnstone, R., & Asera, R.,
2010. Student success in community colleges: A practical guide to
developmental education. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.
Burke, J. C. (2003). The new accountability for public higher education: From
Regulation to results. Research in University Evaluation, No. 3 (September,
2003).
Burke, J. C. (2005). Reinventing accountability. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving
accountability in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Business-Higher Education Forum (2004). Public accountability for student learning
In higher education: Issues and options. Retrieved from
http://www.bhef.com/publications/documents/public_accountability_04.pdf.
California Community Colleges System Office. (2007). Fact sheet. Focus on results:
Accountability reporting for the community colleges (ARCC). Sacramento:
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
174
California Community Colleges System Office (2012). California Community
Colleges Chancellor Jack Scott Returns to Pasadena City College for “State
of Community Colleges” Address, Tackles Impact of Budget. Retrieved from
http://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/DocDownloads/Pre
Releases/MAR2012/PRESS_RELEASE_ScottVisitsPCC_032212_
FINAL.pdf
California Education Code, Title 3, Part 4, Art. 3, § 66010.1-66010.8 (2005)
California Legislative Analyst’s Office (2011a). Prioritizing course enrollment at the
community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2011/
highered/ccc_course_enrollment_012011.pdf.
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2007). Stepping stones to a
degree: The impact of enrollment pathways and milestones on community
college student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 48(7), 775–802.
Center on Education Policy (2010a). A call to action to raise achievement for
African American Students. Retrieved from http://www.cep-
dc.org/index.cfm?
DocumentSubTopicID=34.
Center on Education Policy (2010b). Improving achievement for the growing Latino
population is critical to the nation’s future. Retrieved from http://www.cep-
dc.org/index.cfm?DocumentTopicID=3.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design
Experiments in Educational Research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), pp 9-
13.
Cole, M. (1998). Can Cultural Psychology Help Us Think About Diversity? Mind,
Culture and Activity, 5(4), 291-304.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. 2
nd
. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The policies and practices of interpretation.
In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 897-992). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dowd, A. C. (2003). From access to outcome equity: Revitalizing the democratic
mission of the community college. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science. Vol. 585: Community colleges: New
environments, new directions, pp. 92–119.
175
Dowd, A. C. (2005). Data don’t drive: Building a practitioner-driven culture of
Inquiry to assess community college performance (Research Report).
Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation for Education.
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. and Bensimon, E. M. (2009a). CUE frameworks for action, research,
and evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for Urban Education, University of
Southern California.
Dowd, A. C. and E. M. Bensimon (2009b). The social learning theory and tools
underlying CUE’s facilitation of action inquiry for equity. Los Angeles:
Center for Urban Education, University of Southern California.
Dowd, A. C., Bensimon, E. M., Watford, T., Malcom, L., Bessolo, T., Bordoloi, L.,
Chase, M. H., and Malagon, M. (2008). Does “2+2” still equal four?
Examining the “New Math” of transfer access from community colleges to
the baccalaureate. Presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education (ASHE). Nov, 2008. Jacksonville, Fl.
Dowd, A. C., Bishop, R., Bensimon, E. M., & Witham, K. (in press). Re-mediating
accountability. In K. Gallagher, R. Goodyear & D. Brewer (Eds.),
Introduction to urban education: New York: Routledge.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement National Educational Service,
1252 Loesch Road, Bloomington, IN.
Dunne, J. (1993). Back to the rough ground: “Phronesis” and “Techne” in modern
philosophy and in Aristotle. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Fishbein, M. (2000). The role of theory in HIV prevention. AIDS Care, 12, 273–278.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Grant, C. A. & Sleeter, C. E., (1987). An analysis of multicultural education in the
United States. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 421-444.
176
Greenwood, D. J. and 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 (3
rd
ed., pp. 43-64). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Grubb, W. N., Badway, N., & Bell, D. (2003, March). Community colleges and the
equity agenda: The potential of noncredit education. The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 586, 218-240.
Grubb, W. N. & Badway, N. N. (2005). From compliance to improvement
accountability: Accountability and assessment in California Community
colleges. Higher Education Evaluation and Research Group.
Gutierrez, K. (2006). Culture matters: Rethinking educational equity. New York:
Carnegie Foundation.
Gutierrez, K. D., Morales, P. Z., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Remediating Literacy:
Culture, Difference, and Learning for Students from Nondominant
Communities. Review of Research in Education, 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.
Horn, L. & Lew, S. (2007). California Community College Transfer Rates: Who Is
Counted Makes a Difference. Berkeley, Calif.: MPR Associate, 2007
Horn, L., and Neville, S. (2006). Profile of Undergraduates in U.S. Postsecondary
Education Institutions: 2003–04: With a Special Analysis of Community
College Students (NCES 2006-184). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
Lantolf, J. P. & S. L. Thorne (2006). Sociocultural theory and the sociogenesis of
Second language development. New York: Oxford University Press.
McCormick, A. (1999). Credit Production and Progress Toward the Bachelors
Degree: An Analysis of Postsecondary Transcripts for Beginning Students at
4-Year Institutions, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
177
Mehta, S. (2011, March 9). Latino population approaching that of whites in
California, census data show. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/03/hispanics-population-
approaching-that-of-whites-in-california-census-data-shows.html
Moll, L. C. (2000). Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic experiments in education.
In D. D. Leer and P. Smagorisky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy
research. (pp. 256-268). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2007). Beyond the open door: Increasing student success
in the California community colleges. Sacramento: Institute for Higher
Education Leadership and Policy, California State University.
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2010). Divided we fail: Improving completion and
losing racial gaps in California’s Community Colleges. Sacramento: Institute
for Higher Education Leadership and Policy, California State University.
Moore, C., Shulock, N. & Offenstein, J. (2009). Steps to success: Analyzing
milestone achievement to improve community college student outcomes.
Sacramento: Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy, California
State University.
Museus, S. D., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial
and ethnic minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher
Education, 33, 67–94.
Nasir, N. S., & Hand, V. M. (2006). Exploring sociocultural perspectives on race,
culture, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 449-475.
Office of Community College Research and Leadership. Pathways to Results.
Retrieved from http://occrl.illinois.edu/.
Ouimet, J. A., Bunnage, J. C., Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Kennedy, J. (2004).
Using focus groups, expert advice, and cognitive interviews to establish the
validity of a college student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45, 233-
250.
Pahl, N., & Wiessner, C. (2007). Creating New Directions with Story: Narrating Life
Experience as Story in Community Adult Education Contexts. Adult
Learning, 18(3/4), 9-13.
178
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Evaluating Complexity Concepts
to Enhance Innovation and Use. New York: The Guilford Press.
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.
Rising costs could push college out of reach. (2008, December 3). CNN News.
Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-
03/living/college.costs_1_family-income-college-affordability-higher-
education-report?_s=PM:LIVING
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social
context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-L. (2007). "Vygotsky's neglected legacy": Cultural
historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186-232.
Salazar-Romo, C. (2009). Remediating artifacts: Facilitating a culture of inquiry
among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and
access (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California). Retrieved
from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-
SalazarRomo-3135.pdf.
Schein, E. (1985). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Schon, D. A. (1988). Designing: Rules, Types, and Worlds, Design Studies, Vol. 9,
No. 3, July 1988.
Seo, M. & W. E. D. Creed (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and
institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Acad. Management Rev.
27(2) 1-26.
Shulock, N. & Moore, C. (2005). A framework for incorporating public trust issues
in states' higher education accountability plans. Sacramento, CA: California
State University at Sacramento, Institute for Higher Education Leadership
and Policy.
179
Stringer, E. (2007). Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. The
Progress of Black Student Enrollments at the Nation’s Highest-Ranked
Colleges and Universities (2006, Autumn). The Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education. Retrieved from
http://www.jbhe.com/preview/autumn06preview.html.
Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning,
and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Building the Responsive Campus: Creating High
Performance Colleges and Universities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
U.S. Census Bureau (2010). 2010 Census of Population and Housing. Retrieved
from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education (2010). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/.
U.S. Department of Education (2011a). Bridges to opportunity: Federal adult
education programs for the 21
st
century. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/eo13445.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education (2011b). Building American Skills through
Community Colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/100326-community-college-
fact-sheet.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education (2011c). College Completion Toolkit. Retrieved
from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/college_completion_
tool_kit.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education (2012). Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall
2010; Financial Statistics, Fiscal Year 2010; and Graduation Rates, Selected
Cohorts, 2002-2007. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012280.
U.S. Department of Education (2012). President's FY 2013 Budget Request for the
U.S.Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget13/index.html?src=ct
180
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of
general psychology (including the volume: Volume and speech). (N. Minjck,
trans.). New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, R., & Nguyen, T. (1998). Almost Half of Cal State Freshmen Lack Skills;
Education: Enrollees at Fullerton campus reflect trend in which students enter
college without a basic mastery of math, English. About 40% from Orange
County schools need remedial work. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
from http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/28266289.html.
Williams, D. A. 2007. Achieving Inclusive Excellence: Strategies for Creating Real
and Sustainable Change in Quality and Diversity. About Campus 12 (1): 8-
14.
Willis, Gordon B. (2005) Cognitive Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage Press.
181
Appendix A
Observational Data Collection Template
TIME PERIOD/TASK (#)
Site
(room temp, equipment,
environment, “artifacts”)
Mood
(emotions, general
attitudes, personality
traits)
“Task” Performance
(CUE Tools; knowledge
base for engagement
with presentation or
tool; expressed attitudes
towards or beliefs about
tool; e.g. use or value or
design)
Social Context
(Who is there (social
markers), positions/
authority relations; race
relations; interactions,
who talking)
Behavioral Intentions
(expressed next steps,
plans, norms)
Environmental
Constraints
(expressed concerns or
hopes, perceived
limitations of self, team
or resources)
Reflection/Analysis
182
Appendix B
Evaluation Questionnaire
CUE Benchmarking Equity Workshop
Amarillo Community College, March 14, 2012
Please take time to provide CUE with overall feedback on this workshop. For each
statement below, circle the response that best reflects your opinion and/or
experiences. Your written comments and suggestions are also greatly appreciated.
Your experiences and responses are important to us.
1. As we conclude today’s activities, my feelings about participating in this
workshop can best be described as:
(Circle all that apply):
Excited Content Satisfied Tired Dissatisfied Curious
Interested Indifferent Disinterested Bothered Nervous
Concerned
Angry Other (Please indicate)
2. Overall, I felt engaged throughout this workshop.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
3. I expect my engagement would have been higher if ...(fill-in below)
4. I have a clear understanding of the steps my institution can take to improve equity
in student outcomes.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
5. As I apply what I learned here today, I expect it will be valuable for my
institution.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
6. Due to this workshop, I feel better equipped to play a significant role in addressing
equity at my institution.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
7. The discussions with my colleagues at this workshop were meaningful to me.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
8. The facilitators of this workshop were effective in their presentation of the
information covered.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
9. My main question following this session is…(fill-in below)
183
10. CUE provided an effective introduction to the Benchmarking Equity and Student
Success Tool (BESST).
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
11. I have a clear idea of what I am being asked to do to take the next steps that
follow this workshop.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
12. At my institution, significant changes surrounding ethnic/racial equity are...
Unnecessary /Somewhat Unnecessary /Neutral /Somewhat Necessary /Necessary
13. I have a strong sense of my own personal responsibility surrounding racial and
ethnic issues on my campus.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
14. I consider myself an agent of change around equity issues on my campus.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
15. At my institution, the changes surrounding equity ethnic/racial equity are…
Not Under My Control /Somewhat Under My Control /Under My Control
16. At my institution, asking most people to play a role in promoting equity is...
Useless /Somewhat Useless /Neutral /Somewhat Useful /Useful
17. I feel that my own beliefs about equity are similar to those of most of my
colleagues on my campus.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
18. My colleagues at my institution engage in behaviors surrounding racial and/or
ethnic equity that are similar to mine.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
19. My institution’s culture strongly encourages conformity around institutional
practices dealing with racial/ethnic student issues.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
20. I believe most people on my campus feel it is risky to discuss issues of race or
equity.
Strongly Agree /Agree /Neither Agree nor Disagree /Disagree /Strongly
Disagree
Please use the remainder of this sheet to add any additional comments you would
like to share.
Thank you for your feedback! We appreciate your time in helping CUE improve its
work with your campus.
184
Appendix C
Defining Equity Module
Survey Questions and Cognitive Interview
1. The module described equity clearly.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
What do you think is meant by the term “equity,” in this item?
Could you describe what you thought about while deciding how you would
respond to this question?
Additional notes:
2. The defining equity module presented the concept of equal outcomes
effectively.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
What do you think is meant by the term “equal outcomes,” in this item?
Additional notes:
3. The defining equity module demonstrated the concept of diversity
with clarity.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
What do you think is meant by the term “diversity,” in this item?
Additional notes:
4. I intend to think more about the concept of equity.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the phrase “equity,” in this item?
What do you think is meant by the phrase “think more about” in this item?
Could you describe what you thought about while deciding how you would
respond to this question?
Additional notes:
5. I plan to be more aware of diversity in my daily practice.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “diversity,” in this item?
185
What do you think is meant by the term “daily practice,” in this item?
Could you describe what you thought about while deciding how you would
respond to this question?
Additional notes:
6. I intend to be more aware of how equal outcomes might impact
student success at my institution.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “equal outcomes,” in this item?
What do you think is meant by the term “student success,” in this item?
Could you describe what you thought about while deciding how you would
respond to this question?
Additional notes:
7. I plan to be more reflective of my own behaviors and identify
“inequities” as indicators where I could focus my own efforts to address the
higher education attainment between racial and ethnic groups.
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “higher education attainment
between racial and ethnic groups,” in this item?
Could you describe what you thought about while deciding how you would
respond to this question?
Additional notes:
8. Is there more that you like to know about equity?
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
Additional notes
9. Is there more that you would like to know about equal outcomes?
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “equal outcomes,” in this item?
Additional notes:
10. Is there more that you would like to know about the concept of
diversity?
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In your own words, what is this item asking?
What do you think is meant by the term “diversity,” in this item?
Additional notes:
186
11. Now I would like to ask you about your involvement in creating
Student Learning Outcomes for your campus.
Is this an area where you have been involved?
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In what ways?
When did you first get involved?
Where do those efforts stand today?
In you view has the creation of SLOs been useful to teaching?
For supporting student success?
12. In you view, are SLOs an important strategy for bringing about
equality in student outcomes?
Most definitely Somewhat Not at all
Probes:
In what ways?
187
Appendix D
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.
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!
188
Yours sincerely,
Alicia C. Dowd
Associate Professor
Co-Director
Center for Urban Education
CUE’s Developmental-Evaluation Study—At a Glance
Q. If I participate in this study, what would I be asked to do?
A. You would be asked to do one or more of the following:
• Complete an evaluation form at the conclusion of a workshop or 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 , 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.
189
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.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study examines the experiences of a number of participants from urban community colleges with high percentages of students from underrepresented populations in Central California. The participants were involved in action research with the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California. The purpose of the study is to explore whether action inquiry used by CUE brings about, or shows the potential to bring about, organizational learning and change, improvements in institutional effectiveness, and greater racial-ethnic equity in student outcomes. Over the course of eleven months between March, 2011 and April, 2012, developmental evaluation was used to investigate the impact of action research at Amarillo Community College and Las Flores College.
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
Re-mediating practitioners' practice for equity in higher education: evaluating the effectiveness of action research
PDF
Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes
PDF
A developmental evaluation of action research as a process for organizational change
PDF
Designing equity-focused action research: benefits and challenges to sustained collaboration and organizational change
PDF
Practitioner reflections and agency in fostering African American and Latino student outcomes in STEM
PDF
Equity for students of color through practitioner accountability
PDF
The influence of organizational learning on inquiry group participants in promoting equity at a community college
PDF
Encouraging student success: turning attention to practitioners and institutions
PDF
Changing the landscape of institutional assessment on transfer: the impact of action research methods on community college faculty and counselors
PDF
Remediating artifacts: facilitating a culture of inquiry among community college faculty to address issues of student equity and access
PDF
Impact of accreditation actions: a case study of two colleges within Western Association of Schools and Colleges' Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
PDF
The moderating effects of racial identity and cultural mistrust on the relationship between student-faculty interaction and persistence for Black community college students
PDF
Exploring faculty beliefs about remedial mathematics students: a collaborative inquiry approach
PDF
Creating an equity state of mind: a learning process
PDF
Developing adaptive expertise among community college faculty through action inquiry as a form of assessment
PDF
An examination of collaboration amongst student affairs and academic affairs professionals in an action research project
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
Peers as institutional agents: acquiring social capital through peer interactions
PDF
When parents become students: An examination of experiences, needs, and opportunities which contribute to student parent engagement in community college
Asset Metadata
Creator
Aguirre, Tomás A.
(author)
Core Title
Evaluating the impact of CUE's equity scorecard tools on practioner beliefs and practices
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
10/08/2012
Defense Date
05/09/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
action research,Graduation,Higher education,minorities,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,student success
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Dowd, Alicia C. (
committee chair
), Borrego, Sue (
committee member
), Rueda, Robert (
committee member
)
Creator Email
taaguirre7@gmail.com,taguirre@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-103523
Unique identifier
UC11288972
Identifier
usctheses-c3-103523 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AguirreTom-1237.pdf
Dmrecord
103523
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Aguirre, Tomás A.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
action research
minorities
retention
student success